The Jewish Quarterly Review. 1910. Volume 9.

:u
VA^
THE
JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

/'
NEW SERIES
EDITED BY
CYRUS ADLER
VOLUME
IX
1918-19iy~
PHILADELPHIA THE DROPSIE COLLEGE FOR HEBREW AND COGNATE LEARNING

LONDON: MACMILLAN & COMPANY,
Ltd.
I>S
101
J5
V.9
PRINTED IN ENGLAND
AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
///
CONTENTS
PAGE
BuTiN, RoMAiN
Ritual
:
Some Leaves
M.
of an
Egyptian
Jcwisli
259
I.
:
Casanowicz,
Barton's
'The Religions of the

497
World'
DuscHiNSKV, C.
The Rabbinate
1
of the Great Synagogue,

.
London, from
756-1842
103, 371
. .
Efros, Israel: The Menorat Ha-Maor
337
Halper,
B.
Recent Arabic Literature

:
.471
.
HosCHAXDER, Jacoh
The Book
I to
of Esther in the Light

. . .
.
of History, Chapters
III
Isaacs, A.
S.
Kohut's Edition of
Z.
:
'
Nathan the Wise

'
'
499
Lauterbach, Jacob
Shulchan-Aruch
'.......
Tschernowitz's
Origin
of the
'
489
Malter, Henrv
Philosophy'
Husik's
History of Mediaeval Jewish
233
Mann, Jacob
The
Responsa of the Babylonian
Geonim
139
as a Source of Jewish History
Maxn, Jacob: Note on 'Solomon B, Judah and some

of his Contemporaries
'......
in
409
Marx,
St.
Alexander
Afanuscripts
the
Library
of
John's College
:
253
list
Marx, Alexander
the Creed
of
Poems on
the Articles of
305
:
Morgenstern, Jull\n
Kedesh-Naphtali and Ta'anach
359
IV
CONTENTS
Radix,
Max: Gracco-Romnn
:
Judaica
....
. .
I'AOK
245
Rf.Idf.r, Joski'II
Rorcnt Biblical Literature
423
43
Sfoai,,
M. H.
Studies in the
Books of Samuel.
IT
SzoLD, Henrietta: Palestine from
Many
of
Points of
View
215
Waxman,
Zkitlin,
Mever
Part
The Philosophy
II,
Don
.
Hasdai
.
.
Crescas.
Chapters III and

Mcgillal
I\'
181
Solomon
Taanit
History
I
as
in
Source
for
Jewish Chronology and
the Hellenistic
and
Roman
Periods.
("!hapters
to
HI
71
THE BOOK OF ESTHER

Bv
IN
THE LIGHT
OF HISTORY
Jacoi! Hosciiander, Dropsie College.
CHAPTER
The
ill-fate
of the
Book
of Esther
additions
Talmudic
interpretations
Conservative exegetes
the Maccabaean period
Errors
The
of
The Greek version The apocryphal Luther's verdict Modern theories the interpreters The interpolators in
erroneous identification of the king of Esther.
If there were any truth in the cabbalistic maxim, 'All
depends on
the
fate,
even the Scriptures',
we would say
Persian
that
It
Book
of Esther was ill-fated from the very outset. a

time,
in
relates
how once upon
the
period,
a terrible
danger to the Jews
was averted by natural

In
circumstances, without any visible divine intervention.
our sceptical age, we

the most credible of
should expect such a story to be held

the narratives of the Old Testament.
all
Just the contrary has happened.
None among them
is
more
discredited
by modern exegetes, except a

is
few, than
this story.
The
narrative
by some partly doubted, partly

But
it
denied, by others denied altogether.

to say that they are not to blame.^
^
is
only
fair
The
who
current interpretatreatment of the storj'

are not satisfied with
There
is,
however, no excuse
for the unfair

critics
of Esther by not a few of the
modern
demonstrating
its
unhistorical character, but for the purpose of impressing

its
upon the mind of the reader

facts
fabulous absurdity, frequently distort the
and make forced interpretations.

of
many
them would be more convincing
The arguments and theories of an if they were presented in
objective manner, and
at the contents of this story, its
were not seasoned with abusive language directed tendency, and at the Jews in general. For
I
VOL. IX
THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

more favourable conclusion.
tion hardly admits of a

ever,
it
How-
is
evident that already in antiquity the facts had

in
been distorted and represented
a false light.
Interpreters
who
lived
two hundred years or more
after the events of

real issue
the story occurred, and
knew nothing about the
of those events, corrupted the text according to their
own
into
wrong
interpretations.
The Alexandrian Jew who

Greek
translated
the story
at
a time, however, before the
Hebrew
text was
greatly corrupted
increased
in
the perplexity.^
The Greek
But the
version, being a free
and paraphrastic translation, naturally
does not square with the original

differences
names,-'
Hebrew
text.
touch also
fact
striking
manner the proper

or
that
cannot
be due to paraphrase
exegesis.
This phenomenon gave cause to suspect the
authenticity of the
Hebrew
text.^
No
other satisfactory
specimens of
this kind,
we may
(in
;
point to Carl Siegfried, in his

'
commentary
Gsttingen,
on the Book of Esther

ment', GOttingen, 1901;
1887
^
;
Nowack's
Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testain his
Paul de Lagarde
essay
;
'
Purim
',
G. Jahn
in his
book 'Esther', Leiden, 1901
see also note 26.

cf.
For the various Greek and Latin versions of Esther,
B. Jacob,
Esther bei den

srha/t,
LXX'
the
(in Stade's Zeilscliiift filr

;
AlttestamentUche IVisseii-
Gicsscn,
1890, pp. 241-98)
L.
B. Paton, Critical
and
Exegetical
Comiucniary on
'
Book of
Esther,
New
York, 1908, pp. 29-47; P. Haupt,
Critical Notes on Esther' (in Old Testament and Semitic Studies in Memory n/lVdtiam Rainey Harper, Chicago, i9o8,,p]). 115-93 H. Willrich, Esther nnd Judith (in his Jndaica, Gottingen, pp. 1-28), and G. Jahn's book cited
' ;
'
above.
biblical
' *
The
lattcr's
Hebrew
rendering of the Greek version
is
an amateurish
parody, but several of his observations deserve serious consideration.

/.
Sec Jacob,
Willri.h,
c, p. 271.
p. 15, seriously
I.e.,
maintains that the
Book
of Esther
into
was
originally
written
in
Greek and subsequently translated
Hebrew.
There
ib
no need to discuss this impossible view, as Willrich himself
reluctantly concedes that the originality than the
Hebrew
text in several places exhibits
more
is
Greek
(p. 19, n. i), and,
moreover, confesses that he
unable to examine the linguistic character of the former.
ESTHER
IN
THE LIGHT OF HISTORY
HOSCHANDER
explanation for this odd divergence has been forthcoming.
This difficulty
in
is
due to the
fact that the action
was placed
the wrong period.

is
The
difference
between the two

that
versions
easily explained as soon as
we know
Egypt
was not a part of the Persian empire

events.^
at the period of these
Hence
the Egyptian Jews were not involved in
the decree of
the events
Haman, and probably knew nothing about The Alexandrian translator, who of Purim.*^
apparently was a learned and pious Jew,

Palestine or in
may have
among
lived in
some other part
of Syria
pious Jews
who observed
known
his
it
the festival of Purim.^
Having annually
listened to the reading of the

fairly well
Book
of Esther, he
may have
by
heart,
but could not remember
correctly most of the proper names.
After returning to
own
country, he translated this story for the edification
Egypt revolted from Persia
in
the
year 405
b.c.e.,
latter,
and remained
however, never
attempts to
independent for a period of sixty-five years.
The
recognized Egypt's independence, and frequently
made
futile
reduce
^
it
to
obedience.
(/.
We
thus fully agree with Willrich
c, p. 3), that the Alexandrian
Jews had
neither observed the festival of Purim,
nor
about these events, before the story
was
written in Greek.
known anything But we go still

this
further and maintain, that even after they had

story, the
become acquainted with
Alexandrian Jews had no cause to celebrate the events of Purim.
This
festival
was most
likely introduced into
Egypt by Palestinian Jews not

that
long before the destruction of the Temple.

'
We
must bear
all
in
mind that the pious of
period
who
strictly
observed
religious ordinances represented only a small fraction of the
Jews.
ago.
Therefore, there
The common people had abandoned the celebration of Purim long was no reason for the author of the First Book of
if it
the Maccabees to refer to the latter festival, even
had coincided with

an'd all
Nicanor Day, which

critics
it
did not.
Thus the objections of Willrich

Moreover,
if
on this point are unfounded.
Willrich were right in
his assertion that the author of the First
Book
of the
Maccabees assumes
a decidedly hostile attitude towards the Pharisees,
we
could not expect this
author to mention a festival observed solely by this pious sect.
B 3
'

Not having had
a
of his countrymen.
his disposal,
Hebrew copy
at
and the translation not having been intended

but merely as a novel, he substituted
for
for liturgic purposes,
numerous
'^
fictitious
c, pp. 266
names
fT.,
those
in
the original.*
Greek
Jacob,
is
/.
is
certainly right in concluding that the
version
a free translation from the
Hebrew
text.
But that alone would
not account for the proper names, as Jacob (p. 270, n. i) freely admits,
which with the exception of a few

text (cf. Paton, I.e., pp.
differ entirely
from those of the
Hebrew
66-71.
Furthermore, a free translator would
hardly omit passages without paraphrasing them, and would rather add than
omit.
Finally,
in
it
seems improbable that he should have paraphrased

the stor^' in a different light, as he did in
passages
the
way which show

that the
passages containing the decrees of
Haman and
all
Mordecai.
Jahn's
sweeping assertion
view that the
considered at
Greek version, on
is
points, resembles
more
the original than the Masoretic text,

stor3'
all.
not to be taken seriously.
Willrich's
was
originally written in
Greek (see
n. 4),
cannot be
But even the present writer's explanation that the

have a Hebrew copy
free at his disposal
It is
Greek
his
translator did not

is
when he made
that
translation,
not
from objections.
incredible
the
translator should not have
remembered the name
of
Ahasuerus which occurs

six
twenty-eight times
in
the stor}'. the gentilic
noun Agagi which occurs
times, and especially the passage:
'And he thought
scorn to lay hands
on Mordecai alone
(3.
for
they had showed him the people of Mordecai
6\ which
stor^'.
is
of vital importance for the understanding of the main event
of our
But
in the
opinion of the present writer, the

after
it
Hebrew
text
underwent considerable changes
had been translated into Greek.
The Alexandrian translator was a pious, conscientious Jew and a good Hebrew scholar who, though paraphrasing the original text and substituting
fictitious
names, did not consciously omit anything.
The omissions found

)*3pn21
(2.
are due to his exegesis.
Thus, for instance, he could not understand the

"13101
(1.
meaning of lOV
V22
pcSa
,
2a),
JT'r^'
mSjID^
19),
3m
15.
II
and not having been able
to
consult the original, he
attributed the difticultics to his bad
memory, and omitted them altogether.

: '
He may
is
have known and applied the maxim
In doubtful cases, omission
preferable to doing
difficult
wrong' (Cl^y
nCVD
^Nl
3u').
Nor could he
(9. 25),
understand the
passages "ISDH DJ? "ir^N "J^DH ^JD^ HNHai

,9.
Dnpyn nioiyn nnn

them
differently.
31),
do ciichn
-jôn D'J'M (id.
i>,
but in
these cases, having been convinced that they
were corrupt, he explained
The
fact, that
so far none of the commentators have been
able to explain the passages quoted satisfactorily, leaves no doubt that the
ESTHER
IN
HOSCHANDER
To
The apocryphal
pious mind
Greek
it
writer went a step farther.^
his
seemed inconceivable that such a miraculous

was
a good
translator
Hebrew
in the
scholar.
His memory, however,

Since the twelfth
played him a trick as to the date of Esther's elevation.
month played so important a part

again that he translated from
this date, there
events of Esther, he believed that
Esther's elevation took place in the
same month.
;
This wrong date proves
memory
for if the original
had contained
was
not the least reason for any interpolator to place that
event in the tenth month.
As
for the decrees,
however, the translator
neither omitted anything nor paraphrased them, but presented an exact
The passage 3. 6 is undoubtedly due to Haman's decree was caused by his enmity towards Mordecai. We owe a debt of gratitude to the Greek translator who showed us that the original Hebrew author was quite innocent of this stupidity. As to the name Artaxerxes in the Greek version, there is not the least doubt that the Hebrew text, even in a late
translation (see
Chapter IX).
a late interpreter
who
believed that
period, contained the
noun Agagi
^
in
the
name NOtt'ti'nmN (sec Chapter IV). The gentilic Hebrew text is not original either (see Chapter II).
'
The Greek
its
version has at the end a subscription giving information

:
about
authorship and date, which reads
In the fourth year of the

said that he
reign of
Ptolemy and Cleopatra, Dositheus, who

his son,
was
a priest
and Levite, and Ptolemy

Phrourai,
brought the foregoing letter concerning

that
which they
said
was genuine, and
Lysimachus, son of
it
'
Ptolemy, one of the people of Jerusalem, had interpreted
("Etous
mapTov
hptvs
PaaiXtvovTOi TlToXffxaiov Kal KXeonarpas, (larjveyxf AoaiOfos, os

ical
fjv
l^; flvai
AiviTTjs, Kal TlToXeixaios utos ai/rov, ttjv npoKUftivTjv kniajoK-qv
twv ^povpai,
iipaaav
/.
(iuai, Kal TipjxrjvfVKfvai
AvffifMaxov IlToXffiatov, ruiv tv 'ItpovaaX'qti).

