THE

JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

rW

NEW SERIES

EDITED BY

CYRUS ADLER

VOLUME

VII

1916-1917

PHILADELPHIA THE DROPSIE COLLEGE FOR HEBREW AND COGNATE LEARNING

LONDON: MACMILLAN & COMPANY,
Ltd.

PRINTED IN ENGLAND

AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

DS
101

J5
V.7

CONTENTS
PAGE
Casanowicz,
Religion
I.

M.

Recent

works

on

Comparative
273

Casanowicz,

I,

M.

Jordan's
:

'

Comparative Religion

'

445

Efros, Israel Isaac

The Problem
II, III

of Space in Jewish
.

Mediaeval Philosophy.

.61,223

Greenstone, Julius H.
the Jews
'

Kretzman's

Education among

449
Recent Hebraica and Judaica
: .

Halper, B.

393

HiRSCHFELD, Hartwig

Fragments of Sa'adyah's Arabic

Pentateuch Commentary

....
* ' '

45

Hoffman, Charles I. World and Judaism

:

Kisch's
;
'

Religion of the Civilized

Christian Evidences
. .
.

Williams's

for

Jewish People
:

'

Jewish Proverbs

61

HosCHANDER, Jacob and Assyria'

Jastrow's

Civilization of Babylonia

HusiK, Isaac: Studies

Jacobs, Joseph
:

in

Gersonides

....
. . .

439
553
113
118

Jews and Austrian Finance

Jacobs, Joseph: Jewish Immigration into the United States

Jacobs, Joseph
:

Criticisms of

Sombart
in

-367

Lebendiger, Israel; The Minor

Jewish Law. IV,V,VI 89,145

'

Malter, Henry
the Heart'

Yahuda's edition of Bahya's

Duties of

379
:

Malter, Henry

Recent Jewish Literature

595

Mann, Jacob
Margolis,

The Responsa

of the Babylonian

Geonim
457

as a Source of Jewish History

Max

L.

Ai

01 the City}

Joshua

8.

12,

16

491

'

iv

CONTENTS
PAGE
:

Marx, Alexander Margoliouth's Catalogue of Miscellaneous MSS. and Charters in the British Museum
.

123

MiSHCON, A.

Disputed Phrasings in the Siddur

A.
:

519
253
281

Neuman, Abraham
Radin,

Recent Historical Literature

Max

Varia Archaeologica
:

Reider, Joseph

Prolegomena

to a

Greek-Hebrew and

Hebrew-Greek Index
Reider, Joseph Reider, Joseph
:

to Aquila.

IV and Appendices
to Periodicals
.

287

Athenaeum Subject Index

:

453
635

Jewish and Arabic Music

Revel, B.
Sapir, E.
:

Leszynsky's

Sadduzaer

'

429
140 373

English-Yiddish Encyclopedic Dictionary

'Sinai

Schwab, Moise: Vernes's

and Kadesh'

Schwab, Moise
tions
;

Amulets and Bowls with Magic Inscrip'

Radin's

Jews among the Greeks and Romans

:

619

WoLFSON, Harry Austryn

Divine Attributes
Zeitlin,

Crescas on the Problem of

i,i75

Solomon

The Semikah Controversy between

499

the Zugoth

CRESCAS ON THE PROBLEM OF DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

By Harry Austryn Wolfson, Harvard
Prefatory Note.
It has been well said that in Arabic, and for that matter
also in Jewish philosophy, the problem of Universals had

University.

never acquired, as

it

did

later

on

in

Scholasticism, the
Still,

importance of an independent subject of inquiry.

the
it

problem was not altogether unknown.

Always

latent,

occasionally cropped out in various philosophical discussions.

We

need only slightly penetrate below the surface of some

controversies of the time in Metaphysics and Psychology to

discover the lurking presence of the problem of Universals.

For the true problem

of Platonic Realism.

of Universals

began with the rejection

Admitting with the Aristotelians

that genera and species are mere products of the mind, the

question was then raised as to what was the nature of those

intellectual conceptions

and

their relation to the individual

beings.

It

was

this field of inquiry that

proved a

fertile

ground

for the crop of the

many

subtle and hardly distin-

guishable mediaeval theories of Universals.

Now
in

the

same

problem must inevitably appear whenever the mind perceives

a distinction of a purely intellectual character

an object,

and the solution of that problem will of necessity prove

difficult

more

when,

in addition

to defining the nature of that

at the

intellectual distinction,

we must
I

same time safeguard

B

VOL.

VII.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Thus,
for instance, in the case of

the unity of the object.

the soul, one and homogeneous,

relation between the essence and

we may ask what

its faculties.

is

the the

And
how

in

case of

God,

too,

the

absolutely

simple,

are

His

attributes related to His essence?

It is

as a problem of Universals in disguise that the

will

problem of Attributes

be herein presented.

I shall

therefore forego the discussion of the lexicographical and

exegetical aspect of the problem, namely, the enumeration

of all the Attributes found in the Bible, and their explanation

by Jewish

philosophers, the object of this paper being to

discuss the general principles underlying the

its

problem and

solution.
it

As part
deals

of a larger
fully

work upon the philosophy

of Crescas,

more

with that author.

The two

chapters devoted to

him

are intended both to present a con-

structive view of his theory

and

to serve as a

commentary

on

his

text.

They

are preceded

by a chapter devoted

to a

general treatment of certain representative authors

advisedly selected for their value as an introduction to the

study of Crescas.

CHAPTER
An
Analysi.s of

the Problem and Some Repre-

sentative Solutions.
I.

There

are

four

initial

assumptions underlying the

in
is

problem of divine attributes

starting-point of the

mediaeval philosophy.

The

problem

the rationalistic attempt to

invest the Scriptural predications of

God

with the validity

is

of logical judgements.
after Aristotle, as
it

Then, a logical judgement

defined,

having a double content, synthesizing as

does two distinct terms, of which one must be a universal.

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

WOLFSON

by bringing them together by one

of the several relations

obtaining between subject and predicate.

In addition to
is

these two assumptions, while Platonic Realism

essential prerequisite, the

not an

problem of attributes involves an

of Universals.
Finally,
it

anti-nominalistic

conception

follows Avicenna in identifying

God

with the metaphysical

conception of

necessary existence, whose simplicity

its

by

definition precludes from

tion,

being not only actual composi-

but likewise any suggestion of noetic plurality and

relativity.

The

question

is

then raised,

How

can

we form

a logical judgement about

creating the

God

without at the same time

anomaly of having the unrelatable Necessarily

Existent brought into some logical relation with some

predicate distinct from Himself?
It is this

apparent incom-

patibility of the formal interpretation of Biblical phraseo-

logy, the synthetic conception of a logical judgement, the

anti-nominalistic view of universals, and the Avicennean
definition of necessary existence that lies at the basis of the

problem of attributes.
In Maimonides' treatment of Attributes
if

we

find a clear
sets out

not a formal statement of the problem.

He
is

with

a rationalistic definition of faith.

tive of reason, but rather the

Faith

not the correla-

consummation of the reasoning

process.

Nor

is it
;

a mere attitude of mind, an inane state

the comprehension of
faith is not

of consciousness
reality.

it is

some

objective

Furthermore,

immediate comprehension
it

or intuitive knowledge, the claim of mysticism, but

resultant

is

knowledge, the

positive

intellectual

certainty

arrived at after a process of ratiocinative reasoning.

Faith

thus being knowledge, derivative and

strable,

logically

demon-

the profession of faith must, therefore, have the

force of logical judgements.

They cannot be mere

verbal

B a

4
Utterance,

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

mere irresponsible exclamations
of logical
indicative but

inexpressive of an attitudinal belief;

they must be the

syllogisms, in

embodiment

of the conclusions

which the premisses, though not stated, arc assumed. Consequently the articles of faith, containing asseverations about
the nature and being of God, based upon corresponding
affirmations taken from the Scriptures, are perforce logical

propositions conforming to
propositions.^

all

the regimens regulating such

But a

logical proposition

must contain a synthesis of

Maimonides,
is

two

distinct terms.

Identity, contends

not

a relation.

proposition in

which the subject and prediis

cate indicate one and the

less, for to assert

same thing
is

logically

meaningIn this

that

is

a mere tautology

.^

as well as in his subsequent elaborate statement of

what he
sight he

considers as real, logical relations, though at

first

does not appear to do

so,

Maimonides

is

really following

in the footprints of his Stagirite master.

*

In order to

show

Cf.

Moreh,

I,

50.

This identification of Faith with ratiocinative reasoning

certain

was common among

classes of

Moslem
to

thinkers,

and was not

unknown

to

Jewish philosophers prior

Maimonides

(cf.

Kaufmann,

Altributenlehre, p. 369, note 9.

Hobot ha-Lebalx>t,

I,

directly to Aristotle

To Kaufmann's references may be added It seems to me that this view may be traced i). through Simplicius. In De Caelo, book I, chapter ii,
:

Aristotle

has the following statement

Aiomp
dKoywi

If

a-navTojv dv

ns
as

tovtoiv
:

<Tv\\oyi(6fi(i'0i -iriaTfvffdfv.

Upon
xwph

this Simplicius

comments

follows

'H
Kal
icai

mans
im

Sittt] lariv,

fj

pXv
rj

d-iToS(i(iis

ytvofifvr), otav rives

taxovat

Tois droTrajTaTots,

5<

yurd d-no^n^kv Kal avWo-yiafiov

diro5ftKTiie6v, ijrts
.

dff(pa\T)s kffri
5(, olpuxi,

Kal dveXtyKTOS Kal TJj dKrjOeia tuiv

ovrwv avixvfipvKvia

KaWtov
raxov

Xiydv, on rais aTroSfiKTiKats dvd-yKais

5i

itpoativai irapaivti vavtt]v

fjiiv,

/xdAiffra

(v tois vfpl

twv Otiwv Xoyots

dnu

ttjs

iriaTtajs

avfind9fiav, ov ftovov ^(^alaiaiv r^y dXrjOovs

yvwatws ipvoiovaav, orav

jjris

fifrcL

Tijv

dno^ki^iv fniyivrjrat,
dv9paiirii'T]s
I.

dXKd

Kal t^v irpus rd yycoard fvwaiv,

in Aristotelis

iarl ru T*Aoy r^y

pLaKpurtfTos {Simplicit

De

Caelo Commetttaria, ed.

L, Heiberg, Berlin, 1894, p. 55).

^

Cf.

Mon/i, 1,51.

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

this

WOLFSON
analysis

5
of

congruity,

let

us

first

give

a genetic

Aristotle's predicables.
It
is

from

his

classification

of the

Categories that

Aristotle derives his predicables, for whatever other purpose

that classification might have originally served in Aristotle's

system,

its

function as expressing logical relations between

is

subject and predicate

unquestionable.^

When

Aristotle,

however, uses the categories in their restrictive application

of predicables, instead of their
tion,

common

tenfold classifica-

he adopts their

less current division into two,

Substance

and Accident.*

Thus

the predicate of a proposition

may

be either a Substance or an Accident.

however, can be a particular.

Neither of these,

Two

individual substances,

denoting one and the same thing, cannot be related as

subject and predicate.

Likewise a definite accident cannot

'

be predicated of a subject.
is

John

is

John

'

and

'

The

table

this definite red'

are not logical propositions.

Conse-

Whether

the Categories
is
i
;

were

originally intended
(cf.

by Aristotle as

logical

or ontological divisions

moot point
for the

Zeller, Aristotle, vol.

I,

I, p.

274,

note 3

p.

275, note

Grote, Aristotle, vol.

ch.

iii).

No

question

on

this point,
it

however, existed

Arabic and Jewish philosophers.

To them
Likewise

was

clear that the Categories were both logical and metaphysical,

in the

and are treated as such

works of

Alfarabi, Avicenna,

and Algazali.

in the Scholastic

philosophy, the Categories had logical as well as

metaphysical significance
*

(cf.

De Wulf,

Scholasticism

Old and

Ncvu, p. 141).

Averroes,

in his

paraphrase of Aristotle's Categories

following
is

(nnONOn

"1D

T'E'T pb), has

(bi'lSn

the

classification

(r)

Universal

Substance
it

Dlfyn),
UJ-'SI

which
NIJ^J
in

predicable of a subject but does not exist in

N'^:'').

(NC:n:n

^J?

(2)
is

Particular

accident
it

(TDIJ

HipO

IvS), which exists

a subject but
(3)

not predicable of
accident
it

(NtJ^J3 NIH

NBn:

hv

iX^^y

nS).

universal
is

(^^I^H nipDn), which

XIHI NC^IJ hv
NtJ'J*

both exists in a subject and

^2^133).
(4)

predicable of

(3":!

Particular Substance (Difyn

is

tJ'^N),

which neither
NK'J''

exists in

a subject nor

predicable thereof
ch.
ii.

(NdJn

i::''N1

NSTU ^V

vh).

Cf.

Organon, The Categories,

6
quently,

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

whether substance or accident, the predicables

must be universals.

Now, a

universal substance

may
its

denote

either the genus or the species of a thing,

and a universal
appli-

accident

may

be differentiated, with respect to

less essential to

cabihty, as

more or

the subject.
:

In this

way
'

Aristotle derives his four predicables

genus, species,

property, and accident, which, raised to five in Porphyry's

Introduction

'

by the addition of 'specific

difference

',

were

referred to

by

mediaev-al logicians as the five predicables.'^

Herein,

if I

am

not mistaken,
division
attribute.

we may
the

find the origin of

Maimonides'

fivefold

of

possible

relations
in

between subject and

clature
is

Their difference
real,

nomentheir

more apparent than

and the process of

derivation from the Categories will be

shown
already

to tally with

that

followed

by

Aristotle.

As

mentioned,
is,

Maimonides

rejects identity as a logical relation, that

first

the attributes cannot be taken as individual,

substances.

What

is

now

left is

the alternative, that they must be either

universal substances or universal accidents.

In the words

of Maimonides

'

It will

now be
;

clear that the attributes

must be one of two things

described

either the essence of the object

in that case
is

it is

a mere explanation of a name,

&c.

or the attribute
I, is

something different from the object

This general twofold
classifica-

described' [Moreh,
tion

51).

now subdivided by Maimonides

specific

into five classes.

Taking universal substance, from which the Aristotelians

get

genus, species, and

difference,

Maimonides

'

Cf.

Intentions,

Logic.

Algazali

enumerates

these

five

universals

(n:"t2nn
subject,

DmSJn ;DmD3n
five

D^b^ian) which

may

be

predicated

of a

namely, TH^I^^ HPIJD. !'13n, pD^ 21D.

predicables:

Sharastani likewise
^

names
(ed.

the same

o^Jl

Cureton,

p. 350).

-^

U) ^^J|, C,^

J^l

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

divides
it

WOLFSON
rather than

with respect to
its

its

function

with

respect to

content, thus obtaining

two

classes, Definition

and Part of

Definition, for

the combination of genus with

species or with specific difference forms a definition,

whence
Part of

any one of these three may be properly

Definition.

called

Then
is

again, taking universal accident,

which

by

Aristotle

roughly subdivided

into

property and
division

(general)

accident,

bearing upon the tenfold

it

of

Categories,
classes.

Maimonides divides

more minutely

into three

The

Categories of quantity and quality yield the

;

relation

of Property

those of

Relation,

Space,

Time,

Situation,

and Possession are placed under the heading of

External Relations, whereas the Categories of Action and

Passion are designated

by him

as

Dynamic

Relatio7is.

Applying

this

theory of logical relations to the interpreta-

tion of divine attributes,

Maimonides

arrives at the following

conclusion.

The

divine attributes cannot be identical with

their subject, and, while they

must be

distinct, their relation

to

it

must be equivalent

to that of a Definition. Part of

Definition, Property, External Relation or Action.^'

If in the Biblical predications of

God, as

it

has been

shown, the attribute must be

distinct

from but related to

five

the subject, the question then arises,

enumerated relations are they

question
it

By which of the conjoined ? To answer

is

this

must

first

be determined what

the nature of
it

the subject of those attributes, or God, in so far as

is

known by the proof for His Existence. Now, so much is known about the nature of God, that He is necessary existence, a term used

by Avicenna, and corresponding

For

to the

Aristotelian Prime Mover.

just as Aristotle, taking

motion as the starting-point of

his physical inquiries, ultiI.

Cf.

Moreh.

S2.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

mately arrived at the inevitable existence of a Prime Im-

movable Mover, so Avicenna,

necessity

reflecting

upon the nature of

and contingency, eventually concluded that there

is

must be something that

Aristotle's

Necessary Existence^ Whether

identified

Prime Mover should be

is

with Avi-

cenna's Necessary Existence

a controversial point which

does not concern us now, and

It is,

will

be taken up elsewhere.*
attri-

however, clear that in his discussion of divine

butes Maimonides starts out with the Avicennean conception

of Necessary Existence, the proof for which
is

incorporated

by Maimonides within
of God.^

his various proofs for the existence

Now,

in

the Avicennean application of the term,

necessary or absolute existence means the negation of any

cause whatsoever, the
final as well as

the

efficient,

the formal

as well as the material.

Thus the term Necessary Existence,

meaning with respect to causation,
all

negative in

its

original

has ultimately acquired by the negation of

causes what-

soever the additional meaning of absolute simplicity and

all

which that connotes.

The

Necessarily Existent must,

is,

therefore,

be absolutely simple, that

its

essence must

exclude not only actual plurality, but metaphysical and

epistemological plurality as well, being in no less degree

impervious to the distinction between matter and form,

genus and species, than to actual, physical disintegration

and composition.

Absolute simplicity, according to Avi(i)

cenna, excludes the five possible kinds of plurality:

'

This will be fully discussed in a chapter on 'The Proofs

for

the

Existence of
*

God

'.

Cf.

Moreh,

II, i,

Third Argument.

Cf. ibid.
Cf.

Morch,
is

II,

I,

Third Philosophical Argument.

:

This Avicennean
is

argument

introduced by Maimonides as follows

'

This

taken from the

'

words of

Aristotle,

though he gives

it

in

a different form

(cf.

Hebrew

commentaries).

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

WOLFSON
;

Actual plurality as that of physical objects

plurality as that of matter attribute
;

(2) noetic

and form
;

(3) of subject and

(4) of genus

and species

and

(5)

of essence and

existence.^"

Absolute simplicity
necessary existence.
necessarily existent
it
is

is

thus the main fact

so,

known about
when the
four

And
its

says Maimonides,

placed as the subject of a proposition,

predicate

cannot be related to

by any of the

first

of the five classes of relations enumerated.

for that are variously stated

The

reasons
it

by Maimonides, but

seems

to

me

that they can

all

be

classified
;

under two headings

first,

the implication of plurality

and second, the implication

of similarity.^^
'0
^^

Cf. Destruction

of the Philosophers, Disputation V.

The

classification of

Maimonides' arguments into these two divisions

In chapters 50 and 51, Maimonides
is

is

based upon the following facts:

explicitly states that his

ground

for the rejection of attributes

to

be found

in the simplicity of the divine substance.

In chapter 52, in his enumeration

of the five classes of attributes, the

first

three are rejected for the following

'JT'

reasons

Definition because
;

God

has no previous causes (pN

NIHB'

Part of Definition because it would imply that in God niOTlp ni3D v) essences were compound, and so it could have a definition which has been

excluded on account of the implication of previous causation

(cf.

Afodi's

commentary)

Property because God

is

not a magnitude,

He

is

not affected

by external

influences,

He

is

not subject to physical conditions, and

all

He

is

not an animate being.

Now,

these reasons are in fact nothing but

modifications of the chief reason, namelj', the implication of the composition

of the divine essence.

'

They

are thus

summed up by Maimonides
it,

himself:

Consequently, these three classes of attributes, describing the essence of

are clearly inadmissible
D''pbn
nSi'PtJ'

a thing, or part of the essence, or a quality of

in reference to

God, for they imply composition.'

vN

T\1TX\

nasin bv
The

nmn

n^a

onc^

'jdd

nbn'' ipna

npDn

-iN^nn

nna.

fourth class of attributes, that of external relation, are rejected

by

Maimonides not because they imply composition in the divine essence, but because a real external relation must not be assumed to exist between God

and created beings.

Why

that

must not be assumed, however,

is

explained

lO

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

As

for the first of these reasons,

Maimonides
'

restates

A vicenna's conception of absolute simplicity.

be any belief in the unity of

There cannot
that

God except by admitting

He

is

one simple substance, without

;

any composition or
it,

plurality of elements

one from whatever side you view

and by whatever

test

you examine

it

not divisible into

two parts

in

any way and by any cause, nor capable of any

'

form or plurality either objectively or subjectively

{Moreh,

by him later on in chapter 56 on the ground that every relation implies

similarity,

the latter of which

is

inadmissible

on

independent grounds.
to the

Thus
I

all

the arguments against attributes

In chapter 55
:

may be reduced
(i

two

classes

have named.

Maimonides advances the following four

corporeality, (2

arguments against attributes

They imply

passiveness

'^nvVSn), (3) non-existence or potentiality (H^D liyn), (4) similarity Here, too, the first three reasons are all reducible to the single f'lJDT).
reason that they imply composition.
of

Likewise Crescas,
positive

in his

restatement
those

Maimonides' arguments
in the

against
I

attributes,

classifies
'

arguments

two parts

have mentioned.

He

says

If his

contention

were true
n33"inn
(p.

that attributes

must be negated on account of the inadmissibility

o{ composition and o^ relation or simil nity between

God and
Dn"*

others.'

DilDT

my:cin^

^tion*

Dnxnn
pni

n^^^-j'D
i:''n

^T'>rvy

2rnn iTn dnb'

dv^'

25 a s"D

^ya ^N"o) in^n

reduces
:

it'dti

myjionS.
following

Abrabanel, however,
threefold classification

Maimonides' arguments to the

(2)

(i)

on account of God's incorporeality,

(cf.

on account

of His eternit}', and (3) on account of His unity

commentary on the

Moreiu

1.

51)

'NH ^0^^103

'J

Dnxnn HJiDNn
;d

fN3

ann nryc
""'C'n
;'cf.

p'yi

ny?2 'jm

jionp invn nvo 'an ^nin'jon

pSiDO

dim nvo
Altributen-

ins invn. Kaufmann

lehre, p.

approves of Abrabanel's classification

377, note 22).

Abraham Shalom has

the following classification

(r^

On

account of the

implication of plurality in God. (2) on account of the limitation of

human

understanding, and (3) on account of the implication of similarity or relation

between God and His creatures inifD

x\-i n^jcyn
.
.
.

(cf.

Neveh Shalom, XII,

i,

iii).

nnxn

Tn^pbrvo 3d-iio li'-s

nis^yon n^^no

'n' inrni?

Die

'n*

1^

pNi

VnV12 Oy
arguments
Chap,

|V?D11
is

not

^nosn t\"iit\ -ixn^ b^v n^ n-nnLAs will be noticed, the second of these three found among the formal arguments of Maimonides.
.

n^K'^^B^n

DDV

Albo's classification of arguments against positive attributes

III,

(cf.

infra,

note 125)

is

not based upon Maimonides' text.

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

I,

WOLFSON

II

51).

Consequently, predicates taken in the sense of

definition, part of definition,

and accretion are inadmissible

all

with respect to God.

sense or other.

They

imply plurality

in

some

That

accretive qualities are inadmissible

is

goes without saying, since they imply that the subject

composed of external
its

attributes inherent in or adherent to

substance.
is

The

inadmissibility of a definition or

its

parts

not so obvious.

To

affirm of

God

attributes which,

like the parts of a definition, are

merely descriptive of the

substantial essence without implying the composition of the

substance with anything unessential, would at

to be quite appropriate.
sible, for

first

sight

seem

That

too,

however,

is

inadmis-

while the parts of a definition do not imply the

of the
defined
is

composition
external

substance

with

something
that

thereto, there
itself is

still

the implication
it

the

substance

composed, as

were, of two essences, the

particular and the universal.

It is

here that Maimonides'

F"or

theory of universals comes into play.

nominalism,

it

may

be inferred, Maimonides had the same abhorrence as

verbalism.^^

for logical
.^^

There

is

the ring of a genuine

It is

generally stated that Arabic as well as Jewish philosophers were

(cf.

all

nominalists
le

Munk's Mdaiiges,

p.

327),

'

Les Peripateticiens arabes,

le

comme on

pense bien, devaient tons professer

at plusieurs d'entre

nominalisme d'une

maniere absolue,

eux se prononcent a cet egard dans

les termes les plus explicites'.

note

I,

also Maimonides,

existence except in our

D^">^3B>

Among the last referred to he includes, in who in Moreh, III, 18 states that species have no own minds' (pDH ?3X NifDJ QIC ?3L"7 pn pXti'
'

nV^^^n "1XL*'J'. Cf. also Kaufmann's Attributenlehre, p. 379, 'Was aber Maimuni's Stellung in dem Streite uber die Universalien angeht, so bekennt er sich als Aristoteliker zum strengen Nominalismus und laugnet entschieden deren Realitat Of course, to say that one is a nominalist does not mean anything unless it is definitely explained how the With regard to Maimonides it must be term nominalism is employed.
note 29,
'.

Dnn

positively stated that his nominalism did not

go further than the

rejection

of Platonic realism.

His statement

to the effect that the universals are in

12

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

temper

feeling of contempt, characteristic of his rationalistic

of mind, in his sneers at

tl

flatus vocis, at 'things that are

only said, existing only

in

in

words, not in thought,

much

less

reality'

{Moreh,l, ^i).

Platonic realism, claiming the

reality of ideas apart

from the world of sense, had been

discredited with the advent of Aristotelianism long before

the age of Maimonides.^^

In various works on Logic and

is

Metaphysics the absurdity of such a conception

out without even recording a dissenting opinion.
tualism, to be sure,

pointed

Concep-

had found adherents among Arabic

philosophers, but Maimonides, no less than Avicenna, evi-

dently rejected that view.

To him

the assertion of ideal

without real existence could have no meaning.

reality, if
it

Subjective

means anything, could merely mean that the

It is

reality affirmed has only a verbal significance.

un-

doubtedly with reference to Conceptualism that

Maimoand

nides points out the meaninglessness of ideal existence

the incongruity in
ideas,
i.e.
'

'

the assertion of some thinkers, that the

existent

the universals, are neither

nor non-

existent

^*

{Moreh,

I, .51).

of Avicenna and in

What Maimonides, as a follower common with all his contemporaries,

is

conceived of universals
real existence.

that they have both ideal and

Universals, to be sure, exist in the mind,

but the

human mind does

to

not invent them out of nothing.

That very same statement

mind does not commit him

anything definite.

had been used by Averroes

in quite

a different sense.
are,

The question
is

is,

as

we

shall see,

how much

in

mind they

and

this

can only be determined

involved.

by analysis of such problems where the existence of universals

From our
that
it

analysis of Maimonides' theory of Attributes

it

will
'

be gathered

can hardly be said of him that he was a nominalist

d'une maniere
'.

absolue' or that he declared his adherence

'zum strengen Nominalismus

passage

' "

Cf.

Munk's Melanges,

p.

327.
this
;

Cf.

Munk's and Friedlander's notes on

n.
i
;

'iA.nnk''s

Melanges

pp. 327

and 328,

Kaufmann,

Attributotlehrc, p. 379, n. 29.

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

WOLFSON
rise

I3

What

the mind does

individuals.

is

only to discover them in the multiof individual as indepen-

farious

For prior to the

beings the universals exist in the mind of

God

dent

entities,

and they remain as such even when they enter

though their presence
in

upon

plurality in material form,

is

the individuals

indiscernible except

by mental

activity.^^

Consequently even

in essential attributes, as

those which

form a

definition, there

must necessarily be the implication

of plurality in the subject.

For the

definition

is

not merely
in itself

a verbal description of the essence, the latter being

one and uniform, but, as said Avicenna, the parts of the

definition are the predicates of the thing defined.

And

so,

since genus

and

specific difference are real in a certain sense,

its

and not mere words, the thing defined by

specific difference

genus and

must be composite

in so far as that

genus
to be

and
sure,

specific difference are real.

That composition,
still it

would only be mentally

discernible, but

would

be inconsistent with the conception of absolute simplicity.

Let us now assume that the universals predicated of

God

are neither essential nor accidental qualities, but rather

external relations between

God and His

is

creatures.

This
tradi-

interpretation of attributes though sanctioned

tional philosophy of his time^^
IS

by the

rejected

by Maimonides
title

Cf.

Avicenna's Es-sefah, translated by M. Horten under the

r
;

of

Die Metaphysik Avicenna's, Part V, ch.

(Eng.
tr.),

De

Boer's Philosophy in Islam

II, in

p. 135

Prantl's Geschichte der Logit, vol.

his exposition of

Alfarabi, pp. 305-6,

and

in that

of Avicenna, pp. 347 and 384, especially

note 181
**

Carra de Vaux, Avicenne, pp. 224-5.

In his Intentions of the Philosophers {Metaphysics, Part III,

On

the

Attributes), Algazali restates Avicenna's interpretation of divine attributes

as (i) negations (H^v'") and (2) relations (flHi').

Under

relations

he

includes both
*

what Maimonides
is

calls 'external relations'

and what he

calls

actions

'.

The same view

repeated by him in his Destruction of the

philosophers,

Philosophers, Disputation V.

Among Jewish

Abraham Ibn

14

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

In their ultimate analysis he says
all

as inadequate.
relations
or, if

such
all,

may

be shown either to have no meaning at

they do have any meaning, to imply similarity between

other beings. Relations are fourfold
:

God and
poreal,

temporal,

spatial, reciprocativc,

and comparative.

God, being incorspatial

relations.

cannot have any temporal or

self-suflficiency

Again, His

and absolute independence pre-

cludes the relation of reciprocity, for His creativeness, His

knowledge, and His beneficence are absolutely independent

of the created,

known and

beneficiary objects.

Finally,

a relation of comparison exists only when things compared

involved a specific identity, and differ only in individual
diversity.

White and green on that account

are they related terms

are incompar-

able terms, even though they are identical as to their genus

colour.
lative

Nor

they are rather corre-

and

antithetical, their diversity being specific.

God
since

cannot, therefore, be compared with and related to other

beings with respect to any predicate affirmed of

all

Him,

His predicates are indicative of attributes which are

identical with essence,

and hence absolute and immutable.^^

Nor can we claim

a similarity.^^
Daud,
in his

that the attributes are

some kind of
must imply
in so far

subjective external relations, for every relation

If

two things are related they are

II,

Emunah Ramah (Book

In
fact

Principle III\ permits the use of

first

relational

attributes.

Maimonides was the

actions,

to

distinguish
latter to

between external

relations

and

and while permitting the

proscribe the former.

Cf. infra,

Chap.

II.

"
1*

Cf.

Moreh,
'

I,

52.
if

Cf. ibid.

Besides,

any

relation existed

between them, God would

to

be subject to

tlic

accident of relation, and although that would not be an

it

accident to the essence of God,

of accident.'
relation

would

still

be,

some

extent, a kind
: '

To which Shem-tob adds

aftirmed of

the following explanation

If

any

was

Him, even

tliough an unreal relation,

is

God would
to

be subject to the accident of relation, that

to say,

God would have

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

similar,

WOLFSON
means

I5

and so

if

subjective

relation

anythinij

there must also be

some meaning

to subjective similarity.

But there can be no similarity between God and other

beings
;

hence, there cannot be any relation between them.

For the preclusion of similarity Maimonides advances no

arguments,^^

He

refers to

it

as a well-accepted principle

which

seems to be exclusively based upon

Scriptural

inferences.

Of

the five logical relations originally postulated by

is

Maimonides there

now only one

retained

left,

the dynamic, which

has not been disqualified as a possible explanation of divine

attributes.

This

is

by Maimonides.

The

divine

attributes are

dynamic

relations, that is to say,

they are

descriptive of the operating process of the activity rather

than of the qualification therefor.^^

accident added to His essence.'
^"Dj?N

That the

assertion of

resemble some other creature, even though that relation would not be an
nM''B' "l^"'DN DrT*
DIK' lb OnTl''
'[m'>iy''

DNI

xiaj nvyb

non

n-'n'^i:^

Nini

pnTi

mpo
is

tidn ^nbn

V?V ^DIJ Ulp'O

13'Kt;\

Shem-tob's explanation

probably based upon

chapter 56, wherein Maimonides elaborately explains the interdependence

of relativism and similarity.
^*

For the negation of similarity Maimonides advances no argument

that
to

except

of authority.

'

Another thing likewise to be denied

in

refei'ence

God

is

similarity to

any existing being.

cf.

This has been

"

generally accepted [even by the Mutakallemim,

Shem-tob's commentary],
;

and
will

is

also mentioned in the books of the Prophets

liken

e. g.

To whom,

then,

you

me

" [Isa. 40. 25].'

:d"3

1J!0D

pTWV'^ Hl^nn

'INntJ'

HDI

iNi

'iDnn

npnnnn
5)N1
.

D^s-'nii

naon

ni?2

122)
'

rniu

n'.r

Dnmon
'

PN JVDin ''D strate by proof

(ironb N^'^ty
that similarity

Though

later

on he adds,

It is

necessary to demon-

that nothing can be predicated of

God

that implies similarity

iini),

no

nsim

ijd p'^n-inb nnana

he does not,

however, state the proof

for this,

except that by inference he maintains

must imply a
I,

real

and not only an external

relation.

Cf.

Hobot ha-Lebabot,
^^

7 'tTB'ni.
'

Cf Moreh,

I,

52.
is

do not mean by Us actions the inherent capacity

in carpenter, paintey, or smithy for these

for a certain

work, as

expressed

l6

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

no plurality
in

activities implies activities

the subject

is

apparent, for
its

denote some external relation of the subject to

environment.

In point of fact, most of the Arabic as well

as Jewish philosophers
logical relation;

do not treat

activities as

a special

but, including

them together with space

and time under the heading of External Relation, admit

them

all

as divine attributes.^^

The

separation of activities
is

as a distinct class of logical relations

effected here

by

Maimonides because of his

rejection of

non-dynamic external
It

relations on account of their implication of similarity.

might be questioned, indeed,

Why should

not activities, too,

be excluded on account of similarity?

later on, this difficulty has not

As we

shall see

been allowed to pass unit

challenged by Crescas.^^
to state that

For our present purpose,

suffices

dynamic
in

relations,

according to Maimonides,

imply no plurality
divine attributes
activities.

the subject, and consequently the

must be interpreted as designations of

There
attributes

are,

however, two points with regard to dynamic

First,

which need some further explanation.

true that the assertion of

while

it is

any action

in itself

does

not necessarily imply the existence of an accidental quality

in the subject,

the assertion of

many

diverse actions,

it

would

seem, must of necessity be accounted for by some kind of

diversity in
its

source, the subject.

Second, while some

of the Scriptural attributes, as knowledge, can be easily

turned into actions, there are others, as

life,

which do not

appear to have any active implication whatsoever.

As
;

to

belong to the class of qualities which have been mentioned above

I

but

mean
2>

the action the latter has performed.

We

speak, e.g. of Zaid,

who

made

this door, built that wall,

wove

that garment.'
2 Cf. infra.

Cf. supra, note i6.

Chap.

II.

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

the
first,

WOLFSON

l^

Maimonides maintains that the various

activities

affirmed of

God

are in reality emanating as a single act

its

from the divine essence,

apparent.^"

manifold ramification being only-

As

a single ray of light emanating

from

a luminous object, by striking through a lens breaks into

many

rays, so the single act of

striking the lower strata of

God becomes diversified by One in essence, its reality.

in

manifoldness

is

due merely to the various aspects

which

the divine action appears to the

human

eyes.

second point, Maimonides shows inductively

Biblical predications

have active implications.^*

As for the how all the To do that,

however, there was no need for him to go through the entire

list

of attributes found in the Bible.

Most of them had

themselves
to

been admitted
actions
;

by the

Attributists

be

^^

some of them

were a matter of controversy.

unable to interpret as actions,

There were only

four, which,

the Attributists considered as essential attributes.

four

These

life,

knowledge,

will,

power

are shown by Maimonlife,

ides, in their

ultimate analysis, to be actions, and one single

action withal.

While the controversial

will,

attributes of

knowledge,

and power are interpreted by Maimonides as dynamic

relations, the attributes of existence, unity,

and eternity are

admitted by him to be nothing but

static.^*'

And

yet they

are not attributes; they are absolutely identical with the

divine essence.

In created beings, to be sure, Maimonides,

the
early Arabic

following Avicenna and

declares existence

philosophers,

and unity to be adjoined to the essence

'*

23 Cf.
23

Moreh,

I,

53.

Cf. ibid.

Cf.
I,

Abrabanel's quotation from Averroes in his commentary on the

53.

Moreh,
26

Cf.

Moreh,

I,

57.

VOL.

VII.

l8

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the case of God, however, they are the essence
if
itself.^'^

in

But

you argue that since identity

is

not a relation, the

proposition that

'God

is

existent' or that
is

'God

is

one'

would be tautological, the answer

this case,

that the predicates in

though positive
'

in form, are
'

negative in meaning
'

that logically

not absent

',

God is existent is equivalent to God is And and God is one to God is not many
' ' '

'.

having once

stated this

new

solution of the problem of

attributes, reverting

now

to those predicates he has pre-

viously interpreted

as actions,

Maimonides declares that

static

even

those

may

be taken as

and interpreted as

negations.^^

The
stated

admissibility of negative attributes, which

as an incontestable fact,
is

is

at first

by Maimonides

afterwards

subjected to a searching examination.^'^

discussion,
illustrated

In an elaborate
clearly

by concrete examples, he

points out the

distinction

between the knowledge of a

Negative
limit the

determinate and of an indeterminate object.

attributes as well as positive ones

define
in

and

object of knowledge, but

Positive attributes limit the

they do so

different

ways.

number

of

all

the possible con-

jectures about an

unknown
essence
;

object by singling out a few

which constitute
all

its

negative attributes eliminate

neither one nor
all
is

those conjectures

by showing that
essence.
;

of them constitute

its

The

former, therefore,
is

a characterization of the object

scription
^^ 2*

the latter
thereof.

only a circum-

and individualization
I,

As
: '

the divine

Cf.

March,

57,

and

infra,

Chap.

II.

This

may
is

be deduced from the following passage

Similarly

Consequently God

exists without existence.

He

lives

without

life,

knows without
wise without

knowledge,

omnipotent

without

omnipotence,

and

is

wisdom'

(ibid.).
I,

"

Cf. More/,,

58.

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

essence
is

WOLFSON

I9

without determinations and

is

unknowable, nega-

tive attributes are permissible,

whereas positive ones are

proscribed.

In this statement of Maimonides' negative interpretation

of attributes
ides,
I

have followed the traditional view.

this,

Maimon-

according to

attaches no significance whatsoever

to the positive form of those attributes which are inter-

preted
is

by him
',

negatively."*^

'

God

is

existent

'

means

'

God
of

not absent

the positive form of the former proposition

being

absolutely

meaningless.

This

interpretation

Maimonides, though prevalent and widespread, does not,

however, seem to

me

quite correct.

think he attributes

some
about
just

logical significance to the positive

form of judgements
Let us

God

as well as to their negative contents.

briefly restate the

problem which Maimonides was

His

called

upon

to

solve.

main problem

was

not

whether God

possesses

any

essential

attributes.

That

assumption was ruled out of court by the absolute simplicity of

God on

the one hand, and

;

by the Avicennean theory

main problem concerned

of universals on the other the

his

meaning of the

logical

predicate affirmed of God.

universals,

These predicates, not being

and of necessity

identical with the divine essence,

must consequently form

avoidance of a tautoat in his

tautological propositions.
logy, I think, that

It is this

Maimonides aims

negative

interpretation of attributes.

The

divine predicates, he says,

though expressing a relation of identity with the subject,

are not tautological, for the affirmation of identity has an

emphatic meaning, implying as

diversity.
^^ Cf.
'

it

does the negation of

God

is

existent

'

is,

to be sure, equivalent to
III, 3,

Gersonides' criticism of Maimonides in Milhamot,

in

which

is

quoted below

note 54.

C 3

'

20

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

'

the affirmation that

proposition
size that
'

God

is

God

',

but

still

even the latter

to

maybe
is

logically justified

if it
'

means

empha-

God

not

Man

'.

Similarly

emphasizes the negation of absentness.

of identity as a logical relation
use,
is

God The

is

existent

justification
its

by means of

emphatic

found in the Logic of Alfarabi.^^

Thus, the positive

forms of predicates are not altogether useless according to

Maimonides.

And

this

is

exactly what he means

by saying

that the divine predicates are

homonymous

terms.

Not

being universal, and

expressing a relation of identity, divine

predicates are absolutely unrelated with similarly sounding

predicates describing other beings.

In the following state-

ments of Maimonides,
without
life
',

'

God
'

exists without existence, lives

'

&c.,

we

clearly see that

God

is

existent does
'

not merely mean

that
is

God

is

not absent

',

but what

it

means

is

that

God

existent with an existence of His own,

identical

with

His own essence.

To

affirm

this

is

to

emphasize the negation of existence used as a universal

term.
If,

as

we have just said, by negative attributes Maimonides

afifirm

means that the divine predicates

follows that the term negative

a relation of identity,
it

emphasizing the negation of a non-identical relation,

must have been used by

Maimonides

in

some

special sense.

By

negative attributes
in

he does not mean that the proposition

cate
is

which a predi-

affirmed of

God

is

negative in quality.
is

He- means

that although the proposition itself

positive in quality,

the predicate

is

to be understood to have a negative prefix.

''

In a proposition like the following, the predicate and subject can

:

both be individual
Syllogism).
(Brit.

" Tlic one

who

is sitting is

Reuben "
^*J"'N

'

(Alfarabi,

Book on
NIK'jn

HT

HTH t3D'j'D3

''C'N* N::>i3n

Dy

D'O T\vrh

by

Mus. Harley 5523,

p. 71 ^\>T\7] "1203

"'n-ID^N)

piN"> NIH

X"Vn.

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

Thus,
'

WOLFSON
'

21

God

is

one

'

is

not to be convertible into

' '

God

is
'

not

many but the term one must be taken to mean notmany the quaHty of the proposition as a whole remaining
',

',

unaltered.

In order fully to appreciate this distinction, let

us briefly restate what Aristotle had said about the quality

of propositions.

There

is,

he points out, a distinction

between a proposition wherein the negative particle modifies

the copula, and that wherein

it

modifies the subject or

the predicate.
latter
is

The former

is

a negative proposition, the

an affirmative proposition with an indefinite subject

or predicate, as the case

may

be.^^

A negative proposition
its

expresses the privation of the subject of one of two alternative qualities, thus always implying

possession of the

other

an affirmative proposition with an indefinite predi-

cate expresses the exclusion of the subject of a certain class of qualities which are irrelevant to
its

nature.

The

latter
call

kind of proposition

is

said to express

what Kant would

is

an

infinite or limiting

judgement, as

to be distinguished
'

from a negative judgement, as the proposition The soul

not-mortal
'

is

is

to be distinguished in

meaning from that

in

pf

'

The

soul

is

not mortal'.^^

It

is

the sense of the

Aristotelian indefinite predicate that

Maimonides uses the

expression

'

negative attribute

',

the negative particle being

hyphenated with the predicate, thus excluding the subject

not only from the stated predicate, but also from implication of
its antithesis.

This seems to
:

me
'

to constitute the

significance of the following passage

attributes

Even
to

the negative
in
is

must not be found and applied

God, except

the

way

in which, as you know, sometimes an attribute

negatived with reference to a thing, although that attribute

^2
32

Cf. Organott,
Cf.

On

Interpretation, ch. x,
vol.
I,

and Metaphysics, IV,

22.

Sigwart's Logic,

ch. iv.

22

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

it

can naturally never be applied to

e.g.
is

in the
'

same sense
I,

as,

we

say, "

The

wall

is

not seeing^'
'

{Moreh,
is

58).

It
',

quite evident that

we never say
is

the wall

not seeing

except in the sense of 'the wall

not-seeing '.^"^
attributes

The

rejection of positive essential

is

and the

admission only of negatives, which

tantamount to a con-

fession of our ignorance of the divine essence, gives rise to

the question whether thereby

it

would be possible

at all to

mark any gradation

being.

in

But that

one's

human knowledge of the divine comprehension of God is commenis

surable with one's intellectual and moral virtues

of both reason and tradition.^^

a postulate

In answer to this difficulty,

at

Maimonides
tion
is

maintains that

knowledge arrived

by nega-

as capable of increase as

knowledge attained by

determination.
since
it

The

negative interpretation of attributes,

has been explained to express the affirmation of the

relation of identity

emphasizing the negation of irrelevant

qualities, has a double meaning.

While excluding God

and

from knowable universal qualities, the attributes affirm of

Him some unknowable

qualities, peculiar to Himself,

identical with His essence.

s*

When we

exclude

God from

That

this is in

his statement

what has been meant by Maimonides is quite clear from his Milot ha-Higayon, which asserts that it cannot be
is

said that
hr\'2i

<

The

wall

blind

'.

11?3IjO IC'X

DN

'D

-\^Vr\r\

DK'a INin^ N^l

Yipr\
"h

-ir:w

x^

ijnjs "3

^Ninn -nyn^ ^n3i:n

"liy

xinn

nyc"'B'

(X'" ny::'

]\''l7\r\

nibc) th^ N^I

calls

xbl

^3D

NIHCJ'.

Narboni

in his

com-

mentary on the Moreh

this

kind

of negation,

referred to here bj'

Maimonides, 'general' or 'absolute' (Jinpti'On), a term which has been

adopted by the modern commentators, as Munk, Kaufmann, and Friedlander,
in

explaining
u-'K
"iJ'S

the

text.

"'D

^jT'jnn

n^X^DO

nXipiJ'
:

HDID

n^T' "133
rh'^^^n
Meta-

[nxn [nxn

Dy!?3

loa]
.

rnnron
.

rh'h^'r\

nnNn

q*:^d

"rj*

bnan loa]
I,

nn^c'Dn

rh'h'c*r\

^atrni

....

cf.

physics, IV, 22.

"

Cf.

Moreh,

59.

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

WOLFSON

23

the attribute of ordinary existence, for example, at the

same time we
His own.

afifirm

that

He

exists with an existence of

in

God, by virtue of His absolute perfection

infinite

every sense, has an

essence
;

number

of aspects in
so,

His

and had we only the means of doing

all in

we should
But on

be able to express them

human

language.

account of the unknowability of the divine essence, we can

express none of
its

infinite aspects in positive

terms

we
our

can only indirectly hint at them by

negating of

Him

own knowable

perfections.

Not only must our

afifirmations

of divine infinite perfections be indirect, they must also be

limited in number, since the knowable
that are negated of
tion

human

perfections

Him

are finite in number.

difficulty.

This Hmita-

on our part involves a serious

For
is

in

the

conditional reality of the world

we know
is

there

always

line

of demarcation

between what
is

always already
is

actually
able.

known and what we

actually

unknown but

know-

In so far as

are cognizant of conditional reality

we
the

are able to distinguish

God from

the world, the absolute

from the conditional.

By

negations,

we exclude Him from

known quantity of
a corresponding

perfections and indirectly afifirm of

Him
tions.

Beyond
is

that

number of unknowable divine perfecboundary line, which marks off that

that which
is

which
world,

known from

unknown

in

the knowable

God and
as

the world appear to us to merge together,

so, since

and though we do not say

it,

we

are unable to negate

all

we assume

it

were that

God

possesses

the knowable

qualities

of the

undiscovered part of reality.

But

this

limitation which springs from our

disability varies with

each individual.

The boundary

line

between the known

and the unknown

and forward
in

in the knowable world shifts backward

accordance with one's

own

intellectual

24

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

attainments.

To

the more informed the

known

part of

reaHty

is

greater than to the less informed.

The former
perfections

hence can directly deny more knowable

of God, and indirectly affirm
fections

human

more unknowable divine perThus, while neither possesses

their indirect

than the

latter.

positive

knowledge of the divine essence,

knowledge of God varies widely.

of the

Furthermore, the realm

laid

knowable has not yet been completely

bare,

and, consequently, as our knowledge of conditional exist-

ence has

before

it

ample opportunity of growth and

expansion, so our knowledge of absolute existence of

God

might gradually draw nearer to perfection.

Thus by means

of the quantitative distinction in the knowledge of conditional reality

between different individuals, and by means

of the multiplicability of that knowledge in each individual,

Maimonides conceives the

possibility of a rising scale in

men's knowledge of the divine essence.^^

Maimonides' theory of attributes

original.

is

typical rather than

None

before him, to be sure, had analysed the

he, but his

problem so minutely and comprehensively as

constructive view does not differ from those of his predecessors.

Negative and dynamic interpretations of divine

attributes

had been the common stock-in-trade of Arabic

Philo.^'^

and Jewish philosophers ever since

noticed,

As

thus far

Maimonides departs from the commonly accepted

and

view solely by differentiating between actions and external

relations
his disqualification of the latter.

Again, with
to

the exception

of the naive

theologians,

referred

by

'"

Cf. ibid.
I

While
I

have given here a rather free interpretation of the

its spirit.
i,

chapter,

hope

have remained true to

I,

"

Cf.

Munk, Guide,

ch. 58, p. 238, note

and Kaufmann's Altii-

butenlehre, p. 481.

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

Maimonides
himself,

WOLFSON

25

none of the rational thinkers admitted

the propriety of accretive attributes.

The

discussion was

focused mainly on the so-called essential attributes, that

is,

the universal predicates which enter into the formation

of definitions.

Thus

the problem of attributes runs parallel

to that of universals

and to that of the nature of

all

logical

propositions.

We

have seen how

these problems con-

verge

in

the theory of Maimonides.

Taking universals

to

be present as something

distinct within individuals, and

finding the predication of such universals to be inconsistent

with the absolute simplicity of

God

believing that a logical

proposition must affirm a real relation unless that affirmation

is

emphatic, he was forced to declare

all

divine predicates

to be relations of identity emphasizing a negation.

In his
terms,

own

language, the divine predicates are

in

homonymous
we

having nothing

common

with terms of the same sound.

shall

Following the same analysis of the problem,

now
our

expound

several other representative theories of attributes.

criticism

Algazali's

of Avicenna will

be taken

as

starting-point, after

which we

shall discuss

Averroes and

two of

his

Jewish followers, Gersonides and Moses Halavi,

and

finally

we

shall give a rather full account of

this

an entirely

new view proposed by Crescas on

attributes.

subject of divine

II

Algazali's approach to the solution of the problem

is

unique

in its kind.

He

dares what

nobody

else before

him

had ever thought of doing, to impugn the Avicennean

definition of necessary existence.

Does necessary existence

is

preclude noetic plurality?

inquiry.

that
in

the main burden of his

His answer

is

the negative.

The primary

26

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

existence, he contends,
is

meaning of necessary
of efficient

the absence
for

causation.'^
itself,

The Avicennean proof

the

conception

indeed, merely establishes the fact of an

ultimate terminus to the interlacing chain of cause and

effect.

That terminus

is

necessary in the sense that

its

springing into being had not been effected of a pre-existent agent.

therefore,

by

the operation

The phrase
a

necessary existence,
existence, the term

means nothing but primary

necessary signifying in this phrase

spatial

description

of the

and temporal relation of a certain being

interrelated entities rather

in a series

of causally

than a qualitative
If

determination of the nature of that being.

asked,

we

are

now

Can the

necessarily existent

be composite? the

answer would depend upon the circumstance whether the

composition
38

in

question would be subversive to the unconDisputation VII.

is
'

Cf.

Destruction of the Philosophers,

all

The source

of error and blunder in

" necessary existence
".

this discussion

to

be found in the expression

But

to us the expression

seems

to

be irrelevant, for

we

do not admit that the proof for necessary existence establishes anything

except the existence of something eternal which had not been preceded

by an

efficient agent.

If that is its

meaning, the expression "necessary

existence " must be dropped out of discussion.

tention plainly', that
distinction in an
efficient
it

You must

state

your con-

is

impossible that there should be plurality and

eternal existence

which had not been preceded by an

be unable to prove.'

agent.

But

this

you

will

dSt^H

"lIpDI

?:'T\''

D"N N^N niN^i'cn

y^\r\'o

^y

min

.T'Ninc

mi: n?

i:n3N "d

ni"^o N3 aiyn ^nxijn

h^irw

m
.-fN-i

^^^
|o

dni ^^yi3 ib
cii"'Dn

pi^ti'

WV

ni-i3n

xrD"''j'

npcn

Nine'

ion^i

^mx^VDn" 2>MnD

^D^DiDi^-'Dn

n^DH) r^y

D3^ px

mi

^^yis 'h pxc' x^rr;^

N^rcn

The same argument

This seems to
Curiously enough,
al-Gazali, does

recurs in Disputations V, VI, VIII, IX, and X.

to

me De

be

the

central

argument made

by Algazali.
Carra

Boer, in his Der Widcrspruch der Philosophic nach

it.

not even mention

II,

Neither

is

it

mentioned

in

de Vaux's Gaeali, ch.

where he discusses the

latter's

theory of attributes.

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

WOLFSON
If

27

ditional existence of the being, unconditional in the sense

that

it

is

not grounded

in

an

efficient cause.

the com-

positeness be not subversive to such unconditional being,

then the necessarily existent

may be

composite.

By means

of the conception of necessary existence so stated, Algazali

proceeds to show that the necessarily existent, according

to Avicenna's

own

definition,

might be composed of matter

*
;

and

form,^^ of substance

and attribute

it

might also be
and, finally,
its

defined in terms of genus and difference

that
it

^^

might also have existence superadded to

essence*^

Indeed, Algazali goes even farther.

The original

conception

of necessary existence does not, he holds, preclude the

duality of absolutely existent beings.^^

Unity, simplicity,

and incorporeality are

ence.
It is

all

unwarranted by necessary exist-

only by vitiating the primary meaning of the

for

term,

by extending the proof

to be used
;

the

absence of any

efficient

cause whatsoever, that necessary existence had

come

by philosophers
it

in

the sense of absolute

of vicious intellec-

simplicity

and, again,

is

by a kind

tualism which

reasons from the conception of absolute

simplicity rather than

from the conception of necessary

existence, that the philosophers

had erroneously

inferred

the necessity of the

first

unconditionally existent being as

one, simple,, undefinable,

and unrelatable.
i^K
p^K"l^:^ bv H'^sn T'joynD

3
<"

cf. Disputation Cf. Disputation

IX:
VI
:

D'<i'3

DmN^^n.

jivini

nb^T]) ^yiDH Dvp nnpB' bv DD-i^ona

njitj'NT
*i

n^nnn^.
VII
:

Cf. Disputation

Elnnt^"'K'

N"-s'

jm'N-in nix''iTK' Dif^s' St3aa

bnnna ucd i^nan :iDn

*-

in'piT
:

nv.

Cf. Disputation

VIII

piy\b:i

p^^Zi \wir\n

n1N''io".^

dicn ^lana
11X32

Cf. Disputation

nnX

bii^'C

bv

H^NI

T'Di'ilD

DmN^

"

28

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Algazali's

argument against Avicenna's conception of

is

necessary existence

based upon the

latter's

use of the

term

'possibility'.

Possibility,

according to mediaeval
In the

Jewish and Arabic logicians, has two meanings.

first

place,

it

applies to a thing which without

its

any cause

whatsoever
being.

may by
is

own

nature

come

or not

come

into

This

the real and primary meaning of possibility.

In the second place, the term applies to a thing which

cannot come into existence save through an external cause,

in the sense that in so far as the

thing
is

is

dependent upon
its

a cause, with respect to

existence
cause.
bility.'**
is

itself

it

only possible, since

determined by the presence or absence of that

is

This

the unreal and derivative meaning of possiis

Real possibility

thus the antithesis of impossibi-

**

Moses Halavi,

in

his Treatise

'

On

the

First

Mover

',

discussing

Avicenna's proof for necessary existence, makes the following comment

'

The term

possibility is not

used here

in the

sense in which
exist.

it

is

used in

the Logic, namely, that which

may
it

or

may not
its

But we must underis

stand that the expression of having by

itself

only possible existence

to

another

way

of saying that

owes
not,

existence
its

something

else.

Necessity and impossibility are

existence which accrues to

therefore,

antitheses.

For the

and sometimes

not.

some external cause may sometimes be necessary In both cases, however, we call it possible by itself,
whatever nature the existence
in reality is,

by which we mean
it

that of

is

due to some external cause.'

:

To

this the

Hebrew

translator adds the

following note
that

'

In general, he [i.e. Avicenna] does not

is

mean by
is

possibility

whose

antithesis

necessity, but that

whose antithesis

self-sufficiency.'

Nim

^\]'<:nn

njN^ron nn:3n bv |X33 ncExn n^o

n"j-':

ab NiaK'

nii

ns

^'man

m3nni ^nbnno niN^xnn n^nno n^pin mx''i;r::n

"icDN
Ninc^
D^j^:y

[pjjpo
n\n^
'JK'3

ni*"'^o

Nin

inir:>k'y^

nix^scn

Dnoysb
"ir:wi

'3 ^D^-'nDi:

Tbz myni
n^
D^nys^i

mti^ifon

.p

n\-i"'

"inbnrD n:p: niN^yon '^-no

n\'-i

in

nrx imN^VDB'
bv
ii<:)3

^""Jin ^iniroyy^

rh^2

IN3

mana pN

bb^i) "

]vb2ri

fi^dih

mvn

pTiyon

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

lity

WOLFSON

29

and necessity

unreal possibility
in his

is

the antithesis of

self-sufficiency.

Now,

proof of the existence of God,

its

Avicenna uses the term

possibility in
all

unreal meaning.*^

From

the observation that

existences, sublunary as well

as translunary, are with respect to themselves only possible,

on account of the presence of an external cause, he concludes that there must be a prime cause which
is

necessary

even with respect to

itself.

In what sense, according to

Avicenna, must that prime cause be necessary with respect

to itself?

Certainly in the same sense as that in which the

are
possible,

other existences

namely, with respect to

external causation.

Consequently his proof for the presence

of a necessarily existent being merely establishes the selfsufificiency of that

being

that

is,

its

independence with

respect to external causation, without, however, disproving

its

dependence upon internal causation.

against Avicenna's

Hence, Algazali's
of

criticism

identification

necessary

existence with absolute simplicity.

That Algazali's
admitted.

criticism

is

incontrovertible

is

generally

In his Destruction of the Destruction Averroes

refutes Algazali's contentions not

by

justifying Avicenna,

but by showing that Avicenna

*^

is

misrepresenting the philoDestruction,

Cf.

Averroes' Destruction of

tlie

Disputation X.
possibility

'

It

was Avicenna's

intention to have his distinction

between

and

necessity correspond to the philosophers' view of existences, for according

to all the philosophers the celestial

spheres are said to be necessary with

that

respect to their cause.

But

still

we may ask whether

which

is

necessary

with respect to

its

cause has really any possibility by

itself.'

TVi'S

D3DN1

Kin

QNn D3DN1

.in!?iD

"'nnan

Nin

n>D"iDi^''2n

^a

^i^n

''n-'DK'n

"J^non nt
Prop. 12.

nn n^tJ'a

riK^plVO "jmil.

Likewise mMorehha.Moreh,U,

30

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

sophers in the use of the terms possibility and necessity.^^

Possibility, to Averroes, has only

one meaning, and that

is

the real and primary one.

Nothing whose existence

is

dependent upon external causes can, he holds, be called

possible in

any sense whatsoever.

and and
celestial

Avicenna's designation
is,

of sublunar

elements as possible
for

therefore,

untenable
cause
is

his

consequent proof

self-existent

likewise invalid.

The

indivisibility of the divine

essence as well as the unity of God does not follow indirectly

from the proof of His necessary existence, but from the

arguments, of which there are several, which directly prove

His simplicity and

unity,*'

And

so,

while disagreeing with

Avicenna as to the

proof,

Averroes agrees with him that

(i)

the divine attributes must be interpreted

as negatives,

and
*^

(2) as external relations, the latter of which include

Cf.

DesI ruction of the Destruction, Disputation X.

if

'It has

already
is

been made clear from our arguments that

by necessary existence

understood that which has no cause, and by possible existence that which
has a cause
classes
[i. [i. e.

the Avicennean view], the division of being into these

two
is

e,

necessary and possible] could not be asserted, for the opponent

this alleged division,

might deny

maintaining that every existent being

is

without a cause.

But
is

if

by absolute existence

meant necessary existence,

[i. e.

and by possible

understood real possibility

the Averroean view],

the series must undoubtedly terminate at an existence which has no cause.'

n-i^nn N^*o:n nix-'vr^n 2^^in?:o pi'*

'h

n:^'N^ p^<;

'h

rhv pN

svr.:^

^3
;roi.

rhv
*''

pN*

NVJ^j

bx pDD xbn

\'':i^7\

rhy

^nr^xn ly^asn p'j*2sn

'

Cf.

Averroes' Destruction of the Destruction, Disputation VI.

is

say

that this

a refutation of him who, like Avicenna, argues for the rejection

itself.

of attributes from the premise of necessary existence by

But the best

173 Hf

method
3^-inD

to

be followed

in this

inquiry

is

to argue from unity.'

^niDK

'{'>):i^r\2

/ro

i-n

Dnsnn npmna

^^^t'

^^b

hthd

nnnNnnn

nv^na nra

nmo nnvn Tnn

d:dni pnirovya niN^von.

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

WOLFSON
action."^*

31

both the category of relation and that of

But
a

these are not the only explanation of attributes.

By

new

theory of universals, which will presently be set forth,

Averroes maintains that some attributes

may

be positive

and

essential.

Avicenna, as we have seen, holds the universals to have

reality in re
in the

and post rem because of

their reality ante

rem

mind of God.

The

pre-existent universals, according

to him, are present in the multitudinous individuals.

What

then does Avicenna mean by his assertion that universals

exist only in

mind ?

He means by

that that the presence

of those universals in the individuals and our abstraction of

them cannot be
Averroes
differs

discovered except
is

by the mind, though

their presence in the individuals

independent of the mind.

with him on that point.

He

thinks the

very presence of the universals

in the individuals

a mere

mental invention.

The phrase
to

that universals are in the

mind he
from

interprets

mean

that the

very presence of

the universals in the individuals and their distinction thereis

invented

by the mind.
is

The

difference

between

Avicenna and Averroes

similar to the difference between

the objective and subjective interpretations of Spinoza's

definition of attribute in
in

modern philosophy. Consequently

distinction

any

definition the
is

between the individual

substance which

defined and the universal substance

by

which

it is

defined has no reality whatsoever.

to

The
in

indivi-

dual substance only appears

aspects.
It
is

the

mind

universal

exactly this mentally invented distinction,

says Averroes, that Aristotle conceives to exist between

the faculties of the soul and
its

essence,

and that also the

Christian theologians conceive to exist between the three

*^

Cf. Destruction of the Destruction, Disputation V.

32

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

and the

Personalities

Godhead, though both the soulare in reality

.

essence and the

indivisible.''^

Godhead

one and absolutely-

By

this

Averroes could have solved the entire problem

of attributes.
attributed to

He
God
all

could have said that the predicates

designate certain aspects in which the

divine essence appears to the

*^

human mind.
it

He
in

does not,

Cf. ibid.

'

It is in

the nature of essential attributes that they do not

;

actually diversify their subject

they diversify

only

the

same sense
is,

as the parts of a definition are said to diversify the object defined, that

what

is

called

by the philosophers a mental

plurality in contradistinction

to an actual plurality.

Take, for instance, the definition of

man

as a rational

animal, in which case neither of these attributes

actually added to the individual

nor both of them are

human

essence, though

man

is
it

diversified
will follow

by the
that

attributes describing appearance

and form.
is

Hence,

he

who

admits that the existence of the soul

absolutely independent

of matter, will also have to admit that

are such that are one in

the soul
is

one

in

essence

among immaterial existences there actuality though many in definition [that is to say, but many in faculties]. This is also the Christian
is,

doctrine of the Trinity, that

they do not believe in attributes adjoined

to the essence, for the attributes to

them are only

in definition, the manifold-

ness of which are not in actuality but in potentiality.

that these [personalities] are three

Hence, they claim

and yet one,

i.

e.

one

in actuality but

nm^n 03 nnin* nb^ D''^O^yn DnNDH -imo ,-\i:n ''pbnz maim nmn^ i^n* n^-a nn-iD"- dj^n* ^ax pnb b^on onxnK' ,nT |voni y-\ }v)^2 ^m ab pb'm >bcr ^m nihk' nn
three in potentiality.'
,y'-i

,)2

nnno
wNvrD^

'lai

nno

nns* ^d

nvnm

nmn

pxi

pmo
pN

'n

din

mvc'

"-o^

T-'nn''

n6i y-\ ,n na-ino njionni nsnoni

mrt:'

.i^yisa

nis'Vo:a

i^y^

ncinn

nniN^^'o

^N^no
xin:^'

cajna'

Dni'un nyn inn

.mn
nox^

nann ^^'n ^^yiaa nnx

nan
in his

no ni^iajn

D^VN on

d:j:xi

,nvyn bv d'sdu
r^]b^

onsn d^nt ab

ont' ,nn-,tn^::'3

,nnxi nc!?c^ nn-^

,bv^Zl2 ab)

o-'ni oni ^-nan D"'3-ino

This passage
(I,

is

paraphrased by Narboni

commentarj- on the Moreli

58), but

he disagrees with Averroes as

to the latter's interpretation of

the Trinity.
potential

The

Trinity according to the Christian belief, he says, are not

but actual.

DnVIJH ^VN ^yiQ3

n\n^y

':n

DnSTin

*D

'h

nK-|3m

i"3 noN'-^ 1D3

nan

n^ ^nas Dvym.

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

however, say
attributes,
so.

WOLFSON
all

33
the

He

admits with Avicenna that

which with regard to created beings are

acci-

dental, with regard to

God must be

interpreted either as
relations.^*'

negations or as dynamic and external

There

is

one attribute, however, which he

positively,

insists

must be taken
Intelli-

and that

is

the attribute of Intelligence.

is

gence, says Averroes,

this to

the essence of God.

He

maintains

be the view of the Peripatetics

Intelligence
is

in opposition to that

of Plato.^^
for

therefore merely another

'

word
but

God. In the proposition, God

is

intelligent', the relation

is

affirmed between subject and predicate

formal.
is

not

real

And

likewise the universality of that term, which

implied

in its application to

God and

to

human

beings,

is

only nominal and formal.

Still,

the nominalist interpretation of a universal term

disposes only of the assumption of an underlying identity

running through various individuals.

the existence of

But

it

has to assume

some kind of

relation

and resemblance

between

different things.

Without such an assumption the

all.

mind could not form

and other creatures
tion of the

universal terms at

What

is

then

the relation that must be assumed to exist between

in

God

order to justify the

common
is

applica-

term Intelligence?
is

The

relation,

according to
a thinking

Averroes,

that of cause and effect.

God

being
are

in

whom
and

the subject, object, and process of thinking

all

one and the same thing.

all

But His thinking

is

human The intelligence are offshoots of the divine intelligence. application, therefore, of the term intelligence to God and to human beings does not mean that both share alike in
creative,

the Intelligences as well as the

^0 Cf.
51

Destruction of the Destruction, Disputation V.

Cf. ibid.

VOL.

VII.

34
a

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

common

property

it

means than
it

man

derives

his

intelh'gence from

God,

in

whom

is

not a property but the

very essence.

The
its

universah'zation of an individual term

by means

of

application to the effects of that individual with which

is

the term has originated a class by

itself.

distinguished

by Averroes

as

He

designates such terms as ambiguous

with respect to priority and posteriority of application.

get at the meaning of this phrase,

To
all

we need enumerate
single terms
in

the other kinds of applicability of universal terms with

which

this nevv^

one

is

contrasted.

Thus

may
three

be universally applied to different individuals

ways
is

equivocally, univocally, and ambiguously.^^ A term

it is

used equivocally when

in

applied to two or more things

either in essential or in
is

which share nothing

common,

non-essential properties.

Such a term

a perfect

homonym,

and

its

several applications in reality are perfectly unrelated,

as. to

use an old example, the

word grammatical meaning

the art of

grammar and

woman.
term
is

A
*

univocal term

is

one

which

is

applied to two things that share in an essential

quality, as, for instance, the

man

'

applied to indiviit is

dual

human

beings.

A term
'

ambiguous when

applied

to different individuals

which share only

in non-essential
'.

properties, e.g.
recall that in

'

zvhite

snow and 'white paper

We may
sharing

Maimonides' theory the divine attributes are

univocally nor

used

neither

ambiguously,
in

God

with other beings neither in essential nor

qualities.

non-essential
in

In that theory the attributes

must be taken
or
(

"
'n

Equivocal

= D^2mK'D

or D^Dnriw'j:; univocal
I,

= D^2D10
Lo^/c,
I,

D^D^JDO

ambiguous =D^p21DD.

Cf. Algazali's //f/oA-,

fl^:n

T\M\2

npi7n ^'N

JSINJ,

and Maimonides' P'inn TWyOi.

I.

Cf. Aristotle's 'Oyiwvvyia,

Zxvwvviia, Ilapwvvfia, Categories^

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

an equivocal or
therefore,
is

WOLFSON

35

homonymous

sense.

Divine intelligence,

absolutely unrelated with

and
a

is

applied to

God

negatively.

human intelligence, Now, Averroes proposes

its

new usage

of a universal term in the case of

in

application

to

two things which share

common

quality only, in so

far as

one of them derives

it

its

quality from the other, to

which
with

is

essential.

God, therefore, does not participate

but

man

in intelligence,

God being
Him.
That

intelligence,

man

derives his intelligence from

special sense, in

which a term

may

be applied to different things, was

according to Averroes' testimony unknown to Avicenna.'^^

5^
'

Cf.

Averroes'
:

Destruction
id,

of

the

Destruction,

Disputation
eo,

VII.

Ait Averroes

Si intellexisti

quod diximus antea

quod sunt hie

aliquae,

quae includuntur uno nomine, non inclusione rerum univocarum,

nee inclusione rerum aequivocarum, sed inclusione rerum relatarum ad aliud,

quae dicuntur secundum

ut deveniant ad

prius, et posterius, et qualis proprietas

in illo

harum rerum

primum

genere, quod est causa prima omnibus, quibus

imponitur hoc nomen, ut est

rebus
calidis, et sicut est

accidentibus,

non

deficies

nomen calidi, quod dicitur de igne, et aliis nomen entis, quod dicitur de substantia, et ahis et sicut nomen motus, quod dicitur de locah, et ahis motibus, scire inane, quod ingreditur in hoc sermone, nam nomen
separatis apud philosophos

intellectus

dicitur de intellectibus

secundum

prius et posterius,
et.sic
est
in

quorum

est intellectus

primus, qui est causa aliorum,

substantia.

Et

ratio,

quae demonstrat quod non habent

naturam communem, est quoniam

aliquis

eorum

est causa alterius, et id,

quod

est causa rei, est prius causati, et impossibile est ut sit natura causae,

et causati

uno genere,

nisi in causis individualibus, et

haec quidem species

communicationis est contradicens communicationi genericae vero, quoniam

communia genere, non

est in eis

primum, quod

est causa aliorum, sed

omnia
in re,

sunt in gradu, et non reperitur in eis aliquid simplex, sed

communia
sit in eis

quae dicuntur secundum prius,

et simplex, et

et posterius,

necesse est ut

primum,

hoc primum impossibile est ut imaginetur

ei

ei

secundatio.

Nam

quotienscunque ponatur
esse, et

secundum, necesse

est ut sit in gradu eius,

eis,

quo ad

naturam

et erit ibi natura

;

communis

qua communicat

communicatione generis veri

generi
et
:

et necesse est ut differant differentiis additis

;

ergo erit unumquodque eorum compositum ex genere, et differentia, omne quod huiusmodi est innovatum. Demum id, quod est in ultimitate Nam, nisi esset unum, imperfectionis in esse, necesse est ut sit unum.

36

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW The new

distinction
in

the universalization of terms

which had been advanced by Averroes was adopted by

Gersonides
in his

theory of divine attributes.

Gersonides'

constructive view

Maimonides.
fallacy in the

may He commences by
all

be gathered from his refutation of

pointing out an inherent

homonymous
as

interpretation of positive attri-

butes.

Since

positive attributes that are not actions

must be taken

homonyms,

that

is

to say, afifirming,

according to the interpretation given above, a relation of

perfect identity which emphasizes
identity
;

the negation of non-

and since consequently any predicate could thus

be interpreted homonymously, what would account for the

fact that

some

attributes are found in positive form whereas

?

others occur only in negative form

latter as well as the

Why

should not the

in positive lan-

former be expressed

guage

Take,

for instance, the attributes of existence

and

incorporeality.

If the former

is

perfectly

homonymous,
corporeality in

why should we not likewise affirm an homonymous sense? To say

word
corporeality
is

of

God

that the sound of the

in

itself,

irrespective

of

its

special

meaning,

derogatory to the divine being, does not explain

In dealing with the problem of attributes,
ut
sit

the matter.
possibile
est

we
non

ei

ultimitas

esse, id enim,

quod

est

ultimitale
latere

communicat
fines,
sic

ei aliud,

nam,

sicut linea
in

una non habet ex uno

quidem

duos

res,

quae succedunt

esse, diversae

in additione, et

diminutione, non habent duos fines ex uno latere.

in esse

Avicenna autem
significat

ncscivit

banc naturam mediam inter naturam, quam quae non communicant

ei

nomen univocum

et naturas,

nisi

nominibus tantum, aut accidenti

remoto, et evenit

haec dubitatio.'

(Latin translation from the

in

Hebrew

of Averroes' Hapalath ha-Hapalah,

the

tenth

volume of

Aristotle's

collected works, p. 232 a-b, Venice, 1560.)

It

should be observed that this special kind of generic terms, which,

according to Averroes,
in

was unknown
Logic,
I,

to

Avicenna,

is

mentioned by Algazali
D>'P nr

his luteiilions,

^"nn-NI

HOnpn

NIHI

D*niX3

('n npi^n

/n

[din ^jvan

^ni3n)'imTn^ psiDO

nv

"12:51.

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

WOLFSON

37

are chiefly concerned with the meaning of the terms as they

are employed,

and not with

their associative connotations.

is

Furthermore, the admissibihty of attributes

decided upon

the ground of their logical consonance with the conception

of necessary existence, and
not

upon the consideration

whether

in

human

analogies they are regarded as perfecIf the distinction of affirmative

it

tions or imperfections.

and

negative prevails in the form of attributes,

for quite different reasons the

follows that

term existence, even when

with
its

taken
usage,

in a sense not entirely unrelated

ordinary

may

be afifirmed of God, whereas the term corthe

poreality

under

same circumstances

must

not

be

affirmed of Him.^'*
^* Cf.

Gersonides' Milhamot,

III, 3.

'

In general,
to

it"

the things which

we

predicate of

Him were

applied to

God and

ourselves in perfect

homonymy, none of the terms which we use in designating ordinary things would be more appropriately used in reference to God as negation rather
than affirmations
instance,

or as

affirmations

rather than

negations.

Thus, for

one would be able

to state that

God

is

corporeal, provided he did

not

mean by
is

that corporeality anything possessing quantity, but

something

which

homonymous with what we usually call corporeality. Likewise, one would be able to state that God is unknowing, if the term
perfectly

knowing

in that proposition

was not used

to designate the

same thing as
an
an

that which

we

ordinarily call knowledge.

Nor can

it

be maintained that
it

we
For

negate of

God

corporeality because with respect to ourselves

affirm of

is

imperfection, but
it is

we

Him knowledge
is

because

it

is

a perfection.
is

not the term corporeality, which

;

alone negated of God, that

its

imperfection
this is so

the imperfection

is

rather contained in

meaning.

That

can be proved by the

fact that

were we

to designate

by the term

corporeality

what

is

now
is

designated by the term knowledge, and by the

term knowledge what

now

designated by the term corporeality, then

corporeality would have been in respect to ourselves, perfection and

know-

ledge would have been an imperfection.

Furthermore,
first

we

do not affirm

nor negate anything of God unless

the existence of that thing
is

we had

ascertained as to whether

appropriate of

God

or not, but
is

it

is

not

imperative upon us to inquire as to whether that thing

imperfection with respect to ourselves.'

a perfection or an

38

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Thus
divine attributes arc to be taken, accordinpr to

Gersonides, as universal terms.

raised

But now the two objections

First, the

by Maimonides

recur.

attributes being

univcrsals, according to the accepted theory of universals,

exist as parts in the objective individuals
is
;

this,

however,

impossible in the case of God.

Secondly, by attributing
of relation between

universals,

you imply some kind

God

and created

beings, and ipso facto

you imply a
is

similarity

between them, and such a similarity

impossible.

Gersonides' answer to these two possible objections, as

we have
Averroes.

said,

betrays

the

unmistakable

influence
or

of

He

distinguishes

between a

real,

rather

existential, universal
in
is

and a nominal, the

latter

being found

the case where an individual quality of a cause^ which

identical with the essence of that cause,
is

in

common
identical,

language applied to the

effects of that cause.

That term,

with respect to the object with whose essence

is

it is

only an invented universal.

When

joined

in

a proposition,
is,

the relation between the subject and predicate

therefore,

not real but verbal.

A subject of that kind, says Gersonides,

subject of discourse
',

may

be called a

'

for in reality the

is

subject and predicate are identical.

It

only when the

is

predicate
real,

is

an accident that

its
'

relation with the subject

',

the latter being called a

subject of existence

that

is

to say, the subject of inhesion of the accidental predicate.

Now, in God
or, in

all

the attributes are identical with His essence,

other words, they have no separate existence whatsoIn any proposition, therefore, in which
of

ever.

we

predicate

some attributes
Still,

God we

really state a relation of identity.

such statements are not tautological.

For

logical

propositions do not merely express real relations, but formal

relations also.

God

is

the

'

subject of discourse

'

of the

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

attributes predicated of

WOLFSON

39

Him, and
all

in discourse there is

no

tautology, for in discourse

the attributes predicated of

', '

God
all

are universal terms.

'Knowledge

power

',

'

will

',

and

the other attributes, are affirmed of

God and

other beings

in

a related sense, the relation being that of cause and

effect.

But there

is

the following radical distinction between

attributes.
in

divine
tical

and human

In

God

attributes are idenit.

with His essence;

man they
divine
'

are accidental to

In the technical language of the time this notion

may be
to be
'

expressed as follows

The

predicates
'

are
'

understood

in

a sense neither
in
'

equivocal
'

nor

univocal

they are used

distinction of

an

'

ambiguous

sense with reference to the

'.

priority
:

and posteriority

To

quote

now

Gersonides'

own words

'We

say that after due reflection

it

appears that there

are attributes that are applicable primarily to

God and

subsequently to other things besides

Him

without, however,

implying plurality in God. For not every proposition in which something is affirmed of something implies plurality of that thing. There is implication of plurality only when one part of the proposition is the subject with respect to existence of the other part. But if it is not its subject with respect to existence, though it is its subject in the proposiFor tion, it does not follow that the subject is composite.
instance,
colour,
it

if

we

state about a definite redness that

is

it is

a red

does not follow that the redness

is

composed of

colour and red, for colour

not the existent subject of red,

but

its

subject oi discourse only.'^^

is

But would not a nominal universal which

from two individuals correlated as cause and
the existence of

derived

effect,

imply

some
?

real relation

and similarity between

the two individuals

it

Gersonides endeavours to show that

relation
Cf.

would

not.

If

any
55

is

to be implied
III, 3.

it

will

be

Milhamot,

40

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

itself is

nominal, just as the universal

nominal.

He

cites

an analogous case from the meaning of existence.

ence, according to Averroes,

Exist-

whose view

is

followed

by

Gersonides,

is

identical with the essence of the subject of

which

it

is

affirmed.

Now, accidents

exist through sub-

stances,

the latter thus being the causes of the

existence, therefore,
is

former.

The term

with respect to substances

and accidents, a nominal universal implied to individuals

which are causatively
related.

And
real

yet there
relation

is

no impli-

cation of the existence of

any

between sub:

stance and accident.

'

To quote

Gersonides again

It

can be shown, even though

be no relation between
attributes predicated of

we admit that there can God and His creatures, that the God may be applied to Him priFor there are

marily and to other beings subsequently.

some terms which, though they are applied to some things primarily and to others subsequently, do not imply a relation between those things. For instance, the term existence
is

applied to substance primarily and to accident subsein the Metaphysics. Still it is clear that no relation between substance and accidents.' ^"

quently as stated
there
is

We
lated

turn

now
his

to the theory of divine attributes formu-

by Moses

Halavi.'^"

Unlike Gersonides, Moses Halavi

works out

theory independently of Maimonides, to

whom he does not make the slightest allusion. may be summarized as follows: Attributes are
tive or negative.
(Du'3)

His theory
either posi-

Of

the negative,

some

are so both
'

m form
'.

and

in content (pjy^), as, for instance, in content

',

incorporeality

Others are negative only

as, for
*

and positive

in form,
is

instance,

'

eternity

the real meaning of which

without beginning or end

>'

'.

Both of these kinds of

attri-

Cf.

i/)id.

"

Cf. Steiiischneider, L'ebersetsiiiigeit, 239.

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

butes are admissible.

WOLFSON

4I

Thus

far

he

is

in perfect

agreement

with Maimonides.
Positive attributes are next divided

by the author

into

three classes.

First, attributes which are identical with the

essence of the subject, as, for instance, animality in the

predication of man.

Second, attributes adjoined to the

Third, attributes

essence, as, for instance, whiteness, &c.

which are merely descriptive of some external relation of

the subject,
as,

for instance, actions

and the relations of

first

time and space.

Of

these three classes, the

is

and the

last are admissible,

but the second

is

inadmissible, for, adds

the author, not only

any composition within the divine

essence unthinkable, but likewise the composition of His

essence with something outside
itself.^^

The

points of difference between this theory and that

First,

of Maimonides are worth attention.

according to

Maimonides, actions and external relations are two different

classes of attributes, the

one admissible, the other inadmis-

s8

^-ixiriDn

nine on nns'n onro

^pjyi nz>

p^'ivm anxnn
:''n
N1^L^D

D3?2Ni

D^v^'T'

N*^N

mnD

pbn an dj\s Dns'n Dni

mx

"insna

12

iJixnn ^imnc^

maino

-isinca

n:iDn

bv

nv

on ^3ni .udo
nihu'

mmnD

miDn on

ah) nsin?:n mnro

orx onxin onoi ;p^

ns3nn nnat^ ^^^< fn"

,-iNin^n

"h

D^Dnro
d:dni

mnnn on

nc'x

onsnn
;-ic'dn'

ors mncn p^n on t^-s .np^nnn ^nb 'n^ iniovy::'

inix -isnc'
.
.

pjy

by

nr

ubi^

inx
ibxn

nnn

'n''

yn\n

jd

njn

D-^anvn

nnsnn
^3

'n^

nsnc'

^jsjoi

bb

n"inon

by eim:

nnNn
nil

ob^ nbx

n^^bnnnai .n^^aoa
'n^

mis onxno
.

i^njs ;i3J
.
.

,D"'bb1t^^

nnsna
Tin by

nsrib p33

Nine* -isann n^n

Q^anv

inin^i'ya id's*
-iniy fin^*n

onvnn nsncn
on
il-'si.

.nibo

mbn

p^yn qni ,pjyi nibDi dn

42
sible
:

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

according to

Moses Halavi both

fall

under the

heading of external relations and both are admissible. ^^

Halavi, again, in
contradistinction to

Maimonides,

calls

essential universal attributes identical with the individual

essence,

and admits the usage

in divine predications.

This

unmistakably proves that to him universals are merely

mental inventions.
Reverting, then, to his
first

class of positive attributes, to

those designating a universal essential quality, which he

holds to be identical with the essence of the individual

subject, like Gersonides,

Moses Halavi endeavours

to obviate

the possible objection based on the proposition that identity

cannot be a relation
to such an objection
',

in

a logical proposition.
'

'

In answer

he says,

we maintain

that the prediis

cate of a proposition, as, for example, "

He

knowing",

with respect to

its

general meaning of the comprehension of

is

external objects,

not identical with the subject.

"

Nay,

they are radically different terms, for the term

knowing "
It

does not imply the specific subject of the proposition.

is

with respect to this general meaning that the predicate

bears a real and unidentical relation to the subject.

times, however,
it

Some-

may

be warranted by the context of the

proposition, that the apprehension implied in the predicate

with regard to the subject should be taken in a specific

sense which
in
is

identical with the subject, as, for

example,

the proposition, "

this

God
are

is

knowing".

It is in

accordance

with

distinction

between the
enabled
to

two aspects of the

attribute
to

predicate

that

we

God

essential qualities

which are distinct from

Him

as subject

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES WOLFSON

and
predicate,
^^

43
in

but

do

not

imply

plurality

His

essence.'

The

implication of this passage

is

clear.

Essential

attributes are universalized

by the mind.
But

They

are mere

aspects of the individual objects in which they have neither

objective nor subjective existence.
it is

that mentally
is

invented universal aspect of the individual subject that

affirmed in a logical proposition.
subject and predicate
is,

The relation between

and God,
be their formal

therefore, merely formal,

attributes, can
still

though

identical with

His

subject in a proposition.

In these five theories of divine attributes, which we have

analysed, the points of agreement and disagreement are
clear.

They

all

agree that Biblical predications of

God

should be taken as logical judgements.

All but Algazali

accept the Avicennean definition of the absolute simplicity

of the
reasons.

divine

essence,

though they do so

for

different

The

controversy turns merely on the reality of

predicates

the universal

and

their

distinction

from the

m)Ty:
n\n^

.THC'D

Dj?:si

.ins^
ncij

i^'o:

dhjd
ps*

nnx nvn oy
n:n ;j>y3
nns*
n::'N

n'':nL^'o

vn^

^ns*

^noNn

ar^*:)

D'C
i:jod

121 nxn:i
nDN*r:n
piro
d-j*3

pjyn jDiND fhnt^' pn nbyin

y^3^

ab

nn

inDN'n ^''STi:
^y
n3v.:^nni
.
.
.

nitDC
nir:n
yni''

':\:>2

"is*

.din*

nianu

mroxc' icd
nr
^3

nns

"nonn-c inr:N^

\_r>^)i]

^Ty nirrnnc
,N'':ripn

^y nnxiin n^'-nnn
,D''^nnj
ni?otr
'"Jc^

im:N
x"C"i]

Nini

^mnn
5|n-|j

nN*r

NVt^'3c
ni^vc'o
ib

nsr
pjy
""3

on

^3s* ^ns-ciji?

ijis

nynM
iJ'^r:x

np'h n^*n

niDi

^mnn
^)-^)i2

piD
nip

"Ti^n

Ti^n piro
.au):

ynv
kic>j

nicvyn

nr

ba

nyT^

px

nnxni

Dnn

nns*

^nnrjn pir^io s*vr

lan nn ^mx"'V02

ij^ya

nnx

im

vn-j^

ra -isincn
xini
nc's*

nnxna
niDvya.

'n''

nxin^-c^

nDsn^ nrn
,x"ic':ni

im

^y run

^ym-"

^snc* iji?^n

naann T-nn-c ^nbo

x-c'i:n

htd n^'-nn^ /,nir:vy on

44
subject.
in

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

And on

this point, too,

they

all

further agree that

distinct

God

the universal cannot in

any way be

from

His individuality.

The inquiry
:

is,

therefore, reduced to the

following two questions

First, are

the universal essential

distinct

attributes in beings other than

God
in

from their

individual essence or not?

Second,

what sense are these

?

universals applied to

God
is

as predicates

The answer

to

the latter questions

former.

dependent upon that given to the

in

Maimonides, believing that

other beings the

is

universals are distinct from the individual essences,

to interpret the divine predicates as

forced that
is

homonymous,

to say, as absolutely individual terms, entirely unrelated

with other terms of the same sound.

believing that
all essential

Averroes, however,

universals are
its

mere names,

inter-

prets the predicate of intelligence in

application to

God
ct

as a universal term used ambiguously

posterius.

seaindmn prius

Gersonides and Halavi follow Averroes, but

all

extend his interpretation of the predicate Intelligence to

other predicates.
of Crescas.

With

this,

we

are ready for our discussion

{To be continued.)

FRAGMENTS OF SA'ADYAH'S ARABIC PENTATEUCH COMMENTARY

By Hartwig Hirschfeld,
II

Jews' College, London.

The
size

two fragments of Sa'adyah's Pentateuch comdiffer

mentary here following

not only from one another in

and the character of the writing, but also from those

earlier articles.-^

which formed the subject of the

therefore, bring the

They,

number

of copies of the work

known

to have been in circulation to six.

The

large and careful

is

writing of the
sufficient

first

fragment of the present instalment

in

proof of the high esteem

this,

which the work was

are,
is

held.

Apart from

both fragments, small as they

is

contain so

much

that

of interest that

no apology

needed

for

making them

accessible to students of biblical

literature.

By
section

a strange coincidence fragment A, dealing with the

Leviticus

25.

36-46 has

certain

bearing on

the specimen of the same author's

lately published. ^^
It

commentary on Exodus

begins with the concluding paragraphs

of what looks like a dissertation on the prohibition of usury.

Sa'adyah has given special attention to

this

subject to

which

he

devoted

special

treatise.

Unfortunately,
us.^'^

however, only a small fragment has come down to

2* ^^

JQR.,
Ibid.

1906, July and October

1916, January.
'"

Ibid., 1905, pp.

119 sqq.

45

46
This
is

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

not
the

only

instance

of

Sa'adyah's

habit

of

supplementing important matters only slightly touched

upon

in the

Pentateuch commentary by special

treatises.^^

The
of the

author, then, takes up for a second time the topic

slave, actually referring to his

Hebrew

own comments

on Exod. 31. 1-6.

In

so

doing he furnishes a strong

argument

in
is

favour of the authenticity of our fragment. the translation of the group of verses, Lev.

Not only

25. 39-46, identical

with what

we know

to be his version,

but this also applies to a quotation from Job (31. 39).

Eminently

characteristic

is

the

way

in

which he

illustrates

the logical sequence inherent in the verses 25, 35, and 39.

There

is,

therefore,

no reason to consider the fragment as

belonging to

any other work but Sa'adyah's.

Fragment B begins with a discussion of the question

why

the expression of regret in Deut.

it.

i.

41 did not carry

'

forgiveness with

The answer

is

that

regret and firm

entirely free

resolve

',

the two pillars of repentance,

must be

from

ulterior motives.

This was not the case with the

people, as

may

be seen from

Num.
'

14. 39,

because their

regret was not the expression of

a pure heart

and a sincere
recorded
in

mind

'.

A
10.

similar case of unreal repentance

16.

is

Exod.
genuine

David, on the other hand,

who showed
12.

contrition

was forgiven

(2

Sam.

13).
is

The

announcement

giv^en in

the preceding verse (ir)

it

no proof

to the contrary, because

contains no threat, but a state-

ment concerning the

not an act of God,

evil

conduct of Absalom which was

Now
3'

this

affords

an

opportunity of examining the

It is
ibid.^

authenticity of the fragment.

prima facie supported

;

On

the Calendar (Exod. 12. i),

ibid., p.

1904, p. 293

On Testimony

and

Agreement,

294

On

forbidden marriages,

ibid.,

1905, pp. 712 sqq.

'

SAADYaH'S PENTATEUCH COMMENTARY

HIRSCHFELD

47

by the identity of the translated text verses with Sa'adyah's

version.

discussion
in

of the

meaning- of repentance in
is

similar terms, but

more elaborate forms

given

in

Book

of the same author's Emunot?'^

Dividing mankind

in respect of

moral conduct into ten classes he places the

class.
'

repentant sinner into the last

pentance, he says, are four,
viz.

The

lines
(sin),

of reregret,

abandoning

asking forgiveness, and the resolve not to sin again.'

In

connexion with

this

argument

it is

scarcely accidental that

the verses Psalms 78. 36-7 are quoted in our fragment as

well as twice
^"

in the

corresponding place

in

the Emunot. In our

Sa'adyah's authorship cannot, therefore, be doubted.

fragment he further

illustrates his
first

theory of repentance by
confession of guilt was

the instance of Saul whose

rejected, because

he was not really contrite, and only the

repetition of his regret induced the prophet to relent.

There
the

is

a gap after the

2.

first leaf,

the second taking up

thread with Deut.

9.

This contains a seeming

contradiction, since the Israelites

had taken possession of

Sa'adyah explains

a part of Moabite territory from Sihon.

this to the effect that

Sihon had conquered Moabite lands,

Israelites

and

it

was from him that the

is

took

it.

Another
'

possible objection
in the place of
*

that this passage should have

'.

Sihon
author

the children of Lot

To

this the

finds

three answers.

All this

is

quite

in

keeping with

Sa'adyah's usual method, relying on the number of argu-

ments as well as on

their strength.

The fragment ends

it

with the explanation of the names of the Canaanite nations

mentioned

in the verses 2, 10-12.

Here

should be noted
of rendering

that his translation of D^CN* agrees with his

22 '3

way

Arabic original, ed. Landauer,

Ibid
,

p. 177.

p. 180.

48
this

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

name
in

the

passages

in

which

it

occurs

in

his

translation of the Pentateuch.

A
Cod.
Foi. 23 ro.

Brit.

Mus. 5562,
bap
"is*

C.

27 cm. x 16 cm.
JN*3

HNiD saHNV rh
^^

nvD np rivp^N
w"d:i
'2

riin-inDro yN""i*

Nr:ixi

Tinsn n'^yn

]rty

NO

riion p^DX' in p^nnoro^s b'-noD

mi

N'^nn

avN2

men
s''K'

nnnxv^ paoni
"jn

^h

nnjy

lona si's Nn-i?:n jo

nbx no

^nps

li^i

n:3 ind ni^y n^s* pn^x jo NnnnNvb nn^on

bi2) Naic* riDjn^N ^nn ^^ r\2:n
ri-iijiD

xnn bysx nb

ns^sja

my

^xprn'*
':)

i^n^i Nisir iT^'i^N

n^^ini

pj

Nm^N

"^y nnii

pna p

nvp

"s

"T^

"iiy l^'i
'ji

NTN31
-)ir

':)

npb nia-ini

in^

ic'n

'bv on5i
r\ba "i
]n'
r\f^']}

'Nn
':"i

lo

ii^

Tioro n-i^hD

nsyND
]-in

ba?)

nc'ja jn:

ab isd3 xn-i^N

p3 np^so n^ p2 pnn

xnaxn
pin*

n^yj 'y^ dv^^

'ji

ah

N^ ^Npi Dion bi ^an pan

cn^ nixj nbo

nayi'N riyn'c^n

riync^N* nnn yanxi .pnv!? uio D^iy^

''2

D''DDU'on nba)

mc

np jn3 no nya >:N-i3ybN

;ni

HN^io

m5

3n5^N n3n
|N

Dps p:D

Dnii n:N

bip HNDNi
JO

^av^N
jN n^i
"iai

riJD

IN

NJinn N^anya

Nn3N

nnN

pi""

n^

"in

npny pjD

"i^n
s

dnoh
^nic'

inxon NiNi

^Nps Nnny ^dv^n

rioni noiiriDn abzi i? hdsj

rijD
''l:'Ni

yN3D lyo ii5n

"lyo

p^^

^i^i'D

in

t3nd T5ir5 n^ayks

p^:2^

in

^n^y |o
^3

ni)''

nn

n^

"joni"'
'^n

pn^dn^n
yn^i nyo

DnjN^ nay

.n'-NDN

nm

nm^*j*y

'

SA'aDYAH's PENTATEUCH

COMMENTARY

HIRSCHFELD
onnnax
pni'N

49
n^ny

V2

pysn^ ahsi ivd

nb

|o

DJ2i(hti

lOD i? JN313*

n^N ^nD^<^f^Hy^TQy^

Fol.

23

DnriTiry pi inn-^n oayo pD^pD^N jnod^n ^j3 }d

Dn^mnni xnn dd^

onjiDiDnD^
^^inD^
rinks*

i:i3^

D^nb
irD

'd

pniho^N
Dn:irnin

jintd^ D^nyn

Q3''jai?

N^ insi

ba
^3

^nib" 'n D^niix noi xn^N

'31

"joy "j^nN 11D'

rin^Nh Tp

N0pN3

T'iN ^^y

nDoi

"i^nx nio^

pijix^N pijip^b
^ip^

yaxn n^

*i303i

nny^i yx2
n^DD' D^i n^i^y

n:N3 nnoi

yna

-jio^ "31

npnx

in nniipxi i^n

.tw dS

n*3y^N DNpa no-pn n^jd hjd hodj yxa -nn i^n

rii'S'

Ti' P^

^J^n*

nS

ri'u-'xja
y:^''

inii ny^
n^i

xi?

tHbo

pi" ^3 ri^i^iD^N N^t^N^N

DNon^N

N^NoyN ^oy

IN

*vHko n^ipn nsnN ScnnS

HID N-ini

ids: ^^a nnD:n jn nc^nj nhpa ^nini

Ni^N ^onmi .1^ pnxij in njn ppj

npni?''

"rSio Tp NV'N ^onn^i

nti'iriD

.^'^i'N 's

nip^^

t3C3

Tp

.Nonp

n''^N

nnysi ndd nn^xx nsv^

rhii^]}

.nxko
ijsn

""^y

mN^JiNi nn:ir
inD loy

v^

n^iy^ njv^

XD

n''X3

nay barn nr^ ly

y:r2"

Tpi

Nnyap^i pJbT

ONon rima

i^nv^N n:^

a Dn:i33 n*2fa loy vjni Nin -jcyo Nii^i ipi

lN3n Nnn nva ipa nnan n5ni ^hobx bx^y

isiin^N "by in"

anibsa .loy

idk^n ns^"i
ni^i 'ipi
.

bxp

"in

ijy pa" jN 3:v innsB'o bs

nbap jn3
nn^n bnx

DDN 2202
VOL.
VII.

N"'C'

njivpj"

xb

rhiir\2

50

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

b)bn ]H2 NiJ npi n^bv ypi ti^n nnuyi?N
i'xi

nSp

ini

n^ ^:yD n^ yvioi^K Nin ^d riy^v^w

nDS3

yT

ob ton pan:

Dfi

.avj-^

vnuN nrnN

B
Cod. Bodl.
Foi.

e.

74, 19

cm. x 14.5 cm.

^^y Diy^N jy n^

83

ro.

arzn psvi^N

piNH |{o NnNi n^HD ^yD

i^i
'2

saiNV

p3"

NO

*^y fNDT^N

-UTD^N

!?nN jD Njnai npi

nan^y riain^N
Di?

Tnoy

n:N^ n-nn^N ^iHp

31313

on^ip yo onnain ^3pn

'jj^n
"-^

n^a xj^a np
i?Np

Nin

jN^ ^ip:3

'31

D33-ipa

lon^n n^i i^yn n^ nn^

Tin ip b'UDbn |NS nnin^N

'b

Nii^ip j'ya

i'y

i'onc'N ip |N3 [ni

q

Non

niy^Ni Dn:i'N in b^p: n3d |ni njn i^ni riain^N unc^

n3^ip

TNy!?Ni

mN3^N NonypiN nin

libai N3i'p

nd3n N3N3

rinin^N

'mm
|ni

Nnnapi? n-i^yrD^N 'bv

(i'Ni)

013"'

jn ini riain

n3nd pviV3o pn3i "by

mN3bN
ND^

ypiN fNs nap^JN 'd anbht^ ^^n my' n^ by ory'

IN
'''N''3n

r\2^ii

vsi:

nr.NS n3Nb

iiijys

no
n^

'i'y

nDn3 DTNy^Ni

Noi? IN y33bN ^jno nniD"

nod

n^nro
|n

'!?n

iiy^
riain

jn 'bv

myi

i^n

n3D

Nn3i

np

nry^Ni

Dn3bN

^byi

p'

nb

i^n

^JiiND

O^y) pypNi
N3i'VN N"in IN3 NiNi

NonnatTN NO

'by

in NonN3-iD'i

pi^N pnsi^N

^^jy

n3i3 npi ''"N'3n y23 nisb

NDn3 nano "jon

und
'I^n

[ns ibs

riain^N 's

ND3N
IN

nn3Ni'

Dn3o n3in n^i pa' D^ nbho

''N"'3T

niy n^-in

Dty^N

ID 13-13 Nnnbsi

yD3

IHI

bNIU''
in

piN
^^jn

nNi'-i DHniD^ i3Tnn

IN3

ND3N

ibaxn'i

iN3n

nbip

nn

pawn i^Nia
N3rni

i3i3>

n63
in

yD3

nisa

in

oio3oi5N3

"nv

hbna

pba

in
c'bt

D^y^N
nb

Bs^ni

c'by

SA'ADYAH'S PENTATEUCH COMMENTARY

N3^Nn
arh'^p)
jS'D

HIRSCHFELD
msb
finis*

51

^^N''3n

-nir b^brh in ^'N^n ysj

b2

DDmp3
ri'31

>jrs*
|*^n'5

-"s

iron^n n^i ibyn ah

on^ n^^N
k^
^^^^

i?Np

-jbi^D

ri^DNV

3^p3 ni^xp d.ijn '^y

i^
i^td""

i^n""

ijnldh

Njnn

npi

'i:"i

iDy pa: n^ on^i

'ai

D.Tsn ninsM nnjy bxp np

nam

^^^

p^

0^51

02^51

nynba

""'b

""nsDn
^^jn

pnN^i ncKib

ny-is i^xp

iTSxv n>:3

jnii?

!?Np

n^^

th
dj

jn
inj

nn

rnoss

ri^j

jy

m
jn

nj^!?

nion N^ inNDn nuyn

""

n^ bap ^^b "nxon

i^Np

j*^5d

3S"5i

}Na
i^^xp

in*3D nyn

-]''^y

n'-pD

'Jjn

nbipn

nb^N mysin
p"-

'iba

ivha

loa K-in5 |ND NDJX1 NT-yi lijNi

n''3p!'N bys''

d^ n^ ^^p nnaina
ai!5:;'2N*

opo''

d^

x^

r\:iib

^^s*yn

n!?!?^

^ys | p^ d^i

nx'-niiN Foi. 84 vo,

-ICN'
rh)\>

nb}

^jyc

NDS ^^syn

n^j^N ^ys

p iH
"i^yn^

p3^ d^
^nnji

"js

>p

|ns

nn^T

xh

na

ni'N'in

nsiN njx

ni?

^v

';i

n^yy^ 1^*0 ns*

ri'^iinijN

'nnph

inj^N
ijN

T:a cnjy nDir

"lON^i

n!?

ji^nn n*d:xs* yb)tir]

pni ci^c'nx

pa
n^i

bM<^

njy ^xp n:Na b^au

':i

ndxs

i^t^n
^a

TJa mi*

n:?D

"i!?"!

!?3p'

oh
i"'^

^na^ nxi

"-''

^d ns*

imay

"nNL^n !?niol"
ni?
!?j<p

T\ynr2

'1

"idnd"-!

nai nx noso
^y

nNon n^

nhp nyn
'bv bi'

^a

niN Dip bap ipi

fiain^x n2i

ih ^p

ab
|n*^

b)^::^ ]a

Nina i^d
nid:n*

Nin
KOJN

|N inj

hpJ3 .vby nnn: pn nn^N

nj

i^-i

^ap" d^

DN^JNi^N | ibi

nya nn ^n^ no |N3^

nai ^by

nam njo

jns
nai

li?

ijip^x

nxaipy^N upon ny\r\ba ]ab riaipy^x

n^ n:no^s*
ni?

hv na

^n>

xh

3^Nn^ bap' Nb Nnni

|s*

">

"jdnd^i >a:^N

i^Np npi a^NnijN ]v

^21

NnasiJi Nn-ianN
-)5n ^a

nx

nn^na

ril^DrD

rivp^N n*in
!'nidc'

:jnnDO^
njn x:ni
rixp^s*

^Np

Dji

im
jo

:iiK'N

n^

^inej'^

i'lp*

sj^n-i

nJN ^ipjs
loy
aiK'^

^a:^s*

i^ pn
sin
^*

?i^aa

hN:^' ins*

i'Nij:-^'

3'j'^i

|n

3-'

nh

naii^N

^^y -[oy 3i::'n

x^ sSp

p3'

jn 33^

Read n^NIDI.

52
JNQ n^NiD

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

hx

'3

in iojTHitt^

n^ n^N nai^s pa^s

-iJs

>bv

nya n:N

nn

'ba

nyo
ijd3

yn
prn^i

^vJni^N nxyxi ^nid^n

i^sp

nsyx

TiNDn NV^x r6 bap

li^^yo

py

3i::'n

x^ n^ rh)p

2^) ain nyn ^xp i^nbz

'2

^sic'^ i33i ^oy ^:pr i:: a: ':i22

k'^x

nny

in?3n^o

^b nx
|y

n:nni

rh'\p^

i^ixc

nnx

^xiDcy

ninp npi ^s

oxv

n^ipa xnni li^n nnjo n^bx

nn' d^ npi

nxpix^x XDX2 v:nD bv ma:;^

mn

ni:n vbyi xii'oy^

mo!? ^yo

mn
HNn^c'

nx T-n

ijn^i nbip3
"ti^^
!">'

^^D i^xn 's rnironc^x

WTrn xiiDSi
I^B'
'*"

.n*Ti'"'i

V^^

^^ l^-in nian

xmxo
nifji

ijxpi

pn

nD

D"'03n pc'^
!?x iri'yi "ijjn

npxpDK^x

DnDy:xi
ini

nrrx ic'x Dipcn

(nx:n) nx:n Dn^ip

1^01

pnx
''bv

Foi. 84 ro.

DHjy pb DnD^nxi 3X103

onx

xon xnab rhnp

onyni dh^jso
n^ip
'SI
'ji

'y)

nxio nx i3M

'nc>''

loip'-i

^xnc"' n:jno ^x ixnM

b^)
'3

'x^oi

mx
'ijxyn

(so)

nx lybc" naiD np^n

inx xb

iDin

ab njx ^xp ip

|X3

xnx njx
npi

'ni

n^Do nc^n' ivnxo ^^

T p
'3
'D

n)i2ti

xo.fx xJD^y
i^-i

nhxm

nxio n^n

^xntr'
in

'oy
prvo

hp3a

fcn

pi'aD

niT'-ni

mrxnx
'3

npi "Sxio

i^a

njxD xDno
ivnx no'^a

n^^-i'

ivnxo i^ |nx

x!?

'i^xyn n^i^x
ni?ip li?!

hp
b'f''

|x naxia

ht

ly

n?n5 xnxs ivnxo

i?x-l:^'

"bv

HxiB

n-

fl'3Q

bap fXD .nioxn p-ixn

np pn^D fX3 xixi

2U')

bap "j^nS

pirvo p-ix \n i?3

'2

ria)'^'

-iy

nx

^nn: D'h ':2b

n^isy

nb)p n*hxn

n'c')-\'

-ly

nx

^nn: pn^ob

^2

nxv npa

3^:1
|x

3x10 n!?33 -126

x^ njx

in

hxbx

3xi3ks* p3Xi33
rv^-\^

ih
^^'^

jy

3xv

pD' njx n^

b'p

pD'pD 13X3 xono njx

in

^h

Dib 'J3 >Dyx XI03X p3' fx yjno'

ps^
of?

'3xh^N 3x13^x1 .ntlFp nn^

ini
t3-i:j'3

on^^y

i3!?3

xixa

n^s

nK'n>

i^Ji
ijTy

di^j

>:3

loyx nd3x

])2>

|x yjno*

x^

l^n

|3*

nb Dnp-itj

xnxs

ripntii^x 'D^?nDo 13x3

xcno

ibi onxoyx nd:x p3' |x ]2ry njx in n^xh^x 3x12^x1 :ncTT oni)

SA'aDYAH'S PENTATEUCH

COMMENTARY HIRSCHFELD
''ba

53
hk'it

?my

nr\b

i?i \y nb si'pni npi^s* Nnn^N xiss .nhyn npi

n:iih

^0X3 n^NS nirv~nn^

1^*i

i'^'

'"'^^

^'^''^^'^

^^P ^'^^^

Di55 ^Np

Dm2N

}N^ n:yn^ ny

ns

^nn:

i2) b

^:nb ^3 ^t<P

npjs
^^'"'

pB'^ N-ini

pa^no^N D^osn snosi iT^^^ P^^^ ^^

TiB^ n^c\s
njD

TirD-'N*

hn .n^n:
^!jy

r\

^^n

nD''x njni

Tpj T'na gin^np

npi
c'^j

)bz:

m?2 nin^Ni .nnsi nnro^N on^^y ^isn

.noisx hd'-n ^nstr: n^ip ini in T'Jn
fii5i

p^xxno^N

C1V1

nm

jN'ob n^DynoN* npi

^JHD^NI

rin^n

n^

y^D5i

"tnToTovx n^ip2
^s "ipa ^jjd-in^n FoI. 84 vo.
'r^D

n^^m

(so) mv':^'!

nvn nsi
^2

nns

m^^ro

fi^'i

i^Sin"*

D^cN3i
iJN*3

DDK^JN Nnnn jNnixi'K

.12

npi

NS^m

xDnp
nht:
'S

Dn:K
N!i''x

nsnx nn

ni:'''

d'^js'?

D'^mn nbipi
'd

idnpn*

D'^r^x^s*

|X3 npi 3S"id

pnx

pD^Pt2

nx^ha DJON^x
Dby^x
^D

'^ixn

Pi^ii

cnnp

nii^^n

d-idxh nxi ip^

oni n-ih^^x ^d Hni -np^s ^d b^i: oy

's

nxcv

a^a hp3i nnryNJtri onmt;' D6y

i^Np

D^Jy^xn dhxixdi

Dh

.D'^:'

D^jy

^3

xinn nvn

nyrDt^'

nnx

yK^in^!'

Nin

DVJy3 hijn

mxn

yanx nnp on
""ja

d^jd^

nnnn

dk'i

p"3 D^^^DJ^x

nxhx
Ji

nni

u'p:]!:^

pjx

idk'h^

D''X31 n^ipi
u'^xn dk'i
rib'^ap

xjD^y npi

D''i5''sjn

}d pjy

q'^^'^djiI

nx

xnh
nx

3i

D.nn D'-on

jnxn vn

D"'i'''23n

Tpn

d''^"'d:^x

i3''i

^xp

xrD3i

xi^x rionp n^xai^x

Ti

ri^'-api

riyxJB'i'x

D^XDi^xa pD^niro pj^oi^s^x jxd npi

Dnnx^ix

n^np nnnt^ya
idc'd''1

n'^xsn

i:x3 ^3 D-xsn pj2V2

D"'nc'i'D

ixn DNnc'^si p3i

^33D nan tx nnn

ny

n?on^r:?n

ncyni

p nnx
""dd

^n^1

j53i

non^D my
'51 inD'i
'c^'"'

\nni

^xp

Dii

:iy:3''i

o'-xann n^i'Vo
nil

nx

"ntj'inn

nx

onn'^i i^xpi

.xsnn^ n^u xin

'ji

nnD lya NnM nja

n^ipD 2^3

^^y

D^jy^x n^^x i^nxi

i^d"'i

njn xann!? in^u n^x

54
13.JM

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

-|y-ai

xSpn

nN-isi
^D

'31

P^yn

'n

n-^bu^
i^y::*

m
^n

ib^^amjrm
|n D'-js^

n^yc^~Tn
'ji

po^'^o 1JN3
i^yc* ^33

ninn
nbs

onnn

;nNn

'3::^'

nnn

n^"i

bp

^Np no31 Nonp

>s^bx
'si^s*

bvs^K Nnn -i5n

'b"1

^d fjNp^i

miN

p xn

-i^yc>

'n nnn

n^x
nbn

men' vcy

':3i

n^ipa nsnxi i^yu*

irnii

|nx2

'>di^n^

nnn

Dn:N30

"TW
^N

^n^i^' i^^'I^^ ''^ "i^*^^^

.

N"*

on^jDo

T^
NO na

nSpi
n'l-i'

,Tnw~^*

nc'N ny

1t^y^

apy^ ^xp i^i^i

n^i'y

d^i 3iyi

pmo tba mba no

na n^nN ^nik''

Translation.

A
....
31. 39.
it

is

clear that

it

has an owner, as stated in Job

This refers to landed property mortgaged to him.

it

Those who consider

lawful,

cat

the

produce of the
its

mortgaged property without crediting the owner with

value.

Job, however, dissociated himself from so doing,

:

saying

have eaten nothing of

its

produce

unless
If I

credited the owner with the

amount

off his debt.

have

not done

so, let thistles

grow instead of wheat, and cockle

Also Ezechiel
(18.

instead of barley (v. 40).

10) after
(v.

enumerating many misdeeds, concludes as follows

13)

Upon
(v,

interest

he gives
this,

forth,

and increase

he

taketh.

In opposition to
5)
:

David ends Psalm 15 with the words

his

He
I

that

putteth not

money

to

usury ....
Similarly

he that doeth these things shall never be moved.

in Ps. 93.

and

55. 23.

The next law (vers. 39 sqq.) is that dealing with the Hebrew slave in accordance with what was explained in

SA'aDYAH's PENTATEUCH

COMMENTARY

HIRSCHFELD
if

55
he

Exod.

21. 1-6, viz. that he serve six years only, but

refuse to leave the service he shall serve his master for ever.

In our passage

we

are taught that

if

he compensate him

before the lapse of the six years the master sets

him

free,

since no Israelite shall be in servitude during the jubilee year.

[Here follows the translation of

vers. 39-46.]

Ver. 39 forms the continuation of the verses 25 and 35,

and means that

if

a person
if

sell

his estate

and

still

be

in

want of funds, even

his

thou lend or trust him, and he

;

sell

own

self,

thou shalt not hold him as a slave

he shall

not walk behind thee with a saddle cloth nor carry bathing
utensils before thee, nor

do any special work, but

(ver. 40).

shall

be

as a hired servant

and as a sojourner
shall

The term
to

'hireling'
either
'

means that he
architect
'

do work congenial
or
tailor.

him
he

as

or

carpenter

The term
for the night

sojourner
;

implies

that thou shouldst consider what

lacks

also that he should be

accommodated

further, that

he complete prepaid work, and finally that the

master provide for his wife and children.

of the verse

The

final

words

mean

that

the jubilee year interrupts the

service of full seven years.

Ver. 41 makes

it

clear that

he

and his family must be kept by

especially mentioned
in

the master, the wife being

21. 3.

Exod.

The 'going out'

verse

points to previous 'coming in'.

The next

demands

that he live with the family (of the master) in such a

way

that they do not

let

him

suffer

any want, because he might

be called a slave.
of his estate
is

We

see that the mention in this passage

meaningless.

After this

we

will

explain

that he did not sell himself

56

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

B
Since
in

your opinion these two terms represent

the pillars of repentance,

we

find that the position of the

people

in

the wilderness was as

we

described

it.

Now

why-

was their repentance not accepted, considering that you

maintain the duty of accepting the [words of] the Torah

which says (Deut.

for
I

i.

42)

You
?

shall not

go up neither

fight,

am

not in your midst

We

answer that though your

left

question covers part of our declaration, the querist

aside what we said concerning the conditions of repentance.

Although we say that regret and resolution are the two

pillars of repentance,
fulfil

we demand

that the repenting person

these two conditions in order to render repentance

worthy of its name.

for the

He must be sorry for his misdemeanour

and be firmly resolved not to
If,

sake of

its

odiousness,

be guilty of any similar

person regret his offence,

lapse.

however, the repenting

because he failed to achieve some

worldly end, and

in

is

bent upon not repeating the mistake

order to avoid

another disappointment,
his

this

is

not
the

repentance,

although

regret

and

resolve

bear

characteristics

mentioned above.
the

This being our principle

regarding repentance, had

'men of the wilderness'

enjoined, this could not

repented on account of the risk of worldly gain, whilst the

resolve not to repeat the offence
is

be called repentence, because they mourned the loss of the advantages of the holy land which was a mundane advantage.

They

cannot, therefore, be looked

upon

as having
14. 39)
is

been
only

contrite.

The term 'they mourned' (Num.

sadness

describes

and

distress.

Distress

the

knowledge or the

belief that a person is affected

by some

damage

or tho loss of a great advantage, but not every one

SA'ADYah's PENTATEUCH

COMMENTARY

HIRSCHFELD
is
:

57

who

is

sad because of worldly loss or

reason that

damage
them

repentant.
shall not

It is for this

God
: '

said to

You
this

go

up.

When

they said
it

We
c^6

have sinned*,

does not

show
This

that they said

is

with a pure heart and sincere mind.

as well as in the case of

described in Ps. 78.

Pharaoh because

his confession arose out of evil intention.

his
sin

When David
forgiveness.

confessed

to

Nathan with a pure

heart and a sincere mind, the answer expressed complete

Now
(2

if

some one

assert that the threat uttered

against

him

Sam.

12. 11) did not

is

become

invalid in spite

of his repentance, the answer

that this

was not a threat

but the announcement of Absalom's undutiful behaviour,

which was not an act of God.

neither

God does nothing bad. He commands nor permits it. Some people might
if

raise the objection, viz.

is

this

was not an
?

act of

God, what
is

the meaning of the verse just quoted

The answer

that

He permitted Absalom

to

make

free with those

women,

by

neither turning

him away from them, nor forbidding or

warning him.

As

regards Saul, the Bible states that he acknowledged

his sin (i
"(ver. 26).

Sam.

',.

24),

but this confession was not accepted

This shows that Saul did not speak these words

in

a sense of repentance.

Some
'his

interpreters say that his

fate

regret

was rejected because

is

had been sealed'.

My

answer

that had these words been the expression of

real repentance,

no sufferings would have been

of
trial,

inflicted

upon him unless by way

Such words as

but not as punishment,

fall

because repentence makes punishment

'

to the ground.

He

hath despised thee' are not spoken by

a prophet to a person

who
raises

repents or

is

to be tried.

Now
I

this

verse

an important question which

mention here together with the answer thereto.

How is

it

58
that

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Samuel
said to Saul
' :

will not return with thee

',

but later on the story relates that Samuel did return with

him.

How
is

could the prophet do such

a thing?

The

answer
but

that Samuel's refusal refers to the first request,

his

when Saul expressed

sorrow

for the

second time,

taking hold of the

hem

of his garment and repeating his

confession of sin, and asking

(ver. 30),

Samuel

to return with

him

the latter did return with him.

'

The words
desired

when you had girded on every man

1.

his

weapons of war' (Deut.

41) refer to an occasion not

by God,

as
is

Divine approval

when Joab slew Amasa (2 Sam. 20. 8). expressed in i Sam. 17. 39 and Ps. 45. 4.
'

The word
passage."^

irnni

explain by
to
fn
('

you agreed ',^^ the word being

')

radically related

yes

as used

in

a Talmudical
14.

They

therefore answered with

Num.

40

foi.

ro.

.....

They conquered both

Kings
3.

of

them and destroyed

in

them as

stated in a

24-5.
:

The words
If

Deut.

2.

involve another question, viz.

give Israel

God

did not desire to

any part of Moabite

49
ro.

territory, whilst

we know

"'

B. M.,

fol.

Strange to say, that in his Translation Sa'adyah

renders 13\"ini by

DrmN31

{yon hasiemd), thus abandoning his former

to

translation in favour of
lation

one which seems

have been current.

The

trans-

DnDViXI is not only given by Jephet, but also in a late Qaraite compilation of comments on Deuteronomy (Cod. Brit. Mus. 2498, fol. 2 vo.) in the words

It

is

to

be noted that Jephet's

is

name

is

not included in the authorities

quoted by the compiler, but he

author of our fragment
is

perhaps alluded to in "IDSni.

Qaraite

out of the question on account of the

al-Usi'il, ed.

two quotations
col.

from the Talmud. See also Ibn Janah, Kitdb

|,i

Neubauer,
i3vin^

780

^s.^\

jn

^j*

Jiju ^ilj nnnn ni^y^

SA'ADYAH's PENTATEUCH

COMMENTARY

HIRSCHFELD
is

59

that what they took from Sihon

was Moabite country, how

that
this

was

this

possible?

The explanation
' '

verse
2.6),

refers to lands taken

from the hand of Moab (Num. 21.

{ibid.).

and
it

this is

intimated in the word his land

it

When
stated

had gone out of Moab's hand

This
is

was no longer
ver. 25.

their land,

but Sihon's.
later

confirmed by
that

It is.

on (Deut.
if

3. 9)

Ar was

given to the children of

Lot, and

Sihon had conquered the land of Moab, the

:

verse should have run

inhei'itance.
it

To Sihon

have given
in

Ar

as

This can be interpreted

two ways:

first,

could not have been given as an 'inheritance to the

children of Lot'

had they inhabited

their inheritance.

it,

but

if

they conit

quered

it, it

was not

Secondly,

could

only have been given as an inheritance to the children of

Lot on the condition that they kept on the

but when they walked crooked ways,
inheritance.
to
(a
it

straight path,
their
it

was no longer

Thirdly,

it

is

also possible that

God gave

them

as an inheritance
;

up to the time of
it

his sending

prophet)

but the time had arrived

was no longer

their inheritance.

Therefore the objection that the passage

'

should have

'

to Sihon as inheritance

is idle,

because the

land was handed over to the Israelites as an inheritance for

them.

The
Lot, viz.

verse Deut.
is

2.

9 only

means what Abraham

?

said to

not the whole land before thee

fear'.^^

The word D^ON (ver. 10) I explain by 'those who inspire The word is frequently used, as Genesis 15. 12;
23. 27
;

Exod.
Syrian

15. 16
is

Ps. 55. 5

88. 16,

In Hab.
these

i. 7

the

army

described

by

D'N.

All
It is
7.
c.

instances

express the idea of fear and terror.

sense in the
^

used
7,

in

the

same

Aramaic passage, Dan.

to

describing the
;

See also Sa'adyah's Translation

Deut.

lo ii

Gen.

14. 3.

6o

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

of

kingdom

Edom,

whilst in Jer. 50. 38

it

refers to idols.

Dent. 2.10 teaches that the

in

Emim had

formerly been living

(Gen. 14,
.5).

the land of

Moab

as well as elsewhere

These nations are here described by three

viz. great,

characteristics,

numerous, and powerful, and are compared to

in

the

Anakim
J

respect of might and heroism, as stated in

Josh. 74.

2, 15. 2. II

In Deut.

the CNBI are said to be the descendants

13. ^^)

of the Dv'D:

CNum.

as di.stinguished
tribe, as

who in Gen. 6. 4 are described by bravery. The Rephaim were an ancient

.seen

may be

from Gen. 14.

5.

The
i

Philistines

were
9,

mixed up with the Rephaim,

as stated in 2 Chron. 14.

but really belong to their descendants, see

Chron. 20. 4-7.

God
in

destroyed the

Anakim by

the hand of Kaleb, as stated

Josh. 15. 14.

Deut.

2.

2,

speaking of the Horims, should be compared

21.

with Gen.
.stated

3*^.

At

the end of the chapter they are

to have lived

in

the land of Seir.

The words:

'the .sons of Esau disposses.sed

them'

{ibid,),

mean
in

that the

descendants of E.sau destroyed the sons of Seir and took

po.ssession of their borders.

This

is

expressed

Gen. 33.

14.

The words

'

as Israel did

'

refer to

Sihon and Og, but not

to Palestine, because

Moses used these words before

THE PROBLEM OF SPACE IN JEWISH MEDIAEVAL PHILOSOPHY

By Israel Isaac Efros, Lynn,
Mass.

CHAPTER
The
subject that

II

Absolute Space.
now
I

presents itself for discussion,

is

absolute space,

by which
is

mean not

the space of this or

that object that

directly given in our intuition, but the

one that

is

the product of a mental process of abstraction

and generalization.

The former space

is

is

concrete and

perceptual, denoting an impress of the external world

upon

our senses

the latter space

absolute and conceptual,

denoting a reaction of the mind upon the external world.

Empirical space
itself in

is

variegated and

discrete,

manifesting

the space of this desk and that landscape and

;

those heavens

conceptual space
co7itinuum

is

uniform

and con-

tinuous

one
is
it

great

without

bounds.

The
that

conception

a difficult one, implying the absence of any

material data to which the

is

human mind

could cling

why
if

was so often a source of error and confusion.

close

Yet

you

your eyes and think away the walls of the

it
;

room and the

furniture in

and think away the world

outside of your room, the sun, the moon, and the stars

and think away

also the earth under your feet,

and the
;

very body in which your mind happens to reside

think only of your

and

mind

floating in an endless
faint

monotonous

void

you

will

have

some

glimpse of the endless

6i

62

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

in

continuum

which the material universe

is

conceived to

be submerged, absohite space.

We

have seen
thinkers

in

the preceding chapter that Jewish

reality

mediaeval

never questioned the

of the

extensity of things, never doubted the independent, objective

existence of empirical space
;

yet up

till

the end of the

fourteenth century they

all

unanimously repudiated the

This can be explained
in

assumption of absolute space.

two ways.

First

of all

empiricism was
in the

the standpoint
It is

taken by the Jewish philosophers

middle ages.

proclaimed by Saadya

in

the introduction to his book

called Beliefs afid Opinions,

and

it

is

emphasized by the
scoffs at

thinkers that

came

after him.

Maimonides

the

Mutakallimun, those Arabian scholastics,

anything imaginable which would
if
fit

who would assume

system
;

in the

and

contradicted

by our

senses, they
is

would have a ready

reply:

human

perception

not

reliable.'''^

Hence

this

empirical
thinkers

standpoint

might have

prevented the Jewish

from believing the existence of anything that

cannot be empirically known.

But there

is

also another

reason that has an equal degree of probability.

Aristotle's

conception of space was such as to exclude the notion of

absolute space.
able

Now
if

Aristotelianism exercised unimaginthinkers.

It

sway over the Jewish

was the standard

it

of truth.

Thus

the Bible took issues with Aristotle,

was incumbent upon them to explain away the apjjarent

meaning of the
with Aristotle.

Bible,
'

and so interpret
est dicere

it

as to be in accord

Stultum

Aristotelem errasse.'

Hence
as
I

in

accepting the Aristotelian notion of space, which,

say, excluded the reality of absolute space, they

had

'"

Comp.

Gtiiiie,

1,

cli,

73, prop. 10.

*1

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

63

to accept also the conclusion that might be logically

drawn

therefrom.
telian

And

so the situation lasted until the Aristo-

influence

began to wane, and the great challenger

of Aristotle, Hasdai Crescas, appeared, and gave to the

notion of space a different meaning, and proved the objective

reality

of

absolute space.

Let us

first

discuss the

history of the Aristotelian notion of space in Jewish philo-

sophy, we will then

come

to the objective reality of that

vast contimnim which

we cannot

experience, but which the

mind
I.

postulates.

Just a word

is

necessary to call up

in

the reader's
dis-

mind

this Aristotelian notion

which we have already

cussed in the introduction at length.

things being in space
;

We

all

speak of

the desk, the house, the aeroplane,

the world

all

things are in space.

Space then carries the

it

notion of an encompassing body, and Aristotle defined

as
tJie

first limit

of the containing body.

Now

the far-

reaching consequences of this definition

it

lie in

the fact that

does away with the mysterious independent existence

It is
;

of space.

simply the relation of contiguity between

this contig"uity
is

two objects

where

missing, of course

you

have no space.
sphere
of
all

Thus

the

uppermost, all-encompassing

in

the Ptolemaic astronomy, while being the space

is

things,
in

itself in

no space
it,

for there is

nothing

higher to be

contact with

not even a void.

I

This Aristotelian notion was, as

reserve.
'

said,

accepted without
in

Saadya
I,

"^

combats the view of space as that

"laT Hf
''X

Emiinot,

T\^r\

ntDN"'!

I'lNH Dlpn ^Y^n'' NntJ'

"IN

imnoi .Dipcn
Dipo
icj's:
"-n

mn inibo
Dnmn
in^i

inis n"'3 djdn nr i-idnci nrn oipjon

dej'id
^'^'''^

^[>^T\'\

nnn
'Ti^J

Nin'j'

nro
nr!?

sin
pNi-

mpDn
nxni

p:y

'3

nnrsN

iNnxJi'

^''bn

mpr:!?

64
which
all

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

things arc submerged,

and defines

it

as 'the

contiguity between two objects'.

He

thus answers the

objection levelled at the adherents of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, namely, what was there in the space of the world before
there
it

had been created?

Since there was no world,

was no

relation of contiguity,

and hence no space.

if all

He

also meets Zeno's

argument that
have to be

things are in

space, space itself will

in space,

and so on ad

infinitum, consequently space does not exist.

of this argument
is

is

evidently questionable

all it

The strength may prove

that space

is infinite,

but not that

it is

non-existent.
in

To
if

Saadya, however, such a conclusion would not be

with Aristotelianism, and hence wrong.

accord
that

He shows
bi\<

nny jnxni

.nan^ Dipo ono nnx

Dip^

y\^

mpo

db'ic?^

mpo

D':3

Dim

"ICS'iC.

Kaufmann
passage.

in his Altributenlehre , p. 63,

note 117, misconstrued the whole

He

explains the phrase D'"^3nn

nnn
'

iDK'ID Nin'J^*

DO, which he
die Stelle
eintritt.'

wronglj' designates as Saadya's

own view as

dasjenige

was an

der Dinge

sich

setzt,

d.h.

beim Fortriicken eines Dings dafur

is

When

an immersed body, a cubic inch in volume,

fill

removed, the liquid will

naturally

the gap, the cubic inch of the liquid being the space of the

displaced bodj'.

But according to

this interpretation,
;

an object and

its

space

cannot be conceived simultaneously

which

and to displace

it,

are two distinct ideas.

To place an object Perhaps what Kaufmann had in

is

absurd.

mind

is

not

tlie

cubic inch of the displacing liquid, but the cubic inch as such,

the stereometric content, so that the interval between the superficies of an

object

would be
;

its
'

space, a theory discussed and combated in Aristotle's

interval
'

Physics

but this

is

altogether wanting in the

is

words of the
which Saadya

definition.

What Saadya

referred to in that expression

receptacle,

undoubtedly the

Platonic

notion

of an all-containing

against
itself

advances Zeno's argument that

so ad infinitum.

this receptacle

must

be contained, and

Kaufmann

also misunderstood the expression 3^t'*

?3N
it
;

nanS DlpO
'

CDHO

nnX

bs, apparently he read

IW^

for

he translates
',

Die Ausdehnung

cigcntlich

das von jedcm von beidcn

tiie

Bewohnte

but the

Arabic original, w^oJ J;, clearly indicates

true meaning.

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

65

you understand by space a mere

relation of contiguity, the

whole argument becomes meaningless.

realize at

But the reader

will

once that

this position, while

i.e.
;

apparently attacking
that space as an allis

Zeno, really admits his argument,

encompassing void
of contiguity.

is

inconceivable
is

there

only a relation

There

place,

but not space.

in
'

This became the traditional view

Gabirol speaks of space as implying
surface of one

Jewish philosophy.

the immediacy of the

body

to that of another body', or simply

'the contact between two bodies'.''^

defines space as
all
'

Abraham bar Hiyya

body
is

that which envelopes the shape of a

"^^
'

around from the outside

a phraseology which
is

not

quite fortunate, but

whose meaning
'

clear.

Joseph Ibn
is

Zaddik maintains that

pinquity, for there
is

the true meaning of space

pro-

no container without something con-

tained, nor anything contained without a container '/^

and

that

'

the uppermost sphere needs no space because

its

parts

constitute space for one another',^*' which

largest diurnal sphere,
its axis,

means

that the

inasmuch as

it

rotates only around

its

and does not as a whole change

;

position, does

not require any space over and above

their relative position,

only

its

parts change

and they

constitute space for one

'

another.
'^

Abraham Ibn Daud

Vitae,
II,

understands by space
'

that

See Fons

14,

p. 74,

24

Locus

est

applicatio
also II,
14,

superficiei
p.

corporis ad superficiem corporis alterius';

'

comp.

49,

Intentio loci noti est applicatio

-ins'
5]"ij

duorum corporum.'

Comp. Mekor Hayyint,

also ii, 23, 33.
"D

11,21:
T8

r\\2^2

ejia

nuB'
p.

nipn
:

y^n'^

Dipon nvn,
"131

See Hegyon Hattefesh,

dW
'"3^

HN HDin

XIH DlpOn

"

Microcosm,

p. 15

DpO

pKB*

IIOD KinB'

IJ-'jyi

DIpOH nnON:^

mpo
80

>^a DDipriD ps*

ibid.,^.

ncipno "hyo.
ijdd p^n h^v mpoi? t">^*
P^^*

n: nnn^ npo

P
F

^VI.

Cf. Phys., IV, 6.

VOL. VIL

66

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

the surfaces of which compass the object that

in

it

'.^^

Aaron

of Nicomedia, the Karaite, writes

is

'
:

The primary
denotes
thinkers

meaning of space

that which matter occupies, the dimen-

sions of the spatial

body being

called space.

It also

unoccupied dimensions or the whole space.

are at issue in this matter.

And

Some apply
apply
first

the term space to

that which

is in
it

contact with the surface of the

all

body and

surrounds

on

sides, others
;

it

to the void that

is

embraces the universe

one.'
^-

and the

opinion
the

the correct

Finally, Gersonides

takes

same standpoint

when he argues

that

'

above and below relations are not

due to any mathematical dimensions, but to the things that

bear these relations.

Thus
;

light objects

move upwards,
light
'.^^

heavy ones downwards

and when there was nothing

or heavy these above and below relations did not exist

Thus we have seen how the

Jewish philosophers used

Aristotelian conception of

space acquired the certainty of a philosophical tradition.

it

as a self-evident truism, as a

logical foundation for the doctrine o{ creatio ex nihilo and

other important theological doctrines, and

it

occurred to no

one to question the validity of

this

foundation.

Then

Hasdai Crescas appeared,

free

from the hypnotism of the

Greek master, and with a boldness that we must admire,

considering the

circumstances,

commenced

to

challenge

Aristotelian doctrines, including the one concerning space,

and

his challenge resounds in the

in the

Dogmas

of his ^isciple

Joseph Albo, and even

works of Don Isaac Abrabanel

thinker.

by no means an independent
'

Perhaps

it

was

Emunah Rmuah,
Perhaps
in
it

p.

i6

Ivy.

should read

D^SD IDIpD nt3B> D1pD3 KinC HD \>2^ Cain. Comp. the quotation from Hegyon
*3

Hantftsh
*

note 78.

Es Hayyim, ch. 20.

MiUtamoi,

p.

371.

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

67

this challenge of Aristotelianism that

marked the beginning

of the end of the mediaeval period in Jewish philosophy.^*

Crescas finds four
difficulties in

the Aristotelian notion

'

of space, which he formulates

very laconically, as
'.^^

the

encompassing, equal, and separate surface

culties
'

These

'diffi-

are not very difficult.

First of

all,

he argues, the
is,

all-encompassing sphere, having no container

to Aristotle, in
in space.

according

no space

but

all

things have their existence

is

Consequently, Aristotle

wrong.

Secondly,

Aristotle taught that every element has a certain affinity

towards a particular place at which

it

is

at rest

and to

which

it

is

in motion.

Thus

air

is

naturally at rest in the

fire
;

concavity of the celestial layer of

everywhere

else it

can be at rest only by means of some external force.

if this

Now

be true,

it

would follow that either the inner parts of

the air will never be in their natural place, not being in

contact with the concave surface of

fire

to

which they strive

is

as parts of the air element, or else their natural place

different

from that of the whole

either of which alternative

**

disappear altogether from Jewish thought.

The reader should not assume, however, that Aristotelian influences Even a Kabbalist like Moses
See
his

Botarel speaks of Aristotle in laudatory terras and accords him a seat in

Paradise.

commentary on the Book of

Creation, p. 26, quoted in

Steinschneider's Hebraische Uebersetsungen, p. 269.

'

But the name of the

Philosopher

'

no longer enjoyed universal and unquestionable authority.

Thus
to

Isaac Abrabanel, though often accepting Aristotelian notions, dares

confer upon him the epithet

II,

'Ancient

Serpent';

see

his

nvVDO

D^^^N,
^^ is

3.

See Or Adonai,
:

ed. Vienna, i860, p. 6,

where the

definition of space

formulated
I,

h'^2ir^

7W7\ P]VOn
2,

HEOK'n

DIpDH niM.
nitiTI

Comp. Narboni
fJ^pDn

on Guide,

73, prop.

where he speaks

of 713311

nvSnil.

On p.

15 Crescas advances four arguments against this Aristotelian definition.

also Mirth at Kenaot,

Compare
13 vy\^r\

by R. Jehiel of Pisa,

p.

26

(i.e.

of space) llUti^

DDipnm

Piv^^n

nmT\

n'-^an Kin.

Y 2

'

68
is

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

absurd.

Thirdly,
is

how do

the celestial bodies

?

move

in

circle,

what place

the goal of their striving

its

Fourthly,

Aristotle held that a rotating ball has

accidental, in

place,
;

though
if

the axis which does not move

now
it is

the

axis

is

meant

to be a material part of the ball,

evident

that motion in
integration of

this case would be impossible without a disits

parts,

and

if it

is

meant to be a mere
it

geometrical line that can be drawn through the centre,

cannot be the place of the object.

These arguments are by no means convincing.

they are not altogether relevant.
'

Besides,

They do

not exactly

hit the

mark

'.

Crescas

is

more aggressive and much

problem of the void, which
I

more convincing
outgrows from

in the concrete

this

whole discussion, and which

I shall

reserved

for later treatment.

therefore let these arguments

pass without criticism.

that

It should,

however, be remarked

Albo

also advances four

arguments against the Aris-

totelian notion, the first

first

two of which are identical with the

Albo's other two argu-

two arguments of Crescas.^^

:

ments are as follows

According to Aristotle, the place of

a part would be greater than the place of the whole, for a

spherical

body

in

which a deep break has been made

it

will

require a greater surface to contain

inside

and outside

than when

it

was whole.

Thus

let figure i

represent a ball,

and

let

figure 2

represent the

same

ball

but

in

which
Jet

a deep wedge-like hole has been hollowed out, and

thread in both cases represent the Aristotelian
or place.
figure
I,
'

the

container

It

is

evident that figure i

it

is

only a part of

and yet

takes a greater thread to embrace the

first,

second ball than the

greater than

because geometrically

AOB

is

AB.

Consequently a part would occupy

See also D^"n3n "IQD,
s.v.

Sec

Z)ogrt5, II, 17.

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY
is

EFROS or

69

a greater place than the whole, which

absurd.

The
let

second argument
occupies a certain
call
It

is

a similar one.

Take a body which

us
divide
since each
itself,

amount of

Aristotelian space

for brevity's sake, place

and

it

segregated part

now

requires a containing surface for

the total amount of place occupied

by

that

body

will

now

be greater.
that
it

The

further

you

divide, the greater the place

will

occupy, which contradicts the Euclidean law

Fig.

I.

Fig. 2,

that equal bodies occupy equal spaces.

These two argu-

ments also are easily met by the idea that the Euclidean
'

law of space cannot be applied to place.

To come back
space
?

to Crescas,

what was
it is

his

own view

of

According to

his conception,

a great contimmm,

an

infinite

and immovable void, ready to receive material

in receiving matter,
it is

objects.
is
it

And

not displaced, for

it

immovable, but on the contrary

it

embodies

itself

in

and becomes concrete extensity, or, as Aristotle called the interval between the extremities of an object." it,
8T

See Or Adonai,

p.

15 b:

^t^'K

pmi

NIH "im^ ^n^DXH DipDHK'

p3y

pN nynn
Dn^
.

r\h

inon^ y^n
b.

ib'n

onpc^ni

^i^pm

nvbn

pn

See

also 17

According to Simplicius, Plato defined space as

70

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Aristotle rejected that view for the reason that all bodies

move

in space,

and

if

the interval of a

body were space

in space.

in itself,

we would have space moving

is

To
//
in
is

this

Crescas answers, there are

infinite
it is

no various spaces.

one

and immovable. When matter

immersed

space

like a net in a stagnant pool,

which when moving does

not disturb the silent waters.

In other words, extensity

;

and void are not two

kinds of space, but really one

only

the former has had an admixture of matter and has therefore visualized
invisible.
itself,

while the latter

is

is

pure and hence

Extended matter

like a streak of sunlight that

has become visible by absorbing particles of dust.

Thus

we have no phenomenon
Hasdai Crescas.

of space

moving

in space.
is

Empirical

space and absolute space are one

this

the great idea of

Crescas found a faithful follower in Joseph Albo,

who
Con-

incorporated this conception of space in his Dogmas, but

Albo seems
ditions
in

to have been his

first

and

last follower.

Spain, for

some

four centuries an asylum of

Jewish culture, were no longer favourable for the develop-

ment of

free thought.

The end

of the fifteenth century

found Spanish Jewry subjected to persecution and dire

oppression, which strangled the zeal for genuine speculation
in

the Jewish breast and brought the progress of Jewish

It
is,,

philosophy to such an abrupt end.

credit of the Jew's yearning for

however, to the
in

knowledge that even

those dreadful times a

man

like

Don

Isaac Abrabanel, one

of the foremost statesmen of Spain, but later an outcast

of the land which he faithfully served, found

leisure
in

moments of

the

intermissions of his aimless wandering to

tiiv kaxajoiv

TO hnnTi]iM TO fxnc^xj

toC fffpu'xoi'Tos (Simpl., Phys., IV, p. 571).

If Simplicius is correct,

Crescas takes the Platonic standpoint.

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY
treatises which,

EFROS

7I

compose philosophical
originality, display a

though wanting

in

vast

amount of

erudition and acIn the question

quaintance with philosophical systems.

under discussion he does not side with Crescas, but adopts

the Aristotelian conception of space.^^
II.

The preceding
is

discussion as to whether

we

are to

understand by space a material receptacle or an unlimited

contmimm,

altogether useless,

if
is

not supplemented with

implied therein, namely,

a discussion of a problem which

the existence of a void.

The

Aristotelian conception in-

volves a cosmology which admits of no void.

is

The

universe

composed of spheres one within the

other, all compact,

with no space between.

The innermost

sphere, sphere

A,

has
in

its

place in the concave form of sphere B, and sphere

sphere C, and s6 forth.

is

The uppermost

all-containing

sphere
there

in

no place
;

it is

the limit of the universe.

Thus

is

place

but no pure space, no void, whether between

things or outside of them.

On

the other hand,

if

we mean
there

by space an unlimited contmtmm embodied here and

in

a concrete material object, a canvas as

is

it

were

in

which

some fine tapestry

existence of an

woven, we naturally postulate the

void.

unembodied space or a

Thus

so long

as the Jewish thinkers unquestioningly accepted the Aristotelian notion of space,

they discarded the possibility of a

first

void

it

was Crescas who

is

endeavoured to prove that

the void
It is

a real fact.

noteworthy that the existence of a void was one of

issues

the great

between mediaeval Aristotelianism and

;

Arabian scholasticism or the Kalam

have seen, vigorously renouncing
8

the former, as
latter

we

it,

and the

vigorously
nih
-ib^n

D\n^N ni^ysn, iv, 3:

^"i3j

rw

nv^i^ "i^nn

hd-j-

72

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW The Mutakallimun maintained the void, an indispensable element in any system which
it.

maintaining

because

it is

resolves matter into segregated particles of minute magni-

tude generating
thinkers,

all

phenomena by

their motion.^^

Jewish
;

we have

found, were averse to

atomism

so that

the postulation of a void was no requisite of their system.

At

all

events, Jewish philosophy before Crescas

was unaniLet us see

mously against the existence of pure

space.^

some of

its

chief reasons.

Joseph ibn Zaddik offers a proof from nature.

a pitcher and plunge
it

Take
the

into water with its

in the pitcher.

mouth upside

down.
air,

No

water

will

come

Remove

and the water

will instantly

rush into

it,

so as not to

leave a vacuum.
fill

Or take
;

a jar with a perforated bottom,

it

with water

of course the water will issue through

air will

the bottom, and

enter through the top, and imfill

mediately

fill it

the gap.

Now

the jar with water again,

and

close

so tightly as to leave no access to the air;

will

no drop of water

leak through the pores of the bottom.

is

This clearly shows that there

no vacuum
and

in nature.^^
is

The argument, by
by
Narboni.^-

the way,

is

Aristotelian,

also cited

How
space?

then

is

motion possible

if

there

is

no empty

In a compact world of matter, where even elbow-

room

is

denied

us,

the Aristotelian answer.

how can we move ? Ibn Zaddik adopts The air is very elastic, being

"
"*

Sec Guide,

I,

73, prop. 2,

Abraham Ibn Ezra is perhaps an exception to this statement. He nowhere posits the void, but one might infer it from the atomistic ideas that
he expresses
in the

fragments called

T\)2\0r\

DTHDI

HMnn

JUny.

See

above, note 55.

" Microcosm, p. 16. " Sec Narboni on Guide,

I,

73, prop, 3.

PROBLEM OF SPACE
easily condensed

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

73

and

rarefied.

And when we

press forward,

we

set

up

a system of condensation before us,

and a system
a drop of
is

of rarefaction behind us.

Even the removal of

;

water thus

affects the

whole universe

but no vacuum

anywhere formed.^^ The reader

will realize that, as

Narboni

rightly remarked,^* the atomists could not have taken the

same view

in explaining

atomic motion by condensation

to

and rarefaction without being compelled

existence of a void, because the

assume the

atom

is

conceived to be
reality,

an

indivisible,

non-magnitudinal and ultimate

and

hence can neither swell nor shrink.

A
is

similar

argument

for the non-existence of the

vacuum

adduced by Maimonides from the science of

is

hydraulics.^^

Water
the

being carried from a lower to a higher level by

air

means of a pump out of which the

underlying
',

has been exhausted,

'

principle

being
fill

that

nature abhors

vacuum
it

that

it

tends to

an empty space as soon as

is

formed.
altogether original argument was suggested

An

by the

Kabbalist, Isaac Ibn Latif.^"

implies a certain gas
is

visual sensation of light

medium through which

radiant energy

being propagated in waves, finally impinging the retina

of our eye, thus producing a sensation,

Ibn Latif was of

course ignorant of the modern undulatory theory of light

instead, he believed that

an object of
to the

light emits

certain

material corpuscles

similar
But

now

repudiated

tonian conception.

at all events a certain

Newmedium is
of

required through which the radiant energy or the radiant

corpuscles

are

transferred.

Hence our
total

vision

the

luminary bodies proves the

*^

absence of intervening
3*
/.

Microcosm,
prop.

p. 16.
3.
^'

c,

I,

73,
,

prop.

2.

^^ Ibid.,

See D vVD

3"!

section 60.

: ;

74

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

It is
:
'

vacuum.
as follows

curious, however, that in the

. .

end he remarks
for the

and the very same demonstration

its

non-existence of the void, is a demonstration for

existence

and understand

this, for

it

is

sealed.'
is

How

this

argument

also proves the reality of a void

not easy to guess, unless

in

he meant that the radiant waves have free space

order to

move must
seen, has

a contention which, as

we have

already been refuted by earlier thinkers.

in itself is

But the argument

noteworthy.
far

The

reasons so
all

advanced are drawn from the realm

of nature, and
interstices

they

may

prove

is

that there are no

empty

between the material objects, that the equilibrium

of the world

demands a

filling

up of

all

gaps, leaving

nothing empty.
'

They demonstrate
'.

the familiar

maxim

Nature abhors a vacuum

Of course, as Solomon Maimon,

Maimonism, correctly suggested,
it

the Kantian interpreter of

nature does not exactly abhor a vacuum,

it
;

\s forced

to

fill

that

is

to say, a

vacuum

is

a natural existence, only

it is

obviated by external forces.

When
tube
the

the air
it

is

exhausted

from the tube, the water

pressure;
so

is

forced into

by the atmospheric
too high for the
a

that

when
to

the
raise

is

atmospheric pressure

water,

void

will

naturally form in the tube.

This physical phenomenon

I

was

entirely overlooked

by the men

have mentioned.

The mediaeval term horror

all

vaciti is really misleading.

At

events, those

arguments tend to refute the existence

of void within the material realm, or, following the analogy of our previous terminology, empirical void, which does not

mean an experience of
a blank
in

a void, but a void of experience, or

the midst of objects that appeal to our sensation.

void,

Now

what of absolute

what of pure
is

infinite

dimenis
it

sionality in

which the universe

supposed to

exist,

PROBLEM OF SPACE
real or fictitious
?

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

75

Is there

any space beyond the confines

of the world?
non-existent,

Or

let

us imagine matter annihilated or

after all?

would there be space

Gersonides answers these

dimensionality
is

questions negatively.

Tri-

a quality of matter; take

It is

away matter
for

and you have no space.

absurd to say that before

;

the creation of the tangible world there was pure space

if so,

why

did

God

create the world in this part of the

?

infinite

void and not in another

The

void

is

alike in all

its parts,

no one of which owns a greater possibility of being

If then

informed and embodied than another.

you assume

a void, you have to assume logically a coextensive infinite

matter, which
is

is

likewise absurd.

Hence

pre-existent space
is

an

impossibility.^'^

The argument

based

on the
in philo-

theory of creationism, a theory no longer tenable

sophical circles
;

but the whole question about the preis

existence of space

a scholastic one.

Gersonides, however,

goes a step further, and endeavours to show that any form

of

empty space

is

inconceivable.
'

There

is

a patent contra'.

diction involved in the term

empty space

Space,

we

know,

is

measurable and

infinitely divisible.
is

But empty
in

space means that there

nothingness, and

nothing

existent,

short,

how can we

conceive of nothingness as

measurable or
than another
?

divisible, or of

one nothingness as greater

is

Consequently empty space

hides a certain fallacy, but

an absurdtun.
us go on and
in

The argument
see the

let

concrete

example which he

offers

order to

demonstrate the absurdity of the void.

separated by

Imagine two bodies

empty space, one ABCD and the other EFGHy

positions, the lines
lines,

placed

in

two

AB and EF in one position

in the other.
p. 365.

being parallel

and oblique
^'

See Milhamot,

76

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

in

Now
say

Figure

we say

that the intervening distance or

void represented by

AE equals
BF.

BF;

while in Figure 2

we

AE

is

greater than

But both

AE and BF do not

represent any material existence, consequently they are

zero,
all

and how can zero be a basis of comparison, and above

zero be greater than another
?

how can one

is

Hence the
evident that

void

an absurdity.

Q.E.D.^^

But

it

is

Gersonides plays hide-and-seek with the notion of pure

space.

This term stands for mere dimensionality devoid

^G

Fig. 2.

of

any material

thing.

Now

if

one were to count things,

he would of course have to leave out the void, and consider

it

mathematically

zero.
is

But here

it

is

not the counting of

the two bodies that

involved, but the extension of the

intervening void
the void
is

and from the point of view of extension,

it

a definite quantity unless

is

has been previously

demonstrated that the void

that
is

an impossibility

something
in

here

to

be

proved.

Gersonides, therefore,

assuming that the

is

lines

of extension

AE and BF

are zero,

clearly arguing in a circle.

Gersonides, however, concludes that

*

the void

is

an

Ibid., pp.

378 and 379.

PROBLEM OF SPACE
illusion.
fall

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

77

It is

strange that such an acute thinker should

;

into such

an open fallacy

perhaps

it

was the Aristote-

lian

system to which he mainly clung that required of him

such a conclusion, and the need of a conclusion blinded him

to the

validity of the reasoning.

Reason

is

very often
Gersonides
is

sacrificed in order to suit a system.

At any
;

rate,

firmly held that the universe

is finite

that

there

no

space beyond the world.

sented itself to his mind.

But here a
'

logical puzzle pre-

There
'

is

no space beyond the

'

world

',

but does not the very word beyond suggest space

Does

it

not convey the notion of outstretched plains, even

is
;

while this

meant

to be denied.

Let us expand that brief

is

statement

do we not mean that there

?

no space

in the

space beyond the world

Is not therefore the

whole idea

about the finitude of space meaningless and erroneous?

Gersonides, however, does not despair.
real,

The
fits

puzzle

is

not

but
is

linguistic.

Human

language

our daily needs,

but

not rich enough to express

It is

many

a fine shading in

reality.

incapable to express the absolute absence of

it

space in terms of before and after, just as

is

incapable to

express the absolute non-existence of time in the relations

of befoi'e and
after.
?

When we

say,

what was before the

It is

beginning of time
not however
real,

we experience

the same difficulty.

but simply verbal, due to the inadequacy

is

of language.^

This

Gersonides's solution of the puzzle.

Some

five centuries after,

Kant

also grappled

with this

puzzle, but his solution

was

different.

We

can conceive no
is

end to space, no

limits

beyond which there

no space.

Hence space must be a

intention.
discuss.
89

necessity of thought, a form of

is

Which

solution

saner this

is

not the place to

Ibid., p. 384.

78

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

So much
for the negative side of this void-discussion.

This

side,

it

should be noted, does not

Its reasoning
is

make

out a very-

impressive case.

sometimes hackneyed,

and sometimes

faulty.

Judah Halevi counted the void as

one of the things that

common
^*'*'
;

sense seems to accept, and

syllogistic reasoning rejects

but he did not shov^ us

is.

what

this 'syllogistic

reasoning'

Yet although the

had no
every
its

proposition which this side attempted to put forth

great intrinsic force,
it

had that force which

It
is

is

in

view that coincides with tradition.

lineage to Aristotle.
Ipse dixit.

traced back

That

why

this negative

view was popular

in

Jewish philosophy

for so

long a time.

At

last the affirmative side appears

on the scene, represented

by one man

only, radical, bold,

and daring

Hasdai Crescas.

Let us hear what he has to say.

Crescas does not enter into a detailed discussion with the
followers
himself.

of Aristotle,

he attacks straightway Aristotle

Incidentally he points out the absurdity of Ger-

sonides's difficulty with

empty space
jar,

as a magnitude.

If

you remove the

along with
course
it.

air

from a
the

you do not remove extension

in the jar is of

And

empty extension
divisible.^"^
is

measurable and
finite
'^^'^

He

also

shows

in
is

passing that
there

space

inconceivable, because what

beyond

Crescas evidently rejects Gersonides's

explanation by an appeal to linguistic poverty.

clears another difficulty that Gersonides

He

also

had

in corinexion
all its parts,

with the void, namely, the void

is

the same in

why then
infinite
'0"

did

God

create the finite world in this part of the

void rather than in another?

III,

Crescas answers that

n3:j'nDn

Cosan,

49:

nip-iH

"nvH

maDHi

p\Tin

icns

r\\

nn^nrs m>^3irn niB'pni.

101

See Or Adonai,

p.

15 a.

'o^

Ibid.

PROBLEM OF SPACE
just because the void

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY
the

EFROS
it is

79

is

same

in all its parts

absurd

to ask

why God

should have created the world in another

this.^^

part rather than in

His main charge, however,

Crescas concentrates on Aristotle himself.

his

He examines

arguments singly and discloses

their weakness.

We

will follow the order of his treatment.

I.

If

void existed, says Aristotle, there would be no

motion.

For motion

is

either natural or forced

to

natural

motion being that of a body moving

it

the place to which

has

affinity, as

an apple moving downwards, and forced

motion being that of a body moving away from the place

of
its
is

affinity,

as

when an apple moves upwards.

affinity of

But a
no

void

fnitdammeh hahalakim, the same

in all its parts,

one of which can enjoy the special

an object.
since
it is

Hence

natural motion in a void

is

absurd.
is

And

implied in forced motion the latter

over, imagine an

also absurd.

More;

arrow hurled from a bow-string

now

ordinarily the arrow

moves on by

virtue of the fact that

the air which has also received a violent attack from the

bow-string becomes a propelling power for the arrow.

in a void

Now
we
is

where such a propelling power

that

is

lacking,

should expect
strained, the

no matter how much the string

fall

arrow should powerlessly

down, as soon
its

as
is

it

leaves the string.

Thus motion

in

any of

forms

impossible in

a void, and hence the void cannot be

conceived to exist.

Thus, instead of maintaining that

motion
is

is

impossible without
is

empty

space, the true idea space.

that

motion

impossible with
:

empty

To
by
its

this Crescas replies

The

fault of this
is

argument

is

chiefly in failing to realize that the void

not considered

adherents to be the cause of motion, but only the

^"^ Ibid.^ p.

70 a.

8o

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The argument
is

mcdmm.
the void

seeks to disprove the idea that

Aristotle

cause

an idea maintained by no one.

any
is

argues that the void cannot bear

to

special attraction

any body, and since that attraction

is
it

the basis of

motion, the latter

inconceivable in a vacuum.

But no

one claimed that

Gersonides
'

docs have any peculiar attraction.

that

has already remarked

'

the

notions

of

upward

'

and

downward

'

are

not due to mere mathe-

matical dimensions, but to the objects that

may be up
it is

or

down. The
above
it,

fire

does not seek any mathematical dimensions

but the concave lunar surface.

Thus

not the

void that exercises

bodies in
it.

any

attraction

or

repulsion, but the

The

earth attracts the apple, and there

may

be an intervening void, yet that does not hinder motion,

but on the contrary helps
it,

serving as a free
is

medium.

Indeed, the whole Aristotelian position

questionable.
it
;

medium,

is

no requisite for motion.

freer the

It

hinders

the

rarer the

medium, the

movement.

Light objects
or

move upwards, and heavy

rather
to his

objects

move downwards,

and here
mind

a very important physical theory occurs

all bodies

move dozvnwards, only, the

lighter

bodies are pressed upwards by heavier

bodies.

downward moving

And

all

this

goes
is

on without necessitating a
an obstacle and a hindrance
is

material
for a

medium which

really

moving body.

It is

the void which

the true

medium

for the free exercise of motion.^"^

3.

The second and

by
Crescas
is

third

arguments of Aristotle are

Motion,
:

treated

simultaneously.

speaking

mathematically,

a function of two variables

the

medium
to

and the motive

first.

force.

Let us see the medium-variable

The

velocity

of a
"

body

is
fif.

proportioned

the

iWrf., p. 14 a

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

8l

medium the rarer If we could imagine

:

the medium^ the quicker the motion. a

medium

of an infinitely rare density,

then,
in

all

other things being equal, the

body would move

an infinitesimal time.

But the void has altogether no

density, hence a

body

will

move

therein in no time at

all.

But

this
is

is

absurd, for the distance in which

it

the
;

body

moves

divisible,
'

is

a succession of points
its

and the

moving body

must take
it

time

',

it

cannot come to

the second point before

passes the

first,

and when

it

is

on the second point,

even this
'

it

is
'

not yet on the third.

Hence
in its

champion racer

must take cognizance

movement
void

of the relations of before and after, and conseall.

quently must take up some time after

is

Therefore the

an

impossibility.

The
is

impossibility of an absolutely timeless

movement

further

corroborated

when we come
i.

to

examine the

second variable of motion,

e.

the motive force, which

forms Aristotle's third argument.

is,

The

velocity of a

body

all

other things being equal, directly proportional to the

propelling power:

the stronger that

power, the swifter

the motion.

This law holds true in the hurling of a weight

upward
vacuum.

in the air, as well as

it

downwards
good also

in the water,
in

and

we should expect
But
in

to hold

the case of a
first

accordance with the law of the

variable, a
in

body moves through a void under a given

force

no time.

Now
?

double that force, and the velocity will

too.

have to be doubled
timeless motion

But what can be quicker than

is
.^^

Hence, Aristotle concludes, the void

an impossibility and an absurdity

To
is

these two arguments Crescas replies

body that

impelled to

move by a
"5

certain force acquires a certain

p.

5 a.

VOL.

VII.

82

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

that
is

'fundamental velocity';
capacity to

to

say,

a fundamental

move
to

a certain distance within a certain time

like

unimpeded by any medium

water or gas.
its

When
is

that

body happens
of course.

meet a medium,

velocity

slackened

ment.

