:u

VA^
THE

JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
/'

NEW SERIES

EDITED BY

CYRUS ADLER

VOLUME

IX

1918-19iy~

PHILADELPHIA THE DROPSIE COLLEGE FOR HEBREW AND COGNATE LEARNING
LONDON: MACMILLAN & COMPANY,
Ltd.

I>S
101

J5
V.9

PRINTED IN ENGLAND

AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

///

CONTENTS
PAGE
BuTiN, RoMAiN
Ritual
:

Some Leaves
M.

of an

Egyptian

Jcwisli

259
I.
:

Casanowicz,

Barton's

'The Religions of the
497

World'

DuscHiNSKV, C.

:

The Rabbinate
1

of the Great Synagogue,
.

London, from

756-1842

.

.

.

103, 371
. .

Efros, Israel: The Menorat Ha-Maor

.

.

337

Halper,

B.

:

Recent Arabic Literature
:

.

.

.

.471
.

HosCHAXDER, Jacoh

The Book
I to

of Esther in the Light
. . .
.

of History, Chapters

III

i

Isaacs, A.

S.

:

Kohut's Edition of
Z.
:

'

Nathan the Wise
'

'

.

499

Lauterbach, Jacob
Shulchan-Aruch

'.......
Tschernowitz's
Origin
of the
'

489

Malter, Henrv
Philosophy'

:

Husik's

History of Mediaeval Jewish

233

Mann, Jacob

:

The

Responsa of the Babylonian

Geonim
139

as a Source of Jewish History

Maxn, Jacob: Note on 'Solomon B, Judah and some
of his Contemporaries

'......
in

409

Marx,
St.

Alexander

:

Afanuscripts

the

Library

of

John's College
:

253
list

Marx, Alexander
the Creed

A

of

Poems on

the Articles of

305
:

Morgenstern, Jull\n

Kedesh-Naphtali and Ta'anach

.

359

IV

CONTENTS

Radix,

Max: Gracco-Romnn
:

Judaica

....
. .

I'AOK

245

Rf.Idf.r, Joski'II

Rorcnt Biblical Literature

.

423
43

Sfoai,,

M. H.

:

Studies in the

Books of Samuel.

IT

.

SzoLD, Henrietta: Palestine from

Many
of

Points of

View

215

Waxman,
Zkitlin,

Mever
Part

:

The Philosophy
II,

Don
.

Hasdai
.
.

Crescas.

Chapters III and
Mcgillal

I\'

181

Solomon

:

Taanit
History
I

as
in

a

Source

for

Jewish Chronology and

the Hellenistic

and

Roman

Periods.

("!hapters

to

HI

.

.

.

71

THE BOOK OF ESTHER
Bv

IN

THE LIGHT

OF HISTORY
Jacoi! Hosciiander, Dropsie College.

CHAPTER
The
ill-fate

I

of the

Book

of Esther

additions

— Talmudic

interpretations

Conservative exegetes
the Maccabaean period

— Errors
— The

of

—The Greek version —The apocryphal — Luther's verdict — Modern theories the interpreters — The interpolators in

erroneous identification of the king of Esther.

If there were any truth in the cabbalistic maxim, 'All

depends on
the

fate,

even the Scriptures',

we would say
Persian

that
It

Book

of Esther was ill-fated from the very outset. a
time,
in

relates

how once upon

the

period,

a terrible

danger to the Jews

was averted by natural
In

circumstances, without any visible divine intervention.

our sceptical age, we
the most credible of

should expect such a story to be held
the narratives of the Old Testament.

all

Just the contrary has happened.

None among them

is

more

discredited

by modern exegetes, except a
is

few, than

this story.

The

narrative

by some partly doubted, partly
But
it

denied, by others denied altogether.
to say that they are not to blame.^
^

is

only

fair

The
who

current interpretatreatment of the storj'
are not satisfied with

There

is,

however, no excuse

for the unfair
critics

of Esther by not a few of the

modern

demonstrating

its

unhistorical character, but for the purpose of impressing
its

upon the mind of the reader
facts

fabulous absurdity, frequently distort the

and make forced interpretations.
of

many

them would be more convincing

The arguments and theories of an if they were presented in

objective manner, and

at the contents of this story, its

were not seasoned with abusive language directed tendency, and at the Jews in general. For
I

VOL. IX

2

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
more favourable conclusion.

tion hardly admits of a
ever,
it

How-

is

evident that already in antiquity the facts had
in

been distorted and represented

a false light.

Interpreters

who

lived

two hundred years or more

after the events of
real issue

the story occurred, and

knew nothing about the

of those events, corrupted the text according to their

own
into

wrong

interpretations.

The Alexandrian Jew who
Greek

translated

the story

— at

a time, however, before the

Hebrew

text was

greatly corrupted

— increased
in

the perplexity.^

The Greek
But the

version, being a free

and paraphrastic translation, naturally

does not square with the original
differences
names,-'

Hebrew

text.

touch also
fact

a

striking

manner the proper
or

a

that

cannot

be due to paraphrase

exegesis.

This phenomenon gave cause to suspect the

authenticity of the

Hebrew

text.^

No

other satisfactory

specimens of

this kind,

we may
(in
;

point to Carl Siegfried, in his
'

commentary
Gsttingen,

on the Book of Esther
ment', GOttingen, 1901;
1887
^
;

Nowack's

Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testain his

Paul de Lagarde

essay
;

'

Purim

',

G. Jahn

in his

book 'Esther', Leiden, 1901

see also note 26.
cf.

For the various Greek and Latin versions of Esther,

B. Jacob,

•Esther bei den
srha/t,

LXX'
the

(in Stade's Zeilscliiift filr
;

AlttestamentUche IVisseii-

Gicsscn,

1890, pp. 241-98)

L.

B. Paton, Critical

and

Exegetical

Comiucniary on
'

Book of

Esther,

New

York, 1908, pp. 29-47; P. Haupt,

Critical Notes on Esther' (in Old Testament and Semitic Studies in Memory n/lVdtiam Rainey Harper, Chicago, i9o8,,p]). 115-93 H. Willrich, Esther nnd Judith (in his Jndaica, Gottingen, pp. 1-28), and G. Jahn's book cited
' ;
'

above.
biblical
' *

The

lattcr's

Hebrew

rendering of the Greek version

is

an amateurish

parody, but several of his observations deserve serious consideration.
/.

Sec Jacob,
Willri.h,

c, p. 271.
p. 15, seriously

I.e.,

maintains that the

Book

of Esther
into

was

originally

written

in

Greek and subsequently translated

Hebrew.

There

ib

no need to discuss this impossible view, as Willrich himself

reluctantly concedes that the originality than the

Hebrew

text in several places exhibits

more
is

Greek

(p. 19, n. i), and,

moreover, confesses that he

unable to examine the linguistic character of the former.

ESTHER

IN

THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

— HOSCHANDER

3

explanation for this odd divergence has been forthcoming.

This difficulty
in

is

due to the

fact that the action

was placed

the wrong period.
is

The

difference

between the two
that

versions

easily explained as soon as

we know

Egypt

was not a part of the Persian empire
events.^

at the period of these

Hence

the Egyptian Jews were not involved in

the decree of

the events

Haman, and probably knew nothing about The Alexandrian translator, who of Purim.*^

apparently was a learned and pious Jew,
Palestine or in

may have
among

lived in

some other part

of Syria

pious Jews

who observed
known
his
it

the festival of Purim.^

Having annually

listened to the reading of the
fairly well

Book

of Esther, he

may have

by

heart,

but could not remember

correctly most of the proper names.

After returning to

own

country, he translated this story for the edification

^

Egypt revolted from Persia

in

the

year 405

b.c.e.,
latter,

and remained
however, never
attempts to

independent for a period of sixty-five years.

The

recognized Egypt's independence, and frequently

made

futile

reduce
^

it

to

obedience.
(/.

We

thus fully agree with Willrich

c, p. 3), that the Alexandrian

Jews had

neither observed the festival of Purim,

nor

about these events, before the story

was

written in Greek.

known anything But we go still
this

further and maintain, that even after they had
story, the

become acquainted with

Alexandrian Jews had no cause to celebrate the events of Purim.

This

festival

was most

likely introduced into

Egypt by Palestinian Jews not
that

long before the destruction of the Temple.
'

We

must bear
all

in

mind that the pious of

period

who

strictly

observed

religious ordinances represented only a small fraction of the

Jews.
ago.

Therefore, there

The common people had abandoned the celebration of Purim long was no reason for the author of the First Book of
if it

the Maccabees to refer to the latter festival, even

had coincided with
an'd all

Nicanor Day, which
critics

it

did not.

Thus the objections of Willrich
Moreover,
if

on this point are unfounded.

Willrich were right in

his assertion that the author of the First

Book

of the

Maccabees assumes

a decidedly hostile attitude towards the Pharisees,

we

could not expect this

author to mention a festival observed solely by this pious sect.

B 3

'

4

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Not having had
a

of his countrymen.
his disposal,

Hebrew copy

at

and the translation not having been intended
but merely as a novel, he substituted
for

for liturgic purposes,

numerous
'^

fictitious
c, pp. 266

names
fT.,

those

in

the original.*
Greek

Jacob,
is

/.

is

certainly right in concluding that the

version

a free translation from the

Hebrew

text.

But that alone would

not account for the proper names, as Jacob (p. 270, n. i) freely admits,

which with the exception of a few
text (cf. Paton, I.e., pp.

differ entirely

from those of the

Hebrew

66-71.

Furthermore, a free translator would

hardly omit passages without paraphrasing them, and would rather add than
omit.
Finally,
in
it

seems improbable that he should have paraphrased
the stor^' in a different light, as he did in

passages
the

a

way which show
that the

passages containing the decrees of

Haman and
all

Mordecai.

Jahn's

sweeping assertion
view that the
considered at

Greek version, on
is

points, resembles

more

the original than the Masoretic text,
stor3'
all.

not to be taken seriously.

Willrich's

was

originally written in

Greek (see

n. 4),

cannot be

But even the present writer's explanation that the
have a Hebrew copy
free at his disposal
It is

Greek
his

translator did not
is

when he made
that

translation,

not

from objections.

incredible

the

translator should not have

remembered the name

of

Ahasuerus which occurs
six

twenty-eight times

in

the stor}'. the gentilic

noun Agagi which occurs

times, and especially the passage:

'And he thought

scorn to lay hands

on Mordecai alone
(3.

;

for

they had showed him the people of Mordecai

6\ which
stor^'.

is

of vital importance for the understanding of the main event

of our

But

in the

opinion of the present writer, the
after
it

Hebrew

text

underwent considerable changes

had been translated into Greek.

The Alexandrian translator was a pious, conscientious Jew and a good Hebrew scholar who, though paraphrasing the original text and substituting
fictitious

names, did not consciously omit anything.

The omissions found
)*3pn21
(2.

are due to his exegesis.

Thus, for instance, he could not understand the
"13101
(1.

meaning of lOV
V22

pcSa
,

2a),

JT'r^'

mSjID^

19),

3m

15.

II

and not having been able

to

consult the original, he

attributed the difticultics to his bad

memory, and omitted them altogether.
: '

He may
is

have known and applied the maxim

In doubtful cases, omission

preferable to doing
difficult

wrong' (Cl^y

nCVD

^Nl

3u').

Nor could he
(9. 25),

understand the

passages "ISDH DJ? "ir^N "J^DH ^JD^ HNHai
,9.

Dnpyn nioiyn nnn
them
differently.

31),

do ciichn

-j^on D'J'M (id.

i>,

but in

these cases, having been convinced that they

were corrupt, he explained

The

fact, that

so far none of the commentators have been

able to explain the passages quoted satisfactorily, leaves no doubt that the

ESTHER

IN

THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

— HOSCHANDER
To

5

The apocryphal
pious mind
Greek
it

writer went a step farther.^

his

seemed inconceivable that such a miraculous
was
a good

translator

Hebrew
in the

scholar.

His memory, however,
Since the twelfth

played him a trick as to the date of Esther's elevation.

month played so important a part
again that he translated from
this date, there

events of Esther, he believed that

Esther's elevation took place in the

same month.
;

This wrong date proves

memory

for if the original

had contained

was

not the least reason for any interpolator to place that

event in the tenth month.

As

for the decrees,

however, the translator

neither omitted anything nor paraphrased them, but presented an exact

The passage 3. 6 is undoubtedly due to Haman's decree was caused by his enmity towards Mordecai. We owe a debt of gratitude to the Greek translator who showed us that the original Hebrew author was quite innocent of this stupidity. As to the name Artaxerxes in the Greek version, there is not the least doubt that the Hebrew text, even in a late
translation (see

Chapter IX).

a late interpreter

who

believed that

period, contained the

noun Agagi
^

in

the

name NOtt'ti'nmN (sec Chapter IV). The gentilic Hebrew text is not original either (see Chapter II).
'

The Greek
its

version has at the end a subscription giving information
:

about

authorship and date, which reads

In the fourth year of the
said that he

reign of

Ptolemy and Cleopatra, Dositheus, who
his son,

was

a priest

and Levite, and Ptolemy
Phrourai,

brought the foregoing letter concerning
that

which they

said

was genuine, and

Lysimachus, son of
it
'

Ptolemy, one of the people of Jerusalem, had interpreted

("Etous

mapTov
hptvs

PaaiXtvovTOi TlToXffxaiov Kal KXeonarpas, (larjveyxf AoaiOfos, os
ical
fjv

l^»; flvai

AiviTTjs, Kal TlToXeixaios utos ai/rov, ttjv npoKUftivTjv kniajoK-qv

twv ^povpai,

iipaaav
/.

(iuai, Kal TipjxrjvfVKfvai

AvffifMaxov IlToXffiatov, ruiv tv 'ItpovaaX'qti).
in

Jacob,

c, p. 274,

maintains that the king Ptolemy referred to
VII, Soterll, Lathurus,
into

this

subscription

was Ptolemy
/.

who reigned

117-81

b.c.e.,

and thus the introduction of our story
while Willrich,
that the

Egypt occurred
this

in the

year 114,

c, p. 4

f.,

contends that

king was Ptolemy XIV, and

Book

of Esther

was composed

in

the year 48 b.c.e.
is

However,
concerned.

both of them are wrong as far as the date of the Greek version

The

subscription does not refer to the original Greek version of our story.

Willrich himself points out that the Alexandrian scribe was not convinced
of the genuineness of this
'•^

Book and declined

to take

any responsibility

for

(P-

S)'

Jacob likewise observes that expressions
This
is

in this subscription

indicate something like distrust ^p. 276).

of course the meaning

of the clause

fiv

e<paaav dvai.
this

What
Book

reason had the Alexandrian scribe to
?

doubt the genuineness of
to

whom we

are indebted for the preservation of so

The Alexandrian Jewish scholars many apocryphal books

6
event

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
should be narrated unless abounding
it

in

religious

sentiments, and he believed

to be a meritorious

deed to

improve upon

its

contents

by representing the

chief Jewish

figures in the story as saints in Israel.

This representation,

though obviously contrary to the
generally accepted
in ancient

facts,

was nevertheless
Flavins
story

and modern times.

Joscphus,

in

his

Antiquities,

moulded

into

his

of

Esther both the Hebrew and Greek versions
of the latter than of the former^"
were not
Paton,
so

— though more
With
the

— and

considerable parts

h3percritical

as to doubt the event of Purim.

exception of Sirach,
I.e., p.

none of the apocryphal books has a subscription.

30, observes:
is

'A more
it

serious objection to the genuineness

of the subscription
that

the fact that
a different

stands at the end of the long additions
'.

seem

to

come from

hand from that of the original translator

However, this fact does not prove that the subscription is not genuine. There had been a well-known Greek version of Esther long before the
arrival of Dositheus.

But the

latter

brought another version, enlarged and
it

interpolated by additions,

and asserted that

was the genuine story

of

Esther translated from the

Hebrew

text,

contending that the old version

was

defective.

Therefore, the Alexandrian scribe
to

who

copied

it

rightly
its

doubted his assertion, and dechned
truth.

accept any

responsibility for
in

The
is

original

Greek version was undoubtedly made
This seems to be the true reason

a

pre-

Maccabaean period.
Esther

why

the

Book of
that has

the only historical book in the

Greek Old Testament

a subscription.
>"

We

cannot agree with Jacob,
/.

I.e.,

p.

291, that

Josephus
this point.

faithfully

follows
calls

LXX, and Jahn, c, p. x, is perfectly right Haman an Amalckite, which can be only a
text,
,

on

Josephus

translation of
it

the

Hebrew

while the Greek version has instead of

^ov-faio^.

Agagi of Then
but

Josephus quotes the passage VJ'W U'1
Further, he gives the

which

LXX
in

omits (see n. 8).

names

of the

two

conspirint;

eunuchs

Dim

iDH,

appears

li.

have read DnDI }n3J, which are omitted

LXX.

Finally, in

accordance with the

Hebrew

text,

he states that the Jews slew seventy-five
Nevertheless,

thousand Gentiles, while

LXX knows only of fifteen thousand.

Joscphus evidently preferred the Greek version for his purpose. He may have done so for linguistic reasons. A Jew translating the Old Testament into a foreign tongue would for the most part, if possible, make use of and adhere to the expressions of the already existing version. can there-

We

fore understand

why Josephus

should have made use of expressions of

LXX

ESTHER

IN

THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

— HOSCHANDER
^^

7

of the apocryphal additions, embellishing them with
exegesis, probably of his ovvn,^^

some
the

Origen

declared

Greek version and

its

additions canonical.^^
'

Though
a platitude,

the use of the expression

common

sense

'

is

we cannot
either
in

refrain

from asserting that

common
Book

sense has played no part in the interpretation of the
of Esther,

ancient or

in

modern

times.

The
an

Rabbis, by their homiletic interpretations, contributed not
a
little

to

change

this strictly historical narrative into

incredible fable.^*

A

few among them seem

to have felt

that there

was something strange about

this book.^^

But,

as a rule, the talmudic

and midrashic sayings concerning
not of the least value for

the

events

of our

story are

exegesis,^*^

and

in all probability

were not intended to be.
we, even in our critical

Notwithstanding
age,
still

this

obvious

fact,

follow

time-honoured talmudic interpretations

(Jacob,

/.

c, p. 262).

On

the other hand, his Antiquities

was written

for

Gentiles, and therefore his intention

may have been
in

that his version of

Esther should be

in

accordance with that written

Greek which might

have been known
11

to the critics of his period.
/.

We

do not agree with Paton,

c, p. 39, that Josephus's additions

are derived from an early form of Jewish Midrash, as no trace of
is

them

found

in the talmudic literature.

His representation

is

a mixture of truth

and

fiction.
*2 '*

In his letter to Julius Africanus, 3.

''

Cf.

Paton,

/.

c, p. 34.

See especially Talmud Babli Megillah ioa-i6b, and

cf.

Paton,

/. f.,

pp. 18-24 ^iid 97-10415
^^

See Chapter V.

The talmudic chronology concerning
all.

the date of our story

is

of no

value at

It

is

noteworthy that

in

Talmud, Midrash, and Targumim,
i

Mordecai

is

represented as a contemporary ofZerubbabel see Ezra

2. 2,

&c.).

Talmud Babli Menahot 65 a, we find the same Mordecai as the contemporary of Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, This fact appears to have
But
in

escaped the notice of
his

all

critics.

Willrich might have made
e.

it

the basis of
if

theory that the Book of Esther was written 48 b.c.
it

(see n. 8>,

he

had known

8

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

which obscure the right understanding of the book.

Some

exegetes are apparently over-fond of the rabbinical sayings,
gleefully quoting and exploiting

them
It is

for the

purpose of

stamping the story as legend."

even possible that
the idea

modern

critics

would hardly have hit upon
in

of

seeing a legend

this

story,

if
it

Talmud, Midrash, and
with their exaggerated

Targumim had
fables.^^
It is

not embellished

regrettable to see that the strict line
'

drawn
'

by the mediaeval Jewish commentators between
(DK'a)

exegesis

and

'

homiletics

'

(C'mn)

is

completely ignored by

modern

scholars.^^

Many

of the rabbinical sayings dealing

with Esther are of such a character that
believe that they were witty

we cannot but

and homiletic remarks, partly

to amuse, partly to exhort, the audience gathered around

the Purim-table.2o

Martin Luther's condemnation of the Book of Esther
in
I

his

Table-Talks:
it

'I

am
it

so hostile to this

book that

wish "

did not exist, for

Judaizes too much, and has

Characteristic in this respect
it

is

Paton's Commentary'.

As

a

book of
critics

reference

is

an exceedingly valuable work.
to

But with

all

modern

he holds the story of Esther

be a mere

fable.

In order to prove this

point, he employs a peculiar method.

His exegesis in the main is actually based upon the Talmud, Midrash, and Targumim. Though on every point he fjuoles numerous opinions, his general contention is that the only correct
explanation of the points under discussion
is

given by the rabbis, and, since
ergo

the facts, according to their explanations, could not have occurred, the whole story
/.

is

not true.

Cf. also Siegfried,

/.

c,

p.

163,

and Jahn,

c, p. 48.

"
show

Paton's observation

(/.

c, p. 18)

is

interesting

:

<They

(the

Targumim)

a fine feeling for the

the modern interpreter'.

Hebrew idiom and at e exceedingly suggestive to So they are, as many theories of the modern
befween

interpreters have been suggested by them.
'•'

Paton,

/.

c, p. 100, does indeed point out the dincrencc

DCS

and

Cmo,

and nevertheless treats the
7 a.

latter as serious rabbinical exegesis.

»«

See Talmud Babli Megillah

ESTHER
too

IN

THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

— HOSCIIANDER
in

9
to

much heathen
the
it.2^

naughtiness,'^^ largely contributed

prejudice

mind of Protestant theologians

dealing

with

As

early as the eighteenth century, scholars began to

doubt the veracity of

many

facts described in Esther, as

they seemed to be contradictory to the customs of the
Persians recorded
unhistorical.^'^

by Herodotus, and pronounced them
nineteenth

The

and twentieth centuries

actually teem with hypotheses concerning both the origin

of Purim and the contents of our

story."-*

There

is

no

exaggeration

in

declaring that

it

is

easier to believe in the

most improbable
which are

tales of antiquity

than

in

these theories

— with hardly
It is

any exception

— flimsy, vague, and
conis

incredible.

not necessary to discuss and refute them,

as

this

has

already been

done— successfully and

vincingly
to

by Siegmund Jampel.-^ But it condemn the Talmud, as most of the modern comhardlj' fair
for

mentators do,

holding the
.

Book

of Esther higher than

the Books of the Prophets. ^"^
21

The Rabbis were
;

not Bible

In his works, edited
cf.

by Walsh, VII, 194

XXII, 2080.

On

Luther's

opinion,

A. P. Stanley, The History of the Jewish Church,
Paton,
I.e.,

New

York,
is

1879, III, p. 194.

p. 96,

observes that Luther's verdict

not

too severe.

Paton shares

this attitude

with numerous Protestant theologians

who approach
verdict.
"^"^

this subject with the pre-conceived idea of justifying Luther's

But there were a few Protestant commentators who, notwithstanding
blame him for

their veneration for Luther's personality, had the courage to
his subjective judgement, as did Carl Friedrich Keil, in his

commentary on
c, p.

Esther, p. 613.
^^
'* 2*
2^'

For the

literature of the eighteenth century, see Paton,

/.

ui

f.

Cf. Paton, I.e., pp.

Ti-g^ and 111-117. Das Biich Esther, Frankfurt a. M., 1907, pp. 45

ff.

Emil Kautzsch,

in

his Geschichte des

Alttestantentlichen Scliriftttinis,

Freiburg,

1892, p. 117, vehemently denounces the
it

Jews

for holding the

Book

of Esther in such high honour, and considers
it.

his duty as a Christian

to protest against

Similar opinions are expressed by Riehm, Wildeboer,

lO

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
and believed
in

critics,

every syllable of our story.

Thereuse

fore

how

could they have thought differently?
if

Of what

would have been the Prophets,
been exterminated
?

the Jewish people had
the

In

their

belief,

words of the

Prophets and even the Pentateuch would have disappeared,
if

the Jewish people had not been saved

by Mordecai and
Book
:

Esther.
of

The Fathers

of the Church, in declaring the

Esther canonical,

reasoned exactly like the

Rabbis

If there

had not been Purim, Christianity would not have

existed.

All the modern critics agree that oar story was invented.

Even Kautzsch, who
Cornill.

is

a

moderate

critic, is

unable to find

and others.

They do

not consider that Purim, according to the
historical event unequalled in the

current conception,

commemorates an
will

whole history of the Jews, their escape from complete
'

annihilation,
it

and

all

that a

man hath

he give

for his life

'

;

therefore

is

natural that

the Book that records this event should be held in the highest esteem among the Jews. Even from a pure]3' ethical point of view, this Book is

not inferior to the other Scriptures, as

it

teaches the great lesson, not

found in the

latter, that

Providence

may

rule the destiny of
;

man by

natural

circumstances, without visible intervention

and

this lesson

was the hope

and comfort of the Jews whose existence was extremely precarious during
the last

two millenniums.

the spirit of revenge.
but at their

It is wrong to see in the celebration of Purim The Jews do not rejoice at the hanging of Haman,

own

escape, firmly believing that their
if

own

destruction

would

have been inevitable,

Haman had been

left alive.

Scholars ought to be

more
hend

objective, put aside their personal sentiments,
also

and be able

to

compreIt is

the Jewish
find

point of view in dealing with this Book.

regrettable to
this
in its

views such as are expressed by E. Bertheau, that

in

Book wc

find that spirit of Israel

which does not

trust in

God. but
it

own power, and which

refused to embrace Salvation

when

came

to

them {Dir

Biic/irr Esra, Nt/irmia, unci

Eslher by Bertheau- Ryssel, Leipzig,

'887, p. a-js). Paton, I.e., p. 97, observes: 'With the verdict of late Judaism modern Christians cannot agree'. But is this verdict the only

point of disagreement between hUe Judaism and
not

modern Christians?
main, untrustworthy?

Do

the latter regard

the whole

Pentateuch as partly legendary, partly
Israel, in the

fabrication,

and the secular history of

ESTHER

IN

THE LIGHT OF HISTORY
nucleus in
it,

— HOSCHANDER
it

it

an historical
Driver,
'

and considers

romance.'^^

who

cannot be accused of prejudice, declares that
it

it

is

not strictly historical, though
it

cannot reasonably
basis.'
-^

be doubted that

has a substantially historical
in

There are only a few scholars who see
historical event.^^

our story a really

Paulus Cassel's commentary,"'^ notwith-

standing
logical

its

homiletic character and the numerous Christostory,
is

remarks which have no bearing on the

full

of sound judgement and contains a great
parallels
It is

many
it

historical

and reminiscences which shed

light

on the
is

events.

a storehouse of real information.
in

But

extremely

conservative, and sees

Mordecai and Esther the most

splendid characters and heroes of Israel.

One

of the best

attempts in recent years

is

Jampel's book cited above.^^
all

With a

great array of arguments he tries to prove that

the events narrated in Esther might have happened under
the reign of Xerxes.

In the present writer's opinion, however,

all

the comfacts,

mentators have been on

the wrong track.

The

as already stated, were misrepresented in ancient times,

and modern interpreters have placed the action

in

the

wrong

period.
facts,

If

we may

depend
in

upon

undeniably

historical

we
is

are justified

contending that the

Book
that,

of Esther
if

strictly historical.

We

even maintain

this

book had never been

written, historians
in

might
this

have found out that at the period

which we place

action the Jews were threatened with complete extermination.
2' ^* -*

The
An
/.

question

is

not whether this event did happen,

Geschichte des Altt. Schriftt., p. ii6.

Introduction to the O. T.,

New

York, 1898,

p.

453.

See the bibliography of the conservative
c, p. 113.
Bitch Esther^ Berlin, 1891

treatises,

marked with C, by
See

Paton,
^^

Das

^'

n. 25.

12

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
how
the Jews escaped the danger.
is

but
t.his

The

solution of

problem

presented

in

the

Book

of Esther.

The main event
had indeed been
in

of the story actually

happened under

Persian rule, though not in the reign of Xerxes.

The Jews
in

danger of extermination, though not

the sense generally understood.

Many

of the statements

our story contains find their support
for

in historical facts.

As

the others, they are absolutely credible as far as they

are original.

For

this

book was considerably interpolated
reason
is

at a later period.

The

not hard to explain.

We

must bear

in

mind that the
in

real

danger impending over the
:

Jews was a tempest
did not last

a teapot

the whole excitement

more than

four days, in

Susa as well as

in all

parts of the empire.^^

With the death of Haman and the
Jews was no

elevation of Mordecai, the condition of the

longer desperate.

All the exegetes appear to have over-

looked this

fact.

An

event of this short duration did not
Its

make

a

lasting

impression.^^

commemoration was
But the comhave neglected

no doubt annually observed by pious Jews.

mon
it,

people, after a few generations,

may

or

may have
Jews

feasted

on Purim without caring about the

origin of the festival.^*
story, as

They may have doubted

the whole

in prosperity

soon forget troubles of former

" By the splendid royal post under the Adiaemcneian rulers (see Eduard Meyer, Gcscliichic dcs Altcrilntms, III, p. 66 t.), the overthrow of Haman and the elevation of Mcrdecai must have been known to the officials everywhere, a few days after the arrival of Haman's edict.
"

Wc shall sec that there were religious persecutions, preceding Haman's
But these persecutions were of
of the

decree, which lasted for several years.
a sporadic character, as the rank

Jews had not been affected by tlicm (sec Chapter VI). * Numberless Jews in the present age are doing exactly the same, in enjoying the customary dishes prepared for certain festivals with great
file

and

relish,

without caring

in

the least for the religious character of the laUer.

ESTHER

IN

THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

— HOSCIIANDER
talc.

13

days, and as the danger could not reasonably be accounted
for, it

was looked upon as an incredible

The Jews

did

not remain untouched by the scepticism prevailing in the

Alexandrian age.

Living unmolested under the mild sway
first

of the Lagidae and the
believe that a

Seleucids, the

Jews did not

man

like

Haman had

ever existed, or that
their

a king should
ancestors.

have decreed the extermination of
of Esther

The Book
successors,

became popular with them
B. c. E.)

under the rule of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164

and

his

when they

met

everywhere

with

numerous men of the type of
ing

Haman

intent

upon destroyfor
in

them.

In

those times of

terror

they looked

comfort to the Scriptures.

which a similar event had been recorded
Esther.

They found only one book the Book

of

At

that late

period

the

actual

events

under

Persian rule which had almost caused the destruction of the Jewish
popular,

people

were no longer known.

Being now

this

book became the favourite theme of the

preachers and an object of special study.

The

teachers
inter-

who had
story.

to explain

it

to the people

made wrong
for

pretations, which subsequently were incorporated into the

We may

well

assume that

the

purpose of

impressing upon the people the necessity of being united,

and exhorting them

to fight one for all

and

all

for one,

the preachers in their sermons took as their

theme the
on

decree of

Haman, and explained

to their congregations
all

that the latter intended to exterminate

the Jews
that the

account of a single individual.

We
and

know

Jews

of that period were unwilling to resist their enemies and
to fight for their independence,
their leaders

had to

use any means for inducing
their fear

them

to do so by arousing

and hatred.

To

encourage the people to fight

14

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
enemies without
fear,

their

the preachers told their congre-

gations about
killed 75,000

the heroic
in

deeds of their ancestors,

who

men

one day without losing a single man.

The Edomitcs,
less hostile at

the hereditary enemies of Israel, were no

the time of the Maccabees, until conquered

by Hyrcanus.
preacher

Therefore

Haman may by some
name
'•nn

witty

of the time

have been made a descendant of
gentilic

Esau,

by changing the
is

into

'•JJNn.^^

Paul Haupt

partly right in observing:

'The

spirit

of

revenge that breathes through the Book of Esther and
manifests itself in the celebration of Purim seems perfectly
natural as soon as

we know

that the

book was written

during the period of the Maccabees, after the Syrians had

committed unspeakable

atrocities

in

Judaea.'

"^

These
text.

interpretations were later inserted into the

Hebrew

The Alexandrian

translator

was unfamiliar with them.""

When we
the
of the

understand the historical events which form
social

background of the story, the

and moral

state

Jews

of the period,

and the psychological motives

of the chief figures, our story will be viewed in a dififerent
light
:

Mordecai and Esther

will lose their

nimbus,

Haman
will

his terror,

and Ahasuerus's decree against the Jews
to his

no

more be ascribed
»*

imbecility.

Words

or passages

Sec

n. 8.

^ Purim,
suggestions.

Baltimore,

Tliis paper contains numerous ingenious 1906. However, the theories .advanced there for the origin of

Purim and

for the

prototypes of Ahasuerus,
/. r.,

Haman, Mordecai, and Esther
has already pointed out.

are impossible, as Paton,
P.

pp. 80-82,

But

Haupt

is

the only

modern

critic

who

is

absolutely fair in his treatment

of this story.

post-cxilic limes

However, on SQme points he goes too far. The Jews in were never persecuted on account of their nationality;

thus the persecutions of the Russian

Jews do

not present a parallel to those

described

in

the

Book
II.

of Esther.

"

Sec Cliaplrr

ESTHER

IN

THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

— HOSCHANDER
line

15

contradictory to our interpretation will easily be recognized
as later additions.

But we must draw a

between

additions and changes due either to exegetes or to errors
of copyists and changes owing to circumstances over which

the Jews had no control.

The name Ahasuerus, which

is

undoubtedly identical with Xerxes, had been substituted
for the real

name

of the king, for obvious reasons.

In the
this

Eastern countries under the rule of the Arsacids,

change was made rather early
period,
at

;

in

the

West

at a later

the

time
led

of the fixing of the
the

Canon.

This
astray.

fictitious

name

modern
to

commentators

Those who gave credence
ascribed to Ahasuerus, and

the story contended that
all

Xerxes was quite capable of doing

the

silly actions

made more
But

or less successful

attempts at reconciling these events with the historical
facts

recorded

by Herodotus.
indeed, no

the

overwhelming

majority of exegetes rightly rejected these forced interpretations.

There

is,

room

for

doubt that the

Ahasuerus of Esther cannot be identical with Xerxes, as

we hope

to prove in the third chapter.

l6

TIIF

JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

CHATTER

II

The improbability of Mordecai's genealogy His access to the harem Haman's genealogy— The etymology of his proper and gentilic names.


of

the story of Esther,

Bkfore proceeding we

to outline our

own conception

consider

it

necessary to investigate

some

objections of a general character, though they have

no bearing on our
raised

own

interpretation.

These objections,

by

all

modern

critics,

appear to throw doubt on the

veracity of the author of the book, and to betray a certain

tendency to present
hostile races.

an

artificial

contrast

between two

Though

others have already dealt with this

subject, their conclusions are not quite satisfactory.
Esther
2. 5, 6.

(i)

There

is

a chronological question of the highest

importance.

The

author

states

:

'

There was a certain

Jew

in

Shushan the palace, whose name was Mordecai,
the son
of Kish, a

the son of Jair, the son of Shimei,

Henjamite
with
the

;

who had been

carried

away from Jerusalem
away with
the king
this state-

captivity

which had

been carried

Jeconiah king of Judah,

whom Nebuchadnezzar
According to
(

of Babylon had carried away'.

ment, Mordecai, as fellow captive of Jeconiah

= Jehoiachin),
Shall

was

curried into captivity in the year

597 B.C.E.

we

then believe that 123 years later he became prime minister,
in the 12th

year of Xerxes' reign,

in

the year 474B. c.E.

?

But

tho.se

who

raise this question

do not entertain any
in

doubt that Kish, the ancestor of Mordecai mentioned
his genealogy,
is

identical with the father of Saul, the first

ESTHER
king of
carried

IN

THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

— HOSCHANDER
'

17

Israel.
'

Accordingly, the clause

who had been
certain

away

(nb:n "^^a)

can only refer to Mordecai, and not
is

to Kish. However, this identification

by no means

and

is

indeed emphatically denied by Ibn Ezra.^^

Then

there

is

no reason

why

this clause

should not refer to Kish

and not to Mordecai.^^ Wildeboer,*" Siegfried/^ and many
other modern commentators refuse to accept this explanation, as
it

would be against the Masoretic

division,

which

places this clause at the beginning of the following verse.

But

they

themselves

often

completely
in

disregard

the

Masoretic text, and
Cassel
is

would be correct
observing
'
:

doing so here.
it

right

in

One cannot imagine

possible that biblical commentators should have hit

upon

2**

Ibn Ezra ad locnnt

remarks

:

'

If

Kish,

mentioned

in

Mordecai's

genealogy, referred to the father of Saul, the author of Esther would have

mentioned the

latter, since

he was king and not his father
Tf^n
i'lNt^').

'

(iIlN

iTil

v''N'l

VaN
^'

S^l

n^D Nin

13 ^IKtr TiDTD

No

notice has been taken

of this reasonable observation

by the modern

critics.
i

The

relative clause

nbjn

ItJ'N occurs also elsewhere, as

Chron.
i,

5.

4-6,

where IDNJ^D

D^n
'•ja.

rbl\\ "IITX refers to 1J3 n"INa and Ezra 2.

where

the clause nif3nD123 not to
''°

n?3n

"ItJ'S

refers

to the

preceding noun

nPUn and

T\:^'''\)2r\

Die fiinf Megillot,
i.

in

Marti's Kiirzer

Haud-Comnicntar sum Alien

Testament, Freiburg
*i

B., 1898, 180.
/.

In his

commentary on Esther,

c, p. 148.

We

must consider that
that

the chronological
of the rabbis,

knowledge of the Masoretes was no more exact than

who
16)

consider Mordecai a contemporary of Zerubbabel (see

Chapter

I,

n.

and place the reign of Ahasuerus within the seventy

years of the Babylonian Captivity.

We

may

further

presume

that

the

Masoretes accepted in good faith the talmudic interpretation of the name

•aTlD = N^21
that

K"IJ3

'pure

myrrh' =

I^T
nb^H

nilD,

and thus did not know
Therefore the Masoretes
to

Mordecai was a purely Babylonian name.
to refer the clause
*1J>'N

had no reason not

Mordecai.

The

latter
still

might have been carried away into captivity
alive in the period of this story.

in his

childhood, and

was

Besides, the Masoretes

may have

earnestly

believed that Kish in Mordecai's genealogy referred to the father of Saul.

VOL.

IX.

C

l8

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

such a monstrosity, in referring the statement of Jcconiah's
exile to Mordecai.'
^^

Moreover, the purely Babylonian

name

that Mordecai bears evidently shows that the author

did not intend to say that he

was born

in Jerusalem.

Wc

would have
not

to

assume that the Persian-Jewish author ^^ did

know

that Mordecai
cult of

was a Babylonian name,
still

at a time

when the

Marduk was

in existence.
it

Wildeboer

asserts that the author clearly indicates that

was not

his

intention to give a real genealogy.**

There

is

not the least

ground
with

for

such an assertion, as the identification of Kish
father

the
' ;

of Saul

is

at

least doubtful.

Siegfried
in

remarks

By

the brevity of the genealogy, the author,

omitting a few
to Kish.'

members of

it,

skips over the times of Saul

But did the author omit merely a few members
Esther ^
P- 5i-

" Das
^3

Bttcli

Seeing that our author was well informed on Persian manners and
almost generally conceded, and was well acquainted
fact that

institutions, a fact that is

with the Persian language, a
authorities

only those

critics

deny who are not

on Persian philology, as Jampel truly remarks,

we may

safely

assume
p.

that the author
p.

was not

a Palestinian Jew.

P.

Haupt ^Purim,

3; Critical Notes,

116) believes that he

present writers opinion, however, the

was a Persian Jew. In the Book of Esther was written in
Babylonian Jews were

Babylonia (see Chapter V)
just as well acquainted

;

and

at that period the

with Persian manners, institutions, and language as

were

the

Persian Jews.

But Haupt from

his

own
at that

point of view must

assume that the autiior was a Persian Jew, since he contends that Esther

was written
institutions,
**

after the

Maccabean period, and

time Persian

Jews

only could have been

so thoroughly acquainted with

Persian manners,

and language.
p. 167,

Pafon,/. c,

concedes that Jair

may have been

the father of

Mordecai.

The reason

for his

concession seems to be, because he cannot

discover an ancient bearer of this

name among

the Benjamites.

Shimei,

however, cannot have been the father of Jair, since there once existed a man
belonging to the tribe of Benjamin whose name was Shimei son of Gera
(a

Sam. 16. 6, Sic). Nor can Kish be the father of Shimei, since the same name was borne by the father of Saul. But there were four bearers of till- name Shimri belonging to the tribe Reuben (^i Chron. 5. 4\ Simeon

ESTHER

IN

THE LIGHT OF HISTORY
?

— HOSCHANDER

19

of this genealogy
least

From Mordecai
But
it is

to

Kish would be at

fourteen generations,^^

and the author enumerates
not

only three of them.

impossible that the

genealogy

is

not quite complete, and that between Mordecai
ancestor Kish there
shall see that

and

his

exiled

were

a

few

more

generations.

We

according to our concep-

tion the events of our story occurred about

two hundred

years after Jeconiah's exile, and

we may reasonably doubt
could have intervened

whether

only three
this

generations

between

period

and that of Esther.

For such a

possibility

we may
in

point to Ezra's genealogy, in which his
omitted.*''

immediate ancestors are
be inferred
they were

A similar omission
We may

may

Mordecai's genealogy.
of a type

suggest that

men

whose names the

biblical authors

deemed unworthy
{ibid. 4. 26, 27),

to perpetuate, probably idolaters.*'^
14 and 28), besides
4. 18).

Levi
21
;

iibid. 6.
i

two others of
find

the tribe of

Benjamin

{ibid. 8.

Kings
'i

So

also
21,

we
;

two bearers

of the

name
of the

of Kish, both Levites

Chron. 23.

&c.

2 Chron. 29. 12).

The

genealogy of Mordecai given

in the

Second Targum, on which the contention
course pure
fiction,

modern

critics is evidently based, is of
it

and badly

invented, as from Mordecai to Kish

enumerates eleven generations, but

from Kish to Benjamin twenty-eight generations.
^5

We
to Cf.

find

fourteen generations from Kish
(i

to

the

return

from the
find

Babylonian Captivity

Chron
34-41).

8.

33-8

.

The same number we

from

Zadok
*^

Joshua
Ezra

{ibid. 5.
;

7. i

i

Chron.

5. 40.

Bertheau-Ryssel, in his commentary

on Ezra,

p. 88,

believes that the author merely intended to

show

us that

Ezra was a

lineal

descendant of high-priests, and therefore omitted his

immediate progenitors
improbable.

who were
still

not high-priests.

But

this

explanation

is

The

line of the high-priests

was well known,

since Joshua
to
is

and his descendants

held this

office.

What we want

learn

is

Ezra's relationship to this high-priestly line, and this point
omitted.
•^

altogether

We

shall

show Chapter V)
religious,

that Mordecai's family does not
to

appear
noble

to

have been

strictly

and may have belonged
in

those

Jewish families which continued idolatrous practices
its

Babylonia, before

conquest by the Persians.

The same may hold

true of

numerous

priests,

C 2

20
Esther
2. II

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
(2)

The author
did,

further states

:

'

And Mordecai walked
know
This
'.

every day before the court of the women's house, to

how Esther
statement
is

and what should become of her

denied by most of the modern commentators,
impossible
free

who

regard as

that

Mordecai

should

have

been permitted
a eunuch.^^
impossibilities

access to

the harem without being
this is impossible,

We

freely

admit that

but

sometimes happen.
scholars

One

could never believe

that

prominent

and

grammarians

Hebrew

pretty well should raise such an objection.
' :

who know The

author does not say

Mordecai walked
n^a
"ivnn

m

the court of the

women's house'
the
court

(Dn^•:^

i^nno "anc), but 'before
(D^K^jn

of the

women's house'

n^a

"ivn

*:s!?).

Mordecai did not enter the court of the harem, which no doubt was surrounded by a high wall, but walked outside of
it,

to inquire of the eunuchs about his adopted

daughter.

Many

other Persians
the same.

who had daughters
sarcastic

there

most

likely did

Siegfried's

remark,

though Ezekiel seems to bear testimony that the
themselves free from idolatry (Ezek. 44.
15).

*

sons of Zadok
of

'

kept

Some

them may have

become corrupted
above reproach.
irreligious

after Ezekiels death.

the high-priest Joshua with Gentiles

shows

The intermarriage of the sons of that even the priests were not

Now
the

there

is

a

talmudic

maxim
(Prov.

that

the

names of
DB'I
is

men should
name of

not be recorded, based upon the verse

D^ytJ*")

apT

'the

wicked

shall
,

rot'

10. 7).

This verse

interpreted IH'^CB'a

P'PDO
38 b
Bible
..

nH
cf.,

that

we

should not bring up their names
is

(Talmud
is

Babli,

Yoma

Such a conception
;

not purely rabbinic, but
17. 14
;

found also
;

in the

for instance,

Exod.

Deut. 32. 27

;

Isa. 26. 14

Ps. 112. 6, &c.
in
';,

"
tlieir

Th. Noldeke {Encyclopaedia Biblica, 1401), Wildeboer, Siegfried,
commentaries,
J.

D. Prince {Jewish Encyclopaedia, under
(Critical Notes, p. 135) suggests that

*

Esther

and many others.

Haupt

Mordecai
to all his

may have been
seed
to
',

a eunuch.

But the passage

;

'

and speaking peace

clearly indicates that Mordecai had children,
that he

and we would have

assume

became

a

eunuch after he had raised a family.

ESTHER
'

IN

THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

— HOSCHANDER

21

The author does not trouble himself about the difficulty, how Mordecai could have shown himself in the court of
the harem and converse with Esther',
his
is

characteristic of
this

commentary.^^

Besides,

Esther at the time of

event had not yet been in the real harem that was under
the supervision of Shaashgaz.

The

virgins under Hegai,

Esther
^' ^' ^^'

not yet being concubines,

may

have enjoyed the liberty

of communicating with their relatives.^°
(3)

The author

finally states

'
:

After these things did

Esther
^' ^'

king Ahasuerus promote

Haman
'.

the son of

Hammedatha
all

the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above

the princes that were with him

The commentators
Agag,

are

by no means wrong
representation of

in

their

arguments concerning the
in calling

Haman

as descendant of
:

attention to the following points

{a)
is

The statement
in
itself

that

Haman

was a descendant of
[b)

Agag

quite im-

probable,

It

is

incredible that
rule

the Persians

should

have tolerated
{c)

the

of an

Agagite prime minister.
contrast

The

representation

of a

racial

between the
the

Benjamite

Mordecai

and

his

antagonist

Agagite

Haman, renewing
the

the ancient hereditary enmity between

Benjamite

Saul

and

the

Amalekite Agag,
fact.^^

is

too

artificial to

be regarded as an historical

The

critics,

however, do not seem to perceive that their arguments are
^5

The present writer
it

is

gratified to find that

Haupt had already

called

Siegfried to account for his distortion of the truth, in observing:
narrator,

'The

may

be supposed,

knew more

about Oriental manners and

customs than did Siegfried.
but Siegfried overlooked 'JD?
'

The author

did not overlook the difficulty,

(Critical Notes, p. 135).

However, Siegfried

merely repeated an old objection found by many earlier commentators.
^"

Paton,

/.

c, p. 180,

is

also of the

same opinion that the concubines
stricter sur-

under the custody of Shaashgaz were probably kept under
veillance.
^1

Wildeboer, Siegfried, &c., &c., and so also Paton,

/.

c, p. 72.

22

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

not directed at the veracity of the author, but at a talmudic
interpretation.

They would
It
is

never have thought of that

contrast
at length

if

Talmud, Midrash, and Targumin had not dwelt
it.

on

well
all

known

that

it is

a pet fancy of

the rabbis to represent

the enemies of the Jews, even

Rome,^^ as descendants of Esau

— who

had been wronged,

but never committed any wrong
still

in his lifetime

— and

it

is

customary to designate any persecutor of the Jews
Esau.
Characteristic
in

as

this

respect

is

the

Second

Targum, which contains a complete genealogy of Haman,
in

which we find Greek and Latin names of oppressors of

the Jews, and

among them

occur also those of king

Herod

and

his father Antipater."^"'

Hence
is

it

is

obvious that the

talmudic interpretation of Agagi
should not be taken seriously.

merely homiletic and

However,
the
gentilic
',

for the sake of

argument,

let
'

us admit that

noun Agagi

actuall}'

means

descendant of

Agag
arises

and that accordingly the narrative indeed implies

a contrast between two hostile races.

The

question
less

now
coma

whether the narrative would have been
that
contrast.
if

prehensible without

Would

there

be

missing link

in

the narrative,
?

the gentilic noun

Agagi

were entirely omitted

This question must certainly be

answered

in

the negative.

Nobody would presume
is

to assert

that the Greek version of Esther

not quite intelligible

because

it

knows nothing about
noun

a racial contrast

between

Haman
original

and Mordecai. This version further clearly furnishes
""aaNn

proof that the gentilic

could not have been in the
interpreter, as

Hebrew

text, but

was due to some
zmn
)*?2N^

* See Lewy's
'

Hanthivrlcihiicli

Tallinn/

mtd
83

Muirascli,
l^Gcn. 25.
f.

under

F".dom
'''

',

and

cf.

Rashi on the passage(if

DN?0 DX^I
/.

23\

For the gcnealog3-

Hainan, sec CisscI,

r.,

p.

ESTHER

IN

THE LIGHT OF HISTORY
I,^*

— HOSCHANDER

23

already suggested in Chapter

who

intended to represent

that racial contrast, after the story

had been rendered into was undoubtedly well

Greek.

The Alexandrian

translator

acquainted with the Scriptures and thus knew
was.
If

he had found the gentilic noun

''JJNn
it

in

who x'Xgag his Hebrew

text

he certainly would have rendered

'AyayaTo9, not

BovyaTos.^''

There can scarcely be any doubt concerning

the meaning of the latter term.
'

The

Persian word daga

=

God

'

is

found in numerous Persian personal names, as
Bagaeaiis,

for

instance,

Bagoas,
if

Bagopates, Bagophanes,
find Bovyaio<i as gentilic

Bagosaces^

&c.^*'

Therefore,

we

name
which

of a Persian^ in a narrative the scene of action of
is

Persia,

we may reasonably
in the

see in

it

the Persian

element baga and assume that Bovyaios

=

Bayaios.

The

same element no doubt occurs

names of the eunuchs,
in

Nnn and

\T\i2.

The

latter

is

rendered

the Greek version

BovyaOdv

=

BayaOdv.

Paul Haupt's explanation of the
term,
'

Greek Bovyalo^ as a Homeric
fetched.""

braggart

'

is

far

The
the

fact

that the Alexandrian translator was

forced to substitute fictitious

names

for the

genuine Persian

names

in

Hebrew

text, evidently

shows that he did not

understand the Persian language.

Nevertheless the gentilic

noun Bovya^o^

is

genuine Persian. Therefore we
this

may safely
Hebrew
similar

assume that the equivalent 'of
original

term

in

the
'.

was not
Chapter

'•JJNn,

but

':3n

'the

Bagoan

A

5^

Cf.

I, n. 8.
it

^^

Or

the Alexandrian translator might have rendered

Tcw^aios, as did

Lucian.
2.

The name Hegai
Iraitisches

usually rendered Tat in the

Greek

version,

is

15 rendered TwyaToi.
'-''

See

Namenbuclt by Ferdinand
;

Justi,

Marburg, 1895.

^''

Pitrini, p.

12

Critical Notes, p.
is

141.

Haupt evidently overlooked

that the

element 0ovya

also found in the eunuch's

name Bovyadav

(insteatl

of Ilarbonah, 8. 9^.

24

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
is

name
from

borne by one of the Jewish leaders who returned
with Zerubabel,
'"\i2,

exile

which the Septuagint

correctly renders Bayovai.^^

Moreover,
to say

how

could the

Hebrew author have intended

that

Haman was

a descendant of

Agag

?

He

undoubtedly was familiar with the Scriptures, and must
have known that Agag's whole tribe had been exterminated

by Saul

;

Agag

himself was slain by Samuel/^^ and the

other tribes of

Amalek had been destroyed
Is
it

in the

time

of Hezekiah.®°

conceivable that a Jewish author

would have dared to contradict the Scriptures?
has been suggested that the
nating
author's

Now

it

intention in desig-

Haman

as an

Agagite was merely to characterize

him as an inveterate persecutor of the Jews.®^
this interpretation
is

But also
and

improbable.

The

fact that Saul

the people, notwithstanding the divine

command, spared

Agag and

did not wish to slay him, indicates that

Agag

personally was

by no means a
for the

ruthless oppressor of Israel,

but suffered mainly
his ancestors
us,**-'

many wrongs committed by

and

his tribes, as the Bible indeed informs
is

Thus there

no reason

why

just his

name should
If that

have been selected

for the formation of

an appcllatknim^

given to Ilaman, as a great

enemy

of the Jews.

was the intention of the author, he certainly would have
"
*"
02

Ezra
I

a. 2,

&c.

''^

i

Sam.

15. 134.
/.

Chron.

4. 43.

«!

So
vol.

Cassel,
I,

c, p. 84.
states

Graetz, in

his History

of the Jews,
to

p.

91,

that

the

Amalekite king Agag appears

have caused great trouble to the
there
is

tribe of

Judah

in

tlic

days of Saul.

Now

no doubt that the Amalekites

made predatory' incursions into the Jewish territory on all occasions. They did the same in the periods of Ehud (Judges 3. 13) and of Gideon The Midianites did exactly the same. The other neighbours (ibid. 6. 3).
of Israel, as the Philistines and Ammonites, were no less hostile to the
Israelites than the Amalekites.

ESTHER
called

IN

THE LIGHT OF HISTORY
^P^JOJ?.^^

— HOSCHANDER

25

Haman
is

We may
^33N

therefore contend that

there
in

no truth whatever
j:n*

in this interpretation,

and that

the two words

and

we merely have
are,

a similarity
fanciful

of sounds which
identifications

is

frequently deceptive.

How

of

this

kind

we can

illustrate
'

by

identifying

'•JJN

with the Babylonian word agagn,
-.Lil 'burning',^'*

to be

powerful', the Arabic
dycoya, 'leader.'
It

or even with Greek

has further been suggested, by Paul Haupt,^^ that

the original reading of
in the sense

Haman's

epithet
',

was

^Jn:

=

Gagz,

of

'

Northern barbarian

which was afterwards
is

changed into

''J3N.

This suggestion

based upon the
"JJn

Lucianic recension, which renders Haman's epithet
ra>yaTo9.
of the

into

But Lucian's recension was made towards the end

third century C.E.,

and

is

either, as

some contend,
text was

an independent translation from the Hebrew, or a recension
of the old Greek version, in which the

Hebrew

used as
read

well.^'^'

Josephus*'"'
it

and the Talmud undoubtedly
exceedingly improbable that
in
it

^3JS,

and therefore

is

Lucian
reading

should
""JNi.

have found
Furthermore,

his
is

Hebrew

original

the

highly improbable that
313,

a gentilic noun Gdgz, derived from

should ever have
in

been written with N.

Lucian
''32t<,

may

have found

his

Hebrew
fact

text the reading

but being well aware of the

that

Haman

could not have been a descendant of
this

Agag, considered
8' **

term either a

scribal

error or an

Similarly CasseJ,

/.

c, p. 84.

The present
II, p.

writer, offering these etymologies

ad absurdum, was

surprised to see them seriously suggested by H. Winckler {^AUorientalisclic

Forschungen,
*s
*''

381).
;

Purim,

p. 14
/.

Critical Notes, p. 141,
/.

See Jacob,

c, p. 260, and Paton,

c, p. 38.
I,

*^

Josephus states that

Haman was

an Amalekite (see Chapter

n.

io\

26

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

arbitrary corruption on the part of the Jewish scribes for

the purpose of representing a contrast between the Ben-

jamite Mordecai and the Agagite
believed that the original term
roiyaios.

Haman, and
''33,

therefore

was

which he rendered
in

He

even

may

have

seen

the

rendering

Bovyalos of the Alexandrian version a corruption from

Tmyalos or Tovyalo^.
reading

But even according to Lucian's
for

we have no reason
was

the assertion

that

the

author's intention

to represent

Haman

as a northern

barbarian.

The
in

land
the

33

in Ezekiel's prophecies,^^ identical

with

Gaga

situated in Armenia.^"

Amarna Letters,^^ was undoubtedly We know that this country became

a part of Persia proper, where the Zoroastrian religion and

the Persian

language had been successfully introduced,"'

"^ "*

Ezek. 37.

2,

&c.
Letters,

See H. Winckler's Tdl-ElAmarim

No. 5

in

Eb. Schrader's

KcilitischriftlicUc Bibliothek, vol. V).
""

Gog

is

designated by Ezekiel

:

'

chief prince of

Meshech and Tubal

'.

These nations are of course
Ancient East, vol.

identical with the

Mushki and Tabal.
Tabal dwelt
in the

The\-

belonged to the Hittites (see A. Jeremias, The O. T. in the light of the
I,

p.

280).

We

know

that

in

Lesser

Armenia

i^cf.

ibid., p.

281),

and the Mushki are everywhere
find both nations, Tabal

Cuneiform

inscriptions mentioned in connexion with Tabal

and Urartu.

In Xcrxcs's

army

against Greece

we

and Mushki, under the
^

names of Tibarenians and Moschians under one commander
VII, 78).

Herodotus

These nations are mentioned

in

Ezekiel with Togarmah, identical

withTilgarimu, which, according to Dillmann,Kiepert, and Friedr. Delitzsch,
is

i
I

situated

in

South- Western Armenia

principal stale of these nations

(,Del., Faiaciies, The p. 246). was Magog, which comprises Eastern and

Western Armenia
their

{ibid., p.

247).

Now

the Hittites, to

which evidently

all

these nations belong, were by no means barbarians,

if

we may
'

judge by
nortlicrn

monuments.
'

Thus the

assertion that

Gog

is

a

term used for

bnrl>ari:;n
"'

is

unfounded.
Marquart's Ftindaniente Israelitischer uiid Jildischer Geschichte,

Cf. J.

Gottingeii,

1896,

p.

38,

and Hastings's Encyclopaedia wnAvr 'Armenia'

(Zoroastrianism).

ESTHER

IN

THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

— HOSCHANDER

27

and where the Persian nobles possessed large
Therefore,

estates.'-

Haman

could have been of purely Persian origin
gentilic

and nevertheless be designated by the

noun

'•Ji,

because he was a native of the land of Gdg.

However,

for

the

question,

whether

Haman was

a

foreigner or a Persian,
•"JJiC
,

we must

consider, beside the gentilic

his

own name and
It

that of his father.

We

know what

a prominent part
religion.

Haoma

{Horn) plays in the Zoroastrian

was the name of the guardian angel and of
sacrifices."^"
'

the holy plant used for

The names

of

Haman

and

his father

HamdatJia, given by
Cassel
is

Hom

',

are undoubtedly

connected with Haoma.
that such holy

even inclined to suggest
priests,

names could only have been borne by
his father

and that

Haman and

were MagiansJ"* who were
far in

a tribe of the Medes.
this assumption.
'

But Cassel goes perhaps too
cannot see

We
',

why names
'

like

Bagadatha
',

given

by God
less

and Mithradatha,

given

by Mithra

should be

holy than the

former, and yet there are

bearers of such names
caste of the Magians.

who

did not belong to the priest-

Such names could even have been
which, as has been suggested,"''

borne by foreigners, as we see that one of the Jewish
leaders bore the
is

name

''1J3,

a hypocoristicon of Bagadatha

(=

|nJ?N*,

PNJnJ?).

Thus
But

the Persian names which

Haman and

his father bore are

no evidence that they were not of foreign descent.
''^

See Eduard Meyer,
Cf.

Gesclikhte, III, p. 138.

^3

A. V.Williams Jackson's Zoroaster,

New

York, 1899, pp. 25, 50,

and Geldner's
'^
''^

article 'Zoroaster', in the Encyclopaedia Brifanttica,

nth

ed.

Cassel,

/.

c, p. 82.
Israelitische
is

A. Wellhausen,

und

Jildische

Geschichte.

p. is

120.

His

suggestion that Bagadatha

a

translation

of Jonathan

improbable.

Ed.

Meyer [Entstehung

des Judentums, p. 157, n. 2) thinks that Bagadatha

and Bagoi arc

distinct Persian

names, both derived from baga.

28

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
it is

being a naturalized Persian,
foreign descent

doubtful whether
in

Haman's

would have lowered him

the eyes of the
a high position.''^

Persians and debarred

him from occupying

Now

it is

true Huvinia or

Umma

is

the

name

of an ancient

Elamitic deity which occurs in numerous Elamitic proper
names,"'

and we might see the same divine name

in

the

names Haman and Hamdatha. We tend that Haman was by origin an
not identical

could therefore conElamite.

But who

knows whether the divine elements Horn and Hiimina are
?

It

would be a curious coincidence
in

if

Horn,

one of the chief deities
capital

the religion of the Persians whose

was

in

Elam, should not have some connexion

with Hinnma, one of the chief Elamitic deitiesJ^
ever,
for

Howquite

the

question

under consideration
of Persian
children
their

it

is

irrelevant
''^

whether
41,

Haman was
states

or

Elamitic
of

Herodotus VI,

that

the

of

Metiochus son

Miltiades

were accounted

Persians, because

father

had married a

Persian
"^

woman.
proper names Ummanigash, Unitnanahlasi,
strange that
Teutn-

Cf. the Elamitic

man, &c.

But

it

is

we do

not find the

name
in the

of this deity
(cf.

among
KB.,
'*

the

names
205).

of the

twenty gods enumerated by Ashurbanipal

\\, p.

However, the clement

amman

is

found

compounded

name Atn-ma-an-ka-si-bar. Haoma, generally considered to be identical with Vedic Soma (cf. Geldner, c). The Persians did not take over this deity from the Elamites. We may only question whether there were not early relations between the
divine
/.

Elamitic and the Vedic religions.

an open question.
Kassites.

The racial affinity of the Elamites is They may have been related to their neighbours,
to those of the Hittites,

still

the

Now

it

has been observed that some of the Kassite names boar

most striking resemblanctof the stock of Mitani
pp. 44,
45).
It

and especially
lite

to those

(cf.

Clay, Personal

Names of

Cassile Period,

has been further demonstrated that there were Aryan

elements among the Hittite-Mitanni, as the Aryan deities Mitra, Varitna,
Jndra, Nasatya occur in the Hittite documents found by H. Winckler in

Boghaz-koi
is

Milt. d. Deiilsch.
is

Orienl. Ges.,

a possibility that Iliinmta

of

Aryan

origin

Dec, 1907, p. 51), Thus there and identical with the Vedic

Soma.

— —

ESTHER

IN

THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

— HOSCHANDER

29

origin, as at the period of our story there

was hardly any

difference

between Persians and

Elamites.^''

But the question whether the Persians would
submitted to being ruled by a foreigner

have

—a

question which

concerns Mordecai's position as well as that of

Haman
is

we can by no means answer
that

in

the negative,

if it

true

Bagoas, the

most powerful prime
his successors,

minister

under

Artaxerxes III and

was a native of Egypt.^°

Thus the premises from which
cussion
research,

the conclusions under distest

are

drawn do not stand the

of

impartial

and the objections of the modern
the

critics

do not
is

invalidate
historical.
''^

contention

that

the

Book of Esther

If

Ahasuerus

is

to

be identified with Xerxes,
I.

we may
set

doubt whether
their

the Elamites,

who had

rebelled against Darius
I,

and

up a king of

own

(Behistun Inscription, Col.

29), to

were
the

in the

short period of about

forty years

completely assimilated
later,

Persians.

But

if

our story

happened much

we may

reasonably assume that at that time there

was hardly
*"

anj' difference

between Persians and Elamites.
Nantenbuch, under 'Bagoas'.

See

Justi, Iranisches

However, the

whole argument concerning the descent and the name of Haman is absurd, and it would be a waste of time and of labour to deal with it seriously, if it

were not

for the fact that all
it

modern

critics attribute to

it

so

much imporintents and

tance and base upon

mythological or historical theories.

Haman might
all

have been of Amalekite origin and be nevertheless to
purposes a real Persian.

His ancestors might have lived
still

in

Persia for a

long period, though his foreign descent was
a fact that
is

known

to the

Jews

of course quite improbable, but not impossible.

30

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

CHAPTER
The author
of Esther as an historian

III

extent of the Persian

The date of these events — The empire— The coronation festivities — Xerxes' war with Greece— His queen Amestris The Jews outside of the Persian empire The diaspora Jewish persecutions in post-exilic times The improbability Xerxes' character His attitude towards the Jews of Hamaii's decree The new possessions of Ahasuerus.

If a

book contains anachronisms, as do the Books

of Daniel, Tobit, and Judith,
character, since
its

we may doubt

its

historical

author could not have committed errors

of this kind

if

he had

known

the history of the period in

which the events are said to have occurred.
of the
nisms,

The author

Book

of Esther, however,

is

not guilty of anachro-

and was well informed on Persian manners and
Therefore,

institutions.

we have no reason

to

assume that
that of of

his

knowledge of Persian history was

inferior to
this

the

Greek writers of

his

period.

From

point

view we shall investigate the events of our story, and
demonstrate
that

the

Ahasuerus of Esther

cannot

be

identical with Xerxes.
Esther
I.I.
(

J j

The story opens
Perfect,

' :

Now

it

came

to pass

^^

in the

days

"'

The Imperfect with
in
tlie
is

n'azv cniiseciitwian in ^H^l, that
is

implies a preceding

verb

and

always used

in

continuation of a historical

narrative,
Israel,

here correct.

The Book

of Esther continues the history of
historical

and thus forms a part of the other

Books.

The author

df)es not intend to

write the stoiy of Ahasuerus, and presupposes that the

reader
Ryssel,

is
/.

acquainted with the earlier history of this king, as Bertheauf.,

p.

379, strangely explains.

Nor

is

the use of the Imperfect with
to
/.

ufaw coitsccutivunt an imitation of the older histories, designed
that Esther belongs to
tlir

suggest

samr

class of literature, as Paton,

c, p. lao

assumes.

liSTHER IN

THE LIGHT OF HISTORY
is

— HOSCHANDER

31

of Ahasuerus, this

the Ahasuerus

who

reigned from India

even unto Ethiopia, over a hundred and seven and twenty
provinces
to give
'.^^

The

intention of the author evidently was

to

the reader exact

information

concerning the

king under whose reign

the events narrated occurred. ^^

He assumes
are

that several Persian kings bearing that
to
his

name

known

readers

— as

Ibn Ezra explains

— and

therefore fixed the date

by the

additional remark, that the

Ahasuerus of the story was that king who ruled from
India to
Ethiopia, and

no other king bearing the same
far.

name,
If this

for the

dominion of the other did not extend so

king was Xerxes, there was no need to fix the date.

(2)

The king of

the story did not lose any of his hundred
his

and twenty-seven provinces during the whole period of
reign.

But Xerxes did
in

lose a

considerable part of Asia

Minor,
"2

the sixth and seventh years of his reign, as
of the term

we

The

identification
titles

^3''^?^

witii

'satrapy'
^"1"' is

is

decidedly

wrong.

The

Q^JDIICTIN, niPlD, and

ninOH

represent three

classes of officials.

The

first

were

rulers of satrapies, as

w

ell

known,

the

second were governors of smaller territories, and

the

last

were the
'

governors of
judge', and

districts.

The word

nj''TD

is

a

derivation

from pT

to

means

the scat of a judge, judge's circuit'; and therefore in

Arabic and Syriac the terms for 'city' are i.ljS.^ and )'^L.oo.

Judaea

was

a Mcdinah, not a satrapy.

In a later period, Judea

and Galilee were
is

considered two different

ni3"'n?D.

Accordingly, there

no discrepancy
Darius
Keil,
/.

between the author of Esther and Herodotus, who
divided the Persian empire into twenty satrapies
p. 616,
*'•'

states that

I

\\\\,

3\

Cf.

c,

and Paton,

l.

c, p. 123.
this

Wildeboer, Driver, and others deduce from

passage that the reign

of Ahasuerus lay in a past

somewhat
as

distant at the period of the author.
for

But

we

ought
to

to give the

author credit

more

sense.

The

latter evidently

intended

present this story
lie

an

ancient document.
if

Hence

it

is

improbable that

should have expressed himself as

he intended to
it

show

that those events occurred in the distant past.
his sole intention
stor^'

Therefore

is

obvious that

was

to fix the date of that ruler

under \vhose reign the

occurred.

32

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
that

know
This
Esther
^^j

most of the Greek

territories

became
and

inde-

pendent

after the battles of Salamis, Plataea,

Mycale.^'*

fact

seems to have been overlooked by
story continues
sitting
' :

all

the exegetes.
the king

^he

In those days,

when

Ahasuerus was

on the throne of his kingdom, which
in

was

in

Shushan the palace,
all

the third year of his reign,

he made a feast unto

his princes

and

his servants

;

the

power of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the
provinces being before him
'.

In these passages the author

seems to contradict himself.

The

clause,

'

when the king
',

Ahasuerus was

sitting

on the throne of his kingdom

evidently implies that this feast took place on the occasion
of the king's accession to the throne, and immediately the

author states that
reign
'.

it

occurred

'

in

the third year

of his

Hence

it

is

obvious that the former clause can
'

have no other meaning than

when

the king Ahasuerus
his

was firmly established on the throne of
Both the
difficulty
;

kingdom
felt

'.^^

Alexandrian
the

translator

and

Rashi

this

former therefore renders this clause

ore

idpoviaOrj ^aaiX^vs 'A.

This phrase contains, as Jacob

points out, the special
festivities

Egyptian term

for the

coronation
this

of the Ptolemies.^-'

Rashi explains

clause

n^n

niD^Dn n^'pn^B'S 'when the

kingdom was

established,

in his

hand

'.

Both interpretations

may mean

the same.

The author
**

evidently intends to inform us that the king
III, p.

See Ed. Meyer, Geschkhte,
Paton,
/.

416.

"

c, p. 124, observes:
i.

'The language suggests the beginning
in

of his reign, but

3 says that

it

was

the third year'.

H. Winckler {Der

Alle Orient uitd die Geicliiclits/orschung, 1906, p. 21) tliinks that this phrase

means: 'when he ascended the throne'.
this

H. Willrich,

I.e.,

p. 15,

sees in

expression an

official

coronation that
iting.

may have been
But
cf.

celebrated three
/.

years after the accession of the

Keil,

r.,

p.

617, and

Bertheau-Ryssel,
""

I.e., p.
I.e., p.

384. a8i.

Sec Jacob,

ESTHER

IN

THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

— HOSCHANDER
He must
But

33

of our story did not feel himself secure in the possession

of his throne at the beginning of his reign.

have

had a

rival

who challenged

his right to the throne.

Therein

fore no festivities took place

on

his accession.

the

third year of his reign, after having defeated his rival,

and and

being

now

generally recognized as legitimate

ruler

thus firmly established on his throne, the king celebrated
the event in the

manner described.

This
is

was actually
true, the

a coronation feast.

If this interpretation

king

cannot be identified with Xerxes.
son

The

latter

being the

of Darius

and Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus the

Great, his right to the throne, after his accession, was not

contested

— though during

his father's lifetime there

might
in the

have arisen a doubt whether Xerxes,

who was born
assert
his

purple, or his elder brother should succeed to the throne.^^

There
to

is

no record that Xerxes had to
against

rieht

the

succession

any claimant.

None

of his

brothers rebelled against him.
(4)

The

events narrated in the second chapter of Esther

could hardly have occurred between the third and seventh
years of Xerxes' reign.

He

was

at that time fully occupied

with his preparations for the war against Greece.

The

advice of the courtiers seems to have been carried out in
the sixth year.

But Xerxes was at that time

in

Greece.

The

selection

of Esther took place in the seventh year.
virgins, before Esther's

But the testing of the other

turn

came, must have lasted several months.
to

We

would have

assume that Xerxes

at that time
is

was already back from

Sardis.

Such an assumption

not impossible, but rather

improbable.
(5)

Esther could not have been the queen of Xerxes
"''

See Herodotus VII.

2. 3.

VOL. IX.

D

34

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
his reign, as the

between the seventh and twelfth years of

queen

at

that

time was Amestris,

and she cannot be
but one of
continually

identified with Esther.^^

We

cannot accept Jampel's forced
real queen,

suggestion that Esther

was not a
^^

Xerxes' wives
referred to as

— not
queen

a concubine

— as

she

is

in our story.

Moreover, according

to a statement of Herodotus, Darius

made an agreement

with the six conspirators against Pseudo-Smerdis, stipulating
that the king was to marry into no families except those

of the conspirators.^"

If this

statement be true,

it

is

very

improbable

that this

agreement was disregarded by the

immediate successor of Darius.

But history shows that

kings hardly ever faithfully observe agreements
distant

ancestors with
this
if

their

subjects,

made by and we may well
in a later period.

imagine that
Furthermore,
kings

agreement was violated

we may

believe

Herodotus, the Persian

had

a very convenient

ancient law that decreed

'that the king of Persia might do whatever he pleased',''^

which enabled them to
interfered with their
Esther 3
6.

set aside

any law or agreement that

(6)

own pleasure. The passage 'The Jews throughout the whole
of

kingdom

Ahasuerus

',

and similar expressions, apparently

imply that at the period of our story there were Jews outside of the Persian

empire.

Herodotus does not know
This
fact

anything about the Jews.^'-

alone

is

sufficient

"
«»
"'

Amestris was the daughter of Otanes
Cf. Paton,
/.
/.

(cf.

Herodotus IX, 109; Ctesias,

Persica 20).

c,

p. 71
•'»

f.

Jampel,

c, p. 114.

Herodotus
p.

III, 84.

'•'i

Ibid. Ill, 31.
in identifying
2i)poi
oi

Ed. Meyer \GeschicJiU, Hi,

ai8)

is

evidently
II,

wrong
104 as

the people which arc designated by Herodotus
riaAoiffTiVp
for the

iv

rfi

with the Jews.

Herodotus VII, 89 used the same designation

Syrians who, along with the Phoenicians, furnished three hundred

vessels for the

war

against Greece.

This of course can refer onlj' to those

ESTHER

IN

THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

— HOSCHANDER
among

35

evidence that no Jews lived at that time

the Greeks.

Egypt was under the dominion
of Xerxes.

of Persia during the reign

An

assumption that Jews lived among the
is

independent,

savage Scythians
civilized

not to be considered.

The only independent,
of the existence of
it

country where Jews might
far

have settled was Carthage, and so

we have no

record

Jews among the Carthaginians.

Hence

is

highly improbable that Jews existed outside of the

Persian empire at the time of Xerxes.
(7)

The

passage 'There

is

a certain people scattered Esther 3.8.
in all

and dispersed among the people

the provinces of thy
at

kingdom

'

distinctly

shows that the Jews
all

the period

of our story had already settled in
empire.
If
it

parts of the Persian

those

events

occurred

under

the

reign

of

Xerxes,

is

hardly credible that such a dispersion should
in

have been accomplished
about
sixty years.

the relatively short space
this objection is not

of

However,

con-

clusive.^^
(8)

The main
If

proof, however, that

Ahasuerus cannot be
in

identified with Xerxes,

may be

seen

the principal event

of our story.

we

are to believe that a Persian king had

once decreed the destruction of the Jews, we must advance

some

plausible reason for such an action.
all

Considering

it

from the point of view of

commentators, we encounter

a monstrosity inconceivable to the

human mind.
of

Does
a

it

stand to reason that
individual,

Haman, on account

single

who had

refused to

pay him due homage, should

have resolved to destroy a whole innocent race?
Syrians

Now

who

inhabited the seacoast,

and the Jews

in the

Persian period

were not
^*

inhabitants of the sea-coast.
is

This problem
'.

treated in the

Appendix

'

The

Exiles of Judah and

Israel

1)

2

36
it is

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
true, the

bloody pages of Jewish history bear testimony

to terrible persecutions of the Jews, in all ages,

the present, through no fault of their own.

down to But we must
post-exilic

bear in mind that this hostile attitude was always caused

by

religious

fanaticism

and intolerance.

In

times, the hatred against the Jews was never directed

against the Jewish race, but against the Jewish religion.

The Jew who became
or Islam,
as

a pagan, or

embraced Christianity
in all

was

in all countries races.

and
It

ages just as safe

one of the other
rulers

was always the aim of
to

intolerant

to

compel the Jews

abandon

their

exclusive position, and this task could not be accomplished

except by means of persecution.

We

know

that the Jews

who abandoned

their religion could attain to the highest

dignity in the Christian hierarchy, even in the

Dark Ages.
If

But Haman's action

is

without a parallel in history.

he

had been a

religious fanatic^ he

would have compelled the
Antiochus Epiphanes.
of an excep-

Jews to abandon
However,
let

their religion, as did

us admit that

Haman was

tional turn of mind,

and desired to exterminate the whole
But how can we

Jewish race on account of Mordecai.
believe that

Xerxes was exactly of the same turn of mind
his intentions
?

and readily agreed to carry out

Jampel's

suggestion that Xerxes was afraid of the Scythians,

who

frequently laid waste the country, and therefore believed
that

Haman's accusation

referred to them,^*

is

impossible.

Who
the

ever heard of enemies of this kind being destroyed

by royal decrees?

Xerxes might just as well have decreed
!

destruction of Greece

If the

Scythian hordes had

been so weak as to be destroyed by the people, they could

'*

Jampel,

/. r.,

p.

1

14.

ESTHER

IN

THE LIGHT OF HISTORY
fear.
ofifer

— HOSCHANDER

37

not have inspired any
special permission
for the

There was no need to ask
a
large

and

amount of money
If

destruction

of enemies of this kind.

he had

been afraid of these hordes, Xerxes would gladly have
given anything to
rid

himself of them.

Moreover, the
in
all

words of Haman,

'scattered
',

and dispersed

the

provinces of thy kingdom

distinctly indicate that he could

not have referred to the Scythians,
scattered

who were by no means
but came
in

and dispersed

in all the provinces,

large bodies from their steppes
their depredations.
It is also

whenever they committed

preposterous to assume that

Xerxes could have decreed the extermination of a people
without knowing their name.
authors,
inferior

The testimony
that

of classical

quoted

by Jampel,
'

Xerxes was of very
',

intelligence,

being a body without a soul

does

not deserve any credence.
personality of Xerxes
is

The only

authority for the

the honest, unbiased Herodotus

who, though he

may

in

some cases have been misinformed,

never distorted the truth.

The profound remarks which

Herodotus ascribes to Xerxes, no matter whether they are
oratorical embellishments or not, indicate that he considered
this

king a

man

of intelligence.

It is

wrong

to see in the
is

scourging of the Hellespont a childish action, as

generally

done by the commentators.
did not look upon
it

Herodotus and the Greeks
It

as childish, but as impious.

was

a symbolic action, a
Poseidon,

chastisement

of

the

Greek

god

whom Xerxes may
some

have held to be a creature
This

of Ahriman, according to his religious conception.
action was in

respect similar to the striking of the

Red Sea and
it

of the

Rock by Moses.

According

to

Herodotus, Cyrus punished the river Gyndes by
into three

dividing

hundred and sixty parts

for a lesser cause, his

38

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
drowned
in
it.^^

favourite horse having been

Xerxes was
Curtius

not inferior in intelligence to any of his successors.
justly describes

him

as having

had a deep sense of the

dignity of the empire.^'^

The

Persians in later times

may

have depicted him as an incapable
incapacity the
his reign.

ruler, attributing to his

disgraceful

defeats

Persia suffered

under

But exegetes have no right to stamp Xerxes

a fool for the purpose of confirming the veracity of the

Book of Esther.
It

has further been suggested by Jampel
of the Jews

^^

that Xerxes'

detestation

may have
there
is

been

caused

by

his

religious fanaticism.

Now

no doubt that Xerxes
Zoroastrian
religion,

was

a

fanatical

adherent

of

the

apparently more so than his father Darius.

The former
the. hardihood

even removed the statue of Bel-Marduk from the Babylonian
temple, an action which his father
to do
',
'

had not
It

as

Herodotus informs

us.^^

has been pointed out
is

that Xerxes after the fourth year of his reign

no longer
;

styled
this

'

king of Babylon

'

in the

Babylonian documents

for

title

could only be borne by a king

who

seized the

hand of Bel-Marduk on the
the action of Xerxes

New Year

festival.^^

Though

may have been
it

a political measure

and done

for

the purpose of abolishing the

kingdom of

Babylonia and uniting

with the

Persian empire, and

not with any religious motives, nevertheless Xerxes could
»"

Herodotus

I,

189.

Grotc, in
it

liis

History of Grcac, IV,

p. 284,

does

not doubt this narrative, though

has been said that Cyrus's real intention

was
cross
''

to put this river out of
it.

liis

way

in

case he should find

it

necessary to

In his History 0/ Greece,
L.c.y p. 119.
Cf,

II. p.

273.
"8

"

Herodotus

I,

183.

Ed. Meyer, Forschunt^ai cur Allen Gcschichte,
Gescliichle, III, p. 130.

Halle,

1892,

I,

p. 474,

and

ESTHER

IN

THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

— HOSCHANDER
if

39

hardly have committed such a sacrilegious deed,
not been, as a true Zoroastrian, an inveterate

he had
of the

enemy

worship of
destroyed

idols.

It

has

even
for

been asserted that he
This'

Greek temples
is

the same reason.^^''

however,
the

rather doubtful, as Herodotus states that on

day

after the
all

temple of Minerva was

set

on

fire,

Xerxes

assembled

the Athenian exiles and bade them go into

the temple and offer sacrifices after their

own

fashion.^''^

Xerxes would

in all probability
if

have destroyed the temples
idolater.

of his enemies, even

he had been an

But the
is

very fact that Xerxes was an ardent Zoroastrian

proof

to the contrary, that he could not have been hostile to the

Jews on account of
latter

their religion.

We

shall see that the
religion, as

were by no means averse to the Persian
it

long as

remained

in its purity, free

from idolatrous reprereligion

sentations.

Both the Jewish and Zoroastrian
least, alike,

were

in

the main points, superficially at

acknowledging

only one

God and

having no

idols.^°^

If

Xerxes was an

ardent Zoroastrian, he must have been favourably inclined

towards the only non-Iranian subjects

in his

empire,

who

had a

religion akin

to that of the Persians,

and readily
significant

acknowledged the divinity of Ahuramazda.
for
1°°
/.

As

his favourable attitude
Cf.

towards the Jews we consider
vol. Ill, p.

G. Rawlinson's Herodotus,

254

;

IV, p. 241, and Cassel,

c, p, 82.
^°i

Herodotus VIII,

54.

The

fact that

Xerxes destroyed Greek temples
idols.

is

no proof that he was opposed he intended
laid

to the

worship of

states that

to invade

Delphos
It

for the

Herodotus VIII, 35 purpose of seizing the

riches

which were

up there.

was

a political measure lest the Greeks

might use these treasures against him.
Ed. Meyer {Geschichie,

For the same purpose he may have
255) contends that Xerxes

plundered the very rich temple of Apollo at Aboe, according to Herodotus

Vni,
i»2

33.

III, p.

was not

hostile towards the

Greek gods.

See Chapter V.

.

40

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
'

the Statement of Ezra,
in

And

in

the days of Ahasuerus,

the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation
^''^

against the inhabitants of Judea and Jerusalem.'

It is

noteworthy that nothing
accusation.^°*
It
is

is

said about the result

of this

evidently due to Xerxes' benevolent

attitude towards the

Jews that

this

accusation remained
sufficient

without

result.

Seeing that we cannot assign

reasons for the danger of extermination impending over
the Jews under the reign of Xerxes,
latter
Esther
lO. I.

it

is

obvious that the

cannot be identified with the king of our story.

(9)

There
:

is
'

a remarkable statement

in

the

last

chapter

of our story

And

the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute upon
isles

the land, and upon the

of the sea

'.^^'^

This passage

has puzzled
trivial

all

commentators:

What

connexion

may

this

remark have with the preceding events?

Cassel's

ingenious explanation, that the
for

king indemnified himself
lost in

the ten

thousand talents he had
is

frustrating

Haman's

decree,'"^

impossible.

The money

that

Haman
all

promised was not a
of Jewish taxes.
^"^

profit,

but indemnification for the loss

Further, the
in this

king had renounced
is

Ezra

4.

6.

Ahasuerus

passage

undoubtedly Xerxes, not
p. 64.

Cambyses. But

Cf. Keil, p.
/.

442 and Bertheau-Ryssel,

"" Marquart,
if

c, p. 63, sees in this passage the gloss of an interpolator.

the

intention

of the

alleged interpolator

was

to

give

us some

information about troubles of the Judeans under the reign of Xerxes,

why

does he stop with the accusation?

This 'interpolator' was apparentlv

a better historian than the author of the

Book

of Daniel, since he placed
I.

Ahasuerus between Darius

I

and Artaxerxes
:

Siegfried, in his

com. .

mentary on Ezra,

p. 24,

observes

'The
2.

petition to

Ahasuerus

is

missing.

But

this

gap

is

filled

out by Ezra

17-25'.

But Ezra omits

this passage

altogether, and the verses

17-25 correspond, with the exception of the
text.
p.

proper names,
*o»

to the
p.

Hebrew

See Keil,

658; Bertheau-Kyssel.

545;

Wildeboer,

p.

196;

Siegfried, p. 175; Paton, p. 303, &'c.
"'•'

CasscI,

/.

c. p. 236.

ESTHER

IN

THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

— HOSCHANDER
is

41

claim to this money, in saying: 'The silver
thee'.

given to

Finally, the king

had already indemnified himself
property.^"'^

by

confiscating

Haman's

The author

evidently

intended to inform the reader about the great statesmanship
of Mordecai, that the king

by following

his counsel

was

very fortunate

in his enterprises,

and increased
isles

his

dominions

by acquiring
tribute.^**^

a

new land and

on which he levied
his

But we know that Xerxes did not increase on the contrary, he
lost

empire

;

the

Greek

cities

and
and

islands of

Asia Minor, the whole of Thrace, and the greater
between the years 479-476
B.C.E.,

part of Cyprus

never recovered them.
refer to the reign of
^"^

Hence such a statement cannot

Xerxes.

wife

Though Ahasuerus made a present of it to Esther, the property of his was always at his disposal. ^"^ Ibn Ezra, ad locum, is the only commentator who recognized the

meaning of this passage.

(

To

be coTitimied.)

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL
By M. H. Segal, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
II

The Composition of the Book *
{concluded)

The
87.

First Period of David's Reign over
Israel.

All
ac-

The

section comprised

by

chs.

5-8 contains

counts of events, most, but not
first

all,

of which occurred in the

period of David's reign over

all Israel.

The

section

is

the original

work of our author, though here and there he
Thus,
for

seems to have incorporated some old material.
example,
5.

6-8 reads

like

an excerpt from an older source.
in

Such excerpts may
ch. 8.

exist

other parts of ch. 5 and in

The
(cf. I

section

may
a. 11),

also contain here

and there

later

additions.
5.

Such
Kings
8. I

is,

perhaps, the chronological notice in

4-5

the expansion in

7.

22-4, and the

statement in

i-i 2.

88. (ch. 5.)
vers. 1-2.

Critics consider 5, 3 to
in ver.

be a duplicate of
not identical with
is

But the statement

3

is

the statement in the two previous verses, but sequel and necessary consequence.
scribe the

rather

its

The

three verses de-

two stages of the transference of Saul's throne
:

to

David

first
*

a popular embassy representing
Concluded from
vol. VIII, pp. 75
ff.

all

the

43

44
tribes that
(vers.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
came
to

Hebron and

offered the throne to

David
the

1-2).

When David had
(cf.

accepted the

throne,

elders of Israel followed to

Hebron, and concluded a coveii.

nant with David

2

Kings

17 b),

whereupon they

anointed him as their king.