in
Jacob,
c, p. 274,
maintains that the king Ptolemy referred to

VII, Soterll, Lathurus,
into
this
subscription
was Ptolemy
/.
who reigned
117-81
b.c.e.,
and thus the introduction of our story

while Willrich,
that the
Egypt occurred
this
in the
year 114,
c, p. 4
f.,
contends that
king was Ptolemy XIV, and
Book
of Esther
was composed
in
the year 48 b.c.e.

is
However,
concerned.
both of them are wrong as far as the date of the Greek version
The
subscription does not refer to the original Greek version of our story.
Willrich himself points out that the Alexandrian scribe was not convinced
of the genuineness of this
'^
Book and declined
to take
any responsibility
for
(P-
S)'
Jacob likewise observes that expressions

This
is
in this subscription
indicate something like distrust ^p. 276).
of course the meaning
of the clause
fiv
e<paaav dvai.
this
What
Book
reason had the Alexandrian scribe to

?
doubt the genuineness of

to
whom we
are indebted for the preservation of so
The Alexandrian Jewish scholars many apocryphal books
6
event

should be narrated unless abounding
it
in
religious
sentiments, and he believed
to be a meritorious
deed to
improve upon
its
contents
by representing the
chief Jewish
figures in the story as saints in Israel.
This representation,
though obviously contrary to the

generally accepted
in ancient
facts,
was nevertheless
Flavins
story
and modern times.
Joscphus,
in
his
Antiquities,
moulded
into
his
of
Esther both the Hebrew and Greek versions

of the latter than of the former^"
were not
Paton,
so
though more
With
the
and
considerable parts
h3percritical
as to doubt the event of Purim.
exception of Sirach,
I.e., p.
none of the apocryphal books has a subscription.
30, observes:
is
'A more
it
serious objection to the genuineness
of the subscription
that
the fact that

a different
stands at the end of the long additions

'.
seem
to
come from
hand from that of the original translator
However, this fact does not prove that the subscription is not genuine. There had been a well-known Greek version of Esther long before the
arrival of Dositheus.
But the
latter
brought another version, enlarged and

it
interpolated by additions,
and asserted that
was the genuine story
of
Esther translated from the
Hebrew
text,
contending that the old version
was
defective.
Therefore, the Alexandrian scribe

to
who
copied
it
rightly
its
doubted his assertion, and dechned

truth.
accept any
responsibility for
in
The
is
original
Greek version was undoubtedly made

This seems to be the true reason
pre-
Maccabaean period.
Esther
why
the
Book of
that has
the only historical book in the
Greek Old Testament
a subscription.
>"
We
cannot agree with Jacob,

/.
I.e.,
p.
291, that
Josephus
this point.
faithfully
follows
calls
LXX, and Jahn, c, p. x, is perfectly right Haman an Amalckite, which can be only a
text,
,
on
Josephus
translation of
it
the
Hebrew
while the Greek version has instead of
ôv-faio^.
Agagi of Then
but
Josephus quotes the passage VJ'W U'1

Further, he gives the
which
LXX
in
omits (see n. 8).
names
of the
two
conspirint;
eunuchs
Dim
iDH,
appears
li.
have read DnDI }n3J, which are omitted
LXX.
Finally, in
accordance with the
Hebrew
text,
he states that the Jews slew seventy-five

Nevertheless,
thousand Gentiles, while
LXX knows only of fifteen thousand.
Joscphus evidently preferred the Greek version for his purpose. He may have done so for linguistic reasons. A Jew translating the Old Testament into a foreign tongue would for the most part, if possible, make use of and adhere to the expressions of the already existing version. can there-
We
fore understand
why Josephus
should have made use of expressions of
LXX
ESTHER
IN
HOSCHANDER
^^
of the apocryphal additions, embellishing them with

exegesis, probably of his ovvn,^^
some
the
Origen
declared
Greek version and
its
additions canonical.^^
'
Though
a platitude,
the use of the expression
common
sense
'
is
we cannot
either
in
refrain
from asserting that
common
Book
sense has played no part in the interpretation of the

of Esther,
ancient or
in
modern
times.
The
an
Rabbis, by their homiletic interpretations, contributed not

a
little
to
change
this strictly historical narrative into
incredible fable.^*
few among them seem
to have felt
that there
was something strange about
this book.^^
But,
as a rule, the talmudic
and midrashic sayings concerning

not of the least value for
the
events
of our
story are
exegesis,^*^
and
in all probability
were not intended to be.

we, even in our critical
Notwithstanding
age,
still
this
obvious
fact,
follow
time-honoured talmudic interpretations
(Jacob,
/.
c, p. 262).
On
the other hand, his Antiquities
was written
for
Gentiles, and therefore his intention
may have been

in
that his version of
Esther should be
in
accordance with that written
Greek which might
have been known

11
to the critics of his period.

/.
We
do not agree with Paton,
c, p. 39, that Josephus's additions
are derived from an early form of Jewish Midrash, as no trace of

is
them
found
in the talmudic literature.
His representation
is
a mixture of truth
and
fiction.
*2 '*
In his letter to Julius Africanus, 3.
''
Cf.
Paton,
/.
c, p. 34.
See especially Talmud Babli Megillah ioa-i6b, and
cf.
Paton,
/. f.,
pp. 18-24 îid 97-10415

^^
See Chapter V.
The talmudic chronology concerning

all.
the date of our story
is
of no
value at
It
is
noteworthy that
in
Talmud, Midrash, and Targumim,

i
Mordecai
is
represented as a contemporary ofZerubbabel see Ezra
2. 2,
&c.).
Talmud Babli Menahot 65 a, we find the same Mordecai as the contemporary of Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, This fact appears to have
But
in
escaped the notice of

his
all
critics.
Willrich might have made

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

it
(see n. 8>,
he
had known
which obscure the right understanding of the book.
Some
exegetes are apparently over-fond of the rabbinical sayings,

gleefully quoting and exploiting
them
It is
for the
purpose of
stamping the story as legend."
even possible that

the idea
modern
critics
would hardly have hit upon

in
of
seeing a legend
this
story,
if
it
Talmud, Midrash, and

with their exaggerated
Targumim had
fables.^^
It is
not embellished
regrettable to see that the strict line

'
drawn
'
by the mediaeval Jewish commentators between

(DK'a)
exegesis
and
'
homiletics
'
(C'mn)
is
completely ignored by
modern
scholars.^^
Many
of the rabbinical sayings dealing
with Esther are of such a character that

believe that they were witty
we cannot but
and homiletic remarks, partly
to amuse, partly to exhort, the audience gathered around
the Purim-table.2o
Martin Luther's condemnation of the Book of Esther

in
I
his
Table-Talks:
it
'I
am
it
so hostile to this
book that
wish "
did not exist, for
Judaizes too much, and has
Characteristic in this respect

it
is
Paton's Commentary'.
As
book of
critics
reference
is
an exceedingly valuable work.

to
But with
all
modern
he holds the story of Esther
be a mere
fable.
In order to prove this
point, he employs a peculiar method.
His exegesis in the main is actually based upon the Talmud, Midrash, and Targumim. Though on every point he fjuoles numerous opinions, his general contention is that the only correct
explanation of the points under discussion
is
given by the rabbis, and, since

ergo
the facts, according to their explanations, could not have occurred, the whole story
/.
is
not true.
Cf. also Siegfried,
/.
c,
p.
163,
and Jahn,
c, p. 48.
"
show
Paton's observation
(/.
c, p. 18)
is
interesting
<They
(the
Targumim)
a fine feeling for the
the modern interpreter'.
Hebrew idiom and at e exceedingly suggestive to So they are, as many theories of the modern
befween
interpreters have been suggested by them.

''
Paton,
/.
c, p. 100, does indeed point out the dincrencc
DCS
and
Cmo,
and nevertheless treats the

7 a.
latter as serious rabbinical exegesis.
See Talmud Babli Megillah
ESTHER
too
IN
HOSCIIANDER
in
9
to
much heathen
the
it.2^
naughtiness,'^^ largely contributed
prejudice
mind of Protestant theologians
dealing
with
As
early as the eighteenth century, scholars began to
doubt the veracity of
many
facts described in Esther, as
they seemed to be contradictory to the customs of the

Persians recorded
unhistorical.^'^
by Herodotus, and pronounced them

nineteenth
The
and twentieth centuries
actually teem with hypotheses concerning both the origin
of Purim and the contents of our
story."-*
There
is
no
exaggeration
in
declaring that
it
is
easier to believe in the
most improbable
which are
tales of antiquity
than
in
these theories
with hardly
It is
any exception
flimsy, vague, and

conis
incredible.
not necessary to discuss and refute them,
as
this
has
already been
done successfully and
vincingly
to
by Siegmund Jampel.-^ But it condemn the Talmud, as most of the modern comhardlj' fair
for
mentators do,
holding the
.
Book
of Esther higher than
the Books of the Prophets. ^"^

21
The Rabbis were

;
not Bible
In his works, edited

cf.
by Walsh, VII, 194
XXII, 2080.
On
Luther's
opinion,
A. P. Stanley, The History of the Jewish Church,

Paton,
I.e.,
New
York,
is
1879, III, p. 194.
p. 96,
observes that Luther's verdict
not
too severe.
Paton shares
this attitude
with numerous Protestant theologians
who approach
verdict.
"^"^
this subject with the pre-conceived idea of justifying Luther's
But there were a few Protestant commentators who, notwithstanding

blame him for
their veneration for Luther's personality, had the courage to

his subjective judgement, as did Carl Friedrich Keil, in his
commentary on
c, p.
Esther, p. 613.
^^
'* 2*
2^'
For the
literature of the eighteenth century, see Paton,
/.
ui
f.
Cf. Paton, I.e., pp.
Ti-g^ and 111-117. Das Biich Esther, Frankfurt a. M., 1907, pp. 45
ff.
Emil Kautzsch,
in
his Geschichte des
Alttestantentlichen Scliriftttinis,
Freiburg,
1892, p. 117, vehemently denounces the

it
Jews
for holding the
Book
of Esther in such high honour, and considers

it.
his duty as a Christian
to protest against
Similar opinions are expressed by Riehm, Wildeboer,
lO

and believed
in
critics,
every syllable of our story.
Thereuse
fore
how
could they have thought differently?

if
Of what
would have been the Prophets,

been exterminated
?
the Jewish people had

the
In
their
belief,
words of the
Prophets and even the Pentateuch would have disappeared,

if
the Jewish people had not been saved
by Mordecai and
Book
:
Esther.
of
The Fathers
of the Church, in declaring the
Esther canonical,
reasoned exactly like the
Rabbis
If there
had not been Purim, Christianity would not have
existed.
All the modern critics agree that oar story was invented.
Even Kautzsch, who

Cornill.
is
moderate
critic, is
unable to find
and others.
They do
not consider that Purim, according to the

historical event unequalled in the
current conception,
commemorates an
will
whole history of the Jews, their escape from complete

'
annihilation,
it
and
all
that a
man hath
he give
for his life
'
therefore
is
natural that
the Book that records this event should be held in the highest esteem among the Jews. Even from a pure]3' ethical point of view, this Book is
not inferior to the other Scriptures, as
it
teaches the great lesson, not
found in the
latter, that
Providence
may
rule the destiny of

;
man by
natural
circumstances, without visible intervention
and
this lesson
was the hope
and comfort of the Jews whose existence was extremely precarious during
the last
two millenniums.
the spirit of revenge.

but at their
It is wrong to see in the celebration of Purim The Jews do not rejoice at the hanging of Haman,
own
escape, firmly believing that their

if
own
destruction
would
have been inevitable,
Haman had been
left alive.
Scholars ought to be
more
hend
objective, put aside their personal sentiments,

also
and be able
to
compreIt is
the Jewish
find
point of view in dealing with this Book.
regrettable to
this
in its
views such as are expressed by E. Bertheau, that
in
Book wc
find that spirit of Israel
which does not
trust in
God. but
it
own power, and which
refused to embrace Salvation
when
came
to
them {Dir
Biic/irr Esra, Nt/irmia, unci
Eslher by Bertheau- Ryssel, Leipzig,
'887, p. a-js). Paton, I.e., p. 97, observes: 'With the verdict of late Judaism modern Christians cannot agree'. But is this verdict the only
point of disagreement between hUe Judaism and

not
modern Christians?
main, untrustworthy?
Do
the latter regard
the whole
Pentateuch as partly legendary, partly

Israel, in the
fabrication,
and the secular history of
ESTHER
IN

nucleus in
it,
HOSCHANDER
it
it
an historical
Driver,
'
and considers
romance.'^^
who
cannot be accused of prejudice, declares that

it
it
is
not strictly historical, though

it
cannot reasonably
basis.'
-^
be doubted that
has a substantially historical

in
There are only a few scholars who see

historical event.^^
our story a really
Paulus Cassel's commentary,"'^ notwith-
standing
logical
its
homiletic character and the numerous Christostory,

is
remarks which have no bearing on the
full
of sound judgement and contains a great

parallels
It is
many
it
historical
and reminiscences which shed
light
on the
is
events.
a storehouse of real information.

in
But
extremely
conservative, and sees
Mordecai and Esther the most
splendid characters and heroes of Israel.
One
of the best
attempts in recent years
is
Jampel's book cited above.^^

all
With a
great array of arguments he tries to prove that
the events narrated in Esther might have happened under

the reign of Xerxes.
In the present writer's opinion, however,
all
the comfacts,
mentators have been on
the wrong track.
The
as already stated, were misrepresented in ancient times,
and modern interpreters have placed the action
in
the
wrong
period.
facts,
If
we may
depend
in
upon
undeniably
historical
we
is
are justified
contending that the
Book
that,
of Esther
if
strictly historical.
We
even maintain
this
book had never been
written, historians
in
might
this
have found out that at the period
which we place
action the Jews were threatened with complete extermination.

