ioo

-T CO

liNmOl-

II

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in

2010 with funding from

University of Toronto

http://www.archive.org/details/jewishquarterlyr08drop

THE

JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

"I

NEW SERIES

EDITED BY

CYRUS ADLER

VOLUME

VIII

1917-1918

PHILADELPHIA THE DROPSIE COLLEGE FOR HEBREW AND COGNATE LEARNING

LONDON: MACMILLAN & COMPANY,
Ltd.
,

|^.

V"^'

DS
101

J5
v.?

PRINTtD

IN

ENGLAND

AT THE OXIORl) UNIVERSITY PRESS

CONTENTS
PAGE

Blondheim,

I). S.

Tentative

list

of extant Manuscripts
.
.

of Rashi's Talmudical Commentaries

55

Casanowicz,

I.

M.

Recent
.

books
.

on
.

Comparative
.

Religion and Sociology

.223
IX
425

Davidson, Israel

Poetic Fragments from the Genizah

:

Greenstone, Julius H.

Volume
Halper,
B.
:

.........
Recent Hebraica and Judaica
.
.

The Jacob Guttmann Jubilee

189

.477
the

Hirschfeld,

Hartwk;
. .

Early

Karaite
. .

Critics
.

of
.

Mishnah
HusiK, Isaac

-^57
1x3,231
.

Studies in Gersonides
:

KoHN, Eugene

Books on Jewish Education

Z.
:

2ci

Lauterbach, Jacob
tionists in

Bacher's Tradition and Tradi-

the Schools of Palestine

Z.
:

and Babylon

loi

Lauterbach, Jacob

The Three Books found

Temple

at

Jerusalem

......
of the Babylonian
.

in the

385

Mann, Jacob: The Responsa

Marmor-STEin, a.

as a Source of Jewish History

:

...

Geonim
339

Solomon Ben Judah and some

Contemporaries

.......
Seventeenth
-

of his
i

Marmorstein, a.

A
:

Fragment of the Visions of Ezekiel

367

Marx,

Alexander

A
:

Century

Auto-

biography

269
A.

Montgomery, James

The

Story of Ahikar

379

iv

CONTENTS
PAGE
:

Montgomery, James A. Holy Land

'

G. A. Smith's

'

Atlas of the

5^5

MoRGENSTERN, JuLiAN
cultural Festivals

Two
.

Ancient
.

Israelite
.
. .

Agri.

31

Reider, Joseph
Segal, M. H.
:

Halpern's Synagogue

Hymnal

383
75

Studies in the
:

Books of Samuel
of

Waxman,
Zeitlin,

Meyer
Solomon

The Philosophy

Don

Hasdai
305'455

Crescas
:

Takkanot 'Ezra

61

SOLOMON BEN JUDAH AND SOME OF HIS CONTEMPORARIES

Bv A. MarmoRSTEIX,
Jews' College, London.

When

Neubauer published

for

the

first

time
J

the

Chronicle of an anonymous writer of the year

047, no

one could have suggested what an important place the

Solomon ben JndaJi mentioned therein, who

the

is

styled

by
',

Anonymous
in his

as 'the head of the

in

Academy

in

Jerusalem

occupied

days

the history of the Jews.^

Only a few

years later there appeared a fragment from the Collection

of the

Archduke Rainer, published by D. Kaufmann and

letter written

D. H. Muller, which contains a

by

head of

an Egyptian congregation to the Gaon Solomon ben Judah

Hehasid.^

Both learned editors thought that the

to a

letter

was directed

Gaon

in

Bagdad.

Afterwards Schechter
to

edited a letter, written

by Solomon ben Judah

Ephraim

ben Shemariah, and thus attention was drawn more and

more

to the part

played by both Solomon and Ephraim

in

their age

and

in their countries."

Poznanski gave us

later

on a sketch of Ephraim's
unpublished material.*

life-story,

based on published and

shed light
in

The

latter contribution

on some dark parts of a hitherto unknown chapter

1

the

See Mediaeval Jewish

'

Chronicles, Oxford, 1887, p. 178.

Der Brief eines ag3'ptischen Rabbi an den Gaon [Salomo] ben Jehuda', in Mitleihmgen aus der Sainmlung der Papyrus Ersliersog Rainer,
2

IV, p,
8
*

12-].

See Saadyana, pp. 111-13. RJ; 48, pp. 145-75: and Cowlei', JQR., XIX. pp. 107 and
VIII.
I

250(1.
li

VOL.

:2

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Egypt
in

history of the Jews in Palestine and

the

first

half

of the eleventh century.

forces of that

But to recognize the moving

age we must weigh the merits of the leading

The most important man was not Ephraim, but the Gaon Solomon ben Judah. We know from Worman's publications that a great manj'
of the letters exchanged between both are preserved in the

personages of the time we speak of

Genizah Collection

in

Cambridge.^

From

that collection

we

learn further that

Ephraim was not the only one with

whom
or of

the

Gaon corresponded.
Isaac

We come

across

new names

quite or partly

unknown, as that of Sahalon ben Abraham

Abraham ben
details

Hakohen.

Fortunately enough,

we

obtain not only names, but some very important material

and valuable

on the inner

life

in

the communities,

as well as on the political

influence exercised

upon the

Jews

in

the countries ruled

by the Fatimides.
Solomon
officiated as

The
and

period during which

guide,

Gaon

spiritual

was

full

of troubles

and struggles.
bitter

Within and without the communities there was

enmity

and warfare.

To show
is

the causes of the events as well as

their consequences

the aim of the present contribution.'"'

I.

The
is:

first

question

wc should wish
ben

to

have answered
order
to

Who

was Solomon
refer

Judah?
chief

In

do

this

wc must

to

two
the

new Memorial- lists, which

leaders

throw some
Palestine and
*

light

ujion
in

of Jewry

in

Egypt

the tenth
30.
;\s

and eleventh
tlitrc

centuries.

Sec JQfi; XIX, pp. 725

wc know now.

arc surely more

than twenty letters by him.

Wc

arc able

to

undcrstancl and explain the contents of the letters

licilriii^c

with the help of Dr. C. H. Becker's

cur

Gcscliiclilf .'lLV/>tnis uiilrt

dtm hlam,

Strassburg, 1902

fT.

SOLOMON BEN JUDAH

Scholars have
famih'es

MARMORSTEIN
that there were

known

for

some time
in

two

who

supph'ed Jewry

those days with teachers

origin

and

leaders.

The one

traced

its

back to the early

the
other
to

Patriarchs, the
priestly

descendants of

Hillel,

the

(Kohanim) Geonim.
is

The
'

result of the lists availin

able thus far

given by Poznaiiski,
follows:

his

recent

book
pala-

on the subject, as
stinensischen

Der Begrunder des

'

Gaonats war also Abraham

{Babylonische

Geonim,

p.

84

/?G^.).

Poznariski dealt with the earliest

in several

history of these

Geonim

of his essays, and he re-

peats his assumptions as though they were definitely settled:

firstly,

that

Abraham, the supposed brother

or son of the

famous Ben Meir, founded

Gaonate

in the year 943 the Palestinian and secondly, that the circumstances were especi-

ally favourable just after the death of

Saadia

for
?)

such an
the seat

attempt, namely to establish (or re-establish

of the gaonic authority in the able to prove,
first

Holy Land.

VVe are
not the

now
first

of

all,
all.

that

Abraham was

Gaon

of this family at

since at least five of

Abraham's

ancestors were thus styled, and, moreover,

among Abraham's
officiated
learn,
in

predecessors

we

find

Meir Gaon, who

the

fourth generation before

that

Abraham.
Ben Meir.

We

by the way,

we must drop the assumption

of

the son or brother

based on the belief that

far

contained the earliest

so.

that Abraham was The whole of it is the Memorial-lists known thus Geonim of this family. This is

not

The Dukran Tob,

2.'>92),

discovered
:

by the present

writer
px:

(MS. Adler, No.

nv:ni
in'^-^'x"'

runs thus
px:

pr\pr\ irai nnL*'0

pns
px:

px:

n'L."D

^1r:^^1

n^xc

niom

pxj

m^rs'^

miom
ntya

mcni
pnv
hhz^

px:
'ni

'r,i

n5x

v>^^'ir\

amnx mem pxj in nn nx i.t-j'x^ mem

hhr\ 'y\

"in-'-^'x"'

mj:m px: pnx

':ii

'm

\^'''^T\

-xmn:

'n

^^nnen

'vpa '2:n

'en

'(^"^tx

B 2

4
-irn
in-'K'K"'!

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

"iw'H

nz'^
all

'm aniax

mm''

'ai

^nio'J'.

Of

these

new Geonim

but one are unknown.

the
father

Meir was
of Saadia,

krfown by

name
Meir

as

of the

rival

Ben Meir.
(922)

lived, therefore, before 922.

In this year

Meir's

son was already at the head of the party

in

which disturbed the peace of Jewry

father

the East.

Meir's

was Judah.

This Judah

is

probably to be identified

with Judah ben Alan Altabrani (of Tiberias),

who

is

styled

by Japheth ben

AH

D^'j'n'' n3'"j"'

'^sn.

If this

be right, then

the often-discussed Judah of Tiberias would find his place

in

the history of our race

(v.

Pinsker, Likkiitc Kadmonioi,

DntDiip,
p.

p. 'n

and
nvis,

62, 139;
II,

Dukes, rniDrrn
Baer,

2;

Geiger,
p.
p.

ncn:

158;

Dikdukc ha-Teamim,

80;
iii
;

Steinschneider, Die arabischc Litcratur dcr Jtidcn,

cf.

MS.

Bodl. 2805,

14-).

Whether

this

Judah was the

left

founder of the Gaonate or not, must be

undecided.

He

is

the

first

Gaon

of this family

known

to us.

His time

must be fixed about 900, if not somewhat earlier. Judah's son Meir held the dignity of Gaon before 922. The next

Gaon

is

Moses.

In a

Cambridge fragment (T-S. 13

n?:^-j'

J.

K^. 16)
:

we came
vnjy \op
"ididh

across a letter, which bears the signature

'nn:D3
f\yi:t\

H'^'d

-innn
3py'

'^Ta

rhr[:i

'n.-i:D3

i^nn pnv' '3Tn

n^nj.

pxj

nn^-j"

l-nt

tn'2

^^n-a

Mr.

Adkr
UKIt

discovered
acrostic

among

his

fragments
'N^io

an

ei)igram

with
^Jip

nto^i",

and the heading

\i^'\'i

Tnd p

\o.

was only natural

Meir (RJiJ
,

to .suggest that this

52).

Solomon was

the
p.

Ben
291)

L.W'll,

I'o/.nanski (ilnd.,

LXVll,

raised three objections to this view,

is

hiist of all

Ben Meir

nowhere

.styled

Gaon.

This

is

true;
it

moreover, his

own

grand.son. Mo.sc.",

mentions him, as
title

appears from the signa~i3nn.

ture above, with the

n^n: 'nn:DD

Toznanski says

SOLOMON BEN JUDAII MARMORSTEIN

hereto
' :

'1:

'nn:D3 "innn

wurde aber von den

officiellen
al.s

Vor-

stchcrn der Lclirluiuscr den ausvvartif^ren Gclchrtcn

Aus-

zeichnun^ vciliehen
turning to p. 103,

(s.

vvcitcr unten, p. 103,

n.

i).'

Xow,

n. 1,

wc

read

'
:

Es

ist

nun vvahrscheinlich,

dass Petachja diescn Titel von der ai,^yptischen Hoch.schule

erhalten, die

audi

in diescr

Hinsicht die palastinensische

ihr die

nachahmcn
n^nj
''r[jC2

wollte,
"innn

und von

Verlcihung des Titels

ubernahm.

Jcdenfalls ergibt sich daraus,

dass dicser Titel audi ausserhalb Palastinas verliehen wurde,

wonach ZfHB., X,
the passage

146, zu berichtigcn 146,

ist.'

If

we

refer to
:

Z/HB., X,

we

still

remain unsatisfied

'Allediese Daten zeigcn nun, dass ihre Trager den Titel eines nbn: 'nnjon i^nn von Palastina empfangen haben."
All these data do not, however, prove
in the least that
in

one

could not be a n^n: 'injon lan in Palestine or

itself.

Jerusalem

We

admit our inability to explain why Solomon,

"innn,

having been the lien Meir, was styled

and not Gaon,

yet the objection raised does not hold good.

is

The same
Poznaiiski

the case with Poznanski's second objection.

' :

asks

Why

does Ben

Meir

refer
I,

to

his

ancestors, the
to

Patriarchs Gamaliel and Judah

and not

Meir and so

on?'

We

think he did this because the authority of the

former was of more importance and of greater weight than

that of the latter.

We

come now
to

to the third point.

The

Epigram can have nothing

school.

do with the Palestinian

to Persia.

Why We
?

l^ecausc the use of the word ^xh^ points

beg to

differ again.

We

find,

namely

in

the addresses of letters from the Genizah, scores of times

^X^lD or 'N^lo^N {v.

Chapira,
Cairo
',

'

Worman, JQR., XIX, pp. 735-43 Un Document judeo-arabc de la Gueniza du

Ernest

in

Mdlanges I/arhi'ig

Dci'cjibotirg^ Paris,

Leroux,

1909. p. 125; in a letter, written about 1015 by Josiah ben

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

12.

Aaron ben Abraham, T-S.

no. 135, no. 36, no. 81
;

16;

Fragm. Bodl. 2878,

MS.

Adler, beginning of the eleventh

century).

Possibly the Jewish population in Palestine was

increased

by Persian emigration.
the
ninth

We

find

men

in

and tenth

centuries,

many famous who came from

"'N'h^.

Persia.

Therefore there can be no reasonable refutation

on the ground that

the Ben Meir.
'

Solomon used the word

mentions
jH
ri>a

Moreover, we have proofs

for the fact that

Solomon was

The

latter
'

in his letters a certain

Isaac, father of the court

nx (see

REJ., XLVII, 187

and LXVII,
the

60).

In the letter of Moses, he (Moses) gives

name

of his father Isaac, and of his grandfather Solomon.

in later times, of

We

have an analogy to the case,

a father

being the head of the Academy and his son n"3 ^wS', in Sherira and Hai. [Weiss, Vw-nm ^^-^ in, IV, p. 1 73, thought
it
'

quite unusual that the father

'

and son should act as

according to Weiss,

Gaon

and

'

Ab

'

together.

It was,

a thing unheard of before.

Therefore Sherira was attacked,

suggestion
lacks,

and imprisoned. any proof, and

The whole
is

however,

based

on the misunderstanding that

;

father and son could not act together have introduced such an innovation.]

Sherira would not

We
his

have further an
'gaonic' career

instance

that the later

as
'

Gaon began

by acting

sofer

'

at the

Academ}'.

The

case
In

is

that

of Israel Gaon, the son of Samuel ben Hofni.

f.,

JQR.,

we read: [^Nlju^ IDV^XD m^'C i:^nx NC'' XVII I, p. 413 minn n3''U'\n isid [Sherira also calls his son Haj uninn,
V.

Schechter, Saadyana, no.

i:i)i)cnstein,
is

XLV,

p.

18,
j).

11.

9-11:
r^].

"wSn DJ1

imn3, and

JIKJW'J., 191

1,

49.'- n.

This

Israel Sofer

the sun and successor of

|

Samuel ben Hofni,

Gaon

of Sura.

We are

able,

now, to confirm the suggestion

i).

made by

Poznanski, RliJ., LXII,

120; LXIII,

p.

318

SOLOMON BEN JUDAH

V.

MARMORSTEIN
;

Ginzberg, Gconica,

I,

pp. 13

and 61

JQR., N.

S.,

IV, 403,

that this Israel was the later

list

Gaon

of Sura.

In a Memorial
t:'N-i

of

MS. Adler 2594 we found: r\%

CXI
^rjn

h'^ htc'^
nn^c-'^
*vJ'n-i

W'\'^''

nrr'
pn^;

p
^ti']

t\% hv
[r.

[r.

nn^u'^]

^niok'

ina

[nS:

nn^c""].

In a letter of the
^03n
i?x

same
ni>n

valuable collection
niD^
^2

we

read

in^s

n-l^:p^

nsyan

nxnJN^sn '^% n^xnc

HTriD^x
cxni
.n^-in^

Dim

n^^xii^s

Dim mo^n
i?x

nDT

*'Nn

n^r ^dvd^x

hthd

dn"i

nsna^
Or.

Cpnv

"inr.

Perhaps we have to add here the

^j^f^,
i,

letter

Brit.

Mus. No.

from

nn>'j'\n

U'xn

^XTJ'^ to

Jacob ben Maimun.

On

the secretaries of the

p.

Geonim
131a;

in

Babylon see further nihn: m^i^n, ed. Vienna,

Hildesheimer,
p.
p.

ed.

316

A
f.

Epstein, in
:

\'\yr\,

III,

76; and
m'sn'

JQR., XVIII,
nax

401

^rj'vo

'm sin n\T^ px:

'n

ux

no^* iJ^:nx nycj'

nsio

qii'x, cf. il/6^

it

TFJ., L1I,457.] quite impossible

In our present state of knowledge

is

even

to

suggest

why Solomon and

his

son

Isaac

are

styled thus in the letter of their offspring Moses.

The

Dukran Tob
of

leads us to the assertion that really neither

them

neither the father (Solomon) nor the son (Isaac)

Meir's direct successor was Moses
Is
it

succeeded Meir Gaon.

Gaon.

possible that this

Moses Gaon was Moses,

the Sofer, the son of Isaac, the grandson of

It

Solomon?
!

seems not

so,

because the Memorial-list speaks of rv\^n

several

Yet,

we have

instances

of grand-children being

called not after their father's name, but grandfather's.

by that of their Thus the famous Massorete's name is Ben Asher, in reality he was Aaron ben Moses ben Asher, likewise the other Massorete Ben Naphtali bore the name
Moses ben David ben Naphtali, and
still

he

is

known

as

8
Ben
pp.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Naphtali
(v.

Baer-Strack,
2.

Dikdtikc
16,

ha-Tcamim,

fF.

Ibn Ezra on Exod.

and Nahmanides,
p.
;

ad
b.

loc; cp. Ginzberg,

i

MGWJ.,
b.

1910,

693, n.
b.

i,

and
;

Kimhi,

Chron.

2.

23 based on
r.

Kid. 4 a

Yeb. 70 a

BB. 143 a; Gen.

v.

946

u^zz-^

p nn en

"':3;

for later

instances

H.

B.,

Moses succeeded,

XIX, p. for some

91).

It

seems not unlikely that

reason or other

unknown

to us,

his grandfather Meir.

We

have further a fragment which enables us to

fix

the chronology of these Geonim.

letter,

fragm. Adler,

mentions
written

severe
'n^N

persecutions

in

Sicily.
'

The

letter
'

is

bar Hakim to Hananiah Ab beth din ben .... The father's name is missing. Hananiah is the father of Sherira, who became Gaon in the year 93H/9 {v. Neubauer, M. J. C/ir,, I, p. 40). We assume, there-

by

HTC'n

"j'S"!

fore,

that

Moses and

his
this,

son Aaron

lived before 939.

Vv^e see,

according to
in Palestine
:

between 900-40 the following

Geonim

Judah (about 900)

I

Meir (before 923)

I

Moses
I

Aaron
Josiah

(before 938)

(about 938/9)his

Josiah

was succeeded by

son Abraham,

who

lived

according to Poznariski, about 943.

We
Aaron

are unable to sec

whence Poznaiiski has obtained

about
Josiah
IC15,
II,

this date. of

Josiah III lived

1 1,

he was the son

the
J.
i.

son of
2;
cp.

the son of
1,

Abraham

(v.

T-S. 13

/C^y.,LX\'II

p.47)-

There arc several

letters of Josiah III

SOLOMON HEN JUDAII

preserved.

MARMORSTEIN
here,

We
is

cannot describe them

because we

should trespass on the space at our disposal.

What we

have to prove

that the
till

Geonim

of this family functioned

from about 900

after 1015.
'

Afterwards the members

'

of this family became

twelfth century.

the Fathers of the Court

up

to the

There

is,

however, another genealogical

list

of which

wc have

to speak before dealing with

Solomon ben Judah.

Brit.

We
5557
1D1.T
|iN3

mean
'in
in>i?N

the
I^-

Dukran Tob
It

in

fragment Or.
:

Mus.

-Aj P- 7

reads as follows

;r:jr[

n''^v?o

.-n^^x n'2
'-in
list

PN3
'I'n

nr^biy

'in pNj
njhd

in^!?N

'in px:
pn

ncb*j'

ps:

na-i

nmc

'-^2

nn.

This

has

many

similarities with that published

by Poznaiiski [REJ.,
Both
Or. Brit. Mus.
Further,

LI, p. 52), and

many new

points of information.

give us the genealogy of Mazliah Gaon.

5549>

>!

tlocs not indicate this,

1,
1.

however.

we must
oniD
128,

not read No. 5549,

12 nni

r\'jx\2 'n~i

ID, but

Nm

wS'in^

[Poznaiiski repeats his suggestion

n.
J,

ZDAIG., LXVTII,
fol.

p.

cp.

now

G. Margoliouth, Catalogue

562], and the

identification with

Kahana ben Haninai [REJ., LI.

Jehoseph's ancestral
line

^6)

is
is

obviously wrong.
in

Mazliah's pedigree up to Jchoseph's

is,

both the same.

however,

differently put

5549.

5557 A,

7 1^

Jehoseph
I

Jehoseph
I

Mordecai
I

Menahem
^
!

Menahem
I

Llijah.

Solomon
I-:iijah.

lO

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the
first

In

D. T. Mordecai
In the
|1NJ.

is

styled

Wi
is
:

N:n3,

in

the

second Menahem.
npi:, in

first

the

title

buf HTK'^ ->

the second

The new
have to

genealogical

list

throws

light

upon more than

one unsettled problem of the history of

refer again to Poznariski,

this period.
:

We
[after

who

says

'

Damals
in

1094] bckleideten wohl die Gaonwurde die

einer von

mir

edierten

Gedachtnisliste

erwahnten Elia ha-Kohen,

'

Salomo und Menachem,

p.

die alle obigen Titel tragen

(BG.,

loi).

Further: 'Das agyptische Gaonat dauerte also

insgesamt etwa

130 Jahre (1063-1194)'

[BG.,

p.

104].

We

will consider this view.

Let us begin with the

Mazliah was

last

member
his

of this

famil}-.

Gaon between
to
is

1127-38.

He
r\'CfV

liked

very

much, even
of his

in his letters,

remind

contemporaries
''V

ancestors.

Thus

T-S. 24. 26:

D:^n

mry

insn in^^x
.

'"'/'-i

fnan nof>c 'n'3

Q^onn

i^a^

xin

po rn^N

pnv

P2

pT n-a
(t'.

pzn

sior

'>'}''^'-\
i't:

^n^n

n^c
n.
i
;

''':''''-i

bpi

V C'Nnn
p.

Schcchter's Saadyana, p. 87,

p. 723).
r\rh^''

7QR.,
o^'^,

XV,

94; XVIII,

Fragment Oxford 2878,

.
. .

reads:
.
. .

p
^c\^^>

'"'/'-i

jnan

't3

^'i

noinn

'''j''''-i

n'^SD
i.Vpn

'n^3 in^n

fioin^

yn

^'/"'-i

;nDn hd^:;* pj
\>'\\

'''/''-i

;,-i3n

^pi

C'Nin |nDn

pnx

n^j

jn3.
:

Another fragment

of the
D^:n3

Cambridge T-S.
yr:

collection reads
pN: i.t^n p:
finally,
""'

p
to

pN: NJnD n'^VD

(sec

ps:
1).

nobc* 12:

pws:

ni:Vc'

7QR.,

XVIII,
Adler,
'''j'''"!

14).

Then,
:

we have
HDinn
'-1^3

mention MS.
\r\2r\

No. 2806
in-^N

v.i^N
'-'jV-i

D"J'3

'"'/-'l

wh^'o po

;n3.-i

j.-i^n

r\'\2\>'c

D'Dinn ^d^ xin jao

jnan no^tJ' p3

JHDH

pnN Gaon

ns:

pnv |nD n"3

pan

e;Din^

yij

'':'^'-i

b^VT D'w'np t'Nin.

first

Mazliah was the eighth successor of the

list
;

in

our

we may

therefore take for granted thai

SOLOMON BEN JUDAH

MARMORSTEIN

II

the Egy[)lian Gaonate existed already about 900, and had

a duration not of 130, but at least of 290 years.
to this,

According

David ben Daniel's statement

Saadyana^

D'iiT^npn irnnj; 'c>C)

^333

(v.

p. 109),

'

from the time of our ancestors

the
it

Academy

of Palestine had no right in Egypt, because

',

is

;nx^ nvin (abroad) like Babylon

letters of

must be considered.
this,

The

Solomon ben Judah do not disprove

to the

since they were addressed

p^OSC'^N, the Palestinian

members

of the no^JD

community

(see against this view,

BG.,

p.

99,

n.

1 ).

Even Ebiathar does not deny the

in

existence of the

Geonim

Egypt
I,

(v.

Saadyana,

p.

106).

Mazliah's father was

Solomon

Gaon between iiip-27.

letter in Or. Brit.

Very
No-

little

is

known of him.

Mus.

SS?,3^ written

on the 19th of Adar 1427 (= 1116) to

;prn

D3"i3n

nhy ben Joseph and

the
letter

at N""nD

l"nn
S.
p.

(v.

ZfHB., XVI,
{Genizai

92),

published

by

Kandel
17)

Keziratok, Budapest, 1903, vol. Ill,

sidered in this connexion.

must be conis,

Solomon's brother Ebiathar

in

of course, not mentioned

our

list,

his date

is

between

1085-1110.
Elijah,
his

The

father

of Solomon and Ebiathar was

Poznariski gives
published.

who

officiated

between 1062-85.
on
the
material

biography based

The

unpublished material enables us to follow step by step his

'gaonic' career.
In 103 1

we

find

him

as '"JTn the sixth.

^:3n"io

Thus he signed a document with

"nnn
'^'i'"'"!

'nn '^J

Dnins and
is

n-yvn
his

n'cb'^.

His father was already dead, as

:

seen
i'p[T

from

signature
1,

ps:

p]

munn
the

^'C'J'n

insn

invx

(MS. Adler 301

i).

On

loth

of

Ijar,

on

Wednesday, 4797 or 4799, i.e. 1037 or with Solomon ben Judah at Damascus

1039, he signed
in

the following

way:

pN3

HTD" c'Ni

nc^'j'

'^3 n^n:

':d2

nann

jnan

in^^N

12

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

(MS. Adler, No. 301 1^).

^VT 2PV'

From

this

we

infer that the

~i3n

had a higher position than a

'''^'^n.

In 1045 he signs
'vn n^biy

as ^ynin, in the year

4805

A. M. at

Jerusalem with

"313 ^pv'

ps:

nn''-:"

L"sn.

Eh'jah's signature is:

1.

p^n

l.T^K

Wr

PNJ

n-inna ^y^^nn (T-S. 13 J.

11).

We
J.

have two

other

letters

by him, one
in^bx ^*l^

to his uncle's son,

Abraham

ha-Kohen ben Isaac ha-Kohen (T-S.

i^vr

13

23. 12), signed

Pn:

]r]:ir\

Tiona nmro,

the second one to

Ephraim ben Shcmariah (MS. Adler, No.

^vr

2804), signed

px:

^sTj"'

b^

k" pi n-n 2n

jn^n

i.t-^s*.

Elijah had
latter's

family connexions with the latter, too, since the

son-in-law
is

called i:nn

p unm

(Joseph?).
o''

Elijah could

not have been

Ab

before 1049

1050-

In this dignity

Daniel ben Azariah found him about 1054.

the age of scvcnty-five, and died 1085.

He

reached

He

was, therefore,

born

in ioto.

Elijah's

father,

Solomon ben Jehoscph, died

before

1031.
p.

He

could not have been, as Poznariski thinks {/jG.,

91), the successor, but must have been the predecessor of

Solomon ben Judah. Yet before coming to the question we started from, we have to deal with his successors and
with one or two unsolved problems.

Solomon ben Joseph's

after

Gaonale was, as we established, before 1031 and not

1053.
It
is

impossible to say, owing to the lack of material,

died,
shall

when Solomon ben Joseph

Judah became Gaon.
signature
a

and when Solomon ben

have to bear
in

We

mind

in

dealing with these two Solomons, that where

of

we have
',

the

the young one wc have document by Solomon ben Judah, if not, they are by
"i'y\-n
'

Solomon

SoK)m()n ben Jo.seph.

that he never
I'ilijah

Of Solomon's

father

we know only

was Gaon. but pn n'3

[za).

Since his grandson

was born loio, the year of

his birth

must have been

SOLOMON BEN JUDAH

at least

MARMORSTEIN
Mcnahem,
I-,lij;ih

I3

about 960
lived,

his

ancestors

and

Mordecai

according to this date, from yco to 960.

''t^'Si

We
apy

are thus able to state that as there were nU"j"

fs:

about 900
in

in

Palestine,
at the
Is

likewise there were

tin-

'w'Xl

n^i:!5*L^' ni3''L"'

Egypt
!

beginning of

tenth ccntur)-.

We

said in

Egypt
Elijah

this

statement correct, since we

know

that

ha-Kohen,
list,

Solomon,

and

Menahem,
and Mena-

according to the

first

or Mordecai,

I'^lijah,

hem, according to the second one, were the ancestors of

the Palestinian

Geonim from Solomon ben Joseph onwards,

of

and

not

contemporaries
their

Ebiathar and
?

his
is

brother

Solomon and

father
in

Elijah

That
the

impossible.

Was
From
onvc

there

Gaonate

Egypt

in

tenth

century

the installation letter of Paltiel ben Samuel

i-iN na-.;'' -j-xn
\).

we

learn

of a >3vn
^t:*,

{yQR., IX,

7-1

<S

cf.

E. N. Adler,
in

51).

If there

had been a Gaon

least,

Egypt,
as a

certainh'

he would be mentioned at

either

supporter, or as an antagonist of the Nagid.

Chronicle mentions the Palestinian

of this period
(v.

The Achimaaz and Babylonian Geonim

i2(S
?

M.

J. Chr., II, pp.

of
it

and

130).

why
in

not the

Academy and heads

in

Egypt
?

How

else are

the two different titles to be explained

Palestine itself there were
in

It

seems that

two
in

seats of the Academies, one

Ramleh, and the other

Jerusalem.

This suggestion

seems to be a daring one.

Many

centuries passed away,

and the historians had nothing to report of one Academy

in Palestine,

and now we suddenly have two

later,

Still,

as

we

shall

see

there

is

some corroboration

for

our

suggestion.

Besides these two families

we

find about
title

989-90 another
n^Z'^ C'Nl in

family of
Palestine.

Kohanim bearing
First

the

apv

pws:

of

all

Joseph Hakohen

and

his

sons

14

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Samuel, Aaron, and Abraham.

The

first

occurs

in

fragment Adler, where both father and son have the same
title,

apy pw

nn'^''

cni.

He

is

further

mentioned

in

a colophon
as third
(v.

of a Midrash, with Josiah as Ab, and Isaac

n"'JOn,
is

1877, p. 134).

Further, in a fragment

Adler there
'i'j''''~i,

a document signed by Joseph

ha-Kohen

his son

Samuel, then the third

''J'^^L'TI,

and Aaron,
finally, in

the fourth

Tain, with the addition

pNJ p.

And,
~i3nn
,

MS.

Adler, No. 223

we

find

Abraham

the son of

JosephGaon(seeye7?.,N.S.,V,62i;iei^T.,LXVIII.38ff.).
Poznanski asserted that
rival(Z/?J/r/.,
is

this

Joseph was Danielben Azariah's

LXVIII,i22,yetZ? 6"., p.6<S, withdrawn), which

is

quite impossible, since this Joseph

^3"L^"^

never called

'''j'^'l,

but

3N (see 7QR., N.S., VI. 157).

At any

rate,

we

see Joseph

and

his

son Samuel invested with the dignity

of

Gaon about

990, and before.

to

Solomon ben Judah belonged

none of these
N.

families,

he was not even a Palestinian by birth.

Brlill identified

him with the well-known poet Solomon ben Judah

This suggestion
is

ha-Babli.''

still
is

worthy of consideration.
:

In

fragment Adler there

a Selihah, beginning

pisn rhi: rhl^

still

written in the year 1362

It

(=

10 -,i). when he was

alive.

was suggested by Poznanski that

his grandfather's

name

was Berechiah.^
date and origin.

The Bodleian fragment

Solomon
is

referred to does

not furnish us, unfortunately, with any particulars about his

considered by Poznanski as
'L"vL"n,
titles

having founded the organization of the

on, which
is

T3in and

so

wrong, since we find these

already about

1000. or a few
''

decades before his lime.''

,

Yet Solomon

^cc

Jahihiiclici

IX.

p.

112,

and X,

p. 182.

R/:j.,

LXVI,

p. 62, note.

" .Sec

my

article in

ncyJ^H, 1914, no. 22, and Appcndi.x

j).

27.

SOLOMON BEN JUDAH

MARMORSTEIN

15

prevented the re-establishment of the dual authority of the Palestinian Gaonate. This we may infer from his words
b:>

ab)

j'inno

Nin
)

pny

>3

p^inn
^d

n^n^
ab

L"inn

ba m'p^
p-i!rn^

nnxi
i3D\n

bM^^

D-^'n

nx

hu^^ nvnn

,ti3J3
b't^r^b

nvnS
d>c':n

nv^y^

mijtj'i

on i'dndh prnnn nipi^no

d^det
n-ki'i?

ib\x

[:K]a
is

^"imn
Gaon's

nr

px

dn*

inx3

d^^'N-i

'rj*.

The

letter

addressed to Ephraim ben Shemariah.

It

may

be that the

rival wished to restore the old order. For Sahl ben Mazliah speaks of two seats of learning in Palestine, when he says: ^n)pn nnn o'^jmn n-'i^^n irnx r.:n ^3 mx -ij^s^ cxi

(read

so instead

of n^Diam)
lived at

n^D-i2l.^i

Josiah
it is

Gaon ben
impossible

Aaron ben Abraham,

to think that there

Ramleh,^-and

was no
letter

seat of authority at this time in

Jerusalem.

The

is

written

to

Nathaniel

^Jmvj'n

ben Aaron.
first

Solomon's elevation to
full

his dignity

and the

year of his office were

bear evidence.

of trouble, as the

numerous

letters

Our suggestion pointed out on

that
there

previous
in

occasion

were

frequently

struggles

the

time

of

these Geonim, will

later on.

be proved by one of our fragments

all,

First

of

we

shall

give
If

some

details

about

Solomon's native place and time.

preting a letter written to

we

are right in inter-

by the Gaon
circle,

himself, but at

Ephraim ben Schemariah,!^ ^^^ any rate by a man of the Gaon's

*

the

Gaon was born we can

neither in Palestine, nor in Egypt. ^

As

for his time,

establish

now

Gaon already

before the year 1025.^^

Solomon was However, he must

that

have been invested with that dignity a few years previously,

10
'*

MS. Adler, No.

Pinsker, p"b,

2804.

p. 33-

"
is

Fragment Adler.

"
"
^^

T-S. 13 J. 21.
flX3

19.

IJ-'jnN mijIJD f-lN

quoted, see

JOR., N.

S.,

VI,

p.

162.

See esp. T-S. 13

J. 13. 28,

and note

31.

l6

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

as will be proved later on.

We may

say therefore that

till

the years of his Gaonate were from 1025

1052/3.

his

death about

For about thirty years Solomon held the leader-

ship in the
office

Holy Land and

in

Egypt.

The
lot

history of his
leader
in

will

show how unenviable the

in

of a

Israel

was

those good old daj-s.

2.

Solomon's

first

and most severe trouble occurred before

he was elevated to the high position which he had so much

desired and which he held for history of the

more than two decades. The

Gconim

in Palestine reveals

many

a tragedy,
his-

which a poet might dramatize to better purpose than an

torian might describe, or the latter

must be a dramatist, withthat

out disregarding the truth.

The Geonim always feared

them and attack
in

somebody might

rise

against

their dignity.

We
said

hear
:

it

very soon, already

Solomon's time, that people

The former
colleagues^"

leaders always stood against the blood of

their

hard

allegation,

indeed.
for

There must
imputing so
If

have been, of course, a shadow of a reason

hideous a crime to Israel's leaders and teachers.

recollect the fate

we

of Joseph ben Abraham Hakohen, the

thought

may

occur to us whether Joseph's misfortune was

not caused by Solomon, so as to

become Gaon.

Joseph

passed perhaps away

for

in

a dark prison, vainly struggling

is

liberation.

That suggestion, however,

still

to

be

proved.
In no case did

Solomon obtain

his high office so easily

as might have been thought.

There was surely a severe

struggle before the success on the side of

Solomon was

complete.

Solomon's own statements

T-S. 13
J.

will

strengthen that
y. 15.

y.

now REJ.,

I.

XVII I,

SOLOMON BEN JUDAH

opinion, for he says
'
:

MARMORSTEIN
in

17

I trust

and hope

God, but when

the hands of
will

my

enemies and the arms of the quarrellers

get power, then they can

do whatever they want,

head and leader; then

appoint a

man whom they

^^

like as

the priest will be as the people, and they will judge their

own

judges.'

Is

it

not undeniably established that the

enemies wanted another

man

in

Solomon's place, and had

that man, his

one ready?

Of

course,

Solomon regards
and as a
sinner.

possible rival, as unworthy

He

goes on to

say

'
:

am

living in the holy city, sorrowful over myself

and the age relying upon

people, but
place,
I

what can

me I am too good for these do ? God has appointed me in my

;

ought to obey.'

Thus

the

Gaon

speaks.

Another

difficulty lay in

the appointment of Ephraim

ben Schemariah as
Egypt,
with
the

spiritual
nbili

head of the community

in
is

title

|mruD3

n^iyron

lann.

It

probably a consequence of the first-mentioned struggle

that the enemies were against Ephraim.

The Gaon
it

calls

him
But

frequently:

UTiiryn

"iDiy,^^

therefore

might be that

the people hated

it

Ephraim because he advocated the Gaon.

and not qualified

seems that even the Gaon's adherents regarded

as unworthy,
for this office.

Ephraim

The

whole trouble was caused by a

yet know.

But

it is

certain that the particular

man whose name we do not man envied

one case the opposition
dn

the position of Ephraim.

In

" ynr maji

^H'lb cn^^y
^"^^pn
*:^K

n^^'^ccon

n*-

ncs-i

won

ni ^nnon 'na
nyj nvrh
m:i3''
d^^n*
'ir^x^

"':)xi

Dr^":'']}!
a^i'T'

nion n^oyn^
.

onnn Dnvjn
t2)^'C'b

npi^nrsn 'bv2 n'

^'^ipb)

yv2
''ba

^JN

DiT'DDicj'

ns'

jn^a

^:n

i"ivj
^^1

y^a nyn

^yi

^o^y ^y

nan

Si'bii

ou'Db ntrsN

NnpJ DB'ni n^^vb hd ^nx nxTn nyn

15I,

mni

18

See T-S. 13

J.

U^miyn

noiyi [or ?>W^N3p] 13*nN3p 2piDn.

VOL. VIH.

l8

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

That was
his

alleged misbehaviour on the part of Ephraim.

of course heaping coals

of

fire

upon the heads of

enemies.
in

The

latter

wanted Samuel Hakohen ben Abtalion

Ephraim's place.

We

conjecture that the same Samuel

was the chief of the court before Ephraim, having the

highest dignity in the

community and

pT n''2."

In connexion with these proceedings

we

find a

number

of instances

when the ban was proclaimed

against ministers

of the congregations, w^ho were not willing to obey their

spiritual guide.^

Although we do not know the name

of
is

the head of the adversaries,

inclined to

we

see in one letter that he

come
in

to an agreement.

The letter^^

is

thoroughly

obscure and
difficulties

a few parts enigmatic.

In order to solve the

we should have

access to the whole material

from the Genizah.

First of
title
all,

One

or two points, however, are clear.

is

that the antagonist

content

if

he gets the

of

an flvN, instead of the higher degree of a nan.

We

learn that the

Haber stood over the

the

Alluf,

an important

detail in the history of the organization of the Palestinian

Geonim.
advised,
*'
2'

During

entire

time,

Solomon supported,

and helped Ephraim by every possible means.^^

p.

Fragment Adler.

See Saadyana,

in

T-S. 13

J.

119

has a

letter to a

community

(perhaps jvJO), to the effect that the Ilazan and preacher Abraham ben

Aaron

is

under the ban, because he behaved improperly towards Ephraim.

will be the case in the letter published

The same

by Kaufmann and
ff.

Milller

(mentioned above).

See

further, Mottatssclirift, 1906, pp. 597

"

T-S. 13 J.

15. I.

" Dyn
m^'f
nnn nnn

wh^
cji^x

nynina

Dnyion ^nns

irainx

yb^

nnrt^

lonp
nni

T2 lNo
nnrc'

ni:'x

Tin niyniro
nvin:
"d

[P'Ji^i' lyj "iirx

to^^n nnicn
""o

dl;'3

T'Dsh lovy^ in:

mn"j6
i:^

[isa.8.6]
f)ii?''n3

nmin
xin

"vzvh
-i^nin

dn ni23n S^n dni

-itrN

.innm^

px

n'"iN-j>

1:^

nnnm

nsMvo

3n

n::\s

n2V2 na-im

SOLOMON BEN JUDAH MARMORSTEIN

19

Furthermore, we see that he asked a man, perhaps the

lay head of the communities in the Diaspora or in Palestine,

Saadya ben

Israel,

during his stay

in

Egypt, to support
It is possible that

Ephraim with the royal

authorities.^^

the enemies went to the courts, as they threatened, just as

we have

seen on a previous occasion.-'*

3-

We can see how deplorable the situation

when the Gaon
the

must have been,

writes in such a manner, as given above

as

more

so,

knowing
was

we do how

eagerly the need for

internal peace
in

felt in

those days of danger.

One passage

the letters enables us to fix the date of our letters.

-injo

HTiia'^^n
ni'SJ'
23

^nbnb n^nrjoDS* Tin ba nvj6 N^^.

See the phrase

N"':D3X bv

minrS nmn,
17:

b.

Babamesi'aSsa.

T-S. 13

J. 17.

c\s"i

nvnb
n::ii''

n"^)")
;?2

'JwSi

mp
T-a

'nyiDn

vo^i

p]nb ba
.n'ib'C'i

m3^j:n

an^

iiDy

nv'-c "Jivni

^nrt^' 2

NIT lopD ba nyn bi

i"ipi

-"^ann

nmnco
N^k-'-j^

it

dn* 3

c b\v

niy^no narr^ ^ naipr

-aba-i:'

non

^ji^-i
-la^

bi
^:3

4
5

no

nn^^ nb"- pxi nsc^ ny

3in*3

Tin
Tiy

T- ^ryi

nnmn

vjs^ mn^
d>-\vcd

(?)'iip''

(?)nn'' i:x
nx-'n^

'^i

6
7

nonn [nJuT xim

rN'TJ'^ rr-n
":^y2

ins'-^i'^n

nn^

hdvd

mssn
....

pixn nsn nyai nyn Ti^sn

yf2K'> s

aiD b:^"i jn DN-'Vcni? nnD-^on

bi

Dnmom

men

inD

ci^t^i

1r:li5:^'1

onxi

Q^"l^^< 10

There
Ephraim.

is

mentioned (ni^* imr:*^) V"B> "I2nn kx D''3n33, that is, There are at the beginning another eleven lines I had not copied. * See Prov. 26. 20 f.
''

Perhaps HDIpT HDIpl

see

b.

Ber. 43 b

Yoma

19

b.

"

See Prov.

29. 17.
aits

Cp. Dukes, Moses ben Ezra

Granada, Altona, 1839.

p. 14,

where Moses ben Jacob

also signed

apy

nJljH

ntJ'D.

" See

I-S. 13 J. 9.

2.

20

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

describes the state of things in a lively

Solomon

manner
none can

the armies have devastated the holy land, the sons of the
oriental tribes destroyed the roads of Palestine,

go out or enter

in peace.

He

is

always praying to

God

for

the king's victory.^^

in

These

lines

were written undoubtedly

of the

the days

when the Arabic prince Hasan,

Banu

Banu

Gariah, Salih, the Mursid, of the

Kilab, and Sinan

ben Alyan made the secret covenant to dethrone their lord

and master the

Allah.^^

ruler Abu'l

Hasan

AH

el

Zahir

I'iziz

din

In that disturbance the inhabitants of Palestine

suffered very

much

indeed,
for help.

Solomon turning

to the leaders

who helped One the Gaon was Sahalon ben Abraham, why was styled
of the communities
of the friends
NPD'B'n.

His residence can be traced from various passages,

as Kairuwan.^'^

There are several

letters

from Solomon
relates that

Gaon
the

to Sahalon ben

Abraham.

The

first ^^

Solomon sent a messenger

to Sahalon

and the

latter inspired

members

of his

community to do what

there

was

in their

power.
evinced.

The Gaon

gives hearty thanks for the kindness

letter
in

More importance should be attached to ^^ we are speaking of. The Gaon reports

the second

the events

Damascus.

The

letter

aims at inspiring the Resh Kalla

to take steps with the authorities on behalf of the Jewish

25
*^

See T-S. 13

J. 9. 2.

See C. H. Becker, Beiiroge sur Geschtchie Agyptens

i,

unlet-

dem Islam,

Strassburg, 1902,

pp. 32

ff.

"
C^JItr

See Worman, JQR., XIX, 725

D^J^jy, p. 50.
It

Poznanski, fNITp '^JN, p. 44, and

in

can be taken for certain that Sahalon lived

in

Kairowan, as can be proved through the fragment published

fcld's

H. Hirsch-

The

j4ra/>ic

Portion of the Cairo Genisnh at Cambridge, V,

p. 3, vcr. xv.

He was the K?^ L"n in Kairowan. T-S. 13 J. II. 5-

"

T-S. 13

J. 13. 28.

SOLOMON BEN JUDAH

prisoners
in

MARMORSTEIN
We
:

21

Damascus.

It

seems that we possess the

give here

second

letter dealing

with the prlsoners/'^^

."0

\Ye give here the whole

letter, as far as

it is

legible

^Doi

-n^;

inn?D-^'

n^3 c'ni isSno

-iid

pj

.33 inn^i m^p^^

*3

D3 ^nynin i*> nn^

^s*

'^an^o

lonp

.y"j

-lann

on-inx

.-i^n

D3n3
nniD Tipmni
inD"'J3

iy:

'K'jk

bi

xin prnnn -ic'x^i

n-^']}

n-j-xn

pinm

'"'

Dyo

hdIj-l:'

DmiiB'D

tt'i

nbys D^t'M

nit:

^"id:

na

DniDxn n^vna ivb

nio^vi

vn^

irnn

|di

nia^on ^jd^d

ppn

"itf'no

Dnx^v

o'^ipo

^y^^1

....
"i^

in^'^3

pi

nix^

d\"i^x

I'nnnDio
niDioni

pin-Ji

nnoijon

"jx

x!>3n n''33

miy

pa^no

ixa D''3n3

mm
i^ax

DiT^yo noin

nan

rh\^

mnan iScn

D'^in

nm

nv ban

ij'oiya

nn'-^y

an^psn
cnXST'l

DX"'VV1

HB'jo j3

ny nxo
x^

pn>D n-'f'x (n^)c'

on ninai

nnpn:'3 ixi-'i

nix!?

\snpbx 13
D^^'S

n3^n

ixnp''

^3

ny^

"n^

l^n

^''n3i

^n

iy3Jj'''

^3

'^:n

u
n-s

sins

imc"'

xh Dn3n
i'XT^''

x^ n:Dp IX

nhn: nnc's ^xtc"

}-ix

px ^3
^31
yiD-.^'i'

nx

nhT3 xh
D^:;n

DD^^'CS

no

^ai?

3*joi

I3ni3

'dd

pin-sn

nsi

ijn:x

n^C'n

TJ'XSI
pj"
''^

piD^ '3

^^

xi ^ix

'nir:x')

31X30 ^y

p:^ 5^dij
^Ijl

unsn

^y i:ny

^31X3(d) ^y
njni nix^ nipj

D^ipo

imyi nxrn nyio^^n ^y 13X

"-jniy

e.ji

^^^nn

IXn^

'3

Ruth

2. 12.
*

"

Cp. Ps. 107. 10

ff.

<=

Ps, 107. 20.

Jer. 45. 3-

Isa. 59. 9.

22

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

'
:

the whole report

We
still

received letters from

in prison,

Damascus

that

they (the men) are

^NJDJ

although the iron chains

Q-an^r:^

.mi .ID
.Tn
-icrn

nvj-nn

iprn

nN un^JK'
.101

nnv^n
v"'kr

p^^'ono

nipjn iprn
y3

"bv

Tino

.2-11

nry bs
-i*j'N3

'.T'

-ixria^ns

INI
'>D''2

i'VS^UN aip:m

n^wxn D-''3

D-'jpT (?)

(nvy) ^n ^JD^hm pc'ionto ixn nc's D'-anao

"iipm 3^:rni

vnon
fpr

f^nia

"Jiya

^:^3

"3

(nvinn) jr-nn

^S"^b

hd

^a
i?N

pNi -133
^3'.N*

^jni

N^l p'lrcn

^3

fjX

vbv 3py^

i:^3N v!?y n-i [p.]

pnvn

pD"':3

cxi

epcx

-:-ip^

dn ynx
n^ini
^

[nc]iy ni3r tj-n

D"'snj

n-b'^'n

nnvcn
DNi

1x3

cs^oinn
3in3

i:n:x
51N

six

T':2^
.
.

'n3^in ^y

n"'D

i6

^3

nnn3y

^y Dn'ic3 tjn^

xi?

D^jnxn i^^dn
nrn
(-1,-13)

wcp

D^':n

nni

mnn

n3r
^31

x^3

n3c!5i mnB'^ oniiTn pvca

nns ni:n px-pn nnb 1^3^

nxn cnx px3 npn3

(?)Dnix
DO"'

x^

ms

ix

x-tn

.Tt^'

en!?

xn^ dx

D"'n3r:n

nx'j'
'31

"31

iTH"

DX

Dn^nvjn nx

mn^^i

13

^^n^

ivn"!

D"33-in
''3'i

oy

ni3"

x^ (?)Dnn''B'

Dn^^y

D^mn ....
DniDxn
'bv "i^yi D":pTn
ijyi

.... D'3n3

i3n3"

'31

n^c-13 x^

c'nipn

i"y3 x^ 1x13^ x^
'3

i3n3
''

D"3-iy i:n:x

:i

Dn^i'n }-ix3 m3r:-ix ^yi ii-ic'X3

rii:r:-ix

^y "nyccn
"tid'j'

^33

1:^

nry

"i^ix

"xni33 "nnD3i ^233

"3

"l"2j

nx

-1331

I3n3

-tr:y"'

ym-j* "d bi? ni3

iS'Cf
p'C'i:ii

}*r:x^i

p?nh prnnnb

nnn
.
.

d:3^ i:nix inn3''

"3

^xi n^c-i ^x ^x njjir

Dni* nx"i3

>r2

nn3: x^

n3nx
"n:iy3i

(?)^r\

xh

n^i't:'

x^ irnx n3T

[^x-iii'j"

b^

xin nrn

-13-13

ic'yni n'^yn

tj'xi D^jyc'j i:xi

,
.

n" 121

^1-1:1

pop ybnp bi
3in3^

di^:m pnx

.fin^cD

"D-j'D
:

....
fy?:^

On
>r\npb

the margin of the letter

jyo^l ICt'

nnil^
'3

mVO
'di:i
3. 9.

X'i'lM

ab
'

d:i

nn-icn

xh

Dnc) -inx
"

nx "niynn ab
4.
''

inns

Ps. 31. II.

Cp. Gcii. 4a.

Amos

SOLOMON BEN JUDAH

are

MARMORSTEIN
they
get

23
their

taken

from

them,

notwithstanding

punishment every day from the overseers, while they are

sick

and

ill,

God send them

health.
in

There came an order

is

from Adi ben Manasseh

condition
the
life

which there

written the

that they should swear

by

their

God and by
them partners
in

of the king that they will never call

nor serve their brethren in the land of Israel either

great
It

or in

small matters, neither rightly nor wrongly.'

can be understood only when

conditions
in

we

take into account

that

the

the

countries

where

happened.

We

know

that the rebels stood in continuous connexion

with the officers of the ruler,

ministers.

who was
Jews

the servant of his

The

rebels kept the

it

in prison

and alleged
Perhaps the

that they did

in the

name

of the king.

prisoners served the rebels and were taken by the soldiers

of the king.

It is,

however, more likely that just the reverse

rate,

happened.

At any

we

see the

Jews participating
the

in

the struggles.
fear that

In another passage
is

Gaon expresses
Damascus
prays that

Ramleh, where he

dwelling, and
rulers.

as well, will

come under
were

the

new

He

God may
of the

help the ruler.

still

If there

the slightest doubt about the dating

letters,

one other fragment show^s undeniably that the

revolution took place in the time of Solomon, and further-

more

that

it

had a very sad influence on the Jews

in those

countries.
tr^

The
. .

fragment has neither address nor signature,

ni -^D

ba

"1331
nro

^nn
,
.

nLjpJi

'mi -nvpi

'bv jcnji

ny Nim

120
. .

nnnn onas ni

nn^ o^nn^D lonp n: ^bam'y

[ii-i

am

-ioi
i?Ni

^Ni ipn' '11 'id (?) irnx bn) bnpn '^a-] ns^

,iD]pi5

yy
"io
-\-\i

Din

[qh^d]

nv

n^^^"l

nnx
is

-iiry^

r^pizr^

iw iwnn
-tnN3

^N:n: 31
r]']-y'n

.r\i2b'^

....
11.

n^c' (?)3py^ ic'yn ics* i?33 nrn'^v^i

Between
pi-

27-8 there

an addition

Q'>':T\n

^'':n3

DJ3X

sS

24
but

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

we

are fortunately able to fix the time.

There

is

men-

tioned the

name

of R. Nathan,

who
letter

occurs in one letter

is

from Solomon to Ephraim.^^ The

an account of the

transactions between the Jews and the rebels.

There

is

mentioned
princes.

PT~1"'3X

^pT,

who seems

to be

one of the

tribal

Moreover the Banu Guriah rnvaj

"^3

are mentioned

quite expressly.

What

the letters say

is

to the effect that

the rebels wanted huge

sums

for the captives,

but the leaders

could furnish only smaller sums.^^

'1

See Schechter's Saadyana, pp. 112

T-S. 13
J. 20.

ff.

^*

25.

^pT"ii3X

''\>y

']y\'^p

r\\h\y

idd i:co nnpii?

DniN nph

rh^'\
r\^*\>r\

cainr nx^^n) o^nsD dn

^3 2

myj nnn
irnij^y

tr''i

nmnyi
mpoo

o^iiyi

nyDC-*

....
ij-in-ii

nn

^jy

d-ju

ijn

ny

^3i n^jy N!':r .T-^y n[? jnn] 4

[?

ijnpb nxT

"inx Dipoi'
"l:3:^"'^

d^x'j] c-yoj
ira^ni D^:p

^rh'h

mpm dv nnna .nmn nnm ij^ai

nic'yij

vSnw

^n*

i:"':'^

nayi

.in"i3bN::'i

loy

.... unya ....

oai? |b
. . .

6
7

iK^3ni cainT '3 njiri

'r:[i]ns*

iny '^vnd
D^^ns*

-mn

^di:

i6

inr^s*
laii'

p^i

dn

inp^

ci:^D3n i:b
i>N

ncN
ny^

n:un nrxc'

m
id

ij^i*y

^y

n'-viji

10
1

unna o^iyn
i^npn -in"'h

jipTi ^:3
''n^

dh^did inv
jnan jnj n"i

D''nt^n

[dn pis px]

nipn

ir:pT^

12 13

jiDcn xiTii' ny "imn

n'h^' DNi^NHi

in-'jn

:-it:Ni

|n: 'n n'-u'n

[ojn^

^^s""

^M DiVDHD imn
'jni

nra ni-yN

14
15

imv33

^J3 ni?B' "3

urb icxi "anyn tntocd nn^o

.npna ins*

l^^nt'a nniN
^313

nk"N n^

[by onin^n
^npn bn

16 17
18

nns .... n .... (?) n-ucn v^N niri D^ainr nsoa D^u'^'no natj' ^^2D^i linn n^^v D\ni:'Nni mny n^Nci .... nnayn 01 om^n .... n^ri ....
^h ncNi i3in
nr

on^

-id>di

19

20
21

.muy
'

This name occurs also in the letter published by Cowley in JQR., XIX, p. a5of. He captured about 1029 (,?) four Rabbanitc and
tlirce
"

Qaraite Jews.

Gen.

31. 40.

Mishnah

Gijtin, p.

45

a.

''

Banu Guriah.

SOLOMON BEN JUDAH

MARMORSTEIN
Solomon
was

25

A
across

third

correspondent
Isaac
letters,

of

Abraham
far

Hakohen ben
a few

Hakohen.
one

Wc

have thus
throws

come
upon
others

of which

light

Solomon's relation to the non-Jewish

require further investigation.^*

ofificers.-^

The

We

wish only to mention

a relative of Solomon
calls

here that this

Abraham was perhaps

Solomon

ben Joseph,
his uncle.^^

for the son of

him

in

one

letter

We

hope to be able to say more of Abraham

on another occasion.

APPENDIX
December 1913. Since then a very important contribution on the same subject by Dr. S. Poznariski, under the title Babylonische Geonim im
This article was written
in
'

nachgaonaischen Zeitalter' (Berlin, 19 14, Mayer und Miiller,

Sckriftcn der Lehranstalt fiir die Wissenschaft des Juden-

tums^ Bd. IV, Heft

i, 2),

has appeared, which necessitated

first

a thorough revision of the

has also appeared an

part of our article.

There
in

article

on the Palestinian Geonim

the eleventh and twelfth centuries in the

pp. 37-49, under the
XI et XII siecles
',

REJ.,

vol.

LXVIII,

title

'

Les Gueonim en Palestine aux

writer.

by the present
and

Further material

was brought

to light in the weekly periodical ^D^fD^, 1914,

in

nos. 19, 20, 24, 25,

the Islam, 'Die Wirren unter

dem Fatimiden
article

al-Zahir und die Juden in Palastina'.

The

was printed before the outbreak of the war, we do

it

not

know whether
T-S. 13
J. 14. 5-

was published.

"
3*

T-S. 13

J. 19. 3, T.-S. 13 J. 19- 18.

3S

T-S. 13 J. 23. 12.

Elijah

Hakohen writes: .311 'ID P":3 liHlT

26

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Since writing this article

we have been enabled

to see

more of the manuscript

this period the

material.

The moi e we have

studied

more we have recognized

that the last

word

can be said only when the whole material has been published.

So

it

must be doubtful whether T-S. i^

or

J. 13.

a8 was written
are inclined
latter.

by Solomon ben Jehoseph

to think that the writer

Ben Judah.

We

was the former, and not the

Solomon must have been very old before 1024, how could
he have endured
thirty years, as
all

the trials and struggles for another

?

Solomon ben Judah did

It

was hard

for

the strength of youth,

how much more

new

for the

weak, aged

Gaon

Here we

endeavour to give

material

for

the

biography of Sahalon ben Abraham. Besides the references

given in note 28,

we have

to consider T-S. 20.

6,

which

preserved his contract of marriage with Esther, the daughter

of Joseph ben
(see

Amram,
S.,

the judge DSic^n, dated Fustat, 1037

JQR.^ N.

\T,

p. 159)."*'

Sahalon was a very indus-

trious liturgical writer in his time, although the liturgy did

not preserve even his name.

great

very sad memento for

'

the

men

'

of the

day

He
;

shared the fate of an older

liturgies

contemporary, whose name was buried with his

in

the dust of the Genizah

we mean Samuel,
list,

the third

<B^ijtrn,

of

whom we

will

speak on another occasion.

We

have compiled the following

which

is

by no means

a complete one, of his liturgical pieces

J.

MS. Oxford
{a) I'jnp
(b)
{c)
''^'ir\

273S,

11.3^

ns-

'21D.

I'nTj' 'HID.
''31D.

'"^P

cniji

'"

Cf.

now

iny

Midrasli

Hascrol zvcYcscrol,

London (Luzac),

1917,

pp. 76-9.
'^

Sec also MS. Oxford 2712.

10.

6; 2727,

p.

9; and 2731.

i.

SOLOMON BEN JUDAH

{d) ks ni33 noiN
{e)

MARMORSTEIN
'2b noL".

27

nDD.
. . .

^2

^'^-\

f?r\'Z'

''ni2i

ig) VJnc3at^
{h)
2.
r\p''p^

n-^:'

pc', acr.
d^-j-,

n^nni
acr.

^i!?k

nmas
-^3

13

;nW.

n^un
3855,

nuv^i'

DmnN

{nSib'.

MS. Adler
(z)
in:i

i.
in'J',

no-ionni 133
2874,
6.

headed

|S'!jnD

in ^31^5

men.

3.

MS. Adler

4.

MS.
(/)

Adler, eleventh century.

nvr,

by Sahalon ^N3^N
2876, 28.
'{^-^n

DwS"i.

5.

MS. Adler
[jji)

JN^HD^

ps^^)i,

beg. Q''DJ3n ^y bnyo iiv ns'N.

It

has been asserted that Solomon ben Judah organized

-J'^^t^'n, "'y''3"in,

the dignities of

and so on.

It is

our duty to

prove that long before this time this organization prevailed

in the

Palestinian Gaonate.

This we can do by giving

list

of dignitaries as far as

we know them

1.

The

'^^h^: Isaac, under Joseph

Before 990.
{v. T:ion,

ha Kohen

'''':''''~i

1877, p. 132).

Before 990. Samuel ha

Kohen ben Joseph

Njytrin 'i'3

'''j'^'l

(Fragment Adler).

About

1004.

Samuel,

(::'.

T-S.

16.

68;

JQR., XVIII,
Adler 4007).

729, for the date

T-S.

16. 14,

and MS.

About

1062.

Zadok

'"j'^^'LTn

ben

Josiah

3S

{v.

Schechter's Saadyana, p. 88, T-S. 13

?

J. 22. 10). {v.

Solomon ben Tobiah mi3n3

4).

^B"^OT

MS.

Bodl.

2878.

SS
2.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The
'y^m:

About

990.

Aaron ha Kohen (Fragment Adler).

of

About
i^ J.
I.

loio.

20,

Abraham, son Fragment Adler).

01 3.

Samuel

''B^ijc'n

(T-S.

About

Ahijah pan ben

Hilkiah pan

(v.

Harkavy, Altjildische Denkmdler aus der Krim,

Petersburg, 1876, p. 245.

St.

TO miDD

mnna

^yain).

About

1027. Joseph

ha-Kohen ben Jacob (MS. Oxf.

Rainer,

2874. 12, cp. 2873. 28).

About 103 1. Joseph (Fragment Erzherzog

V.

Epstein,

REJ., XXV,

273).

Abouti045. Eliah ha-Kohen ben Solomon, v. y^/?.,

XVIII,
?

728.
v.

Solomon ha-Kohen,
00. Eliah
>T^'\r\

MS.

Oxf. 2878, 90.

About

1080. Ebiathar ha-Kohen, T-S. 24, 49.

1
1

About
?

ben Ebiathar.

Mazliach
^c^'on:
N^J^tr,

(MS. Adler).

3.

The
?

MS. Oxf.

2877,

6.

4.

The 'K'B': About 103 1.

About
1

Elijah

ha-Kohen (MS. Adler 301

1, i).

03 1.

Anonymous (Fragment Erzherzog

v.

Rainer).
1 1

28.

p. j"% ^c't'^N
?

Moses (MS. Oxf. 2876, 70 p rhh^ r\"ir\ n^ 'i ?).

(sec

Pinsker, L. K.,

Abu Saad

JQR., XVIII,

730).

5.

The T2f
II 30.
?

Moses ha-Lcvi (MS. Oxf. 287S, 16 and

(sec

29).

Nathan

JQR., IX,
{v.

20,

XIX,

732, and T-S.

13

J- 15- 7)1
1

20?

Anonymous

Kandl, Samuel, Genizai

p. v).

Kdziratok, Budapest, 1909,

'

SOLOMON BEN JUDAH

MARMORSTEIN

29

On the organization of the

N.S.,
I,

Palestinian Gaonate see

JQR.,

66.

It

will

not be superfluous to draw attention

if

to the fact that, according to the canon, even

the city

was

great, the deacons of the church

'

ought to be seven
315,

(t/.Eus.

H. Eccl.VI,43, Council of Nicaea.in

CanonXV).
older than

We may
the
'

definitely say, therefore, that the organization of

'

seven members

of the Gaonic authority

is

Solomon ben Judah.

'

TWO ANCIENT ISRAELITE AGRICULTURAL

FESTIVALS *
By Julian Morgenstern, Hebrew Union
Cincinnati.

College,

MiSHNAH Ta'anit
ceremony.

IV, 8 records a highly interesting

b.

Rabban Simeon
for

Gamaliel

said

' :

Israel

had no

festivals like the fifteenth of

Ab

and the

Day

of

Atonement,

on them the maidens of Jerusalem used

to go out, clad in white garments, that had been borrowed,

in

order not to put to shame those

who had none

(of their

own).

All these garments had to be previously dipped

in water.^

And
lift

the maidens of Jerusalem would go out

and dance

in the vineyards.

And

what would they say

"Young man,

thine eyes and see what thou dost choose.

Set not thine eyes upon beauty^ but upon family, &c."
*

This paper was written

in

the winter of 1913 in response to the

to contribute to

invitation of a committee of
article to a Festschrift,

European Semitic scholars

an

by means of which they intended

the sixtieth birthday of

Immanuel L6w, Rabbi

at

commemorate Szegedin, Hungary, and

the

famous Semitic

scholar.

The European war, however, prevented

publication of the Festschnft.

After waiting for over two years, the author

has determined to follow the example of Noldeke, Littmann, and other

scholars,

and publish

this article independentlj'.

He
to

trusts that the scholarly

world, and particularly he

it

whom

it

was designed

honour, will

still

accept

as a small token of appreciation of and reverent tribute

to

true

and

exalted scholarship.
^

According

to the traditional interpretation, as recorded

by Rashi

(/.

c),

np^QD means

ritual

washing, on the supposition that the owner

may have
in a chest

worn the garments during menstruation.

(Bab.Ta'anit 31
a), that

But the statement of R. Eliezer

even

if

the garments had been laid

that this

away

n^^DD was

still

necessary,

shows

was not

for ritual purposes.

31

32

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

This custom presents

many

peculiar
;

and interesting

features, well

worthy of investigation

the dances of the

maidens

in the vineyards, the white,

first

borrowed garments,

which had

to be dipped in water,

and the words of

question.

the maidens,

all

give rise to

wonder and

A full

and detailed investigation of the origin and significance of

these strange rites would lead too far afield for the present

study.

But the consideration of the two days upon which

were celebrated, and the association of the
rites

these

rites

with these days,

may

form the natural approach to the

subject proper, and in itself yield valuable results.

Assuming
Mishnah
has

for

the present that the statement of the

historic

direct

value,

there

cannot

be

the slightest doubt that these ceremonies could not have

been performed on the

stitution
in

Day

of

Atonement

after its

in-

post-exilic times

according to the ritual of

fasting, humility,

Leviticus.

That was altogether a day of

and repentance, 'a

while
these
rites

day of

self-affliction'

(Lev. i6. 29),

must by

their

very nature have been

as convincing the

essentially joyful.

Nor can we regard

reasons for the observance of these ceremonies on the

Day

of Atonement, advanced in the Mishnah, viz. that this was

the anniversary of the consecration of Solomon's temple,

and

in the

Talmud (Bab.

Ta'anit 30

b), viz.

that this was

the day

of divine pardon and forgiveness, as well as the

tablets were given to

day upon which the second

(Exod. 34 and Deut.
9.

Moses

25

ff.,

and

cp.

Rashi to Exod. 34

and Deut.
because
it

9.

lo and to Ta'anit 30 b), and consequently,

essentially

was thus

a day of gladness and

festivity, these joyful

ceremonies were altogether appro-

priate to

its

celebration.

The nature and

peculiar cere-

monies of the

Day

of

Atonement

are too firmly established

AN'CIENT AGRICULTURAL FESTIVALS

MORGENSTERN
16
;

33

by the

legislation of the Priestly

29.

Code (Lev.

23.

26-32

Num.

7-1

1)

to either permit

or justify festivities

such

as these.

If, therefore, historical value can be attributed

it

to this tradition,

must picture the celebration of a

festival

on the tenth day of the seventh month

to the institution of the

at a time previous
this

Day

of

Atonement on
more

day

according to the Priestly legislation, or

correctly, in

view of the actual facts of Jewish history, previous to the

Babylonian

exile.

Now we
Day
This

do know that

still

by Ezekiel the tenth day

as the

of the seventh

month was regarded

i
;

New

Year's

(Ezek. 40.
is

cp. Bertholet, 195

Kraetzschmar, 263).

to be inferred also from the fact that the blowing

of the Jubilee cornet and the proclamation of the Jubilee

year, which

must naturally have taken place on the

fixed for the tenth
cp. Bertholet, 89
f.

first

day of the

year, were

day of the seventh

;

month

(Lev.

25.9;

Baentsch, 416).

The

celebration of this

day must have been primarily of

would seem an

a joyful nature.

In this light the merry dances of the

in

maidens of Jerusalem

the vineyards

altogether natural and appropriate

joyful

way

of celebrating the

New

Year's Day.

And

since the celebration of these

if

dances on the tenth of the seventh month,

at all historical,

must have taken place

in pre-exilic times,

when
it

this

day
well

was actually regarded as the

New

Year's Day,

may

be that there was some intimate relation between the two, and that we have thus stumbled upon one of the actual
details of the pre-exilic

New

Year's

Day

celebration.

But according to the Mishnah these dances were held, not only on the Day of Atonement, but also on the fifteenth
of Ab.
joyful

Accounting

for the celebration of this

day

in this

manner the Talmud records a number of

interesting

VOL. VIIL

34

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

significant traditions

and

(Ta anit 30 b

31a;

cp. also

Baba

batra

121 a and b

and Midrash
ed.

Lamentations Rabba,
ff.)-

Introduction

XXXIII,

Buber, 34

Of

these, four

have direct bearing upon our study.

I.

According to R. Nahman, the

fifteenth of

Ab

was

the day upon which the Benjamites,

after the battle of

in

Gibeah, captured the maidens of Shiloh, while dancing

the vineyards, and took them
II.

as wives (Jud. 21).

Said R. Johanan, the fifteenth of

Ab

was the day

to die

upon which the number of those who were doomed

in

the

wilderness was
is

completed.

In

explanation the
;

following tradition
rash

related (Jer. Ta'anit IV, 69 c

i\Iid-

Lam. Rab.,

I.e.).

During the

entire forty years that

the Israelites were in the wilderness, on the eve of every

ninth of
out,

Ab, Moses would cause a herald

forth to dig'.
for

to go and call

'Come

Then every man would come

himself and would sleep therein,

forth

and dig a grave

that he might not die without his grave being dug.

And

on the morrow the herald would go and

living separate themselves from the

call out,
'.

'

Let the

one

in

whom

there was

life

Then every would stand up and come

dead
year.

forth.

So they would do every

so,

And

in

the fortieth

year they did

but on the morrow they

all

stood up.

And when
'

they saw this they were surprised and said,

in

Perhaps we have erred

is

reckoning the new

moon
'.

(and

consequently this

not the ninth of the month)

in

So

they lay down again

their graves during the succeeding

nights, until the night of the fifteenth.

And

then,

when

they saw that the moon was

full,

and that not a single

one of them had

died,

and thus knew that they had

reckoned the month correctly, and that the forty years

in

which

it

was decreed that those who had come

forth

ANCIENT AGRICULTURAL FESTIVALS MORGENSTERN

from Egypt should perish
in

35

the wilderness, were com-

pleted, that generation appointed that day, the fifteenth

of

Ab,

as a festival.

In addition to this

the Tosafists
in the wilder-

{ad loaim) relate that during the forty years

ness deaths occurred only on the ninth of Ab.
III.

According
/.

to Ulla, quoting R. 'Imri (cp.

Midrash
as

Lam.

Rab.,

c), the fifteenth of

Ab

was observed
b.

a festival because on that day

the guards that Jeroboam b.

Hoshea

Elah abolished

Nebat had set up over the roads to prevent the people of the northern kingdom from
festivals

going to celebrate the three annual pilgrimage

in

Jerusalem
IV.

(cp. i

Kings

12. 26-33).

R. Mathna said that the occasion of the celebration

of the fifteenth of

given to

was that on that day permission was bury those who had fallen at the capture of Bethar

Ab

(on the ninth of

Ab, A.D.

135, cp.

Graetz^ IV, 150

f.

and

Jer. Ta'anit IV, 69 a).

It is significant

that of these traditions

two

(I

and

III)

correlate the celebration of these dances of the maidens

of Jerusalem in the vineyards with the observance of an

annual hag, or even with the three annual haggini, Pesah,

Shabuot, and Succot.

And

not only that, but tradition

I,

which

states that the dances of the

maidens of Shiloh
fifteenth of

in

their vineyards

were also held on the

Ab

and

were attended by the marriage of the maidens of Shiloh

with the Benjamites, concealed
identifies
in the vineyards,

clearly

these

dances with

those

of

the

maidens

of

Jerusalem

in their

vineyards, with the

young men gathered

about them too and selecting their wives from the dancers.

The

inference

is

justified

that dances such as these

may
folk-

have been a regular, and even integral, part of the

celebration of the annual

hag or of the three annual haggim.

36

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

This inference
is

supported by considerable evidence.

2,

Josephus expressly states {Antiquities, V,

12) that the

dances of the maidens of Shiloh were held three times during each year, when the

men

of Israel

came up

to the

sanctuary to celebrate the three annual pilgrimage

festivals,

accompanied by their wives and children, precisely

in the
is

manner described

in

Sam.

4.

Furthermore,

it

now

generally recognized that the original meaning of hag was

the sacred dance (cp. Gesenius-BuhP^ 191
f-)>

primarily

around the sacred stone or cult object

(cp.

Wellhausen,

Reste des altarabischen Heidentums'^, no), but which, by

a very natural extension in folk custom, might easily
to, be practised, in part at least, in the form, of these

come
signi-

dances

by

the maidens in the vineyards.

And,

finally,

it

is

ficant that

every vineyard apparently had to have

its

mahol,

or dancing-place, as the

name must have

originally con-

noted.

This mahol, surrounding every vineyard, was a

its

narrow, open space, intended undoubtedly, at least in

origin, for just these dances.

The exact dimensions

of the

mahol are prescribed

this evidence

in
it

IMishnah Kil'aim IV, 1-3.^

All

makes

certain that these dances were not

mere sporadic celebrations of the maidens of Jerusalem

and
Shiloh,

but

were

regularly

observed,

though

not

necessarily in identically the

same form, throughout the

country, at least in early times.

that these dances, clearly of a

And

it

is

equally certain
as well as

religious,

of

a joyful
as
all

character, were not celebrated

occasionally, but

the evidence indicates, at fixed times of the agri-

'

Cp.,also the

Aramaic equivalent of

tnahol, htnga (from iJH), the dancing-

place in the vineyard (Jastrow, 458 a), and also

logical

my

article,

'

The

Et3'mo-

History of the Three

(1916), 321-33.

Hebrew S^-nonyms

for " to

Dance",' JAOS.^

XXXVI

ANCIENT AGRICULTURAL FESTIVALS

cultural

MORGENSTERN

37

year,

and

in

connexion with the annual hag or

haggim.

On

the other hand, two of the traditions

(II

and IV)
in

connect the dances of the maidens of Jerusalem

the

vineyards on the fifteenth of

Ab

with the cessation of

some

great national calamity that had happened on the

ninth of

Ab, but from the

evil effects

of which the people

were freed only on the

^

fifteenth.^

P'rom ancient times the

may be noted that Josephus(fFrt;-s, II, 17,5-7) relates Ab an attack was made on the fortress of Antonia, which practically began the war with the Romans. On the previous day, which was also the festival of the Xylophory, 01 bringing the wood for the
In this connexion
it

that

on the fifteenth of

altar, the Sicarii,

mingling with the crowds that thronged the temple, had

It is

already begun the attack upon the garrison.

this festival of bringing the
in the

most natural

.to

connect

wood

for the altar

with the tradition recorded

/.

Talmud
in

(Ta'anit 31 a

Baba batra

121 b

Midrash Lam. Rab.,

c), also

accounting for the celebration of the fifteenth of Ab by the dances of the

maidens

the vineyards, that according to

Rabba and R. Joseph

for the altar.

this

was

the day upon which they ceased to cut

wood

In support of this
is cited,

statement, a saying of R. Eliezer the Great, found in a Baraita,

affirm-

ing that from the fifteenth of Ab on the heat of the sun began to diminish,

and so they ceased

to cut

wood

for the altar

because

it

was no longer

dry.

Hence

that

day was called 'the day of breaking the saw'.

One cannot

but

feel that

Josephus has here confused matters somewhat, and that the

festival

of bringing the

wood

for the altar

was

celebrated, not on the fourteenth of Ab

it

as he says, but on the fifteenth.

In fact,

must be admitted that just here

to the exact date in question,

he has expressed himself rather obscurely as and that most probably he too meant that the
date of this festival.

fifteenth of
fact that

Ab was

the actual

This

is

borne out by the

records nine different annual occasions or festivals

Mishnah Ta'anit IV, 5 upon which wood was

brought

to

replenish the temple supply.

Of

these the fifteenth of

a).

Ab was

evidently the most important 'cp. Bab. Ta'anit 28

stated in Megillat Ta'anit

This

is

also clearly

V (ed. Neubauer,
Ab

p. 9).

According

to the

Mishnah,

the observance of the fifteenth of

as the festival of the wood-offering

began

in the

daysof Nehemiah (Neh.

10. 35).

That, however, the

festival is of

more ancient
Ab,

origin will soon be demonstrated.

Josephus further states that

the massacreing had been going on for seven daj's previous to the fifteenth of
i,

c.

from the ninth on. This might, therefore, be cited as another instance
fifteenth of

where the

Ab, celebrated as a joyful

festival,

is

intimately

38
ninth
of

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Ab

has

been

celebrated

as

fast

day

in
by-

Judaism commemorating the destruction of the temple

Nebuchadrezzar.
In fact Zech.
this
fast
7.

ff.

and

8.

would
in-

seem

to

imply that

in

the

fifth

month was

stituted

immediately after the destruction of the temple,

and had by the time of the prophet been thus observed

for

seventy years.

The

actual

question

there raised

is

whether the completion of the second temple

abrogate the celebration of that
fast,

did

not

as well as the fasts

all

of the fourth, seventh, and tenth months,

of

which were

by

tradition associated with the destruction of the temple

fall

and the

of Jerusalem.

But
8,

it

is

quite significant that

fell

according to 2 Kings 25.

of

Jerusalem

on the seventh

Ab, while according

to Jer. 52. 12, this

happened on the
But certainly

tenth of the month.

of these two dates
if,

It is
is

impossible to determine which

correct.

historically

as

the passages from

Zechariah actually imply, the

celebration of the anniversary of the destruction of the

temple as a

fast

day began immediately

after the occur-

rence of that event, there would be no reason for holding

this fast

on the ninth of Ab, instead of on the seventh

Furthermore, the

or tenth, as the case might have been.

very

fact,

already

noted,

of

the

traditional

connexion

between the joyful celebration of the dances in the vineyards on the fifteenth of
that had

Ab

and some national calamity

occurred on the ninth of the month, and the

other evidence that these dances were merely a feature of

the celebration of an annual
Jiag^

the usual duration of

associated with certain events that transpired, or began to transpire, on the

ninth.

At the same

time, Josephus, being a contemporar}', probably has

recorded actual historical events,

rather than

semi-historical

traditions,

and therefore
question.

this incident maj- hardly

be applied directly to our present

ANCIENT AGRICULTURAL FESTIVALS MORGENSTERN

39

which seems to have been seven days, lead us rather to suppose on the one hand that the fast on the ninth of Ab

was

older,

probably much older, than the

fall

of Jerusalem,

probably marked the beginning of the seven-day hag that concluded with the dances on the fifteenth, and on the
other hand that
its

association with the

fall

of Jerusalem

and the destruction of the temple, which had actually taken place on almost that very day, was the result ot
that process of attaching an historical significance to the

ancient festivals, which probably began with the definite

association of the story of the exodus from

Egypt with the

Passover

festival, or rather

with the combined Passover and

Mazzot-festivals.
is

No

certain mention of this association

i8),'*

found in the oldest legislation (Exod. 23. 15; 34.

it

and yet
the

had become a firmly established tradition by

of

time

the

composition

of

the J

and

E
first

codes.

Similarly the Holiness

Code (Lev.

23. 43),

undoubtedly
time

the product of the early exilic period, for the

definitely associated the Succot festival with the tradition

that in the wilderness Israel had dwelt in booths.

It is

only post-Biblical tradition that associated Shabuot with

the giving of the Decalogue (cp. Jeivish Encyclopaedia, IX,
594).
It

was undoubtedly the same

spirit

which thus sought

to justify the continued observance of the old agricultural

festivals,

most of the

details of the celebration of

which

were certainly of non-Jahwistic origin, by correlating them

with definite events in the history of
Israel,

that

now
comonly

associated the ancient fast on the ninth of

Ab

with the

destruction of the temple.

plete
*

And,

as

we have

seen, so

and thoroughgoing was

this association that

Exod. 23.9b and 150^ and 34. 18 bare undoubtedly redactorial insertions
;

into the original text

cp. Holzinger 96, 117

and Baentsch 206

f.,

283

f.

40

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

seventy years after the destruction of the temple the day

had become

to Zechariah

and

his contemporaries
it

only the

'anniversary of that catastrophe, and,

now seemed, need

replaced that
this

no
for
is

longer be celebrated, since the

new temple
That

which they mourned and

fasted.

hypothesis

correct will soon

become completely apparent.

to the celebration of the dances on the

We

return

now

tenth day of the seventh month.

We

have seen that

if

the account of these dances be historical, and there seems

no adequate reason to doubt this, they must have been celebrated before the exile and in connexion with the
observance of

New

Year's Day.
associate

As we have
their

seen, both

Mishnah and

Talmud

celebration

with

historical events other

than those by which they account

for the celebration of the dances

on the

fifteenth of

Ab.

Yet the Mishnah

itself

seems to imply that the dances

on the two days were of the same nature and purpose.

And

the

very fact that

the attendant

ceremonies, the

borrowing of the white garments that had to be dipped

in water,
in

and the words of the maidens, recited or chanted

chorus during the dances, were the same on both days,

leads to the

same

conclusion.

If,

therefore, as

we have

inferred, the celebration of the dances on the fifteenth of

Ab

represented the concluding

rites

of a great seven-day

hag, which began on the ninth with fasting and mourning,

we would expect
the case
is

to find this true also of the dances on

the tenth day of the seventh month.

easily demonstrated.
23.

That

this

was actually

According to Exod.
Biblical legislation, the

16

and 34.

22, the

oldest
at the

hag ha'asiph was celebrated

itself it

end of the year.

festival.

In

was hardly the new year

to

Rather the language seems

imply that

its

ANCIENT AGRICULTURAL FESTIVALS

celebration

MORGENSTERN

4I

marked the

close of the old year, and that the

beginning of the new year came immediately thereafter,

fell

probably on the very day after the close of the hag.

references mentions the

Neither of these oldest Biblical

actual duration of the festival.
pre-exilic

But according
it

to

all

other

and

exilic writings
ff.;

was celebrated
i

for seven

days (Lev. 23. 39

14. 25).

Deut. 16. 13;

Kings

8.

65; Ezek.
celebrated,

Now,

since the

New

Year's

Day was

at least in the period immediately preceding the exile, on

the tenth day of the seventh month, and probably followed

immediately upon the seven-day celebration of the ancient

hag

ha'asiph^ or, as finally called in Deut.

(16,

13),

hag

Jiassiiccoi, it

follows that this last

must have been celebrated

during this period from the third to the ninth of the seventh
month.^
In this connexion the tradition recorded in the Mishnah
^

It is

true that Deut. i6. 13 dates the celebration of the Succot-festival

only at the time of the gathering in of the produce of the threshing-floor

and wine-press.

This must have been the original practice in the days

of the local shrines.

Then

the varying times of the harvest and threshing

seasons in the different parts of the country must have caused a slight
variation in the dates of celebration of the local festivals
i^cp. i

Kings

13.

52

f,).

But the practical application of the Deuteronomic principle of the central

sanctuary naturally necessitated the
celebration of the festival
fixing

of one definite date for the

by the entire

nation.

And, as the evidence has

third to the ninth of the

now made

clear, this

must have been from the

seventh month, with the tenth celebrated as

New Year's Day.

f.).

This probably

explains the selection of the Succot-festival as the time for reading the law
to the people every seven years (Deut. 31, 10

Not so much because

1 1

of the multitude assembled for the celebration of the festival (ver.

is

this

probably secondary, cp. Steuernagel, iii) as because of the association

of the Succot-festival with

New Year's

Day, marking the beginning of the

Similarly, the

year of release, was

this time

selected for this purpose.

this

opening ceremonies of the Jubilee year took place on

P- 33)?

day

(cp.

above,

and

similarly, too,

Ezra began to read the law

in his

to the people
first

on

the

New Year's
9. I ff.).

Day, celebrated, however,

time on the

of Tishri

(Neh.

42

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

day of the seventh month was the anniversary

that the tenth

of the dedication of Solomon's temple acquires

cance.

new

signifi-

According

to

Kings
in

8. 2,

6j

{.,

the dedication of the

temple was celebrated

of seven days.

connexion with the annual Aag

On
of

the eighth day the closing ceremonies

of Solomon's dismissal of the people to their

their blessing

homes and

him

occurred.

It

is

a very plausible

conjecture that the dedication of the temple was

coincident

made

with the

/lag,

not only because of the large

crowds that would thus be enabled to be present, but also

because so important an event, which, especially
king's mind, clearly
in
Israel's
in

the

marked the beginning of a new epoch

might be fixed most
fittingly for the

history,

beginning of a new year.

The

actual

New
It is

Year's

Day

would

in all likelihood

be the eighth day of the

festival,

the day of the dismissal of the people.

that just in this connexion the

noteworthy

Targum

records that the

month of
the

'Etanini, in which the dedication

was celebrated,
In
all

was actually the beginning of the year.

likelihood

memory

of the association of the dedication of the

temple with the ancient

New

Year's

Day prompted

this

remark of the Targum.

At any

rate this tradition of the

Mishnah, which undoubtedly

rests

upon a

firm, historic

foundation, like the other traditions, recorded ab'^ve, un-

mistakably associates the tenth day of the seventh month

with the pre-exilic celebration of the annual hag for seven
days, apparently from the third to the ninth of the month,

and implies
ancient

at the

same time that the tenth

itself

was the

New

Year's

Day

as well as the

day of the con-

clusion of the ceremonies of dedication

and the dismissal

of the people.

We

have seen that the

first

day of the hag, which, we

AN'CIENT AGRICULTURAL FESTIVALS

MORGENSTERN
as a

43

have ventured to

assert, v/as

celebrated

from the ninth

to the fifteenth of Ab,

was obsei-ved

day of

fasting

and mourning.

We

might therefore expect to

find

the

hag from the

beginning

third to the ninth of the

seventh month

in the

same manner.

Nor
fast

are

we disappointed.
fixed

The

third

day of the seventh month has become

in the

Jewish calendar as an annual

b.

day commemorating
after the destruction
ff.).

the murder of Gedaliah

Ahikam
;

of Jerusalem
7.

(cp. 2

Kings

25. 25

Jer. 41. 1
is

In Zech.

fif.

the fast of the seventh

fifth

month

correlated with that

fasts

of the

month, as

if

to

imply that both

had

common

origin.

This would naturally go hand

in

in

hand

with the tradition preserved

our Mishnah that the dances

on the

fifteenth of

Ab

and on the tenth day of the seventh

a

month

likewise
It

had

common

origin

and manner of
fast

celebration.

has been suggested that the

of the

seventh month
in

may

perhaps refer to that

fast described

Neh.
it

9.
is

ff.

on the twenty-fourth of the month.

is

But

there

clearly implied that that fast

celebrated as

special occasion of expiation

and

purification,
(cp, Siegfried,

and by
J04f.

no means as an annual occurrence

Bertholet 72).

This

is

certain from the fact that

Neh. 8

states clearly that the

system of holy days instituted by

into practice.
for a
fast

the Priestly

Code had been adopted and put

system no provision
of the seventh
is

And

in

this

made
month.

on

the twenty-fourth

This could

therefore have been celebrated on only this one occasion.

It follows

accordingly that the fast of the seventh month

7.

referred to in Zech.
fast

ff

and

8.

19 can

mean only

this

on the third of the month, which

tradition has associated

just as with the fast of

with the murder of Gedaliah.

the
fifth

And

month, so too

it

is

clearly stated that the fast

44

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

month had been
instituted ah'eady seventy

of the seventh

years before, at the time of the destruction of the temple,

or rather of the murder of Gedaliah.
is

But though there

every reason to believe that the murder of Gedaliah

actually occurred on the third

it is

day of the seventh month,

nevertheless difficult to understand

to be celebrated immediately

why

it

should have
fast.

come

by a general

The

story in Jer. 41 nowhere implies that the effects of the

murder were far-reaching or partook

tion of the temple, but
his

in

any way of the

nature of a great national calamity, similar to the destruc-

merely explains
in

why Jeremiah and

Nor
did

companions sought refuge

Egypt.

the

murder apparently have the

quent fortunes of
Israel.

slightest effect

upon the subsereason

And

since

we have had

to infer that the fast on the ninth of

origin,

Ab

was of ancient

and only

artificially

associated with the destruction

justified in inferring that

of the temple, so too

we may be

the fast on the third

directly,
fast

day

of the seventh month, in Zechariah

and

in

our Mishnah indirectly, correlated with the

origin,

on the ninth of Ab, was likewise of ancient

in

and

only

the course of time

came
can

to be regarded as

com-

memorative of the murder of Gedaliah.

Luckily
this

hypothesis

be

fully

corroborated.

Jer. 41 gives a detailed

account of the murder of Gedaliah

and the attendant circumstances.

the singular detail
is
it

Among

other things,

chronicled that on the day after the

murder, but before

eighty

had yet become known to any one,

Shiloh,

men came from Shechem,

and Samaria, with

beards shaven, garments rent and having

their bodies, bringing a

made

incisions in

vnnhah and incense

to the house

of
to

God.

Ishmacl

b.

Nethaniah, the murderer, goes out

meet them, weeping, and decoys them into Mizpah,

ANCIENT AGRICULTURAL FESTIVALS

where he murders them
too.

MORGENSTERN
all

45

All the details of this strange

scene cannot be easily explained, above

should go out weeping to meet these men, and

why Ishmacl why he

should decoy them into the city only to murder them.

But

this

much
in

is

certain, that the

if

men

are clearly repre-

sented as
it

deep mourning, as

for

some one
is

dead.
it

Yet

cannot have been Gedaliah, for not only

expressly

stated that this was

known

to

no one as

yet, but also

they
to

are decoyed into the city

by the

invitation

to

come

Gedaliah.

That they are bringing up a minhaJi

i.e.

to the

house of God,
at

apparently to the ruins of the temple

Jerusalem

(cp.

Duhm, 317;

Cornill, 416),

would point
and the

to the celebration of the

hag or

Succot-festival

bringing of a grain-offering, probably a

to the central sanctuary.
rite

first-fruit sacrifice,

In fact Cornill says that this

would have to be regarded as a part of the Succot celebration, were it not that the latter fell later in the
month, from the
fifteenth to the

twenty-second.

Appa-

rently he has, along with other commentators, lost sio-ht

of the fact that the Succot-festival was celebrated at this

date only

in

the post-exilic period, after the adoption of the

Priestly Code, and, as

we have already

established, before

murder of Gedaliah, must have been celebrated from the third to the ninth of the seventh month. Therefore just the piece of evidence that
the exile,
i.e.

at the time of the

missed leads to the conclusion that we have to do here with the account of a pre-exilic celebration of the
Cornill

and that the pilgrimage of the eighty men to the house of God, bringing their vwihah with them,
Succot
festival,

as well as the

accompanying

rites

of mourning, were

all

regular details of the pre-exilic celebration of the festival.

It

has been suggested that the mourning of the men, so

46

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

graphically portrayed, was because of the destruction of

the temple, barely two months before (Stade, Geschichte

des Volkes Israel,
groundless.
I,

698).

But

this hypothesis

is

altogether

Certainly the text implies that these rites of

mourning, especially the shaving of the beards and the

incisions in the bodies,
before, but were
still

had not been performed two months

and recent
as to merit remark.

so fresh
is

The

clear implication

that these incisions had just been

made, presumably the day before,

out on the pilgrimage to the

moment sanctuary. As
at the

of starting
Jer.
16.

implies, just these were the characteristic rites of

for the dead.

mourning
16.
i

And
27
f.

on the other hand both Deut.

and Lev.

19.

and
rites

21,

definitely as

and positively
abominations,

prohibit just

these

of

mourning

presumably because they partook of the nature of heathen

rites,

which both the Deuteronomic and Holiness codes

It
is

sought to abrogate.

certain, therefore, that

these

were no

rites

of mourning for the destruction of the temple,

rites

almost two months before, but that they were regular

of

mourning with which the celebration of the Succotmust have always begun.

festival in this early period

And
hypo-

as

rites of

mourning necessarily and

invariably imply

fasting,

we have here
that

positive confirmation of our

thesis

the

third

day of the

seventh
fast

month was

celebrated

from early times as a

if

mourning, as

for

day and day of some one dead, marking the beginning

of the seven days of the Succot-festival, which culminated

in

the

New

Year's

Day on

the tenth of the month, with

the dances of the maidens in the vineyards.

That these dances of the maidens

in

the vineyards were

a regular and integral part of the celebration of the hag,

and particularly of the Succot-festival

in

the

prc-exilic

ANCIENT AGRICULTURAL FESTIVALS

period,
is

MORGENSTERN

47

clear also from the beautiful picture in Jer. 31.

4-6, 12, of the maidens of Israel, adorned with timbrels,

going forth to the dances of the merry-makers, apparently

at a time closely related to the sacred pilgrimage to

Zion

and the beginning of the planting season.

At

least this

much

is

certain, that this picture

is

based upon the

cele-

bration of just such dances as those of the maidens

of

Jerusalem and Shiloh in connexion with the celebration

of the annual hag.

We

have thus, we believe, established the existence

in

pre-exilic Israel of

two

festivals of ancient origin, and,

rites,

by
was

the very nature of their

especially the dances in the

vineyards, of agricultural significance.^

Each

festival

of seven days' duration, beginning with a period of fasting

and mourning, as

if

for

some one dead, continuing then

first-fruits,

with the sacred pilgrimage and bringing of

in

later times to the central sanctuary at Jerusalem, but in

earlier times certainly to the local shrines,

and culminating

on the

last

day with the actual hag, or sacred dance, of

in the in

which the dances of the maidens

probably a gradual evolution.

vineyards were
these seven-day

That

agricultural festivals the sacred dance or

hag was celebrated

regularly on the last day, or perhaps in

some form

or other,

on the

last

night (cp. Isa. 30. 29),

13. 6,

may

be safely inferred

from Exod.
^

according to which the actual hag of the

III,

Certainly Graetz's hypothesis {Geschichte der Juden^,

141

f.)

that
ot

these dances

were

instituted

by the Pharisees during the happy reign

Sadducees
is

Salome Alexandra (79-69

groundless.

B.C.) in opposition to the

altogether

Ceremonies

like these are seldom, if ever, introduced artificially;

they can be the result only of the evolution of ancient folk beliefs and
practices.

Graetz has, moreover, completely ignored the fact that these

dances were held on the tenth day of the seventh month, as well as on
the fifteenth of Ab.

Certainly Pharisaic rigorism would not have coun-

tenanced these dances on

Yom

Kippur.

48

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW The one

Mazzot-festival took place on the seventh day.

festival

was celebrated from the ninth

to the fifteenth of

Ab
of

the other, the pre-exilic Succot, from the third to the

ninth of the seventh month, with the additional celebration

New

Year's

Day on

the following day, the tenth of the

month.
In the ritual legislation of the Priestly Code,

which

regulated the religious calendar in the period after Ezra,

the festival in

Ab

found no place.

The

fast

on the ninth,

however, continued to be celebrated traditionally in com-

memoration of the destruction of the temple, and

later in

commemoration
and the
fail

of the destruction of the second temple

still

of Bethar, while

later Messianic tradition

made
II,

it

the birthday of the Messiah (Talmud Jer. Berakot

45

a,

where the story

is

told that on the very

same day

that the temple was destroyed

the Messiah was born).

in the vine-

And
yards

the dances of the maidens of Jerusalem

survived
of

for

time,

probably

until

within

the

recollection

Rabban

Simeon b. Gamaliel, as a pretty

folk custom.

On

the other hand the festival of the seventh

in the

month, while retained, was completely recast

ritual.
first

new
the

New

Year's

Day was

logically transferred to the

day of the seventh month.

The

tenth was

made

day

of the celebration of the great penitential and expiatory

ceremonies of Atonement,'^ while the Succot-festival was

' There cannot be the least doubt that the institution of the Day of Atonement with its peculiar purpose and ceremonies, particularly that of the goat of Azazel, upon the pre-exilic New Year's Day was no mere chance or arbitrary arrangement of the priestly codicists, but was so fixed

for very definite

and positive reasons.

The ceremony with

the goat of

Azazel was unquestionably the survival of some ancient ceremony (^perhaps

a local Jerusalem ceremony, since the goat seems to have been cast down the rocks in historical times at Beth Hadudo not far from Jerusalem

(Mishnah

Yoma

VI,

8.

The

place

is

elsewhere called Beth Hadure and

ANCIENT AGRICULTURAL FESTIV'ALS

transferred from
its

MORGENSTERN

49

original date to the fifteenth-twenty-

second of the month, probably to conform to the date

Beth Horon
supposed
in
:

Jastrow 332

f.).

Now

the

purification

of the sins of an
the
sins

entire people, often

by means of scapegoats upon which

abode of
evil spirits, is a

are

to be laden bodily,

and which are then driven away

to perish
It is

some desert

place, the

common

practice.

usually practised once a year, and generally on

New Year's Day

fcp. Frazer,

The Golden Bough^,

165, 197, 202
f.,

vol.

VIII
a

The Scapegoat, 127-30, 133, 145 50, 155,

far-fetched hypothesis that, in
to

209).

It is

by no means

addition to the other

New

Year's

Day ceremonies,

which reference has

similar

already been made, on this day rites of purification of the entire people,

or at least of the people of Jerusalem, and probably

of other local communities,

in

manner

were

practised, such as that

of the goat of
cit.).

Azazel, or other related rites similar to those described by Frazer {op.

The

little tufts

of red wool, which, as the Mishnah records

Yoma VI.

6, 8>

were

affixed to the goat,

sins of the people laden

it

upon the goat.

were merely the physical representation of the From Isa. i. 18, and probably with
sins

Ps. 51. 9,

we may

safely infer that

were commonly represented

This

as being red in colour, and the corresponding state of purity white.

too explains the symbolism of the tuft of red wool which, according to

R. Ishmael (Mish.

Yoma
It

VI, 8),

was

affixed to the

door of the temple, and

turned white at the very moment

of

when

the goat

was

cast

down

the

clifis

Beth Hadudo.

would lead

too far afield to enter into a detailed

discussion of the symbolism of the red

colour that plays so prominent

a role in various Biblical purification ceremonies, as, for example, the red
heifer

(Num.

19^, the

cedar

wood

(probably chosen because of

is

its

red colour,

the scarlet thread, and the hyssop [there

no evidence

that the

hyssop

was red

in colour.
'

If its identification

with the Origanum Maru, L. (cp.

Immanuel LOw,
no- 93) PP- 134

Der

biblische 'ezob

'

{Sitziingsber. d. kais.
;

Akad.

d.

Wissen-

schaften in Wien,
ff-)

CLXI

(1909), 3, p. 15
it

also

Aramdische PJlanzennamen,
to

be correct,

would seem

have white flowers.

At

the same time, the plant

of reddish colour, or

itself,

exclusive of the flowers,

may have been

may have been

selected for these purification cere;

some other reason. According to the Zohar ^I, 220a II, 41 a. Sob; quoting L6w, Dcr biblische 'esob, 11) it was efTective in the expulsion of evil spirits. Dalman tells us {Zeiischn/t des deutschen Paldstinave reins,
monies
for

1912, 124

f.)

that the Samaritans use a

in their

bunch of the common

that
it

sa'atar, or

Origanum Maru,
biblical

Passover

rites,

and hold
placed

is

identical with the

hyssop.

They believe

that this plant possesses a certain mysterious,

it

supernatural power, in that a bunch of

in

blood prevents the latter

from congealing.

Not impossiblj*

this traditional association of the

hyssop

VOL.

VIII.

50

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

full

of Passover, six months earlier, from the

moon

of the

month

on.

But whereas

in

the pre-exilic period Succot

had actually been a

festival of

only seven days' duration

with the following day, however, the supplementary

Year's Day, in the post-exilic
a seven-day
festival,
ritual,

New

while

still

nominally

there was also intimately associated

with

it

the celebration of the eighth day, Shemini Azeret,

a day of particular sanctity and taboo, the real significance

of which, even in the Bible, seems shrouded in uncertainty.

Yet

after

our previous exposition there cannot be the

it

slightest

doubt that

is

nothing but the outcome of the

cele-

realization that there

had been eight actual days of

bration in connexion with the pre-exilic Succot, of which

the eighth day was important in

itself

and bore only a

rather loose connexion with the rest of the festival.

it

Thus

happens that Shemini Azeret appears

as a day, the celebration of

in

the Priestly
to,

Code

which

is

supplementary
of,

yet at the same time somewhat independent

the actual

celebration of the seven days of the Succot-festival proper.

with blood
in

may account

for its

use

in

the various purification ceremonies

in the

which, as a rule, blood plays the leading role],

ceremonies of the
f.,

red heifer, and the purification of a leper (Lev. 14. 6

51

ff.).

It

may,

however, be noted

in passing that in
(cp.

Babylonian purification ceremonies

'

cedar wood was used extensively

Religion'

my

Doctrine of Sin

in the

Babylonian

seems

to

(MVAG., 1905, 3, have worn dark-red garments

151^), while, at least occasionally, the priest

{ibid.

145).

Similarly, too,

among

the Beduin to-day a child

about to be

circumcised, certainly a critical

moment when danger from

evil spirits is to
III, 222).

be feared,
to

is

clad in a red

garment (Musil, Arabia Petraea,

Red seems

have been the

(avouriie colour of evil plague spirits (cp. Gollancz, The

Book of Protection,

XXXIII and
Rcligionswiss.,

LIl

Musil, op.

cit.,

328

v.

Duhn, 'Rot und Tot', Archivf.

IX

(1906), 22 f.\

In various parts of the world the colour

cit.,

red plays a prominent part in purification ceremonies ^Frazer, op.

146,

190 92, 205, 208, 209. 213).

for the

This hypothesis would account completely

religious

fixing

in

the

new

calendar of

Yom

Kippur upon the

pre exilic

New

Year's Day.

ANCIENT AGRICULTURAL FESTIVALS

MORGENSTERN
for

51

The
festivals

question

still

remains, in whose honour were these

especially,

originally celebrated, and,

rites

whom

were the

of mourning, that
is

marked

their beginning,

performed?

It

to-day a generally accepted fact that

the biblical agricultural festivals were of Canaanite origin,

and merely adopted by

an agricultural
agricultural
life

Israel

when they began

to follow

in

the conquered land.

The
in

ancient

religious

practices continued to be observed,

with comparatively slight modification, at least

religion,

the folk
rites

down

to the exile itself.

Against just these

and practices the prophets protested and the Deuteronomic

and Holiness codes

legislated,

but practically

in vain.

It

needed the complete cutting

off of the people from, their

it,

ancient land and the gods from of old associated with

and the complete recasting of the

religion

and

ritual

in

a foreign land, to permit of a fairly, though

absolutely,

by no means
Canaanite

complete

eradication

of

the

old

agricultural rites from the religious practice of the people.

Before the exile the old agricultural festivals were celebrated

from year to year

of the ancient

in

form but slightly modified from that

Canaanite days.

But since these

in

festivals

must have primarily been celebrated

honour of the old

in

Canaanite gods, we cannot help seeing

fasting
their

these rites of
that

and mourning as

if

for

some one dead,

marked
for

beginning,^ survivals

of the ancient

mourning
in

Adonis, the Canaanite god of vegetation, cut off

flower of his youth, and thus
*

the
the
to

mourned
Jews

as

dead

at
is

That the Canaanite Mazzot-festival likewise began with fasting

be

inferred from the present custom of pious

that the first-born sons fast

on the fourteenth of Nisan JOrah Hayyim 470)

in preparation for the Passover.

Furthermore, that the hag, or sacred dance, of the Mazzot-festival was

celebrated on the seventh or last day of the festival
is,

as said above, to

be inferred from Exod. 13.

6.

52

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

all
life.

beginning of
again to

these festivals, and yet believed to rise

new

In accord with this belief the

rites

of

these festivals rapidly changed from fasting and mourning

to
rejoicing

and merry-making,
in

often,

if

not

generally,

culminating

scenes of gross licence, of which the dances

in

of the maidens

the vineyards, while the

young men stood

by and

selected their wives, were merely a mild survival.

This unquestionably correct explanation of the origin and

significance of the
rites,

both of the fasting and mourning

that began these festivals, and of the dances that formed

their culmination, rounds out, as
it

were, and completes our

chain of argument.

Perhaps

final proof, if

such be needed,

may

be found

in

the fact that the fifteenth of

Ab

has continued to be cele-

brated

in

the Greek and Maronite Churches of Syria as the

of the

Festival

Repose or

Assumption of the Virgin.

Referring to this day 'the Syrian text of TJie Departure

Of

My

apostles

Lady Mary From This World says, " And the ordered that there should be a commemoration of

the blessed one on the thirteenth of

Ab

(another manuscript

reads [more correctly] the fifteenth of Ab), on account of

the vines bearing

of the trees bearing
of wrath,

bunches
fruit,

(of grapes),

and on account

that clouds of hail, bearing stones

trees

might not come, and the

be broken, and
".'
'

their fruits,
larly in the

and the vines with their clusters

Simi-

Arabic text of the apocryphal work

Blessed Virgin Mary, which
is

On The

Passing

Of The

attributed

to the Ai)Ostlc John, there occurs the following passage: "

Also a

festival in her

honour was
is

instituted

on the

fifteenth

day of the month Ab, which

this world, the

the day of her passing from

day on which the miracles were performed,

fruits

and the time when the

of the trees arc ripening.'

ANCIENT AGRICULTURAL FESTIVALS

'

MORGENSTERN
Ab)

53

Further, in the calendar of the Syrian Church the fifteenth

is

of August (undoubtedly meaning the fifteenth of

repeatedly designated as the festival of the Mother of

God

"for the vines''.'^

Eliss likewise informs

festival
is

us that in the

Greek Church the

fast,

preceded by a fourteen-days'

while the Maronites observe a fast of eight days.

this fast

During

meat, eggs, cheese, and milk are strictly

forbidden {TJie Religions of

Modern Syria and

Palestine,

156

f,).

Likewise, he says, 'on this day (the fifteenth of

quite as

Ab) huge crowds, bent

much on merry-making
{op. cit.,

as on worship, flock to the convent of the Virgin'

169).

Frazer has correctly surmised that

this

festival

represents

merely a christianized survival of an ancient

heathen
that
it

festival.

And

the evidence here presented shows

festival, calculated
it

must have been an agricultural

fertility

to promote the

of the trees and vines, that

fasting,

must

have begun with a period of

and presumably of

mourning
fifteenth of

for

the

dying deity, and culminated on the

Ab

in a period of

merry-making and pilgrimage.

festival

This reminds us directly of our pre-exilic

ninth to the fifteenth of Ab.
of the Virgin
festivals

from the

But

its

picture of the passing

reminds us equally of the customary Adonis

as described

by Lucian {De Dea Syra,

6),

and

others,

and even more particularly suggests a connexion

with the ancient Babylonian Saccaea-festival, also celebrated in honour of Ishtar, the virgin-goddess, in the same

month Ab, presumably

the realm of the dead,

at the time

when she was thought

'

to depart into the nether-world, the

in

land of no return

',

search of her dead lover,

the Babylonian Adonis (cp. Baudissin,

'
I

Tammuz, Adonis nnd Esinnn,

I,

have quoted directly from Frazer,

the Evolution

Tlic
f.,

GoUcii Boitgh^, vol.

The

Magic Art and

of Kings, 14

since the

works

cited

were

inaccessible to me.

54

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

;

97-108

Eraser, TJie Golden Bongh^, vol. VIII,

ff')-

The Scapeat all far-

goat^ 354

Perhaps, too,

it

would not be

fetched to find here a striking parallelism with the annual

four-day festival by which the maidens of Israel, or probably

originally,

of Gilead,

commemorated

the passing of the

rites similar
as, in

virgin daughter of Jephtha,

to those with

undoubtedly with
is

which she herself

represented

com-

pany with her maidens, bewailing her

mountain tops of Gilead upon which,
she had

virginity

upon the

as the text strangely

11. 36-40).

enough puts
It requires

it,

descended (Judges

no great stretch of the imagination to picture

the dances of the maidens of Gilead in connexion with the

annual hag
celebrated

in that part of
in

the country.

Whether

this

was

Ab, or
at
f.),

in

the seventh, or even in the eighth

in

monthj as was
(i

one time actually the case

Israel

Kings

12.

32

and what

may have been the real

his daughter's

import

of the two months represented as elapsing between the

moment when Jephtha announces

doom, and the

impending

fulfilment of this, cannot be determined.

Into a further discussion of the attendant features of

these festivals, the dances of the maidens in the vineyards,
the presence of the

young men seeking wives

in the

ranks

of the dancers, the white garments, borrowed and dipped

in

water, the use of the leaves and branches of the four

trees (Lev. 23. 40;

Neh.

8.

15-17), almo.st the only detail

of the pre-exilic celebration of the Succot- festival preser\'ed

in

biblical

legislation,

and undoubtedly a survival of the

enter here.

old Adonis rites,

it

we cannot

As

said

before,

would lead into a detailed and lengthy consideration

of

some of the fundamental

principles

and practices of

primitive Semitic religion.

this for treatment elsewhere.

Wc

must accordingl}' reserve

TENTATIVE LIST OF EXTANT MANUSCRIPTS OF RASHIS TALMUDICAL COMMENTARIES

Bv
D. S.
a

Bloxdheim, University
I

of Illinois.

For
by the
French

number of years

have been engaged

in

com-

pleting and preparing for publication the materials gathered

late

Arsene Darmesteter
{leaziin)

for

an
in

edition

of the

glosses

contained

the

Talmudical
I

commentaries of Rashi.
deavoured
to locate
all

For

this

purpose

have enof
these
results

extant

manuscripts

commentaries.
so far reached.

The
It is

following

list

embodies the

published with the object of eliciting

further information from scholars

who may know

all

of other

manuscripts.

The

list

includes manuscripts of

the commentaries
It

ascribed to Rashi, whether correctly or not.

does not
to
list

include Genizah fragments.

No

attempt

is

made

manuscripts of the commentary to Alfasi attributed to

Rashi, which
of the le^azini.
is

of comparatively

little

value for the study

The
fifty- four

list

is

divided into two parts, the

first

including

manuscripts

seen

by Darmesteter

or

me,

or

excerpted for

me by
The

various copyists, the second enumerating

exist,

seven manuscripts known or believed to

inaccessible.
cities in
in

but hitherto

which the different manuscripts

alphabetical order.
library
I

are found are arranged

In listing

the manuscripts

in

a given

generally preserve

55

56

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Darmesteter's arrangement.
in

He

placed the manuscripts

the order of the Talmudical treatises upon which they

bear.

For assistance
to

in

drawing up the

list

am
of

indebted

many

scholars.

Two

eminent

masters

Hebrew

bibliography, Professor Alexander

Marx and

Dr. A. Frei-

mann, have indicated the greater part of the seventeen

manuscripts excerpted that were unknown to Darmesteter.

Among

others

who have

aided

me

would mention

especially Mr.

Elkan N. Adler, Professor V. Aptowitzer,

Israel Levi,

Rabbi D. Camerini, Dr. H. Ehrentreu, Professor

Mr.
J.

Mann, Dr. Felix

Schwab.

Perles, Professor

N. Porges, and

M.

Moi'se

Cambridge, England, University Library

MS.

Additional 477. 8

Rosh ha-Shanah. Baba kamma, Baba

Shebu'ot.
mesi'a.

478. 8

479. 8

PVankfort-on-the-Main, Stadtbibliothek

MS. Merzbacher 132:

Besah, Kiddushin.

133: Hullin.

Hamburg, Stadtbibliothek:
Cat. Steinschneider 171. 6^:

Baba

batra.^
:

Leipsic, Library of Professor N. Porges

MS.

(a)
(/)

Megillah, Sukkah, Gittin.

Baba

mesi'a.

Universitatsbibh'othek

MS. 1105
'

(Cat. Vollers)

Pesahim.
as
Raslii

is

in

MS. Steinschneider 172. 192, described reality a modern copy of the text of

ilberTr.Aboda Sara',

the Talmudical treatise 'Abodah

zarah.

RASHl S TALMUDICAL COMMENTARIES

BLONDHEIM
:

57

London, Library of Mr. Elkan X. Adler

MS. 1621
2553

Besah, Shabbat.
Besah,

Rosh ha-Shanah,

Ta'anit,

Me-

gillah,

Hagigah.

1408

Shebu'ot.
:

British

Museum

MS. Harley 5585, kamma.

Cat. Margoliouth 411

Baba

Additional

27196,

Cat. Marg.

413:

I^aba

kamma, Baba

mesi'a.
:

Oriental 73, Cat. Marg. 412

Baba

mesi'a.

2891, Cat. Marg. 410: Kiddushin.

5975,

Cat.

Marg.

409

Berakot,

Shabbat.

Munich, Hofbibliothek
Cod.
hebraicus

216

Shabbat, 'Erubin,

Pesahim,

Sukkah, Besah, Rosh ha-Shanah, Hagigah,

Ta'anit,

Mo'ed katan.^
'Erubin,

Oxford, Bodleian Library

MS. Opp.

add. 4to 23, Cat. Xeubauer 420

Besah.

Laud
Opp. Opp.

,,

318, Cat. Neub. 419 Yoma. Opp. 248, Cat. Neub. 367 Yebamot, Kiddushin.
: :

97, Cat. 38, Cat.

Neub. 421

Ketubbot.
Gittin.
after Rabbinovicz's

Neub. 368
vol.

In the

Dikduke Soferim,
,

XVI
is

(edited

death

by Dr. H. Ehrentreu
of Hullin
(ff.

p.

43

v,

there

mentioned a fragmentary manuscript

This manuscript seems to

42b-63)

in the
is

Munich Library.

have been
of the

lost.

This loss

not very serious, however, as the readings

more

interesting le'aeint are given in the Dikduke Soferitn.

I

The
have

trustworthiness of the readings ma^' be inferred from the fact that

verified a
Soferitn,

number

of citations from olher texts in this volume of the Dikduke

in

and found them extremely accurate,

sharp contrast to citations

in previous volumes.

58

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

MS. 0pp.

J,

3H7, Cat. Neub. 429-:

:

Baba

niesi'a.

Opp. 249, Cat Neub. 369 Baba batia. Opp. 726, Cat. Neub. 370*: 'Arakin."

Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale

MS.

fonds hebreu 323:

Yebamot

(ff.

1-95

b).

324: Shabbat, 'Erubin.

325: Zebahim.

Paima, Biblioteca Palatina.

MS,

2087, Rossi 1324: Shabbat.

25^9>

RASHI S TALMUDICAL COMMENTARIES

Vatican Library
:

BLONDHEIM
(Per.
(Per.

59

MS. Vaticano Ebraico 127;

Shabbat
(Per.
(Per.
I).

'Erubin
Gittin

I -II)

I-II)

I-II)

Niddah

MS. Vaticano Ebraico 129: Shabbat (Per. Baba mesi'a. 131

:

I-II).

132: Baba kamma. 135: Gittin.

138
:

Shabbat.
Hullin.
Gittin, Shebu*ot.

139

140
157

Baba kamma.
Kiddushin.
(ff.

158

487: Menahot
Turin
:

49a-93b).'^

Biblioteca Nazionale

MS. Fondo

Ebraico, A, v, 29

Menahot,

Bekorot,

Keritot, Me'ilah.

A,

i\',

38

Kiddushin, Ketubbot,
Gittin.

A,

vi,

47

Bekorot,

Temurah.
(Per.

Menahot
III).

IV,

,,

A,

ii,

Yoma,

Megillah, Hagi-

gah, Sukkah, Besah,

Rosh ha-Shanah."

MS. Vaticano Ebraico

to

i6o,

a commentarj' on Ketubbot. ascribed by

Assemani
Ghayyath.
introduced.

Rashi,

is

an abridged version of Rashi's commentarj-, with

excerpts from other authorities, such as Maimonides, R. Tam, R. Isaac ibn

The French glosses are omitted, and Arabic glosses occasionalljThe library of the University of Illinois possesses a complete
to a letter of
all

photograph of this manuscript.

''

According

Signer A. Pesenti, librarian of the Turin Library,

dated June 22, 1914,

four of the valuable manuscripts just enumerated

6o

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The
sible.

following manuscripts have hitherto been inaccesIt will

all

probably be possible to secure extracts from

still

some or

of them, in case they are

in existence.

Ancona:

MS.

Nazir

(cp.

Babylonian Talmud, ed.

p. 6).

Romm,

Aharit Dabar.

Bielitz {oliin)^ Library of S. J.

Halberstamm

MS.: Nazir

[cp. Weiss,

Rashi (Vienna,

i(S82], p. 70),
:

Jerusalem, Library of Rabbi Isaac M.

Badhab

MS.

Bekorot

(fif.

45 to end

Xo. 190, Cat. Pardes han, d.]).

Torah iveha-Hokviah [Jerusalem,

Konigsberg, Universitatsbibliothek

MS.

contents as yet undetermined (information from

Professor

Marx and

Dr. Perles).

Nikolsburg

MS.

Shebu

ot (letter

from Professor Aptowitzer).

Petrograd, Gunzburg Library

MS. 548 Baba kamma. MS. 594 Yebamot.

: :

(Cp.

Dikdukc Soferim, IV,

pp. 7-8).
were
completely destroyed
in

the disastrous

fire

ol"

1904.

list

the

manuscripts because the notes of Darmesteter preserve the readings of

the French glosses.

TAKKANOT 'EZRA
By Solomon Zeitlin, Dropsie
College.
ascribes to Ezra

An

ancient Baraita in the

Talmud

ten takkanot.

These, as explained by the compilers of

In fact, for
Baraita's

the Talmud, are not definitely clear to us. a long time

ascribing

many have been

to Ezra.

astonished

by the

them

Moreover, when we investigate

Rabbinic sources, we find that to the editors of the Talmud

the takkanot presented difficulties, as

some of these takkanot

in the

had been considered as already contained

However,
it

Torah.

is

evident that the sources of these takkanot

were unknown to the Rabbis,^ and also the underlying causes

As we investigate these takkanot carefully and thoroughly we realize their significance in Jewish religious The Pharisees, who, animated by the general purpose life.
and reasons.
to

harmonize religion and

life, e.

life,

brought about reforms

that

in

religious
less

g. the

laws of

Erub

made

the Sabbath

burdensome,^ also

made important

reforms in the laws

to

of clean
Israel
if

and unclean, that were extremely burdensome

literally

construed and

enforced according to the

affected

Torah.

For example, such as were suddenly

by

bodily impurity {noctis pollutio, np) or defiled by contact

with a corpse would, by

1

literal

interpretation of the Torah,

i,

B. Baba

kamma

82 a

Pal. Megillah IV,

75

a.

'
3

See Weiss, Dor Dor we-Doreschaw, II, 66. Concerning the time when Solomon introduced the device of 'erubin
see

'

(Erubin 21a and Shabbat 14 b)

Geiger

in

he-Halus,

VI, and

also

Derenbourg, Essai

sttr

rHisioire de la Palestine, p. 144.

61

62

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

city,'^

have to depart from the

their

the law being as severe in

case as in the case

It

of those

having a contagious

disease like leprosy.

in the period,

would have been impracticable

at the pinnacle

when the Jewish people were

and

of their

intellectual

material development,

that a

person merely by reason of such an occurrence should be

constrained to give up

communal
in

life

and leave the

city.

So the Sages amended the law

requirements.
disease
others),

accordance with the new

Such men as
merely

these, having

no contagious

(including those

afifected

by

noctis polhitio^

and
the

were

incapacitated

from

entering

Temple-court or the Sanctuary, but were not compelled

to keep apart from their fellow citizens and leave the city.^

Now we

will

examine the takkanot themselves, that the

This
is

Baraita ascribes to Ezra.

the

list

(i)
;

Reading
Reading

from the Scroll at Sabbath afternoon service

from
the
Scroll
;''

(2)

at

morning service on

Mondays and

Thursdays
(4)

(3)

Holding court on Mondays and Thursdays;

^"^-^

Ritual bath {tebilah) for

of

>^y3

(5)

Eating garlic on

Eve

Sabbath

(6)

Washing
;

clothes [giving

them out

to

be washed] on Thursdays
early and

(7)

That a woman should

gird

rise

bake
;

'

(8)

That a woman should

herself
their

with a belt

(9)

That pedlars should carry about

(10)

wares

in the cities;

That a woman should dress her

hair before immersion.

The

first

three,

concerning the reading from the Penta-

teuch on Sabbath afternoon, and on

<

Monday and Thursday

'

Num.

5.

Dcut. 23.

11.

Pesahim 67 and

68.

In Pal.

Megillali, ibid.^ the takkanot to

read from the Scroll during

takkanah

Minhah of Sabbath and on Monday and Thursday are reckoned as one and there is another to complete the list, viz. D'J^jn liTC
;

KD2n n'33

IT

Babli (Sanhcdrin 19a),

Dy limianD. But was a ruling

this,

we

arc informed in the

Talmud

of R. Jose in Sepphoris.


TAKKANOT 'EZRA

ZEITLIN

63

mornings, and sessions of court on

are fairly intelligible
to us.'

cerning the requirement that

Mondays and Thursdays, The fourth takkanah cona np b'^i must receive or
Gcmara
asks in

undergo

tebilah,

seems thus to have been understood by

the compilers of the Talmud, and so the

reference thereto
'

Is this

not

known from

the Torah

that one
tebilah ?'^

who

has experienced pollution should undergo

is
it

But such
in

not the real purport of the takkanaJi\

a reform in the laws of purification.
it

there

is

involved

As we have
np
For

noted above, originally

was incumbent on the

^yn to leave the camp, to undergo tebilah, and there-

after to wait until

evening (after sunset he became

clean).''

historical

evidence that such

was

at

one time the

failed

Jewish law, note what King Saul said when David

to appear at his father in-law's table:

linD N^

mpD;^" the

expressions he uses are quite consonant with the obligation

of a
city,

man

suddenly confronted with pollution to leave the

felt

and the observance of such a law might not be

as

a hardship or obstacle in such a small kingdom.

However, what was not

days of Saul was
felt

felt

to

impede progress
to

in the

by the Pharisees

be a great

hindrance in their desire to bring about agreement between

religion

and a

larger

life.

By

their
nj''::"^'

method of exegesis
n:nD (camp wherein

they explained n:nD (camp) as

the Shechinah resided)
;

therefore the law of temporary

banishment could apply only to the Sanctuary proper,

and

to the 'Azarah,
',

known

also as

^''h

n:no

'

camp

of the

Levite group

and not to the whole

pp. 22-3.
^

city.^^

^
"

See Derenbourg,
Lev. 15. 16
;

ibid.^

Deut. 23. 12.

'

Ibid.

Sam. 20. 24-6.

1^

SeeZeitlin,
;

Les dix-huit Mesures", Revue des Etudes Jiiives, LXVIII,

a
;

p.

29

Pesahim 68

Sifre, 255.

64

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Similarly in the matter of
siuiset.

