Google
This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world’s books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
atthttp: //books.google.com/|
adindes viaieabecenaibetatintheaee: Livahecera lel Merrdeh etree iedainntaleen bean’
aa fi LIS: ‘ Nn aaa ae woe
Fee
we
Pe TEP
Aree ”
- oti a
pee
rage
le
ath
Sepsat
pias!
Bs!
peek
am
pases
os
=
eS
eis
ea ae’)
Kemal
me
=
Mae,
UES:
2)
Ptr de eae ; ES Gs ERM SCS PTE fon
Pres ee ares i toe ue Sey Sobers okies oc
Pity re.
sypeater
2. 2
te
JACOB BEN CHAJIM IBN ADONIJAH’S
INTRODUCTION
TO
THE RABBINIC BIBLE,
HEBREW AND ENGLISH ;
WITH EXPLANATORY NOTES.
BY
CHRISTIAN D. GINSBURG, LL.D.
Seeond Edition.
LONDON :
LONGMANS, GREEN, READER, AND DYER.
1867.
_¢
na7pn
wee + OM 4D apy
nasoon
midis. minapps
WEIN me €9¥997 DIDI WIIPM mine ape ova mieipiaA
ow DN DY
men DIP ren pi mdr TIN PY *b by
FDI
anon nvdiny wea spn mby
why new.
m7asp 735D) enp Mw ame MARKD
INIA WT PND
pad
msn m0
TO
FRIEDRICH LUDWIG LEOPOLD HAUSBURG,
¥ affectionately Yneeribe this Work,
CHRISTIAN D. GINSBURG.
PREFACE.
Since the publication of the first edition of Jacob b.
Chajim Ibn Adonijah’s Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible,
with an English Translation, I have spent two years of
almost uninterrupted study in Massoretic lore. | When,
therefore, called upon to issue a second edition, I deter-
mined to embody in it as much of the results of my
researches as was required to elucidate the text and the
translation.
The principal alterations in this edition are as follow:
i. The present text is a reprint of the editio princeps
(Venice, 1525), which I did not possess at first — carefully
collated with the editions of 1546-48, 1568, 1617-19, 1619,
and 1724-27. ii. The text has been carefully punctu-
ated throughout. iii. The translation has been thoroughly
revised and improved. iv. The Hebrew and the English
are printed in parallel columns, so that the book may
now be used as a help by those who are desirous to
study Rabbinic Hebrew. v. The Annotations have been
augmented from forty-two to upwards of a hundred. And
vi. A life of Jacob b. Chajim has been added, with
an account of the Massorah, and a description of «# newly
discovered, and very important, MS. of this ancient critico-
exegetical apparatus.
If the Christian literary and scientific public should be
inclined to manifest that interest in the criticism of the
sacred text of the Old Testament which scholars have
always evinced in securing correct texts of profane classics,
I shall deem it a privilege to devote some years of my
life to the publication and annotation of this newly disco-
vered MS.
For the elaborate Indices, I am to a great extent
indebted to a friend, whose name I am not at liberty to
mention.
Brooxiea, AtesurtH Roan, ;
Liverpoon, October, 1867.
JACOB B. CHAJIM IBN ADONIJAH.
Very little is known of the life of Jacos sEN Cuasim Inn Aponian,
who rescued the Massorah from perdition, and for the first time
collated, compiled, and gave to the world in a printed form the grand
critico-exegetical apparatus, bequeathed to us by the Jews of olden
times. Even the date and the place of his birth are matters of
conjecture, and can only be approximately guessed from the autobio-
graphical fragments scattered through his writings.
In his celebrated Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible, which we
publish with an English translation, he tells us that he was a resident
of Tunis; and it is concluded, from this remark, that this ancient city
was his native place. Hence he is also called Tunisi. Indeed Furst,
who, in his work on Hebrew Bibliography, treats on our author under
the name Jacob b. Chajim, has also a second notice of him under
Tunisi.1 It is, however, to be remarked, that Jacob b. Chajim does
not call Tunis his native place, but simply says that he resided in it
and prosecated his studies therein.2 Nor must we omit to state that
he calls himself Jacob Ibn Adonijah, and that this, or simply Ibn
Adonijah, is the surname by which he is guoted in the writings of his
learned contemporaries. But though Ibn Adonijah is the more
correct appellation, we shall not entirely discard the name Jacob b.
Chajim, because he is better known by it in modern days.
From the fact that Jacob b. Chajim carried through the press of
the celebrated Daniel Bomberg, at Venice, the complete editions of the
Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, in 1620-1523, it may reasonably
1 Comp. Bibliotheca Judaica, vol. ii., p. 17, with vol. iii., p. 451.
2 eyaop Ia Typ? ANP WR AN ODA Mn? dy Ap IMI PWN oryzae dw,
trovpn, vide infra, p. 38.
8 Thus in this Introduction (vide infra, p. 36), and in the Treatise on the Points
and Accents which is printed in the upper and lower margins of the Massorah finalis,
he calls himself Jacob b. Chajim b. Isaac Ibn Adonijah (wravne 4 pre y2 OMT yA apy).
Levita, in the poem at the end of the Bible, calls him Jacob [Ibn] Adonijah (apy
mre); whilst De Rossi (1518-1577), simply calls him Zon Adonijah (sro )):
Comp. Meor Enajim, part iii., cap. lix., p. 471, ed. Cassel, Berlin, 1867.
B
2
be concluded that he was then at least fifty years of age, and that he .
was born about 1470. Whether his ancestors were among the first
and second masses of emigrants from Spain, who successively fled
from that accursed country, to escape the fiery persecution consequent
upon the successive inflammatory preachings of the fanatical priests,
Fernando Martinez (March 15—August 1891), and Vincente Ferrer
(1412-1414), and settled down in the North of Africa by thousands ;
or whether they were among the three hundred thousand who were
expelled from Spain in 1492, is difficult to decide. According to the
former view, Ibn Adonijah, though of Spanish descent, was born at
Tunis, whilst according to the latter, he emigrated with his parents
into this city when about twenty-two years of age.
Among those whom the cruel edict of Ferdinand and Isabella
drove from their peaceful homes, and who sought an asylum at Tunis,
were Abraham Saccutto, the celebrated astronomer and historian, and
Moses b. Isaac Alashkar, the famous Kabbalist and philosopher.
These, together with other distinguished literati, established schools at
Tunis, and taught hundreds of students the different branches of
Biblical and Talmudic literature. It was among these eminent men,
and in their schools, that Jacob b. Chajim prosecuted his Hebrew
studies, and acquired his extraordinary knowledge of the Massorah,
thus preparing himself for the great work which Providence had in
store for him elsewhere.
He was, however, not permitted to continue the enjoyment of his
quiet home and peaceful studies under the hospitable protection of the
' Crescent. The bloody persecutors under the Cross, not satisfied with
having deprived the whole Jewish population of Spain of all that is
precious to men on earth, carried fire and sword, in the name of Christ,
among the Jews who had obtained an asylum in Mohamedan
countries, and who were diligently employed in the revival of Biblical
literature. This time, however, the crusade was not originally
organised against the Jews, but against the Moors, since it was
believed to be base ingratitude to the goodness of Providence, which
had delivered these infidels into the hands of the Church, to allow
them any longer to usurp the fair inheritance of the Christians.
Hence no less a person than Cardinal Ximenes, the distinguished
Archbishop of Toledo, resorted to Granada, in 1449, to convert the
stiff-necked race of Mohamed; seeing that the rational and benevolent
measures adopted by Fray Fernando de Talavera, the Archbishop of
8
that province,—who at an advanced age studied Arabic, and caused a
vocabulary, grammar, and catechism to be compiled, and a version ~
of the liturgy to be made in the same tongue,—had produced few
proselytes. He first employed arguments and presents ; if these failed
to convince the Mussulman of the error of his ways, imprisonment, with
fetters, and a few days’ fasting, soon humbled the unbeliever ; so much
so, that the devout Ferreras was constrained to exclaim, ‘‘ Thus did
Providence avail itself of the darkness of the dungeon to pour on the
benighted minds of the infidel the light of the true faith.’’4
Effectually to extirpate heresy, and to preclude the possibility of
the converts returning to their former errors, Cardinal Ximenes
caused all procurable Arabic manuscripts to be piled together and
burned, in one of the great squares of the city, so as to exterminate
the very characters in which the teachings of the infidels were
recorded. This outrageous burning of most valuable MSS., relating
to all branches of science and literature, was effected by the learned
Prelate at the very time that he was spending a princely fortune in
the publication of the stupendous Complutensian Polyglott, and in the
erection and endowment of the university of Alcala, which was the
most learned in Spain. From the thousands of MSS. destined for
the conflagration, Ximenes indeed reserved three hundred, relating
to medical science, for his university.
As to the Jews, their doom was sealed. In ordinary warfare it
mattered very little to them whether the Christians vanquished the
infidels, or the infidels the Christians, since the tribute levied by the
conqueror upon the conquered was obtained by stripping the Israelites.
In the present instance, however, they saw that those who won the
day, and forced their religion by means of the sword upon the
vanquished, were the very people from whom they themselves had
suffered in an unparalleled degree; and that the victors were simply
re-enacting the same deeds abroad which they perpetrated at home, upon
those who were out of the pale of the Church, They expected again
to be dragged from their peaceful homes in the name of Christ,
as soon as the Spaniards had a respite from the Mussulman infidels.
Hence when they heard that Ximenes, flushed with success at
Granada, had instigated Ferdinand, immediately after the death of
Isabella, to organise an expedition against the neighbouring Moslems
of Africa, and that Mozarquivir, an important port on the Barbary
4 Prescott, History of the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, part ii., cap. 6.
4
coast, nearly opposite Carthagena, had actually been captured (Sep.
18, 1505), consternation spread among the numerous Jewish com-
munities in the cities of North Africa.
’ The consternation became still greater when they heard that
Ximenes, mounted upon a mule, had triumphantly entered Oran (May
17, 1509), preceded by a Franciscan friar, and followed by a cavaleade
of brethren of the same monastic order, bearing aloft the massive
silver cross, the archiepiscopal standard of Toledo, and banners embla-
zoned with the Primate’s arms on one side, and the Cross on the other.
All their fears were more than realised when, after the return of
Ximenes to Spain, Pedro Navarro, the general of the army, had
vanquished -Bugia (Jan. 81, 1510), when Tunis had to capitulate, and
when they saw the banner of the Cross floating triumphant from the
walls of almost every Moslem city on the Mediterranean. It was then
that Jacob b. Chajim, Saccutto, and a host of other eminent Jewish
scholars were despoiled of their possessions, banished from their
homes and families, interrupted in their most important works in the
cause of Biblical literature, and driven to wander in exile.
For more than seven years (1510-1517) Ibn Adonijah roamed
about homeless in the different towns of Italy, where at that time
Hebrew literature was greatly cultivated and patronised by the
highest of the land; and where popes and cardinals, princes and
gtatesmen, warriors and recluses of all kinds were in search of Jewish
teachers, in order to be instructed in the mysteries of the Kabbalah.
Whether it was owing to his conscientious scruples, which would not
allow him to initiate Gentiles into this esoteric doctrine, or to his not
having been so fortunate in tuition as his contemporary, Elias Levita,
he had at first to endure great privations during his sojourn in Rome
and Florence. He at last went to Venice, where the celebrated
Daniel Bomberg, of Antwerp, had at that very time established his
famous Hebrew press (1516), and through the exertions of R. Chajim
Alton, whom he honourably mentions in the Introduction, he at once
became connected with the printing office.
The connection of so profound and assiduous a scholar with
so cultivated and spirited a publisher proved one of the greatest
benefits to Biblical literature, at the time of the Church’s greatest
need. For whilst the followers of the Prince of Peace were arrayed
against each other in deadly conflict, to decide by the sword whether
the Bible alone, or the infallible vicar of Christ on earth, is to be
5
appealed to for the rule of faith and practice, Jacob Ibn Adonijah was
studiously engaged in the collation of Biblical MSS., in compiling the
grand critico-exegetical apparatus of the Old Testament, bequeathed to
us by the Jews of olden times, and in editing it, together with the
Hebrew Scriptures, the ancient Chaldee paraphrases, and valuable
Hebrew commentaries, which has contributed more to the advancement
of Biblical knowledge than all the bitter controversies of Catholics
and Protestants.
Before, however, we describe this gigantic: Rabbinic Bible which
has immortalised his name, we have to mention other important works
edited by him. It has already been remarked, that Ibn Adonijah
must have taken up his abode at Venice soon after Bomberg esta-
blished in it his celebrated printing office (1516). For we find that the
editio princeps of the entire Babylonian Talmud, published by Bomberg
in 1520-1528, was partly edited by Jacob b. Chajim; and as the
Talmud consists of twelve volumes folio, the preparations for its
printing, and the printing itself, must have commenced a considerable
time before 1520, when a portion of it was published. Hence his
work and connection with Bomberg must have begun about 1517 or
1518. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that, simultaneously
with the appearance of the Babylonian Talmud, Ibn Adonijah also
worked at the editio princeps of the Jerusalem Talmud, which he
carried through the press in 1522-28, as well as at the editio princeps
of R. Nathan’s Hebrew Concordance, which appeared in 1528, and
over which he must have spent a considerable time.
His agsiduity was truly marvellous. He not only carried through
the press in three years the first editions of these gigantic works,
consisting of fourteen volumes folio, closely printed, both in square
Hebrew characters and Rabbinic Hebrew, and replete with references,
the very sight of which would astound any one who is not acquainted
with them; but, within twelve months after the appearance of the
Concordance, he edited, conjointly with David de Pizzightone, the
stupendous legal and ritual code of Maimonides, entitled, Mishne
Thora (mn nawy) = Deuteronomy, Second Law, or Jad Ha-Chezaka,
(npinn 1°) = The Mighty Hand, in allusion to Deut. xxxiv. 12; and
because the work consists of fourteen books ("= 14). To this code,
which appeared in 1524, in two volumes folio, Ibn Adonijah wrote
an Introduction.
It is perfectly amazing, to find that the editing of these works,
6
which would of itself more than occupy the whole time of ordinary
mortals in the present day, was simply the recreation of Jacob b.
Chajim ; and that the real strength of his intellect, and the vast stores
of his learning, were employed at that very time in collecting and
collating MSS. of the Massorah, and in preparing for the press the
Rabbinic Bible, which is still a precious monument to his vast
erudition and almost unparalleled industry, and which was the most
powerful auxiliary to the then commencing Reformation. This
Rabbinic Bible, which was published in 1524-265, consists of four
volumes, folio, as follows :—
I. The first volume, embracing the Pentateuch (nin), begins —
i. With the elaborate Introduction of Jacob b. Chajim, which we now
give for the first time with an English translation ;* ii. An Index
to the sections of the entire Old Testament according to the Massorah;
and iii. Ibn Ezra’s Preface to the Pentateuch. Then follow the five
Books of Moses in Hebrew, with the so-called Chaldee Paraphrases of
Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel, and the Commentaries of Rashi and
Ibn Ezra, which are given all round the margin; The Massorah parva,
which is in the centre between the Hebrew text and the Chaldee
paraphrase; and such a portion of the Massorah magna as the space
between the end of the text and the beginning of the commentaries on
each page would admit; for which reason this portion obtained the
name of Massorah marginalis.
II. The second volume, comprising the Earlier Prophets (o'x'23
DWN), i.e, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings,
has the Hebrew text, the Chaldee paraphrases of Jonathan b. Uzziel,
the Commentaries of Rashi, David Kimchi, and Levi ben Gershon,
the Massorah parva, and that portion of the Massorah magna which
constitutes the Massorah marginalis.
Ill. The third volume, comprising the Later Prophets (n'x'33
py7ns), t.¢., Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor
Prophets, has the Hebrew text, the so-called Chaldee paraphrase
of Jonathan ben Uzziel, the Commentaries of Rashi, which ex-
tend over all the books in the volume of Ibn Ezra on Isaiah
8 Fiirst’s assertion (Bibliotheca Judaica, iii. 454), that this introduction had been
translated into English, and published by Kennicott in his work entitled The state of
the printed Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, Oxford, 1758, is incorrect. Kennicott
simply published an abridged and incorrect Latin version, from a MS. which he found
in the Bodleian Library.
7
and the Minor Prophets, the Massorah parva, and the Massorah
marginalis.
IV. The fourth volume, comprising the Hagiographa (b'31n5), ¢.¢.,
the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesi-
astes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles, haé the Hebrew
text; the so-called Chaldee paraphrases of Joseph the Blind; the
Commentaries of Rashi, which only embrace the Psalms, the Five
Megilloth (7. ¢., Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and
Esther), Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles; the Commentaries of Ibn
Ezra, which only embrace the Psalms, Job, the Five Megilloth, and
Daniel; the Commentaries of David Kimchi on the Psalms and
Chronicles; the Commentaries of Moses Kimchi on Proverbs, Ezra,
and Nehemiah ;* the Commentaries of Levi ben Gershon on Proverbs
and Job; the so-called Commentary of Saadia on Daniel ; the Masso-
rah parva, the Massorah marginalis, and the (3 min) Second
Targum on Esther. Appended to this volume are—i. The Massorah,
for which space could not be found in the margin of the text in
alphabetical order, and which is therefore called the Massorah finalis,
with Jacob ben Chajim’s directions. ii. A Treatise on the Points and
Accents of the Hebrew Scriptures, embodying the work ("p'sn 'D34
nim) or Np b>) of Moses the Punctuator (japan nw 9). ili.
The variations between the Western and EKastern Codices, or between
the Jerusalem and Babylonian MSS., called ‘xno NID pay perbn
or 533 +93 p09 Ste pa 193 paw xopon Hidn. And iv. The variations
between Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, called »wx 123 jaw MINN ‘ibn
snp 993 pat.
It is perfectly impossible for any one, but those students who have
seen the MSS. of the Hebrew Bible, with the Massorah round the
margin, in a most fantastic manner, who have encountered the difficul-
ties in deciphering the hieroglyphic signs, the conceited abbreviations,
the strange forms and ornaments into which the writing of the Massorah
is twisted, the confusion of the Massoretic notes, &c.; and who have
grappled with the blunders which are to be found in almost every
6 The Commentaries on Proverbs, Ezra, and Nehemiah are ascribed, in all the
editions of the Rabbinic Bible, to Ibn Ezra. That this, however, is incorrect, and that
they belong to Moses Kimchi, is now established beyond the shadow of a donbt. Comp.
Reifmann in Literaturblatt des Orients, vol. ii., pp. 750,751; Zion, vol. i., p. 76;
vol. ii., pp. 113-117, 129-133, 155-157, 171-174, 185-188: Frankfort-on-the-Maine,
1841, 1842. Geiger, Ozar Nechmad, vol. ii., p. 17, &.; Vienna, 1857; Kitto’s
Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, s.v. Krmont, Moses.
8
sentence, to form an adequate conception of the extraordinary labour
and learning which Jacob Ibn Adonijah must have bestowed, in bringing
such beautiful order out of such a chaos. His modesty and humility,
in speaking of the toil, are becoming his vast erudition.
‘* Behold,” he says, ‘I have exerted all my might and strength
to collate and arrange the Massorah, with all the possible improve-
ments, in order that it may remain pure and bright, and shew its
splendour to the nations and princes; for, indeed, it is beautiful to
look at. This was a labour of love, for the benefit of our brethren,
the children of Israel, and for the glory of our holy and perfect law ;
as well as to fulfil, as far as possible, the desire of Don Daniel
Bomberg, whose expenses in this matter far exceeded my labours.
And as regards the Commentaries, I have exerted my powers to the
utmost degree to correct in them all the mistakes as far as possible ;
and whatsoever my humble endeavours could accomplish was done for
the glory of the Lord, and for the benefit of our people. I would not
be deterred by the enormous labour, for which cause I did not suffer
my eyelids to be closed long, either in the winter or summer, and did
not mind rising in the cold of the night, as my aim and desire were to
see this holy work finished. Now praised be the Creator, who granted.
me the privilege to begin and to finish this work.” ®* Such is the
touching account which Jacob b. Chajim gives us of his labour of love.
Not less striking is the gratitude which he expresses to Bomberg,
for having so cheerfully and liberally embarked upon so expensive a
work. ‘When I explained to Bomberg,”’ he tells us, ‘the advantage
of the Massorah, he did all in his power to send into all the
countries in order to search out what may be found of the Massorah ;
and, praised be the Lord, we obtained as many of the Massoretic books
as could possibly be got. He was not backward, and his hand was
not closed, nor did he draw back his right hand from producing gold
out of his purse, to defray the expenses of the books, and of the mes-
sengers who were engaged to make search for them in the most remote
corners, and in every place where they might possibly be found.” 7”
With all our abuse of the Roman Catholics for withholding the
Bible from the people, and with all our boasted love for the Scriptures,
neither will the Bible Society with its annual income of £80,000, nor
will any publisher in this Protestant country of ours, undertake a
revised edition of that stupendous work which was published in a
8° Vide infra, p. 88, &. 7° Vide infra, p. 77, &.
9
Roman Catholic country, when Luther began to make his voice heard
in defence of the word of God. Thus it is, that we in the present
day are still left to the labours of Jacob b. Chajim, though the results
of modern researches, and the discovery of valuable MSS., would
enable us to issue a new edition of the critical apparatus of the Old
Testament, with important corrections and additions, and in a form
more easily accessible to Biblical students.
Bomberg, who took the liveliest interest and the greatest pride in
this magnificent edition of the Bible, got Elias Levita, whose fame as
a Hebraist was at that time spread not only all over Italy where he
resided, but over Germany, both among the most distinguished
dignitaries in the Catholic Church and the great leaders of the
Reformation, to write an epilogue to the work of his ambition. In
this poem, Levita celebrates the praises of the munificent publisher,
‘“‘who though uncircumcised in the flesh [%. ¢., a gentile], is cireum-
cised in heart,” of ‘“‘the learned Jacob Ibn Adonijah,” who carried it
through the press, and of the unparalleled work itself.” Levita was
then residing at Rome, in the house of his friend and patron, Cardinal
Egidio de Viterbo, where he was diligently engaged in printing his
works on the grammar and structure of the Hebrew language, teaching
the Roman Catholic and Protestant combatants the original of the Old
Testament, and enjoying the literary society of popes, cardinals,
princes, ambassadors, and warriors, who were bewitched by the
mysteries of the Kabbalah, and little thinking of the misfortunes
which were soon to befall him. .
Within two years of his writing the epilogue to Jacob Ibn Adonijah’s
Rabbinic Bible, and whilst engaged on an Aramaic grammar, the
Imperialists under Charles V. sacked Rome (May 6, 1527), and in the
general work of spoliation and destruction, Levita lost all his property
and the greater part of his MSS. In a most destitute and deplorable
condition, he left the Eternal city, and betook himself to Venice in the
same year (1527); and Bomberg, at whose request he had written the
epilogue, at once engaged him as joint corrector of the press and as
editor. Thus the two learned Hebraists, Jacob b. Chajim and Elias
Levita, who were the great teachers of Hebrew to the greatest men of
Europe, at the commencement and during the development of the
Reformation, now became co-workers in the same printing office.
_ 17 For the different editions of the Bible, and for the alterations which were after-
wards made in it, see Kitto’s Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, s.v. RABBINIC B1BLES.
Cc
10
It is more than probable that Levita told Jacob Ibn Adonijah of
the Aramaic work on which he was engaged, the MS. of which he
lost in the sacking of Rome, and that this exercised some influence
on the latter in the choice of his next literary undertaking. For we
find Jacob Ibn Adonijah, immediately after Levita’s arrival, writing
“A Treatise on the Targum” (myinn by OND). It is a matter of
dispute whether this Treatise first appeared in Bomberg’s edition of the
Pentateuch and the Five Megilloth, published in 1527, or in that pub-
lished in 1543-44, after Jacob Ibn Adonijah’s death.* Not possessing
the editions in question, I cannot state which opinion is the correct one.
Although no one who is at all acquainted with his assiduity, and
who knows what an uncontrollable and inextinguishable passion to
continue therein is kindled in the hearts of those who have embarked
upon authorship and found their works acceptable, will for a moment
doubt that Jacob Ibn Adonijah ever would relinquish his literary
pursuits, as long as he possessed his faculties and the use of his limbs;
yet, with the exception of one solitary and incidental reference to his
work, presently to be mentioned, we henceforth hear nothing more about
his productions. Fiirst indeed enumerates no less than fifteen important
Midrashim and Commentaries on the Bible, which Bomberg published
in 1543-47, and which he says may have been prepared for the
press by our author.® But this is mere conjecture. I myself possess
the very editions of some of the works in question, and though
Cornelius Adelkind and Elias Levita are distinctly stated as having
8 Comp. the article Jiidische Typographic, by Steinschneider and David Cassel, in
Ersch and Gruber's Allg E , section I1., vol. xxviii., p. 44, note 32,
and Professor Luzzatto’s Letter (reprinted below, p. 11), and with Fiirst, Bibliotheca
Judaica, vol. iii., p. 451.
9 The works referred to are as follows:— Midrash Rabboth (m2 wr), Venice,
1545, fol.; Mechilta (wn), tbid. 1545, fol.; Siphra (wo), wid. 1545, fol.; Siphre
(pp), tbid. 1545, fol.; Midrash Tanchuma (xnownan wr), ibid. 1545, fol.; "Midrash
Tilim (on wr), ibid. 1546, fol.; Pisikla Sutratha (xv xnpop), iid. 1546, fol. ;
Elias Mishrachi’s Supra Commentary on Rashi’s Comment. on the Pentateuch, called
Sepher Ha-Mizrache (mn pd), ibid. 1545, fol.; Arama’s Commentary on the Penta-
teuch, called Akedath, ("1py), ibid. 1547, fol.; Ralbag’s Commentary on the Pentateuch
(Frnt by aan), ibid. 1547, fol.; Abraham Sabba’s Kabbalistic Commentary on the
Pentateuch, entitled Tzeror Ha-Mor (won wy), ibid. 1546, fol.; Nachmanides’ Com-
mentary on the Pentateuch (Minn q2'0n dy), ibid. 1548, fol.; Ibn Shemtob’s Homiletical
Commentarg on the Pentateuch (xox) NT Mwy), ibid. 1547, fol.; Jacob Ibn
Chibib’s Collection of Hagodas, called En Jacob (apy »y), ibid. 1546, fol.; R. Solomon
b. Abraham b. Aderethe’s Theological Answers to Queries (iwi ny), ibid. 1545-6,
fol.; R. Moses de Corecy’s Homiletical work, entitled, The Major Book on the Com-
mandments (x0), ibid. 1547, fol. (Comp. Bibliotheca Judaica, vol. iii. p. 452.)
11
been connected with them, Jacob’s name is not even mentioned. This,
however, may be owing to the change in Ibn Adonijah’s religious
sentiments, which, as we shall presently see, is more than probable.
The disappearance of Jacob Ibn Adonijah from the field of active
labour in connection with Bomberg, which happened almost simulta-
neously with the arrival of Levita at Venice, and his appointment as
corrector and annotator of the Hebrew works, is most significant, and
we believe that it was caused by Ibn Adonijah’s relinquishing Judaism.
It is now established beyond the shadow of a doubt, that this
eminent Hebraist embraced Christianity about this time. Levita, who |
had occasion to refer to Adonijah, when writing his exposition of the
Massorah (circa 1537-88), not only speaks of him as dead, but
intimates that he had avowed the Christian faith some considerable
time before he departed this life, and hence descends to unworthy
vituperations against him. Referring to the Massorah, edited by Ibn
Adonijah, in the celebrated Rabbinic Bible, Levita says, ‘I have not
seen anything like it among all the ancient books, for arrangement and
correctness, for beauty and excellence, and for good order. The com-
piler thereof was one of the learned, whose name was formerly, among
the Jews, Jacob. Let his soul be bound up in a bag with holes!” 9
This spiteful perversion of a beautiful, charitable, and reverential
prayer, which the Jews use when speaking of or writing about any
one of their brethren who has departed this life, in allusion to 1 Sam.
xxv. 29, justifies us in assuming that Jacob Ibn Adonijah embraced
Christianity several years before 1537.
As the statement in question, in Levita’s work, was till lately the
“only reference to Ibn Adonijah’s having embraced Christianity towards
the end of his life, the fact was generally unknown, and many of the
learned Jews doubted whether the passage in Levita really meant to
convey the idea. Amongst those who doubted it, was the erudite
Frensdorff. He therefore wrote to the late Professor Luzzatto, asking
him the meaning of the passage in question, to which he replied as
follows: ‘As to the meaning of Levita’s words, which he wrote in
20 DATION DN PT ED 992 TTD OT NY TTT MDE DwY) YIM NNT PN
rap) awa oe Wow TA ONT TI DTD ANT WN ANN cer OPN
Np) Wy2 MY wow mn apy. Comp. Aassoreth Ha-Massoreth, p. 94, ed
Ginsburg.
1 ped ww Tran Ine” NDNA NON) NANA No PTA anaw TIA IT pay
42 apy ‘wo oN) wnM2w PORN ON Neeww “IP Ws] My Dw? IN apy sp) ew
TINT 9D Azansad Wwe “NYT TIO TAT ATTA AT ONT TT wor raw yp Oe
12
the poetical Introduction to the Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, ‘one of the
learned, whose name was formerly, among the Jews, Jacob. Let his
soul be bound up in a bag with holes ;’ and your asking me whether
I believe it to imply that R. Jacob b. Chajim Ibn Adonijah changed
his religion ; it is assuredly so. This was the reason why I delayed
replying to your letter, for I was greatly perplexed about this subject ;
since for a truth, from the import of R. Elias Levita’s words in
question, it is beyond doubt that R. Jacob changed his religion, and I
was unwilling to publish this strange report about such a learned man
till I found another witness. Now last year, one of my friends, the
erudite R. Moses Soave, of Venice, found an edition of the Mishna, with
the Commentaries of Maimonides and Shimshon b. Abraham, printed
at Venice (Giustiniani), 1546; at the end of Tractate Taharoth was
written as follows, which I also saw myself with my own eyes: ‘ These
are the words of the first editor, whose name was formerly, among the
Jews, Jacob b. Chajim, and who revised the Tractate Taharoth,
with the Commentary of R. Shimshon, of blessed memory. Since,
however, the sage said, ‘Receive the truth by whomsoever it is
propounded,’ we deemed it proper to print his remarks here.’ Now
is peradventure the lie to be given also to this testimony, or is the
fact to be established from this witness ?
‘‘ Before this, however, happened, I rejoiced as one that findeth
great spoil, for I bought a copy of the Pentateuch, with the Targum,
printed by Bomberg in 1548-44, at the end of which are seven
pages on the Targum, beginning—‘Thus saith Jacob b. Chajim b.
Isaac Ibn Adonijah,’ &c.; as I thought from this it is evident that in
the years 1543-44 he was alive, and was still a Jew; and how then
Santon apy 93 pep Nha sen Yon oh A oT myown D2N 9 AT pops Pao 7
7p IT NY Tay Tw2 ONT O20 TY yOwN OWI Wm? O27 by wd weg) EN NNT
DW HeEYCDY! MEM OWT WAN OT WD OY NYIWD MEWM YD NID Mon own
Wow TPT WONT POT IT OFT Adan’ Copa ae Da Ma PV TD NI NAA Wo ANION "Dy,
Sap monn Tew eno" ow ITN wD DY NNT WD aM OMT apy eens DDD
Mow Maw we AN NIT DI 19d PNT TD MIT DTT wa NNw ‘DN NON
m7
Won Tw "wv Now FINA OWT OWN OY wa “Mp2 Tw ew Mww p> OTP WI
WHI AAT OMONY yy Mw PIT 7 PAs? 72 OMT PD py WN’ ONAN Dine $y DET ‘It
AMT a3 (monn MmpN ‘'D DENwD) MA nwa Pe TP em Tre Tw o’w nwa 9
Dy sh apres ron Parner 37 ny2wor met? baggy nw)
ANP MPMM. DIAN $y TN AND WIN 2") PID PR EMVOR WI NT Noy ony OI
Seer pa ww? dae TT] DET? ND “A ne oT pty eel ND Ime wos wa DET 129 AN)
WDA NNT WONT OPI INT DIN DY won DTT IY ow hyp arvana. This letter
is published in the Hebrew Essays and Reviews, entitled Ozar Nechanad, vol iii.,
p. 112, Vienna, 1860. ~/
18
could his soul long ago be bound up (i. e. have departed) in the year
1588, when the Massoreth Ha-Massoreth was printed? But when I
saw the edition of the Mishna in question, I thought, what am I now
to say? and how am I to reconcile it? Surely upon the testimony
of two witnesses the man must be executed. Whereupon I concluded
that Ibn Adonijah wrote his Treatise on the Targum when still a Jew,
and that it had either been already printed when he was alive, in an
edition of the Pentateuch which I have not yet seen, or it was not
printed in his life-time, but remained for some years in the possession
of Daniel Bomberg, till he printed an edition of the Pentateuch,
with the Targum, when he also printed at the end the Treatise in
question.”
This fact may perhaps give us the clue to Jacob Ibn Adonijah’s
sudden disappearance from the field of labour in connection with
Bomberg’s printing office. The apology of the second editor of the“
edition of the Mishna in question, for printing, in a work intended for
the Jews, opinions propounded by one who had ceased to be a member
of the community, seems to imply several things which have hitherto
been unknown in connection with the life of Ibn Adonijah. We see
from it—i. That he still continued to work for Bomberg after he
embraced Christianity. For had Ibn Adonijah revised the Tractate
of Mishna in question when he was still a Jew, the future editor would
not have found it necessary to apologise for reprinting Ibn Adonijah’s
opinions ; just as the future editors of the Rabbinic Bible did not
require to explain why they reprinted his compilation of the Massorah,
and the Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible, which he wrote when still
a Jew. ii. The fact that Bomberg’s works were for the Jews, and
that an apology was needed to be made to them for printing the
corrections and annotations made by a converted Jew, would of itself
show the inexpediency of retaining a Jewish Christian on such works.
To conciliate, therefore, the prejudice of his Jewish customers, Bomberg
was undoubtedly obliged to part with his old friend Jacob Ibn
Adonijah. How bitter this prejudice was against those who embraced
Christianity, may be seen from the vituperations uttered against Ibn
Adonijah, even by so enlightened a man as Elias Levita. If our
conclusions are correct, they will also supply us with the clue to the
sudden and mysterious disappearance of Ibn Adonijah’s name from
nearly all the books printed by Bomberg since the year 1527.
However much Ibn Adonijah may have done to them by way of
14
correction and annotation, it was the best trade policy to suppress
the name of the converted Jew. Hence Fiirst may be perfectly
correct in his supposition that Jacob b. Chajim had a share in pre-
paring for the press the fifteen important works already alluded to,
though the learned bibliographer neither accounts for, nor mentions,
the fact that Ibn Adonijah’s name is suppressed.