The denser the medium, the slower the moveRemove the medium, and the body will resume
'

its initial

fundamental velocity

'.

Thus the law that the

Represent

velocity of a

body
is

is

inversely proportional to the density

fact.
it

of the

medium

not a true statement of

mathematically, and you have

F _
V'~

^'

,
'

DV
D'

'

But the density of the void {D') equals

zero,

hence

Thus the
which
is

velocity of a

body moving

in

vacuum

is infinite,

absurd, as Aristotle himself has shown.

is

But

this
is

whole mathematical formula

untenable.

The
'

true law

that the slackening of the 'fundamental velocity

of a given

body

is directly

proportional

to

the density of the viediiim.

Thus

representing the slackened progress

by 5, we have

S
j,

D = ^r;

S'=

^,

-^

SD'
;

but D'

^,

o,

S'

^,

o.

In other words, a

body moving
will

in

a vacuum, not being

to
its

impeded
'

by any medium,

move according
in

fundamental velocity'.

It is just as

unwise to argue that

a light

inasmuch as a body moves swifter

in

medium than
all,

a dense,

it

will

move
that

in

a void in no time at

as

it is

to maintain that because a

faster than a

man

that

is

less tired will

move
is

man

is

more

tired, a

man

that

not

PROBLEM OF SPACE
tired at all will

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS
Both
of

83

move
of

altogether in no time.
consideration

state-

ments leave out

the

principle

the

fundamental natural veloctty.^^

3.

The

fourth argument of Aristotle

is

as follows

The

void

is

conceived as mere tridimensionality, ready to receive

material objects, the dimensions of the thing uniting with

the dimensions of the void, and forming one.
possible
?

But how

is it

How

can two

ells

form one

ell ?

And

if it
it

is

possible in the case of matter and void,

why
?

should

be

impossible in the case of matter and matter

We

will thus

have to suspend the law of impenetrability,

for the reason

why two
time,
is

bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same

not because they are black or

qualified,

warm

or in any

other

way
yet
is

but because they have dimensions.

that a

And
which

some assume
spatiality

body can penetrate a void

this

itself.

If then

were

true,

there

should be an equal possibility of compressing two or more

material bodies into one, and

we should

thus be enabled to
insignificant speck.

compress the whole universe into a tiny

Thus the assumption

absurdities.^^

of the void leads us into monstrous

To
has
its

this Crescas replied

in the

Two

things cannot occupy the

same space

same

time, not because each one of

them

own

dimensions, but because each one has dimen-

sional matter.

In other words,
it

in

order that a body should

:

be impenetrable
tiality
if

must have two things combined

spa-

and corporeality.

And

just as

unextended matter,

such a thing were conceivable, would not be impenetrable,

so spatiality devoid of matter could not resist the intrusion

of a material body.
ell

That

is

why an

ell

of matter and an

of a void can so
" Ibid,
p.

combine as to form one.

107

Crescas
p 5a_

14b.

iiid,^

84

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

if

herewith also replies to Zeno's argument that

real,
it

space were

would be

in

space

for all things real are in space,

and so on ad injiniUim.

It is

only material spatiality that

occupies and monopolizes a certain space so as not to admit

any other body

to

immigrate into

its

domain

pure spa-

tiality has no policy to refuse immigration, on the contrary,

it

bids

welcome
and

to

any object that seeks

strictly

to settle within its

borders.
space,

Hence the void does not

is

speaking 'occupy'
it

always ready to be intruded as long as

has

not been invested with corporeality.^^^

Such were the

refutations that Crescas hurled against

the Aristotelian position.

The

reader will undoubtedly be

impressed by the soundness of the argument, as well as by

his turning his

back on Aristotelian physical notions, and

catching glimpses of the modern science of physics.

We

may nowadays

repudiate the possibility of an absolute void

is

and claim that there

an

all-filling
is

and all-penetrating
only a hypodenied.
It

ether, but the existence of ether

thesis.

after all

Empirically the void

is

by no means

should also be noted that while the Mutakallimun postulated the existence of a void

merely to

suit their

atomic

system, Crescas

who

did not adopt the atomic standpoint

takes a different course.

He

first

disproves the seemingly

convincing Aristotelian arguments, and having removed

by

sound reasoning the

the void
is

traditional

prejudice, he shows that

attested

by our

daily experience.

That

is

why

his theory of the void,

and not that of the Arabian theolo-

gians, forms a real contribution to the history of philosophy.

Sometimes negative, destructive reasoning

than positive reasoning.
the battle.

is

more important
is

To

destroy the
in

enemy
this

to win

We

should also mention

108

connexion

Ibid., p. 14 b.

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

85

Crescas's discarding the Aristotelian notion that different

elements strive for different places, that

tend upwards.

fire

and

air naturally

Crescas reduced this variety of forces to

All bodies are attracted downis

one force of gravitation.

wards, only air being light
matter.
'

pressed upwsird by some heavier

'

Light

'

and

'

heavy

are not different in quality,

as Aristotle meant, but different in degree, the degree of

attraction that the earth exercises from them.^'
fication

This uni-

and centralization of forces

'

rids us altogether of
affinities
'

the Aristotelian illusion of different

places',

and

'

natural
in

notions which

play a considerable part

the

problem of place versus space.

Thus

these two theories

of Crescas, the defence of the void and the unification of

forces, are

landmarks
to

in the progress of

Jewish thought.
little

Coming
appointed.

Isaac Abrabanel,

we

are not a

dis-

Instead of continuing with the development of

the pure space problem along the lines of Crescas, he goes

back to Aristotelianism.

This does not mean that he did

not read the Light of God,

He

not only read

parts of

it,

but was
that he

even so

much

infatuated

with

some

it

incorporated them into his works and forgot to label their

real authorship.

Compare

for

example Light of God,

3.

p. 70,

and Abrabanel's Works of God, IV,

is

But the

plagiarist

not always the disciple.

He

thus returns to the old-time

definition of space as 'the surrounding equal

and separate

surface '."

He

adopts the view of Averroes that space

came
that

into being with the creation of the material world,^^^

is

to say, that there was no pre-existent

empty

space.

He

thus answers the question

iM
Ibid., p.

why God

created matter in

a.

"0
1"

DM^N

n"l^yS?D, IV, 3.

See above, note

87.

Ihid., II, I.

86

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

than another,

I
no
view of
'.^^^

this part of the void rather

there was

pre-existent void altogether

St.

and he

cites a similar

Thomas,

'

sage of the sages of the Gentiles

jhe

reader will readily see the eclectic nature of his standpoint.

Yet there

is

one passage

in

his

work which deserves being

conclusion to this chapter.
the

quoted at length, serving as a

It deals

fit

with the problem

why

mind cannot think of

in

finitespace, of limits to extensity,

why even

our speaking

of an end to the dimensionality of the universe,

we seem

to

imply a beyond
'

'.

We

have seen that Gersonides held this

linguistic.

difficulty to

be purely

Crescas on the other

hand

cited this as a proof for the infinity of space, just as

Kant
there
'

inferred from

it

that space

is

a necessity of thought.

Abrabanel takes a view similar to that of Gersonides, but

is

a strong
',

note of modernity in his explanation.

It is

impossible

he says,

'

to conceive the beginning of

time without a pre-existent time.

the material world
existing place.
is

Also the limitation of

a

inconceivable without

beyondtemporal

But
is

this difficulty of conceiving

or spatial finitude
real finitude.

purely mental, and does not disprove

It is in like

manner hard

to conceive of a

thing coming into actual

existence without thinking

yet of course
it

of

a preceding potentiality
that there

does not

mean
only
is

was actually a pre-existent

potentiality, but

an intellectual idea of such a potentiality.

a result of the fact that the
senses always have things

All this

phenomena perceived by our

in

beyond them

space and things

before

them
beyond

in time,

and that before these phenomena are

;

actual they are potential

so that these relations of " before"

in

and

"

",

always present

our perception of things,

have impressed themselves on our minds so deeply as to

'"
Ibid.,

VI,

3.

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

87

be unable to conceive of things without those relations.

But

after a certain

amount of

reflexion the

mind can

correct

this error arising

from perception, and can rid

itself

of
is

its

acquired habit, and

come

to realize that reality

^^"

not

absolutely conditioned by those relations.'

This

is

how Abrabanel

seeks to explain

why

space
is

is

seemingly a necessity of thought, so that the mind

to conceive

unable

bounds to the space of the universe.

'

It arises
its

from a

habit

which the human mind contracted from

all

perceptual experience to seek a beyond for

it

things.

Yet
and

takes only a certain

amount of mental energy by way of

not a necessity

reflexion to transcend this genetically acquired habit,

conceive of an absolute finitude of space.

of thought, but a habit of thought
;

It is
it is

and

the business of

a philosophical

mind

to shake

it off.

But

this leads us directly to

;

our next problem concerning

this chapter

the infinity of space

and as the contents of

do

not require any recapitulation,

we

will pass on.

{To be continued.)

"3

Ibid.,

IV, 3.

THE MINOR

IN

JEWISH LAW
Mass.

By Israel Lebendiger, Holyoke,

CHAPTER IV. POWERS AND RIGHTS OF THE FATHER OVER THE MINOR
A.

Property of the Minor Children.

property inherited by children
(as,

The

for instance,
father.

from their mother) does not belong to their

Nor

do the gains obtained from such property belong to the

father (Ketubbot 46 b).

The
perty.

case

is,

however,

different

with

acquired pro-

To what

extent the minor enjoys the power of

interfered

acquisition,

when not

with by the rights of

the father, will be discussed in another place.

will

Here we
it

touch on

it

only to the extent to which

of the
father

comes

in

conflict

with the power

over the minor.

According to Mishnic data, neither the son nor the daughter

enjoy any power of acquisition independent of that of
father.

The common
is,

expression, which deprives the minor

of this power
his

'for their
'.

hand

(i.e.

the minors')

is

like

hand

(the father's)

Neither the minor son nor the

minor daughter can become the agent, by the order of

the father, to acquire the alley for
its

other residents, in

order that through the

its

common
The

possession of the alley

inhabitants

may

be allowed to carry things from one

reason given by the Mishnah

residence to the other.

is,

because

'

their

hand are

like his
ibid.

hand

'.^^^

One cannot

"2 Erub. VII, 6; Gem.,

79; Git. 65a.

89

90
give

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

money
as a gift to his

minor son or minor daughter

in

with which to redeem his tithes of the second year,

order that

he may be exempt from the Homesh

is

(a fifth

part of the value of the tithes which one

supposed to
the Mishnah

add on redeeming
is

it).

The
Hke

reason given

by

that

'

their

hand

is

his

hand

'.^"

In both of these

cases the children's actions of acquisition are invalid.

is

This
is

the negative aspect of the principle that

'

their

hand

like his

hand

'.

positive aspect of

it

is

the law which

his

states that the found article of the

father.i*'^

minor belongs to

In these

three

instances

it

is

plainly seen

that

the

minor can have no power of acquisition

the father
is

for himself while

alive,

and that the

latter

is

entitled to all the

is fully

property acquired by the minor.

This

warranted
It is

by the
that

expression, 'their

hand

is

like his

hand'.
all his

not

only the found article of the minor, but also

earnings
is

go to the

father.

The found

article of the

minor

not

the only instance, but an instance in which

right of the father realized.

we

see this

Furthermore, as

far as these
is

three Mishnic

instances

are

concerned, no difference

made between

the minor son and the minor daughter with

regard to the power of acquisition.^^^

These three laws

of the Mishnah are, of course, a sui-vival of the older Jewish

Ma'aser Sheni IV, 4
;

Git.

65
a.

a.

"* B. M.
the maxim,
'

I,

Gem.,

ibid.

12

The Mishnah does not mention here

But
this
is

their

hand

is

Hke his hand*.

undoubtedly the under;

lying principle of the law of the found article. See Tos. Git. 64 b

B. M. 12

b.

"' Otherwise, the father

is

seen to exercise
the Mishnah.

more power over the

states,

daughter than over the son

in

The Mishnah
to

for

instance, that the father has the

power
this

to give his daughter in marriage.

But the father cannot exercise

Biblical times,
to his son.

power with regard

this right

the son.

In

however, the father exercised

even with regard

THE MINOR
law,
great.

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER
was

9I

where
^^'^

the

parental

power

comparatively

Later
parental

law,

however, has
It
first

modified
all

and limited

the

power.

of

rendered complete the

differentiation

between the paternal power over the son

In the case

and the paternal power over the daughter.

of the son,
it

seems that the property acquired by the

is

minor which goes to the father

finding.
father.

only that obtained

by

The

earnings of the minor son do not go to his

fact that the

Even the
and

found

article of the

minor

son should belong to his father, seemed strange to the

Amoraim,^^'
for it.i"

consequently

they

tried

to

account

According to Samuel, the found

father, because the

article

belongs to the
the object, the

moment he picked up
it

minor son thought of bringing

ing to Johanan, the matter
is

to

his father.

Accord-

altogether different.
in return for the

The

found article belongs to the father

support

he gives to his children.

^*''

Therefore, the father's right to

hand
is

The expression

'

their
his

hand

is

like his

',

describing the relation

in

between the father and

relation

minor children,

used also

describing the

between the master and

If the relation

his Gentile slave (Ma'aser

is

Sheni IV, 4

Erub. VII, 6],

between the former

equal to the relation

between the
^*^

latter,

then the old Jewish law considered the minor children

as the chattel of the father.

Accordingly, they ask the question,

'Why

do they say that the found

article of the

minor belongs

to the father?'

Such a question cannot be

by the words

raised at

all

when we

look upon the minor from the point of view of the

to his father
'

Mishnah, which describes his relation

is like his
1**

their

hand
can

hand'.
(B. M. 12 b)

The reason given by Samuel and R. Johanan

'

certainly not account for the general principle that

their
it

hand

is

like his

hand'.

Tos. realized the

is

difficulty,

and

tried to explain

(Tos. Git. 64b).

is

But

it

not satisfactory.

The

best

way

to explain

it

by the view

adopted here.

92

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

whether

the possession of the found article depends on

he supports his children.

When
But

the children are supported

by him, the found

the children

article

belongs to the father even though

if

are of age.

they are not supported

by the

father,

the found article belongs to the children,

age.^*''

even though they are not of

The
that

reason given by the

Talmud

for

the father's right

is

to the found article of the minor daughter,

the enmity

may be

aroused

in the father if

the found article be

not given to him.

is

According to Rashi, the enmity that

feared here

is

the one that

may

result in

withholding

his support
it

from his daughter.^""

According to Tosafot,

is

feared that he
article,

may

not,

because of being deprived

proper husband for his

of the found daughter.^

^^

procure a

The

earnings of the daughter belong to the father.^^^

is

The Talmud
is

silent

about the earnings of the son.

probably
little

This

due to the

fact that

was earned by the

studies.
it

minor son, who had to attend to

his

Should

the minor son be capable of earning money,

would belong
law.-^^^

to the father, according to the earlier Jewish

In

^" B. M.
^>'>

12.
a.

The law

is

decided according to R. Johanan.

See

ibid.

Tos.

Ket. 47

This seems to coincide with the view R. Johanan has

concerning the found article of the son.

Yet we must not say

she

that,

according to the interpretation of Rashi, the found article of the minor

daughter docs not belong to the father

father, for
it

when

is

not supported^ by the

may

be said that this Talmudic view, as interpreted by Rashi,

it

gives

its

own

reason only for the found article of a Na'arah, while

far as the

agrees

with Samuel as
"oi '"-

minor

is

concerned.

See

Tosef., ibid.

Ibid.

Ket. 46b, 47

a.

The Talmud
hand
the
'.

tries to give various

reasons for this

law.
that
'

But no reasons should be necessary,

their

when we

accept the principle

hand

is

like his

'*'

The reason given by

Talmud

{ibid.) for the

rights of the father

THE MINOR
later

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER

93

Jewish law, the only right the father exercises over

is

his

minor son

that of the found article.

father over the

All other rights

are enjoyed

by the

minor daughter.

B.

Giving the Minor Daughter in Marriage.

father has the exclusive right of giving his
in

The

minor

daughter

marriage.^^*

Not only has he the power of

giving his daughter in marriage without her consent, but

he
is

is,

as

it

were, the real party with

whom

the marriage

contracted.

The

father

is

not an agent acting for his

daughter, for then the marriage would be void, just as any

other marriage of a minor
is

void.

Besides, the father

cannot act

in

the capacity of an

agent for his minor

daughter, since the minor has no power to appoint an

agent.

The marriage
is

of the

minor daughter contracted

This

by
is
is

the father
so,

a real marriage, and Biblically valid.

because the second party to the marriage contract

not the minor daughter but the father

who

is

a person

possessing legal powers.

The marriage

contracted by the minor daughter against

is

the consent of the father

void, not only because of the

legal incapacity due to her minority, but also because she

exercises a right which does not belong to her.

to

According

Resh Lakish, however, there

is

an opinion which holds

marriage.^^^

that a

naarah can

contract her

own

According to the Palestinian Talmud even Resh Lakish

admits that
all

agree that the na'arah cannot actually enter

^^^

into the marriage relation

to the service of his daughter

without the consent of the

for the right of the father to

do not hold good

the service of the son.

15*

Ket. 46 b; Kid. 41a.

i^^

Kid. 43

b.

156

Jewish law distinguishes between the betrothal or nuptials and

;

marriage proper

the former consisting of delivering into the bride's hand

94
father.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

For
this

act removes

her completely from

lose her service,

the

father's

power and makes him

is

and even

though she
(the

qualified to receive the instrument of marriage

money

or marriage certificate) she

certainly cannot

deprive her father of his other rights.

There

is,

however, a means by which she can receive

is

her instrument of marriage, and that

father's agent.

by becoming the
is

In this case, also, the father

really the

second party to the contract, and she acts only, just as

any other stranger might

agent.

act in the capacity of the father's

is

Thus, while she

is

the person, for

whom

in reality

the marriage
in the

contracted, yet in the part that she takes

this contract, she is a total stranger.

performance of

Such

are the peculiarities of law.^^'^

When

the daughter

is

to act as the agent of the father,

is

the testimony of witnesses

necessary to prove that she

for

was appointed by the father

v/hen
it

that

purpose.^^^

Yet

is

known

that the father intends to give her in

for

marriage and

makes preparations

the

wedding, no

witnesses are necessary for that purpose.^^^

Many

post-Talmudic scholars have, however, objected

to the law allowing the minor daughter to act as an agent

for the father.

compromise was therefore made.

The

father

was told to hold the hand of the daughter, when

she received the instrument of marriage, or to stand near

money
home.

or the marriage certificate, while the latter consists in taking her

Betrothal carries all the legal consequences of marriage proper,

with the exception of that which may be of a pecuniary character. '" Kid. 19a. Yet that a minor should become an agent and perform
the recipient act of the marriage performance
is

a matter that called forth

comment from post-Talmudic

satisfactory (see Tosef., ibid.).

scholars.

Their explanations are

hardly

'" Eben ha-Ezer 37,

7,

note of Isscrles.

">''

Ibtd.

THE MINOR
her at that time.

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER

95

In this

way

the father was considered

as the recipient of the marriage instrument.-^^

According to Jewish law, a person

may

act as agent in

the interest of his principal, even though the principal has

not expressly appointed him.

Hence the marriage convalid, pro-

tracted with the minor daughter, even though the father

did not appoint her expressly as an agent,

is

vided there are indications that he would have consented

to
it,

had he been informed of

is

it

before.

If

he protests
herself can

afterwards, the marriage

invalidate,

void.

Even she

according to law, such a marriage, before the

it.^*"^

father has given his consent to

Controversies have

repeatedly taken place

among

scholars, as to

what

is

the

law, in case there are no indications to prove that the father

is

in

favour of
dissolved

it.

Samuel decides that the marriage

both,

is

to be

by
is

bill

of divorce and Mi'un.

bill

of divorce

needed, because
it.

we suspect
is

that the

father

may have

consented to

Mi'un

necessary, in

order to remove the impression from people's minds that

the marriage was valid, an impression that

may be

pro-

duced by the

fact that a bill of divorce

ties,

was necessary to

absolve her from the marriage

and that may, therefore,

result in serious consequences.^^^

is

Ulla says that even Mi'un

not necessary.

According to one tradition, Ulla maineven

in case

tains this opinion

proposals were

made

to the

father previous to the

marriage.

According to another
in the previous case.^*^^

tradition, Ulla agrees with

Samuel

In practical
trivial

life,

however, the Rabbis considered every

in

circumstance connected with the marriage

order

to

determine
i^o
/6rf.

whether
161

the
Kid. 45

father
a.

consented.
'62

Rabina
Kid. 44
b.

^63 Ibid.,

see Tos.,

ibid.

See Eben ha-Ezer 37,

11.

96

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

invalidated a marriage, because the bridegroom presented

a bundle of herbs as the instrument of marriage.

undignified element in the marriage act,

This
surely-

he declares,

displeased the father, and caused

marriage.^''^

him not
to

to consent to the
in which, prior

One

case

came up

Abaye

to the marriage, the mother and the father had a dispute as to whether the minor daughter shall

marry one of

his

or

her relatives.

Finally the father yielded,

for the

and they

began to make preparations

wedding.

While they

were enjoying themselves at the

relatives

feast,

one of the husband's

secretly

performed the

marriage act with the

the

minor daughter,

Abaye

annulled

marriage, on the
it,

ground that the father cannot have consented to

since

such a consent would have proven contrary to the promise

he made

his wife.

When
father,
if

the betrothal took place with the consent of the

but the marriage proper without his consent, then,

is

the father

present at the marriage, and

is

silent,

Huna

takes his silence as a sign of indignation, and Jeremiah

as a sign of acquiescence.^*^^
If,

however, both the betrothal

and the marriage took place without his consent, under the

same conditions, Huna maintains that the marriage

for his silence in this case

is

valid,

shows that he gave up

his right

of giving his daughter in marriage.

The minor daughter

later,

has then the status of the minor female orphan whose

marriage, as
is

we

shall

have occasion to point out

rabbinically valid. '^"^

Another controversy among Rabbis was occasioned by

the marriage of the minor daughter whose father
is alive,

but

is

away from home

is
'"s

in

some

distant

land, so

that

absence
"

expected to be a very long one, or his return

b.

Kid. 45

Ibid.

i""

Kid. 45 b, 46

a.

THE MINOR

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER

97

doubtful altogether.

The Rabbis gave

the power to the

mother and the brother of the orphaned minor daughter

to give her
in

marriage, in order that she

may

not be

seduced.

R. Ahai Gaon maintains that the case of the

is

minor daughter whose father

is

away

in

some

distant place,

similar to the case of the minor orphan, and, therefore,

also

the marriage of the former should

valid.^*^^

be rabbinically
in

The same view

is
it,

is

expressed

the

Halakot

Gedolot, and

corroborated by R. Tam.^^^

Yet many
is

scholars opposed

on the ground that there

the possi-

bility that the father

may

give her in marriage to

lives.^^^

some

other

man

in the place

where he

So much

for the

legal aspect of the

marriage of the

minor daughters.

From

the ethical point of view,

Rab

and, according to another tradition, R. Eleazar prohibits

man from
proper

giving his minor daughter

in

marriage, until

she becomes mature and has intelligence enough to

a
choice.^''''

make

Yet

different

circumstances caused

people to disregard this moral interdiction.

in justification of this disregard

The Tosafot
is

say

'
:

That there

now

prevalent

among
is

us the custom of giving the minor daughter

fact that the exile is
us,

in marriage,

due to the

becoming

more and more pressing on

may, while the daughter
he
will
for
is

so that although a

man

a minor, afford to give a dowry,

it

may

not be able to give

later

(when the daughter

have grown up), and she

ever'.^'''^

may

thus remain unmarried

More

information about the post-Talmudic

disputes concerning the propriety of the marriage of the

minor daughter
167
'69

is

given

by Low, Die

Lebensalter, 169-75.
'68

Tos.,
Ibid.

ihid.

Ibid.
a.
i^i
/^/a'.

See Eben ha-Ezer

37, 14.

"o Kid. 41

VOL. VII.

98
C.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW Divorce of the Minor Daughter. The com-

After the marriage proper, the father cannot receive

the
bill

of divorce for the minor daughter."^

plete act of marriage, as

we

shall see later,

father.

emancipates the

minor from the power of the

The
of the

case
bill

is,

however, different concerning the reception

of divorce,

when she

is

only betrothed, since

the betrothal does not remove her from the power of the
father."^

According to R. Judah, the father alone has

bill

the exclusive power to receive her

of divorce, until
majority,

she becomes of

full

age.

The

opinion of the

however,

is

that in case of the betrothed ndarah^ either

bill

the father or she herself can receive the

It
is

of divorce.^^*
in

doubtful
is

whether the term my:

the

phrase

nD"ilNon n"iyj

used

in its strict technical sense, referring

only to the period between the age of twelve and twelve

and
^'2

six

months.^"'-^
;

This uncertainty resulted

Yer. Git. VI,
2.

in

a great
that
if

Kid. loa

Tos.

From the Yer.

bill

it

seems

she

does not have intelligence enough to watch the

has the power to receive
it

of divorce, the father

even

after marriage proper;

p3"l

and yet the passage

ibid.) is difficult,

beginning with the words n^3K

K\n pa flDO (Yen,

even though
a minor that

we
is

take

it,

in

agreement with the commentators,

to deal

with
is,

not mentally mature.

The question
bill ?

that inevitably arises

If

why

should she then be able to receive the

her lack of mental

matureness interferes
addition of a second
fication for that

at all, then its interference

should result, not in the

power granted
It
is

to the father, but in

her

own

disquali-

purpose.

also against the

Talmud

Babli (Git. 64 b)

which, according to the interpretation of both Rashi and of R. Tam,

maintains that the mentally premature minor cannot receive
divorce.
It

hfer

bill

of

may

be true that the Babli speaks of receiving the

it

bill

after

the betrothal.

But

does not seem that there

is

any

diflference

between

the betrothal and the marriage proper in this respect.

"

" Git. 46 b
Git.

Kid. 3b, 10
b.

a.

This point will be discussed later

in detail.

54 b; Kib. 43

"' As far as the term na'arah

admitted that
it

in

the Bible

is

concerned, the Rabbis

is

a general term for a minor, with the exception of one

case (Kct. 44 b).

THE MINOR
controversy

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER

99

among post-Talmudic
b^

authorities.

According

to one opinion, represented mainly by the reading of Rashi

in
its

Gittin

64

the word

ndarah

is

used exclusively

in

technical sense,

and

all,

therefore, agree that the

bill

daughter

under the age of twelve cannot receive the

while the father
is

of divorce

alive.^'^^

Isaac ben Meir opposes this

view, and maintains that

by the term ndarah the Mishnah

does not exclude the minor from the right of receiving

the
bill

of divorce.
bill

In receiving the

of divorce as well as in receiving

the instrument of marriage, the father does not act under

the status of the agent of his minor daughter, but
it
is,

as

were, the real party of the second part, to

bill
is is

whom
why

the

divorce
divorce

presented.
if

This

is

the

reason the

the

valid,

the father receives

it

bill,

though

according to Rabbi Judah,

circumstances, had the
bill

would be

invalid under all

been received by the daughter,

it

or according to the other view,

would be

invalid,

had

she received
ness.''^^

it

without possessing enough mental matureis

Marriage, as well as divorce, of minors

of merely

theoretical importance to us now.

But, up to a short time

life,

ago, both were matters of practical

and the Rabbis

a case.
Fuller

had

to render practical decisions in

many
in

details concerning the divorce of the

minor

post-Talmudic

times can be found

"^ This view
Alfasi
is

in

Low, Die Lebensalter, 175-6.

by Maim., Yad, Gerush,
II,

also shared

18,

and by

(commentary on
b.

Git., ibid.).

"^ Git. 64

This

is in

agreement with the passage ")1D1^V yiV

1J''NIi'

?3

&c. as interpreted by Tos.

the ability of watching her

According
bill

to Rashi, if she

does not possess

of divorce, she cannot be divorced, even

to

through the

act of the father.

According
case
is

our conception of the father's

father's action in

power, the view of Rashi

this divorce

in this

wrong, since the

performance

is

independent of the minor daughter.

lOO

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

D.

Injuries to
said in the

Minor Children.
to whether

Nothing

is

Mishnah as

compen-

sation for injuries inflicted

father.

on minor children goes to the

in the

There

is,

however, a passage
is

Tosefta deah'ng

with these points, but the text

definite
law.^'^^

so corrupt that nothing

can be inferred from

it

as to

what was the

earlier

Two

Baraitot are mentioned in the

Talmud

dealing

with these questions, but they also contradict each other,

and

offer

many
of

difficulties.

The explanations given by

are

the

Amoraim
Therefore,

these

Baraitot

hardly

satisfactory.^'^'

we

will limit ourselves to the definite

^^^

statements

of the

Amoraim.
for

Recovery
sists in

an injury, according to Jewish law, conin

compensation for the decrease

the value of the

person, for the pain which the injured person suffers, for

expense of healing the bruise or the wound, for loss of

work during the time of

illness,

and

for the humiliation

which the injured person sustains.

decrease in the value of the person
difference

The money
is

for

the

to

amount

to the
sell

between what he would obtain

is

if

he would

"' The following

the reading of Tosefta, B. K. IX, 8, 9, 10.

z^'^n

1^0 nb p3ni3 in3

irosy
-11CDD
b'j'

^-Ji (6)

c^n^n innm
nhao pa

1333 ()
)b

bainn
^tri (c)

D*:t2p

vmini

ma

(d)
n:i:>p

ntiny i3n

HT

nn

nNU'ni nbc' np]:

man

i53inn

(e)

^an

nit:D

^ninn (g)
|o ntDDi

nS:D inn \b r\mv nxB'ni r\biy np]i onnx nn ^b^n (/) ^32 2"n n^jyjDn 1n^D*.^"1 nayn (//) ban n'^^n pp i^nn
is

This Tosefta

corrupt, and must also contain different passages from

(c)
(/)

opposing schools,
{g) contradicts
(rf);

contradicts either (a) or

contradicts the

(rf)

(e)

contradicts
4.

(rf)

Mishnah

in B.

K. VIII,

" See B. K. 87
180

b.

\Yg p^ay safely assert

that in the earlier mishnic

law where, as
is

we

have shown before, the principle was 'that their hand

the remuneration for injuries went to the father.

like his

hand',

THE MINOR

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER

lOI

himself as a slave after he has been injured, and before

he was injured

the loss of service amounts to what he

after

would earn as a watchman, which he could do even

his

body had been

injured, provided he

was not confined

to bed.

Now,

all

agree that the payments for the pain,

for the disgrace

for the healing,

father.^^^

and

do not belong to the

The reason

of

it

is

evident.

The

injuries

com-

prised in the last three headings are injuries not to the

father,^^^

but to the children, and the father not having

any

right to injure his children,^*^ cannot have this right

realized in
others.

the injuries the children have

if

received

from

For the same reason,

the father

inflicts injuries

on his own children, they can recover from him

three forms of damage.^^*

for these

There

is,

however, a difference of opinion concerning

for the decrease in the value of the person,

compensation

and the

loss

of

service.

R. Johanan says that

they

belong to the

father.^^^

Rab made

a general statement

to the negative, but did not specify whether his negative

attitude

referred

to

both or one of the

fines.

Abaye
is

declares, therefore, that

Rab

admits that a fine for loss

of service

belongs to the father, because the father

"1 See B. K. 87
^^2

b.

It is

evident that the fines for the decrease in the vaUie of the person

and

for the healing are injuries to the child.

The

fine

for

humiliation

depends on whether
injured individual, or
possible
183
it

we

understand by

it

the humiliation sustained

by the
it is

by the whole family. The Talmud maintains has the former meaning (B. K. 86 b),
a.
if

that

B. K. 87

1**

And

yet some post-Talmudic authorities maintain that

is

the father

supports the children, he

424.
6,

exempt from any payment ^Hoshen ha-Mishpat

note of Isserles).
B. K. 87
b.
It

185

seems, however, that R. Johanan holds that even the

remuneration for pain, healing, and disgrace goes to the father.

I02

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

minor daughter, and the
is

entitled to the service of his

loss

of service caused
father.

by the

injury

a direct injury to the

post-Talmudic opinion

maintains that, even

according to Rab, the payment for the decrease in the

value of the person belongs to her only

lasts until after

in case
if

the injury the injury

she attains her majority, but

full

disappears before she becomes of

to the father.' 86

age, this fine belongs

According to Abaye, then,

loss

all

agree that a fine for the

father,

of service belongs

to the

yet

if

there

are

indications that the father does not insist

upon

his financial

claims towards his children, the fine for the loss of service

belongs to his daughter, for

we take

it

for

granted that
inflicted
is

he would not desire to benefit by the injury

his

upon
taken

daughter.

Such an attitude of the father

his

for granted,

when

magnanimity
8'

is
If,

shown

in his willing-

ness

to

support his children.'

however, the father

himself injures his children, he does not pay

loss of service, for

them

for the

while he

may

not be inclined to increase

Tos., B. K. 87 b. To understand fully this distinction, we must say words concerning the nature of the recovery for the decrease of the value of the person. While the power of the father to sell his daughter
'**

a few

as a slave became, after the destruction of the temple, a matter of

theory, yet
it

mere

served the Rabbis as a practical standard for deciding the

nature of the rights the father possesses with regard to his daughter.

The recovery

for the

decrease

in

value of the person

in

this case
if

amounts

to the difference

between the amount she would obtain,

she were sold

as a slave, after she has been injured, and the

before she

amount she would obtain

is

was

injured.
it

Now,

if

the bodily

damage

only temporary, and

age, this fine should
sell

she will recover from

before she becomes of

full

belong to the father, as he has the power, theoretically, to

a slave.
If,

her as

however, the damage

is

permanent, the fine should belong to

her, as the father does not have the right to sell her

permanently as a slave.

'" B. K. 97

b.

This

fine, therefore,
.

belongs to the father

when she

is

not supported by him

{ibid.

THE MINOR
his possessions

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER

I03

from what he

may

get for injuries inflicted

on

his children

by

others,

he would not wish to diminish

to his children for the injuries

his possessions

by paying

he has

inflicted

upon them.^^^

The
cile

data in the last paragraph are derived from the

discussions of the

Amoraim, who were attempting

But, as

to recon-

the two conflicting Baraitot referred to at the beginning

of this section.

we have mentioned
In the

before, their

interpretations are not satisfactory.

first place,

the

Baraitot do not deal with loss of service, but with

sation for injuries in general.

compenwhich

Then

the difference,

the

Talmud here makes between

leads
13).

the cases in which children

are and those in which they are not supported

father,

by

their

to

directly opposite
in

results

elsewhere (see
discussions

B.

M.

Again, nothing

the

Amoraic

explains

why
fine

the father should not give compensation for

inflicts

the injury he
to

on his

son.^^^

If the father's rights

the

for the

daughter's loss

of service

is

based

on the

father's rights to the service of his daughter,

then

the fine for the son's loss of service should

not belong

to the father, as the latter has no rights to the service of the children
former.
Finally,

there

is

no reason why adult

father,^^
if

should

not

recover

from their

he

happens to be the wrongdoer,

no right to the service of
This
is,

since the father has certainly

his adult children.

however, the result of the attempt to reconcile

to read into

two Baraitot which are contradictory, and

them meanings which

'8^ Ibid.

are quite foreign to their original

See Tos.,

ibid.

189

The

Baraita says "IIDS 'b^ VniJni V332.

full

The Talmud takes the

Baraita to speak even of children of

to

age.

It

ignores altogether the need

account for the father's right to the remuneration for the son's interest.
i^**

See previous note.

I04
intent.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

They
are
closely allied to the Tosefta
referred

to

before,

and must have had the same origin."^

try to reconcile these

No

matter
it

how much we

two

Baraitot,

is

quite impossible to reconcile the conflicting laws in

the

same passage of the

Tosefta.

E.

Seduction or Debauching the Minor Daughter.

Bible distinguishes between two forms of debauching
(i) violence, (2)
is

The
women,

and seduction.

In case of violence,

the wrongdoer

to

marry the injured female,

whom
to

he
the

can never divorce, and has to

father.^^2

pay

fifty
is

shekels

j^

^^g
If

^ase of seduction, he

not forced to

marry
the

her.

he marries her, he does not have to pay

fifty shekels.^^"

In

the

Mishnah,
the

the

fine

is

increased.

In case
is

of

seduction,
for

Mishnah says the wrongdoer

she sustains,
for

to

pay
in

the disgrace which

the decrease

the value of the person, and a fixed

fifty

fine^^'^

(the Biblical

shekels).

In case of violence, he

has also to pay

for the pain she suffers.^^''

The payment
to

of a

fixed

fine

is

a feature

pertaining

seduction.'^
18'

The
4,

other fines are not limited to the

note 38.
193

See above, chapter

Deut. 22. 28, 29.

'*2

Exod. 20.
:

15.

"<
of one

The Talmud
is is

discerns in

tlie

Bible two classes of fines

the amount
;

fixed, irrespective of the

amount of the

loss
to

caused by the mjury

while the other

variable,

and proportional

the damage.

The

fifty

shekels for seduction belongs to the former class.

'9"
'''*

Ket. 39

a.

The

fine of

the

fifty

i,hekels is
it

due

to the fact that the destruction of

the chastity of the child rendered

for her,

difficult for

the father to get a husband

and so caused him a

loss of fifty shekels,

which he would get as

Mohar

(the purchase price

from the husband.

THE MINOR

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER

105

offence of seduction.

They
to
find

are the regular fines which one

has to pay

when he
tries

injures the

body of another
basis
for these
is

person. ^^^

The Talmud
Mishnic
tion
is

additional

fines. ^^^

But no

special basis

necessary.

Seduc-

merely a certain kind of injury, causing the same

sort of
If
it

damages as those caused by any other bodily

injury.
for

causes loss of service,

and causes the expenses

curing to be incurred, recovery would certainly be

for these

had

damages

too.

Thus

there
fines

is

nothing peculiar
in

about the payments of the three

mentioned before

connexion with the injury of seduction.

These

fines

are stated

expressly in

the

Mishnah

to

belong to the

father.^^
If

The

fixed fine of the Bible also

said in the last paragraph

belongs to the father.

is

what we

true,

and the payments

for the pain, the disgrace,

and

the decrease in the value of the person, in case of seduction,

are the regular fines of an injury, then

we may

infer

from

the case of seduction, that the fines of any other injuries to

the daughter, belonged, according to Mishnaic law, to the
father, or that

the law of seduction

is

merely a survival

ot

an early general law maintaining that the father has a right

to the recovery for the injuries to the daughter.

The Baby-

lonian

Talmud,

as can be seen from our discussion in the

previous section, ignores altogether such a relation between

seduction and any other injuries.

a conscious distinction
right to the recovery
is

In the Palestinian

Talmud
father's

proposed between the

for seduction,

and

his right to the

recovery for any other

injury.^"'*

Consequently, the

Amoraim

tried to find a reason for the father's right to the fines for
seduction.^"^
"7 See previous section.
200

" Ket. 40
ibid.,

b.

i^^

Ket. IV,

i.

Yer. Ket. IV,

1,

See

Pene Mosheh.

201

Ket. 40b.

I06

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The
action in case of seduction
is

mainly based on the

defiling of the daughter's chastity.

If,

therefore, her chastity

has been once defiled, no action can be maintained

father against the
is

wrongdoer (Kctubbot

3.

i).

by the The same

true

if

her innocence has been once suspected.^"^ Accord-

ing to one view, the laws of seduction are to be applied

only when she

is

a ndarah^

i.e.

during the six months

year.^"

between her twelfth and twelfth and a half

agree that

All

when she

attains her majority

no action can be

maintained against the wrongdoer, even by the daughter

herself.204

With the cessation of regular ordination,

justice

was

administered upon the theory that unordained judges act

only as the agents or the representatives of ordained judges.

This principle holds good, however, neither

volving merely the payment of a fixed
of rare occurrence, nor in matters
fine,

in cases
in

in-

nor

matters

which are not based on

a direct loss of money.^"^ of the cases

Since seduction belongs to one

in

mentioned

the

last

three

categories,

it

cannot, therefore,
judges.^"^
in force in
left

come under the

jurisdiction of unordained

Hence the laws

Babylonia.

relating to seduction

were not

But the freedom from punishment

Stringent measures were
that could not

young females unprotected.

also called for

by other matters

come under

the jurisdiction

of unordained judges.

As

a result, the

Geonim
a ban,
202 '"

later
if

enacted that the wrongdoer be put under

in

he refused,
b.

some way

or other to give 'satis-

Ket. 63
Ket.

Ill, 7.

This

is

certainly out of

harmony with

practical

life,

and

is in

opposition to the more practical earlier law.

b.

*"**

Ket. 29, 40

That no action can be legally maintained

for

seducing

a female after she reached her twelfth

2K

and a half year

206

is

also rather peculiar.

B. K. 84 b.

See

ibid.,

Alfasi

and Rashi.


THE MINOR
IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER

I07

^'^'^ faction to the injured person.

Tlius, the

young female

was again placed under the protection of the law.

F.

Annulling the Vows of the Daughter.

Bible invested the father with the

The

power

to annul

the vows of his daughter, which would, otherwise, be religiously binding

on

her.

This annulment

is

valid only

when

it

takes place on the same day,

when the information

Otherwise, his

of the daughter's
silence

vow
is

reaches the father.

on

this

day

taken as a sign that he approves of

it

the vow, and cannot, therefore, invalidate

later.

Later law declares that the vows of the betrothed minor

daughter can be invalidated only by the joint participation

in

the annulment by the father and the bridegroom.

The

annulment of the one without the annulment of the other

does not invalidate the vow.^^*

According to Bet Shammai, the annulment of each

invalidates one complete
slightest

half vow, without affecting the

degree the other half vow.

According to Bet

Hillel the annulment of each invalidates the whole vow

to

some
207 Ibid.
208

extent.

practical difterence
177.

might

arise in the

See also Tur Eb. Haez.

I.

Ned. X,

The Talmud

tries to find a basis for this law.

Its Biblical

interpretation, however, is very inadequate.

origin.

Yet

it

may have had

a logical

the

The power of

betrothal does not, as will be seen later, emancipate her from

the father.

Vows
is

constitute the only case

where the power

in

of the father over the daughter

found to be diminished

any way.

On

the other hand, the betrothal brings her legally to a great extent into the

matrimonial relationship with the person

the Bible invests with the
his wife.

who

marries her, and

whom

power
to the

of annulling her

vows when she becomes

same
time, the father

The

natural result

would then be that the betrothed minor

powers of both
at the
is

daughter should be subject

and bridegroom.
of the father.

The power

of the bridegroom

an additional one to that

Io8

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Suppose the food from which she vowed
quantity equivalent to two olives (an olive
food that must be eaten in

following case.
to abstain
is

is

in

the quantity of forbidden

order to incur corporal punishment), and only one gave his

annulment.

According

to Bet

Shammai,

this

annulment

vow only with reference to the amount of one olive leaving the vow with regard to the other half in its complete validity. The eating then of the whole amount
invalidated the

would involve the infliction of corporal punishment. According to Bet Hillel the whole

vow became
left is

partially invalidated.

Thus, the amount of olive

not sufficient to sustain the

complete binding power of the vow.

of the whole

The

eating, therefore,

amount

is

the commission of a transgression

which does not involve corporal punishment.^^^

The power which

bridegroom.

the father has in annulling the vows

is

of the betrothed daughter

greater than the power of the

is

The power

of the bridegroom

transmitted

to the father after the latter's death.

Therefore, the father

can annul the

vow which
if

the

daughter took before the

bridegroom's death,

there are not data to

vow.-^*^

show that the

But the power

husband

in

any way approved of the

of the father cannot be transferred, after his death, to the

bridegroom, and, therefore, the bridegroom cannot annul

the

vow which

the daughter took previous to the father's

is

death.
in

Nay

more, the husband's annulment

ineffective

such a case, even though the father offered his sha/e in

annulling the
2<

vow

before his death.^^^

210

Ned. 68 a.

Josefta, Ned. IV, 8

Gem.,

ibid. 68.

'" Tosefta, ibid. 3; Gem., ibid.

THE MINOR
G.

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER

I09

Emancipation of the Daughter from the Power of the Father.

is

The daughter
father's power, (i)

released

or

emancipated from the

when she

attains her majority, (2)

dies.

when

she marries,

(3)

and when her father

(i)

Attaining her Majority.

partially

The daughter becomes father's power the moment

emancipated from the

she shows the presence of signs

of puberty, which appear usually at the age of twelve.

attains at this age a semi-state of majority,

She
called

and

is

naarah.
if

She

is

emancipated from her master at that age,

her father sold her as a slave while she was a minor, and

she cannot from

now on be

sold any

more
bill

as a slave.^^^

From now
riage.-^*

on, she can also receive her

own

of divorce, ^^^

and according
In

to some, also her

own instrument

of marfull

all

other

respects, the father

exercises

power over her

half,

until she reaches her twelfth year

and a

when she becomes

of full age,

and

is

legally entirely

emancipated from the

father's power,

(2)

Marriage.

The
rights.

betrothal itself deprives the father of

some of

his

After the betrothal, he loses the power of alone

annulling the vows of the daughter.^^^ In case of seduction,

the fixed fine does not belong to him any longer.^^^ According to Rabbi Jose, there
212 21* 216

is

no recovery whatever of a fixed

213

Kid. 14

b.

Git. 64 b.
^^^

Kid, 43
Ket.

b.

Ned. X,
is

i,

Ill,

Gem.,
is

ibid. 38.

This case of seduction

spoken of as

taking place after she

divorced from her bridegroom. Otherwise, a heavier

is

punishment

is inflicted

upon the offender, and then there

no fixed

fine.

no
fine, if

THE

JF.WISH

QUARTERLY REVIEW
It is true

the daughter has once been betrothed.

that, according to this opinion, the loss of the father's claim

to this fine does not

mean

that the betrothal caused a loss

is

of a parental right, but that the fine

eliminated by certain

regulations governing the case of seduction.

to

But according

Rabbi Akiba, the

2^"

fixed fine belongs to the daughter

loss of

herself,

which certainly means a

a right on the part

of the father.

From
Talmud

the last two

it

facts, it

would seem that the betrothal

brings with

partial

emancipation for the daughter.

is

The
Yet
it

says expressly that this

indicated

by the

father's

loss of his

power of alone annulling the

vows.^^^

does not necessarily follow.

to annul the

The

incapability of the father

vows of

his betrothed

daughter need not be

the result of a reduction of his parental power, but the

creation of an additional

power of the bridegroom, to which

In the case of the fixed
to

the daughter becomes

fine.

subjected.^^"

Rabbi Jose and Rabbi Akiba seem

dififerent

base their

opinions on
verse,

interpretations of a certain Biblical

which apparently has no bearing on the question of

the emancipation of the daughter.

With the exception

daughter.

of the loss of these

two

rights,

the father exercises full power over the betrothed minor

When
bill

she

is

divorced, the

amount

of the

Ketubbah belongs
to receive her

to the father.^^^

He
view

has also the power

,post-

of divorcc.-^^

According to one
of the

Talmudic

interpretation

of

the

Mishnah

(Gittin 6. 2), the betrothed

"' Ibid.

daughter can also receive her

218

Ket. 39
20

a.

" See note 208.

"* Git, VI, 2; Ket. 40
b.

Ket. 43

b.

All commentators agree that the passage in

Kci. refers to the divorce of the betrothed.

THE MINOR
bill

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER
But
in

III

of divorce, even

when she

is

under twelve.

this

view does not necessarily imply a reduction

the father.
sent to
it,

the power of

It is

probable that she needs her father's con-

and the Mishnah merely tells us that she possesses

bill.

the legal power to receive the

Whatever may be the view with regard

all

to the betrothal,

agree that the marriage proper completely emancipates

the minor daughter from the power of the father.^^^

She
If she

is

then called

'

an orphan while the father

is

living

'.

Like an
is

orphan she

is

no longer controlled by her father.

is

divorced while she

to the

yet a minor, she

is

no longer subjected

power

of the father.^^^^

(3)

Death of

the Father.

The daughter becomes emancipated from

the father

the power of

by the

latter's

death.
to
his

Therefore, the rights of

the father with

regard

minor daughter are not

transferred to his sons after his death.

The minor daughters

are to be supported

from the property inherited by the

minor brothers, and yet neither the service nor the earnings
of the former belong to the latter.-^^
222

Ned. X, 6

Gem.,

ibid.

89.

223 /^/^_

^24

Ket. 43a.

{To be

071 tinned.)

JEWS AND AUSTRIAN FINANCE^

Saviuel Oppenheimer
Leipzig, 1913.

und
xii

sein

Kreis.

By

Max Grunwald.

pp.

+ 358.
gladden Prof. Sombart's heart, for
that

This
it

is

a book that
important

will

shows the

influence

certain

number

of

'Hofjuden', connected by family or business with Samuel Oppenheimer,

had upon the Austrian finances

century,

at

the

end of the

seventeenth
century.

and

for

the

first

half of the eighteenth

at

They were mainly centred

number, however,
live there

Vienna, though Jews

recently as 1670.

had been expelled from the imperial

city as

favoured

including

Oppenheimer,

were

allowed to return and

freed

with a special Schutzbrief, which

them from

all

taxes except the special contributions

made

directly to the treasury.

This especial privilege was granted them

owing to the experience the Austrian treasury had gained of

their usefulness in

obtaining money.

Before the expulsion in

1670 they could be depended upon to supply 50 or 100,000

gulden at a day's notice, whereas
could not get ten or
fifteen

after the expulsion the court after a week's delay.

fifty-

thousand gulden

At

that time there were

477 families scattered throughout

nine localities in Austria, and merely for protection they brought

in

an income of over 50,000

florins.

It

was reckoned that

their

expulsion cost the state 80,000 florins a year, and the various
lords of the land, under

whose protection they resided, another

20,000.

It

was not, therefore, surprising that individuals were

drift

allowed to

back almost immediately

first

after the

expulsion

and we

find

Oppenheimer the
to

of these applying for repay-

ment of moneys due

him

for supplies to the

army
years

in 1672,
later

only two years later than the

expulsion.

Ten

he His

undertook to provision the whole of the Austrian army, and

made

all

the arrangements for the siege of Ofen in 1686.

* These reviews

were

put in type after the lamented death of Dr. Joseph

[Editor.]
I

Jacobs and could not have the advantage of his revision.

VOL.

VII.

113

114

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

florins

advances had reached 1,200,000

by the end of 1688, by

which time he had

acquired a practical

monopoly of the

fiscal

policy of Austria, at least as regards military operations, providing

the troops with clothing, weapons, food, transport, train, siege,

and bridge

materials, as well as hospitals

and even pensions and

one hundred
without

decorations for the officers.

He

was

practically the founder of

the Austrian marine, sending in the

ships to Belgrade,

same

year, 1688,

and making a loan of 60,000

florins

any interest for that purpose.

Austria, the west

His operations extended through

and south of Germany, Hungary, Transylvania,

to Switzerland

and
from

Servia,

and even

and
;

Italy.

He

got powder

Holland, Poland, and

Russia

saltpetre

from Bohemia,
;

Silesia,

and Hungary
;

weapons from
from
;

Styria

and Carinthia and

linen

from

Holland

wool
Bavaria

Bohemia,

horses

rafts

from

Salzburg and

corn from

Bamberg,
Moselle
;

Mayence,
brandy

and
from

Treves

wine

from

the

Rhine and

Moravia.

His agents and correspondents were scattered through

five places,

forty-

from Amsterdam to

Italy,

from Brussels to Nurem-

berg,

from Breslau to Philippsburg, from Prague to Berlin and

Instead of direct profits,

Frankfort.

Oppenheimer

often claimed
creditors,

various privileges, like free transport, priority

among state
like.

monopoly of powder manufacture and the

He

provided

the court with jewels, wine, spices, liveries, forage,

for

and arranged

any special undertaking like entertaining princes, pensions to

ambassadors.

generals or presents to
this

Oppenheimer hoped by
competition of other com-

means

to

keep

his place against

missaries, often including

members of

the high nobility.

He

was

enabled to do

this

solely

through his credit, which was often

supported by that of his protector Prince Ludvvig.

By November
setting

1695 he had supplied 5,159,441

florins,

and had only received

back 2,783,600.
of Bohemia,

Payments were made mainly through

aside the various taxes like the military, Turkish, and Jewish tax

the brewery tax of Silesia,

salt

the customs of Linz,

latter.

Vienna, as well as the

and mint monopolies of the

Even the imperial contributions were put aside

for this purpose.

'

JEWS AND AUSTRIAN FINANCE

By 1700 even millions owed
delivered
in

JACOBS
tlie

II5

these were insufficient to cover

to

debt of three

Oppenheimer.

At times even worn-out horses,

unused uniforms, confiscated contraband

payment.
Notwithstanding

and
all

the

like

were

this

he was not

allowed to have a prayer-room in his

own

house, though he had

six

founded a synagogue

in

Padua.

He

charged

per cent, with

'

addition of a half to three and one-half per cent.

provision

',

and three and one-half

accumulated upon
florins in

to five per cent, agio

but interest was

interest.

Debts

to

him
in

rose

from

52,600

1685 to 700,000 in

1692; and

1695 he was owed

over three and a half millions, which had only been reduced to
three millions by 1701.

He

supplied for the Italian and Imperial

state credit for over ten

War
years.

eight million florins,

and kept the

There was, however, some popular outcry against putting the

fate of

an empire into the hands of a Jew, which led to a tumult

21, 1700, in the Peasants'

on July done

Market where Oppenheimer

had dwelt.

His house was attacked and entered, and damage

to the extent of 100,000 florins.

At
in

that time the court

owed him seven

and
All
this

million

florins.

Yet

1701 he lent three

in

a third millions.

Oppenheimer himself died

in

1703.

work was undertaken

the midst of a mass of

lawsuits against him,

notwithstanding which

he was entrusted

with the

money

of

many

Christians, even spiritual nobles.

at Ofen, 1686,

He
in

helped to ransom the Jews taken

the production of

and helped

many

books, including Gans, Zemach David,

in Yiddish, Frankfort, 1689.

Prince Eugene used to send him

Hebrew manuscripts and

books.

He

helped to prevent the

appearance of Eisenmenger's malicious books.

'imperial factor' 1674, 'Oberfaktor' 1699,

He

was called

and

'

Oberkriegsfaktor

from

701.
fell

With

his

death his firm failed and the Austrian

finances

into disorder.

The

claims of Oppenheimer's son

on the Imperial treasury was supported by Elector George of

Hanover

(afterwards George I of England), Prince George of

Brunswick, and the Elector of Treves.

Nor did

the assistance of Jewish capital to Austrian finance

I

Il6

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Dr. Grunwald reckons that,

cease with Oppenheimer's death.

from 1698 to 1739, ^^'erthe^mer, Sinzheim, D'Aguilar, Hirschl,

Schlesinger, Spitz,
treasury with

and Oppenheimer's son suppUed the Austrian

than seventy-eight milUon
florins,

no

less

an average

of about two million florins per

total

annum, or about a

third of the
salt

revenue of the
the

state.

These loans were secured on

excise,

Jewish
It

tax,

and the copper, cotton, and tobacco

at that

monopolies.

was not to be wondered

the Viennese

Jews were, during that period, the leaders of European Jewry, as was shown
in the

Eisenmenger case and other instances.

All this information

and much more

is

contained in Dr. Grun-

wald's elaborate work, which has gained the

is

Rappaport

prize

and
com-

published by the historical commission of the Jewish

munity of Vienna.

He

has

obtained his
full

materials

from the
relating

Viennese archives, which are naturally

to the activity of the commissaries of the

of papers

army during the period

when Prince Eugene and

their great triumphs,

the

Duke

of Lorraine were obtaining

which curbed the ambition of Louis

back the Turk
in the East.
It is

XIV

in the

West and

thrust

impos-

sible to praise too highly the industry with

which Dr. Grunwald

has brought order out of the chaos of these state papers and
elaborate accounts.

The summary contained

know
'

in the table, in-

serted at p. 170, must have cost

him an enormous amount of

work, and enables one to

the exact state of affairs between

any of the Jewish

treasury
financial
for

'

factors

mentioned there and the Austrian

Besides
these contributions
to

over forty years.

the

history,

book contains much information about

regrets that
is

family history,

and one only

the pedigree of the

Wertheimers, of which a summary

printed
in
full.

given on pp. 250-2, was not

less
thaft

They were connected with no

150
are

other families scattered over fifty-eight communities.

We

beginning to appreciate the importance of family relations in

accounting for the influence of Jews on the financial history of

Europe.

This

is

the chief criticism that one feels inclined to

make

upon Dr. Grunwald's work.

He

gives us elaborate details but

JEWS AND AUSTRIAN FINANCE

does not
sufificiently

JACOBS

II7

movements.
get the large

connect them with general tendencies and Where and how did Oppenheimer and his circle

sums which they

lent to

Austria

Occasionally

Dr. Grunwald mentions that

spiritual^ entrusted their

some of the
to

princes, secular

and

money

Oppenheimer and

his friends,

may be conjectured that he and they were lending not so much their own capital as that of others. It may be conjectured that, when Samuel Oppenheimer's son Emanuel was supported
and
it

by the Elector George of Hanover (afterwards George

England),
in

of

Duke George

of Brunswick, and the Elector of Treves,

attempting to get his claims on the Austrian treasury recognized,

these illustrious personages were not without personal interest in

the result.

It

would have been of importance

or, in

they were interested

other words,
So, too, in

had been thus advanced.

wide
it

to know how much how much of their capital giving some account of the

activities of

Oppenheimer
interest to

in supplying the Austrian army,

would have been of

know how

far local

Jewish firms,

or individuals, at

Lemberg, or Prague, or elsewhere, were advencapital with

turing their

own

Oppenheimer and were

state.

willing to

wait

till

he had been paid by the

for interest

And

if

they so waited,

had they claim

on the amount thus advanced from

shares in his ultimate profits
to
?

Oppenheimer
other words,

Or had they

In

it

would have been illuminating

have had some

loans
to

notion of the modus

operandi of these great Jewish

practice.
is

compare with the present-day

Another point on which

light

wanted

is,

why

the Jews
It is all

had
very
to
in

more

accessible

and more

fluid capital

than others.

well to talk with Prof.

Sombart of the innate Jewish tendency

for the

commerce, but what these Viennese Jews did

emperor

the eighteenth century had already been done by the Fuggers,

the Welsers, and others in the sixteenth century
like to
;

and one would

to

know how
it

the loan capital

had passed from Christian

Thirty Years'

Jewish hands in the interim.

The

War had

inter-

vened

is

true,

but why had not this ruined Jewish capitalists

All

as well
still

as

others.

these

questions

are
this

not

even raised,
his

less

answered by Dr. Grunwald, and

makes

book.

Il8
valuable as
finance
in

THL JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

it

is,

rather raw material for the study of Jewish

the seventeenth
it.

and eighteenth centuries than an

\ye
still

adequate treatment of

want work more analogous

to Ehrenburg's Zeitalter der Fitgger, which, while giving details,

will

also give the general tendencies

light.

upon which these

details

throw

JEWISH IMMIGRATION INTO THE UNITED STATES

Le Juif errant d'mij'ourd'hui. By and Bri^re, 1913. pp. 333. Die \Vanderbe%vegunge7t der Judeii.
L.

Hersch.

Paris

Giard

Bonn

A.

Marcus and
to the

E.

By ^^YAD. Kaplun-Kogan, Weber, 19 13. pp. 164.

Jewish Lnmigratioii

United States.

By Samuel Joseph.
pp. 2c6.

New York
During

Longmans, Green
past
fifteen

&
or

Co., 1914.
so the

the

years

Commissioner-

General of Immigration has been publishing reports in which

the race and provenance of the immigrants are duly rubricated,

and the

'

Hebrews thus entering the United

'

States are accord-

ingly classified according to

literacy, sex,

numbers, countries they come from,

ages, civil condition, destination, occupations,

and

the

amount of money with which they

coincidence,

are provided.

By a

curious

during

the

past

year,

three

sociological

German, and American, have brought together and analysed the information contained in these reports with
inquirers, Swiss,

regard to Jewish immigration in the United States, on which

we

have

at last full

and authentic information

for at least the years

1899-1914.
All

three inquirers deal not alone with the immigrants

on

their arrival in this country, but also with their condition in their

countries

of origin.

But Dr. Joseph deals with the subject

historically,

Drs. Hersch

and Kaplun-Kogan more

statistically,

and therefore more

gations.

in the general line of the rest of their investi-

One cannot

help thinking that Dr. Joseph has wasted

a good deal of time in giving his history of the political condition of Eastern Europe in regard to the Jews, which might almost

JEWISH IMMIGRATION
have been taken as
in the subject.
fairly well

JACOBS

II9
interested

known by most persons

Kaplun-Kogan has

Similarly, Dr.

dealt with the

Wanderjahre of the Jewish people from Abraham downwards in

the
first

sixty

pages of his book.

Here again
any

it

was impossible

to deal with so large a subject with

originality or thoroughness.

There

is

another reason why the use of Russian figures about

is

occupations and the like

invariably taken

scarcely

worth while.

They
first

are

from the E7iquete made by the International

Russian
it

Colonization Association in 1897, the year of the

census of the Jews of any scientific value.

Now, though

is

probable that economic conditions have not greatly changed in

the Pale of Settlement during the intervening seventeen years,
there
it

is

no doubt

that they

have changed

to

some

extent,

and

is

therefore precarious to apply results derived from 1897 to

explain social

phenomena

of ten or fifteen years later. one-third

Take

a single

instance;

practically

of the

Russian Jews

investigated in 1897

were engaged in commerce, whereas the

proportion

of merchants

and dealers

that
is

come over
Dr.

to

this

country

is

only five per cent.

There
for

indeed a problem, but

thdre are

no available data

solution.

Joseph wisely

omitted

this

branch of the subject from

his purview,

and from

certain points of view his

book has gained thereby.

M. Hersch

has devoted most of his attention to attempting to ascertain the

economic and other causes which,

cannot be said to be
of the phenomena.
largely political,

in

Russia especially, led to

is,

the migration of the Jews, but, elaborate as his analysis

really

it

convincing owing to the complexity

No

doubt the cause of the

New Exodus
is

is

and can be
But

definitely traced to
at the

the religious

persecutions of the Jews.

same time there

a purely
in

economic element dependent on the business

Russia and America, and
this varies

conditions

from trade to trade and

figures of the

from occupation

to occupation.

As the

Commis-

sioner-General do not distinguish between 'Russian' and 'other'

Hebrews,

it

is

practically impossible

statistically

to

investigate

the concomitant variations on both sides of the Atlantic which

would enable us

to

show

that every

phenomenon

in the

Russian

20

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Jewish market would be followed by such or such a phase in the Russian Jewish market in the United States.
Dismissing therefore those sides of these works which seem either irrelevant or inadequate, we may confine our attention
to their

common

element, the analysis which they give of the

in

information

contained

the

reports

of

the

Commissioner-

General

for Immigration.
;

M. Hersch

practically confined him-

self to these figures

both Dr. Kaplun-Kogan and Dr. Joseph

deal as well with the unofficial figures of the years 1881-1898.

Unfortunately Dr. Kaplun-Kogan has been misled by the article

'

Migration

'

in ihe/etvish

Encyclopaedia into including

all

Rus-

sians

coming

to this country

between i88r and 1898 as being

exclusively

Russian Jews.
this

Both M. Hersch and Dr. Joseph

point out

unfortunate error in \he Jewish Encyclopaedia, and

the former

in

consequence despairs of obtaining any reliable

information about the earlier years, and confines his attention to

the period

1898-1910,

for

which the elaborate reports of the

Dr. Joseph, on the other

Commissioner-General are available.

hand, has utilized the returns of various Jewish societies at York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore for the period
1

New

881-1898,

and by ingenious manipulation of these has gotten reasonably

near the probable figures.

His tables therefore may be regarded

as the only complete ones in existence,

late into

and though he comes

is

the

field,

his

book

for

this

reason

for

statistical

purposes the most valuable of the three.

All three inquirers are at

one

in recognizing that the

Jewish

immigration

differs

essentially
to

from the other sections of the

Jewish immi-

more recent additions

grants
generally.

America's inhabitants.

have a larger percentage of

women and

married folk
nun^bers

They have
In
this

less illiteracy,
;

and return

in less

to their countries of origin

in

short, they migrate

by family, and

come
built

to stay.

they resemble the older immigration which

Strangely enough, not one of the
to bring the further evidence as

up

this

great nation.

three investigators have cared

to characteristics of

Jews compared to other immigration which

in

could have been developed from the elaborate report

forty-

JEWISH IMMIGRATION

JACOBS
This
is

121

three volumes by the Immigration Commission.

probably

wise forbearance,

since in

the

majority of cases the absolute of the Commission are

numbers on which the

statistical tables

based (they have been analysed or rather repeated by Professor

Jenks and Mr. Lauck) are often so small that no trustworthy

conclusions are
to

be drawn from them.

To

give

a single

example, the weekly wages of males under eighteen were derived

by the Immigration Commissioners from one hundred and

Russian and
thirty-five

thirty

other Jews.

The

affiliation

with trade

unions, which really run into hundreds of thousands, are

into

made

percentages derived from one hundred and

;

sixty-three

Russian

Jews

the

number

of naturalizations investigated was only four

hundred, and three of Jews other than Russians.

percentages derived from such figures
is

The
nil.
is

value of

absolutely

Dr. Joseph's work, though the most complete,

the possibility of improvement.

not above

As

have

said,

he manipulates

the figures relating to the immigration before 1898 ingeniously

and
to

fairly

convincingly, but in such a case

it

is

always desirable

have before us the figures thus manipulated, which Dr. Joseph

It

has failed to give.

would not have been

difficult to

have given

the original figures from which tables II and

piled,

IV have been comespecially

and

for a particular

reason

it

would have been

desirable to have continued these original figures derived from

.

the Jewish inquirers

down

to the present day.

f'or if Dr.

Joseph

had done so he would have found

that the figures for immigration

contained in each year of the American Jewish Year Book for so

many
is

years were nearly one-fifth less than those given in the

government returns from 1899 onwards.

that
if

The

obvious conclusion
earlier years

we had had government

figures for the

they would also have to be increased twenty per cent., which

would probably add another hundred and twenty thousand to At any rate, this discrepancy ought to have been the number.
observed and investigated.

The arrangement

of Dr. Joseph's tables,

full

and elaborate

as they are, are occasionally susceptible to improvement.

He

has a habit, as in tables XVIII, XXII,

XXIX,

of giving the

122

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

percentage of each year with reference to the total immigration

concerned.
as the

It is difficult to see

of what use this can be, especially

all

moment

the

numbers of succeeding years are added,

to

these percentages will have to be changed.

(By the way, the

heading of table

XXII seems

be entirely misleading, the per

cent, as not of the per cent, arriving each year, but of the total

arriving
all

1881-1910.)

This reminds

me

to

remark that almost

It is true

Dr. Joseph's tables finish with the fiscal year 1910.

this

that

had the advantage of being a census

book appeared
this year
it

year,

but

as
to

Dr. Joseph's

would have been easy

have added three more years and made the tables so

much

the

more complete.

As
I

a further

comment on

the

methodology of the book,

would remark that Dr. Joseph has the habit of giving summaries

in separate tables, instead of

combining them with the

easily

series of in

tables.

Table XXIII might

have been inserted

the
to

appropriate position of table

clearness
tion that

XXII, with an advantage both

convenient coup

and conciseness.
employs
as
figures
is

One

of the difficulties of an investigad'ceii

to get a

of them,

and

it

is

much

the duty of a statistician to facilitate the use

it

of the figures he has collected, by summarizing, as

writer of a

is

of the

book

to give a

good

table of contents.
in

But

should be sorry to leave Dr. Joseph

spirit.

any grudging

or unappreciative
for the
first

He

has brought together, practically

time, almost all the available

and relevant

figures

bearing upon Jewish immigration to the United States during the

past thirty years.

He

has drawn from them most of the infer;

ences and induction which they can well bear

he has brought

out with clearness the different character of the

New Exodus
all,

as

a real transference of hard-working families from Russia, Galicia,

and Roumania

to these

favoured climes.

Above

he has

redeemed the good name of American Jews from the reproach of having permitted European inquirers to summarize available
statistical

material relating to Jewish immigration into

this to

America
us.

which ought long ere

have been made accessible to

Joseph

jAcoBis.

MARGOLIOUTH'S CATALOGUE OF MISCEL-

LANEOUS MSS. AND CHARTERS THE BRITISH MUSEUM

IN

Catalogue of Hebreiv and Samaritan Maiiuscripts in the British Museum. By G. Margoliouth. Part III, Sections VIII,

IX:
pp. iv

Miscellaneous

MSS.;

Charters.

London,

1915.

375-607 +

(2).

The

final

instalment of volume III of Margoliouth's

Cata-

logue does not bring the great work to conclusion as originally Among the items not yet included are, besides the intended.

Samaritan codices (65 in the Descriptive List of 1893), some 70 Hebrew manuscripts enumerated in the short preface by Dr.
Barnett,
scripts,

Keeper of the Department of Oriental Books and Manutitle to

which follows the

the whole volume

still

similarly the

general introduction and the indices are

latter

outstanding.

The

we hope

will

be

fully in

keeping with the character of the

whole work, so that the large amount of information spread over

its

volumes

will

become

readily available.

Dr. Barnett promises

that the remaining parts of the Catalogue will be published as

soon as circumstances permit

we

sincerely

hope that we
will

shall

not have to wait long, and that the complete Catalogue

soon

make

all

the treasures of the

If
it

Museum

in this particular field

accessible to the scholar.

in advance,
it

be permitted to express a wish

added
done

to the

in

would be very desirable if transliterations were numerous personal and geographical names, as was many instances in Elbogen's review of volume II {/Q^-,

XIX, 402-10).
scripts

list

such as Cowley gave in the second volume

of the Oxford Catalogue of the sources from which the

manu-

came

to the British

Museum, now
it

only furnished in rare

occasionally helps to

instances,

would also be welcome, since

identify the manuscripts.

That the

original plan of describing the

complete collection

123

124
in three

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

volumes had
to

be abandoned

is

due

to the fact that

the information given in the later volumes has been increasing

in fullness.

While volume

(1S99) dealt with 339 manuscripts

in

283 pages, the second (1905) devoted 492 pages to 392, the

third 607 to

473 codices. Turning to the present sections we get a description of 135

'

manuscripts, classed as
latter,

Miscellaneous

',

and 30

charters.

The

as well as

some of the important Genizah

very valuable
material.
in the order of their

texts, are

printed

in

full,

presenting

The manuscripts

follow one another

shelf-numbers without

any regard to

their

contents.
it

It

is

to be regretted that the

author did not find

convenient to arrange them in small

It

groups, so as to aid the student.

would certainly have been

more advantageous

if

the two copies of an unpublished Latin

nyitJ'^

translation of Abrabanel's

ynot^D (1044, 1046)

had received

consecutive numbers,

if

the two versions of Farissol's polemical

on-ins*
pro

book

(mn nni

1078,

1162) were found together,

1066,

forming a group with the other polemical works (1047,

1068, 1070,
1

1071,

1079, 1085,

1092, 1105, 1107, and perhaps

157, a

list

of passages to be destroyed by the censor).

The

historical

works of Josef Haccohen (1103) and Capsali (1059), the registers of Cairo (1146) and Lugo (1141) and others one

expects to find together.

1

Ketubot are recorded under Nos. 1097,

1203 (the
last

158,

1 1

71,

1173,

175,

among

the charters!);

letters of

divorce 1097, 1125,

1130, &c.

Additions to subjects

dealt with in former parts of the Catalogue are also placed in the

miscellaneous

section

in

various

places;

thus

11 13

contains

a scroll of the Pentateuch,

(the last of

1112, 1139, 1140 Pentateuch

interest to us for having

MSS.
it

them

is

of

some

once been
lent

the property of

Samson Simpson of New York, who

Biblical

to

Kennicott),

11 14

commentaries,

1115

an

unknown
Halevi's

Arabic rendering of the Prophets by the well-known astronomer

Issachar ben Susan.
I still

miss

MS. Add. 1977S, David

cn^DH IQD

(cp. -i:n

pN

nsivn, III, 59), omitted in vol. II of

the Catalogue, while recorded in the Descriptive List,

and the
2,

compilation of the enigmatical

r\"^2'^,

formerly

MS. Carmoly

MISCELLANEOUS HEBREW MSS. IN BRIT. MUS.

described

MARX
cp.

I25

MGM'J.,

IV, 104-6,
Or.

now MS.
is

Or. 1389 (see Schechter,

JQR;

III,

334, where

19S9

a misprint;

MGIV/.,

XXXVII, 171, note), missing in the Descriptive List as well. Among the IMSS. classed as miscellaneous in the List curiously
enough
several (Add. 26970, 27034, 27122, 27131,

27145, 27176,

Or. 2582) are omitted in our volume.

Perhaps the most valuable and interesting codex described

the present volume
is

in

1056, with

its

beautiful miniatures, thirty-

nine in number, for which Margoliouth offers a fuller description

here (pp.

423-6) than he did

seq.,
1

in

special

article

in

JQR.,
texts

XVII, 193
(fols.

where two of them were reproduced

a).

in facsimile

117

b,

18

This MS.

contains
its

84

different
fills

according to our Catalogue, and

pages (402-27).

description

twenty-five

In such cases one misses an indication of the In

number

of the manuscript discussed on the top of the pages.

a copy of the complete volume of the Catalogue I saw that ten

beautiful plates are

added

to

it,

while they are curiously missing

in the issue of the sections

under review.

The

last

two plates
its

are

taken

from

the

manuscript just mentioned,

its

showing
first

beautiful execution
offers

and

splendid colours.

The

plate

an autograph of Elijah Levita.

As
it

in the former volumes,

the subscriptions of the plates

reader.

make

very inconvenient for the

Only shelf-mark and page of the manuscript are given,

script

but neither the character of the

nor the contents, nor

the Catalogue

even
are

number and page of the description in indicated, and can be ascertained only by
its

consulting the
all

Concordance

at the

end of the

parts.

complete table of
this

the plates in the concluding volume would make

important

contribution to

Like
Catalogue

its
is

predecessors
a most

Hebrew palaeography more useful. the new part of Margoliouth's

unknown
works, and
is

great

welcome source of information about many

an indispensable book

rare or hitherto

of reference for
science.
I shall

the worker in any of the branches of Jewish

now add

a few notes, as
S., II,

did with the former parts

;

of

volume III {/QR., N.

259-65

VI, 163-7)

126
1042^

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

M.
ascribes the dialogue between Bible

and Talmud

to Joseph Zark, answering thus in the negative the question of

Steinschneider, Ratigstreitliteratur, p. 24, whether Ibn

its

Aknin was
Frankfurt
Is

author.

P. 376, note
p. 2,

+ Loewenthal's

critical edition,

a.

M., 1896,

has the correct reading.

1044

and 1046.

this perhaps Wuelfer's unpublished translation of nyVu'^ I'lDl^?

cp. Wolf,

Bibliotheca Hebraea,

I,

pp. 635-6, where also

1.045-

some

other translators of the book are mentioned.

Steinschneider's copy
christiana,

note in

of

No.

52,

drew

De Rossi, Bibliotheca ludaica Antimy attention to Coxe, Cat. Balliol

described containing a note by Bishop

College {OySord),

No. 251, pp. 85-6, where another copy of the

is

interesting

book

briefly

Kidder (1700),

stating

that

he had acquired the book from

be the manuscript which the
Israel.
this.

Cudworth, and believed

this to

latter

had purchased

for

10 from Manasseh ben

in his
'

He
From

took
this

Manasseh
jVIS.

for its author,

but he could not affirm

Neubauer published a piece

',

The

Fifty-Third Chapter

of Isaiah

Oxford, 1876, pp. 153-70 of the Spanish, French, and

Latin texts.
1048.

The compilation Tinnn

first

"IDD,

thus far

little

known,

is

thoroughly described for the

time.

In eighteen pages

w^e get

the contents of the ninety-three chapters of the book.

p. 31,

Zunz, Ritus,
in Italien,

and following him Guedemann, Erziehrngswesen

p.

195,

and Vogelstein-Rieger,
work
to

Geschichte der Jiiden in

Bom,

I,

pp. 451-2, ascribe the

Moses ben Jekuthiel de Rossi;

justifica-

Margoliouth
tion to
:

is

in

doubt about the authorship, without

the Creed by the
or
\>^r\'!i'0

the

poem on

(M. hesitates whether

is

translate

scribe

correctly compiler)
Moses de
also

ascribed

else-

where
British

distinctly to our

Rossi, of Cesena, e.g. in cod.

Museum
p.

6i6"(^) (Cat., II, p. 209),

and Schorr (He-Kaluz,

p.

IX,

2,

50);

see

Zunz,

Literaturgeschichte,

510.

Rabbinovitz, briefly describing another copy of the book (MS.

Merzbacher 148,

now

in

the

Frankfurt

Municipal

Library),

remarks that the halakic sections in the editio princeps of the

Roman Mahzor

are extracts from

our compilation.

M.

refers

to this ritual only in

No. 49.

Margoliouth's careful description


MISCELLANEOUS HEBREW MSS.
enables

MARX

IN BRIT. MUS.

I27

me

to state

from

my

excerpts

made many

years ago from

MS.

Paris 1872, in which I discovered a large fragment of the

"iSD, that

Tinn
61-71,

the compilation shows there a somewhat different

arrangement.
77,

It

begins in chap. 32, which

is

followed by 52-6,

93.

An anonymous

fragment of 38 leaves in the

;

New York

Seminary also contains part of our book

it

begins in
it

the middle of chap. 53, and, after a gap at the end of 56,
chaps. 65-7, 89, 71 (beginning piniy
li-N

has

'D3), 72, 84, 86, 93, 85.

Some
(47),

of the chapters are

numbered

in the

margin

54

(46),

55

67 (52), 89 (53),

71 (54-s), 86 (60-1), 85

(62).

Thus

the

book must have

existed in varying copies.

To
:

the descrip380, No. 4

tion of the

book
"'DV I,
'"I

I
,

have to add the following

p.

read

|13

"i3

and cross out note

2 d).
'

a.;

it is

a quotation from
D''J'>S"i

Yer. Berakot
for the

r
'

(fol.

is

P. 382,

No.
;

24, the reading

common
;

Lupinus

interesting

cp. Zunz,

Syfiagogale

Foesie, p. 141

Rieger, AHg. Zettung des /udentians, 191 5, p. 210,

who
in

identifies

him with Diocletian.

Ibid.,

No. 25, read Mantua

15 13 instead of Constantinople (there only Seder 15 1 7

01am appeared
Beth HaNo.
26,

without the Seder Hakkabala)

Exiles'
p.

the manuscript agrees

in

with the version of the 'Ten

Jellinek,
Il/id.,

Midrasch, V, 113; cp. Z/HB., IV,

100.

cp.

Neubauer, Chro?iides,
to
his
y-iJD

II,

23-5.

P. 384,
Paris

No. 32.
(for

In reference

yy^

^IT'I

read with
ciiDH

MS.

j"3C-)

D"nDn);

see

msn min
pit?'!'

end of

-lyt:-. P.

385,

No.

53,

MS.

Paris

reads iJ^np in the heading, and closes the chapter D''jnn "ilD Dn

CJV^y
e,

n^nn, taking

it

as part of
92.
is

No. 52. P. 388, No. 62c,

see Steinschneider,

HB., VII,
Chronicles,

P.
53
67.

389, No. 67.

passage about the date of Jesus

taken from
I,

The Abraham ben

where the
passage about

David;
text
is

cp.

Neubauer,
incorrect.

(cf.

89),

very

P.
No.

390,

No.

The
see

the
191,
'^3

numerical value of the

note
I.

final

letters,

ZfllB.,

VIII,

Ibid.,
y-iD^

71.

The
r\'''\'a^

sentence:
>m'ii.

ClTSn ^DNVO
x^onn
in
n-j'yjn

(46 b

p"n)
n'<j''D

na

yr\'\^'\

'cn*

hy\T\^

h^\>v

i?^ nin ^ynn would have deserved

to

be
was

quoted as an early reference to Jewish learning

P. 391,

Russia.

No.

76, the introduction to this polemical

treatise

128

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

in Weiss's

published by N. Bruell

iy\ir:n

nu, 143-5
n>^n

cp. Stein'"IVK'

schneider, Caf. Mimich, 31

2^ P.

393, No. 79

}>y

has

been reprinted by

Berliner,

^y

pp,

I,

71-4-

P- 394,

No. 82

read IDT^D, and see on Ahitub and his treatise Guedemann,

/. f.,

202-3

also Chamizer,

Festschrift
(see above)
in this
^2,.
:

Cohen

Judaica,

p.

423.

Moses ben
Z/HB., X,

Jekuthiel's 172,

poem

was printed by Freimann,

and Hirschfeld

Quarterly, V, 540, both

In the manuscript of the

under a wrong name.

P.

395, No.
is

New York
Q^cnxn

Seminary the signature

^XTiip"" ">"32

]12

in

i"d3 HK'D niK'cn ^ana

while after the
|opn
D1N3.
D^Jiy

nc'D )*2n3i

D^Jrt;'n"ion,

additional
/^/^.,

question D-'DHNn

^NTilp''

"i"33

v,^:;^

No. 84 read

N:m3
p.

''DC'r. P. 396,

No.

87.

About

"n

see Loewenthal in Festschrift Feilchenfeld.

1056 A; No. IX,

404

b.

The

D'-ODH

h^

"ino

was published

by

me

in

Festschrift Leivy, pp. 159-61.

P.

413, No.

XLII, see

about the addition to the Mezuzah Aptovitzer, RE/., LX, 40 seq.

P. 421 b,
this text

B, No.

of the Seder
is

XXVII. It ought to have been remarked that Tannaim contains some Arabic words,
from bottom read

although, as

natural with a western scribe, partly in a very

corrupt form

line 6

wnp nh: ""Km. P.

432,

No.

XXIX.
1897.

This text of Tobit was published by Gaster in

FSBA.,
in

The witness Isaac ben Abraham, of Chinon, might

who
n"n^r
-ic-y

possibly be identical with the scribe

forty years earlier

copied

Zurich the P"^^,

:

now

in the

New York
dv

Seminary, which has

the epigraph
;t:p

mvfcn

"isD n:

''n?:''^D

]'\T\)'i

Dmas*
t\2'C':i

pnv'

'JX

D-iD^

x"3p nyj' \2i^ n-yh

II.

r\'^>v2.

inxn fopn

"I^IV HD.

1066,
who

The

Ferrara disputation was published by

J.

Jar^,

Livorno, 1876, and discussed by

Bergmann, RE/., XL,

199-205,

similarly overlooked the edition.

if

1070,

p.

442

b.

The

queries disappear

one adds with a manuscript of the

^TWrh .Ibid.,
|n"in

New

York Seminary no^O

after

p.

444 a-b. The three

manuscripts of part XII of the

all

pK

in the

New York Seminary,

is

containing the

1 1

6 chapters of which this part

supposed to conreally ever

sist,

end with the conclusion of Matthew.

Did the book

b.

contain any
tion

more? 1071,
in

I.

Of Jacob

Ruben's

'n

mon^O

sec-

XII was printed

Amsterdam, 1843 (Roest, Catalog. Rosen-


MISCELLANEOUS HEBREW MSS.
thaliana, p. 521),

IN BRIT. MUS.

MARX
b,
is

129

and reprinted
ni31.

Stettin, i860, after Steinschneider's

edition of j"3nn

The
to

abbreviation,

p.

445

righdy

explained there as Tinn''

N"ii3n.

1074,

IV.

The

third letter of

Obadiah of Bertinore ought

be published!

1075, VIII.

nn

"lyv

QUI was
1905.

reprinted from the editio princeps by Friedberg, Lemberg,

1076,

IV. This manuscript of Midrash

Ekah served

as

the basis for the text of the Petihot in Buber's edition, Wilna,

1899,
pp.

and was used

it

by

Dalman, Aramaische

Dialektprobeji,

14-22;
from

represents

a version of the Midrash

which

is

different

that of the current edition, but

Italian scholars, as
I

was used by Franco-

German and
pp.

have shown OLZ.,

(1902),

294-5.

Perhaps
'

it

is

a Palestinian version.
'

Ibid.,

VIII.

This text of the

99^,

Ten

Exiles

forms a class with MSS. Vatican

last

Oxford 2797 (where the

two

exiles are

omitted;

see

Gaster, Chronicles of/erakmeel, pp. 182-6),

served as a basis
Brussels, 1842, pp.

to

and Paris 837, which Carmoly's interpolated npy "id [NDpy,

cp.

16-32;

ZfHB., IV,

p.

100

X,

p. 156.

1078.

About the

different versions of Farissol's polemical

work
I.

see Steinschneider,

Cat. Berlin,

I,

109-110;

II,

31.

1081,
p.

Kolon's comments to the Semag Pesahim were published under

the
title

p^nno

^Ei'lin,

Munkacs, 1899.

/^/^.,

XXII,

478

Ibn Tibbon's translation of Maimonides'

edited by Holub, Vienna, 1875.
.an edition of the

letter to

Yemen was
is

Dr. Friedlaender

preparing

Arabic original (unique manuscript

in the library for

of the

New York

Seminary) with the Hebrew translations,

this

which he has also collated

manuscript.

Ibid.^

XXVIIthis

XXVIII,
script

pp. 482-4.

The

letters

were published from

Ibid.,

manudes

by Grossberg

after Ci''vyn ISD.

XXXIV-XXXV,
as version

edited

by D. H.

Miiller,

Die Recensionen tend Versionen

1892, pp. 52-79,

Eldad Had-Dani, Vienna,

pp. 16-18 respectively.
treatises of

J and

1083, XIV-XV.
the

About

these

unknown

Abraham

ben Natan of Lunel, see Toledano's Introfrom our

is

duction to the same author's commentary on n?3 n3D0, Tiberias,

1906,
pp.

23-5, where

beginnings are printed

interesting

manuscript.
printed in

1094,
full

XIII.

The

responsum

found

with Maimonides' Code, end of CC^: "13D (IV)

VOL. VIL

130
under the
lacunae in
N.
S.,

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

ni:;''^

n):ibrh

''y^'t

nUVJ-n,

No.

10,

whence the
I,

the manuscript can be supplied.

11 00,

cp./QJ?.,

V, 178-9.

nor,

II.

The

description gives

many

points of interest contained in this

no idea of the With his manuscript.

incomparable

command

over the literature of the Midrash,

in this

my

lamented friend and master Dr. Schechter found

a great

volume

number

of very strange and otherwise entirely

unknown
extracts,

legends and other haggadic passages.

From

his

own

which he often showed me,

a

may be

permitted to quote here

number

of instances which I believe are of considerable interest,

although probably mostly not of very great age, as names like R. Natronai
(f.

30

a)

and R.

DS''D2

(f.

23

a,
:

26

a),

as well as the

contents of some of these passages, show

K'N

b^ nivwj vn

c^"in

Dupnin

}3

^"1

r]''ny

])<:>

nijip

15

i>3

by

^in

-in*i

nns i3
nnij

ir^t^
-ijdn

n^33

nok'i

'nn

)b

nt:N
o^y-in

nno
^j>3t^

Dvn nanaN^o^ isv

bv 1"i33 \yn: oi^na

ps?:)
n>r\

)i6 dni 1^ nt3x

n^n p'

n^^^n inis'3
'an
n-'rsi'n

Mc^m^
dx
1^

>iNn

irs*

bv
!?!;

cr:b

idn
p'cintr

en: i? nn
'xna

on-'j^n

icn

n^-)y

Dvn

i^n

ch)vn

be*

::'on

^i^-nc

Dn^t23c>

mm
ni3-iD
n\^vK>

niD3 vn^D^n^
n'-anty

mnzh
^a

iprn

^Sn

s'DK'a

niyi

/^/^.

noiN ^^n

n\ni

o'-bn

in'-nK^m

n^an

i^aa

nnaay isv
iNipi inv ^j3

psDn N^
"JsrD

^iB^acn -i^on^ i^ain

jod

>hx Tyac nn^n

nsipoxo iN^n
p-iv

b^

nm^iBna on

ion

n'^an

n'j^yjc'

ny -ian^

l^a

N^N

-]>:a

(?)t:^DD

nnxD'a n^ ^^n

b^ y:2 i:roc' n^b>

y"in pt^'^D

1^

iDN

^'r

in^^N N^fDi nioiri n^ao

N^f^t^

^dv 'la nL*'y

19 b

nyjn
ina

-laa >:2
"ir:N3

b"H

nniso \t
]M^b

piD^sa 1^ ntDs* pt^in nns*

nr^N:

no pjya
nt

n^^

n^'tj'y

fna

no^ idn pn noN

p-j'p )ntt>

piD^sb
pB'ij

px

-iv^i -10X3 -laa

N^ni (V) i6 -idx

*jdo -ion

nna

nvp Dix

nxn

i:^m

nxn

yoic w^xi

yoitr Nine'

onxn

}d

nc'p i?

MISCELLANEOUS HEBREW MSS.

101^ N*^ na^
n'-n

IN BRIT. MUS.

MARX

131

pvn yntr in n3n y3C^

r^niyn naio

n\-i

i^n
b)2'>

"'^D^N'i

3"niyi'

i^'iifnc'

b^pb

wn yati'i d-'O* msn px^ ^^

y^-'OD

vniyjD yi
ij'''N

msn

n^

-i^"'

xnpD

n:n nnNj

n^h

Nn!?''3

^n

's

^JNp

nin^in
^K'Js*

n^N
VHB'
D'-Jty

21 a

n^m2

)'^M

aba pnx
22 a
"-Jt^

Nnnn nyna
i^K^n

n'-ntj*

ds'-ds

'n

nt:^

'm

^x ixn

o'^ity

iVDH n 3"n D^ytrn

i'K'

nnxi D''pnv^ nnx mn^iy

nnitrn nn^anB> naicria nrn"'

nnnij
n'-y^'n

[nN]

c^aa

"-^dd

n"2pn

-jsi?

'i'lN

nyi3D Di px^'ini pi^3

py"iip pK-'iy

on no pnt^a

nninB'
isij

onx panta

'n

cnmi
pnv
'iB'

ion

n'^npn

^c:'

iTino

i'DK'

xnao

xin t-o

Tin^ Djanac'

B^'N

pxK'

nij^nn

inyna n^yi dix

ntj'y

nna^

inynn

n^y

o^iya

D>xDini5 naiBTi

xnn

no
niB^n

xdh'' x^i

310 nB'y^ ib'x pnxa

x^j

IT!

Dnno^n

''JB'

'n"'m

mno

dx

^3

yD^nn nion pianx

'i p^-id!? 1^

^3

nxD nxD minn ^y

'1

iB'-n

i^Jiai

.TDm

'ii 'dv
Dn''xr.B'

(22 b)

noy

,n"'J''

di3''

onnap by unsi
ijip

ixn innB>3i niB^mo

xob^i 'dxi ps-iD
]b)

"nmn

'jroo

xbm noxi

nn nnT

nr

nna i.t^x

Q^n ibx

D''JB'

nrimo ninn
(^/r)

tib* yot^

nnnap bv

t-jd

nxni
]r\b

nB'
-iiox

DoiB'n no!?
D'-yja
!?B^

nann nannn ba

'na xbni n^B'^^B'

'nyoB'

nn

i^B^

ii1^pn bsB'

ninan ninxD
ppno pxi
it"
i^y

n^yai

nn nnox

nn
lirni

"iDx

'nSb:>
'-1

iy

piB-'

xa xtsn px nna^ nnxb

psntD

loy in b^nDci unix

yoiB* psnDB^ ipnB' n3iB'X"j

^b

ninB' n"'bn n^Dsn

nnx

fxa

nnin n

idh.) -]-\i2 n^i?x xi*oi ib

p-ixn ny
i6
li'XB'

^jsa bpnb

nxnjn
B^nj

nmpo
n"'3n

x^^B' nb^o
n'-ny

nijna
'

noix

x''''n

'i

23 a

inix

IB'''!'

li'B'

bo xbB'

b^) X33n:

xb

cmax
^3

bo

nb^on

nx

ibD''3B'

by nob n''JiyDV D'^B'm

xin

dm

nbB'o
boB>

"-Jin

'xjb'

nnp'-ni

ibB^

x"'bosi

n"3pn xn
ihb*

nmnx

p'-a

'ipi

23 b

n"3pn |oip pibno

ny nbinn nx np3Ji ixu n"2pn -iox

xn njD

"lb

^2X xbi

x''pLDnp

nby xb mbx nrnx nB'noi

-loix

'n

132

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

n33 nisun
.13

nosn

in vniyan

b^v

n-j^

>3

laji?

2)12

pnosT
nic'

inovr^r

.-iTC'a

HD^nc'

m^N

nrnx

nK'arDi

noiN

^nob'

p\nij 'j^^B'm DD"'Ds '1 -i?DN

li'

myn

n*iD DiDN^nn tj' 1x3^1

libn'ti'

26 a

-iDNi VT^wS
':rh'c^

Nvo
n"3pn
1^

'-"IS
d^;tn

DID 3nnn^
"i^d^j

hn-ib' p>3

n^n i^n

ni2-i^

n^np

i^p3 1^

nN

"i^in

nnx ]yrh
i^t<i

12 iiin in^^N

ION

nn3-ii
1^

d*s^n*

h^ot^

d^b'P3o

nnx
n^n^

iy n3n

nsj'iy

^^n ^N^D^

nns 3nn nnx

ih: un^Ni

nmj

>3pr

N^JDn:

xi?

^jn

crh ids
in3'i

dhd
*T'D

''^jx

jn:i
hm-'i

hb'^b'

n\n3i

nriN

n3

nono D^3N^on
DID 3nnn^

--^b'

'^'^'b'^

di^
'ipi

D3^

nn3 aba

m^ nbn

^3n^d

TJ'y
5i"i'^3

D"'JB'

(26 b) .... 3-iy3

py
NTniD''

inunnm
"iiion

n^ioo ^jnidp

on-'^yi

.TH

i3''3N

Dn-|3N PB> n^,n

"i^x'^P

nx

c'un"'!

7(5/^.

Nin

nsN
'ox

^as n^D3^ "i3n "ijod

n^*^
'ipi

x^

^'xn

inis

'ipi

d>05J'

i^b^j

'3n

nbr)

i^^nb

pson

(27 a) ....

^o-ijan

n3n2

Do:i v^y

mB'n 3x^00 niym

'ni 'ipi

X3in
^3n

'-I

^3 noB'i

n3

1^

r\lb^:

!?33

Dn-i3x
ra

nx 113

7^/^.
""o^i

n3^n3 n^xrsn

hmb' n33X mi^ni

x\-i

D'J'^

nxa'j

noix

nxnn bi no^v

pny x^x nno

VJ1XVD''

xi?

i3^3x Dn"i3x
'jb'

b^

in3 ^3

nntyoi
i'xyoB'''

nx^vo

x*:'io

nnix

100 cpsD

'':xi

m3x
'-)

^::.'

T"y

^'x

^x VK'y

ib"^)

30 b
m-rnnij

31TX

iB^y^

no inxn
pO"'33
''3Q0

t"ix3 r\2nb\y rh^:

dx
lO^B'

b''a "b

X^B'

^320

lOlX

'J3

ny3i3
in:
'11

^XTtT""

Ho!?

33 a

nsc' 13

pp^^io vnB*

101X

n3B'

nitj'ii'

|n''n3
ny^-^t*

ni^y

nxiv3 pi^j n^03n

xvi^
^ipi

n3i3
3py-

i^r^JTon
b::^

b2^ n^b 12 bi nonn

n^n

inx

ODDso
D^33

ii3p

po'^n
''J3

d3B'

^23t:'3i

-nnnn
niyono
t6

'nb

Dnx

nioix D^oni nioi 3py^

i^xp
. .

lyoBi iv3pn

i3y vh D^iyo

D3^yy p3

nmp

io^bti

xh mi:nn

r"y ^1^

t33B'

MISCELLANEOUS HEBREW MSS.

IN BRIT. MUS.

MARX

133

"ION
)^Jt2i

DiT^K

Natj'^i
N'-ni

D''i-ip

lb

ps*

nr

Dvy Tyc> N^jn Mms^an

mt^'SJ
^db'

tai^

'nnay
y"':nt5'

r]2p:

kmk' 10150 D''nin dhn'

lunci?
in3C'di
12":^^

Dni>

Qnoij
3py^^
N^J ^3

ny

^ip

nix

yot^'o

Dvy not^i

Tr
n^

'o

nD'':Ni pidv
fiiDn

noiN Nin pi niNii? nnt^n ""dn^o

nTi

:d^i

noiN Nin no npyi? msiDi ninnn nnx na^n

n\-ii

TyB'
plD:Dn

^B'

ion VB'ay nyi ^on '"osn ^s }>nN noisi niv

cn^ poxn

nx

finxa DTisnifi ionjb' n'-B'Dn i^on i^iTc' ny ypnp3 n^

5|DV fidv

Dny TyB' ....

nx nao^i
n^yc'

"ionjb'

?idv

riN

nsoij' f\D2 nr
r]j2)i

apy

vi^y

^J^an:

(34 a)
^x^.tr^

dinh nib
ny hmb'

lontr
n'>'m

^iij ijrNry^ rhv'^ Nini

imoa

nihi d^jb^

no3
^j^n

i?

-inu

"-JNC^

T'"'n

fiDV

m''303 myovjc^

^*3B'3

.Y'npn

'n^

''2zh

pnp

^n:

D'n^j'D^
inii^'-xni

^idv

oy

ni''

n^an ^nojh

rN^o

d^c'^c'

i^5<p

/<^/^.

riB'KD

innc^y

niB'y

j^idsb'

ppi

i?N':-nn

\b)22^

vnNo
YV

inii^^vn

mtj'yi

nnon

rr^ao inii^yn

m^'yi vns*

^c' pj< ^B' n'oi^s n^bii^

rT'^^ya

abn
Nin

^b'nt ^y

nn
ib^

'^d

rw^^b^
. .

34 b

nns

joni -ivn3n:i

hm

q'-dinm
-ib'i

^xpi

nano

^b'

iT^Dp loni n^^nt^

caixn

nnon T^n^'N nvjiauj

'"^

na

ng'^B'

nv ban din ij^sno niban noa

^jn

li^Np

35 b

njOB'a B'Nn

ni^"' ^inj'- N^ty

'ipi

N^N
"\2
'JB'

ij:iyn
v^''b

ah) iB^mn n!? '^na

xb'i

Nm u

B'nj^

cnj

Nini

36 a

lb"'
iy"i

JT'an niiD
'JQO

ynnsi

^'"00

n\ni

Dn-'jab
b'd-'B'

in

Dna c'm
'jdo
pidi^

INvn

N^B^

D-'DaB'ni

^inid v^n*

ab^

|ovy mynij xi'N labn

i6^

ns* by
bB'

mpj 'ddb^^ nn^ia |nv nx niyib

irnia"!
'n^-lB'l ni5''3N3

CDIB' b^ UNV
.T'ni

jn

HB'O

UNV piOIN
fjoi^

(?)2n

imob ima

D^ixon

n^nco nbn p>ni

nbiai jnis
b'^i

pb

|nx

jni

JNX ^:nx n:nNi ion: nn-byi

omoj n^n^:

nyn Dyba
*n^y-io

b^a^D n\ni

y^p-in

nsnb

|niN nbyn

bsnaa nois

'Dnx

134

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

3"'Doni

DDn

]r\'bv

1"i3di
^^ni?

n:D ;nD

npii?

nnx

^3i 'n 'ja^

nt^'s*

jn^-c'n

.... 3"niyn
u'3-iK'

lartj'

TDioni
bv

nnn
i?2iy

jsijo inoc'J
h^j^b'

nn^'^ti'

3"iun

iT'ai

py

i^ty

nnriD

'i

"-jn

39 b

qmn
nsnt:

122 n^^sj'

Niip Nin y":n

niD^Jn
D^-^^ti'

i^^^un^

^sn n"npnc>3i
47 b

men

ne'ai piosn

^moi?

po^D 'n -ion

iD^Jonty

nc^ nnx jnod

xint^'Di

mpi^^n no^o

^n^\ntj'

bv '^^d inDnt^J ohai

D^!?pn

pN bbsni2

nn^j'tj'

npn inyn

-1210

jd

^p
1^

nipi^Ti
D''nn33

D^m nyc'
fsijn

1^

^^o^<1

n*'^"'!'

insvD

'I'-n''

-inyK'

iprn

^^^nn

ncyo

51b

mybn
nnox

bv aba
notj'

anxn

|d ynsj n"apn n?oN

px
.-nns*

moN nosn
'dn

no nb "ix
nr^N n'-m

ni n^

-i?:n

ninx

nnx noi n^
dc'
js*3

*DC' ^n^jB' T-E^yo

n^JK^B>

n^2 'dn mn''

nax^rD
"-b

Ni^ni

nos minj
noiji

l^JN

-iDN

^K'yn

nci

niox

nij^a

nx

n-ins

(pann
XDi:
Dtt'

b'-iid 'y)

nvnn ^y
n^ron
i'^^

nsipr ncipn
7(5/^.

s^r^i

n'l
ps*

n^pn
Ds*

n'^iin^

'n

i^ys>

n^a

in^D n^jD

03^

pjDob "inx
nvoDJ

(?)D''p"^"i^

nbnj n^o
1^

b:i^

onyT"

p^noi

idx

vj^y

n^on

mo bisn

^3

nos
(S'3

nro

pMoi on^ ION mvK' nn

Nvi^ ^ipi noi3 nniN*3 nix

jn3 n!?3t: D)b b'^ ina'x .-nDN

u^d

nvoi inoyo iSi iJoy i^

Di^

1^

'ox onyn'

nm
1^

'n^ p-inni
52 b

nnx

TiN^'o

pyoc' 'i
n
1^

nos*

'ui

na'n

"iiyn

mni

'3

din

hp na

-nyo::'

nos*
^53

'n-inoM Sn: jn^^

i^

ioni yiivo

nxiDi n^ pN D''NQnn

n^bx iD33^
Ninty

ON
i^ip

nioiN'i "inn c'Nnf

mmD
^mox
p^yo
jpr
|pT

fh moi^n

nam

di^hd
yrx-i

^3dd

nao pnno^
i^n

p^v

n^
n^i

nnoiN
nriNi

N"'nc
'):^

hp n3

nnoi? ins^

^x:i'i

pimo

niai non ib^n naan

inN

nun^'o nnx no ny

nanb
nB>yo

yoB>n

dn niaSio
'^

o^-j^np

p2 i3w

mi

ly^a inani
isij

Dm

-ic'n

inw3

-is^di

x2

db^vb nNiai i^ pNB' yn

dni auio

MISCELLANEOUS HEBREW MSS. IN BRIT. MUS.

^Jix 'b:

MARX
*js*

135
^naSn

ixnatr

^m

>jn

v^2^d
in

b)p

nx ^nxnpi
pync:'
i^xi
'i'

fix

n:DN -iDino nnxK' vi "

T"i3i

"nnoN nns
D'-yiivDn

nox

'nr

nma
iD^n::'

pN

s'^yxi

'HDy

nmni

d^nodh ^x

lyacyi

Dijiyn

x-ipao

ij\xi

n3>ip noxi

^*k^y?D

iniwxn

D'^o^n^

"id''D1

iioi,

XX,

p. 527,

contains Maimonides'

own Hebrew

preface

to his introduction to the

Mishnah(not a translation from the Arabic)

possesses a similar
is

with a commentary.

The New York Seminary

commentary in the form of questions and answers, which

nOTlK', written in 1586,

followed

by an Arabic commentary on Maimonides' Code, section ni3?n

and

identical with
II.

volume of our Catalogue.

Joseph Ha-Kohen
Sepher Sliaashuh?i,
print
;

11 03

MS. 500 in the' second Some of the poems of

lately

have
pp.

been reprinted

by Davidson,
Constantinople

cxxiii-iv,

from an old

see also

ibid., p.

cxix note, the description of a manuscript

of the

New York

Seminary.

1135,

I.

This important Genizah

text has

been published and discussed by Poznariski, REJ., LI,

pp. 53 seq.
1

145.

Under

this

number we
first

find the description of a piece

of board containing the

half of a two-line inscription, the

end of which now forms part of the ark in the Synagogue of the New York Seminary, and was published with a photograph of the
ark,

and explained by

its

discoverer,

Dr.

Schechter,

in

the

Biennial Report of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America,

1

902-1 904,

New
now

York, 1906, pp. 126-8.

the following text

Combining the two

pieces

we
I

get
:

line

[nin]n
1

ti'x

T^^a xnx inon

n^^yisi n^jnxi

mi

^jxi

nnx

^v

\Trb^

^v bi^i^^ yoc'

Iprn

poD

inb
:

n^nnip nnipn n

nnxn^a ic'np ^3\t ^x

line 2

inatM

nan
,rho

^r\'hv

^n'^ D^n^xn ""^xyio^x inx yn^n ns^

^i?33 ^x-ij:^^

na

nnmy

px

^-2-^2^

bi

hyr\:i

npa^i

>^^

oyun

mrb

It is

perhaps not out of place to reproduce at the same time the

136

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

names found on our
ark, since

Other short inscriptions containing

they likewise

come from the Genizah, and perhaps may help to decipher the other board found in the British Museum under
the

same number
(t)
.

ir

HD^j^

nniD

D^n^^n^ biOMn n^^^iJi nc'yj

(a piece cut out)

^^^

DK'a

nniD

'')br\

njo^cj'i

..nnns
.
.

nM

ns^ 13 no^Jtr idc' isia

1?

nin nbnnn vnnvn minn mya' ixn

Two
p.

other boards only contain Biblical verses (Ps. 24. 5

and

25. 8).

Solomon bar Japhet occurs

in

Cat. Neubauer-Cowley,

367, No. II and 397, No. 136.

the inscription in the Catalogue he

When I showed Dr. Schechter told me that there was another

came
into the possession
if

piece of board from the Genizah which

of a Mr, Henriques in Manchester.
It

would be desirable

this

would be located and

1

its

inscription published.
for the

148.

Tudela does not stand

name

of the author, but

It is

refers to the city to

which the responsum was directed.

by

R. Isaac ben Sheshet, and printed as No. 372 of his responsa.

1159. Cp. the printed edition, Jerusalem, 1886-91, 4to.
p.

1160,
If the

586.

The Saadia

quotations are very interesting.

Berlin,

On Abraham
19 14, p. 25,

Hasid see Eppenstein, Abraham Maimutti,

and Hoffmanii-Festschrift, Hebrew

reference to
D''^n

part, pp. 131,

135 seq.
it

"ilpD !?y3 really

belongs to Gabirol

adds one

more

to the very

few Jewish authorities

quotation

who quoted
is

this philo-

sophical book.

The

from Hefes

to

be added to
7 1

Dr. Halper's careful collection in this periodical, V, pp.

P. 587, bottom, i"DN'n

seq.

''aTi

niD

^jiin

p. 1166. The name of the

author,
Is this

Tobiah ben

Eliezer,

might have been added.

letter to

1176,

IV.

perhaps taken from the

Moses Hefes? SQeRE/.,

1>XI, p. 137.

Considering the importance of the early Shetarot of the preexpulsion period for Anglo-Jewish history

we can understand
in full in
all

that

those found in the British

Museum

were printed

the

("atalogue, pp. 599-607, although they

were almost

accessible

MISCELLANEOUS HEBREW MSS.

since

LN BRIT. MUS.

MARX
first

I37

1888

in

Davis's well-known

collection.
p.

This volume

is

only casually referred to in a note, times inaccurate

list

609

b,

while the

some-

of

them

in

the Catalogue of the Anglofirst

Jewish historical exhibition, 1S87, through which for the

the
interest
for these

time

documents was roused,

It is

is

passed over

without any mention.

perhaps not superfluous to add here

a concordance of the numbers of the Catalogue and those of

Davis

Marg.

138

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

No. 340. The
list

of books of a former owner mentioned at

p.

the end of the description ed. Neubauer, Letterbode, IV,

342.

134.

The manuscript was

on
the

first

identified
xiii,

as Yalkut Makiri
in his

by

Dr. Schechter, Abot derabbi Natan,

who
the

manuscript
that

notes

Vatican

MSS. expressed

hypothesis

Codex 291 of that hbrary contains a more complete manuscript of this work (although the end is missing), an hypothesis which
has been verified by Dr. Freimann, in whose hands these notes
of Dr. Schechter are now, see REJ.,

LXVII,
edited

p.

157, note.

The
this

London MS. has meantime been

edition
to the
is

by Dr. Greenup.

4I5^~^ This manuscript not only agrees with ed. Wilna, but

made from that very manuscript Wilna Talmud edition, Lubetzki, D'Tin
;

see the "im JT'inx

""pia, xxi,

and Blau,
of

Harkavy-Festschrift,

pp.

362
fully

seq.

421.

This

manuscript

R.

Besalel's Shittah

was

described by
(I

JeUinek,

DHDJIp

'y'2\\:ir\,

Vienna, 1877, pp. 16-26

overlooked that

JQR-, N.S.,
as printed in
is

II, 269).

Of

the three glosses given as specimens on p. 65 b the

in the Shittah

second and third occur

the Wilna Talmud.

Mekubbeset

The

identity

with

R. Besalel's notes

beyond a doubt

as to the relations of the notes

on Nedarim
19; the

and Nazir
glosses

to the printed ShiUahs, see Jellinek,

fols.

I.e., p.

on Yoma,

26-40, were printed by Jellinek, pp. 20-26;

in

this reference is to

be added

Freimann,

D^ii'n tj'iaein

D"m:p.
is

424.

The

quotation of R. Moses ben Hasdai of Poland

found

in all the

manuscripts

see Goldberg, paaSi, V, 360

Halber-

stam,
often

jiaai'n

nna, VI, 284.

to

427,

p.

68

b,

bottom, m^:;'nn ^ya

to Alfasi
;

refers

Nahmanides' supplement
the quotations deal with

see

JQR.,
This

N.

S., I,

435.
is

Do

Nedarim

430.

another copy of R. Besalel's Shillah, and ought to be compared with No. 421. 436^"^ is the often-printed commentary
of R. Nissim on Alfasi
the
* is the commentary wrongly ascribed to same author and printed Jerusalem, 1884, from a manuscript
;

no doubt

now
442,

in the

New York Seminary

edited in REJ.,

see Ri.J.,

LX, 260

LXI,

132.

now

LIII, 212-19, by Rosenberg.

is

445.

The

text of this Tosefta

MS.

much

closer to

MS. Vienna and

the editions than to

MS. Erfurt. 499. This commentary on

MISCELLANEOUS HEBREW MSS.

IN BRIT. MUS.

MARX

139

Maimonides' code does not seem

to

have gone much

further.

A
of

manuscript of the

New York
r\-\\n

Seminary, probably autograph,

HiB'D niD^

written in 15 19, contains the

on the fourth book

ni3^n and the
:

Maimonides

(D''e'J

nao), but only covers

niiJ'^N

beginning of
Y^^yi

]''iy\-\''i

m3/n.
'ji

marginal note states

niai'n

p^SDH N7 -ixnr^n.

mD^no

d^p"id

hib'^n

n^jn

nxab

523, p. 131, the

Pentateuch with
is

commentaries and Halakot

Berliner,

Gedolot on the margin

Gesammelte Schri/ten,
I,

no doubt MS. Milan 116; see

pp. 15, iio-ii.

530.

Of

the

Or Zarua

there appeared in Jerusalem (1887-90) not only the three Babot (cp.
p.

492), but also Sanhedrin

and Abodah Zarah

now Freimann

has edited Shabuot from this manuscript in the Leivy- Festschrift,

pp. 10-32.
this

533^ The nblN'jn nSD is now edited by Lipshitz from London, 1909. Before that an edition had appeared in MS.
York, 1904, with notes of R. A. Werner of

New
title

London

referring

occasionally to parallels in Nahmanides' commentaries under the

n^ixjn

X\> P^ti^n

"IDD

curiously

enough

in this edition

we do

not notice the numerous lacunae seemingly due to censorship

which mar that of Lipshitz, although both are based on the same manuscript. The New York Seminary has a manuscript written by
Shabbatai del Vecchio for

Menahem Azariah of Fano in Mantua, 1579, after the same author's D"lNn miD, which differs very little from the London MS. 593, p. 183. The missing Alphabets of
Hadassi's nDlsn ^OK^X were edited by Bacher, /(2i^., VIII, 43242.

693,

p.

349

b.

The
all

quotations

of this

manuscript

from
I

Amram's

Siddiir are

taken from the Tur.

still

Finally,

may

remark that Margoliouth

although we

maintains the old spelling Adereth,

sources that the

know from Spanish

name was

Adret.

Alexander Marx.
Jewish Theological Seminary
of America.

ENGLISH -YIDDISH ENCYCLOPEDIC DICTIONARY

English- Yiddish
Encyclopedic
in

Dictionary,

Complete

Lexicon

and Work of Reference

All Departments of Knowledge.

Prepared under the Editorship of

Paul Abelson, Ph.D.

PubHshed by the Jewish Press Publishing Company, New York, 1915. pp. xix+1749. With numerous text
figures

and eleven coloured

are in

plates.

There
a
vast

New York and many

intelligent

others of our large cities

number of who arc hampered

that they have

and

lettered

Jewish

immigrants

in their educational

and other ambitions by

in

the lack of adequate knowledge of the language of the country

made

their haven.
intrinsic

They have
difficulties

many

cases not

only to cope with the

of acquiring a

new
little

language and culture under conditions of poverty that leave

leisure for study,

and

at a

time of

life

that

^is

past the stage of

linguistic flexibility,

but they have also to contend with a more

of Jewish immigrants to congregate
level of taste

subtle factor.
into colonies,

The tendency

combined with the rather high

and

culture brought

by a large proportion of them from the old

world, fosters the development

and maintenance
on),

in

America of

a specifically Judeo-German (Yiddish) culture (literature, theatre,

social

and economic endeavour, and so

satisfies the intellectual

which more or

less

adequately

and

aesthetic

demands

of the

immigrants and renders the

cultural assimilation less

necessity for their linguistic

and

immediately imperative than might be

supposed.

Not

that

the transplantation
is

and
itself

further develop-

ment of

this

Judeo-German culture
but,
if

in

a reprehensible

phenomenon,

the

rapid

and thorough acquirement of

English be set as a goal, the conditions outlined must frankly

be recognized as constituting an obstacle.

140

ENGLISH-YIDDISH DICTIONARY

SAPIR

I41

While the English-Yiddish Encyclopedic Dictionary addresses

itself to all

Yiddish-speaking foreigners in America that are able

to read their ledge,

mother tongue and are desirous of gaining a knowlanguage,

it

elementary or thorough, of the English

it

is

probably to the more cultured type of immigrant that

prove of the greatest use.
It will

will

doubtless do

much

to enable

him

to

overcome the

cultural resistance that

we have

indicated.

Dr. Abelson and his collaborators

deserve

our warmest com-

mendation
problem.

for their successful solution

of a unique

and

difficult

There

is

here offered to the Jewish immigrant a mass

is

of adequately illustrated information which

hardly inferior in
native

bulk

or

quality

to

that

contained

in

the

American's

Webster.

In

fact,

one wonders whether the repast

It

is

not a bit too

sumptuous.

seems

fairly

obvious that a work of this kind

must, in the nature of things, be transitional in character.

other words,
its
its

In

raison d'etre largely ceases with the fulfilment of

is

aims, as the scaffolding

structure.

demolished with the completion of

circumstances,
to

the

Under

these

one

is

somewhat

puzzled to find valuable space devoted

the explanation in

Judeo-German
is

(the entries are English,

all

the explanatory matter

in

Judeo-German) of such words

as heteratomic, qiiinquefoliate,

incombustibility,

and hosts of

others.

Surely, one

fancies,

the

student

who

feels
is

impelled to seek light on the meaning of words

such as these

bound

to

have progressed

far

enough

in his

study of English to be able to consult English works of reference.

It

seems indeed a

pity that space so disposed of

and
thus

it

forms

no inconsiderable portion of the book

to fuller information

was

not rather devoted

topics suggested by

on the bread-and-butter
For the greater

the

humbler
the

entries.

familiarity

gained

and subject-matter of American thought the inquiring immigrant would gladly, we venture to think, have dispensed with the frills and furbelows. So far, indeed, is the
with

form

Encyclopedic Dictionary from exercising restraint in this regard

that nearly every page betrays to the
his depths of ignorance.

man

of normal English speech

I

In the face of the editors' authority

142

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REV'IEW

should certainly not care to dispute the existence of such words

as nival,
iiivoiis^

ort (translated into

is left

Judeo-German
over and
is

as

'a re-

mainder, a fragment, that which

to

be thrown
I

away

'),

connexity, incogitatitly,

and

hiterfenestral,

but

submit

that I

would have preferred

in

to see these at best

nebulous beings

housed

some such thesaurus

as

the Oxford

N.

D. than

exposed to the quizzical stare of the unappreciative foreigner.

Yet, in view of the magnitude of Dr. Abelson's accompHsh-

ment,

it

seems unkind

to insist

on shortcomings such as these.

To make

amends, he has very

commendably devoted considerable

it is

space to the explanation of idiomatic turns of expression, those

bugaboos of

all foreigners.

Thus,

refreshing to find justice

done

to such collocations as come-dow?t,

come

dozvfi on,

come in

for, cofiie out with,

come

iipon,

come

to the scratch,

and numerous

others.

In one important point (and this

criticism that I

is

the only really serious

would make) the dictionary proves a disappointin

its

ment.

This

is

the matter of pronunciation.

True, Judeo-

German, with

simple vocalic system,

is

certainly

one of the
difificult

languages least adapted to transliterate a language with so

a phonetic system as English, but
I

cannot help thinking that the

problem of suggesting an approximately correct English pronunciation might have

transliterations

been more

satisfactorily solved.

As

it is,

the

adopted by the editors can only confirm those

in precisely those faults of

who use
are

the

book

pronunciation that

are characteristic of the Yiddish-speaking foreigners

and which

apt to render their speech so disagreeable

to Americans.

I believe that

an almost heroic attempt should have been made

by the editors to convey some idea of the qualitative and quantitative

nuances of the English vowels.

If the use of at least certain

diacritical

marks would thus have been rendered unavoidable, no

an expense would thereby have been entailed,

matter.
it

If too great

would have been excellent pedagogy and economy to have

the compass
of the book.
e.g.

greatly decreased

Better
of the

half the

number

of pages and

some

indication,

difference
it is,

in pronunciation

between the vowel oifan and that of/';/(as

ENGLISH-YIDDISH DICTIONARY

SAPIR

I43

they are so transliterated as to suggest an identical pronunciation,

feti,

for both).

Nor
is

is

there anything to

show

that the th of
thick.

a word like this

not identical with the th of a word like

transliterations,
is

And

why,

of

all

one

chosen

for

w
is

that

necessarily suggests a pronunciation hv (incidentally

not

distinguished from

wh)!

But

this is

not the place to analyse

I

the phonetic deficiencies of the work in detail.

wish merely

to point out that the handling of the phonetic problem leaves

much

to

be desired.
E. Sapir.

Ottawa, Ont.

""'

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

A PUBLICATION

DEVOTED TO JEWISH HISTORY, LITERATURE, PHILOLOGY, ARCHAEOLOGY,

AND COGNATE SUBJECTS

Series of this Review, edited by Cyrus Adler a continuation of the Quarterly published in London from 1888 to 1908. The subscription price is fixed at Three Back volumes of the New Series can Dollars per annum. be furnished to the Subscribers at Two Dollars per volume. Checks or Money Orders should be made payable to the Jewish Quarterly Review. Manuscripts, Books for Review, Checks, &c., should be addressed to the Dropsie College for

The New

is

Hebrew and Cognate Learning, Broad and York

Philadelphia, Pa., U.S.A.

Streets,

THE

HALAKAH KARAITE RELATION TO AND

ITS

SADDUCEAN, SAMARITAN, AND PHILONIAN

HALAKAH By BERNARD REVEL,

Eighty-eight pages.

M.A., Ph.D.
Price $1.00 post paid.

Cloth bound.

A VOLUME OF THE

BOOK OF PRECEPTS
By

HEFES

B.

YASLIAH

edited from an arabic ms. in the library of the dropsie college, translated into hebrew and provided with critical notes

and an introduction

By
278 pages.

B.

HALPER,

M.A., Ph.D.
Price $3.00 post paid.

Cloth bound.

For Sale by

THE DROPSIE COLLEGE FOR HEBREW AND COGNATE LEARNING,

Broad and York Streets, Philadelphia, Penna.

///5"

THE MINOR
[

IN

JEWISH

LAW
Mass.

By Israel Lebendigek, Holyoke,

CHAPTER
A.

V.

THE MINOR ORPHAN

The Support of the Minor Daughter

AFTER the Father's Death.

Two
One
of

great reforms took place in post-Biblical times

concerning the protection of the female

minor orphan.

them

is

the support of the minor daughter after

the father's death, from the property inherited

Biblically, the latter are the legal heirs.

by the

sons.

But the Rabbis

made

it

a point of the marriage contract that the minor

daughter be supported from the inherited property, even

though the application of

this

law

may

result in the con-

sumption of the whole property, and thus render the

daughters instead of the sons the real heirs of the father.
In so far as this protection of the minor daughter was

made

a point of the marriage contract, the support of the

minor daughters

may

be considered as a posthumous duty

it

of the father, and, therefore^

was dealt with more

fully in

the chapter on 'The Duties of the Father'.

as the cause for this reform
is

But inasmuch

the attempt to protect the

state,

female minor orphan in her helpless

dealing with
if

this

chapter

the
is

'

Minor Orphan

'

will

not be complete

no reference
VOL. vn.

made

to the topic just mentioned.

145

146

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

B.

The Marriage of the Minor Daughter, and

THE Mi'uN Institution.
The reform concerning the support
of the minor daughter
fully.

after the father's death did not seem to protect her

It

seems that circumstances arose which rendered unsafe

jj^jg

the innocence and chastity of the minor daughter.^^s

condition gave rise to another great reform, which developed

into a regular institution in Jewish
life.

Biblically only the father has the

power

to give his

minor daughter
mentioned

in marriage.

In order to remedy the evils

in the last

paragraph, the Rabbis instituted that

the mother or the brothers

may

secure the protection of

a husband for the minor orphan daughter by giving her

in marriage.

Of

course

when we say

'

instituted

',

we do not mean

that the Rabbis introduced something new.

The

giving of

the minor daughter in

marriage by the mother or the

brothers certainly did not originate in an enactment of the

Rabbis, but existed as a practice

among

the people, to

which the Rabbis merely gave their sanction.

Thus

the

Rabbis invested the mother and brothers with a power not

possessed by

them

before.
is

Yet

this

power of the mother and brothers

different

from the same power exercised by the father.

The power
is

of the father to give his minor daughter in marriage

his

exclusive right, and, therefore, he need not legally consult

his

daughter when he wants to exercise

it.

But the law

estab-

giving the brothers and mother the

same power was

lished primarily for the benefit of the daughter.

This law

meant, then, to secure a right neither for the mother nor for
"* Yeb. 112 b
;

see

ibid.,

Rashi.

THE MINOR

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER

147

the brothers, but for the minor daughter.

Consequently,

the mother or the brothers can exercise the power of giving

the orphan daughter in marriage, only

when they obtain

her consent.^^'^

But while the reform brought protection and happiness

to

some orphans,

it

certainly marred the happiness of others,

since the females

who

entered into such marriages were of

an age at which they did not have intelligence enough to

make

a proper choice.

To

offset this evil,

another institu-

tion arose, which, not less than the giving of the minor

daughter
is

in

marriage by the mother and by the brothers,

a reform of post-Biblical times.

This institution

is

spoken

of

by

the Rabbis as Mi'un, meaning refusing or objecting,

in

and consists

the power the minor female orphan possesses

of invalidating the marriage contracted for her either

by
is

the mother or brothers. ^-^

different
It is

Mi'un, as

we

shall see later,

bill

from and does not necessitate any

live

of divorce.

simply an objection on her part to

is

any more with

her husband, the procedure of which

little formalities.

performed with very

The

establishment of this institution appears to involve

(i)

a disregard of certain Biblical rules,

Bible, the separation

According to the

between wife and husband can be

the
latter,

caused only by the

only by a process

will of
in

and can be
is

effected

which the

latter

the main actor.

is

In the case of Mi'un, the invalidation of the marriage

caused by the will and the action of the wife.

(2)

The

procedure of Mi'un
divorce.
(3)

is

different

from the

procedure of
in

Biblically, the action of a

intelligence,
is

minor
invalid.

matters

which require intention, or

to

According

one opinion, she cannot even become the passive recipient

22G

Ibid.,

XIII,

2.

22T

Eduyyot VI,

i.

148
of the
for her
bill

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

of divorce to invalidate the marriage contracted
father.^^s

i
who

by her

^^id yet the Mi'un must not be

considered cither a violation of the Biblical law, or a substitution

for the
bill

of divorce.

It

is

the Rabbis

acknowledged the validity of the marriage of the minor

daughter after the father's death, and
fore,
it is

they, who, there-

have the power to provide means for invalidating this

marriage.^"

The marriage
if

of the

female minor orphan

is

valid,

at least

she

is

intelligent

enough to take care of the

marriage.'^^'^'

objects presented to her as the instruments of

Otherwise, the marriage

is

void,
its

and does not necessitate

invalidation.

even the process of Mi'un for

to Maimonides,'^"^ this mental

According

ripeness begins at the age

of

six.

According to

R.

Eliezer,

the

marriage

in
its

question
invalida-

binds only to the extent of requiring Mi'un for

tion.

Otherwise,

it

does not cause any legal conjugal

for instance, has

relationships.^^^

The husband,

no

right

to the objects that she

may

find,

or to her service.

He
does

does not possess the power to annul her vow.

He

not inherit her property after her death. R. Joshua maintains

the opposite view.
his wife
in

According to him, she

is

considered as

every respect, with the exception that the

All
agree,

marriage can be invalidated by a Mi'un.-^^

however, that
in

case she does invalidate the marriage

is

by

Mi'un, the very act of marriage

considered as void, and

the relationship between the minor and the

person she

-'*

See above,

ch. IV, section dealing

i.

with divorce of the minor.

220

"9 See Yer. Yeb. XIII,

"' Yad, Ishut IV, 6
'"ss
;

Yob. XIII,

2.

Gerush
a.

II. 7. 233
//;,,/.

Ket. loia; Yeb. 108

THE MINOR

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER
in

149

married was not a conjugal one.-"^

loses her right

Therefore, the minor

case she

to the

Ketubbah, to support
in the

borrowed money to support herself

husband, and some other
afterwards those
rights.^"'^

absence of the
also

She may

marry

members

of his family

whom

she would be
bill

prohibited to marry, had the Mi'un only the effect of a

of divorce and vice

versa.^'^*^

He may marry
tries to
it

her again after

she has been married and divorced by another person.^^'^

The
Mi'un.

school

of

Shammai

limit the

power of

According to

this school,

can invalidate only

a betrothal, but not a marriage, and can be exercised only

against

the

husband,

but

not

against

the

Yabam

(the

brother-in-law

who

is

to perform the Levirate at the death

of his brother).

The

school of

Shammai

also
in

maintains

that the procedure of Mi'un

must take place

the presence

of the husband and of the court, and that she can exercise
it

only once.

The

attitude

of the

House

of Hillel

is

more

liberal

towards the exercise of Mi'un.

According

to this school,
;

Mi'un can annul a marriage as well as a betrothal

it

can

be exercised either against the husband or against the

Yabam

it

does not require the presence either of the

of the court

husband

or

she

has also the power of

once.^^^

exercising this right

more than
life,

Yet
strict

in

practical

the school of
It

Shammai was

not

in its

regulations.
its

admitted that under certain

This
in

circumstances

prescriptions can be disregarded.

school, therefore,

approved the action of the Rabbis

it

a certain case, though

was a question of annulling a

marriage, and though the Mi'un took place without the

'31
236

Yeb. 107 Yeb. 105

b.
;

"5 Ket. XI,

Ket. loi
a.
2^

8.
i.

Yeb. io8.

238

Yeb. XIII,

150

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The bad treatment
the

presence of the husband.

woman

received at the hands of her husband justified the Rabbis

in

making an exception and declaring the Mi'un

valid.^^^

The Rabbis maintained that

the school of Hillel excludes

the necessity of the presence only of ordained judges, but

not the presence of three ordinary judges.^'*"

It

seems,

however, that originally only the presence of two was

necessary,
judges.'-''^

and

these

acted

more

as

witnesses

than as

There was no special form

in

which the minor daughter

All that
;

had to express her objection to the marriage.

she had to say was,
I
'

refuse to live with

object to the marriage contracted for

my husband me by my mother
to

(or

by

my brothers)
The
it

'.^**'^

Nor was

there any special occasion,

or special place
statement.

necessary

when she had

make

that

court acted on her objection even though

she uttered
239

while she was preparing herself for the

Yeb. 107

b.

"*o

Yeb. 107

b.

TheTosefta (Yeb. XIII,

i)

says expressly that Bet Hillel

it

required the presence of three judges.

'unless there are three'
is

But

is

probable that the words

a later addition based on the

comment of the
(Yer. Sanh.
n3i:i'N-i3.

Rabbis quoted

in the text.
:

2" This can be proved by the following reads n:N>o "31^31

'':ii3D

(i)

The Talmud
^JvD

i,

2)
it

noym

pJiN"'D

noK^ p3m3 vn
to

seems

that the

Talmud takes the words

'Jlbsi

show

that only

two

were necessary, and,

therefore, quotes the Baraita in contradistinction to

i, 2).

the Mishnah, which necessitates the presence of three (Sanh.

Babli (Yeb. 107 b, 109 a) quotes a similar Baraita beginning with the

nJICNIS, pointing
later

out

some other

difference between the earlier

The word and the

form of Mi'an.

Perhaps the reading of Yer. was the same as that of

Babli, only that the second part

was

lost later.

Some
2).

scholars

still

hold that

the presence of two

is

sufficient (Tosef.

Yeb. XIII,

The

Babli maintains,

however, that they changed their view (Yeb. loib).

three

That the presence of

will follow in the next

was

not necessary can be inferred from

in

what

paragraph
'*'

the body of the essay.

Tosefta Yeb. XIII, 2; Yeb. 107b, io8a.

THE MINOR

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER
of an

15I

marriage, or while she was buying goods in the shop.^*"

Sometimes the Mi'un did not

statement,

consist

expressed

but of an objection implied in

to another, for instance,

her actions.

Her marriage

was considered as

implying a protest against her

first marriage.'-*'*

The

protest

was then written up

in

a document, and
contents of the

signed by those

who
it is

witnessed
called, the
in

it.^*^

The

document,

or,

as

Get Mi'un, were written up

in a definite form,

which

course of time underwent several

read,
'

changes.

Originally,
.

it

In the presence of

...

and of ...

the daughter of
.

...

protested

against

.... son of ...

(and said,)
it

I
;

do not want to associate with

I

him
to

he
'.

is

not worthy of

do not want

to be married scribe (on

him

But the

fear arose lest

some ignorant

account of the

many words
a regular
bill

the Get Mi'un contained) might

of divorce.

mistake
fore,

it

for

The Rabbis,

there-

reducing the number of words, changed the form to

following
:

the

'

On

the

....
'
:

day,

.... daughter

of

....
we
the

protested in our presence.'

In post-Talmudic times,

find the following

form

On ....
in

(day of the week)

the year

.... day

of

the

month ....
era
:

....
.

according to the
tested before us

....
and
gave

....

daughter of ...
(or

pro-

said

my
in

mother

my

brothers)

deceived
2*'

me and

me

marriage (or betrothed me)

This shows clearly that no presence of a court was necessary at the

she made the objection.
a.

time

when
It

2 Yeb. 108
2<5

must be kept

in

mind that the invahdation of the marriage was

have the nature of a
of divorce, and,

caused by the expressed or implied objection, but not by the document.

The Mi'un document does

therefore,
is

not at

all

bill

not to be written according to the latter's regulations (Yad.

7).

Gerush. XI, 11; Eb. Haez. 155,

The Mi'un

certificate is given

to

her

merely with
her Mi'un.

the view of providing

her with documentary evidence of

152
to
I

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

.

...

son of

...

and now

declare before
this

you that

do not

desire him.

We
is

have examined

.... and

are satisfied that this girl

yet a minor, and have written,

and signed, and given

a clear proof.^*^

(this) to

her as a document and as

So

far for the legal

aspect of Mi'un.

There

is

also

much

to be said concerning

its

moral
C. E.

side.

We

find authorities as

early as the

first

century

being unfavourably disposed

towards the marriage of the minor daughter contracted for

her by her mother, or by her brothers, and towards the
exercises of the Mi'un institution.

We

have seen, before,

how R. EHezer tried

marriages.

to minimize the binding

power of such

We
In

have also seen how the school of Shammai

tried to lessen the cases in

which Mi'un should be of any

account.

Amoraic

literature

we meet Rabbah and

for the restrictions set

R. Joseph, who give as the reason

on Mi'un by the school of Shammai, the moral principle

that
it is

objectionable to have the Mi'un render illegitimate

one's intercourse

with

his

wife.^*'

Bar Kappara counts

Mi'un among the things from which a

himself
In
afar.-'*^

man

should keep

the time of the Geonim, Mi'un was

the

greatly dis-

couraged, a fact due largely to

Karaites.^^^

opposition of the

To
In

prevent the occurrence of the Mi'un, the

marriage of the minor daughter was

gether.'''"''^

discouraged altothe
practice

France and
in

in

Germany

of of
to

Mi'un was much

vogue;

some of the

authorities

these places even protested against those

2 Yad, Gerush. XI,

who wanted
2" Yeb. 107.

11,

M Yeb. 109
**^ "^^

a.

Gan Eden

144

b.

See also LOw,

;

Lebeiisalter, pp. 178, 179.

a.

Hag. Maim. Gerush. n, 3

Tos. Yeb. 109

THE MINOR
limit

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER
however,
in
b.
it

153

the exercise

of Mi'un.-^^
its

Later,

met

with opposition which reached

century,
in

climax

the fifteenth

the

person of R.

Menahen

Phinehas of
the

Merseburg,

who

declared that those

who abided by
the

Mi'un practice have thereby incurred

of the ban.

consequences

Some

authorities defended,

and some attacked

still

this attitude of
in

R. Menahem.^^'^

Mi'un was
sanctioned

practised
different

different

communities,

and

by

Rabbis,^^" until the time

came when

that which could not

be

abolished

by law or authority was eradicated by

details

necessity.

More

about the history of Mi'un

in

in post-

Talmud ic times can be found

177-84.

Low, Die Lebensalter,

daughter can
chapter.
'

The age up

to which the minor

in

exercise this right was discussed

previous
so-called
in

The

right of Mi'un exercised

life
'

by the

Orphan
next

during her father's

will

be discussed

the

chapter, dealing with the rights of the minor.

C.

Guardian and Ward.

by
the court.-"^

A
either

guardian over the minor orphans can be appointed

by the

father or
is

The appointment

by the father
the latter's

valid only

when
the

it

was made shortly before

But one who has

death, with

express purpose of having

some one

to take care of the orphans.

been given the power by the father to superintend his

property during his
life,

does not, on that account, retain

father.'-'^

the same power after the death of the

The

court

can appoint a guardian only when the father failed to do

2^1

Or

Zarua'l, 686.

See

also references in previous note.

13, 17.
;

^^2 253

Yam

sheei

Shelomoh Yeb.

See Eben ha-Ezer,

Git. 52 a.

155, 22, gloss of Isserles

Pithe Tcshubah,

ibid.

254
^^5

Responsa Rash. 62

Hoshen ha-Mishpat

290,

i,

gloss of Isserles.

154
SO.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Nor can
in

the court exercise this power

his

when

the father

has

expressed

objection to

it.-^*^

The

court

may,

however,

the absence of a guardian, take the place of

If

one, and supervise the estate of the orphans.^^'^

acts on behalf of the orphans,

one

and

lives

together with them,

he has the status of

a guardian, though

he

was

not

appointed as

one.-^'*

The Jewish law does

a

not seem to recognize what

i.e.

is

called the natural guardian,

one having the status of

guardian by virtue of his kinship with the orphans.

a matter of fact, Jewish law puts limitations on the
relative as a

As

appointment of a

guardian.^^^
if

The

court,

however, must not appoint

of
full

a guardian

the brothers

age are willing to co-operate as partners with the

minors.-"^

The Jewish law does not

differentiate

consciously
(tutor),

between the guardian over the person of the minor

and the guardian over the estate of the minor

(curate).

Yet

it

seems that primarily the guardian was appointed

over the estate of the minor,-"^ but that, at the same time,

he exercised also powers that had to do with the person

of the minor.-*'-

-^*^

J^id.

257

Responsa Rashba 974.

5.

258
25'-'

Git. 52 a; Pithe

Teshubah, Hoshen ha-Mishpat 290, Hoshen ha-Mishpat 290, 2.

;

If

See ibid., Be'er Hag. 2 Tos. Kid. 42 a. This can be inferred plainly from the last law in the last paragraph. a guardian cannot be appointed primarily over the estate of an orphan,
2i

^fio

why

should then the willingness of the older brothers to co-operate as

in

partners with minors, affect

an^'

way

the legitimacy of appointing a

guardian?
22

This

is

to

be inferred from the

Zizit,

fact that the

guardian

is

to

provide

the minor with a Lulab,

to the

and a Sukkah, a function that certainly relates

person of the minor.

THE MINOR

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER
is

155

guardian can be appointed also merely to perform

special functions.

He
i.

can be appointed as what

known
But

guardian ad litem,

e.

the legitimate representative of the

orphans

in

a suit in which they are the defendants.

is

the representation

given recognition only

when the

verdict

turns out to be in favour of the orphans.^^"'

to R. Johanan,
if

According

the appointment has been made, and

is

the verdict announced, the decision of the court

valid,

even

if it is

against the interests of the orphans. ^'''^

is

Yet the court

care of a shor

obliged to appoint a guardian to take

(an ox, the malicious nature of
his

ha-muad
this

which has been established by

times),
in

having gored three

in

though

action

will
;

result
-^^

responsibilities
this

case

the ox will gore again

for in
is

case the

evident purpose of the appointment

bilities for

not to create possi-

the recovery of damages, but simply to prevent

any injury being done by the ox.

There

is,

however,

much

discussion as to whether

we

appoint a guardian to

take care of a tarn (an ox that did not gore three times). ^^^
2<i3

Git.

52

a.

264

Yer. Git. V,

4.

The opinion
a.

of R.

Johanan

is

not found in Babli.

265 266

Yen,

ibid.

Babli B. K. 39

B. K. 39.

The
it

inference of the Talmud from the

first
'

part of the
tarn
'

Mishnah
whether

(ibid.) that

they do not appoint a guardian to watch a

possible that the
first

is

not
of

convincing, for

is

part does not speak at

'

all

we

appoint a guardian to take care of a

tam

'.

The Mishnah

tells

us simply that

when

there

is

no guardian the minors are not responsible.

Tos.
is

(ibid.)

saw

this difficulty

and

tried to explain

it,

but the explanation

hardly satisfactory.

The Talmud
as to
is

Babli finds a difference of opinion in the Tosefta (B. K. IV)

to

whether we appoint a guardian

watch a

'

tam (B. K. 39 b). Neither

'

the arguing of the Babli here convincing.

is

It is

possible that R. Judah b.

Nekusa speaks of a case when there

D^iyb implying
a guardian.
that
it

no guardian altogether, the word

'

can

never become a

mu'ad

'

in

the absence of

But he admits

that

we

appoint one to watch a 'tam'.

R, Jose

156

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the property consihts of cash monej', no guardian
it.

When
is
it

necessary to be appointed over

The

court deposits

with a person, with

whom

the chances of gain should

8).

be greater than those of loss

(Hoshen ha-Mishpat, 290.

The
a slave,

court cannot appoint a guardian either a

a minor, or a man whose honesty

woman,

may

be doubted.

They can appoint only one who is upright and skilful, who will know how to act in favour of the orphans, plead their We cause, and who has a knowledge of worldly affairs.
cannot, however, remove persons of the former class from

the guardianship,
father.26'

if

they have been

appointed by the

post-Talmudic institution

was the writing of an

inventory at the time of the appointment, in which an

account was entered of

supervised

all

the property that

is

to

be

by the guardian, one copy being given

court.--^

to him,

and 'another retained by the

in

turn deals with the appointment of a guardian, and accordingly gives his

view.

Thus each one says something

different,

and they do not

differ at all

with each other.

Tos. and Rashi
ibid.)

try to give reasons for the

'

law that

we

do not

appoint a guardian to take care of a

tarn

'.

Their reasons are not satisfactory.

not appoint a guardian
true that

The
it is

real reason for

it

is

the law that

we do
It
is

when

against the interests of the minors.

'

when
is

the animal
a source of
to avoid

is

mu'ad

'

we

do appoint a guardian, for then the animal

danger

to the

community, and by appointing one, we try merely

is

the danger.

But there

no danger when the animal

is

'

tam

',

and the

appointment of a guardian, therefore, would merely mean the creatjon of

a possibility of holding the orphans responsible,

which

is

against the law.

This reason

is

given

in

Yen
'

Git. V, 4.

The
'

Yer., however, does not

'

make

any distinctions between a

this reason,

tam and a
'

mu'ad

in this respect.

In giving

we

should count as the Yer.

{ibid.) does,

with the difference of

opinions, as to whether the guardian or the orphans are to pay for the

damages.
!'T Tosef. Ter. 1,2; B. B. VIII, ibid. ^^ Hoshen ha-Mishpat, 290, 3. This does not impl}- that the guardian

THE MINOR

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER
orphans.

157

The powers
set aside
for the
sell

possessed by the guardian are only those,

is

the exercise of which

in favour of the

He may

Terumah and

tithes from the grain necessary

domestic use of the minors.

their possessions,

He

has the power to

any of

when the

returns are necessary

for their support.

He

has the power to spend funds for

in

their

religious

training

connexion with things which

as,

have a non -continuous gxpense,

for instance,

buying

a palm, buying fringes of a garment, or erecting a tent

at

the feast of Tabernacles

but not

in

connexion with

things which do have a continuous expense, as, for instance,

contributing to charity, and redeeming captives.-*'^

He must
one
to
in

not

sell

land in a distant place

in

order to

buy

a nearer place, nor of a poorer quality in order

quality, as this

buy one of a better

change

may

not turn

out to be of benefit to the orphans.

For the same reason,

slaves, but

he must not
sell slaves in

sell

land in order to

buy

he

may

order to

buy

land.
effect

According to R. Simon
even what seems to be
is
still

b.

Gamaliel, he

must not

a change for the better, for there

that
it

the possibility

may

turn out to be injurious to the interests of

his charge.^'^"

The guardian
slaves.

is

not considered the real owner of the

property, and, therefore, cannot

emancipate any
an

of the

He may,
free.

however, effect

emancipation
in

by
set

selling the slaves to another

man, who

turn

may

them
is

Rabbi Judah holds that the guardian

which
is

can

to furnish a final account

to

be compared with the

first

account.

As it will be shown later, no final account was necessary. This document was merely used as a reference in case the orphans presented definite claims
against the guardians {ibid..
260

Tosef. Ter.

i,

2; Git. 52 a

Tosef. B. B. VIII, 14.

270 Ibid,

and Tosef. B.

VIII, 15.

158

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

if

emancipate the slave directly,

price.
-'^

the latter pays his selling

The

court has control over the guardian, and

it

may,
It

therefore,

remove him whenever

him, for instance,
It

it

finds

it

necessary.

may remove

when he

is

found to waste
if

the orphan's property.-"'-

may remove him

jiis

at

any
an

time during his term of charge he begins to

live at

expense higher than that which

means allow him, and

thus arouses the suspicion that he uses the estate of the

minors. -^^
action only

Suspicion,

however,
is

is

ground

for

such

an

when the guardian

is

appointed by the Court,

father.^"'^

but not when he

If,

appointed by the

however, the interests of the orphans demand that

the social standing of their guardian should be higher, and

consequently that he should

to use their estates.^'^^

live

up

to

it,

he

is

allowed

Relatives of certain orphans comthat a guardian dressed himself

plained before R.

Nahman
it

from the estates of the minors.

R.

Nahman

pacified

them

by saying

that he does

in

order that his words

may

carry weight with the people, and that he shall thus be

influential,
orphans.-'^''

when he

will

have to act on behalf of the

The guardian
did enter into

should not,

lest

he lose the
If,

case, enter

into a suit representing the orphans.^''"

it,

however, he
is in

the verdict

is

valid only

if it

favour

" R. Jiidah considers such a procedure one of transaction, and nqt one
of emancipation.

The

slave purchases himself, as

it

were, from the guardian,

and then emancipates himself.

Git. 53 b. ^* Hoshen ha-Mishpat, 290, 5 "5 Git. 52 b.
2"2

273

Git.

52

b.

Be'er. Hag.,

ibid. 50.
27G
/6,rf,

"7

Ibid.

52 a

Hoshen ha-Mishpat,
which must always
ibid. 20.

290. 12.
lose in

This
the

is in

order not to abuse

the other party,

trial

with the guardian.

See Be'er. Hag.,

THE MINOR
of the orphans.

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER

159

This, of course, agrees with the general

principle that the actions of the guardian are authoritative

only

when they

are

in

favour of the orphans.

For the

same reason, the

by the guardian,

division of the estate

is

among
R.

the minors,

not valid

if

they are not

satisfied

with

their shares after

they grow
is

up.-"*^

Nahman

holds,

however, that the division

valid.

The
been

guardian

is

not responsible, in case an article has

lost

or stolen, since this

is

damage

is

not due to his

to his

negligence, but he
negligence.^'^
for the
If,

responsible for

damages due

however, he has been appointed merely

purpose of preventing any damages that

the property of the orphans,
to
as,

may be
instance,

caused by

for

when he has been appointed

ha-vtitad, then the guardian
is

take

care

of

a shor

responsible on the occur-

rence of such damages, for the simple reason that, otherwise,

people will decline the appointment of guardianship for

such a purpose.^^
in the

\et R. Jose
guardian
estate,

b.

Hanina holds that even

compensates
for

latter case the

first
is

the

damages from
the orphans

his

own

and

then reimbursed by

when

the latter

grow

up.-^^

^'s

Kid. 42

a.

reason for the view of R. Nahman, and for the fact that
the estate

the guardian
that the
{ibid.).
2T9
2*1

may divide division may be

among

the minors, in spite of the doubt

unsatisfactory to the orphans, can be found in Tos.

Tos. B. K. 39

Tos. Git. 52 b.

^so

m^,

B. K. 39.

thev (the

The Yer.
that,

The words 'and they are repaid from the orphans when orphans) grow up' in the statement of R. Jose, is a later addition. does not have it (Git. V, 4). Nay more, there is even a proof
is

according to Yen, the guardian

not reimbursed by the orphans.

The Yer. makes

is

the view of R. Jose correspond with the opinion that

'

we

appoint a guardian over a

to

shor mu'ad

',

declaring that since the guardian

is

make good

for the

damages, such an appointment

it

not against the

principle that

we

do not appoint a guardian when

is

against the interests

l6o

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

When
them

the orphans

grow up, the guardian returns

R.

to

their funds,
his

and gives them, according to R. Judah,

an account of
holds that he
is

management.

Simon

b.

GamaHel
Accordfather

relieved from giving an account.^^^

ing to one opinion, a guardian appointed

by

the

does not take an oath

at

the return of the estate, that

he did not appropriate

of his charge, for

for himself

any of the possessions

the duty to take such an oath

may

discourage

people from
But,

undertaking the responsibilities

of guardianship.

when the guardian

is

is

appointed

by

the court, this discouraging element

feeling

counterbalanced

by the pleasant
to administering

one has at the

fact that the court

is

has confidence in him, and, therefore, there

no objection

him an

oath.

The

majority of scholars

hold the opposite view.

o-uardian

According to them, since the

for

receives
is

no compensation

his service, this

is

harmful result

to be

more

feared

when he

appointed

by the

court.

But the father usually appoints one upon

whom
will

he has conferred favours, and, therefore, the latter

not^

on the ground of the oath, refuse to please the

appointment.''^^"

father

by accepting an

This difference of opinion has to do only with an oath

not called forth by a definite claim of the orphans.
If,

however, the orphans claim that the guardian has not been
honest in his charge,
oath in every
case.^**^
all

agree that

we administer
opinion

to

him an

There

is

also

a
as

difference

of

Talmudic scholars
of the orphans.
to suffer for
=2
it.

to whether the one

among postwho assumed

But

this

reasoning has no basis

if

the orphans are finally

Git.

2"

52a Tosef. Ter. i, 2 B. B. VIU, Hoshen ha-Mishpat 290, 16.

; ;

15,

'83

//>/.

THE MINOR
to

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER

l6r

act as guardian, without being

appointed as one,

is

bound

to take an oath in the absence of a definite claim.^''^

is

The guardian
orphans from his

to

be compensated
If,
it

if

he supported the

estate.

however, he expressed himself

as charity, he loses all claims

to the effect that he did

of compensation.^^*^

D.

Attachment on the Estate of Minor

Orphans.
be issued on the estate of minor
in

An
later.^^'^

attachment

will not

orphans to pay the father's debts, except

R. Papa accounts for this law
a debt
is

the cases given

fact that

by the

the

payment of

virtuous act,

and virtuous acts

is

are not obligatory

upon orphans.-^^
R.

This reason

almost

unanimously ignored.^^^

Nahman

who, according to

R. Papa, acted on the former principle, afterwards changed

his

mind, and said

'
:

The orphans who support them(i.e.

selves from that which does not belong to them, should

follow the path of their deceased father

should meet

death);
285

290

Tur. Hosh. ha-Mishpat 290, B.

^se

Hosh, ha-Mishpat 290,

25.

287
288 289

Arakin 22 a

Yer. Ket. IX,

B. B. 174
;

Git.

V,

2.

Arakin 22 a

see

ibid.,

Rashbam.

Evidently R. Papa takes the statement mjkO n"n

nynD
it

to

mean
that

that to

pay a debt
is

is

only a virtuous act.

As a matter of
one
in

fact,

means

to pay a debt
is fulfilled.

also a virtuous act, besides being

if

which a
though

legal dutjis

Now,

this legal

duty

is

transmitted to the children, there

its

no
not

reason

why

they should be exempt from

fulfilment,

it

is

obligatory on
230

them as a
a.
It

virtue.

Arakin 22

seems from the Talmud

It is

that as a result R.

Nahman

began to issue attachments.

difficult to

see

how

he could act thus

against the general principle that attachments are not issued on the estate
of minor orphans.
It is still

more surprising

that the

Talmud makes no

remark about

it.

VOL.

VII.

l62

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The

reason given by R.

Huna

for the rule

is

the fear

lest the father paid the debt to his creditor,

and

insufficient
bill

time elapsed before the former's death to have the

withdrawn from the

that
there
is

latter.^^^

Raba

goes further and says

the
father

the

possibility that

possessed

a receipt for the

payment of

his debt,

which the orphans

cannot
If,

find.

therefore, there

is

evidence that the debt has not yet

been paid, the court

291

will issue

an attachment.^^-

This

is

Arakin 22 a; B. B. 174.

292 Ibid.

According

to

R. Papa,

we

see the reason

why

the Court does

not issue an attachment on the estate of the minor, and issues on the estate
of the orphan of
full

age.

Virtuous acts are obligatory on the

latter,

and not

on the former.

But the reasons given by Raba and Huna should hold good
full

even with regard to the estate of orphans of

age.

All commentators
is

and codifiers unanimously take the discussion

in

Arakin 22, which

the

main source of

this law, to deal

;

with an estate of a minor orphan (see Tos.

;

and Rashbam. B. B. 147 a

Tos. and Rashi, Arakin 22 a

Tos. Ket. 86, 87

Hoshen ha-Mishpat
text
itself.

108, 3;

no).

This, however,

is

not evident from the

It is

also hard to understand

why

the

Talmud does not remove

"y, by saying
that

the difficulties raised against the view of R. Asi from the passages beginning

with CrOin'n

Di::',

with pyiD3

pX, and with

in''^

these passages deal with the issuing of an attachment on the estate of

orphans of
of Tos.
is

full

age.

Tos. in Ket. hints at this

In the
first

difficulty.
it

But the explanation

not satisfactory.
(Git. 50)

place,

is

contrary to the view in

the

Talmud

which assumes that the statement beginning with the

words pyi23 pS
the question,

refers also to the estate of orphans of full age.

And

in

the second place, the explanation of Tos. does not suffice as an

answer

to

why

does not the Talmud take the passages beginning with

\T\'h

D'OWn

Dili'

and with

0"y

to deal

with orphans of

full

age ?

With regard

to the reason of

Raba,

we may

concede and say that when

skilful in

they shall have grown up the orphans will be more

receipt of their father.

finding the

But

it

is

hard to see how, according to R. Huna,

the ripe age of the orphans affects our suspicion of the father having paid
his debts before

he died.
in

We

should also note that an attachment for a loan not entered

a document, or for a loan entered in a document which has not been verified,

cannot be issued even on the estate of orphans of

full

age (Hoshen ha-

THE MINOR

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER

163

true in case the father acknowledged the debt before his

death,^^" or in case the loan

was made

for a certain period

of time, and the father died before the period

expired.

In the latter case,

it

is

assumed that a man does not pay

is

his debt before the time

due.^^*

The

court also issues an attachment in case the court

father, while

excommunicated the
paying the debt.
paid
so,
is

he was

alive,

for

not

Any

suspicion that the father

may have
in

removed

in this case
it

by the

fact that

had he done
order

he would have done

its

through the court,

to remove

ban.-^^
is

In these three cases, an attachment

a

issued even for

in

loan not entered in a document.^^^

But

the

case

where the loan was made

for a definite period, the attach-

ment

lies

only,

if

the witnesses

who

verify this condition

gave their testimony before the father died.

The law does

against

not accept the testimony of witnesses in the absence of

the second party,
or
in

case

the testimony
legal

is

persons

who do

not

possess

capacity.

Since the

minor does not possess legal capacity, testimony against

him cannot be accepted

even when there
paid.

.'^''^

Under urgent circumstances, an attachment

is

is

issued,

no evidence that the debt has not been

Such
I
;

is

the case

when a speedy payment of the

difference, then,
to issuing

Mishpat 108,
full

B. 175).

The only

between orphans of

age and minor orphans with regard

an attachment will be in

reference to a loan entered in a document which has been verified (Hoshen

ha-Mishpat 108,
statement as

3).

But

it

does not seem probable that such a sweeping

p2
in

n^31K

n"'21

3"X

N^JN*

pDIH"'

''D3J^

\''pp'i2

ps*

should

merely have

view the elimination of an attachment on the estate of minor

to this

orphans with regard

293

one kind of loans.

^^*

Arakin 22

B. B. 174.
ibic/.,

B. B.
3.

295

Arakin 22; see

b.

Rashi.

^m Hoshen ha-Mishpat 108,

2" Tos. B. B. 5

164

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

from suffering any
losses.

debt will prevent the orphans

Therefore, an attachment
interest.^'^s
is

issued

when the debt bears

happen when

As

Hebrew

is

not allowed to take interest

from another, such a case can, therefore, only

the loan was

made from

a Gentile

who

has voluntarily
in

submitted

himself to

Jewish

jurisdiction

everything

except with regard to taking

interest.^^'^
is

R. Johanan holds

the view that an attachment

issued for the

Ketubbah

of the widow, because the orphans are thereby benefited in

that they

do not have to support

lies, in

her.^*^*^

An
his

attachment also
'
:

case the father said before

(a
is

death

Give a hundred zuzim

kind of coin) or
appointed
in

field to

so

and

so.'

guardian
is

this

case to see that the selection

not

made from

the better

portions of the

field."^^

Yet
it

if

the orphans have acquired

property illegitimately,

is

restored to the real owner,

and no appointment of a guardian to represent the orphans

in

the

trial is

necessary.

In such a case, the court itself

If,
it

acts

on the testimony of the witnesses.""^

however, the

orphans base their claims on the fact that

was occupied
trial

unchallenged by their father, the court postpones the

until

they grow

up."*''^

An

attachment

is

issued for a loan which either the

guardian or the court incurs for the subsistence of the

orphans.^"*

The

reasons against the issuing of an attach299 /^',-^. soi

203

Arakin22; Hoshen ha-Mishpat no,

Jbid.,

i.

"0
^"2

Yer. Ket. IX, 7

Git. V, 2.
in

Arakin 22

b.
is

Ibid.

Yet, according to Maim., even

this

case a guardian

appointed (Yad, Malweh

'"'

B. K. 112 b

we-Loweh XII, 5). Maim., Malweh we-Lovveh

80.

12,

gloss of Isserles.

See

also ibid., Be'er.

^^^

Hag.

This

is

the opinion of Maim, and the Rash.

differ

There

are,

however,

authorities

who

with them (see Rash. Ket. 100; Hoshen ha-Mish.

THE MINOR
ment
loan
for a loan
is

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER

165

made

to the father

do not hold good when the

made

for the benefit of the orphans.

Even R. Papa

agrees with this view, for virtuous acts are binding on both the court and the guardian.""^

The Mishnah has the statement that payments are to be made only from the worst portions of the fields inherited by the orphans.^^*^ In the Babylonian Talmud the question
is

raised,

whether
full

this

law applies also to the estate of

is

orphans of
tive.^^^

age,

and the decision

given in the affirmait

The

Palestinian

Talmud

says expressly that

applies only to the estate of minor orphans.^"^

E.

Advantages

in Purchase.

The

general protection which the Jewish law extends

to minor orphans reveals itself also in

some advantages
Secular

which the

latter

enjoy in matters of purchase.

purchases are

moving the

made by means of article).''"^ Goods bought

the

nieshikah (pulling or
for or

from the Temple

that

change ownership by
is

payment
Temple.

of

money when

to the advantage of the

Now,

then, the Jewish

law declares that the estate of the minor orphans has the
status of the estate of the
if it is for

Temple with regard

sale

to purchase,

their

advantage that the

If,

be transacted by

the

payment

of money.

however, the interests of the

orphans demand that a purchase made by means of pulling

be
no,

valid, the estate

8).

of the orphans has then

the status
some

The

objections of the latter against this law have certainly

basis,
305

which needs consideration.

Consideration
b,

may

be given to the question v^hether, according to

R. Jose
S06 309

Hamina
48

(B. K. 39a), the

payment

is

to be

made from

the estate

of the guardian or of the

Git.
a.

orphans (Rash.,
307

ibid.).
308

Git. 50.

Yer. Ket. IV, 7

Git. IV, 2.

Kid. 28 b.

l66

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the
transaction
is

of a secular estate, and

unretractable.

accordingly
article

The
the

one, therefore,

who bought an
which
increased

from the orphan,

he committed
transaction.^^*^

the
act

price

of

after

of

pulling,

cannot

retract

the

F.

Debts to Orphans and the Sabbatical Year.

According to Jewish law, debts are
forfeited

during

the

Sabbatical year.

Hillel

secured
'

the debts for the

'

creditor

by

his

enactment of the

Prosbol

(a
is

document
signed

which the creditor submits

the
latter),

to the court,
is

and

by

by which the debt

transferred to,

and reclaimed

by

the court from the debtor.^^^

No
owed

submission of a

'

Prosbol/

is

necessary for loans

to minor orphans.

The

court gains power of action

it

against the debtor

by the

fact that

stands in a parental

relation to the orphans.^^^

CHAPTER

VI.

POWERS AND RIGHTS OF THE MINOR

A.