For according to the

water would not have
person pure, unless the
is

Torah, mere bathing of the body

been deemed

in

sufficient to render a

sun had set on him thereafter, and he

called
if

by the
he had

Talmud av^no.

The Sages

then ordained that,

taken the prescribed bath, he was ipso facto pure, and relieved
of the necessity of waiting until sunset.^the

This reform
np'3t2
fp^n

Talmud
''^yn^,

ascribes to

Ezra

in

these words,
it

Nin

np

meaning

to say, that

is

sufficient for

him

to

undergo tebilah, as he need not leave the city nor concern

himself as to

when the sun

of
Dl'

will set.

The law
does not

buD, according to which tebilah alone

it

suffice,

but

is

necessary to wait

for
in

sunset,

the Pharisees

made, by their decree, apply

cases of

terumah
to

if

a priest was unclean, he would not only have

tebilah,

undergo

but be inhibited from eating terumah

is

until

night.^-""

This

one of the 'Eighteen Measures'

Hillel.^"

that were decreed

12

by Bet Shammai and Bet

:

And
HD

Sifra

Emor

4, i

^'OZ'
jn

^miym nonn3
nn.
Tosefta

''^31N D^NB' ^Nn"''

Parah
3,

DV ^^13D
^^*

TJ'yjDa

D"'b31X

6: ^3N*J TJ'VC

TJ'nnirn
8.

nonnh

dv niyno

pbini?

'\\r\'Ci

myn

ny nod''.

Sifra
'^

Shemini

See

Zeitlin, ibid.

This decree was a consequence of the Pharisees'

hostility to the priesthood, of the

which was

particularly strong in the last days

that they virtually decreed that

Second Temple, so strong indeed

almost everything disqualified terumah, and tcrnntali disqualified had to be

burnt (see

my

article,

ibid.)

and also that almost everything rendered

the priest unclean and unfit to eat terumah and kodesh, going so far as to say
that
if

any man
it

(of the

priesthood) carried any object on his shoulder,

still

though

touclied nothing unclean,

far

some

object polluted might be lying

underground as

down
some

as the

spade might dig

and

who knows
it

but

that there might be

pollution at that depth ?

consequently

would
i).

also render unclean the

man who

carried the object (see Ohalot 16.

In line, possibly, with this general principle, the^'

made

the ruling that the

TAKKANOT 'EZRA
now we
the

ZEITLIN
in

65

are able to understand the controversy between

Pharisees and

the Sadducees
Heifer.

the matter of the

as

burning of the

Red

The Sadducees, adhering

they did to the old Halakah, and basing their arguments

on the plain meaning of Scripture, said

purged
of his uncleanness?

When

is

man

After sunset.

Tebilah alone

does not render him pure.

the

As
pure,^'*

the

priest

who burns
are

Red
N^
in

Heifer
lest

must be

and

we

appre-

hensive
ninD

by accident he come under

lest

the

head of

mpD, or

his

brother priests

have touched

him,

which case the

tebilah (ablution)

would not have

the immediate effect of purging him and qualifying him

to burn the Heifer

therefore

the Sadducees considered

it

necessary to defer that burning until after sunset.

The
that,
if

Pharisees, however,

who had adopted

is

the principle

one took the prescribed bath, he

rendered pure

without waiting for the sun

to set, said the priest

may burn
Red

the Heifer before sunset, immediately after tebilah.

As

for the

pomp wherewith

the ceremony of the

Heifer was surrounded, the purpose of the Pharisees was

priests should

not eat of teruniah

until

after sunset,

apprehending that

the priest might have been contaminated by

some

object,

and maintaining,

as they did, that for eating of teruniah immersion did not sufiBce, but that setting of the sun
in the day-time.
as, after

was necessary, consequently teritmali could not be eaten This makes intelligible the first Mishnah of the Talmud,

asking from what time

we
:

are allowed to read VDw',

it

says,

when

the priests begin to eat teruniah

HVK'O

r\>2r\V2

yK'

nS

PT.p 'nt:''Xa

jnonnn ^IDX^ CDJDJ Cin^nC. The Talmud is astonished, asking why the the Mishnah does not in so many words say from the appearance of But if we say that the Sages decreed that the priests should not stars'.
'

eat tentmak until after sunset, that

clearly

is,

until nightfall, the

Mishnah very
the priests

indicates

to

us

when we can

read

the

yOl",

when

gather to eat their teruniah, which did actually serve the people as a criterion whereby, the sun having set, they might know that they could read the yOt;'.
^*

Num.

19. 5-9.

VOL.

VIII.

66

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

had won recogni-

to demonstrate in public that their view

tion.

They

actually defiled the priest

who was

to burn

the Heifer.

D^

nn\i rh'li^

JT'ai

pool was there in which

he could immerse his whole body, after which he might

burn the Heifer, without waiting

this
n^K^yj

for the
in"-

sun to

set

all

the

Pharisees

did,

'aniyo3

DnoiN

i6'y D^ii^fn

"isia

nn\n voy^'" 'so that the

it

Sadducees should not have

occasion to say that

had

to be

done

at sunset

'.

This

is

the reason
the

underlying the difference between

the Pharisees and

Sadducees

in

the matter of the

!?"i3U,

burning of the Red Heifer, namely, the principle of DV

and

not, as

is

generally believed, that the Sadducees were

in

more exacting

the matter of the purity of the priest

less exacting,

who
less

burned the Heifer, and the Pharisees

scrupulous.

The

fifth

takkanaJi

is

'

to eat

garlic on

the eve of
is

the Sabbath'.

The Talmud's

explanation, that garlic

is

a nans d*c, induces love, and that Friday night

njiy |0T,

the

makes

thereof a strange, grotesque takkanah. and

long ago
ascribe
it

many

expressed surprise that a Baraita should

to Ezra, particularly as the

making Sabbath eve

in

the

nJiy JCT is

one of the most recent things

in

the Talmud.^'"'
njiy,

This takkanah has,

my

opinion, no connexion with

in

but was really a great and significant reform

the develop-

ment

of the laws of clean

and unclean.

Originally, they

did not permit the eating of garlic, because before plucking

it

from the ground they moistened

it

with water,^^ and by

it

this
^''

pouring of water upon

Parah
3. 7
;

it

they rendered
i"

susceptible
b.

'I'osefta, ibid.

Kctubot 62

"
jniN

Toscfla Makshirin

pySp ID
in

"insi

U\^ IDIX N^:*!? \2 NDcij^n D*D3 vhv pWltSt;' ^:D0. They evidently were in
3.

NOD 03
it

fjyS

the habit of pouring water upon

before plucking, as

it

was so sharp as

to

produce tears

those

who

ate

it.

TAKKANOT 'EZRA
of

ZEITLIN
1 1

67

becoming unclean. For

y*^^

in

Leviticus

3H the expression
earlier

occurs

^y C^D

\r\\

"21.

However, the
is

Sages so

revised the

Law, that seed

rendered susceptible of re-

ceiving impurity through the pouring of water thereon, only

when detached, not when attached (by

(Sifra

nature) to the soil

Shemini

11, 3);

and

this

takkanah the Talmud

ascribes to Ezra.^^

What

hitherto was obscure

now becomes
in

clear we

are able to understand a Mishnah

in
:

Yadaim 4
Dn?:ix

which brings
the Pharisees
cnxt:'

a disputation between the Sadducees and

Dnxc' D^'^Tis
12n

D^^^y 13S

n^bp Q^nv
;

D^nv
rr-nc

DD^^y

D^bp

D^:^n2^

onoiN
'

'^mr\ n^<

onn^jo
say,

nnapn

nsan

D'?2n nj:s

ns Dnnoo

The Sadducees

We

complain against you, Pharisees, because ye declare

piv:.

clean the

The

Pharisees say,

We
All

complain against

you, Sadducees, that ye declare clean the stream of water

that

comes from the cemetery.'

the commentators

who

have discussed this Mishnah, and

all

the scholars

who

have spoken about the matters of dispute between the

Pharisees and the Sadducees, have taken for granted that
implies pouring from one vessel into another,

the word

\>\i.''i

and hence they interpret the Sadducees as saying,

find
18

fault with

you,

Pharisees, because in case a

'We man
p
DS

This enables us to understand the answer the Sages gave Halafta

ben

Konia:

^XTJ"' ^2^ "linDI

N^ip

\1

XriS^'n!?

NOD

NH''

(Tosefta,

ibicl.),

equivalent to saying,

'Ye who do not

avail yourselves

of the takkanah, that seed never becomes susceptible of uncleanness through

pouring thereon of water save

to investigate, but not the great bulk of Israel

for

when detached from the soil, have occasion who abide by that takkanah
'.

them

it

is

clean and unquestionably permissible as food

Similarly

they disposed of the objection that Joshua ben Perahiah made

to

importing

wheat from Egypt, where, as no

the seed,

rain

falls,

water

is

necessarily poured upon

making

it,

according to that teacher, susceptible of uncleanness.

to

The Sages, applying was attached to the

ben Perahiah but not

Egyptian wheat the ruling concerning that which

observed that
it

soil,

might be unclean for Joshua

for the vast

body

of Israel

who

abided by the takkanah.

F a

68

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

pours a liquid from a clean vessel into a vessel that

unclean ye maintain that what
is

left in

the upper vessel

'

remains clean

',

and that the Pharisees rejoin thereto,

find fault with

We

have as much right to

you that ye declare

clean the stream of water that issues from a cemetery'.

This interpretation of the Mishnah appears to

acceptable.

me

un-

For, aside from our not being able to find

any evidence that the Sadducees ever declared unclean the water that remained in the upper vessel when psirt
thereof had been poured into an unclean vessel, and aside

from inability to see whereon they could base such a

view

according to

this interpretation, the

fit

answer that the

Pharisees give does not

in

with the question that the

Sadducees propound.
sented as asking
the water
in

The Sadducees are thus reprewhy they (the Pharisees) declare clean
when a
part has been poured
vessel,

the upper vessel

therefrom into an unclean

and the Pharisees are

represented as answering with the query,

why

they (the

Sadducees) declare clean the water that issues from the

cemetery

which

is

wholly irrelevant and bears no relation

to the original question.

The word

piV":

which almost everywhere has the con-

notation of pouring out from one vessel into another, has,

it

appears to mc. misled the commentators

it

they thought
Here,

that in this passage also

had that connotation.

however,

piV^J,

nifal of pv, refers to the status of that which

has received the water.

'

The

dispute resolves itself thus:

The Sadducees
make

say,

We

object to your declaring seed

clean in case water has been poured thereon

that ye
distinction (as far as the
is

we

mean

Law
soil

is

concerned)

between that which

is

attached to the

and that which

detached

which

is

above the ground, and claim that

TAKKANOT EZRA
in case

ZEITLIN
it is

69
attached

water
soil,

is

poured on the seed while

seed
;

to

the

that

does

not

become

susceptible of

receiving

pollution

that

only when the seed has been

removed from the ground does the pouring of water thereon

render
it

susceptible

of impurity.'

To

this,

the answer

of the Pharisees appears to be directed, and in fact proves that to have been the purport and burden of the question
for

the

rejoinder

is

virtually,

'

Do

ye not also make a

between that
is

similar distinction in the matter of defilement

which

is

attached to the ground and that which

that the stream of water,
is

detached,

when ye admit

though coming
is
^^
'

from a cemetery (than which nothing

clean, because the stream of water
is

more unclean),
soil
?

attached to the

That the eating of garlic served

as a

means of emphasizing

some
on

principle

we can
is

see from another Mishnah, also very

'

ancient.-^

He

that forswears benefit from

men who
benefit

rest

the

Sabbath'

forbidden to derive

from

Cutheans as well as Israelites, since the Cutheans,

though

they do not regard as binding the takkanot and gezerot

added by the Sages

from

(e.g. the Eriib),

do

rest

on Sabbath

in

conformity with the Torah.

'

He

that

forswears benefit

men who
that

eat garlic'

is

forbidden in case of Israelites,

and permitted
case
is

in case of

Cutheans.

The

reason in the latter

the

Cutheans adhered to the old Halakah

garlic,
it

based on Scripture, and consequently did not eat

because
before

plucking
it,

it

from

the

ground,
it,

was

customary to wet
^^

pouring water upon

and thereby
this

R. Leszynsky, Die Saddtizder,

pp. 38-43, says that plif'J in

Ursclirift.
p.

passage means "honey'.

Essai, p. 134.
20

See also Geiger,

147; Derenbourg,

Nedarim
-imoi

3.

10

D^nisn "nONI i^NIK^'a "IIDX

TO^

^TOXTI TTUH
reading.

Cmaa

'?N1"J"'a

IIDN

nVJ*

"t'^ISD

is

the

correct

See

Bet Joseph, Tur Yoreh

De'ali, 214.

70
it

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

was rendered susceptible of becoming unclean
;

and since

the

Torah makes no

distinction

between detached from and

attached to the

soil,

and the emendation of the Sages,

is

that only such seed as

detached

is
is

susceptible of receiving

defilement, but not that which

attached to the

soil,

had not been adopted by the Samaritans.

Hence, he who
garlic
in

had forsworn

benefit

from people who ate

was
vow,

regarded as not

having included Cutheans

his

since they did not eat garlic, whereas he w'as forbidden

benefit from Israelites,

of the Sages, did eat

this (fifth)

who having accepted the takkanah Now we can understand why garlic.

takkanah was considered so important as to be

ascribed to Ezra.^^

The

sixth takkanah, n3w'3 ^L"v:n3 pDarro

vn^'i:*,

evidently

permitted giving garments to the launderers on Thursdays.

This accords well with the Hillelite Halakah that allows

giving

work
it

to a Gentile three

days before the Sabbath,

though

is

probable that he
1 1 a.^-

may

not finish

it

before

Sabbath.

See Shabbat
seventh

The
up early
man.

takkafiah,

naisi ncac'O He's Nnn'j',

is

ex-

plained in the
to

Talmud

to mean, the housewife should get

bake

in order to give

of her bread to the poor

According to
relation

my

opinion, this takkanah also bore

in

some

to

Sabbath observance, particularly as

is

the Palestinian Talmud, the reading

ninn'J*
;

'aiya

ns

pais* ViT"J'

that

is,

this regulation

had

for its purpose, that

on

Fridays baking should be begun

in

time for a crust to be

'^

In ordaining that garlic be eaten

on Sabbath eve the Sages appear

8. 6),

to

have availed themselves of a custom that already existed (Nedarim

it

and by sanctioning
*'

to

have given concrete expression

in

to their

views.
to

R. Zadok says that

Rabban Gamaliel's house they used

ibid.

give

clothes to the launderer three days before Sabbath, see

TAKKANOT 'EZRA ZEITLIN

formed on the bread while
and
last
it

7I

was
i).

still

day

(see

Shabbat 19

Mishnah of Shabbat
;

This takkanah emanated

school, however,
finished before

from the Hillelite school

insisted that the

the

Shammaite

work must be completely

i.

sunset (Shabbat

4-11)xnn-J',

The
regards

eighth takkanah, nron main nc\x

as

the

Talmud

designed

to
is

promote modesty
a bit obscure.

in

behaviour.

The etymology
'

of "iro

Rashi says that

Senar

'

is

a pair of trousers.

Apparently the purpose of

the takkanah was, as explained in the Talmud, to promote

modest behaviour
have been
:

the essence thereof accordingly would

in

though trousers are originally included

ipso facto forbidden to

men's
still

garments which are

since the wearing of

women,

them by women will be promotive of modesty, we commend and even recommend the new
custom.

Or

it

is

possible that the takkanah was required

by reason of
whether
with the
in

the nro being a garment of foreign origin,

(t^lij)

vogue among the Persians

or identical

i<jiva.piov (belt) in

vogue among the Greeks; howthe

ever, niy^;v,
in dress.

or

feminine delicacy, motivated

reform

The
in

ninth takkanah, nn^^ya pnino \hyr\

vn>-j', is

regarded

the

Talmud
It

as

facilitating

the sale of women's orna-

ments.

seemed better that the pedlars should carry

into all parts

their stock

of the cities rather than that

by

their

coming

into the houses jealousy of the husbands

sales be aroused, and domestic unpleasantness result so the Yerushalmi, should be negotiated on the street.-^^ In the
In case a pedlar

23

Yebamot 24 b.

is

seen leaving the house and his

right to divorce wife girding herself with a 'Senar', the husband has the Ben Sira ibid., 63b, where the Talmud quotes See her without dower.

assaying:

may

-\1'h D^b^JIDH ^311 ^yi'S

VH

D^ai.

72
in

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

connexion with the pedlars hawking their wares
is

in
"'JSa

the open, the expression

'

used

^Nlu'^

nin X' pUS

',

on account of the dignity of the daughters of Israel

they made a regulation that the citizens

and

after this

must
sell

not prevent these pedlars from freely moving about to

their wares.^*

The
effect

tenth

takkanah, n^niDI nasin na^x Nnnc', evokes

expressions of surprise in the Babylonian Talmud, to this

:

Since according to the ordinance of the Torah a

dress her hair before taking the ritual bath,
?

woman must
it

wherein does the takkanah consist

contain
?

what new element does

Had

the redactors of the Babylonian

Talmud

been aware

in this

case of the Palestinian Gemara, they

this question, for there

would not have asked

have seen nmnu^
D"*?:*^

they would
(xnry)

Dn"ip

nssin

n-k;'N

Nnn-^:^

'^\>T\r\

sin

niri'K'

'

He

(Ezra)

amended the

law, so that a

woman
'.

might dress her hair three days before her purification

The
a

reason for the takkanah was as follows

at the

When
desired

woman

close of her separation

period

to cast off her uncleanness, she had to take the prescribed

ritual

bath

at

night

^^

the

dressing of

her hair had

(originally) to
tebilaJi?'^

be on the day immediately preceding her

if

However,

her time for tcbilah

fell

on Saturday

night or on a

Sunday

night,

Sunday

itself

being

Yom

Tob,

and so she could not by reason of the sanctity of Sabbath

or of
''*

Yom Tob

cleanse and

comb

her hair

what

was

This

fakkaiia/i, that the citizens

should not hamper the pedlars

in their

efforts to sell their goods,

was made because these men, who had formerly entered houses, were now, out of regard for the reputation of Jewish women,
disallowed to enter houses
;

the merchants of the

cit^'

were, therefore, not

to hinder

them from exercising the privilege granted by the other takkanah

in

of going about
2'

the cities to sell their wares.

'

See Baba batra 22 a.

Yomn

6a.

Sec Niddah 67 b and 68a.

TAKKANOT 'EZRA
there for her to do
?

ZEITLIN

73
in

Then
close

the Sages ordained that

case the night for tcbilaJi of a

Niddah was

at the conclusion

of Sabbath, or at the

of the festival of Rosh-hait

Shanah that
sible

fell

on Thursday and Friday, making

impos-

for

her to cleanse and comb her hair immediately

to

previous

her tebilah,

she might
is,

instead

cleanse and

comb

her hair on Friday, that

three days before her

purification.-"

This was the takkajiah that the Talmud

ascribed to Ezra.

Now we

can fully understand

were ascribed to Ezra, inasmuch as

why just these takkanot we have seen their imporin

tance and their value in the development of the laws of

mnDi

nxcii:, the

laws of the Sabbath, and

domestic
^^

life.

As

for

the time of these takkanot, Weiss

has well
In
in

shown that they do not go back

to Ezra's day.

my
one

opinion, they were instituted neither

by one man nor

period, but were the results of the evolution of the ancient

Halakot according to the demands of the time, some of these

takkanot being very ancient, and others not quite so ancient.

The
e. g.

takkanot
the
'

in the

matter of nnnm HNDID are very ancient,

\ that

takkanot shnm

the only time that seed

is

becomes susceptible of receiving pollution

detached from the
soil.

when
is

it

is

That

it

is

very old

seen

by

what

is

stated of Joshua ben Perahiah as opposed

thereto.^"

The takkanot

or

amendments
to

in

the

laws

of

Sabbath

enabling the Jews

give

clothes to the launderer on

it

Thursday, and to bake bread on Friday while

are from the

was day,
^"
;

times of Bet

Hillel

and Bet Shammai

" The Babylonian Amoraim were

See Niddah,
"*

divided in opinion on this matter.

ibid.
II, p.

Dor Dor we-Doreschaw,

See Tosefta Makshirin
It
is

66.

^
'*

3. 4.

very likely that

this takkaiinh

about reading from the Scroll

74
therein

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

we can
see traces of

how
to

the ancient Halakot were

remoulded, and how the Pharisees strove to bring the religion

into consonance with Hfe,

and

amend

the Pentateuchal

law,

if

such were

life's

demands.

during the Sabbath afternoon service was instituted at the close of the period of the Second Temple, the purpose being (on Sabbaths) to restrict
to the afternoon, as the Sages preferred that the people free from work should go to the Bet-ha-Midrash to hear the exposition of the Sages and not read the Holy Scriptures, and therefore they decided that reading of
it

the Scriptures

we
and

find in a Tosefta

was permissible on Sabbath from Minhah and after. And (Shabbat 14' ^ipn nJlDn fmp pK "nJ^N-J* "-2 hv
:

this
^IN*,

we

also find in the

Talmud
:

that

it is

not allowed to read the Scriptures

JD

until the afternoon service

nbv^b^ nnJOH

K^N ^ip ^nn^a

^'-IV

pK
:

(Pal.

Shabbat 15

If the fifteenth

and also the question arose among the Amoraim of Adar falls on a Sabbath, what should be done in regard
c)
;

to reading of Megillat Esther, as

it

is

forbidden to read from the Scriptures

S. Zeitlin,
'

before Minhah
R2-J.,

fj.

Megila 74 b)

See

Les dix-huit Mesures",

LXVIIL

pp. 34-5-

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

Bv M. H. Segal,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

II

The Composition of the Book.*

6;^.

(ch. 22.)

The author
is

continues

his

narrative

in

ch. 22.
critics

There

no reason whatever to doubt, as some

do, the genuineness of 22. 3-5-

As

soon as David

openly becomes an outlaw his whole clan joins him, probably

out of fear of Saul's revenge.

But David would not expose

his aged parents to the dangers of his roving existence, and

so he entrusted them to the protection of the king of Moab.

He
also

was encouraged to do so both by the enmity which

existed between Saul and

Moab

(cf above, 49, ^y),

and

by

his

connexion with the land of

(cf.

Moab

through Ruth,
loc).

his reputed ancestress

R. Isaiah's note, ad
David's

That
all

there

was a prophet

in

company

is

not at

surprising, considering the unfriendly relations which existed

between Samuel, the head of the prophetical order

(19,

20

a),

and Saul.

Gad may have belonged

to the school of

where David had vainly sought an asylum.

is,

Ramah, The passage

ver. 5 to
tell

however, fragmentary.
at the miv?3,

It tells us

only indirectly that

David stayed

which appears from

have been outside Saul's

precisely where the

territory.

But

it

does not
lived

us

mwo
vol.

was,

how David

there, or

how Gad came

*

to him.
VI, pp. 267
fl",

Continued from

and pp. 555

ft".

75

76
64.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Many

critics
ff.

declare the account of David's visit to

of,

Nob

in ver. 9

to be independent

and contradictory

to,

the account
to E,

in 21.

2-10, and they assign the account in ch. 2

in this

and the account

chapter to

J.

But

this is

altogether incorrect.

and supplementary.
ch.

The two accounts The dependence

are interdependent

of this chapter on

21

is

evident.

Doeg

is

here introduced as a person

(cf.

already
'i3i

known
Nini is

to the reader

above

61).

The

clause

3^*J

not intended to describe the person of Doeg,

like

but only to explain his presence at the court,

explanation of his presence at
in ver. 10,

the
m"'V

Nob
is

given

in 2t. 8 a.

and nn^

in ver. 13, evidently refer

back

to 21.

f.

It is true that here the

bread

not described as sacred,

but that

is

because

it

is

immaterial to the charge of con-

spiracy brought against the priest, whether the bread was

sacred or profane.

It

is

also possible that

Doeg
to

did not

see what kind of bread the priest had given

David.

Likewise, Tm^^an

(n""^:)

nnn

in ver. 10,

and 3in

in ver. 13 are

dependent on 21.

10.

The

particular detail that the

is,

sword

was that of the

Philistine

champion

perhaps, mentioned

by Doeg,
him, as
it

in

order to

make

sure that the king will believe

might have been known that the sanctuary did

it

not harbour within

any weapons

(cf.

Exod.

20.

25).

Perhaps also Doeg intended to intensify the king's resent-

ment by the
was the
first

allusion to the

famous exploit of David, which

It is

cause of the king's jealousy and hatred.

characteristic that Saul himself says only 2"im without 'nc'bsn

(ver. 13),

being unable to recall with his

rival.

own
{<?/>.

lips the great

ctf.,

achievement of his hated

that ver. 10

Buddc
'.

226) says

'

hinkt

storend nach

As
is

a matter of

fact this clause,

with the verb at the end,

intended to be

very emphatic and impressive.

On

the other hand, ch. 22

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

gives an additional
detail

SEGAL
viz.

77

not

found

in

ch. 21,

the

inquiry of the oracle.

21. 10
It

But, as

we have

stated before

( 61),

ends rather abruptly, and seems to be fragmentary.

be that our author purposely omitted this detail

may

in ch. a I

because he knew that the reader would learn

it

from

ch. 22,

where

it

would have to be mentioned as one

in

of the chief counts

(cf.

the indictment against the priest

22. 15);

whereas

in ch. 2[,

which

tells

the story from

David's point of view, the inquiry of the oracle was of

minor importance.
his plight a

Bread and a sword were to David

vital necessity

in

more

than an inquiry of the

ch. 21, so ch. 21

oracle.

Thus, just as ch. 22 presupposes

presupposes ch. 22, which proves that both chapters are by

one and the same hand,

6 J.

viz.

by the author

of our book.

Critics hold ver. 19 to

be an interpolation modelled
interrupts

on

15. 3 b,

because the verse

the
its

connexion
is

between

ver. 18

and

ver. 20,
:

and because
this
is

statement

improbable.

One may ask

if

not the right place for

it ?

the verse, where else could the writer have placed

before ver. 18, nor far

Not

where between

vers. 20-23.

down below after ver. 23, nor anyThe argument that Doeg could
all

not have slain single-handed

of no force,

the inhabitants of

Nob

is

n^n need not mean that Doeg slew them

all

with his

own hand any more

all

than, for example, y^ in 15. 7

means that Saul slew

the Amalekites with his

own hand.

The

king's attendants
priests
;

may

have hesitated to lay their

hands on the

but this hesitation of the courtiers

would not have prevented Doeg from obtaining outside the

court plenty of assistance in his nefarious work. rence

The

occur-

of the

phraseology of

this

verse
ch.

in

15.

3 b

only

strengthens our contention that

both

15 and ch. 22

emanate from one and the same author.

Note the omission

78

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Camels were an important
(cf.

here of b^i given in 15. 3 b.

possession of the marauding Amalekites

30.

17, &c.),

but useless to the settled priests of Nob, and therefore not found
66.

among

their cattle.
23.

(ch. 23.)

1-13

is

evidently

by our author.
6,

Note
ff.,

the references in ver. 3 to 22.5; in vers.

9 b to 22. 20

and

in vers. 7

ff.

to 22.

6.

Ver.

6,

which seeks to explain

how

David came

to possess an ephod,

may
it

very well belong to

Naturally
it

the author, and need not be a gloss.

had to

precede
context

ver. 9 b,
it

but

in

order that

may

not interrupt the

is

placed at

the beginning of the paragraph.

critics

The

contention of the
is

that this verse should have

preceded ver. 2
of inquiring of
ver.

of no force.

There were other means

God besides the ephod. The inquiry in may have been made through the prophet Gad.
is,

Ver. 14

as

shown by

clause

d,

summary

of the history
in

of David during the whole period.

wilderness, namely, in the fastnesses
;

David dwelt
he dwelt
in

the

the high

land, namely, in the wilderness of Ziph.^^

Ver. 15, where

introductory

we

should point with

LXX

^^l?!

for

M.T.

^1-1, is

to vers. 16-18: David was afraid of Saul while he was in

Horshah

in

the wilderness, and Jonathan

came out

to

him

and encouraged him, and concluded a covenant with him.

We

hold that this passage belongs to our author.

Hitherto

the author has not recorded the well-known fact of the

existence of a covenant between David and Jonathan
II. 9.
(cf.

21. 7)

for,

as

we have shown above

( 52, 58),

18. 3, tions.
''

20. 10 are not the author's,

but belong to interpola-

In view of the breach between Saul and Jonathan

is

"13nD3
"iri3

obviously a

more comprehensive
region',

term

tlian

niTiTC^.

Similarly

'the mountainous

comprised a wider area than

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

revealed

SEGAL
in

79

by

22. 8

(cf.

also

20.

30

ff.),

we need not be
David
defiance

surprised that Jonathan dared to visit

of his father.
6'].

Ver. 19

is

found again

in

a shorter form in 26.

ch.

i.

Since, as

we

shall

show

later ( 72),

26 was embodied
source,

by our author
from

in his

work from an older That our verse

is

we may

conclude that he deliberately borrowed the phraseology of

ver. 19
26.
I
J

26.

i.

is

not a duplicate of

as the critics assert,

it

evident from the fact that the

story which

introduces in vers. 20-28 has nothing in

26.

common
vers.

with the story of ch.

The

narrative

of
is

19-28 seems to be the sequel of

ver. 14 above,

and

intended to illustrate the statement

in ver.

14

b.

We
in in

see
is

no reason

to

deny the passage

:

to our author.

Ver. 19 b

best interpreted as follows

region,
hill

David hides himself

our
the

now

in the fastnesses,

now

in

Horshah, now

of the Hakilah.

Had

the latter two localities been

first

intended to serve as a specification of the

(=

nnvtts)

they would no doubt have been introduced by the relative

"IB'N,

like the last clause of the verse (pD^'i^^n

is

po'^ro).

This

interpretation

further supported

by the request

of Saul

that they should return and find out the exact

spot in

which David was hiding.

If the Ziphites

had only men-

tioned one locality as David's hiding-place, and had, moreover,

added the names of other places

specify
its

in

order to describe

and

exact situation, then the whole of Saul's

22, 23

speech

in vers.

would seem both superfluous and

irrational.

68.

(ch. 24.)

In ch. 24 the author continues the story

of David's adventures.

The

critics

have denied the integrity

the

of vers. 5-8.
verses
is

unnatural.

They hold that the present order of Hence some of them propose

the

8o

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

:

following rearrangement

vers. 5 a, 7, 8 a, 5 b, 6, 8 b.

This

new order seems

at first sight plausible

{op. cit.,

enough.

But the

question arises, as H. P. Smith

217) observes,

how
its

did this complicated dislocation arise, and what was

cause

Further,

we may ask, how did the writer

divine that

David had

felt in his

heart remorse for cutting off the skirt

of Saul's mantle (ver.6), unless David had evinced this feeling

by some speech
text,
in ver. 7

or act, as

is

really the case in our present

this feeling

where he gives expression to

?

by

his speech

H. P. Smith seeks
:

to solve the difficulty in the

usual fashion of the critics

he holds the incident of the

cutting off of the skirt of Saul's mantle to be a later invention,

and proposes to cut out as an interpolation

vers.

b, 6,

and also ver. 12, which, he says, 'is as readily spared as

vers. 5 b, 6
'.

But

ver. 12

cannot be spared.
b,

For

ver. 13 a

can have sense and force only after ver. 12

where David

demonstrates his own innocence and also charges Saul

with seeking his
Saul
the
in ver.
1

life.

No
it

such charge
will

is

brought against
if

1.

Again,

not do even
;

we

delete only

first

half of ver. 12 (up to TTinn)

for

nxm

yn presupposes
is

a demonstrative proof of his innocence, such as

pro-

duced only by

ver. 12 a.
is

As
The

a matter of
It is

fact,

the present

order of the verses

not unnatural.

both rational and

true psychologically.

alleged difficulties are simply

the creation of the critics themselves.

narrative
is

The

course of the
in

as follows

Saul enters the cave,

the recesses
4).

of which David and his

is

men

lie

in

hiding (ver.

David

urged by his
1^ n^'j'yi,

men

to slay Saul
their

with his

own hand
his

{=

ver. 5).
rises

Moved by

words and by
stealthily,

own

impulse David

and approaches Saul

but his

chivalry and magnanimity are suddenly aroused, and he

shrinks from the dishonourable act of slaying his

enemy by

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

stealth.

SEGAL
is

8l

All that he can bring himself to do

5).

to cut off

the skirt of Saul's mantle (ver.

But even

this harmless

deed

arouses in his
(ver, 6).

generous heart feelings of self-reproach

and shame
of the Lord

He

returns to his

men and
'

explains

that he cannot bring himself to lay hands on the

'

Anointed

(ver. 7),

and energetically prevents them from

8).

attacking the unsuspecting king (ver.

of the skirt
story.
It
is

The

cutting off

thus seen to be an essential detail of the

also have been intended to bear a symbolic

may

significance, like the

I

rending of the mantle

in 15.

27-8;

Kings

1 1.

30-31.
is

69. All the critics agree that ver. 14

a gloss.

argue that David would not have chosen that

displaying his familiarity with the gnomic
ancients.

They moment for

wisdom of the
is

But the speech ascribed

to

David

not intended

to be regarded as a stenographic report of what David

actually said on the occasion.

Hebrew

authors may,
their

like

Thucydides and Livy, have put speeches of

composition into the mouths of their heroes.
not the narrator, desirous of impressing
a'

own

Why

should

moral lesson on

the minds of his readers, have put such a proverb into the

mouth of David?
H.
P.

And

if

this verse
in

be a gloss, how

is

one to explain the repetition

clause b of ver.

13 b?

Smith

objects that David

would not dare to

to

call

Saul

ycr"!-

But David does not mean

cites the
in

brand Saul as wicked.

its

He

proverb that

evil

brings

own punishment

"*'

only

order to explain his

own

assurance, in ver. 13

a,

and to warn Saul that a wicked act against him would

inevitably bring

upon

its

doer condign retribution.

Budde
dactional.

{op. cit.,

229) condemns also vers. 21-23 ^ ^^ ^^"

not, indeed,
in

These verses may

^*

be quite

historical,

Cf. the Rabbinic

comment

Makkot rob.

VOL.

VIII.

82

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

but there

no reason

why

the original narrator should not

have shared the general belief of his contemporaries that even at that early stage of his career David had already been
recognized
to

by Saul himself as the only legitimate successor Cf our remarks above, 25. the throne of Israel. 70. (ch. 25.) Ch. 25 stands out from among the other
its

chapters of this section by

distinctive individuality of style

detail

and
full

diction.

The narrative is rich in

and

in local colour,

of

life

and movement, and distinguished by a number

of characteristic phrases and expressions.

"i'^yo yi
;

Note
iran'-i
;

ver.

ver. 6
:

ver.
i^
-jn>

<S

3ID DV
;

ver.

12

ver. 14:

nna nyi

ver. 26

i^'c^in)

ver. 29 b.

We have, however,
;

no reason to deny the chapter to our author

rather conclude that he utilized

we should

some older

written material,

from which he derived the most characteristic portions of

his narrative.

Cf
critics

vers.

42-4 with

27. 3
i

30. 5
is

II. 3.

2-3,

13

ff.

The
28, 3.

agree that ver.

is

an interpolation

from
here
?

But what

the purpose of this interpolation

to this

Only one of them has attempted an answer

question, viz.
interpolation

Budde

(op.

czL, 231),

who
this

thinks that the

was made

in order not to let the reader lose

sight of the nation.

But why should

if

reminder of the

existence of the nation,

such reminder was necessary,

in
it

have been made exactly here, and not

any other

of the

many
was
in

chapters since ch. 18?

the

We

think

likely that there

mind of the writer some connexion between the

this verse.
It

two clauses of

seems that he meant to imply

that through Samuel's death

David enjoyed
rest

in

the wilder-

ness of
tion.

Ma'on (LXX) a period of

from Saul's persecu-

It

may

be that Samuel's death kept Saul back from

pursuing David.
priests,

Samuel's followers, the prophets and the

friendly to David,

who were

may, perhaps, have

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF

SAMUEL SEGAL

83

influence of

begun to show signs of restiveness now that the calming Samuel had been removed. For with all his

opposition to Saul,

Samuel retained

to the end of his

life

a certain personal attachment to the the throne of Israel cf. 15. 11,
;

man he had

raised to
it

35.

On

the other hand,

is

also possible that the

is

clause b of this verse

connexion between clause a and purely of a chronological character.

In any case, it is certain that the critics are wrong in regarding clause a as being derived from 28. On the 3 a. contrary, the statement seems to be original here, where
it

occupies the place of a principal affirmation in the course of the historical narrative, whereas in 28. 3 it serves, like the following clause, merely a subordinate purpose, .viz. to prepare the reader for the story of the raising of

Samuel's

by the necromancer. 71. Budde {loc. cit.) is of opinion that originally 25. 2 ff. followed immediately upon 23. 28. But the sense of security and repose which characterizes ch. 25 is out of accord
spirit

with

the trepidation and hairbreadth escapes of ch. 23.

25- 7 b,

15-16

it

is

obvious that David and his

From men had

This
in

stayed in one locality for a considerable length of time, and

had
is

freely

and openly fraternized with the

natives.

quite intelligible after the assurance given

is

by Saul

24. 17-22, but

David

is

inconsistent with 23. 19, 22, 23, where described as hiding in secret retreats and in danger

of being betrayed
7a.
(chs. 24,

by the
26.)

natives.

similarities between 24 present an interesting problem as to the origin and mutual relationship of the two chapters. The
ch.

The

striking

26 and

ch.

by their usual method of declaring the two accounts to be independent duplicates of the same
story.

critics

solve the problem

At

first

sight this solution

seems quite

plausible,

84

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

it

but a closer comparison of the two chapters proves

altogether inadequate to account for
all

to be

the facts of the

problem.

Let us examine both the

similarities

and the

differences of the

two

stories.

The main

outline of the

adventure

is

common

to both stories.

In both stories David

it,

gets Saul into his

his

power without the king's knowing

stealthily, but

and

men

seek to slay Saul

David prevents

them.

When

Saul

is

out of danger David proves to him

his innocence,

and complains of Saul's ceaseless persecuguilt.

.

tions, and Saul confesses his

There are also striking

. ,

similarities in

language
26. 2

cf

bai^''
;

nina

^'''N

CS^N

n^b^:^

nn DN 'C'pib 24. 4b; 26.

26.

in

and

24. 3
;

tC" nni in
'IDI

26. 3

b with
;

II a with 24. 7
15.

26. 17

"i^ipn

with 24. 17

20 b with 24.

On

the other hand, there are also

important differences in the general presentation of the

story and in the details.
differently

The temper
each
bitter

of the two
stories.

men
In

is

represented
is

in

of

the

24

David's

speech
;

very

and

almost
it is

vindictive

(vers. 10-16)

in 26,

on the other hand,

Again,
in
;

respectful
is
is

and

supplicatory

(vers. 18-20).

24 Saul
in

profuse,
brief

humble, and remorseful

dignified (ver. 21).

(vers.

18-22)

26 he
is

and
and

Further, the style in 24

diffuse

verbose as compared with the conciseness and terseness of

26.

There are

also

marked

differences in the details of the

in

story.

26 takes place in the wilderness of Ziph, 24 In 26

it is

the

wilderness of Engedi.

the Ziphites

who

betray

David,

in

24 the informers are unnamed.

In 26 David,
to

accompanied only by one follower, goes down

the

encampment
innocence
it

of Saul
all

in

24 Saul comes to the hiding-place

In 26 the proof of David's
pitcher

of David and
is

his band.

the

spear

and

of water
In 26
it

in

24

is

the skirt of the king's mantle.

is

Abishai

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

SEGAL
is

85

who
slay

wishes to slay the king

in

24 David

incited to

him with

his

own hand.

In 26 David

first

addresses

Abner, and the king only

after the latter

had spoken to

him

in

24 David addresses Saul straightway, and Abner 's

is

presence

entirely ignored.

Now, the

identity of the

main

outline certainly proves the original identity of the adventure.

On

the other hand, the differences in detail preclude

the assumption that the two accounts in their literary form

are both derived from a
is

common

source, or that one account

linguistic similarities

derived from the other.

Yet the

demonstrate the dependence of one account upon the other,

viz.

the dependence of ch. 24 upon ch. 26, which

stories.^"

is

no

doubt the older of the

will

The only
problem
is

solution which

satisfy all the facts of the

the following
( 68), is

The

writer of ch. 24, who, as

we remarked above
ch. 26 in
its

the author of our book,

knew

present literary

form from some old document.

But he also knew from

oral tradition a story of a similar character, which, however,

contained so

many

striking differences in detail as to lead

him
that

to believe that the

two

stories

were not

identical,

and

David and Saul

really

had

two such adventures.

Judging by our modern

criteria of historical criticism,

;

we

may

think that this belief of his was wrong

but

we have

no right to impose our modern ideas upon an ancient

writer,

and to

assert, as

the critics

seem

to do, that his

belief in the
fiable

independence of the two stories was unjustihis

and impossible from

own

point of view.

The

story

which he found

in his old

source he reproduced

in ch. 26,

but the story which he

related in his
^"

derived from oral tradition he In this latter composio/>.

own words

in ch. 24.

Cf. Thenius-Lfihr, Srt;;i?<f/,

XLV;

H.

P. Smith,

a/.,

230

Stenning,

in Hastings' Dictionary

of the Bible, vol.

IV^,

338

a.

86

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

consciously
or

tion he was,

unconsciously,

strongly
;

in-

fluenced

linguistic similarities

by the phraseology of the older story hence the between ch. 26 and ch. 24. We have

already found our author elsewhere repeating in his

own

compositions phrases

and expressions belonging to the

;

older documents which he incorporated into his narrative

cf 10. 23 b with

9.

2b

15.

19b with

14.

32 a;

16.

12 a

with 17. 42 b;

23. 19 with 26. I (see 28, 50, 67).

i

We
or

should, of course, expect 26.

'rn
)n'iti>''i,

to begin with
left

'rn

my

1N2'''i

but our author seems to have

it

the expression

as he found

in his

document
to

either through an oversight,

or because he

was unwilling

tamper with the text of the

document.
is

The assumption
will

that the author of our

book

responsible for the appearance in his narrative of both

ch.

24 and ch. 26

help to explain the resentful tone of

David's speech in 24. 10-16 as compared with the more

calm and respectful tone of his speech

his

in 26.

18-20.

In ch. 24

mind was
Saul's

still

full

of the bitter

feelings

engendered
In

by

pursuit

described just before in 23. 2j-S.

ch. 26, on the other hand,

David was
in

still

fresh

from the

enjoyment of a long repose

(ch. 25)."^
in

the wilderness of

Ma'on

These facts will also account for the difference

the bearing of Saul in ch. 24 and ch. 26.

73.

This solution of ours

is

also strongly supported

by

another consideration.
critics,

According to the analysis of the

is

23.

19-24. 23

the duplicate of ch. 26.

The

Ziphitcs thus informed against David only once, and Saul

confessed his guilt only once.

If so,

it is

incomprehensible

that after the assurance just given in 26. 21, 25, an assurance

which had never yet been broken, David suddenly despairs

^*
It is

possible that the source used by the author in his composition

of ch. 25

(cf.

above

71

was

tlic

same

as that from wiiich he derived ch. 26.

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

SEGAL
foe,

87

SO utterly of his safety that he resolves upon taking the

desperate step of going over to the hereditary

the

heathen PhiHstines,

he says himself (36.

among whom he would be forced, as But 19), to abjure his God (27. i ff.).

according to our explanation David's resolve becomes quite

clear

and

intelligible.

He had

been pursued by Saul on

three occasions, in 23. 19-28, in ch. 24, and in ch. 26.

He

had been three times betrayed by

his neighbours,
(23. 19
;

and twice
b
;

by the same people, the Ziphites

Saul's promises

24. 2

26. i).

and confessions had been proved

to

be

deceptive: the promise

made

in

Engedi

(24. 18-22) had

been broken by the subsequent pursuit into the wilderness

of Ziph (26. 2
hostile
ff.)-

Most of the natives of the Negeb were

like

and ungrateful,

Nabal

(25. 10), or treacherous

like the Ziphites.

In these circumstances, with the repeated

it

experience of danger and betrayal,

intelligible
for

is

quite natural and

safety of

David to despair of the future

and

himself, his wives,

his followers in the land

of the

Judean Negeb, and

to resolve

upon taking the extreme

step of flight into the land of the Philistines.

74. ch. 27.
(ch. 27.)

The author

continues

his

narrative

in

chapter.

Some They
1 1

critics

have questioned the integrity of the

11

hold that ver.

contradicts vers. S'^-

But
to

ver.

says only that David had to bring his spoil

Akish

at

Gath, not that David lived at Gath.

living at Gath, his duplicity

Had

David been

towards the king

would no doubt have been soon discovered either by betrayal or by an unguarded remark from his men. That David refrained
in his raids

from attacking

his

own

tribes-

men and
30.26;

their allies is

only what we should expect of him.

This consideration
cf.

for his

own people
21, 28
('n

is

also confirmed

by

also

25. 15-16,

nion^o, viz. against

88

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

allies).
;

the heathen enemies of the Judeans and their

The

confidence placed in David by Akish (ver. 12

29. 3, 6, 9),

and the ignorance of the

Philistines of the real character

of David's expeditions, prove conclusively that

at Ziklag
vers.

David

lived

and not

at Gath.

Hence

vers.

7-12 presuppose

5-6

which proves the unity of the whole chapter.

is

David's residence at Ziklag

ch. 30.

also confirmed

by

29.

4 and

This disposes of H. P. Smith's conjecture that

vers.

^-6 are an interpolation.^^

(chs. 28-31.)

75.

The

story of Saul's death in his last

war with the Philistines includes two episodes, viz. Saul's

interview with the
spirit of

Samuel

(28.

3-25) and

the

Amalekite raid on Ziklag

(ch. 30).

The

latter,

being part

of the story of David, forms undoubtedly an integral portion of our section.

Chs. 29-30 are, therefore, by the

same hand

as 28.

1-2, and as these

two verses are the

and
chs.

sequel of ch. 27,

we may

safely assign 28. 1-2

29-

30 to the author of our book.

critics are

As

regards the other episode,

agreed that

it

is

an interpolation from another

evidence.

document, but on very

insufificient

They argue that

is

the passage breaks the context, but that

episode.
different

natural to an

Again, they point out that the tone and style are

from those of the preceding and following pieces;

is

but that, too,

adequately accounted for by the profound

Finally, the critics discover

difference of the subject-matter.

a discrepancy between this piece and ch. 29. the Philistines are
at Gilboa,

Here

invcr.

encamped
in 29.
i

at

Shunem and

the Israelites

whereas

the Philistines are at

Aphek and
is
is

the Israelites at
that 28. 4-25
'" Cf. also

some

fountain in Jezrcel.

Ikit the fact

is

posterior in time to ch. 29, as

in

evident
op.
a'/.,

Kamphaiiscn

ZATIV.,

1886, pp.

90

(T.,

and Biidde,

331

f.

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

from
28. 5,

SEGAL

89

where Saul was already surveying the

Philistine

camp.

Ch. 29 describes the situation at the opening of the

Philistine hosts, while
at the eve of

campaign and the mobilization of the

28.

4 shows us the position of the two armies

cf.

the battle;
identical

28.

19

nns

in':i

Aphek
4.

(probably

with the one mentioned

in

i)

served as the
:

place of muster for the various Philistine armies

29.

does

not say that the Philistines encmnpcd at Aphek, only that

their

hosts assembled there for the

purpose of moving
first

northwards, while Jezreel was the place of the

encamp-

ment

of the Israelites.

When

the Philistines marched from

Aphek on Jezreel (29. 11 b), the Israelites, out of fear of the enemy, moved backwards to Gilboa, south-east of Jezreel. The Philistines then, for some strategical reason, moved up
farther north to

Shunem, where they pitched

on the

their

encamp-

ment

(28. 4),

and from there pushed back southwards to

heights
of Gilboa
(31.
i
;

attack the
II. I. 21).

Israelites

76.

The

nocturnal scene at

Endor must have taken place

at the
latter

time of David's fight with the Amalekites, which

occurred three days after David had
i

left
;

Aphek
b-2

(cf.

the chronological references in 30.

a,

13 b

/3

II. i. i

a),

but before 30. 36.

story of

For Endor where he

this

reason the author placed the

did^

and not

after ch. 30, as

in

Budde

has injudiciously done

in his

badly deranged text

Haupt's

Polychrome

Bible.

Besides this chronological reason, the

author also had an aesthetic reason for placing 28. 3-25

before chs. 29-30, viz. to afford the reader
chs.

some

relief in

29-30 between the depressing

effects

of the ghostly
in ch. 31.

scene at

Endor and the gory

in

battlefield of

Gilboa

Chs. 29-30 are thus treated by the author as an episode

and a break

the course of his narrative.

This explains

90

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the wording of the opening clause of ch. 31 as a subordinate

statement
viz.

Q'^rh: n'n'^b-i)

'

The

Philistines

were fighting
;

',

during the time covered by the preceding account

cf

Rashi's note

ad

loc: ptrNI pjy^

nirn:

ncixn

mX3.

On

the

other hand, the Chronicler,

who had

not previously men-

tioned anything of the Philistine war,

makes of these words

:

a principal statement, using the perfect tense

ir^n^J

'si.

This

disposes of H. P. Smith's hasty conjecture

{op. cit.,

252) that

our text

in 31. i

requires emendation in accordance with the

(i

reading of the Chronicler

Chron.

10. i).

We, therefore,

see

no

reason to

deny

28.

3-25

to the author of our book, to

whom this scene must have appeared as the final and supreme
climax
It is in

the story of his great hero, the prophet Samuel.

all

admitted by practically

critics ^^ that this

story

is

by the same hand

expressly to 15. 28.
to the author of our

as ch. 15.

In

fact, 28.

17 points back
ch. 15

But we have already assigned

book

( 50).

Hence we conclude
This view

that

this story, as well as the rest of the section comprising

chs. 28-31,

is

the work of our author.

is

sup-

ported by the use of

16. 14, 23,

in vers. 15, 16,

which reminds us of
vers. 3-4.

and by the introductory character of

is

The
vers.

latter

evidently an essential part of the story and

interpolator.

not the work of an

On

the

other

hand,

18-19 seems to have suffered expansion by a late

Ver. 18
is

hand.

rather diffuse, and clause b in ver. 19

first

is

practically a repetition of the

part of clause a.
is

Perhaps

the whole of vers. 18-19 a a (to n^nc^D)

77. (II. ch.
in II.
J
,

a later addition.
is

I.)

The

narrative of Saul's death

continued

which describes the reception of the news by David.

is

The chapter
of
i.

homogeneous, and as

it

continues the stor}-

31

it

must be assigned
*"

to the author of our book.

is

Budde

{op.

a'/.,

233)

Ihc only exception.

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

Ver. 4
is

SEGAL

91

reminiscent
I.

in

its

phraseology and
(cf.

climactic
loc).

arrangement of

4.

i6b-i7
I.

Ralbag's note ad

With

ver.

14 compare

24. 7;

26. 9, 11.

Some

critics,

however, hold that vers. 6-1 1, 13-16 belong to another

document
vers. 1-4,

that

ver. 5

is

redactional link connecting

I.

which form the continuation of

31, with the

1,

contradictory account given in the interpolation, vers. 6-1

13-16, while ver. 12

is

a later addition, because lamentation

still

and

fasting

were at the stage of that verse

asks
?

premature.
vers.

But, as H. P. Smith

{pp. cit.,

254),

where did
ask,

6-1 1, 13-16 come from

We may further
It

what was the

original continuation of ver. 4?

for

could not have been ver. 17,

as
2. is i,

we

require
;

first

some such statement

could
it

contained

in ver. ii

much
^"T'1
;

less

have been

even

if

we

omit p"nnx

for

David would certainly have paid some

heroes before proceeding to utilize

honour to the

fallen

the new situation for his

own

benefit.

Finally,
to

is

it

likely

that in this alleged original

document

which

vers.

1-4
4

belong, David accepted the truth of the tidings

in ver.

without adequate proof, and without inquiring for further

details?

The

truth

is,

that

we

obtain a logical and con-

sistent account of the affair only if

we

accept vers. 1-17 as

one continuous and homogeneous narrative.

man's general statement
for the source of his
this
is

After the

in ver. 4,

David naturally inquires

(ver.
5).

knowledge

The answer

to

given in vers. 6-10.

Convinced of the truth of the

death of Saul and Jonathan by the irrefutable evidence

supplied
his

by the man's producing

Saul's regalia,

David and

men perform

the usual rites of mourning over the fallen

heroes (vers. 11-12).

to the

Then, as part of the reparation due

manes of the

slain king,

David punishes the Amalekite

and
finally pro-

for his self-confessed

crime

(vers. 13-16),

92

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

ceeds to pronounce on the heroes the dirge of lamentation

which usually accompanied the dead to the grave

I

(cf. 3.

33

Kings
78.

13. 30, &c.).

The
our

reason

which has compelled the

is

critics

to

mutilate

chapter

the
in
i.

contradiction

between the

account of Saul's death

31

and the report of the

Amalekite.
the difficulty

The
is

easiest

way

for our critics to

overcome

by

resorting to their usual contrivance of

postulating two different documents with redactional links

and additions.

But the

fact

is,

as already noted
in vers.

by Oimhi
6-10 a
is

and Ralbag, that the Amalekite's story

a pure fabrication.
explicitly, but there

The
is

narrator does not, indeed, say so

for

no need

such an explicit state-

ment, since the

story in

lie

has just been given to the Amalekite's

the

narrator's

own account
critic,

in

i.

31.

No

one

except perhaps a modern Bible

scepticism
bility,
is

whose constitutional
gulli-

sometimes balanced by an astounding

in

would be taken

by the

tissue of falsehoods

which

the brazen-faced Amalekite sought to palm off on David.

His

lies stare

one

in

the face.

First,

he did not, as he says,

come

to Gilboa

by mere chance

(^nsnp: N"ip:,ver.6).

He came

there either as a combatant, or as a thief to strip the dead and

wounded. Secondly, he could not have managed to get right

into the thick of the battle

also

by mere chance

and

penetrate

through the chariots and horsemen, so as to

reach the

wounded
to

king.

Thirdly,

if

the king had already

been overtaken by the enemy's cavalry, he would not have

had the time

7-9).
his

engage the Amalekite

in a

conversation (vers.
all

Fourthly, Saul would not have been deserted by

own men and

fact

forced to solicit help from the Amalekite;

at least his armour-bearer

would have remained by

It
is

his side,

as

in

he

did

(I.

31. 4-5).

evident

that

the

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

SEGAL

93

Amalekite was a member of some band of robbers, who,

like vultures, usually

haunted the

battlefields

and preyed

upon the dead and wounded.

He

succeeded

in discovering
(I. 31. 8),

the body of the dead king before the Philistines

stripped him, and carried the royal insignia to David in

expectation of a rich reward.

The

narrator does not say

that David really believed the details of the Amalekite's

story,

David accepted only the truth of the general

of the Israelites, which he

state-

ment of the defeat

must have
testified

expected himself, and of the death of Saul as

the Amalekite's possession of the regalia.
believed
it

by

Perhaps he also

possible

that the

Amalekite had found Saul

his

lying mortally

wounded and had dispatched him of

other critics regard

own accord (vers. 14-16). 79. Budde {op.cit., 238) and

the Amalekite with his

4.

10 as
kills

contradictory to our account here, since there David

has him killed

that
4.

own hand, whereas here (ver. 15) he by one of his men. They think, therefore,
as
in

10

is

based upon a different document, and that

4.

originally

some such account

ver.

10 followed here

between

10 and ver.

17,

which, however, had been

in

suppressed by the redactor in favour of the account

vers. 6-16.

But surely

4.

10

is

not a complete statement

it is

of the incident.

For even assuming that

based on

a different document, that hypothetical document could not

have said what

tidings for

4.

10 says, that David slew the bearer of

no other cause than that of having brought him

the news of Saul's death.

Was

death the usual reward

?

for

bringing the tidings of the death of a king

Or was David

a bloodthirsty tyrant, to slay innocent people for his mere

pleasure
?

It is plain

that the bearer of tidings must have

been guilty of something more criminal than anything men-

94

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Rekab

tioned in 4. 10, though not so criminal as the act of

and Ba'anah.
the man, there
4.

If,

then, 4. 10

is

incomplete, and the real cause

of David's action was

is

some unnamed crime committed by

15-16, and that the real cause of the
in our narrative here.
literal

nothing to prevent us from assuming that

i.

10 refers back to

man's death was as stated

The

critics
in

have been misled by the

4. 10.

interpretation of

^I^^J1

But that expression need not mean that David

slew the

man
p""!

with his
5.

own hand, any more

built

than, for

example,
with his
as

in

means that David

above, 6^).

his fortress

own hands
4.

(cf.

Assuming, therefore,
it is

we

must, that

10 points back to our passage here,

noteworthy that
not '^

in the

outburst of his passionate indignation

njn,

David reports the words of the Amalekite as b^i^ no

and
that
J^**

''^PO

'"'^'"'.

This seems to confirm our view

believe
a.

David did

not really
in vers.

the

details

of

the

Amalekite's story

6-10

The insertion of the elegy in vers. 19-27 was probably made by the author himself, like the similar insertion of For a discussion of the the elegy on Abner in 3. 33-4.
original form of the elegy, see the writer's paper in this

Review,

vol.

V, pp. 202-8.

David and Ishbosheth.

80.
(ch. 2.)
first

The

story

of

David's
all

accession
Israel,

to

the

throne,
in chs.

of Judah, and then of

5,

contained

2->

must as a whole be assigned to the author

2.

of our book.
I.

2 refers
3.

back to
I.

I.

25.

42-3

2.

f.

to

31.

11-13

and

13

f.

to

18.

27; 25.44.

The author
also possible

may, however, have used some older material, particularly

in his

account of the fight at Gibeon.

It is

that the critics arc right in regarding the chronological notes

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

in
2.

SEGAL
13.
i.

95
It

10, II

as a later addition, similar to

critics

I.

has

been argued by the

a minor

that Ishbosheth must have been

to the throne of Israel, since

when he succeeded

he did not accompany his father to Gilboa.

But we have

no evidence that he was not present

have escaped the slaughter of
not go to the war,
it

at Gilboa.

his brothers.

He might And if he did

was perhaps due to

his lack of physical

courage rather than to his youthfulness.

with

His remonstrance

Abner

in 3.

would lead us to think that he had

already reached manhood.

Note

also his description as

pnv

'C'\s*

in 4. XI.

Nevertheless, he does not seem to have

(2. 10), i.e.

been as old as forty years on his accession

years older than David.

ten

For

in this case the difference in

age between David and Jonathan, the eldest son of Saul,

would have been rather too great to allow

for

such a

warm
inter-

and intimate friendship as existed between them.

81.

Budde

{op. cit.,

240) regards
that the

2.

14-16 as an

polation.

He

thinks

story of the twenty-four

field

champions was invented to explain the name of the

(ver.

16

b),

and that

ver. 17 originally followed

is

immediately

on
ver.

ver.

13.
ff.

But

it

difficult

to see

how

the battle in
b.

17

could have developed out of ver. 13

hosts

If the

two

rival

had deliberately come out

ijn''1,

to fight, the

narrator v/ould have said in ver. 13 b

and not

ne''!.

We

want an explanation of the immediate cause of the

hostilities.

outbreak of

For

it is

apparent from vers. 22 b

/3,

26 that Abner had entered on the fight unwillingly and

unpreparedly.

And

the ready consent of Joab to stop

the fighting (ver. 27) proves that Joab, too, did not

come
It

out originally with the set purpose of fighting a battle.

is

evident, therefore, that the outbreak of the fighting

was

unexpected and against the wish of the generals, and must

96

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

some chance incident such
as that

therefore have been due to

described in vers. 14-16, which inflamed the passions both

of the

men and of their

is

leaders.

It is,

however, possible that

there

a lacuna between ver. 16 and ver. 17.

For we expect

a statement that the fatal

play had led to a quarrel and to

in a

mutual recriminations, which resulted

pitched battle

between the

rival hosts.

Perhaps the author derived his

did,

account from an older source, which he abridged, as he

for

example,
82.

in I. ic. 7

ff.

(cf.

above, 48).
this

(ch. 3.)

Critics

have denied the integrity of

evidence.

chapter,
vers.

but

on

insufificient

They

hold that

2-5 are a
8.

late redactional insertion

removed here from

5. i3-i'5.

behind
It is

15,

whither they also propose to transfer

very magnanimous on their part to credit the ancient

writer with so

Hebrew
of

much

of their

own Germanic

sense

method and
all

orderliness as to assert that he

lists

must have

placed

these

together, but truth forces us to decline

the flattering compliment.

For

it

is

hard to see
lists

why

redactor should have transferred these

their present places.

from
is

ch. 8 to
its

The
is

fact

is

that 3. 3-5

quite in

right place here,

and

the

work of the author

the
i

of the rest

of the

chapter,

who
Dr.

intended
(ver.

list

to
Cf.,

illustrate
for

the

growing strength of David

Esther
5.

a.

example,
that
in

11

a).

H.

P. Smith conjectures

two
the

different

documents have

been

joined

together

account of the negotiations between David and Abner.

'

One

of the

two accounts made Abner send to David by

the hand of messengers; the other

made him come

future.
'

in person.

In the former document his

tion that

motive was simply the convic-

David was the man of the

The

other

gave the quarrel with Ishbaal as the occasion

{op. cit., 275).

But

it

must be doubted whether any document would

STUDIES

IK

THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

selfish traitor

SEGAL

97

have represented Abner as a

his
for

ready to betray

weak protegd Ishbosheth and the whole house of Saul

no cause whatever except
in

his

own

personal advantage.

The change
supplied
that

Abner's attitude to Ishbosheth must have

been the result of some very powerful motive, such as is by our narrative in ver. 7 ff. Again, is it likely

Abner would have been represented

him
(ver. i),

as

coming

per-

sonally to David, after the long war which he had

against
trusted

waged

without

first

obtaining through

some

messengers a guarantee against violence to his

?

person

Finally, the fact that Abner's visit to

David took

place during Joab's absence proves conclusively that this

meeting between David and Abner had been

beforehand through ambassadors.
83.
vers.

fully

arranged

Equally groundless

is

the theory of others that

It is

12-16 are an interpolation.

impossible to believe
agitation

that

Abner would have begun

his

among

the

elders in favour of

David before he had concluded a secret

'

agreement with David.

for

Why should

David send to Ishbaal

Michal when, as we learn from ver. 13, the marriage

secret alliance
is,

was to confirm the

with David
?
'

which Abner was seeking

that Paltiel

"

The answer

would not

have given up
(ver. 16),

his wife, to

whom

he was so deeply attached

except at the bidding of his king

Ishbosheth.
for

David

insisted

on the restoration of Michal as a pre-

liminary to the negotiations with Abner.

The only way^to

means was

secure her restoration without using forcible

make a formal demand to Ishbosheth (ver. 14), and for Abner to press his weak master to accede to the demand of his powerful rival. The procedure must
David
to

have

been

arranged
*^

secretly

through the
ibid., p.

ambassadors

S. A.

Cook, AJSL.,

149.

VOL.

VIII.

98

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

and Abner.

between David
Michal as
far as

That Abner accompanied

i6b)
is

Bahurim

(ver.

only what we would

expect, considering the rank of Michal and his

to secure the satisfaction of David's
arrival of

own anxiety
Perhaps the
of Abner

demand.

Michal at Hebron coincided with the

in ver. 20.
is

visit

to

David described

If so, vers.

17-19 a would be
Further,

anterior to ver. 16, but this

not likely.

we need

not be surprised that the

Michal's arrival at Hebron.
is
I.

narrator

omitted to describe

For the whole Michal episode

sake, but only as a sequel to

given here not for

18.
6.

its

own

27;
16
ff.

19.

11-17;

25.44, and as an introduction to

n.

84.

The

critics also declare ver.

30 to be an interpolation,

without, however, giving a valid reason for this view.

verse

The

may

very well be by the hand of our author, and be

intended as a

summary of the narrative, after the usual fashion

For

of Biblical writers, and also to explain that the murder was

an act of blood revenge on behalf of the whole family.

this reason Abishai
is

coupled with Joab

assist

in the act.

And

though he did not actually

in

the murder, yet he

must have been privy to Joab's design.

proved by the

That Joab did

not act for himself alone, but for the whole of his family,
is

fact

that David's curse

is

called

down

not only upon the head of Joab, but also upon the whole

house of
85.

his father (ver. 29 a

(ch. 4.)
4.

cf.

also ver. 39
failed
in

n^nv

''23).

Critics

have
as

to

understand

the

meaning of

2-3, and,

usual

such a case, have

questioned the genuineness of these verses.

Rimmon,

as

shown by

his

name, which
or,

is

that of the Syrian storm god,

was a Canaanitc,

more exactly, a Hivvite.

1)

When
9.

Saul

destroyed the Gibconitcs (21.

he must also have attacked

(cf.

their confederates, the Beerothites

Josh.

17,

&c.).


STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL
Therefore the Beerothites with
to Gittai'm,

SEGAL

99
fled

Rimmon among them

where they lived as gerim, retaining the name

In the course of time the sons of of Ishbosheth, and

Beerothites.

Rimmon
writer
really

became
describes

officers

ultimately murdered

him, no doubt as an act of blood revenge.

The

them

as

piD^jn

^:n.

But as they were

Hivvites, he adds in self-correction that they are reckoned

to Benjamin, not because they are Benjamites, but only

because Beeroth
(ver. 2).

is

reckoned a part of Benjamite territory

86.

The

critics

hold ver. 4 also to be an interpolation.

it

According to most of them,

in

stood originally after

9. 3
is

the answer

of Ziba to David's inquiry.

But. this

altogether improbable.

The answers

of Ziba to the king's

It is

questions in

9. 2,

4 are fittingly very brief.

not likely

that he would have launched forth into such a long state-

ment about IMephibosheth

as that contained in 4. 4 b without

so.
it

having been asked by the king to do

verse originally stood after
to
9. 3,

Again,

if

our

why was

transferred here
is

a place which, according to the

it ?

critics,

much

less

appropriate for

There can be no doubt that our verse

was placed here by the author, though he may have derived

it

from some old source.

For

4.

1-4

is

really introductory

and preparatory to the narrative of the death of Ishbosheth

and the accession of David to the throne of Saul
5.
3).
(4.

4.

describes the state of alarm

and confusion

which followed on Abner's death, and emboldened the

Beerothites
describe
to

commit

their

nefarious

deed.

Vers. 2-3

the

murderers,

as

introductory to vers. 5-12,

while ver. 4 describes the helplessness of the sole remaining

heir to Saul's throne.

Because of

this helplessness

he

failed

to take possession of the vacant throne,

and therefore the

]00

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

were forced to turn to David and invite
their
5.

tribes of Israel

him

to

become

king.^-

This verse
is

is,

therefore,

introductory to

1-3,

and as such

an integral and

necessary part of the author's narrative.

cf.

Rashi,^/oc.

NiH ^N'j' jT'ao

mD^D

[n]n3i;'j I'S "I^IHI n3io

(To

be continued.)

BACKER'S TRADITION AND TRADITIONISTS IN THE SCHOOLS OF PALESTINE AND BABYLON.

Traditioti

iind Tradefiien in den Schulen Paldstinas

nnd Baby-

loniens.

Studien und Materialien zur Entstehungsgeschichte

des Talmuds.

Von Wilhelm Backer.

pp. 704.

Leipzig

Gustav

FocK, 1914.

This

last,

posthumously published work of the great talmudical

scholar, the late Professor

W.

Bacher, deals, as

its

title

indicates,
in

with the teachings of the traditional

Law and
in
It

the

manner names

which

it

was studied and preserved

the various talmudical

academies of Palestine and Babylon.

the teachers or groups of teachers by
traditional teachings,

records the

of

whom

the vast bulk of the

in

Halakah and Haggadah, was discussed

generation.

the schools, brought from one school to another, and transmitted

from generation
the
different

to

It

also describes the manner,

in

forms and

methods

which

these

traditional

teachings were studied and arranged in the schools and com-

municated by one teacher

in

to

another,

the various

collections

which they were embodied, and how they have been preserved

in the literature of

Talmud and Midrash.

und
Alaierialien zur

The work
of the work
is

bears the sub-title, Studien

Entstehungsgeschichte des Talmuds.

In

this sub-title the object

thus expressly stated to be, to present studies and

material for the history of the genesis of the

Talmud.
Talmud,

Now,

as regards the studies in the genesis of the

in
this

which are contained

work, most of them are found in

other previous publications by the author.

Thus, the
in

first

intro-

ductory chapter has

been previously published

the Jewish

Quarterly Review, vol.

XX (1908),
lOI

pp. 572-96.

The

third chapter

I02 on the

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

SatzitJig

Literature^ issued in

vom Sinai has been pubHshed in Studies in Jeivish honour of Dr. K. Kohler (Berlin, 19 13),
the other studies

pp. 56-70.

And
are,

and

brief discussions of terms

and forms

with very few exceptions, repeated from other

works by the author.

the material which
it

What

is

new

in this work, accordingly,

is

furnishes for a history of the genesis of the

in

Talmud.

The

classification of the various forms,

which the

traditional teachings

have been preserved, and of the prominent

teachers or group of teachers

who

transmitted these teachings,

as well as the wealth of material which the author has brought

together and grouped systematically under each of the various

forms and around each

constitute

name

of a teacher or group of teachers,

this

the

main contribution made by

work

to

the

science of the Talmud.

And

it

is

a very valuable contribution.

The knowledge
schools

of

all

these various forms, used in preserving the

list

traditional teachings,

and a chronological

of the teachers and

who

transmitted these teachings, are an indispensable aid

to trace the

growth and the development of the

literature of the

Talmud.
aims

Unfortunately, however, this work of Bacher's, which

at giving us this

knowledge,

fails

to

meet the two

essential

requirements which are necessary to

make such

a work useful

and

valuable.

The
extent

value of such

lists

of forms and names, with the necessary

passages accompanying them as illustrations, depends to a great

upon the following two

list

conditions.

First,

each heading

on the
its

must be accompanied by an adequate discussion of

significance

and a

sufficient indication, at least, of the various

it.

questions
principle

connected with
underlies

It

must be pointed out what

question
or
It

the

formula

in

the

peculiar

form of grouping or combination of names.

should be indi-

cated what conclusions one can derive from them in regard to

the literary history of the traditional law, to what stage in the

development they belong, what redactional

or presuppose,

activity they represent

and what,

if

any, bearing they have

upon certain
Secondly,

problems
it

in

the history of the genesis of the Talmud.

is

necessary that the material grouped around each rule or

its

formula to furnish

illustrations

should be complete, so that

BACHER
one may be enabled
ported by

TRADITION

LAUTERBACH
form are
justified

103

to

judge whether the conclusions arrived at

in regard to the significance of that

all,

and supis

or most, of the passages in which this form

used

or that formula occurs.

For

if

the material

is

not exhaustive, no

safe conclusion as to the significance of that

form

is

warranted,

since

it

may be

a false generalization from only a few cases.

fulfil

The work

before us does not

either

one of these two

important conditions.

In most cases the author has furnished

us merely with material without any accompanying discussion.

He

takes a certain formula or the

it

name

of a certain teacher or

group of teachers and puts

contains nothing but a dry

as the heading of a chapter which

list
is

of references to the passages in

used, or which

which

this

peculiar formula

belong to
at all

this

teacher or group of teachers.

But he does not

comment

on the significance of that formula or on the importance' of the

material transmitted by that teacher or group of teachers.

He
it.

does not point out the conclusions which might be derived from
it,

nor does he even suggest the problems connected with

in those cases

And

where some comments are made about the

material,

significance

of the

mostly
is

in

few

brief prefatory

remarks, the discussion thus given

very inadequate.

This particular shortcoming of the work might perhaps be

explained and excused on the possible supposition that the work,

notwithstanding

its

sub-title,

was perhaps primarily intended to

all

furnish only the material necessary for the discussion of

these

problems

in

connexion with the history of the genesis of the

Talmud.

Perhaps the author contented himself with merely

the correct conclusions and

bringing together the material and thus enabling others to study

and examine

it

and draw from

it

base their theories upon them.

condition ought to have been

But then, the other important

fulfilled.

The
it

material thus furis

nished should have been complete, which

not.

In the

majority of the cases a very considerable and important part of

the material
that the
list is left

out.

In one or two instances the author

states

of the passages furnished by him does not lay claim

to completeness.

But

in all other instances

he makes no such
is

statement.

And when one would

assume, since nothing

said

I04

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

to the contrary, that the material

complete, a closer examination

shows that

this

is

not the case.

In quite a few instances we find further not only that the

material
is

not complete but, what

significant

is

by
it

far worse,

the most

important and most

part

of

has

been omitted.

Striking talmudic passages which illustrate the peculiar characteristics

and significance of the formula

in question are not cited,

while

some

of the passages which are cited

by the author are

of the passages are

comparatively insignificant and do not point to the peculiarity

of the formula or rule in question.

Some

even incorrectly quoted and misinterpreted.

about some of these inadequate
in the

The

surprising fact

illustrations is that they are

found
con-

Talmud
and

in close

proximity to passages
the purpose.

much more

clusive

suitable

for

And one

cannot help

wondering why the author should have selected the comparatively

unimportant and irrelevant passages and ignored the more cogent
ones.

Limited space prevents

me

from discussing in detail

I

all

the

various groups of material presented in this work.

can here

discuss only a few of the questions treated in this work

and

cite

a few illustrations from

criticism,

it,

which
lacking

will

bear out
the

my
is

general

that

the

work

is

in
it

required adequate

discussions of the problems with which

in the illustrative material

deals

and

incomplete

which

it

offers.

Chapter

XVII

(pp.

171-92) deals with the formula

in the

nON

JNDrD,

which

is

frequently used

Tannaitic Midrashim to connect

halakic teachings and haggadic sayings with the Scriptural passages

from which they have been derived by means of a midrashic

interpretation.

The author

gives us a

list

of

all
is

the passages in
used,

the Tannaitic Midrashim where the

classifies the halakic teachings

formula

and he

thus introduced in three categories:

;

(i)

Such as are found

in

our Mishnah

(2)

Such as are found

in

the Tosefta or in any of the Baraitot scattered in the

(3)

Talmud

Such as cannot be traced

to

any of the Tannaitic sources

This
last category,

which have been preserved to

rightly
tells

us.

the author

us

(p.

172),
this

'deserves special attention'.

Hut he
does not

does not give

them

deserved special attention.

He

BACIIER S TRADITION
at
all

LAUTERBACH
He

105

discuss

the

significance

of these quotations of halakic

teachings with the formula

nON

|X3D.

does not even suggest

the question which might be raised in this connexion, namely,

whether the redactors of the Halakic Midrashim referred with

this formula, in the case of the first category, to

our Mishnah,

and, in the case of the third category, to a lost collection of

tannaitic teachings, or perhaps in all three categories the redactors

of the Tannaitic Midrashim had reference to one larger collection

which contained

all

the sayings cited with

in

nON

iN3C, even those

which are now found

our Mishnah or in our Tosefta (comp.

Frankel, Monatsschriff, 1853, pp. 393-4)-

These considerations

are of great importance for the history of the genesis of the

Talmud, as they have a

served to us.

distinct bearing

upon the question what

works or collections preceded the redaction of the works pre-

On
list

the other hand, the author gives us (pp. -179-81)

of passages in the Midrash Hagadol, in which

an additional

the compiler quotes sentences from Maimonides' Mishneh Torah

with the formula nos* JN3D.

the

But
in

this has

nothing to do with

Tradition

und Tradenien
and

den

Schulen Paliistinas

und

Babylonietis.

Chapters

XX

XXI

(pp.

222-54) deal with the various

collections of Tannaitic traditions cited in the Babylonian

Talmud.
first in

Among

these various collections the one by R. Hiyya

is

importance.
of Hiyya

Apparently to point out the peculiar distinction

his

and

collection,

the

author makes the following

of the School of Hiyya
to
"

remark

'
:

We

are even told of a "

Tanna

by the name of Ahai who addressed a question

(p. 223),

Hiyya himself
"'NHS n^JVr 'y3

and he
X"'"'n

cites

the passage in Berakot 143,

N^'n

')?:)

'l

'm N:n.

But there

is

nothing unusual in the

fact that there

was a

special

Tanna

in

a certain school who would

address a question to the head of the school.

in the

Talmud (Berakot

14 a)

school of R.

a question to R. ^OK
'nrD.

Ammi by the Ammi himself: Yet R. Ammi is not

a

On the same page we are also told of a Tanna of the name of Ashyan, who addressed
"CN '1 'm x:n
JN'^C^N*
n''J"'D

^ya

even mentioned by our author

in the list of

names of the various teachers or heads of schools

before

whom

Tanna

recited Tannaitic traditions (ch.

XXHI).

lo6

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

In discussing Levi
b.

Sisi

and

his collection (p.

226), the

author remarks that

it is

said in regard to

some of the Tannaitic

teachings contained in Levi's Baraita collection, that Levi re-

ported them as Tannaitic teachings in his collection, and also

expressed the very same teachings as his

own opinions

or sayings.

In support of
n?
"i?:n

this
*:n

statement of his the author cites the passage

sin in Erubin 10
a.

Sim n^

But the passage

passage in
'jn

is

in-

correctly quoted

and misinterpreted.

The

full

reads
really

thus

nyc'J2
:

nniwS3 n^bri
(i.

psT n^ ncs Nim n^

Nin,

and

means

He

e.

Levi) taught this Tannaitic teachings in his

Baraita collection, but, in

commenting upon

it,

said that

the

accepted Halakah

is

not like this teaching.

repeated by the author on
p. 247,

This mistake
gives the

is

where he
''^n

same misinterpretation of the phrase

in

"1:n

Nini n?

Sin

n? as applied to Agra

where

it is

expressly stated
it ').

HuUin 104 b (comp. Rashi, ad loc, that the phrase nb "IJ2S ini means he
*

interpreted

In the

list

of

Amoraim who

transmitted Tannaitic teachings,

either by simply reporting the saying of a

it

Tanna and introducing

it

with "1CS (chapters IX-X), or by quoting

it

from a collection
(chapters

of Tannaitic teachings and introducing

with

'in

XXII-

XXIII),
in

miss, especially, reference to the very interesting cases

which an Amora quotes an anonymous Tannaitic teaching,

it

introducing
I

with

the

formula

p:VJ'

'The Tannaim
a,

teach'.

know
R.
Assi.

only of two such cases, one in Hagigah 25

Eleazar,

quoted

by

and

the

other

in

Niddah 49

a,

quoted

by

R.

The

list

of the sayings of Palestinian teachers which were

brought to

Babylon ought to have included also such sayings

as

and teachings
Palestine,

are
it

mentioned
not stated

as

having

been

sent

from
for

though

is

who brought them,

b.

as,

instance, the teaching sent

by R. Isaac
b),

Jacob

in the

name

of R. Johanan (Hullin

104

and

all

the sayings introduced

with the formula nnr^

^^b:^.

Chapters

XXXVII-XXXVIII
Talmud.

deal with the different versions

of the reports about the authorship of certain teachings mentioned

in

the

Babylonian

The

differences

between these

BACHER'S tradition
versions are merely in the

LAUTERBACH
to

107

names of the authors

^Vhile

whom

certain

teachings

are

ascribed.

the

one version mentions the

name

of one teacher as the author of a certain saying, the other

ascribes

version

the

same saying

to another

teacher.

These

different versions are introduced either with the formula n? 'lOXi

'

And some

say
it
'.

it

',

or with the phrase X0\1"'N1

treats these

'

And

if

you wish

you may say

The author

two formulas separately,

the n^ nt^Xl passages in chapter

in chapter

XXXVII

and the

ND'n''S1 passages

XXXVIII. The

distinction, however,

which he makes

between the two formulas

fact,

is

not quite distinct.

As

a matter of

there seems to

be no difference between these two formulas

in character.

which are both redactional

be made,
I

If a distinction

is

to

would rather assume

that

by using the formula nONI

nb in referring to the second version, the redactor expresses his

preference for the
first

version.

While,

when using

the formula
that they

NDTr'Ni, he indicates that he has

no such preference,

are simply alternative versions,

and

that both are equally indorsed

by him.

As

to the passages cited

by the author,

his

remark on

p.

530

seems to indicate that the

list
it

of the TV nriNI passages was meant

is far

to be complete, but, in fact,

classifies the differences

from being

so.

The
name

author

between the two versions under

is

different

categories, as

e. g.

where the difference

in the

of the

author's father, or in the

name

of the place where the author

difference
instance,

came from, &c. The main category, however, where the for is in the names of the authors themselves, as,
Megillah 16 b, where one version has
Assi;
other

Moed

katan 19

a,

Tanhum and the other where one version has Rab and the

or Yebamot 45 a, where one ; Kappara, and the other 'The Elders of the version has Bar

Rabbah bar bar Hanah

South
also

'

this category is altogether

ignored by the author.

miss

another category, where the difference between the two

is

versions

that the teacher

who

in the

one version
is

is

mentioned
in

as the one

who
as,

reported or transmitted the saying,

mentioned

the other version as the one to

whom

the saying had

a,

been

addressed,

for instance,

Moed

katan 20

in

regard to the
to,

saying of R. Johanan, reported by, or addressed

Hiyya

b.

Io8

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

And
even in the categories
classified
is

Abba.

by the author, the

Hst of the passages belonging to each

not complete.

In chapter

XLII

the

author deals with another class of

different versions recorded in the

Babylonian Talmud, namely,

the class pertaining not to the authorship, but to the teachings

themselves, their contents, and their arrangements.

And

here

again the treatment

is

very inadequate.
for, as

These

different versions

deserve great attention,

the author rightly states on p. 578,

they afford us an insight into the genesis and the development

of the text of the Talmud.

V^e would, therefore, have appreciated

very

much

a discussion of their significance which, however, the

us.
I

author does not give

But, aside from this, the material

is

not only incomplete, but,

regret to say, not even aptly selected.

Thus,

for

example, the author cites the passage

is

Moed

katan 8

a,

as an instance where Mar Zutra version.

the author

of a different

But

this instance is rather irrelevant, for the difference

there consists merely in the omission of the

name

of Rab.

On

the other hand, the author might have quoted such passages as
e.g.

Pesahim 120a, where Mar Zutra

it

is

the author of a version

so different that

presents discrepancies in the very contents of

its

a teaching of Samuel and

illustrations that deserve

attendant discussion.

It is

such

our notice, for they point to distinct

versions differing from one another in the teachings themselves,

their arrangements,

and the discussions connected with them.

is

The same

fault

to

be found with the author's selection of

the material to illustrate those different versions in the

Talmud
state
it

which are by anonymous teachers, and which are introduced

by the phrase

""Jrid
cites

t<3''N1

'

And

there are

some who

'.

Here the author

while,

but a few passages, and these are not even

striking illustrations of the character of these different versions,

on the other hand, very

for

striking illustrations are ignored.

Thus,

example, he quotes one such instance from Tractate

1 1

Makkot
arc

a.

But

this

instance

is

not an illustration of the

different versions of

Amoraic teachings.
different

These

different versions

comments upon

readings in the

Mishnah which
the

in turn

may be

rather opposed opinions than different versions.

On

the other hand, the author could

have found

in

same

BACHER

TRADITION

LAUTERBACH
Makkot 4 b and
it

109
8 b.

tractate far better illustrations, as

latter, especially,
is

e. g.

The

very important, for

represents a difference

in the

arrangement of the Amoraic discussions around Tannaitic

teachings.

Each one of the two versions Mishnah

Such
text,

in

connexion with

it

contains a

the discussion of the

same by three
his

Amoraim, and the

statement.

retracting

by one of them of

former

different versions point to different collections

of Amoraic sayings and discussions, or to earlier Gemaras, from

which the redactors of our Gemara have drawn

their material.

Similar striking illustrations might have been cited from other

tractates,

as for instance,

to

mention but one, Ketubbot

12 a,

where both versions are of comparatively

include a saying of Ashi, and a
teacher,

late origin since they

it

comment upon

by another

and where both versions are followed by a redactional remark about them which is probably from the final redactor.
But, above
all,

one cannot understand why the author mentions

those different versions which are
as,

only such different versions as are introduced with the formula

"Jnoi N'^'XI,

and ignores

all

introduced with other similar formulas,

"in rh

for instance,

ND^NI
2 a,

n-nim

Gittin 4 b, or

N''i;a''D

rh ^V^l ayn) Ketubbot

or

mns*

""Nnp ^?0"n S'3''N1

to find that

the vast

Makkot 9 a. It is number of different

S'D^Xl,

especially surprising

versions introduced
plentifully in

with the formula

nONT

which are found

every Tractate of the Talmud, are ignored by the author.

Even more inadequate

with the formula

is

the treatment of those different

versions found in the Babylonian

Talmud which

are introduced
'.

NJnnN
and

NJC"-^

'

Another Version

The

author

states (p. 589) that the introduction of these different versions

belongs to the

last

final

redaction of the Talmud, by which

he can only have reference to the activity of the Saboraim.

the history of the genesis of the
to

For

Talmud

it is

of great importance

know

the activity of the Saboraim and to what extent they

to

contributed

the

present text of the

list

Talmud.
of
all
it

We

should,

accordingly, have expected a complete

the tractates in
is

which such NJnnx

HTC"'? passages

occur, as

important to

know

in

which

tractates

we can

trace the activity of the Saboraim.

At any

rate,

we

certainly should have expected the author to cite

no
all

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

such instances of the N:nns ny^'b versions which hear out
statement that they belong to the
last

his

redaction

of the

Talmud, or
actually

to the activity of the Saboraim.

But the material

srj"'^ versions

furnished

by the author does not come up to our

all

expectations.

Not
to

the tractates in which

I

srinx

occur are mentioned.

(14 b) and

miss

e. g.

reference to tractate

Sukkah
NJK'^b

tractate Gittin (14 b) where such Ninns*

versions occur.

And what

is

far worse,

the instances cited by

the author are very inaptly chosen.

The

author quotes altogether only ten such

Winx

Nrj'"'?

versions, of which, however, only five are genuine, the other five

being either spurious or at least doubtful.

Thus, the one in

Niddah 29 a

is

not
it

found in the Munich

MS.
a?

And

even

our editions have

only in parentheses and state in a marginal

it,

remark that some editions do not have

'Dli

DHns DnDD.
have

The one
it,

in

Baba kamma 59 a

is

doubtful.
it is

Alfasi did not

and

in

one of the manuscripts

missing (see Rabbinovicz,

is

Dihdiike Soferim,
in

ad

lociuii).
is

The same
In

the case with the one

HuUin 119
are,

a,

which

also missing in

one of the manuscripts

11 a the

(see Rabbinovicz, op.

cit.).

Temurah
to

words

\^y:^'h

Njnnx

according to

Rashi,

be omitted (see

Shittah

Mekubbeset, and the ninjn by R. Elijah Wilna, ad locum).

In

Temurah
indeed,

11 b,

likewise,

the words

Nj^HX

N^J'v

are

to

be

omitted according to Shittah Mekubbeset, ad locwn^ and are,

missing in
the

Munich MS.

On

the

other
S'I'l;'"'?

hand,

the author could have quoted ten genuine

N:''"ins*

versions
alone.

from the very

first

seven pages of the Tractate

Temurah

Among

these he could have pointed out such as are unmistakably

e. g.

of Saboraic origin, as

the one on p. 7

a,

which by

its

very

language

is

marked

to

be of Saboraic origin (see

Z. Frankel, in

Monatsschrift, 1861, pp. 262-3).

I

miss also

in

this

work a presentation and discussion of

those passages in the Babylonian

reports a teaching in

the

name
p.

of the

Talmud in which an Amora Gemara Nion rin2L*'J2.

The
is

author merely states (on

is

21) that the phrase N-irm iTOL"D

used when a teaching

reported on the basis of an undefined

tradition, the author of

which was not, or could not be, ascertained.

BACKERS TRADITION

LAUTERBACH

III

He
his

does not quote any such passage here, but merely refers to

work Die

exegetische Terminologie, II, pp. 31

this
is

ff.,

where he has

attempted to prove that

in the phrase

the meaning of the term

Gemara
iind

Xir:n

n''t0w't2.

But

in a

work about Tradition

Tradenten, &c., the Talmudic passages containing such sayings

reported

Nion

IT'DC^ ought to have been cited and discussed,

for they certainly represent a very interesting

and a

specific

form

in

which traditional teachings were transmitted by the Amoraim.

Furthermore, these passages are of special significance for the

history of the genesis of the

Talmud.

For, notwithstanding the

arguments
logie, I.e.,

to the contrary, presented

by Bacher

in his

Termino-

there
in the

is

no

valid objection to the theory that the term

n^JOC'D, refers to
is,

Gemara,
of

phrase NlJOn

an actual collection

Amoraic

discussions, that

to

an early Gemara, from which

Rashi, in Kiddushin 53
n"'t:D'D

the

Amoraim quoted

these teachings.

a,

states expressly that the

term

NIDH

refers to a definitely

fixed earlier

Gemara which was

^Jn ''D3
a).

familiar to all the students of

rr\MZ'\

the academy, ^"r\nr\ D^n

Nion

r^'^l^i

^d (comp.,

however,

Rashi,

Yebamot 86

Bacher himself explains the

b), as

term Gemara in the phrase N~iM3 rh in'yap (Erubin 32

used by an Amora of the third generation, to mean such an early

Gemara {Tcrininologie. II, p. 32 comp. also his essay on Gemara, in Hebrew Union College Anfwal, 1904, pp. 33-4). Why, then, could not later Amoraim have quoted sayings from that early Gemara ? For all the sayings thus mentioned in the Talmud
;

as quoted

Nir^H

rT'CC'C are

reported by teachers not earlier than

the fourth generation of

it

Amoraim.

Thus
is

in

is

Abaye

w-ho reports such a statement

a,
it

Yoma 14b (33 a) NlDH iTDB'O. In

the son of Raba.

Yebamot 86 a and Kiddushin 53

In Pesahim 115
a, it is,

Aha

according to the reading of R. Hananel,

in the

Raba, who reports the saying

editions,
it

name

of the Gemara.

Our

is

true,
is

have the name of Hillel instead of Raba.

I,

But

this Hillel

certainly not the Patriarch Hillel

as

Bacher

seems
tains

to assume.

The

saying quoted there, i"icn nnrwO, con-

the remark NJT'nisn

nm [Dn

nvr:

f^

N"i''3Dn.

The term
of the
I

ntn JJiD,

which means, the time

after

the destruction

temple, would have been impossible in the

mouth

of Hillel

112
If

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the reading
in
Hillel,
it

we accept

must be Rab

Hillel (as

is

indeed found
Soferim,
in

one of the manuscripts, see Rabbinovicz, Dikduke

ad locum), and it is probably the same Rab Hillel who Yebamot 21b quotes to R. Ashi from a written collection of Amoraic teachings in regard to the Rabbinical laws about prohibited marriages.

This

Rab

Hillel certainly could

have quoted

here a saying from an early Gemara, or a collection of Amoraic

teachings in regard to the Pesah-ritual.
reports

The

fact that a

legend
sayings

(Baba
iTC'C'O,

kamma

61 a)
all

that

David

also

quoted

N"iDn
logie,

does not at

prove, as Bacher assumes {Tei-mino-

I.

c), that

the phrase everywhere refers to an undefined

to

tradition

and not

an actual collection of an
21 'm N12D

earlier

Gemara.

legend in Berakot 18 b also reports that Benaiah b. Jehoiada

in

read through the whole

a short winter
this

day.

And,

certainly,

no one would argue from

that
is

when, in

another passage of the Talmud, the a "I

it

^m N13D

mentioned,

does not refer to an actual Tannaitic work by that name.

What
but
it

has been said by way of criticism

may seem

ungracious,
us,

was meant, merely, to point out that the work before

it

valuable a contribution as
unfinished product.
It

is,

is

not complete, but rather an

faults

should be noticed that the

pointed

out are, with very few exceptions, errors of omission rather than
of commission.

These omissions and mistakes are due

to the

sad

fact that the

author was overtaken by death before he could

complete and revise his work.

The incompleteness
death of Bacher.
of
life

of this work emphasizes,

all

the more,

the great loss which Talmudic science sustained through

For,
he,

the

had he been granted a few more years

no doubt, would have so revised and
to give us an exhaustive presentation of

and

activity,

completed
all

his

work as

the material for a history of the genesis of the Talmud.

Jacob

Z.

Lauterbach.

Hebrew Union

College.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
By Isaac Husik,
42. (L.
\^:]:n

University of Pennsylvania.

24,

2)

(K. 39, 2)
'

does not mean

der Inhalt
series.

(so.

der

Wahrnehmung)

'.

It

means simply the matter, the

The

series begins with the

powers residing in the elements, and concludes with the material

intellect.

43. (L.

24,

8)

,p.:2r[n

nxr ny

maino cnn svon

ab

."'n ^b]!2

nvp^ nvdjik'

(K. 39, 15) Bei der Seele

(sc.

an

sich)

jedoch oder bei einer ihrer Krafte,

die als Trager dieser Entelechie

angenommen werden,
sie

findet sich

keine Verbindung mit der Entelechie, obgleich

bei

einigen

Lebewesen

existiert (sc. die Seele).

in
is

This translation, by not putting the emphasis

place

the right
essential,

and by omitting the word Dna

point

(10),

which

obscures the purpose of the passage in question.

The

is

this.

All agree that rationality

It

is

the specific

difference,

and hence proper form of man.

that

might appear,
the
material

therefore,
intellect
is

Themistius's

view

is

correct
is

that

a form.

And

Alexander's view

wrong.

To

this

G. answers,
is

in behalf of Alexander, that the proper

form of

man

not so

much

the material intellect, which

is

mere

potentiality,

as the soul as a whole or

some one of

its

faculties,

say the
it.

imagination, by virtue of the material intellect which resides in

And

if

you object that

is

this

cannot be the case,

for the soul or

imagination
specific

also found in animals,

is

and hence cannot be the

that
I'fi

form of man, the answer 113 VOL. VIII.

them (Dn3,

i.e.
I

in

114

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

lower animals) the soul

receiving intelligibilia.
44.
(L.
24, 14
ff.)

not combined with the capacity of

(K. 39, 25

ff.)

bildet') The parenthetical remarks of K. (11. 28-30, 'mithin make it appear that the paragraph in question is a continuation
.
.

of the argument in the preceding paragraph based

upon the idea

It is
ff.

of the specific difference (b"i3n).

This
ff.

is

not

so.

new

argument

referring
20)

back

to L. 17, 20

K.

27, 27

45. (L.

24,

(K. 40, 3)
X'':i^r[

npi^no
fiichts^^

r\i::,r\T\

nsra

yj?2'

n^ does not mean

'

so

hwdert

dass bei unserer Entelechie folgende Disjunktion Flatz

greift'.

npi^HD

X'l'^r^

yj?:" xi?

means

that

we

cafifwf get

away from

the disjunction.
46. (L.

25,
"':2?D

9)

mp^^> HD

,Tjn

px

nyn

n^^ip^'t;'

-iL*'2x:t'

no nhsi

N^

P::r\

^iD2i niin
a^^in^
(r.

jnnsn
n^-j-)

nio^C'ni ^^nv:
nii

t^'n p'j'Nnn n'.r^^cn

ijnnjno

n^

,d^js

bv dvjdt^d nyn

^mn^

(K. 41, II)

Wenn

jedoch

dadurch die Ansicht des Averroes bestatigt

sich bei der

werden kann, dass

Annahme im

Sinne des Themistius

eine Absurditat ergibt, indem namlich die erste Vollkommenheit

in

uns ewig, wahrend die

letzte verganglich ware, so

wird hier-

durch die Ansicht des Themistius nicht unbedingt

es

beseitigt,

denn

ergibt sich

nicht niis
ist,""^

ujiserer

Aimahme, dass der erworbene

Intellekt verganglich

wie wir dies nachher erweisen werden.

The
nDE3

reader

will

notice that the italicized words in the

text to read as follows
:

German
si'tr

require the
n\"i^

Hebrew

13nn:nD

a^^in""

njpjn ^^cnc.
plain
if

As

it

is

the text

is

not correct.
18, 15
ff.

The
K. 29,

solution will be
3'

we

refer

back to L.
'"

Italics

mine.

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
II
ff.,

HUSIF<
to
is

115
full.

where the argument here referred

stated in

It
is

will

be seen that the point of the contention against Themistius

since according to

this, that

him the

intelligibilia

have genesis, they

Aristotle,
is

must

also be liable to destruction,

on the authority of
is

who

says that nDD3 nin ?3, whatever

subject to generation

also

subject to dissolution.
aforesaid

The
it

point G. makes

here

is

that

the

argument does not completely

refute Themistius for,

as he will prove later,

does not follow from our assuming that

subject to genesis (nin) that
it

the acquired intellect

subject
to dissolution to

is

is

also

(nosj).

The
n:p:n

text should accordingly

^^i^'n

be

emended
nDD3.

read

n\-ii-tr

nin

i^nn^no

n^Mr,"'

n^'j*

47. (L. 25, 16)

= (K.
is

41,

22)

DPiyni

D''Dti'n

IDD

Trepl

ovpavov

and not

Trept

Koa/xov.

Cp.

above No. 32.

48. (L.
25, ch. 4 beg.)

NYDJt:'

ny .ciNC'jn niyno nyn nyna

-iipn:ir

mni ,^d3
dn

sin Dvooron

nynD

mvnn
i^x

^nn^i

.inhr ix onro

nns*

pn

pmvn nynn
sin

m:h

niynn

b^D

mw

nnr

n\n^-ki'

a;rn>

nL>\s

^niri

"jN^vnn

^DtJ'n nr

yauo
t'my.)

Ni'D'^t^.

(K. 41, ch. 4

liber

Nachdem wir nun die Ansichten der friiheren Philosophen das Wesen des Intellekts erwahnt und erwiesen haben, dass
Ansicht des Themistius absurd
ist,

die

mussen wir nun die

einzelnen iibrigen Ansichten

finden, sei es eine

untersuchen, bis wir die richtige

von ihnen oder eine andere.

Wir beginnen
;

nun unsere Untersuchung mit der Ansicht des Averroes

er ist
es,

de/ifi

der da meint, die wichtigste dieser Ansichten

sei,

zu

welchem Zwecke von Natur aus der hylische Intellekt

existiert.*^

Comment
meaning
of

here
the

is

unnecessary.

I shall

simply give the correct

in

overlined
*"

Hebrew
Italics

text

question,

which

mine.
I

Il6

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

'

corresponds to the italicized words in the German.

begin with the opinion
the best of
all

[We

shall

of Averroes,] for his

opinion seems to be
the nature

those that

may be found concerning

of the material intellect.'

49- (L. 25, 31)

N^c nn
n:"jp2

psuD

Nin

n"2i;n

o^nn

ni^yin

orb psK' d^ki

n^yin

noo

mhn-k^'nn

svd^ bin

.D^^sun

a^^na

onn

pw

(K. 42, 14)

Dass
haben,
ist

sie

jedoch keinen Nutzen

:

fiir

das Leben der Korper

klar

Denn

es ist nicht
{sc.

nur

in

ihnen kein korperlicher das Strebefi nach

das Gute
{sc.

Vorteil, vielmehr haben sie

die PhilosopJmi)

ihrem

{sc. der Intelligibilia) Besitz

trotzdem

sie

das

physische) des Lebens schmiilern.*^

Here, too,
instead of K.'s.
that the effort

it

will

be

sufficient to

put the correct translation

The overlined words in the Hebrew mean simply made to acquire theoretical knowledge restrains
life.

(or narrows) the pleasures of

There

is

nothing said so

far

about the philosophers.

50. (L.
27, 9)

"icx-u'

1C3

iryn byisn

^3"j*n

xin "jx^vnn

^arn

rr^r^

dni

.lyyn

inxn

^DJa

(K. 44

fin.)

Ware nun der

hylische Intellekt mit

dem

aktiven identisch

wie dies Averroes nicint

so wiirde sich
{sc.

ergeben, dass auch die

anderett Intelligibilia [der Einhcit]

tiell

nv:vyn) " gleichzeitig potenIntellekte waren.

und

aktuell in ein
italicized
is

und demselben
in

The

words

the

German make no
i),

sense.

The

reason for this

reading here
*'

that the manuscripts

(cp.

used by K. have a corrupt

nnnNnn

K. 75, note

and the two printed

Italics

Italics

mine.

"

mine.

STUDIES
editions L.

IN

GER60NIDES HUSIK

117

and Riva

di

Trento have another corrupt reading nnnN.

But

it

does not require

much

ingenuity to see that a slight change

of n to n in L. gives the correct reading

nnnx
the
'

in the

sense of

same

'.

Drya nnnNH
just as iry3

ni^3'j'1t:n

means
clear.

'

same
the

identical in-

telligibilia \

nnxn
is

^Jw'n signifies

same

identical

intellect

'.

The meaning
the

now

According

to Averroes,

says

G.,

absurd conclusion

would follow

that

the

same
in actu

identical ititelligibilia are at the

in

same time

in poteniia

and

one and the same

51. (L. 27,

intellect.

Cp. below Nos. 124 and 125.

Iff.)

29ff.)

(K. 46,

The words
^3w'n nnja

in question are

nmp^
ff.)

njK'nn nn\Tj'
i),

vxh

'3

.111(31).

MS. P

721,

used by K.

(cp.

K. 46, note

reads h2Ur\ nn;n nana nnip^.

This

K. renders (4
'

Denn nachdem

die

^Vahrnehmung durch
*^

eine

ah

Intellekt

definierte

Instanz gewonnen wird.^

is

This

incorrect.

The argument
it is

is this.

According to Averroes
different
rxy^rx

the absurd conclusion follows that the

definitions.

same thing has two

For while
in

true that

we use

the same term

as well

(comprehension)

defining
it

material

intellect

as

in

defining Active Intellect,

cases.

means

different things in

the two

The

material intellect

comprehends sublunar
itself.

ititelligibilia,

whereas the Active Intellect comprehends

fore,

We

have, there-

two distinct definitions

the material

for the

same
is

thing, since according

to Averroes
Intellect.

intellect

identical with

the Active

This

will

make

clear

what the words

nma

nnip^ nrj'nn nn'nc'

bjB'n -n:n

mean.

The word

-1313, according to the reading of

MS. P 721, is essential. It is intended to be opposed to D;?'?. The term n:*;;'n (comprehension) as used (nmp^) in the definition of ^3r (intellect) is used to represent its meaning (1313), and not
merely as a
intellects

name

or term

(DK').

Hence, though verbally the two

really they

have the same definition,

have two.

Hence

they cannot be identical, as Averroes holds.

*^

Italics

mine.

'

II

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

52. (L.
28,

5ff.)=(K.

46, 19

ff-)

The words
(6)
.

in question are,
.

i:a

pm
:

invn n^onnt^ hd ^^3 iDvy y^' ah^ dn

which K. (22) renders

Entweder

begreift

er

sich deshalb iiberhaupt nicht,

ist}^

well er

standig mit uns verbunden

This

is

incorrect,

nt: is

an Arabism, and means

'

'

as long as

'.

G. says, in interpreting Averroes,

Intellect does

Either he means that the Active

itself

not
us,

comprehend
or

at

all,

as

long as

it

is

combined with
53. (L.
1:1

...

28, 8

ff.)

pm

Nine TiD

ic^'y

r^'n irsu'

n'^n*

,rK>n irovy yc^z'

is*

nju Nin

"3

n])

pia

Nin-j-

no

i^-d

n:M WNt^ n:u

i^^sas

Nintt'

nyn
n^;D

pN

-3

^Dns*

Nin"'

nc nvc n^ ^n^nno

N:;ojn

nnDn

.n:n
(K. 46, 24
. .

mx

^3

ff.)

oder er begreift sich standig, aber er begreift sich nicht

stande diese Meinung auf ein
:

von seiten seiner Verbindung mit uns, wohl aber von seiten seiner
selbst

dann aber
ist,

^^

und derselben
beein

Stufe mit der

stimmten Zeit

Meinung dessen, der da sagt Wer zu einer ein Haus baut, baut es nicht, insofern er

Mensch
ein

sondern insofern der Bauplan

in seiner Seele existiert

ist

" nicht insofern er ein

Mensch

ist ",

denn nicht jeder Mensch

Baumeister

{sc.

der akt. Intellekt ware dann ebenso einer

Veriinderung tinterworfen, wie sich der gewohnliche Mensch

zum

Baumeister verander?t

kann)^^''

The
for

parenthetical lines italicized in the

to

German
is

are uncalled

and serve

obscure G.'s meaning.

is

G.

so far not objecting

it.

to Averroes's opinion, he
says,

merely trying to interpret

Averroes
itself

The

Active
far as

Intellect
it is

does not

comprehend
'.

per

accidens, in so
this opinion,

combined with us

Before criticizing

G. wants to know precisely what the words mean.

*'

Italics

mine.

Italics

mine.

"

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES

HUSIK

119

They
b]}

are capable, he says, of two interpretations

(px -icNC no
nty-i

pv ;n pm
"-rj"
.
. .

invn nvo nnpea

ir:vy
:

y^" abu ^yisn b^^a

D':d

(5-6))

(K.,

1.

19)

'Die Meinung des Averroes,

dass der aktive Intellekt sich selbst akzidcTitell insofern nicht

begreift,
als

er

mit uns verbunden

'.

ist,

kann auf zwei Arten

verstanden werden

He
with us

then proceeds to give these

two interpretations.
is

The

meaning may be
it

that as long as the Active Intellect

itself at all (see

combined

does not perceive

No.

53).

Or Averroes's

words may mean that the Active Intellect does indeed perceive
itself

always, but not qua

combined with

us.

This, G. thinks,
illustration.

may

not be clear to the reader, so he gives an

a

When

man

is

engaged
it

in building,

we

say he

is

building not qita man,

for in that case

would follow that every man must be building,

which

is

not true.

He

is

building,

we

say,

qua builder,

i.e.

in so

far as the idea of building is in his

mind.

So here the Active

Intellect

so

when combined with us, does perceive itself, but it does not qua combined with us, but in so far as it is in its essence
This
is

the Active Intellect.

all

that

G. says

at

this

point.

The

criticisms of

Averroes's view, on either interpretation, are given in the sequel,

and the analogy of the building man

This proves,
if

is

not referred to again.

its

any proof were needed, that

introduction

is

not meant as a reductio ad absurdum, but merely as an illustration

of a subtle distinction, which might not otherwise be clear.
follows, therefore, that K.'s rendering of
.
.

It

iDXCn
(26)
is

nr

nmo n^im
and
only
is

(9)

'

datm

aber^'^

stande diese Meinung

it

.'

incorrect

misleading, because
giving an illustration.
54. (L.
28,

suggests a criticism, whereas G.

i2ff.)

= (K.

47,

ff.)

The same

error as in

No.

53, q.v.

55- (L. 31, 30)

V'\ ppE' nr

,r\x\r\

ni\r\

-1321

^-mn

^rhi

Nin

13-n

7\v^

n>3i

*'

Italics

mine.

I20

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

(K. 54, 29)

Derartiges aber entsteht nicht,

und
ist,^^

es

wurde

ja

angenonimen,
nicht-

dass ein solches Entstehen verfehlt

ich

meine dass das

entstandene entstanden

ist.

The

italicized portion is incorrect.

:

The Hebrew quoted above

But we

should be translated as follows

'

What

is

of this character
it

is

not subject to genesis.

assumed
genesis

that

is

subject to genesis.
nr),

We

are therefore landed in

is

an absurdity
is

(~ip"^

namely, that that which

not subject to

subject to genesis.'

56. (L. 32,

24)

(K. 56, 16)

Und

ferner

Aus

dieser

Annahme

ergibt sich, dass erst

dann

eine Beziehung zwischen der Perzeption der Sinne

Intellektes stattfindet,

und der des

wie solche,

wenn

wir die nicht durch die Sinne wahr-

genommenen Gegenstande ebenso begreifen konnen, welche wir durch die Sinne wahrgenommen haben.
This translation
statement of G.
of the
'

is

meaningless, and does not represent the

says
is this,
it

What he
'

that according to the view

moderns

(O'lnxncn),

would follow

that there

is

no

connexion between the perception of the senses, and the comprehension of the
intellect, or rather (to

be more

literal),

that the

perception of the senses exercises no impression upon the comprehension, the consequence being
possible to
(n\n^*^'

ny) that

it

is

just as

comprehend

things not

perceived by us

with

the

senses as things that have been so perceived.

K.'s mistake

was that he did not understand that the particle

logical

ny (25) denotes

consequence, and followed the punctuation,

or lack of punctuation, of L. too implicitly.

a pause after 73;vn (25), as indicated above.
**

There should be

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
57- (L. 35. ch. 5 beg.)
}?y:^

HUSIK
iNnnn
N'j'i:n

121

njsnn nsr^ NB'i:n

n''n"':r

^un

Nine*

na^c^ nnsi

Nini ^N'^13

^N

Tioii'u'
^{TDJ IN

n?:o Nin nan ^3 ,Tb

no

iipRj-i;'

Mt^n

;N33 PXET 'D^

Um

DN

'3 H^' XB'lJn

HM^K' INK'^ N^:^

INUO

(K. 63, ch. 5

tnit.)

Nachdem nun

die

Annahme

als

absurd erwiesen
ist,

ist,

dass der

Trager der Entelechie ein Intellekt

miissen wir untersuchen,

wie es sich mit ihrem Trager iiberhaupt verhalt, denn die Potentialitat ist

etwas, das eines Tragers bedarf.

Offenbar bleibt nichts

ist,

anderes

iibrig, als

dass ihr Trager ein Korper oder eine Seek

denn
nicht.
'

ein viertes Sein gibt es tmter dcjn Sublunarischen*'^ (i^^^)

Unter dem Sublunarischen

'

is

gratuitous,

jsna sometimes

has that meaning, but not always, as K. seems to think.

the classification of being (niN^VJD) under three heads
soul
It
(tJ'SJ),

Here
(Dt^:),

intellect (?3K^')
all

body

is

not confined to the sublunar world.

embraces

existence.

Cp. above No. 30.

58. (L. 35, 15)

pjy

n\-i'

bs* ,nvp^ nnvp

myvr:N3 nn^'p

niNii'i:

nr^nnc nn^^*n

yn^

pN

^3

.Dn^*p

bap""

-ij:nnc' Dn^'pb

nnvp

mN:;'iJ

onvn

(K. 6zfin.)
. .

denn

es

ist

nicht die

Weise der Formen, dass die einen

etitspricht es
fiir

Trager der anderen sind, wohlaber

dem

JFese/i I'/ires^^

funktionellen Seins, dass die einen Trager

detin'"*^

[die]

anderen sind

die
auf.

Materie

nimmt

die

einen

durch Vermittlung der

anderen

The

italicized

words are incorrect.

G. says,

'

Forms cannot be

the bearers of other forms.

When we
(y*^'^

ordinarily say that certain

that the matter receives
'.

forms bear others, we mean

^^"l')

some forms through the mediation

*^

of other forms
""

Italics

mine.

Italics

mine.

122

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

59. (L. ibid., 19)

nniv

li^upn

pt^'x^

ijiap

nnivn nvp

^np'-

p-c'Nin

ncnnt^

"ai'i

(K. 64, 6)

Und
formen

da die prima materia (pc'Sin "n:nn) einige f'ormen

(p'l^'Ni
.

anmittelbar

^I3p)
.

bei-'^

ihrer

Aufnahme der Elementen-

rezipiert

K.'s error here

is

due

to a corrupt reading in the text.

Instead

of I7l3pa read vIDpJ,

The

reception on the part of prime matter

of the forms of the elements (nniD'Ti

of immediate reception (p'tTNi i'Up).
60. (L. ibid., 20

nniV v12p)

is

an example

f.)

33iicn

D'-pi'nn

'Dnrn:n

nmvn

'^^^r\

im

niyv?:?N3 D^3p'

onvpi

.nxp
(K.
.
. .

/^/^.,

f.)

einige aber mittelbar

(D"'p^nn

(niJ/'Vr:N2),

wie dies bei den der Fall

bei
ist,

Formen
den

der

Homoiomerien
folgt,

"'OnniDri)

die aus

Elementen zusammengesetzt

sind,

und

dem was
.

darauf an

Formen

ich meine,
,

auch'""-

hierbei empfangt sie (sc. die

.

prima materia, der Stoff

die einen durch die anderen

is

The word 'auch

G.'s

'

(11)

clearly out of place here,

and obscures

meaning.

These

last

instances are

examples of mediate

reception (niyvCN2 hap), as the reception of the forms of the

elements was an example of immediate reception

61. (L. ibid., 25)

(pL"N~l h\l\>).

hap

ptJ'xnn ir:nn

D^ap^

icn
'a

rrni^'no
.loix::*

r\:>-:ir[r\

nsv

pN'j'

nhxi
^pa'Nn

nnivno i3-n

nr n\nij'

no

nn

ncD iN3n^

nr

r\':r\

(K.

ibid.,

18)

Dass jedoch die Entelechie nicht zu jenen Formen gehort,

welche die prima materia unmittelbar aufnimmt,
0'

lasst sich

aus

Italics

mine.

b2

Italics

mine.

STUDIES
Folgendem beweisen
Formen
{sc.
:

IN

GERSONIDES
e7itspricht

HUSIK
keifi

123

Es

ndmlich detn Charakter der

{sc.

soweit

sie

Einheit stiften\ dass vim ihnen

einzelfier)

zusammengesetzter Korper abstrahiert wird.'^

K.'s translation, as italicized,
it is

What
know, but

means,

confess I do not

quite certain that

it

does not in the least approach

the quite simple meaning of G.

What

the latter says

is

this.

Having divided forms, so

is

far as their relation to

prime matter prime matter

mediately
intellect
is

concerned,

into

two kinds,

those which

the

receives
(see

immediately and
60),

those
to

which

it

receives

No,

he now
to

tries

prove that the material

class

cannot

belong

the

first

of

forms,

for

it

the

characteristic
free

of these

forms that

no composite body can be

These

from them.

And

he gives as an example the forms of the

elements, namely the warm, the cold, the wet and the dry.

forms belong to the

first

class (cp.

No.

60),
it

and no composite
by means of these
its

body

is

without these four qualities, for

is

that the

composite body
then,
if

in

question receives

own

specific

form.

Now,
all

the material intellect belonged to this class

of forms,
intellect,

composite bodies would be possessed of a human

is

which

absurd.

This leads us to consider another error of K. in making an

erroneous choice between two variant readings, which we shall
treat in the next

number.

62. (L. 35, 27)

nnii'n

o^^apn

nn-j*

''2^

^:^'U^Tl

mn^jni

-iipni

mnn

croiF

nmD^^

(K. 64, 23)

So kann beispielsweise keiner der zusammengesetzten Korper

von den Formen ihrer
der Hitze
{sc.

der

sie konstituierendenY"^

Elemente,
abstrahiert

und

Kalte, der Feuchtigkeit

sie (sc.

und Trockenheit,

werden, weil

die zusammengesetzten Korper) die Form,

die sie empfangen,

durch Vermittlung dieser Formen

(sc.

der

Verbindungsformen) empfangen.
^^

Italics

mine.

^*

Italics

mine.

124

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

point
is

The
doubt
note
'i'lpn)
.

not of great importance, and for want of a better

the reading Dni'C^ of L. (28) can be kept.

in

But there seems no

my mind

that

D^:^,

the reading of

MS. P722
:

(cp.

K. 64,

2), is

the correct one.

The reading would be

Tk^'DX 'n?a Xin:^'

d*;^:

mnn

d.tc ^nniD\'i rrnivio

D^^^nicn n^cc^jno

i2^yzv\^

k^13^^1

nin^m.

No

composite body can be free from the

(fire,
air,

forms of the elements

the

water, earth), which are

(dhjJ')

warm and

the cold and the wet and the dry.

63. (L. 36, 2)

'

= (K.

65, 13)
'

Perzeption

'

is

evidently a slip for

Aufnahme

',

corresponding

to the

Hebrew l^up.

64. (L. 37, 11)

.huan
Ds*
'3

-IN13D Nin [ins* byis byc'r^ "inv '':Nh\nn

by^b n^n^c^l
''3

nirDvya
ir^D

irr\^\:^

Iw'sn \x

ma

Ninu'

ncn nnxn ^yin

^D-ni^Nn

nii

]'':v^

^n)ipb
j'jyn

ms^'-D
n^n-irai

nnvp n^n x^ ns
nb mm:^?::^

nnx

^yiDo

psnn nn

msx^o oy

n^'":^^{-l^

naN^m

(K. 68, 4)

Dass jedoch der hylische Intellekt mehr

Intellekt besitzen soil,
ist
ist,

als ei'nen

aktiven

offenbar absurd.

Denn
und

das

ei/ie

Agens,

soweit es ein solches

kan?i tiicht dutch sich selbst Ei7ies sein,

sondern nur durch

ein

{sc.

anderes) Agens,
(sc.

dieses

ist

Gott!'^

Es miisste denn
Intellekt)

sein,

dass der eine

(sc.

vermeintliche

aktive

den andern bedient

a. I. zulassig),

dann ware die Annahme einer

Vielheit von
iiber

wie dies bei einer Hauptarbeit gegen-

den

ihr subordinierten

Arbeiten der Fall

ist.

Wenn

es sich

aber so verhielte, so wiirde gleichfalls jcdes einzelne Agens von

dem

numerisch

eiiien
ist

Agens

ressortieren,

namlich von der Hauptarbeit

diesevi

denn
{sc.

sie

es,

wclche die ihr unterstcllten Arbeiten zu

JJaitptagensY'' hinlcitet.
***

Italics

mine.

""'

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
Here one
(D*n7Nn), this
feels like saying, in the
is

HUSIK

125

words of Gersonides, begad

here,
fails

unpardonable

There are several mistakes

In
the
first

one as inexcusable as the other.

to distinguish
act, activity,

place K.

between 7V\B as a noun (better written bys)

?J/i3 as

= work,
second
iib, .il.)

and

a participle

= agent.

And
(

in the

place he mistakes the interjectional use of

DM^xn

= Ar.

begad, for a real

reference to God.

These two mistakes

should have

render part of K.'s translation unintelligible.

What G.

says

is

this

That the material

intellect

intellect
it

more than one

cannot
(byiE)
;

active

influencing

is
it

absurd.
is

For

a given unitary activity (inNn ^yisn) in so

essefitially

far as

one thing

(niDVyi) be the result of more than one agent

series of acts in

unless,

begad (D\nbNn), we have a

other,

which
of the
Arist.,

one controls the

as

is

the case in the

its
is

relation

principal or architectonic art to

subordinate arts (cp.

Nikotn. Ethics,

i.

ch.

i).
is

But

it

not really true in this case

either that a single act

for here too the entire

the result of
really

more than one

agent,

agent,

work

comes from one

namely

the principal
arts

art, for it is

the latter that controls and directs the

it.

which are subordinate to

of cutting

And

then comes an illustration.

The work

beams

pertains to the art of carpentry.

The

making of a ship out of these beams comes under the art of shipbuilding, which is the principal art here. It might appear
then
that

the

work of cutting beams

is

controlled
this
is is

by two

agents, the carpenter

and the shipbuilder, but

Essentially (mDVya),

true only

per accidens (mpm).

agent,

there

only

one

the shipbuilder, though

he does

his

work through the

carpenter.

Not
for

to dwell

too

much on
'

this

passage,

it

will

suffice

to

indicate two other passages in the sequel where

/'J^ia.

K. mistook

^'yi^

They

are K. 68, 27,

ein Agents'

(=

L. 37, 23 byi2

"IDDD2 nnx), and 31, 'die Realisation dieses Agens'

byi2n ni ny:n).

(=

l^.ibid.,

25

65- (L- 38, 3)

126

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

(K. 69, 24)
.

wahrend die entgegengesetzte Annahme nicht moglich

tells

ist.

MS. O, K.
^)bn nr,

us (p. 69, note

3),

reads fil^nni instead of

is

and he follows the MS.

There

no doubt
is,

in
'

my mind
is

that L. has the correct reading,

and the meaning

This

an

impossible contradiction
(cp.

'.

The

context supports this translation

below No.

86).

66. (L. 38, 13)

(K. 70, 16)

. . .

oder wie das Verhaltnis des sinnlich wahrnehmbaren zu der

des an
^'

Form

ihm

(so.

dem

sinnl.

wahrnehmb.) durch den Sinn

realisierten.

K. adopts

nJCCi,
is

the reading of

clear that 1JDC

correct

the
'

MS. O.

To my mind
mind
'.

it

seems

relation of the sensible object to

the form of

it

("iJI^d)

which
is

results in the

The
'

force of

the preposition 'an' in K.

not quite clear to me, but

ihm

'

K.

also refers to the sensible object (cnirs),

hence

his

own rendering
that

requires

"IJD?2.

His statement

in the note (p.

is,

70, note 2)

nJCD
to

is

correct

and IJCD

is

wrong

accordingly, unintelligible

me.
67. (L. 39, 18)

by^)J2

Tu'D

b]!)zn b:i^'n

n\n dnc' ,nNi2?o

sin /p pjyn nvnni

-ina^t^n

hm^ djdx nr^ ^n'jVDnn mi^*2 nan

^nno
n^^in"-

n":]'^

hd bv^2

nnpnn n^n

1^

innnn .Tnn i6

in*

/nr'j'^'ki*

mn

^imx -nin

(K. 74, 5)

Wenn

es sich aber so verhalt, so

macht offenbar der aktive

Intellekt das

potentielle Intelligibele in der vorstellenden

Form

nur dann zu einem aktualen, wenn er an der vorstellenden

"

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES

HUSIK
so

127

Form
hebt.

die generelle Natur unter

den hylischen Attributen hervortrifft,

Und
seine

da er diese Auswahl

muss

er sie

auch

begreifen, sonst

ware seine Auswahl nur akzidentell.

akzidentell,
realisieren,

Ware aber
ihnen das
ist.

diese

Auswahl nur

so

wiirde

in

Normale^^ nur selten sich

(Teleologisches Motiv
Aktuelle/i, d.h.
:

was offenbar absurd

des Fotentielle?i

Die Entwickelung

zum

das Normaie, kdtne nur

selten ztir Geltung)!'^

'

The
to
there.

translation of

njmi
'

(L. 23)

by

Normale
the

'

gives,

it

seems
is

me, a peculiar biological twist to the argument, which

rtJiDJn

not
',

here means

correctness

'

',

correct selection

the true view or idea.

It is a

question here of knowledge pure

and simple.
to

The- active

intellect enables the material intellect

derive

general notions from the forms

in

the

imagination

(rfiVlOin nilV

(^avraa-ia OX (^avracr/Aa),

which are concrete. This

cfiavTao-fMa

the active intellect does by picking out from the concrete

its

universal features,

and presenting them, so

to speak, ready-

made

to the material intellect.

Now,

says G., the active intellect

it

must know these general notions which

out would be purely accidental, and

picks out, or so
it

its

picking

if

would more often

make mistakes than

and the material

not.

It

would

rarely get the correct notion,

for the

intellect

would be

most part harbouring

is

erroneous concepts, ideas, and judgements, which

68. (L. 39, 25)

not true.

(K. 74, 18)

Denn

die eine Sache

kann nur dann vollstandig aus der

allein

anderen abstrahiert werden, wenn die abstrahierte Sache

begriffen wird.

This translation
sort.

is

quite incorrect.

G, says nothing of the

He

merely points out, as the sequence of the argument

illustration

requires

and the following

shows, that

it

is

quite

possible (pD" 133 ^3) to pick out one thing out of another even
if

one knows only the thing he wants to pick

the thing
^^

out,

and does not

know what

is

out of which he does the picking.

59

Italics

mine.

italics

mine.

128

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

69. (L. 39, 27)

.n32
(K. 74, 24)

Dm

ViT

nv:vm

Ferner finden

wir,

dass der aktive Intellekt Dinge mitteilt,

die gar keine vorstellenden

Formen, dun/i welche

sie potentiellen

Charakter

erhalten^^^ besitzen.
is

The
says,
'

phrase nan Dna V.T

incorrectly rendered.