The precise year in which Ibn Adonijah died has not as yet been
ascertained, though it is perfectly certain, from the remarks of Levita
already alluded to, that he departed this life before 1588. That the
Jews did not record anything connected with his life and death
is no matter of surprise, when we remember that he had left their
community, and that, in their unparalleled sufferings, the converted
Israelites of those days, in their blind zeal, were considerable
abettors. But that the Christian writers of those days, both Catholics
and Protestants, who thought it worth their while to chronicle and
perpetuate events which we cannot read now without blushing, should
have passed over in total silence the death of one who had done so
much for Biblical literature, and suffered the loss of all things to join
the ranks of the followers of Christ, will remain an indelible blot on
the gratitude of Christian historians. As far as Ibn Adonijah himself
is concerned, he has left a monument behind him in his contributions
to Biblical literature, which will last as long as the Bible is studied in
the original; and the critical student of the Scriptures can never examine
the Massorah, nor look at the gigantic Rabbinic Bible, without feelings
of reverence for, and gratitude to, Jacob b. Chajim Ibn Adonijah, who,
being dead, yet speaketh.
It now remains that we should advert to the materials from which
Tbn Adonijah compiled the Massorah, and to the merits of his
compilation. Before, however, this is done, it is necessary to give
the reader some idea of the origin, development, import, and trans-
mission of the Massorah. The account must necessarily be very
succinct.
Owing to the extreme sacredness with which the letter of the text
was regarded, and believing that the multifarious legal enactments
which were called forth by the ever-shifting circumstances of the
commonwealth, the sacred legends which developed themselves in
the course of time, and all the ecclesiastical and civil regulations,
to which an emergency may at any time give rise, are indicated
in the Bible by a superfluous letter, or redundant word, or the
15
repetition of a phrase, or the peculiarity of a construction, the greatest
care has been taken, since the beginning of the Christian era, to mark
every peculiarity and phenomenon in the spelling and construction of
the words in the Scriptures, so that ‘‘ one jot or one tittle shall in no
wise pass from the law.”
The duty of noting these peculiarities devolved more especially
upon the Scribes, or copyists, who multiplied the Codices of the Bible.
As the collation of MSS. for the purpose of producing correct copies
was deemed unsafe, inasmuch as the multiplication always gives rise
to a multitude of errors; and as, moreover, the process of collation
is not only tedious, but demands a number of MSS. belonging to
different families, and various ages, the Scribes found it more practi-
cable to count the number of times a word was spelled in an
exceptional way, or a peculiar phrase was used, or any anomaly
occurred throughout the Bible. The different peculiarities, thus
numbered. were rubricated, and formed into separate registers and
lists. These were at first committed to memory by the professional
Scribes and doctors of the law, and transmitted orally in the schools ;
but afterwards, like all other traditions, were written down, and now
constitute the Massorah (n7\DD), = tradition.®
Like the science of grammar and lexicography, the Massoretic
researches were at first limited. They were confined to the rubrication
of words and phrases to which some legal enactment was attached,
or which had some caligraphical and orthographical peculiarity. But
as the Massoretic schools extended over a millennium," and as the
12 Hence the remark, rmn2w nvmwiy $9 OND YD OND ONT Wop? TIDd
Manm omyn fo psn wy wT mn 7D bw nym bo PST pTaT yn ONO WTO
DYPIOHT AST PY ABD OM NIM DYN Ww DPR AW yey Ww IT MAND DYyD| ws
“therefore are the ancients called Sopherim, because they counted all the letters in
Holy Writ. Thus they said that the Vav, in yma (Levit. xi. 42], is the half of all the
letters in the Pentateuch; wi1 wi [tbid. x. 16] is the middle word ; mbanm [ibid. xiii,
83] the middle verse; that Ain, in -y'n [Ps. lxxx. 14], is the middle letter in the
Psalms; and Pg. lxxvii. 38 the middle verse.” Kiddushin, 80a.
18 The expression 7p», which now denotes all the labours of the Massorites
effected during a millennium, is the post-Talmudic form. In the Talmud it is nyioa
and originally denoted the traditional pronunciation of the unpointed text. Thus it
was transmitted authoritatively that Dyy1w (Levit. xii. 5) is to be read DYyaw, two weeks,
and not D'piU, seventy days; and that ama (Exod. xxiii, 19) is to be pronounced
ama, in the milk, and not aya, in the fat. Comp. Geiger, Jiidische Zeitschrift, vol.
i, p. 90, &c.; vol. iii., p, 79.
14 This has already been pointed out by Levita; comp. Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, p.
187, ed. Ginsburg.
16
absence of concordances precluded the possibility of discovering at
once all the instances in which certain anomalies were to be found,
the continued exertions of the Massorites resulted, not only in supple-
menting and completing the already existing rubrics, but in adding
new registers and lists of words, forms, phrases, and combinations,
which exhibited the slightest deviation from the ordinary usage.
Hence the Massorah, in its present development, embraces almost
everything connected with the external appearance of the text. It
gives the number of times each letter of the alphabet occurs throughout
the Bible. It states how many verses there are in each separate book.
It shows which is the middle letter, which the middle word, and
which is the middle verse in every book. It registers the majuscular,
the minuscular, the inverted, the suspended, and the peculiarly
pointed letters, the anomalous forms and phrases, defective and
plene, textual and marginal readings, conjectural readings, lexical
features, &c.
When the Massorah began to be written down, it assumed a double
form. The first form of it is more like an index, simply stating along-
side the margin, against the word which exhibits a certain peculiarity,
that the word in question is one of such and such a number, possessing
the same peculiarity, without giving the other words of the same
rubric. This form assumed the name of Massorah parva (n3IMp mNDdD).
The second is the more extensive form. It not only gives all the
words which possess the same peculiarity in full, but adds a few
words, by which each expression is preceded, or followed, so as to
enable the student to recognise, from the connection, in what book the
anomaly occurs. This form of it obtained the name of Massorah
magna, and is written above and below the text.
As, however, the Massorah constantly increased in bulk in the
course of time, extending to every phenomenon of the text, and as the
large dimensions it assumed precluded the possibility of its being
written entirely above and below the margin of the page to which it
referred, the different lists, both alphabetical and otherwise, had to be
arranged according to alphabetical or other order, and chronicled in
separate works. These books are either called by the general name
Massoretic Treatises (nappn AD), or Ochla Ve-Ochla (ndax1 ndsx).
The latter appellation the Massoretic Treatises obtained from the first
two examples, nbow (1 Sam. i. 9), nP2s) (Gen. xxvii. 19), in the
alphabetical list of words occurring twice in the Bible, once without
17
and once with Vav, with which the Massorah begins. It must be
remarked, however, that in copying the Ochla Ve-Ochla, or the Masso-
rah, the scribes or students did not always transcribe the whole of it.
Some portions were omitted as being unimportant, or not being wanted
by the transcriber; some were transposed by the students to facilitate
reference ; whilst other portions were added by those who devoted
themselves to this kind of study. Hence obtained different redac-
tions, some called by the general name Massoretic Treatises, and
others by the more specific appellation Ochla Ve-Ochla; hence the
difficulty of ascertaining the particular redaction meant by the different
commentators, lexicographers, and grammarians, who quote the Ochla
Ve-Ochla ; and hence too the impossibility of specifying particularly
the various nameless fragments and forms of the Massorah, used for
collation in the compilation of this critico-exegetical apparatus, as
edited by Ibn Adonijah.
This impossibility of specifying the nameless fragments, which
Jacob Ibn Adonijah realised in the compilation of the Massorah, has
recently been construed into a deliberate suppression of the materials
which he used, and the sources whence he drew his information. Thus
Geiger, in showing the importance of the Massorah to Biblical criticism,
and deploring its neglect by commentators and lexicographers, remarks,
“ Acquaintance with the Massorah, and with the numerous MSS.
which contain it in its various forms, has for centuries become so rare,
that people did not at all know any more whether the Massorah
actually existed in former times, in the form of a comprehensive view,
or whether it has been made into such a form for the first time by
Jacob b. Chajim, at the end of his edition of the Bible; and whether
this whole compilation which he made from the isolated Massorahs,
both parva and magna, to be found connected immediately with the
15 Levita, who made the Ochla Ve-Ochla the basis of his Massoretic researches,
plainly declared that it is so called from its beginning words, inhnnn W212 PP SPIT;
Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, p. 131. We cannot, therefore, understand why the learned
Dr. Steinschneider should be so anxious to claim the originality of this remark.
Comp. Geiger’s Jiidische Zeitschrift, vol. i., pp. 316, 317, note 31, Breslau, 1862.
16 Die Befanntihaft mit ihe, mit den gahlreiden Hand{driften, weldhe fie in ihrer
verfhiedenen Geftalt enthalten, ift (don feit Sahrhunderten fo fparlid) geworden, dag
man gar nicht mehr twufte, ob denn wirklid) friher aud) die Maforal in der Geftalt
einer umfaffenden Ueberfidht exiftirt habe, oder ob fie fo evft von Safob ben Ghajint am
Gnde der Bibelausgabe geordnet worden, diefe ganze Sufanrmenttellung, die er eben
aus den vereingelten numittelbar neben dem Verte befindlidhen Heinen und grofer
D
18
text, is exclusively his work. From his words, with which he intro-
duces this work, it does not appear whether he had before him one or
more such compilations, nay, on the contrary, it seems as if he claimed
for himself this compilation. We can scarcely avoid the suspicion,
that the man, whose merit is at all events to be acknowledged as
permanent, designedly intended to envelope it in darkness, with the
artificial words in which he introduces this work, as well as the
grammatical Treatise of Moses Ha-Nakden, in order that it might
searcely be guessed what he had originally before him, and that it
should be supposed that he had done far more at it than is actually
the case; on the contrary, he would surely have increased his merit if
he had told very plainly what sources he used, in what form they were,
and how he had worked them up. Nevertheless he omitted to give
this information, and the most distinguished literati and collators of
MSS. could give no information whether there existed any MS. com-
pilation of the Massorah.”
That this accusation is unmerited, may be seen both from Jacob
Ibn Adonijah’s Introduction, and from the various notes which he
made in different parts of the Massorah finalis. Thus in the passage
already quoted,” he not only tells us that Bomberg despatched mes-
sengers to different countries to search for copies of the Massorah, but
distinctly declares that they succeeded in obtaining as many codices as
could possibly be secured. These Massorahs, he moreover says,
embraced both kinds: First, the Massorahs written in the margin of
Baforah’s vorgenommen, ausfdlieplids fein Werk fei. Ans feinen Worten, mit
denen ex diefe Arbeit einleitet, geht midjt Hervor, ob ev eine oder gar mehrere folcher
Ueberfiditen vorliegen gehabt Habe, ja e8 fdjeint im Gegentheile, als nehme er diefe
Sufammenftellung fiir fid) allein in Anfprud; wir fonnen uné faum des Berdadhtes
erwebrent, bag der Mann, deffen Berdtenft jedenfalls ein bauernd anguerfennendes ift,
burd) die finfiliden Worte, mit denen ex diefes Werk, wie bas grammatifdje des
Moles ha-MNakdan, einleitet, abfiditlich ein gewiffes Halbdunfel hariiber verbreiten
wollte, fo baf man, was ihm urfpringlid) vorgelegen, faum alnen Eénne und man
auf die Bermuthung fommen folle, er habe weit mehr dabei gethan, als wirklich der
Fall ift. Sider atte er fein Berdienft im Gegentheile erhoht, wenn ev uns recht
gentan gefagt hatte, welche OQruellen ex beniigt, welche Geftalt diefelben gehabt und wie
et fie verarbeitet. Sedody ex unterlief diefe Mtittheilung, und die bedentendften
Kenner und Handfchriftenfammley wuften von dev maforethifden Ueberfidit, ob fie
handfdriftlid) vorhanden fet, feine Madridht gu geben. Jidische Zeitschrift fir
Wissenschaft und Leben, vol. iii., p. 112, &c. Breslau, 1865.
1 Vide supra, p. 8, &e.
19
the Bible, thus constituting what is called the Massorah parva and the
Massorah marginalis; and second, separate Massoretic Treatises, or
the different redactions of what is called the Ochla Ve-Ochla.
Equally explicit and straightforward are his remarks about the
nature of these materials, and the manner in which he elaborated them.
We cannot do better than give his own description of the condition of
the Massorahs, written in the margins of the Bibles. “After mastering
their contents,’ he says, ‘I found them in the utmost disorder and
confusion, so much so, that there is not a sentence to be found without -
a blunder: that is to say, the quotations from the Massorites are both
incorrect and misplaced ; since in those codices in which the Massorah
is written in the margin, it is not arranged according to the order of
the verses contained in the page. Thus, for instance, if a page has
five or six verses, the first of which begins with YN", and he said ;
the second with 13%, and it was told; the third with MN, and it is ;
the fourth with NW", and he sent; the fifth with IW}, and she sat :
the Massorah commences with the fourth verse, ‘‘ the word nibwin, occurs
twenty-two times;’ then follows verse two, ‘the word 13"), occurs
twenty-four times ;’’ and then the fifth verse, ‘‘ the word aWAl, occurs
fifteen times,” without any order or plan. Moreover, most of these
[Massoretic remarks] are written in a contracted form, and with
ornaments; so much so, that they cannot at all be deciphered, as the
desire of the writer was only to embellish his writing, and not to
examine or to understand the sense. Thus, for instance, in most of the
copies, there are four lines [of the Massorah] -on the top of the page,
and five at the bottom, as the writer would under no circumstances
diminish or increase the number. Hence, whenever there happened
to be any of the alphabetical lists, or if the Massoretic remarks were
lengthy, he split up the remarks in the middle or at the beginning,
and largely introduced abbreviations, so as to obtain even lines.” *
That this is by no means an exaggerated description of the state
in which the Massorah, written in the margins of the Bible, was in
the days of Ibn Adonijah, may be seen from the account given by
Levita, his contemporary and co-labourer in the same department.
Levita, who fourteen years later (1588) had to collate it for his
Introduction to the Massorah, says, ‘‘as for the Massorah, written
round the margin in the Codices, it contains numberless errors. The
copyists have perverted it, as they did not care for the Massorah, but
18 Vide infra, p. 78, &e.
20
only thought to ornament their writing, and to make even lines, so as
not to alter the appearance, in order that all the pages should be alike.
Moreover they ornamented them with illuminations of divers kinds
of buds, flowers, &c. Hence they were obliged sometimes to narrow,
and sometimes to widen, the margins round the illuminations with
words already stated, although they were superfluous, and out of
place ; whilst the Massoretic registers were entirely omitted from their
proper place, because the space did not suffice; and hence they had
to break off in the middle of a sentence, thus leaving the whole edifice
incomplete, and greatly defective.1*"
Thus much for the Massorah, which accompanied the Codices of
the Bible, prior to, and after, the time of Ibn Adonijah’s compilation.
As to the means for collating, correcting, and compiling it, and the
extent of his labours, he distinctly tells us that he used different
separate redactions of the Massorah, which Bomberg procured, and
which he himself possessed. Here, again, we must let Ibn Adonijah
speak for himself. ‘‘Now,’’ says he, ‘when I observed all this
confusion, I bestirred myself in the first place to arrange all the
Massoretic notes, according to the verses to which they belonged; and
then to investigate the Massoretic treatises in my possession, apart
from what was written in the margins of the Bibles. Wherever an
omission or contraction occurred, in order to obtain even lines, or
four lines at the top and five lines at the bottom, I at once consulted
the Massoretic treatises, and corrected it according to order. - And
whenever I found that the Massoretic treatises differed from each
other, I put down the opinions of both sides, as will be found in the
margin of our edition of the Bible with the Massorah, the word in
dispute being marked to indicate that it is not the language of the
Massorah; and whenever I took exception to the statement in a
certain Codex of the Massorah, because it did not harmonise with
the majority of the Codices of the Massorah, whilst it agreed with
a few, or wherever it contradicted iiself, I made careful search till I
discovered the truth, according to my humble knowledge.” »
How, in the face of such a plain declaration, that he had used
sundry Codices of the Massorah, apart from the Massorah which
accompanied the copies of the Bible, an accurate and profound
scholar like Geiger could say—‘“ from his words it does not appear
48" Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, p. 94, ed. Ginsburg, Longmans, 1867.
18 Vide infra, p. 79, &e.
21
whether he had before him one or more such compilations, nay, on
the contrary, it seems as if he claimed for himself this compilation,”’
and then charge Ibn Adonijah with designedly concealing his original
sources, is to us a matter of the utmost astonishment. Can it be that
Geiger has not read through Ibn Adonijah’s Introduction to the
Rabbinic Bible, in which he gives this detailed description of his
labours ?
The imputation appears still more unaccountable when it is
compared with the correct account which a few pages before Geiger
gives of Ibn Adonijah’s most assiduous and conscientious work.
‘‘ Jacob b. Chajim,” he says,” ‘has the great merit of having trans-
mitted to us the Massorah, in the second Bomberg Bible, edited by
him (1525), after comparing it most carefully with different MSS.
He has furnished us with a work of the utmost discernment and
indescribable industry. He has used several MSS. for the Massorah
parva and magna, endeavoured to reconcile and solve contradictions
and difficulties ; and has conscientiously given an account of this, as
well as of his scruples. He must certainly have had before him a
Massoretic survey, but this he has entirely recast in its arrangement.
By his not only referring frequently in the large marginal Massorah to
articles in the survey, but, vice versa, being sometimes satisfied with
a reference in the latter to the former, he actually also endeavoured to
make it a complete survey, inasmuch as he has tried to work up the
whole Massoretic material, in so far as it did not relate to entirely
isolated details; and moreover, by arranging it alphabetically, he has
O° Jalob ben Chajim hat dad grofe Berdienft, und diefelbe in der von ihm
beforgten Ausgabe der gweiten rabbinifden Bomberg’fdjen Bibel (1525), mit
forgfaltiger Vergleidhung verfdhiedener Handfdhriften, iberliefert gu haben. Gr hat
und ein Werk ci: FAHtevoller Kenntnif und unfaglidhen Fleifes geltefert; er hat fir
die Heine und die grofe Maforah mehrere Handfdiriften bendgt, Differengen und
Sdhwierigheiten anszugleiden und gu ldfen gefudt, und gewiffenhaft giebt er daritber
wie ither feine Sfrupel Beridht. Aud) die maPorethifdhe Ueherfidht lag ihm ficherlidh
vor; Ddtefe aber arbeitete er in Betreff der Anordnung vollftandig um. Nicht blos
dap ec in der grofen Randmaforah haufig anf Mrtifel der Ueberficht verwies,
umgefehrt guwetlen in diefer fid) mit einer Verweifung auf die grofe Randmaforah
degniigte, Hat er fle auch wirklich gn einer vollftandigen Ueberfidht gu geftalten verfudyt,
indent er ben gangen maforethifchen Stoff, foweit er midit ganz vereingelted Detail
betvaf, barin gu verarbeiten fudhte’ und dag er fie ferner alfabetifd) ordnete, fie alfo gu
einem maforethifden Lerifon umgeftaltete, das die Auffindung der maforethifhhen
Veftimmungen fehr erleidterte. Daf ihm Handfdriften gu diefer Arbeit vorlagen,
22
transformed it into a Massoretic lexicon, so that the finding of the
Massoretic definitions is greatly facilitated. That he had MSS. before
him for this work is evident from the whole plan, and especially from
his frank confession, in separate articles, that the statements are some-
times contrary in themselves, and sometimes contradict other state-
ments, and that he leaves the solution. However, the bringing
together of the separate and scattered stones into a well compacted
edifice is his work. The arrangement was uncommonly difficult; he
had often to hesitate, in the course of his work, in which to put single
articles ; and this indeed constituted simply a single and subordinate
part in the great work of a complete edition of the Bible, with Targum
and a number of Commentaries.”
From this description, which is irreconcilable with the other,
wherein Ibn Adonijah is charged with designed concealment of the
original sources, it is almost certain that Geiger could not have read
through Jacob b. Chajim’s Introduction to the Bible. For here, where
Geiger is really anxious to do him justice, and where he alludes to
Ibn Adonijah’s materials, he simply refers to his remarks in the
Massorah finalis, drawing from them his conclusion, and does not
at all refer to Ibn Adonijah’s Introduction, where he most explicitly
states that he had before him separate Codices of the Massorah. That
he does not specify these Codices, is owing to the fact that the
several redactions of the survey of the Massorah, and the fragmentary
nature of many of the Codices, precluded such a bibliographical
description. Besides, paleographical and bibliographical descriptions of
MSS., used in editing a work, belong to modern days. The editors of
the greatest. works, after the invention of printing, and in the days of
Tbn Adonijah, never thought of giving an account of the materials they
used up. Cardinal Ximenes, and his co-workers at the magnificent
edition of the Complutensian Polyglott, gave no account whatsoever of
the materials and MSS. they used for the texts of the Old and New
ift ans der gangen Anlage erfichtlid), befonders baraus, daB er unumwunden gu
eingelnen AUrtifeln befennt, baf die Angaben bald im fid) felbft bald mit andern im
Widerfprud) ftehn, und er die Lofung anheimftellt. Wilein die Bufammenfdhidtung
der eingelnert zerfirenten Baufteine gu einem twohlgefiigten Ban ift fein Werk. Die
Anordnuug war ungemein (dhwierig, ex mufite oft (hroanten, an welder Stelle ev det
eingelnen Artifel unterbringen folle, im Loufe der Arbeit felbft—und diefelbe (dhlof
fidy ja blos als eingelner untergeordneter Theil an dad grofe Werk einer vollftandigen
Vibelausgabe mit Thargu und einer Anzahl Commentare an—anbderte er gurveilert
{einen Plan. Jiidische Zeitschrift, vol. iii., p. 105.
28
Testaments; and Biblical critics have to the present day not succeeded
in finding out these materials. Yet who ever thinks of charging the
Cardinal, and the editors of the Complutensian Polyglott, with
designedly concealing the original sources of their work, in order that
it might appear greater than it actually was ?
Levita, who, in referring to the extraordinary dimensions of the
Massorah magna, tells us that “if all the words of it which he had
seen in his life were to be written down, and bound up in a book,
it would exceed in bulk the Bible itself,” declares that the greater part
of Ibn Adonijah’s compilation is from the Ochla Ve-Ochla.® Now
Ibn Adonijah does not even mention the name of this Massoretic
Compendium ; and it would at first sight seem as if we had here one
of the original sources, which he had designedly concealed. But the
fact that Levita found a copy of this treatise, after great exertions,2\—
though he lived in the very place where Ibn Adonijah sojourned, and
was engaged by the very printer who employed Ibn Adonijah, and who
collected and possessed all the Codices of the Massorah used in the
edition of the Rabbinic Bible, would of itself show that Ibn Adonijah
could not have had before him this particular redaction when he
compiled the Massorah. Levita’s remark, therefore, simply proves
that the different redactions of the separate Massorah, or the Ochla
Ve-Ochla, which Ibn Adonijah worked up in his great compilation, also
embodied the greater portion contained in the particular redaction
in question.
Had the Ochla Ve-Ochla referred to by Levita come to light, we
should have been able, by comparing it with the present Massorah,
to see how much of it Ibn Adonijah incorporated in his compilation,
and in what manner he worked up the materials. But, unfortunately,
this Codex, like all other Massoretic compilations, has disappeared.
There can, however, be no doubt that Levita’s statement is exag-
gerated, and that, from his known enmity to Ibn Adonijah for having
embraced Christianity, he would only too readily seize any plausible
opportunity of depreciating his fellow-labourer’s work. Yet even he
was constrained to bestow the greatest praise upon Ibn Adonijah’s
compilation, and to account for its deficiencies by adducing the ancient
proverb that ‘‘ every beginning is difficult.” *
The few independent surveys of the Massorah, which have of late
20 Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, p. 188, ed. Ginsburg.
a1 Ibid, p. 98. 28 Ibid, p. 95, &.
24
years been discovered in public libraries, only show how vast Ibn
Adonijah’s labours must have been in producing his compilation.
For, not only do these MSS. exhibit the greatest diversity in details,
but not a single one of them can be compared, in number of rubrics
or in point of arrangement, with the present Massorah finalis. About
the relationship of the Great Massorah, which the celebrated R.
Gershom b. Jehodab (circa 960-1028), ‘the luminary of the
dispersed,” already copied with his own hands,* and which is
frequently quoted by Rashi, and by the transcribers of the Leipsig
Codex (No. 1), with Ibn Adonijah’s compilation, we can say nothing,
since no Codex of this particular redaction of the Great Massorah
has as yet been found. We can, however, speak positively about the
recently discovered and published Ochla Ve-Ochla.
The Ochla Ve-Ochla, as has already been remarked, is the name
which in the course of time was given by some to one or more
redactions of the independent survey of the Massorah, to distinguish
it from the other Great Massorah,“ which was written above and
below the text of the Bible. By this appellation, this particular
redaction of the Great Massorah was first quoted, towards the end
of the twelfth century, by David Kimchi,* and Ibn Aknin.® It is then
quoted again by Isaac b. Jehudah, in the middle of the thirteenth
century ;7” and then again by Levita in 1588, who describes it as the
only separate Massorah.* Henceforth it entirely disappeared. Even
R. Salmon Norzi, the great Biblical critic, and Massoretic authority
(cirea 1560-1680), who wrote his celebrated critical and Massoretic
38 Comp. Delitzsch, Catal. Codd. Lips., p. 278; and also Zunz, Additamenta,
to Delitzsch’s Catalogue, p. 815, where the passages are given in which Rashi quotes the
“ Great Massorah.”
24 Hebrew, my12 Mon Ty Mv; Chaldee, “nay NNWOD NMA NNN. Vide
supra, p. 16, &e.
%8 Kimchi quotes the Ochla Ve-Ockla in his grammar, entitled Michlol, 35 b, col. 2;
5la, col 2; ed. Levita, Bomberg, 1545, fol. ; or 1126, 163, ed. Hechim. Fiirth, 1793;
and in his Lexicon, 8. v., 14p.
86 For Ibn Aknin’s quotations, which are to be found in his ethical work entitled
pip2x 30, and in his Methology, see Steinschneider, in Geiger's Jiidische Zeitschrift,
vol. i., p. 816, note 31, Breslau, 1862.
27 The work in which Isaac b. Jehudah quotes the Ochla Ve-Ochla is entitled
bon pp. Comp. Steinschneider, Catalogus Libr. Hebr., in Bibliotheca Bodleiana,
col. 1418; the same author in Geiger’s Jidische Zeitschrift, vol. i., p. 317, note;
Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, vol. v., p. 555, note, Magdeburg, 1860; and see also
Neubauer, Notice sur la Lexicographie Hébraiqué, p.9. Paris, 1863.
38 Comp. Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, pp. 93, 94, 188.
25
Commentary on the Hebrew Bible, about half a century later could no
longer find it;* and such distinguished scholars as Lebrecht and
First have pronounced it as lost. Dr. Derenburg, however, whilst
preparing the catalogue of Hebrew MSS. in the Imperial Library, at
Paris, had the good fortune to discover an independent ‘‘ Great
Massorah,” commencing with the words Ochla Ve-Ochla. Shortly
after, Dr. Frensdorff, who has for years been engaged in Massoretic
studies, heard of the discovery (January, 1859), and, with the zeal
and disinterested love with which this author prosecutes his Massoretic
researches, he went to Paris in 1862, copied the MS., and published
it, with learned annotations, in 1864."
The questions which we now purpose to examine are—i. What
relationship does this Massoretic work sustain to the Massorah,
published by Ibn Adonijah? And, ii. Is this Ochla Ve-Ochla the
identical work which is quoted by Kimchi, Ibn Aknim, Isaac b.
Jehudah, and Elias Levita, or is it simply one of the redactions of
the ancient Great Massorah, which, like the several other redactions,
obtained the appellation Ochla Ve-Ochla ?
i. The first great difference between the Ibn Adonijah compilation
and the Ochla Ve-Ochla is that the former contains upwards of
six thousand one hundred rubrics, whilst the latter only contains
about four hundred. ii. Though Ibn Adonijah’s compilation com-
prises more than fifteen times the number of rubrics that the
Ochla Ve-Ochla contains, yet the latter has no less than fifty-three
entire rubrics which are not at all to be found in the former.
They are as follows, according to the numbers of the Ochla
Ve-Ochla: —Nos. li., lx., Ixviii., Lxxiii., Ixxiv., lxxviii., clxxv.,
clxxvi., exxx., clxxx., clxxxi., clxxxii., clxxxiii., clxxxix., ccii., cevii.,
CCXVi., CCXX., CCxXiii., CCXxiv., CCXXV., CCXXVi., CCXXix., CCXXxXii., CCXxxiii.,
cexlii., celvii., cclviii., celxiii., celxv., eclxvii., celxxxi., cclxxxii.,
29 See the edition of the Hebrew Scriptures, with his Commentary, entitled, 4 Gift
Offering, or Oblation of Salomon ben Jehudah (vo nr), 1 Sam. i. 9, vol. ii. p. 27 3.
Mantua, 1742-44.
80 Thus Lebrech, in the Introductory notes to his edition of Kimchi’s Lexicon,
remarks, “sed pos tota arg torum ejes tn Masoram magnam bibliorum
rabbinorum transitt, ipse liber periisse videtur, p. xlix., Berlin, 1847 ; and Fiirst, 752% 6D
VINNY TINID MBN 197 NNO WED NIM MH IN.— Appendices to his Concordance, p. 1882.
81 Bibliothéque Impériale, Ancien Fonds Hébreu, No. 56.
83 The complete title of the book is Das Buch Ochla W’Ochla (Massora) Heraus-
gegeben tibersetzt und mit erliuterenden Anmerkungen versehen nach einer, soweit
bekant, einzigen, in der Kaiserlichen Bibliothek zu Paris befindlichen Handschrift.—
Von Dr. 8. Frensdorff, Hanover, 1864.
E
26
celxxxiii., cclxxxiv., cclxxxvi., cclxxxvii., ccxciv., ccci., cccvi., Ccecvii.;
ceeviii., cccix., cccxviil., ccexxix., cccxxx., cccxxxi., cccxlii., cccxlix.,
ecelx., ccelxviii., ccelxx., and portions of three rubrics, Nos., xviii.,
eclxvi., and ccexxvii.* iii. Some of the parallel rubrics in the one
have occasionally a few instances less than the other, and vice versa.
iv. The order in which the instances are enumerated in the respective
rubrics is more confused, and less in accordance with the sequence of
the books in the Bible in Ibn Adonijah’s compilation, than in the
Ochla Ve-Ochla. In the Ochla Ve-Ochla the order of the books is
as follows: Pentateuch, earlier Prophets as usual, then Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Minor Prophets; the Five Megilloth are
sometimes placed before the Psalms, and sometimes before Chronicles ;
sometimes, however, they follow irregularly immediately after the
Hagiographa.
With these important differences between the two redactions of
the Massorah, we turn to the second question, viz., whether the Ochla
Ve-Ochla now published by Dr. Frensdorff is the identical redaction
referred to by the different lexicographers and expositors, and declared
by Levita to have been used by Ibn Adonijah for his compilation.
Dr. Frensdorff, the learned editor of the Ochla Ve-Ochla, maintains
that it is the identical Massoretic work which had been lost for nearly
three centuries. Levita, who, as far as can be ascertained, was the
last that possessed a copy of the Ochla Ve-Ochla, and who had studied
it most carefully, distinctly maintains that the greatest part of Ibn
Adonijah’s compilation, i. ¢., of the present Massorah finalis, is taken
88 Frensdorff also marks Nos. cexxxix. and cclix., as wanting in Ibn Adonijah’s
compilation. But this isa mistake, as Geiger has already pointed out, since rubric
cexxxix., which gives three groups of words, respectively occurring three times in the
same section, the first time with Vav conjunctive, and the second and third times
without it. is also to be found in the Massorah finalis. p. 285, cols. 1 and 2, ed. Buxtorf
or Frankfurter. Only that the Codex from which this rubric of the printed Massorah
was taken, had erroneously four such groups, and that this error has been transferred
into the Massorah finalis. For ty cms which is quoted as occurring twice, once
beginning with *n7am (read *n73™), and once beginning with ypn 4x, occurs only once,
and the two references are to one and the same verse, Isaiah xlviii. 8. The other rubric,
No. cclix., which gives nine instances of two combined words, the first of which occurs once
only with the prefix Mem, is to be found complete in the Massorah finalis, under the
letter Mem, p. 436, col. 4, ed. Buxtorf or Frankfurter, where, however, monn ‘yT™,
the reference to Jeremiah xxxix. 14, is erroneously put for ONT TW, as the Paris
redaction rightly has it. Itis to be added, that in enumerating the rubrics in the Paris
redaction, which are wanted in the printed Massorah, Geiger has omitted Nos. li., Ix.,
exxx., cexix., and cclxv., marked by Frensdorff in his notes on the respective articles.
27
from it.“ Now the most cursory comparison of the two works will
show, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Ibn Adonijah could not
have had before him the redaction of the Ochla Ve-Ochla, published
by Dr. Frensdorff; and that either this Ochla Ve-Ochla is not the one
which Levita made the principal basis of his Massoretic studies, and
which is quoted by Kimchi, Ibn Aknim, é&c., or that Levita’s statement
is not true.
Indeed, Dr. Frensdorff himself admits that the Ochla Ve-Ochla,
which has recently been found in the Imperial Library at Paris, and
which he has published, could not possibly have been used by Jacob
Ibn Adonijah. We cannot do better than give Dr. Frensdorff’s own
proofs for this statement: i. The Ochla Ve-Ochla has fifty-six articles
which are wanting in Ibn Adonijah’s compilation, and which he surely
would not have omitted if he had had this redaction before him; and
ii. Some of the articles, which are to be found in the two Massorahs
alike, are very defective in the printed Massorah finalis, thus showing
that Ibn Adonijah did not copy the articles into his compilation from
this redaction of the Ochla Ve-Ochla, or the articles in the copy would
have been as complete as those in the original.
Thus under the alphabetical list of words which begin with Vav and
Mem, and occur only once, Ibn Adonijah remarks, ‘‘the above registers,
which begin with » in alphabetical order, from xp) to $y, have all
been collected from several Massoretic treatises, piece by piece. There
is, however, a large alphabetical list of them complete, from xp to
noi; but he has not been able to procure it complete, except from spy
to np). The rest he has had to search out register by register, and he
does not know whether it is complete or defective.’ * If Ibn Adonijah
had before him the Ochla Ve-Ochla, published by Dr. Frensdorff, he
would have found this complete list in No. xviii. Moreover, from this
list, which occurs in the list in the Ochla Ve-Ochla, he would have
been able to fill up many a gap which occurs in the list of the
Massorah finalis, from $5) to np.
Constrained to admit that Ibn Adonijah could not have had this
redaction of the Ochla Ve-Ochla before him when compiling the
84 TT won Noe PR aN Syn pw) ow] AD“ AD npp wT Aon 59 02
Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, p. 138, ed. Ginsburg.