Transactional and Contractual Powers.

underlying principle of the attitude of the Rabbis

The
is

with regard to the problem of the powers of the minor

a purely psychological one, and
the few words nac'nD
^b
is

couched by them
'

in

pxi ntryo ih

B'''

he has (capacity

of)

physical action, but not of intention

'.^^^

Only such
physical
a. III, 8.

actions
3'" 312

of his
a.
;

are

valid

which

require

pure

Kid. 29

3" Git. 52
B. K. 37
a.

Git. 37 a

3" Makshirin VI.

THE MINOR
capacity, but not

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER
will

167

those which

require

mental capacity.
help us to explain
it

This point of view of the Rabbis

many

points,

and attention

will

be called to

wherever

necessary.

minor under the age of

six, or

according to one

opinion under seven, and under nine according to a third

opinion, has no contractual powers whatever.

Above

the

age of

six,

seven, or

nine,

according to the respective

opinions, he can sell

or buy movables but not immovables.'^^*

sell

Real estate or immovables he cannot

eighteen according to R.

before he
is

is

Nahman, and
If,

before he

twenty

according to R. Huna.^^^
tional cleverness,

however, one shows excepmatters of purchase,

is

and

is

very

skilful in

Raba

maintains that his sale of real estate

is

valid,

even

though he
It is

not twenty.^^*'
article that
is

morally wrong to take away an

found

by

the minor.

R. Jose says that

it is

legally wrong.^^^

The minor cannot, because

emancipation of a slave
is

of lack of contractual powers,

If the
is

emancipate the slaves he inherited from the father.

desirable, then a guardian

to

be appointed

for that purpose.'^^'^

For the same

Terumah.^^^
^1*

reason

the

minor cannot

set

aside
his

Rabbi Judah, however, maintains that

;

Git. V, 7

Gem.,

ibid.

59

a.

This

is

a later Rabbinical enactment, and

is

due, as the

Talmud properly remarks

{ibid.), to

the attempt of the Rabbis

to

procure for the minor a medium by which he could buy his daily

necessities.
^^^

B. B. 155
is

a.

The attainment of an

old age for the

power

to sell
is to

immovables

required as a check to hasty and imprudent sales.

One

be more scrupulous in selling immovables than movables, as the former

cannot easily be acquired.

3i
*'^

B. B. 155 b; see ibtd.

Git.

Rashbam.
,

3i7

Qit. V, 8.

40; Low, Die Lebensaltei

II,
i.

150-55

a.

''^

Terumot


THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
aside

l68
setting

the

that he can set

aside

Terumah is binding."^-'^ R. Jose says Terumah the moment he reaches

vows begin
to

the age when his

be valid (twelve and

for a girl).^^"

one day

for

a boy, and eleven and one day

Nor can

the minor set aside tithes.^-^

is

According to R. Asi, the moment the minor

to distinguish between a nut

able

and a
his

splinter,

he can acquire

ownership of an object by
not
for

own

act for himself, but

others.

But when he has already intelligence

enough

to return,

upon request, an object that

is

given

to him, he can acquire ownership also for others.

Samuel
for
is

holds that
others.^-^

in

both cases he cannot acquire ownership

distinguish between

The Tosafot
absent.

when

there

one who gives possession to the minor and between when

such a factor
is

In the former case, the minor

possesses the power of acquisition

statute, while in the latter case

by

virtue of a Biblical

he possesses this power by

virtue only of a Rabbinical enactment."^*

According to Jewish law, slaves of a person who has

no

heirs

as a proselyte, for instance, who

died childless

are emancipated after the death of their master, for they

take possession of themselves.

But minors who do not

in

have the power to acquire ownership of objects

absence
of

the

person

who

gives

possession,

are

not

emancipated by the death of their

S20
322

master.''-^
321

Terumot

I,

13.

Ibid.

Ma'aser Sheni IV, 4;

Its

Git. 65.

See
the

ibid.

Tos.

The question

of Tos.

is

sound.

answer

is

not satisfactory.
{ibid.)

Nor can we accept conscientiously

Mishnah of Ma'aser Sheni IV,
is

the Talmudic assertion

that

speaks of
323

tithes, the

duty

to set aside

which

only Rabbinical.
324
jf^ij^

Git.
Git.

64

b,
a.

See

ibid.

Tos.
ibid.

325

39

See Tos.

THE MINOR
B.

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER

169

Power to Contract a Marriage.

last section

In the

we have seen
which

that the minor does

not possess contractual powers, because acts of acquisition

require
possess.
invalid.

mental

maturity,

the

minor

does not
is

For the same reason the marriage of a minor

It is

not binding even Rabbinically.

The Rab-

binic enactment concerning the marriage of a female minor

orphan, discussed

in

another chapter, does not extend to

the marriage of a male minor orphan."-^

Some

authorities

even prohibit any one from inducing a male minor to

contract a marriage."^'^

The marriage
for a

of

a female

minor orphan
is,

has been

discussed in another place.

There

however, a possibility

female minor to have the same status of the female

is

minor orphan, though her father

the husband to

alive

and that
in

is,

when

whom

her father has given her

marriage

either died or divorced her.

in

She

is

not now, as was shown

another place, any longer under the control of her father.

Any
its

marriage contracted by her, from now on,

is

is

Rab-

binically valid to the extent that a Mi'un

invalidation.

required for

A
receive

female minor can, according to some authorities,

her
bill

of

divorce

to

invalidate

the

marriage

contracted for her by the

father."^-^

But she cannot appoint

an agent

for that purpose, for a

minor does not have the

power
326

to appoint agents."-^
^'
ibid.
32'j

Eben ha-Ezer
Git.

43,

i.

loid.

3-8

65

b.;

see Tos.,

Git.

65

a.

170

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Capacity of the Minor to perform acts which RE(,)UIRE MERE PHYSICAL MATURENESS.

C.

The minor has

the

power to perform

acts

which require

mere physical matureness, or physical capacity.

eat from the animal he slaughters,
if

We may
^^''^

there was a person

of

full

age present,

who saw

that the act of slaughtering

was

in

accordance with Jewish law.

the writing of a
bill

The minor

is

also

allowed to do

of divorce.

D.

Capacity of being counted in a Quorum.

minor cannot be counted
meal.*^"^^

A
tains

in a

quorum
b.

of three in

saying grace after a

that

Rabbi Joshua
in

Levi mainof
ten.^^^

he

can be counted

quorum
is

According to Rabbi Johanan, the minor

counted
in a

qualified to be

quorum

^^"^

the

moment he

begins to develop

puberal signs.

The
counted

question of the qualification of the minor to be

in

a
in

quorum has been the

post-Talmudic
this

basis for

many

con-

troversies

times.

To

small

Jewish

communities

was an important question.

Mediaeval

authorities differ on this point.

Some

object to counting

a minor even in a
opposite.
in the

quorum of

ten.

R. Tarn maintains the

In some localities

there

grew up the custom,

in a

middle ages, to count the minor

in his

quorum while
ridiculed this

he held a Pentateuch

hand.

R.

Tam

power attached
32"

to the holding of the Pentateuch.^"*

331

For

Git. II, 22.

/bid.

Ber. 47

b.

3^-

According

to Tos. {ibid.

48 a) R. Joshiah refers

to a

quorum

for botii

prayer and grace.

It
is

3'^ Ibid.

doubtful wiiether he refers to a

quorum

of three or of ten

(see ibid. Tos,).

To=. Ber. 48 a.

THE MINOR

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER
Low,

I71

more information concerning the history

in
p.

of this question

post-Talmudic
207, &c.

times

consult

Die Lebensalter,

E.

Capacity to act as the Reader of Prayers.

There
is

a post-Talmudic view which maintains that

act as the reader of grace after a meal.^^"
is

a minor can

(By acting as a reader,

meant, that the minor relieves

it

other people from the duty of reciting

to him.)

if

they

listen

Both the Babylonian and the Palestinian

it,

Talmud

are against
is

for the

duty of the minor to read grace

only Rabbinical, and he cannot, therefore, relieve persons

full

of

age

from

the duty

of reading

grace,

which

is

Biblical.33'^

According to one opinion, the minor cannot act as the

reader of the Megillah.^^'^
to the minor.^^^

Rabbi Judah grants

this right

R. Judah supports his view by the fact

that he himself read the Megillah,

in

when he was a minor, the presence of R. Tarfon and the elders.^^^ The minor
if

can act as the reader of Hallel,

turn what he recites.
335 '3^

the persons repeat in

satisfied

Yet the Rabbis were not

its

Tos. Ber. V, 18.

The Talmud

Babli, in

attempt to reconcile

its

view with that of

full

the Tosef., says that the latter speaks of relieving persons of

age only

from a Rabbinical duty.

But

it

does not seem so from the Tosef.

that the latter
is

The
in

words IIDN nJ3N3 which open the passage show

opposition to another view, and this
of relieving persons of
full
is

given

only possible

age from a Biblical duty.

Ill, 3).

when the Tosef. speaks The Yer. has a different

its

explanation of the Tosef. (Yer. Ber.

satisfactory either.
337

But
338

explanation

is

not

Meg.
It is

II, 3.

iiid^

"3

doubtful whether R. Judah would grant this right to the minor

in

connexion with reading prayers.

only Rabbinical.
Tos. Meg. 11,

The duty
7.

of reading the Meg.

is,

after

all,

172

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

and therefore said

that the minor should act as a reader,

'A

curse should rest on those

'."^

(who appoint the minor

the

as a reader)

The minor can be counted among

called

seven

persons that are

on Sabbath to read the

is

Biblical portion of the week,

and

allowed to read his

portion.

^'*^

F.

Liabilities of

the Minor.
is

In Jewish law, one's intention

the basis for holding

one responsible for crimes and

fore,

injuries.

The

minor, there-

who, as was shown

in

the beginning of this chapter,

full

does not have the status of a person of

age

in acts

which require thought and intention, he

sible for crimes.

is

not held respon-

minor

is

not guilty,

when he
full

injures a
is

person of

full age."'*^

But a person of

age

guilty

when he
slaughter
of
full

injures a minor.
if is

minor

is

not guilty of manage, but a person

kills

he

kills

a person of

full
if

age

guilty of manslaughter

he

a minor.

G.

Legal Capacity.
legal capacity,
If

minor does not possess

and cannot,
people have

therefore, form the second party at a trial.

claims against him, they have to wait until he becomes

of
full

age.
in

The

question as to

the appointment of a

guardian

such cases, or as to the powers of the guardian

to represent the minors in trials,

was discussed

in

another

chapter.

H.

Qualification to act as a Witness.

of a minor
is

The testimony
3" Suk.

not accepted before he

reaches his thirteenth year and one day, and before he

Ill,

lo.

3i

posef. .Meg. III.

^42

3. K.

VIIL

4.

THE MINOR

IN

JEWISH LAW

LEBENDIGER
to

73

shows the presence of puberal symptoms.

fulfilled

After he has
give
is
is

these
in

conditions,

he

is

only qualified

testimony

connexion with movables.^*^

Unless he

exceptionally clever in matters of purchase, his testimony

not accepted in connexion with immovables before twenty.

Nor
when
it

is

the testimony of a person of

full

age accepted

has reference to things which he saw

when he was
is

a minor.

When, however, no
accepted."**

real

testimony

required,

but mere information about a certain matter, the testimony

of such a nature
is

Such a testimony

is

also

accepted

in

matters which have only a Rabbinical status.^^

I.

Co^XLusION.

The data
place the

in

the last five chapters indicate the important

in

minor has occupied

Jewish law, and the

attention that was paid to the minutest detail with regard

to his rights and powers.

In connexion with the attainment

that Jewish law with regard to
principles.

of majority

we remarked
itself

age shaped
This
is

on natural and psychological

true of Jewish law with regard to

life.

phases of

To

convince ourselves of this

many other truth, we have

only to recall what

we pointed

out before, that the under-

lying principle of the Rabbis in determining the rights and

powers of the minor, was the statement

has (capacity
of)

'
:

He

(the minor)

physical action, but not

of intention.'

This conception of the legal status of the minor was pointed

out to be a purely psychological one, and not the result
of theoretical speculation.

Lastly, as can readily be seen

institution,

from the history of the Mi'un

'*^

and the provision

B. B. 155
Ket. 28
;

3^*

Hoshen ha-Mishpat 35, 1-3 Hoshen ha-Mishpat 35, 4-6.

345 ji^i^i^

174

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

minor daughter, Jewish law adapted

of supporting the
itself to

circumstances, giving expression to

new

institutions

called forth

by new

conditions. Furthermore, this adaptation

to circumstances necessitated sometimes the use of certain

schemes and
Biblical law

artificialities,

by means

of which, though

no

was

violated, yet results

were obtained which

were

in direct opposition

to those that

would have been

This again

obtained by the application of the Biblical law.

proves what

we maintained

before, that Jewish law with

regard to a minor was not the result of abstract thinking,

but the embodiment of a response to the practical demands

of practical
life.

CRESCAS ON THE PROBLEM OF DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

By Harry Austryn Wolfson, Harvard
University.

CHAPTER
Positive
attributes,

II

Crescas's Criticism of Malmoxides.

contends Crescas, cannot be
in-

admissible, for that would reduce the accomplished meta-

physician in his knowledge of the divine being to the same

level

with the novice.

is

But that the knowledge of the

one's moral

divine

commensurate with
is

and

intellectual

perfections

generally admitted. *^^

True, Maimonides had

that though there

forestalled that objection

by declaring

can be no rising scale

there can
tions.
still

in

the positive knowledge of

God

be one

in

the discovery of additional negais

His explanation, however,

inadequate, for the

augmentation of negative attributes cannot mark an increase

in

knowledge.

True knowledge must be

scientific

and

demonstrative, a principle which had been advanced

Aristotle
^^

by

and upheld by Maimonides.*^"

It

is

not the

acquisition of

new

facts,

but rather the invention of new

proofs

that

knowledge grows by.

is

Now,

that

positive

attributes are to be rejected

demonstrable by a simple

argument based upon the proposition of divine absolute

existence

an argument which can be easily mastered even

I.

"

Cf. Morelt,

59.
3

'"'2

Cf. Physics,

I,

i.

Cf.

Moreh,

I,

55.

176

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

uninitiated in philosophy.

by those

And

once one has

mastered demonstration of the divine absolute existence

one can prove the inadmissibility of any positive attribute

that ma}-

come
new

up.

Any

additional negation merely in-

volves a

application of the identical argument,

and

thus adds nothing to the content of knowledge.

Hence
divine

Crescas
essence

asks with
is

added

emphasis
if

Since the

unknowable, and

you also deny the existence

there be a rising scale in
*^*

of essential attributes,

how can

the knowledge of the divine being?

Again, the inadmissibility of divine attributes

concilable with tradition.
identical with the
If

is

irreall

the divine qualities are

divine essence, then in

,^^

the prayer of

Moses, to be shown God's glory

asked
for
is

what the prophet had

was

to attain

the knowledge of God's essence.

But

it

highly improbable that Moses should have been

ignorant of the fact that the divine essence was unknowable.

Furthermore, tradition

has

differentiated
in that

the

Ineffable

Name

from other divine names

itself,

the former refers to

the divine nature

whereas the

latter are derivative of

is

His actions.
the Ineffable
thereof.

Now,

since the divine essence

unknowable

Name
if it

could not have been a designation

essential attributes

And

you also say that no

are existent, then

attribute.

could not as well designate any divine

it

What

part of the divine nature could

then

have referred to?

You

could not say that

it

designated

God's absolute existence or some of His negative attributes,

for
if

that were the case, the

meaning of the Ineffable

in

Name

would not have been kept

secrecy.

Hence, positive

attributes are not inadmissible.''^'

"
''

Cf.

OrAdoimi,

I,
I,

III, 3, p.
III, 3, p.

23 23

a.

"

Cf.

Exodus

33. 18.

C(.Oi- Adonai,

b.

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

WOLFSON
If

177

Nor
that

are relative attributes inadmissible.

you say

predications expressing temporal, spatial, or

some
such

other external relations of God, though not implying a

plurality in

His essence, are inadmissible because

imply
similarity,

all

relations, if real,

why

then

is

the affirma-

tion of

actions

admissible?

Actions, to

be sure, when

conceived as emanative from the divine essence, co-existing

ivith

Him

always

in

energy and never %vithin

Him

as a

mere

capacity,

do not by themselves imply the inherence

of external, imperfect qualities.

On
still

that account, Mai-

monides

is

perfectly consistent in rejecting positive attri-

butes and admitting actions.

relations.

But

actions are external

However they

are taken, actions express

some

relation

between God and the external, created

is
it

reality,

a relation which, like transient qualities,

transitional,

changeable and
does not imply

even though unlike the

latter
in

changeability and transitionality

related
objects.

the essences of the

Fcr even though we may explain the

apparent changeability in the divine actions as due to the

material objects operated upon rather than to the operative
agent, those actions,

when not viewed

as

dynamic

forces,
its

but as external static relations between the agent and

object, must of necessity like
all

external relations, and

especially like the relation between transient agents and

their objects,

be changeable and transitional.

is

That actions

present a phase of external relativity

an indisputable
pointed out,

assumption.

In

fact,

as

we have

already

Maimonides stands alone

and external
classes

in differentiating

between actions
distinct

relations

and separating them into two

of

predicables.
in

Most

of

the philosophers had

included actions

the class of external relations, permitting

the use of the latter as well as that of the former.

VOL. VII.

And N

so,

178
since

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Maimonides prohibits external
relations on account of

similarity,
""

why

should he not for the same reason prohibit

actions

In his discussion

of external

relations,

Maimonides

especially mentions the two classes

totle
"^
;

enumerated by Aris-

first,

the relation of reciprocity, and, second, the

rotation of degree of comparison.

The former
i-sUl
,

is

designated
latter

by him by the term

missible.

niD~i3Vn,

Arabic

and the

by

the term Dn\ Arabic

iu~j.

Both of these kinds are inadits

In rejecting the former kind, he states

characteristic of such correlatives to

reason

that

it is

be reciprocally
has

convertible.

The

contention

of this

phrase

been

variously interpreted
*^

by the commentators, and,

23
a.
'

as usual,

Cf.

Or Adonai,
its

I, III, 3, p.

Since attributes by which a thing

is

described in

relation to

something

else,
e. g.

which implies non-existence, are

inadmissible with respect to God, as

the transition of an object from a

state of potentiality to that of actuality \_Moreh, II, 55],

how

then does he

allow the use of attributes which only describe the actions of an object,
as
e. g.

doing, acting, creating

since these, too, imply non-existence

for

before the deed, act or creation, the agent

was

potential

and afterwards

became

actual.'

The meaning

of this argument had been

misunderstood by Abraham
:

Shalom and Isaac Abrabanel.

of transition

They

interpreted the argument as follows

Since essential attributes are to be rejected on account of the implication

from potentiality to actuality,

why

should not actions be

rejected for the

same reason.

And

so both of

them point out Crescas's

error in overlooking the distinction

essential

drawn by Maimonides himself between

(Cf. -l") /t?

attributes

and actions.

B'nT p"^ 'D

ph^

HIJ.)

Cf. also Abrabanel's

commentary on the
uncritical.

Morcli,

I,

55.

The rendering
an/
Cliisdat

of this argument
Crcscas,
p. 416,
"*

by Dr. Julius Wolfsohn (Dois

Eiiifliiss

Gasali's

p. 38,

note 2)

Cf. also

Kaufmann,

Atlribtttcnhlire,

note 85.

Cf. Orgaiion, Categories, ch. 7.

'

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

WOLFSON

179

the ancients like Profiat Duran, Asher Crescas, Shem-tob,

and Abrabanel had come nearer the truth than the moderns,
like

Solomon Maimon, Munk, and Friedlander.

*''

From

the

Organon

we may gather

the meaning of the statement to

be as follows.

Correlations are reciprocal not because of

a reciprocal relation existing between two objects in reality,

but

because

terms

by which

the

related

objects
'

are

designated

are

mutually

implicative.

Thus,

slave

and 'master' are reciprocally

'

correlative, but

'John' and

master

'

are not so, though in reality

John may be the

and
'

slave of the master.

Likewise,

'

wing
*

'

'

winged crea'

ture
not,

'

are reciprocally correlative, but

wing and bird are

'

though the bird

'

is

a winged creature.

Suppose now
in

that the term

slave

'

were used homonymously,

its

a sense
it

absolutely divorced from

still

original
'

meaning, would

be correlative with

'

master

In other words, must

a reciprocal correlation be so in reality as well as in

name ?

Maimonides
necessary.

seems to think that the

two conditions are

Reciprocally correlative terms must be mutually

implicative in

name and mutually interdependent

must be
in

in reality.

Consequently he maintains that by whatever term you

designate God, that term taken as
sense
is
it

an absolute

perforce a homonym, and therefore no reciprocal

relation can exist

between God and other beings.

Thus,

even
all

if

God

is

called the First

Cause or Principle, unlike

it is
'

other causes and principles,

its effect

absolutely independent
',

of
is

and consequence.
two

For

says Maimonides,

'

it

characteristic of

correlatives

by

reciprocation to be

mutually convertible, and

God

being necessary existence

and everything besides being possible existence, there can

be no such correlation between them.'
"

But, argues Crescas,

Cf. ibid.

l8o
while
it

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

true that the divine existence, viewed as

is

mere
else,
it

existence,

absolute and independent of anything

it

when however
because that
in

is

viewed as causative existence

causative nature
it

is

its

is

even

in

reality
its

dependent upon the existence of

essence.

effects

emanating from
it is

His existence

is

necessary because
it

not anteit

ceded by any prior cause, but

creative.

is

causative because
is

is

The

fact that

His causativity

dependent upon

the existence of
sity

its effects

does not detract from the neces-

of His

own

existence.

For necessary existence means

efficient causation.

nothing but the absence of

while the divine existence
is not."'* is

And

thus

absolute, the divine causation

God would share with it in the common property of eternity. To understand the full significance of this criticism we must first cite Aristotle's
Furthermore,
if

time be eternal,

'"'

Cf.

statement
relation

Of Adonai, I, III, 3, p. 23 b. 'It is difficult to comprehend the made by Maimonides, namely, that there can be no perfect between God and His creatures on account of the condition that
For, as

objects

which are correlative must be reciprocally convertible.

a matter of fact,

God must

inevitably be conceived as
its
is

Cause and Principle.

Since a cause
respect to

is

so with respect to
it,

effects

and a principle likewise with

what follows from some

relation

it

therefore evident that in this respect

there exists
I

between them.'

take this argument of Crescas to be an application of Algazali's con-

tention that necessary existence only implies the negation of prior causes.
Algazali's contention, as will be seen, reappears again in Crescas's exposition

of his

own

theory of Attributes
is

(cf.

infra,

ch. Ill,

note no).
premise.
the

In

this

argument, therefore, Crescas

reasoning from his

own
Of

Ifis, truly

speaking, not an argument against Maimonides.

will

same
to

nature, as

be pointed out,

is

Crescas's next argument from time.

This underlying postulate of Crescas's argument seems

overlooked by Abraham Shalom
(cf.

have been

y'S
cf.

N*^
also

3"' 'O

wh'C* ni3)

and

Abrabanel
p. 389,

(cf.

2"3 'D N"n HTlDn C'll^D),

Kaufmann'

Attributcnlehre,

note 47, and Julius Wolfsohn,

i.

Der

Eiitflitss

GazalCs auf C/iisdai

Crescas, p. 38, note

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

definition of the phrase
'

VVOLFSON
'.

l8l

being in time

To

be

in

time

may mean two

things, one, to co-exist ivith time, and, the

other, to exist in time

and be measured by
is

it.'^^

The

second meaning, however,

untrue.

rejected

by Aristotle
queries

as being

When,
any

therefore,

Maimonides

whether

there be

relation between
it

means whether
i7i

could be affirmed that

is

God and time, he simply God has existence

in the negative, for since

time, to which his answer

is

time

consequent to motion, and motion to magnitude,'^

an inextended being cannot be said to have temporal

existence in that sense.

But the question

is

now

raised

by

Crescas
in

Why

cannot temporal relation be affirmed of

God

the sense of co-existence with time, or to be

when time
com-

is?

The

relation

would then not

be, as in the first case, of

the dependence of

God upon

time, but rather of the

monality of eternal co-existence of two independent

entities,

God and
is

time.

The

hypothesis of eternal time, to be sure,

is

rejected

by Maimonides, but that

it

on quite other

grounds, and not because time, were

share with

eternal, could not

God

the property of eternity. '^^

in the case

Maimonides' rejection of temporal relation

of

God

is still less

justifiable

'

in

view of what has been said

premise that time
is is

in the

second part

in refutation of the
^?^

an accident consequent to motion

pitting his

Herein Crescas
its

own

definition of time with all

corollaries

against that of Maimonides, rather than criticizing the latter

71
''s

Cf. Physics, IV, 12, Cf.

i 8.

"
3,

Cf. ibid., IV, 12, 6.

witli

Or Adonai,
is is

I,

III,

p.

23

b.

'Likewise

regard
if

to

his

statement that there

that time

no relation between God and time, even

latter of

we

admit

one of the conditions of motion, the

still

which

is

a condition

of corporeal objects, there can

be a relation and
especially
if

similaritj-

between God
that time is

and time with respect

eternal.'

to

eternity,

we assume
''^

Cf. ibid.

l82

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

his

from

own

premises.

Following Aristotle, Maimonides

defines time as an accident adjoined to motion,

in

and to be
first

time

is

circumscribed by two conditions.

In the

place, the temporal object must have motion,"'^ and in the

second place,

it

must be comprehended by the

time,"' thus

not co-existing with the whole of the time, but only with a part thereof.
according to
Therefore, the eternal translunary spheres,
Aristotle,

which are endowed with rotary

motion, thus satisfying only one of the conditions, are said

to be in time only

by

accident.

The

eternal

immovable

Intelligences, however, satisfying neither of the conditions,

are not in time at

tion.

all.
is

And

so

God
is

has no temporal

rela-

Though God

said to have existed prior to the

world, the priority referred to

poral, since prior to

causal rather than tem-

the emergence of matter there had

defines time as an accident of
latter

been no time.

But Crescas
rest,

both motion and

entity and not a
fore,

meaning by the

some

positive

mere absence of

motion.'^"
is

Time, there-

being independent of motion,

likewise independent

of matter, and had existed even before the creation of the

universe.

And

so, the

immovable

eternal beings as well as

God may be
privative

said to have existence in time.

Finally, '^^ the divine negative attributes cannot form a

judgement

they must of necessity form a negative

Privative

judgement, thus involving an indirect affirmation.

judgements are possible only

in the case

where the subject

belongs to a different universe of discourse from that which

the predicate belongs
to.

When we

say that

'

a mathe-

matical point

is

not red', the judgement must truly be

II.
7c

" Cf. Physics, " OrAdonai,

'

IV, 12,
I, I,

cf. ibid., IV, 12, lo.

p.

XVI.

p.

iia, and

I, II,

XI,

19

a.

Jbid.,\, III, III, p. 25 a.

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

privative,

WOLFSON
correlatives,
'

183 not

denying red as well as

all

its

red' thus

meaning

colourless, because in the universe of

is

mathematical points there

position
'

no colour.
',

But

in the pro-

God

is

not ignorant

while

we negate
still,

not only

human
to
is

ignorance but also

human knowledge,

according

Maimonides, we affirm of God some knowledge which

identical with the divine essence,

and which has no known

relation with

human knowledge. Thus the negation of knowledge in the case of God cannot be an absolute privait must only be a negation of human tion of knowledge
;

knowledge which indirectly implies the affirmation of divine

knowledge.
Since divine knowledge
is thus affirmed by human knowledge, the two must have some

the negation of

kind of relation, however vague and inarticulate.

Divine

knowledge, says Crescas, must accordingly be

of apprehension of apprehension
'.

'

some kind
some kind
it

Now,
by the

let

us designate that

'

'

letter

X, and

see

whereabouts

would lead
"

us.'^^

Cf.

bute to

Or Adonai, I, III, 3, p. 25 a. God knowledge and power in

its

'

It is

quite evident that

a particular sense, meaning

when we attriby know[literally,

ledge the negation of

counterpart, namely,

human

knowledge

ignorance], and by power, the ne^aiion oi hitman power \\\i&ra.Wy, impotence],

either of these

two terms ascribed

differs

to

Him must

of necessity imply someis

thing positive.

For even though His knowledge

as different from our

still

knowledge as His essence

implied in the negation of

from our essence,

knowledge
[literally,

that

which

is

human

ignorance] must be

some kind
knowledge
positive

of comprehension or perception.
[literally,

That the negation of human

ignorance] must imply [the affirmation of] something

is

beyond dispute, since [being] the counterpart of that [negated] human knowledge [literally, ignorance], [it] must indicate a certain [positive] thing, namely, some kind of perception.'
and cognoscible,
I

have translated

the

term "iniD by
I

'counterpart'

rather

than by

contrary',

throughout these passages.

have likewise taken the terms

m^3D

and

TW^

to

mean

respectively
in contrast

human knowledge and human

ignorance in general, which

with divine knowledge and power,

184
First,

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

what would be the
?

relation

of that

to

the
it,

divine essence

It

cannot be accidental nor essential to

It

since both are debarred by Maimonides.

must, therefore,
said, is

be identical with the essence.

;

But X, as we have

not entirely unknowable for so much is known of it that The question is now, some kind of apprehension it is
'

'.

Is

it

co-extensive with the essence or not?

In the former
;

case, the essence

latter,

would have to be knowable

and

in the

the essence would have to be composed of a knowable

part.^

and unknowable

Furthermore, as

X stands
X
'

for the divine correlative of

human knowledge, so would V stand for the divine correNow, since human knowledge and lative of human power.
power are
different,

and

will

have to be
For
I

different.
think that
in

are nothing but ignorance and impotence at their best.

Crescas understood the term

the

negative attributes
it

',

used by Maimonides,
to

same sense as

interpreted
this

in ch.

I.

According

my

rendering

and interpretation of

argument as well as of those

that follow, the

objections raised against. them

by Abraham Shalom
I,

in his

Neveh Shalom
Crescas,

are ill-founded.
p.

(Cf.

Nevch Shalom, XII,

IV; JOel,

Don Chasdai
say that
positive
if

31
^"^

cf.

also

Es Hayyun by Aaron ben

I,

Elijah the Karaite, ch. 71.)

I

Cf.

Of Adonai,
it

III, 3, p.
it

25

a.

'Therefore

this

com-

prehension and whatever

to the

implies

were not something

His essence

and essential
it

Blessed One,

would have

to be

itself,

inasmuch as

could

not be an accidental attribute, since

accidents.

God can bear no

itself, it

relation

whatsoever to

Now,

if it

were His essence

First,

would give

rise to either of

these

two

absurdities.

were His essence

to include nothing but

what

we we

understand by the term comprehension, His essence would then have to

be knowable.

Second, were His essence to include something besides what

it

understand by the term comprehension,

parts,

composed of two
these two

namely, that which

we

would then have 'to be understand by the term

at
all.

comprehension and that of which

consequences
is

we have
is

no knowledge

Either of

absolutely absurd.

That the divine essence

cannot be an object of our knowledge,

well

known

to

every novice in

Metaphysics
parts
is

and that His essence cannot likewise be composed of two

to the
fact

due

that

God would
ibid.)

in

that case

have one possible

existence.'

(Cf.

Ncveh Shalom,

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

Hence,
if

WOLFSON

185

these attributes were identical with God's essence,

His essence would be composite.

Finally, suppose, however, that

X
'

is

absolutely unrelated
'

human knowledge, and that is not even some kind of apprehension The proposition God is knowing which according to Maimonides means that God is not ignorant would, therefore, be the exclusion of human knowledge and
with
'.
',
'

',

the lack thereof without at the same time affirming divine

knowledge.^^

But the judgement could not be

is

privative, for

though the divine knowledge

absolutely unrelated to the

therefore

human knowledge, and cannot

be
is,

indirectly

affirmed by the negation of the latter, there

however,

an absolutely unique divine knowledge which cannot be

denied
colour.
in

the

same way
so,

as

we can deny mathematical

And

negative attributes form negative judge-

ments.

But according to Maimonides negative attributes

that

mean

God

neither possesses those attributes as they

This, however,
is

are stated, nor their opposites.

to the law of excluded middle.
^^
'^^

contrary

Cf. ibid.

'Again,
to

it

has been shown, that the terms knowledge and

power, when applied

God. must mean something positive and cognoscible,

since in the case of negating [of God] either

ignorance]
[indirectly

or
to

human

poiver

[literally,

impotence]

human knowledge [literally, we must understand

affirm of

[divine] counterpart of

Him] something [positive], namely, either the human knowledge [literally, ignorance] or the [divine]
[literally,

counterpart of

human power

impotence].

But

it

is

clear that
[literally,

whatever

is

meant by the

[divine] counterpart
is

oiluiman knowledge

ignorance]
part of

is

not identical with whatever

[literally,

meant by the [divine] counterConsequently the meaning of

it

human power

impotence].

the one must differ from that of the other.

Hence

follows that neither of

them can be taken as

^^

identical with the divine essence, for in that case

parts.'

His

essence would be composed of different

Cf.
ibid.

(Cf.

Neveh Shalom,

ibid.)

'Again,

if

his

conclusion
it

with regard to the denial of

to affirm of

essential attributes

were true
are ignorant of

would be impossible

God

any positive implication of those

is

attributes,

inasmuch as the denial thereof

essential attributes but because

not because

we

any of His

l86

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

From

his

arguments against Maimonides' theory of

attributes, Crescas passes over to a discussion of the relation

between essence and existence.

In

its

origin,

among

the

Arabs and Jews, the problem

of essence

and existence was

much

simpler than in

its

later

development among the

itself in

Schoolmen.

To

the latter the problem presented

the following form.

Assuming the presence of

in ?^^

a distinction

between essence and existence within actual beings they

ask,

What

does that distinction consist

The

various

answers given to the question ran parallel to the solutions

offered to the

problem of universals,

real, conceptual,

or

nominal.

This evolved form of the problem, however,

bears only a remote resemblance to what seems to have

been

its

nucleus, namely, the controversy of

Avicenna and

Averroes.

To

these Arabic thinkers the problem of essence

itself in

and existence presented

is

the form whether existence

it

an accidental or an essential universal, and

originated

in the following

manner
is

That which

divided into the ten Categories

6v.

is

desig-

nated by Aristotle by the word to

The corresponding
language that

Arabic term

is

ojj>.^1,
{^'ri)-

a passive participle from a root

I" the Arabic

meaning 'to

find'

He does not possess any. Thus, God will have to be deprived of whatever we understand by comprehension or power. Neither of these can, therefore, be ascribed to Him either as parts of His essence or as essential attributes.
But as
it

is

evident that any kind of ignorance or impotence

it

[i.

e.

human

knowledge and power] must be negated of Him,

ignorance [i.e.
[i. e.

follows that*
[i.

He

is

negated both contraries or opposites, namely, knowledge

e.

divine] and

human knowledge], power

But that
is

[i.e. divine],
>

and impotence
Neveh S/ialom,
p.

human
;

power^.'

most absurd and inane

;

cf.

ibid.

JoCl,
;

Don Chasdai

Crescas, p. 31

Kaufmann,

Attributcnlclne,

478,

note 162
'

Julius Wolfsohn, Eiitfluss Algasalis, p. 40).

Cf.

R. P. Kleutgen,

La

Phiiosophie scholastique, vol. IH, chap. II;

M. Dc Wulf, Scholasticism Old and New, pp. 108-9.

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

passive participle joined to a noun

WOLFSON
in
is

187

the nominative
existent
'.

case forms a proposition

in this proposition,
it is

meaning

A
it

Now,

clear, that
it,

the existence affirmed of

identical with the

must be accidental to

for

were
is

essence of ^, argues Avicenna,

'A

existent' would
'

mean
to ov,

M
or

is

A'.

Existence

is

thus an accident.

Being

',

j^:.^l,

which

is

divided into the ten categories,

'

is

there-

fore resolvable into

that which

is

',

having

itself

existence

superadded to

its

essence,

and so

is

existence accidental to

the essence of all the ten categories.

existence
is

And, like

all

accidents,

applied to different subjects in unequal sense.

reality outside the

Meaning independent

mind, existence

is

primarily applied to substances which are self-existent, and

through these to the accidents of quality and quantity, and

through qualitatively or quantitatively modified substances,
it is
^*

also applied to the residual accidents.^^

According
to Isaac

As

the com-

Albalag (commentary on Algazali's Intentions) the

its

problem of essence and existence and unity had

origin in

two apparently
the works of

contradictory statements which he alleges to be found in

Aristotle.

In the Metaphysics (IV, 2) Aristotle identifies being (to uv)

'iv)

and

unity {to
In

with the essence of the subject of which they are predicated.

says Albalag, being and unity are stated to be

De Anima, however,

accidental to essence.

;y^n pjy bv "icson

;ni:i3n

"'i^*nn

nnn ^^in isDa luons

pn^"")

ivd

v^x

-ic^n

bv

c'IT'e

,:^3^n*

ynnn

inxu''

non po tj'n

xini

was, however, unable to identify Albalag's reference

II, i, 7,
is

in

De Anima.

In

De Anima,

the only place in that book

where being and unity

are discussed, there

accidents.
Cf. also

no indication that Aristotle had considered them as

Shemtob's commentary on the Moreh,

exposition of the
I

I,

57.

In

my

reason that had led Avicenna to consider

(Cf. Destruction
I.

existence as an accident,
Destruction,

have followed Averroes.

;

of the
latter

Disputation VII

Epitome of
vol.
I,

the Metaphysics,

The

passage

is

quoted by Munk, Guide,

ch. 57, p. 231.

Paraphrases of

l88

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

position of essence and existence, which

in

now assumed

every being, must necessarily be occasioned by a preitself, in

ceding cause, that cause

this passage of Averroes is
cf.

order to avoid an infinite

;

found

in

almost every commentary on the Moreh

also infra, note 86).

The following

observation

on

the

meaning of the Hebrew words

In early

mriDj mX^i'D, mI^'^ may be of some

interest.

Hebrew

translations

from the Arabic the terms TW^'' (being) and HIX^iflD (existence), were
sj'nonymous, both contrasted with
of Algazali's Infciitions, Part
II,

DinD

(quiddity),

cf.

Hebrew

translation

Metaphysics.

.ninon *n^3
In the

Hebrew

translation of Aegidius de Colonna's

is

De Esse

et

Essentia,

however, the term mN''i*D

are contrasted with

used as synonymous with niHO, both of which

mC.

13^ rivEn
(p- 96).

IS*

niiovBnD nns

nm

Nin

nvj.'\TLr

xin

nsna

3"n

The following explanation seems to me to be quite plausible. The Arabs, and after them the Jews, rendered the Greek ovala and
both from a root meaning 'to be', by
.iys-o

to

6v,

(niS^VO^ and i^^-a (SVDJ),

which, derived from the root 'to find',

'existent', respectivelj'.

usuall3'

mean
to

'existence' and

In addition to 'existence', they coined the term

'.
'

i-^Le (mriD), that

'quiddity'.

is,

'

quiddity

Existence

'

was

them the accident of

by

And

so even

when

ovula and ro ov are translated literally

^S {T\VT\ or TW)
as

and ^^0 (nin), from 'to be', the

'

latter are considered

'

synonymous with
to

existence

'

and therefore

accidents of
'

quiddity
'

'.

According

Averroes, as

we

shall see, the distinction of

existence

and

'quiddity' originally sprang from that inaccurate Arabic translation of the

term ovaia.

Now,
Greek

the Scholastics used the term essentia

among other terms

it

for the

ovaia.

Adopting from the Arabs the quidditas they used

Again, the Arabic
is

synonym-

ously with essentia.

.Jy*.*

(HIN^VD) became
in

^55^ Ivhich,
e.xistentia.

as

is

well known,

used by the Schoolmen

the sense of
just as the

Likewise, the Arabic

.ij-*-o

(NVD3) became

ens.

And

Arabs and

Jews used

to

speak of the distinction between 'existence' and 'quiddity'

sett

so they speak of the distinction between esse and essentia

ens and essentia sen quidditas.

quidditas or

Thus while

the

Hebrew

PIIN^i'JD

and the Latin

essentia are both originally

translations from the

Greek

ovaia, in the historical

development of ideas

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

chain of cause and effect,
that composition.

WOLFSON
that in

189

we must assume

to be free from

Thus Avicenna concludes

God

there

is

no distinction of essence and existence.^^

far

they have drifted away

apart from each

other.

Essoitta

is

identical

with with

niritt,
csse^

which
is

is

quite the opposite of niN^ifO,

and

niX''i*D is identical

which

the antithesis oi essentia.

Some of the Hebrew translators from the Latin saw that point clearly. Thus the translator of Thomas Aquinas renders the title of the latter's De ente et essentia by mnJD31 KJfrD33 lONlD fquoted by Steinschneider,
Uebersetzungen,

295, 5).

He

likewise translates literally essentia

by

nVn and

ens by

mn,

giving, however, for the latter its traditional

Hebrew

equivalent NiflDJ.

.mnn dk'O
.(quoted

nip^ sin ^.n^^dj^^ D^ic^ni ^nvnn o^r

ibid.)

dn /n

n^s-ir

c^niDD nix^vom mnon n:iy^b2'\ ^xvojn ^^'i The translator of Aegidius, however, renders the title De esse et essentia
by
ens
n'lN"'ifOni Ni*t33n
is

pr^

"1DNKD.

This, as

we have

seen,

is

inaccurate.

For

Ni*D3,

and

esse is niX^i*?^.

Again, while both essentia and niN''^D are

translations from the

Greek

ovaia, their

meanings are quite

different.

He

likewise renders the phrase essentia sen quidditas by

the
first

mnjSn IN
It

mN''i*?Dn

part of which

is

wrong again

for the

same reason.

should be

observed that the phrase sen quidditas, which the translator had
text, is not
essentia.
85

in his Latin

found in the Venice edition of 1503 of Aegidius's

a very important question which

Dc

esse et

There

is

wish

to

raise at this

point.

In the literature dealing with the problem of essence and existence

we

find

two

different formulas

which are invariably used

in affirming

the

absence of any distinction between essence and existence

being.

in

the divine

The

first

formula employed by Maimonides and some of his commentators

states that in
will illustrate

God
it

essence atid existence arc identical.

The following quotations

Dtt')

nnN -im

inini

iniN^voi

^niN^vr:n

n'^'-ino

Nin

>":rny'

nns

;ni2N) "inino

Nin

inis^VD

i^SN

nns imnci imx^vccr

3^

.(n"j 'a ,Dtr

Ni*r

-im irxc^

'n^

m^xn

bv "lown nv^jh bv d^o^:)do nn njn

190
In

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

opposition to this view, Averroes maintains
is

that

existence

identical with essence.

in

The two

are indistinis

guishable even

thought.

Anything thought of
To
illustrate
:

thought
is

The second formula used by Avicenna and Algazali states that God
existence ivithoid essence

added

to

it.

n^sn yir\) nina hi um^D

may now

nvjd:

Nin

pc^N-irr^*

d-idn ^11233

The
reasons

question

be raised whether these two different formulas

are advisedly used, implying

it

two

would seem

that the

distinct theories, or not. For several two formulas do not imply two different

theories.

First, as far as

we know,

there

is

no record of any controversy

to

between Maimonides and Avicenna and Algazali as

essence and existence are identical or

whether

in

God

He

is

existence without essence.

Maimonides

is

generally believed to follow Avicenna and Algazali on that

point, even though they use different formulas.

Second, from the following

quotations

it

may be

conclusively deduced that the

two formulas are used

indiscriminately.

Nine'
^3

,inin?D

sin

ncx mnvon

init:"

rc^JP'

nro

3^^inp

13^x1

mno hi

nis^vo ps n'^onnx nroN^r 1021 ^^\^

.(n"j '3

mna hi

mx'^*D
bi^h

p:; y^n)

as

Intentions of the Philosophers,

But the following passage from Isaac Albalag's commentary on Algazali's would on the other hand indicate quite
the latter's formula that

clearly that Albalag had taken

God

is

existence

without essence quite

literally'.

^^n:

ncn

nn ^nino n^3 ms^vo

^idij

n^Vkj-N-in

n^>ync' 'ir:N ']y^b

3^^m Dvyn bv

-i3n

i^^xir

mnnn
in

njrcxnn rh^vh hV^

y^

Again, from the following

Destruction, Disputation VIII,
issue
it

passage

Averroes'

Destruction
this

of the

would

also

seem that

was

a point at

between Algazali and Averroes as

it

to the interpretation of

Avicenna's

theory, the former maintaining that

essence, the latter that in

meant

that

God

is

existence without

God

essence

and

existence are identical.

\>'\^r\

pK'Nnb

in'':^

vh

D'*j':sn

*3

pvu^ hi

n?

i"3 tin


CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES
of as existent.

WOLFSOX
sure,
in

I91

This essential existence, to be

cannot

be affirmed as the predicate of a subject

position

a logical pro-

without involving

tautology.

But

conceptual

existences

may have
The
the

counterparts in reality, or

may

not

have them.

idea of

God and

angels, for instance, has

it.

something

in reality to

correspond with

The

idea of

centaurs on

other hand, though

likewise

involving

existence, has nothing outside the

it.

mind

to correspond with
(aK.r]di]s

The former

idea

is,

therefore, a true one

is

j.iU

PTIS),

the latter idea

is

a false one

(\l/evh]s
is

i_jilS^-3m).

For truth what

is

the correspondence of what

conceived with

perceived.

To

express this distinction between

either affirm or

a true and a false idea

its
is

we

deny of a thing
such existence

existence outside the mind.

The
Of

test of

knowledge, direct or
that
it is

indirect.

a true idea we, there-

fore, affirm

directly perceived or otherwise

known

to agree with reality.

Now,

in the

Arabic language, says

n"is"'VQnB'

ij-iDsn

Dir:Ni

;n"iN"'vn

x^n

mno
bv

i6^ nine ab^ niN^s?D

'^d'i:

^^yiEHJD
Nina^i

iN'jp

d:dn

"iNnn

nrci
1^

,"inio:fy

-isin

331102

^ninon bv ^dij i^n

ir:3

-iNnn

n]^ DV^St Nine' non irj^xm

ninr: )b

n^ac

bbn ninro
.('n

1^

px

Nintj>

ab ^niN^vc^ fi^nno
nijsn)

pN
wsin

r\bi<^

pb^m

Dm^non

mm

^b

That these two formulas represent two

distinct theories,

would

also

seem
'

to follow

from

this

passage of

Aliquid enim est, sicut Deus, cuius essentia est ipsum

Thomas Aquinas's De ente et suum esse

essentia.
;

et ideo

inveniuntur aliqui philosophi dicentes quod Deus non habet essentiam, quia
essentia eius non est aliud

quam esse

eius.'

As

to

who

the

aliqiti

philosophi

were, Cajetan identifies them with the Platonists, a term, as has been
observed, used by him loosely to indicate some gnostic sect
et essentia,
(cf.

Dc
is

ente

ed.

Emile Bruneteau,

Paris, 1914, p. 114, note i).

It

more

probable that

Thomas

refers there to Algazali.

Professor Maurice

De Wulf,

however, was kind enough to advise

aliqui philosophi refers to

me

that in his opinion the phrase

in the

some contemporary teachers

University of

Paris and not necessarily to some well-known philosophers.

192

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

S:>.^

AveiToes, the same root

essential existence,

'to find', which signifies the

means

also to find out the presence of

something by means of the senses or of the intellect. Thus God is existent means that God is perceived or
*
'

known

to have objective reality corresponding to our sub-

jective idea of

Him.

In the proposition

'

centaurs are not

existent

'

we

likewise

mean

to

deny the perception of

In either

centaurs to agree with our conception thereof.

case,

however, ideal existence

is

identical with essence.^''

The same

difference of opinion

between Avicenna and

Averroes recurs with regard to the attribute of unity.

5*'

Cf.
I.

Narboni's

Commentary on

Algazali's Intentions,

Metaphysics,

Part

nsTj' "luyi
piivn bv

sine >':^d
itJ'^*

pN

myt:

:i:ic^ nr

,tc-i

ps*

nnai
db'

^'y^'o

n\m 'nyn -nmn pnivn hv nnio nvdjh

i^ax

nibc'iDn |o baB'io bv ninN3 dj

nz^a.
1-l1^l^'

^pso

'^n

r\-\'pi:)

bv

mit^

D'-pTiynn imxc'y
D''p''nyr:n

nt^^o*^ 3*^n
njr^N*

.rnnmn

jio-b

"ji^n

^nvjcn
i>y

i:i3

^ax .p pjyn pNi ,pjyn

oti'

nr

-IDD2 nv3ins ni "isn-iaai

.imni nim*yn

vby nnv

-ib>k

bv

mv n

Nin NSJD3n DB'B' NiH ni3 m^DiJn niyun

nnDO

dhnc' yn^ ^nvniisn

N^x
,r:yn

,-1123

p^i'^n c'-Tj-n

Nin

bx

,n-ipD

bv nnv nraam ,nn3 nyi:n3

-inx
D'-pTiyon-ky

nr

^y

nmo n^n
b\f^

nnyn pc^a ixvd n^c'

mis*

,^ysni

nan

,mpnni nvyn ks
Dnvp v^y

D^^in "Diipn vn ib'n

n\-i

N^

,N^*r33n

DtJ'2
"i::'^

mn

^p.c'N-i

^c'cn

n3>n

,'\!y\b

^Jin

vby

mv

pjy ^3x ,nipo bv

n-ivi

^mwn

p:y i:co pvt:'

.3"y

"^jiE'^

N^ /^niDN^D u^ Nim ^nin

is

nm

^3 Nini ,m?D^'yn db'

But Aristotle himself, as

usages of the term to
6V,

well known, distinguishes four different

to those

two of which correspond

mentioned by

Averroes, namely, (i) in the sense of truth and falsehood (To ov ^iyirai to
fxiv

Kara av/dPfPrjKvs) (2) that which

,

is

divided into the categories ('Ert ra

/i^

(ivai ar/fiaivfi koi

(cf.

ru (artv
7,

on

d\r]6es,
;

to Si

dvat uti ovk a\7]9(s dA\d \pev5os)

I,

Metaphysics, IV,

V, 2

Grotc, Aristotle, vol.

chap. III).

Thus

it

is

not altogether the translator's fault that Avicenna confused the two mean-

ings of the term (see the interpretation of Averroes' criticism given by

Munk, Guide,

vol.

I,

p. 331).

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

VVOLFSON

193

Here, again, for similar reasons Avicenna maintains that,

like existence, unity
roes,
is

only accidental to essence.

is

Aver-

on the contrary, maintains that unity

identical with

essence, but distinguishing between absolute

unity,

and numerical
it

he admits the
kind

latter to

be accidental, and
is

is

this
in

accidental

of unity

that

always referred to

propositions affirming unity.

Among

Jewish philosophers, Maimonides and his im^'^

mediate disciples

followed Avicenna.

All later Jewish

thinkers accepted the view of Averroes.^

Having a new
the

theory of his

own, Crescas

undertakes to expose

untenability of both the old systems.

Whatever the meaning of existence with respect

creatures
is

to
it

may

be, contends Crescas, with respect to

God

generally admitted,

by both the Avicennean and the

is

Averroesean groups, that existence

divine essence.

identical

with the

Hence

it

must be

inferred that they all

interpret the attribute of existence

homonymously,

for as

there

is

no relation between the divine and the created

so there cannot

essence,
87

be any relation between their

b.

cf.

Did Abhandhtngen
T'Oi^n), edited

von Josef

Jelntda

(miH^

-l"3 ^QX<

'"1

lONO

D"2Din
88

by Moritz Lowy,

Berlin, 1879,

Hebrew

text, p. 15.

Cf.

commentaries on the Morch, as well as the commentaries of

Iiiteniions.

Narboni and Albalag on Algazali's

ch.
I.

Cf. also Albo's Ikkarim, II,

Narboni, in his commentary on the Intentions, after quoting at

:

length Averroes' arguments against Avicenna, adds the following remark

'

have dwelt rather too long on

this subject,

because

have noticed that

the savant, our Master Moses

[i. e.

Maimonides], following Algazali and

is

Avicenna, had begun one of his chapters by saying that "existence

accident superadded to the existent being".

an

Would

that that statement

had

not existed.'

viDDa

nsro: n::'D

irm oann
h^r\T\T\^

tt's-ic'

r\rh
s'J''D

;nr iin'33 ^naixni

nis-'vcn ,vp"i2D

pisa

ny ,nn

pNi

nron i3n*

nyn nnx

VOL.

VII.

J94
existences.
I

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Consequently, queries Crescas,
is
'

Would

that

could conceive what

the significance of the term exist-

ence when applied to God, for our affirmation that

is

God
from
'.^''

existent, in
is

which the

latter

term

is

not different
is

the former,

tantamount to our saying that God

God

Two

inaccuracies of this

argument of Crescas must not be

In the
first

passed over unnoticed.

that the

place the

inference

homonymous
its

interpretation of the term existence

is

must follow
erroneous.

identification with the divine essence,

Gersonides, for instance, follows Averroes in

still

the identification of essence and existence, and

inter-

prets the latter ambiguously, according to the distinction

of priority and

posteriority.'"^

In

the second

place, in

interpreting existence

homonymously Maimonides circumit

vents the objection of tautology by taking

of the negation of non-existence/'^

as an emphasis

But the objection

created existences
his followers,
if

may

be urged even with regard to

the view of Averroes and

we accept

who
*

consider existence to be nothing but the

'

essence.
is

For, according to this view, the proposition

'

man

existent
*

or
is

white

is

existent
*

'

would be equivalent to
white
In
'.^-

saying
is

man

man

'

or

white

is

This criticism
is

neither original nor irrefutable.

fact, it

the very
in

same argument that had been advanced by Algazali

and
I,

support of the Avicennean theory of the distinction between

existence
^^
90
"

essence/^"

Again, Averroes's

refutation

Or Adonai,
Cf. Cf. Morel,,

III, i, p.

2ib-22a.
46
b,

Milhamot, V,
I,

III, 12, p.

and

III, 3, p.

23
I,

a.

58.

92

Or Adonat,
:
'

III, i, p.

22

a.

'

Cf. Algazali's Intentions,

Metaphysics

In refutation of the
:

view that

existence and essence are identical, he says

This

is

refutable on
it

two

grounds

first,

when we

say the substance

is

existent

is

evidently

a proposition conjoined of

two

terms.

Now if the

existence of the substance

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

thereof, based

WOLFSON
all

195

upon a

distinction in the use of the

term
the

existence,

was well known and had been quoted by

commentators on the Moreh.^^

The view The term

term
is

held

by Avicenna

that existence
is

is

only accitenable.
in

dental to the essence, says Crescas,

accident

still

less

had been used by Avicenna

specific/^^

two

senses, a general

and a

In

its

general sense the

applied to everything which requires a subject of

In
its specific

inhesion.

sense, however,

it is

applied only

to those that require a subject of inhesion,

and of which the

instance, ivhite
in

subject of inhesion

is

independent,

as, for

and

cloth.

Form,

therefore,

though an accident

the

general meaning, having no existence apart from matter,

is

not an accident in the specific meaning of the term, since

in its turn
is

Matter
so

has no subsistence without Form.

And
with
if

Form

included

among

the four Substances.

It is

reference to these
I

two meanings of the term accident,

Crescas urges the

am

not

mistaken, that

next two

arguments against Avicenna's accidental interpretation of

were the essence
substance.'
of
it,

our statement would

assert

that

substance

is

nm
^
^^

Ni*D3 Dvj:n

moNtr

,nno nnN* ^d^:d ^x' nos:

nti

Cf. supra, notes

84 and 86.
I.

Cf. Algazali's Intentions, Metaphysics,

He

divides there existence

(mN"'if?D) into

two

classes

one, which needs an abode (pD'D) as accidents

(D^^pD), and another, which has no need for an abode.

Those which need

is

an abode are again divided into two classes

one, where the abode

is

independent of the accident, and, another, where the abode

dependent
accident

upon the accident.

In the former case the accident bears the

is

name

(mpC), whereas
the accident
is

the abode

called the subject (Ntt'lJ).

In the latter case

called

In fact the inclusion of the

Form (iTlli*) whereas the abode is called vXr] i^^PVn). Form among the Substances is opposed by the
it

Mutakallemim,
(cf.

who

consider

as a

mere accident dependent upon

its

abode

Moreh,

I,

73, proposition 8).

O 3

196
existence.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Assuming
at first that

by

interpreting existence
in
its

as

an accident Avicenna uses the term accident

specific sense, Crcscas

absurdity.^*'
If

attempts to reduce that view to an

said to

anything,
its

be existent, has

its

existence added to

essence, that existence, which

we

may designate
accident
it

as primary, being merely an accident, cannot

be self-subsistent.

In compliance with the definition of

in

must have existence

something

else.

Thus

accidental primary existence will have accidental secondary

existence.
will

By analogous

reasoning the secondary existence

need to have

tertiary,

and so the process

may go on

ad infinihcinP"'
9^

Or Adonai,

I,

III, i, p.

22

a.

'

No

less a difficulty
in all other

may

be pointed out
is

in the

view of him who states that existence

is

beings

outside the
if

essence to which the former

is

superadded as an accident.

For

existence
will

an accident

it

must have a subject of inhesion, and thus existence

If the other

have existence.

existence

is

also an accident, that, too, will

still

require a subject of inhesion and thus will have a

other existence, and

so on to

infinit}-.'

"

This argument had been anticipated by

many

authors.

Joseph Ben

Judah, Ibn Aknin, a disciple of Maimonides, both raises and answers this
objection
(cf.

Drei Abhandlungen von Josef

b.

Jchuda, von Moritz LOwy,

Berlin, 1879,

Hebrew

text, p. 15

It is

also found in Albalag's

commentary on the

Intentions, Metaphysics

I
.n^bn ^rhi ny pi ,mN"'VD
The argument
is

niN^^'o^i ^niN^vD miC'^irh

also found in Aegidius's

Dc

esse et essentia,

which had

been translated into

Hebrew

at about the
:

middle of the fourteenth century

(Jews' College, London, 268)

nmn
nnx

nrj'M

i^

r\'^r\^

,iy3UD -lan xin

n*3v ,-ins*

inic^:;'

-i3i

b^^ yy^ d"k

nnyai
idd
,-inN

xinc mc'^n iniN h^

->an t.tk'

im

hh\2 ni-tj'

,ni::'^n:;'

nnv

.njis^'xnn

nao^

h^M

xavt'

/Dvyn

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

If

WOLFSON
in

I97

you say, as had been really suggested by Algazali,

that existence, like

Form,

is

an accident only
its

the general

acceptation of the term, on account of

essence, but again
like

dependence upon

Form

it

is

a substance, and thus

is,

capable of self-subsistence, the question

Why

should

existence be called accident any more than Form, since

both, though accidents in the general sense of the term, are not accidents in
its

specific sense

? ^^

Thus, existence

can be neither identical with the essence nor accidental

to
it.

Nor can unity be

essence.

identical with or

accidental to the

The arguments employed

There

here

by Crescas
in

are

merely a repetition of those employed by him

of existence.
is,

the case

however, one novel argument.

definition of unity as the
' :

Quoting the commonly accepted

negation of diversity, he continues

and
is

if

we say

that

unity, signifying the absence of plurality,

identical with

n:i3n

^j?i

^^ib

mc>"'

ii,)nu

nuy^
.n'-i'^n

^D''NV>Djn

b^b

r\)U''n

nno

hntb^

'r62b

m^on

nybnr\

nnM

mnx
;

Likewise Gersonides urges the same argument against the accidentality

of unity,
cf.

which he says may

also be applied to the accidentality of existence

Milljamot, V, 12.

3^"'"in"'

n:n
sin-^2

)i

xvjdj

no nnpo nvD nnx nan

rvr^'^u

b'2

hnt dnc'

myi

nnx
naon
n^'ro

isino

.-in:

"Tib

nv2 v^y umnc^D mpDn nn

^m
i3x:;o:

T\^h'\

rr'i'an

vh h^

i^^i

nns
Dvyj'

mpo
fiDij

nvo

rbv

N^'o,:n

mv

n^' y-\

^n^'dj

-im b^

ionj o":

.ninDH bv
^^
*

mpo

Furthermore, existence
to

is like

Form

in its relation to

Matter, since,

according

their

contention,

without

that

accident

[i. e.

existence]

the subject would have been nonexistent.

And

so, since that accident

it

bestows existence and permanency upon

tlie

substance,

deserves to be

called Substance prior to the subject, just as

to Matter, as
called
it

has been stated in the

is

Form is called Substance prior Physics^ Book I. But existence is

by them accident, which

an incorrigible contradiction.'

198

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

it

the essence of the object predicated by one,

that
all

would follow
essence'.''^

objects described

by one are one

in

This argument

may be

easily identified as the application

of the well-known mediaeval

argument against the identity

theory of universals as well as against monopsychism.^^'^

CHAPTER
Crescas's

III

Theory of Attributes.

It would be comparatively easy and not altogether

unjustifiable to

dismiss Crescas's theory of attributes as

a conglomeration of incongruous statements.

Such, indeed,
critic.^"^

was the verdict passed upon

difficulties

it

by an early
in

The

which one encounters

the attempt to give

Besides

a constructive presentation of his view are many.

the lack of coherence and definiteness in his exposition,

Crescas seems radically to contradict himself

to prove that divine, attributes are positive,

Starting out

upon getting

embroiled

in

the inevitable difficulties consequent to such

a thesis, without

much ado
all

Crescas quite unostentatiously

of the attributes are negative

concludes that after

'>^

some
22 b.

Or Adouai,

I,

III, 3, p.

"">

Cf. Gersonides, Milhamot, V, 12.

bj'

'

For

if

unity were a genus

it

could

not be predicated of the differentiae

which the species which are included

For example, animalitj'
.

under
bj-

it

are classified, for the genus cannot be predicated of the differentiae

its

which

subordinate species are classified.

is

not predicable of rationality and volatility.'

D^^jnann

b)i

nnxn ^^'yc

n-j-as

"n^a .th

,:id

nn^xn

n'T\

dnc

.niDSiyni -lu-tn
"' Cf.

Abraham Shalom's
changes
liis

Neveli
in

Shalom, XII,
an instant.'

I.

3.

-It

is

surprising

how

that author

view

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

in

WOLFSON

199

meaning.

If negativity
it

is

to be the ultimate solution

it

of some of the attributes,

had been asked, why should

all

not be equally applied to

the attributes, and what

is

then

the
?

meaning of
^^

all

his

contentions
is

against

Mai-

monides

This inconsistency, however,

too apparent

to be real, and the absence of

any explanation on the part

of the author of what appears to be an abrupt reversal of

his

own

position, leads us at least to suspect

whether

his

final

statement

does

really

reverse

his

original

thesis.

While we do not hold a

brief for the author, defending

him

against his critics as to the adequacy of his justification of

positive essential attributes,

we

shall,

however, endeavour

to give a constructiv^e and consistent view of his attempt

to

do

so.

If the

problem of
first

attributes, as I
is

have attempted to
question

show

in

the

chapter,

in its final analysis a

as to the relation of the universal essence to the individual

in order to understand Crescas's position

on attributes wc
Suggestions

must

first

construct his theory of universals.

available for the construction of his theory of universals arc abundant.

roes,

He

differs

with both Avicenna and Aver-

and with the

latter

more than with the former.

is

Admitting with Avicenna that the universal substance

distinct

from the individual, he

differs

with him as to the

relation

between

these

two.

According to Avicenna,

lo^

Cf. ibid., XII,

I,

4.

'This author has just stated that existence

that unity

means not nonexistence, and

means the absence

of pluraHty.

How

then could he have said, just an instant before, that existence and

unity are essential attributes?'

,-ny: 'n^i invn

b>v

nnv

niN'-vcnc' -icisn

xin nrn osnn n:ni

rh^]-!

la^ yn3

~^\:h

inyi

n\T

-[wi

/13-1

inrn

hv

nnnNni
xvo^n*^

.D"cvy

Dnsn inxm

200

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

while the universal does not exist apart from the individual, nor the individual apart from the universal, they can

both at
Crescas
thought.

least

be thought of as separate existences.

But
in

insists

upon

their

mutual interdependence

Differentiated in thought

though they

are, still in

thought they are inseparable.

or

Not only cannot

without

rationality

animality

be conceivable

the individual hu-

man

essence, but likewise the individual

human

essence

cannot be conceived without the universal conceptions of

rationality
says, are
'

and animality.
conditions
'

Such

'

essential universals

',

he

of the individual essences, not

mere

mental abstractions or inventions, but

real entities, so united

;

as not to be distinguishable except by thought

but they

are also so mutually implicative as not to be thought of

one without the other.

What

essential

universals,

which form the

definition,
all

are to the individual essence of the defined object,

attributes are to the divine essence,

the

and they are

positive.

But before proceeding any further

sense in

let

us explain the special

attribute.
first

which Crescas uses the term positive

Positive attribute
it

may mean two

it

things.

In the

place

means the existence of

qualities distinct from the essence.

In the second place,

means that any predicate affirmed

its

of

God

is

used

in

a sense not entirely unrelated to

original, ordinary
(~iNn) is

meaning.

In

Hebrew

the

same word

used

in

these two senses.

'

In English, however,
'

we
'.

may
Now,

call
in

the one

attribute

'

and the other

predicate

the different theories of attributes which

in

we have

analysed

a previous chapter, the main controversy was

'

not about the attributes

',

but rather about the

'

predicates

'.

Both Maimonides and Gcrsonides admit that God does not

possess any attributes distinct from His essence.

Their

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

reasons, however, vary.

WOLFSON
from
in

20I

The former
dififcrent

maintains that in this

other beings,
created

respect

God

is

absolutely

whereas the

latter

believes that

even

beings

essential universals are not distinguishable

from the indivi-

dual essence except in name.

And
'

so,
'

while both deny

within the divine
'

the distinction of essence and

attribute
'

substance, Maimonides interprets the

tives,

predicates

as nega-

that

is

to say, as

homonymous
is

terms, but Gersonides

to say, as

interprets

them

as positives, that

ambiguous

terms applied to

God and

to other beings in a related sense,

secimdnm prius

et posterius.

Now,

Crescas, as

we

shall see,
in the

endeavours to prove that attributes are positive both

sense that the divine substance
attribute,
is

composed of essence and

and

in the sense

that the predicate affirmed of

God

is

a related term.

This, howev^er, does not

is

mean

to

say that every single attribute

senses.
its

positive in both these

in
it

If

it

can be shown that a certain attribute, even

application to other beings, has no positive meaning,

still

can

be called positive predicate, because of

its

being
In

applied to

God and

to other beings in a related sense.

is

the proposition

A',

for

instance, let us say that

'

means

Y.

If

we then

affirm that

God
to

is

X\
is

using here
',

in

the

same sense

as in the proposition ^A

X
is

we may

then say that

predicate, even
in this sense

in its application
its

God

a positive

though

meaning

is

negative.

'Positive'

would not

refer at all

to t\\Q positive content of

;

the term employed as the jaredicate of the proposition

it

would rather
the term in

refer to
its

llio.

positive relation of the content of

application to God, to the content of the

same term
itself

in its application to other beings, the content

being either positive or negative.

all

Of

the attributes, existence and unity stand out as

202
a class

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

by themselves.
its

They

are

to

every individual
it

essence what
are
to
it.

essential universals
for

by which
his
his

is

defined

Man,

instance, besides
rationality,

two

essential

universals. animality

and

and

many

adventi-

tious qualities, has also the

two attributes existence and

unity,
essence.

which

like

the

former are inseparable from his

For existence and unity are conditions of thought,

is

without which nothing

conceivable.

'

Every essence
outside
;

must unconditionally have objective

reality

the

mind V"" which

is

the meaning of existence

and every

such actually existent substance must be one and limited.^"*

The

relation that

commonly

obtains between the attri-

butes of existence and unity and every individual essence,

likewise holds true between both these attributes and the

divine essence.

As

to the

meaning of existence, however,

there are two phases, a general and a specific.

The

general

meaning
is

is

negative and invariable, but the specific meaning

positive

and subject
is

to variations.
;

The
that
of

general meaning
is

of existence
plurality.

non-subjectivity
that
sense,

of unity

nonis

In

each

these

attributes

invariably applied,

without any

shade of difference, to

accidents, substances,
existence, however,
is

and God.
objectivity,

The

specific

meaning of

and the

specific

meaning

of unity

is

simplicity.
is

In this positive phase each of these

in

attributes

applied

different

degrees

to

accidents,

substances, and God.

Substances are more objective than

103

Or Adonai,
quotation
Ibid..
I,

I, III,

i,

p.

22

a.

and

cf.

in

note 105.
3, p.

'M

HI,

22

b.

anij cf. quotation in

note 105.

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

WOLFSON

203

accidents, since the latter have no reality except as part of

the former.

Likewise, substances are

more simple than

accidents, since the latter, again, are divisible not only

their

by

own

potentiality, but also

by

that of their subject of

is

inhesion.

And

than

both

God

more

real

and more

simple in a superlative

degree.^*^-^

All other attributes, however, that with

respect

to

created beings are only accidental, differ in their application

to

God

not only in degree but also in the manner of their

to

relation

His essence,

for all

the divine attributes are

inseparable and essential.

attributes of Priority,

Crescas especially mentions the

Priority
in

Knowledge, and Power.

is is

implies time, and time

all

an accident related to motion

subject to the variation of
it

created being, and

more

or

less.

With

respect to God, however,

p.

is

essential

and
must
to
it.

^5 Ibid., I, III, I,

22a.

'It has thus

been shown by an irrefutable

It

argument
therefore

that existence cannot

be accidental to the essence.

itself

be either identical with the essence

or

essential
in

Since

it

cannot be the essence

it

itself,

as that

it

has been
to say,

shown
that
it

the

first

argument,

must be essential

to

it,

is

is

one of the

conditions of the essence to exist outside the mind.

Just as animality
it

and rationality are said

to

be the

human
all

essence, so

is

one of the
so the term

conditions of the essence to have extra-mental existence.

And

existence

is

applied univocally to
is,

beings that are not prior to one

accidents, therefore,
is

another, that
the term
is

excluding accidents.

Of substances and

applied ambiguously, since extramental existence

it

primarily

applied to substance and through

subsequently to accidents.
is

The general
is

meaning, however,
It is

is

that

whatever

predicated by existence
is

not absent.

in this

sense of non-absence that the term

applied to

God and
its

to

other substances, except that to

It
is

God
is

it

is

applied

primarily and to

other beings subsequently.

application to
certain
ibid.,
I,

thus clear that the term existence in

God and
of
I,

to

other beings
[i.e.
is

not a perfect

homonym,
is

but

it

is

kind
III,

ambiguity'
p.

secundum

pritis et posterius].

Cf. also

22

b.

'

It

thus clear that unity

It is

not the essence

itself

nor anything added to the essence.

is

something essential
is

to everything that

actually existent

and

limited,

and

a mental dis1,8.

tinction with respect to the absence of plurality.' Cf.

Hobot ha-Lebabot,

204

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

if it

inseparable as

were His
;

definition.

Furthermore,

it

is

used in a superlative sense

first,

thus acquiring the meaning of

eternal, or rather that of uncreated.

The same

holds

also true of Knowledge and Power.

In created beings they

are inseparably

are acquired and accidental

essential.

in

God they

Again,

in

created

beings they are each in a

are in the

limited
possible.

degree, in

God they
terms.

highest

degree

Thus

all

the divine attributes are ambiguous, but

not

homonymous
in

While they

differ

from their

ordinary usage

degree, or in both degree and relation to

essence, they all share in

common

their

primary meaning.

Existence, unity, priority, knowledge, and power, in their

application to God, are in their primary

meaning related to
to created

the corresponding terms

beings.^*^''

in

their

application

But would not that relation imply similarity?

tries to

Crescas

answer

this question as follows

Related terms are

;

similar,
is

when the

relation has

some numerical value

that

to say,

when the

related terms are both finite.

is

When
a finite

one of the terms, however,

infinite, its relation to

term has no numerical value, and hence they are dissimilar.

The

divine attributes, as has been stated, are used in a

superlative degree.
all his

His knowledge

is

infinite,

and so are
in

other attributes.

Thus, while they arc related

meaning
value,
^^'

to created attributes, their relation has

it

no numerical

whence

does not imply similarity.^""

Cf.

supra quotations in note 105.

I,

"" Ibid.,
similarity
Still,

III, 3,

pp. 235-243.

'We

say, there

is

no doubt

that

any

between God and His creatures must be dismissed as impossible.

though the perfection [attributed to

God and

to

His creatures] belong

to the

same genus, there

is

no similarity between them, since they are

so widely distinguished whether with respect to necessity and possibility

of existence or with respect to finitude and
infinity*.

This

is

the

meaning

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

There
obviate.
is
'

WOLFSON
us
',

205

another difficulty which Crescas endeavours to

is

It

now imperative upon

he says,

'

to

explain

why

the negation of essential attributes does not

necessarily follow our acceptance of the proposition that

everything that

is

composed
This

of

two elements cannot be two

necessary existence.'

difficulty presents itself in

ways.
is

First, since there are

many attributes,

each of which

distinct

from

all

others,
is

it

would follow that the attribute

is

part of God, which

not unidentical with but

inseparable

from His essence, would have to be composite.

Second,

the aggregate of those attributes taken as a whole, being

distinct

from the divine essence, would together with that

essence imply a plurality in the divine substance.

With

regard to the

first,

Crescas maintains that

all

the attributes

are mental modifications of the single attribute of Goodness.

Though

not identical with goodness,

it

all

the other attributes

cannot be separated from

even

in thought.

The

relation,

therefore, of the individual attributes to the general

good-

ness

is

similar to that of the attribute as a

It is

whole to the

essence.^*^^

this

mental inseparability which makes

God?
or

.of the verse

"To whom
? "

then will ye liken

[Isa. 40. 18].
is

what

likeness will ye

compare unto Him

only that kind of similarity

a certain comparison.

The prophet thereby explains that forbidden to attribute to God which implies
there

But as the alleged similarity between God and

can be no
there
is

His creatures

is

incomparable, for
infinite

relation

and also

comparison between the

and the

finite,

no implication of
according

real similarity in the affirmation of attributes.'

1^

That the relation of the individual attributes

to

Goodness

is,

to Crescas, similar to the relation of

Goodness, or the totality of attributes,

'Just as

to the essence,

may

be inferred from the following passage:

existence

essence cannot be

conceived without

nor existence
its

without

essence, so the attribute cannot be conceived without

subject without
its

subject nor the

attribute.

And

all
is

the attributes the

are likewise com-

prehended

in absolute
I,

goodness, which

sum

total of all perfections'.

Or Adonai,

III, 3, p.

25

b.

2o6

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

all

them

one.

In this, indeed, he follows Maimonides'

explanation of the plurality of divine activities, with only

the following two exceptions.

Maimonides takes

intelli-

gence as the unifying principle, whereas Crescas takes

goodness

and,

again,

Maimonides considers

all

other
in

activities as

different aspects of intelligence

which are

reality

identical

with

it,

whereas Crescas considers the

other attributes to be distinct from goodness.

Upon

the

fundamental difference between intelligence and goodness

more

will

be said

later on.^''^

With regard

to the second,

Crescas maintains that the mental

essence and attribute
is

distinction

between

not contradictory to the conception

of necessary existence, since they are inseparable in thought.

Necessary existence excludes composition only

in so far as

that composition would necessitate an external agent

by

which that existence would have been rendered conditional.

Such would be the case

ceived to
consist

if

the divine substance were conin

of parts which could

of.

any way be
substance the

separately conceived
attributes

But

in the divine

and

the

essence

cannot

be thought of

one

without the other, just as the essence and the radiative

quality of a luminous object cannot be thought of separately.
It is

the possibility of being separately conceived

fact of a

and not the mere

against

mental distinction that militates

necessary existence.*''^

This

answer, however,

concludes Crescas, must be resorted to only in the c^se of

attributes
instance.
""

whose

primary meaning

is

positive,

as,

for

Power and Knowledge.

There are some

in this thesis.

attri-

In

tlie

chapters on Crescas's theory of Divine Omniscience and the

Purpose of tlie Universe which arc not inchided "0 This line of reasoning sounds like a
note 38 and chap.

modified

and

moderated
I,

restatement of Algazali's definition of absolute simplicity

II,

(cf,

supra, chap.

note 70).

; ;

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

butes

WOLFSON
final

207
is

whose

positive

meaning

in

the

analysis

nothing but a negation.

ence, for
instance,
is

The

positive

meaning of Exist-

nothing but a mental antithesis of

is

absence

that of unity

a mental antithesis of plurality

in

that of priority
infinite priority

when applied
comes
and
to

a superlative sense of

mean

not-having-been-created,

which

is

eternity,
relation.
in

in its final analj'sis.

the absence of

temporal
to

Though

these attributes, too, are applied

God

the same positive sense as to created beings,

sense,

their

positive

however,

in

both

cases

is

only a

negation.^^^
^11

OrAdoftai,

I,

III, 3, p.

24

b.

'

It

is

now

left

for us to explain

that

the negation of essential attributes must not necessarily follow the accepted

proposition which states that whatever

existence.
in

is

composite cannot have necessar}-

The explanation of
First,

this is not difficult,

and

it

may be

stated

two ways.

though with respect

to ourselves the attributes are

separate, with

respect to

God they
is

are unified.
all

The

infinite

goodness

which
one.

is

essential to

God comprehends
true

the attributes rendering

them

Second, that proposition

onl}'

under a certain condition,

is

namely, when the joined and composite object

an agent
to

such that

it

requires
part

perform
is

its

composition
its

as,

for instance,

when each

of the composition

part of

essence, in which case

we must

say that

the composition brought about by the composing agent

.composite object.

is

the cause of the

for

But the Blessed One has no divided substance,

His

substance

is

simple in an absolute sense, and goodness in general follows

from him essentially.

Why,

then,

is

it

impossible that

God should

be

necessary existence by His essence even though goodness in general or

infinite

knowledge, power, and the other perfections

essentially, just as light could
if

in particular, follow

from

Him
?

have eradiated from a luminous

to be necessary existence

object,

even

that object

were assumed

by

its

essence

Would

the assumption of necessary existence render the radiation

of the light impossible ?

difTerent

No

For the

light is not

something essentially

from the substance of the luminous object, and thus does not
its

require an external agent to bring about

it

composition with the latter

is

rather something essential to the luminous object and appropriately

thereof.

predicable

That

is

exactly the meaning of divine attrributes.

So much the more the

attribute priority

which
is

is

a mental

distinction

of His not having been created, existence which

an indication

of His

208

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

This would seem entirely to dispose of the negative The burden of authority, interpretation of Attributes.
however, weighed
heavily,

and while Crescas dared

dis-

agree with Maimonides, for

which there had been many

precedents, he could not completely ignore the views of

Ibn Gabirol, Judah Halevi,Bahya Ibn Pekudah, and others,

all

of

whom

had incorporated the negative interpretation

problem of
attributes.

in

their respective solutions of the

To
inter-

avoid this predicament, Crescas interprets the texts of those

authors so as to harmonize with his
pretation
is

own

view.

His

based upon the distinction

we have already Hebrew word

pointed out between the two usages of the

-isn,

one meaning

'

attribute

',

the other 'predicate'.

The

existence of essential attributes in the divine being, says

Crescas, had never been denied

by the
'

ancients.

They had
interpreted
predi-

only maintained that

negatively,

some predicates must be

'

and

those, too, only in the case

itself.

when the

cates denote the essence

essential attributes,

God, however, possesses

and terms connoting those attributes

In the words of the

are not to be taken as negatives.

author

'

We

must, therefore, say that whenever

positive

some of

the savants exclude the

interpreting

meaning of

attributes,

them

all

as negations, they must be understood

to refer only to such predicates as describe the essence

itself.

These alone cannot be taken

note this distinction.'
^''-

in a positive sense.

And

Thus the

divine being consists of an essence and essential

attributes, the unity of the former being preserved

by the

not being absent,

in

and

iiiii/y

which indicates

that

there

is

no plurality

His essence and that

"2

in

no

way
26
a

does
:

He

contain any

tliialit}'.'

Or

Acionai,
. .
.

I,

III, 4, p.

D*D3nn nvp vn

dnc

"yc^^v

yyi

nr^i


CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES
mental inseparability of
is

WOLFSON
is

2O9

its

parts.

This view, says Crescas,

found
'

in

conformity with the following statement which

in

the mystic writing called the

in

Book

of Creation.

The
an

manner

which the flame

is

united with the coal

is

illustration of the irruptible unity.' "^

The
'
:

implication of

this statement, continues he, is as follows

Just as essence

cannot be conceived without existence nor existence without essence, so the attribute cannot be conceived without
its

subject nor the subject without

its

attribute

and

all

the attributes

are

comprehended

in

absolute goodness,
It is

which

is

the

sum

total of all perfections.'"*

due to

their failure to distinguish inseparable essential attributes

from separable attributes that the philosophers, and especially

Maimonides, were compelled to

reject the existence

of divine attributes altogether.

To them

only two alterna-

tives presented themselves, either attributes are identical

with the essence or they are different from

case implying plurality.

it,

in

the latter

That attributes may be unidentical

both together be one, they
failed

with the essence and

to perceive.

still

A similar

error

was made by them

it

in their

theory of knowledge.
the subject, object,

Finding

impossible to conceive
different

and process of knowing as

things, they were forced to declare

1^3 Ibid., I, III, 3, p.

them

all

identical
is

25

b.

The

text of the Sefer Yesira

:

paraphrased
e.

Their end [i. by Crescas. Originally the passage reads as follows Ten Sefirot] is inserted in their beginning, and their beginning
'

of the
their

in

end, even as the flame

that the

is

joined to the coal.

is

Know,

think,
is

and imagine,
no second
to

Lord

is

one and the Creator

one, and there

that oneness,
jji

and before one what number can you name?'

micj'p
T\irb^>'2

/hnii

^jDion

in^nni

,\rhm2

jsid

pyj

(cf.

Sefer Yesira, Goldschmidt's edition, p. 51).

"4 Ibid.

VOL.

VII.

2IO

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

a view which

untenable for

many
and

reasons.

But

there,

too, 'the philosophers tripped

fell

because they did

^^^

not distinguish the essential

ens intelligcns
is

from the

identical'.

The
but
is

not identical with the

it.

iiitcllectns,

essential to and inseparable from

fore, positive,

Attributes are, there-

and have
this

their real counterpart in the divine

being.

With

the knowability of
sure,

God

is

no longer
;

impossible.

His essence, to be

can never be known

His

essential attributes, however, can

be comprehended.

While to Crescas the compatibility of essential attributes

with absolute existence and unity seemed clear and indisputable, his position has not escaped cavilling criticism.

has indeed been charged to be open to the same objec"^ tion that in his Refutation of the Christian Principles
It

Crescas himself had pointed out in the Christian doctrine

of the
Trinity.

The type

of trinitarian doctrine which

is,

Crescas deals with in his polemic

that of the

generally speaking,
to
its

Western Church, though as

I

identification

with any specific creed

am

not
it

in a position to

express
divine

an

opinion.^^'^

He

outlines

as

follows.

The

substance or Godhead consists of one essence and three

"^

Or Adonai,

IV, ii, p. 91 a.
^1tD2, originally written in Spanish,
b.

"" Cf.
into

Dn^On npy

and translated

Hebrew by Joseph
'

Shemtob.
to

"' Professor George Foot Moore was kind enough

observation.

make

the following

The

peculiar definition of the Christian theory of the Trinity

is

which you

find in

Crescas

also to be found in

Ramban's Disputation with

Tela Iguea

the controvertite Pablo before

King James
in

of Aragon, in 1263, th text of

title

which was printed by Wagenseil

Saianae, 1681.

a volume under the

The passage

is

near the end of the Disputation.

^*Dnni

Ramban
I

gives for the three persons of the Trinity, DPl^TII

that Crescas" s
|1

nD3nn.

take

in, and Kamban's |Dn are equivalent, not

i.

to voluntas,

but

bcmgniias, or raiifas,

e.

not " will " but "good-will ".

In this form,

Power,

Wisdom, Good-Will, we have the theory of the Trinity set forth by Abelard (died 1142', which was condemned by a synod at Soissons, in 1121.'

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

distinct personalities, Father,

WOLFSON

211

Son, and Holy Ghost, corre-

sponding respectively to the attributes of Power, Wisdom,

and Will.
essence.

The Personalities are not identical with the The Personalities, furthermore, are distinct from
effect,

each other, and are interrelated as cause and

the

Father being the cause of the Son, and these two of the

Holy Ghost.

Again, the Personalities are the causes of

Finally,

their respectively corresponding three attributes.

the three Personalities are co-equal,

Gods.^^^

all

of

them being

In his criticism, Crescas chiefly assails that part

of the doctrine which

maintains the distinctness of the

Personalities from the essence, showing that conception to

be at variance with divine unity.^^^

But according to the

testimony of the translator, Isaac ben Shemtob, the same

arguments that Crescas had urged against the distinctness

of the Personalities

were urged by others against

'

his
'

own
that

theory of divine attributes.

have noticed

',

he says,

some

scholars

had raised the same

difficulties
^2

with respect

to our author's theory of divine attributes.'

118

The

trans-

bv bby 'rhan

D:i*yn"C'

nnjo nnvi^n n^iDxn

,D3ic'^a

.c^i^t^'n

':n

'an
':

nni ,p pN* :inN ninDi

p''r\'\'\n

[persones]

't^'^J1*^:'T'D

^nns*n

D.TJC'

nnnsDi

/^in T-hro

axn

.|i!"-ii

^noan .n^J' ^i)pn

Nin 2NntD

'jm
xin

.]'\'i'^n

nnno .nosnn
^3i

sin

pno

,nh3^"t

3^X3 Nin
n^s*

QHD nnN

.nnsrin bza
iibtd.)

n'bi^:

nn

pnx

^x

mnoa
,n\bii

-ipyn nrn ddjijon N\n nxr

c'l^c'n
': 'n''

"9 nvijncr
-iDiD
''-n^^^1

/n

':

nis^nnion niDipnn

nih ':n -ipym

'c^-^^

/c'XJiDns oiic^a ,D''bn3:

lb):

nnsin
\i^'^

bv2

nniN
.

mnvni

pND

Nip: ixn
'n^

'n^

^xn

proNn

n^i'iin^i^

/i

nn

pni nNHD

^:*N3

isn

^xn

cj>^b>

pnxa n^unt:^
^333

/:

.nm

-laia

{Ibid.)
120

nsn

nin\Ti

^nn Nnp3

mno
(7zrf.)

by

utj'^ D^b^at^'o

nvp ^n^Ni

^3 jy^

,vbv T^v^b ^naivini

nr

n''i?iDnn

nbuD nvp

,D''''cvyn

DniSnn irosna p^nn

P 2

212
lator,

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

however, comes to Crescas's defence by pointing out

a radical distinction between personalities and attributes,

namely, that the former being causatively interrelated are

necessarily

many, whereas the

goodness.^-^

latter are absolutely unified

by absolute

The

abstruseness of Crescas's reconciliation of essential

attributes with absolute unity has also been pointed out

by

Abraham Shalom
ask the author
[i. e.

in his Divelling

of

Peace}'^'^
:

'

We may
for these

Crescas] as follows

Are
If

there essential
to
it ?

attributes identical with the essence or

added

are the only two possible alternatives.

are identical, he has gained nothing

he says that they

by

interpreting Moses'
If

prayer to refer to essential attributes, ...

he says that

these attributes, though distinct with respect to ourselves,

are one with respect to God, then are identical.
it

must mean that they

...

If the

author retorts that the essential

Attributes are indistinguishable from the essence except in

thought,
1"
\:yii

we may ask him again

nrn

Are they conceived

Dn^nn
tj'm
.

in

pnnn
D''"'vyn

mm
nn

....

ns'o

pitDy

,sidv

"icn

onsnn

d'^'-pdhb^

n^ob npnynn nniN3

-inr

ym^ mns nbi2

oniD
'n^

'int

bx

D'-^osyn

onNna
nnn

unvjo n^ i^mNi ^jidh nr

ps*

noN nn^ .ixud

rh'bn
nic'n''

.nns*

^nx .nsnn nhi njiona

'di

nb no^ni nb^y

nc*

n':J2i:^

.]2r\

T^on

aNn*j>

{Ibid.)

ni^N HD^nni ^mba

I,

nb^yn^ xh ^noan^ byy

n^iaNncr

1" Cf. Neve/t Shalom, XII,

^b 3"n /mc^'y Dn:r

idx''

dn .n^nnan npi^n
i:^n-i

nrc'

/niDvy ^y

fiDi3

QN .... D^^Dvyn onxnn n"y

,ipnn

nc^

ntj'pn

in'-jnn

nm

n^nn
-it2X'

nnnsno on

,i2pnn
na^rn-i:'

chn^ onvn
ddhh
nr

ny ^n^xn Dnxn^:^
. .
.

on

D^^Di'yn
!?3U'n

mxn

njy dxi

iniDvy dj

p nx

Dnvn

nan unnv Dxn .nij^nnn oniXD

in^xtr:

.nv^ac nirna

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

thought to be essential or accidental
?

WOLFSON

213

and thus we land

again on the horns of our previous dilemma, and so

we

may go on
The main
is

asking and answering like that ad injinitmiu

point of this criticism, as
it

may be

gathered,
if

that

if

things are one they must be identical, and

they

are not identical they cannot be one.

To

take an object
it

which

is

physically one, and call

it

two, because

is

so

conceived in thought, and then

its

call it
is

one again, because

past comprehension.
Crescas's

parts are inseparable in thought,

Another derogatory reference

attributes
is

to

theory of

found

in

Abrabanel's commentary on the

Moreh.

In his discussion of Attributes, Maimonides cites

the view of a certain class of thinkers

who had

held that

besides those attributes, which must be either identical with

the essence or accidental to

it,

there are

some which

'

are

neither His essence nor anything extraneous to his essence'.

Dismissing this view as an utter absurdity, Maimonides

remarks that

'

it
;

exists only in words, not in thought,

much
for

less in reality

'

and that
belief

'

if

man were

to

examine

himself his

own

on the subject, he would see nothing

but confusion and stupidity in an endeavour to prove the

existence of things that do not exist, or to find a

means

between two opposites that have no means

'.

Commenting
this
after-

upon

this passage,

Abrabanel makes the statement that

view, which had been spurned

by Maimonides, was

wards taken up by Crescas.^-^

The
'23

influence of Crescas's theory of divine attributes

commentary on the Moreh,
. . .

Cf. Abrabaiiel's
rr\'''^

I>

51

CNW
Dnm

N^i

iDvy

nnxrin nvn
/:

mn
nyi

b^2^ nnx
-i3t
,
. .

nnxnnc' noxB' ^onanon nxp ^xx n\T^

Dn
^3n*

loxyo

/rDvyc s^'v

mpn

nrNi invy crN

'n^

nnNinon
,13

,'\'-\ii::>^

ii."i22

\snDn 'in nyi inn

'^lovy

214

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

be traced
in

may
Albo.

the Principles

'^'^^

of his pupil Joseph

eclectic rather than

Albo's theory of attributes

is

is

systematic, and Crescas's view

partly adapted

by him
four

as a prerequisite of his conception of necessary existence.

Necessary
conditions
ficiency
;
:

existence,
unity,

according

to

Albo,

implies

incorporeality, timelessness,

and inde-

^^''

a classification

which,

it

must be observed,

overlaps and could not stand the test of a logical analysis.

The

first

of these conditions excludes separable attributes,

;

both accidental and essential

the second excludes bodily

relation

emotions
similarity

the third,
;

by

inference, negates

and

the fourth rejects any implication of deficiency.

in

Accordingly divine attributes are interpreted by Albo

the following

ways

First,

they are merely explanatory

terms of necessary
'

existence,^-'' or

what Maimonides

calls

names

'.^^'

Second, they are negations.^-^

Third, they

are actions.^ -^

Fourth, they are external relations, these

being admissible.^^

But by arguments not unlike those

is

employed by Crescas he

compelled by force of the fourth

condition of necessary existence, namely, indeficiency, to

omit the existence of essential positive attributes. ^^^

compatibility of such attributes with unity
is

The

explained by

him

in

way which

is

again reminiscent of that of Crescas's

explanation.

Attributes, he says, have two aspects, in one

of which they appear as perfections, and in the other as

imperfections.

Imperfections
in

they

are

when

th,ey

are

acquired

and

any way separable

from the essence.

are innate in the

They
2<

are pure perfections

when they

Ikkarim.
I,

126

cf. II, 7.
'^s

12c

Cf. II,

6 and 21.
24.

1" Cf. Moreh, " Cf.

'31

61.

cf. Ikkariin, II, 10, 23.

and

ibid., II, 8.
II, 21.

130 Cf. ibid.

Cf.ibid.,

'

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

essence and inseparable from
it.

WOLFSON

215

In

God

they are insepa-

rable parts of His essence, and, therefore, they are pure

perfections

and likewise not subversive of His unity.

That

these pure perfections

were not considered by him as

it, is

identical with the essence, but rather essential to

quite

clear

from the context of

his discussion,

and that he was

be inferred from
',

here consciously following Crescas

his following conclusion
is
'
:

may

Note

this well

he says, for
'

it

a correct and true interpretation, and one which

had

been adopted by conservative theologians both ancient and

modern.'
^"^

By

ancient he undoubtedly refers to Saadia,

and by modern he could not have meant anybody but

Crescas,
for

Gersonides'

reputation

was not that of a

conservative.

Joseph Albo, however,

is

inconsistent.

Having accepted
not

Crescas's explanation that inseparable attributes are

incompatible with divine unity, he rejects the same

case of existence and unity.
entirely misunderstood

in the

In a passage which has been

makes the following

by the Hebrew commentators he statement The meaning of existence

'

in its application to all created beings

is

by some
it

philo-

sophers taken to be accidental, while by others

as something essential.'

is

taken

Now, the Hebrew commentators

something essential

have understood

this

passage to refer to the Avicennean

'

and the Averroesean controversy,

thus meaning 'something identical with the essence'.^'"

This
132

is,

however, manifestly wrong.

By something
'

essen-

Cf. ibid.
Cf. ibid., II,
I,

133

and the commentary D^BHti^ ad

loc.

The

difficulties ot

this interpretation
in

have been pointed out

in a note (n'TliH)

which appears

the latest undated Wilna edition.

The author

of that note, too, has

failed to see that Albo's reference is to the

controversy between Crescas

latter

and the Avicennean group rather than that between the

and Averroes,

2l6
tial

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

'

he could not have referred to anything but Crescas's

theory, which reference alone can be construed with the

rest

of the

text.

After

thus

stating Avicenna's

and

Crescas's views with regard to the

in its

meaning of existence
as follows
'
:

ordinary application,
its

Albo proceeds
application to

But

the term existence in

accidental, for

God cannot be
it

God

is

not subject to accidents, as will be

demonstrated

in the ninth

chapter of this part, nor can

its

be something essential and superadded to

in this case the divine

essence, for

being would consist of two elements,

which

is

impossible, as will be brought out in the fifth

chapter of this part.

Consequently existence

in the case

of

God cannot be anything but identical with His essence.' The implication of this passage is clear. Crescas's interof existence
is

pretation

as

an essential

and

inseparable

condition of essence

discarded

of

its

conflict

with unity.

Albo thus

by Albo on the ground reverses his own

position on the other attributes.

In

our analysis of Moses

Halavi's theory of divine

attributes in a previous chapter,

we have shown

that the

attributes to him are mere inventions of the mind, and

thus while he interprets divine predicates positively, he does

not admit the existence of divine attributes.

Yet Crescas

endeavours to show that Halavi, too, had believed in the

existence
of essential attributes.

He

proves his point

indirectly, as an inference of Halavi's theory as to the

emanation of plurality from unity.

fully

In order to be able
force of Crescas's

to understand

and appraise the

reasoning, let us give a brief analysis of the nature of the

problem of emanation.

Assuming
simplicity,

as an axiomatic truth that

God

is

absolute

and

that

a simple cause can generate

only

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

a simple
effect,^^^

WOLFSON

217

the question arises as to the origin of the

plurality of elements that

we
is

observe in the universe.

The

answer

to this

question

based upon a combination of

Plotinus's theory of emanation

and

Aristotle's theory of

the spheres.

There

is

God, the Absolute One, the Neces-

sarily Existent, or

by whatever other name

He may

be

designated,

whose knowledge of Himself, being a generative

This Intelligence,

principle, produces the first intelligence.

says Alfarabi, consists of two generative elements, one due

to
its

knowledge of God, and the other due to

its

knowledge

of

itself,

the former producing the Second Intelligence, and

Alfarabi's
it is

the latter producing the outermost sphere.^"^

statement of the solution

is

correct in principle, but

too

general to account for the different elements of which the

celestial

spheres

are

supposed to be composed.

For,

according to the early Arabic philosophers, and Avicenna

in particular,

each sphere

is

composed,
is

like the sublunar

elements, of Matter and Form, and

Soul, which
is

endowed with a
motion, and
the
final
is

the

efficient

cause of

its
is

presided over
of the same.

by an
In

Intelligence,

which

cause

Avicenna's statement of the solution,

First Intelligence
is

therefore, the self-knowledge of the

declared to contain as

many

elements as are necessary to

spheres.

explain

all

the
is

component parts of the

Avicenna's

statement

variously reproduced

in

subsequent works.

According to Sharastani, the

gence of his

reflection of the First Intelli-

own

spiritual essence

produces the

Form
p.

as

well as the Soul of the

13*

First

Sphere, the latter being

Munk, Melanges,
361
;

As
II,

for the origin of this proposition, see

Guide,

22, p. 172, note i;

Steinschneider, Al-Farabi, p. 9, note 20;

Kaufmann,
135 cf.

Attributenlelire, p. 371, note 11.

Alfarabi's

niNVDjn nii'nnnn idd,

2l8

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

nothing but the consummation of the former, whereas the

existence of that Intelligence being

mere

possibility, pro-

duces the matter of the sphere.^"^

Algazali's restatement
is

of the case in his Destruction of the Philosophers

to that of Sharastani's, but, unlike the latter,

similar

he maintains

that the self-knowledge of the First Intelligence would only-

account for the Soul of the Sphere, and consequently

criticizes

Avicenna
'^

for his failure to

all
is

account for the origin

of

its

Form.^

In

these restatements, the origin of the

said to be due, as
is

Second Intelligence

said

by

Alfarabi,

to the reflection of the First Intelligence of

God.

In his
gives

Intentions
a

of the

Philosophers,

however, Algazali

somewhat

different

and rather inadequate version of the

he says, has two aspects.
it

case.
is

The

First Intelligence,

It

necessary existence in so far as

its

must come

into being
it

through
is

cause, but

it

is

only possible existence when

itself.

considered with respect to

the

Its

necessary aspect,

therefore, produces

Second

Intelligence,

whereas

its

possible aspect produces the First Sphere.^^^

Abraham
elements in

Ibn Daud,
the
First

in his Snblivie Faith, finds three

Intelligence,

from which proceed the Second

its soul.^^^

Intelligence, the First

Sphere and
state

But curiously
are.

enough he does not

what these three elements

Maimonides

is

probably following Alfarabi, naming only

in

two elements
itself

the First Intelligence,

its

its

knowledge of

which produces the sphere and

knowledge of God
like Algazali,

which produces the Second Intelligence, and,

he argues that this explanation does not account for the

'^* '^^
''

Cf. Sliarastaiii, pp.

380-81 (Cureton's edition).

of ihe Philosophers, Disputation
Metaphysics, V.
IV, 3.
III.

Cf. Algazali's Destntction

Cf. Algazali's Ittteiitions,

" Cf.

Ennmah Raniah,

II,

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

WOLFSON
finds
in

219
in

component parts of the

his special treatise

spheres.^*^'

Joseph Ibn Aknin,

on the
:

subject,^^^

the First

InteUigence three elements

of
self,

knowledge of God, knowledge

being mere possible existence.
in

and knowledge of

its

The

restatement

of the
as

case
all

later

are unimportant,
authorities.
It
is

they

follow

Hebrew works secondary Hebrew

significant that in all the

statements cited the

is

knowledge of God on the part of the First Intelligence

referred to as one of the

component

parts, the

most imporof these

tant one, producing the Second Intelligence. authors, however, specifies

None

what

is

meant by

that

know-

ledge of God, though

we may

infer that
is

what they meant

its

by

it is

the knowledge that

God

the cause of

existence,

since the divine essence itself must be unknowable.

Again,

the least important element, that which produces the Matter

of the Sphere,
existenceM^
is

designated
in

by them

the

mere possibility of

Now,

Moses Halavi's enumeration of the

first

threefold division in the First Intelligence, the

is,

element
is

as usual, called the knoivledge

of

God^^'^ but the third

described as the knozvledge of

its

being brought into being

is

by the Necessarily Existent}'^^ which, of course,

another

way
But
the

of saying the knowledge of its mere possible existence.

in Crescas's

paraphrase that expression

its

is

changed into
effect

knowledge of God as

cause

and of itself as His

^^^

And

so Crescas asks, what could Halavi have meant

by

i Cf. Moreh, II, 22. "1 Edited and translated into English by

J.

L.

Magnes

(Berlin, 1904).

"* ms':f?on

n^'-inroi?

S^y

Nine' iniDxv

^'^^'"'i.

i 1300 hh^ i^im lb rh^ 'n* (Crescas's paraphrase, Or Adonai, I, III,

inioyy
3, p.

nvn
.

j'r"'K'

no

dsi

25 b

220

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

first

describing the

element as hwwlcdgc of God}

is

The

divine essence itself

unknowable.
in

The comprehension
paraphrase of Halavi
is

of

God

as

cause

is

Crescas's

exactly the phrase by which the third element

described.
is

And

to say that

it

refers to a negative

knowledge of God

likewise impossible, since the negative

is in its

knowledge of God

ultimate analysis the knowledge of His causality.

it

Hence

must

refer to the

knowledge of God's
Crescas,

essential

attributes, which,

concludes

goes to

show that

Moses Halavi admitted the existence of

essential attributes.

And

in the

same manner

it

can also be shown that Alfarabi,

Avicenna, and Averroes admitted the existence of the same.

Averroes, to be sure, rejects the theory of intermediary
emanations, believing that
all

the Intelligences and Spheres

Still,

emanate directly from the divine essence.

Crescas,

contends
of

while

denying the

causal
in

interrelation

the

Intelligences,

Averroes believes

the presence of

some

qualitative differentiation

between them.

That

qualitative

differentiation must, of course,

be due to a corresponding

gradation in the simplicity of their comprehension of God.

But that comprehension cannot be of the divine essence

itself; it

must be of the divine

But, as

attributes, which, therefore,

seen,

have existence.

we have
far

while Averroes

admits that the term Intelligence

is

in its application to

God
an

a positive predicate, he

is

from believing that

it is

essential attribute of

God

in

the

same sense

as

it is

under-

stood by Crescas.

Let us now summarize the

our inquiry.

results

we have

arrived at in
attributes,

The
lies
:

origin of the
in

problem of

we

have stated,
assumptions

the
logical

incompatibility of
interpretation

four

initial

the

of

Scriptural

CRESCAS ON DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

phraseology,
the
reality

WOLFSON
relations,

221
anti-

of logical

the

nominalistic view of universals, and the Avicennean definition of absolute simplicity.

We have

seen

how

the various

attempts to solve the problem tended either to reject one

or
in

more of these assumptions,

accordance with them.

or to find

some explanation

The
are

naive theologians, referred

first

to

by Maimonides,
all

rejected the

assumption that the

propositions.

Scriptural

predications

logical

Mai-

monides retains
existence
terprets

the four assumptions, and denying the

of essential attributes in the divine being, in-

the

Scriptural

predications of

God

as privative

judgements.

Averroes, Gersonides, and Halavi, too, deny

the existence of essential attributes in the divine being,

but accepting of a nominalistic view of universals, and

therewithal the non-reality of logical relations,
interpret

the Scriptural predications of

in

God

as positive

judgements
related.

which subject and predicate are only verbally

criticism

Algazali's

of Avicenna

aims to disqualify the

latter's definition of

absolute simplicity, and thereby affirms

Finally,

the existence of essential attributes.

by advancing

a new theory of universals, Crescas attempts to show the

compatibility of essential attributes and absolute simplicity.

THE PROBLEM OF SPACE IN JEWISH MEDIAEVAL PHILOSOPHY

I

By Israel Isaac Efros, Lynn,

Mass.

CHAPTER
One
mind
is

III

Infinite Space.
of the problems

that have troubled the

;

human
is

the problem of space

and one of the aspects of

space that have troubled the

infinity.

human mind

most,

its

From

the philosopher of Stagira to the philosopher

of Konigsberg, the subject of the infinity of space did not

cease to defy and baffle

human
silent

ingenuity.
this topic.
it.

Our

present-

day thinkers are mostly

on

They dread
It still lies

the contest, but they have not overcome

like

an invincible brute ready to enter the arena.

it

Such

being the case,

that

would be simply preposterous

to claim

Jewish

philosophy

may

boast

of

having
I

solved

altogether this

overwhelming

difficulty,

but

do claim

that in the course of the progress of Jewish thought

some
would

suggestions were

made

that

might lead to a new and better

;

understanding of the problem

and to understand

it

be half way to

its

complete solution.

Let us

first

turn to Aristotle,

who may always

in

serve as

a text in any discourse on mediaeval philosophy.

His ideas

about

infinity

which are found

in

the third book of the

Physics,
thus.

and

the tenth of the Metaphysics, are briefly

On

the one hand

we

find that infinity

is

undeniable.

223

224

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Time is unbegotten and indestructible. We cannot conceive of a moment of time, a Now which is an absolute beginning
of a series of duration.

Every

Now
:

looks
it

on one side to

a past and on the other to a future

after.^^*

has a before and

On
:

the surface

it

may seem

strange that a similar

infinity

argument could not be advanced to prove the

of space

every Here

is

on one side

in

touch with a before,

is

and on the other with a beyond.

really a deeper one.
telian
It is

But the argument

repugnant to the entire Aristo-

standpoint of causation, the denial of miraculous

creationism, to

assume a

Now

which was not caused by

the duration of the

a previous one.

Time which marks

beginningless and endless development of things must in

itself

be

infinite.

On

the other hand, there must be a limit

to material existence.

Matter

is

limited
infinite
is

by

superficies,

and

hence
bodies

finite
is

and to speak of an

number

of material

also absurd, for a

number
finite.

that which can be

counted, and

hence likewise

Besides,
It

an

infinite

body would be

either simple or composite.

could not be,

however, a simple body, similar to the one assumed by the

earlier physicists, for
infinite

then

it

would have consumed by

its

power
all

all

other

finite

elements, and would have

;

created
is

things single-handed

but such a monistic theory

of change

contradicted

by the fundamental phenomenon

which implies the existence of contraries

in the universe.

Nor could

that infinite

body be a composite without being

infinites or

either a finite

number of

an

infinite

number

of

finitudes, either alternatives

being impossible.

Thus

after

a series of arguments Aristotle concludes the finitude of

spatial existence.
infinity

How
p.

then

is

it

the

question

is
?

that

seems to be

real in time but unreal in space

62 a
;

"

Comp. O) Adonai,

also

DMi'N

m^ySD

V,

3.

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

225

An

explanation for this antinomy Aristotle finds in the

It
is

nature of the concept.

in

accord with his general

dynamic standpoint.

Infinity denotes duration rather than

simultaneity, succession rather than co-extension.

Infinity

never

is,

but

is

perpetually becoming.
it

Hence time can be

for another.

represented as endless, for

is

a succession of fleeting

moments, each one vanishing and making room

But when you seek to

attain the infinite

by means of a

synthesis of spatial parts, you are aiming not at an endless

process of becoming, hut at an endless state of being whXch.
is

not postulated by the true notion of the

is

infinite.

The

unlimited

not actual but potential, meaning by the latter

term not the potentiality of the brass that can become

an accomplished
fact
in

the form

of the statue, but a

peculiar potentiality like that of time, which though actual

only

in

an insignificant and vanishing moment, constantly

unfolds itself in a never-ending succession of decay and

regeneration.
It
is

a process,
says

not a state.
Aristotle,
is

The
that
is

usual

meaning of the
which there
is

infinite,

beyond

nothing, but the true meaning

that which

always has something beyond.

This analysis of
infinity
is

extremely suggestive.
difficulties

It

might be shown what a host of perplexing

vanish in this
it is

would
But

new

light, as

we

shall see in the sequel.

unfortunate that Aristotle himself did not fully realize

the

immense

fruitfulness of its suggestiveness.

He

seem-

ingly forgets very soon this well-defined position, namely,

that things are always and everywhere finite, but reveal

the infinite in the process of change

as
in

and duration,

just
is

the arithmetical

convergent series every term

limited

and gives us a limited quantity when added up

but there
is

with

the preceding terms,

the infinity of

VOL. VIL

226

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

number of one
between
could

progression, a possibility of enlarging the

unit to
all

eternities.

For with

this distinction

state and process clearly in his consciousness,

how

he possibly speak of a realizable infinitesimal by means of

division
?

My

impression

is

that Aristotle
'

fell

a victim

to his terminology, to his use of

potentiality

',

which always

implies something actual, to express his notion of infinity,

an expression which, as he himself

felt,

hardly suits the

meaning. The whole distinction between

infinite divisibility

and

infinite

augmentation, the former being affirmed and

is

the latter denied,

believe that
tJieoretically
,

unintelligible

practically no one

would

we may
even

divide an object

ad

infinitum, and

the celestial

firmament can form no

limit to our augmentation.

In the history of the Jewish

conception of infinity, this latter potential notion was at

first

dominating

until

the former progressive notion was

taken up and
closely this

modified

by Gersonides.

Let us follow
infinity

meandering path of the idea of

through

Jewish philosophy.

Beginning with Saadya, we

universe
is

find

that

the material

held to be limited, having a terrestrial centre

circumference.-'^^

and a

celestial

This finitude of matter

means

also the finitude of space, for, as

we have

seen, the

void was not posited by the earlier Jewish thinkers.

Saadya
infinity

pays more attention to the theory of temporal

maintained by Aristotle, the refutation of which theory,

though somewhat beyond the pale of

this

work,

is

never-

theless relevant because of its application to spatial infinity.

It is ridiculous,
for

he holds, to say that time had no beginning,

;

then an infinite number of points have already elapsed

I,

"5 Emunot,

p.

56

n^^^Fi

DH^

c"'C'

"nannt' fV3 jnsni Q^u'ny>

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

227

in Other words, this present

moment would be

the final

term of an

infinite series,
^"^

but an

infinite series is that

which
is

cannot be completed.^

Moreover, every passing day

future,

added

to

the

past,

and detracted from the

but

anything that has room for an increment, that can be

turned into a greater magnitude,
is

by no means

infinite.^^'^

Furthermore, time

is

the measure of the spherical moveis

ments

and

if

the former

conceived to be beginningless,

the latter must also have a claim to eternity.

spherical

But those
is

movements are not uniform,

there

a variety
revolu-

of ratios between them, while one sphere

tion,

makes one

another sphere
If

may make
infinite

three hundred and fiftyis

five revolutions.

the eternity hypothesis

correct,

both

spheres have

made an

number

of revolutions, yet

sphere

must have certainly made

'^^^

times as

many

revolutions as those of sphere A.

Consequently one
infinity,

infinity

would be greater than another

because the
quantity. ^^^
infinite
is

which

is

absurd,

greater than the greatest conceivable

infinity
is

Hence temporal
it

an impossibility.

These arguments,
Halevi^^^

should be noted, are mentioned by

among

the proofs of the Mutakallimun for the

theory of creation.
"6
Ibid., I,

59

mny

.T-inn

""^

>nj;T'

n^;j ^ovy

tin^d

-iB'sai

ni mniy.
note
3.
ii''

See Gutlmann's Die Religionsphilosophie

des Saadia,

p.

40,

Ibid, Part

I,

p.

74

nSDID NIH
ii)r\u
hjdi

bibib

IDTHD fj^H QV

b^^

NlHI

c''

inonni nsDinn
"8

i^aiD

n^nyn

jnoni

^brwif

n bv

mTnn
nriD

na^no n^^^ni ina^ n^^an.

:

Ibid.

n'':3-ij;j

nnvptj'
n''^^2n'\

ny

m2^nn
\:^b^

'nB'n niyiJn ij\si nt'Nai

^yi

nnv
1^

i^yi
ly^

cdhi

niso

^aa

D't^'i5B'

^y nvp bv

n^bn
^^^

Dn

im

bn^ wyn^
Axiom.

See

Cosari, Part V, ch. 18, First

Q2

228

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Bahya has the following to say about the infinite. He admits that number is infinite. There seems to be no end
to the possibility of counting.^^" but actually everything
finite.
is

Imagine a

line

AB

drawn out ad mfinitum^ and

take off a definite part

AC

A
Now BC
infinite.

C
finite,

B_
for

cannot be

two

finite

lines

But

AB

\s,

oi course greater than CB.

infinite,

make no Thus one

is

infinite

would exceed another

which

absurd.

Moreover, the very possibility of a part implies that the

whole

line

must be
is

finite, for

a part bears a definite ratio to

Indeed, the

the whole, and

the unit of measurement.

is

extensity of an object

that property of

it

by

virtue of

which
no

it

can be measured by a part.

infinite.

But the part can bear

ratio to the

Consequently there can be no

infinite extensity.^^^

After Bahya, a
the history of the

full

century elapses, marking a blank in

infinite,

except perhaps for Gabirol's

or temporal,
is

remarks that

infinite, spatial

due to form-

lessness, for that

in its limits

which has form must also be well defined

purely Aristotelian position identifying the

infinite

with the indefinite.^^^

At

last

we come

to

Abraham
n^jyj

"0 See nu2i?n

nuin mn^n iw;

ch.s: pjo^ rri^an px; aisoch.5:

inxp

")3o

cns^i ^yiD3 n^^an

pxc'

nm

unac^noa

dni

pxo "ix:rn n^n"" dsi pqd hyci mip n\"ic' nD nino nxcn i^n^ no Nini n^bn 1^ pxc* nnnD bnj n^^Dn rh pNC' nan iTh^ n^bn
N"NL".

This argument
prop. xv.
Ibid., ch. 5
:

is

mentioned

in

Spinoza's Ethics.

See

hife

note to

Part

I,

121

^3n pN

''D

^3

'b

^T"-

p!?n

K'"'B'

no

f'D

"D

ynM

po

n^bn
12J

'h

PNC

T\rh

P^n nvn^ pn^ n^i vp^n

'

^b

x"3.

Res autem non est finita nisi per suam formam quia res quae infinita est non habet formam qua fiat unum et differat ab alia et ideo essentia acterna est infinita quae non habet formam.' Comp.
/os
FiVa^,

IV, 6, p. 224

V, 23,

p.

300, and 29, p. 309.

PROBLEM OF SPACE
Ibn

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS
is

229

Daud, who

reiterates

the Aristotelian position that

infinite,

only number, which has a potential existence, but

all

actual things are

finite.

This thesis
except the

rests

on the

following four arguments,

Aristotelian.
I.

all

first

one being

Let two

lines

AB and CD

be drawn ad infinitum.

A
C
On CD mark

E
off a finite

D
segment CE.

superposed on

AB

so that point
is,

Now
AB,

the question
it

is

Let the line ED be E coincides with point A. ED equal to ABl If ED equals

to

will also equal

?

CD, but how can a part be equal

less
?

the whole

If

ED

is

than

AB, how can one

if

infinity

be smaller than another

does

And

ED

is

not

infinite,

how

ED plus

CE, two

finite lines,

make an

infinite line ?
line.

This argument resembles Bahya's argument with one

3.

There can be no
is

infinite

number

of things, for a
is

number

that which has been counted over, but infinity

that which
"infinite

cannot be counted over.

is

Consequently an

number
limit,

a contradiction.
in

Besides, a series has at

all

least

one

but

a beginningless and endless series

terms

are

intermediary.

Consequently

an

absolutely

infinite series is inconceivable.

3.

An
itself.

infinite

body would not be

in place, for that

implies a containing body, and hence a larger magnitude

than

But what

is

larger than the infinite?

Here

the reader

may object that from

the Aristotelian standpoint

all-containing sphere
is

not

all

things are in space.

The

itself
4.

not contained.

An

infinite

body would not be

at rest, for a

body

is

230
only at rest

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

in its
'

natural place
it

',

which an

infinite body-

does not have.

Nor would

be

in

motion, for a moving

body leaves one place and occupies another place which it But no place is free from the has not before occupied.
infinite.

Hence an unlimited body

is

impossible.^^s

A
is

critical

survey of these four arguments brings out

a very important point.

We

find that the fourth

argument

based on an absurd

fiction of

'natural
It

places'.
is

The

objection to the third has been given.

the second

argument that
It points

is

truly valid, and defeats the

first

argument.

out the absurdity of believing in a numerical or

is

spatial quantity that

infinite.

If quantity

means anybetween

thing at

all,

it

is

a well-defined relationship between the

part.

whole and a supposed

The only
is

difference

numerical and spatial quantity

that

the one denotes

a discrete nature and the other a continuous one.

But

whether

it is

ten discrete units or ten continuous inches, the

is

relationship between the whole and the part

limited,
is

nothing more and nothing

less.

Infinity,

however,

that

which has no limit; and hence cannot enter such relationship

at
all.

Therefore an

infinite

quantity means nothing else

is

than an
if

infinite finitude,

which

utterly meaningless.

But

this is true, the fallacy of the first

it

argument
that

of

Ibn Daud,

and with
fashioned
infinity

many more arguments

this

may

possibly be
evident.
If

after

model, becomes quite

has no quantitative
it

relationships, of course nothing

can be added to

or detracted
relationships
;

from

it

which
account.

means
This

a change in those
of
infinity

and

the

non-existence

cannot
noticed

be

proved

on

that

point

was

by

Maimonides,

and

amplified

by

Moses Narboni.
^^'

Eniitnah Rantali, pp. 15

ff.

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

23I

In his exposition of the Kalam^^^ Maimonides refers to

some

of the arguments adduced

by

that school against the

as an adherent of the

infinite.

Now

Maimonides himself

Ptolemaic system of astronomy, and the creationistic theory,

and as an opponent of the

belief in a void, of course maintains

absolute finitude in space as well as in time.

fault

Only he

finds

with the particular arguments on the basis of which

the Mutakallimun negate infinity.

They argue

that

if

the

world had no beginning

in time, there
infinite

would have elapsed

points and an
infinite

up

to this

moment an

number of

infinite

number of spherical revolutions and an

of transient accidents.

number
fleeting

This whole process of

moments and
still

revolving spheres

and

transitory

accidents

goes on, and a thousand years from to-day

these infinites will be swelled

infinity

by a

certain

number, and the

to-day.^^^

then will
if

be greater than an

infinite
is

Furthermore,
celestial

the eternity of the world

infinite

true,

every

body has had an

is

number

of revolutions.

Now

there

a definite ratio between

these revolutions.
circuit

While the

terrestrial

globe completes
its circuit

its

once a year,
in a year.

the lunar globe completes

It

twelve times

makes no

difference

how long you

allow these two spheres

:

to revolve, the ratio will always remain 13

i.

Now

allow

them

to revolve

ad

injijiiUim, the
;

numbers

of their revolu-

tions will be infinite

but one infinity will be twelve times

12*

Guide,

I,

74,

seventh argument

comp. Cosari, V,

ch.

18,

First

Axiom.
125

See

also

Es Hayyim,

ch.

T\'h^T\

fSD' "im

N^'O''

p
non

vh DNB'
nni'' 'h

nr

san w^m

^^2

T\y\rb non^::' iivc^n 1^

n^bn

px:^'
p.

"1SD13

nnsn

nan^i nr

mo

nnx.

See

&\so

MUhamot,

343= nc^as*

^^^

jiorn

riDDinn nyi^nnro t^nnn'-c*

nD3

232
as

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

as the other, because the ratio subsisting between
also the ratio

much
is

parts

between their totaHties, consequently

infinity is impossible.^^^

more modern
be found
to

illustration

than
cents.

that of heavenly bodies

may

in dollars

and

dollar

is

to a cent as a

hundred
of these

one

ratio
;

which

holds good for any

infinite

number

two coins

so that an

number of

dollars will be a

hundred times as much

invent

as an infinite of cents.

You may

many more

such

arguments from any system of weights and measurements,

and you

will get

the

same conclusion, contradicting the

infinite,

fundamental notion of the

greater than which
is

namely, that

it

is

that

impossible.

But

if

we keep our

previous conclusions clearly in mind,

is

that the infinite, existent or non-existent,

no quantity,
it

that

it

can enter

into

no quantitative relationships,

becomes evident
to-day

first

of all that a thousand years from

infinite,

we

will

have no greater

whether of temporal

moments or

spherical revolutions, than

now

for the

terms

'greater' and Mess'

infinity
is

imply a quantitative whole, which

it

not.

And, secondly,

becomes evident that

off as

the ratio subsisting between parts

falls

soon as you
is

enter the realm of the infinite, because the ratio

titative

a quanratio

relationship,

and furthermore because the

is

between parts which

tive totalities
infinite,
is is

to hold

good between

their respec-

by no means

similarly applicable to the

which

not a quantitative totality.

infinite to

Thus

as soon
it

as

you subject the

it

mathematical calculatidns

slips as

were from your grasp, and what you are really

is

dealing with
then, after
'^'

some big imaginary finite magnitude

but

you have drawn your conclusion, you exclaim

in

Gersonides adduces the same argument

/. c.

his Milhamot,

p. 34a,

Similarly, sec Spinoza,

PROBLEM OF SPACE
triumphantly
very truly
'
:

IN JEWISH

PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

233

'

Eureka

'.

Maimonides

therefore

remarks

The

individual accidents that have passed into

non-existence are counted and represented as though they

were

still

in existence,

and as though they were things with

is

dejiftite

beginning ; this imaginary jiumber

then either

increased or reduced'

For

it is

evident that

when you wish

to add or detract you deal with a totality, and, as Aristotle

remarked, the total and the

dictory.

infinite are

mutually contrais

The

total

is

that

beyond which there

nothing,
alto-

and the
gether.

infinite is that

which admits of no beyond

endless, a being that
is

Infinite

means

everywhere

and whose existence, being immeasurable, cannot be expressed in any mathematical formula, and cannot be the
basis of

any mathematical

equation.^'^'^

The next man who grappled with

Gersonides.
I

this

problem was

cannot allow myself, however, to omit two

casual but characteristic remarks of

two men

living before

him, Isaac Ibn Latif and Isaac

tains
finite
^^^

Israeli.

The former mainfinite,

that
is

the

fact

that

our perception gives us the

is

only,

not because reality

but because
the
infinite.

our

perceptive

organs

are

unable

to

see

^'^'^

See Narboni,

who

expatiates on this idea which Maimonides puts

very

briefly

and suggestively.
:i-,,

128

D'.^y^

section 63

nnnjDJB'
n"iy^::>n

s^N nt^niD

nmN"'vr3

\'ir:ir\

n3n

nonjn 'my pc'^n

nniNvro iXK^jni

n^?-lp^^

noDn pi

rr-b^n pxi?

ny na^im

\^^r\

nn^yjc
TT'^an

"ly

n^bini nnno:)i nc'nin s\n oa

pN^^ i^nro
dic^

^^^ OMp
pn-iDH

''Jc

n"iN''^3i

rh

pvoiD '^:hi

^sc'n
Dn>:"'3

nonm
n!?

ipmn'-c nn

^y

pn-iD
pn''
.

cmx^V' n^^nnn
k\*

ps^

iNV^

ib^SNi

D^y^ wy^"^^

sh inxn
.

inNn mprT'i
last illustration
it is

C^niDl

C'nnnn piOnn

N^'OJI

n-'^Sn.

This

Ibn Latif copied literally from the Guide,

I,

73, prop. 10,

where

quoted

from a certain Book of Cones, concerning which see Steinschneider, Heb.

Uebei:, p. 169.
It is also cited in

the

Or Adonai, p

16

a.

234

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

That

why

our mind does posit an

^-^

infinite.

Israeli,

on

the other hand, suggests

is

that though the

human mind

capable of drawing the line and the surface and the solid
infinitum, reality consists of finite

ad

and definitely-shaped
a Kabbalist,
;

objects.

The
in

former, Isaac Ibn Latif, was

moving
latter,

mysterious

boundless

atmosphere

the

Isaac

Israeli,

was a scientist busying himself with

geometrical figures.

The Maimonidean
denote

suggestion that infinity

served
as

does not
for

any

quantity,

starting-point
establishes that
is

Gersonides.

The

latter, first

of
or

all,

any

quantity, whether numerical

limited.

spatial,

by

its

nature
'

This

is

a genuine Aristotelian conception.

'

But

',

says Gersonides,

we do not admit

that the reason

why
finite

matter, number, and

is

magnitude are quantitatively

because they are actual, as the Philosopher holds, but

intrinsic

because of the
this

nature of quantity, the proof of

being that number, even in the case of potential objects

like time,
is is

must be limited

nevertheless.'

^"^^

Thus quantity

by

its

very definition

finite.

On

the other hand, infinity

beyond any quantitative description.

That

is

why

the

current definition of infinity as greater than the greatest

conceivable

body,

is

radically
finite is

wrong.

The

difference

between
essence.

infinite

and

not merely

in degree but in

There

is

a wide unbridgeable

chasm between these

to the
finite,

two natures.
can the
finite

The

infinite is irreducible

nor

be enlarged to the
if

infinite.

Divide and

subdivide the unlimited,

"0 See Yesod Olam,
NvrsJ
I,

that

is

at all possible,

and you

2, p.

5 a

^3V SIH
-ipn
ps*

flljni

IpHI

nDCTiT NIH yiT

n3L''no3

nno idn

ciu'

ps bin

*iy

i^'dx

yc^Dnb

njiDDi n-b^n bv2

ISO

aba byiD3.
ff.

Milhamot, pp. 336

PROBLEM OF SPACE
are
still

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS
On

235

within the realm of the unlimited.^^^

if

the other

hand, even

you were granted eternal

your time
in

life,

and were to be

engaged
space,
'

all

putting together particles of

finite.

you would not step over the boundary of the

Just as a point will remain a point no matter

it,

how much

you multiply
get anything

because out of indivisibles you cannot

else

than the indivisible

so magnitude will

always remain magnitude, no matter

multiply
it;

how much you may

'

for it is infinitely finite

is

with all augmentation.'^'^'^

:

The

latter

a very pregnant saying

Magnitude

is

in-

finitely finite.'

The

infinite is

not a product of an inconIt

ceivable

number

of finite spaces.

does not
;

differ

from

the

finite quantitatively,

but qualitatively

it
is,

is

altogether

sui generis.
clearly

What

that essential quality

is

not quite
this,

expressed.

But the meaning seems to be

in

namely, the removal

our thought

of

all

quantitative

determinations and limits.

Focus your attention on the

spatial fact itself, purely as a simultaneous co-existence

without thinking of

how

far

it

is

spatial, or

on time purely
its

as a successive flux, without thinking of the length of

duration
its

just as
limits,

you may think of colour without regard to

and you have the notion of the
infinite.

space

Spatial infinity then might be defined as the representation

1*^

Thus he argues on

p. 406,

on the basis of
that
if

this idea

which can be

expressed in the equation

'^

we

divide infinite time into a finite

number

of times,

we

find ourselves in a bafHing

dilemma.
is

The whole

is

naturally bigger than the part, but the part of an infinite

likewise infinite,

how

then can

we

conceive of two

infinites,

one greater than the other?

'

Hence time
P- 342.
1S2 Ibid.,

is finite.

Comp.

also his

argument from the

Lunar Eclipse on
'

345

JT'ban

^yn

n'-^^an

psb n^Dn

(l.

e.

magnitude) Nin

nsDinn

hj^t

ny.

236

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

its

of the space-fact itself without regard to

aspect.

quantitative

This conception of the infinite

it

is

novel and inter-

esting

justifies

the possibility of such a notion without

involving oneself in

numerous antinomies that

;

arise out
it

of a misunderstanding

and the emphasis that

is

lays

on

the idea that the infinite

not merely something greater

finite,

than the greatest conceivable

in history of the notion.

marks an advance

The

reader will note that Professor

Fullerton recently urged exactly the

the basis of very

same

point,

and on

much
is

similar arguments.^^^

But conception

one thing, and reality another.

infinite
is,

Such
a

an abstract idea of the

purely mental
fact.

like all abstractions,

is

In reality, everything

limited

and

can be represented

in a definite quantitative

form

and

183

See

iiis

Conception of the Infinite, ch. 2.

could hardly suspect

Professor Fullerton of having read

the MiUjamot,

but there

is

a very

modern philosophy who takes a similar view on the meaning of the infinite, and about whom such a suspicion might
famous thinker
in the history of

be ventured,

mean Baruch Spinoza.

In Part

of his Ethics he lays

is

down
antici-

the proposition that substance absolutely infinite

indivisible

and

pating some difficulty on the part of the reader to grasp the meaning of this
paradoxical statement, he seeks to
prop. xv).
infinite is

make

it

comprehensible (see note to

clear.

But our study of Gersonides makes the meaning

The

merely 'the representation of the space-fact

itself without

regard
definite

to its quantitative aspect',

and

is

therefore indivisible.
is

Only a

quantity can be divided

in a grain of

spatiality as such

found in the same degree

sand and in the immeasurable ocean.

The
is

infinite designates

space as a quality of matter and consequently suffers no diminution by any

process of quantitative division.

That

this

indeed
is

Spinoza's meaning

is

evident from his definition of eternity which

simply infinity

in succession,

namely, as

'

existence itself in so far as

it

is

conceived necessarily to follow

'

solely from the definition of that

which

is

eternal
it

and as distinguished from

remarked that from
this

beginninplcss and endless continuity.

Be

also

standpoint the distinction between the infinite and the infinitesimal disappears, for the degree of largeness or smallncss of matter plays no part
in this conception of the infinite.

PROBLEM OF SPACE
space
there
is is

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

237

bounded with the bounds of the

one sense
is

universe.^^"^

Yet
real,

in

which

infinity
is

can be said to be

and that

in process.

There

no end to the mental

power of augmentation and diminution.

term to a convergent
unit,
unit.

There

is

no

final

series enlarging

space by a certain

nor to a divergent series lessening space by a certain

Such a

series

may go on ad infinittim, though

All this
ability
is

every

term
a

in that series is

but a limited quantity, and gives us

sum total of a limited quantity. the human mind has acquired the

because

to

add and

detract,

and not having experienced anything that refuses

it

addition or subtraction,
ability.

can conceive of no limit to that

subtraction

But by addition and

finite results,

we can get
an

nothing but

so that this mental ability implies

things, namely,

two apparently diametrically opposite

infinite process

with

finite results.

Indeed, the very exercise

for

of this ability precludes

any

infinite result,

then the

process would

come

to an end,

inasmuch as nothing can

be added to the

infinite,

and thus the process would no

will ask, if infinite addition
is

more be

infinite.

Yet the reader

at
all, it

means anything
which

means that there

is

no end to the

process of adding, consequently there

is

no end to that

added.

But, as

have shown,
find that

if
it

you analyse the

term

infinite

addition,

you

means that the

it

additional process has no limit

carried, but

beyond which

cannot be

an

infinite result

which cannot be augmented

any more must

inference from
"*
/.

set

up a

limit to the process.

Hence the
is

infinity of process See also

p.

to infinity of state

c, p. 339.

386

QIXH

HDI^B'

HD ^3

|\S

nJH ^^5311

N^i nipn

i2\sc>

Dijmnn

-^^-^rs

bx ohyn nib iod onxn onix

238

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

That
is

unjustifiable.
finite
'.

why

'

magnitude

is

infinitely-

This explanation of Gersonides

of potentiality as developed

differs

from the theory

by

Aristotle.
infinite

He

cautions

^^^

the reader not

to

understand by

divisibility

or

augmentation that a body harbours a possibility to be

reduced into an infinitesimal or enlarged into an
infinite,

because that involves a misunderstanding of the infinite

which really cannot be attained by means of the

All that
divisible
is
;

finite.

meant

is,

that a body, being extended, must be

it

and inasmuch as

is

a physical law that a

body

cannot be destroyed by division, every part must be further

divisible.

Similarly with augmentation, because any dimen-

sional

body has the quality of being enlarged.

in,

Thus two
and the
run ad

series set

one convergent
(i,
it

(i, 2, 3, 4, 5,

&c.)
series

other divergent
infinitufn
;

^, ^, |, ^q, &c.).
is

Both
of such

and

the

condition
infinite

a series, as

has been shown, that no

term can be reached.

in

Gersonides was more consistent than Aristotle,

making
infinite

no discrimination between
augmentation.

infinite divisibility

and

Thus Gersonides's standpoint makes a genuine contribution

to

the

history

of this

difficult

problem.

In

completely severing the notion of the

quantitative
relations,

infinite

from any
infinity

and

in

showing

how
in

of

process

may, and indeed must, go hand

hand with

finitudc of state, Gersonides

modern thought.
Hasdai Crescas.

We

will

may still claim attention from now pass to the next man,
a defence of

The reader perhaps expects from Crescas

the theory of the infinite
;

the expectation being based on

Ibid., 334.

"6

PROBLEM OF SPACE
two reasons
:

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY
first

EFROS
and

239

first,

Crescas was the

challenge

in

the history of
thus

Jewish thought

to

Aristotelianism,

might have been led to renounce also the Aristotelian

theory of the finitude of things
as
;

secondly, Crescas was,

we have

seen, the first Jewish thinker to postulate pure

space outside of and beyond the confines of the universe,

thus space at least must be limitless.
Well, the reader
is

not altogether wrong in his expectation, though not quite

right.
It
is

true

that Crescas
infinite,

took issue with Aristotle

on the subject of the

states that space
is

and apparently he explicitly

'

unlimited.
'

It

has been explained

the world

',

he remarks in one place,

that outside

there

must be
sionality

either a full or a void,

and that boundless dimenif it

must

exist.

And
it,

even

were non-existent,

we would have

to posit

just as the geometrician

makes

use of such a concept in the definition of parallel lines and

other fundamental terms.'
ever, already casts
^^'^

The

latter

comparison, howauthor's meaning.

some suspicion on the

The geometrician does

sary
fact,
if real

not assume the infinite as a neces-

but as a hypothetical nature which must conform

to the general laws

It is

and conditions of geometrical

figures.

only

in this sense that

we say two
the

parallel
If

lines are infinitely equidistant

from one another.

into

now
real

you make further

opinion,

investigation

author's

you

will find that Crescas at

bottom adopted the

view-point that was elaborated by Gersonides.

I

said that

Crescas took issue with Aristotle on the Indeed, he attacked

all

subject of the infinite.

arguments

of the Greek philosopher, as well as other arguments that

were

advanced

in

negating the idea later by Arabian

of this discussion in
p. 16 b.

scholastics.

An

exposition
"
'r\

detail

niK,

240

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

really lead

i
outside
infinite,

would

me away

into the infinite,

select

mean

the limits of this work.

I shall

two arguments which

Shem

Tob, the commentator of Maimonides,^^'^ thinks the

most convincing proofs against the existence of the

but which Crescas repudiated.

These two arguments are

absolutely necessary for our general problem, because they

touch the fundamental question whether the mathematical

laws of space admit of limitless extension.

The

first

argument Crescas quotes from

Tabrizi,^^^
is

an
an

Arabian commentator of Maimonides, and

called

argument from superposition.

Let

AB

represent a line

A
and
CB.
call
it

C
Mark
Thus we have here two

B
off a certain distance
infinite lines

running ad infinihnii.
C.
let

from

AB and
on A.

Now

the two lines so coincide that

(^ falls

Evidently the line

CB which

is

shorter

hy

AC will terminate
is

some distance from AB.

greater than another, which
impossible.

Consequently one infinity

is

absurd.
recall

Hence
lived

infinity is

The

reader will

this

argument from

a Jewish source, namely, from Bahya,

before Tabrizi.

who

some time

But

it

is

evident that the author of this

infinite,

proof juggles with the word

that fact.

and Crescas exposes

Altogether, Crescas remarks,^"^

*" See
IS8

it

is
II,

not exact to say

Introd., prop.
i.

Shem

Tob's Commentary on the Guide,

a.

/p

"Tij^^

pp, 5 a and 15

The argument

is

called in

Hebre,w nSIO

nip3innn.

The

translation of Tabrizi's

propositions forming the introduction to Part

Commentary on the twenty-five II, was printed under the title

miDHO

n"lS''n

nVp

together with jn^n

hsC

T\'h'<A^.

See

also Stein-

schneider, Heb. Ucber., p. 207.

" 'n niN,

p.

67 b.:

rvi-\i

i6 n"33nD hna i^s n"3nn"c'

ij"ir:s'a

^d

n"33o |Dp

IN

Snj3 n"33n

-inid^b' iDiir:

pxtj'

nvna.

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

24I
is

that one infinity cannot be greater than another, the fact

that

it

cannot also equal another.

is

Not only
in our

inequality, but

also equality,

inapplicable to infinities.

For even when

we say

that a thing equals,

in

we have

mind a whole
it is

quantum,

other words, a limited nature.

Hence

just

as absurd to maintain that

it is

AB

equals, as to maintain that

greater than CB, for in either case

are dealing with the unlimited
;

we

only say that

we

in

our mind, however,

we have

a definite measured amount which

we

try

to

compare with another equal or unequal amount. All mathematical considerations,

all

signs of equality
if

and inequality,

must be dropped
endless.

entirely,

we

really wish to conceive the

Else

we

are like the fabulous peacock that sought

to escape

its feet

by

flying.

Having
whole

this idea clearly in

mind,

we

will find

that the

difficulty

with this argument disappears.

is

Let us

take an example from time which

less.

supposedly beginning-

Up

to

now we have
a

a series of

moments

infinite as

to beginning, but limited

by
of

this present

moment.

day
past.

passes
It
'

by and

number
this

moments

are

added to the
infinite

does not mean, however, that the

',

has been

increased

for

would suggest that we had a fixed

really did

calculable

number of moments which we

not

have.
it

We
You

have a case of addition, but we cannot reduce

to a mathematical equation.
to
?

What

are

you going to add

it

are dealing here with unmathematical notions

if

or metamathematical,

you

will,

and you have no right to

infinity

He thus
number
one

overthrows Gersonides's argument against

from the infinite

to,

of lunar eclipses, which not being greater, must be equal

and

coincident with, the infinite

infinity

number

of non-eclipses.

According
it

to

Crescas

can neither be greater nor equal

to another, for
is

is

altogether

beyond the category of number.

Abrabanel's D\nbN rivySO
,

The whole passage

7.

found verbatim in
2.

IX,

See

also above,

end of ch.

VOL.

VII.

242
subject

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

them
to mathematical treatment.
line in

Similarly,

you

have drawn a

space from this point ad

line.

infiiiituni,

a yard further you have drawn a similar

Both

lines

represent only an incomplete, so to speak, or unrealized

infinite

which must be endless as well as beginningless,

leading from eternity to eternity.

At any

rate,

all

you

have

is

a certain distance which might be added to the

B.

infinite line

But

to

draw

hastily a mathematical equation

and to seek to get the net

finite line,

result, is to

assume an imaginary

or to have a

wrong notion of what endlessness

^^'^
:

means.

The second argument

we may
select

is

as follows

If space

is infinite

any point

as a centre through which diameters

run adinfiniUun.

The

distance between any two diameters

which form an angle at the centre becomes wider and wider

until the intercepted arc

would be
if

infinite.

Now

the

diffi-

culty

is

twofold.

First,

we imagine
?

this infinite

space

to have a circular

movement, how would the moving dia-

meter cross this

infinite intercepted arc

An infinity is just
how
can the

that which cannot be crossed over.

Secondly,

arc be infinite
if it
is if

when

it is

limited

by the two diameters ? and

finite.

not limited

by them,
finite,

the diameters must be

is

And

they are

the intercepted arc

naturally

finite too.

Now,

first,

Crescas removes the objection from motion.

It is inconceivable

how an

infinite

body could move.

from the

To

move means

to leave an occupied place and to occupy an

is

unoccupied place, but no place

free

infinite.

He now
140

turns to the second difficulty.

pp,
-^

An
in the

intercepted arc
main
p.

'ji "^^j^^

a,

16 b.

This argument

is

identical with

Tabrizi's 'argument from scales',

also Spinoza's Ethics, part
I,

^oSdH nSID

Cf.

I.e.,

5 b,

Comp.

prop, xv, note.

PROBLEM OF SPACE
between two
infinite

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

243

diameters would eventually be

is
it

infinite.

But
and

if it

is infinite,
is

how

limited

by the two diameters,

finite.

if it

unlimited by them, they must be

To
that
is

this Crescas replies, an infinite line does not

mean one
Similarly,

has infinite extent between

its

ends

meaning which
it

of course contradictory and nonsensical.

is

absurd to look on this diameter for a point which will be

an

infinite distance

from the centre

and inasmuch as the

it is

arc could be infinite only at such a point,

evident that

an
'

infinite arc is impossible.

'

What
this,
line,
;

then do

we mean by
is

the infinite diameter

Just

that there

no limit to
itself

the possibility of extending the

because space
it

cannot be conceived to have limits

that

can be infinitely
nature.

prolonged and nevertheless preserve

fact

its finite
it is

This

may

at

first

seem

strange, but

no more strange,

says Crescas, than the fact cited in the Book of Cones^^^

that two lines starting at a distance from one another, and

drawing nearer while they go on, never come

in contact,

even

though you

may

prolong them ad infinitum.

Infinity then

denotes a process which

may be

perpetually carried on

without breaking up the integral nature of the object, just

as finitude denotes a limit which a certain process cannot

surpass without destroying the peculiar nature of the object,

as

when we say
is

that a
infinite

body

is

only finitely divisible.

it

Thus
never

the diameter

because

can endlessly be extended,

finiteness,

though

it

always preserves
is

its

though

it

reaches a point which

centre,

at a boundless distance from the

infinite

and so never possibly intercepts an

'

arc.
is

The

reader will recall the pregnant saying,

'.

Magnitude

infinitely finite
is

The key-note

of this whole discussion

that there

is

an

infinite process,

which naturally implies

128.

finite results.
^*'

See above, note

244

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Thus there
are

two fundamental notions about the

infinite

which stand out very clearly from these two argu-

ments.

The

first

argument shows that

infinity

is

in

nowise

reducible to terms of finitude and quantity, and vice versa.

Hence the

idea that

we conceive

the infinite
is

by means of

a successive synthesis of finites

erroneous.

We may
soar on our

delve deep into the bottomless abyss,

we may

imagination to the dreary regions of pure space,

we may

make
but
of the
It is

a life-long, or an eternity-long, successive synthesis,

will still find
finite,

we

ourselves

much

within the boundaries

finite.

simply because

finite

plus finite equals

not by widening limits, but

by removing

limits,

by
are

thinking

away

all

quantitative determinations, that

infinite.

we

allowed a glimpse of the

The second argument

reader, namely,
finally
if

obviates an objection from the

it

space can be endlessly enlarged,

must

be endlessly large.
Infinity
it

The word
a
term.

'

finally

'

is

not approis

priate.

denotes
final

process

which

endless,

consequently

has no

Hence there can be no

final

infinite state or infinite result,

because that would be a

term.

The second argument then

is

brings out the comple-

mentary idea that there

a logical

harmony between

infinity of process and finitude of results.

Thus we have seen how

first

this

conception as a whole was

faintly suggested

by Maimonides, given prominence

crystallized
It

by Narboni, elaborated and

finally clarified

by Gersonides, and
may, therefore, be

by Hasdai Crescas.

justly called the view of infinity of mediaeval Jewish philo-

sophy

a view that may claim even

at the present
is

day the

serious attention of the student

who

perplexed by the
antinomies which

tangle of numerous contradictions and

this

problem presents.

problem of space

in

jewish philosophy

efros

245

Conclusion.

brief

discussion

rhmnc of the is now in order.

chief points

in

the preceding

I shall select

the four central

far,

problems that have occupied our attention so

and

examine the solution

thinkers.

offered
:

by the mediaeval Jewish

(i)

These problems are

the reality of empirical

space, (2) the infinite divisibility of space, (3) the existence

of absolute space, and (4) the infinity of space.

(i)

In Jewish philosophy

space
'

is

conceived

as

an

objective reality.

By

reality

understand the existence

of a thing in the objective world independent of our perception.

in the

The mediaeval mind in general saw no problem reality of space. One might have disputed on how
angels could stand tip-toe on a pin-head, but that

many

the pin-head exists with a certain magnitude of extension,

no one entertained any doubt.

It

is

only the modern

mind, hypersophlsticated, philosophically gone astray, that

nervously asks whether this vast extension above and below

and around us

is

not a mere illusion.

Not only

did the

Jewish thinkers affirm the independent existence of space,

but some even went so
far as to

take a geometric view of

things and conceive the corporeal essence in terms of space.

Matter, they maintained,

is

not merely that which takes

up space, but

it

is

space.

All other characteristics that

a certain object
for a

may

possess are altogether unimportant

pure conception of matter.

material object, ac-

cording to these thinkers,

may

be defined as a limited
qualities.

magnitude of space that possesses certain

space and matter are synonymous terms.

Thus

Other thinkers

are less radical, and put space in the category of qualities.

Corporeality means for them some mysterious substrate,

246

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the conception of which requires no space determinatives.

Yet

in reality, all admit,

(2)

space

is

inseparable from matter.

is

But

if

unextended matter

an impossibility,

it

is

evident that the Arabian atomic hypothesis, which reduces

matter to ultimate non-magnitudinal parts, must be

jected.

re-

non-magnitudinal part
itself,

is

in

the

first
it

place

impossible in

and secondly, how could

produce
point
is

extension by combining with a similar part?

zero of extension, and you

may add

zeros

ad infinitum
word
in a
'

without ever getting a number.

bine'
sense,
itself, if it is

Besides, the

com-

meant

in a physical

and not

chemical

which

is

irrelevant

in

this

connexion, implies a

limit
is

coming

in

contact with another limit, and a limit

is

a point before which there

a point which

is

no

limit.
is

In short, combination implies that that which combines

an aggregate of points, and consequently extended. Hence

the idea that

matter

is

composed of ultimate spaceless

parts must be abandoned.

The

truth

is,

that no matter

how much you may

you
will

divide and subdivide a piece of matter,

is

always get something that

practically,

further

divisible.

Of course,
sensibile
\

you

will eventually

reach a

minimum
from

theoretically, however, nothing prevents us

continuing with our process of division.

*

Extension means
Conse-

alongsidedness of parts

',

and hence

divisibility.

quently, as long as

you have matter you have

divisibility.

Therefore anything, however small and minute, can be

divided ad infinitum.

But here a dreadful gap opens up

wide before
have an

us.

If

things are infinitely divisible, they must

parts, but

infinite

number of

how can
?

finite

object contain an infinite

number of

parts
?

How

can we
could

move over even

the smallest distance

And how

Achilles overtake the tortoise

when the

distance between

PROBLEM OF SPACE
them
is

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

247

infinitely divisible,

and each half of the distance

another half between them,

that Achilles

covers

leaves

growing smaller and smaller to be sure, but never becoming

zero?
Indeed, one might ask

how they can both begin

even that of the tortoise,

to move, since the very

first step,

involves a crossing of an infinite abyss?

The

fourth point,

on the

infinity

of space, will give an

answer to these

questions also.
(3)

So much

for empirical space, or concrete extensity.

real,

This

is

undeniably

as real as matter of which

it

is

the distinguishing characteristic.

as pure space,

But

is

there such a thing

mere dimensionality outside of and beyond

?

the world of matter

Here opinions

differed, the majority

being against the existence of a void.

Aristotelian notion of space as
'

In accepting the
inner
limit

the

of the

containing body

',

or a

mere

relation of contiguity

between
the

two

objects,

the Jewish

thinkers

had

to

endorse
if

exclusion of the possibility of pure space.

as distinguished

For
is

by

space,

from concrete extension,

meant merely

contiguity,

it

is

evident that where there are no bodies,

there can be no space.

position.

This
this

is

precisely the Leibnizian

Yet there

is

critical

remark to be made.
possibility of

Such a position might indeed explain the

conceiving the vanishing of
annihilation of the world of matter.

the space order,

with the

But

if

this relation-

ship of contiguity
inheriting also
its

is

to supplant the notion of space,

;

by

apodictic certainty

mean,

if

the

mind

necessarily postulates such contiguity in connexion with

matter;
side

if

an object cannot be conceived to exist outrelationship,

of such
is

the question

may be
denied,

asked,

how

the

universe

as
if

whole conceivable
is

without
is

such relations?

What,

pure space

con-

248

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the
?

tiguous with

confines

of the

world?

By what

is

matter
seen,

Hmited

Indeed,
against

such

an

objection,

we have

was

raised

the Aristotelian
is

theory of the

existence of a sphere which

tained.

all-containing and not con-

But the Jewish thinkers

flatly refused to

who negated
'

the void

would have

confer

apodictic certainty'
it

on the relationship of contiguity.

puzzled by the question:
after

Some,
is

is

true,

were

What

there

beyond?

And

they have proved by a

series

of arguments, to their

own

satisfaction, that space has limits

and there

is

nothing
:

beyond, they suddenly started at their

own

expression

Yes, but does not the word 'beyond' suggest a spatial background ? The whole puzzle, however, was solved very
truly

by Abrabanel.

The mind

constantly receives spatial

it

impressions from the external world, so that

has acquired

a habit to consider things in spatial relations.

a solitary object
that
is

Hence
is

shorn of these relations,

not inconceivable.

not

easily conceivable, but

it is

The human
finite

mind can transcend

totality

this habit
in

and conceive of a
relations

which stands

no

spatial

with any-

thing
(4)

else.

And
in

so

come
held

to the last point in our discussion.

We
But

saw

connexion with the idea of the void, that the

is

finitude of space
infinite

by the majority of Jewish

its

thinkers.

space presents a problem of

own.

On

the

one hand

many mathematical

demonstrations might be
;

made showing

the impossibility of infinity

on the other

hand, infinity seems to be a positive fact of experience.

There can be no
object, just as

limit to the possibility of enlarging

an

we have seen

that there can be no limit

to the possibility of dividing a certain object.

is

And

if

that

so, will

not these two antithetical processes evolve two

'

PROBLEM OF SPACE

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

EFROS

249
?

bodies, one infinitely large, and the other infinitely small

Jewish philosophy has

It is

this to say on this serious difiiculty.

contradictory to speak of a
'

body
'

that
large

is
'

'

infinitely
'

large

or

'

infinitely small

'.

The terms

and small

denote quantity, they present to our mind a definite limited

magnitude
all,

and

infinity

means

limitless.

Infinity,

above
;

must be absolutely distinguished from quantity

it

is

just

by

the removal of quantity that

you conceive the

first

infinite.

And
is

the fundamental error in the

:

Kantian

antinomy

just this

that infinity

is

conceived as a sucinfinity

cessive synthesis

of parts,
it

whereas true
is

refuses

being measured because

just the reverse of measure,

it

and excludes the notion of a part because

as well as unaugmentable, being

is

indivisible

no

definite

magnitude,

and

is

not obtained by a series of successive syntheses,

because you

may choose
it

the greatest conceivable magnitude

and multiply
what you
will

by the
will

greatest imaginable number, and

have

be a

finite

object as finite as a
Finite

grain of sand and

a blade

of grass.

plus finite

equals

finite.

that

What then may be

;

does infinity mean

carried

It

represents a process

endlessly without destroying the

object

just as finitude represents such a process that will

ultimately reach a limit, the crossing of which would spell

injury to the object.
is

It is in this

sense that

we say matter
ad
infinitum,

infinitely

augmentable, meaning that we can enlarge and

further enlarge a given magnitude of matter

without ever producing an infinite magnitude, because that

would mean the

loss of

matter which
it

is

by nature

limited

and circumscribed.
such an
infinite will

Indeed,

is

absurd to believe that

eventually be reached, because then

the process will cease, infinity being unaugmentable, and


THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
finite.

250

the process will therefore be

Hence an

infinite pro-

cess presupposes finite results,

and as one Jewish thinker

infinitely finite.

cleverly remarked
infinite divisibility

Matter

is

Similarly,

denotes that the process of division

may

be carried on theoretically

ad

infinitum, without bringing

this endless process

about the

loss of the object.

Yet

never

produces the infinitesimal, because that would involve the

end of the process.

will ask, that

But does not

this

mean, the reader

we could

resolve a piece of matter into an

infinite

number
is

of parts?

No;

first

of

all

an

infinite
if

number
an
division

a contradiction of terms, and, secondly,

such

infinite

number could possibly be attained the process of

cease, but
it

would

is

endless.

Hence while each

greater, they
finite.

part becomes smaller and the

number of parts

cannot both overleap the boundaries of the

Zeno's puzzles vanish like shadows
in

Thus

the light.

We
only

do

not move over

the tortoise.
that infinity
is

infinities,

and Achilles can

to bear in

easily overtake
is

What we have

mind

this,

a process, not a state.

in

Thus

have outlined briefly the Jewish standpoint

I

the problem of space, and

well.

might conclude here perfectly

Yet

should like to discuss one more point with

the reader before versus the

I

we

part.

It is the

Jewish empirical view

modern doctrine

of the subjectivity of space.

fear that

many
it

a Kantian reader will leave this paper

if

he looks at
!

at all

with a smile
I

Objectivity of space,

Mediaevalism

Yet

believe that the phenomenalistic

theory has hindered rather than helped

to
in

man

in his desire

know

his

whereabouts, so as to adjust the interrelations

the best possible manner.

Kant did not explain

things,

but transformed the world into a dreadful yawning abyss

and called

it

Noumenon.

He

argued that we can mentally

PROBLEM OF SPACE
annihilate and think

IN

JEWISH PHILOSOPHY
matter, but
is

EFROS

251

away

we cannot

think

away
But

space, consequently space

a necessity of thought.

for myself, I

cannot see

how we

can think away matter.

then

Of course we
away
absurd.

can stop thinking at

;

all,

we have thought
is

space, also

but to think and not to think of things

think, of course

When we
;

we

think something and

about something.
of our thought

Objects of experience are the contents

think

away those

objects,

and thought

becomes meaningless.

And

as for space being a necessity

seen,

of the mind, Abrabanel,

clearly.
It is a habit

we have

explains

it

very

contracted

by the mind under the

pressure of constant spatial experience.

Had

the

human
would
con?

mind been born

in a spaceless universe, spacelessness

have become a necessity of thought.

sciousness
if

For what

is

not the manifold impresses of external stimuli

idea that space
is

Hence the very

proves that
to
it is

a necessity of thought

a necessity of reality.
is

To deny

this

means

assume that the mind

some independent

spiritual

nature capable of engendering an order of existence.

course, the infant undoubtedly has

Of

some dim sense of

space,

but

this

may have
its

been because of the

fact that the universal

reality of space has developed in the

human mind
it

in the

course of

evolution a spatial sense, because

helped the
;

mind

to adjust its relations to the external order

is itself

and so

this innate spatial sense

evidence for the reality of

space.
here.

But

cannot take up this phase of the question

Thus

submit

this

Jewish empirical standpoint to the

student of the problem of space, as a possible solution.

RECENT HISTORICAL LITERATURE

Studien ziir Geschichte derjuden im Konigreich Aragonien
des i^. undi4.Jahrhunderts.

wdhrend
Berlin:

Von

Dr. Fritz Baer.

pp. 212.

Verlag von Emil Ebering, 1913.

Dr. Baer's Studies make a noteworthy contribution

to the

important series of Historische Studien under the general editorship

of the veteran historian Emil Ebering, of which series Dr. Baer's

book forms volume

tional

106.

Among

Jewish

historical

studies,

Dr. Baer's book will rank as an able presentation of the constitu-

development of an important section of Mediaeval Jewry.

merit of Dr. Baer's work, moreover, that he has

It is the special

utilized with

unprecedented thoroughness the invaluable archive

material of Jacobs, and

tion)^ the

Regne (up

to the date of Baer's publica-

important researches of local Spanish historians, and

extensive use of the rabbinic responsa.

has

made

Dividing his book into two sections of unequal length, the

author defines in the one part the legal status of the Jews in

Aragon^ and in the other their economic position

Lage).

{zvirischaftliche

The

social life proper does not fall within the scope of

the present work.

text are devoted,

The
is

first

division, to

which two-thirds of the

:

divided into three comprehensive chapters

i.

the Jews and the public powers,

the towns,

e.

the king, the feudal lords,

and the Church

the legal relations between the Jews

and

their

Christian fellow-citizens, which might

entitled, the personal rights of the
:

more properly
their legal

have been

Jews and
finally,

relations with their Christian neighbours

and

the com-

position

and administration of the Jewish communities.

:

The

second division consists of two chapters

the size and material

development of the Jewish communities

in the

kingdom of Aragon

and the economic occupations of the Jews. 253

This part contains

254
important
first

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

statistical data,

but

is

not so adequately treated as the

is

division of the book.

It

followed by an excursus

on

the role of the Jews in the fiscal administration of the

States in the thirteenth century,

Aragon
in the

and an appendix which

manner of Hoffmann's Geldhandel der deutschen Judeft contains

representative selections from the rabbinic responsa.

The exposition of the legal status is in the main well conceived. The status of the Jews in Spain was but their status in Mediaeval
Christendom
feudal order.

misfit by-product

of Christian theory

and the

The

legal theory prevailed generally in the European

countries that the Jews were everywhere aliens, being without a

7iatural right to the territory

which they inhabited, and auto-

matically falling to the possession of the king as soon as they set

foot

on

his soil.

Like the Saracens, the Spanish Jews belonged

earlier

to the Patrimonio Real, and as

in

the

pseudo-Roman

Empire, so in Spain in the fourteenth century they were called

specifically servi camerae.

Though Baer

urges caution against the sweeping theories of

the Mediaeval Codes,

and explains

that in

no

literal

sense could

the Jews be described as the king's chattel, he overemphasizes

nevertheless the legal attachment of the Jews to the king
their alleged inability under the penalty of loss of
life

and

and property

to leave the king's

dominion without a

special royal authorization.

it

The Jews being

a source of revenue,

was natural

for the

king

upon Jewish immigration and to frown upon their emigration, and indeed James I and his successors distinctly But the prohibition seems to have been forbade the latter.
to look with favour

primarily directed against the acquisition of Jews by his feudal

vassals rather than to fix

upon the Jews a

status akin to serfdom.

is

That

it

was not an

effective

check on Jewish emigration

evidence which

decisively

shown

in

the responsa where the Jewish population

appears essentially mobile.

Nor

is

the

Baer

collected (p. 14, n. 10) sufficiently

generalization.

imposing to warrant his important

94,
95,

Between R^gne

574, and Jacobs 1038,

1044 there

is

a gap of approximately sixty years, and the latter

seem

to

imply a new decree.

In the former, the emigrants were

RECENT HISTORICAL LITERATURE

plainly creditors,

NEUMAN
still

255

who

therefore in absentia were

conducting
entirely
states

gainful enterprise in their native

town and thus had not

Barfat

severed connexion with their former domicile.

I, 2

openly that the confiscation of the property of emigrants

as

newly decreed, that

quently permitted

it

was

illegal extortion,

and

that

it

was conse-

to

evade the law.

To

this

may be added

Ibn Adret, Responsa, V, 198, where the French authorities are

quoted approvingly that
'

Jews are

like knights

'

and therefore have

the right to change their domicile.

(Cf. Tosafot,

Baba kamma

58

a).

Finally,

it

should be emphasized that within the crownfull

lands, the

Jews enjoyed

freedom of movement.