2' ^* -*
The
An
/.
question
is
not whether this event did happen,
Geschichte des Altt. Schriftt., p. ii6.
Introduction to the O. T.,
New
York, 1898,
p.
453.
See the bibliography of the conservative

c, p. 113.
Bitch Esther^ Berlin, 1891
treatises,
marked with C, by
See
Paton,
^^
Das
^'
n. 25.
12

how
the Jews escaped the danger.
is
but
t.his
The
solution of
problem
presented
in
the
Book
of Esther.
The main event

had indeed been
in
of the story actually
happened under
Persian rule, though not in the reign of Xerxes.
The Jews
in
danger of extermination, though not
the sense generally understood.
Many
of the statements
our story contains find their support

for
in historical facts.
As
the others, they are absolutely credible as far as they
are original.
For
this
book was considerably interpolated

reason
is
at a later period.
The
not hard to explain.
We
must bear
in
mind that the

in
real
danger impending over the

:
Jews was a tempest

did not last
a teapot
the whole excitement
more than
four days, in
Susa as well as
in all
parts of the empire.^^
With the death of Haman and the

Jews was no
elevation of Mordecai, the condition of the
longer desperate.
All the exegetes appear to have over-
looked this
fact.
An
event of this short duration did not

Its
make
lasting
impression.^^
commemoration was
But the comhave neglected
no doubt annually observed by pious Jews.
mon
it,
people, after a few generations,
may
or
may have
Jews
feasted
on Purim without caring about the
origin of the festival.^*

story, as
They may have doubted
the whole
in prosperity
soon forget troubles of former
" By the splendid royal post under the Adiaemcneian rulers (see Eduard Meyer, Gcscliichic dcs Altcrilntms, III, p. 66 t.), the overthrow of Haman and the elevation of Mcrdecai must have been known to the officials everywhere, a few days after the arrival of Haman's edict.
"
Wc shall sec that there were religious persecutions, preceding Haman's

But these persecutions were of
of the
decree, which lasted for several years.

a sporadic character, as the rank
Jews had not been affected by tlicm (sec Chapter VI). * Numberless Jews in the present age are doing exactly the same, in enjoying the customary dishes prepared for certain festivals with great
file
and
relish,
without caring
in
the least for the religious character of the laUer.
ESTHER
IN
HOSCIIANDER
talc.
13
days, and as the danger could not reasonably be accounted

for, it
was looked upon as an incredible
The Jews
did
not remain untouched by the scepticism prevailing in the
Alexandrian age.
Living unmolested under the mild sway

first
of the Lagidae and the

believe that a
Seleucids, the
Jews did not
man
like
Haman had
ever existed, or that

their
a king should
ancestors.
have decreed the extermination of

of Esther
The Book
successors,
became popular with them

B. c. E.)
under the rule of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164
and
his
when they
met
everywhere
with
numerous men of the type of

ing
Haman
intent
upon destroyfor
in
them.
In
those times of
terror
they looked
comfort to the Scriptures.
which a similar event had been recorded

Esther.
They found only one book the Book
of
At
that late
period
the
actual
events
under
Persian rule which had almost caused the destruction of the Jewish
popular,
people
were no longer known.
Being now
this
book became the favourite theme of the
preachers and an object of special study.
The
teachers
inter-
who had
story.
to explain
it
to the people
made wrong
for
pretations, which subsequently were incorporated into the
We may
well
assume that
the
purpose of
impressing upon the people the necessity of being united,
and exhorting them
to fight one for all
and
all
for one,
the preachers in their sermons took as their
theme the
on
decree of
Haman, and explained
to their congregations
all
that the latter intended to exterminate
the Jews
that the
account of a single individual.
We
and
know
Jews
of that period were unwilling to resist their enemies and

to fight for their independence,
their leaders
had to
use any means for inducing

their fear
them
to do so by arousing
and hatred.
To
encourage the people to fight
14

enemies without
fear,
their
the preachers told their congre-
gations about
killed 75,000
the heroic
in
deeds of their ancestors,
who
men
one day without losing a single man.
The Edomitcs,
less hostile at
the hereditary enemies of Israel, were no
the time of the Maccabees, until conquered
by Hyrcanus.
preacher
Therefore
Haman may by some

name
'nn
witty
of the time
have been made a descendant of

gentilic
Esau,
by changing the
is
into
'JJNn.^^
Paul Haupt
partly right in observing:
'The
spirit
of
revenge that breathes through the Book of Esther and

manifests itself in the celebration of Purim seems perfectly
natural as soon as
we know
that the
book was written
during the period of the Maccabees, after the Syrians had
committed unspeakable
atrocities
in
Judaea.'
"^
These
text.
interpretations were later inserted into the
Hebrew
The Alexandrian
translator
was unfamiliar with them.""
When we
the
of the
understand the historical events which form

social
background of the story, the
and moral
state
Jews
of the period,
and the psychological motives
of the chief figures, our story will be viewed in a dififerent

light
:
Mordecai and Esther
will lose their
nimbus,
Haman
will
his terror,
and Ahasuerus's decree against the Jews

to his
no
more be ascribed
*
imbecility.
Words
or passages
Sec
n. 8.
^ Purim,
suggestions.
Baltimore,
Tliis paper contains numerous ingenious 1906. However, the theories .advanced there for the origin of
Purim and
for the
prototypes of Ahasuerus,
/. r.,
Haman, Mordecai, and Esther

has already pointed out.
are impossible, as Paton,

P.
pp. 80-82,
But
Haupt
is
the only
modern
critic
who
is
absolutely fair in his treatment
of this story.
post-cxilic limes
However, on SQme points he goes too far. The Jews in were never persecuted on account of their nationality;
thus the persecutions of the Russian
Jews do
not present a parallel to those
described
in
the
Book
II.
of Esther.
"
Sec Cliaplrr
ESTHER
IN
HOSCHANDER
line
15
contradictory to our interpretation will easily be recognized

as later additions.
But we must draw a
between
additions and changes due either to exegetes or to errors

of copyists and changes owing to circumstances over which
the Jews had no control.
The name Ahasuerus, which
is
undoubtedly identical with Xerxes, had been substituted

for the real
name
of the king, for obvious reasons.
In the
this
Eastern countries under the rule of the Arsacids,
change was made rather early

period,
at
in
the
West
at a later
the
time
led
of the fixing of the

the
Canon.
This
astray.
fictitious
name
modern
to
commentators
Those who gave credence

ascribed to Ahasuerus, and
the story contended that

all
Xerxes was quite capable of doing
the
silly actions
made more
But
or less successful
attempts at reconciling these events with the historical

facts
recorded
by Herodotus.
indeed, no
the
overwhelming
majority of exegetes rightly rejected these forced interpretations.
There
is,
room
for
doubt that the
Ahasuerus of Esther cannot be identical with Xerxes, as
we hope
to prove in the third chapter.
l6
TIIF
JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
CHATTER
II
The improbability of Mordecai's genealogy His access to the harem Haman's genealogy The etymology of his proper and gentilic names.
of
the story of Esther,
Bkfore proceeding we
to outline our
own conception
consider
it
necessary to investigate
some
objections of a general character, though they have
no bearing on our
raised
own
interpretation.
These objections,
by
all
modern
critics,
appear to throw doubt on the
veracity of the author of the book, and to betray a certain
tendency to present
hostile races.
an
artificial
contrast
between two
Though
others have already dealt with this
subject, their conclusions are not quite satisfactory.

Esther
2. 5, 6.
(i)
There
is
a chronological question of the highest
importance.
The
author
states
'
There was a certain
Jew
in
Shushan the palace, whose name was Mordecai,

the son
of Kish, a
the son of Jair, the son of Shimei,
Henjamite
with
the
who had been
carried
away from Jerusalem

away with
the king
this state-
captivity
which had
been carried
Jeconiah king of Judah,
whom Nebuchadnezzar
According to
(
of Babylon had carried away'.
ment, Mordecai, as fellow captive of Jeconiah
= Jehoiachin),
Shall
was
curried into captivity in the year
597 B.C.E.
we
then believe that 123 years later he became prime minister,

in the 12th
year of Xerxes' reign,
in
the year 474B. c.E.
But
tho.se
who
raise this question
do not entertain any

in
doubt that Kish, the ancestor of Mordecai mentioned

his genealogy,
is
identical with the father of Saul, the first
ESTHER
king of
carried
IN
HOSCHANDER
'
17
Israel.
'
Accordingly, the clause
who had been

certain
away
(nb:n "^â)
can only refer to Mordecai, and not

is
to Kish. However, this identification
by no means
and
is
indeed emphatically denied by Ibn Ezra.^^
Then
there
is
no reason
why
this clause
should not refer to Kish
and not to Mordecai.^^ Wildeboer,*" Siegfried/^ and many

other modern commentators refuse to accept this explanation, as
it
would be against the Masoretic
division,
which
places this clause at the beginning of the following verse.
But
they
themselves
often
completely
in
disregard
the
Masoretic text, and

Cassel
is
would be correct
observing
'
:
doing so here.
it
right
in
One cannot imagine
possible that biblical commentators should have hit
upon
2**
Ibn Ezra ad locnnt
remarks
'
If
Kish,
mentioned
in
Mordecai's
genealogy, referred to the father of Saul, the author of Esther would have
mentioned the
latter, since
he was king and not his father

Tf^n
i'lNt^').
'
(iIlN
iTil
v''N'l
VaN
^'
S^l
n^D Nin
13 ÎKtr TiDTD
No
notice has been taken
of this reasonable observation
by the modern
critics.
i
The
relative clause
nbjn
ItJ'N occurs also elsewhere, as
Chron.
i,
5.
4-6,
where IDNJ^D
D^n
'ja.
rbl\\ "IITX refers to 1J3 n"INa and Ezra 2.
where
the clause nif3nD123 not to

''
n?3n
"ItJ'S
refers
to the
preceding noun
nPUn and
T\:^'''\)2r\
Die fiinf Megillot,

i.
in
Marti's Kiirzer
Haud-Comnicntar sum Alien
Testament, Freiburg
*i
B., 1898, 180.

/.
In his
commentary on Esther,
c, p. 148.
We
must consider that

that
the chronological
of the rabbis,
knowledge of the Masoretes was no more exact than
who
16)
consider Mordecai a contemporary of Zerubbabel (see
Chapter
I,
n.
and place the reign of Ahasuerus within the seventy
years of the Babylonian Captivity.
We
may
further
presume
that
the
Masoretes accepted in good faith the talmudic interpretation of the name
aTlD = N^21
that
K"IJ3
'pure
myrrh' =
I^T
nb^H
nilD,
and thus did not know

Therefore the Masoretes
to
Mordecai was a purely Babylonian name.

to refer the clause
*1J>'N
had no reason not
Mordecai.
The
latter
still
might have been carried away into captivity

alive in the period of this story.
in his
childhood, and
was
Besides, the Masoretes
may have
earnestly
believed that Kish in Mordecai's genealogy referred to the father of Saul.
VOL.
IX.
l8
such a monstrosity, in referring the statement of Jcconiah's

exile to Mordecai.'
^^
Moreover, the purely Babylonian
name
that Mordecai bears evidently shows that the author
did not intend to say that he
was born
in Jerusalem.
Wc
would have
not
to
assume that the Persian-Jewish author ^^ did
know
that Mordecai
cult of
was a Babylonian name,

still
at a time
when the
Marduk was
in existence.
it
Wildeboer
asserts that the author clearly indicates that
was not
his
intention to give a real genealogy.**
There
is
not the least
ground
with
for
such an assertion, as the identification of Kish

father
the
' ;
of Saul
is
at
least doubtful.
Siegfried
in
remarks
By
the brevity of the genealogy, the author,
omitting a few
to Kish.'
members of
it,
skips over the times of Saul
But did the author omit merely a few members

Esther ^
P- 5i-
" Das
^3
Bttcli
Seeing that our author was well informed on Persian manners and
almost generally conceded, and was well acquainted
fact that
institutions, a fact that is
with the Persian language, a

authorities
only those
critics
deny who are not
on Persian philology, as Jampel truly remarks,
we may
safely
assume
p.
that the author

p.
was not
a Palestinian Jew.
P.
Haupt ^Purim,
3; Critical Notes,
116) believes that he
present writers opinion, however, the
was a Persian Jew. In the Book of Esther was written in

Babylonian Jews were
Babylonia (see Chapter V)

just as well acquainted
and
at that period the
with Persian manners, institutions, and language as
were
the
Persian Jews.
But Haupt from
his
own
at that
point of view must
assume that the autiior was a Persian Jew, since he contends that Esther
was written
institutions,
**
after the
Maccabean period, and
time Persian
Jews
only could have been
so thoroughly acquainted with
Persian manners,
and language.
p. 167,
Pafon,/. c,
concedes that Jair
may have been
the father of
Mordecai.
The reason
for his
concession seems to be, because he cannot
discover an ancient bearer of this
name among
the Benjamites.
Shimei,
however, cannot have been the father of Jair, since there once existed a man
belonging to the tribe of Benjamin whose name was Shimei son of Gera
(a
Sam. 16. 6, Sic). Nor can Kish be the father of Shimei, since the same name was borne by the father of Saul. But there were four bearers of till- name Shimri belonging to the tribe Reuben (î Chron. 5. 4\ Simeon
ESTHER
IN

?
HOSCHANDER
19
of this genealogy
least
From Mordecai
But
it is
to
Kish would be at
fourteen generations,^^
and the author enumerates

not
only three of them.
impossible that the
genealogy
is
not quite complete, and that between Mordecai

ancestor Kish there
shall see that
and
his
exiled
were
few
more
generations.
We
according to our concep-
tion the events of our story occurred about
two hundred
years after Jeconiah's exile, and
we may reasonably doubt

could have intervened
whether
only three
this
generations
between
period
and that of Esther.
For such a
possibility
we may
in
point to Ezra's genealogy, in which his

omitted.*''
immediate ancestors are

be inferred
they were
A similar omission
We may
may
Mordecai's genealogy.
of a type
suggest that
men
whose names the
biblical authors
deemed unworthy
{ibid. 4. 26, 27),
to perpetuate, probably idolaters.*'^

14 and 28), besides
4. 18).
Levi
21
;
iibid. 6.
i
two others of
find
the tribe of
Benjamin
{ibid. 8.
Kings
'i
So
also
21,
we
;
two bearers
of the
name
of the
of Kish, both Levites
Chron. 23.
&c.
2 Chron. 29. 12).
The
genealogy of Mordecai given
in the
Second Targum, on which the contention

course pure
fiction,
modern
critics is evidently based, is of

it
and badly
invented, as from Mordecai to Kish
enumerates eleven generations, but
from Kish to Benjamin twenty-eight generations.