85 py, DOT EDD WD pa Sy) ko oN TO pwown? Ww ws 5 pnp ns
OND TP IND TTP) aT? YSN TY NO) MONwoT nn nT T's Nd wT aR OW TOW
boy nb ww 7M DN roy TD NOV Mow Mow ey) wer y%n 1 bp. Comp. Massorah finalis,
p. 44a, col. 3.
28
Massorah, and yet anxious to maintain that it is the identical Ochla
Ve-Ochla which is quoted by Kimchi, Ibn Aknin, and others, which
Levita made the basis of his Massoretic labours, and which he
positively declares yielded to Jacob b. Chajim the greatest part of his
compilation, Dr. Frensdorff simply disputes Levita’s statement. But
so plain a declaration by a contemporary scholar, and the first
Massoretic authority of his time, is not to be set aside. Indeed,
Dr. Frensdorff would never have resorted to so desperate and hazardous —
a measure, had he not started from the false hypothesis, that there
was only one redaction of the Ochla Ve-Ochla, and that his was the
unique copy which has survived the ravages of time. The incorrect-
ness of this assumption, however, is now proved beyond the shadow of
a doubt, by the discovery of another and much larger redaction of the
Ochla Ve-Ochla than that published by Dr. Frensdorff. The MS. is in
the Library of the University of Halle (Y. b 10), and a description of
it, by the late Professor Hupfeld, has just appeared in the Journal
of the German Oriental Society. This description we recast and
condense, so as to adapt it for our purpose, in order to show its
relationship both to Ibn Adonijah’s compilation, or the Massorah
finalis, and to the Ochla Ve-Ochla, edited by Dr. Frensdorff.
The Halle MS8., which is a small quarto on parchment, beautifully
written in square Hebrew characters of the middle ages, consists of
188 numbered leaves, or 276 pages, and contains upwards of 1,000
Massoretic rubrics, in two parts, as follows :—
Tae Fiest Part wants six leaves of apparently a grammatical
import. On p. 7 a stands, after the superscription dy» 19$p jon, &
table of the accents, with their respective figures and names; and on
p- 75-11, an Index (7 5-11), of the Rubrics contained in both parts.
The Massorah proper of the first part, which contains one hundred
and seventy rubrics, begins on p. 12 and extends to p. 72, thus
embracing sixty-one leaves, or one hundred and twenty-two pages.
The rubrics of this part, which contain almost exclusively the
essence and older portion of the Massorah, viz., lists of words,
forms, and constructions of a unique nature or rare occurrence, are
divisible into three groups. The first group consists of seventy,
nearly all alphabetical lists (1-70) of words, forms of words, and
combinations, which occur once only, or a few times, partly alone, and
partly with certain prefixes, with this or that vowel or accent. The
8 Comp. Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenldndischen Gesellschaft, vol. xxi., pp.
201-220. Leipzig, 1867.
29
second group consists of eighty lists (71-150), giving the various
readings, and thus being to a certain extent of a critical nature. Of
these, the first two lists only are still alphabetical, the others are
incomplete alphabets. The third group consists of twenty lists
(151-170), of a similar import to those in the first group. Besides
the rubrics, there are a great number of marginal additions throughout
this part. They are written both in small square and in Rabbinic
characters. Some of these simply continue the statements in the
text, or supplement the examples adduced; but most of them contain
new lists, so that the total number of lists in the first part amounts to
upwards of 260.
Tue Seconp Part extends over fol. 73-128, as well as over an
unnumbered folio, thus making together fifty-seven leaves, or one
hundred and fourteen pages, and contains three hundred and forty-
three rubrics, which are again divisible into groups. The first
group consists of eighty-eight lists (1-88), of forms of peculiar verbs
and nouns, just as a concordance. The second group consists of twenty-
one registers (89-109), of textual phenomena, similar to those enume-
rated in the first part. The third group consists of forty-five rubrics
(110-155), of words, which are unique in one book only, which are
peculiar in their orthography, vowel points, or terminations. The fourth
group consists of a hundred and eighty-eight registers (156-844),
giving forms and textual peculiarities of all sorts. Besides these num-
bered ones, there are two lists, one between Nos. 118 and 114, and the
other at the end, which are not numbered, so that the total sum of
rubrics in this part is three hundred and forty-five. To this must be
added a large unnumbered piece, extending over six pages, designated
mibbs, and giving one hundred and thirty short rubrics, between
Nos. 279 and 280. There are, moreover, in this part, a much larger
number of marginal additions than in the first part. They are to be
found on almost every page, and the additional rubrics amount to
upwards of a hundred and eighty ; so that the total number of rubrics
in the second part amounts to upwards of five hundred and twenty.
Immediately after the second part, p. 1294, are registers of the
numbers of verses in the Old Testament, the chronology of Biblical
events, and the respective authors of the sacred books. Whereupon
follow, pp. 129b-—182, sundry Massoretic remarks, which, though
under the inscription MIUpA MIDND 1, this is from the Massorah parva,
consist mostly of lists of peculiar forms, orthography, and phrases
strictly connected with the Massorah magna. These lists, some of
80
which already occur in the marginal notes, make together about two
hundred and fourteen. Then follow, on two unnumbered half leaves,
thirty-four rubrics, written in Rabbinic characters, of forms and phrases
with peculiar points and orthography, and of verses containing certain
words. And, finally, there are other pages (pp. 185 a—186 a) of lists,
written in Rabbinic characters, giving the passages throughout the entire
Old Testament where Pattach (Segol) is to be found with Athnach and
Soph Pasuk. The Appendix, therefore, contains (214+ 84 =) 248 addi-
tional rubrics, thus making the sum total upwards of a thousand rubrics.
It now remains that we should point out the relationship of this
redaction of the Ochla Ve-Ochla, or the great Massorah, both to
Ibn Adonijah’s compilation, and to the redaction published by Dr.
Frensdorff.
i. The Halle MS., though rich in its Massoretic lore, has incom-
parably fewer rubrics than Ibn Adonijah’s compilation.
ii. In several instances where the arrangement and superscription
of the rubrics in Ibn Adonijah’s compilation differs to advantage from
the Paris redaction, edited by Dr. Frensdorff, the Halle MS. agr-es
with the printed Massorah. Thus the Massorah marginalis, on Levit.
i. 1, in giving the alphabetical lists of words which occur once only
with Kametz, instead of Pattach, adds the important designation,
Nppra with Zaxeph. The Halle redaction, where this rubric is No.
* 22, has the same addition, whereas in the Paris redaction, where it is
No. 21, this definition is omitted. Again, the rubric of the verses
giving the names of the Canaanitish nations, has the inscription in
the Massorah finalis, ‘two groups of three verses each in which
the six names, viz., the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the
Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, follow in the same order ;
in fourteen verses they have a unique order, making together twenty
verses,” * distinguishing two features, first the order of the Canaanitish
nations, and second the absence of the Vav. In accordance with this
the two groups are first enumerated, whereupon follow the instances,
in each one of which the order is peculiar,® mostly in pairs. After
this follow two other rubrics, with separate inscriptions, giving the
variations of Vav, &c. The Halle redaction has the same arrangement,
87 MDD TOIT NT NET NORM NNT pT poo 3 pO PA Me ayo pm ‘a yoow
Dyin ‘2 yD PWM. Compare that portion of it entitled Various Readings
(Tap ‘Eyym), p. 625, ed. Frankfurter, or ed. Buxtorf.
88 There are properly only twelve instances, Exod. xiii. 5, and Josh. xxiv. 11, being
omitted.
81
with the same examples, only without the inscription of the last
rubric ; whilst the Paris redaction, edited by Dr. Frensdorff (rubric
274) mixes up both the order of the Canaanitish names and the
absence of the Vay in one rubric, with the inscription, ‘‘ twenty verses
in which the sequence of the words is irregular; fourteen of them
have each a peculiar order, and also those which have Vav, and those
which have not Vav.®”
iii. In many instances where Ibn Adonijah’s compilation is defec-
tive and incorrect, and the Paris redaction is correct, the Halle
redaction has the same blunders as the printed Massorah. Thus in the
alphabetical list of words which occur once only with the preposition
bx, and once with the preposition by, the Massorah finalis gives three
incorrect instances, viz., MMt31 by, ngNdp by, and wip bx, which do
not occur, and which are rightly wanting in the Paris redaction ;“
whilst the Halle redaction has the same errors. In the alphabetical
list of words occurring twice, once with the article 4, and once
without it, the Massorah finalis erroneously gives TMNT 330, inasmuch
as it not only occurs in the passage adduced (Exod. xxix. 29), but also
in Levit. xiv. 12. This error, which does not occur in the Paris
redaction,“ is also to be found in the Halle MS. The printed Mas-
sorah, in the incomplete alphabetical list of words which respectively
occur, once with Daleth, and once with Resh, erroneously places
5" under the letter Pe, instead of Vav, which is also the case in
the Halle redaction; whilst in the Paris redaction it is in its right
place. The alphabetical list of words beginning with »}, and
oceurring only once, to which reference has already been made,® is
exactly as imperfect in the Halle redaction as it is in the Massorah
finalis. The other instances, adduced by Hupfeld, which exhibit the
agreement in the imperfections between the printed Massorah and the
Halle MS., we must omit for want of space.
As to the relation of the Halle MS. to the Paris redaction, the
89 y' pada NOI pay PIO phe pO. PAP pre V7 pA pPwanwot ow °.
Compare rubric 274, p. 58, &c.; 149, ed. Frensdorff, Hanover, 1864.
# Compare Massorah finalis, letter Aleph, p 7b, with the Paris redaction, rubric 2,
p. 8, &., notes. ,
41 Compare Massorah finalis, under letter He, p. 21a, col. 8, with the Paris redaction,
rubric 3, p. 4, notes.
4 Compare Massorah jinalis, under letter Daleth, p. 19, col. 1, with Paris redac-
tion, rubric 7, p. 6.
48 Vide supra, p. 27.
32
following striking points must be adduced. Apart from the fact that
the Halle redaction has nearly treble the number of rubrics, the one
having upwards of a thousand, the other scarcely four hundred,
a comparison of the materials which these two Massorahs contain in
common will show that they both proceeded from the same ancient
source, and have been so elaborated, curtailed, expanded, and adapted,
as to meet the special requirements of the respective redactors. Before,
however, we proceed to point out this connection, it is necessary to
remark that the essential portion of the Massorah, which treats on
the forms of the words, and gives the number of times these forms
occur, is divisible into two parts. The one specifies only the excep-
tional or rare forms, which occur once, twice, thrice, or at most four
times, grouping these together according to analogies, or parallels, or
alphabetical lists, or in certain numbers. The other part gives the
number of times certain words occur, and assumes the form of a
concordance. The Paris redaction is devoted more especially to the
first part, whilst the Halle redaction embraces both parts. It is by
comparing that part of the Halle redaction which rubricates the
anomalies catalogued in the Paris redaction, that we can see the
affinity of the two.
Now on comparing the first part of the Halle MS. with the Paris
Massorah, it will at once be evident that both the redactors had the
same materials before them. The first list in both begins with the signi-
ficant words Ochla Ve-Ochla. The first great group of alphabetical
lists and pairs of forms which occur once or twice only, contained in
the first part of the Halle redaction (Nos. 1-70), is to be found in the
Paris Massorah entirely, and in the same order, with the exception
that No. 18 of the former stands as No. 70 in the latter. The same
is the case with the second group of the Halle MS. (Nos. 71-150).
These are almost entirely to be found in the Paris redaction, only that
rubrics 71 and 72 in the Halle, are rubrics 80 and 81 in the Paris
Massorah ; and that the latter contains alphabetical, and a few other
lists from 82 to 90, so that the parallel sequence is resumed with
rubric 91; rubrics 78-150 of the Halle MS. having their corres-
pondence in rubrics 91-166 of the Paris redaction. In this group,
however, the Halle MS. has ten rubrics in the orthography of certain
words,“ which are wanting in the Paris Massorah, whilst the latter has
“4 These rubrics are on the orthography of 1#27122 «MTD TD THD NWT and wn, as
well as on “py: ‘yy, TT. To this may also be added the contrast (Fn), to rule 15],
88
about thirteen rubrics (161, 167-170, 176-181, 214, 216-218),
which are wanted in the former. Rubric 180, however, of the Paris
redaction, is to be found in the marginal additions of the Halle redac-
tion, and rubric 214 stands as rubric 168, second part of the Halle
MS. Greater differences between the two redactions occur in the third
group of the Halle MS. (151-170), though the bulk of this group is
also to be found in the Paris redaction. Thus Nos. 155-161 are
in the latter 76-78, 85-89, 848, 850-858. The corresponding
portion in the Paris Massorah, however, is much richer, having lists of
logical deductions (182-184); textual phenomena (192-194, 268,
278-295); registers of expressions repeated in the same verses
(296-865) ; and of unique forms and combinations (254-267, 366-
878), which are not found in the Halle MS. The latter again has
two lists of anomalies in the Divine names and their various combina-
tions (152-154); five catalogues of xb and xby (162-167), and
other things which do not exist in the former.
The real difference, however, is to be seen in the second part.
Here the Halle MS. is much richer than the Paris redaction. Thus,
for instance, the latter wants the whole of the second group (Nos.
89-108), and has only three rubrics of the one hundred and eighty-
eight which constitute the fourth group (156-844) in the Halle
MS., viz., those which are in the Halle MS. Nos. 168, 277, 827.
These are in the Paris redaction Nos. 214, 869, 191. Moreover
the one hundred and thirty short rules which stand after No. 279 in
the Halle MS., are also wanting in the Paris redaction. Of all the
rules which are to be found in the marginal glosses and in the
Appendices, with the exception of the marginal notes on the first
group of the second part (Nos. 1-88), only about fifteen occur
in the Paris redaction. Altogether the Paris redaction has about
fifty rubrics which are not to be found in the Halle MS., as well as
about fifty lists of words which occur in the same verse. Moreover,
of the twenty-four rubrics in the Appendix to the Paris Massorah, the
Halle MS. has only two rubrics, viz., 28 and 24. The Halle MS.,
on the other hand, has at least five hundred rubrics which are not to
be found in the Paris redaction.
As to the age of the Paris redaction, this cannot be ascertained
even approximately. All that is known for certain is that several hands
which properly begins the third group, giving a list of 154 instances wherein °)1" occurs
in contrast to ‘7%, and which, too, is wanted in the Paris redaction.
. F
84
worked at it, and that it could not have been compiled earlier than the
twelfth century. This has been shown by Geiger, who refers to No.
216. Here three words are rubricated, which in an exceptional
manner have Chirek followed by Jod before Faaeshs viz., npwied (Isa.
xlii. 24), PNIIP'D (Psalm xly. 10), and NOP"? (Prov. xxx. 17). Now
Geiger shows that these readings were not fixed till the tenth century,
and that R. Saadia Gaon (892-942), was the first who rubricated
them, since Rashi (1040-1105), in his commentary on Psalm xlv. 10,
mentions to have seen them in R. Saadia’s Nikkud (myo a0 Nps).
From this, it is evident that this rubric was not in the Massorah in
the twelfth century, and that it was inserted afterwards, since this
celebrated expositor, who so frequently quotes the Massorah in his
explanations of anomalous readings, would surely in this instance not
have referred to R. Saadia’s Nikkud, had the rubric in question then
formed part of the Massorah. As the compilers of the Paris redaction
made their compilation from Massorahs which already contained this
rubric, it must at least have been effected circa 1200.
The age of the Halle MS. is not fixed by Hupfeld, and not having
as yet had an opportunity of inspecting ity I cannot ascertain it. The
fact, however, that both it and the Massorah finalis contain many
incomplete lists, and that the order in which the anomalies are enume-
rated is not according to the sequence of the books, shows that the
materials from which they were elaborated were not only the same as
but much older than the Paris redaction, and that the latter was made
at the time when these Massoretic materials had already been shaped
into proper order and form. It is therefore of the utmost importance
that the Halle MS. should be published, for it is only by a careful
comparison of the three Massorahs, viz., the Paris redaction, the
Halle MS., and the Massorah finalis, that the readings of the Hebrew
verity can properly be fixed.
Now that two independent Massorahs have been discovered, we
are in a better position to judge of the labour which Ibn Adonijah
bestowed upon his compilation. Not only have the Paris and Halle
redactions incomparably less rubrics than the printed Massorah, but
they have neither any fixed plan nor definite order in the disposition
and arrangement of the various rubrics. With the exception of some-
times placing together a few lists of similar subjects, they have an
arbitrary sequence of the different articles. Jacob b. Chajim Ibn
Adonijah, therefore, has not only the merit of having amassed a larger
85
quantity of Massoretic materials than is to be found in the independent
Massorahs now discovered, but he was the’ first who distributed the
Massoretic remarks under the proper places to which they belonged,
and who arranged the whole mass of the multifarious rubrics consti-
tuting this critico-exegetical apparatus into an alphabetical and lexical
order, so that any anomaly or Massoretic remark may now easily be
found by the student of the Hebrew text.
That Ibn Adonijah’s compilation, which involved so much re-
search and labour, and which after all constitutes one portion only
of his gigantic Rabbinic Bible, should contain many imperfections, is
no matter of surprise to any one who understands the nature of the
work. Indeed it could not be otherwise, when the state of the
materials which he had to work up is considered. But though Elias
Levita, his contemporary and co-worker in the same department, had
already alluded to these imperfections, and rightly accounted for them
by quoting the old adage that ‘‘ every beginning is difficult,’ yet he,
as well as Morinus,“ Michaelis,‘7 and others who repeated his stric-
tures, found it a far more easy task categorically to refer to errors and
omissions than to collect and correct them. Buxtorf, who alone had
the courage to embark upon correcting Jacob b. Chajim Ibn Adonijah,
has more generally mistaken the meaning of the Massorah than
rectified the errors. Now that the Paris redaction has been published,
and that another and more important independent MS. has been
discovered, which yield ample materials for amending and completing
this ancient critical apparatus, it will be a burning shame if those who
love the Bible, and are anxious for a correct text of the Old Testament
verity, do not come forward to aid in the publication of the newly
discovered MS., and help us in procuring an edition of the Massorah
in as complete and accessible a form as the present rich materials
enable us to obtain.
4 Vide Supra, p. 23.
4% Excercitatt. Biblice, pp. 384, &., 556, &e.
47 Preface to the edition of the Hebrew Bible, cap. IV., section v., p. 21, &c., Halle,
1720,
86
INTRODUCTION.
Tuus saith the humble Jacob ben
Chajim ben Isaac Ibn Adonijah :
‘He entereth in peace, where the
righteous rest upon their couches,
who walked in uprightness.”’ !
Praised be the Creator, who
exists and yet none can see him,
who is hidden and yet found by
every one that seeks him, who
graciously bestowed language on
mankind in order that they might
communicate precious things joined
together by wisdom, so as to be-
come one, to gather his rain and
flame, and learn his words and
ways. He endowed his people,
maT
4 pme ya ovn ya apy: dyxn WOR?
Lynpy vo yaar Te
armen xd po exon ean NIN
pod pn qe vanxp w9T 55) abpin
my nebod jornnd ped wren
yawned ym ony Soen ea jonon
ya missy yyovaey vata7 mpd
pes nea wa pops mn yar
mwaIM ANN pwd wn aw wIpN
ym may oxy mpad made nin
*> yarn py 52 nyt yy ymnend
dp mings ose oy pe espn pwd
nnn arn pps Nem dep omn
ondam jmdpa enn moon dyad
his first-born son, with the holy tongue, which is the language of
the Law and the Prophets, and is very wonderfully adapted to open
the eyes of the blind, and impart light unto them, so that all the
nations of the world may know that there is nothing like this holy lan-
guage in purity of style and charm of diction; it is like a tree of life
to those who possess it, and its wisdom imparts life to the owner
1 This introductory formula is only to be found in the editio princeps of the Rab-
binic Bible, edited by Ibn Adonijah himself (1524-25). All the subsequent editions, |
which were published long after his embracing Christianity and his death, have omitted
it, and substituted for it the words Pnynm On, thus saith the author, thus removing
from the very beginning of the Introduction to the Bible the name of the author, who
had left the Jewish community. This fally confirms our opinion that his name was
also removed from other works which he prepared for the press and annotated, and that
his sudden disappearance from the field of literary labour is to be ascribed to the fact of
his having renounced Judaism (vide supra, p. 13). As to the abbreviation y7’ny “w,
it is the accrostic of the second verse in Isaiah lvii., ws Jo oMaawo Sy my Dw wy
which the Jews use as 4 euphemic expression when speaking of the dead, in consequence
of the traditional explanation given to this passage. Thus the Talmud not only explains
it as referring to a beatified future life, but says that, when a pious man dies, an angel
announces his arrival in heaven. Whereupon the Lord says that the righteous are to go
to meet and welcome him with the salutation, ‘He cometh in peace, to where they rest
upon their couches, who walked in uprightness.” (Isa. lvii. 2.) Indeed we are told that
this verse is used by three companies of angels, who go to meet the saint.
The first
angelic group salute him with the words, ‘‘ He cometh in peace!” the second with “‘ Who
walked in uprightness!” and the third with ‘‘ May he rest upon his couch !”
Kethuboth, 104a.)
(Compare
37
thereof. Now God gave it to his ond »b cna wwe mpd mn wr
people whom he had chosen for mm ,ANvann 1 x3) ANY O95
himself — gave it to them only to rybopy jor apitps jane wT
be concealed under the shadow of WN tnbypn MOIIN WIND | MMN
His and j for they alone Know its (pin pron pian WN mana mn
aw ite eno 8 re , the nen pind pn ds yaba awe ,ppron anim
of the Great Synagogue, in whom ™P2) 72m bn nd q33) DY yen
was heavenly “ight bright and axad ond ma ww ompnn pa
powerful, like pure gold, on whose W237) Aan ma Trendy onen
heart every statute of the Law was MP? Mom ,nnpe araw Sayd obs
engraved, have set up marks, and %y "wN ,nmw wN minnd ieapnm
built a wall around it, and made Nh v na nhw md pynd nna
ditches between the walls, and bars, mwpy ,b50 5b map min 99 nop
and gates, to preserve the citadel jn minx snmp wmbp ant wp
in its splendour and brightness; apm jmin omby mim nnn mie
and they all came to the trans- yinyb) spo xdy sem oan
parent cloud of its burning doctrine ppm BON ODY °91) 099 MeN
and 1 theneclves ‘5 and they sane: ainn 25m pbmo; ex) yinn ons
from off its altar, so that no other end mn axdp ny aor xd) en
hand might touch it and desecrate TVD? Ney "anne op NO 15
it so as to become a bat for every "™? prop>D Brn np nde vane nam
fool ; they strung together its gold-
en words from columns of the Word of God —words of purity ;
and the Spirit alighted upon them, and as if by prophecy they wrote
down their labours in books, to which nothing is to be added. The
princes of the people gathered together to hear their sublime words;
and when they had finished their work, the supernatural vision and
its source were sealed, and the glory and splendour departed, and the
angel of the Lord appeared no more. For no one rose after them
who could do as they did. And now we are here this day gathering
the gleanings which they have left; and we capture the faint ones of
*The Great Synagogue or Synod (ayn now NNN NNW. Synagoga magna) to
which Jacob b. Chajim refers, was instituted by Nehemiah (comp. Neh. x. 1-10;
Midrash Ruth, cap. iii. fol. 45 b; Jerusalem Shebiith, v. 1, 35 6), and continued till the
death of Simon the Just (B. c. 300), who was the last member of it. It consisted of
one hundred and twenty members, comprising the representatives of the following five
classes of the Jewish nation :—i. The chiefs of the Priestly divisions (18 m3 ‘Os ) ;
ii. The chiefs of the Levitical Families (O™1 ww); iii. The Heads of the Israelite
Families (nym *ww); iv. Deputies from the different towns; and, v. The distinguished
men of all ranks (O'"2"2). They were all divided into ExpERs (t»2pt, ™peoBurepot) and
ScRrBEs (ODD yeaupareis); and among the many important enactments and institutions
which are ascribed to them are—i. The compilation of the Hebrew canon and the
various readings ; ii. The composition of the Book of Esther; iii. The introduction of
fixed formule of prayer ; and iv. The foundation of colleges. Comp Kitto’s Cyclopedia,
8. 0. SYNAGOGUE, THE GREAT.
88
their rear-guard, and run in their
path day and night, and toil, but
can never come up to them.
Thus says the writer: I was
dwelling quietly in my house, and
flourishing in my abode, prose-
cuting diligently my studies, at
Tunis, which is on the borders of
ancient Carthage, when fate re-
moved me to the West, but did not
withdraw its hand from afflicting
me, and afterwards brought me to.
the famous city of Venice. And
even here I had nothing to do, for
the hand of fate was still lifted
up, and exalted over me; and its
troubles and cares found me in the
city, smote me, wounded me, and
crushed me. And after about three
months of sufferings, I left for a
little while the furnace of my afilic-
tions, for I was in a thirsty land.
I said in the thoughts of my heart,
I will arise now, and walk about
the streets of the city. As I was
walking in the streets, wandering
quietly, behold God sent a highly
distinguished and pious Christian,
of the name of Daniel Bomberg,
to meet me. May his Rock and
Redeemer protect him! This was
effected through the exertions of an
45) ay jomdeny cram jobs
rome pra edy pony omdayoa pra
py pms. nen ide TDN IN
see mon ons Dd dy sprw sda
sbabm nowipn xizorp d133 axp> arp
phan rp awn xd spon mens yon
ten van xem AD nn vd RED ae)
+3 mown ‘ney Xd np on dan vpn
ya yan YM TD ADD naw) IMP
wbyns ym s1DON Y¥D ‘Nd RAD
imxdnn non ny ony pond own:
pI MON yMaNdn pIR. UND
pa mason) NO nope jmaadn
vpn mS inxydD ana ops
min kph *3 ineap> nam wn mene
Onn wR OMEN MYON TM wR 1755
eryania Spe op ie ndpom
may wr mboanwan yoann mx we
DYN °37 DY voy Maw N37 WR
ammo pode wp tan nbym ya nbs
ae pow ma be nade yy
Spy nay mo wR pms3 ma $5
99 Jn20d sy qed pip expn na +3
pnp yond joe an ED TN’ “NYDN
DvypA Nd3 HpIwM DId1M ,Myor wpID
mado we ay MeN IDS abpym
PAM pas oeMaN1 AOD AED OND?
pragma mS172 wos crete *b Sy ANY
som ibvaer ,dynad panon pe vada oni
Israelite, who bestowed great kindness upon me, and whose name is
R. Chajim Alton, son of the distinguished Moses Alton.
Rock and Redeemer protect him!
May his
He brought me to his printing-
office, and shewed me through his establishment, saying to me,
Turn in, abide with me,* for here thou shalt find rest for thy
soul, and balm for thy wound, as I want thee to revise the
books which I print, correct the mistakes, purify the style, and
examine the works, till they are as refined silver and as purified
gold.
Although I saw that his desire was greater than my ability, yet I
thought that we must not refuse a superior. Still I told him that I
g The expression "my, with me, is not the editio princeps, but there can be no doubt
that it has dropped out by mistake. The subsequent editions have, therefore, rightly
inserted it. .
89
did not know as much, nor nearly
as much [as he supposed], in accord-
ance with that we find at the end
of chap. ii. of Jerusalem Maccoth :
‘A man who knows only one book,
when he is in a place where he is
respected for knowing two books,
is in duty bound to say I only
know one book.” 4 And as I have
no great intellect, how could I,
being so low and insignificant,
undertake such great things, from
which, peradventure, mischief might
ensue, seeing that R. Ishmael
had already exhorted a Scribe in
his days (Sota, 20a, and in other
places), ‘‘My son, take great care
how thou doest thy work, for thy
work is the work of heaven, lest
thou drop or add a letter, and
thereby wilt be a destroyer of the
whole world,’ * which is still more
applicable to the present time,
when the distinction between the
oral and written law has ceased,
mb wands sagt xd ret > eee
pre mo voberva poss yen ip
sim xdbop on ant 9373 "5. 1b
PIE mA psa yd pap pow and dre
sords jovon rae xS2D en ind cond
‘nytt pd) 4oom NM NnsoD NIN
pond Sayn myen NIN ADT Nerdp
1D par order ont nbeo mora
bea men pips depo 377 end xan
qnenbna sam a pmny rsrtay
we cvonn xbe ,orDw noxdp Jnoxbow
59) 8152 odin any mexps me mn
ansag nnn pa pond pet nim yora ae
ye 7]D2 ANwin wpe ,nD Syaw mmnd
aynndy amon nord war nine jm at ps
sy nyt by xasno xd > od NORN
nin owe endm pn. ypyT os INT
MAT ND pnp 7 Nd ow jae NAD
sane ty n> ppnoy ep np ado 75
now weeaam wenn aay ener pas 15
man nbad omwrrna e/aeom 4/aD%
: NN|DD
as both are now written down, and a mistake may describe the
right wrong, and thé wrong right. Therefore, I felt that I must not
rely upon my own judgment, but examine two or three codices, and
follow them wherever they agree; and if they do not agree, must
choose from among the readings those which appear to me unobjec-
tionable, and sift them till I am convinced that they are correct and
clear, especially as Ramban® and Rashbam’ have already counselled,
in their Theological Decisions, not to make emendations upon mere
conjectures.
4 The quotation from the Talmud is notliteral. It is as follows: NIM DIT WI
“DST NIN NOD NTT YD WON TA NID Pan OT wT TP PPP pow nx ome Aya
(Comp. Jerusalem Maccoth, ii. 7, p. 32a, ed. Gretz. Krotoshin, 1866). It must be
added, that the editio princeps rightly reads mom, at the end of the quotation, and that
the future editions have wrongly substituted for it v3.
5 Neither is this quotation literal. It is as follows in the Talmud: ym ‘7 722
SD ae IAT Ta meta AM Me PON We nye VON NOW NTT DOW NIN NoWw
‘ns on
6 Ramban (j'105), is a contraction of the initials of yom ya mon 4, 2B. Moses b.
Nachman = Nachmanides. This distinguished Commentator, Talmudist, and Kabbalist
was born at Gerona, in Catalonia, about 1195, whence he is also called by Christian
writers Muses Gerundensis. He died at Ano (Ptolemais), about 1270. For his life and
writings, see Kitto’s Cyclopedia, s. v. NACHMANIDES.
1 Rashbam 010 is a contraction of the initials of YxD 73 Seiow 05, Rabbi Samuel
40
And it came to pass, after 1
had remained there for some time,
doing my work, the work of heaven,
mivyd oon oy *> iow
Jnam og vyn ow noxdn snoxdp
paad yo, pop Mvp wR Jw mM
the Lord, blessed be his name,
stirred up the spirit of the noble
master for whom I worked, and
encouraged his heart to publish the
twenty-four sacred books. Where-
upon he said to me, Gird up thy
loins now like a man, for I want
to publish the twenty-four sacred .
books, provided they contain the commentaries, the Targums, Mas-
he ahin ee and the Massorah parva,® the Keri and Kethiv, and
the (ethiv\velo Keri,® plene and defective, and all the glosses of the
Scribes, with appendices containing the Massorah magna, according
to the alphabetical order of the Aruch,” so that the reader may
san *5 sox vyaqer onwy pind
(pate ow» p'atnd *gon +d Pxdn 3925
PADD) BM OID OY Ae! AT DRa
ndi jansy yansy ppy Sap adv
7. *prapt nd yay oom oxdpr Ppp
lyn Fa Advan moan ton snay
ben Meier, grandson of Rashi, and a very excellent commentator of the Bible. He
was born about a.p. 1085, and died about 1155. Comp. Kitto’s Cyclopedia, s.v.
RasHBaM.
8 Both the Massorah magna (my1IN TOD) and the Massorah parva (mpm MoD)
contain the traditional and authoritative glosses on the external form of the Hebrew
text. The former, which is generally given in the margin above and below the text,
as well as at the end of the Rabbinic Bibles, is more extensive, and quotes in full the
passages which come under the same rubric; whilst the latter, which is written in the
margin at the side of the text, or in the margin between the columns containing the
Hebrew text and the Chaldee paraphrase, simply indicates the number of the passages
which come under the same rubric, or hints at other glosses in an abbreviated form,
without giving the reference. It was for want of space in the margin of the Hebrew
text that the Massorah magna had to be divided into two parts. The divisions thus
obtained are respectively denominated—i. mova 710N, MassoRAH MARGINALIS, because
this portion of it is given above and below the text; and, ii. MIN TON or NHI MON,
Massorau FINALIS, because this portion is given at the end of the Rabbinic Bibles.
9 The various readings exhibited in the Kent (¢. ¢., as read in the margin), and THE
Kerarv (7, ¢., as written in the text), are divisible into three general classes—i. The
class denominated Keri anp Kerurv and Ketutv anp Keri (n2) “p “pi YN), which
comprises words differently read to what they are written, arising from the omission,
insertion, exchanging, or transposition of a single letter. This class, by far the greater
portion of the marginal readings, may properly be called Variations. ii. The class
called Kent veto Keratv (n> x 4p), marginal insertions of entire words not to be
found written in the text, of which the Massorah gives ten instances, viz., Judges x. 18;
Ruth iii. 5, 17; 2 Sam. viii. 8, xvi. 28, xviii. 20; 2 Kings xix. 31, 87; Jer. xxxi. 88,
1, 29; and, iii. The class called Ketutv veto Kerr (np x) n>) omissions in the
margin of entire words written in the text, of which the Massorah gives eight instances,
viz., Ruth iii. 12; 2 Sam. xiii. 33, xv. 81; 2 Kings v. 18; Jer. xxxviii. 16, xxxix. 12,
li. 8; Ezek. xlviii. 16. Fora more extensive discussion on this subject, see the article
Keri and Kerturv, in Kitto’s Cyclopedia.
10 As the glosses which constitute the Massorah magna are too extensive to be given
entire in the margin of the text, by far the greater portion of them have been removed
41
easily find what he wants." Like
a bear bereft of its young ones he
hastened to this work, for he loved
the daughter of Jacob. He sum-
moned the workmen who were
skilled in printing, and each one
with his tools in his hand at once
betook himself to the work. Seeing
then that the work was urgent, and
that it would redound to the glory
of Israel, inasmuch as it will shew
the nations and princes the beauty
and excellence of our holy law, —
for since it was committed to writing
nothing has appeared like it, — and
seeing, moreover, that its excellency
was magnified in the eyes of the
publisher, becoming, as it were,
Rom Uy wprsp wixnd na enp pry ppd
naa yen °> mepyd ne xd dow si
HIN aa owpan orowd wip apy
nse omeyd rps vey > one
maxam onbdpiny yim van *> mana
nbpor ‘py omwm oy mead Sere
mam) we ayn yoo %> Aeyipm wenn
mndyo ndoan ,nnnsnps ney: xb pos
noi ‘noe mp exnd nnn onan -rys
:ypos nadnd
poy) jonny naw cee NVA
WI OT DY Ww DSN Mnsy Asan
smd) ron xd nada porypn ome nt
Jeo nbyin np +> px ,TIODN 11D
}25 saa Andw3 yo "mop ond
misind > meyd np men arn mys
sx nindyr 31 nepn ndpp onwm ovpyn
the chief corner-stone with him, I
set my face to the fulfilling of his
desire.