The
a later

may be right in declaring On the other hand, vers. addition.
critics

vers.

4-5 to be

13-16
to

may

very

well belong to our author,

who sought

enhance the

impression of David's prosperity and might by recounting
the increase in his
(cf.

harem and the number of

his sons
critics to

above, § 82).

Vers. 11-12 are held

by some

belong to the latter part of David's reign, since
is

Hiram
But

found to be

still

alive

in

the reign of Solomon.

it is

quite possible that

Hiram

outlived David

by many years.
all

Further, the building of David's royal palace should in

probability be assigned to the earlier part of his residence
in

Jerusalem,

when, as we are told

in

ver. 9 b,

David
H.
P.

was engaged

in great

building enterprises.
289), the alliance

And,

as

Smith observes
and David enemy, the

{o/>. cit.,

between Hiram

may have been
Philistines,

directed against their
its

common
That the

which would place

formation

before the destruction of the Philistine power.

statement

in ver. 11

is

true
i

is

rendered very probable by
5.

the express declaration in

Kings

15 b (against S. A.

Cook,
89,

op. cit., 151)-

Budde
and

(pp. cit.,

243) and his followers place vers. 17(or ver. 5),

25 immediately
ch. 6.
I,

after ver. 3

vers.

6-12

after

vers.

13-16

after ch. 8. 14.
:

But we must

reiterate the already oft-repeated question

How
it

and
is

why
quite

did the present arrangement arise?

Further,

evident that V"'3N1 in ver. 6 cannot refer to the levy of the

30,000 mentioned

in

ch. 6.

i,

for the expression

is

almost

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL
a
technical
;

— SEGAL
23
;

45

term
3
;

for
I

David's

veterans
;

and

immediate
27. 3, 8
;

followers
29. 2,

cf. a.

23. 5, 12, 13, &c.

24. 3,

II

;

30.

I, 3.

A

host of 30,000 would be described
n''3,

as Dyn, as in 6. 2, or

PNnty''

as in 6.

5.

It

is

also very
for

unlikely that

David would have used such a vast host
Finally,
if 6.

the investment of Jerusalem.'*^

2

is

the

immeDvn
^:di

diate continuation of 5. 12, then the phrase
will

ifiN

^:^'^'

be without a direct antecedent, and quite obscure.

Surely David did not keep with him 30,000 people throughout the events described in
5.

9-12.

There can be no

doubt whatever that
6. I.

6.

2

is

the immediate continuation of
in

David raised that host
full

order to bring up the

Ark

with
the

military honours.
;

For the

military character of

Ark cf. 11. 11 I 4. 3 Num. 10. :^5-6^ &c. 90. As regards the transference of vers. 17-25 to ver. 3, we may remark that the critics repeat here the error which we have already noted before (§ 25, &c.), of forcing their own modern views upon the ancient writer. The modern
;

view

is,

no doubt correctly, that the greatest achievement

of David's reign that
this

was the subjugation of the

Philistines,

and
to

achievement did more than anything

else

consolidate his
of Israel.

kingdom and
this

to secure the national existence

But

need not necessarily have been the
In his time the Philistines
for

view of the ancient historian.

were an insignificant people which had been subject to Judah.
realize
fully the
in It

generations
for

was therefore hard

him

to

place which the Philistine struggle had

occupied

the reigns of Saul and David.

The conquest
harem

of Jerusalem, the building of Zion and of David's royal
residence, and the acquisition

by David

of a large

and so many

sons, were, in the eyes of our author, of far
*3

Cf.

H.

P. Smith, op.

cit.,

388,

46

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

greater consequence for the consolidation of David's throne,

and a

far

more

striking proof of the favour with
(ver. 12)

which God

regarded the accession of David
tion of the
to Israel,
all

than the destructheir subjection

power of the

Philistines

and

Hence
is

the account of David's anointment over

Israel

followed

immediately by

the

conquest of

Jerusalem and the kindred achievements described in vers.
6-16,
all

of which are intended to illustrate the statements

in vers. 10. 12.

91.

There

is

also another

good reason why our author

did not follow the strict chronological order and place vers.
17
ff.

immediately
the

after ver. 3 (ver. 5).
in

There

is

no doubt

that

campaign described

vers.

17-21 must have
in ver. 3.

taken place immediately after David's anointment

This
there

is

expressly stated in ver. 17 a

a,

where, moreover,
Further,

is is

no mention of the conquest of Jerusalem.

there
it

no doubt, as Wellhausen has rightly observed, that

is

this

campaign which
is

is

referred to in 23. 11

ff.,

and

that nnvttn in ver. 17 b

identical with the

miVO of Adullam

mentioned
still

in 23. 14.

All this presupposes that David was
at Jerusalem,
fortress

at

Hebron.

For had he been already

he would certainly not have abandoned that strong
to take refuge in the wilds of the borderland.

On

the

other hand, the second campaign described in vers. 22-5

must have taken place

after the

conquest of Jerusalem.

For

if,

for

some

strategical

reason

unknown

to

us,

the

rhilistines stationed themselves in the
for the first battle,
it is

Valley of Rephaim

very strange that they should have

returned for the second battle to the same place of their
great defeat, unless David had meanwhile occupied Jerusa-

lem, and

it

had become important

for

them

to dislodge

him from

his .strong position.

We may

thus assume with

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

— SEGAL

47

a certain degree of confidence that vers. 6-9, and perhaps
also ver. 11, took place after the first

campaign
later

(vers. 17-ai),

and that ch. 6 took place

some time

than the second
in
6.
i
:

campaign
'1

(vers. 22-5).

Hence, the writer says

my

(51DKM

=

)

51D"'1,

viz. after

the levy raised for the war
to

in 5. 22-5.

But as the author was evidently unwilling

separate his two brief notices of David's wars against the
Philistines

by the

insertion

between them of other material

of a different nature, he was therefore obliged to abandon

the chronological order.

And

so he chose

first

to give his

notice of the conquest of Jerusalem

and of the related

events in vers. 6-16, in order to illustrate David's prosperity

and the favour shown him by God
to

(vers. 10, 12),

and then

give

the accounts

of

the

two

Philistine

campaigns

together, and immediately after the story of the bringing

up

of the

Ark

(ch. 6),

which, as

we have remarked,
clearly the to

followed

the second Philistine campaign.
92. (ch. 7.)

Chapter

7

is

continuation

of

ch. 6.

Having brought the Ark
it

Jerusalem,

David

wishes to erect for

a suitable habitation which might

become the
refers

central sanctuary of the
5. 11,

kingdom.

Ver. 2 a
use of the
i

back to

and

ver. 2

b

to 6. 17.

The

perfect consecutive with the verbs in vers. 9 b-i

proves

that

David was

still

in the earlier part of his reign,
i

and
in

that, therefore, the statement in ver.

b must be taken

a relative and not in an absolute sense. the prophet
real
is

The

facts that

represented as not being cognizant of God's
the value of the

purpose

(ver. 3), that

Temple
is

is

rather

minimized

in the prophecy,^* that the

author

favourable

to the Davidic dynasty
fall, all

and

is

ignorant of

its

decay and

tend to prove the early age of our chapter.
**

Hence

Cf.

R. Kittel

in

Kautzsch's Heilige

Schrift"^, 429.

;

48

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
see no reason to
style differs

we

deny

its

composition to our author.
rest of the book,

The

indeed from the

but this

may

be due to the different character of the subject-matter,

which demanded a certain conventional and standardized
treatment

cf.

our observation on

I

12

(§ 42).

The

critics,
is

however, are almost unanimous that the chapter
interpolation,

an

though they are
date,

far

from unanimous on the
it

question of

its

some regarding

as pre-Deuteronomic,
exilic.

others as post-Deuteronomic, and others again as

Their view of

its

late origin

is

based chiefly on the assumpthe

tion that vers.

12-15

refer

to

long line of David's

descendants, and not to a particular individual.
prophecies are in the eyes
eventus,
it

As

all

of our critics

vaticinia post

follows

that

this

prophecy must have been
even after the end, of the
is

written towards the end, or

Davidic dynasty.
to

But the truth

that vers. 12-15 refer
cf.

no one

else

except to Solomon,
loc.

Yalkut,

Rashi,

and Kimhi, ad

This
in
i

is

plainly
5.

stated
8.

in ver. 13,

and

also

reiterated
is

Kings

19;

17-20, where

Solomon

actually

made

to quote the language of our
Cf. also i

ver. 13 as referring to himself.

Chron. 22. 9-10

28. 6-7.

In spite, however, of this weighty and decisive
{op.
cit.,

evidence, Wellhausen

254-5) and his followers

persist in their view, declaring v. 13 to

be an interpolation

based upon a mistaken exegesis of our prophecy.
critics

These

claim

to

know

the

meaning of our
It

Scriptures

better than their authors themselves.

may

be asked

whether the passages in
as the

i

Kings are also

to

be condemned

work of an

interpolator

who

followed the spurious

ver. 13 of

our chapter?

Or, where else could the reiterated

story of a prediction about
given in the passages
in

Solomon building the Temple,

the First of Kings quoted above,

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL
have been derived from
?

— SEGAL
this

49
ex-

Apart, however, from

ternal evidence so thoughtlessly
it

impugned by the

critics,

is

plain from

its

use as a singular right throughout the
in ver. 12 is a real singular,
it

passage, that
collective,

"lyiT

and not a
one single
as

and

that, therefore,

must

refer to

individual, viz. Solomon.*^

If

y"iT

had been intended

a collective plural
in

it

would have been used

as a real plural

accordance with Hebrew idiom (see Gesenius-Kautzsch,
§

Heb. Gram.,

145

b,

and

cf.,
is

for

example, Gen.

15. 13,

14;

17. 7, 8, 9, &c.).

Ver. 13
i

obviously connected with the

cited passages of
I

Kings, while ver. 14 points forward to
&c.
;

Kings

II. II, 23,

cf.

i

Chron.

22. 9; 28. 6.

Psalms
for the

89.

30-38; 132. 12 cannot be adduced as evidence

correctness of the critics' interpretation of vers. t2, 15, for

there

the
is

application

of

our

prophecy

to

the

Davidic
licence.

dynasty

simply a case of poetic or homilelical

In the same

way

the Psalmist applies to David our ver. 14,
refer to

which certainly does not
93. (ch. 8.)
first

David himself

(89. 27).

The author concludes
shall

his narrative of the

period of David's reign by a

summary
some

of David's

conquests.

As we
in

show

later,

of the events

recorded

the

brief paragraphs of this

chapter really

belong to the second period of David's reign, the story
of which
is

given in chs. 9

fif.

Our

author, however, pre-

ferred placing
in

them here rather than interpolating them
he embodied
in

the document which
ff.

his

book from
like

chs. 9

8.

11-12

may

perhaps be a later addition,
to ver.
8,

the similar addition in
cf.
I

LXX

and

i

Chron.

8.

18

;

Chron. 29. 2

ff.

Note also the late expression
critics

K^3D in

ver. 11.^^
*^

Vers. 15-18 are not, as the
application of
op.
Jill

hold,
Gen.
4.

the
25.

For
Cf.

tl.e

to

one particular

inc'ividual cf.

•*

Wellhausen,

cit.,

255.

VOL. IX.

E

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
life

conclusion of a document of a

of David, any
is

more than
admitted,

the parallel passage in 20. 23-6

the conclusion of the
is

document
chs.

chs. 9-20.

For, as
in i

it

generally
8.

9-20 are continued

Kings, chs. 1-2.

15-18 form
period of

only the conclusion to the history of the
David's reign,
20.

first

contained

in

chs. 5-8.

In a similar way,

23-6 forms the conclusion to the history of the second
Cf. also

period of David's reign contained in chs. 9-20.
above, § 49, and below, § ic8.
94.

The

critics

hold that the
is

Aramean campaign
really

de-

scribed in vers. 3-6
in

identical with the

campaign described
is

10. 6

fif.,

and that our account here

borrowed

from

ch.

10.

The

differences

between the two accounts
250), in a characteristic

are explained

by Budde

{op. cit.,

fashion, as deliberate alterations (the

more

correct expresfor

sion

would be

'

falsifications

')

by the redactor
Thus
in 8. 2

the

purpose of concealing the source of his narrative and the
identity of the

two accounts.

Amnion

— who
23. 3.

was
in

really the cause of the

whole Aramean War, as stated

ch.

10

is

altered

into

Moab, with

whom David was
I

really

on the most friendly terms, as shown by
in vers. 3, 12 is

3im p
10. 6.

a deliberate alteration for 3"im n^3,

The account
which

of the defeat and conquest of
is

Damascus
',

(vers. 5-6),

historically

'

highly improbable

is

a

redactional substitution for the account of the subjugation ot

the trans-Euphratean
of To'i in vers. 9-10
ch. 10.

Arameans
is

in 10.

16-18.

The homage

transferred here from the end of

And,

finally,

the redactor deliberately deleted the
10.
6,

name

of Hadad'ezer from
his

in

order to conceal the
ff.

dependence of

own account
a

in 8. 3

on ch.
the

10.

It will

be seen that, according to
falsified

this

critic,

redactor

has

names, fabricated

story

of

David's

cruelty

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL
towards
his

— SEGAL

51

former friends and hosts, the Moabites, tam-

pered with his documents, altered them, mutilated them,

and transposed them

at his

own

will

and pleasure.

He

committed

all

these literary crimes with a view to hiding

the identity or similarity of the two accounts in ch. 8 and
ch. 10

Yet

all his efforts

have proved an absolute

futility,

for all his artifices

and misdeeds have now been
critic.

fully laid

bare by this lynx-eyed

Let
other

us,

however, examine the assertions of this and

critics,

and see whether they are
alleged that

really justified.

95.

It is

Moab
since

in ver. 2 is

a wilful alteration

for the original

Amnion,

David could not have fought

against the king of Moab, owing to their old friendship.

Now,
is

it

is

true that David's hostility towards the Moabites
'^^

rather surprising, and the ancients
its

already sought for

an explanation of

cause.

But our ignorance of the

cause for this hostility does not justify us in tampering

with

our

text,

or

in

accusing

its

ancient

author

of

deliberate falsification.
is

There
that

is

no doubt that our text
continued in a state of
rebellion

correct.

We
I. I
;

know
4

Moab
the

vassalage to
(cf.
is

Israel
3.

until
ff.,

great

of Mesh'a

3

Kings

and the Moabite Stone).
in

As
the

there

no mention anywhere

our historical

documents of
reign

another war between
of Jehoram,

Israel

and Moab

until

we

are

bound

to conclude that

Moab had been
by the

reduced to subjection at the beginning of the Israelitish

monarchy, a conclusion which

is

fully confirmed

prophecy
(I

in

Num.

24.

17.

Saul's
to

war against

Moab

14.

47)

does not seem

have been
is

of a decisive

character, since in I 22.
as an independent
^^ Cf.

3-4 Moab

still

found existing
that
it

kingdom.

It follows, therefore,
loc.

Banu'dbar rabba, ch. 14; Rashi and Kimhi, ad

E

a

52

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

must have been David who destroyed Moab's independence
as stated in our text.
Cf.

also

23. 20,

which probably

belongs to this
96.

campaign.
that

Again, we are told
3"in~i

31m p

is

a

deliberate

substitution for
original

ri'2.

Does

the critic assert that the TvH Itymn?

had

this

absurdity:

ami
it

And

if

we

should go further and 'emend'
will still

into nini rr'ao 'nn, there

remain the

difficulty that

Hadad'ezer really beIt

longed to Zobah and not to Beth Rehob.

may, however,
personal

be asked what

is

wrong with 3im p
10. I2
;

?

A

name

Dim
'n

is

found

in

Neh.
is

cf.

also the
critics

names 3m, n>3m,
find fault with

Di?3n-|.

The

truth

that the

must
it

p

in
f.

order to be able to
Further,
of

identify

with

'n n"'2

in

10. 6

we

are told

by Budde that the permanent by the
Israelites
critic
is
'

occupation

Damascus
'.

hochst

unwahrscheinlich

But our omniscient
in
i

seems to
11. 23-5,

have forgotten the clear statement

Kings

which

fully

corroborates

the

truth

of our account that
Israelitish
.

David had turned that ancient Syrian city into an
dependency.**
97.

The
is

fact

is

that the

Aramean campaign
in 8. 3
is

in

this

chapter
or, to

quite distinct from the one described in ch. 10,
fif.

be more precise, the campaign
ch. 10.

really the

sequel of the campaign of

The

origin of David's
latter

war against Hadad'ezer was the help the
to

had offered
in

Ammon.
*'

The
in

first

campaign against him, described

ch. 10, resulted
This

the repeated defeat of himself and his
is

corroboration
in
I

not affected

by the omission of
is

LXX

of

DHN nn 3in3
the

Kings

ii. 24.
is

For

it

evident from the context that

meaning of the passage

that the usurpation by

Rezon

of the throne

of

Damascus

constituted an act of rebellion against Solomon, similar to that

of

Hadad

the Edomite and Jeroboam the Ephraimite.
I,

Contrast Cheyne,

E»cy. Bibl.,

1028, n. 4.

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL
vassals.

— SEGAL

53

The

latter

submitted to David and exchanged

Hadad'ezer's suzerainty for that of David (10. 19).
*ezer himself,

Hadad-

though defeated, was not yet entirely broken.

His

final

destruction David reserved for another opportunity,

and

this

he found when Hadad'ezer undertook an expedition
It is this

to the

banks of the Euphrates.*^

second campaign,

resulting in the total defeat of Hadad'ezer
tion of
98.

and the subjuga-

Damascus, which

is

described in our chapter,
the king of
in

The

critics are surprised that
6,

Zobah

is

not mentioned expressly in 10.

whereas

10.

16 the

name

of Hadad'ezer

is

given, but without

any epithet or

description.

They

see in this also a proof of the activity

of a dishonest or tampering redactor.
is

But the explanation

quite simple.

The omission
6
is

of the mention of the king

of

Zobah

in 10.

due

to the

same cause
of Beth

as the omission
viz.

of the unlike

mention of the king
the king of Ma'akah,
in

Rehob,
kings

that,

these

two

did not

accompany

person the mercenaries from their kingdoms

who went

to the help of

Ammon.

It

would, therefore,

have been incorrect to say that the Ammonites had hired
the king of Beth

Rehob and

the king of Zobah.

In lo. i6,

however,

it

was Hadad'ezer himself who personally ordered

the battle at Helam.

He

is,

therefore,

mentioned by name,
is

but without any special epithet, since he

assumed
author's

to

be already

known
8. 3.

to the reader

from

the

own

description in

*^

in^b^

in 8. 3 refers to

Hadad'ezer, as rightly explained by Rashi and

Kimhi.

54

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The Second Period of

David's Reign over all

Israel.
99. It
is
i

generally conceded
chs.
i

that chs. 9-20, with their
all

sequel in

Kings

and

2,

belong

to one

document

written

by an author who was almost

a contemporary of

the

men and

events w'hich he described.

These chapters

are closely interrelated.

They

also display a general uni-

formity of style and method of presentation and a unity
of plan and conception.

They seem

to look at the events

which they describe from a nearer perspective, and are
undoubtedly older than other parts of our book.

Hence

we
this

are led to the conclusion that our author incorporated

lengthy section from some older work,
as he incorporated
(ch. 9.)
I

in

the same

way

4-6

;

9-10, 16, &c.
critics

100.

Budde and other

maintain that

ch. 9 is the sequel to 21. 1-14, for the inquiry of
in
9.
I

David

is

only

intelligible in

after

the slaughter of Saul's

house described

21.

1-14.

This view leads them to

strike out 21. 7 as an interpolation

and to place

ch. 24

before 21. 1-14, and to delete 24.

i

a as a redactional link.
7

The

plain

man, however,

will
is

on the contrary accept 21.
earlier

as sufficient proof that ch. 9

than 21. 1-14.

The

'" There are, however, some exceptions to this consensus of opinion. Thus, the integrity of the whole of ch. 12 has been challenged by Schwally

(see below), and notably by A. S.

Cook {AJSL., XVI, 145-177).

The

latter

seeks to apply the redactional hypothesis to the whole of this section,
without, however, developing a coherent and self-consistent theory of the

composition of these chapters.
clusion
is

The evidence

for his rather startling con-

often of a purely subjective character, and in flagrant contradiction

to the express statements of the text.
fully into a discussion of his

We,

therefore, forbear from entering

arguments.

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL
critics

— SEGAL
forced
to

55
this

themselves would not have been
if

arbitrary and violent procedure

they had not pressed
"iniJ

unduly the
expression

literalness of the expression
is

in 9.

1.

The

sufficiently

explained by the slaughter of

Saul and his sons at Gilboa and the murder of Ishbosheth.

On

the other hand, a

little

consideration will at once prove
theory.

the baselessness of the

critics'

In his search for
full

victims for the Gibeonites, David

must have made

inquiry

for

the descendants of Saul.

The

first

person

mentioned as a likely victim would no doubt have been
Mephibosheth, who was the only direct male descendant
of Saul,
If so,

how could David have remained
must
also reject

ignorant

of the existence of Mephibosheth until after the tragedy of
21.

1-14?
7.
1

We

H.

P. Smith's conjecture

that

stood originally at the head of our chapter.
7. 2.

For
Cf.

7. I is

the natural and necessary introduction to
II
:

also

7.

T2\y ^3D

"^b

^nn"'jm.

loi. (ch. II.)

Some

critics assert

that the story of

David

and Bathsheba was originally independent of the story of
the siege of Rabbah.

But from

11. 7, 11.

15

ff.

it

is

plain

that the incident occurred while Joab and the

army were
city.

engaged on the prolonged siege of a certain
have a record only of one such
siege, viz.

We
of

the siege

Rabbah.
(or
'

If those critics
it is

do not believe the ancient writer
tell

redactor'),

plainly their duty to
is

us with what

other siege the story

connected.
259) holds ver. 21 to be an interpoin

Wellhausen
lation

(op. cit.,

because the reference to Abimelek
is
'

the

mouth
'.

of the king

an unnecessary piece of

historical erudition

But

it is

difficult to see

why

as a practical tactician

David

should not have mentioned this striking example of the
risk

which the besiegers ran by approaching too close to

56

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Further, the
is

the enemj'.s wall,^^

critic

has forgotten that

the speech given in these verses

put into David's
If the critic denies

mouth
David
cannot

by the

narrator

(cf.

abDve, § 69).

the right of showing his historical
surely deny such a right to the

erudition, he

historian.

One cannot
critic to this

help suspecting that the real objection of our
verse
in
is

that

it

proves the great antiquity of the narrative

Judges

ch. 9.

102. (ch. 12.) F. Schwally

followed
in his

by H.

P.

Smith

(o/>.

{ZATJV., 1892, pp. 153 ff.), cit., 322) and by W. Nowack
1-15 a to be a late interpowhich, he says,
to
'

commentary, declares

12.
7,

lation of the

same date

as ch.

had been
'.

assigned

by

authoritative

critics

the age of Josiah
in

The only argument, however, which he advances
of this theory
is

support

that no reference to Nathan's prediction
is

of the death of the child

to be found in the subsequent

paragraphs, vers. 15 b
writing history and

fif.

But seeing that the narrator was
the truth
of

not a dissertation on
it

prophetic prediction,

is

hard to understand

why he was

bound

to repeat the fact of Nathan's

rebuke and prediction.
David's conduct

On
in

the other hand,
vers. 16
fif.

how can one understand

without the foregoing paragraph?

Let us
critic is

concede, for argument's sake, that the view of this
correct,

and that God did not find anybody
how

in Israel

brave

" Mr. Cook
the

{ibid.,

156} asks,

else

was the

city to be taken, unless

army approached the wall?

Evidently the narrator

knew

of other

means besides exposing
between
But
ver. 15,

the besiegers to attacks from the wall, such as

famine, undermining, or night attacks.

He
that

also finds an

inconsistenci*

where David commands

Uriah alone should be placed
fell

in a position of
it

danger, and vers. 17, 24, where others

along with Uriah.

is

evident that Joab

was

not able to carry out David's order literally
first

(cf. ver. 24,

livV n33

'3),

and he look the

opportunity he could find

for bringing about Uriah's death, viz. during a sortie bj' the enemj'.

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

— SEGAL

57

enough

to

communicate

to the king the divine displeasure

at his criminal action.
in

David, then,

like

other potentates
did,

pagan and Christian lands, could, and actually

commit adultery and murder without bringing on himself
any remonstrance whatever from the
the day.
religious leaders of
felt in

But surely he himself must have

the depth

of his heart that his conduct was contrary even to the

morality of the

'

Jahvism
it

'

of his

own

day, however crude
critics.

and inarticulate

may have been
for the

according to our

How,

then, could

David have had the effrontery

to fast

and to pray to God

recovery of the adulterous

child without having first obtained

God's pardon

for his

crime

?

Schwally
ff.

is

surprised that David does not display

in vers. 16

the contrition and humility of a penitent.

But assuming that David had not been rebuked, and had
not repented and been pardoned, our surprise ought to be
greater
still

that

David should have been so completely
sin,

unconscious of his terrible

and that he should not have

recognized in the death of the child a punishment for his
crime.

David's repose of mind in vers. 16

ff.

can be ex-

plained only

by

his previous repentance artd the prophet's

assurance of God's complete pardon.
103.

Schwally

is

shocked by the worldly character of
i

Nathan

as displayed in

Kings

ch.

i,

and he therefore
all,

concludes that Nathan was not a prophet at

but merely
a
later
in

some
public

intriguing

and

ambitious

courtier.

Only

generation,
life,

when prophets had become
had
felt

so prominent

the need

of having

some prophet

associated with David's reign, and so turned the worldly

Nathan

into a prophet,

and ascribed
7.
it

to

him the prophecies
critic

of our chapter and ch.
strikes out

In consequence our

boldly

NU3n wherever

occurs as an epithet of Nathan

58
in
I

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Kings
i.

One may add
all,

that

critic

might have gone
priest at

further and theorized that

by such a method our Zadok
Nathan should
not cite as
reject
it

was not a
to

and that the epithet pan applied

him

side

by

side with S^33n applied to

be struck out as a late insertion.
evidence ch.
7

We
critic

will

and

12. 25, for the

may

as

insufficient to upset his critical hypothesis.
if

But,

we

ask,,
else

Nathan was not the great prophet of the day, what

was he?

How

did he secure the

commanding
in

position
i

at David's court
ch.
1 ?

which we

find

him occupying

Kings
his

Why

should

Adonijah have invited him to
(i

banquet along with Solomon, Zadok, and Benajah
I.

Kings

10,26)?

Why, moreover,
help

should David have demanded
?

his assistance at

Solomon's anointment

{ibid.^ vers.

32

ff.).

One cannot
superficiality

expressing one's astonishment

at

the

and
'

the frivolous scepticism displayed

by

such

'

critical

theories,

and one's amazement that such

absurdities

should be written, published, and copied by

academic scholars of repute.
104.

But Mr. A.

S.

Cook

{pp. cit.,

157) goes even further

than his

German

confrhe.

He

boldly declares the whole

of II. 27b-i2. 24a, 25 to be an interpolation.
story of the death of the adulterous child
is

The whole

a pure fiction.

The

child did not die, but lived
in

and grew up to become
of the
illustrious

king over Israel

the person

King

Solomon.
of the

And

so that great and wise king, the builder

Temple, the recipient of divine revelations, the

reputed author of two or three biblical books,

who

is

one

of the chief heroic figures in history, was really a bastard,

conceived
it.

in

adultery and murder!

We

refuse to believe

We
in

refuse to believe that the moral consciousness of

Israel

that great age had sunk so low

as

to

suffer.

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

— SEGAL
sit

59

without a protest, a person of such an origin to
national throne.
105. Budde's conjecture that vers. 7

on the

b-9 a a

(to

i:''ya)

is

an interpolation has been shown by H. P. Smith
324) to be without foundation.

{op. cit.,

But

it

must be admitted

that Nathan's speech has undergone some ampHfication.

The

terrible threat in vers.
later scribe,

IT-12
in

is

probably an insertion
for

by a

who saw

16.

21-2 a punishment

David's sin with Bathsheba.
in vers. his

Further, the double mention

9-10 of Uriah's murder and of David's marrying

widow cannot be original. Smith {ibid.) regards HK "•innn nms (vers. 9a/3-ioba) as an interpolation. But
. .

.

it is

not likely that the prophet would
It is true

fail
is

to mention the

murder of Uriah.

that there

nothing

in

the

parable corresponding to this crime.

In order to be quite

parallel to the application, the parable should

have stated

that the rich

man

slew the poor

man

before taking possesit is

sion of his lamb.

But, on the other hand,

not necessary

that a parable should agree in detail with the application.^^

Thus,

for

example, the parable of Jotham (Judges
(i

9.

8-20)

and the parable of the Prophet
correspond
order to
in

Kings

20.

39-42) do not
In
its

every particular with their applications.

fulfil its

purpose and impress the hearer with

beauty and

truth,

the parable must be an independent

story and capable of standing

by

itself.

This would not
details with
its

be the case
application,

if

it

were to agree

in

all

and serve only as a mask

to another story.

In spite, therefore, of the absence in the parable of a parallel
to Uriah's murder,

we may be

sure that the prophet

men-

tioned this deed together with the rape of Bathsheba, but

only once and not twice, as our present text has
B2

it.

Hence

cf G. F. Moore, Judges,

p. 245.

6o

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
conjecture
that

we

Nathan's

speech

in

the
ver. 9

application

ended with

ver. 9 a (to r\^i6),

and that

b

is

really

the continuation of ver. 10, erroneously transposed.

The
o)
is

whole of

ver.

10 plus 9 b

is

an interpolation similar to the
ver. 10
.

following vers. 11-12.

Note that
(.
.

b

(.

.

.

'•Jnnn

really a duplicate of ver. 9 a

nna).

"i3T

should

be

omitted, with Lucian, as an anti-anthropomorphic para-

phrase of 'iV^ and was probably added by the hand that
inserted the threat in loa.

We may
prior
to

add that

it

is

rather

surprising that the prophet

makes no mention of David's
their

adultery with

Bathsheba

legal

marriage

implied in n^'ab lb nnp^.
106. (chs. 14-20.)

There

is

no cogent reason

for conis

demning

14.

26 as an interpolation.
cf. 9,

Our
;

narrator

fond

of such picturesque details,

10 b

12.30 a;

13. 18 a,

&c.

Moreover, the description of Absalom's personal beauty

may
(cf. I

be intended to explain his father's fondness for him

Kings

I. 6,

See H. P. Smith,

op. cit., 338),

and also
6),

the ease with which he gained the people's heart (15.

The

richness of his hair

the narrator as a preparation for 18. 9b.^*

may have been emphasized by The mention
is

of a royal standard weight the
that
late

not necessarily a proof of

origin of the passage.

For even

if

we assume
it

the

weight

was of

Babylonian

origin,
in

is

quite
in

possible that the weight

had been adopted

Canaan

the pre-Israelitish period.
tion of

The
is

originality of this descrip-

Absalom's beauty

supported by the narrator's

statement of the other pretender
nst:

—Adonijah— 31U
refers to the

Nin DJi

isn

(i

Kings
is

i. 6),

which evidently
ot

beauty

"'

'n ")3T

an exact reproduction
in the
I,

the Aramaic

'm

N"^D^D which

is

commonly employed

Targumim
8.

to

paraphrase the divine Name,

"

Cf.

Mishnah, Sotah,

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL
of Absalom described in our verse.
to contradict 18. i8ay3.

— SEGAL
how

6l

14. 27

seems indeed
a later

But
to

it

is

hard to see

writer

would have dared

insert

such a contradictory-

statement without some explanation.
sons died before his rebellion.^^
107. 15. 24

Perhaps his three

must be taken, with the

critics, as
is

a gloss

similar to
original.

I 6. 15.

On
is

the other hand, 18. 15

undoubtedly

There

no reason
It

why

a later writer should

invent such a statement.
did

would seem that Absalom
and as Joab must have

not

expire
it

immediately,^'^''

thought

dangerous to leave him to die slowly, he there-

fore ordered his armour-bearers to dispatch

him

at once.

The

fact

that Joab

is

given here ten armour-bearers, as

compared with the one possessed by Saul and Jonathan,
need occasion no surprise.
In the high state of developin

ment

to

which the military profession had attained
it

David's reign,
chief of the
birth

is

quite possible that the commander-in-

army was

followed

by

ten

young men

of noble

who

acted as his pages or squires.

T08. 20. 23-6 forms the conclusion of the story of the

second period of David's reign, as
clusion of the story of the
first

8.

16-18 formed the con(cf.

period

above,

§ 93).

Like those

verses, our passage here

must be by the author

of our book,
in
list

who broke

off here
ff.

with his borrowed document

order to give chs. 21
of officers of the

Observe the addition to the
(ver. 24),
(i

Adoram

who

held his
12. 18),

office

till

after

death of Solomon

Kings

and must

therefore have been appointed at the end of David's reign.

Observe further that the sons of David, who had become
discredited through the conduct of their brothers
*^

Amnon
literally.

Cf. Babli

Sotah

ii a,

and Kimhi and Ralbag, ad he.

"

Dl!5C:'2K

3^2

in ver. 14, like

n^KH 3^3, must

not be taken

62

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
priests
is

and Absalom, no longer act as the king's domestic
(cf. 8,

i8b), and their place
N't' is

is

taken

by

XT'y.

It

also

possible that

not to be identified with nn:r of
list

8. 17.

These considerations confirm the view that our
belongs to a later period than the one
in
8.

here

16-18, and
is

dispose of the theory of the critics that our passage

merely a redactional rehash of

8.

16-18.

See also Sayce,

Early History of Hebrews,

p. 444.

Miscellaneous Pieces,
109.

chs. 21-4.

The

last

four

chapters

of our

book

consist of

a series of six miscellaneous pieces,

viz. (i)

The

story of

the expiation of Saul's slaughter of the Gibeonites, 21. 1-14;
(2)

Exploits of four heroes of David against four champions
;

of the Philistines, 21. 15-22
ch. 22
;

(3)

David's
;

Hymn of Triumph,

(4)

David's Oracle, 23. 1-7

(5)

A

list

of David's
(6)

heroes and some of their exploits, 23. 8-39
census of the people and
generally agreed that
(i)
its

;

David's
It
is

consequences, ch. 24.
(6)

and

probably belong to one

document, the
the former, as
to
the

latter
is

being originally the continuation of
24.
i a,

shown by
i.

which can
(2)

refer only
(5)

calamity in 21.

Likewise

and

belong

together, and (3) and (4) are obviously also of a similar
nature.

Further,
i

we may
ch, 1-2

also accept the theory of the

critics that

Kings

belong to the same document

as 2

Sam.

chs. 9-20. the former being the direct continuation
it

of the latter, though
original

is

also quite possible that in the

document some other material intervened between
i

a Sam. 20 and

Kings

1-2.

But we cannot accept the
this section

view of the
in chs.

critics that the

whole of
later

comprised

21-4 was added by
its

hands as an append!.x to
i

the book after

separation from

Kings.

The

insertion

I

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

— SEGAL

63

I

of the

list

of officers in 20. 23-6, which, as

above, emanates from the author of our book

we have shown who had
purpose, in

incorporated into his work the old document, chs. 9-20,
leads us to think that
it

was made of a

set

order to
reader

mark a break

in

the narrative, and to prepare the
different
in

for

other accounts

their

source and

nature from the preceding chapters.
that 21. 1-14 and
author.
its

Hence we conclude
ch.

complement
pieces

24 belong to our
author's
original

Whether these

are

the

work, or have been borrowed by him from another docu-

ment,

it is

impossible to decide with any degree of certainty.

The subdued

tone of these narratives and the mention in
I

21. 12 of nim?D, instead of r,?3inD, as in

31. 12,

would lead

one to the conclusion that they are not the author's own
work.

On

the other hand, the parenthesis in 21. 2 b shows
is

that the narrative

not very ancient.
it

For an older writer

would have thought
of the Gibeonites.

unnecessary to explain the character
is

It

not hard to explain

why

the

author placed these narratives here, and not earlier in
the book.
21. 7

shows that the famine took place

after

ch. 9 (cf. above, § 100).

The

author, therefore, had to place

21.

1-14

after ch. 9,

but he probably did not like to inter-

rupt the document, chs. 9-20, which he was transcribing
into his
viz.

own work,

until

he had reached a suitable place,

after

the quelling of the rebellion of

Absalom and
i
ff.

Sheba'.

Perhaps, as

we have

indicated above, ch. 21.

took the place of some other narrative which stood

in that

document between

2

Sam. 20 and

i

Kings 1-2, and which

our author failed to adopt into his

own work.

no.
the

21.

1-14 and

ch.

24 were torn asunder by the insersequel 23. 8-39.
Philistines

tion of 21. 15-22, and

its

The

insertion

of

exploits

against the

may have

been

64

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

suggested by the mention of the Phih'stine victory over
Saul in 21. 12
b.

We
and

are also inclined to think that the
23. 1-17,

two poems,
position

ch. 22

were placed

in their present

by the same hand which inserted

21,

15-22 and

23. 8-39.

A

scribe

who

did

not shrink

from tearing

asunder 21. 1-14 and ch. 24 by the insertion of 21. 15-22;
23.

8-39 would surely not have had any compunction

in

separating his

own

description of David's heroes

by the

interpolation of chs. 22-23. 1-7.

that the most

suitable place for the

No Hymn

doubt he thought

which celebrated
1

David's victory over all his enemies (22.

b)

was

at the

end of the book

after

all

the accounts of David's wars

against internal and external enemies, and after the description of the struggle against the Philistine champions,

one of

whom had
The

actually sought to take David's
its

own

life

(21. 16).

Oracle, with

promise of perpetuity and
5),

prosperity to David's dynasty (23.

was suggested by
It is also

the concluding verse of the

Hymn

(22. 51).^'
list

quite possible that the placing of the
after the

of heroes (23. 8-39)

poem was due

to a pure accident.
its

The

interpolator

may

not have decided upon

incorporation until after

he had already copied

down

the two poems.

On

the other

hand, the whole insertion of 21. 15-23. 39 was placed where
it

stands, instead of at the

end of

ch. 24, because ch.

24

may have been
book, since
it

considered a fitting conclusion to the whole

closes with the divinely-ordained consecration

of the site of the future
in

Temple

of Solomon, an act which

a later time

was probably thought to have been the
(cf. 1

crowning achievement of David's career

Chron. 21. 3

fif.),

and which
the story

at the
of

same time served
in
1

as an introduction to

Solomon's reign " a.JQR.,

Kings.

Finally, the

V, 20I.

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL
exploits against the Philistines (21. 15
earlier in the book, say after 5.
in his
ff.)

— SEGAL

65

were not inserted
has done

hotch-potch polychrome

— as Budde text — because
25

the. interpo-

lator could not

have placed there the

Hymn

in

which, as
all

we have
internal.

said,

David celebrated

his

triumph over

his

enemies, Philistine as well as others, external as well as

III. (ch. 21.) 21.

2b-3aa
critics

(to

D''3ynjn)

need

not be an

interpolation,

as

the

assert.

It

may
f. ;

be merely

an explanatory parenthesis by the author himself, similar
to the parenthetic explanations in 4. 2 b
I 27. 8 b,

&c.

Ver. 12:
(§ 109), I 31.

3imo may show,
is

as

we have remarked above
31.

that our passage

from a document different from
I

It

does not, however, involve a contradiction to
the bodies

12,

since

suspended from the wall (=

niDinn

I 31. 10)

must have faced the broad place
21. 12).

in front of the

wall

(= 3imo

Thus, both passages are quite
It is therefore quite possible that

correct and consistent.

our passage here was incorporated into the book by the

same author who wrote
for H'-Wcn
,

I

31.

The reading

of the

Targum

and of some codd. of

LXX
its

drrb rod reL^ov?

=

ncino for 3imo, rests evidently on a deliberate correction.
112. 21. 15-22
style to 5. 17-25.
in
its
is

similar in

compressed annalistic

It differs,
it

however, from that passage
5.

contents, since

does not deal, like

17-25, with

David's wars against the Philistines, but only with the
exploits of individual warriors.

In other words, instead

of a narrative of the Philistine wars, including as episodes
also

accounts of individual exploits subordinate to the

account of the wars, we have here accounts of the exploits

forming the principal theme, and the wars mentioned only
as

something subordinate, and as affording a background
VOL. IX.
F

66

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
For
this

to the exploits.

reason

it

is

very

much

to be

doubted whether our passage ever had any connexion with
5.

17-25.

It

is

certainly

wrong
first

to transfer our passage

to the end of ch. 5 without

explaining

how the passage
and transposed

became
here.

dislocated from

its

original position

For a discussion of the text of

chs. 22-23. 7

^^'

^^^^

Review,

vol.

V, pp. 209-31.

113. (ch. 23.)

Many

critics

think that 23. 13-17, which

according to ver. 13 a describes an exploit by members of
the Thirty, was placed in
its

present position
is

by an
'iDi

error,

and that the conclusion

of ver. 12

ver. 17

b:

iw

rha.

But

it

is

hard to see how the passage was so misplaced.
nc^CJ' in ver.

Again, the Qn3Jn
with the Dn33n
in vers.

16 a are evidently identical

n::'^*^

in ver. 17 b, viz. the

Three enumerated

8-1 1, so that the exploit of vers. 13-17 was per-

formed not by members of the Thirty, but by the Three
of vers. 8-11.
n^c6u'
nn:;'^^',

It

is,

therefore,
ver.

(Kere

n^b'Cf)

in

more probable that for 13 we should read niyb'Cfr] or

and omit

D'D'^li'no
t;'N"l

as a corrupt dittography of the

previous word.

may

perhaps belong to T-Vp 'at the

beginning of the harvest', as proposed by Budde.
original text
'n

The
m^l

would thus have read

:

(Dn:^•i'C^

or) ni^b\^*n
::\sn

ba

iN'a^i

y-ap cn-i.

LXX and
list

Peshitta omit

altogether,

perhaps rightly.
114.

The whole
is

contains thirty-six names, whereas
ver.

the

total

given

in

39 as thirty-seven.
(cf.

Various

solutions have been offered to this difficulty

also

Kimhi
I

and Ralbag), but none can be deemed
jecture that the
fallen out

satisfactory.

con-

name and achievements

of one hero have

by some accident

after either ver. 19 or ver. 23.

That hero may have been

'nnn i^o-nwS (I 26. 6) or »n:n "na.

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL
If SO, there

—SEGAL

67

were really two

sets of

Three

in addition to

the Thirty

(=

Thirty-one).

By

adopting this conjecture
in vers.

we

shall

be able to retain the present text
.

18-19:

'Abishai

.

.

was the chief of

''lihun

(na'^B^n)',
'

the second

Three
Three;

' .
.

.

;

he had a reputation

riK'PB'n

among

the

first

(ver. 19)

'He was
;
'

the most honourable of

rt'^b^n',

the second
iTj'^cn
',

Three
first

but did not attain to the rank of

the

Three.

115. (ch. 24.)

The

text of 24. 10-17 has been suspected
P.

by many
ver. 10,

critics.

H.

Smith

rejects
'

as interpolations

because according to this verse
his denunciation'
(<?/.

David's repentance

comes before

«V., 390),

and
. .
.

ver. 17,

because 'ver. 18 joins immediately to ver.
in

16.

Neither

what follows nor
prayer'
(zdid.,

in ver.

16

is

any notice taken by Y" of
fact there

this

391

f.).

But as a matter of

was no denunciation

at all

by Gad,

for the simple reason

that no denunciation was necessary, since

David was already
to

conscious

of

his

error

before
in

Gad had come
tells

him.

The prophet nowhere
had
17).

the chapter

David that he

sinned.

It is

David himself who
..ynnny),

cries ^nxun (vers. 10,
:

Budde re-arranges the
a,

text as follows
14,

vers. 10,

lib,

12, 13b, II
18.^^

13a, 13c

(.

15, i6a, 17, i6b,

But we must ask the oft-repeated question: how
complicated derangement
Further, a
little

did this

arise,

and from what

cause?

consideration will

show that the
the

present wording of our text

demands

its

present arrangever. 10,

ment.

If II

b had followed immediately upon

statement would have been expressed in the usual fashion,
thus: n^jM
-13

ba

'n
n^rt

im

\n^i.

The

use of the pluperfect

construction with

shows that the event of the prophecy
viz.

was anterior
^3

to

some other event previously mentioned,
Haupt's

Cf. his text in

SBOT.,

p. 35,

and his notes,

ibid., p. 85.

F 2

68
to ver.
1 1

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
a
;

for the

prophetic word had

come

to

Gad

during the night before David had arisen

in the morning.-^^

Again,

if

ver. 13

b had originally followed upon

ver. 12,

and had formed the exact wording of the divine message
to Gad,
it

would not have been expressed

in

the form of

three interrogative clauses, but rather in a simple enumeration of the three penalties,

and would have been placed
12
b,

between
"im
'131

ver.

1

2 a

and

ver.
. ,
.

thus

:

ybv

bu)i -ISJS

uh^

D^d" n^b'^)

"lam Nim

D^B'nn n-^b'^ n^'-ixn

ayn

d-:b' v^b'

nno nnN i? ina "i^nxa. The present wording of ver. 13 b shows that it is really Gad's own paraphrase of the divine
Again, the
order
ver.

message.
original.

i6a-i6b
is

is

certainly

For the purpose of the writer

to

show the

favour which the angel

God showed
forth

the
his

Holy

City, that as soon as
strike
her,

stretched

hand to

God
diffi-

repented Himself of His

own

accord,

and before David had
is

uttered his prayer in ver. 17.
culties raised

The

truth

that the

by the critics are only The arrangement of our text is quite
represented
the
prevailing public
in

of their
logical

own making.
consistent.

and

In spite of the warnings and protests of Joab,

who no doubt
with which

opinion,*^*^

David himself agreed

the depth of his heart, the king

yet persisted in carrying out his object.
attained, the inevitable reaction set in,

But that object

and the king was

stricken with remorse for
in

what he had done, and apparently

the night time he prayed to
night,

God

for forgiveness (ver. 10).

The same

and before the king had

risen

in

the

morning, the prophet

Gad was charged

b}-

God

with a

message to the king to choose one of three
"^

evils as a

penalty

Cf. Driver's note,

ad
;

he.
to vers. 5-6,

Cf.

I

Chron. ai. 6
p.

Rashi here

and Pesikta Rabbati, ed.

Friedmann,

43

b.

:

STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL
for his sin (vers. 11-13).

— SEGAL
choice,

69

David makes

his

comtrust

mitting himself to the mercy of
in

God

(ver. 14).

His

God was

fully justified

by the

event.

For as soon as

the destroying angel had reached Jerusalem, and before the
first

of the three days had passed (ver. 15
for the

a),

God bethought
(ver. 16).

Himself out of consideration

Holy City
in

David, however, ignorant of the
purpose, offered
(ver. 17).

change
to

the divine

up another prayer

spare the people

In answer to this second prayer
(ver. 18;
cf.

Gad

is

again

sent to

him

ver. 19 b),

with a message from
in

God, as he was sent to him before
prayer
(vers. lo-ii).

answer to

his first

II 5.

Having now arrived

at the

end of our inquiry into

the composition of our book,

we

will

summarize the

results

we have obtained
1.

in the following table

Author's original work:
I I
;

3. II,

18-21, 26
;

;

3

;

4. I

a (M. T.)

;

7.

2-17

;

8; 10.17-37; II
(.
. .

13; 14. 47-52; 15; 16;
a,

18,

6a^

njNVni)-8
I

a, 9,

12

13-16, 30-21

a,

33-6

a,

37-9 a;

19; 30.

a; 21. 3-16; 33; 33;
28. 1-2. 3-17,

24;
(.
.

25. I, 2-42(?),
.

43-4; 27;
30; 31-

19a /?

nn?:i)-25

;

29;

H

I.

1-18;

2.

1-9, 12-32;

3; 4;

5.

1-3, 4-5(?}>
21. i-i4(?);

10-25; 6; 7; 8.1-10,13-18; 20.23-6;
24(?).
2.

Old material incorporated by the author himself:
I 2.

12-17, 22-5, 37-313, 32-4, ^S-^
1-14, 16-21;
17.
7.

(?)

;

4. I

b-22

;

5;
14.

6.

1;

9;

10.

1-16;
a,

13.

2-23;
25-

1-46;
(?);

i-ii, 32-40, 42-8

49.

5T-4;

2-42

36.

:

70
II

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
1.

I
a,

19-27;

5.

6-9; 9; 10; II

;

12.

1-9

13-31;

13; 14; 15. 1-23, 24b-37; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20.122; 21. i-i4(?); 24(?)3.

Old additions found already
I

in

the archetype of
20.

LXX
21.

2.

i-io, 35-6
a.
;

i'^)'^

6.

15;

ib-42;

i;

28.

18-19 a
2.

II
15.
4.

lo-ii
21.

5.

4-5(?);

8.

11-12;

13.

9b-i2;

24a;

15-22; 22; 23.
in

Late additions not found
I

archetype of

LXX

:

2.22 b;

13. I

;

17.

12-14*,

15, 16-31=*=,

41,48

b,

50, 55-^"^',

18. 1-5*,

6a, 8b, lo-ii*

12b, 17-19*,

21 b, 26

b,

a9b-3o.^^

^

Passages marked with an asterisk were derived by the interpolator

from an old document.

We have

left

out of consideration in this Conspectus

the classification of certain disputed single words and phrases*

MEGILLAT

TAANIT AS A SOURCE FOR JEWISH CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY IN THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS
By Solomon
Zeitlin, Dropsie College.

CHAPTER
The
known

I

Origin of the Megillat Taanit.
booklet,
as
'

Megillat Taanit

',

gives a

list

of those days whereon, by reason of certain events there-

with associated, Jews are not to
brief reference
is

fast.

In most cases,

made

to the events that severally
is

mark

them, while
'

in

a few instances nothing

said save that
'.

it is

a

Yom Tob

whereon we are not to
their

fast

These days
recorded
in

were semi-holidays, and
special scrolls to

events

were

remind the people of these

semi-festivals,

which, on the other hand, were not to be put on a plane

with the holidays ordained
semi-festivals

in

the Pentateuch.
refers

To
it

these
says,

the
all

book of Judith
these days of her

when

'Judith fasted

widowhood except the

eves of Sabbaths, the Sabbaths, the days before

new moons,
It

the

new moons,
Israel
',

the holidays and days of rejoicing for the
Kal \apiioavvS)v olkov 'lo-parjX
(8. 6).
is

house of

may be assumed
ancient times,
history.
.

that the present Megillat Taanit

one

of a series of scrolls which circulated

among
be

the Jews in
in

commemorating important events

Jewish
the

Megillat Taanit

may
71

properly

called

Jewish viomtmentwn aerc percimiiis.

72
It
is

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
has no parallel in

Hebrew

historical literature.

It

not written in the narrative vein of the Books of the
series of

Maccabees, but consists of a
drical events,

unconnected calen-

which are arranged according to the Hebrew

dates and divided according to the Jewish calendar into

tweh'e

chapters

corresponding

to

the

twelve

Hebrew

months from Xisan to Adar.

The

IMegillah

is

written in Aramaic.
is

In age, Megillat

Taanit ranks next to the Scriptures, and
authority
Baraitot.^
ain3.2

accorded great
of the old

by the Tannaim,
It is cited in the
all

similar

to

that

Mishnah, with the expression

Of

the feast-days recorded in the Scroll, few

are

still

observed.

The

other festivals have sunk into

oblivion.
1

This was quite natural.
II

Their origin, as we

Mishnah Taanit
It

(15b).

2

so that the

was considered of great authority by the sages of the Mishnah, Tannaim of the first half of the second century were divided in
it

their interpretation of

(Taanit,

ibid, in

the Mishnah).

quotes the Megillah with the expression 3103.

In the Palestinian

The Talmud Babli Talmud NJn
not neces-

we

find citations from the
it

Megillah introduced by the expression K3n.
is

Incidentally
sarily

may

be pointed out that the expression

an allusion

tu

Oral Law, but also to a written Law.
until the time of
in

The opinion

that the
is

Mishnah was not written down
and

Rabbi Ashi, which

based on the use of SJO

pn
in the

connexion with Mishnah and
in the

Baraita, thus loses

much
TD''

of

its

strength.

NJD was used
Middle Ages.

Talmud

in

the

same manner as

and |pn

That the Mishnah

was written down can be seen from employed when emending a passage
"•Jnp

the expression which the
in the

Amoraim

Mishnah,

viz.

N^DIT'D ^11011

Oni

,

thus implying a defective text, whereas the earlier Tannaim,
J?DC'.

like

Rabbi Tarphon, used the expression nyoi VDItiTl
VJ3"' implies oral tradition.

In the last

mentioned case the word
I

wish

to call attention

here to a highly interesting variant which

I

found
in the

in a

manuscript copy of the Tractate Abodah zarah (Spain, 1291)
of America.

Jewish Theological Seminary
edition, the manuscript reads

For inyDTib

in

the printed
b).

X^3n3 NanrO NHI (IHrDIJ^) (Ab. zarah 8
I

That the Mishnah was written down even before the time of Rabbi,
fully

shall

demonstrate

in a

work on

the History of the Oral

Law.

MEGILLAT TAANIT AND JEWISH HISTORY— ZEITLIN
shall see,

73

was connected with the

victories of the

Jews over

the Syrians in the

Hasmonean
'

period and over the

Roman
When,
days

armies in the beginning of the
therefore, the Sanctuary

War

of Vespasian

'.

was destroyed and Jewish indepen-

dence
of

lost, their

raison d'etre was gone.
after

Thus

in the

Rabbi Joshua, not long

the

destruction

of the

Temple, we
holidays.

find that the people paid

no attention to these

They even decreed
1

a fast on
is

Hanukkah (Rosh
laid

ha-Shanah

8 b).

And
:

this
'

in

agreement with the

statement of Rabbi Jose
it

Since the

Temple

is

waste

is

permissible

to

fast
'

on the festive days which are
^aN'J' ^JD»

enumerated
Dn?
N'in.

in this Scroll

inniD

D^^p ::'ipi:n n'2

pN

However, these semi-holidays were not formally

abrogated by the rabbis.

They

gradually disappeared
this led to the dis-

from the practices of the people, and
cussion between

Rab and Hanina, and
'

their

colleagues

R. Johanan and R. Joshua ben Levi, as to whether the

Yamim Tobim
last

in the

Megillah

'

are abrogated."
will

In the course of this work

it

be shown that the
is

event chronicled in our Megillah

that which took
this,

place on the 17th of Adar, 66 c. E.

After

Vespasian

overcame

all

resistance in Galilee,

and with the conclusion
its

of the war the Jewish people lost

autonomy.
its

This

accords well with the date and circumstances of

com'

position which are preserved in a talmudic tradition.

It

was written', says the Talmud,^ 'by the colleagues of
[R. Eleazar ben]

Hanina ben Hezekiah ben Garon',

i.e.

a few years before the destruction of the Second Temple.

Eleazar was the leader of the Rebellion,

whom

Josephus

charges with having incited the people against the Romans.
3

Rosh ha-Shanah
Shabbat 13
b.

i8 b.

*

See the next note.

'

74

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
in circulating this Scroll
if

His object
people that

was

to

show

to the

they were fully resolved to throw off the
as great prospect of success

yoke of the Romans they had
as the
off the

Hasmoneans and

their followers

had of throwing

yoke of the Syrians.
is

This

corroborated by what the

Talmud ^
i.e.

says of

its

being compiled by inyDl nrjn [p nry^s],

by Eleazar

and

his associates

who

were leaders of the party in favour

of the war against the Romans.

The name by which we
this
it

book

are
'

accustomed to designate
indeed a misnomer, since

'

Megillat Taanit

is

does not discuss Fasts; on the contrary, it points out certain

days commemorative of joyful events and, declaring them
'

Yom Tob

',

prohibits fasting thereon.
'

It

seems to

me

that the

name

Megillat Taanit

'

is

of a later date, belonging

either to the talmudic or post-talmudic period.
this

Originally
'

book appears
or
roll),

to

have been called simply
in

Megillah
to
in

(scroll

and
in

this

wise

is

referred

the

Mishnah.

Thus

the Palestinian version of the IVIishnah

(Taanit 2) and in the Mishnah of Jerusalem (ed.

W. H.
b:>.''

Lowe,

I1S83)

we meet with the expression

n^^:?Dn

ain^n

This theory as to the original name of Megillat Taanit
is

corroborated through a scribal error which
**

is

revealed

Shabbat 13

b.

According
T]''::n

to the Scholiast,

it

was

'"I

b'C
p.

IDyD

^"j?

in:

p

n-'pin

p
it

p

n:y^i?K.

in

Halakot Gedolot,

615 (ed.

Hildesheimcr;

is

stated that this Megillah

was written by

the elders of

Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel
"ilplb lbyL"3 pnj
et la

p

iry^S*

n^^j;3 n"'JVn

nb'iK)

13n3 DH

P

n^rn

p

n^J^n.

See Derenbourg, Essai
i,

stir I'htstoire

geographic de la Palestine, Paris, i8i2, note

and Graetz, Gcschichte der

Jttdciu HI", part 2, p. 810.
^

Sec Dikdukc

Sojcriin, Taanit, II,
is

i,

and

ibid.,

17 a

where

the manuscript
;

reading of the Talmud Babli too
is

given as nb^3fD3 DIDIin ^D
Cf. also Toscfta (ed.

the same

the reading of the Bodleian
2, 4
:

MS.

Zuckermandcl)

Taanit

rh''l122

p3in3n DU1D WtT^.

MEGILLAT TAANIT AND JEWISH HISTORY
in

—ZEITLIN
(^legillah

75

the

Munich MS.
^DV

For Talmud Babli
"iK^y

5 b)

which reads nr nsi
prs*
x"'"iis

nyms* nv

riN

n"'3yn

n^^jon nTiani
"inDN* n^'':c2

-i^ry

ncnn, the Munich

MS.

reads
is

TC'y

iTj^Tsn

DV

ns'i i^'y

nyans nv

ns*.

This

a palpable error,

since the passage, 'The fourteenth
is

and

fifteenth are

NniD "CV

',

not quoted from the biblical scroll of Esther, but from
'

the so-called
plained

Megillat Taanit

'.

This error

is

best ex-

by the assumption

that the original text of the

copyist read n7Jm, which, owing to the context, he assumed,
referred to the well-known biblical Scroll of Esther.

Besides the Aramaic text of the Megillah, there exists
also a running

commentary, or

scholia, in

Mishnic Hebrew,
in

explaining the events which are mentioned

the Megillah.

These
of the

scholia, all

commentators are agreed, are the product
period."

Talmudic

That we cannot

rely on the
his-

scholiast

where he gives us what purports to be the
^

torical cause
this study.
''

will

be fully demonstrated

in the course of

Weiss, Dor Dorive Dorshaw,

II, p.

xxv.

*

Wellhausen, Pharisder unci Sadducder, pp. 56-63.

^6

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

CHAPTER
Chronology
ix

II

Maccabees

I

and

II.

A CURSORY
that
to the

examination of the Megillah reveals clearly
are there referred to belong

some of the events which
Maccabean
period,

and some are connected with
of the Maccabees and the"

the Great Revolt.

The Books

works of Josephus are therefore the primary sources upon
which the student must rely
in

order to determine the true

character of the dates and events which are mentioned in

the Megillah.
in these

Unfortunately, however, the dates mentioned

books are based on different systems of chronology
identified.

and cannot be readily

Before

we can

solve the

many
we

perplexing identifications of the dates of the Megillah,

shall therefore

have to examine
first

critically the respective

chronological systems of the

and second Books of the

Maccabees and of the Belliim hidaicum.
It is well

known

that there exists a discrepancy of one

year between the First and Second Book of Maccabees.^
In both books of Maccabees the chronology
is

apparently
this
is

based on the Scleucid
*

era.

In

i

Mace.

(i. lo)

According
(6.

to

i

Mace, Antiochus Eupator
;

laid siege to

Jerusalem
i),
r

in

the year 150

20-61

cp. 7.

i\ while according

to 2

Mace. (13.
to
(9.

this

siege and the peace
(6.

16) Antiochus
in 148.

were in the year 149, Similarly-, according IV died in 149, while according to 2 Mace.
2 Mace. 11

Mace.
28) he

died

(Compare

which contains the
letter in

letters of

Antiochus

Eupator

to the

Jews, and while the

which reference

is

made
still

to

the recent death of his father (Antiochus IV) contains no date,

the

presumption

is

that like the others,

which arc dated,

it

was written

in 148.)

I

;

MEGILLAT TAANIT AND JEWISH HISTORY
clearly
rju
:

— ZEITLIN
kv
'ir^L

77

'Autlo)(os 'E7ri(f)avi]S,

vlb? 'Avtl6)(^ov ^acnXicog, 09

OfX-qpa

kv

Trj

'Pcofir),

Kal

k^aa-lX^vaev

e/ca-

Toarco

Kal

rpiaKoarco
is

Kal

ilSSofico

^acnXcias
i

^EWrjvonv.

The

current opinion
its

that the chronology of
E.,

Maccabees

takes as

starting-point Nisan 312 B. c,

while that of

2 Maccabees starts from Tishri 311

B. c. E.^°

The view

that

1

Maccabees reckons the beginning of the Seleucid
is

era from the spring of 312

of course at variance with the
fall

established fact that the Seleucid era dates from the

of 312

B. C. E.^^

Nevertheless, this theory was forced upon
evidence.

scholars

by the following circumstantial
I

Ac-

cording to
with their

Mace.

(6. 20,

cp.

7. I)

Antiochus

V and
in

Lysias
s.,

army besieged the Temple mount
further explained that the

150 A.
at

and

it

is

Jews were

great

disadvantage in the siege, having naught to eat by reason
of that being the sabbatical year [otl ad^fSarov
Sia TO e^Sofxou 'iros elvai, 6. 49-53).
1"

rjv rfj yfj

.

..

Now,

the sabbatical
lib.

See Joseph

Scaliger,

Opus de Emendatione
lib.

Temporutn,

V
et

Dionysius Petavius,

De Dodrina Temp.,
;

II; Usher, Annal. Vderis

Novi

London, 1654 Noris, Epoch Syromac, p. 75, 1696; Erasmo Froelich, Annales Compettdiarii Regiim et reritnt Syriae, Prolegomena, Viennae, 1754; Ideler, Handbuch der Clironologie, I, pp. 531-4,
Testametiti, II,

Berlin, 1825

;

Schurer, Geschichie, 32-40.
'

Unger,

'

Die Seleukidenara der
CI.

Makkabaerbiicher
Akadentie der
I

{SitzungsbericMe der Philos.-Philol.-Hist.

der

k.

b,

IViss.

su

Miinclien,
its

1895)

thinks

that

the

chronology of
b. c.

and 2 Maccabees takes as
Gilbert,
'

ieriuiiiiis

a quo the spring of 311

See

also

Memoire sur

la

chronologic de I'histoire des Machabees'
et

{Memoires de VAcad^mie des Inscriptions
ClintoM, Easti Hellenid, III, pp. 370-7.

Belles-Lett res,
to

XXVI,

1759)
in

;

According

him the era

both

books starts from the autumn of 312 b.c.
^1

This
first

is

also the opinion expressed

by Prideaux, Connexion,
this

I,

p.

514-15,

'The

book begins the years of
;

era from the

spring, but the

second begins them from the autumn

and so did the Syrians, Arabs, and

Jews, and

all

others that anciently did or
first

now do
own

use this era'.

It is

very

strange that the author of the
this era

book of Maccabees should have computed
countrj-men, the Jews.

by

a

method

different

even from his

78

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
i,

year was from Tishri

164
i

b. C. E.

to Tishri

i,

163.^'^

Hence
312
as

if

the chronology of

Maccabees took Tishri of
S.

its

starting-point, then 150 A,

corresponded with

Tishri 163 to Tishri 162,

and the year of the siege which
If,

was 150

A.

S.

could not have been a sabbatical year.
it

on the other hand,
1

is

assumed that the chronology of
as its starting-point, then
B. C. E.
B. C. E.

Maccabees takes Nisan (312)
A.
S.

150
until

corresponds to the period from Nisan 163
B.

Nisan 162

C E,,

and the summer of 163

actually falls in

the sabbatical year.
in that

Thus the

siege can

be definitely placed

summer.^^
is

The

chronology of 2
i

Maccabees
If
i

postponed one year
its

beyond that of

Maccabees.

Maccabees reckons

era from Nisan 312, then the chronology of a

Maccabees
however,

must have begun from 311

B. C. E.

This

era,

could not have started from the spring of 311, but from the

autumn
dated

of 311, as

is

clearly proved from the letters
11. 17-33).

of

Antiochus
is

V

(2

Mace.

O"^

o^ these

letters

in the

month of Dioscurus
is

of the year 148, while

another of later date

marked Xanthicus of the year

148
2

—which

shows that the era of the chronology of

Maccabees did not begin from the spring, Xanthicus, but

from the autumn

i.e.

Tishri 311
is

B. C. E.^*

This theory, however,
the Jews,
the

not acceptable.
civil

For among

beginning of the

year was always

reckoned not from Nisan, but from Tishri.
tradition was fixed
first
I'''

Thus the
the
^^

W^^yh nycn

r'X"!

ncna nnx3 'from
is
III.

day of
Schiircr,
Schiircr,

Tishri, the beginning of the year
I.e.,
/.

reckoned.'

p.

35

;

sec also below, chap.

^3 '*
'*

c, p. 214.

About the other
ibid.
(I

diftkulties see below, note 27.

See further

Ideler,

Handbuch,
2.

Rosh

ha-Shaiiah, p.
tells

Josephus

have employed Niese's edition
holiday's,

throughout) likewise

us that with respect to months,

and

MEGILLAT TAANIT AND JEWISH HISTORY

— ZEITLIN

79

The former theory
I

could

onl}''
i

with difficulty be reconciled

with the chronography of

Maccabees.

For according to

Mace.

16. 14,

year 177 a.s.
era in
i

in the

Simon the Hasmonean was killed in the month of Shebat. Now if the Seleucid
B.C.,

Maccabees began from Nisan 312
which Simon was
;

then the
year

month
135

in

killed

would

fall

in the

B. c. E.

the year 177 extending from Nisan 136 to

Nisan 135.
{Ant. XIII,
8.

But according to the account of Josephus
1-3, cp. XIII, 7. 4)

the year after Simon's

death was a sabbatical year, and that sabbatical year was
Tishri 136 to Tishri 135.'^

Again, according to

this theory,

the siege of Jerusalem
to
I

by Antiochus V,
s.

which, according
is

Maccabees, occurred in 150 A.

and which
in
is

described
of

as a sabbatical year,

must be dated

the

summer

163

B. c. E.

(cp.

above, p. 78), and this
if

opposed by the

Megillah which,

our interpretation

is

correct, dates the
(see

raising of this siege specifically

on the 28th of Shebat

below, chap. IX, No. VIII, p. 70).
I

venture to suggest a new solution to the chronological
of
i

difficulties

Maccabees.
as
is

The reckoning
known,
at

of the Seleucid

era has

its origin,

well

in the victory

gained

by Demetrius over Ptolemy near Gaza,
Seleucid dynasty was founded.

which time the

That

battle

was fought

in

the

summer

of 312 B. c.

E.,

for in the

words of Josephus

festivals,

Moses commanded

that the year should be counted from Nisan

(spring), but in connexion with matters of business

and general

affairs,

the

year should be counted from Tishri.
Kara to i^aicoaioarov eros
tjStj

Anif.
t^s
viro

I,

3.

3 2we0r] 8e tovto t6
ixrjvl

traOos

Ncuc'ov
5'

apx^js, tv

divrtpcv, Aiai fitv iino

Ma«e5orcoi/ Kejofxivai, Mapcrovdvri

'E^paiojv

ovtoj
6s

yap

kv

AiyvnTcp ruv

kviavTov Tjaav 8iaTfTax<JTes.

Maivafjs 8e top iiiadv,
«£

kari savOticus, /ifjva
'Efipaiovs npoayaycuv.
(xkvToi

npwrov km rafs koprah wpiae Kara tovtov
ovTOi
5'

AlyvnTov tovs

avToi

icat irpus

arrdjas rdy
Stoiarjaiv
;

els

to 6eTov ripAs fjpxtv. knl
Kocr/xov SiffpvKa^e.
III.

ye irpdatis

Kal uvds Kal rfju
^'^

aWrjv
I,

rbv vpSnov

SchUrer,

p.

35

see also below, chap.

80

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
I,

{Contra Apiojicvi,

22, 184), following Castor, this battle

took place

in

the eleventh year after Alexander died

iuSeKccTcp jxkv erei

r^? 'AXe^dvSpov TeXivrfjs,
in

.

.

.

o)?

laropu

Kda-Toop.

Alexander the Great died
E.,^''

May

or
in

June
the

323

B. c.

and the eleventh year closed, then,

latter part of

May

or June 312 B.C. E.^^

All the

cities in

the

countries

around the Holy Land adopted the year

of the battle, as a

which established the

rule of the Seleucids

new

era,

but fixed the beginning of the year according

to the traditional
in

New Year

season which had prevailed

the respective countries.

For

instance, in

Damascus
while other

they counted the years of the Seleucid era from the spring
of 312 B.
cities
C. E.,

as can be seen on their coins;
their

^^

counted
It

era

from

Hyperberetaeus or from

Dius.-''

was quite

natural, therefore, for the Jews, too,

when they adopted
with
their

this era to

arrange

it

in

accordance

traditional

New Year
The

and their methods of

calendrical calculations.

interval from the coronation

of the king until Nisan was counted as year one of his
reign
;

and from that Nisan to the next Nisan

as year

1' ^3

Clinton, Fasti Hellenici,

II, p.

176.
II, p.

Droysen,
Schiirer,
Ideler,
/.

Gescltichie des
I,

Hcllenismus,

45.

"
20

37.
I,

c,

413-37-

Many

cities

under

Roman

influence began

their years

in

the

Seleucid era from the

month

of January.

Wieseler,

Chronologischc Synapse, p. 452.
lenismtts,
III,

According to Droysen, Geschkhte dcs Helwhile
it

pp. 364, 91,

Euscbius,
effect

dating

from
b. c.

the

origin

of

the Scleucidc dynasty, in

puts

January 312

Unger, Die

cities

I. c., pp. 300-316, thinks that many counted their years from October 313, and so likewise Porphyry reckoned the years of Olympiads— not from the month of July 776 B.C.,

Seleukidennra dcr Makkabderbiicher,

which was the
Antiquities.

first

Olympiad, but from Dius 777 e.g. (Unger,
in

/.

c, p. 300)

;

and so does Joscphus reckon the years

connexion with Olympiads

in his

See more about

this

below, chap. IV.

MEGILLAT TAANIT AND JEWISH HISTORY
two.^^

—ZEITLIN

8l

Anniversaries and births which
^^

were dated not

from Nisan but from Tishri
If,

illustrate the
in

same

principle.

for

example, a person was born

the course of the
v/as

year, the rest of that year up

to Tishri

considered

the

first

year of his

life

;

from that Tishri to the next

Tishri his second year.^^

When,
Seleucidan
is

therefore, the
era,

Jews adopted the calendar of the
it

they moulded

to their view-point

;

that

to say, the

New Year
312

date was retained as the

first

of

Tishri, but Tishri

B. C. E.

marked the beginning

of the

second year of the newly-established
the

era, the interval

from

summer when

the battle of Gaza was fought until

Tishri 313 B.C. E. being counted as year one of the era.
I

Maccabees, written

for Jews,

in

Hebrew and
in

^^

in

Palestine, used the chronology of Judea.

Thus we can now
i

harmonize the date of Simon's death, given
as 177 A.
S.,

Maccabees,

with the account of Josephus describing the

year following Simon's death as a sabbatical year.

For
while

Shebat 177 A.

S.

corresponds to Shebat 136B.

C. E.,

the sabbatical year
Tishri 136 B.C. E.^^

began on the following

New
the
A. s.

Year,

Likewise, the date of the Megillah,

which places the siege of Antiochus
months,^''
al

V

in

winter
corre-

becomes tenable;
lo
b.

for the

year 150

Rosh ha-Shanah

" Rosh ha-Shanah, Mishnah, Jerushalmi, ibid. 56b. See also above, note 15. And this is what the Talmud says "ITybs ""(3 b'Sl'ob D''310 ^^"1^''' iDSH,
:

ibid.,

12

a.

'

They counted

the years of the successive generations from the

month of Tishri according
in Tishri.'
*^

to R. Eliezer,

who

said that the

world was created

See Rapoport, 'Eiek
I.
.

Millin, p. 92.

Midrash rabba Num.

2*
'

Hieronymi Opera

.

.

Praefatio in

lib.

Samuel,
reperi,

p.

459, Venetiis, 1770:

Machabaeorum primum
*^

libruni

Hebraicum
'.

secundus Graecus est

quod ex ipsa quoque

(ppdati probari potest
III.

See below, chap.

^^

See below. No. VIII.

VOL. IX,

G

82

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
E.,

spends to 164-163 B.C.
year.-''

which was a

full

sabbatical

^^

See below, chap.
i

III.

The

difficulties
is

which caused scholars

to

deny

that the chronology in

Maccabees

based on the year beginning in autumn,
Let us examine them
:

prove groundless on closer scrutiny.
(i)
7.

According
.
.

to

i

Mace.

7.

i

Demetrius became king

in 151 a.s.

43

.

we
it

learn that Nicanor

was

killed

on the 13th of Adar.
it

From The year
he

of his death

is

not recorded specifically, but

was no doubt
that
first

151, as further
killed,

on

(9.

3)

says that

when Demetrius heard
in

Nicanor was
month,
in

dispatched a great army against Judea

the

the year

152 AS.

And
i

so,

according to their understanding of the matter, the
3'ear

chronology of

Maccabees does not reckon the

from the autumn

;

for

the interval between the death of Nicanor until the time that Demetrius

heard the astounding news, would be very long, whereas other things point
to its

having been quite short.

Consequently they adopt the view that this
in the

chronology deals with a year that began
killed in

spring and that Nicanor
first

was

Adar 151

a.s.,

and that

in

Nisan 'the

month of 152

a.s.',

Demetrius received the news.
But, as
I

have said above, the chronology of
i.

i

Maccabees

is

really based
in

on the Judean chronology,
(Tishri),

e.

that in

which the year began

autumn

though the months are numbered from Nisan.

That the months

were

so counted is proved by i Mace. 16. 14, where it is stated that Simon was killed in the eleventh month, 'the same is the month Shebat'. The month of Adar in which Nicanor was killed does not belong to the winter

of 151 A.s. but to the winter of 152 A. s.,and
,

is in

ournotation Adar of 161 b.c.e.

The month

in

which Demetrius heard the report was, indeed, Nisan (ptJ'KT
This (corresponding to 161 b.c.e.)

nJKTI *Knnl5) in the year 152 a.s.

was a leap year, immediately succeeding the post-sabbatical year 1,150 a. s. was sabbatic), since neither in a sabbatic nor in a post-sabbatic year was intercalation of a month permitted (see below, p. 96 and note 62). The intercalation of Adar II quite well explains how so early as Nisan, Demetrius
could receive complete
official

reports and
;

absolute verification of
eight

what
(see

happened

to

Nicanor on the 13th of Adar
Handhucli su
i

weeks had elapsed

Grimm,
(2)

Exegelisclies

I.

Mace. p. 118.
in

According

to

Mace.

10. i,

Alexander Balas became king

i6o a.

s.,

and

after informing us that

he (the king) sent friendly messages
Priest, the writer

to

Jonathan

and appointed him High

goes on

to

say (lo. ai) that
in the

Jonathan put on the priestly garments year 160
a.s.,

in the
If in

feast of

Tabernacles
i

from which they deduce

:

the chronology of
it

Maccabees

years were reckoned from the autumn,

how was

possible for Jonathan's

MEGILLAT TAANIT AND JEWISH HISTORY
This theory
is it

— ZEITLIN

83

further corroborated in the account of
is

Antiochus IV as
said
to

given in

i

Maccabees, where he
year 137 A.
S.^^

is

have become king

in the

This,

according to the general notion, was 176-175 B.C.
said to

He

is

have died
"''

in

149

A.

S.,^^

i.e.

164-163 B.C.

But

as Niese

has well shown, this Antiochus, according to
3, i.e.

Eusebius, became king in Olymp. 151,
died in

175-174, and

Olymp.
is

153, 4, i.e. 165-164.

This, also according

to Jerome,

the chronology of Eusebius.^^

Niese further-

more has

clearly

shown

that the death of Antiochus
E.,^-

IV
of

must have been 165 B.C.

for

Polybius

"^

says (Book

XXXI,

chap. 12) that

when upon the

receipt at

Rome

the intelligence of Antiochus IV's death, and of his son's

ascending the throne, senators were sent as delegates to
Antioch, Cn. Octavius (consul in 165 B.C.) was at their

action on the feast of Tabernacles to occur in the

same year as the action of

Alexander Balas, which preceded
This second objection loses
its

it

by

less than a

month

? to

weight, as

we

have good reason

doubt
of

whether 160 belongs
Tabernacles
is

to
in,

that

part of the narrative

where the
it

feast

brought

and good reason For
or

to believe that

crept in through

misunderstanding of a scribe.
10.

in the Lucianic recension

we

find in

21

no mention of 160

a. s.

any other year

see ed.

Charles);

Josephus, likewise, makes no mention of the year 160

a. s. in his narrative

of the investiture of Jonathan on the Feast of Tabernacles.
2. I

{Antiq. XIII

and

3.)

/.

M.
and

r, 10.
'

29

/.

M.

6. 16.

3*

Niese,

Kritik der beiden Makkabaerbiicher', Hermes,

XXXV,
',

1900,

p. 494,
p.

id.,

Geschichte der griechischen ttnd macedomsclien Staaten, III,

208.

See

also

Abrahams,

'

Niese on the books of the Maccabees

JQR.,

XIII, pp. 508-19.
'^
^'^

Hieronymus, VIII, pp. 567-71
Geschichte, III, p. 218,

;

Eusebius, Citron., ed. Schoene.
b. c. e.

Niese placed the death of Antiochus IV in the winter of 165
note
7

See
'^

and his Kritik det Makkabaerbiicher,

p. 495-6.

Polyb. Hisior.

XXXI

(frag. 12) «ii^ea;s

7dp KaTaaTrjaavTf^ -npia^ivras
Kai AevKiov (i075\

Toi/f Trtpi

Tvaiov 'OKTaoviov

koa.

S,ir6ptov AoKprjTiov

I

G

2

I

:

84
head.^*

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Neither the theory that
i

Maccabees dates the

beginning of the Seleucidan era from Tishri 312 or from

Nisan 312 (according to the generally accepted view),

would square with the date of Antiochus's death
164
B. c. E.
I

in

165-

On

the other hand, according to the theory
i,

which

have proposed, counting Tishri

312

B. C. E.

as

the beginning of the second year, the year 149 assigned
as the date of Antiochus's death, corresponds to
B. c. E.

165-164

as given in Eusebius and corroborated

by

Polybius.^^

^*

Niese,

/. c.

;

Zumpt, Annales,

p.

94

;

Clinton,

Fasti Hellenici, III,

p.

84.
''

At

first

glance Eusebius's statement that Antiochus IV reigned eleven

years, does not

seem

to square

with
is

i

Maccabees, where he

is

said to

have

reigned from 137 to 149.

This

easily explained,

however, by Eusebius's

method of counting only complete
X(\tVK0V
(T(ai

years, while

i

Maccabees counted from

his ascending the throne until he died.
fxiv

As Appian says (Syriaka 66)
kol
.

SwSfKa,

dwpaKTco:

a^a

dcrOfvws

5id

rfjv

rov itarpos

(Tvixpopav, 'AvTioxov hi

Sw5€Ka oi

irKtipeaiv

.

.

and upon Appian's words

we

can place more reliance, since he preceded Eusebius a considerable time,

and undoubtedly had authorities for what he
only the whole years of kings' reigns
Alexander.

said.

That Eusebius counted

we

can see also from the case of

According

to his
in

chronicles Alexander the Great ruled only

twelve years, whereas

fact

he ruled more than that

—his

reign lasted

twelve years and eight months.
irri

Says Arrian (VII, 28)

:

i^aa'iKtvat hi bwStKa
Hellertici,
II,

Koi roiis

vktu

/i^vay toi;tow.

See Clinton, Fasfi

p.

176,

Oxford, 184 1.

Unger, as
chronology of
according to
143
A.
s.,
i

we have
i

already remarked

in

note

10,

thinks

that

the

Maccabees began with the spring of 311 b.c.e. because,
(i. 20),

Mace.

Antiochus returned from Egypt in the year
impression corresponded to
Palestine in the
if

and

this according to the general

170-69 B.C.E.
169 B.C.E.

Indeed, Antiochus IV

was

in

summer

of

Therefore,
i

according to

Unger's view,

we
1

say that

the

chronology of

Maccabees

starts from the spring of 31

b.

c, the 143rd

year must be from the spring of 169

to the spring of 168 b.c.

But Schiircr

{Gcschichie, p. 38, note 7) truly points out that

Antiochus IV was not only
in

once but several times

in

Egypt

(sec also

Wilcken

Pauly-Wissowa's RealIn

Enc

,

II,

2470-6, and Clinton, Fasfi

I/el. Ill,

pp. 317-29).
in

my

opinion,
of

Unger

is

correct in thinking that Antiochus

was

Egypt

in the

summer

MEGILLAT TAANIT AND JEWISH HISTORY

—ZEITLIN

85
the

We

are

now

in

a position better to understand
II. ^'^

chronology of Book

The

difference

between the
arises out

respective chronologies of these

two books

of

the circumstances in which these two books were written.

Whereas
Jews and

i

Maccabees, as stated above, was written for

in

Hebrew,
for

2

Maccabees was plainly an apologetic
Egypt, being merely an

work written

the Jews in

epitome of the larger Greek work of Jason.
stated himself:
to.

As

the author

vtto 'Ida-covos

tov Kvprjuaiov 8^8r}\o)iiiva
81'

8ia irivTe ^i^Xtcov, Treipaaro/xeOa
T^ixelv (3. 33).
It
is

ivbs crvvTdyfiaTOS kni-

but natural
is

therefore

that

the
(in

chronology of

3 Maccabees

not that of the Jews

Palestine) but the

chronology which was current throughout Hellenistic Syria

and Egypt, which dated the beginning of the Seleucid era
from the autumn of 313 B.C.E. Consequently, the Seleucidan
era of 3 Maccabees appears one
1

full

year

less

than that of

Maccabees, though they record the same event.

The
above,

calendrical year
p. 78).

among the Jews began
era.

in Tishri (cp.

It

was but natural therefore to retain

this

New Year

in

the

adopted Seleucidan

According to another

principle of calendrical calculation, which applied to the
political as well as the civil calendar, a fractional

year was

considered a year.
169 B.C.E.
as

Thus the year

149,

which according
But
this

This follows from Livy XLIV, chap.
first
it

II, 5.

was

not,

Unger supposes, the
(5.

invasion of Egypt, but the second.
that Antiochus
i.e.

Thus
Mace,

2 Mace.

1-2 1) alludes to

by saying

IV captured Jerusalem
Similarly
i

the second time
(i.

when he

returned from Egypt,

169-8.

29-54) states that Antiochus IV captured Jerusalem for the second time
after his first capture of the city
3.

two years

on

his return

from Egypt

in

the

143rd year a.
this matter,

(171-70),

i.

e. in

the year 145 a.s. (169-8).

See further on

below, the discussion of the chronology of the Books of the

Maccabees.
'^

See above, note

9.

86
to
is
1

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Maccabees was the year when Antiochus IV died,

the
•^

same

as 148 of 2 Mace. 9
to

and

11.^''

Vainly did Niese strive

show

{Kritik der beiden Makkabderbiicher)

that 2

Maccabees

is

more

historical than i

Maccabees, from the

fact that

2 Maccabees places Antiochus's death in 148 a. s., which according to the

commonly accepted view equals 165-4
death
in

b.

c, whereas

i

Maccabees puts his
this

149

a.s.,

which by

that

view would equal 164-3, ^nd
is

would

be contrary
difference

to fact.

As

I

have demonstrated, however, there
in their

no

historical

between the two books
See,
also,

dating of the death of the fourth

Antiochus.

the review by Israel Levi in

REJ.,
zu

1901, pp. 222-30,
Goitingeft, 1905,

and Wellhausen
pp. 117-63.

in Nachrichten der Kgl.

Ges. d. Wiss.

MEGILLAT TAANIT AND JEWISH HISTORY

— ZEITLIN

87

CHAPTER
The

III

The Order of the Sabbatical
the Seleucid era as

Cycles.

theo;y which we have advanced above regarding
it

was known among the Palestinian
in
i

Jews and as

it

was used

Maccabees, finds striking

corroboration in the various references to the sabbatical
cycles which are found in
i

Maccabees, Josephus, and

in

the Talmud, and

which have hitherto been considered
Despite the diverse nature

contradictory and conflicting.

of these sources

it

will

be found that the sabbatical years

to which they allude, and which belong to wholly different
periods,
all

harmonize with each other
i

if

we

calculate the

Seleucid era in

Maccabees according

to our theory.
it

Abundant

references to the sabbatical institution as

existed in the Second
literature.

Commonwealth occur
when
the seed

in

early Jewish

The year

of Release naturally began in the

Fall

and not

in the Spring,

was already sown
is

and the
in

trees planted.

The

crucial

problem

to determine

what years of a general era the sabbatical cycles began

and ended.

The

following

passages

furnish

the

chief

evidence by which the dating of the sabbatical cycle

may
A. s.

be computed
(i)

:

In

I

Maccabees we are told that the year 150

was

a sabbatical year.^^
(2)

From Josephus we
Simon
the

learn that

the year after the
a sabbatical

assassination of
year.^^
S8
I

Hasmonean was
sa

The
Mace.

.assassination having taken
20-54; Ant. XII,
9, 5.

place
^4,,/^

according
8. i.

6.

xill,

88
to
I

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Maccabees
A. S.
in
in

Shebat 177

a.

s.,**^

the following year

was 178
(3)

1

Likewise we find

Josephus that the capture of
in

Jerusalem by Herod and Sosius was

a sabbatical year.*^
the

This event

is

dated Olympiad 185

in

consulate of

Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus.
(4)

Finally, according

to

tannaitic

authority the de-

struction of the
year.*^

Second Temple was

in a post-sabbatical

When

subjected to a critical examination, however, the
tally.
It

testimony of these sources does not seem to
already been pointed
out above
that

has

according to the
i

generally favoured theory the Seleucid era of
is

Maccabees
(i)

to be dated from

Nisan 313
s.

B. c. E.

The statement

that the year 150 A,

was a sabbatical year contradicts

the statement (2) of Josephus that the year following the

death of Simon was a sabbatical year

(cp.

above,

p. 81).

As
the

to

the capture of Jerusalem
of

by Herod and

Sosius,

consulate
it

Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus
E.,

establishes

as having fallen in 37 B. C.

and we are

further

informed by Josephus that the sabbatical year

overlapped the time of the siege and continued for a period
following the
fall

of the city, which occurred on a fast
;

day

{Anf.,

XIV,

16. 3

XV,
is

i.

2).

The

fast

day

to

which

Josephus alludes here
to the

taken

by some

scholars to refer

Day

of Atonement, and consequently the capture

of Jerusalem

by Herod and Sosius
10,

is

definitely dated
is

by

these as Tishri
Mace.

^y

B. c.

E.''^

This date

impossible,

I

16. 14.

« Seder Olam Raba, « Van der Chijs, dg
Volkcs Israel,

XXX

;

I/erode

<i ^„t, XIV, 16. 2. Talmud Taanit 29 a. Magno, pp. 35-41 Ewald, Geschiclile des
;

IV;

Lewin, Fasti Sacri,

p.

59;

Gardthausen, Augustus

MEGILLAT TAANIT AND JEWISH HISTORY

— ZEITLIN

89

however, for one sabbatical year could not overlap the old

and the new year, which terminate and begin respectively
on the
is first

day of

Tishri.