The

motives that determined the Jewish policies of the Aragon

:

kings are grouped by Baer under three headings

the

demands of

the Catholic Church, the interests of the Christian subjects, and

the increase of the royal budget.

Without exception, the Spanish

little

kings of the period under consideration showed but

to

inclination

obey the behests of canon law and papal exhortations against

the Jews.

But

their personal piety

and Christian

zeal strongly

favoured a legislative policy looking toward the conversion of the

Jews through compulsory disputations, enforced Church attendance,

and even the instrument of the

Inquisition,

when

the latter

did not invade their seignorial rights.

The

interests

of the

Christian subjects, on the other hand, figure but slightly as a

conscious factor in the king's attitude to the Jews.

laws against usury which Baer attributes to
originally granted as a concession to the
this

Indeed, the

motive were

Church rather than the

his Christian subjects as

people

(cf.

R^gne,

5).

Baer

fails

to interpret the king's apparent

unconcern about the general welfare of

being in reality a significant recognition of the beneficial character

of the economic activities of the Jews.

Both the

religious as well

as the national considerations, however, were but contributory causes

to the

prime purpose by which the kings were guided

in all their

relations to the Jews, the royal revenue.

In this graduated scheme of royal motives,

the interests
of the Jews per
se

it

will

be noted^
profit

play

no

part.

Their

and

increase were but the king's gain,

and were thus encouraged by him

256

THE JEWI5H QUARTERLY REVIEW

self-interest.
is

from a motive of
tation in general

The

validity of the latter interpreit

indisputable, and,

may be added, no one

But as
inconsistency, their

realized

its

significance

more than the Jews themselves.

even mediaeval kings were prone to

acts were often
full

human

promoted by higher motives, which too receive

Moreover, the sway of the
Spain was such that

recognition in the Jewish sources.

Jewish court-favourites and high

their influence

officials in

upon the king might indeed have been accounted

in

as

an independent factor
Crown.

shaping the Jewish policies of the

Spanish

Evidently,

however,
life

Baer shares the

usual

tendency to regard the

entirely passive.

political

of the mediaeval Jews as

Plausible as this view

It ignores

may

appear,

it

reveals

only a half-truth.

completely the reaction of the Jews,

which was of high practical and theoretical importance. though

in

For

the

last resort

the Jews had

no voice

in

framing

the laws which affected their political, economic, and religious

condition, they subjected every decree of the king
their

and curia

to

own standards

of justice and equity, and to their

own

con-

ceptions of political theory.

The
V,
4,

judicial opinions of the rabbis

presume

to define the rights of the sovereign, the nation,

II, 134,

and the

Jews (Ibn Adret

VI, 149).

In numerous cases

they pass adversely upon the legality of the king's decrees.

limit his right of confiscation (Barfat, II, 9).

They
the

They champion

Jews'

unrestricted
I,

right
2,

of travel

and emigration (Ibn Adret,

the property rights of
I, 2).

V^ 198; Barfat,
marranos who

II, 9).

They uphold
(Barfat,

fled to

do penance

These
;

judicial

decisions did not of course contemplate open resistance

but they

did sanction and accomplish the evasion and secret defeat of such

measures as were not based on justice or established prerogative.

Always based on rabbinic law and precedent, they represent not

merely the theoretical interest of
legalists,

but reflect the historical

view-point of mediaeval Jewry, which has too long and uniformly

been neglected
Dr.

in

our expositions of Jewish history.

the
opportunity,

Baer has therefore unhappily missed

his

which

knowledge of the responsa amply

from a fresh angle.

afforded, of treating
tliis

his subject

Nowhere

is

shortcoming so

RECENT HISTORICAL LITERATURE

NEUMAN

257

apparent as in the description of the inner administration of the

Jewish communities.

In this exposition, the basis of the communal

bewildering series
of detailed

organization rests solely on the

regulations which were issued by the kings relating to the individual

aljamas.

To

the Jews

who

lived

under these

statutes,

however,

the laws appeared only as the external authorization of the king,

as the limitation rather than the sanction of Jewish

communal
laws which

government.

Thus

in

trenchant review of the

officers in

governed the election of communal

Barcelona and

which were based on an edict of the king as well as a communal

statute,

R. Isaac Barfat stated clearly

'
:

There

is

no doubt but

that without the confirmation of our lord the King, high be his
glory, the

Aljama has the authority

its

in

accordance with the law of

our Torah to frame

own

ordinances, and to ban, excommunicate,

its

and penalize the offenders of

fear of the

statutes ....

But because the

King was upon them,

lest

the rulers say.

Ye have usurped

your authority without the consent of the King, and also in order
to

overawe would-be offenders with the dread of the sovereign,

they solicited the decree from the lord our King, high be his
glory (Barfat,
I,

228).

Whatever the resemblance between the

of the Jews and the municipal administrait

communal government
that the

tion of the mediaeval city,

was from the mass of rabbinic law

Jews drew

their

fundamental principles of representative

legislative

government.

In the terms of halakah, they defined the

authority of the majority,

and by

its

standards they upheld as well

the

inalienable

rights

of the

minority.

(Ibn

Adret,

I,

729,

III, 392,

V, 126, 277-8; 178).

its

The

relation of a

major com-

munity to
{Ibid., Ill,

subordinate aljamas in a governmental province

411), the

autonomy of poUtical

or

economic

parties

within the larger Kahal {Ibid., IV, 185), the attempted secession

of individuals or parties from the corporate body {Ibid.,

I,

769,

V,

277), the validity, or

constitutionality of statutes
political life

touching
of the

the religious, economic,

and

of the

members

community were
law.

all

studied and treated in the light of rabbinic

it

Thus,

for

instance,

is

impossible

to

understand the

problem of

legislative

readjustment which constantly faced the

S

VOL. VIL

258

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Jewish communities without a knowledge of the halakah of the vow and the ban, and the regulations governing their recall. To treat
the Bet-din solely as a subordinate appendage of the governing Council (Baer, p. 107) and to dispose of the function of the

Rabbi
(pp.
1

in the

mediaeval community in twenty-two lines of text

is

17-18)

virtually to

throw out of gear the centre of legal

in the

authority

and moral sanction among the Jews

merit of Dr.
Baer's
lies chiefly in

Middle Ages.

The

sketch of the Jewish

skill

communal

organization

the

with which he has sifted and

identified the loose

Hebrew

titles

of the higher

The

organized

life

of mediaeval Jewry created

communal officials. new functions

without coining a correspondingly

were taken,
in

it

would appear,

new terminology. Old terms almost at random, and were applied

offices.

a loose fashion to designate new

least,

The

result was, to

say the
to the

confusing.

Thus

the term

DnnS

refers alternately

Governing Council, the Supervisors of Taxes, the Committee

Bet-din.

on Religious and Moral Observance, and the Court, or

The

connotation of D'':DN: in Eastern Catalonia differed

in

from

its

meaning

Western

Catalonia

and

so,

other

examples

of

ambiguity and multiplicity of meaning

may

easily

be added.

Out of this confusion, Baer was no doubt helped in part by the Latin and Spanish equivalents of the Hebrew terms, which occur in the non-Hebrew sources, which he has sifted with technical
skill,

and he thus helped

to restore a fair picture of the official

family of the Jewish

communal

organization.

Nevertheless, his

identifications are not always warranted.

Thus, the

nn^y nna

who

supervised the moral and religious discipline in the comit is

munity,

to

be assumed, formed an independent body like the

to

tax-officials,

and are not

or

be identified with the general Board of

the latter
officials also

Mukdamim
at times

Neemanim merely because

performed similar functions in other communities.

Nor

is

there sufficient warrant for treating the

distinct type different

Aljama of Catalonia

as a

from the community of Aragon or Valencia,

because the one was headed by a board called

other by the

Neemanim and

the

Mukdamim,

as the functions of the

two bodies were

Indeed,

completely identical despite their difference in name.

RECENT HISTORICAL LITERATURE

even
in Castile

NEUMAN

259

which was an independent kingdom and was ruled

by a

different dynasty, the

development of the Jewish communal

organization was sufficiently similar to that of the joint

of Aragon,
Catalonia,

monarchy
use of the
it

and Valencia

to justify the

common

national term, the Spanish Aljama.

is

Incidentally

may

be remarked that Baer's statement, which

Ids Rios, that in Castile

based on Amador de
to acquire land at the

Jews were forbidden

&:c.,

end of the thirteenth century,

son R. Judah.

ought to be corrected in view

of the contradictory evidence of the responsa of R. Asher

his

and

Divisions 95-99 in R. Asher's responsa refer

primarily to cases of landed property.

In general,

it is

true that the Jews usually lived apart from the

it

general population, but

city

cannot be made a rule that in every

(Cf.
in

(Baer, p.
I,

88) the Jews lived in a separate quarter.

11 29).

Ibn Adret,

Ibn Adret, V, 222 does not sustam Baer

the conclusion that the entire male population from the age of
fifteen

upwards participated
states

in the

communal

assemblies.

The

responsum

merely that the ban against the evasion of

in the

tax-duties was to

be pronounced

Synagogue
i.

in the presence

of

all

males from the age of

fifteen

upward,

e. all

male persons

liable to taxes.

Baer's unsupported assertion (p. 18) that the Jews

unlike the Saracens were free from the poll-tax, stands in strange
contradiction to
.

Ibn Adret^ V, 178, IV, 64-5.

Baer assumes

that in the aljamas the bakers like the butchers

had

to

be Jews

because of

ritual observances.

He

has apparently overlooked the

b.

remark of an eye-witness, R.
places whither

Menahem
ed.

Zerah, that 'in most

is

we have been
p.

exiled there

no Jewish baker'.

{Zedah la-Derek,

102

b,

Sabbioneta).

As

for

Jewish

butchers, see Ibn Adret, III, 253.

The

selections from the responsa

which end the

is

Stiidien are

well chosen.
tribution,

Altogether, Dr. Baer's volume

will

a notable conall

which

be gratefully received by

students

of

Spanish-Jewish history.

S a

'

26o

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

By Norman Bentwich.
Society
Philadelphia
1914.

Josephus.

The Jewish
pp.

Publication

of America,

266

4-

3 photographic illustrations.

This volume on Josephus

is

the

second

contribution

of

Mr. Bentwich

to

the Biographical

Series of Jewish Worthies,

projected by the Jewish Publication Society of America.

The

time

is

not so distant

when

the embellished works of Josephus in

Whiston's translation were assigned an honourable place by the

side

of the Bible

in

every pious
it is

household in England and

America.

Nevertheless,

a fact that Josephus

and

his writings

have been strangely neglected in English

less

literature, scientific

no

than popular, so that the Society by

its

recent publication has

filled

a long-felt desideratum, and the author has produced a

to

work

which special

interest

is

attached thereby.

The book

is

primarily designed for Jewish readers,

and the author's avowed

'.

aim was

'

to consider

Josephus from the Jewish point of view

felt for his
'

The want

of sympathy which Mr. Bentwich

hero

happily did not detract from the pleasantness of his style.

The
is

presentation shows the writer's firm grasp of the intricate problems

of his subject,
lucid

and

his exposition

though largely argumentative

and

attractive.
first is

Of

the nine chapters which

compose the

book, the

very properly a resume of the relations of

:

Rome

and Judea up

to the great tragedy of tragedies

the second and

third chapters give a critical account of Josephus, the soldier,

and

traitor to his

country

the remainder of the volume

is

an

appreciation
of Josephus.

in

my

opinion, a depreciation

of the literary work

From

the

start,

the writer adopts a sceptical attitude towards

Josephus' self-representation, which leads him not only to qiiestion

Josephus' boasted attainments in Jewish

lore,

but even to doubt

the account of his early training under the Essene Banus.

The

same cavilling tendency the writer displays with

consequences
merits.

more
and
'

serious
historic

in his estimation of Josephus' literary

The

stout claim of the author of the

his

'

Wars

that the

work was based on

own

notes taken from personal observation

RECENT HISTORICAL LITERATURE

is

NEUMAN
'

26l
it is

confuted, and the suggestion

is

made

that

with Josephus
'.

" true that " once a compiler, ahvays a compiler

With a few

skilful touches,

Mr. Bentwich depicts the history

of Jewish historic writing in the

Graeco-Roman period

till

the

time of Josephus.

The

linking of the Occident

and the Orient

This affected

through the conquests of Alexander the Great broadened the

sympathies and historic interests of the Greek.
powerfully the writing of Jewish history
;

for henceforth the

Jews

came
their

within

the

ken

of

Greek encyclopedists

and

national
to write

historians,

and Hellenized Jews were thereby stimulated

history in order to supplement

own

and

oft-times to correct

the

libellous

accounts of the heathen

inspiration

writers.

Under

these

influences

and under the

of the Maccabees, a con-

siderable historic literature sprang up, written in a didactic vein

from the practical view-point of the apologist.

character of
all

This polemic

Jewish-Hellenistic writing, Mr. Bentwich describes

clearness

with

sufificient

and emphasis, and

yet he might have

taken

this

more

fully into consideration in his caustic criticism of

the inaccuracy and the colouring of Josephus' writings.

This Greek and

Hellenistic literature,

the

greater part of

which

is

known

to

us only through the liberal quotations of

Josephus, the

latter

did

not

adopted by Mr. Bentwich.

know at first hand, is the view The vast erudition which Josephus
to the

displays in all his works he culled artificially from a few collections

of industrious compilers.

'

His archaeology extended only

writers

reading
(p.

of one

or

more

of universal

ancient history'
of

142).

Alexander Polyhystor

and Nicholas

Damascus

supplied

him with the names of the Jewish and Greek authors

from their works, referring to the Jews.

and

also with brief extracts

Besides the books of these two authors, his literary apparatus for
the twenty books of the Antiquities was limited to the Bible, the
First

Book

of the Maccabees, minus the last two (three

?)

chapters,

the lost chronicle of John Hyrcanus, Strabo's History, and perhaps

several hypothetical chronicles of Jewish Hellenistic origin.

These

sources he slavishly incorporated in his works either verbatim or

with slight paraphrasing, so that they awkwardly bear their original

262
earmarks.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Even
in matters of opinion,

he copied the point of

view of whatever guide he happened

is

to follow, so that the reader

is

always

uncertain

as

to

whether he

confronted with the

judgement of Jew, Greek, or Roman. This theory of Josephus' method of writing is applied in its extreme form to the Wars
'

',

in

which not only

is

the point of view said to be borrowed from a

Roman
'

source, but the entire

work

is

characterized as a compilation

of the works of unknoivn predecessors to which Josephus added

something from his personal experience and

his national pride

'.

The
him, and

views advanced by Mr. Bentwich are not original with

it is

not necessary to enter here into a critical examination

Suffice
it

of the individual opinions expressed by the author.

say,

to

that

on the whole the exposition

is

in

harmony with the

and
the Wars,

conclusions of Destinon

though
While

the latter's bold theory of the

Anonymus
most

is

not entirely adopted

Niese,

in

faithfully, Schlatter.

their conclusions

by no means

represent the consensus of scholarly opinion, and both Schiirer

and Juster place much greater credence and value on Josephus

an
historian,

as

nevertheless,

Mr. Bentwich

is

of course

entirely

within the bounds of scholarly grace in following the trends of

those scholars, whose contribution to the study of Josephus

is

unquestioned.

Yet

it

is

to

be regretted that

in a

popular book

which aims to introduce Josephus to the English readers, the

literary

and

historic merits of

Josephus should be thus belittled

is

and minimized. The presentation

hardly calculated to stimulate

the reader to a further study of Josephus' work.

Much
test

less justifiable

is

Mr. Bentwich's subjective criticism of

'

Josephus from the Jewish point of view.

of faithfulness to
his

It is

when
is

tried

by the

nation that Josephus

found most
This

wanting', the author writes anticipatingly in the preface.

verdict which
is

axiomatic of Josephus the General cannot however

be assumed for Josephus the Apologist and Chronicler of his

nation.

No one
all,

will

have the hardihood to vindicate the character

his personal conceit,

of Josephus.

His exaggerated egoism,

and,

above

his

confessed betrayal of his country's cause are so

glaringly exposed in his

own

writings that

it

may

well be said that

RECENT HISTORICAL LITERATURE

Josephus was
that at
at

NEUMAN
it

263

his

own

worst traducer.
his rehgion

But

cannot be denied

bottom he loved

and

his race,

and

that

though

one time he threw down

his country's sword,

he did not lack

the courage later on to take up the Uterary cudgels against a host

of his people's calumniators.
It is

unjust to deny to
in

him the
and
first

authorship of the

finest

passages

Contra Apionem simply

fit

because
it

'

they are too eloquent and inspired to

Josephus

',

is

just as

unwarranted to

criticize

the historian of the

century for not having written a social and religious history of his

people according to the taste of a twentieth century writer.

is it

always a sign of

'

inward slavery

in

Nor outward freedom when

'

Josephus writes with an eye to the interests of the public for

which

his writings

were composed.

His

Roman
Judaism
'

proclivities

and

deliberate misrepresentation of the Zealots are rightly

as treasonable bias, but his exposition of

condemned
terms of

in the

Roman

stoic

does not indicate that he was

its

incapable of present-

ing his people's history in

true light

',

but shows a desire which

was shared by

all

writers

of the Jewish-Hellenistic schools to

render Judaism understood and respected by cultured heathens.

That Josephus does not display the philosophic depth of Philo or

the
poetic
instincts

of the

Bible or the fervent

spirit

of the

Haggadist, has but

little

relevancy in the appraisal of a

man who
and and

figures in the literary history of antiquity not as poet, philosopher

or exegete, but as an historian of unusual industry, application,

erudition, to

whom

the world

is

under immense obligation

for its

better

knowledge of the history and

literature of the ancients,

who

has been for the Jews not only spokesman and apologist in

the heathen and Christian worlds, but also their foremost historian
for nearly

two millenniums.
is

The volume

not free

from

inaccuracies that are almost

unavoidable in a popular book, but the following correction in

particular ought to

be pointed
'

out.

The

iTnCT ps' in the

'

Holy of
the

Holies was the solemn

Foundation Stone

on which the Highwhich

filled

priest placed the censer in the

Atonement

service,

innermost sanctuary with a cloud of incense: but no blood of any

sacrifice zvas

sprinkled on

if.

The

suggestion that the mystery of

264
the
'

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Foundation Stone so impressed the Greek scribes that they
'

accounted

it

as the object of worship,

signifies in

and that then the ambiguous

either stone or ass, gave

meaning of onos which

rise to the

Greek

charge of ass-worship against Jews and Christians loses

of
its

thus

much

force.

It

might also be noted that according to

Josephus' account,
whatsoever.^

the

Holy of Holies contained no objects

that persisted for centuries
to a confusion

more

plausible explanation of the strange charge

is

against the Jews

and Christians
attributes
it

that

of Simonsen

who

between

Jo,

the

papyri designation for the ass which was invoked by Egyptians in

magic and

in

worship as the deity Seth, and Jah, the

Hebrew

abbreviation for the

name

of God.^
will

brief

index and a bibliography that

this interesting

be helpful to

elementary students close

volume.

The author

of

The Jervs
is

tinder the Ro77ia7is in the 'Stories of the Nations Series'

W. D.

Morrison, not Hosmer.

The

latter

is

the author of the

general history, entitled The Story of the Jews.

Die Memoiren
1635).

des Ascher

Levy aus Reichshofen im Elsass (1598-

Herausgegeben,
Dr.

versehen von

iibersetzt und mit Anmerkungen M. Ginsburger. BerUn Verlegt bei

:

Louis Lamm, 1913.

Mediaeval

Hebrew
either

literature

was

essentially

impersonal.

The Jews had

memoirs.

no

leisure or

no desire

to record their

personal experiences in autobiographies or even in hastily jotted

The

little

biographical knowledge which

it

we possess of
is

the great figures in Mediaeval Jewry,

in the

is

well

known,

derived

main from

stray references in Hakda/iiot, or Introductions,

Testaments,

and

other

occasional

passages.

All

the
in a

more
crude

significant are the

memoirs of R. Asher Levi written

Festschrift

en Ilcrmanu Cohens

sicbzigstciii

Gebuytstagc

Judaica,

p.

298.

RECENT HISTORICAL LITERATURE

Style

NEUMAN

265

and hybrid

diction, but depicting with unconscious success

the

humour and pathos

him
sins

of his Ufa

and surroundings, admitting the

reader into the private recesses of family secrets and

factions, allowing

communal
he has

to stand by as a silent auditor, as he recites

before

God

the

and temptations

against

which

repeatedly struggled in vain.

Asher Levi was a person of no special

wandering teacher.

distinction.

He

was

a poor merchant, an unlucky speculator, a restless tutor, and

His education he received from a score of

successive teachers in as

many

different cities.

Born

in poverty
life

and raised in the ravaging days of the Thirty Years' War, his
order to
restless,

was that of a typical Bahur, who braved hardship and danger

sit

in

at the feet of a

famous teacher, and who was ever

'

driven by an inner impetus from city to city

to serve the
life
'.

great ones of the world

and

to

draw water from the well of

In the memoirs, his object was to record only the events

which happened to him and

to a

his family.

He

refers several times

second part which was more ambitious in scope and was

presumably a contemporaneous history of the Thirty Years'

War
The

upon the Jews. This should very a valuable document if it would ever come to
and
its

effects

likely
light.

prove

published memoirs
interest.

too, however, are of considerable historical

They

contain

much
it

material that will interest family

historians.

For instance,

appears that Asher Levy himself was

nephew

of an ancestor of Ce^f Levi the wealthy banker

diarist

and

second husband of the famous

Gliickel

von Hammel.

Of wider
Landau
'

significance

is

Asher's descent from Jacob ha-Levi of

'

who

',

according to Asher's genealogical table

',

belonged

to the noble Spanish emigrants

as this implies

an

infiltration of

Spanish exiles into Germany, of which we have otherwise no

evidence.
time,

Asher's teachers were

his references to

among

the famous rabbis of his

correct

and

them amplify and sometimes

our previous information regarding these personages.

The memoirs

contain also items of political and economical interest, such as

the
life

of the people in a besieged

city,

the brigandage of the

highways, the fluctuations of the coinage, the shifting prices of

266

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

R. Asher alludes to the

wheat, rye, barley, wine, and meat.

Vincent Fettmilch episode, which, he explains, he does not have

to narrate as a

book has already been written on the

first

subject.
in

We

learn for the

time of the

flight of the

Jews from Metz

1 618-19 ^"^ of the narrow escape of the Jewish

community of
at.

Frankfort from a danger that

is

only vaguely hinted

its

But the

booklet will be found most valuable for

Kulturgeschichte of the period.

contribution to the
typical

Thus

the

career

of a

Jewish student

is

unfolded step by step.

He

was

six years

old

when
him

his father

'began to teach him the right way' by

initiating

Hebrew alphabet. He was not yet seven when he walked daily from his home to another village to receive instruction. When he was nine years old, he went to Metz to study Talmud.
into the

Shortly after his fourteenth birthday, he

repair to the

left his

native country to

famous

seat of learning in Prague,

and only sickness

Vienna,

impelled him
studied
in

five years later to return to his

parents after having

Prague,

Frankfort,

Bresnitz,

Bisenz,

and and and

Austerlitz, besides tutoring in as

many

places.

In the course of

the narrative, one gets a vivid realization of the pestilences

diseases that ravaged the country, as well as the robbers

brigands that infested the roads.

He
The

married

at twenty-four a girl

of fifteen, and 'as long as he lived, he never would forget the

conduct of his father-in-law'.

latter futilely

attempted to
fatal

break off the match, possibly due to the discovery of a

addiction
to

play

from which Asher could not free himself.

life

Indeed, throughout his

evil inclination
;

he waged a

bitter struggle against this

he passionately implored the aid of Heaven and

;

of his sainted parents

fasting,

he hoped to redeem himself through

;

tears,

and the dispensing of charity

but,

strange

to

say,

Dr. Ginsburger elected to omit these deeply pathetic passages in

his translation of the

Hebrew

text.

Though

Asher's fortunes were

on the wane,

his

doors were wide open to the poor.

The
little

ideals

that pervaded his

home

are best illustrated by the architectural

:

plan of his house, which had three special features

for

chapel

study and worship, a baking room designed especially for

finally a private

Passover bread and Sabbath cakes, and

bath-house,

RECENT HISTORICAL LITERATURE

NEUMAN

267

which he found necessary 'on account of the beastly practice

which prevailed among the Gentiles
together, in
for

men and women

'.

to bathe

which the Jews too have joined

citations will illustrate the

The above
the
text

widt range of interest of

which was ably prepared,

It
is

translated,

and

learnedly

annotated by Dr. Ginsburger.

editor did not

to

be regretted that the

append a

list

of the family and geographical

names

in their Hebrew and German equivalents which would have added

to the value of the

work without

entailing

much

additional effort

on

his part.

Extra-Biblical Sources for Hebreiv andJe7vish History.

Translated

and

edited
:

by

Rev.

Samuel A.

B.

New York
One

Longmans, Green,

&

Co.,

Mercer, Ph.D. 1913. pp. xv+210.

of the achievements of applied pedagogics in history has

historical

been the recent introduction of source-books in the

teaching,

conducted
all

in

the

colleges

and secondary schools.

is

In nearly
in

branches of history, the traditional text-book

is

losing

importance as greater emphasis

placed upon the student's

if

familiarizing himself with the original documents, even

translation.

only in
atid

Dr. Mercer's Extra-Biblical Sources for

is

Hebrew

Jewish History

the

first

collection of this kind covering the

subject of ancient Jewish history, though Giles' Heathen Records

to the Jewish

Scripture Histoiy (1856) deserved at least a note of

bibliographical reference.

The comparatively small volume

to the Jewish Rebellion

of two hundred pages embraces

a period of three thousand years, from the antiquities of Babylon

under Hadrian.
:

The

sources are divided

into four

main

divisions

Cuneiform, Egyptian, Semitic, and Greek

and

Latin, chronological sequence being followed in each group.

selections were gathered from about seventy-five

The

odd volumes,
in particular

representing a widely scattered and often inaccessible literature.

For the cuneiform sources, the author acknowledges

the translations of Winckler's
Keilinschriftliches

Textbuch

zum

268
Aliifi

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Testament, and Rogers' Cuneiform Parallels
to

the

Old

Testament, and for Egyptian material, Breasted's Ancient Records,

though

in all cases

except

when

stated in the notes the author

made

his

original

translations adhering to as literal a form as

possible.

Dr. Mercer wisely

made no attempt
and the

to include in his

work historical selections from the Bible, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha,

literature
is

Josephus,

Philo,

New

Testament, as

this

readily accessible

and could

at best

have been only

inadequately represented in a limited source-book.

much for his book, or he is too optimistic now the student of Hebrew- and Jewish The history has before him all the sources in convenient form. collection author certainly cannot mean this literally. The present
Dr. Mercer claims too
in

his assurance that

of e.xtra-biblical sources might easily and with great profit have

been

at least

doubled

in contents

and

yet

would have been

far

from a complete record of the

literature
it

which bears intimately

upon Bibhcal
bear the

history.

Obviously,

is

not only the records that

name

of Palestine that belong to the study of ancient

Hebrew
collection

history,

but also

Assyrian source-material.

much of Babylonian, Egyptian, and The student would miss then in this
more
or less at
his

choosing
in

the examples

random

the
of

famous inscription of

Nabonidus describing

discovery

the Foundation-Stone of the

is

Temple

of the

Sun

in Sippar,

which

fundamental

establishing Babylonian

and hence Hebrew

to

chronology.

He

might

reasonably

expect

find
life

in

such

a collection the Shalmaneser fragment of the early

of Sargon

which though possibly only a secondary source,

important enough to be reproduced
its

is still

ancient and

in

such a volume by reason of

Certainly a collection

striking similarity to the story of

Moses.

of sources of early

Hebrew

history

is

not complete without at least

some

extracts from the

Code

of

Hammurabi.
it is

As

to the later

period of Greek and Latin sources

but necessary to compare

Dr. Mercer's collection with Th. Reinach's Textes d^aitieurs grecs

et

remains

relatifs

au juddisvie

to observe

how much

the former

lacks in completeness.

Nevertheles.s, the present collection will

refer students conveniently

be of great use to teachers who can

RECENT HISTORICAL LITERATURE

to this
Stella
',

NEUMAN
'

269
Israel

book

for

such documents as the Black Obelisk, the

the Moabite Stone, &c., and Dr. Mercer has rendered an

act of service for which he merits the gratitude of teachers of

Hebrew history. The most serious

is

stricture that

may be made

against this

book

its

dogmatic fixation of remote dates without the

slightest

indication of their uncertainty. years are but as yesterday

it

In a subject where a thousand

only bewilders the student to be

equipped with a
in the next

series of dates

which he
to

will

not find duplicated

is

book of reference
one book, he

which he
it

bound

to

turn.

Even

in this

will find

hard to reconcile the dating

of Naram-Sin at 2,600 b.c.e., in one passage, with the later state-

ment of the record of Nabonidus which seems

calculation of the scribes be wrong, that

to show, unless the

years before his (Nabonidus') time.

Naram-Sin reigned 3,200 The chapter on Chronological

Matter, too,

is

not sufficiently explanatory to enable the student

to construct Biblical

Chronology

for himself.

Jewish History and Literature under

the

Maccabees and Herod.

:

By B. H. Alford. London and New York Green, & Co., 1913. pp. xvi-j- 113.
Mr. Alford,
the

Longmans,

author

of

Old Testament History

is

and

Literature attempts in his latest booklet, which

a continuation
literature

of this former work, a review of Jewish history and

during the interval of over 125 years that intervened between

the

death of Simon

in

135

b.c.e.

and the

birth

of Jesus of

Nazareth which he places

original research

in the year 8 b.c.e.

The book shows no

its

and

as a popular

work

its

only claim to favourable

attention lies perhaps in the emphasis which

literary

author laid on the

development of the period.

Dividing his book almost

equally between history

pact

and literature, Mr. Alford gives a comsummary of the Book of Jubilees, Testaments of the Twelve
and Judith,
parts of the

Patriarchs, Tobit

Book

of Enoch, Psalms

of Solomon,

Wisdom

of Solomon, and ends the volume with

270

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Luke
referring to the 'Magnificat' of
'

citations from

Mary, the
of Simeon.

Benedictus

'

of Zacharias, and the

Nunc

Dimittis

'

Professor Schechter's Fragments of a Zadokite

Work

is

strangely

overlooked in silence.

The good
be amusing,

faith in

which Mr. Alford accepts theories about the

divisions of the apocryphal works

composition, dates,
if

and

would

there were no danger of their misleading the

unguarded reader.

Of

course,

there

is

hardly a book in the

reached on these points.

Apocrypha regarding which any unanimity of opinion has been Not only are the usual theories mere
conjectures based on internal evidence, but the very origin
lancruage

and

of

the

original

are

often
in

unknown.

Nevertheless,

Mr. Alford shows no hesitation

Charles's literary divisions

an

historical sketch to follow

and hypotheses,

as though they were

indubitably proved by reliable canons of historical criticism.

The author
It
is

is

not

much

happier in his historic delineations.

an unwarranted exaggeration of Josephus' description of

to claim for the latter the capitalized title of
',
*

Hyrcanus
Priest,

Prophet,
'.

and King

and

to depict

him

as

'

the Jewish Messiah

The

familiar

but erroneous

description

of

the

Sadducees as
its

standing for the union of Church and State with

implied

conception of the Pharisees

qualification.
'

is

reproduced here without any

Untenable

is

also the statement of the author that

the earliest approach of Hellenism to Palestine was from the side

'.

of Antioch

At the time when the Jews

first

came

into serious

cultural contact with the Seleucidean dynasty the Septuagint was

an accomplished

fact.

For broader reasons of justice and from a truer

perspective,

historical

one may question

the

propriety

and

fairness

of

Christening such injunctions in the Testaments of the Twelve

Patriarchs as,
'

Love one another, and with

faults

long-suffering hide ye
all,

one another's
toward

Have compassion toward

toward beasts
'.

not

men

only, but also

RECENT HISTORICAL LITERATURE

NEUMAN

27I

Die Judeti

in

Worms.
fixr

Eiii

Vortrag gehalten von Benas

Levy im
Berlin

Verein

jiidische

Geschichte und
pp. 20.

Literatur.

M. POPPELAUER,

1914.

This small pamphlet reproduces with

fine

touches of local

colour a fleeting bird's-eye view of the history of one of the most

ancient and honoured Jewish communities in Germany.

The

interweaving of legends and history lends charm to the picture.

The

pathos of the story

may

well

stir

one

to

emotion and

eloquence.

Abraham
Dropsie College.

A.

Neuman.

RECENT WORKS ON COMPARATIVE RELIGION

The Study of Religion.

By Stanley A. Cook, M.A.

Black, 19 14.
pp. xxiv

London

Adam and Charles

The
:

+ 439.

By R. R. Marett, M.A., D.Sc. New York The Macmillan Company, 19 14. pp.xix + 223. Theological Symbolics. By Charles Augustus Briggs, D.D.,
Threshold of Religion.
D.Litt.
{Interfiatiofial

Theological Library.)

New York:
it is.

Charles Scribner's Sons,

It
It is
is

1914.

pp. x

+ 429.
not than what

easier to state

what Dr. Cook's book

or a guide
to,

is

not a manual

of,

the study of comparative

religion like, for instance, Jastrow's excellent book, bearing the

same

title

as the present work, treating in a concrete

manner

of

the manifestations and constituents of religion, of the elementals

underlying the religious sentiment, of the definitions and

cations of religions, &c. &c., with
It

classifi-

accompanying bibliographies.

may perhaps be

described as a philosophical or psychological

propaedeutics, containing at once a birds-eye view of the phi-

losophy of history, of culture, of the development of the

human
The

mind and
book
in

of the interaction of the

many

various factors in these

spheres, with special application to the study of religions.

is

not easy reading

it

was apparently not written

for tyros

mental work.

The

style is often abstract,

and

it is

not always

easy to follow the author in the development of his themes.

But

one who

is

in a

measure inured to metaphysical thinking and

language, and does not shirk reading and re-reading the book will

reap a rich harvest of stimulating and suggestive thought.

We

would

refer,

attitude of

among many others, to W. Robertson Smith (p.

the disquisitions on the mental

65)

human
(p.

sacrifice (p. 198)

(p.

significance of the

Prophets of the Old Testament

322).

301);

Babylonian influence on the Old Testament

the book
is

Altogether

pervaded by a

lofty

and reverent

spirit,

and gives the

ripe thoughts

and

reflexions of a

man who

has long and deeply

VOL. VII.

273

274

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

to

brooded over the problems which he discusses, and

religion

whom

and the

life

of the soul are paramount realities.

is

The Threshold of Religion

the second edition of a reprint in

else-

book form of papers which have previously been published

where.

They
(iii)

are

(i)

Pre-animistic religions

(ii)

from

spell to

prayer;

is

taboo a negative magic?

(iv)

the conception of
;

mana

(v) a sociological

view of comparative religions

(vii)

(vi)

savage

supreme beings and the bull-roarer;

(viii) in

the birth of humility;

a prehistoric sanctuary.

The

three last essays appear for

the

first

time in book form in this second edition.

is

The bond
'

of

union between these essays

of religion
',

that they stop at the

threshold

that

is,

they treat of religious origins, the stuff of

is

which 'rudimentary' religion

made,

'the

vague

shapes

phantoms teeming

in the

penumbra of the

primitive

mind and
'.

dancing about the darkling rim of the

tribal

fire-circle

The
and

main contention of
practices
it

Prof. Marett

is

that primitive
in

man

should not

be burdened with clearly-defined ideas

;

his religious beliefs

he

'

danced

'

his religion rather than in

any way thought

out coherently.

'Savage religion develops under conditions,

psychological and social, which favour emotional

and motor

factors,

whereas ideation remains relatively in abeyance.' The constituents

of primitive man's religion
like
is

a sense of awe,

fear,
/. e.

wonder, and the

the object of which

is

the supernatural,

the supernormal.

The

reviewer knows of no book of like scope and compass that

searching,

presents such a keen,

and penetrating psychological

analysis of the workings of the primitive

rational

mind combined with a

and presentation of the and denominations
officially

and reasonable synthesis of his mental attitude and outlook.

is

Symbolics
doctrines

the comparative study

and dogmas

of the several divisions

of the Christian Church at the

hand of the

formulated
councils,

statements, such as the creeds, the decrees

and canons of

the confessions of the various national churches or denominations.

The present posthumously published work

and
irenic spirit characteristic of the

of Prof. Briggs

is

marked

by the wide erudition, the painstaking and conscientious research

lamented Biblical scholar and

theologian.

' ;

WORKS ON COMPARATIVE RELIGION

Mithraism.
ligions

CASANOWICZ

275

By W.

J.

Phythian-Adams, M.A. (Oxon).

Chicago:
pp. xi

{^Re-

Ancient and Modern.)

The Open Court

Publishing Company,
Mithraism has

+ 95.

for the last quarter of a century or so, especially

since the epoch-making investigations of the Belgian scholar, Franz

Cumont, held the attention not only of students of comparative

religion, but also of theologians.

Among

the

many

'

mystery

cults

which about the beginning of the Christian era were rampant

in the

Roman
and

Empire, that of Mithra was the most formidable

rival of Christianity.
It offered itself as

antagonist

a religion
its

of salvation

and redemption with a saviour god

moral code.

for

centre,

with a ritual suggesting striking resemblances with that of the

Church, and a

stern, virile

The numerous

bas-reliefs,

remains of temples and inscriptions discovered of

the wide spread of the cult over the

late attest to

empire, from the

mouth of

the

domain of the ancient Roman Danube to the borders of the

of Mithraism,

desert of the Sahara, from the shores of the Black Sea to the

remote mountains of Scotland.

Much in the doctrines

which seems to be a mixture of primitive Indo-Iranian myths and

Babylonian traditions, as also of the symbolism of
still

its

ritual,

is

obscure, owing to the paucity and fragmentariness of literary

subject.

documents bearing on the

an
excellent, well

The

little

book before us

is

written

and

nicely gotten

up rdsume' of the

present state of knowledge of the origin, development, doctrines

and
Asia

practices,

and

history of the cult.

It

discusses the subjects

:

under the following heads, preceded by a preface

;

(i)

Mithras in
followers

(ii)

Mithras in the
;

Roman Empire
;

(iii)

The

The Monuments and Mythology of Mithraism and (vi) The Message of (v) The Externals of Mithraism Mithraism. The author traces the conception of Mithra and the
of Mithras
(iv)

myths woven around him

to their Indo-Iranian sources

(Vedas

and Avesta), and he

is

also fully familiar with the

modern

literature

on the

subject.

At the same

time, he preserves his

own

inde-

pendent judgement, which he advances with laudable caution and

reserve,

conscious that

we

are

moving here on uncertain and

276

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

His
final

shifting ground.

judgement on Mithraism
because
it

as a religious

system because

is
it

'It fell at last not

was

entirely bad, but

was so nearly good.'

brief select bibliography directs

fully treat
'

the reader to works which

more

of the cult, while the

addition of a

'

Mithraic Chronology

and four cuts of Mithraic

reliefs will assist

the reader in following the author in his concise

narrative.

Allgemeine Religionsgeschichte.

Von Conrad von Orelli

Zweite

Auflage in zwei Banden, Ersten Bandes

vierte-fiinfte Liefe-

rung

zweiten Bandes erste-fiinfte Lieferung.

to a conclusion in

(Bringing the

work
viii

two volumes,

pp. viii+420

and

+ 478.)

Bonn: A. Marcus und E. Webers Verlag,

1917-13.

The

general arrangement of this work, as also the standpoint

of the author

and the tone and tenor of

his discussion,

have been
first

noticed in a previous issue of this Review,

parts of the

when

the

three

work were under consideration.^

The remaining two

parts of vol. I bring the discussion of the religions of the Semitic

Family to a

close.

They open

with the conclusion of the rapid

sketch of the development of the religion of Israel, coming

to

down
297).

modern

'

Zionism

',

which Orelli considers as a reaction against

(I,

the amalgamation of the Jews with their surroundings

In his analysis of Essenism

only an
indirect

(I,

293-5) the author would admit

its

influence of Parseeism on
(/%//((?j.

doctrines

and
2,

practices, but
p.
'

assumes with Zeller

it

der Gr., 3rd ed., Ill,

277

ff.)

a kinship between
'

and Pythagoreism, and both were

its

fertilized

by Mandaeism which, on

part, issued

not from

Parseeism but from the Aramaic-Assyrian religion.

But aside

from the

fact

that

the existence and propagation westward of

is

Mandaean
22) there

ideas

and usages before Christianity

Orelli's

not well estab(I,

lished, judging
is

by

own

exposition of

Mandaeism

311-

nothing either in the phantastic doctrines of the

or in their

Mandaeans

manner of

living to

connect them with

JQR., N.S., VI July,

1915), pp. ,91-3.

WORKS ON COMPARATIVE RELIGION CASANOWICZ

the Essenes.

277

On

the contrary, while, for instance, the Essenes

faced the sun in prayer, the

Mandaeans considered him, with

the

other planets, as a fiendish demon.

The Essenes renounced

duty, kept
slaves,

marriage and slavery, and were given to ascetic practices generally,

the

Mandaeans considered marriage a

Christianity
is

and

despised celibates and ascetics.

disposed of in

less

than two pages.

Then

follows the offshoots of

(I,

Judaism and
(I,

Christianity, viz.
(I,

Manicheism

299-311), Mandaeism

311-22), and Islam

323-412), the

latter

beginning with the religion of the pre-Mohammedan Arabs,

latest

and closing with the

outgrowth of Babism and Bahaism.

In delineating the religion of the pre-Mohammedan Arabia

the author again asserts his main thesis that the worship of one

heavenly

God was

primary, while astrolatry and veneration of

stones were secondary, arising under the influence of mythology

or local symbolism.

In support of

this

view he refers to the fact

that the generic conception of the deity under the

name

of Allah
331).

was

among the Arabs Mohammed and Mohammedanism

current

before

Mohammed

(I,

are given a lengthy discussion,

the author supporting his statements by copious quotations from

the

Koran and

authoritative writers, native as well as foreign.

Against Noldeke and

character of a
.writer justly so.
real,

Houtsma

Orelli

denies

Mohammed

the

genuine prophet, and

in the

opinion of the

Mohammed
nor

neither in originality of thought, nor in

sweep of

vision,

in the ethical

and

spiritual standards of the life

of individuals and nations attains in any measure to the height of the

Prophets of the Old Testament.

The
it

title

of prophet

is

generally

too prodigally applied so as to empty

import.

of

its

weighty and pregnant

This

is

not to say that the author brands

start.

Mohammed

as

a schemer and deceiver from the

On

the contrary, as a

proof of the sincerity of

Mohammed and

bona fides of his mission

he adduces the
kin.

fact that his first

adherents w^ere
personal

among
as
in

his near

He

concedes

Mohammed

greatness

a man,
his

devotion, singleness of purpose

and

self-denial

fulfilling

mission.

But
'

his lapses
'.

in the later,

Medina, period were not

'

those of a

fallen angel

It is true that

Mohammed's

religious

2/8

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

first

character in the

[Meccan] period appears purer and more

'
'

sympathetic than in the later .... but

religion than later in

he had

in

Mecca no higher
to circum-

Medina where
realistic

his ideal,

owing

stances,

assumed a more

form.

The

prophetic office
full

which he claimed lacked from the beginning the

inner truth,

and his later development only brought out this want more clearly,
showing
itself

most palpably

in the fact that his intercourse with

(I,

Allah exercised no real sanctifying influence upon himself

Orelli's estimate of

372).

Mohammedanism
It
is,

in

its

religious

and moral

aspect

is

a similar vein.

he

says, a

compromise between

Biblical
(I,
is

maxims and the

It

traditions
*

and customs of the country

390).

lacks ethical depth.

In the theological respect Islam

. . .

a relapse from Biblical monotheism into a certain naturism.

relation of

The

man

to

God

is

not a free mutual one, resting on

holiness, but fatalistic

and

legalistic.
'

The

deity

is

here the pagan

fativn in theomorphic conception

(I,

393).

Volume
family

II

is

devoted to the religions of the Indo-European

Vedas,

Brahmanism,

Buddhism, Jainism,

Hinduism,

Sikhism, Parseeism, the religions of the Greeks, Romans, Celts,

Germans, and

Slavs, followed
is little

by the African, American, and

in the discussion of these religions

Oceanic groups. There

that calls for

comment.

The

author, in accordance with theory,

finds everywhere,

even among the Negroes of Africa and the

reminiscences
of

Bushmen
At the
world,

of Australia,

the

knowledge and

conception of one invisible

God

of heaven.

close of the work the author expresses

some general
in

views on religion on the basis of his survey of the religions of the

(i)

The

universality of religion
its

among mankind
it

time

and space demonstrates

primitiveness, at the

same time proving

the mental unity of mankind, and while

establish
its

does not absolutely

(ii)

historical unity

it

justifies

it

as an hypothesis,

The

earliest (not original)

form of religion was neither an abstract or

spiritual

monotheism, nor any of the low forms (fetichism, animism,

&c.), but a kind of henotheism.

There

is

a general tendency to a

unitary conception of the deity,

and

to connect his manifestations

with the highest

phenomenon perceived by

the

human eye the

WORKS ON COMPARATIVE RELIGION CASANOWICZ

heaven, or the most striking appearance on
its

279
sun.

expanse

the

But

either

is,

as a rule, distinguished from the deity himself, being

considered as his embodiment or manifestation.

so closely related to the natural

But the deity

is
it

phenomenon
In
the

that in the course

becomes

finite

and

multiple.

concluding chapter the

author takes his stand against the theory of evolution as applied

to the Biblical religions
:

there

is

no instance

in history of the

gradual

rise

of a religion from a low level to a higher.

subjects, authors,

Both volumes are provided with indexes of

and
add:

Biblical passages quoted in the work.

I,

To
26;

the corrigenda
II, 201, n. 2,

291, n. 5, read 2

Kon.

21, 16 for 21,

read Wilamowitz for Milamowitz.

The work

of Orelli, intended in the

first

place as a manual for

theological students, gives one of the fullest

and most detailed

clearness

discussions of the subject.

The

style,

marked by

and
lets

noble simplicity,

is

worthy of the great theme.

The author

the religions speak for themselves as

much

as possible.

His ex-

planations and interpretations are sympathetic, here and there not

without a touch of poetic imagination.

At the same time he does

not idealize their contents or indulgently gloss over grave errors

of beliefs and perversions in conduct, which in his view are correlated.

He

surveys the religions of the nations from the heights

finds

of Sinai

and Zion and

them frequently wanting or

sine ira et studio.
I.

defective.
is

His judgements are often frank and outspoken.

throughout
lofty, grave,

But the tone

and calm,

M. Casanowicz.

United States National Museum.

^.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

A PUBLICATION

DEVOTED TO JEWISH HISTORY, LITERATURE, PHILOLOGY, ARCHAEOLOGY,

AND COGNATE SUBJECTS

Series of this Review, edited by Cyrus Adler continuation of the Quarterly published in London from 1888 to 1908. The subscription price is fixed at Three Back volumes of the New Series can Dollars per annum. be furnished to the Subscribers at Two Dollars per volume. Checks or Money Orders should be made payable to the Manuscripts, Books for Review, Jewish Quarterly Review. Checks, &c., should be addressed to the Dropsie College for

The New
a

is

Hebrew and Cognate Learning, Broad and York

Philadelphia, Pa., U.S.A.

Streets,

THE

HALAKAH KARAITE RELATION TO AND

ITS

SADDUCEAN, SAMARITAN, AND PHILONIAN

HALAKAH Bv BERNARD REVEL,

Eighty-eight pages.

M.A.. Ph.D.
Price $1.00 post paid.

Cloth bound.

A VOLUME OF THE

BOOK OF PRECEPTS
By

HEFES

B.

YASLIA.H

EDITED FROM AN ARABIC MS. IN THE LIBRARY OF THE DROPSIE COLLEGE, TRANSLATED INTO HEBREW AND PROVIDED WITH CRITICAL NOTES AND AN INTRODUCTION

By
278 pages.

B.

HALPER,

M.A., Ph.D.
Price $3.00 post paid.

Cloth bound.

For Sale by

THE DROPSIE COLLEGE FOR HEBREW AND COGNATE LEARNING,

Broad and York Streets, Philadelphia, Penna.

^^

VARIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
By Max Radin, New
York.

Jewish Sepulchral Inscriptiox from Rome.

following inscription was

The

discovered in 1898 in

the ruins of an ancient house opposite the church of San

Paolo fuori le Mura, on the Via Ostiensis at Rome. It is now in the collection of Columbia University. The fragment of stone that is preserved is about 26 cm.
long and 28 cm. high.
3 cm. high.

The
in

letters

themselves are about

In the upper left-hand corner, the figure of

is

a menorah
fashion.

cut,

but

an evidently careless and rapid

divisions at the bottom,
in

There are three

and each

one of the curved branches ends

resemblance to a tree that
intentional.
is

two

little forks.
is

The

thus produced,

evidently

The

inscription reads as follows

ENOA
EYKA/ nioc
<t)IAO^

ENEIP
In

form, the

letters

resemble the uncials of Greek

E, 0, A, A,

MSS., and show

of brush-work. of the N which

in the
is

and

N, the influence
in the case

This
is

especially remarkable of
its

more tenacious

original

form than
its

any other
elements

letter,
till

and does not show curvature of any of

relatively late.

Another unusual form

281

is

that

VOL. vn.


THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
in this inscription,

282

of Y, in which,
tion of the
left

the stem

is

a continua-

arm.

While the

letters are

not cut with

especial care, they are

by no means rudely done and show

of course

a practised hand.

The
2.

first

line

is

hOade

/ceirai

with

some

additional letters or words containing part of the name,

1.

The

letters

evKo.

seem almost

certainly

part of

the

name
the

or patronymic.

The

last letter is either 8

or

A.

What
known

name was
of

it

is

impossible even to guess.

The

lists

names

in literature

and the inscriptions give

practically none that has the syllables -evKah- or -euxaX-.

A name
We

like Aeu/caAtoor

is

scarcely even a possibility here.

cannot even be certain whether the

name

is

masculine

or feminine.
1.

3.

7710S

is

very probably part of the word

vrjinos,

which occurs rather frequently in inscriptions of this class.

1.

4.

The

last

letter

is

probably N.

It

is

not likely
here,

to be M, for

where

letters
its

have the form they have

the

M
1.

generally has

sides curved or inclined.

is

5.

The

last

line

the

usual formula

dpi]i'i}

rj

KOLjjLrja-Ls (Tov

(or avrov).

It

may

have been present

in the

shortened form

ev dprivr].

Because of

this possibility

we

have no certain means

the stone.

of deterrnining the original width of

Jewish sepulchral inscriptions have been hitherto found

in

Rome
614

in

the several catacombs which have been dis-

closed there since the seventeenth century (cp. S. Kraus, JE.,

Ill,
f.).

These catacombs are respectively

the Via Portuensis, three on

in

Porto,

in

Trastevere on

the Via

Appia, and one on the Via Labicana.

This inscription,

although similar to those found by Garrucci and de Rossi

VARIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
in the

RADIN

283

Vigna Randanini and Vigna Cimarra, comes from

the other end of the city where similar remains have not
hitherto been unearthed.
If
it

belongs to the house

it

among
at the

the ruins of which

it

was found,
c. E.

must be placed
the

end of the
the second.

first

century
is,

or at

beginning

of
it

There

however, nothing to show that

later.

was not brought there

point to a later date.

The form

of the letters

Any
Still,

attempt at restoration would be sheer guess-work.

to illustrate

what might not impossibly have been the

is

original reading, the following

offered

^v9a be
(:VKa[

KeiTttL

vi]- -.

Tov beivos

TTios [iroiv
(})i\ov

rj

ixr}V(av

[tkpov eppoicro.
KOLixi]ais

ev
'

ilp[riv)]

aov.

Here

lies

N. N.

infant son

of N. N. aged
!

years,
rest
in

months.

Farewell, dear child

Mayest thou

peace.'

Latin Incantation in Hebrew Characters.

in his

M. GiJDEMANN

Ersiehcngswescn der Judcu in

p.
o^'^^'J^^

Italien (Vienna, 1884),

Note XII,

refers to several

Latin magical formulas in

Hebrew

characters, notably to
p.

one
for

in

Miinchener hebr. Hdschr.^ No. 338,

68

a formula

discovering

hidden treasures.

To

the

kindness of
I

Professor Alexander
following, taken
(saec.

Marx

of

New York

owe the
158 a

from Cod. Hebr.

Parisin., 326, p.

XIV

ineuntis).

description of the

MS. may be
U 1


284
found

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

in MonatscJir. f.

G. d. J., iScSy, pp. 502-5

(cf.

also

Sammelband
Chwolson,

des
f.).

Vereins Mekize

Nirdamim, VII
for the
'

(1897),

p. 3

This formula
thief
'

is

recommended
',

discovery of a

Open

Ps. 51, ver. 17

we

are told,
this

take a a

?"'M13

and

put

it

on

this verse

and put upon

it

b"'''ns

?''??'^^"!

stone

and pronounce over

the incantation.
to be said about the

Three times
and
if

it is

man

or

woman,

the person

is

guilty the psalm-book will move.'

:

The
'iDB'Nnp

incantation runs as follows

^!33''3

C'p''N

^D

*i:'t?i?J1p

^1p

B'Vn Z'T\;g
n.^evj'

'SttK'

K'JDiB ''30iN

\u^rM ns

K'p"'X

D'nx\i.

:^D!i

^tit;')?

hs

NJ-itDiD

n^I

It is

quite evident from the division of the words, and

line,

from the jumble of the second

quite innocent of the
at

that the writer

was

meaning of the words before him

all

any

rate that he did not understand

of them.

The

for the

Latin

c,

is

what we should expect from the MS.

one mentioned by Gudemann

German MS.,
this,

like the

and

together with certain other similarities of trans-

literation,

would be valuable

in

determining the peculiarities

of that epoch.

of pronunciation

among

the

German Jews

We may
follows
:

suppose the Latin original to have run as

Omnipotens sempiterne Dciis qui cimcta hi ex

creasti^

nichilo

dohim

\te\
:

oro ut provias ct dispelle incerta viarum

idcirco
si

exprivamentandi
facias conficias.

qui est fur, adsequi N. N.

'All-powerful, Eternal God,

who

hast created

all

things

from nothing,

beseech Thee to bring to light the crafty

VARIA ARCHAEOLOGICA
malice
;

RADIN
it

285

and

dispell the uncertainties of the

If,

means whereby

the loss was sustained.

therefore,

is

some

thief

[who

has taken

this],

mayst Thou make, yea, make that N. N.

overtake him.'
Strictly, therefore,
it

is

a formula to be used in the case

where the

loss

of property has
It
is,

not yet been definitely

traced to theft.

evidently, best suited to the lips of

fill

some

local

spacman,

who would

in

the

''Jli'D

with the

name

of the person consulting him.

How

it

finally
it

came

into Jewish hands,

we can only

conjecture, but

evidently

passed through several transmissions and did not escape

unscathed either in form or purport.

PROLEGOMENA TO A GREEK-HEBREW AND HEBREW-GREEK INDEX TO AOUILA

Bv Joseph Reider,
Dropsie College.

CHAPTER
VERSION
^^.

IV

THE HEBREW TEXT UNDERLYING AQUILA'S

It
is

a well-known thesis propounded

by Lagarde ^*

that

all

our manuscripts of the

Hebrew

text of the Bible

belong to the same recension and are descended from the

same imperfect archetype dating from the times

(Akiba).

of Hadrian
to

The

corollary which

Lagarde saw

fit

append

to his thesis, to the effect that the archetype in question

represented a recension

'

doctored up in the interest of the

',

most violent hatred of Christianity

in a

has been disposed of

masterly criticism by Kuenen

('

Der Stammbaum des

'

masoretischen Textes des Alten Testaments

AbJiandbingen, ubersetzt von Budde, 83
itself,

in Gesanivielte

ff.).

The

thesis

however, has been accepted with more or less of modi-

fication

by

serious scholars like Noldeke,^^ Wellhausen,^''

W.
^^

R. Smith,9i Cornill,^^ and Driver.^^

The
first

On

the other hand,

in the introduction

part of Lagarde's thesis

was enunciated
ff.),

to

his

Aiimerkungen zur griechischen Ubersetsung der Proverbien,

I,

1863

(reprinted in his Mittheilungen,

19

while the second part was

formulated casually on

p. xii of
I,

the preface to his Materialien zur Kritik

1867,

und

Geschichte des Peiitateuchs^

ff.

and more

fully in his
to

Symmicta,
in

I,

1877, 50

similar

view was given expression

the
II,

by Olshausen
ff.

the

introduction to his

Commentary on

Psalms, 1853, 17
120
f.;

On
22-6.
f.

the question

of priority see Lagarde, Symmicta,

*3
^0 31 ^-

Mittheil.,

I,

The

citations are given

by Lagarde, Symmicta,
in

II,

120

Bleek-Wellhausen, Einleitung

das A.T.^, pp. 574, 578.

The Old Testament

in the

Jewish Church,
p.

New York,

1900, p. 57, note

2.

Prolegomena
51.

to

Ezekiel,

10

Einleituiig in das Alte Testament,

1892,
3^

Notes on the Hebrezv

text

of the Books of Samuel'^, p. xxxiv

'All

MSS.

287

238

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the thesis as a whole has been subjected to criticism at the

hands of Konig,^^ and rejected by Strack/^^

34.

Whatever be the genesis of the recension of the

Scriptures

known

as Masoretic

in

point of date

it

maythis

ascend to a period

much

older than the Hadrianic

much

is

certain that after a period coinciding with the date

of the earlier parts of the Septuagint, during which time

the text was more or less in flux, there followed one of

gradual uniformity culminating in the stereotyped condition

immediately
deduction
is

preceding

the

Masorah.^*"

For

when

all

made

of variations due to the exigencies of

still

translation or to unsatisfactory exegesis, there

in the

remains

Septuagint a body of variants having their undoubted

origin in the divergence of the

version,^"
belong to the
archetype.
(italics
^*

Hebrew

text underlying the

Also the Samaritan recension of the Pentateuch

same
recension,

and

are descended

from

the

same

inipeifect

Existing

MSS.

all

represent

what

is

termed the Massorctic text'

by author).
f.

Einleitung in das Altc Testament, p. 88

Einleitung in das Alte Testament^, p. 192,

where

it is

maintained that
ot

even after the close of the canon the Hebrew text continued in a state
fluctuation.
-"'

The beginnings

of the

Masorah are shrouded

copies

in

darkness.

The
to the

passage in Ketubbot 106 a that a standard text

of the

was preserved

in the court

Temple from which

all

were prepared, would lead

assumption of an early origin, but on the other hand

that as late as the second century
c. e.

we

must not forget

against incorrect

the Rabbis

warn

copies of the Bible.

Thus while

it

is

true that already the

Mishnah and
the Hel^rew

the

Talmud generally

(particularly the post-talmudic tracts Maseket Sefer

still

Torah and Maseket Soferint) contain Masoretic material,

text continued in fluctuation

and was not

fixed in its final form before

the close of the talmudic era.

Comp. on

this subject Elias Levita,

;

Massoret

ha-Massorct, ed. Ginsburg, London, 1867

the.
.
.

C. D. Ginsburg, Introduction to
Critica in V. T.,
ii,

Hebrew
1873
Buhl,
;

Bible,

London, 1897; Strack, Prolegomena

in

Leipzig,

Bacher

Winter und WUnsche,

94
ff.

Jildische Litcratur,

121-32
*''

Kanon

u. Text, p.

Comp. Wellhausen's Text der

Biicher Samuclis

Driver's Ao/fs on the

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

REIDER

289

with which the Septuagintal version shows marked affinity ,^^

no matter what one may think of

current in pre-Maccabean times.

certain

dogmatic changes,

proves that more than one recension of the

Law was
rest,

As
'

for the

Hebrew upon
the

which the oldest parts of the Alexandrine version

recensional character of the
'

Vorlage

reveals itself on the

one hand

in a

more developed form of diaskeue, bent upon

harmonizing the unevennesses of composition, and on the

other hand in faithfully preserving a

cruder and

more

archaic text laying bare incongruities which the Masoretic

text has covered up.^^

There

is

just as little

doubt

in turn that in

the times of

Akiba, when Aquila and his congeners lived and laboured,

the

Hebrew

text had, roughly speaking, assumed the form

of our Masoretic text.

Thus Origen, when engaged

manner so
in

in
it

rectifying the Septuagint in a

as to square
fall

with the

'

Hebrew
for

truth

',

was

a position to

back

upon the Three

supplying lacunae which he was neither

afresh.

competent nor willing to translate

^^.

When

the fragments of Aquila are compared with

the parallel translation of the Septuagint the textual identity

'Hebrew Text o/the Books 0/ Saiiniel
;

CornUVs

Esec/iiel;

Graelz's

n't isc/iet

Coinmen/ar su den
Scripinrae Vet.

Psaltneii,

and his Emendationes in

plerosqiic

Sacrae

Test. Libros,

edited

by Bacher
f.

for a list of

monographs

comp. Buhl, Kanon

be found
in

u. Text, p.

125

list

of characteristic variants

may

Swete, Introduction
'

to the

Old

Test, in Greek, p.
'

442

ft'.

comp.

also Margolis,

Studien im griechischen Allen Testament

in

ZAJV., XXVII

The most complete collection of variants based on both recensions and Hebrew manuscripts is found in the foot-notes of Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, whose reconstruction of the Hebrew, however, is not
(1907), 212
ff.

always
88

successful.
Urschrift, p. gSff.
;

Comp. Geiger,

against Frankel, Vorstitdien, p.32ff,,

ff.

and esp.
^^

Einjliiss, p. 238.

See, furthermore, Konig, Einleitnn^^ p. 95

Coiiiposttion'^, p. 126, for

Comp. Wellhausen,
ibid., p. 53.

the

first

instance

as to

the second, see

290
of Aquila's

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW Hebrew and our own,

is

as far as consonants are

concerned,
100

proved

in

a preponderating
is

number of
:

cases.^*^"

list

of telling examples
a'

not without interest

Job
.,

3.

5 innVl^

DV

'I^ICD

(KBafi^rjaaiaav avrfiv

wi
fi

niKpaixfiol

(jifxipas

KarapaBdrj
'''^^"lOD
;

(variants KarapaxOt'irj, koI TapaxOfirj)

ibid.,

ijnipa,

evidently omitting

V.

18 UJStJ' D''*T'DN Tn""

a' a'fia Stafiioi (vO-qvrjaav,

ufioOv/xabuv Se 01

alwviot,

omitting the last

;

Critica Sacra)

5.

5 D^TI

word and reading QHB'N beati (L. Cappellus in COi* fJNd a d<pei\KvaaVTO 5i'pu)VT(s einroplav
rj

avTu/v, (5 fKai<pajviff6eirj
Tr}v

avTwv

l(TX^^-

CCi* wanting

6.

9 IT' in^

a'

ivi^aXwv

Xf'P^

*'^ 7.

TiKos

5i,

reading

T^Om

or

more
if

likely its

Aramaic

equivalent

"I'l'im

15

''K'SJ

pOPlO "IPlDm a nal alpuTai a-^x^^V^ V 'P^XV h^t

/J-ov,

(5 diraWa^eis diro irvevf^aTos nov t^v ipvxv^

13.

as

''CDJ

IHIIO

m^DI

9 12 Ipnnn
. .

l^'13X3
-ydp

Pnn^ DS

w? TtapaXoyianw iv dvOpinrco irapaKoTrpoaTtOrjfffffOe avrS),

yi^eaOe

.,

rd navra TTOtovvres
text underlies
;

which certainly
a' ov yoveis
'"11^3

a different

Hebrew
o.'

18.

19 *133 N7l ^b p3 is?

avTo) KOI ovK tyyovoi,

"^Dify

ovk 'iarai iiriyvaiaTos

rd 5( oara
roTs

= 12J N7
p-ov

19.

20 ""^C^^l

np31

tv Sepnari /xov Kal kv Kpiq piov eKoWrjOr] to oarovv fiov,

tv
;

Sepixari pLOv tcrairjjaav al crapKes p-ov

''?Oi*yi

ilDpl

''"lti'3

^"IIV^

20.

26 I^JISiv

pDD
;

dTTOKiicpvmai

(yKfKpvpipiivois

avrov,

avTcp

VTTopeivat

])J212

24. 5 ^~\12?
avrrjs,

''"inti'D

a 6p6pi^uVTes ds dkcoaiv, wanting

in
a'

. .

28. 13

HDiy

a rd^iv
is

oSoe avr^s
;

TTaprjKOev,

which

missing in

wevfjLa TraprjXOe koi (/caOdpiaev

avrds,
;

37. 21

= nDIT DintOm
;

30. 15
ill!]}

HlDy 2y31

nm

a'

Kal in

wawep to

irap'

avTOV

Ittj

vecpuiv,

which 2y alone

is

recognizable

39. 21 p'J'J
;

JlN^p^

a' <(J

dndvTrjaif onXov,
""JlJ-'Cn

pfl

aui'ai'Twi'

^aaiXu, perhaps nV'J

/t?)

Ps. 27 (28;. 3 Cyi

D^yBH Dy

^N

pX

''?y3 a'
uf)

Ai/ff77S (/is) /jerd

dat^uiv Kal pur a KaTepya^opiivoav dv(u<pf\(S,

Trjv ^pvxT]"

avviXKvaris /xerd

dpapTwXwv
it

pov Kal peTa ipya^opivaiv dSiKiav

awa-noXiaris pe, which,

must be admitted, may be a paraphrastic

rendering of our

Hebrew;

31 (32). 5 ^riXt^H
;

py a

dvoplav dpapTia^ pov,

navTo^aird
x'''/"^^?

dai^tiav t^j Kaphias

wpaioTTjs dypov, as if

pov
;

49 (50). 11 ^^U

V] a

1*T

71 (72). 14

DOT

a'

to alpa avTcjv,

to ovopa
npoffdiirov

aiiTwv
aiiTov
f]

DDB'

Prov.
4.

2.

VDD
;

a' otto

aropaTos (avTov),
in

dwo

= VJSD;

n'm

a' at f^^(,

wanting

8.

26

^L^'y

Xb

*iy a' -nplv

t-nolrjrie.

Kvptos kno'irjai

lo.

7 3p~\^ a' aan-qaeTat,

; ;

a^ivvvTai, which,
10. 21 D^3"l

according to some exegetes, would correspond to ']y^^

a' itotpaivovai

lyT
3131

ttoWovs,

iiriaTaTai vil/rjKa

QiJD"!

lyT^

15.

22

D''JfyV

a' Kal

(V nXTjOft avpi&ovKfvoVTwv,
'\\

'.

iv 5 KapSiais ^ovXtvopivwv, as if

3^31

27.

13

3"iy
;

a'

on ivtyvqaaTO
"'2''

dAAoTpior,

rap^X^e 7d/) v0piaTT]i

IT "I3y ^D

Isa. 3.

24-5 "j^nO

nnn
1 1.

^3 a' uti dvTl

KaWovs

dvSpfs aov,

Kal in

viui

aov o KaWiaTos ov dyana'S]

?]!

4 11u"'D3

a' iv tiidvTtjTt,

wanting

30.

28 D^Oy ^Tr?

nynJD

]D~f\

a' Kal

xa^i""" nXavuivTa inl aiayovas

; ;

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

ofi.

REIDER

291

Instances, however, are not lacking in which Aquila

is

at variance

with the received text.

Before proceeding to
Kara
Trpuaanrov avruiv,
;

XaSiv,

(5 KoX Sidi^fTai avrovs -nkavrjais Kal XTjif/frat aiirovs

DHi'in'?

as

if

bv nyriD
kopTwv

|:i"n (Dn''''n'?
. .

being construed as Dn'':D)

to
ffojTTjpiov r]p.wv,

33-

20 Jl'lp
;

1J"iyiJD o! TTuAis

.,,

-nuKis

as
15?

if

IJnyiC"'
a' d^**

35- 2
ij^fpas

llltJTn a Kal Tov 'S.apwv,

eojs

wanting
(Keii'Tj =~

in (5;

38. 12

rh'h

Dl^D

w/fToj, (5 iv

TTi

Tjnipa

Xinil

DV2

38. 14

"II^JJ a'

d70up, wanting

in

Jer. 6. 11 mn'' r\J2T]

a
.

6vp.ov Kvpiov,
.,

(5 Ovpiov /xov

TllSn

25.

38

(32. 24)

nJIM |nn

a'

dpf^s

nn

paxalpas

= niH

30 (37). 16

''3CJ'2 D;:-3

1D^^

a' TtavTis

avTol (V aixixaXaiaia iropivaovTai,

;

Kpeas avTUiv vav khovrai

"ibsN"'

ejKapiTov

DICI !)3 31 = nD j'i?:)

;

(38).

12

34

(41). 18

p3 a' ws /c^ttos /tt^i/aJi', p3 iiayi D''3^^ im2 tj'n ^:yn

(is

wartip ^vKov
"jai?

Vinn
avTw

a'

evdiTnoi'

tov pioaxov ov SuiXov

Svo

Kal SifjKOov dvap.iaov

eTtoirjaav

tu.v

SixoTop.T]paT(jjv avTOv,
;

KaTO, irpoawnov fxov

Tfjv

tov pLoaxov ov

ep^a^eaOai

46

(26). 12
al

"|3vp a

aTipiav

ffov,

(pcuvrjv
avTTJs

aov

"]/1p
;

49

(3)- ^

ri^n321

a Kal
'T'y

OvjaTepes avTr]s,

nirin

a' {-noUv)

Kal ^upioi k-naiviT-qv, iroAiv

= "|inm evyaTfpas aov =
;
;

iTTlJO^I
;

49I.

25 (30. 14)
13 nilDTi

fyitTjc

= n^y
;

Ezek.

a' /cat oftoicuo-eis,

Kal

iv /xtao)

5. 14 D'^l^l^

nSinPI
3

a' Kal

eh ovuSos

iV Tois iOveai,

Kal rd?

"|^mJ21
i^b

dTTu /capSi'as

ai/wv

= D3/D
eTroirjaiv,

18. 11

n^V

DV^JH a dnoppiovTas, H^N ^3 nS* Nim a' /fai avTos

13.

avfxiraVTa
iiTopivOT],

Tavra ovk

iv

tt)

oSo) toi) irarpos

avrov tov StKUtov ovx

which, however,
a'

may
.

be a paraphrase of the
^s
ot

Hebrew

22.
;

25

n"'N''2J

"iC'p

avarpipjxa

dcprjyovixtvoi

--=

IT'N^C'S "li^N
in

23.

34

'pnjn

']'"TC1 a Kal Toi)s p.aaTovs aov KaiaTiXiTs,

a'

wanting

28. 13

03X^0
JISPD

T'DD

tpyov tov
;

KaWovs
^3

aov,
o.'

ivinArjaas tovs drjcravpovs aov

if

"|''3n
;

(Cornill)

29. 7 [n3
a'

.DID n^py

TteptKaf^nfis
a'

II. 12 (12. i)

PX Dy 11
""TJ

ndaa xfip, as 5|D Hos. 6, 8 D''0 dno ai'fiaTOS, rapdaaovaa vocup, as ^eos = PN DyT' imKpaTwv ., t^vcu aurous
TidfTa w/xov,
if
.
.

Amos
Mic.

7. I

"]P?2n

"iriN

K'pP

iUm
o

a' /cat t'Sov uipipLOS

omacu

Trjs

jdi^Tjs

tov

jSaffiAtwy,
I.
I.

Kal
D^W3
;

Woii

ppovxos (h Tw'^
p-T]

^aatXfvs, as

if "]bJ2n J3

IPIN

pP"*

n^ni

10 IT'^n
5

t'N a

duayyeiXrjTf,

^^ fxtja\vvea6e

'V^'l^r\

/K

Hab.
as
if

IN"! a' aspicite in gentibus (Jer.),

3. 18

.
. .

i'Sere

oi

KaTa(ppovT]Tai,

D^132

Zeph.

lyiJOD

''3'lJ

a'

translaios

(Jer.),

tuj

ef

57/^6/)?

iopTfjs

=
;

"iyi?D

DV3.
is

[Dr. Raider might have readily enlarged his

citing cases of variation in the

Hebrew underlying
where

by which admit of no
list

doubt

attention

directed to passages
a'

has clearly preserved

the superior reading, while

clings to the received text.

to substantiate the to

There are enough

text.

examples
It

in the list,

however,

statement in the
list

M.]

was thought expedient

These, as a

omit from

this
fill

as too evident those

Aquila words and passages which serve to

the Septuagint.
rule, follow

up gaps and lacunae in

our consonantal text very closely.

292

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

it is

enumerate them

well to state that

my own

efiforts

bear

out the statement of Cornill to the

effect that the three

minor versions though extant

a series

in

small

remains

'

reveal

of renderings which can be explained only as due

;

to a divergent text

even

in

Jerome,

who

flourished about

400,

some minor
'}'^^

differences of pointing

and word-division

and here and there even consonantal variants

detected

may be

The same

scholar has gleaned a goodly number

of consonantal variants from

the

Targum

to

Ezekiel.^^

Similar

lists

may be made

in

other books, and

it is

a source

of regret that no comprehensive monograph on

is

this subject

available,

though noteworthy contributions on a smaller

scale

have been made.^""

for that

Of

course, in dealing with the

Targum, and

matter with the other versions not

it

greatly removed from

in time,

the differences between

the two Masoretic schools, the Orientals and the Occidentals,

must not be

lost sight of.

i^"jp

Especially

is

this true of the

is

marginal readings or

on which subject there

notable
it

divergence between the two schools.

On

the whole
;

may

be said that Aquila goes with the margin

to the contrary are not .wanting.

("''?.?)

but instances

Interesting are those

while, on the authority of Origeii, they

version.
1*^1

were wanting

in the

Alexandrine

See Prolegomena

to his edition of Ezekiel, p. 11.

Likewise Nestle
: '

in

Rcakncyclop'ddicfiir proicstantisclie Tlieologtc tind Ki)xlie^, III, 22

Aquila's
text is

translation

shows

that even in the school

whence our Masoretic

JQR.,

descended the

latter

was not yet

fixed in all its particulars in the first

third of the second century.'

Contrast Burkitt,

(1898), 214 note,

who
102

speaks of

'

the exact agreement of the translation of Aquila with

'.

the present Masoretic text

See

/M/., p. 126

fi".

1*3

See the

literature

in
II

Strack's Einleitung'^,

84

comp. especially

Geiger, Urschrifl, Excurs

p. 451
ff.

on the Palestinian Tarj^um

to the Pentateuch,

; ; ;

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

cases where Aquila follows the
^''^3,
is

REIDER

293

while the Septuagint

forced

goes with the

"'"i.p.

The

conclusion
^''Jis

upon us that
the older

Aquila's adherence to the

version
37.
is

in opposition to

but another instance of his literalism.

I

In grouping the consonantal variants

only

cite

those that have a high degree of probability as having

existed in Aquila's archetype.
ty'Np
n^''^^

Thus Ruth
arhpi,

i.

12

''ri''^n

D3

=
5

Kaiye

/3e^j]A(o/i;ieV?]

inriplying

npipn

'profaned, polluted'
I

((5j

and

omit the word altogether)

^"l|t^.?

Kings
16

2.

(TvveTpij3r]a-av

shows that a read

6^

for 113b'?

28.

^i.y

Kara

(tov,

so a

and

in

a citation

by Origen,
6 d
(it is

Field conjectures yV, comp. indeed

BDB.,

s.v. ^y

more probable, however, that the signatures are

that a
Q'

faulty

and
(tov^

wrote what
;

is

now

ascribed to
'Dn

o-',

avTi^-qXo^
\'0

see Index s.v)

Toi)? rpei?,
arp-oi'

Kings

23. 19 1233
''3

r\'&:>'^7\

-napa

ort vho^os,

hence a read

Ps. 77 (78). 33 w?

implies ^3n3 for bn3, but

@
''3''"i

reads

MT

88

(89).

51

CziVPS

Tidaas abiKtas, hence

iniqiiitates^

who

is

followed

(= ''^l), so Jer. oinnes Duhm, while Baethgen by

ziir

suggests

riKipzi

and Perles {Analekten

Textkritik dcs
^3

A.

T., p. 14) derives the

same word from

abbreviated;

118 (119). 119 hukoyiaod corresponds to ^3t'n which a read

for ri3^n with
a-'

and

Jer.,

while
is

@
;

reads

Jji3tJ'n,

k'Koyi(rap.i]i'

120 (121). 3

pJ)]

hi^r]s
JJ^Jji'^i?

which
for

common
131?^

to all the

Greek
ni'^b,

versions yields

i^r^N

Prov. 21, 28 "13T

;

a a

6' els vIkos TTopeva-^TaL,

n?3'i

implies

30.

PSXI koL rekeaoi'

;

implies
7.
8.

or

N*.?31_

(comp. Dan.

9. 24),

possibly ^3]

Eccles.

23 (22) V])

TTovrjpcva-eTaL,

hence
all

V1\

was read with

and a

12 nsp aireOavev a a
TOTe
w,

6',

of

whom

read no, while 's

a'
;

airu

tND,

the latter more in style of

Tr'M?
;

11. 5

"^!f^'3

iv

implying
r\v^

12. 6 ^r^'p n?3

;

Xvrpcocns tov ^pvaCov,

co? op-oiMais,

pointing to

n?N3

Cant.

3.

6 nionii

points

, ,

294
to r\v:r\^
^3^50
^o-i
;

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

jsa. 14.
;

32

''r^r'P /Baa-tXeli

a 6\ hence both read

with

16. 7 rots 7To\v)(povLoi.9 fxov implies ^^^C'v for

''*y?''5:^^,

and

XI read V^^\>
is

by analogy with
found Hos.
ms.'riPi
'

Jer.

48

(31). 3
'''^"'p^.

a similar variant

also

3.

where

=
^^^

TtaXaia implies ''PV);

(f>vpu)d'n(re(T6e,
j;

61. 6
"ipn

was read
'

^iTsnnri

tto/j-

der. from

to be red
also

Jer. 6.

6 ipsn ryn

TTo'Ais

aSiKos, in the

same sense

(tj

^/vh]s), TL n''psn''XT

snnin n^,
Cornill

Duhm
"i'V>
;

suggests

r]'V\:i:iJi

n>yn,

Giesebrecht P^sn Ty,

"IJP.^O

the latter
1

is

the most probable for both

and a

ibid., v.
"liD,

D''l^n3 IID av(rTpe[X[xa 7TovripevoiJi4v(s)v,

hence

Ci''V'}.l?

comp. Ps. 63

(64).

3 where

rendered

9.

21 (20) D^'P.i^ns for iJ'Ji^nn with

^J^ri^jrp-iS2

CVP is so & % a', and

to i-JAet/xjita

DD^n^iC-iXn for
crou,

with

0-';

15. 11

^nm

hence

^n'1(^<)f

with

aZD;
=

17. i Dn^riin3TO for D3^n;

with
ibid.,

IT ID

S, but perhaps assimilated to the preceding Q3p

ver.

Kal bLaf3L/3d(T(i) ae points to

T'Jji']?yLil

instead of

T'lji'l^yni

comp.

15.

14 where

''Jjl")?yC>'!

(koI)

napalSi^daoa
ID
;

ae also

implies the

same reading
XT

T'^l^yni though

read
20.

MT
1 1

ei

addiicam,

read TTn^yni in both places

157
;

|3"7y

o^x

ovrcos

implies

dissolved into
21. -14
6'

i5

N^, a
''"133

process frequent
Kara
''IS?
to.

in the

Septuagint

D3\ppyn

-novrjpa

77 iT-qhevjxaTa,

hence a and
26
{'^'^).

read V^^ for

by analogy
34
(41).

with ver. 12;

Kara
roi/s

18

ovro's

Nin for ^1^;

inst.

(fXTTvpia-iJiovs

points to

riiD"i'^jp31

of

niD"]'p'jpiil

so

@S

ID; 41 (48}. 17 ey TOts (ppaypioh implies

is

nhn^n

inst.

of n=n33j comp. 49 (30). 3 where nnnsn

similarly,

rendered by a
M'ai^S/ja

comp. also Josephus, Antiq., X, 95 where

48
(31),

supports a"s reading;

30

V'nn

ra f^aCpera avrov
(27).
;

(Syro-Hex.

oC:*-.? jI^^^S^^jo),

hence vna^ similarly 50

)L^!5j^

36

where
ver.

D'''^?l1"''^

is

rendered

taX (Syro-Hex.)
nyna,

ibid.,

37 nyi3
i<"

KaTaTerp-ijpii'os

would imply

but Syro-Hex.

But more

likely u/^oiaian is a corruption of Svfiiaan.

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

records
l^;-?:;;,;

REIDER

295
^""Tin ?

ibid.^ rihnj KaTaT;^Tx\y]y\xivos,

did a read

51 (38). 10
idzd., ver.

^J'T'PI^

liKaio<Jvvr]V avrov,

hence Vnpn^ with

64

my^
MT,

nn^ nsn-ny

^ayjl

Kat eVra^r/o-ai.' eco? evTuvOa

'iii''5k*l

ol Ao'yot 'UpejXLov,

which implies perhaps

but
it

and a

different

division than

must be remarked that Syro-Hex.

records ^*1^*jo and that the

same word
in
;

in

ver.

58

is

rendered

Kal eKXvdrjaovTai,

both

agreement with
12. 11 ^k}^
v\xiv,

MT;
hence

Ezek.

3.

^f^V?? i'Ikos (tov,

hence ^DV?

D3^, possibly assimilation to the context, see also

Ken. and

De

Rossi; 19. 7 kuX (KccKMae implies

Vl'l for

VTl comp.
''l^Jtp

&
for
',

(viixeTo
ni:?p,

V1)\;

21. 12 (17) avyKeKXeiafxlvoi implies

o^^.

similarly,

koX

o-wiKkeio-as

'^HpJin

inst.
T|"iyri

of

"^PB)

ibid., ver.

30 (35)

eis

rw

KoAeoV

o-ou

points to

inst.

of

nnyn, but perhaps assimilated to the context; 22. 16

KQt
KaraKATjpo8or?/crco,

^pn;"!

hence

''Jj^r'L'i?'!

with

ID

23.

15.

23

D"'K'V?' is

made

to correspond to aKvXevrwv (those that strip

n'hb'y

a slain enemy), hence Cornill suggests the reading

ibid., ver. ;^^
fit
''Nip

me, did a read ''H^?; 34. I2 D^:xri

does not
;

TaireLvcodriaeTai,

hence

Cornill

suggests

"^syn

37.

11

d'''i?|)51

=. reTeXeajxivoL

accord,

to the second edition

of a,

hence he read
"comp. Lagarde,

C)''19?i,

XT also
II,

had the same consonants,

Onom.,

95,
;

who

considers

this

the

original reading referring to

"1^2

ibid.^ ver.

16 'Egw/x points

to DlX inst. of

D"J^<,

so S, while the
;

same consonants underlie

crov

also @'s av6pu)TT0V9

!]Db3,
it

ibid.,

avvaXXayi]v

cannot stand for

'^r^J'-Ti,

is

not improbable that a

it

read
;

deriving

it

from ^^3 and construing

(cord) probably

as T]^DSJ<33

ibid., ver.

19 a-napTiov

refers to ni^
7.

which a read

for ^^\>,
i.

comp.
ibid.^

the Ketib 3 Kings

ver.
15.

23; Jer. 31.

'19"J?

39; Zech.
avrijs,

16;

33

'"i^"!?

was read

w?

{/'\//o?

comp. Judges

17 where

W]
''PI?

is

rendered by
^v

v\jm(rLs
7]iJ.p(av

(comp. also
jjiov

Isa. 38.

10

''^1

Tw

{J\//et

Twy

where we

296

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

iox davie^
6'

have the opinion of Jerome that they read rame

comp. Field note)

epyov Tov

28. 13 ^"'Sn

n^xbo

is

rendered by a
read

kuWovs

(tov,

hence they

may have
/cat

'^^2^ ri?*^^'?,

Hkewise

decoris; ibid., ver. 16

nr^pvyia

y(^pov(3

imph
(/cat)

2r\2 -inxi for 2^13 T]^vVij

atroXiaui en (Field)
;

comp., however, the variant

30. 22 for rina^sn

which makes no sense,

40. 2 ef

probably read
inst.

riNi;'3n

v\j/rj\6i'

havn

renders
6.

"153'?

of

333??,

so @, comp. Hitzig

ad
,

loc.\

Mic.

14

Kot KaTa(pvTev(T(o
p. 67)

cannot correspond to
read
^7nL^'N1

"^n^.^l

Margolis {Micah^
:

suggests that a

(from PDw')

and

I will

plant thee,

Q'

have

o-vo-Korao-et

= "icnil,
"i

8ta(/)0epet

ae

38.
less

Some

variants depending on
:

and

and hence of
a',

importance are as follows

Deut. 28. 20

like

Sam.
koi
;

tl-^''"

D
5.

and MSS., reads

\

nr:in?:n Ttst"
p^>'^

ms*cn ns,
pli*^

o-Trai/ti;

^ayihaivav

ibid.,

ver.

^'>^

was read
D''??'''!?

=
;

e-mxyarj

Judges
Kot
is

21 KavGwroiv points to

8ct)/37Jo-erat

impl.

;n^

for

pni.,

Job 41. 4 comp. Deut. 28. 50 where iH^

for
D''??'nip

so rendered; Ps. 21

(22). 17 f\(Tyyvav impl. 1"1X3 (on

the

meaning comp. above,

23) inst. of "'1^3,

which

is

supported

by most
pp. 42

versions, Midr. Tillim,

and Complut., comp. Taylor,

(Perles, Analekteu, p. 50,

ff.,

see also Graetz

ad

loc.

emends nXD

to

^""[i?

claiming that this underlies a"s second

vinxeriint)
;

translation o^as
to-ooos

and Jerome's

73
o-'

(74).

5 ws
Jer.

points to
7.

NU03
yji\X(.(n

inst.
kcCi

of

i<^3D3,

so

@S

B'

and

Cant.

9 (10)

oSofat impl. D^l^l D^ri2b' inst. of

CJK'^ "'nsb',

so

d)

and

S who
p.

only vary in reading

;

''D??^,

comp. Geiger, Ursc/wift,

impl.
l-'pin^

405

Isa.

52. 5 irapavoixovaiv

inst. of ^l'v''^}^
;

but contrast Jerome's _/?'<^?//'

yvwre

oXoXvCovaiv
"^"IJ??
''i''9?l

Jer. 6. 18 Kai

iy"j1

for

''VJi

31 (38). 24

Kat atporre? ey ttolixvlu),

hence

a'

read ^VW) with

;

f' XT

t),

which also yields a better sense

Ezek.

27.

25

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

IXiiTovpyei
(TOi

REIDER

297

impl.

'Hin^ti'

for ^^n'lTf,
is

the versions have

various readings none of which

as satisfactory as that of
loc.
;

our translator, comp. Cornill ad

Dan.

10.

o-w?jo-et

points to P?^ inst. of r^l, similarly

2.

hiavor\Qj\(TiTai\

Hab.

4 ^
39.

-'^vyr\ ixov

impl.

Td:

inst.

of

IK'S):,

so also @.

Another

class of variants are those

which

may

be

based on metathesis.
niin
inst.

Thus Judges
Ps. 17
it

5.

23 ev-npeTraa impl.
is

of ninn^.

(18).

46

=i3"!n:i

rendered by
so
;

(rv<TTi\k(T9aL

making

evident that a read

1"*?^.^,

and

some Jewish commentators, among them Ibn Ganah

17. 10
rinri

Prov.

was read nrin

ttXtj^ls;

Ezek.

16.

61

[xifxricraadaL

does not correspond to ^^ni^a but ^npna, comp. 23. 14 where

a'

renders nj5n

by

ixLixruxa;

21. 14 (19) ot Odn/SoL (astonish-

ment) yields

ri'iinn

for
;

n^inn^

similarly read

Jn"|in~1,

XT xynon, so also Jer.

r]^vV

Hab.

2.

4 npsy was probably read

2.

=
of

vodx^ekevoixevov

with some Bible manuscripts;

already remarked, corresponds to

16

Kal Kapa>dr]TL, as Field

inst.
^l.Vi]),

''^^ll

'C^

and

derive
;

it

likewise from
3.

?y"i,

and so

also

many commentators
ovat

Zeph.

18

1*n

was read

''in

ot,

so

and

''1.

40. Still another set of variants are those which

may go
resp.

back to a phonetic similarity of two or more sounds,

letters, in

which case we must assume that the translator

ear.^^
;

sometimes translated by
Ti^eLv

Thus Gen.
5.
,

41. 43 yova-

'ill?'!'

inst.

of ^l^N

Exod.

el al. a-noTTSTdC^iv
n"'13n

{-(TaCeiv
9. 9)
;

spread out,

fly) for

yisn assuming

(comp.

Deut. 26. 14 (also 3 Kings 22. 47 and 4 Kings 23. 24)

does not correspond to
"i}^3

e-TTiAeyety

but

"in3

Kings

21.
ID
o-'

13 (14) KOI TTpoa-iKpovfv points to

^in*!

for

in^i,

likewise

Job
and

4.

2 /xTjn iirapovixev points to N^^in for nDin, so also

ihid.,

6';
'5

ver.

13

Iv

irapaWayah (change, variation)

p. 121
ff.

Comp. Graetz,

Kritischer

Commentar zu den Psalmen,

VOL. VII.

298

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

;

impl. O^syP^i for "'SyK'?

28.

(^epevvqaev of both a
aveKaXvxj/ev
ni3

and

6^

implies B'Sn for '^sn, likewise

est;
41. 7
o-w;j,o

and

D
;

sci'iitatus

avToS implies

for niN3,
N?'^ for

so also

ID;

Ps. 4. 7 7ra/)oy of a
Kot (^(})dvr}

and

^'

yields

np3

26 (27). 12
<r'

corresponds to VP\
t;'"'n

inst.

of ns^i, likewise
'^^i^,

89

(90).

TO

was translated
(Field note)
;

aj'Tjp,

hence

in the first

recension of a
Di'n
;

Prov. 22. 19
"'i'^

((arjv

Jer. 6.

28 apyovT^^ points to
;

for

"'"1.9,

so

C^n for TI S ID and

points
to
et?

many Hebr. MSS.

TTXijdoi

Ezek.

13.

22

i]\xav{mQr\

ninDH (der. from nna) for nis^n,

points to 2np for 3^y?
I'lP^^i
;

ID

^'s^^n

27.

31. 15 e-nivd-qaev avrov implies

THipm for

Mic.

4. 8

r7Korw8r?s

implies ^QN for

bsj?,

the

same

is

implied

by a
is

airoKpvcpos.

41.

While

it

not strange to find some consonantal

it

variants in Aquila's version

in
it

is

rather surprising to find

number
in

of words and even phrases which are either

in

extant
in

Aquila but missing

in

the

Hebrew

or extant
for

the

Hebrew and missing

different

Aquila.

To

account

this

we must assume

that in most of these cases he certainly

in others

had a text

from our own, while

he

may
later

have been made to agree with the Septuagint by

scribes or copyists.

In enumerating these cases

out.
3.

all

doubtful

ascriptions

have been kept

Extant

in

Aquila but

missing in Hebrew: 2 Kings

C'Chn (or
KOKKOv,
niN3

27 eh tov hoTrXLajjLov impl.

;

b)

b^,

so also

and a

Cant.

6.

r^

(6)

tt/s

hence a must have read

like

&

'Ti^niriEK'

"^^n Din3
is

T]"izi"ini,

which

is

missing in

MT

at this place but

found

in 4. 3

and by the nature of the discourse should

;

have existed also here

8.

iv dopKacnv

?)

(v eAa^oi?

rrji

Xwpas which corresponds to found

2.

i^"}^'^

riv^S3

'ix

nisa>*3,

a phrase
it

in

connexion with

^^V?'?''?,

perhaps

is

mistake of the copyist

who thought

of

2. 7

(comp. Frankel,

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AOUILA

Vorstiidien, p. 68
f.),

REIDER

299

but

it is

also possible that a's

Hebrew

text had
Jer. 16. 5

it,

it

is

interesting that also

@
3.

has this addition

77a?
is

avTMv with

@;

a superfluous

found Jer.

44

(51).

23:

Ezek. 18. 10:

67
;

Zeph.

9 to
is

which comp.
Jer. 45.

Frankel,
(51,

ibid., p.

a superfluous helvos
13.

found

34) and Ezek. 20.40; Ezek.

2 rois Trpo^-qTevovaiv
in

credited to a

and

0'

has no equivalent
28.

MT

20.

14 ovk
x^ipi

probably

later addition;
is

13 iv
6^

(toI;

40.

3 kv

rfi

avTov which

supported by @-^

%\) and S S2(d asterisco.

in

18

Extant
^=i23n;

in

Hebrew but missing

8.

Aquila

Kings
o-';

13.

3 Kings

24

"ill^il i^,

likewise

and

21 (20). 7
accord, to

"iDN'i;

4 Kings

23. 18 vnto^y 2; Ps.

o-'

60
Jer.
;

(61). 8

|0

Eus. and Syro-Hex. (also

12
IT,

and
so
0-'

omit

it);

61 (62).

so

0-';

105 (106),

7 D^l,

140

(141). 3 ''%

found

in the other versions;

Prov. 12. 14 no translation for D^X

;

unless ai/roC
ez'

is

a corruption of oy^pwTrou
renders
njK' niK^j;
nto"i3,
"iTiK'ii,

Ezek. 32.
"^iK'

i,

17

rw SeKorw

eret
Q'
\

hence
in

was not

read, so

a-'

Hos.

10. 15

found

is KaTana7Ti]dji

a free rendering of nnii ribn^

42.

More

frequent

are

minor variants such as the

addition or omission of the connective particle, the article,

the 7zofa acatsativi

vice versa.

n^{,

or the substitution of sing, for

pi.

and

These are often due to the carelessness of the

scribe or copyist

and hence great care must be exercised

as real variants.^^
'

before stamping
is

them

On

such minor variants in the Talmud comp. Aptowitzer,

'

Das

Schriftwort in der rabbinischen Literatur

del-

in the Sitsitngsberichle dey

;

Akad.
;

Wiss. in IVien

cliii

(1906), Abhandl.

VI

t'bt'd.

clx (1908^, Abhandl. VII

in

in

the XVIII. Jahresbericht

der Isr.-Theol.

Lehranstalt

Wien,

191 1.

[Comp. also

Rosenfeld,

DnSID

nnSti'D,

Wilna,

1883.

M.]

These
MS. of
a

too are not always real variants

owing

to the fact that the

;

Rabbis were

wont

to

quote from

memory and hence

p. 11
ff.

misquotations arose

comp. Geiger,

Nachgelassene Schriften, IV, 30, and Margolis, The Columbia College

Megilla,

New

York, 1892,

The Church Fathers

too quoted Bible

300
43.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Aquila follows the Ketib
21.
in the following

passages

Exod.
avrriv,

8
Q'

ri-jy^

('p

ib)

i6 T^X

6s

ov

KadoiixokoyriaaTO

ao a

and other versions,

as well as Bab.

Kiddushin

19 a and Mekilta

ad

loc.^

the latter not without a com25. 12 xat ft? ^odvvcaras

;

promise pn 1S7 ?73D

D"'xpi (D"'?3y1

;i^

4 Kings

Kere), so

transliterating ya^iv

Chron.

25. I Twi;

TTpo(f)r)TS>v

D''i<''?3n

(Kere

D''i<3?Li)

Ps. 9. 31 (10. 10)

.^AA,^o
'"'?T
!

nani (pointed 1?1p, so

ly/xu^

o-''

6 8e OkaaOeis,
,

but Kere

(7^)- 2*^ eSei^as

lJri''X"in

while Kere requires

;

T;
is

143 (144). 2 wlcwl

= ^rinri,
ID,

Kere vnnn
cr'

Prov.

6.

16

/3b(X.vyfxaTa

riisyin

21. 29 erot/xacret a'

ZI

yields p?^, which

also

adopted by
ot

while

follows
i?,

Kere

p?J; Isa.

9.

3 (2)

A read Nv

''iJin

instead of
i<^'?n

which lends support

(1|

to
9.

Krochmal's

emendation

8 (7) TLTpGiCTKov implies

t^nii^,

= n^^jn a-o @ a ID,

isn?';

nnna'n)
;

Jer.

but XT and
(47), 8 ^siy
^2''^
;

5
=

follow the
k*3cu

Kere

in

reading t2in^ or

40

on the margin of the Syro-Hex., Kere

Ezek,
jloj./,

43. 26

manwn eiiis (Jer.) =

inst.

n^

Dan.

11. 10 ri^yo

<i^k->

hence n~

of
is

Kere r.
followed Gen. 30.
^*^,

The Kere
corresponds to
"iJS;

where

y]KQe.v

evCcovia
Tvyr]

"^J

so most versions except

ii^

=
20

Kings
or

20.

23 Xeprjdi

=
;

''rn;3

(Ketib
i.

''13);

21.

avTibiKos

d^TiAoyia?
(10)
.

ii"!^

Kings

^^
a' 6'

io.'^

= b^;
30

4 Kings
nn i6
n*n

12. 9
. .

U,)..:!Q-.

^^?

P'?''?;

Ps.

ai

(22).

iti'sJl

avru. Cfh
all

hence

i^ ^"^

with
;

S
4

Jer.
aTro

and
tov

with almost

the versions

^"^

29

(30).

passages from memory, and hence incorrectly,

pp. 58-61,
'^^

comp. Cornill,

Ezechiel,

and Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien,

I,

i6

f.

and

49.

It

is

noteworthy that Aquila's interpretation disagrees with the

rabbinic tradition that a

Hebrew

maid,

when engaged

as a servant,
at.

is

to

be married by her employer, comp. Mekilta and Kiddushin, he.

'"'

On

this

Kere comp. Baer, Liber Psaltuomni,

construed
the

p. 91.

iw Just

how he

phrase

it

is

difficult

to

say,

since

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

KaTa^rjvai jk corresponds to
0-'

REIDER
is

30I

''IIJJ?

in

which a
;

followed

by

and Jen, but

0'

DS
ri"iD

have 'T^'^
N^U^^
;

54 (55). 16
n'lD^tJ'^),

eTidfet

davarov
versions

corresponds to
;

(Ketib

so most
ons^y
^^''i*i^,

99 (100). 3

ob>>o

ib)

Isa. ^6.

12 Dn\^21

^0^)01

49. 5 ^2 points to i^

Jer. 7.

22 (^ayayovros
Dyn, Ketib DV
;

/i^ou

Ketib

N^Vin

17. 19 roS AaoC

32

(39).

23

.^? Jlccovms.
it

''jnninil;

50

(27). II

from

k-ne^ap^Te

= IHObn
=

can be seen that a like most other versions followed the

;

Kere throughout the sentence

1J]1

Ezek. 23. 43

Ttopvevova-Lv

(Ketib n:r)

Dan.

9.

24 ml rod

TeXeLaxrat

Qnnplj so

most versions, Ketib Dnnh

44.

The preceding study

of Aquila, though dealing

In the course

with

details,

does not claim to be exhaustive.

of the

work many problems presented themselves which

could not be solved for the moment, and hence had to be

left

to the future.

To

begin with, there

is

the paramount

problem confronting every student of the ancient versions

as to

how much Aquila

cast

material entered into the Septuagint.

Doubts have been

on certain books of the Alexandrian

:

Version as being contaminated with Aquila readings

the equivalent of the
safely
first

thus

word has not been

and

preserved,
itJ'SiV

but

we may
that

assume that

like a' 6' XL

Jer. he read

However

may
this

be, there is reason to

in

suppose that our translator wished here to

emphasize the belief

immortality of the soul

for the

among

the Jews, so that

would be a further proof

f.)

view of M. Zipser {Ben Cliananja,

1863, 182

that a''s translation of

due

to

an

effort to

JIIID vi? Ps. 47 (48). 15 by aOavaaia was prove that the term and idea of immortality existed in the

Hebrew
him with

Bible.

Further proof for

for in the
i

this

view

lies in the fact that

a actually

had ri10"?y or nioi^V,

very same passage the Syrohex. credits

JlaJiO ^^*.bw, while 9.

he renders the same word by

of M. StOssel
{ibid., p. "i^y,
is

vtaviurrjs
a'

(= roDpy).

Hence the contention

693) that
quite

had

a faulty text before him, with "PN instead of

untenable.

Comp., furthermore, Anger, De Aquila,

a'

p. 17

f.,

who

likewise assumes that

here followed

MT.

302
it

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

appears that wherever the

text

is

defective in Joshua

and Kings 3-4 the lacunae have been supplied in the A text from the third column of Origen's Hexapla^^^;
furthermore, the books of Canticles and Ecclesiastes remind
strikingly of the

method of Aquila"^
to Ezekie!
in
is

while Cornill speaks

is

of an

Oxford codex

which
to

highly influenced
to

by

Aquila.^^2

Now,

order

get

the

original

Septuagint
ing

and this
is

a conditio sine qua non for obtaintext

ultimately the pre-Masoretic

of

the

Hebrew

Scriptures it

essential to separate out the

Hexaplaric

material which crept in through the influence of Origen.^^-^

Before

this

attempt

is

made, however, the

style

and

vocabulary of the three translators, Aquila, Symmachus,

and Theodotion, from

in the Septuagint,

whom

Origen supplied the lacunae

have to be determined unequivocally.

With
go

a critical index of Aquila at

hand the process of

eliminating Aquila readings from the Septuagint can

on.

now

Let us hope that also Symmachus and Theodotion

T. in Creek,
I,

1'"

Comp. Thackeray, Grammar of the O.

See Buhl, Kanon
Ezecliiel,
iiitd Text, p. 123.
f.

f.

m
1^-

pp. 64, 104

"'

Comp. the three axioms

of Lagarde in his Aiiiuerkuiigcit ziirgriecliisclien

:

Ubersetziing der Proverbieii, 1863, p. 3

'I.

die manuscripte dor griechischen

alle

ubersetzung des alten testaments sind

mittelbar das

entvveder unmiltelbar oder

:

resultat eines ekleittischen

verfahrens

darum muss, war

sein maasstab

den echten text wiederfinden

will, ebenfalls eklektiker sein.

kann nur die kenntniss des styles der einzelnen

hilfsmittel

iibersetzer,

sein haupt-

muss

die fiihigkcit sein,

die

ihm vorkommenden lesartea auf

ihr semitisches original

zuriickzufiihren oder aber als originalgriechische

II.

verderbnisse zu erkcnnen.

wenn

ein vers oder verstheil in einer freien

die

und

in

einer sklavisch trcuen iibertragung vorliegt, gilt

III.

erstere

als

die echte. die eine

wenn

sich "^wei lesarten nebeneinander finden, von

denen

don masoretischen text ausdriickt, die andre nur aus einer von
urschrift erklart

ihm abwcichendcn

werdtn kann, so

ist

die letztere

fiir

urspriinglich zu halten.'

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

will receive

REIDER

303

an adequate treatment

in

the near future, so

that they too

criticism.

may become

links in the long chain of textual

45.

Another problem arising from

this

work

is

the

identification of such

anonymous Hexaplaric readings as

belong to Aquila.

There can be no doubt that many of

these nameless passages belong to either Aquila, Symmachus,

or Theodotion, but particularly to the
first.

Thus

Cornill

has gleaned for Aquila some readings which are quoted by

Field under "AAAos,^^* and the

same may be done

in

the

other books of the Bible.

It is

certainly not without reason

in

why

*'AAAos coincides with

Aquila

many
it

places to the

exclusion of the other translators, and peculiarly enough in

characteristic

words

-^^

and passages

simply proves that

no care was taken

in

quoting signatures.^^^

But not only

:

under "AAAos are to be found Aquila readings

also

they are

imbedded
"^

in

Hexaplaric passages quoted under an

asterisk

and sine nomine}'^'

ff.

Under a

close scrutiny such

11*

Ezekiel^ p. 104

11^

The following
(jLovuvaBai,

is

list

of such words
eir/crxeffis,

aKpi^ow,

dvOifnoy, avTidiKia,

jovari^eir, SoXieveaOat, kvaWaaafiv,

fjLe\aSr]/j.a,

kanevcrixivais,

eariaais, fearoy,

o(p\r]ixa,

irapaTavva^oi,
i/ipTj.

napeKTus,

ffticxaiveiv,

OKvka^,

aKwXovaOai, avaKiaafxos,

ijirovpyitv,

good

illustration is

furthermore

afforded by a comparison of Field with the larger Cambridge Septuagint

with reference

to a

and "AWos

Thus Exod.

13. 4 2''IlNn
;

rwv

vtapStv is

quoted under 'PiXXus in F but under a in

ibid.,

BM

likewise

HS^Xn =

toO oi^i,

16.

36 and nPZtJ'D
;

oire/ci'oj,

ibid.,

23.
4.

26;
5
;

i"l''2pni

X'"/"'^*'

Lev. 13. 21

T]D?3n

tov irapaTavvanov,

Num.
Note

"IXDH N? ^H^T

ikaiav
Field

aov ov (TTfipavwaeii, Deut. 24. 22 (20).

also Jer. 10. 10

where
''AAA.os

quotes in the body of the Hexapla a whole sentence under

while

the Auctarium credits the same sentence to a, thus justifying Field's note in the

body of the book.

"^ Comp. above,
5.

1"

It

is

to

be regretted that Hatch-Redpath failed to include such

still

passages in their Concordance, and the work

remains

to

be done.

304
readings
originator.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

may

often

be identified and referred to their

this process of identifi-

With an adequate index

cation becomes comparatively easy.

46.
'

There

is,

moreover, an intimation that the so-called

several

Ej3paios, to

whom

readings are referred in the

Hexapla,

is

none other but Aquila, who on account of his

the

close adherence to

Hebrew was probably

placcd under
'EySp.
it

so
:

styled.

To quote
29. 22
Kal

but one example in favour of this view

TTjv

Exod.
but

KpKov

Is

in Field,

the larger Cambridge Septuagint puts

under a

on the

authority of

MS.
is

v.

[Compare, however, Gen.

4. 26.

The

whole subject
in

now undergoing a

detailed examination,
is

connexion with which Dr. Reider's Index

M.]
it

proving

a great help.
47.

On

the other hand,

is

as

much

of a problem to

eliminate from Aquila readings which, though referred to

him, cannot belong to him by force of style and diction.

Thus many quotations

must be exercised

in

Klostermann's Aiialecta^^^ under

signature a hardly belong to him, and hence great caution

in

excerpting them.

Furthermore, every
necessarily

reading bearing the generic signature

01 Xolttol is

an

eclectic reading containing

elements from each one of

the Three, and hence should be differentiated from a reading

bearing the distinct signature of a and possibly classed by

itself

as at least doubtful.

There

is

also sufficient reason

to suspect the fourteenth chapter of 3

Kings which Field

wisely questions, putting the Aquila signature in parenthisses.

Of

course, there can be

no doubt that

it

contains passages

belonging to Aquila, but that the chapter as a whole goes

back to Aquila
48.

is

very doubtful (comp. below, Appendix IV).

of great

A further problem

moment

is

the identifi-

" pp. 47-68.

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

cation

REIDER

305

of talmudic and

midrashic Greek quotations as

originating in Aquila's translation of the Bible.

Zipser,i2o Brull,^^!

Anger,"^

^nd Friedmann ^^2

j^ave delved into this

problem, trying to identify such quotations given expressly

under Aquila's name (comp. below, Appendix Zunz, to

III).

But

my

mind, was the

first

to suggest

^^^

that

some

anonymous Greek quotations

to Aquila's version.

in the

Midrash

may

belong

Recently

this question

was taken up

by Samuel
certain

Krauss,^^*

Greek passages
p.

^^q endeavoured to prove that in Talmud and Midrash, among

Shab. 8 a containing an anonymous
3.

them the long passage

Greek translation of Isa.

18

fif.,

go back to Aquila's version.

is

As

to the thesis
;

itself,

there

no doubt that

it

holds

good

from Aquila's popularity among the Jews we expect

some renderings of his to have crept into the

and Midrashim.
invites criticism
;

Talmudim
by Krauss

But the method pursued

having started out with the idea of finding

literature

Aquila renderings in the talmudic

as to ascribe to

he goes so

far

him words which

for
inst.,

are foreign to Aquila's

vocabulary,

as,

veavia-Koi

and

a(t)(TLs,

his

only

pretence being that presumably Aquila used them in his

editio

seamda, or that because Symmachus has

it.

it

Aquila

too must have had

In only one case

T\aixu>vas for

is

he supported by

Hexaplaric evidence:

D''i?"'3K',

The only way

all

to identify talmudic passages as belonging to Aquila would

be to examine them

in the light of the

evidence from

the Greek versions, and

by

a process of elimination to

determine which words actually belong to him because

119
120
122 123
12*

De

Aquila, p. 13

ff.

Sen Chananja, 1863, Onkelos und Akylas,

pp. 162, 181.

p.

i^'

Ibid., pp. 233, 299.

44

ff.

Goitesdiensiliche Vorinige, p. 83, note a.

Steinschneider's Festschrift,

German

division, p. 155

ff.

306

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

they could not belong to any other translator. Furthermore,

if

a passage contains at least one word peculiar to Aquila

I

(and by peculiar

mean words known

to

belong to Aquila
I),

and

to

no other

translator,

comp. below, Appendix

it

then

we may say with some

translator as a whole.

certainty that
in

belongs to our

Only

pursuing such methods can

we hope

to glean

new

material for the fragmentary version

of Aquila.

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

REIDER

307

APPENDIX

Aquila's Vocabulary

Aquila's mastery of the Greek language

by the
a
richness

is

borne out

and variety of

his vocabulary,

which

is
is

surpassed by
list

no other Greek translator.

The

following

of words peculiar to Aquila which are found in

none

of the other versions nor in any other Greek author

dYi/oTfijxaTi^eii',

formed from

ayv6i]}j.a

(in

Theophr. and
>^l^^
'

N. T.) for ayvoelv -oulv, to express Hebr. hiph.

lead astray'.
d0w6TT]s,

to

noun formed from

aO^os.

aii/oTToieii/,

composed of

at^'os

and

-noitiv,

to express Hebr.

hiph.

V)-\r}.

(XKououi/,

causative of aKoveiv to express hiph. (Deut.

4. "^6

rjKocacrev

ere

n^DEi'n

BM), corresponding
TToietr,

to the frequent

cLKovTiC^iv

and aKovcndv

likewise in a for VDti'n.

dXa^oo-uVif),

corresponding to aka(6vV[xa.

d\a\eia0ai,
dXaXouo-0ai,
dXoi<j>ai',

composite of alpha privative and kakdv.

alpha privative and kakovv

kakdi:

verb formed from the noun

corresponding to akaos.
akaoi.

akoKpi].

aXo-wpa,
dXaojc

dfji<j)ipXif]aTpeu'eii/,

verbal

derivative

from

aix^i^ki](jTpov

(dju.(/)t/9dAAetf).

dcaPoXeto-Gai,

a component of avd and

jSoke'iv

f3d\ketv

(the pf. pass, used in the

Epic

dialect,

comp. Liddell-Scott's

Lexicon, ad

loc.)

comp. also ava^okaiov further below under

308

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

drnXcKTripioi',

formed

fr.

avakiyeiv as t^lpT

is fr. I2i?7.

dmaucr/xos,

nominal derivative of
denominative of

avaa-di^iiv.

di'OTjTii^eaOai,
d'TiPXT]CTis,

avorja-ia

=
'

avorjTLa in Attic.

L. Bos suggests

avTi^oXrjo-Ls,

entreaty, prayer

'

(Hebr.

njn).

dcTiSdKTuXos,

opposite the baKTvXos

;

'

thumb
loc,

',

corresp. to
to aKpov

6 jxiyas hdnTvkos

comp. Schleusner, ad

where

of

is

said to be explained by roy avnbaKTvXov

in Schol.

Gr. ed.

Rom.
arranged
opposite

dfTiSidKeiaGat,

one

another,

comp.
stuff'.

Syro-Hex.

i>.*Jlsaiif ]p*i, pt. for

fr.

Hebr.

noytJ'

'mixed

dfTiSiKaaia, der.
dcuTrepGeTeiv,
fr.

avTibiKelv

and equivalent to

avTibiKia.
lit.
'

awTTepdeaia and awTTepOeroSy

'to infuriate oneself).
aiTo

be

in

haste' (Hebr.
direVi'oia,

l?yrii?

composed of

and

evvoia,
'"O

Hebr.

nD]I3, pref.

an- perhaps

intended for
;

pref.

(root DT, nsT

plan,

device) as literalism
arcovtia,

less likely

Schleusner's emendation to

which does not

tally with the Hebr.

diToPpe^is, l3p4^Ls in

Xenophon

= l^poxv,

fi'-

ySpe'xety

otto,

as

above, represents the preformative D (Hebr.

d-n-o8iaTT)peL',

H'lK'Ci, fr.

mB').

accord. to Cod. 264 (Eus. and Syro-Hex.

a-no

record btaTrjpdv),
n-}x:^ fp).
diT<50\ip.fios, fr.

for the puzzling

(Ps.

60

(61).

a-noQ\iQ^Lv,

meaning squeezing, pressing

'

',

regularly
corides.

aTrudkLxj/i^, a-n66\i\xp.a

'

expressed juice

'

in

Dios-

diroKaxaaTTdi',

KaTaavav

'

pull

down

'

airo

no doubt

for 'd

(Hebr.

i?.??),

which

may have been

denom.

misunderstood as a

preformative (due to biliteralism).

dTroKpuPeii/

cnTOKpv-nTet.v,

fr.

a-noKpv^i]

{a

Byzantine).
dTroKpu<t>(os,

adv.

fr. aTioKpvcfiOS.

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

d7roXT]YjjLa,
'

REIDER
=

309
leave

skirt or

hem
to.

of a robe

',

fr.

a-nokriy^iv

off,

desist,

put an end
a-no
'

diroTreTdS^eti/,

and

TTeTaCetv^TieTavvvvaL,' spread out, fly

aKoXoires or pales,

'.

d-n-ocTKoXoTri^en',

remove the

make way

',

formed from
dird(TKO)x)i,a

(TKo\oTTL(tv (Dioscorides) like avaa-KoXoii i(etv.

(Pitra),

probably der.

fr.

a-noa-KiTTTOfxaiy

obs.

dep. with the meaning of a-noa-Ko-ndv

cnTo/3X^TTeiv,
*

(fut.

aTroa-Kixj/oixai)

look away from, detest' (Hebr. ppK'

detested

thing).
dpi'YjTiis,

der.
'.

fr.

apv^ladai,

used

in

the same sense as

apvr^(ris,

'

denial

dCTuccTi^eo-Oai,

formed from

ao-wero?,' void of understanding,

stupid' or the act. ao-wereiz; (rare).

dToi/oui/,

formation in -ovv corresponding to Hebr. hiph.,

arovelv, *be relaxed,

aux|xou(T0ai,

exhausted

'

being used for Kal.

avxixelv,
'

used in the same sense as

be squalid,

unwashed

'.

d<})ao-0at,

'be afflicted with lepro.sy'

yiJJ
;

(Jer.

a(f)riiJL4vov,

i.e.

leprosiivi^

Hebr.
loc),
'

acjirji^ivos,

Ionic for

r](f)r]iJievos,

comp.

Field,

ad

a(f>ri

= wound
foolish
',

in

@.
frequent

d<j>poi'i(^ii',

make

-i^etv for piel, acfypoov

in a.
PeXruVeii/,

make /SeArtor,' good

'

',

corresp. to /3eATto{}i;(PhiIo),

-vveiv for hiph.

PioTcuais,
PoOu^wTT)?,

living, habitation

'

fr.

/BcoTcvetv^

'

live

'.

'a ditcher, digger'.

',

Popds,

'

devourer, locust

nomen

agentis of ^opa

food

or gluttony.
Popdrii/os,

'of cedar', adj. formed after the Hebr. DTiilB

Kapirdawo^, (TaTr<piipivos, &c.

comp.

iBvacTLvos,

PpcufAari^eii',

denominative of

fipwixa,

'

food

',

-lC^cv

for

hiph.

3IO
^pwar-qp,

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

fr.

,3ij3pio(TK(Lv,

'

eat

',

used for
to

'

moth

'

as waster

and consumer and equivalent

8cV8pw|jia,

in a

iSpcoTijp.
fr.

used for tamarisk-tree pf^), formed

bevbpov

likewise
86^'8pw^',

also for

^'<^^.

8taPT]fiaTi^ii',

denominative

of

oia^r]}xa,

'

step

'

( a

Hesych.) for hiph.

8idpXci|is,

var. avufBhexj/Ls,

'

looking up, seeing

for piel.

'.

8ia8T]|j.aTi^eifj

denoni. of

bLcibrjixa

8ia8iKaCTfi6s,

used

for

'strife,

contention',

ot/cacr/xo';

giving judgement (only in Philo).

Sial^wi'T)

({ojin]

girdle),

like

otd{co/>ia

and,

more

rarely,

bidC(0(Tixa

(only Plut. and a), 'girdle'.

SiaTrpcTreia,

'adornment, glory', frequent

in a, der.

from

bia-pe~(tv.
8idpiTaCTfAa,
'

plunder

',

fr.

oiap-ndCiLV,

used on a par with

biapTTayi] (rare).
8id4/euCT|ia,

''falsehood',

fr.

bLaxj/evbeiv (pass, in a),

similar

to bidfiva-Ls (Stobaeus).
8i8aKTiip,
"ii?zin

prob. an instrument that teaches cattle (Hebr.

nppp
'

=
in

ox-goad), literalism
Hippocrates.
blvoi
'.

bibaKTi^piov,

'

something apt

to teach

Sn'OTToieii',

and

iroulv

by composition,
same sense

'

make

or

cause rotation
8ixaa)ji6s, fr.

bixdCdv, used in the

as bixf^ats

division, half (Aratus).

Spofiouc,

denom. of
'

bpop-o^,

'

a running

',

causal for hiph.

cYKOTTjais,
clXti'8T]CTis

hatred

',

same
to

as (yKorrjpLa in Hesychius.

(accord,

Euseb.},

'a

shuddering' (Hebr.

niirpQ)

but, accord, to Schleusner, sul? vcrbo^

Athanasius

in

Catena, PP. GG.,

Tom. H,

p. 51, exhibits SeiV/jo-is

(Hesych.

KUTJO-IJ, TlfplCTTpOf})!]).

; ;

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

ciaTrpdKTif]s,
'

REIDER

3II

an exactor

',

dairpaKTcop

in

Hesych., from

(IcnTpaa-creiv.

eK0dfiPT]ais,

used

in
'

the

same sense

as

Oaix/Biiais

(fr.

Oafx/Belv)

and meaning

trepidation, alarm, hurried flight

al.

'

(KdaixlBelv in

Sirach e^

EKXeKToui/, fr.e/<AeKro's

= picked out, select, used in pass. only.

meaning purely
'

eKXcKTcis,

adv.

fr.

IkK^kto^^
in

'.

eKXip.wCTo-ei.j',

used
;

the same sense as

Xiixdjo-aeLv,

'be

famished, hungry'

kKkiixia

only

in

('exceeding hunger')

and a

('

faintness, languishing').

eK\oo-|jios

(BM), stands

for a

word meaning 'drawing out'

it

(TJK'O)

it

is

possible of course that

is

corrupted from
'

e|eA.KV(Tjuios

(only in Dclf. Aledzc), der.

for

fr.

(^eXKav,
in a.

draw out

'

both e\Ketv and efeA^ety are used

eKTreTacjfjios,

"jtJ'Q

'spreading out', corresponding to

inireTavvvvaL,
'^ of

eKTreVao-t?

in Plut., der.

fr.

more frequent
'^'1P''P-

TT^TCivvvvaL, ck

no

doubt

for preformative

cKTOKeu'eii/,

same

as

roKei'eti'

TUreiv,

'

give birth to
',

'.

eXeicTfios,

'

supplication for favour or pity

fr.

iXeetv (Att.

for

eAeeto"/yo's).

ernXXayfia, equiv. to h-a\\ayi],

'an interchange

',

both used
ivaXXa-

by

a
:

for

'

wantonness, caprice

',

comp. Suidas,

s. v.

yrivai

to otto ^tAtas- els (piXiav aXXov ixeTaTTrjbrja-ai tlvos, k)(6pov

]

ovTos TO TTpoTcpov

comp. also Herwerden,

res indecens. as above, 'caprice'.
in neut. in the
',

s. v.

ivdXXa^ts

(=

ivaXXay)])
ecaXXaKTi^s,

p-ripcov,

same
used

ci'aXXaKTiKos,
erao-eXyeii',
'

same sense

as above.

act licentiously
in

h'aaeXyaiveiv in Diod., Arist.,

;

and, ace. to Schleusner,

the Onornasticon of Pollux

derivatives.

more

frequent aatXyaiv^iv and

ei/SuTTjs,
'

its

used
'.

in

the

same sense

as

'ivhyp-a

and

evbva-is,

dress,

garment

312

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

ct'OTrXiCTfjids,

der.

fr.

ho-nXi^^iv

'

to adapt to, to prepare,

to equip' (Lycophron, , a) and

meaning 'armature,

armour, or armament
e^afAuySaXi^eii',
*

'

like ottXov.
in

make

the

form

of

aixvybakr]

an

almond

'.

elafiuySaXout',
c^ai/dSoais,
'

same

as above.
',

a breaking out on the skin

avdboaLs

e^ for preform.
fr.

'o

of nnsprp,

'

a growth, a bursting forth',

avabLhovau
elauxefio-jjios,

compounded

fr.

and

av)(riv

(neck), prob.
'

meaning

'

stiffneckedness, stubbornness, obstinacy

(Jer. ex-

cervicatio),

though Hebr.

PTJI for

which

it

stands

is

generally

rendered by 'plunder'.
e^opGpil^eii/,
'

same

as 6p6pi((iv (in

and N. T.

for opOpevecv,

rise early

'),

e^ for preformative 'd.

'

elouSei/iCTfAos,

scorn,

contempt

',

fr.

e^ovSew'Cety (Plut.)
*

=
'

(^ovbevuv and e^ovberovv in

m.ore frequently
TriPXuo-)ji6s,

and N.
to

T.,

to set at naught

-coo-t?,

common
fr.
Itti

all.

*a mist',

and

iBXva-pios (fr.

^XvCeiv *to

bubble

')

in

Stephan's

Glossaria

for

(Skva-jxa

/3Awts,

'a bubbling up'.

eiriYafiPpeoTTis,

'husband's brother',

fr.

kiriyapL^p^-uHv, in

and a
of kin
'.

'

to take a

woman

to wife as her husband's next

emSo^oTTjs,

'

glory

',

noun formed

fr.

(-nibo^os,

'

of repute,

glorious

'.

cmTr(50T]fia,

'

longing, desire
;

',

same

as eTmrodr^ais,

fr. eiri-oiro'^Tjo-t?.

delv, 'to

yearn

after'

Ttodrnxa in Hesych. = tto'^os, -nodri,

'

eTTi'ppn|/is, fr. (TTLppLTTTfLi',

cast at

';

comp.

/3tx//t?

=
'

a throw-

ing, hurling.
e-rrippuTris,
fr. iTTlppclv.
'

an afflux, influx

'

comp.

(TrippvTos,

flowing

',

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

m<TTr](xoui'
*

REIDER

313

pass.,
;

'

to

make

wise',

denomin. of
is

iTna-Trnxr},

knowledge
AAAo?.

'

a similar formation

eTrtoTjj/iori^eo-^at

of

6mTpi)i|x6s,
k-niTpijxixa,
'

'

a crushing

',

fr.

e7rtrpi/3eir,

'

to crush
'.

'

comp.

anything rubbed on or worn out

used
in

epyaCTfxa (? Pitra),

the same sense as kpyaaia and

epyov

'

deed

'.

cpeicTfAos,

same

as

^peia-fxa,

'

prop, support

; '

both words
in

used consecutively to imitate a similar variation

form

but sameness of meaning

eiiuvia,
iv^oivos,
'

in

Hebr.

(n^J^'^ip,

I^^P).

'armament, equipment'
'.

(Jer. accinctio), der. fr,

well-girded
'

eul^ojcii^eii',

attack

',

likewise

fr.

v((avos.
evTrpeTreta,

euTrpeTreif

(peril. dVTTpe-novv),

denom. of

'goodly

appearance

'.

6UTrpeiTl!^ll'

evTTpeiTilV.

eioivlUiv,

'

to hold

cheap

',

fr. evcovCa,

'

cheapness (Polyb.)
'

comp. also

evMvos.
*

e4>o86UTiis,

one

who goes
',

the rounds, a spy

',

fr. e(f)oheveiv,

TiauxoCaSai,

'keep quiet
:

erroneously attributed to
rjavx^aC^tv.

(5

by

Liddell-Scott

'.

always uses

Oap.peu'eii'jUsed in
*

the same sense as Oapi^elv a.nd Oap-^aiveiVy

be astonished
0a)ji|3euTTis,

7tomen
'

ageiitis, der. fr.

',

the preceding.

Oupeoui' (?),
i^os,

defend

fr.

dvpeos,

a large oblong shield'.

stands for some bird of prey, possibly a kite, like;

wise Vulg. zxwn

but since
author

this

word does not occur

in

any

Greek or
Bochart

Roman

(t^o's

means

mistletoe, Lat. viscum)

in his Hierozoicoji, Part II,

Book VI,

ch. 3, suggests

oxyn with a view

being used
in

to oSvs (sharp,

keen of

sight,

and sound)

preserved and

VOL. vn.

Homer for a bird. However, t^oj is well may have received its new meaning from the Y

314
fact that
it

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

sometimes designates
'

the birdlime
s.v.:

'

(prepared

from

the mistletoe-berry),
'nTr]vS)V.
*

comp. Suidas,

xpiavrai. els

aypV(Tiv

KaKo4)poci^ii',

to

make
*

KaKo^poiv, imprudent, thoughtless

'.

',

comp.

KaKO({)poviv
'

be foolish

KaXuKUCTis,

meadow-saffron or crocus

',

from kuXv^

'

cup

of a flower

',

-ms no doubt an imitation of the Hebr.

fern,

ending n"

(r\)pn).
'

KapaSoKia,

eager expectation
Liddell-Scott.
'

',

fr.

KapaboKeiv,

wrongly

attributed to

by

KaTaTTaTciKTTjs (?),

an instrument of punishment such as

'

stocks

',

fr.

KaTaTTaTclv,

trample down

'

Field,

however,

suggests

KaTaTTr]KTi]v {scil. dvpav)

a trap-door.
iTTvpecrOai,
'

KaTaTTTupeo-Gai,

used in the same sense as

'.

be

scared or frightened
Karappoia,
'

a flowing

down

'

(like

Karappoi]),

der.

fr.

Karappelv.
KOTao-KeiraCTTos,

'covered',

fr.

KaracTKeTTa^eLv
'

(Josephus),
in the fern,
',

comp.
for
for
'

cTKeTTaaTos
'
:

used

in neut. for

wagon

'

and
'

shed

in

our case the fem. stands for

aKciran-Tov
'

litter- wagon

which also

and

aKiTraa-n] are used.

',

KaTaaTrou8aa|i.os,

amazement
as

fr.

KaracnTovbdCea-Oai,

'

to

be

earnest or serious
Kaxein'OeCTis,

'.

same

e-jTt^ecrt?
',

in

ecclesiastical literature,
eTrt^errj?

meaning
postor
'

'

imposture, deception

comp.

'

an im-

(Lucianus).
'

Kar^pyaCTfAa,

deed

',

composed of Kara and

probably
in imitation

cpyaa-pia, q. v.

supra

the ending

-\ia.

of the Hebr.

preformative 'o
KcpafxuXXio;/,

in npysip.

dimin. of Kepapnov,
in

'

earthen vessel or vase

',

though both are used

recorded
in

for the

same Hebr. word

s. v.,

an inscription, comp. Herwerdcn,

p. 793.

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

KiyKXiSwTos,
'

REIDER
'.

315

lattice-work
',

',

comp.
'

KiyxXiSe? (sing. KtyKXts)

latticed gates
Kpiwfia

fr.
'

KiyKXiCew,
'

change constantly
for
*

KpLos,

ram

used

battering-ram

'

in

Mathematici
Kpoui'iap.os,
'

Veteres.

pipe, spout

',

fr.

KpowCCetv,
'

'

to discharge liquid
'.

in

a stream

',

comp.
'

Kpowia-jxa,

gush or stream

Kpu<|)ia(7TT)s,

a revealer of things hidden, hence interpreter

of

dreams

',

similar to ecclesiastical Kpvcpio-yvuxTTT^i.

'

XaiXaTTi^eii/,

to agitate

by
',

XaiXaxj/

storm

'.
'

Xa^jupetf,

'

spoil,

plunder

comp.

(5 Xa(f>vpevi,v,

'

to plunder

in

Judith 15. 11.

XiOopioi/

(according to
lapidiim
qiiibiis

Jer.,

who
fr.

renders

it

acervmn

et

cumulum

vineae et agri piirgari solent),

'heaps of stones,
q. V.

ruins',

formed

\l9os

var.

XidoXoyia,

infra.

fiio-oTroteii/,

composed of
to',

/xicros

and

Trotetz^,

'

produce hatred,

be inimical

comp.

/xto-os

e/xTroteti'

(Plato, Respublica,

fAornxoGi/,

'make one
piel.
'

[p.ovaxp's),

unite',

denom. on

-ovv to

express Hebr.

fjiox0T]pou(T9ai,

be troublesome
'.

{ixoxd-qpos)

',

alongside with

ixoxdeiv,

'

be weary
'

fiox^ovv,

make weary
'

',

Hebr. hiph.
',

fjiupi|/Y)-n7pioi',

ointment-pot

comp.
fxvpe^Ca

o-'

fxvpe\l/tov

= pre-

pared unguent

(ixvp\l/r}[xa

and

elsewhere), -ri^piov

used for instrument.

fjLuo-al^eii',
'

come

into blood-guiltiness,
in

become guilty of
/xuo-arrfcr^ai
'.

murder', similar to ixvaarretv

(Dep.) elsewhere meaning
fjLcjXojm^en',
'
'

Hesych. and
abominate

to loathe,

to

make a
;

ixco\co\lr

a weal or bruise, to beat

and bruise severely'

stripes) in Plutarch.

pass. (ixeixcoXoiTnaixevos

marked with

Y a

3l6

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

i'uxcXcu'6CT0ai,
'

to

be

t'coxeA?;?
s. v.,

sluggish, dull

',

in

Pap.

Berol.,

comp. Herwerden,
'

p. 1003,

^uXo-itcSt),

a log of

wood

tied

to the feet

'

(lit.

wood
'

fetters,

with which the feet of the captives are bound).

'

olaKwo-is,

a guiding, a governing
fr.

',

fr.

olaKiC^iv,
'

'

to steer

(Hebr. ^^i^nn,
o'lvia,

h^n

'

to steer

',

comp. ^?n
fr.

sailor
'

').

'fresh or

new wine, must',

as used
',

olvos,

wine'.
for XiTroxf/vxeu;
'.

oKiow
'

oXiyovv

by Eustathius
'

become

feeble,
'

swoon

or

oAtyox/Au^eii;,

be faint-hearted

oirwpia/jios,

wine of the d-ndpa

C'iTn

the latter part of the

;

summer' (Hebr.
above).
opafiaTio-fios,
fr.
'

=
',

new
der.

wine, must

comp. also

olvia

vision
is

fr.

opaixaTiC^a-Oat (der. in

turn

opav)

which

peculiar to a

and

6'

(see below), while

6pa{xaTi<TTi]s (a seer)
6p0piCT|i6s,
'

occurs also in a.
',

a rising early

fr.

opdpiCnv

= 6p6pVLv
'.

in (5

andN. T.
opviUiv
oo-ToiVos,

(?),

'

to chirp

',

denom. of
'

opi/ty,

'

bird

equiv. to oareivos,
D^2;y
'

made
is

of bone (ooreoy), hence

DifJ?

mighty' (Hebr.
oxXdl^eii',
'

mighty'
'

related to

'bone').

be boisterous

(of a crowd,

o-)(Xos).

iraiSioTT)?,
*

'childhood', abstr. of Tiaibiov (dim. of

'.

Trats),

a young child
iraiSoTTis,

as preceding

possibly the second

fell

out

by

mistake.
iraXataTcofAa,
'

span, hand-breadth

',

comp.
of

7raAaio-r7/,

later
(also

form
in a).

of

-naXacTTTi]

-naKaixr],

'

palm

the

hand

'

iTa|jiTr\Yi0u'H',
*

make numerous
all

',

denom. of

-nafxirXyjOia,

multitude

'.

TravToSaTTia,

'

abundance of

kinds

',

fr.

iravTobaiTos,

'

of

every kind, of

all sorts'.

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

irairopecji',
'

REIDER
',

317

a place of

iraTTvpos,
s. v.,

reeds, rushes
f.
:

found in an

inscription,

Herwerd en,

p.

iioo

Tra-nvpwv

= iraTTvpeatVy
'

locus papyro ohsitiis.

irapairXTjKTeu'eaGai,
'

to be

mad

',

fr.

TTapa-nXij^Lu,
'

derange-

ment, madness'

(in

),

and

-napaTiKriKTOs,

frenzy-stricken'

corresponding to
Trapaxacuafjios,
'

TTapaTrXrjKTiC^iv in ecclesiastical

Greek.

covering, a screen
',

',

fr.

iraparavvnv

irapaTeivetv,

'

to stretch out
t',

identical with napaTawaixa in

both a and

see below.
'

iTapefjip\if)CTis,

an

encampment

',

like

-napeix^o^i]

(var.

/Storeuo-ts, q. v.
TToaToui/,
*

supra).
Traoro's

make a
'

an embroidered curtain beside

'.

the bed

',

hence

enclose, surround, shelter

'

iremaTwfAeVws, 'truly, trustworthily

TreTrto-TevjaeVoo?

used

by Aristoxenus
werden,
s. v.,

ap. Stobaei Florilegmm,

comp.

also

Her-

p.

1146.
in fashioning

irepiywi'ioi',

'an angular tool, used

idols',
(5)

comp.

y(sivia

=
'

a joiner's square, and -napaycavia-KOi (in

angles.
'

=
',

a carpenter's square, or rule for marking

irepiKajAinis,

bent round

',

fr. TreptKa/xTT?;,

a bending round

fr. TreptKa/xTTreii'.
n-epi<J)Xeuo-p,os,
'

violent heat, fever

',

fr.

Trept^Aev'eiz;
' ;

(only in

Herodotus),
irepL^Xiyetv,

'

to scorch,

singe

all

round

more frequent
(/

comp.

also -nepi^'KoyiCeiv

from which

and

6'

derive

TTfpi<f)Koy La ij.6s
'

instead of a"s Trepi^Aeucr/xoj.

',

Trpi<j)pdKTT]s,

he who puts a fence round, who encloses

fr. 'JTpL(f)pd(raiv.

mKpafjL|x6s,

'

bitterness

',

fr.

iriKpaiveiv,

identical
;

with

-niKpacrp-os

common

to

all

the Greek translators

Schleusner,

ad

loc, reads

here too

7ttKpaap.6i.
r,oip.viov,

iroiixcioTpo^Jos,
'

'herdsman, shepherd', comp. of

'

sheep

',

and

Tpo(})us,

feeder

'.

3l8

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

TTOTajxil^eaSai,

or
'flow,

TTOTafjiooa9ai,

stream', denom. of

Trora/xo's,

'river'

(in

imitation of Hebr.
TTOTio-fios,
'

TJ and
',

"inj).

a watering

fr. Trort^eii',

in Papyri,

Herwerden,

p. iai2.
TT-oTioTTJs,
'

one who gives to drink, butler

',

nomen agentis

of

ttotCC^lv.

TTpa(7iouj0at,
77 pacndC^a-daL {a

'

to form -npaaiai

garden beds

',

likewise
''ij^"'i'!).

and

e'), q.

v.

infra (a play on JIP and

irpii'eoii'

(so Field
'

and Lagarde,
'

Jer. mpi-n^hivvv, Vallarsi

i:pivr](av),

an

ilex-grove
in

(Field

locus

ilicibiis

consittis),

irpLvav

TTpiveuiv

Hicks,
loci

Manual of Greek
'

Historical
ilex
',

Inscriptions,

nomen

of

irplvos,

an evergreen oak,

comp.

irazvpecav
'

above. a pushing, a putting

to,

irpoaPoXwo-i?,

application

'

(with

reference to a weapon), followed

by

orojixara in

the sense of

a weapon, probably

'

file

'

(arrofxaTa

referring to points,
is

edges, or cuts), comp. -npoa/Soki]

that which

put upon

a weapon, the iron point

TrpoaT]XuTeuais,
'

(in

Dio Cassius and Phrynichus).

',

residence as a stranger
(5,

fr.
;

TrpoarjkvTos

and
also

npo(rt]KvTVLv (in

a, a\ 6\ N. T., &c.)
^lAoAoytKa,

Trpoo-jjAvTicris

in

Charitonides,

UoiKlXa

Athenis 1904,

comp. Herwerden,
TTp6o-0Xn|fis,
'

p. 1250.
',

pressure^ oppression
'

(r.-npoaOXiiSeiv,

'

to press

or squeeze against
irrcpi/uCTis,

in

.
Trr^pva,
'

used

in

the same sense as

heel, foot-

print

',

-wfTis
'''),

probably to imitate the

is

suffix

nr

(on' the
-nripvai.

side of
for the

since a
^\>V

consistent in using -nripva and

''?ipV,

forms
'

and

but

Trrepvwo-ets for niaipy.

;
'

pifi<5s (?),

he-goat, also

young he-goat (iviy)

KepeCpos

Montfaucon
for
is

suggests Kcpeiv&v for

pi/xoJy,

being used by a
pt/maJy

he-goat elsewhere (comp. below), but more likely

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

a corruption of epi^coy
Jar, 50. 8
pi^(?),
(dip is

REIDER

3T9

easily mistaken for M),

comp.

where

a renders Tiny

by

ept^o?.

'a cutting instrument of iron, a ploughshare';

opv^,
'

Scharfenberg suggests
tool for digging
axai'SaXoui',
'

a pickaxe or any sharp iron

'.

to cause or

make

a aKavbakov

trap, snare

',

for aKavbakiC^w.
aKaCTjxos,
'

a limping, stumbling

',

from aKuCav,
'

'

to limp

'.

CTKXT]poTeVwi'

(BM.,
'

where
stiff
',

a-KXrjpoTepcov),
Tiv()i>,
'

stiff-necked

',

composed of

a-KXrjpos,

and

sinew of the neck

',

similarly o-KXr/porpdx'jAos in .
CTou'xivos

(in

connexion with ^vKov)

',

Lat.

sticimis
in

or

siiccimiSy

'

of

amber

comp.

(rovy^iov

amber

Clemens

Alexandrinus.
CTTreipwjxa,

'a wrapping cloth, a

to

canopy, pavilion',
',

fr.

(TTTeipda-dai,
(Tireipaixa in

'

be coiled or folded round

comp.

o-Tretpwo'ts

Schol. Arat.
'

am'Xwfxa,
soil'

speck, spot. Stain, blemish

',

fr.

o-ttlXovv,

'

to stain,

(wrongly attributed to
'

in Liddell-Scott).

CTTepewp.aTi^eii',

to effect a (nepiu)p.a

a solid body, the

firmament

'.

QTO]i.\X,e<j%a.i,

'

to take with the

'

mouth
',

(oro'/xa),

to drink

'.

auyKoXciTrreii',
'

to

hew

in pieces

fr.

(Tvv

and

Kokd-nTeLv,

to carve

'.

CTumi'Titeii',

'

to

meet with

comp.

avvavTidC^i'V

a-vvavrav

in

Sophocles,

(tvv

as prefix corresponds to

nx as prefix

(Hebr. b^^m).
<TuvdvTi(Tiia,
'

accident

',

der.

fr.

the preceding, equivalent

to

(TvvdvTrjpia.
(Tui/eiri0ecris,
'

deceitfulness
'

',

from

a-vv

and

k-nid^a-Ls,

'

im-

posture, deception

in ecclesiastical
'

Greek (Liddell-Scott

translate erroneously

a joint attack

').

320
(Tuxveiiv,
'

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

a thicket
',

comp.

a-vxvos,

large, frequent,

dense ',
av)(^v6v,

Hesych.

(xvxvd, -nvKva, a-vvexv, "^oXkd,

and Suidas

TToXv, TTVKVOV.
cr<j>aX)ji6s,
'

trip,

stumble,

fall

',

fr.

acpdWeiv,

'

to cause to

fall

',

equiv. to
'

o-<^d\jua.
',

Te'Xeais,

completion
p.

like TiKfo-fia
in

and

re\enr/;xo'j,
'

occurs

in

Herwerden,
'.

1438,

the sense of

payment of a
denom. of

debt

TiQr\vli(7Qai

or

Ti0Ll^eCT0ai

or

TirOil^coGaL,

'

to suck
'.

',

tltOos,

'

the teat or nipple of a woman's breast

'

TiGrjcootrOai,
Tijjiioui',
'

to suckle, nurse
',

',

equiv. to TLOrjvela-Oat.

to hold dear

so nixovv

nixav in

Herwerden,

p. 1456.
Toi'0puCTTT)s,
' '

a mutterer

',

der.
'.

fr.

rovOpvCeiv

=
'

rovdopv^etv,

to speak inarticulately, mutter

TpixiwTif]s,
'

hairy creature

',

comp,

rptxwro's,
fr,

hairy

'.

Tpu-rrai'to-fios,

'a boring, piercing',

TpynaviC^iv, 'to

bore

through

',

in

Hesychius,
(?

uTTcpeio-xci*'

Pitra),

'

to be abundant, overflow
,

',

perh.

r.

virepcKx^lv,

supereffimdere Herwerden, p. 1508.

'

uTrepe'irapo-is,

excessive exaltation

',

fr,

v-nepeTraCpeLV.

uiTepiTapTi]S
uTrp<|>'peia,
*

= vTrepeirapaL^.
haughtiness, pride
',

fr. vTT(p(j)epei.v,

'

rise

above,

be prominent

'.

uiroCTiraCTfios,
'

'

a drawing away, a remitting

'.

',

fr.

vTioairaa-Oai,

be withdrawn
j)aYe8aii'iteti',

'

to afflict with (f)ayibaLva

a cancerous Sore,

canker

'.

<|>aY8aii'oGf

=
'

(/)aye6aii't^eiv,

pass, occurs in Hippocrates.

(jjaTfidl^eCTGai,

to be kept at rack

and manger

',

the form

4>aTviC(T6ai.

occurs in Heliodorus, from which the Byzantine

derived.

(parviaTUi

is


PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA
(juafariis (?),
'

REIDER

32I

'a

vinedresser',
'.

Field

suggests

dpLaaTi]s,

a planter of fig-trees
XciXcofia,

*a border, rim',
'

fr.

xei^os, 'lip, edge'.

'

xepp.aSil^eii',

to

throw stones

(x^pixdbLov

later x^PM"?*

'a large stone', in Homer).

vj/a9upoua0ai,
'
'

to
'.

crumble away

',

denom. of

xj/advpus,

friable,

crumbling

4T)<|)ioi',

'a small pebble', dim. of

'.

x/^'l^o?,

'a pebble used

for reckoning-

Other rare words peculiar to Aquila and found

in
:

no other Greek translator of the Bible are the following

a.yv(t)iioviv,
'

to be

ayi>a>iJiOiv,

act unfairly
'.

'.

aYKPvr],

'

a throttling, strangling
'

dKpe'/jiwc,

a branch, twig
'

'.

aKpiPoXoyia,

searching, investigation
'

',

liter.

'

exactness in

speech or investigation
aKpirei

(so used in Aristotle's Rhetoric).

a/cptros;

cLKpiTCjis,

'without judgement', adv. of

the parallel form aKptri occurs in a fragment of Lysias.

djxuXiov',

dim. of

a/xvAos,

'

a cake of

fine

meal

'

(in

Aristotle

and Plutarch).
d/ji<j)opeus,
'

a jar with a narrow neck

'

'.

dmPoTjo-is,

a shouting

',

fr.

ava(3oav, occurs in

Dionysius

Halicarnassensis.
drnKTil^eif ,
'

to

produce

',

like

ktl((lv,

in

Strabo,

'

to

rebuild

'.

acaXos,

'

without
'

salt,

unseasoned
'.

',

in Aristotle.

6.vaTr(\yv6vai.,

to transfix, crucify
in,

di-ainVeii/,

'suck
'

absorb'.
'.

di'dTTi'euais,

recovery of breath
'

di/appueCT0ai,
dmo-KacI)!!,

to

draw back, rescue

',

so also in Hippocrates.

'a digging up', in Strabo.

322
dcaoCTiTos
ava^nj-f],
'

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

avav^i]9,

'

without increase,
',

fruitless,

barren

'.

a sprout, growth

occurs in Cyril of Alexandria

in

the

sense of 'an upspringing', as of suckers from a

root.
dce^eTacTTos,
di'oSeuTos,
'

'

not searched out, uninvestigated

',

'.

impassable
'

so Hedyl. ap. Strabo.

',

ivviKpOidia,

immediateness, haste

used also by Joannes

Chrysostomus
di'(ij<})'Xeia,
'

comp. also
',

avvTiepOtr^iv above.

uselessness
'

so also Diogenes Laertius.

all
'.

d-iTo|3XeTTTos,

looked on by
'

diroKapaSoKeii',
dTTOKciTuOei',
'

to expect earnestly
',

',

also in Polybius.
for KarcoOev,

from beneath

pleonasm

but so

also

Olympiodorus.
'a guard-house
',

d-rroKXeio-fios,

occurs also in Arrianus's

;

Digest of Epictetus's Dissertations

is aTTOKXiLo-fia in
dTTOKOfxp^a,
diroKOTTi],
*
'

of the

same meaning

.
'.

a splinter

a cutting
'

off'.

diroppeuo-is,

a falling off,

decay
off,

',

fr.

airoppeu'.

diTOTpifia,

'

anything cut
'

a piece', also in Hippocrates.

',

dpaiouaOai,

be weak, languish

in

Hippocrates

and

Aristotle

' :

to

be rarefied

',

dpKCTos,
apfia,
'

'

sufficient,

enough
',

'.

load,
: *

burden

from

alp^iv,

'

to raise,

lift
'.

up

',

in

Hippocrates
ap'T](7is,
'

that which one takes, hence food

'.

a denial
'

dpwjiaTiJieii',

to spice,

embalm

',

also in Dioscorides.

do-TaTeic,

'

to be unsettled, be a

wanderer

',

in

the

same

sense in

Cor. 4. 11.
'

dreKi/wCTts,

barrenness

',

fr.

ar^Kvovv,

also

in

Basilius

Ecclesiasticus.
aroi/os,
'

not Stretched

',

hence

'

languid, feeble

'.

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

au\iCTTT]pioi',
'

REIDER

323

an abode, inn
s. v.

',

also in Stobaeus's Eclogue

and Hesychius,
au^YlTiKos,
auTo<j>ues
'

avoj3av^aXoi.
'.

growing

(neut. of avTo(^vr]s

'

self-grown

'

'),

grain that

shoots up of itself.
auxif]CTis,
'

boasting,

exultation

',

fr.

avxjelvy

also

in

Thucydides.
d<})'\Keii',
'

to

draw away

'.

a<j>eTos,

'

loose, Hcentious
'

'.

dj/iv0ioi',

wormwood, poisonous herb

'

'.

PeXrioCi',

make good
supra.

',

used also by Philo, equiv. to

^sXtvvhv,

q. V.
'

PouXcufjia,

counsel, purpose, design

',

'.

Ppaa/xos,

'

agitation, shaking
'

fr. /Spda-a-cLv.

PpoxOi^eii',

to gulp

down

',

fr.

/Spo^Oos,

'

mouth

',

also in

Aristotle.
Ppw-riip

l3pco(rTy]p,
'a.

a moth

',

comp. above.
in
'

ydi/wais,
'

brightening, varnishing'
tin
',

Plutarch,
'

here
CH?^)-

something made of lead or

Ye\aCTp,a,
'

probably plummet

laughter

'.

YOT]TiKos,

'

skilled in witchcraft, beguiling

'^'^YM,
'

'.

Ypoi'^os

fist

',

so in Hesychius and other late

writers.
yopis,

'the finest meal', in Dioscorides and Athenaeus,

'.

here

'

white flour
'

yupwCTis,

the

making of a
'

yvpos

circle

round a tree \
',

in

the Geopomca, here

Zaiikoviieiv,
'

a reeling, going round

fr.

yvpovv.
',

to act as

demon

or evil spirit

only mid.

and

pass, found elsewhere.

'

8ap,(iXT]s,

young
*

steer

',

masc. of
'

bap-aKLS.

SeuTcpoyoi/os,

feeble,

faint

bevrepoyem'js

in

Antigonus

Carystius

produced

later

(through feebleness).

324
8t)y|ji6s,
'

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

'destruction', in Hippocrates
pain, a biting
'.

and Theophrastus

gnawing
Sid^wfffia

=
'

bt.aC(tiixa

and

bia^cavi]

(see

above),

'

girdle,

cornice, frieze
SidTTTjYfxa,

',

also in Plutarch.
',

a cross-beam

occurs also in Philo together

with

its

dim. oiaTrrjy^aTLOV.
'intermixture', so in Hippocrates,

SiairXoKi],

comp.

also

bidirXoKOi

in

Heliodorus and

bia-nkoKivos

in

Strabo, both

meaning 'interwoven'.
SiaiTonifia,
SiaTToi'TiCTis,
'

hard labour
'toil,

',

as in Plato.

pain', in Plutarch 'a working at, pre-

paring

'.

8iap|jia,
'

'an elevation, fortification', elsewhere used for

'.

elevation of style
SiauYdl^en',
'

to shine

',

like oiavyiCeLv, q. v. supra.

'.

Siauyiqs,

'

translucent, transparent
'

8ieu0uVcif,
Stxal^t'',
Snj/aXe'oi'
'

to set right

',

as in Lucianus
',

and Manetho.

to divide in

two

as in Plato.

(neut. o{ bixj/aXios),
'

'parched ground'.
as in Plutarch.
',

SuCTTTciOeia,

deep
'

affliction

',

8wpo8oTeic,
*

to give a present, bribe

'.

comp.

buipoboKciv,

to accept a present or bribe

iyyufxvdl^iv,
e'YKoifxaaOai,
'

make ready, prepare

'

',

otherwise exercise in
'

'.

stretch oneself out, He

'

down, sleep
',

'.

6iKaioTT)s

=
'

dKaiocrvvr],

thoughtlessness

as in Diogenes

Laertius.
cUaa/ios,
clpYfios,
cio-aKoi^,
'

measure

',

elsewhere
'.

'

a conjecturing, guessing

'.

cage, prison

'

a listening, hearkening
to inhale,
'

',
'.

also in Philo.

eiaTTfcic,

'

draw breath
debts
',

elairpciaacn',
eio-TT/jdjcTTjs,

to

exact

from

which a

derives

see above.

'

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

cKPiacTTiis,
'

REIDER
v.

325

executioner
'

',

comp. Suidas,
',

s.

KPiPa(7fx6s,

an execution
K^La(TTr]Sf
'

found also

in the Basilica.
',

cKpiPacTTYis

executioner

as
et

also

in

Du

Cange's Glossariiim
iatis.
cKKo-m],
Kp.oai/,
'

ad

scriptoi'cs

mediae

infimae graeci-

a cutting down, excavation

'.

'to squeeze out', as in the Iliad, &c.

loss of one's senses
'

cKi/oia,

'

',

as in Aristotle.

cK-ircTaffGai,
cKTrwfjia,
'

to fly

away

'.

a drinking-cup
a
father-in-law

'.

cKupos,

'

',

epic

for

prose

-n^vdepo^

(in

Iliad).
iKy^^avvuval,
'

to be filled

up by the deposit

of a river

(of a bay), so in Herodotus.

eXaiwSifis,

neut. 'curd', in Hippocrates 'oily'.

',

eXao-is,

'

procession
'

as in

Xenophon.
',

eXa<}>iVY]s,

young

deer,

fawn

likewise in Hesychius.

eXa<|>pui/(70ai,
efXTrpYjCTTTis,
'

'be light', so

in Babrius.
',

one that burns

fire).

in

Proclus, in a

'

serpent,

dragon

'

(attended by
'

cmuXtl^eo-Gai,

to

dwell,

abide',

so

in

Herodotus,

Thucydides, &c.
eviK}ios,
'

humid

',

as in Aristotle, comp. also Herwerden,

p. 503.
iiaveyeipeiv,
'

to exite
'.

',

SO in Euripides.

iiepav, 'to

VOmit
'

e|iXeia0ai (?),
e|iCT(0(7is,
'

to appease
',

',

i^tXeova-Oat in Strabo.

equalization
in

fr.

(^laovv,

'

to

make

equal

',

in

Plutarch and also

cartim.
|(ofios,
'

Bockh's Corpus Inscriptiomim Grae-

equipped
x,i'"'>i'

'

(Jer. expedihis, et exsertus humeris),

in

Hesychius

^^(^H-os,

'a frock or coat of mail without

326

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

both shoulders bare', more frequent
is

sleeves, leaving

the

noun

e^co/xts.
'

imydiviov,

angle

',

neut. of

iTriyatvios,

'

at or of the angle

',

in

Nicomachus the arithmetician,

emScCTis,

'bandaging',
the same as
increase,
HLQeaL's,
'

fr.

iinbeiv,

so also in Hippocrates.

iTi8e<Tp.o9,

eTrtSecris.
'.

cTTtSoais,

'

growth
'

iiriQeaia

imposture, deception
',

'.

eTriTToGTiats,

desire, longing

likewise in

N. T. and Clemens

Alexandrinus, equiv. to
eTTiiTpeTTeiv,
'

e7Tn:66i]iJia, q. v.
',

supra.

to

fit,

suit

as in
*

Xenophon.
',

cmaKirn]s

iiTia-KOTTos,

guardian, watch

so in Bekker's

Anecdota Graeca.
Tn(TTpw<t)af ,

frequentat. of I'nwTpi^^iv,

'

to visit or fre-

quent

'.

e-iriTpiTTTos,

'

well worn, crushed, oppressed

'

'.

epyaorripioi',
co-iruo-/ieVws,

workshop, manufactory
'with eager
haste',

'.

fr.

crTrevSttr,

also

in

Dionysius of Halicarnassus.
TaipiCT0ai,
'

to associate with
'

'.

eTepoyXwCTo-os,
euKapTTOS,
4)airris,
'

of another tongue, talking indistinctly

'.

*.

'

fruitful

a soldier's

upper garment
'.

'.

exiSm,
e4/T)(Tis,

'

adder, viper

'

a boiling of ointments, ointment-mixture

',

as in

Hippocrates.
i^wYpeioc,
'

cage

'

(for fowl), in

Strabo

'

a place for keeping

animals

',

vivarium (Herwerden).
*

l^wwCTis,

a keeping alive

',

also found

in

ecclesiastical

literature.
ilXoua9ai,
'

become

like 7^Aos

= nails, bristle up

',

in

Clemens

Alexandrinus.

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

9afjL|3T)ais,
'

REIDER
'.

327

trepidation

',

in

Manetho astonishment
'

0eVap,

'

the hollow of the hand

',

so in Aristotle

('

palm of

the hand

').
'

0XiPc58t)5,

oppressive

',

fr.

dXi/Betv, also

used

in ecclesiastical

literature (Nilus).
Id

Icai], /3oT^5

a cry
'

',

classical.

iKCTiKos

t/cerrjpio?,

fit

for

suppliants

',

found also in

Philo and Eustathius.

io-xupoTToieic,
'

make

strong

',

late

combination, found in

Diodorus Siculus, Polybius, and Clemens Alexandrinus who

also forms a

noun from
p. 730.

it

ta-xvpoTroLijcns

/3e/3atco(ns,

comp.

Herwerden,
laxupoTTjs,

'strength', in Dionysius of Halicarnassus

and

Philo.
KayxXd^eii/

Kax^o-Ceiv,

'

to plash, dash

'

(of water)
is

the

same form occurs

also in

Athenaeus and

quoted by
KayxaC^iv

Hesychius, only with a different meaning

Kaxo-C^iv).
KaGrjo-uxd^eii',
*

(=

keep quiet

',

intensive of rjavxdC^iv, also in

Polybius and Philo.

KaKoif]9t!ie(T0ai

KaKor]6evcr6ai,

'

to

be malicious, act as

madman

',

quoted also from Arrianus's digest of Epic-

tetus's Dissertations.
KaXird^eii',
'

to trot, gallop

'

(of a horse),
p. 741.

comp. Suidas

s. v.

TO

a/3/j<S?

^ahiC^iv,

and Herwerden,

Kap-TTTos (adj.,

but used here as noun)

in

KajxTTTrip,

'track,

course

',

so

also

Aristophanes

and

Etymologicum

Magnum.
Kd/*\)/is,
'

binding
*

',

in

Plato and Aristotle

',

'

bending

'.

KapaSoKcii/,
q, V.

watch eagerly

from which

is

der. KopaSo/cta,

supra.
'

Kapireu'eii',

have the usufruct of

'.

328
KarciKopos

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

KaraKopris,
p.

'

full,

dark, saturated

'

(of colours)

comp. Herwerden,
KaTaficTpTjCTis,
'

763.
',

a measure
in

from

Karaix^Tpelv,

'

to

measure

out to
('

',

found also
').

Polybius and

Sextus Empiricus

a measuring out
KaTaiTe'Tcr0ai,

'settle dovvn

'

(of a bird).
',

KarciTroais,

'

swallow, gullet
Aristotle

later

meaning, being used

a

in

Plato
'.

and

for

'deglutition,

gulping

dovvn

KaTa4)opa,

'a lethargic

attack',
p.

in

this

sense

only in

Hippocrates, also Herwerden,

KaTou'XwCTis,

776 {pbdonnitio).
fr.

'healing of a wound, cicatrization',

ko-tov-

\ovv, occurs only in Dioscorides.

KcVufjia,
'

emptiness

',

so in Polybius, Plutarch, &c.

in

Kippos,
'

'tawny, orange-tawny', used

'.

the neut. for

refined, pure gold

kXcivioi','
'

bracelet

',

comp, Hesych.

KXavca,

yj/ikXia

(Spa-

KXoi^ais,

'agitation',

in

Hippocrates

and

Quintus

Smyrnaeus, from
k\6i'09,
'

kXov^'iv (ecclesiastical kXoviC^lv).

turmoil,

confusion \ poetical

(in

Homer and

Aeschylus).
Ki/ria/jios

KvrifTis,

'

an itching', medical (Hippocrates).

'

KoXoPoTTis

TTi/eufjiaTos,

shortness of breath

'

in

speaking, so

used

in Plutarch.
o-ki/xttouj,
'

KpdppaTos; late for Attic

a small couch, low

bed

',

frequent in N. T. and later writers.

'

KpT)m8(Dfia,

enclosure, outer court

',

in

Diodorus Siculus
xATjTreiScojua,

'foundation, groundwork'

(written

also

Her-

werden,

p. 841), also in

Byzantine writers.
'

KpoKo4)a>'Tos (subst.)

= KeKi)V(f)a\o'i,
'

reticule
?
'.

',

so in Galenus.

Kpoos

Kpyp-us TTctyoj,

frost

'

',

hail

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

Xajynn]8wi',
'

REIDER

329

lustre

'.

\dpvai,
Xeiouv,

'

box, coffer '.

'to

make smooth'
',

(Aetos),

so also in Marcellus

Sidetes.
XT]Ku'dioi',
'

a small oil-flask

dim. of A^'ku^o?.
\i,9Ca

\i0ea (so
'

Diodorus Siculus),
'.