And now, since many of the
people, and among them are even
some of the different classes of our learned contemporaries, who in
their heart value neither Massorah nor any of the methods of the
Massorah, say, What profit can be derived from the Massorah? and
for this reason it has almost been forgotten and lost, therefore I be-
stirred myself, as this afforded me the opportunity to do the work of
the Lord, to shew the nations and the princes the value of the Mas-
sorah ; for without it none of the sacred books, and particularly the
Pentateuch, can be written with propriety and correctness.
We purpose, in the first place, to reply to and refute some of the
b>) pina) twa omen ainsd qwox
ran wo Dv
yan toy np dy aw a) DI
to the end of the Hebrew Scriptures, where all the words on which there are any
Massoretic remarks are classified and arranged in alphabetical order. This portion
as has been remarked in the preceding note, is called Massorah finalis. The Aruch
(JY) is the celebrated Rabbinic and Aramaic Lexicon of R. Nathan B. Jechiel (born
about 1030, died about 1106), which was finished a.p. 1101. It was first published
sometime before 1480, in square letters, then in Pisauri 1517, then iu Venice 1531, by
Bomberg, in beautiful square letters, and several times since. The best edition, how-
ever, is that of Landau, in five volumes, Prague, 1819-1824. Eiheridge’s description of
the time when this Lexicon was finished, as well as his remarks about the editio princeps
(Jerusalem and Tiberius, Longmans, 1856, pp. 284, &c.), are incorrect. Comp. Stein-
schneider, Catalogus Libr. Hebr. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, cols. 2040-2043. Zunz,
Notes on Ascher’s Edition of the Itinerary of Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, London,
1841, vol. ii., p. 18; Kitto’s Cyclopedia, s.v. NatHan B. J EcHIEL.
11.4 description of this Rabbinic Bible has already been given, vide supra,
p- 6, &e.
G
42
later great sages of blessed memory,
who were nearer our time, and who
maintained that the Keri and the
Kethiv originated as follows: During
the Babylonian captivity, when the
sacred books were lost and scattered
about, and those wise men who
were skilled in the Scriptures were
dead, the men of the Great Syna-
gogue found different readings in
the sacred books; and in every
place where they met with a doubt-
ful and perplexing case they wrote
down a word in the text, but did
not put the vowels to it, or wrote
it in the margin and left it out in
the text, not being sureas to what
they found. Thus far their words.
But I am far from adopting their
opinion, as I shall shew in the
sequel, and refute them from the
Talmud.
I shall, secondly, notice the
differences which in many places
exist between our Talmud and the
Massorites, and everywhere side
with the latter, and state what we
have learned from them.
Amer pap nota ost ovnen
8 JD NED] BND) pM °> I Ww
prem ,anpon wax onewn mba
Yak) AMD eIpNN yt osm dywndnn
Dippay obo npidnp wxp ndyaan no13
wd) Nn iano aban ppon oven
wpypap yan xb) pinay iano Ww Mp3
Low peo Wy, eEDw MDa OYpproD Bnd
omdy pee WAR wR 3 APT BNP
: eqD
per eps pa ew wenn dy ys DI
wndyaay wna mss monn “bya pat
PRTPOST ND pMDI Mp pNa mp3
pny edy oan oon 5p aw D3)
ww MeNTIPA wns wabm Iw
Bow Toys? ono ppn pop na
: Dano Ny 2D) pM
Mop MDA ‘hand Wwe WON Wax DI
cmaasnpn yrp yyod adi sop
ops oy nando qe Np)
woot maypn As35 ot ONAN
sMevapn warn dy yams xdw yt 5 nr
Ypand3 Mpa wn ans) “pA +> Ow
sows) omow ndar ndvn now wae
PYIp1a MaDb ‘yaw pra TIENT
I shall, thirdly, refute the heretics who dared to accuse us of
wilfully altering and changing passages in our holy law, as in the
case of the eighteen passages called the corrections of the Scribes, the
removal of the Vav by the Scribes," the Keri and the Kethiv, and the
order of the construction.
I shall, fourthly, explain the plan which I have adopted, both in the
Massorah parva and the Massorah magna, to facilitate the reader.
Let me then, firstly, do battle with the sages of blessed memory,
who lived nearer our time, for they spoke unseemly against our
holy law, saying that the Keri and the Kethiv exhibit the doubts which
the men of the Great Synagogue entertained. And these are their
names, and these their words.
Ephodi," in chap. vii. of his grammar, writes as follows: ‘‘Ezra
‘ date,
12 An expl of the ph
Vav by the Scribes,’ will be found below, p. 48, &.
18 Ephodi (tox) is the appellation of R. Isaac b. Moses Ha-Levi, the celebrated
grammarian and polemical writer, who flourished a.p. 1360-1412. It is a contraction
of FT DYPEYD *Is, WR, thus says, or I, Prophiat Duran; and though it is the same
of the Scribes,’ and ‘the removal of
48
the priest, who was the most ac-
complished and the chief of the
Scribes, bestirred himself, and ex-
erted all his powers to rectify what
was wrong; and in like manner
acted all the Scribes who followed
mpion ex oben :ined nn ano
sxond 55 be 13¥ IYI IDIOM jan Nay
rompion 55 yey p21 ,Anpen ypnd rnd
mbona nn DMM pM jane DIT
prxend nas ontrene sy were np
manm ovpam nyenpn nips onde
him. They corrected all the sacred
books as much as possible, in
consequence of which they have
been preserved to us perfect in the
numbers of chapters, the verses,
the words, letters, plene, defective,
the abnormal and normal phrases
and the like, and for this reason
are denominated Scribes. To this
effect they have also composed
treatises, which are the books of the
Massorah, and made the Keri and
Kethiv in every passage in which
they met with some obliterations
and confusion, not being sure what
the precise reading was.” Thus
far are his words.
But what surprises me still more is, that so holy a man as Kimchi
should also utter similar things in his introduction to the earlier
Prophets. The following is his language: ‘‘ It appears that these mar-
ginal and textual readings originated because the sacred books were
lost and scattered about during the Babylonian captivity, and the sages
who were skilled in the Scriptures were dead. Whereupon the men of
the Great Synagogue, who restored the law to its former state, found
different readings in the books, and adopted those which the majority of
copies had, because they, according to their opinion, exhibited the true
readings. In some places they wrote down one word in the text
but did not punctuate it, or noted it in the margin but omitted it from
amp amma sonM xdom nymem
yoyy ,pIDI wp? ord jor ndin pwdn
moipoa) AION WO BM ONIN M3
spn owy diabam opnn oven wwe
J82 9 R¥Dw MDa parD invnd ,2:n3)
sine
np by amon Maonad wor Mp
oweaxd ynppna md pvspp Ite ,wrTp
mon +> ANon cine on ones
yaa nowt mbaae 5 9 we mdan
syn opsnm ,dibn ydnban mepon
yen ndvan nos wien np RIpon
yodmy aoa npdnp xp maw'd senna
vans van by ony pd arin ome ona
nb) pina ana oN nyps Nd) ‘en
which he especially assumed after 1891, to conceal his real person from the Christians,
who at this period of his life compelled him to abjure Judaism, he is also known by the
name Prophiat Duran. His grammar, entitled the Grammar of Ephod (78x yroyn),
to which Jacob Ibn Adonijah refers, has only recently been published for the first time
(Vienna, 1865), and the passage in question is to be found in p. 40.
14 The Kimchi here referred to is David Kimchi, also called Redak, p"n= map 115
(born a.p. 1160, died about 1235), who wrote commentaries on nearly the whole of the
Old Testament, and who is the author of the famous Hebrew Grammar called ‘oon, and
the Lexicon entitled o1wn. He may be regarded as the teacher of Hebrew of both
Jews and Christians throughout Europe. Comp. Kitto’s Cyclopedia, s. v. Kracut,
where an account is given of his contributions to Hebrew lexicography and Biblical
exegesis.
44
the text, whilst in other places they
inserted one reading in the margin
and ‘another in the text.” Thus
far is his language.
Don Isaac Abravanel,!® the me-
mory of the righteous be blessed,
refutes them in his introduction to
Jeremiah in this manner, and these
are his words:—‘‘The opinion
wherein all these wise men agree, and
their conclusions, are far from being
mine. For how can I believe with
my heart, and speak with my lips,
that Ezra the scribe found the book
of the law of God, and the books of
his holy Prophets, in an unsettled
state, through obliterations and con-
fusions ? Is not the scroll of the
law in which one letter is omitted
illegal? How much more must it
be so through the Keri and the
Kethiv, which are found in the law,
since, according to the Keri, many
letters are wanting in the law,”’ etc. ?
Again he says, and these are his
words, ‘‘ Behold, I ask these men if,
according to their prevailing opinion,
the Keri and the Kethiv originated
because they [Ezra and his asso-
ciates] found various readings, and
PINAY Me TITS yan> 7D) OAD 13nd
16:83 Ty OYBID IN A
poy ast beaatas pny pt win
mow pad inoipna omy yen 1snanad
2 DDN WN mn npim pnwd> an
bows peed 220 Np ony ndxn oan
nape new dy mdyx qn pornd waa
yeas aor onder nn qe wpwn ey
mon apo xdm jdiadax sopna orppiop
pow 5 ,b.op an nme mie DD Tony
Yor Mph ‘ow WINS way 32ND) pa
:5y5) memianp nbs) mp2 mnns
bee pp min janewd mn coe TY
‘pn mem ox MIN MIS0n ‘DS onND
orpdinon ompoa weNw MD "DD aN
ond a9 nes spin Nrryd xorwor adr
yunay Me NWN ny ow We Pav?
wrrpa nod mp > Ox OND INN
by nedr mpm Sp pon sano; myainsn
,ppion vex ann nna ny nod) 2s
py xd) pn oy os0D TON “npn ney
cwd 19 mn any7 p> on on jenn
npsoon) NEN wn 93 OSD “IPN nn
xbw p> pinay pw snom api oy
Dany ns oon
byab3) Span nt nap nnn ox NY
sg oN on mbna onpos bpiw
Ezra, not being sure which was the right one, put down both readings,
one in the margin and the other in the text; if it be so, why should
we, in explaining the Scriptures, always follow the Keri, and not the
Kethiv? And why should Ezra, who was himself doubtful, always
have put the points in accordance with the Keri, and not with the
Kethiv? And if he meant [to give preference to the Keri] he ought
to have inserted the Keri in the text, as it is the true one and
agrees with the points, and put the Kethiv in the margin because
he did not approve of it.
‘‘Moreover, if the obliterations and confusion to which the books
were subject in consequence of the captivity gave rise to it [i.e., the
15 The quotation from Kimchi is from the Introduction to his Commentary on
Joshua.
16 Abravanel, or Abarbanel, the famous statesman, philosopher, theologian, and com-
mentator of Spain, was born in Lisbon in 1437, and died at Venice in 1508. For a list
of his works on Biblical literature, see Kitto’s Cyclopedia, s.v. ABRAVANEL.
45
Keri and the Kethiv], it ought to
occur accidentally in the passage
which happened to be obliterated,
or in which [a doubtful reading]
was found. Whereas thou wilt
find in the law of God, in the
section Lech L’Cha [Gen. xiv. 2],
that Kethiv is pyay, and the Keri
is DND¥; and the same thing
occurs a second time [ibid. verse
8]. Now, could this accidental
obliteration always occur in this
word o3¥? The same is the
case with all, ¢. 9. myo, which is
written twenty-two times 4y),'* and
occurs only once as plene, in Deut.
xxii. 19; 80 also o»Sypyn, which is
wW wovONIy Opon > ,Mpp Tn by
onden mn p03 R¥DM nme Nx
pm ,BY2¥ 4p ainsw 1795 95 nena
BONN Dane OY ain 73) ,O'NAY 4Sp an
DY a¥ nbpa Sabam winenn mpns dps
WWI sinsy AW) ws oda py on
oo Ime Mp. Boys ow) owy
ordypy }27 29,79y971 sad qana sony
pry Now 7292e" nabaw NDA
ew ndxn oponn yawn qwxd I35n
samp and
Nev 2 1oeN Up NMDN 1D PYM
omodea monn bo 1wzp iny'D) WHA
span meyd smynne onp: mom
O37 NIP py O'prop *D1) HDMI
nmr podn yao vo ovr oe eT eR
always the Keri, and the Kethiv is
pny, and the Keri msbae», whilst the Kethiv is always mas. It is
evident, therefore, that the thing is not as these sages thought, and
may the Lord forgive them!”
Abravanel, therefore, submits that the true account of the matter is as
follows :—“ Ezra the Scribe and his associates found the books of the
law entire and perfect, but before betaking themselves to make the vowel
points, the accents and the division of verses, they examined the
text, when they found words which, according to the genius of the
language and the design of the narrative, appeared to them irregular.
17 This is the name of one of the Sabbatic lessons, comprising Gen. xii. 1; xvii. 27.
According to an ancient custom, the Jews to the present day divide the Pentateuch
into fifty-four sections, to provide a lesson for each Sabbath of those years which,
according to the Jewish chronology, have fifty-four Sabbaths, and thus read through
the whole Book of the Law (7mn) in the course of every year. Each of these Sabbath
sections, or sidras (NvTD), as it is called by the Jews, has a special name, which it
derives from the first or second word with which it commences; and Jewish writers,
when they quote a passage from the Pentateuch, instead of saying it occurs in such
and such a chapter and verse, give, as in the instance before us, the name of the
Sabbatic lesson, because this practice obtained prior to the division of the Bible into
chapters and verses. A full description of these Sabbatic lessons, as well as of the
manners and customs connected therewith, is given in Kitto’s Cyclop., art. HAPHTARA.
18 In the present text we have only twenty-one times "3 for 13, viz., Gen. xxiv. 14,
16, 28, 55, 57; xxxiv. 3 (twice), 12; Deut. xxii. 15 (twice), 16, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26
(twice), 27, 28, 29.
19 The marginal reading Drm for the textual oy ya occurs six times (Deut. xxviii.
27; 1 Sam. v. 6, 9,12; vi. 4,5), and mao for mbyw’ four times (Deut. xxviii. 30;
Isa. xiii. 16 ; Jer. iii. 2; Zech. xiv. 2). The former instances are given in the Massorah
marginalis on 1 Sam. v. 6, and Ochla Ve-Ochla, section 170; and the latter in the
Massorah marginalis on Isaiah xiii. 16, and the Ochla Ve-Ochla, section 169. Comp.
also Megilla 256; Sopherim viii. 8; and infra, p. 50., &.
Py
46
Hence he concludes that this must
have originated from one of two
causes: (1) Hither the writer, ac-
cording to the degree of inspiration
vouchsafed unto him, conveys by
these anomalous expressions some of
the mysteries of the law, and there-
fore he [Ezra] did not venture to
expunge anything from the sacred
books. Having thus perceived that
it was written by the highest
wisdom, and that there is one
reason oi: another why the words
are sometimes defective or plene,
and why the phrases are anoma-
lous, he left them in the text as
they were written, and put the Keri
in the margin, which simply explains
the said anomaly in accordance
with the idiom of the language and
the design of the narrative; and of
this nature are all the Keris and
Kethivs in the Pentateuch. In like
manner, when Ezra found the word
p’Sypyo, which denotes heights, and
which conveys no meaning to us,
he put in the margin the word
pNNY emerods; and this is also
the case with the word nsd3w, the
root of which (53) is used with
regard to a queen; he therefore
put in the margin mya5e. (2) Or
Ezra may have been of opinion that
these anomalous letters and words
‘nen ined mt remy ixps sen pon
nn avin anata ani ye ox Map
nbyp *> mnnn “nop non yD ‘no
pinod mead yy nedp xd jody pneaa
woy7a pan +> jonban sappy 739
mann yo n305v > 1an23 MN Nosnsw
asin mawdm monn nymsyn 13n53
fanaiw ws oD3D anda om 3h)
ANIA BID Nine rap yinan dy OIDRNn
PyA mows pods yan es nnn
anaw ana pm $5 Nx pon nm
odipy TNNS ayNDw Ky KYOwWI M331
pain an np pred mai ped ane
jy .DIND pnw pa erpd yen ann
nsbon by sors Saw new pd wnsbaw
WweN 2 933W* pa wpd qpyn
man wipn saps yne Nay sen
yo 305 xbde jana yo 1ana2 nde nidm1
pipe ‘nda ome sown mn? ox maon
mM Nn pips ny Eps BX wD
wooden nebp mezyvn mugs xano nt
‘p> nen nbn nna wad qaxin 325)
*> PINaD DY wR NPN py ay BON
maa rp mbes eapn apen ND
nt Avy. jaNan eIpN mas onaqon
nbom nann wad ond a9 xy
erase ei anynd pinay wen won
oeainn %$3p J>y ppd y's) ,DEyD NIN
spr a mM Mops WIN sm
D3 pynvs mo wDOS NAY IND
are owing to the carelessness of the sacred speaker or writer ; and
this carelessness on the part of the prophet was like an error which
proceeded from a prince. Ezra had therefore to explain such words
in harmony with their connection, and this is the origin of the Keri
which is found in the margin, as this holy Scribe feared to touch the
words which were spoken or written by the Holy Ghost. These remarks
he made on his own account, in order that he might explain such
letters and words, and on that account he put them in the margin,
to indicate that this gloss was his own. And there can be no doubt
that they [i. e., Ezra and his associates] received the text in such a
state from the prophets and the sages who had preceded them.
Hence, if you examine the numerous Keris and Kethivs which occur
in Jeremiah, and look into their connection, you will find that all of
47
them are of this nature, viz.,
that Jeremiah wrote them through
mistakes and carelessness, etc.
Abravanel has a great deal more
upon this subject in his introduction
to Jeremiah: ‘Hitherto jhe says
further on] we have shewn that the
Keri and the Kethiv, and the Keri
velo Kethiv, are simply explanations.
This is also the nature of the Kethiv
velo Keri. When Ezra saw that
words were put down in the text
which had no meaning according
to the simple sense of the words,
he did not punctuate them, and
therefore they are not to be read.
From this you learn that the books,
pansy jon no onw odo5 axon o3y91
spam dt Awa. myns yo rey
axann mnay jmp pod pe inpspns
py vos jana xd pm jar “pnw
sony mene ap xd. anon N17 j31 wrven
pee ps pp ond pre mains mbp
xby 555 np ona ney xd 95) ann
ona’ bp: awe oepne pon nip yetp
{277 Aya Jaton pond wn Aw NII
yo jad) aanen ppt nyse pedo
BDI) BINS po TMH OND” MDT TADS
“pn ww22 13 129 mp? Iansw Seine
sy 521 950) orvde) mp 23 3N>)
‘ep ndya amend ondan mona Sax
ropa yard ayp nnans m2) man
nde nay pp na weeps xo imo “BD
in which there are many such in-
stances, shew that the speaker or
writer was deficient in the syntax, or in his knowledge of orthography.
Hence you find in Jeremiah alone eighty-one Keris and Kethivs, and
in the books of Samuel, which Jeremiah wrote, the number of Keris
and Kethivs rises to one hundred and thirty-three; . . . whilst in
the Pentateuch, which proceeded from the mouth of the Lord, though
it is four times as large as the book of Jeremiah, there are comparatively
few, only sixty-five Keris and Kethivs.”® Thus far his words.
*0 There is a great difference of opinion about the number of these various readings,
and the passages in which they occur. As it is impossible to discuss this question in a
note of this nature, we subjoin the following table, which is the result cf a careful
perusal and collation of the Massorah, as printed in the Rabbinic Bible of Jacob b.
Chajim, and which exhibits the numbers of the Keris and Kethivs in each book,
according to the order of the Hebrew Bible :—
pnwd pra say hs San qo app yn
Genesis ..... seovseee 25 | Ezekiel ............ 148] Proverbs............ 70
Exodus .........66- 17 | Hosea ....cecesceeee 6 | JOD cascccacsseveeee 54
Leviticus............ 6 | Joel............266. 1] Songof Songs ...... 5
Numbers............ 11] Amos ..... seseceeee 3] Ruth .............. 18
Deuteronomy........ 23] Obadiah ............ 1{ Lamentations........ 28
Joshua ............ 38] Micah ........0000- 4} Ecclesiastes .... 11
Judges.............. 22] Nahum ........... 4| Esther.............. 14
1 Samuel............ 73 | Habakkuk .......... 2 Daniol.............+ 129
2Samuel............ 99] Zephaniah ........ 1| Ezra ......eeeseees 38
1 Kings ............ 49} Haggai ...... . 1| Nehemiah .......... 28
2 Kings .......... +. 80] Zechariah .......... 7] 1 Chronicles ........ 41
Isaiah ........ seeese 55] Malachi ........ 1] 2 Chronicles ........ 39
Jeremiah .......... 148! Psalms ...... aeeeee 74 Total........1359
For a farther discussion on this subject, we must refer to Kitto’s Cyclopedia, s. v.
Kerr anp KETutv.
48
He, in like manner, counts how
many Keris and Kethivs occur in
every book of the Bible, in order to
shew which of the prophets was
more conversant with the grammar.
But all his views on this subject
are far from my notions, as I shall
presently shew, in refuting him.
The strictures, however, which
he made upon Kimchi and Ephodi
are good and apposite; and, in
refuting his arguments, those of his
opponents will be criticised at the
same time, since both his deci-
sions and the opinions of Kimchi
and Ephodi are mere conjectures,
whereas we rely solely upon the
Talmud, which we acknowledge ;
for the heart of its sages was as
large as the door of the temple ;
they are truth, and their words are
truth.
NowI submit that Don Abravanel,
of blessed memory, is perfectly right
in saying that Ezra the Scribe and
his associates found the books of
the law entire and perfect, just as
they were originally written.
But what he says in his first
hypothesis, beginning with the
words, ‘‘ Hither the writer, according
baa wa ana pan nos nna qin pn
‘p32 aM yn DWAImMD ~D mand ,yBD
IRD pI PAT MIM ,pwdm primp 7a
voy YON TAR
mppn by mepn rex ymwp DION
wn A OMS oo Mon
b> 1D om yD DI wy YMaten dy rae
ods mexm cnppn nym onnn 15x
joer etapdn on +3 75 > pw man on
innps ornwe7 Sw 135 +9 prdy bap wwe
[nox oma nor om ,pdis be
Sroaann qn wee ms WIN)
VEY wD) Jwion Kae NDIAS y21751
ansiw wD2 om ompdea mann aD
> 7257 3°39 npN
O8 ,PwRIN Fyn tore moa DION)
on pata ins ws amen poe
sing pn pinay ow ooNn sy S15) pan
pwdn yan -p> Ninn 4m ansn wre
nappa p07 AINA ANT A yraTd> and
"3 NPR a7 IDs DN ie) TS py on)
227 °ND 37 Tor Sen 37 wR vaK
me enep onde mn sepa wp
mn apa wNpN Nappa 193" Sow
mw) oun nr enpp {po or one
m Nappa wan ,orpwen wn Soe
Womenn yds nd mpm joy pop
oy) MDD NIP pny 34 ION
to the degree of inspiration vouchsafed unto him, conveyed by these
anomalous expressions some of the mysteries of the law,”’ etc., till ‘he
put the Keri in the margin, which simply explains the said anomaly in
accordance with the idiom of the language ;’’* all this is not correct,
for in the Talmud we learn most distinctly, ‘‘R. Ika b. Abaja said in
the name of R. Hannael, who repeated it in the name of Rab, What
is meant by “‘ and they read in the book, in the law of God, distinctly,
and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading ”’
[Neh. viii. 8]? [Reply.] The words ‘they read in the book, in the
Law of God,” mean the Hebrew text; the expression ‘ distinctly ”
denotes the Targum, ‘‘and gave the sense” means the division of the
verses, whilst ‘‘caused them to understand the reading” signifies,
according to some the dividing accents, and according to others
the Massorah. R. Isaac said the pronunciation of certain words ac-
cording to the Scribes, the removal of Vav by the Scribes, the Neri
31 Vide supra, p. 45, &e.
49
velo Kethiv, and the Kethiv velo
Keri, are laws of Moses from Mount
Sinai. The pronunciation of the
Scribes shews how to read yx,
earth, DOW, heaven, DID, Egypt
the removal of Vav by the Scribes
is to be found four times in the
case of WIN, afterwards (Gen. xviii.
5; xxiv. 55; Numb. xxxi. 2; Ps.
Ixviii. 26), and once by TOayD,
thy judgements [Ps. xxxvi. 7];% the
Keri velo Kethiv is seen in MB,
Euphrates [2 Sam. viii. 8]; W'S,
a man [Ibid. xvi. 28]; O'N2, they
are coming [Jer. «xxi. 88]; 72, to
her [Ibid. 1. 29); D8, accusative
[Ruth ii. 11]; rb unto me [Ibid.
iii. 5, 17]; these words are read
without being written in the text.
pop xd) pansy jana dy pp or
YIN ODD NPD ;*y0D Nwod nadn
NVasN ww OID Noy 3 oy DD
ame ony iptp yoxn ans abn ans
mdr pp 8; 5x sina qnpie jouns
Saw awasn we prmsbat op pans
ad pman oes jonden 113 oe
qrant >a do sn pat ne nodes
sans Nb psp pon omnpent be
gon mx abot ea pp adi pana
{37 DX 332 MNBT wor NANT 7
ped pro ay yp xdy pans pon Sen
MOWAT ORT ON MEAT Ne | RIDIN
woe onapa ego) 8dT en kd) nn
mopar m9 3p &> monn paps on
xd amp me ivy cpm vn $5 awn
ans7 wet ny ede meron ns en
ned ney awe eon pMpTe 32 MY
The Kethiv velo Keri is seen in
2, now [2 Kings v. 18], MX, sign of the accusative ; 77", he shall bend
[Jerem. li. 3}; VON, five (Ezek. xlvili. 16]; O8, if [ ‘Ruth i iii. 12] ; these
words are in the text, but are not read [Nedarim, 87 bj.” Thus far
the Talmud. The expression ns connected with MN¥T, the command-
ment, some say occurs in Deut. v. 81, but it is not true, since it is
not found in our copies; nor is it mentioned in the works of the
Massorah. The Massorah, indeed, does enumerate all the above-
mentioned examples [as given in the Talmud], and even many others,
but does not give NX connected with $21, the commandment; it
only gives NN as connected with wan, “the “soul, which is found in
2 That is to say, since there were no vowel points to indicate when it was pro-
nounced pqx and when Px (in pause), or to shew that o’nw and DMyD have simply
dual forms without being duals, the Sopherim pointed out how these and many other
words are to be read.
£8 There is a difference of opinion as to what is meant by DYpID Woy and the
examples here adduced to illustrate it. According to Rashi on this passage, it denotes
the idiomatic construction fixed by the Sopherim, which necessitates the writing of
yvayn MN and not Ww Ywiyn, and is called ey because it is an improvement of or
ornament to the style. Acording to others, this ornament of style (OMDID Wy) consists
in using the word “mx at all, since it is superfluous in all these instances given
in the Talmud, as we could very well say, ROXM DM nyIWw VOM. DIN) OW 1p
ywiym 0925 11d, whilst, according to the Aruch, as given below, it is the removal of a
superfluous ) which has crept into the text in all these instances through a vitiated
provincial pronunciation. The latter is the general opinion of critics as to the meaning
of mpi} Woy. Compare Geiger, Urschrift, p. 251, &c. The instances of the Itur
Sopherim, quoted from the Talmud (Nedarim 87 b) are also given in the Ochlah Ve-
Ochlah, section cexvii. pp. 46, 128; and in the Massorah marginalis on Psalm
xxxvi. 7, which, however, only gives four passages, omitting Gen. xxiv. 55.
H
50
Jeremiah in connection with the
history of Zedekiah [xxxviii. 16].%
And Rashi,” of blessed memory,
also says that 71¥2i7 NN occurs in
Jeremiah. As for the removal of
Vav by the Scribes, see below, in
my reply to the heretics.
From this, then, it is evident
that the whole of it is a law of
Moses from Mount Sinai, and that
Ezra the Scribe did not put the
Keri in the margin to explain
ungrammatical phrases; nothing
appeared anomalous to Ezra, nor
did he meet with any uncertainties
and confusions, for the whole of it
ore Smsqad yt en nein wpin
Toy) }N2 IY MDT. an MyDNT Mme
rayon naiwna ppd »y oD
prop nend moon aindion perp NT
pany pn pinay spn Ny ov Nb
on spa aed on in ainsn err
1 brads xdy pon ad yew add orders
Sb x»oris 0D nwo nobn ado
paws nn wey mp epa np In
odiayar na 21nsw any REDwD 727)
amazon np pt xd na ped sine
}2) ,O"NNO onw spa wed -AEIN ,onn
mason Sy sox Saw ove tad mbiwe
ND oy Mase sips wpb san
% nw
is the law of Moses from Mount
Sinai, as stated above.
Moreover, I object to Abravanel’s assertion, that Ezra, finding the
word ovoipys, which denotes heights, and which conveys no meaning to
us, he had to put in the margin the word D'1NY, emerods ; and that this
is also the case with the word m323eh, the root of which (53) is used
with regard to a queen, he therefore put in the margin 713350,”’%
24 We have already remarked that the Massorah gives ten instances of Keri velo
Kethiv, or marginal insertions of entire words not to be found in the text ; and eight
instances of Kethiv velo Keri, or omissions in the margin of entire words written in
the teat (vide supra, p. 40). The list of the marginal insertions is as follows :—
.32, sons of . Judges xx. 13 , mweis, Sabaoth Isaiah xxxvii. 32
mb, Euphrates . . 2 Sam. viii. 3 Dna, they are coming . Jerem. xxxi. 38
WR, man 2 Sam. xvi. 21 | 1, to her : Jerem. 1. 29
>, thus . . 2 Sam. xviii. 20 | x, to me Rath iii. 5
yoa, his sons 2 Kings xix. 37 | x, to me Ruth iii. 17
This list is to be found in the Massorah marginalis on Deut. i. 1; and on Ruth iii. 17;
Sopherim vi. 8; Ochla Ve-Ochla, section xevii. The list of the marginal omissions is
as follows :--
Dr, if 2 Sam. xiii. 33 | DYif . « Jerem, xxxix. 12
Dr, if 2 Sam. xv. 21 | 47, he shall tread . . Jerem. li. 3
&), now . 2 Kings v.18 | won, five Ezek. iii. 12
Ms, accusative sign . Jerem. xxxviii. 16 | on, if Rath iii. 12
This list is given in the Massorah marginalis on Ruth iii. 12; Sopherim vi. 9, where,
however, six instances only are enumerated, N), 2 Kings v. 18, and nx, Jerem. xxxviii.
16, being omitted; and in the Ochla Ve-Ochla, section xcviii. Comp. also Levita’s
Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, p. 109, &c., ed. Ginsburg.
25 Rashi is that celebrated commentator of the Old Testament and the Talmud, who
-is common'y but erroneously called Jarchi. The name Rashi Ww is a contraction of
opie’ modo 20, Rabbi Solomon Isaki or Itzchaki = R. Solomon ben Isaac. He was
born at Troyes, in Champagne, in 1040, where he also died, July 26th, 1105.
36 Vide supra, p. 46.
51
This statement is not correct,
since we are distinctly told in the
Talmud: “Our sages submit, All
the verses wherein are written
indecent expressions, decent expres-
sions are read in their stead, e. g.,
33% instead of 22” [Deuteronomy
xxviii. 80; Isa. xiii. 16; Jer. iil.
2; Zech. xiv. 2]; ONY instead
of O°SBY (Deut. xxviii. 27; 1 Sam.
v. 6. 9. 12.; vi. 4. 5]; DDT
instead of D°21"09 (2 Kings vi. 25] ;
DMNI¥ instead of ONIN [2 Kings
xviii. 27; Isa. xxxvi. 12]; Des
instead of OD [2 Kings xviii.
27; Isa. xxxvi. 12]; nixyind in-
stead of NINN? [2 Kings x. 27].”2"
And Rashi, of blessed memory,
submits that the expression 1 is
used for illegitimate cohabitation
like that of dogs, as it is written
in Nehemiah [ii. 6], where 2 is
used in this sense. The Aruch,
too, explains it in like manner un-
der the words 31:25, whereas 23¥
denotes the cohabitation of people
who are legally married. Hence
we see that it is not as Abravanel
maintains; that OND did not
originate from our ignorance of the
spo yx072 INS ATT yaad xn}
b> jaanoun oy ndapn ne npn py
yMe pnp 225 rns pains matpon
poSwys jmase mide pus navy
jonni ne Syed 09137 DIN OTA
poms me Sond ore on ne mnvdy
maxis mind jordan nx mnwdy
madze* nS war er wD 87ND TY
voee nawy Sawm anais jwabs pwd
ada» ya apa rapa erp jor knads
yoyx naw Sawm i> ,xab53 ma powo
(MBINII PwIPS MYR WAT pow mMa2v"
vay adv wd we p> oe ined peo Ip
sors xd baw by on Dn oman on nD
Iman WRIT ROP pra y»yr ADS Sy
Sseataen own iat Sy awe NPY
yD Jans3 moon +3 iowa jnwn mapa
smiwn nynd ox ymaon yp 7209 ana
ny) ypa oR UNI pyp ID ‘nda one
PripT ny nypa ox apn pedn
aetna ox by anon +> nanan
Sy aby jnonad qaynor inna pt *D
ox nb baa py mxp owas > nyt
rama So men monad andor Nan 43
Nd :> wT eM apn ped pripta
And’ 1S 723V3 TT ONy.,AT 37 PORN
9aton ww ean md nznad yt an
mbps nue oxn jpn xd wipn mia
word DYDBY, and that 53% is not used in connection with a queen.
Compare Rosh Ha-Shana, 4 a.
I am not going to reply to the words of Abravanel in his second
hypothesis, viz., ‘‘that the anomalous expressions are owing to the
deficiency of the writer in his knowledge of Hebrew or ortho-
graphy,” for I am amazed that such a thing should have proceeded
from # man like him, of blessed memory. How can any one enter-
tain such an idea in his mind, that the prophets were deficient in such
matters? If it really were so, then Abravanel, of blessed memory, had
a greater knowledge of Hebrew than they; and for the life of me I
cannot believe this. And if they really did inadvertently commit an
error, as he, of blessed memory, insinuates, how is it that the prophet
or the inspired speaker did not correct it himself? Is it possible that
27 Comp. Megilla, 256.; Sopherim ix.9; Ochla Ve-Ochla, sections clxix., clxx., pp.
38,114; Massorah marginalis on 1 Sam. v. 6, Isaiah xiii.16; and supra. p. 45, note 19.