Besides,

if

the sabbatical year
E.,

assumed

to have fallen in

164-163 B.C.

then the year
to

38-37 was a sabbatical
above interpretation,
it
it

year, whereas, according

the

would be necessary to assume that
B. C. E.,
if,

occurred

in

37-36

as

Josephus has

it,

the

sabbatical year continued after the capture of Jerusalem.

Most
this

of the later

scholars,

on the other hand, date

capture of Jerusalem in the middle of the summer,
B. c. E.^*

37

This accords well with the calculation that
B. c. E.,

the sabbatical year was 38-37

and also with the

statement that the sabbatical year overlapped the time
of the siege and the period following the capture of the
city.

But

this date of the capture of

Jerusalem fixes the
of 37 B.C.
E.,

beginning of Herod's rule in the
in this

summer

and

connexion a

later

passage relating to Herod's reign
of
the
sabbatical

obviously contradicts the calculation
cycle.

Thus, Josephus states that

in

the thirteenth year

of Herod's reign there was a famine in Palestine, and also

the seed that they sowed that year yielded no

fruit

the

second

year.'^^

Now

the thirteenth year of Herod's reign,

counting Nisan as the
to Nisan

'New Year

for

Kings', corresponds
to the

25-24

B. c. E.

But according

above calcu-

und seine Museum,

Zeit,

and

'

Die Eroberung Jerusalems durch Herodes
;

',

Rhein.
II,

1895, pp. 311-14

Unger,

/.

c, pp. 273-77

J

Kellner, Katholik,

1887, pp. Il8-2I.

"

Herzfeld,
die

'

Wann war
;

die Eroberung Jerusalems durch
?
'

Pompejus,

und wann

durch Herodes

Monatsschrift f. Gesch. u.
'

fVissensofi. des

Judenth., 1855, pp. 109-15

Kromayer,
(1894),

Die Eroberung Jerusalems durch

Herodes', Hermes,
p.

XXIX
II,
;

pp.

563-71; Graetz,

Geschichte,

III,

196
*^

;

Hitzig, Geschichte,

532.
9,

Ant.

XV,

9, I

comp. XV,

2

;

Schiirer

,1,

p.

367.

90

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
was

lation of the sabbatical cycles, the winter of 24 B. c. E.

a sabbatical year and cannot be reconciled with the state-

ment

that seed was
to

sown that

year.*®

As
this

the

tannaitic reference

to

the sabbatical year
i.e.

preceding the destruction of the Temple,
accords well
with

68-69
of

C. E.,

the previous calculation
i

the

sabbatical. cycles on the basis of
reliability of this

Maccabees.

But the
critics

statement too was challenged by
the statement of Josephus that

who oppose
9. 7

to

it

Simon

the Zealot, in the winter of 68-69 C. E. (cp. Bell. hid. IV,

and

12), fell

upon Idumea with

his

army
all

like a host

of locusts, wasting the land and consuming
in the country.

that grew

Thus

it

appears that the Idumeans
I

who
did

observed the Jewish laws since the time of Hyrcanus
not observe this year as a sabbatical
year.'*^

These seemingly insurmountable

difficulties in the

way

of establishing the sabbatical cycle

may

be cleared by

a careful investigation of each passage, provided that our

theory of the Seleucid era

in

1

Maccabees

is

presupposed.

Thus we have already shown
Shebat 177

that, according to

our theory,
is

the year following the death of Simon, which
a.
S..

dated

was 136-135
s.,

B. c. E.,

which harmonizes
the

with the dating of 150 a.

or 164-163 B. C. E. as
8).

sabbatical year (see above, p.

As

to

the difficulties

which are raised by the passage

in

Josephus relating to the
it

capture of Jerusalem by Herod and Sosius,
first

is

crucial

to establish critically the

month and the year

in

which

this event

took place.

Neither the date of the
is

summer

of 37

B. c. E.

nor of Tishri of that year

acceptable.
fast

The

former implies that by the solemnity of the
referred to the sabbath.

Josephus

This

is

conceivable as regards
also

« Unger,

/.

f.,

pp. 278 -80.

" See

Unger,

/.

c, aSo-i.

MEGILLAT TAANIT AND JEWISH HISTORY

— ZEITLIN
The

91

Dio, the pagan, but not Josephus the Jew.*^

latter

date

is

inherently contradictory, as has already been pointed

out, for the sabbatical year could not

extend both prior to

and

after Tishri.

Another date must therefore be estab-

lished in order to render this passage in Josephus in

any

way

intelligible.

The statement
befell the city of

of Josephus reads

' :

The

destruction

Jerusalem when Marcus Agrippa and

Caninius Gallus were consuls at
eighty-fifth

Rome,

in the

hundred and

Olympiad, on the
'.

third

month, on the solemnity
rfj

of the fast
TToXeL

Tovto to ndOos avvi^r]
'Pa>iir}
kirl

'lepocroXv/xLTcoi/

vnaTivovTO^ kv

MdpKov
jxr^vl

jiypiTTira Kal

KaviSiov
Kal

{KavLVLOv)
Tre/xTrrt]^

TdWov
16. 4).
it

rfjS

eKaroa-Trjs
rfj

oySo-qKocrrri?

6\v/X7ridSo9

tm

rpirco

iopTrj rfjs vrjareia^
in

{Ant.

XIV,

Now

Dio

Cassius,

describing the

same

event, refers

to the time of the Consuls Claudius
is

and Norbanus.*^
*^

Evidently there
I.e.,
bj"^

a contradiction between
tells

See Herzfeld,

p. 112.

Strabo (born 60-55 b.c.e.)
a fast day^
fj

us that

Jerusalem was taken Reinach, Textes,
{iv
rfj

Pompey on

rfis

vrjardas rjufpav.

p. 103.

Dio misunderstood and substituted sabbath day

Tov Kpovov fjufpa) (Dio,

were of the opinion
also
find

diligenter

Some Roman historians 15, 16). was a fast day to the Jews, which we in a letter by Augustus. Ne ludaeus quidem, mi Tiberi, tam sabbatis ieiunium servat quam ego hodie servavi' (Suetonius,
that the sabbath
'

XXXVII,

Augustus,
*

76),

and the same opinion

is

expressed by Pompeius Trogus,

Septimum diem more
'

gentis sabbata appellatum in
p.

omne aevum
is

ieiunio

sacrant

(Reinach,
: '

Te.xtes,

254), and also Petronius
'

under the same
p.

impression

et

non ieiunia sabbata lege premet

(Reinach, Textes,

266).

On

the other hand Josephus

nowhere
is

states that the sabbath

was
I.e.,

a fast day

to the

Jews.

Also Tacitus

silent

on

this

matter;
'

'septimo die otium
p.

placuisse

ferunt, quia is

finem laborum

tulerit

(Reinach,

305),

apparently unaware of Sabbath being a
*^

fast day.

Dio,

XLIX, 22-3
Kal

Faios 5e

Itj

'Soaatos rfiv

dpx^f t^s Tf

Svpt'as nai

rfji

KiXiHias trap' avTov

[Antony] Ka^wv tovs rt 'ApaSiovs TToMopKrjOivTai t«
voao) raXaiiKuprjOiVTas fXfip^<^0-'''0
''O'

/J-fXP^

roTt Kol

Xipioi

f^" 'Avriyovov
fi'iitrjaf,

Toiif

(ppovpovs TOVS nap' tavTo) toiv 'Fajfiaiwv

wras

uTroHrtivavra fidxT) t(

Kal

92

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW The
717
consulate of Agrippa and Gallus

the two historians.

was

in 37 B. C. E., in

A. U.

C, while that of Claudius and
716 A. u.
c.

Norbanus was

38

B. c. E.,

Choosing between

these two sources, Clinton rejected the testimony of Josephus
in favour of Dio,

and consequently placed the capture of
B. c. E.'"

Jerusalem

in

December 38
falls

Thus the capture

of Jerusalem
B. c. E.,

properly in the sabbatical year 38-37
is

and the month

preceded as well as followed by
this

the sabbatical season.

But

theory entirely invalidates
is

the testimony of Josephus, and what

more,

it

does not

explain the allusion to the fast-day.
It is

my

opinion that the difference between the two

accounts in Josephus and Dio respectively does not represent

a contradiction
respective

in

fact,

but merely a difference

in

their

methods of reckoning the consulate.

Dio reckons

the consulate from the date that the Consuls enter into
ofifice.

According to Varo, the term of the

Roman

consuls

at this time

began

in

March.^^

Josephus, on the other
in

hand, employed the Macedonian calendar,
KaraKpyyovra
is to.

which calendar
fitv

'ItpoaoXvfia ito\iopKia KartaTptifaTo.

iroWa

5^ Kal Sfivd

KOI oi 'lovSaioi Toils 'Pai/iojoi/s tSpaaav (to

fap

roi ^ecos avTuJv OvpiOiOtv iriKpo-

rarov

tart),

voWip

5t 5^ -nXdai avroi tnaOov.

(a\cv(jav ijXv "^ap irpoTtpoi fiiv oi
oi

vntp ToC Ttfitvovs Tov Ofov

d/j,vv6fi(voi, irrftra 5« Kal

dWoi

iu

rfi

rov Kpovov

Kai Tort Q/iipa uivofiaafihTj, Kal tooovtov yt t^j OprjaKtias avrois TrfpiTJv uiart

Tovs irpOTfpovs

Ttivj fifrd
fj

rov Upov \iipa:Oivras napan-qaaaOai t< rbv "^oaaiov,
(s

«7r€i5^ flfitpa avOis

rov Kpovov (vtarr), Kal dviKOovras

avrd -navra ixerd rwv

Komijjv

rd vom^ofuva wot^aai.
TOV
5'

(Kfivovs fiiv ovv 'HpuSji Ttvl v 'Avtojvios apxftv

(vtrptipf,

'KvTifovov ipiaaTi'/ojat aravpw -npoaSriaas, t fxrjSds $aat\(vs

aXXos

viri)

twv

'Pcofiaiwv irreirovOft, Kal fifrd

tovto koI direafa^tv.

(irl

fiev St)

tov

Tt KXavhiov tov t( tiwp^avov tovO' ovtois iytvtTO.

^

Clinton,

Fasli Hel'emci, III, p.
p.

220

;

Fischer,

Romtsche

Zeittafeltt,

Altona, 1846,

350.

" Varro
numeres
pp. 98-9.
'.

6,

12

frag,

and 33

'si

a

Martio

ut

antiqui

constituerunt

See also Th. Mommscn, Die romtsche

Cliionologie, Berlin, 1859,

MEGILLAT TAANIT AND JEWISH HISTORY
the Olympian year began in the
presently/^
fall,

—ZEITLIN
shall

93

as

we

show

In the same manner, the consulate too was

reckoned not from the day when the consuls entered into
office,

but from the beginning of the Olympian year which
the autumn.

was

in

Thus the

consulates are fixed

by

Polybius.^^

Consequently the events which occurred be-

tween Dius

in

the

autumn months

— and
in

March would,
the succeeding

according to this system, be reckoned
consulate.
If to this

explanation of Josephus's use of the Macedo-

nian calendar
*

the

we would add the statement of Josephus that destruction befell the city of Jerusalem ... in the
month
',

third

we

are in a position definitely to ascertain

the exact date on which the event occurred, and to identify
the 'solemnity
of the
fast'.

The
after

third

month cannot

mean

the third

month of
fell

the siege, as Josephus states

elsewhere that the city
months.^*
It

a siege of five to six
third

cannot refer
it is

to

the

month

of the

Hebrew
year.

calendar, as

placed together with the Olympian
in the third

It

can therefore only mean

month of
it

the

Olympian year of the 185th Olympiad, and
For the third month

must

furthermore be the Olympian year of the Macedonian
calendar.
in

the

Attic-Olympian

calendar corresponds to the

Hebrew

Tishri,

which makes

it

impossible to harmonize with the statement that the sabbatical season

preceded and followed the capture of Jerusalem.

The
^^

third

month

is

thus

the

month

of

Audyneus,

See below, chap. IV.
Nissen,
'

" Comp. H.
Rhein. Mus.

Die Oekonomie der Geschichte des Polybios

',

XXVI

(1871), pp. 241-82.
Bell. lud. I, 18. 2;

" The
V, 9.4

siege lasted from five to six months.

comp.

94

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
corresponds to December and January,
It
i.

which

e.

the

Hebrew month Tebet.
the
fast-day
refers

may

therefore be

assumed that

to

the tenth of Tebet,^^ and conse-

quently the capture of Jerusalem took place January 13-14,
37 B.C.
E.

=

717 A. U.

C.

This date would be placed

in

the consulate of Claudius
it

and Norbanus by Dio, while Josephus would advance
into the consulate of

Agrippa and

Gallus.
it

This date

fulfils

also the other conditions, namely, that

falls in

a sabbatical

year, and was preceded as well
tical season.

as followed

by the sabbamarks

The

date of the

capture

of

Jerusalem

the

beginning of Herod's reign.

According to the Jewish

calculation of the royal era from Nisan, the
in 37 B. C. E.

month

of Nisan
his

was the beginning of the second year of

reign.

Consequently, the thirteenth and fourteenth years
B. c. E.,

were not 25-24 and 24-23
B. C. E.,

but 26-25 and 25-24
B. C. E.
first

while the sabbatical year was indeed 24-23

The
37

theory which

is

equally prevalent that the

year of Herod must be reckoned either from
B. C. E.

Nisan of
based on

or

from 10 Tishri of 37

B. c. E.

is

Josephus's synchronizing the seventh year of
that of the battle of Actium, which

Herod with

was fought on Septemassumed that we must
in

ber

2,

31 B. C.E.
first

From

this

it

is

consider his

year to have begun

the year 37 B.

c. E.'^

'Elf TOVT(p Kal TT]9 eTT* 'Aktl(o ixdy^rjs avi^ecrTafiii^rjs

Kaicrapi

7rp69 'AuTcoyioi/ i/SSofiov [5'] ovtos 'HpcoSt] rrjs /SacnXiia^ irovs,
(TiicrOiicra
tj

yfj joav 'lovSaicav

{Ant.

XV,

5. 2).

This assumption appears groundless when we subject
»' '*

Zech.

8.

19.

Schiirer,

Geschichle,

I,

p.

365, n, 6,

and

p.

415, n. 167;

Kromayer,

/.

c, p. 571.

MEGILLAT TAANIT AND JEWISH HISTORY
the following text of Josephus on which

— ZEITLIN
it

95

is

based to

a critical examination.

He

says

'
:

This time (when there
it

was war between the Arabs and Herod)
fight

was that the

happened at Actium, between Octavius Caesar and
in the seventh

Antony
it

year of the reign of Herod, and then
in

was

also that there

was an earthquake

Judea

'.

Josephus cannot mean that the battle of Actium coincided with the earthquake in Judea, as the former event

occurred in September,^^ while the latter occurred at the

beginning of the Spring.^^
unintelligible
if

This passage would be entirely
not fortunately have a parallel

we

did

reference to these events in the Bellum ludaicum, which
clears

up the true meaning of

this text

:

'

In the seventh

year of his reign (Herod's),

when the war about Actium
^acriXeia^ e^Sofiou, aK/id-

was

at the height, at the beginning of the spring the earth
'.

was shaken

Kut'

eros

fi^i'

rrjs

^ovTOS Sk Tov 'Aktlov TToXifiov.
(TiiadeTa-a {Bell. hid. I, 19. 3).

dp-)(ofi€.vov

yap eapo9

rj

yrj

Here Josephus
not the battle

identifies with the

time of the earthquake

{\id\y])

of Actium, but the war (TroXe/xos)
in

about Actium, which begun

the winter of 33-31 B,

c. E,,

was

at its height in the spring,^^

and culminated

in Sept. 2,

31 B. c.E.

As

Josephus states here plainly, when the war
its

about Actium was at

height, at the beginning of the spring,

that the earthquake took place, and this was in the seventh

year of Herod's reign.
the previous passage
^^

In such manner

we must

interpret

in Atitiq.
ttju

Consequently, the actual
rod 'ScrrT€;x0piov
firjvos
:

Zonar, X, 30
ToiavTT] Tis
77

Kaja

dfurepav
rfi

also Dio,
:

LI,

I

vav/jaxia avTujv

StvTtpa tov 'S.nnen^piov eyevfro

see

Fischer, Romische Zeittafeln, p. 368.
^*

'Apxofxevov yap tapos

7)

yrj aeiadticra, Bell.
;

lud.

I,

19, 3.
Sfj

'*

Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, III

Dio, L, ir tov h\

rjpos 6 jxlv

'kvTwvioi

ovSapLOV (KivrjOr]

....

icai

6 'Aypiiriras ttjv re MeOdivrjy Ik wpocrfioK^s

Ka^wv.

96
battle of
first

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Actium
fell in

the eighth year of Herod, and the
B. C. E.,

year ends properly with the month of Nisan 37

as

we have assumed.

The above explanation

is

based of course on the assump-

tion that the beginning of spring preceded Nisan.
is

This

contrary to Schlirer's views that the Jews reckoned the
first

spring season from the

of Nisan. ''^

There can be no

doubt, however, that Schiirer was in error on this point.

While the Jewish months are

lunar, the seasons

were fixed

according to the position of the sun, and in an intercalated
year, the beginning of the spring

must precede the sixteenth
31
B. C. E.,

of the

month of

Nisan.^^

The year

being a

pre-sabbatical year,

was

in fact intercalated in

accordance

with an ancient

rule.^^

The

entire discussion

of the date of the

capture of

Jerusalem by Herod and Sosius would not be complete
without the consideration of the supplementary statement
of Josephus: cocrnep eK TrcpiTpOTrfj^ rrj9 yivofi(.vrj9 knl UofiTTTjiov T019

'lovSaLoi? avfi(popd9.
rjfiepa
it

Kal

yap vn eKiivov
{Ant.

rfj

avrfj

edXwcrav

p.€ra

(.tt)

eiKocrieTrTd

XIV,

16. 4).

On

the face of

Josephus appears to mean that the capture

of Jerusalem by Herod marked the anniversary of Pompey's

conquest of the Holy City.

Our date

— the

loth of Tebet

— can

hardly be taken as the anniversary of Pompey's
in all likelihood to

conquest of Jerusalem, as this appears

have taken place
accurately the

in

one of the summer months, or more
well-established

month of Tanimuz, in which a
p. 365, n. 6.

""
ei

Schiirer,

I,

nDlpnn

!?yi

3UN* bv nJC'n piaVD, see Talmud Sanhedrin 11-13

and Tosefta,
*=
]''b'i-\

ibid.

^no^N

n^y^at' ^nvid3 n^i n^y^at^'3
;

nb p-i3vo pN

n^V^aK' ^aiya -\2V^, T. Jerushalml Sanhedrin 18 d

Babli, ibid.

MEGILLAT TAANIT AND JEWISH HISTORY
fast-day
fell.*'^

— ZEITLIN

97

But

this

passage

is,

in

any event,

difficult

to reconcile with the facts, according to
cited

any of the above-

identifications

of the date of Herod's capture of

Jerusalem.
refers

For the conquest of Pompey to which Josephus

took place according to his

own testimony
in

in

the
in

third

month of the

siege*'*

on a fast-day

179 Olymp.

the consulate of Caius Antonius and Marcus Tullius Cicero,

which corresponds to 63

B. c. E.

Now

between 6^

B. c. E.

and 37

B. c. E.

there intervenes

only a period of twenty six years and not twenty-seven. This last consideration mal<es
pret
rfj
it

impossible to inter',

avrfj

yj/iipa,

'

the

same day

as

referring to the

anniversary.

It

must be assumed that fast-days on which

the respective events took place were not identical.

Only

thus

it

becomes possible to explain the

interval of

twentythe
of

seven years, namely, that the event of

Pompey
in

fell in

month
Tebet.

of

Tammuz

and that of Herod
fractional

the

month

Reckoning the

year from

Tammuz

to

Tishri or Dius as one year, Josephus properly counted the

intervening period as twenty-seven years.

As to
9,

the literal

meaning,

'

the

same day

',

this

can only be taken to

mean
B. c. E.
B. c. E.

the same day of the week.
fell
fell

on Tuesday or

Thus Tammuz Wednesday, while Tebet
Assuming
on Wednesday

6^
37

lo,

on Wednesday or Thursday.^^
fell

that the two
this

dates respectively

— and
see

can also

be maintained on other grounds
'3

— we

that

Josephus

See Prideaux, Hisioire des
For a
full

JitiJ's et

des peuples voisins, V, p. 517, Paris^

1726.

discussion about the capture of Jerusalem by

Pompey and

the reckoning of the years of Hyrcanus, see below, Appendix.

" Comp.
**

Bell. lud.

I, 7.
/.

4.

See also Unger,

c, p. 276,

where he

states that the loth of Tishri
b. c. e, fell

63

B. c. E. fell

on Sunday or Mondaj', and the loth of Tishri 37

on Wednesday or Thursday.

VOL. IX.

H

;

:

98

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
rfj

could well count, Kal yap vn' kK^ivov
Tjixfpa fiiTct
err]

avrfj

edXaxrau

(iKoauTrTa..

That both Pompey's capture
on Wednesday
is

of Jerusalem and Herod's

fell

curiously
in

corroborated by an obscure and corrupt passage
historical

an old

document
[1

which

is

otherwise

unintelligible

n\T r\2^ ^sviD
nrai niai
.
.
.

n\i 3wX3 nyari]
.

Dvn iniN

n:iB'S"ia

n^an

mn^o

n^jB' ;di

.

.

2^'^')n''

i?c'

imoc-rDi [nn\n] n^y^ac ^nvioi

nx

on^bv

aa^^i

Dn»iN

n-cK' noi

^-l^l^'

nnnixi pin

i'y

onjoiy n^i^n
. . .

n-rj^-a

.n:ic'N-i3

Tyn nypnn

'cinb

nycna ^ymn B'nna

n:iN

12 (Tj'y) nyn::'3, Sedej-

Olam,

ch.

XXX,

ed. Neubauer.'"'
first

The
time

day on which the Temple was destroyed the
fell

on the 9th of Ab, on the day following the sabbath,
a post-sabbatical year and
in

in

the watch of Jehojarib.

Thus

also the second destruction

Both times the Levites

stood at their posts and recited their psalm.
did they recite
'

What psalm

?

And And

he hath brought upon them their own iniquity,
will cut

them

off in their
will cut

ow n

evil

The Lord our God
w as made
in

them

off.'

(Ps. 94.)

In the fourth month, in the seventh

day thereof a breach

the city during the

first

(Destruction) and on

the scven(teen)th thereof during the second (Destruction).

That

this

passage

is

incoherent

was already

felt

in

the Talmud, without any satisfactory
offered
there."''

explanation being
in

Thus,

it

is

well

known both

the

Talmud and
service

in

the works of Josephus that the sacrificial

was abolished on the seventeenth of Tammuz,
is

during the siege of Titus,"* while here the statement
**

In Talmii'l Taanit

ami Erakin, the above passage
'''''

is

found with other

variants.

See Arakin ri-ia.
;

lal.nud laanit a6
I
:
'

:

TOnn
'.

bt33

nOD^

TJ'y ny3L''3

comp. BcU. lud.
daily sacrifice

VI,

2.

On

the seventeenth daj' of the
'i*"^'

month Ponemus the

(ffJcA^X"^/"^')

failed

MEGILLAT TAANIT AND JEWISH HISTORY

— ZEITLIN
that

99

made

that the sacrifices continued
is

till

the ninth of Ab. the

In addition, there

the

glaring

contradiction

Temple

is

said to have fallen
in

on Sunday, while the psalms

which the Levites chanted
sacrificial

accompaniment to the alleged
formed the recitation of

service of that
(cp.

day,

Wednesday
It

Mishnah Tamid),

must be assumed that the text represents an incomand defective Baraita.
.Tiw'ai

plete

The antecedents

of

nm nn

are not

n^lLJ'Sin of

the existing text, which refers to

the capture of Jerusalem
respectively,

by Nebuchadnezzar and Titus
to a missing sentence

but must allude

which

described the conquest of Jerusalem by
also as n^Jw'm njvj'Nia.

Pompey and Herod

Thus

interpreted, the allusion to the

Levites at the sacrificial service reminds one strongly of
Josephus's description of the siege and
fall

of Jerusalem
fact

under both these conquerors, where he emphasizes the
that the daily sacrifices were kept

up

till

the very

fall

of

the city/'^

It

only remains to be noted that the psalm

which the Levites are said to have chanted on these two

days respectively was the psalm which was recited every
Wednesday."'^
**

As regards

the time
:

read the following
assailing

'

when Jerusalem was captured by Pompey, we Many of the priests when they saw their enemies
in their

them with swords
their divine worship,

hands, without any disturbance went

on with

and were slain while they were offering their
',

drink-offerings and burning their incense

Bell. hid.

I, 7.

5.

As

regards the

time of Herod

we have
city

the following
. . .

:

and the lower

were taken

but

'When the outer now fearing lest

court of the the

Temple
should

Romans

hinder them from offering their daily sacrifices to God, they sent an

embassage, and desired that they would only permit them
for sacrifices
'

to

bring in beasts
J.

which Herod granted". Ant., XVI,
la

16. 2.

See

Lehmann,
",

Quelques dates importantes de
(1898
,

chronologic du second temple

REJ.,

XXXVII
'"'

pp. 1-44.
ch. 7,

Mishnah Tamid,

Mishnah

4.

Some

again object to our theory

as to the dates of these cycles of Shemittot on the ground that in accordance

H

2

lOO

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

We may

now

finally dispose of the last

argument which

was raised above, against the fixation of the order of the
sabbatical cycles, namely, that while the year preceding

the destruction of the

Temple was a
necessariU'

sabbatical year ac-

cording to the testimony of the Talmud, as well as on the
tlierewith

40-41

c.e.

would

be

a

sabbatic

year,

whereas
Go,

Josephus, in treating of the Jews petitioning Petronius not to place a statue
of the
till

Emperor
'.

in

the Sanctuary-, reports the latter as saying to them,
is
.

'

the soil

Schiirer aptl3' observes that this
:
'

not sufficient to prove the
.

j'ear non-sabbatical

dieses indirekte
positiven
I,

Argument
in

.

nicht stark

genug

ist,

um

die

iiberlieferten
'

Daten

Betreff

der

Sabbatjahre

um-

zustossen

{Geschichte,

p.

Stud.

H.

Krit.

(1879

,

p.

Also Wieseler, 35; see also pp. 495-507\ 529 inclines verj* stronglj' to the idea that that

conversation between the

Jews and Petronius took
n. 8) considers also that

place in 39-40

b. c. e.

Graetz {Geschichte,

III,

2.

40-41 c.e. could not

have been

a sabbatic year

by reason of what

is

stated in

Mishnah Sotah,

VII, 7: i^ron
L"\>{

Dsn:N— riT^t:^
b2'\r\

^svion "^12^2 an b^' jiK'Nin d^v •'nvid
i>3pi
ij^r

ybv

T\Tb

vhb ran^r^i D^oan imnac'i noiy Nipi
DDnjN*

noy

nnx
On
Pentateuch

iJ^HwS

xTnn

^n

1^

noN

niyon vry

na:

the least of Tabernacles in the post-sabbatical j'ear the king read the
'^before the multitude).

The Mishnah,
'

after stating that the king stood while reading, continues

:

And when he

read the passage, ''Thou mayest not put over thee a foreign

man'', his eyes were suffused with tears (the

Herodian

family'

was
falls

of

Idumean
brother:

origin'

— the^'

said to him.

"Be
The

not afraid, Agrippa, thou art our
post-sabbatic
I

our brother art thou'".

year thus

in

41-42
until

c. E.,

whereas, as Graetz thinks, Agrippa
p. 433).

did not

come

to

Judea
the

42 C.E. {Moitatssch., 1877,

But

this objection will not afTect

matters, for admitting that Agrippa could not

have been present

at

service of Feast of Tabernacles in 41 b.c,

it

has never been proved that

the passage refers to Agrippa
Essai, p. 217, thinks Agrippa

I,

and not

to

Agrippa

II.

Derenbourg,
'

II

was meant, as does

also Biichler,

Die

Priester und derCultus im letzten Jahrzehnt des Jerusalemischen Tempels',
Bericlil der Isr.
.See also
Tlieol. Leliranslalt in IVien,

1895, p. 12,

and Hitzig,

II,

571.

Brann

in Monatsscli.,

1870,
II, for

pp. 541 8.

The word 'king'
In the

could

have been applied to Agrippa

besides his being king in Galilea, he

was, by appointment, given charge of the Temple.
evidences of his being called king, as
. .

Talmud we

find

in

the statement "]^Ori DS^IJN ^NL"
;

.

"Ity^Sx '3"l
"ITvi'N '3-1

.

.

.

nS Tatiluima Genesis, ed. Frankfurt, p. 6d, 170O ns ^'1D^ DSnjX ^:J' DlSnCDN (Sukkah 27 b).
(

SnL"

MEGILLAT TAANIT AND JEWISH HISTORY
basis of our

—ZEITLIN
refers

lOI

calculation, nevertheless Josephus
fruit in

to

the growing

the land of

Edom

which was invaded
E.).

by Simon
is

the Zealot that year (69 c.

This

difficulty
fact

easily solved

by the simple and well-known

that

the laws of the sabbatical year affected only the lands of
Palestine,

and had no application

in

Edom

or in

any other

country that was annexed to PalestineJ^

" See
<
.
.

Mishnah, Shebiith, VI,
is

i.

Many

scholars think that 69-70
.

was

sabbatic and that this
^''y"'^t^',

attested

by the Baraita

,

.

''Ni'irO

JTiDn 3"inK'2

which according

to

them means the

latter part of the sabbatic

year, in which the

month of Ab would be the eleventh.
^Ni'lM, Graetz,
Geschichte,
III,

Such

is

Caspari's

opinion [Life of Christ, pp. 23-6, 37^ and Graetz's understanding of the

expression

n''y"'3B'

2,

n.

8.

In

truth,
is

however,

the sabbatic

year was 68-69,
for

whereas n'^V^QC

''NiHO

the

following year, 69-70,
sabbatic.

which

we

have coined the expression, post-

That n^yStt' ^NlflD

in the

Talmud means the post-sabbatic year
is

and not any part of the seventh year

evident from
pj<

many

passages,

e. g.

n"iy2r

\S::'1D2

{<S n^ynt^'^

N^

7\l^*r]

pnnyo

'They do not
'.

intercalate,
is

neither in the sabbatical year nor in the post-sabbatical

This

also

evident from Ab. zarah 9
SntJ'
is in,

b.

:

tOiy XIH
is

yUCQ

^JB'

nn3

yn"*

S^T

|N?0 "'NH

in

''SJ2''J

'

If

any man

uncertain as to the year of the Shemittah he
in

he should count the years, from the year

which the Sanctuary was
in

destroyed and add one year, since that event took place
followed a sabbatic year
'.

a year that

This error

that the destruction of the

Temple was
but

in a sabbatic

year

we

find

not only

among modern
is

scholars,

among

the rabbis of the

Middle Ages.

This

even the idea of Rashi, see his remarks, and Tosaphot

on Ab. zarah 9 b.
of destruction

Not only were they misled into thinking that the year
sabbatic, but also as to the exact year.
in

was

According

to
e.,

some, the destruction took place
while others place
it

the year 3828 a.m., i.e. 67-68 c.
c. e.).

in

the year 3829 a. m. ^68-69

See Rashi and

Tosaphot,

ibid.,

and Seder ha-Kabalah, by Abraham ibn Daud (RabadJ. Both

dates are false.
the

The

destruction of the Temple, as
a.
.m.

is

known, took place

in
in

month of Ab, 3830
is

(69-70

c. E.).

This error
is

we

can detect

a passage in the Talmud, Ab. zarah 9 b,

which

from the

latest

Amoraim
:

or

an addition of a later time, confusing the two statements

'"1

"IDN

fl^N

m:^ ru'^ np ons ^7
and docs not appear

idx"-

dn

nnn pin^

niND ya-iN "inN NJ^:n

Onx) x:n
fluous

NTi'':n»oa— .npn

in the

vh nnx nrna fn:n. [This nns is superSpanish MS. in the Jewish Theological

I02

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The

correct order of the sabbatical cycles
later
in

was preserved
in

centuries

the

Gaonic schools and

Palestine.
'

According to

their calculation, says
1

Maimonides,

this year

4936 A.M. and
(11 75-6)
is

107 after the destruction of the

Temple

a post-sabbatical year'."^
dSj? nxn^fj DHNI
fi^s"

Seminary of America.]

D''w'^K'1

D^riNCI

CD^N

ny3"iS'

npn ^N
offers

nns'

i^nn pirn
: '

R. Hanina said

you a

field

i? np ons* -(? "i»x^ Dx. After 400 from the destruction of the Temple, if a man worth 1,000 denarii for one denarius, buy not '. ^The

mc

niu

reason
it is

for this advice
: '

was

that the Messiah
if

would come.)

In a Baraita
field

stated

In 4231 a. m.

j'ou are ofTered for

one denarius a
is

worth

1,000 denarii, take not'.

The Talmud asks what
answer
:

the difference between
pJlT

the two, and gives the
'3B'

N^SO Nn^JnQT
of this

H^n

)r\'>^:'>2

S3\S
in the

D?r\.
is

The

difference

between R. Hanina's statement and that

Baraita

three j'ears.

The author

passage thought that the

destruction took place 3828 a. m., and R. Hanina's statement would applj'
to
after

4228

a. m.,
bj-

while according

to

the Baraita

it

is

4231
in

a. m.,

which exceeds

three years.

But the two statements are

agreement.

The destruction took place 3830 a. m., and R. Hanina's statement would mean after 4230 a. m. buy nothing', while the Baraita specifies 4231 as the
'

beginning of the period.

This statement about the cycles of Shemittot

is

corroborated by a wellin

known

Haggadah

in

the

Talmud

Sanhedrin 91 a

connexion

with

Alexander.

In telling of this dispute before him of representative

Jews
*

and Ishmaelites, the Haggadah ends with ^n^^ JT'yaB' H^C HHINI
j'ear

that

was

sabbatic'.

Alexander was
c3-cles,

in

Palestine 332

b. c.e.

Counting

back from 164-163 twcntj'-four

we

get 332-331 as sabbatic.

]2'\^rb ^i^Ni
JT'U^lt;'

r^iiy2^

y3L"

nrc

N\-it;' it

nx" '-nn

nr

px-n

id^i

.

.

.

^nil"'

'NV1D

nun.

Maimonides, Yaci Ita-Hasakah,

Shniiittah,

X,

6.

The year 4936 A. M. (i.e. 1175-60. e.) being, as Maimonides saj's in the name of the (ieonim, post-sabbatical, confirms our view on sabbatical cycles that 3830 A. M. (,69 70 C.E., year of destruction of the Temple) was postsabbatical, thus
is

making 158

cj'cles

;

but, according to Maimonides, 4936 a. m.

the year 1107 of the destruction of the Temple.
a. m.

Herein he erred, taking

as J'ear of the destruction 3829
detected in a passage
in

(68 69

c. e.),

which error we

alreadj*

Talmud

(see note 71 \
anil

As to how this crri>r arose among the (^oonim, nPO"' p3D, i.e. F.ra of Contracts, see below.
(

with regard to the

Jo be continued.)

THE RABBINATE OF THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE,
LONDON, FROM
Bv Dr.
C.
1

756-1843.

Duschinsky, London.

The
tales

history of the various Jewish communities, the

told about the

numerous Kehillahs, forms

as great
tales

and as important a part of Jewish history as do the
of

woe and persecution

of the Jews as a people, and as

the

political history of the Jews, in their relation to other

nations.

Every community, be
with
It
its

it

large or small, has

its

own
and

history

personalities,

scholars, benefactors,

— cranks.

might be

difficult to write

the history of

a small non-Jewish

community, but monographs on many

a small Kehillah with no

more than 50

to

100 families

have often been written and form a valuable part of Jewish
history.

The Ashkenazi community

of

London was
in

at first a

small hebrah onl}% but very soon increased

numbers.

London, as the capital of the British Empire, as the centre
of the world's commerce, soon after the readmission of the

Jews

in

1650,

attracted

many
first

co-religionists
settlers

from

the

Continent.

Although the

were Sephardim,
}'ear

we

find a small

Ashkenazi community as early as the
^^^^

1659.
far

^" ^''75

community had already developed
Rabbi
in

so

as to be able to elect a

the person of the
in

learned R. Judah

Loeb

b.

Ephraim Anschel, who

ijo',

became Rabbi of Rotterdam.
vol. Ill, p. 105.)

(See jf.H.S.E. Transact.,

103

I04

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Most
of the

Ashkenazi

settlers of that

time hailed from
first

Germany, only very few from Poland.
the
congregation,

The

Parnas of
from

Abraham,
first

or

R. Aberle, came

Hamburg, and the
and afterwards

Rabbi of Duke's Place Synagogue,
first

Uri Phoebush Hart, at

opponent of R. Judah Loeb's

his successor,

was a native of Breslau and was

known

as R.

Phybush

Bressler.

He was

in office

from 1692

until 1752.

His successor was Rabbi Zevi Hirschel Lewin.
I

Through the kindness of Mr. E. N. Adler

have been
life

enabled to obtain an insight into the spiritual

of the

Ashkenazi community under the guidance of Rabbi Zevi
Hirschel and his successor
in
office,

David Tevele

Schiff,

who was Rabbi
until 1792.

of Duke's Place

Synagogue from 1765

Mr. Adler allowed

me

the use of his manuscripts,

Nos. 1160, 124H, and 2286 and others.

MS. Adler 1248
called in

contains, on 84 folio leaves, most of the discourses which

Rabbi Zevi Hirschel Lewin, or
Hart Lyon, delivered during
in the years

as he

was

his tenure of ofifice in

London London

1756-63.

The

first

discourse

is

dated Sabbath

Beha'alotka 5517 (June 1757} and the last the Sabbath preceding Passover (Sabbath Haggadol) 5523 (March
1763).

MS. No.

1

160 contains talmudic and other notes

by David Tevele
in

Schiff,

some of them having been written
is

London.

MS. 2286

again the work of R. Zevi Hirsch.

I

Rabbi Hirschel Lewin
as

we

shall

call

him

for brevity's sake,
life,

and as he was
1721 at Reisha

generally called
in

in later

was born

in

Poland.

He

was the son of Rabbi Arych Loeb (Loewen-

stamm), then Rabbi of that town. a descendant of great men.

Rabbi Aryeh Loeb was

His father was Rabbi Saul of

THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE, LONDON
Cracow,

— DUSCHINSKY
famous

IO5

and

his

grandfather

was the

Rabbi

Heschele Cracow, but the family traced their origin to

Rabbi Jacob Weil
called

of

Regensburg

(flourished

about 1435)

Mahari Weil, to Rabbi Meir of Padua (Maharam

Padua, died November 1583), Solomon Luria (Maharshal, died 1573), and even to the great Spanish statesman and

Hebrew
1508).
first

scholar

Don

Isaac

Abrabanel (born I437> ^i^^
R. Aryeh Loeb, was at
lived in the year 1728.

Rabbi Hirschel's
in Reisha,

father,

Rabbi

where he

still

Later he became Rabbi of Lemberg, then of Glogau and
lastly

of Amsterdam.

In

1734 he signs

in

Glogau an

approbation (nD3Dn) dated 17th of Sivan, 5494, to the

Talmud

edition printed at Frankfort

and

Berlin.

On

the

New Moon

of the

month of Tammuz, 5400
Amsterdam.

=

July 1740,

he received the

call to

Doubt has been expressed by various
whether Rabbi Aryeh ever
in his history of

historians as to

officiated in
(p.

Lemberg. Landshut
71) devotes a whole

the Berlin Rabbis
this

page to the task of solving
tion to the

mystery.

In the approba-

Talmud

edition just mentioned, he refers to

himself as Rabbi elect of Lemberg.

There being then
filled

no other proofs known of
in

his ever

having

the office

Lemberg, Landshut, having no evidence, ventures the
office,

opinion that he was only elected to the
actually
officiated

but never
in

there

{pp.

cit.,

p.

7a).

Dembitzer,

his excellent

work on the Rabbis of Lemberg,
II,

entitled

Kelilat Jofi (Cracow, 1888),

83 a (without referring to

Landshut's work),
at one

is

of the opinion that R.

Aryeh Loeb was
in

and

the

same time Rabbi of Glogau and of Lemberg.
the one

According to Dembitzer he lived sometimes
town, sometimes in the other.

We

need only look at the

map and measure

the distance between these two places

I06
to
is.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
at once convinced

become

how improbable such

a theory

We

The journey by coach must have taken are now in a position to discard both
is

several weeks.

these theories.
(a

MS. Adler 2286
commenced
tells

a scholar's

note-book
in

so-called

'Torah book') by Zevi Hirsch written
in

Glogau, and

the year 1737.

The

title

of this manuscript

us that Rabbi Hirschel,

who was then studying under
all

his father,

made

these notes in order to keep a record of

the

new

points raised

by

his father in histalmudical lectures

delivered at his Yeshibah (College).
313^
P'^P']
'

He

styles his father
2>b

n"3N D^JD^

'\T

nc'N n:i^:

p"p'^

nns V':

'ns

i"o)

nT3n)

R. Aryeh Loeb Rabbi of Glogau, who was formerly
(see,

Rabbi of Lemberg'
Rabbi of the

however, Megillat Sefer,

p. 67).

This leaves no doubt that for some time he was actually
latter congregation.
is

Rabbi Aryeh Loeb

described as one of the most

humble men that ever
saintly
life,

lived.

Of a quiet
no value
;

disposition and
for

worldly goods had

him.

He

never said a word which he did not mean

strict as

regards

himself he was very lenient and most tolerant to others.

Only on one point did he admit
that

of no compromise, and

was

in

his unrelenting opposition to the adherents of

the pseudo-Messiah Sabbatai Zevi.

He

sided with Jacob

Emden, who was
with R. Jonathan

his brother-in-law, in the latter's quarrel

Eybeschiitz.

Many members

of his

family (his father R. Saul and his grandfather R. He.schel)

had already before him actively combated the spreading
of the sect of
'

Shebsen'

(as the

adherents of Sabbatai Zevi

were

called).

Many

of the letters which he wrote against

Eybeschiitz arc printed in ICmden's works {Hifabkut, Sefat
Jitiict,

&c.).

Rabbi

Arjeh

Loeb's

wife

was

Mirj-am

(died

in

THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE, LONDON
Amsterdam, 17th of Tammuz,
famous

— DUSCHINSKY
claughter

107

1753),

of the

Haham

Zevi,

Rabbi of the combined congregations,
later

Hamburg, Altona, and Wandsbeck,

of

Amsterdam
ist

and Lemberg (where he died on Monday,
1718),

of lyyar,

who

likewise
I.)

came from a family

of great scholars.

(See Appendix

Born

of such parents,

it

is

no wonder that R. Hirschcl

Lewin was, from

his earliest childhood, brought

up

in

a

religious atmosphere, taught to love his people
tradition,

and

their

and he soon became an eminent

scholar.

The

education of Jewish children in those days consisted mainl}of Hebrew.

From

the age of five the child was taught
to night,

Hebrew, from morning
infrequently

and Hebrew only.

Not

many boys
was

of twelve or thirteen years of age

had mastered a considerable part of the Talmud.
similar nature

Of

a

Hirschel Lewin's early training, with the

exception, that in addition to the Talmud, he was taught
also

days.

Hebrew grammar, a very exceptional thing in those The MS. Adler No. 2286 was begun by him when
Hebrew
style,

he was only sixteen years old and gives proof that even
then he was a master of
possessed of a clear

head and had quite original

ideas.
later.

We
The
p.

do not hear about
first
is

him again

until

many

years

letter

which
1751,

we

possess from

him (Landshut,

72)

dated

written

when he was a

private scholar in Glogau.

This
is

letter refers to the

Emden-Eybeschiitz controversy and

addressed to his brother Saul, then Rabbi of
in

Dubno

(later

Amsterdam).
his

It

appeared

in
(p.

the booklet, Scfat Evict, 22
a).

of

uncle Jacob

Emden

Having married
Zevi Laz::adik.

Golde, daughter of David Tevele Cohen, Parnas in Glogau
(died on the 9th of Tishri, 551
p. 175,

=

1751

;

see

note

20j^

he settled there and continued his studies

lo8

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

under Rabbi Lemmil Levi, Chief Rabbi of that town.

At

\

the instigation of this teacher he wrote another letter to his
father R.

Aryeh Loeb, intimating
with

that

Eybeschiitz was
to

tired of the endless strife

give an undertaking not to

Emden, and was willing write any more charms
p.

or

amulets (printed

in

Edict Bejaakob,

59

a).

Rabbi Aryeh

Loeb

sent this letter to his brother-in-law Jacob
replied
',

Emden,
in

who

in

a bitter
'

spirit.

'

He

was disappointed

R. Hirschel

he writes,

whom

he had estimated to be a
in that

man

of strong will

and character, and

opinion had

asked him to be his messenger to the Rabbis of Poland

and win them over to

his side.

Instead of this he turned

conciliator, but there can

be no conciliation with the evildoer
his net
"
',

Eybeschiitz.

"

Keep away from

he ends up.

(Emden's
is

letter is

dated the 25th Adar, 5513
b.)

=

17.53,

and

printed in Ediit Bejaakob, p. 59
It is

nearly certain that he lived in Glogau for several

years.

When

in

1756 the Rabbinate of the Ashkenazi
vacant, R. Hirschel had
scholar, a great

congregation
already
linguist

in London became won fame as an eminent

Hebrew
the

and also as one who had some knowledge of secular

subjects.

He

was elected to the vacant
offer,

office in

same

year.
to

He

had received an

shortly before his election,

become Rabbi of Dubno

in

suc^ssion to his brother
to

who had been appointed R. Aryeh Loeb (died 7th day of
Saul,

succeed his father

Passover, 1755, at the
in

age of 64; see Landshut, pp. 72 and 118) as Rabbi

Amsterdam.
government

The
fees,

conditions were that he should pay the
in

which had to be paid

Poland on the
for him.self.

{

'election of every Rabbi,

and to provide a house

He

refused, probably because he

had already received the

call to

London.

THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE, LONDON

— DUSCHINSKY

109

Rabi:i Zevi

Hirsch in London.
in

*Rabbi Hirschel was Rabbi
of the year
eight years.'

London from
of

the end

1756
It

until

the

ist

Sivan, 1764,

about

was during the Seven Years' War, when
England was the

the political conditions of Europe were totally different to

what they arc to-day.

ally of Prussia

and had to

fight against France, Russia,
critical

and Austria.
for

year 1756 was an especially

one

England.

The The
Henry

Duke

of Newcastle,
as

who had

followed his brother

Pelham

Prime Minister, began the war with only three
fit

regiments

for service.

England
in

suffered in that year

not onl}- defeats by the French

Minorca, losing Port
far

Mahon, but
from

also in

America the English arms were

victorious.

Part of the English Fleet was destroyed
parallel took possession of the

and a despondency without
population.
Chesterfield
'.

cried

in

despair,

'We

are

no

longer a Nation

office.

Under such external conditions R. Hirschel entered The first sermon which we possess from him was
by the King,
his duties.
at the

delivered at an Intercession Service^ ordered
^

It

is

not quite clear as to
liis

when he entered upon

Jacob

Kimiii in

'iC'D ribst* (p- 7; slates that

he was elected

beginning

of the j-ear 5517

dated

:

= Sidra

(September or October 1756), and signs a letter to him Noah (= November) 5517. The date of this letter
letters giving the

seems beyond question, the
tj'pe.

same being printed

in large

On

the other hand, in an

approbation to the book (Amsterdam,
it

1765, see Benjacob, No. 339}, Rabbi Hirschel states that he wrote

at the
in

Hague on Monday
London.

the 20th of Elul, 5517, on his
right,

way

to take

up his duties

This cannot be

and must have been a mistake of the printer

(the book having been printed eight years later),
the

who

very likely printed
as to Kimhi's

wrong

letters in large type.

There can now be no doubt
possess in

date being the correct one, as
delivered in
'*

we

MS. Adler, No.
p.

2248, a sermon

London on invyri3 n3B' = May 1757

3.

The manuscript

contains four sermons given at Intercession Services

no

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

and was held on Sabbath Beha alotka 5517
1757.

=

about June
in that

(MS. Adler 1248,^
fact

p. 3 a.)

He

remarked

discourse: 'The
special service
is

that

the king had

a proof that he does not

commanded a rely on his own
'.

strength alone, but prays for the help of
his congregation that they live in a
is

God

He

reminds

country where Israel

treated with

kindness and where they enjoy liberty.
in

This was said at a time when,

Germany, Jews were

required to pay, not only extra war-taxes in money, but

had to give up
or
silver.

all

boxes, watches, and rings,

made

of gold

If a

tax was not paid, the community had to

give hostages, and the lot of the

German Jews
'

of those

days was, accordingly, not an enviable one>
continues R. Hirschel, 'can help the

We

Jews

',

King

as

much

with

our prayers as by joining the
questioned nowadays.
of the King', referring

Army
some

'

— an opinion very much
'

In another discourse,
to
victory,

by command
'The
to the

he says:

King does not
help of God.

attribute victory to his

own arms but
mean peace
;

We

Jews have double reason to be thankful
King's peace will
for us'.

for the victory, as the

'by Command of the King': (i) on pp. 2 a-2 b (2) pp. 21 a-22b; An 24a-27b, all of the year 5520= 1759-60. (3) PP- 233-243; (4)
Intercession Service
(see Gaster
:

was

held in the Sephardi

Synagogue on Feb.
in

6,

1756

History of the Ancient Synagogue Bevis Marks, p. 137),

Haham
^

Isaac Nieto preached the sermon.

(Published

Spanish,

when London

:

Richard Rcily, 1756-)

MS. Adler 1248
I

consists of ninetj'-one folio leaves,

numbered recto

only.

Fol.

is

a (ly-leaf,

fol.
:

2 contains short notes on various talmudical subjects.

Fol. 3 a begins

with

Q"y nyijn Svb ^-\1 ini^yn2 'Q n"3 N"y^ pJI^ HD
This manuscript belonged to Mr. Adler's
to

PD^ 2l"t3pn
father, the

n"T ^^n^ nVV.

late

Chief Rabbi, Nathan M. Adler, and was sent
J. of Lissa.

him as
find

a

Purim present by the Dayan R. Aaron, son of R.
first

We

on

the

fly-leaf the dedication

:

r"t3nn

Dni3 1132^

nmi^C' N'H

HTOD

ND-'^r^
*

"""13

pHN

nniNi
d.

'\'^^:lv

nxc.
Fiirtii, p. 84.

Sec Barbcck, Gesch.

Jiiden in Nihnberg iind

'

THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE, LONDON

— DUSCHINSKY

III

He

deals with the question as to whether

we are allowed

to rejoice at the

news of a great

victory,

which has involved
lives.

the loss of so
also to

many thousands

of precious

He

refers

the rise in the price of foodstuffs and to the bad

economic conditions of the country.

The poor

especially

suffered through the war, as the rich people selfishly

com-

plained of the sacrifices they had to make, and he pleaded
earnestly for the support of the poor.

He

mentions also
at

that

nearly

every kingdom

in
is

the
his
: '

world was

war.

Interesting in this discourse

reference to Aristotle

(nn^n
in

-ison
It
is

luonx an^) who said

War

is

a hateful thing

itself.
it

brings death to many, distress to more, but

when
land
it

over and has brought peace and victory to a
Often, apparently
to understand

becomes a laudable achievement.
events cause war, so that

trifling

it is difficult

how
for

sane people should risk

life

and honour and fortune
leaders of

such issues.

Only the monarchs and the
real reasons that cause

the peoples
it

know the

wars

— invariably
;

is

the hope to enhance the renown of their countries
the prestige for which they are
is

it is

all fighting.

"

As

the

Macrocosmos, the world, so
R. Hirschel continues,
smallest sins, because
will
if
'

Man, the Microcosmos."

we must wage war even on our
we do not curb them
will
in

time they
difficult.

overmaster us and self-victory

be more

Men and

nations must fight for self-respect and

wage war
to a lower
in

against everything that threatens to reduce
level of morality'.

them

These are Rabbi Hirschel's words

these critical days


is

great words of a great mind.

In the

further course of this
as the

sermon he speaks to
anxious
'

his congregants

Rabbi who

for the strict

observance of

the religious ceremonies.
sins

I

warn you against the small

you have

fallen victims to.

The

shaving of the beard,

112

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

a non-Jewish custom, strictly and repeatedly forbidden in

our Torah

;

immorality

among young
(n^''3U
"'i^l),

people, the disregard

of the laws of purity
Sabbath;'^ these are
all

the desecration of the

very important, but you regard them

as minor matters, not realizing that they are the pillars on

which Judaism stands.
to light the
fire,

to

You direct a non-Jewish servant make fresh tea or coffee on Sabbath.
is

Do

not forget that the punishment for this sin

that

fire

breaks out in your houses, according to the .saying of the
Talmud,*' " Firebrands happen, where people desecrate the

Sabbath day."
sin

Jerusalem was burnt on account of that
p. 26).

(MS. A. 1248,

People carry things on the day

of rest even outside the city boundaries, likewise a transgression of an important commandment.''

The

disregarding

of the laws of purity brings the punishment of death

by
at

water upon you.'

He

says further,

'

See what happened

Portsmouth, the punishment that came upon our brethren
there through the waters.

Because they disregarded the
wives became widows, so
in the

laws of purity, so
*

many
is

many

Desecration of Sabbath
47
b,

mentioned

manuscript, on pages tab,

22

a,
*
''

and 73 a. See Talmud b. Shabbat 119 a.
62
a,

The

carrj'ing of anything
is

whatsoever on Sabbath day outside one's
according to Jer.
;

own

house and precincts
to

strictly forbidden

17. 21-a.

The Rabbis allowed
mixing, and
is

make an Erub = D^TJ?
manner.

which

literally

means

done

in the following

Two
'

poles are fixed at the

entrance to a street or number of streets connected with wire on top, like
telegraph
lines,

and the area thus closed
it is

in

was

mixed

'

into

one court.

Within the boundaries thus marked
be handled on Sabbath.

allowed to carry things which

may

The City

of London seems to have had such
its

Erubim, or was regarded as mixed area,
City bars.

boundaries being closed by the
his

Rabbi Hirschel complains that people of

time already

disregarded this religious rule and carried articles outside the City.

He
njni

says: N'c'Di'

]"\n

^h's>ii

NK'D D^NiTiJ^r .1031 nr33

niNHn

i3'3*y

THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE, LONDON
children are

— DUSCHINSKY

II3

us to fight the

now orphans. All this should be a warning to enemy within us, the evil spirit (y~in n^'').'
with a prayer for

He

concludes

King

and

Country,

beseeching that
everlasting peace

England's victory
all

may

be followed by

over the world.

The
he

incident of the drowning at Portsmouth to which

referred,

happened on the second day of Adar
find

I,

5518

(1758).

We

an account of
(p. 7),

it

in

the Minute-book of
I.

the congregation
in

(Paper by the Rev.
vol.

S. Meisels
124.)

Jewish Hist. Soc. Transactions,
*

VI,

p.

The

record says,

Eleven members of the congregation, young

and

old, lost their lives
'.

by drowning

;

the circumstances

are not stated

In

memory

of this disaster a

Hazkarah
lost,
is

(memorial-prayer), mentioning the names of the
recited four times a year in the

Synagogue

at Portsmouth.

The sermons
half,

that follow generally open with a talmudical

discourse, which must have lasted about one hour and a

and continue with a sometimes equally long moral
lecture.
It

haggadic

was, in those days, a regular thing

that the Rabbi,

who only preached two

or three times a

year, gave on these occasions sermons of three, sometimes
four,

hours'

duration.

The people mostly had
nearly
all
'

a

fair

knowledge

of

Hebrew and
'

could
as
it

follow

a

midrashic interpretation, a

Wortchen

was

called.

To

support one moral teaching the Rabbi would use two

or three such Wortchen, linked one into the other, which

were a kind of

intellectual gymnastics,

keeping the interest

of the listeners alive.
tion to preach

Although the Rabbi had no obligathree or four times, sometimes
if

more than

even only twice, a year

he was as good and eloquent

an orator as our Rabbi Hirschel, he preached more often.

The gap was
VOL. IX.

filled

by travelling preachers,

called

Maggidim,
I

I

14

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
to
travel

who used

from congregation to congregation,

generally during the winter months, delivering sermons.

There seem to have been such preachers
as

in

London,

too,

Rabbi Hirschel
p.

refers to
a).

them

in

one of his discourses

(MS. A. 1248,

44

The Ashkenazi
same
principle as

congregation was at the time of his

tenure of office already fairly organized, apparently on the

most

of the continental

communities of
questions

the time.

Apart from giving decisions

in ritual in

and preaching, the Rabbi's duties consisted

performing

the ceremonies at weddings, halizah, and divorce cases.

His chief duty was to study the Talmud and
mentaries and
to

its

com-

spread

this

knowledge.

A

Rabbi's

reputation and authority depended not so

much upon what

he actually did

for the

congregation as upon his fame as
in

a great scholar, and the esteem

which he was held

by Jewry

at

large.

R.

Hirschel had, as

we have
also
at

said,

the reputation of being an eminent scholar, nevertheless

he had the
seemed
going on

interest

of

his

congregants
in

heart.

Although most of
to be well
in the

his

time was spent

the study, he

acquainted with everything that was

community.
of his time appear to have rapidly
like the Gentiles,

The London Jews
their beards

become Anglicized. They dressed
;

shaved
as.so-

the ladies wore decollete dresses.

They

ciated with the English people, ate at their houses,

and even

went so

far as to

keep the

Chri.stian feasts to the neglect of

their own.

Christmas puddings seem to have been much
infrequent.*

favoured,
visited

and mixed marriages were not
and operas.

They

theatres

There were coffee-houses

*

Pages 4 b and 35

a.

THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE, LONDON
which became meeting-places
however, were

— DUSCHINSKY

II5

for card-players/^

Apostates,

rare, because, as

he says in a sermon, held
this
'

on the loth of Tebet, 5518,

'in

Country everybody
(p.

can do publicly what his heart desires
his voice

4 a).

He

raises

fearlessly against all these transgressions.
in

His

warning against mixed marriages was
strain
:

the following

'

The

children of a non-Jewish

wife are sure to

become

Christians, and, although the

non-Jews of our days
still

cannot be
category of

regarded as heathens,
"

they are

in

the

Ger toshab

" ^° {2^)r\

"ij),

are outside the Cove-

nant of

Abraham and have

not t^ken upon themselves the
its
is,

observation of the Torah and

precepts (Mizwot).

To

marry a non- Jewish woman
abandoning the
faith,

therefore,

tantamount to

even

if

she should become a Jewess.'

Festivals.

The
he says,
to
I

laws of Passover, Sukkah, the dietary laws, were
Referring to Sukkah

not observed in the proper manner.
'

This precept commands us to eat and to drink,
in

live

and to sleep

the Sukkah.

God knows
fulfil

that
this

always endeavoured
in its

in

my

younger days to
I

Mizwah
I

proper manner, and

was not

satisfied until

succeeded in having a large room, beautifully furnished,
for the purpose.
festival.

adapted

There

I

lived during the

whole

seven days of the
I
I

Now,

my

soul grieves that here
I

cannot

fulfil

this

commandment

as

ought to and as
(DJ?

used to do.

The bulk

of the people

pnn) go into

the Sukkah, say the blessing but do not eat even a morsel

of bread (nna) there, and go
®

home

to have their

meal outside

Pages 69 a, 73
it

a.

Card-playing was apparently very frequent, he
a.

mentions
1"

often, see pp. 19 b, 24 b, 33 b, 73
:

Literally

a settled stranger.
I

3

Il6

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the Sukkah.

What blasphemy

!

They
in

not only do not
p.

keep the precept, but say a blessing

vain (MS. A.,

^S

^)-

They
the

say, "

God has commanded The same
it,

us to dwell in the Sukkah,"

and, as soon as they have said this, they go and transgress

command.

applies to the Etrog
in their

;

they pay

a good price for

and very often

ignorance do

not even examine whether one or more of the four plants
are not unfit for use
(^"iDS).'

Concerning Sabbath he has also several other grievances
to report.

Apart from the already mentioned
fire (see

points, in
p.

connexion with the kindling of

above,

113),

he

complains that sometimes even cooking
that generally the Sabbath
is

itself is

done, and
'

not observed as the

Holy

day
day

'

it

ought to

be.

'

If

you are thus keeping the holy
for various

',

he exclaims, after having reproached them
'

failings,

by doing things which even the Gentiles do not
I

do on Sundays,

ask you, "

Why

do you come to the
I

House of God?" God knows how

tired

am

of

my

life,

when
I

I

see

all
is

your doings

:

I

am
in

even afraid to hear what,
let

am

told,

happening publicly,

alone

of

how you
mentions

desecrate

the

Sabbath-day

private.'

He

among

other things that people have their letters opened

in front of the

Post Office on Sabbath.

'Although
it

this

is

not forbidden
(DtJTi
is

',

he says,

'

I

have heard that

is

a scandal

^i^'n) in

the eyes of the Gentiles.'
It
'

What
'.

this

means

not quite clear.

cannot refer to tearing the letters
is

open, as he says,
to think that

it

not

forbidden

I

am

inclined

many

people gathered before the Post Office

on Sabbath mornings and asked non-Jews to open their
letters.

The

large gathering

may have become
all

a nuisance

to the general public.

Fearlessly he raises his voice against

disobedience

THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE, LONDON
to the law.
'

— DUSCHINSKY
'

I17

Day by day
all

',

he says,

we can
sin

see with our

own

eyes the decay of our people.

We
That

and act against

the law of

God

;

our endeavours are to associate with
is

the Gentiles and to be like them.
of
all

the chief source
^^

our

failings.

See, the

women wear
in front

wigs (nnaJ nN£)

and the young ones go even further and wear decollete
dresses

open two spans low

and back (D^ony
a,

D^NVi"'

^••nDD nnnnx^Di DiTJsijo), see pp. 12 b, 19

33

a,

62

a,

70

a,

and 70

b).

Their whole aim

is,

not to appear like daughters

of Israel (p. 16b).

On

the one side

we claim with

pride that

we

are as

good

as

any of our neighbours.

We

see that they

live happily, that their

commerce dominates the world, and

we want
talk,

to be like them, dress as they dress, talk as they

and want to make everybody forget that we are Jews.

But, on the other hand, are not better before

we

are too

modest and say

:

We

God

than the Gentiles,
all

we

all

come

from the same stock, are
sons,

descendants of Noah's three

and need not keep more than the seven precepts which

the sons of

Noah

are obligated to observe.
?

Know you

that ideas like these are the ruin of Judaism

We

must

be conscious that we are the chosen people of God, the

kingdom

of Priests, and behave as

it

behoves " Israel
!

",

the

Princes of the Almighty.
in

Reverse the order

Be modest

your personal ambitions, be content with the material
in this country,

advantages you enjoy
with your
faith.

but be not modest
to,

See where these thoughts lead you

and how we

live here.

We

dress on non-Jewish holidays
;

better than on our

own

festivals
in

the Christmas pudding
of the Apostles

which the Christians prepare
1'

memory

Parhon, the grammarian of the twelfth century, has already the same

grievances.

See

his lexicon

inVH

JT^^ntD, Posonii, 1844, p. 57,

s. v.

QV.

See also Zunz,

Rittts, p. 4.

:

Il8

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Even the
children

is

more favoured than the Mazzoth.
the non-Jewish feasts "
that our holy
"

call

Holy " days and do not seem
the Sabbath.
" service

to

know

day

is

Soon they

will

come

to regard the

Habdalah

(ceremony

at the

conclusion of Sabbath) as a sign for the beginning of the
Sabbath.'

Communal

Organisation.

The only institutions the community apparentlypossessed
were the Synagogues.
in

Rabbi Hirschel does once mention

a sermon the Yeshibot, but only to state that they are

vanishing.

There was no

hospital,

and no schools were
a Bet-

maintained by the congregation.

The Rabbi had

Hamidrash
services.
for not
It

in

his

own

house, where he also held divine

appears that some one reproached him once
to

coming frequently
in

Synagogue, and his answer

was given

a discourse (p. 40 a) in which he appeals for
'

more frequent attendance of the Synagogue.
" It

Then
up

as an

excuse for not coming to Synagogue you quote the text
is

vain for you to rise

up

early,

because you
is

sit

late

"

(Ps. 127. 2),

and

my

answer to you
:

likewise with the

words of the Psalmist
3T 3py)
"

(Ps. 19. 12

:

D-|0C2 Dn3 inn nnay D:

My

servant

is

warned by them, and they watch
is

the heel of the great " (which

a witty translation instead
;

of the literal meaning of the text
is

" in observing
(oy
\\'C)T\)

them there
look
at

great reward

").

The people
well

indeed

(an 3py) the heel of the Rav,

goes.

I

know

full

how he walks and where he that many criticize me for not
I

coming to Synagogue, although
"

am

certain

that

my
tents

coming would not increase the number of Synagoguegoers.

They

stood

each

at

the doors
33. 8),

of their

and looked

after

Moses' (Exod.

can be equally

;

THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE, LONDON — DUSCHINSKY
applied to myself, but
I
tell

II9

you:

Do

not judge me, you
music-halls,

who who

sit

in

the evenings in

beer-houses and

sleep in the morning and

do not come

to the

House

of the Lord, and then say that you stay

away because
is

you follow
I

my

example.
in

My

conscience

quite clear

pray to God

my

Bet-Hamidrash, a place designed
I

to the Glory of

God.

do not

sleep,

but pray with a

congregation of ten, at the same time as the service in
the Synagogue
is

being held, so that
I

I fulfil

all

the require-

ments of the Law.
(Ti3sn nilD
""^sd)

would, nevertheless, go to Synagogue

out of respect for the congregation, but for

my weak

state of health.

The congregation knows

that

not the desire for sleep keeps
impossibility of attending.'
refers again to

me

away, but the physical
(p.

In another sermon

35

a)

he

Synagogue-attendance, and protests against

people who had contracted mixed marriages having the
audacity to

demand being
in

called

up

to the Torah.

The decorum
reproach.
'

the Synagogue cannot have been above

People

gossiped
all

during

the

Service

(34 b).

Within the Synagogue

seem

to be friends

and have

confidential

news

to tell

one another, but outside disunion
(p.

reigns

among

the members'

12a).

He

attributes the

cause of disunion to the desire to be more than
neighbour, and to false pride.

one's

We

find

also

a

reference
irreligious

to

the

Shehitah.

The

Shohetim were
against this evil
:

often
'

and

he

feels

helpless

The Shohetim

are devoid of

Mizwot
words
12
b).

and ignorant, and what can the Rav do?' are

his

(mn
*

Htt'y^

n»i nivcn |» nnyiJD onyj

nr6^

o^Dniti'm, p.

The former

times were better than these.
for the

See how

many

hospitals

and houses

poor were built and maintained^
institution
is

and

here, with us, not

one such

to be found.

120
If

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
official,

any one does support a poor man or a poor
like

they

would

him

to

behave as

if

he were their slave and not

like the

man

of self-respect that he

was

in

former days.

(Very likely a personal note.) Try and imitate the Gentiles
in

this

!

See how

many

houses for the poor they have

built-

and surrounded with beautiful gardens.

houses for learning, called

They have Academies, where anybody who
all his

has a

thirst for

knowledge can go and study,
;

wants
one

being provided for
single

but

we do not

possess

even

Bet-Hamidrash.
19 b), they

Look

at our brethren the Sephar-

dim

(p,

have a Bet-Hamidrash and support
this support
is

several scholars.

Although

small and they

have to

find additional
is

means of
its

livelihood, nevertheless

the congregation
for
it.

doing

best and

deserves

praise

Especially

laudable arc

they as

many
a

Ba'ale

Batim (householders)
of study).

also take part in the Shiur (Portion

We, the Ashkenazim, have

neither
"

place

where

to learn, nor

where to teach, and the

kindness of
are too well

Gentiles" thus becomes our destruction, for
treated and so forget our Torah.'

we

The

Gentiles, he says
in 1759, P-

on

another occasion (Intercession Service held

24 b)

are versed in the whole twenty-four books of the Bible, but

our people are so ignorant that they can really recite

all

they
time

know
in

while standing on one foot.^^

They waste

their

coffee-houses and clubs playing cards, instead of

devoting some hours,
of the Torah.
It
is

when
done

free
in
'

from business, to the study

other congregations not far
It 31 a

from
'^

us, e.g. in

Amsterdam.
p.

were better
:

if

you would

Referring to Talm. B. Shabbat,

Hillel

was asked by a heathen
foot.

to teach him the

whole Torah while he was standing on one
'

Hillel

answered him
yourself; that

:

Do

not do to your neighbour what you would not like
is

is

the whole Torah, everything else

only the commentary,

go and study

'.

THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE, LONDON

— DUSCHINSKY
^^

121

read at least secular books instead of playing cards.'

In

another sermon
of the
people. neglect
'

(p.

1

8 b)

we

find again bitter complaints

to

teach

Torah

to

children

and young

The Yeshibot

are going from

bad to worse and
first

the children, while they are quite young are,

of

all,

taught by their parents the English language and customs,

and when they grow older they do not want to learn

Hebrew.
there
is

Thus

it

happens that when an old scholar
to take his place.
(i. 5)

dies,

nobody

In

olden times the
the sun goes

saying of Ecclesiastes

"The

sun

arises,

down

"

was

true, for when the sun of one Rabbi went under,
Israel.

another one arose and gave light to

We

find that

on the day Rabbi Akiba died Rabbi Judah Hanasi was
born.

In these times
lost for

when

a scholar departs from this

life

he

is

ever to Judaism, there are no young

men

to

replace him, and
is

thus the succession of scholars in Israel
is

broken.

All this

the result of our mixing

among

the Gentiles and of the desire to be like them.'

Historical Notes. In connexion with this exposition he mentions, as was

customary

in

Memorial

orations, the loss of

Rabbis who
:

had died within that year (1757-8).
(i)

Their names are
(2)

Moses Lwow Rabbi
^'
'*

in

Nikolsburg

•,^'^

Abraham Moller

nion^o
{^"3

''"ti3''D

^"^1 Y'3N

nsoa nnp^ ma s^n, see a., p. 27 a. ycb TWO "I'lnJD, Moses Aaron Lemberger known
first

also as
lastly

Moses

Lwow was
1757.
cii.,

Rabbi

in Leipnik,

afterwards

in Berlin,

and

Landrabbiner of Moravia

in Nikolsburg, in

where he died 17th Tebet,
p. 378,

5518, 28th

Dec,

See Feuchtwang
23.

Kaufmann-Gedenkbnch,

and Landshut,

op.

.

122

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
(3) (5)
''^

of Bamberg;!^
of

Wolf Rabbi

of Friedberg;i«

(4)
(6)

Meir

Hannover

^'^
;

Abraham Rabbi

of

Emden

^^
;

Leb
and

of Heitzfeld
of

;

(7)
(9)

Jacob of Greditz (Graetz)

;2o

(8) Isaac
;

Hanau

2'
;

Akiba Eger Rabbi of Pressburg
In

^^

(10)

Zevi Hirsch of Hildesheim.^"

another Hesped

(Memorial Service) held on the 17th of Tammuz, 5522
1762
'

=

(p.

71a) he mentions the death
of

of

his

relative

the

Rabbi

Berlin
;

',

referring

to

David Fraenkel,^*
Fuerth,^''

Mendelssohn's teacher

the

Rabbi of

likewise

'5

nyanxa
p"p,

p"pi
bv
his

ton
pip,

n^^NO Dn-ON n"1D.
vol.

See Kaufmann, DpJD
formerly Rabbi of

31303

T
See

VII, p. 27.
to

He was
b.

Oettingen.
Fiirth, 1752.
1*

approbation

Baruk

Elkana's

minn

K'lT'S,

nmns

p"pi

" nai^n p"pi
and D. Kaufmann
''

Yin fi^wi mo. Yia TNO n"lO. See
DmaN
lh
n"iD
n"lO.

Emden,

Megillat Sefer, p. 144

in Monatsschrift, 1896, pp.

220 and 274.

lyioy p"p'^ i"3N

'^

D^ya^'^M p"p'^ n"3N
Jacob of Greditz =

Heit^feld or Hatzfeld

is

Heidings-

feld

near Wiirzburg

in Bavaria.
Y>yi'\:^

20

p"p'^

n"3S*

Spy

n"irD

was the son of
an ancestor 75 and

R. Hirsch of Pintschow and became Rabbi of Glogau.
of
in

He was
cit.,

Rabbi Dr. Kaempf of Prague.

See Landshut,

op.

p.

Emden

Edul
=*'

Beja'akob, p. 39
p"p'i n"3N*

a.

ii^]ir\

pvN* n"io.

22

nUt^'yiD
has

p"p'^

n"3N IJ^X N3py n"lD.

Aklba Eger the Elder was
not, as

Rabbi of Pressburg, died 15th of September, 1757 (and
iage,
it,

Zunz, Monats-

in 1746).

He was
Juden

author of the work Mislinat dc R. Akiba.

See Auerbach,
2'

Gesch. d.

in llalbersladt.

D^MDyi^>n

p"p-\

n"3N c-iM

uv

.Y'vo.

2*

\h'\2 p"p'^ n3N"3n nXB'.

David Fraenkel was a teacher of the

Philosopher, Solomon Maimon, and author of the

work

T\-\'^

]'y^p, a

com-

mentary on the

Palest.
in

Talmud

(sec Kayserling,

Moses Mendelssohn).

He

was

at first

Rabbi

Dessau, and became Rosh-Beth-Din in Berlin on the

14th Ab, 1743, and died, 55 years old, on 12 Nisan, 1762.
»»

Died, 8r years old, on

Holleschau and

May 21, 1762. Worms, and was born

He was
in

formerly Rabbi
ca.

in

Frankfurt,

i68i.

See

THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE, LONDON

DUSCHINSKY

I23

without mentioning his name, referring to David Strauss
of Frankfurt, and

Rabbi Moses Rapp,-^ Day an

of Frankfurt

on-the-Main.

There are only two other

historical references in this
is

volume of sermons.

The one
is

the mention of the Jews

who were drowned
Jungbunzlau
in

at Portsmouth, of

which we have already

spoken, and the other

an appeal for the congregation of
(K7D013),

Bohemia
fire

where the Synagogue

was destroyed by
55^^, P- 73)-

(Discourse on Sabbath Teshubah,

The
his

neglect of the

Torah

studies seems to have been

chief grievance against the

London community.
is,

It

occurs

many

times in the MS., but the following
'

I

think,

worth quoting,

Instead

of gathering

in

the houses

of

learning people go to operas, playsj concerts, and

clubs.^'^

There is no respect

for learning

and learned men.

Why then
He
cannot

should a boy be anxious to study the
yet grasp the meaning of

Law ?

studying Torah he
will

fulfils

Olam Habba (namely, that by a divine command for which he
become a Rav,

receive

reward

in

the world to come), what other

attraction could a child have than the wish to

a great and honoured

man?
Torah
"
I

If,

however, the

men

of

Torah

are not held in respect the child, naturally, has no wish to study, and thus the
is

forgotten.

Our Sages
this

in

the
c.
I,

Mishnah say
Mishnah
i).

:

Raise

up

many

disciples "

(Abot
rule
col187
;

was not able to follow
I

in

your congregation.
d.

have no pupils, not even a
Ges. Frankfurt, vol.

L. Loewenstein, Jahrb.

Lit.

VI,
p. 64.

1908-9,

p.

Barbeck, Geschichte derjuden in Nitmberg und Fiirth,
«6

pHDT a"Q
;

\>"\>1

y'n

51D5<n na'IO
p.

n"lO hn:n -lINDni, died 27 Adar,
338.

1762

see Horowitz, Frank/. Grab.,

" 2vhpb

DiyOJIpi? Vb'sh y^SX^.

See also MS. A., pp. 69a and 73a

for similar expressions.

124

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

league (I3n) with
the

whom
in

I

could pursue

my
fail

studies.

Even

learned
in

men
the

the

community

to

train their

children

study of the Torah.
son (R. Saul), but
I

I

had one

pupil,

and that was

my

had

to send
his

him

away
(wife),

to another country.

There he found

helpmate
(p.

and

I

have found no other pupil since
the

41

a).'

'When God showed me
says in 1762,
'

way

to this congregation', he

which elected

me

to serve

them

in

the

name

of the Lord,

I

came with the

scroll of the

Law
is

to you, to

propound His teachings among you, and that
which
I

my work
me now
had

carry on

my

shoulders.
it.

I

established a Yeshibah

but have not succeeded with

What

is left

to

but

my
fear

voice " to publish righteousness in the great congre-

gation

" (Ps. 40.

10)?

See,

I

have not closed

my

lips,

no

of anybody, have done nothing with the object

of finding favour in the eyes of anybody, or in order to

gain pecuniary advantage.
help,

To God

alone do
idol.

I

look for
to the

and have never made gold
I

my

Thanks

Almighty
think that

possess enough of gold and silver, but do not
I

acquired

it

here.
;

God knows, one
all

cannot

become

rich

from a Rabbinate

one acquires from the
^^

holy service can virtually be carried on one shoulder.'

His one desire was to keep the flame of knowledge
alive
;

to that he devoted

all

his energy, but to the

end
con-

of his days he never liked the office of Rabbi.
sidered
it

He
:
'

a bitter path, a

bread of misery, and expresses
written in later
life

this feeling in a

Hebrew poem
alone
I

From Thy hand
tance (Ps.
for
i6. 5),

ask for the portion of
I

O God my inheri!

be

it

large or small.
let

shall
fall

thank Thee

an olive-leaf even, but do not "
INB'^ f|n33 Dn^i>y

me
'3

into the

hand

mipn

niU]}

(Num.

7. 9).

THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE, LONDON
of man.'
p. 109.)

— DUSCHINSKY

125

(See

Hammagid,

1870, p. 125,

and Landshut,

In

London he
fruit
:

did not find the
*

field

where

his work-

would bear
iQV!

The

pillars

of the

Torah

totter,

very

are the students of the

Law who

desire to rise to
into

a higher standard, and these few are scattered

the

different distant parts of the town, live therefore a lonelylife

and cannot

profit

from one another.

There are no
be the future

Talmud-Torahs
of Judaism

for children,

and what

will
?

if this

state of affairs continues

See what

is

being done

in nearly

every congregation, large or small,
larger than yours or richer than

in
?

Germany.

Are they

you

And
is

yet

how many Synagogues and Bate Midrashim have
and
will
for

they founded to the Glory of God, as a sign that Judaism
eternal

never become extinct (62
co-operation
a).

b).'

He
munity

urged
(pp. 7

with the Sephardi comsays,

and 17

The Passover lamb, he
its

had

to be eaten in separate unions (nnnn), but for
all Israel

preparation

entered at one door

;

so should we, too, even though

we be two
all

distinct congregations, in matters that concern

Jewry, co-operate and act together.
In

many

instances he combines reflections of a religious-

philosophical nature with his moral teachings.
in those

Already

days there were people

in

London, who disregarded

the Jewish religious ceremonies.

He

was a

clear thinker,

and had a profound knowledge of Maimuni's Guide of the Perplexed, from which he took most of his philosophical
arguments, and made effective use of them
the views of the half-educated
pp. 4a, 31b, 32b, 33a, 39b).
in a superficial
in

combating

Jew of the day (cited on 'By studying philosophy
unbelievers.

manner people became

After

reading three or four pages of a philosophical book they

126

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
is

think they have found more wisdom than
all

to be found in

the folios of both the

Talmuds

'

(p.

15

b).

Maimonides
was

and Bahya
to
arrive
at

said that the chief precept of Judaism

the

belief

in

God by means

of intellectual

contemplation.'^^

Others argued against

this view,

holding

that

it

is is

better to believe without trying to understand.
called
in

Relief

Hebrew

'

Emunah =
'

trust.

human mind
themselves.

can

attain to

iinderstand God, those

As no who

think they have reached that standard are only deceiving

What

they really have achieved

is,

that they

believe in themselves, in the great
(p.

power of

their

own mind
its

33

a).

We

Jews have

to believe in the

Torah and

precepts as revealed to us
us in the oral tradition.
in

by God and

as

handed down to

Human

beings can never succeed

understanding God's Being. Maimonides,

who

considered

that the highest

human

perfection lay in truly grasping the

essence of God's

Being, did not

mean

this literally but

only said

it

as an apology against aggressions

by the religious
the view of our

thinkers of other nations.
all

He

also tried to give rea.sons for

the Mizvot, but he failed.

More

true

is

Rabbis, that mankind reaches the understanding of only when the body
parts from

God

the soul.

The

thirteen

articles of the creed are

supposed to embody every precept

of the Torah.

All the 613 Mizvot are only the means for the
in these articles.
'
:

attainment of the belief contained

If that
all

were
"

so^

why should
" (articles

not people say

I

believe in

these

Ikkarim
I

of creed), will say
else,

them every day, and
the other precepts

then

need not do anything

as

all

are only intended to bring

man

to the belief in

God and

to

prevent him from being an idolater'.

This argument would

be quite

in

accordance with the teaching of Maimonides,
*'

See Maimonides, Moreh,

II,

33.

THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE, LONDON
and shows
at

— DUSCHINSKY
religion.

127

once the fallacy of his doctrine, that the thirteen
Jewish
all

articles contain the essence of

R. Hirschel
of divine

comes to the conclusion that
origin

precepts are

and

all

equally important.

They

are not only

means

to
in

an end or a preventive against

idol worship,

but are

themselves a safeguard against the wickedness of man-

kind.

The Mizvot

are holy because their intention

is

to

make us holy and bring us nearer to God.
decide which precept
this reason
it

Man
is

cannot

is

important and which

not.

For

happens that people who by philosophical

thinking want to attain the understanding of
fall

God mostly
have spread
'

into sin.

The
to

spirit

of

enlightenment seems
'

to

London, and

his references to the

Philosophers

were

probably meant for those

who

studied the books of the

Measphim, the forerunners of modern Jewish research.

We

must not

think,

from what we have just heard, that
all

R. Hirschel was opposed to
the sphere of the Talmud.

learning which

fell

outside

Like his uncle, Jacob Emden,
critical

he possessed a deep historical sense, a

mind

far in

advance of the Rabbi of those days.

Most students of

his

time concerned themselves exclusively with the Halakic
side of the

Talmud.

To them
in the

it

was of more
said

interest to

know what a Rabbi

Talmud

and how he decided
that

a Din (point of law), than to

know
the

Rabbi Judah

Hanasi was not a contemporary of Rabbi Akiba.
Hirschel,

Rabbi

however,

held

that

Talmud cannot be

properly understood
its

without

a

thorough knowledge of

chronology.

He

impressed upon his students to study

the methodology of the Talmud, and
to read

recommended them
of the

Samuel Hanagid's Mebo Hatalimid, Simson of
Sefer Keritut and
other books
kind.

Chinon's

'

128
Later,

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
when Rabbi
of Halberstadt and head of an important

Rabbinical school, he used to give an historical introduction
to his lectures.

The

sources of the text, the commentators
all

and

their periods

were

discussed

before

he actually

commenced the reading
which was printed
joy.
in his

of the

Talmud

proper.

When
full

he

heard of the publication

of

Heilprin's

Seder Hadorot,
of

time in Karlsruhe, he was

The

publisher asked
'
:

him

for

an approbation of the does not need
testify

work, but he answered

A

work

like this

any approbation
(Auerbach,

;

that the sun shines

nobody need

p. 92).

One

of the

reasons

for

his

dissatisfaction

with his

position in

London was that he felt his preaching had not made people more religious. On Sabbath Teshubah, 1760 (p. 35a), he says: 'When first I came here I was
anxious to do something great,
benefit the

I

something
I

that

would

whole congregation.

had made up

my
if I

mind
could
flock

that nothing should be too

much

trouble for

me

only diminish religious transgression and lead
into the right path.

my

You brought me from
incurring great

a far-off land

across
I

the ocean,
to
I

expense thereby, and
is

said

myself,

"This surely
to

the work
I

of

God".

Although

knew my worth
:

be

little,

thought of the

saying of our Fathers
with
their

"

Those who occupy themselves
had courage and
after having

communal matters
help" (Abot,
c.

the merits of their Fathers are
2).

J

2; Mishnah

I

hoped

to succeed in

my

endeavours.

Now,

been with you

for four years,

and never having refrained
I

from pointing out your
hearkened to

failings,

see that

nobody has

me and
b).
I

that things have not improved in

any way
I

(p.

70

know, you have often wondered why

repeat so frequently

my

reproaches about your trans-

"

THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE, LONDON
gressions of the
failings in public

— DUSCHINSKY

129

Laws

of Sabbath and the festivals, of your
life,

and private
I

about the behaviour of your

women -folk,
But what

although
I
'•

saw that
if I

my

words had no
fulfil

effect.

else could

do

would

my
my
I

duty

?

God

had spoken to me:

Call out with thy voice,
tell

do not keep
people their
also there

back, raise thy voice like a Shofar and
sins

and the house of Jacob

their failings".

kno a^

are

many

scoffers

among

you, who, like the Rasha' (wicked
:

in the Passover Haggadah, tell you D3^ riNrn mnvn hd What good is this service to you ? What right has the Rav to speak in the Synagogue of your private doings?

man)

''

"'

My
sad

answer to these people
lot for

is

:

"h

"n r\^V nr "lUya " It

is

my
it

which
I

I

was destined by Almighty God,
shall not

is

my
(p.

duty, which

be deterred from

fulfilling

70

a).'

Half a year
exclaims
I

later,

(p.

73b):
life

Tammuz, 1762, he 'God Almighty only knows how weary
on the 17th of
here.
I

am
it

of
all

my

cannot bear

any longer to
life.

behold
Is

that you do in public and in your private

not enough that for nearly 1,700 years

we have been

expelled from the table of our Father, are like sheep without a shepherd, and (n"iya)
befallen us,

children to
us,

how many misfortunes have how many kinds of illnesses have we and our bear, how many terrible wars have come upon
on account of our
sins
'.

and

all this

Notwithstanding the vigour of these utterances he was
a

man

of even and calm temperament.
'
:

He was
17 b).

averse to

all

sort of quarrel

It is

more necessary
(p.

to avoid strife

than to keep a fast-day' he says
outlook on
fulness
',

His general
'

life

was likewise calm and
(p.

peaceful.
'.

Forgetsages
in

he says

71a)

'is

very necessary

Our

recommend the
VOL.
IX.

provision

of a

number

of wine-cups

K

130

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

a house of mourning, so that the people
forget sorrow

may

drink and
is

and

pain.

To worry
It

over the past

not

the act

of a wise man.

increases

melanchol)' and

deranges the mind of man.^°

R. Hirschcl

in Halberstadt.
life

In spite of this calm view of

he seems to have
life in

become more and more

dissatisfied

with his

London.

A few months
offering
tion.

later, at

the beginning of the year 1763, the

Halberstadt community

opened

negotiations

with

him,

him the
the
1

position of Chief

Rabbi

in their

congregaJ

On

6th of Shevat, 5523

(=

February,

763),
in

R. Elijah, son of Naphtali Hirsch Fraenkel, Parnas
Halberstadt,
as follows
'
:

who was on business in BerHn, One of the leading men of the
if

writes

home
com-

Berlin

munity had
elect

said to him, that

the people of Halberstadt

the

Rabbi of London, they simply pave the way
to
Berlin.

for

him

Halberstadt would only be a halting

stage and give the Berlin

community

a splendid opportunity

for observing the pastoral activity of the

Rabbi, and enable

them

to

judge whether he was worthy of the Rabbinate
'.

of Berlin

When, a few months

later,

the Parnasim of

Halberstadt recommended him for election (Sivan, 1763)
a letter was written to him,
in

which

this

passage of the

Parnas's letter was quoted, the Parnasim expressing their

anxiety that the possibility mentioned might become true.