The

passage
(to the

We

find that the active intellect also

communicates

material intellect) things which have

they reside potentially
70. (L. 39, ZZ)
'.

no "fantasial" forms/;/ which

nan D'sn^ vhk' ins

ijyi33

D'si: d^nidh

t-j'^

iixn

^3

niyi

.no J31X3
(K. 75, 7)

Und
dies
tritt

ferner

Das Licht macht

die

Farben,

die

potentiell
;

akzidentell sichtbar waren, nur in aktualer

Weise sichtbar

denn

dass die

wenn es das durchsichtige Mittlere Farben in ihm in bestimmter Weise aktuell

nur
ein,

so einrichtet,

sind

The word mpcn

but to the verb

pertains not to nan

D"'N"13,

as

K. makes
is

it,

T'C'"".

The

point of the argument

that the

active intellect cannot be

different.

compared

to light, for their actions are

Light

is

an agent of

visibility

per accidens only, whereas

intelligibility

the active
(iniosyn).
"'n-'DCn

intellect

must be an agent of

per

se

^yvcxn
is

(=

K. das durchsichtige Mittlere), the trans-

parent medium,

not the crystalline lens, as K. says in a note

(75, note 2), but the air.

TTjfiLov)

and not the

The lens is the sensorium itself (ala-Orjmedium. The Hebrew expression correspondi^jJ.iJ

ing to the Greek to Kpuo-TaXXoct^e? iypov (:=Ar.

hJoJiV)

is

n^lisan nin^. The (ireek

for

'n'SDn "yvDxn

is /jLera^v

to 8ta<^ai's.

which does not denote the eye, but the medium between the
""

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
visible object

HUSIK
ii.

129
p.

and the eye

/ctvet

(cp.

De Anima,

7,

41 9 a 13:

aWa

TO /xh' XP^H-^

to Sta^ave?, oiov tov aipa, vtto tovtov Bk

OT.'i'e;^ois oi'TOS

Kivdrai to aurOrynqpLOv).

71. (L. 41, 4)

K.

(77, 18) translates

Denn
D^?7^^

er ist

den Teilen

(sc.

den physischen)

gleichartig.

nanno here as elsewhere denotes

(wwv /xoptW,
ii.

the same as the Greek

2, p.

o/jMOfLeprj (cp. Arist. Trept

647 b

3),

i.e.

the

homogeneous substances composed of the

four primary qualities

or of the elements, such as blood, bone, flesh, &c.

The same
Gleichartiges
'

criticism applies to

K.

78,

12,

'ein

den Teilen

L. 41, 15 D^p^nn

noino xin hna.

72.

(L. 41, 23)

(K 78

fin.)

D"y2t:n Q^b^rt niyVDN*3 does not qualify Dn^ntD as K. understands

it,
'

die zu

ihm

(sc.

dem

Seelenwesen) durch Vermittlung

',

der naturlichen Organe in Beziehung steht

but

r\u'])\

G.

is

speaking of the difference between

the

intellectual

power

in

question and the power which acts in the body of the living
being.

The former does

its

work without a material organ, the

latter with one.

73.

(L. 42, i9)

^Dt;',

= (K.8r,
renders
'

2)

'B'yon
*K'13xn

or according to IMS.

722 (K. 81, note

i)

byc
',

^K'y?2n,

K.

aktivoi "

menschlichen Intellekte

and

in a

note he adds,

'Zum Unterschiede von dem

:

gottlichen

H'isn by:? heisst es hier

All this
^yissn
is

"'B'yjDn

by:?

'.

not clear to me.

If
it is

What

is

meant by dem gottlichen

'

bc'

'

the ijjnsn by:?

we have been
'

discussing

all

along, what does K. denote by his 'aktiven menschlichen In

tellekte

God

Or does K. perhaps mean by gottlicher Then aktiver menschlicher Intellekt ("w'lixn

'

^yian by:^
''^'^r\

'

'

'

byc)

^'

Italics

mine.

VOL.

VIII.

130

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

intellect that has all
arises,

would indicate the

^jyiDH.

along been called

this

^S'J'

But then the question

why
all

change of name

all

of a sudden?

There

is

no more reason
here than in
is

for distinguishing the

active intellect from

God
is

the other places where

the term was used.

the term bv^^^ ^3C

There

no

discussion here about God, and

its

so fixed in

signification that there could

be no doubt about

its

meaning.
by^', as
I

The meaning
here as
it

of

'""J'ycn

understand

it,

is

the

same

is

everywhere else in Jewish philosophy, namely, the

'practical intellect', as
speculative intellect.

opposed

to ^:vy

bus

the theoretical or

^Ve need not go beyond the Cusari of

this

Judah
IJ'sni
N"'n-kr3

Halevi to

prove
^jvy

well-known
rix-ip:

statement.

ni^IDH
b^
Th^i\>y:>

NM

Tj'N^i

bye nn^iys
nn^iya

niD^nn

bye nNipJi
Ti'JD.''-

r\-,r\ir\

nNipj
is

D^'cnnn

mn^n
is

'\\yh

^^y^ia

G. in our passage

giving another example of his stateactivities,

ment

that an intellect has

two

one

self-consciousness,

and the other the exerting an influence over a corporeal object. One illustration was taken from the movers of the heavenly bodies, and the other from the
74. (L. 42, 22)

practical intellect in

man.

Nin ^y-iD Sin

^^u's:

to n^i: n^T:^ i:mn nxi ^nvinnnn

n-'inn
d.tj^

r^ve niyi
'*x*i>'

nnns n^nnn nhiD yirn b^

nj^nn-:*

nsr onvntr "icsn*

nNi3
Vyer\

nm^-n-^'

nri

.nns
^nvp

ivn

cb Dnnon

i^x

nr^i ^?i"iDi^n -yi^ye id3 -D^i

nuyn Dnvp en abup

',ny;n
ni.Tl:'

^y "^no pu'sin
n\T-L:'

.nnsn niinnnn n^bn ^n

dh'^'^c
n"'"'in>

ny nnix ibup
niDn

a^in"

nnx n3D^
13
n^^in^i

pnx rmnnn
"i^n

^nnsn minnnn-j'

,nnK ^yis n^^sa Dn1^{ ^yisn n\nv

dxi

n^^in^

mn

^-iJDDr^a
n-n^-j'

n:n

^n^
-i2"i

/inya
,n-ipr:n
n^'c^i:'

cnmn
n'inn

"iinnn

tj-'s*

n^bnn
b\^

r'i'r2

^n^n
-invn

nn na

nsTn

pDcn
b'z

mr:;b::'n

inyjn nsnn

x^'^t'

no cy \ye

.n^nNcn nnnn
tj'sn-l;'

nsn

-ii^'DX

.nn piar^n n^^ann bx y^jn^

o-'janc'

D^t^

(K. Si, 7)

Und

ferner

gilt

von

dem Entstehenden

Wenn
Samen

wir zugeben,
vollzieht, so

dass es sich durch eine seelische Kraft im

2

Oiaeari, V, 12, p. 319, 11-14, ed. Hirschfeld.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES

HUSIK

131

kann offenbar dieses Entstehen zum Samen nur dann in Beziehung gesetzt warden, wenn ein anderes Prinzip alle diese Ordnungen nach ihrer Einheitsseite hin begreift. Die Formen, zu
deren Aufnahme die prima materia befahigt ist, sind namlich zweckmassig abgestuft (die einen fur die anderen), wie dies
Aristoteles erwiesen hat,

und

deshalb findet Hire

statt,

Aufnahme

{sc.

durch die prima materia) so lange

bis

der Endzweck der

ist. Und da Entstehung der Einheit, soweit die Entstehung der Einheit in Frage steht,^^ zu einer numerischen Einheitsursache in Beziehung gesetzt vverden muss, so muss auch ihr generelles Agens eine

Entstehimg, namlich die Einheitsbiidimg, realisiert

die

Einheit sein, und es muss jenen

willen die
miisste das

Endzweck

begreifen,

um

dessent-

Dinge entstanden
Gelangen zu der

sind. in

Ware

dies nicht der Fall, so

dem Entstehen
ist"

beabsichtigten

Vollkommenheit ein
endlichen^^
eifiem

zufalliges sein, das

aber schon bei

dem
bei

(n^nXD) Sein nicht moglich, geschweige denn

so

Sein, das in

iiberaus

vollkommener Weise den in ihm

angelegten

Endzweck

realisiert.^^

The
first

italicized lines are in

each case open to question.

In the
r\'h\

passage K. did his best to render the existing text

r\'h'2r\

3''''in''

nnxn nnnnnn
do not very

^x iny:n ny nniN ihnp

^^^^::'.

Now

apart

from the context, the language of the Hebrew words just quoted
well bear the
ks*

meaning given them by K.

iny:.!

^Ve should
n'"iin"'

expect instead JT-bn

iy ams' ^3p?D

^^T':^
is

nrfji

nnnxn nnnnn
corrupt, for

^'i ^niinnnn.

The

text as

it

seems

to

me
is

we expect a

predicate for nniN ihap n\T, which

not here.

Now

it

is

possible,

though K. does not say

reason

so, that

his manuscripts read differently, but I

doubt that they have the

is

reading suggested above.

And my
it,

the sequence of the

argument.

As

understand

G. does not say that the prime

after
viz.

matter must go on receiving form end of the process of generation,

form

until

it

realizes the

the production of unity.

He

says

something quite

different.

Since the prime matter

and in disconnexion, but receives one form as a preparation for the next (nuya Dnsp
"
Italics

receives the different forms not at haphazard

mine.

<

Italics

mine.

132
nvp),
it

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

follows that the entire process of receiving forms

on the

part of prime matter from the beginning to the

end

is

one process
it

of generation, and not many.

But one process,

in so far as

is

one, must

come

from one cause, hence the general agent of

all

the

forms must be one.

If this interpretation
is

correct, I should

emend
ibnp

the text of L.
^''''in''

as follows
nriN

niinnnn n^^an

inyjn ny

omN

nvT-^:^

nr^i

minnn.

The
is

last

two words are the predicate of i^np

If

iTH^L"

DmN, which
manuscript,

desiderated.

K. had a

different reading in his

it

am
word

willing to hazard the opinion that

to
it.

was the

one suggested, or something very close

As

to the

JT'nS'D (31),

K. translates

it

'

endlichen

'

(24),
if

but does not give his reason for this rendering.

Surely here,
is

anywhere, a note would have been in order.

frequent.

The word

not

The
',

truth of the matter

is

that "nsJ2 has nothing to

its

do

with 'endlich
astray,

and

K.'s misunderstanding of

meaning led him

is

and

his translation of the following sentence

wide of the

mark.
""!**'? is

here equivalent to the Aristotelian ws

lirX

to ttoXv

ai~in bv, that

It
is

which happens normally and

in

in the majority of cases.

a familiar idea
takes
;

Aristotle

that that

which happens by
a general
rule
(u>s

necessity
cTTi

place

always

(det)

or

as

TO

TToXv)

whereas that which happens by accident

neither invariable

(/cara

(n'/j.fSilSrjKO'i)

is

nor frequent, but

xi. 8,
.

rare

and

fortuitous.
TTtti'

Thus

in the Metaphysics,

p.
. .

1064 b 32, we read

to
8'

hy] (fta/xiv

cTvai to fiev det kol i$ dvay/ciy?

ws

iirl

to ttoXv,
. . .

TO o ov6
tcTTi or]

ojs 771

TO TToXv ovT dct Kal iS di'dy/o^s

y/'yt'CToi

dAA

ottws

cti'^^c)'

TO o"v/x^e^7//cos o

/xa\ ovk del

or^' t

di'uyK";;?

ovb

WS

771

TO TTokv.
in

Gersonides makes use of this principle

unitary agent which

our case.

He says,
come

this

we have

just

proved must have a knowledge

into
in-

of the end for which the various things in our world have
being.

Otherwise the agent's

in the life of the

realization of the

perfection

tended

world would be accidental.

But
is

this is

impossible in a world where the process of generation

normal

and regular (n^nwSDl

n'inn riNta 1L*'SN 'D^n

121 nn)

particularly

STUDIES
SO since

IN

GERSONIDES

HUSIK
is

133
the very

we observe

in

many

cases that the process

best possible for the attainment of the purpose intended (pC* ^2

Now "nxo
-oXv.
2'\'\r\

is

not the usual word for the Aristotelian ws eVI to

is

bv

the form

commonly

used, or

'>"I3~I3,

Thus we read

in

the

Hebrew

translation of Themistius's

commentary on
p.

Aristotle's
:

Uepl Ovpavov (De Coelo), ed. Landauer,

57

(r"j),

1.

5,

nnbvnn

\iy\

{=

uttotov auro^drof) D?DvyrD D''*c>tnncn

D^:''"'jyn

o
nV'/?)
IN

(dt) n^jon

nr:N^B>

noo nvin

is:;r:^i

^inn3
.

D'L^'n^-l

(=

dTro

(co?

e I TO

TToXr') 3"1"13

Nevertheless
the

it

will

be quite
bv
if

clear

that

^nXD here
D'''n

has

same meaning

as

ann

we

refer to the

yv of the

Karaite Aaron ben Elijah.

In the eighty-third chapter' of that

work he argues

in favour of Providence

and against the m^niD

Aristotle,

713

who hold

that the world

happened by chance.

he says

in criticism of this view, has refuted this

opinion by showing that

to chance, the

while particular incidents in our world

may be due

whole cannot,

for accidental events are neither invariable (''n^ron

nei)

nor normal and regular ("'^INfO

ws cVt to

ttoXv),

whereas

we observe events which are

normal and
regular.
fall

invariable as well as others which are

Examples of invariable events are the heat

of the stone.

of the sun and the

is

An
(p.

example of regular events

the normal form of the individuals of a given species.

Here

is

the passage in the original

Hebrew

108

fin.)

D^N DnpDn
.D^nsD DHDi
(r.

Q-riync' n^iDn inn

D''"'ncn

nnpoa
D"Ni"i

^si:

hm^ ab

i^i's

nnpoa D^non

DHD u'^iv
.nooi?

iin:Ni

d^^no
*j*Nn

ab)

nmvD) rniV3 'nNcm

psn

mm

dichd '-nr^nn
b::

.^\bm "irj' '^3 nin^NT

nv ^y vm^iysi po

"^a

The term 'nSD corresponds

also in

to the Arabic
20,

L>^\ and
is

is

found

Maimonides, Guide, H, ch.

which

no doubt the
Cp. Munk,

source of the passage quoted from Aaron

Guide,

b. Elijah.

ad

loc, also ibid.,

I,

p.

300, note

2.

134

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

75. (L. 43,

18)
.-lonn

Dnvn
:

''jbd

nvinnn inrn djcn

"^^LiT^n

K.
'

(83,

2) renders this

Die Zahl

begreift in

Wahrheit die Seinsarten

*''^

soweit sie mit

der Materia verkniipft sind.'

The
an

true

meaning of the Hebrew

(:""*?-)

is,

'

Number

attaches to

(is
'.

attribute

of) essences in so far as they reside in matter

76. (L. 44,

7)

.rnsnn nns* ^yia

(K. 85, 13)

1^

nn^

xinc'

nc3 nnsn minnnm

Und

ferner

Die Fahigkeit, die der prima materia

eigen
ist,

fiir

die ihr

Aufnahme

der menschlichen Formen

ndmlich
als

Heraustreten

ziir Akiimlitat,^'' charakterisiert

sich

die Eni-

stehung einer Einheit,^^ denn sie bedeutet ein Fortschreiten zur

Volletidung

der

Einheit,^^

wie
als

vorausgeschickt
solcher
erfordert

wurde.
^inbediitgt

Die
die

Entstehung der Einheit^^'

Einheit des Agens.

K. puts the phrase ^yiD^ inxv

\\Z"^'\v,

in apposition with '\'Qrh TJ'N nir\

as

if

the potentiality or capacity of receiving the

its

were the same as

Heraustreten.'

actualization

human form
namlich
ihr
it.

'

Die Fahigkeit

This does not make sense, and G. does not say

He
heit

says,

the actualization of the capacity constitutes a taiitary

'

process of generation (nns minnn).

'

Die Entstehung einer Einis

is

not a precise translation of

nns nnnnn. Nor

Volletidung

der Einheit the

purpose.
11- (J- 44,

same

as

nnx

T\'h'27\.

The

latter

means,

one

12)

nm'J'JD

D^^:^:nD

n/VN;n

u'D^n

n^::::'

tcsn

\sc'

nsnr:

wSini

'

Italics

mine.

"

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
n^'V TJ'N nns'^nn
-il"x

HUSIK
p
q:
rijyjo

I35

nr n^n

d^ini

3yisin b^cn^i
bpr^b

ch^
dhik

in^iys v'iD'^ b'^iin d^ini

,-iw'y'i"

Ti^k""

ab .b^Vi

^oym nmun nniD nhn nnis

Tiarr'
D-J'n
"jdd

msn
oiprD

bzpb

pvc*

nrw
inijiys

U'Ni yscN^ Nin

HD

'^3

"pyian

nin "inv n^n xb as*

n::'y'

/y^oxn

niy^Wwsn
"iL''2N

niSysno
Nini

nann
/^J^

fsnxn

nm .pE^
n-'o-un

p33n

nnb

i:"^

,D^^D''n:rn

^y^o

13nD^<D

nnn tj'x nib'j'n "ha d^ini

nj^nn n^n on^iys in icy^
"^iDn
(r.

.nihysrn
'i^n

i^n

ono

)}2b^"'^

iL"N n^Mon
i:3

on^ px-c IwXUd nih

i:'3pcn

DHD ini6 p3i

nn p'-nn^n my^'Cwsn nvinn

'N:^)

ima

nnN n\Ttr "5dw^

-id-dx

ncaNc*

'ab

^-inxn

^x inipm

(K. 85, 22)

Offenbar konnen wir nun nicht annehmen, dass die aus den

Spharen emanierte Seele

lichen Dinge)

(sc.

das Agens

fiir

die aussernlensch-

den aktiven

Intellekt in seiner Tatigkeit unterstiitzt,

fiir

denn der aktive

Intellekt bedarf

seine Tatigkeit nicht dieser

;

vermittelnden Funktion, namlich eines Intellekts

denn

in der-

selben Weise, in der diese Funktion durch den Mittler vollendet

wird, wird sie auch
ist

von dem aktiven Intellekte

Arbeiten
moglich,

perfekt.

Doch^'

dies

nur bei

solchen

die

der

Mensch
Aber bei

verrichtet,

um

sich die Last

und Miihe zu

erleichtern.
iiberall,

dem
ihn^'

separaten Intellekte, dessen Tatigkeit sich

wo man

aufnehmen kann, ohne Miihe und Last

realisiert,

kann man

es sich nicht vorstellen, dass er seine Tatigkeit

durch ein Mittleres

vollzieht

er

miisste

denn

fiir

diese Tatigkeit ein bestimmtes

nicht aber ein Primdres
{sc.

Organ zur Vemiittelimg notig haben,

eitiefi

Intellekt,

wie

dies

der Fall ware, wenn die aus den Spharen

aktiven
Intellekt
ilber-

ejnanierte Seele eine Mittlerrolk fiir den

nahme).^^

Auf solche Art

lasst

Gott viele Tatigkeiten durch

:

Vermittelung der Beweger der Himmelskorper verrichten

sie als

weil

Organe die Sterne

besitzen,

konnen

durch sie viele solcher

die hier in

Funktionen verrichtet werden.

stehenden Intellekte
fiir

Was jedoch
so

Rede

betrifft,

haben diese erwiesenermassen

die Ausiibung ihrer Funktion kein anderes

Organ

als die in

"

Italics

mine.

"^^

Italics

mine.

136

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

jeder Sache latente Mischungsentelechie welche die Seinsweisen

durch Vermittelung der Sterne aufnimmt.

(sc.

Dieses Organ jedoch

die Mischungsentelechie) inhariert

dem

einen

(sc. Intellekte)

wie

dem

andern, weil wir nicht sagen konnen, dass nur einer von

ihnen die Himmelskorper bewegt, und nicht ebenso der andere

(so. Intellekt).

It

was necessary
the

to

quote the entire passage in order to make

intelligible

remarks which follow.

"'^3

The

crucial

words are

those overlined in the Hebrew, no

i1t:'N"l

^yiEH nT3 "inv n\n nb DH

last

"irsi

yVDS^ Nin, which are troublesome, especially the

"li^XI

four words pC'N"i

V'^'onb

Nin.

The meaning
G.'s argument.

given to these

words by K.
not

is

not warranted by the words themselves and does

make

a satisfactory link in
|1L*'N"i

There

is

no

warrant for taking

in the sense of intellect

''^3

none whatever.
it,

To

contrast yvr^N^

N",n

HD

with

|i:;'N'l,

as

K. understands

is

altogether an unlikely

mode

of expression for G.

Moreover, what
?

does

this

remark then contribute to the argument

'An

abstract

intellect cannot be conceived as doing his work through the

medium
ment
for

of something else unless he needs for his work an instru-

as a

medium, but not an

is

intellect

'

This
is

is

an

ipse dixit

which no reason

given.

Nay,

it

contradicted by G.
to say that

himself in the immediate sequel.

For he goes on

God

does make use of the movers of the heavenly bodies in

doing his work.

intermediate

Hence God's
Clearly
is

intellect uses other intellects as

is

agents.

there

something wrong here.

in

And
P

the peculiar thing

that K.

had the solution

I

manuscript
the reading

722, of which he did not avail himself.

'yvroN^

mean

\W\frh irNl

instead of p^'Xl irNI yVDN^ of L.

is

The

rest

of the reading of that manuscript

clearly corrupt, but the

words

quoted give us the key

trying to

to a right understanding of G.

He

is

show

that the 'soul

emanating from the spheres'

(B'EJn

D'^3^:no n^VS:n), which, according to Aristotle, controls plants

and animals
active

(L.

41, 1-2;

K.

77, 11-14),

is

identical

with the

intellect.

He

proved before that there cannot be two

exerting

indepc-ndent

intellects

an

influence

on

the

sublunar

world, for the Hfe processes

here are really a single process, and


STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
hence must be due
bility that

HUSIK
There
is still

137
a possi-

to

one principal agent.

there
'

may be two
'

intellects placed over the

sublunar
but

world, the

soul

above mentioned, and the Active

is

Intellect,

that the former

Intellect
for the

subordinate to the
'

latter,
is

so that the Active

impossible, says G.,

makes use of the

soul'.

This too

Active Intellect needs no other intellect to assist him.

the assistant would do, the Active Intellect can do him-

The work
self.

It is different with
effort to

human

being.

He

has to exert pain

and
in

do

his work,

hence he often uses another person to

intellect

help him.

But a separate

does not exert any

effort or toil
is

doing his work.

Whenever and wherever the

it

recipient

ready
effort.

to receive the influence of the intellect,

comes without any

Hence we cannot conceive

to assist

of an intellect using another intellect

him

unless the principal intellect has need of an instrument

which

the subordinate intellect

"i:^Ni

has and he{the principaV) has not (xb CX

pB'v^n^
is

's;v?3x^

n'h

no

^3 ^yisn nrn

i^x

n\n).

In that case

it

conceivable that one intellect

It is in this

may

use another to do certain

use of the movers

work.

way

in fact that

God makes

of the heavenly bodies to

do

certain things because they have the

requisite organ, viz. the star, for doing those things.

In our case,

however,

it is

clear that the only instrument or organ used by the

intellects in question to

do

their

work

is

the capacity inherent in

the temperamental mixture of the thing receiving the influence by

means of the
disposition of

stars.

But

this

instrument

is

just as

much

at the

one

intellect as of the other, for

we cannot

say that

the one intellect does

move

the heavenly bodies and the other

is

does not.
trolling

It

follows then that there

only one intellect con'

the

sublunar

world, hence

the

soul

'

and the

active

intellect are identical.

'

Ihn

'

(K. 85, 32) should be changed to

',

'

sie

',

referring to

'

Tatigkeit

corresponding to the
ni-'Na.

Hebrew

nn7ll'3 Vin'J' h'^1lT\

nniK hi"^ pvsy Dipo

78. (L.
ii?s

44, fin.)

vn^tr n^nn"*

r\ir\

/b

hiA'c

nn^^

7\''r\''^

irnin

nsr

niyi

138

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

n'irh

^mny im
fin.)

fxan pxi /JN^vnn

b^'^^b

^yi^n b'j'n

ya:;''

i-j*x

.ins ^yi2 ^ri"

|n:!2

(K. 86,

Und

ferner

Geben

wir schon zu, dass Jeder ei'nze/ne

"*

von

ihnen ein Organ

der Intellekte.

besitzt, so ergibt sich

doch nicht eine Doppelheit

als

Denn

der Intellekt,

Inhaber des Organs,

ist

allein imstande, alle Seinsarten zu aktivieren

und den hylischen

da er
Intellekt auf

Intellekt aus der Potentialitat zur Aktualitat hinzufiihren,

doch die Kenntnisse

hylischen ausstrahlen

besitzt,
lasst,

die der aktive

den

und

nichts zwingt uns zur

Annahme,

dass ein anderer aktiver Intellekt mitwirkt.

The two words italicized above, my mind the entire argument. As

tinuing the

'jeder einzelne', destroy in

I

understand

it,

G.

is

con77).

argument discussed
that

in

the last

number (No.

There he admitted
it

one

intellect

may

use another to assist

in

its

work

if

the latter has an instrument which the

intellect

work

requires

and which the former

admission too.
'

has not.

Now

he takes

back

this

Assuming
')

that

one of the two alleged

intellects (not

jeder einzelne

has an instrument which the other

has not,
(sc.

it

does not follow that we

need have two

intellects

the principal using the other because of the instrument the

latter possesses).
all

For the

intellect
is

having the instrument can do

the work himself and there

no need of the

other.

79-

(L- 45. 3)
':-^b

^3 T^\-in nT3i ,n'bnn

nN'j'? ninon xin

tj's n-^^nn
n\n'y'
a^in"'

jn^

tj-n

r^:::

bb^i)
n'',r.n

ciab

r\)r\r:n

nr^i

^JT-^^nn nr:

(K. 87, 8)

Uberhaupt
hierdurch

ge/if

der Zweckverleiher dem Zwecke voran^'^ nur

alles

richtet sich

Entstehen nach

dem

Zwecke, und
ruft,

deshalb muss derjenige, welcher den Menschen ins Dasein

auch die iibrigen sublunarischen Existenzen entstehen

" Italics

lassen.

mine.

""

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES

HUSIK
]n^

139
appears to be

The
corrupt.

reading

n^bnn
to

^:th -IC'N

n^bnn

-il"N

This
the
>:zh
if

is

not the natural way of saying what K. under-

stands

words
Nin

mean.
or

We
better

should expect
still

fn'

ir'N

r\:n
ni.t.

n^bnn

n>bnn,

n^bnn ba mip

Moreover,

the words should be able to bear this meaning, the

idea expressed would be irrelevant.

that the

No

one has been claiming

to

end

is

prior to that
;

which gives the end,

make

this

statement necessary

and the conclusion drawn

at the end, that

the agent which produces

beings, has nothing to

man

also produces the other inferior

do with the major premise. There is little doubt in my mind that some words before the second -i'^a, and I would supply the lacuna as

fell

out
:

follows

.n^bnn

'ja^

ncx nnnn
is

in^

-il-\s

sin n^^^nn

jn^

nc^'N

:\:r\

^^-m
also

'The agent which

lead to) the end.'

the cause of the end or purpose

is

the one which produces the existences that

come

before (and
is

Now

the rest of the argument

relevant.
in-

His purpose

is

to

prove once more that there are not two

tellects for the

sublunar world, and he does so by arguing that

in order that all existence or generation should lead to the

one

end,

it

is

necessary that the cause of the end shall also be the

cause of the means leading to the end.

the same active intellect which produces

Hence
(the

it

follows that

man

end of sublunar

creation) also produces the lower creatures.

80. (L. 45, 15)

DN ,-i2DDn

nns'

nhysa

Q^i?yi2

':ii;

fN::n

v,tl"

-^p-cfn

]r2

xin

o
ab

.no 1V2 nnx ^yis an D^^yian

(K. 87
fin.)

'yj-:;'

nvo

nr n^n*

Denn

es

ist

falsch
in

anzunehmen, dass zwei Agenzien

fur eine

emzige Tatigkeit

Frage kommen, es musste denn

sein, dass die

"'

beiden Agenzien in bestimmter Hinsicht einen einzigen Akfi/s

involvieren.

''Vis,

Just as on a former occasion (cp. No. 65) K. mistook ^yis for so here he mistakes bv^B for i'yis. It is clear from the
^'

Italics

mine.

'

140

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

sequence of the argument that G. wants to prove that the active

intellect

emanates from the spheres

(or rather, as
is

he

says,

from

the movers of the spheres),

'

and hence

identical with Aristotle's

soul emanating from the spheres \

and

that Aristotle

meant by

that expression the active intellect.

He

proves

it

in this

way

The
form.

spheres bestow the mixture (3^), the intellect bestows the

These two
act can

acts are really

one act

the act of generation.

Hence
the apparently
i.e.

One

come

only from one agent.

two agents

sphere

and

intellect

are

really

one agent,

the

active intellect emanates from the sphere. Accordingly, the correct

translation of the

Hebrew quoted above

is,

'

There cannot be two

agents producing one work numerically, unless the two agents are
in

some sense one agent

K.'s rendering
is

'.

devoid of sense.

For

cannot distinguish

between 'Tatigkeit' and 'Aktus', and K. himself renders the

same word nSys

'Aktus' (87,
to this
'
:

in

one case 'Tatigkeit'

(88, i),

and

in

another

21).

The above

statement of K. amounts therefore

for

We

cannot have two agents

one and the same act

act
!

unless the two agents involve one and the

same

81. (L. 45, 24)

(K. 89, 4)

Nun
was

konnte aber jemand die Richtigkeit dessen bezweifeln,

des aktiven Intellekts

iiber die Existenz

angenommen wurde,

dass namlich bei

Intelligibilia ein

dem

hylischen Intellekte durch den Erwerb der

Hinfiihren aus der Potentialitat zur Aktualitat

stattfindet.

This

is

libel

on Gersonides.

No

no one

will

be found to

doubt the truth of the

gibilia

fact that in the acquisition of the intelliintellect there

is

on the part of the material

a passing
so.

from potentiality to actuality.

And

G. docs not say

What

he says

is

that

some one may doubt the legitimacy of assuming

the existence of the active intellect because of the fact that in the

STUDIES IX GERSONIDES
acquisition of the infe/ligibi/ia

HUSIK

14I

on the

part of the material intellect

there

is

a passing from potentiality to actuality.

82. (L. 46, 13)

D''y3on
"JSD

"bit.

^:^^h>^''r^r\

^ju'n

np':;'

^'n

^p

X':^v^

hm

DXt^'

niyt

^D^-Jsi^rnn o^r^ron

Dy D^niiyD

^T\bi

n'ivoin mi^'no D-^^nn

niNin
ijirn

nn

np" x^:;* iod

/ovy

xinB* ^y

npon -imn
^yi

np^c' '':^<S^^^
i?y

nyt3''w'

no nnin

^^io3n nsiao nn

ns-in xinL"
^jaixn

oyon

n-"N

Dnnn ann

imy^ n^n nsn i-n

nrn 'jwS^vnn

.nvn nro
(K. 90, 17)

wsin

ona nyo*

Und

ferner

Verhielte es sich wirklich so, ich meine dass der

hylische Intellekt die generellen Naturen von den vorstellenden

Formen ohne
annimmt, weil

die

mit

ihnen vereinigten hylischen Attribute

es seiner

Weise entsprache, nur die generellen

Naturen zu perzipieren, so konnte der hylische Intellekt das

Akzidentelle
Akzidentelle

nicht

in

seiner

Substantialitdt

begreifeti

{sc.

das

an

sich), ivieja aiich der Gesichtssinn nicht

den Gri/nd

der Farbe

begreift?"^

Das aber

ist

offenbar absurd.

Denn

viele

Irrtiimer des hylischen Intellekts entstehen auf diese Weise,

in

und

Wahrheit vollziehen sich seine Irrtiimer bei den meisten Dingen

auf diese Art.

that

Here we have an obvious blunder. reason why the material if the

'

What G.
intellect

says

is

this,

abstracts

the

general or universal elements from the material attributes with

which they are mixed up in the

fantasia!

'

forms,

is

because

by

its

very nature the material intellect has no power to perceive

it

anything but the universal, then

intellect

would follow that the material

But

cannot mistake an accident for a substance, any more

this

than the sense of sight can mistake a taste for a colour.

is

evidently untrue, for most of the errors of the material intellect

are due to this very cause.

''^

Italics

mine.

142

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

83. (L. 47, 12)

(K. 92, 29)

Wird jedoch das Problem

gibt es ein

so gelost, wie es

dem

entspricht,

was

inbezug auf den aktiven Intellekt von uns erwiesen wurde, so

Wissen von einem konstanten Gegenstande, und das

JVissen selbst bleibt

an

sick konstant^-' ausserhalb des Intellekts,

das

ist

namlich die

in

der Seele des aktiven Intellekts verbleibende

Ordnung.
It is clear

from the Hebrew

is

text that

"iNi:':

refers to

~im and

not

to
'

nyn^ which
Wissen
'

feminine.
'

K., in the italicized words,

'

makes

the subject of

bleibt

instead of

'

Gegenstand

'.

This obscures the meaning of G.

difficulty in the

As the argument shows, the

is

problem of knowledge
itself

that

knowledge as such

must concern

with what

is

at
is

the

same time real and

not

invariable, whereas in our world

what

real (sc. the individual) is

is

not
real.

invariable,

and what
is

is

invariable (sc. the universal)

Hence

there

no knowledge, unless with the Platonists

is real.

we

say that the universal

Neither solution G.
his

is

willing to

adopt.
intellect

His own solution, based upon

as

idea of the active

possessing within
is

it

in

unitary form the

sublunar
object of

world-order,

proof against the above objections.

is is

The

knowledge

is

not the universal, which

not

real,

but the world(because

order in the active intellect, which

both
It is

real

not

a universal) and permanent or invariable.

not the knowledge,

'

but the object of knowledge which des Intellekts',

objective
i.e.

is

'

konstant

and ausserhalb
'

'des menschlichen Intellekts', namely^

it

is

and not

subjective.

84. (L. 47, 15)

Kvoic no ^N

lynis-iDD

nvo

h mp
mine.

nan xin

ni^^Jan

ohxi

''^

Italics

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES HUSIK

(K. 92,
fin.)

143

Der Universalcharakter jedoch kommt ihm nur insofern

als

zu,

wir uns auf dasjenige

der Ideen) finden.

stiiizen,'"

was wir an sinnlich wahrnehm{sc.

baren Individuen ausserhalb der Seele

Jl'elt

in der iranszende?iten

Instead of 1J^ni3^DD,
im3n:;D,

MS.

P. 722

(cf.

K.

p. 92,

note 2) reads
is

which

is

preferable,
is

though the difference

in

not very

significant.

What

mistaken

K.

is

his reference of

vnh pn

( ausserhalb der Seele ') to the transcendent world of ideas (' in der transzendenten Welt der Ideen '). This is incorrect. That phrase can only refer to the sensible individuals in our
world.

In the world of ideas there are no 'sensible individuals', and

moreover
is

if

the universal character of the objects of our knowledge

due

to the world of ideas (which can only

intellect,

as G.
is

is

mean the active not a Platonist), then the order in the active
and the same
for
difficulty arises

intellect

universal,

again.
is

G.

is

trying

to find
is

an object

our knowledge which

not

a universal and yet

as
it

permanent.

He

finds

it

in the world-order

exists in the active intellect.

At the same time he cannot

deny

that our intellectual

universality.

For

this

knowledge does have the character of he accounts by the relation of our know-

our immediately the content of the active intellect, our knowledge would not have the character of universality, i.e.

ledge (or the object of our knowledge) to the sensible individuals of our Avorld. In other words, what he means is this. If

mind could

intuit

its objects would not be universals. But since we must acquire our knowledge by means of sense data and with constant reference to them, our concepts, though really representing the world-order

in the active intellect, take

is

the form for us of something that

common

to a

number

of individuals, hence their appearance as

universals.

85. (L. 47, 27)

D^''pnn

=
is

(K. 93, 23)

established
^*
',

means

'

not

'

bleibt konstant

'.

Italics

mine.

144

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

86. (L. 49, 13)
"iC'DX

(K, 96

fin.)
is

^n73 ^^bn nr

means, 'This
ist

a contradiction, and

is

impossible'.
is

K.'s translation, 'so

das Gegenteil unmoglich

',

incorrect.

This passage proves also that the reading above,

No. 65),
is

p. 38, 3 (cp.

correct in

and wrong

in

MS. O.

87. (L. 49, 5-15)

(K. 96, 18-97, 3)

full,

Without reproducing these passages in

indicate
that K.'s

shall

merely
1-2)

words 'denn dasjenige, was, &c.'

;

(97,

make G. beg
words
'^\^\^^

the question
is

for

he makes him assign as a reason

the very thing he

trying to prove (96, 20-24).

(r.
ni'-n-t;')

The Hebrew
n^^n'^
nr:j2

ni^3-j"iDn i^x p^:p bv in^ nTft^

flPnnJD

nn

mn23
it

TOl

(49,

14-15) are the conclusion of the

for
it,

immediately preceding statement and not a reason

as

K.

makes

in the

words quoted above.

'

Instead of

'

defifi

dasjenige,

was, &c.' the translation should read

88. (L. 49, 22)

also dasjenige, was, &c.'

.nvK'ynn niix^Dn

i!?Nn

nyn' ^yisn

by^'r]

^vnc* hni^ '\2yc nn

nn ansn

dl-i

p^jsa-j' ch'c'
in-iL*''*^;*

nnra omx
nc iv bv

nvj'y^
inis'

mxa

d-^d Q'c nr^i

nimK'rDn niDsi'nn

jn"

-\^i6

mcT)

ids

.nv:^s-ln

niDN^on

(K. 97, 14)

Denn

es zeigt sich doch, dass der aktive Intellekt

hat.

von den

praktischen Handlungen Kenntnis

Er hat deshalb dem

Menschen Organe verliehen, damit er sie (sc. die praktischen Handlungen) in moglichst vollkommener Art verrichte. Er hat hierin den Menschen gleichsam zu einem Diener gemacht, dem er
derartige

Anlagen

verleihi,

dass die untergeordneten Arbeiten die

'

Ilauptarbeiten unterstiiizen

The
meaning.

italicized

words are incorrect, and they destroy

G. says
is

G.'s

^\'hat

this.

The

active

intellect enables

and guides man

to jjcrform his various practical activities,

ifi

the

various arts, &c. with which he endowes him,

''^

the

same way as

Italics

mine.

STUDIES

IN

GERSONIDES

HUSIK
arts

145
subordinate

(no nv bv) the principal arts control and guide the

to them.

Hence we may conceive

art,

of

man

as subordinate

(mL"C)

to the active intellect.

In other words, the active intellect takes

the place of the principal

and man of the subordinate

art.

Of
frr

the variant readings K. again selected the wrong one. IS correct as L. has it, and not ]'<y, the reading of
i).

MS.
Q^)

722 (K. 97, note

The words DTC'D

1m*.^'^^'
'
:

1D3

nn onNn
fn>

ni3N^!2n

mmrcn

max^'on

no ^v ^y ims

-i^vs!?

nrr'Nnn should be translated as follows

He

(the active intellect)

makes man

his servant in reference to that

which he (the active

intellect) gives, in the

same way

as the subordinate arts serve the

principal arts

'.

89.

(L. 49, 29)

.W
(K. 97, 27)
:

-ic'N

D>-anno

nmna

bv)zn br-n

pis^

Und ferner Die praktischen Handlungen geschehen doch alle um des Zweckes willen, den offensichtlich der aktive Intellekt
in viele

von ihm bewirkte Dinge

a/s

An/age

hiiieingesetzt

hat.'"'-

From K.'s translation, as italicized above, it would seem that he read p3' instead of po% though he does not indicate any variants, except in the statement (97, note 2) that MS. P 722 is corrupt. And yet pii' is no doubt correct, and the meaning is
that
'

all

these practical arts are for the purpose of realizing the

(pi3^)
'.

end intended

by the active intellect in

many

of the things

which he does

90. (L. 50, 18)

m:iDna

n^rj- xin >3 ^nvr::3 r^T^> i?yi2n ^dl-m

i?vN-j*

nsT

pi

'\y^o

Dn'n:r

no cno

n\-'j'

n-j-axi

.y^un

^vs

^^-.-^^z^^

d'ohm

''^

Italics mine.

VOL. VI 11.

146

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

(K. 99, 16)

Ebenso hat der aktive

denn
er achtet

Intellekt

von den Quantitaten Kenntnis,

sie

auf die Gestalt der Glieder und bringt

richtige Verhaltnis.

zu

einander in

das

Denn

diese A'erhaltnisse

sind offenbar von der Natur determiniert, so dass einige von ihnen

zu einer Sache ein besiimmtes Verhdlttiis habe?t, aiidere

nicht:''

K. evidently read

'^?'^'?

and translated accordingly, but the

any such translation.

words of the

text will not bear

The words

should be read ""il^, and are used here in their mathematical

sense,

meaning

'

rational

',

as

we speak

of rational and irrational

irrational ratios

numbers.

So here we have rational and

(CPO:)

oi"

proportions.

Mainionides speaks of rational and irrational

73,

lines,

Guide,

I,

ch.

proposition
t;"i

3,

Arabic

text,

ed.

Munk,

p.

107 a
n^ip

and b

(r"p)

ript:3D

rip^JD uid5

Heb.

D^ipi

onnno

onano

Tl^a,

and Gersonides
text, p. 80,

in his arithmetic, niTin ncy?^, ed.

Lange, Heb.

sixth line

from the bottom, has n3"iD

n3^ n33 to denote an irrational root.

91. (L.
51, 28)

(K. 103, 3)
not
'

n^yif-H S''D1D1^^D

is

profane Philosophic
is

',

but political

philosophy.

What G.

says here

that sometimes the defective

is

character of our knowledge about certain things

that the .subject-matter with which
is
it

due

to the fact
"iw'X N'^'i^n)
r\'^T\

deals (nyn\"i in

itself

a vague

and

defective thing (mN"!;o

h ms^von

-iC'ND

"iDn),

for

example, political philosophy and other matters of the

same

kind.
52, 23)

92. (L.

/nvj
(K. fo5, 18)

-\ixo^^ niin

nin is^a px

^3

'denn cs gibt
bliebe.'

(sc.

sonst)

nichts

Entstandenes,

das

ewig

This

is

not the meaning of the words quoted, as can be seen

from the context.

Avirenna holds that the acquired

''

intellect

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES HUSIK

is

147

intellect nor the intelligiout of the combination of which two the acquired intellect arises, are subject to genesis and decay, niin ^vd3 ps -r
bilia,

immortal because neither the material

im

is no reason the acquired intellect should not be immortal] for there is not here anything subject to genesis that would (according

'nVJ

ns*a''tj'

is

to

be translated accordingly, [There

why

to our

view) be immortal,

i.e.

our view does not lead to the

rediictio

ad

absiirdum that a thing subject to genesis is immortal, since no such thing is involved in the elements of the acquired
intellect.

The words
P
(cf.

^JNh\nn hyz'l (26) which are omitted in

i) are essential

K. 105, note

MSS. O and and cannot be the words of

a glossator.
93. (K. 107, 12)

The words
Hebrew

'

und vergehen

'

are evidendy an oversight

niin.

The

(L. 53, 12) reads

DVjnnnci

94- (L. 53,

2654,

15)

(K. 108,

17 III,

18).
is

The
in a part

passages are too long to quote, and the reader

referred

to the Hebrev/ text

and

translation respectively.

K.'s translation

of

it

text correctly

(especially 11. 5-11 on p. no) does not render the and obscures the argument.

G.

is

in this

paragraph undertaking a defence of Alexander's

itiielligibilia are subject to genesis per se (nVJnnn CVya). The obvious argument in favour of this view is that there can be no doubt about their genesis, since we all know that there

view that the

are

no

intelligibilia
it

in

the material intellect in infancy

and they

arise in

gradually as the person matures.

in

In other words, they

are

first

the material intellect potentially and then they are

realized actually.

But

this is this

essential

genesis.
is
;

On
if

reflection,

however,

it

will

appear that

argument

not conclusive.

For,

the intelligibilia represent external realities

and

these realities

are not subject to genesis, then, even though the intelligibilia have genesis in the material intellect, this is relative genesis

and

not absolute (mrovya), for the intelligibilia are the same as the external realities they represent, and if these have no genesis,

148

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

have none, though they are not ahvays
///

the hitelligibiUa

the

material

ititeUect.
if

This objection, says G., would be well enough

bilia

the

intelligi-

were identical with the external

realities

they represent, but

they are not.

For, the external realities are particulars whereas

the hitelligibilia are universals.

intelligibilia

Hence

it

follows

that
is

if

the

have genesis

in the material intellect, this

absolute

genesis since they have no other existence except in the material

intellect.

95. (L.

54, 16)

nmvn
Ton

irw-"

nnm

qivw*^ -ia2*;r nib^cnrrn ^bxn

nr'-nriw'

nxij NinL" pn?:i

nr
':2t:i

nj^Mn

^'^"\ nr;s*^vn

nna Tin^

.nvjs^vnn

nr:NSMn nmvn
nnVi'n
^C'3n
ir*c>'

ir:;"'

onm
p

ni^^tncn i^n

i:'-;r^

-i3dl"

ixan' n^s
nn-j*

"i33*c'

nn

.-ij^inc-*

nn
11^3

's^

n:n

^nvjx^vn

non

-i2dI?

nivpi TJ'i

13T::'

^nvjsi'vn q.tj' n?:2 nvjs'^vnn

n-^ivnc*

^'j^m

.mj:i*yn -"wzh

"i:;*c3

iNvrD'-u'

-1312

DniwS"i;r:5

n',Tr

TJ'N* "ir^'b

ycncj nsnn r^z1 nyjon n^:N^vnn 'u n-ni*n nxT Dcnn (?':3^) -iso nxnn nsn nx o cnnn n^n .n-nvn nxr n nunnnn njT'n n^ m^yanno pixn nr ^ysnt^ xinn
n3Ci33 N^l nN-i:n

(K. Ill, 19)

Drittens.

Die

Intelligibilia

scheinen doch bei ihrer Perzeption

der Dinge die hylischen Formen zu begreifen, aus diesem

Grunde
hylisch.

mussen

sie selbst hylischer

Natur sein und

diirfen nicht standig

in actu existieren,

denn sonst waren

lasst,

sie separat

und nicht

Wie

sich jedoch erweisen

dass die

Intelligibilia

bei ihrer

Perzeption der Dinge die hylischen

begreifen^'''

Formen

in ihrer hylischen

Natur
selbst

geht aus
ja

meinen nunmehr folgenden Ausfiihrungen

hervor
hylisch

da

die hylischen

Formen
in

begreifen,

soweit sie

sind,

wic dies Averroes

so

seineni

Kompendium zum
So

Buche der Seele erwahnt,

hdngt ihre in einer bestimmten Sache

latente Existenz mit der Veriitiderung substantiell znsammen.

"

Italics

mine.

STUDIED
hangt beispielsweise die

IN

GERSONIDKS HUSIK

149

in der

Kraft des perzipierenden Beschauers

mit der Veranderung zusammen,

sich realisierende hylische

Form

die sich in der Kraft des Beschauers vollzieht, well die

{sc.

Form

in ihr

der Kraft)

ei/ie

Spier hitiierlasst.

Wiirde nixmlich nur der

nicht die Kraft),'^ so

Sinn irgendivie
in ihr die

affiziert iverden {sc.

und

wurde

Form

nicht zur Entstehung gelangen.

really serious
errors,

Here we have again some

which

no

translator should allow himself to

make.
is

The

construction of the
:

mistranslated passages in question

as follows

riN ir-j'>

Dn3n

nVJNh\nn
of
1:':^"

nmvn nx
'

^T'^^

ne's nibtJ^lcn n^X;

'.

and the meaning

is

pertain to as attributes
'
:

The

sentence should thereintelligibilia

'.

fore

be translated

It

appears with reference to these

that they have certain properties possessed

by material forms

The same thing applies to the next overlined passage in the Hebrew above. He says, I shall prove that these intelligibilia have
properties possessed by material forms, as follows properties characteristic of material forms as such
:

Among
is

the

that their

existence or coming to be in anything is consequent essentially upon a change in that thing. And the example he gives is that
{jxncon, roi; r\iA^'\7\ an adjective qualifying n3 and not a noun as K. makes it, in der Kraft des Beschauers ') is consequent upon a change which
is
'

the material form arising in the seeing faculty

takes place in the seeing faculty just before ' the form in question
is

impressed upon
in

it.

For

if

the sense

(= seeing
and
at

faculty)

had not

been affected
This
sets

such a way the form would not arise in

the

it.

the whole matter straight

same time

indicates to the reader wherein

96. (L. 55, 22)

K.

erred.

= (K.

113, 24)

This involves the same misunderstanding of the meaning of \i>'^ as in the previous number.
G. says, another characteristic of material forms as such
that they are multiplied with the multiplication of their subjects.
"'

is

Italics

mine.

think the reading should be ""JEb, for the change must precede the coming of the material form, as the word ]::>r:j indicates, and as is clear

*o I

Irom the following sentence.

f50

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

97. (L, 55, second line from bottom)

= (K.
',

114, 12)
'

nN?:
nur

n'''':ry

K. translates

'

Meeradler
Tiere
'.

and adds,

offenbar

vom Horensagen bekannte

The name
is

represents the

Arabic
in

^^
10,

*La1c

= griffin or phoenix, which

used by Averroes

his

middle commentary on the

Ilept 'E/a/^v^veta? of Aristotle

(cp.
p. 8,

Fausto Lasinio, Studii sopra Averroe, Prima Continuazione V,

1.

and

9,

1.

9) together with Jjl jIc

= ^"'N

ly

= rpaye'Aac^os

(Arist. Ilept 'Ep/xT/vetas,

ch.

i,

p. 16

a 16) to represent a fabulous

animal.
98. (L. 56, r)

n'ti'^N niiviDT) nvi?^2n mi'S'ii'ion i^x pa-j' nns* isini

hni' nnri

^^t2
-iirawS

,fi"iDV
>s*

Nin

-i:;'N

;^ "xc^

niN^^^'on

njp ano nns

n^isi
NV?r;3

^d'j*

n
nn:)

^nxniD xin -ons!? ^iiuvo

"^bnc
invya

.1^

eincvf^n
n\T"j'

nr

nsa

.pu^sx

nxn

n\nc'

103

^^ban

nc3 'c-12^ ^-iDVo Nin

'^brn
iS*:;^''

'?bn dSni
si^pr:i

.ynun
1^

-ins-j*

nc3
'3

DiiruiuDiwS*

sbc Tin' nrh /n

isvr:"'^'

^/1d
'j

xin

/^^3

xin-j-

."in'

a'snuvcn

3'inr^

sin

'aisn

x:;?^''

^'c^ njs

(K. 114,

17)

Noch

in

anderer ^Veise ergibt sich, dass zwischen den univer-

salen Intelligibilien

und den Einzelvorstellungen

ihrer Individuen

eine bestimmte Beziehung herrscht. durch welche die Universalia

existieren
;

denn das Universale

existiert in \\'ahrheit

nur dadurch,
Hinsicht
in

dass

es

das Universale von

Spezielles)
{sc. fiicht

seiten eines Individuellen {sc. in

auf

ein

bildet,^^

denn beide stehen zu einander

Relation

Correlation),^^

und

es

ist

charakteristisch

fiir

die

Relationen, dass jede einzelne von ihnen nur insofern Relationsexistenz hat, als sie eine iatsdchliche Relation eingeht^'^

Dass nun
ist

das Universale eine Relation mit

klar,

dem

Individuellen eingeht,
fiihren,

denn das Universelle kann keine Sonderexistenz

doch
Aristoteles in seiner

wie

Plato meint, hat dies

Metaphysik (XII,

ff.)

erwiesen.

Das Universale verbindet

*'

sich jedoch mit

dem

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES

HUSIK
(sc. fiir

151

Individuellen nur*"' insofern, als es ein Universales

das

Individuelle) bildet (sc. nicht in seiner Selbstgeniigsamkeit),

es umfangt

denn

und umschliesst
existieren,

es

kein

Universales

deshalb kann ohne Individuelles ; denn die Glieder einer Relation

miissen gleichzeitig existieren.

K. has not grasped the meaning of G., especially

italicized

in the

passages
114,

above.

This

is

shown,

too,

by

his note (K., p.

note

2),

'Dass auch die Individuen nicht

ohne

Universalia
'.

existieren konnen, scheint Gersonides nicht

anzunehmen

The
in

contrary

is

true.

G. says quite clearly that when a and b are

relation, neither

can be without the other

is
is

in so far as the

element

of their relation

concerned.

Father and son are in relation.

is

And

hence father
father.
^1^
Tc'wX

not father without son, and son

is

not son

without
xin Tc'N

This

precisely
t\1\>''

the

meaning of the words

b*j'

mx^VDn
that

nno nns

n^2-iov?:n nih:Dt2i

si^DVrrn ^^;D ^^ini^VD 13,

it

which K. has entirely misunderstood.

is

These words mean,

each
("I?

a characteristic of correlatives that

relational

of

them acquires
"ntS).

its

existence

from

the other

TlDVrrn
INVi:''::*

The same
3"'inD

idea
'3,

is

expressed in the words

nn^

n^SIUVDn

Nin

relatives exist together.

For

this implies that neither this idea

is

can

exist

without the other.

;

To

be sure,

not original with Gersonides

it

goes back to Aristotle's

discussion in the Categories, and each one of the statements quoted from G. can be matched by an equivalent one of Aristotle,

who
p. 7

is

the source.
is

Thus the

last

statement, that relatives are

together,

thus expressed by Aristotle in the Categories, ch. VII,

TO. Trpos

1 5,

hoKfi h\
is

TL

ci/jia

rfj

cfivcret
1.

ehai.

And

the Con-

sequence
aXX-qXa'

drawn a

little

farther on,

19, Kal (rvvavaipel Sk tu^tu

rjfjucrv,

fxr]

yap ovtos SnrXacTLov ovk eariv

koX

r]fxi(Teo<;

ptj oi'tos

ovK

k(TTL

SiTrXdmov' wo-avVws 8k kol eVi twv aAAwj/ ocra Toiavra.

its

The

Other statement that each relative gets

relational

existence

from

its

correlative

is

thus stated by Aristotle in his corrected

tt/jos

definition of relation, p. 8 a 31, eo-n ra

ia-Ti

tl

oh

to eTmi ravToV

T(Z 7r/)05 TL

TTw? kx^Lv,
is

which means that

the
*-

relatives are those

things for which to be

same thing
mine.

as to stand in a certain

Italics

152
relation to
first

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

something
else. It is true that

with reference to the

statement Aristotle makes a tentative exception.

relatives,
is

There are

some

he

says,

which do not appear

each case

to

be together. Thus

knowledge
the second

related to knowable, sensation to sensible,

in
is

and yet

member
it.

prior to the

first

and indeknowledge

pendent of

Knowables and sensibles

exist before

and

sensation,

and while knowledge cannot

without the former

exist

without the
the

knowable, and sensation cannot

latter

exist without the sensible,

{jbid.,

can

exist

p.

b 22

ff.).

But

this

does not seem to represent Aristotle's

final

view, for he
difificult

ends up the entire discussion by saying that

to

it is

perhaps

make

a dogmatic assertion about such matters without repeated

(T<j)o8pu)<; dTro(fiatVcrOai

reflection (icrws ok yaXeirov VTrkp TUiv ToiovTOiv

fir]

TToAAttKis l-maKifxp-ivov, p.
is

8 b 21).

And

as a matter of fact

a maturer point of view

presented in the >e Anima, where

Aristotle introduces his fundamental ideas of actual

and

potential.

Some have
sight,

maintained, he

tells us,

that colour cannot exist without

nor flavour without

taste.

They

are right

and they are

wrong.
actually

Sensation as well as sensible are used in two senses,

and

potentially.
latter.

What
is,

they say holds true of the former,

not of the

That

an actual sensible implies actual

exist

sensation, but an object

may

which

is

potentialh' sensible
la-nv erepyeta
r)

without being actually sensed

iilrrd'/jTov

(cTret 81 /^tu /xeV

Tuv

Koi

rf

tov alaOrjTiKOv, to 8 elvat Tepov, ovayK-q a/ia

<f)6i-

pecrSaL kuI crw^co-^ai rrjv

8r]

ovtw \cyofievrjv
o/xotws*

a.Kor)v /cat x^/offyov,

koX \vfjLov

KOX yevcriv kol

(lAA
oijTi

tol

aAXa

to. Se Kara, Svvafxiv \ey6p.i'a

ovk

ttVciyK//,

ot

irpoTepov ^ucrioAoyot

tovto nv KaAws lAeyoj', ovOkv

ov//ews,

olo/xtyoL

Act'Koi'

oiVf p-tXav etvai a.vv

6p0w<;, rfj 8'

ov8k

)(i'fioi'

av(v

yewcojs.
pt-iVTjS

rrj fxkv

yap iXtyov

ovk vp6w^'

8l)(^u)S

yap Acyo8c

T^S

al(r6i](Ttj)<;

kui ror alaOrfTov, tmv fikv Kara

8i'i'/xiv T(x)V

KUT (vtpytLuv,
oil

(TTi

TovTojv /xlv (rvfifiaivti TO Xi')(6iv,

aTrAuls
i5ff.).
is

iiri 8(.

rwr

kriptav

avfx/3aiv(i.

dAA' (Kth'ot

tXtyov

Trtpl

twv

Acyo/xtVoiv

ov^

.IttAws.

Ill, ch. 2, p.
in

426 a

Gersonides

our passage
is

not concerned about these more

detailed discussions, for he

merely interested for the

moment

in

defending,

tis

a matter of method, Alexander's position.

Later he

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
refutes this position (L. 73,

HUSIK
iff.).

^53

18

ff.

K,

161,

not

much can be
;

inferred from this as to G.'s

And hence own view in this

matter

though

it

would seem that he accepts the two statements

relatives,

above mentioned about

since he does not controvert

(73).

them

in the last discussion just

mentioned

His refutation

consists in denying that intelligibilia are universals,

and

grantin<f

that they are, he says

it

does not follow that they multiply with

the multiplication of their bearers.

K. makes another statement

(114, note
2),

in the foot-note

above referred

to

which requires animadversion.

MV'enn aber die

Intelligibilia
sie

gemass
it,

auf individuelle Substrate zuriickgehen, so miissen

der ersten der vier Pramissen

entstehen

und

vergehen.'

My comment
is

on

this

is,

in

the words of Aristotle,

T^

fiXv op6u)<; eAcye, tji 8'

ovk 6pdw<;.

The

ultimate conclusion, as

K. draws

correct, but for a proper understanding of G.'s

method and course of argumentation the intermediate

not have been
intelligibilia are
left

steps should
:

out.

The

inference

is

as

follows

If

the

dependent upon the external

sensibles, they are

If so, the

multiplied with the multiplication of their subjects.

intelligibilia exhibit

the properties of material forms, and hence

are themselves material

genesis.

and not always

actual,

but subject to

Therefore they must also be subject to dissolution and

cannot be eternal.

99. (L. 56, 26)

(K. 116,6)

iDVya
ein
'.

^^:-lJn

;d

nr

does not mean

is,
'

'

Es leuchtet von
the very thing

selbst

The

correct translation
'.

This

is

we are

insisting

upon

100. (L. 58, 26)

ha: Tin

by

Dnwsn

^rvz'

nii'3::'ion

nmv

p:yc

HwS't

-i33L"

(K. 121, 4)

Es

ergibt sich namlich inbezug auf die intelligibelen

Formen,

dass sie bei

dem Menschen

in einer

Weise auftreten, die sich von

154

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Formen
unterscheidet,
itt

der Existenz der hylischen

existierenP

tvekher jene

The

italicized

words are incorrect.

material forms.
is

G. says nothing about the

intelligibilia existing in

He

says^

The

existence

of the intelligibilia in

man

different in

mode from the existence

(sc.

of material forms in the things in which they

the tnaterial

forms)

exist.

loi. (L. 60, third line

from bottom)

(K. 130, 27)

Wenn
seine

dies

namlich moglich ware, so miisste das Bewirkte

Wirkimg*^ warden.
is

h'h'i

the

effect, n^J? is

the cause.

should translate
'.

it,

'

so

miisste die \Virkung ihre

102. (L. 61, 10)

Ursache werden

nic^pon mrftT ni^yuno

n:vj'N-in

njyLint;^

"iNino

nih'j^

-i?ds3"i

n:yD3 ^y-aw njoo

iSD

ic'S33

inuo nn

^onirovyn
n^in^
n^-l:'
^n.'^rw^

min

nj>\-inL;'

x'nn
.x\nn

Dni?2^'y2
b'y:^i

niin

ni^'-nnc'

d:

"is'nrD

Nim

"':Nh"'nn

nicnnriD

n"ii'3::'ir:n

i!?^::^

rwixn nx3nn'j> no
^5^123
on""

no ^3
CDCiTj'
::'nnnD

pN

^3

nn

.n33

13

mNVi:):

vn'k:'

-inx

n
1^
1^

mxiioji
c'tnn''*Lr

^c'loni

,ininvy3
'jdd

'cnnno ^no
n^i ,)"pn

-i3ii5

nM^a? nr

3Mn''

ny3 ir^N
^yi23

n3-iip

::'nnnn

^3B'n

D^3p^*k;'

Dni?

mp'

d^ini

^n^on

nisvc:
|D

en nibfir:n
ny3
'ixbrnn

mN''V^n n^iT
nrj'H

nix'^vr^

on^

hm''*^'

"1^3

sb c\-iyn

NM1

,n"':N'h'nn n-j'nn

nMn.' pisn ^y

^d*j':3

nrh sin tj'n

(K. 131, 9)

Wir behauptcn nun

Durch das

erste der

von uns erwahnten

Argumente, denen zufolge die vom hylischen Intellekte erwor*

Italics
!

mine.

*^

Italics

mine.

STUDIES
benen

IN

GERSONIDES

HL'SIK
sie

155

IntelUgibilia entstehen, wird tatsachlich bestatigt, dass die

in

Intelligibilia
entstehen;^'-'

ihm entstehen, Es

iitid

dass

nicht von

selbst

das erhellt bestimmt aus dem, was wir bei jeneni

lasst

Argumente erwahnten.
deshaib^-'

sich

erweisen, dass sie schon

nicht

von

selbsi^^

entstehen,

weil

doch^-'

in

jenem

Argumente erwiesen wurde, dass

Intellekte

die Intelligibilia im hylischen

aktuell
in

entstehen
sie
(sc.

und

stdndig^'

ihm

verwei/en,"''

nachdem

vorher) potentiell in

ihm

existierten.

De?in

nicht alles, 7i>as entstehi, hat ein bestimmtes Verhdltnis zu einer aus
sich selbst entstehenden Sache.-''

So

erhalt die

Sonne beispielsweise
diese
i^sc.

im Sommer eine Nahestellung zu uns, ohne dass

Nahesteihing) aus sich selbst zu entstehen
braucht.^'^'

die

Wenn dem
sie zu

aber so
gibilien,

ist,

so kann

man

offenbar sagen, dass es bei den Intelliexistiere?i^''

welche stdfidig aktuell

vorkommt, dass

irgend einer Zeit

vom

hylischen

Intellekt

empfangen werden,
(sc.

aber nicht
Intellekt)

so,

dass ihre nunmehrige Existenz

jene,

im hylischen
fiir

eine andere ware als

ndfnlich so,

die

sie

an und

sich

besitzen,

dass die hylische Ferzepiion,^' das

ist

die

Perzeption durch den Sinn oder eine ahnliche, aftders wdre als

das ausserhalb der Seek existierende sinnliche SubstratP

The above

is

not a translation,

it

is

an obscuring of Gerso-

nides's logical argumentation

Instead of discussing the errors of

K., as indicated in the italicized portions of the above quotation,

I shall
'

simply present the correct translation as

say, then, that the first of the

understand

it.

We

arguments mentioned above

to prove that the intelligibilia acquired

by the material

intellect
intelli-

newly arise within

gibilia

it,

proves indeed conclusively that the^e

it,

do

arise

newly within
is

but

it

does not follow from that

se).

argument that

this genesis in the

absolute {per

This

is

self-evident
It is clear

from what we said

also that
it

course of that argument.

is

does not follow that their genesis

absolute from the

intelligibilia

fact that in that

argument

it

was shown that these

newly arise in the material

intellect,

being realized actually after

in

a state of potential existence.

For not every case where

Italics

a given

'*

Italics

mine.

*^

mine.

"

Italics

mine.

156
thing a

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

new
relation arises
to

a particular thing,

is

a case of

absolute genesis.

For example, the sun comes near

relation
it

to us in the

summer

(sc.

new

arises in

the sun with respect to

this that there is

the earth).

And
it

yet

does not follow from

(sc. in

absolute (essential) genesis of the sun

the summer).

This

being so,

is

clear that
it

one may
happens

say,

These

intelligibilia exist

actually always, but

at a given

also

to

them

that they are received

their

time by the material intellect

is

(sc.

appearance in

the material intellect

merely a new relation that arises in them

with respect to the material intellect).

in
it

Not

that their existence

is

different
is

from the existence which they (always) have in

the case with material perception, like sense

themselves, as
perception,

&c.,

where

the

perception
(for

is

different

from

the

external material object perceived

intelligibik

if

the existence of the

different

from

its

when it appears in the material intellect were own existence in itself before it comes into the
then
its

material

intellect,

appearance

in

the latter

would be absolute
relation in

genesis,

and not merely the appearance of a new

an

already existing object).'

103. (L. 61, 28)

(K. 131,

fin.), dcndi

passim.
selbst
i.e.

imo^'ya cnnriD does not

f.fj^//a/ genesis, or absolute

mean

'

aus

sicli

entstehen

',

but

ox per se genesis,

where the whole

It
is

thing formerly non-existent comes into being.

opposed
or

to

mpca
new

*jnnno which denotes genesis per

accidetis,

relative

genesis, as

when a
sense).

thing

comes

into a

new

relation or acquires a

quality or any

of the other accidental

categories

(in

the

Aristotelian

1C4. (L. 62, 24)

(K. 133, 16)

Sec No. 45.

{To be conclnded.)

/^.

EARLY KARAITE CRITICS OF THE MISHXAH

By Hartwig Hirschfeld,
I

Jews' College, Lofidon.

Nissi

B.

Noah
Museum

Among
there
is

the Genizah fragments at the British

one consisting of six small parchment leaves covered

with rather large

Hebrew square

writing.

]\Iany of the
signs.

words are furnished with superlinear vowel

The

contents are extracts from various sections of the

in

Mishnah

the following order :^

Megillah

I, 2.
I,

Rosh ha-Shanah
Shabbat XVI,
Hullin IV,
9.

5.

II, 8. 11.
i.

XVIII,

Niddah 111,4; IV,

6.

To
but
in

almost each paragraph comments of a disparaging

These, as a
rule, refer to ritual

nature are attached.

matters,
also.

one instance to the grammatical construction

is,

The fragment

of course, part of a larger work, and

the

the loss of the bulk

is all

more

to be regretted, as these

few specimens are probably the oldest

texts extant.
'

MS. copy

of Mishnah

If this

be

so.

the irony of history has so

The

original order of the leaves

last leaf in the front.
in

placed the

was disturbed by the bookbinder, who The numbers of paragraphs correspond

ivliich

with those given

ed.

The Mishnah^ on

the Palestinian

Talmitd

rests,

Lowe,

1883.

VOL. VIIL

157

158
willed

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

that

the oldest

bit

of

Mishnah text- has been

Likewise
for

preserved through the exertions of a Karaite.

noteworthy

is

the zeal shown

by the annotator

gram-

matical exactitude.

His brief note on

this point, therefore,

belongs to the oldest Jewish utterances on grammar.

shall see later

We
to

on that

this learned Karaite, apart

from some

knowledge of the ]\Iishnah, also had read the

which he alluded by the name of Haldkot:'

Gemara

As

to the age of the fragment, the

worn appearance of

the parchment, the large characters, and the Babylonian

vowel-points,
all

indicate

an early date.

To

determine
is

the approximate age of an undated manuscript

always a
is

hazardous undertaking, but the suggestion just made

based not only on the appearance of the fragment, but on

the comparison with other manuscripts
all

written on paper
It is

and bearing the dates 1004,* 1019,^ and

necessary to place
all

1030.*^

only

four manuscripts side

is

by

side to

perceive that our fragment

older.

not only older, but very

much

Likewise indicative of the period of the fragment

Four pages of Mishnah text with superlinear

I.

text, likewise
I,

from the

Cairo Genizah. were published by

Markon

in

Hakedem

41 sqq.

They

are written in a Yemenite hand, and of

3

much

later date.

As
I,

to the

use of the term Dl-Sl for Talmud, see L. Ginzberg, Gconica,

rem.
i.

vol.
*

p. 118,

See also

Gittin. fol.

60 vo.

Or. 2554, see G. Margoliouth, Catalogue of the Hebrew

in the Bn'tish

and Satnaritan

Manuscripts

Museum,
180.

I,

p.

223.

Or. 2576.

ibid., II, p.
fol.

Or. 5565 E,

15,

being the
:

last

and

greatly-

damaged page of a work

with the following colophon

pt:^Sy^N 21 n^> T.:n^N1 ^NDD^N QH

bb^

praise be to

Finished is the writing, 2rh P^y P 1^3 nriDI yniXI God the Lord of the worlds. The cop}- was made in Jerusalem, may God make it inhabited, in [the month of] Dulhijja of the j'ear 421.

niV:rD

'

Written by Khalaf

b.

'Olwan

for

MausCr

b. Hillel.'

KARAITE CRITICb OF THE MISHNAH

HIRSCHFELD

I59

are the critical notes given not in Arabic, but in Hebrew,

and Anan

is

the only authority mentioned.'^

Several features of the fragment justify the suggestion

that
it

is

in

the author's autograph.

Passages which had

lines,

been overlooked are inserted between the

passage
is

and one

entirely missing.

The number

of lines on each
(fol.

page
vol. I)

v^aries
is

from eleven to fourteen.

One word

39,

faulty and uncorrected.^

n''lN~i "J*",?-'^

the words

are jotted

The manner in which down at the bottom of the

show
so

same page and

in

the middle of a sentence

much

spontaneousness that they could only have been so inserted

by

the writer of the fragment.

Traces of haste are visible

on nearly every page.

copyist would have bestowed

of the pages both as regards
it

more care on the appearance

accuracy and neatness, and

is

most unlikely that he

would have

left his

work unrevised.
the person of the author no direct

Now
There

as

regards

information
are,

can be gathered

from
clues

the

fragment

itself.'

however, several

which deserve being

followed

up.

The

first

is

the

mention of Anan which

later

shows that the author must have lived

founder of Karaism.

than the

This, in connexion with the use of

Hebrew throughout
as
it

the fragment gives the terminus a quo,

fact that

is

an established

Karaite authors did not

write in Arabic prior to the tenth century.^*^

As

a later

period

is,

for reasons given above, out of the question, there

only remains the ninth century.

Through Pinsker we

are

in b.

possession of the auto-

biography of the Karaite Nissi

^ 9

Noah, which he published

D^J^ViTJ*, see the

Fol.
Ibid.

36 vo.

photograph.

^^

See Steinschneider, Die arabische LiUemtuy dcy Jiideii,

p. 74.

l6o

THE JEWISH OLARTERLY REVIEW

The
is

on the authority of FirkowitschJ^

in

latter places Nissi

the eighth century, and this date

adopted by
it

Fiirst.

The impossibility of this make Nissi a contemporary

this

period
of

is

obvious, as

would

Anan.

The

publication of

autobiography gave
Frankl
^^

rise to a

lively discussion.

The

late Dr. P.

endeavoured to show that Nissi not

than Fiirst assumed, but that his

only lived

much
is

later

autobiography

a forgery and largely based on chapters

~)irn hrrs',

from Judah Hadassi's

1148.

which was written

to print

in

Frankl

took

the

trouble

the

related

passages side by side in order to expose Nissi's plagiarism.

Graetz,

who

takes the autobiography as genuine, ascribes

to Nissi the
in

the

}'ear (S40. The later editors of Graetz, both German and Hebrew editions, and notably Harkawy,

trustfully follow Frankl,

and deprive Nissi of the author-

ship of the autobiography.

Now

in the latter there occurs

^*

the following sentence

first learn
.

^'''
:

TJie student {of viy book)

must

the voicel signs

to

and

aecents, defective

and
in

full spelling according

order
to
^"^

the Babyloniatis (nyx'

''C'isi')

understand the MisJindh and the Talmud and

luith

Haldkot

the great

and small
is

additions}*'

Nearly

every word of this sentence

It

reflected in the fragment.

it

has Babylonian vowel-signs,

deals with the Mishnah,

all

alludes to the

Talmud by
sqq.

the term of Haldkot,^' and

"
'2
'

Likk.

Kadm.^ pp. 37

inrn,

viii, pp. 29 sqq.

|n"'a, also called

"
d^eh

^/^,^^ p. ^j.

D'jn:ni c'^OB'r^n
below.

'd,

" See
'*

The
to
*

'great additions' evidently refer to the Toscplita.

The author
Saadya
also,

seems
in

have taken this word as a

'

plural, viz

NnEDID.

his

Refutation of Ibn Sakvvaih

{JQR., XVI,

loo), uses the

Hebrew
means

form nCDIDT^K.
the Baraithas.

With

the "smaller additions' the author probably

"

.See

below.

KARAITE CRITICS OF THE MISH.NAH

the

HIRSCHFELD
It
is

l6l

comments

arc written

in

Hebrew.

known

tliat

Nissi

prides himself on having written in

Hebrew.

His
to his

reputation

among

Karaites

is

due not so much

literary achievements,^^ as to the fact, verified

by

historical

evidence, that he declared

it

to be

'

the duty of the sons of

the

our people

to

study

the Mishnah and

Talmud

'.^^

Frankl cast ridicule on Nissi's statement that he had learnt Greek and Latin, but we can easily credit him with a
smattering of these languages.

He

does not pose as a

all

profound

clas.^ical

scholar.

Apart from

this there
plagiarist,

is

another factor to show that Nissi was not the

Hadassi, and
it.

but

it

is

really surprising that Frankl overlooked

In his encyclopaedic work Hadassi gives a sketch of

describes

Hebrew grammar-". The vowel system which he

is

unmistakably the Tiberian one, while he does not mention

all.

the superlinear system at

As

he wrote his book

in
it.

Constantinople
Nissi,

he was

probably unacquainted with

reared
use.
in

however,

who was
its

the

latter

system,

naturally

recommended
it

The

special

mention he

makes

of

even permits the conclusion that he rejected

the Tiberian system, which he must have seen in use when,

later on,

he settled
is

in

Jerusalem.

This much
Nissi, there

is

certain,

that

if

Hadassi

dependent on

must have

elapsed
latter
'^

sufficient

time between their lives to make the

forgotten,

and

the

discovery

of

the

plagiarism
the

Al Hlti,

who composed
to

his 'Chronicle of Karaite Doctors* in

fifteenth century (see ed. Margoliouth, p. 3},

does not mention Nissi

b.

at all,

although
to

he has much

say about Joseph

in

Noah,

who

is is

supposed

have presided over a college

I.e.,

Jerusalem.

His name

mentioned

by Hadassi,
''

par. 169.
(fol.

See ^2TID IT

vo.)

on the authority of Aaron

9
.

b.

Joseph

in the

introduction to his nnSd"! 'D

20

fol.

Par. 163.

l62

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Hadassi even dared to appropriate one of the
book.^^

difficult.

titles of Nissi's

Our fragment and the above quoted

passages from his autobiography resemble one another so

strongly that no serious objection can be raised against the

suggestion that they are to be ascribed to the same person.

The

conclusion at which

arrive

is

therefore the following

Although Firkowitsch's
which Xissi
lived
is

assertion as to the period during

unreliable,

the authenticity

of the
is

autobiography need not be doubted.

untenable and misled
all

Frankl's theory

his followers, including

Harkawy,
originally

but

all

the

circumstances
viz.

confirm

the

date

suggested by Graetz,

about

840.

Incidentally

we

learn that the specimens of superlinear vocalization appear-

ing in the fragment are older than the famous codex of

the Later Prophets^- by about seventy years.

On

the basis of the foregoing remarks

is

venture the

suggestion that our fragment

not only the work of Xissi,

but actually written

by

his

own hand.
the Mishnah
the author chose

In his selections from

such

as,

he thought, would bring out the perversity of the

possible.

Rabbis as clearly as

Unfortunately his notes

have suffered much by age, and many words are either

defective or completely obliterated.

This

is

largely the

case with

the annotations on
public

the

regulations
of

connected
It
is

with

the

leading
this

of the

Book

I'^sther.

towards the end of

paragraph where the quotation

]\Iegillah fol. 12 verso) occurs:

from the Halakot (Talmud,

'

If a person read the Megillah written

amidst other books

fulfilled

(of the

Ilagiographa),
'D.

he has not

the duty of

2'

D^EH

'^

Piof>lictaniht
fol.

/'ostciioritm

<o<tcx

Bahyhtiikus

PcivopoUtamis,

ed.

H. Strack,

1816.

KARAITE CRITICS OF THE MISHNAH HIRSCHFELD

public reading'.

163

The concluding passage

in

is

unintelligible,

because several words are missing

the middle.

To the extracts from Rosh ha-S/ianah, ch. ii, the words are added: 'All these are alterations, those that defile it shall surely be put to death (Exod. 31. 14) and also which ye shall proclaim in their seasons (Lev. 23. 8j '. The
paragraph dealing with the proclamation of the new moon
concludes with the following note:

'We know

that they

count

23

the

new moons by

calculation (with the help) of

the "shiftings"'.

This, of course, refers to the Rabbinic

first day of Passover must not fall on a :\Ionday, Wednesday, or Friday. At the end of the paragraph dealing with the blowing of the Shophar the author found an opportunity of showing

rule of i"ia, viz. that the

his superior

knowledge of grammar.

Supplementing the
: '

abrupt marginal note mentioned above, he says D^cyD is not in accordance with what those

r\z"h':^

learned in the
as
is

Torah know:
Exod.
Its

The

correct

word

is

'^^'j',

written

23.

14'.--*

own.

This remark has a peculiar interest of The mistake he corrects is not due to the

the author, but seems to have existed in his archetype as well as in the other MSS. It is found not only in the codex of the Mishnah preserved in the University Library at Cambridge,-^ but also
in

copyist of the

MS. used by

the

:\IS.

of the

British

Museum
fol.

Or.

2219 (containing
In the
(fol.

Maimonides' commentary),
iMS. of the British
Fol.

15 verso.

Talmud
we

Museum, Harley 5508

18 verso),

I. I see facsimile. 39 The fragment has D'OmiJ'. The author uses the term D^nnr^ probably with a side-glance to Lam. 2. 14. -" The Bible has here D'^m, but the author evidently quoted from

'

vo,

memory.
^^

Ed. Lowe, Cambridge, 1883.

164
find
'ch'C,

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

but a small n
is

written above the last letter.

The

copyist of the last mentioned

MS. seems

to

have been

aware of the mistake, but evidently shrank from omitting

anything he found
in his

original.

Incidentally

this

is

a striking proof of the faithfulness displayed

by

copyists,

and should serve as a warning against hasty surmises that

ancient texts were tampered

with

freely.

Our Karaite
mistake,

author, not satisfied with the correction of the

gives the rule for the gender of

Hebrew

numerals, albeit

incompletely, illustrating

it

by

v^arious

examples.
^.

The
nnr

regulations of the Mishnah Xiddah

like

4.

6 are
i?a

supplemented by what looks

[7^32.

a quotation

a'U'jn

Such a sentence, of

course, does not exist in

the Mishnah or in any of the ancient sources.

The author
Without
absolve

probably intended to say nn;

this kind occur indeed

for

0"^*:,

and utterances of

among

early Responsa.-''

insinuating baser motives to the author,

we cannot

him from the charge of carelessness.

his

It

may have
alleged

pleased

Karaite zeal to pounce upon

an

Rabbanite

utterance open to severe criticism.

his source

Instead of examining
did not

he simply remarks:

'

God

command

this.

He

is far

above wickedness and

injustice.'
'
:

The fragment concludes

that the firmament
lights

as follows

Since

we have seen
sixth,

was created on the second day, the

on the fourth, and

first

Adam

and Eve on the

led

and

that the

Passov^er,

when God

His people from

is

Egypt, was on the night of the sixth, which

See

(based upon)

D'JINJn?:) n"TJ*,

Mantua. 1597,
:

D'JINJn nUVJ'n, Leghorn, 164 1

drawn to tlicsc passages by uml Mitlheilutigci.WU, p.

Dr.
41
,

fol. 25 vo. N'H nai pED 'I: ^2 p2D Dnj 73 (my attention was A. Marmorstein). Anan Harkavy. Sfiidien says TW^" N^N r\yh m3 p3 '3Nt;' vh\
;

ni3T

<

KARAITE CRITICS OF THE MISHNAH HIRSCHFELD

I"n3
(it

165

results) that i"in

is

alluded to for the purposes of

celebrating Passover on any of these days.

This

is

what
viz.

A nan

says in agreement with them (the Rabbanites),

not Passover on the seventh (day), nor Sukkoth on the first Passover is not debarred (?) from (being cele,

brated) on the seventh (dayj, nor

Sukkoth from the

first.

As

for the

seventh and the

first

(days) there exist allusions

to the celebration of Passover and Sukkoth on them, because light was created on the first day, and also on account of the glory of the seventh day, the

great and

holy Sabbath.'

The
is

relics

of Anan's

Book

of

Commandments
author.'

extant

do not contain the passage quoted by our

given not
in

As

it

the

Aramaic

original, but in

Hebrew
is

trans-

lation,

we do
is

not

know

if all

or

how much

intended to

be quoted.
saved

Apart from

this the

not clear, because

of the 'seventh'.

meaning of the few words we should expect 'the sixth'

instead
Nissi,

The

fault

probably
rule of

lies

with

who seems

to have

mixed up the

fl2 with

that of Tin*.
II

Joseph al-Basir

From

the

preceding

specimens we see that Xissi's

criticism betrays neither great

powers of judgement nor

accuracy of
in

detail.

There

is

a conspicuous lack of detail

is made to appreciate the genesis and development of the rabbinic tradition, or to disprove its raisou d'etre. His bickerings neither

his

remarks.

No

attempt

refute

nor instruct, yet he showed his brethren the way to combat their opponents by attacking them on their own ground, and they were not slow to follow his example.

l66
'

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Strife
',

taught the Grecian philosopher HerakHtos,

'.

'

is

the father of things

to the struggle
it

Well might we apply

this doctrine
;

between the Rabbanites and Karaites

every respect.
literature.
It

for

was

fruitful in

produced valiant fighters

is

and an important
this

The only misfortune

movement

that

literature

is

so scrappy, and
spiritual

thus prevents us from

in its fulness.
life

visualising this
It
is

enormous

no paradox to say that we owe the

to the Karaites.

work of

Saadya

All his writings, without exception,

served the one purpose of defeating the Karaites.

About

twenty years ago a scholar, speaking of the

writings of
that only
'

lost

polemical

Saadya and

his opponents,

expressed satisfaction
'

a few fragments of this class of literature

had

been
sides

saved.'-'

Since then,
question

many more

dealing with both

of

the

have been unearthed.

Saadya's

polemical writings are not mere recriminations, but scientific

treatises

of great value,

and

also the attacks of his critics

are important from

the theological, historical, linguistic,

and generally
ticularly
if

literary points of view.

Every

scrap, par-

produced by one of the older generation of

is

Karaite authors,

worthy of careful study.

of

The importance
measured,
if

new fragments found can

is

best be

we consider how scant

our knowledge of

the literary

life

of Eastern Jews during the ninth and the

earlier half of the tenth centuries

Almost complete
Nissi,

silence

reigns

in

the

generation

after

but

it

is

scarcely

probable that nothing was written on the great question

of the

day.

lived during

Of David Almokammas, who must have this period, we do not know whether he was
is

a Karaite or not. although he

claimed by later Karaite

" M.

Friedlander

\n

JOR., V,

p.

197.

KARAITE CRITICS OF THE MISHNAH

authors
that
as one

HIRSCHFELD
We
only

167

of their brotherhood. -"^

know

he wrote a polennical treatise against Christianity,

and, according to Kirkisani,

Genesis.-^

composed a commentary on
is

An

attack

by him on the Rabbinic code

not

known.

We

are equally in the dark as to the attacks on

the Mishnah

by Ibn Sakweih, another contemporary of

little

Saadya, and would probably know very

about him

were

it

not for the rejoinder of the

latter.^'^
is

Among
title

Saadya's writings there

one with a certain

(probably mutilated)"' dealing with Rabbinic tradition.

correct reading of the title
in
I

The

believe to have found

viz.

quoted by himself

his

commentary on Exodus,
to

Refutation of spcadation ivith reference

laiu?'

the traditional
is

by
on

his

The own

existence of
allusion to

some such
It

treatise

vouchsafed

it.^^

would have been incon-

ceivable that he should have written a

legal

number of pamphlets
the main axiom
of

side issues, whilst omitting

viz.

Karaite teachings,

the speculative method {kiyds).

lost,

The
if

work was apparently no

trace of
it

but

it

is

worth trying to see

can be found anywhere.

There

exists an

Arabic fragment

in

the British ]\Iuseum

containing the bulk of chapters 14 and 15 of a treatise in

defence of kiyds.

This fragment has been briefly dealt

with by Dr.

Poznaiiski,-^'^

who

ascribes

it

to

Kirkisani,

2"*

Al

Hiti,

/.

c,

p.

cp.

Harkavy,
p. 306.

Abu

Yiisitf

Ya'kub a! Kiikisnni,

St. Petersburg,
"''

1894 (Russian),

See iny

Oirqisdiii Studies (not yet published), p. 9.

in

See

my article

Literaiy Opponents of Saadyali Gaoii,

3'

J0I^.,XV1, pp. 105 sqq., and Poznanski, The Karaite London, 1908, pp. 4 sqq.

iVyCD^N
n-'i-rrD^^x

j;"'NTw'^N ""^y

DNV'

Steinschneider,

/.

c. p. 50.
p.

333 3*

yx-r^N
zmn

^s

CN''p^x !:j<L::]x,yo/?., xviii,

coo.

Ibid.

Festsdirijt

achtzigsten Gebttitstage Moritz Steinschneiders,

p.

210.

l68

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW Of

this,

against the testimony of Moses Bashyazi.

ever, later on.
in

how-

The

first

of these two chapters consists

the main of quotations from a work of an opponent

who, as
Saadya.

may
The

be seen from chapter

15, is

no other than
is

object of the author of the fragment

to

refute Saadya's attack against kiyds.

special feature

of the fragment

is

that

it is

written in the Arabic language

and
the

script,

almost devoid of diacritical points, and that even

occurring therein are
so
written.

Hebrew passages
is

This

a peculiarity which deserves

in

some

attention.

We

have seen that

the tenth century Karaite authors exfor

changed the Hebrew language

square characters for both.
b.

Arabic, but used

is

Hebrew

This

the case with David

Almokammas, Salmon
\\'ith

b.

Jeroham, Kirkisani. and largely

with Jepheth.

the last

named

a change was effected,

and we suddenly
in

find a great

number of Karaite MSS.

which both the Arabic text and the Hebrew quotations

written
is,

are

in

Arabic characters.
as
I

The

oldest

MS.

so

written

as far

was able to
1004.

ascertain, Jepheth's

Commentary on Rulh, dated

went even further and
in
left

Some

Karaite copyists
of fragments

a large

number

Arabic writing of Hebrew texts from various books of

This practice

the Bible without a single Arabic word.^^

went on

for
?

about three centuries.

What may have been

the reason
priate
for
in

vowels

The rules of Arab orthography are not approHebrew on account of the larger number of the latter language. The copyists found a way Hebrew vowel-signs
Six Karaite Mamiscnpts,
tciitli

out of the difficulty by adding the

''

See Hoerniiig, Dcscriplion and

Collation of
tiiat

London, 1889.

The

author's opinion

they date from the

century,

also adopted in Margoliouth's Catalogue of the

scripts in the British

Hebrew and Samaritan Mann-

Mnseuni, cannot be maintained.

KARAITE CRiriCS OF THE MISHNAH

according to the Tibeiian system.
find a single instance of

IlIRSCHFELD
rate
I

169

At any

did not

Arabic writing with the superHncar

First,

system.

thus arrive at the following conclusions.

Arab
from

writing for

Hebrew was
Jews

practised in Palestine only,

and not before the eleventh. century.

the very
in

We

can take

it

that

outset

in

Arab-speaking countries

wrote Arabic

Hebrew

characters even before the ordinary

Arabic alphabet had been developed.

Jews had to learn

it

As for Arab writing, from Mohammedans, but as their

Hebrew
writing.

whole literature was of a religious character, they had no

reason to use any other than

There were

probably only few who desired to study works on

medan theology
than the
rule.

or on

secular

subjects,

Mohamand those who

rather

mastered the Arab alphabet were the exception

In Palestine the art of reading and writing

little.

Arabic was probably practised very

use of Arabic writing by Karaites
of defeat.
is

Secondly, the

an unmistakable sign

Their cause was so

slashing attacks that they retired into their

As
out

they could scarcely

all

much damaged by Saadya's own confines. hope to make converts, they put
and
script for

their strength to prevent the loss of adherents

considered the use of

as the best

Arab

Arabic anel Hebrew

means

to achieve this end.

Before dealing with the probable author of the work

of

which the fragment forms a

its

part,

it

is

necessary to take
is,

note of
missing.
'

contents.

The beginning
is

unfortunately,

The

following
:

the translation of ch. 14.

He

(Saadya) said

must mention how these matters

were handed down by Moses.

They were witnessed by

told to write the

the people in their various aspects just as they were put

into practice
in the fortieth

by Moses,
year

He was

Torah
said to

in the following

manner.

God

170

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

eldJi'im,

Moses, Write UresJiith bard

dictating

word

for word,

and he wrote from

beresJiitli

to zvshavia Id tabor.

This

contains the brief account of the happenings of 2.488 years.

We
be

believe this account of the writing of the

true,

Torah

to

and whoever reads

it

will find

in

it it

satisfactory

evidence for the statements and laws which

to contain.

was meant

From

the

first

year onward Moses taught the

people the whole law and statute which

God commanded
all

him. for which purpose he appointed " chiefs of thousands,

chiefs of hundreds", 8:c. in order to

expound

that he

had

imparted to them.

He would
it

not,

eg. have commanded

them

to

eat

unleavened

bread without explaining from

to

which kind of grain

cleanliness

was

be taken, nor eschewing unthe

rules

without

expounding

concerning

persons suffering from running issue, &c.

From

this

it

necessarily follows that tradition preceded the writing of

the law by forty years.

in the holy land, the

When the

Israelites

were gathered

King and the High

went into the

Priest

watched

and guarded these

of prophec}'.

records, especially during the existence

first

When we

exile

and the

prophets were removed, the learned feared that traditional

knowledge might be forgotten.

the sources and
It

They

therefore collected

codified them.

This they called Mishnah.

expectation that

was kept

in its various divisions in the

they would be retained by means of fixing the sources.

And
till

so

it

happened. These divisions were kept

in
in

memory
a more

the second exile.

We,
in

then, digested
first

them

detailed

manner than
They,

the

instance in solicitude for

the disciples.
that

in their turn, left

them

unfixed, so

they might be further investigated.

This system

they styled Talmud.

statements contained

Now
in

if

some one asks:

How

can

the

Mishnah and the Talmud be

KARAITE CRITICS OF THE MISHNAH HIRSCHFELD

traced back to individual authors
?

171

We

answer that those

people.

who handed them down were

they had recorded them, they
that

number of

When

.-substantiated

them showing
to

they had not invented them.

in

An

instance of this
El'azar,

kind

Num.
it.

31.

23,

which

is

ascribed

who conveyed
contrive

the

command

(to the people)

is,

but did not

Another question

how

is it

that a difference
tra-

arose in

the

Mishnah or the Talmud between two

ditionists?

The

reply

is

that
it

no difference exists as
is

regards the point at issue, but

the
initial

like

a difference in

stages of
it.

who

hears

some matter as it appears to a person Here three classes must be distinguished.

First, One doctor grasped the subject more clearly than another, and differed from him, and taught it according

to his conception.

sons

they him, because he was not sure that they had done so unwittingly. Secondly, It occurred

Thus lAIoses corrected Aaron and when they burned the he-goat (Lev. 10. 10; till
to

his

unloaded their minds

that two things were handed down in the name of Moses, one being lawful, the other unlawful. Some doctors treated on the lawful one first, whilst the other matter should have been taught first. Both pronouncements were

equally

correct, the matter being lawful

but unlawful from another, e.g.

from one point of view, Deut. 20. 19 Lev. 22. 12-13.

;

There
must

no difference between these two principles which be brought into harmony one with the
is

other.

Thirdly, one doctor only heard one part of a subject, but believed that he had learnt the whole of it, whilst the other had it complete. Now, when the former taught his view, the other rejoined we have learnt the whole of the subject and it contains something which renders your version more
:

distinct.

If

any one read the law of shaUnez (Lev.

19. 19)

172

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

it

he might explain

in

a general way, but

when he

reads

through the whole Torah and comes to Deut.

will see

22. 11,

he

wool and linen especially mentioned.

There are
that

other

instances of the
reject
this

same

kind.

Know

those

who
found

doctrine,

whenever they are confronted

with rabbinical laws of which the details are not to be

in

Holy Writ, say

that

Moses

left

them

in

this

condition because he meant us to develop

of speculation. to disclose
its I

them by means

re-echo this attack on speailation in order

mischievousness.

He

then continues

Some

Karaites regard the rejection of tradition

by

part of the

people as the

refutation of

it.

If this
it

be

so,
'^'^

say they,

then the prohibition to commit

to writing

would be

tantamount to rejecting

it

likewise
in

Some

even, says he,

consider the difference of opinion

dition

matters of oral tra-

as rejection, but in this case

any variation

in

an

oral text

which has been committed to writing would be

it.'

an attack on

Thus
missing.

far

Saadya.
that

The bulk

of the author's rejoinder

treatise

deals with

portion

of Saadya's

which

is

The main
refutation

points of the reply are, in abridged

translation, the

following:

The author

of the

fragment

begins

his

by

stating that

the harmfulness of

Saadya's assertions
says, that

is

quite obvious.

Saadya

asserts,

he

Moses never

made

command
30.
1 1

look like a pro-

hibition, supporting this

by Deut.

and Prov.
and

8.

9.

This,

however,

is

also

Karaite doctrine,

confirms

the kiyds.
impartial

Saadya must surely mean that

examination

careful

and

accompanied

by

the

speculative

method
has
3 3'

clearly reveals the

meaning of any

law.

Saadya
resort

.set

up seven
60
b.

rules"'

which compel us to

to

Gittin

See Geiger,

JVissciischaJtlichc Zeilscliii/t, &c., V, p. 313, in the

name

of

KARAITE CRITICS OF THE MISHNAH

rabbinic tradition.

HIRSCHFELD
In Ezra

I73

As

regards Sisit, Siikkdh, and similar

(3.

laws, rabbinic teaching differs from the Bible.

it is

4)

stated that the people celebrated the feast of Tabernacles

in the

as

commanded
.SJ/zV,

Torah.

Rabbanites violate the law

of the nature of

of Slsit
Tekelet.
at

by confessing

to be ignorant

consequently, should be relinquished entirely

the present time, just as they allowed the rules of

to lapse in

purification

consequence of the want of

This
also

'

the

water

of separation'.

applies to
it

Terumdh.
our time,

Although we do not know how

to deal with

in

we need not do
to

so,

since the priest to

If

whom we
is

would have

pay

it

is
it

an unknown person.

we have

to search for

evidence,

would

result in kiyds, as
in

the case with 'many

other laws not explained

the Torah.

On

the other

hand the prohibition

laid

on the king not to increase the

number of

his wives, or his horses, or his wealth, are supple-

mented by explanations.

Saadya

further states that the

law of Sabbath cannot be carried out without rabbinic

tradition.

With regard
to

to his opinion on

work on Sabbath
it.

he

oiigJit

be

ashamed

of mentioning

Rabbanites

permit certain work on

Sabbath, but actual facts and

it.

reason show that they violate

They permit

the sewing
letters.

of one stitch and the writing of one or even two

Sabbath
king of

may be
Israel.^^

violated for children but not for David,

They

also permit borrowing articles of

food^^ from a friend.

Saadya's allusion to vessels subject

Terumah;
Messiah.

Salmon
3.

b.

JerOham. These points are

4.

i. Sisith,

Lulab,
6.

Sukkah

2.

Sabbath;

Unclean vessels;

5.

Prayers;

Calendar;

7.

All these points are seriatim discussed in the fragment.

/.

See also Poznaiiski,

c, p. 210, rem. 2.
^^

Shabbat, 151b.

'8

nnn

nS'

mX

h^X^',

Mishnah Shabbat, XXXIII,

see also Nissi's

extracts from the Mishnah.

VOL.

VIII.

174

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

by
alluding to the legend
differences

to tmcleanncss the author refutes

in

the

Talmud * concerning
b. in

the

of opinion

between R. Eliezer

Hyrcanus and the miracles which

This
is

happened

support of the former.

a disgrace

to

Rabbanites.

Both Ananites and Karaites hold very strong

opinions on the matter, and explain the rules of the uncleanliness of vessels.

As

regards prayers, the Bible lays

6.

down our duty

part of

in

various places, especially Dan.

ii,

viz. three times every day, but the Rabbanites abolished

it.

Saadya's remarks on the calendar as

in force
is

from the time of the second Temple to our own time

quite useless, since no

damage would accrue

if

we knew
arrival

nothing about

it.

His further observations on the

of the Messiah, which, being based on rabbinical tradition,

may
it.

be referred to the time of the kings,

is

is

mere

assertion,

because this matter

so clear that no doubt exists about

:

But

it

may be

objected

Why

do Christians and some

Jews

assert that the arrival of the Messiah has taken place

already?
Trinity

This Christian doctrine

is

like the other of the

and

the

abrogation
to

of the

Torah.

Abu

Isa

Al Ispahani claimed
himself the Messiah

be a prophet, and Yudghan styled

with these matters the author

but

promises to deal on another occasion, not on the basis of

tradition but with the assistance of clear proofs taken from

the Bible.

The
years.

assurances given in the Bible which are to

be

fulfilled in

the days of the Messiah are independent of

any given

Saadya's statement that the Torah was

written in the fortieth year, and that,

when the

Israelites
it

were

in

the holy land, the king and the people guarded

especially

carefully,
is

during the period of the prophets,

exactly the same as

we Karaites
<o

maintain.
b.

His further

Bab. Mcs. 59

KARAITE CRITICS OF THE MISHKA_,RsCHFELD

,75

remarks about the development of the Mishnah and Talmud have been disproved in the
ft..//,/,

further maintains that Jaws promulgated one person, such as that attributed to

book.

He

chapter of the present

however, only connected with his name, but not contrived to have any force. This shows that tradition has fallen .0 the ground.

by Elazar-which was

by h,m-have ceased

For the

between various authorities of the Mishnah and Talmud faaadya gives three reasons-but here the fragment
interrupted.
is to search for the possible author of the In the solution of this question we are assisted by the Karaite author Moses Bashyazi. who lived in the sixteenth century, and who in his work actually quotes a passage from our fragment, ascribing the

difference

is

Our

ne.xt task

fragment^

Joseph Al

Basir,

who

eleventh century.

work to flourished in the beginning of the One of his works is a Book

of Comto

n,a,.d,nc,s (Kitab al-istibsar).

whom we owe
.s

Now

Dr. Poznariski

the extract from

of opinion that the latter

he considers to be the author of our supports this theory by a second quotation horn Moses Bashyazi, which is really to be found in Kirkisanis 5..^ "/ ^ishts. The authorship of the latter quotation is, however, doubtful for the following reasons. Many of the items mentioned in the rejoinder to Saadya's attack are already contained in the first section of Kirkisani's work, which is now known
fragment.

with Kirkisani,

Moses Bashyazi's book mi.d up Joseph AI Bas,;

whom

He

through Harkavy's
'^"'"^-)

""* <' ^-'^ ''"-'"Coral: ;,:ro::;:.""^ - Wriling e or .,vo letters, Hark.vy,

/.

'

carrj,g sp.ttle,

..,

p.

iU.

^88

cookfng, p. .89

sewing p =88

unclean vessels,

,M
N
2

176
edition.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The author of our fragment
refers the reader several

times to more extensive discussion of points later on, but

why

should he not refer to expositions given in the earlier

part of the

author of

we may add the following The our fragment states that Yudghan styled himwork
?

To

this

self Messiah, whilst Kirkisani says, at least in

two

places,^^
this

that
title.

it

was

his disciples

and adherents who gave him

Dr. Poznaiiski lays stress on the quotation of the

talmudical legend of miracles performed for the sake of

EHezer
this

b.

Hyrcanus, but there

also

is

no reason to assume that

It is

was not

known

to Joseph al Baslr.
it

even

probable that the latter copied

from Kirkisani, just as

he borrowed the second quotation mentioned above, which

is

not only very short, but of so general a character that

several

Karaite authors

may have

used

it.

Their stock

of arguments was so small that one repeated what another

had

said before him,

and even without much

fear of dis-

covery, as each author only

had a small

circle of readers.

There

is

yet another proof against Kirkisani's authorviz.

ship of the fragment,

the tone of the discussion.

He

never indulges
to with

in

abuse, and
respect.

Saadya
and

in particular is alluded

marks of

Remarks that Saadya 'ought

it
'

to have been

ashamed of

',

This

is

disgrace to

Rabbanitcs

',

do not agree with Kirkisani's

style,

but rather

with a contemporary of Jepheth,

of abusive expressions.

who

is

frequently guilty

If Dr. Poznaiiski places reliance in

Moses Bashyazi

in

one instance,
is

why

not also in another?

al-BasIr's

Some
treatise
too,

additional light
his

thrown on Joseph
b.

by

famous contemporary Jepheth

AH.

He,
kiyas.

chafed

under

Saadya's denunciation of the

special
284, and

Without writing a
" Harkavy,
I.e., p.

pamphlet
my

in

its

defence,
p. 121.

he

Arabic Clircsiomalhy,

KARAITE CRITICS OF THE MISHNAH

inserted

HIRSCIIFELD
in

177

refutation of Saadya's criticism

(21. 3-4),** stating that

his

com-

mentary on Exodus
He,

he could only

deal with the matter briefly,

too,

because

'

this

is

commentary

'.

quotes salient passages

from Saadya's treatise,

but he does so in his usual abusive manner.

He

divides

Saadya's arguments into two

falsehoods.

classes, idle assertions

and

As
in full,

little
I

is

to be gained from repeating his

arguments
help
us,

refrained from reproducing them.

They

however, to understand

why

this treatise of

Saadya,

as well as

most of

his polemical writings, are entirely or

I

partially lost.

More than ever am

convinced that they

were destroyed by Karaites, who only preserved so much

of

them

as they thought they could refute. to these

In this

way

we owe

two men

the preservation of a few relics

of Karaism.

of an important work

by the powerful opponent

Brit.

Mus. Or. 5558 B.

(i)

13 x ti cm.
I, 2.

Megillah

-in?r^

ncin mspiOi nvi

'w'-'ona nvni?

FoI. 37 ro.

nn''yi

DnD3

bh

non

niDpiDi

ova

jn^P

rii^n:

T2'^n any nvn^ ^n nncb

nh'-yi HD-'iDH

nvb pcnpo nnsD

nctn
ni2pir:i

DV3

)2

p-iip

niH:

[ni]-i^j?i

DnsD

nac'n nvnb

(so) D'2p101 HD^JDH nvb

[riTC'Jn -ins^

pD^pD Dlh:

nvnb bh -inob noin

"

Cod. Brit. Mus. Or. 2468,

fol.

6 sqq.

178

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Foi.

37V0.

HT

nn

I'^-fi

mns

p:^'::n

m-j-y na
ii?N3

innxc xh ponpo nr^N

122

-D

bv

?ix

pcnpc xh

p-insc
\'i2np)2

i^npni

;nnirD p-inso

xh

ncsr

p:vaN^
Pd:2:'J'

m:ncm
"TiD'-s

n':ynm nEci

DipD

mm-

an nr^x

[pD-i^^c px'j* Dipo

bin

'j'cnsi

-J'J':!]

nmx

px-np px
]y^'^-ir\

''^^"cn2

ab) 'ys2 ab
-rj-n

mx^

-nx pn pxi

nnxn
'':^'r]

ni:nr:i nijir^n

nxnP
m^^nm

x^-x

r\bi^2

xi'pn

'?:ix

D"2rnx^

inmn
-121

-n-

xr
1^1:23

ab a-ainrn pn nzinrn
n:nci

i6

nui*n xpni

DiDXD
(2)

x(])i

xb bi nniD

Rosh ha-Sh.

I,

5.

Fol.38ro

^-^
nnuM nx

'^'^"^

^'^^^
-rj*

p^i-no D'*jnn

by nroxu'
>yi
;d-:

nri

px^'V pm^'j'
n\Tj'3'i

nnr^

nrn

^y

nnyicn nx p:pnc onsi nhiob'

-:2o D^3 ^y fix p^^no D'p cnpi^n n'n

p:}i

b-^ya nxnrj* pn

pipn ppn
^"ijya

nam
I'^^no

nx rbv p^^no
nx-i:

nxn: xbr
-a-i

px ^-bya

dx
"o

6ix ^dv

c'lnn

nx hxtj'

nam
1^'"^^

nx vbv
irxi

-nr^nn ^y inx pn-^i^s

b'iZ''

[m^po] inx

pnpii?

nn^

(so)

nn:; cxi f^cbh i^'sxi

KARAITE CRITICS OF THE MISHNAH HIRSCHFELD

I79

ro [n]^3 pnp^ npini

im

nn*n

ns*

[j}^^nD DV1 n^'^ n^HD ^yj*

nyiD n^N y^

'^^'^^^

niny^ pXiTi

Foi.

38V0.

Rosh ha-Sh.
;n n^2

II, 8.
':

cxn

:^tp

^xnpo

nin^

p3i liora
iry^^N* 'nn

nx-ii*i'

p^ Dnipo :rnipo

inx

T^^^'ip^

uon

rix~i5

s^-ky

]'^npr2

1JDD

ns-iJ n'^

dn

'oin pn!*

ma
rh^
T'i'y

^:n*

-in:

bn'bj^:

p-i yc'in^

^m^

i^

DV i^niyom i^pcn ^^xk Ninnu'

l^n j^jn-j'nD nvn^ Qnis5n or ^nu'

K''

1^

-iDN -iv^o

navy

':ii

[n*vi]

r\)r\''

nyiD n^N

'o:r

^V;:'y

^n*"'^?::

pn

Foi.sgro.

d:ct2 pn
'h'n nb'a
ntti-

DHN ixnpn
nnyiD
'^

t^tn "^np 'nipd

pN njora x^c' pi
!?3

DID n^bbnra nis^^nn n^x

myit:n cns' isnpn
*tj\s*

d:i

inh'j'J

nnx nys dim

irnnn

nny

cnnn nny

|''i'3pD

nih'

ab^ irpnn
ny x^x

nnjt:n po ixa dni

nmcn

Dvn ^3 inis
(so)

p:ni: n^y?oh

Dvovna' ijyn>

-trip

"inch 'cnp

FoI.

39 vo.

l8o

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

n:

pnnon

pn'^rna o^-jnnn

"w'wS-i

nycn
13

::\s*-i

-no

fjiDn

mypn
tii^B*

nypn

niy^-L^

'C'l^'C'

b'C'

n3 nynn

my^'jn

mynn

ci^::'

nnx N^N

"n^a

pxi D^ncj'D

n^'^yc^i

yn?:i
Di"::

ypm

ypini

ynci ypin

D'-cya r^'ob'C^ ypini

Foi.

40

ro.

^,p^,^

-,,^,

1,2

^2 a^n "invn

m!?:j'L''

D^oyD

'c)b'^

minn nan
35

^ynv
x^^

D''cy2 ub'^

mit'3

TI13T

ija

nsi' nrc'3
on^jvoii

nan

rt'^^b'^^

(3)
Foi.

Shabbat XVI,
na:

6.

40 vo.

nr:N nn*^n i: niaym

ib

n33n ba na3

pnoix px Wu^b ntj'

pwS'c*

n56' |up i'3N nn^^y infi^Qw'

"Jao

lip it
L
Sk

d R^
.^

"^

s>

fr r 5

u u

iz

7s

^ V r

o >
ON

'o

-v.

S n *^. t
.-.

5^-^>:

^'

-:

rCi

,.

r-^ g n

jj^

Ci cv

^1

rr

KARAITE CRITICS OF THE MISHNAH

HIRSCHFELD

l8l

':i^n 1^ -ION'' s^-j*

DN*i

nnbi |oc
n-j'w pi
i:\s*

[nn33 nmnnD]

i!?VN in''^C2

n^:o iros*i3
jn-j'n
iJDy

pi nn-jM -ins^
nTi:o nv-^
njyiyi "inD2
^n-j*

n-j-iyi

Foi. 41 ro.

a^^-j-n^a
i^:;wX

n^noa any
in^^a
n'-jo

nx

bsixi

avj DV nnsb juu'n T^y

(4)

HulHn IV,
n^^'j'

3.

nn

nv?:i njrnnn

ns

L:niD'n

nxr^D ^rS'db
n-_"-n

n:\s*"i

nj^DNn
s^i

nD\-i c's:

m^n: nsi^u
D'ijbix

D'^rvs*

nb bin

nxcD ndud

n^^y

n:;\s*2

n^iin jc^d

n/'3N3 iijos*

n'z^jb n:5^b'y' ri'b^ n^^am

foI. 41 vo.

nms* jnmp px i3pn n^'C'ipimi

l^\s*a

nmx
Tj'Ni

pl^in

pxi D'i-n n'jnsa

nos
nir:r "j-cj*
"3-1

mr:sn

^::-n

':s?3

pnoix o'oani

-iw'o "ai

nai

Hullin IV,
'ciN
ir^N

8.

nnsr pycc' ^m] imno':) lox

*j'j:n

no^n::'

nt2'nr m'j'a Lnn sim n';r

i^"wS'

l82

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

n23n mnv[ni] nvbni n'^sm

moiN

n-nnni

i-iTin

ic^n
mo''
^31

ncnzn
^sn
ici

nvj'n

n^n^nn nsi

mnn

nv^Dni nD3?:m n-i^sn

(5)
Foi.

Xiddah IIL

6.

36

ro.

n^ii^ n-J'cin n:\s*

cyins' Dv ni's&n

n3p:bi 13?^ ntrn nnsi

D'jr:"^:'

nv

nnxi

"12T

n^na ins

nois

D^t:3ni

Niddah IV,

6.

nap: ^w' D':c*^ iinn

nVpon
d-'DIh ^a

ny cninD

nxn

N\nti'

i;iv

i6 TiTN ni3T

Foi. 36 vo.

*"w'3

N-i3: ypin-j'

irNnc

"insi

ninni dinhi

^313

iryj

nniNoni

**

Added by

a later liand

between the

lines.

Omitted

-\2\b 3'j'n

nnxi D'y3iN nv -iDiN^xyoD'^ 31

m:h

nspj^Ji.

KARAITE CRITICS OF THE MISHNAH

HIRSCHFELD

183

icy

nD[snj nvn^ niin^r Dm?:3 py

? ?
1

S^ib c^

nt:s* -id'[?n]

n33
ab

n:3iD Fit^N

sh nos

jxi

?3

inNHD

nsicni ^y^arn
nns^'i

dvd nosn
"y^a'^'i?
c""

nDin nvnb nunar

w'npni ^n;n nau'n -ya'j'n dv

II

Cod.

Brit.

Mus. Or. 2580.

Uil

il;_j:Jl

^.1

^i^

^,
Lo'j:;<j

J^jJ\ ^^) iu_ ^^^^;o

.1^^.^!1

,^,

^^1

^^^;^::i>.U

j_j^c'j'

!!s)

^Jl

e^-^ij^j ^v.

,_.^; j^j iJS ijS ^Jc

j^lj

i*U

j.:j!.ii^

Ij^^'Ajdl 1x4 i-:^ ^-o'-^j tjUj iiU

^^4-^J' j'-^^l

j^

^.^^

sJl

dJjj \^.j^\ ^:J1

U->

^'JC^^)lJ
^-cUi;.

p^l
^L^

.;^ ii^U
ij,U,j

J^l

(-V-'^

u^J^^- ^j (^i^

ipCitJ

^9^)1 (j^L

u^s.?

i^^^l

sli^ ^..^

dJi

^1

bl;Jl

^,1;J1

^,

\yS U4*9

L^

^^j^L

^__5x5ril

1^ ^

^,^_,

^^

y,^
^,1

^^

j_,',

J^LlIi^

^^

Fol 44 vo.

184

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

^U L^^ll
JjJ

Ai,lj

J3^)l

iJJb

li^.

lOs

^1 5^'- W^
iais^
jjl
jjl

^j

W^^/s.-^-,

Jii dlSji^

u'-^' cJ^-^'
^jliJl

'^

^^'U^'li-^.

1_5^

^5^-^

1>^-^J

^^
^1
(

jJS\ LxJy^j^J
4_^:;--^.

^^.^.^)l

L-J^l ^\

ili^*
si'is.-*

iillAl

p;/^^
(JJJV-JI

*Aj Uj5 ^^S^

JL- ^'i
J'-s

'^

ic

J4^=- J^^^:J1
l-ajl
s^j::Jli

J pi
ljAjti

a.*j

Jj'wj

^ij

s_j.C-i

sJ'

^hjJ^

*4il

Ldi

^^L:J1

^^

(jj^j Jl

j^lJl

Lill

(jjjl

1*4^ JJ^l

c>.-^

Fol. 45ro.

^_jj^ jj^JJlj uITl

Jjl jc9
^JjAJ
CiJJjj
^,1
*

^^1 '.H^^U .-a/'jJL jL

5-a^^ii-sI

^jU

JU

U^J^.l

ili-O
'^JLo

j-a

lilj

jlc

U.Li>.

^
s^jl^

(_^ Ldi
'-*'j

vJlsUI ^^^_

Jj!^l

L_J^1 illJ ^S. ^^4i S-^^^a^.Ic

j^:=..

JtaLil

IjXO

Jla.

sJ^;:c

\x!L

s-CjbJ

sill-*,

^^JJ

.^1 ^IUrU
i^A^

|^_;^

oLk.'.ii

H^.x

j49Ui>-'

J-i-f^Jj

^;5

^c

^^^' *'^1

Lie*

w(^!il

US

^^u^u
ei/-^'

Uj

j,i/i.L).

j^^'3\

ji

^:iiij

jUu

^i5iiii

ji ^uJi

^^.

j^
J

5.4^

J^

^1^:.

>4^ J-^ J^U ^^11

liUi

^1 u^,^ ^J^y^\

Fol. 45 vo. ij^l

IJliS

U4yj..i
L"j>.

^jl

^^v^Jj

U4J0

jj^j

Uv^Ui
uj^^.

^1 ^^^^^-Jl

J^ J/

^j

&-ii^-

"^y

5t--o

'^UjijI J.a.1

u' ^-^'^N

^-5 -^

"/-"'J

KARAITE CRITICS OF THE MISHNAH HIRSCHFELD

185

^j

(liUi

^.j

Jii

jsUj

il-j b^lj

^UJl Jc
-J
i.:^!

jj

^^^

'^

ti^f_i

j^-^

iyU JjuJl

^^ wjcl L
'-^.'

vJlc

Ll^
U;50l

^^;

^',5ol

J^.

,.^

1*4^5 J^

^ ^^

M>^IJ

^^'JO

;^-i^

J_jiLi-

'u/^.'5'^j Fol.46ro.

t-ali-' islljS' ^^iS'j]

^ '^L JyJ.1

iai^ ''(^>>)

^^vC

U^.

_iLi? Jr! ^^

.l^^l

Uj

^W^'
J

c>^

^jl

A-/i
^._.

U^

Jj.0

j.^

^i

I.

^^,

^1

Ul x/i j,xi:^

L^

^IjLjJl

JJ^ L ^Us

c,S;-i

^^^^ i^i

^'---i

u ^j^_ y,^ ijy

e^i^-^lil
(-131

^ __j. ^^^
Ul

jj^ j^^ Liir^j~iiiirii

Lpl J_^

^>

^y

L^ ^,^

i^-lj

J3 ^LsJl ^ o^.

J^^!S)1

1,^1

^L>j
itJl
Ul^

^ ^ J o- '-^ ^^ ^^- -^-^ ^^yJ' lP'-^ J^l Jl ^^^1 Jl U>^- 1^1 ^.cj ^1 ^J, ^^1 ^..FoI.46vo.
^..

s/i

(2]J

^U-' JU

c^Ul

^U U44^1 L.
eUj
,^.*

lUJi".

ZZZjI i.^
u

...

J.U1

^l 1^^ i^
^^^
tsiij

^y:.

Lj .^1^1 5^^l
.,^
il

^i^U^.

s^i e)u

i^ri_j^^

ji

wu-*' ^1 ^Aji ..i,^

niziri

^^j^. u-J j^lj ^^^. 1^_^

^^,l5'

o>UcJi

^_;1

ycj

^j l^Uj

*'

Overlined in the manuscript, and to be omitted.

i86

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

..^la.H
jl-J'

[^tXx.j>

^.

(^JJl Ijo
si.

^\5

jl ^.aatJl

ju4

Ijil

^
Fol. 47 ro.

LiU

..iixJI

'j^

t^UU

(c4J

U-o

s/i

l*

dJjS.
ijl

,_;a-:J'

,i i^Lj^

,a

(_;<J

U-o

s^;-^-^

^-^^

aJxJ

,^r,9

Ss

^J'cLxJl

la^

J'-^S

J^^i

LjJl

1^*

,LlX::-jj)l

^^^

sJLc

^,-ax jjl

^yill

1j.i

^1 ^*i ^^* die

jJJ

^o-*

di*

^jl

U'i ^^-e j^

J'-^

;;

U-Jl

^j_5^

^jl

ji^ 3^W^

s-lW-'

f;

LiT^''^

''"'y

^"^J

'^^

"^'-

'^^

Fol. 47 vo. jl

dDi

Jc Jll; ^9 L
JJ.C
wjifcl

^.

^)

Jlil
^).

^..

dl.
4

j9

jlyl
w^

L^l ^'S^jl

:sj jMx

j^c j5<:.J^

sJlL

js?-

^jl

sW

|jO

&-^Ac

dJj

^^-

*1.9

.i^^^^*

Jjj ^j v_Jl>

j^\

^jos^-

"3

I.*

Jl_^!^l

^J^

syVi

'.*

dL!J.^j

Aji)

l^

cUi

^J^II

^^j:.:^^ _^j'^i

Jj

Ji-^J'j jJ:^

l^.:>.

KARAITE CRITICS OF THE MISHNAH HIRSCHFELD

OJU^I

187
,

^4.^ Lj

l^^
.Li^Si

L J^^ o^JI
i:.

Jl ^,^_^^^ ^^^^\

^
V-

;^,

U.^

^-,

eUi^ij

^v.^>_5

^5^

i,.'^_5

^-^ Fol.48ro.

^^^1
U;.
SAC

c^

o'^'

^>""'

^'3 ^'^?. c;-

J^J^ ^^b

^^
j^_^.

is-Li

c^JJl

^IS^Jl

l^j

sis^ ^ji ps:, ^-^

^^'j

,_^"5^.

^^.|^j,^

J
lil

^'jSJi\

^.> b_j^^

i^U Llj ^^^

i^Jj

ijii^^

.X.

J^

JyJI

1^3

^j:^^ J-^b

a^5

,,1^

Fol.

48 vo.

^JJ^J3

^Ic

tiUj

^li'y

^[ji jij

^u ^U^lj eU

>ilj

^1

*'

Read JJ^-.

l88
Fol. 49ro.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

^^1

^J. Jljb

Ic isr^'^ll

iobWl

JJ^jJi

i^

^v

Jj J-s-^l

"i^^a-

^^v*

^1

j^-^\

^Jl

J^l_jil

c!^ ^-^^5 '^"^. Jj^^

o^

^^^t;

"^

'^^

r*^

^)^

UiL^j^UMl

^.'Jiis^-

^V^U

dill ^^'ji^'ii JJ-JI

V'^^c:^

&jj.ji sj^

v^l

i-j-i ljl

(slJj

^,'^

^_^Jl3

j.>Ij^1

,"ob

j5

j^laJl

J^.

Ujl

^^11

i;^^>jdl

Jl^^l

sJui

J\

J^

Jjj dJi ^J J^ai

Ijjol

w^

^1

L l^
J.1

A^lj J5' j^/i

j^

J.jl5^l

J^

,_^^r>

il41 oils'
^Jl

lil_j

(oJhj (so) u-liaJ^ (W^^

S:>.\t

USjj J

LJ^I

]j^

Si *Ay-.U l^ij5o

|^*U

,__^^
l

dJi
iijS

^jl

r^j^

'

'^^"*^

c^
l

j^JcJij

LjJlI

Juil

^-o
ljl.

Jti.

U^ s^i
Ic

Jslj
LiJill

|.v-c

jlo^J;<

Le

S-'r*!
j3lj

djJu
Jlv;

)c jJi

A.C.ii-sl

Jc

'j^l^

dJi

^^5o

Jcy-^il

u^j^

^1 'J^

THE JACOB GUTTMANN JUBILEE VOLUME

Festschrift

zum

siebzigsten Geburtstage Jacob

Guttmanns.

Heraus-

gegeben vom Vorstande der Gesellschaft zur Forderung der

Wissenschaft des Judentums.
lung
Leipzig,

1915.

Buchhand-

GusTAV FocK.

pp. xvi

+ 283.

Every

student of mediaeval Jewish philosophy will readily

acknowledge the debt of gratitude which he owes to Dr. Jacob

Guttmann, the well-known Rabbi of Breslau.

articles

By

his

numerous
ex-

and

treatises,

dealing with the

most representative

ponents of Jewish rationalism in the Middle Ages, he has paved

the

way

for a constructive study of this

most interesting and most

Already
in his early

mportant branch of Jewish learning.

youth

he devoted himself to the study of philosophy, and

thesis,

his doctor's

published in 1868, deals with the relation of the philosophic

systems of Descartes and Spinoza.

This was followed by

treatises

on the works of the early Jewish philosophers, as Saadia, ibn Daud,

Solomon ibn

Gabirol, Isaac Israeli,

and

others.

His studies of showing the

Maimonides were rather of a comparative

influence of others

character,

on

his philosophy

and

his influence

on the
also
at

philosophy of those that followed him.

Guttmann

is

home

in the scholastic

philosophy of the Middle Ages, and the

relationship between this

treated by

him

in several

and the philosophy of the Jews is articles and pamphlets. All his works
full

are characterized by a broad knowledge,

and

clear compreat a truly

hension, and originality of thought.

scientific exposition of the subject

While aiming

under treatment, one cannot

miss noticing in

all his

writings the
is

warm sympathy
his

of the author

with everything that

learning.

Jewish

and

great

love for Jewish

He
and

always approaches
this

his

subject

with

love

and

veneration,

attitude does not detract from the critical

value of his studies.

VOL.

VIII.

189

190
It

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

was but natural that his many disciples and friends should

wish to pay homage to his great services to Jewish learning on

the

occasion

of

his

seventieth
in

birthday

anniversary.

This

homage

expresses

itself

the form of a

number

of valuable

contributions in the realms of Jewish Philosophy, Jewish Law,

Jewish Literature and Jewish History from the pens of eighteen

representative Jewish scholars of our day.

One
is

of these contriis

butors

is

the

son of the celebrant,

Julius

Guttmann, who

following in the footsteps of his father

and

making a name

for

himself in the

fields

of Jewish philosophy,

and another

is

his

brother-in-law, Dr.

Simonsen of Copenhagen.
is
'

The

preface to the volume

written by Prof. Martin Philipp-

son, the late President of the

Gesellschaft zur Forderung der

Wissenschaft des Judentums

is

',

under whose auspices the volume

published.

The

writer pays a glowing tribute to the works

and

achievements of the celebrant, especially mentioning his great

services to the society,

which has produced a number of valuable

years.

works during the past few

This

is

followed by a

list

of

Guttmann's works, comprising 75 items, prepared by N. ]\L Nathan. The first article is contributed by the Nestor of philosophic
studies

among

the Jews of Germany, Dr.

is
'

Hermann Cohen.
',

The

subject of the article

The Holy
first

Spirit

as viewed from the

Jewish point of view.