(in

Strabo)

\ideia,

a fine stone

XiQoXoyelaQai,

'

become a heap of stones,

found,

ruins

'

elsewhere
for

only the

act.

is

meaning

'to pick out stones

building' (Pollux).
\i0oXoYia,
'

a heap of stones, ruins

',

in

Aelius Moeris, ed.

Pierson,

^'3^,

'

a building with stones

'.

Xixds, 'handful', in

Pollux 'the space between the fore'.

finger (Xixavos)
|xaKpuafji6s,
'

and thumb

a long interval

',

so in Aristotle.

fxao-xdXT),

'a

hollow', elsewhere
in

'armpit'
'

(the

hollow

under the arm), and

a fresh shoot
'.

Theophrastus

the hollow under

peXacoSoxeioi',
fieTapcrts,
'

'

an ink-Stand

',

as in Pollux.
',

transplantation, removal

found also in Theo-

phrastus.
fiiaOwais

ixLo-doiixa,

'

price,

wages

',

also

used by the

orators Isaeus and Demosthenes.

|xop<{>oov,

'to sketch', in the

same sense

also Anthologia

Palatina.
fA6p4)ojp,a,
|ji6tw(tis,
'

'

form, figure

'

(used as an idol).
'

lint

dressing

for a

wound, occurs only

in

Hippocrates alongside with

jAupiKT],
'

[xoTcniJia.

a shrub or bush thriving in marshy ground, the

tamarisk

'.

fku^QiUiv,

'

mock, sneer

',

in

which sense

it

occurs already

in Theocritus.

VOL.

VII.

330

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

fiuxOnyp-os,
'

mocking, jeering
o( vaKTos
',

',

in this

sense nowhere else.

'

i/aKTo (neut. pi.

=
',

close-pressed, solid),
to.

frontlet-

bands, phylacteries
kcakioTTjs,
'

in

Hesychius

vaKTu,

'

felt

'.

youthfulness

equiv. to

veaviKOTris

in

eccle-

siastical literature.
vi^uais,

'cloudiness',

also

in
:

Philo

and

Heliodorus,

Herwerden (from
'ufx4euTr|s,
'

Philo), p.
'.

990

nudi/c coeltim.

wife's father
'

kcuOpeu'eCTeai,

to be sluggish, tarry
',

'.

loai/ov,

'

an image, statue
'capital

of a god, so in Euripides.
pillar',

oiKoSdjXTjfia,

of

elsewhere

'building,

structure

'.

oXoTcXois (adv.

of

6/\oreA?Js),

'

completely

',

used by Suidas

to explain oAocrxepwj.
ofiPpeic,
o^ui'Trip,
'

pour out

'

(of speech). in

'a sharpener', so
p.

Anthologia Palatina, in

Herwerden,
6pu'K-n]s,
oCTTcojCTis,
'

1044: o^vvrpov, aciiendi instrumentum.

digger,'
'

hence

'

mole

'.

framework of bones

\ as in Eustathius.

oorToiSTjs,

'bony', in
iovAo'>,
' '

Xenophon and

Aristotle.

ouXos

a corn-sheaf.

64)puouCT0ai,
'

to

be peaked
'.

'

(of a mountain), elsewhere

to be supercilious
rrayiSeufxa,
'

net, snare
o!
'

',

so also in Eustathius

Trayioeufti;,

'

entrap

'

in

a 6\ and N. T.
possession
',

irayK-njaia,

perpetual

in

Pollux

'

entire

possession

'.

TrafxfiiKTos

=
'

7ra/x/xiy^9,

'

mixed

of

all sorts

',

occurs also in

Aeschylus.
irapaYpa<}>is,

a writing instrument, a stylus

',

so also in

Pollux.
TTapoSiTTjs,

'a passer-by, a traveller', so

in

Hippocrates.

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

irao-Tds,
'

REIDER

331

door-post

',

clsewherc

'

colonnade, piazza, corri-

dor' (LsX. portictis).

irepatTTjs,
'

Hebrew
to pursue

',

in
'.

Josephus

one of the country

over the water, of Peraea

irepiSiojKeti',
'

on

all sides

',

in

Strabo and Sextus

Empiricus.
irepiaTepis

Treptoreptoy,

dim. of

-Trepiorepa,

'

pigeon, dove

',

elsewhere found only in Galenus and Papyri Berolinenses

(Herwerden, 11 6a).
Trrjpwo-is,
*

blindness
',

'

(Herwerden, 11 72:
TTTypcoo-t?

caecitas)^ origin-

ally

'

mutilation

comp.

rSiv 6<f)9a\iJ.Qv, rrjs aKorjs in

Plutarch.
iri|jLe\r|s,
'

fat

',

as in Lucian.
'

irXaSapouaflai,

become

soft

and

flabby,

be loosened

',

as

in Eustathius.
TrXaTu'TTjs,
'

breadth, width
'

'.

TrXeofeK-nip.a,
ttXtjIis,
'

gain, profit
',

'.

stroke
'

so in

Timaeus and Plutarch.

',

TToKlxvr],

a small town

in

Callimachus and Plutarch,

in

earlier writers as a
TrpTjCT-nip,
irpii'ii'oi'
'

proper name.
'.

a hurricane

(neut. of TTpivLvos,

made

of

irplvos

'

oak

'

'),

an

oak, ilex

'.

irpivrfip,

'

a saw

',

so also in Aretaeus.
'

irp6aKpouCTi9

=
'

TTpocTKpov'jp.a,

an obstacle, snare

',

in this

sense nowhere else.

irpoCTTrXoKTi,

a close embrace

',

in

Artemidorus, used

in a

for

'

corselet

'.

TT-poo-pdio-CTeti'^

'to dash against', as in Pausanias.

of the

irpoo-pTiyi/uVai,
TTpo(7<j)iXia

same meaning
'

as the above.
'.

=
'

7rpoo-<^tAeta,

kindness
',

jrrwfiaTileii',

cause to

fall

also in Cyrill.

z 2

'

332
pii/oKepws,
'

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

'

wild
').

OX

',

of the nose-horn variety (in Hesych.

Ethiopian bird
pnrrdUaQai,
a^^dUcrQai,
aiTi^en',
' ' *

to

swoon away', comp. Herwerden,

',

p. 1288.

to fear
',

in the Ih'ad

and also
'

in later writers.
'.

fatten

part, used for the

'

crop of a bird
'.

cTKaXcueii'

=
'

(TKaWeLv,

search, probe
',
'

aKciXeuo-is,

a search, quest
like
(TKikKTixa,
it

in this sense

nowhere
in

else.

CTKcXiafios,

snare

',

ecclesiastical
'.

literature,

but here

appears to stand for

'

worthlessness

(TKe-n-ao-Tos,

in the fern,

and

neut.

'

a tilted
in

wagon

',

in the

neut. also in
*

Herodianus, the

fern,

Eustathius means

a shed

'.

o-KcuaCT-nis,

'

a preparer
'

',

only

in

mediaeval Greek.
',

(7KtppouCT0ai,

to

become indurated, be ingrained

as in

Hippocrates.
o-KOTreoais,
*

a look-out

',

quoted also from a scholion to

Lycophron.
CTKoireuTTis

=
'

(TKOTTos,

SO in Eustathius.
',

orKOTO|XT]via,

darkncss

comp. Herwerden,

s. v.

a-KOTOfxaiva,

P- ^335ctkotw8t]s,
oTKoXeoTiis,
'

dark, obscure
'

'.

one who

strips

a slain

enemy

',

found

in

Byzantine

literature.

CTTaycTos,

*a drop', ecclesiastical (Nilus).

later

CTxepe'/ii'ios,

form of
',

a-repeos,
'

'

stiff, firrti

'.

cmPds,

'

bed, mattress

here row, line

',

hence Schleusner

suggests oTtxaSes for

(TTiXwoTTjs

o-ri/3a6es.
'

= o-rtA/3oTTj?,
(TTp(iiTi]p,
'

somcthing that shines or

'

glitters

in Plutarch,
o-rpwTtjs

here used for

fresh oil

'.

one that spreads

',

Lat. strator, as in

Plutarch.
auyKoiTd^ff0ai,
'

to have sexual intercourse with

',

found

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

only
in

REIDER

333
in

med. Greek

(the

act.

in

Tzetzes, the pass,

Zonaras).
(Tuyxwi'eoeCTeai,
CTuyxwi'i'ui'ai,
*
'

to be melted

',

only act. found elsewhere.

to

heap up

'.

au^uyta,

'

a union, coupling
p. 1377).

',

like o-v^eu^is

and

(xvCvyri

(the

latter in

Herwerden,
*

ffu'Suyos,

comrade, beloved
'

'.

(TUfi|XTpia,

proportion
<

'.

au|XTro(nd(^eii',
o-o'jjL(j)u\os,
'

to drink heavily
'.

',

also in Heliodorus.

fellow, relation
'

croraXXayri,

intercourse', in a also

'

sexual intercourse'.

CTui/amXa/jiPdi'eii' (in
'

Plutarch and Athenaeus), in the mid.,

'.

to take hold of itself

aui/amirXeKeii/ (intrans.),

'

to be entwined, folded

',

so also

in

Eumathius.
auKCKTiKos,
'

chief,
'

head

'.

CTui/eTaipil^eCTeai,

to be somebody's

companion \ the mid.

in Photius.
o-ui'TOfiT),

'an edict', in this sense nowhere

'

else.

o-uo-Tcis,

cistern, reservoir

',

so also in Strabo.
'.

oroaToXifi,
CT<|)aKTiis,

'contraction or

spasm of the heart

'slayer, murderer', also in Zenobius.

'

o-4)o8p6TT)s,
Tcixio-fjia,

muchness
wall
or

',

elsewhere

'

vehemence, violence
',

'.

'

fortification

in

Euripides

and

Thucydides.
TXeiu)j,a

=
=

TeAeico(rty,
'

'

completion

'.

Tei/oj/TOKOTTeii',
TCl'Ol'TOUl'

to cut

through the neck, behead

'.

TeVOVTOKQ-n^lv.
'.

TIT0T),

'a nurse
*

TpayciKafSa,

a low

shrub

',

so

in

Theophrastes

and

Dioscorides.
TpciyT)|xa,
'

sweetmeats

'.

'

334
xpfjais,
'

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

orifice
',

as in Aristotle.

rpiCTKcXis,
Tpt(r/ceAj/s

'a

three-legged

instrument';

only the adj.

occurs elsewhere.

rpia/ios

=
'

TptyiJLos,

'

shrill cry,
'.

scream

',

here

'

distress

'.

Tpo\dULv,
rpu'^,
'

cause to run
'.

dregs
'

Tpu<\>epia,

luxury,

daintiness

',

like

Tpv(f)ep6Trjs

(Rufus

Ephesius and a).

uSpaywYioi/,
'

an aqueduct

',

as in Bockh's Corpus Inscript,

Graec,

in

Strabo vbpayiay^lov.
'

uTTcpPao-ts,

a passing over

',

instead of

(5's iraa-ya.

and

o-'s

u-irepeKxuo'is,

'

an

overflowing ',

in

Heliodorus

and

Plutarch.
uTrepeiraipen',
'

to

exalt

'

(in

Appianus), from which a

derives vTrepiirapcns, q. v. supra.

u-irepKpiVeo-Gat,
'

to

be judged superior', only here and

in

Bekker's Anecdoia.
uTToxufici,
'

a blinding

humour

suffused over the eye

',

in

Galenus and Clemens Alexandrinus.

ucrrepTjais,
'

a deficiency

',

used also

in

N.

T., equiv. to

vaTeprjua of .
<|>aYe8att'a,
'

confusion, panic

'

(in this

sense nowhere

else),

from which are derived

supra.
(JjeYYouf,
<\>i.yyiii'
'

(fyaytbuLviC^iv

and

(f)ayibaLvovi;, q. v.

make
terror
'

bright

',

from

(peyyos,

'

light

',

in

Hesychius
'

(f)aLveLV.
'

4)6pT]p.a,

',

in

Sophocles.
'.

<|>oXi8wt6s,
|>pou'pT]fia

full

of scales
'

(poetical),

that which

is

watched or guarded
'

',

here

it

seems to stand

for a

Hebr. word meaning a spring

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

<}>poupT]orts,
'

REIDER
'.

335

a watching

',

in

Bockh's Corp. Inscr. Graec,

'

here for a Hebr. word meaning

xapaa,
xeujjia,
'

a balsam-tree

a joy, delight
is

'.

'that which
corn, grain
'

poured out'

{L.di\i.

fusio), poetical,

here for

'

'.

XpcfieTiCTjuia,

neighing,

whinnying

',

in

Anthologia

Palatina.
XpeoSoaia,
* '

the

payment of

a debt
'.

'

in

Herodianus, here

the pledge as security for a debt

XuSaioucrOai,
'

to be decayed

',

later in

Chrysostom, the

act. in

Epiphanius.

In studying Aquila's diction

it

is

also important to

compare
above
all

it

with that of his contemporaries and compeers,

with that of

Symmachus and Theodotion, and

all

thereby establish a criterion for their mutual vocabulary

and what singular words are common to some or

them.
It

of

goes without saying that by standardizing their

points of agreement

we

at once fix also their points of

variance, thus enabling us to attribute a doubtful reading

to

its

proper source.
to
all

Common
following

the three

(usually

banded together

under the general and

ill-defined signature o\ Xomoi) are the

dKpojJucrrilien',

'

to regard as uncircumcised
'

'

{aKp6(3vGrTos)y

comp.

aKfjol3v(TT.'Lv,

to be uncircumcised

'

in

(5, fr.

aKpo^varia.

dKpoPuaTos, as above, also in ecclesiastical literature.

dXiKp.T)Tos,
'

seasoned with

salt

',

elsewhere

'

worn down by

the sea

'.

dfxeipeti',

'

repay
'

',

epic.
'

dcapXu'eii/,

gush forth

(of speech).

336

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

= ava^kvtiv, poetical. dvapXuao-ctf = ava[3Xv^eLV.

dmpXul^eii'
dca-TTi'oi],
'

breath
'.

'.

airopos,

'

poor
'

pSe'XXiot',

a fragrant and transparent

gum

from a plant

',

occurs also in Dioscorides, comp. also Herwerden, p. 270.

PpoYxos,
'

the trachea, windpipe

'

'.

Siao-TaGui^eii',

to weigh, to regulate
in

',

hLaaraOnaadat with

the

same meaning
crTa9}n(ai<

Euripides, comp. aradixaaOai. above

and

below

{a

and

a')

both forms seem to have

been used by a.
SiKatTi'a

hUr],

'

strife,

dispute

',

der.

fr.

hiKa(^Lv,

nowhere

else.
8pofA(is [scil. Ka/x7/Aos),
'

a running

'

(camel), hence

'

young

camel, dromedary
ckkXktis,
'

'.

a turning out of one's course, a deflexion

',

as

in Plutarch.

eKXoYT,

'

a choice
'

'.

eKifjSeipeii',

to destroy utterly
'

'.

tfiPpdaaeaGai,

rage Violently

'

(of

the sea), only the

simplex

is

found elsewhere.
'

c/iPpifirjais,

indignation

',

for (5's 6/x/3ptVwj

both der.

fr.

/iTrp69eapiov

(neut. of
'

e/^TTpo'^eo-jLio?,

'

within or before the

ifxir podia ixcos,

stated

time

'),

end

'

for

an

adv.,

comp.

Herwerden,
ecoxXifjais,

p. 487.
'

an annoyance
'

',

like oxAtjo-tj.
',

cTramKajXTrxeii',
eireVSufxa,

to

Come back again

in

also in Aristotle.

'an upper garment'

'

Plutarch, used

here

exclusively for the

emiToXaioc,
'

ephod

'.

something on the

surface,

something floating ',

neut. of

7ri77o'Aatos.

'

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

euape'(TTT]o-is,
'

REIDER
p. 600).
i]\xiK6piov

337

pleasure

',

as in Dionysius of Halicarnassus

and Clemens of Alexandria (comp. Herwerden,

i^fxiKopos,

'a half-Ko/109'

(a

dry measure),

in

Hesychius.
ixSoaKii

ly^dviKTi (in
'.

, comp. also Herwerden, p. 721)

IxOvrjpd,

'

of fish

KdOuYpoi' (neut.

of KaOvypos,
'

'

very wet
oneself

'

'),

swamp
',

'.

KaTa/jteyaXuVeCTGai,

to

exalt

against

only

in

ecclesiastical literature.
Ke'pKioc,

dim. of KepKos,
KVibi],
'

'

tail

of a beast

'.

Kfis

'a nettle', also in Oppianus.

'.

Kopfjios,

trunk of a tree
'

KoaKiVojfia,

a grating or lattice-work

'

',

sieve-work
'd in

',

fr.

Koa-KLvov,

suffix -ixa

probably for a preform,

Hebr.

XaiKos,

'

of the people,

common

',

used

in ecclesiastical

literature.
\a'iKoOv,
'

make common, desecrate

'

',

likewise ecclesiastical.

XeTrTOKOTTeLi/,
fidXT),

chop

fine or

small

',

also in Dioscorides.

colloquial form of the following.

/xaCTxaXir],

'armpit, a hollow'.
'

fieKalveaQai,
fjicTa4)UTeueii',

become black
'

to transplant
'.

'.

fxu^af,

'

to suck
'

/jiuCToui',

to
'

commit an abomination
slippery
', '.

'

(p-vaos).

6Xia0Yip6s,
oXfxos,
'

a mortar

as in

Hesiod and Herodot.

plain'.
'

ofiaXos in neut.
opioQcTelv,
irapaCTTCis
'

and fem., 'a

to set boundaries
(pkid,
'

(opia).

=
'

doorpOSt
'.

'.

ireXcKai'os,

a water-bird
'

irepia/iapTtXeii',

offer

a sin-offering

'.

338
TTcpii'octi',

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

'

consider well
'

'.

irepi(rre4)ai'out',

to en wreath, encircle

'.

TTepi4)paY|jia,

'a place fenced round, an enclosure'.

'

n-poacpi^eii',

to
'.

provoke to anger

',

elsewhere

'

to strive

with or against
irpojepiaTiis,
'

rebellion

',

from the above.

fr. ttpci>tot6kos,

irpwTOTOKia,

'

first-birth

',

comp. also

irpcoTo-

Tomov with the same meaning

nrrjlis,
irupop',
'

in

(5.

'terror',

fr. irrricraii.v,
'.

cited also

from Aristotle.

a fire-offering
'

TTuppouo-Gai,

be red
'

'

(iryppos).
',

CTKopmo-fxos,
fr. (TKOpTTLCeLV.
CTTijifAt,

a scattering

in

Byzantine

a-KopTnapia,

both

Lat. stivnni or stibium.

'

(TTpepXoKdpSios,

perverse

of

heart

',

from

which the

Byzantine arpelBXoKapbiav.
(TTpou0oKdp,T)Xos,
CTOKo/jiopos,
'

an ostrich

'.

Lat. sjcomorus, Hebr. sikviaJi.

'

o-up,po\oK6iros,

addicted to feasting

',

from

avpifioXoKo-JTs'LV

in

9'

and

Philo, the latter

employs

also the adj. accord-

ing to Herwerden, p. 1880:

CTUfA-n-XYifAfieXeii/,
'

qjti stiidet coenis.

',

to

sin

together with

TrAr/ju/xeAety,

'

go

wrong, offend

',

in classical writers.
'

CToi'a<})iYp,Vos,

closely

woven

or knit together

',

an adv.

(rvve(r(f)iyixiv(/is
(j-u'ct<}>iyktos,
'

in

Byzantine

literature.

laced close together', from ova-^iyyav, in the

neut.

'

chain

'.

Tpixtwc

(part,

of TpLy^iav),

'

a hairy being, hence satyr,

else.
fire'.

demon

',

in this sense
'

nowhere

u7roTu4>etf,

kindle with a smouldering

'

xXeuaa-nis,
4C(T/ia,
'

a mocker, scoffer
',

',

in Aristotle,

&c.

fraud

in Plato.


PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

REIDER

339

Common
dSTjfAomi',
dOpoiCTfjios
'

to Aquila
to be

and Symmachus
',

dismayed
'

in classical writers.

=
'

aOpoLcri^,
'

gathering,

condensation
'.

'

in

Theophrastus, here
dfiepifiKeic,

all

at once-ness,
free

moment
',

to be

a/:xepijuz'os,

from care

in

lamblichus

and

ecclesiastical literature.
dfjiupiTTis,

unintelligible as
aixopa,
:

it

stands, but Field suggests

:

a[xopLTr]s,

from

in

Hesychius

rreixCdaXis
;

k<p9i]

<tvv
is

jueAtrt,

in

Athenaeus

jxikiTooixa

TreTre/xjue'ro?'

the Hebr.

doubtful.
dmPoXatoi' (alsoai;ay3oAa8toz^), 'a mantle
',

also ecclesiastical,
p.

the fuller form also

dcatwoOc,
'

in Papyri,

comp. Herwerden,
',

100.

to recall to life

equiv. to

az'a^cooTroteli;,

both

ecclesiastical.
dmoreieii',

'to threaten with', also

Herwerden,

p.

116:

mznari.
di/ao-KoXoTri^eic :=
{sell,

avacrravpovv,

'

to impale

',

avecTKoXoTTKTixhni
'.

bhos) stands for

'

a paved road, highway

dfaTapdao-eic,

excite,

confound

',

as in Plato.
',

dkeuoSwTos,

'

that does not prosper

^vohovv.

composed of alpha
Sextus

privative

and

ei/o'gcoros, fr.
'

avv-napiia,

non-existence,

nonentity
'.

'

in

Em-

piricus, here
diTopXTjToi'

'

calamity, destruction
'

(neut. of a-n6^kr]T OS,

'

worthless

',

in ecclesiastical
'.

literature

'

excommunicated
'

'),

a foul thing, refuse

diT60eTos,

hidden

'.

acTirXaYx^'os,

'merciless' (so

in

Hesychius
q. v.

in

the adv.),

from which
dxXu's,
'

is

derived aa-nXayxydv,
',

infra.

a mist, cloud
'

poetical.
'.

|3ePaio-n]s,

firmness, steadfastness
in

^poxuTos,
PpuxT]|JLa

'

meshes or squares
and

',

Lat.
'

laqiieatiis.
'.

^pvyj\Q\i.6s

^pv)(J],

a roaring

340
ScKdKis,
'

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

ten-fold
'

'.

Zia^atTTdUn',
8ia\)/TiXa4)ac,

to cariy over
to

'.

'

handle

something

',

cited

also

from

Oribasius.
8i8u|jiot6kos,
'

bearing twins

',

also in Aristotle

together

with the verb.

SoaapeaTeiaGai,
SupoKoiria,
' '

to be ill-pleased
',

',

as

Dep.

in Polybius.
(5.

a bribery

from

hmpoKOTK.'iv in

cyKaTdaKcuos, doubtful, Jer. renders pretiostis,

which would

seem

to favour Schleusner's

suggestion

to

read kv Kara-

(rKvoi<i,

Sec, despite Field's opposition.

'

iXT)|xa,

a veil, wrapper', as in Stobaeus.

eK^pdo-cren'

(K^pdC^etv,

'

cast

on shore

'.

^KSoKi/jLciieii'

in the sense of boKL[j.dC(Lv,

'

assay or test

'.

KTrXT]|is,

'

fear,
*

consternation
'.

'.

eTT-iTrXao-TOS,

idol
'

iTTi^QeyyeaQai,

to utter, pronounce
'.

'.

^"oxTj
Su'yioi',

'

check, cessation

late

form

of (vyov.
'

i^fxcpeuais in
T]yi.ipTf](Ti(as

the accus.,

by day

',

a similar formation
p. 641.

is

=
'
'

Ka^' fjpiipavy quotidie, in

Herwerden,

OTjpanis,
6oXoui',

a hunter

'

(of dogs).
'.

make muddy
late
'

iTrrao-6ai,

form of

TreVeo-^at.

KaKouxia,
Kdpuais,
*

wretchedness', as in Polybius.
heaviness in the head, drowsiness
'

in

Hippo-

crates, here

'

reeling
'

'.

KaTaK6afiT](Tis,
KarciTrofia,
' '

an adorning

',

as in Plutarch.
',

something swallowed
'.

comp.

iiop-a

Trui/xa,

a drink, a draught
KaTiaxopcueaGai

in

the

part.,

awe-inspiring,

terror-

striking

'.

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

KepeiVos
'

REIDER
'

34I

Kepaos
'.

and

K^povxos,

'

possessing horns

(Kepas),

hence he-goat
KXdSeuais

/cAaSeia,

'

a pruning

',

fr.

KXabevciv, also in the

Geoponica.
kXu'^cii',
'

to dash over
'

'

(of water).
'.

KocieaGai,
KoaKici^cif

roU

in

dust

KO(TKivtvi.iv,

'

to

sift
'

',

as in Dioscorides.
',

KpoKu<(>di'T(uTos

in

the neut.,

lattice-work
'

as

if

from a

verb

KpoKV(f)avTovv,

comp.
'

KpoKv<pavT09

woven

'.

XiKfXT]TTis
fr.

\iKViTi]s,

a winnower, scatterer
XiKiirjTpis
',

',

like XiKp,y)Tr]p^

\LK[xav

for a fern,
'

form

comp. Herwerden, p. 89 1.
not having the remotest

fAayul^os neut.,

chest, treasury

connexion with any Greek root or vocable, and hence considered

(naa

by some

as

transcription

from the Hebrew

na) in
:

Hellenistic garb, so Semler, based on Theodoret,

ad

loc.

aTro rov 'EjBpaCov e^eAArji't'Cei.

'

IxrjfT),

moon
'

',

poetical.
'

fjiupo-u'euojk',
'

myrtle-tree
'.

comp.

p-vpaivfjov

p-vpa-Lvutv,

a myrtle-grove
ot'ds

T]

ovos,

'

she-ass

'.

= irepieiXeiCTGai =
Trapardi'uo-p.a
irepiTpaxiiXio;',
TTifJieXri,
'
'

TiapaTavvafxos, q. V. Sltpl^a.
Treptet'Aea-^at,

'to swathe oneself.

',

a neckpiece

also in Plutarch.

fat

'.

TTpocTKOTnjCTis
TTTio-dfT),
'

TTpoaKOTTi], Jcr. luspectio.

'.

peeled barley
'

ora-n-pii^eiv,

to

make

rotten

'

(a-aTrpos),

the pass, occurs in

Hippocrates.
o-eiCTTpoc,
'

a rattle

'

used

in

worshipping God, described

Isis.
'

in Plut. as

used

in the

worship of

CTKdXio-TpoK

=
is

(TKaki.(TTr]pi.ov

(TKaXU,
;

a hoe

',

according to

Norberg who

supported by Field

Schleusner, however,


THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
it

342
considers
'

a corruption from

crKTTaaTi]pLov or (TKi-naaTpovt

a veil

'.

aitoTao-fxos,

'

the state of darkness

(TTadixav,
'

',

as also in Dioscorides.
also in Eustathius

(rraOiiiUn'

to

weigh

',

and

Suidas.
o-raTiip,
o-Tu'pa^,

used for shekel.

*

gum

or resin used for incense

'

',

Lat. storax.
',

(Tui'd(j>eia

=
'

(Tvva^r\,

sexual

intercourse

as

used

by

Moschio.
(TctnyKTrip,

a lace,
'.

band

'

in

later Greek, here

plaited

work or

setting
'

Te'Xfia,

mud, mire

'.

Tpu4)iTnis,

'a voluptuary', as in Diodorus Siculus and

Athenaeus.
J>aXdKp(ij(Tis,
'

baldness

'.

4>oXis,

'

a horny scale

'.

Common

to

Aquila and Theodotion

'

dYptoPdXak'os,
dKpipaCTTrjs,
di'a^aiceii',
'

a wild j3dKavo9 or acorn

'.

'a close inquirer', cited in to break

Herwerden.

p. 58.

open anew

'.

&voi]aia,

'want of understanding', so
*

in Suidas.

donrXaYxmf,
PafauCTia,
'

to be merciless
',

',

denom. of

aaTrXayxvos.
*

handicraft

here equiv. to
loc.
'

vTTpri(f)avia,

dignity,

pride

',

comp. Schleusner, ad

Ppaxidpioi'

=
' '

^paxLovLCTTijp,
'j

an armlet

'.

Siaacja^os,
SiaTopeucii/,

escape

fr.

htaa-ca^eLV.
',

to engrave

so in Sophocles and Plutarch.

cKSiKia

eKSuTjms, 'an avenging'.

'

K|j.uiT]CTis,

squeezing

out

',

from

(KpvCav,

also

in

Dioscorides.
fiP6XiCTfia,
'

a patch

'.

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

cfiirrio-o-eCTOai
ei/SeCTneii/

REIDER
'.

343

((v

and

TTTLcraeiv),

'

to peel
',

ofif

=
*
*

hbia-jxeveLv, 'to

bind
'.

also in Dioscorides.

emXueic,
euCTxoXia,
idfOii/os,
'

to solve, explain
leisure
',

also in Longus.
'.

violet-coloured
'

KaprepoCi/,

to Strengthen
'

'.

XatXaTToiSTjs,

stormy

',

as in Hippocrates,

fr.

which \ai\a-

XuY|JLos

=
'.

Avy^,

'

spasmodic affection

of the

throat,

hiccough

jxerewpoTT)?,
I'lKOTToios,
'

'

height, loftiness

',

he who causes victories

'.

luaTpojTos (as if

from

^vaTpovv), in the neut.

'.

'

carved

wood

or ornament, fluted work

opafiaTij^eo-Sai,
'

to see

',

from which a derives

opaixaTiajxos,

q. V.

supra.
'

7rapdKXT]Tos,

a comforter

',

as in N. T. and ecclesiastical

literature.
Trei'0eii'6s,
'

moumful
'

',

fr. -nevOe'tv.
fr.

Trepi(7Tpw/ia,

a coverlet

',

the following.
*

TrepiaTpwKi'ui'ai := TTcpLcrTopevvvvat,

to spread all

round

'.

irXdaTTjs,

'a

creator',

as

in

Philo

and

ecclesiastical

literature.
irXeyfAa,
'

plait,
'

chaplet

'.

o-KajjiPouaOai,
(TTei/ouaOai,
(TTr]\(,}fi.a
'

be twisted

',

the act. in Athanasius.

become narrow ^
(TTrjkri,
'

pillar

',

-/xa

due perhaps to

pref.

'o in

Hebrew.
'

oTTpepXoTiis,

crookedness

',

also in Plutarch.
'

o-u/jLircpiirXeKeii/

(ey ayairaLs),

have sexual intercourse

',

so

used also
^Qoyy-f],

in ecclesiastical literature.

poetical form o( (pdoyyos, 'sound, voice'.


344

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Common
dTTOKXdt',
*

to Aquila and to cleave

'

Quinta

'.

yevvr\fiaTiUiv,

cause to grow, produco

'.

irpao-id^eaOai, for

which comp.

Trpaa-Lovadai

above.

Common

to

Aquila and Sexta

'

fieyeOuccn' =: fXiyaXvvcLv,

make

great

'.

TTapaSoKai' (?),

probably

TrapahoKi'iv

KapaboK^lv,

'

to vvatch

eagerly

'.

n-TTjcos

in the neut.,
'

a winged being or substance

',

'.

CTKipToGi',

cause to leap or bound

same

as

o-KtproTroieir.

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

REIDER

345

APPENDIX
Aquila Remains
Aside from

II

ix Syriac

and Latin

the original Greek renderings of Aquila

is

discussed in this treatise there

a great

number of such

readings in Syriac translation on the margin of the SyroHexapla.^^'^

Field, in his
all

compilation of the Hexapla,

incorporated

these Syriac passages in the notes^ while

(in

giving in the text

small type) a Greek re-translation

based on the style of the transiator.^^^

In like manner,

some Aquila readings are found only

in

in

Latin translation,

Jerome's elabora.te expositions of the Scriptures^ especially

of the Prophets, where the Church Father, contrary to his highly commendable custom to quote threefold, ^^'^ thought
it

sufficient to give a
1"^

Latin translation only.

In Field's

The Syro-Hexapla

is

the Syriac translation of the Septuagint

c. e.

made

by Paul of Telia about 616

fifth

from a copy of Origen's Hexapla

(viz. its

column), and hence including also the asterisked and obelized passages
a'

with their respective signatures of a

& &c.

This important codex, which

was
his

still

intact in the

days of Andreas Masius, as may be gathered from

(Josuae imperatoris historia illnstrata atq. expltcata.

work on Joshua
is

Antwerpiae, 1574),
in the

now

extant only for the Hagiographa and Prophets

in 1874

Ambrosian Codex published photolithographically by Ceriani

minor manuscripts

as vol. VII of his Monttnienta Sacra et Profana.

in various
in

Other fragments, scattered

Paris and covering portions

London and

of the Historical Books, have been collected and edited by Lagarde in the
first

part of his Bibliotheca Syriaca iVeteris Tesiamenii Graeci in

versi
this

sermonem

Syriacum
126

fragmenta

octo.

Gottingae, 1892).

On

important work of Field comp. his

Ohum
e

Norvicense sive

tenia men de reliquiis Aquilae,

Symmachi, Theodotionis

lingua Syriaca in

Graecam
1-''

convertendis.
in

Oxonii, 1864.
transliteration, the original

The Hebrew
VII.

Greek of the various

in Field's notes.

versions, and a Latin translation.

Examples are profuse

VOL.

346

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

in

Hexapla these Latin quotations occupy a place

and are supplemented by remarks
in the notes.

the text,

An

examination of these Syriac and Latin remains

bears out the truth of the results arrived at in our previous

discussion.
in

They
chief

serve to confirm the extreme literalness

both jTi-ammatical and lexical matters which

to

be the

feature

of

our

translator.

we found They add

little

to an appreciation of Aquila's

manner of

translation.

On
for

the other hand, they are important and quite valuable

an estimation of his manner of interpretation as exemplithe

fying

general

trend of Jewish

exegesis

and

for

knowledge of the condition of the Hebrew text

In the following, therefore, attention
is

in his daj^s.

paid only to points

of text and exegesis.

Gen. 38. 5
ill

IriN

nriipa

2"i]Dn nv,i et
;

factum

est

nt mentirctjir
despite
it

partu, postqnam gcnuit eimi

der. from

^i?

Iv Xao-/3t

and Jewish

tradition,

which construes
loc.
:

as the
IDIXI

name
nrDN

of a place.

Comp., however, Rashi ad

n-'ia

'JS*

irD3

^^^n vn \)ub
13.

nip^ rnbr2 dpd^'^'

>(>^jlfcooo,

n'c^

^y. der.

Exod.
*

16 ribniopi
quickly'

perhaps

from

^tl2

to trip,

move

in

Isa. 3.

16; but Field prefers

another reading from cod.

der.
it

Kal

ek raKra, claiming that a

from the talmudic

fjaD

"heap up,
der.

make

dense'.
'

/did., 28. 6 et

al

'3B' )is^:^.A.-sD,

from

n^B?

to

change

',

as pointed out in 30.

Lev.

5.

N^9

"13-^-^93

v;n

ik'n;

tyw. iN

q^d conspiir-

cavcrit se verho aliqiio inqninato (quoted

by Field from

Procopius), free and literal at the

same

time, but probably

based on some Midrash to the

effect that

one

is

defiled not

only by touching unclean things but even by pronouncing

bad words.

Num. n.

8 \mT\

n^s oy^s Uvi=>'^3?

oo,>

]t.,.v>

^^ ^/;

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

1D'7 is der.

REIDER
and

347

from

t'V

'

knead
:

',

comp.

>*^?

CvT

Rashi suggests notarikon

sources credit a

"iwV

= ^21
'

\i2i:^

Cv.

But Greek

with tov
construe
^^"^Vi) is

ixacrrov ^Xaiov, in

agreement with

the Rabbis

who
19

it as "i^

breast

'.

Ibid., 31.
''^

translated )j1<^*->
(5

]l<v:ii.5;^:iii>,

hence

\f'n?,

so a Ua*!^, while
ji^p'ri

transHterates.

Ibid., 34. 22
.^..^icl

nit^'s

n^-ny

pp^ lyni?

'Im^-qn
yl?

'3

^'^i^.vs

jol/

jfcjil

)oo^ji^

^*ij

Ux,^^^
with

]ooj

the
''p.

caesura
[Field
is

being advanced to np and this construed as

correctly identifies
j^jH )*j:^
ecoj

nvos

but

it

clear

that

a'

intended

ecos-

tuos

nD"Ty.

M.]

Deut. 25. 18 D'^k^nan

ci-,

labor e, dolorc, molestia affcctus

(Masius in Pccidiuvi Syrorum), hence construed as QVP^JlI

with the versions and Jewish commentators.
Ibid., 32.

24 ^yyq

391^1

fi:f T

^n]'l ny-i

\\D
,

et comesti ab ave et a morsibiis amaritiidinis XC

fame very much like

dcstructi

V^^2

pnn

''D'TiDi

J]iy

''b''3si

jaa

''n''D3,

only that MO was

z/w (bird, augury)

construed as

"Tin

(so (5 ID).

As

to

1*^^.

comp.

b.

Ber. 5 a

pp''*^ N'^N n*^"!

'''"'^?i>-

P^^*"",

and Jewish commentators

being misled by the

who adduce Job 5. 7 n^iV The versions figurative H^i?.

Job
(a'

^'fT''P.^^

too appear to have guessed in

reads

vloX rtTr\vov)

and applied the same meaning to

the passage in Deiit.

Ibid., ver.

[See

AJSL.,
.

XXIV

(1907), 81.

M.]

26 Qn\si2X

''Jji'ipK

ct iibi

sunt (according to
fjx

Masius), implying Dn

'x

pj^
:

(and not on^x

Dn rfx
''Dn:i

as Masius likewise ID
;

supposes), comp, Sifre adloc.

in the

"TnTOS

same sense
DiTNn
13

TL
is

"i^y^i'Uii)

p.T^y ''nn
:

bw, comp. Rashi,

DJnN ^2Na

who
DH

claims that this

DiT^y
8.

based on Sifre

l^vsn

^mox

n-'N

n?2N^ti' dj\s'.
. . .

Judges
Onomast.,

Dnnn nSynpp

saltjucm (Jer. in Enseb.

i

p. 59),

hence

^"pr^,

comp.

Kings

23. 18,

where

A a

348

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Job
II. 9
:

^^J?

V^^^ nanx

Ju^/

;_:^

)t-...v.i:>

^{

^.-^i^^?

w-ciA-vil.

it

hardly sounds like a, and the ascription

may be

wrong

but

whoever the
[Rather
lif'p; iib

translator,

he probably read
M.]
>^l?

J'l?^ y'i?!?.
/did., 14. 12

y:i?"i;^,

n interrogative.

d:pP' .^ri^Tiy
Ti?2

U^*-

ja-fc^^j

U.^-

i..:i.lt^j

JJ,

hence a read
n;n nyb
in

with
is

0-'

6'

ID.

//^zrt',,

16. 8

'^iprpprn

rendered 00L2.
that
a

w^]<s^jau3o

)ooi,

and Field
etcreVt).

his

note

suggests

read

iy^

(oolfcS :=
/(^/(t'.,

19. 13

p''n"in

^pi'^

'nK_ the Syriac

(5

has an-*/, hence

a-ni(rT-)](rav

a'

may have
/^^rt'.,

read pN^"!" with

"'.

[But

is

intransitive.

M.]
^^13^

24, 18, 19

dh-q: n^v

:Q^??-J|

tjit n:> iib

[^jsxj

iTV is

apparently construed as an adj. modifying "im and

thus receives the pausal accent.

to underlie the renderings of a
Ibid., 28.
*13,

The same
6'.

division

seems

and

nj

Dyx?

bn

jna

);.a.v?

U./

]^i.^/,

implying

so

(t'

6' KOVLa.

Ibid., ver.

Sb

am

nisyi

cnii.

U*??

]-^U, hence nnay

with

cr'.

Ibid., ^6.
)asd.va.j,

2>?>

'"^^iy

^y ^^

^?.P'?

.>ar^'^ ^Vi. c^

)fc-is

implying

npiy

with

o-' ^' ID.

Ibid.. 37.
""!?

II ny
"i?
'

n>"ip:

nn-'is

).^a.-i.

ji^j
6'.

U^^

^;J r^,

construed as
Ibid., ver. 21

pure', so also ZT
D''i?nf

and

ct al.

)^1^, 'inclination, esp.

8.

fall

of

the scale'; likewise Job 37. 18 and Prov.

is

28 where

po77ai

the equivalent.

This rendering
D^?'!'^'^

is

probably basccj on the

phrase in Isa. 40. 15

(vyov and which

pncoi which

translates
in

poiri)

must have been rendered

comi).
Ujj

the same

way

by our

translator,

ID

quasi

movioituin
iN;>^

stater ae,

N;:pr: h^ys,

|Um:?

^l, S:iad)-a

py

(comp.

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

Munk. Notice snr Rabbi Saadya Gaon,
Amdndt,
p. 233).

REIDER
meaning to

349

p.

28 note, and
all

The

application of this

the passages where the word prvy occurs serves to illustrate

once more Aquila's bend for uniformity

conip. above, 13.
Ibid.,

in

translation,

38.

in^nn

bD"ji?1

cn-i^.-.?

Jla.x.*:^^<sD

).j_^:sa:i^o.

Middeldorf {apud Field, note) suggests that a read n^nn

'

mockery, deceit
it

',

comp. Dv^'n 17.2; but

:

it is

also possible
deceit,

that

represents a free rendering

wrapping implies

error, misleading.
Ibid., ver.

32 Dn^n

n^33-by

K'^yi

U.ai^.v.

U^^i
T\i2

Uijaaii.

yoj/

)o)l

o;ii-?,

similarly Jer. et vespcrnin super aedifican"'J3

tionevi eitis iud7(ces, both deriving

from
M.]
ii.v>

'to build'.

[Hence

^\):^

(=

nn^32) or
^l?

simply

.T33.

Ibid., ver.

37 T-^fl

D^^K' \S33i
-'isp
'

^^
'.

U-^i*.?

Ua*,o,

^3J

being confused with

Ibid., ver.

flood

38

ip3"!^
li-"*

D^?3-|1

^aijl^oo )-/ l^ao, to which

}.2).o

there

is

a gloss

)-.('

^?

.^ch-1^(
his

)*-/

Kii; going
to

back, as ably stated by Field in

XepjuaSe?
fill
'

note,

Homer's

large pebbles or stones

of the

',

so called because they

up the hand

holder.

As

to Aquila's
f.

use of

Homerisms comp.
Ibid., 39.
.
. .

Field's Hexapla, p. xxiii

13

r\p\

HTpn nnnx-DN

nobya

0^3^-1-5^:3

)L.ci.^

'^/iJi.ioo )*o/ ).*rx*^ or as recorded in

TrrepvyLOV alrovvroiv avrava7rXKTaL
.

Greek
.

in

the

Auctarium
Jer.

similarly

Penna

strntliioimm mixta est alis Jierodionis ct accipitris.

nn?3:, deriving
it

Did a read oy
Prov.

from

b?|i?

[But comp.

7. 18 riDpyn: a
Q''?P"i

Q' aviJiTrepiTrXaKcofjiev.
<--t=>,

M.]
der.

Ps. 2. 2

)il

Latin

Ji/ii mysterii,

from

Aram, n
versions.
is

'

secret

',

and having no

parallel
d'^^rn

in

the other

Comp.

b.

Synh. 42 a where
hz'

of Prov

31.4
'i?

explained as abiy

ma

D^pDiyn.

Furthermore,

Vl

350
Isa. 24.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

16
is

rendered likewise by
a.

a-'

d'

JLX) and the Talmud,

comp.

b.

Synh. 94

/did., 5. I

riii?''niin-bx

n2;:ob

Jiiiis

^cl2 ^: )lao)
.n:
'

^>>ii..

reading nipnsn and

deriving

it

from

inherit

',

so

a',

'^^n^i',

Jei'- p''<^

hereditatibiis,

and Midrash Tehillim,

ed.

Buber,

p.

50

ff.

Ibid., 9.
yOCH::>

26 (10. 5) cnn

n^D;

r-j-ii^-bs

wO)oa:/

^^och^a^
-!?^^
:''

)j^**Ii^j,

comp. furthermore 36
;

(27).

13 D^C

^e(f)dvy]

))

ubLKia

from which

it

appears that a confused the

roots nZ)\ V^\

Ibid., 9.

and

niD in the true

Menahem

fashion.

39

(10. 8) iJbr

ns^nb vry ^a-.^j ^^.? Jla-U^io,

implying
that this

"^i'Dp = '^^np,

so also Rashi

who mentions

the fact

word

is

included in the Masorah of twenty-five

^".
)-J**JJ?,

words written with HD" instead of

Ibid., 15 (16).

4 ^iHD ins
l}"^?:^

CLA-U/

which probably
=i">pn

goes back to
afflixenint).
Ibid.,

iV7,n

(and not, as Field suggests,

16 (17). 3

'r:b]

N'vnn-'p?

o.^*

ILiaxi^
(5

l^-.a./
o-' ll)

JJo,

reading

"'D'SI

and transposing the accent with

(37).

S.

/(^/^.,

36

y^
is

i^yi nn]i<|

nnynrp^

)jl/

^.^

^./ ^^5s*-^^o

joj i*a*,?,

which

rendered by Jerome
;

ct

fortissimnin sicut

indigcnain vircntem, so also XT pDni

'

was
?

it

derived from

">iy

rouse oneself, awake

Ibid.,

'

[Or )nynm
DDrii

M.]
)>oj3

3H

(39).

13 il^on m'2

JK^^)J

^/

l^-^^a^o

oC^?, implying

Dw'ril.

npD in the same verse

translates cantilena or
'

is

rendered jj^wjcu^ which Field

'

refrain
:

it

occurs five morctimes

;

with the same rendering

83 (84), 9
;

43

(44). 9

49

(50).

56

i^-]).

84
e',

(85). 3.

Of

these six cases,

two have the

a

signature a
alone.

while the

other four are credited to

all

However, taking
into consideration, a

the cases

of this

singular

word

doubt suggests

itself as to

the

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA REIDER

authenticity of this Syriac tradition.

351

Out of seventy-four
and six
is little

times of nbo in the Bible, thirty-four are preserved in the

fragments of a, and of these twenty-two have

lis.]jKoo/

aet

which

is

the Syriac equivalent of

aet.

There

likelihood therefore that a,

in translation,
in

who

is

known

for his

uniformity
aet
is

would have deviated from

his

customary
e'

the other six cases.

in

From
e',

the fact that Quinta or

it

associated with a
)1<^ajq_^ really

two cases

might be assumed that

is

belongs to
is
e'

with which a

associated
in

by
4

mistake.

This

proved by the fact that

]K*ja.i-,

45

(46).

Field quotes a

while the newly-found Mercati

fragments record
74 but
(75).

aet for a.

Furthermore, two other cases,

4 and 75

(76), 4,

have
II,

JI^jqjs. in the

Syro-Hex.,

aet in

Origen, Opera,

515.

Besides,

we expect our
and
(5

translator to go with

U
:

p?D^y^

or NO?y^, Jer. semper,

a-'

Jewish tradition generally, rather than with

& who

have bid^akixa (Suidas

lytus
:

iJ.e\ovs

eva\kayq, Theodoret Hippol^AjQ-b^j.^-s

jxiXovs /xera/3oA7/,

and therefore similar to

yCL^ot^j,

Idid.,
.T

48

(49).

14

^ik")^

Jer.

eurreut, assuming

Idzd.,

49

(50). 21

T'5''VP

'^?iy?'!

^^

demittam

tc in

ocnlos

tuos, Syr.

.^>JLLi>.i^

.^K*.{o, n^"

being construed as pronominal

confused with yi^.n

suffix
'

the word

itself
'.

may have been

cause to
Ibid.,

bow down
64

{6^). 1 rhr\T\ ,tot -^

XI-

\\^,a^\^ jl^a^*.!

^,

der.

n"'cn

from DOl, so

Ibid., ver.

3 ^NT ib'n-^l ^n.y

)lb \:^^ ^^^.^^

D.

U*^,

implying
Ibid.,
^.^^..^:,
1-*

''ly,

perhaps due to haplography of

(68).

67

18

iWK'

'abi?

vociferanthim, Syr.

hence der. from px^, so

o-'

t]-)(ovvr(iiv.

It

should further be emphasized that

jl^Aja.'b*.

is

used by

a'

for

PiriD 29 (30}. 12,

where the Greek

is

x9^^'

352

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Ibid., ver.

31

flD3"''5fl3

)c)^

JI^.^,
^T\-

Jer. rotas argcnteas,

hence der. from

Ibid.,

P"*

and reading
"iNf

68

(69). 16 n^3

'^V^P^55^^^
os

"^i^ii^l

Do, Jer.
"it^yn

neque coronet super

or i??vn
Ibid.,

me

piiteiis

siium,

implying

72

(73). 21

I^in^s "nvp^l

is

rendered twice by a
Jjcu
. .

once -ooj y)^' l^-*Xdoo,

former
latter
is

and then Ujllioo?

The

der.

from
'P.iri

PSJ',

so commentaries and lexica, the

I3J?i

assumes

B'N:

(talmudic

to smoke), so Jer.

himbi

inei veUit ignis fiiniiga7is,

and

XI Nt^'ND pi'3.

/^/<^.,

77

(78). 41 linn oi^i^/, transire fecertmt,

implying

perhaps lynn.
/(^/^.,
*

ver.

51
'

D'?iN

T\'V^~\_

\hs^j U-,

der.

from

p.N

trouble, sorrow
it

in

opposition to the other versions which

'.

take

as pS

'

vigour, wealth
(89).

Ibid.,

88

48 i"^n""9

'2>5-nD|

JliN.cu.

^.

w.i-to?!?,
'^Tl?!,

Jer. tnemento inei de profunda,

latter

assuming l^nno

the

supported also by
109 (no). 6
a'

S
cr'

U.
nvi3

Ibid.,

N?D jlw

^/
a'

... Jer. iniplevit

valles,

hence nvxa.
118 (119). 70 ^'^mW ^JPT^
impl.
D^yc'V'.?'
'?^;
o-'

/(^/^.,

^a^oj ^? ^^
**X> to

)oo wojofcs-.^ )lci,*<u..3,

or,

assuming
this

have
is

fallen

out,

''W'i'^,

comp.

ver.

92 where
'plJiD in

word

so

rendered by the two, comp. also XT

Ibid.,

both places.
dilatabis,

137

(138).

'J?nnri

%2>\,^

Jer.

hence

/^/rt'., 143 (144). 2 'J^OO "^y hence cisy with Jer. S XI.

'^^^v'

-lcu.1

)^.\a.><i.X

wQjL?. oo,

Ibid., ver.
rot'To,

13

f!

^5<

JTC)

j^joi^

)>jo

^-ao,

so

(6

ck toi^'tou eis
fo,

also Jer.
J.I

and probably

XI

Nnf?

NrTJ'

assuming

Aram.
P- 49)-

(comp. Cook, Glossary of Aramaic Inscriptions,

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

Prov. 8
23
'npDi

REIDER
'Jji1?2

353 with

Q^iyjo h^-cu.)U

.,

hence

Eccles.
Jer.

4.

17 n2T D\b^p3n

nm

0'

U.:*?

1^^?

)I^so.c_,

doimm enim
Ibid.,
8.
o-'

insipientiwn saa^ificiiim, implying rinp.

"I'V?
'"^?J??'^1

lo
0'

U^i-^-vis

oo*=.l^|o,

reading

^naritj'^l,

so
3.

D.

Isa.

24

b''3''ris

cingidum
*

exsidtationis,
',

breaking

up

into

^"'J

Tis ("ns
h^\

from nns be spacious, wide

^'0?,

hence girdle
^ini

or belt) or
n!?"':

comp. Rashi ^b

i?^:

^ns 'I2^n ^nc'3

p.

n''^

fS''a?3

Nint:^,
it

further,
^^}

Gesenius, Thesaurus,

1137,
estiva

who

explains

as

^'T'S

vestis variegata eaque

ID

(buntes Feyerkleid)

fascia pectoralis of
or
?''?

also

assumes

a division into
/(5z^., 14.

h'h}^

-'TIS

associated with pb.

T\^\np faiJieiH,

implying nnynD
also

it is

interest-

ing to note that

Ibid., ver.
1

and perhaps
^.?'!}

read n^ni^.

2 "iD^"f?

idulantem auj-orae filiinn, der.

from

PP*,

so S.
"^p^*n"!
t:^13S

Ibid., 17. 9

:i*inn

testam et Emir, impl. b'nnn.

a'
^'

/3z^., ver. II

3S31

et dolebit

homo, assuming
(5.

K^ON aSDI, the former also in

Ibid., 18.
I

ID,
.
.

the latter also in

.

D^SJ? b^vif yi}^

umbram umbram alarum,

.hence

blf

^^,

so

and probably U, Saadya, Ibn Ganah,

Rashi, and Kimhi.

Ibid., 29.
I

njK'-^y r\v^ isp,

according to Jer. a translated

'

subtractus

est,

deriving probably from nsD

^"iy'^'1,

snatch

away

'.

Jer. 2. 12
Ibid., 5.

oii>-?

i.'^U,

reading

I'JV^''-

23

n~iiCT

miD

j.JtJsoj.-'sajsoo,

der.

from ino

be bitter

'.

Ibid., 13.

25

"'Jjii^^

^n'?"'^?'?
(5.

**'>-'^

w>aX.? )l.ai*>>.ol^sjio,

read-

ing perhaps Tj^D with

/^^/rt'.,

18.

14

jmij

ib*^
!

nb' nisn

3fj?:n

A^fcs^^^
is

)i.va\.?
it

).,^l

>ftaa> Jo^aJi.^

t-'-^^-^

though the order

confused

354
is
'

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

read
'T^',

evident that a
'.

deriving

it,

as usual, from

""^

sufficient

/did, 21. 13

1'^^^l" 11^' P^yi^ ni-J'^

to P^yn the

margin

of the Syro-Hex. has U^*^, but more likely this reading

refers

to n??''
"lli*.

which was read

n;^3^

and construed as a

parallel to

IdicL, 11.
Ibid.,

22 ^^y^

s-a:ii>*?

li;^-,

reading

iTyi,.

30

(37). 3 Q'n'-^ni
cos, sive

'^'-o^^

reading Q^ri^^ni, Jer.

et

convertam
Ibid.,

sedere faciani.

32

(39).

2 D'^nbn

Dnyn

^..ci^lso?

^A^i-ot ho^so^.,
XI^.

Jer.

qui crant

scripti,

assuming
27

Q"'?n3n
n-;;.

with

n'

Ibid., .50
)I^..ca:ix^

(27).

nnu)^

"1^3-^3 in-in
=n")i

]>)^

'^

a=>t**

oi^Jo o^?, implying

nns, the former also

i"''^',;

in (5.

[ofc^*.j,

despite Field,

is

perfect; hence

o (kqi)

free addition.

M.]
nx-)S-ns iipphM

Ibid., 51 (28). 2

o^

Jus^jJl

y^a^;jo, con-

fused with Pp3

context.
Ibid., ver.
o,::^,?

195

Hos.

TO.

(luxuriant vine) despite the

38

iiy:

^.vvp'^

Q^1?3? nn:

.^-^

^,/

^oSi-l^

\^^
I.

vO*^<^, implying
7
vJ3i3-fD

Tjy? ^J><,^: D';].??? =i^n\

3tJ'^

Lam.
speak

UIgjo, der. from

Jla^*j.o

'sit',

so .

/(^/^., 3.
'

45

DiN^l T'P

)i:iiK.v.:,

confused with

n^

'.

Ibid.,

ver.

47

i^tl'DI
'

^^4:"^
',

Jj-slo

]lai.vi-lls.',

reading

nsm,

der.

from
5.

XC'J

lift

so also
ly'

^<?

li).

Ezek.

D^isC"!^

Q??9n

(/.v^^^

luinicrati cstis in
edit.),

gentibus (quoted by Jer. from a"s second

Djp.Gin

reading

(from n:o
I.

'

count

')

with S.
NJ^J
Nl:'i<

Hos.

Dn^

N'v'X

.ooCi.
Nb'j

)o/

)^,

Jer.

oblivii one t

obliviscar eornvi, reading

Ibid.,
3.

(ne*:

forget).

"^T!?^]

o)Ua*.o,

Jer.

ei

fodi cam, der. from

n-ji'dig'.

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

Ibid., 4.
"lb',

REIDER
^i*.;

355

18

Q^'?9

''?

.o<Hii.^

jkAiiA^

I^*:>

reading

so ^.
Ibid.,
8.
0-'

6
'.

Q''?nj'

errantibns or convei-sis, hence

D"'3nb'

with

(5 6'

Ibid., 10.
yl??, der.
''^

14

^N3^>< n^?
opK'
'

iPjjK'

itrs
'

)l<.w.s?

)>^\.>a^-? )lj^

^A

p?C' from

complete
is

and construing

bs'^lN as

2T

(the translation of ?N

wanting), comp. ver. 6 ^IJ

/<^/</.,

II. 7

'inNip^ ?y"?^"i

-oiG-ijaj

)iAj

l.aii.o,

reading ^V

with

0-'

^'.

Joel
2.

I.

17 nn^rsD )l6**.

^:!o,

hence

nn;??tp,

comp. Hag.

19

n"i^2?o

'granary
16
pnc'''

'.

Amos
name.

7.

rT'n

).:a-a^

.,

translating a proper

Ibid., 8. 3

b^M

ni-i'K^ ^^>[)^ni

)U.

Jer. et stridebunt

cm-dines teinpli, or laqiiearia,

'

assuming probably nh"'^ = nil'D

M.]
(5's (parvcajxara

hooks, hinges

'

[rather

n*iTir.
it is

may also

go back to the same, and

niiip.i^y

hardly necessary to postulate

Mic.

I.

Ji D?^

'~\^V

y^o.:^

^o^/
iny3

oi^i., hence ^^^y with

most versions.
Ibid.,
o;ii.*?
i"T]i'3

2.

12

n:;i'^n

^inn

n-ii'n

jnvs

Jl^....j^i.<

Uj,axo? JliOk.isis Jjji^

^/

jl^i:^.*^^, reading

probably
oviii,

(comp. Arab, ij-^ 'fold, enclosure'), so Jer. in

Ibid., 4. 9
Ibid., 6.

y\n

wl^U/,

impl. T^.n

= ^l".
hence ^T'^^^

13 ^nisn w.^rn ^\,

)..>oa:iX l^i-.,

with

S D. Nahum 3. 8
0'

|V^N*

XJo

>a.io/

^..^,

impl. nr:N

|jp,

so

o-'

6'.

i^'-*

In contrast to this

renders n'lTD

in 4. 2

by Xe'/37;Tas and

a'

by

lebeies,

following

^
a.

n'2n and Jewish

tradition generally as expressed in b.

Baba

Bathra 73

356

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Hab.
3.

n'^y

fV2n DKn

ct posidt

absconsionem

fortitii-

dinis

sitae,

hence D^l with

2.

,
.

and

(t' .

Zeph.
^jn, so
rr'.

14

^IB?

^ih

).a^j,

Jer.

gladmm, assuming
assuming perhaps
with

/^/^., 3.
"j^nj

18

"lyiso

""jij

trajislatos

or
:

else,

Hke Rashi, associating

it

nn

'remove',

the

alone constituting: the root.

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA REIDER

357

APPENDIX
Aquila Readings
in

III

Talmud and Midrash

exegesis with
in
all
its

Specimens of Aquila's
characteristics

inherent

are

also

imbedded

the

Talmud and

Midrash, and for the sake of completeness deserve mention

here.
It is true that these

readings are either disregarded

altogether or else undervalued on the part of Christian

scholars (comp., for instance, Field's Prolegomena to the

Hexapla,

p. xvii),

but with due regard to the latter

it

must
the

be urged persistently that the Aquila quotations

in

Talmud and Midrash, based

quotations
scripts

as they undoubtedly are

on

a popular oral tradition, deserve as

much

credence as the

by

copyists on the margin of Septuagint

manu-

which quite often underwent considerable mutations

were metamorphized beyond recognition.
appear
in

and

less frequently

If the

talmudic quotations

various

forms in

different sources, the

same may be claimed of the Hexaplaric

in

remains which too often appear

two or more versions

Indeed,

and sometimes

in

an altogether impossible form.

the Hexapla teems with examples of doubtful readings in

disentangling which Field has done the lion's share of his

work.
are

The
in

quotations of the Church Fathers,

it

is

true,

more

reliable,

but this

is

only due to the fact that they

quoted

the original Greek, while the Rabbis had to

transcribe into

Hebrew wherein

it

became

unintelligible

and hence subject to corruption.

philological

But with the aid of

acumen these sometimes puzzling readings may

intelligible.
It
is

be unravelled and made

the merit of

358

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

c.

Azariah de Rossi {ATeor Enayim,

45) and

Rudolph Anger

{De Aqtiild) to have dealt adequately with these talmudic

remains of Aquila's version.

Altogether there are nine Greek renderings recorded

expressly in the

name
bx

of Aquila
is

^"
:

Gen.
p.

17. I

^"^tr

quoted

in Ber.

r. c.

46

(ed.

Theodor,

461) as having been rendered by a

is

Dpjsi DVDD^<.

The

latter
t/caro's

generally accepted to be a corruption of DlipN

in a

=
nt:'

which

stands for

''^B'

without exception.

Our

translator therefore followed the rabbinical derivation of

from

n=
is

sufficient,

comp. Ber.

r.

/.

c.

and
it

b.

Hagiga 12

a.

As

to DVons*, Anger's explanation that

is

a corruption of

luyypos

the most probable, for

it

is

based on the entire

evidence from the Hexapla according to which a renders

^X

by
',

irrxvpos

immutably.
'

eaten

hence

eternal

')

To assume with De Rossi

a/cto?

('

not worm-

or afto? (worthy)

and a doublet of Uavos with Krauss means simply to ignore

the whole evidence of the
that neither of these

Hexapla from which we

learn

words constituted a part of Aquila's

ukiosis

vocabulary.

Indeed,

foreign

to

all

the

Greek

translators, while afioj,

though used by the Septuagint,

occurs only once in a

Kings

12. 5

J^!].?"!?

a^ios davdrov,

where

vlos,

suggested by Field and found

in (5, is

probably

the right readine.'"^

'"*

How many more sine

comp. Zunz,

nomtiie

is

a matter of conjecture, and

Vorirdge'^,
p. 86, n. d,
is

is still

sub

iudice;

Gottesdienstliche

and Krauss,
given here to

Steinschneider's Festschrift, pp. 148-64.

No

consideration

readings preserved in a
'^^

Hebrew

translation only.

Krauss overlooks the evidence of the He.xapla when he considers

for

i(rxi'P<5s

?S an unusual

translation

('

eine ungewOhnliche Uebersetzung')

in Aquila, for, as a

matter of

fact, it is

so used approximately forty times,

not to mention the derivatives of /N which are likewise rendered, in the

usual Aquila style, by derivatives of tVxfpot (comp. Index".

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

Lev. 23. 40
fol.

REIDER
p.

359
3.

"inn

j'y

ns.
30)
'JS

According to

Succa

5,

53 d (also Lev.
it

r.

c.

Aquila rendered Tin by

i'oojp

and construed
istic

as

cnn

bv

H:

ii)n:y ?/".

This character-

of translating a
is

Hebrew by
in

a Greek word of similar

;

sound

quite

common
""nn

Aquila

comp.

P^^<

avXwv,

^y =

At9, J^?i?

Kan-TV, ">?"]?'?

=
is

Kapxapovixevos.

Isa. 3.

20

ti'SSn

w hich

generally accepted to

mean
to
p.
it,

'perfume boxes'

was translated by a, according

as

Shabbath
nN'':Dn"iDDS'.

6. 4, fol. 8 b, n^nsiD^DDN*, or,

De

Rossi puts
iriT^^'

The Talmud adds

as an explanation

"121

t^2:n JT^a bv-

Lightfoot {Horae Hebraicae, p. 280) believes

aroiJ-OKi'ifua.

the word to be
p.

Buxtorf (Lev. Chald.

based on

ct

Talmud.,
variant.

160)

reads

(TTO}xa-)(da,

De

Rossi's

Anger proposes both

oToiiaxapia
'.

and

aToixayjfia,

'a thing

placed above the stomach

Jastrow {Dictionary of the

a)

Targ. Tahn. and Midr.,

ixax_ia.

p.

90

would

like to

read haro-

Finally Krauss (Steinschneider's Festschrift, p. 161),

in

based on a variant
aTpofjifBiov,

the Yalknt

Makiri

S''a?2n2DS',
'

suggests

dimin. of aTpofxfios
'.

(rrpocfios,

a twisted band or
is

cord about the loins

This suggestion
it

favoured by the
the translators
as an

preceding
'

D"'"!^!?,

but

is

opposed
in

to

all
it

and commentators who agree

taking

ornament

hanging against the heart and not as something surrounding

the whole

body which we have

c,

to

assume of a band
'^:JDt^,

comp.
Ezra

Talmud
nrnn bv,

/.

Targum
:

^''t^np,

Rashi n^n
O'tJ'jn

Ibn

Kimhi

p^ bv pnB> pn
nnp-i

n)b)r\iy

ny.

Ezek. 16. 10

SDp^^s pTD^psx according to Midr.

is

Threni
i"it3^P''S

i. i.

better reading
is

preserved
ttolklXtov

in

Pesikta 84 b
is

alone, which

the

Greek

and

preserved

in the
'l^^"!'

Hexapla

to Ps.

44

(45). 15 as

Aquila's translation of

Our
and

translator also uses -noiKLXia for nop") in Ezek,

27.

17. 3

24.

Accordingly, as Anger had already

360

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

two words
in the

anticipated, the

Midrash and the Aruk

)107p^Si.

are simply a corruption of one and the same word

n
I

Krauss

is

therefore

wrong

in insisting

on a double rendering

belonging to the two editions of Aquila's version, especially

since 7t\kt6v which he proposes for the second
is

foreign to

Aquila's vocabulary,

Ezek. 23. 43 D^SW n^l? nONi: according to Lev.

rendered the last two words by
conflicts with the
fjiOLx^Cas
''J'lia

r.

x''7''3.

This, however,

Hexapla where we

find for a tov KaTaTpl\f/ai

=
it

'

to

wear out (use to the

full)

adultery', implying

n>2^.

Nor
:

is

this the

only case where a employs KaTarpi^eiv

is

for rv?2

occurs four times more, while rtaXatovv

used

for |C" only once,

Deut.

4. 25,

and even then

it is

ascribed to

the Three together.

njit.

Moreover, a employs
is

iropvq

only for

Hence the reading of the Midrash

If
6',

attributed wrongly
it

to
a'

a'.

we

are to believe the

Hexapla

belongs to either
while the

or

for the
rrj

former has iraXatovTaL

/^ot)(eta

latter
b.

has

iraXaiovarj ixoiyeias,
njpr.

both of which agree with

in

Yoma
6' ,

83 b caiN^n

This would be interesting

showing that the Rabbis quoted not alone a but also a

and

if

not for the more probable alternative that the

signatures are wrong.

Ps. 47 (48). 15
fol.
is

rm-bv

^Jp.n?^

N^n to

which

p.

Megilla

2, 3,

73 b has: ni

pNc:^

Q/iy

N'-^dj

nhn

D^^py on^n.

Anger
and
for

right in supposing that a

T\)p

either confused V with N

E'''X

read
K'^n)

7K (comp. Ps. 89 (90). 10 where

was read

or else he read V and simply interpreted bv to

'

mean

'over and beyond

Prov. 18. 21

{super mortem).
1:3) nni ni^ to

(liK'^

which Lev.
D/"'py

r. c.

33.

remarks

fS'DJD

0^"^ jxao niD |n''3iD niuv^o

Dinn.

The

Greek

is

generally accepted to be ixvarpov and fxaxaipiov

knife.

spoon and

The

former does not occur anywhere


PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA
else in a,

REIDER

361

and

for that

matter

in all
PI'k'
'

the Greek versions,

Field

while ixayaipa
naturally

is

used once for

this

in Prov. 23. 2.

styles

rendering
it

altogether

absurd
in

and

ridiculous',

nevertheless

may

have a basis

some
is

midrashic interpretation according to which spoon

the

symbol of
Esther

life i.

and knife the symbol of death.

ribarii dq"13
r.,

"m was rendered by

pJn''''N

a, according

to Midr. Est.
vaKivOivov.

Ji:>^U

pyODip

aipivov Kap-nda-LVOV

With
of
is

reference to the
lin

first it is
"I^IN

not impossible
;

that

confused
E^^n

with
K'''N

"IIK

arip

comp.

his

confusion
possibility

with
is

mentioned

above.

Another

that this

simply another case of translating

of similar sound
;

a rare

Hebrew word by a Greek one

it

although

denotes something altogether different

23. 40.

comp.

above to Lev.
buck,
I,

Levy

{Neiihebr. u. Chald. Worterp.

71 a)

and Jastrow {Dictionary,

47 b) take

it

to

be

dpivtov =

woollen, but
it

Anger on the

basis of citations from

to Kaptiaaivov,
it is

Jerome proved

to be aipivov.
in a

As

hapaxlegomenon
a transliteration
it

as well as in the Septuagint.

As
n^an

lends
also

some

force to the view expressed

vaKivOos
is

above that

"iin

is

transliterated.

for

occurs four times in a, though vaKivdivov

limited to the

Septuagint and Theodotion.

Dan.

5.

5 Nri^l33

h'^\h^

is

said p.

Yoma

3, 8 fol.

41 a to

have been rendered by a

Rossi DnD07.

D"iai' b2\h,

or better with

De

This clearly leads to KarivavTi t^? Xajntdbos

6'.

which

is

also the readinsf of

VOL. viL

B b

362

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

APPENDIX
3

IV
1-20

Kings

14.

The

continuous Hexaplar text of 3 Kings (chap. 14,

vers. 1-20)

which the Syro-Hex. puts suh

it

asterisco

and a

scholion at the end of

Aquila,^^^

claims to
all

come from

the version of

though bearing

the traces of Aquila's manner-

isms and slavishness to the

letter,

does not prove a pure text.

Having

in

view the well-attested and well-proved adherence

consonants of the Masoretic text,
it

of Aquila to the
is

sufficient to

quote the consonantal disparities and

dis-

crepancies in order to prove the point in question

ver. 2 NJ remains untranslated. ver. 3 Q'lip?) on^
Ty]v
n'lK'j?

-jTa T\n^\ is

rendered

Ka\.

XdiSe

ds

X^^P^ ^^^

'"^

o.vOpun:<^ tov deov aprovs koi

(rTa(f)ibas
;

KoXkvpta Tois

T^KVOLS avTov

Kol

while the equivalent of mtJ'y

might have

fallen

out through neglect of the scribe, the two

successive increments in the

Greek

(first

rw

avOpcLirio tov 6eov

Cnpxn

V^it,

PK,

and then

tois t^kvois avTov koI aTacpibas

is

U''\>^'4)

vnp) constitute a gross departure which

character-

istic
^^2

of

but not of a.^^^

Bibliothecae Syriacae, pp. 208
f.

Comp. Lagarde,

The scholion on the

]jLul^oo
\jO)

margin reads as follows:

.^a.^(

^*3a<L^

<S(9

jLOCuo&d

OCX ^"tf Got

JXd!^/
wOto]^(

.^'^^^(t

i-at-m.'io

]Jcu9(

^_^ U^Ju^ ws^do \^\t^

^9
yLKColXl
.^

^t
^'3 It is

.|l(XoI

Odi

wO<0>^..

>^ T\ tk} j

not impossible that a wrote Koi KoWvpia for

D''*li53^

(comp. Exod
ical

89. 2, 23;

Lev.

2.

4 and

8. 26,

where n?n

noWvpa), and that

arafiSoi

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

ver.
Ibelv,

REIDER

363

4
if

niNnfj

by-i6

injnxi koI 6 avOpcoiros Trpea-jSvTepos rod

fpT

as

we had

niNio

onNni.
roJ

ver. 5 '"'^^? ""'^^^ '^C'^ eyet-eTo ey corresponding to nN32 "riM. ver. 1 6

Kat
8coo-et

d(r4px(r6aL

avTr]v,

Kvpios,

while the

Hebrew
implying

text

has

only W\].
ver. 17

nK3

N\'i

Kal cyeveTo w? da-rjKOev,

ver. 17
is

"l^'^a ""n^l.

Moreover, nmnn in while we should expect

locale.^2*

rendered ds
it

rriv

I,api.pd,

a to render

by

Oepa-dbe, -8e for

On
of
it

the other hand, there can be no doubt that the bulk derived from our translator.
in

is

The

characteristics

exhibited

the two other continuous texts of Kings,

discovered at Cairo and published

manifest here.
in

by

Burkitt, are quite

Thus

it

was established by Burkitt ^^^ that

Aquila ns with the

while
riN*

article is translated
is

by

aw

with the

article,

without the article

represented
:

by the
ver. 8

Greek

article only.

This

is

borne out by our text

nDprDDriTiS
^(i>vi]v

=
:

a-vv to

jSaa-iXeLov,

and

ver. 6

n\^n

^^P"ni?

t^^v

TToboov avTTJs.

Noticc further such literalisms as the

''^JiNi

following
"'IP'^^fy^l
-\K'^{

ver. 6 rvo^

=
1

kuI

eyw

dp.L aTToarokos
;

ver. 9

^^^1

nal

iTtopevOrjs
;

Koi kTtoir](ras (reavr!^

ver.

15

ly:

dv6' ov oaov

ver.

8 'I'l^y-Ta

'\2'^

ib'k

s k\dXr](T(v

ev

X^V' bovXov avTOv.

We
text
is

must therefore arrive

eclectic,

at the conclusion that this

Aquila being used as a substratum, while

portions of another text were

made

to

assimilate to

it.

represents C5's rendering for the same word, which

was

either read D"'p13yi

or else taken to
^^*

mean

the

same as
i,

this

word.

Comp. above, chap,

12.
to the translation

"B Fragments of the Books of Kings according

p. 12.

of Aquila,

B b 2

364

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

this other text

That

was the Septuagint

is

shown conin

clusively

by Burkitt who compares the increments

in

the

Hexaplar text as given

wife
1 2, ver. 24,^^^

A with
it

the story of Jeroboam's

and Ahijah the prophet as

appears
is

in B, at the

end

of chap.

proving that there

a striking agree-

ment between the two.

passages as
'

He
And

therefore characterizes these

'

^" rather adaptations than actual quotations

*

and concludes thus:

so

we must regard

Regn
That

XIV, 1-20

as read in

A not as a mere

extract from Aquila,

but as Origen's rewriting of 3 Regn. XII, 24 g-n.

Aquila was the source from which Origen here drew cannot
of course be doubted
1'6

'.^^^

It

should be remembered that the Hexaplar text, which appears in

in

its

proper place

A,

is

wanting

in

but,

on the other hand, the same

narrative, though in a different form,

is

found in

after 12. 24 (ver. 24 a-z)

and missing
13^

in

at that place.

The verses

12.

24 g-n in

correspond

to 14. 1-20 in A.
/.

c, p. 12.

^^^ I.

c, p. 34.

PROLEGOMENA TO AN INDEX TO AQUILA

REIDER

365

ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS

p.

10,

n.

25.

Van
vett.

Driesche was the

first

to collect
in

Hexaplaric fi-agments to the Book of Psalms

his

In

Psalmos Davidis

interprehun qitae extant fraginenta,

first

Antv. Plantin., 1581 (quoted

Nestle, very rare).
p.

by Lagarde and then

6hbv

by-

20,

n.

46.
o-'

Dnnxn
S
ID,
:

y^l
;

rwy

KaTaa-KoiTCOv

is

supported by
r.

XT

Sam.

comp., furthermore, Midr.

to

Num.

19. 11

']'-\in

riN

nrh inty b)i:n TTin onns'n

^?1?)

im.

p. 32, below.

Add

Isa. S3- 7

6pa6i]crofjLaL avroty,

implying {nnb =) nb
p. ^s.

X"}X.

As

a striking instance of genit. ^ should be

!]2>op

noted, Job l8. 14 ninpa

p. 69.

= tov
ds

y3ao-tAecos avvTTap^ia.

Add

Jer. 50 (27). 11 x^o^'

""Vf '?^

= NB'T

inst.

of

NB''i,

so

ID

Ezek. 16. 4
Jer.

aoiTrjptav,

hence

V^''^)>

or

TV^? (comp.
concr.).
p. 70, p. 71

14. 8

where

yE'io

o-wTTjpia, abstr.

pro

end of

29.

Comp. also above,

13. 5
<|)o'/3os

11.
(for nnio), like-

f. Add Jud.

=
i
;

N")i

wise in
inst.

Kings

i.

11

Ps. 28 (29).

Kpicav

points to
10. s;^

D^^'^x

of Dv^, so a number of

MSS.

Isa.

Kcpdixtov

(vessel or vase) impl. nniss for

IxvXXiov,

i"i"JKS,

comp.

63. ^ nn^B

Kepa-

supported by

many MSS.
Jer. 8. 18
ctt'

p. 79,

above. Add
elvai
v/Spis

Ml

^3^ 'bv

|i3^,

\i'S?

W3^!)np

8ia

TO

ju.?/

ejue

77

Kapbia p-ov obvvqpd (Field

p*<J)

Auctarium), which
n
^??,

may

correspond to /?y (or

73)0.

nx3

739

comp.

(5

dviara

= nna

Against
:

this the

Syro-

Hex.

ascribes to a

the following

^^x

-^ )l<x-.^


366

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

wJii:!*^

)uo? wJii-? ^=i^

Ujo

all

in

keeping with the conso-

nants, though not the vowels

and interpunction of

MT

while crediting the irregular reading to 6\

In connexion

with the latter

tion
bv

it

is

interesting to note a midrashic exposi-

(Pethihta to
'ab

Lam.
^n^a

r.,

32):
^n'-t^y

r:\n
ta^yoi

^bo
nivD

P^n^J^bo ino

^n

^bv 3"syNi

Ti^n

wpb mina

CRITICISMS OF
Randbe7ne7-kungen

SOMBART
Von M. Steckelpp. 63.

zu

Werner

Sombart.

MACHER.

Berlin: G. Siimion, 1912.

'

Judeiitum taid Attfdnge der moderneii

Kolonisation \
:

mann Watjen,
1914.
pp. 72.
all,

Berlin

und

Stuttgart

Von HerW. Kohlhammer,

After
Professor
series

truth

is

great

and

will prevail.

few years ago

Werner Sombart

startled the housetops

by an ingenious

of paradoxes intended to prove that the Jews were the

latter subject the

founders of modern capitalism, on which

fessor

Pro-

had written two bulky tomes.

He

was not content with

heaping up minute references to Jews as business

men

in all

quarters of the globe during the last couple of hundred years.

But, having by this means established^ to his

own

satisfaction,

the fact that Jews were the founders of the modern system of
business founded on credit and aiming solely at profits by any

means, he

also, with true

German

thoroughness, tried to prove that

all

the nature of the

Jew had been, from

times, such that he

was

predestined, by his race and by his religion, to create

capitalism.

modern
attracted
to

The

paradoxicality of both these theses

great attention and, in particular, Jews did not

be more proud of the claims to originating

know whether modern capitalism

or

more incensed
power of
But

at the

motives to which Sombart attributed this

initiative.

in putting forward these ingenious views, with a wealth

first sight,

of citation, which, at

might seem conclusive. Professor

life,

Sombart ran

his

head against a tendency of modern

it

which

is

equally characteristic of

as capitalism

itself.

You cannot make

liable

any assertions about the past without rendering yourself

1

These reviews, designed for

tlie

Quarterly, were found among the

papers of the late Dr. Jacobs.

[Editor.]

368
to criticism

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

by
specialists
it

who, to say the

least,

are likely to

know

as

much about

as yourself.

This nemesis, so desirable in the

Professor Sombart in several

interests of truth,

has overtaken

reviews which have pointed out

spective are his

how

seriously lacking in per-

economic

facts or history,

and how erroneous are

post-biblical

the interpretations he puts

upon the passages from

relies to

Jewish literature on which he

that the
in their

prove his main contention

at heart,

Jews

are,

and have always been, hucksters

even

relations to the unseen world.

Two

books, or rather

pamphlets, have appeared which press

the

home

these criticisms

upon

two main

lines

of

Sombart's ingenious but unconvincing

theories.

We may

take the

more concrete

topic

first,

on which indeed

Professor Sombart might have been expected to be least Hable to

adverse criticism.

professor of economics ought to

is

know

his

economic
that has
all

history,

and there

no doubt

that in detail Professor

Sombart has control of the very large

literature

on

this subject this

grown up within the

last thirty years.

But

makes

it

the

more inexcusable

for

him

to

have exaggerated the role

of Jews in transforming

the

older economic system of barter

and customary prices to the later one of credit and competition.

One

of the

forces

leading

to this

change was the growth of

capital

colonial trade,

which required both

and

credit,

and from
that the

the nature of the case was likely to be influenced mainly by

competition rather than by custom.

Sombart contends

Jews had not alone a

distinctive

but a decisive role in the

development of colonial commerce.

Yet Mr. Waetjen proves,

this

by inexpugnable

facts, that

Sombart's statements in

regard

are exaggerated to the th degree.

Sombart's

statement

that

the

Dutch

As one example, he takes East-India Company,

without the

money
role,

of the Jews,

could not have played such

an important

and that Dutch commerce of the seven-

teenth century was in fact founded by the Marranos.

To

this

Waetjen gives two

in that period

replies.

In the

first

place

Dutch commerce
and

was based not upon the trade to the Far East but
Baltic

upon the nearer

trade

and the herring

fisheries,

CRITICISMS OF
secondly,

SOMBART

JACOBS

369
in

when

the

Dutch East-India Company was founded

trace

1602, out of six and a half million of florins subscribed to the

Company, one could only

Jewess.
five

4,800 florins to a Jew and a

florins

Next year saw another 1,200

added, and in 1604

new Jewish names

22,000

are attached to subscriptions,

amounting
sub-

to about

florins.

But counting

all

these Jewish

scriptions together,
florins,

they do not amount to more than 28,000

i

or not quite one-twentieth of

list.

per cent, of the whole

subscription

So, too, with regard to the

in

Dutch ^Vest-India
7

Company, established
out of which eighteen
the

162 1; the total capital was

millions,

Amsterdam Jews held 26,000

'

florins,

about

same minute

fraction as in the case of the Eastern

company.

In neither company was there ever a Jewish

or director, even though at the

Bewindhebber *,

commencement
its

of the eighteenth
I.

century the Jews held one quarter of the stock of the O.

C,

(Oost-Indie-Compagnie), which then began

superior energies of 'Jack

decline owing to the

Company' (the East India Company) Here again Jews had no share or influence in the East-India
which, as aliens or quasi aliens, they were originally

Company from
in

kept aloof (Cunningham, Groivth of English Trade and Industry

Modern Tunes
It
is

i.

327).

scarcely

necessary

to

insist

upon

the

exaggerated

character of Sombart's claims with regard to the part taken by

Jews

in the West-India trade.

It is true that their

share in the

sugar trade was considerable, and at

Surinam they did hold

easily

a predominant position.

But rum and timber

outweighed

sugar in European markets, and Surinam was not the only, nor the
largest,

pebble on the colonial beach.

all

In

these cases Sombart

is

only endorsing, and perhaps

investigators
(ix.
;

emphasizing, claims already

Graetz, with regard to the

made by Jewish

e. g.

Dutch East-India Company

to the

518),

Lucien Wolf with regard to the English East-India Company;

and Mr. Kohler and Mr. Hiihner with regard

So, too, in laying emphasis
in transferring the

West

India.

upon the

activities of the

Marranos

hegemony of
is

trade from Spain to Holland

I

and

England, Sombart

only reiterating what

myself said in the

370
article

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

'Commerce'
to quote. in \he.

Jewish Encyclopedia, which he

is

is

good

enough

But Professor Sombart

evidently acquainted
history,

with the whole literature of

modern economic
men,
in

and ought,

therefore, to see the Jewish part,

which was naturally considerable,

since they were mainly commercial

due but not exaggerated

proportion.

Mr. Waetjen's pamphlet proves that he has been

unimportant points.
is

unscientifically eager to press

Where

a professor of economics

so lax and unscientific with

regard to his economic history, one could scarcely expect him to

be more trustworthy with regard to theologic and phychologic

facts

and

theories.

It
is

is

not, therefore, surprising to find that

Dr. Steckelmacher

easily able to

convict Sombart of

many

elementary blunders in making his assertions about the capitalistic

tendencies of the Jewish religion.

Those who know merely the

elements of Jewish learning are aware

how dangerous
how

it is

to

make

any wide statements about the Jewish attitude towards any ethical
or theological problem,

and

in particular

often one has to

is

take into account the circumstances under which an utterance

made which

involves a knowledge of the speaker

and

his times.

Dr. Steckelmacher again and again convicts Professor Sombart of

failing in these

elementary acquirements for understanding Jewish

is

ethics.

He

even shows that he

equally misleading with regard

Jer. 7. 22.

to his quotations

from the Bible, as Prov. 28. 14; or

in

But

it

was obvious to even those unlearned

wilfully

Jewish lore that

Sombart was

one-sided
treatises,

in

his

quotations which

were

mainly from Talmudic

and

left

out of account such

simple and obvious sources as the Jewish Prayer Book, which

would have

at

once convicted him of one-sidedness

life is

in asserting

that the Jewish inner

siderations.

solely motivated

by business confair

He would
is,

scarcely

consider

it

to

judge of

Christian morality
luris

and idealism by quotations from the Corpus

all,

which

after

in

its

last

redaction,

Christian

document.
Dr. Steckelmacher
for
is

even more effective

in

rebuking Sombart

his strange reference of all

Jewish characteristics to their

it,

original

nomadism

or, as

he

calls

Saharism, or the influence of

CRITICISMS OF SOMBART
the original wanderings in

JACOBS
The
truth
is

371

the desert on their character (how

in all sorts of
!)

Renan's fantasies crop up

literature

unexpected ways in

all

having an anti-Semitic tinge

that, so far

as Jews

show any tendency towards commercial

to the fact that they

life,

this

has

been due simply

that

were practically confined to

mode

of livelihood from the time of Christianity to the

After
all,

break-up of the craft guilds.

if

you trace back any

race whatever, you would get at last to a

if it

nomad

stage which,

has

left

us

many

psychologic traces in the case of Jews,

in the case of
'

ought to be equally efficacious

any nation who are

now

trying to force their

'

culture

upon the

rest of the world.

all his

It is

unnecessary to follow Dr. Steckelmacher through

annotations on Sombart's views about Judaism.

notoriety the

But

for

the

book has acquired,

it

would scarcely be necessary

to regard such obviously superficial views as worthy of refutation

or even notice.

One

point

may however be
in

referred to as bringing

out an

interesting
in trying to
'

development

Jewish

economic
first

theory.

Sombart,
'

prove that the Jews were the

to use the

impersonal

acknowledgement of indebtedness, makes a great

of the Polish Jews, which
is

deal of the

Mamram

practically a bill

of exchange which passes from hand to hand without reference to

the original debtor and creditor.
Jewish,

Sombart took

this as peculiarly

and

as therefore proving Jewish initiative in establishing

bills

the use of
that
it

of exchange, but Dr. Steckelmacher points out

legal practice,

was derived from Polish

is

and

that the very

name
that
all

a modification of the Polish legal term Membrana, and

each

Mamram

contains

the

clause,

'This

bill

shall

have

the rights of the

bills

of exchange which are usual in the royal

courts \

Altogether both Mr, Waetjen and Dr. Steckelmacher have

proved to the

hilt that

Sombart's views as to the influence of

to the inner spirit of the Jewish

Jews on colonial expansion and as

religion are
superficial

not only prejudiced and

one-sided, but

are

very

and based on an inadequate study of the sources.

Joseph Jacobs

VERNES'S 'SINAI
Sinai contre Kades.
et
les

AND KADESH'
Israelite

Les grands sanctuaires de I'Exode

routes

du

desert.^

Par
gr.

Maurice Vernes.
80 (chez
in

Paris,

Imprimerie Nationale, 1915,

Leroux,

pp. 132).

America occupied
which have
just

the

first

place

a series

of lectures

delivered at the Ecole pratique des Hautes-litudes of the Sorbonne,

appeared in the Annual

for the scholastic year

1915-16, pubHshed in the section dealing with the science of

religions.

Professor

J.

Raynaud, who holds the chair of Religions

of America before Columbus, devoted one of his weekly lectures

to the Civil

and Religious History of Central America preceding

chiefly according to native

Columbus,

documents

in the

second

course he will decipher the hieratic and hieroglyphic writings of

the

same
on

region.

Maurice Vernes

is

at present

studying the

origins of the religion of Israel^

thesis
logical
this subject
;

and

investigating the latest hypowill give a philo-

in the

second course he

exegesis of Canticles.

Rabbi
is

Israel

Levi, Professor of

Talmudic and Rabbinic Judaism,

now expounding

the rabbinic

Commentaries on the Psalms and the Sefer ha Yashar.

Passing

over the other courses on the history of religions, which do not

form part of the present group,

it

will suffice to

note that

six

of

the courses, the professors of which are with the colours, cannot

be given because of the war.

For the same reason many of the

Jewish publications have been compelled to suspend.

In the work

to

which

this

notice

is

devoted the learned

director of studies

on the

religions of Israel

and the western

Semites, president of the section on religious sciences, gives a

long archaeological and geographical study, with a plea for the

ancient Sinai against her young and brilliant
1

rival,

Kadesh, in the

The map attached by

the author

is

of great importance.

373

374

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

This portion merits special
author usually denies the

extreme south of the land of Canaan,

attention
all

the more, because the

antiquity of the Biblical books/ while here he clearly takes a view

in favour of tradition.

In the

first

place

it is

well to

examine the

Sinaitic peninsula,

in particular its situation

on the

line of transit

between Egypt and

Palestine, before attempting even mentally to traverse the penin-

sula from west to east.

We

must choose one of the two following

routes

either the northern, which goes north-east along the coast

Red
Sea,

of the Mediterranean, or the southern, which, entering the wilder-

ness of Sinai, passes to the south along the shore of the

then leaves on the north the desert of Paran, to-day called El-Tih^
the desert of the wandering.

In the presence of

this inevitable

dilemma, one must make a decision to go by one route or the

other.

We

get a

good idea of

it

from the
(p.

map
3)
:

of Sinai briefly
it

sketched from

the

book of M. Vernes

leads from

Mts. Serbal and Sinai, bounded on the south by the

Red

Sea,

up
the

to the Mediterranean on the north, including Jerusalem in the

north-east.

It

indicates,

in

approximately large features,

position of the routes suitable for

communication between Egypt

and Asia
of

at the

time of Moses.
;

The most
monks

recent critics reject the traditional location

position attributed

some

them accept the imaginary

by Christian
because they
site

of the fourth century of the

common

era,

claim as the scene of the giving of the Decalogue the

of the

convent erected in honour of

built at the foot of

St.

Catherine, whose church was

Djebel

the contemporary historians

exodus of Israel in the

Musa (Mountain of Moses). Among who have treated this question of the desert the youngest is an officer, Raymond
whose competency
is

Weill, captain in the Engineers,

not doubted,

but whose theories

2

will

bear discussion.'
by
this author, Pricis
bibli-

This opinion

is

set forth positively in other woriis

iVhistoire juive (1889), Rt'snllats de Vcxegise

fjiies

biblique (1890), Essais

(1892),

and many other works.

:

He

has dealt with this subject several times

first in

the thesis which

he upheld with great success before the Faculte des Lettres of Paris under

VERNES

'

SINAI

AND KADESH
stress

'

SCHWAB
laid

375
fact

According to M. Weill great

must be

upon the

that the identification of Sinai with the point of the peninsula

which has taken and kept the name Sinaitic coincides with the
arrival of the

monks, and had never occurred to any reader of

the Bible.

Nevertheless

M.

Weill

falls in

with that view

what

a paradox

Renan,

in spite of all his scepticism, in

was not so revolutionary.

the Mosaic tradition as
;

He

held, at least

most

points,

to

regards the principal stations during the exodus

without rejecting

the terms of the Pentateuch he believed in the essential role that

Sinai plays in the journeyings
'

of the

Hebrews
',

in
'

the desert.
it is

Of all

these stories concerning the exodus

he

says,*

possible

that the error

was made

in preserving

merely

the fact itself of the

departure from Egypt and the entrance into the peninsula of

Sinai.

... By

continuing

its

route directly toward the south,

It

Israel

would have found only death.

turned towards

the

south-east, almost following the sea, or rather the ancient route

which the Egyptians had traced

in order to exploit the

^
:

copper

mines of

Sinai.'

The

writer
all

adds further

The

criticism

which

considers as legendary
Sinai,

these stories relative to

Horeb and

can hardly attach any value to the topographical researches

that have

been made

to localize the Biblical scene

'.

After pointing out this opinion, which follows that of

Eduard

Reuss,

M. Vernes

presents
J.

in

turn

(pp. in

10-16)
the

the adverse

opinions proposed by
Geschichte Israels,

Wellhausen

Prolegomena zur
Kultur-

by A. von Gall

in his Israelitische

stdtten (Giessen, 1898),

by Hermann Guthe, Geschichte

des Volkes

Israel (Tiibingen, 1914).

it

AH

their

arguments notwithstanding,

is

unnecessary to renounce the view adopted up to the present.

duality of routes which led from the land of

The
the

Canaan

to

title

'

La

Presqu'ile du Sinai

fitude de geographic at d'histoire (Paris,

1908), then in a very well- developed paper

which the Revue

des Etudes Juives

published (1909), LVII, 19-54, 194-238; LVIII, 23-59. Ql. Journal Asiatique,
1909,
*
t.

I,

295-300.

Histoire

du

petiple disrael,

t.

(1887), pp. 161, 165, 195, note

cf.

II, p. 36.

376
Egypt
is

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

not doubtful.

We
;

do not know,

it is

true,

what course
patriarchs,

was followed

in this direction

by each of the three

Abraham,
17-18)
left
is

Isaac,

and Jacob
;

but the famous text of Exodus (13.

explicit

it

furnishes the reason

why

Israel, led

by Moses,

Egypt by the road of the desert along the coast of the

Red

Sea in preference to the road on the north, although the latter The people was the shorter and more practical of the two. must not change their minds, says the Bible, on seeinff war and
return to Egypt
;

that

is

why God made

the people take a round-

about way by the route of the desert of the sea of Suf (Red Sea) Let us lay stress upon a single one of the or sea of rushes.

arguments presented by our author in favour of his thesis

it

is

an argument upon the reading of a word which

insignificant, but

at

first

seems

which upon consideration becomes weighty and

of force.

longitudinal plan which accompanies the

in

work of our author

contains the places

dispute.^

It

is

an extract of the Table

romaine of Peutinger, edited by T. Ernest Desjardins (1872, infolio),

which has been reduced to about two-thirds.

of

It

is

question
ancient
the

determining an

intermediate

point

between the
proceed by

Klysma
to

to-day Suezand
Kadesh,
latter

Paran

in order to

south

in

accordance with

the geography of

Ptolemy.
in vain

The

mentions Munychiatis, which was sought

upon the

aforesaid Table.

On
off,

this

map one

mutilated

word, with an
deta,

initial syllable

cut

had been erroneously read meet the

and then completed

reading

to read \J\fe]deia, so as to

requirements of the opposite thesis; while M. Vernes, adopting

the
ocia,

completes

it

as

\_Me7t]ocia

= Munychiatis,
of M.,Georges

because he bases his argument upon the actual name Makuan,

in the south, as
it

is

represented upon the

'

map

Bdn^dite in the Guide Joanne,

12)
;

Syrie et Palestine' (Paris, 1891,

but

we know

that the original of the

Table of Peutinger
it

is

preserved at the Imperial Library of Vienna, and

that, in spite

is

fortunate

of the obstacles in communication at the present

'

Name

of an Arabic locality of Sinai', according to M. Clement Huart.

VERNES'S
time,

'

SINAI

AND KADESH

'

SCHWAB

377

our author has obtained the verification of the word in

doubt, thanks to the plenipotentiary minister of the Swiss Confederation at Paris,

who mediated
it

with the Swiss

Embassy

at
in

Vienna, and was able to ascertain that the geographical

question
It results
is

name

written as

was formerly recognized and published.

from

this identification that the

Romans

also followed

the south of the peninsula or the

Red

Sea, not the north or the

Mediterranean, in order to go to Asia.

We

shall not follow

any further our exegete

in his comparative

study of the days of the route as they have been indicated in the

Pentateuch, particularly in Numbers.

It

would likewise take too

(p.

long to discuss his opinion, which

'

is

expressed

89) as follows
in

The

Israelites,

from the time that they were settled

Canaan,
of their

never had

occasion to introduce Sinai in

;

the circle

religious thought

Sinai always survived in their minds'.

:

Let

us,

therefore, adhere to this conclusion of the author

is lost

'

Sinai-Horeb

in the mist, but

it

is

at the
it

same time

glorified with

an

incomparable splendour.
it

What

has lost in historical exactness

has

regained in
it

the

opulence of the teachings which are

attached to

the wonderful Decalogue.

though shaken
rests

Restored by the most

at its foundation, the

rigid criticism,

for a

moment

mountain of Moses

upon one of the highest summits upon

its

which humanity fastens

eyes

'.

MoiSE Schwab.
Paris, National Library.

VOL.

VII.

C C

YAHUDA'S EDITION OF BAHYA'S 'DUTIES OF THE HEART'

Al-Hidaja
''ild

Fanfid al-Qulub

des

Bachja Ibn Josef Ibn Paquda

aus Andalusien im arabischen Urtext

zum
S.

ersten

Male nach

der Oxforder und Pariser Handschrift sowie den Petersburger

Fragmenten herausgegeben von Dr. A.

handlung und Druckerei vormals E.
pp. xviii+ ii3
J.

Yahuda.

Buch

Brill.

Leiden, 1912.

+ i=.v

(text).

Bahya

b.

Joseph Ibn Pakuda

is

not to be counted

among

the Judaeo-Arabic philosophers of the classic period (900-1200).

His Arabic work under the

title

given above^ the only one through

which he became known to

posterity,

does not represent any

system of philosophy, as do the speculative writings of Saadia, Ibn

Gabirol, Ibn Daud,

and Maimonides.

It is

only the

first

chapter

of the work,

which, dealing with the question of God's unity,

gives the whole a philosophic aspect.

is

But even here the author

not actuated by the desire of solving for the reader a philosophic

problem, but merely follows a custom

common among Moham-

medan

theologians of opening their books with a chapter on God,

emphasizing His unity and uniqueness, and proving these by

arguments borrowed from the works of the philosophers.

chapter on Unity
is,

Bahya's

indeed, only a restatement of theories taken

from Saadia's Kiidb al-Amdndt,

whom

he mentions several times

and whose views he

his source.

often utilizes without explicitly referring to

(p. 25,
1.

In the Introduction

15

ff.)
'

Bahya himself
deep problems

declares that he does not propose to deal with

(iij^Jl

^UaU)

the solution of which would be difficult in a work

in the

like his'.

Elsewhere
his

work
of

(p. 191,
all
its

1.

19; 361,

1.

8)

he

even expresses

disapproval

speculative
origin

attempts to
final

penetrate the secrets of existence,

and

goal

problems whose solution, he

says,

is

beyond the power of human

C c 2

379

380

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

What he
shall

understanding.

intends

is

to furnish

to

the reader
all

a work which

serve
his

him

as a

methodical guide in
his

questions pertaining to
relation to

moral conscience and

inward

God.

To

achieve this purpose he does not confine

himself to the quotation and interpretation of the material found

in Jewish sources, but

makes extensive use of

his vast

knowledge

of the literature of the Arabs, from which he quotes a large

number

of fine sayings, anecdotes^ and philosophic sentences, each one

conveying some moral lesson of high value.

not direct himself to the
enlighten

In

brief,

Bahya does

mind

of the reader, he does not try to

him on

intricate metaphysical problems, but wishes to

stir his

touch his heart, to

sentiments,
life.

and

to elevate his soul to the

realm of a higher contemplative

To

edit a

work

like the

Hiddya and
its

to give to the reader a

it is

proper analysis and appreciation of

that the editor possess a

contents,

not sufficient

knowledge of the Arabic idiom and be

In the entire branch of Judaeo-Arabic

conversant with the rabbinical literature upon which the author

has so frequently drawn.

literature

there

is

hardly any other work of equal importance

that

is

so thoroughly

Mohammedan
spirit
it

in style

and diction and so

as
is

completely permeated by the

ethical

of

Muslim theology

this

work of Bahya.

Were

not for the numerous quotations

from Bible and Talmud, the work might reasonably be taken as

the product of

some Arabic

moralist, like Gazzali

and

others.

proper understanding of Bahya's

requires

Ethics,

therefore,

necessarily

the

most intimate

knowledge of the

classic

Arabic
{litierae

literature in its various branches, as the so-called

Adab
Sufi

humantores)- ,

Kalam

(doctrinal

theology)-,

Zuhd
and

(asceticism)-,

and

especially the wide Hadit (traditions)-

(mystic)-

literature.

This being the case, we must consider

our work came into the hands of an editor

it

good fortune

that

who

better than any

one of the younger European Arabists

described.

satisfies

the requirements just

Born and brought up

in the

Orient (Bagdad), with Arabic

literature

as his native tongue

as the

and ancient Hebrew and Muslim

his education, later

main sources of

broadened by studies

at

BAHYa's 'DUTIES OF THE HEART

European
universities,

'

MALTER

381

Dr.

Yahuda was
Already

exceptionally fitted for

in

the edition of Bahya's

work.

1904 he published

Prolegomena zu einer

erstffialigen

Herausgabe des Kitdb al-hiddja Hla

fard'id al-quliib, in which he treated exhaustively of the history

and importance of the

relation to

text,

the peculiarities of the MSS., their

one another,

etc.,

promising to take up some other

aspects of the work in connexion with the future edition.

In the
his

work

that

is

promise.

now before The Arabic

us. Dr.
text,

Yahuda more than makes good

to

which Bahya's famous Hebrew

is

Exhortation (nriDin) and Supplication (nc'p3) are added,

based

upon two complete MSS. (Oxford and

in the St.

Paris)

and

several fragments

Petersburg Imperial Library,

all

written in

Hebrew
modern

characters,
as

which Yahuda has

(p. 17), to

transliterated into Arabic, in order,

he says

make

the work accessible also to

IMohammedan

scholars of the Orient.

Transliterations from one

script into another are usually the cause of mistakes,

no matter

how

carefully done.

This
the

is

due

to the circumstance that the

scribes,

who copied

MSS.

either for themselves or for others,

in

employed the Hebrew alphabet

such a manner as to reproduce

the sound of the Arabic words in the pronunciation to which they

were accustomed; and, while on the whole a certain regularity was

generally observed, there
arbitrary
is

still

enough

left

that

is

more

or less

and requires

special

knowledge (comp. Yahuda's detailed

discussion of this matter in the afore-mentioned Prolegomena, 23 ff.).

Indeed, as an English
Asiatic Society, 1914,

critic
p.

has pointed out (^Journal of the Royal

ff.),

105

even Yahuda with

his

mastery of

Arabic did not entirely escape the traps laid by the scribes.
of the mistakes, however, are of
partly to misprints
(p.
little

Most

significance,

being due

and

partly to the fact

mentioned by the editor

authors very

16, n.

i) that

Jewish as well as
in

Mohammedan

often

showed carelessness

grammar and orthography and

sometimes even in the construction of sentences, the correction

of which
Dr.
is

not within the province of the editor.

also

Yahuda
In the

had another

difficulty to

cope with, namely,

widely different
in part

that in very
texts.

numerous places the MSS.

first

offer

chapter of the work

we have

two

382

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The
editor's

entirely different recensions.

assumption (pp. 14-15)

is

that

the recension

represented by the Paris IMS.

copyists
will, in spite

the work

of later readers

and

of the plausible argu-

ments adduced
of scholars.

in favour of this view, hardly gain the approval

is

Bahya

no doubt the author of both

versions.

Such double

texts are not a rare occurrence in

Arabic literature
in

(comp. Goldziher,
cases
attributable
in

ZDMG., LXVII,
to

530),

and they are

most
ex-

the

authors

themselves.
is

classic

ample

Judaeo-Arabic literature

the

seventh

chapter of

Saadia's Kitdl? al-Amdndt, which exists in

two

totally different

versions (see Bacher in the Steinschneider-Tr^/^r/ir//?, pp. 219-26).

In Bahya's work as well as

in

the

Amdndt even

the

minor

differences between the existing MSS., as they occur throughout

the respective works, are

copyists, but in

not

merely variants caused

by the

most instances go back to changes made by

may, the main distinction of Yahuda's edition
his

the authors themselves.

Be
is

that as

it

not

so

much

treatment

of

the

text

as

his

excellent

introduction to the work.

It consists of three

main chapters,
first

each one subdivided into several

(pp.

sections.

The

chapter

1-18)

is

devoted to a minute description of the MSS. and

of the
edition.

other
of the

technicalities

thorough examination
of Judah Ibn Tibbon's

method and the

scientific value

Hebrew
of

translation of Bahya's

work occupies the second chapter

19-52).

Yahuda's

introduction

(pp..

Numerous
into

passages

throughout that translation are pointed out as inadequate renderings

of the original

and are replaced by

translations

Hebrew
43-

suggested by the editor.

On

several occasions (see pp. 35,

47) considerable portions of the text are thus retranslated into

Hebrew
as

or omissions by

Ibn Tibbon

restored.

It

should' here be

stated that

some

of Yahuda's substitutions will not be accepted

an improvement upon Ibn Tibbon.

(p.
1.

Thus

for
;

example onJ^JND

D'JiVn
1'.

34)
:

is

not equivalent to o-jaU jy^

il^H
^.-^'y

read D^T

D^DND

44,

The Arabic
is

people of low desires, cares

or ambitions,
(see Abot,

fairly well

rendered by Ibn Tibbon's npSC DL"Q3

is

V,

19),

while Yahuda's n^Q^' IHDVy

unintelligible.

BAHYA's

'

DUTIES OF THE HEART

literal

'

MALTER

383

Ibn Tibbon's Dnu!? may not be a

leisure,
literal

translation of *4cl^, otium,

but

it

certainly expresses
(p. 44,

Bahya's idea better than the

1.

niipn of the editor

5).

1:00 p^DDD2

panoon

is

a slavish
nDB' n>

but more correct translation of 'v^idLl)

^O (p. 45,
1.

ajUJI than

JtoK'

3)

noun

i^

does not' exist.

{ibid.,
:

That
quite

Ibn Tibbon put imx "aiyn

for [^

^^"^

n.

8)

is

improbable and the reading of the editions

correct,

~i3iyn

seems to be

meaning he who
is

in enjoying worldly

goods goes beyond

This meaning,

that

which

necessary for the sustenance of

is

life.

like that

supposed by Yahuda,

not warranted, however, by the

Arabic

text, as

the equivalent of which

7
;

(comp.
*
*1lxj'

Isa. 59.

Abot, IV,
1.

2).

we should expect IvK The phrase CTiJD^ in^Nr'

.

}*"1

for

o o &-6l4.JL;:^l

(p. 46,

3)

is

less

accurate than Ibn Tibbon's in7NB'

is

"Vxh^,

i.e.

the pious man's question

in order to learn, not in

order to embarrass.
immaterial.
riT'n^

The

imitation of Bahya's
is

rhyme
his

is

here quite

Untenable
for

the

phrase
is

immediately following
in

ini'y

silc

(>*Jj,
is

he

firm

decision.

Ibn

Tibbon's nprn inODDn

certainly better.

The
1.

proper equivalent
6) read rwi? irs*

would be nprn inU/nn.

the word D3
is

For

D3 irs {ibid.,
b,

not construed with

nor

is

it

used in the sense

here required.

The most
(pp. 53-113),

valuable part of the introduction

is

the third chapter

which deals with the

Mohammedan
tills

sources drawn

upon by Bahya.
is

Here, to use a rabbinical phrase, Dr. Yahuda

'

"b^ ninn nc'iyn D1N3

like

one who

his

own

soil

'.

His
his

exceptional

knowledge

of

classic

Arabic

literature

and

familiarity with

the specific idioms and technical phrases used

by the

different theological schools in order to designate certain

trains of

thought which were

common and
new
fully

understood only among

light

their disciples, enable

him

to throw

on many passages,
in the

which would otherwise not be

original
will

understood even
translation.

Arabic

and

still

less in

Ibn Tibbon's

One

instance

suffice

for

illustration.

In describing the
of

Zdhid (pious,
4) that he
is

abstinent person) Bahya says

y^^\

him (Hiddya, IX,

Ja^

Ja-Ks.-",

literally,

'he associates with people of remem"inn.

brance', which Ibn

Tibbon renders by Dn'STD^

The

idea

384
becomes
assemble

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

clear

when we
for

are

shown

(p. 47, n. 5

98, n. i) that in

Mohammedan

sources ^JJl Jal designates pious Moslems,

who
they
iJl

regularly

repeatedly invoke (remember)

there
is

common God

prayers,

during which
4UI
!!^1

with the phrase

^,

no God besides Allah.

special feature of Bahya's

work

consists, as has already

been

noted, in the
beautiful

numerous quotations from the works of the Arabs of

ethical

and

philosophical

sentences^

parables,

and

anecdotes, which lend particular charm to the author's expositions.

These quotations, numbering over a hundred, are

all

anonymous,

and no systematic attempt has

their respective sources.
this rather
difficult

yet

been made
for the first

to trace

them

to

Yahuda

time undertakes

task.

Leaving out general applications of

phrases, figures of speech, parables, etc. of the Koran,

New Testa-

ment, and other sources, which are too numerous to be considered

in detail

(comp.

p.

69

f.,

77, n.

82^ n.

2),

he takes up only the

direct quotations,
'

which are usually introduced by the phrase

',

said

one of the worthies, one of the pious, the wise men

shows

and

identifies their respective authors, or at least

parallels in

Mohammedan
It is

literature.

not within

my

province to enter upon a detailed analysis

I

of this part of Yahuda's work.

wish to add, however, a few

remarks, which have a close bearing upon the subject and

may

prove of some value to those interested

In the
in the
first

in

Judaeo- Arabic

literature.

place

it

should be stated that the

'

Hebrew
6,
">">

quotation
is

name

of

'

one of the worthies {Hiddya, IV,

end)

taken

from Saadia's famous prayer, beginning ^la^

lished in D^JIDnp D^ilNJ n^ ^c-yo )'3ip by

Nin

nns {pubBerlin,

Judah Rosenberg,
1.

1856, pp. 74-7

U''}2'r^^

the passage
;

is

on

p. 76,

29

ff.

comp. Dukes,
In Bahya's

hn:, 26, 42

Landshuth,
is

muyn

nioy, 293).

quotation the passage

given more fully and correctly and the

Dr. Yahuda, likewise,

prayer ought to be corrected accordingly.

passes over in silence the interesting reference to a pious

used to say

in his prayer

'

O
!

Lord

where

shall I find

man who Thee and

1.

where

shall I not find

Thee
is full

yet the whole universe

of

Thou art hidden and invisible and Thee {Hiddya, I, 10, p. 82, 7 f.
'

BAHYA'S

'

DUTIES OF THE HEART

p. 81).

'

MALTER
poem
for

385

Hobot, ed. Jellinek-Benjacob,

This

is

essentially identical

with the beginning of Judah Halewi's famous

Simhat
HivS
H''

Torah

-IIU:)

"IXVOX vh

HJSI
2,

D^yJI

H^yj

IDipD INVOK

nhy N^D
Halewi
in

(ed.

Brody, III,
It

No.

82).

mind?

should also

Did Bahya have Judah be noted that Bahya's coman ass carrying books
1.
'

parison of those

who

learn the text of the Bible by heart, without

its

attempting to comprehend
(i^Ull

meaning, to
III,
4,

'

J-*U^Uj.; Hiddya,

p.

ii'i',

5; ed. Jellinek,
has

p. 150) is a

popular proverb found in the works of contemporary

and
'

later authors.

Abraham Ibn Ezra (NTIO

',

IID"',

ch.

i)

a camel carrying silk

while Nahmanides (Introd. to Maimonides'

(see

nilfDn 'd)

and Menahem Meiri

Dukes

in

nnm

"i^'ix,

II,

114)

agree with Bahya.

Dr.

Yahuda

often goes too far in his identification of Arabic

dicta with

some passages of the Talmud.

Thus

the sentence

attributed to

Lokman

(Balaam) in Honein's Nawddir al-Faldsifa

(D^DIDI^^DH noitD, Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1896), II, 12,

No.

3,

has

nothing in
65
b), as

common

with 1Dy331

"1D"'321

IDIIDD

"ID:

mx
The

(b.

Erubin
is

claimed by the editor

in

(p. 54,

n.

2).

sentence

found almost verbatim

DTJan
(ed.

"iniD,

end of 43, and forms

of Judah
it

121 in

the

D^'Dn

"|2D

Berlin)

Hasid,

who

would

certainly not have failed to recognize in

if

the Talmudic
;

passage,

there was any relation between the two

comp. also

Steinschneider, Hebraische Bibliographie, IX, 51.

Similarly un(so,

founded

is

the identification in the

same note of Musre

II, 12,

not

Musdre, as Yahuda quotes repeatedly),

n'h\ll
101p?D.

No. 19 ("iinnn ?N

DipC3 ni^yb,

etc.),
is

with the rabbinic phrase DIN*

V^ nua

The former
I,

free

reproduction of Prov. 26. 6-7,

P. 55, n.

the author might have mentioned that Ibn Hisdai

"'JfNO

himself in his introduction to pnv

explains to the reader the

reason that
Gazzali
;

made him
to a

substitute Jewish sources for those used

p. 160, n.

by
of

comp. ^(2^., 1910,

15.

The comparison
(p. 71,

the
is

human body

house inhabited by the soul

bottom)
e. g.
1,

a frequent occurrence in the works of mediaeval authors,

p. 33,

Joseph Ibn Siddik, |Dp DPiy (Breslau, 1903),

top; 42,

8;

Abraham Ibn Ezra, Introduction to the Commentary on Ecclesiastes

'

386

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

for
it

who quotes

Daniel
p.

2.

11;

(The Hague, 1777,

1

47 a

comp.

Shem Tob Palquera, ^plD, my essay on the subject, /QjR.,

is

91 2, pp. 459, 463, n. 26.

The

theory that the Greeks and other

very widely spread in

nations took their

wisdom from the Jews

Jewish as well as Christian mediaeval literature, especially in the

works of the Church- Fathers,

who probably took

Moses Ibn

it

from Philo.

The

idea

is

thus
p.

much
n. 2.

older than

Ezra, referred to
p. 167, I

by Yahuda,

73,

In a note,/QjR., 1910,

have
here

given numerous references to the literature^ to which

may
30a,

be added: Simon Duran, ni3N po, Leghorn, 1785,

discusses

fol.

who

the

matter at considerable

length

Guttmann, Die

Abraham Ibn Daud, p. 53, note. A strange mistake was made by the editor in connexion with his statement that many Islamic Traditions (Hadit) have their origin in Talmud and Midrash (p. 74, n. i). He quotes an
Keligiofisphilosophie des
article

on the subject by the

late Prof.

Barth

(Berliner-i^^/j-^//r;//,

Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1903, pp. 33-40), where

to read that

we

are supposed

'Abdallah

b.

Salam, a Jewish
as

convert to
hasty,

Islam,

described

the

Jews

to

Mohammed

'a

thoughtless

people
is

'

(04.) ^f), a phrase which, as

used with reference to the Jews also in the

Yahuda properly remarks, Talmud (NinD NDV,

is

b.

Shabbat 88

a).

Yahuda, no doubt, took the whole matter

from some other source, probably Al-Bohari, as there

of
it

no

trace

in the article of Barth.

He

further misunderstood another

passage which he quotes in the same note

from that
is

article.

'Abdallah
tested

b.

Salam, before embracing Islam,

reported to have
before

Mohammed's

prophetic qualities by placing

*
:

him
first
?

three questions,

one of which was

Whereof

consists the

meal served to the righteous upon their entering Paradise

Mohammed
a fish
is
'

answered that
Partly

it

consists of the

'

caul of the liver of

(jJCII sSl^).

on the strength of

this

answer 'Abdallah

said to have recognized

Mohammed

as a prophet

and accepted
of the phrase

Islam.

Yahuda,

in interpreting the story, thinks that the con-

vincing force in

Mohammed's

reply was

his use
is

just quoted, which, according to

Yahuda,

a Hebraism corre-

sponding to the Hiblical

nam ninv

(Exod. 29. 22, and passim)

BAHYA'S
and of which
It
is

'

DUTIES OF THE HEART

could

'

MALTER
ibid., p.

387

Mohammed

know only by

divine inspiration.
35,

evident, however, from the context (see Barth,

2),

No.
the

that the Jewish element in the Prophet's answer was not

use of the word ziyddah (not zdidah, as

Yahuda has
is

it),

but the mentioning of the Jish, which was in strange harmony

with a rabbinic tradition, according to which
a meal
for the righteous of Israel

God

to prepare
(fish)

from the meat of the

Leviathan (Baba batra,

*n''l^
it is
^ti'

75 a:

D"'pni'^
isjljj,

miVD mB>y^
it

r\"2\>n

n^ny

nB'ao).

As

to the

word

should be noted that

latter

used for

mnv

in all the passages

where the

occurs in
p.

the Bible, so by Saadia

1.

and Hefes

b.

Yasliah [JQR., 19 15,

374,

2),

and

also in the recent Christian Arabic translations of the

Bible.

In connexion with the subject of Haggadic elements in

Islam reference

may be made

to

an interesting Midrash (Genesis

Rabba,
'Ihwan

ch. 20, 12)

al-jafa

quoted by Goldziher from the works of the

46)
;

{RE/., XLVII,

comp.

also

Grunbaum,
which
is

ZDMG.,
attributed

XLII, (1888) 291-4.

{r313n

The sentence nv^ nx

by by the same author also
which
is

in: inrs Abot, IV,

i),

is

Gazzali {Mukdshafat, p. 9) to
in

Mohammed,

quoted
1.

his

Mizdii al-amal,
p. 74, n. 2.

p. 61,

10

f.,

overlooked by Yahuda,
j^j-c

Here the sentence

added by
is

reads ^_^.^H

lu-iJ

d..L.

^j'^

>iJ>-^l,

and the author does not

is

quote the verse from Prov.

16. 32,

which, however,

Ibn Hisdai,
"source of

pn^' ''JIND, p. 67.

Gazzali's exposition in this place

the

Ibn 'Aknin,

"IDIO ~13D, p. 108.

Like Gazzali, he there

spirited soul to

compares the cognitive soul to a hunter and the

the hunter's dog,

who

assists his

master in running
idea
is

down

the

game; comp.
origin.

Ktizari,

III, 5.

The whole

of Platonic

The two
of which the

sentences discussed by
first
is

Yahuda on

p.

79

and

p. 92,

generally ascribed to Jesus

and the second

Jesus, should
differ in

to 'All, the son-in-law of

have been treated together as one.

Mohammed, or also to Though they

is

form,

they both express the same idea, which

origin, as are

no doubt of Hindoo
ascribed to Jesus

some other sentences which were

p.

(see

Yahuda,

80

f.).

In

its

epigrammatic form the sentence

388
occurs in the

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Hindoo romance
ch. 14,
'

Prince and Dervish

',

in

Hebrew,

TWm
to

H/On p,

where

it

reads: 'This world and the world

;

come

are like two

you provoke the other*.

to convey
is

women rivals if you show The moral lesson the

make him
is

love to the one,

sentence intends
pleasures,

that

one should not indulge

neglect

in worldly

as they will inevitably

his religious duties.

Essentially the

same thought
p.

contained in the more prosaic

sentence quoted on
(Mary),
it

79:

'Said 'Isa (Jesus), son of

Maryam
it is

is

impossible that the love of this world and of the

future world dwell as

one

in the heart of the believer, just as

impossible for

fire

and water
literature

to be together in one vessel

'.

In

mediaeval Hebrew
forms, also in
n.
10),
all

both sentences occur

K'pSO, that

in a variety of

rhyme (Palquera,
to

8a; JQR-i
of

1910, p. 158,

of which,

including

the

New Testament

(James

4. 4),

go back

an

early

common

source.

My

previous

assumption that Gazzali was here the source of Bahya {JQR.^

1911-12,
147
;

p.

470) accordingly loses in probability.

Gazzali,

Mizdn^
rivals

'JTNa,

157, has besides the comparison to two

women

(^jljJJi),

also that to the

to East

and West, and there

two scales of the balance djU^ iV-^^) ^"^ is no obvious reason why Bahya should

have omitted these points.

On

the other hand, he agrees literally

with the sources quoted by Yahuda, p. 92, nn. 1-3.

In the discussion of the phrase dLliJ d^*-;*^ c>Ua.

'

(p. 85, n. i),

',

thou hast

made
p.

thyself the object of thy worship

2,

one misses

a reference to Hidaya, IX,

p.

359,

1.

Hobot, ed. Jellinektallies better

6).

Benjacob,

404:

DiTn^JS*

DiTJD3 W^^V, which

;

with

the quotation in

Mizdn
in

59, 5

62, 5 (comp.
5,

Yahuda, 45,

The sentence
origin of

Hiddya, VI,
is

beginning, regarding the filthy

first

man, which

traced to 'Abil Bakr, the

Caliph

(p. 88, n. 4), is quite

popular in the works of mediaeval

Hebrew

authors; see the references given by Ginzberg, njn )*"1SD HDIvn,

III (1913), 124; Goldziher,
'

ZDAfG., LXVII

(1913), 533.
belief at seventy'
is
'

Mohammed is

said to have fixed the

ways of
4,

(p. 89, n. 3).

In the passage, Mizdti, 42,

'

which

the source of (^^yu^^

/*-^.)>

Yahuda
for

for this statement,

we read seventy odd

which Ibn Hisdai,

^JfND, 46, 10, puts D'-yTw'T

ncon.

This

is

BAHYA'S
of

'

DUTIES OF THE HEART

' MALTER

389

some

significance, as

we would otherwise

take seventy as a
in

round number, which plays an important part also

literature;

rabbinic

comp. Schechter,

D''"i''tJ'n

TC mJS,
is

Cambridge, 1896,
of which

pp. 50-2.

somewhat

similar idea

expressed in the phrase

7.

mini

D"'JS

D^y3B>

(Midrash rabba to Numbers

19),

the view ascribed to the prophet

may be
fast

a modification.
to),
I,

In opposition to the advice of

traced by

walking {Hiddya, VI,

Yahuda

(p. S9,

n.

4) to the

second Caliph, 'Omar

Al-Mutarrif Ibn Al-Shihhir (quoted by Ibn Kutaiba, 'Uyiin

'ahbdr, ed.
his

al-

Brockelmann,

p.

375)

is

related to have
in

admonished
of his
is

son against immoderate exertion

'

the

discharge

religious duties, saying that

in

the worst kind of journeying

over-exert himself

that

which the beast

is

made to

(lils^ajaJl _^>^I1 JLi

comp. y(2^., 1910,

Studiefi, II, 398,

p. 485, n. 88).

Goldziher, Aluhanwiedanische

quotes the same saying in the

name
is

of

Hasan

Al-Basri (641-727), one of the pillars of Islam.

This

in

keeping

with the real meaning of

lajtsi-l

j^lj

'be moderate in thy

pace' (Koran 31.

'big step
'

18).

The Talmud,
Abot, IV,

likewise, forbids a n^i niJ^'DQ,

2

(Ta'anit 10 b).

(mVD^ fi

"'in), is

figurative

speech.

Bahya's beautiful description of the Zdhid, or ascetic [Hiddya,

IX,

5), for

which Yahuda

(p.

93

f.)

quotes parallels from pseudopoints the characterization of

'Ali literature,

resembles in

many

the perfect
'

man by Ibn

Sina; comp. A. F. Mehren, Vues theo-

sophiques dAvicenne, Louvain, 1896, p. 27.

In speaking of the afore-mentioned

Stifi

Hasan Al-Basri

as

one

who recommended
is

the virtue of considering everybody as superior

to oneself (p. 98), the author overlooks that the

same admonition

given with
279, 10).

much
is

additional detail by Bahya, VI, 10 {Hiddya,

p.

Mohammed
a certain
insults

reported to have praised as a model of piety

rising in the

man who upon

morning declared
at the

all

the
his
is

he may have to endure during the day

hands of
This
is

fellow-men as forgiven

and non-existent

(p.

100
a,

f.).

probably of Jewish origin.

In b. Megillah 28

it

told

of

Mar

Zutra that when he went to bed he used to say every evening

390
'

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

forgive every

May God
;

one who has offended

me

'.

The same

is

told in a different form of several other teachers of

Mishnah and
JT'a,

Talmud

see b. Ta'anit, ch. Ill, near

end

Jellinek, :;-in?:n
is

II, 68, where the editor's correction of inoo to inst^

a mistake;

comp. Ginzberg, MGW/., LVI (19 12), 44. Moreover, on the basis of the Talmudic passages a prayer was adapted and embodied
in

some of the

daily prayer-books (see Baer, ^snc'"'

mny,

p.

572)

to be recited every evening before going to bed, in

which the

individual gives general pardon

against

to

all

who may have sinned

him during the day.

That the Mohammedan version

is

has morning in place of evening,

not surprising.

The Arabs

did not get their knowledge of Jewish matters directly from the
original sources, but through occasional conversation with Jews,

and they seldom got a thing

reports received to suit their
*

right.

Often they also changed the

own
*

taste
*

(comp. Yahuda,
*

p. 78, no. i).

considerable

number
little

of misprints both in the text and the

introduction

mar a

the otherwise beautifully printed work.

In some instances the author seems to have quoted passages of

Bible and

Talmud from memory, which caused

read IPinm.
:

inaccuracies.
out.

Here only some of the more irksome mistakes may be pointed

P. 32,
44, n. 8,
9,

P. 42, 17, read rr^

statt

instead of rfv.
:

P.

read
line

'

T.

las

Xin^X
text.

S^3^K

'.

P. 45

note 4 belongs
P. 56, last

to

"li^^aiy^,

4 of the

P. 46, n. 2, read ^^^j.

line,

read Barlaam

und

Joasaf.

P.

59,

n.

2,

beginning, read
p.

'Abd-al-Qahir.
p. 54,

P. 75, first line of the note

Ibid.,
1.

from

74 read 'oben
P. 83, n. 2
:

note

'.

13,

read Qidduschin 22 b.
',

the passage

is

not in

'

Midrasch rabba zu Gen. 43

i,
1.

but in

Talmud
is

Berakot, 43 b.

P. 84, n.

11

here again the passage

(j^V!).
'.

not in

'Midrasch rabba zu Gen. 34'

^^sJjl after ^J^l, before
'

Ibid.,

n. 2,

1.

3,, place

Variante

P. 85, n. i: the sentence

quoted from Sotah

author.

5 a,

does not occur there in the form given by the

:

Ibid., n. 2 (p. 86)

a verse D3

'h^^'y

D^ycnrnnt:'^

""am
10.

does not exist; the author probably had in mind Hosea 14.
P. 86, n.
I, last
'

line,

read Zeitschrift fur hebr.

',

P. 87,
'.

1.

3 from

below read

ri^i,

von unten

instead of

'

rfr, 10

One

misses

BAHYA

'

DUTIES OF THE HEART

MALTER
31a

39I

here also a reference to the passage in Kiddushin,

n'VD ?n:

nnyi m^JD

i:''

"'rro

ncnjj'i.

P.

95,

n.

2:

'Aboth des Rabbi

Nathan, 28' does not bear out the author's contention, as no

numbers are given

Baraita
line
is

in that passage.

The
fiir

elaborate form of the

I,

in

Kiddushin 49 b; Esther rabba,

'

17.

Ibid., last

of the note, read

Monatsschrift

die

Geschichte und

Wissenschaft
P.
P. 103,
10, 16,

274'.
n.
i,

P. 97, n. 2 of p. 96, for

Ibid.,
;

Hudaifer read Hudaifa.

line

read Mutarrif.

n.

i,

on

i,

read

iiJJia..

no,

and

line 9

it

is

not obvious to which works of

Text,
p. 81, letter f
:

Rosin and Reifmann the author

passage as here quoted
is

refers.

the

not in

Meg. 18 a

(not 18 b), but Jerush.

Berakot, XI, beginning.

P. 226, n.f5,

mention should have been

editions near the
iS*^

made
pn^an

that
nyC'

TiDSDn
is

s*^

in

the

Hebrew

end of

meaningless and must be read Ti^DK'n

Jj\

!)

comp. the discussion of that passage, Introduction,

p. 96, n. i.

Henry Malter.
Dropsie College.

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA

Monumenia Talmudica. Erster Band Bibel und Babel. Bearbeitet von Salomon Funk, Rabbiner in Boskowitz. Wien und
:

Leipzig:

Orion-Verlag, 1913.

pp.vii
:

+ 346.

(Four

fascicles.)

Monumenta Talmudica. Zweiter Band Recht. Bearbeitet von Salomon Gandz. Wien und Leipzig: Orion-Verlag, 1913.
pp. xvi

+ 80.

(One

fascicle.)

The Talmud, owing

to the nature of

its

origin, lacks

a logical

arrangement of subjects.

In academic discussions

irrelevant

arguments are bound to crop up now and then, and the Talmud
accordingly abounds in digressions.
principal laws of damages, the

Thus, while treating of the

the principal laws of

Amoraim find analogous points in defilement. One thought suggests another,

at first sight

and many

laws,

which

appear entirely

different, are
It

shown

to

be similar and to be derived from one principle.

may be

said that almost immediately after the conclusion of the

c. e.,

Talmud, about 500

literature

the problem of re-arranging that vast

occupied the minds of Jewish scholars.

The Halakot
Notable

Gedolot was no doubt an attempt in that direction.

success was later on achieved by Isaac al-Fasi with his

Coma vast

pendium.
literature,

The compendia and

had
it

codes, of which there

is

as their object to classify the halakic matter of

the Talmud, as that branch was considered

by

far

the

most

important.

But the haggadic

part,

too,

found

its

'redeemer',

and the 'En

Ya'akob^ compiled by Jacob

Ibn Habib, has deservedly

scientific

enjoyed great popularity.

In modern times

monographs

have appeared now and again on special subjects

in the

Talmud.

The

investigation of medicine

by Preuss may be mentioned here

All these attempts, however, imporall

as a remarkable achievement.

tant though they are, have not exhausted

the subjects dealt

with in the talmudic literature.

With the advance of Jewish

VOL.

VII.

393

D d

394

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

felt

learning the need was

accessible to

of making the contents of the

Talmud
possible

more students than those

that are willing to devote

their entire life to the study of this vast subject.

Two

methods immediately suggest themselves

for

the

purpose

of

carrying out such a plan, both fraught with almost insurmountable

difiSculties.

The most

natural

method would be
in its present

to publish a

critical
it

edition of the

Talmud

form and provide

with thoroughgoing and exhaustive indices which would enable

the reader to find the passages needed for his researches.

excellent index

The

volume of the Kitab al-Agafii proves

lines,

that a great

deal can be

done on these

although one would readily admit

that the difficulties in indexing the

pared with those of the former.

the

Talmud are not to be comThe second method is to classify

and
to edit

Talmud according to

subjects

each class separately.

Certain advantages would be derived from such a treatment, as

the student would have
all

the passages arranged for him.

It

is,

however, almost inconceivable that a method could be devised

whereby

all

passages would be included, for a great

at classification.
It is

number of
S.

them

defies all attempts

the second course

which the editors of the Momonenia Talmudica, Drs.

Funk,
is

W.

A. Neumann, atid others, have adopted.

The

plan

well
is

conceived, but

we

shall presently see

what degree of success

likely to attend its execution.

According to the prospectus issued by the editors

subjects are to

all

the

be divided
III.

into six general groups

I.

Bibel und

Babel;
V.

II.

Recht;
;

Theologie; IV.

Volksiiberlieferungen

Geschichte

VI. Profanes Wissen.

These general

classes

are subdivided into various sections

to overlap.

and subsections which seem

part

As only

the

first

volume (Bibel und Babel) and

it

of the second have hitherto been published,

is

hard to judge

whether

all

the ground will be covered.

But the observation

not too
strict

may be hazarded

that, unless the editors are

with

their classifications,

many

a passage will have to be excluded.

still

more

serious objection

may be
is

raised against the

title

of

the

first

volume.

Bibel und Babel

no subject by

itself as

com-

pared with law, theology, and the others.

At the beginning of

; :

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA

this century this

HALPER

395

was the

title

of a controversy that raged

among
title for

Assyriologists,

owing to a theory advanced by Friedrich Delitzsch,

see

but one

fails to

how

this

can be regarded as a suitable

classifying talmudic passages.

All the references to Babylon

and

the Babylonians could easily be grouped under the heading of

history, which, according to the prospectus, contains
:

A. Greeks

and Romans

B. Iranians

C. Jews.

It

seems quite obvious

these nations.
to

that the Babylonians ought to find a place

among

But disregarding

this

meaningless

title,

we may proceed

examine the contents of

already been completed.

this

volume, the publication of which has

In order to give the reader an idea of

the variety of subjects incorporated in this volume, I shall quote

the principal parts of the table of contents, omitting the subsections,

I.

which are extremely numerous.

des Landes Babel
;

A.
;

Land und Leute

Fruchtbarkeit

Name

II.

Gewasser

III.

IV. Bewirtschaftung; V. Verkehrsmittel; VI. Steuern; VII.

Woh-

nungen; VIII. Stadte; IX. Bevolkerung; X. Kulte.

lonische
III.

B. Baby-

Geschichte

I.

Assyrisches

II.

Neubabylonisches
C. Welt;

Medopersisches Reich
:

Chron. Zusammenfassung.
:

bild

I.

Himmlische Weltordnung
II.
;

i,

Schopfung
i,

2,

Himmel

3,

Gestirne;
Irdischen

Irdische Weltordnung:

Erde

2,
:

Bedingtheit des

3,

Land

Israel.

D. Weltanschauung

babylonische Astronomic; II. Das

bilder der
3,

Weltordnung

r,

I. Astrologie und Buch der Weisheit; III. AbDer Mensch 2, Salomons Thron
;

Salomons Hippodrom

4,

Heilige Zahlen.

In going through
is

this

multiplicity of disconnected

headings one

tempted to

remark, even at the risk of being considered flippant, that the

compiler chose the

title

Bibel und Babel in accordance with the

ir.
9.

etymology of the name Babel given in Gen.

nothing but confusion and chaos.
Dr.

There

is

By adding

a few more headings

literature

Funk might
It
is

easily
It is

have included the entire rabbinic

in this volume.

pan-Babylonian with a vengeance

in a

new
der

sense.

almost a kind of practical application of Jensen's

in
his

theory expressed
Weltliteratur.

book Das Gilgameseh-Epos

volume

ht

If the grouping of subjects in this

is

termed chaotic,

d 2

396
there
is

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

no adjective
shapes
to designate the passages themselves that

are inserted under the various headings.

sign of interrogation

constantly

itself

in

the

reader's

mind.
fill

Some
up

of the

passages appear to have been put there to

space.

In

many

cases

it

is

hard

to

discover the relation

between the

headings and the passages.

exhaust
arbitrary
all

Nor

is

there any attempt

made

to

passages referring to a certain matter.

In a quite

manner the compiler quotes a few

sentences,

and then

passes on to another subject.

Thus

in

enumerating the Babylonian

towns mentioned in the Talmud, he inserts eighteen references to

the town of Mahuza,

and one

fails

to understand

why he

just

included those and excluded a great

those of
especially

Baba mesi'a 77 a

many others, and Baba batra 7 a.

It
is

as for instance

The

former

would be a very appropriate description of Mahuza, and

true that this

should certainly have been inserted here.

passage
is

actually given later

(p.

on under the heading of

Beschdfti-

gimg, No. 45 1

80)

but Dr.

Funk

has no scruples about

quoting a reference twice.

identical.
startle

Comp. Nos.
is

no

and 222 which are

to

Similarly No. 259

all

part of 161.

the reader

the more. Dr.

As if he desired Funk begins his series

is

of

references to

Mahuza

with a passage in which that town

(nV313|^ nixip)

not

mentioned.
(No. 201).

That passage reads

nbpa

^rh

n^

Nnn

To
Rata

justify this intrusion, Dr.

adds

after

the words der in

Funk in Machuza wohnte.

his translation

But why

just

this passage,

and not hundreds of others of a

similar character ?

Nor

is

there any consistency or system in the

manner of quoting

the passages.

Some

of

them are given

in their entirety, although

only one or two words are necessary for the classification, while
of others the compilers sees
fit

to quote merely a few

words which
to illustrate

do not even form a complete sentence.

this lack of

Examples

system can be found on almost every page.

to the

Thus
is

No. 143
the p

refers

town of Dewil, and the

viip^N

entire passage

given; but No. 144 only has N^njpnb

is

l'r^_

(the dagesh in
3"?

omitted throughout!), while No. 146 consists of Win

NmpD-no.

No. 152

begins

with

the

words
is

vi'P'N

Won

^t

^<^Opnp, and here the entire narrative

given.

But No. 278,

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA

which begins
once more
in a similar

HALPER
is is

397
cut off

way

(n"JS*l

NllDp VpP^N ^?'?1),

abruptly, although in the next sentence that town

in

mentioned

a manner which in other cases

is

given by the

compiler as a special paragraph.

Such fragmentary sentences

do not convey anything

tive,

to the reader,

and

as they are not exhaus-

they are not of great use.

A much

greater service

would
In

have been rendered by Dr. Funk had he furnished a complete

index of
all

the names of places mentioned in the Talmud.

it

a few cases the compiler considered

advisable to

affix

Rashi's

notes at the end of the passages, but no reason can be discovered

why just these notes and not many others of a similar nature. Thus in No. 342 he gives part of Mishnah Kelim 23, 2 on account
of the words
ri''iDn

HDnrpi mentioned therein, and there

need to adorn the

text with Rashi's note.

Had
is

Dr.

is no Funk been

consistent, he might

have added notes of mediaeval Jewish comIn No. 612, which

also

mentators to every passage.

one of the

few

'

superior

'

paragraphs found worthy to be embellished with

Rashi's note, Dr.

Funk

mistranslates a very easy sentence.

''"B'1]
''B'^a^?^!!

The
"-ND

entire passage consists of

nns

fiDV an -|ipN
is

nns

[np^

'\^f^

nN'33

im

f\^2l^

(Yoma 35

a).

This

classified

under

the heading of Kultur of the Medo-Persian

empire.

Rashi's

sentence

is

rendered Ein Baumeister, der ein Zauberer

war und
is

Parwah
noun.

geheissen hat.
It
:

But the word nNJ3

i^^Jf,

is

a verb, and not a

to

should be vocalized

and the sentence

built
it.

be

translated
is

a certain magician named

Parwah
Funk

[A

builder

*N33,
It

not nN3|.]

is

hard to say how

far

Dr.

co-operated

with

his

colleagues

who

are to compile the other volumes,

it

and consulted

them about the general arrangement, but

encroached upon the provinces of others.

is

obvious that he
is

glaring instance

No. 347, which is a long passage from 'Abodah zarah 2 a and b. There can be no doubt that the greater part of it belongs to

Roman

history.

Similarly

No. 501
class

is

a proverb, and should be

incorporated in
prospectus,
is

volume IV,
to

of which, according to the

Sprichworter.

contain

Rdtsel, Fabel,

Now

Dr.

Funk

classifies this

passage under the heading of Assyrisches

398

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Reich (Sennacherib), although the reference to Assyria occurs only in the biblical quotation, and has nothing to do with the

talmudic statement.

Some

references

are

given inaccurately.
b, as stated

Thus No. 74 does not occur in Baba mesi'a 106

the compiler,
is

by

but

in

Baba batra
a.

a.

Part of this paragraph

also

quoted in Baba mesi'a 108

Examples
been cited

to illustrate the lack of system in this

volume can

be given by the hundreds, but the few instances that have already
will suffice to

show how

little

Dr.

Funk contributed
is

to

the logical and scientific arrangement of rabbinic literature.

justice to

In
his.

him

it

may be

said that the fault

not entirely
is

When
to

one begins with an impossible classification, one

all sorts

bound
with

be driven to

of absurdities.

And

it

should also be
is,

observed that the part dealing with Babylonian history

the exception of a few irrelevant passages, fairly well done.

But

why

take such a vague and inappropriate

title ?

In a work of such magnitude minor details

overlooked.

may perhaps be

Nevertheless attention should be drawn to the fact

is

that the vocalization of the texts

far

from

satisfactory, especially

as this feature of the

preface.

work

is

emphatically referred to

in the

Scholars often experience difficulties in punctuating the

dialect of the

Aramaic

Babylonian Talmud, and tradition can

certainly not be relied upon.

At the same time a

certain degree
biblical

of accuracy can be attained by a judicious comparison of

Aramaic, Syriac, and the other dialects.

and Margolis are of great

vocalization of

service.

Of

recent years

The grammars of Levias many Genizah

is,

fragments have been published which help to establish the exact

some doubtful words.

There

therefore,

no
this

excuse for offering an inaccurate vocalization.

Moreover, in

volume

errors occur

even in biblical words.

Before giving some

characteristic

examples of the mistakes which can be found on

should
like to

every page,

remark

that,

according to the preface,

Dr.

Funk
first

is

not responsible for this part of the work, as the texts

were vocalized by Prof. Dr. M. Berkowicz.

the

In the following notes

and second numbers

nioiTjpa
(i, 2)

refer to the
riil3"n")i53.

page and

line, respecis

tively.

should be

The

only exception

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA

Jud.
9.

HALPER
(2, (3,

399
3) does

48,

which

is

probably corrupt.
\^^

The form 7^

not suit the context; read

read /J^V^Op.
state of
(4,

or

\^|i.

Instead of ]^V^^b

15)

From

Ezekiel 13. 9
(3,

we know

that the construct

2r3

is

nns, not 3n3

15).

The

punctuation of ppnvj'
It is

16) cannot be justified; read ppnv^.

a form like 1^^',

which mediaeval grammarians used

^p."|'^.

to explain as shortened

from

It was,
sei?ie

however, shown by Earth in his essay

Partidpie?t that
it

Das passive
As
is

Qal und
Kal. of
213

is

the old passive participle of

(5, 4).

sieve in
is

Hebrew
not

is 'll^S,

not n"i33

the root

a den

2?3 (comp. Arabic ,.^4 ^^^d Aramaic

^^3 (6, 2).

>^33), it

should

be vocalized
participle

312,

See Dan.

6. 13.
^^''V.^,

N^yD
not not

an active
25).

+ NJN, and
12)
;

should be vocalized
is V?)2, it

i^J^V'? (7,

As

the root of ^rh'O

(9)
is

should be

^^^J?"],

NJ^^J?"!

(9, 11).

^OT^^
is

plural,

and therefore cannot

qualify xriTfipj
^TV.T^,

which

singular

read

i^Tp^r\\

For W'V^^ (10,1) read

This vocaHzation

Genizah
''{J'J'N

fragments have
(11,
2

''t^'N:''^ ;

we should therefore
and
Syriac.

vocalize V^^., not

is

and elsewhere).
an active

also borne out

5<9.i^
is

by

Biblical Aramaic, Arabic,

i<9:^> as
it

For

(H)

6) read

is

participle.

^^9

(11, 15)

an impossible npn.

form; read N*99'^Vll

Instead

of ripn

(12, (16,

13)
2)

read

For

(14,

8) read
19.
5)-

^pl.

For N*b??
that

read ii'^22

From
For the

Chron.

we know
Instead of
(23,

we ought
(18,

to vocalize n^opj not

"i^^r' (i7'

^^1!;^?

11) read ^lonjN.

impossible
(24,

V.D

4)

read

V.n.

In

an

Aramaic
"Nvipl

text
7)

nay
read

9)

is

out of place; read

is

ll^V.

For

(25,

''^f^^P']

which
is

a well-known ?iomen
''^??''P'^

age?itis

in
is

Aramaic.

The

same word

vocalized

(79, 19),

which

a tribute to the
5) read

punctuator's consistency and accuracy.

jnniy or Tjiaiy.

For

^"^^^y (27,

For

'm
is

(27, 7) read T^l.

Instead of

I^D^^n (29, i)
is

read

^^1^2.

The Waw

merely a wo/^r
it

lectionis.

nnil (29, 9)
00^"*,

a participle, not a noun;

should be vocalized

not

nnn.

There

is

no way of parsing a form

like ^i^??!? (31, 19); read

,

Ni^SpJD or Nf^QDO.

In the next line read HDi^O

vocalization
;

not nsj^in.
is
^<j^?"^,

From

Syriac
(33,

we know that the correct The latter is traditional 6).

not Nl^an

but comp. also Arabic iSl and

is

yj^\.

The

root of n^' they tied up

"n^i;

hence read

I'lS,

not

400
n>' (34, ri).

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Read W^rp
instead of

W^XO
is

(38, 15).

For N^EDT

(40, 9) read Ki^sp*].

peculiar error

'|! (45, r6) for ^NST.

For HNpinp
is

(46, 15) read "^^^^^^pi^i

-^^ entrance in biblical

Hebrew
and

Xi39, which becomes ^1^9

the Mishnah.

Comp.
^>?'J^'3J(

'"ix^")3

n13.

Hence

'i^D (46, 20)

i<^J^i"]
it

is

impossible.

For

(49, 4) read

'Niioy.

Instead of
perfect,

^^i^iii

(53, 7) read
n''n^,
is

^n2.

As

n^nj

is

no doubt a
where).

should be

not

JT'nj

(54, i8

and

else-

An
For

impossible combination

n"iip iJ^XK' (57,

n)

read

rrpq.
ively.
"lit?-

-'^^s'l'^,

nn^'iV^ (58, 13. 14) read HJS^S, PilfV?> respecit

As "ino
-^11

(64, 22) is construct state,

should be

"i""p

"^^

available data, manuscripts and the cognate languages,

24).

prove that we should vocalize ^J^?, not ^}V? (66,

Comp.

Dan.

3. 29.

For

p?;ii'9

(69, 21) read P3*;fO.

'ninj for

Instead of '^W^}

(74, 10) read

VW^X

Read

^nim

(78,

n and

elsewhere).

Instead of

i^lipV

(80, 15) read ^y^i.

pnntsn (82, 23) should be

p^non.

The plural of nVo should be nin^D, not nin^p (83, 16). nnn (84, 31) read '"i|il. (See my essay The Participial FormaFor
'

tions of the

Geminate Verbs',
would
For
clearly

ZA JV.,
that

30, p. 222.)

comparison

of ^3^ and

''3K

show

we have

to vocalize 1^^, not

"X

(86, 4).

"i^vrp (92, 10)

read

X?-

F^"^

1"^. 14. 8

we

know that the correct vocalization is ^^20, not ri^SO (93, 17). The perfect Nithpael of nx3 is nwnj, not nsjnj (97, 14). The form n'TJT'X which occurs frequently in the Talmud is no doubt
Afel of

mn.

It

should therefore be rriTriN, the

ri^3"'n^X,

Yod

representing
(106, 15).
^^r^^.
2.

a vocal shewa, or at the most

but not

l^''?'n^X

The
The
is

last

would

suit a fanciful

etymology

i^^? ""O)*?.

The form

instead of ^?S^ occurs several times in this volume, e.g. 107,

Hifil "'^'p^n

does not suit the context of 116, 15, 16.

p3D?0.

Read
or

'V^fri.

For p31DO (118, 14) read

read
^3'?'?'.

The form

^?0P1

(138, 20)
^^^ISN*

impossible;

For injp^X (181, 7) read

nX"l33 (183, 7

ini^X.

Comp. Cant.

7. 2.

and elsewhere) repre;

sents the so-called 'traditional' pronunciation

''pBJ

read riX733.
is
a.

For
it

(187, 24) read ^PPh

As

'X33n (189, 15)

Vi?"}],

/a

'a/ form,

should be^N33n, not 'N3nn.

(191, II, 12), respectively.

Read
is

D'"l^5
6.

for

V?%

D'"t<
verses

Because Prov.

and other

have 03-- i" ^ pause, there

no reason why

this

word should be

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA

SO vocalized in the middle of a sentence
;

HALPER
"i^ll'

401

read D?ni (195, 20).

(205, 20) read
is

For
"ipj?.
^'^^\>

"lOiyo (202, 21) read '^^Vp.

Instead of

From Num.
(218, 21).

25. 8

we know

that a vaulted tent

n3p, not

For

irin^C^n (224,

15) read wn^B'n.

and Arabic we know

with suffixes
D^^2 (250).
is
'''pi'2

to vocalize ^^as^, not

it

^5?^

(244).

From Syriac As D^ia

(Ps. 139. 16)

should be vocalized D^^3, not

The

vocalization of pn"i i:n has in this

It

volume underl^ri

gone three stages of evolution.

started out as traditional

i3J^
i^ri

(15, 15), developed into the hybrid form

(17,

11

and

else-

where), and finally emerged as the accurate

(256).

For na^2

(260) read
root

I^?'^?.

The word
Comp.
i

nD""!;

dough

is

best derived from the

'ID""!?

DDy he pressed; hence read

i^^^V-

HEiy not
7. 26.

(268).

For H^^iV

(269) read
it is

Kings

Elsewhere

in this

volume

"^J^iy, e. g.

209, 17.
at the

The commentary
the various texts.

end of

this

volume

is

more

like a series

of interesting excursus rather than detailed notes appertaining to

Although these excursus are

for the greater

part irrelevant, they are replete with Assyriological lore,

and may
indices,

be regarded as the redeeming feature of the volume.

too, are well compiled.

The

Decidedly superior
passages, of which the

is

the

second volume containing

legal

first fascicle

has hitherto been published.

This superiority
arrangement.

is

immediately noticeable from the technical

in the
first

Whereas

volume there are numerous

blanks, owing to the lack of proportion between the

Hebrew
by

texts

and the German

this

translation which are printed side

parts are printed in such a

side,

in

volume the two

manner

as to

be
is

of almost equal length.

also

The method

of giving the references

improved to a considerable

extent.
this

But by

far of greater

importance are the intrinsic merits of

volume, the value of

first.

which

is

clearly brought out

by comparison with the

Here
treat-

we

at last arrive at

a proper arrangement and a thorough

ment of the

subject.
is

This

is

to

some extent due

to the circum-

stance that law

this

a classifiable subject.

Dr. Gandz, author of

this

volume, shows a thorough mastery of

this
fascicle,

branch of research,

and judging from

we may expect from him an

402

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

This
fascicle contains passages

extremely valuable contribution.

referring to the laws appertaining to the king, the court of justice,

and the

priests.

Each
to

section

is

preceded by an excellent resume

and a short bibliographical sketch. and are calculated

under
acquaint
literature treating of these branches.

The

passages are well chosen,

the reader

with the

rabbinic

The
to

notes,

which are printed

of the

the texts, greatly

contribute

the

elucidation

passages.

On

the whole one can have no hesitation in asserting

are well
for

that the texts

edited
part

and annotated, and Dr. Gandz

of the

deserves

praise

this

work,

apart

from

the

classification.

The
and
it is

vocalization, too,

is

done with almost masoretic accuracy, on

this feature

quite evident that great care was bestowed

of the volume.

The orthography
Thus
"'ND is

of the

Talmud was
all

rightly
letters

changed to

suit the vocalized texts,

and practically
""D.

vowel

were omitted.

usually spelt

'Traditional' proare found to be

nunciations are frequently discarded

when they

indefensible in the light of recent discoveries

and comparative
'l^'^x
''P

grammar.
p.

Thus

"it^ini

?p

is

correctly
is

vocalized

(e-g.

48) instead of "l^HI 7p, which

an incongruous combination of

a noun and an adjective.

On

the other
"ipi-'

hand
"l^?3pri

"^pi? "'^P^ji (p.

and

throughout the book) instead of

universal approval.

will

not meet with

Hardly anything

is

gained by this change,

this vocaliza-

and the phrase does not become more lucid through

tion.

Moreover we should expect "IP?^.

it is

In connexion with

these improved pronunciations

to

be regretted that Dr. Gandz

did not consider

it

necessary to call attention to tradition and to

justify the alteration.

is

There are
to.

also several cases

i?'?(p- 4)

where tradition
22) should
is

unnecessarily adhered
|3,

Thus

and

I? (p.

be Jsp and

respectively, as

may be

seen from the N which

it

found

in the printed editions.

(p. 7),

Similarly,

is

preferable to read
i?''"^lI

^3 instead of ^3

and

"I?

instead of

"^P (p. 7).

(p. 27)
D''")3X

should rather be vocalized

(p.

iS'^D.

Comp. Arabic ^^l

43)

is

against analogy;

read Q''13X,

From

Syriac

we know

that instead of
is

^n^j?

(p.

45) we ought to vocalize l^il^JS, which

like niba.

It is true that

mediaeval Jewish poets pronounced

it

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA

ni2|

HALPER
vol. II, p. 163,
1.

403
58);

(comp.Judah

ha-Levi's

Dhvan, ed.Brody,

but this simply proves that this traditional error is several centuries
old.

The

particle

pN
p5<

yes, as

may be

easily seen

from Syriac^ should

be read

p':',

not

(p. 50).

There are

also other mistakes, to

some of which
read
V")ani.

attention should be called here.

(p. 8)

For

yj^ni (p. 5)

Instead of nan

read ^sn.
is

Vocalize

nmsa'

for

mmf
On
(p.
p.
'^?jli!!',

(p. 14).

The
word

plural of pJ^D
is

ni^i^n, not ni:iDn (p. 22).

28
not

this
K^r^)'^

correctly vocalized.

The

imperative
is

is

(p. 41).

An

impossible vocalization

^9V???1

54); read

"^"^W?"^^^na^'Jil,

As the context demands a

not N'nnvri
(p. 56),
is

singular,

we

ought to read
of bn
(p.

which

is

plural.

Instead
'i?^

64) read ?n> as the root

^'^H.

The

vocalization

(p. 74) for ^i?3 is

an unnecessary deviation from

tradition.

Mishnaiot:

Testo ebraico punteggiato, con traduzione

illustrative.

italiana,

proemio, e note
Triestino.

Di Vittorio
dei

Castiglioni,
(Nezikin).

Parte

quarta.

Ordine

danni

Edizione postuma, a cura di Emilio Schreiber.

Trattato

Baba

Kamma

(Porta anteriore).

Roma

Casa Editrice

Italiana, 1913.

pp.51.

(Two

fascicles.)
italiana,

Mishnaiot: Testo ebraico punteggiato, con traduzione

proemio, e note
Triestino.
illustrative.

Di Vittorio Castiglioni,
dei

Parte

quarta.

Ordine
fascicles.)

danni (Nezikin).
Trattato

Edizione postuma, a cura di Emilio Schreiber.

Baba
19 14.

Metzi'a (Porta media).

pp. 53-102.

Roma: Casa

Editrice Italiana,

(Two

Der Mischnatraktat Orlah. Sein Zusammenhang und seine Quellen. Von Dr. Arthur Rosenthal. Berlin N. Itzkowski, 1913.
:

pp. 48.

Books on Jewish scholarship

in Italian are

now

a rare thing.
all

After Luzzatto's brilliant achievements in practically

branches

of Jewish science hardly anything was done in that language.

Castiglioni's

work was a kind of dying echo of former

fill

activity.

Gloomy thoughts
hensive about

the

mind when one

in

reflects

on the condition

of Jewish learning in Italy, and one cannot help feeling appreits

future

other

countries.

Store-houses of

404
valuable

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Hebrew manuscripts in themselves are evidently insufficient Some more potent factors are needed. of Baba kamma and Baba mesi'a was prepared by The edition Castiglioni in 1902, but for some reason or another the publicato attract scientific workers. tion

was delayed.

Meanwhile

Castiglioni died,
fell

and the task of

Emil Schreiber.

seeing this edition through the press

to his pupil

With the exception of the

are in Italian there
is

fact that the translation

and the notes

nothing special about this edition.

The

introductions are brief, and merely give a definition of the tractates.

The

statements are
is

made

with accuracy and scholarly precision.

is

Although there
everywhere

nothing new in them, the hand of a master

discernible.

The

notes

are

comprehensive, and

embody modern

the best results of mediaeval Jewish commentators

scientific

and

research.

In order to explain the various

laws Castiglioni

makes ample use of the Babylonian and Palestinian

philological aspect, too,
is

Talmudim.
and

The

well taken care of,

this part of the

work as a whole makes a good impression.

The consonantal text does not differ from the usually printed editions. The few manuscripts of the Mishnah that are still extant do not offer many important variants, as may be readily seen from Even old the mishnic parts of Rabbinovicz's Variae Lectiones.
Genizah fragments seldom contain significant
variants.

This

is

no

doubt due to the popularity of the Mishnah.

fact in
all

For

it is

a recognized

literatures

that books that are widely read tend to

errors.

become

fixed

even with their

Hence

in order to establish

a correct text of the Mishnah one must sometimes go beyond the

Gemara, and

at present this

is

hardly possible.

With regard

to

the vocalization the matter

is

quite different.
it

With an accurate

knowledge of Hebrew grammar

texts correctly.
It is true that

is

easy to punctuate mishnic

now and

again one stumbles over

new word not occurring

to be,

in the Bible,

But even then analogy

can be followed with some degree of certainty.

However

lenient

one wishes
edition

one cannot help declaring

this part of the present

fatilty.

The book teems

with errors of this kind.

Even

well-known biblical words and quotations are incorrectly vocalized.

Misprints, too, are of very frecjuent occurrence,

and

it

appears that

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA

sufficient care

HALPER
work.

405
It is

was not bestowed upon

this part of the

rather inauspicious that the very

n*i3N ys'iS (p. 9)
fications.
is

first
is

word

contains an error.
in all its signi-

impossible, as

2^5

masculine

Read

"^V?")^

-^s

obvious misprints mention should be

;

made
of
this

of NB'bf (p. 22) instead of HB'P^

;

ISK' rp\zb (p. 24) instead

fc^Knjp

ppfc' (p.
is

27 twice) instead of

p'??'.

Comp.

p.

38 where
;

word

correctly vocalized.

n5n3 (p, 38) for Nlri>3

nSO

(p. 57) instead of NifO;

Nt (p. 62) instead of HT; 13N3B' (p. 85)

instead of

IJ?]?'^.

Apart from a vast number of mistakes which

can reasonably be regarded as misprints these two tractates abound

in errors

which betray a lack of knowledge of Hebrew grammar.

Some

of

them

are due to the confusion of certain vowels in the

Portuguese pronunciation.
elsewhere) instead of Vl'^2,

Thus probably arose Pl^^ (p. 15 and and 0'''?^? (p. 16) instead of D^Kri. The
is

former
in the

is

no doubt

a.

/a' 'J/ form which

latter is

of frequent occurrence

Mishnah, while the

derived from the root QPI?

as
i'^ifV

To
nb'yo

the
(p.

same cause may be ascribed such mistakes

18) instead of iWVp,
It

and ^l

for

B'."'.

almost throughout the

to

book.

would take up too much space

two
tractates,

enumerate

all

the

errors in these

but some of the most characteristic

read
'^^^?.
iriiliK''!

may be
read
Vr", as

pointed out here,

Instead of
is

'^'^^b (p. 10),

(p. ii)^

WIIIE''!.

v|

{i^id.

and throughout the book) read

Instead of ppn
(p.

the former

a pausal form.

14 and

.elsewhere) read P^T.