The
that
so

letter of the

Parnasim says further

' :

They had heard
in

the
,2

study of Torah
HDt^'^i

was very much neglected
^axn
n"'3n

^it^^-i

nni""
;y'

\\irh

mon nunn^

^''rn

ivv pi

N'aoi

nnin::'.-!

nnnoi"

oann nihyso jrs \Nnn
p. 210.)

-i3yn ^y niJNnn

Dnsn nynn
Archiiologie,

m^iy.
70
;

See lalm. Babli

Ketubot 8b;

Krauss,

Tahn.

II, p.

A. Buechlcr, Afn-liaarez,

THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE, LONDON
London and was causing him
position

—DUSCHINSKY
he was anxious
in a really
It

I3I

to be dissatisfied with his
to

and

that,

for

this

reason,

exchange

his present office for

one

observant

congregation
to

on

the

Continent'.

having

happened

them on a former
elected, had,

occasion that a Rabbi,

whom

they

had

on

his

way

to them, accepted a call from

another congregation,^^ they were now anxious to avoid
a recurrence of such an event.

For

this reason

they must
but
six

ask him to give them not only his consent
also an undertaking to

in writing,

commence

his

duties

within

months

after his

election,

and not to leave them before
R. Hirschel replies in a
letter,

three years had passed.

remarkable
willing to

for

its

beautiful

Hebrew

style,

that

he was
but the

accept

the

position

offered

to

him

;

undertaking asked for he did not give until the
Shebat, 1764, when he received
in

month of
for
it

exchange

his

Contract

of

Appointment,

called

'Rabbinical

Letter'

(ni:ai 3n3).

This was handed to him in Amsterdam by
In another letter written in

Samuel Halberstadt

London
his

on the 32nd Shebat, 1764, Rabbi Hirschel
intention of

signifies

coming to Halberstadt between Pesah and

Shabuot
is

of the

same

year.

The Contract

of Appointment

dated the 14th of Ab, 1763.

He was

to receive a salary

of three hundred Thaler (^150

— in

London he had £2^0},

a free house suitable for his position, and certain fees for

marriages and other ceremonies.

The community under-

took to

assist

the

Rabbi

in

founding or re-establishing

a Rabbinical
*i

Academy
of Frankfurt

(Yeshibah) by providing for the
his

The Rabbi was R. Jacob Cohen Popers, who on
a.

way to Halberstadt
was the

was elected Rabbi
to Halberstadt.

M. and remained there without ever going
in

He was

first

Rabbi

Koblenz.

In Frankfurt he

teacher of R. Tevele Schiff (see

later),

and died 70 years old on Sabbath,
II,

22nd Shevat, 1740 (Horowitz, Frank/. Rabb.,

pp. 82 and 105.

K

2

132

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

maintenance of twelve scholars.

On

his election the district

of Ravensberg rejoined the Halberstadt

community and
His moving

undertook to

pay the Rabbi a separate

salary.

expenses were defrayed by the congregation and amounted,
according to a detailed account
in the

possession of the

congregation, to 481 Thaler, 11 Groschen, and 6 Pfennig.

The Rabbi
(Auerbach,

received
'^^

on

his

installation

the

customary

Derashah present

consisting of 179 Thaler and 8 Groschen
91).

loc. cit., p.

His predecessor

in

Halberstadt was R. Meir Barbi,^^

who
(p.

in

1763 was elected Rabbi of Pressburg.

According
statement
ist

to Auerbach,

who

gives no authority
in

for

his

91), R. Hirschel arrived
1

Halberstadt on the

of

Sivan,

764.

This date does not seem quite beyond question.

He

signs an approbation to the
in

book

:

C^n rw:^ (printed

in

Amsterdam, 1765)

Amsterdam on Friday,
'

the 27th of
to,

Tammuz,

1764, where he says:
in,

I

am

on

my way
'."*

and

looking forward to officiate

Halberstadt

Landshut,
his

referring to this approbation, says that he
relations in
there.

went to see

Amsterdam,
far

his

brother Saul being chief Rabbi

So

he

is

quite correct, R. Hirschel went to

the wedding of his daughter Sarah, who was married to

R. Jacob Moses, the son of

his

brother Saul.

He

is,

however, not correct when he says that R. Hirschel went soon after his installation from Halberstadt to Amsterdam.

He
s^

passed through that city on his
clearly states in

way from London,

as he

the approbation just referred to,
to

Derashah present was given
similar to a

the

Rabbi on preaching his
called

first

sermon (Derashah),

wedding present likewise

by the
at

same name, on account of the discourse of the bridegroom delivered
the wedding or on the preceding Sabbath.

Meir Barbi, author of

'•^"la

D"l"nD

r\"YZ',

Dyhrenfurt-Prag, 1786-92.

THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE, LONDON
which, curiously enough,
is

— DUSCHINSKY

133

mentioned by Landshut.

In the

work Zevi Laszaddik, published by Zevi Ezekiel Michelsohn,
Rabbi of Plonsk (printed
a
letter,

in

Piotrkow, 1904),

is

published

bearing no date, of Eliezer Libermann,

Dayan

in
in

London, addressed to Rabbi Hirschel, who was then

Amsterdam on
congratulates the

his

way

to

Halberstadt.^^
his

Libermann
Rabbi of
their
"iin3)

Rabbi and

brother, the

Amsterdam, on the occasion of the wedding of
children.

He

also mentions that a

young student

(nnN

who
tions

left

Halberstadt

two months previously and
told

had

arrived in

London had

him

of the elaborate prepara-

the

Halberstadt community were making for the

reception of the Rabbi.

A

fine

house

'

filled

with every-

thing of the best' was in readiness for him, and the com-

munity was awaiting
R. Hirschel
in

his arrival like the

advent of a

festival.

his reply to

Libermann does not

refer to

anything of a personal nature, but confines himself to the
ritual question asked.

He

writes that he

is

very worried
friend,

and low
is

spirited

and subscribes himself, 'Your
all

who

troubled on

sides

and careworn, who writes with
/(?c. cit.,

a

weak hand, &c. Zevi Hirsch' (Michelsohn,
is

p. 71).

Although no exact date
Elul, as he sends

given the earliest at which
letter is the

R. Hirschel could have written this

month

of

was therefore not
just
It

New Year greetings to Libermann. He only in Tammuz (date of the approbation
in

mentioned above) but also

Elul

still

in

Amsterdam.

consequently seems more likely that he entered upon

his duties in

Halberstadt shortly before the
not, as

New

Year,

5525
2*

=
'

1764 and

Auerbach

states, that

he came on
'Get

See also

letter of

Meshullam Zalman Emden

to his father in the
p.

of Cleve

affair,

dated 20

Tammuz,

1767, in

Or Hayashar,

79

a,

where he

mentions Libermann.

134

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
The wedding
left for his

the 1st of Sivan.

of his daughter probably

took place soon after the Fast of

Ab

and only

after that

day could he have

new

place of activity.

He

could not possibly have

come

there in Sivan

and gone

away again

for

two months shortly afterwards, while he
in

might have remained

Amsterdam

for that period before

proceeding to Halberstadt.

Soon

after his

arrival

he was called upon to settle

a dispute between

the congregation and his predecessor
certain

R. Meir Barbi.

A

R. Sender, of Braunschweig,

had presented the congregation with the sum of 6,000
Thaler, the interest of which was to be given one half to

Rabbi Barbi and the other half was to be
charitable purposes.

used

for

When
the

the Rabbi

left

for

Pressburg

the

donor wrote

to

wardens instructing them that

they should not send the half share of the income from the
said fund to

Rabbi Meir.

The

latter

made

a protest, and

the newly appointed Rabbi Hirschel successfully brought

about an understanding between the parties, Barbi receiving
in

commutation a sum equal

to the interest for five

and

a half years, and after the year 1768 the half share was to

be given to the Rabbi of Halberstadt

for the

time being.

In Halberstadt our Rabbi's chief care was devoted to
the development of his rabbinical school.
in

He

succeeded

bringing

it

to fame,

and many of

his pupils

became great

Rabbinical authorities

in later years.

One

of his pupils was

R. Loeb Kger, Rabbi
Berisch,

in

Halberstadt, another, Rabbi Issachar

became Rabbi of Hannover.

His pastoral activity
respected and

outside this Yeshibah

made him generally
had

honoured.

His congregants

unbounded

confidence

in

his

honesty and clearness of judgement, and he was able to

THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE, LONDON
bring to
satisfactory

— DUSCHINSKY
cases

135
dispute
for

conclusion

many

of

which had been before the Bet Din of Halberstadt

many

years previous to his arrival.
In

Nevertheless, he did not long remain in Halberstadt.

1770 he

left for

Mannheim.

Auerbach gives two reasons

for his relinquishing the office at Halberstadt.

The

congre-

gation of Bleicherode, formerly belonging to the district of

Halberstadt, had

some dispute with the

latter

congregation

and Hirschel decided
a certain
this

in Halberstadt's favour.

Thereupon

unnamed

individual insinuated that he decided in

way, on account of his dislike of the Bleicherode people,
did not welcome

who

him on

his arrival as other congre-

gations of the neighbourhood had done.
publicly,

This was declared

and

was a grave charge against the Rabbi's
and
an
attack

impartiality as judge,

on

his

honesty.
in

Although the Halberstadt community did everything
their

power to repair the assault on

their Rabbi's honour,

he himself never forgot the incident.
for his relinquishing the office,

The

other reason
is

mentioned by Auerbach,
in

that

there were

many

adherents of Eybeschutz

the

community.

Rabbi Hirschel had

in earlier years written

several letters in defence of his uncle Jacob

Emden.

He

had, as
ciliation
in

we have
he

mentioned, tried to bring about a reconfailed.

between him and Eybeschutz, but
is

Although

later years
in

not

known

to

have taken any active he was a nephew of

part

the dispute, the fact that

P2mden and son of R. Aryeh Loeb of Amsterdam, Emden's
vigorous supporter, was sufficient reason for the adherents
of

Eybeschutz to regard him as their enemy. The appoint-

ment of a Shohet with an authorization from Eybeschutz

may

have been regarded by him as a personal

slight,

and

confirmed him

in his decision to leave Halberstadt.

136

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

A

letter written

by Abraham Halberstadt, one of the
to

Rabbis of that

place,

Jeremiah Levy of
an
impartial

Berlin,"^

is

worth quoting,

as

being

opinion

of

his

work
of

in

Halberstadt,

Abraham having been an admirer
of the
says
is
'

Eybeschiitz,
family.

and consequently not a friend

Emden
gone
body.

He
us

:

That the great
as

man

has

away from

felt

a

real

loss

by every-

His personal

virtues, his activity in the
all praise.

community
were proud

and

in

the Yeshibah deserve

We
left

to have such a scholar at the head of our community.
will

Who
never
try to

replace

him

?

He

has undoubtedly
it

a difficult
will

position for his successor whoever

be, for

he

gain laurels or recognition however
imitate his predecessor.
is
still

much he may

The splendour
all,

of his personality

before the eyes of

and where one was used to

something good, only the better can be appreciated.
achieve being better than he
is,

To

is

indeed very

difficult.

Already there are cracks
which
I

in

the

body

of the Yeshibah,

fear will

be followed by

its

entire collapse.

More
and

than half of the Bahurim (scholars) have already

left,

they were the best ones.
it

Still it

may be God

has ordered

so,

that no strife should ensue in Israel.

The

small the
'.

spark of disunion which has

been glimmering
if

in

congregation might have increased

he had remained

To

judge from the last part of this letter, R. Hirschel's

relationship with

Emden was

at least

one of the causes
loc. cit.,

of his departure from Halberstadt.
pp. 192
ff.)

(See Auerbach,

R. Hirschcl in Mannheim.
In
»"

Mannheim he succeeded Samuel Helman,
p.

or Hilman,

Brother of Judah Levy giandfatlier of Adclheid wife of Dr. Ziinz (see
120
.

Landshut,

THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE, LONDON

— DL'SCHINSKY

137

who had been one

of the chief supporters of Jacob Emden.

He

accepted a smaller salary than he had at his former

place (Halberstadt), proving

how

little

he valued worldly

goods where

his principles

and conviction were at stake.
rest

He

was not to
In
a

find

and

satisfaction

even

in

Mannheim.

sermon preached

there

on

Sabbath

Teshubah (between
year
T'nu^'S
:

New Year

and Atonement-day) of the

5531

=

1771, he complains of slanders which

were very frequent there.

{SteZevi Las.,^.

135.)

'

I

always
'

heard that Mannheim was a great kehillah', he
is

said,

but

it

not really

so,

they are very provincial

'

(Dn?DiS

Tiyr^'j*

iNr:i

nxn nSi:

i^^N3 N^-^w'

nn

ly^i

n^nj n^rn

n^np-j*).

Mannheim
tion,
p. 256).

at that time

was a very observant congrega-

and consisted of 264 families (Loewenstein, Kiirpfalz,

He

once

said,

by way of a
in

joke, that in

London he

had money but no Jews,
and
in Berlin

Mannheim Jews but no money,
loc. cit.,

no money and no Jews (Loewenstein.
been elected to Mannheim

p. 255).

He had
finally

in 1768,

but

did not
in

go because he expected a
accepted the

call to Berlin,

and when,

1770, he

call,

he stayed there barel}'
so
little

three

years.

His ministration
his ever

left

mark

that

Carmoly doubted
in

having held the

office

of Rabbi
Berlin

Mannheim. ^^

Very
after

likely the negotiations with

commenced soon
thing important.

his

arrival,

and that may have
initiating

diverted his mind and prevented

him from

anyis

The Contract

of his election to Berlin

dated the istoflyyar, 1772 (Landshut,pp. 7S-80; Michelsohn,
op. cit., p. 149),

while the negotiations had

commenced
having

as

early as 1771.
^'

To

the proofs mentioned by Loewenstein for his
(p. 255, note
is

officiated

in

Mannheim
cit.,

now

to

be added the sermon in Michels6hn,

op.

p. 135.

(7V> be continued.)

1

THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM AS A SOURCE OF JEWISH HISTORY*
By Jacob Mann,
Jews' College, London.
I

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER
5.

{conchded).

Tivo anonymous letters by Babylonian Geonim.

The
paper,

two fragments printed here bear the evident stamp

of Babylonian provenance.

Fragment A, T.-S. 13
is

J. 25-^,

square hand, brownish ink,

a

long part of an
lines

appeal for support of the academy.
to

Only a few

seem
which

be missing from the beginning of the

letter

contains bitter complaints and reproaches about the complete indifference the outside communities

show towards
a close resem-

the school in Babylon.

The fragment has

blance to Saadyana, nos.
plaintive tone
is
is

XLV

and XLVI.
all
is

The same
Emphasis

characteristic of

of them.

given to the fact that the school

deteriorating owing

to

want from which

its

members

are suffering.

Only with
upon
to

great difficulty are talented

young men

prevailed

remain

in the school.

Rather than

suffer want,

they prefer
11.

to seek a livelihood elsewhere (cp. our fragment,

19

ff.).

The

verse

of 2

Chron. 31. 4
recto,
1.

(1.

30)

is

also

quoted

in

Saadyana, no.
Interesting

XLVI,
is

67.
(1.

the mention of CNjnn 'cmo
of the

21),

which

seems to have consisted
attended by
*i"i»^nn
(1.

study of the Mishnah
(11.

still

youthful disciples

21-2).

The niDN
academy

23)

were already grown-up scholars themselves,

having children
*

who
See

refrained from attending the

vols. VII, 457-90, VIII, 339-66.

140

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
their being obliged to earn a living.

owing to

The

D'S^n

of the school are also mentioned in another Genizah-letter

from a Babylonian Gaon
Tdiri-l), 771
;

see

also

7QR., XVIII, 404 (^^^nni Ahimaas Chron., Neub. II, 130,
(cp.
is

Of more
I

intrinsic
in T.-S.,
'.

importance

fragment B, which

have found
'

Box

K

21,

marked on the wrapper
four leaves of a quire,

as

Didactic letters

"

It consists of

paper, size 17 x 12 cm., square hand with a turn to cursive.

After examination, the leaves turned out to contain speci-

mens of
letters of
is

letters

for

various

occasions.
i

Complimentary
and
2.

no special interest cover leaves
2

There

a

gap between leaves

and

3.

Fragment B then follows

on leaves 3 and 4 (verso,
leaf
It

first line).

The

rest of verso of
(D^Din^J).

4 contains a specimen of a
evident that a copyist

letter of

condolence

is

made

a selection of letters

emanating from a head of a school.
is

Thus fragment B
for

not the original, but there

is

no ground

doubting that

the copyist had before
residing in

him an
recto,

original letter
1.

by

a

Gaon

Bagdad

(fol. 4,

7).

The Gaon

requests

his correspondent to send questions

on subjects concerning

Bible,
(11.

Mishnah, and Talmud, and also the usual donations

16-18).

The same
n:^^y:r\

request

we read
c. E.

in

the letter

by

a Gaon of Pumbedita, dated 953
11.

{7QR., XVIII, 403.
p3 t^i^nc
. .

19

ff.,

p

Y2.

p

p3

^^-^p^r^

p

.

"innm

nio^nn).

But the chief

interest of the

fragment

lies in

the author's

defence of the Rabbinic tradition.
laws, not

A

number

of traditional

mentioned

in

the Pentateuch, can be derived from
Bible.

the

other books of the

This proves that they

existed in early times.

Some

of

them are mentioned
is

in

the
4.

" The permnnent

class-mark of this fragment

now

T.-S. 13 J. 31.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM
Bible, exclusive of the Pentateuch, but

— MANN

I41

most of them were

known

to the scholars
(fol. 4,

and handed down from generation
11.

to generation

recto,

1-5).

In deducing a number

of traditional laws from the Prophets and the Hagiographa,
the writer of the letter shows in several points independence

from the Talmudic method, a

fact

unexpected from a
fail

Babylonian Gaon and one that does not

to

enhance

the interest in the argument which will be discussed here
in detail.

The

verse of

i

Sam.

20. 27
K^"in
'•JtJ'n

is

evidently cited to prove
(fol.

the existence of two days

CJ'N"!

3,

recto,

11.

1-2).

Rashi and Kimhi translate

K'nnn

mnroo as the second

day of the month.
to

But Targum apparently took the phrase

mean

the second day of

New

Moon."^

We find Benjamin
Also Saadya took

Nehawendi accepting

this inference.^^

the verse in this meaning, against which Jefet b. 'Ali polemizes (cp. Pozn.,

7QR., X,
N^-J^n

251).^^

Also Salman
i.e.

b.

Jeruham

Ed. Lagarde,

Nni"-

nUy
is

Xipm ^-!nna^ NOVn, 'on the
',

following day which

was the

"113V of the

second month

the second day

n"1,

for

which the technical term
to
is

"113^.

Dr. Biichler has drawn

my

attention

the fact that

it

is

not the preceding

month

that

is

called

13iyO, as 39
a

generally assumed and stated, but the

new month.
N"!"'

In Erub.

(Mishnah and Baraita)

we

read -l3J?nn
;

ND•^^'

^^^t:'

r\:i\:>r\

tTNT,

not Elul, but n"-) would be -|3iyD
13iyf3 ^I^N, which
\:ii2u^ "i2iyr2 ::'nnn
is

Rashi supplements

T"3

IC'V''

KD^

not in the Mishnah.

See also Shebiit

lo^,

tOmBTl

iTh qn* n"-i3 np^ni

man

ns*.

The commentators

supply 7Vi^ after t^nnn.

But
of

in

the light of Erub. 39 a

CHnn
Thus

here
in

is

the

month on which the day

New

Year

falls, viz.

Tishri.

Targum
'

W^JTI KHT "lUy
''^

(for N3"''"Jn

Nmn
', i.

"lUy; can only be translated
e.

the

"n3y of the second (or

new) month
b}'

the second day of

New

Moon.

Cp. the extract printed

Harkavy,

Stitdien u. Mittcihtiigen, VIII, 176,

80

Aaron

b.

Elijah,

pj?

p, 5

a,

also quotes Saadya's view,

T\'^l\^

nj13

142

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

argues against the two days of

New Moon
b.

in

the diaspora.^^

Likewise the Karaite Aaron
Firkowitz, Koslov,i835, to
tion of the second
Jer.
17.
i

Joseph

in DnB^" -in2», ed.

Sam.

(7*), refutes

the deduc-

day of New Moon from
us
r\)^n to

this verse.^^

22

tells

about the prohibition of carrying

burdens from

Tmi

DUin

nitJ'l

which
11.

is

not men-

tioned in the Pentateuch

(fol. 3,

recto,

7-10).

The very
Jacob

same argument was used by a
b.

disciple of Saadya,

Samuel
ff.),

(cp,
is

about him Pozn., Katifmann-Gedenkbtich^
from the retort of Jefet
denoting that no
in
b. 'Ali.^^

169

as

evident
58.

Likewise
(7in

Isa.

13 as

common

talk
3,

nan) should be indulged
11.

on the Sabbath

(fol.

recto,

IO-I2J
b.

is

a point of dispute between Jefet b.

'AH

and Jacob
v>''^-\r\

Samuel.^*

D"y
b.

N^i

nhcn

pn:rnn
in his

n-jann

:njo

^sd

ds

""3

hm^ n^.

Meshullam

Kalonymos

polemics against the Karaites (printed by
Cohen, 569
p. 570).
fl'.)

Freimann, Judaica: Festschrift

Hermann
i,

also uses this verse
b.

of Samuel to prove tninil "lITy (no.

The Karaite Jeshua

Juda likewise refutes
of Saadya, 52).
»i

this deduction (cp. Pozn., Karaite Literary

Opponents

Cp. Pinsker, p"b, d'hsd:, 16

:

n"n

D^o"- 'a

bv

iVits
:

Nin

'rn

pisn
^'nar*

^k^'Ni
'131
«2

nvpo^
B'ln

n"'JcirD

u'^U'

d'j::'

D3^ iNVon

p'-jo

^Jsitri

D^JD'n.

b^

"jc^n

nv
n"i

^'-i

^jcn c-tnn
'3
:

i?jvy

xin

n^ cnnn mnoo
n"a nyn

mn?:c n^o
nrN2
83

.TiT

hm cd^
'•23

(n^japn ""byarr)
-inDnij

'•d^

^a

D^n' '2

nnyn
dv.

dni

n^n

'•yan n\Ti

"'B'^k*'

dv

pipn p2npo vn
iK^'D
i^Ni

Pinsker, p"^, D'HSDJ, 21-a

:

Q-'XnJ

n^nD nVNI Tt^VS^ Tlim
-ini?

DD^nitrDja

'\'\^^r^
.

D^snp hn^na
>i?3

Tiiruyn i^nrn

-il*'n

NC'o ix^vin

sh
/

nm

.

.

nyn

npipn nxr

p

d^n::'d nacr

nva
Ni?i

minn
»*

[c

nsr

r\'c'^Th

.tnt

nn

c"n

nooy^ inio npx C'Ta
N^Ji

Pinsker, /.c, aa

:

'yrh lai pa
to Isa.
in

tmsn
c,

lani' "lanro idni
''"13n3

y:D
"1311

nan?.
tJin.

But Aaron

b.

Joseph

(/.

39a) comments,

131

— To

this prohibition

general, cp. Schechter's Zadokite

Fragment

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

— MANN

143

The Halaka
be returned to
(fol. 3,
it

that in the Jubilee year a present has to
its

donor

recto,

II.

12-16).

deduced from Ezek. 46. 17 The Mishnah (Bekor. 52^) records
is

as a dispute between

R. Meir and his contemporaries
njDDni
. . .

(-13D3

njnon N^ani

d"-i

nan

i?3ri

pnnn psB'

^bn)).
is

But

it is

to be noted that the Biblical inference in Babli
25.
10,

from Lev.
n^riDn

mcTi

pmn

in^^cyt:

^nd nDD3

nmn

N"Dni

ns nui^.

The author
the next item
2.

of our fragment prefers to

adduce the explicit verse of Ezekiel.
Instructive
II.

is

(fol. 3,

recto,
if

11.

16-19, verso,
tJ'lp "ic^n

1-2).

From Haggai
it

12

we

learn that
it

not the

itself

but a thing in contact with
does not impart
'

touches any other
it

object,
^i'^p''

sanctity

'

to

(C'lpa yji^a

v^):::

ah).

Thus the

verse of Haggai

is

explained according
is

to

its literal

meaning.

Well known^ however,
B'lp "1K^3 is

the quite

different explanation in Pes. 17 a.

taken to mean

XOD 1^2, which imparts 'defilement'
is

to the cloth,

and

this

transmitted in succession to the articles of food men-

tioned in the verse (cp. the exposition of this Talmudic

explanation in Maimonides, Introd. to Mishnah

Comment,
and

on nnno itd, towards end).
/,

We

find

Ibn Ezra to Haggai,

c, polemizing against this explanation of the verse

insisting

on

its

natural
gives

meaning.^^

Also

the

Karaite
in

Jacob

b.

Reuben

this explanation.'^^

But

our

(H. part 10, 11.27-8), pni ^3J "l3n C^^N "131^ bn, and Yer. Sabb. 15b, top
11.

3-5

:

N^ynK'D

r\'<D''i6

'nn

mn
^^^1
"inx

12 ^nv

p

::'"-!

xa la

N^^n "i"n

N\n
««

Nnmc
B'np^

nd'^n rh
DN"i

noN
.

nin pjD.

NOD''
.

B'np''
.

^jdd

c^mp iy?3c>D3 B>nip
nr
•3

nt^'a

]r]

bv

n^NK^n

nni

Inr

airiDn

n:^^'

noi?

ndc'

i3y

m
86

?B'np''n

nnann mab

in

nn^n ^n

Lj'ipn

Nin
n^?

ncran

dk'K'

N^i 5|:Dn na^ n^N
B>npn

ba
^2

yjj

n^:^'

nnx

nm

njnji

hdni
-ir*3.

D^jnsn

icon

lyjj
,

n^

pnn xim ona

yjj t;'on :ynpn
;

nc'yn 'd

ed.

Firkowitz, Kozlov, 1835, 20 b

Tj-a Nin :;nip

-ii"a

144

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
2.

fragment we see the Gaon taking Haggai

12 in

its

natural
to

meaning long before Ibn Ezra.
explain Lev.
6. 20,

This

necessitates

to which Ibn

Ezra

refers,

again
"il^'2

in

a

way

different

from the Talmud,

viz.

that
it

if t^'lip
'

has
'

immediate contact with an object,

will

sanctify

it.

But the Talmudic deduction

is

that this takes place only

when the
from the
y^a^c^

object touches and also absorbs
trnp ntra (cp. Pes.

some substance
:

45
s^

a, top,
'"•ax

and

parallels
u'np"'

IB'N

ija

ny

mcna

^'n

T\'ihi

^13"

'i3i

nnu^'33

yy

Erom Ruth
a declaration
bolical
11.

4. 7

the

Gaon

infers that if

a person

makes

(VJ'd:

7y Ty),

it is

legally ratified

by the sym(fol. 3,

exchange of a shoe or any other thing
Evidently the inference
7X"ii:'"'3

verso,

2-6).

is

from the

last clause

of the verse
attestation.
Sin p^^^Nim

miynn nxn

in the
a.
l.

meaning of testimony,
(nny m»rD nmynn nxn
on^yo vn
nr

So
yr\va\

also Ibn
nib'^n
b.

Ezra

miyn n^ca
"itryn

trnsjo ^^\

^y

p33n)

and Jacob
.

Reuben,

'D

(14

a),

nny

Nin

miynn

7X~iw"'3

The Gaon's
Thus,
e. g.,

inference essentially agrees with the
that

Halaka.
'

the

''C'^\>

is

not

restricted

to

shoes

'

only, but can consist of
a,

any other thing

(1N D^byj2

-ba), cp. B. m. 47

Kidd. 13a,
in

t\-w

n

pxc* D"ys
is

^^3

pjip

xjn

HDins.

Yet the way

which the inference
in

defined shows
('131

independence from the Baraita
Ps. 51. 19 evidently refers to

B. m. 47 a

'WDd).
11.

nii?: (fol. 3,

verso,

6-10),

because the next verse reads
Zion, build

'

Do good

in

Thy
'.

favour unto

Thou

the walls of Jerusalem

It

should be

noted that the
of the verses.

Agada does
Joshua
b.

not agree with this explanation

Levi seems to take Ps. 51. 19 to

-ir3^ -inna yrc' laan pa p-is niN-in^
".13n3

n:3

eiJ32

orx

in

nxun
Alph.

yr vh 1L"N "innn pai cnp.

Cp.

alho Hadassi,

Eshkol,

282, end, 283, 284, beginning.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM
refer to
if

— MANN

H5

Temple-times.

When

the

Temple was

standing,

a

man brought

a burnt-offering, he had only the reward
contrite spirit
is

of his sacrifice.
as
if

But he of the
all
;

regarded

he had offered
b,

kinds of sacrifices, as Ps. 51. 19

shows (Sanh. 43
Ingenious
of a

top

Sotah 5

a).
r.

For other Agadic
c. 7
;

explanations of this verse, see Lev.
is

Pesikta 158

a.

the inference from Job 42. 15, that each
is
11.

man's daughters
(fol.

entitled

to a tenth part of his

property
D^D3J
is

3,

verso,

10-14).

The Halakah
But

of

"ilcr"'V

well

known
Job

(cp. especially
b,

the Baraita in Ket. 68
its

a,

bottom, and Ned. 39
this verse of
I

bottom).

deduction from

could not trace in the Talmud.^'
it

In conclusion

should

be noted that Job
quite
different

15. 18

is

explained

in

an early

Agada

from the
it

meaning the author of our fragment gives
recto,
11.

to

in fol. 4,

'>,-^

(cp.

the Baraita in Sotah 7

b).
is

Who
know

the writer of our fragment was

impossible to

gather from the part that has been preserved.
that he lived
in

We
He

only

Bagdad and was regarded
(fol.

as an
evi-

authority

by the people

4, recto,

11.

5-12).

dently tried to defend the tradition against the attacks of
the Karaites, and in doing so he endeavoured to take to his
aid the verses of the Prophets

and the Hagiographa.

In

order to forestall the retorts of his opponents, he gave the
verses their natural

meaning and avoided the Talmudic

method of deduction.

The

nearest thought

is

to identify

the writer of this letter with
at

Hai

b.

David,

who was Dayan

Bagdad

prior to his assuming the

Gaonate of Pumbedita.

According to Kirkisani, Hai and his father David trans"
Cp. also Rashi
to Job, v.
I.
:

Dy

H^m DH^

\T\l

P^DM inU'K'n IIHO
in the inheritance,

DTIKn.

— For the Karaite view about a daughter's share
JQR.^ VIII,
692, note
3.

see Pozn.,

VOL. IX.

L

146

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Book of Precepts from Aramaic into Hebrew,
its

lated 'A nan's

and examined
in, 503).

sources (cp. Harkavy,
this

Hebrew
is

Graetz,

Probably

Hai
b.
(cp.

nnTiJ^^N

DKi

referred to

by
and

Jefet b. 'Ali

and Sahl

Masliah as the author of a
Pinsker,
\>"\>,

book against the Karaites
183).

D''nsDJ,

148-51
his

But as the writer of the

letter requests

correspondent to send to Bagdad questions as well as
donations,
there.
It
it

seems that he was the head of an academy
therefore

is

more probable that he belongs

to

a later period,
at

when

the Pumbedita

Gaon had

his residence

Bagdad.
(recto)

entity

unn

"•t'T'i

\^:b k'IB'oi U'-ry

nonD
^3

irns dhn
\ib

'•a

n^ymci
uniN

[n]n DN

c'\x

nyv"

nw

\h

D^2*^n3

cnx

ij^^n

nna

oaijnaB^

iJn:N

truN

ntrj''

T-Ni ^B'1D Kin

D3ny»

•ij''D''d

'•pK'

'•31

ipn ^iid

hn c^n

nat?'^

*I^ni

5

[Da-TiJnjNn ijniK

omps n^

i[3^Jn [d

]"•»''

naini

nay

d^:b'

nain dn

p

h^

vn

vk'

DDK
^2[D^]cjn-in

"ir:3

n3j n^na^ D^pnv 13t D3>ni3N jn3»3 OD^niaui

oam^i

na'-nii'XB'i

DDN irynr ^y onina ^^p'ons ptj'm Dy

D^pipn D3:n ^"133^ by onina
'•s

[nJtrN ''^D^upn c*s3 by fm ^^nait^n nivo n^p» i^n hni: n^cn pNtj'

by

eisi

IDNJ pNi

^'^n^va

ybo bv3 bsN3 pdd pimiD

i^b isn^

cnman cy p

by pxi^ 10

D3mn
Nb DN

1310 [bnn: dni] i3mi3i n3trn D3nN n3C'j dn

nbw

nyi

ynvn

'•^

[-nitj'lcn X3J nK'N3
'3"i3tx
»8
*'

pbyn [dhn

i^Jirnt^D

b3

l''ni

byi ^Tixih nt^ri

D^[n]y

3n

xb DN o[nb

^jiK'b]
»»

p3nn t6^

nitj'n

obc^T "in3BV dn ibxb
»»

Ps. 71. 33.
p''Dnjf
for

Ps. 78. 3.
;

Cp. Cant.

8. 6.

gives no meaning

read
;

p^om

,

p'J'm and

\\''y^T\^

being
d.

synonyms
'•"

prayer

,

cp. Ps. 55. 3
s. v. »'

77. 4,

and see Zunz, LUeraturgescft.

synag. Pocsie, 398 and 402,

Cp. Jcr.
Cp.

17. I.

Referring to the phylactery on the arm.
»''

»

Isa. 49.

16

Cp.

Isa. 3a. a.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

— MANN

I47

[^3] nN-13

'•3

1:^

-10 13N1

D^:i:

irx^n n^mxj
ijy

i^^ninn pooit:' ij^rpr

ni^

i^niN 15

noiy Nin
[ni]D\n nNi'031

in-tin
^'

n\t "icn iJT'in

^3

"ij^tfnp
rh'>b)

idnm
noy

dx

^3

3"ini i^in
"•«

ohyn

''nm id psi
n^jt

d-'Kib'

nipn

dov Tinn xb nx
r\^b]}

nbs na haa

bijnn' nac'na
[):b

ii''n^

^[y]i^ p-ini?

ab haa ni3x^ i^in

ib^n D^^yn d: iiom

Dm]oN DN nhy

in
ooitr

v^r'nan

^a

yvn hdi
^3

-''^pN "noirb ^5 imo''
^3

ircmr^i i:ynD
w:']}

nom min

oyin n:n xin
^3
itD3

p

djdn iJ^ncan nuyon^i i:nDn

20

nis» nyj ba

D'N:nn c^moi

nmno

tayo 1J^mJ1 id»b>

nt3N*i'D^

D''s:;v

on^na D'^m niD^nn

njK' ^s* n:K'oi

cnon

i:n -iin

moN Dii mt^'cn nan^i'n bx nnm nny!? in "lantj'n^
^nib'"'
rivs

xi'tj'

ns ins nnx

n-inanDDi

nnnx

[Dn'']m3iT» nsi
Dn*3-i!»*

npn dn [q]w?d ic'n
loy^j

ni^sy hnt ^3 d[iji "'tSyoj i3]n 25

P3D

nb

D[n]D^^ mv^i

imin

ij[»]ni)N

nnn abn
n^J

pro N^a Dip^ nr »o
?yob dv ^3 "nv

*3

p

bn^ 03^

n'6?Dtt ^jin
iv^i

naa nn nab Thib nhv is^"*

pn

n^ibni

D^jnan ns*
dj

ononN ^n ddin

[i]N^nn[3i]

^^ ':i

itbp^i

nyn
''3

Ns^i D'OB'.-i

nDyb Qyn nx

mv

m

-no^bn i'\Zinb D^bia^ oba d:>n ^3

yT

nobbi ini'b

ip3T ]v^b D^bni
i:3n
''3

D'':n3n n:r: Jinb o^Bn'i^ "•sc'vb

by^ idn^i h33 Dn>3-iv3 30
^"^'"'^

NDi-h 3iynb pb3Vn Dn^D3n pB'y^ n» ayn pbvyn^ dni
y'3[tt']:i
n''i?y

n^iha

ns

i:^st:i

i:n

onb

yne^j icj'n
^3
^3

ny o-niDi oTiB'ynD

iB'3y

msB':
nriNn
id^6

iB'N n::3i

nbi: ni^xi rnh

ionj )ybv i»3i onb ddd nxi inun
w' iJ'o^o ^^txi li^by ib:
^"^^3 f\b

cy n^k^y

D3 '"2^3B'N3

m

'03n bc'Dnn

px

'•«

Ps. 137. 5-6. Ps. 82. 5.
Isa. I. 30.
S9
1"'-

9'

Jer. 33. 25.
IPO

"^

Exod.

16. 4.
a,

a Chron. 31.
17 b.

4.

^"^
">"•

Cp. Sotah 47

b

;

Temurah

Hullin 92

a.

L

2

148

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

B
npD"'i
{J'-l'-D

(fol. 3,

recto)

':^n B'nnn

mnoD
'31

sti

'"3^0 -1SD21 104

opp

-j-n i^^cnni

'nan

^^^'^^nv

[^ns
ncN
nnnn
nDD31

na:
5

niyni
loe^j-jjj,^,

DnnN^

n:n:

nvis*
-ib'K

"n'^n nirx n^ani
•'3

IIDN

K'T'El

n-'DI"'

xt^'D
in^y::'''

iN^vin s^i 'nD3

D^mn

niB'-ii'

isDni
!?in

^^^

nnc^n dv3 D^Tiao 10

n2C'3
-12,031

nan

mn-in^ -iidn

o

^ttq

108.-131 ^311
3ityn

nVEn Nii'DD 'n33
fix "3

njnon
•31

c'T'd ^Nprn*

njno

frT"

'n33 "i3»??3 bnvn t):^2

ny.

li?

nn\ii vnsyjo
io»

nnxb

in^n^t: 15

"1DD31

N''t':^

n3cn
"3

-imn n:v

yai33 yp.ijn
B^*«
Ntj'>

crn^s ic'y

nn

)n

'n33 :rnp^ x^.c'npn

1B333 ya:i
'"*
^"^

nja

51J33

cnip

-iB'a

I

Sam.

ao. 27.

Cp. Tos. Ber. 316, Babli 30a, and Yer. 8 b bottom.
c. 4.

Dan.

6. 11

is

also used for this inference in Ber. 31 a (cp. Yer.

beginning).

See also

py p
^>3B'3

,

ep-i,

bottom, 1J33 ni3"ii3o niai^n

mcy^

n^D:3 ^3 ri3ns
i?33

p

^y

nyinc'

no t.^t
Nin.

nr

by

phn ^xnc"

nvidj

t6)

\i''\pQn

DN

'"'DN1

3-iycn 1333 in^3pn ^^sr.o .thc' nipo ^33^'

n33yn

^icio

i'N-iK'"'
'"«
I

jnx 3-iyD3
Kings
8. 48.

J
"7 Jer.
17. 2.
i»8

isa. 58. 13.

"» Ezek. 46.

17.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

— MANN
verso)

149

(fol. 3,

^Ni |otr

i'Ni

|"n ^Ni nnjn ^xi Dni?n

^n

B>Ta

nn
D"':s^

laoai ""•tj'niTn ^dko bn
^y
n-iy^

iT'o D^3ip iB'sa

-ik'n

b

^3

nxn 'nas
^yi

""bn in

D^^yn
'ic'^n
^53

W'pb mi»nn
-isoni
'ji

nbiwn ^y
b'^n ?i^tr

5

^^M^yi

-im

"•nnn

'nsa D^nnt 2-ipnD ni^an

nan:! nna^j n^ mnc'j
tj'Ta

nn

d'h^n
10

2VN

-iDom ^^2.,-inn

n^ dm^n
ni^an
^3

ncr^y

nns

^53

r\)bt2):

vji pn niB'n
}ni?

""a

rfax ^d5*3

inn n-iK^y jha

nvnn vnim
inns

-1DD31 ^^^nn-ns iina nijn:

nsoa
Nipn 'n33

Ni-ip^ D^n^^n

"^a

c^n^a Niiy 15

:crnip

nv b^i Q^ann

min
nsoa

Drn

p

nvi dv DNi^xn
1^*
:

mm

I3n33 no^i

innNn nvn

nyi pB>Nin

(fol. 4,

recto)

DDi'PD n^Ni anan

xh

ntjapa

'naa nc'iah m-i^n^

-un^j

n^oanh
nti-'N

nuND
nny^
»" Haggai a. la, "2 Ps. 51. 19.
115

nn^a

n^ji

n^r D^»an

'131

^^^pn^n n^n:

ma^
4. 7.

Dn^

5

"^ Ruth

"3 Job 42.

15.

"* Neh.

8. i8.

Read

nm,

"° Job 15. 18.

150

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

nnpbp nsnlaa n^aw lamx
NCK) "inm -iiDX T-on oyn
'<pMP'\

nx

b

iNBn Sdqi IK'S mnDi

i'NiDC' "i»K "ic^xa

ny ^aa

Do-i3t:i

l-na D3nx
nc'yn
'•3

^n>-iini
^^'^

oDiyn ^^snn^
.nii'''ni

WJivm

nnion

15

njB^n pi Nnpon

p

nibxc' i'NC'ni

minn nx

^^^na pan

tni

mc^nn pi
n^cri d::'^

|yo^ "j^nmj

ns

D/iyn iTn") m5:'\n noTin

irni3i3 iny2

i^apn'"! "jn^

^y 20

(fol. 4,

verso)

mho
6.

nv3 ij^ni^^sni

Nahum

"JXina^N irn^s

[/<?

Geoft.^

II.pp. ^^

and

6g\.

The long index
tv/ice

of responsa printed in Geon., II, contains
till

the above name, which was

now entirely unknown.

On
b.

p.

58 the item reads
i^^

jrn^N Diro
list

mo p

ana nK'yoi

ni5"'nD

^:xnna^N

[yj].

Further, in a
cp.

of questions from Judah
this scholar, Poznaiiski,
\\rh^ dihj

Joseph

(of

Kairowan,
22)

about

INI-17 ''ir:^,

no.

we

read

^:NTiai'x
|Tn,

ano nj'ki

"^y yt2p.

It

therefore seems that this

a native of

Bagdad
time
in

(Bardan being a suburb of
''^

this city),

was

for a

I

Sam.

12. 33.
n',?Nt;',
is

"' jna, referring to

would be more

suitable.

"' Thus very likely

the lacuna to be completed.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM
Kairowan. The following fragment, T.-S. 10
to elucidate this point, and
will

— MANN
J. 4^, will

151

help

also furnish

interesting

information about the connexions between the Jewries of
different countries.

Our Nahum

travelled from

Bagdad

as far as the

Magreb

(probably Kairowan).^^" There he bought antimony powder,
valuable as an eye salve, and

Hebrew
was to

books,

among them
his

a set of Talmud.

These he sent to Egypt, where
sell

representative, Hillel b. Isaac,

the powder, but

to take the

books to Jerusalem.

Afterwards

Nahum made
owed

over to his son Jannai the

amount

his representative

him.
latter's

Now
who

both

Nahum

and Jannai are dead, and the
b.

heirs,

Joseph and Nahum, claim from Hillel

Isaac,

lives in

Ramlah, the amount due to
(in

their father.

Their representative
Sicilian.
still

Palestine)

is

Masliah

b. Elijah,

the

The
in

last

fact

tends to show that the plaintiffs
that our

lived
is

Babylon, probably Bagdad, and

fragment

a part of a document drawn up at the
at

Supreme

Court of the academy

Bagdad.

It

has been sent to

Egypt

for the

purpose of taking further proceedings against

Hillel b. Isaac,
to

who
is

refused to repay the

sum he was owing
Talmud
Above

Nahum

and

his heirs.

Interesting

the mention of copies of the

being sent from Kairowan to Egypt and Palestine.

(VIII, 354) a copy of Berakot from Kairowan, containing
"" This

Nahum

is

perhaps identical with

Nahum

b.

Joseph,

who

writes

an Arabic

letter,

dated 2and Ab, 310 Sel = 998, from Kairowan to his master

Samuel
stayed

b.

Hofni (published by Goldziher, Rl^J., L, 182-8).

Leaving
Hofni

his

family in 'Irak,
in
''IDT

Nahum

b.

Joseph travelled as
mentions a

far as Andalusia,

and also
to

Mahdiya.
""^N "'T'D
in

He
(11.

letter sent
is

by Samuel

b.

min^
to

i4-i5)>
list

who

probably the Kairowan scholar
is

Jehuda

b.

Joseph,

whose

of questions there

the above reference

Nahum

•'JNTID^S |tn^t<.

152

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
b.

a difficult reading, which Shemariah

Elhanan used, was

mentioned.
of the

In earlier times, however,

we know
to

of copies
the West.

Tahnud being
Paltoi

sent from the East

Thus

Gaon

sent to Spain a

Talmud with

a com-

mentary {jfQR., XVIII, 401, bottom).

Also Hasdai ibn
(cp.

Shaprut bought copies of the Talmud from Sura
ibid., 768).

Marx,

(recto)
n3>B'\n
"iVB'

^N irJD^ sa

^3

^^i^^^^,-,

^^
'jn

-ux

i:>:d^
[i]i

[.thJk^

nB>yo
-i

^JN'nai'N Din3

i'-a

w:^ i

Dim

[eiJDV

aiyon

p

irti'

^JNTn3[^N] jrnn

mnj

xm

iprn ^d

Dn»isi

D^^nip |rnn

DnsD Dy
b:i\h

i22tjn3 yni^n [hd^] n[ni]nD

pnv'

p

^b>n

'n

[nx] n:^o

3^:^'

onvo n^no ^x

jn^iri

niofjn

Dnaoa m^V/i minon manbi ^an
D^tJ'n^i'

Qn3D3

n^yi

vdt b'pi ^nj
^s*

i^x

"laci

bn

b^-^i xai D^tm^ij

jprn

Din:

wm
123

jn:

p

[n]nsi

njno Dnaoni ^hd ^x .-ninon irnx

^x[:]''
Iki'Syi

n ua!?
'.jpi

i:ux '3x *JXTia
33j^3 n-11D3

no
•a-i

-13D

irax^

-ix::'3

xh irnvrxi udxi

irax \sr
i^DV

-ii

|rnn

Dim xjan
^xi'-

jprn

ux

u^n^ir ^'-iv

na

^^J^n

t

Ijy

>!?pD

n^^x n^3 n^^vn n

nx

[|]»r

nmo

irjo i3di Dimi

^DT lioo h2ph

na

pnv^

ia ^ijM i nx perm n^oi

n^no
iTn

irx

n^^^'o

n xai

Lnaoni minon
pn^

>3

nr ^!?m i

jyoi

pnv
b]ain
ii?

bn3 ^x n-iinon 'did

y-i[3jj

'31

irax '2X

pn

[oina xja-i

nnson
nr ^^JM T ^2p'c'

^y

1^

nxcoi

"'

pT

is left

out

;

perhaps read
;

TD

for

nU.
'^'

'" Jski, antimony- powder

eye-salve.

=PJp1'

'

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM
7.

— MANN

153

A

Panegyric in honour of a Babylonian Dignitary.
size,

Or. 5554, B, folio 20, parchment, square writing,

19 X 14 cm., forms a part of a
celebrity.

poem
>n^

in

honour of a great
strophes,
"i
.

The fragment
.

contains
y

twenty-one
n^ian nyi n^JD

which give the acrostic
is

ny^
is

.

It

evident

that

the

poem

incomplete.

At

least

two
J

strophes at the beginning,

commencing with the

letters

and

T

respectively,

and

one strophe at the end, with T as

its first letter,

are missing in order to complete the acrostic
-i[tj].

[n]y 'iy^

.

.

.

n^:D

The poem has
in

for its hero the

same person

to

whom

are devoted the remarkable

poems published by Schechter

Saadyana (XXV, pp. 6']-']4. = yQR., XIV, 331-42) from a Cambridge manuscript. Acrostic and style are similar,
while the same
is little

names occur

in

both fragments.^^"^
is

There

doubt that the panegyric

in

honour of a prominent
is

leader of the Babylonian Jewry.
reference to the

This

clear

from the
1.

academy of Sura
life,

(iT'Dno, S. 66,

8

ff.)

to
is

which he imparted new
eulogized as
'

and from the

fact that

he

the strength of the dispersion in Babylon
1.

and

Edom
(S. 72,

'

(S. T^,

26),

whose

'

authority

is in

Shin'ar and his
all

awe reaches
11.

'Ar, and his repute goes through

countries

15-16).
(p. 6^).

This has been rightly pointed out by

Schechter
'l31

The

full

acrostic in S.,

"ITJ

im

DmaN

n^ljn nyi n!?JD,

proves that his

name was Abraham. This
b.

at

once disposes of the tentative identifications of the hero

of the
I.e.,

poems with Saadya or Samuel

Hofni, as Schechter,

and Ginzberg {ZfHB., XIV, 85-6) suggest.

Surely

the supposed author of the poems,
^^*

Abraham Hakkohen
the Cambridge fragments

For brevity's sake the British

Museum and

are cited as Or. and S. respectively, the latter according to the pages in

Saad\ana.

154

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
n. 8),

(according to Schechter, 64,

would not style himself

Marmorstein (JQR., N.

S.,

VI, 157) printed a few lines
its

from Or. and rightly pointed out

resemblance to the

poems
of the

in

Saadyana.

But

his identification of the subject
b.

poems with Abraham
b.

Sahlan

in

Egypt, a correis

spondent of Solomon
again
entirely
b.

Judah, the Jerusalem Gaon,

unwarranted.
in

Apart

from

the
in

fact

of

Abraham

Sahlan living

Egypt and not

Babylon,

he was not of such prominent a standing as to be the subject
of such a panegyric.
b.

As

will

be shown elsewhere,

Abraham
in
b.

Sahlan was the I3n of the Babylonian community

Fustat, and held a position similar to that of

Ephraim

Shemariah of the Palestinian community. One of Abraham's

two sons was Sahlan, styled
"i"iDn.

fjl^iS,

rh'2

CN"i,

and

also

C^'N")

But the subject of the above poems had four sons,

one of

whom was

called Sahl.

Surely a Sahl

b.

Abraham

does not at once justify the identification with a Sahlan
b.

Abraham.
Leaving the question of identification
in

abeyance, we

gather from the poems several details about the entourage
of their hero.

Schechter

(p.

64)

assumed that he had

three sons called Baruch, Jannai, and

Solomon
"nx

(S. 66,

1.

a).

But
Din:

it

is

clear that

r\rh''^\
i

vsri

^n3

was none

else

but

mentioned

in line

(cp. also Pozn.,

ZfHB., VII,
line
i

172).

But both Schechter and Poznaiiski found
It

obscure.
r\ir\.

reads oniDn mn3

''S3

^X3> ^axni

'DniNJ in^aa

^^o^xntr''

The
>"

evident meaning

is

that the subject of the

poems has
this

How

Ginzberg {ZfHB., XIV, 85,

n. 5)
is

could find

in

line

an

allusion to Israel, the son of
I

Sam.

b.

Hofni,

inexplicable to me.

Nor can
ir,

detect the 'direct reference to
\r\'zr\

Samuel

b.

Hofni'
!).

in S. 67,

1.

laioij

moy

i^va (and not oncK inan "inxa

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM
a synagogue of his

— MANN

155

own where Jews assemble
(the father

for prayer.

The

reader,

Nahum

of Baruch, Jannai, and
(^XJ^ ""Bvn

Solomon),

recites the liturgical

compositions

being

a poetical metaphor for
allusion to
"iTy^xi
^NJ''

"W
ba

niJrn) in

a pleasant way.
73,
1.

This
^JT

^W

mJin
nrj it

is

borne out by S.

34: HOT

unn

xh

minn

(i. e.

Jannai and Eleazar

Kalir).

Perhaps the suggestion

reader

above.

Nahum is the He makes over
12 and 2709 G,

may be ventured that the same Nahum 'JNTin7K ]trhn mentioned
to his son Jannai the value of the

antimony-powder and
2838
I

the
a,

books as a present.

Bodl.

37 contain liturgical compositions

with the acrostic

Din^.^^^

Possibly they emanate from this

Bagdad
i^na 1V2

reader.
1:K^t^'3

Bodl. 2821, 5 b also contains a composition
n^'ian Q^b^ (evidently in
jrn

honour of a Nasi)
liturgical writer

with the acrostic pTn

Dinj

p

nD^tr.

This

may

be the second of Nahum's three sons.
2730,

Finally, Bodl. 9

2712, 21 c;

6g;

2847, 2oe,

f;

2705^ and 2848,

d

contain several liturgical compositions with acrostics

f\DV

^JNmi, (?)*n3^N
iJNma^N,

cjB'v,

evidently an abbreviation of ^JNmn^N,

"-JNTin, siKn\

im ^^)\
^JNTin^N

Perhaps the author
Jtri^N

is

the

grandson

of

Nahum

mentioned

in

the

document printed above (under

6).

To

return to the subject of the poems.
1.

In S. he
22) and

is

alluded to as the father of three sons (68,

two

daughters

(66,

1.

23

;

cp.
1.

1.

25

f.).

The author

wishes his

hero another son (67,

19).

In Or, already four sons are
It is therefore evident that

mentioned

(verso,

11.

11 -12).

Or. was written at a later period.

Altogether the poems

were probably composed on various occasions when the
author found
'-*

it

appropriate to eulogize his patron.
d.

Or.
'

Zunz, Litgesch.

synag. Poesie, 49a, states only

'

mutmasslich
c. e.

that

Nahum came

from the south of Spain or Fez not later than 1300

156

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
after

seems to have been written
person
(recto,
11.

an

illness

of the celebrated

4-5).
in

There are further mentioned both

S.

and Or. an
sister's

unnamed
two
sons,

brother of the subject of the poems, his

one by the name of Hasan, and also a son of his
Finally,

uncle ('his mother's brother'), 'Ali Hakkohen.

Abraham ha-Cohen,
of the poems,
Israel

his secretary,

and perhaps the author

Hakkohen and 'Amram Hakkohen,
in

conclude the number of persons mentioned

the poems.

These

will

be referred to

in

the foot-notes to the text.

In spite of the several persons mentioned in the poems,
it is still

difficult to ascertain

who

the person thus eulogized

was.
it

If the identification of

would give a clue that

Nahum '•JSTin^N im^N is correct, may lead to a solution. The
poems
(especially from Or.)

general impression from the
is

that the celebrated person as well as his brother were
political

more

than scholastic celebrities, probably Jewish
Netira's sons are out of question, as
to have been Sahl

grandees at Bagdad.
their

names

are

known

and

Isaac,

and

the former, the

more prominent, had only one

child called

Netira (cp. Harkavy, Berliner Festschrift, part H, pp. 34-43).

But next to Netira's
'

sons, there

were also the

influential

sons of
b.

Aaron

'.

As was shown
b.

above, their father was
as the
^11

Aaron

Abraham

Aaron.

Now just
\'V\'^

name Aaron
perhaps

recurs in the family, one of these
called

very likely was

Abraham.^2'

This

*

son of Aaron'
this

may

have been the subject of

panegyric.

He
all

was the

patron of the Pumbedita academy, and for
'"
of
b. It

we know

should be pointed out here that pHN*
b.

p

yC'1, the father-in-law

Aaron

Sargado,

who
82),

arranged the peace between Saadya and David
is

Zaccai (cp. Neub.
still

II,

evidently an older contemporary.

Our Aaron

was

alive in 953.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM
he might have used his influence
in

— MANN

157

restoring the Sura
recto,

academy.
describe
all

The

lines

38-30 of

Or.,

would aptly

he stood for as regards the welfare of the
note that Netira's son Sahl
services
*

academy.

It is interesting to

had a synagogue of
Sabbath.

his

own where

were held every
'

The

equally influential

son of Aaron

might

also have been the

owner of a synagogue where the

services

were conducted by

Nahum

'•JSnnapN \mbii.
afiairs

With our very
of the

scanty knowledge of the internal

Bagdad

community during the

life-time of the

Geonim Nehemiah,
to

Sherira, and Hai, the above identification can only claim

the rights of a suggestion.
in

But

it

seemed
all

me more

accordance with probability than

the identifications

suggested hitherto.
(recto)
jDc^a

yr bum

^^^'rim^pb yr^vz iv

mn

uai

^m

:nny

ioid" .TSjb'O

D1Nl^'b
<

nv'i^''

DID

1T2

k:

a^

^-^'aixnriD

5

^^^

:

n'^i2\i^

ix non did

iyid^ t^'i^'i
1Jt^"np
D'':nNi

y:zh niinnB'nb

•T'J^<^

nnuj

i-'^^ •

bninDi

nan

b:i

pcnn

visbi

-^njn
ijy

-jdj

^^^u^k
nN^f

nnv n^

10

biv^)

"im ^2

l^•DK'^

no

:nnni
^'»
^'^^

pN

^b

inc'n mbyi

Cp. Job 39. 16

;

S. 73,

1.

35, inSTp, se.e Zunz, S>'«rt^. Poesfe, 403.

Evidently the subject of the

poem was

just recovering

from an

illness.

^^'^

See Ps.

75. 9.
at the Caliph's

!»'

Evidently the hero was a great political force, probably

court at Bagdad.
132

= irn^N.

"3 From

Tl^JJ-in,

Hos.

11. 3.

158

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

•5)10 D"

ijK

Dm33 D^^mn na^

^d

'ffiioK

nio"'xi

'nxian nbiaB'n

"ietn nian riNX

""n^

bi

134. p^.

yt,,^
pi^p^gjp

>n*

"inj:"!

'^^so iinDn

-iT3n

t^j?

:

nmn
n^
imy

pyoD

nnyic"'

i^^iamaN nay

riNi

i^ip

Ni^n
]v

^^^'omj

u'^n

:n-ini:i
3it3

l^^^

s->p
25

i3[3]

inn

-iK^x

'npbn [n]"nn ni33 noo uyon

i*°*npai pv-i ^y T-n

Dcnp

'•pi

^^^'npnn p'o
ik' ^iok'

:iT-i'n3 n^jDi
c'-ini n^nioi^K' {^-in

in^m

•iTn')3n[o] pyv
^•'nu:^•1D ^sv

n^msna
••TrrniD
d:i

mu
30

i^nn^Joi? 3N

•n^ni3>B'*

mm

:nmn:D^
>°<

3-1

Cp. Exod. a8. 36. "« Participle Hophal of DDH.
"* Ps. 105.
6, 4a.
is

iss

Dan.

4. 10, 20,

is:

jgr. 14. 9.

Possibly the author, presumably

Abraham Hakkohen,

alludes that he
i'»
1*"

the

namesake of

his hero.

Cant.

8. 2.

See

Isa. c. 7.

Is
?

here a possible allusion to the hero's descendance

from the Davidic family
'"
p.

The

best explanation of this much-discussed
S., I, 235,
is

word

^Pozn.,

fKH^p

^{J'JN,

47; Davidson, JQR., N.
;

note 50; Chajes, Z/HB.,

XIV

(1910),

25

and Ginzberg,

ibid.,

87-8)

that

by Bacher

{ibid.,

82-3) as being a

Persian loan-word ^^L. 'a very usual designation in the meaning of
agminis, princcps populi "
'.

"dux

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

— MANN
dk' ib

159

(verso)

nND3J2 "intt'np ]nDub^

Titryia

hd^od b22
i^
nu^'^i

nxm

ncy

b

Db^no

-idt

•riK'yn

:nnm
i*^n30

nD

dji

n'':irojpi

.^yvp

p

n:D nrn

p

nrc '^^.^^nD njnn

dn ntti ah
pin

pi?
5

—nnn-in ni3Tn

'npa^i jjsnj n-n i^

o

-ip\n

•p-iy

p

bo
^**

nny2 pn N^^
'

'p-ini ra i^^o i:in n^h
ry

nnmv bn

nc'SJ i^b^b

p"in

"3

ajK'oh

^ijo^ i^

nm
'^

•niipni ^n''\Ti

c^mni ^Ncm

'niKrin nt^s

b

"i^

fn"-

'2pv'^ pn)i' nn:j ^yoji

'aip-i^o niv:
-itr'^

in^'tr^

pon

i*":nnn2 n^^ncn dost DiTrirnxi 'aipy vo^
n'':''y

^*«!]dvi

^hd

dji

-lk^•N

muDi ^^n32

n^san n^syiD niih

noB'*

^^^^"i:hnj

TnNi nns n>n

D^yiB'yK' ^^yroi v^'

no

trnjj

15

•D^yua iB>nc'ni i^anni nni
:

ns

*D^y:n

^n^f:1

n''yr3
'

D3n ddk'o
jisv

la'-Dyn

^n1^N

p pn

1:1233 ^22
•|i2D

n^pnvb ib'n aiun py

B'nNn vns nviNai 'pan m^
n''r:3

:nni:i
1*'-'

Dmijv bni
nip''

20

lox

"-nK

p

pjn

•'^y

p^

lonnnna

na-ian

bn

1^2

Cp. Ps. 27.

3.

"3 Cp. Yer. Ber. IV,
hero's father

7,

and Babli Taan. 21
man.

b.

This shows that the

was

also a prominent

"* Read perhaps
1*^

pin
fr.

13, cp. Prov. 18. 10.
i*"

Cp.

Isa. 58. II.

These are the names of
and

his four sons.

1" Cp.
i'8
^^'

S. 66,

I.

23

Referred to
Cp. S. 67,
1.

in S. 67,
4,

1.

i
1.

AT.,

69,

1.

24,

71,

1.

7.

and

69,

25.

j6o

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

mnso
^^"

iti's:

tk'vi

•^Cl5r sc'jna

i^n^K

invtss"

Q-i^^x*

nmc'D pan Dmaxi

'

d^vi 'n idi3^ fnan bn'i^

^^2

D':rinni t^'^•^3

nrnxn

^J3^

D'':)3irD

noNi n'b^
nianan

mny

•D"':»:x:

jv.t

nam

II

Elhananan

b.

Hiishicl of

Kairowan.
till

This scholar was entirely unknown
Schechter published from the Genizah a
to

1899,

when

letter

by Hushiel
interest

Shemariah

b.

Elhanan, which aroused

much

{JQR., XI, 643-50).
the acrostic
in the
\>^'^^\n

The preamble
pn[^N],

of the letter contains

^m3

showing that he collaborated

composition of this alphabetic eulogy of Shemariah.
'~i

Hushiel styles his son pn^N

(11.

^6 and

62), again indi-

cating that he was already of the age and status of a scholar.

But more could not be gathered from the
position

epistle.

What

Elhanan held

in

Kairowan

after his father

remained

completely obscure.

His name turns up again

in

a

document of 1034
*313 pn^N which,

{7QR., XVI, 576) as
as Pozn., |S1TP
^L*':x,

.T3-13 -13 .TVjn^N ^K'ln

no. 10, has rightly pointed out,

must

read

non3 13

n*3:n

bs^rin

•'3"i3

]irh^.

This

document

could have already supplied information as to Elhanan's
status
'•'O

at

Kairowan, had
I.

it

not been

entirely misunder1.

Cp. S. 67,

6.
3,

1" Cp. S. 67,

II.

'" Cp. S. 67,

.

and 69,

1.

24.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM
stood.
It

— MANN

l6i

has not been drawn up in Kairowan, but in

Fustat
b.

("ivd).

This

is

clear

from the signatures Sahalon
b.

Abraham and Saadya
(p.

Ephraim.

As

indicated

above
b.

154),

and as

will

be shown elsewhere, Sahlan
leader of the Babylonian
father
uncle.

Abraham was the community at Fustat,
him.
the

spiritual

a position his

held before

Saadya
Alluf

b.
;

Ephraim was Sahlan's

Both bore
:i'n.

title

the latter was also called

nb

They

thus sign the document, probably not as witnesses, but as

the judges of the Bet-Din of the Babylonians at Fustat.'-^"

Now

this

document of 1034 includes a deed drawn up
Kairowan two years previously
'212
]:r\bii,

at

the Bet- Din of

(1032), and

signed

by

i'N'r'in

ri'2-\2

12

r\':^n,

and Abraham

b. D.iniel (for bs'lT, cp. Pozn., /.c, no. 3),

again not as actual

witnesses, but very likely as the judges of this court.

Hence

Elhanan

b.

Hushiel

is

head of the court,

^"''2

L"s~i.

The two Genizah fragments
fifteen

printed here,

more than

years after Schechter's publication, will throw
b.

new

light

on Elhanan

Hushiel's position in Kairowan.

Frag-

ment

A

(T.-S. 12. 194, 26

X 18 cm., paper, small Rabbinic

square writing, doubled into four columns, of which three
are occupied

by the

letter) is

a responsum

by our

scholar.
it

As
p3n

question and answer are

in

the same handwriting,

is

clearl)'

not the original but a copy.
pn
n-'n

Elhanan

is

addressed as

^af-j-N-i]

ii'ni

^n;n

mn.
^-^^

The

last title

was

also

borne by his father

Hushiel.

When

this

responsum
from

was written Hushiel was no longer
^^^

alive, as is evident

Thus

nos. 40

and 41 should be removed from the

list

of Poznai'iski's

"' R. Nissim in nnDt:n

^20

(ed. Goldenthal, 13 a^

:

rh2p2 Hl^'VOn nn

VOL. IX.

M

l62

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW The
case dealt with in the question did not

the signature.

demand

the display of great

Talmudic

erudition.''^

But as

the hitherto only

known evidence

of Eihanan's learning,

the responsum well merits publication.

The Rabbi
the

shortly

recapitulates the case under discussion before giving his
decision.

The

pious conclusion,

'

May

Rock

in

His
to

mercy make me one of those who possess the

insight

^^'''

give a true decision and a righteous judgement', reveals
a modest and sympathetic trait of Eihanan's character.

Of more

historic

interest

is

fragment B, T.-S. 24.
letter

6,

vellum, square

writing,

forming a long

from the
to

'community of

Sicily', its

'Bet-Din and

elders',

the

congregations of Kairowan and the neighbouring Mahdija.

By
the

Sicily,
isle, is

probably Palermo, the leading congregation of
meant. ^^'

This important

letter is

much damaged
Yet the
re-

on both edges, especially towards the end.

mainder adds several

points

of

interest

to

our scanty

knowledge of the

life

of the Sicilian Jews.

The

epistle

opens with an alphabetic eulogy of the
;

communities addressed

three words, mostly alliterations,
(11.

are assigned to each letter of the alphabet

2-5).

As

heads of the Kairowan community are addressed PThanan
pn n^a
b.
(i.

e.

head of the court)
Probably
this

b.

Hushiel Hi and Jacob T::n
political

'Amram.
i''5

Xagid exercised some
^''iJ^J. no.

For a similar responsum, cp.
DV*0w'?2n. not
Paltiel, of

188

(bj-

MeshuUam).

1'*
'*'

in

the Karaitic sense.
is

Ahimaas Chronicle fame,
)'nx3i

said to

have been Nagid p30n

"iD-1'^23

^NX"'

biiV^y rbynr^ ^231
for the
local

nnvoa cmn ba ny ni^np^ (r. njj^n) NpnCXm ,Xeub. 11. 130;, Palermo stands here
to

whole isle.— In 878, when Syracuse was captured by the Arabs, the
Palermo, where their coreligionists ransomed
in

Jews were brought

them.

Likewise, on the capture of Aversa

925. the parents of Sabbattai
(cp.

Donnolo were freed by the community of Palermo
Liter, 486}.

Zunz, Ziir Gcsch.

ti.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM
authority over
all

— MANN

163

the North-African communities within

the Fatimid realm, except

Egypt and
b.

Palestine.
is

Another
a

Nagid

of Kairowan,

Abraham

'Ata,

known from

poem by Hai and
clear that Gabirol

other Genizah fragments (cp. Pozn.,

/. r.,

pp. 4-5, and Davidson,
in

JQR., N.
his

S., I,

231

ff.).

It is
(in

now

poem

to R. Nissim

Brody

and Albrecht,
(b.

1''u*n

^J)'t^•,

36-7), sent greetings to

Elhanan
[d:
DI^S'I]
is

Hushiel) and Jacob Nagid
^yn^D

when concluding
Probably
in

13>DJ

1J}T

^yi

l^^^n

pn^Ni?.

this

Jacob

identical with the

Nagid spoken of
b.

the letter of 1035

written to
'^55-^)-

Ephraim

Shemariah of Fustat {JQR., XIX,

The

writer,

who probably
is

lived

in

Kairowan,

mentions therein that the Nagid

staying for a time in
(i.e.

Mahdiya

(11.

1S-21)

;

on the Nagid's return

to

Kairowan)

the case of the donation of 60 Denars which the Palestinian

Gaon

retained for himself will be discussed.

We

shall thus

learn that the

Kairowan people would

also support the

Palestine school under

Solomon

b.

Judah.

In a Genizah

fragment, to be discussed elsewhere,

we

find this

Gaon

corre-

sponding with Samuel
dealt with

b.

Abraham

of Tahort
it

who

has been

above (VIII, 357).
in

Finally,

should be pointed
11.

out that

nit:''^r\^

Hushiel's letter (JQR., XI, 650,

69-70)

clearly stands for
b.

Mahdiya whither Juda

n!?3

cn and
is

Joseph

Berakhya departed.
i:N

A
min^

son of the former
-12

perhaps

^r]r\i2

^i^n trxn
ibid.,

h"]

^idv

(cp.

J OR., XVI, 691,

and Pozn.,

XVII, 168-70).
It

To
{alias

return to our letter.

has been written with the

object of recording the great services two Jews,

Hayyim
appears
for

Khalaf)

b.

Jacob the Spaniard and his son Nissim,
(11.

rendered to the Sicilian Jewry
i'**

13-16).^°^
able to do

It

V

About 1040 Samuel
/.

ibn Xagdcla also

was

some good

this

Jewry iZunz,

c).

M

2

164

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
il.

from
their

60-1 that the writers of the

letter

requested from

Kairowan brethren to transmit
in

their epistle to other

communities

order that the noble example of these two
followers elsewhere.

Jews should

find

Thus

it

resulted
is,

that the original letter, for such our fragment clearly

as

the different signatures and

the beautiful clear writing
in

on
the

vellum show, came to Egypt and has been preserved
Cairo Geiiizah.
It is

an interesting

communal
person

service

that developed

way of among

appreciation of
the Jewries of
to the

those times.

The

testimonial was not
it,

presented

who

merited

but

was circulated among
'

the

important Jewish communities that his

fame go forth
'

throughout

all

the provinces
'.

',

and that others

see from

him and do likewise

As

far as the

fragment allows reconstruction, the service
in

of these

two Jews consisted

the

first

instance of reducing

a special impost and also obtaining a release from taxes

many poor Jews (11. 17-20). Moreover, a disaster befell many traders by the loss of ships laden with merchandise
for

to Egypt.
coast.

This must have happened near the Sicilian
the part that had been saved was landed,
that goods

When

the

ruler

ordained

belonging to people not

present on the boats should be sold by auction, and the
yield
to

go to the exchequer.

While

this

actually was

the case with the merchandise of the non-Jews, the two

communal

leaders succeeded in saving the goods of their

coreligionists
(11.

and having them returned to
to

their

owners
Egypt,
in

21-7).
is

As
6^

the
to

trade between Sicily and
the

reference

made
-''"bp'O

heading of a

responsum
-\y^'

Geon.

II,

'no >ro (ny?2ii'=) 'n^y cy

pisn.

Also there was some trouble about the burial ground.

A

certain

official,

it

seems,

made

a

new survey

of the

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM
ground which would have resulted
as well as
in

— MANN
confines,

165

a

number
its

of Jewish

non-Jewish tombs being outside

and

thus becoming desecrated

But these

communal

leaders

frustrated this design, while the

non-Jews could save their
(11.

tombs only by means of bribery

27-31).

The remainder of the
fluential

letter is obscure.

A

certain ]qw,
in-

Hakim, had been excommunicated, but he obtained
evidently his opponent.

support from non-Jew^s with the purpose of harming

in: 3"i "IQ,

The
also

case involved

some

monetary claim which concerned
Several people are mentioned,
viz.

the tax-collector.
b.

Abr.

David

b.

Labrat,

Sam.

b.

Moses

(I.

47), a certain

Abu'l Faraj who was to

travel to

Egypt

(1.

49),

Moses
(1.

b.

'Omar

b.

Juda of Aleppo

58).

Yahya the perfumer, and The last name is of
travelling

interest as

showing the connexions between the Jews of

different countries.

We learn also of Sicilian Jews
among
at once recalls

to Egypt.

^'^^

Finally,

the signatories of the letter

a

usual

name like Pappos b. Sabbattai among the Italian Jewry. The
as pi

namesakes

additional information as to Elhanan's position at
JT'n ::'N"i,

Kairowan

after his father's death,
'

opens up
letter of

anew the question of the
the

Four Captives

'.

The

Hushiel to Shemariah has been regarded to have
relegated

definite!}-

well-known account of Ibn
Hushiel writes
"i13y^

Daud

to

the

realm of legend.

l^m^io jnSD

1jnK''S^ '3

Hence he

voluntaril}-

came from a non-Arabic country,
his

probably Italy, to

Kairowan on

way

to

Egypt

to visit
^•l:':n,

Shemariah (cp.Schechter,y(?y^.,XI, 643
i'-'

ff.,

Pozn., INITP

Cp. also above ;p. 151;, Masliah
b. Elijah,

b.

Elijah the Sicilian at
b.

Ramlah.

In

1016 a Sicilian Jew. 'Amrun
in Fustat to

had Ephraim
'

Shemariah arrested
i/i;-

answer

for

monetary claims REJ., XLVlll,

l66
no.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
1

8,

Eppenstein,

Msclij'.,

1911, 324

ff.,

620

ff.).

But

Ibn

Daud

never said that Hushiel the father of Elhanan
captives,

was one of the four
Hananel.

but

Hushiel the father of

Schechter's sugrcrestion that the
in

name of Elhanan
this

had been changed
further refutation.
his father's
in the

Kairowan
find

into

Hananel needs now no

We
in

Elhanan using

name

after

death

the responsum printed above, and also

document

of 1032.
It

The people

of Sicily also address

him

as

Elhanan.

should be noted that the letter to
in

Shemariah must have been written before 1012,

which

year the famous Eg}'ptian scholar died, as will be proved
el.sewhere.

Thus

at least

twenty years afterwards he

still

retained

the

name

of Elhanan, which

was that of

his

grandfather.

But were Elhanan and Hananel brothers
tion
is

?

This assump-

now
in

rendered highly improbable.
his
letter

On
son

one hand
Elhanan.

Hushiel

mentions

only one

But

this

can be explained that Hananel was not yet of an
in his father's epistles.

age to be mentioned
however,
is

Inexplicable,
in

the fact that

Samuel ibn Nagdela

his well-

known
father,

letter of consolation to

Hananel on the death of
/r^Dian,

his

Hushiel

(printed

in
ff.,

VIII, 245-6, and
64-8), entirely

by
fails

Kaufmann, Magazin, V, 68
Rabbi

210

"i^-is*,

to even refer to Hushiel's other son, Elhanan.
is

The

late

eulogized for having merited such a son as Hananel,

who

is

called

nnn

ipij;i ^:>d

and other complimentary

titles.^*^"

This shows, by the way, that

Hananel was already a
;

prominent scholar on
"•"

his father's death
67.
11.

it

raises again the

ni^

nvi N\ 1878.

p.

5ir.

:

x^-irs '^nyx^ Ks::n N:n-i ^yi

N:-i2n

npan

n'lj^n-'Nn

^N''"'in

N:m
.

^31D"l

.

.

.

Nrv,njn hxi^h^

N:b?2 nn-^'i ^vnN NTir:i:m N-nn^-j- xn^niNn
^'rs

xhbr-j':^d.

nj^sKs ni23
Not
a

N^ n'ni^n mci ^-vnt

fsr:i

.

.

cnn

-ipu'i

word

is

said about tlic supposed other son, Elhanan.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM
above
difficulty of his not

— MANN
the letter

167

being mentioned
is,

in

by

Hushiel.

But the chief question

why was

the supposed

elder son of Hushiel, Elhanan, entirely ignored'

by Samuel
title

ibn Nagdela
P3~i
''n

?

Surely a son that bore his father's
spiritual

of

::'S*"i,

and was the recognized
as the letter

head of the

Kairowan Jewry,
clearly shows,

by the

Sicilian

community
to in
his

ought to have been at

least alluded

a letter of condolence on his father's death sent to

supposed younger brother Hananel.

The

solution

must therefore be ventured that Hushiel,
is

the father of Elhanan, the father
Christian
Fustat.

not identical with his namesake,

of Hananel.

The former

left

voluntarily his

native country in order to visit Shemariah at

This probably took place between 990 and 1012,

during which time we find Shemariah holding the position
of CSI
at this
city.

Very

likely

Shemariah began

his

activities there before 991, in

which year Sherira and Hai

sent responsa to him.

But some years must have passed
far

before this Rabbi's

fame spread so

as

a

European

Christian country to induce Hushiel to set out on a journey
in

order to

visit

him.

On

his

way

to

Egypt Hushiel passed
his

Kairowan, and was persuaded to make

home

there.

He

must have had a great reputation
b.

as a scholar,
feet.
'd

and

probably Nissim
reverential

Jacob sat
to

at

his

Hence the
above

reference

him

in

nn2?2n

quoted

Also the poem of Samuel ibn Nagdela
Y, 21D nvix, p. 6H,
pp. 11-12, and

(printed

mMagaziji

and Brody, Berliner Festschrift, part
^sv:':'

H,

"i'::n

'n

n^" b, 14-15)

^vas

probably

written in honour of our Hushiel.
nia^t:'''

•'pnssa

ny^pi

nsm
to

is

The line in^^ntt nw*'D:i certainly more applicable to
voluntarily
i<S).

a

man

that

came

Kairowan
""w":x,

than

to

a

prisoner (cp. Pozn., jSlTp

no.

1

68

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Prior to the arrival of Hushiel b. Kihanan,
'

Kairowan

had the good fortune of ransoming one of the four captives ', who received viz. Hushiel, to whom later on a son was born,
the

name

of Hananel.

The

native countries of these captive

Baud's scholars has really no bearing on the veracity of Ibn
account.
his

Shemariah was probably a native of Egypt, where

Elhanan presumably held already the dignity But Shemariah undoubtedly of rsn (above, VIII, 35^)the attended the Pumbedita academy, where he gained
father

position of

Likewise head of the row of the Nehardeans Hushiel may have been a native of Italy or of Spain (as indeed Meiri reports, in Neubauer, ]\Ied. J civ. CJironicles, H, 225).
'

'.

But he studied

in

Babylon and was a colleague of Shemariah.

Owing

to the great

monetary

difficulties

under which the

Pumbedita school laboured,
in addition to those
prove,^*'^

as the fragments printed above,

known

before, clearly

and unmistakabl}for the

four scholars were sent to the

West

purpose

of collecting funds.

On

their

way from Babylon they must
there they went to

have

first

visited

Egypt, then North-Africa, and probably

crossed the sea to Spain.

From

Ital}',

and, after completing their mission, they took the boat

from Bari to Egypt wherefrom they would return to their
academy."'-

Their capture by the admiral of the Spanish

caliph must have been near the coast of Egypt.

This can

""

A

statement like

this,

1^0311:

S^ hll'Z nU''u"'n
,Tn

"-^

IXU^
noin

lyj^t?!
':2?^

\sni3

P'P'in-inr:

pnsji

S^j pn^ n on

vb'C noj^n

D':nnNn '•o-a nD:::nn nuj;Dnj vb
the

(Haievy, n^3K\s-in
furtlicr

nnn,

iii,

286;

words are overlincd by me), needs now no
>"

comment.

k

appears to

me

that
is

pnOSD
a
.

(Neiib.

I,

67

:

nx3 nn?^?^ D^D^n Vn
.

pnOSr" nSlpJ

nmrrri

corruption

for

DNL:D2

which Ibn Daud
this

usually calls DHi'tO (cp. p. 68
central communitj' of Egypt.

Their destination would have been

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEUNIM

— MANN
first,

169

be gathered from the fact that the admiral' (or his henchman)

on the return journey touches

Alexandria

where

Shemariah

is

ransomed, then

Ifrikiya,

and

finally Spain.
is

In general outline Ibn Daud's account probably

based
It

on a genuine tradition,
is

though hardly correct

in detail.

very unlikely that the capture took place during the reign of

'Abdurrahman an-Nazzar(9i 2-61). Shemariah was probably
"•ynnnj

miC'

t'{<"i,

already under Sherira, as the Bodl. fragment
;

{jfQR.yi, 223) tends to show

hence

after 968.

Moreover,
it

from the year of Shemariah's
gathered that
in 955,

death

(1012)

can be

the year which Rappoport, Leberecht,

and also Marx {ZfHB., XIII, 74) fix for the event of the More likely capture, Shemariah was still of a tender age.
the admiral's exploit happened in the reign of Abdurrahman's
son,

al-Hakam

II (961-75),

probably about

970.^"-^

There
HT "1^1

"3

IbnDaud himself states (Neub. 1,69):

jINJ

Nin'^'

"'D"'a

HM

Whatever reading is adopted, Abdurrahman was no longer alive then. His name was so famous in later times that it was brought into connexion with the coming of R. Moses to Cordova. The date 7C*'ri = 970 is to be preferred
to JC'li, since already in

991

we

find Sherira

Shemarya, who must have sent

his questions

and Hai sending responsa to some time before, and had

already then an established connexion with Kairowan (cp. above, VIII, 354);
lij-'n
is

now

out of the question.

It is

interesting to note that'lbn 'Usaibia

also

makes the independence

of the Spanish

the Bab3lonian scholars to have
'

Hasdai

b.

Isaac (ibn Shaprut)

',

Jews in religious matters from commenced from the time of al-Hakam. he writes, 'was among the foremost Jewish
to his coreligionists in Andalusia

scholars versed in their law.
the gates oi

He opened
Jews
of

knowledge of the

religious law, of chronolog}', &c.

Before his

time they had to apply to the

Bagdad on

legal questions,

and on

matters referring to the calendar and the dates of the festivals.

But

when
to

Hasdai was raised

b^'

al-Hakam

to a
all

very high position, he was able

procure from the oriental Jews
the

the works he required.

Since then

Jews

of Andalusia learned

of their former trouble' (cited by

what they knew not before, and we relieved Munk, La Philosophic ches les Jiii/s, p. 17.
bj'

The purchase

of

books from the Orient, inentioned

Ibn 'U.-aibia, recalls

170

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Baud's description of the

IS

also a romantic" feature in Ibn

four captives hiding their identity

and pretending to be

ordinary travellers.

It is

evidently

more

in

accordance with

the facts that their captor calculated well the heavy ransom

he would be able to obtain for their release.

'

He

thus

brought Shemariah to Alexandria where, as the son of

presumably the
a high prize.

l^'HI

of Fustat, the captive probably fetched
that the

Knowing
to

Jewry of one country

^'^'^

would be unable
four

pay the exorbitant ransom
proceeded
prize
for

for all the

captured scholars, the admiral

next to
Hushiel.

Ifrikiya,

where

he

extorted

his

full

With

the other captives he finally arrived in Spain, where
for the

he probably made the Jews pay dearly
their scholars.

freedom of

As

they probably visited the countries from

Egypt

to Spain during their mission of collecting funds for

the academy, they must have been well-known

when they

were brought as prisoners.

The above

solution of

two scholars bearing the same
it

name

of Hushiel and living in Kairowan, will not find,

is

admitted, ready acceptance.

But

it

is

the only one that

appeared to

me

capable of solving the problem of Elhanan

and Hananel.
internal
life

With our

hitherto scanty

knowledge of the
it

of this important community,

is

natural that

the fact of Hasdai liaving bought copies of the
p. 152).

Talmud from Sura (above,

But

it

stands to reason that this independence was chien3' due
in

to a scholar of
(/.

R. Moses' type having settled
:

Cordova, as Ibn Daud reports
J-IS

c, 68 bottom)

^53

1N31

21V^n

|nN*"l

ll^D

^3

PX": ^ipm

'*'

It

should be kept

in

mind

that about
in

970 conditions were very

critical

in

Egypt.

Subsequent

to the

upheaval

connexion with Jauhar's invasion

of the country in 969, a great famine raged in

Egypt till the winter of 971-a Lane- Poole, History of Egypt in the Middle Agcs^, 104. Thus probably the Egyptian Jews were unable to ransom all the four scholars, and only
(cp

Shemariah was

freed, while the others

were taken

to

other communities.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

— MANN

171

the existence of the two namesakes Hushiel has not been
realized.

In 1057 Kairowan
local

fell

a prey to the Bedouins

and probably the
end.

Jewish community came then to an

The fame
father

of Hananel, the

Talmud commentator, and
His

of his

Hushiel was preserved to posterity.

contemporary who bore a similar name, Elhanan, and whose
father

was also a Hushiel, had been entirely forgotten

till

the Genizah finds recovered his
it

name from oblivion. Hence
by
ibn

resulted that

some

references to his father Hushiel

contemporaries, as R. Nissim and Samuel
(cp.

Nagdela

above, p. 167),

v.'ere

taken to apply to Hushiel, the

father of Hananel.

A
pi n"! 'Oil hn:n
x'^j*

(recto, col. i)

mn im in[D^-] p ^1noJ pm n [c'N'i]

iniNa pNi DiiiXn dhd mt'DJi d''d:n

VJ'^<'•nJ

ah)
-ins*

nny

nyi tn?o c^ij

D^yaim i^n:

s

nn2?:i

mpD^

dhin nn iD^m
nC'-

^Nic-'"'

jmx noy
^1:^"''^pm

tni ^'^'^^Nic^tD

10

c-'iin

jnisiD mN:!pti'

noi le'Dy DTyntr noj^n n-an
i^nji n^n

n:^^^

it

k"ipd bvi

pisn

nbyc^

u'-iiacn

pjy3

dhc

m^t:JL" 15

,\^'^

Judge, magistrate.

^'''''

Read

^ST,^'•'^

.

172

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

no

nnp^: d:in3 n^nnro

"'3

dh^T"^ 20
ab",

vn-j' K^fKM '':2D

nnx

it:'X"'n3

I

nzbv))

Btv^
nntl^'

i^n^L"

D-^na

inns

niy N^i

Dipo ^3D

mnnM
25

m^
naini

n*t:'h

n

D^''n*c Dipon-i:' nI^n

pn

n1?i

pn

n

ps*

nnn n^oj

b-VOC' *D DK'^ j[\Xl] D^MJn ^VNI

(recto, col. 2)

[itTN N"ip]D

n£D

Dnn:i

i^m D'^up
13

[py]3in vni
ic'N^n"'

Dona

inii?o:i

nnip
in?:'

sh

Dn^D b'^rh u'C'n

n!?!

n^:ipni ba-i'ch

a^nn ison naoi

5

nDD:;' n^'<2T2n iniNc irxn id

D^vn Tr^

^^vr^n

I'^'^'r

lynm nan^
10

~in:n pri D'-OD^n nn^

ab Nr:nD px

Vl'-ntij
irj'

ibL"

i^n

nn
'r^x

N^N

X^

'L"X

31

"'^

B. kainma 114

a.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

— MANN

173

TN^'^o
D"'"'"ia

"ciJ

^''*N?:nnD ib''2N 15
D''3^nntt'

on

|V3 i^ni

[i^n:

n^!D]

(verso, col. i)
fi?

N?:i"pn

nT2Dn

i?iD''[a

....

nnDJK

nr^noi ain

nnno Nan

N3pD?:i

ppnp^D mc'C

n

pN*

ij^tiS

N^[i]

nvsnn X3^[nt
"'^ins
-nD[''N*

p^^] 5
/'-^p]

psi

^'''-^S^ns

HT

p:3 ^y D^^yn l"is^ [inj]

HD"!