'spirit' in the Bible
{afiitniis)

He

analyses the meaning of the term

its

and shows how

early significance as

wind

gradually developed into the notion

of holiness and

ethical perfection.
in

Spirit stands in direct antithesis to material

general,

as well as to the
in
all

material in

life.

Still, spirit

and
man.

matter are united

living beings,
spirit

and
life

especially in

Through

this

union with the

'

in
is

comes the union of

'.

man
spirit

with God, because of

the spirit

God

God

created the
earth.

man

as surely as he created the heavens

and the

It is the spirit of

man, indeed, but

return to

this spirit

was given to him

material
its

by God and
destroyed.

it

will

God

after
spirit

its

abode

is

What becomes
in

of the

after

return to

its

Maker,

this the

monotheistic teaching does not reveal.

the

Holiness

Jewish

understanding of

it

implies

the

'

GUTTMANN JUBILEE VOLUME

spiritualizing of the concepts

GREENSTONE

191

elevation of the service of the highest ideals of

man and God and presumes the God and of the conception of God to mankind. God is holy, hallowed through
'

righteousness'

(Isa.

5.

16).

This holiness, expressed

in

the

term of the highest ideal of morality, becomes the heritage of

man.
gift

of

The spirit is the God to man.

is

gift
'

of

God

to

man

holiness also
sanctify

is

the

I,

the

Lord your God,

you

(Exod. 31. 13)

interpreted by the Rabbis to refer to the holiness

nl^'np
IT.

coming through the performance of noble deeds mSD

On
i.

the other hand,

man

is

obliged to attribute holiness to God,

e.

the

sanctification

of God's

name.

Moses was punished

time he was ordered to
while the

because he neglected to do speak to the rock so that

this at the
it

might produce water,

it

Jewish messianic ideal carries with

the hope for the complete

fulfillment of the great idea of the sanctification of

God's name

through man.

The term
in Psalms.

'

holy

spirit

'

occurs only twice in Isaiah and once

In

Isa. 63. 10, 11, the

is

term used indicates only the In Psalm 51. 13,

fact that the holy spirit

the

gift

of God to man.
is

the true nature of the holy spirit

revealed to us.
first

This

is

penitential Psalm, in which the psalmist

(vv. 9,

prays for forgiveness

13)

and then

for the recreation

of a

new

heart

and of
His

new

spirit,

so that by this renewal of the spirit sin

may become
'

annihilated.

He

then appeals to
spirit

God

not to take away

is

holy spirit'

from him, the

which

the

indestructible

character of man, the correlation between

man and God.

it

Sin can-

not destroy
spirit.

it.

Sin becomes destroyed through the renewal of the

inherited sin
spirit,
is

Hence

impossible,

contradicts the very

notion of the holy

The

holy

spirit is neither

common
separate,

to
if

both.

common with God. man nor God, but an attribute, a power God and man must remain distinct and
which
has in
spirit,

man

they are to be united by means of the holy

otherwise union would be impossible.

the holy
spirit rests entirely

In Judaism, the idea of

on the

ethical life of the individual,

alike.

and

is

common
number

to

Jew and non-Jew

Cohen

introduces

a large

of quotations

from the

Bible and

Rabbinic
2

192
literature

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

to
illustrate

the

ideas

which

he

endeavours

to

elucidate.

Dr.

J.

passage in the

Cohn presents an illuminating Wisdom of Solomon (11.

There
it is

explanation of a difficult
18),

which

refers to the

creation of the world.

said that
'

God

created the world

vXr]<;).

out of

'

formless primeval matter

{e$ afi6p(f)ov

This
is

ex-

pression contradicts the whole tenor of the book, which

in the spirit of true

written

Jewish tradition.

Our author

interprets this

in the sense given to a similar expression of Gersonides, a

most

ardent follower of Aristotle,

ex nihilo
'

who speaks
it

of the world as

'

creatio

only in so

far that

was not created out of any

("inyj

substance which has form.

This formless substance

D'J

miv

b^)

is

interpreted as a pure abstraction, an idea that existed

in the

mind of
and

the Creator.
criticisms of Aristotle's conceptions of space,

Hasdai Crescas's
time,
infinity

form the subject of an exhaustive study by

Julius

Guttmann, the son of the celebrant.

According

The

author

first

analyses these criticisms, showing their strength and occasionally

also their weakness.
to

Guttmann, Crescas's discussion

of Aristotle's Physics has no other purpose but to establish the entire

independence of the proofs

for the existence of a

God

from the

Aristotelean conceptions of the world, which has formed the basis

for the

arguments of many Jewish philosophers who preceded him. The problem of the attributes of God, which gave rise to so much discussion on the part of the Jewish mediaeval philosophers,

also troubled the

minds of the Rabbis of the Talmud, according

to the opinion of S. Horovitz.

The

paraphrases of the Targum,

this

which have been adduced as proof of an attempt to solve

problem,
refer

mainly to

anthropomorphic or anthropopathic

expressions in the Bible and do not show any consciousness of

the difficulty of the problem.

Horovitz mentions one citation

faint recog-

from the Sifre (Num. section 153), which indicates a

nition of the difficulty.

Philo declared that

God was

possessed

of

no

qualities
.Still

((xttoios),
is

but Philo was

in

unknown

to mediaeval

Jewry.

there

enough
in

Tulniudic literature to indicate

Horovitz, in

a certain continuity

philosophic speculation.

GUTTMANN JUBILEE VOLUME GREENSTONE

193

a second chapter, shows that the works of jMaimonides and his study of God's attributes, while strongly influenced by Arabic
philosophy, have exerted no influence on
the development of

Arabic philosophic thought.

doubts whether the works of the mediaeval Jewish philosophers were even known to the Arabs.
can point to only one passage in Senussi, an Arabic theologian
the
fifteenth

He

He
of

century,

which

shows an acquaintance with

is

Maimonides' More.

The

third chapter of this article

devoted

to an interpretation of a few terms used

by Maimonides.

Julius

Lewkowitz endeavours

to establish the true

meaning of
scientific

the relation between

God and man,

difficult

from a modern

point of view.
to

The most

phase

in this relationship is

determine the exact meaning of individual providence.

can be determined, however, there are several

Before

this

vital questions,

as the conception of

God by man and the problem of man's freedom to act under such a relationship, which demand attention. Our author discusses these problems from the Jewish point of
view, contrasting the Jewish idea of the inherent goodness of

with the Christian notion of the original depravity of the

man human

nature and showing the proper place of the idea of God's grace in the ethical character of man. God's grace is extended to
every individual, for every
of self-development.

man

is

endowed with
we

the possibilities

It is true that

are unable to explain the

differences that exist in the natures of different

human

beings.

We

are,

however, certain that God's providence and grace are

all

extended alike to

individuals.
in

What
culture?
in

position does religion occupy

Is
it

the present

human

possible to find a basis for religious philosophy

modern

culture

and
age?

to

harmonize
is

it

with the general trend

difficult

of this

scientific

7'his

a very

problem that
will

Albert Lewkowitz undertook to solve, and his solution

satisfy the rational thinker of

not

modern

days.

His analysis of the

conception of religion as enunciated by Schleiermacher,

bases
it

who

on human emotions, and of Hermann Cohen, who seeks

it,

to establish a purely rational basis for

is

clear

and convincing,

but

his

own

point of view

is

rather obscure.

194

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

While Kant has shown but
Httle

sympathy with Jews and

INIaimon,

with Judaism, Jews have been loyal followers of Kant and his

philosophy.

Markus Herz, Solomon

Bendavid, and

modern Jewish philosopher, Hermann Cohen, have been devoted students of Kant and admirers of his philosophy. In order to explain this phenomenon, M. Steckelmacher
especially the great

endeavours to seek some inner harmony between the Kantian

philosophy and the teachings of Judaism, of which the Konigsberg sage himself was entirely unconscious.

Kant's theory of

time and space solves

theologians,

many

of the difficulties that beset Jewish

falls

while his theory of ethics

in perfect

harmony

with the moral law of the Bible and of later Jewish tradition.

In a popular style the author lucidly sets forth several of the

leading principles of the Kantian philosophy and compares

them

with similar teachings in Judaism with which they

in

may be brought
of thought,

accord.

This closeness of ideas and

for

relativity

Steckelmacher thinks, accounts

thinkers
felt

the

sympathy that Jewish

to the extent of

with the philosophy of

his

Kant

making

them overlook even

ignorance and lack of appreciation of

Jewish ideals and conceptions.

The second
Midrash,
is

section of the book, dealing with

'

Talmud and
the

introduced by a contribution entitled

',

Rome and

Mystics of the Merkabah

or Pirke Hekalot, which

by Philip Bloch.
is

The

Sefer Hekalot

the product of the Mystics of the

contains,

Merkabah
of the

(n3310

n~iV),

besides

incantations

and
story

names of God and of

angels, two historic

documents

the

Ten Martyrs and

the legend about

to analyse

Hananiah ben Tradyon.

to

These our author undertakes

story of the

and

determine through

them the probable date of the composition of the book.

The

Ten

Martyrs, with

its

unmistakable signs of a period

when Jews imparted knowledge

the curse poured out on

to Christians,
fits

and

its

reference to

Rome,
b.

in with the period

immediately

following the accession of Gregory to the papacy, after 590.

The
same

legend of R. Hananyah
period.

Tradyon

also

points

to

the

A number

of suggestive interpretations of the text are

in the

thrown out by the author

course of the

article.

Although

GUTTMANN JUBILEE VOLUME

he admits that
his conjecture

GREENSTONE
is

195
only

about the date of the book

a surmise, not backed by any positive proof, he seems to be

reasonably certain that the place of composition was
the time about the middle of the seventh century.
to suggest that the Otiot derabbi Akiba,

Rome and He ventures

also the

and possibly

Sefer Yezirah were

composed

in

Rome, although he

refrains

from

entering into a discussion of these subjects.

The meaning of the obscure term Tiy rise to many differences of opinion among
which the term occurs.

13n, which has given

scholars,
is

here again

reviewed by Jakob Horovitz, in relation to several passages in

Our author
'

is

inclined to reject entirely

galilaische

the interpretation of Biichler in his

Der

Am
is

Haarez',

which aims
zations

to identify
societies.

"Tiy

"i3n with regularly established organi-

and

Our

author,

however,

undecided
R. Hai,

between the two

earlier definitions of the term, that of

which makes

it

identical with the learned or

honoured men of

the community, and that attributed to R. Hananel, which translates

latter
it

as the

community
to
in

as a whole.

In several places the

meaning seems

be the more acceptable, while there are

some passages
fitting.

which the former rendering appears the more

It

is

doubtful whether

many

will

accept our author's

explanation of the term as used in Semahot

distinction

XI

(p. 138).

The
text,

drawn by him between the wblH n^na and the miyo

riNnsn (p. 141) appears logical

and

in

agreement with the

although the suggested, ingenuous emendation of

Ty

3m

for

Ty

"13n

may

not be accepted.

N. A. Nobel, in a brief contribution, endeavours to draw

a comparison between the

Talmudic law regarding the com-

mission of several crimes or sins at the same time and the

Roman

conairsus delictorum.

The

study

is

short

and inade-

quate and the author promises to give a more detailed presentation of the subject at

some

future time.

The
J.

foremost

living

authority

on

the

Midrash

Rabba,

Theodor, publishes here three unknown Parashahs of Bereshit

In his introduction,

Rabbah (95-97) from a Vatican manuscript.

Dr.

Theodor argues

that these Parashahs unmistakably belong

196
to Bereshit
context.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Rabba, as shown both by the diction and by the
apparently
the

The manuscript was

unknown

to the various

commentators and editors of

Midrash Rabba, with the

possible exception of the compilers of the

Midrash Haggadol.

The text itself is accompanied by many notes by the author. The third section contains contributions on subjects related
the
history of Jewish
late
literature.
'

to

This begins with an

article
'.

by the
In

Leopold Cohn, entitled Pseudo-Philo and Jerahmeel

1898,
to

Cohn

called

attention

in

the

Jewish Quarterly
in

Review
Ages

an almost forgotten work ascribed

is

the

Middle

to Philo, which

kind of Midrash to ancient history,

up

to the time

of

King David.
in

Cohn

returns here to a con-

sideration of the

same work,
to

connexion with the Chronicles of

Jerahmeel, published by M. Caster in 1899.

of
the

The main purpose

that

author

is

disprove

Caster's

theory

the

com-

piler of the

Jerahmeel legend had before him a copy of the

Hebrew

original of the Pseudo-Philo.

Cohn
all,

tries to

prove that
in-

Jerahmeel did not see the Hebrew at

formation from the Latin translation.

but received his

At the end of the

article

the author expresses doubt whether the compiler of Jerahmeel

saw the Pseudo-Philo

all his

at

all,

and whether he had not received

ibn Daud's historical works
xra\
\rhi\>r\

knowledge from a secondary source altogether.

splendid resume of
^3^?D

A
'JB'

Abraham

nil W-yv"
first

nm

/on

nm
is

-no and

their

value as historical source books,

presented

by L

Elbogen.

He

gives the general contents of the three treatises

all
'

and
',

then endeavours to show that they were

Tendenzschriften
in

written for special purposes which the author

had

mind.

The

Seder ha-Kabbalah, according to Elbogen, was written

for the

purpose of refuting the contentions

tradition, the History of the

of

the

Karaites

against

Kings to show that the Messiah has

not yet appeared, notwithstanding the Karaitic claims, and that

only a scion
(jf

the house of David can be recognized as the

Messiah, and the

is

Roman

History to show that the Christian era

not accurate and that the Gospels were composed long after

the death of Jesus.

Elbogen then proceeds to show the sources

GUTTMANN JUB.LEE VOLUME-GREENSTONE

197

from which ibn Daud drew his information and the manner in which he treated these sources. Ibn Daud was not a critical historian, was given to exaggeration,

and

frecjuently

His works were greatly used bJ subsequent Jewish historians and were translated into Latin and studied by Christian scholars.
all

events to the influence of the supernatural. IS always clear and attractive.

referred

His

style,

however

The oft quoted Kabbalistic works nniDH nn:^ and n-, n^^: are the works of Paulus de Heredia, who lived in the middle of the fifteenth century, according to A. Freimann. In a little book, now exceedingly rare, Paulus de Heredia propounds eight questions, most of which pertain to the trinity. The questions and answers are put in the mouth of Nehunyah
gives

the

ben Hakkanah. who

It

answers

in

the

name

of

appears that Paulus. or some one

Rabbenu Hakadosh.
the

book

else, later translated

same

translation. The first resJ>onsum deals with the question of the repetition of the 'Amidah by the precentor, and the second with the question whether one is obliged to turn to the wall while reciting the 'Amidah. The third deals with a civil question directed to him by the Dayyan Pincus b. Elijah ot Alexandria.

son Abraham, which have either never been published before or were published in a corrupt form of

passed unnoticed by Jews, frequently quoted by Christian theologians. D. Simonsen, a brother-in-law of the celebrant, brings together several res/>onsa of Maimonides and of his

into

Hebrew.

The book was

although

It IS

A
at the

more lengthy responsum by Abraham Maimonides

end of the
article.

is

given

importance and throws considerable modesty of the son of the great

involved a personal
controversy

This deals with an incident of historical

light

on the gentleness and

philosopher.

The

question

between the Dayyan Joseph

France, and
until

U K Hodyah
The
begins

'' ^^^^^"^^i^' ^ "-^ive of r Yishai. This Hodyah was

b.

the

Nasi
to

Jewish history.

now unknown

with

fourth section of this volume, devoted to Jewish history, an exceedingly interesting article by M. Brann

198

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

community.

relating to the Silesian Jewish

article is to present

The purpose
Silesia,

of the

a letter written by a certain Solomon Bloch

of

London

to his father Hirsch

Bloch of Langendorf,

dated

January 28, 1763.

The letter is written in the Yiddish spoken at that time by German Jews, and throws much light on the life of the Jews in Germany in the middle of the eighteenth century
and
is

also of considerable interest to

American Jewish

history.

The

oppressive laws which forbade the marriage of

in a

more than

one son

Jewish family drove many young Jews to seek their

fortunes in distant lands.

This Solomon Bloch settled in London,

while another brother, Koppel, emigrated to America and settled

for

a time in Philadelphia, under the

his relative

name

of Jacob
first

Henry.
in

Both he and

Barnard Gratz were

employed

the business of David Franks in Philadelphia.

The

author, in his

notes, shows a familiarity with the early history of the Jews in

Philadelphia.
in this

He

also acknowledges the assistance given to

him

matter by Judge
is

Mayer

Sulzberger.

This interesting

document
Jewish
life

preceded by a general resume of the conditions of

in Silesia, in

which the genealogy of the writer of

this

letter is traced.

A. Lewinsky,

who succeeded Guttmann

latter

as

Rabbi of Hildesfor

heim, after the

had occupied that position

eighteen

years, presents here a few extracts

from the Hildesheimer Relations-

Courier of the years

the Jews in the

748-1 754, which pertain to the history of

It is interesting to

Germany during that period. references made in that journal to

note

the Emden-Eibeschiitz
notices deal mainly

controversy in Altona.

Most of the other

with local events or with government ordinances affecting Jews.

The volume concludes with an illustrated article on the Hebrew Inscriptions in the Aleppo Synagogue, compiled by M. Sobernheim and E. Mittwoch. The synagogue in Aleppo
is

one of the oldest synagogues

erected in the
fifth

in the world.

It

was probably

first
is

or sixth century, although

Abbe Chagnot
inscrip-

of the 0[)inion

that

portions

of

it

were erected as early as

the fourth century.

tions found

M. Sobernheim copied some of the

on the walls of the several chapels of the synagogue

GUTTMANN JUBILEE VOLUME

GREENSTONE
The

199
is

and E. Mittwoch provided the commentary.

photographs of views of the synagogue.

article

accompanied also by a plan of the structure as well as by several

The
ben

first

inscription given here

is

cupola which was donated by one

D*ixn.

'Ali

dated 833 and refers to a ben Nathan ben Mebasser

The

last

name
it

is

rather unusual, but the reading

s.v.

given by Ad\tr [fewish Encyclopaedia,

INIittwoch.

Aleppo)

is

rejected by

He

derives

from the Arabic word meaning a

inscription,

servant (-jl).

The second

dated 1414, refers to the

erection of six columns, donated by one Eliezer Halevi

in

ben Elijah

memory of his sons Joseph and Ismael, and a daughter, whose name is not given. The third inscription is dated 1407 (in the
the

text

date

is

given by mistake as 141 7) and refers to the

donation of an ark by one Abraham ben Jacob Hakohen.

fourth inscription, dated 1404,
is

The

more elaborate and

and

refers to the

rebuilding of a ceiling, columns

thresholds, donated by one

Saadael ben Obadiah.

It
is

probably due to the present cataclysm in Europe that

in countries at

Jewish scholars living

sent
their

war with Germany have not

contributions

to

this

volume.
in

We

miss

several

prominent names of Jewish scholars residing

or France,

Russia, England,

who should have

It
is,

contributed to a volume in honour of

Jacob Guttmann.

however, strange that none of the

in the

American Jewish scholars participated

to the scholar

homage paid here

for

and Rabbi.
if

A
there

note explaining this should have

is

appeared in the preface,

a plausible explanation

it.

Julius H. Greenstone.
Gratz College.

BOOKS ON JEWISH EDUCATION

The

New

Education in Religion.

By Henry Berkowitz, D.D.

:

Parts I

and

11.
I,

Philadelphia
pp. 128
;

The Jewish Chautauqua

Society.

Pt.

Pt. II, pp. io8.

In
as

this

book of two small volumes Dr. Berkowitz endeavours,

indicates, to apply the principles of the

its title

to the religious instruction of the Jewish youth.

new education What mainly

is

distinguishes the

new education

in general

from the old

its

definition of the function of education in psychological terms as

the development of the powers and faculties of the pupil rather

than in cultural terms as the perpetuation of certain ideals and

standards and the transmission from generation to generation of
the highest products of the world's civilization.

There can be no
Every
from those of

denying the value of

generation has
its

this

psychological point of view.

differ

own problems which

previous generations, and, consequently, each in turn must be given the physical and mental powers to cope with
independently.
its

problems
is

Moreover the mind, even

in childhood,

not

a tabula rasa and cannot be made

to acquire

even the knowledge

of the past, not to mention the capacity to meet the demands of

the future save in accordance with the laws of
its

own

nature.

Dr. Berkowitz renders a valuable service therefore to Jewish education by calling attention to this psychological point of view

and

to the advantages

which must accrue as a

result of
it

its

applica-

tion to the religious education of the Jew, for

is

a fact that but

few of our religious schools pay due regard to the physical and
psychical needs of our children.

But the aim of the book

principle but to apply
it

is

not merely to point

concrete
to the

out

the

in

the

problems of

curriculum,

method

of

instruction,
it

school

organization

and

management,

discipline, &c., so that

may be

a practical guide

201

202

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

and principals of schools.
In
this,

to parents, teachers,
it falls

however,

somewhat short of accomplishment because of a defect not

it,

peculiar to
general.

but characteristic rather of the new education in

For the value of the psychological definition of the aim of

education has led

many
its

educators to forget that the older con-

ception of the aim in terms of a traditional culture to be per-

petuated has also

value,

which must not be

lost

sight

of.

Education has a

social as well as

an individual significance, and

as long as the adult generation has to

do the world's work and

remain the concern

has to do

it

in

accordance with a vision that requires planning

unborn, so long must
it

for generations yet

of society not merely that the rising generation shall have the

power work

to continue the
ideal.

work but that

it

shall inherit the plan of

the

Not merely the development of the

is

potential

powers of the child

the goal of education, but their

employment

in the discharge of the specific obligations

and

in the service of

the specific ideals which the old generation, in order to be true

to
itself,

must bequeath

to the

new.

It follows,

therefore, that
is

though the psychological definition of the aim of education

useful in determining educational method,
it

cannot give us the

content of education, which must be determined by the ideals of

the adult world.
particularly true

And,
of

if

this

is

true of education in general,

it is

Jewish

education.

For the Jew

in

the

diaspora, constituting a minority of the population,

and

living in

a non -Jewish environment,

has

to

perpetuate

his

ideals

and
faith,

institutions in competition with those of the dominant

although the

latter

may perhaps be

utilized with equal success as

the former in the development of the child's spiritual powers and

capacities,
or,

to use a favourite
'

word of our

author's,

in

the

development of character

'.

Dr. Berkowitz defines the aim of the

as
'

new education

in religion

the development of character based

on a deep love of the

ideals

and

principles
it

of our

religion

'.

We

should be more

inclined to define

as the training of the child's character in the

service of the ideals

and principles of our

religion.

This

may

'

BOOKS ON JEWISH EDUCATION

seem a

KOHN
is

203

distinction without a difference, but the following elaborareal.

tion of his definition shows that the distinction

'The

Jewish school
religions
in

',

he

says,

'

is

distinct

from the schools of other

urging these

Jewish

methods of awakening and

the point of view of the

deepening the religious

life'.

From

author, the child has a certain natural religiosity, the development

of which

is

the aim of religious education, and the difference

is

between the Jewish school and the Christian

merely one of

method, the Jewish method preferring the use of Jewish lesson

material.

He,

therefore,

holds that the specific

only, but that the

content

of

Judaism

affects the

method

aim

is

determined
this,

by the psychology of the

child.

Would
let

not the reverse of

however, appear more reasonable, to

the specific content of

to let the psycho?

Judaism determine the aim of instruction and

logical

needs of the child determine the method only

illustrate

To

our point by a concrete instance.

in

What

place

should instruction

Hebrew hold
'

in

the

curriculum of the

Jewish school?

Dr. Berkowitz, speaking from the psychological

the fact that

point of view, observes that

Hebrew
spirit

is

the language

of Jewish worship associates with this language a devout sentiment of incalculable value in fostering a prayerful of reverence
'

and
that

that

'this

deep psychologic value cannot be surrendered

'.

without irreparable loss

'

He
is

therefore

comes

to the conclusion

so

much

of

Hebrew as
in

used in the congregational worship *

must be taught

every

school.

Only incidentally does he

to

mention the importance of Hebrew as the key

of the sources of Judaism and as a

an understanding

bond of union between Jews.

is

Consequently but
the

little

emphasis

laid

on thorough

training in

Hebrew
life,

language.

Until after confirmation, which, in the

fifteenth

opinion of our author, should be about the

year of

child's
'

he

is

content that

'

the study of the sacred tongue

be

limited to preparation for

its

use in prayer

'.

But the great

mass of conservative Jews, who regard an adequate knowledge

of the Torah in
its

own language

as indispensable to the mainall

tenance of Jewish tradition, and above

the nationalists,

who

are vitally concerned with keeping alive the national aspirations

204

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

its

of the Jewish people and preserving and adding to

cultural

possessions, would not and could not assign so limited a scope

to

Hebrew

instruction even though there

be no inherent quality

in the child's soul

which demands more thorough instruction in

it

Hebrew
of
all

in order to bring
is

to maturity.
for his tactful

Dr. Berkowitz

to

be commended

avoidance
to

controversial discussion.

He

desires his

book

be of

service to

schools of Orthodox and Reform tendencies

liberal

alike,

and
of

does not impose on his readers the

interpretation

Judaism with which he

time, his

is

known

to

be

identified.

At the same

book cannot be of much

practical use to

Orthodox or

Conservative Jewish educators because of the sins of omission

which,
author's
as

we have already shown, follow naturally from the conception of the aim of Jewish education.

Methods of Teaching Primary Grades. By Ella Jacobs. Course A and Course B. Correspondence School for Religious School
Teachers conducted by
Philadelphia, Pa.

The Jewish Chautauqua

A, pp. 192
to the
;

Society.

[1914.]

B, pp. 214.

These two volumes apply

concrete problem

of the

religious education of early childhood the principles of the

new

education outlined by Dr. Berkowitz.

They show

very strikingly

the educational advantages which a proper regard for the psycho-

logy of childhood affords.

in every lesson
life.

Their chief virtue

is

their insistence
child's daily

on some point of contact with the

effect of

This has the

making the

child feel the importance

of his religious education not merely as necessary to the attain-

ment of some remote It tends to make his

the

goal but in the daily conduct of his

religion

life.

an intimate personal experience,

Typical of some of the sugges-

not merely an abstract concept.

tions in

book
the

is

that

which recommends the practice of

of the pupils

celebrating

birthdays

by a
this

religious

cere-

monial

in

the class-room,
gift to

and suggests

that

be made the

occasion of a

charity by the pupil in order that his birthday

BOOKS ON JEWISH EDUCATION KOHN

and
all

205

joyous occasions be associated in his mind with giving

selfishly receiving gifts.
stories,

and not merely with

In her treatment of the Bible

Miss Jacobs

utilizes

them almost
therefore has

exclusively to illustrate moral principles,

and she

no scruples about introducing legendary elaboraif

tions into the biblical narrative

they can

be used to point

which Esau Jacob with the mourning meal on the occasion of Abraham's death in accordance with an ancient
lentils for
sells

a moral.

Thus she connects the mess of

his

birthright to

Haggadah, though no such significance is attached to it in the Bible itself. There is danger in such a course in that it tends to destroy the unique position of the Bible as the standard of
religious authority for the Jew.

This danger inheres in the whole method of teaching the Bible merely as the source-book
for edifying stories without

any necessary connexion and omitting

difificulty

whatever

is

not immediately and without

life.

applicable by

the child in his daily

with biblical history

is

to

The result of this eclectic way of dealing make the book of much more value to
more conservative tendency.

schools of liberal tendency, which encourage a measure of eclecticism

in religion, than to those of

Also

in discussing

methods of teaching
to

Miss Jacobs seems

prayers are said
are

religious observances have in mind primarily homes where

if

mainly in English,

at

all,

and where there

from the ancient

no scruples about introducing

variations

text and traditional ritual. For such, however, as she has in mind, her suggestions are of great service and can help parent and teacher in the cultivation of a spirit of piety and

Hebrew

reverence.

Methods

of

Teaching

Biblical

History (Junior

Grade).

By

Edward
Religious

N. Calisch, Ph.D.

School Teachers
Society.

Correspondence School for conducted by The Jewish

[1914.]
pp. 247.

Chautauqua

Philadelphia, Pa.

Dr. Calisch attempts in this book to assist the teacher of biblical history in the Junior Grades as Miss Jacobs does those

VOL.

VIII.

206
in the

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Primary Grades, but not with equal success.
fear of teaching the child doctrine
life,

He

seems

to

be beset by the

which he
in the

may be

constrained to reject or revise in later

difficult

and thus
seek

face of a

passage

seems inclined

to

refuge

in

assigning an allegorical or symbolic meaning to

his introduction that
'

it.

He

states in
is

the aim of instruction in biblical history

to acquaint the pupil with the history of the Jewish people as

portrayed in the Bible and to teach in connexion with

lessons of that faith which
inspires
its
is

it

the

basic to moral duty

and which
motives
of

followers

with

pure ideals and

high

conduct'.
instruction
?

But does

this not limit too

it

much
'

the aim of such

is

Why

use

merely to teach
rest of

the faith that

basic
well,

to moral conduct 'and not the

Jewish doctrine as

the specific heritage and distinction of Israel, expressing Israel's

unique outlook upon

life

and concerned not only with our duties

as men, but with the special duties which the

Jew

feels to

devolve

upon him
history
to

as Jew, as

one of that people whose history Dr. Calisch

?

would help us teach

those

For the
are

ethical value of teaching a people's

lies

who

themselves of that people

not

primarily in the moral judgements which the teacher helps his

pupil to derive from the events of history, but in the sense of

identification with the high purposes of his people, of pride in
its

heroes, of love for

to play in history.

its

institutions

and of

faith in the role

it is still

By begging
and
it

the question of the historicity of

it

the biblical narrative

of a
story with
is

treating
is

merely from the point of view

to connect a moral, this
story appear

which

possible

advantage

lost,

the events

of the

remote and

unreal, the connexion

Israel of to-day
is

between the Israel of history and the

is

obscured, and a thrilling tale

little

sublimated

into an abstract moral with

appeal to the active imagination

of childhood.

To be

sure,

Dr.

Calisch

in
'

his

introduction
',

warns

the

teacher against making the moral

repeatedly disregards his
his chapter

too obvious

but he himself

own

advice in this respect.

Thus

in

on 'The Birth and Youth of Moses', he has more

than two pages of pure moralizing on such themes as arc indi-

BOOKS ON JEWISH EDUCATION KOHN

:

207

cated by the following marginal headings to his paragraphs 'Evil causes evil', 'But also good begets good', 'Tlie appeal of the
helpless
let
' ',

Kindness

to

the story of

how

dumb animals '. Again, not content to the pillar of cloud and flame guided the
convey
to

wanderings of the

Israelites

the children

its

obvious

moral of

upon

the divine guidance of Israel, he feels called to give the child a homiletic elaboration of it in a
faith in

paragraph

a pilot guides his ship by the compass, and concluding with the words, 'So God has given a compass to
us.

telling of

how

It

is

His Holy Law

the teachings which have

all

come

to us through
this

the Bible and the inspired teachers of

ages.

This Torah,
its

word of God

is

our compass.
right

We

need only

to follow
It is

direction
pillar

and we and
will

will

go

and need have no

fire

fear.

God's

of cloud by day and His pillar of

for every generation
suffice to
'.

by night

for us as

well

These

instances, chosen at

random,

leads

show how the author's homiletic trend of mind him constantly to disregard his own warning with reference
stress

to the didactic treatment of the story.

Like Miss Jacobs, Dr. Calisch lays great

contact
'

on the point of
'

in teaching

and

religiously suggests

one

for

each lesson
will

in his book, but

an examination of these points of contact

is

show

that our author has a misconception of what

meant by
from

it is

the point of contact in teaching and of the pedagogic function to perform. The necessity of a point of contact
arises

the psychological principle of apperception.

This principle takes

with
past

cognizance of the fact that the mind,

a

when confronted
it
it

experience, invariably attempts to relate experience, and that the ultimate meaning to

new

to

some

of this

new
the

experience

will

be dependent as much upon the mind's previous

its

content as upon

present perceptions.

It is said that
'

when

American Indians

first

saw the ships of the

Pale-face

'

on the sea
white

they took them for a

new

variety of ocean fowl.

man

seeing this sight, though he

had never seen those same ships

before, would at once have recognized them for what they were, not because his senses would operate differently from those of the

Indian, but because his previous mental content would have been

'

208
different.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

If

we wish

to apply this principle

to teaching,

it

is

obvious that we cannot depend on the mere presentation of the

lesson to the child in order to convey to him the

meaning which
which

the lesson has for us, but

we must

previously assemble those

in the light of

elements in his knowledge and experience

he would interpret the new information presented to him as we

would have him

interpret

it.

These elements constitute what

is

known

technically as the point of contact.

Our
and

author, however,

introduces

new matter

that

is

both extraneous to the story and no

calls
it
'

part of the child's previous knowledge,

point of

contact

',

because he finds in
I shall

it

some

slight

analogy to the ideas

of the lesson.
ever,
is

give but one instance of this, which, how-

typical.

The
tell

following

is

suggested as

the

point

of

contact for the story of

*

Moses' appearance before Pharaoh.

Let the teacher

some

story like the following, but let

him

take care not to have the incidental story overshadow the biblical
event.
Sicily ?

Children, have you ever heard the story of Robert of

He
is

was a very rich and proud king, &c., &c.'

'
:

One

inclined to ask the author

If the story of
tell
it

Moses and
effectively,

Pharaoh needs a point of contact in order to

does not the story of Robert of Sicily
itself

need one

as well ?

And,

if

the story of Robert of Sicily

itself

needs a point of

contact,

how can

it

serve as the point of contact for the story

?
is

of

Moses and Pharaoh

In general
this

book

more

creditable

to

the author's

homiletic

skill

in the presentation of the biblical narrative

than

to his pedagogic ability.

Methods of TeachingJewish History {Stmor Grade). By

Calisch, Ph.D.

Edward

N.

Correspondence School

for Religious

School

Teachers conducted by
Philadelphia, Pa.

Thk Jewish Chautauqua

pp. 264.
successful in this

Society,

[1915.]

Dr. Calisch

is

much more
J

book than

in

the prcvif)us one.

lis

ethical discussions are

(i.e.

more

in place in

dealing with children of senior grade

between the ages of

BOOKS ON JEWISH EDUCATION KOHN

thirteen

209

to the division of the kingdom, contains less of the miraculous for Dr. Calisch's scrupulous liberalism to explain by far-fetched allegorical inter-

and fifteen) than in dealing with younger children. Moreover, the biblical narrative of the period covered in this book, viz. from the conquest of Canaan

significance of very suggestive to the teacher and makes the book of value in the religious school.
historic periods
is

pretations.

Our

author's interpretation of the

Methods of Teaching Jewish Ethics. By Julia Richman and Eugene H. Lehman, M.A. Correspondence School for Religious School Teachers conducted by The Jewish

Chautauqua

Society.

Philadelphia, Pa.

[1914.]

pp! 274.

This book aims to give a course of instruction in ethics adapted to the needs of the Jewish religious
school.
is

The book

was
the

originally
first

planned by Miss Richman, who

the author of

The remaining six were written after her who completed the work in accordance with her general plan. The subject-matter is classified under five categories of duties (i) home duties, (2) school duties, comdeath by Mr. Lehman,
:

ten chapters.

munal
in

(3)

duties, (4) civic duties,

(5) religious duties.

These are

each subdivided with a view to the ages of the children, so that each year of the course, which covers a period of three years and is designed for children between the
ages of eleven

and

fourteen,

the children learn

some of the

duties under each of

these categories.
child
is

Thus, under the category of

first

home

duties, the

taught, in the

year, duties to parents, in the second,

and relatives, and in the third duties to servants; under that of school duties he is taught, in the first year, duties to teacher in the second, duties to classmates ; in the third, duties to our school &c. ',
; '

duties to brothers, sisters,

The first chapter of the book is introductory and contains Miss Richman's exposition of the guiding principles embodied in the book and a general discussion as to the
nature of Jewish

2IO
ethics.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

In
this

she closely adheres to the views of Lazarus, from

following
:

whom she quotes the An investigation

'

of the essence and basis of the moral law

clearly
it

reveals that

Judaism everywhere

advances the thought

that not because

it is

God

has ordained

is

a law moral but because

it.

moral therefore has

the moral

God

ordained

Not by divine comits

mand does
moral and
it

become

law, but

because

content

is

would
is it

necessarily,

even without an ordinance, become

law, therefore

enjoined by God.'
in

This conception of the autonomy of the moral law

Judaism

enables our author, in a measure, to beg the question of religious

ethical training.
If the
its

moral becomes law

content
is

'

not by divine com-

mand
can

'

but

'

because

moral

'

then, obviously, that

content can

be taught quite independently, and Jewish ethics

from any connexion with Jewish theology,

free itself altogether

with the result that no different

method need be employed

than
in

in

teaching ethics in a Jewish

school not

secular
logical

school.

Miss

Richman's book

does

go

to

the

extreme

suggested here.

She has as one of the categories of

duties, but

only as one on a parity with others, duties to our religion.

over,

More-

the

illustrative

material

which she uses to impress her

lessons

on the

child draws very largely

and judiciously on

biblical

and rabbinic
that

sources.

But the reader cannot escape the impression

the authors

of this

book did not

utilize

to the full the

opportunity of bringing the religious sentiments and convictions

of the Jew to bear on the training of the child in moral conduct.

The
for

love

and

fear of God, the

dread of sin as alienating us from Him,

the passion for h(jliness that unites us with

Him,

the deep reverence

God's handiwork

in

nature that banishes levity and obscenity

faith

from association with man's physical functions, the steadfast

in divine

support and the sense of

communion
the

with God, which

for action

give moral courage and confidence,

inspiration

which comes from hope

as yet unrealized
all

for

the fulfilment of prophetic visions

if

these are,

not entirely ignored, at least

not

made

to render all the

moral value they possess.

But despite

this im|)()rtant omission, the

book

is

a useful one.

BOOKS ON JEWISH EDUCATION

Particularly those chapters written

KOHN
Her

211

by Miss Richman herself show

an acquaintance with pedagogic method derived not alone from

books but also from class-room experience.
illustrations are

apt, her points of contact are real points of contact,

and she shows

familiarity with

the range of a

child's

interests

and

facility

in

bringing the lesson

down

to the level of the child's comprehension.

The

last six chapters, written

by Mr. Lehman, do not show

this appreciation of the child's

psychology to the same extent, and

closely

the teacher

who would be guided

by them would find

Their

himself frequently speaking over the heads of his pupils.

author seems to show, however, a somewhat better appreciation

of the value of the religious

emotions to the moral

to the circumstance that
'

training,
it

though
to

this

may only be due

on

was

left

him

to write the chapter

Our Duties
is

to

Judaism

'.

The

strong point of the

book

the assistance
its

it

gives in
is

developing the moral judgement of the pupils,

failure to reach the

weakness
lie

its

hidden springs of moral action that

in the

religious sentiment.
this is

But

to expect a course in ethics to accomplish

It is at least

perhaps expecting the impossible.

an open

question whether Jewish ethics can be taught to advantage as

separate

subject apart from Jewish

religious

doctrine

and

Jewish law.

Methods of Teaching
Grades.

the

fewish Religion in Junior and Senior

By Julius H. Greenstone, Ph.D. Correspondence

School for Religious School Teachers conducted by

The

Jewish Chautauqua Society.

PP- 349-

Philadelphia, Pa.

[1915.]

In this volume Dr. Greenstone gives not so

much
its

a method

of teaching the Jewish religion as an exposition of

practices
for

beliefs

and

the

benefit

of religious

school teachers.
it

The
were,

suggestions with regard to

casually in

method

are introduced, as

connexion with the analysis of the subject matter.

is

Thus, though the book

intended both for the teachers of junior

212

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

either divide the subject-

and senior grades, the author does not

matter between these grades or suggest any differences of method

for

them

in

accordance with the difference in the respective ages

that

of the children
tions as the

they represent.
are,

Such pedagogic suggeshowever, of value.

book does contain

is

Thus
its

Dr. Greenstone

right in advising that instruction in the forms

religion
beliefs,

and ceremonies of

precede any attempt to teach

dogmas and general

tion
is

because the natural process of educato the abstract,

one that goes from the concrete

to

from the
the

specific

the

general.

His

recommendation

of

more
and

extensive use of concrete objects in teaching the ceremonies

symbols of Judaism
of teachers.

is

also

one that should receive the attention

pedagogic suggestions that con-

But

it is

not the value of

its

stitutes the

merit of this book.

From

the pedagogic point of

view a more detailed treatment of the method of teaching the

Jewish religion

is still

a desideratum.

The book
For, after

has nevertheless
all,

a distinct value for Jewish education.

of the teacher of religion
attitude to the subject he
is

the success
his personal

much more dependent on

book

is

teaching than on class-room devices

serves admirably to create

and methods.
that reverent

Dr. Greenstone's

and appreciative

attitude toward everything that has

had a part

in the religious life of Israel

which should characterize

the teacher's relation to his subject.

belief
free

His exposition of Jewish

and observance

is

simple, straightforward, sympathetic

and
read

from polemics, argument or apologetics.

One cannot

the book without feeling deeply the sanity and helpfulness of

Jewish doctrine and the beauty and poetry of Jewish observance.

Many
time,

a teacher reading this

book

will realize,

perhaps for the

first

what a consistent and harmonious scheme

for the sanctifica-

tion of

human

life

the Jewish religion affords, and

some who
to
this

may

hitherto have been rather inclined to regard the greater part

of Jewish observance as a lifeless formalism, destined soon

become

obsolete,

may

well be influenced

by a book such as

radically to

change

their point of view to

one more

in

accord with

their position as teachers of

Judaism.

BOOKS ON JEWISH EDUCATION KOHN

Methods of Teaching

213

Pedagogy

applied to Religious Instruction.

By David
Society.

E.

Weglein, A.M.

The Jewish Chautauqua

pp.114.
for

Philadelphia, Pa.
in
this

[1915.]

Mr. Weglein,
religious school

book, discusses

the

benefit

of

teachers those elementary pedagogic principles

all

which are fundamental to

teaching and

which,

he rightly

maintains, are as applicable to the teaching of religion as to any

other branch of instruction.

The
(i)

foundation of

all

good teaching,

Mr. Weglein
(2)

tells us, rests

on

knowledge of the subject-matter,

(3) correct

knowledge of the child mind, and

to

methods.

The
of

book presumes the teacher

the remaining two.

be

in possession of the

first

these three prerequisites to good teaching

and proceeds

to discuss

Under

the head of knowledge of the child's

five

mind, the author discusses in

chapters attention, sensation

and perception, memory and imagination, conception, judgement and reason, the emotions and the will. In connexion with each
psychological principle discussed,
its

application

to the art of

teaching

is

given with illustrations drawn mostly from the religious

school curriculum.

Under

the head of

method

there are three

chapters devoted to the

method of the

recitation, the

purpose of

the recitation, and the art of questioning.

Mr. Weglein's exposition

convincing.
issue with

is

concise, clear, and, in the main,

Some

educators may, however, be inclined to take

or two points.

him on one

Not

all,

for

example,

would agree with him

artificial
*

in his

condemnation of

prizes

and other

incentives on the one hand and, on the other, of the " discipline of consequences " or punishment as a material con',

sequence of an act
'lack

to

which he objects on the ground of the

involved'.

of moral

obligation

Inasmuch

as

children

cannot be expected to

know

the value of the knowledge about to

be imparted to them until they are already in possession of that knowledge, and, negatively, inasmuch as they cannot appreciate
the evil of conduct that interferes with the acquisition of such

knowledge by themselves or the

class,

may not

artificial

incentives
to ensure

and appropriate punishments legitimately be employed

214

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

effort

such correct habits of diHgent attention and persevering

as will secure
is

them

this

knowledge

a later development which will

earlier diligence

whatever their

The appreciation of motive come as the very result of their motive for such diligence may
?
is
'

have been

at the time.

There

still

truth in the talmudic

dictum

riD'yb

sn n^'^b iS\y lino.

ulterior
'.

The performance
in

of a precept,
its

even though with some

end

view, leads to

per-

formance

for its

own sake

Mr.
It
is

\\'eglein's

book, however, serves

its

purpose admirably.

particularly serviceable for principals of religious schools

who

desire

teachers under them to render

some book on pedagogy as a basis for more efficient service.

training the

Jewish Education: Historical Survey. By ^VILLIAM Rosenau, Ph.D.,

and Abram Simox, Ph.D. Philadelphia, Pa.

The Jewish

Chautauqua
This
little

Societv.

19 12.

pp. 102.

volume contains a

brief sketch of the contribution

of the Jewish people to education.

This

is

theme usually

ignored by writers on the history of education, not because this

contribution has been insignificant, but, as Dr. Rosenau points
out, because the rabbinic literature,
for

which contains the sources

a large and important period in the development of Jewish

education, was inaccessible to most writers on the subject.

The
third,

book

is

divided into three parts, of which the

respectively with the biblical

first

and
era,

dealing

and the modern

were

written by Dr. Simon,

and the second, which

treats of the rabbinic

period, was written by Dr. Rosenau.

Dr. Simon, in the

education,

first

part, discusses (i) the general trend of

(2) the specific purpose

of education in the Bible,

(3) the standard of general culture in the biblical era, (4)

how

or

by

whom

such education was imparted, (5)

tlie

methods and
our religious

principles of such education applicable to-day

in

schools,

and

(6) the

message which the

biblical educational ideal

BOOKS ON JEWISH EDUCATION

holds for this age.

KOHN

215
the

He sums up the ideal of biblical education in

'.

term
will
'

'

religious culture

What he means by

this religious culture

:

be suggested by the following quotation from his book

"

Know God
in

in

order to live godly", this

is

the purpose of
the
intellectual

education

the Bible.

Know God,

not for

satisfaction involved, but in order to love

for the
live
!

Him

Love Him, not

that

mere discharge of emotional energy, but

Live,

you may
for

not

for

mere

satisfaction

of the
it

instinct
!

existence, but in

order that you

is

may

consecrate

In other

words, religious culture

the educational ideal of the Bible.'

tells us,

This culture. Dr. Simon

the biblical period in the
laying especial emphasis

was primarily fostered during

the parents, the

home and by
ideal

home
It

on the

of obedience.

was

advanced also by the

priests,

who

cultivated the religious senti-

ment through

their appeal to tradition,

laid
stress

ceremony, and symbol

by the prophets, who

on the conscience and the

scribes,

ethical aspect of religion;

by the

who

appreciated the

educational value of religious literature and thus gave the world

its

greatest

text-book the Bible;

and by the

hakaffiim,

who
in

appealed directly to the intelligence and philosophic reason

enforcing the religious ideal.

The

consideration of these aspects of the educational ideal

Dr.

of the Bible suggests to

Simon
primarily

five

important principles
:

appHcable

in religious

education to-day.
is

(r) 'Religious

culture

They are home-made and homeschool

grown.'
(2)

'In the

home and
faith

in the religious

we need

the

emphasis upon

and

loyalty ... but the real purpose of faith

and

loyalty
is

is

for the strengthening of tradition

... a traditionless

home

anaemic'

(3)

'^n

excessive harping
. . .

on

this

string

may produce an
be

ethical discord

Thus home and

religious school should

especially concerned that religious culture should

work conscience

into the
(4)
'

life

of

faith.'
is

Oral instruction

not sufficient

When

the

Torah
[the

came, education by text-book was Jewishly

justified.

They

2l6

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

school] can have no better

home and
(5)
'

means

for the cultivation

of the religious spirit than a ceaseless love for the Bible.'

Our

religious culture

need not

fear

the

warm

breath

of other cultures.'

Dr.

Simon

also gives us suggestions of

method derived from the

none
that are
\

methods of

biblical education, but as they contain

not generally recognized, they need not be mentioned here.

In the discussion of the rabbinic period. Dr. Rosenau does

not attempt, as does Dr. Simon in treating the biblical period, to
formulate the ideal and the underlying principles of the educational system

of the rabbis or

its

message to educators of the

present day, but contents himself with showing us the esteem in

which education was held by the Jews during

this period, the

abundance of the schools

in

which

it

was

fostered, the general

character of the curriculum^ methods and discipline of the schools,

the status of the religious teacher and what were considered the

necessary qualifications for teaching.

The many

quotations from

rabbinic literature which he uses to illustrate the thought of the

rabbis on these subjects support the contention that
'

the

Jew

had manifested marked pedagogical genius and

of his career
'.

skill in

the course

It is to

be regretted, however, that Dr. Rosenau

did not try to summarize the message of the rabbinic period of

Jewish education as Dr. Simon did that of the biblical period,

though the nature of the sources made such a task extremely

difficult.

Dr. Rosenau

fails

to

show what was unique or

this

dis-

tinctive in Jewish education during

calls attention to the

period except that he

question and answer

method employed

in

the schools and

its

effect in

the development of the reasoning

power.

One would assume

that of the

a priori that a people with a history

as unique as

Jews must have developed a correPerhaps Dr. Rosenau's

spondingly uni(juc system of education.

failure

to

jjoint

out the distinctive characteristics of rabbinic

education was due to his limiting his subject too closely to the
formal education of the schools and ignoring
factors,
all

other educational
limitation

such as the synagogue, the home,

felt

&:c.

which

he probably

that the scope of the

work demanded of him.

BOOKS ON JEWISH EDUCATION

KOHN
as

217

In the third part of the book Dr. Simon traces briefly the
history

of

Jewish

educational

endeavour
'

influenced
',

by

Mendelssohn and the emancipation, Jewish science

the

Reform

movement and
ideas,

the Orthodox reaction,

the Russian Haskalah^

nationalistic

and the renaissance of Hebrew under the influence of

Jewish education.
progress

concluding with a description of the present status of

He

is

very

optimistic with

regard

to

the

made during
'religious

this period

and,

more

especially,

with

regard to the present outlook in the United States, where, he

claims,

education has

made

the speediest and most

enduring progress'.
facts ?

But

is

this

roseate view justified

by the

Tested by the criterion of what, according to Dr. Simon

himself, constitutes the

aim of Jewish education, namely,

life,

religious

culture

and the

sanctification of

the efficiency of our

modern
fallacy

Jewish education
is

may

well be called into question.

His

doubtless due to his identifying too

much
these

the cause of educain the schools.

tion with

improvement of pedagogic method

does
not
reflect

He
were

apparently

that

improvements

necessitated by the fact that the constant encroachments of the

non-Jewish environment upon the social

life

of the Jewish people

weakened the educational influence of the home, the synagogue

and the

traditional literature of the

Jew on Jewish

life.

That the
is

necessary adjustments to this situation are being sought

indeed

encouraging, but

we have not
'

yet reached a stage where

we can
'.

congratulate ourselves on our

rapid and enduring progress

The Scripture
Dr.

Stories

Retold for
St.

Yoiaig Israel.

Vol.

I.

By

Mendel

Silber.
[1914.]

Louis

The Modern View

Publishing Co.
In
this

pp. 80.
to retell for children the

book the author endeavours

in the

biblical narrative

from Creation to the giving of the

Law

'

in

somewhat modified form and

'

modern

spirit

'.

In an introPresent
the
',

duction treating of Religious Education

deplores,

Past and
to
treat

he

on the one hand, the attempt

various

episodes of the biblical narrative as separate

stories, ignoring

the

2l8

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

'connected causation' and, on the other hand, the method of

teaching them 'in their entirety and original arrangement without the least consideration as
to the child's

capacity or com-

prehension

'.

What

the author means by teaching

in in

the

modern

spirit

seems primarily to be to teach the child

the religious point of view taught
revision

such a method that

when

the child attains to a

him will need a minimum of more scientific knowledge

of the world.

To

give a characteristic instance

he

would have

us teach the story of Creation with the order of creation given in

the Bible, but would omit the reference to six days, declaring that,
if

the six days of creation be mentioned

if

'

the child's faith will be

undermined,

not altogether destroyed,

when he

gets to
'.

know

anything about the world from the standpoint of evolution

That the

conflict

between the teachings of the Bible and of

points does constitute a serious problem

modern science on many

in

the religious education of the adolescent there

can be no
Di.
Silber's

doubt, but one

may

very

well

question w^hether
its

method adds

in the slightest

degree to

solution.

For, to take

his treatment of the story of Creation as typical, the child

who

has been taught this story in the way he suggests

will, to

be sure,

have no

difficulty

in

adjusting what he has subsequently been

taught of evolution with what he had previously learned in his

religious school

about creation.

But,

it

is

to

be presumed, our
first-

pupil will

some

day, probably during adolescence, aquire a

Bible, a privilege

hand knowledge of the

surely not wish to

which Dr. Silber would

deny him.

At once the discrepancies between

biblical history that
will

the Bible

itself

and both the science and the

have been taught him become apparent, and he

hard put to
it

either

be

to reconcile

them

or,

what

is

even more

likely, will

dismiss the Bible from his thought as a book of ancient mythology

beneath the serious consideration of our sophisticated modern

age.

The

very care that was taken

all

to

exclude from biblical

with
the
scientific

instruction

those

parts

which

conflict

theories of the

day

will

be construed by him to mean that

his

teachers

felt

those parts to be valueless and were not wholly

BOOKS ON JEWISH EDUCATION

sincere in the reverence in
Bible.

KOHN
to

219
hold the

which they professed

Dr. Silber does not then succeed by his attempted rationalizations in saving the pupil from the inevitable Stitrm

nnd Drang
of
its

period of religious adolescence, but he does thereby succeed only

too well in spoiling

many

good

story

and robbing
childhood.

it

charm

and fascination
stories

for the naive fancy of

for

For the Bible

were originally intended

a naive people, and one can-

not rationalize them without doing violence to them.

again our author
is

Again and
his

led into inconsistencies

and absurdities by
Thus,
in which,

attempts at rationalizing.

few examples

will suffice.

in his

desire to avoid telling of the miraculous

to the Bible, the people of

way

according

Sodom, bent on entering

Lot's house,
find

were

afflicted with a

sudden blindness so that they could not

the door, he says that

when

Lot, after having refused to give up

'

the strangers, returned to his house,

the people were so angry

that they could not find the door which they

meant
a

to break

'.

Would
literally

the author have us really believe that

man can be
is

blinded by anger so as not to see an object of the size of

is

a door when his attention

to break
it

fixed
in

on

it,

because he

determined

down?
is

Again,

telling

the story of
their

Hagar and

Ishmael, he
is

recounts

how Hagar,

after

supply of water

exhausted,

ready to give up in despair, when a stranger,

is

passing by, shows her where an oasis

to

be found near
is

at

hand.

No

mention

is

made

of Hagar's prayer, nor

is

the sudden appear-

ance of the 'stranger' (he

not an angel in Dr. Silber's version)

Obviously, the whole point of

ascribed to any divine providence.

the story, which
is

the nearness of

God

'

to all that call

is

upon

Him

'

is lost,

and

all

that the author tells the pupil

a matter-

of-fact incident in

no wise worthy of being recorded

one more instance,
in

in the Bible.

Finally, to cite but

telling

the story of

Joseph's interpreting the dreams of Pharaoh's butler and baker,

he

feels

compelled by

his

modern view

to

tell

the children,

see in those days,

and

especially in Egypt, people

You made much of

'

dreams.

know

that they don't

Nowadays we do not bother much with dreams. A\'e mean anything He then proceeds with
'.

220

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

But that story has as a premiss,
is

the story as told in the Bible.

without which the whole plot

incomprehensible, the idea that

If Dr.

dreams have, or

at least

may

have, a meaning.

Silber

thinks that a dangerous

story altogether
:

belief for the child,

it

he ought to omit the

he ought not to teach

the
essential

and introduce

it

by

statement

that destroys

premiss which
If

gives

significance to the incidents recorded.

dreams may have a

meaning, Joseph

is

a seer,

if

not,

he

is

a charlatan.

The above
into
It is

are but a few of the

many
this

contradictions

and absurdities

which Dr. Silber's tendency to rationalism leads him.

the

more
as
it

to

be regretted that

fundamental defect mars the book,

would otherwise be not without merits the language being

simpler and more comprehensible to children than in most

much

biblical histories.

The Jewish Teacher^ an Aid

in

Teaching the Bible, especially the

Ju7iior Bible for Jewish School

and Home.

By Eugene H.
and Heroines
:

Lehman, M.A.
Publishing Co.
pp. 239.

Series

I,

Early Heroes

Series II, Early Kings

and Prophets.

New York
I,

Bloch

[19x4-1915.] Series

pp. 170

Series II,

These books are designed

in

to assist the religious school teacher

teaching biblical history on the basis of the

into simple

Junior Bible,
interesting

a translation

English
first

of most

of the
is

narratives of the Bible.

The

chapter, which

introductory,
offers various

discusses the aim

and method of Jewish education,

suggestions to teachers as to

how

they are to plan their work, and

concludes with a general bibliography on Judaism, the Bible, and

principles

of

teaching.

All

subsequent
teacher in

chapters

contain

an

assignment of readings

for the

some book on

religious

pedagogy or on the history of the Jewish

material, a discussion of the

religion with questions

on the readings assigned, an assignment of readings for the lesson

aim of the

lesson, a suggested point

of contact, explanatory notes on the biblical passage to be taught,

and

illustrations
it.

and miscellaneous suggestions

to

be used

in

teaching

BOOKS ON JEWISH EDUCATION

The
bibliographies

KOIIN

221

and assigned readings

for the teacher serve

the laudable purpose of giving the teacher a broader basis of

information than could be obtained by studying each day merely

the suggestions for teaching the next day's lessons, a practice
into which teachers are too prone to
fall.

The aim

of each day's

lesson the author endeavours to define in terms of ideals easily

applicable in the child's

life,

even though the biblical narrative

for

might yield other more obvious morals

suggested points of contact, he
falls

the adult.

In his

into the

same

error that
viz.,

we
of

pointed out in our review of Dr. Calisch's book,

telling

that

one story as a point of contact

tells

for another, but the stories,

which he
selves

for this

purpose are usually interesting in themas illustrations of the biblical moral

if

and might be used

not as points of contact.

His explanatory notes on the

biblical

passages are perhaps

assist

the most successful feature of the

book and must

the

teacher in developing an appreciation of the ethical content of

the Bible.

In them the author

utilizes his

knowledge of

biblical

geography and archaeology to cast

light

upon the Bible

nariative.

The
story

value to the teacher of such side-lights upon the biblical

is

too frequently underestimated.

They

are a great help not

only in that they assist the child's intellect to understand the

story in
its

true historic relations, but also because they can be

story,

used to help his imagination visualize the

thus assisting the

first

memory

to retain

it

by making more vivid the

impressions

conveyed by the lesson.

In that part of each chapter which Mr.
'

Lehman

devotes to

illustrations

and suggestions

',

he shows considerable resource-

fulness.

The

author begins this section of each chapter with

the

questions based on
children's

moral of the

story,

often

asking the

judgement on some hypothetical case which might

their

come
moral

within

own

experience.
or
story,

He
and,

then

illustrates

the

by

some anecdote

finally,

suggests

device by which this can be

of the child.

made

to impress itself

on the mind
it

These devices are very ingenious, but

is

question

whether their ingenuity does not sometimes militate

VOL.

VIII.

222

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

much
it

against their effectiveness by attracting too

illustration itself
trate.

attention to the
illus-

and away from the idea

Jacob's Return
'

is

intended to

We

quote, as an example, the following suggestion from

' ',

the author's chapter on

'

of which he

makes

conscience

'

the

'

ethical

theme

'Place two glasses of water that look exactly alike on the

desk

label

one Jacob and the other

little

Israel.

Before the class

Call

assembles put a

nitrate of silver in the Israel glass.

tell

a pupil to the desk and

him

to drop a pinch of salt in the

Jacob

glass.

Observe that no change occurs.

salt in

Bid another pupil

Although these

drop a pinch of

the Israel glass and call attention to the

formation of a white cloud called a precipitate.

two glasses look exactly alike there

that gives
it

is

an

invisible helper in

one

a certain power absent in the other.

Although

Jacob and

Israel

looked exactly alike there was an invisible

helper in Israel, a conscience, that gave him a power lacking

in Jacob.'

Among
lesson into

the

most

valuable

of the

devices

Mr. Lehman

suggests are those which work the subject matter of the history

games

that the children can play.

In general, the book

with which
child, but
it
it

commends
its

itself for

the thoroughness

adapts the biblical material to the needs of the

quaHties.
is

has the defects of

so
explicit that

Its directions to the

teacher are

there

danger of the teacher's

failing

becoming too dependent on the book and

her

to exercise

own One

resourcefulness.

thing

we cannot

lightly forgive

our author

that he re-

peatedly speaks of the Bible as the Old Testament.

The term
which
is

Old Testament implies the existence of a

on a
parity with
'

New Testament
itself also

it,

and any sanctity ascribed

'

to, or associated

with, the

Old Testament

would attach

by implication

to the

New,

a result that the synagogue, which has never accepted

in its

the

New Testament
Baltimore.

canon, must regard with apprehension.

Eugene Kohn.

RECENT BOOKS ON COMPARATIVE

RELIGIONS AND SOCIOLOGY
Materialieti ziir Volksreligion Israels.

Von

Lie. theol. Dr.

Anton
Scholl,

JiRKU,
A.

Privatdozent an

der

Universitat

Kiel.

Leipzig:

Deichert'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung
pp. viii+ 150.

Werner
D.

1914.

Erdbestattung oder Feiierbestattung.

ethnologischem

Hintergrutid.

Der Von

biblische

Prof.

Branch auf Dr. Wilh.

ix. Ser.,

Caspari, Erlangen.
10.

(Biblische Zeit-

und

Streitfragen,

Heft.

Herausgegeben
:

von
von

Prof.

D.

Kropatschek.)
19 14.

Berlin-Lichterfelde
pp. 48.

Verlag

Edwin Runge,

Das Ehe-

u?id Familienrecht der Hebrder.

Mit Riicksicht auf die

ethnologische

Forschung

dargestellt.

Von

Dr.

Andreas
(Alttesta-

Eberharter,
Nikel.

Universitatsprofessor in Salzburg.

mentliche Abhandlungen.
Breslau.

Herausgegeben von
1.-2.

Prof. Dr. J.
i.

V. Band,

Heft.)

Munster
pp. x

W.

Aschendorff'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1914.

Die hippokratische
Uberlie/erufig

+ 205.

Schrift vofi der Siebenzahl

i?i

ihrer vierfachen

zum erstenmal herausgegeben utid erldutert. Von W. H. RoscheRj Dr. phil. h. c. der Universitat Athen. (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums. VI. Band, 3.-4. Heft.) Paderborn Druck und Verlag von Ferdinand Schoningh, 1913. pp. xii+175.
:

'

Magic elements
its

in the

Old Testament would be a more

'

informing description of the contents of the

first

book on the

list

than

present

title.

It
'

does not contribute materials to the

folkreligion
'

unknown

quantity of a

of Israel,

but attributes

223

;: ;

224

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

a magical import and background to some passages and episodes

in the

Old Testament.

The

author's standpoint

is still

that in the

revealed religion of the Old

Testament there are

discernible

the rudiments of a folk religion in which Israel shared with other

peoples the

belief

in

wonder-working objects and actions by

results not attainable

which man could achieve

by natural ways
repre-

and means.
objects,

These magical potencies are accordingly

sented in the Old Testament (i) as working through concrete

viz.,

the wonder working staff (of Moses, Elijah, Elisha)

salt; plants

and
from

fruits,

especially the

almond
due
the
to

tree;

and

(2) as

emanating

the

human
in
it,

body,

the

'body-soul'
the
spittle

{Korperseele)

dwelling

namely,
6. 18,

hands,

sanweriin (Gen. 19. 11, 2 Kings

explained as a confusion
;

of the eyesight effected by a certain species of spirits)

raising of
;

the dead

rain-making

observation of omina

ordeal

ecstatic

states derived

from running waters, and interpretation of dreams. have made the exploration of what
general
of animism

Professor Jirku seems to

may

be

comprised

under the

term

or

occultism in the Old Testament his special

field, for

two other

books on subjects correlated

to his credit,

to that of the present

work stand

Die Damo/ie?i

u?id ihre

Abwehr im Alien Testament

(19 1 2) and Mantik in Aitisrael {igi^).

still

Now

specialists in the

vague

fields of

anthropology, folk-lore, or comparative religions

preternaturally sharp-sighted, so that they

are liable to

become

see the object of their search everywhere and in everything,

and

succumb

to the temptation of

making hasty generalizations and

idem non

indiscriminate application of analogy, unmindful of the saying

Z)uo cum faciunt (and

still

more

so, aitn dicunt)

est idem.

few examples

may

illustrate

the

author's

modus procedendi.
spittle

The Sumerians,
magical forces.

Egyptians, and

Arabians attributed to

Hence
This
spittle
is

the spittle of one

who

has a 'running

issue' causes defilement (Lev. 15. 8), because destructive powers

are hidden in

it.

expanded

to the theory that the

mouth
effects,

from which the

issues can

convey supernatural

hence kissing may not only transmit the

the

terrible microbes,

as

modern

bacteriologists

warn

us,

but also transfer spiritual

BOOKS ON COMPARATIVE RELIGIOxN

forces.

CASANOWICZ
which Elijah

225

This was the import of Samuel's kissing Saul, when he anointed him king (i Sam. 10. 11). As an instance of miraculous
rain-making
to take
is

quoted

Kings
in

18. 41

ff.,

in

is

made

an active part
its

bringing about the rain,

not merely

predicting
text.

coming, as the average reader would

then accounted for by the

infer

from the
according
',

This
:

feat is

fact that

to Isa. 5, 6

'I

will

command

the clouds that they rain not

the clouds are living beings which

is

God can command, and

this

further explained from a Babylonian incantation in which the

clouds are conceived as a magician can

demons rioting about command, direct and control.

is
'

the heavens, which

If in this instance
',

a metaphorical expression

ridden to the ground

a word-play
tree
is

in the next,

which

shall
i.

be the
f.

last referred to here,

is

overridden.

In Jer.

11

the vision of the

almond

not in order to

impress the near approach of the catastrophe by reason of the

resemblance of

its

name

to the verb for

'

hasten (Ip.t^lj^^) as
'

the text explains, and because this tree

hastens
it

to sprout

and

blossom before

all

other trees, but because

is

inhabited by

demons.
of the

Hence

in the allegory Eccles. 12. 5, the white

blossoms

almond

tree

do not symbolize the hoary

was not meant

hair of old age,

but presage terror, and their employment in the making of the

menorah (Exod.
inspire fear.

25. 33)

for

mere decoration, but

than

to

Professor Caspari's brochure offers

much more

its

title

would
to the

indicate.

It

is,

in fact, a concise survey of all that relates

dead

the

modes

of their disposal, as by burial, cremation,

exposing, sinking into the water,

receptacles for the corpse
rites

dismemberment

the various

and tomb

structure; the beliefs

;

and

connected with the removing of the dead

the tombstones,
philo-

monuments, &c., accompanied with acute and profound

sophical and psychological

comments and
its

reflections.

Israel, the
its spirit

author observes, by reason of

resulting from
its

conception of

God and

faith,
it

could carry along and tolerate customs

and usages

foreign to

just

because they had no relation

life.

to,

and

therefore did not affect, their innermost

its

'Because sure of
is

own

spirit

Israel

could

be

tolerant.'

Interesting

what

226

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

modern
in a

Professor Caspari says in explanation of the

agitation for

cremation.

Cremation, he thinks,

satisfies

crude way the

desire of both the dying

and the surviving

for the preservation

of a remnant which interment as at

present practised ignores.

And
dead

this desire is
still

connected with the concealed belief that the

partici-

continue to live in the world of the living and to

lives.

pate in their

The

substance of the dead preserved by

cremation
belief.

is

therefore craved as a concrete substratum for this

Hygienic and economic considerations play but a specious

and

superficial part in this agitation.

The pamphlet
it is

is

written in a rather compressed style, so that

;

not easy reading

but a careful and close study of

it

will

be

amply rewarded.
Dr. Eberharters

monograph

is

a defence of the traditional

view of the marriage institution and the family organization of the

Hebrews
patriarchs

against the various theories of the evolutionists.

In the introduction the author defends the historicity of the

and the

origin of the
it

Hebrew people from one

family

against the view that

coalesced at the time of David from a

conglomerate of scattered clans.

is

The
I

subject proper of the

book

treated in six chapters.

is

Chapter

undertakes to prove that

there

no causal nexus between promiscuity, polyandry^ temple

prostitution

and matriarchy, and

that

none of them had been

a generally prevailing stage,

development.
polygamy.
marriage
:

Nor did
rape,

much less the starting point of social monogamy develop from and succeed to
forms of contracting

Chapter II

states that the three

by

by purchase, and by consent, do not necessarily

;

mark successive
and the
first

steps

the last

may have been

In

the primitive form

Israel,

two

later

degenerations.

moreover,

purchase was excluded by the high position of the

treats of the

wife.

Chapter III
affinity,

hindrances of marriage,

viz.

consanguinity,
;

and

differences of nationality

and

religion

and Chapter IV of
it

the wooing or selecting of a bride and by

whom

was done.

In

Chapter V, on marriage and divorce,

is

noticed the absence of

reference to the religious character given to marriage and married

life

in the

Old Testament, though the whole conception of the

BOOKS ON COMPARATIVE RELIGION

institution of marriage in the

CASANOWICZ
its

227

Pentateuch presupposes

existence.

Chapter VI

finally treats of the legal relations

between the family

wife,

members, namely, between

children,

husband

and

parents

and

and masters and

on the

slaves.

The author shows

literature

a thorough acquaintance with the extensive

subject,

which he discusses on a broad ethnocustoms and

logical basis, with especial reference to the parallel

laws

of the
is

cognate peoples of Arabia and Babylonia.

fair

The
nature
is

arguing

throughout

and objective
and
freely.

the

opponents are
in the

allowed to state their case

fully

As

it is

of the subject treated here the conclusion of the argument

often a

mere 7wn probatian.

page 78 read Gen. 21. 10 instead of 22.
6.

On

Dr. Roscher has placed students interested in the works which

pass under the

name

of Hippocrates under great obligation by

critical,

bringing out a handy,

is

and complete

edition, as far as this

possible

at present,
(Trept
is

of the

work on the significance of the

number seven
ancient

ef^So/xd^wv).

The work, though by

theories.

general

consent spurious,

of

much

interest for the

knowledge of the

cosmological system

and pathological

The

present edition gives in parallel columns the Greek text of the

MS.

of the Bibliotheque Nationale of Paris, the two Latin transof

lations

the

Codex Aitibrosianus and

Codex Parisinus

re-

spectively,

and Harder's German

translation of the pseudo-Galen

Arabic commentary to chapters 1-17 of the work.

part Dr.

In a second

Roscher has brought together the recently discovered

fragments of the Hebdomads, indicating their respective places in

the text of the Paris MS., while the third part
history
writers
is

devoted to a
it

of the work and

the critical estimates of

by various
adds
the

from Plato to the present.

An

appendix

important passages from the more accurate and

rendering

literal

German

by Bergstrasser of pseudo-Galen's commentary, and

an analytical table of contents and indexes of subjects and

quotations brings this editio princeps of the Hebdoitiads to a close.

228

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

By George Albert Coe,
Professor

The Psychology of Religmi.

in the

Union Theological Seminary, New York City. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. [1916]
pp. XV

+ 365.

81.50

net.

Psychology

of religion

is

the investigation and analysis of

religious experiences, or, as

the data, processes

and conditions of
it,

the author pithily puts

'the study of the

human

naturalness

of religion'.

It is

comparatively a
in this

new

science.

Professor

Coe

was one of the pioneers

most important and fascinating

first

branch of the 'study of man', his

work on the

subject.

The Spiritual
investigators,

Life,

having appeared in 1900.

Since then
Pratt,
field,

many

Ames,

James,
a few

King,

Leuba,

Starbuck,

Stratton

to

name but

have
is

entered the

and quite
In

an extensive

literature, discussing the various aspects

and phases

of religious manifestations on the

the present work the subject
viz.,
(i)

human

side,

has grown up.

discussed in nineteen chapters,

;

Religion as an object of psychological study

(ii)

The
;

psychology of mental mechanism and the psychology of persons

(iii)

The

data,

and how they are ascertained;

consciousness
;

(iv)

PreHminary

analysis
religion
;

of religious
(vi)
;

(v)

Racial

beginnings in
;

The
(viii)
;

genesis of the idea of

God
;

(vii)

Religion

and

religions

Religion as group conduct

(x)

(ix)
traits

Religion as
of religious
religious

individual conduct
leaders
;

Conversion

(xi)

Mental
;

(xii)

Religion and the subconscious

;

(xiii)
;

The

evaluation of values
as social

(xiv) Religion as discovery (xvi)

(xv) Religion

immediacy

Mysticism
(xviii)

(xvii)

The

future

life

as

psychological

problem;

Prayer;

(xix)

The

religious

nature of man.

Professor
religious

What now is the fons et origo of the religious experience ? Coe disavows any endowment of man with some innate
instinct or perception.
.
.

'There

is

no evidence

that a
. .

religious intuition ever occurs.

There

is

no

religious instinct.

No
all
is

specific attitude to the divine or

human can be

attributed to

individuals' (p. 323).

The

religious consciousness or attitude

the result of experience

and of the way of organizing experience

'

BOOKS ON COMPARATIVE RELIGION

in

CASANOWICZ
reintegration

229

terms of ideal values.

It

What then
is

are the values after which

the devotee strives?

the

unification,
in

and

completion of his desires and wants

self-realization.

terms of personal-social
'sociality', or of 'social

This motif ol ethical

its

valuations',
'

which finds

culmination and completion in the

is

love

'

taught by Jesus and Paul,

the thread on which

all

the

phenomena and
strung.
(p.
'

expressions of the religious consciousness are

life's

Religion organizes

values and seeks

live,

them

socially

'

91).

'Religion

is

an impulse to
life,

to live well, to live

to live socially'
(p. 240).
'

a diversified yet organized

(p. 108).
is
'

and

especially
'

Religion

is

a discovery of persons

Man
So

fundamentally

social,

and

religion

is, all

in

all,

his

most con-

siderable attempt to express this side of his nature' (p. 213).

also prayer
'

fulfils

the function of self-renewal largely by making

one's experience consciously social',

and 'has value

in that

it

develops the essentially social form of personal

(PP' Z^^^ 317)seat just

self realization'

Even the problem of

future

life 'will

have

its

where the general problem of being a person meets us

namely, in social enterprise with
its
is,

in the present existence,

give
it

and

take,

its

self-seeking

and

self-sacrifice

'

(p. 292), that

is

a question of continued social activity

between the embodied

and disembodied.
It

seems

to

me

that the

emphasis which Professor Coe

in the

motivation of the religious consciousness and experience, and in

the development of religion, lays on the personal self-realization in
society, or ethical sociality, or 'love to his brother

whom
'

he has

seen

'

is,

to say the least, one-sided,

suggestive influence of the

and may be due modern humanitarian

'

in part to the

movements
',

and

agitations with their

'

'altruism',

much worked slogans brotherhood of man in which at

',
'

of

'

social service

present religion

is

frequently being absorbed or rather evaporated, in part, to his

aversion against any kind of

'

mysticism

'.

It

is

very well to

look for the center of gravity of religion

xiii f.).

in

the moral will

(Preface, p.

But

it is

here treated in a jejune, one would

almost say in a pragmatical manner, untouched by emotion.

fact,

In

the query of the hypothetical objector which the

author

230
adduces
(p.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

229)
'
:

When you make

the essence of this experience,

attitude-taking,
reality of

enterprise, values,

you make

it

appear that the

any object

divine beings, for example

is

a matter of

religious indifference, whereas interest in the objectively real lies

at the heart of religion
',

seems to
in

me

not adequately answered.

But man seeks and

with

finds

religion

something

more

than

personal self-realization as a

member

of a benevolent fraternity

God

as socius or President.

Certainly the world around

man, the everlasting miracle of the universe, the earth below with
its

mountains,

trees, traversing seas, the

sky above with

its

stars,

the rushing clouds, discharging

now

fire,

now

rain,
life

combined with
point

man's fragmentariness and transitoriness of

him

to a

power above, and impel him

to attach his being to

',

an

Infinite

and Eternal,

to the

'

Rock

of Ages

while the world within man,

its

the longings and passions of the heart,

grave sufferings and

his

noble joys, contribute to develop and

consciousness.

ennoble

religious

The

table of contents

and the few

in

extracts

quoted above by

no means convey an adequate idea of the

and stimulating matter contained
minating are the chapters of
' '

riches of instructive

the book.
traits

Especially

illu-

Mental
'

of religious leaders',
',

Religion and the subconscious

',

Mysticism

and

'

Prayer

'.

A
and

comprehensive index enables the reader to

refer to

any

topic in which he

may be

particularly interested,

and

alphabetical

topical bibliographies

'provide

convenient apparatus for

for

following

up problems, and
'.

especially

setting

them

in

scientific perspective

I.

M. Casanowicz.

United States National Museum.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
By Isaac Husik,
University of Pennsylvania.

105. (L. 62, fifth line from bottom)

(K. 136, 6)
it is

D'^^n *n^2 ia sin 1C*S nXO means in so far as

infinite,

and not 'wei7

Greek to

es

eben unendlich
rj

ist'.

It

is

equivalent to the
in

direipov

OLTTupov aypoifrTov,

quoted by K. himself

a note (136, note

106. (L. 62,

2).

fin.)
,pbnn'''c^

n^^^n

HNT"

ab

nr^i

no

i?x

pbnnrD Nine' 13 yu^ bin

,(? r\p)bn7\b)

pbnnb

(K. 136

fin.)

Wohl aber

begreift er die Teilbarkeit als solche

es fur sie keine

{sc.

das Pri7izip,

das Gesetz), und dass

Grenze

gibt.^^

This does not give the precise meaning of the

it

original,

though
is

renders
:

it
'

in a general way.

A
it

more

precise translation

the

following

[The mind

in

apprehending an

infinitely divisible
;

magnitude does not apprehend

hends merely that
turn (p^nn^c'
division
'.

as infinitely divided]

it

appre-

it

is

divisible into parts

which are
is

divisible in

na b^ p^nn), and hence there

no

limit to the

107. (L. 63, 19)

fonTn

= (K.
'

138, 5)

C'N nfX should always be translated

',

'ein

beliebiges

Individuum

and not ein

ziifdlliges \ as

K. does here and, with an

exception or two, passim.

108. (L. 63,
e^'ism

22)=(K.

138, 10)
'.

~npn3, K. translates, *Bei eingehender Untersuchung

t'isn

is

a technical term, and corresponds to the Aristotelian

*8

Italics

mine.

231

232
cVaywyT^

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

induction. of logic
^
:

It

is

defined

as

follows

in Averroes's

compendium
D^-5^nn 21-13

pjy bv "^mycf xin

nioN^ D'^yisn

onmn
^hr
is*

id

pr:n

m)

/i;'isnn
^i>!?3

Dac'cn nr mN>:>!?

t^hd

!?bi3

t:2"j'Dn

.-iNnn nr bv CDcj'jn

an

nvd:u^

^si?

c^mn

In our case G. first proved that the ni^ti'lO are not universals by the deductive method. He now proceeds to prove the same
thing by the
various

method of induction.

That

is,

he investigates the

kinds of nib::'1 and

shows

that

none of them

is

universal.

109. (L. 63,

2264,

29)

= (K.

138,

10142,

2)

The
is

passages are too long to quote tn extenso^ and the reader

expected to have before him the texts in question.

He

will

then see that the errors of the translator are numerous.

The

most fundamental error

is

that

K. does not understand the

meaning of m?:N
(138,
13)

(63, 23; 64, 17),

which he renders 'Wirklichkeit'

5).

and

'Wirkliches' (141,

This leads him to mis2).

understand G.'s entire attitude towards the universal (141, note

The

contrast

between nvv and

reality
('

mcN
'

is
'

not

difference
'),

between idea and

^^orstellung

and

\A'irklichkeit

and

G. does not say that the ideal comes before the real ('und so geht
die Vorstellung

dem "Wirklichen"
if

vorauf;' 141,
will,

7).

Both nVS
terms.
i'aiJ'IDn

and

mcN

are here logical or,

you

psychological,

They

are subdivisions of the term b^tnn, intelligibile (sin

Dn).

niCK DX nvv

The

difference

is

that

nvv

is

the single loticept the

true

('Bcgriff, or 'Vorstellung') whereas niDX

represents

judgement (wahres

Urteil),

especially as

it

appears in the con-

clusion of a true syllogism.

We

shall

prove this statement by

b'2,

quoting from Averroes's

ed.
"vz'

Riva

di 'I'rento,

compendium P. 2 a we 1560).

of logic (frjnn nax^tt

find this statement
.
.

nvac-ncn
nnry^'^:'

imovy

maxbr^n ^3 nnyn^ nsDa^n nvj-pn^n noa -imn n^an xin -ivi*n n^ni /niDxi nrv
^x:;'jn

Q^"?!'n

3nn
'"

^y

nnya

xim iniDvy n^cyo xinr zcn^r

di

n?::3

ix

Hcb.

traiislalion,

|rj-n flDX^rD ^3, cd. Riva

Trcnto, 1560,

p.

58a.

'

"

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES HUSIK

-T.Ti
,:^'DJ^

233

sin

noi
D^js

10D

D^moa Dx

>:iy

yaun Nin no u^ox iod no nijoa ni'nni ^jy nn ,inpnin in -imn Dvp xin nicxn
\s':na dni

pen nn cnino nhyn dn ijicn io3

ijD

n:;oj

mpin
i5?x

ijnox
|o

mp^::' ^ixi n\-n

.dx nbr^i D^iyb ijcd

^x:^J

xm

n^L^^mn
^rj'o

.n-i-j'\n

D^ixi

dx nyn^no D^^n ^J:^ no^non ^vx m-i2:n n^on rfjy n-irc' no xin n;n nr^*^
DX1
i^yis

nnx
nSxi

n"Tj'\nn

,Qm:n
Dnj^no

^p!?n

xini

nam n
:yp2en

D>^'5n>

-i::'x

D^ma

n\i n:n )b

^yisn
d!jixi

D^pi^n ^:^2

i?vx

nr:Nn

y^j>

njn niox^ nTJ'\nn

.L"pnn )b buitn qjoxi D^^snno D^'^^n ix

'

The

things

we

desire to

know

in all

theoretical disciplines

consist of two

partsr^;/r^///^a/ and

verificatory.

By concept
that

("iVi,')

we mean

the

understanding of a thing through

is

which
is

constitutes, or

thought to constitute,

its

essence.

This

that

which usually and primarily answers

(t6 eo-Tt
;),

to the question "

as for

example when we

say,

What

is

Nature
is

What ? What is

the Soul

Verification or true conclusion (niGX)

the affirming

of a thing or denying
(i) absolute, as

as
is

it. This again may be of two kinds, when we say, A vacuum exists, or (2) conditional, when we say, Whether the world is created. This investigation

always introduced by the question "Whether" {d

eVrt).

Each

of these two must be preceded in the

mind of

the learner by two

elements of knowledge the

of the concept
efficient
is

effide?ita.v\d
is

ihc direciive.

The

directive

denoted by the single word. The thereof consists of those things which constitute the thing

that which

in question, namely, the parts of the definition.

As

for the directive

investi-

of a true co?tchesion, truth

is

arrived at in the

mind of the

gator as a result of two opposite or contrary parts (judgements). The efficient of a " true conclusion" is the syllogism.'
It is clear

now

that IVif

is

the concept,

i.e.

the true under-

standing of the essence of a thing.

'

We

start with

a word, say
definition,
'

man
'

'.

We

ask,

What

is
'.

namely, 'rational animal

man ? and the answer is, the The parts of the definition,

rational

and animal

',

constitute the concept (-|VV).

We

ask next, whether

man
One

is

mortal or not.

We

express our problem in the form of two

is

contrary or opposed propositions man

of these
is

mortal, man

is

not mortal.

true, the other

is

not true.

We

arrive at the true

234

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Our conclusion is mcN.
ll^i'
is,

opinion (niCN*) by means of a syllogism.

say, man The
is
'

let

us

mortal.
'

This true conclusion

Categories in Aristotle's logic deals with

in so far as

primarily,
IVi*.

with nit:N secondarily only,

mcx

presupposes

You cannot have

tione^VsQ.

a judgement without a subject and a predicate,

and the subject involves nvx.

dividing
dictory,

Beginning with the

De

Interpreta-

pass over to niON, for here

we

are dealing with propositions,

them

into affirmative

and negative, contrary and contra-

universal and

particular,

and so

on.

This

is

the

first

step

in the direction of verification (nicx), or obtaining a true conclusion

(niDS).

After

we have done

this,
is

we proceed
This
is

to

combine proposior agent in

in

tions in

a syllogism, which

the

actual efficient
treated

producing the true conclusion.

Analytics.

the Prior
:

Thus we read

in the

same

treatise of Averroes, p. 9 a

aa-iicn -i):N?:n

nncsn

^yj'n

:iDni

nno nnxa ^jd ncNn

rs'^r^^^

ny

The second
'

error of

K.

is

that he renders the

to

word

mj

by be

Begriff',

which

corresponds

nvx.

"n: should
first

always

translated 'definition', as K. does in the

P. 139,

part of the paragraph.

note

2,

K.

says,

'Hier scheint Gersonides platonische

Bahnen im
at all for
all

aristotelischen Sinne zu

wandeln

'.

There

is

no warrant
least

such a statement in the present discussion, and

it

of

does

apply to the sentence in G. to which

is

it

is

attached by K.

What G.
to
it

says in that part of the argument

(""bija),

that the definition

cannot denote the universal

(the

because

if it

does,

it

must

refer

universal)
all

either

in

the sense of the

unitary thing

embracing
individuals.

individuals, or in the sense of the

sum

of

all

the

In

neither

case would the definition denote

is

the

essence of the individual thing, for the latter

either of these

not identical with

two senses of universal, and hence could not be

covered

by the

same

definition,

for

different

things

require

different definitions.
in

How
fail

any one can see anything Platonic

this

argument

to understand.

The

other mistakes concern the misunderstanding and misof sentences

translation

and expressions of the discussion

in

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
question.

HUSIK
TJ'SN Ti^a
n'T]

235
nr^i

Thus

L. 63, 27 reads

13

pim^
3)
'

ijSsn
(sc.

-ilj.

This K. renders (139,

Deshalb kann bei

ihr

der

Vorstelhmg)"'^ die Universaldefinition

'.

uberhaupt nicht

Platz greifen

The

correct translation
it

is,

'Therefore the definition

'.

of the universal cannot denote L. 64, 4 reads

:

(sc.

the individual)

,TP^ ^^13 NinK' Til hh^^h

-ryyr^

tt^'^^ -ik-'n ^rhi Nin-j'

loxji

.pD IS

:iD

xin T^'N nvn xim

This K. renders (140,

'

5)

Wir behaupten nun, dass der Begriff anch ^' nach der " umschHessenden, umfassenden" Seite {Vtelheitsseite),'^^ also nach der
Genus- und der " Artseite
This
itself
is

" hin, kein Universales bildet.'

it is

not correct, for

clear not only from the expression

(hT^I ^^13 Nin-J' ti'a hh'i^b), but also from the sequence of
it
^

the argument, that

discussed, but the

is

not the

'

Vielheitsseite

'

that

is is

now being
this (L. 63,

Einheitsseiie\
definition

The argument
',

33

64, 4
its

ff.)

The
'

must denote
but
'

unity, for in defining

man we do
on

not say

rational animals

rational animal

'.

If

now we prove
the universal at

that the definition cannot denote the universal

it

unitary side,
all.

will follow that

the definition cannot denote

And

in the sequel

G. proceeds to give

this
its

proof, viz. that the definition cannot

denote the universal on

NinK>

general and embracing side

side (cf. also

(!l"'pC1

^\2

Im),

i.

e.

the tmitary
t^'^N^

L. 63, 26;

fi^pcn i^isinn n^ir xin

nnsn
unity

"3

,DUnn
fl'pcn,

D^-^'^xn

rbw

D: Xini,

which shows clearly that

D''k^'^^^,

hh\zr\

as contrasted with

omn

signifies

and not

plurality).

The

continuation

of this

argument

K.

disfigures

beyond

recognition.

The Hebrew

reads (L. 64, 5)

^'-1

,-nJ2
-I'j'x

mp^ nisnt:vnn
niDiDvnn layn

1^3

ni n\n^B' a^in'' r\ir\ r\Ta^ ivn nrio nro ^y napnn -nn nprj' "103 ^n .Dm:3 "iK'DN ^ni?3 i3n nn .insn p3i
ei^p-'-i:*

Italics

mine.

s'

Italics

mine.

"

236

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

This K. translates as follows (140,
'

8)

Ware

nanilich der Begriff'^'^ ein Universales, also eine Art

jniiss/e

oder ein Genus, so

er dies von seiien der Relation sein,

denn gerade
Begriffe "

die Relation zvird diirch den Begriff geivonnen^'"^ d.h.

also die entsprechende Umschliessung, wie wir ja

auch unter

dem
ihm
den

Knecht

"

die Beziehung verstehen, die zwischen

und dem Herrn

besteht,

etwas

Derartiges

aber

ist

bei

Definitionen nicht moglich.'

G. says nothing of the kind.

follows
*

The

correct translation

is

as

If the definition
it

denoted the universal, namely, the genus or

that since
20),
this
it is

the species,
(cf.

would follow
ff.

in this sense a relative

L. 56, 2

K. 114,

relative

aspect

should

be

included in the definition, namely, this aspect of embracing that

which

it

embraces, as

we

include in the definition of " servant

";

the relation between

definitions.'

him and " master

but this

is

impossible in

The meaning
*

is

that

we should define man,

all

for

example, as

rational animal,

embracing

individual

men

'.

(L. 64, 17)

nnp

"ivvn

n\i

nri?i

p^i^'^u*

no ^y

ddb-'d

dn

^3

(r.

niDxn)

K. (141,

5)

translates as follows:
als

Aber auch

Wirkliches

[sc.

WahrcsY'^ kann

es

(sc.

das
ist

Intelligibelc) kcin Universales sein.

Denn das

Wirkliche"^^

nur ein Urteil iiber die Vorstellung,

und so geht die Vorstellung

es sich aber so verhalt

dem

'

Wirklichcn"^'^ vorauf.
ist,

Wenn

und
so

doch crwiesen

dass die Vorstellung kein Universales

"^

ist,

kann auch das Wirkliche

<**

kcin Universales sein.

"'

Ilalicb

mine.

Italics

mine

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES

HUSIK
:

237

To
'

this

he adds
diese

in

a note (141, note 2)

Auch

Anschauung

geht auf falsch verstandenen Plato-

nismus

zuriick,

nach welchem die psychische und logisch-technische

Organisation des Individuums ein Primares gegeniiber den Dingen

bildet.'

As a matter of
to

fact the

argument quoted from G. has nothing

do with Platonism,
note,
'

true or otherwise.

We

should rather say of

falsch

K.'s

Diese

Anschauung geht auf

verstandenen
" gleich

Gersonidismus
sei
'.

zuriick,

nach welchem niDN " Wirklichem

We

discussed the meaning of niDN before, and

"IVV are both logical
'

we found

that

niON and

terms.
true
'

"IW denotes the

'

single

concept, to which the terms

and
one
as
'

false

'

do not apply,
with
is

niON denotes a judgement, the

result
if

of syllogistic proof, and

finds
false
'.

may be spoken
up of
"IVV,
it is

of as
it

'

true

'

or,

fault

the

syllogism by which

was arrived

at,

niON

made
first.

a judgement upon the nvv, hence "iVV comes

The
'

translation of the

Hebrew quoted above

is

as follows

[Having divided the

intelligibik (^y^^'6) into

concept ("IW)

and true conclusion

(n"i?2N),

and having shown

that the former as

expressed in the definition (nj) does not denote the universal],

we

shall

now prove

that a true conclusion (niDN) cannot denote

is

the universal either; for the true conclusion

nothing else than

a judgement concerning the content of the concept, and hence

the concept comes before the true conclusion.

This being

so,

and since we have proved

universal,
it

that the concept does not denote the

follows that the true conclusion does not denote the

universal either.'

Does any one

argument
is

see any Platonism here

do

not.
is

The

entire

within the logical sphere, and there

nothing said

here as to the relation between the ideal and the

the contradiction of which K. speaks

real.

Accordingly

in his excursus, p. 281,

does

not

exist,

and needs no
is

solution.
is

That niON

a logical term like IVV and the only difference

that given above, namely, the difference between the

judgement

VOL.

VIII.

238

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

single concept,
is

and the

also confirmed
just discussed.

by the argument immeThis new one

is

diately following the

one

also

intended to prove that HTOX cannot refer to the universal. But instead of the a priori manner in which this was proved in the
last

argument, G. now uses an

illustration.

And what
mw).
rectified.

is

the

illustration of nitDS

? a

universal proposition (n^713

Here,

too,

K. commits several mistakes which must be

text reads (L. 64, 20) as follows

The

Hebrew

rvci '^bn

^s

jiddik-*

^yN:^

r\:i>iyi)':i

isud n^han nnun

"-^

iiyi

na NB'in n^n dsc nn

Nin-j'

.^iT'^i

(r.

^ha) nc^j xint' nr^n

ij^isn

no nnnno nn niv n^D n^n ,^^13 xin::' nrsn ^han by mi ^Dns3 "un by mio imo din bi i^nos-j' bc'cm ^nmnr^ 'nba

ms2 picn nmno i3j\s*

"3

n\n

dni

.b nn^n

n^TJn

(r.

jiNTn)
nr

nsr n?2cin
dc'I"'

nrh

pronc'

nsuo smi
n''n''*kr

^nn-in?^

pen

nn

n:n ^p?on

^n^onon mian p:yn

.iw'DJ3

n'-in^

(r.

nm)

nrai ^c^^pci

bbia r\i

iNUD

nri

^sc'i:n riNTin

n^c^D nj^inn pt<

K. (141,

11) renders this as follows

:

Und
ah

ferner

Aus dem

Begriffe des generellen Urteils folgt,

dass es fiur insofern das Universale

es selbst

zum

Urteilsgegensiafide erhebt,
ist,

ehvas Einschliessendes und Umfassendes

weil

doch

dcr Trager, iiber welchen es urteilt, nicht auf das entsprechende

Universale hinweist.
relle

Wiirde namlich sein Trager auf das Gene7i)?tschlicssi^'^

hinweiscn, das er

so

miisste

dasjenige

als

pluralisierbar

angenommen werden, was

So

gar

nicht
:

pluralisiert

werden kann.
rcden

weist beispielswcise unser Satz

;

AUe Menschen
'

auf eine Mehrheit von Menschen hin

'

deshalb wurde in

diesem Urteile das Wort

alle

'

gesetzt.

Wird aber unter dem

Menschen' die Art verstanden, so

massen die Art nicht
Zweiheit
nicht

miisste in ihni (sc.

dem

Urteile)

die Art als pluralisierbar gesetzt werden,

[)luralisiert

wahrend doch erwiesenererwiesen, dass

werden kann, und eine numerische

ist

existicrl.

Mithin

in

cinem

generellen (allgemeinen) Urteile das Subjekt nichlsGenerelles

**

und

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
Umschliessendes
ist

HUSIK
Art),

239

(sc.

kein

Genus und keine

sein^'^

und

so

muss

es ein

unbestimmtes (JT'Ono) Urteil

denn der Unifang

ist

andert nichts an der Bedeutung des Subjekts, und das

verstandlich.

selbst-

The
says
that
is
it

italicized
:

passages are in every case incorrect.

What G.

this

It is clear

from the nature of a universal proposition

does not express a judgement concerning the universal as

universal

and embracing.
is

For the subject concerning which the

judgement

expressed does not denote the universal as universal

and embracing.
multipliable which
tion,

For

if

the subject of the proposition denoted

as universal),
it

the universal as such

is

(lit.

would follow that that

is

not multipliable.
If

Then
is

follows the illustra-

which
is

is

clear.

we

say
'

'all
all

man
'.

rational', the plurali-

zation

expressed by the word

it

If

then the subject

'
'

denotes the species,

pluralized,

would follow

that the species

man man may be

' '

which

is

absurd.

Then he
r\fy\)

adds, but the same thing

is

true (read

nai instead of
(some)

of an indefinite proposition [for

'].

example,
(n?D"in)

'

man

is

rational

For the quantitative

particle
is

does not change the meaning of the subject, as

self-

evident.

Having discussed
at the
is

all

the difficulties of the passage referred to

beginning of

this
I

number, and seeing that K.'s translation

unusually defective,

deem

it

proper to close this number by

giving a correct translation of the entire argument in question.

*

It

seems as a

result of

an inductive investigation that these

intelligibilia are not universals.

For

(i)
it is

an

intelligibile is either

a concept or a true conclusion.

i.e.

Now

clear that the concept,

if it

the definition, does not denote the universal, for

it

did

denote the universal,

in

would have to do
is

this either in the sense

it is

which the universal

whichever
it

one, or in the sense in which

many.

And
is

be,

it

would follow that the definition does not

for the individual thing

denote the essence of the individual thing,

not the universal embracing
it,

nor

is

it

the

many

individuals.

Therefore the definition of the universal could not be connected

"^

Italics

mine.

240
with
it,

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

for different things require different definitions.

And

in

general, as the definition of house does not pertain to the brick,

and the

definition of the

number

ten does not apply to the

number

two, so, according to this hypothesis, the definition could not

apply to the individual, as

is
it

evident.

But

it

is

clear from the

meaning of

definition that

does denote the essence of every one

applies.

of the individuals

to

which the particular definition

Hence
Again

it is

clear that the definition does not denote the universal.

(2), if

the definition denoted the universal,

it

would have

to

do so

in the sense in

which the universal

is

a unity, for
in defining

we

see

no
is

plurality in the definition.

We
is

do not say
".

man, he

" rational animals

",

but " rational animal

Hence

it

appears that
so, if

the object of a definition

a unitary definitutn.

This being

we now prove
in the sense in

that the definition cannot

denote the universal

defini-

which

it

is

a unity,

it

will

be clear that the

shall

tion cannot denote the universal at

all.

We

now prove
it is

that

the definition cannot denote the universal in the sense in which

it is

universal

and embracing,

i.e.

the sense in which

a genus

or a species (sc. the universal as a unity).

For

if

the definition
it

denoted the universal as genus or species, then, since

universal)
is

(the

in this

sense a relative,

it

would follow that

this aspect
I

of relation would have to be expressed in the definition,

the fact that
it

mean

embraces what

it

does embrace

as

we
it

include in

the definition of " slave " the relation between

him and " master ".

is

But

this

cannot be done

in definitions.
is

Again,

clear that

each of the parts of a definition

thing
defined.

necessarily predicable of the

Now

if

the

definition
is

denotes the universal,

identical with
its

the result would follow that the species

genus,

which

is

utterly

absurd.

For

example,

as

man
is

is

" rational
its

animal",
genus.
species

man
It
is

is

"animal", and the species

result further

identical with

would

from

this

assumption that the

genus.
is

last
is

identical

with

the

highest

For as man

"animal" and

the definition of animal

"nutritive sensitive",
as the definition of
is

man would be
"nutritive "
is ",

identical with "nutritive";

and

"growing body",

it

would follow that man

identical

with " body

and so the matter would go on

until the result

would

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
be that "

HUSIK

24!

man

"
is

which

is

the last species

is

identical with the highest

genus, which

utterly foolish

and absurd.
refer to the universal.

'But neither can a "true conclusion"

For a conclusion

is

nothing more than a judgement concerning

;

the object of the concept

conclusion.

and hence the concept

is

prior to the

This being

so, then, since

we have proved
it

that the

concept does not denote the universal,

is

clear that the con-

clusion does not denote the universal either.

Again,
it

it

is

clear

from the nature of a universal proposition that

concerning which the judgement
universal as universal

does not denote

the universal as universal and embracing, because the subject

is

expressed does not denote the

and embracing.
it

For

if

the subject denoted

the universal qua universal,

multipliable
is

would

follow^ that that

which

is

not

multipliable.

For example, the proposition, "all

man

is

rational " denotes plurality in

all "

man.

This
if

is

the function
"

of the word "

in this proposition.
is

Now

"

man

denotes

the species, the species

pluralized in this proposition.

But we

know

that the species cannot be pluralized

and cannot be numeriBut the same thing

cally two.

Hence
is

it

follows that the subject in a universal pro-

position
is

not universal and embracing.

true of

an

indefinite proposition, for the quantitative particle

is

["all"] does not change the meaning of the subject, as

evident.'

self-

The paragraphing
to

in the Leipzig edition

is

wrong, and

it

seems

have misled K.

L. 64, 4 should not begin a

new paragraph,

neither should line 6 from the bottom of the

line 17,

same page ; whereas beginning niosn D^si, should be the beginning of a new

paragraph.

no.

(L. 65, 22)

pN*^ T\rh

^533 'b

n^i^^n pNC'

nc

n'n^i

,n^bn

'hi

nm

nw\s rhhsirs

.m3jm huan nsuo nn ;h n^bn

(K. 144, 2)
'

Und

ferner

Da doch

seine Winkel zwei Rechte betragen,

eitte

und

die Doppelheit der 2

R gleicJifalls

uneiidliche

Zahl {sc. von

242

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Einzehvinkehi) einschliesst;^ so ware doch die eine Unendlichkeit

gleich

dem Doppelten
ist.'

der anderen Unendlichkeit, was ofienbar

absurd

The
that
if

italicized passage is evidently incorrect.

What G.

says

is

we

say that the angles of the infinite triangle are equal to

two

right angles, they are

is

double the one universal right angle

infinite

which
another

also

infinite,

and then we have one

is

double

infinite,

which
will

absurd.

Whether
is

K.'s criticism in his

note (144, note 2)

apply

now

not clear to me.

For G.

is

not arguing about a theoretical double, but about an actual one.

This

infinite universal triangle,

if its

angles are equal to two right

angles, does actually contain the double of two universal infinite

right angles,

hence the absurdity.

111. (L. 66, 4)

= (K.

145, 10)

In the text K. has

Cf. above,

Ilepi Koo-/xou, in

the note (note i)

De

Caelo

No.

32.

112. (L. 66, 6)

pn

'^tir^

^y :iDn niN'L"j n^n ^nn^nn nxro

tihd

nih-l;'

ir:3

D'2'pci

^Dra 'n Ninu'

mxa moN

^bt:*

tit

p:'r\'^

mh

wid

-\n'

pen

^a

(K. 145

fin.)

Ferner

Waren

die Subjekte

und Pradikate

in diesen Schliissen
ergibt, so

Generalia, wie sich solches aus der

Annahme
falscli,

ware die
ist

Pradizierung des Genus

nicht mit ihrem

fiir

die Spezies

denn die Spezies

Genus

identisch, sotist miissieti zvir beispiehweise

sa^en

Der

Meiisch

ist ein liignerisches

Lebeweseii ;

das

ist

aber

offenbar absurd.

The
If

italicized

passage

is

incorrect.

What G.
its

says

is

this.

the subjects and the predicates

in general propositions

denoted

universals,

we could not
l'"(jr

predicate a genus of

species, for they

'

are not the same.

example, the proposition,

Nine*
*'

man

is

animal

',

would be wrong

313

/n

DnN3

mcN

,^L"0

IIT

/.-n'.

The

Italics

mine.


STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
IIUSIK
24.3

Hebrew sentence

cjuoted

is

an

illustration of the

statement just

made, and 313 goes back

113. (L. 66, 26)

to iTH^

and

is

not connected with ^n.

Dn'^jy

DSw'Tiw'

hv

,D"'a"i

xin

-i::\s

nvn n^i "ins

,3^in^

in

Nine*
nn"'

nvn n^
t22'w^^

fen

^y no2iw* n^i'Dn n-in

i'y

nnM dx

nih

nnx

.Dn nns nns

(K. 147,
i)

dd'j-to

xinr* ^y

D"'3-i

xin::^

noa vbv DD'j'nr

Wenn

es sich aber so verhalt, so

trifft

das allgemeine Urteil

offenbar iiber das Allgemeine keine Entscheidung, weder nach

der Eiiiheits- noch nach der

sie eine einzige

Vielheitsseite hin, obgleich'^'^ es

fallt.

iiber

Gesamtentscheidung
iiber

Entscheidet deshalb
trifft

das allgemeine Urteil

das

Allgemeine, so

es diese

Entscheidung nach der Vielheitsseite

einzelne Individuum
urteilt.

hin, obgleich"^^ es iiber jedes

The two

phrases

beginning with
'

'

obgleich

'

in

the

above

passage are incorrect.

the meaning of G.

Obgleich
'

'

is

the wrong word and destroys

(Sec.',

Similarly,

Trifft deshalb,

the beginning

of the sentence following immediately upon the passage above

quoted,

is

incorrect,

and obscures the connexion of the thought

' '

and the wrong use of obgleich

It is clear

is

again repeated below (147, 15).

from the Hebrew text and the argument that the

is

possible signification of a universal proposition

in the

classified

by G.

following way

It

may

express a judgement concerning

all

the universal as (i) a 2tnity embracing

individuals, or

it

may
latter

refer to the universal as (2) a plurality of individuals.

This

mode

of signification

may

again be of two kinds.

collectively^

It

may

refer to

a plurality of individuals (a)

or {b) distribu lively.

The
(i).

Hebrew
follows:

expressions for these different

modes of

reference are as

D'ai
latter

N1.TJ'
is

nV3 ^^DH (2)

,nnN

NV-IL" "iva

^bn
nihl"

This
in"

again divided into hv D*3"l Nin TJ'X nv3 {a)

dsl'Til-,

nns i:Dro n'^^y

^^

and

{I?)

N^^;^'

^y

"^i
mine.

no3

Italics

mine.

^^

Italics

244
Dn?D

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

nns nnN bv
is

t23tr.
:

Now

what G. says in the passage

above quoted
says,

this
so,

Summarizing the preceding argument, he

clear that the universal proposition refers
it is

This being

it is

to the universal neither (i) in so far as

a unit, nor (2 a) in so far

the universal
it

as

it

is

collective plurality.

It follows, therefore, if
it

proposition refers to the universal, that (2 b)

refers to

as

a distributive

plurality.

For, he goes on to say, in the passage

immediately following upon the one quoted above, a universal

proposition has the following possible

modes of

reference, &c.

(giving precisely the classification mentioned above;.

114.
(L. 67, 2)

nhi v^y
pN'C D^ixi
-1X130

DSK'nt'

pn^ b:iD
::'^si

pi?n
^53

n^a-in

h^
^3jid

;N:!a

pN^r "d^

.DHD

c"N
v^jy

^y nnDic' n>nnw' Tin" n:n p^^r\

prr-

xin
"3

c'Nn
,-i3nr2

nijiT

tascriB'

p^n

cmn
mxn

i^n^

1X33 px

mx b

inr:x3 ,p-inx x^ xin

D^5^m
.in"
D''^3jid

cx'J'i:l'-*

nnr33
"C'^x^

on3

-iDX"::'

pn" invpo nnvp

D"b

Dnn ^^3 ^5^ ^y

iTh^ ust'onu'

(K. 147, 18)

'Da aber

die Vielheit als abgegrenzten Teil des moglichen

Urteils nur das Individuum enthalt, so

kann

es

nur

iiber jedes
als

einzelne Individuum urteilen.

Dass aber die Vielheit

Gegen-

stand des Urteils keinen anderen bestimmten Teil als das Indivi-

duum
die

enthalt, lasst sich aus jenen Urteilen erweisen,

deren Subjekt

hochste'^'^

Art enthalt, wie unser Satz

Jeder Mensch redet

sich

denn die vienschlichen Individual utiterscheiden

nicht durch

organische Bestimmtheiten derariig von einander, dass iiber ihre

verschiedenen

Klasscn

ein

einziges

Gesamturteil gefdllt

werden

kann

.'

'"

Ueforc taking up the meaning of the argument,

that
'

wish to say

hochste Art

'

as a translation of |l"inx

pD

is

liable to mis-

understanding.

highest species, namely, the

One might suppose it meant in our case human species, which is given in
it

the the
It

example.

Needless to say,

means
i.e.

noliiing of

tiie

sort.

means

lilerally

the last species,

the one which does not in

"

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
turn

HUSIK

245
pio,

embrace a narrower

species.

It is

equivalent to D'^rcn

and means rather the

loivest species

than the highest.

It is this
:

Now

as to the general argument.

G. has come to

the conclusion that a universal proposition expresses a judgement

concerning a plurality taken distributively.

analyst,
it

Being a rigorous

he does not
to

at

once jump

to the conclusion that therefore

It

refers

the individuals
to

taken distributively.
unit higher than

may con-

ceivably refer

some other
in the

the individual.

No, says G., the unit

tion cannot
if

denotation of the universal proposi-

be anything higher than the individual.

as our universal proposition
as,
'

This

is

clear

we take

one

in
is

which the subject

rational
'.

represents the last species, such

all

man

What

unit can there possibly be here, to the plurality of which taken

distributively the proposition

can

refer ?

There

is

not any except

its

the individual.

In a proposition having a genus as

is

subject,

such as

'all

animal

mortal',

it is

conceivable that the unit

may

be not the individual but the

if so,

species, but, as

G. says in the sequel,

all

the absurdities

from

this supposition.

shown above would result here again Hence it is proved that a universal prosaid that he understood the
difficulties in the

position refers to the plurality of individuals taken distributively.

To

the credit of K. be

it

argument

correctly,

though there are some

it.

which obscure
as
it

There

is

one sentence

in the

Hebrew text, Hebrew which,

stands, cannot be rendered so as to give the desiderated

I refer to

meaning.
prT"

the following (67, 6)

fnvpo Dnvp D^p^m d^^jid

.nn^

uh^ mN-n
bb:i

^'cih

fwa

i\s

^d
icn"'::'

DHo bbn

bv n\T oD^^'tsnc cna

:

This can only be translated as follows

'[That there cannot be

in

this plurality

any other

definite
is

part to which the proposition can refer except the individual,

clear in a proposition
all

whose subject

is

last species, for

example,

man

is

rational], for in this case the individual

men have no
we might

definite organs distinguished from each other, so that

say that the reference [of the proposition]

is

to the individual

groups of them

[sc.

the organs].'

246

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

But the translation gives very poor sense.
It

might seem to

signify,

taken by

itself,

that G. desires to guard against the possi-

bility that the unit of reference

may be something
But
it

less

than an

individual,

an organ

of an individual.
K.,

in the context this

cannot be the meaning.

felt

once more be

said to his credit,

the correct meaning, and despite the bad text endeavours to

:

get the following translation, italicized above

'

Denn

die menschlichen Individuen unterscheiden sich nicht

durch organische Bestinimtheiten derartig von einander,

iiber ihre

dass
gefallt

verschiedenen Klassen ein einziges Gesamturteil

werden kann.'

The

only difficulty

is

that

the

Hebrew

will

not bear this

translation.

invpD nnvp

D'p-^nJ

refers to

Dv3

of any given in-

dividual man, and not to organs of one individual as differing

from those of another.

similarly

And
is

the words Dri3 and

to

Dno

i?^3

773

must

refer to D^^3

and not

mNH

"'K'W.

The
which
D''i'3

solution, I think,

a very simple one, and moreover one

will

be seen to be correct the

for
D"'b^3.

moment
unit

it

is

mentioned.
in

is

a corruption

The
is

of reference

universal proposition whose subject

a last species cannot be

'all

anything higher than the individual, for in the proposition,

man

is

rational', there are

no groups of individual men

proposition

distinct

from one another

to

which the
(nn'

'collective-distributive^

manner
is

DHD ^^D

!?^3

may refer in a The meaning i^y).

Japanese,

of the

last

phrase

that

the group, say Chinese,

Hindus, &c., or white men, black men, yellow men, &c., be taken
collectively,

whereas

'

man

'

as consisting of these groups be taken

distributively as

per these groups and not per the individual men.

This
67, 12
:

is

clearly the true solution,

and

is

vouched

for, too,

by

.DH^^N p^n' T--S D'i'33icn

115. (L. 68, I)

D^^^ijnr:)

nns ^^d Ninn p^nn

.t.ti

naaniD nnvn^ no

'm

i?y

mine

n^^ian

mm

nr

rr\-^

dS'ni

.cnnni ^dl'Mo

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
(^- '5i 9)

HUSIK

247

-^(igcgfu ko'fimf es vor,^^'' dass im allgemeinen Urteil auf die bestimmte Mehrheit hingewiesen wird, die sic/i '"" in der Zusammensetzung des Intellekts mit den Sinnen vollzieht: '""
'

'

Dagegen

'

for D^ISI in this case

is

too strongly adversative to

be

correct.

D71N1 continues the argument, trying to

in

show wherein
not
in

the plurahty resides

intelUgibile as such.

universal proposition
is

if

the

But the more serious error

.

the translation

of n2D-|TD nnvn^ by 'die sich agree with

mn and

not

>m.

vollzieht'. The Hebrew words The German should read, 'weil es

.
.

aus

dem

Intellekt

und den Sinnen zusammengesetzt

ist

',

116. (L. 68, i9)

(K. 152,5)
'

Concerning niON (K.

117. (L. 68, 24)

Realitat'), see above,

number

109.

.nir-nn ny
(i^*

nnno

bL"i?:n njpjL"

152, 13)

Da nun
in

das Intelligibele nur fur das zufallige [better

gilt,

'

belie-

bige'J Individuum

so gewinnen wir das Intelligibele aus den

1'

Sinnen

Verbindung mit den Perzeptionen.'

ni3L"nn,

K. reads

but

it

seems to

me
is

that L.

is

correct in

reading ni::rnn, repetition.

The meaning

that the fact that

we

acquire the intelUgibile as a result of repeated sense perception, and not from a single perception, is another proof that the
intelUgibile

vidual

at

all;

does not denote a definite individual but any indithe idea being that if the intelUgibile denoted

a definite individual, one perception of an individual should be

sufficient to give us the intelUgibile.

G. probably has in mind

i,

Aristotle's statement in the Metaphysics,

ch.

i,

980 b 29
Svva/xiv

al

yap

TToAAui
Aoro-ir.
tt;s

^I'TJfxui

Tov avTov TTfjuyfxaTO^

ibid.

/xias t/iTrcipias

uttotc-

Also

981 a 5
/tt'u

yiVerai

8^

Te'xvr?,

orav
-rrepl

in

ttoWwv

iix7ripia<;

ii'vorjfxuTwy

ku^oAov yiv-qrai

twv ofioimv

VTruXr]il/t<;.

""

Italics

mine.

Haiij-g ^^^^

248

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

118. (L. 68,

25)

.nu-innn oinya
(K. 152, 16)

omN

Dies geschieht aber

so,

dass der Intellekt von

dem
'^"'^

sinnlich

wahrnehmbaren Individuum jene von ihm

begriffenen

Attribute

abstrahiert, urn derentwillen sich die Pluralbildung voUzog.

The

italicized

words form a wrong translation of

to pertain to as

J^'^Ti.

The
is

word means here

an

attribute,
is

and

its

subject
:

nuinnn, not hyu.

iiitdligibile is

The

correct translation

as follows

[The

acquired from sense perception by dint of repetition

(see last no.)],

by the

intellect

abstracting

from

the material

attributes of the

sensible

individual, through
(J''wn)

which attributes

multiplicity attaches as

an attribute

to

them

(sc.

sensible

individuals).

119.

(L.

69, 5)

jso

^yD3

NVD3

Nin:;'

ijon'"

132c'

b"")

,/yiD3
.1^

nvtoj

ninon

Tj'N nincrn

(K. 153, 8)

Und

ferner

Das Universale
eine

bildet

doch sein W'esen, das

Wesen Jedoch, das

in aciu, d. h.
existiert,

Sache zum Trdger des IVesens macht^ existiert

man

kan/i deshalb voti

ihm sagen, dass

bildet?"^

es aktuell

weil

es ihr {sc.

der Sache)
is

Wesen

The

italicized passage
'
:

incorrect.

The

correct translation

is

as follows

Again, the universal forms

its

essence

(sc.

of the

individual),

and the essence makes the thing possessing the

I

essence an actual existent,

existent by reason of
essence
is is
///

mean
'.

that

we

say

it

is

an actual

its

essence

G.

is

not saying yet that the

tiling

an actual existent, but that the an actual existent by virtue of

the se(/u(/, that

possessing the

essence
argues

its

essence.

Then he

that

which makes another an actual

'<

"' Italics mine.

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
existent

HUSIK
existent.
in

249
According

must a fortiori be
the

itself

an actual

to K.'s translation
irrelevant.

rest

of the argument

G. would be

In a note (153, note

(69,
1 1

4),

K. attributes to L. the reading ninon

last

word), which would be wrong, and adopts the correct

reading mncnrD, which he attributes to

MSS.

and

P.

He

is

evidently mistaken, for L. has the correct reading niriDno.

120. (L. 69, 18)

(K. 154, 2)
posteriori.
it

K. translates "iinxi a

If

a posteriori

is

used

in

German
cases
it

as

it

is

in

English,

is

decidedly an

inappropriate

translation of "iinxn.
is

~nnN3

is
,

here opposed to n7nn, in other

opposed to DDHpa

neither of which

means a

priori.

Predication

may be

of three kinds, synonymous (nD3Dn3), hofuonyfor

mous

(Piinco),

and what

want of a better term may be called

analogous (p"iDD3 or

"iinNI nJD^np3).

The
If
it

first

two Aristotle defines

to

in the beginning of the Categories.

we apply a term

two

things

homonymously

(o/i.oji'i'/xws),

signifies that the

two things

are quite different in essence, but they happen to have the

same

name.
applied

The example Aristotle gives is the word animal to a real man and to the picture of a man {plov
to yeypafx/xevov).

(^wov) as

^wov o re

a.v6po)7ro<; /cat

term predicated of two things

in the

synonymously has exactly the same definition

because the two things to which
essence, generic
(^wov)
is if
it

two

cases,

is

applied have the same

not specific.

Thus the same word animal

predicated synonymously of

dv^pwTTos KOL o ySov?).

The

third
iv.

man and ox {olov mode of predication

2.

^wov o tc
Aristotle
ev

discusses

in

the

Metaphysics,

He

calls

it

Trpos

as

opposed to synonymous predication

{kuO' ev)

on the one hand,

It is

and

to

homonymous

predication

(6;u,ojvi.'/xws)

on the other.
'

intermediate between the two.

NVJD3)
is

Thus
[oia-ia

the term

existent

'

(or

predicated of substance

= DVJ?)

as well as of the
{TrdOrj,

various qualifications and affections of substance

(rrp?Jo'ts,

<t>6opaL,

TTOioTYres,
is

ttulijtikul,

yevvrjTLKu.

ouo-ias).

In

this

case

the term

applied

primarily (TrpwTws
(oicria),

= n^nn

or nD^Tp3)

and

properly (Kuptws) to substance

secondarily ("iinx^) to the

250

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

While the predication
is

Other things mentioned above."^

here

not synonymous, for the definition of the term existent would not

be the same in

all

these cases,

it

is

not

homonymous
same nature

either, for

the things in question involve one and the

\jo
.
.

substance
<f}vaii',

oi'

Aeyerat
.

\)Xv 7roX\a)^C)<;,
.

dXXa

Trpos tv kol fxiav tlvo.

fj.v,

kol

oup( 6fiu)vvfi.<i}s

ovTOi Sk Kol TO ov XcycTat 7roA.Xa;(ws

fikv
eis

aXX

aTrav

TT^os fJiiav

a.p)(rjv'

ra

yap

otl ovaiai, ovra Xeyerai, to. 8 ori iraOrj

r)

oi'trtas, TO. 8' OTL

680s

ovaiav,
rj

(fiOopal

-^

(TTepri(rei<i

ttoiott^tcs

))

TTOirjTLKa

7]

yevmrjTiKa.

ovcria<;,
i]

twv

Trpos

t^v ovcrlav Xiyo/xeviDV,

rj

TOVTii>v Tivo'i aTro(pacri<;

ovcnas). in this place,

This

is

what G. means

and

it is

clear at the

same

time that the reference

vii.

in

G. to Aristotle
fin.),

is

not to Metaphysics
as just indicated.

3,

as

K. thinks (153,
the discussion
is

but to
is

iv.

2,

In

vii. 3,

what
is

meant by substance (Dvy

ova-La).

Here the question

NVr^J)
is

in

what sense the term existent

{6v

applied to substance as well as to the accidents of

substance.
p.

Aristotle

sums

up

the

same

thought

in

vii.

i,

1028

a,

13-15, especially in the words, Too-avTa^ws 8e Xcyo/xcVou

to ti iaTiv, OTrep aijfxaLveL
ttjv

Tov

ovTO'i (fiapepov otl tovtoji/ irpwTov ov

ova-iav.

121. (L. 70, 3)

^:N^vnn
(r.

bt:'^

v'i'

I'-'n

byc^v^n
"'3

^jN^rn
on'j^

ri'n'-c

orb a^>nn^
^3::'n

n:n

n:c'nn)

nr'nnn nsr

ir^:N''

nn

3yisn

lyt-na

.nicvyn
(K. 155, 10)

^i:ir^

yc'^: Nin

nan ba

Und
Existenz
hylisch

ferner

Geben
kann

sie

zu,

dass

dasjenige,

was

in

seiner

mit
ist,

cincr

Veranderung
dieses

akzidentell

zusammenhangt,
eiii

so

Hylische

nur dadurch

sich

im

hylischcn Intcllektc realisierctides Intelligibcle

tverden, dass es der

aktive Iittelkk/ perzipierf?"'

'^

Nach

ihrer

Meinung bedarf namlich

Cp. Ilusik, Judixh Mrsmr Lcoii^s Comiitciitaiy on the Fetus Logico,

p. 84.

Lcydcn, 1906,
'<*

Italics

mine.

STUDIES

IN

GERSONIDES

HUSIK
wiederum
fiir

25I

eine derartige Perzeption

fiir

ihre {sc der Inielligibilia) Existenz

der

Perzeption

sokher'^'^

Intelligibilia,

die

ihre

Existenz auf eine solche Sacbe angewiesen sind, die substantiell

mit ciner Veranderung zusanimenhangt.

The

passages italicized by the present writer in the above

translation are incorrect,

and whatever they may mean do not

represent what G. desires to say.

follows
:

The

correct translation

is

as

'

Besides,

if

they admit that a thing whose existence

accidens,
is

depends upon a certain change per

follow according to them that the
intellect acquires

material,

it

will

intelligibile

which the material

intellect is also
(sc.

when

it

comprehends the active

this

material.

For they believe that

comprehension

of the

active intellect
its

on the part of the material

which

intellect) requires for

(sc.

existence the apprehension of these intelligibilia

i/tfelligibilia),

the subexistence

lunar

in

turn

require

for

their

a thing dependent

upon a change

essentially.'

122. (L.

70,

20)

(K. 156, 4)

Und

zweitens

Weil die

Intelligibilia

Universalia sind, die

Existenz der Universalia jedoch nach ilwer individuellen Seite hin

ausserseelisch
ist}'^'^

The
is
:

italicized

words are incorrect.

The

correct translation

Secondly, because these

of the
universal

inielligibilia are universals,

is

and the

existence

dependent upon the

particular,

existing extra

animam^
9)

123. (L.

71,

nvjN^vn
Nin

ni^3f:'it:n

i^n nj'"'nnc' nn:nn nxn:) 3^'nn^ -iddc ,Dnci

nri

niainnn

dnc

.tj'ds'

"'vhi

nn

,nn^

nvjshM ^nbi
^vx
-il"x

L"nno Dna
1""'

t^'nnnn dn* ,-i2d3

Italics

nns can

c-j-jx
10'

^2L"1C^

mine.

Italics

mine.

252
*n^3 Nin

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

i2*n
nrc*
n?:i

^D-ana -iSDr^n

ins

.th^i'

.onns

D^t:>^K

(K. 157, 11)

Ferner

Nach

dieser

Annahme

miissten

doch die
ist

Intelligibilia

gleichzeitig hylisch und nichthylisch sein, das

jedoch nicht
Plurali-

moglich.