52
eighty-one errors should occur in
the Book of Jeremiah, and one hun-
dred and thirty-three in the Book
of Samuel, which he, of blessed
memory, himself has counted, and
has shewn was written by Jeremiah ?
Can we entertain the idea that a
prophet, of whom 1t is said, ‘‘ Before
I formed thee in the belly I knew
thee, and I ordained thee a prophet
unto the nations” [Jer.i. 5), should
have fallen into such errors?
In conclusion, it appears that
the Don, of blessed memory, had
not seen the Talmud on this subject ;
for, according to the Talmud, there
is neither light nor any glimpse of
light in what he submits. It may,
however, be that the Don, of
blessed memory, entertained this
strange opinion, not because he was
unacquainted with the Talmud, but
because he followed in this respect
the steps of the great Rabbi,
Maimonides,® of blessed memory,
in the More Nebuchim, wishing to
shew his ability to account for it
without the Talmud.
If an objector should urge, ‘‘ Be-
hold we do not find in the Talmud
7POD) ,ODYD ONIN!) INN MD Iwo]
Nin moiny ws wo ans Snow
y23 NIM “pm ya yan Asad wn 11
wyIst tan NID 1D wher ower aNd
dp Toraw waa a> by nbdyn jmonad
NEN ODI) NYT O32 Pe ows
bap pom) oad waa pneapn on
mbwr on mea 37 spo noes mwa
womin man xd no935 ast awn ide
ny one &d) om NS NN Nd
non msiaS wor ww cde pont
wom 1m po ody3 851 oy MINN mI
qwrt @p/a09n Syn aa NA TD
‘3m mannd joan amps mad
:pand 77 w enosn ndy
pormen N&O Nm nepon npr DR
rosy pp adv yansy yanar ppp x2
ww Ben AD NSN pd. ODD
moa nos Sp vam 9 59 awn AOD
sxyind ys meat 7b Ron odiydy
mad yams Seas awa prema
sa SenpT an o> qnyt Spoor
tad wongar prop mend nsdn india
‘por un 55> en mons NIN)
AB} NsoNS ‘nD ADD pM indy
mma Nsepa pow wo Awp xd bax
neodw wp j3 pynw :a7 Tne we prp
any more Keris and Kethivs, Kethivs velo Keris, removal of Vav by the
Scribes, etc., besides those enumerated above, whereas the Massorah
gives those and a great many others, I am therefore compelled to tell thee,
that in the last-mentioned cases I am obliged to account for them in
the manner of Abravanel, of blessed memory; since I believe that those
only which are mentioned in the Talmud are the law of Moses from
Mount Sinai, but not the others.”
Now though it is true that the Massorah does indeed count all
those which are mentioned in the Tract Sopher'm, and a great
many more, yet this presents no insurmountable difficulty. For we
learn, in the Mishna Sopherim, vi. 4, ‘‘R. Simon b. Lakish says three
28 Rambam 02M», is a contraction of the initials of po y1 MHD, R. Moses ben
Maimon, also called Maimonides, one of the most extraordinary Jewish philosophers
who have lived since the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. He was born March 30,
1135, in Cordova, and died December 13, 1204. His religio-philosophical work, entitled
More Nebuchim, has recently been published by Munk, Paris, 1856-1866.
53
codices [of the Pentateuchi were ,moyt 750 )yyo 72 *,ATIpA wD] OBO
found in the court of the temple,® o1p nds py sins iy TMD RT 7D)
one of which had the reading NY2, w»py nap nde nyo sino wen ow>1
the other “KDYt, and the third $y) sins wp ones ane don ow
differed in the number of passages
wherein x'n is read with a od.
Thus in the one codex it was
written }199, dwelling (Deut. xxxiii.
271, whilst the other two codices had 721Y2; the reading of the two
was therefore declared valid, wh reas that of the one was invalid. In
the second codex, again, ‘WiOY! was found {in Ex. xxiv. 11], whilst the
other two codices had °2°S%:*! the reading in which the two codices
agreed was declared valid, and that of the one invalid.’”® Now if there
onwar jr nde xd Seow 3a ompyrt
now xd Sener tebe ber and NED
ey 22pR3 Ty toe doa ow wp 77
29 In the court of the temple those codices of the Law were kept which were used
for reading the lessons for the Sabbaths and festivals.
80 This variation affects the final m, the insertion or omission of which was left to
the taste of the individual scribes, and depended upon the different localities. This is
evident, from the remark in the Talmud (v7 Nh MO >OTY DSWTY pad YT DWT "wR
my 'N yO'N ANY PHS AMIN PTS), that the inhabitants of Jerusalem omitted it in one
word and appended it in another, according to pleasure (Jerusalem Megilla i. 11, p. 716,
ed. Graetz), as well as from the omissions and insertions of 7 exhibited in the Keri and
Kethiv in the Talmud (Sopherim vii. 2) ; and in the Massorah finalis under letter 7 (comp.
also Massorah magna on Exod. iv. 19; xix. 22). It was afterwards, when uniformity in
orthography was found desirable, that R. Ishmael and R. Nehemiah laid it down as a
rule, that direction to, motion towards, should be indicated by an appended 7 if the
word has not the prefix 5 (Jebamoth 13 6). .The Samaritans, however, would nct
submit to this revision and criticism of the text, and retained the old corruptions, for
which reason they are upbraided by R. Eliezer, who tells us (072 ° D'MD “HOD ‘N12
Andris 75 PAZ NTO IIT $9 ans 9 Ow NT Pam em PWIA pms MT mye) 099
ANN MI) AVYW yw) AMT pr) p29 wir x’m w yr) 19 yr) Nh), I sad to the
Samaritan Scribes, What is the use of your error in not adopting the rule of R.
Nehemiah? For it is propounded in the name of 8. Nehemiah: Every word which
ought to have a prefixed 5 [to inlicate its motion towords] and which has it not, is to
have 77 at the end; as, for instance, 71M instead of yt) TTryw instead of yyw) mm
insteal of m0) (Jerusalem Jebamoth i. 6, p. 8a, ed. Graetz.)
§1 There is evidently a mistake in Jacob b. (‘hajim’s quotation, since the variation
recorded in the Talmud is not in the reading of yx 5x1 (Exod. xxiy. 11), but of > me
(Exod. xxiv. 5). The erudite Geiger has no doubt that mmr is the Greek Sn77js,
sceker, enquirer, as the verb ¢nréw is frequently used in the Apocrypha for one w'o seeks
God, who searches after wisdom ; and that this variation is not owing to an oversight,
but is intentional, since it was not thought becoming to say that at this great revelation
boys or youths (D3) were brought as sacrifices. Hence they substituted My, worthy
searchers after wisdom, which is countenanced by the fact that the Mishna (Sebachim
xiv. 4), the Gemara (zbid., 115), and the Chaldee paraphrases, render “3 by first-born.
(Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel. Freslau, 1857, p. 243.)
83 Jacob b. Chajim does not finish the quotation from the Talmud giving the
examples of the third variation found in the third codex, which is as follows : 12
Tae HON OND YOYP) NT WY Ime TD wen DWI ATT YwN AND wey, in the third
54
be any foundation in what Don
Abravanel said, that the reason why
Ezra did not venture to omit any-
thing from the books of God is,
85 aby Qeaanaan ten tors and ame
spon 297 pimod nead ways vt nebo
and) Mosnaw inyta pan +s ,onden
nabr ony yt naw or nprdny pin ed
that he considered them to be
written by Divine wisdom, this
cannot escape one of two alterna-
tives: either Ezra knew that they
were all the law of Moses from
Mount Sinai, or that they were
doubtful readings, as Kimchi, of
blessed memory, and Ephodi main-
tained. And if you say that he
did not know whether they were
the law of Moses from Mount
Sinai, why did he not expunge
the reading of the one copy, and
adopt that of the majority of codices, seeing that, in the case
of the three codices found in the court of the temple, they followed
the majority of copies? But you will perhaps argue that the MSS.
were equally divided, and that he could therefore omit nothing, but
was obliged to put the Keri in the margin. Then let such an one
shew me how it is possible to read the Pentateuch, when [according to
the Talmudj we must not read a single letter which is not written in
the text. How then can it enter into one’s mind that we should read the
Keri, which, according to the opinion of Abravanel, of blessed memory,
Ezra the Scribe put down to explain the anomalous text, and leave out
‘NDPA WYEID Mpa. ww oN 200 nend
nw soxn on eam 5735 int
xd nnd op nend nobdn ony pn rn
nwdess pin amt arin ane dm pro
ox7 2797 ame 2m mops wrow opp
nebo yana jad) one yn mb. sapxn
yD 37" JD ON IND “pM AwD) pindd
ma 15:ax nip> Troxw mn DOA NPI
nape 35 Sy ndyyn ,ansn yo xbw nine
31N2n BIT, MAW wT wy [pnw pn
nine ansn man nsqad war nyt am
codex, again, there were only nine passages which had wn written with a Top [as it is
generally written nim with a Vav], whereas the other two had eleven passages ; the
readings of the two were declared valid, and those of the one invalid. These eleven
instances, which are given in Abboth de Rabbi Nathan (cap. xxxiv.) and in the Massorah
mavna on Gen. xxxviii. 25, are as follows: Gen. xiv. 2, xx. 5, xxxviii. 25; Lev. ii. 15,
xi. 39, xiii. 10, 21, xvi. 31, xxi. 9; Numb. v. 13, 14. It must be borne in mind that in
all other instances xy with Vav retains its archaic and epicene character throughout
the Pentateuch, and is used for both the masculine and the feminine. When the text of
the Hebrew Scriptures was afterwards subjected to a critical revision, according to gram-
matical rules laid down by the Scribes, wi was changed into wn throughout the
Prophets and the Hagiographa, wherever it referred to the feminine gender; and the
few cases in which wm is still left, or in which the newly introduced wm refers to the
masculine gender, are noted by the Massorah as Keri and Kethiv. Thus the Massorah
on Ps. lxxiii. 16, gives five instances in which the textual reading is wm with Jod, when
referring to the masculine gender; whilst the emended marginal reading is xin (viz.,
1 Kings xvii. 15 ; Ps. Ixxiii. 16; Job xxxi. 11; Eccles. v. 9; 1 Chron. xxix. 16), and, vice
versa, three instances in which the textual reading has xi, when referring to the
feminine gender (viz., 1 Kings xvii. 15; Isa. xxx. 33; Job xxxi. 11), whilst the marginal
emendation has x. These are also marked in the margin of the ordinary editions of
the Hebrew Bible, as Keri and Kethiv, and Kethiv and Keri.
55
the textual reading, which was writ-
ten by the finger of God? We are
therefore bound to believe that all
of them are a law of Moses from
Sinai. Now the same question was
put to Rashba of blessed memory,
“ How can we read ONS instead
of DY>iDYS, and 7332¥ instead of
mabawh, w which are not in the text ?”’
When "Rashba, of blessed memory,
answered as follows :—
‘* As regards thy question, ‘ See-
ing that in reading the law one
must not change even a single
letter, how can the Prelector read
nya when the text has maQawh, or
substitute another reading, in any
other passage for what is in the
text, seeing that all the Kethirs
in the law are according to the
Massorah, and not according to the
Keri?’
‘‘The answer is, that it is the law
of Moses from Sinai, as it is written
in Tract Nedarim [87 56], ‘the
pronunciation of certain words ac-
cording to the Scribes, the removal
of Vav by the Scribes, the Kethiv
velo Keri, and the Keri velo Kethiv,:
&c., are all a law of Moses from.
‘Sinai.’”” Thus far his language.
From this it is evident that the
interrogator did not know that it
jb pros by xd jombde paxes ains
nbaen 2300 nend nobn nbdsw snnd
yen mand yaar eawand a abee
yoynnos ydwya ansn jo Now Rp
wt Naw pm Aasw mdw
:ingd mn nord
mmma mnsp> none p> NORWEA
mde sien ,anon yo dw nn mx 1a
yo? madaw? sins wm mIIDw9 Np TN3z
mdse j2n> sp na wy nan doa
rpm ‘p> xd) monn ‘a> Nna oains
yon on mend modn ov AWN
spo TaN p32 px py o7I3 snsw
por pap xd) pan> DDI Ty? ,OMDIO
koe maemo :5'Dy =n mend nobn
nodn pret pt mod Sewn prnd
ID Naw pp op mend
2%) 300 mend nodn ot awn maid
N25 in np ned nadn poe omen
MDF N’SwAN OW MeN oD MypRd
/TNF pA PR pry NAD yYno3 n2795
‘1p nos. n> mmna way wp Sp A
powID NDI NDT ND Nd sn
yaya NPA wY_ID MpaD wT DRy {Syd
san sana pd oo xd een papam 3735
by ooo NOT pinptnr jap D007
ND india wae y> on wow xdx arwnp
bre ma spas nt RMN DR "pO NN
jDDD NIVD17pNS +7 8317-73 13
> 5») yeeants pinap adin min edi
was a law of Moses from Sinai, since Rashba, of blessed memory, in-
formed him that it was so; and now, seeing that it is a law of Moses
from Sinai, there can be no more any question about it. See, moreover,
that even Rashba, of blessed memory, supported himself therein on the
above quotation from Nedarim, in spite of there being a great many
more Keris and Kethivs than those enumerated in the Talmud, as
already stated before. If these were doubtful readings, as Kimchi, of
blessed memory, and Ephodi maintain, why were they not enumerated
with the three instances of doubtful readings in Sopherim [vi. 4}?
Seeing, then, that there are no more than three, it is evident that the
others were not doubtful, for if they were doubtful they |the Sopherim]
would in these, as in the former instances, have followed the majority of
MSS., and not have put them in the margin, as we have stated above.
vw 56
Therd is then no more difficulty
in the Don’s, of blessed memory,
remark, which is as follows: ‘‘ there
is no doubt that they [i. ¢., Ezra
and his associates] have received
[t.e., the Keri] from the pro-
phets and sages of by-gone days.”’
Thus far his language. To this
I reply ; Choose one of two posi-
tions. If you say that they re-
ceived it from the prophets and
sages of by-gone days, then this
cannot escape one of the two alter-
natives. Hither it [the Keri] was a
law of Moses from Sinai, and they
[the prophets and sages] told him
(Ezra) that it [the Keri] ought to
be so, or they did not tell him that
such and such readings were a law
of Moses from Sinai. If they have
not told him that such and such
a reading is‘'a law of Moses from
Sinai, then he clearly knew already
that it [the marginal reading] ought
to be so [is the correct one], since
it was received so from the prophets.
And if it be so, what then does
Abravanel mean by saying that the
sacred Scribe was afraid to touch
wet Jen snsw AD “Np nep nd)
Yap Jow pao par wd mr noid
Sy amptpy an nam) mynvaino
ap J2e wei no ,7zZBI nen vdy ser
ox apron prov 8d am nam oa3ND
ps pied v0 son ned nabn mene
mwa nada joy 15 153 xby om nnd
pen nend natn qow 1d 15285 ov pico
yd yw Jae V3a yA pS ON
MDS WONpP RD yD ON ,DWAIND bap I>”
vt omdeS eipn amon NT > TORE
Npim resp na eas sata
‘oom onvaina ap av 817 72 ON ne
msinn aT on pn eS mod sn
par spn pat prs dy ade in sm
rans yon nen mdm india ansn
Pyar pa px prt anna Syd
Vy DS [ANeERI 7393 Torw ADI
nynon yo No OAD OMI ONAIA aM=n
md jod) ameiaa ndyp va nnn no
wo osy Siar prand nod a adn
Syn ann many ws wma pond ad.
m>arppn weet Asad wrist 8yan0n
worn ee? ynead inotpna oninan
sya nad yaar ten Sy smnm pe pny
nen mapa 73 Ne pss2 727 NIN
any of the words which were spoken by the Holy Ghost? Moreover,
there is another objection [to be urged]. If it be that they have
received it from the prophets and sages of by-gone days, why have not
the prophets and sages themselves corrected it? We are therefore
bound to conclude that the Keri and the Kethiv are both a law of Moses
from Sinai, as we have proved above from the Talmud [Nedarim 87, b.]
As to what Abravanel said in his first hypothesis, ‘‘ that the writer,
‘according to the degree of inspiration vouchsafed unto him, conveyed by
these anomalous expressions some of the mysteries of the law, and
therefore Ezra did not venture to expunge them from the sacred
books,”’ this is certainly true; as the great Ramban® of blessed
memory, the chief of the later Kabbalists, has propounded it, in the
Introduction to his Commentary on the Pentateuch (vide in loco). And
for this very reason I am all the more astonished at Don Abravanel,
of blessed memory, for having left the subject undecided, ascribing in
his second hypothesis carelessness to Jeremiah, because of the anoma-
88 For Ramban, or Nachmanides, see above, p. 39.
57
lous expressions in *W5), his soul
[Jerem. ii. 24], the Keri in the
margin being "W5), her soul, fem.,
as is evident from the usage of the
language. Whereas in fact this is
one of the mysteries of the law
connected with the Levirate law,
and the initiated know it.
Thus we learn from these and
similar arguments that the Keri velo
Kethiv, the Kethiv velo Keri, and
all the Massoretic statements, are a
law of Moses from Sinai, and not
as the afore-mentioned sages pro-
pound, which is evident from the
Talmud [Nedarim 87 6] quoted
above.
yp) maa ws ped mara mnt dy ans
me 72 nep) pinay “py nm mERw
mann mop Vo IAM pwd yan
ipa: Ssenm joan 03
Son jminsy tmp an indian 4°OP3
pp xdr jana jana ed) ppt Sep
mend nada yndis mont watt indyor
nbwen open yan> wes Rd x00
PR pray OMT NADIAD OUT ,yd4
Spb pom ann pa
wpb wnat npsa winswe YD
mv) nsppa jnseNID oN Sy pdin
yd pnnn asey +23 OMS M33 py
YW2 YM ya OID AME RwYM 193
SY) OM Ind RwIM |S
nn mops non ow “npoinn Wpith
We do indeed find that the Tal-
mud differs in many places from the
Massorah, as we see in the Tract
Nidda [88 a], where 82301, and
he that beareth [Levit. xv.. 10], is
written xwin), without Vav.
Tossafoth™ thereupon remarks,
‘Tt is strange that the reading of
the Massorah is plene;” and concludes that the Talmud in fact does
sometimes differ from the Massorah, as we find in Sabbath [55 bj on the
sons of Eli, where D'3Y2 [1 Sam. ii. 24] is quoted. And this is the
remark of the Talmud: [query] ‘‘Is not the reading D°)32? Where-
upon R. Hunnah b. R. Joshua said the reading is noayp.”
Now Rashi of blessed memory remarks on this passage, ‘‘I cannot
by phin ipdnny w20 wena xdp
moa pip naw n2opa nseK7D ,AMoOpN
ped nn ns ovayp Sy 9a +23 apna
man 37 Wx ,OVayp asm ,ow xO
V]ND TY ,2Nd OVAyD yor att 2
nep ,b'n no735 vt Ye YPN
% Tossafoth mown denotes those additions or supplementary glosses to Rashi’s
Commentary on the Talmud which are found along with the commentary of Rashi in
every edition of the Talmud. The disciples of Rashi, finding that the expositions of
their might be extended and improved, set about to continue his work of exposi-
tion immediately after his death, filling up every gap, and using up every scrap which
their immortal teacher left. Their reverence for him, however, was so great, that they
would not put down their opinions in an independent manner, but denominated them
mpoin additions, and hence they derived the name Tossajists. The first Tossafists
consisted chiefly of Rashi’s own relations, his two sons-in-law, R. Meier b. Samuel and
R. Jehudah b. Nathan, called by way of abbreviation Riban (j'‘3N=ym2 3 THT °D),
his three grandsons, R. Isaac, R. Samuel, and R. Jacob Tam, sons of R. Meier, who
are respectively called from their initials Ribam (03 ="VNd J prs’ n), Rashbam
(B'.IWH= ND 72 NNW °r), and R. Tam, and lastly R. Isaac ben Asher of Speier,
called Riba (x24 = OR 72 pry’ °r), also a relative of Rashi’s. Comp. Graetz,
Geschichte der Juden, vol. vi., p. 170, ete., Leipzig, 1861; and vol. vii., p. 129, etc.,
Leipzig, 1863.
I
4,
58
understand how this sage is here
cited, for I am of opinion that the
whole passage is spurious, and that
he never said it, since the reading
of the most trustworthy Codices is
D'3YD plene, and since it is not
mentioned in the great Massorah,
where all the words in which the
Jod is in the Kethiv but not in the
Keri are numbered and rubricated.
Besides, the whole question is
irrelevant, as the meaning of D°3Y!
is not to transgress, but to circulate
a report; and this is what Eli said,
‘No, my son, it is not a good report
which I hear the people of God
circulate about you [1 Sam. ii 24] ;’
O'3Y) is the plural, and refers to
TAY DY, the people of Jehovah, and
not, to ‘the sons of Eli, who were
the transgressors themslves, and
did make others to transgress.”
Thus far his language.
Tossafoth again comments thus
upon the passage; and this is
its language: ‘‘Our Talmud differs
from our copies of the Bible, which
read BN3yP, and we find a similar
difference in the Jerusalem Talmud
on Samson, where it has, ‘And
he judged Israel forty years ;’
and submits it is evident that the
Philistines feared him [i. e., Sam-
son] twenty years after his death,
‘We TI 1D ND OWN OShn ow wyys
wine pando and nda xdy ann So myne
mn jxdp omapp sind OND oMBDS
bo cv pew opps advan mona
mana xd yap ado 149 Na aInsw mann
wp a yn awnn 'p Sy paw om mt
nde vin may pwd ied omapn tant
ind soxp sam anna np vrayn pwd
PR pow ‘D328 Wwe MDW naw Nd dy
vem poSy pbarpr prions pay » oy
Ndr ep » oper pwn a7 pwd oayD
yrds einy yan sine *Sy an
ined pes sy DM me OSD
snodnn j5n mt Sp mpoinn 13N3)
ona sinsv by ope Sp pdin de
kim pvowa sobyrrs wep jor BYvayn
yaw mmbo omow oypane bee ne ne
Imp INK My ONwy VOD oD onwdD
onwy sins dew ompon S52) Yn 1D
:meoinn ped peo ay me
poet xn pp nep xda men 11
‘> mDyD nw TR mod was yowD
nme 30 tor mw onwy Sew ne new
me pswy op oy onwde yaw aby
OPI ww wn IM ONwy) IMD INR
2nd OND WN Xo RTNdM Or NN
aim ede moe apa Sew) me poy IM
yoeny me mys in Seq nx nae
2]RD-7Y PD VV one RNeM ,wITID
any 9725 wit 'e9 by +> NTN
as well as twenty years during his life-time,” whereas our copies of
the Bible read twenty years [Judges xvi. 81]. Thus far its language.
To me it appears, however, that there is no difficulty in it; for what
the Talmud speaks about Samson refers to the Midrashic interpre-
tation, viz., ‘‘ Why is the verse, that he judged Israel twenty years,
repeated twice? R. Acha answered, From this we see that the Philistines
feared him [i. e., Samson] twenty years after his death, just as they
did twenty years before it, and this makes forty years.’ Hence
the Talmud does not say, Why is it written in the text, ‘he judged
Israel forty years ?’’ but simply, ‘‘he judged forty years,” that is,
according to the Midrash. And now everything comes out right
when thou lookest into it. Thus far.
Now I wonder at Rashi,—who was versed in the Massorah and Masso-
59
retic conclusions, as we have seen in
the above quotation from the Tract
Sabbath [55 6] on the sons of Eli,
where he argues from the Massorah
against R. Hunna b. Joshua, and
concludes that the said passage in
the Talmud is spurious, — that
he should in various other places
entertain opinions contrary to those
of the Massorah. Thus, for in-
stance, he writes in his Commentary
on Gen. xxv. 6, ‘‘The reading
is nvxdp without the °, to shew
that it was only one concubine
i. e., Hagar, who was identical with
Keturah, according to the opinion
of Bereshith Rabba.”® He also
remarks on Numbers vii. 1, that
the reading is nb and not ni?3;
whereas the Massorah most dis-
tinctly remarks D'Y32°B is “twice
entirely plene,” viz., in Gen. xxv.
6, and in Esther ii. 9. Thus also
the Massorah parva remarks on
nib, Numb. vii. 1, ‘Not extant,
plen e.”
soya nyt> md x30) ADDS spa nn
maa pret yp 33¢93 db xq Dn
mea Nant 39 by mpnp nwpn nna
Sina myow oe ow jan) yey 377
PADD NDT NTS NDwR XM 5197 IN
9335) 923 ,mopn Syn nyts weS7 nd
mvp ewmnn eres ans owiden
mms 25p rds oon ade 3 Jon an
Bnan myers pedo mop em an wm
Je2 Ip ana nd> nwp mds ows om y>1
mn ‘2 cvesbn ans mons NIN
p> rwabyan sow van» Spr pt oe dD
md mppn moos sina nen mds oa
: inbo
voinn wrepa ery yn2wN IN)
sn nny 7M. Mn pom mews
Ran ADDST ROM 8 ne NOR IE PRE
Yen ind yer pa na dp ams
mmp2 veo 1399 nd Jap A213 y317Dt
39°77 RN 32 AMIDA Me yop pr»
Ninn nm Seine ap 135 pope nope
xdeoep xox epee > min x59 xn
‘273 Ros > sox An md man
And again Rashi remarks, in his Commentary on the Pentateuch, the
reading is Nit) (Deut. vi. 9] in order to shew that even if a door
has only one post, it requires a Mezuzah.* Now I wonder at this,
for we find in the Massorah that it is written with a ) between the t and
the n. Rashi, of blessed memory, however, adopts the opinion of
Rabbi Meier in Menachoth, 84 a, where we learn, “R. Papa, hap-
pening to call at the house of Mar Samuel, saw there a door
which had only one post on the left side, and yet had a Mezuzah, and
asked, According to whom is this? According to Rabbi Meier [was the
85 Bereshith Rabba is that part of the Midrash Rabba which treats on Bereshith, or
on the Book of Genesis. For an account of this Midrash, we must refer to Kitto’s
Cyclopedia, s. v. MipRasH.
86 smn with the Jews denotes the piece of purchment on which is written Deut. vi,
4-9; xi. 13-21, which they regard as containing the injunctioa to inscribe on the door-
posts the words of the law. This slip of vellum thus written upon is then enclosed in a
cylindrical tube of lead, cane, or wood, and to the present day is nailed to the right
door-post of every door. A detailed description of this institution is given by
Maimonides, Jad Ha-Chezaka, Hilchoth Mezuzah, vol. i., p. 98, etc., ed. Immanuel
Athias, Amsterdam, 1702; Joreh Deah, §§ 285-292; and in Kitto'’s Cyclopedia, s. v.
MEzuzanH.
60
reply.] Whereupon it was asked,
Where is this remark of Rabbi
Meier? [Reply.] We find that a
house which has a door with only
one post, Rabbi Meier says it ought
to have a Mezuzah, but the sages
say it ought not. [Query.] What
is the reason of the sages ? [Reply.]
Because the text has Mitt) in the
plural [thus shewing that two posts
were required!. [Query.] And what
is the reason of Rabbi Meier?
[Reply.] For we learn that it is nitt)
plural, whence I see that it cannot
be less than two; and when Nitty
is again mentioned in another verse,
where it is superfluous, it is to
teach us that it comes within
the exegetical rule, inclusion after
inclusion ; and every inclusion after
inclusion is meant for diminution ;
hence we must have a Mezuzah when
Nn pe ta7 ep aby pydee sixp
ann ‘pep 'a7 ame op ade 1d paw m3
{P3TT ROY ND DMD oDSM ANDAs
NOONT PRD STI NDyD ND ND MTD
kine. NY mip ory’y Iw pow ,MIND
spyd nobdn pre ow neapa nn ww
yoyo pynd xdie 37 py 39 IMR 139
yay Seyows as at inns anid sinsn
powo mat a3 by mer cow atin Say
pnp xd) ny nea ebp mim ans nxp
ox ot > mre Sxyoes ad NOT on
proms anon Sy wind ena mond
TT PMD nBDNd 92 pom wa
mS met Narpy 139 Nw *D) '3NT MID
mat p> ed wire Napnd ow eo
nex nye 52 prpay ,nannds wens npn
2]82 Jy npoin mond ox wd
“on Sy mpoinn ywpn man pra In)
]2 TI 937 INT RM 32 MDIAd yNDT
‘eva MID Nw!32 ION] WN NN
there is only one post to the door.®”
Thus says Rabbi Ishmael, &c. [upon which Tossafoth remarks] ; and
accordingly it would appear that the reading is Nits) plene with two
Vavs, and not defective with one Vav; and this is the remark of
Rabbi Ishmael, who says that the text is of paramount importance,
i. e., that we must explain it according to the written text or the Kethiv,
just as we find in Sanhedrin, 4 b, in the case of MBYY. But the fact
is that we cannot infer anything from this ; ; since we find Rabbi Akiva,
who maintains that the marginal reading is of primary consideration,
i. e., that we must be guided by the Keri as in the case of Mipvd, yet
he himself admits that text is of paramount importance.”’
Again, in Sabbath, 108 6b, Tossafoth is at variance with Rashi,
of blessed memory, where we find that Rabbi Jehudah b. Bethira
says:—‘The Scriptures use 0/202) (Numb. xxix. 19] with regard to
the second day of the feast of tabernacles, '202) [ibid., verse 81]
with regard to the sixth day, and OYSYPD [ibid., verse 88] with regard
87 To understand the discussion given in the text, it is necessary to remark that,
according to the exegetical rules of the ancient Rabbins, the Bible never repeats a word
twice without designing to convey thereby a special meaning. Accordingly, if a thing
ig repeated twice, and the repetition appears superfluous, it is explained as implying
more than one statement would convey. But if the repetition cannot be explained as
implying inclusion, it is taken to denote exclusion. This rule is called ~ms 12% PR
toynd whe ay, inclusion after inclusion, effecting exclusion. Comp. Kitto’s Cyclopedia,
s. v. Mrprasu, p. 170, rule iv.
a“
61
to the seventh day,* whence we
obtain the final o [of the first], the
» [from the second], and the final bp
[from the third word]; and have
therein an: intimation from the law
about the ceremony of pouring out
water on this festival. Whereas
Rashi, of blessed. memory, reads
[Succa, 46 6] D08Y'D3 in connection
with the eighth day of the festival
[t. e., at the end of verse 87,] and
DBYD3S in connection with the
seventh day [i. ¢., at the end of
verse 33]. Now Tassafoth criti-
cises Rashi, and these are the words
of Tossafoth: ‘We read DDBYIDD
on the seventh day, as is evident
88‘ 7’) O'D ‘IN DOPED "paws m's00
ssi) nA yO DMN 41095 tT ADD
yoga mips oma Asad wat ven
ped nn ®rmmovn>s nwa joppwns
MDD y'012 Mp|Y'ND ‘yaya npoinn
nym MDA NIA }D) MIpNT NDP prs
*yowa ovat mon|ad iter “was NST
ped yrs ay many ad pr mos
neon
nsqa> yet “et mmot eenna D3}
rampon by ban nenndnd aypn xd
pedan pdyesa saa nepintins pian
vn AMINA MX Yop pyw2 ow won
wT peo nn “npowd nannd nppnd y235
wetpan po pro ty yo Sepoee an at
pow, 074249 pay OxpyntD ODA
from Taamith, 4 b, and from the
Massorah magna, and not as Rashi, who reads on the eighth day.”
Thus far the remark of Tossafoth.
Moreover, in Menachoth, 84 b, Rashi, of blessed memory, does not
animadvert upon the Talmud, which reads differently from the correct
Codices, as he animadverted in connection with the sons of Eli
[vide supra, p. 20], and yet these are the words of Menachoth: ‘‘ The
sages propound, ‘Rabbi Ishmael said in nayiwd nayb> nbybe,
the four compartments [in the phylactery] are indicated.” 4° Thus
far the words of the Talmud. In the Correct codices, however, as
well as in the Book of the Crowns," the reading is as follows, nepb>
88 These words also occur in connection with the other days of the feast, but without
the letters in question ; and as, according to the Talmudic laws of exegesis, no super-
fluons letter is ever used in the Bible without its having a recondite meaning (compare
Ginsburg’s Commentary on Ecclesiastes, p. 30, &c., Longman, 1861) ; these three letters
have been combined into 0", water. This exegetical rule, which is called poora yywa
Pwwn, letters taken from one word and joined to another, or formed into new words, will
be found in Kitto’s Cyclopedia, s. v. M1pkass, p. 172, rule iii.
89 The passage must have been altered since the day of the Tossafoth, and made
conformable to the present text of the Bible, as in my copy of the Talmud there is no
difference between Rashi and the Massoretic text.
40 The word nowy occurs only three times (Exod. xiii. 16; Deut. vi. 8, xi. 18); in
two instances it has no 1 (Deut. vi. 8, xi. 18), and in the third (Exod. xiii. 16), there
is a) after the first , ¢.¢., MDD; hence R. Ishmael regards it as a dual, and makes
of the three words four, to obtain the four compartments in the phylacteries. As the
limits of a note do not permit of a detailed description of these compartments, we must
refer to Kitto’s Cyclopedia, art. PayLacrenrtss, for it.
41 The Book of Crowns (1m "D) to which Jacob b. Chajim refers, is an ancient
treatise, containing Massoretical rules on the ornamental letters. It has only just been
published, for the first time, by Burges, Paris, 1866. The’ passage in question is to be
62
[in Deut. vi.8; xi. 18] and NaYb?s
[Exod. xiii. 16], but there is no}
between the © and the n; yet I
myself have seen that in the ancient
Book of the Crowns, even NBDi?,
in Deut. xi. 18, is written with
a } after the the first vo. Still
we may rely upon the authors of
the Tossafoth, since they saw the
Book of Crowns, and know more
thoroughly about plene and defec-
tive than we know. Tossafoth
on Menachoth [84 b] observes as
follows : ‘(In Deut. vi..8 and xi.