^n: ^DX' ^'^^o nr^

|n:i
;n:i

niD 10
inr^:^

SI

Nin

c'lN''

nnx

woiari D^^UHB' -nariD
nn"i"'3D

nnDicn on ntovya
]r\''b

D^mn

n^bv^b

pini n!?D3
"laon ^^"^1 15

D>:yiD DN1

nrb^

1*^8

The marks on T denote
GittinsSb.
Tos. Ketubot
8, 3,

that the letter should be deleted.

1C9
I'^o

B. I.amma 10, 23

;

B, m. 21

b.

171

Read HO.

174

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

biivch liinji i:3n3

ii

nbn'ci

i:^

'"

Cp

B. k. 69 a

and

b.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

— xMANN

ID

176

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

O

c
J-

Jl.

n

n c

n

r
o
CI

a

n

C a
n

CI

.j\

£ a
n

a n
>

a n

c n X
'

2 n n
r~
'

g
a

n h a
'

£ a r n r

n
c:

c
*-«

rx

a n a a
X

F r
r
'

n n
n n

F
ib

X Q X a

£1
rt
:j

r a
\6

c

£ Q a Q
n c
f-

X

c a
X

a

Q n r;

n

F
CI

n

a
X

c a

Q

a
it

5 c £1 a
r
CI

a
n

n

n

a

X c o

£ n n J r c X c
C

c
-'^

a
Q
r•~«

r n
c

r:

a
iz
__

a
n

rr

X

X
'^

C

n

^

£ a
n
c
p.

n r X
c
tz

n £
o rr n

r

a X
c;
f-

n X c n r: a a X c n

n 5 n

c u Q a X

a

c

r a £ -p

-s

CI

c a
rr

a
IT
'-I

rz

F a
CI

X

00

a
X

'I

£

a
r

a
^1
#2.

CI

X
n

c

CI r 5

£ a X n

a
tz

n n

o
C a
c
rr*
2S

n

r a

a
r a

^
-r.

r
fj

n Q r
CI

c

a
n O a
•r\

C

n -^
CI

c:

£ a
c
r-

Q

rz

c

n

£ O
It

X
-

n Q

Q

D
d

a
n

c

X

S a

n

c

r

as

n

KHSPO^S. OP THE 3.BV.ONU.
in

O.Om„_.,,,
177

iz >»

.^

r a
n Q 5
i3 rz

c
•f-

a

C C a ^
f22

^ r-~ X
»n

X
Q
IT

X
CI

C
^_

n

^
c S

n

n
•F

^
^
*

r 5 F n a n X n rx a '^ h ^ rr a a a c
n
irr

a r a ;^
Hi-

a n a

*" ?5

Q
CI

§
n

"^

° -^

a X r n a C
52

rz

5:

r—

a £
f-

n

Q

^

a a
'^

r:

f-

a p

..r\.

C

c n
/r:

rr

n

n
r-

r-

a n
*"

<3 ^ n Q r
.-r\

IT a a J^ c a

&
a c a
/rz

X

z

r
a
c
52

en

a n

n n X 55 Q C n -^ r: a 2 Q a ir a Q £i C —'^ rv a a X fr a n CI a Q >i -^ a a r*
*
»-«

a

n

9 —

^ Q

a n
t>,

r a r n

CI

X rz n p
--r\

a
rr 22

52

r a
X n
.j\
tz

n n

>i

^ a n £
i?

.
*

>t

a

r:

2

rr

ss
2C

n
c

P n
CL
IX

£ —
n
a

£

r

n

n c a
,_ 52

pi

c
•r
c;

0%
rr

»->

c

>t

a
:^

n r
52

Hi.

n
f/~

rr 52

X
52

a c n o ia
22 c:
rr

c c
-r^

n
r-

a

C
IT

n
't

X a

/-

a ^ IZ r-

a
n c
f52

^

a

£ a X a
"a -^

P £ a Q

a
52

r 7^ n r CI
»->

a X

a Q c a n n tz a a c

c
a^

n a X
rr li
.-r\

n

n f r^

n

7>i

e

^

~r\.

C c n n a n F

& C a

£j

IX

a a

a n

52

22 ^ h C 52

'

C

£
E n

I

fi

n

a
n
/S2

n
.-r\

c
"-^^

f1

X
VOL. IX.

a

S n rz

a /x

r:

IT

r —

X c

O-

c

52

a

N

I

178

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

I

n
f-

I

— r
s
^ c *"

r:

n
r:

^
'~
CI

r
n 11 Q

c p

a
n Q
£3

r
rr

a

s ?
-TV

^

g 2 "

^ a
t-

n % -r^.

Q
'^

"
c.

3

n

i-i-

n

^

-'^
r^

?
I-

a c n
^

r:
'

—f^
£3 *-

r
#-»

*-

^

C n a ^
El

n

5
n

2

n

r b

i^

n
TT

ti

r

n c ^ Q r

>=

r

r

n

5i

n n

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

— MANN

1

79

55

X n n ^

r

S

n Q
--

?
a ^

Q

•Q •a

-1%

a

r;

n

n

r

r

r s

CI

r h
rr

c
'n

r n
F
n.

rt

r
Q
n

as
1:^

£
Ir

n

r a r c n £

£
Q
if
n:

n

n r

r
^
-!i

r

-^

Q

r a

^
r

r
J-

P ^ '^
a C r r X ^

a

Q

n

r

X.

n
^

•r

n
J3k

,

'^

n

C
c n

n
r:

a
fi

N

2

THE PHILOSOPHY OF DON HASDAI CRESCAS
By Meyer Waxman, New
York.

PART
CHAPTER
Opinions
III.

II

INTRODUCTORY.

held by the Pre-Maimonidian Jewish Philosophers concerning the Problems of Omniscience, Providence, and Freedom OF THE Will.
problem of the freedom of the
will presents

The
thought.

one

of the most interesting aspects in the history of
Its roots lie far

human

back

in antiquity.

It

arose out

of the peculiar position that
nature, and at the
in

man

holds in the domain of

moment

that self-consciousness appeared
reflect

.man and enabled him to
his

upon the surrounding
related to
it.

world, and

own

personality as
riddle

Man

represents a puzzling

unto himself.

On

the one

hand, he
of being

feels
;

himself to be the master of things, the lord

on the other, contemplation teaches him that

he

is

only a part of that great mysterious environment

called nature.

Furthermore,

this

nature

is

not a haphazard
is

conglomeration of things and events, but there
of succession

a kind

and sequence, law and order, and to which

even he, nolens volens, must submit himself.

The

develop-

ment

of religion simply

changed the aspect of the problem.
with the will of the gods, instead

It placed

man

in conflict

of with the blind natural force.

With polytheism, however,

the gods were not strong enough to replace entirely the
i8i

l82

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

old something that rules over the destiny of man,

now

known by

the

name

of fate,

and were even themselves
it.

supposed to be dominated by

Homer

says,
is

'

When
no

the hour of fate comes for man, even a god

helpless,

matter

and
the

how much he loves him '."° Herodotus goes farther, God is not able to avoid it.^^^ Thus problem becomes a much discussed subject in ancient
asserts that a
;

thought

and

it

can really be said that out of

this

dual

character of a man's position there developed Greek ethics

with

its

special emphasis
rise

upon contemplation and thought.
all-

With the
more

of monotheism, positing a being

powerful, all-wise, and all-knowing, the problem became,
acute.

How in
man

the face of such a being, in comparison

with which
his

dwindles into insignificance, can
?

man

save

personal

freedom

It

ought by the nature of the

conception of
the
first

God

to be given up.

Yet peculiarly enough,

monotheistic religion not only did not reject the
will,

freedom of the

but incorporated

it

as a dogma.^^^

The

story of the receiving of the ten

commandments

as

described in the Bible,'^^ as well as the term covenant used

innumerable times to designate the process of receiving
the

Law, implies

plainly that

man
many

is

free

and that the

Israelites

were entirely at liberty to
is

reject the

Law

of God.

The

idea of freedom

repeated
the

times in the Bible.^^*

One may argue

that

monotheistic

conception was

probably loose with the Hebrews

in the early times,

yet

none can accuse the Hebrew prophets, especially the
ones, of a lack of pure monotheism,

later
it

and

in spite of

the

freedom of the
"0
Iliad,

will

is

asserted

by them with
in Herodotus

the
I,

same

XVII, 446.

97.

1" Dr. D. Ncumark, ^Nnf^3

C^p^yn nil^in,

I,

pp. 81-6.

'" Exod.

19. 10.

"< Dcut. 30. ig.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS— WAXMAN
Vigour as the unity of God."^
It is rather

185

a curious fact

that the problem of the compatibility of the freedom of

the will with that of God's omniscience and providence
is

never found

in

prophetic writings.

There are some
injustice,

allusions

in

the

Psalms

— to
in

the

problem of

namely,

why

the righteous suffer and the wicked prosper,"®
it

and quite a discussion of

Rabbinic

literature,^^^

but the

problem as a whole was never touched upon.

However,

it

was bound to crop up.
reflection
in

With the

rise

of scientific philosophic
manifestation of the

Judaism,

and the

desire to base religious

dogmas on

philosophic principles,
to be carried
to
its

the

monotheistic
conclusion,

conception had

logical

and as a

result

the problem of the
in
its

relation of

man and God appeared

full

vigour,

and demanded a solution.

A

similar

process was going on in the

Mohammedan

world.

The

Koran, preaching the purest and most abstract monotheism,

and carrying
predestinarian
vestiges

it

to logical conclusions, presents a decided
aspect,

though
in
it.^^^

some endeavour
But

to

find

of free will

human

reason

and

philosophic speculation

felt

indignant at such a conception,
rise of

and revolted against
115 1^^

it.

This brought about the

Cp. Micah

6. 8.

Ps. 37. 25, 26, as well as the contents of the
to be intended as

whole chapter, which
injustice.

seems

an answer

to the

problem of

The problem
i),

m
Nin

itself is stated

by Jeremiah

in a rather bold

way when he
;

asks (Jer. 12.

nja ^n ib^
N1SX

nn^^* n'v^'^

in ync

also

job grapples with the

problem, and cries out, nb
''D
'

DN noy

H^DSIC' ^JD

yd
(Job

1^3
:

mnJ

I'lN

the earth
:

is

given into the hands of the wicked

he covereth

the face of the judges
^1'
ii'^

if

not,

where and who

is

he

?'

9. 24).

Berakot
Prof.

7 a.

^
in his

Guyard

book on
',

*

Abd-er Razzaquu

et

son traite de

la

predestination et du libre arbitre
P- 3-

quoted by L. Stein

in his Willensfreiheit,

184
the sects

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
and various doctrines, attempting the solution

of the problem in one

way

or another.^^^

The

first

who

dealt with the problem in Jewish philo-

sophy was, as might be expected, Saadia.

Saadia

say's,

Man

is

free in

his actions,

and there
is

is

no intervention

on the part of God.

This fact

proved by the evidence

of sense, of reason, and of tradition.
that

We

see in daily
is

life

man

is

master of himself; he speaks or

silent at will,

does a number of other things or refrains from doing them,

and never conceives that anybody can restrain him
according to his wish.
superficial

in acting

This evidence, though

it

may seem

to us, carried a certain

amount

of conviction

to Saadia, who, following the Mutazilites, attached great

importance to conception, for whatever can be conceived
is

real,

and the contrary, whatever

is

not conceived does

not possess any reality.^^"

Hence

the emphasis laid

by

Saadia on the fact that

man

conceives and that accordingly

he

is

free.
it

Reason

testifies to

freedom.

First,

it is

proved

that

is

impossible for one act to be produced
If

by two

agents.

God
to

interfered in

human

actions,

it

would be
if

the effect of two agents,
forces

God and man.
act,
?

Secondly,

God
and

man
his

do a certain

what reason would there

be

for

punishment or reward

The

believer

the atheist would be on an equal footing.^-^

As

for the

l-no nvNi
nb:i\)2^)

nr

bv

"b

ii>')

.noi* xbi

mny^ nnnao

u^ni din
Wedeoth,

'jn
ed.

3in33L" nOOl

^DCn TnOI CniOn, Emunotn

Josefow, 1885, p. 64 b. "° Cp. Introduction,

sect. 3.
a.

'" Einniiot/i Wedeoth, p. 65
his assertion that

Aristotle offers similar

arguments

to

prove

man

is

the originator of things.

He

says: 'Testimony
in that

seems

to

be borne both by private individuals and by lawgivers, too,

they chastise and punish those that do wrong, while they honour those

who

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

—WAXMAN

185

objection on traditional grounds, he quotes a
verses to that effect.

number of

The problem arises then, How is it possible to conceive freedom of human action and at the same time prescience
of

God

?

If

God knows beforehand
does
it

that

man

will rebel

against His

will,

not follow eo ipso that

man must
is

act in this fashion, for otherwise God's

knowledge

not

perfect

?

Saadia replies that,

in

reality,

the supposed
is

conclusion does not follow.

God's knowledge

not the

cause of

human
is

actions.

Were

it

the cause,

we should
for

have to grant that man's actions are predestined,

God's

knowledge

eternal,

and

necessarily the effects
is

would be

determined, but the case

not so.

It

is

true that

He

knows beforehand the events
but
ever

that are going to happen,

He knows them
way man
is

in their true light.
select,

God knows

which-

going to

yet His knowledge does

not have any causal relation to the things which are going
to happen.
It is

pure knowledge without any active force.

The

fact that the things

happen

in

the future and

He knows
His
only one

them beforehand does not bear on the
knowledge
is

subject, for

above temporal accidents.
in

There
is

is

time existing
If

regard to God, and that

the present.

one

will
is

ask,

How

is

it

possible that,

if

God knows
silent
fact,

a

man

going to speak, yet he could have chosen to be
is

silent? to this the reply

made, that had he kept

God's knowledge would have taken cognizance of the
for

God knows the way man will choose after By way of illustration, we may compare
Of
course, here the reference
is

deliberation.^--

the prescience

act rightly'.

not to theological authority,
is

but political
III,

;

however, the force of the argument

the same.

Nic. Ethics,

V.

1'^-

Eumnoth

IVedeotli, p.

65 a-b.

l86

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
it,

of God, as Saadia conceived

to a

man

standing on a very-

high mountain, and from

this

exalted position he views an
passing

exceptionally long row of
passed,

men

by

;

some have

some are

passing, and

some

will

pass.

He

sees

them
is

all.

for his position is

very elevated, but his seeing

not the cause of their passing.^^^

However, we cannot

help admitting that a shrinkage in God's prescience has

been assumed by Saadia.

As

a result, objections to his

theory have been raised by later religious philosophers.^^*

But Saadia was very zealous to save human freedom, and

some

sacrifice

had

to be made.^^^

compatibility of the providence of

The problem of the God with the freedom
It

of the will

is

not treated by Saadia definitely.

seems,

nevertheless, from
believes in

the whole tenor of his book, that he

the existence of such a providence, for
it ?

how
In

could he not believe
are,

It is

found

in the Bible.

There

however, some passages bearing on the subject.
it is

one of them

stated that the events that

happen

to

man

are through Divine causality, but at the
are partly caused
as a
still

same time they

by man

himself, namely, that

some come
question

punishment

for his previous choice.^^^

The

remains open.

Are the

events predestined to happen
is
it

simultaneously with God's prescience of them, or

that

God

causes them to happen after the
?

human
is

actions have

taken place

But no such discussion

found.

Bahia, as an ethical philosopher, and a
"' Commentary to Emunoth Wedcoth, ad locum. "* Albo says that Saadia's view
denies
is

man imbued

almost tantamount to the opinion that

'"

God any knowledge The early Christian

of possibles.
fathers

encountered a similar

difficulty,

and

fullowed the same path.
prescience.

So

did Origen allow a kind of narrowing of God's

T\schtr, History of Christian

Dogma,

io6.

Etiiiiiwtli IVcdcoth,

66 b.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

—WAXMAN
much

187

with religious feeling, does not devote
to this difficult
conflict

discussion

problem

in its

philosophical aspect.

The
logical

between freedom and prescience, and the
resulting

contradiction

from the

full

conception of the
is

former, are hardly brought to light.

The problem

rather

viewed from the aspect of Providence.
it

He

does not call

the problem of freedom and necessity, but of necessity
justice.

and

The

point of gravity

is.

How

can

we conceive

Divine justice

in distributing

reward and punishment when
?

human

actions are pre-ordained

Bahia puts forth several
says, have

solutions to the problem.

Some, he

denied

Providence in regard to

human

actions,

and asserted that
God.

man

is

entirely free, thus saving the justice of

Some,

on the other hand, have given up freedom, but as for justice
they denied the possibility of the
to grasp
it.

human understanding Some admit Providence in human actions,
In such
left

excepting such as pertain to right and wrong.
acts choice
is

to

man.

This

is

really the traditional
It is also the

view expounded

in the

Talmud.^-^

one that
is

Bahia follows.

He

feels,

however, that the problem

not

solved yet, that there are points which
especially prescience
;

demand

a solution,

this last

is

not even mentioned by

name, but

it is

surely meant
all difficulties,

Just to cover

by the following explanation. Bahia adds that the ways of

God
It

are hidden from man, and

human understanding cannot
works
in

conceive the

way God's

justice

the universe.'-^

must be admitted that

this solution of the

problem

is

hardly a philosophical one.
127

Bahia's distinction between

-,"^3

-|)r)j^p

f^^

pnvi ycrn
''Ta

i^^ni

CDK'
128

nST'O
b.

pn

D''?Oi:'

^DH

.... r\'bv .... X:''jn,

xnn n» n nsD
Niddah i6b; also

Berakot 33

ffobot ha-Lebabot, pp. 131-32.

l88

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
does not carry with
it

human and Divine knowledge

the

speculative characteristics which attend that of Maimonides,

who

ofifered

a similar suggestion (cp. infra).

It is

simply

a blind resignation of a believer to the

dogmas of
in

belief.

Halevi treats the problem of freedom

an accurate
actions

and philosophical manner.
are
possible

He

asserts that

human
it

and not necessary, and proves

from the

general belief of man.^^-' Halevi always laid great emphasis

on the generality of an idea and the consensus omnium.

As

for

the

conflict
it

of freedom

with

God's providence,

Halevi evades

by

asserting that there are two kinds of

Divine causality, direct and indirect.
first

As examples
of
all living all

of the

kind

may serve such

things as the order of the universe,
being,

the

way and manner of the composition

the genera of the vegetable kingdom, and

such pheno-

mena

that eo ipso testify to the plan of a wise

maker.

As

an instance of the second kind, we
fire.

may

quote the

burning of a log of wood by
of this

The immediate cause
;

phenomenon

is

easily explained

but this cause has
first

another cause, and so on until we finally reach the
cause,
still

the connexion

is

not a direct one.

We

have

then a fourfold division of events, divine, natural, chancewise,

and elective or choice-wise.^^°
referred

The Divine

are those

that must be

immediately to Divine attention,

such as have been mentioned.

The

natural arise through
in view.

mediate causes (nryvos nUD), but with an end

The chance-wise

arise also

through mediate causes, but

with no particular order or design.
^^'*

The
p.

elective are those

Kuzari, cd. Isaac Metz, Hamburg, 1838,
(Corrected bi'Zifrinouitsch

119.

*'"

in his edition, p. I20,

^Vpn DNV)

31pn

D"in3D

IN.

Cp. for a similar division

tiic

Physics of Aristotle,

II,

56.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS
of which the

—WAXMAN
Freedom
is

189

human

will is

the cause.

one of
system

the

mediate

causes.

We

have then a twofold

of Divine causality, the immediate and the mediate.

The

mediate through the causal nexus returns to God, but
the connexion
is is

a loose one, no force

is

exerted and
is

man
on

free to

choose. '^^
revert
to

Divine providence

thus saved, for

all

events

Him

indirectly.

Halevi

goes

polemizing against those that deny the possible.
If

He argues,
men
all

man

has no choice

in acting,

but

is

forced to perform

the act by the sequence of events, greater anger at the one
at the

why
?

then do

display

who

injures

them

willingly than

one who does so unwillingly
? ^^^

Are not

human

actions involuntary

In regard to the problem of the compatibility of the
prescience of

God

with freedom, Halevi does not add

anything

original,

but follows Saadia and the Mutazilites,^^^
the knowledge of an

in asserting that
is

event beforehand

not the cause of the realization of that event.

Halevi

lays a great deal of stress on the middle causes (cp. above).

His ethics thus receives a contemplative aspect. The middle
causes are powerful influences, and
it

is

necessary to

know
by

which to choose and which to

obviate.^^^
is

The

natural

causes are necessary, but yet there

a

possibility

a knowledge of facts to obstruct their results and avoid

them.

Halevi admits a special kind of Providence,
is

for
;

in his division of events there

one class of Divine action

and there
^^1

is

nothing preventing
The
of the

God from
mediate

interfering at

Kusari,

p. 120.

idea

causes

antiquity by the Stoics.
1*2

Cp. L. Stein

in his Willensfreiheit, p.

was known in no, note 175.

Kmart,

p. 120.

1^2 15*

Halevi alludes directly to the Muta'ziliah
Kusari, p. 122.

in that.

190
certain

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
occasions,

and

effecting

something immediately

even

in a

world of mediate causes.
of injustice.
It
is

He

evades, however,
if

the problem

possible,

he says, that

we

were able to penetrate and follow up the long
causes,
suffer

series of

we might

discover the reasons

why
is

the righteous
really
rely

and the wicked prosper, but
intelligence.

this

beyond
on the

human

We

must,

therefore,

knowledge

of

God and His
the

justice,

and admit our own

shortcomings."^

Abraham Ibn Daud,
philosophy,
is

first

Aristotelian

in

Jewish

a strong supporter of the freedom of the In
fact,
it

human

will.

is

his principal ethical foundation.
evil,

He

says,

Man

possesses the possibility to do
is

and the

stronger the inclination

in

a certain man, the harder

the struggle to overcome that inclination, the higher the

value which

is

attached to the virtuous

act.^^''

He
it is

utilizes

the doctrine of the twofold Divine causality, but
possible that he borrowed
it

hardly

from Halevi, as he evidently

know him.^^'' Most likely both derived it from common source. ^"^ In regard to the problem of prescience and freedom, Ibn Daud solves it in a very simple manner. He concedes that God's foreknowledge is undecided in regard to the exact way man will act. He knows beforehand that certain actions will be presented to human choice,
did not

a

"i (Zifriiiovvitsch

pnva) nv3

Duon ana m^pna

rhy\i^

-lt^•^N^

ipnvi,

p.

125.

"'

Emunah

Ranialt, ed. Weil, Fran
p. 2,

'" In the introduction to the Emuuali Rama/i,
that he read Saadia's

Ibn Daud mentions

book as well as Ibn Gabirol, but makes no mention
to

of the Kusari.

This goes

prove that he was unacquainted with
it.

it,

for

otherwise he certainly would have mentioned

"*

On

this subject there is a difference of opinion

between D. Kaufmann,
note 43.

Atlnbittnilehre, p. 279,

and Stein

in his UlllcusfreiliciC p. 20,

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS
but not which
radical in
it

—WAXMAN
Ibn

I91

way he

will choose. ^"^

Daud

is

also

his theory of Providence.

According to him
far as things

extends only to the universals, namely, as

are connected with the order of the universe, but not to

the particulars.

He, however, excepts the human genus,
find

an exception which we

later

in

Maimonides.

He
the

introduces also an ascending scale of Providence, even in

regard to this genus.

Those that

strive

more

in

knowledge of God and the principles of reason are especially
looked
after.'^°
is

The

question of the existence of evil in
its reality.

the world

answered by Ibn Daud by negating
evil in the
is

There
only.

is

no

world

;

God
meet

is

the cause of good

The answer

often repeated in Jewish as well as in

general philosophy.
also in Spinoza.
1^^

We

shall

it

in

a modified form

Etnunah Ramah,

p. 96.

"" ^B'lJNn

pom

''^^32

D^ivn nr niNVD:a nmt^n Dn333n n^nvyh
-iiy^c'a

n^sn^ innnr
v^N inn,

-inx

m

nmc'nn

nm""'

n>:D

i^a

^y njni Dian

/6«rf.,

p. 97-

192

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

CHAPTER

IV

Maimoxidks' View and Crescas's Comments. Maimoxides, the
and philosophy
in

chief conciliator between

theology

Jewish thought, devotes much space

to the elucidation of the

problem discussed
its

in the
all
its

previous
aspects,

chapter,

as

well

as

to

solution

in

^laimonides, as his
the
first

predecessors,

distinguishes

between

cause of events and the proximate ones.

The
the

proximate ones he divides, as those before him, into natural,
chance-wise, and choice-wise.^*^
exclusive
gift

Choice, however,

is

of

man who

is

endowed with a

special faculty.

]\Iaimonides
Aristotle,^*-

introduces a distinction,

already

made by
is

between
desire,

instinctive

willing
choice.^*^

which

only

a

result

of

and human

He, however,
as Aristotle
it

does not connect choice with reason as
does.

much

Maimonides, as a theologian, attributes
Just as

to a direct
fire

act of the will of God.

God

willed that

should

tend upwards and earth downwards, so did
that

He

institute

man
be

shoukl
in

be master of himself, and his actions

should
^*^
1**

his

own

hands.^**

He,

like

Ibn

Daud,

Morelt. II, ch. 48; Guide, p. 222.

Moral choice

is

plainly voluntary, but the
;

two are not coextensive,
for
in
first,

voluntary being the more comprehensive term

children and

all

other animals share
III, 2.

in

voluntary action, but not

moral choice.

Ethics,

113b.

D^'^n

"hv^ ">KL"0

nnS PVI nnon

nn*n, Moich,

II,

ch. 48.

Notice the

distinction
><<

between
i,

mx

nTTQ

and D>>n '^yQ pV*l.
ch. 5, 4
;

Code, Div.

Teslmbah (Penitence),

Gnid(, III,

8.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS
recognizes the inclination in

— WAXMAN
evil,
;

193

man

to

do

and therefore
the

assumes freedom as a standard of actions
struggle, the higher the
free will

more the
Since
it

worth of the ethical action.

was

instituted in

man by

the will of God,

may
to

on special occasion be taken away from man^, such as we
find in the case of Pharaoh.^^"^
all

This case

is

well

known

theological philosophers, Christian as well as Jewish.^'"^
course, such a possible limitation will not

Of

be pleasing

to the upholder of absolute free will.

In regard to the Divine knowledge, Maimonides, after

polemizing against some of the philosophers
to limit
it,

who wanted
is

asserts that

God
In

is

omniscient and nothing

hidden

from

Him.^*^

this

connexion,

Maimonides

remarks that great philosophers
period
to the

of the pre-Aristotelian

accepted

the doctrine of omniscience.

He

refers

book Dc Rcgiminc, by Alexander of Aphrodisias, where their opinions are quoted. The only one to whose
opinion

we

find

a

distinct
is

reference

is

Socrates.

In

Xenophon's Memorabilia he
the gods

quoted as preaching that
is

know

all

things,

what

said,

what

is

done, and
asserts

what

is

meditated

in silence.^*^
is

Maimonides further

that this
in
full

knowledge

eternal.

The problem then appears
to reconcile the

vigour,

How

are

we

freedom of

man

with this prescience?
finds in his

The answer

to

this

problem
^^*

Maimonides

Theory of Attributes

(cp. above).

Maimonides conceives the Divine
way, and says that

attributes in a negative

when applying the same
use them in an absolute

attributes to

God and man, we
i'5

homonymous

Chapters of Maimonides, ch. 8, ref. to Exod. 7. 3. H6 Origen, De Pniici/>iis, HI, i, grapples with this problem. "^ Memorabilia, I, 1" Gtiicie, III, 16. i« Chapter
2.

i.

19.

VOL.

IX.

O

194

THE JEWISH Quarterly review
This theory contends that
it

way.
for the

is

absolutely impossible
of the attributes

human mind

to grasp the

meaning

applied to God.

Since the attribute of prescience forms
difficult}- is solved.

no exception, the
only when

The problem
in

arises

we

concei\-e
is

knowledge

the

human

sense.

With man, knowledge

correlative with fact.

Applying
it

the same conception by analogy to that of God,

follows

that God's prescience ought to agree with the fact, otherwise
it

contradicts

itself.

But since we do away with that
is

analogy and assert that His knowledge
the difificulty disappears.

different in kind,

God knows
^^^'

things beforehand,
is

yet the possible

still

remains.

This teaching
but,

not

merely a

concession
in

of

ignorance,

as

mentioned,

grounded
is

the theor)- of attributes.

God's knowledge

not a separate thing fiom His essence but connected
it,

with
of

and just as the essence,

it

is

unknown.

In the act

human knowledge we
is all

distinguish the yiD yiT yir, the
itself,

knower, the known, and the knowledge

but with

God

He
it

three in one.^^^

As
adds

for the question of Providence,

Maimonides

treats

in detail.
his.

He
The

quotes four different opinions, and then
is

fir.st

the Epicurean, den)Mng Providence
is

entirely.

The second

the Aristotelian, in the garb of

Alexander of Aphrodisias,'^^ namely, that Divine providence
ceases at the sublunar world.
in

But as Providence, even
in their

regard to the spheres, consists mainly
>'"'

preserva-

Gmdc,

III, ell. 20.

"*'

Chapters i-8.

A

similar

ii.se

of the

homonymous theory

is

made by
last

Spinoza, Cogttata Metaph.
Fischer's note 24
'**

V'l, 9.

It is

interesting to

compare with the

in his

Auhavg
it

to Spinoza.
is

As

for Aristotle himself,

doubtful wliether he ever expressed

any

opinion on the subject.
Platoii et Aristole, p

See Jules Lc Simon
f.

in iiis l^Hiide dr lo Tlhodicef de

100

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS
tion,
it

— WAXMAN

195

filtrates also to a certain

degree to the sublunar

world, in so far as the genera are
preservation.

endowed with perpetual

The

third

on the orthodox side

— extremists of the Kalamitic movement — assumingis

that of the Ash'aria

perfect subjection of the universe

and

its

beings to the

Divine
that
of

will,

denying chance and choice.
Mutazilites,

The

fourth

is

the

positing

freedom,

and

Divine
so

justice

and Providence at the same time.

They went

far in their

conception of justice, according to Maimonides,

that they extended reward even to animals for their being
killed.^'^

The
in

fifth

is

his

own, which according
tradition.

to

him

agrees

with

the

Jewish

Divine

providence

extends

the sublunar world to the

human

species onl)'.

The

other beings are subjected to chance or natural law.

However, he admits that the genera of other beings have
a kind of providence in so far as the natural law originates

from
differs

God.^'^*

As

it

is

evident, the

Maimonidian theory
in

from the so-called Aristotelian only

attributing
for

Providence to the
exception
is

human
in
is

species.

The reason
b)'

the

found

the possession
a

the

human genus
for Divine

of the mind, which

means of conveyance

emanation.
that

It follows, therefore, as
is

we

noticed in Ibn Daud,
perfect

the

one who

more

intellectually
^^

should

receive

more attention from Providence.^

Note.

— Objections to

this last assertion

have been raised

by many
thinkers

religious thinkers,

and with

justice.

Among

the

is

also the Karaite

Aaron Ben Elijah inEsHayim.

izb
^''*

msn

po

^'^'•Na

hth

b:b:

nnnro

^'-i, Motr/i, ch. 17.
in his exposition of

Guide, III, ch. 17.

For a certain inadequateness

the Mutazilistic teaching see Stein, Die
155

Willensfrfilicit, p. 86,

Guide,

III,

17, 18.

2

T96

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
chief critic, however,
is

The
will

Crescas himself.
I

This question

be discussed

in detail.

have also omitted Sor the
evil,

present the Maimonidian theory of origin of
as

as well

some philosophic arguments
length

for the denial of prescience

and Providence quoted by Maimonides.
cussed
at

These are
taken

disin

by

Crescas,

and should be
as

connexion with his own
of his theory.

solutions

they form a part

Crescas on Prescience.
Crescas, as a foundation to his discourse on the subject,
posits three principles, which, according to him, agree with

and are necessitated by
science of God,
(d)

tradition.

These are
(c)

(a)

the infinite

His prescience,

that His foreknowit.

ledge of the possible event does not change the nature of

He

proceeds then to analyse the philosophical doubts that

arise in

connexion with such conceptions, and, as usual,

reproduces

them
in

first.

First,
it

happening
perfected
that
is

this
this
is

world,

God knows the events follows that God is being
if
it

by

knowledge,

for

has been established
;

knowledge

a kind of perfection

but such conclusion

absurd, for

how can

the absolute Perfect be perfected
?

through the knowledge of inferior things
it

Second, since

is

known

that the

mind

in

conceiving things becomes

identified

with the concepts and assimilates

them

to its

essence,

it

follows that there will result a multiplicity in
for the things are

God's essence,
fourth

many.

The

third

and

arguments attack God's

assumed

knowledge of

particulars.
in

There were two current philosophical opinions
matter.

regard to the Aristotelian conception of the
first

The

denied entirely God's
to

knowledge of anything
to

external

Himself.

(This seems

be the right one.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS
cf.

— WAXMAN

IQ/

above, Introduction, IV.)

The other,

following Alexander,
Particular things

admitted the knowledge of

universals.^'*^

can be conceived only through their matter and passive
intellect,

but

God

has no matter

;

it

follows that

He

cannot

conceive the particular things.^^^

Again, particulars are
is

temporal, and whatever relates to time

an accident of

motion

;

but

does not

God is above motion and time, He therefore know of the particulars. Finally, the positing
is

of Divine science of the world's affairs

untenable, as the

disorder in the natural sphere and the existence of evil
in

human

affairs testify.^"*^

These are the objections to the general principle of
positing God's knowledge of the world's affairs.

There

are several objections especially to several of the specific
principles,

namely, the

infinite science

of

God and His

pre-

science.
infinite?

How,
Is not

asks the opponent, can God's knowledge be

knowledge a comprehensive and determining
then, can the infinite be
is

thing?

How,
?

comprehended or
Again,

determined

There

then a contradiction in terms.

prescience seems to be impossible. Real knowledge of a thing
implies that the object
i'*"

known
i,

exists, for in

what consists

Gersonides, MiUiamot, III,

p. 120.

IS''

All these objections are also found arranged in a similar order in
III, 2.

Gersonides, Milhamot,

arrangement.

It

is

not necessary that he borrowed

However, we notice inCrescas a more logical them directly from
These objections

Gersonides, though the contents and form are similar.

were current

in the thought of the age.

Some

of them are also mentioned

by Maimonides. In the third objection there is a digression by Crescas which deserves some notice. It is the first with Gersonides. He says that
the particular
is

conceived through the hylean power such as sense and

imagination.

Crescas substitutes matter instead of sense.

That would agree
in matter,

with the Aristotelian conception of individuality which consists
for
it

is

this that gives
8. p.

the uniqueness since form

is

general to genus.

Metaph., XII,
158

Or Adonai,

29

a.

198

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
if

the truthfulness of a conception of things

not

in

the fact

that the mental conception of a thing agrees with the object existing outside of the
that
in

mind

''"'^

?

Furthermore,

if

we grant

God does know

things before their occurrence, a change
necessitated.

His knowledge

is

Before they occur

knows them
since the
will

as future happenings, after that as past.

He And

mind essence changes with the concepts, there
in

then be a change

His essence, but this

is

impossible.

The assumption
is

that the existence of possible future events
is

compatible with the prescience of God

also assailed.

If

we

posit that

God knows

before the realization of one
a future event,

of the

two possible aspects of

and
is

at the

same time we
of occurrence
is
still
;

assert that the opposite aspect

possible

then while

in

His prescience the opposite

conceived as possible, after the action occurs the
is

possibility

removed and

a change in the Divine

knowledge

necessarily effected.

Moreover, the assumption that
is

God
it

knows whichever aspect

going to occur proves to be
event,
in

untenable, for with a possible
possible,

as

far

as

is

either

side

may

be assumed.

Suppose, then,

that

we assume

the opposite side of that of which
if

God

is

prescient, existing,
in

so absurdities

would

result, (a) a

change

His knowledge,

(d)
is

a falsity in

it.

If that

cannot be the

case, the possible

done away with and God's prescience

involves the necessity of

human

actions.'*^*^
all

After reproducing at length

the objections, which,

as remarked, arc identical with those quoted
in his

by Gersonides

book Milhamoi (The Battles of the Lord), Crescas

quotes also the Gersonidian solution, though not mentioning
1'*

Cp. Locke's definition
I.

ot

knowledge

in

Essay on Htiniaii

(Jiicffisfn)i(/iii(j,

Bk.

4, ch.

""

Or

.'Idotiai, T r. II, p.

29

a.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS
him by name.

—WAXMAN

199

The objection may be answered in the following manner The first which involves the question of God's perfection disappears when we consider that the
:

existence of other beings arises through God's existence,

and also conceived through His own conceptions.

His

knowing other beings would not mean then an additional
perfection, for

He knows them

through the general order
is

of things (P/DH ino), the principle of which

in Himself.^''^
is

The

second, raising the objection of multiplicity,

solved

by the same conception.

Since

God knows

the general

order which emanates from Himself, and this order unites
all

the different things

(for

though things are

different

-in

certain respects they are also connected in a certain aspect

and perfect each other),
their side of unity.
is

He

then knows the particulars from

In the

same manner the

third
in

doubt
order

refuted.

It

is

founded on the principle that

God must possess hylic powers, we grant the validity of the principle it does but though not follow that God should not know the particular things
to

know

the particulars

through their general conceived order wherein their unity
is

manifested.

The

doctrine of the inherence of things in

the general order also meets the fourth objection, basing
itself
is

on the fact that particulars
for

ajre

in time,

while

God
of

above time,

God's conception of the general order

does not depend upon time.
evil,
is

The
partial,

fifth,

the question

deferred

for

future discussion.

Again, the other
also

doubts,

named by Crescas

are

met.
it

The
is

difficulty of knowledge being infinite (cp. above),

done

away with by removing
in

the infinite.

Things are
their
imity.^''^

infinite

their
16^ 162

differentiation
III, 4
;

but not

in

The

Milhnmot,

Oy

Adoiiai, p. 29 b.

The words

in the text,

both

in

Gersonides and Crescas, are ^3'J-nD "inD,

200

THE JEWISH OUARTERL)^ REVIEW

general order preconceived by

God

is

finite.

In the same

way

the two objections

raised against prescience (cp. above)

are righted.

Since

God knows

things through their general

order which emanates directly from

Him, the things
is

are the

already existing, and surely there

no change

in

knowledge

itself.

If

God knew
is

the particulars in as far as
differ-

they are particulars, that
entiation, that

from the point cf their

change would be implied, but

He knows
this
is

them from
Finally, the

their general order,

and

this
is

is

not changed.
;

most

difficult

question
of

solved

the
of

question

of the existence
Possible
in

the

possible

in

spite

prescience.

events have

two aspects, and
in

may

be preordained

one way, and possible

the other.

From

the

aspect of general

order of events
of

they are

determined, but from the aspect
are indeterminate.
as they are

human

choice they
far

God knows these things only so

possible, but

He

does not

know which

side

of the possibility will be realized.

It is evident, therefore,

that

when Gersonldes speaks

of possible things as being

determined by the general order, he means that only their
possibility
is

determined but not their realization.

^"^^^

Crescas, in resuming the foregoing

discussion, points

out that the

reasoning of those philosophers

still

not
:

mentioning any name
(i)

— compel us

to posit

two principles

order

God knows the particulars only through their general (2) God knows only that certain things are possible,
;

but not the manner of their realization.

From

these two

conceptions there follows necessarily a third one.

God

docs not

know

of the happenings of one of the possible
conceived arrangement,
i.e.

which means

literally

division

into

genera.

But the concept of genus implies always the notion of unity.
1" Milhamot,
III, 4
;

Or Adonai.

pp.

296-30 a.

;

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS
sides,

— WAXMAX
know
of the

20I

even a posteriorly'''
in

Were He
of

to

fact,

a

change

His knowledge would

be implied.
it

Before the

occurrence of the event

He knew

only as a possible,

and

after

it

as actual.

Crescas

.sees in

such an assumption

a shrinkage of God's science, a dangerous doctrine, and sets

out

in his

acute manner to refute

it.

These philosophers,
all.

he says, have not solved the doubts at
their insisting

In spite of
things

on unity by positing that

God knows

through the unified aspect, namely, the general order, these
philosophers, according to Crescas, have not succeeded in

removing multiplicity. True knowledge consists
things

in

knowing

through

all

their

causes,

mediate or immediate.

Knowledge of composed
conceived by the

things then would be perfect only
are

when the elements of which they

composed would be

knower, for the elements are causes

of things, but the elements are many, there follows then
that the
if

knower must conceive the manifold.

Again, even

we

grant that existing things form a kind of unified order

of perfection, this will be true only of the broadest genera,

such as the division of the kingdoms,

e. g.

the vegetative,

animal, &c., but considering the narrower genera or the
species,

we

find that

one does not perfect the other,

e.

g.

the horse has
If

no relation of perfection to the donkey.

we

posit, then, of

God

a

knowledge of genera.
Thirdly, even
if

He

cannot

escape conceiving multiplicity.
that

we assume
and
in-

God's knowledge

is

limited to the spheres
is

telligibles,

the difficulty

not solved, for though they

present a certain unity they also exhibit differentiation

the knowledge of the differentiating aspect would then

i«'

TJ'Dsn --p^nD nnxn
"h

p^nn
p.

y:^"L:'
a.

-inxr nn

':

pjy

cn^

rnnn

13

nyn^

pS

,

Or Adonai,

30

202

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
multiplicity.^'^'^

imply

Lastly,

there

is

an

astrological

argument directed

chiefly against Gersonides,

who

attri-

butes great influence

to

the

spheres

and constellations.
arises,

The knowledge
due

of particulars

by God

according to

him, out of the order of the heavenly spheres, which order
is

to the various

combinations of the constellations.

But the combinations
in

may

be infinite

;

for the great circle
infinitely divisible.
infinite,

the sphere

is

a quantity,

and

it

is

It follows, then, that the

arrangements can be

and

so God's science does not escape multiplicity.
It is

evident, then, that the principal object in

removing

the manifold from Divine knowledge has not been obtained.

But there

is

still

a

greater error.

The

followers of the

foregoing theory,

in their

endeavoms

to put forth an

exaUed

conception of God, have attributed to

Him

imperfections,

namely,

finiteness.

If,

as they say,
it

God does

not

know

the particulars as particulars,
of particular things
in
is

follows, since the

number

infinite,

that

He

possesses ignorance
relation

regard to the

infinite,

and that the
is

of God's

knowledge
for

to His ignorance

as the finite to the infinite,

the
^

number
if

of things that

He

does

know

is

finite.

Again

God does

not

know beforehand which of the two
it

possible sides of an event will be realized,

appears, since

the

possible

events

are

incomparably greater than ihe
is

necessary ones, that

God

ignorant of most of the hap-

penings of the world.

Lastly, those philosophers, in order

to avoid the assumption of the possibility of a

change

in

God's knowledge, asserted that God does not know of the

nva n:n poa n^s^nntt

cr.i

u)»n3

''"nvj

DiTrN::'

onnajn

D'b::'3i

D-yiT' 'n-l

3Tn

-133

pen Or Adouai.
,

p.

30

b.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS
result of a possible
If this is

— WAXMAN
that

203

happening, even as a past occurrence.

the case,

we must evidently assume

God

is

ignorant of the greatest part of

human
all
is

history, for in the

long row

of centuries thousands of possible actions, events,
realized,

and occurrences were

and

these things escaped

His knowledge

;

such an assertion

certainly absurd. ^"^

To meet
butes.
theory.)

all

these doubts and objections, Maimonides

put up his theory of the

homonymity

of the Divine attri-

(See above in the exposition of the Maimonidian

This theory was severely attacked by Gersonides.
that
in
it

He
to

argues

is

impossible

to

speak

of

absolute

homonymity

regard to Divine attributes.

In attributing

God
in

certain qualities,

and speaking of them as belonging

to

Him, we inevitably borrow human conceptions.
question
furnishes

The
God.

case

an

example.
attribute
it

We
is

conceive

knowledge
But
in this

as a perfection,

we

also to

case no absolute
is

homonymy

possible, for
it

when one

attribute

predicated of two things,
as
it

is

im-

homonymous way, Again, when we negate certain attributes in regard to God, we do not negate them in an homonymous way. When we say, God is not movable, we do not mean that His net being moved and the not
possible to be used in an

does not

then convey the same idea.

being moved of a certain thing are absolutely homonymous,
for in this case the idea that

we wish

to

convey

is

not at

all

proved.

He may

be moved, and yet the movement has
call
all

no association with what we
go on negating.
in

being moved.
attributes are

Still

we

Again,

if

employed

an

homonymous way, why
it

shall

we not

say,

God

is

a body, conceiving

in

an absolute
call

homonymous way

with

no relation to what we
i*"*

body
p.

?

Gersonides, therefore,
a.

Oy Adonai,

31

204

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
all

assumes that
said
in

attributes

and knowledge included are

to differ in their application to

God and man only
solution
falls

degree, but

not in kind.

The Maimonidian

of the problem of prescience and the possible
the foundation being undermined/"^"

then,

Against the assailment of Gersonides, Crescas steps
forth as a defender of

Maimonides.
in

Knowledge

attributed

to
It

God and man must be
cannot be said that
it

an absolute

homonymous way.
content
differing in degree,
it

differs

only

in degree, for the

of
is

any
the

attribute predicated of things

and

same, no matter how widely
in v^arious applications

the degrees

may

connote

may
is

differ, as, for instance,

the content of existence, which
as well as of other things.^*^*

predicated of substance
contents in both predi-

The

cations are the same,

namely being, but the degrees are
through
itself,

various

;

substance exists

while the other
in

things exist through the substance.

But

speaking of
is

the knowledge of God, since His knowledge
essential thing,

a kind of
in

and His essence

is

different

from ours

kind,

it

follows that the

same

will

be said of His knowledge.
attributes

It is true that negatively,

when conceiving the

under a negative aspect, namely knowledge, denoting not
ignorant, existent, not non-existent, the contents are one

when employed
application
position,

of

these attributes in a
is

God and man. But when applying positive way, we must admit that the
It
is

homonymous.

evident from the exoriginal, that Crescas

and more so on reading the

finds himself in his defence in a rather difficult position.
"' Milhamot,
'^*

III, 3.

Tlic

word

in tlie text is
is

nilDND which means
,

literally Categories,

but to one

who

not

acquainted with the Aristotelian conception of

Categories the word here would be confusing.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

— WAXMAN

205

He
and

apparently contradicts himself
in

in

defending Maimonides,

assuming the

homonymy

theory he changes his
first section,^^^

own

attitude which he expressed in his
distinctly states that existence,

where he

when applied

to

God and
in

man,

is

not used absolutely homonymously, but
likeness,^^"

a kind

of non-essential

and he speaks definitely of
contradiction
is

a

difference

in

degree.
insisting

However, the

removed by
negative

his

on the distinction between a
positive,

proposition

and a

and claiming that

while the negative content

which we are going to
Crescas admits that

may have a likeness, the positive assume may differ absolutely. Still,
is

it

only defensive, but he himself

probably holds a different view.

Towards the end of the
whichever way, whether
that
is

argument he remarks
following the

:

'Be

it

master

(Maimonides)
or that there

knowledge

is

applied

homonymously

only a difference
essential attribute
first

of degree as
as
it

we
in

say,

and denotes an

we showed

the third section

of the

tractate,
'"^

remains for us to solve the question
Crescas then proceeds to state his

in a different way.'

own

view.

The

real

and special distinction between the knowledge of God and
ours
is

that His knowledge

is

active

and causal, and ours
true plan of His

derivative.
will,

Through His knowledge and

the

known

existing

things
is

have

acquired

their

existence.
1^'

Our knowledge
I,

derived from the existing
and supra, ch.
is

See Or Adonai,

sect,
is

iii,

p.

22

a,

II, 2.

1""

The Hebrew word
;

pIDD, which

to be translated bj' the

whole

phrase

cp.

Maimonides, |V3nn

nVD

,

p-

43

n'ob i3r,3N nxn:!^ i?:^

inir^vy

nsin

i?y

mvi

iin^Ni r\)2^^p2 ion^k'

i?03

n

p^DD'^r'

no nnvo
p.

-^Tii

nipson

nnna

-^2^:-^

ir^y

inb'J

UiytJ', Or Adonai,

32

b.

;

206
things

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
by means
of the senses and imagination.^"'will

This
First,

fundamental difference
in

remove

all

objections.

regard to

God

it

cannot be said
it is

that
this
It is

knowledge

of

external things adds perfection, for

knowledge that
evident, there-

causes the existence of other things.
fore, that the things

themselves cannot add anything to their
it.

cause since they are dependent upon

The

difference

between Crescas's point of view and that of Gersonides

must be made
first

clear at the outset, as the solution of the

objection

by Gersonides

seems

to

be

similar

in

language.^'^

Gersonides also speaks of the fact that the
is

existence of other things

dependent upon the existence
is

of God, and that God's conception of other things

derived

through the conception of His
in this, that

self.

The

difference consists
;

Gersonides

left

out the voluntary element

the

God

of Gersonides, as well as of
followers,

some

others of the Peri-

patetic

was to a certain degree an imperfect
say,
is

personality.

God, they

the cause of existence, but

not directly, onl)' through a kind of emanation by means
of certain
causality.

emanative beings which

form a channel

of

He knows the beings by^knowing Himself, but He knows them onl)' by means of the general order
left

the details were
this loophole that

to the other

emanated beings.

It is

enabled Crescas to overthrow the whole
its

Gersonidian structure, and show
(see his

logical

unsoundness

argument above).
philosophical

The

great failure of the Peri-

patetic

theologians was that they stopped
absolute personality of

midway between an
"^
131V-1
-iv:»'i

God and an

inri'O"' .... i3nyn'^ inyT" pa nnvan cnannc:'
iTijpi
b.

o»^m niy^osa D^yiTno
p'CTTI, Or
'"'

nhvN

ijnyn'i

.niK^:fon

D^ynM

^:p

Adoiiiii, p.
not,

32

Milla

HI,

a,

and exposition above.

•1

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS^VVAXMAN
absolute impersonality.

207
path,

Spinoza followed the
is

last

and arrived

at his

system where God

not only the cause

of the world but also the ground; Crescas the first;

and

both of them succeeded

in a certain

way. Moreover, several

of their conclusions are strikingly similar, for the principle
is

really

one,

a

certain

wholeness,

but

of this

further.

Crescas

conceives

the

beings
will

as

arising

not

through

emanation, but through the

and plan of God, and
;

as every plan requires preceding

knowledge
it

God's knowcreative.

ledge of things therefore

is

causal, nay,

is

He

knows
it is

things, not because

He knows

Himself, but eo ipso;
exist.
in

through His knowledge that they
will are

This know-

ledge and

not to be construed

any gross form,

but, as has been discussed, they are essential attributes.

The second
tiplicity

objection disappears also, for there

is

no mul-

implied on account of the fact that the

known
true

things are
itself

many and

the mind assimilates and identifies

with the things known.

This objection

maybe
is

of a derivative mind, but not of

God who

the cause

of the existence of things, and thus

knows them whether
particulars without

one or many.
In this way,

God

also

knows the

using the senses and imagination as a means of conception,
for the particular also acquires its existence

through His
raised

knowledge.

The

question of time, which

is

by

the
is

fourth objection, namely, that particulars are in time,

removed,

for

even time derives

its

existence from
I)

Him.
that

Besides, Crescas has already shown (above, chapter

time

is

not an accident of motion but a mental concept.
existence

The argument from the
is
1 •

of

evil

in

this

world

deferred for a later chapter.^'^^

Or Adonaiy

p.

32

b.

208

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Crescas then proceeds to discuss the objections which

he terms

partial.

The

question,

How

can knowledge comis

prehend an

infinite

number

of things?

answered
if

by-

maintaining that the objection would be valid
ledge were of a
it

the know-

finite

kind such as the
is

is

itself infinite

there

no
be

difficulty.

human is, but since The contention
connected
infinite

that God's knowledge

may

infinite is strictly

with the possibility of the existence of an
of effects, and this
is

number
above,
insisting

maintained by Crescas

(cp.

chapter

I

of this work).

The second argument
this

that foreknowledge of a thing implies already the existence

of the

thing known, for
is

it

is

that

constitutes

true

knowledge,

met by Crescas in the following manner.
he says,
is

The
is

as.sertion,

true of
;

human knowledge which
it is

derivative, but not of God's
it

His prescience of a thing
that which assures

that

will exist is real
its

and

true, for

the thing

existence.

The

other difficulty connected

with the question of prescience, the one of change, namely,
that there
is

a change

in

the status of the thing from being

a future happening to a past occurrence, and therefore also

a change

in

the knowledge of

it,

does not affect the know-

ledge of God, for

He knows

beforehand that at a certain

time the event will happen.
difficult

He

finally arrives at the

most

part

of the

problem, the

compatibihty of the

existence of the possible with God's prescience.

How

can

we

call

a

thing

possible

when God knows beforehand
?

whichever way
us a glimpse
possible.

it is

going to happen
theory of an
in

Here Crescas gives
apparent or nominal
to

of his

His
in

consistency

refusing
forces

admit
to

any

shrinkage

God's

prescience

him

abandon

a great part of the freedom of the will.

A

thing, he says,

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

— WAXMAN

209

may be necessary in one way and possible in another.^'-^ As an example he cites the knowledge which a man has
of certain things that are possible of existence, as most
things are.

The knowledge

that

we have
is

of

them

necessi-

tates their existing, for

knowledge

an agreement of the

mental

ideas with the things existing.

Yet

this

knowledge

does not change their nature of being possible of existence.
In a similar way, the

knowledge of God knowing the way
does not change the nature of the
is

which man
possibility.

will elect It

must be admitted that the example

not

happily chosen, for
the

human knowledge
is

of things

is

a posteriori,
thing,

possibility of the existence

already a past
of
is

while the knowledge of

God which we speak
existing.

a priori^

and the

possibility
is

is

still

In addition,

human
we

knowledge

not causal, while that of
affect

God
is

is,

and His

prescience must

the

future

occurrence, unless

assume with Saadia that God's knowledge
of things
ever,
;

not the cause

but Crescas really argued the contrary.
is

How-

the question
will,

taken up again
it

in

connexion with

freedom of the
It
is

and he solves

quite dexterously.

a mooted question whether Spinoza's reputed

impersonality of

God

is

so complete as

many

of his inter-

preters want to attribute to him.^'^
assert that in spite of

There are others who

some passages which lend themselves

to such an interpretation, the

robbed

of consciousness.''^

God of Spinoza is not entirely The question what Spinoza
or intellect
is is

meant by God's knowledge
the previous conception.

dependent on
confusing, and

The language

'^

no

'vii 2"'inD nanr;

nvn^' pdd px "icisc^
n^,

r\]2i

n^ nsan"' n^ni

ih'.Dvya
i^'5

-imn 3vn
Zur

3"'n''

Or

.-J^fc^rt/;

p! 33 a.

Cp. K. Fischer, Spinoza,
Joel,

p. 366.

^'''

Genesis det Lehre Spinozas^ p. 16.

VOL. IX.

P

:

210

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
It

the passages often ambiguous.

seems, however, that

a certain discrepancy exists between his earlier remarks

on the subject of Divine knowledge
physica and that of the Ethics.
is

in the Cogitata

Meta-

In the former, his language

more

in

accord with the philosophico-theological terms.

He

attributes omniscience to

God, and of singulars more

than of universals.

In his polemics against those that want

to exclude singulars from God's science, he reminds us of

Maimonides

in

denying any existence to

universals.^"^

He

further speaks of

God

being the object of His
in

own

thoughts.

In the Ethics, on the other hand,
to proposition

the famous scholium

XVII

in the first

book of Ethics, Spinoza

remarks,
nature',

*

that neither intellect nor will appertain to God's
again, in

yet

the

same scholium he describes
and
will to

the

way he

attributes intellect
fashion, insisting

Maimonidian

on absolute
Again,

God in quite homonymy in
in a corollary

applying these attributes to God.
to proposition
'

XXXII,

in

the

first

book, Spinoza says
relation to the nature
all

Will and intellect stand

in

the
rest

same

of

God

as

do motion and
This
last
;

and absolutely

natural

phenomena.'

passage shows Spinoza's view of
yet he

God

to be impersonal

goes on to say in the
'

scholium to proposition VII, book H, that be perceived
b}'

whatsoever can

the infinite intellect as constituting the
'.

essence of substance belongs altogether to one substance

What

the

word

'

perceived
all

'

means here

is

difficult to tell.

Joel concludes that

that Spinoza means to say in the
is

scholium
''*
'

is

that there

no relation between the human
and Cogitata Metapli.,
ch. 7

Cp. Maimonides. Guide,

III, i8,

pt. II,

:

deinde res realiter existentes

Deum

ignorare statuunt universalium autem,

quae non sunt ncc ullam ^labent praeter singularium essentiam, cognitionem

Deo

affingunt

'.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS

— WAXMAN
may

211

conception of these attributes and their real nature as they
exist
in

God.^"'

His conclusion, however,
is

be un-

justified,

but the discussion

beyond the range of our

work.

What

interests us

most are two

points,

which bear a

decided resemblance to the theory of Crescas.

Spinoza

speaks of the intellect of
in

God

as the cause of things both

regard to their essence and their existence.^^"

Things
in

arise

because they exist by representation as such

the

intellect of

God.

It is
'.

not clear what Spinoza

may mean
it

by
a

'

representation
great

To

take

it

literally

would mean

too

concession to
if

personality,

but whatever
it

intended to convey, even

we grant

that

may connote

the necessity of the unfolding of the attribute of thought, the formal side of
it is

almost identical with the teaching

of Crescas, which, as
that the

was shown, emphasizes the point
is

knowledge of God
the general

the cause

of things

not
of

only through
all

order,

but

of the

essence

things.

Again, Spinoza repeats continually that the
will of

intellect

and the

the same teaching that

God we

are identical.^^^
find in Crescas

It is

exactly

when he says

that 'through His knowledge and representation of His
will the things
is

acquired existence

'.^^^

Such a conception
efficient

necessitated

when knowledge

is

conceived as an

cause,

not

merely contemplation as Aristotle conceives
It
is

the Divine thought to be.

true that there

may

be

a difference of contents in these

two conceptions, that of

Crescas having a voluntaristic ring, while that of Spinoza
1''^

Zur

Genesis der Lehre Spinosas, p. i8.

1*0 Ethics,
1*1
1*-

Bk.

I,

Prop. 17, scholium.

Ethics, Prop. 17, scholium, p. 32.

Or Adonai,

p.

32

b.

P 2

:

212

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
still
is

a ground of causal necessity, but

the kinship of the

teachings cannot be denied.

It

not definitely

known

whom
in

Spinoza had

in

mind when he makes the statement
intellect of

connexion with the
'

God
God's
in

in

the foregoing

passage, This seems to have been recognized

by those who
and God's

have asserted that God's

intellect,

will,

power
is

are one

and the same'; but that
is

Crescas this idea
shall return

expressed clearly

evident.

However, we

to this subject later in the discussion
I

on

will

and creation.

wish, nevertheless, to

say a few words concerning
Spinoza,
in

K. Fischer's stand on the subject.
to proposition VII,

scholium

book

II

of his Ethics^

in

discussing

the unity of thinking and extended substance, remarks
'

This truth seems to have been dimly recognized by those
intellect,
'.

Jews who maintained that God, God's
things

and the
in

understood by God

are

identical

Fischer,

quoting this passage,^^^ does not attach
to

much importance

any
3-4

influence which
in

it

may
says
:

possibly indicate, but in
'

note
einer

his

Anhang he

Derartige Vorahnungen
sich

Identitatsphilosophie

finden

nicht

wie

man
in

gemeint hat bei Maimonides, sondern bei Ibn Esra, so
dessen beriihmtem Satz (Exod. 24),

nym ynv n3^
known)'.

xin ^3

(He alone

is

knower, knowledge, and
in this

Why
as well

Fischer should see

dictum the foreshadowing of the
is

Spinozistic identity of substances
as his discovery of
it

difficult to see,

in

Ibn Ezra alone.
in the

This identical
eighth chapter

dictum

is

quoted also by Maimonides

of his treatise

known

as

'The Eight Chapters', where he

says
is

'

:

It

has been explained that He, blessed be His name,
it

His attributes, and His attributes are He, so that

is

said of

Him

that

He

is

the knowledge, the knower, and the
Spinoza, p. 273.

'*'

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS
known
It
;

— VVAXMAN

213
life
'.

He

is

life,

living,

and the cause of His own

was also quoted quite often by the Arabic philosophers.

This dictum does not contain any other idea than the
Aristotelian conception that

God

is

the object of His

own

thought, and

it

is

quoted by Maimonides

in this sense to

show the

difference
is

between God's knowledge and that

of man, which
the knower.

something separate from the subject,
later

The

commentators of Aristotle
that

inter-

preted Aristotle to

mean

God

in

thinking of His
in

own

subject conceives ideas which are

realized

the world

as general principles, and so
It is in this

He knows

the universals.

sense that

it

was used by Ibn Ezra, following
that God's science

the Arabic philosophers
is

who maintained
in

only limited to general order, but no foreshadowing of
that dictum.
If

Spinoza can be seen
foreshadowing
surely cannot
is

any claim to

admitted on that basis alone, Maimonides

be excluded

from being a forerunner of

Spinoza, as has been shown.
is

That the

origin of the dictum

to

be found

in

the Aristotelian conception of God's
7

thinking quoted in Metaphysics, XII,

and
of a
in

9,

has been
Spinozistic

pointed

out by L.

Stein. ^**

Vestiges

identity conception can be found only

Crescas, but of

that later.
184

IVillensfreiheit, pp. 70, ir6.

(

To be continued.)

:

PALESTINE FROM MANY POINTS OF VIEW
A ROUND
pilgrims.

dozen of books on Palestine

lies

V>efore

us,

by

scientists, artists, journalists, students of

Holy

Writ, tourists,

apd

his individual point of view,

Each of the twelve authors approaches the subject from sometimes under the dominance of
Nevertheless, underlying the varieties of
is

an absorbing theory.
personal equation, there
its

a unifying motif.

The land

exercises

spell

upon

all

alike^ be he impersonal compiler or devout

religionist,

creative poet or superficial observer, or

an objective,

single-minded investigator.
willingly.

Not

all

yield

to
is

the

enchantment

Eventually, before their message

completely uttered,

they surrender.
inescapable
Palestine
is

The

land and
they

its

history are unique

— that
that
is

is

the

conclusion

all

come

to.

And
is

why

an inexhaustible topic on which
Because there

libraries are written,

though

libraries already exist.

a unifying motif,

an

infinite

number

of variations can be evoked from the subject.

Palestine

and

Its Transformation.

By Ellsworth Huntington,
in

Assistant Professor of
Illustrations.

Geography

Yale University.

With

Boston and

New

York.

Houghton Mifflin
Zweiter Teil.

Company, 191 i.

pp. xvii, 443.

Die Landesnatur Paldstinas.
Dr.
J.

Erster Teil
Pfarrer in

;

Von

Valentin Schwobel,
C. Hinrichs'sche
:

Mannheim.
1914.

Leipzig

Buchhandlung,
Bibel.
I,

pp. 56, 52.

Series

Das Land der

Gemeinverstandliche Hefte
Hefte
i, 3.

zur Palastinakunde.

Band

Die Blumen

des

heiligen

Landes.
Syrien

Botanische Auslese einer

Friihlingsfahrt

durch

Zweiter Teil.
in

Von

Dr. S.

und Palastina. Erster Teil; Killermann, Hochschulprofessor
;

Regensburg.

Mit

6

Abbildungen 215

4

Abbildungen.

2j6

the JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Leipzig:
pp.
44,
J.

C.

Hinrichs'sche
:

Buchhandluno,
Bibel.

1915

35.

Series

Das Land der

Gemeinver
Hefte
5, 6.

standliche Hefte zur Palastinakunde.

Band

I,

The
and
Its

keynote of Mr. Ellsworth Huntington's book, Palestine
Transformation,
'.

is

contained in the words

'

pulsating

climatic changes

They

express the thesis he sets out to prove.

Apparently the theory they convey prompted the writing of the
book.
It is

a theory acquired legitimately by the author through

personal investigations in extended regions in Asia and Africa,

and

his personal investigations in the

Holy Land
its

are

adduced

as

corroborating and supporting evidence of

truth.

Palestine,

with

its

long history,

is

used as a specific illustration of the author's

views on the interrelation between climate and civilization.

Whatever

scientists

may

think of Mr. Huntington's theory of

'pulsating climatic changes',
scholars

— and there

are

many

well-informed

who oppose

it

vigorously,

— to the general reader the book
many phases
of
life.

produced under the
interest of a novel.

spell of a

compelling, inclusive idea has the

In one passage, Mr. Huntington asserts that

'the question of changes of climate touches
It is of direct

concern to the geologist, geographer, anthropologist,

archaeologist, historian, economist,
it

and

pathologist.

Indirectly

is

intimately related to a dozen other fields of study'.

The

statement does no more than justice to his book and himself.

He

has drawn into the purview of his subject the psychologist
nature.

and student of human
and

His

faith in the value of

geography, the science of the influence of environment on
his

human man
earth

history,

economic and
plant
',

spiritual,

*

the taste the
'

imparts to the

human

is

absolute and minute.

A

mere
to
lie

difference in the angle at which the limestone rocks

happen

seems a

slight matter.

Vet to

it

is

due

in large

measure the

fact

that Samaria was a

kingdom apart from Judah, and
children.

that (lilead
his

was the country through which Christ was passing on
to Jerusalem

way
it

when he blessed the
the

Unreasonable as
structure

may seem,
caused
the

same type of geological
of

caused the

Samaritans of the time of Christ to be despised by the Jews aiul
pL-oplc

Gilead

to

be

staunch

upholders

of

PALESTINE FROM MANY POINTS OF
Judaism
. .

VIEW— SZOLD

217

.

'

(p. 28).

Details of this character are set forth
for instance, their sentiments,

throughout.

Samson and David,
and

their faults, their strength,

their exploits, are related directly to to the physical

the geographical situation

conformation of the

Shephelah (pp. 70-73). Incidentally these pages should be read as an illustration of the author's attractive, vigorous style, as the
chapter on Samaria, called
in

'A Contrast
relation

of Physical

Form

',

dealing

part' with the

same

close

between environment and
illus-

human

character and action, should be read for a typical

tration of his

method.

We
book.
the

have not yet gone beyond the subordinate theme of the
Its

main contention
of one-time

is

implied in the contrast between

evidences

populousness, to

be seen

in

the

remains of large towns, and the present waterless, arid stretches

devoid of humus from which crops

for only limited

numbers can
it

be coaxed.

'

Something
?

clearly has changed.

Has

been the

type of inhabitant

Is the present state

of the country worse

than that of the past, because the idle Arab has displaced the
industrious Jew,

and the

vacillating

Turk the strong Roman

?

Has

the substitution of misrule and

oppression for a just, firm

government caused the physical deterioration of the country?

Or has nature
conditions?'

herself suffered a

change which has brought

in its

train depopulation,

and

all

the miseries of the present unsettled

(p. 40).

The book answers
to
justify

the last question affirmatively, and attempts with

the
is

reply

an overwhelming wealth of

detail.

Testimony
versations

derived from architecture, archaeology, and conthe
;

with

nomad Beduin,
from
traffic

the

P'ellaheen,

and
;

the

missionary of to-day

or the absence of
(p.

traffic

from

warfare and raids (the latter are described

348) with a vivid-

ness testifying at once to the author's literary ability and the
physical
alertness

that

invited

personal

experiences,

thrilling,

dramatic, and instructive);

from deforestation viewed as cause
;

and

effect

;

from the cosmic changes recorded by geologic science

and from the sweep of
less

history during the long, though naturally
B.C.

than cosmic, period since 3000

Again and again the

;

2l8
point
is

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
pressed that people never
'

practise

nomadism

if

they
'

live in

a country where agriculture yields a secure livelihood
is

that there

no

'

temptation to raid and plunder
'

'

when food
'

is

abundant

;

that the
for a

movements due

to desiccation
'

might have
its

been resisted

time by a strong power,

but the drain on

resources would be so enormous that no government could long

endure

it

'.

In a word, for Mr. Huntington
'
:

all

the sign-posts of
',

deterioration point to one origin

pulsating changes of climate

causing the ups and downs of
times.

human

fortunes within historical
is

They alone

explain

why

Palestine

now not

a land

flowing with milk

and honey.

The author

ingratiates himself

with the faithful by his endorsement of the verbal veracity of

Holy

Writ, while dashing to the
settler.

ground the hopes of the modern

conqueror and

He

points out the twofold importance
:

of the question of climatic changes in Palestine

its vital

bearing

on Bible history and
for a

interpretation,

and

as offering the opportunity

specimen discussion of the climatic interpretation of the

history of the

whole ancient world.

These are Mr. Huntington's

wide-open gates to the vast realm of conjecture.

None can
'

rise

from a reading of
paying a tribute to

'

Palestine

and

Its

Transformation
its

without

its

seductive charm,

stimulating references

to history as well as present conditions,

and

its

comprehensive

consideration of

all factors,

economic and
scientific
field

spiritual,

which industry,
literary
is is

open-eyed observation, and
skill

acumen coupled with

can bring within the

of vision.

That the author
;

a single-minded investigator cannot be doubted

whether he

an objective

scientist

must be

left

to the

judgement of those

whose realms of knowledge he invades.
Pastor .Schwobel for one appears to question Mr. Huntington's
objectivity.

He

refers

to

him

twice

in

his

'

Landesnatur

Palastinas

',

only to dissent from his theories, once in connexion

with a point of rather fundamental methodic importance in the

'transformation' of Palestine:

'Whether disjointed Samaria

is

separated from the Judaean mass by a fault at
place,

some obscure
it

no one knows, though Huntington operates with

boldly

;

PALESTINE EROM MANY POINTS OF VIEW
as a fact
'.

— SZOLD

219

Schwobel himself

is

proof against the siren voices of
in his insistence that Palestine

speculation, yet he yields to

none

must be looked upon by

all

who

deal with

it

as the land of the

prophets and the apostles, and that environment makes
that, as

man
it

he puts

it,

'every plant tastes of the earth in which

grows, in which by the will of
it

God

it

was made

to

grow, and

does not

like

every

sort

of

soil'.

He

sticks

manfully to

admitted

facts,

Accordingly the seven chapters into which his

and presents them with extraordinary detachment. little book is

divided give the reader a trustworthy and compact recapitulation
of the findings of

Holy Land,
the

its

modern science on the physiography of the geology and climate, the geographic forms and

hydrographic and orographic conditions prevailing there.
largely

It relies

on the geologic map of Blanckenhorn, but pays
Deutscher Palastina-Verein, and of individual
Their results are welded into a concise
Objective as the book
is,

due attention
Fund,
scholars
yet

to the investigations of the Palestine Exploration

of

the

and

travellers.

comprehensive statement.
it

and

though
it

purports to be only a

summing up
from the

of

modern

research,

is

shot through with warmth, issuing partly from the author's
religious devotion, partly
fact that

deep

he knows

his

Palestine eye to eye through
spite of himself,

his several visits to the land. his

In
its

he betrays here and there At the other end of the
was the scene.

yielding to

mystical charms.

spiritual scale, the
life

book

does not lack incidental references to present-day
historic life of

and

to the

which

it

There are illuminating

comparisons between Palestinian and German geographic conditions.

On

the subject of the present fruitfulness and healthful-

ness of the land, the author occupies a moderate position.
attributes the prevailing diseases to neglect,

He

and repudiates the
its

theory of recent climatic changes as the causes of

impoverish-

ment.

He

cautions the observer particularly against passing an

amateurish judgement on the possibilities of the land, especially
of the hills that appear bare to the layman's eye.

The book

is

a resume of

modern scholarship by one who
to boot.

is

himself a scholar,

and a lover of the land

220

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Doctor Killermann's book may be described as a
floral itinerary

of the Holy Land, with the addition

of the

Lebanon
it

region,
is

Damascus, and the Hauran.
complete.

Even

as

an

itinerary

not

There

is

hardly a mention of the central strip
is

from

north to south, and the account of Galilee
to the size of the frame adopted.

inadequate in relation

As a

contribution to the botany
to either

of the

Holy Land

it

makes and has no pretensions

scientific

system or popular completeness.
tourist,
its
it

From

the point of

view of the

may have

claims upon his grateful attention

by reason of
knowledge.

availability without exacting the toll of previous

Occasionally apt references are

made

to the Bible

text in identifying

one or another

plant,

and everywhere the author's But
insight into the pecu-

presentation has the vividness of the personal impression.

even

in a popular

book the reader craves

liarities

of the flora of a land that possesses European, Asiatic,
characteristics;
that produces simultaneously wine,

and African

a temperate zone product, and the date-palm, a sub-tropical plant.

The

digressions from the field of botany into that of
are
tantalizingly superficial,

economic

agriculture
either a

and one need not be

Jew

or a militarist to find the closing sentences arrogantly

conceited: 'Once Palestine was really the Promised Land, land of wheat and barley, and vines and
(Deut.
there,
8. 8).

"a
"

figs

and pomegranates

If Christianity
if

might once more strike deeper root

and

in particular

from out of the clash of nations the

German element might
era of blessing

assert itself effectively as a leaven, a

new

and

fruitfulness

might break

for the

Holy Land.

That must be the conclusion reached by many a pilgrim as he
takes his departure from the beautiful, flower-strewn,
terra sancta
'.

and venerable

The Students' Illustrated Historical Geography of

By

the Rev.

Illustrated

the Holy Land. William Walter Smith, A.B., A.M., M.D. with One Hundred Half-tone Pictures of Bible

Places and Thirty-five Maps.

Philadelphia

:

The Sunday

School Times Company.

1912.

pp. 65, 43.

PALESTINE FROM MANY POINTS OF VIEW
Palestine hi

— SZOLD

221

By .Arthur William Cooke, M.A. With Topographical Index and Maps. 2 vols. London: Charles H. Kelly, igor. pp. xii, 196; xii, 254.

Geography and in History.

Sites de'laisse's d^ Orient

{Dm

'$>\r\2i\

a Jerusalem).
texte
et

Ouvrage

illustre

de 47 Gravures

tirees hors

d'une Carte en noir.

Deuxibme
.

Edition.

Paris.

Libr.airie

Hachette et

Cie.

1913.

pp. XX, 188.

The Story of Jerusalem.
Mediaeval
Ltd.

By Colonel Sir C. M. Watson,
Illustrated

K.C.M.G., C.B., M.A. &c.

by Genevieve Watson.
J.

Towns

Series.

London.

M. Dent
1912.

&

Sons,

New

York, E. P.
his

Button & Co.
book on the

pp. xx, 339.
'

Mr. Smith describes

title-page as

a popular

reading manual and text-book
latter

for teachers

and

clergy'.

The
it

purpose
all

it

serves to an eminent degree, furnished as

is

with

the

lists,

maps, and suggestions that make

its

packed
pupil.

pages

fruitful for instruction

whether used by teacher or

The
them

other description, as a 'popular reading manual', will be

endorsed only by those whose technical training may predispose
in favour of indexes as reading matter.
it

Except that

it

is

printed in unbroken lines,

is

to all intents

and purposes an

annotated catalogue of Bible places.

The

stricture here expressed

applies only to the title-page announcement.
is

Otherwise the book
'

indeed, to quote again from the

full

title-page,
',

an illuminating

course of lessons for the Sunday School
to

and

for those

who

aspire

be leaders of Sunday School

classes.

Students

will

be par-

ticularly grateful for the unfailing Bible references in the text next

to
list

each place mentioned
of pictures of places

;

for the

list

of reference books

;

for the

and scenery with the sources from which
and the suggestions
for

they

may be secured
pedagogy

;

for the questions

manual work attached
up-to-date
;

to each chapter, conceived in the spirit of

and above

all

for

the

numerous maps

illustrative of period after period of

Jewish and

New Testament

History.

In addition to the History and Geography of the Holy
the Eastern Empires
fails

Land Doctor Smith has chapters and maps on
and the journeys of
St.

Paul.

The

only feature that

to

222
measure up
value of
its

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
to the purport of the
is

book

as a whole,

and

to the

other parts,

the series of half-tone pictures.

They

are unattractive in execution,

and too small

to

make an impression

on the adult
other hand,
readers
is

learner, let alone

the younger student.

On

the

commendable

insight into the

needs and lapses of
pictures,

shown by not only
illustrated
text.

labelling

the

but also

marking the places
in the

by a reference

to the proper pictures

margin of the

It is to

be regretted that geography has

been interpreted on the whole as not including the economic
aspects of
life,

and

history as having

no concern with any Jews
is

but those of Bible times.

At

this

time the Palestine of to-day

as important secularly as Palestine will always remain spiritually.
It is
fair

to note that in

spite

of the absence of every literary
spirit.

device, the

book

is

permeated by a reverential

Its

accuracy

and minuteness are testimony

to the author's love for his subject.

Happy he who
knows
it

is

privileged to travel

in

the

Holy Land.
by heart, and
rest of us

Doubly happy he who

travelling there has his Bible

in the light of

modern

research.

For the

Mr. Cooke has performed a notable service.

His admirably

planned, handy volumes, with their clear print, their marginal
headings,
their

indexes,

and

their

nine

well-executed

maps,

facilitate resort to

the Bible itself even for the amateur reader of
is

Jewish history.

The work

characterized by a fine sense of

balance and restraint.

Details are never

enumerated

at

such length

as to jjroduce perplexity even in the
traveller,

mind of the stay-at-home

who

perforce follows his guide only on the maps.

When
matter

the differences

among

scholars in the identification of places are

cited— it does not occur too often
interesting land, the

— the

controversial

introduced but serves to afford the reader a glimpse of another

boundless domain of Bible research.

In

drawing

liberally

(and judiciously) upon the accounts of travellers

and
tion

critics, particularly

upon the reports of the Palestine Explora-

Fund and

Sir

George

Adam
little

Smith's indispensable classics,
to the grace

the author has

added not a

the value of his work.

and very largely to However, the perfect book of its kind

PALESTINE FROM MANY POINTS OF VIEW
remains
still

— SZOLD

223

to be written.
in

It will

have to combine Mr. Cooke's

wide reading, his interest
his gift

Old and

New

Testament

criticism,

of simple narra:tive, his appreciation of the

beauty of

natural scenery,

knowledge and of Jewish legend, and with an understanding of the economic possibilities of the land which,
of post-Biblical Jewish history
as
it

and

his religious sense, with a pervasive

is

precious to the followers of three great religions,

is

a

desirable possession to the inhabitants of three continents.

In

the historical part one misses the poetry of Jewish love of the
land,

and

in the geographical part, the relation to reality.

For

Mr. Cooke

at his best the reader

is

referred to the chapter

on

Lake Gennesareth, the region
passages from writers on the
ability

that always evokes the

most

effective
literary

Holy Land endowed with

and

artistic perceptions.

The chapters
five little

of theComte de Kergolay's

book on out-of-the-way
tourist,

Oriental sites, apt to

be neglected by the ordinary
to

form

monographs with an equal appeal
artist,

the Orientalist,
life

the archaeologist, the

the general student of

and
all

letters,

the lover of nature and of mankind, and not least of

the lover

of good literature.
whole.

Each chapter
masters

is

a complete and well-rounded

Some

of the pages bear favourable comparison with the of the Oriental atmosphere and
If

descriptions

of such

scenery as Pierre Loti and Hichens.
picturing the tints of rock

he

falls

below them

in

and
is

sky,

and

in

conveying the witchery
peer in
filling

of the
reader's

human

East,

he

more than
silence,

their

his

ears with

the

desert

and carrying the desert
chapter on Petra of the

perfume into
Nabataeans
is

his very

chamber.

The
is

an epic of

silence in nature, as that
Sinai,

on

St.

Catherine,

the monastery

on Mount

of the silence of the quietist.
is

Not even the echoes of the world-war, one

sure,

have rever-

berated in the old corridors through which the recluse Greek

monks have been gliding for centuries. The Comte de Kergolay enjoyed an
in

exceptional opportunity

that he

was attached

in

the spring of 1906 to the annual
St.

expedition of the Dominican Fathers of

Stephen's Biblical

224

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
The
research

Institute at Jerusalem.

journey took him from

Suez through the Sinai Peninsula into the ancient Moab, and

northward to the region east of the Dead Sea, and
the

his

book runs

gamut of

thirty-five

centuries, from the old mines of the

twelfth Egyptian dynasty at
it

Magharah

to trans-Jordanic France, as

established itself in

impregnable.
is

Kerak of the Crusaders, inaccessible and One of the most interesting passages in the book
dealt with.

the paragraph in which the persistence of the Crusaders' French
is

influence in the East

The author
their

maintains that
closely

the scientific party

met numbers of men and women
peasants,

resembling French

and heard

children in
like a
is

the

schools chanting the Koran to an old French

air,

Breton
slow to

Christmas
change.

carol.

For good and

for evil
full

humanity

The

ancient mines are

of utensils, not unlike our

own, testifying to the methods and ingenuity of remote days,

and the mines are
their

still

vocal with the suffering of the niiners
children.

and

young mine-working
day

Have

only the Egyptian

social workers of that

failed to leave their record in imperish?

able bronze and stone, and eloquent books of protest

M, de Kergolay's book abounds with
of Sinai

interesting material

— the
its
;

Nabataean, (Ireek, Coptic, and Arabic inscriptions on the rocks
;

the library of the monastery of
;

Mount

Sinai with

palimpsests

the mosaics of
St. Basil
;

its

church

;

the history of Pharon

the regulations of

the position of

women among
to

the
to

Nabataeans, &c. &c.

A

word should be said

draw attention

the illustrations, and another to deplore the omission of an index.

The Story ofJerusalem^ by Colonel Watson,
the Mediaeval

is

an addition

to

Town

Series

in

harmony with the standard of

excellence

and

practical value that has attained to the status of a

tradition with the Series.
this Series

has an easy task.
is

The writer of none of the volumes The storied Middle Ages are lavish

in

of

material. It

superfluous to say that Jerusalem, so far from being

an exception, demands powers of compression and summarizing

beyond the ordinary.
by
all

The compensating advantage,

not shared
the unity

the subjects in the Series to a like degree,

is

PALESTINE FROM MANY POINTS OF VIEW

— SZOLD
it,

225
is

underlying the variety of experiences with which the writer
called

upon

to deal.

Whatever may have befallen

the

Holy

City has been the focus of the Christian's love and hate, and no
less of

Mohammedan

passion.

To

lay bare

its

inner

spirit^

the

writer
in

must indeed know the whole of

history, but for the

purpose

hand he need pursue only one
his task,

strand.

Colonel Watson has
is

performed
if

so far as Christian Jerusalem

concerned,

not with genius, at least with industry and satisfying brevity and

selective taste.

In respect to the structure of the
success.

achieves

notable

city, his book With commendable autocracy he
'

declares in favour of a particular hypothesis regarding the
cities
',

two on the two eminences, the dual habitation implied by the

dual termination of the early

name

of the

city.

He

sticks to his

choice throughout unwaveringly, without so
at

much

as a side-glance
free

any other theory, and so leaves the reader's mind
intricate argumentation.

from the
is

bewilderment of

His directness

re-

enforced by a clear outline-map of Jerusalem (happily so bound
into the

book

that

it

the

first

page to the

last).

may be kept spread The result is a

out as one reads from
literary visit to ancient,

mediaeval, and
reality itself.
is

modern Jerusalem that borrows vividness from Whether the hypothesis (p. 22) is correct or not, it
work with
it.

clarifying to

It affords
fail

the casual reader a startingin

point which he should not

to

keep

mind when he

is

lucky

enough

to view the

Holy City with

his bodily eyes.

In connexion

with this possible
the

gift

of fortune, the last chapter, a walk through

modern

city

along the supposed lines of the ancient walls,
in

should be borne
ticularly

mind by the

tourist (after the war) as par-

important and interesting.
author properly, in several introductory chapters, recounts

The

the ancient history of the city.

They

are practically the only
city

ones that contain any reference to the holiness of the
the Jewish

from

point

of view.

Twenty

lines

are assigned to the
fifty-

rebellion of Bar

Kochba, called only Bar Koziba, though

three lines are devoted to the napkin in which the

head of Jesus
There

was wrapped,

for the

purpose of proving Moawiyah's friendliness

to the Christian residents of the city
is

and

to the churches.

a

reference

to

Benjamin of Tudela, a quotation from the

VOL. IX.

226

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
is

Talmud, the passage from Josephus is cited in which mention made of Jesus, though without a word to indicate the disesteem
which
its

in

authenticity
is

is

held

;

the treatment of the Jews by the
is

Crusaders

noted

;

a tribute of admiration
is all.

paid to

Simon

Maccabee

— and that

Nowhere

is

there a sign to proclaim

that there are Jewish aspects to the history of Jerusalem

— nowhere
is

the admission, explicit or indirect, that
focus of the Christian's love
passion, devotion to
it

if

the

Holy City

the

and

hate,

and of Mohammedan

is

also of the essence of the Jewish spirit.
fact

As was implied above. Colonel Watson has as a matter of
written the story of Christian Jerusalem.

Some

degree of neglect

has been meted out even to the

Mohammedan

master.

From

the

Christian point of view he has performed his historic task as
satisfactorily as his topographic task.

He

observes due proportion

in

the presentation of his wealth of material,

and conveys the

spirit

of mediaevalism without offensive glorification of the section

he

is

most interested
to

in,

A

word of special commendation

is

owing

him

for

the

enlightening use of the pilgrims' pious

chronicles.

The

illustrations are effective

and

pleasing.

Newe

Reisebeschreibiing nac/ier Jerusalem viidt

dem H. Landte.

Beschrieben vndt im Trukh auszgangen durch
Slisanskv.
in

Anno

1662.

Mit 14 Abbildungen.
Leipzig, n. d.
to

Laurentium Volume 76
pp.
iv,

Voigtlanders Quellenbiicher.

140.

Slisansky's story of his journey

Jerusalem and the Holy
to

Land

is

an excellent specimen of the source-books used

good

advantage by Colonel Watson

in establishing the continuity

and

modifications of the Church history of Jerusalem.

Devout and

simple-minded, minute

in

the description of what he
in seeing

came

to see,

remarkably accomplished
all

nothing

else,

prejudiced against

that

is

non-("!hristian,

credulous, possessor of a simple, un-

adorned
text
is

style,

Slisansky has produced a record true to type.

The

compounded
pilgrims'

of descriptions of the holy places, legendary

matter,

customs, and

the inconvenience

attaching to

travel in the seventeenth century.

His

visit to

the

Church of the

Holy Sepulchre

is

doubtless a valuable contribution to the history

PALESTINE FROM MANY POINTS OF VIEW
of the

— SZOLD

227

church building.
is

The
to

only

spice

in

the even-flowing,

garrulous narrative

his denunciation of the Jews, for which

no

opportunity

is

allowed

go by.

According

to Slisansky the

Jewish

spirit is

wholly, without a residue,

compounded

of hate

for Christianity

and greed

in acquiring

and destroying

or prosti-

tuting the Christian holy places.

The

illustrations vie with the

text in point of quaintness and lack of balance.

The

editor has

done his work of annotating the source-book unobtrusively, but,
or therefore, effectively,

and the

printer, in

reproducing the type

of the original, has added his contribution to the old-world impression

made by

Slisansky's

narrative.

Though unconnected
It

with the main subject, the privilegium wipressoriutfi granted by

Emperor Leopold should be mentioned.
protection for three years with
it.

carried

copyright

Is

it

a reflection upon the

veracity of traveller's tales that Slisansky prints besides a duly
attested

document issued by a Church
visit to
?

dignitary,

who bears, among
to the chief of the

others, the title

Guardian of the Holy Mount Sion, proclaiming
the

the actuality of his

Holy Land and

Christian holy places

A Journalist in
New
Bible

the

Holy Land.
Chicago,

Glimpses of Egypt and Palestine.
Illustrated

By Arthur
York,

E. Copping.

by

Harold Copping.
H.