Wenn

namlich das Intelligibele deshalb einer

soil,

sierung zuganglich sein

weil seine Entstehung auf der

Emp-

findung verschiedenartiger Individuen beruht, so miisste bei einer

Vielheit von
bilden,

Menschen das
es

Intelligibele eine

numerische Einheit
anderer

obgleich

bei
(xr.

ihnen

durch die
die

Empfiudiing

IndividtiCJi

entsteht
besi/zen),'^^^

weil doch

Intelligibilia

Identitdts-

charakfer

dann aber ware es

eine
Einheit.

trotz der Vielheit (der

perzipierenden

Subjekte)

Was

aber

derartigen

Charakter

besitzt, ist nicht hylisch,

denn das Hylische kann nicht

und doch
soil es

in einer Vielheit eine Einheit bilden,

sein,

hylisch

mithin

ist

die

Annahme
this

falsch.

The Hebrew

trouble
text,
is

with
that

translation,
is

which
a

follows

the

the

argument
which
is

non sequitur.
is

The
reduce

assumption of the opponents,

G.

trying

to

ad absurdum,
material
subject,
i.e.

is

that the intelligibile

it

material because like other

multiplication of the

forms

is

multiplied with the

since the intelligibilia are dependent

upon the

extra-

mental particulars, different extra-mental particulars give

different intelligibilia.
different, say,

rise to

In other words

my

idea of

man would be

from that of Gersonides, because his was built upon

generation, and

the individual
individual

men of his men of to-day.

mine

is

based upon the

Now
text as
it

G. argues from
is)

this

(according to K. and the

Hebrew
formed
of the

that the intelligibilia of different persons

would form

a numerical unit, even though

in

these intelligibilia were

the

minds of the

different

persons

on

the

basis

perception of difTerent
ception)
!

individual

men
mine.

(i.e.

as objects

of per-

And

G. gives no reason for such an extraordinary

'""

Italics

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
inference.
it

HUSIK
not
b,

253
is

It

is

just like

saying,

if

you maintain that a

is

b,

follows from

your assumption that a

to

without giving
in

any reason.
parenthesis,
besitzen'.

Here K. comes
'sc,

the help of G. by adding

weil

doch die
But
'

Intelligibilia Identitatscharakter
is

But surely G. would not have omitted what

this

so

essential to his argument.

reason

is

no reason
at
710

at all.

The

'

Identitatscharakter

is

the

very

point

issue.
'

The

opponents of G. claim that the

they are multiplied with the
(DH^XCru nn-inn3

intelligibilia

have

Identitats-

charakter' because, like other material

forms (nVJS'brn nniv),

of their
subjects

multiplication L. 54, 16
96.
ff.

nunn).

Cf.

and

especially 55,

22

ff.,

and above, numbers 95 and

solution of the matter
is

The
one of
book,
with

extremely simple, and the error

of K. reminds

me

of a frequent saying of a teacher of mine

it

when
in the

his pupils

blundered and blamed

upon a mistake

hyc;^ niyu ,1DD3 niyD, he used to say in his quaint way,

emphasis upon -|3D and

h'2\i^.

In our case too there

1.

is

a -1DD3 niyu.
G. wrote
is

The 1

in

Dnns

is

a mistake for a

The word
See

Cinnx, which he uses in the sense of 'same'.

above, No. 50.

The meaning
intelligibilia

is

now

clear.
is

If the pluralization to

which the

are subject

due

to the difference of the extrait

mental individuals they perceive, then

intelligibilia

will

follow that

the

of different persons (as subjects) will be one, if they

the basis of the
is

were formed in their minds on

things.

same extra-mental
and needs not

The
is

rest

of the argument

now

clear

to

be repeated.

There

still

a word to be said about the words

dnnn

nC'N
"IB'X,

D'^nno and
it

(1.

11).

The sequence demands

fell

Dt:'nn

Dno C'lnnn

is

possible that the D

out and the two words read as

one D:^n^^D.

The

next copyist threw out the superfluous n.

124. (L. 72, 24)

(K. 159, 26)

cf.

Dnns
VOL.

should be cnnx,

last

number.
sense.

K.'s

translation

based on the reading

VIII.

Dnnx makes no

254

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

125. (L. 73,

3)=

(K. 160, 14)

it

In

my mind

the text as

is

is

corrupt and

makes no
D^:^

sense.

The

statement, moreover, D^Nli'lJn nilinnn

nnino

'^zh

con(72),
r\:n

tradicts the statement at

the bottom of the preceding page

ni3''nDn nr ''330 D^sc'i:n

n'''^^i(.r{

nmnnn nninn
I

mb3*L:"i?:n

nr\nn ab

bs*

Dn^

N^iin^n.

should therefore read

D3"'Na'

instead of

DrivJ'.

Cf. below,

No. 127.

126. (L. 73, 8)

(K. 160, 23)

):b

y3D3

Nina'

nm

by^i2

n\TC'

-i'l:'sx

^nb
Nine'

n\n>

njn

^bm
HD.
^n^2

."itt'SN

no nvo tj^dn ivd

Here, too,
I

it

seems that a word has

^d'^'id

fallen out before

i3^ n^n^ir

should read nvD yjo: xin'^ non

NiriB' riD

nc2s

IB'SX

1VD ,1V0

"l^2S*.

The same

applies to the similar

statement on the preceding page (72, 19).

And

the translation
in reference to

would

be,

'

In general
is

it

would be impossible,
in

a thing which

in

one sense possible,

another impossible,
it is

to have an mtelligibik of that thing in so far as

possible

'.

127. (L. 73, 22)

nxno
x^

xi.Tw' nil

.nunno

n:'>NnnK^ c'^xn

^x on^ tj'x ni3^?:Dn

i^dd"'

'Jdo

n:;n nroi ,:r'xn nr xin::'

nm

c^"'xn

i^x

djox nn
.D^K'^xa

'd

Vw-an
n'n''

-nn

(K. 166,

i)
:

Und

ferner

Geben

wir

schon zu, dass die

Intelligibilia

Universalia sind, so brauchen sie sich trotz ihrer Berufung auf

die Individualitat (sc. ausserseelische) nicht zu vermehren.

Denn

offenbar beruhen sie nur insofern auf der Individualitat, als es sich

gerade

um

eine bestimmte handelt, von dieser Seite aus gibt es

.
.

jedoch keine Pluralisierung

Upon
P
u.

this

K. remarks

in a note,
:

'

Nach Riva und

xiiX*.

Leipzig.
^3

O
nr

haben folgende Lcsart

xi-t^'

r\'01

::^^xn

bx 13DD* DJOX DH

c^'xn

noi x^ imrn c^x

nr"'x

Da

der
'.

Schluss

falsch

ist,

so kann nur die Lesart von R. L. richtig sein

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES

HUSIK
a mystery to me.
^3::'n r\:^r\

255

How
p.

K.

arrives at this conclusion

is

On
d^ini
xin::*

63,

18,

G. says, no3 i6 ^'nb Nin ^:x^vnn

pn

N^'Di

-im nn ^jonrn u'n nva

N1^t^'

r\D2

bin .no

i^'n

On
nrx

p.

67

fin.,

we read

likewise: ly^Hl nvx ^SB'lon bvN px

N*in

>3

Ni.TJ'

-ivo

inyc" D3t2N

>3

nn /imn tj'sn

in ^^^^^

niro

^''nn nr Nin'^r

nvo x^

jfoitn

t^^'N*.

On
imrn

p. 68,

20 we have again

DHD nns
^nx

pNw' "ixnnn 133K' n\ni

c'''x

nr^x xinB>
1.

non
24,

^i'wb xin

^b.

And
lonrn

similarly,

xintT

nD2

c'^xi'

xin

i'rti'i?:nc>

'320

n:ni

tj'\s*

nrx.

P'inally,

on

p. 72 fin.,

we read

ni^3D"l^n ny\nnw' i:mn

DX ohxi

nr nr

xinc no nvo x^
^3SD cxt^'iin

,n\si'Ojn D^B'^xno

|mrn

c'^x
^:1^-ln

npx ^x mn^D:
xi?

nimnna nnnnro mij^mon

G.
is

mn

,i^''xn

D-'^rvsn

^x Dn^ XiDin nin^Don.

of the opinion that in

It is quite clear ft-om all this that

so

far as

the intelligible denotes sublunar extra-mental things (his

is

own view
least the
it

that the primary reference of the intelligibile , or at

it,

cause of

is

the intelligibile in the active intellect),

refers not to a definite individual, but to

it is

any individual

at

all.

And
it

also clear from the passages quoted that in so far as the

intelligibile refers to

any individual

at

all,

no

plurality attaches to

by reason of the

variety of the individuals.

in

That

is,

the

intelli-

gibile of

man

is

one and the same

it

and B, yesterday and

to-day and to-morrow, just because

is

does not denote, and hence

not dependent upon, any

definite individual.

The

only state-

ment contradicting
in

this is that

on

p. 73, 3,

which was discussed

D.TC' to DJ^XB'.

No. 125.

And we
all

were forced to change

Now

in the face of

this,

when
is

there

is

a choice

between two

readings, one of which

logic,

in

accordance with good sense and

and

in

conformity with G.'s opinion as expressed elsewhere,

all this,

and the other the reverse of

K. adopts the

latter

on the

S 2

256
ground that
If
'

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

der Schluss falsch
ist

we adopt the reading of the

Moreover, G.'s example

What MSS. P and

' '
!

Schluss

'

is

'

falsch
is

'?

O, everything

all

right.

in

the sequel proves beyond a

is

doubt that the reading of P and

uses as an illustration the
three three
is

O
'

the only correct one.

'.

He

number

three

If

we say the number

small w^e are establishing a relation between the

all

number

and

other numbers greater than three.

'

But

it

does not

follow from this that the intelligibile

small

'

as applied to the

number

three

is

multiplied with the variety of

in relation.

numbers with
idea
'

which the number three stands

The

small

'

is

one and the same whether we compare three with four or with
five.

And why

is

this so

Because, says G., when we speak of

it

three as small

we

are putting

in

relation with

all

numbers
five,

greater than three, not as definite numbers, say four or

but

merely as numbers greater

than

three.

In

this
it

respect

one

number
three,

will

do

as well as another provided

'

is

greater than

and the idea

for

small

'

will

not change with every new

number taken

comparison.
?

Now
of

whither does this illustration point

Surely to the reading

P and O.

The

intelligibile

'

man

'

never changes or multiplies

it

with the introduction of

affected

new

individual men, because

definite individual.

is

not

by the individual as a
intelligibile

All individuals

look alike to the

provided they are men.

To be

sure K. misunderstands the illustration also.

i)

He

adds

a long note (167, note

on the concept of

infinity,

which, so far

as I can see, has not the least bearing on the (question at issue.

What G. says in the illustration which he adduces from the number three, does not commit him to any theory on the nature of infinity, and is something that any one might say who never heard of infinity. There are also some errors in K.'s translation
of that passage, hence

we must examine

it

more

carefully in the

next number.

128. (L. 73. 26)

,iDDcno nnNn

xr:ir\z'

^-jT^m

.nnnno n\Tt' Ninn einuvDn

nr ^Jso

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES

IIUSIK

257

nanno

.T.TL^'

nr ^jdo

n^in> n^i

;2r:D

D^mn DnDDi:nD nnx

^x

..TjDn IX nynnx xin-^ no nvo

Nij

;jj:d

"inr

Kin-kT

no

(K. 166, 8)

Denn da

sich die Relationseinheit

mit einer Vielheit von

sich
fur
sie

Dingen akzidentell verbindet, so

Relationseinheit)

ergibt

(sc

die

keine

Pluralisierung.

Nehmen
JVt'rd
sie

wir

beispielsin

weise die Drei als Zahleneinheit an.

geringen Quantiiiii (]uaUfiziert
verbindet sie sich
ist
'"'

mm

ihrer

{sc.

durch andere Zahleneifiheiten), so

akzidentell mit jeder der Zahlen, die grosser

sie

als sie.

Daraus aber ergibt sich nicht dass

sie in

sich

selbst
tritt,

durch die Zahlen vergrossert, zu welchen

Beziehung

denn die Relation, die

die Zahl grosser
ist

sie

substantiell kraft dieser Eigenschaft zu

ist

der Zahl gewinnt, die grosser

ist als sie,

als sie, hat sie

nur insofern,

als

nicht insofern sie eine vier oder flinf

gegetiiiber

(sc.

Also

ist

das

bereits

vorhandene Plus

der Relationsdie Relation

einheit die

Bedingung der Relation, nicht aber bedingt

das Plus.

Aus

diesem

Grunde

ist

der absolute Wert der grosseren

Zahl
I
I

gkichgiiltigy-'^

admit

this

translation
is

is

absolutely unintelligible to me.

'

do not know what

meant by

Wird

sie

nun

in ihrer geringen
I

Quantitat qualifiziert

(sc.

durch andere Zahleneinheiten)'.

'

do

not

know what
tritt
its

is

meant by

Daraus aber ergibt sich nicht dass

sie

sie sich selbst

durch die Zahlen vergrossert, zu welchen

'.

in
is

Beziehung

Does any one claim

that the
?

number

three

increased by

relation to other

numbers

Quite the contrary.

Any one would

makes
it

say that

it

is

its

relation to other

numbers

that

three

and nothing

else.

Nor do

understand the meanfinally, I

is

ing of the last remark in parentheses.

And
G.,

can see no
to the

coherence
point,

in the passage as a whole, and, to the

what

more
is

no resemblance

meaning of

which

quite clear

to me.
^"^

Italics

mine.

258

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

take up the significant phrases in the
n:r]

To
nKin^:ra

Hebrew

text

first,

y^^

tit n^bcn xim ^nsDcnt^ nnsn rDnc*

If

^c'dhi

understand to mean the following

for

'

three,

example, and describe

all

it

as

small,

we take the number we put it into

it.'

accidental relation with

numbers

greater than

He

clearly

makes a
Three
side of

distinction
is

between

essejitial

and

accidental relation.

as three
it.

in essential relation with all

numbers on

either

Three
all,

as

'

small

'

is

not in essential relation with any

It is in accidental relation

number
with
all

at

as a definite quantity.

numbers greater than three as definite quantities.

it

In

essential relation

is

with

all

numbers greater than

three, not as

definite quantities, but only as greater than three.

The
DH'i^N

next

statement, -|D?^a

n3"int3

n\T'tr HT

^JSiD

n-'in'

xh
(sc.

s]TJVCi
it

Nin

-IB'X

onmn, means
is

'It

does not follow

because
that
it

is

in accidental relation with so

many

other numbers)

(the

number

three as small)

pluralized (not " vergrossert

sich ") in accordance with the

relation
gibile,
'.

number
its

of things with which

is

it is

in

This means, that three as small

it

one

idea,

one

intelli-

and

does not change

character as small according

it is

to the variety of the

numbers with which

compared
ib

because,

as he goes on to say, nmh

nsnn
nvo.

nr n:>D
ij?rtD

mroxyn

"irx niDnDvnn
-i::\s*

N^ /jc

3*1

inv

Nin-j'
Nint:'

no nvc
nrD

-inv xin

nsDcn

h\n

nrcn

IN

nyaiN

'The

relation

which the number

(sc.

three bears essentially by reason of this quality

the predicate
it

"small")
than
it,

is

a relation to the number greater than

four or
that
five.'

qua greater

and not qua

inference
relation
is

The
essential

if

the

number
six,
tScc,

three as small bore an

it

to

the
five

numbers greater than

or
'

as

definite

numbers,
intelligibile

as
'

four

or

the

character

of

the

three as small

would have as many forms as there

it

arc

numbers greater than three with which

is

compared.
It
is

Now

what
:

is

the point

of this

whole illustration?
it

obviously this

that in every other intelligibile, since

concerns
but
is

not the definite individual as this definite individual

(n?D tJ'^N),

any individual

at all of a given

species (jOlTHw' t"N nPN),

it

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
always the same, no matter

HUSIK

259

how many

individuals are actually

denoted by

it.

The
is

bearing of this on the discussion in the

preceding number

obvious.

Why

this

harmless passage should

have been chosen by K.

of infinity
is

for a lengthy disquisition

on the concept

more

tlian I

can say.

129. (L. 74, 9

and

10)

= (K.
actus,

171, 6

and

8)

We

have here again ?y3,

mistaken for 7V3

= agens.

Cf.

above. No. 64.

130. (L. 75, 17)

(K. 175, 23)

Dn33

here

is

a weight, and

means

talents,

not

'

Brotlaibe

*,

which would be Dn^ n33.

131. (L. 77, i) ^1X1

nnr Nin

n'-jvonn

mivno

^yisn

\>yor\ c'd:3 *i:^'n i'a'^cnK'

(K. 178, 34)

Dass

das Intelligibele 7velches der aktive

Ititellekt

von der

vorstelknden

Form

gewinnt^''^ weit eher unser Intelligibeles sein

muss

als die vorstellende

Form.

The words
intelligibik

italicized constitute a very serious error.

How

can

any one make G. speak of the active

intellect as acquiring his

!

from the form in the imagination

Does not K. know

middle ages, the

that according to G.,

and

in fact generally in the

active intellect

was regarded as the cause of the sublunar world

In particular would any one dream of
of the active intellect dependent

and not the

effect thereof?

making anything

in the
in

mind
the

upon the imagination

IT'JVDin
n"l1^* is,

mind of man

For that

is

what

the (fnivraafxa in the

this.

human

faculty of imagination.
intelligibile
2i

G. of course does not say

in the

He

speaks of the

mind

of the active intellect

which corresponds as
imagination.'"

prototype

or cause to the form in the

110 Italics
^'1

human
I

mine.

It

is

perhaps possible that

am doing
'

injustice

to

Kellermann,

and that his sentence should be construed Dass das Intelligibele von der But the vorstellenden Form, welches der aktive Intellekt gewinnt', &c.
very word
'

gewinnt

'

is

inapplicable to the active intellect,

all

which does not

acquire his ideas.

He

has them

the time.

26o

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

132. (L. 78, l)

lijN nijii

b'^y^''^

"JN^vnn

by^b t^dn*

h^T'-l:'

hid

tn^ti''

n^

nn

(K. 181, 8)

'[Wenn
dass
i/in {sc.

es sich aber so verhalt],

ist

hieraus nicht erwiesen,

o/vie^'^-

den akt. Intellekty^"- der hylische Intellekt

die

sublunarischen Intelligibilia begreifen kann.'

The word
K. does not

'

ihn

'

is

not represented in the

Hebrew
is

of L., and
it.

indicate that he has any manuscript authority for

As

a matter of fact such a conclusion as K. draws

an unexpected

one.

The preceding arguments do

intellect

not merely not show that we

ititelligibilia
all.
it

can perceive the active

they do not prove that

without the sublunar

we can
is

perceive the active intellect at

The

conclusion therefore
if

a negative one, to be sure, but

'

is

the following

we

follow the text of L.

It

has not been proven

(i.

that the material intellect can perceive anything except these

e.

the sublunar) intelligibilia'

133. (L.

78,

11-12)

(K. 181, 24-27)

'

The

parenthetical remark,
',

sc.

obgleich sie zu ihnen direkt

gelangen konnten

is

beside the point.

Those natural things

which attain to

their ultimate perfection

by means of intermediate

stages of lesser perfection caimot

do otherwise.
is

And

in

the

material intellect, too, the argument

bilia

that the sublunar intelligi-

are not the final stage of so to speak, a

'

its
',

perfection, but only a way-

station,

Nachtasyl

by means of which

it

will

arrive at the Active Intellect.

134. (L. 78,

23)

)N33

n\n

N^i

,-inx

mo^K> inya nic^t^ b^

nio^tj'

yyijn^
n\-T'

dnb' nn
n^b> niobtt'

nsr^ n\T x^ nan ,nnN

nnya

nyiinn

nsn

.n^^an nyi:nn
"' Italics mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
(K. 182, 11)

HUSIK
um

261

Wiirde

es sich

namlich

7iichi^^^

zu einer Vollkommcnheit

der

anderen Vollkommcnheit willen hinbewegen,

und

es gibt kehie^^^

VoUkommenheit,
willen stattfindet
'

die nicht in der

Bewegung um

einer andern

-so ware diese Bewegung zivecklos}^^

'

The word nicht has nothing corresponding to it in the Hebrew of L., and K. does not indicate a variant. The introduction of the negative makes the argument a nou
if is

seqiiitur.

For

every perfection

is

not for the sake of another perfection, there

is

an ultimate perfection, which

'

the

draw the conclusion,

so ware diese
if

conclusion can have validity only

Zweck and we cannot Bewegung zwecklos This we assume that there is no

'

',

'.

ultimate perfection, that every perfection

perfection.

is

for the sake of

another

In this case we have indeed an

is
'

infinite series,
it is

and

the motion

zwecklos

'.

From
and

this consideration
'

clear, too,
',

that the parenthetical

passage in K.,
for the
all in

und

stattfindet

is

also incorrectly rendered,

fact, it is

same reason
the original,
translate
it

as above.
is

In

not a parenthesis at

part of the

condition.
follows
:

Accordingly
'

we should

the

passage as

If a

thing moves to one perfection for the sake of

is

another perfection and there

is

no perfection

in this

motion which

not for the sake of another perfection, then this motion has no
at
all.'

end

135- (i- 79. ZZ

and 34)

= (K.

184, 26

and 27)
or 'idea'

my"!
'

and
'.

nyi mean here

'opinion'

and

not

Kenntnis

136. (L. 80, 2)

npi7n?D y:o^ x^

=
.

(K. 184, 33)

'

means
.

/'/

catmot escape division

Alternative

',

not

'

es

ist

nichi

unmoglich

durch

folgende

zu

erklaren'.

Cf. above,

No. 45.

137. (L. 83, 6)

"^

Italics

mine.

262

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

(K. 192, 13)

Denn wenn etwas

vergdnglich
ist,
;

a?i

der Existenz des erworbenen Intellekts

dieser Seite aus
{^sc.

so ist es

nnr von

der physischeti

Perzeptioneii)
sein.

"* also

muss der erworbene

Intellekt verganglich

This translation
follows
:

is

incorrect.

The

correct translation

is

as

'

For

if

that
is

upon which the

existence of the acquired

intellect

depends

subject to dissolution, the acquired intellect

'.

itself necessarily is

subject to dissolution

This agrees with the

immediately preceding context.

138. (85, 19)

(K. 201, 4)

Und kann
greifen, so

er nicht alle Intelligibilia (sc. die einzelnen) beer

sie

kann

auch nicht nach ihrer Einheitsseite hin

erkennen.
G. says, of course, nothing of the
this.
'

sort.
all

What he does
sublunar

say

is

And

similarly

if

he can perceive

intelligibilia^

but cannot comprehend them in their unitary aspect [sc. then

also he cannot perceive the active intellect].

139. (L. 87, 26-9)

=
',

(K. 206, 8-13)

'

The

parenthetical passage in K.,

strikes
it,

sc. also

der hyl. Intellekt

wertvoller als der aktive

one

like a bolt

from the blue.

it

One cannot
the head.

see the motive of

and one wonders what

it

has to

do with Gersonides's argument, which

I'or
in

gives a stunning blow

on
in

surely a conclusion like the

one expressed
rediictio

the words
absurdttin,

(]ucsti(jn

can only be intended as a

ad
n\ni

whereas G.'s words immediately preceding, DMHD

n-n^'HD

yvcN

N"'n'j'

m333 nnv

n^^an

s'Nnii*

mivn

.THnrs 'dann

aber miisste die Endform

(sc. in actii)
'*

wertvoller als das Mediate

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
sein
',

HUSIK
It

263

is

not at

all

a reductio ad al>surdum.

expresses G.'s
it

own
that
NirtU'

opinion.

And

the only conclusion to be drawn from

(n3^''nnK' *1L"3N

is

there cannot be two co-ordinate forms

nns'

^172

nmr33 nnivn
As
K.'s
briefly G.'s
it

i^nd dtil"

86, 26).
it

words can only be due to a confusion,

will

be well to
question

resume
is

argument

in this

chapter (12).
to

The

whether

is

possible

for

man

comprehend the Active

:

Intellect.

Two

conditions are necessary for such comprehension

(i)

The

material intellect must have a knowledge of all sublunar

(2)

inielligibilia.

He

must know them not as an aggregate of

separate ideas, but as a unitary system.

Now
all

G. argues
sublunar

In the

first

place

it

is

impossible for

man

to

know

inielligibilia.

In the second place, granting that

this

is

possible,

he cannot
latter,

know them
tries to

as a unitary system.
in various

In order to prove the

all

G.

show

ways that

nature,

i.

e. all

the pfocesses

in the

sublunar world, form one great teleological progress, in

which the primitive matter endeavours to attain the highest form,

viz.

the form of man.

Every

detail in nature
in his

is

a link in this one

chain.

This point he makes clear

second argument, begin-

ning in the middle of p 86, where he shows that every single form
in nature outside of the
first

and the

last
it,

stands between two

other forms, one above or antecedent to

relation to
it,

which
to

is
it,

matter in
to

and the other below or subsquent

which

it

stands in the relation of matter.

There cannot be two co-ordinate

if

forms.

For, he goes on to say,

there are two co-ordinate forms,

we have
both

the following three possibilities.

Either (i) they are

final

ends of the

series,

or (2) they are both

is

means,

i.e.

intermediate terms in the series, or (3) one

other a mean.

an end and the

He

proves the

first

impossible (we need not go

into the argument).

He

proves the second impossible by showing

in

that the two supposed

means must be
from

one motive process, and

is

hence cannot be co-existent but successive (which

of the hypothesis).
no. 3.

the reverse

And
is

this follows

the impossibility of
in

For

if

one form

an end and the other a mean

it

one
is

and the same motive

process,

follows as before that the

end

superior to the mean,

and hence they are not

co-existent but

264

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

means
is

successive, not co-ordinate, but the

subordinate to the
is

end (which
proved so

is

contrary to hypothesis).

This

all

that G. has

far,

namely, that there cannot be two co-ordinate forces.

There

is

not a word said or intimated so far about the relation

intellect.

between the material and the active

yet complete.
not,

His proof
p.

is

not
It is

He

concludes his argument on

88, 6

ff.

he

says, in the

power of man

to

understand the relation of

every single form

in this universal process.

is

He may know

in

a general way that the inorganic

in the relation of matter to

the plant, the plant to the animal, &c.

He may

even understand

the relations of certain subdivisions in these three kingdoms, but

he can never know the actual relation of every single

or form,

intelligibik
its

and any knowledge short of

this

does not enable

possessor to comprehend the active intellect.

140. (L. 87

fin.)

mp*^

r\'ao

mixn

*jSid

i^in

nipnn ^x

-inr

n-ipt^>

no

N^"^1

(K. 211)

dem Diinnen naher. stehende weit eher den Weg Form beschreitet als'^^'' das dem Dicken naher stehende
das
.

Und

der

The

italicized

words are incorrect.

expression
. .
.

The D
"i^riD

of
is

nCD

is

not

comparative.

The

D m1^:^

l^in

an Arabism,

corresponding to
is

...

^^

iJy^\ iSyijt

Jpjj and

signifies that
:

one thing

in the relation of a

form to another thing

cf.

above, No. 21.

So

in our passage the

'

meaning

is

that the mixture which

approximates

thinness' bears the relation of form to the mixture

which approximates 'thickness'.

to the former.

That

is,

the latter

is

like

matter

141. (L. 88, 10)

nmo3

xin

n'J'n

noni ^n^-n ^rrh ^^vnn

nmr^a

N'n

nonn

"nni

'"*

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
(K. 213, 15)

IIUSIK

265

Das unvollkommene Tier auf der

iiber

Stufe des Hylisclien gegenGesiall^^'''

der gebiickten

Gesialt,^^'^

die gebiickte

auf der

hylischen Stufe gegenuber der fliegenden,

und

die fliegende auf

der Stufe des Hylischen gegenuber der gehenden.

K.
it

translates ""OT as

if it

were

mOT
nb'

'

Gestalt

',

and

nb' as if

were ^"^ or

nnb', 'gebiickt'.
',

It is clear

from the context that

'

'''P'7

means

'

having blood

and

means

aquatic

',

lit.

'

swim-

ming', contrasted with 1??^V9> flying

= aerial,

and

Tjpin^

walking

terrestrial.

142. (L. 90, 22)

(K. 217, 26)

',

monn^ means

'

continuously

not

'

vervollstandigt

'.

143. (L. 90, 32)

(K. 218, 20) translates:

Denn
lichkeit

die in unserem

ist

von je7ier

{sc.

sich geltend machende Annehmnach dem Tode) '" weit verschieden.

I

Leben

This does not seem to be correct,

parenthetical remark.

mean

especially the

There would be no

particular relevancy in

making

this

that there

is no doubt must be a great difference between the happiness arising

statement at this time.

What G. means
and

from the knowledge of

intelligibilia

inferior intelligibilia

that caused by

of a higher kind

after death, since the difference is

life.

so enormously great also in this

interpretation.

The

sequel confirms this

144. (L. 91, 5)

no oy pr\

^3

.N^n

ni^iy^

p^n

xirh

c^

^JN-ir^

fj^

ni^N nrh

n1i'^;^'1^o
.

no

niy^ti'

nno nain
h\^'\^''

ijp^

\h'^ -ic>x >n n:n ^n3 svt:n

i'snc"'

nn nmon
Italics

^a

di^n

.Tn>i na-in

dni t:yD

ex

1'^

mine.

"^

Italics

mine.

266

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

{^- 219, 3)

Deshalb sagen
Leben.
Sie

sie

Ganz
:

Israel

hat

Anteil

am

kiinftigen

meinen namlich
Weise

Obgleich sie durch die Thora in so

ausgezeichneter

zum Erwerb

der

Intelligibilia

angeleitet

werden, konnen dock

viele

von iJmoi nur ein kleines oder grosseres

Mass von
'

Intelligibilien erwerben}^''
'

Es

steht also "^ ihr

'

Ausdruck
' .

Ganz

(7D) Israel

auf der Stufe von den

Meisten
'

in Israel

K. also adds
soil

in a foot-note (219, note i),

Das Wort "ganz"

darauf hinweisen, dass sich nichtyV^^/- in Israel einen Teil von

Intelligibilien ervvorben hat.'

K. gives an entirely wrong impression of G.'s meaning.

He

makes

it

appear that G.
all will

is

trying to

show

that only a few Israelites

and not

get a share in the world to come, whereas G. says

;

the very opposite

namely, that by reason of the Torah, which

exhorts to contemplation and study in so remarkable a manner,

a great

many

Israelites
it

cannot but acquire some measure of

little.

ijitelligibiiia,

whether

be much or

To
For

be sure, there are

exceptions even in Israel.

There are men who do not heed the

intelligibilia.

law and do not acquire any

that the

this

reason G. adds
It

word

'

all

'

(72)

need not be taken

This
last

strictly.
is

means
or less

rather the greater number.

incidental,

remark

more

and not a conclusion of what precedes.

is

The main
to say

contention of G.
that

positive

and not

negative.

He means

many

Israelites

do have a knowledge of
not.

intelligibilia rather

than that a great

many do

145. (L. 91, 21)

(K. 219,

fin.)

Also muss dor Gldtibige offenbar

seiches tnit seinem

Glauben in

Ubereinstimmung bringen.

'

'"

This

is

not the correct meaning of the

is

Hebrew

passage.

The

proper translation
*

as follows

Therefore

it is

dear that the person who believes

this (sc. that

faith

our conclusions arc opposed to the 'I'orah) should follow his

" Italics mine.

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
(sc.

HUSIK
We

267

and

reject
is

our

theories).'

The

sequel shows also that this

translation

the correct one.

:

Conclusion

Our

task

is

now done.

have examined the

more
left
is

glaring errors
also a

and misconceptions and

After the

tried to correct them.

K. has

number

of lengthy and erudite notes, which

all,

we have
to

out of this discussion.

first

duty of a translator
is

to translate.

The

next thing incumbent upon him

add
too

brief explanatory notes

textual, terminological,
little

wherever the text

or logical.

offers

some
is

difficulty,

Of

these there

by

far

in

K.

The

translator's

own

philosophical standpoint, and

is

his criticism of his

author from that standpoint,

quite a secondary

matter.
first

If

he has done his duty properly and adequately by the

to

two requirements, we may be grateful

him

for his additional

criticism.
is

But

to indulge in the latter at the

expense of the former

unjustifiable.

And

this is the

charge we

make

against Keller-

mann.
not too

We

have examined his translation rather

carefully,

though

critically,

and found

it

wanting

in

a great

many more

instances

than

critical search,

doubt reveal

is allowed to a competent translator. A more and a consideration of the finer points would no a good many more instances open to question.

K.'s defects as a translator of Gersonides

may be

classed under

the following heads.

1.

He does He

not seem to be sufficiently familiar with the

Hebrew

style of the
2.

mediaeval Jewish philosophers. does not in

(cf.

technical terms
118, &c.).
3.

many cases understand the meaning of Nos. 74, 90, 91, 95, 96, 97, loi, 108, 109,

He

exhibits a lack of imagination in faihng to see the point

(cf.

of an argument or the sequence of thought

82, 95, 96, 98, 102, 109, 113, &c.).
4.

Nos. 64, 80, 8r,

This makes

it

difficult

or impossible for

him

to see

in

a number of instances evident corruptions in the

call

text,

which
114,

for

obvious and simple emendations

(cf.

Nos. 74,

79,

123, &c.).

268
5.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Even though he had
the advantage of several MSS., he failed
to give,

to

draw from them the benefit they were calculated

and

for reasons stated before (Nos. 3

and

4) allowed in some instances

a valuable reading to

slip

through his hands, the adoption of

clear

which made a
(cf.

difficult

and obscure argument

S:c.).

and transparent

Nos. 62, 65, 66, 77, 88, 117, 127,

Dr. Kellermann intends to proceed with his translation of

the Milhamot, of which he has given us so far about one-fifth.

He
text

also intimates

that

he may undertake to edit the Hebrew

on the

basis of the

MSS.
has

We

feel

it

our duty to advise

Kellermann to proceed slowly and with caution in either of these

tasks.

The

reader

who

followed us to this point (I fear

I

he

is

not very numerous)

will,

think, agree that the

volume
revision

here
before

reviewed
it

should

have

undergone a thorough
suggest in
all

was published.

May we

humility and

seriousness that in future Kellermann

this
line,

may

join with a specialist in

and collaborate on the

translation as well as

on the

edition of the text.

A
to

translation or an edition of a mediaeval

is

Jewish philosophical text

a rare event in these practical days,

hence we must see

it,

in the

name

of Jewish science and

its

mediaeval heroes, that when they are presented to the modern

world (none too favourable to them as
nearly perfect a form as
is
it

is)

it

should be in as

humanly

possible.

:ib

A SEVEXTEEXTH-CENTURY AUTOBIOGRAPHY
A
Picture of Jewish Life in Bohemia and Moravia.
in the Jewish Theological Seminary.

Erom a Manuscript

By Alexander Marx,
Considering the
in

Jewish Theological Seminary of America.

scarcity of autobiographical writings

Jewish

literature, the publication

of the short text here

offered to the reader does not require an apology.

The

author,

who was born

in

1668, was a plain man, gifted

neither with great scholarship

parts very poor

his

style being in

many
life

nor with particular brilliancy.

first

His story,

which extends over the

(1668-85)
oi'i^y)

seventeen years of his

but was written

many

years

later,
it

is

on
be

the whole commonplace, but in spite of this

will

found to be of considerable interest as a human document.

Our author was undoubtedly

istic is

a Schlumiehl.

This character-

probably responsible for the curious fact that while

his parents

the

names of

and grandparents, brothers, aunts,

and other members of

his family are mentioned,^ his

in

own
was,

name appears nowhere

however, a
fairly

his little note-book.

He

good observer, and the value of

this short

autobiography
life

lies in

the typical description of everyday

of the Jewish inhabitants of a Bohemian village, such

in

as

we seldom meet

our historical sources because

it

was

considered too

trivial.

Of

particular interest are the facts

'

See the Family Tree of the writer.

VOL.VHI.

269

270

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the relations of the Jews to their gentile

we gather about
neighbours,
villages,

and more especially to the nobility of the

about the jealousy existing among themselves

as well as about the state of Jewish teachers and Jewish

education

in

general.

The

author's observations are not

;

limited to the small villages in this respect

he had occasion

to gather information in regard to larger Jewish communities

like Meseritsch

and even Prague, and there, we must

His

say.
in

conditions were decidedly better.

own
of

father

had

the course of his eventful

life

acted for a few years as

elementary teacher
before he

in

the

community
distiller,

Lichtenstadt

became

in

turn a

a pedlar in jewellery,

an arrendar and 'Hofjude' of a small Count, &c.

experiment
in

His

teaching his two sons at the same time,

irrespective of the difference in their ages

and

their

know-

ledge, selecting the treatise of Sotah

his

by which

to introduce

younger son

into the intricacies

of the Talmud, does

not give us a very high opinion of his accomplishments as

a pedagogue.

The author speaks

and to him and

of only one of his teachers with love,

his wife

he indites a touching memorial

with the statement that, while he taught the boys Talmud,

she inculcated the fear of
life.

God and

the beauty of a virtuous

The
which
in

description of the ravages

of

the awful

plague

1681 devastated Bohemia and in Prague alone

victims,'- is really

had over eighty-three thousand

with
its

remarkable

gruesome

details.

See Haeser, Lthibuch der

16S0

Geschiclitc dci Mediciii

uud

dcr epidcintsclicii

Ktviikheitett, vol. Ill, p.

aitnis
is

el

415 (Jena, 18821, and P. R. Redlich, Historia peslL^ 16S1 Pmgae grassatac (Prague, 1682}, quoted by Haeser, which
I

inaccessible to me.

owe

this reference to Dr. Harr^'

Friedenwald.

A SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY AUTOBIOGRAPHY MARX

271

The

great historical events of the time likewise did not

pass without leaving their impress upon

little

the

life

of the

Bohemian

villager.

heralded by a cornet,^

The outbreak of the Turkish war, drove him home from Meseritsch,
grandmother

just as the Chmielnicki persecutions drove his

from Poland a generation before.

Most

of the persons

who played

a part in the

life

of

our author are entirely unknown, but by a happy coinci-

dence some of the most prominent Rabbis of his country

are mentioned in his biography.

His grandmother was

'

the sister

of the

famous Moravian

Landesrabbiner

'

R.

Menahem Mendel Krochmal.^

son, R.

In the house of this

Rabbi

the mother of our author received her education, and his

Judah Loeb,^ who

in later

years

filled

his father's

place, proved in turn a

godsend

in the life of

the father

of our author, inasmuch as he generously lent

him jewellery
was a grand-

and other merchandise, thus enabling him to earn a proper

living.

His grandmother on

his father's side

daughter of the renowned cabbalistic author. R. Eleazar

Perels.^

R.

Jacob

Backofen,

more

commonly

called

The

various opinions expressed as to this comet caused Pierre Bayle

to publish a

famous
:

little

book which,

in the

English translation before me.

bears the
in
to

title

Mtscdlatteotts reflections occasioned by the comet which appeared

Chiefly tending to explode

December 1680.

popular superstitions.

Written

a Doctor of the Sorboiine by Mr. Bayley

[sic].

Translated from the French.

In two volumes.
*
5 s

London, 1708.
11,

See Horodetzki, Hagoren,

See Kauffmann,
ibid.,

32-7

D. Kauffmann,

ibid.,

38

scq.

40-41.
in

See Kauffmann's note

Hock, Die Familien Prags, Pressburg, 1892

;

p. 282, and the literature quoted there

also A. Berliner,

Abhandlitng
a.

iiber
vii.

den Siddur des Schabtai ha-Sofer aus Przemyil, Frankfurt

It is

M.,1909, p.
'

not quite clear what our author means by his statement,

his son

was

Moses Kuskes'.

Kuskes was the family name of R. Eleazar

Perels'

father-in-law, but hardly of his

own

son.

272
Reischer,"

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

who

died as Rabbi of
writer.

Metz

in 1733,

was a very

well-known talmudic

His Minhat Jakob, which

our author mentions, appeared in 1689.

Our

writer thank-

fully records the readiness of that great scholar to instruct

him

in his

boyhood, but he adds that

his masterful wife,

the proud daughter of the Bohemian Landesrabbiner R.

(Benjamin) Wolf Spira, did not permit

it.^

As

to Meir, the Shohet of the

community of Vienna, the

some information
of
his
is

father of our writer's step-mother,

to

be found

in

the

genealogical

letter

son

Moses,

published by L. Lazarus.^"

We
in

learn that he

was a nephew

of the rich Kappel Fraenkel, that after the expulsion from

Vienna

in

1670 he settled

Meseritsch, where he died,

in

and that

he

had three more sons

in

addition
of

to

the

two mentioned

our account.

Several

the family

names we come across are known

to us, through

Hock's

valuable work on the Prague families, to have been current

there, e.g. Fleckeles,

Wagenmacher, and Gunzburg.

The

member

of the latter family,

who employed
Moses

our author as
G.,

a tutor for his sons for a short time,

identical with the

might be

R. Mosche Kintzburg who, according

to the curious account of the pageant arranged in Prague

on

May

18,

17 16, in honour of the birth of Prince Leopold

of Austria, published by Schudt,'^ acted as leader of the

'

See Steinschneider,
See Hock in K. The same lady,

Cat. Bodl., 1248-50,

Fuenn,

bx'ltJ'''

flDJD, 575-6,

7?.^/, VIII, 271-3.

*
*

Lieben, Gal-Ed, Prag, 1856,

p. 39, no. 65.

after her husband's death in 1733,

prevented by her
in

energetic protest the election of R. Jonathan Eibcschiitz as his successor

the
in

Metz Rabbinate.
riD"',

Sec the

letter of
f.

her grandson Nehemiah Reischer

ii

Emden's n?ON
'

Lemberg, 1877,

b,

cp. R/ij., VIII, 273.

MGIVJ.

56, 1912, pp. 352-3.

"

Jiidische Merkwiirdigkeiteti, vol. IV, continuation III, p. 153.

A SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY AUTOBIOGRAPHY
scribes.

MARX

273

Probably he

is

the Moses ben

Loeb Kinzburg

who
in

died September 12 of the same year.^-

The

difference

the spelling of the

name may be due

to a slip of
spelling.

memory
^^

of the writer

who
are

uses the

more common

Some
in

of the identifications of geographical names

the

text

due

to

my

revered

teacher,

Professor

Berliner,

who many

years ago

had borrowed

my

copy

of the manuscript and wrote the transliterations of these

names on the margin.

Professor

Polna
also

for p^S3

was suggested by
it

Deutsch,
is

who

considers

possible

that

FjNDNI, ^IDNI

the village

of Wostrow.

The manuscript from which

logical

the following text

is

taken

forms part of a collection presented to the Jewish Theo-

Seminary by Messrs. Moses and Marks Ottinger.

described in Catalogue

It is briefly

XI
it

of Messrs.
It is

Schwager

&

Fraenkel, Husiatyn, under no.

no.

an autograph

written in a cursive

German hand;
title niJIl^rn

measures ^3'7>^9'5

cm.

It

begins with the

nao, followed

by three
between

blank leaves.
fols.

The autobiography

fills fols.

i-ii a

10 and 11 the author evidently tore out a

leaf.

The

next page has a short note on his travels, which forms

a kind of continuation of the text, and
such, together with a set of
is

printed here as
at

good resolutions drawn up

various

times,

which contain some further biographical

material and are characteristic of the writer, but do not

seem

to require translation.
Fols.

They

are found on

of the manuscript.
sophical

12-25

contain ethical

fol. 34 and philo-

reflections in

fifteen

paragraphs, interrupted

by

cabbalistic combinations (15a)

12 13

and blank pages {i^h-iya.).

is

Hock,

loc.cit.,

66; note

2,

n"yn
in

a misprint for T'Vn.

article in his

They mostly do not occur Centralblatt, VUI, pp. 37-42.

M. Grunwald's

Das Jiidische


274

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

account of troubles the writer had
fol.

An
On

in
in

Zante some
the
middle.

Friday begins
fol.

34

b,

but breaks off

42 we

find

some

dietetic rules to strengthen the

memory, including the advice

noon
;

to eat only once a

day

at

on

fol.

45 a a

letter of

recommendation of the
Tl^'N r\'bb2n ^T*L^'^^)

central

academy

of Venice (nx^v-ri n

for a

poor

man who
his travels

had been deprived of his

;

all

by robbers during

neither the

name

of the poor

man

(our writer?)
is

nor the signatures are reproduced, and the date

plete ("SiN
T]:n
r\:zf,

incomis

perhaps n^c [see Exod. 23. 20]

to

be added, making 5479-1 719).

On

fol.

46

a,

he copies an
;

amulet obtained from the pupils of R. Moses Sacuto

the

end of the booklet (52 b-53) contains business entries about parchments purchased for and loans received from various
persons.

The names
of

occurring here
]n:^n

are

R. Benjamin
i^mo), Castel

Cohen

Bolognese,

p^n Abraham and Samuel Corinaldi, Esra

Reggio (X'no
n"-iniD

Cantan,

Hananel, Michael Malach, Isaac Rabbino, Eliezer ibn Roi,

&c.

The

rest of the

volume
offers

is

mostly blank.
difficulties,^*

Although the text

no

the following

translation was not thought to be superfluous owing to the

general interest of the autobiography.

Naturally
fair

it

does

not aim at literalness while trying to give a

tion of the writer's account.

reproduc-

For the convenience of the

about his
tree
i<
:

reader, the writer's statements

in

family are summarized

the following family-

As

\vc deal with an autograph, the text

I

is

reproduced as

it

is

in the

manuscript without any corrections.

to

have not considered

it

necessary

draw

attention to the

numerous inaccuracies of the

writer, his serious

grammatical mistakes, and so on.

as the
fact

that

They are characteristic of the man, just he hardly ever makes a period, and only once a new
whole account.

paragraph

in the

A SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY AUTOBIOGRAPHY

MARX

275

*=

VO

1
I

_ o ^-^ ^-G rt u O rt

'-'

w H I
a

Pi

i;?

CO

276

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

^3D ^nyoL" 'joo rhvr^b

nnn
1r:*k^1

'ic

n^n -nyT ah
n'r\
"."asu'

'b's

d-'h -no
-i"nn3 "rpr
ntj'N*

nmnn
ij"?

idi^d nina

n\-ii

n^j^isj^

n2
d.ts

^'r

npy

M^n

nmas
""rpr

n"nnD

n^nca p^yp p"p3

i"nn3
^rpr ^2n

np^i

Din^ ^'jn

^3n ixc'ji

nm

^'r apy^

ns* n^ijini

'ax /nnst^'o '^^ via. iTh n^ji^sc rh^np

nrNc yr n^ nxr

bb:

]dp

fnn

.T.-i

j'jyrnn

fc!rp -i"-inica

nn

^"r n^a^^

mo

nL"N^ np^ ^'r ^rpr

-i?y^s' -i^nnin
"ix'j'i

nan ^y m^ai
vn
'3s*

-iiy^N*

P'c^i -120 n-cyj*

-i"-in'it:3

^i'l'-iyE

^r

oi^i^

i?"r

otpop nivc
ns'w'i N^i

id-j*

n\T

in anac

n:pn

ax

'3

1^

inm on^r D-n no^ i-^im

i'\''

:x-is p"p

m
mo
^nn

n-JC'i

np3i

nocj*

nnx

ni:n ^ncT

-i^n

nmas
|n

i"-imD3

itDC'i ''n^

HNni iosi5i

vax^ Tn'
n::'N^ i^

.Tni

miyn

n-nn no^
i'-ya

'^n'

"axi 'bonz

D'hnj na
p^is

"un^i

Q':a-ii

o'^ni

n^'oi

^si^ian

nunoo oi^yn p"po ^'r bapm' -i"nnD nn U'i^r] 1X3L" amp N"'j^iDa no y'^n ^'r irxprn'
^'t

^n:y3j

nno n^aicm

-i"nn3 ^rpr 'nxi |dp

rn-j*

nm: nno

"rpr 'dni

j-""'

^''on

'"y

x^rp^sn

nuuinm
n:oi's*
N^^L:

Q^yi

bin nVjDp niJ3 'in nn^T n^n

1103
njT-a

nc-^j'

Qn:inM oy

n-iNL"j
'^

DN

n^-nni nnp^s o^ijya

an ^n ni"N nn\n

njin

1N31 DK^D in-i3

bi:'

p^E miHo
-i-j'n

bD b'c nb^i: nDcnon \x3L" ny D'>o'ym

r.N

)*"oi

nn ^^^

''nx

Ni'oi

ni3c-^p'3 p"pb
lor'i

pyo n:no^
nm
ibn p"p
^'r i'sons-np
"o^s

bnjyo

Dn:o n"-inio hn:n nnn nNn

in^ani

r::n^r] b2

nbun:
lOipD

pnx nox n2D

b'c

ji'Vl*

nano

i'yn

ab^D

n-HK'

n-jni ^'jn

nnn noi n"y

n"nnio bM:r\

^n:y2:

nno 'nmo
*,o'^'

nx

Nfj-'n

Nini ^'vt n^b

xnin^

nnn

n\ni

nijnnn
v^wS
'-n*

UN
npy

oy nD':nm inn
in'n^
-I

nn'-n i^sn
'-n^

^n: p:
niD::'S"5'3

ni?

;nii 'r.'

'nx^ ^nnio

^^n^'

nn^^nn
'rpr

^nxi

p"pn i?n:

inDn

nainS

"nnn

'nx oysn
'nj'pt

rxi

pnnyo nirnon L"onTyo p"pn

inn^vnn notyi
n^'j'y

nnM mc'x nn-nc

nn\n pi n"nn
'nxi njinnni

*oxi

n\n

^i nSn

nmyoi

non'j'oi

nxo ny o^non ni^o: n^'ni nipnv

noDnn

^v nn'ni

nxr* nn^n n"y ^n:y2;

^.x

mo

'nmo "ox
'^n'

ixn pxit'in

nnx

n^rj*

nynix

n-j'^j*

^ninni nninn pDU' n'n

nSnna on'nno mnni nnnnn^

pnyo nirnob

cmpni

n'^syou-'n

A SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY AUTOBIOGRAPHY

MARX

277

i3^ni

D.'T'2

nino3
nD:^'1

nsc'^ n"ai n"y

DwSDw'
jua''^

'dn

oy

'n^

*3ni "incNi

rni:n

^3x

nx p"pn
in^3

p"p^ ly^jni
nr''N

nn^D

mno

nvp ny
'n"

Dpn

Nvr:i

nrn 3"nsi cjc'

r^nnio
riyn
n-ijni

D:^

loyi
'cx

mpirn

nr:!?r:^

n^my-iT yrDun)
P"'

n"y

^mio

nornnn nan ^rn

nvj-yi?

n''2D

naci

nn''

in*;:'yoa

nrr'n

nx nvnnb nnvy^ nr^ni

sinr

n::N^D

N\m

pa'c'o nicy^
a-j'"*

i^n*

mrnrD2

ainjn nc'in: b^' ip^j^a

nn''n

\nn nninn poyi

'"n''

"'3X"i

nnn[n]ni nn^^vncjij'-by

n^y pi nnna

n'D-y ^'vr n"^ n"nn'D ^"in:n

D:3inai

nnn xin
no'iii}

naiy c'lnp d'^x njm ovn

L"nn''nL:
q'j*

D''3iDn nib^npn
r\'22

^y
''ni

innivr^i

p"p2 n"ax rx
p"p

nxni ^nx
y'v]

p^xn^i

"ax

^i^'

in^a xvn

nrx conryD
"i^x.

Dx nDn

n'j^'yi

nnn p
i?03

n\n
:id3

ncxD
i?:;*

n^^y anni y'r "nniD

in^n

nnv2

D^b nx::n
HL'^y

'^nynu

ann

nnino nrx

jnn

'"n"

"ax [oy

pi njnnai ncrnni n:icxn

n^yn

nnh

nxe'i' i?:^;y ^"n'-K' "na

mne.na
n"^^'.ni

nxT.n
n:ir:"j'

ncn ^x anpn: '"vy

D"u'iy
n^n-i:'

"xar ""y

mar
inn

p^2^:o"i
inji
i^

nnnni
fn

oy nn
nr^'y^

Tin

p"ii

njnan

i"':"ya

x\*r:i

njri^o

pn nxiani nax^r^n
idi

nic'y^

DTincD
i^

|n:i

cbinj pboyp
fjntt'

D"D?:)^

n"n Q^noc
"i:xi

ppn

nj::'n

fjina

yma

n^n -axi
D'J'

p"n

nn"^in "nniD

n^njh rhv^b nbv

nnai

ib'n^ ixaci
^^

:i3 ni:inyi
'"n 'x

Tajn n"n "nx

nni
ixa
n'ti'D

p'j'xnn nc'bc'

D":a

[nnt:i

n^"nno

na]

li?

idc

n^n

':ni

nra^i ^nni "jyn "ix

'am pbp n"nna Doinj^n

.nx"n
-jin

nnyro
^)-\'y

b"'

'r:x

nL:p-i;'i

nn:

"n-'i

i?dx

nn^D nnx
o'x^n
ni?

nnoi
n-'n

p"n

i?c'

pj'yni

cxn

b'c o'-nxni

niD^cnc

Q":Vl;'d

x^

"3 irnin^'

ba

ub nit^y nniai
nxn^ai

n^r^' 'ni d"*j6"^'

na ^ny^

nn"n*c'a

ora
fa

nnt3i

D"aiD
"ixi
'"n"

D^^^'yi^ai

noana n^
i;'nn^
Q"ru'

nvini n"yn i>aa nniroa

rx

"n^^n

a"^nn nry n""x

'"?:

n"a "npina 'd nar'n

nhn: nc'x
fnj
ID":

"ax np^ n:u"n

ninai

't

hn;n "nxi
'"nn

D"rw' 'n

rxi

xj"ii

p"p

xnon
oyo

cnrj* n"XD n"nniDa

n'L^x^

na

h""n2 nno
'"n"

^xid-l:>

n"nna np"n^
x^
D"jc:'

'"nn "^oys

nno minx nx
i:"ax
n'j'xi

"ax

^n:b nyn"
'n

nn^"
nr:ai

nn"n

'"n"

''2i^"n ir-yi

"non

"!?i^i

ir^n D"Dy2
'^

D"jdp D"ja^ nnivn "sa nvp:a i:nix

the lines.

Added between

278
nnN'3

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

aha rh^ nwan
nrj* Dii ^'r 'bi'b

mo
''2K

iras dn

'n:^pr

^i:n*

^nDni

ncn

p
c:i

is-j^j .th-j*
ib
-j'p^^

nro

^i5^^
'^n"

no

^''^ys *i:niK >n;b nai:^^ d^v^

"i:n

nn-i*j'i

ni^nj
"^

b^nnn

nnv2 -inx
nriNn
^'r

\n'i

irnt^x
"^nn'j']

n"y vas

[njni?

dns n^n-^ioi nniN nyjio

'cs

'ipim niviN^ nbi:3

n-i:no
.t.tj'

i^n

sh

iniy:a

pny

'ny^

*d^

ni3D n^^nron
n:;ci

i:^c
-iL'Ti

D'yj'-i nyj*:-'

iy^:i nrini

irn

ns*

po

^:ic3

Tii^oai -\^vn

nnns* natD

vbi msD nnn

-j!?m

i^2J1 n^jir

noa nncy '3n

i^?d d^:c'
':

m!^'-iN^ '\sivj'n ijj

cn^n^ nj:n^c^

ini^m ns*
-l:^^

"i"j*n

Dy

pr::

n^
;*1^;-l

n\n n^ '^n Tj-m njipn 'an

n^n

nx

ns* nryi

'ipim
^3x

nn^n^
'3

njp ^y ij^di

]12^-ln

2^n

'"ni

x"ni pir'xnn

ODcca

nynn

nvj'^i nup'^i'

nyni Q^ony nnvi ai vn nni

-.'nrD

Dmn\n

vn^ix tj:

"^3

vpoy D^Dys^ ncyi vrry ^^n

^\s ts nvn

"n

'-">

"jns *2X

isnnji
nii?^^y

hr
1^5

nnai

ijin

nmn^

'^bnj n^poy nr^'yi? 3'j'm n:i3ni n^fy

-lU'n

svo

Tj'ni

v^y ir'j'bm

^jm inn rx
r,n

vj"'s*2n

va^is

D'::'nn '2 103

'mosn
n\'-in:"j'
''

iTnn vj^arn a^poy nsc-ai

p^n n:n3n poyn

;n'^ "'n^ >2S'

ny '-pm^D^

^^^ 'xn nu'n

ini cyan

i'^vo

n^D pxi
':;n

nn x-nn
b"^
2P]}''

^s:

ntDwSi
iprn

cncpj

v^::^

rxi iidisi iJin

)b

i"-in3

vax cy n"n nx
nr

*jn;"'w'

TJ'no

vj'pni

xrso

niu'

n^n

'^ini n^n

'x ^3x
''ni:''PT

nx

'^'t:)

n"*y pi in^nj Di'Cf

^'r
^:"'pr

b
'"^i:

nannij 3in ^yn n\T:> 's^

cy xann3 nin

'3xi n"i'n

XiD

'"n^

'x '3X1

D":*:-'

'r

'n'\-i

nysn

rxi

d^c*^ iT'a n>n

"i"'y3

xh

in3i x*j':i -ir:^

d:j'?:i

nn ^mx

Dipo p^i2r:in nr:ri 'x

n-i3:i
iL'-n

ny::*

^tb

mn
onr^y

doid
n:pi

q'-^'v^:)

nnino

^oina "n^M

':xi

'x

nr:*

i23n
n::o

nr^nb^n '3"nyo
n'\-i
'':x

-irn-j*

'^b ^iiDXi idc'I 'x "isd^ yoj

?xi

mr
b"in
"3

^3x in^n:a sismcnb x"x nrn

-iDir^3i

in!?n:^ iSi

p"P^ "nix X'3n^ x"x "iiiynn 3"nx

nti

)nx i-n3i nnins noD

nMi>'

h"i:n

nx
n^'j'y

rx

p
D'kT

d:

nn

d^^i

dv i^no iidd

axis

x"x

n^ixD
i:it:o

x^

D31

0":^^

nytri

-n^n

txi

niina

nn

T3i"ni

^y on nvnb
'^y

3L*'n 3xi>

Tivins criyn -no^ yn"

xi? r3"n

yiv nn

nr2X3i

n^yj'n

r^yo

no^cni oyio
the lines.

n3L*'3

nobrr^

mx

'*

Added between
n3-:'.

" 3"^

A SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY AUTOBIOGRAPHY
"L"P rx

MARX

79

^n^M

^:s*

^d

rx

n^ym^
x^o

'b

i)^bb

r]'^^'\

n\n

ex n^n: nniD

nvn

>nb^:^

n^'Dxni

pn*j'

^n^\ncr

D^xi>n

nu^DD pisn n:3n

p*^'

ny inni nv:t:p >rD

^jxsi^ onx
DV,;'

nnnvn

bi^ab jxnaa

ddit
'b

nniy:^

-j'xd

^^y m-^^^ n^n x^i

hn: ;vb

n-\i

nii

nxj^n i:yo
xnti' ^ipxi

mix

lar

Din

nr ^y

n^nnn x^
id-^:'

jxisij D'^oya
n\-i
u'^i^pi'D

ncj x"x

liy^ ^jh:i
.Tn
D'y^:'

irr-aa

'j^'-sxh-l;'

3^^ -in"nm aiD^ -j-wn

iDt^'n

bin ph:

nc'-j'

loo ^"x ^ax

^b

inic-'
r]'r\'c*

t:yitD

D^c^nn

n-j-j'

'n rx i^ n'n::? '"n^

r^::^'\^r]

pyoir

ic"^^

m^

xmi^'i?

nvn^ n^-ino

b^a

ivDb bv
y!i-i:

^^V Trnn^i
is

no

D^i3^

iny oysn

''n^\-*^

M-h i3^hn^ yro^ i^ ^n^M ^:xi nxD ny r^y n'^^ ncxn

ivv::'

''n^^^
''ja

3D"yx

^3

in'32 "'"xx
"1233

"mx
n-iin3

n^jo n^ni" 'Xii^m om:;'^ ^^y

p^ fjXDxi

103
in''3^

nnv oyoi
ijido by

;-ix

im3
''x"x
xin-c-'

^Dvy

^^:-id

rx iTH

^njn

nx
j""

;3"i

mix ntm

on

bna

pn3n

n^r^ n"' ix
"jx

133

nvn:;*

mx

i^;y3 i:b DJ^b'

3C'n n'33
i:f:r: n?:!?

bzH n>pn3i

mD^-lJ'1 n-'j-n?:'!

^"cn

'"2

103 ni::]

n3n
^b

iD^ nniD n3D?3 xnr:3 n^y nirD^b

X3-11
"'*3s bc'

bmnn

'3X

nnrn nob

T"i^' ^'^
'b

nv:iD3 cbiyr3 b^n

m^n xb

jxi

nmc

"ix

oys n3bnn
pi
n:c'r:3

ny 131

Die*

mnct? ab) n^yc)

m''^^*J

nn^"'

-laoo labm

n3y

xh

"^3 ni3n:>'3

bnuD iy3

^sb '"xx "'yy3 jn

''"':''y3

)*ip3 'n^'r^'c^

DWip^n D^DjjD

"b ^^^

xh

x"''
''3

''n^^^:^

"'JX

13111

dx hm

x^l" ]vp:
?in>i
"3

D^J33 ^DiDD n\i ""xx

"xnii3i

ncx3

"^y n'-jt^D pxi D-^yjo "^3

pun

n3

IX

IX nrj' i>33 DyrD3

incx

)b

mb" oy^n
by rx

rx

D^::p

mix nxnr
1133 rx
m"'\i
n\-i

'2^ n3it:

mir'3 i-na

n'r]

mn"'?o

ib "tj'3d

n\TLi'

"d

bnjn t,x b3x

'"n3 yp'C'

ny

"i3n D1l^'> nir*

m^M xh

113

n-cn

"jxi d'3-i^* -ix"J'3i 0-^31:^.1 n''33

m'^:'

nn33 noxbo nry bm

^30
n:iy?:i n3i"i?3

n"bnn n^x*

ic3 nr hmi "3

ib::'iD

0^13 n"3 "33

X3

rxi

3X12 p"p3 D1231 Dn'2 ni:nD3 131 X3 D"nn

n3-:'3i

t2"^nni

niD

in*j'x ny 3py"

nmo

i3nD pix p3

3py" i"ini?3 3in 3x12b pin

i"iniD ]Mi:n
b"3n

fibx'i

i"iniD 3in ni:3 bi^ns

n?r3i

niD

nninxi

bw

3in be

ini:ni3y

i3m"'33

1233 i:Dy noyi xtsu*

iit^bb

pyr:*:*

nbtt'io

mt'X b3X nipi:m iobo3 -oy

b:3'

nnt:b nvi

xi.il" i::ir "iXw*

"30^0
liD3i

"bin3 '3X

m^bm non
d^c'

'cnn3i nivcn
'3

iic3b nn'3n xbi vbv

no

1C3

m'-Mi nib'bi

ir:3

niiy3

nmp3

"cmi 1230

28o
ED ibm nyni
't'^^i

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW-j-s

m^ lyn

nsiVi bv inN

mnx

's

nyn

n^*^

d^c'
r\'2

':

r\'2b

-inN D'pcE irn'2?2 irnai inrxi ^'^i a-in

::":-in"i

':2

1C2 nvntrno pirn En; ny^n

ivS'^i'.ni

I'y

p^n b^'

nmn
niw*
nvcf'\'"j)

*;:;'

jup n^3 13^'m

'vS*

DrT'^D

cmx
fy-\:r2

vj>i:

Dnsrn?^ 'ab "Em

ntr'ni

n3 dni
Drr'no

nD'\t

-ivncE 3"3D

n*^y

rEn

ny^E

cu'is-i

Es

n-:!!! -iV3r:n ':3c

irN

sin-j* ons* dvj'

aipn" EnE
-i:d nihi

mcx
din

nt^D

pirn id3

Ti*2on ins

TJ'N*

E31 NV" xEi i^vy

nx

iE'j^

iv2D2

d"*j';n
n'':n

nv^
sEi

cnm

Eym

a^j^^n

3ms
nx

n\Tj' ''-' '3N':; "in di:3"E

dvj'

HB'y* Nin DJ:^ ""sx

Ei33?o nr

inrn pi cvn
in";"

3n

icy nicy^i v:^b ai'-c nvii

mx

nvc dudE
xE-'

xEi

ix^-"

ab'c in"3 ";3 E3

nx nmni p
nnrni

nnD"xEi

i?o"Ey"

in"'3

'22^2

'x nEn" i"n

qx3 mix
-ii;d"i

n^nnx
i?'<

in"3 ";3 E3 ny iE"i

jn"

n"3
-i3nn

iE

tj'x Ea np"i

m"3 nx

loi'yo

xE
-iy"E

"rx

i;txE xi3"i

nx ""xx

oEy" oEyn

dx3 iy n;nni
D"'i;n

E3

cy n"3n
n2;t:i
iE"i

im3
-i3nn

i;nix ^n-'Ei
x3-j'
"-13-1

n"3n nx n"i"nE

"yc^'iE

ni-'n

n"'33

"3x mx"i3i 'onx

C""-"
"3

nic
nro

toEc"

xEi i;E
iE

iwX

ay lyE

nu-n
13111

dx

nvj-yE

yn"

xEi

yin E";3
in"3 ";3

onsDn
I'DcnE

^;3E

ymin"
;i.-iEi

nEn; n;3DE

iJ:vy

nx

d";3"

'"P'cini i3ny" D"nin"

d*iE

tj*x D"nini D"3;; Ey"E3 "w';x

-i"y3

D3ni
'"3nixi

D''X3

vn-j-

i"3xy

n"n33

nnix

Ei?;Ei

piw*yE
*

nx nEm
xin
ipr

:;n

nnn
qx

n"Ey3 "nix i"nDnE inyn3 D"2Dn 3"y

n-j-y

ny"3 i;nix
";2

n-'nc

pi

"r^y

poyn" xinc* "lEn 3py" 1""^ i"3x

dvl:*

DiPD Ex X13E n"3n

^oy ncy pi

";3r:

dix

i3"mv"
p^b~i'

xE'J'

"13 ";2E
'Eix

'C'r^-j'

ir:vya

"inx3

ni:;?^n

L"xn

ab'c

E"yi"'

t'
nvn

"n33*j'L*'

/"c^ '"D*
E"t
";"pr

':;'i;*

ion

"mo

Dipr:3
"n"i

"3X1" ixn i"x

iTHi
in::'x

n";ni

-iL*'n

Ex
i;r:y

D";"C'Er:

1x3

EiXw'

ir:'^

cy

n"33

ir^v'c

mx
it;

"nin"

oy lEn
E"t

nxc'E 7\z:^n c'x

ixin"'^'

"iyi3U'

oipo

onnx

D"n23E nn"
tj'h

idE.Tw*

pExs
jnEi

DX31

iEi3;o
";"pr

nn";L"

nx cnsE
nn3in
rxi

n"ci
Dr:n

Dn?:;y

"nix

3iiyE

E"r

"3x

nw'X"i3
"3

iEi3;3

my
"n"n"

n"m
";"yE

omnn

E33 D"rp3c

vn-j*

-incnE n;3D n"n

"n Diy Ey

nixinnE Dn";r in-i3in ^"y "nix

l*'"x

ixt xEr nEi3 EEdh Ey n33D

ns~i ix

"oy poynnE

;'x

"3

x-i"i

i;";y3 'n

ih3;c Dn3E3 ncn

A SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY AUTOBIOGRAPHY
"D
n^ri

MARX
nxisn
>b

281

x^-j'

nynn nnna: ns
|D]^:^

xi^L"

invn 3Vjm
','

nro^'j'

rhi:^)

ann
]2)b

fji^xn
np'-^y

'n

non^ ovn

^no nuyrDn: x^x poyn^::^

n*c'x
np'-i

''n"'

''nx^

n-iim xn-^^ '""[^"x

ti:ix3

""ax

nx] )*iJopD

IVt^'Du'

a'-no nx'-a

pi^n ori
n!;'3n

myc*

pi^x

uyo

n^Dp

mypa
n'^jn^

n^'^3

1JCD nL"yi
lyj

jnp"'*^:'

ny mrnrai niTnon

ri^n

p'ii:'xn

oy nnypa

pny

'n^\n::'

'"ay fjN '':xi 'b

iD'cnm n-cy pi hdj^h ^y

n^m

Q'j'jy

bn

pi

''?:;vy

nx

nixani?
itd'J'i

ODnnn^ Timsin

^bini

n^yc^

2"'

Dbion nnsi'
IL'-

iiidd
'jxi

imx

dIpid

im

'^

d'^x^d vn ^p:^o^1 ^dxidh

''n^''n

n-j'

Ti-'Ni

nx-ani?

"Tiddd Dip^ niDio

^jxi

njD

T'di

ynon pxc nuvmi

^nixna^
Ti-irn-k:'

ni^vrn ^n^xn
'b

nysn inix2i
jyo^ 'n

ni?^^3

p2 Dvn p3 n^n'
D''ina ^mxti'JC'

n3

jn:i vr^n-i
-jx

r\'^]}

pi

n^on n\n nynn Dipo

yo^r:
Di^n
ni
\T'1

myun nmpn

nup'C'i

nnji

nvn dv
-j'x^

no
lyu

'nxivni "b^ o^jsn ^3

nr

oyoD anxD
j^'j'n

n^^1

no nxn
ijn:xi

^x

iidxi 'incna vj^nn::'

D>ijn

pn njn ^ip
i::'y

nann iTnon nni ns:M ^xnm

i^x

onro 'x ny: no-j' D''nin\T

nnai

nmn^no
^Dvy

liTicp: np'Ji 1^ T'j:i

'nix

xn: ycrh
"-"xx

d^jdxj
"^n

nnny

n'3"i ;nxi

nx ra^xc'

nivi

D^nnn

nn

':mb ixa
jn-j's i^u'

niD-'Dnxn nxin^ x^c' pixn " ["-j'xna

y:iJi] i's^

nxi^;b 2^20
niaja
'':3!7

mrm pn Tin
inix
xinc-'
^x'j'"'

nTi^^n x: x:;

c^x

iT-n

)*oxi prn T^'^n

^-j'

mix
nnjn
nr

nr:xi
"]-n

DX1

-ivni:n

"'::^

dji

'un

Q^nnn ^3
ib

p:p 1233 iD^o ^vx

\-i^%Tw'

naon

nno

imx xnn
nnyi

pxo
"'n^'

siy^

fnun inai 'n'cy pi

'n^n^

'nsD^j
p-ii

^idd:
''n^^n

nixma

-iv2t:n "'js^ '"mnyi naiy

-"ziv^i ^'x::

:h~i

'm

cjix px^i hd
-iddhi
nioDi

nD3 nnzr^j
2''{:^n

Dn^*yi

nn^^nn nxcji

n''unD
""ax^

nmn
D''"'n

^nix ixii
n"'J3C'

xini n?D inija^^nK' n^n

xa ni3n^
toyttDi

"^^ib in3

Dn2t^'ntD3 n\T^'
^L^

no

1^

mn

x^tj'

D^iyb
'nx^
'b

uxi D^n nnx nn^

'"xx DDnnn "invi
n>n'j'

ni3^\sn ^y d^id T'oy-j'

1"^'^

bn:n

ni\*

"j-nn nv^ hdi^ xin*ir i^\xn

^y n^yxu'
d^3E'1

niii

pa u^
ixi^:^'

nn'sn
^-j*

ncyxc'

"'^

nivi

xnn
pi

'JXe:'

onaiyn
^:n
b'c^'

^nix

hd

-is^n
p1^:^

ni-iD Dn'>^y
'3^1

pnrxc' Dny:ni is^n

"n^'c-'y

nnl'^tii'

Sn\ni

":"

"npn-^r

n1D:^'1

pinr hpn

xnph

piyvh n^:2

iin!?

D*?Dys

no3 ^n^ry pi

]'\:'''\ri

Dpcrc nipn
^'^

x^n 'n nvy

hm

nr

id

.th

'*

Added between

the lines.

Added between

the lines.

282

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

n\-i

'2m

ab'^'

nrj^

istj* "2^
nj^a

na-in

on^ia^ nixing Tihs' ah bin

^i?

"311^ Tix^n ins*

n^'C'

01231 nxiv
it'I
'':zh

n^nnn
^i:

-c'n^ i^*^

cnpo

VJS1 D-rj'n 3N':!0 r^n^ ^y

'n'-j'y
-^'.n

iniy 'x

"n'sn nrs Dy^r ny

n2:c3
^b

n-^n::' '':n tr^in

i^

^is*

^in\ni pin-j* vi^y M'-j^y

pmi^'
''cvy

coyi:
nt

nns

a^u'n

Nim *3S nivc2 snsi

ns nixnn^

nn0 ^nn:
\-nrn
q'-c^

"msw':")

nnnnn

T,?:^yn

n'nnni iisivd n^^in -I'cn nsjcn

cmn

ni^3a"i

Di;n^

nnD'j'i

pmy

|n:

vi^rnn 'm M-inoji

^jidSti

^y

D'-j'c |\xi

nn' nnvj-i
m'"i

bix onpc^ Tnvnsi ^nx Dy

njvj-xinD -inv
^ns* ;n"i2
^:^L^'

'"nx n'lb

n^nnn N'^onn nrja

oijix

snm
n?

ysi

^n^-j-yj 'jxi

3^

ny n3:nn dh-d ni;nc3

-iv3r:n ;c '"ss

Tyn m?:n no id nu-n

n-innh yi:Db
'^-ln

t;nr,n

nmn

inci ibn

is^ai nro

ix^rj*
dji
n\-T

N/1 n22D

bi:'

nyu n^

^^^

n"*:'^

n*c"j
'2

n3 nn\T

ns^ TiinN
nirc id
i^jdd

v:s^ xa

iib

""nn d:i ns^

i-j-n

n^:no

n\Tj' ^is
ni^p::'

n-^D nhn: n2':o n\n

prn
^jd

'jnnn ^2n r\zi^::

'cnn fiioni

N^s
3

nx'j'i N^i

'nain

mo

nnsD noDai 'mn' hdd

ny poyn'
'inND
''o

inoi iroipci?
Ni?i

Dnis*

inp^

lyT* n^i D^nj^n

ijinj

nvcj n\n

x's

nra

N/1 nivix DniNn

i-n:i
D''2i'3

a^'^ni

-j-'l;'

nup nn^n y^mny

siiinn n^n

1N3 D-oyai

n^nm ibsi
nnvn vni

D^asr in3i :^t;a n^jn Dnis idd

ijy

nsy'

nij:c':

ny D^T,n hsu*
-i?^2
it

onro'j'j

nnn^ 'n

:b'^'n

jo

nniN

nsm
no

nri b"i

nr n^jn* 's diu'

^'n

no n^ irnaa ^2n
D-'-jnn
^*c'
""J^r

'-p^vn

N^'k!'

naiuij n\n

d:i ^'jd "iK'n itrnrj*

t^'nns

nns

iod nsaon ^ib^ n'zi

D'OB'3
'y3t:

bnj nioy dnij v^d^d

nih-l:'

N"onn

5i-iin3i

131
^3s*

nos*

tr^

d^d' :rnn

ny loyi nso ny nu; nnro nv3

pyo'j*

n3"in

ns?o

npn

sinin3

D^oys^ nxirj'

oyoip

NipJt^

ncn^o nc^nnn:
n3-in

njc^n ^3^*

hm
n?3i

pi

D*3:y n3-in^ inix

nns

n-^iJOVN

n^inn

^"ns

^^inn

n":nn ny

nup'j*
n'j-y

sh chy3 n^nj
vrry
-ji?^i'

'nnosi
-2^1

'ovyo ^nnniyni
"iy3 '3

'jni

n3nn nninD

^3

n^^xni
'':nc*

oi:k

nnin

nioi?^ 'nin^

^c

n^'.np nrsi'

nvin

Doy2 no3 m^xm n^p

t2nnn.n1

s^i 'jn^D3n >"nni

lioy inon
.n>n

b'liri

n''3pnc

nrm iny:^ loy

^nis T^inb D3D103

n^ri

^''sni

Dennis \S3

nvn n^u' ^3niv ^d c"j'13^o^^ ic'y ab'c

'H'l

yjojni D^Dy2

hm

ntj^y

D'30P D'333 n^2iurD nn'.n ^3n

'b

ni-'s

n^on py3

'^y n'y^"'^ 'D tk

nniy

nsin

'n'^n1

n^'^n ^3 ny 'n*\n 'jn ^"nnd

vo:\:f

onip

nns

n^'^

A SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY AUTOBIOGRAPHY
"b
TICK'S?

MARX
D^s-ipjn
'-^

283
Q^i-aD

pi ins* pnnn
'a

nn

poD

'b

^n^c'yi

j'^^'a

Dvn

Txn-t:* onipi ^"ns* '"NX

^'"'n"'

xk"

nnj:^ mniiriD

^nnp^i

^^n^
'n^bn

2^b

X3ai

DC

'n3L"' >jxi

]'"i2'"b'C'n

>"nn^ ir^na*

mpo^

abnr' ncni
Tm-j.'^

C'nni

Dvn -nxn n^xn

^^x

xS
':xi

icin n\n
v!?n3
n^i^y

]^'<i]}

p"d>"^l*'3

piDH i^n '3JX "nx

d^-j'jx dl"
'bi:*

*mox

nnm
ihn

D'l:'^

au-

nuno
iinn

'"mix
"ij;3

nmn
5)x

vni n-iin nio^[?

hd

*d3x nt^x

"jx-j'

dd
''.t

pvin ^y o^n inixi iqv nup^ ixrc nnniD

^xmin
tj'dx
'3

mina ^n:

mx
2^
-^

loy

'':yb)r:b

''"x

''3x

^jd

i^^ni

pp

ny
invn
r^r^yc

'JXL"

"J3"^in^

\s'

noxi '3X
i^

a'-u'n

tx

o^nvj

D'^-'yom

b ^ovy?D
oy^n
rx

^n^^n noa

^n^n

^nmn

rx

nxo ny bn: mpni

n32 ^"a iipn .th D"Dyx

my
no

^JD^hni n!-inn tx
''n''\n

im^
r,\ni

D^jsn i"in^ ni2

labn-j'

nnm

^dj

:^-c'n

-iipn

x^tr oyr:)^ D"r:y

nyj'n pnv"
'131

m^py^

:rcro

non -imn
ox'-an

n\-n "3x^ b)i:

lyv

'm^tyi

DJna ny D'-m im^

pc^nc -"c'-non

njox-j*

i-nn
n',v?o n\-ii

DET n\n nc'x

no^cn

n"'33

''jn"':ni

p^iDcnxn^ ny 'jyjm

ppr:

px

nmi

u"nr2i ^"cia "cy

in:!!?!?

^"nnni yjr^

apy
c^nni

-i"nn

idc xip3
'p'la'i

niD^DH

nc'cxa nnpb pny

"nyn^ x^r*
d:i

max

'in:xn

TX "D^Mi
DpiJ'n

^nnDc

Tiyn^c'

oyon

nn^n

nnp^ "nn^

x^B' pa'x-in

HM x^i pap hm b"2ri nc^cnL" ^a^ -ixo ly hn: nyvn pi 'jnc^ xh miycn \pr\b yn^ xi? ^nx uc'^n uyva i:Dn nyn b'ni max "p-i3i mjxn Dyoi jnjcn b\y nmusm minn ^l" n^oyun pr^ xini ''jno^-j-a m;xn nana ipim r\'cp^ nysn tx nv2 ti-m '.x ^ax
cnx
^n: iD2n \xnia n\n
n:t^
'x
,nTi

^nnjnr ny

pine*

nana

'bv ivb n^roya n?:a

i?ax

nnxD

D'J'

nnnyi niiycn
'^c

o^a-^in

px O'DVcn Dno^cn
""an
'!?

uniB' n^n o^jicxnn D-cnn

in^aa tx >n^axi Tion

ny x''cnn
in:

non'w'

iT

nibai naa
""jy

^-j*

mTi hnD.n naiu nons

-a

D'biv
Q'^:yn

inc>x d:i pjisoi

nNn xin
i^'C'

noo nuo
'b)

.nnn-i

"nona ma:

naia

"^b

ian:t>'

nnsa
nira^j

d:

nn^ i^^axn
*:xi

Dovy^ D-am nnan i^ax

n'c 'b

nn

x^

ny:

n"n

xaioD:;xn p^^ai nxo iv c'xnn

r^b'npn ^ja
it^x
'b
i'ai

DX1

nix
TX

i^xc'i
n''^n1

"2x

nima ic^^nn

i?xiJi

anp
n':D

ovw"

vjy

nxD nnns ix n^yin

^^n'':^

n'n

nc'sx

n-n
i-Sw^i

i'['\r2ii

DX py

nai'-ni 'n

nan bv nnni xn^i nxc ny

nn

.d::'

oip^' a"a

xti xoin^n

"'

284

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

INT

ysn
"^iiyo

n^nn

rs*

nvn

ah iro^cm non ^vni """sso xnc ny

^2-13

yfi ""man ny nvo^n n>n

xm

dj i"v^

"m^vo n"D3 ice 'n

DB>i

Tin^io I'lx L"::nryrD p"?b ":x'2m p*jc'>:'ixno

jnp^i

"i"-*"

-n^yo

in-jT

nyn ^yi
"tiik

3it:

no^o
-ir:

Dii'i

\-imn dx hn ^nicc -i"nn3 n^yai

'nojaji
"3
'^j

:nno
Dysn
D''re3

iK'a^i

nyyi p:o^
inv
lyT'

xinno
'33

^^nnjD

^''-inio

ns^n niD^^ niyp33

n\-i

jdd

an

^a ij^pi d\sj

ann
oy

nri

nrn

nhyc
ny

\iyn"'

n^
oni

'Js* ""^

'j?:d

mn

^dd niaDin

'-1^2

"jiDo

D>nin2 vn

nnn

nmcn
nuno
:ni:i

nr3 niJD^b

"n^nnnu' 'xn
D'-ynp

"mx

ii'vn nr ^yi
D''K^:n

:n:r2n .th

^s

nn

n^iijai

onnni
nsc ny

n^\npn':'

""^na

Tivp uyo3*j' ny D''Dnn2"i

Q^c'van
''zb

Dnb nsjp
"id'l:^

D"i:

nn ono nna iin -inv

on^^-'a

vjy int:'
"3
i3'p

\"nN' ina'j*
?in*i

n'^n

's

^y^^i ^;n

vn nosai

'3X21

an^nnN

HTB' "h

yno nvnab yn sin p-'iy ^ntiu p^ns ^-iy3 p pnN nn 13 ]r2sh p in^ini -i^u'i t'lnj y:vj'iD 'n n''n d:i i3 "iNi n^b'yb nn3 ^ns m3 'oys^ sin dji n-nn ^y3 nny nvn^ n3r 'n n3"in myjD ^^ vn i53N D'3it: D^'C'yoi n->in3 pioy^ 'cvy ^nji3
'msn't:'

vb^yo

nroncD

"i"^"'

n3m
^^3

-j'si '3N31
iDi*y

npnp ny
n^i

bii finn '3 niD

?i^jno

pnc

id3 ''N^in

'^

n3B'

yy^
:n'i:

n-i'-i

ij^
N"ini

n\n

3-im

;'-in*

iin

^^3

D''y:i5:'o

Njan

en
1^

n-'n

ab

NJ3n

en

ni^x rs
nr^^i

neo i^n
neN

)"pn

nib3i pL"iTp3 Dyo voy

n?^^

inv nNn -S ohyu nnu^ .n^n nb 'ic^;y3i

n^^1

Npipo
xini

'n n\n v::ei 'n n'on no^r^^ inp^ n^'npni

^733

n3^n iJniN

Toh

nni:n

no^evo nr3i nyn n^3eici m^on

id!'

invy yr xini noir: ^smi

'n dn-i''
1!?

mc^

s^ni nisDin

ei'D

aai

nnson

-np^yni ip^n n-j\si

nes*

iniD jvosn ^33 '^ nvo^^ n3-in

"mo^e no n^n

nsbni ino

^^

vne onf^^on
nw'bu'3 n3nn

bo
nM

'^

sin n\n

pexnn

en

ny

mo^b

an:

n^ Nin
^:ni

dj -3

s^ pny is "ovyo
dji

3N33

^ijin

n^\n

hnj iizp n>m ^hn nn^y^^ n'n xin

nrj* j"p3 3"nNi ^iiinn

nmh
-^ro^l'a

ines ny pexnn no^on nrn 3o"nn

Mir2b

b esin
n3D03

oyoi cnnnx^i

on^oi^n^ D^aino vni

-iyv3

n':3 ^3VJ'n vni

Ti^nnn 3"DyN nisDin 'b

mDo

Q*:t:p

n^Doi

p^in

A SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY AUTOBIOGRAPHY

MARX
n:'p

285
p'y!?
rs*

D'l^^nn '31

D-ri;'

\-il"

:;'DnTyD3 Q'c

^movi ^ovyo nn^n

p^X2^i r'D3^nn^i L"t:nri'^ p-i-iyn ni!?\npD

Dmn^ nmn
xa-ii'

isa nysn

mrn

oysin iniNai

xm

Ty nx nn^^

^^^yn:^'^^

nr^nbrsn
eiDsiib

nn^oo
n'lb

0^:3 n:vL"x"i3D -inr ^n: -lyvn simnn b^ dc'

^moyi

-aiS*

naytr ny d^jd ^yni

\'n]} ^^inn ''n^\ni

x^ji

^njn

'nx '"ax
''rT'\ni

n^n

^n

b ^Jipvn
n1^^"^pl

nirno
nr'D
'jjDD

i?*j^

nunjn

"nyn^

wrc' i"u

rx

js-iai?

'na^ni cinnn

'n iDt^'i 'x i^c'y

^vx Drnn riDnan ^nxvo 3"Dyx nihnj

D3n

-inr

fnx^ a^snv vn
D^^iyo nr ^n-Dj
^:)3^

bx
x!?

D^Jt:p

o^ja 'a i^

.Tm

nnv^i

niny^ "n^s^

xh

^jxi

nyiai no^nn

omx T-mn^
n"n

TDni fjnn a^n

-nno

mpo

'n

mpn
'x

3"nx Dyo pr x^x onoy

'n inn 'am?:) -i"-imj2

nrnn
pjxn

a": 'oy
''y-u'"'

no^-^:'

mDC'^p^Jo pn ins
^j^d -iy:n

"i"nn3
-inv
""13

wc'

nTi')

TC'y ^c
niB'y

ip nMi
-2 m-iD>

^JDJD

jnx

im

n^na yT"

d^jb'

p p
'b

T-c^n

i^

n^m

lyjni T'axQ

x^c

'n -iry n^n n^iyn

bb^n loxh V3x> T-n"

pjisni
^<^i

nn^n in^ni non

2ycD in"'32

^-jox ir:xi

V3xi niDi?
'n^D'yj
D'-j::'

my
Q'i^'"i

limb pi

Ti^'

i^^'""

-myi ohx xna

^nni ncB' Dip ninn^ pin

o-r^:' 'n:;^

^3 "-ntmn ab n':^rcf2
HNni ^^y n^jB'rD avj' n^n
^JD-'^ini
d'>l"j
^-j'

nyns

'a

fnix "yv^ ni2)i n-'m

xb 'nuiyn

bx
"^b

d^jc 'a jniX3 :ijyn m^ m'

rnc'

pen nan i"cn

Q'lb'
i?c'

onsDo

o^yn

onan
^ann

'^

D"'^3a

i:^\T

"^1:1

nninn no3 nn- nyn

my
nr

lyn)
^B^yroi

nn-^-na
for

nn^\n
x^
'3

P1n:^a1

n^n no

anm

^t2i3U'<3n

o^yinyn

onx ^c n-^^n

me naene
nniya
nn^

ny id^ ^d3
n^'>^i

ODniD m^inm
nr ^3

Dvn
nvpi

nn onx^e n^
-'

nixn nnx eim^ pn

^'C'lib

dv prn

nyoe
'n''\n

oninc nj3

'"eyo eiy
q:i

oninan n^nn ay

nnv ;nx imi

n^sxa niy3

i^iD^^ai

p"'y

mn

o'^re i^aiD

nnv nn^ vn nno

nr ^i?ji
'jdc

""n^Sn

on-'a-nai ""xx

nyn^a onoy ^nnan

nny.n "rya

jn xivoi?

n^^b )nx
r\'22

-j-n xin

nre "-nnen ynx

xh

-jx

on

man oe
)nx
yjjai

n\n

^nbxe

noxni

nmyn
nmi'y

nrejx nn^vn nn
""L'-iy

'rjDi

nne ^e nnanni nmpn ^e rm pnei ay^i on nmax loe nn

'jrx

nax^rsn

nny: nyn
exni
nx-ij

\s'jri

o^^-^n
'^

rx '3^3 ny3i

npn ono

proei nroi nro

mj
'*

pinoi n^33

nn

ibx

'b

nex

nin nyi

rxJo nijiyo
r""

inr

nenn x^e

D^e:

^e penn

.x"y

fop nyiD 'y

VOL.

VIII.

286
nny ny3i
n?:3no

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW myj ^du ni'^n n-n t!?v2 ^n^^^ \sti3 n-j'x tn ^2N nnyi any '3n "m:iyn nnyi n^iyn y^jy ^^ro K^na^ ^2V
"J'Jy
"i?

jnu
ti-'M

nrn a^iyn

^:!0

cna!? ii^m
ni?inh n"j\x
^^

n-j^wS

^is'j':

n^i

d^j2 "avj'm
;s

nym

3^pn\* rn> >Sn

ni

n^n

np^i?

dd

nr,v

^i^isi

ynx sb
n'C'an)
'""y

bx

^y n:yo nsvN 'nni i?y^

Nn'*L:'

nMriD* ^-n

nun

r\^r\r\

D*:3n

nr^D ppsra p-ona

^no^n 3"nN
':''PT
:

pid23 is Q'hni in p-'D nrx

'n j'sm
'"n^

"iynvj'

icx

n'^5*i

n*a

ipiDD
^3s

^^

piDS pirn!? ^s-j'x is

s^c' s
. .

'3s pn B^sio

(?)

D^m DS
nrs
^b

nyTD

s^

l'L>'cn

^mcy
ns-i"!

n-^i

'uinr

jn:

s:s-i2n ts
ni3-i

n^n ^'t

apy

-i"nn
':

'nt'nnn ocn
D'D'j'

spsnp p"p2
n't:c'
d-j*^

'rr'Mi

ho^oni
^*j^

nn\-3
"i^y

^n''^^"l

n^y^

nio-b

msani

np"'

^np^

nmynn^

'nil:) *m,^N:r

anmn

pn:)T
b'c 'bin nna.
."jira

nwc3i nnina

poiy nvn^

bnn'i>'n!>

^nin: n^:^

myn
"inv

's

msD
p p
P'inu'

i'sto

Dyt:^i P''mn^i pi:-isp2 pin-j*^ s^cj*

^mn:

D^rt' i"'

TT'^n-j^a
':')2

'2

.Tj'Esn 'SD
TK)

b
'-\

nijynn^ i^Nm

-d^

navj-n i"yn

nvn^ 'mn:

^n"'\nc'3

':

s^tr Dic^ iniN -n-inn 3"ns ^3s ni:ynn^

"imoc

jr^n icva

dv

.mscn niiio
b:ib
i-iiyr
':

-i2D pjD niyn^ n;:'rw' n?2

\-i"'s-i

s^i

\-iyn"'

as

'3

ovn

^un^

n^-j*

\-i-n: nyc^

s"n

^n'NTj'D

'n

nrs

IS Q-nnis

naa

Die 3"ss nss^on is nj^na is s^s invn

.nii'o

poy
'i

*nc "in'j'H

nniv^ nvn^

^nrrj'S'j'

-nn

'n^np r^n ny^>2 iiyi (j/V/)

.b']:bi2 i.Tnnnni

^riD-ini 'ni:iy3

Tinny 3"ns"j' D:n

s^"j'

1^1*3

dv
'r

.ns;n^ pi^b D'r; ^y bnoni^

tJiirm

^nm: my

S3

ns'^'^mi?

^ns^n
r"D

amp
nr^^n

laiipr^

nnv 2^2

\n-i3yj'D

my

'n

"nbap n'jn nju' P'd

amp
ly^^n

p"B'y ni rrni

unis yi3D^
ibi p?^sn^

niin ^bnji D"3?:nn

.

p?:sn'j' ^'t

nm

^3

d^-j'

D^"j'

3^3 nrn ns

-Tj'DS

Ds nuH np'b n3in

.

nnyh ;:3-n ^Jipn ^33 niv?r3 pnpnr3 nvniji Sncn^ ^n-n: std p"p3 >hn 'n^.Tj'3
\'mL"y
.

'u

N^'ir 'n*L"yi

nnnn 'mn's S3s

pi nrj-n svnc* cnip

-jnip iTH' n"w"y
''

D^rnp

a seventeenth-century autobiography

marx

287

Translation.
I
I

can trace

learned

my family tree for only from my grandfather Jacob

four generations.

that

his

father

Abraham ha-Levi had come to Bohemia from Poland as a young man possessed of considerable scholarly attainments.

He married
an orphan
his

in

Kolin, Bohemia, and died soon after the birth

of his son Jacob,

in

my

grandfather.

childhood, he did not

As the latter was know from which

left

city

father

had come and to what family he belonged.

My

grandfather married Lieble, the daughter of

Kalman

of Bisenz,

who was

the son-in-law of R. Eliezer Perels, the

author of the book Damesek Eliezer, a commentary on the

Sejer ha-Kanah^ as well as other works,

His son was

in

Moses Kuskes.
grandfather had

This whole family lived

Prague.
early,

My
and

only

my

father,

many sons, but they all died Abraham ha-Levi, and two
were spared.

daughters,

Rebekkah and

Pessel,

My

father devoted

liimself to the study of the

Torah

in hi.s

youth, being an
in

only son, and he showed acumen and

debates which brought him recognition

skill

talmudic

from

prominent

men and

scholars.

They married him

The
latter,

to a girl of a very

prominent family, Gnendel, the daughter of R. Jehezkel of

Clielm, in Little Poland.

my

grandfather, died in

Poland before the times of the terrible persecutions under

Chmielnicki,

and

my

grandmother, Nuhah, remained a

little

widow with three sons and two

told that she

daughters.

was

was a good,

energetic,

and clever woman,

and

supported her family comfortably up to the time

Poland, when she
fled

of the great uprising throughout

with them

to

Nikolsburg, Moravia, to

her brother, the

famous R. Menahem Mendel Krochmal, the author of the

U i

288

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

'

responsa

Semah Saddik

',

who was

then

Rabbi of that
In his house

community and of the whole of Moravia.

mother was brought up.

my

When

he died his son R. Judah

Loeb succeeded him, and he married

father,

my
if

mother to

my

and gave her a large

dowry

as

she had been his

own

daughter.

He

arranged the wedding splendidly, and

house.

my

father then brought her to his

in

At

the time

he lived

Meseritsch, Moravia.

My

grandfather, Jacob

ha-Levi, was then rich and prosperous.

his wife,

My
;

grandmother,

was very pious and

charitable,

and went every and so was

;

morning and evening to the synagogue

my

mother Gnendel even

in a

higher degree

she was, more-

over, a very intelligent

woman.

My

father continued to
after the

study the Torah.

in the winter, the

Three or four years

wedding,

Mohammedans and
it,

Tartars swept over

Moravia to destroy
to Bohemia.

and

all fled

in confusion

and terror

My

grandfather,

who was

a rich
little

man,

lost

nearly

all

his property, so that

but very

of their

fortune remained in their hands.

My

grandfather, his wife,

rest

two daughters, and

my

father and

mother with the

of the family remained in Bohemia.

to

They
secured

finally

came
as

Lichtenstadt,

where

my

father

post

an

elementary

Hebrew

teacher.

He

remained

there

for a few years, then

he returned and

found his house

ability in

entirely empty.

My

mother then showed her

supporting the family by her

own

efforts,

and started to

manufacture
as

brandy out of oats

in

in

copper alembic,

was the custom

those parts.

This was hard labour,

but she succeeded.

his studies.

In the meantime

my

father pursued

One day a holy man, R. Locb,

came
to

the Rabbi of

Trebitsch, whose authority extended over Meseritsch, where

my father

lived,

our town and stayed

in

our house.

A SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY AUTOBIOGRAPHY MARX

289

When

he saw the troubles of

her,

my

mother, his cousin, he

had pity on

and gave

my

father

some gold and

silver

merchandise, such as rings, to get him used to trade in an honest and intelligent way. My father was successful

and did a good business.

the acquaintance of the
latter liked

Incidentally this brought

city.

him

Count who owned the

'

The

him, and turned over to him the

in

Branntwein-

haus'

(distillery)

which they were working with seven

great kettles, and he gave

grain to prepare brandy.
at the

him servants
For
this

to

do the work and

father paid
in

my

him
was

end of the year a specified amount,

addition to

paying a certain percentage of the income

customary.

in taxes, as

From

that time he
first

became prominent.

My
poor

mother bore him

sons,
self,

a daughter

who

died,

then three

my

rich

and prominent brother Kalman,

my

and a son Moses, who died during the year

after his

mother's death.

When my mother
w^ork,

was

at last able to rest

from her hard

heat and the fumes of the brandy, and she died at the age of thirty-four years. There was no one in our town or outside of it who

she

fell

sick in consequence of the

was

like her in

wisdom, piety, and

charity.

She died on
I

a Sabbath, the 34th of lyar 5432

(May

21, 1672).

was

then four years old, and

course of the next year

my my

older brother seven.

In the

father married aeain a o-reat

lady, Freidel, the daughter

of R. Meir, the Shohet from

Vienna.

At

the same time he gave his sister Pe.^sel to his

brother-in-law

Samuel
wife of

for a wife, so

that they
still

exchange.
child

The

my

father

was herself

made an a young

who

did not

know how
little

to bring us up in cleanliness

as

is

necessary with

boys, nor could she properly

sick.

care for us

when we were

We

have to thank

God

ago

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Lieble,

and the help of our grandmother

daughters, that

and her good

so
little

we grew up

at all.

Even

Moses,

who

was only one year old, died.

After

my

mother's death

my

father began to strive for

prominence and power,

for as

long as

my

mother lived she

kept him back and reproved him as a mother does with

her son.
his
life

His father

also,

may God

forgive him,

was

all

hot-tempered and quarrelsome, and from him

if

my
in-

father,

may be

forgiven for saying so,

for

had partly

herited the

same temperament,

he was

still

young and
But
coin.

had not gone as an

he found
his

exile to foreign countries as I did.

match,

who

paid him back

in

his

own

For there arose against him wicked men with

father
his

whom my
under
the

had quarreled

for years,

and who had

fallen

power through
his

his influence with the

Count.

Now my

Count sold

property after three years and went to war

against the enemies in foreign lands.

in

He

left

father
;

the hands of another Count

who had bought

the town

but the latter was not as favourable to

former.
relied

my

father as the

My

father thought

it

was the other way, and he

These,

on a broken reed to combat his enemies.

however, were numerous and more cunning and

for

deliberate,

my

father at that time

was hasty

in all his actions,

and

sometimes transacted
counsel

his business without

taking proper

and consideration, and he planned great underit

takings to increase his wealth and honour, but

turned

out

the other way.

His enemies ruined

latter

his

reputation
in

with the Count.

The
'

made

charges against him

'

connexion with the

Branntwcinhaus

and other business

mattcrSj and put him into prison for

two months.

Since

the

first

Count was
father,

far

away, nothing could be done to

his wealth in

save

my

and he had to give up half

A SEVENTEFNTH-CENTURY AUTOBIOGRAPHY
Older to be released.
their revenge

MARX

291

On

this occasion his

enemies wreaked
fallen,

on him, saying, 'when the ox has

'

sharpen the knife

to expel

(Shabbat 32); and they urged the Count

with his old
did
so.

my

father, together

father Jacob,

from

his property.

The Count
money
at that

He

expelled

my

father in

Tammuz
I

5435 (1675), while

to

my

grandfather fled

in secret, for

he owed

many
in

gentiles

and could
old.

not

pay them.

was

time seven years

My

father found a

temporary shelter

the town of Humpoletz,

a town of wool-weavers, and he traded there for a year,

while

was cut

ofif

from study and good deeds and

left

to myself.

He

then went to a village, Wostrow(?), for

the Count had in the meantime returned from the military

expedition and bought this village, and

my

father followed

him
in

there.

As

for

myself,

was constantly going back

After

my

studies as well as in

manners and conduct.

a while

my

father decided to send

me

to Prague,

which
;

was a day's journey.

it

My
I

older brother was also there

old.

was winter then, and

did nothing, for

was nine years

There, too,
to arrange

my

father did not

in his

know how

matters properly, and

placed

endeavour to save money he

me

for a small

.sum in charge of a teacher,

I

who
if

took
I

little

care of me, while

needed great attention

were to be taught with any success.

At

that time

my
ate
in

power of comprehension and

a result of illness.
I

my memory
me, for
it

were weak as
I

was

full

of ulcers, and the meals

is

were very unwholesome

for

the custom

Prague to eat
little

at the

midday meal peas and

millet with a

butter,

which proved very injurious to mc.

But nobody

looked out
ni}-

for

me to give me

medical treatment.

Although

father
I

came

several times to

Prague he did not notice

Fleckeles,

this.

gratefully

remember R. Loeb

who gave

292

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

meals
in his

me

house and kept

me

for

about six months

for a small sum,

my

father paying him about six gulden

a month.

He

wished

me
five

to be a

companion
I

for his son

Simon who was then

him.

years old, and

helped him

by taking him to school and going over

his lessons with

At

that time

was very humble and ready to be

and
left

a slave to everybody,
If

to

do anything

was ordered.

my

father only
to

had

me

in this house, I

would have
little

become used
than

good manners and learned a

more

in the village of

Wostrow among the country

people.

My

father,
;

however, wished to save

money and took me

home

my

older brother was there at the time also.

us,

He

thought that he himself would teach

and

my

brother,

who

was thirteen or fourteen years old, actually learned from

literature,

him haggadic

such as Rashi and Midrashim, as

;

well as the laws of Shehitah

but

needed a special teacher. once or twice,

My father
though
I

started to teach

me Gemara Sotah

had never before studied Talmud or even Mishnah.

Thus
until

a long time passed

I

by without
in

my
I

learning anything,

became a thorn

my own
because

eyes and even more

so in the eyes of

my

father,

was a boor brought

up
and

in dirt
I

without any cleanliness,

for the lack of a

I

mother

remember

that at the age of eleven

ran around

barefooted and without trousers, and no one cared.

father then

My
him

had many

little

children, for his wife bore

I

almost every }car a son or a daughter.

if

am

sure that

anybody had announced

this

my

death to him at that time

for

he would have thought

good news,

he considered

me ignorant and good

was a burden
did
to him.
in

for nothing, so that

my

existence

My
I

brother was a strong boy

who

hard work

the slaughter-house and

otherwise useful, while

was oppressed by

all

made himself the members

A SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY AUTOBIOGRAPHY
of the house
;

MARX
;

293

everybody ordered nie around

In

this con-

tinued for two years, 5438-9 (i67(S-9).

54-10
in

(1680)

a plague broke out

in

Bohemia, and especially

Prague.

From

that city the Rabbi, R. Jacob Backofen (Reischer),

the author of

Minhat Jakob, came with

his wife Jettel

and

her sister Freidel, the daughters of the Rabbi, R.

Wolf ben
our house
of that

Rabbi Simon Spira

in the village.

and they stayed with us

in

I still

remember the great modesty

But

scholar

who was

willing to take the trouble to teach

his wife,

me

like a school teacher.

who domineered

over

him, did not permit him to carry out his good intention.
In the course of

Tammuz

fell

sick,

and the symptoms

of the plague
I

became apparent. For three days and nights

and was near death.

had high

fever,

Then
became

a swelling

broke out behind

fire,

my

ear on the neck which burned like

of the family
it,

and

all

the

members

frightened.

The Rabbi and

to the

his wife noticed

in

and

fled

from our house

then

house of his uncle

all

Wotitz.

The plague was

of

raging
a
'

around our
',

village,

and the Count established two rooms

in the

lazaretto

i.e.

a small

wooden house

midst of a big forest about a mile away from his

If

castle.

some one

fell

sick in
all his

one of the villages he was driven out

belongings, and had to go into that
set aside

of his house with

forest.

The Count had

around his

an open space some yards

in

wide

all

castle,

which only those living

the

castle were permitted to approach.

He

only kept very few

in

people

in
left

his
it

castle,

and enclosed himself

there,

and

never

with his people.

clever,

He

admitted no outsider

except
talk,

my father, who was

and with

whom

he liked to

and he wanted him to appear before him and stay

with him most of the day.

to act
in

He

had ordered

my

father

the

same way, and

to forbid his family to leave

294

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the house or to admit strangers.

if,

He

also told

him that
fall

God

forbid, a

member

of his
it,

own family should

sick,

he should not conceal

but of his

own accord should

leave the house and go with everything into the forest.

He

warned

my

father that

if

he were to find out that

my
it.

father

had concealed such a thing he would permit the

gentiles to burn the house

down

with

all

the inmates

in

When my
in his

father

now

realized

that he had

the plague

house he was very much upset, and did not know

to do.

what
to

To

carr}' out

the order of the Count and

go with

his family into the forest

would involve grave

to the inhabitants

danger, for the fact would become

of the villages,

known

who
in

are mostly wicked men, thieves,

and

murderers, lying
Jews.
in

wait for the blood and the property of

Even

in the cities

they love to oppress and rob them

greater then was the danger
in

their

houses,

how much
to

of iheir

coming

murder us
in

the forest.

He,

therefore,

decided to hide

me

the garret, asking his father Jacob

ha-Levi to take care of me, which he did, although he was

an old
Cither
in

man himself He tended me so carefully that no member of the household needed to come to the room
I

which

stayed, hoping that this perhaps might prevent

the plague from attacking others.

In this

way he

sta)-ed

with

me

about six days.

But one day slanderers came

to the

Count and reported they had seen

go together to other
there.

my

grandfather
lived in our

with another Jew, a certain Saul Pollack,

who

house with his

wife,

villages in

which

the plague was raging to trade

At once

the Count
at the risk

decreed the expulsion of both from his territory

of jeopardizing their lives if they should be seen there again.

Then my grandfather was compelled

on m)'
sick-l)ctl

to

lca\X'

me

alone

for

it

was dangerous

to hide, as they

would

A SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY AUTOBIOGRAPHY MARX

have searched been discovered
for
it

295

him

in

all

the

rooms, and

if

had
all.

would have involved danger

for

Therefore both had to leave the territory under the eyes of the Count. But God took pity on my suffering, seeing
that there was no one to attend to me, and sent

me

full

recovery,

and what was particularly

fortunate, the abscess

when there was no one to take care went down daily by the grace of God. For there happened to come to us the brother of my father's
of me. but
it

did not open again

wife,

R. Samson of Kamnitz,

who

told

my

father

how

to

prepare a plaster from the white of an egg with a alum, about the size of a nut. Both of these had
stirred quickly
solid.

little

to be

and carefully

in a little kettle until

it

turned

He

followed this advice.

I

The
it

plaster

was handed

to

me

from a distance and

put

on, although I

was only

a boy of twelve and sick, for

devise wa\s of

had been compelled to

Similarly

how

to take proper care of m}'self.

they brought

my
I

meals to the top of the

staircase,

and

put them down near the door of the staircase, which they
closed at once.

had to get up from

my
and

bed to take
at that time

them.
I

lay there alone

day and

night,

saw apparitions and dreamed dreams. That I remained was against the laws of nature. God in his mercy gave me strength so that I improved from day to day, the fever left me, and only the place of the swelling was burning
alive
like fire,

and

my

whole face was

red.

One

day, however,

our gentile neighbours,

to say to one another
:

who
'

noticed

my

absence, began
;

Sec what these Jews did

one

of their children evidently died of the plague, and they

have concealed

it.'

As
tell

trusty servants of the

Count we

ought to go and
Jews.

him. and take our revenge on the

famil)-.

When

this

rumour reached the ears of our

296

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

father cleverly ordered

my
the

me

to dress, to fold a linen

it

cloth around

my

neck, and put

on

in

such a

way
to

that

redness

could not be seen.

He
river,

urged

me

be

courageous, and asked

the
fields,

me

to

go through the garden, over

passing the houses
to ask

and to return along the

of the gentiles

and the
I

castle.

If

somebody were
I

me whence
Menain
home.
(?)

came
I

should answer that

was coming from

in

school, that

had stayed with a teacher

felt
I

the village of

two miles away, and had

did so and, thank God,

the desire to

come
like

ran and

jumped

a young deer, passed the castle and the village, and was
seen

by many
their

Christians,
failed.

who were

thus put to shame,

and

scheme
tell

Many
: '

of our neighbours

came

to the store to

my

father

Your son whom we thought

dead
but

has returned.'

He
minds.

answered them, 'You are dead,

we

live for ever';

in their

they almost revealed to him what

had been
cleverness

My

father further

showed

his

by teUing
nearest

my

older brother to put a ladder

to our fruit-tree in the

garden and ordering

me

to ascend
all

the

tree

the street
I

of the village so that

passers-by should see that

was

well.

He

also ordered

me
I
it
I

to be playful with the village-children, to throw fruits

into their faces,

and to

call

at

them and
heart

jest with
bitter.

them.

obeyed and laughed while

my
I

felt

Thus

was through God's counsel that the rumours stopped.

repeated this several times, but
often,
lest
I

could not appear before

in

them

they should notice the change

my

appearance, for

never used to go with a neckcloth before,

I

and now
from

it

was already some days since

had returned

my
his

journey.

Once

saw a gentile going before

me

with his hand on his cheeks, for he suffered from toothache,

and

face looked

drawn

jestingly remarked,

'

Woe

A SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY AUTOBIOGRAPHY
unto you,
this to
I

MARX
I

297
said

am

afraid

you

suffer

from the
I

plajjue.'

show how healthy and merry

order.

was, following

my

But he answered back, 'You have the plague yourself; remove that cloth from your neck, and
father's

the swelling will be seen underneath.'

hid myself, but

was frightened and

and mingled

God made
I

the gentiles blind and forgetful.

to the house

After a month
with

came down

my

brothers and sisters as before, participating in the

meals, and no one paid attention to
it.

common
in

grew

stouter and stronger after this.

In the year 5441 (1680)

the beginning of the

month

of Tishri, the plague stopped

in

Prague, but

in

the rest of

Bohemia
tired of

it

spread to such

an extent that people became

keeping away ifrom

one another.
of the castle

In our village
fell

many

even

among

the people

sick

and died.

My

sister

Leah,

who was

then six years old, got the swelling characteristic of the

plague, but
it

was not so dangerous, even though

public, since the

it became Count had become weary of taking pre-

cautions,

and

my

father did not

come

to him.

At

the end

of Kislew the plague stopped, but in

Heshvan the plague had raged around our neighbourhood, and many Jews died from it. In some villages all the male population died out,
and only a few women were
take charge of the dead,
left.

No

one was there to

it

who

could not be buried, for

was winter and the earth was as hard as marble, and there was a heavy snowfall in those parts so they only covered
;

often wolves came and ate the corpses, and sometimes dogs scratched the snow off the bodies. May God have pity on their souls, and may they be bound

them with snow, and

up

in

the bundle of

life

with the other righteous.

In

our house, thank

God, no one died.

Only the

aforeafter

mentioned Saul died from the plague two months

298

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the Count had expelled him, so that even this turned out
to our good, for in this

way he
in

did not die in our house.

In the winter of 5441 (1680-1), in the

month of Kislew,

a great column was seen

the sky towards east, which

for a

was very high, and remained

that
it

month.
called
'

Some
comet

claimed
',

was a natural phenomenon

in a

which

sometimes appears
explained
this
it

very cold winter, but the astronomers

it

in

various ways, and so

happened that

in

year a

new great world war

till ,54.58

(the Turkish war) started,

which did not end

In this winter
successful
in
all

(1698).

my
his

father

made

great profits, and

was

transactions

with various kinds of

I

merchandise.
to
I

From my own impulse

made up my mind
For
to us.

go to some Jewish community to study Torah.

his great his

was ignorant, and God had shown

father promised, but did not

mercy
I

My

keep

word;

often

saw guests

come

(with

he had promised to

whom my father went away) and take me with him to Moravia, but he
This happened several times, and the

changed

his mind.

obstacle was that the necessary clothing for

ready, as no one looked
father's wife

me was
little

not

upon me with kindness.

full

My
ones.

had her hands

with her
to leave
I

own

One
Pelz;

night before

my

father

was

was awake the

whole night sewing

for

myself sheepskins which are called

of a long
I

and

made a kind
for

gown

for

underwear, and
shirts

something
that

my

feet.

took secretly some

notice

so

my

father should
I

not

anything, and

before

daybreak
pared for
it

went to the place where the sleigh was prefather,

my

and stayed there.

When
he

he came
noticed

was

still

dark before daylight, and when

me

he thought the house-dog was there, and he wanted to

I

kick him away.

then said.

"

Father, this

is

thy son

who

A SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY AUTOBIOGRAPHY MARX

is

299
order

ready to serve thee on the way which

take

in

There were many strangers present, business men, who had come to buy wool. They saw my good
to study.'
resolve,

though

was very young, and urged

;

my

father

to take

me

along

they were sure

would become a great

had no proper

scholar and a good man.

it

My
me

father then answered that

was impossible to take

it

along, for
I

clothing and
ness,

was very

cold.

then showed

my

clever-

how

had prepared

for my.'-elf everything necessary for

the journey.

He
;

finally

agreed and took

I

me

along

but

the cold was so severe that several times

thought

was
it

going to die

the snow was falling and the wind blew

into our faces,

literally

and

it

caused

my

father great pain

if

was
and

like

the

sacrifice

of Isaac

when they

(he

Abraham) were on

the way, and as the Midrash (Tanhuma,

Vayyera, 22, Yalkut) tells us Satan brought them into the water up to their throat, &c. But those who are travelling
for the fulfilment of a

Misvvah suffer no harm (Pesahim

we reached Herschmanik. I was left there in house of a teacher, R. Jacob from Gaja, and he started to study with me Rashi, Midrash, other haggadic
Hb), and
the
texts,
I

He noticed that could not read properly through the fault of my first
who had not
instructed
I

and the Sayings of the Fathers.

teacher,

me

well.

The

little I

had

known

had forgotten, and

was

in great trouble, for the

new teacher was of an

composure nor

irritable

temper, and had neither

common

sense.

He

hit

me and

put

me

to .shame, but did not

make good my

deficiency,

and only

taught

me

the melodies for the readings from the Torah and

little

the Haftarahs and a

Fathers.
I

Haggada and

the Sayings of the

in the
I

asked questions and searched

haggadic

passages, but as he often laughed at

me

stopped.

This

300

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

was surely a grave mistake, but the teachers are fooHsh,

and do not reaUze the harm they do.
I

remained with him from Adar

i,

5441 (1681)

till

the
first

middle of Tammuz, boarding

in his house.

During the
gave

two months, when he had

to slaughter calves, he
liver,

me

good meals, the spleen and part of the

the time
of slaughtering
calves
for

but when

had passed,

my

meals

became worse and worse,

themselves and gave

poor though he was, he was

rather fastidious, and he and his wife ate the good things

me

coarse village bread, which caused

I

me

severe headaches and stomach trouble.

;

was there

all

alone with no relative near

all

the townspeople noticed

;

my

appearance and questioned

me

if I

had told them

it

might

have helped a

little,

but
I

was very modest and humble

it

and God-fearing, and

against

thought

would be a

sin to rebel

my

teacher.

In the middle of

Tammuz,
came
in

while the

teacher was

away from home,

my

father

company

with his brother-in-law, Samson, and stayed for some time

in the town.

His brother-in-law had a son Sender, who

studied together with

told

me and knew
Sender and

all I

my

troubles.

He

my father everything, and

father

although

contradicted him,

my

believed

took

me away from

Herschmanik and brought me to Meseritsch,

place,

my

birth;

where

all

my

family on

my

father's side lived

I

here

my

two aunts were married, and

had

my

meals

in

the

house of
brother

my aunt Pessel of my stepmother.

and her husband Samuel, the

There was

also there a
I

good

and

intelligent teacher,

Mordecai from Brod.

went to
;

minyan (became Bar-Miswah) on Sabbath Nahamu

furnished

they

me with new
I

clothes,

and boys of the same age who

knew more than

did were jealous of me.

They

could

follow the teacher in the study of Talmud with Tosafot which

A SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY AUTOBIOGRAPHY
I

MARX
first

301

know before, and only began for the study here. They were younger and went in
did not

time to

torn clothes

and

rags, as

it

was usual

in

those parts.

Therefore they

annoyed me and
I

tried to disgrace

and

insult

me, so that
of the

became almost weary of

all

my
;

life.

The women
I

community
treated
jealousy.

praised

me

because
that

was modest and

them with

respect

was another cause of

Their parents also were jealous of

my

father

and myself; some of them were really bad, one Aaron, the
son of Berl Pollack,
for his
I

am

sure
I

is still

hated by the people

to observe
lunatic,
is
;

wicked deeds, which

had occasion

the

other,
I

Jonathan ben Lipman ben David, a big

now,

believe, a scholarly

man. Sometimes he would be friendly

with me.
to study
I

My

intentions were to devote myself exclusively

and good deeds, but there were many obstacles

I

suffered from sickness^

had

boils

on

my

whole body and

ill-mannered,

headaches,

my

schoolmates were wild and

flattered us

and our teacher

himself; what
I

and never w-anted to exert

tutor, but

needed was a regular

he never

employed
taught

assistants, nor did

he take pains himself.

He

me

little

part of Kiddushin.

At

the end of the

summer he

left

the place, and the

community engaged

in his place the pious R.

Lazar

of Cracow,

who was married

gifted

to a pious, sensible, intelligent

all

woman, and

with

good

qualities.

He

taught us

Talmud and
a virtuous

Tosafot,
life.

she taught us the fear of

God and

He
who
had
Still

took great pains to teach me.

May

he be praised and

rewarded

for

it.

He

of

all

my
I

teachers was the one

gave

me

the key and taught

after,

me more

than

all

those

before or

except what
far

studied for myself

for

the whole situation was

failed to

from satisfactory,

he too
sick
;

employ an

assistant,

and sometimes he
I

fell

he was also very

VOL. vni.

irascible,

while

suffered from headaches

302

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

In the

during the whole winter.

summer 5442
Blumele;

(1682) the

old teacher returned with his wife

they had

no children, and

flattered

the pupils and their parents.

of Hullin and small treatises

We
of

learned with him a

little
;

Moed

without Tosafot
little

moreover,

already began
I

to study a
in

Talmud

for myself.

Altogether

stayed

Meseritsch two years and

two months.

Then many

Jews from Moravia came to

Meseritsch, Trebitsch, and

Polna on account of the war, for the Turks came to

besiege Vienna.
I

then returned to our house at Wostrow,

in

and stayed there the whole winter

than ever.
treated

greater discomfort
older brother,
till
ill-

Everybody, including
;

my

me

was

still

sick and looked bad

fifteen, I

the winter

had passed.

Then, at the age of

life in

went to Prague,

with no knowledge of the

spite of this
I

a large
in

community.

In

found maintenance

the house of a rich

little

man. Moses Ginzburg, w^ho had two

really

boys.

They

needed a tutor better

in

fitted

than
I

was

to guide
tried this

them

study and understanding.

onl\-

had never

before,

and could

stay with them a short time.

Then

God

sent

me

a happy chance, for the scholarly, acute, and

pious R. Mordecai, the son-in-law of the

of Nikolsburg.
pupil, Sinai

Dayyan R. Perez who taught me without pay, had another

ben Isaiah Wagenmacher, a boy ten years of

better

age,

who knew

how

to

behave than

did, the only son

of rich parents, fondled and spoiled.

By

the help of

God
his

he did not rebel against me.

studies with him.
their house

had only to go over

His parents were charitable people;

street {ghetto),

was outside of the

;

on a large
I

pleasant place

there

gained strength and health.

;

lived

with them about two years

I felt

as

if I

dwelt amid roses,

as in those
for

and never
years.

in

my

life

did

feel

as

happy

two

But unfortunately no one looked out

me, and

A SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY AUTOBIOGRAPHY-MARX
I
fell

303

in

bad company.

They

talked to

mc

constantly

about women, and led

set of

me

in their

ways.

We
was

young men, of

were a bad

different ages, wasting our time with

girls,
is

useless things
I

and fooling with

to think that this
entire time

as

their hab-'t
life

finally

came

smce during the

the whole aim of

we never spoke

of anything

but of following the inclinations of the heart. part of my days I spent with

The

greater
lived

my

young

friends

who

an immoral

life.

Among them

twenty-three years old,

of my father

were some who were over and had more Talmudic knowledge

simplicity that the purpose of good manners was to find favour in the eyes of the girls, and that this is

I. Therefore, with the consent joined them and followed in their footsteps like the blind in the dark, thinking in my

and better manners than

I

human happiness
I

in one's

youth.

Even

in

the

house vvhere
in

lived

the

workmg men who were employed

young

building carnages for

the noblemen were a bad sort; their ringleader was a certam Abraham Bass, who was boisterous and wild so that I was under evil influences from
all

sides.

more passionate

was

I be now if my father had then given would have raised a large family, no doubt, m my early life, and would now have been in a position to retire from all worldly affairs.

How

at that time than ever again in

my

life

happy should
I

me

a wife.

Now,

unfortunately,

am

devoid of wisdom and

I

intelli-

do not know whether, after would not be better for me to marry; possibly I might have pious children and a capable wife who would be a help to me. I wait for an answer from God, that he notify me by a sign or a dream or a verse, of which I might think when I wake up, or which a child might X 2
all,
It

gence, without sons and spouse. affans of this worid, but I

wish to retire from the

304

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

I

answer when

ask for

its

lesson.

May

be successful

according to the wish of God.

Amen.
we gain
a few
in his

Our

author's account stops here, but

later
life

facts of his
little

through some of the entries

note-book.

At

the age of seventeen he went, without

his father's knowledge, to a city the

legible.

name

of which

is

not
of

The expense he defrayed with

a small

sum

distress

money provided by his grandfather. He was in great when twenty he went to Cracow, where he began
;

to repent his

mode

of

life

and to study more seriously.

autobiography, he went around
life.

But, as he intimates

in the

much

farther in the course of his

From
in

list

of

resolutions he had
his recovery

made
later

at various times, beginning with

from the plague, we see that

;

1695 he

left

Corfu

for

Venice

he stayed at

Pisa,

where he vowed
if

to get married in the course of the year

possible
find

this,

he adds, he did after some delay.

Again we

him

in

Zante selling

Tefillin

and Mezuzot. correcting the Sefer

in

Torah, and delivering a Derashah

the synagogue, but he

was the object of

with

raillery

on the part of the innkeeper

whom

he stayed, until a certain Judah

Modona took

him

into his house.

Even then the innkeeper persecuted

into trouble because he

him and brought him

had slaughtered
off.

fowl, but at this point the account breaks

Evidently

he had become a Sofer, and therefore also we find the

records of the purchase of parchments at the end of the

volume.

We
it

do not hear
is

an}-

more about our

hero, but his

further fate

of no material importance to us.

Of

course,

would have been interesting to read

vi.sitcd,

his impressions of

the various communities he

but this would hardly

equal the (juaint account of his younger years.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF DON HASDAI CRESCAS

Bv Meyer Waxman, New
York.
mediaeval

With
thinkers,
lies

Hasdai Crescas, the

list

of Jewish
;

worthy of the name,

closes

but his

importance

rather in his

position.

He

is

own among

originality than in his chronological

the few Jewish philosophers

critical

who
It is

exhibited originality of thought,

acumen, and

logical

sequence, combined with a profound religious feeling.

rather the irony of fate that this philosopher,
in

who

surpasses

depth and power of analysis even Maimonides, should have received rather slight attention at the hands of the
historians

of Jewish thought.

dealing with Crescas are

The books and articles few in number. The book by

perhaps the largest and best
it

M.

Joel, Cliasdai Crescas,

;

is

of them

but, with all its merits,

fails

to present a
It
is

com-

prehensive view of Crescas's thought.

therefore the

hope of the present writer that the attempt

in

the following

pages to present a systematic treatment of the philosophical conceptions of Crescas will be welcomed by students of the
history of Jewish thought in particular, and of philosophy
in general.