18, the reading is NAYHD, and in
Exod. xiii. 16, nbvind, according
to the correct Codices, but there is
no } between the 5 and n,” and
asks, ‘“‘ How can a dual be made out
of it? If we could apply to it the
exegetical rule, letters taken from
one word and joined to another, or
formed into new words, it would be
all right, but we find it only applied
to letters at the end and beginning
of words, but not in the middle.
ees) 3 mM ,nENDd ans prow oN TM
oy ams xd nd xp pa Sax nominds
OR TM OIy PIP aN TDA NT ONY
‘ON pV2DDD AN ,MBOWS aNd ow
(IN-I]O 1M NT OPI Madina 0177
wpm 37D ym am xdpa wpa nM
nppnd 7939 un 123 @mmpa ow monn
qe amt manwd Sy Syd7 don
peony 8507 xdn aw Fen 810239
poy ON OM pow I 2 op
pa Sax ,nanind) waa mm npond
yoyo an myn 1%) ans a> 1nd ep
POUT YEO Py. PION Mn ew Nn
nan nonna xd insee xd Sax ens
inpby var ona ww pIpa NIN A>
jy) jabape rend oF pwITT wn oD
w papa pen wd indna me ann
wat waar 1b yee nda onnn pdms
pos yop MBMIDdT NDP 17 “on
371m pias ynsexq mpnnd ana 1x2
by mS mae pont yb mb ndpv ow
OPO RnvM BON wd MA INDO
Thus, for instance, in Zebachimn,
24 }, the first » is taken over from D3, from the blood, to VI, of the
bullock, making it BN) DI, the blood of the bullock [Exod. xxxix.
12]. , Thus also in Baba Bathra, 111, the) is taken from the, end
of iN2N2, his inheritance, and the S from the beginning of WNY>, to
his kinsmen, and made into a separate word %, i.e. ing nbny ny ban
yb, and ye shall give the inheritance of his wife to him, i.e., the husband
(Numb. xxvii.11]. To this, Rabbi Tam“ replies, that the first } of
Abyine [i. ¢., the copulative! is taken from the beginning of the
word and put between the n and 5, thus reading nipyine, as we
find it done in Baba Meziah [54 b], on Lev. xxvii. 27, where the }
found on p. 9. It must, however, be remarked that in the present recension it is
spelled mn, both in Exod. xiii. 16 and Deut. vi, 8. Comp. also the Sepher
Tagin, pp. 18, 19.
42 As Jacob ben Chajim has somewhat abbreviated this quotation from Tossafoth,
and thereby made it difficult to t-anslate, I have translated the whole of it as found in
the Talmud. °
48 Jacob Tam was born at Remers about 1100, and died about 1171. He was the
grandson of the immortal Rashi, and was a very distinguished Talmudist, Tossaphist
(vide supra, p. 57, note 34), Grammarian, and Commentator, The appellation Tam
(On) = the pious, the saint, he obtained in after life because of his great piety, and in
allusion to Gen. xxv. 27, where his namesake, the patriarch Jacob, is denominated Tam.
63
is taken from 40%, and he shall add,
converted into the allied letter +,
ren mb mm mn prons ad
:n3N prona Ty mos md pop
and put between the n and } of 933 'on we ton Na MET wrred neps
on, thus reading 17#/0n.”
But Tossafoth objects to this ex-
planation, on the ground that the
Talmud asks further on, ‘If this
can be done, let us apply it also
to the things devoted to the sanc-
tuary, where it is likewise written
neon ON “Lev. xxvii. 15)?”
And the answer is, “ Even if you
take away the } from 40%}, and put
it to the end of meron, it would
only be iN’ “making no plural.”
But now ‘if Rabbi Tam’s principle
of applying this exegetical rule be
right: we might put the in the
middle of the word, so as to obtain
nivwrnon plural. It is therefore
evident that we never put the letters
except at the end of the word, as is
the case with all the instances which
I have adduced.” Thus far the
words of Tossafoth. Rashi, of
blessed memory, too, quotes the
same principle (in his Commentary,
on Baba Meziah, 54 b}, that we only
add to the beginning and end of
words, but that in the middle the
Tvide in loco’.
sen > meen gon ant) eT
aren > ma pant y'nd ndpy 227
yao nan prona poopy Mnem
xd ops nest mes Joon natn mvon
ay many tm Sao nan p33 ade ppp
ym Yen abes qo; mass pwd jes
ada poo xo7 anim era op nid
wpt> proes Sax naa we nan vena
Nm w3 Jed ash ; ow py “RD
33 JTS -RIP> nyposy RET RPZO
apt ade mpzan aan eds me ,en317
na oes 15 1 nan ospad mana
qdas pee OAM NIP FA 33 NPD
matind con tn tod wan 7307
2yk2 Tp wap> wnypoap KDA RID
prea prota wn RIDIT eps AL?
$a natn mp dion me penpn
jx pp wd ANA ONT mepon
orhnsya jase moze pao. naed
nye ox ‘D0 ND mona .oennaa
dunn pres Ovnnaa sp ody sya andt
be ow pe ms open poet Senet
boa man jo ovnna api ans ,nbayn
letters must remain as they are
And we cannot urge in such a case that we cut up
the Scriptures with too sharp a knife, as it is urged in all other
places, because it cannot be called cutting except when the words are
displaced, as it is remarked there (7. e., in Baba Bathra, 111] in
connection with the verse ‘‘and ye shall give his inheritance,” &c.
‘Numb. xxvii. 11], against Rabbi Abja, who wanted to do it; and
Rabbi said to him, ‘“ Thou cuttest the Scriptures with a sharp
knife.” Thus far his reply.
It appears difficult to me, that when we are distinctly told in the
Talmud [Megilla, 24 6.], ‘‘The sages say that all passages which
are written in the law in indelicate expressions are rendered decent by
the Keri, as, for instance, 13232 instead of nsdivh [Dent. xxxviii. 30 ;
Isa. xiii. 16; Jer. iii. 2; 1 Sam. v. 6,9, 13: vi. 4, 5,17]; pny
instead of Dey ; the Massorah should only give six ‘instances where
the Kethiv is D'OEY,” and the Keri DINO (Deut. xxviii. 27; 1 Sam. v.
6, 9, 12; vi. 5, 6], and omit the one which occurs in 1 Sam. vi. 12;
64
and, indeed, all our best Codices do
the same. Now, I cannot account
for this in any other way except
in the manner already stated above,
viz., that the Talmud is sometimes
at variance with the Massorah.
In Bereshith Rabba, Rabbi Idia
remarks on Psalm cv. 22, that the
Kethiv is WW, his prince, without a
‘ [i. e., in the singular], and that it
refers to Potiphera. Now the diffi-
culty is, that we do not find this '
omitted in any Codex; nor is it
mentioned in the Massorah magna
among the number of fifty-six
mo aapT ey by opytan omaon
mre S95 saints ade sxrind
smmonn by ended enndnr
sand pros Sy snesn nat MONI
Nn ND Nw MPR aT OR YD Ww
ows xxoi xd +3 ne) EMD ANT 74
mioa xd enan mops an on me 72D
mysn3 7) son ew Ervpnn paras
mos x 1D send FT pH 49) Man
gnsnd o xoonm ane Norn
imnoon
MnDeRT mA. Rd MAoNd NIN
452 metyo watby mand naar wd
passages where the » is omitted in the text and found in the Keri ;#
and there is no way of accounting for this again, except as I accounted
for the manner of the Talmud, viz., that it disagrees with the Massorah.
It is very suprising that we find Rashi, of blessed memory, and
Saadia Gaon," giving Keris and Kethivs which are not to be found
44 The fifty-six words which are in the textual reading without Jod (mostly indicating
the plural) in the middle, but have Jod in the marginal reading, are as follows :—
yeos . . Gen. xxxiii. 4 | inne. . Jerem.xv. 8 | Inna. . Job xxvi. 14
mom. . Exod. xxvii. 11 | 1 . .Jerem. xvii. 11 | innanna . Job xxxvii. 12
vy. . . Numb. xii. 3 | wran . . Ezek. xvii. 21 | men . Job xxxix. 30
wa. . Joshua viii. 11 | we . Ezek. xxxi. 5 | YD . .Job xl. 17
ween . Joshua xvi. 3 | Indy . Ezek. xl. 26 | p29 Job xxxix. 23
wD 1 Sam. ii. 9 | yom =. . Ezek. xl. 22 | won . Job xxxi. 20
wy. - 1Sam.ii, 9 | yom . . Ezek. xl. 22 ; >. . Job xxxviii. 41
ynrewn) . 1 Sam. x. 21 | neva . Ezek. xlvii. 11 | 202 - Prov. vi. 13
yous). 1 Sam. xxiii. 5 | wp. . Habak. iii. 14 | \npwa. Prov. xxvi. 24
yn -2Sam.i. 11 | nyo. Obad. 11 | nme. Prov. xxii. 25
ynonw . . 2 Sam. xii. 20 | wn. . Ps. xxiv. 6 | 1008 . Prov. xxx. 10
yom . .2 Sam. xxiv. 14 | wr . . Ps. lviii. 8 | Imbr Ruth iii. 14
wmwn. . 1 Kingsx. 5 | yon. « Ps. evi. 45 | wm . Ezra iv. 7
a> ph 1 Kings xviii. 42 | naa. . . Ps. cxlvii. 19 | won. Lament. iii. 39
Yr. . 2 Kingsv. 9 | Way. . Ps. cxlviii. 2 | 19% 1 Sam. xxi. 14
») . . 2 Kings iv. 84 | yn . . Job xiv. 5 | nom Song of Songs ii. 11
yimam. . 2 Kings xi. 18 | wus . . Jobxv. 15 | ww . Ps. ev. 40
we. . Isa. lvi. 10 | wy . Jobxx. 11 | own. . Numb. xi 32
‘bon Isa. ii, 5) TM Job xxiv. 1
They are enumerated in the Massorah finalis under the letter Jod, p. 34 a, cols. 2 and 8;
and in the Ochla Ve-Ochla, section cxxviii., pp. 83 and 104. It must be remarked, that
this list only registers such words as occur once as defective, and therefore excludes
many other words which likewise want the Jod plural, but which occur more
than once. Comp. also Levita’s Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, p. 183, ed. Ginsburg.
45 Saadia Gaon (pea Twp) ben Joseph Ha-Pithomi, the celebrated philosopher,
commentator, and tra of the Bible into Arabic, was born at Fajum, in Upper
Jat,
65
in any of the Massoretic work.
Thus, for instance, Rashi, of
blessed memory, in his commentary
on Psalm cvliv. 2, remarks that in
his copy the Keri was ANA, under
him, and the Kethiv 0A, under me,
and I carefully looked for it, but
could not find it in the Massorah
magna numbered among the eighteen
words in which the } is omitted at
the end of the word.“ And this,
again, is the language of Rabbi
Saadia Gaon on Daniel xi. 15, ‘‘ The
Kethiv is YINID, of his choice, and
the Keri ws30, of his fortresses.’’*
Now, I carefully examined the
Massoretic books in all the places
where the letters are changed,
but could not find it; and my
difficulty is [to understand] how
these Gaonim could overlook the
Massorah which we have, their statements are incorrect.
pws exo adv np ano sp iwane
wrres “et ped nn monn “pop 7D
day ANd NNN DYby TNN propa ovdn
dr cnepar nnn aenay ynnn sp nn
paena mes mme adv mops nex.
soa) pna- oon Sp mwy mown
mpoa prea AvTyo 39 pwd nn xmas
spew parm bp xan props beet
winay ,nbon ner ana =p tah nbdio
mpm p03 snwpar “7y9¥3D IP) aNd
% nepy yma xd) memen ‘erdn boa
xardes monn nan onainp odps pe
VT wpa IMD) Myo ain |9 MNT MODI
mares oyp> pr "oo 593 jap Tn
simad
anND ,'n mp m syya NWPN
noon wnsns seppdmst amet
Massorah, for, according to the
However,
they [Saadia and Rashi] are much wiser then we, who are as it were
blind men in a window compared with them.
For some time I was in great perplexity, seeing that the Talmud
generally ignores the Massorah, as we have shewn above in the instance
Egypt, a. D. 892, and died in 942. It is somewhat strange that Jacob ben Chajim should
name him after Rashi, who lived so much later.
The title Gaon, which denotes
excellency, was given to those who were the spiritual heads of the Jewish community.
4 The eighteen words, which according to the Massorah want the suffix Vav in the
text, are as follows :—
qnw . «Gen. xxvii. 29; inwy . . 1 Kingsix. 9 | mom Ezek. vii. 21
wnnwy . «Gen. xliii. 28 | UM 1 Kings xii. 7 | "Ww. . . . Dan.v. 21+
wh. Judg. xxi. 20 | pP . .2 Kings xx. 18 | by . . Ezra iii, 2
non. 5 1 Sam. vii. 9 | mm 2 Kings xxii. 5 | “me. - Nehem. iii. 30
aN) . 1 Sam. xii. 10 | Soe =. Isaiah xxxvii. 80 | “me. - Nehem. iii. 31
son... «1 Sam. xiii. 19 | rr . . Jerem. xlviii. 7 | ban. . Esther ix. 27
These instances are enumerated in the Massorah marginalis, on 1 Kings i.1; in the
Massorah finalis under letter Vav, p. 27 a, col. 4— 27, col. 1; Ochla Ve-Ochla, section
exix., and Tractate Sopherim vii.1. It is,
however, to be remarked, that Sopherim
only gives thirteen instances, 1inw (Gen. xliii. 28); 1 (Judges xxi. 20); and ~m
(Nehem. iii. 30), being omitted. Comp. also Frensdorff’s note on section cxix., Ochla
Ve-Ochla, p. 32, and Levita’s Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, p. 117, note 69, ed. Ginsburg.
47 It is now established beyond doubt, that the commentary on Daniel which Jacob
b. Chajim Ibn Adonijah published in the Rabbinic Bible, under the name of Saadia,
and which he here quotes is spurious. Comp.
of Biblical Literature.
the article Saapia, in Kitto’s Cyclopedia
K
66
of plene and defective. According to
whom [I asked myself] are we then
to write the scrolls of the law, since
what is lawful according to the one
is unlawful according to the other ?
At the first thought it would seem
that we ought to write our scrolls
according to the Talmud in the case
of plene and defective, since we
have taken it upon ourselves [to
follow its authority], and since they
[i. e., the authors of the Talmud]
were better versed in the Mossorah,
as well as in plene and defective,
than we are. Nevertheless, we find
that Rashi, of blessed memory,
draws objections from the Mas-
sorah against our Talmud, as in the
case of the sons of Eli [1 Sam. ii. 24],
and even declares that the state-
ment in the Talmud that the Kethiv
DAY) is a mistake, as we have
shewn above.“ The authors of
the Tassafoth, too, raise objec-
tions from the Massorah against
tHe Talmud, and make the Masso-
rah their basis, as will be seen
in the sequel from a quotation in
Tract Jebamoth [106 b] Now if the
jeot aarbe om xdpa Syd armas
Sy mid aww mp amd TN WDD ans
spdnes rod mena Rone od snd
amo tom xdo3 myn eo ans 757
mops wpa nn pyre rsp wmadaps
“eb pm wa 373 ym Tom Rds)
moon nepp xin xm nsnad wnt
myot or dy ya 132757 wtb
2 BTI9D NDI INT AD NIT
‘pepo mponn “Spa on 48; bib won 1D
MOND App 91,759 enodnd moon
sor mavon mzp pp AyD Myp3"3 jDpd721
17RD apy mn RD TMODTT ON) 1D VaR
prRt pn xpi rnodnd neo owpo
sepxd monnp apy may vin wena
Np mont xadet youn wnndnd arp
jn Bd ppm Bo wh s7 wm Bap
ndvan nos ‘wx mops Rate ands
by er spmdy qoond xo jn ody
mine vag nana yar “eT NPT 3a
pip Peo sD md ead NN Ne
pmo moss 4) 5:5 wsompID ,ND
mpenb Twp. ‘nine RNDIAT NN NA
2595 son2 ,anndnd
jmran mwppy np ND AYP Rr)
oy vn RPI nA adm 43 wT
Massorah were not their basis, they would not have argued from it
against the Talmud. But since we see that though they were later
than the Talmudists, and yet made the Massorah their basis to argue
from it against the Talmud, it is evident that we too must act ac-
cording to the Massoruh. And, indeed, this is the reason why the
Codices and the corrections of the scrolls are all according to the
Massorah ; and of a truth the men of the Great Synagogue [17. ¢., the
authors of the Massorah] are of great authority, and fully worthy
that we should rely upon them. And though Rashi, of blessed
memory, as we have seen, sides with Rabbi Meier in the Talmud,
in the case of itt, against the Massorah, taking the Kethiv to be
nit, as we have stated above, and in many other cases, yet we
also see that in other places he argues from the Massorah against
the Talmud, as I have shewn in this section.
As to the heretics, there is no foundation in the charge which they
prefer against us, that we have wilfully altered and changed the
text of the Scriptures, which they derive from the removal of Vav by
48 Vide supra, p. 57, &c. 49 Vide supra, p. 59, &e.
67
the Scribes, the alterations of the -
Scribes, Keri and Kethiv, bo. 9
because by Itur Sopherim is not
meant that they [i.¢., the Scribes]
have removed the }, but as it is
explained in the Aruch under 7)Hy ;
where it is remarked Itur Sopherim
denotes removal, as the Chaldee
renders “YD, to remove [1 Kings xxii.
44), by OY; and so we find in
Gittin, 86, the nature of the bill of
divorce is ‘absolved and (yy1),
discharged.” Now it appears that
the villagers were at first not par-
ticular in reading the Scriptures,
and read ON), anp afterward [Gen.
xviii. 5, Ps. ‘Ixviii. 26] 13 POREIM,
AND thy judgments [Ps. xxxvi. 7]:
they committed a blunder at that
time [by inserting Vav conjunctive
in these passages], thinking that
these were the correct readings
because they seemed to be so.
Whereupon the Sopherim came and
removed the Vav, and the reading
became again, as it originally was,
WS, afterwards, TOBY, thy judg-
ee
jandin and) 9p) oD ppm ,oDID
ro xb cnbwr on op ops Rat
soy TVA ys wrt Nd 1 Mand
ped were mpi Toy ped nn D7
say 85 90 xb man prim wn
bw 1bi3 e113 BN prs pI kN D1
oxen porn ne Tob ray) TH D2
sper nm ed ops twa ndnnay oat
ATayn aney D235 wyor Ip nm Apps
be sins qnpty ona amy ow 1p
pos vanva nm 037 DN JnAPD
DID prypt ‘377 3D) Jor ximna Sy
avy sand spbor oma ined 7anop 14
Toad ONT IM Nayn ane sp nM
and oy Xp OBI WN I) TT BIN
soy > pond ind ip nm ay pond
por ndspt ned pny’ ’an anat om
xnend ovarnp mar 3p) yoo nend nbn
pe by vows mdi wip wanep nn
sinwd p82 Ty 112 “pp x7 1D10 “DID)
vender on 555 aw 5 > aa A
wnt pram ato NST wp oe
by nbyn mason nop omy aw non
row’ 739 eonndy mied maw om ad
ments; and when it was seen that the Sopherim had removed the
Vav, the words thus corrected were denominated Itur Sopherim. Rabbi
Isaac, therefore, came and propounded that they [i.¢e., these restored
readings] are those received by Moses on Sinai [7. ¢., are the original
readings]. And even, up to the generations nearer that time they
blundered and read Nd), and not, with Vav [Bxod. xxiii. 143 when
the Sopherim decreed that it should be read without a Vav.” Thus far
his argument.
Thus it is evident that they [7. ¢., the Sopherim] made no wilful
changes. But if they [7. ¢., the heretics] will persist in it in spite
of what the Gaon [t. e., the author of the Aruch], of blessed memory
says, we can repel them with the power of argument as follows, Can
any man believe that if one intends to make wilful alterations and
changes he would say, See what wilful changes I have made, espe-
50 The heretics or Christians to whom Jacob b. Chajim refers, have taken their
inspiration from Raymond Martin, the celebrated Spanish Dominican, who was born
about 1220, and died about 1287. It was this distinguished orientalist, the oracle of
the church on Rabbinical lore during the middle ages, who boldly declared that these
variations in question were wilful corruptions and perversions introduced by the Jews
into the sacred text. Comp. Levita’s Massoreth Ha-Massoreth, p. 45, &c., ed. Ginsburg.
68
cially in the Prophets? Yet we ,mxisz1 mana jae 52) npbnn np 19
find the Massorah declares “In comm ny pon won monn pwd maim
five passages the Vav has been re- ox ,ormo jpn pon wy nny yor 1D
moved by the Scribes,” &. Again yew mp odin yn xd | miwd onys on
‘eighteen words are emendations
of the Scribes,” &c." Now if they had intended to make wilful changes,
51 The eighteen Tikun Sopherim (oD pn) = Emendations of the Scribes, refer to
eighteen alterations which the Scribes decreed should be introduced into the text, in
order to remove anthropomorphisms and other indelicate expressions. These eighteen
emendations (pm 1°) are as follows according t» the order of the Hebrew Bible :—i.
Gen. xviii. 22, where, for the original reading Drmax °25) TOY HY MT, and Jehovah
still stood before Abraham, is now substituted by the decree of the Scribes = Tikun
Sopherim, mrp »265 Tay wy ormaxi, and Abraham still stood before Jehovah, because
it appeared offensive to say that the Deity stood before Abraham. ii. Numb. xi. 15,
where Moses addresses God, ‘“ Kill me, I pray thee . . . . that I may not see (qny73)
THY EVIL,” ¢. ¢., the punishment wherewith thou visitest Israel, is altered into “that I
may not see (*MYN3) MY EVIL,” because it might seem as if evil were ascribed to the
Deity. iii. and iv. Numb. xii. 12, where the original reading, “let her not be as one
dead, who proceeded from the womb of (108) OUR MoTHER, and half of (\rvw1) ouR
FLEsH be consumed,” is altered into “let her not be as one dead born, which when it
proceeds from the womb of (vox) 178 MoTHER has half of 1re FLESH (Ww) consumed ;”
here are two Sopheric emendations. v. 1 Sam. iii. 13, where the original “ for hés
sons cursed (D’Tx) Gop” (as the Sept. still has it @edv), is altered into “for his sons
cursed (i>), THEMSELVES,” because it was too offensive to say that the sons of Eli
cursed God, and that Eli knew it and did not reprimand them for it. vi. 2 Sam. xvi.
12, where “will God see (193) WITH HIS EYE,” is altered into “ will God look (nya)
AT MY AFFLICTION,” because it was too anthropomorphitic. vii. 1 Kings xii. 16, where
“To a1 Gop (yond) O Israel . . . . and Israel went (yooxd) To THEIR Gop,”
is altered into “To your Tents (Pom) O Israel . . . . and Israel departed
(vor) TO THEIR TENTS,” because the separation of Israel from the house of David was
regarded as a necessary transition to idolatry; it was looked upon as leaving God and
the sanctuary for the worship of idolatry in tents. viii. 2 Chron. x. 16, where the
parallel passage is similarly altered, for the same reason. ix. Jer. ii. 11, where “‘ my
people have changed ("N23) my GLory for an idol,” is altered into “have changed (1n22)
THEIR GLORY into an idol,” because it was too offensive to say such a thing. x. Ezek.
viii. 17, where “they have put the rod to (bx) My NOSE,” is altered into “they have put
the rod to (DDN) THEIR NOBE,”’ because of its offensiveness, and to avoid too gross an
anthropomorphism. xi. Hos. iv. 7, where “they have changed (112) M¥ GLORY into
shame,” ia altered into “‘ I will change their glory into shame” (Tox pops N39), for the
same reason which dictated the ninth alteration. xii. Hab. i. 12, where the address of
the prophet to God, “‘tHov przst Nor” (ninn), is altered into “‘we shall not die”
(nywa), because it was deemed improper. xiii. Zech. ii. 12, where “‘ the apple of (2°)
MINE EYE,” is altered into “ the apple of (19) HIS EYE,” for the reason which called
forth the tenth emendation. xiv. Mal. i. 18, where “ye make (mx) ME expire,” is
altered into ‘‘ ye weary (1m) IT,” because of its being too gross an anthropomorphism.
xv. Ps. evi. 20, where “ they have changed (*ni)) My GLory into the similitude of an ox.’
is altered into “they have changed (D129) THEIR GLORY into the similitude of an ox,”
as in Jer. ii. 11 and Hos. iv. 7. xvi. Job. vii. 20, where Job’s address to God, ‘‘am I a
69
they would surely not have pro-
claimed what they : changed,
and said, ‘‘Highteen "words are
Tikun Sopherim, as given in the
Mechiltha”” [on Exod. xv. 7].2
Moreover, the Sopherim made no
changes nor corrections, they only
submitted that the text ought origi-
nally to have been so and so, but
is veiled in other expressions, out of
respect to the Shechina, a3 you will
find out by examining the subject.
The same is the case with the Keri
and the Kethiv; they [i. ¢., the
pons op. ppn poo n> sordy
mide on we xd ny 8; xndons
nd 1b mn aw ede jpn xd1 ompion
nysen 32 DD ans may ww Roe
np DD NT ANS) “Mpa jst smwM pr
Sax ye ode ont tnd axon or pret
nend rsdn pndiss joes ovroNDN n> 1
Nexon on yd DMD pina 7d0 "00
sen adi nbyn xd paren pny tnd
ANT OO) ANT ,O NP ony nos
337 wy nvdva qbon pond eips
wy nor ye md we vrpay ree
ond ype mia 37 po 8) yansy na
Sopherim] point out what they have :awnd mp
altered, if peradventure you choose
to characterise them as alterations ; we of the class of believers, however,
believe that they all are a law of Moses from Sinai [t. e., the original
readings], including the emendations of the Scribes. But even if you
still insist that the Sopherim did make alterations, the alterations
in question neither raise nor lower the points upon which the heretics
rest. Consult, also, the work done for Ptolemy the king, and you will
see that in the thirteen instances where they made changes, they
state the reason why they have made these alterations, and what
these alterations are in what they did for him.* In conclusion, the
heretics can have nothing to say in this matter.
burden (T'») TO THEE,” is altered into “so that Iam a burden (*) TO MYSELF,” to
remove its offensiveness. xvii. Job xxxii. 8, where the original, ‘they condemned
(oo Nx, or PT NN) Gop or THE Divine sustIcE,” is altered into “they condemned
(avs mx) Jos,” for the same reason as the foregoing. And xviii. Lam. iii. 19, where
the inspired writer calls on God to remember his sufferings, and then expresses his
conviction, “yea thou wilt remember, and THY 80UL WILL MOURN OVER ME (YY TON}
sTpb3), this is altered into “‘and my soul ts humbled within me (Op3 y mwn}), because
of the remark that God will mourn. These eighteen Decrees of the Scribes are
enumerated in the Massorah magna on Numb. i. 1, and om Ps. evi. 20, and in the
Massoretic work Ochla Ve-Ochlah, p.113. The whole question of the Tikun S:pherim
is most elaborately discussed by Pinsker, in the Hebrew Annual called Kerem Chemed,
vol. ix., pp. 52, ete., Berlin, 1856, and Geiger Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel,
p. 308, etc., Breslau, 1857.
88 The Mechiltha wnb>d is a Midrashic exposition of Exodus xii.—xxxv. 3, attributed
to R. Ishmael ben Elisha, who flourished in the first century of the Christian era. For
a description of the Mechiltha, as well as for R. Ishmael b. Elisha’s rules of interpreta-
tion and influence on Biblical exegesis, see Al der’s edition of Kitto’s Cyclopedia,
8. v. I8sHMAEL BEN ExisHa, and Miprasa. The passage referred to, is to be found in
Exod. xv. 7, section vi., p. 47, &c., ed. Weiss, Vienna, 1865.
68 The work for King Ptolemy, referred to in the text, is the Septuagint, in which the
translators, according to ancient tradition, designedly made thirteen alterations, in order
a oe
70
But for the men of the Great rnne ndvn noi win sida
Synagogue who restored the crown nan vepa wipy ,an272 mw sD
to its ancient state, as it is written,
‘‘They read in the law of God,’ &. [Nehem. viii. 8], see Nedarim
to remove certain offensive expressions, and to prevent misunderstanding the text.
They are as follows according to the order of Jerusalem Talmud, to which Jacob Ibn
Adonijah evidently refers.--i. Gen. i. 1-3, according to the structure of the language, .
and the most ancient traditions still preserved by Rashi and Ibn Ezra, is to be rendered
“In the beginning when God created heaven and earth [i.e., the universe, comp. ii.
1, 4], and the earth was still desolate and void, and darkness was upon the face of the
earth, and the spirit of God hovered upon the face of the earth, then God said let there
be light,” &c. But as this presupp the exist of primordia] waters, and of a
chaotic mass, which by the draining of the waters on the second day became the formed
earth, it was thought ry in translating the Bible into Greek, and in opposition to
the Greek cosmogony and polytheism, to lay great stress on the absolute unity of God,
and on the absolute creation from nothing. Hence the word nwxna, had to be made inde-
pendent of the following verses, and to be rendered in the beginning év apxi éroinoer 6 Ocds,
instead of in the beginning WHEN. This change the Talmud indicates by the pregnant
construction MWN11 NT OTN, thus placing mw last, and precluding every other
translation than God created in the beginning. (Geiger, Urschrift, p. 344, &c). ii.
Gen. i. 26, where ‘let us make man in our image, after our likeness,” has been altered
into “‘ J will make man in the image, and in the likeness,” to remove the appearance of
polytheism. iii. Gen. ii. 2, where “and he ended on the seventh (yawn) day,”
has been changed into (ww7) the sixth day, to avoid the apparent contradiction, since
God did not work on the seventh day. iv. Gen. v. 2 (i. 27), where “male and female
created he them” (ON12 -DNN N13), has been altered into created he i:im (iN73), to remove
the apparent contradiction in the passage where the man and woman are spoken of as
having been created together, or simultaneously, and ii. 21-23, where the woman is
described as having been made out of the man ; as well as to introduce into the version
the notion which obtained among the Jews, that man was created an hermaphrodite,
thus showing the Greeks, that the Hebrew, like their philosopher, believed man to have
been originally androgynous (comp. Midrash Rabba, on Gen. i. 26, section viii., p. 10a,
ed. Stettin, 1863, with Plato, Synposion, p. 84, &.,ed. Engelmann). y. Gen. xi. 7, “ let
us go down, and let us confound” (man 772), has been changed into “ J will go down,
and J will confound ” (mba ih), to remove the apparent polytheism. vi. Gen. xviii.
12, “after my decay, I had again pleasure,” has been altered into *) mma ‘23 “Im
TITY, obmw wey wor yéyovev éws rod viv, after it had been thus with me hitherto, to avoid
the offensive application to the distinguished mother of Israel of the expression ‘93,
which is used for rotten old garments (comp. Geiger, Urschrift, p. 415, &). vii. Gen.
xlix. 6, “in their anger they slew a man, and in their self-will they hamstrung an ox,”
has been altered into “in their anger they slew an ox (11), and in their self-will they
hamstrung a fatted bull (p11x), to do away with the wholesale slaughter of men. viii.
Exod. iv. 20, won, ass, is altered into trogiyc, beasts of burden, because of the reluc-
tance which the translator had to mention the name of this beast. ix. In Exod. mi 40,
and all other lands, i. e., “the land of Canaan” has been added, in order to remove the
apparent contradiction, since the Israelites did not sojourn four hyndred and thirty
years in Egypt. x. In Levit. xi.6, and Dent. xiv. 7, naw = Aeyés, a hare, has been
altered into xotpoypovAdos, porcupine, or hedgehog, to avoid giving offence to the Ptolemy
family, whose name was Lagos. xi. In Numb. xvi. 15, won, ass, has been altered into
71
(87 bj, as quoted above, we should
have walked about as blind men, and
as those who are smitten with blind-
p32 pR pw ons pwn dr onde
rsdn en S95 my shiny anon
135 exDI en 8d1 DID DDI D'DIDD
Souw ann ceo xd nny nme 75
sen nne nop oe nt yo ; vSy Joon
mb wona rdr pao ar aba we ya
tidy eos mad py pn xd yy da
yD Ma's Monn 1ans7 KMD ATA
J8D tNN YAN TOR 133 ,madn mxD PID
md mb po med nwbn or pot
ness, and could not have found any
correct Codex, nor any scroll of the
Law on which we could rely. Thus
we could not have known whether
a word has the } conjunctive or not
but for the Massorah, as Tossafoth
remarks on this subject in connec-
tion with the Levirate law (Jebamoth,
106 6), where ‘Rabbi Abaja says "28 yoeDs wnennd way naxr and
the one who sends a letter of divorce Nan> 375 nnswe we 37 Jy td Da
must not pause «fter the Nb, not, and 7x ‘pa max xd nd mpm ayexnpy
thus read "23! 138, he wants to per-
form the duty of levir (Deut. xxv. 7], since this might convey the idea
that he wants to marry her, &. Now R. Ashai found R. Kahana,
who, being perplexed about it, read "23! 138 NO} with } conjunctive ;
where the former said to him, Have you not heard what Rabe said upon
érOiunua = ton, a desirable thing, by changing Resh into Daleth, in order not to
mention the ass as already stated. xii. Deut. iv. 19, where the sun, moon, and the stars,
are said to have been apportioned to the nation as objects of worship, the word yx) =
Siaxoguéw, to shine, has been inserted, so as to avoid the idolatry of the heathen being
ascribed to God. xiii. Deut. xvii. 3, where we have the statement that God had not
commanded the Israelites to worship other Gods, in accordance with Deut. iv. 19;
it has been altered Day) mow) Ms RD WR, which I have forbidden the nations
to worship, to preclude the possibility of ascribing the origin of idolatry to the God
of Israel.
It only remains to be added, that these alterations are also enumerated in the
Mechilta, on Exod. xii. 40, p. 19, &c., ed. Weiss, Vienna, 1865; and in the Babylonian
Talmud, Megilla 9a, where, however, the following variations occur. i. The Mechilta,
which contains the original account, says nothing about these alterations being restricted
to thirteen. ii. It erroneously makes alteration ii. to consist in Y3yp3), and not in wu. iii.
It restricts alteration vii. to D11N only; and iv. It does not give the reason for alteration
x., which is given in the Jerusalem Talmud. The variations in the Babylonian Talmud
again, are as follows: i. It gives Jifteen instead of thirteen alterations, adding the
substitution of ‘o1TONt = Sa7™TIs, for ~y), Exod. xxiv. 5, and for yyx, ibid. xxiv. 11.
The substitution of this Greek word in both these passages, shows that I was wrong in
my strictures on Jacob b. Chajim’s quotation (vide supra, p. 53, note 31). ii. It rightly
gives wa, as alterajion iii, Gen. i. 2 (v. 2). iii. It states that these alterations
were made in the Pentateuch, and by seventy-two elders, which is not mentioned
in the other records. Of these thirteen alterations so minutely described in these
documents, there are only eight to be found in the present recensions of the Septuagint,
viz., Gen. i. 1, ii. 2, xviii. 12, xlix. 6; Exod. iv. 20, xii. 40; Levit. xi. 16 (Deut. xiv. 7) ;
Numb. xvi. 15. Comp. Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta, p. 25, &c.; Geiger,
Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, p. 439, &c., Breslau, 1857 ; Weiss, Commen-
tary on the Mechilta, p. 19, &c., Vienna, 1865.
54 Vide, supra, p. 48, &c.
72
this subject? R. Kahana answered
him, In this case Rabe himself
yields.” Thus far.