Toronto.
248.

Fleming

Revell

Company.

191

2.

pp. xiv,

Ways

in Bible Lands.

An

Lmpression of Palestine.
Illustrations

By

With 32 Photographs by Otto Holbach.
Tren'ch,

Maude M. Holbach.
Trubner &

from Original

London.
191 2.
pp.

Kegan Paul,
xii,

Co., Ltd.

219.
L.

A

Camera Crusade through

the LLoly Latid. Illustrations

By Dwight

Elmendorf.
1912.

One hundred

from Photographs

by the Author.

New

York.

Charles Scribner's Sons.

pp. xiv, 56; plates C.

Das Land

das Jedem heilig

ist.

Miscellen aus einer palastinenVerfasst

sischen Reisegesellschaft.

und herausgegebcn von
Budapest,

Josef Grunbaum, Oberrabbiner zu Balazsfalva.
191
2.

pp.

viii,

147.

Q2

228

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
The
pilgrim spirit has survived the centuries,

and not only
all

in

the Russian devotee

who

arouses the admiration of

who have

had the enviable opportunity of observing his loving sacrifices for Even the his ideal, a visit to the holy places and the Jordan.

modern
clothe

tourist,

of small or great means,
it
it

and of small or great
Mr. Copping does not
his sprightly lines.

endowment, manifests
it

in

modified ways.

in

words, but

may be read between

After he has led his readers in pleasant paths from Haifa

southward through the land, and Jerusalem with

its

battle-grounds
tells

of Christian theological opinion has been reached, he
that

them

he

is

'

nowise qualified by any right of personal scholarship or

research to take sides on debatable questions of sacred archaeo-

logy

'.

This limitation and the author's recognition thereof make
its

the readableness of his book, and in a sense

value.

We

have

Mr. Copping's genuine reaction to Palestinian scenery and the
Palestinian
is life

of to-day, or the yesterday before the war.
for

And

it

worth while having Mr. Copping's reaction,

he

is

a wholewith the

souled and wholesome

human

being, with

much humour,

modern

intelligence expected of a metropolitan journalist, with

an

adequate knowledge of history, sacred and profane, with broad,
quick sympathies, with appreciation of spiritual greatness, suffering,

and achievements

all

qualities to

make him an engaging com-

panion during three weeks of journeying through Egypt and the

Holy Land.
the Bible

Bible texts are conspicuous by their absence, but

spirit

towards humanity permeates the

traveller's tale.

It is that spirit

which prompts Mr. Copping again and again to

remark on the variety of temperament manifested by the Arab
villagers

with

whom
that

he came

in

contact

— one

hostile,
fifth

another

dignified, a

third
;

inert,

a fourth intelligent, a
his

curious and

goodhearted

prompts

warm
;

description of the Russian
that

pilgrim processions he encountered

prompts
'

his

comment
scope

on the Jews praying
that

at the
for
its

Wailing Wall, as

a scene in a drama
for
is

had humanity
his journey

theme and

eternity

its

'.

Though
as

was Cook-directed, the record
travels

as spontaneous

though no book of Palestine His fresh enthusiasm

had been written before
undisturbed

him.

for Palestinian scenery,
scientific theories,
is

by any of Mr. Huntington's

justified

by

his

PALESTINE FROM MANY POINTS OF VIEW
brother's pictorial contributions to the book.
illustrations correct his words.

— SZOLD

229

In one instance the
his

Mr. Copping maintains that
he reached Alexandria.
'

Western eyes beheld no East

until

The

Mediterranean', he says, 'had been just a sea, exhibiting appearances in

common

with the Atlantic and other vast areas of water.'

The
'

artist

brother saw differently and more truly

a view of

Smyrna from the Mediterranean
the

'.

when he sketched Taken all in all

A

Jotimalist in

Holy Land

affords

a couple of hours of

pleasant reading.

The theme
to
it,

of Mrs. Holbach's book,

if

one can be attributed

is

the opposite of Mr. Huntington's.
insist in explicit \vords that
it

From

preface to index,
is
'

her pages

the East

unchanging
is

'.

Apparently
to

does not enter her mind that her formula
in Nazareth.

likely

be discredited by her experience
latter

She and her

husband, the

the photographer
if
'

who

furnished her book

with thirty-two excellent,

not

strikingly original illustrations,

sought a carpenter's shop,
daily

such a one as that in which Jesus
early

worked throughout His boyhood and
left

manhood
'

'.

They
spirit
'

found only one such that had been
of modernity
'.

'untouched by the
impressions

Many
her

of her other recorded

are

equally evidences of an

awakened
open
that the

East.
to
facts

How

could one be
her

expected to have
reflections

eyes

who winds up
'
:

on the report

modern Jewish

colonization of

the
will

Holy Land was

unsuccessful, with the observation

Some

regard the failure of the Jewish colonies in Palestine as the
!

fulfilment of prophecy

'

The

reviewer desires to add an exclama-

tion point outside the quotation mark.

The book does more
sentimentality,

credit to the sentiment,

still

more

to the

of the

writer

than to
It

her

common

sense and
to

accuracy and imaginative powers.

seems profane to her

make

tea

on the terrace overlooking the Sea of

Galilee, or to set

out for Samaria with thermos flasks and a tea-basket hung on the

pommels

of her donkey,

and drink
It is

tea out of the flasks in sight of

the ruins of Samaria.

comforting to

know

that

common
of these

sense asserted
times.
If

itself sufficiently to
it

make

her drink the tea both

only

had

insisted

upon the expunging

'

230

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

passages and the several others in which she deplores her suc-

cumbing

to the attractions of a

cup of English

tea.

The time
futility

devoted to tea and such excursuses as that on the

of

medical science might instead have been spent profitably on
investigating the accuracy of

of the diction of her book. following up the course of

some of her statements of fact, and The authoress is chiefly interested in
history,

New Testament

and

in

doing

it

she

frequently with astonishing ease cuts the Gordian knot of
It
is

the controversies raging about the identification of places.

rather regrettable on the whole that, in view of her limitations,

she did not execute her

first

intention

to

'

write a

little

book

around her husband's

pictures.

That

is

the j^lan of Mr.

Elmendorfs book,

A

Camera Crusade
She draws

through the Holy Land.

In her preface Mrs. Holbach remarks on

the inevitableness of Bible language in Bible lands.

upon Egypt

for the illustration of her

general statement.
in a

The
is

words of Isaiah, 'the shadow of a great rock
force themselves

weary land',

upon her

there.

Mr. Elmendorfs whole book

an exemplification of Mrs. Holbach's, and of every
experience in this regard.
for
'

traveller's

He

supplies the illustrations, not alone
'

the

shadow of a

great rock

(Plate

XXXIII)
fairly

but of ninetyequal honours

nine other verses, scenes, and events, allotting
to

Old and

New

Testament

inspiration.

His admirable photois

graphs form an interesting gallery.
of text citations establishing
text citations
its

Each

supplied with a series

authority in

Holy

Writ.

These

would seem

to

make

his fifty-six pages of letter-press

superfluous.

The

latter

contain hardly

more than Bible quotations

strung together on the slenderest thread of a traveller's narrative.

Their only excuse
faith

is

the

artist's

obvious desire to

testify to

his

and

to

its

strengthening through his
faith

Holy Land experiences.
its

Everywhere

his

shines through,
A\'ell,

reaching

culminating

expression at Jacob's

hallowed

for the Christian believer

by

the meeting of Jesus with the

woman

of Samaria.
'

'

That curb-

stone over Jacob's well
for there the

says Mr.Elmendorf, was my "Ebenezer"; Lord helped me. There, at that stone, came to me
',

the

"Peace of God which passeth

all

understanding".'

More

PALESTINE FROM MANY POINTS OF VIEW
helpful than the letter-press
is

— SZOLD

231

the

map

at the

beginning of the
clearer

book, showing his itinerary by a line
'

much

than his

slender thread of narrative

'.

In Rabbiner Griinbaum's book we have a journal of Holy Land
travels

comparable with Slisansky's chronicle.
lie

But worlds, not
in

only centuries,

between the two.

Both are pilgrims

the

real sense of the word.

Neither has eyes or mind for anything

but the

'

holy places
see.

',

genuine and spurious.

Both see what they

have come to
all

The

blinkers of preconceived notions shut out

the

rest.

Both are

truly pious

and observant. So
;

far Slisansky

might have been of the twentieth century
seventeenth.

Griinbaum of the Griinbaum
Slisansky's

But there ceases the resemblance between the devout

Moravian Catholic and the devout Hungarian rabbi.
cannot attain
narrative.

to

the

naivete

and spontaneity of
Bible,

He

is full

of polemics, reflections, criticisms, longings,

digressions,

and quotations from
all sorts

Talmud, and Prayer Book,
literature varying

from encyclopedias and

of

modern

from

Rostand

to Roosevelt.

He

is

a sophisticated Jewish citizen of the

modern

world, albeit a Hungarian patriot.

Occasionally doubts
refuses to view

as to his modernity assail the reader, as

when he

an aviation meet

in

Budapest, because, though he cannot withhold

respect from the aviators, being a
'

'man of the Bible

',

he believes that

the heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth hath

He

given to the children of
last

men

'.

Fortunately this occurs in the
test

paragraph of his book.

Other

passages are

far less

obscurantist.

He

warns the Jewish pilgrim

who

accepts the need

of the Jewish colonization of Palestine, that he must entertain hospitably the idea of finding not only angels,
psalmists in the

prophets,

and

Holy Land.
with

It is

subject to the

many

defects

observable in other communities.

Griinbaum

travelled

a party of sixty-eight

— Russians,

Englishmen, Austro-Hungarians, and Germans.
his
all

companions are recorded

in a list

attached to

The names of his book. They

were bent on the same errand as he, and they were equipped

with everything needed to

make

the observance of the Sabbath
sea.

and of the

ritual

law possible on land and

Nevertheless

232

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
century complains no less

Griinbaum of the twentieth

than

Slisansky of the seventeenth of the inconveniences of a journey
to the

Holy Land.
visit

Ostensibly the purpose of the caravan was

not only to
life

graves and indulge in memories, but to view the
it

of the Jews as

is

to-day in Palestine.

His book proves

to the observant reader that the latter object cannot

be attained
receptions

by travelling with a large company that courts
with blare of
that he
is

official

drum and

trumpet.

It

turns out^ in point of fact,

interested only in the most superficial

way

in the

new
hope

colonization, except to urge tolerance
that a

and

patience, in the

more

religious spirit
is

may be

infused into the

new Yishub.

Griinbaum indeed

a defender of the Halukah system.

He

advocates the building of houses for recluses and their families,
especially for such as

come

froni
is

Siebenbiirgen (Transylvania).

In externals the book, which
from
style

a translation by the author himself has

little to recommend it. The German characteristic of certain circles of Jews in Hungary. The proof-reading must have been done by a blind man. The transliteration of Hebrew words and phrases is systemless, and errors disfigure page after page. One

his
is

Hungarian

original,

the involved, archaic

illustration

must

suffice

'
:

On

the right [of the bridge] one sees

the

little

colony built by Moses Montefiore and the institution of
la

the Jewish hero de

Tura (!) of

New

Orleans

'.

In the course of

these reviews reference has been

made

at several points to the

scant treatment accorded to the Jewish element in the history
life

and

of Palestine.
in

It

must be admitted

regretfully that the sole
less

and only Jew
laid himself

our assemblage of writers on Palestine has no
to the charge of inadequacy.

open
is

In his book the
is

subject-matter
fibre of his

wholly Jewish, and he himself

a

Jew

in every

being.

But the meaning of Palestine
it

for the Jew,

to-day and always, can be conveyed,

seems, only by one

who

is

Jew, religionist, and poet besides.

Henrietta Szold.

New

York.

HUSIK'S 'HISTORY OF

MEDIAEVAL JEWISH

PHILOSOPHY'
A
History of Mediaeval Jeivish Philosophy,
:

By Isaac Husik,
1

New York The MacMillan Company, 1916. pp. + 462,
The
subject

8vo.

need of a handbook of mediaeval Jewish philosophy has
felt

been keenly

among
also

students devoted to the study of this

and was

generally recognized

by

their

teachers.
field,

Somehow

or other the Jewish scholars working in this

who

are, indeed,

very few in number, harbored an exaggerated opinion

as to the real difficulties involved in the preparation of such a

work, expecting, as

it

appears, to have the ground

more

fully

prepared by detailed investigations before a general and complete
history was to be undertaken.

Dr. Husik, while not unaware of

the difficulty of the task, nevertheless set himself to the work,

and

with a happy sense of proportion and a

full

understanding of

what

is

essential or unessential in the general

economy of such Jew
or

a book, succeeded in presenting to the intelligent reader,
Gentile, a very valuable

summary
whom,

of mediaeval Jewish philosophy.

The

general reader for
far,

in the main, this

book

is

intended,

and who so
subject,

owing to the absence of English books on the
or

had

little

no knowledge of
appreciate

this

aspect of Jewish
this

literary activity,

will,

by a careful perusal of
the

work, be put
of Jewish

in

a

position

to

fully

contribution

thinkers to the wide field
professional student, too,

of mediaeval
in'

philosophy.

But the

who
his

order to get acquainted with

the main philosophic problems and ideas of the middle ages,
heretofore
literature,

had

to

plod

way through

a mass

of
his

foreign

which often served only to deter him from
find in Dr. Husik's
will

proposed

work,

will

volume a systematic guide and

teacher that

enable him at the very beginning of his career

233

234

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
comparative ease the whole
field,

to survey with

growth, and

development of mediaeval Jewish philosophy.
In order to produce a

handbook of
it

the history of Jewish

philosophy, like the one before us,
that the author

is

of supreme importance

keep

strictly

within the sphere of thoughts of the
is

individual thinkers,

whose ideas he

to

present.

He

must
all

permit these thinkers, after having freed their doctrines from
incidental matter, to speak for themselves.

Unnecessary

inter-

ruptions of the

original writer's

arguments and discussions by

the insertion of the author's subjective opinion and disputable
theories are

bound

to

produce

in the

mind of the reader confusion

rather than

enlightenment.

Dr.

Husik shows throughout the

pages of his work that he was fully conscious of this truth.
anxiously avoids
all

He

unnecessary display of learning and needless

digressions into neighbouring fields, which
to philosophy.

do not

strictly

belong
of the

Instead,

he follows closely the works

mediaeval authors, epitomizing, their contents with
and, barring
sionally,
it is

literary skill

some minor
true,

points, with scientific accuracy.

Occa-

he allows himself

to interrupt the presentation

of the original author's views by inserting
as to the scientific value

some

of his observations
its

of a given doctrine or

logical or

historical relation to similar doctrines held

by other philosophers,

and the

like.

But

in all

such cases

I

found Dr. Husik's remarks,
length,
to

aside from their being of very moderate
instructive

be highly

and a valuable help toward a better understanding of
of sketching the works of the mediaeval writers,

the question at issue.'

The method
tions.

as here described, naturally brought about a

number
Active

of repeti-

For

it

is

well

known

that certain doctrines (e.g. that of

the

celestial

spheres and

their

motion,

the

Intellect,

Prophecy, Divine Attributes, Free Will, &c.) had
stock in trade of
'

become the

all

mediaeval philosophers, Jews, Christians,
to

It

would require too much space
I

give

here instances of such
pp. 46-7, 68, 90
f.,

insertions.

therefore refer the interested reader to
f.,

119, 138

f.,

146

226, 266, 274-8, 300. 366, 395
notice.

f.

There may be a few

others,

which escaped my

HUSIK

S

MEDIAEVAL JEWISH PHILOSOPHY
alike.

— MALTER

235

and Mohammedans
it

In skimming the contents of a book

was not always possible to dismiss the parts bearing upon

these doctrines by a mere reference to a previous chapter, where

the matter had been dealt with in connexion with the teachings

of another philosopher.
a given doctrine in

For

in spite of the intrinsic identity of

the works of two different authors, such

doctrine often receives a

new

signification or occupies a different

place within the individual systems

of the respective authors,
separately.

hence
tried,

it

must be discussed each time

Dr.

Husik

however, to reduce these repetitions to a minimum, at

times

merely touching upon the ideas in general terms and

referring for details to previous discussions (see e.g. pp. 86, 147,

162, top, 206, 224,

and J>assim).

The work

is

divided into eighteen chapters, each dealing with

one of the leading mediaeval Jewish philosophers, beginning
with Isaac Israeli in the ninth century and ending with Joseph

Albo of the

fifteenth century.

A

few of the
b.

Hebrew

philosophic
his son,

writers later than

Albo

(e. g.

Joseph

Shem Tob and

Shem Tob,
in

Isaac Abrabanel, and others) are treated summarily

a

brief

'Conclusion' (pp. 428-32).

Each chapter begins

with a biographical sketch and a general characterization of the

author in question, which
reader

will

prove of special value to the
life

who

is

not acquainted with the

of the mediaeval
intro-

Jewish worthies.
duction
(xiii-1),

The whole
in

is

preceded by a learned
author traces
briefly

which

the

the

early

beginnings of rationalistic thought
a general way of the
principal

among

the Jews, speaks in
of

motives

Mediaeval Jewish

philosophy and

its

Greco-Arabic sources,

classifies the individual

philosophers according to their adherence either to the Kalam,

Neo-Platonism,

or

Aristotelianism,

and,

finally,

sketches

prestyle

liminarily the essential contents of their philosophy.

The

and manner of presentation leave nothing

to

be desired.

The

author absolutely masters the philosophic language required for
a clear and intelligible presentation of the abstruse problems of

mediaeval philosophy, so that the intelligent reader of the book
will find

no

difficulty in trying to

understand them.

236

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Owing
to its general character the

book may appeal

also to

non-Jewish students of philosophy and hence

good fortune
edition.
I

to

appear at some future

therefore
I

deem

it

advisable to

may enjoy the time in a new revised add here some observa-

tions
will

which

made

while going through the volume and which

perhaps prove worth considering by the author for such an
Before taking up, however, the discussion of the details,

edition.
I

wish to set aright a statement

He

there points out that while

made by the author in his Preface. German and French scholars,
'

particularly the

former,

have done distinguished work in exthere
is

pounding individual thinkers and problems,
complete history of the subject

as yet

no
'.

for the student or general reader

Completeness

is

a relative term.

Taken

absolutely, Dr. Husik's
it

book

is

also incomplete, for he does not treat in

of

all

the
is

problems dealt with by those philosophers to
devoted, nor does he include therein
the Middle Ages.
all

whom

his

book

the Jewish thinkers of

In fact the number of philosophers selected

by him

for special treatment could easily

be doubled, though the

philosophy of those

whom

he omitted might not appear to every

reader as being of any particular importance for the history of

philosophy.
ception.

Moreover, philosophy,
like

too,

is

a very elastic conb.

Men
b.

Nahmanides, Solomon
(all

Adret,

Menahem
many

Meiri,
others,

Bahya

Asher

of the thirteenth century), and
in

who, of course, are not included

Dr. Husik's book,

were no professional philosophers; they were neither Kalamists nor
Neo-Platonists, nor Aristotelians, but they were highly educated

theologians

with

a

rounded

Weltatischauung,

who took

into

account also the best philosophic thought of their predecessors

and contemporaries.
Talmudic
that of
literary
lines,

Their influence on Judaism, not alone in
at

was enormous,

any rate much greater than

many

of the real philosophers,

and a description of

their

achievements outside of the

field

of the Halakah would,
in

therefore,

have a perfectly legitimate place

a complete history

of Jewish philosophy.
his

Now
fit,

an author may delimit the scope of
criticize

work as he sees

and one should therefore not

Dr. Husik, as did

some

of his reviewers, for not having included

HUSIK's mediaeval JEWISH PHILOSOPHY
in his

— MALTER

.

237

work

all

the Jewish theological and Kabbalistical writers

of the Middle Ages. of the

He

has confined himself to the treatment

most prominent of those Jewish thinkers who stood

exclusively under the influence of Greco-Arabic philosophy,

and
view

he has done
as
correct,

this part well.

But

if

we accept
in

this point of

we cannot
works

follow

him

treating

as

a negligible
philosophy,

quantity

several

on the

history of Jewish

published prior to his

own

in various

European languages.

Thus

M.

Eisler's

Vorksungen

iiber die jiidischen
1

Philosophen des Mittel-

aliers,

three parts, Vienna,

870-1 883 (mentioned by Dr. Husik

in the

Bibliography only), while written in the form of lectures
is

and omitting some of the philosophers treated by Husik,

in

some

parts

more comprehensive than the work of the
pages.

latter,

Maimonides alone occupying fully 140
scientifically insignificant,

Nor can

J. Spiegler's

Geschichte der Philosophie des Judenthums, Leipzig, 1890, though

be entirely disregarded. Solomon Munk's
les Jidfs,

masterful Esquisse historique de la philosophie chez

em-

bodied

in his

Melanges, Sec, pp. 461-511, 522-528, exists also in

book form
tions

in a

German

translation with additions

and amplifica-

by B. Beer, and

in English

by

I.

Kalisch (referred to in the
brief

Bibliography),
it still

and though on the whole too

and compendious,

contains the basic elements of a history of Jewish philosophy.
is

Of

similar import

P. Bloch's Geschichte der Enhvickeliitig der

Kabbala
print oi

u7id der jiidischen Religionsphilosophie, Berlin,

Die jiidische

Religionsphilosophie in Winter

1894 (reand Wiinsche's
is

Die

jiidische Litteratur, II,

699-794).
J.

Overlooked

also the

learned work of the Dutch scholar, P.

MuUer,

De

Godsleer der

middeleeuwsche Joden, Groningen, 1898, which contains a very clear

and readable presentation
to

of the Jewish philosophy from Saadia

Maimonides,

inclusive, with

an elaborate introduction (pp. 4-58)
Finally, there
is

and copious notes
the

(pp. 161-87).

to

be mentioned

more recent work, Historia
in the

de la Filosofia espahola,

by

Prof.

Adolfo Bonilla y San Martin.
the author
first

According

to the outline given
is

by
to
is

volume (Madrid, 1908) the work

appear in eight volumes, of which the second (Madrid, 191 1)

devoted entirely (456 pages) to the history of Jewish philosophy

in

238

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
volume
is

Spain, while a considerable part of the third

to deal with

the history of Jewish mysticism in that country {Zohar, &c.).
nearly
all

As

Jewish philosophers lived in Spain,^ the work represents
Dr. Husik's book
that,

a fairly complete history of Jewish philosophy.
is

thus not the

first

in the field,
it is

though
first

it

must be admitted
its

aside from the fact that

the

of

kind in the English
it is

language,

it

will also serve

the purpose for which
its

intended to

a

much
It

higher degree than any of

predecessors.

would be overstepping the
all

limits of a review to point out

for correction

the

little

details

one notices

in a

book of over
to

500 pages.
important
:

Here may follow some which seemed

me more

The

'oral law'

(i.e.

Mishnah and Talmud) was not counted
to

by Saadia (introduction
of knowledge of truth
'

Emunot we-Debt) among
p. xli, top).

'

the sources

(Husik,

Saadia counts there

three general sources^ consisting of the senses

and reason,

to

which he adds the Bible as a
in particular.

special, fourth, source for Israelites

— Saadia

did not refute 'thirteen erroneous views
'

concerning the origin and nature of the world
of these views, that of a creatio ex
ttihilo. is

{ibidem),

for

one

his

own.

— Saadia was
i),

not called to the Gaonate of Sura from Egypt

(p.

for

he

had emigrated from Egypt
thirteen years prior to his

to the Orient (Palestine

and Babylonia)
fact has

appointment as Gaon. This

been

known
came

for the last twenty years, ever since the Genizah literature

to light,

which the author should have consulted.

The

per-

sistent translation of

nryw
It is

by

'traditional' laws (pp. 39, 167, 203,

passim)

is

misleading.

a technical term for those Biblical laws

which are not dictated by the human reason, but were ordained on

Mount Sinai (as the sanctification of the Sabbath, dietary laws, &c.). The word should be translated by revealed in contradistinction
'

',

to 'rational

'

laws.

Saadia borrowed the term from the Arabs and

was the first to introduce it into Jewish literature. On what ground does the author attribute to Saadia the statement that the Pan»

The few philosophers who

lived in other countries, as Israeli, Saadia,

and others, are not entirely neglected by the author.
Spain as a youth, occupies pp. 275-415.

Maimonides,

who

left

HUSIK

S

MEDIAEVAL JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

— MALTER
?

239
In the

theists believed in the pre-existence of the soul (p. 44)

text referred to there

is

no mention of Pantheists.
(pp. 86, 89, 92)

—Too

much
origi-

emphasis

is

laid

by the author

on Bahya's
to

nality in his

distinction between Unity as applied

God and

that

predicated of other existences.
(p.

All the details in Bahya's arguments

92) are actually found in a

more concise form

at the

beginning

of the tenth chapter of Saadia's Emunot.
for the priority of unity over plurality is

That Bahya's argument
based on the idealism of

Plato

(p.

90), according to which unity and plurality are in the

same

relation

to

one another as the universal idea and the

individual object, seems to be the author's

own

interpretation
parallels.

and
His

should have been substantiated by some textual

further remarks in this connexion are quite interesting

and give a
one misses

new aspect

to Bahya's exposition.

— In the presentation of Bahya's
God (p.
94
f.)

theory of the three essential attributes of
a reference to Saadia,

Emunot

(ed. Josefow, II, 5),
II,

who

is

the

source of Bahya
verse (Neh.

;

comp. Emunot,
quoted

end, where even the

same
by
of

9. 5) is

in support of the theory here given

the author as that of Bahya.

—The doctrine given
it

in

the

name

Ibn Saddik (147-9) that the commandments the act of our creation, are for our own good,
happiness in the world to come, as

of the Torah, like
that

we may enjoy
taken over in

would otherwise not be
is

proper to reward us without any merit on our part,
all details

from Saadia's Emunot, chaps. III-V, which should have

been noted. The same applies to Ibn Saddik's description of the
Messianic world
(p.

149)

;

see

Emunot, VII-IX.

It

had escaped
it

even the notice of

Munk

{Guide des Egare's,

III, 128, n. 4) that

was Saadia, who was referred to by Maimonides {Morek,
as 'one of the later Geonim',

III, 17)

who adopted the

strange Mu'tazilitic

view, according to which even animals are to

be rewarded

in the

hereafter for undeserved sufferings (as slaughter, &c.) which they

had

to

undergo

in this world.

Saadia actually gives clear expres-

sion to this view {Emunot, III, 10, No. 4)

and Munk's mistake was

pointed out by Steinschneider {Polemische
ratur, pp. 337, 356, top).

und

apologetische Lite-

Dr. Husik, overlooking Saadia, takes
for the doctrine in

Ibn Saddik as the authority

question (p. 149).

240

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
(p.

In treating of Maimonides

292) and later on of the Karaite

Aaron
with

b. Elijah
its

(p.

noticing

origin.

377) he again reverts to the matter without The Saadianic origin was to be noted also
Saddik's

regard

to

Ibn

contention

(p.

149)

that

little

children,

who
to

are without sin, will likewise be recompensed in

the world

come
2
;

for
2,

their sufferings

in

this

world

;

comp.
;

Emunbt, VIII,
for in

IX,

end.

Such omissions are regrettable

a history of philosophy, as in the historical presentation
it

of any subject,

is

of special importance not only to reproduce

with accuracy the

seemingly detached theories of

its

various

exponents, but to try to uncover the inner relations of the latter
to

one another.

Dr. Husik does that quite often, especially in

discussing the larger problems, but not often enough.

That Judah Halevi was ready
if

to

admit the eternity of matter,
(p.

reason should

demand

it,

is

not so certain as the author

150)

believes.

He

is

unaware of the divergent interpretations given
in

by recent scholars to the passage
which he bases
p. 138,

the

Kuzari

(I, 67),

upon
and

his statement;
idevi,

see

Kaufmann,

Attributenlehre,

n.

56;
id.,

MGIVG., XXXIII

(1884), 208-14);

Hirschfeld,
his
I,

p.

374.

— That
On

Terah was 'important' because of
the contrary he admits that Terah,

son

Abraham

(p. 163), is

not the idea Judah Halevi {Kuzari,

95) wishes to convey.

as others in the generations

between Noah and Abraham, was

devoid of the divine

spirit,

hence unimportant.
spirit

But Abraham

was not the continuator of the
that of Eber, in

of Terah, his father, but of
(s.

he studied.

whose

college, tradition says

Megillah, 17

a),

*

By

a fortunate discovery of S. Landauer

we

are

enabled to follow Judah Halevi's source with the certainty of
eye-witnesses
'

(p.

175).

The

discoverer was not Landauer, but

.Steinschneider,

whose remarks regarding Halevi's source had

escaped Landauer's notice (see Steinschneider, Hebrdische Ueberseizufigen, p. 18, n. 21
10,
n. 2).
;

cp.

Kaufmann, Gesammeiie
of
D''i'DD

Schriften, II,

— The
is

translation

(Arabic

'^44) by 'fools'

(pp.

243-4)

in all instances incorrect.
fools,

Maimonides does not

speak there of

but of people

who

are ignorant in the field of

l)hilosophy or metaphysics, though they

may be

learned in other

HUSIK'S mediaeval JEWISH
fields.

PHILOSOPHY— MALTER
five

241

It

should have been noted that the

causes enumerated

by Maimonides as preventing people from the study of metaphysics
(pp.

244 f.) are taken with very

slight modifications

from the end

of Saadia's introduction to the Emuiwt.
'

— That

Maimonides had
'

no idea of the Alexandrian School and of the works of Philo
268)
is is

(p.

too venturesome an assertion.

While

it

is

true that

Philo

not mentioned in mediaeval Jewish literature by name,

his influence

upon

that literature

is

not subject to doubt (see
Poznanski,

Steinschneider.

JQR., XV,
;

394, especially

RE/.,

L

(1905), 10, 26-31

cp. also Siegfried, Philo

von Alexandria,
in

Jena,

1875,

pp.

299-302).

The

earlier Karaites

particular

show acquaintance with
Alexandrian
p. 395)'

Philo,

who

is

also
(cp.

meant

by
N.

'

the
I,

referred

to

by Kirkisani

JQR-,

S.,

— The

reason advanced by Maimonides for the Biblical

prohibition

against

mixing divers seeds,
flax,
is,

or wearing garments

made
to

of a mixture of wool and
idolaters

that such mixing was the

custom of the

and

their priests.
all

Moses,

in his desire

wean the
its

Israelites

away from

idolatrous customs, therefore

thought

prohibition necessary,

though the custom
Husik,
not
(p.

in

itself

may be considered
not say

harmless.

Dr.

satisfied

with
'

Maimonides' reason, suggests
',

another

one

302).

Why
mix

he

asks,

'

the ancient

Hebrews were forbidden

to

divers seeds because they
to

had been from time immemorial taught

believe that there was something sinful in joining together

what

God

has kept asunder
too rudely the

;

and

in order not to

shock

their

sensibilities

new

religion let

them have these
vengeance, and

harmless notions in order by means of these to inculcate real
truth ?
I
'

This

is,

indeed, rationalizing with a
will

doubt that the reader

find that Dr.

Husik has here imGod's creation

proved upon Maimonides.

— Gersonides' view that
is

was timeless, that the
literally,

six

days of the Bible are not to be taken

but as indicating the natural order and rank of the
not original with him.
It

things in existence (p. 357),

was

taught centuries before him by Saadia in his
the

Commentary on
le

Book

Yesirah

;

see

M. Lambert, Commentaire sur

Sefer

VOL. IX.

R

242

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Arabic
text,

Yesira, Paris, 1891,

pp. 11-12, 87, French, pp. 27,

109.—' Ha-Maor'
title

is

not a proper

name

(p.

363) but an honorary

of the

Karaite in question, derived from the

name

of his

main work.

He

is

known by

author wrongly puts in

name of Kirkisani, which the parentheses.— The various views held by
the

the Karaite Aaron b. Elijah with regard to reward and punishment his reasons for in this world or in the world to come, as well as

the sufferings of Job (pp. 376-8) did not originate with Aaron They are all to be himself, nor with the Karaites preceding him.

and more especially in the commentary on Job (ed. Bacher, (Euvres completes, vol. V, Paris, 1899).— What is the source for the the Rabbis of the Middle Ages were author's assertion that
found in Saadia's Emtinot, V, 2-3,
introduction to his
'

inclined to recognize

'

Christianity's claim that Jesus

performed

miracles

(p.

415)?

For statements of such importance the
;

sources should always be given

cp.

Saadia,

Emnnot,

III,

8,

who

disputes

the

claim

to

miracles

by the founders of the

non-Jewish religions.

Simon Duran deserved
him by the author
so as
the
in a

a better place than that allotted to
(p.

note of a few lines
states

447), the
to

more
whose

author

there

that

Joseph Albo,

philosophy
'

he devotes a special chapter of twenty-two pages,
his

owes the central point of

contribution to
'the

Duran

',

whom

he (Albo) never quotes, and that
brought against him
against one's
is

charge of plagiarism
'.

not far from justified
?

Why

then act

own

better insight

The Notes of Dr. Husik, I regret to say, are not quite satisThe book before us, though it takes into account the factory.
needs of the general reader,
of philosophy,
jjoint
is

destined to be used by students

who

are interested in the subject from a scientific

of view.

In the

Hebrew

works, epitomized by the author,

a large

number

of questions are dealt with, the discussion of
for

which Dr. Husik,

one reason or another, could not or would

not include in his presentation.

Many

of these questions

may
their

be

neither

Platonic nor

Aristotelian,

and the

like,

but

HUSIK'S MEDIAEVAL JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

— MALTER
For

243

solutions were part of the philosophic systems of the mediaeval

authors,

and the ideas therein involved often had a decisive

influence

upon

their entire circle of thoughts.

brevity's sake

I shall illustrate

these remarks by only one point.

Saadia, in the

introduction to the third
stress

chapter

of the Emu?idt, lays special
in the

on the publicity attaching to the miracles related
tradition.
writers,

Torah and on the uninterruptedness of Jewish
idea was seized
it

This
using

upon by most of the mediaeval
Judah Halevi
80
actually

as a

weapon

in their controversies with Christian

and Mohamhis
it

medan

opponents.

builds

entire

philosophy on this idea, and

Abraham
f. ;

ibn

Daud

gives

much

prominence

(no~l nJICX, pp.

cp.

Guttmann, Die Religionsnor

philosophie des Saadia, p. 147,
Dr.

n. 3).

In the chapter on Saadia,
at
all,

Husik does not mention the matter
on Halevi

is

the idea

of the continuity of Jewish tradition properly brought cut even
in

the

chapter

(see

pp. 158,

162:

'the. chain of

individuals from

Adam
'.

to

Moses and

thereafter

was a remarkable
;

one of godly

men

It is

not a question of being remarkable

Halevi wishes only to emphasize uninterrupted continuity).

Only

when he reaches Abraham Ibn Daud
gist of the latter's

the author reproduces the
tradi-

argument from the continuity of Jewish
its

tion (p. 227, bottom) without, however, bringing out

historical in the

importance and

its

relation to Saadia

and Halevi.

It

was

Notes appended
of

to the

book

that the author could have disposed

much

valuable material.

In most instances a mere allusion

to the existence of such material,

and a reference
of

to

where the

student should look for further information, would have been
sufficient.

The summary mentioning
make up

some

recent

book on

Saadia or Maimonides, &c., at the beginning of the respective
chapter cannot
for this deficiency,

nor can. the selected

Bibliography, or the brief references to the pages of the
texts

Hebrew
will

upon which the author's expositions are based serve such
Assuming, as
I

purpose.

do, that

Dr. Husik's

book
as,

be

widely used by students of colleges and universities,
it

indeed,

should be,

I

cannot share the optimism he expresses in the

R

2

244
Preface
less
'

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
(p. viii) that
it

will

do the professional student good
student, the

'to get

than he wants.

The

man

of research,

is

always

glad to receive even

more than he has expected, and Dr. Husik,

1

with his perfect mastery of the subject, with his splendid ability
of presentation, was fully equipped to give
it.

Henry Malter.
Dropsie College.

GRAECO-ROMAN JUDAICA
Jiidisch-Christlicher

Schulbetrieb

in

Alexandria
Philo und

utid

Rom.

Literarische

Untersuchungen
Justin

zu

Clemens von
Bousset.
Testaments.,

Alexandria,

und
u.

Irenaus.
Lit.

Von W,
A.
u.

[Forschungen

zur Rel.

des

N.

Neue
319-

Folge, Heft

Gottingen,

6, her. von H. Gunkel u. W, Bousset.] Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 191 5. pp. viii,

The main

title

of the book

is

ambiguous.

'

Schule

'

in this

case denotes 'Academy', and an approximate translation would

perhaps be, 'Scholastic Tradition
of Alexandria
'.

Rome,
book

it

among the Jews and may be noted, is referred

Christians
to only in

the last few pages.
Essentially the
is

one of the many Quellenstudien which

have loomed so largely
decades.

in the

German

scholarship of the last

Professor Bousset undertakes to

show

in extant
is

works
taken

of Philo and Clement that a large part of the material

almost bodily from other sources and
of the independent

is

therefore not the product

thinking of these men.
it

But,

whereas

in

other investigations of this sort
material so
'

is

attempted to show that the

conveyed

'

is

incorporated into the body of the work,
it, it is

because the author desired to appropriate
the borrowed

argued here that
that

matter

is

not

so

incorporated,
it

Philo

and

Clement, in a sense, did not appropriate
contrary would have vigorously opposed
controversial
it,

at all,

but on the
it

if

they had met

in

form.

Why,
it

then,

was

it

introduced?

Simply,

declares Bousset, because

represented the scholastic tradition

of the actual schools in which Philo and Clement received their
training

and because they had
Philo

for that tradition

an unbounded

reverence.

As

far as

is

concerned, Bousset

is

concededly developmg

245

R

3

246

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Brehier's excellent treatise, Les Ide'es

suggestions contained in

philosophigues et religieuses de Philon d^ Alexandrie (Paris, 1908).

He

analyses closely Leg. Alleg. I-III,

De

Ebi-ieiate

and De

Congressu Eruditionis Gratia (pp. 43-101).

It is in

these that he

regards his contention as demonstrated with particular clearness
(P'

153)-

He

finds

especially in

the

allegorical

commentary,

doctrines that are principally derived from the later Stoa, that
deal with biblical matters in a purely intellectual manner, and are

based on a philosophic sensualism.

All this

is

quite at variance
is

with Philo's general moral and homiletic purpose and

manifestly

opposed

to

his

fundamental dogma of the impotence of the

unaided human reason.
Bousset's

method

is

the familiar one of noting contrasts of

terminology between different parts of the book, of emphasizing
the absence of qualifying statements, and of setting forth apparent
contradictions or contradictory implications.

What was
by Philo?
Epicurean
It

the nature of the scholastic tradition so freely used

While of Hellenic origin

— Stoic,

Neo-pythagorean,

it

was derived immediately from Jewish sources.

represented the teaching of the Alexandrian Jewish academies

where Philo was tramed and was characterized by a moral and
religious indifferentism.

Philo

may have had

the material before

him

in

the form of actual note-books or in the lecture-sheets

prepared by successive teachers for class-room use but not for
publication.

Bousset obtains these suggestions from
de?-

W.

Jager,

Studien zur Entwicke/ungsgeschichte
(191
2),

Metaphysik des Aristoteles
Genesis-

and Gronau, roseidonius und die jUdisch-clu-istliche

exegese (19 14).

For readers of

\.\\t

JQR.

the existence of such a school cannot

but be of the highest

interest.

Philo unquestionably

is

fond of
or

quoting authorities anonymously,

01 <^vo-t/<oi, 01 <^vo-ioAoyoSfT€s,
leg.

more generally

ol

/xcV,

01

St

{De

spec.

5,

208).

These

anonymous

authorities

seem

clearly

enough,

as

Bousset and

Brehier contend, to derive from the later Stoa, but the essential
point of Bousset's argument
is

that they

come

to Philo through

Jewish mediation, to

wit, that

of an actual academic tradition.

GRAECO-ROMAN JUDAICA

— RADIN
In

247

That certain Greek philosophic concepts were commonly used
in Jewish schools in Alexandria admits of little doubt.
div. haer. 280, in the
Tot's

d. rer.

phrase of Gen. 15. 15
is

<jv Sc u7reA.£t'cr>; tt/uos

Trarepas,

the Statement

made by

Philo that some

(Ivtot)

take the 'fathers' to be the sun and moon,
apxiTviToi iSeai,

some understand the
Philo states these

some the

four primal elements.

three

views without
in

indicating

a preference,
in the

—a

practice

rare

enough
ingly,

Greek

writers but
in

common

Mishnah.

Accordthe

we have

here,

a discussion of biblical

exegesis,

application of Greek philosophic concepts,

so that this

single

passage would of
thesis.

itself

give probability to

Bousset's

principal

Just
case,
i.

how
e.

far

he has established his contention in any given
fully

just

how

he has demonstrated the Greek source
as un-

and the Jewish mediation of the passages he brackets
Philonic, will

be variously decided.

The arguments

in the

main

are cumulative, so that an attack on any one point will not be

a conclusive answer.

If

Bousset were better acquainted with

Rabbinic

literature,

he would find the procedure of Philo in
to his

citing matter

opposed

own

views, without refuting

it,

not

quite so strange.

Legitimate question
is

may be

raised

on another

point,

and

that

how Bousset

reconciles the argument of the entire
(p. i) that
'

work with

the statement of the preface

the philosophic literature

— properly

so-called

— of the Jews
'.

arose in the time of Philo and

primarily through his labours

The second
sub-title.

part of the

book

(pp.

155-319)

is

devoted to
in

Clement and the two other Church Fathers mentioned

the

Just as Bousset followed the suggestions of Brehier
in
his

in

dealing with Philo,

treatment of Clement he bases

his

work on the researches of Collomp, Uue Source de C/ement
et des Hofne'lies

d^Alexandrie

Pseudo-Clementines {Rev. de Phil, et

Lift, et d'Hist.

Anc,

vol.

37 (1913), pp. 19-46).
in

Collomp, and
Theodoto, the

Bousset in

this

book,

find

the Excerpta ex

Eclogues and Strom. VI-V^II, a complete dependence on, almost
a verbal citation
of,

Clement's teacher, Pantainos, the head of the

248

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
(cf.

school where the Alexandrian catechumens were trained
Hist. Eccl. V, 10,
i).

Eus.

Pantainos, however, and his school leaned

toward Gnosticism
as

in its

more mystical and
In
the

oriental forms,

which
the

a

rule,

Clement opposed.

case

of Clement,

admission of such great blocks of matter, quite opposed to his own
teaching,
is

explained by the reverential attitude Clement had
school,
for

toward
{Strom.

this
I,

which we have

his

own testimony

II, i).

The
of the
It
is

chapters on Justin and Irenaeus are merely applications
doctrine.

same

a highly stimulating and valuable work that the wellscholar

known Gottingen

here

presents,

and one

that

repays

careful examination, whether his conclusions are accepted or not.

Studien

ziir

Byzanthiisch-Jiidischoi

Geschichte.

\on
der

Prof. Dr.

Samuel Krauss.
1914.)

(XXI. Jahresbericht
in

Israelitisch-

Theologischen Lehranstalt
Wien, 1914.
Krauss's

Wien

fiir

das Schuljahr 191 3-

pp. 160.

Professor

study

is

divided

into

five

sections.
in

Section

I

deals

with the external history of the

Jews

the

Eastern

Roman Empire

from 476

c. e.

till

about the middle of
treats

the thirteenth century (pp.
social position (pp. 55-77).

1-55).

Section II

of their

Section III with their organization
.

and

distribution

(pp.

77-99

Sections

IV and
in

V

contain a

miscellaneous group of topics

:

Byzantium

Jewish Literature,

Byzantine cultural elements and
writings

Byzantine

Greek

in

Jewish
Lists of

and
in

liturgy,

Jewish

scholars in the Empire,

Emperors

Jewish writings, Jewish references to Byzantine wars,

and

finally

a discussion of Schechter's
ff.).

article

on the Chazars

UQR.,
The
a
field

N.S., III, 204
history of the
that

Jews

in

the Eastern

Roman Empire
If
it

is
is

has
that

been most undeservedly neglected.
for

remembered

mediaeval Europe that

Empire was,

in

a very real sense, the centre of civilization, the importance of the

Jewish communities there can scarcely be overrated.

Professor

GRAECO-ROMAN JUDAICA

— RADIN

249

Krauss has put together data of a most interesting kind from both
Jewish and Byzantine sources.
sections are the second

Perhaps the most important

and

third, in

which the

social life of the
is

Jews

is

described.

Much
and
its

of this information

found only
it

in

scattered periodicals

collection here renders

conveniently

accessible for the

first

time.
is

Unfortunately the value of the work

marred by the defects that
In spite of his unques-

so often characterize the author's method.

tionably broad scholarship, Professor Krauss only too often allows

himself to be led into a recklessness of statement that makes
possible to accept his conclusions

it

im-

on many matters without renewed
is

examination.

In most cases that

due

to haste in composition.

So

in discussing the celebrated

Novel of Justinian (Nov. 146) the
merely means

phrase 8ta to fxaXio-Ta
'

Trept Ty]v ip/xrji'eiav <TVfx/3€l3rjK6<s

particularly

because of what happened when the translation

(viz.

of the

LXX)
'

was made
two parts

',

and contains nothing
Similarly,

unintelligible
'in groups

(p.

58, n. 5).
',

Similarly Kara 8vo {in binos)
in
'.

means

of two

not,

from

his description of
is

the Basilica (p. 62)

nobody could

learn the fact that this code

merely an abridgement of Justinian's Corpus in sixty (not eighty)
books.

But a

specially flagrant

example of the author's

careless-

ness occurs in his discussion of the Chazar-document discovered

by Schechter

(p. 154, n. i).
'

Commenting on
Eigenname,

the

word

^i'K'hs,

Krauss

says,

Das

ist

kein

sondern

Titel,

ein

Wiirdentrager mit
(citiert in

A

dem Titel Kapya<i, Constant. Porphyrog. c. 40 Magyar Nemzet torte'nete, i, 47), griechisch BorAo-o-a^^/?

geschrieben.'

Now

if

Professor Krauss had consulted the actual
in the

words of Constantine as they appear
in a

Bonn Corpus, and not

Hungarian
iii,

translation,

he would have read
to{)

De

ad. imp.

40

(Const. Por.

I75>

^-

^2) /tera

BouAt^ov, tov TptTOV

ap)^ovTo<S

KOL Kapx*^ TovpKLw;.

And

later 6 BovAt^ol's 6 Kap;^as vios ia-Ti tov
''^'CvU, therefore,
is,

KaA^

TOV Kapxa.

The word

as the obvious

sense of the passage demands, a
evident correspondence to the

name and not name BovXtI^ov^ is

a

title,

and

its

additional

and

welcome evidence

of

how

authentic the sources of Schechter's

document

were.

250
However,

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
in spite of these defects,

Krauss has put scholars
be hoped
that

under obligation to
researches will be

him, and

it

is

to

further

made

in this field.

Syria
B.

as

a

Roman
pp.
vi,

Province.

H. Blackwell; New York
304.

By E. S. Bouchier. Oxford: Longmans, Green, & Co.,
:

1 9 16.

After a survey of the ethnography

and geography of

Syria,

Bouchier gives us

in

Chapters

II,

IV, VI, VIII, a brief history

of Syria from Seleucid days to the

Arab conquest.

A

complete

chapter (IV)

is

devoted to the Syrian imperial dynasty, and almost
Interspersed
cities

another (VI) to Palmyra.
of Antioch (III),

among them,
its

are accounts

and other

of Syria (V), and a discussion of

the country's produce
Finally, chapters

and the dispersion of

people (VII).

IX-XII

deal with Literature, Religion, Archishort bibliography

tecture

and the

Arts.

A

and a

full

index add

appreciably to the book's value.

Mr. Bouchier professes

to

make no

original contribution either

m

presentation or point of view.

He

has given a readable and

interesting account of the external and internal fortunes of an

important section and an important time.
sources
is

His command of the

adequate.

It

may be

said

that

no circumstance of

moment

has been altogether omitted, and the general reader
is

for

whom
fact
is

the book

intended

will

obtain a clear and
to the history of

full

conception

of what Syria

and Syrians meant

Rome.

That

one of the principal claims of the book upon the general

public.

Recent
of
art,

investigations, such as those of Strzygowski in

the

field
it

and Cumont

in

the history of religion,

have

made
the

clear that throughout the
cultural
to

Empire
of

it

is

in the

East that

economic and

centre

gravity

—and

soon the

political as well

is

be sought.

But these views, generally

accepted

among
yet,

scholars, have

not filtered into current handpresentation

books as

and the
is

traditional
still

which almost

ignores the

East

the one

commonly

used, so that, for

many such

a book as Bouchier's will supply a needful corrective

GRAECO-ROMAN JUDAICA
Especially in
value.
its

— RADIN
will
it

25I
prove of

account of Syrian emigration,
it

The

ordinary reader finds

difficult to realize the

enormous

range of the dispersion of Syrians and Syrian ideas, and the details
furnished, pp.
17 1-9, ought
to
set

right

many common

mis-

conceptions.

There

is

more than one matter which might be questioned.

So, in discussing the

Roman

attitude toward Syrians,

it

would
at

have been well
all

to stress the

vague character of the term Syrus
little

stages of

its

use.

Again, Gabinius was so

the

enemy

of

the Jews which he appears to be in pp. 26-7, that

we have the

famous statement of Cicero that he outrageously favoured them.

On

p.

50,

we have repeated
rests

the

traditional

account of the

Hadrianic rebellion, which

on insecure

footing.

On

p.

loi,

we might have been
of existing faiths, a

told of Elagabalus's attempt at the fusion

movement more
Again,
it

directly

undertaken by his

cousin Alexander.
that occurs

is

a wholly misleading statement

on

p.

116:

'Thus the exclusive
(viz.

Roman

law in the

commentaries which they
published

Ulpian,

Papinian,

and Gains)

became considerably modified by the cosmopolitan
itis

principle of the
to the

gentium.'

What Ulpian and Papinian brought
for

Roman

law was rather the systematizing influence of science

and philosophy, which was an imperative necessity
of empiric precedents as the

such a code
In

Roman

system had become.
it

discussing the various cities of Syria, pp. 172-89,

would have

been serviceable to mention the
as
set

political status of
1.

most of them

forth

by Ulpian, Dig.
cities,

15.

i;

e.g.

that

Tyre and

Heliopolis and other
ins

as well as

Berytus,

possessed the

Italicum

in

most cases

conferred

by Septimius Severus.
small^ there should

Further, in any biography, no matter a reference to

how

be

Mommsen
it

on the

Roman

Provinces

(i?. 6^., vol. 5).

In general

may be

said that the

book has a somewhat
by
it.

amateurish tone.

Scholars will profit

little

But
style

it

more

than compensates for that by the vividness of
interesting character of the

its

and the

information here

made

accessible.
ff.

Such pictures
and 222
ff.,

as Bouchier gives of Syrian student-life, p. 117

of the romantic

movement

that resulted in

some of

252

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
modern
fiction

the most important Greek romances, the parent of
(p.

231

ff.),

are not only well

done

in

themselves but present

details not easily

found elsewhere.

All this cannot but serve to

give a real content to the readers' conception of the time
place.

and the

Studies

in

the

History of the

Roman
pp. 94.

Province of Syria.
Princeton
:

By

GuSTAVE Adolphus Harrer.
University Press, 1915.
In
this

Princeton

Princeton dissertation, Dr. Harrer has prepared a

Prosopographia of the governors of Syria from the time of the
great revolt in 68 to about the time of Diocletian.

There are
Cilicia,

added appendices on The Separation of Syria and
Revolt of Pescennius Niger and

The

The

Divisions of Syria.

The work
is

is

one of painstaking and accurate scholarship, and

invaluable for chronological purposes.

One

cannot, however,

help wondering whether doctoral dissertations ought not to be
directed to a less arid
field.

Except as an exercise

in the use of

the sources, there

is

practically

no opportunity

for the application

of

critical

judgement.
the author calls
'

The governor whom
later identifies

unknown

'

(p. 28),

he

— with reservations — as Arrian, the historiographer,
Max
Radin.

Class. Phil., II (1916), 339.

New

York.

MANUSCRIPTS
ST.

THE LIBRARY OF JOHN'S COLLEGE
IN
of the matmscripts
in
the

A

descriptive
St.

catalogue
College,

Library

of

John's

Cambridge.

By

Montaciue

Rhodes

James. Cambridge: University Press, 1913. pp. xx + 389.

The Colleges and

Halls of which the great English Universities

consist generally possess old libraries of their own, including

more

or less important manuscript collections, apart from the University

Library.

For Oxford these were

listed

in

Coxe's catalogue in
also

1852, the few

Hebrew manuscripts being

included as an

appendix

in

Neubauer's great catalogue of the Hebrew manuscripts

of the Bodleian.
in the

Such a catalogue of the Hebrew manuscripts
is

Cambridge University Library

still

wanting,
to

Schiller-

Szinessy's

work only covering 72 out of 762 codices,

which now
N. Adler,

the Taylor-Schechter collection has been

added

(see E.

Transactions /eivish Hist. Soc.

of England, VIII, 12).

Hebrew manuscripts

in

the

Colleges

About we have only W. Aldis
which

Wright's appendix to Palmer's Catalogue of the Arabic, Persian,

and Turkish manuscripts
at that

in the library of Trinity College,

time (1870) possessed about thirty

Hebrew and Samaritan

manuscripts.
lately, since

This collection, however, has been greatly increased

we
his

learn from C. D. Ginsburg's preface to the fourth

volume of

Massora, that W. Aldis Wright had bought his

collection of manuscripts
Trinity.

and had arranged

to

bequeath

it

to

Ginsburg's collection consisted of about 100 volumes,

partly described

by Neubauer, Letterbode, XI, 157-65.
R. James, well

Since 1895

M.

known

to

many

readers by his

important contributions to the Apocryphal and Pseud-epigraphal

The Life and Miracles of St. William of Norwich, by Thomas Monmouth, the earliest case of the Blood
literature,

and

as co-editor of

accusation (see Joseph Jacobs, y(2^., IX, 748-55

S

has

under-

253

254

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
all

taken the useful task of making
accessible

these various
descriptions.

collections

by

short
for

and

careful

We

are

in-

debted to him

a series of seventeen catalogues,

some

in

several volumes, and, though in
his

some

cases he expressly restricts

work

to

the Western

manuscripts

of a college

— even
of

in

those cases the few Hebraica are not excluded

— his
are

catalogues

mostly describe the complete collections of the various colleges.

The Hebrew
importance.
the

manuscripts

in

these

collections
for

small

We

find a
in

Roman Mahzor
the Fitzwilliam

Day

of

Atonement

New Museum

Year's

and

(No. 230 of
in

the Catalogue of 1895); a copy of Prophets

and Hagiographa

Gonville and Caius College {Catalogue^ II, 1908, No. 404) of the
thirteenth century, probably written
in

England

for a Christian

student, a conjecture partly anticipated by Bruns in his edition of

Kennicott's Dissertatio
to

6^^;?^;-a//>

(

Braunschweig, 1783), pp. 377-8

Codex 93

;

a complete Bible in three volumes in
1904,

Emmanuel
Bishop

College {Catalogue,
Dr. William

Nos.

5,

6,

7) acquired by

Bedell when chaplain of the English embassy at

Venice,

Leon [da Modena] 'the Chief Chaiham of the Synagogue there with whose assistance he had, we learn, made great progress in Hebrew studies Kennicott found
c.

1600, through Rabbi

'

;

the date 5045

=

1285

in

the third

volume; James
later
artist,

finds in the

illuminated

title-page
;

the

work of a

perhaps an
for lining

Englishman

a couple of leaves of an old

ritual,

used

the cover of a Eatin Isaiah with glosses in

Pembroke College
Jews' College

{Catalogue; 1905, No. 59) turned out to be a remnant of the old

English ritual and was published
Jubilee

in

1906

in the

Volume pursuant There are a number

to

its

discovery by James.

of items

among
much
find

the Latin manuscripts
literature.

which are of considerable

interest for

Jewish

Stein-

schneider would have found very
for the

interesting information

translation literature.

We
in

here a Latin

Moreh

in

Trinity

{Catalogue,

III,

1902,

No. 1412), no doubt the old
1875, which has been printed

translation discussed
in Paris, 1520.

by Perles

Among

medical treatises of the same author, two
Blasii

translations of

Armengaud

of Montpellier offer important

MSS. IN ST.

JOHN

S

COLLEGE

— MARX

255

epigraphs supplementing Steinschneider's Hebriiische Ubersetzimgen,
pp.

765

and 767.
f.

No. 178^

165) states

MS. Gonville Caius {Catalogue, I, tliat Armengaud translated liber
egrorum
et

1907,

moysis

egypcii et de regimine

sanorum

et specialiter de asinate

(Steinschneider corrects asinate^ from the Arabic mediante fideli
interprete
in

1294 and published
1302.

it

that

seems

to

be

the

sense

of

communtcatur— in

Steinschneider's

question

{Sitzungsberichte der IVietier Akademie, Phil.-Hist. Klasse,
vol.

1905,

CLI,

p.

33),

whether

this

is

the

same

translation as the

tractates contra passioneni asmatis in

a Peterhouse manuscript

{Catalogue,
latter

text

The 1899, No. loi*) is not answered by James. is preceded by Maimonides' tract on poison by the
who
states that

same

translator,

he did the work

in

1307 at

Pope Clement V. A considerable number of astronomical and astrological treatises by Jews in Latin translations we meet in codex 11 85 of
the request of
Trinity College.

The second
i.

of them, the canones of

Abraham

Iiideus salmanticensis,

e.

Zacuto, are

no doubt

part of his printed

Almanach perpetuus
fourth
/.

(Leiria,

1496) which Columbus used; the

has

the

canones of Jacob Poel, while Steinschneider,

c, 615, according to the Cat.

MSS. Angliae

of 1697
;

quotes
possibly
to

MS. Thomas Gale

as containing the tables of the Poel
fifth

they are included in the

part of the codex,

which ought

be

compared with the Bodleian manuscript mentioned by
schneider.

Stein-

The

tracts of

Mashallah and Sahl ben Bishr (here in
10-12,

the usual corrupt forms Zebel and Zael) forming parts

14-15, and 19-22 of the codex,

if

compared with the

editions,

may

help to clear up the complicated bibliographical questions

concerning the writings of these authors, of which Steinschneider
treats in his

Arabische Literatur der Juden,

§

18-19.

Several of

these tracts occur in English translations in

MS.

Trinity College

1307.

Similarly,

we

find copies of Isaac Israeli's medical works,
;

mostly in Constantinus's version, and others
see, they offer

but, as far as I can

no points of

special interest.
is

The

last

of James's Catalogues, which

under review here,

is

that of St. John's College, the

one of which that great Christian

'

256

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

student of Rabbinic literature, Dr. Charles Taylor, was master for

many

years.

While

this

College has more

Hebrew manuscripts

than any of the others, except Trinity, their number does not

exceed four.

Three of these belong

to the oldest possessions of

the College, having been given in

1546,

and are described
w-as finished in

as

numbers

1-3.

The

first

of

them contains a Pentateuch with
1260

Megillot, Job, Proverbs,

and Haftarot, and

according to the epigraph, which was printed in the Hebrdische
Bibliographie,

XIX,

p.

23 from Wickes's copy.

James

gives

it

in

English translation.

We

learn

from

it

that

Samuel ha-Nakdan
August

pointed the manuscript for his brother (or friend, relation) Levi,

and

finished

it

Friday before the reading of xvn

""a,

i.e.

20,

1260.

Kennicott, overlooking this epigraph, judged the codex to
in

be written

Spain in the early fifteenth century.

The Nakdan
15, note,

was either French or German.
identifies

Neubauer, RE/., IV,

him

with

the

martyr Samuel
his fate in

ben

Eleazar

of

the
in

Niirnberg Memorbook,

who met
is,

Mosbach (Baden)
still

1297, but this identification

as Salfeld rightly

remarks in his
to

edition of the Martyrologium, pp.

283-4,

open

serious

The manuscript was provided later with Latin headlines and chapter numbers. One cannot understand how the learned
doubt.
cataloguer could state
'
:

Evidently writte?i or adapted for the use
'.

of a Western scholar, very likely a Franciscan

The

fact that

the codex includes the Haftarot as well as

its

whole arrangement
it.

makes the

first

alternative very unlikely
/.

;

the epigraph excludes
to cod.

On

the other hand, Bruns,
for the

c, p.

379

96 suggests such

an hypothesis

second manuscript, containing the end of
at

Judges (now wrongly bound

end of the codex), the
this

rest of the

I'ormerand the Latter Prophets, and he believes that

manuscript

and

that of Gonville

and Caius College mentioned above were
a copy of Rashi's
first
:

copied from one another.

MS.

3

is

of

much

greater value

;

it

is

com-

mentary on Prophets and Hagiographa from the
thirteenth century
;

half of the

the date
at the

is

not quite clear to

me

'

on the day
thousand

before the

New Year

end of the year of the

fifth

l)r«jbably reads in

Hebrew D'D^n

'n n:::' 511D3 nrj'H L"N"^ any, i.e.

MSS. IN ST.

JOHN
Is

S

COLLEGE

— MARX
Isaac,

257
sold the

August

31,

1239 (not 1238).

Samuel ben

who
for

book

to Nathaniel ben Jacob, the scribe or the
?

man

whom

it

was written

The commentary on
Chronicles, which, as
is

the last eight chapters of Job and on
well

known, are not by Rashi, ought

to

be examined.

If Darmesteter,

when

in

England

to

examine the
of this
at

French glosses

in

the Rashi manuscripts, had

known
interest

codex, he would not have spoken of the Rashi manuscripts

Cambridge
Reliques

as all of recent date

and

offering

no

;

see his

scientifiqicls, I, p.

115.

Codex 218 contains a copy
of the thirteenth century.

of Kimhi's D'!^"lB'n ~I2D

on vellum
end of

The Hebrew

scribble at the
in

MS.

78,

a collection of medical works
is

Latin translations,
to a

probably

due

to the fact that the

volume once belonged

Jewish physician.

Perhaps he wrote there some recipes.

In what language the Dominica oratio hebraice(J) in cod. 189

on the

flyleaf

is,

which begins
',

:

'

Abba hay

consiran mel odenson
se be le
',

epitre aemalatre

and ends

'
:

Adass sabilo naia

I

do

not know.

In the Index,
recorded, but
it

p.

372, under Bible Hebrew, No. 114

is

also

contains Jerome's version of the Psalter of the

Hebrew.
fol.

We

miss

the

reference
lists

to

the

Hebrew

letters

on

180 b of No. 107.

Such

we

also find

in several other
2,
fol.

catalogues of James;

see e.g. Corpus Christi, No.

278,

No. 48; Pembroke, No. 174; Gonville and Caius, No. 601,
fol.

310

b, partly with

French, &c.

Of

other items of Jewish interest, besides Latin Bibles and

Apocrypha,

we

find

a

Latin

Josephus, two copies of Petrus
Israeli's

Alphonsus, contra Itidaeos, and some translations of Isaac

medical works.

Perhaps

I

may add

the

'

ludi

pulcherimi

Salamonis quos
fecit

mandauit Regine Acrys nobilissime domine quos
filius

rex salamon

regis

dauid pulcriores quos poterit pro requestu predicte
fols.

domine',
fol.

70-75 of No. 155
predecessors, the

(cp.

also

MS.

Trinity

loSr,

128).

Like

all

its

volume begins with a short

258

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
lists

history of the collection,

of former owners, &c.

As

there

were no early catalogues of the collection, and that of 1 843 follows
the present arrangement, like James's, there was

no occasion

for

comparative tables with
catalogues of James.

earlier

numbers found

in

most of the other

Altogether 502 manuscripts are described

on 368 pages

;

267 of

them which

are mediaeval are dealt with

more

fully

on 318 pages; to the more recent ones, 'for the most
',

part of very slight importance

only 50 pages are given.

From

an introductory note

to

the latter (p.

319) we learn "that the

Oriental manuscripts outside of the

from the catalogue.
Dr. James
is

Hebrew ones were excluded The volume concludes with a good index.
on the successful completion of
can be seen from these remarks,

to be congratulated

his series of catalogues, which, as
offer

some

interesting information even for our field of studies.

Alexander Marx.
Jewish Theological Seminary
of America.

SOME LEAVES OF AN EGYPTIAN JEWISH RITUAL
Bv ROMAIN BuTiN, The
Catholic University of America.

In the Spring of 1916, Professor Camden M. Cobern
left

with

me

for

examination and study thirty-four Hebrew

fragments.
in Cairo

These he had obtained a few years before

from a trusty town Arab who had been with him

previously on several exploring expeditions.
originally

They doubtless

came

from one of the Genizahs of Cairo, pre-

sumably from the Ezra Synagogue where Schechter had
obtained such great treasures.

Twelve of the fragments

are printed leaves

and contain

various passages of the Bible.

Fiye of these printed pages

belong to a Bible (4to) of the early seventeenth or even
sixteenth century,
others are

and are without vowel-points.

The

more

recent.

Most

of the twenty-two manuscript fragments are of

a liturgical nature, but vary in age and palaeographical
peculiarities.

Fourteen leaves, however, written on paper,
;

evidently belong to one and the same book

to these

we we

have given more attention, and

in the

present article

give the results of our examination.

The

text exhibited by these fourteen fragments shows
in

highly interesting variants, not only
or expressions, but

individual

words
of the
rituals,

also in larger sections.
in

Some

readings are not to be found

any of our printed

and

for this,

if

for

no other reason, they ought to appeal to
259
S

VOL.

IX.

.

26o
all

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

those

who

are interested in the origin and evolution of

the Jewish Rites.

The Prayer Book from which

the leaves have been torn
for

must have contained not only the prayers
days, as the last folios belong to
really

work days,
If they

Sabbaths, &c., but also the text of the prayers for the Holy

Yom
it

Kippur.

come from the Ezra Genizah,
is

is

probable that the

rest of the ritual

now
is

still

extant, perhaps scattered in

various collections, as

often the case with Manuscripts

discovered
*

in in

recent

times.

(Compare
It

E.

N.

Adler,

Genizah

'

Jetvish Encyclopaedia.)

may
its

be possible

therefore that

some day
its

the text of this ritual
if

may be

reconstructed in

main sections

not in
It

entirety.

The page
16
lines, (6 b, II a,

is

about

6x41
(7 a,

in.

contains generally

sometimes 15
12 b, 13
a).

9 b, 14 b), and sometimes 17

The number
first

of letters in the line

is

not constant but varies from around 20 to over 30,
lower margin of the verso, the
folio is

In the

word of the following
at least

given as catchword.
folios

The

do not seem to have been numbered,
trace of the numbering.

we have discovered no
order and

For the

arrangement of the fragments we have been

guided partly by the Rubrics at the beginning of some of
the sections, e.g. 6a, 11 a; partly by the catchwords and

by the contents of the prayers themselves.
leaves.

We

have also

considered the similarity of the state of preservation of the
It is

probable that generally speaking adjoining

leaves

must have been detached at the same time and
little

formed

bunches exhibiting more or
It
is

less

the

sam6

characteristics.

evident that fragments

10-14 are
certain

consecutive and belong to
that
I

Yom

Kippur.

It is also

and 2 belong together, as do also 3-5, 6-7, 8-9,

1

AN EGYPTIAN JEWISH RITUAL

— BUTIN
is

26
also

The arrangement
paratively easy.

of these
i

h'ttle

groups

com-

Fragments
;

and

3 contain

portions of

the

Shemoneh Esreh

their simple

form

is

evidently that
to

used for work days.

Besides, they

must belong

the

Morning

Service, as these leaves

must have been

in close

proximity to ^-^ which belong to the Morning Service and
give us JVS^ Wl.

Fragments 1-5,

therefore, belong to the
folio
is

Morning Prayer.
3 and 3
;

At

least

one

missing between

fdlio 2,

which must have contained the end of the
large

Amidah, would not have been
Similarly, at least a folio
it

enough

to contain also

the various supplications which precede the Half Kaddish.

must be

lost

between 5 and 6

;

contained some more supplications and the Full Kaddish.

The
we have

classification of

6-9

offers special difficulties,

and

hesitated a long time before adopting the order
"

given here.

At
is

the end of fragment
'),

7

there

is

the catchfol.

word n7D3

('

finished

this

same word begins

8

;

the

probabilities are therefore that 8

comes immediately

after 7.

But fragments 6-7 contain the Minhah Service

for

Work

Days, and of course must have been preceded by the
ordinary Morning Prayer, whereas leaves 8-9 contain the
special

Morning Prayers

for

besides, are

headed by the rubric
this rubric

Mondays and Thursdays, and End of the Morning
'

Prayer'.

Now

would

fit

better

if

the regular

Morning Prayer had com.e immediately
hardly be proper
Besides,
it

before,

and would

if

preceded by the Afternoon Service.
logical to

is

more

have the special
after the

Morning
ordinary

Prayers for
Shahrit.

Mondays and Thursdays

However, we have adopted the arrangement given here
for the following

reasons:

The catchword
word
;

n!?iD:)

naturally

leads to a folio that begins with that

it

is

true that
S 2

262 a
lost
folio

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
might have begun with that word, but
folios in close
it it

is

hardly likely that two
coincide, although,

proximity would thus
possible.

of course,

is

A

closer

examination of the fragments leads to the same conclusion.

Fragments 5-9 show the same mutilations and must have been together in the original manuscript folios 7 and 8
;

are the closest in that respect

;

they exhibit not only the

same

general mutilations but also the
injuries
;

same

little

creases

and minor

there

is

no doubt that they were together

at least after being separated from the rest of the manuscript,

and

all told, it

seems to us more probable that they have
in

been kept together because they were already together
the book.

The

writing on

fol.

6

is

well preserved, while
therefore,

it is

exceedingly faint on 7-9

;

fol.

6,

escaped some

vicissitudes which 7-9 underwent.
for

By
in

placing the section

Mondays and Thursdays
the order
:

before the

Minhah

Service,
it

we would have
and the

8, 9, 6, 7

which case

would
and
8,

be hard to explain the striking similarities between
dissimilarities of 6.
if

7

Furthermore,

a radical distinction

had been made

between the Morning

and

Minhah

Service,

we would

naturally expect the Rubric for the latter to begin with
71703,

as

we
is

find

ff.

8

and

11,

but this

is

not the case.

Our view

that the scribe

went on with the Minhah

Service immediately after the

Morning Prayer, and gave

afterwards what had relation to

Mondays and Thursdays.

Probably the
as
it

title

was stereotyped and was reproduced just

was even when the place of insertion would have

logically called for a change.

So we have the order: 1-5
Service
;

Morning Prayer
Service for

;

6-7 Afternoon

8-9

Special

Mondays and Thursdays.
10-14 they are certainly consecutive and
all

As

to

ff.

AN EGYPTIAN JEWISH RITUAL
refer to the

— BUTIN
Kippur.

263

end of the Afternoon and the beginning of the
for the

Evening Service

day before

Yom
and

Script. Portions of the rubrics

titles

are written in

large ordinary square characters
in
is

marked with three dots
rest is written in

a triangle,

e. g. i a,

3 b, &c.

The

what
are

known

as

Oriental

Rabbinic Script.
y.

The
If

letters

generally not joined, except b and

Yod and someletter
in

times

Wavv come between

7

or y

and another

the same word, they are often written over the ligature,
e. g. D3ii?v.

As more

characteristic forms

we may mention

^

=N

:

2

=

n

;

J*

=

V

;

J =

p.

Others, although similar

to the ordinary Rabbinic are yet different.

Some

of the

characteristics exhibited in these fragments are found in

some of the
in the

facsimiles published

by Neubauer, from MSS.
III,

Bodleian Library, Plates

VII, X, XIII,

XIX,

XXIX.

All these, except III, are more cursive than our

fragments, see p. 266.

Extended Letters.

Extended

letters

are

used

com-

paratively seldom and only as the last letter of the line.

The

letter

Mem
"D

is

the most

commonly extended
is

letter

;

yet not the whole body of the letter the top stroke
not D,
Ti,

extended but only
;

e. g.

4

a, 7

;

8 b, 10

14

b, 10,

&c.

Similarly n occurs as
letters that

12

b, 13.

The only
-j

other extended
a, i,

we have

noticed are

= ^,

13

10

;

n

=

g,

13

b, 14.

As
the

a rule, instead of extending letters to
is

fill

up the end
occurs,

of a line, either the line
first

left

unequal

or, as often

letter or letters of the following line are written
last

and cancelled by a slanting stroke overtopping the
letter,

the whole word
line, e. g. i a,

is

then repeated at the beginning of
3
a, 7
;

the next

3

;

3 b, 5

;

5

a, i,

&c., &c.

Abbreviations.

Abbreviations occur

very seldom in

;

264

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
we have noted
2 b, 3
;

these leaves,
"as

":i"

= ">?:SJC',
1 1 a,

10

a,

14; 12

a, i

;

=

irnnx

,

"Ul

= noui

,

4.

The two

regular

abbreviations 'N3
are

=

ni.T
:

nnx nna and PP?
'N3, PPp.

=

r^np, t:'np, B'np
first

marked with points

In folios 10-14 the
VwS'3

of these abbreviations occurs as
points, e.g. iia, 13; 11 b, 5.

also

marked with

Language and OrtJwgrapJiy.
fragments
rituals,
is

of course the

The language of the ordinary Hebrew of the Jewish
Kedushah 5
;

with passages in Aramaic, as in the Kaddish, 6b-7a,

and

in the

Targums of
in

the

a.
;

The

rubrics,
;

however, are written

Arabic, 6a, 3

8a

9a, 14

11 a.

Some of the forms of Arabic are classical, others are The Scribe apparently wrote according to sound
;

popular.
see, e.g.

Nina" and '^n2\

u a;

inr,

9a, 15, &c.
in these

Technical

Hebrew
e. g.

names have been preserved
nsB', N^sn, jrn, -1122,

Arabic

rubrics,

mv, &c.

There

is

a constant use of the viatres lectionis even
in

when the vowel
not only to
3
a, 2,

question

is

not unchangeable, this applies
e.

Holem
;

but also to changeable Sere,
is

g. i a,

5

&c., 8:c.

Kames

often written with N as
D^^'Ny,

mater

icctionis, e.g.

iNcmn, 2a, 3;

7a,

5, 9.

On
it
;

the other

hrmd Aleph

is left

out occasionally even

when

forms part

of the Radical, e.g.

m3C

for DN-iT^,
is

12a, 8

liDn for iJN'Dn,

14 b, 1-4.

Ordinary Segol

occasionally written with

Yod

as viaier lectionis, e.g. DTnnDl for Dninoi,

10

b, 5,
' ;

unless

we

read D^mnDT

,

Pi'cl,

'

I

shall

cleanse

them

but see

Ezek. 36. 25.

As

usual the combination ^S
nin' is

is

written
;

\^,

passim.

tetragrammaton

uniformly ^^
'J"ix,

this occurs

The even when

the biblical text quoted has

e.g.
is

8a,

6, 12, 16.

Punctuation.

In general there

no punctuation in the

middle or

at the

end of an ordinary sentence.

A

larger

;

AN EGYPTIAN JEWISH RITUAL
break within a section
is

— BUTIN

265

marked by two points juxtaposed
a, 3 In one case, the two points are
;

horizontally in line with the top of the letters, e.g. 4

10;

7 a,

4; 9

a,

13, &c.

vertical, 11 b, 10.

The end
by

of a section or a larger break

is

marked

regularly

four points

arranged as a vertical

lozenge, as in Ethiopic
Corrections.

points placed

(•>), e.g. i a, 6 and passwL Words wrongly written are cancelled by over them (cp. Butin, The Ten Extraordinary

Points of the Torah),
instances a dash
9 b, 7,
is is

e.

g.

J a,

i

;

3 a, 1-4, &c,

;

in

a few
2 b, 5

used instead of the points,

e. g.

The dash
line to

also used to cancel letters put at the
in,

end of the
twice, see

fill

so that they would not be read

above under Extended Letters.
that has been omitted
10 b, 10;
is

A word
the

either written
^ is

above

line, e.g.

13a, 9; or the sign

inserted

over the place of omission and the word or words are given
in

the margin preceded
;

by the same

sign, e.g.

12

a,

12

(twice)

5 b,

3.

There must have been also an insertion
i,

on 6

a, 8

and 11 a,

as the sign

^

occurs in the text, but

the words or sentences to be inserted have not been preserved owing to the mutilated state of the margin.
cases, 12 a, 12

In two

and 12

b, 4,

where a correction has to be
line,

made

at the

beginning of the

the word

is

written just

opposite with the sign

=

leading to the place.
written in large characters are
e. g. i a,

Other Signs.

The

titles

marked by three

dots in a triangle,

3

;

i b, 5,

&c., &c.

These three dots are also found where the scribe has
apparently forgotten to write the
e.g. 3 b, 2,
title

in

larger

letters,

&c.

The
are

portions of the rubrics not written in large letters
or without a hook,

marked with a horizontal stroke with
3,

or ~, e.g. 6a,

4; iia,

3, 4,

&c.

266

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

At

times the portion of the hne immediately under the
is left

large letters

blank.

This blank space has no meaning
in

except to prevent the crowding of letters

the corre-

sponding parts of the

lines, e. g. i a,

4; 3a,
e.g.

7,

&c.
13,

Other signs apparently occur,
closer examination they are

10

a,

but on
letter

only a portion

of a

showing through the paper.
careful with smaller signs

One

has to be particularly
2,

and points, e.g. 4b,

&c.

The

peculiar sign on

i

b,

i,very probably indicates transposition-

Age and Country.
Age.
It is

somewhat
;

difificult

to assign a very definite
rest of the

date to these fragments
ritual is

very likely when the

found and edited a colophon

may
is

give us not only

the date but the

name

of the scribe and the exact locality

from which

it

was made.

Our opinion

therefore

more or

less conjectural.

As

far as

paper and sizing

is

concerned, the leaves could
;

be as late as the sixteenth century
the script

but when we examine

we come

to a less vague conclusion.

As

pointed

out above, the script resembles that of Plates III, VII, X,

XIII,

XIX,

XXIX

in

Neubauer's Facsimiles.

Plate III

is

an autograph of Maimonides and therefore written towards
the end of the twelfth or beginning of the thirteenth century
(cp.

Neubauer, Catalogue of Hebrew

MSS.

in the Bodleian

Library, No. 393).

The

characters and general appearance

are strikingly alike, yet the letters p and N are less cursive
in Plate III

than

in

our leaves, and their form

is

undoubtedly
Plate

older.

Plate

X

(Neubauer, No. 2353,

^O and

XIX

(No. 2cc8), both of the sixteenth century; and Plate of the fifteenth century, exhibit a
far

VI I, end

more

cursive character

AN EGYPTIAN JEWISH RITUAL
and are
later

— BUTIN
is

267

than our leaves.
Lattes,

Plate XIII

an autograph
in

of Isaac de

and the MS. was finished
;

1372

(Neubauer, No. 1298)

it is

also

more

cursive, the

shape of

certain letters as well as the general

appearance point to

a date later than the Cobern leaves.

The

present leaves

would find their proper place between the time of Maimonides
and that of Isaac de Lattes,
thirteenth
i.e.

between the middle of the

and the middle

of the fourteenth century, very
first

probably towards the end of the thirteenth or
of the fourteenth century.

half

This

is

further borne out

by

a comparison with an autograph

letter of

Abraham, son

of Maimonides, of the early thirteenth century, reproduced

by E. N. Adler,
there
is

in

Jewish Encyclopaedia, Genizah', V, 61 2
'

;

a striking resemblance, and although

Koph

still

retains the

form found

in

Maimonides, Aleph leans strongly

to the form of our leaves.

Country.
that
it

As

to the

home

of the ritual, there

is

no doubt

was an Arabic-speaking country,

since the rubrics
little

are written in Arabic.

Furthermore, there can be

doubt that

this

country was Egypt, not merely because the

leaves were discovered in
is

Egypt but

also hecdiuse

Kol Nidre
a,

not given for the Evening Service of

Yom

Kippur, 11

a custom which, as far as
(see
'

we know, was

peculiar to

Egypt

Kol Nidre

',

in

the Jczvish Encyclopaedia, and the
Besides, the nature of the paper

authorities cited there).
is

too closely akin to the

Fayyum

papers, to

make

it

necessary for us to think of any other provenance.

Character of the Ritual.
This
ritual

was intended

for the use

of the

Hazan
is

or

Sheliah Sibbur and not for the congregation.
clear

This

made

from the

fact that the

form of the third Benediction

268
for the

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Day

of

Atonement

is

the one used

by the Hazan

when repeating the Amidah,
for the Confession of Sins

also from the place assigned

on the same day.

When

the
is

Congregation recites the Amidah, the Confession of Sins
placed after
it
it,

but when the

Hazan

repeats

it,

he includes

in the fourth
tJic

Benediction (see Dembitz, Jezvish Service
ff.)
;

in

Synagogue and Home, pp. 165
is

the latter arrange-

ment

the order followed here.
ritual

This

does not correspond to any of the others.

Some
rite

of the passages and readings are found
in another,

now

in
is

one

and now

but the text as a whole
in

quite

distinct.

Thus, passages are found
in

Amram, Saadya,
rites,

Maimonides, Vitry or
pointed in the
to

some of the other

as will be

notes, in fact

whole sections are common

them

all.

Yet, this does not prove actual dependence
;

of this ritual on any of the others

it

proves merely that

it

draws from the same sources as the others.

The

dis-

crepancies are too numerous to allow of any other solution.

Certain sections arc undoubtedly very ancient and their

form older than that of any other
Confession
of Sins, Selihah
iJ3y,

rite,

such

as, e.g.

the

&c.

For much of the
to Gaonic

material found in these leaves
times.

we should go back

This
in

ritual,

however, shows the influence of Maimonides
prayers

many

of the

and also

in

their

arrangement,

especially in the arrangement of the section following the

Amidah on Work Days.
origin,

This

confirms
of

its

Egyptian
soon
re-

as

in

Egypt

the

Siddur

Maimonides

superseded that of Saadya.

There arc also

striking

semblances between our
recension
later),

ritual,

the Italian and a Sephardic

published
for

and
the

translated

by Ottolenghi
of Sins, All

(see
told,

notably

Confession

AN EGYPTIAN JEWISH RITUAL

— BUTIN

269

these leaves would belong to the Spanish

group rather

than to the Ashkenazi.

On

the various influences that
rites,

brought about differentiations between the
Ritus des synagogalen Gottesdienstcs, pp. 5

see Zunz,

ff.

We

leave to

more

skilled

hands the task of ascertaining

in detail the origin of

the special readings, but

we

feel

sure

that this text will prove of

some value

for the question of

the origin^ growth, and evolution of the Jewish Rites in
general and for the history of the Egyptian
particular.

Minhag

in

In the preceding notice
useless details, yet
it is

we have perhaps

entered into

hoped that they may be the means

of identifying

some

of the sister leaves scattered in various

places and inaccessible to the present writer.

Description.
Fol.
1
.

This

folio is

badly mutilated

;

eight lines are
It

missing and only
portion of the
rites.

five entirely
in a

complete.

contains a

Amidah
is

form different from the other
is

The
3.

writing, however,

perfectly clear

and

legible.

Fol.

This

probably the worst of the fourteen fraglines are left
;

ments.

Only three complete

but there are
other
lines.

portions, sometimes only a

word or two, of

five

Writing
account

in

itself legible,

but text hard to reconstruct on

of the

many

lacunae due to tears, holes, and
It

various mutilations.

continues

the

Amidah down
The
rest

to

Modim.
Fol.
3.

Contains

five

complete

lines.

badly

torn but showing portions of five additional lines.
clear

Writing

and

legible.

Fol.

3 a contains

some supplications
Half

preceding the Half Kaddish, the beginning of the

Kaddish,

in a

very fragmentary

state.

Fol. 3

b contains

270

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the end of the Half Kaddish,

mm

Nini,

Ashres and the

beginning of Ps. 145.
Fol. 4.

Has

eight lines complete and two lines rather
legible.

fragmentary.

Writing clear and
145.

Fol. 4 a contains

the continuation of Ps.

Fol.

4

b,

end of

Ps.

145;

followed
11.

by

Ps. 146. 5
line

and

84. 13.

Them comes
the

irv^ Nai

5-10.

With

10 begins

Kedushah {Jewish
is

Encyclopaedia,

s.v.).

The

text of Isa. 59. 21-22

lost,

only the end of the Aramaic
of
fol.

Targum remaining on top
sixteen lines

5

a.
is

Fol. 5
are a
little
is

complete with

its

;

a few

lines

mutilated at the beginning and at the end, but
easily reconstructed.

the text

Writing clear and legible.
;

Fol. 5 a gives the end of the

Kedushah
;

then supplications

mostly agreeing with

Yemen

the differences in this section

down

to 5 b, 8 are not great

among

the various rituals.
is

At

the end of 5 b comes a section of which one line

given, but

which we have not been able
5 there
is

to identify.

After

fol.

at least

one

folio missing,

containing
its

the end of the supplications and the Full Kaddish with

complementary prayers
at the beginning of 6 a.

;

the end of those prayers are given

Fol. 6
lines (6b).

is

complete with sixteen

lines (6 a),

and seventeen
beginning

It exhibits the

same mutilations

at the

and end of the
writing
is

lines as fol.

5 (see below, pp. 282, 283).
Fol. 6 a,
its
1.

The

clear

and
for

legible.

3,

begins the

Minhah Service

Work

Days, with

Arabic Rubric.
fol.

The

text begins with
Ps.

mm

Nim

,

&c., as on
to
fol.

3 b.
1.

Then

comes

145 given

in full

down
4
b.

6 b,
1.

15.

The

same Ashres follow

as on

fol.

With

17 begins the

Kaddish de-Rabbanan.
I-'ol.

7

is

complete with sixteen

lines

and has the same

AN EGYPTIAN JEWISH RITUAL
mutilations as the preceding two
faint
folios.

— BUTIN
writing
in
is

271

The

very

and not easily

read.

We

succeeded

deciphering

some of
glass

the words only with the help of a strong magnifying
after

and

having cleaned the paper with dioxygen

;

by

means the paper was somewhat bleached and the writing stood out better by contrast. Fol. 7 a contains
this
;

most of the Kaddish de Rabbanan
Kaddish, followed
8.
(11.

fol.

7 b,

end of the
1

3-16) by two quotations from
i.

Kings

57-60 and Joshua
folio.
is

8-9.

The Minhah
lines

Service ends

with the

Fol. 8

complete with sixteen

and has the
;

same mutilations and even minor
writing
is

injuries as fol. 7
folio

the the

also very faint

and the

was treated

in

same way
read

as

fol.

7.

with

certainty.

The beginning of 1. The application

2 could not be

of

ammonium

sulphide gave the paper a bluish tint but failed to revive
the writing.

With

fol.

8 a begins the Special Service for

Mondays and Thursdays.
Selihah
iJ:y,

The order

of the prayers comes
ba our ritual reads

nearest to Italian, but instead of
8 b.

j?rD
is

This Selihah

not alphabetical and
rites.

exhibits an older form than that found in the other

Then
1.

follow
Fol. 9

D^£is*

l"ix ba,

1.

lo and the Thirteen Attributes,

14.

is

also complete with sixteen (9 a)

and

fifteen

(9 b) lines.

It

shows the same mutilations as the others. The
is

writing, however,
is in the

not as faint

;

on the other hand there

paper much more extraneous matter, stains and

other defects, which render the reading rather difficult in
places.

Fol. 9
11.

a,

I.