The method adopted

problematic one
in
;

in

treating the
it is

subject

is

the

chiefly because

the most elucidating

dealing with

a subject as
ours,
'

of

philosophico-theological

character such
Crescas,

and

also

because the work of

Or

Adofiai,

The Light
is

of God,' lends itself to

such treatment, since

it

primarily a book on dogmatics

305

306

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

and follows the usual division into dogmas.

interest

As

the main
of

of this study lies in

the

philosophic aspect

Crescas's thinking, only such problems have been included

as

have a philosophic bearing, while

all

purely theological

questions have been excluded.

discussion

For

this reason, all detailed

concerning creatio ex

nihilo,

wherein Crescas
are omitted.

opposes Gersonides with great

critical ability,

Broadly speaking, the study

is

divided into two parts corre-

sponding to the two central ideas around which the problems

group themselves,
the

viz.

ia)

God,

{b)

God and
in

the world the

various

problems themselves

being

treated

chapters and subdivisions.

The

T.

theses laid

down

in this

study are the following

critical

Crescas

holds a

prominent place as a

examiner of some of the important Aristotelian conceptions

such as space, time, and the
decidedly modern
in
spirit,

infinite.

His criticism

is

and some of

his anticipations

and theories were

of

later fully corroborated

by the founders
anticipations,
in

modern philosophy and cosmology. These

together with his revolt against Aristotelianism

an age
his

when
work.

it

was all-dominating, prove the high character of

Moreover, his thoughts on
this

subject were not

entirely restricted to a small circle of readers of

Hebrew,

but also found their way to the external world.

therefore, that the seeds

It follows,

sown by Crescas are not only

fruit,

valuable
this

in

themselves, but have borne

is

though how
is

was accomplished

not known.

It

extremely

difficult to trace

the path over which thought travels.

to point out the

2.

The study intends

mental proximity

between Crescas and that great Jewish thinker Spinoza.

An

attempt has been made to draw a sketch of Crescas "s

positive philosophy, which has been

compared

at

each step

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

with that of Spinoza's system.
in

WAXMAN

307

Great care was observed

avoiding

final decisions in

regard to the influence of the

former upon the

is

latter.

Unfortunately, the term influence

often misunderstood to
least a

mean

either a direct
If
is

borrowing
is

or at

kind

of

imitation.

influence

to

be

interpreted in a broad sense, and

to

imply the existence

of a

number of points

of contact, and the supply of a certain

in

motive power or impulse

a definite direction by one

system upon another, such an influence of Crescas upon

Spinoza probably
advisedly,
for
exists.

The word probably

is

used
us in

the

evidence at hand only

justifies

using the term influence with this qualification.

Crescas, however,
is

only an indirect

critic of Aristotle

through
of

his attack

on Maimonides' proof of the existence

attributes

God and

theory of
principles.

which
is

embody
in

the

Aristotelian
elucidate

Hence
turn

it

that

order to
general
first.

Crescas's

contribution
to

to

Jewish and

philosophy

we

have

to

Maimonides

Maimonides
found

collected

twenty-six propositions, which are

scattered through the Physics, Metaphysics, and

De

Coelo,

and on these as a basis he reared

his philo-

sophical theology.
in full,

Crescas reproduces these propositions

at length their proofs

and even quotes

which were

omitted by Maimonides, and then launches his criticism

not only against Maimonides but against Aristotle himself.
It

was rather a bold attempt

for those

times (end of the

fourteenth century) to dare to criticize Aristotle, but he

pursued
in

it

with unflinching persistency.

full

It

is

necessary,

order to have a

comprehension of
in
all

Don

Hasdai's

philosophy, to follow him

Aristotelian
physics.

the intricate mazes of

Wc

will,

therefore,

quote the pro-

positions verbatim.

3o8

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

CHAPTER

Maimonides' Proofs of the Existence of God.

Criticism and Objection of Crescas.
I.

Infinite

magnitude does not

exist. ^

This proposition
all.

is

a fourfold one, and the most important of

its

It will

be

discussed in

four aspects, together with the proofs

II.

and

Crescas's objections.
infinite

The simultaneous
of finite

existence of an
is

number of bodies
is

magnitude

impossible.^
for
if

This proposition

simply a corollary of the

first,

the

existence of such a

number of bodies would be

infinite

possible,

the

sum

of

all

would give us an
III.

magnitude, and this

is

has been proved unreal.

regressus, that
is,

There

no

infinite causal

the series of causes that lead up to the

is

present world of things a beginning.^'

IV.

not
is

infinite,

but must have had

Change

found

in four categories, that

;

of substance, quantity, quality, and that of place

corre-

sponding respectively to the categories,

we have

generation

and corruption

(ya^eo-f?

Kal

^6opd), growth and decay,

spatial.*

qualitative change,
is

and locomotion or

V. Motion

a change from the potential to the actual.^ VI.

'

Movement

-\pc'
II,
II,
I
;

)b

1904.

first

n^^Dn pN nnx -^1y:^ !?ya mx^voty, Moreh Ncbukim, wiina, hakdamah; Guide of the Perplexed, Eng. tr. by Friedlander,
5, 7, ed.

Part

Physia, HI,

Prantl.

Greek and German,

Leipzig. 1854;

Melaph., XI, 10.

2

Guide,

ibid., p.

Physics, ibid.

'B'i'-j'n

naoi
"lp:^

/t^6::

':c'n

n3Di /rj* hyc in^o b^n tit H'

X^ ^N
i
;

T\ir\

^DU'n
II.

-INUD
<

DJ nr ^n^^^n

*y'3"1. Guide,

ibid.-,

Mctaph.,

Guide, ibid.; Physics, III.

Physics, HI.
i
;

Mctaph.
9.

XU.

2.

Mftn/^h.

XI,

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

is

WAXMAN
of

309

of four kinds, essential, accidental, forced, and partial/'

Essential

movement means
its

the

movement

body-

according to
to the

nature and essence.

Accidental pertains

movement

of an accident, such as the

movement

of blackness in a body from one place to another, blackness

being only an accident.

By

the partial

is

meant the move-

is moved, but with reference to that part, such as the movement of a nail

ment

of a part of a

body when the whole

the

in a ship,

which

is

moved by

movement
different

of the ship as

a whole.
refers to

Partial

movement, as

from accidental,

such things as are bodies for themselves, but are

attached

by

artificial

means
all

to

another body.

Forced
are

movement
unnatural.

includes

kinds

of

movement which

According to Aristotle, each of the elements

it

has a natural place whither

direction
is
is

tends.

A
;

movement

in

that
fire

natural

thus the natural

movement

of

upwards and of earth downwards

the opposite
direction
is is

but a movement

in

unnatural.

The movement

of a stone upwards

contrary to nature, and can be

accomplished only by the force exerted by the thrower.

VII. Whatever changes
divisible
this
is

divisible,
is

and whatever

is

not

does not move and

no

bod}-."
is

Aristotle proves

by explaining

that every change

an intermediary

state

between two opposites,^ or between a tcruiinns a quo

qiievi
;

and a tcrviinns ad

therefore, a bod}' in the state

of change must necessarily be divisible, and since

is

movement
moved
is

a kind of change,

it

follows that whatever

is

divisible,

and also the converse.

VIII. Whatever moves

/a p^n, Moreh,
^

II,

3; Physics. VIII.

4.

To

h\

yara^aXKov
b.

dirav dvayKT] Siaiperui' thai. Physics, \'l. 4.

Metaph. 1069

310

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

This
is

accidentally will ultimately rest of necessity.^

based

on Aristotle's conception of the accidental which

it

identifies

with the possible. Whatever

is

possible

must of necessity

become
phases,
exist,

actual in infinite time.

e. g.

Every possible has two

it

possible of existence,
exist.

is

possible for

it

to

and possible not to

Both of these two

if

possi-

bilities

must be
is

realized in an infinite time, for

not, the

thing

either

necessarily

existing

or

necessarily nonit

existing.

Likewise, the possible of

ultimately
rest, for

movement when

does

move

will

the opposite must necessarily

is

be realized.

IX.

body moving another body

others

itself

moved
strive.

at the

same

time.^'^

This, however, does not include

such things as
It

move

by being an end

to

which things

was on account of

this fact that Aristotle

made

the

unmoved mover
first

the end of existence, for otherwise

cause.

he could not be a

The mediaeval
towards

philosophers,

however, had some difficulty with this proposition.

The

magnet attracting

iron

and moving

it

itself

seemed

to form an exception to the rule laid

tion.^^

down

in

the proposi-

Various answers were given but are too absurd to

reproduce.
is

X. Whatever pertains to body, either the body

it, e.

the stay of

g. accidents,

or

it is

the stay of the body,

as form.^-

XI.

Some

things that have their stay in the

is

body
are.

are divided

when the body

divided, as accidents

Some

things that are the stay of the body, e.g. soul,

are not divided.'^

XII. Every force pertaining to body

is

'

Physics. V, 3.

'o

Ibul..

VllI,

5.

yyi:n^ vh^
'*

VVS

in2*w"f2'*J*2.

Or.;<yo;M/,
ri\-in-j'

c<l.

Vienna,

p.

b.

,--i"iV3

D'^':n
II,

m^'^y
;

in ^nnp'::: wz'ii 'nT'cv

lo.

nMni" cn

JT^yDOri) Motcli,

/'/lysir^,

VIII.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

finite,

WAXMAN
it

31I

since

body

is finite.^*

XIII. All kinds of changes

only the

are not continuous, except spatial motion, and of

circular.^^

XIV.

Spatial motion
in time.^*'

is

the

first
is

of

movements

both

in nature

and

XV. Time

an accident of

motion, and both arc so related that they exist simultaneously.

There

is

no movement but
is

in time,

and whatever
is

has no movement
a

not in time.^^
fall

XVI. Whatever
either
is

not

body does not

under the category of number.^*

as

XVII. Whatever

is

moved has a mover,

XVIII. Whatever

an

external force or as an internal tendency which

of the movement.^^
in
is

the cause

being realized

passing from the potential to the actual, the cause of

is

the realization

external

by

necessity.^'^

It

could hot be

inherent in the thing

itself, for in

that case the thing would

never be possible, but always existing.

XIX. Whatever
of
existence.

has a cause for

its

existence
is
is

is

possible

XX. The
cause.
its

converse,

what

necessary of existence has no

composite, the composition
is

XXI. Whatever

cause of existence, and

therefore possible, as evidenced

is

from above.

XXII. Body
and
is

composed of matter and form

accidents

by

necessity,

the

bearer of some
is

by
the

necessity.
possibility

XXIII. Whatever
is

possible,

even

if

internal,
for

and the thing does not need any

yet
it

external force

realization,

is

possible that
is

it

should not
'*

exist.'-^

XXIV. Whatever
15

is

potential

material.

Ibid.
Ibid.,

Physics, VIII, 8.

"
^*

VIII,

7.

"
vh
fjlJ

Ibid., IV, 12.

piD

b^tt'V

1J''XK'

T\'0

b'2,

literally,

in
8.

whatever

is

not

a body enumeration cannot be conceived, Metaplt., XII,

II,

9; Physics, VII,
20

I.

Metaph. XII,

2.
I

"

In the translation of this proposition

have followed Hasdai Crescas's

312

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

elements of a composite body are matter and

XXV. The
them.

form, and therefore a

body

is in

need of an agent to unite

are eternal. --

XXVI. Time and motion

The Logical Consequences of the

Propositions.

In basing his proofs of the existence of

God and

the
first

theory of attributes, Maimonides does not start from the

proposition, but

on the contrary from the twenty-fifth.

is

This proposition, which

in turn
is

based on the twenty-second

which states that a body

the
fifth

composite by necessity, and on

which defines the nature of motion as the process

:

of realization, says

Every composite body

Since
all

in

order to

become needs a mover.

world are composite,
or movers.
it is

bodies in the perceptible

necessary to look for their causes

infinity,

This series of causes cannot go on to

as has been demonstrated in the third proposition.

in

Again,

regard to movements,

we found

in proposition
is

IV

that

there arc four kinds, and of these locomotion

as

the earliest,

shown

in

proposition

XIV, and the

of the
fir.st

circular the

most

perfect.

The movement
all

sphere

is

then the

cause of

movement

in this

world.

However, by the same

force of reasoning

we

are compelled to search for the

mover
that

of this sphere.
a

We

have seen
either

in

proposition

XVII

body may be moved

by an external cause or an
:

interpretation in 'n TIN*. 12b,

where he says
nihw*

nXf llS^^a
.idinw*

\:b

nii~\'''C'

HCI

Nin N"inn nnc'DNni

"ib'ND

nm

nsa
1:^0

no ^3

no

*23

nonpnn

icvya

nnc'iiwxnL"
-iL"i:N"i

nm

n^i sin nnL"5snL" nn iDvya

icvya -iU'ds nM^L" nrrsn
i:r:rr

nn-j'SNn n^n^tr

'ib

2^\:'^^

n^n'^'-c

\s:n2 "T'Dw^L" TnL'"L"3

TJ'DSL"

ir^NTi

iKs3

;in

imn

n^n:

rh

DL*'j
-2

^apcn

n\-i'L".
I.

F/iysics. VIII,

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

internal one.

WAXMAN
of the
first

313 sphere

The

cause of

movement

cannot be inherent

in itself, since
is

by proposition
and thus
it

XXVI we
is

know

that

movement

eternal,

infinite

the moving force of the

infinite^

first

sphere then would have to be

It

but this

is

impossible.
;

was shown
first

in

proposition
is

that no infinite

body exists
it

the

sphere then

a finite

body.
it

But as such
in

cannot have any

infinite force, for

finite

was proved

proposition XII that no

it.

body can
that the

have an
cause of

infinite force inherent in

It follows
is

movement

of the

first

sphere

an external one.^^

We

have, then, established the proof of the existence of

It

a prime mover.
shall

must be the prime,

for otherwise

we

have an

infinite causal series.

The

nature and character of the mover can also be

deduced from the same propositions.

The

external prime

mover cannot be
proposition,
sarily
it
it

corporeal, for then, according to the ninth

would be moved while moving, and necesits

would require another body as

but this
is
it

mover, and thus

ad

infijiitiun,
it

impossible (prop. III).

is

Again,

since

is

incorporeal

also

unmoved,

for

movements

are either essential to bodies or accidental, and the prime

mover not being a body does not move

or accidentally.
divisible

either essentially
it

Further, since
for,

it

is

unmoved

is

also in-

and unchangeable,
is

according to proposition VII,

whatever

not divisible does not

it

the converse of

being equally true.

move and is not From the

a body,
force of

the same conclusions follows also the unity of the prime

" hhin

nyij'n^ n:it:'N-in

r\-yor\

n\nni;'
^'-l.

nvin

nr

'2^

m^nn Tnn^

npl^nn innn'-nC' IOD hhv\

h^y:

The word ^naJ here means

MorcJt,

not only external but incorporeal.

But

for the sake of clearness of thought

II,

>we prefer to treat of the incorporeality in the next paragraph.

13 b
;

Guide, p. 16.

314
mover.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

There
is

only one, for in accordance with proposiis

tion XVI, whatever

in a

neither a

body nor a

force inherent

body does not

fall

under the category of number.

We

have then established the existence of God, His incorporeality, indivisibility, immutability,

and unity. 2*

Maimonides quotes

also several other proofs

borrowed
It is

from Aristotle's works, one from the Metaphysics.

the one mentioned above.

There must be an unmoved

mover,
a thing

for since

we

find a

moved mover, and we

also find

moved and not moving, it follows that there must be an unmoved mover as it is proved that when we find a thing composed of two elements, and then we find one
;

element alone,

it

follows that the other element

must
is

also

be found alone. from the

above.^^
fact

The
that
it

nature of the
is

first

cause
the

deduced
as

unmoved,

in

same way

In his third proof,

Maimonides follows

closely the
vi.

Aristotelian found \w

Metaphysics, book XII, ch.

There

must be one substance necessary of existence, otherwise

the world of things would be destructible.^^
proposition
is

The

third

again utilized, for there cannot be an

Since
it

infinite

regressus of possibles.

is

necessary of existence

through

itself

it is

incorporeal, for according to proposition

XX
The

I,

the composition of a

body

is

the cause of

its

existence.

rest of the qualities follow necessarily.

Maimonides

quotes also a fourth proof which adds nothing new, but

repeats the

same argument
13 b 14 a
Guide, Guide,

in a different form.

Maimonides

*<

Moreh,
Moreh,

II, p. II, p.

II, p. 16.

28
2

II,

pp. 17 sq.
\'\''!!r\

1DD

nnoDJ

n>"in

nisvDJ v^'c ins

nra niDni

Tnn^ a^N

mx^vcn TinD

sin

^3^

^b n
II,

nosn nn^'SN px nosa

vh'\

mm

niN-VOn -IITDX N^, Moreh,

15

a.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

produces two more proofs
these two, one
is

WAXMAN

315

for

the oneness of God.

Of

mentioned by Saadia and Bahia.

Suppose

there were two Gods, there would have to be at least one point of difference between them and some points of
similarity in as far as both are Gods.

This would involve the existence of two elements in the nature of the Gods

and thus they would be composite. The second proof is from the harmony and uniformity of the sum total of
existence.

This bears evidence to the oneness of God. If there were two Gods, there ought to be either a division
testifies

of labour or collaboration, for the interdependence

to one plan.

But the

first

is

impossible, for then

God

would not be

all-potent, and, consequently, there

;

would be
contrary

a cause restraining the Divine power

to the concept of

but this
is

is

God.

This argument
it

also brought

by

Saadia, but Maimonides gives

a more Aristotelian

form.^^

In comparing Maimonides' proofs with the proofs of those who went before him, we see that, while he did not contribute much originality to the problem, he at the same time systematized and arranged the proofs in complete
logical order,

which made them convincing.

Most of the

antecedent philosophers either omitted some links in the logical chain, such as the impossibility of an infinite causal
regressus, or hinted at
clear.
it without making their thoughts Maimonides, as a careful builder, included everything. In regard to Aristotle, he exhibits himself a faithful

follower,
arrives.

without accepting the conclusion

at

which he

" Moreh,

II,

i6a-b; Guide,

p. 23.

3l6

the jewish quarterly review

Proofs of the Aristotelian Propositions.

Aristotle proves that the infinite does not exist either
as a separate

independent thing, or as a sensible thing, or

as

movable.

The

infinite,

says Aristotle,
it

may be

of

several kinds, either such that

is

not in

its

nature to be
or such

measured or passed through, as the voice

is invisible,^^

one that cannot be passed through on account of

It is

its extent.'^^

the last kind of infinite that the discussion turns on,

for the first

kind of

infinite

cannot be a principle nor an

infinite

element.
as a thing
divisible.

There cannot be a separate independent

by
If

itself, for it

must be
it

either divisible or ininfinite

it is

indivisible,

cannot be

except

in

the

same way

as the voice
it

is

indivisible,
;

which

is

a quality

that does not belong to

by nature
But

but

we speak of an
it

impassable

infinite,

which implies extent, and thus

if
it

is

coupled with magnitude.

is

divisible,
if it is

it

is

quantity and cannot exist by

itself.

Again,
it

divisible
infinite,

and exists as a substance, every part of

and
one.
this
It
is

will

be

absurd, for there cannot be

many
it is

infinities in

must, therefore, be indivisible, but

itself.

magnitude,

and magnitude does not exist by

be an accident, but then
separate,''^
it

It

must, therefore,
nor a

is

not

principle,

There cannot be an

infinite

body

first, it

is

impossible
it

by the mere

definition of a

body which describes

bounded by
cli.

to

be
this

a thing that has superficies

28

planes,

and

Physics, III, 5

Mclat-lt..

book K,

x,

"
1882.

Spinoza, in his Ef>istola XII, Opera, ed.

Van Vloten and Land, Hague.

the
first

makes

similar distinction,

calling

infinite,

the second

indefinite.
30

Physics, 111, 5

Mctaph., book K,

cli.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

already implies finitude.
crete arguments.

WAXMAN

317

There

are,

however, more conneither simple

An
if

infinite

body could be

nor composite, for

the elements are

finite,

one at

least

must be

infinite,

and then the others

will

be destroyed

since the infinite element

If all

must surely have most potency.

which

the elements were infinite, the infinite body would

be composed of
it

many
it

infinities,

is

absurd.

Simple

cannot be, for

is

not of the four elements, since they

are all finite

and there are no other elements beside them.

could

Again,

how

anything

be

created,

for

becoming

implies change from one contrary to another, and infinite

has no contraries.

It

is

evident,

therefore,

that

there

cannot be a simple
Further,
if

infinite
is

body.
body,
it

there

an

infinite

must have weight,

whether

light or heavy, but this is impossible, for the light

has neither an
is in
is

moves upwards and the heavy downwards, but the infinite up nor a down Again, since every body
' ' '

'.

place, infinite

body must have

infinite place,

but there

not any infinite place, since there are six kinds of place,
Finally, since
is

the up and the down, &c.

place,

body must be

in

and the

latter

by

definition

the limit of the sur-

rounding body, body must be

It is also
infinite,

finite.^^

impossible that there should exist a moving

in rectilinear fashion or circular.

whether moving

Every body has a

and the whole
cannot
is

definite place,

and the place of the part

infinite

the same.

Consequently, an
it

body

move

rectilinearly, as

is

composed

either of like

parts or unlike parts.

for the place of the part
infinite.

If of like parts, no part can move,

is

the place of the whole and

it

is

If of unlike parts, the parts

;

must be
infinite in
cli.

either finite

or infinite

if finite,

then at least one

;

is

magnitude,

"

r/iysics, III, 5

Metaph., book K,

x.

VOL.

VIII.

3l8

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

this
is

and

impossible.^^
infinite

If

they are infinite

in

number,
is

then there are an

impossible,""

number
moving

of places, but this

Again, an
it

infinite
its

body must have

is

infinite

weight, and because of

unthinkable.

The
It

heavier a

body

is

the less

the time

in

which

it

moves.
in

follows that an infinite bod}- must either

move
if

no time
it

or the

now
The

',

which

is

the same, or that

we

posit for
in the

some time we
time.

will find a finite

body moving
is

same

relation of time

and weight

a reverse one.
possible
in

Now
same

if vv^e

posit some time for the

infinite, it is

to find a finite

body

of

whatever weight moving

finite
is

the

time.

We

have then a
:

and

infinite

body moving

in the same ratio of time

this

contrary to the principles

the

of motion.

Still

more,

if

we multiply
is

body of

finite

weight,

it

will

move

in less

time than the body of

absurd.
of an infinite

infinite

weight, but such a supposition

Likewise, the circular

possible, for
if

movement
is infinite,

body

is

im-

the circle

the radii are also infinite

and the distance

completed and

infinite

the circle then would never be

the

distance

never

measured

through.

Again, the time of the revolution of a

the distance in this case
distance
is

circle is finite,

but

infinite;
finite

how then can

infinite
it

be

traversed
for the

in

time?"''
cither

Finally,

is

impossible
or

infinite

to be

an active agent

patient.

The

relation

between
is

two

bodies,

one

affecting

and the other affected,

the following:

Two

bodies equally large will both be affected in an equal time

if

one

is

smaller,

it

is

affected in less time.

The

relation

also varies according to the

'^

power of the agent, and the

Cp. above,

lliis

section.
I,

" Dc
3

Coelo, ed. Prantl,

Coelo,
I,

ch. 7

Pliysks, III, 5

Mctaph., book K, ch. x.

Dc

cli. 5.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

affection

WAXMAN

319

must be accomplished

in

a certain limited time.

It follows, therefore, that the infinite

can neither affect nor

it

be affected, for since we must posit for

as
it

a certain time,

cannot be affected nor affect

in

no time, we can always

find a certain finite

in a similar
is

body that
of time.
it

is

either affected or affects

if

amount

Moreover,

the

finite

body
But

increased in size,

will

be affected or affect

in

a longer

or a shorter time respectively than the infinite body.

this
is

contrary to the principle of action and

passion.''''

These, in short, are the arguments of Aristotle against

the
infinite,

which

are

very accurately
extensive

reproduced

by
with

Crescas.
Aristotle's

He shows He now

an

acquaintance

works hardly displayed before by any Jewish

launches his criticism against each
it

philosopher.

of the arguments, examining

in detail.

Crescas's Refutations of Aristotelian

Arguments.
Crescas,
in
in

attacking

Aristotle,

follows

the

latter's

arguments
there
is

logical order.

First, Aristotle

argues that
for if
it

no separate
is

infinite as

a thing
parts

in

itself,

does exist and

divisible, its

would have to be

infinite (cp. above).

This, replies Crescas, does not necesinfinite

sarily follow.

Since the

we are speaking
it

of

is

a separable, not a corporeal one, why should

or
its

be divisible

parts infinite?
its

Is

the mathematical line divisible,

and are
indivisible
es

parts

points?

Why

can there not be an

infinite?'**^

But the main force of the Aris-

Ibid., p. 273.

-nrj'

Tnn" s^

d":

nrS h-M:

-nyw*

nix-vo3

ion n"a -n^n Y a

^JniJ

320
totelian
infinite,

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

argument
as

against

the

existence

of a
in

separate
the

Crescas rightly observes, consists

im-

possibility of the existence of a

separate magnitude not

connected with a body

exist

(cp. above).

magnitude cannot
have
to

separately,

for

then

space

would

exist

separately of the body, but according to the Aristotelian

conception of space

it is

impossible.

Outside of the world

its

nothing exists; there

is

no vacuum stretching beyond

is

boundaries, and, since whatever

it

in the

world

is

body,

follows that
it

if w^e

do conceive any magnitude, we must

;

conceive

in

bodily form

hence there

is

no separate

magnitude, and, consequently, no separate

But, says Crescas, this
principii, as the conclusion
line
is

infinite.
is

of reasoning

a pctitio
;

still

to be established

for
is

should we prove the existence of a vacuum there

possibility for an, infinite to exist.

Crescas then proceeds

to refute Aristotle's contention of the non-existence of the

infinite,

attacking the basic principle.

if

There

is

no vacuum,
in
it

argues Aristotle, for

there were,
in

movement
is

would

be impossible.
difference
in

Movement
natural

space

caused by the
to
strive

the

inclination

of things

towards certain points, some tending upward.^, some down-

wards

the

vacuum has no such

for

places.

A
it

body
in

in

it

would either never move,

direction rather than
in

why

should

move

one

the

other, or never stop, since

nio^n

ip3

n?

aTin""

N^r* V22 hv
in

pnv n"a3n. Or

yidonai. p. 14

a.

Spinoza, in his Epislola XII,

discussing the infinite, produces the

same

argument

'

Quare omnis

ilia

farrago argumcntoriim quibus substantiam'

extensam finitam
ilia

esse, philosophi vulgo moliuntur sua sponte ruit.

Omnia

substantia corpoream ex partibus conflatam supponunt ad

alii

cundem etiam
non
esse
in

modum
jnvcnirc

qui postqiiam sibi pcrsuaserunt, lineam punctis componi multa

potuerunt argumcnta

quibus
II. p.

ostendernnt

lineam

infinitam divisibilem.'

Oprnu

42.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

there
is

WAXMAN

32I

no tendency to a certain

place."^

Again, not only

could there not be natural motion, but not even violent

motion.
Projectiles

thrown by a person or instrument

after

continue their

motion

the

motor ceased to have

of the air are

contact with them, because the particles

moved, and
projectile.

they impart the motion continually to the

But

in

vacuum

the motion cannot be con-

veyed

the projectile must therefore stop of necessity.

rate

Further, the

of motion varies according to the

to the

power of the motor and according power of

resistance.
is

media and

their

The

thinner the medium, the more

If a
in

accelerated
in
it

the

motion.

vacuum
no time.

exists,

motion
bodies,

would have to take place

in different

Two
If

and B, move

media,

C and D.

the motors

are equal, the rate of time and motion oi

and

B will

vary
is

according to
ratio,

and B.

But

i(

is

a vacuum, there

no

for

what comparison could there be between the

is

motion of i> which

not offered any resistance whatever,

it

and that of

which has to overcome

in

a degree?

The movement of B, therefore, will be in no time. But movement must be in time a vacuum, therefore, does not exist. Finally, if a vacuum exists, it is possible for two
;

bodies to occupy one place.

into water, an

When

anything

is

thrown
is

amount
body

of water equal to the

in air.

body

dis-

placed,
will

and a similar process takes place

to a
it is

What

then

happen

in a
;

vacuum
it is

If the

vacuum merely we endeavoured

it

recedes then
to prove.

nothing
if

just this that

is

But

the

vacuum

something,

must per-

meate the body;^"^ why then should not any body permeate
^'
^'

Physics, IV,

7.

Physics, IV, 8.

See

also Simplicius's

commentary

to that chapter,

translated

by Thomas
p.

Taj'lor in his translation of the Physics of Aristotle,

London, 1806.

228.

322

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

another body?

The

reason that
its

body does not permeate

the intervals of the
not

body
of
its

is

not because of

substance or colour but because

distance or intervals.

Now

if

vacuum
intervals
?

may permeate

a body,

why

any

other

These arguments Crescas attempts to disprove

following manner.
It

in

the

does not follow, says he, that the

It is

existence of a
that a

vacuum should prevent motion.

possess

true

vacuum does not

any

differences of a spatial
still,

nature such as upwards and downwards, but

as long

as the points of natural tendency exist and the elements

possess that tendency, they will go on

moving though the

for violent motion, set
in

medium
it

of

movement
virtue

is

a vacuum.

As
is

seems that the moment a body

motion,

it

acquires

by

of

its

elements

and

their

tendency

towards their natural place a propensity to move without

any

assistance on the part of the

medium.

Further, argues
in

Crescas, granted that

rectilinear

motion cannot be

vacuum,

still

what

is

there to prevent the existence of an

extra-mundane vacuum, wherein

a circular fashion, a
the possession

body can

move

in

movement which does not

ad

necessitate
gueviS'^

of the termini a quo and

In

regard to the second argument of Aristotle, Crescas con-

tends that

it

is

based on a
ratio

false premise.

The argument
medium, when

assumes that the

of the
is

motion of one body to

the motion of the other

as

medium

to

si-pono ipinn is

'\2'\'^p

nno^ rh^'c

r\i^^

i^rorrL"

nn

ynt: fji^ni ^V2pr[

niN'Vcn

n^mDnm

n^yacn nyiinn

nis"\*c yjro

n^ n?h
iS^t:*

.m?.:nc is
l""di

.oSy^ )in mp-in niN'VD mv:Dn nsicn nrn

3^nn'

3^*,n^

nipnn
nci?

i6 v^Nt" nci
DL'*:^

i3dl"

hod yao
Or

"h

I'nl"

nipin

n-'n

dn-j'

nnD

n^nno

nyijn niy^rsn.

.idoiwi, ip.i^h.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

media are
asserts
different
in

WAXMAN
is

323

density, but this

untrue.

We,

Crescas,

must grant to every moving

it

body an

original

motion which was imparted to

by the motor

varying according to the strength of the motor.

The
it

medium only

retards the motion b)'

it.

its

resistance, but

cannot accelerate

The

formula, therefore, ought to be

the ratio of retardation of one

body to the
In a

retardation of

another body varies as the media.

resistance
is

vacuum, therefore,
is

reduced to zero, but the original motion

preserved, and the

Finally, the
(cp.

body

is

still

moved

in

a certain time.

argument of the impenetrability of matter

objected to by Crescas.
Aristotle's
its

above)

is

dictum

that

body cannot penetrate body on account of

true, for a

distances

and dimensions cannot be

not on account of
its

body

is

impenetrable

possessing mere distances, but because

of the matter

filling

those distances.
is

Immaterial distances,

such as the interval which

a body.

called a

vacuum,
a

It is evident, therefore, that

its

may permeate vacuum may exist.

the fact that
if
it

Further evidence of

existence
as,

is

is

quantitatively conceived,
vessel
is

for instance,

the air in a

partly

pumped

out,

we say

that the
air

vacuum

is

large or small according to the

It is

amount of

pumped

out.

then necessarily a magnitude, and though granting

there
is

that

not

an

infinite

body, the existence of a

is

separable

infinite

magnitude
is
it

still

more

necessitated.

Beyond the world there

be limited by body, but
a

no body, the vacuum cannot

surely cannot be limited

by
the
of

vacuum

it

must be

infinite.^^

While these objections hardly have any value

light of

in

modern

science,

yet

according to the

spirit

the times they arc valid, and greatly testify to the critical
*

Or

Adoiiai.

ibid.,

15

a.

324
ability

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

and analytic acumen of Crescas.
in

They

surely form

a step

the formation of the right scientific cosmogony.

The

conceptions of the infinity of the world and of the

existence of infinite

space were necessary conditions

in

the generation

of the Copernican

system and the new

cosmological view.

Surely, Crescas as well as Aristotle

real laws of

was ignorant of the

that Aristotle,

motion.

It is

remarkable

who
if

had a notion of the law of inertia as

seen from his arguments against the existence of a vacuum,

namely, that

vacuum

exists

perpetual motion were

for ever,

possible, for in

vacuo a body

may move on

and

who
his

also recognized the resistance of air as evidenced from

second argument against the existence of a vacuum,

should not have discovered the law of inertia and have

considered the particles of air as helping motion rather

than impeding

it,

yet in Crescas's refutation

It
is

we
not

perceive

a glimpse of the law of gravitation.

known

whether Crescas ever exerted any influence upon Giordano

Bruno or

not,

though another arguments

Italian,
in

Franz Pico, quotes

but whatever be

his anti-Aristotelian

full,^^

the case,

it

is

interesting to observe the similar pulsations

of mental activity in different ages, periods,

and

lands.

Crescas next proceeds to refute Aristotle's arguments

against

the

existence

of an infinite body.

The

latter's

general argument from the definition (cp. above) of

as a thing that has limited superficies, says Crescas,
di

body
only

is

petitio principii.'''-

It is just this

limitation that

we seek

to

establish.

The one who

asserts the existence of an

definition.

infinite

body denies the assumed

his

Rut, says he

fuithcr,
*'

other arguments are also not proved.

in his

The

M. Joel

Chasdai Crescas, note

it is

iv,

Anliang,

In Crescas's

words

termed

Cmn

bv HDIVO.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

infinite,

WAXMAN
if it

325
is,

says Aristotle, cannot be a composite, for

infinite,

the elements would have to be

and

this

is

impossible.

Crescas rejoins,

The

impossibility of the existence of infinite

;

elements

is

not

established

the
is

reason,

according

to

Aristotle, for the non-existence

that the infinite cannot

be conceived
in

but, asks Crescas,

?*'

must they be conceived

This objection marks

order to exist

The elements qua elements may have

existence though not exactly known.

a departure from the dominant Aristotelian system which

ascribed existence only to such things that were supported

by the evidence
That a thing

of the senses and logical reasoning.

Such

a conception could hardly be grasped by an Aristotelian.

in itself, to

use the Kantian terminology,

may

exist without being either perceived or logically analysed

or described, was an impossibility to them/* Further, says Crescas, the objection that
is
it

if

the infinite

composite, one element at least must be infinite and then

would destroy the

rest,

can be answered

in

this

way,

that the infinite

may
are.

be devoid of qualities just as the

heavenly spheres

However, here Crescas seems not

Aristotle, in Metaphysics.,

to understand Aristotle.

book K,
fall

ch. X, states distinctly that

in

one element must not

in

short

potency, and whatever

it

is

potency must sometimes be

destroy the other element."*^
it

realized, so that finally

will

Crescas probably thought that

meant the

infinite

element

would have stronger actual

qualities.

Again, Aristotle's
existence of an

argument
" nn
<*

for

the

impossibility

of

the

niyn' ir^snb

m^nnn
p. 15.

jnc

r\y>i

ni^nnnn

n^^rn'r

;\s

n:m

irrVyn "ISnr:,

Or Adonai,
p.

Or Adonai,
II, p.

15 a.

^6

Cp. Brandis, in his Handbuch der Geschichie dcr Gricchisch-Rduiischcn

727; Physics, IV,
5.

Philosophie,

3'^6

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

body on account
of
its
is

infinite
its

weight and

its

tending to
\\'hy,
all

natural places (cp. above)

it

not unimpeachable.
?

asks Crescas, must

have weight

Is

it

not because
it ?

sensible bodies in the sublunar sphere have

Hut suppose

the infinite

is

different,

is

not the matter of the heavenly

P**^

spheres, according to Aristotle, devoid of weight

is

This

another indictment against the following of the chain

of evidence of the senses and logical reasoning.

Finally,

Crescas

directs his

main attack against the

Aristotle defines

arguments from the nature of space.

space as the limit of the containing body,^^ and conse-

quently by

its

very definition and nature

it

must be
there

finite
is

and inherently connected with body.

Where

no

body
is

there
in

is

no space, and, therefore, the world as a whole

its

not

space though
is

parts are.

This theory, says

structure of

Crescas,

untenable.

The whole conceptual

thereto,

Aristotle of natural places, of upwards

and downwards,
is

and the tendency of \arious elements

false premises.

built

on

How, asks
'

he,

can

we

assert that air has

?

a natural place, the

up

',

near the fiery sphere

What
in their

happens then to the middle layers of air? Are they

natural place? but
is
it

was asserted that their natural place

in their

the

'

up

'.

If

they are not

natural place,

we have
Again,
nhxi

then a phenomenon of variance of places, the place of the

part
*"

differing
103

from the
N^i

place
;\s"j'

of

the

whole.^"*

nihp

nm

)b

ncxi

n"32

aran

iciNn

monx
"
*"

nyn^ D"D'D"j'n n^oija

3.

ncN'-'j',

OrAdo>ini,p. 15 a.

Physics, IV,

nnnypn
''liinrt

^'?r:r[

no-'n
q:':xi

Nin

"m^D

''th

"ny
q-j*

T'lsn
i^
ii^'c

o^przw

nn

n^is*n

;o 'yvcsn p>nn
loipr^a

.[vr^ni

nn-iy

nc^

L*\sn

Tnn'

i:\sl"

CvX

.'y^on v:ipr^2 nv-l" ds Dbr2: i6

']!2Dr\

n'b^nn Nini b^b icx 'vzurt oipo^ fi^nn^ pbrh tj'n

ni:3."I
,

vy.pryc

Or

A(/oii(ii, p.

(.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

the place of the the absolute
place.^*^

WAXMAN
the
'

327
'.

element of earth
is

is

down
is

But
not in

down
as

only a point

,^-'

and a point

Crescas, therefore, proposes a different definition

It
is,

of place.
qualityless,
for b\' its

we should

say, a receptacle of things,

It
is

immovable, and indescribable.

it

infinite,

very nature
it

cannot be

finite."'^

In the world
it

of things

is

occupied, but

beyond the world

place
is

exists as

empty
Such a

space.

The

fact that

immovable answers

Aristotle's arguments against defining place as an interval.

definition, says Aristotle,

would compel us to admit

if

the existence of a place to place, for

full

we move

a vessel

of water, the interval of the vessel

is

transferred into

another interval, and so on.

that place
is

But

if

we assume with Crescas

immovable, the

difficulty disappears, for the

vessel simply passes from one part of the universal

vacuum

to another.

As
by

for the

water

in

the vessel,

it

is

moved

accidentally

the

movement

of the vessel.

Aristotle

explains the

movement
infinite

of the water in the

same way.'-

The

refutation of Aristotle's assertion of the impossi-

bility for

an

body

to

move

either in a rectilinear

or circular fashion runs in the following

first

manner

Aristotle's

argument that the

infinite
'

cannot
'

move
'

rectilinearly,
',

for this

movement

requires an

up and a down

and

is

therefore a limited

movement, can be obviated by replying

that though kinds of places

may
^^

be conceptual!}' limited
In other words,
p.

in genus, yet the)- are not so in species.

*9
='

De

Coelo.
Ti'^^'b

Or Adonai.

15 b.

DB'jn '^nno^ tj\s*

p.
,

mrn
IK'S*

"iJan xin a*^*;^ 'nrrxn

Dipon-j*,

Or Adonai,
vacuum.
^2

14 b

again,
p.

p2

^nin

Sin -si^h "nrrsn D1po^:^

flVOn ni v3n

ibid.,

15 b.

Cp. above Crescas's arguments about the

Simplicius

ad locum, quoted by Thomas Taylor.

Tlie Pliilosofyliy

of

Aristotle.

328
there
is

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

no absolute point where we
',

may
'

say that this

'

is

the

'

up

but there
'

may

be a series of ups

ad

injiiiittim

the term

up' being only our subjective designation.

(cp,

His

second argument

above) that

if

there exists an infinite

body
in the

it
'

would have

infinite weight,

and then would move

Since

now

'

is

irrelevant, says Crescas.

in time,

movement
body

of a

body must be

we

shall

have

to posit a certain

minimum for an infinite body. may be found that will move in

of
it ?

It is true

that a finite
time.
to

the

same

But what

The law

of relations of

movement

movement,
to a certain

according to the weight, extends only

point/^''

down

Of

course, Crescas

shows here a poor conception

of law, but a

more accurate conception could hardly be

expected

in his time.

Crescas

also

attempts

to

disprove

the

Aristotelian

arguments against the possibility of an

in a circular fashion.

infinite

body moving

Aristotle says that there can be no

radii

circular

movement, because the distance between two

infinite,

would be
di.stance.

and

it is

impossible to traverse an infinite

To

this

Crescas rejoins that, though the lines

may

be

infinite,

yet the distance between them

arc

may be
and

finite.

The arguments, however,

wc may omit them.

too

obscure

abstruse to reproduce here, and as they affect the subject

very
there

little
is

He
it

seems to imply that

a possibility of an
circle,

infinite

body moving

in

an

incomplete
distance.

so that parts of

may move

a finite

Ikit

how he could
body
is

at all conceive of the

move-

ment of an
there
is

infinite

difficult to see, for

granted that
it

an

infinite space,
its

the infinite

body occupies

all

by virtue of

own

definition.

And what meaning

modern conception
a.

has
of

movement,

unless

we assume
'''

the

Qi Adouni,\i. 16

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

a growing
infinite,

WAXMAN
for

329

but this

is

hardly what Crescas means.

things

However, Crescas wrote

many

the

sake of

argument, simply to show that what Aristotle said can be

refuted, just as Aristotle

himself multiplied unnecessary

is

arguments.

What

is

important for us

the establishment

of the theory of infinite space, and the possibility of an

infinitude of magnitudes.

This leads, as Crescas well saw,^*

to the possibility of the existence of other worlds besides

this

one, a conjecture which was

is

later well

established.
Aristotle's

Especially important

his

remark against

arguments, that

if

there were

many

worlds the elements

would move from one to the other.

asks Crescas.
Is
it

Why

should they?

not

possible that the

elements

we

know

exist only

in this world,

and the other worlds have

different

elements and different tendencies?

fall

We

notice

here the beginning of the

of the Aristotelian cosmology,

based on the evidence of senses only, an event which was

delayed for some time but accomplished
in full

by such

masters as Copernicus. Giordano Bruno, and Galileo.

The second
infinite
falls

proposition, that
finite

it

is

impossible for an
exist, stands

number of
first.

magnitudes to

and

with the

The

criticism of the third proposition,

is

the impossibility of an infinite causal regressus,

interesting.

Crescas does not refute

it

entirely,

it

being necessary for

will

his proof of the existence of

God, as

be shown.

He

does give

it

a different interpretation.
infinite

Why,
effects
It
is
?

asks Crescas,

can there not be an

number of

which are at
true that

the same time causes to each other

we

must

posit

one prior cause, but that should not prevent

niK"'xB' -IN130
TJ'SvS D^a-l

Nin

ch)]!^

^.n

rr'bn bv2 'n^n n^y ix ^ipn nvni

QV2b)V- Or Adoiiai.

p. 17 a.

33
the

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

posterior

causes

from

being

infinite.

Aristotle's

argument that every intermediate term must be preceded

by a

first,''^

would be well applicable

if

the causal series

in

were a timely one, namely, that each event

the series

must precede the other

and
effect is really

in time.

But the

relation of cause

one of logical priority. Aristotle himself

is

argues for the eternity of the world, and

to admit that the
first

therefore forced

cause

is

only prior
is

in a logical

sense

and not

in time, as the first

sphere
first

also eternal.

Why

can we not say

that out of the

effects

cause there emanated

an

infinite

number of
effect

which exist simultaneously,

instead

of one

as Aristotle wants us to believe?

And

since an infinite

number of

effects

is

possible,

what

prevents us from assuming that the effects are also causes

to one another, since causal priority does not posit temporal

precedence?^"

Of

course, in spite of Crescas's criticism,

first

the necessity of a
established
;

cause,
is

first

in

necessity,

is

well

but the form

changed, and has an important

infinity.

bearing upon the whole conception of

in

The manner
proof of

which Crescas

utilized this proposition for the

the existence of God, so very different from the customary

peripatetic way,

was commended by

Spinoza.'''

Aristotle

was not

entirely ignorant of the

weakness of his assertion,

vi,

and

in

Metaphysics, book XII, ch.

he mentions a similar

interpretation to that of Crescas, but in his

in

main discussions

Metaphysics his language shows the contrary.

The

eighth

proposition

stating that whatever

moves

accidentally will cxcntually rest of necessity, which forms

'''

Metaphysics,

a or

II.

''

nip" vh
Li'yiv^

nnnb rhv nnN

b^ n"33n

D^S^yn
"iisi"

d"j

n"::rD nini

nnx
'''

^y onis^v?^ nnD" 'yi'b D^^n*

vX^n bi^n dvj' nro

mN'vr^n nu'ss D^^u'.p. 17b. 0(>eia, \', 11; Epi^tola XII

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

a link
in

WAXMAN
is

33I
severely

the proof of the existence of God,

scrutinized

by Crescas.

Is

it

not possible, asks he, that

accidents exist as long as the substance itself;

now

if

the

substance
not

is

eternally

moved, why not the accidents?

Do
the

the

lower spheres

move
first

eternally, because

of

essential

movement
is

of the
?

sphere, though their

crucial

own
the

movement
Aristotelian

accidental
is,

The

point

of

argument
is

that since a
itself,

mover while moving

in

another body
it

moved
is

a power

a body while

moves the body

it

also

moved

accidentally,

and con-

sequently
It

will

have to

rest of necessity.

Crescas says,

does not follow necessarily, for as long as the body can

be moved eternally,

why

should the
it

movement

of the force

ever have to stop since

is

connected with the essential

movement
though of

of the

body ? ^^
is

His criticism of the tenth proposition

little

interesting
It relates

importance

for the subject.

is

to

the famous Aristotelian theory that form

Crescas, after quoting Ibn

the stay of body.

Roshd,who
one but

asserts that

body by
admit
can

evidence of sense

is

really

logic forces us to

composition because of
wfe

its

corruptibility, asks,

Why

not conceive matter as having a certain form by

itself,

the corporeality, for instance, consisting in a kind of general

quality such as occupying space
?

Of

course,

when we
it

contemplate a particular piece of matter we find

a particular form, but this while essential yet
material form
of the
is is
is

to have

only the individual form, and

not the stay of the body, for the

in

always

existence and

is

really the bearer

is

individual

form.^^
It

This remark, though short,

very suggestive.
that
all

reminds us of the Cartesian principle

matter

is

extension.
18 a.
^s

" Or ^doiiai,

Ibid., 18 b.

332
Crescas,

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

in

his
is

refutations,

attacks

also

the twelfth

proposition, which

of great importance in the Maimoni-

dian proof of the existence of God.

that every force in a finite

The

proposition asserts
It is

body

is

finite.

based on

the assumed relation of motion to force.

of a

The

rate

and time
it.

moved body

varies inversely to the force

moving

The
an

greater the force, the less the time.

If there exists

infinite force in

a
'

finite

body, that body will either be

force will be

moved

in the

'

now

or a finite

equal

in

moving power

to an infinite.

(Cp. above, Aristotle's proof

infinite.)

of the impossibility of an actual

refers to his refutation of the

Crescas

first

above-mentioned argument
in
'

in

regard to the infinite moving

that since

now

',

where he contends
is

movement must be
force
will

in

time there
infinite.

minimum
of the

which

is

necessary even for an

of time to

The law

relation

be valid only above that

minimum.''"

In addition, says Crescas, granted that the

relation holds true as regards the strength or celerity of

the motion,
in

still

since there can be an infinite

finite

movement

time,

why
is

cannot the force of a

body, having a

definite

and limited

rate of motion, mov^e a bod\' infinitely,

for its ceasing,

when

there

no cause

and no resistance

impeding

it ?

Especially

such bodies as the heavenly

spheres which are of an ethereal substance, and consequently

offer

no resistance, could be moved

This
critical

eternall}-

even by a

finite force.

remark displays a quite advanced

conception of motion and resistance, more penetrating than

that of Aristotle,
to

who

related the

continuity of motion

the

force

and employed the assumed relation as a

first

cardinal proof of the existence of a

mover.

y3Un 7VN Or
,

A(lo)ini. p.

i8b.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

WAXMAN
is

333

Finally, the Aristotelian conception of time

attacked.

(This forms proposition XV.)

is
it.

Time, says the Stagyrite,

an accident of motion, and cannot be conceived without This statement comprises four premisses,
;

i.

Time

is

an accident joined to movement

without the other
other
;
;

3.

either

is

not found

3.

and

is

not conceived without the

4. and, finally, whatever has no

movement

is

not

in time.

But, rejoins Crescas,

?

is

not time a measure of

rest as well

Do we
whether
fall.

not measure the state of rest of a

it

body

in time,

is

long or short
third,

The

first

two

premisses then
if

The

however,

may

be justified

we

define rest as the privation of motion.

is

The conception
it,

of time

joined to motion and not conceived without

though not always found together with motion.

therefore, proposes a

Crescas,
is

new

definition of time.

Time
time

the

concept of continuity of a certain state of a body, whether

it

is

movement
but

or

rest.

It

is

true

that
to

is

an

accident,

an

accident
else.^^

relating

the

soul

and
is

not

to

anything

This

conception

of

time

quite a

modern

one,

and reminds one of the Kantian

concept.

The Proofs of Malmonides Refuted.

After attacking the individual links which

make up

the Maimonidian proofs of the existence of God, Crescas

proceeds to demonstrate the results

bearing on
(cp.

of

the refutations

the proofs.

The

first

proof of Maimonides
first

above) makes essential use of the

IN

proposition in
'o:i:r]

'''

nyi3nn
]''2\y

npmnn

-iiyj'

vSin-.:'

nxi'

jora

nijn

nrh

mny

"ttc'

nni:cn, Or Adonai, 19

a.

VOL. VIIL

334

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

for if there exists
it

connexion with the twelfth,

an

infinite

body
there

it

has

infinite force,

and so

can be self-moved, and

is

no need of a

first

mover.
if

Again, propositions II
is

and III are necessary,

regressus there
is

for

there

an

infinite causal

no

first

cause.

In the same way, several

more propositions

are needed.

Since these propositions

III,

were refuted by Crescas (though proposition

really

which

is

the

basic

one,

was not

refuted,
it

but

given

an

entirely dififerent interpretation),

as a

follows that the proof

whole

is

refuted.

But, adds Crescas, even granting

the truth of

all

these propositions, yet Maimonides has

not established his case.

that

The

twelfth proposition stating

finite

finite

body must have a

in

force,

which

is

cardinal

point

the

proof,
in
is

does not

establish
in

the

impossibility of a force
infinite

finite

body moving
;

an

time where there

no resistance
is

though we

may

grant that the strength of the force

finite (cp.

above).

This objection alone

is

sufficient to

overthrow the whole

for a first
its

structure of the proof.

There

is

no necessity

unmoved mover,
force infinitely.

for the

sphere can be

moved by

own

Again, Maimonides has not established the unity of

God.

He

proves

it

by the sixteenth
is

proposition, which
force in a
it

asserts that

whatever

neither a

body nor a

body

cannot be conceived under number unless

is

a cause,

and

since there can be only

one cause of that character

But, says

to this world, the oneness of this cause follows.

Crescas, this argument would be sufficient

that there
(cp.
it

if

we assume
possible,

is

only one world.

But since

it

was demonstrated
is

above) that the existence of several worlds

is

also possible that there should be several Gods, each

in a different

one being a different cause of a different world

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

relation,

WAXMAN

335

and as such the Gods

is

may
^'^

be counted.

Thus,

the numerical unity

not proved.

The second proof of Maimonides

assertion that
if

is

based on Aristotle's

we

find a thing

composed of two elements,

it

and then one element alone,

element must also exist by
clusion).

follows

that

the other

itself (cp.

above

for the

consays

The

conclusion
it

is

attacked by Crescas,

who

that logically

follows only that the separate existence

is

of the other element

possible, but not that

it is

absolutely
illustration

necessary.

He
that

supports his contention

as
it

by an

drawn from physiology

was understood

in his time.

We
life,

know
is

all living

beings are also vegetative as far as

find,

growth

concerned.

We

though, vegetation without

but we never find living beings not having the vegeta(It

is

tive quality.

absurd, of course, from the

is

modern

point of view, that vegetation

see, therefore, that
it

a living organism.)

We

is

not absolutely necessary for the

to

two elements that compose a thing

especially
if

exist separately,

one

may

act as a perfecting agent.

is

The
on

force

of the Maimonidian argument

then broken.*^^
the

The

third

argument of Maimonides, based

all

assertion that

being cannot be perishable, since time

eternal,
is

and movement are

following

answered by Crescas
all

in

the

manner

The

imperishability of

being does

not follow from the eternity of time and movement, for

if

we supposed that they would

;

all

perish at once, the

argument would be valid

but

why

can there not be a

continual series of perishable beings, one following another?

The

premiss, therefore, has not been

established.*^^

He
it

advances also another argument against the proof, but

^^

Or Adonai. 20
chapter
Ibid.,
II.

a.

This subject will be discussed again

in this

chapter

and

in

"

20 b.

64

7/,,^.

Z 2

336

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

In general, his refutation of the third

really has little force.

proof

is

more

for the

sake of argumentation and logical

Crescas

casuistry than for the sake of serious discussion.

himself, as will be evidenced in the second chapter, proves

the existence

of

God through
of

a similar chain

of arguFinally,

mentation, though with a different interpretation.

the
last

arguments

Maimonides are
unity.

assailed.

The

arguments centre about

that

Crescas has already shown

in

Maimonides did not succeed

first

proving the oneness

of the

cause.

He now

elaborates the subject, and

analyses

the

other arguments

of

Maimonides.
in

These
in

arguments have often been quoted

scholastic philosophy,

Jewish as well as
(cp.

and run as follows

is

Introduction):

The
I.

existence of two

Gods

impossible for several reasons:

If

there were two, there would be a difference between

as well as a similarity
2.
;

them

they would, therefore, be

composite.

The harmony

of the world and the inter-

dependence of beings
3.

testify to the existence of

one God.

If there

were two Gods, we should have to conclude that

either one

God

created a part of the world and the ether

another, or that one worked for a certain time and the

other for another period, or that they co-operated.

these results are absurd.
It

All
is

would follow that God

a composite,

is

in

time and possible, which consequences

are untenable (cp. Introduction, as well as above in the

exposition

of

the

Maimonidian

theory

for

elucidation).

But, rejoins Crescas, the conclusion, namely, the oneness

of God,

is

not warranted.

First, the

Gods must not be

Second, since

composite, for the difference between them need not be

material
:

it

may

be only a causal

one.*"'^

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

we may
posit several

WAXMAN
also

337

worlds,
his

we may

posit several

Gods, each one having

the other arguments
;

world.'^'^

This answers also

interdependence

for besides that the

of this world of things does not prove anything, as there

may be a
it

pre-established

harmony of plan between the Gods,

There are
also other

vanishes entirely with the assumption of the existence

it

of several worlds, as

is

evident.

arguments quoted by Saadia and Bahia that are not affected

by

this

assumption, but these arguments will be discussed

in the

second chapter together with the Spinozistic view

on the subject.

We have reached a boundary line in Crescas's philosophy,

namely, the end of his
of the existence of God.
critical

exposition of the proofs

point of view of Crescas

The

has been mentioned before.

passing that his endeavour

It will suffice to
is

remark

in

to

show the

invalidity of

many philosophic arguments concerning theological dogmas, Howso that necessarily we have to rely upon tradition. ever, what has happened to many others has happened
to him, that while their

aim has not been reached, the very

negative side
a

is

valuable.

He

displayed

in his criticisms

keen sense of philosophic acumen and

its

originality,

and

were this book more widely known,

influence on general

thought would undoubtedly be greater.

of

His anticipations
noticed.

modern conceptions have already been

Yet

Crescas has value, not only in his negative criticisms but

also in his positive conceptions.
It will

be evident

in

the

future chapters.

We

thus pass on to the second chapter.

"^

Ibid., p.

21

a.

[To be

co7itin?ied.)

THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEOXIM AS A SOURCE OF JEWISH HISTORY*

Bv
Jacoi]

Manx,

Jews' College, London,

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER
New Gexizah
The
after

Material.
number
I

following pages will include a

of hitherto

unpublished Genizah fragments which

the

have found long

above chapter

had been
in the

written.

With the

exception of three fragments

custody of the British

all

Museum and one from

much indebted
their

the Bodleian, they

belong to the
I

famous Taylor-Schechter Collection

at Cambridge."^

am

to the staff of the University Library for

courtesy and

ready assistance

in

my

work.

The
be

additional information about the Babylonian

Geonim and
will

their academies, which these fragments furnish,

discussed in the

first

part of the Appendix,

The second

part will deal with Elhanan b. Hushiel of Kairowan, who,

both father and son, were in recent years brought to the

historical

foreground

by

the

well-known Genizah

letter

published

by Dr. Schechter
643-50).

in the eleventh

volume of the
here will
',

JQR.
and
*
**

(pp.

The new

material
'

given

again raise the problem of the famous

will at the

Four Captives

same time

indicate a solution on a

new

line.

See Vol. VII, 457-490.

They

will be designated here as Or., Bodl.,

and T.-S, respectively.

339

340
I.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The Gaoti Isaac Sadok of Siira
(823),

This well-known Gaon, usually going by the

Sadok,
2"n, no.

is

sometimes mentioned as Isaac Gaon.

name of Comp.
in
r{''^,

156, Pn:

pnv

id

:;n^D *]3,

which reads
y'lnac*,

no. 217, y'pT iJjnx

255,

pnv 10

cn^a is;

ed.

Buber,

has

2-1

-ID

i::nN nox 73

rnnvcna

'^a

^^'t p^^^

P-'nj 2-11

y^vr px:

pnv^ R,

Nahshon evidently

referring to his father

(ed.

Sadok.
writing

We
^^^
-13

further find Ibn

pnv^ nn
11.

Daud

Neub.

I,

6^,

1.

5)

when

referring to our
"in
p'j'n:

Gaon Sadok.

A variant [ibid.,
R. Nahshon
b.

lo-ii) reads pHV*

m instead of
to p"j, 9 a) either

Sadok.
'

Rappoport
Isaac
'

(Introd.

was of the opinion that

in

Ibn

Daud was

a mistake or a synonymous name

decides that
in all

for

Sadok, while Harkavy

the cited passages the correct reading

396, see pp. 2iS^~^)-

should be Sadok
It is

(n":,

now

possible to state definitely that the

I

Gaon was

the bearer of both names.

have found

in

T.-S.

Box F 4
stained,

three detached parchment leaves, very

damaged and

containing Gaonic responsa

T.-S. 12. 854-56.

they now bear the press-marks The fragments are probably of Baby;

lonian provenance, as the parchment and the early hand-

writing show.

The

third

leaf (12.
"i^,

856)

has on

recto,

middle, the superscription

p:^'n3

containing a responsum

by

this

Gaon with

the following interesting heading

[nnjiy ^ii-h n^on?^ Nnon Nnn^nn 'cni

\p'xi\ njnnii
.
.

pnv nnsnn

pn^*^

-13

pc'n[j]

n[-ii]n

^ya

^[y]i [NJ3-i]n n^^y ^^r^h N^o:r

N'^DU'

na-i >^rhz- 1\>t

N^^m
snTno
v:p

Nipn^N

'cp

-i>sc'

^'^Tjc

'-cnian pn^ia

[sryai]
N't3D

n'3 r.'Ni sT^wj'i n*2i: nv-ini

x^n-n nnoL" ^y
"1

nvd:;*

....

NHDD

;r:T3

Njj:np^

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

(r.

MANN

34

N^31332 or Njasn) n32D3 pnn^

npi N:i^p2i

prj'

n^m ...
nnm

mb

iinsi pDH 212^ Nnn^noT

X3X33

p^ipoai xn^psn p,n2

N''OC'

|C

The doubtful

letters I

have marked with dots on the top.

The
tions

place of residence of the correspondent could not be

It

ascertained.

seems that

his letter, enclosing the ques-

and undoubtedly the customary donations as well,

reached the

Gaon during

the Passover, three years prior

to the date of his answer.

2.

NeJicniiah,

Gaon of Piimbediia (961-68).

the dignity of

When Xehemiah assumed

Aaron
b.

Gaon

after

Sargado, Sherira and

recognition."'-'

many members

of the

academy refused him

under deplorable conditions,

The academy laboured and the Gaon must have had

much

to contend with during his period of office.

The

letter written

by Xehemiah

in

963 (published by Dr. Cowley,

the

JQR., XIX, 105-6)

him

till

now

only one known by

of affairs
in

is

ample evidence of the

(cp.
I

state

his

academy
(11,467)
letter in

also

Poznaiiski,

ibid.,

397-401).

Above
'

have also pointed out that probably the small

Geon., II, 87 emanates from him.

The

sons of

Aaron
in

',

the influential grandees of Bagdad, are mentioned

epistles.

both
'

They cannot have been

as Ginzberg, ibid., thinks.

the 'sons of

Aaron (Sargado),
their late
33

They would
this
"inni

not have been the supporters of

father."^
Letter
(p.

Xehemiah who opposed

little

There can be
41;:

doubt that
10
2'':DL^'^

Sherira's
"^'"'22

XV^

TW:? ^'02.

\'-\r\^

N^

>^h''^

pmi

N:n:Ni n'j:n3

ncn nn:pb

pnm

pnnvp!:

mn

*o

Cp. Sherira's Letter

(p. 41)

H-'OnJ (31)

"l?2

iT^y ihii Hf^D in^l

\r\-2

iT-ro tjny nin

pns

(an) idi n^cp 3'nn

inn pnv

no ia

pnN

2-1

1?:?

p3"l VJ'12 N^l.

342

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

Aaron

identical with

Aaron

b.

Abraham
is

b.

Aaron who,

together with his brother Moses,

the letter from the Pumbedita
402)."*^

so highly spoken of in
in

Gaon

953 {jfQR., XVIII,

In this epistle the

Gaon

directs his correspondent

this
n^

in
1.

Spain to send his

21
f.

letters
c'^b'^

through
n-iNsn
ipr

Aaron
bv

(p.

403,
vn"*!).

pnN

nrb

moy

i^nnJN

Next

to the Exilarch

and Netira,

this

Aaron seems
Jews
in

to

have been one of the most

influential
^J3,

Bagdad.

After his death, his sons, the pns

were the patrons

of the Pumbedita academy, and to these

in his letters.

Nehemiah

refers

The
to

fact that

both epistles found their

way

to

the

Cairo Genizah tends to show that they were either sent

Egypt
in

or to communities beyond, and were copied at

Fustat

the process of transmission.

Of
in

the

way how
as

the

correspondence between the Geonim

Babylon and the

as

communities of

Maghreb and Spain

will

well

other

European countries passed through Fustat, the leading

Egyptian community, more
whereas the
letter

be said later on.

Now,

published by Dr. Cowley

may have
ibid.y

been addressed to a community beyond Egypt (Pozn.,

400, indeed thinks
it

is

not the original), the epistle in

Geonica could have only been sent to Egypt.

assures his
influential

The Gaon
will

correspondents that their

requests

find

support at the Caliph's court in Bagdad through

Till

the intervention of the sons of Netira and of Aaron.

969,
*'

when
L. 15
fT.
:

Jauhar

conquered

Egypt

for

the

Fatimid
d:i

by nmJD"! nsrn

nya nnm;nD tj-n hni inm:

n^fyai ni^yai
Njani
''^

vnxi

\'^r\\!i.

n:3~ii

no

npnvi

t:D"w"o

nN~i"'3

D^:prn

nc
.

^33

Ditt'y nvrrT'i
D-i2r

oniv

d~iv:^

h^td

no

naiacm

aic'nn

nsinb

pns p cmaN wnni.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

MANN
still

343
with

al-Mu'izz, a vestige of authority remained there

the Abbasid Caliphs of Bagdad.

Their suzerainty over

several

North Africa was done away with by the Fatimids

years before. could
still

Between 961 and 968 the Jews of Egypt

obtain

some

assistance from influential advocacy

on their behalf

at the court of

Bagdad.

The

details

mentioned

in these

two

letters

enable us at

once to identify the two fragments printed here as also

coming from Nehemiah.

found

The

first

(A)

is

very fragmentary
I

and damaged, with beginning and end missing.

it

have

in

box of fragments belonging

it

to the

Cambridge

University Library Collection, and

is

to be placed beink, as well as the

tween

glass.^'^

The brownish paper and

handwriting, at once betray Babylonian origin to one

who
":2

has seen similar documents from Babylon.

are mentioned in line 12, and
it

The

t:xuV2

may

safely be

assumed that

the fragment
to Egypt.
b. 'Ali b.

is

a part of an original letter from

Nehemiah
Solomon

The
in

representative of the academy,

Tabnai, and a son of Aaron of Bagdad,

the letter
this
in

who

are

mentioned
It

JQR., XIX, occur

b. 'Ali,

here again.

seems that

Solomon

the T'pS, lived in Egypt,

where he acted as central representative of the academy

for receiving all donations,

even from the countries beyond.

As
(1.

far as the

fragment allows reconstruction, Nehemiah

writes to a CN"i in
3),

Egypt who had some quarrel with a

|Tn

as well as with his

own community

(1.

5).

On
till

that

account the Gaon refrained from writing to him

should be restored.

peace

complains that his appeal for support of the academy has been ignored by the annual
t:st:Vj:
"'jn

He now

the

irns*,

most
this

likely the

community
12 851.

of the

"J'Si

The class-mark of

fragment

is

now T.-S

Verso contains

.Arabic writing apparently of later date.

344
to

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

whom

the

Gaon

members

of the

The disappointment of the academy is great. Nehemiah bitterly

writes.

complains that

his circulars

appealing
(11.

for support, sent

It

out

every year, are of no avail

this letter

9-14).

seems that when

was written Nehemiah had occupied the Gaonate

already for some years.

his letter of

Of

similar complaints
11.

we read

in

962 {7QR., XIX,

(11.

9-11).

The Gaon

goes

on to

state in our fragment

14-15) that he spent

much

on writing appeals to double the number of people of

former years
;

none that was known to him by name has

been

left

out.
IJ'NI

The
likely

in

Egypt, to

whom Nehemiah

writes,

is

very

none

else but

Elhanan, the father of the well-known

in a letter to

Shemariah.

Elhanan, his grandson,

ni-n:-L;>

Malij,

describes himself as
trsin
a-in

^NntT''

^3

b^
n^n

"T^iin

*c>xn

pn^K
16.

pn^s

^snc>''

b^

3s
no.

(T.-S.

134, cited

by Worman, JQR., XIX, 729,

XX).

Also

T.-S. 12. 193 contains the heading of a letter to Kairowan

beginning with
mvr^
^s*

n'''\'\:i'y

(2)

^snu"' ^3^1"

"nnn

'j'xi

pn^N* (i)

(4)
"it:^N

c'N-in
^'n\>7\

nnn pn^x
br\\>r\

p
and

(3)
.
.

b^-^u^
. .

^:r

pn

n'3
will

3x be

^-'fNn-'pn

... (6)

nj-aon.

As
father,

shown

further

on,

Sherira

Hai corresponded with

his

Shemariah

in 991,
It is

and then Elhanan,

was no

longer alive.

therefore quite in accordance with the

chronolog}' that between 961-68

Nehemiah should have

corresponded with Elhanan the elder.

As

spiritual leader

of the Fustat community, he would have been appealed to

for

the support of the academy.

Lines 16-17 o^ our fragment seem to mean that the

Gaon
*^

sent half the

number

of his circulars of appeals to

*3~>*3

Shemari.'ih also sipns a

document of 1002, as pn^N

n. a^.

nn

iTIOtJ'

L"N"^n

nnn (JQH..

XI, 646,

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

Solomon
(b.

MANN

345

'Ali),

the Tps, 'through the son of Aaron'.

Evidently the donations would be sent to this Bagdad

grandee,

who would

supervize

their

proper distribution.
b. Sa'id

The
b.

other batch of circulars were entrusted to X.

(or pyn)

pnn

'through his brother, the Alluf.

It

is

difficult to ascertain

whether

this

Alluf was a brother of

the

son of Aaron', since in the other letters

>:2

we

find

pnx

mentioned, or a brother of this unknown X.

b. Sa'id,

who

evidently was a representative of the

b. 'Ali.

academy

like

Solomon

Fragment B

(T.-S. H J
^J3

20^)

is

still

more damaged.
(1.

Therein recur the pnwS

and a certain Tob Alluf

9),

who

is

perhaps identical with the Alluf mentioned'

in frag-

ment A.
son of

As Semah

to the
b.

name

31D, I refer to the

Ab

2)d, the

Paltoi {jfQR.,

XVIII, 402

top).

But the

clearest proof that our

is

fragment emanates from Nehemiah

the mention of NTaB'i [pK'nD], 'the two boorish

(11.

young

men'
the

5-6),

who opposed

the

Gaon and

sent letters to

communities with the purpose of undermining his

authority.

The Gaon
are

urges upon his correspondents to

counteract the

possible effect of his opponents' epistles.

These two people

known from the

letter of

962 {yQR.,

XIX,
NTTk^i

106,

11.

24-5).

As

Pozn.

{ibid.,

401) acutely remarks,

jVk^'m.

p:^^:3

may

be nicknames for Nina'i

Thus

Sherira,

who

refused

Nehemiah
fragment

recognition,

may

have been

the object of the Gaon's inv^ectives.

The
tions to

rest of the

is again an appeal for donabe accompanied by questions and requests (1. 7

;

'^an IN rb^'^

this suggests the reading of n^sc'l

"i^sn

y^ b

in

Geon., II, 87 for n^xiri

11.

b).

The

representative

(um^-j*,
b. 'Ali

10-iij

is

probably the above-mentioned Solomon

11.

(cp.

JQR.,

1. 6-.,

2->6j.

346

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

n n r

Y.

n
rr

r
Y.

a
r
ii
i:
.

c a
f^

p.

-J^

^
n
ci

r o C
~r.

% r

lHj
i^

52

n n
n

-h

-r^

ST

<

r:

a -^

{^

'

Li

-TV

n o

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

MANN

347

CI

C
Y.

n
ij

j-

P J< n

r:

-J^

r:

C
jav

n n a n n "

^
n '"

c n n

F r
n P

IT

c r a

^ n r
-t

a p a
-VI

3 r n n n
Y.

.^

Ci

K
r n
32

^
n
-I>

V,'

32

C
-IN

32

^
n

348

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

3.

Sherira and Hai.

has been pointed out, for the
the Gaon
first

Above
time

(VII, 467

ff.) it

I believe,

that Sherira,

of Pumbedita, appar-

ently had his

supreme

court, the sna^noT S32, in

in

Bagdad.

Probably the

Ab

Bet-Din resided

Pumbedita, where

during the Kallah months thegreat meetings of the school

were held.

As

the letter in Geojiica

(II, 87)

has been shown

this

above to have most

likely been written

by Xehemiah,

Gaon

also resided in

Bagdad.

Farther on another

letter

by an anonymous Gaon
evidence for
essential lines

from this city will be printed.

As
now

Sherira's

supreme court

at

Bagdad a few
I

were cited above from Bodl. 2876,

subjoin here the whole fragment (A), according to the copy

made by
disposal.

Dr. Cowley,

who very kindly

Bagdad.

placed

it

at

my

few remarks only have to be added as to the

locality of the N'pTiy Npic at

Le Strange

in his

Bagdad during

the

Ahbasid Caliphate, 19CO, mentions a

Suk al-'Atlkah (p. 90) in the Sharkiyah Quarter, viz. that portion more on the river bank (of the Tigris) bore the

name
facing

of an older suburb
p.
47).''^

known

as al-'Atlkah (see

map

On

the

other hand a (or the)

Jewish

quarter seems to have been farther west of the city.

There

existed a Kantarah-al-Yahud which crossed the Karkhaya

Canal

(p. 150).

Interesting for the cosmopolitan composi-

tion of the I^agdad

Jewry

is

the mention of such

(1.

names
b.

as

'AH

b.

David the Palestinian

(1.

11)

and

Nahum
J.

Aaron
were
anaoi

of Baalbek

12).

As
cited
'1JI
:

regards Hai, the lines from T.-S. 13

13'*
n\-,'

3n3o DV nxn:3
v:l^

|o

pt^'mo
3i."v

j'pn
*3

y^jn

yah^'i
^'Z'

n6n; noSn
<^

njvj-i

nih

nrrx

^"sn ps: i3:nx,

According

to

Yakiit

(sec

Wiistcnfcld.

ZDMG., XVIII.

399)

the

village

Sunaya

that stood

on the western bank of the Tigris before the

called al-'Atil ah.

erection of

Bagdad was afterwards

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

as

MANN

349

showing that Hai resided

p. 90),

at

Bagdad

(above, VII, 467).

Pozn. [Babyl. Geouini,

who

printed these lines, was

(b.

not clear about them, and also doubted Solomon's

Judah)

authorship of the

letter.

As

will

be shown

in

another

connexion,

Yahya was

a son of

Solomon

went

to

Bagdad

to study under Hai.

b. Judah who The Jerusalem Gaon

in this letter to

an Egyptian dignitary mentions that an

from Hai.

epistle

from

his son enclosed a letter

As

further

evidence of Bagdad having been the place of residence of

Hai,
in

I refer to

the Genizah book-list, published

Illj.

by Pozn.

ZfHB., XII, 119-20 (Xo. n^nn ;d nnvjri ^sn 2.-b .h.

.
.

Lines

17-18 read
(p.

Pozn. remarks
:

122),

'

Responsen aus Bagdad an Hai, wohl

'.

Responsen auf

Anfragen aus Bagdad

It is

very unlikely that such a near

sent written questions

community

as

Bagdad should have

by written responsa.
this

to be answered

As was

pointed out

above (VII, 461),

procedure was only the case with

as Basrah,

distant communities such

and especially the

countries

outside

Babylon.

But now that we know of

is
'

the Gaon's residence at Bagdad, there

little

doubt that
(to

the above item

in

the book-list means

(^xn

Responsa

some

unknown community) by Hai

fact that

yb) from Bagdad'. The

they existed

in

Fustat shows that they were either

addressed to or passed through Egypt. "^^

Of considerable

interest

is

fragment B, Or, 5561 B,

fols.

9-10, parchment, brownish ink, square, very stained and

*''

Cp. further Bodl. 2877!" containing a letter from ^pf ciDV

b.

T3 CDJ
*1p^

to

Joseph

Jacob

b.

?3U' of Fustat.
\^ .ts

The correspondent says q7V

'3^p

Nnn NDpi
nNnj3
ID

'2

3n3
'i

/i\"i

njx noi

'hv

nc n^o
s*:n^D

n'

rhba

nini^'
is

Nn^nsn
impossible,

:v^n yo
more
likely

ri-i

6: ^^nh

n:y i.
is

The date 1213

1013.
b.

The correspondent
Berachiah

perhaps the son of the Kairowan scholar Joseph

(cp. note 59).

VOL. vin.

A a

350

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Neubauer published
letter (Bodl.

damaged.
fragmentary

in

7QR.

(VI, 222-3)
e.

2668" = MS. Heb.

44, fols. 80-1)

which contained the well-known remarks about Shemariah

(b.

Elhanan), as a former syimnj mvj'

his son

u'N"i

of the academy,

and

Elhanan.

Unfortunately the text was not

edited with sufficient care.

in

Neubauer

failed to point out,

the

first

instance, that between

fols.

80 and 81 there
This gap
is

must be a gap,
is

as

is

evident from the context.

now

partially filled

up by fragment
fols.

B,

though there
I

evidently another gap between

9 and 10 of Or.

have

convinced myself by comparing the two fragments that

they are similar as regards the parchment,

size,

and hand-

writing, the only difference being that Bodl. has been very

well preserved and

is

clearly legible,

whereas Or.
fol.

is

much
be

damaged.

Moreover, the context proves Or.

fol.

9 to

a continuation of Bodl.
Or.
fol.

80, while Bodl. fol. 81

follows

10.

In the latter case, especially the verse of Prov.

^si

10. 6, Dcri noa" D^ri'i

pnv
|

['i's-i^]

jiianii

runs on from

one page to the other

both fragments.
length
;

the dots above the letters are in

The

letter

must have been of considerable

w^th beginning and

fols.

end missing and the gap

between

9-10

it

should be noted that both fragments

are joined parchment double-leaves

it

must have been

double the present

size.^''
it

From

the continuation

is

now
fol.

clear that the R. Jacob,

mentioned at the end of Bodl.

80
/.

b,

was not Jacob

b.

Nissim of Kairowan, as Neubauer,

ibid.,

r.,

and Halberstamm,

596, held for certain.

He

is

the son of Joseph, most

likely the
f"'

same

(b.

'Awkal or 'Awbal)

whom

Sherira and

It is

now

hardly necessary to add that the doubts of Halcvy (Hlin

399) as to the authenticity of the Bodl. Gcnizah fragment

D'J''iK'Nin, III,

arc entirely unwarranted.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

Hai eulogize so much
N.
S.,
I,
1

MANN
to

35

in

the letter printed

by Marx, ^QR.,
service

01.

He

had

rendered

signal

the
its

academy during
interests

his stay in

Babylon, and looked after

when

residing in Kgypt.

Our fragment

reflects

a very depressed spirit of Sherira and Hai.

That the
1.

letter
i:ni

emanates from them

pn
r\^2,

is

clear

from

fol. 9,

verso,

H,

3X

i.e.

Hai.

Sherira and Hai had evidently to enfol.

counter some opposition, as

ticular (cp.
1.

10, recto,
1.

shows

in

par-

4, n::'D

dn nip dn, and

is

15, D''Jvi:c ^ic).

But

who

this

opponent was

obscure.

It is

likewise difficult
is

to ascertain

addressed, and
verso,
1.

who this Alluf was to whom this letter who is called [li-'DN*] nm irry niN (fol.
(J/sc/tr.,

9,

7).

Eppenstein

191

],

476),

who
fol.

rightly

suggested that R. Jacob at the end of Bodl.

80 b was

Jacob

b.

Josef

(b.

'Awkal),

is

certain that the Alluf, to

whom

the letter was sent, was Jacob b. Nissim of Kairowan.

this

Fragment B renders

suggestion highly improbable.

The Alluf was

to

evidently the representative of the

academy
had
very

whom
gift

all

donations were sent.

b.

Thus he transmitted

the

of Jacob

Joseph
(fol.

(b.

'Awkal).
1,

He
ff.).

also
It is

legacies for the

academy

10, verso,

11

unlikely that Jacob b. Joseph should have sent his donations

from Egypt to Jacob

b.

Nissim of Kairowan.

The money

would have to be sent back to Egypt

Babylon.

for transmission to

The dangers

of travelling in those days render

likely.

such a procedure hardly

lived in

This Alluf must have

for the

Egypt, where he acted as principal agent

academy.
(b.

He

had friendly

relations with

Jacob

b.

Joseph

'Awkal), Shemariah, and his son Elhanan, and also with

b. [Nissim, as fol. 10, verso,
1.

Jacob Alluf

15,

is

to be

completed] of Kairowan.
for

The people who

b.

left

the legacies

the academy,

viz.

no X. and David

Joseph, apparently

A a

352

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

This applies also

the Alluf's cousin, are quite unknown.

to

Hasan

b.

X.

(fol.

9, verso,

1.

i).

with

whom

the Alluf

corresponded.

We

come now

to Bodl. fol.

<Si,

wherein Shemariah and

Elhanan are mentioned.

curious misreading of
interesting

Besides

minor

omissions,^^
for so

Neubauer obscured

long an

and important

detail of the inner organization

of

the academy.
(p.

The
1.

colourless

expression

Nynn-in3(!)
"Nyninj
!

223,

12),

reads in the fragment

first

mvc mvc

t:*N"i

B'wS-i

We
'.

learn thus that the

of the three rows

of the Pumbedita

academy was

called

'the row

of the

Nehardeans

This suggests that when the famous school

of Nehardea was closed, probably after the destruction of

the

town by Odenathus

in

259.^^ its scholars joined the

newly-formed Pumbedita school and

privilege of occupying the first row.

were granted

the

In course of time

the

name remained, though

was head of
this

its

occupants were no longer

scholars exclusively from Nehardea.

riah

We see

that

Shema-

row and yet he very probably came

from Egypt, w^here

his father held the dignity of ti'NT, to

Pumbedita
visited

for the

purpose of study, just as his son Elhanan

the school after him, and

Solomon

b.

Judah sent row of

his son

Yahya

to study under Hai.

A
the
6'

suggestion
'

may

be ventured here that the

'

Nehardeans
In

was connected with the work of the

read

JQR., VI,
"ly

p. 223,
(1.

nmj

in:

.11.

3-4

niNIIJ Tlin
Several

(l.

la),

YPV

Tii^

'3

33

DnnnND

nbai

(l.

a6;.

words have

Babylonian vowel-signs, while others have Tiberian.

"
a-i

Cp. Shenra's Letter(p.29):

nini

nmnSI
^"'vjDw*!?

IV:

N3S SHN yph

HJK'll

Dnn

Nnnr^h M^-j-h

nus* nn

nm

i^rsi

Nymnjf'
"13

}^n P3-I
nb"l3

"iNU"i)
*y^^
I,

Nnna

niD3 j^n
;r:^n

i:2ni
1.

Nam nnx Non

D^S^.

^ov

"IP'y

'J"-'

n^3 NtSV

{y.

Snna

Sec also Bacher,

Jtw.

Ettcyt.,

145 b.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

Eastern Massorah.

MANN

353

The

jMassoretic

differences

between

Suranese
R.

('NIID)

and Xehardeans
well-known
in

CJJTin;) arc well

known.
is

Nahman,

the

Amora
the

of

Nehardea,

mentioned as a Massorete
Gen. 27. 3
(;r:n3
I.

Massorah Magna to

ani'hz bin nn-n^ 'n m>v, cp. Ginsburg,

ii'^

Massora,

6i\'-^

and Introduction, pp.

and

611).

A
'

Massorctic fragment from the Genizah, which will be

xn^''

discussed in another connexion, mentions

n^m

ns''D.

The house

of Yclta
It

'

is

probably the Massoretic school

in

of R.

Nahman.

was named so

honour of
(cp.

his wife

Yalta, the

daughter of the

Exilarch
124'').

Ber. 51^ top,

of the
times.

Shabb. 54^ Gittin 67^ and Hullin

Eastern Massorah
It
is

The work
in

^^

was hardly completed

it

Talmudic
in

more probable that

was continued

the schools

during the Gaonic period.

Suranese had their academy,

but the Massoretic work of the Nehardeans was carried on

in

the Pumbedita school, in particular

nniK'.

by the occupants

of the ^ymnj

It

should be added that in the only

b. Ezekiel,

instance in which

Judah

the famous disciple of

Rab and Samuel and

is

founder of the Pumbedita school,

mentioned as a Massorete, he agrees with the Xehardean

See the item
in
in

school.

Ginsburg, Massura.

I,

713% which
before,
"'"Si

reads

the

Genizah fragment mentioned

-^i

n^m

n^D2i ^xprn^

mvnn

N-i2''Da[i] ^n^

inn (Deut. 32.

6)

To
we

return to Shemariah and his son Elhanan.

About
Here

their activities in

Egypt more

will

be said elsewhere.

are concerned with their relations with the Babylonian

Geonim.

As

till

now no responsum by
it

Sherira and Hai to

Shemariah was known,

5'

will

not be superfluous to cite here

Der
Massoretischt Text
.

About

this

Massorah

in general see Kahle,

der Babyl. Jttdeii. 1902. and Die Massoteten des Osteits, 1913.

354

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

a few lines from Bodl.

fols.

MS. Heb.

e.

98 (not yet catalogued),

22-3.^^

They

contain the beginning of a pamphlet

of Gaonic responsa, reads

[n]31?3

much damaged and

-|2D

torn.

Fol.

22^

]:rhii

irnn

nnn

nn'o'^' i3''3-i^ )T'^'n'C'

snv

TJ'i "in-asi

in^n

j;T"in^

^ErrnwS

nnNi
j'yv

nrn pc^n nn nnin^

it

yn^in"

bswnx
-mDn

n^-j?i

ncix xin pi

nr

^Din^ns nxv i^d^

nr^h 'n^DHi

^y [yn-in"

p]

in'm i^ris sin pi

'131
"n'-i'DI

pmn^D

nr in'-jn

TinD

D^-lT

S"lp3

As

it

appears from the context, this reading was new to

Shemariah.
Sanh.
16'')

His Talmud copy read

yi^in''
i

in Ber. 3^,

bottom

(cp.
is

as our texts

in^:3 btir^'na

nnxi which

not in accordance with

Ber. 4*,

Chron. 27. 34

(cp. n""! in Tosafot,

7,

and Sanh.,
2, n. 5).

/.

r.,

Dikduke

Soferivi, Ber. p. 8, n.

Sanh., p.

On
(2

the other hand the Kairowan text of the

involves the difficulty

Talmud adducing
23) as

a verse

about
in^32

yn^in""

liTjn

Sam.

20.

an inference for
in

yi^liT.

Yet

this text

was the correct one

accor-

dance with the reading of the Babylonian schools.

This

we

learn fi'om an interesting passage in R. Nissini's

(as

Maftcah

on Sanhedrin

published by Israel Levi, REjf.,

fragment).'"''

XLIV.

294-7, from a Gcnizah

**
I

For our purpose here

granted to

am under
296:

obligation to Dr.

Cowley

for facilities

mc

in

reading this manuscript

"

P.

i,-i"'j2

yn^in^ ^Din-'ns'

nnsi sip 'xno

'dd3 mp'y

cidv 2-1 nroNi

11

niNnDi:n h^i sin

1:p'n:^

n*j'3VJ*Di

n" ni3-i3
i:n*

nyic::'

':i

nro 'ed

KDi'jn pania

n^ni

nn^c'n ^nDi:o

nijjp'n i:ni

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

it

MANN

355

is

of interest to learn that

in

991 Sherira and Hai sent

(hn) of responsa
first

responsa to Shemariah.

The pamphlet

used to be

called after the beginning of the

question.
|d nir\

See

in n":,

No. 314
1:31

rc'i.T

iSDn ^y^o n^ix ni?s mbs*

^nk'::^

B'snn

nnr:^'

prha

no
II,

'i-if:;

'j2
ff.

nya,

and

the indices of responsa in Geou.,

pp. 57

Thus the
nwsn

pamphlet of responsa

to

Shemariah was

called

Neubauer

{JQR., VI, in)

writes
this

that
is

Shemariah
no evidence

emigrated to Kairowan.
whatsoever, and as far as
I

For

there

can see, this has been accepted

his son

by no

other writer.

But about

Elhanan,

it

became
This

an accepted opinion that he emigrated to Kairowan.

is

suggestion
''k^:N,

of
11),

Pozn.

{REjf.,
n":,

XLVIII,
no.
i

161,
2,
11.

and
2-4)
'y^y\

IsiTp

no.

based on

(p.

m:s
'131

linn mis nncw' no

D-i2r

pn^s*

in

^su- yi

lyns*
irb

pxj

'ih D^iD

ixn^pn v-r Dn^r:^nni inos

3py> no.

This has been accepted by Eppenstein {Mschr., 1911, 614;

while Dr. Davidson (JQR., N.S., 19 13-14, 53) calls Elhanan
'

the well-known scholar of Kairowan

'.

All this rests on

a very weak foundation.

We

have only to consider that

questions from Spain and North Africa had to pass through

Egypt on the way

representative

to Babylon, and

that

these

usually

enclosed donations for the collection of which the central

was

in

Egypt, then there

stay
in

is

no ground

for

Elhanan's supposed

Kairowan.

When
sjov

Jacob's

-in^3Ni in*J2

yn'in^

^ain^nx nnsi snp

)'yv

\s*n':
*

'ex

n1Tw^'^"^
i*^'i

^Din^ns nvyi t:'.s

in^jai
'131

sin pi

nr
ir

^Din^nx
i.t:3

nxv i^^b N3v

vHx2

'f:is'

Nin

pi

imnjD
/.

yn^in> 'idi yv' -irx

"Vhtn ^yi
by Dikdnke

'mrn

^y yn^ln^ p.
c.)

R. Meir ha-Levi Abulafia ^lY'd,

cited

So/erini, Sanh.,
;

quotes a responsum by Hai about the

is

reading of this Talmudic passage

very likely our responsum

meant here.

356
(b.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Patrun)
in

questions to Sherira and

Hai arrived from

Kairowan

Egypt, Elhanan

b.

Shemariah,

arranged their transmission to Babylon, enclosed his

questions to the Geonim.^^

who probably own

This process of transmission

has to be kept

in

mind

in

order to understand the fact that

copies of several epistles from Babylon to North Africa

and Spain have been preserved

Again, the indices of responsa to
to
in

in

the

Cairo Genizah.
b.

MeshuUam

Kalonymos,

Fez and other countries

Wertheimer's

(as

preserved
clearly

in Geon., II,

and
the

vrh^

n^np)

indicate

that
their
in

responsa were copied

purposes.

by Fustat
is

scholars for

own
the

Reference

also
(1.

made
13),

to the item
iJ-'m

above-mentioned book-list which shows that the

to
'

""'Xn

mnNn

n"i^"'NB',

questions from Tahort (in Morocco)

Hai

'

were copied

in Fustat.

In this connexion the following lines (the only ones

I

could

make

out) from

T.-S. 8 J. 28^^, vellum,

damaged
persons

and

torn, will

be of some

interest, especially as the

mentioned therein are known from Gaonic responsa.^'

address (on verso) reads
'*'

The

After writing this

have found a Genizah fragment, which will be

published in another connexion, containing a letter by Elhanan to Damascus.

Herein he states that report reached him of his son-in-law having been

drowned

in the sea

and that

his

daughter was

left

behind in Kairowan.
;'aC''n

The

corresponding lines read

lail li^mCintD
(r.

'l^'i:i

l^mS'J' ''tbv ^N1

^as
n-in

i:icro

bi ^2 vdd o
]i!>\~\^\>i

"i:jnn) i:nr,n
nijtrjni

nvi^'kr
iJoy

n:D^N

'):nn

rr'jni

nrcino

sua irnims n^* n\i nmni

native of Kairo-

ni"l3 J*1N3-

Assuming

that Elhanan's son-in-law

was a

wan,

it

is

possible that Elhanan visited this city on the marriage of his

daughter.
'''

This fragment

is

probablj' identical with the

one cited byWorman,

JQR., XIX,
I

730, no. XXV.

The contents of Aram, box 64 have now,

understand, been transferred to bound volumes.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

[y]ox:

MANN
ijains*

357
n:^'np

jjm^n ^sio::' n^n

^:^?2

^jn

[iJ-injNi

m^pM

21

i'ti"

[nnv]?D rijnca
I

i?3iy

[yj]

On

the recto
n>[a
. . .

read the following lines

3-1

m^N

wi'S*

^^;i

(5)

Dmas*
n-ii[n

^Nir:]^'

in:

qn^n (7)

snsiwSi nijasp^N yo nj (8)

msjx ni^x ^mnsn^N pxa finyci'N

...
.

xnw
|o

-i[i]

nyiD

|y

^wdd Njami
.
.

(9)

noro:: ij ^^i<n N:n^[^D]

n^sxp!?N P3D njN^ (10)

NiTi-D

b]-^vb
.

rhzapba

d^^u

;*y3

^^n

"NH

p
.
.

N:i?NDi(ii)

n3DJ N:3nD
^!?y

1^

ny3i

nno^x nn:
f[s]
-ij

JN3 JND (12)

[n]pi
.

n^jNn^s*

nnxij^x ypv

n^\sn (13)

;x

anx n>T
n^^N

>^y

h^n^n
-^j

h^dj^n* !jxioc' n nsjs* h^dn^

^^nh

l^t
ro]>J3
. .

'^y

-ja^n^b

nji^^d

mvn

^^x

n^;\s*

nci

i5^\n

(16)
ro

...
^nbii

n>jN-n^N

i?S;3nnD

i^^y (14)
is

Dn-i2wS'

61

3pr

....

The

writer of the letter

known from
no.

other Gaonic responsa as having corresponded

(cf.

with Sherira and Hai

n":, nos.
'i

351-69 D3Xp

^:n ni^NC',

369 ends

i'N'.cc^

p
is

.x*d

ni^s-^n ^:pn?2

D^n^o^nni; n":,

no. 59 (p. 27)

b.

and 3^QR., VI, 323-4;

also
to

n":, no. 67).

n":, p. 7, as

Samuel
having

Abraham 'mnND
questions

known from
find

sent

Hai.

We

him. according to our

fragment, travelling with a caravan from Tahort to Egypt.

the way he passes Kabes, and Moses b. Samuel ibn Jama' writes hastily a question to R. Hai which Sam. b. Abr. is to take with him to Egypt.^^ There all the
questions (as well as the donations) pass through the hands
of Joseph
b.

On

Jacob

(b.

'Awbal),

who

transmits

them

to the

Gaon.

This Joseph evidently transmitted

in

return the

responsa from the academy to the communities of North

Africa and beyond.
clearly the son of
^^

This representative of the academy

(b.

is

Jacob

Joseph

b.

'Awbal) who has been

The
b.

Sam.

letter was given to a non-Jewish member of the caravan because Abr. had to leave in advance on account of the Sabbath (II. 9. io\

358

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Continuing his father's tradition, Joseph

dealt with above.

looked after the interest of both the Sura and the Pumbedita academies in Egypt.

This

is

evident from the letter of

:

Samuel

b.

Hofni (J^QR.. XIV, 309, cp. 621

una

^'\nr2

pb)
ijs).

v!?N orn^K'jn

onxm
1.

[njc's

si'ii's*

npy^

r5

iJiv^ ^dv

no

Joseph's sons

were called Hillel and Benjamin.

16 of our fragment.
b.

These

are referred to in

In addition to the

few letters addressed to Joseph

the Bodl. Catalogue
arc cited here.

Jacob, as mentioned in
the following fragments

(II, Index),^^
fol.

Or. 5542,
bl)]}

32, contains a letter

^\2V
,
.

which
''3"'''B>^

reads on verso:
^'^

\2

mpy p

nD^xns

^Dni

['Dj^N-iDiS
5;^6<^,
':':

2)pv'
fol.

^IDV

p
(2)

nc'jci

py:2) bahn).

Likewise
""X^IDl
''2''\y

Or.
JO

C.

19, is

addressed (on verso) "'Dm

^aiy

nipy^

^ov

nsbx

"as

^"bbs*

yz'ba

^^""^ai

^yN?:)DX
letter,
\r\:inj'^

p DnSN.

Several persons are mentioned in the

^D3Xp^x
jnC'-^d

among them
apy

px

n"is

and
is

iT-nx

^IDI^

Finally in T.-S. 13

26^^ Joseph J.

styled C'n f\DV

n^3

::'n

xba.

His sons Hillel and Benjamin are

also mentioned.

We

thus learn that both he and his father

bore the
'''

title

of n^D

t:*n.

Bodl. 2877' contains a business letter, in Arabic, from >j2 D^DJI ^D^'*

n'2"lZl to

our Joseph

b.

Jacob.

Probably the

first

of the correspondents

is

identical with the

Kairowan scholar referred

Jacob of Tripoli,

to farther

on under

4).

We

shall thus learn that

''"

he had a brother called Nissim.

This Joseph
is

b.

who

is

also the correspondent of the

Bodl. letters,

probably identical with |N3 ''ibn ''DbaSID

IpV

^DV

npl^S
Kabes
''

*l^i *D
is

1VD3 D-pT
most
likely

in the

This Tripoli
(cp.

document of 1034 {JQR., XVI, 575-6). the port on the North-African coast, east of
the deed

map
in

attached to Wiistenfeld, Geschiclite dcr Fatimidm Clialifen).

in

Probably identical with the person mcnticmed

1050
Bodl. 2805. 23
.

drawn up

at

Kairowan

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

MANN

359

A
(recto)
:

1:

(4)

^^-^^P

.... 12

(3)

N*

(2)

P^

'0
nnnxc^^

br\Q

-i3

jn^n

Dmns*

(5)

NTTj* inni uiDT [x]rn n-na nnaTim n[33]

jVkj'mD

m^n nnn^no

^^'sn

x''j:)n

smi wnm
pac' ytirii
"'LDNt:

'"[^ij^

[nnTn
5i[i'N

c^ni]
nitj'n]

Np-ny Npitra n^n Nji'[':]-n

Nj[''j]r:^

nN[o n]^ni
n[l5n]

2sn ^ba N:[np]

*b' '"10

nirn

[nam]D

nv

^yn Tijat

noy nvnsi
^i>y

[^"'yJoDN 'no

p nnn p

'no ^n^n jn

n"'3

'^wV

nTno^x
'no

lo

Dnri n^i'i^x

mn
[-d

"d

ainao no y-o:

men

OvXjr^x

nn

nyo

"anH'N'ai's*

pin n

mm
ini

i nvni

nnoxna

^^
rr-aa

mm

n^ip

nan n^vi^x

mn

nn]; no yoj nTj'i ^njn pi

x^minn

HTJ^i u'23

n
.

n:v

^no

Dmas' 'no -lim

^no
15

mn nnam
Dan^Na
[mjirrj'

n:x^3i nhwSV
3:11
b'\'i:n

on^n

Tri? N:m<:na onai i^n

pn n'^ii wx^mirna mvi^wx

mna

mnxu'^wv

yno

3''3L"
''ly

xas-i *y2 ^-^D^oinijx b)pb nh^s

DriN 101^ -jnv

no yoj hnsun
-101^ ti^' 1!t-

-101^

T-iv

px in ny dhn

N^

IN

nn^o nyc'3 n[D:j'o] din laina noi^ t-iv pN in mriD

nnr'::

n2*n

ny^a

nu-j-o

mN

pN hdc'd

mn

N"'y3n

inn
2d*^'

20

n^nn 'no^ ^no^n Nin ajiD iont piidodi pnin^D yio

nn-'n

nmbn

^hdij

nod NJonm NJana N:onp nim noi in

n"'ny[D:]

n'h'C'

nm3N p monj

:mN-i^i id?^

DNi Nin'j'

n]-\2

7\'b]!^

na^no^N
3-1

V^
2

Read perhaps

^t2Nt^'.

j*5^L, s/iore, coast; cp. Pinsker, p'7,

D*n2DJ.

43, note,
itself
*^

nN-|S^N ^CNB'

"-^y

INnn

^HNIJ fO -1N33N^N

of course Bagdad

being placed on the river Tigris [ri/jn]B. Batra 175

a.

360

THE XEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

B
Bod. 3668^9
(fol.

Hob, bottom)

JQR., VI,
njj>
in^

233,

11.

6-8.
-y^^f^

m\o
apy"*

tJ"N
iJ^i^y

mn'' nn^B'o yjn

sii!?n

xh^

NJ311

nono unnnxa no^'n

)'snn inniN

ijnna ^yai

(Or. 5561 B,

fol. 9,

recto)
ly

'in-irN^i

"im[Ty3

^i^No

'nmnb
niD

jr

pN psi n[y^

-ff]

nom

-isd:i

i^n ynj x^

-12DJD iiovy
ip-13''

irmN"iinD
! ijDU
. . .

n
'[3

n-cij'n
p")

N^
.

irn^s*

T"!?

byi

D^nvj

n^h

....
.

[?i]dv
. .

nmoi' nm[r2?Di
nnivni ni^n:n
ne^s
;o

rb^rh'\ n^[y]oiD
^>ir\

...

10

ns
i]r:'y

ny^ n^nn Pii[^Nn

niN[r:

....

^N n3n3 Dinyn iu'n

(fol. 9,

verso)

)n^f?:)N^i

ij\i^N inj3i[a^
v.-^'r^

^[rb

p]

pn

-16 ^s*

13^

[nB'yJ-in^
I'j'N

n[3n]3

nc^N*

pbcn inixa
iJ3t:ni ni^T
''^

-iivr:n

ivyi irj'DJ

nx
fo

in

DC'2 nrn

imn

p:3i?3 n^n

"*
'

Can
he

also be read

p337D, which would make no sense.

oppression

Read 133/3,
',

i.

e.

stopped

the

which was

in

our

heart

viz.

he

relieved our cares.

">"lif?2n

can also be read as mjfOn, but would again

give no meaning.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

MANN

361

[onann] D''3n[D pi]

ny^ [.Tnn]
niT n^ni
.
.

nu

3n

i:ni

nnx

loai

nbxn
10

is

nns* i^X3i un^j^

amc'j n^N3n

T't^'yo

nxi

ait:n

(fol.

10, recto)
ij^-aD D^iyn

pN 33yb hdit sin

13DN0

^3

nxr DID

i:j[3o] 1:^ i:n D''nDnr:i

n'^c'^

nnvi "un'^D^n oy
iTj'c

onnN nx

DN

n-ip ns* p-iis 1JN ps* ni[tt]

ir

nn nnc'^DJ itTN

imjN [nsn
nn
n-i[Er''i

"h^b]) 5

DN 101^ irM
-j.^

lat^'sj

unyn]

Qnnx Dy nosn
i^N
"-n

'a

^^

D'iprh

pxn
DN no

in^ dni iJn^:n

D'-h^yn p-iDn
n^[ni

niu-jp c^

h)y^ nb)v^

idnb' 'o]

10

mr mny
DN ^jm na
-JK'

jnato n!?ynM DDnn['' n]

nsDrbiii yih'^rno
ba^Kii:'

yiDn

li-p

[is]

rbxi

*^DJDnn5 [nni]

v^jy

-ninc'n^o yvron ivp !n[3v]i

-rc'

[5]v
6S
"
"^

-ii

D''a''njrD

vn> |\s -idx[i "yi] 15

Read p^K)3The first letter

Cp. Job 30.
I.

looks more like a

\2

than

K*.
"*

If

12,

then read ["IDy]t3.

Isa. 28. ao.

362

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

(fol.
[!i]i)D?5ni

10, verso)
""ssn

mn

xnp

"'\xn

""DNrD

nin ^3

[ny^]

^n"

f)i^s*

m:s* bas tint

i;nj;n

bo

i^nyn
it

[iJtf'D:

ns njTnin

r\n nn'-nn

l]-iv psi nnr^'j'H

n^njn
pN

i^
'3

n 12-11 np^y
.
. .

n'h^

12:^''

pm bn

a:^'m
w'^pn'

ab

ipb "ip^y

ab

la

[pai]
[nN]

i nN[iv] p3

iny nvdjh
nN"ii*

f^or [id]

n^n i

[id
[i?j

nijmjn
irb

b
p

pm

na-ia^

n^T ncs
unr^no
15

CDJ]

tji^N 2py^ i?b

[t'ii^b]

nii-^ii

Ni^n ^ni n^ynn ba^

Bodl. 2668"

(fol.

81

a,

top)
'iDi
''

yc;/e.,

VI, 233.

1.

9.

Dr:n noj^ D'y^i

'si

pn)i

4.

Sajmicl

b.

Hofni and

his sou Israel.

diffi-

The two
12. 733,

small fragments printed here can without

b.

culty be assigned to Samuel

Hofni.

Fragment A, T.-S.

vellum, square, 16 x 16 cm., has a counterpart in the

this

letter

from

Gaon, published by the Rev. Margoliouth.

JQR.^ XIV, 308. There the Gaon mentions the agreement entered upon by him and Shcrira and Hai that all
'
'

Ps. 33. 7.
Sanli. 103 b
.

"

Yoma

9 b

cp. Yalk. Isa.

436 and Kings

246.

For

13b read "h

'

Prov.

10. 6.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

MANN

363

general donations should be cquall)- divided between both

academies of Sura and Pumbedita.

Only

in

case a donor

assigned his contribution to any of the

Geonim by name,

he would be agreement
the
is

entitled to retain

it

for himself.
(11.

The same
1-2).

spoken of

in

our fragment
i.""'"^

After

death of
b.

Jacob

n,3

(b.

Nissim)

of Kairowan,
in representing
is

Josepii

Berachiah became his successor

(11.

the academies
n2"'K'*n.

!-;).

In

JQR.,
is

I.e.,

he

styled

pD

Joseph

b.

Berachiah

also
(n"j.

known from
no. 178).

questions

addressed to Sherira and Hai

It

appears

that this Joseph, just as Jacob b. Xissim before him, was

the representative of the academies for North Africa (and

perhaps also for Spain), receiving the donations

the questions addressed to them.

as.

well as

These the representative

Egypt, where Joseph
their
it

would send from Kairowan

Jacob
(b.

to

b.

Awbal) would arrange

transmission
is

to

Babylon.
Y^V
\:h

From

11.

5-6 of our fragment

sent to

evident that

PiDXJn

mn

who

Hai

(?i:n^n qi"3) \-p

Dirhems
Nissim.'^
of

{yQR., XIV, 308) was none

else

but Jacob

b.

The Gaon
academy
953

states

that

the

names and the questions

the correspondents of former times are preserved in the

(11.

lo-ii).

The same we
401, bottom).
b.

read

in

the letter of

{yQR; XVIII,
Interesting
is

Samuel

Hofni's

reference

to
(11.

his

commentaries on the Bible, Mishnah, and Talmud

13).

12-

Besides

his
(cp.

Bible

commentaries
n.

and

Talmudic

compendiums
III,

Harkavy, Shidien
;

Mittcilnngen, 1880,
J

3-4; 7QR-, XIV, 311

ZfHB., VII,
is

83, no. 3), only

b.

one Talmudic commentary

"2

so far

known by Samuel
in

Eppenstein
b.

{Msc/ir., 1911, 471,

n. i) is certain that the late scholar

was Jacob

Awbal
his

(there

is

an obvious confusion

this

note of the

names Jacob and

son Joseph).

364
Hofni

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

(cp. the Bookseller's

Catalogue {JQR., XIII, 52-6),

no. s^, ':2n

p^ niDT

'-!")

n^io,
is

and Pozn.,

ibid.,

326-8).

Fragment B
MSS.,

(Or. 5538)

described in the Rev. Margo-

liouth's Catalogue of British

Ill, 1915,
561''.
tJ'NT

Museum Hebrew and Samaritan

last line
"^-c^^,

The

but one

is

printed there
sense.

as (IJN^CD nTC\n

^NTJ'^

which gives no
like 'JXl
'

But the

first

word

really looks

more

than
I,

''JDD

and

thus perfectly restores the meaning.

of the Gaon, send

And

Israel son
N^b'J2
.

many

greetings
in

'

(Divyi

m
=

wh^

.).

The

letter

was written

Elul 13 15 Sel.

IC04.

Israel

was then already of an age to collaborate

responsa.

in his father's

Probably he drew
"1210

up the

epistle.
b.

He
=]
B'>

is

mentioned as nT"j"n
to Fez (JQR.,
'IDI
^^

in

the letter
1.

by Samuel
-i21D

Hofni
|C1

XVni,
is

404,

b"n

[^wST^^

[min2=] nn
b.

Tnr:n

[na''::'\n

=]).'^

Probably
'"i

this

son

of Samuel
in Giat,

Hofni
I,

identical with jnsn ^nTw'^

>C3

mentioned

^^,

70 O^n

on:

jnan W'\^^
''D3

mi) after Sherira

Steinschneider,
(b.

and

in

83

(jnDn

i^Nl*:"'

npoD

^3m).

B. H., lY, 60, wants to alter Israel into Samuel

Hofni)

because

der
'.

Name

Israel scheint
{Geo?i.,
I,

uberhaupt nicht vorzu179,

n.
is

kommen

Ginzberg

i)

relegates this

Israel |nDn to

North Africa.

All this

now

superfluous.

The fragment does not tell us who these two correspondents were who sent the questions to Samuel b. Hofni
(last line i:^^[w:J']i I3>bn: ^yc).

The donor

of the contribu-

'

By

the by, these very abbreviations, as well as the others occurring

in this Genizah-letter,

show that it is not the original but a copy made in when transmitted to Fez. Marx's suggestion {ibid., p. 771), followed by Pozn., Onpn, II, 94 to read 'f^n IDID [|D1] C^' [3^] fOI ""JOD needs
Fustat

no refutation now.
tion

In R/iJ..

LXII, 120-3, Pozn. withdraws

this
is

this

sugges-

and gives the correct rendering of

Gaon, the son of Samuel
S..
b.

passage.

The

existence of an

Israel

Hofni.

now beyond

doubt.

(Sec also

JQR., N.

VIII,

7.)

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

tion

MANN
b.

36 O

which
last

their letter enclosed

is

called

Jacob

Maimon.

The

name

points perhaps to Spain.

A
b]}

(recto)

vn^

Q)r\b'Cfn

nt;>N3i

i^nna lovy^ nnp>

1?:t^3

n2[nj]

^'njn -innn :idv ai -id ii:t:N3i m^"?si i:nnji

mnx
^3

pnv
.u'*-!

-13?

n'3-ia

id

i^j^-^r

i:3^d inv>:N^

inNn
xin

oan.ni

3p]y'

an no nnjni n^ajn ^n:n ann

iniij]pni

mpm

n^nn^

noy

^jy

inunoyn

^31

py p^

sidn^h n^d

^33

iJ^ns*

N3 no:;'n nnyi
d: :3^ntrno

uidd ^y vnmvni loipcn

i^tJTi

nx-k^'no

dd^ n^^^n

fs

nnrni [n]!>[N]
ini5r;[n:j'3i]

vnn |yo^ oa-ni^wr QDoy

nipipn Dni^N-kTi DniDc*
*3

vn> D3''n[un]j

py P^ psDx^n

DD>3iK'[xn3]

10

noann

irni^^Ni ba nnina
|o

irno onyn^ pNi

^31

monn[i]

DnsD

njD3

mns
pt'yn

nio^nni n:::n:ni Nnp!D[n]

i3yn>i

mo^nm

nj^^on |d ni[n3]D0 ):\^'yz) [Nnpon]

n*^N*3 D3^*yiJ

'ai

d3
15

DD"':y D3n2^i

CD'oan
''^

^d!?^^
^^^^]

''ibb' Nim
n:t:^

[la^T

^y

B
D^uj Tnn^i
innot5'>

Di'i[o]3

n^t2'>

'>^n

iJ>ni[N:]nn

onnui

i3>nii?Kjj'[)3]

po^D ['no]

p
.

2py> 'no in>nj nan:

.

oana [ojy

y^ani

'3

""n33

mo

p
td

[nijana D3133T3[i] imjan^ai \yrh[ii]

iL"S'n^

vba [i]j3n3 n33i

''y

[nnuy]

n^c'n 310

nnn3

i:onp[nJ

vnni
^*

)^bii

^^^^3 D3nDn i^n(>nj

7D

xjni [303]
^
]5

Ps. 55. 33.

ps_ ai

VOL.

VIII.

366

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

i^van riN^oS i:o-iv
nvj'[yi5ij

n^nm

lynixjn B^n[n]^

iHiJ'

nrc

b)bi<

" Num.

25. 12, a

proper greeting by a priest.

To

be contimied.)

CORRIGENDA
P. 468, note 12.
P. 471, note 15,
II.

IN VOL. YII, 457

iL

ForBodl. 2669*, >rW Bodl. 2669'.

3 and
7.

For Charasan, read Chorasan.

P. 472,

1.

12,

Read R. Hal reports in a responsum. For p, 465, read p. 461.

1.

P. 473, note 17,

10.

/b;-Geon,

rrnrf

Gaon.
1.

P. 475,
P. 478,

1.

16.
4.

/?mrfirm3K^

D'J' iTJ'y3;
^^rr*^/

18, /o/- 630,

m7r/636.
1.

1.

For nib^snr:n,
;

D''!?^Dnon;
/-^arf

note 22,

4,

//-

Tr:n\

>wrf n^Dn"*
p. 481,
11.

1.

II,

/o^nsmpn,
b.

riwsnpn.
b.

2-3.

Fo^-Shemarya

Kphraim, read Ephraim

Shfm.^rya.

A FRAGMENT OF THE VISIONS OF EZEKIEL

Bv A. Marmorstein,
Jews' College, London.

The

famous

Stichometry

of

Nicephorus

mentions

along with the r/reu^eTrtypa^a of Baruch,

Daniel, one of Ezekiel also.^

Habakkuk, and

There was, therefore, known

a Pseudepigraph attributed to Ezekiel the prophet.

rently the traces of such a

book are

entirely

AppaYet lost.

from the references thereto given by the Rabbis

we .know
there

that as late as the eleventh and twelfth centuries

was a Baraita

called

Maaseh Merkahah dealing with the

In a manuscript of the British

Chariot Visions of Ezekiel.^

Museum
p.
I

have discovered a fragment (Or. No. 5559? D,

title says,

(S

and B) which contains, as the

the last

page of a writing called The Visions of Ezekiel ben Bnzzi,

tJic

priest.

Unfortunately only thirty-four lines are preserved, nineteen lines on the recto, fifteen (including the postscript) on

the verso.

The
room

writing

is

ancient, square

Hebrew,

of the

tenth or the eleventh century.

leave no
for

The

contents of the fragment

the

slightest

doubt that the Visions

of Ezekiel belong to the Pseudepigrapha.

arises
*

The

question

whether the book was pre-talmudic, and was conscLips., 1880, pp.

See Nicephori Opiisciila,

Volkes*,
II,

132-5; Schiirer,
Alteii

Gescliiclite

des

jiidisc/ien

263; Diestel, Geschichte des

Testaments in der

(hristlichen Kirche, p.

20

Orientalisttsche Literatur-Zeitiing,

XV,

254

and

Journal of Theological Studies, XV, 236-g.

^

Cf.

Zunz, GottesdienstUche

Vortr'dge, p.

166

add

ihere.

Dp^H

v13w*, ed.

Buber, nos. 17 and 20.

367

B b 2

368

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

quently used as a source by the Rabbis, or belonged to the

writings of the mystics of the gaonic period.
tion of the various heavens, as the D^pnc*, p30,

The

descrip-

ni3">y,

and of

the "tnan ndd, their distances and purpose, the functions

of the chariot, and the dwelling-place of God, the throne of
glory, are all familiar subjects in kindred literature, as
shall see in
I

we

due course.

begin by giving the text with a translation.

Then

I shall

proceed to discuss the chief features of the Visions

similar subjects in

compared with
O. T.

Greek
the

literature, in the

Pseudepigrapha,

and

in

Rabbinical

sources.

Before dealing with the last lines of our fragment,

we

shall

have to pay attention to the date of the Kaddish prayer,

which shows undoubted resemblances to the expressions

used by our author.
Finally,

we may attempt

to settle the

date of the composition of the fragment.

Text.
[Or. British

Museum, No. 5559, D,

ana

p. iS

A.]
i

[rccfo].

Q'jinnn^ tim aan nac'

ny")

bzf nna-io

n-pn'C'

pi

-'ui

.-ly^i

nna
::'cn

^y nan^i
i^nra

b^ V2iy pi

*n:'Cf

niso

pao

?n

^' n^i .njir nisc

ccn i^no pa^

j^k'

[l]ni:yni3

"nnoi nia nnjiiNi

nnviN

.5

'

Sam.

22.

1,

cp. Pirke derabbi Eliezer, chap. 4 (according to a Gcnizali

in

Fragment, copied by the present writer

eiy^i
*

Cambridge, read

D^DCQ NIHt^D
6.

3113 ^y 33i'i 'rc bp

ana by
the

aan).
is

The same number and

same measure

mentioned Cant.

r.

r.}

^yi^'

pn l^nO
1.

D^'n py ^jn.

Cp. AgadatI, Slm- llnshinm, cd. Sohechtcr,

p. 13,

307

on the subject see

now my Mid> ash

cp.

Ilaseioi

zee

Ycserol ^London,.

191 7), p. 10, note 39.

"

nnO

occurs here and

in line tt

Job

6. 21.

FRAGMENT OF VISIONS OF EZEKIEL

MARMORSTEIN

369

mND

u'Dn ^^^D V3iy pi n:z'

mNo

nnoi niNian^ .D^pnv

i^c^

ttij?

sine

n'lrz^':
!?::^

nm

p3w' inoi D^yjn

fniiyiia

'[bpjny bv

33n 1^-D nnr

" njn oni'D nitd

wVD3 nyi
njt:'

nmy

pi

15

kTcn

ibn^ V3iy pi
c"'

nix c'cn

niD-i ?nia-iyn ia

hdi .njr hind

nnnr:i [idJnjl"
n!?

nrnn

^3J3

nvpci nvnn

?[nj]

,1133-11:1

'nn::'' DiTe:^ y^pin

B
LJS'j'^i

\yerso\
i

n-i'^

n"3pm

nyrae' n^ina

nci

^'1:1

vnn3-iD hdid^i nu^ C'Nn

^'

"2:2 rbv^^b
r^}lyz'^

myoi

-j-n

ni33-iD

^nct:'

D^y^pn nya-j' ij:3

nrnn
.\'2.'\^:i

inin^ niipn
^njn-i

po

n^yr^h

Donn^i

nNarT-i n3nB>''i

L'npn^i n^yn""! N:i':n"i innriM

D^3^j:n

o^D

i^t:n

n^cc' D^pn'i
";i-i3

JDN1 JON N'D^y ^3 D'^p sin

10

DD
|3
iJNpTri^

nyi nijD nvj

ni'!iNi ip\bp

fnbn ni3
p^-^i'

D D

-13T

'"n^l^Sj
:

.5

According to

Pirke derabbi Eliezer, chap. 3

D'^D pB^n HiD nil

dSv^
'

D^Nii^ D'CL"3i
19. 1. 15.

Dim

"iipi

n-i3n nniiNi j^i-n

nnviK.

Isa.

Ezek.
Prov.

i.

23.

ka. 66.

10

10. 7.

37

the jewish quarterly review

Translation.
(i)

The

Chariot of the Cherub whereon

He
(2)

rides

and

descends to the lower (heavens or regions).

rode upon the Chernb
(3) to

And He
and

and didfly >^

the
is

And

from the Sehakim

the

Makon

is

a journey of five hundred years,

(4)

likewise the dimension of

Makon

is

a journey of five

hundred years.

And what
(6) of

therein?

(5)

(Therein are)

the treasuries of snow, the treasuries of hail, the dread of the punishment
righteous.
(7)

the wicked and the reward of the the

From

Makon up

to the
its

Arabot

is

a
is
?

journey of

five (8)

hundred years, likewise

dimension
is

a journey of five hundred years.

And what

therein

The

treasuries of blessing and the treasuries of snow, the

treasuries of peace,
spirit of

and the souls of the righteous and the

the souls which

He

will

bring into existence in

the future, and the dread of the punishment of the wicked

and the reward of the righteous.

And

the Chariot

is

therein.

And what

is its

name

ay (cloud)

is its

name, as

it is

said

The burden of Egypt. Behold, the Lord rideth upon a swijt cloudy^ And from the Arabot up to the throne of Glory
there
is

a journey of five hundred years

its

dimension

is is

likewise a journey of five

hundred

years.

And what
it is
.^"^

there in the Arabot?

The

hoofs of the living creatures

living creatures, as

and a part of the wings of the

said

And under

the firmament
(is

were the wings straight

And
all
:

the Chariot

suspended?) therein.
will

For when the Holy

order to judge
the

One, blessed be He,

descend
it

in

nations, concerning which

is

said through Isaiah

For

behold the
like

Lord

will come with fire,

and

ivith his e harlots

?

a whirlwind?'^
II.

And what
'-

is its
i.

name

The
"
tzck.

Chariots
i.

" 2 Sam. 22.

'<

Isa. 19.

33.

Isa. 66. 15.

FRAGMENT OF VISIONS OF EZEKIEL

of
flic

MARMORSTEIN

371

and storm.

Higher up are the wings of the living

creatures, corresponding to the seven heavens

and the seven

blessed

Cherubim.
be

Higher than these

Blessed
be,

is

the

Holy One,

He.

and

praised,

and honoured, and

exalted, and

magnified, and glorified, and extolled, and

lauded, and sanctified, and adored the

of the

King of Kings,

blessed be He,

name of the King, who exists for ever,

Finished are

Amen

and Amen, Nezah, Selah,

for ever.

the Visions of Ezekiel, the son of Buzzi, the priest.

The

memory of tJic righteous The fragment deals

heavens

is blessed}''

with the last three of the seven

They

are D'pnc, p3D and

mmy
i.

then we have the

throne of Glory.
the seven heavens
4.

In the rabbinical sources the order of

is

as follows:

p!?''i,

2.

Vpl,

3.

D^nr,

hnr,

5.

py?^,

6.

p30,

and

7.

mnny

(b.

Hagigah 12b,
In

R.

Simon

ben Lakish, third

is
:

century).
W^zuri
^"ti'l

the
\r\

Pirke
YTP"^
in
'r

Rabbenu Hakadosh the order

nn-iy
pyt:i

wuy

p3Ci ^nr

n^pnc^.^'^

We

infer that the

order

the

Visions must have been different from that mentioned in

the talmudic sources.

The

idea of seven heavens

is,

of

course, current in the rabbinical literature.

pra}"ers,

Even

in

Greek
en2
fif.

we are taught, generally seven heavens are The seven heavens are described in 3 Baruch treated."^
and
^^'

in
Prov.

Aseensio Isaiac 6-11.^^

io. 7.

Paul
Zohar

speaks of three
287
has the order:
is

1"

See

ed. Grunhut, p. 79, VII.

O-pn-^*,

13.

(II,

nnny, PSO, pyc, bni,

XXXVII, 9
r.

y^pn, p^^l; the same enumeration

p.

to

be found in M. Psahns, ed. Buber,

471 (R. Eleazar), Aboth of R. Nathan,

(R. Meir;.

similar order to that in Pirke

p.

we

find in Lev.

29, 9; cp. Pesikta, ed.

Buber,

154

b.

The Midrash on

the Decalogue

shows the order represented by Zohar, M. Psalms, Aboth of R. N. '' See Fritz Pradcl, Gnccliisclie Gebete, pp, 66 ff., and the literature given
there.
18

See, further, Morfill and Charles, The

Book of

the Secrets of Enoch,

1896, pp. xxx-xlvii.

372
heavens.''^

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Bousset^" derives the whole conception from
In rabbinical sources
19
c,

Babylonian ways of thought.

find

we

the subject
3.

discussed in Genesis rabba

Num.

rabba

8 (R. Levi),
p. 18 (ed.

Lev. rabba 29.

9,

Fesikta Rab, ed.

Otiot of
p.

Friedmann,
R.

b; Pirke de rabbi Eliezer 4i;2i

Jellinek,

Akiba

Beth Bamidrask,

III,

46);

Bereshit rabbati of R. IMoses Hadarshan.^-

The measures given between

found
in

the heavens

is

also to be

Greek philosophy,

in

the Pseudepigrapha, and in

the rabbinical sources.

The

teaching that to travel from

is,

earth to heaven takes five hundred years

as Peritz has

demonstrated, identical with Plato's reckoning of the world

year. 2"

The
its

distance from the earth to the heaven

is

as

great as

thickness, says 3

Baruch

2.

5,

a point which

agrees remarkably with our Visions of Ezekiel and the

sayings of the Rabbis to be mentioned hereafter.

The

Ascension of Isaiah, however, held that the height from

the third to the fourth heaven was greater than from the
earth to the firmament.^^

Yet the Ascension teaches that

is

the height of the second heaven

the

same

as from the
it

heaven to the

earth.^''

In the Rabbinical literature

is

generally assumed that the journey from heaven to earth,

'*

See 2 Cor.

12.

2; cp. GfrCrer,

Das Jahrhnndcrt

dcs Heils,

II, p. 38.
r. 2.

In Rabbinical sources

we
b),

read also of two heavens,

Rab

.Deut.

32),

R. Judah
*

(b.

Hag. 12

Rabbanan (Midr. Psalms,

Gnosis, p. 25.

ed. Biiber,

47i\
Budge,

Ilauptprobleme

do

See, however, Zimmern, Keilinff.

;

schrifteu tind Altes Test?, p.

615

P. Jensen, Kosmologic, pp. 163

p. Ixiii.

Book of the Dead, chaps. 144-7, Coptic Apocrypha, ^ Cp. Hildcsheimer, Halachot Gedolot, p. 5.
*^
'"

See Zunz, See

Gotlesd. Vort., p. 288; cp. Hanttnagid,

XXII,

p. 70.