^5
We
to Cf.
find
fourteen generations from Kish

(i
to
the
return
from the
find
Babylonian Captivity
Chron
34-41).
8.
33-8
The same number we
from
Zadok
*^
Joshua
Ezra
{ibid. 5.
;
7. i
Chron.
5. 40.
Bertheau-Ryssel, in his commentary
on Ezra,
p. 88,
believes that the author merely intended to
show
us that
Ezra was a
lineal
descendant of high-priests, and therefore omitted his
immediate progenitors
improbable.
who were
still
not high-priests.
But
this
explanation
is
The
line of the high-priests
was well known,
since Joshua
to
is
and his descendants
held this
office.
What we want
learn
is
Ezra's relationship to this high-priestly line, and this point

omitted.
^
altogether
We
shall
show Chapter V)
religious,
that Mordecai's family does not

to
appear
noble
to
have been
strictly
and may have belonged

in
those
Jewish families which continued idolatrous practices

its
Babylonia, before
conquest by the Persians.
The same may hold
true of
numerous
priests,
C 2
20
Esther
2. II

(2)
The author
did,
further states
'
And Mordecai walked

know
This
'.
every day before the court of the women's house, to
how Esther
statement
is
and what should become of her
denied by most of the modern commentators,

impossible
free
who
regard as
that
Mordecai
should
have
been permitted
a eunuch.^^
impossibilities
access to
the harem without being

this is impossible,
We
freely
admit that
but
sometimes happen.
scholars
One
could never believe
that
prominent
and
grammarians
Hebrew
pretty well should raise such an objection.

' :
who know The
author does not say
Mordecai walked
nâ
"ivnn
the court of the
women's house'
the
court
(Dn^:^
i^nno "anc), but 'before

(D^K^jn
of the
women's house'
nâ
"ivn
*:s!?).
Mordecai did not enter the court of the harem, which no doubt was surrounded by a high wall, but walked outside of
it,
to inquire of the eunuchs about his adopted
daughter.
Many
other Persians
the same.
who had daughters

sarcastic
there
most
likely did
Siegfried's
remark,
though Ezekiel seems to bear testimony that the

themselves free from idolatry (Ezek. 44.
15).
sons of Zadok
of
'
kept
Some
them may have
become corrupted
above reproach.
irreligious
after Ezekiels death.
the high-priest Joshua with Gentiles
shows
The intermarriage of the sons of that even the priests were not
Now
the
there
is
talmudic
maxim
(Prov.
that
the
names of
DB'I
is
men should
name of
not be recorded, based upon the verse
D^ytJ*")
apT
'the
wicked
shall
,
rot'
10. 7).
This verse
interpreted IH'^CB'a
P'PDO
38 b
Bible
..
nH
cf.,
that
we
should not bring up their names

is
(Talmud
is
Babli,
Yoma
Such a conception
;
not purely rabbinic, but

17. 14
;
found also
;
in the
for instance,
Exod.
Deut. 32. 27
Isa. 26. 14
Ps. 112. 6, &c.

in
';,
"
tlieir
Th. Noldeke {Encyclopaedia Biblica, 1401), Wildeboer, Siegfried,

commentaries,
J.
D. Prince {Jewish Encyclopaedia, under

(Critical Notes, p. 135) suggests that
Esther
and many others.
Haupt
Mordecai
to all his
may have been

seed
to
',
a eunuch.
But the passage
'
and speaking peace
clearly indicates that Mordecai had children,

that he
and we would have
assume
became
eunuch after he had raised a family.
ESTHER
'
IN
HOSCHANDER
21
The author does not trouble himself about the difficulty, how Mordecai could have shown himself in the court of
the harem and converse with Esther',
his
is
characteristic of
this
commentary.^^
Besides,
Esther at the time of
event had not yet been in the real harem that was under
the supervision of Shaashgaz.
The
virgins under Hegai,
Esther
^' ^' ^^'
not yet being concubines,
may
have enjoyed the liberty
of communicating with their relatives.^

(3)
The author
finally states
'
:
After these things did
Esther
^' ^'
king Ahasuerus promote
Haman
'.
the son of
Hammedatha
all
the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above
the princes that were with him
The commentators
Agag,
are
by no means wrong
representation of
in
their
arguments concerning the

in calling
Haman
as descendant of
:
attention to the following points
{a)
is
The statement
in
itself
that
Haman
was a descendant of
[b)
Agag
quite im-
probable,
It
is
incredible that
rule
the Persians
should
have tolerated
{c)
the
of an
Agagite prime minister.

contrast
The
representation
of a
racial
between the
the
Benjamite
Mordecai
and
his
antagonist
Agagite
Haman, renewing
the
the ancient hereditary enmity between
Benjamite
Saul
and
the
Amalekite Agag,
fact.^^
is
too
artificial to
be regarded as an historical
The
critics,
however, do not seem to perceive that their arguments are

^5
The present writer

it
is
gratified to find that
Haupt had already
called
Siegfried to account for his distortion of the truth, in observing:

narrator,
'The
may
be supposed,
knew more
about Oriental manners and
customs than did Siegfried.

but Siegfried overlooked 'JD?
'
The author
did not overlook the difficulty,
(Critical Notes, p. 135).
However, Siegfried
merely repeated an old objection found by many earlier commentators.

^"
Paton,
/.
c, p. 180,
is
also of the
same opinion that the concubines

stricter sur-
under the custody of Shaashgaz were probably kept under

veillance.
^1
Wildeboer, Siegfried, &c., &c., and so also Paton,
/.
c, p. 72.
22
not directed at the veracity of the author, but at a talmudic

interpretation.
They would
It
is
never have thought of that
contrast
at length
if
Talmud, Midrash, and Targumin had not dwelt

it.
on
well
all
known
that
it is
a pet fancy of
the rabbis to represent
the enemies of the Jews, even
Rome,^^ as descendants of Esau
who
had been wronged,
but never committed any wrong

still
in his lifetime
and
it
is
customary to designate any persecutor of the Jews

Esau.
Characteristic
in
as
this
respect
is
the
Second
Targum, which contains a complete genealogy of Haman,

in
which we find Greek and Latin names of oppressors of
the Jews, and
among them
occur also those of king
Herod
and
his father Antipater."^"'
Hence
is
it
is
obvious that the
talmudic interpretation of Agagi

should not be taken seriously.
merely homiletic and
However,
the
gentilic
',
for the sake of
argument,
let
'
us admit that
noun Agagi
actuall}'
means
descendant of
Agag
arises
and that accordingly the narrative indeed implies
a contrast between two hostile races.
The
question
less
now
coma
whether the narrative would have been

that
contrast.
if
prehensible without
Would
there
be
missing link
in
the narrative,
?
the gentilic noun
Agagi
were entirely omitted
This question must certainly be
answered
in
the negative.
Nobody would presume

is
to assert
that the Greek version of Esther
not quite intelligible
because
it
knows nothing about

noun
a racial contrast
between
Haman
original
and Mordecai. This version further clearly furnishes

""aaNn
proof that the gentilic
could not have been in the

interpreter, as
Hebrew
text, but
was due to some

zmn
)*?2N^
* See Lewy's
'
Hanthivrlcihiicli
Tallinn/
mtd
83
Muirascli,
l^Gcn. 25.
f.
under
F".dom
'''
',
and
cf.
Rashi on the passage(if
DN?0 DXÎ
/.
23\
For the gcnealog3-
Hainan, sec CisscI,
r.,
p.
ESTHER
IN

I,^*
HOSCHANDER
23
already suggested in Chapter
who
intended to represent
that racial contrast, after the story
had been rendered into was undoubtedly well
Greek.
The Alexandrian
translator
acquainted with the Scriptures and thus knew

was.
If
he had found the gentilic noun
''JJNn
it
in
who x'Xgag his Hebrew
text
he certainly would have rendered
'AyayaTo9, not
BovyaTos.^''
There can scarcely be any doubt concerning
the meaning of the latter term.

'
The
Persian word daga
God
'
is
found in numerous Persian personal names, as

Bagaeaiis,
for
instance,
Bagoas,
if
Bagopates, Bagophanes,
find Bovyaio<i as gentilic
Bagosaces^
&c.^*'
Therefore,
we
name
which
of a Persian^ in a narrative the scene of action of

is
Persia,
we may reasonably
in the
see in
it
the Persian
element baga and assume that Bovyaios
Bayaios.
The
same element no doubt occurs
names of the eunuchs,

in
Nnn and
\T\i2.
The
latter
is
rendered
the Greek version
BovyaOdv
BayaOdv.
Paul Haupt's explanation of the

term,
'
Greek Bovyalo^ as a Homeric

fetched.""
braggart
'
is
far
The
the
fact
that the Alexandrian translator was
forced to substitute fictitious
names
for the
genuine Persian
names
in
Hebrew
text, evidently
shows that he did not
understand the Persian language.
Nevertheless the gentilic
noun Bovyaô^
is
genuine Persian. Therefore we

this
may safely
Hebrew
similar
assume that the equivalent 'of

original
term
in
the
'.
was not
Chapter
'JJNn,
but
':3n
'the
Bagoan
5^
Cf.
I, n. 8.
it
^^
Or
the Alexandrian translator might have rendered
Tcwâios, as did
Lucian.
2.
The name Hegai

Iraitisches
usually rendered Tat in the
Greek
version,
is
15 rendered TwyaToi.
'-''
See
Namenbuclt by Ferdinand
;
Justi,
Marburg, 1895.
^''
Pitrini, p.
12
Critical Notes, p.
is
141.
Haupt evidently overlooked
that the
element 0ovya
also found in the eunuch's
name Bovyadav
(insteatl
of Ilarbonah, 8. 9^.
24

is
name
from
borne by one of the Jewish leaders who returned

with Zerubabel,
'"\i2,
exile
which the Septuagint
correctly renders Bayovai.^^
Moreover,
to say
how
could the
Hebrew author have intended
that
Haman was
a descendant of
Agag
He
undoubtedly was familiar with the Scriptures, and must

have known that Agag's whole tribe had been exterminated
by Saul
Agag
himself was slain by Samuel/^^ and the
other tribes of
Amalek had been destroyed

Is
it
in the
time
of Hezekiah.
conceivable that a Jewish author
would have dared to contradict the Scriptures?

has been suggested that the
nating
author's
Now
it
intention in desig-
Haman
as an
Agagite was merely to characterize
him as an inveterate persecutor of the Jews.^

this interpretation
is
But also
and
improbable.
The
fact that Saul
the people, notwithstanding the divine
command, spared
Agag and
did not wish to slay him, indicates that
Agag
personally was
by no means a
for the
ruthless oppressor of Israel,
but suffered mainly

his ancestors
us,**-'
many wrongs committed by
and
his tribes, as the Bible indeed informs

is
Thus there
no reason
why
just his
name should
If that
have been selected
for the formation of
an appcllatknim^
given to Ilaman, as a great
enemy
of the Jews.
was the intention of the author, he certainly would have

"
*"
02
Ezra
I
a. 2,
&c.
''^
Sam.
15. 134.
/.
Chron.
4. 43.
So
vol.
Cassel,
I,
c, p. 84.
states
Graetz, in
his History
of the Jews,
to
p.
91,
that
the
Amalekite king Agag appears
have caused great trouble to the

there
is
tribe of
Judah
in
tlic
days of Saul.
Now
no doubt that the Amalekites
made predatory' incursions into the Jewish territory on all occasions. They did the same in the periods of Ehud (Judges 3. 13) and of Gideon The Midianites did exactly the same. The other neighbours (ibid. 6. 3).
of Israel, as the Philistines and Ammonites, were no less hostile to the
Israelites than the Amalekites.
ESTHER
called
IN