Tossafoth remarks thereupon,
. and this is its language, ‘In the
correct Codices it is NX> without. the
Vav, and this is also evident from
the Massorah [which says}, ‘x
occurs three times, in conjunction
with M38, viz., Deut. x. 10, xxv.
7, and Ps. Ixxxi. 12; and in two
other passages it commences the
verse, and is with Vav conjunctive,
viz., Deut. xi. 80. and xxiii. 6.’ It
also occurs in two other passages of
the same kind, not mentioned in
the Massorah, viz., 1 Sam. xxxi. 4,
and Judges xi. 17.” Thus far
the language of Tossafoth. You
can see now that if it had not
been for the Massorah we should
not have known whether to read wb,
not, or 87}, and not [in Deut. xxv. 7}.
But finding in the Massorah that
MIX &> occurs three times, and
that the passage in question is
counted among them, it, is evident
that the reading was not Nd), and not,
.with Vav. Indeed innumerable ex-
amples might be adduced which are
like it. Again, when the Massorah
mS sow rst and ap vd aap xb md
2J82 Jy Spay nar ads xan oo
man m5 jonwd an nponn 93M)
nyopa 310 73) D/P" oI aNd
85 qonen + nas xd sono 9 mar rd
ov 99S max xd Sane jose nae
(pv mK dy ANN MeDA AMD eA
prop wy jopda See yinwd © mon eds
men man gd) men med vor ada
mdi nde amp 95m Se on Sees vb
spn; meoina pwd peo sy ynnat nas
Drain wen moon dew eypa men
max ed on nan xd pp ma te
raw Rd 42 WT IDR MNEDAT pNINNpID)
BP XSI Waa pT aww IN TIM
am jpop ped kao NNT AAR Rd
pa and) won abo xd uo mona
PVT WIAD ,JBV JD PrN awe xd
yaow denn jor wad) apn pans anew
vend) ed) xd xd pa me opis my
NAD NNT MRT AN ne yD) 0519 JD) BNA
Dynan ne |S Py AMIN MeN INT
ano jmeyyn my San ne Sman me
aessod want qn: monn bya wy
P'3OIT DYPIOD 19 PIN) 17 JD 1D HTD
Me NET MY RANI MD NIN Yn por
perry osdan 55 ‘ines wn prop 7°97
(OI ANA PAN apyIM “MXM nna
enumerates a certain word which is in so many instances preceded by
x, but in none of them by
wd), saying that this construction occurs’
so many times, we know positively that in all other places it is 7).
Thus, for instance, it tells us that in fourteen verses occur Nd, Nd,
and xy, }, and vice versa; and so all the rest. . The same is also
the case with NS and N&), in Numb. xxxi. 22, upon which the Masso-
rites remark: ‘‘And the sign is, the gold belongs to the king,” and the
meaning is, that this passage ought to be so, for there are two passages
which take this ) before the second and the last nouns, whilst the re-
maining ones have no copulative, viz., the passages before us, and Joshua
ix. 1. Now the meaning of this [Massoretic sign] is that the gold,
which indicates the passage beginning with but the gold [Numb. xxxi.
22), is similar in construction, and belongs to the king, which indicates
55 The allusion to Rabe arises from the circumstance that he laid no weight ona
pause. Compare Jebamoth, 106, b.
78
the passage, “and it came to pass,
when all the kings heard”’ [where-
with the verse in Joshua ix. 1
begins]. From this you can see the
mm wbad som me qe Rant eT
ped ming nei qin pdm b> prow
wyenn nia pnwd apy onoan Spa
bys vdibey proan nanay nep sx
beautiful and laconic style of the
Massorites, for thereby they make
known to us how the passage is to
be read and written. If it had not
been for the Massorites, how could b 5
we tell, when we find it written, the P°139 TP RT Rn B wnD) AyNOD
Hittites, anp the Amorites, anp "33°33 pow aD pra p23 "py
the Canaanites, aND the Perizzites, whether the order is right or wrong ?*
The same is the case with plene and defective, since with us the Keri
and Kethiv are of paramount importance, although there is a dispute
as to which of them should be made the basis [in expounding the text] ;
é. g., in Pessachim, 16 b, where the question is about the word b5y9
}PxD Mm oN pyT py Non nop
> seam yim MOXM nnn ans
}>) Spy we mow pe xnsind py pn
ox) anpod ox 39 et ,onpm ondps
% To understand the remark in the text, it is necessary to add to what we have
already said upon this subject (vide supra, p. 30, &.), that Ibn Adonijah alludes to
those six verses out of the twenty, containing the names of the Canaanitish nations,
which are divisible into two groups, of three verses each (‘2 }O pat ‘3), and which with
the other fourteen form one rubric. They are as follows:—
Exod. iii. 8 DIM ATM MPM “woRM onAM 19297
Exod. iii.17 . DWAIN ATT MBM WNT NTT 9392377
Judges iii. 5 . DIT ATTN MET WONT OMIT 9393377
Deut. xx. 17 . SIT ANA MM yIT MroNMm ONT
Joshua ix.1. 2 DID NNT NDT yD AN ONT
Joshua xii. 8 . (DIDNT OMT pI AON ONT
These are the only six instances out of the twenty passages which follow in definite
order; of the other fourteen, there are not only some which do not give all the names,
but each has an urbitrary sequence in the enumeration. They are as follows:—
Exod. xiii. 5 . 2 8 6 DWDM TTT ON on 92977
Exod. xxiii. 28. . . + DIDTM YTT YIM ADM NTT ONT
Exod. xxiii. 28 . ONT NN YI Me WIT me
2 DIDM NMA CNT WONT 822977 nN
.ODIVM AWN MEM cnmM oy dM ANT nN
Numb. xiii. 29 . . . aya NoNM -oM ontmM
Deut. vii. 1 WIPM ATTN MPM YI “WoNM wma TT
Josh. iii. 10 OUT ONT OT NN) TT TT ONT md 29977 AN
Exod. xxxiii. 2 .
Exod. xxxiv, 11
. ee
Josh. xi. 3 . ATM DIM MPM onmM “oOXM °2p2977
Josh. xxiv. 11 . DIM NTT SIM onAM YIM MPM Aw
1 Kings ix. 20 . . . DIM MITT MMT NTT ONT
Ezra ix. 1. oe : : + FONT OT MA NT oy 295
Nehem. ix. 8 . YOIM (OM MPM WNT NIT yy
2Chron.viii.7. 2. . . . » DIDM WM nam XM onan
It will be seen that even in those instances where the order is the same, the use of
the Vav conjunctive is so arbitrary, that were it not for the Massorah, which most
minutely marks both its presence and absence; it would be very difficult to ascertain
the correct orthography.
L
74
[Exod. xii. 46]; and the similar
case in connection with the feast of
tabernacles, where we have M503
nidp32 N50} [Succa, 6 b1;® and
many other examples might be
adduced on this subject (vide
Tossafoth on Succa). This also
obtains by the marginal readings
which are not in the text, the Kametz
and Pattach, and other things of
a similar kind, which alter the
nT NDP pyr Mrnan Son
a1 eiprdr mapd Rows Sno moo
NIM) ; NDT RDP PIB MBNA "y) ANS
;POM|Y propr pans xdi pps psn
MIN keys pMeD oA’ mmpom
sso III 942 NY | BOD pRd Nao
yndron indy ok “tae 2 OND MONA
pTONT NAD MwIT pT MD) MDs "Doe
R713 MHORID Jo") BT ‘42 MwRID NNDYA
nabop meena prin madap meena
sense, and of which there are #5 /27y nopp3 pMDRT 13"h pI
numerous examples. Again, also, myn me ainnd n'spn eps > y3
in the point of the numbers of $snow jy> ,o,pyn’ Sawa inay imnd
passages which the Massorah gives,
saying, ‘There are three or four more,” &c.; from all this we learn
many different laws and explanations. Thus, for instance, when it
is said in the Massorah on the word M'YN13, in the beginning, that it
begins the verse three times, viz., Gen. i. 1; Jerem. xxvi. 1, xxviii. 1;
it throws light upon what is said in the Talmud, where it is declared
“God wanted to reduce the world again to void and emptiness, because
of the wicked Jehojakim, but when He looked upon the people of his
57 As the Kethiv is 2 passive, and the Keri Sox active, two inferences are deduced
therefrom in the Talmud. R. Jehudah maintains that the man who partakes of the
passover, HE must eat it (X2x°) in one place (tmx M22), but that the passover itself may
be divided, and a part of it may be eaten by anoth pany in place; basing
his argument upon the Keri bow he must eat it at one place. Whereas R. Simeon main-
tains that the passover itself rr must be eaten (02°) in one place (re m23), and
cannot be divided between two different companies in different places, though the man
himself, after having eaten his passover at home, may go to another place and partake
of another company’s passover ; basing his argument upon the Kethiv Sp it must be
eaten in one place.
58 The word mp2 occurs three times in the Pentateuch (twice in Lev. xxiii, 42, and
once in ver. 43); in two cases (Lev. xxiii. 42) it is defective, 7. e., without the 4, and in
the third instance it is plene, 7. ¢., with they. Now, upon the saying of the Rabbins
that a tabernacle must have two whole walls, and the third may be a partial one, to be
a legal tabernacle, R. Simeon remarks that it must have three entire walls, and that the
fourth may be a partial one, to constitute it a tabernacle according to the law. This
difference of opinion the Talmud explains by saying that the sages follow the spelling
m2 n2D1 n301, which makes four (since two are in the singular and one in the
plural); one of these four represents the commandment itself, shewing that we must
have a mp, and the remaining three indicate the three walls, one of which is allowed
by the Halacha to be partial. Whereas R. Simeon follows the pronanciation, which is
alike plural in all the three instances, and hence obtains siz. He then takes one of
these three (i. ¢., of the plurals) to indi the ting the feast
itself, and the remaining two plurals, being four in number, he refers to the four walls
of the mp, one of which may, according to the Halacha, be partial.
th
t dment
76
time, His mind was appeased: God
again wanted to reduce the world
to void and emptiness, because of
the people of Zedekiah’s time, but
when He looked upon Zedekiah,
His mind was appeased” [Erachin,
17 aj." Again we read in the
Massorah, “3%, and he separated,
occurs three times, viz., Gen. i. 4,
7; ‘1 Chron. xxv. 1." Now it is
said in the Talmud, ‘* Whoso [in the
Havdalahj|® mentions the separa-
tions [of God] must not mention
less than three, nor more than
seven. ([Query.] To say not more
than seven is right, because seven
sainnd n/apn wpa anys nae 3
bey any sap ymar innd odyyn ne
nav wmpixa dSsnow p> anpir
rrnops pom im 8s sp ny
xn pa ommbe $tan 44 Sian
mar ie nt Syan jon yo San
D’nDD ‘anya TNT Ons oN A373
Simbisn nedwo mop xd nman $3
prow pe nodva yaw dp pow mdi
mbtan yaw svn xp cnn yaw b
pron medv Noe .pp jon 4
129 amp opp vov1 mien
aw oxewsa Ann nner ndsam
sexs midaan nvde mwiy qo
pa qend ae pa jdind esp ys nae
separations are instanced, and there ‘oy need pawn ops 62 +995 Sriw
are no more; but why should there
be not less than three? [Reply]. Because baa) occurs three times ;
and as the first separation was between the Sabbath and the week days,
therefore must the three separations be mentioned at the close of the
Sabbath, viz., ‘between holy and profane,” ‘‘ between light and dark-
ness,” and ‘‘between Israel and the Gentiles ;’’ the fourth separation
which is mentioned on this occasion, viz., ‘between the seventh day and
59 The Massoretic enumeration of these three passages suggests an explanation of the
passage in the Talmud, where Jer. xxvi. 1 and xxvii. 1, are connected with Gen. i. 1,
shewing that God wished, in those cases where MON is used, to destroy the work of
the first meu. May not this striking illustration also suggest the design of the
Massorah in its first origin? :
© The editio princeps differs from the succeeding editions in the quotations. Thus,
for inst , the first, d, and third editions of Jacob. b. Chajim’s Bible indicate
the reference to Genesis i. 7, by quoting simply o»7 y2 712", whereas the later
editions add yp1> nnn wr; whilst the third reference in the editio princeps is to
DwpP wip px 513, which does not occur in the Hebrew Scriptures, and has
therefore rightly been altered in the second, third, and the other editions into
7 7 RAE Aw) WT >
61 Hardalah 1117 is the name of the prayer which the Jews to this day offer on
Sabbath evening, at the going out of the Sabbath and coming in of the week day. The
last benediction in this prayer, in which occur the passages referred to in the Talmud,
ia as follows: ane pa Pom) We p2 ANd wap pa 207 DAT yo whe » FIN a
dm) wip pr Ps» ane a Moynn ow now) wawn oY paDny) Blessed be the Lord
our God, king of the universe, who hast made a distinction between the holy and the
common, between light and darkness, between Israel and the other nations, between the
seventh day and the other six days of work ; blessed be thou, O God, who hast made a
distinction between the holy and the common !
63 This is the reading of the editio princeps, as well as of the second and third editions,
of the Rabbinic Bibles; later editions have substituted pny) for D125, because of the
fear of Christians, who took it to refer to themselves.
76
the six days of creation,’’ is includ-
ed in ‘‘ between holy and profane,”
and is simply repeated in order to
make it agree in sense with the con-
cluding benediction® [Pessachim,
108 b, 104 a]. Again we read in
the Massorah, ‘‘THNB, opened, occurs
four times, and the passages are
Numb. xix. 15, Job xxix. 19, Psalm
v. 10, and Jerem. v. 16;” and
these four correspond to the four :
laws which obtain with regard to
an earthen vessel, viz., when it has
a hole through which the water
runs into it, the law is that it
must not be used for consecrating
therein the water of sin-offering,
thus answering to ‘‘and every open
vessel’? [Numb. xix. 15]; yet it is
still a vessel with respect to the
growing of plants. But if the hole
mina jdind wap pa dbaa. neyo
am & npn py nonnd qnpd 13 mw
95 55) yan) 7 mnB Mops pp
jo) Mna 73p ,o' Sx mnp ww ,MNB
MWD YAW TID PIN) MND 7p> wnwR
bop) pen ons2 3p3 ,own ‘>a ony
rand *%3 $2) 13" RBA 1D 13 wIpoD
wea api oyad winds pay) ap
ap) pxys an ox ,orynd sin nnw’j0p
Sy mn ew 1m no Sapp r2e
hexD2 3p) DN 3 bapd nin >> pay
mnp 3p 13m ,poawd ywyr snp nt
+> pay na nda ono ordny ona
ane por RMS aps ,aynpI NA
sods jmnp inp em) toad NN
sw nperxd now jo wx nw
mum maim &;yby so5 nnn prs
moo pro mma NAS ow 1d
mavens 8 ,s39p2 MnaD OND
is so large that a small root can be
put through it, then it is clean for growing therein plants, for when a
plant grows in a vessel which has a hole, it is no longer subject to
defilement, thus answering to ‘‘my root is opened” (Job xxix. 19];
yet it is still a vessel with respect to olives. If the hole, however, is
so large that an olive can pass through it, then it is clean [or not
subject to defilement], thus answering to ‘‘an open sepulchre is their
throat’’ [Ps. v. 10], for what amounts to eating is the size of an olive ;
yet it is still a vessel with respect to pomegranates. But if the hole
is so large that a pomegranate can pass through it, then it is no longer
subject to any defilement, and thus answers to ‘his heap is as an
open sepulchre”’ [Jerem. v. 16]; that is to say, when the vessel
has a hole through which a pomegranate can pass, it is like a heap
of rubbish, for it is no longer regarded as a vessel.“ Many of the
Massoretic signs are used for such explanations in innumerable cases ;
some of them are dispersed through the book Mordecai,® and in the
68 yn is the reading of the first, second, and third editions of the Rabbinic
Bibles, in accordance with the Talmud (P. him, 103 a), wh it is quoted. Later
editions have erroneously MIPnb.
64 Things in a vessel are, according to the Talmud, subject to defilement. If the
vessel, however, happens to have a hole, then it all depends upon the size of this hole,
the definition of which is the subject of discussion. Compare Maimonides, Jad
Ha-Chesaka, Hilchoth Kelim, section xiv., vol. iii., p. 350; ed. Amsterdam, 1702.
65 *y3919, Mordecai, also called ‘31107 “HD, the Book of Mordecai, is a treatise on the
Legal Code (mis5it “pp), embodying all the laws of the Talmud, which was compiled,
revised, corrected, annotated, and supplemented by Isaac Alphasi. This Sepher
7
Theological Decisions of Maharam,® ‘2197 DAW ome *DN2 podt> %n/snD
where the latter defines what is pao yer :ov yy ymdn ba snsn psp
meant by the word '3{50, he smote mysieix nyse onend onron 30 *D
me, which the Massorah says occurs xb) 5)92 qxd oda nde we wy we
twice, viz., Song of Songs v. 7; yam memp Sy mop nn jon
Proverbs xxiii. 85 (by ® comparison , . & xb
of these two passages), vide in loco. Mp? J) 5 wap) Ban? RA NeVph
In fact, there can be no doubt that pind aa @ on peda oon mean
whenever the Massorites state an ppbdr wnxpb ndisw np 99 jain pan
expression occurs 7 or 4 or 10 or TP? 572 9 yny m2Bn po 93D oD
8 times, they are designed for "7 MD1po3 ,M park) onwya ONDE
some great purpose, and are not "2 N77Un Mopa DNpM ‘mim De
useless. All this shews the great 77HN> nx nen ibe 5 yRED nbpiaw
sanctity of our holy law, and that the mn omen yo man Mdyin wands
parallels are marked with a design. awa np naan andy jdya Jen
Moreover, when the Massorah makes yom Sian nbyinn omen +> NYNAY
the remark in Chaldee, there is a smb) xnsq mom jmp) adv monn
reason for it, wie vie found Aden yx tow sypania Seri qwn pie
D . ' ‘
T have collected all that I could find 77 5? ™ 722 WEY Pepin yey
of their remarks in the Massoretic books which I possess, collated it,
and put it in these twenty-four sacred books, arranging everything in
its proper place, and I have repeated it again in the Massorah finalis,
so that it can easily be found. Were I inclined to write more largely
upon this subject, and to show the use of all the Massorah, and
support it by proofs, it would occupy too much space, and the perusal
of it would be a weariness to the flesh.
When I saw the great benefit which is to be derived from the
Massorah magna, the Magsorah parva, and the Massorah finalis, I
apprised Seignior Daniel Bomberg of it, may his Rock and Redeemer
protect him! and shewed him the advantage of the Massorah. Where-
Mordecai has been printed with the Sepher Ha-Halachoth, Constantinople, 1509;
Venice, 1521-22; Sabionetta, 1524, &c. It has also appeared separately, Venice, 1558;
Cracow, 1598, &c. Compare Fiirst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii., 8324, &c.; Steinschneider,
Catalogus Libr. Hebr. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, 1659, &c. The work derives its
appellation from the author, whose name was Mordecai b. Hillel, and who was martyred
at Niirnberg, 1810.
6 myn, Maharam, is the acrostic of WRN WT IN, our teacher the Rabbi Meter.
This R. Meier b. Baruch, who was born 1230, and died 1298, was one of the most
distinguished Jewish literati during the middle ages, and the first official chief Rabbi in
the German empire, to which dignity he was nominated by the Emperor Rodolph I., of
Hapsburg. He had his seat and college at Rottenburg-an-der-Tauber, whence he is also
called Meier of Rottenburg, or Meier Rottenburg. His Theological Decisions, or
Questions and Answers (m2vwn mxw), have been published at Cremona, 1557;
Prague, 1603. He also wrote Commentaries on the Massorah (mpd “W), which are
still in MS. in the public libraries. Compare First, Bibliotheca Judaica, iii., 176, &.,
Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, vol. vii., p. 183, &c.; Leipzig, 1863.
or © errs
78
upon he did all in his power to
send into all the countries in order
to search what may be found of the
-Massorah; and, praised be the
Lord, we obtained as many of the
Massoretic books as could possibly
be got. The said gentleman was
not backward, and his hand was not
closed, nor did he draw back his
right hand from producing gold out
of his purse to defray the expenses
of the books, and of the messengers
who were engaged to make search
for them in the most remote corners,
and in every place where they might
possibly be found.
wand jmd-5in 1S $59 mw ino rnp
beeb nbam jmmopnn ayo no 45
“were mo moan sap wd ydabans
857 Sepna xd conn sem jSadannd
ant Sunda ame sen xd yD yop
ombwm open np mesma wp
m'pos1 omnna mesnd ydunes saws
yn mpp d921
smananny mop spa tneNaw IAN)
owaien nSona odadian orn ona
139 ND DY PR Wwe Ma OND PRE TY
byadam monn dpa wap nny orpipan
.BnS MAY ONDON ome *5 on. any Svan
3102 Aan MoD nnn Rd ,2'30 MopN
TON PIO? D7, Nya ne orpioan
And when I examined these Mas- px Sn snen pops opie new 1k
soretic books, and mastered their nde yao jan rer byrny fy sem
contents, I oma a them In the pbyy Snno an monn jaem enn
utmost disorder and confusion,: so 68 4!5 a9 67 5!
much go that there was not asen- > "M177 WM TP TMM Ma’
tence to be found without a blunder, that is to say, the quotations from
the Masgorites are both incorrect and misplaced; since in those copies
{of the Bible] in which the Massorah is written in the margin, it is not
arranged according to the order of the verses contained in the page.
Thus, for instance, if a page has five or six verses, the first of which
begins with 8", and he said, the second with 13°}, and it was told,
the third with TN, and this, the fourth-with N2WY, and he sent, the
fifth with WM, and she sat, the Massorah begins with NW", the
fourth verse, “the word 22) occurs twenty-two times; then
follows verse two, “the word 73°) occurs twenty-four times ;’® and
sys
8 The instances in which myw™ is the Piel, future, with Vav conversive, are the
following: Gen. viii. 7, 8, 12; xix. 29; xlv. 24: Exod. xviii. 27: Numb. xxii. 40: Josh.
xxiv. 28: Judges ii. 6; iii. 18; xv. 5: 1 Sam. x. 25; xi. 7; xxx. 26: 2 Sam. iii. 21;
xviii. 2: 2 Kings v. 24; xvii. 25, 26; xxiv. 2: Psalm cvi.15. In the Massorah marginalis
on Gen. viii. 7, where the instances are enumerated, twenty-one only are given, and
there are no more to be found in the Bible, though the Massorah, like Ibn Adonijah,
states that there are twenty-two, unless we include in this rubric mu (Exod. vi. 11),
with Vav conjunctive. It is moreover to be added, that there is evidently a misprint in
the Massorah, where we have 11) mow, 8 second time instead of myn me mw (Gen.
viii. 12). :
68 The twenty-four instances in which 13°), Hophal, future, with Vav conversive, are
as follows: Gen. xxii. 20; xxvii. 42; xxxi. 22; xxxviii. 18, 24: Exod. xiv. 5: Josh.
x.17: Judges ix. 25, 47: 1 Sam. xv. 12; xix. 19; xxiii. 7; xxvii. 4: 2 Sam. vi. 12;
x.17: 1 Chron. xix. 17: 2 Sam. xix. 2; xxi. 11: 1 Kings i. 51; ii. 29, 41: 2 Kings vi.
18; viii. 7: Isaiah vii. 2. They are enumerated in the Massorab finalis, under the
letter He, p. 22}, col. 4.
.
79
then the fifth verse, ‘the word
2¥9) occurs fifteen times,’’® without
any order or plan. Moreover, most
of these [Massoretic remarks] are
written in a contracted form and
with ornaments, so much so that
they cannot at all be deciphered,
as the desire of the writer was only
to embellish his writing, and not to
examine or to understand the sense.
Thus, for instance, in most of the
copies there are four lines [of the
Massorah] on the top of the page,
and five at the bottom, as the writer
would under no circumstances dimi-
nish or increase the number. Hence,
whenever there happened to be any
of the alphabetical lists,” or if the
Massoretic remarks were lengthy,
he split them up in the middle, or at
the beginning, and largely intro-
duced abbreviations, so as to obtain
Bans YM Ham ppm Wo a yy
movers mn ede sy on oneps
TNT Wy NINd °> 737 Ow yD pand
mn na yd) pand xd) inane mod
yas ws An wea yn Sepa nama
5 oDron ody ,won ww mond) mene
ped we a's yee De ya ad) OID men
{WRI2 WW peDR? propp mn Sy mon
syne mend > naan onp aypD 72)
maxn omy jnadsn nr S59 omecwoy
yerpropn no Sy monn $5 ord nonna
oman > yne monn “po ‘nen ome)
Nopon sao ans Aw np ndyt tas
“13 WPM "Bion NOIN OMe Mopar
nbyod “1 sBopa nw nen nnwend
MopN “SNA wpap ‘nym ww ADD ‘Mm
‘naxow mopos) 22 Sy oxpnn “nem
nny M2 Dw Mt Mon po ys woA
RED! JD) ON myt onan na Mw
wootny “nin NApoN mna‘aD 31nd
even lines. Now, when I observed
all this confusion, I bestirred myself in the first place to arrange all the
Massoretie notes according te the verses to which they belonged,
and then to investigate the Massoretic treatises in my possession,
apart from what is written in the margin of the Bibles. Whenever
an omission or contraction occurred [in those copies of the Bible
which had the Massorah] in order to obtain even lines, or four lines
{of Massorah] at the top [of a page in the Bible] and five at the bottom,
I at once consulted the Massoretic treatises, and corrected it according
to order. And whenever I found that the Massoretic treatises differed
from each other, I put down the opinions of both sides, as will be found
in the margin of our edition of the Bible published by us, with the Masso-
rah,” the word in dispute being marked to indicate that it is not the lan-
69 The instances in which 3M) occurs, are as follows: Gen. xxi. 16 (twice) ; xxi. 34;
xxxvili. 11,14; xlix. 24: Josh. vi. 25:-1 Sam. i, 23: 2 Sam. xiii. 20: 1 Kings ii. 19:
Ruth ii. 23,14. They are enumerated in the Massorah marginalis, on Gen. xxxviii. 11,
and on 2 Sam. xiii. 20, where it is distinctly stated that there are only twelve instances ;
and indeed there are no more to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures. Tho statement,
therefore, in the text, that there are fifteen such instances, which is to be found in all
the editions of Jacob b. Chajim’s Introduction, must be a slip of the pen.
70 By Alphabetic Massorah is meant, a certain number of exceptions, or peculiar
forms of words, which come under the same rubric, and are arranged and enumerated
in alphabetical order.
71 Hence the Massorah thus put in the margin obtained the name Massorah
marginalis.
80
guage of the Massorah ; and when-
ever I took exception to the statement
of a certain Codex of the Massorah,
because its remark did not harmonise
with the majority of the copies of
the Massorah, whilst the same diffi-
culty was not found in the others,
or whenever it contradicted itself,
or where there was a mistake, I
made a careful search till I dis-
covered the truth, according to my
humble knowledge ; but sometimes
I had to leave it in uncertainty, and
for this reason there will be found
many such in the margin of the
Bible which we printed. The Lord
alone knows how much labour I
bestowed thereon, as those will
testify who saw me working at it.
As to the revision of the verses, it
would have been impossible for me
to do it correctly without knowing
the whole Scriptures by heart, and
this is far from me. But for a
certain book called Concordance,
the author of which is the learned
R. Isaac Nathan,” who lived some
forty years ago, published in our
printing-office at Venice, I could
not have corrected the verses. This
is a precious work; it embraces .
all the points of the Holy Bible, ’
and explains all the sacred Scrip-
tures, by stating all nouns and verbs
with their analogous forms, and
giving at the heading of every noun
wera nya jxnnden by po mona
rene mmppa 73) ; moan 5y3 pwd
moby opAD Ins wo 1195 Sy +b nwp
MOA) ,DM!ON 272 IID AD NN
mopypoay nep mn Nd) ome DIS MIN
Myo enw we NTI MID Np mone
my noen am none ay pin nen
T 12) pboa 225 snman marpear ny
M330 FIND RYO WRI NP yD NDI
yw oem ;yopthe nr paw ony
non1|p nraar nt Sy omiay np ns
nana) 213 payny ome mew tp b5b
his) cnene wR mn NS mpioen
owen b> yoy neny oo ade mand
spo idan 200 ndyr nr np by yao
msn yan AYDITNpNp wow AApIN IN
Maw oY wa mind simp one
noid pryeazt jm) pmy’ a7 wow
xd prot M33 NA AD DEW Tas
sb am and i onenw wera mon
seapi ,wyipn anon “mp b> app apr
byyay ow 55 nana wiipn anspn 55
wep Sypr ow 55 wear ad norin op
yoo mene 50-79 BPD mn nnn
DMN 1¥Ad JD) 7D DED) DPR ID)
waa 55) nee) new S59 nprdna oyen
nen nan 4553) new ya 755 wan
W ‘DWT PrDBS ,2_ I RDN Net
; pian xp mdpra Aan nt napaw ,'5
smyow DYSyp ‘mae 315 ws Tn prIOD ON)
ww3 nr prop exon Pras sy Seay 123
DR DRY TY nOD wIwar TP ew) by
and verb an explanation, saying the meaning of the word is so and so,
and branches out in such and such a
manner, and comments upon each
one separately. It also marks the division of each chapter, and the
number of chapters in every prophetical book, and tells in which
chapter and verse every word occurs, i. ¢., verse 4, 20, or 80, thereby
any word wanted may easily be found. And if a verse has four or.
five verbs or nouns, ¢.g., JN'D3 "1"
>¥r, in the shadow of mine hand
(Isa. li. 16], you will find it quoted ‘under by, shadow ; under 73, hand ;
and under 153, to cover ; so that if you only remember one word in the
7 For R. Isaac Nathan, see Kitto’s Cyclopedia, s.v.
\
81
verse, whether verb or noun, you
will easily find the required passage
under the root of the verb or noun.
The advantage to be derived from
this book is indescribable; without
it there is no way of examining the
references of the Massorah, since
one who studies the Massorah must
look into the verse which the Mas-
sorah quotes, and which without a
concordance would take a very long
time to find, as you might not know
in which prophet the passage refer-
red to occurs, and if you knew the
prophet, you might still not know
the chapter and verse. Besides, all
the world is not so learned in the
Scriptures. Whosoever has this
concordance does not require any
more the lexicon of Kimchi, for it
contains all the roots, whereunto
is added an index of all the verses
in the Bible: none of them is
wanted. In conclusion, without it
I could not have done the work
which I have done.
Seeing that the Massorah was
too large to be printed entire in
the margin, I have not repeated
the Massoretic remark after it has
been given once. Thus, for in-
stance, now,. and he sent, occurs
twenty-two times: I enumerated
the passages in the remark on the
words 7
nw Mme man O19 yd ITI OD
pap kyDn Asn ,pIoBND oF I Ip
nowy; konn men iN jSpen ews
yndon aban ped spon nt ndpim ndpo
nomnb mona pyyd pe wiydar
wpa’ "pone pox’ ASN Jw poEn
/Tox@ andre mn Nvape pian
yr ede opp wat *> 37 yor nay”
b> pay qo iyt yee) on waa mea
‘my ror app xpdy 55 wed) jkeaan
ws 15 aoe pa eed nt seo puny
mon Sy HDD owen 13 Ww *D mp
stn te som xd eapon sprop bap opp
no meyd Sia snen xd wiyda rat 0
pepe
wetnd 39 mn mnopn > NT
iO’ *NNIA I3S5y Opa RX Ipon aa rbd
mime oy wand nen wd 8 opp ,’x
nds ome snans ,2/5 on nde arnt
ayn ne nde propa m3 Toa nme ops
tree kd ane nde > one snypinws
3nd) 735 *> Mme opp rans qand
3m. 7903 7oD2 kiN snand Sax jonnn
was 55) odyn ony mena ons3a1
mene Soa ew .oyp n> wa impd3 12
‘bp 8333 TOD) AMD ‘NN DX NED
mn xbe pana soe xx nn 25
mm ,dy72 "ps ox 1D w¥Dd mweRS
125 pwpado ona mm 1a yp yyyon
wang Ayerannprdna wonend sno
A™EITNpIpA WD yN2 pny 37 DI
by) [Gen. viii. 8], and when I afterwards came again to the word
nbw, in another place, I did not repeat all these references, having
given them once before, but simply said the Massoretic remark will be
found in section Noah.* As the prophetic books are large, every pro-
phet having on an average twenty-five chapters, my labour would have
been in vain if I had simply said the word is found in such and such
a prophet, since the reference could not be found without great exertion,
and the student would soon have grown weary and left it off alto-
gether. I have therefore adopted the division of the chapters which
R. Isaac Nathan made, and said it occurs in such and such a prophet,
78 11) is the title of one of the Sabbatic lessons, comprising Gen. vi. 9-xi. 83; vide
supra, p. 8, § xiv., note 12.
M
82
and in such and such averse. Had
I-at that time the Massoretic divi-
sion of the chapters on the whole
Bible I would have preferred it, but
I did not get it till I had almost
finished the work. I have, never-
theless, published it separately, so
that it may not be lost to Israel.