Zeller, Geschichte dtr Philosophie, II, pp. 52, 521, n. 3;

11

and Monats-

Sihriftfitr die Gesch. taid

2'
''

isscnschoft dcs Jtidad.,

XXXVI

('887), p. 71.

Chap. XXXIII,
Chai). Vll, 18,

28, ed. Charles, p. 53. 50.

I.e.. p.

FRAGMKNT OF VISIONS OF EZEKIEL

or
7'2cc

MARMORSTEIN
;

373

versa, takes five

hundred years

likewise from one

heaven to another, and the thickness of each heaven has

tlic

same

size.-"

Rabban Gamahel held

that the journe}7)

from the earth to the highest heaven takes 3,500 (500 x

years.-'

We

must also consider that the purpose served by the

various heavens as mentioned in our text almost agrees

with the Talmud.

The Makon holds

the treasuries of In the

snow and
read
:

hail,

punishment and reward.

D'iJ")

Talmud we
ud* pr?2
b).

wh:^
n-iyr:i

T\'"hv'\

i^'hbu n^H'i "T^ni :b'^

bc'

nn^'iN

mopk''

nnyoi nsiD

n-inm

(b.

Hagigah 13

We

sec that the talmudic report adds a few things,

and omits
repeated
In

the reference to punishment and reward, which

in

is

the fragment, as being preserved in the Arabot also.

the Arabot there are, according to the Visions, besides the

two last-mentioned things the

treasuries of

treasuries of blessing, the

snow and peace, the souls of the righteous,

the spirits of the souls of the generations destined to

into existence.

come

The Talmud adds

life

justice, righteousness,

charity, the treasures of

and peace and

blessing, the

souls of the pious, the spirits of the souls of the future

generations, and the

dew

of resurrection
five
ib'C'

(b.

Hagigah 13

b).

Con.scquently the
fragment.
It
is

Talmud has
strange that

things

more than our

In

nn^klN occur twice.

the Arabot there are the hoofs of the living creatures and
parts of the wings.
2''

Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai,

tier

Die Agada
pal.

Taiutailen,

I,

p. 41,

b. Ilagigah 13a b. Pes. 94 a; Bacher, doubts whether the authorship is genuine

;

Berakot 2

c, line
;

63, cp. Jalkut

II,

337

Gen, rabba, chap.

i
',

6, ed.

Theodor,

p. 45,

and

parallels
'

add Midrash Konen

and Qalir's poem

nCN nVHI
79
a.
is

NDD nyniD n^n

'-''

Mahzor
657;

to

New- Year

ed.

Heidenheim,
II,

p.

JaLsUt

II,

no.

cp. Herzfeld, GescJnclite

p. 420,

where 850

to be corrected according!}-.

374

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Before proceeding to deal with the
last

words of our
whether the

fragment,

we

shall

consider

the

question

Visions are dependent on the Talmud, or were the source

used by the Rabbis of the third and fourth centuries,

otherwise borrowed
epigrapha.
these

who

expressions

from the Pseudthe seven heavens,

in

The statements concerning

and

their contents, as well as the

measures given
in

the

Talmud, make the impression that we have

quotations

our text

from
is

some other
in

sources,

which

had more

material than

mentioned

our text.

That our fragment

is

neither copied nor altered the talmudical source

fairly-

obvious.

One

has only to compare

it

w^ith the Midrash

Konen, a product of the Mystics of the gaonic period,

where the order of the heavens and their names are of
talmudical origin
(pjai?

nix, Venice ed., p. 8a).

It is

not

likely that a post-talmudic writer

would

alter the

names

and the order of the seven heavens and disagree in such

a matter with the talmudic tradition.
that the teachers of the
is

It

is,

therefore, likely

Talmud used

the Visions.
it

Yet

it

another question whether they used

before
us.

in

the form as

it is

now
The

There are a few points which support the

view that the Visions were written in the early gaonic time.
introduction of biblical

passages
nr^^N::;'
(11.

is

the

first

to

be

considered.
is

Twice

w^e

have

13 and 18).

That
in

the usual
^^

way
in

of

introducing Bible

passages
(ippeOr),

the

Mishnah
Kara to

and

the

New

Testament
is
:

el'ptrai,
(1.

elprjixivovjr'

The second

.Tyc'^ "^?2N

.T^y

22).

We
to
'* 2^

shall

adduce merely a few instances from our collection

in the later

show the manner of quotations

Sec Bachcr, Tnminologtc,
I,

Midrashim

p. 6.

See Gcorg Aichcr, Das Allc Tcstameiil

in dci Miscliiia, Freiburg

i.

B.,

190^), p. 41.

FRAGMENT OF VISIONS OF
(between 600 and jooc).
22^ n^V^ -ym
in*oT^,
p.

EZEKIEI.

MARMORSTEIN
Oder,
-i?31n

375
p. 13'',

Tanh.

ed. Frankfurt a.
pi,
p.
27='

pi,

p.

3b nt:N

n-^
p.

'pn
p.

pi

19a,
p.

23"*

iDN

no^-Lri,

32^ ncN !^N>n,

p.

23 a

"in -IDN 13*D^,

38 a

m'f^n' -n^^y i;-n20 pi,

1.

40 a nv^'yy
2,

in
'^'''

"lONC;
3)
I.
.1-

Cant, rabba
4, i?
',

65, ^Nprn" n^ by -idwc' Nini,

4.

Agadath Shir
ny

Hashirin?, ed. Schechter,

5, 6, i.Tyj'*
-ir:N*i

p. ^1,
p. 4,

S76: ^Nprn^ -iDN pi; Ruth rabba

nr:x::*
;

inv-T
N"3jn

Nistarot of R.
p.

Simon ben
7S)
;

Johai.

nS

1?:n

invj"
p.
5'').

(JelUnek, III,
-j^x

Otot Hamashiah
K3:nj
jr^r

{byn npza,

pN

'd

xn: nosi
'j:r,

.Tyc'^

mix by

and 1.T0T3

-ID

NJC, p.

6''.

n'larn

and l^D bx^nai, further

Karaite authorities generally introduce the passage with

the

name

of the biblical

author.'^''

Therefore one would be

inclined to see in this

way

of introducing Bible passages

rather a sign of late origin.

In any case the method of

introducing biblical passages

by

giving the

name

of biblical

personages or authors

is

more common

in later

Midrashim

(from 600 to icoo) than in earlier ones, although they occur,

e.g. in the

Mekilta to Exod.
is,

7. igS'^

There

moreover, another reason which supports the

assigning of our fragment in the period of the Mystics of the gaonic age. The heaping up of expressions for praise

and blessing

is

a familiar feature in the prayers which have

come down
Vorc/e

to us from the

Mystics,

whom wc

call

the

Merkabah, the descenders of the Merkabah. Their influence upon the Jewish liturgy has been investigated by
Ph. Bloch.'-

Bloch has recognized the relation between

nX'J'C,
p. p. vi c
;

" See po^ja

34,36;
Buchlcr,
32

Sahl ben Mazliali in Tinskcr, p"b, pp. 31,

Dn-J''

nn3D,

19

a.

" See

further on

the subject, Ginzbcrg,

p.

MGWJ.

(1914

39,

v.

also

JQR., N.

S., Ill,

469.
ff.

MGWJ.,

1893, pp. 262

376

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the prayers and the heaping up of phrases in the mystic

books.

D. de Sola Pool comes to

the

conclusion that

we
(of

are justified in seeking the original of this paragraph

the

Kaddish)

among

the

mystics,

most

probably

among those who followed and carried on the traditions

of the Old Hssencs, the predecessors of the gaonic

Yorde

MerkabahF-"
piling

That

is

in so far justified, as

we

see that the

really

up of synonyms of

praise

was on the one hand

practised, as the instances of the talmudic sources prove,

and on the other hand was strongly

of the third century.

criticized

by
the

authorities

Yet Pool has not removed Bloch's

which consist
in

very serious

difficulties,

fact

that

notwithstanding R. Johanan's strong statement the heaping

up

of

synonyms
official

of praise found
service, in the

its

place in the prayer

in

book and

Kaddish,

the Xishmat
8,

prayer, and in the Al-hakkol.

in
in

In the

Kaddish there are

there are

Nishmat, Al-hakkol, and

in

the
in

Haggadah

y,

our fragment 10, and finally

the Hekalot 11 synonyms

of praise, the order being, as the present table shows, the

following
II,
:

2, 3, 4,

,'>,

^>,

7,

'^,

9> lo-

II.

I, 2,

3, 4, 7, 6, , 10.
I,

HI.
IV.

-, -, 2, 3, 4, 6,
.-,.

H, 10.
,

9, 2, 3, 4, 7, H

6, 10.

V.

-, -, 2, 3, 4, 6, I, H, 10.

VI
VI
^'

a
b.

1, 6, 4,

7, 3, I, 2,
2, ,
;,

,5,

, -, 10.
3, 7, 10,

-, 6,

I,

9,4,

Sec Pool,

I lie

(,'l(i

Jeiiisli-Aininaic I'layer, Leipzig, 1909, p.

5'7

cp.

already K. Kolilcr.

MGU'J. ;i893\

490.

FRAGMENT OF VISIONS OF

378
written

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

down
in the early

gaonic period,
is

in

the time of the

Yorde Merkabah.

This view

supported by a tradition

handed down by the Gaon Amram, who says that the seven
praises of the
(s.

Kaddish correspond to the seven heavens

11'')."''

rnjon,

p.

The

original,

of course,

may have

been the source of the talmudic utterances on the subject

of the Merkabah in the third century.
2'

n^y^p-l
fact

't

nJ3 na'J^J"'iy

'T

K^-npa

^^':f

n'^N. Cp. Seder R.

Amram 4 a.
praj^er of

This

might explain

wherefore the

Kaddish

became the

mourning.

'THE STORY OF AHIKAR'

The Story of Ahikar from
Eihiofic,
F. C.
the

Aramaic^ Syriac, Arabic, Armenian,

CoNYREARE,

Lewis.

Veisions. By Rendel Harris, and Agnes Smith J. Second Edition. Enlarged and Corrected. Cam-

Old Turkish, Greek mid Slavonic

bridge: at the University Press, 1913.

This new edition of The Story

the Elephantine finds.

of

Ahikar

is

most welcome on

account of the fresh interest in the Oriental sage developed by

For much water has flowed under the

first

bridge since the appearance of the

edition

in

iSg8.

In

addition to the papyri published by Sachau, several monographs

of a critical nature had been put forth, most of the results of

which, attempting to ascertain

of the
story,

the age and

original

language

have been exploded by the discovery of those

fifth

documents of the

century

B. c.

Dr. Rendel Harris deserves

applause for having in his earlier theories recognized the antiquity

of the Ahikar legend, which
is

now
is

so fully demonstrated.

The

largest part of the

book

a reprint of the
Its

first

edition,

with corrections and slight revisions.

addition of two
narrative
text,

plus consists in the

new

literary in

sources, the

Aramaic Elephantine

and proverbs
one dealing

English translation and an old Turkish

:

a translation from the Armenian

and

also in

two new

chapters,

briefly with the recently

recovered Aramaic

text (ch. IX), the other with the editions

and studies of Ahikar

X).

which appeared since the

first

edition

(ch.

The work

is

rather a reprint with additions than

one which proceeds

this

logically

from the fresh evidence of the papyri, and

of the older material with the
illogical aspect.

welding together

somewhat For the argumentation on the antiquity of the

gives the edition a

new

story should base primarily

on the

papyri, not

on the Jewish and

379

380
Greek

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

traditions.

But the editor has thought

it

best to leave the

original edition as

unchanged

as possible, recognizing probably

that the investigation of the story has passed over into oriental
fields,

to the specialist in the ancient Orient, ultimately to the

Assyriologist.

The book

manifestly does not

making a new

start at the subject.

come from a hand Thus chapter VIII, Further

*

Remarks on
of Ahikar
',

the Primitive

Language and Extent of the Legend

has been rendered obsolete.

On

p.

Ixxxv the editor

allows an argument to remain for a hebraic original

rather

precarious argument by the way, for

it

appeals to the occurrences

of the infinitive absolute in the Syriac, whereas this construction

is

good old

Syriac, not a

contamination from the Hebrew

classic,
is

it

appears constantly, for instance, in Bardesanes'

The Laws
admirably

of the Countries.

However, the elder material

all

and

delightfully treated,

and Dr. Harris

is

supremely the

man

to

follow the clues in the Judaistic, Christian,

It is regrettable

and Greek

sources.

that not

more has been made

of the ancient

Aramaic

version.

It is

presented only in translation, and yet as

the most important form of the story the original text, even with
all
its

lacunae and puzzles, should have been given.

so
that

This the
in

more
not

we possess no presentation of
Also the treatment of the

that text

an
is

English print.
satisfactory.
editio

text in translation

The

editor
to

appears

to

have

relied

upon

Sachau's

prima and
upon

have made

little

or no use of the

innumerable studies which have appeared

throwing
light
difficult passages.

in

learned journals

With such helps he could

which appear

have much extended

in a very

his readings of the proverbs,

meagre and broken form.

The
f.,

reviewer might refer to

several

suggestions of readings which he

made

in

the

Orien-

talistische JJteraturzeiiufig,

191

2,

535

and so need not repeat

add one or two new
proverbs given should

here his

own improvements.
{^Eu courant, the

He may
selected

suggestions.

have been annotated with their place

read a proverb torso
54. 6),
clear
:

in the papyri.)

Thus we
'

'
:

Do
(?)

not conceal the word of a king

(Pap.
is

and then a blank.

'

But the

first

part of the proverb

',

Do

not quench

a light word of a king

and

also the

'

THE STORY OF AHIKAR

second part can be made out,

MONTGOMERY
and the
:

381

for, after

a break of a few words,

we read
dual pon
the

[. .'Jds

p3D

in TVyi pnC' l^^D ^f^DlD "T'DI.

Understanding
last
'

PIZ^ from the Arabic

(cf.

jy^

'

cut in two
nVS^a),

',

word

as the

the

Hebrew

n"'i''D,

word of a
'.

king, yet

it is

we have Though soft be sharper and mightier than a two-edged

literary

blade

This further gives an interesting

precedent (of
4.

the kind the editor himself delights in) to

Hebrews

12:

'The

word of God

is

living

and active and sharper than any two-edged

spirit,' Sec.

sword, and piercing to the dividing of soul and

There
in

is 2.

an interesting word that has been so

It

far

unnoticed

Pap. 55.

reads

'
:

have carried straw and borne bran

(read with

pD, following Margolis's suggestion, not

pa

" plough

",

Sachau and Harris), and there was nothing

lighter than

a 3nin.'
lacuna,
to

The

editor leaves
is

dots

after this

word, indicating a

but there

none

in

the manuscript.
(p.

The

proverb

is

be compared with the Syriac, no. 46

107 of this edition):

have carried iron and removed stones, and they were not

heavier on
in-law.'

me than a man who settles in the house of his fatherThe Aramaic is more original and certainly wittier.
lies in

The

point of comparison

the lightness or despicableness

of bran, &c., on the one side, and of the 3nin on the other.
Further, the Syriac
specialized
it

has interpreted correctly the

its

pattern,
is

but

and destroyed
settles

generality.

The nniD
lives

simply

the

man who
'

down on another man and

'

on him, the
is

parasite, or

sucker

in

good English. word

And

here some light

thrown upon the interesting Jewish expression, the ger tSsMb.

We may

notice, too, that the

is

old Aramaic, and recall

its

Hebrew equivalent as expressing a kind of dependent, I may note the dependence of Syriac, no. 8 (p. 104)
:

Lev. 22. 10.

'

If a

house

could be built by a loud voice, an ass would build two houses in

a day,' upon Pap. 53.
(in a
i
:

'What

is

stronger than an ass braying

house)

Thus, unfortunately, the edition does not give the

full

material

required for the English-speaking student's study of the relation of the Aramaic to the later versions.

The
VOL.

small errors in the

VIII.

first

edition have in general been

C C

382

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

removed. I suggest that on p. 68 of the Syriac text, 1. 8, nv^n i6 niDN^, should be emended to 'b \n'Vn ab ^did not pluck off my bridle (root S'Vn), which is what the context requires.
'

James A. Montgomery.
University of Pennsylvania.

HALPERN'S SYNAGOGUE HYMNAL

^NTl;"

ni^sm

nin'^OT.

Z'tniroth

tiVfiloth yisroel.

synagogue

hymnal

for

Sabbath and

Festivals,
services.

comprising songs for

religious schools
for

and junior

Compiled, and adapted

the use of cantor, choir, and congregation, by Rev. M. Halpern, Cantor of Congregation Adath Jeshurun, Boston. Boston: The Boston Music Company [1915].

The

need of a synagogue hymnal

for religious schools

felt

and

Jewish homes generally has been greatly

by rabbis and

teachers engaged in instilling a Jewish spirit in the young generation.

That music,

particularly of the choral pattern,

is

is

a potent

factor in this direction,

ecdesiae
is

generally admitted
it

musica ancilla

more

true

now than

was a millennium ago.

its

Yet

while the Christian Church realizes this to

full

extent

and

endeavours to foster choral singing in

wanting
in

all its

phases, the Jews are

it

such an
present

effort.

Some
Jews,
It

attempts,

is

true,

have been
a

made
guise
;

to

our ancient liturgical

the

chants
still

in

popular
choral

the

bulk of

however,
is

neglect

singing as in days of yore.

to

remove

this neglect that

it

Mr. Halpern compiled

his

hymnal.

As a

starting-point

is

commendable, though

it

suffers
is

from serious defects.

Thus

the
is

arrangement of the music

too

not always well-chosen.

little

There

much

of Halpern,
like Sulzer

and very

of the real giants of our

it is

liturgical

song

and Lewandowski. Moreover,

expressly for

hardly

proper to include in a synagogue hymnal choral compositions by

Christian composers

made

the Christian

Church
dozei;i

(comp.

J. B.

Dykes' 'Call Jehovah thy Salvation' and half a

others at the end of the book).

assert.

Music may be

universal, as

some

Nevertheless, there

is

something in a church hymn, even

is

outside of the words, which

ecclesiastical,

characteristically

and inherently

and

as such should not enter

an orthodox synagogue.

383

384

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

Another drawback
quite antiquated
transcription
is

the transcription of the Hebrew, which

flawless.

is

and anything but

Certainly our

modern

not only grammatically correct but also musically

more

fit

than the old one.

th*^

This book at best supplies

Jews.
all

needs of a certain class of

It

accentuates the desideratum of a general hymnal for

Jews, whether Spanish or German, on the lines of Church

Hyinns and Tunes (New York, 1906), edited by Herbert Turner and William F. Biddle for Christian congregations of all creeds
and
faiths.

Joseph Reider.
Dropsie College.

J^^

thp:

three books fou^nd in the temple at jerusalem

Z.

By Jacob

Lauterbach, Hebrew Union

College.

An
ture,

ancient tradition, preserved in the talmudic literain

speaks of three certain books which were found

at Jerusalem.

the
is

Temple

Each one of these three books

it

mentioned under a special name, by which

was
its

called,

and which, no doubt, was meant to designate

character.

peculiar

The
:

report of this tradition

^DinyT

is

very

brief,

and

reads as follows
KNT ISDI (p.

iQD
a,

'^vj^
fif.).

ino mTyn ixvd nniiD

r]'i^b^

Taanit 68
p.

47

In Sifre Ueut. ^s^ (ed.

is

Friedmann,
different.

148 b) the wording of this report

it

slightly
hjj'^l''

There

reads thus:

,nity3

VS'^'o:

Dn2D

There

is

no reason whatever to question the

historic
its
it

character of this report or doubt

statements.
1

the correctness of

Its brief

form and concise language mark

It

should be stated at the outset that these ten words in the Pal.
fifteen

Talmud, or the
report.

words

in the Sifre, constitute the

first ten,

complete text of the

in the Pal.

What

follows these

resp. fifteen

words

Talmud

and

in the Sifre,

beginning with

"iXi'lD

"IDN^,

is

no more part of the report

itself,

but later additions which seek to explain the meaning of the old

leport.

This report
Schechter,
p.

is

also found in

Abot

d.

R. Nathan, version B,
4,

ch. 46, ed.

65

a,

and

in tractate
b.

Sopherim, VI,
Lakish
last
(?},

where

it

is

quoted by

R. Simon

b.

Lakish (or R. Judah

see below, note

4).

The

text

of the report, as given in these

variants, as

two

works, shows but a few slight

(in

HJiyD instead of 'Jiyo or D^JiyO, and HDIUyT

>C21t2yT

tractate

Soferim ''D1DNT) instead of

or D'UIDyT.

VOL.

VIII.

3^5

D d

386
as

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

a
historic

document, and

not

as

a mere

legendary

report.

The
seem

date of this report

it

is

very old.

This

is

evident
in

from the very language

it

employs.

The terms used

not find

to be archaic
in

at least,

we do

them used

elsewhere

the talmudic
is

literature.

The manner and

form

in

which the report

expressed also point to a very

early date.

The

author of this report seems to speak of

fact,

contemporaneous

or

at

least

of something well

known

to the people of his time.

He

seems to take

it

for granted that the

main character and the contents of

to
all,

these books are

known

and that therefore he need

specific

only state their

number and mention the

For he did not deem

names

which designate the special distinction or peculiar feature

of each one of them.
cept
it

necessary, ex-

by merely

giving their names, to describe these books

in detail, or to

say something more about their contents.

That
is

this report represents an ancient tradition and

is

of a very early date

further evidenced

by the

fact that

its real

contents and their correct meaning were no longer

to the later talmudic teachers, the

known

younger Amoraim.

For, as will be

shown

in

the course of this essay, the later

redactors

talmudic teachers, especially the

d.

of the

Abot

R. Nathan and of the Palestinian Talmud,

who

preserved

this report to us with additions

and comments of their own,

this

have altogether misconstrued the purport of

report
It
is

and misunderstood the meaning of

its

statements.

hardly possible to assume that these teachers could have

made

such blunders

if

they had been discussing and

inter-

preting statements of a contemporary author or even of

one near to

their

own

time.

Such mistakes

in

the interpre-

tation of an historical report on the part of the later teachers

THREE BOOKS FOUND AT JERUSALEM

LAUTERBACH

387

can be explained only on the supposition that a long

period of time separated the author of the report from the
teachers

who

tried to interpret

it.

In the course of such

a long time, which also brought about radical changes

in the conditions of
life,
it

could well have happened that

referred,

the actual
conditions
entirely

facts

to
it

which the report

presupposed,
that

and the

which

should

have become

forgotten,

so

the

correct

meaning of the
teachers,

report

was no longer known.

The

later

who
They
in

found the brief statements of

this old report

its

without any

comment

to

it,

could only guess at

it it

meaning.

may
their

have considered
at

from a wrong point of view,

in

that they looked

the light of the conditions of

easily misunderstand

own

time,
it.

and thus could

and

misinterpret
It

may, accordingly, be assumed with reasonable

at

cer-

tainty that our report originated

a very early date,

still

possibly during the time

when the Temple was

its

in

existence

at least, not long after

destruction.

At

that

time the conditions which prevailed

in

the

Temple and
still

the
well

nature of the books which were kept there were

known

to the people.

The author

of our report, therefore,

could well content himself with merely stating the

of these books and designating each
significant

number

by

its

characteristically

name.
are the contents and the real purport of this

Now, what
report?

common to all these What was the special three books, found in the Temple ? of each one of them, and how is this special feature feature
the character

What was

of each indicated in the distinct

report
?

name given
Abot

to

it

in

our

In

all

the

four

works

(Sifre,

d.

R.

Nathan,
2

D d

388
Palestinian

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Talmud, and the
tractate Soferim) containing
it

our report, there are also found accompanying

additions

a few

by

later

teachers,

consisting

of

explanatory
to the

remarks which constitute a

original report.-

sort of a

commentary
it

From

these additions

is

evident that
works and

These explanatory remarks are

different in the dift'erent

partly contradict one another.

this

In order to be able to
its

show

the origin of

Talmudic commentary on our report and trace

its
I

changes and gradual

developments into

present various forms, which will be attempted at the

will quote here this talmudic

end of

this essay,

commentary

as found in

the different works.

to

In the Pal. Talmud,

:

loc.cit.,

the explanatory remarks

our report read as follows

D''J'^31

Dip

M^N pyc
lo^^pi

3in3 INYKD nnN3

n:"iy?o

ni'ty*!

niDD iwSVD nnsn ins i^o'ai crj*

Dip 'n^x

nina

n-iry

nnx mn3 D^r^m

ic'"'pi

N^^

y^n ninn

is^'o

insn nnx

i^o^ni

iii'

nns* i^D^ai u't^

It

xm.
to this

should be noticed that, according

explanation, the

name

of the

first

book ought

to

have been

called, after its peculiar variant,

pVD

"IDD

and not ^Jiyo "12D or

D''Jiya 7'^

inS,

since neither one of these last

in the text

two

forms was, according to the commentary', found

In

of this book.
:

Abot

d.

R. Nathan,

loc. cil.,

the additions to our report read as follows

i^l:3 njii'o

^^^ nnxni
xv?:rj'

mp

^rba.

pyo ain^
^y-\

hm nnx^]
,D^rj'n

njyo iqd

\\V^

n>3a

12D xin

nr

^dv

-los

ic^>pi

nnxn

ij^n
-iK'y

NM
nx

-iDD

D^JK'n

nx

ic^^pi

inxn nx i^un
\''-\^'p

^xt.:'^ >jn

nyj nx

nnx on'^ix
ic-'^pi

c'^-i

>'in

(inix)

vn x\i mriD

hntj-

mpo

D^r^n

'inxn

nx

i^on pminn-^' x\n nri^nv.

Here we are not

in the third book.

told in

what form the word

third

|',yD

or HJiyD

was found

On

the other hand, there are two different explanations

offered for the

meaning of the name of the

is

book

NM.
;

Neither one of
see

these

two explanations, however,

1

sufficiently

clear

Schechter's

remark, note
In

1.

tractate

Soferim

the
2',n3

explanatory remarks to our report read as

d^j*j'3i

follows:

>?h^

njiyo
n^-^'M

Dip \n^x pya mnD

ixi'io

nnx3
onp

':3 ^DiDxyr
1^5031

nx

3inD ixvo nnxa ^nnx i^d3i

^:3

D'rj^ lo^'pi

D^rj' ic^'pi

!?xt:''

nyj nx
D^rjoi

n^i">i

ninD vsv:

o^rj'ai ^xtj-^

x*n

TJ'y nr.N 3inD

i^L:ni

ix:;o

xin

ni-y

inx ainj nnxn ,inx

nnx

c':l"

v:"pi.

THREE BOOKS FOUND AT JERUSALEM LAUTERBACH 389

the authors of these explanatory notes, or, at any rate, the
respective redactors of these
four

talmudic works,

who

added these notes to our report, understood the latter to

have reference to the Books of the

Law
later

or

Torah

scrolls.

According
our report

to this
tells

commentary of the
us about three

talmudic teachers,
scrolls
in

model Torah

or

standard copies of the Pentateuch which were kept

the

Temple, and from which a correct text

of the

for all

other copies

Torah was
is

established.

Each

one of these standard

just

copies

said to have been

marked by

one special

peculiarity in the writing of a certain word.

characteristic peculiarity,

From
it

this

which distinguished
is

from the

two
have

others, each

one of these three copies

supposed to

derived its distinct

is

name.

The one copy

variant of the

described as having contained a peculiar

n^iyo, occurring in
"iU'D

word

Deut.

;^^.

27,

and

hence

it

was called

-|2D.

The
'niuiVT

other copy

is

said to

have contained the foreign word

instead of the
it

Hebrew
called

word ny3
'Dioyr "^2D.

in

Exod.

24. 5.

For

this reason

was

The

third

copy again was distinguished from

it

the others

by the peculiarity which

showed

in

the spelling

of the personal pronoun third person feminine.

In

all

the

passages where this

word occurs or, according to the other

the

The Sifre contains but one short comment, explaining the meaning of name of but one book. It reads as follows Dip pJJO DIDD inS3
:

D^ycn

io"'''pi

"insn

nx o'DDn

i^d^i

onp ^^^N hju'd thd

D"'riJ'21).

r\>yy2)
is

'instead of n'':"_"31 should

perhaps be read

No
in
its

explanation

given of the meaning of the other two books.

It

should further be noticed that the commentary

various forms,

the short

comment

of the Sifre included,

is

based upon the version of our

the version of the Sifre.

report as given in the Pal.

Talmud and not upon

But the version

'3iyD IDD and

^taiDVT "IDD can be interpreted to mean, the book contain'131

ing the variant "JIVQ or 'DIDVT.

D^JlVO

S'l^'

"inS does

not permit the possibility of such an interpretation.

39

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

passages
form
iiin

version of the commentary, only in eleven (nine)

this

copy had the correct form

S^I instead of the

which the other two copies had.

this third

Because of

this peculiarity

copy was

called

^^^^

"IDD.

Although the three

on the report
differ

different versions of the

commentary
in details

from one another very

much

and partly

conflict with

one another, yet

in the

main ques-

tion as to the contents of our report they all agree in their

interpretation that the books described

scrolls.

in

it

were Torah

This interpretation of the meaning of our report

all

has also been accepted by

modern

scholars.

To my

knowledge, at

least,

no one has questioned the correctness

report

of the assumption that our

scrolls.

speaks about Torah

This supposition, however,

obviously
untenable.

is

full

of
to

difificulties

and
as

The

objections

the

report,

understood by the talmudic commentary, are so

many

and the arguments against

that one
is

its

correctness are so strong

constrained either to reject the whole report as

unreliable
altogether,
it

and legendary, or to ignore the talmudic glosses

and seek
to understand this report

and interpret
it

independently of the commentary given to

by

later

talmudic teachers.
Professor
'

L.

l^lau

"

pointed out the

many

difficulties
102

Studien sunt althebriiischen Buchwesen (Budapest, 1902), pp.

ff.

To

the difficulties involved in the talmudic conception of our report, menis

tioned by Blau, there

to

be added the following main

difficulty,

namely,

that the explanations ofTcred

by

this talmudic

commcntar}' on our report

do not explain the report and are altogether out of accord with the state-

ment they arc

book
is

to explain.

Thus, according to

this

commentary, the one

said to have contained the variant pjJO instead of HJiyD.

which the
book was

other two books had.

We

would accordingly expect,

its text,

if

tliC

called after the pcculi.Trity found in

that this book should be called

PVD 1ED,

but this

is

not the case.

No

version of the report has this form

THREE BOOKS FOUND AT JERUSALEM

inherent
in

LAUTERBACH

391

this

report, as understood

by the talmudic

commentary, and he also mentions the strong objections

which must be raised against the supposition that our
report refers to three

Books

of the

Law

or

Torah

scrolls,

found

in

the Temple at Jerusalem, which

in

differed

from one

another only

the writing or peculiar spelling of just these

three words but otherwise were perfectly alike and had no

other peculiarities to distinguish them from one another.

On

the ground of

all

these difficulties found in the talmudic

conception of our report, Blau has rightly rejected the comof the name.

The

Pal.

Talmud has

''JiyO

and the Sifre has DiJiyC, while

the Abot d. R. Nathan and tractate Soferim have the

name

of this book as

n3iyC "I2D

according to the form of this

word which was

correctly written

It is true, the Yalkut to Deuteronomy,' 964, in the two other copies. quotes the text of our report as stating that the book was called [li'D "ISD, but this is merely a correction in the text of our report made by the Yalkut

to

harmonize

it

with the talmudic explanation of the meaning of

'JiyO "IDD.

The same is also to be said about the Midrash Tannaim (ed. Hoffmann, "120 is also found the corrected p. 222; where alongside of the form IJiyO
,

reading jyo "HDD.

In the interpretation of the

name

of the book S^H the different versions

of the

commentary
sufficiently.

conflict

with one another and none of them explains the

to the Pal.

name

According

Talmud, the book so designated

contained only nine times the word XTl spelled with Yod, while the other two books contained this word in the form spelled with Yod eleven times.

The

difference

between the books, then, was merely

in the

number of times

this peculiarity

was found

in them.

And

it

is

rather strange that a book

should be designated after the peculiarity in the spelling of a certain word when it shows this peculiarity in less instances than the other books.

Again, according to tractate Soferim the peculiarity of this book was that with in eleven instances it contained the word NIH in the form spelled
instead of with Yod, while the other books had the
instances in the form

Waw
this

word

in the

same eleven

NM

spelled with Yod.

its

Then we would expect

book
word.
is

to

be designated NIH "IDD after

peculiarity in the spelling of this

d.

Of

the two explanations offered in the Abot

R. Nathan, the one

presents

and apparently identical with the explanation given in tractate Soferim the same difficulty, while the other does not at all state clearly

wherein the peculiarity of the

KM

^DD

consisted.

See above, note

2.

392

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

in

mentary, given to our report

incorrect.

the talmudic glosses, as

He

substitutes a theory of his

own whereby

to

explain the contents and the meaning of this ancient report.

But the theory which he advances and the explanations

which he
offers for the

names of the three books and

their

origin are, to say the least, not better than the theory

and

the interpretations contained in the talmudic glosses.

According to Blau,
report.
It

this

report

is

not a very ancient

does not represent a record of the time of the

existence of the

Temple
it

or of
is

the

period

immediately
It

following

it.

Perhaps

not even a Baraita.

Its

did not

originate in the tannaitic period.

It

date

is

a late one.

comes

originally from

the third century

(p.

io6) and
it

speaks of three Torah scrolls of the third century which

compares with one another and the

it

peculiarities of

which

records.

These three Torah

scrolls

were merely believed

in

to

have originally come from the Temple

Jerusalem.
?)

They may have been found somewhere (where

or bought
carried

by them from the Roman

spoilers

by Jews who had

them away from Jerusalem

designation of these three

(p. 104).

The

names

are,

according to
is
it

Blau, very aptly chosen.

after the place

In one case, the designation

;

where the book was found

in

the other
;

gives the
finally, in

name

of the owner of the very valuable copy

it

and

the third case,

gives a characteristic description

of the form and size of the book.

Thus,

(i)

The

"-Jiyo

-i3d

was

a Torah scroll which was found and kept in the place Beth

Maon,

briefly called

Maon, which

is

in

the neighbourhood

of Tiberias.

This Torah copy was perhaps saved from the

Temple by

exiles

from Jerusalem who brought

(p. 10.5).
it

it

with them

to this place

Maon

It

was accordingly designated

'

after the place in

which

had been preserved,

The Hook

THREE BOOKS FOUND AT JERUSALEM

of

LAUTERBACH
N^n -iDD or xnt

393

Maon

'

or

'

Maoni-Codex

'.

(2)

The

nm 13D

was a Torah copy which was

in the possession of a gentleIt

'

man by
The

the

name
'

of

He

or He-he.

was therefore called

'

after its owner,

(3)
its
^:iiDyr

The Book
finally,

of

He

or

The He-Codex

'.

"i3D,

was so designated because of

tractate

very small
is

size.

In

the

Soferim this

name
com-

Zatuti

found

in

the form ^mcxi instead of 'nvjyr.

"'UIDXT

parison of this form

with the word NDIT

is

which means

'small', suggests to Blau that the former

a Katlul-form
',

of the latter and means accordingly

'

very small

The
in size,

book thus designated was. accordingly, very small

or
its

writing was in very small characters (pp. iOj-6).

is

This theory of Blau, however,

conjecture.

merely an unfounded
altogether against the

In the

first

place,

it is

plain

meaning of the words of our

report.

For the report

in the

distinctly speaks of

books which were found

Temple,
in

and which, already

at the time when they were found

the

Temple, had been designated by the names

N'n

^liVjyT ''Jiyo

and

respectively.

It

can therefore not be interpreted to

have reference to books which merely were believed to

have come from the Temple and which were subsequently
designated by these names.
Besides, this theory represents

many

difficulties
in
itself.

and
I

inconsistencies,
shall

and

is

even contra-

dictory

point

out

only some of the

in this

incredibilities

and contradictions contained

theory

of Blau.

On
to
it.

p.

103,

Blau correctly distinguishes between the

original text of our report

and the

later additions

made

He

rightly states that the older text of the original

first

report consisted only of the

ten words, closing with

the word x^^, as given

Taanit.

in

the version of the Pal.

this,

Talmud

All the rest which follows

beginning with

394

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

the word inxn,

later addition

and forms a commentary to

at the

the older original report.

But

same time he

also

assumes that these

later additions, or the

commentary which
names, originated

gives the explanations

to these three
b.

with the Palestinian

of his teachers.
in
If,

Amora Simon

Lakish or with one

however, the original report originated

p.

the third century, as Blau assumes on

io6,
b.

and the
Lakish,

author of the commentary was the

Amora Simon
still

who

lived in the first half of the third century, or

one of his

teachers

who must have

lived at a

earlier time, then

we

are confronted with the preposterous conclusion that the

original text of the older report, dealing, as

Blau assumes,

with Torah copies of the third century, must have been

younger than the commentary given to

it.

At any
later

rate

it

could not have been older, so that one .cannot speak, as

Blau himself does, of an

tary on
it.

earlier report

and a

commenTorah

Furthermore,

if

the report merely compares three

copies of the third century, of which the one existed in

Maon
size,

near Tiberias, and the other was in the possession of a

person named He, and the third was of very small

how could Simon b. Lakish. who lived made such an egregious blunder in the
this report as to

in Tiberias,

have

interpretation of

reduce the well-known neighbouring town

Maon and the owner of the second copy by the name of He, who must have been not less well known, to mere
variants in the spelling of certain words
?

While we grant
did happen, that

that

it

could have happened, and

in fact

the later

Anioraim sometimes

misunderstood

an older

Mishnah or misinterpreted an old

after the lapse of a long period of

traditional report

when

time the correct meaning

was

lost to

them,

it is

almost inconceivable that a prominent

THREE BOOKS FOUND AT JERUSALEM

teacher, such as

LAUTERBACH

395

Simon

b.

Lakish was, should have so utterly

misunderstood a contemporary report, describing a well-

known copy
in a
all

of the Pentateuch extant in his

his

own time and

This
is

town so very near

own

place of residence.

the

more

strange,

if

we should assume with Blau

d.

that

another teacher R. Jose (Abot

R. Nathan,

loc. cit),

whom
b.

Blau takes to have been an

Amora younger
known
in the

than Simon

Lakish

(p.

105, note 3),

has

that Sefer

Maoni

really

meant a Torah copy preserved

town of Beth Maon.

fact,

How then
teacher

could this supposedly well-known

mentioned

by the younger R.

Jose, have escaped the notice of the older

Simon

b.

Lakish?
this difficulty,

Blau must have realized

and
b.

it

seems that

he hesitated somewhat to ascribe to Simon

a

Lakish such

blunder

in the interpretation of well-known

names of

persons and places.

To

account for the possibility of such

a mistake on the part of

Simon

b.

Lakish, Blau offers the

following explanation according to which

Simon

b.

Lakish's
all

supposed interpretation of our report was

entirely wrong,
at
all.

after

not

and

his alleged

mistake perhaps no mistake

man He, l^lau suggests that it miglit have actually had a peculiar way of spelling the word N'n, the very word which sounds like the name of the owner. Of course, it may also have had other characIn the case of the copy of the
teristics

and different

peculiarities in the spelling of other

words, but these were not noticed or at least not commented

upon.

Blau does not

find

it

strange on the part of ancient

all

writers to thus
liarities

have ignored

other characteristic pecuthis

and to have reported only

it

one variant.

He

explains

as follows
"13D

'

Since this copy was called by the

name

of

and the ancient teachers did not consider

396

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

as merely accidental but rather
it

names

had a

special fondness

for interpreting them,

can well be understood

why

they

just set out to search after the variants in the writing of

the word X\n and

(P- 105)

why

they reported only these variants

'

In the case of the copy supposed to have been found in

the

town of Beth Maon, Blau seems likewise to assume that

it

by a strange coincidence
instead of the form
njiyj^

also contained the variant

in

'i'\Vi^

the passage of Deut. 33. 27.

in this

For he remarks on
the word
nj'.yo

p. 105,

'Whether

copy the

n of

had been originally missing or merely faded

'.

away,

is

not of any importance

as well

One might
size,

add a

third

miracle

by assuming

that in the third copy, the one which was of very small

by a strange coincidence actually had instead of the

in

word nyj
*t3"it:Kr,

the passage of Exod. 24. 5 the foreign word

like NUIT 'small
',

which sounds so much

fits

a description
In

which just
this
self,

the peculiar characteristic of this copy.

theories, the

manner both

one advanced by Blau himto the

and the one ascribed by him

Amora Simon

b.

Lakish, could well be harmonized.

However, even
in
all

if

one could bring himself to believe and accept the

far-

these miraculous coincidences

fetched and forced explanations of the difficulties inherent

in

both these theories, one would

still

be compelled, by

reasons about to be stated, to reject their

commentary on

our

rcjiort.

For

this

commentary

is

based on an altogether

unwarranted supposition which entirely misunderstood the

nature of our report and mistook
its

purport.
b.

To
stale

save the reputation of

that he
is

Simon

Lakish,
of the

wish to
grievous

first

not guilty of any

is

mi.slakcs pointed out above, as he

not responsible for the

THREE BOOKS FOUND AT JERUSALEM

theory ascribed to him by Blau.
of our report nor did the

LAUTERBACH
is

397

He

neither the author

this report, as

commentary on

given

in

the tahnudic glosses, originate with him or his

teacher, as

Blau

erroneously assumes.
*

If

the

name

of

Simon
in

b.

Lakish

is

mentioned
it

in
is

the tractate Soferim

connexion with our report,

not to be interpreted,

as Blau does, that

Simon

b.

Lakish was the author of our

report, as well as of the explanatory

remarks and additions

which follow
b.

it

in

the text of the tractate Soferim.

Simon
by

Lakish

is

mentioned there merely as one who cited or

transrritted the old report.

To

this old report, cited

Simon

b.

Lakish, the redactor of the tractate

Soferim
in

added the explanatory remarks which he found

Palestinian

the

Talmud

or possibly gathered from other sources.

These explanator\' remarks and additions, however, were

the work of later teachers

who

tried to explain the

meaning

of the old report.

are not satisfactory.
at its

We

have seen that their interpretations

evident that they merely guessed

It is

meaning and guessed wrongly.

ancient
report

To

understand corfind
its

rectly this

we must

try to

real

meaning independently of these explanatory remarks of the

later

teachers.

We

must even be

careful not

to allow

ourselves to be biased
supposition.

by

their guesses in favour of their

to ignore their

The proper way to proceed, then, would be commentary altogether and consider only
itself.

the text of the report

Now,

if

we consider

the text of the report itself

it

we have

no reason whatever to assume that

*

refers to

Books of the

The suggestion

of V. Aptowitzer {Hakedeni, 1908, p. 103) that in the

passage of the tractate Soferim the name of the Tanna R. Judah b. Laldsh, a pupil of R. Akiba, should be substituted for the name of the Amora Simon
b.

Lakish, seems to

me

to

be very plausible.

39^

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

scrolls at all.

Law, or Torah
viz.

This idea about our report

that

it

speaks of copies of the Torah, was given to us

only by the commentary of the later teachers, which com-

mentary we have found to be unsatisfactory.

rejected their

Having
is

commentary
should
still

as unsatisfactory, there
retain the supposition

no

reason

why we
their

upon

which
is

whole theory was based, as such a supposition

altogether unwarranted

by the words of the

the text.

text of the

report.

Nay. even more, such a supposition

in

is

disproved

by the terminology used

As we have

seen above, the text of the report consists

:

of only ten words, and reads as follows

N\n nSDl ^Dioyr nao ^Jiyo

miya IXVD DnDD

'3

nao.

Now,

if

we
its

consider this

report without any preconceptions as to

contents and

do not read into

it

what

it

does not expressly say, then this

report tells us merely about books found in the Temple,

but not about sacred books, and certainly not about books
of the Pentateuch or Torah
designation
scrolls.

For

to the latter the

DnSD could hardly have been applied by the

During the Temple
times,

author of this report.

when our

report most probably originated, and even later on through-

out the period of the Mishnah, the

tion for the Pentateuch

name

used as a designa"iQD

was

mm

and not

or DnsD.

In

contradistinction with the Pentateuch, the other books of

holy Scriptures arc designated DnsD (M. Megillah

III, i).

Whether

this

designation

DnaD was applied only

to designate the

to pro-

phetical books or

was also used

Hagiographa
is

as well, docs not concern us here.

certain, that the designation

This much, however,

DnaD could have been applied

to

'

It

is

also found in
d.

tlic

plural

designate Torah scrolls, as

p.

in

the

passage of the Pcsikta

nti'O

R. K. 32 (Bubcr,
of the

iQ7a) has

nniD

m'J'y B'bB'

3n3, where

it

means copies

whole Pentateuch.

THREE BOOKS FOUND AT JERUSALEM

LAUTERBACH

399

only to biblical books outside the Pentateuch

or both prophetical and hagiographical

prophetical
Conse-

but not to the

Pentateuch, which had

quently, the author of
later

name our report, who

its

special

Torah.

certainly

was not

than the Mishnah period, in speaking about books,

in the

found

Temple, and using the term

sefariin, could

not have meant copies of the Pentateuch to which this term

was not applied

It is

in his time.

likewise evident that the author of our report did

not mean an\' of the other sacred books of the Bible outside
the Pentateuch.

For even though the sacred books of

Scripture outside of the Pentateuch were designated

by

the term

D"''12D,

this latter

term had not

lost its original

simple meaning, denoting books in general.

The term
a narrower

DnSD was used both

(technical) sense.

in a

broader (general) and

in

When

used as a technical term to denote

the books of holy Scripture, the books par excellence, no

additional phrase or

the books or to

comment was necessary to characterize When, however, describe their contents.

its

the term was used in

simple meaning and

in general,

in

the broader

sense to denote books

there

was usually added

what kind of
e.g.

another term, or a phrase to characterize and describe more

accurately the nature of the books referred
to,

books they were and what they contained. Thus,

it

when

is

said in the

Talmud

(R. H. 17 b) that on
C'S'in

New

Year's
^^^:^'

Day

there are three books opened

is

pnns3

DnsD

T\yc^, there

immediately added a description of these

books, to

tell

us

what kind they were and what they con\>'Z'

tained, namely, inNi Dnio: DVis b^ nnNI Dni03 D^yjn

n-wS

WT^yi h^'
in

This

is

also the case with the statement

made

our report.

The

author of our report does not speak of

uses the term

sacred books.

He

nnsD

in its

broader sense

40O
to denote

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

books
in general.

After stating that there were

felt

three books found in the Temple, he

the necessity of

characterizing and describing these books.

He
in

therefore

goes on immediately to

tell

us

what kind of books they

were and what they contained.

'1:1

The words
be

our report

"Jiyo

nSD, or, as the

more correct version

therefore not

in Sifre reads,

'l3i

D^Jiyo b'y ins,

must

understood as
like

merely describing certain peculiarities of each book,

the peculiar spelling of a certain word, or the extremely

small size of the characters in which

it
it

was

written, or the

name

of the owner, or the place

where

was kept.

For then

the most essential thing in the description of these books,

namely, what they really were, would be missing.

Like the

words

'131

nni:

n'W\

h>^

nns

in the

statement about the

books that are opened on

'Wl D"'JiyD

New Year's Day, the

words

h'J nnvS

in

our report

tell

us the main thing about these

three books found or kept in the Temple, namely, what

kind of books they were and of what their contents consisted.

By

ascertaining the correct

meaning of these words

be able to find out what

of description in our report

and interpreting them without

shall
to.

any preconceived

notions,

we

books our report has reference

report tells

The
mean

first

part of this
in

us that these three books were found

the

Temple

of Jerusalem. This does not

in

that these books

it

were accidentally found

the Temple, but

in

means rather

that these books were found

the Temple, because the

Temple

(i. e.

its

archives)

was the place where these books

This gives us a clue to

were always kept and preserved.

the meaning of these descriptions of the three books.

We

have only to

find out

what kind of books were especially

preserved and kept in the

Temple

archives.

Whether

there were kept in the

Temple such standard

THREE BOOKS FOUND AT JERUSALEM

Torah
text of
least,

LAUTERBACH
is,

401

scrolls
all

which served as model copies from which the

to say the

other Torah copies was corrected,

quite certain.
is

historically not

For our purpose a

For, even
if

discussion of this question

irrelevant.

we

should grant that there were such model copies of the

Pentateuch preserved

in

the Temple,

it

would not

alter

the fact that our report does not refer to them.

report speaks of books DnDD, and not of

For our

Books of the Law

reference

nmn ''izo, or Torah scrolls nnin. The books which our report has
sacred Scriptures.

to

were

books of a character altogether different from books of the

They were books about which we know

in

with

all

certainty from other historical sources that .they

were kept and preserved

the

Temple

at

Jerusalem.

These books kept

in the

Temple and

referred to in our

report were ponv nSD,

Books of Genealogies, containing

the genealogical family records.

lists

of various classes of the people, or

In order to be able to prove

my

thesis that our report

speaks about these genealogical books, and to show

how

these genealogical books are unmistakably mentioned and

aptly described in our report,

must

first

state briefly the

character of these family records and what

we know about
the fact that

them from other

historic sources.
I,

Josephus [Contra Apioneni,

in

7) reports

the

archives

of the Temple at Jerusalem exact and

careful records of the genealogies of the priestly families

were kept.

When

giving his

own

aristocratic family tree

set

he emphatically states that he had

of the genealogy of his

down

the record

own family
(

as he had
I).

found

it

described in the public records

course, contained not only the

Vita,
lists

These records, of
E e

of the families of the

VOL.

VIII.

402
priests but

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

also those of the Levites, the

minor
in

priests.

This

fact is also

confirmed by reports found

4,

rabbinic
in

literature.

In Mishnah Middot, V,

we

are told that

the

Lishkat ha-gazit (one of the halls

in

the

Temple

at Jeru-

salem) a tribunal of the great Sanhedrin would hold their

sessions for the purpose of judging

and deciding about the

See
II,

family purity of the priesthood and of the Levites.

Tosafot

Yom Tob

ad

loc.

Cp. also Tosefta Hagigah,

i.

and Tosefta Sanhedrin, VII,

This statement
is

repeated in the

76 b),and the members of the

Talmud (b. Kiddushin tribunal who attended to this

the examiners
Levites.

work are designated

of the

as

n''1^

^Dn'Dl niina ^on^D,

Genealogies of the Priests and

These

judges about the purity of descent of the Priests and

Levites must have had before them records
in

which they
This

could trace the pedigree of each Priest or Levite.

presupposes not only the existence of such records from

which proofs

for the

pure descent of the Priests and Levites

in

could be obtained, but also that such records were kept

the

Temple, where
at

this

tribunal
for

held

its

sessions,

and

where they were

hand

the consultation

by the
in

members
Temple.

of this

tribunal,

holding their session

the

Besides

these records

which contained

the

lists

of

the families of Priests and Levites, there was also a special

register of all the non-priestly Israelitish families o{ purely

Jewish descent, such as could intermarry with the priestly

families, the n:in3^ niN'B^Dn niriD'j'D.

This record was

like-

wise kept

in

the

Temple and had frequently

to be consulted

by the Judges who decided upon the purity of the priests, as, for instance, in the cases of priests whose mothers were
Israelitish

women, not

of priestly family.

It

was from

this

THREE ROOKS FOUND AT JERUSALEM

LAUTERHACH

403
in

record that they could prove that there was no stain

their family.

Josephus presupposes such records

for IsraeHtish families

cit.)

when he

says {Contra Apionem,

loc.

that the priest

before marrying must examine the character of his wife's

family and take her genealogy from the archives, thus to

make

sure that she

is,

if

not of priestly, at least of pure

also presupposed
it is

Jewish descent.

Such records are

4),

by the

Mishnah (Kiddushin, IV,

need not search
(in [in

where

prescribed that one

the genealogies] farther than the altar

the case of priests) or the

Dukan

(in

the case of Levites),

(in

or

than

membership

in

the Sanhedrin

the case of
to.

Israelites)."

These genealogies were supposed

have
which

their

origin in the
lists
;

book of genealogies

'JTim

"ISD,

contained the

of the families of the returned exiles

7.

(Ezra

8.

1-15

Neh.
in

fif.).

The ponv nSD,

and
Israelites,

or

Books

of

Genealogies kept

the Temple,

which contained the

were probably

families of Priests, Levites,

believed to have been the continuation of the

register
first

book or
registers,

begun

by Ezra.

Beside

these

npyDPI pinnJO.

The meaning

of this regulation

is

that in searching the

genealogical records to examine the purity of descent of a certain person,

we

need only establish the

fact that

one of the progenitors of the person

in

question held one of these three offices unchallenged.

For then

we

are

assured of the purity of descent of that progenitor,

to the office, the authorities of that time
his

for,

before admitting him

must have convinced themselves of

If,

being of legitimate birth and of pure descent.

is

therefore,

nothing

derogatory

found in the record of the genealogies between that ancestoi

and the person

now

on

trial,

the purity of descent of the latter

the
priests, the
is

is

established.

The

altar

is

the

test

for

Dukan

for

the Levites,

and

membership

in the

Sanhedrin

the test of the aristocratic Israelites of

purely Jewish descent, for only Israelites of blameless families and purely

Jewish descent were

Sanhedrin IV,
2,

eligible to
I, 4,

an

office in

the Sanhedrin (see Mishnah

Horayot

and Talmud Sanhedrin 36b).

E e 2

404
containing

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

all

the classes of the Jewish nation,

it

became

necessary, already at a very early time in the history of the

restored community, to have another register containing

the Proselytes that joined the

community and

the families

which descended from them.

The

prohibition against intermarriage, even in

its

most

rigorous interpretation as given

by Ezra,

could not be so

applied as to exclude marriages with proselytes altogether.

It certainly

did not prevent marriages with sincere proselytes

from such nations whose admission into the community of

God

is

expressly permitted

in

the

Law,

as

e. g.

the

Egyptians and Edomites of the third generation (Deut.

23. 8).

Such marriages no doubt were contracted, more

or less frequently, soon after the time of Ezra.

this

Whether

was due

to a reaction against Ezra's rigid reforms, or

was not considered to be incompatible even with Ezra's

conception of the Law,
it

is

for

our purpose irrelevant.

Suffice

to say that

the

fact of

such marriages having taken

This,

place soon after the time of Ezra cannot be denied.

of course,

made

it

necessary to keep special records of such

proselyte families from which each proselyte could obtain

proof as to his or her status and furnish such information

as

was necessary

in

order to decide whether or not he or

to

she might be permitted

marry

into

the Jewish com-

munity, as for instance from what nation he was descendant,

and

in

what generation he was.

for priests,
first

Such information was

not permitted to marry

necessary both

who were

any proselyte of the

generation, as well as for Lsraelites,

who were
nations.

prohibited from marrying proselytes from certain

Indeed,

we have evidence

that in the later limes of the

families were kept

second Temple such records of proselyte

THREE BOOKS FOUND AT JERUSALEM

and
preserved
in
I,

LAUTERBACM

405

the
ch,

Temple
vii.

at

Jerusalem.

Eusebius

{Church History,
that

3) reports from an old tradition

up

to the time of

Herod there were kept

in

the

archives of the
in

Temple

at Jerusalem genealogical books

Israelites as well as of the

which the families of the

proselytes were recorded, and those descended from proselytes."

From

the

Zadokite
if it

fragment

published

by

Schcchter, which, even

in

be not a document originating

Temple times,

at least records conditions of

Temple

times,

we

likewise learn that the

custom prevailed to record the

people according to four distinct groups, Priests, Levites,

Israelites,

and Proselytes, and that the persons or families

belonging to each of these four classes were recorded by

name

in their special register.^

From many

passages and

discussions in the

Talmud

it

is

likewise evident that there

existed such

lists

or registers for proselyte families from

his origin, descent,

which each proselyte could prove

and

status in regard to his admission into the

community.

An
in

indication of the existence of such a special register

for the families of the proselytes

kept

in the

Temple

is,

my
'

opinion, found already in the

to the tradition reported

book of Malachi,
is

According

by Eusebius, Herod

said to have

destroyed these registers for the purpose of hiding his

origin.

own non-Jewish

With no record

to

prove his descent from Proselytes, he could

come from Jewish ancestors. This tradition has some connexion with the report in the Talmud (Pesahim 62) about the suffering of the
claim to
teachers in connexion with the hiding
to treat
all

away

of the

pDHV

"12D.

expect

the talmudic

reports about

family records

pOPIV

^DD and

pOnV rbVO
"

in a special essay.

0/ Jewish Sectaries Cambridge, 1910), vol. I, p. 14. The passage reads as follows: DnTHDir^ ch^ 'i'\pti'' m^non ^3 3^^1)0 T1D1
Dociiiiieiits

406

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The
rigour with which Ezra and

Nehemiah proceeded

against intermarriage preventing the neighbouring nations

from joining the Jewish community, had frightened away

many

sincerely pious

and God-fearing proselytes.

These

pious proselytes, even though remaining true to the religion

which they had sincerely adopted, were, nevertheless, very

much

disheartened

and

discouraged

by the treatment

accorded them by the Jewish rigorists.

They complained
to

very bitterly about the injustice done them by expelling

them from the community which they earnestly wished

join

and excluding them from the people of God with

identified.

whom

they anxiously sought to be

The

justice of their

complaint was recognized by the more liberal elements in

the Jewish

community who did not approve

These
liberal

of the rigid

policy of exclusion.

advocates of universalistic

tendencies

among

the Jews encouraged the proselytes to

faith,

remain true to their adopted

for the

whom

they serve accepts them fully as

God of Israel His own people.

let

We

hear the anonymous prophet offering such a comforting

'

message to the despairing proselytes.

Neither

the son

of the stranger that hath joined himself to the saying, the Lord hath utterly separated
. . .

Lord speak,

me

from His people.

For thus

saith

the

Lord

Also the sons of the

stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve

Him
. .

and

to love the
will

name
I

of the Lord, to be His servants.

Even then
them
shall

bring to

my

holy mountain and

.

make

joyful in

my

house of prayer

for

mine house

be called an house of prayer

for all people.

The Lord
gathered
in

God which
I

gathercth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will

arc

gather others to him besides those that

(Isa. 56. 3, 6-S).

unto him'

reaction soon set

against

the rigid policy of indiscriminately excluding the stranger

from the comniunit}-.

THRliE BOOKS FOUND AT JERUSALEM

LAUTERBACH
their

407

The prophet Malachi

who,
if

(3.

13-15) rebukes those people

not

in

actual words, yet

by

conduct and
it

attitude towards the proselytes declare that

for

is

in

vain
profit

the stranger to serve God, and that

to
will

it

would not

them
they

keep His ordinances, since

not be accepted into the

in spite of their piety

community but
of the

will

be

refused the privilege of being registered and have a piar

mention of their names

in

the

lists

members of

the

community, while on the other hand wicked and proud

people if they be of Jewish descent

set

are made happy and

up as acceptable among the members of the community. The prophet recognizes the justice of the complaint of the proselytes who would speak among themselves of this unjust attitude towards the stranger on the part of the Jews. The
prophet goes on to say
feared the
:

'

When

they [the proselytes] that

Lord spoke

often one to another [complaining

about their being thus unjustly discriminated against] then

God hearkened
before

to

them and
of

listened

and there was written

for

Him

book

remembrances

them

that

feared the

Lord and that thought upon His name.

shall

And
dis-

they [these strangers]

hosts.
.
.
.

be mine saith the Lord of

[that

Then

shall

ye return and discern

tinction should be

made
him

only] between the righteous and

that serveth

the wicked, between serveth

God and him

that

Him

not [but not between the born Jew and the

16-18).

proselyte]'

{ibid., vers.

The passage

piDT iSD nna^l

*3nK 'NT^' VJS^ is

to be taken

in a

very plain sense to mean,

simply, that a book mentioning the names of the ^jns \XT

the proselytes

who

fear

God, was written and kept before

in

God, not
'

in
is

heaven, but
no reason
is

His sanctuary.'
in this

There

for

assuming that

passage of the book of

Malachi reference

made

to a mystic

book

in heaven.

The term

'T *3S7

4o8

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

We
the

have

in this

passage a statement of the fact that

rigid

reaction

against the
in

poh'cy

of excluding

the

stranger resulted
official

the

recognition on the part of the

of,

leaders of the

community

at least, the sincerely

pious and

God-fearing
in

among

the proselytes.

We

are

accordingly justified
early

assuming that already at a very

of the
restored

time

in

the

history

community

the re-admission of the truly pious proselytes into the com-

munity took place.

special

book was then opened

i.

for

them and kept

in

the sanctuary, before God,

In this book
all

e.

in

the

archives of the Temple.

the names of

proselytes and their

families descended from

them were

recorded and found mention.

By

this official recognition

the proselytes became an integral part of the community,

which now consisted of fo7U'

Priests, Levites, Israelites,

distinct

groups or

classes, viz.

and Proselytes.
^sn*
'

The

latter

were

called

by

the

name

of

"'ins

Those who

fear the Lord'.

Such a

division of the

community

into four distinct classes,

is

of which the proselytes were one,

Psalms.
'

already found

in

the
\s'~i'

Here the

proselytes, under the

name

of

'JTs

Those who

fear the

Lord

',

are mentioned together with

the Priests
KxiB'"'

'^r\)n

n*3, the Levites ^i^n rr'D,

and the

Israelites

nn

(Ps. 135. 12-13).

This division of the community into special classes was

also maintained in the

books of the genealogical records.

Each one of these

own.
'

four classes

had a special register of

its

The
I.

proselytes had their

in

separate register called

where His presence
is

Before the

Old' means

the Sanctuary,

especially

manifested.

Thus, a jar containing an omerful of

i.e.

manna was

laid

up before

the

Lord,

in

His sanctuary (Exod.

16.

33); Moses laid up the rods

before the Lord in the tent of the testimony

(Num.

17. 22), laid

and Samuel
it

wrote down the manner of the kingdom

the Lord.
i.f. in

in a

book and

up before

the sanctuary (i Sam, 10. 25).

THREK HOOKS FOUND AT J KKISAI.EM

^Jnx

LAUTERBACH

409

'KT^ ;n3r
fear the

-)D

'The Rook
',

of

Remembrance
""JnN
"Nl'

for those

who

Lord
fear

or shortened
'.

-|2D

'The Book

of those

who

the Lord
i.e.

The

Israclitish families of

pure Jewish descent,

the genuine Israel, had their

'

own

register, originally called ba-W^' n'Z DDD

Ihe

record of the

House of

Israel

'.

The

lists

of this record were traced

back to the

lists

of the families kept already in exilic

it

times, and referred to in Ezek. 13. 9, hence

was called

by the name given

and
Levites,

to this record in Ezekiel.

The

Priests

finally,

also

had

their

special

registers,

which,
the

as

we have

seen,

were frequently consulted by

sitting
in

members of

the

Tribunal

the

Lishkat

ha-gazit and examining the purity of the descent of the

Priests

and Levites.
to

There seems, however,

in early

have been a tendency already

times to consider these two classes, Priests and

Levites, as one.

Thus

in

Psalms 115. 12-13 and 118. 2-4,

viz.
:

only three classes of the community are mentioned,

I'roselytes, or those

who

fear the Lord, Israelites,

and the

House
Aaron.

of Aaron, pns*

nu.

Here evidently the Levites

together with the Priests are included in the

House of

Ezekiel also classes Priests and Levites together

is

<45- 15). as

also

done

in

Deut. 18.
in

i,

and the Talmud

the

speaks of twenty-four passages

Priests are called Levites

the Bible where

b).

(Yebamot 86

We cannot here

enter into a discussion of the relative position of the Priests

and

Levites,

whether they were

at

one time equals and

then distinguished from one another, and then again made

equals.

But without discussing these mooted questions

it

be safely stated that the majority of the Rabbis considered Priests and Levites as in a certain sense one class.
It

may

may

be reasonably assumed that the registers

for Priests

4IO

THt:

JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

if

and Levites,

ev^en

they were kept separately, were regarded

It
is,

by

the Rabbis as one.

however, more likely that in

later times,

when the Levites obtained more recognition of

was actually kept only
both Priests and Levites.

their equality to the Priests, there

one register

for

After this digression, describing the genealogical records kept

in

the Temple,

we

report about the three

at all.

now proceed to interpret our books and we shall have no difficulty

shall

As

already stated, the report, in

my
I

opinion, speaks

about these very genealogical records.

may

further

add

that our report, emanating from a rabbinical source, repre-

sents the opinion of the majority of the Rabbis

who

regard

the two priestly classes, Priests and Levites, as one, or

considers the two distinct records,
as one.
if

they were kept

distinct,

in

The report the Temple

tells

us

first

that three such books were found

n-iTy3 INVDJ

DnsD

nii^bc

Then

it

proceeds to

give us the character and contents of each one of them.

D'Jiyr^ b\y

nnx, one book,

was the Book of the

'

Templars
its

',

i.e.

of those belonging to theTemple or connected with

service.
it

The Temple was

are called

called

\)]i^,

and those connected with

Meonim, or
is

in

the shorter form Meone.

in

This

Oiya lD,then,

the book

which the genealogical records

of the Priests and Levites were kept.

The second book was

of pure Jewish descent.

the record of the noble families

This was called D^moyr

~I3D.

In

Talmud
for the

b.

Mcgillah 9a, we aie told that the ciders

who

translated the

Torah

for

King Ptolemy used the word 'moyr

word

'^'VN in ICxod. 24. 2.

From
For

this

we
to

learn that

the word ^muyr,

like "b'^'N,

was understood

mean 'the

nobles', 'the distinguished ones'.

this reason these

THREE BOOKS FOUND AT JERUSALEM

LAUTERBACH

4II

translators are also said to have used the

for the

same word 'moyr

word ny:

in

Exod.
and

24. 5, to indicate that those

officiate

who

were sent to
nyj
,

sacrifice

were not mere youths

but the nobles,

men

of high rank.
said above, this record

As

has already been

of the
n^a ariD

Israelites

was

originally called

by the name

!?xnw'^

However, since

this record furnished the proofs for the

pure
it,

descent and the nobility of the families recorded in

it

was subsequently

called
'.

Q^DiDyr

n2D

'

The Book

of the

Xobles or Aristocrats

This

is

indicated especially in the

version of our report as found in Sifre.

There the statement

that was called the
'

reads CDiDyr

~i3D sipJ"^'
'.

tnsi

'And one
*

Book

of Zaatutim

The phrase
original

that was called

It

implies

that this was not

its

name.

may

be that this

name was used by

that the

the people ironically to indicate

by

it

book

is

of interest

and benefit only to the

aristo-

cratic families.

This also explains the use of the foreign

it

word, Zaatutim, because

was the name given to

this

book by the people who

word.io

could well use such a foreign

The
"

third

book was the record of the

word may have meant,

families of the

Whatever

this foreign
If

it

described the character

of the book adequately.

we

accept the explanation of Perles {Beitrdge

zur Rabb. Sprach- mid Sagenkunde,

in the

p. 5; that it comes from the word sata Zend language, which means born ', then Zatutim would simply mean, those born, that is, born of Jewish parents. ^ST""" ""^a ^DIUyT would be Hke ^Klw"" *:3 nnSn, and would designate those born of purely Jewish
'

families.

period instead of the

lists

The book may have received this name already in name ^NI'l^'' H^ 2n3, with which these

the Persian
genealogical

were designated in the exile. And if we assume that the word 'DlOyi is the Greek ^rjrTjTris, which means, the wise men, or, the searchers,
the

name

'DltOyi "IDD

would

also adequately describe the character of this

wise book, in which were recorded those people from which alone the see above, note 6. judges and members of the Sanhedrin could be chosen
;

412

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

we have seen, were designated
fear the

God-fearing proselytes who, as

by

the

name

""jiN

'Ni"'

Those who

Lord

',

This

record of the proselytes was originally called

by the name
"IDD.

suggested
In
'':ns

b}' the passage in Malachi ^JlN ^NT'7 ;n3T

shorter
is

form

it

was

called

'JIN 'xn*

"ISD.

As
the

"NT'

compound
of

word, used as a designation for

it

special

class

people,

could

well

receive

article n.^^

The
':iN

record
-i2d.

of

the

proselytes

was therefore called

called
it

\N;Tn

Some
"'XT'

people
-iD
'

may have
The

more

explicitly "jnN

nn;n

record of
title

the truly

God-fearing proselytes'.
-i"\n,^-

Abbreviated, this
'jnwS*

was written

which stands

for
if

'NTn or

'ins*

^nt Dnjn.

The

abbreviation marks,

ever such were used in ancient times,

were by mistake dropped or ignored.

viation
'':nN

And
S'n,

the abbre-

used

in

the

ancient

report

for

the designation

'NTH became
The

merely

the

word

which

caused

^'

use of the article n before such

as

compound words

is

not in16.

frequently found,

e.g.

Ezek. 45. 16

"ISn Dyn, and Judges

b)

14

jnsn
*n *n

nriTI.

it is

of interest in this connexion to notice that the teacher

in
;

ID mentioned

the

Talmud ^Hagigah 9

was, according to tradition,

the son of a proselyte

the name, accordingly, also contains the abbreviated

loc, explains the

form

for

""^

N"1M and not as Tossafot, ad

I.

same.

See

Bacher, Ai^adn der Tannaiteti.

'*

p. 11.
in

Such abbreviations are not infrequently found

in

the

Talmud, as
"''"aS

e, g.

n"JD
in

Megillah 21 b,
18
a.

WLTJ

in

Sanhedrin 82
it

a,

and "-"aN

^a"2n

COJ

Yoma

In

the latter passage

is

evident that the abbreviations

tiicre

were used
stood

in

the Baraita already, for the

Gemara

explains what each

abbreviation means.
is

How
in

such abbreviations could sometimes be misunder-

best

shown

the case of Mishnah Abot IV, 19.

Here the phrase

p.

")D1K JCpn ^KIDt;'

is,

as Bacher

{Agada der

Tatmatteti,

1,

370) has shown,

the

result

of an erroneous dissolution

of the abbreviation NTlti' which

stood for the jjhrasc ~1D1S

3inrn

^in'J',

introducing the Scriptural proof

b.

(Prov. 2). 17^ for the saying of R.

Simon

Elr.i/ar in the preceding

paragraph.

THREE BOOKS FOUND AT JERUSALEM LAUTKRRACH

413

a great deal of misunderstanding in the interpretation of

our report.

According

to this interpretation, our report presents

It is clear in its

no

difficulties at all.
its

statements and plain in

meaning". All the difficulties in our report, caused merely

false interpretation
in

by the

given to

it

in

the talmudic glosses,

disappear

the light of

my

theory.

This

in

itself is

strong recommendation, and speaks for the correctness of

this theory.

The
report

following observation
in

about the position of our

Pal.

the context

of the

Talmud

will

further

confirm our theory that the report deals with genealogical

records and not with Torah scrolls.

As

already stated,. the

text of the original report, as given in the Pal. Talmud,

consists of the
first

ten words, beginning with the words

onsD
on
1.
1.

n^'b'y

on

line 47,

and closing with the word

n\t

48.

All that follows, beginning with the word insi on

1.

48 and ending with the word nnx on

53,

is,

as

we have

seen, a later addition

original report.
its

and forms a commentary on the

Close upon this commentary, right after

last word nnx, there follows in the text of the Pal.

Talmud

a statement by R. Levi about the ponr n^Ja, or a scroll containing genealogical

lists,

which was found

in

Jerusalem.

Now,

if

we

eliminate the
1.

commentary on our

report which

extends from
polation, then

48 to

1.

53, as a later addition, or

an

inter-

we have

in that

passage two statements about

the family registers which were kept in the

Temple

at Jeru-

salem, the one giving the general information that the three
classes or groups

were i-ecorded

in three separate books,

and

the other quoting a fragment of such a record which was

found

in

Jerusalem and which probably came from the

archives.

Temple

Although we cannot apply the method

414

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Talmud, yet the
close

of n^siCD to the interpretation of the

contact of these two statements in the context of the passage

strongly suggests also a close relationship between their
contents.

And we may consider

I

this as a ^OD,

an additional

support for our theory.

In this connexion

would further state

that, as

it

seems
fur-

to me, these two sayings belonging to one another

and

nishing information about the genealogical records, are both

placed
it

in

the

wrong

section of the Pal.

Gemara, as we have
is

now.
in

Such a misplacement of sayings

the Pal.

not infrequently

found

Talmud

(see Frankel,

Mebo Hayenishalmi.

pp. 39-40). These two intimately connected sayings properly

belong to the section of the Gemara, commenting upon

paragraph six of the fourth chapter of the Mishnah Taanit,

in

which there
in

is

mentioned a

list

of

many

old

families

who

the respective dates assigned to

In a collection of

them brought the

an
the
six

wood -offerings.

Amoraic sayings and

would
call
it,

explanations to the Mishnah,

or, as I

in

early Gemara, which was subsequently

redactor of our Yerushalmi, the

made use of by comment to paragraph

in

of the Mishnah contained these two sayings.

In connexion

with the names of the families enumerated

reference

the Mishnah
lists

was given

to the sources

whence such

of

ancient families could be obtained, or where these families

were recorded.
containing such
at

So, there was

lists

first

stated that three books

of families were found in the

Temple
list

Jerusalem.
in

And

then a fragment of such a

was
the

cited

which some of the families referred to

in

Mishnah arc actually recorded (compare the names of

the families min*

p and

3D")

p mjv

mentioned

in

the
n^:?:'

Mishnah and
cited

also given in the fragment of the pom*

by

Levi).

This was the point of contact between the

THREE ROOKS FOUND AT JERUSALEM

LAUTERBACII

415

Mishnah and the comment of the Gemara,

these
families

stating where

were actually recorded, and

incidentally

i^iving us also general

information about the three records.

At

the redaction of the Pal.

Talmud, the comment conthe ancient report about

taining these two sayings,

viz.

the three books and the saying of Levi about the fragment of

such

records,

was erroneously transferred from the

Gemara

discussion of paragraph six to the one pertaining

to paragraph

two

in

the Mishnah.

The mention made

divisions

in

the latter paragraph of the Mishnah of the priestly divisions

and

their

corresponding

Israelitish

nnoti'O l"2

nnoyrsi, suggested to the redactor the idea of connecting

with

it

the

comment

of the

Gemara containing the

in

state-

ment about the three books,

one of which, the Sefer

This was but

Meoni, the priestly divisions were recorded.

a slight mistake of arrangement
is

made by

the redactor and

rather pardonable.

Of

course, he could have placed the

report about the three books in the section discussing para-

graph two and the saying of Levi

paragraph six of the Mishnah.

in

the section discussing

He would

have thus main-

tained in each case the point of contact and the connexion

between the Mishnah and the Gemara comment on

as already stated, the

it.

But,

two sayings have both been taken over

earlier

from one source, an

Gemara, and were inseparably

connected with one another, so that with the transfer of

one the other was also transferred.

In this

manner the saying of Levi with the quotation

was

from the pDHV n7JD came into the wrong section of the

Gemara, simply because

it

.so

closely connected with

the report about the three books.

of time, after the true

Later on,
this

in the course

meaning of

report had been

inter-

forgotten and

its

statements misinterpreted, a later

4l6

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

commentary on
the report right

polater inserted the false

next to

its

text, thus separating the

it

words of the report

from the saying of Levi with which

closely connected.
I

had before been so

later interpolation

The

origin of

this

shall

now

discuss briefly.
in

We

have found that the commentary contained

the

talmudic glosses on our report altogether misunderstood

the purport of the report and gave
it

a false interpretation. mis-

NoWj

it

is

true that the later

Amoraim sometimes

understood old tannaitic statements, especially such as deal

with ancient problems, long forgotten, or refer to conditions
of earlier times which were no

more known

to the

younger

Amoraim.
some of the

For

this reason,

we

find not infrequently that

interpretations given

by the

later

Amoraim

to

older Mishnahs arc not correct.

Accordingly, there would

be nothing unusual
pretations given
to

in

the supposition that the false inter-

our

report

in

the

talmudic glosses

originated with
I

some of the younger Amoraim.

Talmud,

However,
to our

am

inclined to think that the false

is

commentary

report as found in the Pal.

not an interpretation

of the

Amoraim but
op.

rather a later interpolation, as

in the text of the Pal.

we

find

many
(see

such interpolations
cit.,

Talmud

Frankel,

p. 38).

Furthermore,
false

it

may

be

reasonably assumed as plausible that the

of our report as given
in this

conception
originate

commentary did not

It is

wholly

in

one teacher's mind.

not one mistake

made

by one

individual teacher.

It is

rather the result of a few

minor mistakes and slight misunderstandings

different persons.
itself

made by many
is

Each one of these minor mistakes

in

pardonable and can be easily explained.

But the

repetition

and cumulation of these

slight

misunderstandings
in

gradually led to graver mistakes, and finally resulted

7:

THREE BOOKS FOUND AT JERUSALEM

that altogether false
glosses.

LAUTERBACII
in

41

commentary given

these talmudic

The

ver\-

fact

that

there

are

different,

and

partly-

contradictory, versions of this

commentary supports such

conflicting ver-

a supposition.
sions of the

For the existence of these

commentary can be explained only by the

commentary.

supposition that they are modifications and enlargements

of an earlier
If

we could
also

distinguish in each

one of the versions the additional elements to the earlier

commcntar}-, and
if

we could

recognize the slight

in

changes and modifications which each version made

original

the

commentary, then we might be

able,

by

a process
earlier

of elimination, to restore the original

interpretation of the report.

commentary or

We

could then decide whether

the report has been misunderstood

by

its

very
to

first

com-

mentator, or

its

misinterpretation be

due
for

a series of
different

mistakes

made by

those

responsible

the

versions which changed the original

recognition.
I

commentary beyond

believe the latter to be the case, and in the following

shall

attempt to trace the various

misunderstandings
in

through the whole process which resulted

the different

and
I

conflicting versions of the

offer the following

commentary.

theory merely as a hypothesis.

to

The

original

commentary

the report read as follows

^jns'

''N-i'.

Using the abbreviation

x""-

n"' for

'nx

\s-|\

the last

sentence read
2in3

3in3 nnsni or x"'n 3inD inai).

in

The term
'

was used here

'.

the sense of

'

was inscribed

or

was

recorded

This

furnished a correct explanation of the

meaning of the
VOL.

report, telling us that in each

bjok was
F
f

registered or recorded a special group or class of families

MIL

4t8

the JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

which constituted the Jewish community. This commentary

probably originated with R. Jose
author of the Seder 01am,
b. Halafta, the

reputed

who

as an historian correctly

understood this ancient report.

This explanation of R. Jose,

ings

like so

many

other teachin their

and Halakot, was written down by students

These private

private scrolls or note- books.

scrolls

were

not intended for publication, but merely to

of the student.

assist the

memory

The
in

students would therefore not always

record the sayings or teachings, which they embodied in

their

note-books,

the

exact wording

in

which they
often

heard them from their teachers.

They would very

it

record the gist of the saying or express

in their

own
need

words and add a

brief

remark of their own.

if

We

therefore not be surprised

some

of the students in record-

ing this

commentary of R. Jose
it

in their

note-books

made
of the

some
it,

slight changes in

or added a short explanation to

so as to

make
down
ii^"nD

its

idea clearer to themselves.

to

One

students, in copying the brief explanation

the third

book, wrote
the words
n""'

in his

note-book instead of N"^^ aiDD nnsD

3in3
N""'n

"inS3,

which

is

the abbreviation of

Dnan

mnu

or

nnno, thus indicating to what purpose

these

lists

of families were recorded, namel)-, to prove

them

pure without any stain and consequently eligible to be permitted into the communit}.^
'

This

is

a slight change in

the wording of the original commentar)', but can certainly

be excused as
in

it

gives a fuller explanation.

his

Another student

copying the commentary into

first

note-book wrote about

the book of those

the
'^

book pyoa

NVDiK*
in

bw

~12D,

who
is

The use

of the term lilD

the sense ol purity- of descent

^J^flJI

fre-

f|iiently

used in the Talmud, as e.g. Kiddiishin 72b pT^HV

7

^ItTDD

"inO^, and M. Eduyot. V,

nnU^I

N?Dt:S vS3 IH'Sn pX.

THREE BOOKS FOUND AT JERUSALEM LAUTERBACH

arc found in or belong to the

419

Temple, thus explaining the

term

D>:iy^ to

mean

Priests

and Lcvites who are connected

with the Temple service.

The

collections of such sayings contained in the note-

books of students were copied and used by later students, and subsequently used by the later compilers or redactors
of the talmudic works. In the process of copying these
It is

notes
errors

many

mistakes naturally occurred.

out of such

and mistakes, made by

later copyists, that the various

versions of our

commentary gradually grew.

copyist

who

found

in

one collection the comment

letters

x"^^:: mriD

inaz, with

an indication that the

N\in

are an abbreviation,

misunderstood the significance of the abbreviation.

erroneously took
it

He

to stand for N^^

'l>,

i.e.

nine times the

word

N\n.

To

avoid any possible mistakes he wished to

make
wrote

the meaning of the expression clear.

He

therefore

down

in his

own

collection, instead of the abbreviated

N\n
yj-n
2)T)2

form N\nD, the

copyist

full

words

nnsa.

Another

made

a similar mistake with the simple statement

found

in

the other collections reading n' ainn nnN3, where

s^

the abbreviation

stood, as

we have

seen, for

^nx 'Nn\

The

copyist erroneously took the two letters here to stand

for their numerical value.

Taking

n"'

to

mean

eleven, he
this

accordingly understood the

comment

to say that in
in

one

book

were written

ciez'm.

Having

mind the
in

Massoretic notice that there are eleven passages

the

Torah

in

which the word

n\t

is

written in this form, he

associated this
n-iin^r

comment with
it

the remark about the

this

nnv

s"'

and explained
scroll

to say that

one book was

Torah

or Pentateuch copy, which contained this

peculiarity eleven times as distinguished from the other

copies which had

it

only nine times, N^^

'o.

Thus developed

Ffa

420
the

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

false interpretations of this part of the report as referring
Still

to Pentateuch copies.

another later copyist tried ta

indicate this false interpretation into the very text of the

ancient report
report had

itself.

After the book mentioned

in

the

been understood to be the Pentateuch copy

n\"i,

with the peculiarity of the

of our report the words

and finding

in

an older text

n"m

"ISD

with some indication that

it

the letters s^n are an abbreviation, he took

to

mean

the

book of the eleven and believed that the word s"n ought to
be added to the
letters

nM, standing

for eleven, to indicate

what

is

meant, namely, the eleven times of the word K^^

In this manner originated the slight

written in this form.

change

in

the text of our report as found in Sifre N\n N'n "IDD,

first ^''^n, if

the abbreviation marks over the

such were used,

having been dropped.

regard to the

The same misunderstanding probably took comment about the second book
see

place
;

in

at least,

we can
phrase

how
^J3

easily
"'DlDyr

it

could have

been

made.
copj-ist.

The

bii~\'y

was familiar

to the
this

He

remembered the talmudic report that

phrase was used

by those who translated the Torah

stitute for

for

Ptolemy, as a sub-

^HT^ 'J^ ny: in Exod. 24. j. When reading this comment that in one of the books were written the i'NTJ'"' ":! 'uioyr, he could easily make the mistake to believe
that tins had reference to a Pentateuch copy in which this

phrase,

supposed to have been used

in

the

translation

prepared for Ptolemy, actually occurred

in the text itself

instead of the word ny: as written in the others.

original

To

the

comment, reading ^xtj"

':2

''Dit:yr

3in3

nns3, he
3in3 D'yjQl

therefore added the explanatory words nx

bK"ity' '33

n^Jw""!

ny:

to indicate

plainly in what

this

copy was

dislini/uished from the other two.

THREE BOOKS FOUND AT JERUSALEM

Thus
3in3 the
*

LAUTERBACH

42I

far the

mistakes could easily be made.

to start
'

All that

was necessary was

wrongly and give to the word

meaning of

In the text
'.

was written

'

instead of

In

it

was inscribed or recorded

the case of the
first

In

book,

it

is

true, the

mistake

cannot so easily be explained.

However, once the mistake

was made to

interpret the phrase

'

ami

to

mean

'

in the text
'

of one was written

necessarily

instead of

'

in

one was recorded

they

had

to interpret the phrase in the to this cae-e,

same sense

also in regard

and take the word Meonim

as a

or the shorter form Meoni

word which was found

written in the text of this book, instead of

some other
for

word.

Having taken the other

first

two books
for a

Torah

copies, the

was likewise taken

Torah copy and

the word

Meoni

as a variant to the passage in Deut. ^^, 27,

in

where a similarly sounding word Meonah occurs, which

the mistaken opinion of this compiler could have been the

one

in

regard to which the copies differed, although the

in the text

supposed reading

D^p "n^s

py?^

does not quite

satisfactorily explain the

'*

name MeoniJ^

It is

probably due to such a misunderstanding on the part of a later

interpolator that our report

was

inserted into the Sifre to the very passage,

of which one of the three books

reading.
It
is,

was supposed
to

to

have contained a different

however, more plausible

assume
Its

that

the text of our report

casilj'

was

originally contained in the Sifre.

presence there can

be

explained.

Since the passage

in

mp TQH

HJiyO was understood

fit

to refer to

the Temple

Jerusalem, the compiler thought

to connect with this

in

passage a report about the three genealogical books, which were kept
that

Temple.

later interpolator,

however, who had already misunderit

stood the meaning of our report, added to

the

the explanatory remark about

tiie

meaning of the

first

book, which he copied from

Pal.

Talmud,
in the

and by which he meant

Sifre to the passage

to account for the

presence of the report

Qlp

\1T'N TJIVD.
in

This would explain

why

no remarks

about the other two books are found

the Sifre, as the interpolator did not

422

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

This
difficulty

was

felt,

and so

in

looking for a more

o-f

satisfactory explanation

of the

name Meoni, one

the

versions had preserved the statement found in an older

collection as part of
pyro3 Nvc:c'

R. Jose's explanation and which read

fii?':^3

nsD, shortened from

a^v:^ 'd

b'y "iSD.

They

took
JiyD.

this to

be a more satisfactory explanation of the term

But the error of considering these books as Torah

scrolls

was already too well established and could not be

this

abandoned, and

comment, found

in

an older collection,

had

also to be adapted to the supposition that the report

deals with Pentateuch copies.

They accordingly assumed

Meoni
--iry

that this

comment merely

says that

signifies a
'

copy

found

in

Maon

or in the Temple,

"13D

book of the

Temple'.

later glossator, to

whom

it

was perhaps known that

Maon is may have made

place pyo
n''3,

sometimes used as a shorter

the

name

for

Beth Maon,
Blau made,

same mistake which

is

Prof.

and imagined that pyo here

not the

Temple but the

n^n.

and he accordingly inserted the word

])]!J2

Thus came about the reading

could be explained
glossator, to

n"'33 NVOrj' "IDD IHT,

which

by Blau, and perhaps

a

also

by the

mean

Torah

scroll

which was found or

preserved

in

the place Beth

Maon,

The above

sketch of the possible developments which

is

may have
report

led to the false interpretation of our report

merely a suggestion offered

could

by me
utterly

to explain

how our
and

have

been

so

misunderstood

wrongly interpreted.

Whether the mistake

described above
intend to interpret
Iassage in Sifrc.
llie

came about

in

the

manner
it

or

in

any other way, whether

its

was

report but merely to explain

connexion

willi that

THREE BOOKS FOUND AT JERUSALEM

committed by one or more

LAUTERBACH
by Amoraim,

423
or

teachers,
fact

by

later

interpolators,
is

the

remains that the

inter-

pretation

false

and based upon an erroneous conception

if

of our report.
the
in

Even
it

this misinterpretation

came from
deals, not

Amoraim,

would nevertheless be wrong, and would

no way

affect

my

main theory that our report

with Torah scrolls, but with genealogical records.

theory,
I

This

trust.

have proved

satisfactorily.

POETIC FRAGMENTS FROM THE GEXIZAH

Bv Israel Davidson,
Jewish Tiieological Seminary

of America.

IX.

Palestixiax Liturgy for the

Xkw

Year.

By

r2")D

[r-n bi^oba -ai'-n i?s'C'*D.

The
earlier

three prayers (nn^i:;' ^ni:nrr

^r.v^b':)

which characif

terize the

New^ Year Liturgy since Tannaitic times,'

not

still,

have proven a favourite subject

for the early

Thus we have two such poetic compositions in the German ritual, one by Jose b. Jose- and the other by Flleazar Kalir,-^ and a similar
Paitanim to elaborate upon.
composition
ritual."^

by Solomon

ibn

Gabirol

in

the

Avignon

In the

Genizah text published here we have a

fourth composition of this kind, hitherto entirely unknown.

In 19

4,

while on a visit to London,

had the privilege

of

rummaging among

the rare treasures in the rich collec-

tion of Mr.

Elkan N. Adier. and among other things which

this genial scholar allowed

me
is

to

copy

found the text

(MS. No. 1568) published here

for the first time.

The

original manuscript

written with no care whatever

for form,

and as a

result all indications of its authorship

are obscured.
It

Even the
I

verse structure

is

not recognizable.

was only

after

began to study the text with a view of

Cp. R.

Ha.sli., IV, 5.

3^ Cp. Ritual

Avignon

for

New

Year 35a. beginning 'n

kxt'

P"1X.

426
elucidating

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

it

for publication that

recognized the structure

of the verses, and their author.

Before treating of our text

shall discuss a

number

of

interesting points peculiar to the three

New Year

Prayers,

and the poems which have clustered around them.

well

As

is

known, the Mishnah prescribes the

recitation

of at

least ten Biblical verses

with each of the three characteristic

verses,

New Year

prayers."*

These

which must deal with

are,

the same themes as those of the Prayers themselves,

according to later Amoraic interpretation,'' to be chosen

in the following order
:

three from the Pentateuch, three

from the Hagiographa (Psalms), three from the Prophets,

and the concluding tenth verse again from the Pentateuch.

As

a matter of

fact,

however, neither the number nor the

selection of the verses ever

remained fixed.

Instead of
first

having three verses from each Biblical division, the

of these prayers (nV37C)
is

followed by seven verses from

b}-

the Psalms, and the third (nns'pr')

four, in addition to

the whole I5cth Psalm, as well as four verses from the

Prophets.
for
it.''

The Rabbis,

of course, gave various explanations

As

to the selection of verses, those given in our

liturgies are not identical with those given in the Talmud."^

The
Jose
b.

divergence became
in

still

greater
rites.
tlie\'

when the

pi)-utim

were embodied
Jose,

the

different
;'.s

The piyutim
appear
in

of

for

instance,

Minhag
from

Ashkenaz, not only contain Biblical verses

those embodied
additional
in

different

the

'

.Silent

Pra}'cr

",

but have also the are

distributed

innovation

that

these

verses

among
*

the last eight stanzas of each piyut, instead of being

y?. //rt.s//.,

Cp.

IV, 6.
(ctl.

'

Ibid.,

32

b.

'
">

Shibbale Ua-Lckct

Biibcr\ pp. 273

Maharil,

Cremona 53 a.

Cp.

b. /?.

Hash. 32 b

POETIC FRAGMENTS FROM THE GENIZAH DAVIDSON

427
not

grouped

together,"'''

while the three piyutim of

KaHr do

embody any
Kalir do not
innovation

Biblical verses.

In the Polish Minhag, on the

b.

other hand, the compositions of both Jose

Jose and
is

embody any
verses.

Biblical verses, but there

this

that

they precede

the

characteristic

prayers

which contain the

From
piyutim

a remark in the JMahzor Vilry, however,

we

learn

that formerly the Biblical verses were embodied in Kalir's

in

the

same way

as in those of Jose b. Jose.

For

in discussing the question

where the poetic compositions

should be placed, the codifier says that while the

common
"ji^cn

usage was to insert the

[i.e.

first

pint (nvi^c) after

nnsn

before the Biblical verses], R. Isaac Halevi insisted on

it
i?D

inserting
1?3 D7iyn

after the ten Biblical verses [i.e. before Ti^ro n"in

bv\ because

in

the piyut the verses did not

follow the order prescribed in the

Talmud.

Pointing out

more

definitely the place

where he wished the piyutim to

be inserted, he quotes the endings of the three piyutim

of Kalir and the words which are to follow
ately.^

them immedi-

This clearly shows that

in

the Ritual of R. Isaac

'^

Owing

to this distribution, the

method adopted

in

quoting the verses

was not

to bring three quotations

from each of the three Biblical divisions

together, but to have

them

in

three groups, each group consisting of one

quotation from the Pentateuch, one from Psalms, and one from the Prophets,

followed by a
8

final

quotation from the Pentateuch.

p.

Cp. Mahzor vitry,

370:

nnxi ^nu3a
i?3N'

yh'Cin
i;*c^

ny nci^

lin: i3Vn

D^'D^ IP^n

d"d

>'hr\

pnv^ irni

.pt2VD

mNipj:n a^3in3 ors' snrpnn

n'^-j'3
\r\

'd

^Nnrpnn
irrn
. .
.

^"nn^L**

Nnrpnn p^^nn*:; onp Dv^c^n

pmni" inan

pN-i:i

.wy^n^
i^^xi

d'S'^: ^l-i

min

i-j-

-i"id3

,nD-i2

nc^nna inno^^

mrpnn

n^^an nsu'^ p^riN^ nu^v

irnuN

^^i?N1

irn^x

:''-\t>yc2 snip

^ip"

,'131

mar

irnns* \n^Ni

'

428

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

same way
as

Halevi, Kalir's piyutim were arranged in the

those of Jose

b. Jose.-''

In this connexion, our

Genizah poems give internal

evidence that their author followed the same plan as Jose b.

Jose.*''

The very

verse structure

is

dependent upon
is

this

arrangement.

For each of the three poems

so

con-

structed that every stanza ends with the

word with which

fp'2

pi

.'13 ypri.

The phrases

in

quotation marks are the closing words

service of the

of Kalir's three pij'utim for the

Musaph

New

Year.

Inci-

dentally
is

it

may
in the

be remarked that the entire passage, cited here in part,

manuscript of the Mahzor Vitry of the J. Th. S. Library.
it

missing

** For the sake of clearness,

a

will not be out of place to give here

diagram of the different arrangements into which these piyutim were

placed in the various rituals.

A.

Mahzor

Vitry.

r.

Ta32ii^?:n. ..nbmpjpby
^with Biblical verses] Hr'DjX

"i^

nipj
'

by

2.

Biblical verses of the

Silent

Praj'er
3.

Biblical verses of the "Silent

[with Biblical verses] n3"'DJN

Prayer'
4.

(?)

D^iyn S2 by

-;i^-

n"\s

-jibc

x"in

B.

Gennan

Ritual.

Second Day.

First

Day.
r\i:>n^ or

1^

niirj

b'

.'

nrojN

.1

[without Bib. verses]

witii]

nb^rix

without] n3*D2N
[Bib. verses

.2

-jb

nip3

by

.a

]Bib. verses

No. 3 omitted.

Bib.

verses

of

.3

Bib.

verses of

'

Silmt

.3

'Silent Priij'cr'

Prayer'
.4

llbo N"1X
'''

-jlbo

N"1S

nibr:

N"1N

.4

The only

difference consists in that the verses are not identical and

arc distributed

among

the Inst ten stanzas instead of the last eight.

POETIC FRAGMENTS FROM THE

GEMZAH DAVIDSON

429

the following stanza begins,^ but where the Biblical verses

are inserted these

word

repetitions

do not occur, a clear

proof that the author himself, not the scribe, had chosen
this

arrangement.

Other
In the

peculiarities of verse structure are the following.

first

piyut (nvapo) the

first lines

of each stanza form

a quadruple acrostic of the Alphabet, and the second lines a quadruple acrostic of an inverted Alphabet (Pl"c'nj.
In

the second

poem each

letter of the

Alphabet occurs eight

times

in

the acrostic, while in the third

poem each

letter

occurs six times, and the letters that go to

author's

make up
poem has
b)p,

the

name

twice in each quatrain.

first

In addition to these peculiarities the

the

word 17D, and the second the word

i"n3T3,

while the third

prefaced

poem has

a series of phrases beginning with

line

to the second

of each stanza.^

"^

These phrases are

(^ip)
'
'

extremely peculiar, since they use the word

in

voice

'

the most unusual combinations, such as the

'

voice of
'

blood' and the rest of ten plagues, or the

voice of Nisan

and the
twelve

rest

of the

twelve months.

Parallel

with the
in

months, the twelve tribes are introduced

the

closing hemistich of each stanza, thus making the

poem

a highly complicated piece of literary composition.

As

to the author of these liturgical poems,

have not

been able to find anything more than the mere name which
stands out clearly in the acrostic.

The surname

^t:D^N

is

unknown

so far as

can ascertain, and the letters

little

?2"iD

which follow the name are not a

''

puzzling.

The\-

For
in

this

reason most of the words repeated are given

in

an abbreviated

form

the manuscript.

'* In

many

instances these catch word.s are not necessary for the context

of the

poem.

430

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

be an abbreviation of the epithet Tno
b.
"121D

may

or
to
I

"isiD

Dnnci as Benjamin
himself
(cp.

Samuel was accustomed

p.

sign

Zunz. Literatiirgcschichtc.
for

115),

but

am
3"c

inclined to believe that they stand

some euphemism
abbreviations

concerning

the

departed,
y": (;iy im^).

like

the

(m22 inm:c) and

On

the other hand, judging from the highly elaborate

form of the verse structure, we

liturgies are post-Kaliric,

may

feel certain that

these

and from the

fact that the first

is

piyut uses the ending

of the Palestinian
that our author

n2l7?2n TiN,^'^

which
it

characteristic

New

Year

liturgy ,^^

may

be assumed

was most

likely a Palestinian, or at least

member

of a

community which followed

poems

the Palestinian

ritual.

In the subject matter these

are unlike those

of Jose b. Jose and Kalir inasmuch as they take for their

theme the Midrashic conception

history
subjects

of the Creation

and the

of the

Patriarchs

and other

Biblical

Worthies,

more generally

dealt with in the

I

Abodah poems.
in

In transcribing the text

as to

arranged

it

such a manner

make

the verse structure stand out clearly.

I

On

the

other hand, although

provided the text with vowel points,

Icctionis

by which many of the matrcs

I,

became unnecessary,
In

nevertheless, retained the orthography of the IMS.

I

cases where corrections were necessary,

corrections in the notes and
'"

introduced the

left

the text unpointed.

Sec below, end of

first

poem.
Golfcsdicnst, 24. 3

" Cp. Elbogen, Dcrjudische

and

tlic

notes.

POETIC FRAGMENTS FROM THE

GENIZAH DAVIDSON

431

nvjSisn

")-!p

''hih

r[Yr\^i<

Pol.

recto~;

^9^n

p^'P'?

'i^ijf-J^

HD^?;?

'-'ni'^ieb

nni*:X

-IDSP3 Qb)V S"!^

"ID^ nns? ;nNi D^p^'

'2

So

in manuscript, but undoubtedly- tbe sign '121

was omitted here

b\-

the scribe, and the

ni*3p>3ri

words bn? npTIIN are

not to be taken together witli

no,

but are to be considered as the beginning of the well-known

prayer VJ2
the other
1^

n^DX bub n'^mX which

precedes the n','3^?^n

"ino

and

two poems.
shall sing of
in

Both words signify song, or praise, and the verse may thus be
:

rendered
place
'*

Him who
God

is

glorified in his sovereignt}',

shall

my

hope

Him
nipn

because of the stud3' of the law'.

as the architect of the universe,

poetic appellation of
a:

Cp.

b.

Sukkah 49
'*

b'S im:?o'is n'-

nt'yD

it

^i?:x ''T

nrp::.

Cp. also

Gen. R. at the beginning.

In the manuscript this

word

is

indicated by the abbreviation

12

from

here to nearly the end of the poem.

1" '"

Job

23. 13.
is to

This

be taken in the sense of H^n',

in

i.e.

b^'

himself, not in the

sense of
'5

lUH DV.

the

first

day.
|*"1S. i.e.

Read perhaps
49 a: n^t'
^o"

n*'j'

CSI

the earth and

its

foundation.
;

Cp.
pn"''^"

b.

Sukkah

xin N^x

JT'B'Xi^ 'ip-D

bx

^rT-'j-xin

''i"'<f.

"1X133
19

n"'"J'X"in

n-:"j'ro.
viz.
:

Cp. Kimhi, D^wntJ'n 'D, s.v. IDty,

[D^Ql"

innn] CtJ'ISD
13]

c^i

nn'hv

nns'."
.
. .

nx

nD:i

fo

bnxs

onix

no:

[job 26.

mar'

-nsB' 103

^22n nix Qipm msc' x"n

n\-in"i

^i^nx '^s

[jer. 43. lo].

432

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

"'^bl an^

''3t;*3

J!:!?"!

n^'cn apiy

dk'''"]

T]Sp

^5""^ DV^^'?^
(Foi.
I
^

%^yp

''"?'?

iOJ'^r'

^Tp
||

i?^
15

'nx

"nrpin n:^''^
^K'^k:'?

}>^^itn

xtj'nri

-la^'l

verso

]"1Xn

pp :*ovjhi
-'*

n5(iyp
3.

jnxzi

-'-'i^y

^'dtD

-iSp

Cp. 'oi D^c3 n-ipj:n, Ps. 104.

2'

Cp.

b.

Abodah Zarah
:

17 a: npyii* D^H^J
. . .

b"lp

Hpi^'i?.
^^-l

Cp. also

Gen. R., XI, 9

ypi

>yj'2

cvi

C","

^32 Nin

n":3pn

ninn

':

2-

ITO'n
:

~
'.

nnC^n,

cp. b.

Yoma

28 b: njab ^-' 11t:'n and

:

b.

Hullia

112 a

iniC^n nbyn'J'D.
Read
jjcrhaps

The passage may be rendered

'

He

paved Hell

with
23

its fire

rniyj "

3n

Q'ytfl
:

",

i.e.

her cry
O^rt':

is.

'give
. . .

me

the

wicked'.

Cp. Midrash Mishle 30. 15

""33^?

Umb

HTny

Hplby^

D-yc'in
2*

nx

'b

3n

ijoi^i

n"3pn.
"j^

Cp.

Midrash Tanhuma

-^b

20

n"apn y3CJ-' nb"'n

n2^an

2^

Cp. Ps.
I

30. 2.

2G

Exod.

2.

19.

cannot find the proper meaning of these two words.

For D^w'vT
Dinjin

read perhaps

DTIvT, and cp Nahmanides

to

Gen. 1.9:

NlHii'

HM
tliere

ma
''^

Dipc3

D'cn bv nni nmsyn nni^n py^ nayi dv2. Although the word ~\2^} is diflicult to explain in this connexion,
iip'u' to

is

no doubt that the passage refers

Pirke

d.

R. Eliezer,

fn^'J*

~pV)

D^iyn N~i33 ab'y ny

Lev. R.
y~lT II.
I
:

mnn^
nivh"

(Luria corrects

oSya
lip"'

isin:).

cp. also
^HJ^''

"IDS'I

HJDiy e]S ;D"'Cn

.

'n -IDN^I

H^DD
The

yntO
2"*

2*i;'y

N"n jnsn

N::'nn 'n

Cp. also

b.

Sanhedrin 38

a.

Read more

correctly

Dip,

in

the sense of

DID

(Gen.

2.

error probably arose from the Dl*p

in line 14.

"
into

Cp. D'r:n py ^y Gen.

:

i6. 71.

This likewise refers

lipj

to Pirke d.

R. E.,

loc. cit.

niOinm nmxr^n ISiaJ DMrn

nir^yr:n.
cp. Jucl
2.

S^J* nyi, which Luria corrects

mcinm

30

Read INf 11,

22.

POETIC FRAGMENTS FROM THE GENIZAH

nap^n

DAVIDSON
nnhb
[n^lC^

433

'

T T

v:

Ti)3y

"

[J^l^t].!

iiowa

n^Nn!) cnj^-^

tj^d

iv^D\n

nnjiD

[T?]'?'!

^x->^ niDiyb

nm$

t]^

33nhinip!i nisioD p:f''"!^]n'l

nn^tpyn

T[b]bTO

[niTj'oT-

njnn nn*^ vb^

'H^'?

3'

The manuscript cannot be clearly deciphered here.

As

far as
,

could
is

distinguish the letters, the word, or words, looked like D3

D"*"!

which

without any meaning.

3^

Read nnni:f.

Cp. job 24.

II.

33
3

Cp. Pirked. R.E., IX.

Cp. Midrash Konen (Jcllinek, Be/ ha-Midmsh,

II,

26):

pp"l

n-\"'y

35

Read nilinZI,
nnpji
-i3T
. . .

i.e.

remalcs.

Cp.

b.

Baba batra 74b

N"13B'

HO 73
TTiy

0X12
3

liT-M^ fix

DN13
r^jy

n3p3i nsT icfjiya n"3pn.

Read perhaps nillDnb and

cp. ibid. 75 a:

miyo TW^^h
jn^ib

T\"2p7\

psi ... (6 /o T.\s) cnnn D"'03n n*bn s^N Dnnn.

37

n^'

'^rj*

b'^ n'j'3o

npnvi'

A'j/.

of bb'2

'

to

crown

'.

3'

Cp. Abot

d.

R. Nathan, cd, Schechter, 3a:

. . .

n3i"in

nJV-*N">

ny."

nc'^:':

nin:

t\''^'C'

nay.

VOL,

VIII,

G g

434

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

(ar.)

nn'^^3 i^ "^niD

t]'^ki
||

30

iD2in|5

f"|y2

nriT^/D

Tjbp

'v V

ninni D^ysn T T
: : :

-lintD "

iTriK)!)

n^rpD Tiyp

ti^o

liar HDi^Di nsiQi

ni33 nnnnn

[r\':,]r\\

'9 <"

Read perhaps "^^00.

^mO
;:a

refers to

lUyn

niD

cp.

Pirke d. R. E.. VIII

.
.
.

XIHtT f^JO^
q^Ju*

pDD
py
<

3"nsi njc'H

nx nayo

iTni

n"2pn ^:sh vn

D'cnm

pu's-in din^.
,bi<f.

comp.

12:
-jn

mnp:^ nnpnm
^-ap:! i^ain
:

D''2in2

Q'SDinrD D^rx^ron vni

(:""

,n"3 bapm")
*

Cp.

b.

Baba

batra

nnx^D 'h:-^: p3 jiCw^nn uivh iT'^pn py

Tanhuma
i^^si

n'j'y

ni3in -icy.

Read IDS*
'131

and

cp.

Bereshit 6

n"3pn ID^HU*
pu'wS-in
i"tj^:

Onm nCC
Cp. also

i"ni inoipi V3D VT |n

p.

xon*j' -insS
13r^?3

din':.

Midrash ha-Gadol,
'*

126: n?Dn33 ^'J'QJI

1VT

XDHL'-I.

Cp. preceding note. Cp. Zech.

9.

^^

10: D'
in

iy D'O

I^CO"!

ni3y

is

used here

the sense of

miSy.
^3n

cp. Eccles. 9.

DITinyi

Q\-I7Nri n^3, cp. also the liturgical expression D'w'yf^n

*'

73

p3*1.

Cp.

Chron. 29. 14

-|^

i3n:

in"?:"!

ir:r2 '3.

POETIC FRAGMENTS FROM THE GENIZAII DAVIDSON

^'ioN?

435

nhyQ ^^nmn

io^y nrian^j [nij33

nVJ/
B'nabi

2-^i^i)

asp:
1*7
II

fa'p

'TTVi^? b^Pi'n ly'p

t]^d

^My^ifh

e'npj 5^^2-\n2

n^h

45 (2 v.)

^*

Cp. Eccles. Cp. Pirke

d.

2. 3.

*^
:

Meaning of
pt:

this clause is

obscure,

'0
*'

R, E. 12

DnX b^ IJNV
(ed.

HNI '3N .T'apn H^ IDS.

5,

Cp. Midrash Shir ha-Shirim

Grunhut^

lo:

QITXI HV HIT

nv Nine n"2pn n3\

52 5^
^*

Cp. Gen.

r.

2t

mt:'n '2vh^^ "tnx^

and

^"iJDC

nnso
:

n\-i

Qixn

fn.

Meaning

is

obscure.
cp.

Read
'p

iS'lN'a or i3"|XD
:

Gen.

r.

19
^jy

^i;*

DCyJI lODip nyn:

1^
-ij:n"J'

noN
V!?3"11

and Md. 20

^DN^iD
,

m"

i^Ti "i3im

n"3pn
:

ny:;'a

Vn^

1i*yp1 nT.i*n

the verse

may be rendered
the Serpent
'.

'

For ever was the

stature diminished in

Adam and Eve and

'''l}i'2,

^
^

^vb}ib in the sense of intt'N^, cp. b. Kiddushin 6 a

IHO Tiy^i*.
in

Read 5^n3

|33

i.e.
is

when God

searched for him

the

Garden

of Eden.

The ["O

of ^Tiaj
:

a dittography on account of preceding '23.

Cp.

b.

Baba m. 86 a

nnn3N

l^'nZ.

"
5'*

Cp. Job 36. 2: n'yi

o
e.

-in3.

Read Cn?
p.

"I^NI,
:

i-

God waited and then spoke to

nb Q"n^y
n'^^']!:)

him.

Cp. Midrash

ha-Gadol,
Dili?

91

',^bv

H^iJ

pU'Nin Dnx NDHB' p>3

iNt:n

nam

n:Nn

^^y inp^-j'

ny in^p^pn
'n

xin-j-a

lymnb

.n"3pn

Dvn nn^ pn
Cp. also
'^^

n^.-ino

d\i^x

hp

riwS*

iyf:c'""i

^id3^i iD3n:i r,ni:n.

Yalkttt, 743.

Manuscript
Cp.
Isa. 59.

indistinct, but
17.

probably the word

is

nV33V
:

^o
^1

The

construction of the verse

is to

be taken as follows

p"lk^'3

^^Ir?

nip:'? "11C3 nipNJi

nr^ai ^rh pi3 nipnv.

Cp. Pirke

d.

r. e. 20:

ncx

TiaitTi ns* ^2151 '^yo 'nxt^n nj

Q'3C'

layn co^iyn
a^-j'

b pm

n"3pn ':s^

mx

naicn ^3pD nnNi

r\2xyT\

nnnn

^2 nc^''i.

G S

436

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

i3

tjIpp

nyiin

y-Di*

niip oy ns
u*3n s^ 'nn '23

y:B'i*

iiSo

'^'13

'1:1

npy'3

;"iN

linn nx

:i->n

"'

;'yij

p^T

}'3

pi*i

"^'yja"!

bp!jD

"^^in-i iuap' "linp

Tib

Read
' "*
'"''

"i;fyc,

cp. Ps. 107.

39:

pj''i

nyi

"i^'yo.

Read perhaps D^XyV,

cp. Isa. 44. 25:

IIHS

COSn
i.

n^w'D.

Num.
piT

23. 21.
is

i*3
:

to be
]^p

rendered:

'

the oflfspring of evil',

n'-^y
S*3
;

e.

Cain, cp. Pirke

d.

R. E. 21

nS

nnnyi C'njn 3311

Pscudo-Jo>iathnn,

'

Read

\\1Z'2

{2

Sam.

19. 10

i.

e.

God judged Cain

loi b
:

after entering into

an argument with him.

Cp

also b. Sanhedrin

n7^>y3 1K3

TWi^TC^

^ Read yiJI, op. Cp. Sanhedrin,

"

Ps. 109. 10.

X, 3

^iDDH "in

HT DD'J'r^n D'y:^n IDip'

~I1D

Cp.

b.

Sanhedrin ro8a:

3VS) 1300

N^ p ^y. ^N^ HONU' nD13 N\ni

70

Read -itl'a. " Obad. I. ai.

POETIC FRAGMENTS FROM THE GENIZAH

DAVIDSON

437

'*1pp DyK'ni DDcn

ns'n nxvb

"ipy

X'jp Di?Sn

-j^p

nrsD
" njDin
'"
II

^'^

"i?"!'!!?

pnv [TjD
f^ic'

1131^50

nnxj ^S

'3

nbt nx

^n

-jSp 60 (3

r.)

ini33> b"n:p3

npV

-nnya

loi-y

si-l.bK'ri

^3n^

v^y
fp*!

^M.^*!??

i^ovn [inji-y

[jbjp

[rii'r?'j''3

'n^i

D'pn",

Tj^inn

vjsb ni3T

"?i|3p

T2

Read
"3

-ip'i'D

n~ID, cp. Midrash ha-Gadol,

p.

150:

D\:'2

1*123:;'

'Q^

mayj
'^

ntr no iidni. The meaning is perhaps

Cp.
b.

that the generation

which perished

in

the

flood denied the

supremacy of God, because God gave them an abundance

Sanhedrin io8 a
:

of good.

^^3"J'3

N^N IN:nJ

{<!?

b)212r\

HH
Cp.

n"3pn cn^ y'sc'nc' n3iD. God destroyed them only

''*

ibid.

after he saw their acts of ?3n ^v 113^ ^UDH "iH nnB* DDH b^ nn3 ^nj ic'j'sc'
6. 9.

violence.
n?:^3

nx-n xn

btn Dnn>
75

ny dti

ir:

o.T^y

onm xh.

Cp. Gen.

TS

Cp.

Isa. 57. 15.

" Read
''^ '"'

N3 Din.

Ps. 22. 29.

The meaning

is

obscure.
plaj'

* It
"1

may

be taken as a

upon Job

29. 3

'B'XI

vy

IIJ

vn3.

Ps. 55. 23.

Deut. 33.

5.

438

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

nVS

^nnc'

s-ta^tb

tsjo^

**n>*s;

rnwp32

iTar""!

iibo

(3 V.)

^S")"]
II

nnii-b ^niV

K'ni^'

^^b

NL*'3n?p

[nijN^V

'"

n^D

'y."

ixr p"3 3"3

*2

Gen.

17. 5.
:

'*

his

The meaning is We shall speak of the place appointed trials, i.e. where the sacrifice of Isaac was to take place.
Gen. R.,

for

him and

In the sense of Ity^, cp.

meaning

is

that

Abraham chanted
Cp.
b.

the praises of
7

everybody

scoffed.

Berakot

b:

pixn ]vbrD VHC. The God even at the time when nh ch)]}^ flN n"3pn NISC DV)0
54
:

n-ins*
8

ti2C'

ny pnN r]"2prh
r.

inip'^:'

nm

~>n. Dn-i3Ni5

Cp. Gen.

30:

'b "T'NC nDN'j' *iy

ij^x

n"2pn nCN 12

**
"^ **

Cp.

ibid. 38, s. 13.

Zech. 14.

9.
s.

Gen.

r.

56,

5; Pirke

d.

R. E. 31.

*'

metaphorical term for the ram.

Cp. Lev. R. 29

riN^riB'

HObo
m:;*v

ni B>-iin3 13D3"! nr

cnino
:

c'n":

b\sn

nx DnnaN^ n'apn.
p3 n2t' 2"iya 1S13:

" Cp.

b.

Pesaiiim 54 a
. .

nvj'T^'j'n

Qn^T

I^CB'ni b^NH CjX

o

Cp. Seder Eliahii Rabba

.
.

,cd.

Friedmann,p.36;: ir^N

Onn^N
by
1:3

"Ipyj'

DV

nob 13 bi

D''L"33
-i3ir
.

'jc n"3pn
. .

ppnn narcn

^33

pnv^ riN

pny
'

mvy

'i"3pn

nsn^n o: by n^on pbyo

bNiii'^c'

nyc'Df.

Ps. 24. 7- 10.

POETIC FRAGMENTS FROM THE GENIZAH

'^nte
v^fni

DAVIDSON
ni^-jp2

439

Dp

-^mp
-jSip

'"ni^rijP 'g2u 'b^l

r\\bvp ^3Di33

rir^^^l

/o

^^If]

vc^ n^on

nnn

^ns ps n^yo B'h'^

j'^d

ini-p

Dy

'"'m.''")

iafja t*1

''M^il ;*m

noU

s-nniNl?

yin yir

n^-'^

Tjbp

cnnn

^y nu'DO

nb^il
':)

D'ln?? ""^s^n
^y iin:

"u-i^in^

Ti^p so

'"'IM^N

Dnnn

no y^y

'33

"nan ^3

no^

"Qnrs?

'?i32^5^-

'*^"im -in
2 9*

ni3^ nnisbo p"3 '33

93

Gen, 30.
/6,rf.

38.

Ibid. 37. 10.

32. 2.

9B

Deut.

6. 4.

'*

From

Tn

(analogous to 03^-' from

>J2V

3"lt^}

in
2.

the sense of wandering.

31)

Onkelos renders i:*n

nCN yHD

(Jer.

^Oy

nCX

fT H^

^'

Cp. Gen.

15. 13, the

meaning of the passage being

said

as follows:

God

disclosed to his beloved

(Abraham) the secret of the wandering of the

people near unto him,

^*

when he
i.

Read

131"!

"VO ipj,
i.e. his

i.e.
i
:

'know of a surety'. God put an end to the

D'^:^

oppression of his

young
89
101

people.

Cp. Tamid.

DnDIB' D*3nn'l.
"o Cp. Deut. 16.
3<

Read in^iH,

people,

3.

Cp. "inny ^:'n

isa. 47. 3.

isa. 52. 7.

i<

Cp. ni ISTK'
Sinai.

DV3

Cant.

8.

8.

This refers to the revelation on

Mount
^'">

1" Refers to the Golden

Calf.
(i

Refers to the Golden Calves of Jeroboam

Kings

12. 28).

Cp. Gen.

r.,84: nvj'y^

DHx pTny

-lox

^1^

'->... D^c^x D^o^xo i:mx njni

"^ Ps. 145- 13-

Dym* b^

vbiV ^3S^ D^D^X D^^^^X.

440

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

8?

ina yani

N"'3n

"^

'^*."'.vi>JI

inr nyS

Tjit^

""k"

'pr2

n3i^on -inN 'd 'a

mjnnr

usjK'in^

poy2 "nnK

OEB'Db 3npp5' nc'^nN

Da^fiS
i"'^

pixi? risn ^jniX

Read Dipn.

^"^ **

denominative of Pn.
to thee,
i.

Those who come

15. 17
is

e. thj'

people.

"0 Exod.
'" This

18.
ol

the Palestinian ending instead

'm

)*"lNn

^3 bv I^D.

See

introduction.
isa.

"2 Cp. Targum

32.

^^r

pn^c'^i

.mni'

^m^

-incn

fnvnva abbr^b"^'

Cp. Cant.

r.

4. 4
2.

>j:;'n
:

"

Cp. Eccles.

25

L'ln*
4.

Din3 ^bv n3'3n I'D nc'^m. will show feeling. 'D1, i. e.

I

" Read '3*1N, cp. Joel

2 and 12.
is

" From here to the end of the poem this word manuscript by '3, " Cp. Gen.
r.. s.

indicated

in

the

38, 28.

POETIC FRAGMENTS FROM THE GENIZAII

DAVIDSON

441

ntrap 3nS ns"3

D'^'O DT'5*^ "ip"?

;h3T2

\\

(4 v.)

n^'s DniNi -13^

i9ri^b Dn'.^y

pbm

ril

fhai?

10

PB'irB'

D*3^'3

nS''!!

nB'^33

Dr.i

nN|l

lilDH

'-ni*r^

"L"

iS

~i2^T

Pi;t3

ni*tpn n'B'Nio nnnsi

rrjic'3
r\2)t2

nu'i'l

naa^
ni^y

"-'OEn

-12^

fn3T2

m/apH

mn33 [na^joH
jrvi'b 13

pptH

("n^p

aits; ni',^'3

ht '-^byin

3iD

^sjj

^nynjyn
np'^i

niDi

Til

b}vr\

310 |;y3

tiSH

inpp

20

Cp. Md. 1" Cp. Gen.

'18

14. 15.

i'^"

Cp. W^.
Isa.

i8. 1-5.

12'

Read perhaps NVC: uHNI

f'lTn

and cp.

65.

i:

X7^ 'D'-'mJ

''jic'p3
'22

abb \nNVo:
Cp. Gen.
18. 6.

"ji^n'J'.

123

Read
^51'

either nSk'P

'P'

H^

"13"^,

referring to Sarah ^^Gen.

7.

18.

6^ or

SXO
'-

~3"n with reference to Gen. 18.

i8. 12.
'25

'2*

Cp. Gen.

Analogous

to

py DpH

(2

Sam.

21. i)^

Read ^vin.

442
D^i-yri^

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

mr\ nan
n: i^b ]2)

^5 r.)

nsTip

DipD nx"i v\bu^?^

n3]e3

!iiy

07);^
nK'ni")

nnt n3^33

jhan

in-n^

nN

ninT

"nin^j

nn

'B'3

iisT
ijnT
n

^n ^N [njnT

^n y^'iD nnsD

"^nv^i^ riT??

in?]?

*V V

..

"T

T T

30

;Nni3

nB3 Dibn [nbjn

^st-jK'^

sni5

'28;njn

|i-i?]3

T T

- T

'

^^'

Read

D''i'13T,

i.e.

the Angels

who

abide

in

heaven.

Cp.

b.

Hagiga

12 b and note 88 above.

^^'

In this and similar passages

we must
;

eliminate the catch-word pIST^

from the context (see above, note 9*). ^" Cp. I Sam. 17. 40: D'aSN 'p?n
called the stones

cp.

also Isa.

57.

6,

i.e.

Jacob
28. 17
:

upon which he slept the place of holiness. Cp. Gen.

130
'8'

,-|2'n3

|DV3

is

euphemism

for

Moses, cp. Exod.

2. 3.

Read DQtp,

cp.
b.-

the expression

nSvi Dt30 DDD,

i.e.

^b.

Erubin 21a), the

Y"<)

of |B^31 should
'''

construed with

DSD1 DD.
to

n3m
iniifO

is

used here as an attribute of the Torah with reference to

Ps. 119. 96, i.e.

1NO
133

nnm,

Moses went up

heaven and took the

Torah as

his boot^'.

See note 134, below.

cp.

>iDDt3

Angels,

Pseudo-Jotiatlian,
.
.

Dcut.

28.

12

NV^'^N

s-iDD'UT NH^a

n:nDO
"':dS

k^jt

^nnoo.
b.

"* For this <'ntirc Icgond about Moses and the Angels cp.

Shabbat

88b-89a:

.T'apn

niCH oN^o nr^N Dnob

r\2"i2

n^yy nyra

POETIC FRAGMENTS FROM THE GENIZAII

DAVIDSON

443

Hd-i^En:"!

limy

n'3^

rn2i3
obiy Dy
D'P")3
y^t^i*

nijni

n^:3tt' y

i^-'

nn*
nay:

fnpi3

40 (5

V.)

iiNQb [d^j2

n3an;i3 ^^^r^^ oy^

sri?^

"Mn^ ^T?3

|n3]2

^^'-nDiya

npy [n3pni]3

j<-i3:i;'

DT,p niin ry^-iNi

y"c'n"i

n^y^n nixc

yL-n ^^ mi;;:;' nn:: mi;;n

r\:r\'b

niin

v:s^
-ir.Ni

ncN ... cm

Tw"n^
.

'^V2^2
nt:
-^

nnN

niJiyn

aniN

^b

nc'y:

ins ^3 T'd

ra a'nr

fm: nnx-j-

'3r JT'ar Di-iD^ n^/y ncN:c'

^'^ 136

-i3n i^ "iDr:i.

Another

attribute of the Torah, cp. Ps. 119. 72. for the

It

"

A poetic name Read n^3Sn

.

Jewish people.
first

has reference to the breaking of the

Tablets

Exod.
138 '39

32).

poetic

name

for

Moses.
i.e.

Cp.

b.

Sotah 12a;

"ilZ'C

2'\12

ICN

)2"~\.

Read perhaps ~^np,

Cp. Eccles. R.
13. 5.

he will make his enemies as helpless as

iT3'>D

the dead.

10. 7:

3D Tn.
"' Has reference to Exod. 32. 27.
^*^

"" Cp. Prov.

^*-

Cp.

ibid.

30-2.

Isa. 4. 4.

'*

Has

reference to ihe readiness with which the people contributed

towards the building ul the Tabernacle, cp. Exod. 35. 21-9. "5 Has reference to Phineas. On the passage 1"lO Pi?-") np'l i,Num.
25. 7) Midrash rabba remarks
:

lynta HD in:

Mn

D"'D: 2"" "h iTJ'yi

i Cp.