^P^JOJ?.^^
HOSCHANDER
25
Haman
is
We may
^33N
therefore contend that
there
in
no truth whatever
j:n*
in this interpretation,
and that
the two words
and
we merely have
are,
a similarity
fanciful
of sounds which
identifications
is
frequently deceptive.
How
of
this
kind
we can
illustrate
'
by
identifying
'JJN
with the Babylonian word agagn,

-.Lil 'burning',^'*
to be
powerful', the Arabic

dycoya, 'leader.'
It
or even with Greek
has further been suggested, by Paul Haupt,^^ that
the original reading of

in the sense
Haman's
epithet
',
was
^Jn:
Gagz,
of
'
Northern barbarian
which was afterwards

is
changed into
''J3N.
This suggestion
based upon the

"JJn
Lucianic recension, which renders Haman's epithet

ra>yaTo9.
of the
into
But Lucian's recension was made towards the end
third century C.E.,
and
is
either, as
some contend,
text was
an independent translation from the Hebrew, or a recension

of the old Greek version, in which the
Hebrew
used as
read
well.^'^'
Josephus*'"'
it
and the Talmud undoubtedly

exceedingly improbable that
in
it
^3JS,
and therefore
is
Lucian
reading
should
""JNi.
have found
Furthermore,
his
is
Hebrew
original
the
highly improbable that

313,
a gentilic noun Gdgz, derived from
should ever have

in
been written with N.
Lucian
''32t<,
may
have found
his
Hebrew
fact
text the reading
but being well aware of the
that
Haman
could not have been a descendant of

this
Agag, considered
8' **
term either a
scribal
error or an
Similarly CasseJ,
/.
c, p. 84.
The present
II, p.
writer, offering these etymologies
ad absurdum, was
surprised to see them seriously suggested by H. Winckler {ÂUorientalisclic
Forschungen,
*s
*''
381).
;
Purim,
p. 14
/.
Critical Notes, p. 141,

/.
See Jacob,
c, p. 260, and Paton,
c, p. 38.
I,
*^
Josephus states that
Haman was
an Amalekite (see Chapter
n.
io\
26
arbitrary corruption on the part of the Jewish scribes for
the purpose of representing a contrast between the Ben-
jamite Mordecai and the Agagite

believed that the original term
roiyaios.
Haman, and
''33,
therefore
was
which he rendered
in
He
even
may
have
seen
the
rendering
Bovyalos of the Alexandrian version a corruption from
Tmyalos or Tovyalo^.
reading
But even according to Lucian's

for
we have no reason
was
the assertion
that
the
author's intention
to represent
Haman
as a northern
barbarian.
The
in
land
the
33
in Ezekiel's prophecies,^^ identical
with
Gaga
situated in Armenia.^"
Amarna Letters,^^ was undoubtedly We know that this country became
a part of Persia proper, where the Zoroastrian religion and
the Persian
language had been successfully introduced,"'
"^ "*
Ezek. 37.
2,
&c.
Letters,
See H. Winckler's Tdl-ElAmarim
No. 5
in
Eb. Schrader's
KcilitischriftlicUc Bibliothek, vol. V).

""
Gog
is
designated by Ezekiel
'
chief prince of
Meshech and Tubal
'.
These nations are of course

Ancient East, vol.
identical with the
Mushki and Tabal.

Tabal dwelt
in the
The\-
belonged to the Hittites (see A. Jeremias, The O. T. in the light of the

I,
p.
280).
We
know
that
in
Lesser
Armenia
i^cf.
ibid., p.
281),
and the Mushki are everywhere

find both nations, Tabal
Cuneiform
inscriptions mentioned in connexion with Tabal
and Urartu.
In Xcrxcs's
army
against Greece
we
and Mushki, under the

^
names of Tibarenians and Moschians under one commander

VII, 78).
Herodotus
These nations are mentioned
in
Ezekiel with Togarmah, identical
withTilgarimu, which, according to Dillmann,Kiepert, and Friedr. Delitzsch,

is
i
I
situated
in
South- Western Armenia
principal stale of these nations
(,Del., Faiaciies, The p. 246). was Magog, which comprises Eastern and
Western Armenia
their
{ibid., p.
247).
Now
the Hittites, to
which evidently
all
these nations belong, were by no means barbarians,
if
we may
'
judge by
nortlicrn
monuments.
'
Thus the
assertion that
Gog
is
term used for
bnrl>ari:;n
"'
is
unfounded.
Marquart's Ftindaniente Israelitischer uiid Jildischer Geschichte,
Cf. J.
Gottingeii,
1896,
p.
38,
and Hastings's Encyclopaedia wnAvr 'Armenia'
(Zoroastrianism).
ESTHER
IN
HOSCHANDER
27
and where the Persian nobles possessed large

Therefore,
estates.'-
Haman
could have been of purely Persian origin

gentilic
and nevertheless be designated by the
noun
'Ji,
because he was a native of the land of Gdg.
However,
for
the
question,
whether
Haman was
foreigner or a Persian,
"JJiC
,
we must
consider, beside the gentilic
his
own name and

It
that of his father.
We
know what
a prominent part
religion.
Haoma
{Horn) plays in the Zoroastrian
was the name of the guardian angel and of

sacrifices."^"
'
the holy plant used for
The names
of
Haman
and
his father
HamdatJia, given by
Cassel
is
Hom
',
are undoubtedly
connected with Haoma.

that such holy
even inclined to suggest

priests,
names could only have been borne by

his father
and that
Haman and
were MagiansJ"* who were

far in
a tribe of the Medes.

this assumption.
'
But Cassel goes perhaps too

cannot see
We
',
why names
'
like
Bagadatha
',
given
by God
less
and Mithradatha,
given
by Mithra
should be
holy than the
former, and yet there are
bearers of such names

caste of the Magians.
who
did not belong to the priest-
Such names could even have been

which, as has been suggested,"''
borne by foreigners, as we see that one of the Jewish

leaders bore the
is
name
''1J3,
a hypocoristicon of Bagadatha
(=
|nJ?N*,
PNJnJ?).
Thus
But
the Persian names which
Haman and
his father bore are
no evidence that they were not of foreign descent.

''^
See Eduard Meyer,

Cf.
Gesclikhte, III, p. 138.
^3
A. V.Williams Jackson's Zoroaster,
New
York, 1899, pp. 25, 50,
and Geldner's
'^
''^
article 'Zoroaster', in the Encyclopaedia Brifanttica,
nth
ed.
Cassel,
/.
c, p. 82.
Israelitische
is
A. Wellhausen,
und
Jildische
Geschichte.
p. is
120.
His
suggestion that Bagadatha
translation
of Jonathan
improbable.
Ed.
Meyer [Entstehung
des Judentums, p. 157, n. 2) thinks that Bagadatha
and Bagoi arc
distinct Persian
names, both derived from baga.
28

it is
being a naturalized Persian,

foreign descent
doubtful whether
in
Haman's
would have lowered him
the eyes of the

a high position.''^
Persians and debarred
him from occupying
Now
it is
true Huvinia or
Umma
is
the
name
of an ancient
Elamitic deity which occurs in numerous Elamitic proper

names,"'
and we might see the same divine name
in
the
names Haman and Hamdatha. We tend that Haman was by origin an

not identical
could therefore conElamite.
But who
knows whether the divine elements Horn and Hiimina are

?
It
would be a curious coincidence

in
if
Horn,
one of the chief deities

capital
the religion of the Persians whose
was
in
Elam, should not have some connexion
with Hinnma, one of the chief Elamitic deitiesJ^

ever,
for
Howquite
the
question
under consideration
of Persian
children
their
it
is
irrelevant
''^
whether
41,
Haman was
states
or
Elamitic
of
Herodotus VI,
that
the
of
Metiochus son
Miltiades
were accounted
Persians, because
father
had married a
Persian
"^
woman.
proper names Ummanigash, Unitnanahlasi,
strange that
Teutn-
Cf. the Elamitic
man, &c.
But
it
is
we do
not find the
name
in the
of this deity
(cf.
among
KB.,
'*
the
names
205).
of the
twenty gods enumerated by Ashurbanipal
\\, p.
However, the clement
amman
is
found
compounded
name Atn-ma-an-ka-si-bar. Haoma, generally considered to be identical with Vedic Soma (cf. Geldner, c). The Persians did not take over this deity from the Elamites. We may only question whether there were not early relations between the
divine
/.
Elamitic and the Vedic religions.
an open question.
Kassites.
The racial affinity of the Elamites is They may have been related to their neighbours,
to those of the Hittites,
still
the
Now
it
has been observed that some of the Kassite names boar
most striking resemblanctof the stock of Mitani

pp. 44,
45).
It
and especially
lite
to those
(cf.
Clay, Personal
Names of
Cassile Period,
has been further demonstrated that there were Aryan
elements among the Hittite-Mitanni, as the Aryan deities Mitra, Varitna,

Jndra, Nasatya occur in the Hittite documents found by H. Winckler in
Boghaz-koi
is
Milt. d. Deiilsch.
is
Orienl. Ges.,
a possibility that Iliinmta
of
Aryan
origin
Dec, 1907, p. 51), Thus there and identical with the Vedic
Soma.
ESTHER
IN
HOSCHANDER
29
origin, as at the period of our story there
was hardly any
difference
between Persians and
Elamites.^''
But the question whether the Persians would

submitted to being ruled by a foreigner
have
question which
concerns Mordecai's position as well as that of
Haman
is
we can by no means answer

that
in
the negative,
if it
true
Bagoas, the
most powerful prime

his successors,
minister
under
Artaxerxes III and
was a native of Egypt.^
Thus the premises from which

cussion
research,
the conclusions under distest
are
drawn do not stand the
of
impartial
and the objections of the modern

the
critics
do not
is
invalidate
historical.
''^
contention
that
the
Book of Esther
If
Ahasuerus
is
to
be identified with Xerxes,

I.
we may
set
doubt whether
their
the Elamites,
who had
rebelled against Darius

I,
and
up a king of
own
(Behistun Inscription, Col.
29), to
were
the
in the
short period of about
forty years
completely assimilated
later,
Persians.
But
if
our story
happened much
we may
reasonably assume that at that time there
was hardly
*"
anj' difference
between Persians and Elamites.

Nantenbuch, under 'Bagoas'.
See
Justi, Iranisches
However, the
whole argument concerning the descent and the name of Haman is absurd, and it would be a waste of time and of labour to deal with it seriously, if it
were not
for the fact that all

it
modern
critics attribute to
it
so
much imporintents and
tance and base upon
mythological or historical theories.
Haman might
all
have been of Amalekite origin and be nevertheless to

purposes a real Persian.
His ancestors might have lived

still
in
Persia for a
long period, though his foreign descent was

a fact that
is
known
to the
Jews
of course quite improbable, but not impossible.
30
CHAPTER
The author
of Esther as an historian
III
extent of the Persian
The date of these events The empire The coronation festivities Xerxes' war with Greece His queen Amestris The Jews outside of the Persian empire The diaspora Jewish persecutions in post-exilic times The improbability Xerxes' character His attitude towards the Jews of Hamaii's decree The new possessions of Ahasuerus.
If a
book contains anachronisms, as do the Books
of Daniel, Tobit, and Judith,

character, since
its
we may doubt
its
historical
author could not have committed errors
of this kind
if
he had
known
the history of the period in
which the events are said to have occurred.

of the
nisms,
The author
Book
of Esther, however,
is
not guilty of anachro-
and was well informed on Persian manners and

Therefore,
institutions.
we have no reason
to
assume that
that of of
his
knowledge of Persian history was
inferior to
this
the
Greek writers of
his
period.
From
point
view we shall investigate the events of our story, and

demonstrate
that
the
Ahasuerus of Esther
cannot
be
identical with Xerxes.