2 gives us the Shorter Confession of Sins,

after which,

14-16, comes an Arabic rubric telling of the

recitation of i:3^0 ir3N in a prostrate
irjyi ir^n,

form and of UD^IO
is

13'3K
;

but the
9 b,

te.xt itself

of the prayers

not given
fol.

then,

fol.

follow

some supplications

as on

3

a,

and

272

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
P.s.

the beginning of
of the leaves.
Ff.

20.

With

this folio

ends the

first

part

10-14 form a continuous text beginning with the
for

second half of the Confession of Sins
of the

Minhah Service

Day

preceding

Yom

Kippur, and ending with the

same

section for the

Evening Service of the same day.
is

The

text of the Confession

therefore complete.

They
first

cover the end

of the Service of the Afternoon and the

beginning

of

the

Evening Service, including

the

three Benedictions of the

Amidah

for

Yom

Kippur and

the greater portion of the Fourth Benediction, in which
is

included the Confession of Sins

when the Hazan repeats
Widdui,
p. 155).

the

Amidah

(cp.

Maimonides,

loc. cit.,

Fol. 10 contains the sixteen lines but with

many
is

short

breaks due
served as
it

to holes, tears, &c.
is

The
It
fol.

writing

well pre-

in these four folios.

contains the end of
11 a,
1.

the

Minhah
lib)

Service,

which ends on

i.

Fol. II, complete with seventeen
(fol.

(fol.

11 a)
It

and sixteen
contains the

lines,

is

fairly

vi^ell

preserved.

rubric in Arabic introducing the

Evening Service.

We
The

note the absence of any reference to

Kol Nidre.
in

opening prayers are merely indicated
their text
1.

the rubric but

is

not given.

The

text begins with the
variations
in

Amidah,
first

5.

There arc

interesting

the

two

Benedictions, which will be given in the notes.
].

Fol. lib,
is

5,

gives the Third Benediction, the

first

part of which

evidently based on Maimonides.
Fol. 12, also well preserved

and complete, continues the
12 b,
nriN.
1.

Third Benediction down to

fol.

15.

With

1.

15 begins

the Middle Benediction linnna
Fol.
13,

well

preserved

and complete, continues the
text
ofifers

Fourth

Benediction,

The

some

interesting


AN EGYPTIAN JEWISH RITUAL
variants also pointed out in the notes.

— BUTIN
The
fol.

273

Confession of

Sins included in the

Fourth Benediction by the Hazan
13
b,
1.

when he

repeats the
is

Amidah^ begins with
preserved

4.
fairly-

Fol. 14

not so well

but

offers
;

a

complete text with minor breaks, due to tears
is

the writing

legible.

Fol. 14

a,

1.

i

contains a section not found in
"i?^XJ

others

and taking the place of the usual
is

no.

The

List of Sins

given in

fol.

14 b, but in a form
rites,

much
not

shorter

than

in

most of the other

and resembling strikingly
identical

Ottolenghi's Sephardic

recension, although

with

it.

In the preparation of the notes
leaves with the

we have compared

these
to

following editions of the other
:

rites

which we have had access

ASHKENAZI
N. M. Adier, The Authorized Daily Prayer Book, London,
1

91

2.

W. Heidenheim,
S.

nON* JID^

IHO, Rodelheim, 1877.
Rodelheim, 1868.
3-i

Baer, ^JNnB^

muy -no,

A. L. Frumkin, D^KM Dnoy
Jerusalem, 1912.
r::3K'N*

mo

Di? n3'u*x

jHjnD n^sn "ihd,

jnjDJ

3pj;'

n^n -in^D, Warsaw, 19 lo.

Service of the Synagogue, 3rd ed., 6 vols.,

London, 1908-1913.

Sephardic
Salomone Fiorentino, Orazioni quotidiane
Ebrei spagnoli e portoghesi, Livorno, 1825.
per

uso degli

.... T-13D nDIJ
1821.

D"s?

.... nnno,
D''?^''^

2 vols.,

Wilna, 1878.
small vols.

L. E. Ottolenghi, D\S-|1J

n"irn», 6

Livorno,

Carpentras
I^NIDJ-'D-lp
\>"\>

:n:o3 D-sniJ D^O^^ itd, Amsterdam, 1739.

Aragon
ii3N-iN
\>"p

jnjD^

nniMn

dvi

njcri

c-'si^

nirnn,

Salonica, 1809.

274
Italian

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

A. Hasda, Formulario ordinato tradotto delle preghiere Israelitiche di

Rito Italiaiio, Torino, 1902.
Venice, 1710.

Tyos-\ ^:3 Z'r\\> hr^'^ ;n:?DD -iithd,

Saadva
Various notes
in

Baer, Frumkin, and in T>andshuth's

mcy

muyn,
Persian

s.v.

Passages given by E. N. Adler,

JQR., X, 606
in
ff.).

ff.

jMaimonides

m^sn nDD,

at the

end of Ahabah,

Mishneh Torah, 4

vols.,

Wilna, 1900 (Ahabah, pp. 150

Vemex
p^nn nno
^di

nV xyjv P"? :n3C3 .... n^an
portions,
is

-no, Wien, 1906.
of

Another Yemen (Babylonian) recension
Kaddi.sh,

the

Amidah,

and other
f.,

given in Dalman, IVorte

Jesu, 301, 305
13
ff-

also in

Holtzmann, Mischnah Berakot,

Amram,
Rashi,

in

Frumkin, as above.
"ino, ed. Buber, Berlin, 191
1.

•'"B'"!

VlTRV
nt3*1

mrno, ed. Hurwitz, Berlin, 1893.
II.

Einkitung

Register

zum Mahzor

Viiry, Berlin,

1896- 189 7.

Palestinian Amidah
Published by
S.

Schechter,

/QR., X, 654

;

reproduced

in

Dalman,

loc. cit.,

299

;

Holtzmann,

loc. at.,

n

ff.

We

have also utilized the following

liturgical

works,

which, althou,q;h not giving a continuous text, have often
preserved ancient readings:
[.

Karo, '"n

niix, Wilna, 1500.

AiiUi)ARHAM, nn~nnN "isD, \Varsa\v, 1877.
Koi.-BO, 13 ^3, Fiirth, 1781.

Maharil, y'nn?2

-|DD,

Warsaw, 1874.

Hamanhk;, t,t ps

mn

nan

:"n:ron

isd, Berlin, 1855.

AN EGYPTIAN JEWISH RITUAL

— BUTIN

275

On

the

Amidah mention must be made
',

of Elbogen,

'Geschichte des Achtzehngebets

in

Moiiatschrift fib-

GescJiichtc n. Wisseiischaft d. Jiidentlmms, voJ.

XXXIX,

PP-

?>?><^^')

427

ff.;

5^?,^'

Abbreviations.

A
Am,
Ar.

Ashkenazi

O
P

Ottolenghi's edition of
Palestinian

Amram
Aragon
Carpentras
Italian

S

Amidah

Per. Persian

Abud. Abudarham

R
S

Roman Mahzor
Sephardic
Vitry

C

I

I

K M

Kol Bo

V Y

Yemen

Maimonides

VOL. IX.

T

276

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Fol.

1.

Recto.

iii*api
ii''V"ix^

nm
b:i

[n"i]pi iJ^nii?j

^npb

pN.n

[ni]DJ3

yaiNO

mn»

nn^

ni^^n

« bN-it:>[^

^Ni

t:'bv i[i^Di

1

o
The Amidah
in
folio
is

9
the

opens with the end of the ninth Eulogy,
§

D''J5^'^

ri3"l3
I,

;

found in V, § 90 (Hurwitz, p. 66). in Am.,
;

38 (Frumkin,

246),

Abud.,

p. 58, col. 2
is

K,

§ 11,

4 c

ff. ;

in the other rituals in the usual place.
I,

Saadya's Amidah

given in Frumkin,

242.

The end

of this Eulogy does

not correspond exactly to any of the other rituals.

L.

2.

2D''D1, probably

an error

for

yD'0^

.

LI. 3-6.

Tenth Eulogy.

L. 4. J'Up?, so

P

;

others

fipb

.

"im
,

Nlpl, found

in

Am. and Abud.,

omitted in others.
L. 5-

rnno

,

so S, others omit

;

^3

so

M

and

V

;

ly^ns!?, so most rituals,

omitted in
L. 6.

A

and Sa.
J'3ptD.

Supply icy ^niJ

This Eulogy in Saadya

is

much

shorter

and

different.
LI. 6-8.

Eleventh Eulogy.

L. 8.

Supply probably

nmXI

]):'>

130»

IDm.

Am.

reads

^I^Dl

immediately after n?nn3.

AN EGYPTIAN JEWISH RITUAL

— BUTIN

277

Fol.

I.

Verso.

•\r\ny

pN»

n"in» D^ia nnb D-'Syvom

i

i^yi

D[n^Dnn]

i^yi

D^"5^v^
^53

%
iDH^

a^^^]

5

^Nic['
-lau'

^yi pn^'H n^a
iJC^jf'y^

6
7

l^om

D^

D^[n]Dnn b^b aiD
y
^
.

s 9

End
L.

of twelfth Eulogy,

The

differences

between the various

rituals

are too numerous to be listed.
I.

Read D^iVyom, the
'n^N3''1

sign over the

y

indicates transposition.
letters
are,

L.

2.

should be n^3N''1,

the

middle

howevei,

doubtful.

On

this

Eulogy compare also

Per.,
is

JQR., X, 6io.

L. 5. Thirteenth Eulogy.

The

text

very close to Y, see also Per.

JOR.,

ibid.

L. 6.

Read n^):
Supply Supply

Supply n'2

py

nnxc'

(nD'»^D).

L.

7.

jni '':^^^N
n''K>1

nin\
iDB^a.
;

L.

8.

n»N3

L. g.

Only 7 and y are

visible

they belong very likely to

DHOy

Wp^TI.

T

2

278

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Fol. 2.
nnyit:-'^n

Recto.

onn

mp

nr:>vn

n'^nr:)

^^3y

i

^ib

n^Dxn 'n3 [D]vn
^<^'^

b

irip nnyiB^b ^3

3

jx^nnn
nx

iiJ

^ny^B'^
]

)ybv

D^m

i3^n^[N'

pp D^Dm
^n
^d

3

4
5

ijyK'im iJ'Ti^sn

o'-Dnna ^npi

n^s^D

nm

pj^nni

^

.

.

6
7

t6^ 3N
Dp

"3

»

D^ojm

8

LI.

1-3,

end of

fifteenth Eulogy,

^^
;

r\'0)i

flN.

This Benediction, of

course,

is different in

P, in

which

it

forms part of the preceding, cp. on this

Palestinian practice, Jer. Ben,
L,
2.

II, 4,

5a

IV, 3,

8a;
,

Jer. Taanit, II, 2,

65

c.

Y
ff.

omits

DVn

,

,

.

,

^3

and Am. DVil ?3

otherwise there are no

important variations in the
LI.

rituals.

3

Sixteenth Eulogy.

The
I.

differences are too

numerous

to

be listed^

This

ritual is

perhaps nearest to
all

The

title

|(x)Dn"in

3N

is

found in Per.

iJQR., X, 610)
also conjectural.
L. 4.

the others have

i:i?1p ]}}2^.

The

reconstructions are

Perhaps

we

should supply

iJ'i^lp yt3»^,

and

1.

5 p^'IS.

L. 6.

The Yod

of pj^nni seems to be cancelled by a point.
is

L. 7. First

word

probably ^J3P0. 8
is

The

last

word of

1.

probably Dp""!.

AN EGYPTIAN JEWISH RITUAL

— BUTIN

279

Fol. 2.

Verso.

-ini'
ij^^n

[

)2]v^' ia» i3^^n -nx

4
5

^y

T

^^ mi3 nni nrlT
bvy

n

v^2 nmoDH
b[v]) i?
b^^,'^

6
1

8

Ll. 1-2.

End

of the

Abodah, seventeenth Eulogy.
;

L.

I.

^137, so

Y, others omit

TS03, so Y,

I,

and

C

;

cp.

Saadya

in

Baer, p. 99.
Ll. 2
ff.

Eighteenth Eulogy, part of the Hazan.

L.

4.

Before niX,

A and
still

S read(S

IJTlV) nyi
;

D^J?^

;

supply NIH nriN.

L. 5. First

"im

cancelled by a line
visible.

supply ^inSin "1DD3, the top of

3 and 1
L.
6.

in "|333 is

Supply very

likely

nnipDH imiD'^:.

.

28o

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
FoJ. 3.
[):yij^'<

Recto.
'rhii
-isii

i^nty n»B' \v^b li^nxDn
ii^^ifiii

i

'n

!?y

I'bK'

nna nan
|i?6b

^j?

2

niotyn niiiy dn* i6c'

ii^nNcn
^o n^
ntj'y

3

m uy
'•1

i:^Jiy

as*

"iirby^

4
5

w^nniK'D 131

'3 -)C"C'

jyD^

n''[niy]-i3

Nian
]

7

no^^i n^niD^o

t^om
P'i'^Zi')

[

s

n'

9
10

{')

Fol. 3.

Verso.
Nnron^J

HD^ya

|-i"'DNn

Nnnncin NnTK'[iJ
Kini

i

sh

py 133^
N'^1

Qim
12N

iok
raini
y'^

noNi
n'-nc^''

2

^3 T'y*

3''B'n^

3

Di[n] irjy ^^»^ nyK'in

«

inon

4
5

'ma D^s^inn tit
'])b[br\>

^tt^on

He's

1r^<-|p

n]iy tti""! nm"" ntJ'N V"

minn
n]i>D

6
7

nc'N

n33t:>

nyn [nc'x

Dib nSin
nhyjb
"IDti'

vni)N
]

8

n3-i [3ni
rhbrof.)

9
10

i

Recto.

LI. i-6.
is

End

of the supplications pieceding the Half Xaddish.
1i''*lTy
(1.

Every word
(1.

pointed and cancelled from

i)

down

to

lIDy*

4)

;

many
6
ff.

of the supplications must have

come before and were repeated
fol.

by mistake, see the exact order and wording on
Li.

9 verso.
for comparison, but

The Half Kaddish.

Hardly enough
ff.

is left

as this

Doxology occurs again

in full,

6b-7

a,

we

shall

examine

it

there.

L. 10,

Some

letters are still visible, but

they are doubtful.

Verso.
LI. 2-8.

LI. i-a.

End

of the Half Kaddish.

Dim

Nini followed by various Ashres.

This occuis again 6

a.

L. 6.

Should be '35^^

L. 7. After n33ti' Massorctic

Text has
in

17.

The number

of the Ashres

and their arrangement are different
LI.

the various rituals.

8

ff.

Ps. 145.

.

AN EGYPTIAN JEWISH RITUAL
Fol. 4.

— BUTIN
V"'

281

Recto.
onni pjn
i

niD ncn h:i d^sn tin

'3^iD

nnj

iiDin'' "]n''C)ni

t^V'^ ^a
inia^o

3

ynin^

nm^

imuji noN^
D^ohy HD^D

4

nn^CJ'DOl

nniD^JD

6

[nn::']^ T^»^' ^^
[.
.
.

'J'y

D^aisan ^[a^

]

s

.

in]ya d!?3N hn* Dn[ij
i'[3]^ ]3[''2^D'\

]
]

9
10

Fol. 4.

Verso.
i^i'np
nti'

nyi ai'y^

n^i'i
iT"

b

Tin^'j

i

)bbn Dijiy nyi

nnyo

innj i3n3Ni

2

nryn

npy^ ^nb' ni^N n^ i^Sn

n^

3

[^n]::'^

^sij jvi'^

S11

*13 non

5

V'''

DNJ
V''*

npya

ya^a

6
7

ntj'N
[itt'i]»>

^nn

nus nniN
-iK'N

[n]^ n>23 ^noB'

wna nxr nmi n^^jy
[1

s

[
[.
.

y]nT ^sni lynr ^do
. .

.

.]

9
10

nn]Ni

••

D^y

Recto. Continuation of Ps.

145,

w.

8-16.

L. 6. Before DVO^iy Massoretic

Text has ^3
21.

Verso. LI. 1-3. End of Psalm 145.

The Psalm

is

followed by two

Ashres from Ps. 146. 5 and
LI. 5-10.

84. 13.

Uba

le-Zion, with the
It

Kedushah.
§ riD
;

This section
(Frumkin,
I,

is

practically
;

alike in all rituals.

occurs in Am.,
;

302)

V,
;

§ n5f

(Hurwitz, 73)
other rituals at
L.
6.

;

Abud. 67
its

K,

§ 14. 7

d

C

56, for

Rosh ha-Shanah

in the

regular place.

Place under ]V)i^

Nm

left blank.

L. g. Supply ']^DD at beginning and ^y"1T at the end of the line. L. 10. Supply nyl

nnyD mn^ lOS.

Then

follows the Kedushah.

.

282

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Fol. 5.

Recto.

'nx y»D'Ni
iDipoo
y''

nn

^jnctii

nnp^

VT

nynx

i

nD3 nna b^n ^v\

b)p

nnx

3

N>JD yv ^Np

nnn

nyj:c^i

Nnn

^jn^DJi

3

-inND
y'>

yn mp^ nna
nyi ohyij nii'D^

piDNi pnntrm
^'^

4
5

n^n:3B' n^n

nixni
-lOB'
.

y'^

N^oi'y ^ci'y^i D^y!? n*ni[3]^»
^NTJ'''i
pni*""

6
7

irnnx
.

Dnnnx [\n]^N
ch)vb nsr

.

.

I^y 3n^ nuij'no
|iy

I'^^b

s

[.

.

.

.

Njh

-iD3^

[.

.

i]n»n ^3
^3!?

Tiy^

aim sh isn

xini ^^jn

onn^

9 10

^''-^rh na*i[ni]
y"^

l^NTiP
^N*

non nil nSoi 31d

nn[Kj

n
12

''D

noN*

nmini nhy^ piv inpi[v]

nn-'NtJ'i'

yc'B ^y laiyi py a^): ti[d3]
""3

13

non

]^Dn

isn nyi? pnnn n^i in[^ra] 14
c^i33^

^"'^c•n1

irnuiy

iJcn-T'

3itt'[''

Nin]

15

[3]py^^
L.
I.

[

nnJNE^n
;

b
11.

n^

mhv[o3]
3. 12,

16

End of the Targum
11.

of Isa. 6. 3

then follows Ezek.

with its

Targum,

2-5

;

Exod.

15.

18 also with

its

Targum,

5-6.
left

L. 6. After

n'ni3PD, DXp has been accidentally

out.

niN3X

is

cancelled by points.
L. 8. Supply

pni

L. 9. Supply n^riK'V L. ID. Supply
LI. 12-16,
is
""3.

passage from Micah

7.

18-19, omitted in almost

all rituals; it

found in Saadya, M, and Y.
(1.

M, however, leaves out from

n''"lNti'^ (13)

to

315^

15).

L. 16.

Supply

n»x

|nn, mic.

7.

20.

Fol. 5.

Verso.
V'"'''

[n^D 3py'

^^]^^<

'\:b

33:^0 i3»y niN3x

»DV3 i:^ni3xi5 ny3i;'3 -i^^n
'u"

nr\'\2i6
V''

non

i

ban

'\:h

Dioy> ov

dv
V'^

"in3 Dnp
ij^nyit'^

2

"mx
Di»3 irjy^

nt:\x

nix3v

"[n^JD

3

^^on nyvjnn

y'^

13

)b

nun

4
5

\X31B» 1X-IM

r\2)ob n',x i:Dy nK'y i:^x-ip

II

iman ii pf^Kfjfaji^^^iHfmfVim'/fsail/'^Ai^.J-i.''-

-•^?:t"

^!J,>Li>=.-.

*i

'p'\

IWjyW*

WJ*? ])73J>IXi Pi» Xii^

ii'''^^

1»>

y* 2'xy 5i^ ^-P '«^

J^di>

1^

e)/^*) «kJ2)

Y* ceja*

f Jp.

^
111

Fol. 5a.

End

of

Kedushah and

supplications.

.

AN EGYPTIAN JEWISH RITUAL

—BUTIN

283

[nin^]^ uNinc' irans

nnn irn^s nnn
n[»N
iJ^nb

7

pmn

ijiainn

nyn^

D^y

•'-m

]

9

[i]n2nx i:^3b y^M inning

[•••.]

.

.

.

xh ?nb

y::

n^ jyo^ n^'sn

k'qj2[i]

n^n^ir D^iya
[^^n]!?"!

ypn

-imt^rty '•nins*
t^'n^Ji

14
15

n'-tt'rsn

nio''^

nanai nnio
'•a]

't i6
^3yn^

Dmax
in the

^3

irnx n[nN

N3n

oijiyn

16

Note the insertion written
at the place

upper margin,

it

is to

be inserted in

1.

3

where

the sign occurs.
.

L. 2. V inserts the section n^D V adds Umryi after IJ^nyiK''

.

.

^1"l3 after

I^NIp

of

I.

5

;

besides,

L.

4.

After *]2 Saadya seems to introduce another section Tl33
I,

TlOf ]Vw
Ps. 86. 17.

(Frumkin,
LI. 4-6.

317).

l^nonJI

mn'' omitted in Y.

The quotation from

"131 i^^]3 is

an addition not found elsewhere.

L. 6. 31tD is cancelled L.
7.

by

points.

Before lyn^N Saadya and

Am.

insert

Nin

;

IJ^JIIN ']\'\2

is

found

only in Y, which, besides, adds
LI, 8-9.

IJNnU "jn3
.

before 13X~13'^.

Am.

omits

HDN
;

.

.

fJlJI.

L. 8.

imin
;

riN generally omitted in the other rituals.

L. g.

Supply

min

after

HDN Y
I
;

adds I^UI HC^O H^ ^y
.

;

nyD3

should be yD3
L. 10
ytJil
,

|Dn"in, so M, Y,

others simply NIH

Supply nna'';
I

imin^

others mostly "in3.
Q^'')

Y imin
,

niD^nij.

so

(Y

yt33),

M

]r\''\

Am. A, S and Abud.

other variants in

Baer, 128.
L. ir.

'\n nit:^yh

mdv^ y
;

nny!?! iJixnj "^n "c^y^

;

others

"^n ":ry^

nnyh.
L. 12. Supply
LI. 13-14.
"li>J
;

nXSn

C'Qini, so M,

Y,

I

;

others omit.

Others lyninX NI^NI
;

im^N.
others add nTH after

L. 14. Supply n3T:i or HN-lJ")
LI. 14-15.

D^yn.

n3*121

riTlJB'

M

omits

;

the various rituals read

differently.

L. i6. Beginning of a section not found at this place in any of the other
rituals.

284

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Fol. 6.

Recto.
D'nvj

ny
:
•:•

S''

m:b^ ny ny^ nn

ij3*c*^

r

n)b'^y2

)DV

na iit

S''

jn'

i»y^

2

nh'T ^in^^
na*im
n-n-j"V''

rmb

rih^

nhnS
'fmbk
n'':j'n^

3

s^i py 123''
* inr:n ^3

ny-'B'i.T

Dim Nini n^y^ xh lax
Dvn
ij-ij^

4
5

't "-Dvon nc'N* "i3"'xip

i^cn

6
7

yn'>2

''acn^

nc'iS

V'""

mina

D'-ahnn tti
iii'i'n^

[vn]^N

yV

oyn nc'N

''ni'D

niy

8

n^l?nxi 13-13X
':^i
'31

Dv
^>'>

ba

nyi

ni'iyi'

irDV 10

iwSD

^^moi

hna nyi nSy^ loc*
npn px 'inbi[3]h
itj^ iTinu[ai]

n
12

n^tJ'yo
'd3

nac"' "in^

in

nam nmn nuD

-nn

13

nDN"- TTiiNiiJ ntyi nn^c^s* ^>[n^?!5^3]
nnpi^'i lyn'- ^n1D

14
15

m

nar

nn3D[K inhnji]

310 non ^n^i
Ll. 1-2.

ess

tin* ninni ;[ijn ijjt]

16

See also

fol. 7 b.

L. 3. Rubric in Arabic.
L. 4.
fol.

Beginning of the Minhah Service.
(1.

Dim

Nini followed by various Ashres and by Ps. 145

9) as on

3

b.

L. 8. After Selah an insertion

must be made as the sign referring
7]22U Dyn
"""Iti'N

to the

margin

is

there

;

it

should be

:

\p

as on

fol.

3 b.

L. 9. Ps. 145.

;

AN EGYPTIAN JEWISH RITUAL

— BUTIN

285

Fol. 6.

Verso.

Disn

^ni?

ynin^ it21^ imnji no^<^

3

niai'n -ini3/r3 iniD^o
']^)D

nn

nu3i vnnuj
D^c^iy ^3
^'^

4
5

nm nn ba
b^ bb ba
P]piri

-jn^c'?ooi

D^si23n

D^^ain n^^sin ^d^

6

pvn

^n

yac'O"!

nn-

riN

n^niD inya
V'*

s 9
10

"p vc^yD

n^oni

n»Ni

iniN-!p^

TJ'N i?3^

vam bn VNmp b^
nx
y''

[pn^;]
2)'\p]

[S''

'B'n yotr^ nnyic' nxi nEyy vn[-i^ pvn]

n
12

'nn ^3

riNi

vaniN

b

idi::'

Dy''D'r[i]

b

T1T1 ns im^

S''

ri^'"""

n^oc" D^yc'in

13

TI3J i^mNi nyi nSyi? ic'np Dir
[npy^J^N::'

ncn

ntj'a

14
15

nc'N

n> ib^n

Di?iy nyi

nnyn

n^

[n noj^yn
[x]nn
Continuation of Ps. 145.
L. 6.
L. 7.

nm

n^D:r cnpn^i T'lin^

17

D/23n cancelled by

points.

ITSD^ Massoretic Text n35J'V

LI. 15-16.

L. 17.

Same Biblical quotation as on 4 b, 11. 3 and 4. The Kaddish With 17 begins the Kaddish de-Rabbanan.
1.

in

whole or

in
;

part occurs in
I

all

rituals.

A

(P. B., p. 86, Baer, 127, 153)
;

S

(p. 372)

(p.

74)
;

;

Y

(p. 95,

100; cp. also Dalman, Worte Jesit, p. 305]
;

V
I,

(Hurwitz,

p.

64)

Abud.
184;
§

(p. 40)

M

{loc. cit.)
I,

;

Ar. (pp. 5

b,

22 b, 23 aj

;

Am. (§11, Frumkin,
184 note
3)
;

I,

HD, Frumkin,

317); Saadya

(in

Frumkin,

K

§ 7,

2 b-d).

L. 17. After

iim

(N3~i)

Y

adds JON see Abud.

.

1

;

286

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Fol.
7.

Recto.

b^i p.T^nai |o''Dvai

pa^'^nn

iTnoma
•tdk'

3

Nvo^Nj? iD^iS'y^i ol'Ny^

T13D nan
nnnc^-'i
i'i'nn''

5

xc'jn^ nbyn* orDnn^ naan^
[N^jj^yb Nin

nnnn*

6
7

inn
bv
••

n-irnpn
xn-^:;'

n''o:j'

"nnn>
Ni'''yi>

snnac'in

NDDia

fox

ncNi

bo noWn p^oxn

s

9
10
1

....
, . .

]):]>]

n^D^n n^o^n ^3 bv) pn^'^obn

^^

pnn N-inxn
D^*^'

n

Nc^np NnniN3 pp'^oyn
Nn^

[N]:m

N3^i

pD^i pni? N^D'cn

nnsi ins' ^33

12

I^N noNi nini nnai
nc'iy
••

NH^N nip

p

N*nDn[i]

13

D-^n n^dc* jd n3-i n^^bu

^T

14 15

jcN

nosi

i^snc" bi'i 13^
o^ijc

ba
L.
!•

[i'y]

D^nn vomni VDiiwa
faint as to

16

The words n*niy"13 N^3 are so
n"'n'':r?3

be almost

illegible;

but

see 3

a, 6.

nOi"*!, so Y, S,

An, and Abud.

L. 2.
L. 3.

n^}2]J

pnD"'1, so
so

b^l pn*^n31,

M and M and Y

Y.
;

others ^3 ""^nn.

Abud. omits

.

.

.

"*'n3

L. 4.

After 3^^p there are two points;
;

following sentence
L. 5.

Y

reads NH^
,

pX, therefore, belongs to the pH. |DN n»N1 3np, cp. Abud. and K.
but
:

L. 6.
different

;

Some add fON see K. The verbs are practically alike in all rituals, Am. and Saad3a read obpH* instead of ??nn^
in

the order

is

this ritual

seems

to

have 1330'
L.
L.
7.

the place of

"INSnV
p.

On

Nin 1*13, sec Abud.,
at the

42

;

NP^y?
line.

is

here repeated as

in

Y.

8.

Supply Nncnjl
Supply |i3n
bv'\

end of the
;

L. 9.
L. 10
rituals,

bm^''

M

omits ^Nlf*
I,

bv.
^Jyi

Supply probably p3n'1, with .^bud. and Y add nothing.

or,

JD ^3

with the other

L. II. Kti'^np; Abud. positively

condemns

this
;

form although used by
is

many

;

he

insists that
in

we

should read Nn::'np
line

XDC'np
ni

found

in

I

and

S and bracketed
L.
I

Y.

At the end of the

supply

13.

A

omits X37, and most authorities also p3^;
ti:b
-,

M

has

p3^
;

pni>

pn^lN:^; S poh
all.

Y njS pn^

in

Dalman Nibi

]'\rh ]^^b)

Abud.

omits

Dp'J* shoulil

be

HWC M, S, and Y omit.

AN EGYPTIAN JEWISH RITUAL
LI. 13-14. Differences
ritual

—BUTIN
to

287
listed.

between

rituals too

numerous

be

Our

does not correspond to any other.

L. 15. Supply another substantive.
L. 16.
rituals
is

Other

rituals insert

XIH

after

VnilD
nti'i?'

;

A

omits

Vrom3
1.

and
.

all

omit what comes between

VtDm3and

of next page,

r,,,

D''!nn

not absolutely certain.

Fol.

7.

Verso,

in^

i»y^
''^'

tiy
'^

S''

D'?i ^h"^^'
DwS*

ri>3

2

ijcy I3sn^x
''•

S'

D"i^^2 loy

i-in^

3

^Ni iJ^nTy ks* irriDx oy n\n t^tn^

nab^i v^N i:^33^ niDni> nioni? irEro^

iB'N n^JN

nm
y^

vnj^i

irnnx

ns* niv

DDV

iJ^n^N

^x D^3np

^js^ ^nj:nnn

&
9 10

nny
px

dsej'o nVl^'y^
lyoi?

V3*n

bn

na^^

10V3 nv -im ^NnB>* loy
sin
y"'

n'-nbvvn

'3

j'-ixn

^oy

^53

n[yn]

n
13 14
15

'm T'30 nrn minn nao
ni:ry^ mo^jri jyo^
. .

r-^n-

n^

my u
i'33

nb''i'i

ddv

n

rr-ini

.

n^3m nx
i'N

n^ij^'n

rx

'•3

n

3in3n

piyn
[l^n]

fttsi pin Tn"'Vi* n^jh b"'3B'n

nc'N* !'33

Tn^N

y"-

-joy 13

nnn

^ni

16

n^»3
L.
I.

73 repeated by mistake

;

after nci'y

most

rituals

read

13''7y

U\?U

Ll. 3-12.

Quotation from
i.

i

Kings

8.

57-60

;

this

and following section

quoted from Joshua
other
after
rituals.
It

8

(II,

12-16) are not found in this connexion in the

occurs in Ar, at the end of the Service for the second day
31
a.
;

Rosh ha-Shanah,
Note
^',

L. 3,

not ^^
is

besides,
to

it

seems

to be cancelled

by a

point,

although the point
L, 5. First

too

weak

be identified positivelj'.

niDHp

cancelled by points.

L. 6, Masso ratio Text reads Vt325i'»1
L.
7.

Vpm

VniXO.

VrU""! a

mistake for VriM

.

L. 8. After ^J37

we
;

should add

nirT" as in the biblical text.

L. 9, Supply nb''b^

V3"n ^33

r,2bb not found in the biblical text.

L. 10. Supply DSB'DI, L, 14, Supply TNT.
L. 16.

Supply l^n.

.

288

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Recto.

Fol.

8.

ITn^iS

Nnra' x^dhn*

p
psn
^N-iB^^

nd3

lb HK^yni
^:d3
V'"

Dnvo

loy
dk>

ijyc'-i

"iJNun nin

dvhd

Ti^vo nnoni ISDN
[i:]"'NDna

w

avc''

i^nipnv
-in'»

o

l^ip in d^^^td
D^i'-k^'iT

[nann!?] loyi
\bii ):'<]rhii

u^nuN

niJiyni
b:ib

v^^

nnyi irnu'-aD

[bv]
V'^

T^^
lyD^

"iN*ni

vji3nn bn) inay
^^^N

n^sn
^!:^po

IJIN*

nun

D''OK^n
y'"-

n-iyni

i3ni»0B'

ns

nx-ii n^j-iy
"-a

np[a]

unjN irnipn^ ^y ab
yj2n-\

noK' Nip3 "i[k'n]
D^i'[^3o]
D[''2-in]

bv

"3

T^s^ ir^unn
V'^

na[''C'p]n

S'"

J^n^D

nyoK'
2
is

y"^

Ll. 1-3.

Rubric

in
it

Arabic

;

the
to

first

word

of

1.

too faint to be read
1.

with certainty, but

seems

be in

p''D"ini.

Likewise after ND3,

3,

two or three words cannot be
as,
'

read.

We
'.

would expect some such meaning

after they

have read the Tephillah

The
is

rubric must have been
visible.

marked
of

with the usual signs, but these are no longer
the Service for Mondaj-s and Thursdays

The arrangement

similar to the one indicated

by

Am.,

§

nV (Frumkin,
ff.

I,

393).
9.

Ll. 4

Passage from Dan.

T5-19.

ND^^fin for nN''i"in.

L. 5. After

QnVO

biblical text

has npIH

T3.

L. 8. "in^ is a mistake

and was probably cancelled by points or by a dash

no longer

visible.
"|:*^^<

L. 12. After CJOB'n biblical text reads

jynb,

but omits

these two
after

words
I^TN

after "J^'N-

Biblical text has also

M7S

for ^7N,

and adds yot^l

L. 13. nin' omitted in biblical text. L. 14. After "]j:y biblical text has n>^y.

L.

16.

Tlic final

He

is

extended according to

its

cursive form.

.

.

.

AN EGYPTIAN JEWISH RITUAL

— BUTIN

289

Fol. 8.
^»E^

Verso.
""3

Tha

i2yo^ "inNn ^n
->

ntryi

i

iras
ij'':y

'iM:y

loy

!?j?i

in^y ^y
i^'-jy

2

iJ''jy

iJiyc^^

Nn^s*

i3''jy

3

ir-nni
iD-i^y

i^mn

lyjy

ij"':y

i:^ni3

4
5

i^DNDn b^b
nnai irjy

ii\y\

iJ"'jy

irjy
\ni5N
ij^jy

i3^jy

pn^""

i:''3n

nnnax
-i"'3x

6
7

Vn mry
ij-i^y

ir^y irjy 3py^
3:t^'»

niDsn
ij"'3y

irjy

ii'':y

D''D3[K'n]

s

'i3''iy

Nnijni

nujn
"ij^jy

ijnjn

9 10
.

"D^as*

']ik

^^

-UTin

T^m
nna
[d'^]

ni^n: riNnp: n-'omn ijyn

n
12

pi

mp»

vjy!?

nynin

inon
y""

[1]

1

N-ip-i
fjy

n-^ iDy
V'^

a^f'TT'i

pya

m-ii

13

[Nip^lJ V3D

Sliy''i'

<•

"ICNJ DC>1
^jn'

S''

14
15

[nD]n

mi

d^sn nnx pam
N5J^i3

Dim

y^ V>

.... py
.

n'zhab non nvi: nDsi 16

HNDni
Nnp3
it is

L.

I.

After "JOt^ biblical text has
Selihah Anenu.

LI. 2-10.

In most rituals

alphabetical.

recension
simpler.

is

entirely different from

any found
II,

in the rituals,

and

The present is much
it

See Am., §rp (Frumkin,
Cp. Baer, 599.

313).

Most

rituals

have

for the

Day

of Atonement.
9.

L.

Supply

13"'3y at

the beginning of the line.
letters to
fl

L. 10.

The word and
is

be supplied are not clear
in the
.as

;

the letter pre-

ceding

UTin
then,

either

or

y

,

latter case

it

would be probably
it

lynnyj,
form.
L. II.
LI. 13

some such word
any

'^^)\y should

precede; but

is

too

doubtful to allow

positive conjecture.

D^2N "l^N px has here

a different

Supply nriN, the lower portion of n seems
ff.

to be visible.

Exod. 34. 5-9.

L. 16. Supply ya^DI

29°

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Fol.

9.

Recto.

i:^nns \n^Ki

iJNii'N

x3x

•>

i^n^nai

2

ejiiy

^:^•p1

d^jd

ny

ijn pnk'

irnnno

4
5

i3Ni2n x^i i3niN

D^nv y:sh noN^c
>sn inai ):bn
ij^ao i:Dcn

inja

i:f2r^s*

irnuxi unjK UNtsn ^3n

6
7

[m]r

i:yc-ini iriyn

[i:nji3 y-i
[

"ijvy ipc'

s

iri]y

ino

i3^iN3

iriD

M'ib

9
10

[i3pin]K' ijyB>n
Li'-niDn

simy

):''^p

imv
u^yn

Tn^^*'2o

mo

n
12
13

[nnJKi

••

u^

ni:i^

n^

DnB^\n T'^st^'o^i

n'B'y nj3N ^a ij^^y

Nan
•>

b

^y p^nv
i:n3xi

nn:i ^^y lyia* fin
in:i

i^yB'-in

14
15

ysn

in

nya i^d^d irnx ^ipM
ij''3i'r2

nsi
L.

i3^jyi

u^Jn

i3«in

insbx

jo

16

I.

After

nn?01 Am. adds many other

supplications.

LI. 2-14. First part of the Confession of Sins.
full

The

Confession occurs

in

on

fol.

13 b. 4

Here we note only the differences between the two
6; before pstj' 6

folios.

L, 4.

IJ^nnna should be irnjnnn,

cp. 13 b.

13 b.

reads
L.

''•b.
5.

After

y:sh
1

13 b. 8 adds

I^J^C.
Both verbs occur
in

L. 9. ^3"'nD

13b. 12, reads 13T1C.

many

rituals;

after l^iy, supply IjyC'S, as in 13 b. 12.
LI. lo-ii.

13

b,

14

has three verbs beginning with

n

as also the other

rituals

;

at

an earlier date only one verb probably occurred.

L. 14. Should be Dnnji.

L. 15. Should be innjl.
LI.
i/<
fl".

This rubric

is

almost identical with Am...

§

TOp (Frumkin,
§

II,

308)

;

for the
I,

corresponding passage on these two days, see Am.,

riD

(Frumkin,

302),

Y,

p. 6a.

.

.

AN EGYPTIAN JEWISH RITUAL

— RUTIN

291

Fol,

9.

Verso.
"-o

[••ajTiDy

S" ^^ "ii'^K'n nijiy

t

Dm
vi'

unn Nin o

snin \v^b nn'bori ^ov
-113T

t

T'lsm i:nn "iiam
••3

^

\t^K
'31

unry i^mN nay
^Dt^'

-iiar

irn^^

4
5

iyb''vni

1133 -im bv

"^yw
1:3 ijy

m m
""3

lyjiy

DN
'•3

IOC' fyoi? "UTiNun ^y nsai
incj' jyoi?

6
7 s
c^

ntry

V""^

-iitoTD
nn:::'''

n^b^?

i3i<t:n

lb irnn[^Ero]
'•'

m^; dio

^1\>J2 ^-lry n^B*" 3py''T
in^Jiyi

ni>K nc^
^^yD''

.

.

.

10

Tnimo

^3

1131''

n
nj[c^n>]
12

X/»^ in^fy

bi n^33b
^3

lb

|n>

n^D

[x]^D> ijinj irn^N
[V"-]
y^t^'in

0*1^31

i^nyiir'^n nji[-i:]

13

Tiyn^

nny

'I^n1^Nt^•o
iiT'jy^

^3

V''

14
15

[ytr^]

nnn^i )^ip

^"oujd

in^tt^o

Ll. 1-8, see fol. 3 a. 1-6.

This occurs with few variations also in Y,
14. 7,
11,

I,

and S

;

they omit quotations from Jer.

6-8.

After this they recite^

the Half Kaddish.
L.
7.

"131

"'3

cancelled by a dash.

L. 8. Ps. 20.

L. 9. Supply ijy> L. 10.

nn^
is

The missing word
3py''T

probably 133{J'\ which had been wrongly

repeated.

H^N
I

should be of course

apy

\n7N.

L. II. Supply

WOT.

VOL. IX.

U

292

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Fol. 10.

Recto.

UNt:' D"'NDn bvi ntry^

pny^ niryn i6

2

pa'-^n

i3xt:>

DVs'Dn bv^ p["ip DjiT^y pn-'^n

4
5

'n 13NC' D^Nt:n
pn""'n i^Nc'

bi n^y[2nx] nip^D
^yi

on^ijy

D^Non

ma

i.T'^y

[pa^] ^n

6
7

WNB* D^NDn ^y^

D^iDtJ'

^1^3

nn^o |[n^^]y
tn^i^y

nn

p[jn p]n

nn

nin^ro

ynns

p3"n
nsne'

s 9 10

ni[vD
D''ib

bv'\]

Hij'y

nivjD ^y n^^po

p'xc' ^yi ^ib n^ibn ^yi nK^yn

s^

.

.

.

u^

D^i^j

[J]J^N:^'

riNi

y:tib dij[-ion]
''jd^

12

[^y] i:N[£:]m
)ynbi<
r\)r\>b

inns nd3

yn^
-i3*t3

''i[b]

13

ni[-inDj]n ":i^
ij^

ohs

14
15

niij»y!?

D^iy ny iyj3!5i

ni^ [jjni]

li3y
LI.

ni^""!
fol.

nNTH
14 b. 5
ff.
;

nmnn n3n

[^3

ns]

16

1-12 are a duplicate of

see the notes on the latter

place.

Note that

in

this section

there

is

a constant variation between
!•

DHvy

and

pvy

;

once

we
is

find

even DlUvy,

3-

The
14

reconstruction of
b.

the missing words in this page can easily be
L. II. 1J7
to dittography L. 12.

made from
16;
it is

W)bi

]ytil^

omitted

in 14 b.

a

wrong

insertion due

with preceding or following

line.

Supply 73n with Am.
^)b}
II,
,

LI. 13-14. "JC'

V, A, S,

R

read D^])^T^ DM^J
I^Jsi? '•lb

"X*'

1313.

Am. (Frumkin,

341) "j^;

1313

DH ^i^b ^H. Abud.

reads (p. 133) "ICWB' 1D3

im^N
This

'H 1>:2^ '"IDVI ''1^

bsH

;

he mentions the
"103
;

the fact that

many

inserted

D^3 py UNDHI between 1J\n^X and
ritual

he

condemns
LI.

this addition.

reproduces this rejected reading.

14-16.

Quotations from Deut. 29. 28.

The
It is,

section

in3y Tni
in

is

generally not found in the rituals in this place.

however,
;

A

and S

when

the Confession

is

repeated

in

the Evening Service
(p. 137 b).

it is

also found in

Rafter the Confession of the Morning Scr\ice

Fol. 10.

Verso.
p3^

i
"idn
i

nnnoiD
'noi lyyt'D

no ms^jc y^zh

^30 irn^N

V' i^'P^ '^'P^

^

AN EGYPTIAN JEWISH RITUAL

— BUTIN

293

"'T

bv ainD[3] linnni oninD
D''n[nnt3]i
D"i3''i'y

d'-d

4
5

'd
•>

bo

Tip-in nx"'3j

[DjsriN

nnuN

Q'-h^j

boi

oaTiiKota

6

nhoi bn)D i^D

13^

ps

T'iv[^20')] 13^

9

i6^ IV

'%'i<

nns

7sn::^^

[i»y

ni3i]yp

10

'uiy it^3yi iK'ayi \xi3 '•rx •'n["ivi3]

n
12

[']^n3 ^3x

-isy ^nn^'iJ
^-in

ab 1^x3

^nni*i3K>

\nbx y^ i^js^ ^3x

^nnno3

[-iJD]im

[^p]
,
.

13

yishD

ii^*-i

^^'

nobi

ntJ'n

x^[»

]
y'"-

14
15

...::' noi TiDnti'

no xonx

x^tj'

m^x

["sjin T'^nns

^inoi p^itD

TiMy'i:'

nm

16

bx
L.
I.

Quotation from Ps.

19. 13

;

ilO

is

of course a mistake for

''O.
;

LI. 5-6.

Quotation from Fzek. 36, 25.
lectionis in

D13py should be D3 vy
most

note

the mater
L.
all
7.

TnilDI
1.
1.

for Dn"inD"l.
folio, in

This continues
b,

16 of preceding

rituals.

Am.

omits

from loa, 16-19
sections.
.

10.

R

does not seem to have either of the following

two

L- 8. 13^ ...

1-|3ni

M, V, and Abud. omit
ri''3

;

A, S read
1

111")
11.

">n
1-2.

^3.
NPX

L. 10.
is

We
and

might supply possibly
line.

73 l?OyP
title, is
;

cp. 7 b,

written above the

^^7N, although a

not written in square

letters.

M

O

omit

all this

Hne down

to

ilDX

V, S omit down to 7X1C'''.

L. II. First
L. 13.

1k^'3y"l
;

is

cancelled by points.
in the other rituals
:

So Abud.

"bx nin^ omitted

S amplifies

L. 14.

Supply ^^33 with the other

rif.uals.

L. 15

After '^T^K A, S. Abud. read "TinX
1:^^i'X
;

^"^f?X1

;

V

has plural suffixes

IJTinX \n^X1

Am. irnbx

simply.

After

NUnX

Am., M, A.

S,

add

my.

Tioni:' for '•nxon'C'.
.
.

Ll. 15-16. TT'iyti'

«

HDI not found
15
is

in the

other rituals

;

verb to be

supplied at the end

of

1.

uncertain, but possibly
;

TiyK'Dvi'.

pl^O
^IHOI

so
is

Am. and
omitted in

V A
;

and S

read'

p"lO

M

has

nnO

;

O

has plilD.

all rituals.

U

2

; ;

294

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Fol. II.

Recto.
''iniD^

DV nnjo mb)i n!;o3
r^'b

n^ nb

bx

r

T-yo

r\i6): 'nrini'

« i^yo^x

2

Dv^ in;' nicfb jfn^N
i2i? "fin
'21

nn5

iiaa nva

3

nacrx mb)i ^lo
-ns;:'
^''''

*^v^i Ti

nnS'n

4
5

nnan

NnnT

v^S^ m^Dy^i?

i5n:n i5xn

npy

'n^xi pni*^ ^^i'N1 Dn-i3N

7

nnnn
x''3f3i

^01: |V^y

^n N-iiam

-iiajn

^n:n

8

nns

•'non "i:Din
fyDi?

^i^n njip D'-aiu
Dn''jn
li^ro

9

irnsr [nnjnsa loty

>J2^ ^ni:

10

1SD3
. .
.

u'-ansi

D^'nn |*Dn

^x D'^n^
D^^n
^>Nii

n
12

.

n

"n li'o D'-^n

n'nba
•>

']:vK>b

V"'

D^iy^ "in:
[n"']nio

nnx

omas' po

13
14
ts

y^rin^

an nnx dtid iThd

'n-13 D^nr:
D'^bin

-Tno nona o^^n
D'-^Qij

bbo
D>m

bD[n]

XDni

"[DID

D''»n-i3

16 17

n>pD) n'iV2i6 lycyoi nniowx i['']n[oi]
L.
I.

End
have
in

of the Minhah Service.
still

After

p"11D''

A

and S add

D''y"l

D'^ni

M

and

V

further additions.

Probably there were also some words
is

left

out

this ritual,

as the sign referring to the margin
is

found after

pTlD'j but no trace of such words
LI, 2-5.

now

visible.

Rubric

in

Arabic

:

as far as the

Amidah Amidah
II,

the Service

is

the same

as on Sabbath. L.
4.

najJ'n should be
I,

ni^a.

On

the

for

Yom
S.

Kippur, see A,

Service Book,

p.

22; Baer, 410;
38
;

O,
V,

III,
§

37

;

I,

I.Iasda, p.
p.

;

Mahzor, 145; 325; Am., §§ np and Xjp (Frumkin, II, 292, 344)
col.

Frumkin,

351 (Hurwitz,
;

389

Abud., 140,

2

;

R, 6r a

;

C,

Rosh ha-Shanah,

30 b

Ar., 59 a.

L. 8.

bnjn

repeated by mistaKe.

L. 10. DrT'n ''22b, Saadya reads
L. II.

DnnnX

Dy"l6 (Frumkin,

I,

34, X).

PX omitted
it

in

the other rituals; after

170

Per. adds jcrn, and

after D^'na

adds

D>"'n

W^bn

.

L

12.

Instead of ^:V^b. Persian reads

yi^b
:

.

"Jl

D\n^X we
D'TI

find a great variety of readings in the rituals

A, S

"Itiy "]?0

D

wX

',

AN EGYPTIAN JEWISH RITUAL
Am.
^n (^n) D^^!?x
;
;

— BUTIN
;

295
-jIjid

i,

R iny
ba
iblO

bn):
,

(R i^d) ^n ks
it is difficult

Abud.

^n i?N

nny

Per.

iny

ijNIJ

•'n

&c.

to

know what word

should be supplied at the end of the
LI. 14-15.

line, y^l^ltDI

or JJD.

Like S

;

Am., V, and

A

omit {jDH TTltt.
II,

LI.

17.

DiJVnN^

jytyO, so

Saadya (Frumkin,

237) and Per.

JQR.,

X, 606) omitted

in all

the other rituals.

Fol. II.

Verso.
'^y^'<b

D"\:sh nio:rJ nnnriti isy

injinx
d'tio

i

nr^n

'•di

nnujn

^yn naiDD

''»

2

nTi^o nvnni? nns* jonji c-in^
l^fnyji

n^Dmn
^Ni

4 5

t^hpS

D^non

n^"'nD
^i5

bv
V""'

"^i^'

"1313 n^B'iB'D nc^np
nr

c'^k'ji

6
7

ppp 1DN1

^N

nr

nipi
I53

in'^n:

n^

mm
inn

nua

••

niaa

pxn

nI^d

nisnv

s

'» n-'N

d"«^ni:j>

vmc'Di

D^Jiy Ni?n i^iji

9
id
II

p-i?3"ixi

pna^^'D

n^'nyni' iina dipd
•>

'in 1J''3^» HDipJDD

IDpOD

y'^

1133

^[aJnD

^3

mnrD

ij^by

ii^oni ysin
lytr^ij

12

3np3
[l]i3t;'n
iJ'-D-si

|VV3 iii^on ^no

[i]:x

13 14

ir^n3

•>

ij

[D^]^t:'n^

ni^npo

-jina tj'ipnni

[hjann

15
16

[lyjj^yi

D^nvj

nvjS ny ny^ i^y

[njyxin
Ll. 1-2.

DTID
"]^

"l^TniSl

not found in the other
:

rituals.

L. 3. After
nyitJ'^.

other rituals add

(V,

R

\:b) n''m*D1 n^Httl

n^OD

H^JD

Then begins the
is

special addition for the ten Penitential days,
""O.

which

in all rituals

introduced by "JIDS

(NDmn,
;

note spelling for pn*in,
I,

thus Am., Per., S, C, Ar., Abud. (141. i)

D"'K)n"in,V, A,

R.

See

Baer, 384.

D^lOm NPD,

not found in the other rituals.
Ar., C,

Ll. 4. D'l^n^

D^?3m3, so Am.,

Abud.; the others invert

D''^ni'

D"')3m3.
L.
to
5.

Persian reads differently {JQR., X, 614).

Third Eulogy, extends
1.

down

to

13 b,

1.

15.

For the section down

12

a,

3,

the differences with the other rituals are too

numerous

to be

296
listed.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

We

give only the variants from

M

and

Y

with which

it

is

very

similar,

i^nyji,

M

n3"'^rrj.

L. 6. "JK',

M
,

and

Y nWXH.
After

nk'-'l^^'O

should be ntJ'^IB'lO.

L. 8.

mm

M
Y

omits.
n''ijXi::',

L. 9, ^bl:,
L. 10. (64,
1.

omits.

Y

adds HT^ HT.

iViyn^,

Y

omits; before pnDB'D

M

inserts

Dn^'wb

See Abud.

I).

L. 12.

mno, M

and

Y

omit; after

VSIH,

Y
:

adds Xt^Jnni.

LI. 13-14.

(Exclusively-) 1j''^n3
"lyC^i?,

.... 3np3,

tion doubtful.

M

and Yomit and read

M and Y omit reconstrucM ^^ IJHJX, and Y "J^ 1JN.
;

L. 15. niiripO,
L. 16.

ny nyi?,

M and Y omit. m and y ini

nnij.

Fol. 12.

Recto.
r

n' bv "y^ 1313 -\w niD^oa nrxin

ini

in^
"3

•>

n'"

i^^n

nm
Nin

-in!?

iw yrha
^'''

3

Nin trnpi

Dn»

i?K)

nn^

^^

^n^j '\ybj2r]

4
5

^N
V'*

nyi nb)vb c'lo^
in

n^ irn^N*
nns*

ini^)

innD

j5li

<•

cm pi

hn: ibD
^y irn^N
r\-\2^

6
7

ND

i?D

^y ^nD^^<^

"j^c-yo
i?D

b

I^JD^ •nnntj'^i ^*E'yc^
[ L

niN-i"'i

8

]

nns mi3x
]

o^ia

iK>y>i
Qi^-i:'

n^xnan b^
33''!?3

9

ijyn^c'

10D

iJivn

10
ir

irD>3 n-iDii iT'a
b''
1)22 |n

riy

yzih^
"^

poi^ti'ncy

pSi

•>

mnc
mpn

^y

n-iij

I^c'i

^»B>1

12

'riD

i^L'nn^

t^^^i'^ nSin loy^

13

l[v]-iK^ nncu' ^b D^^n*»b

na jinns

14
15 j6

'nyi "inay
'3

nn^ pp nn^ov
>:^''

-]i^y^ ivi:'[cj
-1^3

mnron th^b'd

p^

n[D"'"iyiJ

L.

I.

"rj*,

L.
LI.

2.

After

M ^f^p n3i3 mcNn, y ycnp in, Y adds "jnay.
is
it

n"'C'3

iicNn.

3-6.

This section

evidently taken from
as the regular third

Am.

(^Frumkin,
for

I,

236,

§ 33)

who, however, gives

Eulogy

work

days.

AN EGYPTIAN JEWISH RITUAL
It is

— BUTIN
is

297
the sarr.e
is

also very close to

I

and Ar.

In the other rituals the end
in

but the beginning

is different,

while

Abud. and

O

the beginning

similar

but the end disagrees;

C

is

entirely dififerent.
;

L.

4.
I

1D''^0n, so
omit.

Am., Ar.

I

yb^:.

"jPO Am.,

I,

Ar. omit.

Nin

Am. and

L. 5. mn'^ omitted in
*iyi U?)]}b,

most

rituals

;

after 13\nPN others rituals

add ^''20.
is

M

and

Y

omit.

7K,

Am.

omits.

The Yemen

recension

given

in

Dalman, Worle Jesu,
L.
7.

p, 306.

NO, others

correctly

HD.
'\'^}i't2r\

L. 8.

Tr\2'^ for nXliB'.
rituals.

should be either l^t^^yn or D''tryi2n

with the other
L. 9. L. 10.

Supply

rwvb.
others D^ET
;

wh^,

supply
-]'«33^.

im^X

HinV

L. II. 1''JS^D, so

Y, others

L. 12. "["O^y, the last

two

letters

having been damaged by a tear were
sufficiently legible the
is

written above, as the

word was not

whole word was

written in the margin.

After py read 73, which
1.

put in the margin.

mnU'
L.

for nN*13B', see
13.

8.

After

Hipn,

Am., M,

S, Ar.

read

n^lD.

lOy

b,

Y

reads

l»y^

mnv

Fol. 12.
D''nK'''i
'\r\i2^'''\

Verso.

INT' D^-jnv
i^^j"

m
p
pni

•>

iron
in^y^

i

pipn
n^3yn
'•3

nn^iyi

nnn

d'-T'Dhi

2

nij^n ja^y^ n^Jij nyc'-in

i?3i

.td

3

'yn nr^^yn ni3^oi
'3''

'pNn

Th^6^='oi2
npyn

4
5

nn3

D"'^'»^Nni

T]i2'\p'!2)2

-incTii

c^c^n^ai
^y 3in33
"•3

jr:;

-in3 ^tj'yo ^3

^y nnnD
p::'^

7

nu3

i^ypr n::i

inu3

s

n?:nn nc-ni njaijn
D^i'B'nui fvv -in3

mam
mxnv
vrpr
V'^

nN^3j n>
[V"'

9

p5^'?3

l^o]
11133

10
ir 12

'p

nmn

3in33

'T133

nj^i

inb

ivv ^^^^^<

ahy^

ii^»^ nc;'ip
r\>

niN3v

y^

.133^1

-iDNii

"bbn

nm

13

.

.

298

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

i3mn2

hhk

« ^"^P^

l^o[n S']^^
^jjao

15 16

[i]n n^x-n

^:n\ii

nans D^»y[n

L.
L.

I.

TNI so

M, V, R,
,

Per.,

and some MSS. of A, the others have pD.

2.

;i3pn other

rituals

L. 3. ^31 omitted in A, S,

pspn R V has
;

^3

^D

;

nhs

... ^3 omitted in Abud.

|B>V3,

C and Abud.

p]32.

L. 4. n^tJ'OD omitted in
LI. 4-5. "l^KTl
, .
.

R

;

the

first

two
in

letters written in the

margin.

riDPCI omitted

the other rituals, but found in

Y

and

partially in Per.
LI- 5-6.

pnnai .... nCilpCD,

not found elsewhere.
"1JI

L. 6.

Am., V, Y, Per. C, Ar. read

mno

"13\n^N

niH"'

(C 112^'),

nnN

Ti^joni (V, c,

y

Nin).
in the other rituals is different,
'\'>]J

Ll. 7-8.

The reading

most of them having
;

(Am., S, Ar. y^1pJ2) ']^ip
"131

D'-^t^'n'-ai

11133 pB'D |VV nHD

Y

inverts

peTo jvx nn3i iTy n^^c'n^a.
LI. 8-12.

Am.
1.

omits
11.

all

from IJJI to

niH'' 'JvD''

;

others, except Y, omit

down

to 1133,

L. 13. After n* l^^n,

Am., A, V, S, Ar. read
;

:

•]t3B'

N"11J1

rtHN

mip

(Y -|DN:i) 3"in33 "iny^30 ni^N pSI
instead of lONJI they have 317133.
L. 15. Note that on

M
is

and

R

read as our ritual but

Yom

Kippur *]bon

substituted to

7Xn
is

L. 16. Middle Benediction.

On

this

we

have collated also a MS. of the

twelfth century, belonging to Prof. Hyvernat.

The

M.S.

not complete
it

but

it

gives this section for the Feast of Pesah.

We designate
2.

H.

Abud.

also gives this section for the Feast of Pesah, p. 113, col.

¥o\. 13.

Recto.
i

Tminy^ uoi^D una^pi i^nivm
nNip ^ybv
Nip?:)
N^^ntD^j

Nni3ni -nsjn

hi:n locn
V''

2

Dv
nrn

riN

n3nN3 um^n

1^^

I^ni
t^'^p

3

oniDin div dv nxi nrn

4
5

n3nN3 irniJiy ^3 ^y

jna .1123^ nn^^D^

pcji^

A^^y
/.

.^.

ii

25^aP 23iV« Y^*-

—» -

.

1

Fol. 13 a.

Portion of the Fourth Benediction for the evening service of

Yom

Kippur.

AN EGYPTIAN JEWISH RITUAL

— BUTIN
-laf ipa''

299

i^Tinx inar ir:n3T

v^^'

s

noy

isa

insr nnny

nn p

n-'C-'o

inar 10
JT-a

nyic^^ nann^ nnio^ T^s'? ^nib'^
n[Tn] c'np
'K'[in]^"i

n
12

NipD nva cromi nonh

in^

):2

Dm^

nrn

oniaan div avni
iJ'"i3n iry»^inbi

13

[nnijtoi?
(?)

13 irnf'x

v"'"'

14
15

^n^

n

•uyK^'ini

ij-'^^d

nana^

12 irnpia

iris m:;
^n''^t^'

bn

13

irv^n irx ....

16
17

nnotr 13 irnoc'

nmxi

|i:[''

.

.

.]

For

this

page see Plate.
so

L. 2. L.
3.

Nnuni ni3an
nin"'

R

:

others mostly B'npni.

Am.

omits.

LI. 3-6.
rituals.

This section does not correspond exactly to any of the other
0- 3) to QIX
(1.

From N"lpD

4) all rituals omit

;

but after

DniD^n

n^n

(1.4)

o, An, Abud. add

nm

'^ip

Nipn Dv na

nin

'i'wn

nn^bo cr ns.
in the

This must also have been the reading of
occurs for the Feast of Pesah (34 b).
various rituals, at least in details.

H

as the corresponding formula

LI. 5

and 6 are also different

After

m33?

Am., V, A, S add PiriD?;

Dn\*D
"1:1

,

.

.

N*1pD omitted
.

in

V.

Am., Abud., An, and

O

insert here

hno
L. 9
ff.

.

.

)Trbti.

L. 8. After litjnJT V, A, S,

C add UJIipDI.
line.

jnar written above the
2),

V, A, S,

C

place

IT'ti'D

inST before

"K'n''

fnaT; Abud. (113.
all

H, O, R, An,

Y

(182) follow the

same order

as here;

omit -JIUD p^12 JVV 11131. LI. 11-12. Words and arrangement slightly different in the various

rituals.

LI. 12-13.

HTH

.

.

.

DV3 same remarks
nn~h, o.

as above,

II.

3-6.

LI. 13-14. iry^tJ'inh 1J3

An

"c'ln^i iri'y i3

nnn^

;

others

omit.
LI. 15-16.

At the end
D''^n?

of

1.

15 there seems to be

tv^'o letters,

fP, which

would give us

at the

beginning of
to

1.

16,

The

following

word

is

perhaps lySK'J, as the
I.

C

seems

be

still

partly visible.

From

13''NC'3 (!)

of

16 to X"l1Jni 13 b,
L. 17.

1.

2 are additions peculiar to this ritual.
13.

Supply ^3n

.

.

;

300

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Fol. 13.

Verso.

Din
'••y

QiDmi
i^^N
^D

nyiK'^

1212 snijni naajn
onni
^ws*

2

ijyc'ini ):^bv
li^D

i3''jni

3

XJX

-^

nnx mn-n pjn
wS*nn

^3

irry

4
5

irn^Dn 1^:2^
PNl"
'•d^

irnux

\n^Ni irn^N*

iJ^njnriD ij''3^d Di?ynn ^si
siniy 'C'pi

6
7

T^s^ ^3X

"n^xrii*

0^:3

ny

ijn

i:N'Dn s'h ijn:N D''pn:»*

irabo

s

unr

ijy"t:'-ini

ij''iyn

•'sn

mm

13^1:

10

i:aT3

yi

ij2»t

'-\?^

iJ^su uor^n
iji-id [i:]vi?

n
12

i:yj'2

iny

mo

ij^\s'':

'n unn^D* ijytj'n

?i"iy

)y2^p

[m-i]v

13
14
15

l^]D-n»
.

i:-iD

laynyn iryn [i:3y]n

.

.

N*]^i

Qn'Cf^n T'DDB'DCi D^aiun

noN
nn^c-y

'3

i3''^y

N2n ^y pn^' nnsi

1:^

16

L. 3. After

IJ'ijni

C and

Ar. insert ^"iHOI

.

After i:>^y,

C

inserts

IJD^D

L. 4 to the end of the fragments

is

the Confession of Sins.

It

is

found
I,

twice in Am., once partly,

§ TV,

for
in

Mondays and Thursdays (Frumkin,
Service for

395,

here
II,

Am.

I)

and completely
II);
;

Yom
I,

Kippur,

§

rfp (Frumkin,
p.

339>

Am.

V,

§

NJC' (Hurwitz, 390);

partly in Hasda,

48;

Y

partly, p. 65

the others in the regular place.
ff.

On

all

the following pages

compare Baer's Rifual, 414
fol.

The

first

portion occurs in these fragments,

9

a.

N3X found

in

O, omitted

in others.

L. 6.
in fol.

1JOP0 omitted
4.

in all rituals

except
(I

Y

;

""D^

omitted by

all

and also

9a.
7.

Instead of 1JK p^L*',

Am.

and

II)

reads i:XC.
I,

L.

After f|-ny

Am.

I,

V,

I.

R, add DtH -1312; ^CS:t^^ V, A,

S

Ar. -IDI^;

Am.

II

IDNJ ^Nl

L. 8. 1J^3?D omitted in

M;

(so 9a, 51;

most

rituals

read 13\n^X

nin''

iyni3tS

M^NI

AN EGYPTIAN JEWISH RITUAL
L. 9. "ni2N1
.
.

— BUTIN
omits "2ii)

301

.

IJNDn, thus Y,
;

I,

R, Ar.

;

Am.

IJmX

;

V

and

A

read 1JXt3n 13nJN

M

omits IJNOn and connects "3S1 tjnJN with
lists

the verbs that follow.

In the following alphabetical

some

rituals

have

several duplicates for the

same

letter,

probably due
to

to a

process of borrowing

and harmonizing,
such duplicates
this ritual;
;

cp. Baer, 415.

C seems

have the greater number of
in

we

mention here only those words that are not found
;

they are: 1J3JJ

n'2)D D>D^1 mnntt' IJ^^n, 1jn»n
9a,
1.

;

IJina,
ijyae-*:,

iJB'ni;

m'x^; i3Dn»,

i:''nD (see foi.

9); npa*^

ni:^^

L. 14. 1''0~nJO, in

all rituals

we

read "JTIIVOD and so also

fol.

9

a,

1.

11.

In almost
is left out.

all

rituals

•J"'t33t^DD1

is

transposed before Q^2)^, and

DHC'

L. 15. Before

N^ V

reads

13"'iyn

-|C*''1

;

supply
1.

HIC
13.

L. 16. All rituals read p3 before
in

X3n

,

so 9 a,

p^lV iinS omitted

Am.

II.

Fol. 14.

Recto.
•*

Dim nnt<
'n c^N^D

ijyc>"in
'•a

umsi
nnitiri

nn^K'j;

i 2

nnicnn ^y

^npoi

irry 1^
n^tra
"-^

nii?n'D naitj'nn byi
^i'*

unnann

3

n^n^N
^'^

ly bai^'' nnic' -noN3
niiK^ "idnji T'Jiyn
niti>i

4
5

inp

ny

^xiti'^

vkx noNi

v"''

ba

onm

D3oy

6
7

•ana noijfoi 21D npi py SK^n
i"'3o

b

nnN

niJJti'ni

niYvi'tn

i^^nst^

8

'y

m

ynv
'•n

l^n^^

••yni''

nnnojni

10

c'sin nriN
[.
.

b

nno
|mii

ni»i^ym n^iy
jt22

n
12

p]n 3^1

nrb
y'>

mn
n^*">

^3

^[^3^y] nj[:i3

nno]: pxi noa D^yj lan
t^LsJ^'^
'^l']

13

iJ^[nnN ^rha])
13^

h
15

^ncm irnNDn
irniJiy i?3^ nboni

)^b

'yi

iry^a

16

Ll. 1-9.

A

section on repentance
;

which takes the place of the short
2.

"ICNJ

no

of the other rituals

it

includes a quotation from Hos. 14.

In

.

302
line 5

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
y^
"ly ^S"lt^^
line.
is

iM)^ are cancelled by points; words inserted from
found in Hasda (^9) and in

preceding

L. lo. This section
service for

Yemen

(66) in the

Mondays and Thursdays.
;nU1 Y, O, Ar. read DXni.

L. 12.

At

the end of line supply 72 as in

M,

Y

and many MSS. of the other

rituals.

L. 14. Before
LI. 15-16.

\T M, A, S

insert

pQ.

Supply ^Zirhn

after

mn\
and the
its

We

have not found
all

tw^o rituals that

agree perfectly in this

section.

Practically

have the three verbs "iDDn, bnOD,

WDD

three substantives U^riNDn

IJiyCS ^13^ni3iy but each one has

own
:

combination of them, and

its

own

order in their arrangement.

A

reads

"riNDn

.

.

n^Dn,

"Jiy

.

.

bnnan, "CS ISan.

The exact order has been
f.

a matter of discussion, as

we

find in

Abud. 142, 2
1.

See also Baer, 416.

Here the missing word
other verbs occur
later.

at the

beginning of

15 must be "IDSnC; as the
PJ?

two

After )y? supply 73

Fol. 14.
NtDn
bv'\

Verso.
njjc2 y:zb
'\:i2n^

ndh

bv'\

i

iJNDnc'

NDH

bv'\

iHD y:^b

liDnc'

2

I^DHB'
pai-in

NDn
WNB'
r3"'"'n

bv^

DJ1W
unk'

^^3^^ IJOHB'

NDH
p^nn

4
5

p2''''n

cndh

^yi

nri'bv

uxty n^nDn byi

ni^'y

D^n-i^y
xi?

6
7

i:nc

D"'Nt:n ^yi ntryi> pnjcr

ns^yn

im^
nip!?D

D'-NDH ^yi HB'yn
|'n"'>n

n^j
ijyi

DiT'i'y

pa'-'n

s

uxc' q^ndh

pip

pn''^n

9
10

D.T^y

p2'"'n

UNC

D''NDn ^yi D^yans

n^n

nn"'^ pa^^n i:Ny> d'-sdh ^yi
Dn''^y

nna
coc'

n
12

yans
n^j-ipD

pn^^n

D'sdh

bv^
it's

HEinK^ i'in p:n pn
di^'d ^[yi

nin-'io

13

nryn n^
13b

n]^v
i3i>

ni[vrD ^y]

14
15

D^'i^j

[jJ^Nty [^yi

Dj^o^jn [b]yi

LI.

I

5.

The

list

of sins

is

generally alphabetically arranged, but the

number

of

names

varies greatly.

A

and S have 44

;

Am. and

M

have 28;

AN EGYPTIAN JEWISH RITUAL
a few of the letters having

— BUTIN

303

more than one
;

;

Abud. agrees with Am. and
;

M

with few differences
arranged, but in

;

Ar. has 29

R

has 24

V

has 36, not alphabetically
of 18, after each one of

V

the sins are divided into
:

two

lists

them

is

the invocation

i:p "123 137

b^WO
it is
;

13?

n?D-

This ritual has only six

names not

alphabetically arranged,

very close to

O

which has the same
is

six names, reading T>tO instead of jnT
LI. 5-16.
LI. 5-12.

the order, however,

different.

Are a duplicate of fol. 10 a. Here again there is a great
occurs nine times in
;

diversity of readings in the rituals.

The formula p^^Tl
times in

A

and S

;

five

times in

Am.

;

seven
;

R

and Abud.

twelve times in

M

;

fourteen times in Ar.
is

eight

times in this ritual as also in
L. 6.

O

and V, but the text

not the same.

pnX'

this occurs

only in Ar.

On
I,

this

see the note of Davis,

Service ofihe Synagogite,

Day

of Atonement,

p. 80.
left out.

L. 12. After D^NtJn insert 13SC
LI. 14-15.
11.

which has been accidentally

The missing elements have been reconstructed from
is

10 a,

9-10.
L. 16. This text

correct as against 10

a,

1.

ir.

1
i

A

LIST OF POEMS

ON THE ARTICLES

OF THE CREED
By Alexander Marx,
Jewish Theological Seminary

of America.

Since early times the Thirteen
Landshuth,
fifteen

Articles of the Creed

have often been the subject of religious poetry.

In 1862

Aiimde

ha-Aboda,

II,

230-1,

enumerated

Hebrew poems on
^

the subject, besides
in

some prayers
reform Prayer

in prose

and a few German imitations
in

Books, which had their prototypes
verses
referred

the mediaeval

German
by Zunz

to

by the Maharil.
II,

In an appendix to

He-Chahia, IX, part
stating that he

1873, Schorr quoted a letter
thirty-seven

knew

poems

treating of the

Articles of the Creed.
tions
I

A list
{Ibid.,

of thirty-two of such composi-

was compiled by

Berliner,

ZfHB., XII,
;

1

1-14, to which
127).

added eleven more

XIII, 191

XV,

Lately

Dr. Hirschfeld in a very interesting article took up the
subject and published nine
discussing
at the

poems on the Creed from MSS.,
a few other
list

same time
Berliner's
at

poems

{jfQR.,

N.

S.,

V, 529-42).

with the additions was
I

inaccessible to

him

the

time.

have found several
list

more poems, and while the following
to completeness,^
1

lays no claim

it

enumerates eighty-eight poems on the
Simon ben Samuel,
over
ti'Hp

To

these might be added

mTn

(Thiengen,

1560; Zunz,
-

Literaiurgeschiclite, p. 516).

I

have not even thoroughly gone
in

Zunz's

Literatiirgeschichtc.

S. Sachs

his

manuscript catalogue of the Glinzburg library describes
N'vJ?

cod. 3673 as

Dnpy

Cinn,

virithout stating

what

it

contains-

Perhaps the rich materials on the Creed collected from numerous books

306

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Creed, including for the convenience of the reader the
information contained in the aforementioned
will,
I

articles,

and
It

hope, not

be considered entirely superfluous.

shows how popular a topic the Creed has been
poetry from the thirteenth century to the
poets of
all

for religious

last,

and how

countries, Italy, Spain

and Provence, Algiers,

Morocco, Turkey, Palestine, Persia, Yemen, and even India
as well as

Germany and Holland have

tried their skill in

this subject.

In order not to interrupt the
sions, I

list

by lengthy

discus-

wish to add

in

the

first

place a few remarks to

Dr. Hirschfeld's article which induced
subject again.

me

to take

up the
',

In his

'

Curiosities of Jewish

Literature

London, 1913,

as well as in the article

under discussion,

Dr. Hirschfeld tries to dispute the authorship of the famous
Yigdal, the prototype
^

of

all

these poems, ascribed since

and manuscripts by Dr. Schechter may yield some additions
Schechter had lent them
inaccessible now.
'

;

but Dr.

to

Professor

Guttmann of Breslau, and they are some
ed.

It

has even served as a model for several parodies, and as there

is

confusion about this point in recent

works
^IX^1^I,

it

is

not superfluous to clear the

matter up in a note.
Safir,

In

JH 7V^

by David Nassi of Candia,

Paris,

1866, p. 17 seq.,

we

find a

parody beginning
very similar

DO D'H^N
to the

^ini

iniN^i'D I'm

M2^ n3T

^3n:^'n.

As

this llnc is

beginning

of another parody by Elijah ben Ilayyim of Genazzano, which

we

print

below, Steinschneider in the corrections at the end of his Jewish Literature,
P- 377i

considered the two identical, and assumed that David incorporated
of Elijah into his book.
8,

the

poem

This was repeated

in

Maker's translation,
p. 32.

p. 336,

note

and

in

Davidson's Parody in Jewish Literature,

Being

in the

possession of Edelmann's copy of Elijah's poem, Steinschneider, after

the publication of David's booklet, realized his mistake and corrected it in the Munich catalogue under No. 3125. comparison of the following text with that of David will remove every doubt. It is taken from the copy of

A

Edclmann which, with Steinschneider's
Theological Seminary.
It is

library,

now

belongs to the Jewish
:

introduced with the words

liT'^'N

Ui\2

^nHM

LIST OF

POEMS ON THE CREED

— MARX
of

307

Luzzatto, Nvon
to Daniel ben

':2

:n303 nirnDi? nujo, Livorno, 1856, p. 18,
;

Judah

he ascribes

it

to

Immanuel

Rome.

IT

nniy^ n, and runs thus:

•innnx^

sjid

ny Nun d^s3 mo^^ sin
fji:

tj'^ti'i

nns
1^ jn

nncnpa
">n''t^'s•^^

sijiddi siiiD
ntj*

sin

|ni

fii:n

mm
pas

nay

tid''^

sin:

-l:^•s

nm

^3^ jop
c^-iirr

•inia^Di— inbn:

n-iv

ivi: b^b "ly

imam
•in^n

inim^c'

^ma ba

njn: in^^oa yac^

•ima^i'nn n:iyi ^nn nr

my
i^sin

102 ^siK'^n op ab

p3

13D

^5^2

niDn^

Dy^

jnj

pni nnin

•in^iT^ ?us5J'rDi ^s*

m

n^»n

d:i

mic' Pj^^nn nD3

•inonpa -im
•inyB'-iD

qiDi? D'-no

i:nnD naiv hnr pity

yn v^ib

inj i^ya
"'i

im

c'\s^

hoj

nitjri

inyiEj'"'

mis mis
imt:'''

i3''n'''j'D

nsu

nrm

si?

•in^nn

in^n
Dot:>

•imin^ ^s nniD^

non ini ba. n^m dtid nnpyi onoD n^n: nsr
?vS
pli'',

In a manuscript note, Steinschneider refers to a third parody on Yigdal

by Joshua Segre beginning:

ninC'M TI sb

and found

in

MS. Oxford 2406
NO' 453
>

end, and probably, cod. Halberstam 324 (Cat. Hirschfeld,

cf.

Krauss, ZfHB., VIII, 22), followed by a fourth one by Simsori-

Kohen Modon.
No. 59 end)
in

The

latter

I

print here

from a manuscript of Joshua..
XI,.

Segre's, "•IPD Dli'S, part II (Cat.

Schwager and Fraenkel, Husiatyn,

our Library:
yjoji np^'
nariB'^i

ims'VD Sin

rib c-^s ^''bs ^djj'T"

innns

sin r\tvb^

nns

ninn
"ivu fuiii

on
?ii3n

nm p
ni»n
•'oi

is:

indnp
in''{j»s"ii

s^n nsr sSn
sr:D
?ii:i

h

\h

nM

nnuj

rsi

nnj

i?iD:

inii^Di inijinj

p^nm

nsn bi
rvn
byi
|ni

D^iy pns ij>s
sin jt'doi
nr
n^'ro^
?

"imssni inbuD nsn:
injiDn s^^
irr-i

no

^i;

n^u

ija
s^i:
?

nny
^s

!?hpo

nirij:

psj isnp

jn^
-j^si

nos

nnm

inijirb

^n d^p^s icy

td^

njs^^m ^>s

VOL. IX.

X

308

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
claims that the
in

He
to
p.

identity

of

many

expressions with

Immanuel's poem

the fourth chapter of his Mahberot,

which Zunz, Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie,
507, drew attention, and which Chajes pointed out in

detail

[ZfHB., XI,

159), precludes a difference of author-

ship, unless. the

one poet impudently plagiarized the other,
a clue to Immanuel's
is

and he
^N
"i»y^.

finds

name

in

the words

This

hardly better than Landshuth's discovery

of the

name

Jehiel ben
if

Baruch

in

the last stanza.

It

would
should

be surprising indeed

a poet of Immanuel's

skill
full

not have been able to indicate his

poem

if

he were anxious to do
forget

so.

name in As to the

in

any

other point,

we must never
thought of
Luzzatto's
in

how
proof

differently literary property

was

those times.

Dr. Hirschfeld's objection to
is

positive

equally

little

convincing.
the British
C')),

Luzzatto mentions an Almanzi MS.,

now

in

Museum
in

(Catalogue Margoliouth,

II,

No.

616^''

written

1383

for

Daniel ben Samuel, which introduces the Yigdal

ini»np3 NDin b:h ivc'ni
iny-Lr^na
y-i

mx
b:
nio2

py msD!? n2 t><

n'^\6 jnj

Ninn

pn
!?n

n'\h^n dn

inyi:r^ 3td ->3t
\rbr)T\
HD-j*^

nic

^3

inn^»n
rr-c^

nv

TN

ny

b

b^-wh
nnx ^n ^:^onod

n3 ny

nns

n"yc' n2yi>

nns nan

nW

A
It

Catalogue 6

parody on Yigdal without any further indication is recorded in ol Chaim M. Horowitz, Frankfurt a. M., 1884, under MS. 122. is not clear whether the converted Gerard Veltuyck, ambassador of

Charles

V

to Turkey, in his

the articles of the Creed and tries to refute
IVisscnschttJt,

^^nC, Venice, Romberg, 1539, deals with them in poetical form. Delitzsch, Kitust toid JiidcHi/itaii, Grimma, 1833, p. 288, calls it: Lehr^r\^T\
'

gcdicht Ober die jQdischcn

Dogmen und
I,

die Irrthiimlichkeit derselben

'.

But Wolf.
derived
all

Bibliol/ieca

Hcbraca,

282;

III, 171,

whence

it

seems Delitzsch
'

his
'.

information, uses the

much

less definite term,

disciplina

ludacoruro

LIST OF

POEMS ON THE CREED
r\"r\b]

— MARX
DTTDir
D'''\pv

309
J"'

with the heading:

^Jpi

hii':i

-i"no3

pn mi.T

-\"ni222,

and another MS., a Pentateuch, in the
1

Venice Talmud Torah, written

398-1405
;

in
it

Pisa and
also occurs

Perugia, which gives the same information
in a third

MS., formerly
in Pisa,

in the possession of Schorr,
;

which

was written

1397

see He-Chaluz, IX, part II, p. 50.
is

The

writer of this

MS., Meir ben Samuel of Aries,

also the copyist of

MS. Oxford
MSS.,

189, which, like the British

Museum MS.
Samuel.
period,
clear

just mentioned,

was written

for Daniel

ben

The

three

therefore,

come from

the

same

and from one

circle.

But their statement seems

and authentic.

It

hardly admits of Hirschfeld's

interpretation that the scribe advisedly used the term "^D

instead of "inn to convey the idea that,

when compiling
as well

a Prayer Book, Daniel ben Judah incorporated the Yigdal
into
it.

As

it

happens, in the British
is

Museum MS.
"^''nM DIT'D'i:'

as in that of Schorr, Yigdal

preceded by another
:

poem
f''

on the Creed with a similar heading
wr^'O
"i"tt'"'

Dnpy

D''i:'nsn

p

n::'D.

This poem forms a part of

the compilation Sefer ha-Tadir, but there can be no doubt
that the compiler of the

book

is

also the author of the
is

poem
term
to

{jfQR., N.

S.,

VII, 126).

Furthermore, there

a

very good reason
"inn in this

why

the writer should have avoided the

connexion. That word can only be applied
the
thirteen

the

one who formulated

principles

of

Judaism, to Maimonides.

Only the

poetical arrangement

and wording was the work of the poet, and that the scribe
expressed by llD.

We

shall

therefore

have to follow

Luzzatto and deny Immanuel the authorship of Yigdal.

Immanuels
Halberstam MS.

poem
is

which

Hirschfeld

prints
in

from a

found separately also
see

two Parma

MSS.

(de Rossi 404 and 1379:

H.

B.,

X, ico) with a

X

2

3IO

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

similar introduction as that of Hirschfeld's

MS. according
I

to his Descriptive

Catalogue.

In a note*

give a col-

lation of Hirschfeld's text with a

MS.
first

of the Sulzberger
(S),

Collection of the Jewish Theological
in

Seminary
edition

which

many
(B)).

cases

agrees with

the

(Brescia,

1492

The second poem
Solomon Nathan.
the heading
]n: t:'Nni3n

of Hirschfeld's

is

by Judah ben
has

In a

MS.

of the Sulzberger Collection
it

(Catalogue II of Schwager and P'raenkel, No. 208)
:

ni?iNo \n: hd^-c

p

rM)n^

'-\

b'i'Mn

n2r\b

nnpy f^

'no n^iDon niJi^n lao pTiyo.

It

formed the end

of the author's introduction to his translation of Gazzali's
D'aiDiijan ni:i3
;

see Steinschneider, Catalogue Berlin,

I,

86

and 132

last

lines.

Curiously,

it

was printed under the
after

name

of Nahmanides,

Fano 1503,

Musar Haskel and
of

Ezobi's silver bowl (H. B., XI, 105).
this edition,

The unique copy
hardly
offers

now

part of the Sulzberger Collection of the
123),

Seminary Library (Z/HB., XI,
*

any

The manuscript which was bought from Deinard
folio,

consists of fifty-two

leaves small

of which seven

(i, 13,

31, 36-38, 49) as well as the

end

from chapter 25 onward are missing.

The order

of the chapters

is

someto 14

what
ol

different from the editions, No. 10 corresponding to 21,

and 21

the editions, while 11-14 correspond to 10-13.

The
I.

variants are according to the lines

:

s B nio^y. 3. s as njun. 4. s omits 13. 5. b ])'C'irh. 6. s nnDin, s b 2^20 {o\-b2\^. 10. s mu, b nnio, 7. s b inbin:. s b D^yni*» "bv- 15- s b Ni*r:% s ix. 17. s b Dn. 26. s ba nb\i^ ^d. 27. s pM, B pea. 30. s ->Nn s'vd\ 32. s inanyn, b in^nyn. 34. s b n^ixon. 37. s tj-n >i2 b, b tj*n b^ ^x. 40. b b^i. 4T. B nniT. s niNU3. 43. .s vinxo. 46. s b inrSnK 47. s b inyou-n
for inrw"3.

48.

S

|?:n':

nn.

48b-5oa. omitted
55-

in

B.

49.

S DO^

for

DH'.

54-

s

-\\^'ii

ti'n,

H D^w

nyi.

s Nam, d>o\
65.

sjii^nv

b

ih^dni.
^s*.

60.
70.

s b 'dSh. 62. s p^i, 64. B B nya, h na^, s b nin dd". In the heading read inVD.

"innn^i.
71.

ry oybv, s omits

s DniNn\ s b nx.

LIST OF POEMS ON
variants.^

THE CREED
page from

— MARX

311

The

facsimile of a

this little

volume

in the Jeivish Encyclopedia^

V, 340, contains the greater

part of our poem.
Hirschfeld's sixth

poem
It
is

is

by Moses ben Yekuthiel

under whose name
itirgeschichie,

it is

correctly recorded

by Zunz, Literais

p. 510.

the one which

ascribed to

Moses de Rossi of Cesena
Schorr
a

in the British

Museum and

the

MSS. it MS. of the Sefer ha-Tadir in ZfHB., X, 172. The following list is arranged according
mentioned above;
;

was published from

to

the
I

first

names of the authors
Fischmann
61,

for the

sake of consistency
last

have

done so even with those of the
72,

century (Baer 75,
58, Rosenthal

Hamburger 32, Loewenstamm
Berliner's

Samoscz

34).

numbers which follow neither

alphabetical nor chronological order are referred to at the

end

in

every case by B.

Hirschfeld's

poems

are quoted

by

their

Roman

numerals.

About

ten of the

poems and

a few references were brought to

my

attention
in the

by

my

friend

Dr. Israel Davidson,

who found them
all

course of his

work on a complete index of
on which he has been engaged
are excluded from the
list,

the printed

Hebrew poems
Karaite poets

for

some

time.

because they have a Creed of their
It is

own

consisting often articles.

remarkable that

in spite

of that the Yigdal was accepted even in their ritual (ed.

Wilna, 1892,

vol.

II, p.

252) where
^n

it

is

preceded by an

imitation beginning:

?"i:n^1

DM^n* Dn"", with the acrostic

Moses ben
5

Joseph.*^
I.

It

reads

4 INK'i,

1.

8 "12^3, our

MS.

°\2

;

Halberstam notes from
cf.

MS. Ghirondi 13p3. The correct reading is "13 N?3, -a i62 ''b^'Vl Nn 133 •'^^^yn NH (L. Ginzberg).
a
^

Babli

Sukkah 45

Besides

this that ritual

has IV,

p. 78,

a prose prayer beginning with an
III, p.

enumeration of the

articles of the

Creed and

314, a
n''"ip3

poem by Moses

ben Elisha

'^^1212

of Troki, beginning HIliD

V2~\ii

minD

''313.