Num.

r.,

he. at.:

^j^nnm

ip''n3

iH'-jm "n^a i;nn 'i^r

N-i'^n:K' |*yn

be:

nuK

ib^'x

yjnc

;v3 .iniN is^pnt;' ion::'

02d

^y

icnoo
^b

n^c^jn::'

d:3:i

inin':n ."oni* niL"yi'

^nN3

^:n fjN

^'n nriNa n^b

0:3"^ inin"':n x^ p.
'"

Cp.

Num.

25. 13.

444

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

45

[Dp

"-'nirj*

bio^

"^'

y'"!Np

-)?;:>

or c^obp^
i-iE-in

Tpnb [ri?]0

,-i|n^

iMz-ii-itp

y^vii^
'5

nnptrn "^nn^ [nanjD

Dnpy^- nnby
ycL"'i

DC'i?^^

'^'^V??'

Q^P^O
DnpN2 ns dm^n

onD

pisn

'ipn'

[':)]

'na 3'^

(6r.)

^<i'3nI?

B'Nii' ^bj)

i<nij

ND33
npin
Tin^

pi5nj
t]330

jiiDn
55
P"13T3

ioB'

nnS 23b0
^JD"

mn2
iOW
'c^

D^iy [Nbn]j
6-'

iOy HB'D
''"ic'np

-130

^3 Tjn^O

':i

loy nB>o n^iy

n^rn :"'y '33

'^*
'^*
""'

Has reference to Joshua, cp. Deut. Read JTJiJ', cp. Joshua 5. 2.

Cp.
ibid. 12.

31. 7.
"'"

Cp.

iln'c/.

13 ^/

."j^^.

9-24.
5.

'"
'"2

Cp. Judges

20.
to the victory over the Philistines

Has reference
at

through

tlie

prayers

of

Samuel
3
:

Mi/pah.

Cp.

Sam.

7.

7-1

1.

Cp. also Midrash Shemuel

s. 13.

"

^Nic"'^ nc'iy sine n'^apn rvDin noinD >w'

sign of abbreviation
is

nicn^o

:r^l^^

The

in the

manuscript,

it

should perhaps read

'" Has reference

Rashi ad. he.
">'

to tho

Jewish people

in

general.

Cp. Jer.

2.

and

Exod.

2. 24.
is

'" Meaning
David.
''*

obscure, but the passage undoubtedly refers to

King

Read 73,
Isa. 63. II.

i.

c. all his

utterances are for Thy gloritication

"*"

POETIC FRAGMENTb FROM THE GENIZAH

DAVIDSON
|\s*>

445

5|^D

"-iro

ftpp

"''eiiD

"pab

;h3]3

'"*

^ny1t:''3

'y

'in

''"

"j-idt

'dd

D'pij eiyn

n*3V

n^p^jpn "'^p-iy

nonni n^nin^j

"''^l^y

nr^n 'xnp n-inV

liian

""'
''

pa3'\-etanic

form lor

IXti'J.
if it

Construe this passage as

i.e.

read

IKU'J

^IIDK^ 13 D^^13D 11D3^

*11D

PXb ^3D,

at the

end of time, when the chosen people will be

liitn

gathered, they will lay upon

burden without end,

cp. Pesik. R., s.

36

;i62a) hv

"h

D^3m3i

bn3 by
161 b
.
.

nmp
:

Q'N'3?o

tm an

nn

p'^ yi3'^

'"
l:3^13

Read

13?2t2, cp. thfri.

.

"'JiDDJ^

DDN 1\V n"3pn

sinn by.
d.

i3n^ "1?2N

ns n3KD ^yin
Used here
^DS'jnri
in

nxji -in:n

Nint:-

'^

the sense of

nnO,
i^x

cp.

Abot

R. Nathan
"is^

s.

37

]}2^

iDH
'"* s

^mv
4.

,n':3n

;n

"ii33n

nd3

nrcjysJD

nnro

Ps. 106.

Cp. the expression [Ci'V

It

n3 py^

b.

Shab. 33

b.

""

has, perhaps, reference to Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael,

and Azariah,
ate of the

who

fared better on herbs

and water than

all

the youths

who

king's

meat

(cp.

Dan.
I.

i.

12-15).
Tirb
i.e. in

1" Qp.ibid.
"''

7: n^'C^ Q'D*"lDn TJ'

:

Dw'^l.

Read

mpy.

Cp. Cant.

5. T4

D^^^SD nSpyo,

memory

of the prayers of

the prophets accompanied by the sweet savours and sacrifices.

'

Gen.

8. i.

44^
(6 V.)

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

nn\^.yn
II

cjD'^!)

D^3b5

nnx^D

?I-in3

65

'kn^?!

^^^.
Jsn

"^^P5

'S'^i?

ly^sfb

[nnn]3
pinn

'S'

"I'l"?:

nn?
'j,

>[>n

TirnDjio -1x3

171,'/,,

/^j^

,:,

-,,p,

pp, y/,y /^^

in-}in

pK

n^>f

in"iN ty^ni [k]3 [s]V

inna

Dbiy!?

liar p-'^V
'ji

"Mrr-yn idk* i^^np;^

p-i3p

'"-in

'12

D^y^

i3r

'ip 'la

'33

nplp

^niib i^'^p
D)?ip

no^pn

'^n-'E'O

''''is-ip

fiiDn

T'TPn ^np
1'"i.?y

^"'TD! Dp!^

[''^?]''P

nyuK'

-ii3Ti

D\p

^n^

13313

nnp

fi-i3T2

(7 r.)

'" D^iyb ":i Dn-)3x^ -n3T 'na '33

||

" Has perhaps reference

^"*

to

Nehemiah.
^^-

Jer. 31. 19.

Meaning

is

obscure.

"' Read nyiyjOl "I^ivV referring to the musical instruments of the

Temple.
" Cp.

Cp. 2 Sam.
3.

6. 5.
6.
12.

" Cp. Zech.

b.

8;

Sanhcdrin 98 a:
13T.

n3E'"'nN 3'n31 [3"3 'D n^]3'C" ;

nnyi 3^n3

nny3 nr i6 r^y^^nn
' Ps. 105.
^''**

8.

So
5.

in

manuscript;
.

read

'1"lp

post-Biblical

form

for

Nl'>p

(Esther
'''

la

Exod. 32.

13.

POETIC FRAGMENTS FROM THE GENIZAH

DAVIDSON

447

*"" 'Ipn -liDti ns*!

^y^yv -iB'ra "TiJan

piDD

,^o

>^2''^^\)

Dr\v2\^ nnxtJ^'

na'tp^n^J

np0

n'B^ -I3T2 ns-in ^roi^K^

x*^'3

"^b

pyi

'-^i

inn^&J'

niptzi

D'K'^;^'P

II

*D3 rixnJ^

Q^np?

2:d^P\

85 (7 v.>

-jjiVP^'

i'N-jb''

'^i5^*51

Q^^ri^
''"^'ji

'liiV?^?
^nyttt-'
''3N

''PP'

^P.""^

P""?!?

d:i

'na '^d

's^c 310 jn3T3

m3T

'3S'

^rbn) t^'n^N
-i3n '3
3. 20.

nnnn
^''^

Has

reference to Shadrach,

Meshach and Abed-nego. Cp. Dan.

'3'DJ

^"9

Isa. 63. 7.
b.

"0 Cp.
^^Niccj'i
in-i^NI

Sukkah 52 b
/B'^

DIN

HJOw'l
in:":

Q'in
jndi
.

ny3w* V^V IJOpm

.
.

b\ii^)

.'onN o*D3
n''JDV1

r\:r2-^

[Micha

5.

4]

n^C'DI
fol.

n'pnv

Dir:y.

Cp. also Pirke R. ha-Kadosh, ed.

list is

SchOnblum,
'*i

38 a, where a slightly different

^13TJ'
in

given.

Read perhaps
4.

the sense of

"]?

131"*,

we

sang praises

to thee.

"2 Ps. III.

i*

nJ3

is

used here

in the

sense of

y^

(cp. Ps. 80.

6)

and

D>B"t;'*
u'w'^'J'^

7133

has the same

(b.

meaning as

in

the expression

p2Z12

H^y

yW
in

M. K. 25 b\
184

Qt^y^^nn = Angels,
I.

the

meaning

is

based

upon the

similes

Ezek.

16 and Dan. 10. 6.

b.

"5 Cp.
1'*

Hag. 14 a
6. 5.

niJ

"IPiD

mUTI 'Znb^

]'ir\2:

NO'M XDV ^3.

Exod.

448

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

^5^03

ns^NI
^.?'?^?

]ry^ yip

niiisp ninixn ixiPJ^

niT'B'3

in^nn

iniVp"! niniDn 'rang

nibip :x'C'S niiDiG'5

(8r.)

ni^nria ti???
vninix niin
"'n;n

^'"jnri

I'rix'ip^

vnDi?2

nisinS

n>i3 i^ip

n^njn!? n-;i35

D^ittis bip

lo

""nSibnb "Q-J

D-p ^ip

'*''

In

tliis

slanza

tlie

poet enumerates various occasions on which the

part, viz. (a) when rabbinical nmiOn) were announced cp. b. Abodah on New Year (ni?np03 VDUTl^) (c) when the
: ;

sounding of the Shophar plays an important

prohibitions or concessions ^Dlbpl

Zarah 40a and 57

b,

(b;

new moon was announced (ITIiniN riMn ^031^, d) when the Messiah will come (rnSVD mS">na
'.

cp.

b.

Niddah 38 a;

'""

This and most of the following phrases taken from Jer. 33. 11 and

Vs. 29.
in

3-9 are not

to

be taken with the rest of the stanzas.

for the
in this

Tiiey are

most cases prefixed only

1B9
""'

sake of the form.

is diflicull

-piig

U5Q of ^^p ;^2

connexion

to explain.

Construe the passage as

tliou

if it

read n?lbnS "123 H^S H^^^O

HO

ir^VJ',

I.e.

O,

wild watclieth through the night reveal the angel of redemption

n33) unto the exalted city (nSSn?).

For 133

cp.

Dan.

8.

15 and for

n?17n cp. Ezck.

17. 22.

POETIC FRAGMENTS FROM THE GENIZAH

DAVIDSON

449

nil

riTtrn

^^^{*
Dsyob PS1 '"^nn
'D3np3

nisa bip
>5
-in

;D3iD'n iM-"^2^r

I'js-inil

"H

ra^i IP
(8 V.)

y'2bn ^31:20
II

Djin
port
lai:;'

VTien
nnii
rii'ijp

>ip

y^B'in

ax^n Sip 20

Qni ^pm

iiy"!^')

nn-in
jn:i^ B>jn3
^"^ais^l

y^pp:")

^^n; ^ip

i!>inyi^ HDy^J] nni")

oy pon
-iD'-pb
: '

"syp^n")

b>in^ bip

T-

nayrit^'j

oynT
D-i

nay ""nciT T T
p-iDT
'

bip
,9r.)

vvT

ny^DB' na? T
;

pin
191-2

|En
is

pan ^Dn**

yn-isv ^ip

PP13T

used as a poetic name for the Jewish people, while

is

non
153

(Isa.

21. 11)
p. 438.

used for the peoples that oppressed the Jews.

Cp.

Zunz, 5. P.,

The
the
^33

three
first

names niT, inn, and DJnoa "M are

needs no explanation, the
it

poetic

names

for
:

God
to

last

refers to

Exod. 29. 45
O,
:

b^'Vi^''

^1n3 TIJaB'l, but

in this sense.

is

difficult to

explain

how nnH
as follows
Isa.

has come
: '

be used

The passage may be rendered

my
'J3

beloved,

pursue those that oppress them (Q3yi07, cp.

60.

14

^^jyD), O,

inn,

establish firmly those

who

give them strength,

Thou who

abidest in their midst open thy treasures and

193a
1**

make

their wealth abundant'..

'^"'

Imperfect for imperative.

Cp. note 21, above.

Read

''D''.

15^

Cp. Job 34. 24, more correctly Dy"in.

196
i7

Cp. Jer.

6. 8.

The meaning of

this verse is obscure.

Read

DD"|T.

VOL.

VIII.

H h

450

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Q\v5L5n

'^-'N^cn no''!!

D-soN^op pjn
N*al"n r\\y^byZ

2ny

^ip

d'n^cD

XDXD

yen n-^iaS*

^^vx:rDn iitpbD

pw

bip

C9

v.;

03 nyasB

?in^

na!?

n'23n

'fi^i'yi*

Dafe'V K-'a^

Tizi

bip

22nD"iyn

c'p.'*.

naix

ijip

^o

DnJ^3

i3i\nn^ Q'lS'N*

p.103 Dnach Dnri2

jnK3 n3\n5 VT T T
I

onbs Sp

'

y'PVi?^

vnjin nnt?7

VW!

"i'?i:?^^

n?7
^'-i*i'n

4r
^ip

ypcj'n ns*?

198
''
'^*'*'

Read D3.

More

correctly

n^DH.
this

According to
"?3D

reading the phrase refers to

pnB',

but

read

perhaps
=<

DnbZl, referring to "]'i*N30.

.

Cp. Exod.9.20: '01 D'jn

'n

im
d.

nx nth.
R. N., chap. 34:
7)'X:'V

2
=<

Read nD>'y3.

The messenger,

i.e.

Moses.

Cp. Abot

'131

TV
''

in i^N N'3: Nnp: ni?:c*. jiin^.

Read
i::y'

The passage undoubtedly

refers

to

Exod.

19.

19:

hp3

D^l^NM1 -i3T nco.

POETIC FRAGMENTS FROM THE GENIZAH

n^ijp i^3"'n3 ynn*!?
nh'':)

DAVIDSON
fmS

451

nsna roc'n^
25nt>n

n^;;^ nsD nsnp

I
i

[3.^3^7*
n-i.in/'^

T^=n ^ip

(10

r.

r^'^ybm: n|5in

ncr)^

'rDO n^^j^

"^[j^n Di3 \n^i3

ninob^*
-ipan

'^'^'ri

Tp

"i2vj=

^ip

^'n:nDa

'1:1

nvnn

'j-'k-n

nvn

'nn 'inn '33

~i"=]nn^

3ci>3i ">3nQ3

fi3j

3tJ':i

bi^nb "^3

niO

^3np

v'^t^)

ntfO

5.

"'iyoL"n

';i

;*-ix

'J3vjn

^nn

'Z'cv b^

'wS"3:

i"

b' '33

nn:p n3-ipn
^r\^ii^
^^VJin

inp
'pniy

'''nmn

^n^iiQJjp

T13

nn^jni
^^''}1^^

||

niyp

-'c

^^Jj^-n

^ip

,10 v

Wv

i^'^^

n':^p

'"iC"?fe'

?.ri^y

D^nXs^*

Vj'pn nbo ^jniyo -i3p

|h3

^ip

r.o

-'''V 'n^N^
206

lynn irny dm^n^

sos

imn
208

'ip '12 '23

Cp. Hos.
5. 8.

Read

n^^J.

More correctly

nii'li'n.

207 209

Cp. Exod. 32. 18.

Meaning obscure.
^L*6ie'i3

Cp. Midrash Prov. 22. 20

D^K^j

mn
.

min

nu'yr: ^3

cainsi.
2'o

Exod.
b.

19. 16.

2" Cp.

Arak. 10 b: rxr^ nN''i*V3

nS3

'^Tiprzz

nriM nsniD

212
2'*

Construe
71D!?D

it

as ?3J

Oy.
d.

213

jg^

j3_ _

"

solemnity, cp. Pesikta

in

R. K. 40

m3
b.

^ID^D

CV_"'r.

215 is

Refers to the light

in

the

Temple (^3iyD
the
lights,

1:;, the expression

cp.

nn:n

used

connexion with

ligliting

Shab. 22 b

nn:n

2'6

Cp. Tamid. VIII. 3

b)ib):2

NnX

L'-'pni.

217

Pg. 8r. 2.

H h

--*D'nD>'

lipS

POETIC FRAGMENTS FROM THE GENIZAH

DAVIDSON

453

iBic'

Khhz lypn m^n>

^^nt*

ism nii^

i^ona

!)ip

-"yboa n>n

nmip

y^a!)
.ssy^ir,

nop
axa bv
--

yiprip 13 lae'B^ mi^'

'yp'Q

n^inip
y^iip

Dnn cnip
p^? ^nifO*
':)

"yij*"!

-'ano

^ItJ^au'n

B'-iina

smn

aie'p

^i^xa

ijip

("

v.)

"'03^

e>nn^

inxa ^yuirn

-jninai 'ina 'aa

nannK

-I'a^iNi

'oH
j-1

na'ms

-^>na"l
fix*)

T^yi.
-^"fi-anio

Dan
layn

nb'*

nanj? yB'i
ii>XD ^as-ioni
^>i-

nu'na

b\p

nH
\:np*
lynni

naO
ooi"!

fi'i-a

-vj> ^ypn

''bn-^:

fit'oiDa bsp so

'*'anp
-i3Da p^pnn
13*1^'

^:yip -ina

;vi'a

idic* lypn

'aa

^jrpK'"

napa ^jnaK'
nsio
n^K^"

-1^3 ns

=^-^

t:aB?["|J*

vj^paa ^ip

23'

This refers to the efficacy of Moses' prayer

{ibid.,

verses 31-4.

Cp.

also Ps. 69. 31-2.

2s
'

Ps. 81. 4.

Construe the passage as

n""13n
is

if it

read n'J'iHp y^a^ nrzp

y^oa

H^lin.

The term yboa

235

an allegorical

name

for
1.

DHN

or the people

who

oppressed the Jews, with reference to Chad.

3 and Jer. 49. 16.

in scarlet
'

J he meaning
'7y Lam.
4.

is

'

They

that

were brought up
237
;!)

(D'JIONn

yl?in
^sc
23

5) 'walked mournfully' (_n'3"np

la^T Mai.
j_

3. 14).

Head ailD.
Cp, Lam.
I. I.

Nu^^ ^^

More correctly IDH nan,

n""

2" Cp. Targum on Hab.

3.

HTija:;'

nbj

jr^D

HTy |van

on

xioD?^
2*'

mm.
I.

Joel 2.

2^2

The scheme

of acrostics

demands the

addition of a

1"'1.

454

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

12 r.)

ny^nna

2i.v.'.

'^k'n

n'-^^unyol*
';i

2nyni

pp^l^

n3D3

bsp

-"-isii"

nynna dm^n n^y

'np 'nn 'dd

non^pf) iNi33 pD":? b^nD*

QV31
'n:i
'iji

ntsn -irsyD

-ni<3

ijip

non^ro
'ji

iNun

31

'nn '33

^**D3nyiD3i Mnnr^ty

irnn'n^ hn:

-iDit:'3

ypn 'irm3N 'n^Ni i^n^N

':i

2 Read

Hynil

pi'J^.

Cp.

the

expression

J-'

^y

pIB*

DHIX

"]'1

(Judges 15. 8\ 2" Read ''piVI?^.

'^^'''

^45

ps_ ^^_ 5.

The
Cp.

acrostic requires the omission of the V"'1.

b.

-''
*''

Pes.
10.

87a: ba-wy nDJ3

IT

nnn

>:.

Num.

9-10.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF DON HASDAI CRESCAS

By Meyer Waxman, New York.

CHAPTER n
The
simple
existence of

God

is

proved by Crescas
runs
in

in a

very

manner.
is

The proof
a
finite

the following

way

Whether there

or an infinite
is

number of

effects,

or whether an infinite series of causes

as the series
is

given, but as long

infinite

and

all

things are caused,

is

we do
all

not find

in

nature a thing that

absolutely necessary of
is

existence.

But to conclude thus

impossible, for

if

beings are possible there must be

some power

that calls
It

forth existence, so as to overbalance privation.

follows

that there

is

a being necessary of existence."'

In this proof
is

the force of the argument, as Spinoza well remarks,

not

in the impossibility of an infinite act or an infinite causal

regressus, but the stress

is

laid

on the absurdity of positing

a world of possibles.*^^

nrn33 niN^von
nb^b
n"''

n'L^'ES

.^n

ch^y

nb^ vn

dxc'

nc^ chb^b nns

ni'ym

omyn

^y

onis^VD

yiD^

yn^rob
I,

'Dnv oni ncvy

sect. 3, ch. 2. p. 2->a.

ban
>*

Nini DniS'':*D nyi3?:n, OrAdonai, Tr.

It

will be best to quote Spinoza's

own words on

the subject

Verum

hie obiter

adhuc notari velim quod peripatetici recentiores ut quidem puto,

male intellexerint demonstrationem veterum qua ostendere nitebantur del Nam ut ipsam apud ludaeum quendam Rab Ghasdai vocatim existentiam.
reperio, sic soiiat,
si

dantur progressus causarum

in infinitum,

erunt omnia

quae sunt, etiam causata.

Atque

nulli

quod causatum

est competit, vi suae

455

456

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Here may be considered the proper place to say a few

words about the

latter

relation of Crescas to Spinoza.

That the

knew know from

writings of the former and studied them,

we

the passage quoted, where Spinoza mentions

latter's

Crescas by name, and very accurately explains the

proof of the existence of God.

The

question
influence

is

whether

Crescas really exerted

any marked

upon the

formation of Spinoza's system.

Joel endeavoured in several

of his writings to establish that Spinoza was under the

influence of Crescas, and attempted to trace the influence
in

some

of Spinoza's important theories.

It will

be neces-

sary for us to discuss these points of similarity as they

come

along.
,

Kuno
II,

Fischer

(in his

Geschichte der neueren

all

Philosophie ,V
put forth
is

Spinoza) attempts to refute

arguments

in

favour of influence, and concludes that there

nothing

in

common between

them.''''

Fischer's arguments, however, do not

I

seem conclusive.

wish to

call

attention to the

first

point in Spinoza's

system, namely, the existence of substance or God.

The
It

way
a
first

Spinoza,

in

his Ethics,

conceives

the existence of
is

cause

is

strikingly similar to that of Crescas.

true that in the

Tractatus Brevis^ his

first

philosophical

essay, Spinoza proves that

God must

exist, in the
tiie

famous

Cartesian

way through

the conception of

idea of God.
is

But

in the

Ethics the basic conception of the whole system

that, in looking

upon nature, wc must come

niliil

to the conclusion

naturae nccessaric existcrc, ergo

pertinet necessario existere.
vis

est

in

natura ad cuius essentiam

;

Sed hoc

est

absurdum
sit

ergo et

illud.

Quare

argument! non

in

ea

sita est,

quod impossibile
;

dari actu infinitum aut

progressus causarum

in infinitum

sed tantum

in

ca quod supponatur res

quae sua natura non necessario existunt non determinari ad existendum

a re sua natura necessario existent'.
"

Epistola XII, ed.

II,

Van

\'loten,

II.

45

Geschichte der neuerrn Philosophic,

pp. 265-73.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

that there

WAXMAN
Fischer,
'

457

must be a cause which

'

is

necessary of existence

by

itself.

This conception

',

says

Kuno
'

which

is

put at the beginning of his philosophy, supports the whole

system.'
''^

Taking
I

his

first

definition,

By

that which

is

self-caused,

mean
his

that

of which

the

essence

involves

existence',

and

axiom, 'That which

exists, exists either

in itself or in

something else': again, axiom three, 'If no

definite cause

be granted,
as
his

it is

impossible that an effect can

follow', as well

proofs of proposition XI,

we

see

clearly the underlying thought that in the world of things

where there
thing which

is is

a multitude of effects there must be somea causa

s?a'.

Placing the words of Crescas,

Whether

there be causes and effects finite or infinite, there

clear, that there

is

one thing

must be one cause

for all, for

is

if all

are effects there would not be anything which

of

its

own cause

existence

'

besides

this

conception, one
initial

cannot help feeling the similarity between the

points

of these two philosophers, and the influence of the earlier

upon the

latter

is

not improbable.

The

fact that

Crescas

and Spinoza are two opposite

the

poles, the

one religious to
not deter us.

extreme, the

other irreligious, should

In spite of the fact mentioned,

things to both
acts
in
;

God

is

the very centre of

latter,

and though, according to the

God
way,

a mathematical

way with
in
;

absolute

mechanical

necessity, and, according to the former, in a personal

yet the basic quality of

God

both systems

is

the same,

namely, absolute limitlessness

sophers concur
in

consequently, the philoquestions.

really has

a goodly
in

number of
regard to

For

this

divergence

religion

nothing to do with the

of God.

first

conception of the existence

The conception
"

itself is
Ibid., p.

independent of religion,

358.

458

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

basis of his

and might as well be taken by Spinoza as the

system,
letter

Fischer, as

if

feeling that in quoting Spinoza's

is

where Crescas's proof

cited in such a

way

as to

resemble Spinoza's own, he weakens his case, attempts to

strengthen
his

arguments by alluding to the manner

'

in

which Spinoza speaks of Crescas.

He names him quendam

his teachings,

Rab Ghasdai

'.

Fischer infers that this proves sufficiently

that Spinoza hardly

knew Crescas and

an

and

winds up by saying, 'Descartes was not a "quendam" to

Spinoza.'
^^

Such

argument

is

hardly

conclusive.

Spinoza wrote to Lewis Meyer, who surely hardly knew

of Crescas, and to

whom

he was a

'

certain

'.

But

if

Fischer

were acquainted with the

its

difficulty of Crescas's style

and

remarkable brevity, he would

know

that Spinoza could

hardly give such a lucid

Crescas's proof

and

penetrating

summary
(in

of

by mere hearsay without having

Again, his additional remark

studied his

works

carefully.
'

Ep. XII,
sit

quoted above),
actu infinitum
',

non

in

ea sita est quod impossibile

dari

shows that he read Crescas's whole refuta-

tion of the Aristotelian doctrine.

calls

The

fact that

Spinoza
the
his

him

peripatetic,

while

Crescas

combated
evidence of
in

Aristotelian

doctrines,

is

not sufficient

ignorance of Crescas's work.

There was

still left

Crescas
to that

enough of the philosophy

name.

of his time to entitle

him

Essence and Existence.

It

was an old debatable question with the mediaeval

is

philosophers, whether existence

of a thing or
is

identical with the essence

something separate.

Ibn Sina taught that

"

Gescliichte tier iinicicn IViilosopliic, II, p. 273.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS WAXMAN

existence
is

459

an accident of essence.'-

Ibn Roshd, on the

can be nothing else

other hand, claimed that existence

but identical with essence.

According to Ibn Roshd and

God, since His essence
is

his followers then, in regard to

absolutely different from the essence of the rest of beings,

it

follows that His existence will also be different in kind,

in

and

positing existence to both

so in an absolutely

we do

God and homonymous way,

name.'
'

other beings
not denoting

any common
of Ibn Sina

relation but the

But also the followers

for

agree to this

conception,
existence
is

they concede

necessarily that with

God

not an accident,

but identical with essence.

it is

And
is

since with other beings

only accidental,
it

it

follows that the

to

name
in

existence in

applying

to

God and

man

employed

an absolute

homonymous way.
Crescas does not agree with either view.
In criticizing
difficulty

Ibn

Roshd's view, he points

its

out

the

logical
is

involved in
essence,

assumption.
it

If existence

identical with
?

what then does

add

as a predicate

In stating

that
it

God

exists, the predicate

is

does not add anything

:

amounts to saying, God

God

the

same

is
if,

true of

any

other proposition of the same kind.

says, existence
is

Again,
it

as Ibn Sina

only an accident,

needs then a subject

but the subject must also exist, hence another subject must

precede
is

it,

and so on

to infinity.
i>tay

Again, since existence

it

the real form and

of the subject, for without

call it

it

would be not-being, how could we

accident

This
view-

view must necessarily be abandoned.

is

But the other

untenable also.

It

must, therefore, be concluded that

P~1D :"1D, More/t,

" Cptrip Cn-D

Commentar3')
"2
;

P^yi
p.

f:

LVII (see also Crescas's

Guide,
p.

204.

Or Adonai,

21b.

460

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

existence, while not identical with essence,

essential to

being."^^

In this way, existence

can be predicated of

everything, of the essence as well as of accidents, though

there will be a difference of degree.

The

general conception,

however, must be understood

in

a negative way.

The thing

we

predicate existence of

is

to

be understood not nonof the existence of

it

existing.

As

a result,

when we speak
there

God, and the existence of other beings,

absolutely

must not be

homonymous, but

may

be a certain relation,

namely, that the negation

existing of

for existing equals not non has a difference of degree. The not non-existence
is

God

due to

himself, while of the other beings to their

cause.'^

What

Crescas wants to prove by his naming

is

existence essential

that

it

is

one of the expressions of

essence, implying that there are more.

Spinoza seems to believe that existence and essence

are different in the case of other beings, for essence

depends

on natural law, but existence on the order of the causal

series.

In God, liowever, existence

for

is

not distinguished

from essence,
nature.''''

by

definition, existence

belongs to his

Attriuutes and Unity.

Maimonides' theory of Attributes, which
Crescas, resembles in
its
is

criticized

by

entirety the other theories of the

preceding Jewish philosophers, with a strong emphasis on

the negativity of their conception.

A thing can be described,

its

says he,
'*

in four

wajs

either according to
^^2

definition or

QDprt pDDHo

nwSDnn-;'
-|N"J''

mnr^n Dxy

i:3\sl"

aTn"

-ii'\s'3i

mnob
'''

'DVy iTiTL" D"N

fVw"N~in. Or.-irfoM^K, p. a2a.

Ibid.

" Cogilala

Mctnf>li\sica, Part

I,

chs. 2, 3.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS- WAXMAN

a part thereof, or
relation to

461

by one of

its

essential qualities, or

by

some other things,

either to time, place, or another

bodyJ"

In regard to God, attributes describing in

any of

the above-mentioned ways are inapplicable, for since

posit

we
it

Him

simple, and one, and above

all

categories,

is

evident that

He cannot be defined, nor can we speak of a part of Him nor of any essential quality in Him. As for relation, there is no relation between Him and place or time,
or any other being, for they are
all

possible of existence
therefore, a fifth

and

He

is

necessary.

There remains,

way

of describing, namely, according to the actions.

of attributes
it is

Such kind

not impossible to apply to God, for they

plurality, change, or division.
after the actions

do not imply any

of attributes
is

This,

form

paronymic,

we
is,

perceive.

There

are.

however, essential attributes, that

such as

appertain to the essence without having any bearing on

the actions.

Such by the consensus of religious leaders

existent, living,

and philosophers are and

will

knowing, wise, potent,

willing.

It is to

be noticed that Maimonides includes

as

an attribute just as his peripatetic predecessor

Ibn Daud has done, while Saadia and Bahia do not count
it

(cp. Introduction).
?

How

then shall
it is

we understand
in

these

essential attributes

Of course,

evident that in

applying

them

to both

God and man we employ them

there
is

an absolute

homonymic manner, for

no possible relation between

attributes have to be con-

God and

other beings.

These

ceived purely negatively, and yet, says Maimonides, they

convey to us some positive notion.

his assertion.

He proceeds
God
is

to explain

The statement
is

that

existent implies
;

only that

He

not non-existing, or the denial of privation

"

3":

pis 'a pbn :"1D,

More/i,

I,

52

(p. 72 a); Guide, p. 178.

462

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

and when we say that God

His existence
is

hving,

we only

assert that

not like the existence of dead matter.

In a similar way, the

more

difficult attributes are

;

explained

potent means the denial of weakness

of foolishness
short,
is
;

wise, the privation

willing, the absence

of disorder.

This, in

the Maimonidian theory of attributes."^

Gersonides, the immediate predecessor of Crescas, had

already objected to such a theory.

He
in
is

argued against the

applying the
attri-

assumption of absolute homonymity

butes to both
to

God and man.

is

It

impossible, he says,

assume that there

only a likeness of
if it
is

name

in

the two

applications of the attribute,

construed to have a

negative meaning.

Take, for example, the negative concept

that the denial of non-existence

of existing, can

we say

which the concept implies has two absolutely different

meanings?
is

We
in

are forced, then, to admit that the difference

;

only

in

degree

why

then can we not hold the same

conception

regard to positive attributes, namely, that

they are applied to

of perfection?'''^

God and
in

to

man

in

different degrees

We

have noticed a similar argument

regard to existence.

advanced by Crescas

We

shall

now pass on
Maimonides

to Crescas's criticism of Maimonides' theory.

is

loath, says Crescas, to ascribe to

God any

attributes that will

else, for fear that
it

bring

Him may imply

in

relation with
in

something
His nature,

a privation

nsi^
t<S
'D

i<b

"inr:x p:yi
;'3yi
^.-13:

any in bni:

inox
2nv x^i

^inhr

xS ^3D x^i onnx onan nxvcn^

p3yi
. .

nxi^ irxc*
'n
rt2
l"*

onxnn

inix-vfrt:*

nb in'rx

"n

ici^j rc'o xihl" ^dd

p.

njnjni
p.

-no bv

noSn

nixvr^an n^x b^, Monii,

86 b;

Guirie, p. l.,

210.
'''

The Battles 0/ llie Lord.

II, p.

134 (Milhamot, cd. Leipzig. 1866

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

WAXMAN
Him

463

and yet he allows himself to describe

attributes.
atti ibutes

with active

But, asks Crescas, docs the application of such

not imply any defect in God's perfection

created or made, does
it

When

we

say,

God

not

mean

that before

the act His power was potential and only later became
active?
nature. ^

Such an implication suggests change

Again,

in

God's
is

Maimonides' assertion

that

there

absolutely no relation between

God and

created beings or
existing being
?

time

is false. if

Is not

God
is is

the cause of

all

But

He

is,

there

already a relation established, or

eternal, there
is

if

we assume

that time

a relation of likeness

between God and time.

But Crescas sees as well as

in ascribing to

Maimonides the danger involved

tive attributes

God

posi-

and at the same time asserting that

Yet, he says, there
is

He

is

simple and one.

diction.

really

no contraplurality

The

fact that

we humans may conceive

real

through attributes does not mean

infinite

plurality.

His

goodness which

is

His essence unites them.

Good-

ness here should be understood to

mean

perfection, or in

other words,

God

is

infinitely perfect

what

Spinoza

calls
its

in his writings

the absolute perfect,*^ not perfect after

kind.

Again, since
is

God
then

is

indivisible

and simple, and

perfection

essential,

why

cannot existence or any

of the other attributes, as potence or wisdom, be posited

as a positive attribute in just the
*"

same

relation as light

DX

main
is

ivxa:;'

nipDD bn

n^yrj* 'nb^r: ^b -i*j'2s

\s*

n:ni

ipnrr

y:D: '^'ivrh

n^tl" inbn!' iDn^3 -isid'L"

n:rt

nnNnn-j- -ins

n^nn

-iNinn

-i^nn

^yan
n'^vt

2)2"<

D"ns*i 'h

^yan

nm

n>n^ ab'c v^3

-isin"::'

^s

N^n'

1D3

nttt'

N-ini

bvt^

ncsn

i^sd in^iys^ lann

y^ 3"nNi naa
7yD3, Or Adonai,
8>

n\-i

nas nsnnn is ,Ti"yn is n^iysn

a.

anip'j'

-nyr

p.

23

Epistola

XXXI, Opera,

V,

11.

464
is

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

body?
first

posited of a luminous

Let
cause

us, following
is

up the
;

analogy, suppose that the

it

a luminous body
Is
its

is

consequently necessary of existence.

identical

light,

though not

with the essence of the body, less

necessary of existence, or can the body not be described

by

it ?

The

light

is

not a separate thing, but

is

an essential
In a

quality through which the

similar manner,

body may be described.

we can

call the attributes of

God

positive,

especially such as eternity, existence,

and unity, and yet

our

they do not imply plurality.*^

conception
is

It is true that so far as

concerned we cannot give them a positive

content, for that would determine God, and

we must

use

the negative, e.g. as existent, not non-existent, &c., but in

regard
to

God

himself they are surely positive, and

b}-

He

can be described

them.^"
is

Especially precarious
Crescas,

Maimonides' position, says

attributes

when we consider the other

such as
that

wisdom and potence.

What

does he

mean by saying

potence means absence of weakness, or knowing, privation

of ignorance
?

He

does not remove the positive content

from the attribute.

There

is

no

tertiiivi

quid between
;

knowing and not knowing,

necessarily follows that

if
is

not not-knowing

hence

it

God

knowing.

But

if

the attriis

bute of knowing has a positive content, what then

that

content
of

It is

not identical with essence, for the essence

in its totality
;

God
"'

is

inconceivable

and surely

it

cannot

WOO yjon

lovy^ nis^von n^inono -iwo

^w'ro

Tin ^y n:in

cvy

iJJ'K "iisn "3

vh ,h tj-n nis''vcn avn nvya 1:00 a^nnon

xin
"'r:y

-iixn

'isity
'n-

*novy

-i3n

bax ppoi
sin

yi^-xth
ixin^'j',

"inv sn^c' iniovyo

Ha:

^N3
"3

onNnn

13

Or Adonm.

p.

24

b.

Ihid.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

be an accident,
for that
is

WAXMAN

465

excluded from the conception.

It follows, therefore, that

positive attributes are essential.

Again, he says,
follows that

if

we assume
will
for,

the

Maimonidian view,

it

God
;

be absolutely qualityless, almost

he says,

equal to nothing
attributes,
it

is

not that
itself.

but the having

neither potent

we deny any essential we deny our knowledge of them, God will be then entirely negative,
if

nor impotent, nor

anything, and this

is

absurd.

It

is

evident, therefore, that positive attributes

their content,
negatively,*^*

must be posited of God though we cannot determine and for human purposes may be described

As

for unity, Crescas thinks that in a similar

it

manner

to existence

is

not essence, but essential.

If

we

shall

say that

it is

essence,

we

shall

encounter the same difficulty

in predication as in existence.

When we

say that

man

is

one,

we do not

state anything
is

new about man, but merely

has been
essential

repeat that

man

man.
is

It follows, therefore, as

mentioned, that unity

rational
is

an

attribute

and a

mode of conception. It follows also, since unity really a mode of differentiation, that God who is the most
is

differentiated of all other beings,

one par excellence.^^

Crescas makes here a keen observation, namely, that unity has a double meaning. It means simplicity, that the
object
in
is

not composite; and

it

is

also to be understood

a numerical sense, that there

^*

is

only one God.

Spinoza

Or Adonat,

p.

25 a-b.

.13

cidij nan nS mpro nin\n \>ii'c> inhd nih nrh Mnin -nync ivhy^ nj^nm b2m\ ^yan nvcjh bi^ vjvy nan xvojn-^' -isna i^in n:'cj^ ham rhzir^ n^ni: nnnxn nvrh pi
'^ N*!?N

Dvyn ^y

njn

n^jn

^id^
n'z'2

i6z*

mn

dxi niNVDjn h?o h^2r\r\

N*in,

n^bna
J
i

Nin:r

inhro nnxn

^noN nnv

OrAdonai,

p.

22

b.

VOL. VIIL

466

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

expresses the latter by unicum.?^

well established, for

As

for the first,

it

was

God

is

necessary of existence, and

everything necessary of existence cannot be composite,

as has been discussed.^'^
to the second.
Is there

The

question remains in regard

only one

God?

We

have shown

above that Crescas always considered the arguments substantiating the oneness as insufficient.

The interdependence
two worlds

of the world and the harmony of action are counterbalanced

by

his supposition of the possible existence of

(cp. above).

There

is,

however, one more argument, which

says that since

we

posit the infinite potence of

God, the

existence of another
constrain each other.
are not convincing, for
is

God

is

impossible, for they would

Yet, says Crescas, these arguments

it is still

possible that the other one

not active.

He, therefore, concludes that the numerical

is

unity of
It

God

only a subject of revelation.^^

in this

must be admitted that Crescas

point

is

not

only weak, but prejudiced.

His polemical nature over-

mastered the philosophical.

passive

What

does he
his

mean by

of
is

God ? Does it not contradict God? If God possesses infinite

It
is

own conception
nor potential.

potence, what then

that other being?

neither active

It is

evident that this absurd argument was only advanced

just as a shot at the philosophers,

though
it.

it

fell

short of

the mark, and Crescas well conceived

It is

necessary, in conclusion of this part of Crescas's

theory, to say a few words concerning his influence on

Spinoza, regarding which there

Dr. Joel,
*
*'
"

is

some

difference of opinion.

in

his

book Znr Genesis dcr Lchre Spinozas,^^

II, 2.

Cogitata Melaph.,

The same proof

OrAdoiiai,
p.

lias

been quoted by Spinoza.

*'

26a.

Pp. 19 24.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

asserts
in the

WAXMAN

467

that

Spinoza was greatly influenced by Crescas

Fie says that

formation of his theory of attributes.

Crescas

makes a

distinction

between

attributes

of

an

essential nature

and such as are rational modes of conis

ception.

Again, that this

the

same

distinction
propria,'"'

that

Spinoza makes between attributes and

namely,

such qualities which are a part of God's own essence,

though they do not

It is difficult to
is

affect

His simplicity or immutability.

agree with Joel, both that such a distinction

it

made by

Crescas and that

is

identical with Spinoza's.

Crescas

calls

both kinds of attributes, such as eternity,

existence, and unity (rather simplicity), those that Joel would

include in the

second

class,

and knowledge or potency,

the
first class,

which

are,

according to Joel,
Dns'in,^^

in

by one name,

namely, Q^cvy
It is

which means essential attributes.

true that Crescas says that the first-named attributes

are less apt to affect the simplicity of God, for their content
is

only a rational

mode

with a negative form, as existence,

real distinction
is

not non-being, &c.^^

But no

found.

He

says distinctly,

'

It is clear

from the foregoing that existent

and unity

(simplicity),

which are predicated of Him, His

',^"

name be

praised, are essential attributes

or as Dr. Joel

would express

himself,

'

wesenhafter Art
?

'.

Where then

does Joel get his distinction

Again, Spinoza bases his

distinction on the definition that the attributes, according

to him., are identical

with the essence of

God which

is

^'^

Or Adonai,
niN'^vcm

p.

25

a.

'^

Korte Verhaiideling, Opera,

r^\\r\

p. 274.

92

^rhi Nine
Nin-iy

T^-hy:; nj^nn

x^n* iJ^Nty
^rb^.

nionpn

^'''^i

nhn
pmvn
*2

invn ^y
ID nvfa

mio
nvjc
13

nnnsm
Ninii'i

-nyj

invn ns-iin nvt:'

j?.

ps

lovyn

'm,

Or Adonai,

^i,h.

Ibid., p.

25 a.
I
i

468
conceived

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

through

them

of such

we know

only two,

thought and extension.

to

The

Propria are such as belong

God, but do not express His essence.^*

is

Of such a
the contrary,

distinction there

no mention

in

Crescas.

On
is

Crescas asserts that the essence of

God

inconceivable.

This

is

really a

fundamental difference between Crescas

and Spinoza.
Spinoza

Again, we find
essential

many
we say

of those Propria of
as,
it

among the knowledge.^ How,

distinction
in
?

attributes,

for
is

instance,

then, can

that

the

same

We

can nevertheless admit that the idea found

Crescas that there are some attributes which, though

predicated of God, do not

is

by

all

means express His

it

essence,

also found in Spinoza.

is

But to consider

as a source of

influence
I

exaggerating.
to direct attention to another point of contact

want

between Crescas and Spinoza, which brings the possible

influence into a

more favourable

light.

It is

the relation

of the attributes to the essence of

God.

Crescas teaches

the infinite perfection of God, and the absolute unity of

His essence,
attributes of

in spite of the fact that

we

predicate essential

Him,

for in

His

infinite essence

they are

all

one.

It is

true that he does not

make

clear in
;

what way

these essential attributes are to be understood

they do not

express His essence, for His essence cannot be conceived

by

us, but nevertheless are positive

in his insisting

and

essential.

It

may

be that
ceived

that the essence of

God

is

not con-

by

us,

he means to say that, while these attributes

are essential, yet they are not to be understood as final

but our conception of them

is

incomplete.

I'^or

instance,

we

predicate

knowledge

as

an

attribute, but

we do

not

know

what kind or what degree of knowledge He possesses.

'"

Kotie

Vcrliaiideliitg, pp.

274-92.

'^

Ibid., p. 292.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

WAXMAN
all

469

Similarly, Spinoza teaches the infinite perfection of God,'"'

and that

He

possesses infinite attributes,^'

of which

constitute one being.

What Spinoza means by

According to
of
it,

attributes

was a matter of great controversy, but the

of Fischer
attributes
^^ is

interpretation

the correct one.

infinite

the infinite
different

are

forces

God and
infinite,
all

not
it

substances.

Since the attributes are

will
is

follows that

the

human mind

never

know

of them, and so the

essence of

God

not conceived

fully.

The

attributes

known by

us are thought and extension.

We

see, therefore,

that in spite of the widely separating gulf between the

two

systems, there

is

still

marked

similarity in

the basic

conception of the attributes.

Both teach

infinite perfection,
attri-

infinite unity in spite of the positive

content of the

butes,
course,

and the incomplete knowledge of the essence.

I

Of

am

not blind to the differences of their teachings.

Spinoza emphasizes that the attributes of extension and

thought express the essence of
are fully conceived

God

as forces, and as such

by man.

Crescas, on the other hand,

would shrink

in

horror from such a conception.

But such

differences are

due to the
is

different

nature

of Spinoza's

system, which
far as the

wholly divergent from that of Crescas, as

of a religious

God

man

is

from the

God
is

of a

philosopher.

Yet they

afford points of similarity, especially

at the base of their systems

where the variance

at its

minimum.
is

It

can almost be said that Spinoza's system

only a result of carrying out Crescas's principles to their

logical conclusion.
It will

extreme

be best illustrated
the world, for

in

the chapters on the relation of

there that the real divergence
J-i

God and
evident.
97

it is

is

Episiola

XL.

Dcf. 6

Ethics,

I.

9^

K. Fisclier, Spiitosa, pp. 380-92.

470

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

We

see,

then,

that

in

spite

of Fischer"-s

contention

against any possible influence of Crescas on Spinoza there

are to be found traces of

marked

likeness

between them.

We

must not
that

forget that
latter

when we say
what
in

influence

we do not
former,
or a thought

mean

the

actually followed
;

the
is

anything to that
impulse

effect

it

signifies

and a pointing
read

certain

direction.
not,

That
Fischer

Spinoza

Crescas

carefully,

and

as

maintains, was only imperfectly acquainted with him,

we
not

have shown above.

wish to remark that Fischer

is

entirely just to Crescas

by saying

of him,

'

Denn

selbst die

Einheit Gottes

ist

bei

ihm kein Object der Erkenntnis,

and
using
this
fact

sondern

der

Offenbarung ',

as

an

argument
I

to disprove the influence of Crescas

'

on Spinoza.
die Einheit

presume that Fischer means by the words

Gottes' the numerical unity of God,

for the essential unity

was demonstrated by Crescas as

But even
(cp.
in

clearly as

by Spinoza.

regard to the former,

it

was already mentioned

above) that Crescas's remark in that regard should be

it is

taken with reserve, and that

only a polemic expression.

is

In reality, numerical unity of

God

established according

to Crescas, since he posits the

infinite

potence of God.

Of
in

course, Spinoza deduces unity with great accuracy from

the mere definition of

the two s}-stems
it is

God

but the diff'erence of deduction

in

regard to a certain point does not

prove that
the other.

impossible for one system to have influenced

is

It

only religious sufficiency that prevented

Crescas from following up his

the

own

definition and reaching

same

conclusion.

In concluding his theory of attributes Crescas discusses

a few emotional qualities which are to be attributed to God.

The

discussion

is

interesting, both

by the novelty of the

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

conception, as well as

WAXMAN

471

by the

interpretations of the emotions.

it

Aristotle teaches the happiness of God, and deduces

in

the following manner.

highest activity which
is

We

must

attribute

to

God

the

no higher thing than contemplation,

pleasure and happiness in thought,
is

and since we humans

it

feel

follows that

God who

eternally active,

namely con-

templative, and the quality of His contemplation being of

the highest and purest kind, must necessarily be always

happy.^^

Such a conception, says Crescas,

false

is

untenable,

and

is

based on a

theory of emotions. Joy and sorrow,

fall

or pleasure and pain, are contraries, and consequently

under the category of action.

They
is

really

do not depend

on knowledge, but on

will.

Pleasure

only the gratification

Pain, on the
will is

we

derive from the carrying out of our will.

is

other hand,

the feeling
If

we experience when our

in

obstructed.^""
it

we do experience joy
is

our knowing,

is

because there

a will to

know, and by attaining

to our will.
is

knowledge we overcome the obstacle

be evident,
therefore, that as far as

It will

God

concerned

we

cannot attribute any happiness to Him.

His knowledge

has no limitations, and there are no obstructions to His

will.

When we humans
it

experience any pleasure at conis

ceiving a certain thing,

because that conception was

not

known

to

us,

and

in

overcoming the obstacle we

experience a sense of pleasure.

But

in

regard to

God

such a
at

mode

is

inapplicable: whence, then, His happiness

knowing?
^
'"f'

Crescas asserts, therefore, that

;

if

we do

Metaph., XII, 7

Ethics, X.
\ri'\r]i:i

pvin nnjjnnn nih 3Vi?m

nniy
Just to

n^ir nij-is nnr^t^'n ^d

Q>iti'2:

mvysn cm, Or Adonai,

is,

^. 2-ja.

know how modern

this

theory of emotions

we

have but to compare the views on pleasure and

in his

pain of the English psychologist, E. G. Stout,

Manual of Psychology,

chapter on Pain and Pleasure.

472

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

attribute happiness to
is

God

it is

because of His love.

God
God

voluntarily the cause of all being,

is

and

since

we know

that existence
is

goodness,

it

follows that in so far as

voluntarily the cause of being,

He

is

voluntarily good.
is

The

continuation of the existence of beings

then the
then,

continual emanation of His goodness.

that in so far as

It is evident,

God

continually emanates His goodness

and perfection

voluntarily, in so far
it

He

loves the emanation

of goodness necessarily, and

is

this action of

emanating

permeated with love that

This happiness or joy
seen,
it

is

described as joy or happiness.^**^

is

essential to

God,

for,

as

we have

is

inherently connected with His being the cause

of things and the continual emanation of His goodness

and perfection.

We

cannot help but express our admira-

tion for such a high ethical conception of the happiness

of God, in comparison with which the Aristotelian as well

as the Spinozistic (as will be shown) pales as regards the

glow of

ethical

warmth.

In regard to the relations of Crescas and Spinoza on

this point

of

Amor

Dei, Joel

lays

great

stress

on the

influence exerted

by the former on
has two
of

the latter.
:

The Amor

Dei

inicllcctiialis

meanings

the love of
;

man

towards God, and that

God towards man

but

we have

to defer the former to a later discussion,

where the relation

of

God and man

God
is

will

be discussed, and occupy ourselves

Joel contends that Crescas's

at present with the latter.

love of

not far from the teaching of Spinoza that

God

loves

Himself with
n:,-i

an

infinite

intellectual
j;'2w'^l'

love.^"^

"' Kin
\\i-\r\

d"x

n:m

pv"i3

nirD^::'ni

aiuno

no^

r\'^r\

nn-iy nSr nanxn xini

I,

nnana naion

nysii-ni

r\i'^r\T\

anis*.

Or Adonai,
102

2-]A-h.

Eihks, V,

XXXV,

Proposition.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

It

WAXMAN
little.

473
is,

seems to

me

that Joel exaggerates a

in

There
is

no doubt, a similarity
different.
is
is

language, but the content

is

quite

That of Crescas

voluntaristic. that of Spinoza

intellectual in essence.

Pleasure, according to Spinoza,

a transition from a lesser to a greater perfection,^"' and

pleasure
is

since

self-conscious
it.

feeling,

knowledge
itself is

necessarily accompanies

Again, perfection

only

knowledge,

for,

according to the whole Spinozistic system,

true ideas have an adequate object,

and whatever

is

false

can surely not be perfection.

Love

is

pleasure accompanied

by the idea

of an external cause.^"*

The

external

is

only

necessary as far as
of cause
is

human
is

beings are concerned, the idea

It

the

main necessary condition.

follows.

then, that since

God

absolutely infinite and necessarily

possesses infinite perfection, for reality and perfection are

synonymous,^*^^
this rejoicing

He

rejoices in that perfection.

Furthermore,
for

is

accompanied by the idea of Himself,

idea,^'^^

God
love.

possesses that

which

is is

the idea of His

own
But

being as a cause, and this

is

what

meant by

intellectual

We

say,

therefore, that
is

God

loves Himself.

since in

God

there

not only the idea of His essence, but

essence,^'''^

also of that

which follows necessarily from His

and under
it

this all beings,

and men
loves

especially, are meant,

follows that in so far

God

Himself

He

loves man.^"^

We

have seen the principal features of this Spinozistic

it

love of God, and

different

is

evident that

its

content
its

is

materially

from that of Crescas.

Definition of Emotions

On
II.

emotional

and

"3 Ethics, Part

1"*

III,

Ibid., Definition of

Emotions

II.
'

i'5 Ethics, II,

'0'

Definition VI.

Ibid.,

Proposition

III.

Ibid., Proposition III.

^"*

Ethics, V, Proposition

XXXV,

Corollary.

474
formal side

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

it

approaches Aristotle's view, which also makes

the happiness of

God

consist in thinking,

and Himself the

subject of His thoughts.

this
is

But there
It is

is

essential difference,

the idea of cause.

not the act of thought that

makes up the
of
all

rejoicing, but the being a cause

and ground

being.

This

is

the fundamental difference that widely

separates the two conceptions.

this

On

the other hand,

it

is

same idea of cause

that forms a point of contact with

states that in

Crescas's view.
is
is

The

latter

so far as

God
But,

a cause of existence

He

loves the good, for existence

a continual emanation of
is

good and
;

perfection.

again, there
all

a fundamental difference
love.

Crescas excludes

knowledge from that

On the

other hand, according

to Crescass theory of emotions, which

by the way

is

a very

true one, pleasure

is

not connected with knowledge, but

with

will.

And
on
the

also in regard to God's love or happiness

he

insists
;

will.

With Spinoza, however,

knowledge and

will

is

entirely

omitted

mechanical or necessar)^ conception takes

;

the ascendancy

reality are the principal

ingredients in the teaching of Spinoza.

We
point

may,

therefore, conclude that while the Crescasian

of

and Spinozistic views on the love

God have

a basic

of contact, yet they are totally different in their

;

content

the

first

is

an cmotional-voluntaristic, the other

a strongly intellectual.
love of God,
if

There

is

a possibility that the term

is

not directly borrowed from Crescas,

at

least influenced

by

his use of

it,

as the term love does not

precisely describe the idea which Spinoza wishes to convey

by
for

it.

There are some

introducing the

critics

who
in

score Spinoza severely

of

his

conception

Amor

Dei,

and
as

point lo the difficulty involved

self-loving, as
if

speaking of

God

He

were composed of subject and object.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCASWAXMAN

475

They
is

assert that the

conception

is

contradictory to the

fundamental Spinozistic

doctrines.^^^

But

this discussion

beyond our point of

is

interest.

The

real point

of gravity
this
is

of that question

the Avior Dei of man, but

In general,
I

reserved for the next chapters.

that
I

wish to say

do not intend

to

minimize the influence of Crescas

I

upon Spinoza.
afford

On

the contrary,

believe that both systems

many
is

points of contact, and, furthermore, that their

source

really one, except that they run in divergent lines.

It is possible to find

a goodly

number

of likenesses, but

they are never commensurable.

will

To

this point

more space

be devoted
^*^

in the

coming chapters.
in his

See K. Fischer

Spinoza,

p.

573.

{To be contimied.)

A SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY AUTOBIOGRAPHY
(Pages 269-304 of the January number)

The

following corrections were received from the author after

:

the article had been sent to press

Page

271, n.

3,

1.

Sj/^ir

Mr. Bayley

[^si'c]

read Bayle

272, line

y2,

for Kappel

read

Koppel

276

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA.

Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer (the Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer the Great).

According

to

the

text

of the

manuscript

belonging to

Abraham Epstein
London
pp. lx

of Vienna.

Translated and annotated.

With introduction and

:

indices. By Gerald Friedlander. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1916.

+ 490.
of the Chapters of

The appearance
is

Rabbi Eliezer

in translation

a matter for congratulation, as only a very small

number
'

of

rabbinic books has hitherto been translated into English.

true that

It is

there

are

more important books which may claim

will quarrel

preference, but

no one

with the Rev. Gerald Friedits

lander for having selected this book, in which, owing to

sidedness, he takes special interest.

many-

In

mode

of treatment and
early

form of presentation

this

book stands between the

Midrashim

and the
There
is

later

pseudepigraphic writings like the Sefer ha- Yashar.

a certain uniformity of structure and purpose in this

this in itself
its

book, and
period of

may furnish us
As
is

a clue as to the approximate

practically all

compilation.

the case with

Midrashim, the greater part of the material used by the compiler

dates from

amoraic times, but the compilation was no doubt

made much later. The continuity of narrative maintained in a great number of the chapters would lead one to place this book
in the

same category

as the

Midrash Petirat Moshch, Midrash

Yonah, and similar Midrashim.

To
is

this

group belongs,

to

my

mind, the twenty-sixth section of the Pesikta Rabbati (Friedmann's

edition, pp.

i28b-i32a), which

out of harmony with the rest

of the book.

The

very fact that this section does not begin with

is

a biblical verse, as
to excite

the case with

all

other sections,

is

sufficient

suspicion.

Then

the

continuity of narrative,
skilfully

where

biblical verses are often not

quoted but

interwoven with

477

478
the author's

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

own
words, would point to the conjecture that this

section formed a

book by
It is

itself

which may have been called

this section is

Midrash Yirmeyahii.
in

noteworthy that

missing

a manuscript in the possession of Dr. A. Cohen, of London,

kindly put
it

who

at

my

disposal for the preparation of an edition

'

of the Pesikta Rabbati in the

Jewish Classics Series

'

although

it

must be owned that other apparently authentic sections are not

included in that manuscript, to which
article.
I

hope

to devote a special

On

the

other hand,

the authors

or compilers of this

group of books

still

retain the midrashic

mode
is

of treatment,

and

have not reached that stage of the Sefer ha-Yashar where the
style

of the narrative parts of the Bible

imitated and evenly

maintained throughout the book.

to

These considerations appear

me more

cogent for determining the approximate age of these

books than certain allusions to historical events.

are mostly incidental,

These

allusions

and may

after all

be

later interpolations.

Mr. Friedlander

rightly

adopts the current view held by the

the

majority of Jewish

scholars that

Chapters were compiled

during the

first

quarter of the ninth century.

stylistic

And

this is

the

period to which the

evidence points.

As

to the origin

of this

book, Miiller suggested that the

compiler had lived in Palestine.

He

was led to

this

view by

the religious customs peculiar to this book.

striking confirmation
in the following passage

This theory finds

occurring in the

book

in

connexion with the principle of intercalation:

'When

Jacob went out of the Holy Land, he attempted to intercalate

the year outside the
said to

Holy Land.
"
'

The Holy One,

no authority
(p.

blessed be He,

him

" Jacob, thou hast

to intercalate the
p. 56).

year outside the land of Israel

to

54; see also

It

seems

me

that such

a statement could only have been

made by

a Palestinian

writer, as

took place a century later between the

may be seen from the controversy which Gaon Saadya in Babylon

is

and Ben Meir

in Palestine.

Traditionally this book

ascribed to R. Eliezer the Great,

one of the most famous Tannaim.

one of the numerous
literary

How

the tradition arose

is

problems connected with

this work.

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA

Did the author

IIALPER

479

or compiler himself hide his identity behind the

name

of this great personality, or was the authorship of this book

to R.

ascribed

EHezer by a

later

generation

At the present
this

stage of our

knowledge we have no means of answering

first

question.

The

two chapters pretend to give a biographical

sketch of R. Eliezer, and this would apparently furnish the reason

name was connected with observed that in some manuscripts

why
his

this

work.

But

it

is

to

be

these introductory chapters

are missing,

and one would be

after

justified in suspecting that these

chapters were added

to R. Eliezer.

the entire work had been ascribed

lightly

Mr. Friedlander touches very

upon

this

problem, and, after discussing the various

possibilities,

he seems

to incline to the view that the author deliberately selected the

name

of this famous

Tanna

in order to

avoid the danger of being

placed under the ban

for the daring displayed in his

book.

careful

analysis of these Chapters

would prove that the

biblical

author's

plan
It

was to give amplified accounts of the

is

narratives.

difficult to assert

whether
its

this

work has been

it

preserved in
fifty-four
fifty-three,

its

entirety or not, but in

extant form

contains
as

chapters, which are in

some manuscripts counted

the last two chapters being taken as one.

first

Of these

chapters the

two, as has part of the

been stated above, are introductory

and do not form

work proper.

Chapters III-XI deal

with the work of Creation;

Eve, Cain and Abel

Flood

XXV

refers

XII-XXII tell the stories of Adam and XXIII and XXIV deal with Noah and the to Sodom XXVI-XXXIII set forth the
;

account of Abraham and Isaac;

the resurrection of the dead
;

XXXIV is a XXXV-XXXIX
should

short treatise

on

deal with J^icob

and Joseph
Sinai,

XL-XLIII

tell

of Moses, the revelation on

mount

and the exodus

(the

chapters

undoubtedly be
;

arranged chronologically);
tell

XLIV refers to Amalek XLV-XLVII

;

XLVIII resumes the story of the exodus XLIX and L treat of Mordecai and Haman; LI is eschatological LII describes the wonders of old LIII and LIV give a few
of the golden calf
;

incidents of Israel's wanderings

in

the wilderness.

It is

thus

obvious

that,

with the exception

of chapter

XXXIV,

chapters

480

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

narratives of Genesis, Exodus,

III-L amplify the

Esther.
If

and the Book of

it

one

or two chapters are rearranged,

will

become

apparent that the author followed the biblical order very closely.

The remaining few chapters, which are of a miscellaneous character, may be later interpolations, or may have been inserted by the author himself for some reason or another. The author now and again gives a mystical aspect to the narratives, and tries
to link

them together under

certain catchwords.

Thus some of

the narratives begin with the descents which

God made.

The
In

author also incorporates into the narratives chapters which, from

a

modern

point of view, would be regarded as irrelevant.

dealing with the creation of the planets the

author takes the

Nevertheless

opportunity to give the principles of intercalation.

the uniformity of his plan cannot be ignored.
is

Mr. Friedlander

of opinion that this book

is,

in all probability, a composite

work, consisting of three originally distinct sections.

One

part

described the ten descents

made by God, another gave The

a detailed

account of rabbinic mysticism, and another was a Midrash on the

Eighteen Benedictions.
untenability of this view

may be

proved by the circumstance that these component parts cannot

be separated from one another without impairing the progress of

the various narratives.

While

it is

true, as

has been pointed out

easily

above, that there are a few chapters which

it

may

be removed,

is

just

the chapters

dealing with

the descents and alluding

to the Eighteen Benedictions

which form the integral parts of the

tried to include everything in

framework.
his work
:

The author no doubt

mysticism, principles of intercalation, and moral lessons.

life it

In telling the story of Abraham's

tion the benediction

was quite natural

to

men-

connected with

his

name

'
:

Blessed art Thou,

all this in

Lord, the shield of

Abraham

'

(p.

196).

But

no way

indicates that various books were

literature

combined

into one.

Rabbinic

teems with examples where various subjects were incor-

porated into one book.

Even

codifiers did not think

it

necessary

to keep always to the subject under discussion.

In his introduction Mr. Friedlander has collected a great deal

of material, and almost
all

the imj)ortant problems connected with

'

RECENT IIEBRAICA AND JUDAICA

HALPER

481

the book have been discussed, although his presentation lacks

h'terary form.

Some

of the paragraphs really belong to the notes

on the
been

translation, while a

good many of the notes should have

utilized in the introduction.

is

The

greater part of the intro-

duction

devoted to the relation of Pirke de- Rabbi Eliezer to

the Talmud, Targum, Midrash, Zohar, and Liturgy, as well as to the

Apocrypha and

Pseudepigrapha.

In

this

part

especially

Mr. Friedlander displays a remarkable mastery of the subject and

a thorough acquaintance with
ture.
all

the branches of this vast

litera-

At the same time

it

must be owned that some of the

parallel passages

may be

accidental,

and do not prove the depenseems to

dence of the author of the Chapters upon the apocryphal and

pseudepigraphic works.

On

the

whole,

it

me

that

Mr. Friedlander overrates the influence of the Book of Jubilees on our author.
the

The mode
is

of thought, style, and phraseology of with

Chapters are midrashic

It

a distinct

tendency toward
with the

mysticism.

quite conceivable that a

man imbued

midrashic

spirit

could have written these Chapters without having

seen any part of the apocryphal and pseudepigraphic literature.

There

is

nothing to gain by comparing such expressions as

'

'

the

middle of the earth

(p. xxxii),

(p. xxx),

'

since the creation of the world

(p. xxxiii),

'remember you

for

good'

which happen

to

occur in the Book of Enoch and

in the

Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer.

Even the more

striking resemblances

do not warrant the con-

conclusions drawn by Mr, Friedlander, as the doctrines of the

Book

of Jubilees

and

similar works

may have been known by

is

the author of the Chapters from other sources.

The copious
of a high

notes with which the translation

furnished are

scholarly standard.

They

deal mainly with parallel

passages and expressions occurring in rabbinic literature and in

apocryphal
difficult

and pseudepigraphic works.

They

also

elucidate
to the

passages in the
in

Hebrew

text,

and draw attention

variants

the printed

editions as well as in the manuscripts

which Mr. Friedlander

collated.

a critical edition of the original.

are
irrelevant

The foundation is thus laid for Some of the notes, however,

This, however,
is

and unnecessary.

an error

in

VOL.

VTII.

K k

482
the

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

right direction,

and students

will

certainly

be grateful

to

Mr. Fried lander

for his assiduity

and conscientious work.

Chapters
is

As

stated

on the

title-page, the translation of the

in the

based on the text of the manuscript

Epstein,
extant,

possession of

Abraham

of Vienna.
critical

When

various

manuscripts of a text are

editors usually adopt

one of the two methods

they either

base their edition upon one

manuscript and give

the variants in the notes, or publish an eclectic text, selecting the

best readings from
all

sources.

The

latter

method

is

naturally

more

difficult, as
;

the editor must be very cautious not to adopt an

but,
if

inferior reading

successfully carried out,

it

offers

many
and

advantages to the reader.

One

would, however, question the

advisability of basing a translation

upon a
This

single manuscript
is

giving obviously corrupt readings.

especially unwise in

the case of a printed

book

like the Chapters,

which has been repeatedly

and has enjoyed

great

popularity.

The
xxxvi

Epstein

MS.
very

has

undoubtedly preserved some excellent readings.

instance
'

interesting

may be

cited.

In

ch.

the

printed

editions read:

"Anyone who enters a city and meets maidens coming forth, his way will be prosperous And again whence dost thou learn this ? From Moses our
R. Akiba says:
.

teacher.

Before entering the city he met maidens coming forth,

:

as

it is

said
.

Now
. .

the priest of Midian had seven daughters, and

they

came
'

And He

prospered his way, and he advanced to

passage
is

kingship.''

The
is

difficulty in this

due

to the

circumstance

that the earlier sources

do not know of the kingship of Moses.

to

Reference

usually
is

made

Zebahim 102a.

But

in that

passage

the word king

(of Israel).

used

in a loose sense,

and simply means leader

one
find in

By no

stretch of imagination can

the

words
Sefer

"J7D non""

an allusion to the elaborate account given

in the

ha-Yashar of the kingship of Moses, who miraculously

But the

defeated the

Kikanus.

enemy and was anointed king of Cush instead of Epstein MS, proves that in the printed
fell

editions a paragraph
to that

out through homoioteleuton.

According

MS. we have

to insert, after

'and he was prosperous',

Israel.

the following paragraph: 'and he

redeemed

And

again

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA

whence dost thou know
this
?

HALPER

483

From

Saul.

Before he entered
it

the city he met maidens

coming
city,

forth,

as

is

said

As they

went up the ascent to the

out.

they found young maidens going

And He

prospered his way.'

'

Thus

the

words 'and he
Is
it

advanced to kingship
the Sefer ha- Yashar

refer to Saul, not to

Moses.

possible

that an error of this nature gave rise to the legendary narrative of

?

The

origin of legends

is

veiled in obscurity.

The
But

poetic imagination weaves fanciful tales about famous heroes.

it is

not unlikely that a slight misunderstanding of an oral or

written narrative
in

may

set the fancy working.

The Koran abounds

MS.
is

examples to

illustrate this view.

On
shall

the other hand, in a

P. 93
:

number
*

of cases the Epstein

decidedly corrupt.

He

said to her: "All that I have

this

be

in
'

thy

hands,

except

house,

which

is

full

of

scorpions."

The word
at
all.

house, repeated a few times

on
'

this page,
',

makes no sense
is

The

printed editions have

It
is

cask

which

the only possible reading.

for

quite obvious that a copyist

n"'3n

mistook a n
a mistake
it

n,

and read

instead of n"'3n.

Such

is

perfectly natural,

but why should we perpetuate

the

in a translation?

As Mr. Friedlander does not describe

P.

Epstein

MS.,

it

is

hard to say whether n and n are clearly

differentiated there.

180:

'The Holy One, blessed be He,

answered him: "Abraham, by the merit of the righteous (one)

will I forgive
will I forgive

Sodom.
it

If I find in
sins."
:

Sodom
last

fifty

righteous, then

all

its

'

The

two sentences manifestly

contradict each other

sufficient to secure

at

first it is

said that

one righteous man

fifty

is

pardon

for

Sodom, and then

'
:

righteous

ones are required.

fifty

The
will

printed editions have

I

By
it

the merit of
said
father,
.'
. .

righteous
:

men

forgive

Sodom,
:

as

is

P. 227
for

'Isaac said to his father

Abraham
feet,

"O my
I

bind

me my two hands and my

'

two

so that

should not curse

thee."

It is

hard to understand

how
is

the binding of his hands

and
have
as

feet
: '

would prevent him from cursing.

an accident (Nniy^w'S
it),

The

printed editions
snii^'C'S,

to avoid

correct

and not

Mr. Friedlander emends

which would cause

'

me

to

break

the

commandment "Honour

thy father."

Mr. Friedlander does

'

484
not give the

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Hebrew
P7pN,
of this sentence according to the Epstein
it

MS.

but

if it is

may be

a mistake for ^i^ns, the remainit

ing words having fallen out.

It is also likely that

was corrupted
this this

from bpppa

(I shall

be

disqualified).
in

P.

280: 'Concerning

Solomon said: "And break

verse occurs in

pieces their pillars.'"

it

As

Exodus
P.

23.

24,

is

obvious that the printed

'
:

editions have preserved the correct reading

Concerning
" at

this

Moses
right

said

.'

320

'Hence thou mayest

learn that the

words of the Torah are

like coals of fire.

Why
it
:

was

it

His

hand"?

Whence do we know
?

(that
is

was given to them)

"

with expression of love

Because

it

said

The Lord
'

hath

sworn by His right hand, and by the arm of His strength."

quotation does not harmonize with the preceding sentence.
printed editions read correctly
:

The The
them
under

'

Hence thou mayest

fire.

learn that
it

the words of the Torah are like coals of

He

gave

to
is

with an expression of love, as

it is

said:

"His

left

hand

my

head (and His

r/g/if
it

hand doth embrace me)"; and with an

is

expression of oath, as
right hafid,

said

"

The Lord
strength."

hath sworn by His

and by the arm of His

is

Mr. Friedlander

not quite consistent in adhering to his

it

manuscript, as he deviates from

p.
all

in

some
his

instances.

Thus on
'

319 he correctly translates

'Thence
But
is,

He

sent messengers to

the nations of the world.'

manuscript has

And

Moses' instead of 'Thence'

it

that

nc'JD for DC'O.

But why was

not possible to eliminate

all

the scribal errors?

From

the philological point of view the translation of the

Eliezer does not offer any serious
is

Pirke de- Rabbi

difficulties.

The
Still

author's style
is

fluent

and

easy,

without any mixture of

Aramaic, which
there are
sight

frequently found in the earlier Midrashim.

especially in the biblical quotations, which
easiest task for the translator.
It

pitfalls,

at

first

would appear the

in

must be borne

mind

that a midrashic interpretation

sometimes
biblical

involves a far-fetched
verse.

and impossible way of construing a

One would
is

l)c

misinterpreting the Midrash were one to

translate these (juotations in

accordance with modern philology.

fact,

Mr. Friedlander

evidently conscious of this

though he did

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA

not always successfully avoid these
pitfalls.

HALPER
some

485
in-

There are other

accuracies due to his having faultily construed

sentences.

In the following remarks attention

errors,

will

be called to some of these

which

in

no way detract from the general merits of the

work
P. 7.
'

He

said to

them

(R. Jochanan) should not have

this wise), "
'

spoken

in that

manner, but (in

Happy am

because
Eliezer's

he has come forth from

father,

my
'
:

loins."

As Hyrkanos was R.
not

the

last

sentence

could
but
I

be the direct speech of

.

R. Johanan.
P.
9.

Translate

am

the happy one because

.'

In con.sequence of a wrong division of sentences,

Mr. Friedlander was obliged to supply an object and a complement, and he missed the sense of the original
:

'

Not even the

But

ministering angels are able to narrate (the Divine praise).

to investigate a part of

His mighty deeds with reference to what

He
the

has done, and what

He
is

will

do

in the future (is permissible),

so that His

name should be
original says

exalted
:

among His

creatures.'

What

Hebrew

'

Even

the ministering angels are

only able to declare a part of His mighty deeds.

Nevertheless we

should investigate what

that
.
.

He
is

has done and w^hat

He

will

do, so

.'

It is

unlikely that the Epstein

MS.

differs

from the

printed texts, as the fact

P. 125.

not stated in the notes.

it

According

to the midrashic interpretation,

:

would

be more suitable

to render Ps. 49. 13

'

'Adam

abideth not in
not over

glory over night,' instead of

night.'

Man

in

glory tarrieth

In

the
is

notes Mr. Friedlander rightly observes:

" Adam."'
'

'The

Hebrew word
P.
126.

But the force of the Midrash should

have been brought out

in the tran.slation.

The

reason

why Psalm 92 was

ascribed to Moses
p.

is

given in Pesikta Rabbati (Friedmann's edition,

187a), from
l^w' "lioro

which passage

it is

apparent that the heading n3"'n DV^

nL"0^.

was taken as the acrostic

P. 131.
(will
'

And

Israel

who

(will be)

in the

land (of Palestine)

experience) great trouble, but in their troubles they (will be)

like a

green

olive, as

it

is

said, " I

am

anointed with fresh

oil."

'

The

biblical quotation

does not bear out the statement of the

486
Midrash.
interprets
'

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Mr. Friedlander remarks
I

in his
it

notes that the Midrash

am

anointed
afflict.'

'

as though
i
'
:

were connected with the

17.
9.

root balah, 'to

Cp.

Chron.
1

Accordingly, the
I

verse should be rendered

fresh
oil.'

when
Sam.

am
7.

in distress,

am

like

It

is

to

be observed that while

10,
it

in
is

Chron.

17.

in?3? stands for

in'^yl', as in 2

not unlikely that

'^.3

the author of the Chapters

knew the Arabic word

and he went
he went forth

a calamity.

See below remark on

P. 143.

p. 222. out,
(i.e.)
is

^Driving

forth outside the

garden of Eden."
'

This

rather clumsy.

The
.'
.
.

original

has

Having been driven out

P. 152.

("J'TJ),

According to the midrashic interpretation,

'
:

Ps. 89. 3
built

should be rendered

For

have said

"

The world was

up

by a shameful thing,"" the reference being

Midrash hastens
built to explain
'
:

to Lev. 20. 17.

The

By

a shameful thing was the world

given.'
is

up before the Torah had been

yet

Mr. Friedlander
notes,

grasped the purport of the Midrash, as

shown by the
up by
'

and
the

he has

'
:

The world
.'

shall

be
'

built

love.'
'

On
From

same page he omitted the words

He
is

replied

before

these words

know

This statement

obviously the answer

of R. Miasha, and cannot be the continuation of R. Simeon's

question.

The

printed editions have ^'n, and

we are not informed

seems very
likely

that these words are missing in the Epstein P. 222.

MS.
It

'" Swords

" signify

only wars.'
i"

that the author

is

had the Arabic iL/^

mind.

Although there

no conclusive evidence

that the author of the Chapters was

influenced by Arabic literature, he

may

liave

had some

slight

acquaintance with that language.

P. 224.

See above remark on

p. 131.

'Is

it

concerning the son lacking circumcision, or the

?
'

son born

for
'

circumcision

This

is

unintelligible.

The Hebrew

means

Dost Thou allude to the son born before the law of

circumcision had l)een given or to the son born after that law

had been given

'

The words n^ny and

ni^'O refer to

Abraham
should be
ever on

himself and not to Ishmael and Isaac.

P. 232.
'I'he
'

Midrash demands that Gen.

spirit

6.

rendered

.My

shall

not strive with

man

for

RECENT HEBRAICA AND jUDAICA

HALPER
is
it
:

487
ccjual to

account of Jh'shagga7n (the numerical value of DJCO

that of n:^D).

But Mr, Friedlander renders

'

My

spirit shall

not abide in

man

for ever in their

going astray,' and the entire

passage

is

thereby

P. 233.

made obscure. The etymology of the name

'B'

Josiah according to the

is fit
''^,

Midrash
gift.'

is

Nin

*N'

which means

'
:

he

for

an offering or
this

Mr. Friedlander confused

'
:

'"it^'

with

and rendered

phrase

he

is

worthy

like a lamb.'

P. 264.
I

The midrashic
:

point
is

is

missed

in the

rendering of
It

Chron.
'
:

17. 21

' nation that

earth.'

alone on the earth.'

should

be

one nation on the

P.

268 (and elsewhere).

'
:

should best be rendered

;Mr.

The expression p NiiX' ynn Whence dost thou know that it is

into

pJD
so?'

Friedlander erroneously divides this phrase

question
that
it

and answer:
is

'Whence dost thou know

this?

Know

so.'

P. 281.

'Who

stood by the way like a bear bereaved by

man.'

I'his reading of the Epstein

'
:

MS.

is

superior to that of the

printed editions which have

Who

stood by the way like a bear

that

and came

."
.
.

There can be no doubt

See also
10
is

copyist

had

abbreviated Dixn into 'n3 which was afterwards mistaken for

a complete word.
P. 31
r.

p. 346,

note

i.

Isa. 26,

interpreted

by the Midrash:
not

'Let
learn
:

favour

be shown to

the

wicked,

because he did

righteousness.'
'

Mr. Friedlander follows the Anglican version

suit

yet will

he not learn righteousness,' which does not

the

context.
P. 340.
' '

The

treasury of the living

'

is

inappropriate

read

the treasury of
P. 246.

life.'

'Amalek was smiting and

.

are told that the Epstein

'

slaying.' In note 11 we MS. has "[hm This should be rendered

:

he kept on smiting.'
o*"

Is

it

possible that the author

had the

Arabic meaning
P.
return.'

eUa

{perished') in

mind

359.

'

It
is

is

possible that

even thou

(Moses) shouldst

This

out of harmony with what follows.

Moreover

^3"

in

such cases introduces a question.

Translate: 'Is one to

: :

488

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

that even thou shouldst return?'

assume

The

following sentence

negatives this assumption.

P- 377is

The nauie'Ganon,' one

imperfect

of Ephraim's grandchildren,
5.

undoubtedly borrowed from

Isa. xxxi.

The
'

printed texts

have 'Yignon,' an

formation
the

from the

Mr.
the

Friedlander
latter

transliterates

former as

same Ganoon

root.
'

and

as

'

Jagnoon.'

These

are

impossible forms

which

obscure the etymology of the names.

P. 422.
'

From

the

day when the heavens and the earth

ill,

were created no man was

(who) sneezed and

lived,

but in

every place where he happened to be, whether on the way or

in the

market, and (when he) sneezed, his soul went out through

his

nostrils.'

This

is

an unintelligible passage.
it

The Epstein
first
ill

MS. has a
which

different reading, but

it.

seems that Mr. Friedlander

us that the
editions,

misconstrued
differ

In note 6 he
the MS., read

tells
:

from

'

no man was

unless he

happened

to

be on the way or

in the

market-place.'

This

is is

again a mistranslation.
'

What
ill,

the printed texts really have

no man had ever been

but wherever he happened to be, on

the

way or

in the

market-place, he would sneeze,

his nostrils.'

and

his soul

would go out through

This

is

in

accordance with

Baba

me-si'a 87

a.

It is to

be hoped that Mr. Friedlander

will

soon issue a

critical

edition of the

Hebrew

text of the

Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, and

the variants of the

thus enable his fellow-workers to examine

manuscripts which he consulted

for his translation.

Moiiuiiienta

Talmudica.

I'iinfter

Band:

Geschichte,

I.

Teil

Griechen und Romer.

\\'ien

Bearbeitet von

Samuel Kr.\uss.
pp. xi-l-194.

und Leipzig: Orio\-\'krla(;, 1914,

five centuries the

l*'or

more than

Jews were

in close contact

with the Romans, and

their influence over

one another must have

that,

been of considerable importance.

diametrically opposed views of
life

It is true

owing

to the

held by these two nations, no

RECENT HEBRAICA AND jUDAICA

HALPKR
'I'he

489

mutual understanding between them was possible.

Roman

despised the Jew for his idealism, and the Jew looked upon the

Roman
lusts

as

upon

a vile oppressor
desires.

whose

sole

aim was
literature

to satisfy his

and worldly

In

Roman
religious
it

the

Jew

is

ridiculed,

and

his

most sacred

rites
'

are

branded as
ourselves as

abominable superstitions.
others
see us,'

But

is

good
are

to see

and Jewish

historians

utilizing

Theodore

Reinach's collection of fragments relating to Jews which occur in

Greek and Latin books

(^Textcs
it

d\4uteurs Grecs

et

Romaiiis

rclatifs

an Juddisme).
which reference

Similarly

is

of service to Greek and

Roman

history to collect the passages occurring in rabbinic literature in

is

made,

directly or indirectly, to the

Greeks and

Romans.

The

historian of the classical world

:

would thus get the

two extreme views

the boastfulness of the oppressor and the

It
is

contempt of the oppressed.

cryptic allusions of the
is

quite

possible

that

in

the

Rabbis material would be discovered which

otherwise unknown.

There may be some incidental references

Unpleasant

to

Greek and Roman customs and manners which are not found
traits

in the classical sources.

of

Roman

life

would

especially

be brought out more clearly

in

Jewish

literature.

The

trustworthiness of these sources cannot be assailed, as an intimate

acquaintance with the internal

the

life

of the
all

Romans

is

manifest in

Talmud

as

well

as

in

almost

the

various Midrashim,

although due allowance must be

race,

made

for the bias of a foreign

and not every

detail

should be accepted.
civilizations

The

contact of Greek and Jewish

last centuries

took

place

during the

of the biblical period,

when

the literary

productivity of the Jews was in abeyance.

There are accordingly

very few indisputable references to the Greeks in the Bible, and

even Cheyne in his Job and Solomon could only point to the
influence of
literature,

Greek thought

in

one or two books.

later,

In rabbinic
be
faint

which arose centuries

life.

there can only

echoes of Greek

These

allusions are mostly based

on

earlier

sources which were not infrequently misunderstood, and are of no

historical

importance unless we find independent corroboration.

the case with

But

(juite different is

Roman

history.

Here rabbinic

490

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

contemporary evidence, offering a new point

literature furnishes

of view which cannot be ignored.

portions of the

The Midrashim and

in

the aggadic
life.

Talmud abound
tell

anecdotes about

Roman

good many of the passages

at

us of the persecutions the Jews

suffered

the

hand of the Roman emperors, and

Another favourite name
I'he

Rome
is

is

designated as Hytrin ni3^?o (the wicked government) without any

further definition.
Israel's

for

Rome

Edo/n,

enemy

in biblical times.

names of Hadrian, Trajan,

and Tyrannus Rufus are usually accompanied by curses. Even in cases where an emperor is mentioned anonymously, it is sometimes possible to identify the one the rabbis had in mind.

The

value of these passages for historical investigations had

long been recognized.

As

early as 1852,

Michael Sachs made

J.

ample use of

this

material,

and

in

1903

Ziegler collected
in

and explained the parables about emperors occurring

durch die romische Kaiserzeit).
to single phases of

the

various Midrashim [Die Konigsgkichtiisse des Midrasch beleiichtet

These books, however, are devoted

Dr. Krauss'
all

Roman
for
it

life.

work

is

more ambitious

and comprehensive,

includes

phases of Greek and

Roman
not to

history as illustrated in rabbinic literature.

His aim

is

show the
this, too,

relation of the

Romans

to the Jews, although incidentally

becomes apparent, but

to present all the available material

appertaining to the classical world.

Dr.

Krauss

is

one of the

foremost Jewish scholars of our age, and has for

devoted himself to the systematic study of the

many years Talmud and

monuments more
by no
real

Midrashim, especially

in their relation to

the classical literatures.

history are
is

His books on

philolog)', archaeology,

and

of erudition and sound scholarship.

He

thus, perhaps
all

than any other living scholar, qualified to collect

texts

the rabbinic

and

classify

them according
'J'here are
tiie

to their .subjects.

This

is

means an easy
pur])ort

task.

numerous passages whose

it

would escape

average reader, and

is

only a master

of classics

and rabbinics who can discover

sound judgement.

historical allusions in

them.

.And after the material has been collected, the systematic

.\i)art

classification re<|uires

from his scholarly

reputation, Dr. Krauss inspires confidence by his

mode

of treat-

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA

ment.

HALI'ER
neither possible

491

He

admits that
all

at

i)resent

it

is

nor

desirable to exhaust

the rabbinic texts referring to the Clreeks

is

and Romans.

His work

by no means

final,

and a great deal

remains to be discovered and explained.

At the same time there

can be no doubt that the texts thus selected present as complete

a picture as can be possibly obtained.

Dr.

Krauss

classified

his

texts

into

nine groups

A. Zur

Geographic.

B. Die

vier Weltreiche.

C. Die Griechen.

D.

Rom

unddieVolker.
(;.

E. Kaiser

und Feldherren.
I.

F. Kaiserverehrung.

Kaiserrecht.

H. Verwaltung.
own.

\'erfall.

The

passages in

each group are divided into suitable sections, and each paragraph
has a heading of
its

The

reader

is

thus enabled to see at

a glance the purport and value of each paragraph.

meritorious feature of this compilation
is

Not

the least

the skilful

method of
are
difficulty of

excerpting the passages.

Some

of the

historical allusions

interwoven with entirely different subjects,

extricating

and the

them from

their context

must not be underrated.

There

is

always the danger of citing more than necessary and

thereby making the point at issue too insignificant to be noticed, or of giving unintelligible fragments. In the present volume only
the essential parts have been cited, and yet each paragra[)h
is

complete

in itself.

According

to Dr. Krauss' statement (p.

vii),

only three of the

groups (Zur Geographic, Die Griechen, Kaiser und Feldherren) are exhaustive, while no attempt was made to give anything like
a complete collection
is

of passages
that

in

the the

other groups.
references
are

This
too

due

to

the

fact

many

of

indefinite to

be

classified, while there are others

whose

historical

value
of the

is

more

than

doubtful.
are

As

to

the

judiciousness

selections,

we

obliged to rely on the authority of

is

Dr. Krauss, for without a complete collection at hand one

unable to say whether the most appropriate texts have been Still there are passages which, to my mind, should included.

have been incorporated

in this

volume.

conspicuous instance

may be mentioned
and games (group

here.
I,

In the section dealing with the theatre

section v)

we miss the passage from Lamen-

492

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

where the methods of the clown and mime are

tation rabba 3. 12,

described.

The
is

ten paragraphs included in this section are of

this one.

more general character than

Each group

preceded by a brief introduction which draws

attention to the outstanding features of the texts,

and incidentally
notes,

a fairly complete bibliography

is

given.

The copious
and

which
are in are

elucidate each paragraph philologically

historically,

themselves valuable contributions to rabbinic studies.

a store-house of learning,
literature.

They

and solve many a

is

difficulty in

midrashic

The hand
in

of a master

discernible

everywhere.

There are cases

is

which one may

differ

from Dr. Krauss, but he

always bold and original, and his explanations deserve the

highest consideration.

In one

difficult passage,

however, he seems
text,

to have missed the exact force of the midrashic

although the
Dr. Krauss

author of the commentary Matiwt Kehunnah, to

whom

does not refer in

this

instance,

had found the

right solution.

No. 47
i^ 'O'
iT

(p.

26) cites the following passage from Leviticus rabba

/

r.)

Tn3
:

nib
:

>

ahb n^on ny:n nnx nvn nxi -:t;t t tt: t

:

(n'ln ntn\ -t / -: \

^"ly^rp
iT

niiN Dsn

|3

^y

\yr\y

^31 ipx-i fjnv

^ai^n
'

nnyn k^t ^no

[Ich schaute],

*no

^an"!^: nu-jy 2x1 ^^aa.

This

is

translated:

und

sieh, das zweite, ein anderesTier, glich

:

einem Baren.

"Bar"
ist
:

steht [mangelhaft] geschrieben

das

ist

Medien.

Das eben

die Ansicht

Rabbi Johanan's

denn also sprach R. Johanan

darum schlug sie der Lowe aus dem Walde (Jer. 5. 6) das ist Babel der Wolf der Steppe verwiistet sie das ist Medien.' In
;

note
cited

2,

Dr. Krauss

refers to

No. 41, where a similar passage

It
is

is

from

Esther rabba.

explained in note

of that

paragraph that the defective writing of 3^ indicates the worthlessness of Media.

As R. Johanan's statement was not given

in full

by the compiler, the inadequacy of the explanation was not But in No. 47, where the complete text is given, one apparent.
fails

to understand to a bear
is
is

how

Media
that

anonymous opinion which compares identical with that of R. Johanan who says
the

Media

the 'wolf of the desert.'

The commentary Matnot

5)
3"!!

Kehunnah on Esther rabba {introduction, that 3T written defectively may be read as

admirably explains

which means ivolf

RECEiNT HEBRAICA
in

AND JUDAICA

HALPER
'^I
; it

493
saic,
:

Aramaic.

The
which

passage should accordingly be rendered:

beast,

and behold another

"a
wolf,"

a second,
to

like

a bear
is

is

written

refers

Media.
said
:

'I'his

the

opinion

of

R. Johanan, for R. Johanan

the forest doth smite

" WJierefore a lion out

of

them refers to Babylon; a wolf of the deserts This midrashic interpretation

doth spoil them refers to Media.'"

applies to both passages, Nos. 41

and

47.

Dr. Krauss

has a long note on

the
5.

difficult
i) in

word

^i'i:D

(No. 241, excerpted from Genesis rabba

his

which he gives
take
it

own view

as well as that of

I.

Low, both of

whom

as
is

a loan-word
satisfactory,
it

from

Greek or

Latin.

As

neither explanation

occurs to

me

that a genuinely Semitic

71Jf2 is

noun may

have been preserved here, and that

with Arabic
A.li
1

by metathesis identical
is

tip

of the finger.

Accordingly, either y3VN*3

a gloss, or DVIJO refers to a different part of the finger used for

making

signs.

Great
possible

care was taken to edit the texts

as scientifically as

with

the

material

available

for

the

various

books,

although Dr. Krauss wisely refrained from giving variants.

vocalization, too, received the

The

most careful attention, and while,

as

we

shall presently see,

there are

some

errors

and

misprints,

this feature of the

volume makes an excellent impression.

'

In

many
Dr.

instances

'

traditional

vocalizations are disregarded,

and

Krauss has advanced the study of the various Aramaic

extent.

dialects to a considerable

But

it

is

extremely hard to
is

break away from tradition, and even this volume, which

the

work of one of our foremost

errors.

philologists,

still

retains traditional

comparison with Syriac and Arabic would prove con-

clusively that

we should vocalize
Instead of C^b'y?
^in

N^[^ not

N^H

(p. 7

and throughout

the book).

(p.

9) read

Q"'v'i'!?.

usage of the form

signification
is

introducing a biblical verse,

it,

The technical when a special

how-

applied to

is

well

known.

Its exact force,

ever, has not hitherto

been
to

satisfactorily explained.

The

traditional
6.

pronunciation

")!}.

is,

my

mind, due to the influence of Job 37.

In none of the cases does the imperative

usual explanation
is

make any

sense.

The
that

that

^)T}.

is

an

eliptical expression,

and

494-

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

the word "i^is

essential

to

be supplied.

But

it

is

very unlikely that the

part of an

expression should
is

be

dropped, while
'"in

the

auxiliary verb

alone

retained.
it

Moreover nniN

is
it

used in
\l.i^

a different way.

Would
is its

not be possible to vocalize

?

and
''?"

consider

it

as an active participle

It

would thus be the

transla-

tion of id

est,

which

actual signification.
correctly translates
;

Dr. Krauss has

it

(No.

1 7

and elsewhere), and

(No.
19),

by

also.

Instead
i??

of |N?

read

f^P

cp.

IP^
H?'?,
is

(Xo. 21).
not ?yo
;

p30

+ i:K

{
or
is

biblical H^*^),
is

and should be

(Xc

22).

As no
'^'':^'^.,

noun 'pn
'"^jiJ^n

known, ^'on (No. 24)

impossible

read either

as in the parallel passages.

7(5

An

unsatisfactory innovation
"ipni
7i^

"lOini

{ibid,

and elsewhere).
is

Traditional

is

in-

congruous, but ipin

phrase.

unknown
is

in

the sense required for this

!pp.

The

best solution
p. 48.
is

to read "^^Hl

See Monumata

Talmudica, Recht,
'^T^'O^ as the root

Instead of nyifni (X^o. 27, p. 17) read

nvipyp (Xo. 34a, p. 18)
is

^1>*.

is

unlikely;
for p^bs.

read nyp^p.

p^pj

(Xo. 37 b)
p.

no doubt a misprint
For

Instead of nDn5< (No. 38,

(p, 22)
is

21) vocalize i^^^J^.

ni*:i.

In Aramaic nvjl

impossible

read
is

I^^l^ (No. 39) read n3")y.

it

As NB'^SDp (No. 40 b)

a Pael infinitive,

ought to be

<'f ??'?!'

The
(p.

vocalization
it

^'2nnt5

(Xo. 42,

p.

24 and elsewhere)
7.
5.

is

in-

defensible;

should be NJ'inx.

Cp. Dan.

For

2''riO

26) read 3^10.

From
;

a root in or pi the forms fn^' and in^^l

(N'o. 48) are impossible

read

P"!?

and I^X,
n"!

respectively.

That

the Kal

is

intended

may be

seen from
is

in the

same paragraph.
not impossible,

The

vocalization n\Sl {ibid.)

is

traditional

and

is

but njsn
ments.

and has the corroboration of Genizah fragInstead of N^'i'^ and ri">*D (Xo. 51) read ^'J'V?, n-'SD.
preferable
D':i::\S-!ri

The combination
is

'D3n

(p.

42)

is

extremely unlikely.

It

to be

assumed

that the abbreviation sign

above

"lOan fell out,

and

that the copyist

intended the word to be DVrrn.

is

AccordTlie form

ingly,

the expression
is

similar to
;

D^:vj'Nnn cn-Dn.
C)^")>*sn
.

cnifon (Xo. 86)

read
N'J^^^n.

impossible

read

For

NJ;i3:n

(Xo. 9 1 b)
I'N*.

Instead of traditional

pi?

(No. 92 b) read
its

l'"rom

biblical

Aramaic we know

to vocalize Dl?, whatever

etymology,
e. g.

not 0")3 (No. 94 a and elsewhere).

From

the root Vt (see


RECENT IIEBRAICA AND JUDAICA
Esther
5. 9)

IIAI.rKR

495

we cannot
l^KJFi

get the form V'^CI

p.

(p.

53)

vocali/.e V'^'.

Instead of

(Xo. roo,

55)

it

is

preferable

to

read k}^^

For nvj'Etpand

'"laiJli

(No. 108) read n't^ED and

indefensible;
"^'PipX,

i^??n, respectively.

\^Vyi] (No. 115) Ithpeel,

it

is

read

'DVIi?^.

As
a).

^'t:p'X

is

an

should be
p.

not

^'tpip\N*

(No. 119

For

"p.^Vl

1?V^
is

{No. 124,

66) read b^V]

"^m.
is

The Kal
required
;

'ni?N'*^

(No. 148)

unsuitable., as a transitive form

read

''ri"l?Xyi'.

Instead

of X^iOri (No. 153,

Jp!>P^^^*1

p.

77) vocalize ^^^9'?-

I'O''

t^^e

impossible
in the

(No. 157) read niOXnN'-l.

Insert a

mappik

He
or

of n^DDp (No. 180).

As the root
Instead of

is 1^*,

we should
VII,

vocalize ">1VN,
T-y^'^^^

not

il'SfN

(No. 190).
see

^?91^<i^
S.,

(No. 198) read

p. 406.

p3^Nri

my

remarks in/QR., N.

For

'.n!iN'?n

and ^n^3ra(No. 198) read

p.

^ffl5<'?n^ ^mjn:':.
;

The Kal ni9:(No.

and
cp.
D''')^''"^

204,

99) does not suit the context

is

read

"'"'.t7>^

No. 314 where

(No. 241) docs

the Nifal

correctly used.

The
;

vocalization

not seem to be satisfactory

of which are fd'dl forms,
Syntactically D33:i N7'^*

on the analogy of

333

and

"^^33,

both

we ought
n^2 with
is

to

read

Q^"!*"^
Ni'J'J'

or

D^")i*'^.

would be better than

D3D31

(No. 244).

comparison of Hebrew

Arabic

c>l..r

would prove

that the correct vocalization

^!P, not ^'? (No. 249).

The

latter

would
npntf'.

signify

a sivordsman.
'"TJ3y

Instead of ^}y^'p (No. 272 a) read

p.

For
"be

(No. 327,
in

141) read

'"1"!?^,

as the Karnes

cannot

dropped

this

case,

no matter whether the word

1?1''

stands for iTJ?V.P

is

o^' is

a form like
1/''S1

(Judges

13. 8).

Dr. Krauss

right

in

considering

(No. 346) as an interrogative and

not as a demonstrative pronoun.

But

it

seems

to

me

that the

demonstrative plural

is

1?*?,

similar to
like

biblical

H^'X,

while the

interrogative should be

^''^.,

nrs.

Instead of 2n^:i (No. 356)

is

read 2n??1.
|in"jDn.

The form nnnDn (No.

use of
preferable.

376)

without analogy
is

read

The impersonal
''""?v'^ is

"'""r^^

(No. 386)

rather

awkward

the Nifal

496

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Hebrdische Rhythmik

die Gesetze des alttestamentlichen VersKritisch dargestellt.

und

Strophenbaues.
Dr.
Litt.

Von Eduard Koxig,

Semit.,

Phil, Theol., ordentlichem Universitats:

professor

Verlag der Halle und Geh. Rat in Bonn. BUCHHANDLUNG DES WaISENHAUSES, I914. pp viii + 76.
:

Homeric Memory Rhyme

additions on

restatement of

its

principles, with

memory rhyme controlling in the most ancient Hebrew poetry. By William Vincent Byars. St. Louis The Ross-Gould Co., 191 6. pp. 15.
:

As poetry
tion.

is

one of the most fascinating branches of

it

literature,

every detail concerning the principles underlying

deserves atten-

Writers on this subject often find

fast rules as to

it

difficult to lay

down
is

hard and

the exact definition of poetic compositions

as distinct from prose.

In

its

external features the definition

quite easy
together.

a poetic composition has rhyme or metre, or both

In every literature there exist numerous treatises on

testifies

prosody, and this

to the great interest taken

by scholars

and

writers in this subject.

In classical and modern literatures

the problems confronting the stii^ent are very few.

are rarely,
if

The

principles

ever, a

matter of dispute, and

is

it

is

only in very

minute

details that difference of opinion

likely to exist.

In

Horace's Odes, where about seventeen different metres are to be

found, one

may now and then come

across a difficult line, but on

the whole the Odes are easily scanned.

The same
is

applies to

Shakespeare and other poets, who have consciously employed

one metre or another.

It

is

true that there

room

for in-

vestigation into the origin of the various kinds of metres, but

thus

far

this

study has hardly

made any

satisfactory
is

progress.

With the poetry of the Bible, however, the case

quite different.

Here the
contains

principles are

still

to

be discovered.
has

That the Bible

from the

poetic

compositions

been

recognized

earliest times.

Even without possessing definite knowledge as

rarely

to
it

what constitutes a Hebrew poem, students have

difficult

found

to point

out the

poetic compositions in the Bible.

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA

Indeed, in
their

HALPER

497

many

cases the biblical writers themselves designated

compositions as poems.

attempts were
compositions.
is

The real ditificulty arose when made to understand the rules governing these The first question that may be pertinently asked
all.

whether the poets themselves were conscious of any rule at

The

poetic soul pours itself out in rhythmic flow without being

artificial

bound by any

rules.

The

ear catches the melodious

sounds without attempting

to analyse

them.

The

success of an

investigation of this nature largely

to this question.
It is

depends upon the correct answer

futile to

obviously

attempt to discover and

describe definite rules

asserted
that

where none

exists.

And

indeed

it

may be

the

Bible contains

passages which

undoubtedly

follow artificial rules of prosody, while there are a

good many

which are mere poetic outbursts.

fact that
is

It is

the failure to grasp this

responsible for a

number
law,

of fanciful theories

on

this

subject.

student stumbles over a group of verses, thinking

that he has discovered a

new

and immediately proceeds

to

make

all

other poetic passages to conform to that principle.

He

usually finds that his theory cannot be

made

to apply to other

books, and he blames the masoretic text or our ignorance of the

real nature of the vocalic values.

Some
order to

scholars are bold

enough

emend the masoretic text in new theories, forgetting that by

to

make

it

conform to the

this process

any passage, prose or

poetry, can be

shown

to

be based on any given metre.

There

is

probably an element of truth in most of the books on biblical

prosody that have recently been published

the details that they have practically

it

is

in

working out

all failed.

Even
in his

the early mediaeval Jewish writers evinced interest in

this subject.

The

poet and

critic

Moses ibn Ezra (born about 1070)

been preserved
at

Arabic

treatise

on Hebrew poetry {Kitab al-Muha-darah walfour chapters were published by

Muddkarah,
Kokovtsov
avowedly

a complete manuscript of which has

;

the Bodleian Library

the

first

from

Petrograd

manuscript),

while

his

aim

is

practical, to teach the poet his art, devotes the begin-

ning of the fourth chapter to speculative study.

He

asserts that

the poetic portions of the Bible, like Psalms. Proverbs, and Job,

VOL.

VIII.

498

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

have neither rhyme nor metre, and they must be regarded as free
compositions similar to the Rajaz poems of the Arabs.
only accidental that a rhyme occurs
''bv

It

is

now and
i6^ in

again.

(nn?n aX

ri'in

rjsnsbs'a 'n sr^jxi

ri'^^ap

^n nyjxi n^j

inddn

Tn^5< pn'j!

"-J-

Nnvyn

'2

psns* npi

.sn^x^n.)
:

He

quotes the

following examples of

rhyme
"T"??-!

in the Bible
11^^

(Job 28. 16)

{i7>id.

Dnt'3
nip.i

T-sis DriD3
nii'yo

n^Dn xb

33. 17)
21. 4)

nD3^

i3|!?p

din* -i-onf?

(/7;/^.

"nn

^i'P""^'^

yi^iD-DN'i

Nn-b anxj) "pbxn

As one of the

greatest masters of the technique of mediaeval

is

Hebrew who try

Exod.

poetry, he
to

more advanced than some modern

the Bible.
is

scholars

discover rhymes in

They

usually cite

15. 23,

where the apparent rhyme

undoubtedly due to

the unavoidable use of the pronominal

sufifix.

During the

last

few centuries the study of

this subject

has

been taken up by Christian theologians, and various theories

have been advanced from time to time.
Francis
Classical scholars like

Gomarus {Lyra Davidis, 1637) and Francis Hare

libri in versiailos mctrice divisi,

{Fsal-

mo7-um
that the

1636) attempted to prove

Hebrew metre was

In
this respect

quantitative, similar to that of

Greek

and Latin.

they had been anticipated by Josephus,

tri metres,

who assumed
rules of Arabic

that there were

pentametres, and hexa-

metres in the Bible.

The

Arabist William Jones applied the

prosody

to the poetic

books of the Bible {Foeseos

Asiaticae comvie7itatorium^ 17 74)-

G. Bickell, a Syriac scholar of

is

renown,

is

of opinion that

Hebrew metre

like that of the Syrians

{Metrices Biblicae, 1879; Carviina Veteris Metrici, 1882; Dichfutigen

dcr Hebrder, i88;>-84).

this subject

In more recent years a vast literature on

Sievers, Zapletal,

has sprung up.

D. H.

Miiller, Zorell,

H. Grimme, and others have published valuable monographs,

although their theories can only be accepted with the greatest of
caution.

There

is

one

fallacy

common

to

them

all

their

theories involve substantial emendations, in spite of the fact that

our knowledge of the metre must necessarily be derived from the

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA

masoretic
as yet not
text.
It is for this

HALPER

499

reason that the rules of prosody can

instance have
acrostic.

be used as an aid to textual criticism. Only in one we reliable guidance, and that is in the alphabetic

Excellent results have been obtained in

Nahum
this

i,

where

parts of the original text have

been restored by
37. 28,

method.
is

Another interesting case

missing,

is

Psalm

where the

letter y

and there can be no doubt

the literature

that D^iyb
is

must be emended.
it

As

on

this

subject

growing rapidly,

is

desirable that a scholar

clarify matters

who can speak

with authority should

state of

and summarize the present

our knowledge.
lexico-

Prof.

Konig

is

one of the foremost grammarians and

graphers of our age.

of biblical research,

He

has contributed to almost every branch

his greatest merits
is

and one of

that he has

advanced very cautiously, and has discouraged ingenious, but Some years ago (1900) he pubunsubstantiated, innovations.
lished a

book
this

entitled Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetik, in which every

phase of

subject was minutely and

thoroughly discussed.
appeared, and
in

Since that time

many monographs have

Konig
justifies

his

present volume Prof.

his

position, proving
writers.

the
is

untenability of the theories of

some recent

There

extremely valuable material collected here, and the criticism of

the various books
is

clear

and trenchant.

He

is

only willing to

admit that the biblical rhythm consists of accented and unaccented

syllables,

but refuses to recognize that there are any hard and

fast

rules as to the intervals

It

when the accented

very pithily

syllables are to occur.

was

left

to the poet to put the

accented syllable wherever he

:

pleased.

Prof.

Konig puts

it

the idea dominated

is is

the external form.

Every branch of prosody

thoroughly disadopted.
is

cussed in this book, and the most tenable view

There
by
his

is

one minor instance where

ingenuity.
is

Prof.

Konig

carried

away
in

own
45. 2

After having pointed out that

''|i'J|P

Psalm

identical with
too,

Greek

ttoit^o-i?,

he observes that
In

Judah ha-Levi,

employs the word

ilw'yo in that sense.

2,

his philosophic work al-Khazari, chap.

78,

he blames the

Hebrew

poets for having imitated the forms of alien poetry, and

applies to

them Psalm 106. 35

'They mingled themselves with

500
the nations,
refute this

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

and learned
their works.''
It
is

hardly necessary to

anachronism which credits

this great

mediaeval poet
scholars.

with the knowledge of an ingenious theory of

modern
to

Judah ha-Levi would have applied

imitation.
Prof.

this

verse

any kind of

Konig

is

desirous of making this book accessible to

are interested in the prosody of the Bible the

those students

who

but are not acquainted with

Hebrew

language.

He

has

therefore transcribed the examples in

Roman

characters.

Of a
of
all

very peculiar character

is

Mr. Byars's short essay on some

phases of ancient
it
'

Hebrew
'

prosody.

The

writer purposely divested

learned

arguments, and merely states the principles as

they present themselves to him, without attempting to elaborate

or illustrate them.

In

1895 he discovered that 'the Homeric

poems

are based on rhyming staves, with an over- and under-tone

of rhyme, relieved by blank pauses, and

developed
'

artistically

through the syntax of the Greek language

(p. 4).

He

has since
poetry.

then become convinced that similar laws apply to

Hebrew

This essay contains twelve paragraphs, the

with classical literature.
voice, for
it

first

ten of which deal

He

lays great stress

on the use of the

is

only through accurate reading and intonation that

the melodious force of a

poem can be caught by

illustrate

the ear.

Few
by

examples are given to

the

principles
will

enunciated

Mr. Byars, and hence the average student

certainly miss

many
in its

a point.

As

to

Hebrew

verse of the

first

period,

it

'

is

certainly quantitative, certainly written to scale, certainly defined

measures by rhymed as well as blank pauses, and certainly

for its

dependent

melody on the same principles through which

its

the melody of Greek and Latin verse, with art at

highest,

develops from the necessary habits of the ear, as acquired in

speaking an inflectional language'

his

(p. 12).

Mr. Byars

tells

us of

own experience

that

'

within two months after recovering the

stave-measures of the verse of the

Book
'

of Job

'

he
in

'

had

in

memory more
previously.

of the language

'

than he
after

had gained
vowel

two years

Within
it

two days

its

time

had been

assimilated,

became a language of

less difficulty

than modern

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA

German
'

HALPER

501

(p.

13).

In their present form Mr. Byars's views are

hardly Hkely to attract attention.

Apart from the

fact that only

a limited

number

of copies has been issued, the principles are

stated in too general

scholars.
It is true

and vague a manner

that

to

be considered by
to

Mr. Byars has evidently no desire

convince the 'learned' world.

certainly

But the 'unlearned' world

so

will

take

no

interest

in

abstruse

subject

as
it

the
to

mysteries of ancient

Hebrew prosody.
advancement of

The

writer

owes

himself, as well as to the

science, to elaborate his

theories

and

to

work out every step

in detail, in order to ascertain

whether they accord with

facts or not.

Personal convictions must

be discounted

in scientific research,

although they are sometimes

of great value as a starting-point.

Mischnaiot

Hebraischer Text mit Punktation.

Teil

Nebst deutscher

Uebersetzung und Erklarung.

Y Seder
Berlin
:

Kodaschim.

Von Rabb.
1915.
pp.

Dr.

J.

Cohn, Rawitsch.
(9.

H. Itzkowski,

257-288

Heft, Bechorot, Abschn. 4-9).

It

would be

instructive to

compare the two

editions of the

vocalized text of the

Mishnah with German

translations that are

now being
scholars

published, the one by a group of the ablest Jewish

and the other by Christian theologians.

In their external

make-up, the volumes that have hitherto appeared under the

editorship of

attractive than the others, while

Georg Beer and Oscar Holtzmann are much more for accuracy of learning and
to the edition

sound scholarship one must turn Cohn.

At present the

which

is

being

prepared by D. Hoffmann, Baneth, A. Samter, M. Petuchowski,

and
for

J.

latter

has a serious disadvantage

one reason or another the publisher does not issue complete volumes at a time, but pamphlets of thirty-two pages each. Very
often the pamphlet breaks off in the middle of a sentence,

and

the reader

has

to

wait

a long

time before the continuation

502
appears.
last

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The
text,
is

present pamphlet begins with the middle of the

4,

paragraph of Bekorot

and ends with the middle of

9. 8.

The

which

is

based upon the ordinary editions of the

Mishnah,

well edited, though variants from the different editions

and manuscripts are inadequately discussed. The copious notes are

mainly taken from the Gemara and
all

the Jewish commentators,

is

mediaeval and modern, and the halakic part

fully explained.

This commentary gives an excellent presentation of the traditional

interpretation of the Mishnah, but, to

my

mind, Maimonides was

not sufficiently drawn upon.

^Moreover, no attempt seems to have

difficult

been made

to

go beyond these commentators, and the

names
still

for diseases

and bodily defects occurring

in this tractate

remain obscure and vague as before.

As

characteristic of

the neglect of

modern
:

philological research the following instance

may be

cited

In

7.

4 there occur two

difficult terms, Q^>*

and

yoy, which require elucidation.

But Dr. Cohn reproduces the

as
if

Hebrew words without translating them, known expressions in German, and in his
and
yciv.
It

they were well-

notes he merely calls

attention to the fact that the editions of the

Talmud have DC1V

if

seems to
*-!

me

that

D^V

is

connected,

not identical,

with Arabic

deaf (Hebrew fi'il forms are of al in Arabic).

us that this
defect
is

The Mishnah
with the ear.

itself tells

in

connexion
In

y^V may be remotely connected with k^.

another case the reading of the

the translation.

Hebrew
0^3^33,

text

does not agree with

else

In

8. i

we have

which can be nothing

than Arabic

^j^
In

fetus, embryo,

while the

translation has ver,

schiedenartigen Dingen, which represents

D^JIIJ

a variant found in

the Talmud.
D^3133
is

the

notes,

however, the correct meaning of

given.

The vocalization is not errors may be pointed out.

the
root
(6.
is

quite satisfactory,

and the following

'^^''^PJ!],

liw^tpn (5. 6) should be

;

as

y!0^

not

?t23

cp.

e.g.

Jonah

i.

4.

Instead

of

iODin

may be seen from Aramaic NDUin. From I Kings 7. 23 we know to vocalize t'i^y not b^^V (6. 8). The Yod after the Alef Instead of V-)3ND (7. 4) read V-;3^{p. found in some editions and manuscripts may have merely been
4)

read ^^^C, as

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA HALPER

reproduced from the singular.
represents the
(Kigin
e

503

It

is

also possible that this

Yod

class of vowels,

which includes a shewa whose

is

was

e.

similar purpose

served by

Waw

it

stands

was for the o or u class of vowels, including a shewa which or u, as, for instance, Dv?l^. Instead original reduced from an
of
'^i'V

(7-

6) vocalize

^iilV,

us

it

undoubtedly

is

a form

like

C?N, nDS, and others.

B.

Halper.

Dropsie College.

G. A.

SMITH'S 'ATLAS OF

Till':

HOLY LAND'.

Atlas of the Historical Geography of the Holy Land. Designed and edited by George Adam Smith, D.D, LL.D., Litt. D.,

and prepared under the direction of J- G. Bartholomew, LL.D., F.R.S.E., F.R.G.S. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
1915.
pp. xxxvi

+ 58 maps

Lidex.
admiration.
It

We commend this work with unquaUfied

conjes

from the genius of the veteran historical geographer of the Holy Land, Dr. Smith, who with the passing of the great cartographers
of Palestine, as Wilson and Kitchener, remains the connecting scienlink with the generation which laid the foundations of the
tific

study of the country.

To

their ability

he has added

in

an

unrivalled
is

way the high

in

instinct of historical imagination,

which
devote

content,

his

fifth

decade of active scholarship,

to

itself to

the apparently mechanical duty of producing an atlas.

But

his historical genius

and freshness of
is

spirit

do not

desert

him

in this tedious work, as

shown

in the easy style

and

attractive

exposition of the

'

Introductory Notes to >L^ps \ which preface

the volume.
notes,

For

in addition to the

maps he

gives these prefatory

naming

his authorities, reviewing the historical

problems

and

difficulties,

and where necessary giving

detailed notes.

These

Historical constitute in themselves a veritable introduction to the th.it the work is as much a text-book Geographv of the subject, so

and source-book as an
Equally high praise

alias.
is

to be given to the technical execution

of the maps, the work of Dr. Bartholomew.

The primary

subject

presented in of the work, the physical cartography of the land, is maps, Nos. 15-30 (apart from maps presenting the economic, sixteen

505

5C6
orographical,

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

and geological
features

and the vegetation

areas,

Nos. 10-14).

These maps are on the

scale of a quarter-inch to

the mile, and while of course based on the Great

Palestine

Map

of the
as

Exploration

Fund

(including

now

so

much

has

appeared of Schumacher's survey of the Trans-Jordan),

it

far excels

in clearness of presentation.

The
is

dilificulty

of the use of the

Fund's maps in consequence of their mass of physical details and

finely printed
difificulties

and

jostling

names

known

to all students.

These

have been avoided, and while the Great

Map

must be

resorted to for small details, this work will be a

for

handy

substitute

most

practical purposes.

AA'e

have the work of the Palestine

clarified,

Exploration

Fund

simplified

and

with

the

added

advantage which time brings of the more recent solution of vexed

questions.

But the material

suggests.

is

much

richer than the

title

of the

book

The

first

nine maps present the ancient Semitic world

and

its

empires, concluding with one giving the ancient trade

routes to Palestine.

Following the large-scale maps of Palestine

'

we have under
History of
Israel,'

Part III,

Palestine

at

Particular
political

Periods in
cartography

Xos. 31-50, presenting the

of the land at different epochs.

pre-exilic

In addition to the more familiar

maps, there

is

a remarkably useful and scholarly series

covering in close succession the complicated history of Palestine

from the age of the Maccabees, including the epochs of Alexander

Jannaeus, Pompey, Antony,
the Procurators, Agrippa II.

Herod

the Great, his sons^, Agrippa

I,

We

know

of no other work which

so thoroughly exhibits to the eye the kaleidoscopic history of that

age.

The

student has had to consult detail

maps

for the different

periods or create his

own from

his Schiirer.

This part must have

for
it

been the most laborious section of the whole work,

involved

the study of a most intricate mass of details and contradictory

opinions.

The
at

last

two numbers of

this part present 'Plans of

Jerusalem
mile,

Different Periods', in six

'

maps

at one-half inch to the

and

Modern Jerusalem
latter

'

at a scale of twelve inches to the mile.

latest discoveries;
it

The

summarizes the

does not include

SMITH

'

ATLAS OF THE HOLY LAND

'

MONTGOMERY

507

the important excavations pursued on the southern Zion Hill on the grounds of the Assumptionists, published by Father Geriner-

Durand
Part

in the

Revue Biblujue, 19 14.

devoted to the Christian Era.

IV

is

Of
is

these Nos. 54-57

bear upon Palestine immediately.

There

a most useful map,

No.

54, of the Palestine of

Eusebius and Jerome (and also of the

Madeba Mosaic),
finally Syria

interesting to both Christian

and Jewish scholars

then the maps of the Peutinger Tables and Marinus Sanutus, and

and Palestine

in the

time of the Crusades.

Any
dig

experience with the archaeology of the Holy

indispensable this later cartography
is,

I>and teaches howis

for

it

only as

we

down through
the example of
Biblical sites.

these later historical strata that

we

can, following

Edward Robinson, work out

the identification of

The

student will probably be more grateful for

these

maps of

the non-biblical periods than for the stock

maps

of

Palestine which can easily be obtained.

This part also includes maps of particular

student of the

interest

to the

New Testament and

early

Church History.
is

In

addition to the usual chart of

St. Paul's

voyages, there

a fine

orographical

than those

map of Asia Minor, which will be useful to others who wish to study the position of the Seven Churches. Nos. 53 and 53a present the 'Church and the Empire' under
Trajan and under Constantine
',

perhaps not very

effectively, as

the dispersion of the Christian communities cannot be exhibited

on so small a
Crusades',

scale.

No. 58 gives 'Europe

in the

Time

of the
in

and 58a 'The Expansion of

'

Christianity'

the

successive ages.
Palestine
',

to

No. 59 offers Present Political Divisions of which one objection can be offered, that it does
under the control of the Christian

not show the delimitations of the Lebanon, up to the present

war an autonomous

district

Powers, although the Notes correct this fault with the necessary
information.
'

Finally

there

is

a
',

very

complete
60.

map

of

the

Christian Missions in Palestine

No.

In this connexion

it

may be noted

that

No.

10,

the

Economic Map of Modern

Palestine, gives the location of the Jewish agricultural colonies,

although without names.

In the notes to this

map

should be

5o8
added

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

in the bibliography

Die

jiidische Kolonisatloii Paldstinas,

by Dr. Curt Nauratzki.

An
who

interesting bit of

map-making we would suggest

for those

are concerned as to the future politics of the country, would

in

be an ethnographic sketch
different religions,

which the predominance of the

Jewish, and Christian, might be

Mohammedan,

represented

in

which

for instance

Jerusalem would appear as

as Muslim.

Jewish, Bethlehem as Christian,

Hebron

Our

principal stricture of the

volume would be the smallIn such an

playing such

scale presentation

of the

maps of Mesopotamia.
time when Assyriology
is

inclusive volume,

and

at a

a large part in biblical science,

we miss a

detail

map
is

of Babylonia

and

Assyria.
sites.

This should present the identifications of the

ancient

(A

useful sketch-map of the latter

to

be found

in either

one of Jastrow's works,

his Aspects of Religious Belief, or

his
'

Civilization of Babylonia
'

and
is

Assyria.)

The

little

map

of

Jewish Babylonia

on No.

quite insufficient, omitting even

Nippur, which, as appears from the cuneiform reference to the

neighbouring Chebar, was one of the chief centres of the

exiles.

Such a map should

Babylonian Judaism.

also give the various centres of the

later

The volume might

Exploration

also have filled

up the

lack, so

troublesome
Palestine

to students, of an adequate

map

of Northern Syria.

The

Fund surveyed

the land as far as Beirut, but the

region to the north remains very

the historical student.

much

of a terra incognita to
of
is

The

best one

we know
of
Kiepert,
Golf.

the

map
in

published in the series of the American Archaeological Expedition

of

1899-1900, based upon a

map

published

Oppenheim's Vom Mittebneere ziiin Persischen

The geography
is

of Northern Syria while not immediately biblical

of extreme

importance

for the

understanding of the connexions of Palestine

with the empires to the north.

The

survey of this deeply interesting

land

still

awaits execution, a task worthy of the best equipped

expedition.

good maj) of Arabia, giving the points of

is

historical

and

archaeological interest,

also a desideratum which the

volume

smith's 'ATLAS OF THE HOLY LAND'

might have
filled.

MONTGOMERY

509
to

But the richness of the work may lead us

expect too much.

Among

the
4,

Ancient World', Nos. 3 and

Maps of the Empires of the we expect one of the Assyrian

'

Empire
a

at its greatest

extent,

under Esarhaddon
is

in its

place

map
No.

of Nebuchadrezzar's

Empire

given.

14, presenting in colours the conditions of the vegetation

is

of Palestine,

very misleading to the layman.

dark green

exhibits the 'cultivable lands'

and

is

used

for the districts

which

we

generally

know
'

of as

fertile, like

the Hauran, Esdraelon, the

Damascus

oasis.

Most of the

rest

of the

map

is

coloured light

green to exhibit
or less pasture
'.

limestone hill-lands covered in spring with more

The

result

would be the idea

that

by

far

the

greatest part of Palestine

fit

and the Lebanon appears

as a wilderness

only for sheep.

hill

As such crops

as wheat are successfully

grown

over this
in great

country, as well as vegetables

and

especially fruits

profusion wherever they are cultivated, the

It
is

map

gives an
is

entirely erroneous impression.

this

limestone

soil that

Palestine's great agricultural asset,

it,

and while the

greatest part of

thanks to the Turk,

is

to-day a waste, the brilliant patches

is

of cultivation, where the ground

tilled

or irrigated, and the

remains vouching for the great farming estates that once marked
the
land,

speak

for

the

economic capability of the country.

History also shows

how

the

now

desert stretches of Eastern Syria

and even the volcanic ledges of

chemically
fitted for

el-Leja in the

Hauran were once

stands there to-day

seats of a fine culture of the soil.

The

soil

man's support, often

like

our

own Western

lands once marked as desert, waiting only water and the plough
to
is

make them blossom

put in

as the rose.
'

Strangely enough even Jaffa

',

an area marked

sandy deserts

whereas

it is

one of the

garden spots of the country.

At the present time when the

is

economical development of Palestine

so

much

in the
is

mind of

many,

it

is

unfortunate

if

an erroneous impression
not
tell

produced

or continued
ditions.

by a

map which does

to live

the practical conthe vulgar tradition

For the economist has

is

down
for

that Palestine

an unfertile country.

If the data

be on hand,
parts

and probably they could be supplied

many

by the

5IO
Jewish

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

and German colonies and monastic establishments, a
the capabilities of the soil would be an extremely

map showing

valuable asset to the ideas and plans looking towards the economic
restoration of the

Holy Land.
scholarly
is

We
this

conclude with thanking the distinguished compilers of

handsome and

volume

for a

work which com-

prehends so
history

much
its

that

vitally

necessary to the study of biblical

It

and

related

spheres.

will

be

for

the English-

speaking world an indispensable adjunct for the study of the

Bible.

James A. Montgomery.
University of Pennsylvania.

P?r:

DS 101
J$

The Jewish quarterly review.

New ser.

V.8

PLEASE

DO NOT REMOVE
FROM
THIS

CARDS OR

SLIPS

POCKET

UNIVERSITY

OF TORONTO

LIBRARY

kWPC