The

editor vocalizes the Hifil of this

word

correctly, but persists in giving a

wrong form of the Hofal.

this edition,

As

a rule no question marks are used in

but as chance
:

would have
it

it,

the question

mark on
""It,

p.

18

is

erroneously employed
it.

should be placed before

read
Pi?J3n,

not after
pW.
is

Instead of

|''i?niin

(p. 19)

as the root
''fl?^?.
2.

is

impossible;

read

This
9 ?ri3
is

The form nsriipj (p. 23) is quite a common error. As

;

may be
is

seen from Cant.

a kutl form
(p.

hence

^Til'ra (p.

23)

inaccurate.

Instead of n"JDiD3

24) read
i)

'"i1Di>32.

For the
{/did. 8, i)
is

correct vocalization of

m3iy (Baba kammas,

S.,

and XOID
For

see

my

remarks iny(2^., N.
;

VI,

p. 211.

i.

"'^P(p. 25)

an un28)

known form
read
'"l^^.^-

vocalize

VP,

as in

Gen.

11. 30.

nblJJO (p.

The

editor did not stop to think about the root of

4o6
nnnx nnB'nbl
read
v'^^'l??'-

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

(p.

29)

vocalize nac^n^i.

instead of

n^2f-)2'^ {idid.)

A student accustomed
make up

to correctly vocalized
30).

texts will

be puzzled by the word

!^?'?? (p.

Read

nsjp.

Hebrew The
nSD,

editor evidently could not

his

mind
it

as to the exact proseveral times

nunciation of HKD.

On

p.

30 he vocalizes

but on
it

p.

84

it

becomes

I^^5p.

In his translation he transliterates

this

SeaA throughout.
Kings
7.
i).
t^''"^?'?'!'

Now
(p.

word

is

nSD

in the Bible (e. g.

30) in an unconscious attempt to intro-

duce a /<?rwa w/x/a

in

the Mishnah.

Vocalize

B'''^^'?'!'.

Even a

denominative verb has to follow the elementary rules of grammar.

As may be seen from

tion
is "lis,

Kings and elsewhere the correct vocaliza-

not
(p.

of

^'^'^>?:^^

For pS'in (p, 34) read P^n. Instead The editor rightly 37) read riiintpn, or ninnisn.
"^13

(p. 31).

remarks in his notes that the singular of pna'J

?tefs

is

3^3.

Yet

he vocalizes
is \>pr\,

it

P^E'J in the text {ibid.).

As

the root of pil spittle

40).

we ought

to read
is
it

^P"}

instead of
(p.

ipi*l (p.

See Job

7.

19.

curious mistake
7,

^l^'n

41) which

is

a quotation from

Gen. 20.

where

is

3B'ri.

The

editor should have at least

taken the trouble to quote accurately.

According to Cant.
if

7, 2

we ought to vocalize V^^, or perhaps P??N*, But Castiglioni . v^ into consideration.

('

we take the
and

Syriac

is

inconsistent,
{ibid,

and

vocalizes r?0^^< (p. 43),

\'^W

(P-

^2), and P^OiK

p. 84).
n^jjc?!)

Instead of
(p.

V
is

(p.

44) vocalize

i"l5f.

SeeHos.
;

2. 11.

P'^

n*?

44)

is

an impossible construction

read Ty?^?.

Instead of
to indicate

i^ypin (p. 45) read iB'pn.

Syriac l^ma.vt would

;

seem

that DDiO

an active

participle

hence read Pp^iisn instead of

pODisn

49 and elsewhere) read V^B^. According to the Masoretic Text of Ps. 74. 6 we ought to read
(p. 47).

Instead of V^f^

(p.

^'^??V and not

read

Wb?^

(p. 51).
all

Instead of I^b^J, ^^nrvj'p

"l?it^ is

(p.

56)

^^^\

^l^'^'^'Q-

In

likelihood

an active

participle,

and hence we should vocalize

p31N^

D'l^iBn, not DnniB'l (p. 57).

"lat?

Read
For

instead of p31X'P%
(p.
;

and

instead of i^^B (p. 58).

(P-

pinSD

59) read

P"!J?.9.

]T, ^^^^^

60)

is

an impossible con^^*
-|-

struction

read

''^133^

The word

1^''2X is

contracted of

DN -f-

V, and should therefore be

''?S^?,
,

not

v''D^? (/^/</.).

Arabic iiS

proves that we should vocalize nsp not

>^^'^\>

(p.

6 2).

Instead of the

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA

impossible
''^i^b'O

HALPER
(p. 66, several

407
times)

vocalize

''iNtJ'D

(p. 64).
4.

For i^y

read

'l.p.

According to Ezekiel
Instead of

we ought
p. 68.

to vocalize P'P^^p,
Pi^T^.

not rODi3^(p. 67).

Pi^lTp (p.

68) read

The

editor

has i^^l^V and

^^Irr'

promiscuously on

Both are inaccurate;

vocalize '^?1^r'.

comparison with D^K^nn would have taught

(p.

the editor to vocalize V^'rf^, not pK'Oin

2

73).

According
is

to

Chron.

19. 7

read n^n^ not Hj^D

(p.

74),

which

common

error.

The Kal

of nip signifies ke borrowed; hence read 'TvO,

not

'lipn (p. 80).

For a similar reason read nilpp instead of nilpp

(p. 81)^ as

the Piel

means

he accompanied.

It

would be impossible
Vocalize also
B''l1,

to parse the form t^nb (p. 84); read

tJ''"^.

instead of e'l) {ibid).

For

>*t5'l

(p.

85) read 'NE'l.

Read D3X

instead of DJiN (p. 88 several times).

According to the Bible we

ought

to read niJi^nriD instead of niji^nnx: (p. 94).

(p. 99).

Read HB'nTOn
For
B'sa i^aiN
is

instead of nB'nnsn
(p.

See

Sam.

13. 20.

99) read

-'5^*.

Instead of
'132

PP^

(p.

loi) read KP?, as the root

p. loi,

r??i?-

The Kal
for npE.

of

does not

suit

on

hence read HK n39

(p.

1''3r^

Instead of the impossible

D^Jii3*3

102) read

O^DJ^?.

Some
is

of the Genizah fragments vocalize D^ri3*3; but the

likely.
title,

former

more

As

indicated in the
is

Dr. Arthur Rosenthal's edition of the

tractate 'Orlah

of a rather ambitious character.

In modern

times some of the foremost Jewish scholars have attempted to

apply to the Mishnah the principles of higher and lower criticism.

These
but

principles have led to wonderful discoveries in the Bible

startling

no

results

can be expected from them in the

Mishnah. The problems of the latter are not so complicated, as we have an almost unbroken tradition which is of invaluable help Nevertheless there is many a problem that as a starting-point. The labours of Hoffmann, Schwarz^ Rosenstill awaits solution.
thal (the father of the author of this

work), and others have

advanced

this

branch of study to a considerable extent.

Dr. Arthur

Rosenthal has followed their methods, and set himself the task of
analysing the tractate 'Orlah and putting
it

on a

critical basis.

He

first

gives a general re'sumi of the composition

and sources of
It

this tractate,

and then discusses each paragraph

individually.

408

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

goes without saying that an attempt

made

to

go beyond

R. Judah ha-Nasi the redactor of the Mishnah.

of the Mishnah
into
is

Every statement

discussed separately, annotated, and translated

German.

In these notes the general results of the introduc-

tion are given in detail.

The main
is

result of the

inquiry

is

that
in

R. Jose

b. Halafta,

who

mentioned several times by name

this tractate, is the

compiler thereof.

Even some anonymous

passages are shown by Dr. Rosenthal to belong to this Tanna.

In

many

cases his proofs are convincing, especially

when he

treats

of the development of the Halakah in the various tannaitic schools.

But the arguments adduced from the

cannot be regarded as conclusive. This
pitfalls in biblical criticism.

similarity of phraseology
is

one of the most serious

is

Because a word
all

employed by a

certain author

it

does not follow that

to him.

passages in which that

word occurs must be ascribed

and
where he
"ni'NB',
is

Bearing this view in mind

2,

one cannot accept Dr. Rosenthal's conclusions with regard to

2,

12,

tries

to identify the author

by the words
unvocalized.

^nyoc'

and

respectively.

As
It
is,

the work

intended for scholars, the text

is

however, a curious fact that the few words that are vocalized
to

happen

be inaccurate.
(3, i)
is

Thus

HiJOtt (i,

5) should

have no
the whole

mappek, and vTf.

should be p?"^^ or v?T^.

On

Dr. Rosenthal's work

an important contribution to the higher

criticism of this tractate.

entirely neglected.
It

The

textual side,

however,

is

almost

seems that

nplbl (3, 9 a) should

probably

be

Dp"ih

which harmonizes better with the remaining part of that

paragraph.

The

transliteration of

Hebrew words

is

not always accurate.

Text, tJber-

Die Mischna, KiVajim

setzung

Verbotene Mischgattungen).

und

Erklarung.

Nebst einem textkritischen Anhang.

Professor in Oldenburg
i.

Von

Dr.
:

Karl Albrecht,

Gr.

Giessen

Alfred Topelmann,

19 14.

pp. vi-f-87.

Die Mischna^ Rosch ha-schana {Neujahr).

Erklarung.

Text, tJbersetzung

und

Nebst einem textkritischen Anhang.

Giessen
:

Paul

Fiebig, Oberlehrer in Gotha.

pp. vii+127.

Von Lie. Alfred T5pel-

MANN, 1914.

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA

Die Mischna, Horajot {Entschetdungen).

HALPER

409

Text, tJbersetzung

und

Erklarung. Nebst einem textkritischenAnhang.

Von Walter
Giessen
:

WiNDFUHR, Pastor an Alfred Topelmann,

St.

Catharinen in Hamburg.
pp. v + 35.

1914.

Essentially these three volumes

do not

differ in their

treatment

from their predecessors

in the series of the

Mishnah edited by
a certain sameness
:

Georg Beer and Oscar Holtzmann.

about
all

There

is

the volumes that have hitherto appeared

of notes and the

same kind of

mistakes.

the same kind They no doubt serve

a useful purpose as text-books for non-Jewish students of theology,

but can by no means be seriously considered as contributions to
the scientific study of the Mishnah.
part

The

notes are for the greater

is

of an

elementary nature, and

in spite of the claims
is

there

little

display

of

originality,

made by

the general editors.

meritorious feature

the philological treatment of the texts.

against

The
has
its

tractate

Kil'ayim, dealing with the prohibition

crossing certain plants

and animals (Lev.

otherwise

19.

19; Deut. 22. 9-11),

technical difficulties in identifying the

numerous plants and

one of the
easiest

animals

mentioned

therein,

it

is

tractates of the

Mishnah.

The problem

as to the reason of this

prohibition does not belong to the province of mishnic studies,

but to the Bible.

bases
over,
itself

For the Mishnah, while amplifying these laws,

Bible, without investigating the reason.
difficulties

on the

More-

even the technical

have to a great extent been

to

overcome by the exhaustive researches of Immanuel Low

Prof. Albrecht constantly refers.

whom
claim

Accordingly, the
is

latter's
first

made
literal

in his preface that his edition of Kil'ayim

the

modern

attempt to give a comprehensive commentary

sense.

is

only true in a

His introduction, which

is

very brief, deals with

the prohibition of Kil'ayim.

this

He
As

adopts Goldziher's view that

prohibition

is

connected with the magical and idolatrous

to the time of the composition
all

practices of primitive races.

of this tractate. Prof. Albrecht rightly points out that, since

authorities
cited,

the

with

the

exception of R. Simon
is

b.

Eleazar,
to

flourished before R.

Judah ha-Nasi, there

no reason

doubt
this

the unanimous tradition

which ascribes the redaction of

VOL,

VII.

4IO
Mishnah

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

to the latter.

He, however, considers

i,

6 as a later

interpolation,

because that paragraph deals with animals, while

the rest of the chapter treats of plants.

But

this

argument

is

hardly of sufficient validity, as not

all details

of R. Judah ha-Nasi's
it

method have been

that

clearly determined,

and

is

quite possible

he himself, as well as another interpolator, might have been

to

induced

insert

that

paragraph on account of

the
2,

similar

phraseology.

This remark applies with equal force to

a.

Owing
.tion

to the great
is

number

of post-biblical nouns the vocaliza-

of this tractate

by no means an easy matter.

Arabic and

Syriac, especially the latter, are

sometimes very

helpful, but

cannot

always be relied upon.

these languages

For even a noun

directly

borrowed from

may undergo some

some of
is

vocalic changes in

Hebrew.

The

exact pronunciation of

these nouns must therefore

it

be regarded as doubtful.
be said that

To

the credit of Prof. Albrecht

must

his vocalization

the most acceptable, or at least as

acceptable as any that can be suggested.

There are nevertheless

some
here.

indefensible inaccuracies, a few of which

Instead of
not
is

^VP'T. (2,

9 b) vocalize
as the form
\V}?

^V?^^..
is

may be mentioned The plural of nnnD

In
19,
i

is ri'in"!!',

riin")!?

(2,

c),

obviously like rin33.

3,

ytsp
is

an

infinitive like

(comp. njn?

Kings

6.

which

probably a combination of rin? and

are the masculine infinitives

T\ro occurring in the Bible.

Such forms instead of the feminine nypp and

1^?).

Prof. Albrecht's suggestion to take

is

y^p as the
ytap
tJ'ijinrD,

so-called ^-imperfect

precluded by the construction

as

B'ip.Zi

invariably takes an infinitive.

refers to his

He moves

in a

vicious circle

when he
p.c''lJJji

Grammar in
PI'I'Ji,

support of his

explanation.
is

(5, 7

b) should be

or P?1?, as the Kal

likely, as

intransitive in that sense.

form seems to be required.

is

The latter is more The vocalization

a passive
(^, 5 b)

nn^'n

''3^^?

not quite sure.

;

See also E. Fink, Monaisschrift, 1907, pp. 173ibid.,

82

N. M. Nathan,

pp. 501-6.
Isa. 3. 22.

Instead of ninSDp

(9,

3)

vocalize ninatpo.

Comp.

From
offers

a theological standpoint the tractate

Rosh ha-Shanah
if

a great deal of material for an introduction, especially

the

writer has

no particular desire

to avoid digressions.

Dr. Fiebig's

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA

introduction
is

HALPER

41

mainly devoted to the history of the

Festivals,

New Moon
that

and
with.

New

Year

and

at the

same time the questions

are of immediate concern to the tractate are adequately dealt

He

gives a brief analysis of this mishnic tractate,

it

and then

compares

with the Tosephta.

This comparison leads him to

is

consider as probable Zuckermandel's theory that the Tosephta

the old Palestinian Mishnah.
that in spite of the

There can, indeed, be no doubt

that

numerous objections
it

have been raised

against this fascinating theory,

is

the only one which offers a Dr. Fiebig divides the

reasonable solution to a
history of the Jewish

difificult

problem.

New Moon and New

exilic

Year Festivals into

;

six

periods:
4.

i.

pre-exilic; 2.

and

post-exilic
5.

3.

Hellenistic-

tannaitic (from 100 B.C. E. to 100 c.e.);

to

amoraic and gaonic

(down
time.

800

C.E.)

6.

from the Middle Ages down to our present

He
who

adopts the current view that these Festivals had their

origin in the cult of the

moon, which

is

common

to all primitive
first

races

live in close

proximity to nature.

For the

two

periods interesting details

may be gleaned from

passages in the

Prophets and in the Pentateuch.

Dr. Fiebig cites

In treating of the second period

and

translates the scriptural passages appertaining

to these Festivals. a

For the Hellenistic period Ben Sira contains

few passages, while for the remaining three periods ample

is

material

to be

found

in the

Talmud,

in the gaonic literature,

and
the

in the present practice of the Jews.

Of

these two Festivals

for there
is

New

Year presents much greater

it

difficulties,

no

explicit

mention of
its

in the

Old Testament.

And
to
is

yet there can

in

be no doubt of

antiquity.

As a remarkable phenomenon
it

the development of religious practices

the

is

be observed that
laid in the

New Moon,

on which so much emphasis

Old

Testament, became comparatively insignificant in post-biblical

times, whereas the
in the Bible

New

Year, to which there

is

no

clear allusion

and Apocrypha, assumed great importance from

the time of the Mishnah

of space
is

down

to our

own

times.

great deal

devoted by Dr. Fiebig to the liturgy of these Festivals.

study he
is

In

this

branch of his

entirely

dependent upon

Dr. Elbogen to

whom

he acknowledges

his indebtedness.

And

E e 3

412

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

commits some
glaring

yet despite this reliable guide, Dr. Fiebig

inaccuracies.
'

Thus on

p. 49,

note

6,

he remarks that the prayer

Alone

is

not only recited on

New

Year's Day, but also on the

Sabbath and on the Day of Atonement.

article in the Chrlstliche

He

refers to his

own
this

Welt, 1909,

No.

29, as authority

on

prayer.

He

might have received more reliable information from

the
to

first

find

Jew he met in the street. But it is common experience some Christian scholars better informed on difficult

problems than on elementary subjects which Jewish scholars do

not consider worthy of treatment.

Although most of the

texts cited in

the

introduction have

repeatedly been published and vocalized,

Dr.

Fiebig
p.

commits
niniS

some blunders of an elementary

onyicl
is

character.

On

28

^''V'^^.

translated by Zeiten,

Monate imd

Fesie,

and

yet

it

does

not require an advanced knowledge of phrase can

Hebrew
is

to find out that this

mean nothing
|^^?
is

else than signs

of months a7id festivals.

impossible Hebrew, and

On
'131

the same page

1~'^^?^.

D^t

''^^--

the correct reading

that of Miiller, Masseket Soferim, p. 272,

oyn

1:1;"!.

Our

editor quotes Miiller's reading in the foot-note,

in rejecting
it.

and displays wonderful judgement

(p.

moN

3"n nnPD

48) should be rendered

:

//

is

a statement which
des

Dr. Fiebig's translation

Ein Ausspruch

Rab made. Rab sagt, may be

'"'Cr'?.
'"ijjfDS

good German, but

expression.
It

is

clearly

based on a misreading of the Aramaic

i^^'?^
;

should be vocalized
impossible

^"^1

P.

60)
all

^niinn

l^-py

'"'JV'?? is

Hebrew

vocalize

as in

editions of the Siddur.

Instead of riisnp

(p. 67) vocalize rii^lr', as

the Piel of this verb signifies he appeased, which does not suit this
context.

There
a

is

no Hebrew word

ni'jp

(p.

68); vocalize

Hifk!,

which
ni^abp
(p.

is

good
rii>3T,

biblical word.

The

plural of niSpD
ni>n^)0 (p.
it

and

rittT is

and

respectively,

and not

42) and ni>DT

that

64).

With regard

to

this

mistake

must be said

Dr. Fiebig errs in good company.

in the text of the tractate,

Similar errors likewise occur

is

which as a whole
\r\\

fairly well vocalized.

In the sentence P^Sisn

\q N^-'N pbai?^
is

n"?B' (2, i

b) the object

is

understood, and the expression

idiom.

in

accordance with the mishnic

But Dr. Fiebig appears

to be puzzled

by the active

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA

participle,

HALPER
p?1"i>?

413

and

in his notes

remarks that one would expect r"!?^,

!

as

if

the latter were a passive participle

Instead of

(2,

3)

vocalize P??^.
(2,

6 a)

is

Comp. 2 Sam, out of harmony with

3.

i,

and elsewhere.
C'lp'iN'i

1^

"l^ix^

i''D'':d101

of the co-ordinate clause.

There

is

no doubt
"l^iNI

that the reading

is

mentioned

in the

Textkritischer

Anhang
(2,

correct.
it

The manuscripts
be an abbreviation.

or editions

which have

intended
9 c)
is

to

The
(3, 7 b)

ex-

pression "in^ p"'?

is

to

be compared with

ins* pi^
ipiJI

and inx
is

not necessarily temporal.

it

The punctuation

erroneous, as

is

Hebrew

active participle like

"l^i^<.

Here

again Dr. Fiebig errs in good company.

N"lp

The

Hifil participle of

would be Nnpn not

Ni.pp

(4, 7).

Dr. Fiebig quotes Mar-

golis's

Lehrbuch der aram.

Sprache des babyl. Talmuds,

is

where

the

same form

occurs, but he forgets that there

some
ri'QK'

difference
N''1i?'?

between Aramaic and Hebrew.

^1?^, the
latter

Either

we

are to read

or
is

being a

Piel.

The
is

vocalization

(4,

8 a)

traditional, but,

judging from analogous expressions, riU^ would

na3^
(4,

be more accurate.

g a)

less natural

than

'"l^^V
lies in its

The importance
deals

of the tractate Horayot naturally

exposition of the principles of the Jewish Halakah,

and

as

it

with abstract laws

it

is

apparently
fails

of

little
it

interest

to

the Christian theologian,

who

to find in

a reflection of
easily

Jewish

life

in the

time of Jesus.

Hence one can

relief.

under-

stand Dr. Windfuhr's remark at the very outset of his preface

that he laid the

book aside with a sense of

Nevertheless

the editor

managed

to analyse the contents of the tractate,

and

he

intelligently attacked the

problems appertaining thereto, though

in the least.

he did not advance the subject

On the
This

whole

it

may

be said that the notes are replete with

student with
the
subject under

details,

and acquaint the

is

discussion.

no easy
In some

matter in a tractate like

Horayot, where various subjects are

touched upon without being discussed or explained.

cases

Dr. Windfuhr failed the

to

grasp the

purport

of the laws.

Thus

phrase
of a

Di'

1.?33

DV DlDiB'

(i, 3

b)

is

a well-known

designation

woman who
the

has an issue of blood for one or

two days between

seventh

and eleventh days

after

the

414

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Q^''

beginning of her menstruation, and the words

lutely necessary, as

"l^??

^^^ abso-

the expression signifies one

who

observes

a day of purity corresponding to the day of impurity.

But

Dr. Windfuhr offers the following translation: die den festgesetzten

\_Reinheit5\tag abwartet.
Di""

In his notes he remarks that the words

n333 are a pleonastischer Zusatz.

i^?.?

Nor

is

the vocalization free

from errors,

occurs only once in the Bible (i Sam. 21. 10),

in
is i,

and

'"'.''2

would certainly have been preferable

nSB'

2.

In the

same paragraph
is

should be

'"^J^.

The
and

Piel

transitive,

and

therefore out of place here.

In his notes Dr. Windfuhr quotes

yet,

Bacher,

who

vocalizes njB' correctly,

without giving any

is

reason, he adopts an erroneous vocalization.

This

a remarkable
n"iT is

case of lack of philological judgement.

(i, 5

Instead of

nnbyzi

a and elsewhere) vocalize HIT niuya.

"T^^^y,

As

nij

undeterjs

mined,

too,

must be undetermined.
in
i,

The
b.

Piel P^^^^O

transitive,

and therefore impossible

3,

Vocalize
this

P'^^l?'?

/Hithpael),

and compare Lev.

21.

to

which

law alludes.
style

Instead of the impossible

"i.V (3,

8) vocalize

"I3p.

Sense of

and a

little

knowledge of Hebrew grammar would have taught

^'^"'3

Dr. Windfuhr that

in'^? {ibid.) is

an impossible combination.

Moreover,

all

the other co-ordinate nouns in this paragraph are

undetermined.
all

Vocalize ?^13

\^'2?.

It

should be observed that

to put
in as

these editors seem to have a tendency

many
it
'

definite articles as possible.

They almost

invariably give

the

benefit of the

doubt
is

'.

As a matter of
less

fact in the

mishnic idiom

the definite article

as

frequent with nouns than in the Bible,

may be

readily seen from the usage of the

word D^^^n.

Der

Tosephtatraktat Ros Halsana.

sprachlichen

In vokalisiertem Text mit

und

sachlichen

Bemerkungen.

Paul Fiebig, Gymnasialoberlehrer in Gotha. A. Marcus und E. Weber, 19 14. pp. 16.
This edition of the Tosephta Rosh
a series of small texts edited by Hans Lietzmann.
to

Von Lie. Bonn

ha-Shanah belongs to
It is

designed

meet the requirements of students

to original contribution.

at the University,

and

lays
all

no claim

It supplies the

reader with

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA

necessary information.

HALPER

415

In a few well-chosen sentences the editor

acquaints the learner with the nature of the edition, and refers
for fuller information to his

publication of the

Mishnah Rosh
(That
mainly
In the

ha-Shanah under the editorship of Beer and Holtzmann.

publication
is

reviewed in another place.)

The

text

follows Zuckermandel's edition of the Erfurt manuscript.

notes,

which are brief and of a very elementary character, some

In some cases, however,
see the neces-

of the important variants are recorded.

the notes are quite superfluous.

sity

Thus one cannot

of writing special notes offering the information that bjy

''"!?

means

a (Tfl^and

means a kid (p.

knowledge

6,

notes 13 and 14), as these words are

If Dr. Fiebig

of frequent occurrence in the

that the reader's

Old Testament.
is

assumed

of such a low standard, he might

as well have taken the trouble to annotate every word.

And
had he

yet even post-biblical words are frequently passed over without

notes.

He

would have

utilized his space

lv''r'OP (i, 3)

more
and

profitably

explained the etymology of

p'^'i'iri

(r, 9).

He

might also have given the etymology of Djns

(2, 3).
is

In such a text the accuracy of vocalization

tance, as the student
is

of great impor-

expected to derive his

Hebrew knowledge
this

from these sources.

tractate to punctuate

There

is

an evident endeavour in

correctly,

but an imperfect knowledge of

Hebrew prevented
.

Dr. Fiebig

from

carrying
rule.

out
i

his

desire.

QT^n^l
31,

(i, i)
it

violates

an elementary

Comp.
(i, 2,
""yai
it

Chron. 23.

where

is

D'^^'in^.

From

the Bible Dr. Fiebig might like-

wise have

known

to punctuate

^IM,

not

ri"ij:y

and through0/ the fourth

"'V?"]

out the book).

The

exact pronunciation of
Dr. Fiebig has

year

is

not definitely known.

itself is

as

(i,

8),
it

which in
''y?1,

not unlikely.
Q"'Vr?'!

We

should perhaps vocalize

as a derivative from
'''iinj?^:')

(see e.g.

Exod.

20.

5).

In a

punctuated text
r^^.i^ (2,

(i, 15) is

out of place; read

''^y^JI.

For
tJ'''pn

2 b)

read

PPJi^.

It is

common

to consider the

word

as a Hifil form of the root B'PJ,

^''iPOr' (2,

and Dr.

Fiebig, too, vocalizes

it

3).

But, as there

is

no clear evidence

for the existence

of such a root with this signification,

ty'ip

why

not derive ^^^'n from

^''V'jf^.

like

Arabic

j;.lS ?

One should

accordingly read

4l6
Instead of
tive.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

^i?!?

(2, 4)

read

2153,

as the former

is

Piel

and

transi-

There are also a few misprints Hke

(4,

^9^I^2 (4, 2), instead of

HDinn; V.??

6) for

VS3

ri'iJiips

nijhjpE. (4, 7 a) for

Babylonische

Geonim im nachgaonischen

Zeitalter,

nach handPoz-

schriftlichen

und

gedruckten Quellen.

Von Samuel
1914.
pp.

NANSKL Our

Berlin:

Mayer und Muller.

period

x+144.

knowledge of the gaonic

has

been recently

enriched with some very interesting details owing chiefly to the

discovery of the Genizah.

Many problems were

is

solved, but at the

same time new

difficulties

arose through the investigation of the

new

material.

That

period, which

no doubt one of the most

minds of
a fact

fascinating in Jewish history, has always occupied the

Jewish scholars, and despite the paucity of material

has been reclaimed from oblivion.

many

Yet some of the views that

will

have hitherto been considered as settled

It

have to be revised.
fact that the

had long ago been accepted as an established

gaonate proper ceased to exist with the death of R. Hai in 1038.

There are

explicit statements to that effect to

be found

in the

writings of mediaeval Jewish historians, as for instance in

Neu-

bauer's MediaevalJewish Chronicles,

vol. I, p. 178.

It

is

true that

there are in

some books sporadic

date.

references to

Geonim, who
either
it

flourished after that

But these references were

ignored or explained away in one manner or another.

For

is

an indisputable
in
its

fact that the title

Gaon

is

not always employed

in

technical sense,

and even Sherira

his Epistle uses

it

somewhat loosely. (Comp. Neubauer, MediaevalJeivish

vol. I, pp. 31, 32.)

Chronicles,

Here again the Genizah fragments and manulight

scripts recently

brought to

have somewhat modified the old

established theories.

Persistent references to post-gaonic

this

Geonim

caused scholars to investigate anew

phase of Jewish history,

light

and

to re-examine the old material

It

in the

of recent disstill

coveries.

soon became apparent that the academy

lingered
Its im-

on for some time after the extinction of the gaonate.

portance was diminished owing to the absence of a really great

man

to succeed R.

Hai.

Subsequently in the twelfth century

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA

a serious attempt was

HALPER

417
Bagdad,
too,

made
its

to re-establish the gaonate in

and

to

restore

it

to

pristine glory.
office of gaonate.

Other countries,

endeavoured to found the

In Palestine Geonim

existed even during the brilliant epoch of the Babylonian gaonate.

Sufficient details

about Ben Meir are

his

still

lacking, but there can

be no doubt that

acrimonious

strife

with Sa'adya was more

than a mere controversy over the calendar.

All

these

questions

have never before

been

exhaustively

investigated,

and Dr. Poznanski has put scholars under very

collecting

great

obligation by

and examining
hitherto

all

the

existing

material,

some of which has

in this

been inaccessible.

With

his characteristic

thoroughness and wonderful mastery of details

he presents
gleaned.
of those
sure,
is

monograph

all

the facts that can possibly be

By piecing the fragments together he draws a picture Geonim and the times they lived in. This picture, to be
still

dim

but this

is

due

to the lack of further docuIt

is,

ments which even the historian cannot supply.

be hoped that no time
is

however, to

will

be

lost

in exploring the Genizah that

now housed
collection
is

at

Cambridge and elsewhere.

the

Thus even

the

small

at

Dropsie College contains a fragment

which

of great value for the period to which Dr. Poznariski's

is

monograph
character.

devoted.

It is

a dirge on the death of a

Gaon

named Daniel

written on a narrow strip of parchment in a large

On

one side of the fragment

is

a marriage document
is

dated Fuslat, 1063.

The

bridegroom's

name

Jepheth the son

of Nissim, and the bride's

Isaac.

name
it is

is
is

Sitt

al-Dar the daughter of

the

The

marriage document

incomplete, and from

appearance of the fragment

it

evident that the copyist trimmed

in order to use

its

blank side for the dirge.

is

This dirge

is

written in the Wafir metre, which

quite a favourite with the

mediaeval Jewish poets whose mother-tongue was Arabic.

The

rhyme thereof

is

CN

throughout.

Our fragment contains the

line

last sixteen lines of the dirge,

and begins with the

D-'N^b'an

n'niios vniosna

4l8

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

it is

Now

sufificiently

obvious from the context that the man, on

whose death

this

dirge was written,

was named Daniel.

The

supposition that the poet compared the object of his praise to

Daniel of the Bible

tion.

may be

dismissed as unworthy of considera-

But the death of which Daniel does the poet lament?

that

There are four post-gaonic Geonim who bore

b. Azariah,

name

Daniel

Gaon

of Palestine
;

Daniel

b.

Eleazar b. Hibat Allah,

Gaon

of
;

Bagdad

Daniel

b.

Abi al-Rabi' ha-Kohen, Gaon of

Bagdad

Daniel the Babylonian,

who was

vice-Gaon.

Our

dirge

contains no

more than general

praises

which could

easily apply to
this

any man, and we have no

Daniel.
I,

definite data

wherewith to identify

however, venture to put forth the conjecture that the

is

author of this dirge

is

Eleazar

b,

Jacob.

The

style of this
is

poem
in

smooth and

fluent,

but lacks that depth which

found

our

great poets.

And
1.

these are just the characteristics of Eleazar b.

also

Jacob.

There are

resemblances in phraseology,

as

for

instance p. 75,

15 of this monograph.
far,

This point,

it

must be
model.
refer

owned, cannot be pressed too

originality will often

as

minor poets who lack

their

borrow the same phrases from

prove to be
to
right, the dirge

Should

this hypothesis

would

to Daniel b.

Abi al-Rabi\

whom

Jacob

b.

Eleazar addressed

several panegyrics, as well as a dirge

on

his

death and the death

there
is

of his son Azariah (see

below).

Of course
is

still

the the

possibility that the subject of the dirge

Daniel

b. Azariah,

who died about 1062, a year before the date of the marriage document. It may also lament the death of a Daniel who lived in Egypt, of whom nothing is as yet known.
Palestinian Gaon,

Dr. Poznanski's studies are chiefly based on the books of the

twelfth-century travellers,

Benjamin of Tudela and Pethahiah of

b.

Regensburg, on the Diwan of Eleazar

Jacob, brought 'from

Aleppo by Elkan N. Adler

of the

in 1898,

and upon an Arabic fragment

Talib b. Anjab ibn
al-Sha'i,

Mohammedan
is

historian

Abu

who
the

flourished in the thirteenth century.

About a

third part of

book

taken up with the real subject of the monograph as

title.

indicated by the

All the details that are

known about

the

nine

Geonim

of

Bagdad

are

presented

in

a masterly fashion.

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA

The
I,

HALPER

419

rest of the

book

consists of the following six appendixes

to

Samuel

b. 'Ali's a

responsum addressed
a.

Moses of Kiew, and

Judah ibn 'Aknin.
Jacob ha-Babli.

an exposition of Ketubot 63

II.

Part of an Arabic letter by

Maimonides addressed
III.

to his pupil

Joseph

b.

Extracts

from the Diwan of Eleazar

II.

b.

IV.
title

An

'Akedah by the Gaon 'AH

V. Non-Geonim with the

of Gaon.

VI. Exilarchs in post-gaonic times.

first

Of

these

appendixes the
indirectly bear

four are interesting texts which directly or

historical

upon the

phases discussed

in the

mono-

graph.

The

last

two are independent studies which are almost

in order to furnish

complete in themselves, and are printed here

the

sketch a proper

background.

Appendix

V
till

is

especially
It

replete with facts

which were quite unknown up

recently.

treats of the Palestinian

Geonim whose
discovery
in

existence was of the

;

made known

through

Dr.

Schechter's
;

Megillat Ebiaiar
list

{Saadyana,

XXXVIII)

were styled Gaon as

last list is

Geonim a mark of

Egypt

of scholars

respect by later writers.

is

who The

arranged alphabetically, and

by no means exhaustive.

The

sixth

appendix contains the names of exilarchs who flourished

gaonic epoch in Fustat, Bagdad, Mosul, and Damascus.
are followed by a
list

after the

The exilarchs of the Rabbanites among the Karaites.

and where more
discoveries

of exilarchs

In a subject of this nature where the material

is

as yet scanty,

may

confidently be expected, pro-

visional hypotheses are unavoidable.

Dr. Poznanski,
is

who

is

one of

the most careful and productive scholars,

reliable guide,

naturally an extremely

and

is

most suitable

for this pioneer work.

He

makes use of

clever combinations, and identifies persons in the

most ingenious manner.

Nevertheless some of the conjectures

are far from being convincing.

They
I,

are such as can at present

it

neither be established nor refuted,

to offer counter-suggestions.

and hence

would be useless

however, wish to make a few

texts.
is

remarks
(p. 58,
1.

in

connexion with the

The
is

suffix

of

Nmn^N
NV"1K

3) refers to yVNID,

which

a broken plural, and therefore

unnecessary.
is

the suggestion to read

(p.

DmhaN

(note 2)

59, note 5) should perhaps be read NSnN, that

to say, L,l

420
a worm.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The meaning
of the sentence would then be
:

Do

not

treat that ma?i as a ivorm,

for if he has

Jto

wisdo?n, he has old age.

Instead of the unintelHgible N3^3?N* (p. 60, note 5)

we should read
not suit

some such word

the context.
"liy^.

as N3S?pJN.
1.

The obvious 3^SJ^N does

Basit,

D'Dt'y: (p. 63,

39 b) should be D''D^NJ, parallel to

The
It

metre, which
1.

is

demands

the insertion of ^3

after atyn (p. 65,

10).

In the next line read nnvio instead of

nnxn.
as
1.

is

also possible to read

K'"'N

nnvni, and
i^s\

to take the verse

if

it

were in^aw

nn^"iii

nnin
is

For -iinym
of
'^V^^h

{ibid.,

26) read something like T'3yn DJ.

''J3

The meaning
The
totigue
redeti,
is

V^yo

nnnVJ'O DIX

?3 (ibid.,

1.

34)

of all sons of men

as suggested
;

declares his deeds,

and not Macht jede Zunge

masculine, while \\vh
T\X\T\'WO

by Poznanski.
the feminine
subject.

VC^'yo is

feminine

hence
as
its

participle

should have the

1.

latter

Instead of \T Dpnx
is

{ibid.,

41) read DpTV *n\

1"iS

Ac-

cording to the metre, which

of ^^N1 (p. 66,
nB'.
1.

Wafir,

we should read
No.
20,
1.

instead

20).

Instead of nc*
(p.

(p. 67,

i) vocalize
^ipl

Line

2 of

No. 166

68) should perhaps read

Jld''

ly^KTl

pci

nnDtr.
"'?']3.

The

next line should be completed by the

(p.

insertion of

Line 10 of the same poem

69) should be

completed by

'^piV.

At the beginning
No. 167,

of the following line ^5i3p

is

would
is

suit the context

and the metre, which

1.

Kamil.

There

no

difficulty in explaining

6 (p. 69), which reads

It

should be rendered

Thy

only

law

(i.e.

thy aim and occupa-

tion) is to

make
in

our crooked straight

and

to
is

guide our perplexed.

Poznanski
Fehler.

note 6
it is

remarks that nriN

an augenscheinlicher

But

quite correct,

and

is

to

be construed with
^y^T for xynr
14, p. 71).

^m.

Comp. Esther
1.

4. 11.

The metre demands

1.

(/'^/^.,

11).

Read TKl
(No. 176,
72)
10)
is
is
1.

instead of T'S (No. 170,

1.

Delete

of

tr^Nl

21, p. 72).

The

vocalization n^lpa (No. 178,

1.

2,

p.
1.

against

{ibid.^

short of
12)
is

vn^i grammar and metre; read ^-V?As the root of a syllable; read n3''^nni.
h\>r\,
it

ni^no
ni?no.

(ibid.,

should be vocalized

WTO,

not

It is

strange that the few words that are vocalized are

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA

nearly
all

HALPER
?ipil
,

42I

wrong.

In the Arabic superscription of 203

")

(p. 74) the

manuscript has riyXDJ^X

xm-|1X nDDJ3
This
slightly
is

in

and Goldziher

emends Nm"i1N into S'msiW*. and the sentence still remains

NHTTIXI, and render
assembly.
:

too radical a change,

awkward.

Read simply
it

He

himself stood up, afid recited

before the

It is also possible to insert

before nD233.
1.

This

may have
Job
40. 3.
it

fallen out after in.

D*^.

D^

{ibid.,
1.

15, p.

75) gives

no

sense; read

Instead of
(p.

Ei'ln {ibid.,
1.

19) read C'nn.

Comp.
Brody
is

ITicnD^
into

76,
;

20) should be lNDn)03.

IJD^^'l

emends
as

niNDHDa

but next to

my

suggestion

preferable, especially as
'V.

we only have to assume

1.

that N was misread

Instead of 3^
(p. 78)
is

(p. 77,

39) read 33^.

The metre

of

'Ali's

'Akedah

Kamil.

Poznanski does not give the name of

the metre, but merely a row of straight and curved lines.

The

number

of his lines, however, does not tally with the syllables, as

another straight line should be added at the end.

Delete the
(stanza 4,

n of rh^b^T] (stanza
1.

3,

1.

5),
1.

and the second

3)

of

ni^

2).

Before pnVv

{ibid.,

two long

syllables are

missing

some such word

as y^ll should perhaps be supplied.

Die

Fetichot des Midrasch rabba zu Leviticus.

Von
Von

Dr.

David
pp.38.

KuNSTLiNGER. Krakau
Die Petichot
des

Vcrlag dcs Verfassers, 1913.

Dr.

Midrasch rabba zu Genesis.

:

David
pp.51.

KuNSTLiNGER. Krakau

Verlag dcs Vcrfassers, 1914.

The
Jewish

scientific

study of the Midrash has the same

in
all

difficulties

and problems as are met with

literature.

the other branches

of

Nevertheless the literary and textual criticism

of the various Midrashim

since the time of Zunz.

has

made

slow but steady progress

Theodor's edition of the Midrash rabba,

of which only a small portion has hitherto appeared, shows the

excellent results that have already
linger has devoted himself to a

been attained.

Dr. Kiinstliterary

special

branch of the

criticism of the Midrash, namely, to the analysis of the

opening

addresses
tung,

known

as Petihot.
in

In his book Altjiidische Bibeldeu191

1,

which was published

he established certain prin-

422
ciples

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

whereby the genuine Petihot may be distinguished from the
This
is

spurious.

by no means an easy matter, as redactors and

copyists, especially the former, tampered with the original form of

these addresses.
inaccurate,
correctly.

As they now
superficial

stand, the Petihot are frequently

authorities are not always given

and the names of the

The

mode

of treatment of regarding as

a Petihah every address beginning with nns would not take the
investigator very
far,

for

manuscripts as well as printed editions

is

vary in this respect.

There

many a

passage which begins with

it is

nns

in

some manuscripts and

editions, while in others

pre-

ceded by another formula.

Dr. Kiinstlinger rightly points out

is

that in this investigation external evidence

to the interpolations of the redactors.

misleading owing

But guided by the general

principles

he successfully analysed the Petihot of the Pesikta

in

d'Rab Kahana
offers

a book which appeared in 1912.

a similar analysis of Leviticus and Genesis

He now He rabba.
from
dis-

only gives his

own independent

results,

and

refrains

cussing the work of other scholars in this field of research.

presentation
is,

His

accordingly, constructive, and

is

an interesting
Midrash.

contribution

to

the

higher

criticism

of

the

As

Dr. Kiinstlinger endeavours to go beyond the oldest manuscripts,

his results

can only be considered plausible, but not

final.

.jvt^'x-i

pbn

.pNTVB' ijNiot^

ipi}'^

nso
pp. vii-f 150.]

[Paris:

Imprimerie Danzig, 1914.

Geschichte der Methodologie in den Hochschulen Juddas, Gali/das,

Suras,

und Neharddas. Von Jacob Samuel Zuri-Schesak, am hebr. Gymnasium in Jerusalem. Erster Teil. Jerusalem Buchdruckerei 'Achduth', 1914. pp. s-\- 160.
Lehrer
:

It

is

an old axiom that the characteristics of nations or

literary productions.

groups of individuals are reflected in their

But

in

order to investigate the mental

traits

of an author

we have

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA

to establish the authenticity of his writings.

HALPER
This
is

423

no easy task

when one attempts

authorities
this literature

to

draw a picture of the numerous amoraic

in the

mentioned

Talmudim and Midrashim. For in we have no coherent and consecutive writings of any
and answers
at various occasions.
is

single individual; but a conglomeration of questions

and pithy sayings uttered

are
still

more enhanced when an attempt

shared by In
the

The difficulties made to group the

constituting

various authorities geographically, and to

characteristics
different

describe the general

individuals

each group or school.

many

cases
It
is

we have no apparent data

just this difficult subject

as to the origin of the scholars.

which Mr. Schesak has

is

set for himself.

He

believes that there

abundant material

for a

comprehensive study, and that

much
deep

can be achieved by a careful and painstaking investigation of

every statement recorded in the Talmud.
insight,

He

displays very

and penetrates

into the characters of the various

Amoraim,
After

and presents a

vivid picture

of their

frame of mind.

giving a brief characterization of each Amora,

he

cites sayings

from the Talmudim and Midrashim to bear out his theories.

The

first

book, the

first

volume of which

is

now

complete, deals

specifically

with the

Amoraim

of southern Palestine.

By

very

ingenious conjectures Mr. Schesak endeavours to ascertain the

place of birth and education of a
little is

number

of authorities of

whom
for

definitely

known.

In some cases, however, he moves in

a vicious circle.

Mr. Schesak assumes general characteristics

if

the

Amoraim

of the south, and

is

an Amora happens to possess

This

these characteristics he

taken to belong to that group.

is

method, to say the

least,

very precarious.

Moreover, our
It is

author's characterizations are too definite to be accurate.

impossible to lay

down hard and

nature
is

fast rules

about the frame of

mind and point of view of

Talmud.
equations.

the authorities

mentioned

in

the

Human
As an

too complex to be reduced to simple

instance of Mr. Schesak's tendency towards

generalizations the following assertion

that the difference

may be
is

cited.

He

says

between the system of the Amoraim of the

to

south (Judea) and that of the Galileans

some extent the

424
same

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

as the difference

between classicism and modernism.

The
vi).

former look at

life indirectly,

and study man through

his works,

while the latter penetrate straight into the

human

heart (p.

As

a matter of

fact, it is

even hard to draw the line of demar-

cation between classicism

and modernism, and Mr. Schesak's

an examination.
Furthermore,

definition will not stand too close

the distinction between the

Amoraim
as

of Galilee and those of the

after
all

south cannot be

sharply drawn,

these

men

lived

during the same period and in practically the same environments.

Their goal, too, was identical, and there no doubt was an

inter-

change of teachers in the various academies which helped to

obliterate the original differences,
if

any existed.

In spite of this

objection to Mr. Schesak's

will

mode

of treatment, his point of view

command attention. The second book, the

more general
the

first

volume of which has now appeared,

It deals

is

of a
all

character.

with the methodology

of

Amoraim.

Here again the author emphasizes the

that existed in the various academies.

radical difference in

method
book

The
p.

results of the first

are taken for granted.

The

author's

fondness

for generalizations is

manifest also in this book.

On

73 he makes the sweeping assertion that the Nehardeans were

interpreters,

whereas the Syrians and Palestinians were creators.

this

Apart from

tendency Mr. Schesak displays great erudition

his subject.

and mastery of
fully,

He

handles his material very

skil-

even when his results are too bold to

commend

themselves

to scholars.

Both books are written

style,

in a very

good Hebrew.
treatment

The
this

author's
is

which belongs

to the latest
for

phase of modern Hebrew,

of

fluent,

and

well

suited

the

subject.

Mr. Schesak expresses himself with clearness and precision, and

avoids unnecessary coinages.

As such books
to

are rare in

modern

Hebrew, the author ought

which he

be encouraged to continue the

publication of the remaining volumes, as well as his other books

to
refers.

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA

HALPER
disciples,

425

Jesus
.

i?i

the

Talmud.

His personality,

his

and
:

his

sayings.

By Bernhard Pick, Ph.D., D.D. Open Court Publishing Company, 1913.

the student of the

Chicago
pp. 103.

The

To

Talmud

the scanty references to Jesus

that occur in the unexpurgated editions of that vast literature are,

to say the least, a negligible quantity.

Considering the

size of

rabbinic literature, one must

that Christ

come

to the inevitable conclusion

and

Christianity left

little

or

no impression on the

new religion and its founder with indifference. On the other hand, when one excerpts these few references out of their context, collects them, and annotates them, they loom large, and are apt to become unduly prominent. These passages have been repeatedly collected, and
teachers of the Talmud,
treated the

who

have done the Jews incalculable harm.

scientific treatment,

In recent years a more

which

is

sometimes a mere guise, has been

This
little

accorded these passages.

contribution.
It

book

is

not an original

simply follows Dalman's collection, and shows

no

first-hand

knowledge of the Talmud.

a

And

yet the author

speaks with
interspersed

tone

of

authority.

His remarks,
betray
are

which are

between the
tendency.

quotations,

an unmistakable
not new,
it

anti-Jewish

As

these remarks

is

scarcely worth while to controvert them.

The

views of Jewish

scholars are dismissed by

him

as biassed.

When

a non-Jewish
his

scholar happens to side with them, he discounts

view by
against

quoting the opinions of

'

unbiassed

'

Christians.

Thus

Renan, who thinks that the Talmud and the Rabbis were copied by Jesus, he
Moore,
for
(p.

73) pits

'

a better authority, the late

Dunlap

many

years missionary
!).

among

the Jews

'

(we know

that scholarly type

Nor

is it

easy to see why, from a scientific

standpoint, Jewish scholars are biassed, whereas Christian writers

monopohze the absolute

merit of knowing the

truth.

The former
in
its

at

least

have the
Dr. Pick
Farrar.

Talmud

true perspective.

triumphantly quotes the views of Wellhausen and

Dean
is

This
the

is,

however, not scientific evidence.

Semitists

Wellhausen

one of

foremost
VII.

and

literary

critics

of our age,

and

VOL,

426

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

;

Dean Farrar was a graceful writer but their knowledge of the Talmud is practically nil the former would not, and the latter
:

could not read rabbinic

literature.

Meziza

1st

sie
?

religios

geboten

Wirkt

sie

heilend

oder

schadlich
in Paris.

Von Emanuel Rosenbaum,

Frankfurt
a.

Praktischer Arzt

M.

Sanger and Friedberg,

191 3.

pp. 47.

The
blood

question of Mesijah, that

is

to say, the sucking of the

INIany

after circumcision,

has been repeatedly discussed.

this

physicians have
It

condemned

practice

on hygienic grounds.

has been urged that hereditary diseases

may be communicated
it

by the infant to the one who performs the operation, and

is

possible for the former to be inoculated with harmful germs in

this

manner.
in this

Nevertheless this practice continues.

Dr. Rosen-

baum

pamphlet
first

tries

to

prove the untenability of this

is

objection.

He

points out that ritually Mesisah

is

essential.

This part of his work

is

hardly necessary, as rabbinical testimony

unanimous on and

this point.

He

then goes on to demonstrate

physiologically that

the performance of Mesisah helps to heal

the wound,
his view.

cites

famous medical authorities

in support of

He
is

finally

proves that the infant can neither communi-

cate nor be inoculated with diseases.

treatise

The

first

few pages of this

devoted to the definition of Mesisah, and to the

talmudic use of the root p*D.

declares in his Neuhebrdisches

He
tmd

takes issue with

J.

Levy,

who
J'^fD

Chalddisches Worierbuch that

the omission of Mesisah

is

not harmful, and that the root

can be applied to the absorption by lifeless things.

Dr. Rosen-

baum's language

in discussing this
all

question

is far

from dignified.

Moreover, to obviate

difficulties

there are instruments well

rite.

adapted to the performance of

this

One

of these instru-

ments has been applied with great success by Mr. Alexander

Tertis, of

London.

This gentleman published a pamphlet con-

taining the opinions of several Rabbis,

who

emphatically state

that the Jewish law does not stipulate that the

Mesisah should

RECENT HEBRAICA AND JUDAICA HALPER

be done with the mouth.

427

Many

of the letters of these Rabbis

appeared in the Hebrew weekly Hayehoody during the year 1901.

Dr.

Rosenbaum does not seem

last

to be

aware of

this

mass of

correspondence.

At the end of the book Dr. Rosenbaum makes

thousand cases that have come
This,

a solemn declaration that the

under

his

notice have almost been entirely successful.

is

however, does not prove that there

no

possibility of danger.

B.

Halper.

Dropsie College.

'

LESZYNSKY'S
Die Sadduzder.

'

SADDUZAER
Berlin
:

Von Rudolf Leszynsky. UND MiJLLER, I912, pp. 309 + iv.

of this work
is

Mayer
now

The aim

to refute the view of Geiger,

generally accepted, that the Sadducees were an aristocratic party

consisting of priests, descendants of Zaddok,

whose family had

exercised priestly functions since the time of king

Solomon (hence
i,

the

name D^nv).

Josephus (^/., XIII,

10, 6

XVIII,

4) tells

us that the Sadducees represented the nobility, power, and wealth

of the nation,

and were accordingly

interested mainly in the affairs

of the State, jealously guarding their ancient prerogatives,

and

opposing
of

all

innovations and changes.

The

faithlessness of
b. c.

many

them

in the early part of the second century

brought about

the formation of the Pharisaic party.

The
all

Pharisees strove to

make

the

Law

common

property of

the people, and con-

sulted the requirements of the

time in their interpretation of

the Law.

This difference of purpose and aspiration between

the worldly priest-aristocrats and the progressive lay-teachers,

.were of the people

who
and

and stood

for the people,

widened with time^

and led
practice.

to

many disagreements

in matters of religious, belief

Leszynsky champions the view of mediaeval Jewish scholars

that the distinctive feature of

Sadduceeism was
this view,

its

rejection of

the Oral Law.

According to

the Sadducees were not

a party but a sect.

strict in

They were

intensely religious, as pious

and

the observance of the Biblical laws as were their opponents,

the Pharisees.

The

rejection of the entire traditional interpreta-

tion of the Biblical laws

and of the development of the Law during

their

the course

of centuries was
all

fundamental principle, and

accounts for

the differences between

them and the

Pharisees.

In short, they were the Karaites of the ancient days.

Josephus

429

430

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

XVIII,
1,4),

(Anf., XIII, lo, 6;

indeed, mentions the rejection

of

all tradition,

even that of their

own

teachers, as

one of the

features

of the Sadducees,

and so does the Talmud.

The

Sadducees, Leszynsky contends, believed in the immortality of

the soul (Josephus, Ant.,

XVIII,

i, 4,

notwithstanding), and in

the existence of angels and spirits (Acts 23. 8 notwithstanding),

since

they are

mentioned

in the Bible.

Nor did they deny

the
in

Providence.

What Josephus means by

his statement, that

Sadducees denied the interference of

God

human
it

affairs (Ant.,

XVIII,

5,

IVars, II,

8, 14), is

that they rejected the duty

is

and

did not believe in the

in the Bible (pp.

efificacy

of prayer, as

not mentioned

20

ff.).

Until the time of the Maccabees there

was no separate

class

devoted to the study and exposition of the

its

Law. The
patriotism

priests

were

keepers and administrators.

But when

and

religion

combined and crushed the Hellenistic

its

movement, the study of the Law and

development received

The customs which grew up among the people, hallowed by time, were now endowed with the sanctity of laws,
new
impetus.

but were rejected by the Sadducees, who, as the ancient keepers

of the law,

knew

their late origin.

Leszynsky believes that the Fragvietits of a Zadokite Work,

discovered and published by the late Professor
of Sadducean origin.
S.

Schechter,

is

His

superficial

examination of the Halakah

ff.)

contained in the Fragments (pp. 143

with views

reveals

no agreements
deviate from
is

known

to us to

have been held by the Sadducees.

Even the Sabbath laws of the Fragments which

Tradition are not Sadducean.
perty of
all

Strict

Sabbatarianism

the pro-

Jewish

sects.

Our

author, however, concludes, on

the basis of an unnecessary emendation,' that the Zadokite sect

prohibited cohabitation and V3"IV niC'yb on Sabbath, and tries to

prove by

it

the Sadducean origin of the Fragments (pp. 147-9).

that the

But granting the author's conclusion, what proof has he

Sadducees prohibited cohabitation and V3nv
niK'yi'

on the Sabbath?

The
^

author also

fails

to prove his contention (pp. 48-51, 113) that

tliis

For correct interpretation of

passage see Ginzberg, MGIVJ., LV,

546-9-

LESZYNSKY'S

<

SADDUZAER

'

REVEL

43I

the Zadokite sect and the Sadducees rejected the law of vow-

annulment

(p. 16, line 8,

of the Fragments refers most likely to

''NDt:'

nynC', which also, according to

n''^,

cannot be annulled;

Nedarim 28
Urschrift,

a).^

Leszynsky

errs also in his assertion that pj;nB'

(p.

pnvn did not favour

to

the making of vows

I,

49

see also Geiger,

''D"'

31-2; Weiss, Dor,

only,

81); "n^DX N^
is

surely refers

XOD "in: (Num. 6. 12).

since DC'N
is

offered in case of Nnt2JC> TTJ

Nor

there any indication that the Zadokite sect

prohibited the taking of oaths, as our author claims (pp. 156-7).

Even the Essenes

refrained only from

oaths wherein the

Holy
is

Name
wrong

is

employed (Josephus, Wars,

II, 8, 6).

The author

also

in his assertion (pp. 76-7, 216-17, 240) that the Sadducees,

like the early Samaritans, referred

the law of levirate marriage

38.^

to the betrothed only.

See Revel, Karaite Halakah,

That

the Sadducees extended their literalism to lex talionis, as our

author believes (pp. 80, 240),

is

very unlikely.

The
Dl^t:'

sources

know
4),

nothing about

it,

except the Scholion of Megillat Taanit (chap.

{T\)2^'\

but Geiger {Urschrift, 148), Rapaport

nm,

15),

and

Wellhausen
62)
rightly

{Die

Sadduzder

u.

Fharisder,

Griefswald,
basis.

1874,

deny

to this report

any

historical

See also

Karaite Halakah (pp. 56-7).

of

Nor

is it

likely that the

Sadducees
'fD''

Book

of Jubilees prohibited cohabitation during

ninu

of

mPV
34
;

(pp. 74, 215).

See Wreschner, Samaritanische Traditionen,

u.

Schwartz, Die Controversen der Schammaite7i

id.,

Hilleliten,
like the

94

Moses

b.

Maimon,

I,

354.*

That the Sadducees,

to annul

The limitation imposed by the sect on the right of father and husband vows agrees with tradition. See Nedarim ri, i, and Sifra ad he. Nin nnn lUyb CN (p. i6, i, u) most likely refers to nm^ '\y2.'^ W'Q.I. ^ The statement of Book of Jubilees quoted by the author (p 217) proves
2

nothing.

It is 7,

an attempt

to

account

for

God's wrath against Er

see Ps-Jon,
10.

Gen. 38.

and the Testament of

the Twelve Patriarchs,

Judah

2-3, and

Yebamot 34 b. * Book of Jubilees

and from
Moreover,

3.

10-15 attempts to explain the law of Lev.

2.

2-15,

ver. 13 the opposite

may

be inferred, namely, that the Book of

Jubilees, like Tradition, considers the

if

Vrhv

during

mnD

''ty

as a

DV ^UD.
""O',

the difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees on the laws

4.

of Niddah (Niddah

Tosefta,

ibid. 5. 2)

was concerning

mnD

the

432

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

Zadokite Frag}nejits, prohibited polygamy (pp. 144-245),

nowhere

mentioned.

The

Karaites, the spiritual heirs of the Sadducees

according to Leszynsky, did not prohibit polygamy, but restricted

it

to the extent that the marriage to the

second wife must not

interfere with the duties to the first wife.

46.^

See Karaite Halakah,

Leszynsky

is

also mistaken in his assertion that the Zadokite

sect prohibits the use of

honey

(pp.

38

ff.).

He

overlooked

(p.

40)

Judg. 14.
Karaites,

8, 9,

where D*2T surely means 'bee-honey'.

of

Even the
ftD

many

whom

prohibit the use of eggs, as Tin

NVV

(Haddasi 3"ax, Alph. 232, 308), permit the use of honey; see

Anan, ni^cn

"iDD, ed.

Harkavy,

3.

The

several parallels pointed

out by the author between the practices of the Zadokite sect and
that of the Essenes (pp. 148, 150, 153, 155-9) are
interesting.

Our meagre knowledge about the Essenes makes

to

it

impossible
the only

be certain about anything concerning them.

In

fact,

objection to the Essene origin of the Zadokite Frag??ients (and

there
is

much

for

it)

is

that they offered animal sacrifices (see

II,

Charles, Apocrypha

and Fseudepigrapha,
674

790); but the Essenes

themselves most likely did not altogether reject animal offerings

(see Schiirer, Geschichte, II ^ 663,
;

Leszynsky,

ibid.,

150).

But

what the author does not make clear

his

is

how

these parallels support

view that the Fragments are of Sadducean origin.

Our author
origin

also points out, in proof of his theory of the

Sadducean

of the Fragments, that

among

this sect the priests

were exalted,
'.

and

that the

Messiah was expected

to

be of Aaron and Israel

'

The

exclusive position of the priests in this sect

is,

however,

merely a presumption.

to the fact that they were

4,

The regard for them may have been due among the founders of the sect (1,7;
also the majority of the

2-3

6,

2-3),

and perhaps they were

view

emigrants to Damascus.
Sadducees holding
(Tos., ibid. 5, 3
;

to the stricter
;

(pp. 73-4),

why

did the high priest

p.

b, ibid. 33 b

quoted by Lcszj'nsky,

73) fear that he

?

might become unclean by contact with the Sadducean

'

woman

Nor

is it

likely that the

(p. 215).

Book of Jubilees prohibited polygamy,

as our

author thinks

Abraham
1859, 83

did

Book of Jubilees 19. 11 attempts to explain why not take Hagar back. See B. Beer, Leben Abrahams, Leipzig,
904.

and

198, n. 9,

LESZYNSKY
Our author
the Messiah

'

SADDUZAER
the
rule

REVEL
all

433
and

establishes

that

apocryphal

pseudepigraphical works in which (i) the priests are exalted and

is

expected to be from priestly lineage, (2) in which

is

the resurrection of the body

rejected,

or (3) in which anti(p. 169).

rabbinic laws are found, are Sadducean works

in

Ecclesiastes,

which resurrection
ff.;

is

denied

(3,

18

ff.), is,

therefore, a

Sadducean
so
also
is

work (171
see Geiger,

see

also
it

Gxziz, Koheleth, 1871, 30);

Ecclesiasticus, since

ZDMG.,
ff. ;

makes no mention of resurrection (172 ff. XII, 536). The author of i Mace, was also
fif.).

a Sadducee (175

so also Geiger, Urschrift, 206

By

the

magic

of

this

rule

most of the Apocrypha and

the supremacy
its

Pseudepigrapha are converted by our author into Sadducean works.

The Book

of Jubilees, the keynote of which

is

and everlastingness of the Law and the duty of

observance,

scrupulous

and which contains a developed angelology and

is,

demonology,

according to our author (pp. 179-237), the work

its

of a Sadducee,

purpose being the advocacy of a change from

ff.).

a lunar to a solar year (pp. 190

Jubilees
is

The

calendar of the

Book

of
fif.)

a problem
it

still

unsolved.
civil

Epstein {RE/., XXII, 10

has shown that

presupposes a

and an

ecclesiastical year of

364

days.

Our author

believes that the year according to the

Book

of Jubilees consisted of fifty-two weeks divided into twelve

five

months, eight of which consisted of four weeks and four of

weeks each.
is

By
is

this

Leszynsky proves that the Book of Jubilees

of Sadducean origin.

But granted
calendar?

that the calendar of the

is

Book

of Jubilees

a solar one, what proof

a
solar

there that the Sadducees

ever advocated
(1905), 19-20.

See Poznausky, RE/.,

The Book
paschal lamb.

of Jubilees deviates from Tradition in the interpre-

tation of several Biblical laws, particularly in that of

Sabbath and

But

in order to prove

by these deviations from

Tradition the Sadducean authorship of the

Book

of Jubilees, as

our author does,

is it

not necessary to show that the Sadducees held

views similar to these laws of the

Book

of Jubilees in order to prove

its

by the anti-rabbinic laws of the Book of Jubilees

origin?

Sadducean

This our author

fails

to do.

In general, anti-rabbinic

434

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

laws in Jewish works of the Greek and

necessarily imply
that time

Roman

period do not

Sadducean authorship.

Pharisaic Judaism of
all

was not entirely uniform and of one opinion on

religious practice.
its

minor questions of

At

that time there was

its

Alexandrian Jewry with

there were the Essenes.
is

Onias Temple and

The Essene

origin of

own ritual, and Book of Jubilees

;

not unlikely.
S'C'nn

See Jellinek, Ueber das Buck der Jubilden, 1855

A. Epstein,

cmD, IX-XI.

The following may be given in illustration of our author's mode of argumentation and of reasoning in a circle. Book of Jubilees fails to mention the law of Tn^) n?'':3X on
Passover night (Exod. 12.
8),

nor

is

it

mentioned

in

the last

Passover supper of Jesus.

The Sadducean

interpretation of the

laws was followed by Jesus, our author thinks (see below).

1110

was not used by Jesus because the Sadducees,

interpreted D''"no ^y {ibid.) to
'

whom

he followed,
of Jubilees

mean wine '." As Book

"IIID, its

does not mention the use of

a Sadducee (pp. 206-11)
Pp. 212, 239.
!

author must needs be

Book

of Jubilees 21. 17

is,

as

is

evident from

the context, only a further admonition to obey the law (Lev. 17. 13)
to cover all blood.

That Book of Jubilees prohibited

fish,

also the
unlikely.

blood of locusts and

as our author thinks

(loc. cit), is
1,

See Kohler, American Journal of Theology, 191

427.''
is

The
origin,
are,

Testaviejits

of the Twelve Patriarchs, too,

of Sadducean
Testameiits

according to our author (pp. 237-53).

call for

The

our author believes, a

peace by the Sadducees to

the Pharisees.

The

original author of the

Testaments exalted

the priests and expected a Messiah of the tribe of Levi

6.

(Reuben

7-13
* It

Levi 8.14; 18.

2 ff.).

It

was interpolated by a Pharisee,

is

is

interesting to note that neither

unleavened bread mentioned

This
letzte
is in

as having been eaten at the last supper of Jesus.

tradition.

accordance with
:

Mekilta, B. 6
X'y2V'Ci

see Chwolson,

Das

Passamahl, 55

nifO

HDDn nx
'

px nnoi.
it.

Nor

did

all

the Karaites prohibit

;

See M. Lorge,
a.

Spcisegesetze der

Karder, Berlin, 1907, 16

comp. also Mibhar, Lev. 12

to be corrected accordingly.

Ginzberg, MGIVJ.,

LVI

(1912), 556, end,

is

LESZYNSKY
who denounces
and looks
But
is

'

SADDUZAER

REVEL

435

the state of affairs under the later Maccabees,

24. 5, 6).

for a

Messiah from the house of Judah (Judah

the expectation of a priestly Messiah sufficient to prove

the Sadducean

authorship

of the

Testaments'^

Whether

the

Davidic origin of the Messiah was a distinctly Pharisaic doctrine,

and whether the Sadducees shared the

taught his priestly origin, are
still

belief in a

Messiah or
In general,

open questions.

the idea of an individual Messiah does not loom very large in the Apocrypha of the Old Testament.
Ecclesiasticus, Judith,

Tobit, Baruch, 2 Maccabees and

Wisdom

of
(i

Solomon do not
Mace,
refers only
It is possible

mention the belief in an individual Messiah

in a general

way

to the

promise given to David).

that during the ascendancy of the Maccabees, with

whom

the

Sadducees were

allied,

the expectation of a priestly Messiah was

latter.

taught by some of the

the Messiah
is,

The Davidic

or priestly origin of
to determine

therefore, hardly a criterion

by which

the leanings of an author of that period.

the fact that resurrection
doctrine,
is

Leszynsky also ignores

of the

body, a distinctly Pharisaic

taught in the Testaments

(Benjamin

10. 6-8),

and

that

many

of the allusions and references in the Testaments are

unintelligible without the

Its

knowledge of Talmud and Midrash.

is

demonology,
is

e. g.

Beliar,

certainly not of
total

Sadducean

origin.

Nor
14.

its
;

advocacy of temperance and

abstinence (Judah

1-3

16. 2-3,

and elsewhere) a Sadducean teaching.

i,

See

Josephus, Ant., XIII, 10, 6; XVIII,

ch.
5,

4; Abot di R. Nathan,
ascribe, therefore, the

version A, ed. Schechter, p. 26.

To

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and their lofty teachings to

the Sadducees
I
is

entirely unjustifiable.

Enoch

is

also,

according to our author, a Sadducean work

(pp. 253-67), the purpose of

in the calendar

which was to bring about a change

from a lunar to a solar year.

The

calendar

is

the point around which most Jewish heresies revolve.

The
of the

calendar of

Enoch

is

even more complex than

that
21.

Book

of Jubilees (see Geiger, Jiid. Zeitsch.fiir Leben (1864-5), 201-3; Epstein, DHirT'O nVJIDipD,
is

WissenBut,

schaft, III

8).

as stated above, what proof

there that the Sadducees advocated

436
a solar year
It is
?

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Part

V of i

Enoch

is

distinctly Pharisaic (p. 262

i

ff.).

now

the generally accepted view that

Enoch
is
'

is

composed

of several originally independent books, and

the remnant of

a large literature which once revolved around Enoch'.

therefore, find in
it

We,

conflicting views concerning the Messiah, final

life.

judgement, resurrection, and future

Moreover, resurrection
is

of the body, an anti-Sadducean doctrine,

taught throughout

the

Enoch

(e.g. 51. i).

its

To

ascribe

it

to a

Sadducean author
is,

because of

opposition to the established lunar calendar

therefore, entirely unjustifiable.

Assumption of Moses
our author (pp. 267-75).
believes (p. 269) that

is

also a

Sadducean work, according

to

I^ is

hard to understand why

5.

the author

Assumption

is

directed against
'

the

Pharisees.

'

Who

are not priests but slaves

in this verse refers,

as was already pointed out

by F. Rosenthal, Vier apokryphische

Backer, Leipzig, 1885, 38, most likely to Menelaus.

The
I
fail

hostility
(6. i

of the author of Assumption of Moses to the Maccabees

is
'

b)

sufficient

proof that he was not a Sadducee.

their teachers
'

to find

These are
'

quoted by our author

{loc. cit.).

Do

not

the words
holies'

They
;

shall assuredly
ibid., p.

work

iniquities in the holy of

{loc. cit.

see

270) refer to the later Maccabees?

According to Leszynsky, Jesus too was a Sadducee.

latter,

Like the

he

fully

recognized the validity of the Biblical laws, but

rejected in toto the Oral Law, the

work of the Pharisees.

D''!^

He,
5

therefore, rejected the Pharisaic laws of

parallels)

ni'''D:

(Mark

7.

and

and prayer

{ibid.

12.

40 and

parallels).

Of

the story

containing the rejection by Jesus of the Biblical laws concerning

forbidden food (Mark

7.

14-23 and

parallels),

only ver. 15

is,

according to Leszynsky, the authentic utterance of Jesus.

By
to

'what goes out from your mouth makes unclean' Jesus meant
bathing after vyxi
T\'''\y)}

(pp. 228-91)

Our author

refers

several unimportant parallels

between the sayings of Jesus and

be proved

the Zadokite Fragments as proof that Jesus followed the Sadducees.

But the Sadducean origin of these Fragments

(see above).

is still

to

The contradictory statements in the Synoptic Gospels concerning many of Jesus' utterances and actions make it possible

LESZYNSKY'S

'

SADDUZAER

'

REVEL

437

to attribute to Jesus, with an equal degree of plausibility, diametrically

opposite views.

But how does Leszynsky explain the

in

fact that Jesus

accepted the anti-Sadducean doctrine of resur-

rection of the

body and
and

(Mark

12. i8ff.

was brought about,

many ways antagonized the Sadducees The trial and sentence of Jesus according to Luke 22. 66 and parallels, by
parallels)?
fif.

the priestly authorities and by the Sanhedrin which was then

in the

hands of the Sadducees, the high

priest

Caiaphas and his

followers.

On

the other hand, Jesus ate at the house of a Pharisee

(Luke

7. 36),

and was warned by a Pharisee of the danger

{ibid. 13. 31).

that

menaced him

R. Gamaliel, a Pharisee, indeed,

defended the Apostles against the Sadducees (Acts 34. 35 ff.). In 58 c. ^.Pharisaic scholars defended Paul against the Sadducees
(Acts 23.
9),

and four years

Moreover,

later

a deputation

of Pharisaic

scholars complained to Agrippa II of James's execution (Josephus,

Ant.,

XX,

9, i).

it is

now

generally conceded that the

strictures of Jesus (Matt, 23. 2

ff.)

were directed against a certain

is

class of Pharisees

whose hypocrisy

attacked as vigorously in
later views concerning

the

Talmud

as

by Jesus himself, and that

the Pharisees, coloured statements about the Hfe of Jesus, caused the substitution of
'

Pharisee for
'

'

scribe

'

in several of the sayings

of Jesus.

The view

of Leszynsky, therefore,

concerning the
will

relation of Jesus to the

Sadducees and the Pharisees

scholars.

hardly

be accepted by
that Jesus in

New
19. 3

Testament

Our author beHeves

in

prohibiting
ff. ;

divorce

except

case

of adultery

(Matt.

5.

31

ff. ;

according to

Mark
?
^

10. ri

he prohibited
is

divorce absolutely) follows

the Sadducees.

But where

the

proof that the Sadducees prohibit divorce

Few
8

of the

many hypotheses

of Leszynsky carry conviction.

Nor

is it likely

that Jesus derived this

(p. 294).

view from Deut.

24. i, taking

13T
e. g.

ni'^y to

mean adultery

Leszynsky contends that the early

that

followers of Jesus

were Sadducees, and

many laws

of the early Church,

the celebration of Pentecost on Sabbath and the prohibition against

marrying a niece, go back to Sadducean views (pp. 298, 301-2). This was already suggested by Chwolson, Beitrdge sur Enkvickltiiigsgeschichie des

Judenthmns, Leipzig, 1910, 10

ff.,

but the proof

is still

lacking.

438

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

will

Thus few

agree with him that the Pharisees received this

designation by their
interpret'; 27
in
ff.;

method of
(207

interpreting the
'

Law (cn2 ='to

ff.);

107); that piVJ

ff.)

means 'honey (38

;

omo bv
many

Exod.

12.
2. 2

= 'wine'

")1DD^ in the

famous Mishnah

Hagigah

refers to the

support of traditional laws by references

and ninDDDS from the Bible.

interesting

The

work, however, contains

and

stimulating suggestions,

and shows erudition and

a wide acquaintance with the Apocryphal literature.

throughout

is

attractive

and

forcible.

contents at the end of the book are

The style The index and table of useful. The author also

devotes a few pages to inconsequential criticism of Prof. Ginzberg's

interpretation of several passages of the Fragments of a Zadokite

Work which appeared in the MGWJ., 191 1. The results which were obtained by the author in work were embodied by him in a small popular volume,
und Sadduzaer
von
J. Ziegler,
'

this large
'

Pharisaer

Volksschriften iiber die Jiidische Religion^

2.

hgb.

i.

Jahrg.,

Heft), Frankfurt a.
in

M.

J.

Kauffmann,
the
author's

1912, pp. 70.

Noteworthy

this
7,

little

work

is

spirited defence of Pharisaism (pp.

69).

New York

City.

Bernard Revel.

JASTROW'S 'CIVILIZATION OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA'

The Civilization of Babylonia afid Assyria. lis jRef?iains, Language,
History, Religion, Commerce,

Law, Art, and

LL.D.,
Philadelphia
1915.

Literature,
in

By
the

Morris Jastrow,
University
J.

Jr.,

Ph.D.,

Professor

of

Pennsylvania.

and London

B. LiPPiNCOTT

Company,

pp. xxv + 515, with

Map

and 164

Illustrations.
is

LARGE volume

required to cover the whole ground of

Assyriology which has ramifications in

many

directions.

It is

not

a simple task to assimilate the results attained by specialists in

all

the branches of this science

and

to present

them

in a

form

attractive to the general

is

reader, for

whom

the present volume

primarily intended.

This

difficulty explains

why

'this

is

the

first

time that the attempt has been

made on
all

a somewhat large

scale to cover the entire subject of Babylonian-Assyrian civilization

for the

English reader'.

And, with

due regard

to the great

merits of other scholars,

.so

we may

say that there are not

many
the

capable for the execution of such a

It is

difficult enterprise as

author of this book.

indeed a striking and delightful work,

it

popular in the best sense of the term, and

contains the most

Its perusal

recent results of research in Assyriological studies.

will therefore

be useful not only

for the general reader interested

in the civilization of a region

where tradition places the cradle

it

of the

human

race,

but also for the student of the Bible, as

calls his attention to

most recent opinions on a variety of subjects

biblical

which have an important bearing upon many

problems.
greatly

The

liberal

use which has been

made

of illustrations

contributes to the clearer setting forth of the results.

The book

consists

of

eight

chapters,

the

first

of which

contains the story of the excavations at Babylonian and Assyrian

439

440
sites.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

It

surveys the work done by explorers

and excavators
first

in the past

hundred years intervening between the

efforts

inaugurated, on a very small scale, by Claudius

the present date.

James Rich and

The
to

story

is

told without troubling the reader

with too

any

details,

but with due regard to the merits of each

one of the pioneers

whom

the world owes a lasting debt.

Those who

desire fuller information

on

this subject are

recom-

mended

to the

new

edition of Rogers's History of Babylo7iia

and

Assyria (1915), which contains a charmingly written and detailed

account of these matters.

of the

The second

chapter gives the story

scripts.

decipherment of the cuneiform

It

illustrates

lucidly the course of the decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions with the aid of reproduction

and

selection of cuneiform

signs

and combination of such

signs into words, in order to

make

clear to the reader

how

it

was possible to find a key to the reading

of the puzzling combinations of wedges which became the of written expression in the Euphrates valley.

medium

The

third chapter contains a general outline of the History

of Babylonia

and

Assyria, from the oldest times of

to the Persian period.

which we

possess records
is
it

down

Of

special interest

the part which deals with the early Babylonian history, since
is

largely

based on contemporary records which have been

published in recent years.

As

far as the details are

concerned,

there are several points to which

we take

exception.

The author

assigns to the overthrow of Lugal-zaggisi the approximate date

of 2675 B.C.

E.,

and accordingly dates the dynasty of Sargon of

years,

Akkad, which lasted 197

is

about 2675-2475.

This date
is

highly improbable,

if

we accept with
2

the author, as
for

now
of

generally

done, the date

123-2081 b.c.e.
calculations.

the

reign

Hammurabi, based on Kugler's

years, to the rule of

We

see that the

Dynastic Lists of Nippur assign to the dynasty of Sargon 197

Gutium

125, to the dynasty of Ur, founded

by Ur-engur, 117, and

the Sargon dynasty.

to the dynasty of Isin 225.

The

rule of

Gutium was preceded by a dynasty

of Uruk, which overthrew

The

downfall of the dynasty of Isin occurred

in all probability in the year of

Hammurabi's accession,

if

not

JASTROW'S 'BABYLONIAN CIVILIZATION'

three years earlier.

HOSCHANDER 441
least reason to

Now we

have not the

doubt

the accuracy of these dates, or to assume that the reigns of these

dynasties overlapped one another.

We

further learn from another

source that the rule of Gutium was terminated by Utu-hegal,

the founder of a

new dynasty
if

of Uruk.

If

we allow

for the latter

a period of about thirty years, as indeed the author does, we find

that about 700 years,

not more, must have intervened between

the accession of Sargon

to assign to the former

and
2800

that of

Hammurabi, and we ought

an approximate date.
the overthrow of Sargon's

at least, as
fixes

Furthermore, while the author

dynasty in the year 2475
at

(P- i37)>

^^ places Gudea approximately

2450

(p. 138).

He
is

assigns the

same date

to the

Ur

dynasty

(p. 140).

But

it

hardly possible that the reign of

Gudea and

the establishment of the

Ur

dynasty, which are quite correctly

dated by the author, should have been separated from Sargon's

dynasty by the short interval of twenty-five years.

Moreover, on

these points the author seems to contradict himself.

He

places

the invasion of the Guti after Lagash had reached

its

cHmax under
years a Guti

Gudea, and observes

'
:

For a period of about

fifty

dynasty actually occupied the throne, presumably choosing

as the seat of residence' (p. 138);
*

Uruk

Utu-hegal

succeeds in

driving the Guti out of the country '(p. 139);

'30 years after

Utu-hegal's accession Ur-engur succeeds in making

the
capital

of a

united

Sumerian kingdom'

(p.

Ur once more Thus 140).

a period of more than eighty years must have intervened between

Gudea and the Ur dynasty. However, as far as I can see, the rule of Gutium must be placed about 2600-2475, the reign of Utu-hegal about 2475-2450. Gudea was in all probabiUty
a contemporary of the
latter

and of Ur-engur, the founder of the

to find that, notwithstanding

Ur

dynasty.

was also surprised

that the date of 2675 was assigned

by the author to the overthrow

of Lugal-zaggisi, he gives to Urukagina,

who was

in turn over-

thrown by the

latter,

the approximate date of 2800 b.c.e. (p. 130).

This date does not seem to be a misprint, as from Eannatum,

whom

the author dates about 2920, to Urukagina could not have

years.

been more than 120

And

even

this figure is

most

likely

VOL. VH.

G g

442

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

too high, as Urukagina was the immediate successor of Lugal-anda,

who succeeded
priest

his father Enlitarsi.

The

latter

had been chief

of Ningirsu under the reign of Entemena, the nephew of

Eannatum.

The author being

thus quite at

generally recognized as an authority on

all

matters pertaining to the Babylonian and Assyrian religion,

and

home

in this special department,

it

is

natural that

the chief value of the

chapters, which
cults

book should

lie

in the

fourth

and

fifth

deal with the Babylonian

and Assyrian gods,

and temples.

The

sixth chapter, entitled

Law, discusses

chiefly the

Code

of

Commerce and Hammurabi; the seventh

last

describes Babylonian-Assyrian art;

and the
literature,

chapter gives
stories

specimens of Babylonian-Assyrian

such as the

of Creation and Deluge, prayers, penitential psalms, &c.

The author
admirably.
to

has certainly, as a whole, carried through his task

is still

But there

one important point that ought not

holds with Eduard Meyer

be

left

undiscussed.

The author
first

that the Semites were the

to arrive in the
for

Euphrates
his
this

valley,

and makes
upon the

this

view the

starting-point

treatment of

Babylonian- Assyrian history and religion.

fact that the

Now

view

is

based

Sumerians

in the earlier historical periods

frequently represented their gods with abundant hair

and long

beards, while the Sumerians themselves shaved their

own heads

and

faces.

It

has been found also that the garments in which

the gods are represented do not resemble those worn by con-

temporary Sumerians.
image,
it is

Seeing that

man

forms his god in his

own

surprising that the gods of the Sumerians should not

have been of their own type.

Owing

to

this

phenomenon,
gods had

Eduard Meyer maintains

that the Semites

and

their

been in the country before the Sumerians came upon the scene.

He

regards the Semites at this period as settled throughout the

country,

and being a primitive and uncultured people, possessed

knowledge
to

only of

sufificient

in rude images of stone

and

clay.

embody the figures of their gods The Sumerians who invaded

the country settled in the south and drove the Semites northward, and took over from them the ancient centres of their cult.

JASTROW'S 'BABYLONIAN CIVILIZATION'

HOSCHANDER 443
in the universe
?

However, were the Semites the only people

whom
Hence

nature endowed with hair and beard

We

should think
freely.

that primitive
is
it

man

everywhere

let his hair

and beard grow

not more reasonable to assume that the Sumerians

retained the primitive cult-images dating from a period

when

the

Sumerians themselves had worn long hair and long beards?

The garments
settlers of

of these Sumerian gods have

If the

little

in

common

with the Semitic plaid.

Semites had been the earliest

find

Babylonia,

we should

abundant

traces of Semitic

influence in the earliest Sumerian inscriptions.

But, as a matter

of

fact,

no Semiticism occurs

in

any

text

from the period of

left

Ur-Nina down
tion, with

to that of Lugal-zaggisi,

who

a Semitic inscrip-

the exception of a single doubtful word, dam-ha-ra,

on the

stele of

Entemena, and

that belongs to a time

when

the
If

Semites had already been in the country for a long period.

the Sumerians had retained the cult-images of the Semites, owing

to their sacred character,

would they not have retained,

in a few

instances at least, their former

names

as well

Now

it

must be admitted that the author does not

fully

concur with the view of Eduard Meyer.

The

latter

is

always

reluctant to give credit to Semites for their contributions to the

human race, if historical facts do not absolutely demand it and there is some way of evading such a judgement. The author assumes that the Sumerians had brought a certain
progress of the

degree

of culture with them, which through

further stimulated
it

contact with the

until

Akkadian population was

it

and modified

acquired the

traits

distinguishing
political,

at the period

we obtain our

earliest

glimpse of

social,

and

religious conditions in

the Euphrates valley

(p. 121).

But then how can the author

explain the absence of traces of Semitic influence in the earliest

Sumerian texts?
civilization
it

[Moreover, for the hybrid character of this

quite irrelevant whether the Sumerians or the
first

is

Semites were the

historic

inhabitants of Babylonia.

It

is

a pre-

problem, and Eduard Meyer's view does not furnish any

explanation for the progress of religious thought of the Babylonians

in historical times, since 'the mixture of the

two factors

is

so

Gg

444

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

it

complete that

is

no longer possible
(p.

to

specify the
this

features

contributed by each'

187).

Nor does
the fact

view shed light

upon the

political conditions in historical times.

call

We may

attention

to

that

Hebrew

tradition

apparently indicates that the

valley were non-Semites,

first

inhabitants of the Euphrates

and thus confirms the current opinion

concerning

this

problem.

We

are told

was of one language and one speech.

land of Shinar, and

And the whole And it came to

'

land
pass,

as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the

they dwelt there' (Gen. ir.

i,

2).

The

tradition evidently refers to that

remote period when there was

it

only one language in Babylonia, before

country.

became a

bilingual

And
east.

it

is

said that the

first

inhabitants arrived there

certainly

from the

If they

had been Semites, they would

have come from the west, the Arabian

of the Semitic nomads,

desert, the original

home

whence

all

the Semitic waves

is

Babylonia in historical times.

But there

came to hardly any room

east.

for doubt that the Sumerians actually

came from the

the Table

In

accordance with
represents
10. 8-1 1).

this

Hebrew

tradition,

of Nations

the

aborigines

of Babylonia as

non-Semites (Gen.

Jacob Hoschander.
Drcpsie College.

JORDAN'S 'COMPARATIVE RELIGION'

Comparative Religioti: Its Adjuncts and
Allies.
:

Jordan,

B.D.

(Edin.).

London

By Louis Henry Humphrey Milford,

Oxford University

Press, 1915.
'

pp. xxxii

+ 574.

The

'

adjuncts and

allies

of comparative religion are anthro-

pology, ethnology, sociology, archaeology, mythology, philology,

psychology, and history of religions, and the purpose of the present

volume
religion,

is

to indicate the relation of these sciences to comparative

to point out

and

how, and
its

in

how

far

they are in position

to

promote

or

retard

progress
to
is
',

and development.

More
the
self-

especially,

the author wants

religion,
'

unfold the process

destined to

by which

comparative

which

become one of

leading studies of the future

reliant

is

developing into a separate,

and independent

science.

This he attempts to accomplish

in

by a survey of the publications

sciences which appeared
all

the cognate

and subsidiary

over the world during the four years

critical

between 19 10 and 19 14, and a

tions

estimate of the contributhe growth

made by them towards promoting

five

and
this

greater

stability of the

study of comparative religion.

To

end the

author passes under review some

third

hundred publications, one

of which,

consisting

of the

more important books,

giving

is

separately

examined and discussed, while the others are grouped

'

under the heading,

authors,
titles,

Supplementary volumes

',

names of
entitled
in the

and place and date of publication.

is

The book

divided

into

three

parts.

Part

I,

'Avenues of Approach'
eight disciplines

(pp. 1-322),

examines the works

enumerated above.

All these studies engage

light

more or

less in investigations

which throw
its

upon

religion,
facts

but not one of them concentrates

of religion.

attention

upon the

They merely
it

furnish comparative religion with the

is

raw material, as

were.

History of religions, which

frequently

445

; '

446
'

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

'

confounded

with comparative religion,

is

the 'immediate pre'

cursor, the logical starting-point,

religion.

and the vestibule of comparative

however,
is

The

difference between them,

itself

is

that the

former concerns

with the

facts,

the latter

in

search of

the laws and the hidden relationships of the facts, and seeks
to give a coherent

and consistent account of the

result

and the

operation of those laws.

Part II, headed
(i)
(2)

'The Transition'

(pp. 325-506), discusses:

The

evolution of the scientific

method

Apologetic treatises
;

(3) Translations of representative portions of sacred texts (4) Transactions of

Congresses and learned societies

(5) Encyclopedias, periodical literature, special works, &c.

and
(6) Centres of subsidiary study
:

Schools of religions and

museums.

The books examined

in this
'

group are an advance on those of

in varying degrees,

Part I inasmuch as they

embody,
'.

actual

specimens of comparative religion

Part III, 'Comparative religion' (pp. 507-522), summarizes

the results and the value of the contributions of the subsidiary
sciences to comparative religion, consisting (i) in restricting
area,
its

and

(2) in

determining
is

its

legitimate scope.
field of

The
religion.

author

a veteran worker in the

comparative

He

has written three former volumes on the subject

to

and three more are

publication under the
of
its

follow,

besides

issuing a quadrennial
:

title
'.

of

'

Comparative Religion

survey

recent literature

But he has the enthusiasm, emphasis

and

insistence of a pioneer

and discoverer.

His endless

reitera-

tion of the assertion of the separateness

and

distinctiveness of

comparative religion from

all

other sciences,
'

and

his aggressive

defence of the sovereign independence and indefeasible authority

of this
'

'

new

science

',

the
',

'

science of the twentieth century

',

the

science of the future

'

is

somewhat of a waste of munitions.

'

There have been

comparativists

with us for

some

time.

But

he also has some pertinent and suggestive remarks worthy of


Jordan's
'

comparative religion

'

casanowicz
mankind
it
'
:

447

consideration by those engaged in the study of

The
The

important
all

fact

about the human race

is

not that

has cherished

the

irrational

and debasing
it

superstitions
in

registered in

Golden Bough, but that

transformed them
'

has,
*

the main,

transmuted and
thing to

(p. 8).
;

It

may be
it

a despicable

sneer at another man's faith

exhibits equally

but

is

equally

bad

form,
'

and

it

bad judgement,
is

to overpraise one's

own
is

(p. 369).

'Which
beyond

religion

"the best", absolutely considered,

;

a problem
lies

which no man need ever hope to solve

his reach
'

the solution

far

(p. 369).

'

It is

not more a mistake to declare

that this
futility

new
all

science [comparative religion] reveals the equal

religions

of

than to affirm that

of

it

provides an
of
(say)

unthe

answerable

demonstration
(p.

the

pre-eminence

Christian religion'

372).
this

But the chief value of

volume

lies

in

the
all

classified

bibliography which will be found very serviceable by

who

are

in one way or another interested in the study of religions.

At

the

same time

this array of publications presents

an impressive

view of the many-sidedness of religion and of the infinitude

of tangents at which
it

touches
index

human
of

life.

carefully-prepared

authors,

bibliographies

and

subjects, filling fifty-two

pages, renders the

book easy and con-

venient for reference.

I.

M. Casanowicz.

United States National Museum.

KRETZMAN'S EDUCATION AMONG THE JEWS

'

'

Education among the Jews, from the

the Talmudic period,
a. D.

earliest times to the

end of

500.

Ph.D. Boston

Richard

G.

By Paul E. Kretzman, Badger The Toronto

;
:

Copp Clark Co., Limited,

This booklet
consists

pp. 98.

of seven chapters, treating of seven

consecutive periods of Jewish history, beginning with the earliest

times (before the Flood), and ending with the Talmudic period.

Each chapter

first

gives a historical resume of the period,

and

then discusses the status of education during the same period,

based chiefly upon detached sentences and quotations from the

Bible and other writings.

In his preface, the author

all scientific

'

proudly

confesses his absolute rejection of

Bible'.

criticism of the

While one may sympathize with such a point of view,

accept deductions based upon
it

one

will hesitate to

as scienti-

fically reliable.

cannot afford
plished

Bible The most conservative student now to shut his eyes entirely to the work accomof the
critics

by Bible

during the past century,

scientific accuracy.

if

he would

produce a work that lays claim to

Our

author, however,

is

deficient not only in critical

facts.

acumen,

but also in the knowledge of historical

This

is

especially

evident in his treatment of the period of the second

wealth.

common-

He

entirely fails to appreciate the

activities

work of Ezra, and he

does not even mention the

of the scribes and their

tremendous influence on the course of Jewish education.

following quotation
is

The
'

characteristic of the

manner
the

in

which our
:

author deals
this

with

weighty problems
sects

of Jewish

history

"

At

time there were three

among

Jews", relates
".

Josephus, " the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes

This

remark

is

significant,

because

it

shows a high development of

449

450
learning
ties

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

among
the Jews at that time.'

In dismissing the

activilife

of the sects in Jewry and their influence on the cultural

of the Jews with this brief quotation from Josephus, the author

condemns himself and

his

work

to speedy oblivion.
is

The
this

last

one-third of the

book

devoted to the treatment of

the status of education during the Talmudic period.

Although

period has been treated more or less adequately in several

monographs, our author did not take the trouble to consult

them, but instead went for information to a few popular treatises

on the Talmud, as

Peters's

'

Wit and Wisdom

in the

Talmud and
'

Hershon's 'Talmudic Miscellany'.

the

Rodkinson's translation of
this

Talmud was

also consulted

by him, but even

not with

any degree of accuracy.

Hence, the misstatements and misExplaining the term Megillah,

obligatory

translations are often amusing.

used

in the

law \vhich makes

it

upon women
*

to hear

the reading of the Megillah, the author says that the term

includes

the Song of Solomon, Ruth,

Lamentations,

Ecclesiastes,

and

Esther

',

while the term here refers only to the book of Esther.

In another place, speaking of the Kaddish, our author mentions

that
'

it

was

'

used upon some very solemn occasions

in early youth,

',

and

that

it

was also taught

and was thought

'.

to

have great
reference

power, notably also for preserving from Gehenna

to this remarkable statement,

As a

he mentions

'

Tract Kitzur Sh'eh,

Hershon, 332,
state of

10'.

This

is

included in his discussion of the

education in the Talmudic period (Sh'eh probably stands

here for Shalah, the abbreviation for Shene Luhot ha-Berit),

The

references given throughout this chapter are entirely unintelligible

to the student of the

Talmud, since they probably

refer to the

divisions

and pagination of Rodkinson's edition or of Hershon's

book, to neither of which conscientious students usually go for

information.
It is

very unfortunate that this volume

'

is

included in a series

entitled

Library of Educational Methods

treatises,

',

which contains several

authority also
will
is

important
for

thus assuring
It
is

some degree of

this attempt.
this

hoped, however, that any one who

go to

book

for reference will

soon recognize that

it

KRETZMAN's
work which

'

jews' education

'

GREENSTONE

451

offers neither correct

information nor even reliable

translations of quotations.
scientific

Let us hope that an authoritative and

presentation of the History of Jewish Education will

is highly desirable, and that will be greatly appreciated not only by students of Jewish history, but also by students of education in general.

soon be produced, a work that

Julius H. Greenstone.
Gratz College, Philadelphia.

ATHENAEUM SUBJECT INDEX TO

PERIODICALS
The Athenaeum Subject Index
to Periodicals,

191 5.

Issued at the

request of the Council of the Library Association.

Theology

and Philosophy.
PP- 34-

London: The Athenaeum, March, 191 6.

Ever

since the suspension of Poole's Index to periodical

literature a

need was

felt

for the

resumption of

this

branch of

bibliography so indispensable to students engaged in research.

For

some

time

The Librarian

endeavoured
'

to

supply this
'

desideratum through a half-yearly

Index to Periodicals

edited

by Alex.

J.

Philip

but

this

Index, probably through lack of

support, was

neither

exhaustive

nor punctual in appearance.

Hence
graphy.

the

new undertaking
is

of the
to every

Council

of

the

Library

Association

truly

welcome

man

interested in biblio-

The Athenaeum Index

will consist of

twelve monthly

indexes which, at the end of the year, will be consolidated into

a large annual volume.

will

Both the monthly and annual

issues

be based on the alphabetical subject-headings of the Library

of Congress, but revised, modified, and extended, and including

a brief Author Index,

All fields of literature from over two

will

hundred domestic and foreign periodicals

indexed by special

be represented,

except serial fiction and pure science which are already being
societies.

The new Index commenced

with the year 1915, and the

is

present fascicle on Theology and Philosophy

the eighth part,

having been preceded by Indexes on Preventive Medicine and

Hygiene, Fine Arts and Archaeology, Sports and Games, the

European War, Science and Technology, Music, and Education.

The

entries in this part

number

1031, drawn from 140 journals,

references.

and distributed under 614 index headings, with many

453

454

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

As an instance, Bible study and criticism occupies two doubleStill column pages with eighty-six entries. this list is not
exhaustive, owing
to the exclusion of periodicals published in

countries at war with

Great Britain.
war.

This, of course,

will

be

remedied

at the

end of the

Joseph Reider.
Dropsie College.

H'^

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

A PUBLICATION DEVOTED TO JEWISH HISTORY, LITERATURE, PHILOLOGY, ARCHAEOLOGY,

AND COGNATE SUBJECTS

Series of this Review, edited by Cyrus Adler a continuation of the Quarterly published in London from 1888 to 1908. The subscription price is fixed at Three Back volumes of the New Series can Dollars per annum. be furnished to the Subscribers" at Two Dollars per volume. Checks or Money Orders should be made payable to the Manuscripts, Books for Review, Jewish Quarterly Review. Checks, &c., should be addressed to the Dropsie College for
is

The New

Hebrew and Cognate Learning, Broad and York

Philadelphia, Pa., U.S.A.

Streets,

THE

KARAITE HALAKAH AND RELATION

ITS TO SADDUCEAN, SAMARITAN, AND PHILONIAN

HALAKAH By BERNARD REVEL,

Eighty-eight pages.

M.A., Ph.D.
Price $1.00 post paid.

Cloth bound.

A VOLUME OF THE

BOOK OF PRECEPTS
By

HEFES

B.

YASLIAH

edited from an arabic ms. in the library of the dropsie college, translated into hebrew and provided with critical notes and an introduction

By
278 pages.

B.

HALPER,

M.A., Ph.D.
Price $3.00 post paid.

Cloth bound.

For Sale by

THE DROPSIE COLLEGE FOR HEBREW AND COGNATE LEARNING,

Broad and York Streets, Philadelphia, Penna.

H ii-

'I'l

THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM AS A SOURCE OF JEWISH

HISTORY
By Jacob Mann,
Jews' College, London.

Introduction.^

The

period of the Babylonian Geonim, extending over

four centuries and a half of great importance for the history of the Jews, runs in a parallel line with the rise of the
religion of Islam

new
the

and the wonderful

political

ascendancy
falls

of the Arabs.

In the time of the earliest

Geonim

Hegira of

Muhammed

(623 C.

E.),

and during the whole

C. E.),

of the Gaonic period

(till

about 1050

the fate of the

greater part of the Jews was coupled with the vicissitudes

of the

Moslem Empire.

We have

only to

recall to

memory

the importance of such Jewish communities as Bagdad and

Wasit, Kufa and Basrah, Fustat and Cairo, Kairowan and

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

rT'J

= Responsen
'

der Geonim ', ed. Harkavy, in Sittdien

tittd

Mitteilungen,

vol. 4, Berlin, 1887.

V'J

= D^31XJn nmtJTI Vienna,

,

ed. Coronel.

y': = D>:iNJn nniBTI, Lyck, 1864, ed. Musafia,

"a=nnXpn QOIXin nniBTl, Mantua

1885).

(re-edited

by Rabbinovitz, Vilna,

"1a = myD1 n"lTO

""JINJ, ed.

Moller, in the periodical

"Wohn

JT'D, vols.

IV and
p"J

(also in a separate reprint).

= D'':iDnp D-JIW niniBTl, ed. Cassel, Berlin, 1848. p mpIDD nn^n, ed. Muller, Cracow, 1893. 3"n = nn32 mon D^:iSJn mniCn, ed. Wolfensohn, Jerusalem. r'^ = \>'^'i niltt' JlNin nmUTl, ed. Modal, Salonlca.
D''n-D"'r,N:n

n"^ =r]jxyr\

ny^j*

cjiNan nm^-'n,

ed. Fischi, Leipzig, 1858.

Y'^rn - D^31K^N-| b'^

jmin

^nniL"ni

maSn,

Parts

and

11,

ed.

Horowitz,
^See over,

Frankfort, 1881.

VOL.

VII.

457

458

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Fez, in order to realize the close connexion between the

history of the Arabs with that of the
all

Jewry of that period

these cities were founded

by the Arabs during the time

of their wonderful territorial expansion. of the Arabs in Spain (711

C. E.)

What
well
is

the landing

meant both
is

for the

Jews of

that country and for Jewry at large

internal history of the

known.

The

Jews of that period

characterized

by the spread and the general acceptance of Rabbinic

Judaism as embodied
the opposition
it

in

the Babylonian

Talmud and by The

greater
it
is,

was subjected to on the part of the

sectarians in Israel, especially the Karaites.

part of our knowledge, scanty and fragmentary as

about the
the

life

of the Jews of that period,

is

derived from

Gaonic responsa.

These

letters

of reply which the

their

Geonim, as the recognized leaders of Jewry, sent to

correspondents
all

over the diaspora, comprise the greater

part of the literary activity of the

Geonim

in

other literary

works
less

this period

was

far

from being
It

prolific,

and

still

productive in historical books.

in the

should be kept in

mind that even

Geon.U =
Geonica
II,

chronology of the period, from the

containing IK'X HT'^J^H fO D'JINJH m31:^n1 ni^NK'

D'"li*C)3, ed.

Ginzberg,

New

York, 1909.

JQR.= Jewish
R^J. = Revue
Einleit.

Quarterly Review.
des Etudes Juives.

Monaisschrijt = Monatsschrift fiir Geschichte

und

IVisseiiscIiaft des

Judentums.

~ Einleitung

in die

Responsen der Babylonischen Geonen, by Dr. Joel

Miiller, Berlin, 1891.

ZfHB. = Zeitschrift fiir Hcbraische Bibliographie. Gr. V* = Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, vol. V, fourth
Sherira's Letter
vol.
is
I

edition, 1909.

quoted according to Neubauer's Mediaeval Jcivish Chrotticles,

{Anecdola Oxoniettsia, Semitic Series, vol.

I,

part

iv,

1887).

The

dates of the of the

in the

Geonim
Geonim

are given according to the

of Sura

'

Synchronistic List

and Pumbedita
'

'

by Epstein and Bacher

Jewish Emjclopedia, sub

Gaon

'.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

time of the
last

MANN

459

would not

find our

Amoraim till the end of the Gaonate, we way were it not for such a responsum
In fact, these responsa,

known

as the Letter of Sherira.^

as far as they are extant, are a real treasure-trove for the

knowledge of the
in

life

of the Jews of that period, especially

such points where the information to be obtained from

fails.

external sources entirely

particular
life

The

responsa furnish in

ample material
:

for

our knowledge of the internal

of the Jews

their relations to the authorities

and to

their non-Jewish neighbours, their

economic position, their

communal
morality.
sufficiently

organization, and their standard of culture

and

All this material has not yet been

;

made

use of

the Jewish history of that period was rather

of the prominent
this aspect

treated as a collection of biographies

spiritual

and communal

leaders.
is,

Important as
life

of

historical
is

treatment

the

of the

people

as

a whole

of sufficient importance to be investigated and

understood.

In this treatise therefore the latter course of

historical investigation will chiefly be followed.

In the following pages the responsa of the Babylonian

Geonim only

are considered, so that the general results

obtained can hardly claim to be exhaustive and complete.

In using the responsa for the purpose of reconstructing
history great care has to be exercised.

These responsa,

when

sent

by the heads of

the two great Babylonian

Academies, had formal headings and conclusions/' according

*

Likewise the report of Nathan the Babylonian about the installation

of the exilarch (in Neubauer, Med. Jew. Chronicles, II

= Neub.II,
*

83-5)

is

quoted

bj'

Ibn Verga in his Shebet Jehttda, No. 4a, as found in

'

the responsa

of early
'

Geonim

(D'':vrN"l

Q-JIW nUX'Tia).

Some Muhammedan Fetwas,

concluding phrases of the responsa are similar to those of the

see Goldziher, ZDAIG., LIII, 645-52 and Miiller,

Victnta Orimtal Journal,

XIV,

171.

H h

460

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

to the fashion of that age, in which the dates of composition as well as the

names

of the correspondents

and the

positions they held in their communities were mentioned.

Unfortunately

in

most responsa

at

our disposal

these

formalities were not preserved.

The

several collectors of

these responsa were chiefly anxious about the preservation

of the Halakic decisions of the Geonim, and everything

else

was regarded

as

superfluous and

was accordingly
letters of

omitted.

For the same sake of brevity the

question
in

which the correspondents addressed to the Geonim are

most cases either abridged or not extant.*

that
in

Thus

it

results

many

cases the

names of the Geonim

in

are not

mentioned

at all, or there are differences

the various

collections as regards the authors of the responsa, especially

when they
residence,

deal with similar cases.

In a

still

less

degree
of

have the names of the correspondents, their

places

and the dates of composition been preserved.

it

As

a result,

is

often very difficult to fix the place

and

the time of an event or custom

we

learn from the responsa.

are

Similarly only on rare occasions

the names of the

parties concerned given in the responsa.

called as a rule

The men

are

by the names

of the twelve tribes in the

order given in the Pentateuch, e.g. Reuben, Simeon, &c.,

or they assume other Biblical

names

whereas the

women
(cp. e. g.

are
p"!,

named
No.

after Jacob's wives,

Leah, Rachel, &c.

difficult

132).

Likewise

it

is

to ascertain

the

amounts of money invested

business transactions.
*

in

partnerships or in other

When
:

copying the responsa, the

Tl^tT JIVCC' Dn^NL":;i

Cp. e.g. o"iD3, No. 153

nikJ'1,

N^i^

nio^Na piNi pb

pjyn P31 T'^3

where reference was made

in the

complete form of

question to an historic event concerning the Jews, as

tiie

answer

of the

Rabbi or Gaon shows.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

scribes usually used the

MANN
No.

461

Talmudic expressions: 100 Minae

49).

(njo hnd) or loo denarii (inyT hno, cp. e.g. j"n,

The

expression

DM

ni''nJD

is

used for any country to be

reached by sea from the place of the correspondent.^

As
which
to

regards such responsa, the place of destination of

is

unknown,

it

may

be argued that they were sent

communities distant

from the academies.

For the

nearer communities there was no need for written answers

the scholars and the disciples that visited the two Acade-

mies during the large gatherings

in

the Kallah-months,^

hailing from the various communities around the academies,

brought with them theoretical as well as practical questions

and received the required answers orally from the Geonim,

Only the

distant

communities

in

Persia,

and especially

those outside Babylon, sent written questions, for which

written answers were required.

Thus

there actually exist

responsa to the distant community of Basrah at the Persian

Gulf, as will be
to

shown

later.

R. Hai Gaon
II,

in

a responsum

Kairowan

(in

Or

Zariia^

433,

p.

177) mentions that

in

the Halakhas of R. Yehudai

Geon were known

Babylon

only a hundred years after his death,

fi;om

Christian countries

when Jewish captives brought them to Babylon (cp.

p. 21,
1).

Epstein on the Halakot Gedolot (f^),

stein,

and also EppenThis shows that

in

Monatsschrift, 191 1, 732, note

Cp. also the interesting remarks by the correspondent

(cited in
:

CX^^D

^""1

T\"\^\

No. 114

llJOPn n^3,

I,

ir5ff.)

about the collections of Gaonic

r\\yr^T\r\^

Responsa

D-\D3

ins 3XD

^i?

mcii? p*K

u^jnxo D^yj nS
nbn^
Dn^nnic'nr:)

rh\^':>

^y DnTinvj'na nin D''3iX3no

i2''trn i{<

r\'T\r\

D3 ^fn^^yn

]D3 onnx DniD

*

nN"iin

nnixo onn nin r"nNi nnx.

HTH \^yi1

Cp. the description in the report of Nathan the Babylonian (in Ncub.,
87-8).

II,

See also n"J

No. 312:

'^^2^T\'?:

\>i1

1TO

i)2K

462

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Yehudai were
originally sent to con-

these decisions of R.

gregations abroad.

We

find

further R.

Hai having no
which
n"J

knowledge

of responsa of his predecessors

his corre-

spondents from foreign countries quote (see

260, 376,

Nos. 80,

and

383).

All this proves that most of the

extant responsa were sent to communities distant from th&

academies.

(About the various

collections of the responsa

see Miiller, Ehileit.^ chs. 1-13.)''

I.

The Jewries of the Diaspora and their

tions WITH the Babylonian Geonim.

rela-

The
field.

influence

of the

Geonim extended over a wide

Babylon, Asia Minor, the countries around the

Mediterranean, including even France and Germany, are

all

represented in the great

number of responsa the Geonim

sent to their correspondents all over the Diaspora.

these letters of the

From
obtain

Geonim we

learn either of the existence

of Jewish communities in the above countries, or

we

new information about

other sources.
'

those that are already

at

known from

There converged

Sura and Pumbedita, as

which forms a part of
II,

Most of the responsa contained

in the collection

Brit.

Mus. Add. 26,977 (see Margoliouth, Catalogue,

No. 566, and cp.

is

Marx, Z/HB., XHI, 172) are the same as found

in y'l,

though the order

somewhat

different.
/.

Of
are

more

interest

is

Brit.

Mus. Add. 27,181 (see

Margoliouth,
Albarceloni's

c.

No. 565)

containing

jnn 1DD,

a part of
also

considerable extracts

extensive extracts from Juda which formed nilDti^n 'D from wiiich to be found in the MS. Halberstani's
;

edition of mii'pa ''ilb^nn^ nnt::^' "'D (1898), from Bodl.

890% should be

compared with these

cited in this

extracts.

As

is

the case with the other writings of

Barceloni, the Gaonic responsa as well as those of Alfasi have been fully

pTH

'D.

Several of these responsa are not to be found in the

other collections.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

it

MANN

463

were, connecting links from

all

the various communities,

spiritual

which transmitted on the one hand instruction and

guidance from both those centres of Jewish learning, and

recorded on the other hand the conditions of Jewry in the
countries of
its

dispersion.

At

the beginning of the Gaonic

period the influence of the

Geonim probably extended

fact will

only as far as Babylon.

This

account for the

earlier

very small number of responsa we possess from the

Geonim.

Only with the growth of the Arabian expansion

to the north and east of Arabia, and especially to the west

reaching to Spain, and occasionally even to southern France

and southern

Italy, the sphere of activity of the

Geonim

widened, and the connexions of the academies with the

outside communities increased.
In the time of R. Hai

(998-1038), the last of the Geonim, this intercourse reached

its

maximum.
I.

We

shall

now

consider in detail the rela-

tions of each country with the Geonim.

Irak {Babylon),

Irak was the most important centre

of

Jewry during the Amoraic times and large numbers of

lived there.

Jews must have

This position of importance

It

Irak retained throughout the Gaonic period.

was only

towards the close of the Gaonate that the centre of gravitation

was transferred

to Spain

and other European countries.

till

During the time of the Amoraim

Gaonic period, the bulk of the
lived
dita.

the beginning of the

Jews of Irak must have

around

Nisibis,

Nehardea, Mehusa, Sura, and Pumbe-

Already at the beginning of the third century,

to Sura,

when Rab came

trict.^

many Jews

lived

in

that dis-

Of

the large Jewish communities at Nisibis and

learn already from Josephus {Ant.,
Letter, 29, top
^"ini
:

Nehardea we

XVIII, 9^

See Sherira,

N'-HI

Hlin iTa HIH S^T NDDni' ?^nnn\S"l

Dnn

'C-a: hvc\^^

N'onc nhd

smt

niid.

464

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

311-12 and
9^^,

379).

Several other Jewish com-

munities in Babylon are referred to in the writings of the

Geonim.
in

Most

of

them are known already from

references

the Babylonian Talmud.

The

references, however, that

are to be found in the Gaonic literature,

show us that these

communities continued their existence for several centuries

later.

The Gaon

of
is

Pumbedita

in

589 was R. Hanan of

Iskiya,

which place

perhaps identical with Sekia on the

(see
Briill,

eastern
II,

bank of the Euphrates

80).

JahrbiicJier^

54, note

The community

of

Nehar Pekod was

represented at the
viz.

Academy

of Sura

by

three Geonim,

R. Haninah in 689, R. Jacob in 715, and

in

Mar R. Mari
after
i^^''^),

ha-Cohen

751.

The Gaon of Pumbedita

689,

R. Hiyya, hailed from the province of Messene

the Persian Gulf.
Sheeltolh,

near

R. Ahai, the well-known author of the

was from Shabha.

The community
its

of Naresh

had the honour

the dignity of
in
I,

of having one of

sons, R. Nehilai, attain

Gaon

of Sura (697).
("TiPK'
;

The Gaon
about

of

Pumbedita
Gcon.

798 hailed from Shilha

41, note
1).

this place see

From

a place called ^iNva, near Bagdad,

came R.
p. 37,
1.

Isaiah, the

Gaon

of Pumbedita in 796 {Letter^

nNi^3).

12: mj2^
last

Nnnpnm Nnn

The
were

two centuries of the Persian

rule in

Babylon

for the

Jews centuries of suffering and persecution

for their religion, as

we

learn from the scanty information

"^^^

Sherira gives in his Letter (p.

Gr., V*, 3-16).

top,

and

p. 33,

bottom

Some

details as to the dealings of the

n"a,

Magians are to be obtained from

Nos. 297-8.

There

used to be a weekly tax upon every household to contribute

wood
well.

for the fire-temples,

and Jews had to contribute as

Further, on a certain night, called nny, the Magians

used to exact from every house candles for illuminating

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

their temples.

MANN

465
C. E.),

With the advent of the Arabs (637-43

the lot of the Jews was changed for the better, and the
religious persecutions ceased.

Peroz-Shabur, or Anbar,^
centre.

must have been then an important Jewish

near Peroz-Shabur by the

Ali, the

fourth Caliph, on his coming to Irak in 6^^,

was received

Gaon R.

Isaac at the head of

a procession of ninety thousand Jews (Sherira in his Letter,

'3,^,

note

16,

according to one reading).

The town
in 762,

of

Bagdad, however, founded by al-Mansur

finished
till

but not

some years
Jews of

later,

soon became

the principal

centre for the

Irak.

A vivid picture of the enormous

is

trade that flourished there

drawn by Kremer,
'

Cidtiir-

geschichte des Orients, in the chapter headed

Die Stadt

des Heils
Kalifen,
u.

'

(vol.

II,

C. a

see also Weil,

Geschichte der

II,

76-7, and Aug. Miiller,

I,

Abendland,

471

ff.).

Der Islam im MorgenJews settled in Bagdad soon

fact that

after its foundation.

Graetz (V^, 179) refers to the

R. Natroi, the successor of R. Samuel

of

(748) to the dignity

Gaon

of Pumbedita, was from Bagdad, as Sherira reports

o^^,

in his Letter (p.

bottom

Nia Nn^mn pi mn nxnn

\ry\).

But

it

is
is

hardly possible that the Bagdad founded by

here referred
to.

Mansur

R. Natroi's successor, R. Dodai,

foundation of

became Gaon already

in 761, i.e. before the

Bagdad

The Gaon R. Natroi must have

therefore

come

from the town called Bagdad

that existed in that neigh(see Berliner,

bourhood before the coming of the Arabs

Beitrdge
p.

stir

Geographie

u.

Ethnographie

Babyloniens,
learn of the

25).

From

other references, however,

in the

we

growth of the Jewish community

which soon outstripped
its

Bagdad of Mansur
there

other namesake both in fame

and

greatness.
3

About 814-16 the Jewish community

About Anbar,
see Gr., V*, 444, n. i.

466

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

rival

was already so important that the two Pumbcdita met there

for the

Geonim of

Kallah
I.

(nba)

meeting of the

Academy

(Sherira, Letter, 38,

ff.).

Probably they held

this gathering in the presence of the Exilarch,

who must

have had his residence

in

Bagdad, the seat of the central

government of the empire since the accession of the

Abbasides
(761).

As

the political

head

of

the Jews,

the Exilarch had often to confer with the central govern-

ment
Neub.

at the court of the Caliph (see

II,

Nathan's report in

84,

bottom, and

85,

top).

When Jews had

grievances against the authorities, they would turn to the

Exilarch for intervention by the central authorities on their

behalf
lived in

That the Exilarchs Ukba and David

b.

Zakkai

Bagdad we

learn from Nathan's report (Neub. II,

identical with

78

ff.),

where hll seems to be

Bagdad

(so

also Gr. V*, 454, note 2).

Al-Kasr, a suburb of Bagdad,

b.

was the birthplace of David

cp.

Zakkai (Nathan,
3).

ibid.^ 79,

Ginzberg,

Gcoit., I, 40,

note

There

lived also in

Bagdad Jewish magnates of great

court.

influence at the Caliph's

In the quarrels between

as well as between

David

b.

Ukba and Cohen-Zedek, Zakkai and Saadya, we see

ibid.
II,

these magnates exerting their influence in favour of the one

side or the other (see

Nathan's report,

78

ff.).

somewhat legendary account of the

influence

of the

Jewish magnate Netirah has been edited by Harkavy in

Berliner's Festschrift,

Hebrew

part, '^^

ff.

Netirah's sons,
at'

Sahl and

Isaac,

were also both prominent men

the
it

Caliph's court.

After the death of David b. Zakkai,

seems that these magnates continued the practice of the

Exilarch
in

intervening at the

Caliph's court

on behalf

of the Jews.
leaders

Thus

in

a rcsponsum by
to

some Rabbi the

responsum
is

of the community,

whom

this

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

addressed, are requested
petitions to

MANN

467

inform the Rabbi of their

in

and requests, who

his

turn would
intervene
II,

instruct

the

influential

Jews of Bagdad

to

on
:

their

behalf with the central authorities {Geon.,

87

b
nx

p\

D.Tra D^K^i^ limx

.
. .

ntj'N
n'':^'^

mna
tni
.

Tk:'N
.
.

D^aic'n

o^na ^^yn
'jai

ni:;:

n^ttn ns'o DD^

pnN id
(of

Nn^D: 'na

i:a).

These 'sons of Aaron' are probably

identical with those

in

whom

the

Gaon R. Nehemiah
all

Pumbedita, 962)

letter (published

by Cowley, JQR., XIX, 106) mentions

the donations sent for the
^J3

as the treasurers of
(1.

Academy

33:

h^

Dinu'

pHN

n^

bn

HM^i).

Perhaps the

above responsum was also sent by R. Nehemiah, to whom,

as
it

seems, the influential Jews of

{Geoii., II, 87)

Bagdad

lent their support.

Ginzberg

thinks that the author could not

in

have been a Gaon, since he lived

casual
carried

Bagdad.

But from

references

it

appears that both Sherira and Hai

duties for

on their

official

some time

at

Bagdad.

Thus we
iNlin
that

find R.

Hai

(see infra) in n"3,

No. 278, using

'3

the same phrase, n3in2 VK^ay use' nsTn

NTil.

r\':''yQr\

xjnn

X'^r\

Probably See

the

responsum
extract

was
from

sent

from

city.

further

the

Genizah

letter (cited

by
:

Poznaiiski, Babyl.

Geonim im nachgdon.
l1^t^'3

Zeitalter, p. 90)
r\rhr\ viQ^ r\v\m

1X133 |D ji^'niD
-"j

jp3 v^an
itti'

n^n>

an^oi

2trv Nin
in

"idn

jisj

^sn

i^jns'
1.

anso cy
missing
^31

ri1?na.

Sherira

a responsum {Geon.,

II,

206,

ff.,

in "loa.

No.

44,

where

it is

ascribed to Sherira) writes

... 3D Da Nyi-ina3 vrw

.
.
.

}0T3

D^3nn Dn3
pae' VB'sy

pania

vn

'h'hn

Dn3in

nhnan nancn nKna33iijy3

^3n (probably N"nD3=)

c.

Still

more noteworthy

is

MS.

Bodl. (Hebr.

a8. 49) con-

taining a deed, apparently the confirmation of a will, drav/n

1"

Read

"ia2f3pa*^ (so also

Aptowitzer, Msc/ir., 191 1, 378).

468

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

at the hn:n Y''2 of Sherira
Se].

up

which met

in

Marheshwan,
Lines 6-10

1309

= 998
n>::n

c. E. at

Bagdad

NpTiy NpiC'i."

read as follows:

wnDT
wani

[N]:n n^33

NnTJim
r\:^i]

N[nn]

...

(6)

ani'm
w[>j]d!'
>::Ka

tJ^xi

N:-in[n]

n[n]2

(7)

t<-inE' n32-ii

pJB'

yBTii

ns[o n]^ni nd[^x

(8)

pK'niD

nio

n[^n]

m
no

^yi

mm

(9)

Np^ny

Npitra

n[^3]

N3^[^:]-n

hnjn pi n^n ^^s n^n^^x (10)

'i31

3^2 'ba [x^mp] nin [nanijo

is

[b^y]DN*
Dil'Jr

p
\

a^2n no.

The document

signed

(1.

23)

by

p
(m

nny[D:] Dn-|3N
yir"'

n''rom

and countersigned by

Sherira

n^riD^'N

Dsn

xinii'

nnn

rT'byi).

The former
^HJn n">3 at

seem

to

have been

N3m ^m
is

of Sherira's

Bagdad.

This fragment

of importance in showing us

that in the very year of his resignation (or a year before,

if

we take

Sel. to begin in

31a

B. c. E.),

Sherira presided
sat

over the supreme court

of the

Academy which

at

Bagdad.

This

will

throw new light on the

disputed

question about the two separate courts of Sherira and

in

Hai

the

period of their

common

activity

(see

especially

Aptowitzer, 3^QR., N.
of
n"j.

S.,

IV, 35-8).

The

superscription

No. 198, mentions that the responsum came to

2pv'<

....
i5"n:n

pxa

nn^t:^>

i^'Nt

''\sn

u^ns

'jsi?

rh):b^ nz'^'n
iri^'i

nyt:'

pi n^i ^x
n)"^)

nmin
ri'bv

d:i

nnx^n nx
hn:n
nn^tj'^T

nins^
c'xi

ir^s^ nx"ip:i
':^h

bv Dinn^
naiUTJ

^r3y1

x-inc^ i3:nx
nyt:'

b^

nnnJ:x.i'^

Likewise

n":,

No. 371, mentions

vol. II, 378, 49)

^x

"
But

Dr.

Cowley

(in Catalogue

ofHcbr. MSS.,
L"n-i

thought that the

bn:n n"o 'comprised NnnTio

it is

X"inc
in

nno

and

no

n''J3n

iino'.

evident that the fragment speaks of Sherira the son of Hananya.

We

find Sherira

addressed

in

this

way
I

n"3, Nos. 315, 329, 371 and 419.

Poznaiiski, in

Z/HB., X, 143-4,
in

failed to note this,

and thus suggested that

this find

Ilananya was Dayan

point,
thart

Bagdad.

have consulted Dr. Cowley on

who

in

reply kindly sent

me

his

own copy

of the fragment.

there he also conjectured

this.

My
is

thanks are due to him for his kind

permission to extract the lines in the text from his copy.

**

Bodl. 2669*, Arabic responsum,

the

same as n"3, No.

198.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

bii-\\y^

MANN
''r:pD

469
I, 61'^,
b^:^n^s

b^ D^^nj D^jn

^nn

':\i^

^s* r]yzf\

and also

in Ittur,

we
''"'Nn

read b^ )yi

nuh

hn:n pn
all

nn

pxj xnnt' an

m.

Now

to explain

these passages to refer exSherira's abdication

clusively to the period between

and
the

demise, about 998-1000,

retired

when out

of deference

to

Gaon

his

name was

inserted in the documents issued

is

by the Academy,
likely to

as Aptowitzer does,
after

forced.

It is

more

assume that Hai,

having been ordained as

Yia, looked

after the affairs of the

Academy

at

Pumbedita

while Sherira presided over the binn Y''2 at Bagdad.

Thus

responsa had to be sent up from the

for ratification.

Academy
find

to Sherira

After Sherira's death Hai presided over

the hlJii

l"''!

at

Bagdad, and thus we

him writing
supreme

from
have

this city.

Likewise the Gaon Nehemiah (962) might

lived

in

Bagdad
transfer

as the president of the

court.

The

of

the

court

from Pumbedita to

Bagdad probably took place during the interregnum of the

Exilarchate after the death of David
b.

Zakkai.

There

was need
of the

for

a central Jewish authority at the capital

for

empire and as a substitute

court, the N'nnoT

the

Exilarch's

supreme

N3N3 (see infra), the Gaon of

Pumbedita had

to transfer his

supreme court to Bagdad.

II,

From
1332

the letter of the Exilarch Hezekiah

dated Nisan,

(?)

Sel.= io2o(?) (published by Kamenetzky, RAJ.,

LV,

51-3),

we know now about the

intervals
b.

in

the

occupation of the Exilarchate after David

Zakkai.^^

However,

this

Exilarch seems to have re-established his

court
(cp.
1.

own supreme
"
11.1-4:31
m""^: K^KI ""JOT

24

^n*k^

'tJ'NnDi

'^yao

hh'^

Nt:>

Tn p
p.

7a\x\''

ii in^ptn^

p
I,

n^n
b.

y'N-i in^pin^ |d

Thus

after the death of

David

Zaccai there
again
title

was an

interregnum.
dignity.
his son

David's grandson, Hezekiah

only

assumed the
of y'l, only

Hezekiah's son, David, again does not bear the

Hezekiah

II.

470
'131

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

pn pa 3X Dmas* |m
(i.

e.

Hai and Sam.

Nni~i?:i*i

b.

Hofni)

nin'-B"

who seems to have been the

Next
to

Nam

nyi).

Bagdad there must have been an important

in

Jewish community
635.

Basrah, which city was founded in

Owing

to

its

favourable position, Basrah soon became

the centre of the maritime trade of the empire, especially

after

the foundation of Bagdad,

when

it

was connected
zdtd.,

with this town by means of canals (cp. Aug. Muller,

I,

335).

diction of the

The Jewish community Sura Academy, as Nathan

II,

there was under the juristells

us in his

report

(Neub.,

86,

bottom).

Accordingly we have

responsa addressed to Basrah by the Sura

Geonim R. Moses,
mentioned a small
R. Nahshon,

823 (Geon.,

II.,

212-13; therein
in
ripnin,

is

also

Jewish community

Obolla) and

874-82

{Geoii.y II, 33,

bottom, and 34, top).

Only

in

the

time of R. Hai we find questions from Basrah sent to

the

Academy

of Pumbedita {Geon.,

II,

71; probably
II,

rfi,

Nos. 221-2, 422 are also by R. Hai).

In Geon.,

71 the

correspondents of R. Hai state that disciples have learned

the passage of Talmud, which formed the subject of their
questions to the Gaon, before the head of the

Academy
Sura.

of

Sura (XTiD na^no Dxn INT

refers to

^Q 1d^:

mDN^n).^*

Probably this
After

Samuel

b.

Hofni, the last

Gaon of

his death

in 1034, the scholars of

Basrah sent their

for

difficulties

to R. Hai.

There

is
1,

no proof

Eppenstein's statement

{Monatsschrift, 191
activities of the
It is true

469) that after Saadya's death fhe

Sura

Academy were
Academy

continued

in

Basrah.

that Saadya's opponent, Joseph bar Satia, not

at

being able to keep up the

^*

Sura

after Saadya's
in

Poznanski's inference from this passage that 'there was

Pumbedita

a residence for the scholastic president of Sura' {JQR., N.S., HI, 416) lias

no foundation, as the rcsponsura came from Basrah.

II

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

death, settled in Basrah [Letter, p. 40).

MANN
it

471

But

is

nowhere

mentioned that he held any

official

position there as the

head of a school.

From Nathan's
Babylonian

report concerning the

income which the Exilarchs as well as the academies

derived

from

the

communities (Neub.,
in the districts of

II,

86-7), we learn that Jews lived and Holwan as well as in the

Nahrvan

provinces of Fars (did) and

in

Chorasan.

This we find corroborated

Gaonic responsa.

Sherira and Hai speak of Jews in Media, Persia, and

(in

Elam

a responsum published by Harkavy in the periodical

DTpn, II, p. 89).

So

also R.

Hai

in

another responsum

(quoted

in DTiyn
'

nao, ed. Schorr, p. 37)

mentions com'}'"

munities in
^^
.
. .

Elam and
h':h

the islands of Persia

pjy onn
K'-'tr

Of particular
b'^
k'""i.

r\vv

nm^
11.

iv^^y ny na p^'-ne' did

further Geon.,
II,

h^

dm

^'Ni

D^J^y

NmusN nsD px3 nioipo

pnjn
Cp.

279,

12-13.

Cmj FlDXD (in ppon,

name
,
,

1879,

About the Jews of Charasan, cp. Harkavy, 81) where he quotes Moses Ibn Ezra in the
r\'^\i

of Saadya,

ni^

^12 ns:^'^

(^23 ni^jn

\>r\"h

T\n'2V) r\\2\

|ND"13

nninob 1X2

IB'iS D^LDT^'n.

From Nathan's

report (Neub.,

II, 78)

we

learn that Charasan belonged to the sphere of influence of the

exile of the exilarch

Pumbedita Academy and that the deposal and

Ukba

was due
.province.
I

to his

attempt to deprive the academy of the revenue from this

is

This

corroborated by an interesting responsum by Hai which

Brit.

have copied from

c""'.:'

Mus. Add. 27,181

(cp. above, note 7) fol. 15 a (n"J).

jn3D C2b
nt^'NH
'3

nrn

D3^vn hia iddh

in

>3

n^ynv

iin

ijf

^sn

ai nnai
^ipb

ayxi

^pon^N iob'
nr

nninan

nytj'3

i6\i^

ntrs

i6 n:^ poi 'nDDn

jnjm

tr'^B'

aba ^n':^

^:d3

pitra nti'npnD

nnins nyB^n aba hb^n ''mrp

-iP']}

b^ py-iv pNi
D':\y

nxr^ bi^i yocrj

^^^

aB'i^n

ny3U3 ^npb :njD ny^ po inv

NV'-i

hddd

pNnnai
nntro
pTii

iDDnb -i3in

pc^n^p

m^D3i nijyo
j<j3ni
',r.

ni:yt:n

N^'N iK'ip^ N^c'

pw

mi,T

njid)

mi 'nra n:'V3i wno

ij:"'pr

jni?

"nD3
ij'npDP
!?3i

iJ\SK^

bi *pDiTs* nanai nny n> onm nainaa ^33

ti^npr:n

moa
nrn

p3-n 'nynx
p^D^

'Dsna
f\ii

1^

pc'ij'in

pNC^'

pi?

jp>n

nra 3n:o
fpn't'

d^'-ixi

una

'iTro

'uM'pb

pan inry^Dxi

i3nn

ny iniDjp pDn\s nuL'ai nainaa abiy uip^n.

we

see

472

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Jewish communities mention should be made of Nehavend

from whence the well-known Karaite Benjamin (800-820),

and of Isfahan

in

Persia where

the

imposter

Abu-'Isa

declared himself Messiah in the reign of the Caliph AbdulMelik, 685-705 (see Gr.,
V"*,

173-5 and note

15).

In Nisibis

there
for

lived

member

of the Davidic

family who, but

b.

an unfortunate event, would have succeeded David

(cf.

Zakkai to the dignity of Exilarch

infra).

Among

the

Babylonian Jews there settled a number of Jews from

foreign countries.

number of Jews, whom Omar drove

Kufa
465)

out from Haibar in Arabia (about 640), settled near

(Gr.,

V*, 119).

R. Hai reports a responsum (above,

from

p.

of

Jewish

captives

Christian countries that

were

brought to Babylon, probably during the wars the Arabs

had with the Byzantines

in

863-4

(see

Epstein on the
the large trade

m^nj

ni3^n, p.

21).

Finally,

owing

to

carried

on between Egypt and Babylon,

in

many Egyptian

Jews settled
in n"3
2.
,

Babylon, as R. Hai
end.^'fi

tells

us in a responsum

No. 285,

The next country

Very
little

to be considered after

Babylon

is

Palestine.

is

known about the

conditions of

the Palestinian Jewry during the Gaonic period (see Gr.,

V^, 17-32, and
jiid. Geschichte,
is

now

also Krauss, Stndicn znr Byzantinischi

fif.)-

Vienna, 1914, p.

to be obtained from Genizah Fragments.

Some new information The persecu-

tions

which the Palestinian Jews were subjected to imder

Heraclius, immediately preceding the advent of the Arabs,

thus that
it

was the Pumbedita Gaon, R. Juda

b.

Mar R. Samuel (906-18),

the grandfather of Sherira,

their
'

who
b:nb

induced the Jews of Chorasan to alter

custom

in

uniformity with that of Irak (/33).

p:3iij'i

IN N-I3DV3

pN3-;'

Dnx

ijan

p^iif?:>

naim
Tiiis

"jNnn^bNi
refers to

nnDy^N

D^rj*

nc3 insS

pyiiji ^:xnn:2.

probably

Jews.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

are described

MANN

473

of Sura

by a supposed contemporary of R. Jehudai The Byzantine rulers decreed that the (760).
Sh'ma nor say

Palestinian Jews should neither read the

their prayers, but they allowed

them

to assemble in the

synagogues on Sabbath morning for the purpose of reciting

Psalms.^^

As

soon as the Arabs conquered Palestine

all

these persecutions were stopped.

At

the beginning of the

influx of Arabian

Muhammedan rule
part of the

there took place

some

Jews who were expelled by

Muhammed and Omar.

settled in

A
624,

Banu Kainuka

Palestine in
in

a group of the
finally

Banu Nadir followed them

in

625, and

a number of Haibar Jews

;

640
in

(see Gr., V*,

109
Zeit
of

and III

Leszynsky, Die
6^,

Jtiden

Arabien
little
is

2.

Mohammeds,
the

72-4 and Jews

in

114).

Very

known

Palestinian

the time of the early Geonim.

From

the fact that R.

Aha

of Shabha
0^^

left

Babylon
0^6

for

Palestine about 760 {Letter, p.

bottom and
nini'"'N{J',

top),

where he composed the well-known

"
Geo., II, 50-51 (see
ibid.,

a collection

pp. 48 f.): innty

ix-ip"-

b")

"Xmn^ 10 "ICS pi

pn^3D vni i^p^sn- i6^

nnnti'n

v^^

ri-np

n^'K'

bsiK''"

px

^33

bv n"^

DnciN rni nnDyn

nrotS

-^Dii?

nara

nn^:^
\:fnp)

D:yb fmx
noyro nac'i

VB'ayi DJisa ^bbn

cnan

u'^m! rni ^omd2 v^'y^

p^Dvb
,
,

Dm^jm

D^bya'> in3i
(Cp. GeoH.,
I,

n^nnw
207, top,

bt2'2)

dhn dd^d
II,

n'lpn nb^^
(p.
is

min3.

and

420.)

Ginzberg

48)

assumes that the author of the responsum was a Palestinian.

clear from the fragment
;

This

not

nor

is it

certain that

it

constitutes a part of a

may perhaps be a part of WSIT iT'T'D^Jn ''13X3 f3 'IpT'S, who in his turn was the disciple of Yehudai Geon (cp. especially, Schechter, Hoffmann-Festschrift, Hebrew part, 262). As Ben Bebai's master was
responsum.
It

Yehudai's disciple,

it

is

only natural

that

Yehudai should
fragment

figure
in

so

prominently
It

in

Ben

Bebai's Mpl^D, as

we
It

find in the

Geonica.

would be of

interest to

compare the handwriting of fragment Schechter

should be added that T.-S.
|3

with that of Geon. (T.-S. Loan 97).

9'

loK,
^IpTQ

also

contains a colophon
I1NJ

N3N11 N3N*n iT'l'D^n '13N3

3^ ir

"Niin^ 3"iD T'Di'n.

I
i

VOL.

VII.

474

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

it

of sermons delivered on Sabbaths,

was

inferred that there

in Palestine

must have existed then Jewish communities

(see Gr., V*, 179-80).

Likewise the pilgrim Willibald

'

who

visited Palestine in

765 writes,

ibi

(Tiberiade) sunt multae

'

ecclesiae
ibid.,

et

synagogae ludaeorum

(quoted

by

Graetz,

The responsum of R. Jehudais contemporary, mentioned above, adds new information about the Pales122, 3).

tinian

Jewry

of

those

times.

There

existed

several

communities

in Palestine

and

in

some

of them, including

Jerusalem, Babylonian Jews that settled there

were

in

such considerable numbers, that they could enforce their

will

in

matters concerning the ritual of the synagogue.'^

rD"ii:3,

We

No. 39, that Jews from Africa as well as from Babylon married women in Palestine and
learn further from
settled there.

Probably these Babylonian Jews continued

their connexions with the

Geonim and

their

Academies.

Among
ed.

the countries that sent material

is

support to the

Babylonian academies Palestine

also included (Ibn

Daud,

Neubauer,

p.

67

majB' n^apn nN nao nn^n pb mipi

tidd

n^'oi Npn2Ni 3iycn

^3Vri

I'isi

psD

i^n

n\-iB>

rwT^"'

b^ Dpin
it is

pNl).

Yet only a few responsa are extant wherein

expressly stated that they were sent to Palestine.^^

R. Hai

"

Geott., II, 53,

II.

20-24

nni^a

Nbs

yD'i'1

m'^\> ""Na
D"'2ic

^'^ njno bani D^btm^o

^33 nti'np iDib
nr^'hv

pn

nabn nnncj'a naba

onoiN px n^on in

iba^pB'

ny npi^nc^ nnno \\i;w p^N^jna nn

^"ni';'
nn'''yi

onniN

pi<

pN^aa nna psc'

n''l3^31

m:nrD isB'a bas

di^

"13^3 D^31t3

n3t^'3 N^N tJmp.

w On
IV, 149)
:

the other hand, cp. D''3p)

inn

55 a (cited by Berliner, Z///i?.,

bbn
^HN

'-10 nbi:n

psa D-ij:y

3-1

bs pDm:ip

^i^y^rvy

^hnsdi

JD

pnN
JD
8,

DSn
No.

m^N nnp "n^sn hbn >jn ^^Niir^ piNO n>ntj' The well-known responsum in y'n, No. 93 (of. ^^j. and JTl, No. 166 in the name of Hai) is headed in Or. 1054, fol. 87 a
nn^i:i

xh

3Nn.

(see Margoliouth, Catalogue,

III,

509, col. a)
in

b33b

hvr\^"' 5'"!^

^t^J^<

"it^'DD.
it

This can hardly be correct as

the responsum (in y'n and in 7"J)

is

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

mentions
in n"3
,

MANN

475

No.

64, a question that reached

*1C^N

him from
D^ioann).

'the scholars of Jerusalem' (D^^K'1T2

It
is

Dn^ann

difficult

to

ascertain

who
a

these scholars were and

dignity.

whether they held any

Genizah
finds

official

Thanks

to'

the

we know now
of 3py^
ps'a

good deal about the

heads of which bore
(see
ff.).

academy founded
also

in Jerusalem, the
riTK'^ t'in

the

title

now
But
it

especially
is

Poznanski, Babylon Geonim, &c., 81

as yet

very obscure what relations existed between the Babylonian

Geonim and the

Palestinian

Academy.

No

clear case has

so far been established that Sherira and Hai corresponded

with the Palestinian Geonim.

It is

very doubtful whether

CJ'KI,

the letter of Sherira and Hai to a

nT*k^^

dated 13th of

Ab, 1300
passage
'131

Sel.

989

C.E.,

and containing the interesting

nyb
"la

maxn

N"ipnb

rm'^^

''n"'B'

nTtr"'

i^'Ni

\o

t)U\>2^

nim

D-'Dya irnnN!5 ntj^ya

n'-nna v/as really sent to

the

Palestinian Gaon, Joseph ha- Cohen, as Dr. Marmorstein,

who published this letter from a MS. Adler in ZDMG., LXVII, 630, maintains. It is rather strange that the
letter
'

should end abruptly with

pidI""

'"h

without mentioning
It is

his priestly descent nor his official dignity.

possible
in

that flDV

'"17

forms the beginning of the next item

thus requires further investigation.^"
D"'B'iy
"]D

the

MS. Adler which

expressly mentioned

The

^22

"'B'iN

i)31

D^D3m.
it

But the above

heading
20

is

overlined in Or., which

may denote

that
I

should be deleted.

After having examined this manuscript,

fully confirmed.

find

my

doubts about

Marmorstein's identification

The fragment

consists of

two

joined leaves in the same handwriting (detached in MS. Adler, No. 4009

a facsimile of leaf

is,

understand, to appear in the forthcoming

Collection),

Catalogue of Mr. Adler's

MSS.

The

first

half of leaf
j^).

a covers

the part of the letter by Sherira and Hai (to ^"ni.

nJC 3X3

Removed

this stands in the middle of the line ^DV \?. Then follows on the next line a letter by Joseph ibn Abitur, covering the remainder of leaf i a

from

and the following three pages.

This

letter

is

addressed

to
I
i

Samuel
3

476

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

reading of the Gaon's letter in public need not refer to

the custom prevailing in Palestine which mostly took place

on Mount Olivet on Hoshana Rabba, as Poznaiiski,

85-6 thinks.

I.e.,

We

find in a"n,

No.

2>1^

the

Gaon Aaron

ha-Cohen
dents
'131
:

(of

Pumbedita, 943) writing to his corresponrh^VT\

HDyi nsrn

nnicrin

is-ip"!

o^jprn

ivap"-

p^n

ir^-i^sc "-M iK^yi niK''

nr^y ^y.

On the other hand

nian
483,

it

appears from a

letter

of the Palesti-

Gaon Solomon
11.

b.

Jehuda [Saadyana ii^ = J^QR., XIV,

friction

42-6) that in his time there arose

(i.e.

between

the Babylonian

Pumbedita) and Palestinian schools over

their respective spheres of influence in

D'^a

Egypt

(Qlpon
^ncj>
B'''

IVH^

nn

bn

^:2

otra [nr] loa^ bv "insn

K'^

Dipon n\T

bv

nn
'':3

Th^b Dnv
.
. .

pNO

pN

ni'^'' DC' "llpj?^ K^pT

D:Nn

pN

nn iDTn

>n^3i' i^fy^

nnr

xi^n bsy

ni*

nvn).
in

Anyhow,
since, at

the existence of an

Academy

Jerusalem

least,

the middle of the tenth century would

account for such a small number of responsa having been

sent to Palestine

by the

last
is

Pumbedita Geonim.

What
474) in

one would

like to

know

whether the Babylonian Jews

have seen above
(p.

residing in Palestine,

whom we

considerable numbers already in the middle of the eighth

century, continued throughout the centuries their connexions

with the academies of their native country.

Perhaps further

Genizah finds
HTtJ'M
637, n.
B'N~I
i).

will enlighten us

concerning this point.

tJ'NI
(cited

b.

Joseph 3py>

|1N3

tj'^

by MarmorsteiA,
it is

I.e.,

As

both letters are in the

same handwriting,

evident that

they are only copies from the originals.

in front of letter

The
i.

copyist thus placed PjDV

I

Hp
the

Joseph's (ibn Abitur)

letter,

e.

written by him

Hence

of Shcrira and

Gaon of Jerusalem).
rovvan
;

Hai was never addressed to Joseph (ha-Cohen, More probably it was sent either to Fustat or Kai(ri13''5i*^).

in

both places there existed schools

The remarks

of

Poznaiiski {Babylon. Geonim, 85-6),

will

based on Marmorstein's publication,

have to be cancelled.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

3.

MANN

477

The most
also

frequent intercourse, however, the

Baby-

lonian

Academies had with the north-African communities

with Spain.

and

We

shall begin with Egypt, the

nearest North-African country on the

to the Occident.

way from Babylon The connexion between Babylon and

after the conquest of

Egypt became the more easy

by the Arabs under 'Amr

Egypt
This

ibn al-'As in 639-42.

it

famous general founded Fustat and connected

with the

Red Sea by

repairing the neglected

canal

between the
ibid., I, 266).

Nile and the Gulf of Suez (see Aug. Miiller,

In a short time a very important Jewish community sprang

up

there.

Already

in

750 there existed

in Fustat a

Jewish

community under the

leadership of a Babylonian Jew,

(see

Abu-Ali Hasan of Bagdad

JQR., XVII, 426-30).

Many Jews
there,

from Babylon as well as from Palestine settled

forming two separate communities, the so-called

(p*|?N"iy^S,

'synagogue of the Babylonians'

C^bann DD^ja)
(}''"'CN::'^k
,

and the 'synagogue of the Palestinian Jews'

especially

see

Worman,

jfQR., XVIII, 1-39

Bacher,

ibid.,

564,

and Poznariski, RAJ., XLVIII, 157-60).

published by Goldziher,
nojDi
. .
.

In a fragment
:

R&J., LV,
bnp
ni^iyon

58,

we read

'n^r i:k "ijodi

D^''?D^B>n>n

riD-JD

niiripn

^hvo^
(see

pyn

"Tin

mnxp^N nsnpn

n^i^^on

Ty

nojai D^'-^aan

now
It
is

also

Shapira, Milanges
natural
that

H. Derenboiirg, 121-30}.
great

only
in

the

number of Babylonian Jews

Fustat should have turned to the Babylonian academies

for religious instruction.

Yet only a few responsa of the

as

Babylonian Geonim
been sent to Egypt.
especially Sherira

are expressly mentioned

having

We

find chiefly the later

Geonim,

and Hai, maintaining some connexions

with Egypt.^^
2'

In a letter from Fustat to Hai (cited

by

Cp. n"3, No. 290, beginning, probably by Sherira and Hai, see Einktt,,

478

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

I.e.,

Worman,
bedita

12)

it

is

mentioned that the synagogue of

the Babylonians

in

Fustat was

named
,

after the

PumcrN"i

Academy
^y
b.
T\\!cr\\>T\

(ni^npn iin^N i:dd

nh: h^ nT"^>

inT-^r^ DC'

n^^bnn

no'-^^n T\hht.T\'or\)P

The

letter

of

Solomon
lonian

Jehuda (above,

p.

476) also

tells

us of Egyptian

communities apparently under the influence of the Baby-

Academy.

Of

course,

Saadya,

who

hailed from

43-4

n":, no. 312, by R. Samuel

b.

Hofni

^":, No. 6i, and

to

DTlVH 1DD,
p''3,

ed. Schorr, p. 3,
fol.

by R. Hai, seems

to

have been sent

Egypt

No. 72,

24

a,

I.

6.

See

also 3'n, No. 27,

by R, Zemah, probably of Pumbedita,

p. 72,

872-90.

In Wertheimer's riD7B'

n?np,

there are printed the headings

of nine responsa by Sherira and Hai to

h"\ 3S1 |1X3 ^^Nn i:^:nN1

Egypt (DaiBTl

DnXO^

^rtJTl

pDOn]

XinK'
JQR.,
which
I

1J''J'nN).

Cp. also Poznanski, R.J.y

XLVIII, 161-2; LI, 57-8

'2

N.S., III, 462, note 14.

The following

lines,

have copied from

this

Genizah fragment

(T.-S. i6-3i8), will bring out

more

clearly the great reverence in

which
(5)

R. Hai was held.

[nJB'np

H^T H^D xhrw HTDV

^a

"1X[qJ

...

irn^s l^on^ -inn nsiDi

flpn^

H\!C\^^

pw

^^sn ijuni
inn-iti'

irnn

nc^ti'^ (6)
(7)

in^K'no

fi^vy^i

pN
j3

ijio^b' pi^dvi

nnn^i vnipain

ir:nN hi:n insn

>pni*D

ro^ nnsn

i'sntj'*

^jicn

nx

(8)

ind^i
i^nrii

mvnD3
>>

p^nyn

rh^h^

^3^lr^^

"ind (9)

Nint'
omd^h
"n

umi

tpy nni:D3
ij^jinsb
'l^^^'D^

inix ^idx^ 3dio nih (10)

inc'iy p^'k^nn
Nti'^

n'-^jj

^jn t:'N-iai D"'3in

n'l^t^'^

vnv^y 'jDnna
Dy

(n)

nns
ijjiw

hnj

Dii'B'

"

pw
p:"i

i:jnN
(13)

(12)

iy^ inn-c^

^3^1

D5y ^y

HNnpn

D^-iban

noD^n D^^^anm ni^npn i^ms i3cd

nti'N

v^K DD^j^nn
n^iti'Nnn (15)
.
,

(14)

Dp^EH
nN"'3

Diiyro
^d'*

nivi?

nn nmrD

^3 in3*tr^

n^K^DDn

ny n^n
lines

na^c'cn disq^ "ncna

it

Nim

obc'n''

vd? na^DtD.

From

13-14
the

appears that the honour

given by,Hai.
stj'led

of calling the synagogue by the

name of

Academy was

The correspondents mention

-i3n, fji^K and na^'^'^T

a letter which Hai sent to

(ii.

Abraham,

i^nn
ani

21-23 lainx
fii^sn

h^

li^iw

aNna mi nps
Vcry
likeiy

na^tTM

Tna nmas
b.

5"id

-lann

ij^i^nji).

Abraham

Salialon

is

meant here

wlio, as will be

shown elsewhere, was

corresponding

the spiritual head of the Babylonian

to the dignity of

community
the

at Fustat,

Ephraim

b.

Shemarya of

Palestinian congregation.

Abraham's successor was

his son Sahalon, styled

f]vS and n?3

t^N").

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

MANN

479

Fayum, must have kept up

close relations with his native

(cp. e.g.

country during the whole period of his Gaonate

JQR., XVI. 390-3,

295-7).

In discussing the relations of Sherira and Hai with

Egypt, some remarks must be added on the famous scholars

Shemarya and
held

his son

Elhanan.

In spite of the important

Genizah finds hitherto published, the position these scholars

in

Egypt and

their relations

both with the schools

not clear enough, and
it

of Babylon and of Palestine are

require further elucidation.
certain whether

still

To

begin with,

is

not yet

Shemarya

resided at Cairo, as
basis, or at

it is

generally

assumed, though without any

Fustat (so

now
he

Poznanski, ^^4^/. Geoniniy p. 98;

in jNITp 'L^JX,

No.

11,

begins with Fustat and ends up with Cairo).

to Ibn Daud,

According

Shemarya,

after

having been ransomed from

slavery at Alexandria, settled in DnVD, which generally

stands for Fustat

but the famous account of Ibn

'

Daud
,

about the
Schcchter,

'

four captives

is

now much
ff.

questioned (cp

e.

g.

JQR., XI, 643 know now that already Shemarya's father occupied an official dignity, and very likely in Egypt (see
^C'JX,

and Poznanski, JSlTp

No.

18).

We

JQR., XIX,
23 ::'N-in

729, No.
\i

XX: p

i^NiK'^

b
as
^nx

V^ -non
r\^"\m\

b'nt

pn^s

ann pn^N
ff., 1.

^nic'' ^3

h^ |n

nu

and JQR.,

XI, 643

34,

TD

3N1 110D

p pnn
1,

pnn

p).

Eppen-

stein's suggestion

{Mscfir.,

191

619-20) that Shemarya

was a Nagid

is

hardly

likely.

All the evidence tends to

show

that he was an eminent scholastic (and not a poliIf

tical) authority.

Shemarya

resided at Fustat, as seems

T'nX,

" Shemarya
was

is

also styled

tf'Nin 3"in, but here he is called

while his son was already

superior to that of

"non

B'SI.
K'N"!,

It

thus seems that the

title

T'2X

mon

which was probably the same as

note
i).

CNin

3">n (ag. Poznanski,

|S<1"l^p

**J'JS, p. 14,

480

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

more probable, it would be of consequence to ascertain over which community he wielded influence, whether the
Babylonian or the Palestinian congregation.^*
has not yet been considered.

This point

From

the important frag-

ment published by Neubauer {jfQR., VI, 222-3) we gather

that both

Shemarya and

his son

Elhanan studied at a
it

Babylonian Academy, and very likely

(see Halberstam,
ibid.y

was Pumbedita

596). There

it

seems that Shemarya

1.

obtained the
7\y^'cb 1:^,

title

Y'as (cp. p. 223,

nJti'O

17, iniJDB' vh

'h\h'\

which perhaps means

of the Gaon,

i.e.

Y'3x).

Thus

it

would be natural that

in

Egypt he should have

represented the interests of the Babylonian

Academy.
far

But
been

no questions from Shemarya to Babylon have so

preserved.

On

the other hand, from letters

by

Sherira,

addressed probably to Shemarya {Saadyana^

XLV

and

XLVI,

cp. p.
/.

119,
^.,

1.

17 and p. 124,
ff.),

11.

85-6; see also

Eppenstein,

pp. 473

we

learn of the Gaon's

com-

plaint that the

Academy
his

is

neglected as regards material

affairs.

support and

is

not consulted in religious

The

Gaon reminds
used to send
(p.

correspondents

that

their

forefathers

all their religious

ff.,

questions to the
ff.).

Academy

120,

11.

13

p.

124,
his

11.

75

However, Elhanan,
both to Hai and

Shemarya's son, sent

difficulties
i

Samuel

b.

Hofni

(.r:,

Nos.

and 314, J^T?., XVIII, 430 =

Geon.^ II. 59).

As

regards the relations of

Shemarya and Elhanan

is
it

with the Palestinian Academy, not enough

to render a definite opinion possible.

so far

known

But
b.

appears that

they were

strained.

The Gaon Solomon

Jehuda seems to

" Shemarya's

residence at Fustat would also be borne out by the fact

that he signs a legal

[4 Elul, 1002 c. E. (see

document drawn up

at Fustat

and dated Tuesday,

JQR., XI,

646, note 2).

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

MANN

481

have had a rather unfavourable opinion about Shemarya

and Elhanan.

In the interesting letter to

Shemarya

b.

Ephraim (published by Dr. Marmorstein, R^J., LXVIII, 1914, 44-5), Solomon b. Jehuda writes D3 21X30 !?y pr fiDi:"i
:

(i.e.

his

own)
^53

"-Ji^s

DDJD

ix"i^

nDN^
^3

msn"'! D'':prn

i^y doib'''

ni^'nn
""i

nnxi
iT^yo

nnx

D>Dnipn

D'-iiK'Nin
'i

nroNn D^iic-Nin ns m:

pnnn :nj:N3 pn^x

r\ro)im

nx

njj d:i

n^nn di H'

n?Dy

ono

"^^^^n

nr.^^

The Gaon admits

that he wrote these

in

words, which

he declares to have been

accordance
^3

with
'131

the
n^^).

facts

^3

D^^yo

hzrw

nai n^s

D3CN)

Further, in the

somewhat obscure fragment,

C. E.

dated Adar (1)333 Sel. = io20

netzky,

(published

by Kame-

R^J., LV, 49-50) we

2-7

find

Elhanan apparently

trying to constrain the Palestinian

Gaon

in

the carrying

out of his authority

(r.

(11.

K'NT

(pn^N)
i:dj3

IDD
s*3
'3

^:n
(?

nr:m

perhaps

13) 'h n^Jn

n3^a'\n

ly'vy
^3^*

^K 3n3
ps:

-non)
*3

ny nan B'nm
ni3X

b^
is

n\"irn nyi? ^n^

mo

^^

3n3

n^tj'

L\i^2 1J3p*

"icn).

By
it

^3V PN5 it

seems that the Palesibid.,

24^6)."^^

tinian

Gaon

meant

(against

Poznaiiski,

From

these details

will

appear that there existed some

friction

between Shemarya and Elhanan on the one side and

the Palestinian

Academy on

the other.

Here, again,

we must

look forward to further Genizah

4.

finds for elucidation.

Turning from Egypt to the next North African

For D"'mipn
be
D"'J1tJ'N"in

26

read

COnipn

D^B'Sln.

This important

letter (it is T.-S. 13 J 9*

suflScient care, will
*'

and not 13

1 12^),

which has not been edited with

fully discussed in

another connexion.

Poznanski

(p. 246, note) also noticed that ^32?

pW

usually denotes

the Palestinian
1.

Gaon

(cp. ^32f 113''^"'

also '3Jf

Palestine in Saadyana, 8g,

26)

but he dismissed

the
in

suggestion with the

existence
till

statement that the

Palestinian

Academy was not

after 1020.

Of

course,

it

is

now

well established that the Palestinian Gaonate dates back

much

earlier

(cp. above, pp. 475-76).

482

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

country, comprising the two Arabic provinces of Ifrikiya

and Maghreb (modern Tunis, Algiers, and Morocco) we

find the

Jewish communities maintaining throughout the

greater part of the Gaonic period the closest connexions

with the Academies

existed
in

of

Sura

and

Pumbedita.

There
less

these two provinces a group of

viz.

more or

important Jewish communities,

Cabes, Nefusa (i-^^^,

see Yakut, Geographisches Worterbuch, ed. Wiistenfeld, IV,

800) and

Tobna or Tobya

in

Ifrikiya, as well as

Tahert
in

(modern Tuggurt), Tlemsen, Ashir, Fez, and Segelmessa

Magreb (Morocco).
ever,

The most important community, how(see particularly Poznatiski's

in

was that of Kairowan

on
|^*"n^'5

article

'k^jn,

Harkavy's Festschrift, Hebrew

in

Part, 175-220,

and also

a separate reprint).
'

We

find

many
Africa

references in the Gaonic responsa to the

'

people of

(Np"'~iDK

''B'^N*),

which show that

their correspondence

with the

Geonim goes back

30) was' in

to a very early date.

(in
:''n.

The

important responsum of R. Natronai

Geott.y II,
all

No. 15

probability sent to correspondents

of the places referred

in

Kairowan.

The whole geography

Andalusia.'^^

to therein points to

Kairowan which used to be frequented

This being
so,

by Jews from Fez and

infer that the

we

Kairowan Jews already had responsa from

R. Jchudai (760-4) as well as from his disciple R. Haninah.

^M'n, No.
15:

Niin:

lyjns nio^o pim: cms*

NtJ'Dioa tidj

"h^-y

^D

n^n*

]''zr\^\:i

13K

mj/'B^n

cino

''en

n^y

dSj?

""ni?

oncBoi

(Andalusia) D"'bi:N HYpOl DDN3B' IJyDIi'

.
. .

.npnSN 7113^0 ^3 pi DHIX

i:^^*N

HT

"im
is

D^'J'IV

DDX no

'JDD \rh

pICIN 13S
;

PN3tr3^ mT"113
HI, 418, regards
is

DD^<^^^'

a corruption for DND3E5' (Fez)

the reading D"1D1 in Geon.,

S.,

U, 30,

I,

17, is still

more corrupt; yet Pozn., JQR., N.

In Geoit.,
ibid.,

this as the better reading.

this

responsum

ascribed to

R. Zemah, probably of Sura, 882-87

c. e.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

Likewise they
sent
their

MANN

483

questions to the other Sura

Geonim: R. Moses,

832, R. Cohen Zedek, 845, R. Sar

Shalom, 849, and R. Natronai, 853 (i^n, No. I5).2^ Further, R. Hilai of Sura (either of 793 or of 835) received
questions from

Kairowan

(n"j.

No. 199 end:

INSDt:'

1D3

In short, almost every

Gaon

of renown, whether of Sura or

Pumbedita, was consulted

questions

in religious as well as in social

by the

scholars that lived in Kairowan. ^^

in

Besides the Jews that lived

the villages around

Kairowan
munity
in

(n";.

No.

5), there existed a considerable

com-

Cabes

in

the time of Sherira and Hai (see

;

index to

n"3

under D3Np

to No. 59 see the superscription

from a Bodl. MS. (printed by Neubauer, 7QR., VI, 223-4)

no^ty n^np,

Nos. 3-7

^'pr ^^nh )2^2ib

;

d3np rinD ^^ndd p, cp.

,

Poznanski, Msc/ir.,
Bodl. 2862^:
^a

XL IV, 142-3
N-inB' Iran

p":

No.

85,

and

b":

No.

moa

(Shabb. VI,

3) 1x^^313

p^D3Kpi'i' naiL'Ti.