312

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Of
of

the texts added at the end the
in D*N"i13

first

is

found on
is

a loose leaf

CD^b

"iirnr:,

Venice, 1693, which
7,

full

MSS.

notes and additions (Cat. Rabbinowitz

MS.

No.
to

52, then

MS. Halberstam), Nos.
Parma MSS.,
No. 5

2, 3, 4,

and

7,

go back

MS. de

Rossi 997, and are taken from S. G. Stern's
part VIII, which formerly be-

copies from

longed to Halberstam, and
Collection.
is

now form

part of the Sulzberger

printed from the two autograph

MSS.

described under No. 60,
discussed under No. 64.

No. 6 from the unique edition

Only sixteen
(Nos.

of the

poems

listed

here remain unpublished

2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 18,

22, 24, 31, 41, 57, 59' 65, 74, 80, 81).

Of the printed ones three were inaccessible to me (Nos.
32, 37, 79),
is
all

the others

I

have examined myself.

It

remarkable how
first

many

of those
in

enumerated here

for

the

time were found

the various

collections of

liturgical

poems

of Eastern origin,

which were mostly printed

m

small editions, and are not very
I

common.
it

Time and

again

found additions to

my

list,

and
is

is

quite possible

that the real

number of

these

poems

considerably larger.
in

But

it is

almost impossible to attain completeness

such

a collection.
Isaac ben Solomon's treatise on the Creed, mp"" nJD, Eupatoria, 1834,

and
J'V,

Simha

Isaac Luzki's

commentary, Q"!!!! niX,

to

Aaron ben

Elijah's

C^n
by

Eupatoria, 1847, are also preceded by
All these

poems on the

subject.

poems
first

follow the formulation of the Karaite creed

Elijah

Bashiatzi in the

chapter of the part of his code in^pN
fT.

miN

dealing

with the prayer (ed. Odessa, 1870,

78b-85a), and not the older one of
33 3-34
"),,

Judah Hadassi

in

his

HEian

PIS'J'N (Alphabet,

which, by the

way, precedes Maimonides's by several decades.

:

:

::

:

;

LIST OF
1.

POEMS ON THE CREED
xlt^DJ

— MARX

313

Aaron ben Mas'ud
in ^HDcri

''J1,

Vienna,

ca.

1890/ 21 b-22

b.

2.

Abigdor Kara

(died in Prague, 1439)

Cod. Oxford 2256''
3.

;

Zunz, NacJitrag,

p.

25 (B

14).

Abraham

:

ending DTiD
see
m\:i-^r\

n-n^ in T'orn nyi nnc'n ni'"'N,

MS. Landshut
(B
it

moy,

p.

231

;

Zunz,

p.

539.

30.)

In

spite of the almost identical beginning,

seems from

the difference of the end that
4.

it is

not the same as

Abraham
See text

:

n^j'D
I.

m

niD^

onpy on rr\m ^bv n^N

5.

Abraham ben Joseph
nniD^ mcj? ^b^ Tsro
in
it

of Burgos.
'jk

(So
^::

B

;

ed. ^^^ina)

:

nniD\n

nio''

Wr\

Dtj'n

Dnpy

a"'

^y niTT' TK', Livorno, 1896.
214^",

(B 7 quotes

from MS. Vatican
19.

De

Rossi 997).

See also

No.
6.

Abraham Kohen noNo
Cod.

riN

npi "'jyoB' p.

De

Rossi 997

;

Zunz,

516; see text

II.

7-8.

Abraham ben Solomon
niN'VD pjpi pjy

ha-Sefardi

hi

rr'^sna D^e*

nox ^n
at

with acrostic

li'nSD

n^ijn

nmax, and,

end, Dm3t«

mDOn, and:
with acrostic Dmns*.
^

Autograph MS.
am

at

end of

jn

nn
^J1

The copy

of the

Seminary Library lacks the
I

title-page.

TlDw'l

was

printed on the binding of the book.

not quite sure of the date.

:

314

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
written in

1457

^oi'

this

Abraham,
2, p.

in

possession of

Schorr
9.

;

see He-CJiahiz, IX,

^^

f.

Akiba ben Juda
Hirschfeld IX.

ibn

T^^^

:

10.

Anonymous
^i:n''

"ISO

''n

^n

MS. Oxford
11. Ditto:
n-i\*^

1190,

fol.

106.

11133^1 •phr\r\ nnjti'

Tw.mn

•'^^^«

continuing nn^K' innnxi iniS''VO follows Gabirol's ^^

'NK'

without any

indication that

it is

a

new poem (owing

to

the similarity with the end of that

poem

n?D:;'jn

^3 nc'N
ym::^

Ti2n

1^)

in

n"n3t'

n'^c,

Livorno, 1841,
12 b;

fol.

4b;

ninrD'J',

Livorno, 1H55,

fol.

DTii^N ••nnc',

Oran, 1880,

pp. 36-7, Siddur Fez

i^yifr\ i'3D

ni^sn -inD .••JiDnpn nnnx

DN22L" DTJ'inn p"p 3n3D3, ed. Rafael

Aaron ibn Simon,
first

Jerusalem, 1889),
it

fol.

4 a.

In the

and third text
'•nks*

precedes

Abraham

ibn Ezra's hdc: ^3

n^lJN, in

the former equally without division.
12.

Ditto:
NunrD
!:>«

•lyncti'

'mn-ja

n>»'n>

xini

h\h
•'n

'r\^

nL**^i

nsc' Tc^a -i^l3Sn

iniN^VD

ny

j\s*i

x^-nj

•n3nw"'i

D^l^s*

Hj^ 'nar Dip»

In this

way

the poet addii his
M-ith

own

verses to the whole

of

bna"*,

always rhyming

the middle of the lines
D^JllDTD,

of the latter (comp. No. y}^\

Calcutta, 1856,

No. 69,

fol.

25 b

seq., ^STC'^

nn^DT, Aden, 1891, No. 11,
91,
ff.

fol.5bj-^^., D'^innnsn,
13.

Aden, 1902, No.

66 a-67

a.

Ditto:
nn^j'x 'd:s 'rh ^3JX

htv^ ^3 nvv^

ni^::'

m^t:^

alphabetical

hymn

in D\"i^N *n3B',

Oran, 1880, pp. 33-4.

LIST OF
14.

POEMS ON THE CREED

— MARX

315

Ditto:

in

the liturgical booklet DVn "no, Bagdad,
a,

1870,

ff.

49 b-50
15. Ditto
:

alphabetical

s*

to

\

n^nn nyuji

I't:'

n:nj D^iy bt;^

headed
iri3B'3

nnc'

nbp^
.
. .

'vu in nismni nisna mnntjrii
nor^, Florence, 1755,

n^c'

'd

n2B>

nD
nx

fol. i seq.

16. Ditto:
'n
''jiyDD n-i"in

nyni?

''J?:n3

nsm:
n"iv

nynj nroi?

ntj'o

nsia^ sniJ

])^ip Diti'D n-iiji

inx

"""ivn

"ry INT-

n-'C'D"!

n^nn

n'^i^'^o)

^dij nayj
t^'i'C'

n'^c^j

rr'ni'j

ma
)bii

^jvjnn onarJi d^id-i3

nnpy

^-lt^•y

onp^n nniD^ nn
12
a,

In nin»B>
fol.

yniC',

Livorno, 1855,
Tiroc'l
""Jl,

fol.

Siddur Fez,

2 a, b,

and

fol. i

a,

these four lines are

immediately followed by four verses with the acrostic
PNint:^,

which no doubt form a poem by themselves
D''i?K'n"'^

(beginning:
17. Ditto:

):b]}^

D''DC>

3311

"•IK').

nns ^133 N^o

two

lines

MS.

British

Museum

(Margoliouth III 891),

Hirschfeld VIII.
18.

Ditto:
iriNnj 3iK^n tn

n3^ nron
ff.

iniDnp3

im

ni:^}

'bn

^i:;»

MS. Munich
19. Ditto:
VN''33 yT-

3 10,

109 and 200.

i3y: ponpi
!?io:

^m
njicn

(pni)
i<^

pn3 innnNi
n-iin3

"iniN^VD
ntyoi?

rN3v

(xin) 13 iTHD yc""

(n-iini)

d^

These two
noni po

lines

are found in
liDi?n

Hayyim
no,
II,

ibn

Musa's
they

(see

Kauffmann,

112);

occur twice, in the middle and at the end of

Abraham

:

3r6

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
ben Joseph of Burgos' nnn'ibn
n^tj>

(see

No.

5)

;

in

David
as

Husain's bab mis

(No.

28) they are
'^''U,

used

beginnings of the lines; in n"ra'^
fol.
I

Livorno, 1841,
12 b;
'•nocn '•n,

4a;

nincc' yaiK', Livorno, 1855,
fol.

fol.

a, b,

and Siddur Fez,
'N'J',

3 b, they are followed

by

Gabirol's py

as

if

the two belonged together, while

in Isaac Kuriat's liturgical collection pn^"" ppni

nux n^m,
middle
pDlpI,

Livorno, 1899,

fol.

302

a,

they are found

in the

of other piutim, with

omission of the

word

preceded by the verse
n"ni:y

on;a

nKin tj'x

TiniD^ htc'v ^b:t^2
first

'•nji?:N

We

cannot decide whether one of the
lines or

two authors

composed these
from an older
20.

whether both borrowed them

poet.

Ditto
1^

px
;

nict^'j

nnx nvcj

Cod.
21.

De

Rossi 997

see text IIL

Ditto:
"imonp^
n"ii^'

px

mm

n'i^:

two
22.

lines; Hirschfeld

VIL

Ditto:
nbvi X11J1 hij ba p^^y

MS. Oxford
23.

1 1

88, fol.

237

b.

Ditto:
D'jr:y3 ^yt:j

d>c^

n^y^ njn

mp
in four

a

modern poem

for confirmation
;

on Shebuoth

stanzas of four verses each

the third stanza contains

the Creed, the numbers 1-13 being written over each
article.

The poem

is

the eighth of twelve lithographed

poems

for holidays

and special occasions, printed on
filling

one side only, each poem

a page.

It

seems to

:

-

LIST OF POEMS ON

THE CREED
in

— MARX

317

have been published

in

Germany

the second half of

the nineteenth 'century.
24. Ditto:

pa

''ns

on onpy mc'y r^h^
T"

MS.

Paris 840, see Steinschneider

bv

pp,

II, p. 3.

25. Ditto:

nox
at

ins'

ynn

end of ninna

"ISD,

Constantinople, 1515, and Cremona,
loi,

1558, and, from

MS. Montefiore

Hirschfeld V.

(B
26.

15.)
:

Daniel ben Judah (Italy,fourteenth century) the famous

see above.

In some texts, as in the
is

Roman
two
:

Machzor,
in

an additional verse

found at the end,

Siddur

Fez and

Tictyi ""n,

a b, the following

imim
(Bi.)

^N'

m

-no^

on

\n

onp^y^
inxn:!

n-iB'j;

^h^ rh^
n::'D

in!?nn

n^ ny

ny

"jnn

ddn

min

27-30. David b.

Aaron ben Husain (Morocco end of the

eighteenth century^) has in his in? n?nn, Amsterdam,
1807, the following four n-inn nac n'-n
fol.

poems on the creed
DsriN* ••yn

ns*

ninN

13

a,

No.

I,

reprinted in D'n^N

TintJ',

pp. 39-41.
was
of

*

An

elegy of his on the sufferings of the

Jews
p.

of Morocco in 1790

published by D. Kauffmann, REJ., 37, 1898,

123-6.
DvtJ'n"'

Some poems
"""ly"',

our author were reproduced
1866
;

in

Moses Reisher's

Lemberg,

see
p.

Steinschneider, Jitdische Schriften zur Geographie Palaestiuas,

No.ioi,
ff.

54

f.,

note Nos. 9-12 which occur in the same order in
third

IH? n?nn,
edition

21-2.

The

of

them

is

also

printed in

the

third

of

pSn mCT,
(cf.

Safed, 1876, as well as in D^JIOTD, Calcutta, 1854, No. 138
S., II,

Bacher, JQR., N.

382) and in W^rhn.
b

'•^a*.^^ p.

138.

The

Elijah

song,
of the

nnb nbnn,
\''t2i>^2

fol.

23

a,

was reproduced

in the lithographic edition
3

niyOD, Bagdad (?the

title-page has

2), 1866,

pp 79-80.

:

:

:

3l8
mint:
fol. fol.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

m
b,

npy
No.

.-iTcy

'cb'd

nnon

n^yj b)p2
ymt:',

bub

mix

14

5,

reprinted in ninoc*
^n2w', p.

Livorno, 1855,

13 a-b, and O^nba

^6.

tizb
fol.

mhn:

nis^s:

n::'iy!?

n^:m ixn nisnim nn^u'
treats the subject at the

17 b, No. 19,
his n')i'^
;

Again he
ni^bn

end of

bv nnnrs',
(fol.

which

consist

of

ICG verses

the passage

52) begins

miry
31.

lyb^

m

•'ip]}

nn^jin^i i^'^b n^yoi

nnpnoa

^Jin:

nanN

mu^'-N

David Franco Mendes (Amsterdam, 1713-92), Cod.
Oxford, 1993, includes his Qnpy
:"'

b^

i^bia

n^tr.

(B

19.)

32.

David Hamburger,

nrsr,

Metz, 1787, a poem on the

creed at the occasion of the consecration of a
scroll
;

Torah

see Benjakob,

onsDn
(?)

nviN, p. 160,

No. 208, and,

for
p.

another edition
T.

1788, under the title B'»B'(?),
is

596, No. 93
23.)

The

publication

inaccessible to me.

(B
SS.

David ben Saadyah (Yemen)
•n^DJ
nc'iD

nny

^jn rs

"•la

'nnr ids

••n-c'

nv-i ''ba

with acrostic nnyc'
12) in
^NIC'^

p

nn, including

Hr

(exactly like
fol.

4

nn^DT,

Aden, 1891, No.
fol.

18,

io-ji,

D^jnn nan,
34-

Aden, 1902, No. 90,
(died, Breslau,

6^a.-66a.

David Samoscz

1864)

in

m

C'N,

I,

Breslau, 1834, pp. 72-9, translated from
of his in the D\-li3N 'n3L*', Oran, 1880 (not 1885 as

The seventeen poems
Bacher has
it,

are equally found in Dlb ilSiri. They are besides the two poems on the creed, pp. 58 (19 c), 60 (20 a), 61 (20 c), 68 (32 b), 69 (33 d), ibid. (33 b), 138 (21 d), 184 (23 b) signed with his full
I.e.,

p. 383)

name and 42
ff.

(15

a\ 61 (20
28

c),

80 (35

b),

93 (15
46

c),

185 (29

a),

186 (28

c),

191 (aS b) signed 1)1.

The same
a,

applies to the
a,

poems of his
a,

in nin»DL" ySICT,
b,

aa

b,

a3

b,
ff.

25

b,

29

a,

30

35

b,

40

a,

47

a,

47 b, 48

and

in

'nrX'l '31,

14 b, 64 b, 70 b, 72 b, 85 b, 86 b, 96 a, 97 a, 105 b, 106 a, 106 b,

109b, Ilea, 113a, 119b, 120a 2 poems;, 120b, 123b, 128a, 132b.

: :

:

LIST OF
the

POEMS ON THE CREED
of Kley,
',
'

— MARX

319

German

Es

ist

ein Gott, so tout's aus

jedem Munde
(B
35.
25.)

which

is

printed on the opposite pages.

David ben Zimra (died
^DiDi

in Safed,

i573)

""p^n
-|1J<,

nJO

'n
fol.

in

MosesHagiz
(B 22.)

fiDlp

Venice, 1703,
in
D\"i7N

8 b-9,

and

with omissions of verses
p. 34.
ojS.

Tinc',

Oran,

1880,

David ben Solomon Vital
century)

(of

Patras and Arta

;

sixteenth

in

his
16.)

nn^

on^^D,

Venice, 1546,

fol.

93; Zunz, 534.

(B
37.

Eliakim
ijN

miyn nnoito nnp

in nn''»n

nn''{J',

Constantinople, 1545, No. 218, Zunz,
28.)

549, No. 16.
38.

(B

Hananiah Eliakim Rieti

(died in

Mantua, 1626)

:

in

"intJ'n n^''N',
i^c'

Mantua, 161 2,
.
.

fol.

149-50, and n^N
fol.

"idd

pnv •'ann

.

onann, Mantua, 1662,

57 b-59

a.

(B 21.)

[Hayyim
39.

ibn Musa, see No. 19.]

Hezekiah
miVI
JIU

rS2

T-n^l

N^»T23

MS. De

Rossi 997, Munich 210,

fol.

109

;

Zunz 506,

see text IV.
40.

(B

9.)

Immanuel ben Solomon (Rome,

ca.

1300)

:

in

nnnno, chapter IV towards the end, Hirschfeld I;
(B
2.)

see above, p. 309.

:

:

: ,

320
41. Isaac:

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
npm:
Cod. Oxford, 11 90,
f.
,

-p

no

^njv

106,

42. Isaac Lattes (Italy, sixteenth century):

niD' pnn^ nin^

c'^s*

b^b

a'^ino

nivo ims''VO

iT'tJ'xnn

on back of
43. Isaac

title

of rwnbn nanyD, Ferrara,

1.557.

Mandil ben Abraham Abi Zimra (Algiers, middle

of the sixteenth century)

with acrostic pm ^njo in m^DT
fol.

''Tli',

Livorno,

1872,

49
the

a,

b

;

Tunis, 1905,
verses,
in

fol.

38

a,b, and,
''Jl,

with omission
;

of

last

TirDK'"!

39 b-40 a

Zunz,

^i^£r; 535-

44. Isaac

Satanow

(died, Berlin,

1804):

in

npn -ns m:N,

Berlin, 1732, 19 a-b.

(B

34.)

45. Isaiah Hurwitz (died 1628 in Jerusalem)

towards the end of his
fol.

n"^:^',

ed.

Amsterdam, 1698,

417

b.

(B

27.)

46.

Isaiah Nizza:
N"J3J

b

N''^o

nriNt:'

't^n^rn i^^ns
fol. 4.

•niiji

-"li'D

n^

in his "1B'^^ ^^^,

Venice, 1633,

47. Israel

ben Moses Nagara
5)13

(Palestine, sixteenth century)
h-hd: tti''

ab \MDip

in

Landshuth, nDivn moy,

p. 147,

D>:ior3, ed.

M. H.

P'riedlaender,
48.

No.

3.

(B

17.)
^)

Jacob Almalih ben Joseph (Fez, eighteenth century
with acrostic pTn

n'!?Nai^s 3py> in 'noc^i ^Ji, fol.

48

a, b.

»

Sec

his elegy on the persecutions of 1790, ed. D.
cf.

Kauflmann, ZZ)il/G.,L,
found in

p.

238-40,

235-6.

A

poem

of

liis

for

Purim

is

ninCC

VJWi^

fol.

34 b

set/.

:

: :

:

:

LIST OF POEMS

ON THE CREED

— MARX

321

49.

Jacob Berdogo (Rabbi of Miknas, Morocco, nineteenth
century)
n'unzh nr^nn
in his
jniJ

bub

no'-yj

ns^i
Pip,

nDiD'\'^ii

collection

of

poems apy

London, 1844,

PP- 4-550.

Joab ben Jehiel (Rome, thirteenth century)

in the
II,
ff.

Roman Machzor
77 b-78

ed. Luzzatto, Livorno, 1856,
niB'-i),

(3'V nnntt' B'npb
IV) n^a, I,

and from a MS.
23
j-^^.

in

Leuchter, D'-Mn^

1894,

p.

(B

8.)

51.

Jonathan
n\nn
a^t:^

nbi in:i»N
j"'

thirty-four lines

headed Dnpj?
followed

by Nini

DMnn

s"y a"N.
inter-

The

alphabet

is

by the

acrostic
It is

inJin''

rupted by

three superfluous wavs.

printed on the

last leaf of Nn^a

a^ba nsD

(ri'D^ano nvniN), Bresitz,

1796

(not reprinted in the later editions).
5a.

Joseph

in n"n3::' Ttr, Livorno,

1

841,

fol.

5 b.

^^.

Joseph

;

possibly the compiler of the most interesting

MS. Sammelband,
Hirschfeld, 129)
V-I50

'yrh

mv, MS. Halberstam 48

(Cat.

ns3

i?i3s*

pyi

pa rc'ni

o'^'ii'

labn tijicn

Hirschfeld III.
54. Joseph:

innnxn Ti^'m }vby

'•Ji

onx
is

According to Cat. Paris 66 1^

it

by Joseph Ezobi,
anonymous,
the last line

while Dukes, describing the same manuscript {Literaturhlatt dcs

Orients^ 1847, p. 456), calls

it

although the author gives his

name

in

::

:

:

322
(siDV

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
^3N).

Hirschfeld

IV from MS.

British

Museum
p.

891 (identical with Catalogue D>^an, No. ^6,

20);

For nviuj nnnn Margoliouth has
Zunz, 569, No. 17. (B II and

nviJ3

(?),

read

nnn.

13.)

[Joseph Chiquitilla, see 62.]
^j.

Joseph

Baruk ben Jedidjah

Zechariah
:

of

Urbino

(Mantua, middle of the sixteenth century)
"V'c")

ms* pnn mi

]vbv

in

his

T'J'n
a.

mm

nnn^ tc*

liarro,

Mantua, 1659,

fif.

24 a-25
56.

Juda ben Solomon Nathan (Provence,
on'^i'pn

ca.

1350)

rha)

it

mijx

Fano, 1503, under the name of Nahmanides, Hirschfeld
II (see above, p. 309); Zunz, 509. 57.
(B. 10.)

Kalonymos(?)
ncc* ic'N nhs*
-\iri

d^in iS

oSy ihn

From

these lines of

Codex

30""^

of the

Municipal

Library printed by Delitzsch
concludes that the

in Cat.

Leipzig Berliner

<

poem

deals with our subject.

The

authorship
58.

is

conjectured by Delitzsch.

(B

4.)

Markus Loewenstamm
nnin^n ^y pis- a''»Dn
in
{jn

i?

"-a^

his
1

nrnnn n^"^ mnno,
(B
26.)

Breslau,

1832,

No.

38,

pp.

11-18.

59. Mattathiah nn'

Cod. Cambridge 40 XII
Szinessy,
I,

i

A,

fol.

155 b (Cat. SchillerD'"'n
j'y.

p. 91),

fourteen lines headed

:

LIST OF
60.

POEMS ON THE CREED

— MARX

323

Mehalalel Halleluyah ben Sabbatai of Civita

Nuova

(Rabbi of Ancona

in

the time of the Sabbatai Zebi

movement

•^")

moD
fol.

1^3

n^:x n-iiji |v^y

i?^

yb-ica
author

of the autograph manuscript of his "12D

iT'pPn

containing prayers, 18 hymns, and 65 letters
or
directed
to

by

the

him

(Cat.

Schwager

&

Fraenkel XI, No. 100) presented to our Library by
Messrs. Ottinger
in
;

fol. 7

b-8 a of a second manuscript

the Sulzberger collection brought

by Deinard from
Another
647.

Bologna.

This

is

probably a clean copy made by the
first

author himself from the

manuscript.

manuscript

is

found

in

the

Gunzburg Library, No.

See text V.
61.

Meir Rosenthal
fifteen lines
ca. 1S50.

^^
:

pnv ''W'^

'b

inns
:""'

with heading Dnpy

bv,

Frankfurt

a.

M.(?)

On
we

the last line

rii'ltt*

poy

Txn

printed with

heavier type.
^^

On

the other side cniD?
in

"it^r

beginning
\?^

On

fol.

II a

find a

glowing poem

honour of

"l"*N V'lS JV^J2

HTina nu; uv'tq;*^ iran hi:n ann n"n t^in nnr "JTJsrN n^yn
.

.

.

nrn
at

r,rn

nry n-'y^

vsmn

\r\:

irnn

mn

vbv

-i*^n

N*nb"i
into

which
.
. .

the

end of the manuscript has been changed

a

nnxa. hymn

W^K'TprO n'l p33 bv) ir'iTQJ

nna

^yi U-inhx} ^y.

in the second

manuscript

we

only find the latter poem.
of his

The autograph
D''pDD, which

Responsa Collection ,11133 7?n containing sixty-five
,

was

offered in Catalogue R. N. Rabbinowitz, No.

4,

1883,
;

MS. 16
it

is

MS. Halberstam

425,

now
b^'

part of the Sulzberger Collection

includes the responsum mentioned

Nepi-Ghirondi,

p. 233,

No.

5.

His commentary on the Pentateuch,
E. N. Adler's Librar}-.
^1

Dvvn

^iHp, forms

MS. 200

of

The

poet

is

probably identical with the editor of Jacob ben Asher's
1838,
to

commentary on the Pentateuch, Hanover, commentary pD ''CtJ'3 on the Midrash Rabba
Roedelheim, 1857, Krotoschin, 1859.

and the author of the

Deuteronomy and Numbers.

VOL.

IX.

Y

:

324
irh'':^

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
nnn^no, by the same author see Cat. Wagenaar, Amsterdam, 1904, No. 187.8, now in the Library of the
;

New York
62.

Seminary.
al-Dubbi)

Meir ben Isaac ibn Aldabi (Hirschfeld:
(wrote in Toledo, 1360).

at the

end of his
fol.

r]:']J2ii:\

'b'lli^

(Zunz, 506), in

MS.

Montefiore 48,

5 b,

and MS. Danon
;

(^DC'vVn, II, 141),

ascribed to Joseph Chiquitilla
63.

Hirschfeld, pp. 533-4-

Menahem
MS.
p.

of Lutra
nr

:

n3ir:Nn

nijoo

nr ^lyjo nnas* n^siN

nnio

Leipzig, 30^, printed
;

in

Delitzsch's Catalogue,

395

a

German

translation in Delitzsch, WissenscJiaft,
p.

Kunst
510.
64.

iind

Jndenthum, Grimma, 1838,

196; Zunz,

(B3.)

Menahem ben Moses Tamar
D^y inx
nDwX

ncN cn^N nnx
jl"J

with acrostic '^ox Pin non
of his D'^TCn TC'^s.
1.

nc>D

p DmD

•'JS.

Fol. 4

a,

b

e. a.
;

probably Salonica early
see text VI.

part of the sixteenth century
12

As
It

this

book

is

nowhere recorded,
collection in the

a short description of the unique
is

<opy of the Sulzberger
place.

Jewish Theological Seminary

in

consists of twelve leaves (two signatures of six leaves each), has
D'^l^tlTI
"\''tJ'

no

title

page and begins with the heading
'"ID?.

to

which a former
in full in

owner added lOn Dn3J3
lines

The

author's

name

is

mentioned

12-13.
(to

^^

'''

'*

treatise

in poetic

form

— on

the laws of poetry and

metre

be added to those enumerated by Rosin, Reime und Gedichte
Ibn Esras,
I,

Abraham
j'.nd

pp. 5-6), dedicated to his son
(4 b,

Samuel

(i b, line 9).

based on Ibn Esra's ninjf

line 11).
;

Each

rule is illustrated

by
:

a sample, one of these being our
D>y:;'Di

poem

fol.

4 a, b).

The

text begins
Ff.

niJiy -^nion ")-nxb bn>

w

>33^

"-^nnti'

Dnt22.

53-12

a

contain "ICn

and, with the author's

Dn3D TTl? niims wliich are found in the Machzor Romania, own commentary. ^X m?Din3n in Cod. Warnei- 34
,

:

:

:

LIST OF
65.

POEMS ON THE CREED

— MARX

325

Moses

my
66.

DJ1

-ipn

nip nnis np^ ^nin
fol.

lij

^m''OT "Tinjc

MS. Munich
Moses Hagiz

210,

109.

(Palestinian traveller, Altona, 1704-38):
n^yj
•'ivn

"iVD Nini

nS nnN

ba

bii

in his D'^Tin

nnv, Wandsbeck,

ca, 1730, at the end.

67.

Moses ben Jacob Adhan (Morocco)

in

apy

^lp,

London, 1844, pp. 122-4.

68.

Moses ben Joseph ha-Levi
v-nmnj bb^
ed.
•'o^

"-^'d^

niNi

''^zi:

tt
38

Neubauer, n^:nn, XIII,

1869,

p.

from MS.

Oxford

2239 as

anonymous.

The

author's
rD"?3T,

name was
pp. 94

established

by Shereshevsky and

tdid.,

and

I

^^.

The latter mentions a suggestion of Rittenberg
Moses Sacut whose name,

to ascribe the authorship to

however, was Moses ben Mordekai.
(Steinschiieider, Cat. Leyden, pp. 139-44)

where our

treatise is quoted as

Dn^K'Tl
this

"l^k^*

n"12X (Steinschneider,
ed.

/.

c, p. 142).

A

passage on metre from

commentary,
find

Dukes, Litcmiurblatt des Orients, IV, 340.

On

fol

12 b

we

rhymed calendar

rules with heading nnblJ^. beginning:

']1JD7X

The author was born

c.

1460

—he

mentions a plague of 1466 (Cat.

Leyden, 141, 395) — wrote (i) a super-commentary on Ibn Esra's com.mentary on the Pentateuch (Cod. Warner 29 see Steinschneider, Cat.
;

Leyden, pp. 120-23)
274)
;

in Philippopel, 1514 (Zunz,

Gcsammelte

Schriften, III,

(2) finished a

commentary on Esther, Ruth, Proverbs (Cod. Oxford,
QiJ0w'2 ^Ji^NI, written 1524,
p. 11),

353) in 1529 in which he mentions (3) a commentary of his on D''3TND and
mriif.
(4)

A

grammar

is

mentioned by Jacob
to

Roman

{Lctterbode,

XII,

and thence
Wolf, &c.

in the

Appendix

Buxtorf's

Bibltotheca Rabbiiiica, Bartolocci,

Steinschneider wrongly takes

this date to refer to the copy, not to the

author (^Jewish Literature, 140, and

Index, p. 32) although in H.B., XIX, 63 he seems to have seen that his
literary activity
fell

in the

beginning of the sixteenth century.

Menahem

was

a grandson of Zechariah

ha-Cohen see No.

88).

Y

2

:

:

.

:

:

: :

326
69.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Moses da Trani
wc^'H
in his
D^^!'wX n"'3,

(Safed, 1505-80)

nyba DipNi

']i2^

pxx
3 b.

Venice, 1576,

fol.

70.

Moses ben Yekutiel de Rossi of Cesena (Rome, 1373)
inon
Ijk

xj

Z/NB., X,

172, under the

iwd name of Ahitub,
ben

Hirschfeld

VI under
p.

that

of Yekutiel

Moses

(see

above,

310); Zunz, 510.

(B

5.)

71.

Naphtali Cohen (Ostrogh, Posen, Frankfurt, died 1719)

-

towards end.

his often printed ^n~i
72.

The poem nu

is

found

in the

beginning of

Nahman ben
^now
in D'-nT n:D,

Isaac ha-Cohen Fischmann:
n^n'-

nrh]} nvioj

\)Dipb

"tim: nnujD nr

bn

na

p

IV, Lemberg, 1858, p. 54.
56.]

[Nahmanides, see
73.

Saadyah ben Jacob ibn Danan (North Africa)
nyaK' njna^ in '•3
in D\n^N
'•niK',

nun
fol. 3.

pp. 32-3, Siddur Fez,

74.

Samuel

di Caceres

MS. Oxford,
75-

1993.

(B

19.)

Seligmann Baer
D^iy ^N^ TK' njnx
in his edition

of

uv

Dpb,

Roedelheim, 1877, pp.

vii-viii.

76.

Shalom ibn Aaron

Iraki

ha-Cohen:
id::'

ma
in his
ff.
]

noN naxi nnx

ohy

\)1h

brother's edition of D^Jlora, Calcutta, 1856, No. 42,
1

5 b- 6

a.

:

:

LIST OF

POEMS ON THE CREED
(nn:^», Persia,

— MARX
bi6 lino

327

77.

Simon Tob Melamed
nnpy mB'y ^h^
ff.

1775):

p:3 ptn ontr"' py nxni >n

lob-iia and

before the thirteen chapters of his

Persian

theological

work nn pN
in

nx"'n

(see

Bacher,
noB'\

ZfHB., XIV,
Jerusalem, 1901,

51-2),
fol.

Israel

Jezdi's

bsiti''

15 (see Bacher, jfQR.,

XIV,
a.

118)

and
78.

in

\V)i

n3i:n, Jerusalem, 1914, fol. 39

b-40

Solomon Ephraim Lentschiitz
D"'NvrD:n

(died, Prague, 1619): \nM

^3 N'-von D"'Nnn3 ^3
at the

niu

mn

n\n nr^N

nns

added

end of the fourth edition of

B'SJn niNisn lao,

Altona, 1765, in fug am vacui as taken

nwiy

(!)

"IDDO

nnSN where
79.

I

did not find

it.

Solomon
century)

ben

Masaltob nxD

(Constantinople,

sixteenth

n^yj
in

"iivd

h\t>

n^U'

his

collection niTOTi
;

DH'^tr,

Constantinople,

1545,

No. 263
80.

Zunz, 532-3.

(B 29.)

Solomon ben Ruben Bonfed (Provence, 1400):
ly piK'

mp
;

'n^s*

MS. Oxford,
II,

1984,

fol.

45 see Kaminka

in

niyoci miDO,

1895,

p.

112 and Zunz, 518.

81.

Solomon Nasi

Mahzor Avignon MS. (where
with
D^i:n "i^o -jnt
?

?).

(B
in

6.)

Identical

n^

no,

Zunz, 489,

which the parts

begin with NJX
82-3.

Solomon

d'

Oliveyra (Amsterdam, died, 1708):

at the

end of Yim niyntr

^^!?^

ppni

nsnp mo, Amsterdam,

1691, and in later edd.

;

quoted by

B

as found at the

end of

31D

"ilN,

Amsterdam, 1675,

^"^^ i" ^^S.

Oxford

:

:

:

:

328
1993.
subject

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
In

the

former place another
is

poem on

the

by the same author
"^''C.

found, headed as in the

MS.
(B
84-7.

navc'O

It begins:

19.)

Solomon Sasportas (Rabbi of Nizza,
ony::'
'C"^\

died, 1724) in

his

Amsterdam,

1725

(see

Cat.

Bodl.,

pp. 2389-90) has four
lines of n'Ti
"h
n]jDi:^

poems on our
fol.

subject.

In the 108

DD which begins,
""cra:

2 a, with the

words

n'-T
:""'

ains, after 11 lines the
:

sub-heading

mn
fol.

npy

follows, beginning

5 a

:

mn

''^p]}

:"')

-iny'n

nno

:"^

bv n^nio'

.

.

.

-i^b'

begins

fol.

10 a
-^'^jr

nniDD nTj'y
/did.
:

r^cr^

m^

nniD^ Dnpya

mio

*3n

(B 20.)
88.

Zechariah ha-Cohen (Greece, died, 1440
D'-w:^

^^)

D'-Tc

MS. De

Rossi,

nnnn onpn^ 997, MS. Schorr

nnp' onpya
;

see j'lSin, IX,

2, p.

54,

text VII, Zunz, Z//^., p. 379, 650.
'"•

(B

12.)

The

date of the author's death

is

recorded at the end of his criticism

of Nahmanides, niN3p

nmc,

as
I,

IXn

D^B' 1^D3^ 1"D 'H
it

DV

in Schiller-

Szinessy, Catalogue Cambridge,
describing

i8o, Sciiillcr takes
3,6, p.

for 1446, Hirschfeld

two complete manuscripts (MGIVJ,,

364

= James H. Loewe,
Louis Loewe,
in

descriptive catalogue of a portion of the Library of Dr.

London, 1895.
rightly

p.

58) puts the death Nov. 1445, although
in that

Brann

a foot-note

remarks that
is

year the 15th of Kislev was a Monday.

The

correct date

no doubt Thursday, Kislev 15th, 5201
Incidentally

the

n

of

INn

standing for the thousands.
this

= Nov. loth, 1440, it may be mentioned

that the

poem published from

manuscript by Hirschfeld (il/CW^.. 413--=

:

.

LIST OF POEMS
89.

ON THE CREED
n'Ip'V
^''"n
b]}

— MARX

329

Anonymous, headed

rnn

90.

Solomon Yishaki
Dn^K'n nriDNi

in Paris

:

i!?

nnin^
in

anitj'p

on^n nnL"x

^!>

This

poem was copied

1461 during a sea voyage

from Chios to Candia.

Between the two poems the manuscript contains
with some variants headed
'iDT

Hr

hd^b'

)^''2lb

nnx

Subsequently
91.

I

found that
di Riete

Moses ben Isaac

(Rome, 1388-^. 1460) devoted
in

seven stanzas to the Creed
part
ff.

the second chapter of

I

of his DV^D
a.

t^^npo,

ed. Goldenthal, Vienna, 1851,

6 b-7

38

69

26

68
46 50
41

47

48
34

15

58

16

33°

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

LIST OF POEMS ON

THE CREED

— MARX

331

TEXTS
114
cinp^y
j"-'

^y nx: nc'pi
''D

omnx
nic^

Dn3 on^T

nr'D

m

Dnp''y on nn^'y

::'^u*

n^X

onn^

x:»'Dj

loy "inx px nnx •ij\x-iO

lovyn piDnp

nonci

mnoo ohyn p^T
n:^r:3

Dp x^

pr

Dit:'3

n3S'»^n''

x^

pxj

t:; n^ ^y nr:x

m

nniH

pnj
U'nixj

^3^ nsiv
D^niD^ n-ctt

nna^
D^ny")

in'-'i:'?^

rh'C''

D\-in D''yc'"n

pD''

)'pb

II
y'r

15

Dni3x

'-ii?

nnx
nt:xD nx
D-i3T^

nan

b

nx in^

^y

mn3

npi

•'jyc-j*

D"i?o"ix^

d: n-'^oys
n:r^c'

nv ^^n

HD

!?y

inyi

no^:ri
nc'?2i

DiSD xin
ni'SB' x''2;nn

oy mc^y

D-ipn miJD
D^iy!?
n"'"inx

pnxn

ncx ^x nix^vo
iniD''C'D
1^

nr

-ipy^

cc

n^nn

Dn1^^^ nnpn
"1131X1

nxL"D

xh nnx xim

im
nno

x^^i

7ii:

pxi
xini

-i?:in2

nsmro ^^n iniovyi
•'!:'n

.

n^yi

^53^

i^r:!!?

nbni n'cxn
1^

pc'xi xini

ihu^ PP px nuy n2^
D^rDx^

na^ xia re'x xin: bi
D^D'^on

^3c npy yiT^
''^3

bx n:n2 inxn:

D-xnn

niin

vnixiaj

D'X"'3jn

^D^ pnx xin ncroi
list.

See No. 4 of the

list.

15

See No. 6 of the

332

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
nim ana
\r2H:

I'v

no
n-i"iDn

Ti^a nioyn ly^i

ny'11

P'j'n

nc'N
VV12:

did

i^voj

ny

ny^

.-ini:D

1^

b^i^rh

iDnn^

nx

j'np^

i'^rrX ini>:^y3

mn

mn^

III
ih^n ny
lij'ran

inccn pcnp
hd ^y anaa

•'b

pN mDK'j nnx nv»3

m

N'l^r:^

Nvc: pi^mn ^^ao

n^NC' -inN

cnD
'31

vn''

1^013 2ID

DN )^V

y"l

DK

invo ^y

n"y

"mn ins

aina nr

IV

1'

Dvrnn
i?":

D"3»-in -lanc'

nnpy f"

bv n^prn

on

ncyc*

x-nD3 naiy!?

nivci

p»np

p2»i naa

mp"

L*'a:i?

D^NOJ ^3

i?y

mn' mjon
Y'prM ny ^33

nyanxn inyn
p3J3i
^N*

noiy
y\i^n

mnn
Sec No. 20 of the
list.

nj;na

121

" See No. 39

of the

list.

LIST OF

POEMS ON THE CREED— MARX
"ISC

333

D\S"'2Jn

nmn

D^cai^

nipim DTiyn

nirDii^nn

nn
^3

-im DnyT
\nr22 in;?i

imy Tnan
N\n
-It's*

im

nn^DJ nb pN

mion
{J'^N

ijsoi

mnj
nnir:n

i^Nn

bi' D^B'
astJ'Dn

inN

mini

D^!?15^

N^^l

mnD Dnns
D''i'inB'

^'^m ^Ni3

iK'yi

miB'a nv^:
nJiDN Dnn
^^^^1pJD Nin

po

nn pnsD

pN*

onDTi aynipi

miDB* nany

n3-i2

v^y

V19

mn

npy

^y imio'- .nroco nn^' Diip
njT'i

nciN^

.nac^n Dr^ T'K'

"iiotk)

niyun
'-n

ccm
^j

-°nyi3ni nriM niyi^n

ynso
"i^on ^p^s

:pc

riws*

linn

n^^:

'lonnN

n»K' nN innn

"'n

b

riD'trj

"iriNO inxoj

18

Read Nipn

or N"lipD

(I.

Davidson)

1° 21

See No. 60 of the

list.

2"

Three times repeated.

Niioa.

334

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

•one'' a'-Tv 0^3

-onnD

nio n'b:

"•omno

^^^''337

'v:d2 niy pip

"I'^'V?
nj:^':

Linn

•3"]-iin

'v:yi

n^^
'•3

tJ^KH

noB'

riN "linn

"-n

b
.-13''

•in''3
•iT'pj

p

Nin

ny

'n^ivn

n:o

nn nnj

•n'^nob
••]n''n

m
ny

nm307
13b

noty nx innn

^n

b

n^co

•miK^p N\n D^iy ny

'n-n^n n^ na pN

mo

'miDC' ^33 ny?

"i3-ip3

mriD niD ^3

'13^:1

vn-

[jyis

-nh

b'Vx

ba nx*

•nmx

yc'ib d:
^n

•nmaro
ni2i:;:

Dub nnb

•nmna it
inpn^-

mnn
p^*

noB' ns Ti3n

b
^3
ik

niD cy

•HD^i HD^

nw:
''n

•^c:^'>

t^np ny 2b

'nov^i bxi3
bn:*'

n»B' nx Tian

no^j
'Qr^nn
nrrr'j
c'n*3

'imin ny
D>yi

•Dnnn pnv my
:

'ooipn o^no [X3K
-"inaiLJo yai?''

pij'

nx Ti3n

'•n

b

nhy piN
oi'y: b'D3
-iB'N

nriN

noN

D\nbN nnx

pyo

dni n^jji xvcj
-cNi *iniV3 i^n'
24

nnx3 N^ Dj

"

J^''*'^"-

"

1VT.

Sec No. 64 of the

list.

LIST OF

POEMS ON THE CREED

— MARX

335

N^

F113

N/1 ajc'3

b^b ponpi pori

n3^ lOK'^ Dnrb
noB'i D"'NOj

inn
nc'D
jn5

n^yj

I'm
Dy^

n^m
-''on

''jnx

nny

"•i^y

nin"ip3

iTy
y?^i ^''H
''J3

"-am

-yD3

D^c'''

n-i'ii'^N

nns
Di?:n
-it:\s'

)^vb

cnp

n^r2

rohy

ny")

D^iy

-01

^ani

I'-iN

onpy
i"ir\ "rhan ciiDi^sn

nntry t'^trn on rha

DDnn

ij'-mi

i:niD ^pk'd

ima 12m'

Dntr> Dn-'K'

nnma
pnoM
nD3ni
pDi^D 133

Dmnun
DnnNn

r\)22b Tin D:ot3
ni^j'yi
nc'^tj'

ncD

n^3j

Dni2D on
^53

min

niDi

nii» niD>

niD''

Nin n:iDN

25

See No, 88 of the

list.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

na^ p»x
-iiDiDi nr

Nini

ponp
ii?

xini

^N N^i
N'-n^

*iiD

luy
•'i^Ji

Dnnon

ni^j^

noDn 33^

N''3i^

niNi niD

Dm:

ny3-is3

cb

"bv

any: oy
Dnp'i:'

d^jpt itry

ba
nS

nnin^

in:

ncrx

nmn

"tib'

n-sn^

:i'''N*

p^o^ 16 n^D^ N^ ohyij
oniDi

Qia nuc'n»
1^

|nini
3"'B'»i

cnoi

S-'Dti'D

Nini

cmn

xini

i^ysa

ihc:

^Nui bNic-n ^N
DntJ'3

"''bto^b
n:a''i

nas i^y onay

njc:^'"

njHD

nin^

omtj'p ri 2'D^»3n B'sj -nri
.T!jpn»

ini35 N^n nyn* pT
n^^

O

iiaT

Kami

on


27

Read inni

(I.

Davidson).
(I.

Read

t'NT'

1^

Davidson).

2*

Schorr reads

nDaH.

THE MENORAT HA-MAOR
Time and Place of Composition.
By Israel Efros, Johns Hopkins
University.

Concerning
very
little

the Menorat ha-Maor of Isaac Aboab,
far.

has been written so

All

we have

is

a brief
yet

essay by Zunz on the authorship of the book.^
the book
is

And

surely a promising subject for scientific research.

Much
of
its

for

example might be gathered from an examination
from a comparison of

references to the Jerushalmi, regarding the latter's

textual

history

;

or

its

copious

quotations from the Midrashim for the history of Midrashic
literature.

Jewish science

still

has

much
is

to unravel

and

to illuminate.

My

present purpose
its

merely to determine

the date and place of

authorship.
for

That the book
'

Menorah

'

— which brevity sake we —was composed by a man named Isaac Aboab,^
will
call

is

evident from the introductory

poem

^Nn

"ion
is

the acrostic
that Isaac

of which yields nnus* pnv> llTn.^
1

But who

See

Ritiis, pp,
is

205-10.
it

'

The name

Arabic ^^Aj>\, and

was

so originally pronounced

;

but

already in the sixteenth century
signing his
Cf.

we

find a scion of that family, Imanuel,

name in the Spanish book Noniologia, and elsewhere, Aboab. JQR., X, 130, and Loenstein, Die Familie Aboab. ' The poem was apparently composed by some one else otherwise the
;

acrostic

would have been

in the first person, viz. 3n"l3X

pPlV
^

''JN.

That

the closing hemistichs give us the

noticed by Meyer Wiener (cf. poem was probably dedicated

words n"n^r DHI^N ^I'b was already Ha-Maggid, IV, 32), who surmised that the
to the

memory

of a certain R.

Abraham

337

338

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
?

Aboab

Is

he

to

be

identified

with

the

disciple
in

of
the

Isaac Campanton, bearing the

same name, who died
?

year following the Spanish Expulsion
the sixteenth century,
affirmatively.
'

A

chronicler of

x^'-n''

p

itH:, answers the question
'

In his inauthentic history called npnpn
n::^ ^n:il:-iis3 -io3:i
d^-l:*:;'

DPtJ'PK^
'-\

he states :"vi

b)!:

nan nnnx pnr
^tj'nn
'•"i.
'r

nn

n'o^no n\m
iixr^n

r^yc

1^

vni iy)i:n
"innn

ins

(3"n ^'v)

nni3o nao nan xini
into

pojDJp

This opinion

was not called

question

down

to

the

end of the
Di:^,

eighteenth century,
that

when Azulai,

in his n'b'iHn

noticing

Abraham

Zacuto speaks of Isaac

Aboab

the author

of the Menorah, without mentioning

him

as his teacher,

began to doubt the validity
a
scientific

of this ascription.

At

last

investigation

was attempted by Zunz, who

reached the conclusion that our author lived not at the

end of the
in 1320.

fifteenth century, but in the year

1300 or

latest

Now
first

instead of proceeding with our date-inquiry, let us

examine the sources of our book and the problem as
its

to the place of

composition.

The

logic of this

method

of procedure will reveal

itself, I trust, in

the course of the

discussion.
unwarranted suggestion. Besides, the poem bears no dedicatory
it is

entirely an

character
case.

;

no description of the addressee, which would usually be the
closing hemistichs give us one

To my mind, the opening and the word of the

complete statement of the author n"n^r
(perhaps the
the fourth
initial
first

Dm3N* ""m^
being ""ai^)
;

2^^2ii pHV^ nU'iT

closing hemistich should be ^^^"11^3,
i.

word

in the acrostic therefore
is

e.

Isaac Aboab, son

of R. Aboab.

This

highly significant
father,
it

for in addition to giving us the

name of our author's
problem.
in

also furnishes us with a clue to the date-

Identifying this R.

Abraham with R. Abraham Aboab mentioned

the Responsa of R. Judah b. Asher entitled Zikion Jeliudah, p. 53,
to the conclusion that Isaac
;

we

come

Aboab

lived at the

end of the fourteenth

century

more of which

later.

THE MENORAT HA-MAOR
I.

— EFROS

339

The Sources of the Menorah.
can by no means be called an original
Just a cursory glance will impress one with
It
is

The Menorah
production.
its

mosaic and eclectic character.

a collection of

legendary stories and moralistic passages, topically arranged,

gleaned from the two Talmudim^ and the Midrashim.
the
latter,

Of

mention

is

made of
R.

the Midrash Rabba,^ Mekilta,^

Sifre/

Chapters
Rabbati,"

of

Eliezer,^

Tanhuma,^

Pesikta,^"

Ekah

Midrash Tehillim/^ Midrash

Mishle.^^

Midrash Shir ha-Shirim/* Midrash Zephaniah/^ Midrash
Kohelet.i«

*

The

references to the Bab3donian
;

Talmud are
by

too

numerous

to

be

mentioned

quotations from the Palestinian
is

Talmud are found
its

in chs. 51, 52,.

100, 106 (here the Jerushalmi

referred to

older

title ''J3T

S")D3

smyo),
^

108, III, 113, 120, 131, 142, 151, 162, 270.

i59> 170, i8r, 186, 194, 205, 238, 254, 276, 284, 300; for

For quotations from Bereshit Rabba see chs. 81, 92, 105, 131, 138, 155, Shemot Rabba,
;

see chs. 29, 86, 92, 96, loi, 195, 224, 248, 297, 312, 329

forVaikra Rabba,

see chs. 50, 69, 96. 148, 149, 151, 153, 158, 195, 198, 254, 332; for Bamidbar Rabba, see chs. 133, 170. 313; for Debarim Rabba, see chs. 51,96, iii, 192,
222, 223, 225, 247, 296.
6
"

See

chs. 52, 142, 146, 155, 159, 225, 237, 243, 292, 294.

See
See

chs.

i,

41, 51. 64, 96, 123, 126,

144, 198, 223, 232, 253, 265. 275,

298, 329.
«

chs. 43, 45, 52, 80. 96, 100, iir, 113, 131, 159, 173, 201, 205, 215,

238, 275, 279. 284, 290, 296.
9

See
See See See

chs. 2, 41, 88, 95, 96, 106, 123, 129, 133, 140, 142, 192, 213, 238,.

253, 254, 290.
10

chs. 92. 97. loi, 118, 141, 149, 150, 153, 154, 166, 192, 230, 275,

279, 282, 284, 291. 293.
11

clis.

286, 304, 305, 310.
i,

12

chs.

17*, 89, 102, 105,

170,

172*, 208, 282, 288*, 312, 329.

The
in

star on

some

of the foregoing references indicates that they are missing
his introduction to the

Buber's
^'
1*

list in

Midrash Tehillim,

p. 38.

See

chs. ir, 53, 64, 136, 246.
it is

See chs. 80 (here
Ch. 171. IX.

named

'Hasita'}, 238.
IS

^5

Chs. i8i, 253.

VOL.

Z

34©

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Of the
rarer Midrashim,

mention
;

is

Hashkem,^" no longer extant

of the

made of the Midrash Hupat EHjah Rabba,^'^
quotation
is

and

of the Sefer Hekalot. In ch. 93, he states
'

The

last

note(i.

worthy.

U

C^'C
T3

ni^M naon
Dn3
itJ'X-i

3in3l

e. in

the prayer

Baruk Sheamar')
is

fO^Dni

nun

]"z,

but the passage
Hekalot.
vol. II,

not

found

in

our fragmentary Sefer

Jellinek, in his

introduction to Bc^ ha-]\Iidrash,

has collected a number of quotations not found in

our Hekalot.

Furthermore,

it

Is

well

known
Hai.^^

that

there

existed another Hekalot, surnamed Zutarta, mentioned in

some Gaonic responsa

attributed

to

It

seems
lines in

strange, however, that a prayer based on certain

the Seder Elijah Zuta, chapter

4,

a

work of the middle of

the tenth century, should be referred to as having attained
definite

form and containing a fixed number of words
is

in

the Hekalot which
fixation of the

somewhat

older.

The

fact is that

the

number of words along with the mnemonic

symbol

is

given
first

by the author of the Rokeah, who seems
source.

to be the

Hence

I

think that the author of

the Menorah borrowed this passage from the Rokeah, and
''

See chs. 30, 51, 222, 225, 229.

Zunz

in his Ritiis, p. 205,

advances

this as a proof for the earlier date of the

Menorah, since the 'mention of
In his Goitcsdienstliclic

Midrash Hashken ceases with Israel Alnaqua'.

Vortrdge, p. 294, he evidently corrects himself and states that this Midrash

was known
statement
Rcshit
is

until

the end of the fifteenth century.
;

Yet even the
is

latter
in

not quite exact

the Midrash

Hashkem

mentioned

the

Hokmah by
See
S.

Elijah de Vidas,

who
to

lived at the

end of the sixteenth

century.
p.

Buber's lutmduclioH

Midrash dekah Tob^ Wilna, 1880,
is

21a.
its

Be

it

also noted that this Midrash

never mentioned

in

the

Menorah
ff.,

by

other name. Wchizhir.

Cf. Zunz's Gcsamnielte Sc/iri/Uii, pp. 251

and Geiger's Jiid
'*

Zeilschrift, 1875, p.

95
is

et seq.

See

ch.

201.

This fragment
in

not found in the fragments of the

llupat

Elijali

Rabba, contained

the Reshit

Hokmah.

"

Cf.

Taam Zckenim,

p. 56,

and Teshubot ha-Geonim, Lyck, 99.
essay in the Hashiloah,

As

for their ascription to Hai, sec

my

XXX,

463

fif.


— EFROS
;

THE MENORAT HA-MAOR

341

mistook the origin to be Midrashic

though strangely
in the

enough the Rokeah
It

is

nowhere mentioned

Menorah.

shows, however, that our

author knew of the Sefer

Hekalot.
It
is

to be noted that in those places

where Aboab

gives his source very vaguely
his
first

— as

'it is

said in a Midrash'
is

hand knowledge of the source

questionable.

The
in

story about the tailor

who

outrivalled the magistrate
fish

bidding high prices for a good-sized

on the day

before

Yom

Kippur

a story quoted from 'a Midrash'

(ch. 295), is

really taken

from the Tur on the laws per-

taining to the
see.

Day

of Atonement, as

The

story of

we shall subsequently Abahu complaining on his death-bed
is

of his lack of social activity (ch. 228),

taken verbatim

from

Israel Alnaqua's

'

Menorah

'.^^

His statement that
his

Adam

was given the law of female menses along with
' :

homiletical interpretation of the verse in Genesis

I will

make him

a help suitable for him

'

(ch. 180) is

found

in the
is

Sefer ha-Miisar, which, as Dr. Schechter has proven,

a

mere paraphrase of Alnaqua's Menorah
'

'.^^

His quotation
in

from a Midrash
'

'

nt^i^D moc'l

D'-a

Ti3? is

found

the

Semag

^nyotn who writes D^3 inT C'mo The idea is contained in the Pesikta to the Ten Commandments as follows D^^ mv^ |n: nnr U'"N "i»N

of R. Moses of Coucy,
ncn^n
niCD'l ("^'^d).

K^> >3

:

"rm? D^l'D^Do on nn^na dn
T\'<:)'y'r\

n-'bto^DD

on mo-'Na

ns*

D^ynr nrsK'

"'^k^v?

jn:.

It is

obvious that the author borrowed

his quotation not

from the Pesikta but from the Semag.

In ch. 113, he copied verbatim from the Tur, §292, in

explaining the cryptic

meaning of the three Sabbatical
}^g

Amidahs.^2
20
22

jj^

(,j^

jq^^
cf.

^^^^^

^ 'Midrash' concerning

pj'-nn pis.

21

Schechter
p,

in the Monatsschriff,
b.

XXXIV,
Z 2

114

ff.

Compare Tosafot

to

Hagigah,

3

342

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
fro

swaying to and
is

during prayer

;

whilst the true source
Similarly,
sit

the Sefer ha-Manhig, whence the extract.
'

his

Midrashic

'

quotation forbidding

one to
is

within

a certain area of a

man
and

that
his
'

is

praying,
'

really an extract

from

the

Tur

;

Midrashic

story

about

the

sagacious

woman who
in

offered instructions to her daughter

before the nuptial ceremonies as to the position of the

husband

a household— a story which Zunz calls a
is

'

strange

Midrash', but which
style of late

strongly reminiscent
is

by

its

very

moralistic literature,
'

literally

copied from

Israel

Alnaqua's

Menorah

'.^"

We

see, then, that

our author's range of reading was not

exclusively Midrashic.

He made

considerable use of Gaonic
earliest

and later Rabbinic writings.
is

The

Gaon mentioned

Jehudai Gaon

(ch. 297).

Gaon's 'Siddur'

(ch. 97).

He was familiar with Amram He quotes a responsum of Hai
Rosh
at

and another one by 'a Gaon' which likewise means Hai,^*
but these two quotations are borrowed from the
the end of Tractate

Rosh ha-Shanah.^^
niN3
;'

In ch. 293,

Aboab
dji.
^^

quotes
"3

i"yp n"yp
It is

'^D

pn^;>

'n

ain nuiL-na

mn^

Ch. 176.

not found in the fragmentary remains of Alnaqua's

Menorah contained

in the
II,

Reshit Ilokmah, but in the Bodleian MS.
6i
;

See

D'JSnp PnJ by Dukes.
**

also Rabbinische Sprachkttnde, p. 5.
'

Alfasi

would

refer to

Hai as

the

Gaon

',

see Hashiloah,

/.

c, p. 560,

note 3.
"^'^

Indeed the greater part of ch. 290, from the words ^p'lSa
is literally

13''\'DK'

103

Ity^'N ''2"n

from the Rosh,

some

parts omitted.

Furthermore,

the whole passage in the

Rosh

is

reproduced

in the Tur, § 981, but the

Menorah-passagc bears greater resemblance to the Rosh.
ignore the Tur, however,
of the
is

That he did not

evident from the fact that he adopts the reading

Tur tnnn ^31 nJK' ^33
is

h^X

n""13 instead of the reading of the

Rosh, which

only

HJC'

^33 ^I^N n"~13.
It

The reason

for

Aboab's

adoption of the Tur's reading will appear in the seqiiel.
*"

The

text

is

apparently corrupt.

reads

:

Dt.*'3

ni3VL."n3 31113
;'

D31

133-11

nnyo

13311

nn^:y 3i i"yp n"yp

|r:'D

nis:

pn^'^

'i

3in

THE MENORAT HA-MAOR
Unless the word
it
'

— EFROS
in
',

343

Teshubot

'

is
'

used

a very loose sense,

would seem that Gayyat's

Shaare Simhah

where the

quotation occurs, was originally a collection of responsa.

His extract from the 'Teshubot ha-Geonim
is

',

in

ch. 297,

found in the

naiii'n

ny:r, lo, 67.

More numerous are his references to Rabbinic literature. The nnno nbo^^ of the famous R. Nissim of Kairwan, is
mentioned twice
(chs. 95, 133)
;

but in both cases

it is

highly

doubtful whether
fact is that

Aboab

used the original source.
in the

The

both quotations are reproduced
freely

Manhig,

which drew as

from the DnriD roi^-^ as our book

drew from the Manhig.

Thus Zunz's argument
cogency.

that our
still

author must have lived at an early period since he

used the

nnno

n73D loses

its

Our book

further-

more mentions Rashi, the Rashbam's commentary on Baba
batra (ch.
(ch. 95),
1),

Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch
(chs. 60, 129).

and Alfassi

The anonymous quotathe

tion in the introduction, introduced with

expression
b.

V^y nJDNI,

is

found

in

the Eshkol of

Abraham

Isaac

Ab

Bet Din of Narbonne.
':i

Maimonides, apparently a favourite
3":

nypn

>d:

n^snn dvd nns
OnaD*.

ynn^
the

nn-ion
D:^'3

d'-jhi:

rnc' "nh
before

pun nmy^ n^
D"Jl3y

Evidently

word

belongs

31; while the word ''CJ is an error; it should be N73. Cf. Tosalot on Rosh ha-Shanah, 33 b yiD 5|1D3n lUZU N^N DlJ^y 3-| 1102 p"l nypn abi nns* nynn. This title was apparently at one time a favourite among Jewish authors. Aboab mentions in the introduction a work by Sherira bearing
:
''''

the same name.
^^

Cf.

Rapaport's biography of R. Nissim, note 25.

See Cassel

in

Zunz^s Jubclschnff, pp. 131-33.
in the

To

his hst of quotations

from the ''"inD H/SD

Manhig may be added the one
tabernacle,
Cf.

relative to

Aaron and the dedication of the
though the source
Pentateuch,
contains
is

which occurs

in the

Manhig,

there omitted.

Nahmanides' commentary on the
in

Num. 8. 2. Be it many passages that are
in the

also noted that ch. 95

our Menorah

strongly reminiscent of the passage on the
in the

Kaddish

Orhot Haj'yim and

Kol Bo.

344

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

with Aboab, was honoured with eleven direct, beside a

number
his

of indirect references.^^
(chs.

There are quotations from
60, 334),

Mishnah commentary

fiom his Code
(ch. 79, 149,

(chs. 71, 294, 312, 316),

and from

his

Guide

221, 237, 300).
n33:n
"isc,

The

latter

work he designated
famous

as

the

showing that

the

anti-Maimonidean

disturbance must have subsided in his day and the popular

sentiment settled in favour of the great Jewish thinker.

Coming to post-Maimonidean writers, we find references to Abraham b. Nathan of Lunel, whose Manhig was
extensively used though only in two places acknowledged
(ch. 80, 82); to

Nahmanides' commentary
',

(chs. 133, 152); to

the latter's
nificant

'

Iggeret ha-Kodesh
is

which, with a few insig-

modifications,
(chs.

entirely
to

incorporated

in

the

Menorah
'

181-5);^°
;

an
'

unknown work
'

entitled
;

Haye 01am '^^ Semag of Moses
noticed,

to Anatoli's

Malmad

(ch. 93)

to the

of Coucy, which again, as

we

already

was
;

freely

used

though mentioned
kabbalistic

only once
entitled

(ch.
'

155)

and to Ibn
'

Latif's

work

Shaar ha-Shamaim
further

(chs. 237, 292).

The

ethical literature

is

represented

by the Mibhar ha-Peninim, the
all

Musere ha-Pilosophim, and the Mishle Shu'alim,

of

which are not mentioned by name but anonymously referred
*'•*

His theory

that

high intellectual attainments result from the prein the phjsical constitution of

dominance of the dry element
plagiarism from Maimonides'

'

man,

is

a

literal

Shemonch Perakim',
in

ch. 8.

This plagiarism

is

mentioned

Brill's Jalirliiicher, II,

i66.

Stein-

schneider, however, in his Ilebraisclie Bibliogra{)liic, 1876, p. 89, unwilling
to

charge our author with literary larceny,
'

is

rather inclined to doubt
';

Nahmanides' authorship of the
not the only

Iggeret ha-Kodesh

but Nahmanides

was
the

man whose works won our author's affections. " This work is also mentioned by Alnaqua. Cf. Schechter

in

Mottatssclmjt,

XXXIV.

125.

See also bvr\^' "h^M Jin^in and the Bodleian

(Jatalogiie, p. 142b.

THE MENORAT HA-MAOR
to, viz.
:

— EFROS
The
Menorah
is

345
last b.

-iD^on '•c^n nos* or

ncs* npnr^n ^mh."in

author whose
Jehiel,

name

is

found
in

the

Asher

who

is

mentioned

two places only

(chs. 94, 97),

but has been utilized, as we already observed, in

many

more.

Yet the sources

of our

book do not terminate with the
have already given one or two
;

Rosh

;

indeed

it

will

not be hard to detect traces of later
I

writers in the Menorah.

examples where Aboab drew upon the Tur
cite a

I

shall
is

now

few more.

In ch. 132, the tractate Soferim

quoted

regarding the sanctification of the

New Moon,
;

and the same
in

quotation

is

given in the Tur, § 426

but

both cases
is

a certain part of the talmudical passage quoted

omitted
nT3
iS"'i

and
^b

at the
N^I1

end the following
2pi;'

is

added inn "non
^Jip

TJ^n

i^di

iniu inn

inn

']mv

inn

T^'v.

Evidently one of them, of the Tur and the Menorah, copied
the other and not the tractate Soferim.^^

That

it

was the

author of the Menorah

who

copied from the
final

Tur can be
|D^D1

seen from the fact that he uses the

words npy

32

The epigram
'^2]}
^<"l^,

\n^

n^3"»

DN
in

^^NV nnys IT*! niD?3
49,

\-i''

mx

bv niD
among
"in3D,

niD7

occurring
It is

ch.

was apparently
''^C'D

a favourite

Jewish authors.

found in the

wbViU

and

in the

DTJan

and

is

copied

in

Kalaz's IDIt^H *1SD.
:

The poet Joseph Ezobi
nih
is

sings in

a slightly different form
n-iiDX

The saying
expression

imn ic'DJ ^^n mos* d^'' dni onmn DiyO Q''ODnn nslJ^D (ch. 59)
DV^''
i'^B'n

itdn
analogous to the
]2,

imn

H^T'CO
is

in

-mjni

1^512.1

I'b

1]}^.

The proverb HC^yO HID nDtiTlD
on the Pentateuch (ynTD

riPPin

borrowed from Bahye's commentary
in

HC'ID),

written

1291.

See

Winter

u.

Wunsche,
33

Jiidische Litteratur, II, 321.
in tractate Soferim, according to

The reading

many

early authorities,

viz.

:

Manhig, Rokeah, Kol Bo, was apparently

invi''

yr\2 1N13

in3

IB'lpO *]n3, and such indeed is the reading in the Basle edition of Soferim of 1580 however the current editions vary.
;

;

346
tb
TJD-i

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
NNTi

as a

Avi'/,

commenting upon
find in

it

nrnn
131,

nni^nt^' '1^3

2pjr^.

Another example we

ch.

where he

introduces a reason for the custom prevalent

among Jewish

women
OHDIN

not to work
,

011

the

New Moon,
tells

with the words

t^'n

the passage being Hterally transcribed from the us that he learned the

Tur, §417, where the author

reason from his brother R. Judah.
cites
fast

In ch, 295, our author
his

a story of the King

who commanded

only son to

on a certain day and ordered his servants to entertain

the prince with a festival on the preceding day so as to
alleviate the fasting,

the source of this story being the

Tur, §439-

His explanation of the solemnity of Hoshanah
-inN
'i>\r\

Rabba, Dinnn

bni D^on ^y

pjn^j

mi^'

^a^, is

also
will

literally taken from the Tur, ^ 664.

These examples

suffice

to

show

that the

Tur was not an inconsiderable
did not find
it

source for our author

who

appropriate,

however, to express acknowledgement and indebtedness.

The
was

idea of individual ownership in the
still

domain of

intellect

unknown.
later writer

Even a
exploited

than the author of the Tur was
for

by Aboab
Asher

his

work

I

refer

to

Israel

Alnaqua, who died the death of a martyr together with

R. Judah

b.

in

Toledo, in the year 139 1.

His book,

a namesake of our Menorah, has not seen the light yet

only a part has been published by Elijah de Vidas

in his

work

called

'

Reshit
is

Hokmah'. Hence a

full

comparison of

the two works

as yet impossible.

But comparing the

published fragments of Alnaqua's work with our Menorah,

we

arrive at the conclusion

:

first,

that the one must have
it

made

use of the other

:

and secondly, that

is

our author

who

Let us take for example Ahiaqua's chapter on Judges and chapter 222 to

utilized Israel

Alnaqua's collection.

:

THE MENORAT HA-MAOR
230
the
in

— EFROS

347

our Menorah, and

we

shall see that

both begin with

same excerpt from the Midrash and

avail themselves of

the same quotations in the course of the discussion, and In some make the same comments. Menorah becomes a splendid summary
places indeed our

of Alnaqua's book,

an abridged edition.
lengthy passage

I

cannot

resist

quoting one rather

Aboab,
N^^T

ch. 86.

Alnaqua on Education.
jnvi
-\vyc>b)

ab^

-^rwb

ms
nj

"inv3 nnr^

ms invi
uic'h vs
njij»
t:'"3i

ab^' ^"2)
ijrDJD

in

^jsn VDJD
n^ij'

mi;D

nm
^3n*

nana
Nin:i^
n'^"^*

ijn •'jan -im^ abiy
''"dvni

un

lob'

inviry^

im::'y^
•"jsn

pi

-iiy^ijn

;d ip-'mn^

binu'
ib

in

pn

1^{^'y

dn njuo
v:sn

u

yju D-Dyabir

i^''3n*

nonn
nsn
imp''

dn

3wsn xin hjijd -inv i3"o
>;3Da

^ns

m
i33n

•'JDD

-inv

nnr

m
i^
i^

njuro

im

n"L:'y

in

lan
Nctr

p
••ID

i3p'«m''i

D'-TDnn

mn^
ina"-

"idn^
idn''

dn
i31

i:DtD
-ja

un
n''t^•y

n»^''

inD-in*'

DN1 nnnnni nxjpni n2\sn

nnb 3sn

nmn
n:3D3

n^^y^

in

din
N!?:^'

r"yi
''•s

hdn
ic^ipi

n-'cy lai
le'C'ipnn
:3"nNi

p

N^m pn
nnN
Dvcp
dni

jiNJpa

invy

d"'J3"'

N^njn
^c^;y
yotr^

TiDna
i^VN

nc'yD

n?:N

.r3N nua

.D''"inN
)C']}^
j-'ijsn

Dit^'p

mytj'n

nan

ny

name

n\nc*

nmD
pn

nan aNn

i:n

i?ya n\ni li^vN i:a ^^n1
'h

prnn
iDnn»
nai

'•jsa

nNO

i:ayn>

onnN

la n^^v
D^:ijra

nniNi

isn:?:)i

^:i^d

bv rhbp Nan
^jd

naxn inun
"]a

nnan
yCw*

noiN

n\ni

ncnyn

^yi

lai

nr^'yu;

nnn ua
B'"'N

nsD ny nnyiaoi
idn

pn

--rya

nann

n^in^i:^

na

intryca

iniN Dy DDipnn^ cpai
.

v^^' dni ia N^ivaoi i3d» pHnn"*!
pja

c'-nnB'ai

vaN
'•ja

b^'

irn

^ya
I'-aN

cnnN

iK^yt:'

nam^D

nan

lb nnn n^b
ni^N
'•^y
•'rT'B'yi

^'n nana

nna Nvva

in nN: na^na in nioi'
i:a
"'j'^ya

nann n\n nr:N on

noa noN-i
isidi ^ji^d

nND

ijna::'*

noiNC'

Dnyiacn

nnann

nc'yK'

nr

nan

hnj

348
\-i''w'j;u*

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
sin
*3s*

icy DDipnn m^b

n'C'v

nI'II

/\sin n^v^y

n^yo
ncn:

rn''^

niD-in vicc6 'JN ^ixm pna xbc'

'n^

inaco r^an

na

nm

N^ Dsi

D'yin ^'cyo

^y nib^pi
"n'-tyy

sin n:
^nnc"'
|oi

ni^^-yb niNn^i

pn

yD::'^!^

DnyiDon

nnmn

ddin

im

«iid

imoa nsj "in
ijn

-iDixc D^^t33

onm^ nnn
ynvn

no^

-ny^:)n

p

nx
i^

p^mrh

n^"n

o

n^'Tw^ nro i?:n>i i^

mn
xmLir:ix

nn^onn
ipi^a
P""

m»^
I'^y

imp^i
pas

nonn
nna-Nni

Nine
.

y-iv

nnnD3
nil-

nxn

aip^t:^:3

an nam

nn

^^''^^

"^^ T^^'^ ^^^^^
ijirra^

-iipa

p:3

D^non
n^a

n^'-c-a

nron
^12
nt^'y^
nii!;r:^n

ns^'ini

nD3Dni
""^^"^^

D^i'in
^'^""'^^

my mb
nii^iDn

T^i'

po nivD

axn

n^'y"'::*3i

jT'&'yai

n"j2

uij^n^c

nxTi
nn^xni
SIN
Q-113

iT'a

n^i^n

ivj'P"'

nna

n:>v31

nh^i

naio

pjD

lovya nnis
ijn?D^''i

nsjpn

p

ens!? axn ^nnc"* ....

la nicy^

i3a^

n-in"

nb'C 1J2 'jsn in^^p^ in insin''
N^'rr:i

onN

p

dn nnnnni
iroy

na\sni

3Nn

nn-'L" in

inn^c Iu'DNI v^n ^^3co
dni
.

Dt^ipnM

pn

Dy

nano

cnc'

nxb

yiN''

pna

n"'^

iN'^nD in r\:yc'D nrr-D uai?
nD3''i

nL"yn nj3D n'b xn^i

un

yoc"' ncij'

nann

^13D^
n''n::'

inD-)n''i

mN

i^VN i:n n^ni
-1D1N1

D^ann ^vn
isdd
n\-ii

lyc'n
^^^

nan
n''K'y

Dy nainn
i^
-iidini

nnN tdui

ini:n

p

idin piijoi finno

maa^ nND ny 12n
VHN
c'^nn-L-a
'n"'C'y

mm
i^n

i:afyDc-*i
!?yn

nNo nnyiaro

onm

i^^ai^a

vnx

^*L^•

L"\xn

iniN oy DDipnn^

::*p3i

V3N

Dnm

ijnc nt:iN Nine
Nin
•'jn

onan hdn cn
uoipnn
-sro

ib nin no^
doi:di

i^

ncN

piD N^c
ab CN1
n^:n

"'n"'eye

ir^y

r\^b i^xa

nnyiao
^jn >in-i
"n^'J'y

D'-y-in

^eyo ^d ^y dhn

ni^^pi

main

yice^

o^^oa
^P3

D^an^ einn
TT'B'y

noi? -ir^Ne

nnyiacn

onmn
n''"L"ni

oniN

^3D

':nc'i

N^e ynv nnno^n ynr
^b*3::'3

nroNM

i^

.3D -imi NIC iDiN Ninei
I

-idin

Nine nnsnn

have overlincd

all

the passages in Alnaqua's

column

THE MENORAT HA-MAOR
that
constitute
skilfully

— EFROS
our

349

the

excerpt

from

work.

Notice

how

our author was able to present the essence
in

of another's ideas
their original

their original garb

though not with

label.

Notice furthermore that the story
in

about the saint and his son introduced
with the expression
'

our Menorah

some one
said

said

'

is

evidently original

with Alnaqua.

Another
'

idea which
'
:

Aboab
*

introduces
the salvais

with the words

some one

namely, that

tion which the children

may

bring to the parents

greater

than the salvation which the parents
children' (ch. 87),
is

may

render to their

also

taken

from Alnaqua's chapter

on education.
This,
I

think, will suffice to prove that
;

Aboab

freely

drew upon Alnaqua's work

and here ends our investigaMenorah.

tion into the sources of the

The
its

subject that

now

invites our attention

is

the place of

composition.

2.

Place of Composition.
lived

That Isaac Aboab, the author of the Menorah,
in Spain,

no one seems to doubt.

Why
the

should one doubt

when

the title-page clearly reads '•TiDDn
is

nnnx
to

pnv^

?

And
the

apparently there
contrary.
deficient in

nothing
the

in

book
to

prove

In

fact,
is

book seems

be

remarkably

what

Renown as local colour.

Yet there

is

something that proves the contrary.

Aboab's references

to prevailing customs and rites leave us no doubt that he

did not live
to

in

Spain, but in France.
in

The following references
confirm the truthfulness

Minhagim

the

Menorah

will

of this statement. In ch. 93, our author speaks of the significance of the

prayer called Baruk Sheamar which

is

to be said before the

350
Psalms.^*

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Now

the author of the

Manhig

states that the

French custom was to say Baruk Sheamar before the
Psahns on a week day as well as on a Sabbath, but
according to the custom in Spain and
the Psalms preceded Baruk
author,
in

the Provence,

Sheamer on a Sabbath.
in

Our

making no

distinction
ritual.

this

case,

evidently

followed the French
In ch.

103, he brings a passage from the
in the INIanhig

Midrash
fro

which he found

— about

swaying to and
jnjo
pi,

during prayer, and remarks Dn''Dnn

while

the

Manhig adds nn-om nsis
In ch.

"-jm in2J2 p).

152, in connexion with
13 pD''DiD'i

Hoshanah Rabba, our
t:"v3 )r22

author writes: nnji DmciD

imiyoa pmoi.

Now Abraham
and
in

of Lunel tells us that in France, in Provence,

Ailemania additional Psalms
in

were

recited
this,

on

Hoshanah Rabba, but not
tells

Spain.

In view of
in

how
also

can one claim that our author lived
us that
lighting

Spain

?

He

candles

on that day was purely

a French custom.^^

In ch.

286,2*5 Q^j.

author states that

it

is

customary to

^'

-)K)i<'C

inn ni^nnn

nj^npnn Ijpn D:1.

Now see
tj^'^n

Manhig

(Berlin,

1855), p-

10a:

b

-"js^

n3L"2

p3

ijinn

pa

idi^

nsiv jhjd

m3*i3n nnt< d"vi
quotation from the

r\2'C'2

^>nnn^

Nvnnai tisd
it
is

:n:oi

.... omtDTon

nac bu niTCln ^"2

"-JD^

nuaipni.
is

to

be noted that Aboab's
;

Malmad

also given by
in this

examination will reveal thai Aboab

" See Manhig (Warsaw,

1885',

pp.

Abudraham and yet close drew from the original. 109-no: NVranSI nSli* JilJO
case

n3f

bv'

omoTD

na-i
|di

njyt'ina
.
. .

idi^

mao

p-ixn

'nbv

hn^jo^ni
n::'npi

P'birh ns-iv3

mtm

.

D>3it3

co'

-ixB'a «iDirD3

nai

»«

D:3:fD nnoc

biy

d^^jn

nnc

onmn bn
D^yin3

itsyci?

vi?y is^cini
',

Tw"3 b^2i6

N^C
find:

p:ni3 DJI 3N.

Nowcomp,
p>1

Tur, 'Orah-Hayyim

ch. 951,

where we

nODD

r"'D

-lt>3?D

Dn^HM

TJ^t^N

JHJOI

THE MENORAT HA-MAOR

— EFROS

351

abstain from meat during the nine fateful days preceding

the ninth of
this

Ab

;

and from various sources we learn that

was not a Spanish custom.
In ch, 290, our author speaks of sounding the Shofar

during the month of Elul as a fixed institution, but this
again was only a P'rench

minhag.

The

origin

of

this

custom

is

to be found in a certain passage in the Chapters

of R. Eliezer, and
in

Spain quote
it

this

when the Rosh and the Tur, who wrote passage they deem it necessary to
In the same
fast

remark that

was not a Spanish custom.
it

chapter, our author tells that

is

customary to

on

the last day of the year, and
'

we

find in the

Manhig

that

it

is

customary

in all

France, and
fast

among most

of the

scholars

of Provence to
'.^^

on the day before

Rosh

ha-Shanah

Thus we
ritual

see that our author follows in all cases the
in opposition

and the customs of France, very often
of Spain.

to those
is

The

inevitable

conclusion therefore

that Isaac Aboab, the author

of the

Menorah, though
lived

of Spanish origin, as the

name unmistakably implies,^^
Spain but
place,
in

and composed

his work, not in

France.

When
clue
to

that change of

homes took

we have no
Perhaps
See
also

speak with any amount of certainty.
]""<)

in the latter

')^2D

0^1:3

D''yi03

i^^H) n"'1C1 I^^XI.
:

Rokeah,
"1^X21.

ch. 310.

Abudraham
S7

clearly states
p.

jnJDH Hf
:

DJJ'D

nh flWIXn
n"-i?o

See Manhig,
^iN
D'k^'iy

87

yipn^ i^\xi ^i^x

^'•nnn^ ns-iv :njo
,

Dtro

DTiai^^ni b'ba n"nn yipn^

irpnn 12b ...
of tract
'

nv

bn
'

]?*X1 .

See

also above, note 25.

The Rosh (end

Rosh ha-Shanah
also regard
it

;,

Tur

(ch. 981),

and the

"["ll?

HTiV (Warsaw, 1880, p.227
Aboab's statement
:

)

as an

Ashkenazic minhag.

As

to

ni3J?nn7 D''3mJC IJ^VO D3
in the

n"l 3ny3> we have the corresponding statement
n"-i
^^

Manhig,

p.

Br

:

my

m:ynn^ NVi'^nns •'mh ani nsiv
2.

b

:n:r2.

See above, note

352

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Almohade
persecu-

part of the twelfth century, during the
tion,

his

ancestors

left

the Spanish peninsula and sought

refuge in the North where, as Benjamin of Tudela reports,

Jewish communities enjoyed peace and tranquillity.
all

At

events Isaac
soil.

Aboab

lived

and composed his Menorah
to deal with the
'

on French
problem of
see

We

are

now prepared

Having determined the where whether we cannot equally determine the when
date.
'

',

let
'.

us

3.

Date of Composition.
way
In
of introduction, on Zunz's brief

Just a word, by
essay on our subject.

my

opinion

it

falls

short of the

standard of Zunz's other writings.
hastily

Conclusions are so
that

drawn,

arguments
:

so

unconvincing,
it ?

one

instinctively asks
is

Did Zunz write

That our author

not identical with Isaac Aboab, the Castilian, one of the

Spanish exiles of 1492

— he

has proved well.
at

But

if

the

Menorah was not
century,

written

the

end of the fifteenth

of the fourteenth
to our

why presume that it was written at the beginning ? He argues that from the introduction book, we gather that Aboab wrote two more works,
ritualistic
;

one halakic and one
lived at the

and he asks

:

If the
is if
it

author

end of the fifteenth century,
?

how

possible

that the two works were lost

Now, even

we admit

the

major premise that works of the fifteenth century
lost,

cannot be

we need

not admit the minor premise that

the two works were

lost.

They were not

lost

because

they were never written.

Indeed, he does not state that

he wrote the two aorks, but that he intended to write
them.^'^

And

as he began to
c*ino
. . .

compose the Menorah

in his

" i6 Nmaxi
CiMiin nyn

nmn
"riyn

nnn^ ^n»3Dni -im^ ^n^nnnr |V3
n:»"ip3

airiDS*

3"y

.

.

.

Nnycc'

n>:r\b

3iu

THE MENORAT HA-MAOR
later

— EFROS
realized

353
his

days/"
?

is

it

-not

likely

that he never

intention

Or take another argument

of Zunz's.

The

Menorah never mentions the Tur by name,
parallel passages

in spite of the

which are to be found

in

both works

;

consequently, the Menorah must have preceded the Tur.

Now,

first,

if

the Menorah

preceded the Tur,
Secondly,

why

does

not the Tur mention the

Menorah?

we have
example,

seen that our author very often makes use of works without

due acknowledgement.

He

incorporates,
'

for his

Moses
yet

b.

Nahman's Iggeret ha-Kodesh
'

in

Menorah,
the Iggert

we should not say

that the

Menorah preceded
think

ha-Kodesh because there are

parallel passages
I

and he does
have already
itself

not mention the latter by name.

I

proved that

it

was the Menorah which availed
it,

of the

Tur, but did not openly refer to
refer to Israel

as

it

did not openly

Alnaqua's

'

Menorah

'.

Zunz's position

now being abandoned, what
?

is

our

answer to the problem of date
clusions reached in our

In the light of the con-

investigation into
its

the sources of

our book and into the place of
to this last problem
that the last
is

composition, the answer

not far from sight.

We
is

have seen
Alnaqua's

work

utilized

by our author

'Menorah', which was written not long before 1391, the
year before
its

author's martyrdom.

Let that year be

our terminus a quo.
locate the to'inmus
nix3i nnytt'

Let us see w^hether we cannot equally

ad quem.
nix-if'

We find the book mentioned
D^iti'-isn
(i.e.

.

.

.

D>on

n^rsi ^n^Nicj' nnix
^J1:^'N^2

>B>nsi

njnnN^ jT^y^-ns^ sno ^v\^ nnyn and the ^JDH inh'tT).
<o

mijon

njaxi

the p-is*

See introduction

:

ptH iniND
n^iyn

nns*

p^n T\7h

"'ib

""JN^D
r\'i7\

p

^y

^y^x^

Nnv^

nr

^ma nun^

nn-iDa poyn^D

^n^^^

lyL"

354
as early as

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
Abraham Seba, who
reader to
in his lien

inv,** referring
it

to a certain midrashic passage, does not quote

himself

but

refers the

the Menorah

—a

fact

indicating

that the

book enjoyed popularity as early

as the end of the

fifteenth century.

The name
1500.'*-

of our book also occurs in a

MS.

dating from about

But the termimis ad quevi
Indeed the greater part of

can yet be moved a
the fifteenth
territory.

little

nearer.

century must be excluded from the problematic
is

It

well

known

that the

Kaddish originally

bore no relation to the conception of death, but was a mere

doxology

recited after a talmudic discourse

;

but gradually
that
prayer,

some
and

kabbalistic

notions

clustered

around
it

early in the fifteenth century
It

assumed a sombre

aspect.
it

then became customary for the orphans to recite

daily for eleven

months

after the passing
b.

away

of a father
in Ave

or a mother.

In the works of Isaac

Sheshet Barfat and

the Kol Bo,
search the

we

find the beginnings of this
find
is

custom

;

yet

if

Menorah thoroughly we

no trace of the

Mourner's Kaddish.

The Kaddish

indeed mentioned
doxological
children
(ch. 27)

and commented upon, but only
significance.

in its original

Moreover,

Aboab speaks

of

how

can save their parents from the throes of Hell


?

would

it

not be appropriate there to speak of the Kaddish

He
of

quotes rather at length the legend about Akiba

who

met a ghost running impetuously, bent under a heavy load

wood

to feed the tongues of flame in
daily,

Gehenna which by the

consumed him
Bareku

and Akiba

is

told

by the dead man
repetition

that no one could save
of
(ch. 9).

him except
in the

his son

Now

course of time, this legend

was so modified as to include the Kaddish as equally
« See

*'

Scfer Dcb.nrim,

p. 129.

Rifus, p. 210.

THE MENORAT HA-MAOR

— EFROS

355

possessing the power to redeem the dead, and was therefore

made
I

the origin of the institution of the Mourner's

Kaddish.^^

Why

is

Abcab
is

silent

about

it

in

this

cone

nexion

?

think this

more than an argumentuvi
territory cannot

silentio.

Thus our problematic
part of the fifteenth.
lived in France,

embrace more

than the last part of the fourteenth century and the earlier

And when we remember

that

Aboab

where no Jews were found from 1394, the

year of the Expulsion, to 1426, we finally reach the conclusion that

Aboab must have

lived at the latter part of
in Paris

the fourteenth century.**

He

probably lived

where-

French Judaism was then centred, and where the Jews
lived

peacefully

and

unmolested

under

the

reign

of

Charles V, the kind monarch
of a Jewish maiden.
(r"S"')

who was said to be enamored Thus when Aboab writes nny ?3M
D^:n3 on^o^ ^3

DV ^^n

y3Vt^'^

D^nit^i

mx
to

^ii D^tf'iyB':

the

words cannot

refer

to

Spain,*^ nor

Germany, where
very
tale is heart-

<