Esther
I.I.
(
J j
The story opens

Perfect,
' :
Now
it
came
to pass
^^
in the
days
"'
The Imperfect with

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

is
implies a preceding
verb
and
always used
in
continuation of a historical
narrative,
Israel,
here correct.
The Book
of Esther continues the history of

historical
and thus forms a part of the other
Books.
The author
df)es not intend to
write the stoiy of Ahasuerus, and presupposes that the
reader
Ryssel,
is
/.
acquainted with the earlier history of this king, as Bertheauf.,
p.
379, strangely explains.
Nor
is
the use of the Imperfect with

to
/.
ufaw coitsccutivunt an imitation of the older histories, designed

that Esther belongs to
tlir
suggest
samr
class of literature, as Paton,
c, p. lao
assumes.
liSTHER IN

is
HOSCHANDER
31
of Ahasuerus, this
the Ahasuerus
who
reigned from India
even unto Ethiopia, over a hundred and seven and twenty

provinces
to give
'.^^
The
intention of the author evidently was
to
the reader exact
information
concerning the
king under whose reign
the events narrated occurred. ^^
He assumes
are
that several Persian kings bearing that

to
his
name
known
readers
as
Ibn Ezra explains
and
therefore fixed the date
by the
additional remark, that the
Ahasuerus of the story was that king who ruled from

India to
Ethiopia, and
no other king bearing the same

far.
name,
If this
for the
dominion of the other did not extend so
king was Xerxes, there was no need to fix the date.
(2)
The king of
the story did not lose any of his hundred

his
and twenty-seven provinces during the whole period of

reign.
But Xerxes did

in
lose a
considerable part of Asia
Minor,
"2
the sixth and seventh years of his reign, as

of the term
we
The
identification
titles
^3''^?^
witii
'satrapy'
^"1"' is
is
decidedly
wrong.
The
Q^JDIICTIN, niPlD, and
ninOH
represent three
classes of officials.
The
first
were
rulers of satrapies, as
ell
known,
the
second were governors of smaller territories, and
the
last
were the
'
governors of
judge', and
districts.
The word
nj''TD
is
derivation
from pT
to
means
the scat of a judge, judge's circuit'; and therefore in
Arabic and Syriac the terms for 'city' are i.ljS.^ and )'^L.oo.
Judaea
was
a Mcdinah, not a satrapy.
In a later period, Judea
and Galilee were

is
considered two different
ni3"'n?D.
Accordingly, there
no discrepancy
Darius
Keil,
/.
between the author of Esther and Herodotus, who

divided the Persian empire into twenty satrapies
p. 616,
*''
states that
\\\\,
3\
Cf.
c,
and Paton,
l.
c, p. 123.
this
Wildeboer, Driver, and others deduce from
passage that the reign
of Ahasuerus lay in a past
somewhat
as
distant at the period of the author.

for
But
we
ought
to
to give the
author credit
more
sense.
The
latter evidently
intended
present this story

lie
an
ancient document.
if
Hence
it
is
improbable that
should have expressed himself as
he intended to
it
show
that those events occurred in the distant past.

his sole intention
stor^'
Therefore
is
obvious that
was
to fix the date of that ruler
under \vhose reign the
occurred.
32

that
know
This
Esther
^^j
most of the Greek
territories
became
and
inde-
pendent
after the battles of Salamis, Plataea,
Mycale.^'*
fact
seems to have been overlooked by

story continues
sitting
' :
all
the exegetes.
the king
^he
In those days,
when
Ahasuerus was
on the throne of his kingdom, which

in
was
in
Shushan the palace,

all
the third year of his reign,
he made a feast unto
his princes
and
his servants
the
power of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the

provinces being before him
'.
In these passages the author
seems to contradict himself.
The
clause,
'
when the king

',
Ahasuerus was
sitting
on the throne of his kingdom
evidently implies that this feast took place on the occasion

of the king's accession to the throne, and immediately the
author states that

reign
'.
it
occurred
'
in
the third year
of his
Hence
it
is
obvious that the former clause can

'
have no other meaning than
when
the king Ahasuerus

his
was firmly established on the throne of

Both the
difficulty
;
kingdom
felt
'.^^
Alexandrian
the
translator
and
Rashi
this
former therefore renders this clause
ore
idpoviaOrj âaiX^vs 'A.
This phrase contains, as Jacob
points out, the special

festivities
Egyptian term
for the
coronation
this
of the Ptolemies.^-'
Rashi explains
clause
n^n
niD^Dn n^'pn^B'S 'when the
kingdom was
established,
in his
hand
'.
Both interpretations
may mean
the same.
The author
**
evidently intends to inform us that the king

III, p.
See Ed. Meyer, Geschkhte,

Paton,
/.
416.
"
c, p. 124, observes:
i.
'The language suggests the beginning

in
of his reign, but
3 says that
it
was
the third year'.
H. Winckler {Der
Alle Orient uitd die Geicliiclits/orschung, 1906, p. 21) tliinks that this phrase
means: 'when he ascended the throne'.

this
H. Willrich,
I.e.,
p. 15,
sees in
expression an
official
coronation that
iting.
may have been

But
cf.
celebrated three
/.
years after the accession of the
Keil,
r.,
p.
617, and
Bertheau-Ryssel,
""
I.e., p.
I.e., p.
384. a8i.
Sec Jacob,
ESTHER
IN
HOSCHANDER
He must
But
33
of our story did not feel himself secure in the possession
of his throne at the beginning of his reign.
have
had a
rival
who challenged
his right to the throne.
Therein
fore no festivities took place
on
his accession.
the
third year of his reign, after having defeated his rival,
and and
being
now
generally recognized as legitimate
ruler
thus firmly established on his throne, the king celebrated

the event in the
manner described.
This
is
was actually
true, the
a coronation feast.
If this interpretation
king
cannot be identified with Xerxes.

son
The
latter
being the
of Darius
and Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus the
Great, his right to the throne, after his accession, was not
contested
though during
his father's lifetime there
might
in the
have arisen a doubt whether Xerxes,
who was born

assert
his
purple, or his elder brother should succeed to the throne.^^
There
to
is
no record that Xerxes had to

against
rieht
the
succession
any claimant.
None
of his
brothers rebelled against him.

(4)
The
events narrated in the second chapter of Esther
could hardly have occurred between the third and seventh

years of Xerxes' reign.
He
was
at that time fully occupied
with his preparations for the war against Greece.
The
advice of the courtiers seems to have been carried out in

the sixth year.
But Xerxes was at that time
in
Greece.
The
selection
of Esther took place in the seventh year.

virgins, before Esther's
But the testing of the other
turn
came, must have lasted several months.

to
We
would have
assume that Xerxes
at that time
is
was already back from
Sardis.
Such an assumption
not impossible, but rather
improbable.
(5)
Esther could not have been the queen of Xerxes

"''
See Herodotus VII.
2. 3.
VOL. IX.
34

his reign, as the
between the seventh and twelfth years of
queen
at
that
time was Amestris,
and she cannot be

but one of
continually
identified with Esther.^^
We
cannot accept Jampel's forced

real queen,
suggestion that Esther
was not a
^^
Xerxes' wives
referred to as
not
queen
a concubine
as
she
is
in our story.
Moreover, according
to a statement of Herodotus, Darius
made an agreement
with the six conspirators against Pseudo-Smerdis, stipulating

that the king was to marry into no families except those
of the conspirators.^"
If this
statement be true,
it
is
very
improbable
that this
agreement was disregarded by the
immediate successor of Darius.
But history shows that
kings hardly ever faithfully observe agreements

distant
ancestors with
this
if
their
subjects,
made by and we may well

in a later period.
imagine that
Furthermore,
kings
agreement was violated
we may
believe
Herodotus, the Persian
had
a very convenient
ancient law that decreed
'that the king of Persia might do whatever he pleased',''^
which enabled them to

interfered with their
Esther 3
6.
set aside
any law or agreement that
(6)
own pleasure. The passage 'The Jews throughout the whole

of
kingdom
Ahasuerus
',
and similar expressions, apparently
imply that at the period of our story there were Jews outside of the Persian
empire.
Herodotus does not know

This
fact
anything about the Jews.^'-
alone
is
sufficient
"
"'
Amestris was the daughter of Otanes

Cf. Paton,
/.
/.
(cf.
Herodotus IX, 109; Ctesias,
Persica 20).
c,
p. 71
'
f.
Jampel,
c, p. 114.
Herodotus
p.
III, 84.
''i
Ibid. Ill, 31.

in identifying
2i)poi
oi
Ed. Meyer \GeschicJiU, Hi,
ai8)
is
evidently
II,
wrong
104 as
the people which arc designated by Herodotus

riaAoiffTiVp
for the
iv
rfi
with the Jews.
Herodotus VII, 89 used the same designation
Syrians who, along with the Phoenicians, furnished three hundred
vessels for the
war
against Greece.
This of course can refer onlj' to those
ESTHER
IN
HOSCHANDER
among
35
evidence that no Jews lived at that time
the Greeks.
Egypt was under the dominion

of Xerxes.
of Persia during the reign
An
assumption that Jews lived among the

is
independent,
savage Scythians
civilized
not to be considered.
The only independent,

of the existence of
it
country where Jews might

far
have settled was Carthage, and so
we have no
record
Jews among the Carthaginians.
Hence
is
highly improbable that Jews existed outside of the
Persian empire at the time of Xerxes.

(7)
The
passage 'There
is
a certain people scattered Esther 3.8.

in all
and dispersed among the people
the provinces of thy

at
kingdom
'
distinctly
shows that the Jews

all
the period
of our story had already settled in

empire.
If
it
parts of the Persian
those
events
occurred
under
the
reign
of
Xerxes,
is
hardly credible that such a dispersion should

in
have been accomplished

about
sixty years.
the relatively short space

this objection is not
of
However,
con-
clusive.^^
(8)
The main
If
proof, however, that
Ahasuerus cannot be
in
identified with Xerxes,
may be
seen
the principal event
of our story.
we
are to believe that a Persian king had
once decreed the destruction of the Jews, we must advance
some
plausible reason for such an action.

all
Considering
it
from the point of view of
commentators, we encounter
a monstrosity inconceivable to the
human mind.
of
Does
a
it
stand to reason that

individual,
Haman, on account
single
who had
refused to
pay him due homage, should
have resolved to destroy a whole innocent race?

Syrians
Now
who
inhabited the seacoast,
and the Jews
in the
Persian period
were not
^*
inhabitants of the sea-coast.

is
This problem
'.
treated in the
Appendix
'
The
Exiles of Judah and
Israel
1)
36
it is

true, the
bloody pages of Jewish history bear testimony
to terrible persecutions of the Jews, in all ages,
the present, through no fault of their own.
down to But we must

post-exilic
bear in mind that this hostile attitude was always caused
by
religious
fanaticism
and intolerance.
In
times, the hatred against the Jews was never directed
against the Jewish race, but against the Jewish religion.
The Jew who became

or Islam,
as
a pagan, or
embraced Christianity
in all
was
in all countries races.
and
It
ages just as safe
one of the other

rulers
was always the aim of

to
intolerant
to
compel the Jews
abandon
their
exclusive position, and this task could not be accomplished
except by means of persecution.
We
know
that the Jews
who abandoned
their religion could attain to the highest
dignity in the Christian hierarchy, even in the
Dark Ages.
If
But Haman's action
is
without a parallel in history.
he
had been a
religious fanatic^ he
would have compelled the

Antiochus Epiphanes.
of an excep-
Jews to abandon
However,
let
their religion, as did
us admit that
Haman was
tional turn of mind,
and desired to exterminate the whole

But how can we
Jewish race on account of Mordecai.

believe that
Xerxes was exactly of the same turn of mind

his intentions
?
and readily agreed to carry out
Jampel's
suggestion that Xerxes was afraid of the Scythians,
who
frequently laid waste the country, and therefore believed

that
Haman's accusation
referred to them,^*
is
impossible.
Who
the
ever heard of enemies of this kind being destroyed
by royal decrees?
Xerxes might just as well have decreed

!
destruction of Greece
If the
Scythian hordes had
been so weak as to be destroyed by the people, they could
'*
Jampel,
/. r.,
p.
14.
ESTHER
IN

fear.
ofifer
HOSCHANDER
37
not have inspired any

special permission
for the
There was no need to ask

a
large
and
amount of money
If
destruction
of enemies of this kind.
he had
been afraid of these hordes, Xerxes would gladly have

given anything to
rid
himself of them.
Moreover, the
in
all
words of Haman,
'scattered
',
and dispersed
the
provinces of thy kingdom
distinctly indicate that he could
not have referred to the Scythians,

scattered
who were by no means

but came
in
and dispersed
in all the provinces,
large bodies from their steppes

their depredations.
It is also
whenever they committed
preposterous to assume that
Xerxes could have decreed the extermination of a people

without knowing their name.
authors,
inferior
The testimony
that
of classical
quoted
by Jampel,
'
Xerxes was of very

',
intelligence,
being a body without a soul
does
not deserve any credence.

personality of Xerxes
is
The only
authority for the
the honest, unbiased Herodotus
who, though he
may
in
some cases have been misinformed,
never distorted the truth.
The profound remarks which
Herodotus ascribes to Xerxes, no matter whether they are

oratorical embellishments or not, indicate that he considered
this
king a
man
of intelligence.
It is
wrong
to see in the
is
scourging of the Hellespont a childish action, as
generally
done by the commentators.

did not look upon
it
Herodotus and the Greeks

It
as childish, but as impious.
was
a symbolic action, a
Poseidon,
chastisement
of
the
Greek
god
whom Xerxes may

some
have held to be a creature

This
of Ahriman, according to his religious conception.

action was in
respect similar to the striking of the
Red Sea and

it
of the
Rock by Moses.
According
to
Herodotus, Cyrus punished the river Gyndes by

into three
dividing
hundred and sixty parts
for a lesser cause, his
38

drowned
in
it.^^
favourite horse having been
Xerxes was
Curtius
not inferior in intelligence to any of his successors.

justly describes
him
as having
had a deep sense of the
dignity of the empire.^'^
The
Persians in later times
may
have depicted him as an incapable

incapacity the
his reign.
ruler, attributing to his
disgraceful
defeats
Persia suffered
under
But exegetes have no right to stamp Xerxes
a fool for the purpose of confirming the veracity of the
Book of Esther.
It
has further been suggested by Jampel

of the Jews
^^
that Xerxes'
detestation
may have
there
is
been
caused
by
his
religious fanaticism.
Now
no doubt that Xerxes

Zoroastrian
religion,
was
fanatical
adherent
of
the
apparently more so than his father Darius.
The former
the. hardihood
even removed the statue of Bel-Marduk from the Babylonian

temple, an action which his father
to do
',
'
had not
It
as
Herodotus informs
us.^^
has been pointed out

is
that Xerxes after the fourth year of his reign
no longer
;
styled
this
'
king of Babylon
'
in the
Babylonian documents
for
title
could only be borne by a king
who
seized the
hand of Bel-Marduk on the

the action of Xerxes
New Year
festival.^^
Though
may have been

it
a political measure
and done
for
the purpose of abolishing the
kingdom of
Babylonia and uniting
with the
Persian empire, and
not with any religious motives, nevertheless Xerxes could