R. Hai mentions a Gaon, R. Abraham of

**

Poznanski, in his essay, did not consider this responsum in connexion

with Kairowan.
*'

Of

particular scholars that

corresponded with Kairowan

we may
Natronai

mention R. Zemah, the judge

at the court of the Exilarch Hisdai b.

;

(Dultes in N"'JJn ]2, IV, 141-2, and n";, p. 389)

R. Zemah, probably the

b.

Gaon

of Pumbedita, 872 (n"J

No. 210)
""JTri

R. Zemah

Hayim concerning
;

ITpN, pp. i ff., and note i, p. 9) Saadyah corresponded with the Kairowan scholars while he was still in

Eldad ha-Dani (printed by Epstein,

Fayum

R. Dosa, Saadya's son (Wertheimer,

n"Jl).

nDP'ii'

nSlp,

72)

but chiefly

Sherira and Hai (see index to

I,

Cp. further n"3,Nos. 234,389; Geon., No. 99

:

51, note 2.

See further D"inD

'iC^n, ed. Bloch, p. 193,

^1

nnpH
'':s^

'iKTiD

nainn hn: "idd ^^^^Zi^ nirnDO iNmnt' nu'icn n>^ insi

'n

3n3

nmrnn

K'xim

nu^ij'ni

b2i "iixjo '\W'&y

'N^\nj

^\>^-\^^

^Drn

NJ3-11

s*3-i)Db

N^DHD NnrDT NnaTio B'n

ini''

ai id in "N^nu:

n3D hn3 Dnojpa

'01 ini^N^'c ni^NK^.

npimo '^^nm

^"xt

Snk' iJ'nn nnn mini

484
Cabes,
in

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

829
(?":,

No.

^;^:

b"^^

^D3wXp

Dmax 10

^3

n.oxi

n^bpi nn^B'n n^ao n\n nnDB'!? D"ps njc'n

n\i6J').

In case this of Pumbedita

scholar

is

identical with the

Gaon R. Abraham

(816-28),

we have then

the case of a family from Cabes

that settled in Babylon one of

whose members attained

to have sent responsa
67).
in

the dignity of Gaon.

to

The
is

first

Gaon

Cabes was R. Natronai

in

(n'^J,

No.

The Jewish

community

Nefusa

mentioned

a responsum of

R. Haninah of Pumbedita, 938, where the Gaon mentions

that the town was sacked and burned in his time, but was

soon rebuilt on the return of

its

former inhabitants, in;

cluding the Jews (sV, 26 b, No. 26, cp. Ci'lM, No. 47

)i"^,

99

b,

No.

and 56

a,

No. 16 probably

refer to the

same

event).

The

existence of Jewish communities in Tobya,

or Tobna, and Ashir can be inferred from the heading of

a responsum (quoted by MuUer, Einleit., 54, note

ning, from a

4,

begin-

Parma MS.), where

DND2 pnn'TiiDi p.vD
In
n^j,

it is

stated that a

number

of Jews, that settled in Fez and Ashir, were captives from

Tobya
^3Nt2

("T't^'N["l]

ijnpi?

xinc:' 'no

rh^v

T\'ywr\

nrnnjs

iN^anti'^Nn).

No. 38, and

"idj,

No. 133

the correspondents from Tlemsen also mention the case of

Jews that were exiled to Ashir

Ashir, see Harkavy,
n":
,

(T'l^'X

stands for
p.
1

"i^t'N

p.

348 note to

5).

The Geonim
from Tahert
(n"3.

also

had correspondence with scholars

16),^

No.

Tlemsen, Fez, and Segelmcssa.

In Tlemsen there existed an organized

representative scholars in
its

community with

midst.

This we find especially

(n"5,

the case in time of Sherira and Hai

II, 31,
'"

Nos. 37-43

"I'^Ti,

No. 9;

0"1DJ,

No.

133).

Fez, as the capital of the

III,
1.

Cp. also the Genizah Book- List

13

(published by Pozn.,
i.e.

ZfHB., XII, 119-20) >^Nn 1^31

Tahcit sent to Hai Gaon.

mnND

DiS^NL",

questions from

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

dynasty founded by
Idris,

MANN

485

who

built the city in

808 (see

Aug.

Miiller, ibid.^

I,

550),

must have had a leading Jewish

community.

Yet we

find chiefly Sherira

(n":,

and Hai sending and No. 386

;

responsa to this community

No.

47, end,

Warnheim's DV^an

m*13p,

109-10; C^^w.,

II, 43).''^

Finally,

Segelmessa possessed a permanent court, with probably an

academy,

in the

time of R. Hai.

This

fact will

show that

the local Jewish

community must have been of some

the superscription to
n":,

importance

(cp.

Nos. 68-81).

Several responsa reveal the fact that the scholars of Segel-

messa possessed responsa sent by some other Geonim

(n"j,

Nos. 69 and 71, where R. Zemah, probably of Pumbedita,

882-7,
is

mentioned
p.

cp. further

Nos.

70, 77, 79,

and 80

Saadyana,

62

= yQR.^

XIV,

230,

and Goldberg, Intro-

duction to Ibn Koreish's Risdla, p. xvii).

5.

Of European

countries, the country that maintained

the closest Spain.

relations

with the

Babylonian Geonim was

The

sad plight of the large

number of Jews
in 711.

in

Spain, during the reign of the Goths, was entirely changed

for the better with the

advent of the Arabs

in

The

Jews could henceforth occupy

which both
their

Spain the position to

degree of culture

numbers and
large

their

entitled them.

The

Moslem empire, extending from

the boundaries of India to Spain, facilitated to a very

large extent the relations of the Spanish Jews with the

Babylonian Academies.
SI

Though

it

took more than a year

letter

by Sam.

b.

Hofni to Fez (//?., XVIII, 404) alludes to

persecutions from which the

Jews

of Fez suffered

DanjJItDti'

nN3 pNI

on^nin annb

mnj

liM^JX ^ni i:nin3^ yiiNDn

K-pa: vjdI'oi
.

ijyi

i^^roy

>n

'r\r\

03^ run^ DanNi i^niN omi?

. .
.

nn^^o nana nDni^i

D23irrD DD^ni33^ ^Dt^h

oa^bx

\\^^\> ^1Q^i'1.

486
for a letter
v'k', 20^,

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

from Spain to reach Babylon, as we learn from
12, yet

No.

very

Spain to the Geonim. Babylon go back to the times immediately succeeding the
landing of the Arabs in Spain. Sherira {Letter^ p.
'ifi)

many questions were sent from The connexions between Spain and

reports that the Exilarch Natronai b. Habibai, after his

deposal (about 772),

left

Babylon

for the

West

(aiyro),

which

most probably refers to Spain, as other sources show (see

Geon.,
I,

17, note 2).

R. Jacob of Sura (801-5) probably

(:"n,

had correspondence with the Jews of Andalusia

15, cp, above, p. 482).

No.

Much new

information about the

relations of the

found
lished

in the interesting

Geonim with the Spanish Jews is to be Bodleian Genizah Fragment (pub-

by Cowley, JQR., XVIII, 399 fif.). The writer of the letter (dated 953), who was a descendant of the Gaon R. Paltoi, tells us that several Geonim of Sura on the one
hand, from R. Zadoc, 823, to R. Nahshon, 874-82, as well
as several
to R.

Geonim

of Pumbcdita, from R. Paltoi, 842-58,

fre

Cohen-Zedck, 926-35, on the other hand, were

consulted

quently

by the Spanish Jews.

It

is

further

stated there that R. Paltoi sent to Spain the whole

Talmud,
is

together with a commentary on

it.

Well-known

the

Prayer Book, the so-called

sent to
D"iDy

mny
No.

ai mo, which R.
(see
It

Amram
of

the

community of Barcelona
(=y''-|D)

heading

mo

b''j,

^6)?"^

was only since

his

the middle of the tenth century,

^2

when R. Moses and

Saadya also had correspondence with the Spanish communities, as

I,

Ibn David (Neub.,

74) writes:

jV^J HNI^T

^yi p TXD
n^-'a^'Ni

'1

H'^'l

njND^bw
"icK

mubsi ^xntt** ny

NniDiip hr\^ v^y ninai

^di

V\ pN3 iTnyo 3i h^
njNO^pi

nhnjn

'^'''<iT\

m>noi

mwa^

nTllTiD. Perhaps this was a circular epistle in connexion with the Ben Meir dispute concerning the calendar. Saadya's son, Dosa, corre-

/.

sponded with llasdai ibn Shaprut (Ibn Daud,

c, 66).

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

son R. Enoch flourished
school, that the Spanish
in

MANN

487

Cordova as heads of a large

Jews became independent of the

in-

Babylonian Academies with regard to their religious

struction.

Few

responsa comparatively were therefore sent

(see especially about the relations

to Spain

by Sherira and Hai

of the

Geonim with

Spain, Eppenstein, Monatsschrift, 191 2,

80-95).

Special mention should be

made

of the intercourse

which R. Natronai of Sura, 853-6, maintained with the com-

munity of Lucena.
in his

From

a responsum of his

we

learn that

time practically the whole town of Lucena was in-

habited by Jews.
of Jews.^^

Cordova had

also a preponderant majority

From Lucena there came

X'V, 3 a,
a).
is

a scholar, R. Elieser, to

Sura, where he occupied

the position of Alluf (cp. n^a,

;

No. 386
ed.

No. 17

25

a,

No. 15

and

D-iy

mo,

Warsaw, 38
6.

Only scanty information

to be obtained about the

other countries to which the influence of

the

Geonim
II,

extended.

A Genizah fragment

(published in Geoit.,

57,

top) establishes the fact that Sherira as well as

Hai carried
b.

on correspondence with the famous Rabbi Meshullam

Kalonymos
h"\ 3"n).

of

Lucca

in

Italy

(niD
ik-'n

J3

D^ti'D

niD

niW

^Nm PN3 NTiB' ijunb njjis ^ixn

nai^

n:noD

Di^3>hpJN*

This superscription proves that Rappoport was

right in his suggestion {Bikktire

ha

'IttiiHy

1839, 91, and

Introduction to
Graetz's

P^J,

12 b) that R. Meshullam lived in Lucca.

2)

(V\ 545, note

ed.
. .

contention that he
100:
^ia

lived

in

" D*02n nxnp,

nniDipn
"ib'^ss
""N"!

Wamheim,
.

tJ'>1

^NnC* DIpD HiD^^N

.

|r3*J^

np'-v

h'2

dd-'JU pxi

nmn W'w
.

na
Cp.
.

DVD
also
. . ,

^sv"^'i
D'lrDa,

w^yno W'-w^^ niD^D DipD nv^ rwn -ima hm. No. a6 IDIJ^tr ^13 H^ pN n3ND''i51N D-Dtr 711212
:

D2^^y.

488
Zalcona,

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Catalonia,
is

thus

disposed

of

by the above
Italian-

Genizah Fragment.^*

These connexions between

French scholars and Babylonian Academies can be traced

to
still

earlier times.

The responsum

in p"i,

No. ii8, the

last of the

group of responsa assigned to Kalonymos, ends

with nnaTiCD 12nD pi, which probably refers to one of two

famous academies of Babylon.

R. Natronai's reference in

XV, 20
the

b,

No. 12

(see above, p.
in

486) to nana also shows that

Geonim stood

correspondence with the Jews in

southern France and

in the responsa to

Italy.^^
^lD3n
'

There are several references

the scholars of

DHN

Edom

',

which

name denoted
Italy

all

countries under Christian rule, especially

and the Byzantine Empire.^^

In particular, correrefer to

spondents from Kairowan to Sherira and Hai

these
'

scholars

of

Edom

',

by whom

in

all

probability

Italian scholars are meant.^'^

From
disciples

n"i,

No. 225, we learn

that there

came

to R.

Hai

from Constantinople

'*

Cp. further on

this point Miiller,

Responsen des R. Kalonymos aus

;

Lucca, pp. 2-3, and Responsen des R. Meschullant, p. 4

Epstein,

Rj.f

XXIV,
*'
38

149-51, and

XXVII, 81-90
nj;B',

Gross., Monatsschri/t, 1878, 249.

(cp. Geon., II, 55).
^"^"5

nJ3"ID used to denote both

France and Italy

:

Cp. also

Kin

82

"^^

'-\b

)2'>^r[^ "ron '333

ah)

|1W DvB'. We thus find this Gaon already corresponding with Italian But we should have expected the Gaon sending the responsum scholars.
to the scholars of

Rome, and not

(in

the reverse ()2''Z*r\^).

"

Cp. R. Hai

Rabed's Q-'yT D-iDn, No. 119):

ib

pnVH 1^31

W
Dyo
>3
is

DinN ^Dsn ny
D^Jpt, 57
f.
:

onm

innn
Htl
. .

'a

^"i

further, in Ashkenazi's

'3

Dn3n3B'

DHN

pN

'03^31 ^"N

*D3nD n03

^'NDI ""DnD

came

to

n^b "iTian. From t3"1D3, No. 34, it appears but the academy of Kairowan disciples from Italy
D''*:':N
;

that there

the place

of provenance of the question

is

not certain.
of disciples,

Muller's note (No. i)

impossible, since the

Gaon speaks

who came

to the place

the correspondents.

RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

MANN
4,

489

One responsum

(ascribed in

nV, No.

330, to R. Mattithiah

of Pumbedita, 861-9, but in Y'srn,

II, 57,

No.

to R. Hai)

deals with the question of feeding the silk-worms

on the

Sabbath.

This responsum was probably sent to Greece,

silk

where the cultivation of

V*, 2^6, note
i,

was very common

I.e.,

(see Gr.
1).

and now also Krauss,

74, note

Finally Sherira and Hai received questions from Wadi'l

Kura
Omar,

in

Arabia

(n":,

201-3 and Geon.,

II, 61).

Since the

expulsion of the Jews from Arabia

this is the first reference
in that country.

munity

by Mohammed and made to a Jewish comThe existence of a community

in Wadi'l

Kuri

in the

time of Sherira and Hai tends to

strengthen the opinion of those scholars

who maintain

that

Omar

drove out in 640 the Jews of Haibar

only, but not

those of Wadi'l
op. cit., 113).
still

Kura

(see

Harkavy,
states

n":

397,

and Leszynsky,

Leszynsky

from Arabic sources that

about the year icoo the majority of the inhabitants

of Wadi'l

Kura were Jews

I,

(see

now

also Friedlaender,

y(2^.,N.S.;

249-50of this chapter forms a kind of an introduc-

The whole

tion to the following investigations.

In order to obtain
period, as far as
it

a picture of the

life

of the

Jewry of that

can be gathered from the Gaonic responsa,

was necessary

to give a prefatory sketch of the extent of the influence

of the

Geonim on

the

Jewry

all

over the Diaspora.

p"j

In
is

two of the responsa

collections,

and

o"lD3,

there

incorporated a considerable

number
scholars

of responsa sent

by

Spanish and Italian-French

poraries

who were contemlife

of

Sherira and

Hai.

These responsa contain

of the

important material for the knowledge of the

Jews in Spain and southern France. VOL. vn.

Since

in

the time

K k

490

THE JEWISH <3UARTERLY REVIEW

became more and
Baby-

of Sherira the Jews of these countries

more independent

in religious instruction of the

lonian Academies, the responsa of the above scholars had

to be used for supplementing the material required for the

purpose of this

treatise.

(7i? be continued.)

AI OR THE CITY} JOSHUA

By Max
Baer
and
^y

8.

13,

16

L.

Margolis, Dropsie

College.

prints in both verses TS? city in the text (ketib)

in

At

the margin (kere), while Ginsburg has

Ty

without a marginal correction (hence TV ketib u-kere).

8.

On
the

13 Baer

tells
'y

us that in
there
in
is

Codex Reuchlinianus

2 there is
to

a note, '3vS
reading
dentals
'y
',

a division of opinion as

and

the List of Differences between Occi-

and Orientals he adduces from the same codex

the statement that the Occidentals write and read

in

TV

twice

this verse (piDSl

""y.

pn^in), while the Orientals write

Ty
was

but read

Baer adds the remark that the printed

is

Masoretic note

inaccurate, for which reason Norzi

unable to

straighten

out

the

difficulty.

The

printed

Masorah

(end of volume
it,

IV

in the editio

princeps, Bamberg,

1524-5) has

namely, that the difference between the two

schools concerns not the two instances in verse 13 (piTno

pIDSl),

but two different verses (ppIDD

'3),
:

i.e.
'

verses 13

and

16.

Norzi's note on verse 12 reads thus

In

The

codices
"J^yp

and the Masorahs vary.

and read
""y^,

some we
""^3

find

it

written

the author of 1p^

(Samuel Luniado or

Laniado) agreeing, while others write and read Ty?.

The
The

same
ya

variation obtains in verse 16.

In the latter instance

is

found so written and read in an ancient codex.

reads
'y

Targum
'y

in verse 12,

while

in

verse 16

it

has the

doublet: "in the city, in Ai"; hence

is

found

in verse 12

with no marginal variant, while

the text and
^y

in verse 16, finding

tv
the

in

in

the margin, 49^

it

combined both

in
2

492
translation.
is

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Kimhi on
^y

verse i6 explicitly states that T'y

is

the textual and

la.

the marginal reading, but he

find s.v.

silent

on verse
margin
verses 9

In
:

the Masorah Magna we

(i) "l^y is

""y

two

conflicting notes
^y)

the textual reading (against the

;

in verses

la and i6

(2)

""y

is

the reading in

and

11,

but Ty in 12 and
of the

13.'

Norzi then quotes

concerning
it

the statement
difference
clear

Masorah

Finalis

the

between the two schools, adding that

is

is

not

which instance

refeired to.

Ginsburg

gives in the first

volume of

his

The Massorah

compiled from Manuscripts^ p. 592, a List of the differences

between Occidentals and Orientals

cording to the English volume,
to
p.

in Joshua, which, acis

415,

based, in addition

the printed

material,

on the following manuscripts:

St. Petersburg Codex of A. D. 1009, Arund. Orient. 16,

Add.
the

15,251,

and Codex Merzbacher.

is

All of these but

first,

in which the item

altogether admitted, agree

effect that

with the wording of the printed Masorah to the

the difference as to T'y and
""y

concerns two distinct verses.

Moreover, Ginsburg found

in

Codex No. 1-3

of the Paris
1

National Library explicit Masoretic notes on verses

16,

2 and

according to which

in

both places

""y

is

the marginal

reading of the Orientals, while the Occidentals write and

read
"i>y.

Li his Introduction

to the Massoretico-critical

Edition^

ao8-io, the same scholar avers that as regards verse 13

Baer's avowal of a variation between the

two schools

is

substantiated 'by no official Lists,

early
editions'.

MSS., Massorahs, or
the Lists which

'Both the
at
all,

MSS. and
not only
in their

exhibit

any variation
city in verse
1 2,

mark

it

on Ty?

of the

but vary

statements as to

the nature of the difference and as to the school to which

AI OR THE CITY? JOSHUA

it

8.

12,

l6

493

belongs.

This

will

be seen from the following analysis

:

of the Massorah Parva

A. D. 1246,

(i)

Orient. 2201, which

in

is 8.

dated

and Harley 1528, have and

in

the text in
it

12 Tyb

0/ the

city,

the margin against

is

'p

""y!?

the

Keri

is

of At.

The same

the case in Harley 5710-11, where the

this verse ip? the

Massorah Parva has against

cancelled

Resh
it

is to be

the Keri

is ""y^

of Ai, thus treating

(2)

as an

ordinary Keri of the Western school.

Arund. Orient.

16 and Add. 15,451, which are superb manuscripts, have no

Keri

at

all,

but simply remark against

is

it

in verse 12 "yuDl 'T

four times misleading, which

tion
for Sevirin.'

the condemnatory appella-

Ginsburg proceeds with the evidence

(see

from
'

the Lists

above),

and

pointedly concludes

Having

altered pplDS '2 two verses, into pIDDT pHMin in

both clauses of the verse, Dr. Baer

was obliged to palm

it

on verse
"i"'yi'

13, since

it

is

the only verse in this section where

of the city occurs twice.'

In volume

HI

of Ginsburg's great compilation, p. 145,

in the List of D"'ai^n, i.e. of textual

elements which must

:

be guarded against levelling,

we

find

'^mr^ Tini n^y'?

d^x:

nsn^i^n

The

pi"d

(=P'idd
is

fjlD,

end of the

verse) leaves

no doubt that

verse 12

referred to in the middle instance.

is

The same

statement

found

ibid.,

p.

310 (from the Tzufut Kale

Accordingly,
in

Masorah), minus the identifying remark ^'^.

the reading
"i^y?

of the city
is

is

presupposed

verse 12.

To
in

the same purport

the note against verse 12 in the

printed Masorah Parva: r^'^n nao nPl I^TO p, the reading

the editio princeps (see above) being n^yp (see Ginsburg,

494

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

T'dd stands for

Introduction, p. 210).^

n^njn niDD, Masorah

Magna, according

to Elias Levita,

Massoreth ha-massoreth,

ed. Ginsburg, p. 249.

n3=n30 ?
But

Frensdorff, Massoretisches

Worterbuch,

p.

18 of the German, attempts no identification

^'^\^P^

of the unusual formula.

write and read
T-y^.

n^na

is

perfectly clear:

In the Yemenite Masorah (Ginsburg,

statement

The Massorah,

III, 68) the following

may be
npi

read
njo
ptJ*

pnao ^na

n^j

miDon

a^Ji D^^o^tj'n>m |Nrnn ^22

tJ^^iy^

n^yj)

'TIDT D^DIDT
iB'ntj'n

mp3 nHi

H^DD H^DD

2[^]nD1

np
^yi?

^J^X

pi Ty^

Nnpa '^D-in n^3i

Nmpb

Dinn.i dj

npi Tyi?

n^y eniB' stij TK'' "isd3.

Apparently misled by the reference

city,

to the Targumic rendering Nrnpi? of the

Ginsburg

refers

this note to verse 13, the rendering in our in verse 12 being

^y^ (see

Targum

editions
p.

Ginsburg, Introduction,

210);

but the Yemenite Targum, ed. Praetorius, has there Nmpi?,

and

it is

obvious that the note refers to verse 12 (hence at

"i''yb

the beginning

is

mispointed

point
city
is

1''^?).

Now

this

note says clearly that T'y^ of the

the reading (not

in those

only the

writing) in all

the codices (of

Yemen) and

of Jerusalem.

The author goes on

"I'y^

to quote the note in the

;

printed Masorah Parva (see above)

he repudiates those
'y^

codices which have

in the text

and

in the

margin,

and concludes with a reference to the Targum and to the

editio princeps of the

Hebrew Concordance.
city,

The

reading

and pointing

"i"'y!?

of the

would thus seem to be sub-

stantiated as the approved,

and certainly as the W,estern

in

reading.
*

As

is

well
this,
I

known, we

the

West

follow the

[Since writing

have been able to inspect the

editio princeps in

the private library of the Hon.

text reads "l^y?.
correct, as far as
it

Mayer Sulzberger, of Philadelphia. The Accordingly, in the Yemenite Masorah the pointing is
goes.

Nevertheless
I

it

remains true that the author of

that
in

Masorah
bcii

rejccls the kerc ly?

must admit that the reading (pointing)

Jacob

Haim's text and the accompanying masorctic note are a puzzle.]

AI OR THE ClTVi JOSHUA

Palestinian

8.

12,

l6

495

school

of Masoretes, and Kimhi's silence in

verse \% (see above)

n^yij

may be tantamount
in

to

supporting

of the

city.

It is to

be regretted that the note

linianus 2 cannot be verified at the present

at this distance.

Codex Reuchmoment and

How
in the

sorely

we

are indeed in need of

photographic reproductions of important biblical manuscripts,

whether

original or in translation, in the

securing of which the universities

and colleges of
!

this

country should be willing to co-operate

I

Nevertheless,

am

loth to

go

to the length of doubting Baer's veracity,

as Ginsburg so unceremoniously does.

The Targum,

as

has been

observed, goes

normally with the Orientals

in verse 12

accordingly, the reading

T"!?^

might be Oriental.

Once we
received

resort to
text,

an ancient version as a fulcrum of the

consult
all.

we must needs

The Vulgate

has* ex occidentali parte eiusdem

a free paraphrase by

civitatis'; that

maybe

the translator, or his

Most

likely,

however, Jerome followed

in

Hebrew had "l*y?. Symmachus, who,

on the authority of a gloss

Lagarde), wrote
parently read
y^ .
(p.
)l^>.'io.\.

the Syrohexaplaris (ed.

1^^;^^

^.

Symmachus apof this

n^yi'.

Conversely, Origen supports the reading

In the opening pages of the

New Series

Review

20

f.)

pointed out

how

for the

purposes of establishing

what

is

the Masoretic text recourse must be had to Origen's

in vol. Ill, pp.

Hexapla, and
for

323

ff.,

gave an

illustration
itself.

Joshua

7.

17.

Now

another example presents

How

the original Greek translator has dealt with chapter 8

(as with other portions of the book),

removing incongruities

arising out of the combination of double accounts in the

Hebrew, and accomplishing

it, if

needs be, by violent con-

densation, has been pointed out by Wellhausen {Composition,

496
1889,
p.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

126).

Verses lib, 12, 13 are reduced

in

the
to,

Septuagint to the small compass:

iyeSpa
ttj? TToAecoy dirb

an

dvaroXcov Kal

daXdaar]?.

Origen, as was his wont,

it

retained this complex, at the

same time marking

with the
;

obelus as something unwarranted

by

the

Hebrew

where-

upon he introduced sud asterisco a fresh translation of the

verses in question which reads as follows
diro
:

kol napivi^aXov
rfjs

^oppd

TTJs

Fal Kal
coy

fj

KoiXa? dvdfi^aov avTOv Kal

Fal

12 Kal iXa^ev

niyTe xt^t<^^ay dvSpStv Kal edero avTovs

iveSpov dvdfieaov Trjs BrjOavv Kal r^y Fal OdXacrcrav rfjs

Fal 13 Kal era^au

Xaos

ttju

ndaav napefi^oX^u ^ ^v

dirb

^oppd

TTJ

TToXei Kal to,

ea^ara avTov OdXacraav

rfjs TToXccoy

Kal iTTopevdrj 'Irjaovs t^v vvKTa kKiivr^v kv fiiaco Tr\s KOiXd8o9

Verses 15 b, 16

a,

omitted
stib

in

the Septuagint, were likewise

:

supplied by Origen
kp-qiiov
oTTLo-co

asterisco
6

Kal

i(f)vyov

oBov rfjs
Sicc^aL

16 Kal kvt(r\V(rev irds

Xao^

rfjs

Fal tov

avTwv.

Here

again Origen, or rather his

source
All,

(probably Theodotion), supports the

reading

'ya.

however, that
"yi?

we

really

may

say

is

this,

that the reading

to

in

verse 12, attributed

by

certain

authorities

the

Orientals,
It
is

was current

in the third

and second

centuries.

interesting to note that in the same verse Origen

again ranges himself on the side of the Orientals (ketib)

with his BrjOavv pN 0^3 against h^ n^3 of the Occidentals

(see the official Lists referred to above).

In 19. 38

we have

another instance where Origen agrees with the Oriental

ketib: (upap.
D"iin

against

D"in,

the Oriental kere which

is

the textual reading of the Occidentals.

Elsewhere Origen

supports the Occidental text

in

a few instances the renAll

dering

is

too inexact to admit of conclusive evidence.

is

that can be said

that the differences

between the two

schools ascend to ancient times, and testify to a fluctuation

AI OR THE CITY? JOSHUA

8.

12,

l6

497

of the text in the centuries antecedent to the split between

Orientals and Occidentals.

The

similarity of TJJ

and

^V

accounts for the confusion.

^ny into
for
''Vn

In 15. 9 Theodotion misread

'y

on the other hand, the Septuagint read T'Vn

8. 18, 28.

7.

3;

Just as in the

Hebrew Ty and

^y

were

liable to confusion, so in the

Greek yai and

yr]{v)

were interchanged. Thus we find yai

are those in
rrosccaa^;
7.

for yrjv 2. i (the sigla

my
2

forthcoming edition of the Greek Joshua)

"P'^'='

B CBS ^ d j
(cf.

(cf.
;

yai with accus.

conversely yqv

ending /, and the doublet

for yai 7. 2 sec Iptiz

ttjv y-qv

yai n)

the doublet y-qv yai

is

A)

yqs

for

yat
of

8.

16

B n M8 n"^.
(n)"":
;

Greek yai

also the transliteration

Hebrew
**:^
;

cf.

Josh. 18. 16,

where the Syrohexaplaris

writes

it is

quite plausible that Greek yq^ for

for yai representing the
^y

Hebrew
be cited

poy 15. 8
J.

is

an error

synonymous

Still

a further confusion of Ty and

in

may

from the Greek

2 Chron. 32. 6,

where Tqs <papayyo9

TroXecoy)
is

(Lucian alone reveres to the

translation of rqs yai="'yn for

Hebrew rq?

*i"'yn,

yai being misconceived

as the equivalent of

''3
.

We

shall certainly not

burden the
!

original translator with ascribing a gate to a ravine

On

the other hand, he was not sagacious enough to realize

that
^y

in his

Hebrew copy was a blunder

the

for

"i"'y.

In the

language of the author of the Analektejt

ziir Textkritik des

Alien Testaments

mark of abbreviation had faded

away.

Conversely, the appearance of a pen-scratch re-

sembling a mark of abbreviation has led to the expansion

of
"y

to n^y.

Where, as

in

chapter 8

of Joshua, either
one.

reading
'

made

sense, the confusion

was a natural

The
'

tradition

which our fathers have handed down to us

is,

alas, often but a scribe's subjective reasoning

coupled with

a blurred vision.

THE SEMIKAH CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE ZUGOTH*

By Solomon
It
is

Zeitlin, Dropsie College.

a well-known fact that equivocal expressions are

to
scholars.
is

frequently misleading even

The semikah
of such

controversy between the Zugoth

an

illustration

an equivocal expression that has given

controversy
is

rise to error.
it

This
first

of great significance, because

is

the
it

one recorded

in the

Talmud, and because, although

all

was

continued through the administration of

the successive

Zugoth, no agreement was reached on the subject.

The word
(a)

nD''DD

has various meanings in the

Talmud
:

It

is

used in the sense of proximity as

.ynni fjmn

p301D px

ynm

ij-nn

nipT rn^b p3iD bin

'

.nxnn ni^b

(Kil'oim, II, 9).

It is

not allowed to sow mustard and

field

bastard saffron closely adjoining to a

which was sown

(D''N^3)
;

with grain, because this

it is

is

a forbidden junction

but

allowed to sow mustard and bastard saffron closely

field

adjoining to a

which was sown with herbs,

for this is

not a forbidden junction.'

(d)

It is also

used in the sense of laying on of hands as

Dn^by pDoiD pNi WJib^ pN^ao p-iDiN >nob' n>3

piiN n"ni
D.T^y P301D1

ni^W

D^i?^ D>N^3?D
is

(Hagigah

II, 3).

'

The

school

of

Shammai

says, It

allowed to bring peace-offerings on

the holidays, but the laying on of the hands must not be

* Zugoth (ni31T), meaning Pairs,
is

the Talmudic appellation for the

b.

two

leaders of the Sanhedrin from the days of Jose

Joezer and Jose

b,

Johanan

(about 160

B.c.E.)

till

the time of Hillel and Shammai.

499

500

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW The

school of Hillel says,
It
is

done on the holidays.

allowed to bring both peace-ofiferings and burnt- offerings

on the holidays and to lay the hands on them.'

(c)

It

is
:

used, again, in the sense of relying

Jpl

upon an
rely
',

authority as

nm bv T^D3
tayitt

(Erubin 6^

b).

We may
b.

upon the authority of the aged man (R. Hanina

or
]7]b
^'<

Joseph)

nu^iKi niaSm
in jn I,
idod-'B'

Nipo ]n^

niran

ni^

didSi
^o bv

min

""Dia

(according to the Munich MS.)

(Hagigah

8).

'The laws concerning the Sabbath and

the festive sacrifices which are numerous although only

a few of them are Biblical, are nevertheless essential parts

of the

Law

because

we have them on good

'

authority.'
is

(From

this also

developed the

Semikah which
'

given to

a scholar, thus investing him with authority.) In

all

places where a dispute concerning semikah occurs,

we can
is

easily see from the context in

what sense the word

used.

In the case of the semikah controversy between

the Zugoth, however, the Mishnah says obscurely niOD7 and

^1D^ i6& without stating explicitly the sense in which the

word

is

used, thus giving rise to misunderstanding.

as follows
:

The

Mishnah reads
1D1N noB'
Dn:oi b^n

'DV I^T^ob

i6^ nnix

liyv

^DV

pyoB' nioob n^b' noix ^N3t3

n^b'

min^ .i^^ob ioin

ioik n^yoB' .nioob

.^10Di'

noiN
nCIN

|vbt23N iv^ob
bi?."!

N^B' -I01K >NDB' niDD^

'."'NDB'

DJ33

DHiD NV> ip^TO

.^idd^

N^J

pjn ^na nnx

oni?

d'^:b'1

d-x^b'j

vn

d'-jib-nih

(Hagigah,

H,

a).

AH

the commentators are of the opinion that the semikah

is

controversy between the Zugoth

identical

with

the

controversy between the schools of

Shammai and
II,

Hillel

Hillel

before
a.

Shammai.

So

is

the version in P. Hag.

a,

and

B. Shabb. 15

THE SEMIKAH CONTROVERSY

ZEITLIN
'

501

recorded in the succeeding Mishnah as to whether or not

it is

allowed to perform the ceremony of the

'

laying on of
in

hands

upon the head of the

It

sacrificial

animal

the

temple-court on holidays.'^
the
identification

seems to me, however, that

controversies, which
is

of

those

two

evidently based on the mere fact that the editors of the

Mishnah placed them contiguously,

is still

an open question.

For

it

would appear

surprising, indeed, that all the

Zugoth

should not have been able to find a solution for a halakic

problem which

is

a mere shehot

(ni3':^).

This was indeed noticed by Frankel

pp. 43-4, and

in his njB'Dn ""SIT,

by Weiss

in

in

"in, pp. 103-4.

They

never-

theless did not

It

abandon the

traditional interpretation.
in the case of the

would also be strange that while

schools of

Shammai and
is

Hillel the

Mishnah

states explicitly

the problem of their controversy, in the case of the Zugoth

the problem

stated obscurely

by the words

^^0D^

and

close examination of the Tosefta

will

and Palestinian

Talmud
Hillel as

show

that the dispute between the

Zugoth

is

not identical with that of the schools of

is

Shammai and
principle

generally assumed

that the controversy of the

Zugoth centred around an important general

rather than on the question of the propriety of performing

the semikah ceremony in the temple-court on holidays.

The

Tosefta reads:

ntj^n

.na^oDH

i?y

N^N ip^na \h Dn^co

^N-iK'^n

nipi/Ho vn vh

rh^nrx)

^dv 'n
rvih^'s

ncN
nnK'y
\>^

pi n^a

nns

ip^mB' na'^con n\t ifN

"^

'i3i

pn iT'^n ^n

n"ai nibiy n^

bs

Dn'-^y

panio pxi T^^rh^ pN^no onr^ix ^"i

(Hag. n, 3; Bes.

II, 4)

QH^^y psciDi

mhyi

d^dItk'

pN^no DnoiN.

502

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

an'^ d^dIjc ts^va paoiD
nihyi
D^n^K'

p2
tn^i'y

pN nnoix ^"2
n^ai
t3*v

'.n^ni

K^^a
jn^i'y

n'by

P31D1D1

pN^o nnoiN
II,

n-iyo

"piD

(Tosef.

Hagigah,
Israel
five

8-10).

'Never was there a con-

troversy in

except the one concerning semikah.

There were

Zugoth.

Three of the

earlier

Zugoth who
(of
;

were of the opinion

IIDd!?

i6^ were presidents

the

Sanhedrin) and their opponents were vice-presidents

of the latter Zugoth

two

who

held the view l)^Db were presidents

and

their

opponents were vice-presidents

in

Said R. Jose,

Formerly no controversy occurred

court (pT nn) of twenty-three

Israel

except

in

members

Over which
Hillel divided ?

semikah were the schools of Shammai and

The

school of

Shammai

said that the laying on of hands

on the

festive sacrifices

must not be done on a holiday;

allowed on

the semikah ceremony should be performed a day before

the holiday.

The

school of Hillel said. It

is

a holiday to bring peace and burnt-offerings and lay the

hands upon them.'

The

fact that the

Tosefta asks 'over which semikah

Hillel divided
'

were the schools of

Shammai and
controversies

and not
clearly

over which semikah were the

Zugoth
were

divided,*

shows that the two

identical.

not

considered
njiC'N-ia

The

P.

Talmud
^^ni

reads:

npi^no nn^n i6

u-iB'D /n iniN

itryi

^a^^ noy^

nnb

nD^Don bv n^n f'sn^'U

See N'nan ninjn on the Tosef.

nan

n'va n^by iodi mry^ inhy nx a^in^

ic'pni

jprn

bbr^2 r^m^^
vb]}

HD^n V2?h

^"2 b^ p'
B. Bes. 20

.-1133

D^D^

nnx^

,^"2 n^Di?n

(J.

Hag.

II,

78 a

a).

There

is

no evidence
is

in this passage, as

some

think, that the controversy of the

Zugoth

identical with that of the

'

schools of

bbr) jT^aa'; but not

The Talmud says here nD7nC yilM Hillel. bbn2 nabnc* or ^1CD^ nosr ni:it3, which would have been more proper if the two controversies were considered identical.
Shammai and

THE SEMIKAH CONTROVERSY

ZEITLIN

503

(P.

Talm. Hagigah
It
is

II, a).

evident from this passage that according to the

the semikah was the only subject of contention

P.

Talmud

that was debated during the

administration of

all

the

Zugoth

(as a

matter of fact

we do
b.

find other controversies

between the Zugoth, as

for instance the controversy

between

Judah

b.

Tabbai and Simon

b.

Shatah^ and the one

between Joshuah

Perahah and the

erred in

Hakamim ^).
considering the words

The commentators have

TittD^

and

'['iizob

N^tr,

that are used in the case of the Zugoth,

p::DlD

identical with the

words P3D1D and

pN that are used in

the case of the controversy between the schools of

Shammai

and

Hillel.''

The words

*I1D^

and T^D^ i6^ do not denote

here to lay on the hands on an object, but express the

derivative
]P1

meaning of the
6^
B'^

verb, as in the phrase

nd"'OD
I,

?])

TiOD3
b),

nm

(Erub.

b),

in-TiyT

ncD"'D
8),

(Hag.
to

20

13DD^B' ^o bv nni'

(tHd.,

Mishnah

i.e.

depend,

to rely,

to

accept the
the

authority

of,^

and the question

discussed

by

Zugoth was whether we could depend

upon the authority of the Hakamim.

It is

very probable that this Mishnah, which

is

is

the second

of the second chapter of Hagigah,

last

closely related to the

Mishnah

of the

first

chapter which contains the statefestive

ment that the laws concerning the Sabbath and

sacrifices, &c.,

which are numerous although few of them

;

6
'

Hag. 16 b

Mak. 5 b

Tosef. Sanhed. V, VI.

Tosef. Maksirin, III,

4.
ff.

SeeFrankel, HJB'lOn ^31*1,

A. Sidon,
*

43-4

Weiss, "IH, V,

I,

fiF.

103-4.
in

Die Controverse der Synhedrialhaupter

'

Gedeukbuch
the
first

fiir

ErtHtterung an David

Kaufmann,
Mishnah

ff.

355-64.

He was

to

interpret the semikah of this

in the

sense of relying upon authority

and not

in the

sense of laying on of hands

'

'.

504

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

are Biblical, are nevertheless essential parts of the

Law

because

we have them on good

we ought

authority.

This Mishnah

developing the subject further, informs us that the question

as to whether or not
in their innovations

to rely

upon the Hakamim

;

has not always been generally accepted

but

it

was rather the subject of contention during the

all

administration of

the Zugoth.

Three of the
*]10D^

earlier

and two of the

latter

Zugoth say

vh^,

i.

e.

we ought

not to rely on the

Hakamim

in

their
^10D^,

innovations upon the Torah.

i.

Their colleagues say:

in their

e.

we

rely entirely

upon the Hakamim even

innovations upon the Torah.

An

examination of the few halakic statements of the

this

Zugoth which have been transmitted to us corroborates

interpretation of the controversy of the Zugoth.

We
The
niDoij

shall

also

be able to understand their obscure

us.

halakoth which were transmitted to

first

pair which
b.

was divided over the semikah

"ITW

question was Jose

nniN pnv
}3

Joezer and Jose b. Jobanan.

^DV
is

^or lir^o^

nb^ IOIN.

Now, no halakah
declaring

recorded of Jose
issued

b.

Johanan, excepting the decree which he

Jose
b.

together

with

Joezer

Gentile
It
is

territory

and glass vessels as

levitically unclean.^

undoubtedly to be assumed that his halakic opinions are

included in the

anonymous

ancient halakoth of the Talmud.

Of
that

Jose b. Joezer, however,

we have

three

halakot as

testimonies (niny) from which the inference

may be drawn
liyv

by these testimonies he

set himself in opposition to the

:

ordinances of the
*DV
n''b

Hakamim

NVrp b'H

b]}

^DV I'V^
bv'^

npi 3NDD Kn^na a-ipni pn ii'nioD n^a np-^a

4).
9

pn

Nni? (Ed. VIII,

Sliabb. 14 b.

THE SEMIKAH CONTROVERSY

ZEITLIN
Is
it

505
For,

The
what
is

content of this Mishnah

is

puzzling indeed.
?

the purpose of his testimony

not explicitly

stated in the

Torah

'

He

that toucheth the dead

body of

any human
19. 11)?

person shall be unclean seven days' (Num.

in fact

The Talmud

wonders

at this

Mishnah:
"DV),

'and they called him "Jose the permitter" (Nnc'

they
""DV

ought to have called him

n^b "lynD)'!

" Jose the forbidder " (N1DN

(Ab. Zar. 37

b).

Should we assume, however,

that
to

by

y\l2Db

ab^ Jose

b.

Joezer meant that

we ought not
in

rely

upon the authority of the Hakamim

their

innovations upon the Torah, the purpose of

will
b.

his testimonies

become

clear to us.

For with these testimonies Jose

of the

Joezer opposed

the tradition

Hakamim who
This was
to

decree what was not to be found in the Torah.

in

accordance with his

'

own view

that

'

we ought not

depend upon the decrees and

traditions of the

Hakamim

The meaning I. pT NXOp

eaten.

of these testimonies thus becomes clear

(the locust)
il

b'^ti

kamsa

is

clean and
*

may be
that go

For, Biblically, those locusts are clean

all fours,

upon

which have jointed legs above

\b
ntJ'N

their feet',

v^ni? byoD

D^y-ia

ya-iN bv l^nn (Lev. 11. ai).

But

the
are
:

Hakamim

said that the

marks of cleanness

in locusts

four legs, four wings, hindlegs for leaping

and the

wings covering the greatest part of the body,

D''^n
idid.,

ymx
6^
a).

nn

ns'

pain vajai

D^l^i^npi

d^djd ya-iN (Hul.

59 a

In this matter,

therefore,

he opposed the decree of the

Hakamim

requiring those additional marks of cleanness,

locust
il

and maintained that the

marks pointed out
be eaten.
i

kamsa which had only the

^

in the

Torah, was clean

and might

Ab. Zar. 37

a, b.

VOL.

VII.

506
II.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

pT K^naoD
is
JT-a

npcD The liquid of the slaughtering'

place
that
NDta''

clean.

Biblically,
shall

All drink in every such vessel

'

may be drunk
"h^

be unclean

b^2 nriB^ IB'N npc'D

is

(Lev. II. 34).

Thus only water

susceptible to

levitical

uncleanness.

The Hakamim, however, decreed

Pes. 17 a).

that blood and five other kinds of liquids are also susceptible

of levitical uncleanness^^ (Sifra Shemini, VIII

To oppose
N"'n3D0
IT'a,

this decree Jose b. Joezer testified that nptJ'D

i.e.

blood,

is

pn, clean.

For blood and the

nriw'''

other liquids are not implied in the verse

"IB'N

n\)^r2

and therefore are not susceptible to uncleanness.^^

III.

3NDn Nn'on anpm One that touches a corpse becomes

unclean.

According to the Torah

'

He

that toucheth the

dead, even any man's dead body, shall be unclean seven

days'

cr^'"

ny3c

nj^d''

Dns* c'23 b:ib

nc3 yjM (Num.

19.

11).

The Hakamim decreed bbm

with which a person was
as the slain body,
i.

Nin

nn mn^^

that the sword

levitical status

killed

had the same

e.

one who touches such a sword

becomes unclean
Joezer

for

seven days.

Against

this

Jose b.

testified that

only NiT-M nipn the one

the corpse becomes unclean, but not the

who touches one who touched

a sword with which a person was

It
is
'

slain.

because of these three testimonies that he was

'

called

Jose the permitter

b"r\

Nn'^y *DV, as in

all

of these he

"
npK'D
^2

^31

2bm^ ^im)

mm
two

p^n) p^m b^n pjo d-d

"b

ps

(Sifra Smini, IX).

The Talmud

(Pes. 17 a) has

different versions of this statement:

N-nmO
is

n^3 >pZr) >jn

nh N-n3DD
it

n-n "pe^ *3n

difTerencc.

m.

According to our
-ptJ'D

interpretation, however,

makes no

For by N-n3jD n-3

oil.

meant water and blood, and by N-n31D n-^ -p-TD wine and

"

Pes. 14 b:

!)^n3

Nin

nn
;

mn

,a"in
'

bbra.

See Katzenelenson,
RJ'-J-,

Sadducces and P/taii:ccs,Voschod

S. Zcitlin,

Lcs dix-huit Mcsures',

LXIII, 1914.

THE SEMIKAH CONTROVERSY

opposed the decrees of the Hakamim.
the statement of the Mishnah

ZEITLIN

507

This explains also

^ipb DTio ^n^^ innstJD^*

first

that his towel was considered unclean of the

degree

(dti) for tliose

for

who observed

the levitical laws prescribed

the handling of the sacred food.

it

Obviously they

declared

unclean because he did not subscribe to the

decrees of the

Hakamim

in

matters pertaining to the laws

of levitical uncleanness.

This throws light R. Judah

ny
D''3-in

upon an obscure narrative which

tells

in

the

name
nrh
b).

of Jose b.
(-iryv

Joezer:
j'y:

'l "IDX

nitt'i

)X3 ly

"insi

^dv)

nnip

mm^

T'n"'n

nici

Ito

(Ab. Zar. 37

R. Judah

who was engaged

in

the study of antiquity,

and

all

of

whose statements were undoubtedly based on

had erected beams
the public

tradition, tells us that Jose b. Joezer

and

demonstrated
niC'l)

here the limits of

road

(D^mn

end

here the limits of the private ground

It is

(TiTTI niB'"i) end.

rather strange that Jose b. Joezer,

the president of the Sanhedrin, should personally go out in

the streets of the city to erect
fixing

beams
limits

for the

purpose of

and demonstrating the

of the private and

public ground.

This narrative, however, contains another

instance of the application of Jose b. Joezer's principle not

to accept the authority of the

Hakamim in their innovations

Sabbath laws
public

upon the Torah.

For the law formerly recognized two

:

classes of territory with regard to the

territory (D'^mn

ni:i'"i)

where carrying on the Sabbath day

find in

was forbidden

(as

we

Nehemiah's order to lock the

'

gates of the city before the Sabbath, so that

there should

be brought

in

no burden on the Sabbath day

',

Neh.

13. 19)

and private territory where carrying on the Sabbath was

"
Ilag. 18 b.

508

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

(Shab.
class,

allowed

96

b).

The Hakamim, however, added

(n''7a*i3),
i.

another

namely, the Karmelith

e.

private

territory used

by the
to the

public,

and forbade the carrying of

classes of territory

objects from
versa.

it

two other

and vice

The Talmud,

indeed, regarded the Karmelith as

a mere Rabbinical restriction (mrj) (Shabbat lib).

ing this new enactment of the

Reject-

Hakamim, Jose
ground end
I
;

b.

Joezer said

Here the

limits of the public

here the limits

of the private ground end.

territory with regard to the

recognize two classes of

Sabbath laws and no more.

Now,

if

we assume

that the controversy between the

Zugoth was regarding the validity of the innovations of the

Hakamim, we

shall be able to understand the

only halakah
pair.

which has been transmitted to us from the second

The second
the Arbelite.
'])JDDb.

pair

was Joshua
"-xriJ

b.

Perahah and Nittai

nDiK '^mNn
is

l^^ob i6v 'din n^niD

yK^n^

No

halakah

accredited to Nittai the Arbelite;

but undoubtedly, as indicated above, his halakic opinions

were included among the anonymous ancient halakoth.

Of Joshua
x-'^ujN

b.

Perahah we have the following halakah:

D-'Nnn

^JDo

niNDD Nm^Dai'ND
.th-id

d^dh -idin n^nis

veti.t

bjb

nmnoi

v'^'\n-'b

n^aiD^ v.t

p dx

D^oan i-idn ,\rh^

biil^^'

(Tosef. Makshirin, HI, 4).

The argument
unclean for Joshua
strange indeed.
If

of the
b.

Hakamim

'let

the

wheat be

Perahah but clean

for all Israel', is

all Israel,

it is

considered clean for

b.

why

should
clear

it

be unclean for Joshua

Perahah

But

it

becomes
Perahah

when we
the
'

realize that in this

halakah Joshua
of

b,

opposed
Biblically,
y"ir it

decree

and

tradition

the
'

Hakamim.
?V D^D
fn^ '3i

if

any water be put upon the seed

Icvitical
is

becomes susceptible to
bipb),

uncleanncss

("iw'3D

ni^)2)li

and no distinction

made between seed which

; .

THE SEMIKAH CONTROVERSY

is

ZEITLIN

509
is

fixed to the ground

(yp"ip^

nmnc) and that which

plucked

(cn^n), for this is the inn plication

is

of the phrase yit bv.

This, then,
that
is

the contention of Joshua

is

b.

Perahah

'
:

Wheat
""JDO/

brought from Alexandria

unclean \nb^

N''i't3:K

N''^tJJN

(=

avT'kiov)

is

the

water-wheel

with

which

the

Egyptians

irrigated their fields

it

from the Nile.

Thus, water
to levitical
:

was poured on the seed and

uncleanness.
'let the

became susceptible
Joshua

Whereupon the Hakamim answered

for
b.
'

if

so

wheat be unclean

Perahah' who
clean to
:

disregards the tradition of the

Israel
'

Hakamim, but

all

who

accept the ordinance of the

Hakamim
it

that

seed becomes susceptible to levitical

uncleanness

when

water has been poured over

it

only when

was already
still

detached from the earth i^T), but not while

the ground
(-I3in).^5

fixed to

The

third pair

was Judah
nDtJ>

b.

Tabbai and Simon

^b^
-idin

b.

Shatah TDD^ nDiN

pyoi5> iidd!?

^n3d

min^

Of Simon
down
p^D
nnu'
to

b.

Shatah several laws and decrees have been

transmitted.

narrative of
his

Judah

b.

Tabbai has come

toward tradition:

us

reflecting

attitude

N'>^in^

nm
*iy

ny "Tinn ^b dn
vy-\r\^

nonn

nN"iN 'snD

min'-

ids

.pn^n

i'\r\''^

d^ddit

nny px Dnois

vnt:'

ovn^ b^

>p3

m
b.

nasK' n^

ds nn32 nsiN nDB*

pycB' "h "lON

"Dn''iB> iDirj^

ny pnnj d^iddu

nny pN

D"'03n

nnx.

Judah
the

Tabbai,

who

did not accept the decrees of

Hakamim
DOIT ^y.

in their innovations

upon the Torah, executed

'

one

For according to the Bible,

if

a witness of

violence rise

up against any man

and the judges

to testify against
shall

him

for

any wrong
and behold,
if

inquire diligently

the witness be a false witness, he hath testified

K. Smini 11
Tosef. Maksirin,
I.

*5

Sifra T.

" Hag.

16 b; Mak.

5b;

Tosef. Sanhed, VI.

5IO

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

:

a falsehood against his brother

as he hath purposed to
Dior

then shall ye do unto him

his brother
npK' ny
',

do unto
n:]3

Ip^J'
.

IV
.

Dlp^

''3

TCN3

1^ on'^ii)

vnsn

ip^ nyn

n:n"i

b^^n^,

&c.

(Deut. 19. 16-19).

This implies that even

to be executed.

if

one witness was

b.

proved

DttiT,

he

is

Simon

Shatah, on
of

the other hand,

who accepted
blood

the

innovations

the

Hakamim
for

upon the Torah, reproached Judah b. Tabbai

(''pJ

having shed innocent

said
:

D*i

riiDK'),

for

the

Hakamim
D"'JB'

CnoiT Dny do not incur the penalty unless

both were found CDciT.

n^T2m
fix

cmv no 'nn nov Dny

6),
:

n''y^

s"y'

W^u

(Tosef. Sanhed. VI,

The

fourth pair

was Shemaiah and Abtalyon

n1N n^yoty

TiDD^ i6:^ IDIS*

Ivi'Dns* Tiod!?.

Of

this pair, several

halakoth

were transmitted by others

in their

name

^^
;

but no halakoth

have come down from them directly from which their

attitude

toward

tradition

might be
in

inferred.

In

the

testimonies that others

concur.^^
^''

made

their

name they always

Yebam. 67 a
There
is

Edu.

I,

3.

18

a passage in the

Talmud

attributed to Sharamai the elder

jicy ^:3

nnna
'

nnn imx

"iDNJtr n^'-n
to his agent
is
:

vnhtr
:

N'-njn

<jn

dik^d

now
is

(Kid. 43 b).
liable for the

If

any one said

go slay a person, the agent

crime but the instigator

not responsible.
the instigator

Shammai

the elder

said in the
for
it

name
(2

of Haggai the prophet

:

is liable for

the crime,

is

written

"Him
12.

hast thou slain with the

9).

sword

of the children of

Ammon"

Sam.

(Nathan the prophet charged David with the

crime of killing Urijah, although David only gave the order to expose him
in the battle front.)
'

To my mind

the attribution of this statement to

{ibid.,
is

Shammai
it

is

open

to question.

For from the Talmudic discussion

42 b)

appears that the school of Shammai held that the instigator

:

free

from

penalty Olt^D VH^VJ')

n3L"n?3n bv 2^^nZ'

DnD\S

L*'"3 V'^'Z

">3T

b'3

^V

rh^ i6 DN
n"2 nrh
b2 bv

"icN'Jc T'

rhi:"''^^

*iy

n^'-n

u^x nn?:ix n"3i ni-yoD

nox ycD

"in b2 bv ">cx: ahn) n"a^ ^"3 nrox .n>

'13

p Dx

n"3^ B'"3 nj-x

n^ rh^ nb ox

"ir^xj

xbni

f "ab

THE SEMIKAH CONTROVERSY

The
fifth

ZEITLIN
we
v^^

51I

and

last pair

was Hillel and Shammai.

all

Aside
find

from the semikah controversy of

p^jo
yt^a
of

the Zugoth

ini^cj'!?i

nay^ nox wn aba

.

"h

px b^y^
if

^''b

nj^b

'^y^

in

73 bV bTi

it is

thus evident from this passage that the school

Shammai

held that IIDS

ITiplC;'.
is liable

Now

Shammai

is

the author of the

statement that the instigator

the verse

(i^Tl ITIPIC'), deriving his opinion from

miil IDIN, the school of Shammai

w^ould have replied to the

is liable

school of Hillel that the opinion that the instigator

one

may

derive
!?3

from the verse naiH "imK and thus revert

?

to their

argument yC'D 121

bv

V Hw.
y<n
if

This proves the

ITiPlt^' is

fact that

the school of

Shammai
.

did not

know

that

derived from the verse DJIH imX But would this be Shammai was the author of the statement ? As a matter of fact it is very doubtful if Shammai ever used the method of deriving halakic opinions from Biblical intimations (D^pIDD ^11). The law derived from the
possible

verse

nmi
ib'iDS*

1]}

which the Talmud

-^.y

attributes to
is

Shammai,

"'NDK'

iTTI

p)

nnC^a
the

nmi
:

IDIN* (Shabb. 19 a)
li5''DX t:^"in

quoted in the Tosef. (MS.) in

7).
:

name

of Hillel

mJJ'a

]p]n

^^H (Erub. HI,

The

Sifre
IT

brings this statement in the

Ipfn ''KCt^ ti'intr

name

of Shammai, and continues

OD IHH

Dnm
For

(Slfre Softlm 203).

We

do not

find,

however, in

the entire Talmud the other two cases.

Should

we

accept the version of

the Tosefta, the statement of the Sifre could be referred to Hillel rather

than

to

Shammai.

we

do find Hillel deriving laws from Biblical

(i)
;

intimations in

two other instances:

ib"'2X (SiiVa smini)

IDIX
n[?i

^S"I

.X^D''
bbr\

00^332

yjlJI

con

linn Dn

(21

noix

.pnjn xdiji

pnJ Tina pnJ pn^JC' (Slfra Tazrla 9). We also find elsewhere that Hillel went up from Babylon because of three things pSt rOV W121 'tJ'bti' ?]}

PnnD

(J.

Talmud Pesah, VI, 33

a).

It is

highly probable, therefore, that in

the case of the law derived from the verse njln "iniX

we

should read

1D1X iT'yDC instead of

(^Anh'q.,

''XDt^.

This agrees with the narrative of Josephus

for suppressing

XIV,

9, 4), that

Sameas, reprimanding his colleagues

their opinion in the case of

Herod, said that Herod deserved capital punishto

kill

ment

for

instigating

his

men
: '

Hezekiah and

his

followers.

For

according to his

own view

T^H

W^'lt^ K'DJH

nX

HT] X^ im^E:'^ IDIXH'.

The

narrative of Josephus

is

identical

with the Talmudic narrative:

nn3y

ny:^v 'jn D'-cnn^ noe*

liJnJI (Sanhed. 19
nDti>
a).

pyot:'

nn^ nrox

xc^'23

buip

xd^d "xjn
instead of
la

Here, surely,
''XJ''

we

ought to read

T]'']l'Oy

pyO'ii'

XD^JD

here

= DITin.

See Derenbourg, Histoire de

Palestine depnis

Cyrus jusqiC a Adrien^ Paris, pp. 146-8;

II,

Gractz, Geschichte

der Juden, vol. 3

note 16.

512
several

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

other disputations between

According to the Palestinian

were divided upon four issues
;

Shammai and Hillel. Talmud, Shammai and Hillel

"

according to the Babylonian

issues.'^''

Talmud they disagreed upon three

It is

highly

probable that the two versions are not contradictory.

The

Babylonian Talmud may have omitted

troversy, considering
it

the semikah con-

as included in the controversy of

the Zugoth.

The

first

Mishnah of Eduyoth records three

controversies between

Shammai and

Hillel

73 noiN 'NOC

15

inDyi

nab
bbn)

na^con bv ahn ^NiB^^n npi^no nn^n i6

njit^'x-a

'n

inis
20
21

ic'yi

^ndc

(J.

Hag.

ii, 2).

^^ni ^NCK' ip^n3 niDipD 'an X3in

After the Munich manuscript.

nj:N*

(Shabb. 15

a).
is

In our printed editions the reading

^''Tlti^

sbx.

traditional

The word iOH, however, has no meaning here. The interpretation of the Mishnah is that Hillel said pn xbo instead
being descendants of proselytes
]'<n

of

pn

in

order to quote the exact expression of his teachers Shemaiah and

Abtalyon,
like

who

{WH

^22)

pronounced pn
it

px, and

for this reason they said

to this

X?0

to distinguish

from px.
14).

(See Maimonides' Com.

Mishnah

also J.Brull,

HJB'Cn X130, note

The legend
(Gittin

that

Shemaiah and Abtalyon were descendants of Gentiles

the Talmudic

57 b), misled

commentators and scholars

in

the

interpretation of another

Mishnah (see
'

Yoma

71 b '131

PHJ

\r\22

HB'yD,

the expression
It

'

pDDJJ

''22 pn"*^

does not necessarily mean sons of Gentiles.

:

may

refer to the people over against the priest)

tub)

n^yn {jXpiriD

n^3py
'n

nnsu'

nnvjn nx ab

]''p'^^

i'^in n^^ xin

nnai
n'^c^m

nnstr rr-osiDn

nuv^

^b

nox

.ppii'D

onr^ix

.mnnvj'D

xD:n Dn^ icx

.p"'^t:3xi

iTyD*j> mpii'ni
6).

D^^t^iTi nn^n::' m'^mi^D

V\22 nOI innJI .mp'J'n (Eduyoth, V,

and scholars (sec Weiss, "IH "IH,
ver.

All the Talmudic commentators

i, p.

176

I.

Levi, IVorterbuch, on the

word XlOJn
because he
nip:j'n

also

Aruk) are of the opinion

disrespect
to

that

Akabya was excommunicated

they showed favoritism to
like

showed

Shemaiah and Abtalyon by saying

to

XOan, which they interpreted

class in giving the
'

mean
'

their

own

testing water

to

one who was a proselyte

THE SEMIKAH CONTROVERSY

ZEITLIN
^NDB'

513
Hillel
is

Another controversy between Shammai and

found
ntj'ain

in

Shabb. 15 a:

blpb

1K>3in

noiN

nj^

nxun

i6

now

!j^m hndid.

In these four controversies four principles are involved

with which Hillel proposed to start a new development

the Oral

in

Law:

(i)

minij

J"'D,

i.e.

where an apprehension

exists lest a Biblical law

may

be transgressed we ought to

take a preventive measure.

(3)

(2)

Leniency
i.e.

in

law

(N7lp

Hi:)-

Semikah.

(4)

Subjectivity,

we ought

to reckon

with the intention of the person.

In these four principles

Shammai was
(i)

his opponent.

These were the

issues

between them
i'i'm

ni^psh m^pso no^K

\r\v^

pn

n^B'jn

b:i

-iw

^Nnti'.

Thus, according to Shammai, the sacred food which a

handled a moment before her menstruation
clean
;

woman

is

levitically

but according to Hillel

all

the sacred food which she

handled since her

last np""!! is unclean.

it

Here a very rigorous

feared that she

law as nn:

is

involved, and since

may be

might

err,

we ought

to take the preventive

measure of
last

declaring

all

the sacred food that she handled since her

unclean.

npnn

levitically

But Shammai maintained that

is

themselves.

This interpretation, however,

is

erroneous.

The
it is

version in
III,

the P.

Talmud

r]J22)l instead of

XDJIl (P.Talm. Moed katan,

is

81 d),

and the explanation there given of the word riDSIT

nnilDl.

that

equivalent to

The
b.

interpretation

of

our Mishnah thus

i.e.

becomes apparent.

Akabya
the
'

Mehalalel said
'

1^1pt^'^^

nJ33n,

Shemaiah and Abtalyon gave

testing waters

not to an emancipated handmaid (mTllti'D iinSB'),

but to one

who

is

Hke unto her (1101131), namely, a Hebrew handmaid

the

(n^l^y HDN).

Akabya thus contradicted

Hakamim who

cited the case

of Karkemith to corroborate their opinion and denied the fact that she

was

a proselyte.
for
all

Akabya was not excommunicated

Eliezer
b.

for this halakah alone, but

the four halakoth in which he stubbornly resisted the opinion of the

Hakamim. R.

Hyrcans was excommunicated

for a similar attitude

toward the opinion of the Hakamim.

'

514

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

not entertain such fears and there
is

we do

no need of any
It
is

preventive measure.

Let the

strict

law prevail.

incumbent upon the

woman

to

guard herself

similar

issue was disputed between the schools of Shammai and

Hillel:
n"2i :^"2

nm bw

irsi \rh^r\ by nrnjn oy rh)v

f\'\vn

b^a: sh nhy ab nnis* (Edu. V,

Hul. 104

b).

The
if

school of Hillel contended that fowl should not be

allowed to be placed on the same table with cheese, because

the fowl and the cheese would
eat
lie

on the same

table,

one
is

might forget and

them

together.

Therefore

it

necessary to take the preventive measure and forbid to

place

them on the same

table.
it

The

school of

Shammai, on

the other hand, permitted

because no preventive measures

to

were necessary.
is

For a human being ought

is

know what

permitted and what

(2)
n^''3po -1C1S' bbn)

forbidden.
'-xroc'.

rhrh npo noiN

Hillel adopting

the principle of leniency maintained that dough of less than

two Kabbim

is

not to be considered technically an

nD"'y

subject to the law of rhn.

Shammai, on the other hand,

maintained that dough of one

the
HD'iy

Kab also constitutes technically

For the
strict

which

is

subject to the law of n^n.

law must
(3)

prevail.

The

following controversy involves the question of

nipon ns*
D'-^Dia

semikah:

22 ^"'nc'

p3iNC^ D"'0 pn

N^n

*inis bbr\

cap

'0 "1DIK \si:c'

.un

\\zhl nroi^ ms*.

According
to

to Hillel

a Hin of 'drawn water'

(pniiSC' D''JD) is sufficient

make

the

pond

unfit for ritual immersion,

im

\\^bl '^'oh
i.

mx
one
'

3-^nt:',

because one must use his teacher's words,

e.

must

depend upon
"^"^

'

the teaching and tradition of his master.^^

See the previous note.

2"

The word fVJv

is

used

in

the

Talmud

in

the sense as

13?

pS

'i:nr:'o

prb^ n^n pnn^ya

Erub. 66 b).

THE SEMIKAH CONTROVERSY

ZEITLIN
pond
unfit.

515

Shammai opposing
since such an

this tradition of Hillel

maintained that

nine Kabbiin of 'drawn water'

made

the

For

amount

of water can be used for the purification

it is

of a

np

7j;3

or for a sick person,'^*

sufficient to

make

the

nipD unfit.25
(4)

Intention

whether we ought to reckon with the

^hndid

intention of a person,

hl^

Tk^^in

iDix

\s*>du'

n^^ li"i3n

"
^^

Berak. 22 a

Mikw.

Ill, 4,

The Hakamim accepted neither the opinion of Hillel nor that of Shammai until they heard a testimony in the name of Shemaiah and
Abtaiyon:
>:*>

iN3c>

ij?

HT

nm^ N^
.nipn

HT

nm3

N^ Dnois*

D'-n^ni

cnnm
It

ns

cmn

"in''"'pi

nx p^Dis
it

d'^o

-^yh (Eduy.

i,

3).

would appear that a

tradition of

Shemaiah and Abtaiyon had so much

even though
it

weight with them that they relied upon

was

transmitted by

two weavers.
J. VI,

Similarly,

when

the

Bne

Bthera, in their perplexity as to

;

whether the Passover offering suspended the Sabbath laws (Pes. 66 a

i),

heard that there was a Babylonian present

for him.

who had
The

served

Shemaiah and Abtaiyon, they immediately sent

Hillel the Babylonian that the

decision of

Passover offering suspended the Sabbath

"|"p,
'

laws, arrived at by

means of the
:

^"Xi,,

and

tJ^pTl,

was, however,

entirely disregarded until he said

so

heard from the mouth of Shemaiah

to

and Abtaiyon

'.

It

is

probable that Hillel proposed

introduce

an

innovation in the Oral Law, that in a case v/here there

was no precedent,
analogy
of

every Beth Din should have the right

rules
:

to decide

by means

of three hermeneutic

the

inference

from minor and

major ("Idni

Pp),
to

expression {y\\^ T\'^\^ and comparison

innovation, the

(tJ'pTl).

Unwilling

agree to this

Shemaiah and Abtaiyon.

in this case,

Bne Bthera did not accept his decision until he quoted The reason why the Bne Bthera were perplexed
P.Talmud:
tjin^xblt:^ JT'^nEJ' ''J^'h

was, perhaps, because they had no tradition on the matter.

The

difficulty of the

l^'EN ^N vhv^
vi, 1,33
fall

?jnD na^jn nobyn:! Tdy\ nai^a nvnb ic-y nyn-iN

*

(j. Pes.

a).

Since

it

is

impossible that the fourteenth of Nisan should not

at least

once

in fourteen
'

years on a Sabbath day, why, then, did they forget the

law

The
the

Warsaw) may thus also be explained. Bne Bthera followed upon the administration of Zugoth who were divided over the semikah question. The Bne Bthera,
?

(see

Slonimsky, "iD'^yn,

administration of the

therefore, either
tradition.

had no

tradition

on the matter or did not

'

depend upon

'

5l6

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Grapes which were gathered from the
to
levitical

"iwon ab icis* bbn.

field

for

the wine-press are susceptible

un-

cleanness, according to

Shammai, by the

juice that runs

is

out of the grapes.

yir
b]}
D''io

For such a case

also

implied in

}n'

31.

According to Hillel they do not thus

become

susceptible.

For the juice came out upon the grapes

;

without the owner's intention

neither does he need this juice.

is

Now
Dx

Hillel's reply to

Shammai
^JD^jpn

clear

^NOB'^ bbn )b

ION
'jqo

bbr^b

'Noc
cl^<

i^

-in

,n-inD3 ppDio pNi

mnD3 pnxn
a).

no

np^Don bv

hndid

^mu

(Shabb. 17
:

Hillel said thus to

Shammai

thou sayest that grapes

because their juice
this juice

must be gathered

in clean vessels

make
is

them susceptible
needed
;

to uncleanness, though

not

yet thou sayest that olives need not be gathered

in clean vessels

because no one desires the liquid that runs

^^

out of the olives

and

it

is

therefore not implied in

)n^ ^3.

Said

Shammai

to Hillel

""iD^Jpn

DK,

i.e.

if

thou wilt bring

the principle of intention to prevail,

olives are also

shall decree that

made

susceptible to levitical uncleanness

by

their

own

liquid
it

though no one desires

this superfluity.

Like the others

would appear that

this

view of Hillel was

not adopted at that time, for the same dispute was continued by the schools of
nnsi
n-'jDn

Shammai and
nsii^n.

Hillel:

D''^3

iT'JDn

nns .mpDn ns p^diq .... w^^m

n"3^

^o bipb ni^vn

nnn

2'n3iB^3

pinoo

^"2

nm
its

The

school of Hillel,

following the principle of

founder that we must reckon

with a person's intention, maintained that the rain-water

made
there

the nipo unfit only

intentionally.

when

the vessels were placed

if

Otherwise,

the

vessels

were

left

under the pipe through forgetfulncss and were not intended

"

Toscf. Toharoth, X,

2.

Mikv. IV,

Shabb. 16

b.

THE SEMIKAH CONTROVERSY

ZEITLIN

517

to receive the rain-water the latter does not render the nipo
unfit.

The

school of

Shammai

not accepting the principle

of intention, declared that in either case the nipo

unfit.28

became

These are the four controversies between Shammai and

Hillel.

They mark

the beginning of the development of

of

the controversies between the schools

Hillel.
98

Shammai and

See Katzenelenson, Sadducees and Pharisees, Woschod

S. Zeitlirij

'

Les

dix-huit Mesures',

RJ., LXIII,

1914.

DISPUTED PHRASINGS IN THE SIDDUR

By a. Mishcon, London.

The

line of

demarcation which Judaism so persistently

preserves between the

into outstanding relief

human and

the divine

is

brought

by a comparison of the Prayer Book

on a
par.

with the Bible.

In point of antiquity the two are placed

by

tradition

practically

The

foundation and

framework
Its

of the Siddur are attributed to the Patriarchs.

is

main structure

said to have been raised

by some of
some
tradition

the prophets.^

So

that the liturgy

its

may

well claim

of the biblical writers as

authors.

Yet the very

which advances that claim has not allowed the Siddur to

be placed on a
position
it

level with

any part of the Torah.

The

holds in the Jew's affection

;

may

indeed be

second to none Siddur

is

it

has rightly been pointed out that the

as a rule never absent even

in

from those homes

where you would look

has
it

vain for a Bible.

Why

then

been denied the authority, the sanctity of the sacred

?

writings

The answer
divine

is

not far to seek.

The Torah

contains the

divine word, or the product of the

inspiration.
It is

human mind under

Israel's

The Siddur
purely

is

the record of Israel's

meditations.
1

human

and
.

genius which
fpn

ipn 3py^

nm?o rh^n |pn pn^^

ni3-i3

nnnc^ n^an

Dmnx
^k'Jx

anyo
{ibtd.

ni'sn (Ber. 26 b).

33 a)

ni^sni

hi^'^^'h

hrh upn ni^njn

n?DD

nojn

-non hv
(Meg. 17

ni3"in
b).

mm mot^

ijpn

d'-n-'^:

onm

D^jpr Dntryi

hnd

520
will ever

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

regard as three-fourths of
line
it

its

mission to maintain

a boundary

between the human and the divine, has

beneath
this line.

advisedly kept

In some respects this inferior position has proved rather

advantageous to the Siddur

fixed finality which
is

it

has placed

it

beyond that

the natural characteristic of the divine.

its

The
last

Bible was definitely closed with the inclusion of

book

the committing of the

arrest of
its

Talmud

to writing has

meant the
close
tion
is,

growth

but the Prayer

Book

after

upon two and a half millenniums of continuous

still

cultiva-

remains an open book.

To

this

day

its

binding

so to say, flexible enough to admit an unlimited

number

of fresh leaves.

But the

loose-leaf

method of binding has

It freely

its failings as well as its facilities.

accommodates

new
it

sheets, but

it

is

not proof against tampering with those

already contains.

The Prayer Book partook

the disadvantages.

of the
It

facilities,

but
its

it

also suffered

has
its

retained

developing capacity, but only at the cost of

uniformity.

Not only have

divergent

minhagim parted
service,
in

off

from the main stream, the original Temple

variations crept into each minhag.

but
the

And

whereas

case of

Holy Writ

the slightest discrepancy was promptly

adjusted,^ no such zeal

was displayed
)yb]}

in the case of the less

sacred liturgy.

The prayer
by

and the Book of Joshua

Yet,

are both ascribed

tradition to Moses' successor.

while the retention of the slightest textual variation between

two

editions of the biblical

book would be simply unthink-

able, the liturgical piece ascribed to the

same author docs

in the 'Azarah

Not only was a standard copy of the Pentateuch kept

rectification, but

for

purposes of

expert revisers were employed, at public

cost, to

whom any individual

could bring his copy of Scripture for correction

without direct payment.

DISPUTED PHRASINGS IN THE SIDDUR

contain a

MISHCON

52I

number of
unrectified.^

divergencies which have to this

day

remained

Nor are these They also affect

article is chiefly
fact,

variations confined to textual readings.

that part of the

text with which this

concerned

the
For
which

phrasing.
it

The
for

latter, in

has suffered the more.

forces

remained uninfluenced

by those unifying
uniformity.

did

make

textual

There was the mystic. Advisedly or otherwise,

factor.

he was a great unifying

By
'

fixing the

number of

words which comprised the various prayers, and placing

each within the safe custody of a
helped to standardize
far as the
njJ3
',

he has undoubtedly

many

a liturgical text.
is

But only as

wording

in its strictest sense

concerned.

The

grouping of the words into phrases was beyond his scope

or object.
Vocalization, too, was naturally conducive to

textual correctness.

But many of those who

set

themselves
left

the task of supplying the liturgical texts with vowels

the phrasing of the words to take care of
itself.

Even

in

manuscripts which are vocalized the divisions of chapters

only are as a rule marked, and these too only by spaces,
while the sentences run on in close succession without any
break.

When
for

later

compilers found

it

necessary to set the

it

phrases of the Siddur within bounds,

was not always easy

them

to trace the

boundary

lines.

Nor

did they always

trouble about tracing them.

Phrasing

in the

Torah must

perforce be governed
r\'h

by the

rigid rule iTpDS N^T NplDS ^3

l^pDQ \h px HK'D.

In the Siddur every compiler placed

the dividing double-points and the sub-dividing single ones

^

Sephardi,

which
\rh\'\

almost
. . .

accords

with

Vitry,

has,
;

for

example,

FnTQ
is

3inD3

ddnT
is

ins niy pxT

i:m^n* nih

while

nowi

missing, and D^i?"n3

bracketed.

VOL.

VII.

M m

522

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

according to his
glance will suffice
used.

own sweet will. And a mere cursory to prove how indiscriminately these are
editors of the Siddur

The few

critical

were more
in

cautious, but they

were not always able to decide

whose

favour to give the casting vote

divided.

when opinions

are equally

In this article some typical examples are collected and

discussed
;

they are grouped,

in

some

cases, according to

the features they present in

in

common,

rather than the order

which they occur

in the

Prayer Book.

I.

The Disputed Phrasings of the Shema

(Singer's edition

of the Prayer Book, p. 40), the earliest part of our liturgy,

may

well be taken as our

first

first

example.

While the

of the phrasings given here is the one

is

generally accepted, the second

said to have been adopted

a),

by the Jews of Jericho (Pesahim 56

]33^
ijy
I

thus

nvn tivd ^3:k

|

"ik^x
icj'n

n^Nn onann vni

(a)
{b)

13n^ by Di\n
(a)

ii^o ^3?n

h^nh nnann

vni

And And

these words which

command command

thee this day,

shall

be upon thy heart.

these words which
heart.
I

(d)

thee, shall this

day be upon thy

The
Shema'

deviation from

the

general practice
'

may
'

have
the

resulted from the fact that the

in

men
(?

of Jericho

recijted

the manner of ny-\2

instead of nonD).*

The

matter, however, has no practical bearing, as both this of reciting and the phrasing which
is

mode

supposed to have

resulted therefrom have long passed into disuse.

*

For the precise meaning of these terms see Elbogcn's Der JUdische and notes,
p.

Gottesdienst, 25 sq.,

515.

^1

DISPUTED PHRASINGS IN THE SIDDUR

2.

MISHCON
in the

523

Three

different phrasings are

mentioned

Talmud

(Berakot 14 a seq.) for the words which form the junction

between the Shema' and the prayer immediately following

it

(Singer, 42)
.
. .

2^^M

nN
I

Dyrha

'n ^3x

(a)

Ts^i
I

noN nyrha

'n ^:k

(c)

This dispute has R. Judah

(czr.

its

origin in the opinion expressed

by
is

150) that no interruption of

any kind

permissible between the concluding section of the Shema'

and the blessing which follows

'

it

',

so that the two liturgical

"iJ3N''i

pieces should
p'lDD^

be inseparably linked together.^

pi

i6 y^T)

r\J2i6

(Mishnah Ber.

2,

i).

Somehow,

in the

discussion of the Tanna's opinion, his words are cited so as

to convey the idea that the concluding
section of the

word of the

last

Shema' should be closely followed by the

;

opening word of the next prayer

in

other words, that

the ni2X should adjoin the D3\n7N, so as to conform to the

biblical phrase of Jer. 10. 10

p-'DQ*

n''^^

riDK^ D:3\n^N p3

"noK D\n^N 'm nTiin (Ber. 14 a; Jer. Ber.

2, 5).

The Talmud

accepts R. Judah's opinion as the general

law, to be followed whenever the

Shema'

is

recited,

and

even records the fact that

^

in

those places in Palestine where

closely
is,

The
'

object of joining these

two prayers so
'

no doubt, to

prevent

the prayer following the Shema'

being regarded as unessential

precautionary measure,
the passage
n'-v^i
:

and consequently being dispensed with.

A similar
is

which was
inain
n''

also applied to the

Evening Service,
njinsi

N^CJ'

?3

ks^

n^

n"'3-iy

nox nnnt^
the Rabbis to

ncx

-icn.

The immense importance attached by

is

TO^Tw nblNJ JID^DD

apparently another instance of forging a strong link for fastening a

to the

supplementary part of the service

*

main body.

See

nJK'ID f]D3 to Maimonides, Hil. Ker.

Shema'

2, i.

Mm

524

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

dispensed

the third section of the Evening Shetna' was

with (since

n"'i'"'V

jDr

1X^

rh'h)
its

and substituted by a brief

opening and closing words,

epitome of

it,

consisting of

these closing words were supplemented

by

rittN

so that

it

be

not separated from n3\"i7Xj

In deference to this Rabbi's opinion as interpreted in

the Gemara, phrasing
(a),

however commendable

it

may
now
and

have appeared, had to be abandoned.

lay between
n?2X should
(d)

The

dispute

and

[c),

the point in question being whether

DD''n7X,

be doubled, the one to be joined to

^''^fl

the other to join

decision

as required
repetition.

by the

context.

The

was against a
(dr. 300),

It is

even recorded that

Rabba
This

on hearing a y"^ pronounce nns twice,

excess of " truth
".'

administered him a mild censure in the witty remark

*

man is suffering from an The decision was therefore

given in favour of

(c).

But

the

matter was not allowed to rest there.

The word-

counting mystics discovered that the words of the Shema'

(including tyi nbvb inia^n
to the favoured

nua

DC>

inn) very nearly amounted

is

number

248, which

the reputed total of

both the affirmative commandments of the Torah and the

members

of the

human body.

Three more words were

needed to make the

I?ON*J

total complete.

For that purpose

l^a ba was added to the beginning.^

The words may

*

have been readily supplied, even suggested, by the

'

Amen

'

'n

':s*

nn^^N mj^Ni ^snc'^

b).

''22

ba nni

,n''2ny

N'nnym

nox

nCS' D3>n^N (Bcr. 14

*

Amram
in

has no mention of the 'n'tS'l device

"J?^

while Vitry arrives at

this

number by adding |DN3

the case of l^n''.

PN

in "113Jf
op.

npsn, which we now do

cit.,

only

See Elbogen,
''H

21

his assertion

that

}?;N3 "|?0

ba and DDK

vN

were both used simultaneously, the one

to

by the congregation and the other by the Kazan, docs not seem
founded,

be well

bee also Weiss, Dor, IV, iii.

; '

DISPUTED PHRASINGS IN THE SIDDUR

(Y^'n

MISHCON

525

I'^NJ

lb^ ^n) which was there as the response after

the preceding Benediction. Sephardi authorities were averse

to this practice on account of the objectionable interception
it

formed between the Benediction and the Shema*.

They

therefore supplemented

the three, at the other end, by-

repeating nyrha

'n

''Jn,

Subsequently, on reputed zoharic authority, and evidently

with a view to the double object, of completing the desired

total

and linking of

D^Nn^JiS*

to noK, the three

words

to

be

repeated at the end

by the Hazan were nN

allowed
to

DDNii'N 'n.

This was by no means

go

unopposed.

Rashba, R. Simeon Duran, and some of his distinguished

kinsmen strongly deprecated the annexation of the nonbiblical

word nON.

Rashal shared
occasion of

this view.

'When

act

as

Hazan on the

my

father's jahrzeit

he

states in a

responsum

make

a point of repeating aloud

But the French school

repetition of
practice.^"

prevailed.

Phrasing

{c)

with the

ncN

D3\"i?N 'n is

now

the universally accepted

3-

The
VDK', led

decision quoted above against repeating n?2N, as

well as the talmudic objection to the doubling of the word

Ibn Jarhi to object to the repetition of

(Singer, 160-161).

*inx in

the

Sabbath Musaph Kedushah

("""isn

Isaac Luria

''nna)

who
ii.

is

followed by

many
2;

others, particularly

See

fTfc^Tl,

236;

^31

p%

ii.

nsiD DHH, Or. Hayim 10;

'\>'^"\ '^r\, 64.

1

to

'

The Emet

practice,

however, obviously defeats

its

own

object, for

'

Shema'

'

inclusive, plus the additional three words, total

249 instead of 248

loc.

see on this point 'N 'yO to Or. Ilayim 61, also Emden's Siddur, ad

'

!:

526

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

for

by Minhag Poland,
phrasing

the

same reason denounces the

irn^N Nin nnx

im

'n

(a)

and

insists

on
lyn^N Kin
I

ma

'n

(^)

The commentary bp^n

advocates
(a),

rT'VnD to

Orah Haim,
this
is

286, however,

pointing out

that
nns'

not a case of

repetition since the second

opens a new paragraph.

this

We

can

go further and say that

ins

is

essential,

being the catchword for the poetical embellishment of the

phrase which concludes with
it,

in

the

same way

as the final

words of the other

IDlpDD

biblical

kedushah phrases

nU3 and

serve for the other elaborations.

4.

In the first Benediction preceding the

y\2T\r\

Shema

the prayer

(Singer, 38) apparently opens with a parallelism

D^*j>np
I

N"in

i3^N*iJi

i:d^o ini^

nnnnn

(a)

'

Be thou

blessed,

our Rock, our King and Redeemer,

Creator of holy beings

Praised be thy

name

for ever,
;

our King,

Creator of ministering spirits

which

is

however missed
nnnc^''

in

onr phrasing
]

nyb noK'

D^^'np

x-iu
.

u^xui
.
.

"ij2^

mis innnn
1

(A)

D^mc'n

-isv

i^D^^n

'

Be thou

blessed,

our Rock, our King and Redeemer,

Creator of holy beings, praised be thy

name
'
.

for ever,

our

King; Creator of ministering

spirits

The n

^D

inD has

actually the former punctuation

DISPUTED PHRASINGS IN THE SIDDUR

5-

MISHCON

527

But

in

any case

it is

erroneous to punctuate the phrase

immediately following
.

Dnroiy

ob

vnnc' ne^Ni n^m^'D n^v (a)

instead of
. . .

nnDiy ch^
is

vm-k^'o

i^n)

D^mc'D ivv

(d)

This misphrasing

fairly old, for the traditional

tune

to which these words are chanted

by Hazanim
a decade.

is

divided

according to

(a)

and must have been jarring upon the ears

of countless worshippers for

many

Cantor A.

Baer

in his

Baal T'fillah even places a crochet rest after

vmtJ'D both in the Week-day, Sabbath, and Festival Services

(pp. 9, 124, 228).

Hazanim could

best avoid this error

by commencing

their chanting with D"'3inN D^3.

6.

Singer's device to avoid a misphrasing which has been

similarly perpetuated

by the tune

to which
;

it

is set,

has

not been

made
I

quite clear

by him

hence

it

is

generally

disregarded.
(p.

am

alluding to the seventh verse of ijir

all

3)

which Singer, deviating from

n^:
iiy na'oa

other Sidurim,

phrases

nnjion nx o^noi
in preference to

i'Niti'^n

np ab

{a)

nnjion nx n^nci

N^a:

my

^t^'^ ^snt^^a

op id

{b)

His intention undoubtedly

was not so much to join the

it

word

N^3J

to

the foregoing, as to separate

(/5),

from the

following word, since phrasing

coupled with the English

traditional melody, gives the imperfect setting of

nnjiton

nx

D'-noi n-'^j

iiy nc^oD W'yi^^i Dp

is
:

\h

{c)

What,
:

evidently, Singer rightly desired

injin

nx ouoi

suj

my n^oD

h\mD^i op n^ {d)

528

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Lower

in the

same hymn the phrase

ii?yDC3

ion

\if'i6

biDM

(a)

is

punctuated by some
i^j?DDD
I

non ^'i6

br^M

(3)

which makes

U^N a construct of non.

But here we may best

be guided by the parallelism, which points unmistakably

to
(a),

thus
v^'\b |nw

inye'-i3

yi

8.

The

variant phrasings in the paragraph next following

of the Shema* Benedictions depend on the vocalization of

the word

nc^np.

If

it

be
|

^f'^'^[>

the phrasing must be

n^jiy

nnx3

ob

r^'^')^p

n>ym nnnn

na^'n

{a)
all

'With pure speech and holy melody they

in unison
'

respond

(Singer, 39).

If

nfip then

'With pure speech and with melody they

the
" sanctification " in unison.'

all

respond

The
does
it

first

reading seems by far preferable.

for syntactical
(5)

Not only
sentence
is
is

make

correctness

the
;

distorted according to

but authoritative evidence

overwhelmingly on

Amram, presumably also Vitry, Abudraham, and Abarbanel all have n^njp Abudraham
its side.

mentions the other reading only to denounce

it

as incorrect.
cites

These are followed by Baer

authorities), Sachs, Singer,
i^fl?,

(68)

(who

also

other

and

others.
(43),

Yet those who read

the support

among whom

is

Landshuth
j.

may claim

of Tosaphot Hagigah 13 b,

v. {nyvo.

'

'

DISPUTED PHRASINGS IN THE SIDDUR

Whichever of the two

MISIICON
may

529

alternatives one

choose, he

should be on his guard against coupling the reading of the

one with the phrasing of the other, a

escaped by

pitfall

which

is

not

many

a Hazan.

9-

On

all

fours with this

is

an instance from

DUX po

(Singer, 120).

Elsewhere, in an article devoted to this prayer,

suggested

the reading of ni3-|3n pyo instead of ni3-i3n pyD.^i

altered reading, which
in that
is

The
which

actually contained in old liturgies

in Di^B'
D''U'

prayer and has since been found

in

the phrase

nux
:

]ID

epitomized, would naturally change

the phrasing from

mxninn ^x
*

riD-inn

pyo T'dh nv

b:i2 itr^

miJi

{a)

And

daily and constantly

we

will

give thanks unto

to

him

in the fitting

form of blessings.
.
.

The God

whom

thanksgivings are due.

to

And daily and constantly we He is the dwelling-place whom thanksgivings are due.
*

will give

thanks unto his

name.

of blessings, the

God

to

lO.

The divergency

in the phrasing
lies

in the

second of the

Blessings preceding the Shema'

between the Ashkenazi

:

and Sephardi minhagim.

^^

The former has

See 'Study
I,

in

Liturgy', by A. Mishcon, in Jewish Review, London,

igio,

358

sq.

also Elbogen, p. iii,

and note. The writer's suggestion has

nD'')l2n iTTlD to

been remarkably corroborated by the author of

Deut. 26. 15.

'

530

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

N"ii3ni

unci

bmn

ne'np Dtra

nyi

oi'ij;!'

K'nj 16)

(a)

'

...

so that
in

we be never put

to shame.

Because we

have trusted

thy great and revered name, we shall be

'

glad and rejoice in thy salvation

(Singer, 40).

While

in the latter

it is
"la

Nium
'
.

b)i:n

y^ip n^2

lyi

ohy^

^)2:

i6

{b)

that

we be never
thy great
.
.

put to shame because we

have trusted

in

and revered name.

. .

Let us be

glad and rejoice in thy salvation.

So
to

that the words DE'a

[a),

""D,

&c., while disconnected from

it

the foregoing in
(b).

are closely connected with

according

This point

is

further discussed under no. 15.

II.

In the Benediction follozving the Shema there does not

seem

to be

room

for a

break

in the

phrase
yiT

D^jnnNn

ijyi

d'^jicnih bv

Ti^y h^'W

nnin ^d

^yi

()

which appears, indeed, undivided

in Vitry,

but which

we

divide between two paragraphs (Singer, 42)

\y^2V
D^jnnxn
^yi

h^'\^>

y-ir

nnn

b
the

^yi

{b)

n^jiK'Nin ^y

The wording seems

continuous

hence
off,

Hazan's
is

passing over this break in silence

for 'nsn ^yi 'c'snn ^y

obviously the extension of

nnn.
^y

The

division here

may

have been occasioned by the branching

the two variants of
D"':iC'xnn

at this point, of

which Minhag Poland uses

respectively for ordinary occasions, and

is

when ophan-piyut

said.

DISPUTED PHRASINGS IN THE SIDDUR

MISHCON

53I

This

is

also the case with

am)
which
is

Q-i

D^pi ^n

ba

i^i^b

(a)

divided

by a double-point even by Landshuth and

Baer, while Hagigah 13 a has the phrase

unbroken.

Sachs has done well

in omitting the dividing

mark.
13-

Of the
. . .

following two (Singer, 44)

|

nb db

nn"'

D\n dqk' bv
i^y
|

in^b
inD^i?

D'-^nj in3B>

n^m

nT-c^

(a)
{i>)

nn^ DNT nsc'

n^hxj mat' nc^nn m^c'

the former seems preferable.

14.

Which

is

also the case with

fjxnK'''

t^'^p

\^^

niN*nx 'n i:!?ni3

(a)

15-

77z^

Shemoneh Esreh has a

parallel to the disputed

phrasing of I3nt:3

^'133

NP mentioned above.
is

The

following
:

passage in the thirteenth Benediction

variously phrased

nnoy

upi'n

w^\ riDNn pK^n

n'^ntann i^ab

mn -o^
who

|ni

(a)

'

grant a good reward unto

;

all

faithfully trust

thy name set our portion we may not be put to shame

in
;

with them
for

for ever, so that

we have

trusted in thee.'

532
DHDy

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

i:p^n d^ci

nosn

^n:^'n

n-'nonn b^b aiu

-i3*j'

jni

(<^)

'
.

grant a good reward unto

;

all

who
;

faithfully trust

in

thy name

set our portion with

them

and may we

never be put to shame, for

we have

trusted in thee.'
i:nt22

In both cases,

it

will

be noted, B'n: ab and

13

go

together, in accordance with the biblical phrase "'nnD3

ijN

n"i3K

(Ps. 25. 2),

which proves that the Sephardi phrasis

ing of the passage in n31 n3nN

the

more

correct one.

As

regards the passage from the

(d),

Amidah, Amram, and

Vitry both have

which
I,

is

also preferred

by Baer

(95)
iO'C^

and Berliner (Randbem.,

ny^
D^'iyi'

62)

who

cite the phrase {^133

cb^:

t(b^

from Grace after Meals,

in

its

support.

It is

somewhat strange that Singer

1

(48) in face of all this

evidence, chooses to connect the

rather than with D^iyb.
16.

with B'UJ N7

as

in (a)

By

transferring the conjunctive

difficulty is

1,

as in the foregoing

example, a

removed

in

the fourth benediction

of the Kiddush in the Marriage Service (Singer, 299).

reading, taken from
)b

The
(a)

Ketubbot

8 a,

is

ppnni

.in^:3n

nion nb'^i .id^w onxn

,1V

ns iv ic'n* ny pj3 13DD

As
n^33n

Berliner {Ratidbem.^ II, 20) justly remarks, the term

refer to

which seems here to

if

God

is

a gross anthropoit is

morphism, even

used

in a figurative sense, since

only

applicable to corporeal bodies.

as appears from a citation in

Saadya Gaon, however

1488

'j'd'd, ed.

by transferring
Adam,
ics*

the
"h

makes the words

in^33n nil xb^l refer to

thus
(/^)

ppnn in':3n nion

d^v3i

Axh^i rnxn nx
.ny

iv>

ny

p:3 i:od

"

Tliis is albo the version given in

Amram

and Vitry.

DISPUTED PHRASINGS IN THE SIDDUR

MISHCON

533

If in the preceding instances the variations are governed

by the transference of the

1,

it

is

the omission of this

conjunction which has evidently affected the phrasing as

well as the sense of the following passage in the
'

long

Tahanun'.

The
nxnni
.
.

fourth section of that meditation, in the Ashkenazi

minhag, based on Vitry (69) begins

|

Dnnnn pa nnni?
.

tanni
|

-iut

.Dimi pan ^^a xjn

(a)

"i:jn

iJ3^o irns

h^'-w^ jyo!? T-n^

mpy

t^s^

of which Singer (60) gives the following rendering, including

the bracketing
'

We

beseech

thee,

gracious

and merciful King,

between the pieces

remember and give heed

(with

to the covenant

Abraham) and

let

the binding (upon the altar) of

(Isaac)
Israel.

an only son appear before thee, to the welfare of

Our Father, our King, be

gracious unto us
itself,

'

The

question naturally suggests

Why

is

there no
?

allusion to Jacob in connexion with the other Patriarchs

The answer is The allusion is by the altered phrasing. This

:

there.
is

Only

it is

obscured

how

the Sephardi minhag

has

it

(Gaster,
I

I,

4a)

HNnni

nnnnn
^^

pa nnni? tanni niar

iras*

.Dimi pjn i^o njn

|

(b)

bNic> |y^T

n^n^

mpy
and

n^jsij

'

We

beseech

thee,

gracious
to
let

merciful

King,

remember and give heed

pieces (with

the covenant between the the binding (upon the altar)

Abraham) and

of (Isaac) an only son appear before thee, a7td for the sake
of Israel
(Jacob)
.'
. .

our father,

our King, be gracious

unto us
13

Amram's

version, ed.
after

Warsaw, bears
^5^"):;"'

a resemblance to both

it

lacks

the

1,

and stops

ijuN; thus:

|yo^

T>n''

mpy

T'Jd!'

nN-ini

534

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

1 8.

Other variations
. . .

in

the same paragraph are

yivb2J2

3Tyn

hi<
I

imx
.'

nns nbn

):b

ps* ^a

(a)

'

For we have no other

.
.

God

beside thee, our Rock.

Forsake us not

(Singer, 60),

which

is

the phrasing generally accepted.

Yet M. Sachs

(bm^'' n^an, 3rd edition, p. 86) has it:

linryn
'

ba iniv

inybo inx

rha

):b

ra

^3

{d)

Denn

wir haben keinen Gott ausser Dir.

.'
. .

Unser Hort,

verlass uns nicht.

19.

So

also further in the

same paragraph

General phrasing (Singer, 60)

"ij^'^^'n
I

pn mv boi
is

nsjoDi nanci

^ntJ'Di

mno mvp
irip i?

ijc'sj ^3

^3

'

For our soul

shrunken by reason of the sword and

captivity and pestilence

and plague, and of every trouble

and sorrow.
Sachs

Deliver
:

us, for

we hope

in thee

.'
.

(idid.)

i:>vn pri m>f bj:i

nsjDrDi

nmci

na'ni

nnno mvp

wb'qj >3

'

Denn

unsere Seele

ist

gebeugt durch Schwert und

Gefangenschaft und Pest und Seuche.

von

allcr

Noth
wir.'

und jcglichem

Kummer rette

uns,

denn auf Dich barren

20.

The opening
D^sDm

phrase of a subsequent paragraph of the

(Singer, 61),
i^sp!?
I

same supplication

D^yc'iD

n3vc'n3

nnisn

(a)
its

presents a generally
part, the

felt

difficulty,

inasmuch as

first

words

n3i:;'n5 T"

nnisn, hardly

makes any

sense.

: :

DISPUTED PHRASINGS
Commentators, as a
translators,

IN

THE SIDDUR

MISHCON
;

535

rule,

leave this

phrase alone

and

who

are denied this very present refuge, usually

resort for safety to paraphrasing.

Thus Sachs's rendering

Ruckkehr
*

runs

' :

Der

Du

die

Hand,

die
is
:

bietend,

ofifen

haltst

',

while that of Singer

thou

who

openest thy

hand

to

repentance

'.

Emden

sees in this phrase an allusion to the talmudic

a)

passage (Sanhedrin 103

naitrnn

hi'^ ^3
"v

vcv'^'^
'

mnno
idea

pns 'n'n'pn

h
'

r\m
so
as to

and

renders

nniDn

who

openest

a place
'

correspond to the
special

rabbinic

that

God

created

opening

in

heaven to receive the repentant' to

whom
given

the attribute of justice would deny admission.

suffer

But the interpretation would not

its

even

if T"

be

ordinary meaning, with the phrasing altered to

'

thou who openest the hand, to receive transgressors

and

sinners in repentance.'
It is true that

nna usually conveys the idea of

;

liberal

bestowal rather than welcome receptivity

poet employs this term in this very sense
his

still

a liturgical
sings in

when he

Rosh-Hashanah piyut
:iT nniriD
'

Ninti'

d'':^oxo

bi

.naiKTin

^sn^

"-w^ nnisn in

He
;

openeth his gate unto them that knock

repen-

tance

And

all

believe that

/lis

Jiand is ever open to receive

them' (Mahzor Abodath Ohel Moed, 150).

21.

similar solution of a textual difficulty, namely, the

is

shifting of the pause,

suggested

in

connexion with the

passage in the Sabbath

Amidah

(Singer, 139)

536

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

n^r ns-ip

nwD^
'

mix

u'd'

mon

inc'ipi

n^-in T^'^i'm

(a)

Thou
it
;

didst find pleasure in the seventh day,

and didst

hallow

thou didst

call

it

the desirable of days, a

remem-

brance of the creation.'

Where,
*

it

is

generally asked, did

'

God

call

the Sabbath
question

a desirable of days
well

The standard answer to this

2.

is

known.

rendered *T'Om

The word 73"'l in Gen. by Targum Yerushalmi.

phrasing thus

is

said to be

But the famous

^^

Hazan
of his

R. Meir, the contemporary of Rashi, found a solution

in altering the
:

own

'

Thou
it

didst find pleasure in the seventh

day and
call

didst
it

hallow

as a desirable of days

thou didst

remembrance

of the creation.'
is

The
answer
is

solution

admittedly forced

but the original

hardly

less so.

Another obscure

allusion to the

Sabbath

is

disposed of

in a very similar manner.

Says the Kiddush (Singer, 124)

rhnn nv Nin
'3 (a)

Dn!iD
*

Dii'-^'b

n^r

c'np "-NipD^

For

it

is

the

first

of the holy convocations, a

remem-

brance of the departure from Egypt.'

Some commentators,
Sabbath
as a
in

indeed,

make

out a case for the

commemoration of the Exodus.

But 'Moses

ben Ma'hir,
text:

Dvn ilD, suggests an altered phrasing of the

DnvD
'

riN-v^^ nar

cnp

*n-ipd^

n^nn dv nih

"-a

(d)

For

it is

the

first

of the holy convocations,

ivJiicli

are a

remembrance of the departure from Egypt.'

" See
Vitry 82; Tan. Kab.,

15.

DISPUTED PHRASINGS IN THE SIDDUR

MISHCON

537

The

Festivals, the three rejoicing ones

at all events,

certainly answer to that designation better than does the

Sabbath.
33-

To
which

return to the
is

Amidah

the

prayer

M^nbti

'n
is

n!f"i,

the nucleus of the Eighteen Benedictions,

one

of the three blessings which accompanied the

ofiferings

sacrificial

in

the Temple.

When

these ceased,

with

its

destruction, the prayer

was not abolished

for

who

ever
re-

doubted
storation

its
?

coming

into use again with Israel's

imminent

but adapted to the changed conditions.

Among

the modifications effected were the insertion of nx iB'm

nn*3 "Vy^b

miayn (which

original

wording inu T-ani

both
in

may have substituted the suggested mnyn n^nni),^^ and of the word
and Vitry

mno found
parts, but

Amram
to

before

|1V"13

72pn.

In this manner the prayer was not only shorn of

its

obsolete

was turned

good account as an appropriate

supplication for the restoration of the

Temple

ritual.
in,

But then some French kabbalist stepped

it

and made

a sine qua non that the prayer should only consist of

thirty-four

words

|n

^vnsh

j?iTn

nsDDn

rw^rh.

Some

Ashkenazi congregations accordingly omitted nx and others

dropped rnno.
phrasing was

In the latter case an alteration in the

made

to serve the purpose of the omitted

it

word, namely to give

Instead of

a prospective application.

(mno) Dnijsm

i'NiB^ ^'JW

in^a

Tm^

minyn ns

3K>ni

(^)

'

Restore the service to the Sanctuary of thy house

Israel's fire-offerings receive

and

Thou

in love

and favour ',

they adopted
^^

Rashi

to

Yoma

58

b,

and

to Ber.

rib.

VOL.

VII.

Nn

538

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

'

Restore the service to the Sanctuary of thy house and

|

Israel's fire-offerings

and their prayers receive Thou

in

love and favour.'

The

alteration

is

however unwarranted, and

spoils the

diction unnecessarily.^*^

Even without the mno the words

have a future application which,
nt^^1.

may

well be taken
is

to

moreover,

suggested by

That phrasing
due to
is

{b)

is

nevertheless so often heard

is

largely

its

being

adopted, injudiciously,

by the n"^3 ino which

24.

extensively

used by Hazanim.

A plausible remark
in reference to

is

made by

Berliner,

Randbem.y

1, 6-^^

the next Benediction.

The generally accepted

"j^niN^Ds

phrasing
nnn^k'i

npni
is

my

ny bac' n^nniDi

hv'\

{a)

he declares,
nnn^i
-ipni

erroneous.

There should be a break before

nn^i^'N

nny since analogous to

Dnn^ii

"ip3i

my,

Ps. ^^. 18

these words are not the extension of ny i'MB'

"IDDJ1.

but of nni^nn

Thus:
nnn^fi npDi

myny

bati'

iw^im

Tni**^^^

bi

(^)

Not,
'

We will
our
lives

give thanks unto

.

Thee and

declare thy praise

for

and

for

thy wonders and thy benefits

which are wrought at

(Singer, 51).

all times, evening,

morn

aiid noon

'

But,

We

will give

thanks unto Thee and declare thy praise

noon.'
;

evening,

morn and
cli.

"^ l"t3

to Or. Hayiin,
is

52

L.indshuth's statement that Scph. has the

pause before Dn/Dni

not borne out by reference to better editions.

'

DISPUTED PHRASINGS IN THE SIDDUR

25.

MISHCON

539

Another deviation from the generally accepted phrasing,

in the

same paragraph,

is

prescribed

by Jacob Emden.
^3

Instead of
i?

mp
I

ch'w^
I

yion in i6

{a)

he would have
lb )y)p

D^iyo

nnon
oi'iyoi

in ah

^2

{d)
'3

But Amram's wording

point to the fact that
ch)]}D

and Vitry's D^iyo

both

should adjoin the following, not

the preceding words.

26.

The CJna nain

the

(Singer, ^^) has the following version in

rite

modern Karaitic

Our own
Ashkenazi

version
is

identical
minn mini

both

in

Sephardi

and

which
n^D H'
n-^'iD

not as clear, lends

itself to

the following

alternative phrasing
.
.

']12V

bv nninan
b]}

ntr^K'tsn

nanaa

i:3-i3 (a)
(/5)

112V

n*

Hainan

nt^^B^on nanai ijana

It is difficult to

say which of these was favoured by our

early authorities, since, as a rule, they do not

mark

these

words by any division at

(loa)

all.
1,

Of modern

liturgists,

Baer

and Berliner (Rauddem., But neither

is

62) prefer the former, while

Sachs, as well as Singer, prefers

tion
(^)

to judge
free

by

his transla-

the
of,

latter.

is

from

defects.

Against
nt:'i'::>n

the objection
'

raised

by

Berliner that

mina

can only mean

instead

the blessing i/ince mentioned in the

is

Law
^P

what

evidently intended,

'

threefold blessing

"
thrice

Rabbi Avigdor Chaikin, Dayan of London, in a marginal note shown

:

to the writer, actually interprets this phrase

'

Bless us with the Benediction

mentioned

in

thy

Law

'.

For three times, indeed, the learned Daj'an

N n

540

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

(a),

But
a

which he commends, has certainly not

less

grave

Hainan mina fault. The words would have

'

presents a decidedly faulty diction.

to be reversed
if

they are to mean

which

is

written in the

Law

'.

Singer, disregarding the

phrasing he adopts in the Hebrew, steers a middle course

in his English translation

which he gives as

Bless
written

us

with

the three-fold blessing of thy

servant,

Law

by the hand of Moses thy

.

which was

spoken by Aaron and his sons

.'

But however smoothly

this rendering

may

run,

it

can
the

hardly be reconciled with the original.

Moreover,
'

if

words

'

written

by

the hand of Moses thy servant

*

are to

be regarded as qualifying the noun

implied, then

Law

*,

as

is

here

we

are faced

by the grammatical discrepancy

of unrelated participles: nainan referring to min, and nivoxn to nana.

*

In Caster's rendering

(I, 7,6)

Bless us with that three-fold blessing mentioned in the

Law, written by the hand of thy servant Moses, and which

is

to be pronounced

.'

the latter difficulty

is
*

avoided apparently by making both

blessing
'.

participles refer to the

But the former

'

difficulty
in the

remains,

mini does not

naturally

mean mentioned

Law'.

Were
would
phrase
inay
asserts,

it

possible for the

in

two words Hainan mina to

all

change places, as
at

the Karaite version,

objections

once disappear, and we would get the perfect

nt^^D

n^ ^y nnina nainan

nc6c'r:n

nanaa i^ana
in the
;

docs the priestly function of blessing the people occur

Torah

as an injunction, namely,
iD'.:*a

Num. 6.27
i3C'a

7XT.i'^ ^3a

nS 13130 H3

Deut. 10. 8

Tia^i; Deut.

21. 5 'n

paS.

DISPUTED PHRASINGS IN THE SIDDUR

MISHCON
{a)
is
it

541

As
(^)

it

now

stands,

it

seems best to follow neither

nor put

but read the disputed part without a break, as

in early liturgies.

perhaps not inadvertently

27.

In the first paragraph of the Mdarib Service (Singer, 96)

the phrasing of the following passage
is

now

generally

accepted

....
but
it

D^'51

^n

^x

\tyD

nisnv

'r\

rhh

pni di^ p2 i?n3?oi

(a)

is

as generally divergent in our earliest liturgies.

Vitry has

....
and
version
is

D^pi

""n

^x

iDU'

niN3Y

'r\

^hh^ DV pn bn^Di

{b)

this divergence is

even more marked in

'n.

Amram

whose

D^i

^n

iDtJ'

niNnx

28.

In the same paragraph, several Prayer Books, as well as

3U\n

nN3 to

Orah Hayim
Dv

i^i^,

cite

n^nn

pioy

'd

who

emphasizes the break

. . .

after 131X13
I

rhh'\

N-113

ui^-iD Tp'^i

D.Tnnnt^m

...

(a)

in contradistinction to

what was apparently preferred by

Dn^nnCD3

some,
. .

:h'h\

DV Nio

iii^{-i3
I

yv">3

(^)

29.
Is

the familiar

phrase

*1J?1

Dhyij

TOD

eligible?
this

The

answer can only be against employing

All that can be advanced in
its

tautology.

favour

is its

occurrence in
{a)

many and various Amidah : nyi xhsh "J'l^n

so
nyi

parts
. . .

of

the liturgy as
Birkat

the

D^3
{c)

ijyi, {b)

Hamazon:
. . .

nSy^

nv:^n

ijan ^yi,

Maphtir:

nv:n

bn

^y

: :'

542
nyi nb)]/?.
all

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

But on tracing them to
earlier sources

these supports tumble one

by

one.

In the

we find Amidah

passage

Amram

has only

nyi ch'wb

and Vitry has the two

in

participles

widely apart.

So

also

Birkat

Hamazon
earliest
13, 14, is

Amram has
.

nyi ch^vb "i^bv "i'n

1DV
in

n-|3n\

While the

wording of the Maphtir passage,

):v^' ^rha *i^on idk'

Mas. Sopherim
i:n 'ba 'n
. .

nx n^anan

i? dhid
.

bn

bv

''

'N '3

There
versions

is,

therefore, but little

doubt that originally some

nyi B^y^,

had only T'DD and others only

is

and that

our combination of the two

the different versions

merely the result of fusing

together,

and

like

many

another

grammatical impropriety, has been made legitimate by

common
it

use.

Is there,

however, any justification for employing

?

it

where
this

can be avoided

There can only be one answer; and

will help us to decide the following

two disputed phrasings.

The one

is in

the

first

paragraph of the Evening Service

nibts^
|

nj;^

ch)vb ^^bv

n^n
1

D^?1

^n *n

ba ba

(a)
(^)
is

nyi ohyij ^^bv ni^o> n^n

d^i

Both

in

early and modern Prayer Books the phrase

division at
all.

marked by no

It

is,

however, evident that

1'\bt2'^

Amram
iji^y

and Mahzor

Romi

both

of which have
it

Nin

adopted the former.

Thou
it

Baer leaves

practically

an open

question,
latter.

and Sachs, to judge by

his translation, adopts the

Singer's rendering (96) *a

God

living

and enduring

continually mayest
is

reign over us for ever and ever

so equivocal that

is

not easy to say which of the two

he favours, but the more explicit rendering of the Mahzor

Abodath Ohcl Moed

enduring continually,
ever
'

(Davis- Adler)

'O God

living

and and

who
(a).

wilt reign over us for ever

obviously follows

DISPUTED PHRASINGS IN THE SIDDUR

MISHCON

543

The
Service

other example occurs in a later part of the

same

nyi nb)vb ^ybv l^^ nvi nb^vb u^i^y li'D^

^'^:n
\

r^n

nna^ nuan

i?J2n

(a) {d)

i?i2n

Baer, indeed, treats both this and

the preceding as

analogous.

The

analogy, however, breaks

down on one

important point.

The common

version

of this passage

contains a deviation from the original in the readings which

has a slight bearing on the phrasing.

rites,

Amram, the

Sephardi
{a).

and even Rokeah,

is
. . .

all,

consistently, adopt
il.^iQn.i8

But

their reading

TDn nn32

With our wording

Still,
is

bf 'n^in

{]})

would give a better

sense.

as a

combad

mentator remarks, even T'on nnaa

grouping when the
is

Tipsn

not

biblical

phrase of Ps. 34

ni'D

luan

'^'o Nin

borne in mind.

Now, even
have been

if

the evidence had been equal,

we should
in giving
nj;"i

justified,

on the ground of orthography,

from

our casting vote

in the last
is

in favour of separating "Van

;

D^iy^

two instances

as the evidence of early authorities

also preponderatingly
all

on

its

side,

ther,e

should be no

question at

as to the preference of such phrasing.^^

31It is evidently

with a view to avoiding a similar tautology

that Singer phrases the opening words of the dirge for the

martyrs (155)
.
.

D'Dmn

nipa^ Nin

c^iDivyn

vcnna d^dhd
TJ:n
D^"51

piB*

c^omn 3n
"J^?:!.-!.

(a)

58
J^

MaJmonides has

1J''^y I'li'D''

iH

HU^n

Against the argument which

Tl

may

be advanced to the contrary, that

D''p1

PN

usually appears as a fixed phrase without any participle, such

instances as

Xbw? D^^

"''^

(Mekilta Jetro 6)

may be

cited.

'

'

544
'

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

May

the Father of mercies,

who

dwelleth on high in
.

his

mighty compassion, remember

(mercifully)

.
.

though Baer prefers

, .
.

D^ionna nipQ^ Nin n^oivyn

VDma D^no
I

pw
.

n^omn 2k
.

(3)

'May
his

the Father of mercies

who

dwelleth on high, in
.

mighty compassion remember mercifully

Singer, however,
is

not alone in this divergency.

his side.

He has

Emden and Landshuth on

32.

Dr. Berliner's remark in regard to a similar phrase

here be cited
:

may

The introduction
which
is
.

to the ]yn (Singer's

new

editions, 238 a)

so often read as
.

'in3"'3C'

ncTi
I

D-'mn

T^nna Dim

wk

[a)

is

a misphrasing, and should be

33-

Pauses caused hy

interpolations^ verbal

and otherwise,

are often the cause of irregular phrasings.

Thus the
n'ys
is

kissing of the

'

fringes

'

each time the word

mentioned has inadvertently broken up the opening

sentences of the third section of the Shema' as follows

n^x^^i
I

^y

"i:nji

nmn^ nnnn

^d:3

^jy

n^v>^

Dni?

itryi

'

(a)

:nbn
instead of:
5133n n^x^x

^^na fi33n

by

i3n3i

nn-ni?

nnnn

^222 h^ n^^rx

onb

it^yi

{p)

19*

No wonder the Gaon ofWilna

(31 Ht^'yo 'D)

is

against the practice

of kissing the Zizit.

'

DISPUTED PHRASINGS IN THE SIDDUR MISHCON

545

So
75) the
for

also in the

opening passage of the Kaddish (Singer,

is

Amen

response after N3n

in

obviously responsible

a misplaced break

consequence of which the general

phrasing has become

Now some
*

commentators make nniyna

to his ivill
*,

refer to

Nil

"'I,

which he created according

is

while others

among whom

the

Gaon

of Wilna
sq.)

who
.

cites in

support

the parallel passage (Singer, 145

.
' . .

K'lpn^l

h:n^

bn
But

^y

131X"13 prefer

to

connect
.

nniy"i3

with

K'lpn^i

^iJn^

Magnified and sanctified

according to his wilV.

it,

in

any case the phrase must

. .
.

close with

viz.

nnia^n t^o'i

nniyia Nnn

ND^yn

Nm r\mf B^npn^i bnjn^

name
in
will.

()

'Magnified and sanctified be his great world which he created according to his
establish his

the

May

he

kingdom during your

life

and during your

days

.'

The extent
dispute.

of the next Kaddish response

is

a matter of
it

Maimonides and Tur (Or. H. ^d)

on
this response,
its

limit

to:

Emden, who

insists

has even a

'

i:33

to correspond numerically with

words.

The Gaon
in

of
the

Wilna assumes that

response,
since

Amram

includes

also Ti3n^

he has }0N after Tian\2i

He
nh^

therefore

advocates the response

Ti2n> N^D^jy
2<'

^rh^^'s

D^y^ inn
"]~fln''
'">

xm

ni:ti>

(b)

The Kazan
is to
is,

continues with
'1

according to Maimonides
"'.

according

to Tur he

repeat 'y

'O

'^
;

"

This

however, no criterion

for in

Maimonides, where the response

distinctly closes with

N^D^y, there

is

also

|DN

after ']-\2n'>.

546

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

which

also favoured

by Drn3X po and

is

the

Minhag

Sephardi.
1DV n^3,

however, followed by
in

'n'^B^,

extends the response

to Nro^ya

p-CNl and states

it

Shulhan Aruk (Or. H. 563)

where, strangely,
that those
pDirt is

does not seem to extend beyond I'MJV

it

who conclude
it

with N^d^y are in error, as no

allowed between

and nn5n\^^

That

(b) is

used in

general practice contrary to the phrasing even of such

commonly used Prayer Books

the more critical ones,
that
it is

as D^Tin Tin, not to mention

for

is

perhaps accounted

by

the fact

particularly favoured
Tl^n'',

by

choirs on account of the

cadence supplied by

without which

the

musical

rhythm would be greatly marred.

Opinions are also divided on the point whether Nin y\2

is lo

go with the preceding words

'

the

name
.
.

of the
.'

Holy One

blessed be he

above

all

the blessings

or with the following

Nnann b2
*
.

nnn Ncnip n ncK' ... (3) the name of the Holy One. Blessed be he above

iibvb Nin

all

the blessings

.'
.

Those

in

favour of

(a)

include

Saadya Gaon

(cited

by

Abudraham) Maimonides
Minhag Sephardi.

though
"i"iN

only inferentially

and

Among
" Sec

those for

(d)

are vnr

who

strongly opposes

the other alternative,

Tan. Rabb., ch.

and
2,

n"d"i (Or.

H.

56).

The author

of JH^^'H

py,
by

Or. Hay., ch. 564,

justly points out that this refers only to interruption

talking.

DISPUTED PHRASINGS IN THE SIDDUR

MISHCON
Nin

547

The acceptance of the one or the other

is

of the alternatives

would seem to depend largely on the point whether

part of the text or merely a response.

ina
the

If the former,
(b).

(a)

would be more

correct

if

the latter, then

in

And

analogy employed by the Gaon of Wilna

another con-

nexion, namely a comparison with the text of the prayer

b^n bv certainly points to the former, thus
\
:

Nin

nnn B'npn
I

^ty ^r:c>

nxan^ nana^i
nxsn^i nantr^i

ib^n by

Nin

T13

NB>np

ncK^

il^

is

may be noted that among modern liturgists Baer (130) practically the only one who has a pause before Nin y"^!,
It
is

which

also advocated

by

Berliner (Randdem.,

I,

62).

They were
pbia
n'']}^''

evidently both influenced by the opinion of

'1

whom

the latter cites in this connexion.

37-

The N^JD deprecates the practice of many Hazanim who in intoning the following words of the Kaddish phrase
*

'

it,

evidently in order to meet the exigencies of the melody,

Nm^B'1 Nnana
|

b p

n^j?^

(a)

instead of

A
i'N-115''

misphrasing, far more

commonly
is

used, in the con-

cluding passages of the prayer

b'2

^yi
I

iJ^iji?

^"b^

.^snty^

b'^\

irijy

D^^m

()

instead of

543

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

38.

Polyphonic Renderings or the alternate reading by Kazan

and Congregation, has

phrasing.

in the

same way

left its

mark on the
survived of

In

some synagogues the custom has

still

chanting the latter parts of the

mDH ^piDS

in alternate verses
n''"i3

by

the

Pmo and the congregation on the occasion of a

In some congregations this elaborate rendering commences

with the suggestive sentence (Singer, 32) D3n33 bx niDon
01^3

nvsQ

mm

'

High

praises of
their

and a tivo-edged sword in

God are in their throat, hand\ more generally it

begins with the even more appropriate verse (34) loy nnai

nnan And thou madest a covenant with him The break thus made at this juncture has led to the beginning of
*

'.

a new paragraph with nnai

that
it

quite
|dn:

regardless of the fact

forms the middle of a verse

9.

whereby

the biblical

verse Neh.
. . .

6
loy

nnnn

nnai

i^isij

nn^ ns nssoi

(a)

is

divided between two paragraphs

nnan

loy

nnai

Heidenheim, Sachs, and Landshuth have bridged the

gap by

entirely

removing

this division, while Baer,

and

accordingly Singer, merely omits the double-point after

yy^

}CN3.

But these are obviously of

prevails of the

little

avail while the

practice

still

Hazan concluding the paragraph

with these words.

39-

R. Eliezcr of

Worms

(Rokeah,

his 320) records that

brother Hczckiah regarded with disfavour the practice of

dividing the biblical verse of Ps. 148. 13
:

DISPUTED PHRASINGS IN THE SIDDUR MISHCON

:

549
(a)

D^DB>i

pN*

b]}

nm

ni^

iok'

2im

'a

'n cb'

nx

i^^n^

between Hazan and Congregation

as

is still

being done
70), as if the

on returning the Torah to the Ark (Singer,

text were

Hazan

inaij yc^ 23B'j ^a 'n

Congregation
40.

h^

riN i^i^n^

{p)

d^db'1 j^in ^y r\\r\

And
kind.

the only argument the

is

Rokeah could advance

not the only one of

in
its

defence of the practice

Is not Isa. 6. 3
.
.
.

that

it is

rnp K>np nosi nr h^ nr N-ipi (a) rendered by Hazan and Congregation in the kedushah
trnp
it

as

if

were
""'x
,
,

K'np

m^^ emp

ini

nr i^N nr

Nipi

(^)

41.
Is not the biblical verse

non

D^iyi? *3 aita '3 'nf)

nin

(a)

divided at the circumcision ceremony (Singer, 305)

by

Mohel and Congregation, thus

Mohel

:3itD ^3 'n^
^*

Congregation

mn
^3

(3)

:nDn ohy^
4a.

There

is,

of course, also the example of Ps. 118. 24:

:N3 nn^^vn 'n njn

ny^a^in 'n njs*

(a)

being rendered

in

the Hallel (Singer, 223) as

Hazan and Congregation Hazan and Congregation

^'

NJ nyc'in 'n nJwX

(f)

N3 7\nh^r\

'r\

njn

The

division

was

less

marked

in the

Rokeah's time, when the con-

gregation did not say Ci>1pJ to "1J3K1, but simply /o/V/^rf the Hazan at ti'llp.
^*

Our custom

is to

repeat the vijhok verse after the Mohel.


550

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

43-

The appearance
D'SN (Singer, 6$
slight,
sq.),

in all

Prayer Books of a double TIN 7M

is

the verbal difference between which

liturgists,

so

always seemed puzzling to

who, however,

ascribed

them

to different ininhagim,

and even labelled

them accordingly. In

face of these the directions of

Kol-Bo

and Abudraham that both were to be said (which was upheld

by Baer and followed by Singer) seemed anomalous.

This, however,
is

quite borne out

by Vitry

(71),

according

to whose text the theory that the two originated

in different

minhagim

falls to

the ground.

Both,

it

is

asserted, existed

simultaneously
*

as they are indeed found in each minhag.

says
'

The Hazan
.
. .

i:n^3in

isxn ^x

d^dn
'

^-l^'

h^ (a)

And
. .

the Congregation respond

.

i:cD T^s irion ^k

d^dn tin b^

[b)

44.

Some Miscellaneous Examples may

In
"iCNtr

finally

be mentioned.
Sephardic

inn

(Singer, 17),

Emden and some

Prayer Books have

^bi'^J
I

inay

nn n^cai
. . .

vnayi rn^on '^^1 -ikdoi nau'D

I

(a)

^hJJ

nnorm rmi^i
by

w^^^^ 'n

Lauded and
his servants

glorified

the tongue of his loving ones

and

and by the songs of David thy servant.

We

shall praise thee,

;

Lord our God, with

. .

praises

and

with psalms

we

will

magnify

.'

instead of the generally accepted phrasing

n^^na

nnay

nn

n^trsi

vnayi

vn^on

ptr^^a

nxsni htj'd

(/')

'

DISPUTED PHRASINGS IN THE SIDDUR

*

MISHCON
O

55I

Lauded and magnified by the tongue

his servants.

of his loving ones

and

We
will

will

also praise thee,

Lord our

God, with the songs of David thy servant; with praises and with psalms we
Either
is

magnify
far as

.
. .

eligible as
is in

the
{b).

meaning goes.

But

syntactical evidence

favour of

The person changes

which points to a

from the third to the second with

break before that word.^^
45.

"'"1''B'31,

Another
.
.

variation in the

same prayer
|

is

n^o D^o^iyn

'n i^n^

i:\n^N wai'o ']Thm'\

{a)

authoritative opinion being on the side of

{b).

46.

Vitry (148

sq.) refutes at

some length the erroneous

phrasing in noK'J of
.

nuion

D^oys)

nnm

^n*ii

{a)

which should, of course, be

. .
.

nnion

n^oys
47-

nnm mi

{b)

One
nyiiy^

cannot very well deviate from the biblical phrasing

(Ps. 98. 3)

DN

pN

^DSN

i3

isn W^^'' n>n^ wjidni

non

-i3r

(a)

in

the T\1^ vhl^.

Yet the parallelism and sense point

unmistakably to

*^

on

"I3''I1"^,

however, used in connexion with Hallel, the phrase:

^^3y

nn

n'-^io

nsisDi nai'^D, Vitry,

192.


552

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

48.

In the concluding paragraph of the Hallel,

,
, .

D^pnv

yTom
1

i^tryo

irnbx

'n

']'\bbn^

{a)

is

correct, not
.

cpnv nn''Dni y^v^ b^ irn!?t? 'n ni^^n^ (^) number of other instances which are of less academic
. .

interest,

though of considerable
for a

practical importance,

must

be held over

popular treatise on the present subject

which the writer has in preparation.

errors in phrasing will likewise be

list

of

common

more

fittingly included

there than in this article.

The completion
it is,

of this article

has been unduly protracted as

owing to the closing of

account of the War.

some
It

sections of the British

Museum on

may seem

strange that the large majority of the

variances quoted occur in one and the

same

initthag^

where
have

more harmony,
been expected.
pilation of the

if

not

absolute

unanimity, might

Yet, considering that the earliest comSiddur, which properly consolidated the
first

liturgy for the

time,

was only made

and that
for

as late as the

latter half of the ninth century,

some

centuries

afterwards the prayers continued to be read from

memory
full,

by Hazanim who
remarkable thing
is

exercised their licence to the

the

that the divergencies are not far more

really are.
in the near

numerous than they

Still,

would

it

be too much to expect that

future an authoritative council

may do

for the

Siddu/ what

the Masoretes have done for the more sacred Bible.

The
cacJi

bringing into unison of the liturgical texts even of

of the two parent

rites

the

Ashkenazi and Sephardi

would greatly improve the shape of one of the greatest

monuments

of the

Hebrew

genius, and
in

be a good step
of Israel.

towards repairing the breaches

the

Mouse

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
By Isaac Husik,
It
is

University of Pennsylvania.

an occasion

for

wonder and admiration that

at this stage

and under these conditions of the

material, practical

world's history,

when the
thinkers,

and immediate hold the attention of

authors and publishers alike, there existed a scholar

willing to give his time to translate a mediaeval

who was
scholastic

and

work, such as

is

the Milhamot ha-Shem of Gersonides, into a

that a publisher should have

modern language, and

been found
world.

who had

the
this

courage to

give

this

to

the

scholarly

And
first

yet

most improbable thing has happened.

this difficult piece of work,

Benzion

Kellermann has undertaken

and the

part of his translation has

fiir

been published by the Berlin

This
first

Lehranstalt

die Wissenschaft des Judenthums.*

first

part contains only the

stituting

section of Gersonides's treatise, conit

about one-fifth of the work as

appears in the published

editions of the original.

editions of the original

For be

it

noted that the published

Hebrew

are not complete^ leaving out as

section, a lengthy composition

they do the

first

part of the

fifth

devoted to astronomical questions.

Dr. Kellermann is a disciple of Hermann Cohen, the famous Neo-Kantian philosopher, recently of the University of Marburg,

and the founder of the

shows a deep
interest

so-called

Marburg

school.

Kellermann

in philosophical

problems and a wide

reading in philosophy, mediaeval and modern.

He

believes that

a historical work
*

is

valuable only in so far as the historian relates

Die Kdntpfe Gotles von Lewi ben Gerson, Uebersetzung und Erklarung
Erster

des handschriftlich revidierten Textes von Benzion Kellermann.

Teil.

Berlin,

Mayer und

Lehranstalt fur die

+ 309 (Schriften der Wissenschaft des Judenthums, Band III, Heft 1-3).
Miiller,

1914, 8", pp. xvi

VOL. VIL

553

O O

554

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the period of which he treats to the development of thought that

preceded and led up to

It,

it,

as well as to the ideas that grew out of

leading up to the current philosophy of the day. of the opinion that a philosophical

Moreover, he

is

method

of treating a historical
itself

subject in the
historian's

domain of philosophy should

philosophical point of view.

spring out of the

own

Not merely the validity

of the thought under discussion but the exposition thereof, too, should be viewed from a definite philosophical standpoint as a basis.
True, such a method lends
itself to

the charge of being subjective,

but

it is

better frankly
its

and

deliberately to

embrace

subjectivity than

to claim

opposite, which cannot be realized, for pure objectivity

does not

exist.

And Kellermann

goes as far as to claim this free

privilege not only for the historian but for the translator as well.

Accordingly he inserts

or expression harking forward to

now and then in his translation a phrase Cohen and Neo-Kantianism,

long,

and

in his notes,

some of them very

and

especially in his

excursuses at the end of the book, he

discusses Gersonides's

doctrines sub specie aeternttaiis, so to speak or, to be

more

exact,

sub specie
It is

Hermanni Cohen.

not

my

intention here to argue this debatable question,

particularly since a translation as such cannot

be much affected
rendered correctly,

by notes and excursuses.

the careful reader
withal to

Provided the

text

is

who

is

familiar with the subject has the where-

make
for

himself independent of the translator's notes.

In

this particular instance the translator deserves

our special com-

mendation

having been brave enough to rush in where

many
of

a student would have feared to tread, not so

much by

reason of

the difficulty of the undertaking as because of the feeling

isolation that overtakes

one when he

finds that the great majority

even of students of philosophy are busy with other things and

scarcely lend an ear to one's lucubrations.

Another service that

Kellermann has done, which

will

be appreciated even by those

who can

read the original,

is

that

he consulted several manuscripts,

which enabled him in a number of passages to correct the printed

readings and to supply omissions which
unintelligible.

made

the printed text

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES As
errors,

HUSIK
have marked no

555
judgement

to the

main

point, the translation itself, our

cannot be an unqualified approval.

There are a great many

I
less

some more

serious,

some

less so.

than 311 passages where the rendering of words or phrases or

sentences seem to

me

incorrect or misleading.

These

errors

seem

to be

due

to various causes.

Sometimes the

translator

mistakes one meaning of an ordinary word for another.

Some-

times he misses the exact meaning of a technical term or does not

know

that

it is

a technical term.

Or he

fails

to see the sequence

of an argument and connects the sentences incorrectly.

cases, too, the error arises from the fact that the text
is

In some
corrupt in

the manuscripts as well as in the printed editions, and the emen-

dation obviously required by the context did not suggest

to Kellermann.

itself

Considering that
will

it

will

be a long time before

another modern translation

it

be undertaken of the Milhamoty

as
it

seemed proper
incorrectly

to take

up the passages rendered,

set

appears to

me,

by Kellermann, and

them

right.

The emended

passages in the text will also be of value to the future editor of

the original Hebrew.

The
and

following references to the

Hebrew

text are to the

page

line of the Leipzig edition (L.)

I.

(L. 2, 31)
n^JNtrn

CJ^jyo nsio

nsD

tidj?^

n^k'

13od

xh^ \^^

^isni

on

rhv^^r\

vmi

oniK^vn
n'-mpi?

ncsN^'
Dnty

dtisidh

djdx ^nT-pnn
n\sin
tiqio

nxn
3idd

Dnnsno cr^yo

^n ^msna

(K.

3, 2)

Es
in

darf

uns jedoch
kein

nicht

verborgen
iiber'''

bleiben,

dass

uns

diesem Problem

Beweis

das Vorvveltliche zur

Verfiigung steht

....
*

Italics

mine.

002

556
I

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

take
it

for

granted that Kellermann had the same text as

in the Leipzig edition, since he does not indicate a variant.

And

yet he renders the particle

in u^'DHp D''J^jyo

'

iiber

'

instead of

*von', thus destroying the entire sense of the author.

Gersonides

does not say that in this problem

there
is

(viz.

the origin of the world)

no proof for premundane

things, as for

example the

First

Cause, but, as the sequel shows, that in the arguments concerning

the origin of the world

we cannot make
first

inferences

/ww
is

things

that are prior to the world, say the

cause.

He
The

discussing

a matter of applied logic or methodology.

syllogistic proof in logic
i.

best kind of

is

what

is

known as

nrT*
is

niN''XDni

n3Dn nSIO,
as an

e.

a syllogism in which the middle term

by nature prior to the

is

last

term and the cause of

it.

Such a proof
DQID.
is

known

absolute demonstration
following
:

DPmD
is

An

example would be the

All

men

are mortal, .^

a man, therefore

is

mortal.
it.

The middle

term, 'man',

prior to 'mortal'
:

and the cause of

is

Now

take the following example

is

All wetness
there
is

the result of

a liquid, this spot

wet,
is
'

therefore
',

was a liquid here.

not the cause of the

The middle term

last term,
'

here
',

wetness

which

liquid

but the consequence thereof.

We

proved an

event in this case by inferring the cause from the consequence.

proof of this kind

is

regarded as inferior and

is

known
Greek

as nsio
(n/jfitiov).

niN'Vnrij

and more properly as iTNT

logic,

(Ar. iJ^j,

Averroes in his compendium of

Hebrew

translation, Riva,
;

1560, defines these two kinds of proof respectively as follows

nv

^i^P'rirf

pon n?n niDnn

nr

3"'>nn>

niN"'vnni

nnon nsiD
^'yio

bu:n n\TK' ny ^naon

tli^nn

oy

]r\'^

,-iann DB'

naoi nana ny>n*n

'yvDNH ^lajn

nrnosn niODn!? Dnai 'JB'ij nao b'''\

invn

ia,''yvr2Nn
Nintj'

nao D3DN

^a nix''^*on

nsica pjyn v^y

no

'.

m^inb N^ na^ m^ina

inyn^i*

The meaning
is

is

that in a real demonstration the middle term

is

not only the cause of our inferring the conclusion, but

in

reality the

cause of

it,

whereas

in the so-called n^N") the

middle

ri^J'in

T)2i6l2 ^3,

p.

36 a.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
term
is

HUSIK
though
it

557
is

in reality the result of the conclusion,

it.

the

cause of our knowing

Further on Averroes characterizes the

niN^VDH nai as follows:

riDnip

nn^n

n
xini

nn>pn

n^n"

ab) lib ):nv'i'b

'jlj'

nno nM> djdx b^a

no

pB'x-in

dhd nnx p^^D

-ikdh

nn

"ib'ni

niN^vm

*.n"'nnM ruiona nox'* niNB'

nnya n:iDnn

To come back

to GersonideS; he tells us that

we cannot prove
i.

the origin of the world by means of a real demonstration,

e.

by

arguing from a thing prior to the thing we want

to prove, as for

example from the

First

First

CausC;, because our

knowledge of the

Cause

is

very imperfect.

We

are limited to the inferior

proof

known

as ir^Ni, which argues from the consequent to the

antecedent.

Averroes makes the same remark in his compendium of the

Metaphysics ' regarding the proofs employed in that science
:

Or, as the
r\p:

Hebrew

translation of

Moses Tibbon has

D'-cy^n

it

*
:

n^n

^a

nvNi onn on

dj

nsicn

-j-'d

dSni

.yatjn
2. (L.

^n D^yn^ nnr nn

3,

24)

liB'nn

no nan

nr^

UN^m

/:nbir

nana

(K. 4, 16)

Doch manche
* Ibid.,

Stelle

haben wir deshalb

5, 8.
*

in unserer
in

Erorterung
possession.

40b.

">

Ed. Caird, pp.

MS. copy

my

558

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

vermuten konnte, dass
es sich

breiter behandelt, weil der Leser

dabei

um

die Erorterung fremder Ansichten handelt

point.

....

Here Kellermann misses the

Gersonides says that

brief, nevertheless
it

although he has endeavoured in general to be

in

some

cases he discusses a subject at length, though

may

seem
by

to the reader that the subject has

been

sufficiently treated

others, because
3- (L.

he has something new to say on the subject.

4, 7)

Kellermann (5,19)
from Din, to destroy.
rashness, presumption,
(19. 21)
'<"

translates

nonn by

'

Zerstorungssucht
is

',

The correct meaning

it is

in

this

case

and

related to the phrase in

first

Exodus
render
over
I,

^9

^D"]n^ |3.

The term was

used by Samuel Ibn

himself,
to to

Tibbon,

at

the

suggestion of

Maimonides

the Arabic

nSNnn

(6th conj. of nsn), which

means

fall

one another, to rush headlong into danger.

p. 23,

See Munk, Guide,

note

I.

4.

(L. 4, 20)

^N

nNi33n Tinn

^'33^
nr

v^v^ noc
i:!?*^

noN'

^^jin

nn

>d

,^^^2:^

dn

nxann trpnon
.;vyn

^ns
Dani'

Tine

my .|ryn imo oan^ ^nyT* inyn^ y^m nra n-'inn nNU^n Tinn

ne'SN
N^a^b

(K.

6,

3)
sie sagen,

Indes konnten

dass bei einer derartigen Forschung

;

nur einem Propheten sich die Wahrheit erschliessen kann

sie

denn

dem Wege der Prophetic erschloss, das kann unmoglich einem Gelehrten auf spekulativem Wege offenbar werden Ferner gibt es einige, die Wiirde dies Problem einem Propheten auf dem Wege sagen:''
k6nnten
vielleicht

sagen

Was

sich

einem Propheten

atuf

der

Prophetic erschlossen werden, so wiirde sich gerade die

fiir

Unm6glichkeit des Erschliessens

lativem

einen Gelehrten auf speku-

Wege

ergeben.
"^

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES

HUSIK
is

559^

Kellermann confuses the passage, which

clear.

very simple and

For he makes Gersonides give the same

it

identical

argument

twice and present

is

as two distinct arguments.

And

the mistake

due simply to a misunderstanding of the overlined words

WB'* niy.

K. read them evidently

i^B'.^

liV,
'

and not knowing

following words

what to make of them rendered them

die sagen', and the mischief was done.

Ferner gibt es einige

The

had

to

be a new argument, and sa he was obliged to render

lN3nn

and

n^m^l

as

conditional,

despite

the

^ax

at

the

beginning.

As a matter of
an argument of

fact the

words which troubled Kellermann

they say again.

should be read ^Jf ^ liV

this

= Then
:

We

have here

form
is h,
is

If

then ^
b;

is

^;
is c.
is

But a
In
people
this

therefore b

particular case

the argument

as follows

These

may

argue, says G., 'That which the prophet acquires

through prophetic revelation, the philosopher cannot know by

means of speculation
syllogism.)
at issue

'.

(This

is

the

first

part of the conditional

Then

they continue Q^'^\

"liV),

'But the question

to

(viz.

the creation
it

of the world)
that
it

was revealed

the

prophet.

Therefore

follows

cannot be acquired by
It is

the philosopher by means of speculation'.

one argument

and not two.

niyo n^N trpncn

nn

nitmn yjona

y*: n:r ^"31

y^n nwE^ hd^

^mpB' ^D3 m^pnn

(K.
7, fin.)

Was

aber die Entscheidung des Maimonides

sei

betrifft
ist

Die

Perzeption dieses Problemes

unmoglich,

so

dies kein

Einwand gegen

uns, es miisste
liesse,

denn

sein, dass sich eine

bestimmte

Absurditat erweisen

insofern sich hieraus einander kontra-

dizierende Teile in dieser Forschung ergeben, wie vorausgeschickt

wurde.

5(5o

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

This translation

quite impossible,

and Gersonides meant

the expression

to

say something entirely different.

indicates,

As

mpB'

"IDS

he

is

referring to the following passage

on

p. 4, 1 7.

13

ntJ'n^B'
N^J

no

nn*

wpD'i vn dx nn>pnn

nsD

i3nmt5> nijn
n>{'n .nnty ni33

vn

DK1 D^Jonipn

D^yjtj'

1335^.1

ox noi^

He is
who

trying to defend himself here against those conservatives

are opposed to every

new undertaking, assuming

that

what
surely

the ancients have not succeeded in proving, the

moderns

cannot,

and hence they acquse every new thinker of presumption. Gersonides answers these critics as follows You must not condemn
:

my

attempt in advance.

See the

result

first.

If I

succeed in

proving

my

point, i.e. in solving the

problem of the origin of the

world, which has not hitherto been solved, I shall deserve

comis

mendation instead of condemnation.

failure, I shall

And

if

my

solution

deserve condemnation to be sure, not for attempting

to solve, but for failing to

do

so.

Now

in the passage

under discussion he

refers to

Maimonides'

well-known statement in the Guide

of th^

Perplexed that the

is

question of the eternity or creation of the world

one that

cannot be

scientifically proven.

This judgement of the matter,

Gersonides then says, need not be regarded as condemning

undertaking in advance, unless you can invalidate

my

my

disjunctive

(imon
blame
If I

'piriD

inx) mentioned before.

fail.

In other words, G. means,

I

either I succeed or I
for solving

If I

succeed

deserve praise and not

what the great Maimonides thought insoluble.

fail

you can blame

me

for failing

but not for making the

attempt.

In advance you must not judge me.

6.

(L. 6, 7)

i3n3nx

nnn

ijqtt'B'

13^312

p^yo^j

mnt

pnb'

nsno

Nin

pi
iniN
."n)

,mv3n (read nanxij)

nuD3 i3nm
HD 13^310

^y pyt:^ /^^yin^
p3^

I3n3ii3i

,Dn3

M^vntt*

i6^ n3D nM> hK

^2

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
(K.
9, 6)
ist

HUSIK

561

Ebenso
dafiir,

erwiesen, dass der Leser unseres Buches uns nicht

dass wir ihn lieben

und ihm

niitzen

wollen, verfolgen

darf, indent er unseren

Worten

streitsuchtige
seiti^

Motive unterschiebt.
dass er gar nicht

Dies mochte
versteht,

vielleicht

darin begriindet

was wir damit beabsichtigen.

is

This translation
the reader must
attitude
arising

inaccurate.

What Gersonides

says

is

that

not approach the book with a disputatious

(niXJn nnnNi?

i:nm

by |iyo^),

because the prejudice

understanding
the

therefrom

may

prevent

him

from

meaning of the author.

7.

L.

7,

12)

N3B'

HD

nNi?s3 HiB'^n

nosn ^^rh

m"'5i'\n

D^K'mn

"h^ nvpni

.n-nnn

ntio

(K. II, 5)
Bei einigen Untersuchungen
leitet

sie

(sc.

die Spekulation)

uns dazu an, die richtige und hervorragende Wahrheit dessen

zu finden, was hiervon in der Thora vorkommt.

This

is

the very opposite of what Gersonides intended to say.

:

His words above quoted must be construed as follows

N3tJ'

no
in

nKn

N^fo!? nsi'Di

mc'M

i:n>{j'M

mina

hid.

That

is,

the teaching

of the Bible often guided Gersonides in a remarkable seeing the truth in philosophical problems.
this.

way

The

sequel confirms

vni

pjyn

nvnai
.on'^i^x

nc'SNB'

no

n^ij^na

jr-triixn

mo^e'n

MNnn

p mn
7.

nyann din^ ntrp^ 'vxo n^pioy D'^B^m 1x33

.DnnoN
8. (L.

y^jnb

minn wnix

i^b'tib' nn

28)

nonpa
ynon

^njfp^

ynoa nnvp nyn> nonip

n^i^^jy

Dty

>*

.nnsn

Dnyn''

mpn

D''ni^i'n

D^:>^jynB'

i3

^nioan

^nc'a

dxi

* Italics

mine.

562

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

aba pbn^D DK'n

(K.
II, fin.)

d:

nipm

yntsni

.oi'mo Dt^n

-iipn"-

^nic^jn

Erstens: Es gibt Gegenstande, bei welchen von Natur aus

die Kenntnis des einen der Kenntnis der anderen vorangehen

muss, wie die Kenntnis der Pramissen der Kenntnis des aus ihnen gefolgerten Schlusses, und dies
zwei Wissenschaften der
tischer
Fall,
ist

bald bei einer, bald bei

So muss die Kenntnis mathemader Wissenschaft) mehr

Dinge von Natur aus der Kenntnis physikalischer Dinge

(so.

vorangehen, obgleich der eine Trdger

enthdlt
schaft

ah

der andere

so untersucht die mathematische Wissen-

den absoluten Korper und ebenso die physikalische, nur

untersucht diese ihn in bezug auf seine

Bewegung

The italicized passage is difficult and should have had a note. The meaning is apparently that mathematics is prior by nature to
physics, even

though the subject of the former

that

is

more compre-

hensive (bijD inv) than

deals with

of the

latter.

For mathematics
its

body

in

the abstract, whereas physics has for

subject

body

as affected

by motion.
because

Body
it

as such

is

more comall

prehensive or more universal without

exception,
or

because
it

embraces

bodies

abstracts

from any of the

qualities of body.

Now
later

the concessive form of the clause would

indicate

that

one would ordinarily expect the more universal

by nature than the more
Aristotle,
[rj^lv)

subject to

come

particular, but

this is clearly

opposed to the opinion of

who

says time

and again
(to
Ktt^'

that whereas for us individual

is

men

the particular

cKaorra)

better

known than

(yvwpi/xwTcpov),

and hence
((^vVti),

prior to (Trporc/jov) the universal {to Ka66Xov\

by nature

or
is

absolutely (dTrXws), the universal

is prior.
i,

The
yap

clearest passage

the one in the Posterior Analytics,

TTpoTcpa 8
(f>v(T(L

ch. 2, p. 71
oil

33, ed.

Bekker

ccTTt

KoX yvwpifiu}Tfpa SiT^ws'

17/Aas

tolvtov irporepov rrj

Kol Trpos Xiyai

rijs

irpoTepov,
t^/aSs

ovSe yvtopifiwrepov koI rjfuv yvoipi/xev

pusiTtpov.

Trpos

irportpa irporepa

Kal
kol

yvwpifjLWTtpa

ra
ra

iyyvTipov

aicr^T^crtcos,

ciTrAax;
'

Se

yvwpifnorepa

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
iroppdiTtpov.
t(TTL

HUSIK

563

Se TToppoiTaTO)

fJi.lv

TO.

KaOoXov fiaXidTa, iyyvTUTW

8c Ta Kad

tKacTTa.
is

Accordingly we should expect G. to say that mathematics

prior

by nature to physics decause (not although) the subject of

is

mathematics
therefore at

more

universal than that of physics.

It

seemed

^^D nnv THNn ^miT\ DN1 should be translated, ' and also when the one subject is more universal than the other', as a second condition of priority by
first

that the clause

nnsn

nature in addition to the priority of the premises to the conclusion

mentioned

before.

In

this case

we should expect

this clause to
It is

come

before the illustration of mathematics and physics.

it

not in fact impossible that

was misplaced by some

his

copyist,

who found
it

it

in the

margin of
is

copy and did not know where

belonged.

For there

another objection to construing the

is

clause concessively,

and

that

that

we then

desiderate a reason

why mathematics
There
is,

is

by nature prior to physics.

however, a way of defending the concessive interpre-

tation as follows.

There

is

a passage in the Physics which has

given the commentators of Aristotle a good deal of trouble

because

it

seems to contradict the relation between the universal

and

particular expressed above.

i.

The
Ik
ttj

passage reads as follows

i^Phys.

I,

p.

184 a 16):
iirl to.

irk^vKt. 8

twv

yvcopi/twTc'pwv

rjfxlv

rj

680s KOI (TacfieaTipwv

aacpiarepa

<^v(tu koX yvwpLfiwTcpa' ov

Sioirep avdyKT] tov Tpoirov

yap

TavTo.

rjixiv

re yvwpifia koI aTrXws.

TovTOV irpodyeiv ex Ttov dcra<f>icrTpwv

cTTi

fikv rrj (fivaiL fjpxv 8e cra^ccrTcpaJV

TO.

(ra<f)iaTpa rfj

cftvcrei

kol yvwpLfiwTepa.

tern 8
/<

rjfuv irpwrov

hrfXa KoX

aa(jirj to. (rvyKe.yyixiva fjidXXov'

vcrrepov 8

rovTotv ytverai,
t/c

yi'wpifxa TO, CTOLX^La Kal at dpxo-i- SiaipovaL ravra.

cTTi

8to

twv KaOoXov
aio-Orjcnv

Ta KaO' eKacrra

Stt

Trpolfvai.

to yap oXov Kara

icrriv'

tt/v

yv(iipLp.<j)Tpov,

TO 8e KaOoXov oXov Tt

ttoXXol

yap

7repiXa/x/?avft

ws

/tep^ TO KaOoXov.

This seems to say in the underlined part that we should begin

with the universal because that
better
is

better

known

to us,

though not

known by

nature, a direct contradiction of the authentic

views of Aristotle elsewhere, as shown before.

The commentators

564

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

and
kuO' iKatrra

solve this diflficulty by pointing out that KaOokov

are used here in a different sense from the ordinary, which

reverses their meaning.

Ka66\ov

is

equivalent to a-vyKexvfJievov
Ka6' tKaa-ra are the

and

oXov,

namely, a sensible whole of which

II,

conceptual parts (see Waitz, Organon,

p.

306 ad 71 b 21;

Trendelenburg,
II, 2,

De Anima,
it

p.

3rd ed., p. 197, note

this

2).

338; Zeller, Philos. d. Griecfien, But it would seem as if Averroes

did not understand

way, for in his

Physics (Heb. translation, ed. Riva di Trento, 1560, p. 3 a)

compendium of the we find

the following

i<h

IS y3t:n

^vn n^yn*n on vn^K' pn

D'yn''

inv

i^bvN

on

ntj'N

'iB'DN

n^m nt^p33 i3^vx

ijhsn

myn> nnv ni^han ni^nnnn vm

vn*

Ten

n^m onis yjion n^^^an nvo m1^^D3 n.T^y noyjB^

D^yn\n

>3

ynen

Wn

pjyn

p^l

nna: xh oniDJ ^n^2 D"'3vcnm

nvtJ'ynn nijoisa pjya

. .
.

onann
ni^i?i3n

iK'y^

nno IK'S onnvcn on yaon bxx

o^^yatin

D"'3"'^jy^

ni^nnnn \vv^ ^^nnity a'^^ncn |d n\T

is

This passage says plainly that by nature the particular

better

known than

the

universal.

Gersonides
the

did

not

read

Aristotle.

He

read

Averroes,

and
that

passage

just

quoted
that

probably influenced

him,

so

he might have said

mathematics comes before physics, even though, as the more

universal subject,
still
it

is

by nature

less

known.

But the

difficulty
?

remains

why

is

mathematics prior by nature to physics

I

do think the suggestion

is

made above may be

tells

the correct one.

This
(L.,

confirmed by G. himself in the following paragraph

8 init.)

p.

where he

us

that universals

come

before

particulars,

Dnnvcn

D^j"'''jy!j

n'hb\^7\ "j^jyn

nonpn.

9.

(L.

7, fin.)

(K. 12, 12)

Diese Art des Vorsetzens ergibt sick

standcs und des Lesers.
'"

" von

seiten des

Gegen-

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
'Ergibt sich'
is

HUSIK

565

not a correct translation of 3^^ino in this place.

Gersonides
exposition.

is

speaking of the proper order of investigation and

says

He

there

are

seven conditions determining

correct order.

Some

of these conditions

make a given order

some merely make
it

absolutely necessary
preferable
(31D

(a''"'inD

pvnn

I'i

bv),

invn nv
(pjyn

^y).

Each of these may again be

subdivided.
subject-matter

given order
T^o),

may be
or
for

essential (3''^ino) for the

the reader or investigator

Similarly

(l^yon

ni'O),

or for both at once (p^yon nvni pjyn nvo).

a given order

may be merely
is

preferable

(31t3

*invn IV bv) in the

first

same three ways.

(p^yom

In the sequel he gives an example

essential for subject-matter

of

the order of priority which

\''^'^r\

and reader
by
'

nso

T'"in).

K.,

by rendering

3>>"in

ergibt

sich', destroys the meaning.

10. (L. 8,
I

fif.)

imn

nnti'

^^ ,D>nnvcn

n^i^-jy^ D^^i'ian D^j'-^^yn

nmpn

n^jtrm

Nin no-'npn

pen nn

.^22.1

nra mp''

nS

ihd

Tno
]^n

nitij

ijy

nnvn nxn

Jjy

Nina noi D>nnvn ^Jtro

n^^no NinB> no

>yvox icd

(K. 12, 13)

Zweitens : Allgemeine
die auf
diese
Begriflfe

gehen speziellen vorauf, weil

Art zur Aufhellung jener Inhalte gewonnenen

Pramissen zuerst stehen miissen,

Pradikat

um

auf eine bestimmte Art ihr

dem

Subjekte zu vindizieren, ohne dass hierbei eine

Vordoppelung entsteht (Syllogismus).

setzens
ist

Eine solche Art des Vor-

etwa das Mittlere zwischen dem, was sich aus zwei

Seiten ergibt

und demjenigen, was auf

ist),

einer Seite steht (sc. einer

ist als

Relation zugeordnet

die weit besser

die beideti Seiten

wcnn aber das Bessere aus den

es

zwei Relationen sich ergibt, so

ist

um

so giinstiger.

This translation makes the entire paragraph unintelligible.

render the meaning of Gersonides clear,
that njiy'XT riDlpn
it is

To

necessary to explain

means here a primary proposition or premise^

' ;

566
i.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

a proposition or premise which
is

e.

not

itself

derived from a

previous one in a given science.

is

Thus

the proposition, *a triangle

a three-sided plane figure

'

',

might be called a nJIB'NT nonpn

is

whereas the proposition,

figure
',

a scalene triangle

a three-sided plane

is

not a nJICN") ncipn because the proposition in question

It applies to

applies primarily to triangle in general.

a specific

kind of triangle by virtue of the

in general.

latter

being included in triangle

(nIB'3) as
is
it ?

In the former proposition the predicate

(nk'IJ)
?),

applied to the subject

(^np

answers the question,

i.

What

= Ti

tort

= quid est

e. it

denotes the essence (n^no) of

the subject.

Now
general

the

point

of Gersonides's

studying or teaching geometry

first,

and of

right

remark is that if we are we should treat of triangle in triangle and isosceles triangle and

scalene triangle afterwards, for the reason that in proving the

properties of triangle in general (onn
D^J^"'jyn)

we

shall

make use
niDlpn
not be

of primary

and

essential propositions (DNItJ'J

?)

1N:^J^

niJIlJ'X")
it

IHD TT1D (DiTNK'13

iW\^

^"H

(on^NlC'J ?)),

and hence

will

necessary to prove the same properties over again

,

(nn rnp* N7

when we come to treat of specific kinds of triangles (D"'3^^JJ; D^nnvcn); for we have proved those properties of triangle gua triangle, which includes all kinds. But if we treat of scalene
D3n)
triangle
its

first
is

and prove among other

equal to two right angles,

things, say, that the

sum

of

angles

we

shall

have to make use

is

of the second proposition above mentioned, which

not primary

and

essential since
is

it

is

not the proper answer to the question,

'

'What

a scalene triangle?

in the technical sense of 'what is?'

all triangle,

and, moreover, since scalene triangle does not embrace

we

shall

have to prove the same property for triangle in general,

and

for isosceles triangle,

and so

on.

Then Gersonides
precedence, of which

harks back to his classification of order of

we spoke
3"in

before,^'

and says

that the preessential in

cedence
f'oth

just

spoken of stands midway between

i/ie

respects

(Dmvn

-r.i'O

N"l^k^

n'd),

i.

e. for

subject matter

and reader (p'ycni p^yn nVD), and

" See No.

the merely preferable in both

9.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
respects

HUSIK
it

567
rather

(n>mvn

'JB^D

21D nnvn n^

^jy

nihb' .id), although

belongs to the former than to the

Ti.

latter.

(L. 8, 6)

na y^r
nio^n

Tna
!

mm
li?

-no^

inii'nnB'n

d^b-^::'

i^

^is-i

nrh

'srh^h

i^^nn^cj'

n'-in*

nr 'jsci ^xinn

nson miian

ir-ijan

^n p^ycn
dni
^fjp^

nnpn
nn\T
^^

\'y:i7\

nn

.Dvyn inNnj^n yniio

pito
.

mipn

^^^

n!?

nB'N p>yon nvoi

.
.

invn nv ^y iDvyn pjyn nvo nih

Tino 1D3 Nin Ninn laon nunn miDn

(K. 12, 24)

Drittens
:

Es

ist

erwiesen, dass der Verfasser nicht

fiir

sich

schreibt, sondern
lassen.

um

auf andere seine Kenntnisse ausstromen zu

er bestrebt sein, seine VVorte

Deshalb muss

nach einer
in

Methode zu ordnen, durch welche der Leser den

Buche beabsichtigten Zweck
muss
ware
die
erreicht,

unserem und aus diesem Grunde

es miissie
(sc.

die Belehrung mit

dem

Leichten beginnen,

denn

das Vorhergehende das Folgende subsiantiell involvieren

bei der Identitdt des Vorhergehenden mit

dann
Diese

dem Nachfolgenden

Methode vom Leichteren zum Schwereren

ist

iiberjlussig)}'^

Art des Vorsetzens

besie^^

auch inbezug auf den Inhalt selbst die

wahrend
Buches

es inbezug auf

den Leser, dem

ist
. .
.

ja die

Abfassung

dieses

gilt,

gleichsam notwendig

The
conceal

italicized passages in the translation are

incorrect

and
it.

the
says

thought
is

of

Gersonides

instead

of revealing

What he
difficult,

that since the writer does not write for himself

but for the reader, he should proceed from the easier to the more
even though, in following this order, the thiftgs treated first
i.e.

do not prove those which follow in a strictly essential,

scientific,

thoroughly

form.
it

In other words he means,

is

sometimes necessary

for the

sake of clearness to pass from the particular to general, even

though the particular cannot prove the general.

'"

It

may, however,

Italics

mine.

568
illustrate
it

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

and make
its

meaning

clear,

and then one can proceed

this class of

in

strictly scientific

manner. Then he adds,

far as

precedence

belongs to the kind which so

is

the subject matter

is

concerned
it

merely preferable

(31t3

"invn

'Ti ^y),

whereas for the reader

is

practically essential (^Mnio).

12. (L. 8, 32)

(K.
'

14, 6)

Oder das Dreifache dem

Vierfachen.^

The Hebrew words denote

13.

triangle

and square

respectively.

(L. 8,

fin.)