To make the Massorah perfect, I
was obliged to rearrange the Mas-
sorah magna, for it was impossible
to print it in the margin of the
Bible, for it is too large; I have
therein adopted the alphabetical
order of the Aruch, to facilitate the
reader. Moreover, all that we have
printed of the Massorah magna in
the margin of the Bible, I have also
repeated a second time in the Mas-
sorah finalis, which I arranged
alphabetically according to the ex-
ample of the Aruch, but did not
give it again entire; I have only
repeated the beginning of the re-
marks, Thus, for instance, I said
“¢the word 3¥") occurs fifteen times,
as you will find in such and such a
prophet and passage ;’’ the same
is the case with other observations
which I have omitted, and this I
have done designedly. Let an
illustration suffice. If the student
will examine a page of a prophetical
or any other book of the Bible, he
will find that it has generally ten or
pndp yooa nba xeaa 303 nna)
npvdn xx nen yen ya np prt pynd
serpon Saas mona tps yponw mrenen
indy mpp vonyn> yan am’ cnn
ppos qasw ined > nysn qaone
bab em oo mopind ome nodwn
: baw qaxm nanen
‘non jby mon mmw "3)
pre abyan mopn qa cnx sand) ypnd
wins BD hw sap nopind nnwara
(woo PAA WW NAD NII AMs3
woptnw np b> yay sna Rnp pry yyad
‘ODM TT YAWN) OWT 33D MIODND
Ams nqam on adytan ad mpsorn
xy ppt vos smo nbvan mepn ay
30") p> DPI eR ox +3 wand nen
bo por dp yovoa ondp waa top) 1p
pryon ox Seon ;naoo nn npwe np
We we pT wma pnbrr ye aaa py
man ede yon xd prop boa ppp x
mop mopm ADD nA yw nan
mow) nop na we man 593 wn
sinsd avers mn ed nn ya 5 9
yn pee med yee maw rdy> moon
ww “Ton ‘nan Mod mon ow
yom ,Noyn am pm jana Sy ‘n
(PT 2D TMX opps om px pv xd
epyppa avpay > on opp Area
bo mt pager mwys paw 1293 awn
px snanyin yoo a yee monoon
nea jkna7 mMp_s wAN Nann wrws
eleven verses ; that there is not a verse which is without a Massoretic
remark on a word or more, and that the Massorah parva notes every
word upon which there is any Massorah, and says it occurs four,
thirteen, or fifteen times; and that it was impossible to print the whole
Massorah which belongs to that page; hence, when there are ten
words on it which belongs to the Massorah, I only give four or five
at most [in the Massorah marginalis], as the space of the page does
not admit of more. Now the student, not knowing whether it is given in
another place, or where to look for it, might think that this Bible has
not all the Massorah which belongs to it. I have therefore been obliged
to indicate in the root of the word in the Massorah magna, in what
88
part it is printed in such and such
a prophet, and with what sign. I
have also been obliged to repeat
and state in the Massorah finalis
many of the Massoretic remarks
which the former editors have omit-
ted in sundry places, because the
page happened to be just as large
as was required for printing the
other matter. You therefore find
it many a time stated in the margin
of the Bible [t.e., Massorah margi-
nalis], the Massorah on this passage
is in the Massorah finalis. Wher-
ever, also, the Massoretic remarks
belonging to a certain page were so
numerous as to render it impossible
to give them in their proper place,
which was too narrow, or wherever
there were the alphabetical remarks
of the Massorah magna which be-
longed to the same page, I always
noted in the margin, ‘‘ This is one of
such and such an alphabet, and is
noted in the Massorah finalis under
such and such a letter,” so that the
student may easily find it. And
you must not be astonished to find
in the Massorah such language as,
“It is noted in second or first
Samuel, or second Kings, or second
Chronicles,”’ or to see Ezra and
Nehemiah separated ; for the author
of the Concordance, who divided
the law, prophets, and hagiographa
into chapters, also divided Samuel,
j>) nde yoroa yndp x22 p_I)_ MPD
n377 DDI WDE MDipp nana
snpyn mend ond yore nad oon
snzasin ipsa naxdnd prey 7772 ke
nyo 25) mdi mops onsnds and
3D) TWDyA M330 ANS oODyD 739
w’>p odin ops 43) 28ND MINDS
mn ade py med msee yne nist
monn yy! apppa movwetnd wens
yoron bs Ssnp pep mn spym pr
ww ja. moan mn’a KNBONS jn
MNS NoyA 330 ‘nan> Nya oy
Mp3 op ba ak yD IN wn mM
ow aw Sa5 ondp me noayos ans4
xxow> mond per 5 wpad j»yod mop
2 ponies ,'2 Sxyowa top; Mpa sins
xayar {2 7/93 7D) |/3 ordpa ]>) ‘Re
mene npbn nop sa an jmpn23 343
ams osmsm osm mm
yor orpon ‘25 Same pbn woxtmpnpa
y2 Won N3T yk) A oop
mdr moma iow ap de) own mdan
rand oo) mpbns wewone3w anND
‘nospn an ains> snore wDITNpIpA
oxy Son oom mpm $5 nxt
933 M33 yO APN HDw) MDP
‘nD7pi AR ODT. one rnp ypnd bor
woah mprdm mpibn $32 mt t’53) nat
Nizo> 12 RNP PrP yyod [ew yoron
yO" TOD) Moda Wikw> wpIsD
:nbp
ma “nro $52 DD yin Xd 97
Kings, and Chronicles respectively into two books, and denominated
Ezra the first ten chapters of the book, and the rest of the book he
called Nehemiah ; and as I have adopted the division of the Concord-
ance, I thought it advisable to append to the end of this intro-
duction a list of all the chapters, with the words with which they
begin, and of their number in each book ; so that if there crept in any
mistakes in printing, they may easily be rectified by this list, printed at
the end of the Introduction. We have printed in this Bible the num-
ber of every chapter, in order that the student may easily find the
passage when the Massorah says, ‘‘It is noted in such a chapter.”
Behold, I have exerted all my might and strength to collate and
84
arrange the Massotah with all the
possible improvements, in order
that it may remain pure and bright,
and show its splendour to the na-
tions and princes; for, indeed, it
is beautiful to look at. This was a
labour of love for the benefit of our
brethren, the children of Israel, and
for the glory of our holy and per-
fect law, as well as to fulfil as far
as possible the desire of Don Daniel
Bomberg (may his book protect
him !), whose expenses in this mat-
ter far exceed my labours. And as
regards the Commentaries, I have
exerted my powers to the utmost
degree to correct in them all the
mistakes as far as possible; and .
whatsoever my humble endeavours ©
could accomplish was done for the
benefit of our people ; and I would
npn baa moan jp miweyd
na ma mend 9 weERe
nay *> HY me ov wm oop manny
sane nbyin camed nn en moo
moon nym wenn mean ,bevw
beat Sop sen ndaer men mxdndi
FR ERY ADA He MD sryADD
}2) Mawr nbvaa ninwn wpose *B by
mnyon pnd ns *xpxn 55 “noe owrppa
‘NYT NVI ID AYeNY NDS) WEXY nDa
smiios xd) pvop nad Syind) owe ond
xd oryd mow oo 350 men Sava ane
‘mewn xd), ops yn Apna yn paw) sna
*maay xan +> indyn_ -npd ndyba arpd
yorpn naxdp moxdpa mbon mad nnn .
i'Sundy Sennnd 25% see nan mane
: yor maid onbs od moor
glory of the Lord, and for the
not be deterred by the enormous
labour, for which cause I did not suffer my eyelids to be closed long,
either in the winter or summer, and did not mind rising in the cold of
the night, as my aim and desire were to see this holy work finished.
Now praised be the Creator, who granted me the privilege to begin
and to finish this work. Remember me, O my God, for good! Amen.
85
2
PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE REFERRED TO.
ENESIS Chap. Ver. Page. Chap. Ver. Page.
or Page. ali, - 65 xxvii 1 . 68
1 71, 74, 75 xlv. 24 . 78 «27 62
1-8 - 70 xlix. 6 70, 71
2 . 71 o «6. . 79 NuMBEBs.
4 16 i. . 69
7 . 15 Exopvus. v. 18 . 54
26 . 70 iii, 5 . 73 oe 14 . 64
27 . 70 oe 8 ‘ 73 vii. 1 "59
2 70, 71 - (17 - 8 xi, 15 68
1-23 . iv. 19 . 88 -. «32 64
22 70 oe 20 70, 71 xii 3 . 64
2 . 7 vi. 11 7 oe 12 . 68
7 70 | xii-xxxv. 38 - 69 xiii. 29 73
9 81 -. 40 70.71 | | xvi. 15 70, 71
7 . 8 -. 46 78, 74 xix. 15 7
8 78, 81 xiii. 5 30, 73 xxii. 40 . 78
12 . « «=16 61, 62 xxvii. 11 62, 68
7 . 70 xiv. 5 . 7 xxix. 19 60
83 . 81 xv. 7 69 ~ 81 . 60
1 . 45 xviii. 27 . 78 oe 33 . 60
2 45, 54 xix. 22 . 63 xxxi. 2 - 49
8 . xxiii, 18 . 67 o «22 - 72
19 . 16 - 19 . bb
27 . 45 «= 8 . 73 DEUTERONOMY.
5 49, 67 -. «28 . 78 i, 1 - 650
12 70, 71 xxiv. 5 58, 71 iv. 19 . 71
22 . 68 - Al 58, 71 vy. 81 - 49
29 78 xxvii. 11 . 64 vi. 4 . 59
5 . 64 xxix. 29 - 881 oe 8 61, 62
16 . 7 xxxiii, 2 - 7 oe 9 59
20 718 xxiv. 11 - 7 vii 1 . 78
14 45 xxxix. 12 . 62 x. 10 72
16 . 4 x. = =(18 - 59
28 . 45 Leviticus. . 18 61, 62
55 45, 49 i. 80 «= . 59
57 . 45 ii, 15 . 64 .. 80 . 72
6 . 59 x 16 . 416 xiv. 7 70, 71
27 . 62 xi. 6 . 70 xvii. 8 . a
19 . 16 . 16 » 2 x. 17 .- 8
29 . 65 oe 89 . 54 xxii. 15 . 45
42 . ~. 42 . 15 - 16 45
22 . 4 xii. 5 . 15 » 19 . 46
84 79 xiii, 10 . 54 -» 20 » 45
4 . 64 oe 21 . 54 oe 21 45
8 . 45 . 33 . 15 we 23 . 45
12 . 45 xiv. 12 . 81 -. 2 . £6
11 . 79 xv. 10 . 57 oe = 25 - 46
18 78 xvi. 381 . 54 -. «26 . 45
14 79 xxi. 9 . 64 ve 27 . 45
24 . 8 xxiii. 42 . 14 - «288 . 465
25 » 54, - «648 . 1 oo «= 28 » 45
iil, . 72
XXxV. 7 71, 72
xxviii, 27 45, 51, 63
.. 80 45, 51
xxxiii. 27 . 53
xxxiv. 12 5
xxxviii. 80 68
JOSHUA
iii 10 73
vi 25 19
viii. 11 64
ix, 1 72, 73
x 17 78
xi 3 73
xii 8 73
xvi 8 64
xxiv. ll 30, 73
-- 28 . 78
JUDGES.
ii 6 . 78
iii. 5 . 73
oe 18 78
ix 25 78
47 78
x 13 40
xi 17 72
xv. 5 78
xvi 31 58
xx. 13 50
xxi 20 65
Rots
11 49
a 14 . 79
- 28
- 64
-. 17 40, 49, 50
1 SamuzE.L.
i. 9 16, 25
-. =—28 . 79
ii. 9 . 64
-. 24 57, 58, 66°
iii, 18 . 68
ve 6 465, 51, 63
oe 9 45, 51, 63
oe 12 = 45, 51, 63
vi. 4 45, 51, 63
oe 5 = 45, 51, 63
oe 17 . 63
vii. 9 . 65
x. 21 . 64
-. = 25 18
xi 7 . 78
xii 10 65
xiii 19 . 65
xv. 12 78
Ver. 5
14 . 64
5 . 64
7 . 78
29 . ll
4 . 78
26 . 78
4 : 72
2 SamvEy.
11 . 64
19 . 79
21 . 78
12 . 78
3 40, 49, 50
17 . 78
20 . 64
20 . 79
21 . 50
33 40, 50
31 . 40
12 . 68
21 . 50
23 40, 49
2 . 78
20 40, 50
2 . 78
ll . 78
14 . 64
33 . 40
1 Kives.
1 65
51 78
19 79
29 78
41 78
9 65
20 73
5 64
7 65
16 68
15 54
a2 64
44 67
2 Kines.
84 . 64
9 . 64
18 40, 49, 50
24 . 78
18 . 78
25 . 51
7 . 78
27 . 51
18 . 64
25 . 78
26 . 78
27 . 51
81 . 40
37 40, 50
18 . 65
5 . 65
2 . 78
"68,
PRovErss.
aii, 250] 4
xxiii, BB) 77
xvi, 24 230.64
Xxx. 10 . 64
.. 17 . 34
EccLEstastEs.
v. 9 . 54
Sone or Sones.
ii. 11 .
v. 7 . V7
Isalan.
vii. 2 . 78
xiii, 16 45,51, 63
XXX, 33 .
Xxxxvi. lz 51
xxxvii. 30 65
-. 82 50
xlii, = 24 34
xlviii. 8 26
li. 16 80
li 5 64
lvi 10 64
Chap. Ver. Page.
i 13 64
ohs JEREMIAH P
p. Ver. \.
i. 5 . “
ii, ol . 68
-. «= 24 . 57
iii. 2 46, 61, 63
v. 16 . 76
xv. 8 64
xvii, = 11 64
xXxvi. 1 74, 75
xxviii. 1 74, 75
XXxi. 38 40, 49, 50
xxxvili. 16 40, 50
xxxix. 12 40, 50
ae 14 . 26
xlviii. 7 . 65
1 =.29 40, 49, 50
li. 3 40,
LamMENTATIONS.
iii = 19 69
-- 89 64
EZEXIEL.
iii, 12 . 50
vii. 21 - 65
viii, 17 68
xvii, = 21 64
Xxxi. 5 64°
xl 22 64
iv.
Ver. Page.
26 64
ll .
16 16, 40, 49
Danie.
21 65
15 65
Hosea
7 68
OBaDIAH
ll 64
Hasakkuk.
12 . 68
14 64
ZECHARIAH
12 68
2 45, 51
MawacHt
18 68
88
INDEX II.
TOPICS AND NAMES.
A
ABARBANEL, see ABRAVANEL.
AnRAVANEL, his opinion about the origin
of the Keri and Kethiv, 44-47, refut-
ed by Jacob b. Chajim, 50-52, 54.
Ansa, Rabbi, 63, 71.
AsorH d’ Rabbi Nathan, 54,
Acuag, Rabbi, 58, 71.
ADELEIND, Cornelius, 10. ;
Arn, the middle letter in the Psalms, 15.
Axzea, Rabbi, 60.
ALASHEAR, Moses b. Isaac, 2.
Axton, Chajim, 4, 38.
ANTHROPOMORPHISMS, removed from the
text, 68.
»10. ©
Aruca, the, 40; different editions of, 41,
49, 51, 67 ; its definition, Ztur Sophe-
rim, 67, 82.
B
Brn-AsHER, 7.
Ben-NapParatt, 7.
BengaMIn of Tudela, 41.
BeEresaira, Rabba, see MipRasH.
Bub, the Rabbinic, description of, 6, &.,
21, 40.
Bomsere, Daniel, establishes a Hebrew
printing office at Venice, 4; his great
expenses and work connected with
the Rabbinic Bible, 8, 9, 41, 77, 78;
engages Levita as corrector of the
Hebrew works, 9; his publications,
10; suppresses Jacob b. Chajim’s
name in consequence of his embrac-
ing Christianity, 11, 14; parts with
Jacob, 13.
Buxtorr. 35.
CassEx, David, 10.
Cuak.es V., 9.
CuristTians charging the Jews with wil-
fully altering the text, 42; refutation
of the charge, 66-71.
Copiczs, three, of the Temple, and their
readings, 52, 58.
Corrcy, Moses de, 10.
Crowns, Book of, 61, 62.
D
Deuirzscx, 24.
Derensure, Dr., 25,
E
Earpro, de Viterbo, Cardinal, befriends
vita, 9.
Evers, 37.
Exvrezer, Rabbi, 53.
Epxopt, his view of the origin of the Keri
and Kethiv, 42, 48; refuted, 55.
Exscu and Gruber’s Encyklopiidie, 10.
Erneriper, Dr., 41.
EvpPHEMIsMs, substituted for ph
nous expressions, 51, 63.
Bupa, suthor of the Keri and Kethtv,
F
4, h. re
Lf
Ferrer, Vi » Pp
of the Jews, 2.
FERRERS, 3.
Franken, Vorstudien zu der Septua-
ginta, 71.
FrensporFr, Dr., 11; his edition of the
Ochla Ve-Ochla, 25, 26; declares
that the Ochla Ve-Ochla is not the
same ag that used by Jacob b. Chajim,
, 28.
Fuerst calls Jacob b. Chajim Tunist, 1;
erroneously asserts that Jacob b.
Chajim’s Introduction was published
in English, by Kennicott, 6; his
opinion about the date of the edition of
Jacob b. Chajim’s Treatise on the
Targum, 10; his enumeration of
Jacob b. Chajim’s works, 10, 14;
he regards the Ochla Ve-Ochla as
lost, 25.
G
Gaon, 65.
GeiczR, his opinion on the Commentaries
ascribed to Ibn Ezra, 7; his descrip-
tion of the Mass h, 153 his charg
against Ibn Adonijah of suppressin;
the materials, 17; refytation of the
charges, 18-23 ; strictures on Frens-
dorff's remarks on the Ochla Ve-
Ochla, 26; his fixing the date of the
Ochla Ve-Ochla, 84; Urschrift und
Uebersetzungen der Bibel, 49, 53, 69,
70, 71.
Gxrauon b. Jehodah, 24.
GERUNDENSIS, Moses, see NACHMANIDES.
Graztz, Geschichte der Juden, 24, 57,
H
Hatue MS. of the Massorah, described
28-80; its relation to the printed
Massorah of Jacob b. Chajim, 30, 31;
to the Ochla Ve-Ochla, 31-33; its
date, 84.
Hannakz, Rabbi, 48.
HapwraRa, see PENTATEUCH.
Heretics, see CHRISTIANS.
Honnau, Joshua, 57, 59.
Horrexp, his description of the Halle
y
Havpauag, 75.
I
Inn Adonijah, see Jacop BEN CHasIM.
Inn Amin quotes the Ochla Ve-Ocila,
» 25.
Isn Chabib. Jacob, 10.
Inn Ezra, 6, 7; commentaries ascribed to
him, which belong to Moses Kimchi,
7; his rendering of Gen. i. 1-3, 70.
Inn Shemtob, 10.
Ipa, Rabbi, 64.
Ika, Rabbi b. Abaja, 48.
Isaac b. Jehudah quotes the Ochla Ve-
Ochla, 24, 25.
——- b. Moses Ha-Levi, see EpHopt.
—— b. Asher, 57.
Rabbi, 48, 57.
IsumarL Rabbi, 39, 53, 60, 61, 69.
Irur Sopherim, 42, 48, 49, 67, 68.
J
Jacos b. Chajim, also called Ibn Adonijah,
and Tunisi, probable date and place
of his birth, 1, 2; emigrates from
Tunis, 4; becomes connected with
Bomberg, edits the Babylonian and
the Jerusalem Talmuds, 1, 5, 38; the
Hebrew Concordance of Nathan, the
Jad Ha-Chezaka of Maimonides, 5;
ublishes the great Rabbinic Bible, 6;
is treatise on the Targum, 9, 12, 13;
his name suppressed, 11, 36; embraced
Christianity, 11, 13, 14, 86; his death,
14; his description of the state of the
M th, 19; the relation of his re-
cension of the Massorah to the Ochla
Ve-Ochla, 25-28; his labour con-
nected with the Massorah, 20, 84, 35;
refutes Abravanel, 48 ; his opinion of
the origin of the Keri and Kethiv, 56.
JARCHI, see Rasut.
JEHUDAH b. Nathan, called Riban, 57.
——— b. Bethara, 60.
5 Rabbi, 14. 2
EWS persecuted in in, 2.
J ONATHIAN b. Care
JosEPu the Blind, 7.
K
KABBALAE, the, studied by Christians,
; :
89
Kanana, Rabbi, 71, 72.
KEnnicort, edits a Latin version of Jacob
b. Chajim’s Introduction, 6.
Kent, the, always followed in reading the
Seri .
Kerr and Kethiv, 40; its origin, 42, 69, 73;
number of in each book of the Hebrew
Scriptures, 47, 48.
Kgrr velo Kethiv, 40, 49, 55; number of,
50.
Kgrurv velo Keri, 40, 47, 49, 55; number
of, 50.
Krucut, David, 6, 7; quotes the Ochla Ve-
Ochla, 24, 25; his opinion about the
origin of the Keri and Kethiv, 48, 44;
refuted, 55.
Kimoxt, Moses, author of commentaries
ascribed to Ibn Ezra, 7.
L
LEBRECHT ds the Ochla Ve-Ochla
as Jost, 26.
Letrer, the middle in the Psalms, 15.
Levi b. Gershon, see Rata.
Levitra calls Jacob b. Chajim Ibn Adoni-
jah, 1; teaches Christians, 4; writes
an epilogue to the Rabbinic Bible, 9;
praises Adonijah ; loses all his
property at the sacking of Rome;
goes to Venice, 9; his revision of
forks, 10: abnees Jacob » Chajim
ior embracing Christianity, though he
raises his liter: sO 11, 23;
is opinion about the duration of the
Massorites, 15; his description of the
state of the Massorah, 19, 20; affirms
that the present compilation of the
Massorah made by Jacob b. Chajim
is chiefly from the Ochla Ve-Ochla,
28-25, 26-28.
Luzzarto, 10; his declaration that Jacob
be Chejim did embrace Christianity,
M
Mauaram, see Meter of Rottenburg.
Marmontpes, his legal code called Jad
Ha-Chezaka, 5, 59; his More Nebu-
chim, 62.
Martinez, Fernando, preaches persecu-
Ma tion of the Jews, 2.
ss0RAH, 14; its meaning, 15; origin
and import, 15-17; its condition, 7,
8, 19, 41; its utility, 72, &.
—— finalis, 6, 7, 40, 41, 82, 88.
zm a 16, 40; divided into
, 40.
— Great, 24; how treated by
the Scribes, 78, 79.
Massorrres, their duration, 15, 16.
MassoreETI0 order of the Books in the
Bible, 26; treatises, 16, 17, 78.
N
MassozEtTic sign explained, 72, 73.
Mecuixra, 10, 69, 71.
Merr, of Rottenburg, 77.
b. Samuel, 57.
Rabbi, 59, 60.
MicwHakE is, 35.
Mrprasu Rabboth, 10, 59, 64.
———. Ruth, 37.
———— Tanchuma, 10.
———. Tilin, 10.
MisHracati, Elias, 10.
Moors, crusade against them, 2.
Morpecar b. Hillel, 76, 77.
Morinvs, 35.
Moses, the Punctuator, or Ha-Nakd
R
Ras, 48.
Rang, 71, 72.
Rassrnic Brsre, see BIBLE.
RaxBaG, also called Rabbi Levi b. Ger-
shon, 6, 7, 10.
RamBam, see MamMonrpEs.
RamBan, also called Moses b. Nachman,
or Nachmanides, 10, 39, 40, 56.
Rasusa, 55.
Raswsam, 39, 40, 57.
RasHBan, also called R. Samuel b. Meier,
39, 40, 57.
Rasuq, 6, 7, 24, 34, 49, 50, 51; his inter-
tation of 1 S: Ll ii, 24; di
7, 18.
b. Nachman, see RamBan.
Mezuzan, 59.
Mozsnguiven captured by the Spaniards,
N
NACHMANIDES, see RAMBAN.
Narwan, Isaac, 5, 80, 81.
— b. Jechiel, 41.
Navarro, Pedro, conquers Bugia, 4.
NeHeEmisg, Rabbi, Bb.
NEUBAUER, 24.
Norz1, Salomon, 24, 25.
0)
Ocuta VE-OcHLA, origin of its name, 16,
17,19; declared by Levita to be the
basis of the present Massorah, refuted,
23, 24, 26, 27; whether it is the
identical one quoted by Kimchi, Ibn
Aknim, Isaac b. Jehudah, Elias
Levita, 25; is edited by Dr. Frens-
dorff, 26; its relation to the Massorah
of Jacob b. Chajim, 25-27; to the
Ochla Ve-Ochla quoted by the medi-
soval lexicographers, 28; its age, 33,
84; Frensdorff’s edition quoted, 45,
49, 50, 51, 64, 65, 9.
ONKELOs, 6.
P
Papa, Rabbi, 59.
Paris Massorah, edited under the name
of Ochla Ve-Ochlu, see FRENSDORFF
and Ochla Ve-Ochla. :
PentatEucH, the, divided into Sabbatic
lessons, the manner in which it is
quoted in Jewish writings, 45.
Pesricra Sutrata, 10.
PHYLAcTERIEs, 61.
Prinsker, 69.
PizzicHToNE, David de, 5.
Prato, 70.
Potyeiott, Complutensian, 3, 22.
Prescort. 3.
Propuiat Duran, see EpHopd1.
Pro.emy, king, 69.
. 243 ers
from the Massoretic text, 57-59, 60,
61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 70.
Raymonp Martin, 67.
Repakx, see Kiucut.
ReFormaTion, 6.
Reimann, his opinion on the commen-
taries ascribed to Ibn Ezra, 7.
Rima, see Isaac B. ASHER.
Rian, see JEHUDAH B. NATHAN.
Rosst, Azzariah de, his date, calls Jacob
b. Chajim Ibn Adonijah, 1.
Rorrensure, Meier, 76.
Ruues, exegetical, 60-63.
8
Saap1a Gaon, 7, 34, 64, 65.
Saspa, Abraham, 10.
SapBaTrcaL lessons, see PENTATEUCH.
Saccurro, Abraham, 2; emigrates from
‘unis 4.
Satomon, b. Abraham b. Adereth, 10.
——— b. Isaac, see Rasut.
———-. b. Jehudah, see Norzi.
Samarirans, the, refuse to adopt the revi-
sion of the text, 53.
SamvEt, b. Meier, see RasHBAM.
, 59.
———_—— Rabbi, 57.
Scaises, see SOPHERIM.
SEpruaGint, the, 69.
Samson b. Abraham, 12.
.Smezon, Rabbi, 74.
Simon, the Just, 37.
b. Lakish, 52.
SorpHerms, the origin of their name, 15,
43; members of the Great S: sae,
37; authors of the Keri and Kethiv,
48; their emendations of the text,
42, 48, 49, 67-69.
Span, expulsion of the Jews from, 2.
Sre1nscHNEIDER, 10, 17, 24, 41.
SynacoavE, the Great, its origin and con-
stitution, 87; the members thereof,
the compilers of the Hebrew canon,
the Book of Esther, &c, 37, 38; the
authors of the Keri and Kethiv, 42,
8, 70.
Tam, 57, 62, 63.
Tain, Sepher, see Boox oF Crowns.
TataveRA, Fray Fernando de, 2
Tatmop, the, editio inceps of, 5; its ex-
lanation of Nehemiah viii. 8, 48;
ifferences between it and the Mas-
sorah, 42, 57, 58, 63, 64, 65; the
different Tracts of it quoted : —
Baba Mezia, 54} 62, 63.
Baba Bathra, 311. . . 63,
Erechin, 17a . . 74, 75.
Gittin, 86. . . 67.
Jebamoth, 1080 "66, 71, 2.
—— Jerusalem, i. 6. 3B.
Kethuboth, 104a. . . 86.
Kiddushin, BOa.. » . Wb.
Megilla, Jerusalem, i 11. . 53.
9a . . Wz
945 . 63.
--—— 2556 45, 51.
Menachoth, 84ab . 59, 61, 62.
th, Jerusalem, ii. 7. 39.
Nedarim, 376 . 48, 49, 55,
57, 70, 71
Nidda, 83 a . 57.
Pessachim, 165 . . 74.
——— 1036, lode, 15, 76.
Rosh Ha-Shana, 4 . 32.
Sabbath, 55d . . - 51, 59.
——— 108 : 60.
Sanhedrin, 45 . . . 60.
Shebiith, Jerusalem, vi. 37.
Sopherim vii l . . 65.
—_——- vi. ‘2, 53, 55.
vi. 8 . . . 60.
—— vi. 9 50.
vii. 2 53.
91
Sopherim viii. 8 . » . 465.
ix. . . Ol
Sota, 20a... . . 89
Succa, 66 oe . 74,
. . 61.
Taanith, 4b . . 61.
Taharoth oe . 12.
Zebachim, 245 . : 62.
—. 1156 . 53.
—_——— Mishna, xiv. 4 53.
T1xun Sopherim, 42 . , 68, 69.
TossaFotH, 57, 58; mentions variations
between the readings of the Talmud
and the Massorah, argues from the
Massorah against the Talmud, 60-63,
Toni the supposed birth. ff Jacob
unis, the su -place of Jaco
b. Chajim, 2, 3. P
Tunis1, see Jacos B, CHAsIM.
v
Vav, the middle in the Pentateuch, 15.
VenseE, the middle in the Pentateuch, 15;
in the Psalms, 15.
Ww
Wass, his commentary on the Mechilta,
71.
Worn, the middle in the Pentateuch, 15.
x
XmeneEs, Cardinal, goes to Granada to
convert the Mussulmans, 2; causes the
destruction of Arabic MSS, 3; trium-
phantly enters Oran, 4; does not
escribe the materials used in the
Complutensian Polyglott, 22, 23.
Zunz, 24, 41.
D. MARPLES, PRINTER, LIVERPOOL.
ee
"Digitized by Google
WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
HE SONG OF SONGS, with an Historical and Critical
Commentary.—Price 10s. London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer.
“Its poetical beauty has certainly not been i ired in Mr. Ginsb
class of works so letely deserves hat we shall be glad
if the success of his first effort encourages him to continue his biblical
labours.”—Saturday Review.
“ Whoso is tempted by its lusci light, st ing through laden vine-
boughs, ‘ dripping odours, dripping wine,’ that would gaze on the tessellated
floors of ivory palaces, and pierce through silken lattices into chambers
dedicated to a bridal, that would crush spikenard and musk under his feet,
and listen to the voice of bridegroom and bride, let him turn to these pages,
and learv all the curious lore which a sedulous and erudite scholar
d to illustrate this new t lation of the story of the Shulamite.”—
D . "8
hands. . . . . Much of what Mr. Ginsburg has done is so good, and the
Atheneum.
((OHELETH, commonly called THE BOOK OF ECCLE-
SIASTES, Translated from the Original Hebrew, with a Commentary,
Historical and ‘Critical.—Price 18s. London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and
Dyer.
“ Anything so plete and important has never appeared before in
our language upon the Book of Ecclesiastes. We can readily understand
that the author has bestowed seven years’ labour upon it ; and we cannot too
strongly praise his diligence, research, and learning.”—Clerical Journal.
“A valuable contribution both to its exegesis and its literary history. |
+ + + The opinions of so competent a Hebrew scholar as Mr. Ginsburg
cannot be consulted without profit, even though they may not be correct in
every instance.”—The Literary Churchman.
“ The notes are replete with good sense as well as learning, and the main
points for discussion are brought out in the introduction with a clear and
masterly hand.”—The Spectator.
“The work is the acutest, the fairest, the most learned, every way the
ablest and most trustworthy work on lesiastes in our 1 » and
perhaps the best in any language.”—The Critic.
1 “ This is one of those learned efforts of Biblical criticism into which the
hori intellect of G
y has for some time thrown itself with so
much earnestness of purpose.”—John Bull. '
TBE ESSENES; THEIR HISTORY AND DOCTRINES.
An Essay, Reprinted from the Transactions of the Literary and Philoso-
phical Society of Liverpool—Price 2s. London: Longmans, Green, Reader,
and Dyer.
|
“ This is certainly a very good account of that remarkable sect, whose |
peculiarities elicited a measure of admiration even from the Greeks and |
an ised some infi upon Christianity. Dr. Ginsb
is of opinion that the sources of information are not ample enough
to enable us to understand sufficiently the doctrines and habits of the
Essenes ; and accordingly he professes to furnish a more complete and
. upon his ri it and modern
authors.”—Enjlish Churchman.
“Dr. Ginsburg’s paper on The Essenes, their History and Doctrines, . .
is an exhaustive essay, on a subject on which it is curious that there should
be so much obscurity.”—Guardian.
“ The book will be valuable as a manual for ref ,in of
its numerous facts; and students of Hebrew and Christian antiquities
should have it at hand.’—Journal of Sacred Literature.
WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR—Conrinues.
THE KABBALAH : its Doctrines, Development, and Litera-
’ ture. An Essay read before the Literary and Philsophical Society of
Liverpool, October 19, 1863, and reprinted with the Society’s permission.—
Price 7s. 6d. London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer.
HE MASSORETH HA-MASSORETH of Exuius Levita,
in Hebrew, with an English Translation, and Explanatory Notes.—
Price 21s. London: Longmans. 1867.
“The work will be a welcome addition to the libraries of all sound
Hebraists, and we should be glad to hear that its laborious editor was
engaged on a scientific treatise, making the whole subject of Massoretic
criticism available to European scholars.”—The London Review.
“Dr. Ginsburg’ translation of El'as Levita on the ‘Massoreth,’ is a work
of the greatest utility to the Hebrew student.”"— Westminster Revi
“ The Introduction by Dr. Ginsburg is exceedingly interesting, and vi
valuable in the present state of Hebrew literature in this country. We have
here the history of the life and times of Elias Levita, and a most instructive
résumé of the literature of that period. The translation is free, easy,
natural; the notes are brief, pointed, practical, and give evidence of the
most comprehensive and detailed acquaintance with the whole subject.
Several important errors are corrected, which mar even our most recent
authorities. We feel assured that many ‘Hebrew scholars, who have hitherto
been satisfied with modern scientific helps, will gratefully avail themselves
of the present means of making their acquaintance with the old native
authorities, and that as many as will make the attempt will not be disap-
pointed.”—The English Independent.
“We must heartily thank Dr. Ginsburg for this befitting companion to
Jacob ben Chajim, and the Kabbalah. The value of the volume before us is
greatly enhanced by the fact that the prosent is the only reliable and com-
plete tion of the work ; the two which exist, the one in Latin, and the
other in German, being exceedingly imperfect. e Introduction is replete
with the most valuable and interesting information. We have a concise and
clear account of the life and times of Elias Levita, and a most instructive
résumé of the literature of that period. It furnishes numerous corrections
of errors which mar some of our most recent information upon the subjects
in hand. The translation is clear, easy, and natural. Shemitic scholars,
who have hitherto been satisfied with modern scientific aids, by the help
furnished them here will be able successfully to wade through the intricacies
of the old native authorities. . .-. We feel assured that the present work
will be a most welcome addition to the library of every sound Hebraist.”—
British Quarterly Review.
“ We offer hearty thanks to Dr. Ginsburg, who gives us bocks that can
bring no adequate reward to their author, but can and will establish his
claim to the remembrance and gratitude of scholars . universally.”— The
Nonconformist.
“Such scholarship as Dr. Ginsburg’s will always be rare: it requires
historical and other conditions which are not often to be found together.
All the more highly let it be set store by when it does present itself. For
ourselves, we are gratetal to Dr. Ginsburg both for Lis :tudies and for the
fruit of them; and we receive his English Levita as one of the best con-
tributions which recent years have made to the cause of Hebrew learning
and of Old Testament criticism, whether in this or any other country.”—
The London Review,
ACOB BEN CHAJIM’S INTRODUCTION TO THE
RABBINIC BIBLE, Hebrew and English; with Explanatory Notes.
Second Edition, much enlarged.—Price 7s. 6d. London: Longmans, Green,
Reader, and Dyer.
“This is a valuable and curious contribution to Biblical literature.”—
Clerical Journal.
#
ao
Ps. CXry | jou-xvu.
169. 4
Harvard Depository
Brittle Book
awit =
SA\%
FAN TON CATONITAR’S
jAUUD DN AVUNIWAL +
mit s De ei Pe Be ae tee PrpoTtT w
TO THE BRABBINIC bide,
HEBREW AND ENGLISH
UY CHRISTIAN D, GINSBURG, leu. D-