"
Herodotus
I,
189.
Grotc, in
it
liis
History of Grcac, IV,
p. 284,
does
not doubt this narrative, though
has been said that Cyrus's real intention
was
cross
''
to put this river out of

it.
liis
way
in
case he should find
it
necessary to
In his History 0/ Greece,

L.c.y p. 119.
Cf,
II. p.
273.
"8
"
'
Herodotus
I,
183.
Ed. Meyer, Forschuntâi cur Allen Gcschichte,

Gescliichle, III, p. 130.
Halle,
1892,
I,
p. 474,
and
ESTHER
IN
HOSCHANDER
if
39
hardly have committed such a sacrilegious deed,

not been, as a true Zoroastrian, an inveterate
he had
of the
enemy
worship of
destroyed
idols.
It
has
even
for
been asserted that he

This'
Greek temples
is
the same reason.^^''
however,
the
rather doubtful, as Herodotus states that on
day
after the
all
temple of Minerva was
set
on
fire,
Xerxes
assembled
the Athenian exiles and bade them go into
the temple and offer sacrifices after their
own
fashion.^''^
Xerxes would
in all probability
if
have destroyed the temples

idolater.
of his enemies, even
he had been an
But the
is
very fact that Xerxes was an ardent Zoroastrian
proof
to the contrary, that he could not have been hostile to the
Jews on account of
latter
their religion.
We
shall see that the

religion, as
were by no means averse to the Persian

it
long as
remained
in its purity, free
from idolatrous reprereligion
sentations.
Both the Jewish and Zoroastrian

least, alike,
were
in
the main points, superficially at
acknowledging
only one
God and
having no
idols.^^
If
Xerxes was an
ardent Zoroastrian, he must have been favourably inclined
towards the only non-Iranian subjects
in his
empire,
who
had a
religion akin
to that of the Persians,
and readily
significant
acknowledged the divinity of Ahuramazda.

for
1
/.
As
his favourable attitude

Cf.
towards the Jews we consider

vol. Ill, p.
G. Rawlinson's Herodotus,
254
IV, p. 241, and Cassel,
c, p, 82.
î
Herodotus VIII,
54.
The
fact that
Xerxes destroyed Greek temples

idols.
is
no proof that he was opposed he intended

laid
to the
worship of
states that
to invade
Delphos
It
for the
Herodotus VIII, 35 purpose of seizing the
riches
which were
up there.
was
a political measure lest the Greeks
might use these treasures against him.

Ed. Meyer {Geschichie,
For the same purpose he may have

255) contends that Xerxes
plundered the very rich temple of Apollo at Aboe, according to Herodotus
Vni,
i2
33.
III, p.
was not
hostile towards the
Greek gods.
See Chapter V.
40

'
the Statement of Ezra,

in
And
in
the days of Ahasuerus,
the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation

^''^
against the inhabitants of Judea and Jerusalem.'
It is
noteworthy that nothing

accusation.^*
It
is
is
said about the result
of this
evidently due to Xerxes' benevolent
attitude towards the
Jews that
this
accusation remained
sufficient
without
result.
Seeing that we cannot assign
reasons for the danger of extermination impending over

the Jews under the reign of Xerxes,
latter
Esther
lO. I.
it
is
obvious that the
cannot be identified with the king of our story.
(9)
There
:
is
'
a remarkable statement
in
the
last
chapter
of our story
And
the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute upon

isles
the land, and upon the
of the sea
'.^^'^
This passage
has puzzled
trivial
all
commentators:
What
connexion
may
this
remark have with the preceding events?
Cassel's
ingenious explanation, that the

for
king indemnified himself

lost in
the ten
thousand talents he had

is
frustrating
Haman's
decree,'"^
impossible.
The money
that
Haman
all
promised was not a

of Jewish taxes.
^"^
profit,
but indemnification for the loss
Further, the
in this
king had renounced

is
Ezra
4.
6.
Ahasuerus
passage
undoubtedly Xerxes, not

p. 64.
Cambyses. But
Cf. Keil, p.
/.
442 and Bertheau-Ryssel,
"" Marquart,
if
c, p. 63, sees in this passage the gloss of an interpolator.
the
intention
of the
alleged interpolator
was
to
give
us some
information about troubles of the Judeans under the reign of Xerxes,
why
does he stop with the accusation?
This 'interpolator' was apparentlv
a better historian than the author of the
Book
of Daniel, since he placed

I.
Ahasuerus between Darius
and Artaxerxes
:
Siegfried, in his
com. .
mentary on Ezra,
p. 24,
observes
'The
2.
petition to
Ahasuerus
is
missing.
But
this
gap
is
filled
out by Ezra
17-25'.
But Ezra omits
this passage
altogether, and the verses
17-25 correspond, with the exception of the

text.
p.
proper names,
*o
to the
p.
Hebrew
See Keil,
658; Bertheau-Kyssel.
545;
Wildeboer,
p.
196;
Siegfried, p. 175; Paton, p. 303, &'c.

"''
CasscI,
/.
c. p. 236.
ESTHER
IN
HOSCHANDER
is
41
claim to this money, in saying: 'The silver

thee'.
given to
Finally, the king
had already indemnified himself

property.^"'^
by
confiscating
Haman's
The author
evidently
intended to inform the reader about the great statesmanship

of Mordecai, that the king
by following
his counsel
was
very fortunate
in his enterprises,
and increased
isles
his
dominions
by acquiring
tribute.^**^
new land and
on which he levied
his
But we know that Xerxes did not increase on the contrary, he

lost
empire
the
Greek
cities
and
and
islands of
Asia Minor, the whole of Thrace, and the greater

between the years 479-476
B.C.E.,
part of Cyprus
never recovered them.

refer to the reign of
^"^
Hence such a statement cannot
Xerxes.
wife
Though Ahasuerus made a present of it to Esther, the property of his was always at his disposal. ^"^ Ibn Ezra, ad locum, is the only commentator who recognized the
meaning of this passage.
To
be coTitimied.)
STUDIES IN THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

By M. H. Segal, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
II
The Composition of the Book *

{concluded)
The
87.
First Period of David's Reign over

Israel.
All
ac-
The
section comprised
by
chs.
5-8 contains
counts of events, most, but not

first
all,
of which occurred in the
period of David's reign over
all Israel.
The
section
is
the original
work of our author, though here and there he

Thus,
for
seems to have incorporated some old material.

example,
5.
6-8 reads
like
an excerpt from an older source.

in
Such excerpts may

ch. 8.
exist
other parts of ch. 5 and in
The
(cf. I
section
may
a. 11),
also contain here
and there
later
additions.
5.
Such
Kings
8. I
is,
perhaps, the chronological notice in
4-5
the expansion in
7.
22-4, and the
statement in
i-i 2.
88. (ch. 5.)

vers. 1-2.
Critics consider 5, 3 to
in ver.
be a duplicate of
not identical with
is
But the statement
is
the statement in the two previous verses, but sequel and necessary consequence.
scribe the
rather
its
The
three verses de-
two stages of the transference of Saul's throne

:
to
David
first
*
a popular embassy representing

Concluded from
vol. VIII, pp. 75
ff.
all
the
43
44
tribes that
(vers.

came
to
Hebron and
offered the throne to
David
the
1-2).
When David had

(cf.
accepted the
throne,
elders of Israel followed to
Hebron, and concluded a coveii.
nant with David
Kings
17 b),
whereupon they
anointed him as their king.
The
a later
may be right in declaring On the other hand, vers. addition.

critics
vers.
4-5 to be
13-16
to
may
very
well belong to our author,
who sought
enhance the
impression of David's prosperity and might by recounting

the increase in his
(cf.
harem and the number of
his sons
critics to
above, 82).
Vers. 11-12 are held
by some
belong to the latter part of David's reign, since

is
Hiram
But
found to be
still
alive
in
the reign of Solomon.
it is
quite possible that
Hiram
outlived David
by many years.
all
Further, the building of David's royal palace should in
probability be assigned to the earlier part of his residence

in
Jerusalem,
when, as we are told
in
ver. 9 b,
David
H.
P.
was engaged
in great
building enterprises.
289), the alliance
And,
as
Smith observes
and David enemy, the
{o/>. cit.,
between Hiram
may have been

Philistines,
directed against their

its
common
That the
which would place
formation
before the destruction of the Philistine power.
statement
in ver. 11
is
true
i
is
rendered very probable by

5.
the express declaration in
Kings
15 b (against S. A.
Cook,
89,
op. cit., 151)-
Budde
and
(pp. cit.,
243) and his followers place vers. 17(or ver. 5),
25 immediately
ch. 6.
I,
after ver. 3
vers.
6-12
after
vers.
13-16
after ch. 8. 14.

:
But we must
reiterate the already oft-repeated question
How
it
and
is
why
quite
did the present arrangement arise?
Further,
evident that V"'3N1 in ver. 6 cannot refer to the levy of the
30,000 mentioned
in
ch. 6.
i,
for the expression
is
almost

a
technical
;
SEGAL
23
;
45
term
3
;
for
I
David's
veterans
;
and
immediate
27. 3, 8
;
followers
29. 2,
cf. a.
23. 5, 12, 13, &c.
24. 3,
II
30.
I, 3.
host of 30,000 would be described

n''3,
as Dyn, as in 6. 2, or
PNnty''
as in 6.
5.
It
is
also very
for
unlikely that
David would have used such a vast host

Finally,
if 6.
the investment of Jerusalem.'*^
is
the
immeDvn
^:di
diate continuation of 5. 12, then the phrase

will
ifiN
^:^'^'
be without a direct antecedent, and quite obscure.
Surely David did not keep with him 30,000 people throughout the events described in
5.
9-12.
There can be no
doubt whatever that

6. I.
6.
is
the immediate continuation of

in
David raised that host

full
order to bring up the
Ark
with
the
military honours.
;
For the
military character of
Ark cf. 11. 11 I 4. 3 Num. 10. :^5-6^ &c. 90. As regards the transference of vers. 17-25 to ver. 3, we may remark that the critics repeat here the error which we have already noted before ( 25, &c.), of forcing their own modern views upon the ancient writer. The modern
;
view
is,
no doubt correctly, that the greatest achievement
of David's reign that

this
was the subjugation of the
Philistines,
and
to
achievement did more than anything
else
consolidate his
of Israel.
kingdom and
this
to secure the national existence
But
need not necessarily have been the

In his time the Philistines
for
view of the ancient historian.
were an insignificant people which had been subject to Judah.

realize
fully the
in It
generations
for
was therefore hard
him
to
place which the Philistine struggle had
occupied
the reigns of Saul and David.
The conquest
harem
of Jerusalem, the building of Zion and of David's royal

residence, and the acquisition
by David
of a large
and so many
sons, were, in the eyes of our author, of far

*3
Cf.
H.
P. Smith, op.
cit.,
388,
46
greater consequence for the consolidation of David's throne,
and a
far
more
striking proof of the favour with

(ver. 12)
which God
regarded the accession of David

tion of the
to Israel,
all
than the destructheir subjection
power of the
Philistines
and
Hence
is
the account of David's anointment over
Israel
followed
immediately by
the
conquest of
Jerusalem and the kindred achievements described in vers.

6-16,
all
of which are intended to illustrate the statements
in vers. 10. 12.
91.
There
is
also another
good reason why our author
did not follow the strict chronological order and place vers.
17
ff.
immediately
the
after ver. 3 (ver. 5).

in
There
is
no doubt
that
campaign described
vers.
17-21 must have

in ver. 3.
taken place immediately after David's anointment
This
there
is
expressly stated in ver. 17 a
a,
where, moreover,
Further,
is is
no mention of the conquest of Jerusalem.
there
it
no doubt, as Wellhausen has rightly observed, that
is
this
campaign which
is
is
referred to in 23. 11
ff.,
and
that nnvttn in ver. 17 b
identical with the
miVO of Adullam
mentioned
still
in 23. 14.
All this presupposes that David was

at Jerusalem,
fortress
at
Hebron.
For had he been already
he would certainly not have abandoned that strong

to take refuge in the wilds of the borderland.
On
the
other hand, the second campaign described in vers. 22-5
must have taken place
after the
conquest of Jerusalem.
For
if,
for
some
strategical
reason
unknown
to
us,
the
rhilistines stationed themselves in the

for the first battle,
it is
Valley of Rephaim
very strange that they should have
returned for the second battle to the same place of their

great defeat, unless David had meanwhile occupied Jerusa-
lem, and
it
had become important
for
them
to dislodge
him from
his .strong position.
We may
thus assume with
SEGAL
47
a certain degree of confidence that vers. 6-9, and perhaps

also ver. 11, took place after the first
campaign
later
(vers. 17-ai),
and that ch. 6 took place
some time
than the second

in
6.
i
:
campaign
'1
(vers. 22-5).
Hence, the writer says
my
(51DKM
51D"'1,
viz. after
the levy raised for the war

to
in 5. 22-5.
But as the author was evidently unwilling
separate his two brief notices of David's wars against the

Philistines
by the
insertion
between them of other material
of a different nature, he was therefore obliged to abandon
the chronological order.
And
so he chose
first
to give his
notice of the conquest of Jerusalem
and of the related
events in vers. 6-16, in order to illustrate David's prosperity
and the favour shown him by God

to
(vers. 10, 12),
and then
give
the accounts
of
the
two
Philistine
campaigns
together, and immediately after the story of the bringing
up
of the
Ark
(ch. 6),
which, as
we have remarked,
clearly the to
followed
the second Philistine campaign.