.3it3

-invn nx by

'^'^'^'c>t(\

\<);^r\

nvD Nin

r\'c!^^^r\

pon nn

(K. 14, II)

Und
haft}^

diese Art der Vorsetzung

als

ist

sowohl mit Bezug auf den

vorteil-

Gegenstand

auch mit Bezug auf den Leser besonders

The
and

italicized expression gives

a wrong idea of G.'s meaning,

is

loses

sight of the fact that nitD Ifivn *1V hv

9).

a technical
:

term (see No.

The

correct translation

is

as follows

'

This
(i.e.

kind of precedence belongs to the class of the "preferable"

not to the " necessary " or "essential").'
paragraph.
14. (L.
9,

See also No.

10,

last

29)

my^t:'

'vz'h

nifn

pn

no -ihd
.
.

ib

tidv'
toyo

nT\i\

ni^ncn

d:i

myna

^yv

na^x prcn njif nt

(K. 15. 30)

Und
ihm

auch

in

Bezug auf die Nahrung muss der Autor eine

davon merkt}*'
G. says in the preceding

bestimmte Ordnung innehalten, ich meine, die Nahrung muss

so entzogen werden, dass er nicht viel

The

italicized

passage

is

not precise.

context that in undermining an opponent's position one must do

"

Italics

mine.

"

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
it

HUSIK

569

negatively by withdrawing tacitly the support of that position or,

as

G. expresses

it,

by withholding the food that serves as nourish-

ment

to his opponent's idea.

Now

he adds,

this

withdrawal of

the support must also be done in a certain order.

He

must

first

withdraw that food which the opponent will miss

least,

and so

gradually by removing one kind of food after another he will

leave the opposite position without any support.
15. (L. 9, 32)
|1TD

"innon

inn^B'^

Ninn
.

^"wn

n pro nynnir mp'' dni

ifr

"inv rx iTH' ino^v^ "^"i^

ino^V'tJ' 'Id^

(K. 15,

fin.]

Wenn
dem
dann

es

nun dem Verfasser

fiir

gelingt, ihm^^ bei der

Entziehung

der Nahrung

jenes Prinzip gleichzeitig solche zu reichen, die

bestatigt oder bestatigen will
.
.

entspricht,
ist

was der Autor

so besser.

es

um

Here
\ro>'^'*

also the italicized

words do not render \7\y'V correctly.

does not

mean

to give

food

to the opponent,
ifito

but

to

turn the

food withheld fro?n

position,
16. (L. 10, i)
i:vo3i

the

oppofient

sustenance for one^s

own

piD nnvn

n:^

^y p^yn nv Nin

nonpn
no

'^)!^r[

nn

.1-121 i^onpna-*

"d^ y^^yn^ Ninty

(K. 16, 7)

Diese Art der Antizipation

ist fiir

den Leser besonders

wertvoll,

und

es

ist

kaum

notig^^ sie

nach

dem

Vorausgeschickten noch

besonders zu erwahnen.

In

rendering

DID

invn Ti
In the

7j?

by the words 'besonders

wertvoir, K. makes the same mistake as in No. 13, to which

the reader
is

referred.

latter part of

the translation

it

is

difficult to see

nsr

UDlpriK'

no
'^

how he manages to translate T''"inrD Sine DVDD1 es ist kaum notig, sie nach dem Voraus'S^
*

Italics

mine.

"

Italics

mine.

VOL.

VII.

570

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

erwahnen'.
is

geschickten noch besonders zu

The meaning
It
is

of

course

is

that this kind

(31C3

of precedence

more than merely

almost

preferable

"IDVn

"Vi

PJ?),

as he has just said.

necessary (a^nno NIHB' tsyoa), according to our former classification (na?

\'xs-\'^r\^

no

'sii>).

17. (L. 10, 26)

nnann

i^D3 n^j

isdh

rw

irnana p^yon |o
"inx

D^jy^

vb^

"isni

.no^^::'n

m^pnn

h^w n d

^d: ^nx ,|vy n^iro

(K. 17, 15)

Es darf auch dem Leser unseres Buches nicht verborgen

bleiben, dass in
sind^"^

unserem Buch nur spekulative Dinge

erst

e7ithalte7i

welche aber

nach einer solchen abschliessenden Unter. .

suchung zum Ausdruck gelangen, die

The
tion

italicized

words are clearly a blunder, due to the assumpalways a technical term meaning theoretical

that

jVy

is

speculation as a discipline.
laid

G. simply says here that the ideas

down

in this

book were not put there without having been

carefully thought out (jvy n^lTJD).

The

sentiment corresponds to

the words of

Maimonides
:

in the introduction of the

"it;'X3

Moreh

(ed.

Warsaw,

p.

9 a)

N^N

^ironr:

Dnmn n

ii?i3

vh nrn noNon

18. (L. 12, ch.

I,

beg.)
'in-i
,
,

nnNt^'^^

ne^n-'B'

srsan ^p^n
.

"invn

\iysr\ n^nty

traan ^pi>n

nnya ikb^ 'si> .mnvam

(K. 19, beg.)

als

Da der Intellekt insofern der vorziiglichste Teil der Seele ist, man ihn fiir unsterblich und ewig halt, wahrend die anderen
. .

Teile der Seele

The

first

part of the sentence

""IN"!

is

incorrect.

'

Vorziiglichste
this

'

is

not the meaning of

"invn in this case,

and

makes the
intellect is

entire translation erroneous.

G. does not say that the

it

the most excellent of the parts of the soul because

is

regarded

"

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES

HUSIK
He

571

as immortal, whereas the other parts are not.

says that of all

the parts of the soul the most fitting to be thought immortal

(nnNSJ'nn

atrn^B'

MNI nnvn)

is

the intellect, for the other parts

are obviously mortal.

19. (L. 13, 2)

The word
us
(p.

rii^n in the characterizations

(p. igjin. a.nd
is

of the material intellect

'

Kellermann renders

passim)

Entelechie

'.

He

tells

305) that Steinschneider

his authority for this rendering,

though he admits that 'Anlage' would be more

indeed very unfortunate that K. has adopted
signifies the very opposite of the
(ci/TcXc'xcia)

correct.

It is

this term,

which

Hebrew word
difference

rUDH.

Entelechy

in Aristotle

is

practically

synonymous with kvipyua

activity, actuality, perfection.

The

between them need

power, potentiality)

not for the present concern us.

is

Swa/Ats

(=

opposed to both, and

is

related to matter {vXrj) as ivepyeia

(/Aop^r/, cTSos).

and

ivTeXex^ia are related to

form

a twofold
is

i'TXe';^eia,

first

and a second.

To be sure, there is And the first entelechy

is

related to the second

somewhat

as 8wa/xts

to ivepyeia.
it

Thus
^rsi

the soul in a sleeping

the

man

is

potentially

what

is

actually in

man

awake.

Hence

Aristotle defines the soul as the

entelechy of a potentially living body,

because the definition must

include the sleeping as well as the waking person.

that cj/rtXexeia
is

But

it is

clear

always on the side of actuality and perfection

as contrasted with potentiality

and lack of

realization.
intellect
'

Now
From

when we speak of the ^material

it

in

man, we an

are not viewing

with reference to
it

its

relation to the body.

that point of view

is

part of the soul,

and

as such

entelechy.

We
its

are here considering the material intellect p^KTl

'JNhNin) in

relation to the active intellect (^yisn hyu),

it

and from
potential,

this point of

view
is

is

in the position of matter,

it

is

hence entelechy
in

a misnomer.

Moreover,

IvriKix^ia. is
\\'y2r\

rendered

Hebrew by

the word niD^B'

= perfection.

means prewhich

paration, readiness, disposition,

is

and corresponds

to Swayxis,

the opposite of

VTX;i(cta.

(See Trendelenburg,

De Anima^
P p

p.

295

ff.)

572

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

20. (L. 13, 11)

K.

(20,
'

13) translates, 'Jeder

'.

Mensch

spricht\

imo

here

means

rational

It

corresponds to the Greek AoyiKov.

21. (L. 13, 26)

<3

.nnvB'

noD

nil

/js^vn

^du>

inis

xnp DiijuiuDiNB^
nxrti'

'q!'

ni?"

"im n^

bx

^bnnj

^^c'a

nrx n:3nn

hnt Di^moDiN

>ijvnn (read

nm) nm moD
auch Aristoteles

(K.21,3)
. .

weil ihn (sc.

den menschlichen
;

Intellekt)

hylischen Intellekt

nennt

dies beweist, dass nach des Aristoteles

Meinung

die Entelechie nicht

im separaten

Intellekt

ist (sc.

wohl

aber im Trager), dass aber eine hylische Stu/e von ihr ausgeht}^

The
^TTin

italicized
is

words are

incorrect.

The

phrase nJDD
to

'{?''

n3"no

an

Arabism,

which K. seems not

it

have

understood.

It

means, 'stands to

in the relation of matter'.

v'i\"in
, , .

The
'

overlined
is

words

in

the

Hebrew,

pax, signify

There

something which stands to

',

it (viz.

the disposition (n33n)),

referred to
is

in the relation of matter

.
.
.

The Arabic idiom

in his

^^ Jp

dJ Lu

Thus Averroes
1.

compendium

of metaphysics

(ed. Cairo, p. 4,
plji^l

20) has
I'jjt,

J^I

jJl ^,^^1

L^
This

^^jj d*iLill ilUIlj

is

ihju AcLJl

^J^

Jj^l |ll ^^*.

|o
iD^'-

rendered by

Moses Ibn Tibbon " p^nn

D''3^on

nc'K D^joyn )2 ni3r3 '>:^n

nNon
is

im
*

nXTn

n^N^m

|0 pti'Snn.

The meaning

evidently

this

In the second book

we

shall treat of those things

which
first

stand in the relation of species to the (topics treated in the)

part of this discipline.'
22. (L. 14, 10)

(K. 21, 36)

Die Form irgend cincs bcslimmten Dinges.

*

Italics

mine.

'*

MS. copy

in

my

possession.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES

HUSIK
virtue of
is
'.

573
which he
Further

The
(sc.

correct translation
is

is,

'

The form by
is

man, as

clear

from the context)

is

what he

discussion of this

point

not necessary for any one

who

is

familiar with Aristotelian ideas

and the philosophical phraseology

of the mediaeval Jewish writers.

23. (L. 14, 13)

1D3

nos:

N^Ji

nin

^nbi
^prn

nhn: nmvn nxr

han
hid
n-'in"'

nnjin -w^hd
n:rt

dIjini
nx-i^ci'

noam nmn

nvnn

pruDan

.n^js mji'a

uod o^on px

(K. 22, 3)

Wenn

jedoch

wie

Themistius annimmt

die

Form

eine

separate sein

soil,

ohne Entstehen und Vergehen, so

ergibt sich

hieraus insofern eine grosse Absurditat, a/s der Mensch zmbedingt

vergehen muss?^

Here

K.'s mistake

is

perhaps not to be blamed.

He

did his

best to translate his text intelligibly.

that the italicized passage
is

But the reader

will notice

not a literal translation of the original,

translation

overlined above.

The

literal

would read, 'Since

'.

man and And this

have

his dissolution
is

can in no manner be gotten away from

not what the argument requires G. to say.

He

should

said,

'Since man's generation and dissolution can in no

'.

manner be gotten away from

difficulty
*
'

K.,

it

will

be seen, concealed the

it

by a

free

translation which, while

does away with

'.

man as something to The truth is that

be escaped,
the text

still

desiderates 'generation

requires
JT'inn,

a slight and obvious

emendation.

nvn3 should read

,

and there should be no

.

punctuation mark after ptn

but rather after llDSm

refers

The
TWO

phrase

CJa tmi

1Jr:

t^i^Dn

pN

to

hua.

We
:

shall

therefore
n^in""

rewrite the last part of the original D^jD mifi iJDo

translation
is,

as follows

n^n
the

D^m

pN .nosni oiNn n^inn prn hun

And
(sc.

'There would follow from

\

this a great absurdity

regarding

man's generation

and

dissolution,

which

the

absurdity) cannot be escaped in any manner',

^o

Italics

mine.

574

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

24. (L. 15, l)

}DiNn

lrNt^'

D^y-iibi

ynrn naac'b ijyisn ^ae^n

nipm im

^lovyn

D^i'SK'n

nipan 103

^lo^'yn

nipm

dni

,nanp mi^f nn^ Nin hm^b^

d^^d^db^h D^Dnai?
>a^

nipm

iai .nnij
.13^5

nanp mi^ Dovy3 one

Nintr

D^maan

ninirrni^

dvoddh nyn

"js^vnn ^atyn nr

(K. 23, 9)

... die Verbindung der separaten

zwei Weisen verstanden werden kann.

Form

mit der Materie auf

ist

Entweder

die VerbinIntellekts

dung nicht substantiell

mit
ist,

wie die Verbindung des aktiven

Form annimmt^^ oder

dem Samenerguss und den

ist

Spermatozoen^^ die ja nicht derartig

die Verbin-

dass er eine ihne?t verwafidte

substantiell

dung

wie die Verbindung der separaten Intellekte

verwandte

mit den Himmelskorpern, dennjene besitzen in ihrer substantiellen

Verbindung

eine

diesen

Form ^^

entsprechend

der

nach

Ansicht

des Themistius sich vollziehenden Verbindung

zwischen

uns

und dem hylischen

Intellekt,

der ja eine uns

verwandte

Form annimmt?^
are in every case incorrect.
r\yr\\>

The

italicized passages

D^yi6

means simply plant seeds, not 'Spermatozoen'.

^proximate form
',

miv means
is

not

'

verwandte

Form

'.

proximate form

one which
or rather

is

the immediate cause of the genesis of a given object,

it is

the form which

is

immediately united with a given

matter to constitute a given object.

This

is
'

illustrated

by G.'s

own examples.

The

'

separate Intelligences

are the immediate

forms of the heavenly bodies or spheres, which are their bodies

and which they move,

as the

human

soul

is

the form of the^human

body and moves

Themistius,
is

it.

The

material intellect similarly, according to

intellectual

the immediate
essential (iDVy3
'

form of man.
avro).

Such

union G.

calls

nip3T =

Koff
'

Proximate

form may be contrasted with

remote form

(npim mix).

This

would be one which

proximate form, but
is

is

the cause, directly or indirectly, of a

it.

not identical with

^'

Thus, to use again

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
G.'s

HUSIK
is is

575

own

illustration, the

Active Intellect
seed, but

a form which causes

not identical with
it.

or produces the form of

semen or

Such

relation

G.

calls non-essential

union (iDVW l^N Dlpai).

I will

not take the time to do more than indicate the lack of

precision in K.'s rendering of the last clause beginning

mp3T

TO31

in *JN7Vnn

fj^BTi

nr,

which

is

simply another illustration of

essential union.

25. (L. 15, 10)

(K. 23, 27)

Wir aber meinen

Wenn

wir die^^

Form

eine separate nennen,

so darf sich ihre Tatigkeit nicht mittels korperlicher Organe

entfalten, wie dies bei

den hylischen Formen der

in
this

Fall

ist.

The manner
meinen'
it

of introduction

sentence

'

Wir aber

and

particularly the rendering of nsr

G.'s statement,

by

'die' destroys,

seems to me, the meaning of

and

especially

its

connexion with the argument.

G. does not

say, as
is

would appear

from K.'s
'

translation, that his

own
its
is

opinion

that

when we

call

a form separate ', we

mean

that

activity is not

developed by
at
is

means of corporeal
all,

organs.

He

not giving his

own opinion

and

is

not referring to the meaning of form in general.

He

interpreting the sense in

which the word

'

separate

'

is

used by
*

Themistius when he speaks of the material

intellect as

separate

form

',

pointing out that

it

is

not used in the same sense as

when
con-

we speak
nexion of
G.,
in

of the active intellect as a separate form.

this

The
:

statement with the argument

his

is

as follows

accordance with

method, has been defending

tentatively the opinion of Alexander of Aphrodisias concerning

the nature of the material intellect in man, and ipso facto opposing
the opinion of Themistius.

His argument was

if

to give
mine.

only the
that

substance of

it

briefly

that

we adopt Themistius's view

the material intellect

22

is

a 'separate form not subject to generation

*^
.

Overlining mine.

Italics

576
and

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

destruction',

the absurd conclusion would follow that

all

matters subject to generation and destruction are

endowed with
a possible
just

human

intellect.

He

then considers for a

the

moment

defence of Themistius on

ground that the absurdity

mentioned would not necessarily follow from Themistius's view,

any more than from the unanimous view that the Active
is

Intellect

a separate form, not subject to generation and decay.

this

His
is

answer to

attempted defence of Themistius

is

that there

no

similarity

between the non-essential relation of the Active

the

Intellect with

human

seed and the

esseiitial

union of the

material intellect with man, required by Themistius.

And

if

you
the

object that in this case Themistius has no right to

material intellect
in
calling
this
'

call

separate

',

answer, says G., that he has, for

i.e.

form (mi^fn

HNT),
it

the material

intellect,

separate,

he means simply that

does not carry on

its

activity

by means of corporeal organs, as the material forms do.

I

do not know whether K. meant

to indicate all this in his

*

translation,

and die
'

'

is

merely a
is

slip

or misprint for

diese

',

but

can judge only from what

before me, and that seems to

it

me
into

to conceal the drift of the

argument rather than to bring

evidence.
26. (L. 15, 24)

pv

Nin

'3

,")3

xvnn ntTN "icnn

nxT
13

^iJU'!?

isi'Di

ntynnt:' nni^n

03 N\ni
ni>iT

prmn

nNintr Diip annni n^rnn ro

hnd h^^ nbnn

mix

N\T ^^B^

nm

^piNn niivu' ny d^kcim "ma hmriD

.13003

\mv

(K. 24, 16)

Ferner zeigt sich doch, dass dann ganz bestifnmte,

hylische

spezifische

Fonnen^ soweit

sie

iiberhaiipt hylischen

Charakter haben,
Zeigt

in dieser

Form,

d.h.

im

hylischen Intellekt, enthalten sind}^

'*

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
sich

HUSIK
sie

577
iiberhaupt

doch

bei

den hylischen Formen, soweit

hylisch sind, dass ihre Entstehung

am

Orte ihrer Existenz mit

der Verdnderu7ig
dass auch

{sc.

des

Ortes) substantiell zusammenhdngi, so

sie ^ kraft

der Pluralitat der Trager zur Vielheit werden.

So

ergibt sich also bei dieser

Form, dass ihre Entstehung mit der

Verdnderlichkeit ^' der Materie zusammenhangt, in der sie existiert,

denn

sie (sc. die

Materie)

ist

vorerst

nur

so lange vorbereitet, die

J'ossibilitdt

der

Erndhrung und der

sich gkichfalls
"^^

Sinnlichkeit anzunehmen^ als

(sc.

in ihr die

Form
^^

noch nicht zur Erscheinung kommt.^^ Sie aber

die

Form) vermehrt
als die

mit der Vervielfaltigung der

des

Trager, bis

beispielsweise die

Form

Ruben numerisch

eine

andere

des Simon

ist.

Here
is

also K.'s translation, especially in the passages italicized,

either absolutely incorrect or misleading.

In either case

it

tends to

make

G.'s

argument

unintelligible or obscure.

Without

troubling to enter into the causes or effects of K.'s errors, I shall

try to correct

them.

The meaning
is

of the

first

sentence of the

original
*

quoted above
it

as follows

Besides,

appears that some of the peculiar properties

pertaining to material forms qua material are found in this form,

viz.

the material intellect.'

G.

is

trying to prove that Themistius's view of the material

intellect as

a separate form

is

incorrect,

by showing that the

with material forms,

material intellect has properties in

common
this
is

and hence

is

itself

a material form, and not separate.

to

In the

sequel he proceeds

show

that

the case.

And he

instances two properties peculiar to material forms as such (nniV

nvJN^vn DnB> nn nVJN^Vn), which are also found

intellect.

in the material

They

are (i) that a change in the bearer of the material

form

is

a necessary pre-requisite before the material form in

;

question appears

and

(2) that the

form multiplies with the multi-

plication of the subject.

Accordingly we translate the following

sentences as follows
'

For

it is

a property of material forms as such (i) that their

in the bearer in
-^

first

appearance

which they
mine.

exist follows essentially

Italics

578

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

(i.e.

upon

cannot take place without) a change,

(2) that they

multiply with the multiplication of the subject.'

He

then proceeds to show that these two properties are found

in the material intellect,

and we

translate the rest as follows

its

*And

it

appears in reference to this form also that

(i. e.

first

appearance follows upon

in the matter in

cannot take place without) a change

which

it

exists.
it

For before
(sc.

this

form

(i.e.

the

material intellect) can appear in

first

the matter), the latter must

be prepared to receive the powers of nutrition and of sensa[This proves the

first

tion.

property.]

But

it

also multiplies with

the multiplication of the subjects.

for

Thus, the form of Reuben,

. .

example,

is

numerically distinct from the form of Simeon

.'

27. (L. 16, 2)

K.

(25, 7) translates
pr3

pD by 'Genus'. This
terms in
it

is,

strictly
pjo

speaking,

incorrect.

and

31D are technical

logic,

= cTSos =

species

aiD

= ycVos =

genus, and

is

best

to

render them

precisely in every case.

28. (L. 16, 11)
'<rhy]

'm

irK'^

t^^ nvjNijvnn

nu'-'kynn

ninan nsT*
i^np^

nnatt' ,Dni

mix chnp

n>f ^d-id ^inp

ini^j^p'-B'

nn

nn^

^sh ^jt'^dh b]}2

nN"iJn nra ib^k yavn nr rsr*

133

r\ii'\'^n

nsnc^ .i^jDm "':s!?vn ijup

iniK b2pT2 NinB' ^zh /iKijn n]b

i^a njiDnn
'\2:>^

nm

nDt:'n

nn

Nin

y^a
Sap

DB^n njB'nn nxr

r\:M2r\2) (r. fj2:iD)

iniN-in

hdc'-ij
)b

b"^
n\-i^c'

^no |qin3 '':i6vn

bipD nwc^i

n^-un

nr "':ao a^ino n\ni .no

m^San nnran
.n^ijan b])2

rE^n

knt

'3

/n^bn Thi
tasB'D ton

D2B'o nosiw nxvcs

nij'N

^nb

^m b

ono ihk ^a

nmjni

(K. 25, 22)

Zweitens.

Es

ergibt

sich
sie

doch bei den wahrnehmenden

eine

hylischen

Kraften,

dass

unendliche Vielheit
in

nicht

perzipicren konnen, wcil sie

doch

ihrer Perzeption insofern

hylische

singular verfahren

als

sit

nur

eine

Aufnahme haben.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES

HUSIK

579

Zum

Beispiel

Die Sehfahigkeit

perzipiert diese

Farbe an diesem

Sichtbaren auf dieser Flache an dieser Gestalt dieses Sichtbaren

well sie es in bestimmter Art nur hylisch perzipiert, ich

meine

namlich, dass doch in seinem

(sc.
ist,

des hyl.

Intell.)

Sehen die

Perzeption irgendwie determiniert

weshalb das ihm Sichtbare

auf einer bestimmten Flache und an einer bestimmten Gestalt

sein muss, sodass er nicht die absolute Farbe, sondern nur diese

Farbe wahrnimmt.
Urteile,

Die Entelechie jedoch

fallt

nur unendliche

denn

sie

nimmt

die allgemeinen Urteile

und jene
ist.

Defi-

nitionen wahr, deren jede einzelne ein unendliches Urteil

The

sentence beginning

'

ich

meine namlich
G.

'

is

incorrect

and
nina

brings confusion into the entire discussion.

is

so far speaking
(ni3''K'Cn

of the so-called 'material powers of perception'

nVJS7Vnn), which he distinguishes from the material

in order to prove the latter
'

intellect,
is

separate

'.

The

distinction

that

the material powers of perception, like the power of sight, for

example, cannot perceive the infinite because their perception

has for
its

object the particular, hence

it

sees one thing at a time

it

whereas the material

intellect (he calls

here njann) deals with

the universal, which embraces an infinite

It is clear, therefore, that all

number

of individuals.

which precedes the sentence beginto

ning

mann nxr D^NI

na),

refers

the

material

power of sight
first

(nxnn
to

and not the material

intellect.

The
*

correction

be made,
is

therefore, in K.'s translation

of the
sc.
'

sentence in
Intell.'
'.

question
into
'sc.
is

to

change 'seinem' into 'ihrem',

'

des hyl.
into
'

der Sehkraft',

ihm

'

into

'

ihr

',

and

'

er

sie

But

there

another error in K.'s rendering of the words

rm^v:?^

PiDB'IJ *13D5:>

no Dtrn

nxr iniNnn.

The words corresponding

in

to

them

in his translation are, 'dass

doch
ist
'.

seinem
is

Sehen die Perzep-

tion irgendwie determiniert

This

not the meaning of the

impression, a

words in question.

DB'l signifies to
in question
is

make an

mark

and the expression

a material

intended to explain the preits

ceding statement, that the power of sight receives

object in

manner
G.
says,

('jn^M
that
is

mean

is,

^Up when

iniN iap Nins'

^s!?).

What
sees,

the power of

sight

this

perception

(nj^jTin

DNT)

actually impressed

upon the sense

faculty

580
(no
D::^*!

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

niDB'nJ)
; i.

e.

a material impress

is

made upon
D3Dn
la'-B'*

the

sensorium.

This
1.

is

made

quite clear by a similar statement of

nir^j'^n ninan nxtrn n^n
n?
-"d

G. on
NC'ijn

p. 23,

30.

nvjxh\nn

nn

nn pnb Nrijn

''sun 'b^n

niyvcxn

13"':j'''K'

no

nna' "-^qo

jK'icn -^^-^n jVDT 13 DK'-ins

no ni^ysn ^yDn\

Here G.

tells

us plainly that the material powers of perception

other than the material intellect perceive their objects by

means

of a corporeal organ in which these powers reside

corporeal organ
is
is

and

that this

affected in a certain

way because an impression

of perception (the copy

made upon

it,

which resembles the

object

theory of perception).
29. (L. 17, i)

= (K.

26, 29)

pD

is

translated 'Genus'.

See No. 27.

30. (L. 18, 6)

V'\ ,^12: Di'y3 n:3n |nd3

nL"D:

n\int:'

DVUDJin^

Tin"-

-i33c^

^ono
i^^^nn
.

Nin

nanc'

'd^

^^luan

-inuo

nn

.nibc^ion

hi'^h
. .

^^Jvn^

(K. 28, 29)

Erstens.

Es ergab
^

sich

doch

fiir

Themistius dass es bei den

Sublufiarien eine substantiell separate Entelechie gibt^^ ich

meine
Dies

namlich die Entelechie

ist

fiir

die

Aufnahme der

Intelligibilia.

aber erwiesenermassen absurd, weil die Potentialitat mit

allein existiert.

dem

Hylischen zusammenhangt und in ihm

There are

several errors here.

|N32 in G. does sometimes

refer to sublunar things specifically, but not here.

In the present
existis
',

instance sublunarity
'

'

is irrelevant,
*

and fN33 simply denotes

'

ence, like the English expletive

there

in the phrase

'

there

and the Arabic

IJ

Hebrew

DK'.
xSyzT^ is

Then

again the expression i^naj DVyn

IN33 TnriB'

is

not

rendered correctly by K.
'J'hcmistius
it

What G.

says

that according to

would follow that a

potentiality or a possibility
i.

(n:3n)

may

reside in a separate substance (^n33 Di*y3),

^^

e.

the

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES HUSIK

possibility of receiving intellegibilia
intellect which,

581

may

reside in the material

is

according to Themistius,
is

a separate substance.
potentiality (na)
("jt^'OJ

This, he proves,
necessarily

impossible, for a

power or

presupposes a material substratum

N'ln

nan
to

mans

vvn?);
is

whereas

the

material

intellect

according

Themistius

a separate substance, hence a 'formal' and not

a 'material' substratum.
unfortunate
it is

We

see here at the

'

same time how

'.

that

K. renders n:3n by
potentiality
19.

Entelechie

It

means

the very opposite

it

= Swa/xts.

G. himself

identifies

here with n3.

31. (L. 18, 13)

See No.

D30N
pn^E'

rm

n^: Ninc'

'sb

,hunn

nr

n^n* n^ ncn

xh Dhsi
.p no y3

N^ /33 nnipan nxo ^,[nj3n] n^ne' V'\ ^mivn dni^ rnp

(K. 29, 7)

Jedoch nach Averroes ergibt sich keine derartige Absurditat,

weil er
dieser

annimmt, dass

dies

**

(so.

die

Aufnahme der
sie

Intelligibilia)

Form
sei,
fiir

wirklich zukomme, dass

als sie

ndmlich insofern eine

nicht aber, dass sie

Entelechie es an

mit uns verbunden

ist^'^

und

sich

sei.

K.'s translation in the italicized passages

G.'s meaning. in the last

somewhat obscures

The argument number (30). The

is

a continuation of that discussed

is

point

that Themistius's view of

it

the nature of the material intellect cannot be true, for

leads to

the impossible situation of a potentiality residing in a separate

substance.

separate substance must be pure actuality,

and

whatever

is

potential

must have a material substratum.

For Averroes

But then

the question arises. Does not this difficulty affect Averroes's view
just as

much
is
is,

as that of Themistius

identifies the

material intellect in

man
all
is

with the

universal Active Intellect,

G.'s
his

which
answer
idea
is

according to

accounts a separate substance.

not affected by this
difficulty.

No, Averroes

For

that the potential character attaches to the Intellect

p. 29,

per

"

See Kellerrtann,

note

i.

^b

Italics

mine.

582
accidefjSy

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

in

so

far

as

it

is

temporarily associated

with

the

individual man, but not per

se.

Per
1.

accidens a potentiality
9,

may

reside in a form, as G. said before,

Nin TW'Wil iniN NVDHB^ai

.

NB^jn TVD

mp03.
say,

K.'s rendering, therefore, *dass dies

',

dieser

Form

wirklich

zukomme
and
i6

makes G. say the very opposite of what

contradicted by the sequel.
riNT^

he intends to

is

The correct
n^3'

translation of the
}3 nj^'ivi
'^

words ^mixn
,ij3

mp

D3DK T]W

NIHK' B^
is

iTnnij'

nnipm nvo

,r]:2n

n^nriB'

b"!

as

follows

[The
is

difficulty

does not affect Averroes] because his theory

(nw), namely that the Intellect has
attaches to this form (the Intellect)
it

that this circumstance

a potentiality

{r\:2n n"'nn:i' b"!),

per accidens (mp), in so

so far as
T[^'2T\

far as
is

is

associated with us,

and not

in

its

own substance

concerned.'

The words

n^nriB' b""^
is

are explanatory of 7\W,

and hence

K.'s parenthesis

un-

necessary and misleading.

32. (L. 18, i9)

= (K.
is

29, 18)
Koa-fjiov

DPiyni D''DB'n

120

not inpi

but

irepl
',

ovpavov.
p. 125,

Cf. Stein-

schneider, 'Die Hebraischen Uebersetzungen

33- (L. 19, ch. 3 beg.)

55"*.

cnnaT nD3 vn

is*

o'-jsnipn

nnar

-\^ti
vn^ti'

niiynn msTB' "insi

Dm
i?iD3
PNt:'

/iijnn
ini3

i^no nyi

nyn

niD'^^po

nnn

-ic'snej'

no

fsixn

P"'y3B'

)vyn -no n>n njn

inarB' ion
d^'-p^k'

nyi nyi ni!?D3o novya

i^j^n

IN

noN niv ^tsTC' in

.TlDN
i''lD3

no Dn inn^i
^JDa^ IN
D-i^p'

m:yDn

N^N

IN "TION

DVp

N^K'

nO ^nN
'"tidn

niynn i^no n nyn nn c^p^K^ i^sn nuytano nnxi noNij u^ Tin

NNnn
n3yt:n{j>
Nini:^

nv dn

nr n^n"-

nn

^-itrQS nr n>n

dnb'

nn

Dvp

.i^^3p

nynn nijuao

N^x''

ivo

dn ^sinn
N\nty

nynn 'no^'po
iNnrc d^ini
^n^n Nin

)b'2pD

Nint'

nynn ^noN ^loa n^oao

13

nvo
nn

ni

no ^103 no nyi
^nK'
'*

f^oiTf no3

ixno

N"in:r

.n::*Ds*

vn DN N^N

'nr:N

nvp
note
I

)b'2pi2
2.

Nin ic'n

nynn

D"ip> n^'C'

See Kellermann,

p. 29,

'"

When

this

was written
ei

overlooked K.'s

own
p.

correction of KuOfiov
303.
1.

to ovpiit'ov in his list of

nidi at the

end of the book,

2a.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES

HUSIK
nniDn v^n
^jd

583.

nWn

bs*

.mvnn nxu

i^s^b'

ik'sk

^t^'x

niynn

(K. 30, ch. 3 beg.)

Nachdem
zu Worte
bestatigen,

wir

nun

die Argumente, welche die Alten anftihren,

oder welche doch in ihren Worten beschlossen liegen, derartig

kommen
wahrend

liessen,
sie

dass sie einzelne dieser Ansichten

einzelne
dieser

gleichzeitig

Ansichten,

ablehnen, wie wir dies erwahnten, so wiirde es nun der Gang,

der Spekulation mit sich bringen,

untersuchen,

dass

wir

diese

Argumente

und aus ihnen jene auswahlen,

die eine wirkliche

Bestatigung oder wirkliche Ablehnung bilden, im Gegensatze zu

jenen, die keine wirkliche Bestatigung bezw.

Ablehnung

bilden.

Indessen mangelt es uns an der Methode,

um

durch eines der

bestatigt, eine

Argumente, welches irgend eine der Ansichten

wirkliche Bestatigung zu erreichen.
ware, so

Wenn

dies namlich moglich

konnte dies nur so geschehen, dass entweder jenes

bestatigt,

Argument die eine Ansicht

ablehnt.

oder die ihr entgegenstehende

eine vdllige
ist.

Jedoch mlissen wir darauf hinweisen, dass

Ablehnung der ihr

ist

entgegengesetzten Ansicht nicht moglich

Es

namlich erwiesen, dass durch die voUige Ablehnung einer

ihr

Ansicht die Bestatigung der

entgegengesetzten

nur dann

moglich

ist,

wenn
^^

die

beiden

Ansichten in all ihren m'dglichen

einander kontradizierenden Teilen in den Bereich unserer Unter-

suchung fallen

im anderen Falle

ist

erwiesen, dass durch die

Beseitigung der einen Ansicht die iibrigen nicht bestatigt sind,

noch weniger, dass eine bestimmte Ansicht von ihnen

ware.

bestatigt

The
which

reader will see that by K.'s mistranslation of the passages

I italicized,

he destroyed

G.'s

argument and made him

talk

incoherently.

We cannot fully refute, he

all

makes G.

say,

an opposed

opinion, because by such complete refutation

we cannot prove

our own unless both opinions in

parts
fall

their possible contradictory

!

within the

domain of our
^ Italics

investigation
mine.

584

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Granting that the reason given
('

because, &c.')

makes

sense,

which

it

does not, what has

?

it

to

do with the

first

part of the

sentence

The

fact that the refutation of

latter

an opinion opposed to

a given one cannot prove the

ditions,

except under certain conitself is

does not show that the refutation

?

impossible.

And
G.
fall
is

then what are the conditions

You cannot

prove an opinion,

made

to say,

by refuting

its

opposite unless both opinions

!

within the

domain of our
b

investigation

Whoever heard of
not

two contradictory opinions

tion
!

7tot

belonging to the same investigasays a

is

If

one says a

\s

and the other

within the

b,

how
in-

can these two help

vestigation
'

'falling

domain of a given
fall

in

which they

arise ?

Either both opinions

in either case

within
this to
?

our investigation or neither.

And

what has
its

do with the proof of an opinion by the

Absolutely nothing.
If the

refutation of

opposite

two contradictory opinions do not

are not concerned with them.

fall

within our investigation,

we

But they

belong somewhere, to some investigation, and there the refutation

of a given opinion does or does not prove
its

opposite.

To

concoct such a paragraph

is

bad enough, but

to lay such in-

coherence at the door of Gersonides, the keenest of logicians,

is

nothing short of unpardonable. At least K. might have added a

note saying that though the passage

translate
it

made no

sense, he could not

in the text.
is

in

any other way and suspects a corruption

all this

Will the reader after

G.'s statement
is

be surprised when he

told that

perfectly plain

and straightforward and makes

is

excellent sense?

What G.
to find out

says

this.

We

have had, so

far,

arguments pro and con on both sides of the question.

Our
valid,

problem now
really

is

which of these arguments are

proving or really disproving the thesis with which they deal.

if

Now
in

a given argument

is

to prove a given thesis,

it

must do so
it

one of two ways,

directly,
its

by proving the

thesis

defends,
will

or indirectly, by refuting

opposite.

The

indirect

method

lead to conclusive proof only in case the two theses in their

opposition exhaust the possibilities in the case.

refuting

Otherwise by
for

one

possibility
third.

you have not yet proved the second,

there

may be a

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES

HUSIK
in

585

Now we
the trouble.
\b^2pD
Nintj*

shall translate the

two passages

G. which caused

nynn ^nnx hon nijonD nmb' ^vo

nvp

nr nsa^ti' d^ini

^ntj'

vn Dx

i6ii TiDN*

lij'-npD
ii'Q"'B'

Nin

n^x nynn
-ik'n

n'-^ip"'

n^k^
^53

.nn^pnn
*

nxn

na'ax

"inion ^pbn

niynn

To

prove a given thesis by an argument that

is

fully refutes the

opposing thesis

impossible.

For

it

is

clear that
thesis

by refuting
is

a given thesis in a certain way the opposing

not com-

pletely proved unless the two theses constitute all the contradictory

alternatives possible in a given investigation.' 34. (L. 20, 11)

rjyO

HM'-K'

HNT

DXK'

.Dyt3

bv2 H^HK^a OyDH K'inn pjyn 103

nbir
ijy

.DVDno
(K. 32. 8)
.

vijy dhb'

hd

nniN

a^B'o Nin

mn

.D'oyDion

wie dies bei

dem Geschmackssinne
;

der Fall
er

ist,

wenn

er

einen Geschmack empfindet

denn wenn
er
sie

dann die schmeckals sie

baren Dinge aufnimmt, nimmt

Wirklichkeit/y i^n
'^

anders auf,

in

sind.

The words

fUr ihn ' evidently are

intended to represent
this is incorrect,
'

V^jy in

the phrase vhv DnL^ n n^T bv-

But

vb]}

does

not refer to the sense of taste and cannot mean

for

it

'.

Besides,

such a translation does not

of taste
it

suit the context.

For when the organ

tastes other things,
are,

is

affected with a given taste

and then

does not perceive their tastes as they really

but

it

does

precisely perceive

them

as they are for

is

it.

The
refers to

truth of the matter

that the pronominal suffix in V^y

no, and the phrase

is

an Arabism.

Thus Averroes
1.

in his

Compendium of Metaphysics
various uses of the term

(ed. Cairo, p. 5,

17) defines the

ens.

^y=:y>

Ni'CiJ

ov

One

of

its

uses

is

identical with the

meaning of

(j^L>.

'^

Italics

mine,

VOL.

VII.

Qq

586

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The meaning
is,

that

which

is

in the

mind_;W^ as

it is

outside

of the mind.

The Hebrew of Moses Ibn Tibbon"

The
p. 29,
1.

reads bu>3

N^^
same

1K>N Nin

negative of the phrase

9, l^-AJl |i lulc

is

also found in the

treatise,

^ jip

^ o^
'.

(J'

V**^

i---Jj.

The Hebrew o f this (MS.)

The
translation
it is

reads nro n^n ^y Di'p

^JN

Dnsp DHM

is,

'The

relation

between them

is

different

from what

in their

(Hebr. our) minds

Accordingly the similar phrase in Gersonides

*It

is

to

be translated,
it

perceives
is
'.

their

taste

in

a manner different from what

actually

35. (L. 20, 28) JD

n^nn i'yQnn unnn

^3 /inK'^n-tJ'
.ij'sjn

nr .th-'k^
li?

tmnn

nr

mano
,n
ik'n

n\T dnb'
p'-c*

myi

DJDN Kin

"iti'SN

^nba nr n^T" njn

nK'x

nwNn

nsD3

iNanntJ' 103

wti

'jqo inrc''

(K. 33, 2)

Und

ferner

Wenn

es zur

Notwendigkeit dieser Empfindung

gehorte, dass der Sinn zuerst (sc. vor der

Empfindung) von den

dass also die Sinnesist),

Qualitaten

affiziert wird,

die er begreift

(sc.

qualitat mit der

6^^^^j'/a^j'qualitat identisch

so kann er

iiberhaupt nichts empfinden,

Gleichheit^^ mit

denn

er

empfindet nur wegen seiner

Afifiziertheit

ihm

(sc.

an

sich,

ohne

durch den ihm

5,

gleichen Gegenstand), wie dies im

Buche der Seele (H,

11)

erwiesen

ist.

The

passage in

De Anima
ii,

to
p.

which Gersonides

refer?

is

no

doubt the one

in bk.

ch.

1 1,

424 a

ff.

To yap

aio-^civecr^ai Tra.(Ty(.iv Tt iariv.

wcm

to ttolovv olov avrb

cvcpycta, toiovtoi' iKetvo

\lrv)(pov
<!)?

nout Suva^et

6v.

Sio toD 6/i,otcus Oepfxov koI

r}

(TKXrjpov kol fxaXaKOv ovk alaOavo/xeOa, ctXXa

twv VTrip^oXdv,
ala6r]To'i<;

Trj<,

ala6T^<Tw<; oiov fjLerroTTjTo^ Tiros ovctj^s

t^s iv rots

ivavTiu)cre(D<;.
*'

kol 8iu tovto Kpivei

in

to. ala-OrjTOL,

to yap fxea-ov KpniKov.

MS. copy

my

possession.

"

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES

HUSIK

587

From

this

we

learn that Aristotle regards the sensorium as

potentially containing the perception

which the external stimulus

has actually, and which

tion

it

induces in the sensorium when percepis

becomes

actual.

But since the sensorium

its

equally able to

perceive a quality and

actually neither.

opposite,
is

it

must be potentially both,

Aristotle,

And

that

why, says

we do not

perceive what

is

equally

warm

with the perceiving organ, or equally

soft.

cold with

it,

or equally hard or

We

can perceive only what

exceeds in a given quality the degree of the perceiving organ.

We may thus We may

book,
TjSr)

conceive of sensation, or rather of the sensorium, as

a something intermediate between the sensible opposites.

also quote the concluding lines of ch. 5 of the
ff.
,

same

p.

4 8 a 3
1

TO

8'

ala-OrjTiKOV 8vvdfJiL icrriv olov to alcrdrp-ov

(tprjTai.

ivTiXf^eia,
8'

KaOdinp

iraa-^^L

/xV

ovv ou;^ o/xoiov ov,

7r7rov^os

w/xotWai kol

ecrriv olov ckcivo.

is

Summing up the
potentially

previous discussion, he says, the sensorium

is

what the perceptible object

actually.
it is

The

sentient
it,

organ
after
it

is

affected

by the object
it

in so far as
like
it.

not like

but

has been affected

becomes

We
affected
if

now understand what G. means

in

the passage under

is
it,

discussion.

He

is

trying to

show

that the sense of touch

it

not
for
it.

by the heat or cold of the object before

it

perceives

that were the case

would not then be able

(i.

to perceive

It is

the equality in the sensorium

its

e. its

indifference to the
its
it

two

opposites, or

equilibrium between them, or

fiecroTrjs)
if it

intermediate

character, the Aristotelian

which enables
first

to perceive the

sensible object.

Hence

were

affected with the quality

it.

of the object,
It

it

would not be able to perceive

was necessary to go into

that K.'s translation of

this lengthy discussion in order to

show

MIK*,

'Gleichheit mit ihm' ('denn er

')

empfindet nur wegen seiner Gleichheit mit ihm

because Aristotle, to
(7rao-xt
fJi-ev

cannot be correct
very

whom

G.

refers,

says

the
it

opposite
suit

ovv ovx

o/xotov 6v).

And
it

moreover,

would not

G.'s argument,

for in that case

first

would

really follow that the

sensorium

is

affected

and perceives afterwards

the
Qq
2

very

opposite conclusion to the one G. desires to reach.

To

be sure,

588

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

it

K., aware of this difficulty, endeavours to avoid

in parentheses,
'sc.

by a qualification
durch den ihm

an
'.

sich,

ohne

Affiziertheit

gleichen Gegenstand
in the first place,

But

this is altogether unsatisfactory.

For
the

"iSDn

IDPI "ipyn.

The

qualification
left

is

essential part of the argument,

and G. could not have

that to

the reader's imagination.

Secondly, what does 'Gleichheit mit

se

ihm an
object
?

sich

'

mean ?
is
it is

Equality per
it is

of the sensorium with the

Potentially
it is

This

exactly what

not.

both like
decidedly

and

unlike, since
It
it

both cold and hot, actually

it is

unlike.

becomes

actually like only

when

it

has been affected,

and then

can no longer perceive a quality of the same degree.

is

The
that
"'11B'

right solution

clearly the

one suggested above, namely

^(cr6ry]<;,

represents the Aristotelian

*

and means
',

'equiliif

brium

',

indifference

* ',

intermediate character

equality

you

please, but in the sense of being equally situated with respect

to the opposite qualities.

36.
,'h'\''7\n

(L. 21, 4)

Dy nniyo Ti^n !?np

b"'\

anmn

h^pn man^ yann yanB* ny

1D3

/:KS\in btJ'n

jr\i:)7]n

nxr nnii ^^b njDnn nsr^ Ncijni

jn psD
(K. ZZ^ 24)
... bis sich die

pNK'

nna lyjyo nxannB'

Natur zur Entelechie hin

realisiert,

deren

Aufnahme
ist

sich ja hylenlos vollzieht.

Der Trager

dieser Entelechie

ein Generelles,^* namlich die in

Rede stehende

Entelechie, d.

i.

der hylische Intellekt, wie dies aus seinem

erwiesen wurde.

Wesen

zweifelsfrei

The

translation of K.

is

one that naturally suggests

difficulties.

itself

by

the punctuation of L.

But there are

First, libb'z is

a predicate adjective qualifying Nt^uni and means universal, hh\2

or
>i)P3

would be the proper term.

material
intellect
is
it

Secondly, G. does not hold

that

the

a universal any more than the

acquires (see p. 62, 23
intelligibilia).
ff.,

intelligibilia

(ni^DBno) which

where

he argues against the universality of the

ihe whole statement
is

Thirdly,

here irrelevant.

The

entire

paragraph

"

Italics

mine.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
is

HUSIK

589

devoted to showing the gradations in the material or immaterial

character of the perceptions received by the different faculties

of man.

He

begins with the crudest of the senses, namely, the

its

sense of touch, whose reception of

less material,
it

specific qualia

is

more or
not

i.e.

the sensorium

is

itself affected

by the quale

perceives.

He

then proceeds to the sense of

it

sight,
it is

which

is

itself

coloured by the colour

perceives, though

nevertheless
fact that
it

affected materially in

some way,

as

is

shown by the
it

may be

so dazzled by a bright light that

light.
its

cannot thereafter see an

still

ordinary

The common

sense

is

less material in its

reception of

qualia, the imagination

still

less so, until finally

its
is

we we

get to a faculty or disposition (nj3n)

which receives
This faculty

qualia

without any material mixture whatsoever.

the one

are discussing, namely, the material intellect.

I

should therefore delete the period after ^7Vnn in L. and

translate as follows
*
.

Until nature arrives at a faculty which receives things in

a manner altogether (??3) unmixed with

bearer of this faculty (cp. p. 20, 18,
nssj'ii

matter and with the

ni^nr^ riND
n?DX''t^'n

N^^t^>

ny nij?o

''n^n i^up

nib^'iDn n^apo).
is

This

is

this disits

position, namely, the material intellect, as

clear

from

nature

without any doubt.'

37. (L. 21, 14)

|yiD
131.1

noKi ;\Xip2 c'sjn nao^ nivpa njytan ntrn

px

nar njni

pN

,13.1

nniviD 1311

iiTB'

no

13

v^x
.IDDJ

D"'3tJ'D:ni

DVDDjon bu

nm

n^iiin

nn rb^''^

(K. 34, 9)
Averroes hat nun dieses Argument kurz in seinem Kompen-

dium zum Buche der

erhebt
:

Seele erwahnt, indem

er

den Einwand
di&ser

Was

den Charakter der Formeti

detrifft, so besteht
eiti

nicht darin, dass sich bei ihrem Enistehen

vergdnglicher

Korper

volkndet}^
'^

Italics

mine.

590

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

italicized

The
to
I

lines in

the

German do not reproduce

the

meaning of the Hebrew, and, moreover, they

understand the meaning of the German,
is

attribute a statement

Averroes which no Aristotelian could possibly make.

it

As

says, in effect, that

a perishable body a form.

not realized or perfected by the genesis of

is

This statement

directly

opposed to the very essence

of the Aristotelian doctrine of matter and form, and would nullify

not merely Themistius's view of the material

that

intellect,

but also

of Alexander and Averroes

its

himself.

In fact the entire

out.

discussion would have

bottom knocked
all

For according

to Aristotle, as everybody knows,

forms in the sublunar world

have

just this function that

through them perishable bodies are

realized, actualized, perfected.

this realization is

To be

sure,

we cannot

say that

due

to the ge?tesis (Entstehen) of the form, for

forms, according to Aristotle, have neither genesis nor dissolution

any more than matter.

question
at issue,
is

But

this is altogether irrelevant to the

Averroes

represented as arguing against Themistius,

is

who

holds that the material intellect

to genesis
this sort

a separate form not subject

and

destruction.

And

his

argument

is

that a form of
perfect-

(nnivn

13"n 7\W n) cannot be the

means of
so.

ing a perishable body, not that

no form can do
'

The word
'.

n^ra
in the

is difficult. first

It

cannot mean

bei ihrem Entstehen

nn"'in3,

For,

place, the reading would have to be

is

and secondly,
If

a form as such
the text
is

not subject to n^n, as was said before.

correct, the
its

word belongs

to DK'J

a perishable body

cannot in

genesis be perfected by such a form.

irTiina.
:

We

should

expect indeed
text as follows

And hence
nz'^

would suggest emending the

.

1023 nin

nn nh^'^ 1D-n px

body subject

to

genesis and

dissolution cannot be perfected by such a form.

38. (L. 22, 10)

. .
.

inhvD niB'yo nan

nr

y:o*B'

no Dn^iysa DpoynnB'

"ab

(K. 35, 26)

Denn

ihre (sc. der Entelechie) Bcschiiftigung mit deren

'

(sc.

"

Italics

mine.

'

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES

HUSIK
(sc.

59I
Entelechie)

der Krafte) Funktion hindert diese Kraft

daran, ihre eigene Funktion auszuiiben
.

die

As

the

Hebrew
'

text

shows (oni'iyQa
'

DpDynnt}>),

and
'

as

is

clear

from the context,

ihre

is

plural

and

refers not to

Entelechie

but to 'die Krafte', and the translation should read 'ihre Beschaftigung

mit ihren Funktionen

',

both

'

ihre

'

and

'

ihren

referring to 'die Krafte'.

39. (L. 22; 13)

n^n33 NNiB' n:2r\n

^on^ i6^

nxn DVDDn u n^^pB' nK>DNty n d^ni nxuD Nin ^n-h^n bv2 Ti^nn ''M-^n nnwn ^jdo

PNK>

'ai'

/D-ia

iT'n

-ik>x

cninn ^y^i22 niDnn

ni)ap>

Nin

'3

.n^DiQ onn iTnn

DnpD nvpo npn nmx

ijap'^tj'

db^jh

nmo

(K. 35, 31)

Wenn

jedoch des Themistius Ansicht von

dem

separaten
dass sie

Charakter der Entelechie dadurch bestatigt werden

eine unendliche Vielheit begreifen kann, so
erwiesen, dass
ist

soil,

hiermit gleichfalls

hierdurch Alexanders Ansicht keineswegs voU-

standig beseitigt wird. De-nn in Wahrheit niussen die perzipierenden

hylischen Krafte das Singuldre von seiten der
begreifen,

Natur

ihres Trdgers
ist,

dem gerade

dieses Begreifen

eigentumlich

denn
^''

er

vollzieht diese Perzeption unbedingt

lich

durch die Attribute des sinner (sc. der Trdger)

Wahrgenommenen, durch welches

;

ein

Singulares wird
er eine

es

ist

namlich nicht die Weise des Korpers, dass

Form ohne
Form)

eine jener Akzidenzien perzipiert, durch welche

ein Singulares wird.

sie (sc. die

The
suffers

part of this translation

which

I italicized
is

('Denn

ist')
it

from the

fact that the

emphasis

not placed where

is

properly belongs.

The point
in

of the argument

that even though,

is

according to Alexander, the material intellect

not a separate
its

form but contained

some other
"
Italics

part of the soul as

mine.

subject,

592
it

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

it

does not necessarily follow that

example.
the

must perceive the

particular,

like the senses, for

infinite

For

they, too,
if
it

would perceive an
were not for their

multiplicity like

intellect

corporeal subject, the sense organ, which

is

the proper recipient

of the perceptions.

This point,

it

seems to me, K.'s translation

does not bring out with sufficient clearness.

In the latter part, the words ^D">D 13 n'n
bearer
(NtJ'lin),
"iti'N

refer not to the

as

K.
'),

indicates ('durch welches er (sc. der Trager)

ein Singulares wird

is,

but to the sensible (tyniDH).

The meaning
make
its

the bearer, namely, the sense organ, receives the sense percept the latter

together with the attributes of the sensible which

particular.

We
its

are not concerned here with the particularity of

object, the

the sense organ or sense faculty, but with that of

sensible,

and

content, the percept,

40. (L. 22, 22-33)

= (K.

36, 11-32)

Without troubling
tion,

to reproduce here the text

and

its

transla-

I shall limit myself to

slight

making the necessary corrections

which are
ihrer

but indispensable for a right understanding.

Aufnahme der Form welche sie begreift' (20-21) 'Bei Bei ihrer Aufnahme dieser Form wenn sie sie should read corresponding to the Hebrew mixn nST vUp3 begreift',
'

xh^yi^^'z (27-8).
',

Similarly

'begreifen' {26) should

read

'

auf-

nehmen representing the Hebrew D''!?3pO (30). The argument refers back to L. i6, 21-6 = K. 26, 2-1 1. The point there made in favour of Themistius was this, that the
material intellect cannot be a
in that case
it

mere

potentiality

(miOJ

T'.l'ZTi),

for
its

would not be able to apprehend

itself,

since
is

function a form.

is

to

apprehend forms, and a mere potentiality

this conclusion
is

not

But

untenable, for

we should not
or that a
is

then be able to explain the material intellect's apprehension of

*

privation

'

(nyn
it is

o-repr^o-is),

such as that a
it

is

not

b,

not,

which are not forms.

As

is

we

explain this power by

saying that
itself

the result of the material intellect apprehending

as free of forms (nni^n

p"i).

But

if it

apprehends

itself, it

must be a form.

STUDIES IN GERSONIDES
This argument
is

HUSIK

593

taken up in the passage under discussion.

it,

And
when

before answering
If,

G.

offers

a counter-argument against
is

Themistius.
it

he

says, the

material intellect

a form, then

thinks of
is

itself, it
it

receives the

form
This

it

thinks,

and

(since

the form

itself)

receives itself.
It
is

is

absurd.
If

thing
to

cannot

receive
if

itself.

already

there.

you reply
itself,

me
all

that

this

be so then nothing can think

the
separate
is

and yet

admit

that

Intelligences
receiving

do

apprehend
apprehending

themselves,
are

my

answer

that

and

two

different

things.

No

one says that

the

separate

Intelligences receive themselves (D"'^npO ViTB' Dn3 n^J3

i:n:N

DDXy).

To

'

receive

'

means

to acquire a thing

which formerly

you did not possess.

When

the separate Intelligences apprehend

themselves, they do not acquire anything new.

material intellect
all
it is

But with the

is,

different.

Its sole function

it

according to

accounts, to receive forms which

had not

before,
b2\>^

which forms

actualize

and

perfect

it

(onix I^^^B'na T\rmn

that
it.

"'JN^vnn b'2^r\
is

onn

D^JK'^l).

acquires that

Hence it follows too when it thinks

itself.

if its

capacity

a form,

it

But

this is absurd, for a thing

cannot acquire or receive

The

direct

answer to the arguto, will

ment

in favour of Themistius,

above referred

be treated

in

the next number.

41. (L. 22,

3323,

14)
is

(K. 36,

3237,

35)

Here

K.'s translation

correct,

though one does not see the

'

meaning of the parenthetical remarks,

hylischen Formen'(37.
{ibid., 34).
2),

sc.

wie bei den anderen

separaten Intellekt'

or

'sc.

wie bei

dem

In

this

passage G. answers the argument in favour of The-

mistius given in the beginning of the preceding number.

The
it

answer

is this.

It

does not follow from the

'

fact that the material

intellect

apprehends

privation

'

(cp.
is

preceding number) that

a form.
'

perceives itself per

se,

and hence
'

For every other

itself.

perceiving power apprehends

privation

without perceiving

Take

the sense of sight.

it

It

perceives not only colour, but also the

itself.

absence of colour, yet

does not perceive

In fact the two

594

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the positive

are inseparable,
privation

and the
and

negative, possession

and

(=

pjp

and

''\lVi^>

e%ts

o-rcpyo-is).

Whatever
also the

faculty
latter,
se,

perceives the former must necessarily perceive

except that
negative
intellect

it

perceives the positive primarily

and per
the

the

secondarily

and

f>er accidens.

Similarly

material

apprehends forms perse, and hence perceives the privation

of form per accidens, and hence itself too per accidens as a privation,

but not a form.

This solution

is

not liable to the objection

that

advanced against Themistius,

receives itself (cp.

viz.

the

material

intellect
intellect,

preceding number).

For the material

according to our view, does receive forms, but not their negations.

The
itself.

latter

it

perceives per accidens,

and

that

is

not the same as

receiving.

It

perceives itself per accidens, but does not receive

{To be continued.)

RECENT JEWISH LITERATURE

Sepher Maphteah Shelomo (Book of the
exact facsimile of an original
illustrations.

Key

of Solomon).

An

Book

of Magic in

Hebrew with

Now

produced
:

for the first

time by

Hermann
xxiii

GoLLANcz. Oxford

University Press, 1 9 14. pp.

text, 4to.

+ 72

+7
the
title

double pages of Hebrew

In 1903 Prof. Hermann GoUancz published a brochure under

Clavicula Saloinonis, Szc, Frankfurt
a.

M., in which he
in his possession

gave a description of a

Hebrew manuscript

dealing with magic and practical Kabbalah, and ascribed to

less a

no

personage than King Solomon.

The

editing of the

manu-

script

was then deferred

for

a later time.

In the present volume

Dr. Gollancz offers to the reader an exact facsimile of the entire

manuscript, which with
its

numerous magical and

fills

kabbalistical
size.

diagrams and

illustrations,
is

158 pages in quarto

The
he;

bulky text so reproduced

preceded by a short introduction in

briefly the conclusions at
*

which the editor summarizes

which

had arrived

in the afore-mentioned brochure.

In order to serve
also as a guide

as examples of the contents of this work,

in deciphering
character, in
in square

and

the

Hebrew
this

cursive script of an
is

Italo-Spanish

which

copy

written,'

he also gives transcripts

Hebrew

character of several passages (twenty in

all

number)

selected from various parts of the work,

of which, except the

literal

introductory passage, are accompanied by a

tion.

English translathat the latter

On

the title-page of the manuscript

first

we read

represents the

copy

(jlK'N"!

pT\]}n)

of an old work which had a favourite place

been hidden
for spurious

in a cave in

Babylonia
;

("lyjc' }^"1N3,

Hebrew works

see

e. g.

the title-page of the work

to

nown, Constantinople,
referring to Charles

1566),

and was brought

*

Holland by the
'

desire of a prince in the entourage of

Kaiser Carlos
is

(probably

VI

of Austria).

The copy

dated Amsterdam,

595

596
1722 (nibn

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

|fv).

In view of

this explicit statement,

it

may be

remarked
p. v) to

in passing, there

was no need

for the editor (Introduction,

search for internal evidence in order to prove that

we
all

have before us a copy from an older manuscript.

The work
nationalities.

is

a compilation of the superstitions rampant at

times, in all countries,

among people
no
trace of

of different

creeds

and

There

is

any attempt on the part of

the compiler or compilers to differentiate between Hindoo, Arabic,

Greek, or any other elements.

It is

a mosaic of international
it

nonsense made Jewish by the Hebrew language, in which

garbed,

is

and by a strong admixture of

kabbalistical

material

taken from the Book Raziel^ and similar sources.

Hosts of angels
titles,

and seraphim with the most

devils,

fantastic

names and

ginns

and

and

all

sorts of evil-doers in
fill

heaven and

hell,

running

easily into the thousands,

the pages of this curious hand-book

of occultism and

sorcery.

Fervent prayers and incantations,

magical formulae and prescriptions for the sure performance of

miracles, specifics for various maladies
circles

accompanied by magic
of

and curious

illustrations,

conjurations

demons and
this surges

angels,

who

are to be forced into our service

all

indiscriminately
fectly safe

upon our mind, claiming recognition

setting aside

as a per*

and legitimate means

life

for our overruling the destinies

of earthly

and

the laws of nature.

We

are

how to secure the love of a woman, how to discover a thief, how to fly through the air on a cloud, how to make ourselves invisible, how to make a light burn in the midst of water, how to escape from prison, and a great variety of other performances
taught of no less importance.

In numerous instances we are assured by

the writer that the recipes here given have been tried either by

himself or by others, and were found to be absolutely reliable.

On
of
p.

fol.

25b we

are told in the

name

of

D13''^3 (i.e.

Apollonius
Literature

Tyana; comp. Steinschneider, Pseudcpigraphische

32;
TIebrdische

Uebersetzungen, p. 845,

n.

6) that a certain

experiment purporting to stop slander has been tried on Saracens

and Jews (Dmn^ni

'y Vi'.:'n)

and proved successful

as

The

editor,,

who

is

known

an author of several works on

RECENT JEWISH LITERATURE

MALTER

597

scholarly subjects, promises a complete translation of the text into

English (Introduction,

p.

iv).

Whether

this

work deserves a
in

translation or not, I leave to the

judgement of those interested

decide.

magic and occult sciences

to

The

folk-lorist

and the
kindred

antiquarian, whose interest the editor invites,

may

find therein

some

material which

will

prove

useful in their studies of

literature.

Moreover, as the compiler has made use of other

branches of knowledge, such as astronomy and astrology, medicine

and physiognomy,
itself also

&c., an English translation

may recommend
in his

from a general point of view.

However, the examples

of deciphering and translation Dr. Gollancz has given

Introduction do not encourage one to believe that he

is

sufficiently

prepared to carry out properly such an undertaking. Although he

has occupied himself considerably with the study of the manuscript,

he often
is

fails
it

to read
is

it

correctly, and, naturally,

wherever the text

:

misread
I b.

also
2,

mistranslated.

Here are some examples

Fol.

Prayer

the text reads

WHlin b^ VJD^

nc'N D^IJ? ''nbn

all

D^N"I3 in^Sni,

God

of the Universe, before

whom
Hne

are
i)

the visible

and

invisible beings.

Dr Gollancz
'

(p. vi,

reads D^N"l33n
all

D^N"l33 ^npani

and

translates
'.

before

whom
oy

are

the created
:

ones and the uncreated

Two
^"1:1

lines further the text reads

yn)'\

no^nn

y^ip

nn

|y^ ,i?ii
""iOVni

nnn

n:>i:n

iiiv ba nvn

nmnn

nixnb

""iJn,

look, I beseech Thee, this

day unto Thy

servant,

the sake of
that I

who is crushed in spirit and body under Thy feet; for Thy holy spirit be gracious unto me and preserve me may behold Thy Majesty. Dr. Gollancz reads UJUn (sic)
a wrong way, translates
day with underspirit
all

for ntJUn , and, construing the sentences in

against

sense

'
:

Endow

me,

Thy

servant, this

standing, lowly pressed as I

am

both in body and

Spirit.
is

beneath

Thy
&c.
{sic)
!

feet, for

the sake of
a, line i,

Thy Holy
vii,

Be

gracious unto me,'

Fol. 2

the word nD''3rn

(p.

and translated

Prayer 6)

njmni 'make us understand'.

again misread as

Fol. 3 a, line 15, the manuscript has

D''D* '3

ruynn,^^^ three

days.

The
days

editor reads (p.

',

viii)

n^nnn, and translates 'count three

a meaning which, by the way, the form nJDnn never has.

the editor's mistranslations in these
instances are

As

due

598

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

might

chiefly to his mistakes in deciphering the manuscript, they

eventually be overlooked, but Dr. Gollancz often misunderstands

the text in a surprising
reading.

manner even when he has the

correct
jn

Thus
is

the passage (p. vi) 'B^

translated,
*

b]}

nvn ^n^^3 n:

"inn^S DVpl
blessing

grant unto

my

actions this day

'

Thy

and
a

the confirmation
latter

of Thy watchfulness
is,

(the italics are

mine).

The
is

phrase in this translation

to DC'yD,

of course, senseless,
to say,

but DVp
'

synonym
Prayer 5
Jj^I

and the author means

and
:

grant

Thy

blessing unto

my
(p.

actions
vii)

my performance

of Thy

commands \
n^^-i

reads

nua^ jnm Dmcn ON

nnn T^N

nioinm

D^

Father,
earth,

who

triest

the hearts,

pxi D^OB'3 T^^S 'Compassionate who takest delight in heaven and in

in all that is in them.'

in the sea

and the depths, and

and on
;

Dr. Gollancz translates, 'Compassionate Father,

hearts which are in heaven
earth, the sea

who

triest

the

and the depths,

hast granted
*i>n^l

and

all

that

is

in

them
6,

they unto

whom Thou
is

favour\^).
D"3"iX"in

Prayer

on the same page, reads: 73

niCSin
.

ysB'Dn

nniDH

h'z jniil

God

here described as causing

all

to

emanate from Him, and thus creating

in philosophy

souls (a very

common

conception
the world

and Kabbalah), and as bestowing upon

Dr. Gollancz makes
souls in abundance,
'

all

the good created by His grace.

'

of this passage,
all the

who

formest

all

and

givest

good

thiftgs that

are favourable
i>3

(!).

The words
is

U'^p'^

7N

D^Jiya rvi^V^n
'

ba hv Vitrei niy~i

(p. viii)

form a separate sentence

God

silences all evil,

is

and

rules over all that

done

in the world.'
Tn""!
(i.

As

the sentence

preceded by the words D73 niyin

e.

the magic practice, as prescribed in the passage before

loosen,

us, will
'*?,

undo

all

evil).

Dr. Gollancz, disregarding the word

is

and

referring the

whole to the magical procedure,

repetition,

embarrassed

by the seeming
form of
evil, so

hence

translates,

*It

loosens every

much

so that it will lay all evil,

is

and have power

P. xv,
1.

over everything that

done

in the
is

world'.

4 from
it

bottom, a certain disease of the eye

adjured that whatever

it

be,

a film or blemish 'or any thing whatsoever,

should be blotted
TVO ~13T

out and depart out of the eyes

D'ryn), not as
is

'

(fO )*in

lij^l

nnD^

nr^N IN

here rendered, 'or as regards any other thing

RECENT JEWISH LITERATURE

that can be blotted out, that
it

MALTER

599
P. xvii

go

forth out of these eyes.'

we

are taught a kabbalistic trick by which a high personage can

in this state

be hypnotized, and

made

to promise that

he

will

come during
doing

the day to seek me, with the express purpose of

TW'h n3 Npn, ^Jtrpn^ DV3 N3^l). This is translated, 'and come to seek me out literally, so as to do my will What is seek out literally ? As may be expected, the author of the book uses certain
will' ('JIVT
*.
'

my

'

technical words peculiar to this class of literature, e.g.

"W^,

to

prevent

something

from

happening by a magical stratagem,

literally to tie

up (an Arabism, comp. Steinschneider, Hebrdische

Uebersetzungen, 540, 848); D^^nni5, to inspire one with a

(see below), "!3^ as an adjective in the sense of

dream

nnx and TW'

'hvti's

=
!),

unique, and n^jJD as a

synonym

to n^iys (see p. vi,

'hv^

practice, operation, designating the

whole process of performing

magical

tricks, as
is

designed in this work.

The

executor of such
5 b,
11.

holy tasks

therefore styled nbyon byn (see

:

fol.

3, 4, 22).

On

p. ix

we thus read

T'n^

^NH Xin nnx ^^^K ysB'n

rhv^r^
ini?

noi^B' "lOK

cmn
is

nr\'hyh

Nnnn
is

n^f-i

-ib'k

nns njiDx='Said

Solomon by Divine
one,

inspiration,

God

is

one, unique, the religion

and one

the magical practice, which the Creator has

deigned to reveal to mankind.'

the terminology, translates
'

Dr. Gollancz, not familiar with

alone
is

Faith only

God

one,

and

there is one
to

the exalted one

which the Creator desired

be

revealed unto mankind', thus taking npytDH, &c.

niently, but against all

quite conve-

grammar, as an adjectival description of

parallel passage

naiDX (Faith).
first

But what about the

forming the
:

few lines of the author's Introduction, where we read

i^xn

1X
Said

miONH nn^ n^yon inb nnnn^

nnx ^-h
is

v!''^

T\rh^

'

Solomon, peace with him, unique, one

God, blessed be He,

'

unique the (magical) practice, unique the Faith

reproduces also this passage
(p. v),

Dr. Gollancz

but

it

is

the only one which

is

he wisely

left

untranslated.
f.)

On

what etymology

the verb

D''^nn (p. xvii

translated four times

by overpower, overwhelm,
I sus-

and

coerce}

Isa. 38. 16

does not warrant this meaning.

pect the

editor

had

in

mind

the Talmudic phrase

(Rosh-ha-

6oO

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

noitt'
it

Shanah, 28 a)
passage makes

cnyi Q^bn wnv, but the context of our

enough that
it

clear

means

to cause one to

dream

(comp. Jer. 29.

I

8).

do not follow up

in detail all the other mistakes

I shall

made by

the editor in the reproduction of the text.

simply register

them along with the

brackets.
P.
iv,

correct readings of the manuscript given in

T\'oW>

^
'

\nrh^

^ao].

P. v,

1.

2,

iT-n

n^nnni

[nm n^nnnn]; the words naxi'm and n"'i'N1D, ibid., 11. are misprints for HDN^oa and n''i'N"IN 15 D3n3^
;

and

9,
!j.

1.

[DSnn"'
is

P.

vi,

1.

3,

omission of IK'S after D73.

On
'

what ground

here

assumed

that pjio

means

Witness

It is

quite improbable

that either the author, or the editor, have here thought of the

Haggadic interpretation of the

witness
1.
;

biblical

'

jnanon^ (Prov. 29. 21) as

1.

s.

b.

Sukkah 52
1.

<^.

P.

viii,

4,
1.

lOND,

read *iDNn
[niytJ'D];
1.

7,

n3J3 [n:3];

9, ti'aM [B^nTi'ii].
xii,
1.

P.

x,

1,
;

niyc
1.

2,

Tin, read

mn.

P.

2,

cnann [onmn]
parentheses;
;

6,

the manuscript
to emphasize
[iDB'V] (see

clearly has n''J0\1, but the editor reads TiJOM,

and

the mistake he adds

p. xxiii).
1.

sic in

1.

19,
5,

lytJ'l^

P. xiv,

1.

4,

VN^VOD [VNVDIO]

1.

n?n [iTim].
is

P. xv,

2,

oniayo [onayo].
it

The whole Hebrew

passage
lines.

here misP. xvi,

1.

placed, as

belongs after the next two English

1,

pnni
1.

(so in the

manuscript) should have been corrected into pHTI

;

from below, inNim [imNini]

In view of the

last line,

TllNIp^, read ^DNnpij.

fact that all these

mistakes in reading and

all,

translation occur in a text which, taken all in

covers but about

for the
if

four pages,

and which the editor has deliberately selected

'

reader to serve as a key to the

Key \
is

it

seems

to

me
it

that

an

English translation of this book

to

be given,

should be

undertaken by some one who would apply himself with more care

and circumspection than are displayed

After
all

in this Introduction.
satisfaction to

this

criticism

it

gives
is

one genuine

note that the work as a whole

it

splendidly got up, and that

is

a great merit of Dr. Gollancz to have been instrumental in

this

making

unique manuscript accessible to the Hebrew

is

literary

world by what

described as the collotype process, which alone

made

it

possible to reproduce exactly also the perplexing drawings

RECENT JEWISH LITERATURE

and diagrams
three other
that cover
its

MALTER
know there

6oi
are only

pages.
that

So

far as I

Hebrew books

have ever been published in such

a luxurious fashion.

Jewish Mysticism.

By

J.

Abelson.

London, 19 13.

pp.

viii

184 (third volume of the Quest Series edited by G. R. S.

Mead).

The border
is

line

between rationalism and mysticism cannot

always be definitely established.

Whether a given conception

For what appears

assigned to the one class or the other depends often upon the
to the

discretion of the individual thinker.

one

as a mystification, or a thought without reality,

may

look to the

other as clear as daylight, as an established fact that needs no

proof.

The

writer of a history of mysticism,

who

wishes to satisfy
difficult task.

all readers, therefore, is

confronted by a somewhat

He

must make sure

that

what he

treats

as mysticism will

be

recognized as such also by those

who

are inclined to consider

some
over,

religious abstractions as absolute certainties,

and would not

Moreit

agree to seeing them classed with mystical conceptions.

in

order 'to write profitably on Jewish mysticism,

is

necessary to have, not only a discriminating sympathy with the

mystical standpoint, but also a first-hand knowledge of Jewish
religious literature, the peculiar genius of which, perhaps,

no one

but a

member

of the race that has produced

'

it

can adequately

appreciate and interpret

(G. R. S.

Mead

in his Editor's Preface).

Dr. Abelson, the author of the present work, fully comes up

to the requirements here pointed out.
taste

With a sound

literary

and

critical

judgement he well succeeds

line,

in keeping himself

beyond the danger

avoiding on the one side a philosophic

rationalization of purely mystical ideas,

and on the other

elimi-

nating from his presentation

all

those elements

of mysticism
rather

which by

their nature are apt to confuse the

modern reader

than to enlighten him.

Of

course, this procedure necessarily

renders the author's presentation incomplete, but, as he states

VOL. vn.

602
in

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

volume
is
*

his preface, the little

designed to give the reader

a bird's-eye view of the salient features in Jewish mysticism rather

than a solid presentation of the subject as a whole

'.

As such the

book admirably

suits

the purpose.

Following upon a general

Introduction (pp. 1-15)

some

of the earlier essential elements of

mysticism
Shekinah,

(e. g.

the Merkabah

Chariot idea, Angels, Wisdom,

Kingdom

of Heaven, &c.), as represented in

Talmud

and Midrash,

in Jewish-Hellenistic

and

early Christian literature,

are interestingly discussed (16-97).

Special chapters are then

devoted to the elucidation of the mystic theories of the Book

Yesirah, the Zohar, the Sefirot doctrine,
of the mediaeval Kabbalah.

and other conceptions

spirit
is

of genuine sympathy with

the mystic aspect of Jewish thought

noticeable throughout the

pages of the book,

literature

while the abundant quotations from

the

prove the author's familiarity with the sources.

Dr. Abelson unnecessarily symbolizes
in

On

several occasions

Haggadic passages, seeing

them

certain mystic thoughts

;

which
e. g.

must have been foreign to the Talmudic authorities

pp. 41
b.
'

see

ff.

the interpretation of the passages relating to Jonathan

'Uziel,
'

Johanan

b.
'

Zakkai, &c.

P. 81,

11.

24-5, the words

in

before

and

'

behind

must exchange places

from Nahmanides
is

order to give

sense.

The
text,

quotation
left

(p.

87) might better

have been

out,
is

as the idea
irrelevant.

quite unclear even in the

author's deduction from

Hebrew
certain

and

The
in the

Talmudic passages that

no higher a place
all

mind of

the Rabbis 'the

Jew

fills

in the Divine favour than

do the good
a great

and worthy of

men and
betrays

races'

(p.

96),

involves

exaggeration and

an undesirable apologetic tendency.

The
came
(p.

assertion
fire,

that
air)

the

doctrine of the primordial substances

(water,

and

being represented by certain

Hebrew

letters

into

Greek philosophy from ancient Hebrew theosophy

102) seems to

me

without any historical basis.

The

passage
(p.

regarding the two attributes of God, Justice and Mercy

is

150),

mistranslated, the

names Jahweh and Elohim being

inverted.

Somewhat irritating are Hebrew words as ruhniim,

the ungrammatical transliterations of

gd/gdlim, sichlim (64) for ruhdniyyim.

RECENT JEWISH LITERATURE MALTER

galgallim
(or galgillim,
Isa.
5.

603

28), sekdlim

geyvekah (85) for

gawweka] hivra (147)

philosophic des Sohar,

for

hhvwdrd.
misses

In the Bibliography one

D. Joel's Die Religions-

These things do not

detract, however, in

any way from the

essential value of the book,

which

is

to

be recommended to every

one who wishes to get a general idea of Jewish mysticism.

The Cabala.

Its influence

on Judaism and
:

Christianity.

By
Co.,

Bernhard
1913.

Pick.

Chicago

O^en Court Publishing

pp. 109, small 8vo.

Christian theologians, especially those concerned in the con-

version of the Jews, always showed

much

interest in the

Jewish

Kabbalah.

Certain

passages

in

the

Zohar, the text-book of

Jewish mysticism, which seemed to bear out the doctrine of

the Trinity and other church dogmas, were claimed by these
theologians and zealous missionaries as unmistakable evidence of
the truth of the Christian religion.

booklet, likewise a missionary, does not

Christianize

The author of the present make any attempt to

'it
'.

the

Kabbalah, but merely wishes to provide the

is

English reader with a book on the subject, because

prising

sur-

how

scanty the English literature

is

on the Cabala

The

importance of the
'

latter for the present generation

it

he bases on
'

the interest taken in

by men

like

Raymond

Lully

(thirteenth

century), Picus

de Mirandula, Reuchlin, and other mediaeval

Christian worthies.

We

have no quarrel with the author

for

having been prompted by the circumstances so described to

enrich English literature by a book on the Kabbalah.

We

have

a right to expect, however, that he would

with

first

provide himself
the original

some knowledge on the subject drawn from Hebrew sources. What we find instead is a cheap
skill

compilation

from the works of Jellinek, Graetz, and others, without a trace

of literary
or any penetration into the subject.

Entire pages

are copied literally without the slightest hint as to the source

(see e.g. pp. 39-44,

and Graetz, History, IV, 3-1 1).

A
R

reference
r 3

6o4
to the

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Jewish Encyclopedia, from which the description of the
is

Zohar

taken, in part verbally (comp. pp. 46-9,

2),
is

and/S., XII,
are constantly

601, col.
referred

likewise suppressed.
to his

Instead,
articles
'

we

by the author

own

'

in

McClintock and

Strong's Cyclopedia, a publication which need not be consulted

on the

literature

under consideration.

In the so-called Biblio-

graphy, too, the best and most popular Jewish works on the

Kabbalah (Landauer, Franck,

end of the
to

Jellinek, Joel,

Karppe, &c.)

are,

of course, omitted, but the compiler has the effrontery to remark

at

the

list

'

We

have purposely refrained from

Cassel,
S.

referring

the

historical

handbooks of D.

Back,

G. Karpeles, &c., because they offer nothing from a critical point

of view; and for obvious reasons
articles
is
(!)

on the Cabala

in English Cyclopaedias.'

we make no mention of No commentary

line

here necessary.

That the author cannot read correctly a

is

of unpointed

Hebrew
;

obvious from his transliterations of

p.

Hebrew words
Zohar.
'

see

e. g.

45 the transliterated
'

title

of the

English literature on the Cabala

off if authors
it

would, therefore, be
it

much
*

better
'

like

Dr.

Pick would leave

as

scanty

as they suppose

to be.

Niievo hallazgo de una inscripcibn sepulcral hebraica en Toledo

(reprint
vol.

from the Boletin de la Real Acadef?iia de

la Historia,

LXVII).

For

el

Doctor A.

S.

Yahuda.

Madrid, 19 15.

Hallazgo de pergaminos en Solsona, un capitulo sobre la poesia

hebraica religiosa de Espaiia (reprint from the Boletin, &c.,
vol.

LXVII).

Por

el

Doctor A.

S.

Yahuda.

Madrid, 1915.

pp. 8

+ 41.
II).

ContribuciSn al estudio del Judeo-Espafwl (reprint from the Revista

de Filologia Espaiiola, vol.

Por

el

Doctor A.

S.

Yahuda.

Madrid, 1915.

pp. 32.

After a period of unbroken silence lasting over four centuries

wo hear again

the voice of a Jewish scholar addressing itself to

the scholarly world in the Spanish language from the chair of

RECENT JEWISH LITERATURE MALTER

a Spanish university.

605

Dr. Yahuda, who about two years ago was appointed Professor of Jewish history and literature at the
is

University of Madrid,

endeavouring to make accessible to

the scholarly world everything of Judaeo-Spanish origin that

still

be found

in the possession of the

Spanish people and

in

may may
with

throw new
Peninsula.

light

on the history of the Jews

literature,

the Iberian
it

Students of Jewish

burdened as

is

too

many
it

languages, have for years past considered the study of

Spanish as something of a hors-d'oeuvre, but

take

may

in future have to

up again

as part of the regular course of their linguistic

studies

if,

indeed, they care to

come

in

touch with what promises

to develop into a

new phase
first

of Jewish learning in Spain.

Dr. Yahuda's

publication deals with a sepulchral

Hebrew
dis-

inscription, counting only twelve lines,

which was recently

covered on a granite block in the court-yard of Dr. Francisco

L6pez Fando of Toledo.

a

The

latter,

a reputable physician and

the graphic characters
Prof.

man

of letters, had noticed for

stone,

some time

on the surface of the

and invited

Yahuda

for
It

an

examination and eventual deciphering of the content.

was

then found by the examiner that the block in question was

originally

one of the tombstones of the Jewish cemetery of

Toledo, which, towards the end of the sixteenth century, was

plundered by the Christian inhabitants of the

city, its

being carried to various places, where they were

all

kinds of

domestic needs.

Fortunately

monuments made to serve some anonymous

scholar of the sixteenth century had copied seventy-six epitaphs

from the stones of that cemetery prior

unknown circumstances
famous
S.

the copies
Italy,

to its destruction. By some became the possession of the

later

Royal Library of Turin,

and were
''33N*,

published by the
It

D. Luzzatto

in

his fn^T

Prague, 1841.
is

so

happens that the inscription deciphered by Dr. Yahuda

with no. 70 in Luzzatto's edition.
It is
fell

identical

the epitaph of a certain

R. Jacob

b.

Isaac JDNplXDrx,

who

a victim of the Black

Death on the twenty-seventh of June, 1349, while performing Dr. Yahuda republished the text with his duty as a physician.
a Spanish translation and notes.

new

feature in this publica-

6o6
tion
is

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

the special page on which

we

are

shown

for the first

time

the pecuHar arrangement of the intertwined Unes as they were

engraved on the stone.

The

copyist of the sixteenth century did

it

not reproduce the diagram form of the inscription, hence

lacking also in the edition of Luzzatto.
tially

is

Line 6
latter.

offers

an essenfind
is

better reading than

is

given in the

The

of

value also for the student of

The second liturgy. As he

to

study of Prof.

Hebrew palaeography. Yahuda belongs to

script

the field of

informs us at the beginning of the essay, two

parchment leaves covered by Hebrew

were recently found

have been pasted into the cover of a manuscript codex in the

Library of the
sent to

Academy

of Solsona.

the University of Madrid

for examination.

They were removed and Here the

(niB'"l)

author identified the content as representing fragments of the

following six liturgical productions
b. Eleazar
:

Prologue

of David

Ibn Bakuda (twelfth century) to Solomon Ibn Gabirol's

;

Exhortations (nnriTN)
called

2.
;

^Ahabah (nanx)

3.

by an anonymous author;

A hymn of Judah Halewi of the class A poem on the Ten Commandments 4. Ibn Gabirol's ^Azharot; 5. A hymn

on the revelation of the Law showing the acrostic Joseph (see

p. 7, n.

2);

6,

poetic Introduction to the prayer 'Nishmat'

for

Pentecost by Judah Ibn Gayyat (eleventh century).

None

of these pieces
all

is

complete, and with the exception of

in

no. 6 they have

been repeatedly printed

complete form
In so

in the various Orders of Prayer for the Jewish festivals.

far

the liturgical material here recovered, without denying the

it

interest attaching to the discovery of

and

to the attending

circumstances, cannot be said to be of any particular importance.

Dr. Yahuda, however, in his desire to present to the 'learned

Spanish public, which for reasons well known

is

entirely unfamiliar

with matters Jewish, something of the spirit and ethical worth

of the famous

Hebrew

poets,

who once sang on

to prepare

the banks of the

Ebro and the Tajo, took occasion

on the
subject.

an elaborate study

By a happy coincidence
in

three of the poetical

compositions represented
(namely, nos.
i, ?,

part by the fragments in question

and

4) are fair

specimens of Hebrew poetry

RECENT JEWISH LITERATURE

in Spain,

MALTER
is

607

and are therefore

well adapted for the author's purpose.

The
is

usual description of the MS., of which a facsimile

general
is

given,

followed by a

characterization

of that

species

of

synagogal poetry which

(Exhortations).
style

known under

the

name

of 'Azharot

The

influence of the biblical language

on the
is

and phraseology of the mediaeval Hebrew poets

then

very interestingly described.

The fragmentary

texts

of

Ibn

Bakuda's Prologue and Judah Halewi's \Ahabah are completed

from the printed editions and given

in full, while of

Ibn Gabirol's

^Azharot (part II) only the fourteen introductory lines are given
as example.

For Ibn Gayyat's poem which, as noted

first

before,

is

here published for the

time, the author

made

use of a copy

from a Bodleian MS., but even so the poem, as the acrostic

shows,
still

lacks at least three

more strophes

at the end.

As

a piece of poetry this

poem does

not possess any special merit.

The

style is artificial

and clumsy.

The

text of all four pieces is

accompanied by copious explanatory notes and

It

references.
scientifically

could hardly be expected that a plain, though

satisfactory, interpretation of the contents of

mediaeval

Hebrew
its

poetry would appeal to the Spanish reading public or arouse

admiration for the

poetic turn of
his

Hebrew

mind

who is of a he has published some Hebrew poetry of

poets.

Dr. Yahuda,

own composition
'

in a chapter called

'

Analysis and Transla-

tion

(pp. 26-41), therefore, gives a highly poetical reproduction

in metrical verse of the three

poems (Bakudah,

Gabirol,

and

Halewi).
tory

The most

interesting parts, however, are the introduc-

comments, which are inserted between the various strophes,

in

and

which the author

tries to

acquaint the Spanish reader with

the religious spirit that pervaded the poets in question while

describing the grandeur of the Divine revelation on

or the glory of the

Mount

Sinai,

Holy Land and

the Sanctuary as the seat

of God, the loftiness and sublimity of the Mosaic Law, &c.

The
fail
it

whole rhetorical exposition with the interposed verse cannot

to

make a deep impression upon

the readers for

whom

was

intended.

few corrections of mistakes

may

here be added.

The

6o8

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

n':^^n

phrase nn: I'Dlh

the oldest

nnnrs, which forms the begir>ning of

known

'Azharot, cannot be translated 'en los primeros

'

iiempos diste exhortaciones a tu pueblo

is

(p. 8).

The word
'

JT'tyxi

a symbolic

name

for the

Torah

(see the references in Theodor's

is

Bereschit Rabba, p.

7, n. 3),

and the meaning

Exhortations of
Ibid.,

the Torah

Thou
p. 21,

hast given to
;

Thy
for

people'.

n. 2,

for

Hasafrut read Hasefarim

n.

4,

Hagueonim read Gueonim

4-9 y 11
;

Kadmonim;
1.

1.

17, read JDeuteronoimo, 6,

^2).

p. 22,

16, the

author corrects the word

into 7133

= boundary,

and

in a note tries to justify his correction.

He

overlooks Ps. 83.

tribes inimical to

7-8, where Gebal

Israel.

is

mentioned as one of the

This Gebal has nothing to do with the town of that

9),

(Ezek. 27.

which

is

referred to P. 24, n.
i,

by the author.
read
yt'lJD

name The whole

Gayat;

note

is

to

be cancelled.

p por ibn

p. 26,

1.

17, reference

should have been

made

to Ps. 62. 12, as

well as to the
to

Talmudic

interpretation of that verse (Sanh. 34 a),

allusion.

which Ibn Gayyat, no doubt, here makes

the reference to Shir Hashirim
I, ver. 2, letter 2.

P. 35,

n. I,

Rabba

is

to

be completed

by

ch.

The

Imperial

Academy

of Sciences in Vienna has recently

published an important study entitled Bcitrdge zur Kemiinis des

Judetispanische7i von Konstanti?iopel,
1

by L. M. Wagner (Vienna,

9 14, 4to, pp. xxii

'

+ 186),

forming part of the philological section

'.

in the

Schriften der
is

Balkan-Kommission
relations

The

special object

of this work

to

show the

between the Judaeo-Spanish

idiom and the old Spanish language, as also to investigate to

what extent the former was influenced by other European and

Oriental languages.

Dr.

Yahuda

takes the work of

Wagner

as

a starting-point for a highly interesting study on the subject, in

which he gives

his

own

observations

among

the Sefardic Jews

of the different communities in Italy and Turkey, as well as the

Balkan provinces which have formerly been part of the Turkish

empire (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, and Greece, especially in
the large Jewish

community of
with

Salonica).

By

virtue of his extra-

ordinary familiarity

the leading

languages of the Orient

and Europe he

is

able to trace a large

number

of hitherto un-

RECENT JEWISH LITERATURE

MALTER

609

explained phrases and expressions in the Judaeo-Spanish dialect

to their Persian, Arabic, or Turkish origin, or to

some archaic

element in the Romance

Portuguese.

languages, particularly old Spanish and

it is

Very often

the author's intimate knowledge of

the social and religious

life

of the Sefardic Jews in question that

enables

him

to ascertain the
latter.

meaning of some obscure words

used by the

Thus, to quote a single instance, the word

eompedron used by Oriental Jews as a noun denoting the buttock,

podex,
is

explained as a corruption of the phrase con perdbn

leave, I
is

(=with your
a word which
however,

heg pardon), a phrase used before expressing

considered obscene or repugnant.

the

Many

Jews,

who knew
it

meaning but not the etymology of

its

eompedron, naturally regarded

use as an obscenity, and in

order to avoid

used instead the word mehiia, which, Yahuda

D^TIO, and likewise

shows,

is

the

Hebrew

means pardon

It

should be added
as a

that the Polish Jews, too, use a

whole phrase

noun
'

in precisely the
',

same sense

Der

Seid's-fnir-mochel

the

I-beg-your-pardon

which corresponds exactly

to cojnpedron.

Students of

Romance

languages will find in this essay of

Yahuda

rich

material
to

gathered from fields which are usually

will,

inaccessible
profitable.

them and which

no doubt, prove very

v: u''d

nny

pn^*^ i"y

iix^ nv^i 2nD3

^mya

on^^i'n

-r^ vnjo

na

The
Spanish

present world war has brought one more language to

the shores of this continent.

is

To Judaeo-German and

Judaeo-

now added
is

Judaeo-Arabic, and the booklet under the

literary

above

title

the
soil.

first

production in this idiom printed

lends
it

on American

It is this fact that

it

some importance

and recommends
Arabic as

for registration in this

Review.
into

The

little

volume contains the

it is

translation

of
in

Canticles

vernacular

spoken by the Jews

some

parts of the Orient.

The

author adheres to the plain sense of the biblical text without

ideas,

making any use of Midrashic

employed

which are so commonly

in the interpretation of this

book

in particular.

The

6lO

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is is

only liberty he takes

that

he

tries

to render each verse in

rhymed
writers.
is,

prose,

which

a much-favoured form with Oriental

For the sake of obtaining the desired rhyme the author

of course, often compelled to insert words for which there

is

no equivalent

in the

Hebrew

text.

In his Hebrew preface

this translation

Mr. 'Abud informs us that he had prepared

than twenty years ago, having used
it

more

in his instruction of the

it

school children in Aleppo, but did not care to have

published.

He

was urged, however, to do so by friends

It

in this country.

would require too much space to give a description of the

style

and manner of
first

spelling used

by the author.

Two
I

verses

from the

and

last

chapters will suffice as illustration, and in

place the

order to show the deviations from correct Arabic

latter in

parentheses
(Cant.
I.

5.)

(or iT^n)

m^n ph n:n nidd)

Dxcn bi

n^i^n

pash

mx

xnoD

.(1SD''^D pptra

any^N Ds^ia

.ind^^id pxpic*

'a

my ba

dn*3

"-a

{Il>:d., 8,

ri.)

DncyjNi
'3

}nt:Nj!?l?

Dia^s*
n'^i^

xoy
b^

pnoyjxi

p-r-ii^NS ^i?

d"id n^^n

NDy
bia

rivD

riyLsp

^ba

bh

>d n^'is rr-ytsp

n^N

3^r

]'\:'^

.(Dn-in

.pmcn
the

'The reader should excuse me',

they

author pleads in his

("'"ins*)

preface, 'for having often placed the vowel letters

where

may

not belong and for having used promiscuously the

V,

letters

D and

&c., as

no correct method of

spelling Arabic in
(!).

Hebrew

characters has as yet been established

did the

best I could,

may

the Lord forgive

me

'

We

hope

his wish will

be granted, though we do not agree with the reasons he advances

therefor.

Henry Malter.
Dropsie College.

KISCH'S 'RELIGION OF

THE CIVILIZED WORLD AND JUDAISM'

and Judaism.
Co.
pp. 68.

Religion of the Civilized World

By H.

J.

Kisch.
:

London, George Routledge and Sons, Limited

York, E. P.

New

DuTTON and

This

little

book of 68 pages presents some of the universal

its

elements in Judaism as an evidence of

general acceptance by
all

title

to

eventual

men.

It is

wholesome as an antidote
all

to that sceptical nationalism that disregards in religion

factors save that of national expression,

other

making the

religion of
is

the Choctaws as legitimate and therefore as true for them as

Judaism to the Jew.

Mr. Kisch, on the contrary, presents

it is

Judaism as

entitled to world recognition, because

the correct

expression of divine truth.

The point of view and test is the enlightened thought of our own age to which it is claimed Judaism responds. In proof of this we have collected a number of interesting quotations from
the works of James Martineau,
Prof. Huxley,

Matthew Arnold,

Prof. Schultz,

George
:

Adam

Smith, &c.

The

author's definition
ideals of

of religion

is

'

Ethical ideals

combined with

God

'.

The The

ethical ideals of

Judaism are quoted

is

from the Scripture.

Bible as a whole

presented as containing the law of

in

God

and the word of God, without

of God.
Its great, moral,

any

literal

sense being the word

is

and educational value

emphasized.
spiritual

Judaism presents the highest concept of God as a purely

being.
in

Inspiration

is

His influence

in the

human

soul, present

each one to a greater or

less extent.

One
on
of
'

of the finest chapters in the

book

consists of three pages

Faith and Trust in

God

'.

The

self-suflEiciency

and arrogance

man

culminates in his deification, whereas a true recognition

of his powers and place invites to humility, an essential quality of

true religion as precedent to reliance

upon God,

The

author's notion of religious ceremonies, as might have

6u

'

6l2

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

been expected,

crude and inadequate.

To him

they are simply

a form of symbolism, and a contrivance to discipline

human
and

life,

rather than a natural form of expression of religious ideas

principles.

and

Ceremonies

to

him

lack inherent validity

vitality,

and of course are of but small importance, although not

to

safely

be disregarded

at the present time.

The

disregard of cere-

monies led to that adulteration of Judaism with heathenism that

developed into Christianity.

There

is

need of ceremonies there-

fore to maintain the identity of the faith

and

to prevent alien

admixtures.

Moreover,

Israel's life constitutes

a model experience,
significance for

and

its

national ceremonies take

on a

religious

the outside world.

The

abrogation of Sabbath and other changes

of Christianity were the marks of external influence and customs

and

practices, grafted

upon the Jewish

stock, not to

its

advantage.

The book

serves measurably to rebuke Christian missionary

faith's

presumption and Jewish indifference and ignorance of our

inherent validity and worth.
It is interestingly presented,

and

is

worthy of consideration.

WILLIAMS'S 'CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES FOR JEWISH

PEOPLE

A Manual of Christian Evidences for Jewish People.

Williams.
Vol.
:

By A. Lukvn
London

I,

with a preface by Dr. H. L. Strack.

Limited.
1911.

Cambridge
SiMPKiN,

W. Heffer and Sons, Marshall and Co., Limited.

is

pp. xvi

+ 249.

This book
Christianity.

an endeavour to refute Jewish objections to

formulation of Jewish objections
in the
first
is

The

that of

Rabbi Isaac of Troki

written
in

part of his Chizzuk E?m(nah,

Lithuania,

about three and a half centuries ago.

Naturally the point of view has changed

somewhat from the

seventeenth century to the twentieth, from Lithuania to England

and America, from a Karaite Jew to that of even an orthodox Jew of modern times. For the Reform Jew other influences than this book are relied upon to work conversion. Prof. Strack,

who

lends his sanction to the work through a preface that he has

CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES
written for
it,

HOFFMAN
refutation,

613

hints at other

methods of

more

in line
to,

with modern scholarship, that might have been resorted

but

Mr. Williams

is

a faithful

member

of the Church of England,

and abandons
his confession.

all

other interpretations save that sanctioned in

The

tone of this disputation

is

kindly,

and the

attitude towards
is

Jews well disposed.

The

point of view, however,

one hopelessly removed from the Jewish one.

The book

should have been more truly styled:

Christian People'.
It
is

'Christian Evidences for

a petitio principii from beginning to

end.

It takes for

granted the truth of Christianity and the fact

of the Messiahship of Jesus, from the point of view of the

New

Testament, and then undertakes to reconcile the statements in

the

Hebrew

Scriptures to that supposed fact.

is

The book from

of course entirely

a Jewish point of view

fundamental
denied.

entirely without force, since the very

is

fact therein

taken for granted

The book
ciling the

Christian from his

how a own premises meets the difficulties of reconOld with the New. The mere question of genealogy
has interest, however, to the Jew to note
is

from David

confessedly most trying, and

is

only resolved by

recourse to a supposed fiction of Jewish law that her husband's

recognition of Mary's supernatural child conferred
legal rights of his son.

upon

it

the

The
in the

difficulties of the failure to realize

Messianic conditions

work and times of Jesus take up a considerable part of

is

the work, and

met

in

two ways.

The

expression D^tDM n''"inN3

'

connotes an indeterminate duration of time.

in saying that the fact that

We are

not justified

two or three thousand years may

is

elapse between one act performed by Messiah and another

any hindrance to the two acts being described

virtually concurrent' (p. 41).

in Scripture as

Then another means

situation
'

of escape

from any too

difficult

is

presented through the belief in the second advent.

in the case at point, forget that

R. Isaac may not, as

we
is

Chrisyet to

tians hold, at least as strongly as Jews,

that

Messiah

come.

We

believe that

He

came, but we believe also that

He

6l4
is

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

come
is

to

again.'

So

that as in Zech. 14. 4,

5.

'If the whole

passage

to be understood in a

literal sense, its fulfilment will

take place at a late period in the Messianic time.'

signs can

But

if

these

be thus postponed

at will to the indefinite future,

how

can they be adduced as proof of the actual advent of Messiah ? This juggling with texts and adapting interpretations, now
literal,

now

metaphorical, to

fit

the event,

is

extended to the even

more
laws.

important subjects of the Law, the Sabbath, the dietary

Is the

Law abrogated ? Not at all. Is it to be observed ? By no means. The conception of law herein presented is puerile,
it

being based not upon a divine declaration of the true relation

of things and persons, but

all

upon a bald

fiat

that

is

devoid of

basis of reality.

'

Jews, he says, suppose that the reason

we

do not steal

is

because the eighth

it

shalt not steal

steal is not
is

",

but

is

not

so.

why commandment says " Thou The reason why we do not

so,

because we are told not to do

but because stealing

first
is

contrary to the character of God,

and

to the

principle of

love to

God and man.

To

Christians the
all its parts,

Law

abolished as

a collection of laws, and this in

alike, in so far as

ceremonial and moral

they are laws.'

?

Why
answer
it
:

was the Sabbath abolished and Sunday accepted

'

The
they

Christians believe that something had

happened upon
.

(Sunday) which was of overwhelming importance

all costs,
'.

were determined to observe the day at

even

if its

obser-

vance did displace that of the Sabbath

Is this

an excuse or
?

a justification for a plain abrogation of the

Sabbath

To
make
tions of

the Jewish

mind

the author's argument

fails

entirely to

intelligible the doctrine of the incarnation,

and the objec-

Rabbi Isaac

to the

dogma

of the Trinity are by ho

means

removed.

The

difference between the Jewish

is

and the Christian

doctrine of atonement

not clearly stated.

The author seems

him
to the

to identify the former with suffering, and this leads

statement

Christians hold that the very Presence of

God gave
for
it is

Himself up by taking human nature to be a

self-sacrifice

human

sin,

and whatever may be the

difificulties

of this belief,

at all events very different

indeed from the belief that the suffering

CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES
of a
it

HOFFMAN

yea, utterly

615
opposed to

man

as such can at all atone for sin

'.

and contradictory

One

of the favoured arguments against Judaism in favour of

is

Christianity

the remarkable spread of the latter faith.

is

In con-

sidering this the author

brought face to face with the growth

disposes of this fact in the following

of

Mohammedanism.
:

He

note

'

am

not forgetful of the fact that

Mohammedanism
faster

has

wrested certain lands in nearer Asia and northern Africa from

Christianity,

nor that

it

threatens

to spread

in

middle

Africa at the present

moment.
life

the conscience and the

The demands that it makes upon are so much lower that no surprise
some
quarters
'.

can be

felt at its

gaining a temporary victory in

But

if

the

scale

it

Jew were to relate Judaism to Christianity on some such would be attributed to Jewish arrogance.
suffering of Israel

The

and

its

long subordination and exile

faith

are used to

cast
this

obloquy upon

and people.
held that

Yet

it

is

admitted that

argument would have condemned Christianity

If
it

and

its

founder
is

at its origin.

is

its

subsequent

victory

its

vindication,
all
its

what

shall

be said of the survival of

Judaism against
as

material powers, including Christianity^ save

an assertion of

supreme

spiritual

power

The Messianic
and the
doctrine

texts in the Bible are considered

in detail,

interpretations are

made
to.

to agree with

the Christian

and declarations
7.

even the mistranslation of riD^yn by

'virgin' (Isa.

14)

is

adhered

The book

is

provided with
Biblical

glossary

and indices of general character and of

passages.

and
of

post-Biblical

Two

other volumes

in

refutation

second and third parts of the Chizzuk

Emunah
may
;

are promised.
be, their effect
is

However
bring

well intentioned such efforts

the reverse of that which they purpose

they do not tend to

the breach.
in Christian

men nearer to each other, but rather to widen The work may clear up for Jewish readers some points
theology, but
position.
it

signally fails to

understand or refute the Jewish

The

undertaking to bring the two religions together

forces than such as are represented in

must depend upon other

controversial dialectics.

At best

it

can

satisfy Christians.

6l6

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

JEWISH PROVERBS

CMn

"bwi

Proverbs of the

Sages.

Collections

of Proverbs,

Talmud and Midrashim, with Explanations and English Translations. By M. Goldman,

Ethical

Precepts from the

New York:
Ancient Jewish

1911.

pp.287.

Proverbs.

Compiled
:

and

classified

Rev. A. Cohen.

London
1.

John Murray,
127.

by the (Wisdom of

the East Series.), 191

pp.

There have been numerous

especially adapted to this
it

collections of Jewish proverbs

both in Hebrew and modern languages.

is

The Hebrew language

:

form of

literature

its

brevity, its

force gives

the power to express truth pithily.

Then,

too,
itself

there

is

something in the Jewish nature and habit that lends

to laconic utterance

and

to the habit of giving a significant

and

even a sarcastic and witty turn to a phrase that underUes and

forms the essence of the gnome.

The

appreciation of the proverb

by Jews has been cultivated from the most ancient times, as

shown in the Bible, and also by the large number of proverbial maxims current among them, and the great pleasure with which No one can read them without feeling the deep they are quoted.
insight they express of

and

evaluation of

human nature and their true understanding human conduct. It is, therefore, with special

satisfaction that

two such excellent collections can be hailed as

are contained in the above entitled books.

The
for

first

of these, by

M. Goldman,

is

a work of love from

facilities

one who appreciates Jewish wisdom, and possesses the

giving
it

a proper typographical expression.

Its large octavo

It

is

indeed

beautifully printed.

pages with ample margins

editor, translator,

and decorative

scrolls

show how highly the

and

commentator esteems his work.

Its greatest

value

lies

in its

association of the original text either in

Hebrew

or Aramaic with

the English translation, giving the reader access to both with the
references in each instance of the source
taken.

whence the saying

and explanation

is

Together with

this

is

the translation

in

both Hebrew and English.

In

its

2S7 ample pages there are

JEWISH PROVERBS
contained

HOFFMAN
in

617
order,

442 maxims, arranged

alphabetical

and

bringing the work through the letter \

been

strictly
;

confined to the proverb, the

it

The selection has not maxim current among

It

the people

includes

many

a wise saying of famous sage con-

tained in our ancient post-biblical literature.

cannot be said

that the English rendering has in every instance been felicitous,

as in No. 76,
petrators
'

'

Iniquitous deeds redound

*

upon

their

own

per-

or in No. 74,

No woman

is
it'.

getting envious without

another

woman

being the cause of

infrequently have
if

The

use of idiomatic

Enghsh would not

translation.

added

to the crispness of the

Even

he does not always succeed in convincing

'for varied

the reader of the correctness of his interpretation,

applications
lie in art, like

nature

',

still

the author of this work

has rendered an important service in thus presenting these choice

nuggets of wisdom for the present use of the Jewish people in

English-speaking countries.

The second

of the above titled books

is

by an English divine.
College in Cambridge

Rev. A. Cohen, late scholar of

Emmanuel
a
little

University, a disciple of the late Michael Friedlander, to

whom

the

book

is

dedicated.
still

It

is

volume of 350 Rabbinic

carefully

proverbs that

claims to be exhaustive of this class of proverb

in its strict scientific sense.

The work

is

and accurately

performed.

Of course

the absence of the original text, that forms

so important a part of
as far as possible this

M. Goldman's work,
compensated
for

is

here marked, but

is

by the accuracy of the

rendering and the classification into ten chapters, with various

sub-headings,
viz.

Human

Existence, Family Life,

Human Virtues,
is

Occupations,

Rules of Conduct, Vagaries of Fortune, Social

Life, Colloquialisms, Miscellaneous.

Each proverb
and
its

rendered

into English with

its

original source,

place in the epoch-

making works of Leopold Dukes. The explanation of the proverb

is

given with

many

illuminating analogies in the

gnomic

literature

of the Jews and other people.

interesting

The work

is

furnished with an
are

and

instructive introduction, wherein

discussed
in

the nature of proverbs in general and of Jewish proverbs

particular, the source of Jewish proverbs, their language, age,

and

VOL.

VII.

S S

6l8

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The work
with use of
is

characteristics.
scientific spirit,

done

in a careful, accurate,

and
It is

modern

scholarly apparatus.

a charming book for scholar and layman, for young and old, and

opens up abundant opportunity

popular use.
It exhibits

for illustration in homiletic

and

an aspect of Jewish

literature in

which

the soundness, shrewdness, and depth of Jewish character are

exhibited and transmitted.

Charles
Newark, N.J.

I.

Hoffman.

AMULETS AND BOWLS WITH MAGIC

INSCRIPTIONS
An
important American publication,
in

containing numerous

magic inscriptions

Aramaic, and

my

recent academic study at

Paris concerning a French acquisition of the

same

nature, present

occasion for a
its

critical

review of this subject.

We

must follow up
branch of

development, inquire into the progress made

in this

Semitic studies, in order to complete or at least to increase the

vocabulary which relates thereto.

Up

to

the present time

we
this
first

have had merely unconnected accounts.

field

have scarcely been cultivated in

The rudiments of our own time. The

seventy-five

discoveries

do not date back more than

years.
fruitful

England

first

had the good fortune about 1846

to

make

excavations near Tell-Amran

in the vicinity of Hillah, the

most
the

remote part of Mesopotamia, Suziana, on the same

site that

Jews

are

thought

to

have occupied

in

Babylon during the

Captivity.

Aside from the objects that are connected with the era of the
successive domination of the Arsacids, the Sassanids, and the

Arabs, there have also been found

little

monuments
era.

in

Hebrew
fifth

of the Middle Ages, the date of which varies between the

and

the seventh or eighth century of the

objects

common

Among

these

we

find pottery of

baked clay which reveals an

interesting

side in the history of the Jewish colonies that settled

upon the

ruins of this land, after the conquest of Jerusalem by the

Romans.

In

this pottery there are

bowls which partake of the form of very

wide, hemispherical calottes, with a diameter in the middle varying

from eight to twelve centimetres.

is

The

material composing

it

of reddish clay with sides as thick (or deep) as a household

619

S s 2

620

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

shaped
at its

dish, rather coarsely

circumference so that

it

does not

show any

artistic interest.

The

interior

concave surface of these bowls contains magic

inscriptions traced

by ink

in a circle,

most often

spirally,

beginning

now

in the centre, or at the umbilical (o/i.<^aXos) protuberance

;

so as to end in the periphery

now

in the opposite direction,

inscrip-

from the periphery to the centre.

tions

Rather rarely we find

composed
constitute

of concentric Hnes, inclosing a rough sketch of

human image

representing a male or female demon.

incantations,

These
by the

lines

or

objurgations,

uttered

exorcists in order to put to flight the

demons

that were supposed

to torment the sick.

It

was thus a matter of avoiding misfortune,

or of curing the patient

who would

drink of the liquid that was

poured into the bowl as he besought the intercession of Providence,

or of the liberating angels.

Although

all

these texts vary in form,

yet in essence they resemble each other closely.

Thus we have
especially ought

preserved traces of magic

to

rites

among people who

have banished them, inasmuch as these deeds of popular

superstition are irreligious.

The pagans

attributed the steadfastness of the early Christians

in enduring martyrdom to the employment of secret and diabolical

methods, accusing them of performing certain charms through

the recitation of Biblical verses to avoid the effects of torture.

An
is

instance of this

is

the passage in Exod. 12. 46,

*Ye

shall

break no bone thereof, and the preservative power of

recalled by

this verse

the Passion of

John the Evangelist (19. 36)^ in the final story of These same superstitions are reflected Jesus.'^

in other passages of the

Jer. 25.

Old and
26).

New

Testament

(Isa. 41.

17;

15-27; Matt. 20 and

an allusion
Num.
9. 12.
'

In reference to h^dromancy

there
^

is

in the

Babylonian Talmud,' and the Jerusalem

Cf.

See Ed. Le Blant,

L'accusation de magie dirig^e centre les premiers

cles

Chretiens', in the Mdmoires de la Society

'

Anliqtiaires de France,

CXXXI

Actes des martyrs

',

in
ff.

the Memoires

de

rAcadimie des

Inscriptions,

vol.
'

XXX,

part

2, p.

105

Shabbat 37b;

Yoma 84a; Besah

16 a;

Baba mesia 29 b; Abodah

Zarah 38 a,

MAGIC INSCRIPTIONS
Talmud
water.
*

SCHWAB
Midrash."

62I

narrates

how a

sorcerer

became
in the

inaccessible to rain-

We

have similar references

By a kind

of logical sequel, the language in which these

is

formulas of incantation were conceived

generally that of the

is

Chaldean Targums.

The Hebrew

square type

most frequently

the character of the writing, with forms

more

or less

removed

from the actual writing, according to the antiquity of the monu-

ment which can be

precisely determined

by the characters of the

writing, while the forms of the letters help to fix approximately

the dates of the texts.

in

The

formulas, however, are written

now

Mandaic, now

in Syriac,

both cursive and estrangelo, and again

in Arabic.

From

the afore-mentioned English excavations

the

British

Museum

has received twenty-four Judaeo-Babylonian vases with

magic objurgations.
logical point of view

masterly description from

in his
'

an archaeoDiscoveries

was made by Layard

in the

26)

Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon' (London, 1832, pp. 509but the decipherment and interpretation of the texts, under-

taken in part by
to

Thomas
It

Ellis,

and

in part

by Zenker,

left

much

be accomplished.

required the labours of such competent

Orientalists as

M. A.

Levy,* the brilliant epigraphist of Phoenicia,

assisted

Th. Noldeke,'' D. Chwolson,^ who was

to perfect

by Joseph Halevy,
Halevy,
indeed,

the interpretation
'

of these texts.
text

expounded

the

most

illegible

before the
It is

Acad^mie des

Inscriptions et Belles-lettres, in 1877.

found in No. 20 of

Chwolson's Corpus.

Hagigah

II, 2,

and

parallel passage in

Sanhedrin 45 b;

cf.

Jos. Deren-

bourg, Histoire de
6

la Palestine, p. 69.

Raba on Genesis,
42, or v,
f.

92

(f.

Sob)

Midrash on Prov.
15
(f.

i.

14

Tanhuma on

Gen.
^

20 a

Yalkut,

first part,

47

b).

Zeitschrift der Deutschen

ff-

Morgenldndischen Gesellschajt,

vol.

IX

(1845),

p.

465
'

Ibid., vol.

XXXIV

(1870), p. 90

ff.

^
'

Corpus Inscriptionunt Hcbraicarum, St. Petersburg, 1882, pp. 103-20.

Comptes-rendus des Seances de VAcadJinic, fourth series,
et
d'' Histoire,

vol.

V.

See

his

Alelanges de Critique

pp.

229 ff.

622

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

their invaluable labours,

These pioneers, through

have served

as guides in the researches subsequently undertaken in this field.

We

likewise

have attempted to read and translate somewhat

similar texts

which were brought

to

France from 1882 to 19 15.

There are now a dozen

collections, divided
for

between the Musee

du Louvre, the alcove

Pozzi,^

medals and antiquities of the Biblioin the recent acquisition of

th^que Nationale, and those contained

Professor of Surgery.

These

translations

have

been

published in series partly in England," partly in France.''^

Meanwhile, the University of Pennsylvania has had excavations

Chaldea.

made in Babylon and in Nippur, the ancient remains of The excavations under the supervision of Professor
first

Peters, during the

two archaeological expeditions

in

1888

and 1889, brought

to light

more than 150 specimens of the type

under discussion, consisting of fragments of bowls found one or

two metres from the ground.

selection of forty complete texts

was made from

these,
at

upon which Mr. James A. Montgomery,

the

a learned professor

Philadelphia Divinity School, and

University, has pub-

Assistant-Professor at the aforementioned

lished a
It is

book

entitled

Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur}^

of the University printed from a fund
jun.

contained in the Publications of the Babylonian Section,

vol.

iii,

which the

Museum

endowed by Eckley Brinton Coxe,

^^

In consequence of

this

Lectures held at the Academic des Inscriptions

3,

et Belles-Lettres,
;

Aug.

1883

Sept. 25, 1885

March 20 and June

p.

19, 1891
;

Oct. 29, 1915

Comptes reiidus des Stances, 1883,

1915, pp. 383-9-

268

1885, p. 232

1891, pp. 122, 189

"

'

Les coupes magiques

et

I'hydromancie dans Tantiquit^ orientale

',

in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, April 1890, vol. XII,

pp. 292-343;

June 1891,

vol. XIII, pp.

583-96.

Cf.

Rapport sur

les inscrip-

tions hebra'iques de la France, 1904, pp. 22-6.

'*

One

in

\.\\^

Revue des Etudes Jnives,

vol.

IV

(1882), pp. 165

(T.

two

in

the Revue d^

A ssyriologie et d'A rche'ologie Orientale, I {1885),

in

117-19;

II (1891),

138-41

others

this in

same Revue,

III,

49-51

finally

an article by

Professor Hyvernat
pp. 113-46.

the Zeitschrift fiir Keilschriflforschmig, II (1885),

"

Philadelphia, University

Museum, 1913 (326 pages and 41

plates).

MAGIC INSCRIPTIONS
publication

SCHWAB
there,

623

the Orientalists
scattered

can now find information, which

formerly

was

here

and

under

one

head.

Mr. Montgomery has taken care

Chapter
I

to indicate the references in

to his appreciation of the

of his introduction, due

usefulness of bibliographical details, so that the investigators will

be thankful

to find the facts gathered in a praiseworthy collection.

Here we have numerous

facsimile
all

forms of inscriptions duly

catalogued (pp. 319-26), with

their varieties of writing,

but
find

in square character instead of being arranged spirally as

in the original.
It

we

was a good idea on the part of the author

to have photographed the interior inscription of

one of these

bowls from opposite points, partly covered by shade as represented by plate XLI.

We

should be no

less grateful to the

author for his collection,

through indexes and glossaries, of the as yet occasionally obscure

elements of this mystic language, purposely concealed from the

view of the profane.

Under

this

mask

there are hidden the proper

names of men
Satan, or the

or

women

as protection against the malefices of

divinity invoked for the
spirits, in

names of the

same purpose,
the injurious

or qualifications of good or evil

other words, of angels

it
:

and demons.

As modern

science would put

microbes counterbalanced by the useful and vivifying microbes.

It

may be

questioned whether the glossary

roots,

in

Montgomery's

volume, arranged according to

does not confuse the reader

to

somewhat.

Would

it

not have

been better

combine
is

this

glossary with the two preceding, considering that there

a general

index of the Indo-European words?

omission of the only
Russia, deposited in

We

regret

indeed the

monument of this type that is known in the museum of Moscow, of which Dr. Albert
making a detailed study
in

Harkavy has been

the

Zapiski

Vostotchnago Otdeleniya Archeologit. Obtchestva (Memoirs of the

Society of Archaeology, Oriental Section, St. Petersburg, 1889,

vol. iv, pp.

83-95).

Why

has the

name

of the venerable Russian

librarian

become B. Markaug, a deformation which has misguided

?

research

As a

result of this omission, the glossary

which
is

in

our

opinion

is

the principal part of the American collection,

divested

"
:

624

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

of the terms employed in the text (in twelve lines) of Moscow.

This

is

one of the exceptional

criticisms to

be presented against

the publication of the Aramaic texts, wherein the learned editor

has set forth an abundance of material in a manner betokening

eminent philological knowledge.

In 1905 R. P. Ronzevalle, Professor at the French University
of Syria, sent us from Beyrout two photographs (face and reverse) of a silver lamella discovered in a

tomb

in the vicinity of
lines of

Aleppo,
writing.

which contains more than thirty-seven

Hebrew

This extremely rare fragment dates from the

fourth century of the
its

fifth

or possibly the

common

era.

By
it

its

wording as well as by

contents of magic incantation

occupies a place of prime

clay.

importance by the side of our bowls of baked

The

material

drawn from these

list

diverse, scattered studies

may

be increased by the following

have not as yet appeared in
list

new Chaldean words that The present the usual vocabularies.

of

of words
to our

is

based
lists

aside

from some references (forgotten

by M.)

own

in the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical

Archaeology^ 1890-91, there designed by F, L,

M, O,

P, Q,

on four other sources which up

excerpted in vocabularies.
(i)
I

to the present time

have not been

use the following abbreviations

article written

Hark, refers to the afore-mentioned Russian

in

by Dr. Albert Harkavy

to the investigator of
(3)

1889; (2) the name Lacan directs us

;

one of the bowls owned by M. Feuardent

refers to the amulet-text of

the abridgment Ronz.

R. P. Ronzein

valle,

which we published with a translation and commentary

i,

the Journal Asiatique (1906, vol.

is

pp. 5-17); (4) the

word Pozzi

used with reference to the bowl in the collection of antiquities

of the surgeon professor, a study of which was presehted by us at the session of the Academic des Inscriptions, the 29th
of October 191
5.

Additions to the Glossaries of Mystical Words

nv3j<, the pale one (the

moon)

Ronz., line 25.

P.

"l^DP^X or ~i>D?nN3, a proper

name: Schwab

"

lievttc d^Assyriologie et

d^Aycheologie Orientale, III, 49-51.

MAGIC INSCRIPTIONS
nnjiN (from the root
line 24.
pniS*
liii to

SCHWAB
demon
:

625
Ronz.,

engage), female

pnn, these: Schw.

M.

n''D1C3lN, blackness:

Schw. N, R.
Ronz., line
4.

noriN, divine
n!?2!?s'.

name
n^!?nx.

Cp.

nZiba,

from the root

tj^N

'to teach': Schw. Q.

PTIPDN,
IDpN,
(?)

name

of an angel: Schw.
line 16.

M.

brown: Ronz.
:

niK'N, equals

Schw. O.
in the

NJNn^nx, resides
2NTnN,

Tana

(spirit):

Schw. O.

may he be
:

forsaken: Schw. L.
4.
3.

Tiin, spade

Schw. M, note

*in3Dn3, proper name, daughter of Tata: Hark., line

?j:3,

to cry: Lacan,

Schw. P.

inin03, soon: Ronz., lines 10, 11.

7nJ3, separated: Schw. M.

tJpjnn

= Np:nD,
proper

forerunner

ih'd.

NJ''"ID"13,

name

Hyvernat.

nv:, body: Schw. R.

NX'iJ
,

shining
,

weapon

Hy ver.
:

D''3Viri''J

(?)

valley of the impious

Schw. O.

nil, to be able: Schw. Q.

nNn3''snDT,
I2^ii)n,
(?):

may he be anathematized: Schw. M.

Schw. P.

NDOn, poison: Schw. Q.

NDDiini, proper
n""?!

name: Schw. M.
nit) to

(from the root

:

depart

Pozzi.

pr, audacious

Lacan.

IIN

|1T,

proper

name
:

Hark., line

i.

pn3^T,

their

arms

i^id., line 7.

P^N^^, one of you: Pozzi.

INniDDH: sins: Schw. R.

pDn, heat

Schw. F.

n^CSn, proper
|*n^D^*n, (?):

name

Ronz., line 21.

Lacan.

626
Ili'JK^nn,

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

(?):

Schw. R.
angel
:

name of an NUlU, proper name

?N^Dnn,

Hark., line
2.

6.
^LDNt2 in
:

Hark., line

Cp.

Montgomery.

piDIU, this invocation, or sound of a horn

Po;^zi.

D^D,

n''J^D,

shadow, shady: Ronz., lines 6 and

15.

nriD (for Nnnn), at the

bottom

Schw. M.

nn\ dragon:
"013,

Lacan.
ibid.

throne:

PVN?, for the deliverance: Pozzi.

NaTllN'C, obscure: Ronz., line 25.

nsnv3D, pernicious
one, thing:
pino
IDID,
,

Schw. M.

Pozzi.
:

DV^D, thing: Hyver.

credible

ibid.

cure

Schw. R.
Schw. P.
P.
;

jrviO
"inD,

p^^13, light:

X''n,

stamp: Schw.

Hark., line

4.

nJDnjni'n,

proper name, Maldigdjodrugmada, or

line
2.

Mor Ge-

daymbada: Hark.,
P'lyJD,

oppressor: Schw. R.
ROnz., line
9.

P"l?D, race:
"I1N"1D,

bitter:

Schw. L.
light
:

Npnti'D
"lyj,

Nnk^',

Schw. P.

to reject: Ronz., lines 14, 15.

circles
:
:

pinD,

Hark., line

6.

31D, sort
'TT'JPD
t2y,

Schw. R.

(Tfky]v%
:

moon

Schw. P.

stylus, ray

Ronz., line 20.

NnD"*!;,

prince: Hyver.
:

P^Dy, hindrance

Lacan.
Ronz., line 24.
Pozzi.

'

nmy,
T'Tiy,

celestial sojourns:

disperse, scatter
:

n:s, proper
^SD,

name ibid. demon: Schw. M.

always
:

n'J3V,

Lacan.

NHDVp, proper name, mother of two sons and one daughter

Hark.,
i, 2, 3.

MAGIC INSCRIPTIONS
IDp

SCHWAB

627

=
,

IVp,

confines
:

Pozzi.

^'^'Hp,

sick

idi'd.
:

NnU"i

proper noun

idi'd.

iTtJ'm, feeling: idid.

nn^ltJ'"'"!,

proper name: Schw. M.

:

^y"l,

pasturage

Hyver.
:

inK'S;"),

to cause to tremble

Ronz., line 10.

IIW, backbone,
)^''^,

spine
:

Pozzi.

proper

name
:

Schw. P.

ISC', to

pour

Schw. R.

NpnCJ', light:

Schw. P.
:

Cp. NplC'D.
Lacan.

inK',

rise,

stand erect

itnN''sn.

See

iB'is"'Nnn.
:

NONCn, complete
pysnn,

Schw. P.
vpii.
v.

pD^cn, from the root

v.

See this word.

yen D'-annn,

nni.
in

The

historical

conclusions

Montgomery's work do not

texts.

determine precisely the date of these

The

period that

we
five

should assign to them extends over more than four or

centuries,

from the fourth to the ninth of the

for the antiquity of the bowls,

common

era.

Our

argument
to the

brought from Suziana

Musee

Parisien of the Louvre by Mr.

and Mrs. Dieulafoy,

et d'Anhe'ologie

has been set forth in the Revue d' Assyriologie

Orientak

(ii,

136-8), considering the neighbourhood of the bowls,

as well as other objects discovered

by the same

explorers, the

date of which they do not regard as doubtful to them.

Noldeke,'^
of Persian

on the contrary, basing

his opinion

upon the presence

names, says that the text written upon the bowl of the Lycklama
a Nijeholt's Museum, in the town hall of Cannes, published,
translated,

and interpreted by Professor Hyvernat, cannot date

than the eighth century.
;

back

later

Our modest view

is

that

such arguments are not peremptory

still later,

proper names can date back

inasmuch as they have been transmitted during many

is

generations, while the form of the letters

an indication com-

plying

more with the

^'^

time,

more

often flexible

and

variable,

more

Zcitschrift fiir Keilschriftforschung, II, 295.

628

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

exactly revealing the century during which a text has been written.

Of calligraphy

there can be no question, as

it

it

was impossible with

the curved lines, and

would be unjust not to take into con-

sideration the material difficulties

imposed upon the

scribe

by

the arrangement of the bowls.

This then

in its very aspect is

a proof of ingenuousness, worthy of attention, for the profit of

future

Aramaic

studies.

RABIN'S 'JEWS
The Jews among
Philadelphia:

AMONG THE GREEKS AND

ROMANS'
Greeks and Romans.

the

By Max Radin.
Society

The

Jewish

Publtcation
7 illustrations.

of

America, 191 5.

pp. 422 and

The civilization Romans alone in

;

of humanity was not begun by the Greeks

and

the course of advancement the Jews likewise

factor.

were an equally important

The
is

contact

among

these three

nations has furthered progress even to this day.

To
is

what period

does

this contact

go back?

What

the nature thereof?

To

these weighty questions the

book of Mr. Radin

life

a direct reply.

He

informs us fully concerning the

of the Jews, their material

activity, as well as their religious ideal,

during the

many

centuries

that elapsed from

the captivity of

Babylon to the

fall

of the

ancient world.

He

depicts the state of our ancestors outside

of Palestine, and, in order to give us a good understanding of

their situation in the

midst of surrounding peoples, the author

at that

shows us what ideas prevailed

religious world.

time in the political and

store-

To

this

end the book, which contains k

full

house of knowledge, gives

scope in a number of chapters.

first

During

this turbulent

period the

relations

between the

diverse races

had been

pacific

rather than hostile, as

we have

had occasion

to point out elsewhere.

Through the invasion of

Asia by Hellenism as a result of the victorious armies of Alexander

the Great, Greek

became

in a few years the universal language.

Even the Jews,

in spite of their inclination to

remain

distinct,

JEWS AMONG GREEKS AND ROMANS

could not

SCHWAB

629

resist the strange force of attraction of

Hellenic culture.

This daily contact between Greeks and Semites constrained the

latter to

admit into

their literature

even foreign words

inasmuch

as the
fully

Hebrew language did not contain sufficient words to express the profusion of new ideas which the Jews absorbed. In
extended likewise to every sphere
however, there arises opposition
:

short, the Hellenic influence

of civilization.^

Afterwards,

between these two heterogeneous elements

it

manifests

itself

now
is

in

a social phase,

now

in philosophic thought.

But

after all,
?

not the history of Judaism a struggle against subjection

Mr. Radin

sets forth these

diverse stages with a great deal

of knowledge, with an abundance of material

among which we
to Jewish to

should have desired to see a

writers.

little

more space given

He

rightly appeals to the

spiritual

work of Franz Cumont"

show how the idea of

monotheism coincides opportunely

would have been approorder to refute the
expresses himself
is

with the birth of Neo-Platonism at the time of the diffusion

of Oriental cults in the Occident.
priate for the author to take
It

up

this point in

following theory of the Belgian scholar

who

thus

'

'

The

point on which further light must be shed

the

composite cult of those Jewish or rather Jewish-pagan communities, worshippers of Hypsistos, Sabbatistes, Sabaziastes,
others,

and

where the new

faith

had been implanted from the time

era, the

of the Apostles.

Before the beginning of our

Mosaic

law had already blended with sacred customs of the Gentiles,

and monotheism had made concessions

living in the time of

to idolatry

'

On

reading these lines we ask ourselves the question whether we are

still

Apion ?

Is this not the

opportune time,
?

twenty centuries after Flavius Josephus, to combat such slander

This

false attribution

to the faith of unfortunate exiles

comes

from ignorance or malice, which prevailed among the wits of

foreigners from the
1

first

to the fifth

century.

To

justify this

Rapport surtine mission de philologie en

Les Religions
orienlales da)is
le

Grece, Paris, 1913, p. 5.

:

'

Paganisme remain

Conferences au

College de France en 1905 (1907, 8vo).

2

Ibid., Introduction, pp. xvii-xviii.

630

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Cumont gave merely one
name employed
all

singular opinion,

reference,
:

namely to

Bousset,*

and he proceeds
is

to say further (p. 77)

'In Asia-Minor,

Hypsistos

the

to designate the

God

of Israel.

There were numerous pagan

refusing to practise

cult-associations which, although

the ceremonies of the Synagogue, rendered

exclusive

homage

to the
'.

Most High,

the

Supreme God,

the

Eternal

God,

God

the Creator

Unless he was guided by preconceived

ideas or by prejudice,

that there was a correlation

how could Mr. Cumont have supposed between the Hebrew monotheism

and the

cult of

Cybele?

He
'

likewise indulges in a gratuitous

'

hypothesis in identifying the

Most High

(Elion) of the

Hebrews
not even
is

with the Greek god Hypsistos, cited also as

qualificative,

an
It

adjective, or
is

in

an inscription, "Arret

iif/Lo-Tw.

necessary to state that, barring a casual assonance, there

least similarity

the

which could be taken seriously between the word

Hebraic
origin,

Sabbatistes, of

and

that of Sabaziastes,^ of

Greek

or Phrygian origin, as

little

as between the latter

and the word

Sabaoth, from the root Nav.

Likewise Mr. Radin

is

justified in referring to the

book of

Mr. Jean Juster.*

The

latter

has shown, in his doctor's thesis,

how

the Jews, having spread throughout the

Roman

Empire, had obor elsewhere,

tained citizenship in the Greek cities and at

Rome,

during the evolutionary process of their political rights.

great

number

of Jews, having spread outside of Palestine long before the

loss of their nationality,

formed notable groups, constituting what

'

has been designated the Diaspora, the

acquired
residence
strangers.
;

dispersion

'.

Some had
right

local

political

rights,

with

or

without the

of

they were in their relation to the Greek cities adopted

Others, by the grace of the

Roman

law,

had ,become
Because of
Berlin,

Roman
Pompey
*

citizens,

although they had been led away as slaves by

sixty-three years before the

common

era.

Die Religion des Judenthums im neutestamentlichen

Zeitalter,

1903.
'

Comp.

yius/ii/trlic/ies

Lexikon der griechischen

u.

rom. Mythologie, edited

by

W. H.
'

Roscher,

vol.

IV

(Leipzig, 1909), pp. 232-63.

Les Droits poUliques des Jui/s dans

r Empire

romain, Paris, 19 14.

' ;

JEWS AMONG GREEKS AND ROMANS

their religious practices they

SCHWAB

63I

were given freedom, with which went

the right of citizenship.

their

We
at

must also remember that because of

time

number, they must have exercised a great influence upon

the
all

the political assemblies

of

Cicero.

From

the

beginning of the third century

the Jews enjoyed the rights

and duties of Roman

which designated
It
all

citizens

by dint of the edict of Caracalla

the inhabitants of the

Roman Empire

citizens.

was only

after the

time of the Christian supremacy that the

civic rights

Jews were deprived of certain

faith
;

because of a divergent

then in the Middle Ages they were enslaved completely.

Aside from Juster and Cumont, we should have been pleased

to see other French books cited.

Passing over Augustin Bonetty

because of his orthodox tendencies, we regret the omission of

the Jewish historian, Joseph Salvador.
It is true that
;

he had

not the scholarly polish of our contemporaries

but he merits

being mentioned for the priority and profoundness of his ideas.

With what
then how,

zeal,

with what lofty sentiments he

first

describes

how

the Jews were the

to symbolize the

moral force of resistance

Cestius, beaten

after the defeat of the

latter

Romans under
to the

by the Jewish nation, the

conquerors of the world.
Still

succumbed

number
In

of the

another remark

is

pertinent in this place.

telling of

the scorn that the Greeks had for the Jews

all

who

abstained from

warfare on the Sabbath, Mr. Radin casts doubt

upon the
Jews

possibility of such

an occurrence

because, says he, the Talmudic

discussions

upon

this subject date

from the time

after the

had ceased
the
or the Oral

to engage in war.

Is there not a confusion

between

Gemara and Mishnah ?

We
;

must not

forget that the latter,

is

Law which

is

the nucleus of the Talmud,

it

anterior

to the capture of Jerusalem

could not

help deaHng with

instances of fighting.
It
is,

of course, understood that the preceding remarks, which

are entirely secondary,

'

do not detract from the value or importance

et

Rapports des Romains

des Juifs, Paris, 1867, 187

1,

two

large vols.

'

Histoire de la domination romaine en Jttdee et de la ruine de Jerttsalem,

Paris, 1846.

632

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

is

of the American scholar's work, which

as well as
its

meritorious for

its

matter
brief,

form

down

to

minute particulars."

To be

Mr. Radin's m?<;w/ reads well (pp. 368-71): since the Jews bordered upon the Mediterranean, they began to come into close
contact with the Greeks at the time of Alexander of Macedonia.

Greece was then entering on a new phase of development.

Its

hegemony made
had been
East.

for

a greater degree of

political unity

than had

been previously achieved; but above

created,

all,

a real cultural unity

to the

and was carried by arms and commerce

resistance was

To
;

this the Jews, as did other nations,

opposed a vigorous
so far as
it

resistance

and

this

successful in

allowed the creation of a practically independent nation, and,

particularly, stimulated the

independent development of Jewish

Consequently, the conflict

institutions, especially the religious.

with their Greek environment went from bad to worse.

For several centuries the East had been undergoing a great

spiritual

unrest,

from

which

had

grown

various

religious

movements.
immortality

The common
'salvation

goal was the attainment of a personal

of the
soul'.
active,

the

Among

the

Jews

especially this

movement had been

and had produced

concrete results in sects.

The

Jewish aspect of this general

local

movement would have remained a

been given a wider
field

development had

it

not

by the unusual position of the Jews which various causes can be assigned.
fact that the Jews,

due

to their dispersion, for

Perhaps the most potent single cause was the

who

rigorously

opposed exposure of infants and encouraged

in

other ways the growth of their population, increased too rapidly

for the very limited resources of their small

and niggardly territory. and Egypt,

At any
in

rate,

the successors of Alexander found Jews ^s colonists

many

of the

new foundations

in Asia,

Syria,

especially the last, where, as a matter of fact,

Jews had lived

from pre-Persian times.

'

Within these communities the doctrines

p.

There

is

a slight error,

409

we

should read Vigiia in place of 5/^Ma

Randanini.

"

noteworthy instance

is

the note on

Yoin Kippur

in the

Appendix,

pp. 399-402.

"

JEWS AMONG GREEKS AND ROMANS

preached in Palestine became a means
of

SCHWAB
propaganda,

633 and

enabled the Jews to do more than maintain themselves in the

exceptional
necessitated.

positions

which

their

highly

specialized

religion

Besides, the Jews were by

in the

no means the only

religious

group
This

Greek communities with proselytizing tendencies.

friction of

made

some

sort inevitable at
for
all

first,

since a

community

of religious observances

citizens

of a single State was

axiomatic in antiquity.
position

However, the anomaly of the Jewish

course of time.

became
first

less glaring in

The

stages of Jewish influence are

dispersion,
all

marked by two

things

a constantly increasing

and an equally increasing

propaganda that reached

strata of society.

As

fhe

Roman

power extended, the dispersion of Israel increased still more, and for the Hasmonean kings the support of Rome was an
invaluable asset.
conflict with the

The

Jews, however, entered

upon an armed
and

Graeco-Roman world when

denationalizing

their national

religious aspirations, inspired

by a Messianic hope, came into

tendencies
of

contact with
system.

the

the imperial
if,

This conflict might have been avoided

in addition

to the internal

movements, there had not been a

a.

series of revolts

between 68 and 135

East

c, in consequence of constant excitation

from without on the part of the hereditary enemies of the Greek

the Persians, and the Parthians.

now, passing over a great period of time and space,
let
:

And

us adopt the exclamation of Victor Basch to the Jews of America

'From the day that you were driven out of the land of your
ancestors,
tortures,

amid the

greatest misfortunes, the

most excruciating

you have unweariedly declared with the Prophets that

Friends, events are big with
;

the day of deliverance will come.

meaning, the day

gigantic

is

near at hand

after the

thunder of the

cannon and the lightnings of the mitrailleuses, the Messiah

'.

will arise

MoiSE Schwab.
Paris, National Library.
^1

Journal

Victoiic, April 23, 1916.

VOL.

VII.

JEWISH AND ARABIC MUSIC

Hebriiisch-Orienialischer Melodietischaiz.
I.

Band

Gesiinge der
erlautert

Jemenischen Judeti.

Zum

ersten

Male gcsammelt,
:

und herausgegeben von A. Z. Idelsohn, Leipzig Breitkopf UND Hartel, 1914. pp. xi+158.
Jewish music, despite
rupted tradition.
diluvian
essential
its

detractors, has a long

its

and uninterin ante-

Whatever

origin
it

may have been

in

and mythical
of the

times,

emerges

the Bible

as

an

and well-organized practice

nation.
Its

affecting the

religious

and

social life

characteristics,

though not well

marked and
arrangement

defined^

may be

inferred from the nature of the

musical instruments enumerated in the Bible and their orchestral

;

and

from

the immutable
it

fact
is

of

interrelation

between the

arts of all Oriental nations

safe to

assume that

Jewish music was minor and plaintive, limited to the tetrachord

or hexachord,

and hence what modern Europeans would

So much
is

style

monotonous.
whether
its

certain,

even

if

we do not know
or

succession

of sounds was
it

diatonic, chromatic,

enharmonic, or whether
of
is

possessed a multiplicity or paucity

to

modes and

scales.

However, the point

be emphasized

that the music of the Jews did not cease with the conclusion

of the

Canon

or with the annihilation of the Jewish State.

it

On

the contrary,

continued to develop along certain lines in the

Diaspora, and was a living force until our

own

days, as

may be

seen from casual statements

literature.

made

here and there in Rabbinic

in its

This development, which

synagogal aspect has

been traced by Francis L. Cohen (comp. Anglo-Jetvish Historical

Exhibition Papers,
\,

80

ff.),

was merely melodic as distinguished

its

from the harmonic development of European music, but

potency and dynamic influence was nevertheless
walls of the ghetto,
felt

great

within the
air

where the murky and crepuscular

was

always permeated with the plaintive strains of suffering Israel,

who

in

weal and woe poured out his heart in song, both within
it.

the synagogue and outside of

But unfortunately these very

'1-

635

636
pathetic

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

and
truly beautiful songs

were propagated by rote only

rise to

and were never noted down, giving

but, like parasites, feed

the frequent dictum

their

of music historians that the Jews have

no music of

own,

on the music of other nations among

It

whom
with

they happen to

live.

remained

for

our modern age,

record
;

its

marvellous mechanical contrivances, to

tunes

these

popular

and melodies with

scientific

precision

thus

resulted the great collections of liturgical chants by E. Aguilar

{^Ancient Melodies of the Liturgy of the Spanish

and Portuguese

Jews, London, 1857),

S.

Naumbourg

{Recueil de Chafits religieux

des Israelites, Paris, 1874), A.

Marksohn and W. Wolf {Austvahl

Leipzig,

alter hebrdischer Synagogal-Melodien,

1875), A.

Kaiser

and William Sparger (^

Melodies,

Collection

of the Priiicipal Melodies of

the Synagogue, Chicago, 1893),

E. Pauer {Traditiofial

Hebrew

London, 1896), and

Petersburg,

also folk-song collections like that

of S.

M. Ginzburg and
St.

P. S.

Marek

{/iidische

Volkslieder in

Russland,

1901),

and Platon Brunoff {/Udische

subsidized

Volksliederfur Mittel-Siimme

und Piano, New York, 191 1).

is

The

present collection by A. Z. Idelsohn, which

by the Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften

Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Wissenschaft des
Berlin,

in Vienna, the

Judenthums
is

in

and the Zunz-Stiftung and

in the

same

place,

on a much

larger scale,

truly deserves to
is

be styled monumental.
all

As the
present

main

title

implies, this

to

be a corpus of

the Jewish melodies

in the Orient,

both synagogal and non-synagogal.

is

The

volume on the songs of the Yemenite Jews

Syrian, the Sephardic,

to

be followed

by one each on the songs of the Persian, the Babylonian, the

and Moroccan Jews

truly scientific

six

volumes

in

all.

Besides, this

is

the

first

attempt at an appreciation

of the musical system of the Oriental Jews, and as such deserves the
highest
praise

of

all

music

lovers.

Very few outside of

professional musicians realize the difficult task involved in noting

down

for the first

time the music of a people without any written

records as a guide.

The

pitfalls

are many, particularly

if

the

recorder, as in this case, was

brought up on the Occidental

harmonic system, which

is

totally different

from the Oriental

JEWISH AND ARABIC MUSIC

melodic
scientific

REIDER
employed
J.

637
the

system.

Fortunately,

Idelsohn

only

apparatus which, since the days of B.

Oilman (1891),

has been used in such undertakings.

Kaiserliche

Through the agency of the

in

Akademie der Wissenschaften

triple tests

Vienna he obtained

a phonograph apparatus with plates for melodic impressions,

and through double and

and measurements he was

able to arrive at tolerably exact results as to the diapason and

tonic succession of the various voices.

The
for

first

volume, as stated above, contains the results of his

field

experiments in the

of Jewish-Yemenite music.

His standard

measurements was derived from immigrant Yemenite pre-

centors of Palestine,

who

preserved their musical traditions intact.

for

For corroboration two impressions were taken

sometimes from two
text first
different

each song,

precentors.

These songs, whose

Bacher {Die

became known

to us through the late Dr.

hebrdische

und

arabische Foesie der jemenischen Juden, Budapest,

19 10), are of two varieties, synagogal and non-synagogal.

The

former are divided into fifteen different motives, one each for
the recitative parts of the Pentateuch, the lyrical elements of the

Pentateuch,

Zemirot,

Prophets,

Psalms,

Canticles,

Esther,
Selihah,

Lamentations, Job, Mishnah, Tefillah or

Taanit, Azharot,

Common Prayer,
'

and High

Festivals.

The

latter consists

of six
at the

motives, covering (i) Halelot or songs with

wehaleluya

'

beginning

and

end,

(2)

Zafat

or

hymeneals

accompanying

the bridegroom on his way to the bride's house, (3) Hidduyot

or joy songs testifying to the betrothal, (4) Neshid or popular

songs at wedding

festivals, (5)

Shirot or artificial songs (usually

muwassah

or

double-rhymed

poem)

for

the

wedding,

and

All these motives, which (6) Shirot for Sabbath celebrations. first glance, may, after careful analysis, look formidable at a

be reduced
sisting

to but a few

modes

of an infinite simplicity, con-

of an ascending, descending, and levelling (modulating

phrase.

to the tonic)

Especially

is

this

true

in

the

case of

of progressive melodic intonations.

synagogal chants, which are largely recitative and do not admit The non-Synagogal songs,

on the other hand, are mostly melodic,

especially the

Neshid

638
and
Shirot,

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

which are based on the Oriental makamat
in their

succession of sounds, and are, moreover, accompanied by dances

and instrumental music, yielding a harmony sui

of rhythmic

generis,

a kind
in

harmony, but no harmony or polyphony

of the word.

the

modern sense
(and be
it

But even

in the

tripartite Shirot

remarked that very often these are

really bipartite,

the third element being a repetition of the character of the melodic succession
that
is

first),

the elemental

so

marked and conspicuous

we

feel intuitively that

we

are dealing here with primitive

in Palestine during the First

music such as must have existed

and

certainly during

the Second Temple.

this

This impression

is

further

enhanced by the limitation of

its

music within the

tetrachord and hexachord,

last
is

binary form,

its

minor

strain,

and,

but not

least, its

unisonous and antiphonal character.

fails
is

This

an important consideration on which the author

his learned introduction.
fact that

to dwell

in

Needless to

say,

it

supported
their

by the

the Jews of

Yemen, according

to

own

tradition, First

came

to Southern Arabia after the destruction of the

after in utter

Temple, and remained there ever

seclusion

and without any influence from without (comp. Jacob Saphir's

account in T'DD px, Lyck, 1866).

While the Sephardic chant

was influenced by Oriental and the Ashkenazic by Occidental

music, the Yemenite chant led a comparatively pure existence.

What

Villoteau

said

of

the

Egyptian Jews

'

Nous avons

la

certitude

que

les Juifs

d'Kgypte n'ont pas cesse, jusqu'a ce jour,

leurs diverses especes

de donner a chacune de
v^rite d'expression

de chants une

qui ne permet pas de douter qu'ils n'aient

le

apporte

les plus
'

grands soins a leur conserver

Ve'tat

caractbre qui

leur est propre

{De

aduelde

la

musique en

ilgypte,

2^^ partie,

chap.VI,

art.

iii),

may be

said

more

forcibly of the

Yemenite Jews.

Indeed, Idclsohn arrives at the conclusion that the musical

system of the Yemenite synagogal chant

is

entirely at variance

with both the Oriental and Occidental systems.

The chromatic

and enharmonic successions of the R^rmer,

graduation of the
latter,

as well as the diatonic

are foreign to the

intervals,

Yemenite Jews, whose

scales fluctuule

system

is

based on augmented

and whose

JEWISH AND ARABIC MUSIC

between two,
three, four, five,

REIDER
We
down

639

and

six tones.

observe in this

primitive music what Villoteau observed in the synagogues of

Cairo and Alexandria, and what Fetis puts

as the primary

characteristic of all primitive Oriental melodies, viz. a scale of

a minor sixth both ascending and descending.

Another omission
this primitive
It is a

is

the discussion of the relation between

music and the chant of the early Christian Church.

well-known fact that both the Ambrosian and Gregorian

chants which lay at the foundations of Christian music, in spite

of being based on the Greek modes, are Jewish in character,

and must have had

their origin in

Temple music (comp.,

I,

e. g.,

F^tis, Histoire ge'nera/e de la

Musique^

166).

Not alone

their

antiphonal character (theme and counter-theme), which closely

resembles the principle of parallelism in

their affinity

and predilection

for

Hebrew poetry, but also minor modes like the Phrygian

to suppose, there

and the

total eclipse of the

If,

Lydian major, point as support to

this assertion.
is

therefore, as

we have reason

a continuity between the

Temple melodies and those

the

of the

Yemenite synagogue, a comparison between

once

latter

and

the so-called cantus planus of the Church should be instructive

in establishing
for all the degree of influence of the
in the field of music.
offers us rich material,

Temple
127

on the

early

Church

For such a comparison Idelsohn

numbers of the synagogal and 76 of the non-synagogal These are all properly classified and arranged in a way
the taste of the European peruser. the time

variety.

to suit

Thus, among other things,

and rhythm had

to

be changed.

The words

are tran-

scribed in accordance with the

peculiar pronunciation

of the

Yemenite Jews, every shade and nuance being

Idelsohn

reproduced.

made
first

a thorough

study of this phase of his work,

its

devoting the
for

chapter in the introduction to

will

explanation,

which philologists and grammarians

taste
is

be indebted to him.

Good

also

shown

in the appropriate

form and excellent

mounting of the book.

May

the author have the courage to

continue his very useful and excellent work, the coming parts
of which every music lover will impatiently await.

640

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The Music and Musical Instruments of

duction on

the

Arab, with Intro-

how

to appreciate

Arab Music, by Francesco

Salvador-Daniel, Director of the Paris Conservatoire of Music under the Commune of 1871. Edited, with Notes,
Memoir, Bibliography, and Thirty Examples and by
1

Illustrations,

Henry George Farmer.

pp. xii-l-2 72.

London

William Reeves,

9 14.

Salvador-Daniel's work appeared in Algiers in 1863

under

the
et le

title

La

musique arabe,

ses rapports avec la

musique grecque

chant gr/gorien.

Having become very

for the first

rare,

it

was republished

in 1879,
tion.
its

and now appears

time in an English transla-

The importance
origin of

of this small

book

lies in

the fact that

author advanced a novel theory with regard to the nature

and

Arab music.
studying Arab

Heretofore La Borde, Villoteau, and

Kiesewetter,

music from
such
as

obscure
Khalil,

treatises

of

mediaeval

Arab philosophers

El-Kindi, Ibn
is

Khaldoun, and Al-Farabi, maintained that Arab music

based

on the

so-called Messel or Octave of seventeen third tones,

and
from

as such was purely Oriental

and fundamentally
is

different

the Greek diatonic system, which

tones.

based on tones and semi-

They proceeded,
in Persia,

therefore, to seek the origin of

Arab

music

where we find a scale of semitones, demi-semitones,

their

and even semidemi-semitones,

after being

theory being
its

that

Persia,

conquered by the Arabs, had imposed

music upon

the conquerors.

This was deemed the more evident since the

most important musical instruments of the Arabs, such as the rebab

and kemendjah, were

nine years

actually derived from Persia.

Against this

view Salvador- Daniel, on the basis of a practical investigation of

among

primitive Arabs,

came

to the conclusion that

in close relation

Arab music,
to

at least that of the

its

Moors, stands

Greek music and

offspring, the

Gregorian chant, and that

in the long chain of

development of our modern musical structure

the apparently primitive music of the Arabs represents the

state

same

of evolution

as

that

prevailing

in

Europe before the

memorable discovery of harmony by Gui d'Arezzo and Jean

JEWISH AND ARABIC MUSIC

de Muris.
This, according to the

REIDER
quite

64I
natural.

author, was

With the conquest of Spain the Arabs adopted Greek culture

in all its phases, including the art of music.

They

are

known
Seville,

to

have

established

musical

academies

in

Cordova,

Granada, Valencia, and Toledo, where both the

theory and

practice of this art were fostered in accordance with the

pattern.

Greek

But with the expulsion of the Moors from Spain, and

the consequent decay of

Arab

art

and

culture, the

music of the

Arabs, which was then on a mere melodic plane, became petrified

and mummified
harmony.
similarity

for

centuries,

while Greek music

proceeded

through the Church monody to the glories of polyphony and

To

prove his point, the author sets forth the striking

:

between the Arab and Greek diatonic modes

thus, the

serious

and grave Irak mode corresponds

to the Dorian, the sad

and pathetic

Mezmoum

to the Lydian, the

impetuous and diabolic

Edzeil to the Phrygian, the grave and martial Djorka to the

Aeolian, the minor L'Sain to the Hyper-Dorian, the effeminate

Saika to the Hyper-Lydian, the terrible Meia to the HyperPhrygian, and the sublime Rasd-Edzeil to the Hyper-Mixo-Lydian.

In addition to these eight diatonic modes, the Arabs,

like the

Greeks, also have chromatic modes, notably the L'Sain-Sebah,

corresponding to our minor scale with

G
or

sharp,

and the famous

Asbein derived from the

Mezmoum

Lydian, which, being

conducive to indolence and effeminacy, was banished by Plato

from

his

Republic and by the Church from the Gregorian chant.

scales or modes (in unknown even to pro-

Thus

the Arabs possess twelve practical

theory there are fourteen, but two are

fessional musicians) based

on various combinations of whole tones

third

and semitones, without a semblance of

and quarter

tones.

The
style

latter,

according to Salvador-Daniel, are the invention of

failed to

theorists

who

understand the overtones due to the nasal

and drawled

scale of the Arabs, the portamento in singing

and

playing, considering

them
is

as independent tones.

Accordingly,

the Arab tabaka or scale

based on the diatonic and chromatic

succession of the Greeks, and follows the same line of development

as the Gregorian chant in
its

system of authentic and plagal or

; ;

642

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

In support of this statement
it

derived modes.
that

may be observed

the

chants of the Greek

as

Church,

which are essentially

Ambrosian

opposed

to the broader lines

and increased modes

still

of the Gregorian system of the Latin Church, are

in character,

Oriental

and resemble the Arabic chants

trill.

in their

monotony
Greek

and universal
influence

As a

further proof for his theory of a

on Arabic music, Salvador-Daniel adduces

and then
to the octave,

the fact that

the gradual development of European music from the tetrachord

to the hexachord,
also

may be

exemplified

among

the Arabs through an examination of their musical

instruments.

Thus the gosba

and

or flute consists of a reed pierced

with three holes,

therefore yields only four tones (tetrachord)

is

likewise the kuitra or guitar with eight strings

tuned by fourths,

every two strings emitting the same tone

violin,

the rebab or primitive

six

on the other hand, has a range of

notes (hexachord)

while the kemendjali or violin has the range of a complete octave,

likewise the kijaouak or flute of six or seven holes,

and the raita

highest range

or raica, a kind of musette with seven holes.

is

The
The

reached by the ka?ioun or ganoim^

Heb. kinnor, a harp of

dof,

seventy-five strings covering three octaves.

Heb.

tof,

of various sizes

and shapes

is

used

for

rhythmic harmony only.

From this brief review of Salvador-Daniel's thesis it may be how important and original his work is, and how replete We may differ with him in some with valuable suggestions. essentials, we may oppose the indisputable fact of Persian
seen
derivation

of

preponderance of the Oriental minor key

positions of the Moors,

Arab musical instruments and the considerable in the musical com-

for a diatonic succession of

the fact that the

Africa exhibit

we may even doubt his chief contention sounds among the Arabs, in view of Indians, Persians, and many Arab tribes in
for

a fondness

the

enharmonic system which,

according to F^tis, preceded the chromatic and diatonic divisions

in historical
is

development;

still

the fact remains that his work

originality,
It

refreshing

on account of
its

its

and the reader

will

always profit by

perusal.

was natural that he should

overemphasized the

overdraw

his

side, just as his predecessors

JEWISH AND ARABIC MUSIC

Other side.

REIDER

643

The

truth,

no doubt,

is

that both a Persian

and

Greek influence may be claimed

manifesting
itself in

for

Arab music, the former

the musical instruments which are built in

accordance with the division of seventeen intervals in the compass of an octave (comp. Carl Engel, Musical Myths and Facts, II, 230),

and the

latter in

the

subject-matter and form of the musical

compositions (comp. e.g. the so-called nouba gharnata of the

Moors
to the

of Spain, which consists of five

its

movements besides a

prelude and overture, and in

thematic development corresponds

After F^tis's application

European sonata or symphony).

of the principle of evolution to the history of music, tracing our

marvellous musical structure back to the hoary Orient and wild

deserts of Asia; after Engel's insistent teaching that practically
all

our musical instruments had their origin

realize that there
all
is

in

primaeval Asia,

we must
and

a close interrelation between the

musical systems of
reciprocal.

nations,

and

that their influence

is

mutual

Note, for instance, the Oriental currents which

since the days of F^licien

David have been flowing so precipitously

in the compositions of the

modern French and Russian schools

;

the Gipsy melodies tingling in the rhapsodies of Liszt

the Negro

tunes coursing in Dvorak's

New World symphony

accordmg

or the melan-

cholic Jewish strains which,

to Carl Engel, manifest

themselves in the compositions of Mendelssohn-Bartholdy.

Even

our much-vaunted harmony, despite the universal dictum of music

historians as to
its

modernity,

is

still

traced by

some

writers to

antiquity

comp.

e. g.

Julius Clauser, late Professor of

Music

at

Harvard University {The Nature of Music : Original Harmony

in

One

Voice,

Cambridge, 1909), who claims that antiquity knew

introduced by Bach

of homophonic or one-voiced harmony as distinguished from

polyphonic or many-voiced harmony

in his fugues.

first

The

editor's

part

in

this

work

is

considerable and highly

commendable.

His notes are lucid and conducive to a better

text, particularly

understanding of the

thqse on the

'

History of

Arab Music' and the musical examples of the various modes.

The

Bibliography might have been more complete.

It

does not

644
contain,
e. g.

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

',

'A Treatise on Arab Music chiefly from a work by Mikhail Meshakah of Damascus, translated from the Arabic
by Eli Smith, and published
Oriental Society, I (1847), 171
Mitjana's
*

in
ff.;

the Journal of the Afnerican

nor do we find here Rafael

',

L'Orientalisme musical et la Musique arabe

I (igo6),

which

appeared in Le Monde Oriental,

titles

184

ff.

Besides, the

are

not specific

enough,

the place

of publication

and

the particular pages of reference being often omitted.

The most noteworthy

his
'

contribution of the editor constitutes

',

Memoir

of F. Salvador- Daniel

which

is

written with a true

It

artist's

fervour and a

warm glow
reliable

of sympathy.

contains the
struggling
that

most complete and

spirit

information about this

and

restless

revolutionary.

artist

was born

in

Spain in 183 1,

From came to

it

we

learn

the

Paris at a time
frivolity

when

civilized

Europe was

at the zenith of

musical

and

artistic

persiflage,

when Opira-bouffe was the slogan

and when,
as

for

every young

composer,

timely

antidote,

Felicien

David
in his

appeared from the Orient with a new message embodied

Me'lodies orientates

and Le

De'sert.

The young
and

artist

was over-

powered by the

spell of the exotic

its

bizarre, mysterious

and

distant Orient with

its

splendour of light and richness of colour,

;

frenetic passions

and exalted emotions

music

and yielding

to its

charm he went

to Algiers,

where he became active as musical

treatises of the Arabs,

director, translator of ancient

and

collector

of native airs

embodied

in his

Chansons arabes and

Chants kabyles.
to Paris,

Before the Franco-Prussian

War he

returned

where he soon became involved

and, after being honoured

in the turmoils of the

Commune,

by his appointment as

Director of the Conservatoire, was killed while fighting for the

Commune.
Dropsie College.

Joseph Reider.

END OF VOLUME

VII,

NEW

SERIES.

eiiNuify

uv 1

1943

DS 101
J5 V.7

The Jewish quarterly reviow.

New ser.

PLEASE

DO NOT REMOVE
FROM
THIS

CARDS OR

SLIPS

POCKET

UNIVERSITY

OF TORONTO

LIBRARY

'''-m

:;^;jgft'S