92. (ch. 7.)
Chapter
is
continuation
of
ch. 6.
Having brought the Ark

it
Jerusalem,
David
wishes to erect for
a suitable habitation which might
become the
refers
central sanctuary of the

5. 11,
kingdom.
Ver. 2 a
use of the
i
back to
and
ver. 2
to 6. 17.
The
perfect consecutive with the verbs in vers. 9 b-i
proves
that
David was
still
in the earlier part of his reign,

i
and
in
that, therefore, the statement in ver.
b must be taken
a relative and not in an absolute sense. the prophet

real
is
The
facts that
represented as not being cognizant of God's

the value of the
purpose
(ver. 3), that
Temple
is
is
rather
minimized
in the prophecy,^* that the
author
favourable
to the Davidic dynasty

fall, all
and
is
ignorant of
its
decay and
tend to prove the early age of our chapter.

**
Hence
Cf.
R. Kittel
in
Kautzsch's Heilige
Schrift"^, 429.
48

see no reason to
style differs
we
deny
its
composition to our author.

rest of the book,
The
indeed from the
but this
may
be due to the different character of the subject-matter,
which demanded a certain conventional and standardized

treatment
cf.
our observation on
12
( 42).
The
critics,
is
however, are almost unanimous that the chapter

interpolation,
an
though they are

date,
far
from unanimous on the

it
question of
its
some regarding
as pre-Deuteronomic,
exilic.
others as post-Deuteronomic, and others again as
Their view of
its
late origin
is
based chiefly on the assumpthe
tion that vers.
12-15
refer
to
long line of David's
descendants, and not to a particular individual.

prophecies are in the eyes
eventus,
it
As
all
of our critics
vaticinia post
follows
that
this
prophecy must have been

even after the end, of the
is
written towards the end, or
Davidic dynasty.
to
But the truth
that vers. 12-15 refer

cf.
no one
else
except to Solomon,
loc.
Yalkut,
Rashi,
and Kimhi, ad
This
in
i
is
plainly
5.
stated
8.
in ver. 13,
and
also
reiterated
is
Kings
19;
17-20, where
Solomon
actually
made
to quote the language of our

Cf. also i
ver. 13 as referring to himself.
Chron. 22. 9-10
28. 6-7.
In spite, however, of this weighty and decisive

{op.
cit.,
evidence, Wellhausen
254-5) and his followers
persist in their view, declaring v. 13 to
be an interpolation
based upon a mistaken exegesis of our prophecy.

critics
These
claim
to
know
the
meaning of our
It
Scriptures
better than their authors themselves.
may
be asked
whether the passages in

as the
Kings are also
to
be condemned
work of an
interpolator
who
followed the spurious
ver. 13 of
our chapter?
Or, where else could the reiterated
story of a prediction about

given in the passages
in
Solomon building the Temple,
the First of Kings quoted above,

have been derived from
?
SEGAL
this
49
ex-
Apart, however, from
ternal evidence so thoughtlessly

it
impugned by the
critics,
is
plain from
its
use as a singular right throughout the

in ver. 12 is a real singular,
it
passage, that
collective,
"lyiT
and not a
one single
as
and
that, therefore,
must
refer to
individual, viz. Solomon.*^
If
y"iT
had been intended
a collective plural
in
it
would have been used
as a real plural
accordance with Hebrew idiom (see Gesenius-Kautzsch,
Heb. Gram.,
145
b,
and
cf.,
is
for
example, Gen.
15. 13,
14;
17. 7, 8, 9, &c.).
Ver. 13
i
obviously connected with the
cited passages of
I
Kings, while ver. 14 points forward to

&c.
;
Kings
II. II, 23,
cf.
Chron.
22. 9; 28. 6.
Psalms
for the
89.
30-38; 132. 12 cannot be adduced as evidence
correctness of the critics' interpretation of vers. t2, 15, for
there
the
is
application
of
our
prophecy
to
the
Davidic
licence.
dynasty
simply a case of poetic or homilelical
In the same
way
the Psalmist applies to David our ver. 14,

refer to
which certainly does not

93. (ch. 8.)
first
David himself
(89. 27).
The author concludes

shall
his narrative of the
period of David's reign by a
summary
some
of David's
conquests.
As we
in
show
later,
of the events
recorded
the
brief paragraphs of this
chapter really
belong to the second period of David's reign, the story

of which
is
given in chs. 9
fif.
Our
author, however, pre-
ferred placing
in
them here rather than interpolating them

he embodied
in
the document which

ff.
his
book from
like
chs. 9
8.
11-12
may
perhaps be a later addition,

to ver.
8,
the similar addition in

cf.
I
LXX
and
Chron.
8.
18
Chron. 29. 2
ff.
Note also the late expression

critics
K^3D in
ver. 11.^^
*^
Vers. 15-18 are not, as the

application of
op.
Jill
hold,
Gen.
4.
the
25.
For
Cf.
tl.e
to
one particular
inc'ividual cf.
Wellhausen,
cit.,
255.
VOL. IX.

life
conclusion of a document of a
of David, any
is
more than
admitted,
the parallel passage in 20. 23-6
the conclusion of the

is
document
chs.
chs. 9-20.
For, as
in i
it
generally
8.
9-20 are continued
Kings, chs. 1-2.
15-18 form
period of
only the conclusion to the history of the

David's reign,
20.
first
contained
in
chs. 5-8.
In a similar way,
23-6 forms the conclusion to the history of the second

Cf. also
period of David's reign contained in chs. 9-20.

above, 49, and below, ic8.
94.
The
critics
hold that the

is
Aramean campaign
really
de-
scribed in vers. 3-6

in
identical with the
campaign described
is
10. 6
fif.,
and that our account here
borrowed
from
ch.
10.
The
differences
between the two accounts

250), in a characteristic
are explained
by Budde
{op. cit.,
fashion, as deliberate alterations (the
more
correct expresfor
sion
would be
'
falsifications
')
by the redactor
Thus
in 8. 2
the
purpose of concealing the source of his narrative and the

identity of the
two accounts.
Amnion
who
23. 3.
was
in
really the cause of the
whole Aramean War, as stated
ch.
10
is
altered
into
Moab, with
whom David was

I
really
on the most friendly terms, as shown by

in vers. 3, 12 is
3im p
10. 6.
a deliberate alteration for 3"im n^3,
The account
which
of the defeat and conquest of

is
Damascus
',
(vers. 5-6),
historically
'
highly improbable
is
redactional substitution for the account of the subjugation ot
the trans-Euphratean
of To'i in vers. 9-10
ch. 10.
Arameans
is
in 10.
16-18.
The homage
transferred here from the end of
And,
finally,
the redactor deliberately deleted the

10.
6,
name
of Hadad'ezer from
his
in
order to conceal the

ff.
dependence of
own account
a
in 8. 3
on ch.
the
10.
It will
be seen that, according to

falsified
this
critic,
redactor
has
names, fabricated
story
of
David's
cruelty

towards
his
SEGAL
51
former friends and hosts, the Moabites, tam-
pered with his documents, altered them, mutilated them,
and transposed them
at his
own
will
and pleasure.
He
committed
all
these literary crimes with a view to hiding
the identity or similarity of the two accounts in ch. 8 and

ch. 10
Yet
all his efforts
have proved an absolute
futility,
for all his artifices
and misdeeds have now been

critic.
fully laid
bare by this lynx-eyed
Let
other
us,
however, examine the assertions of this and
critics,
and see whether they are

alleged that
really justified.
95.
It is
Moab
since
in ver. 2 is
a wilful alteration
for the original
Amnion,
David could not have fought
against the king of Moab, owing to their old friendship.
Now,
is
it
is
true that David's hostility towards the Moabites

'^^
rather surprising, and the ancients

its
already sought for
an explanation of
cause.
But our ignorance of the
cause for this hostility does not justify us in tampering
with
our
text,
or
in
accusing
its
ancient
author
of
deliberate falsification.
is
There
that
is
no doubt that our text

continued in a state of
rebellion
correct.
We
I. I
;
know
4
Moab
the
vassalage to
(cf.
is
Israel
3.
until
ff.,
great
of Mesh'a
Kings
and the Moabite Stone).

in
As
the
there
no mention anywhere
our historical
documents of
reign
another war between

of Jehoram,
Israel
and Moab
until
we
are
bound
to conclude that
Moab had been

by the
reduced to subjection at the beginning of the Israelitish
monarchy, a conclusion which
is
fully confirmed
prophecy
(I
in
Num.
24.
17.
Saul's
to
war against
Moab
14.
47)
does not seem
have been
is
of a decisive
character, since in I 22.

as an independent
^^ Cf.
3-4 Moab
still
found existing
that
it
kingdom.
It follows, therefore,
loc.
Banu'dbar rabba, ch. 14; Rashi and Kimhi, ad
52
must have been David who destroyed Moab's independence

as stated in our text.
Cf.
also
23. 20,
which probably
belongs to this
96.
campaign.
that
Again, we are told

3"in~i
31m p
is
deliberate
substitution for
original
ri'2.
Does
the critic assert that the TvH Itymn?
had
this
absurdity:
ami
it
And
if
we
should go further and 'emend'

will still
into nini rr'ao 'nn, there
remain the
difficulty that
Hadad'ezer really beIt
longed to Zobah and not to Beth Rehob.
may, however,
personal
be asked what
is
wrong with 3im p

10. I2
;
name
Dim
'n
is
found
in
Neh.
is
cf.
also the
critics
names 3m, n>3m,

find fault with
Di?3n-|.
The
truth
that the
must
it
in
f.
order to be able to
Further,
of
identify
with
'n n"'2
in
10. 6
we
are told
by Budde that the permanent by the

Israelites
critic
is
'
occupation
Damascus
'.
hochst
unwahrscheinlich
But our omniscient

in
i
seems to
11. 23-5,
have forgotten the clear statement
Kings
which
fully
corroborates
the
truth
of our account that

Israelitish
.
David had turned that ancient Syrian city into an

dependency.**
97.
The
is
fact
is
that the
Aramean campaign
in 8. 3
is
in
this
chapter
or, to
quite distinct from the one described in ch. 10,

fif.
be more precise, the campaign

ch. 10.
really the
sequel of the campaign of
The
origin of David's
latter
war against Hadad'ezer was the help the

to
had offered
in
Ammon.
*'
The
in
first
campaign against him, described
ch. 10, resulted

This
the repeated defeat of himself and his

is
corroboration
in
I
not affected
by the omission of
is
LXX
of
DHN nn 3in3
the
Kings
ii. 24.
is
For
it
evident from the context that
meaning of the passage
that the usurpation by
Rezon
of the throne
of
Damascus
constituted an act of rebellion against Solomon, similar to that
of
Hadad
the Edomite and Jeroboam the Ephraimite.

I,
Contrast Cheyne,
Ecy. Bibl.,
1028, n. 4.

vassals.
SEGAL
53
The
latter
submitted to David and exchanged
Hadad'ezer's suzerainty for that of David (10. 19).

*ezer himself,
Hadad-
though defeated, was not yet entirely broken.
His
final
destruction David reserved for another opportunity,
and
this
he found when Hadad'ezer undertook an expedition

It is this
to the
banks of the Euphrates.*^
second campaign,
resulting in the total defeat of Hadad'ezer

tion of
98.
and the subjuga-
Damascus, which
is
described in our chapter,

the king of
in
The
critics are surprised that

6,
Zobah
is
not mentioned expressly in 10.
whereas
10.
16 the
name
of Hadad'ezer
is
given, but without
any epithet or
description.
They
see in this also a proof of the activity
of a dishonest or tampering redactor.

is
But the explanation
quite simple.
The omission
6
is
of the mention of the king
of
Zobah
in 10.
due
to the
same cause
of Beth
as the omission
viz.
of the unlike
mention of the king

the king of Ma'akah,
in
Rehob,
kings
that,
these
two
did not
accompany
person the mercenaries from their kingdoms
who went
to the help of
Ammon.
It
would, therefore,
have been incorrect to say that the Ammonites had hired

the king of Beth
Rehob and
the king of Zobah.
In lo. i6,
however,
it
was Hadad'ezer himself who personally ordered
the battle at Helam.
He
is,
therefore,
mentioned by name,
is
but without any special epithet, since he
assumed
author's
to
be already
known
8. 3.
to the reader
from
the
own
description in
*^
in^b^
in 8. 3 refers to
Hadad'ezer, as rightly explained by Rashi and
Kimhi.
54
The Second Period of
David's Reign over all
Israel.
99. It
is
i
generally conceded
chs.
i
that chs. 9-20, with their

all
sequel in
Kings
and
2,
belong
to one
document
written
by an author who was almost
a contemporary of
the
men and
events w'hich he described.
These chapters
are closely interrelated.
They
also display a general uni-
formity of style and method of presentation and a unity

of plan and conception.
They seem
to look at the events
which they describe from a nearer perspective, and are

undoubtedly older than other parts of our book.
Hence
we
this
are led to the conclusion that our author incorporated
lengthy section from some older work,

as he incorporated
(ch. 9.)
I
in
the same
way
4-6
9-10, 16, &c.

critics
100.
Budde and other
maintain that
ch. 9 is the sequel to 21. 1-14, for the inquiry of

in
9.
I
David
is
only
intelligible in
after
the slaughter of Saul's
house described
21.
1-14.
This view leads them to
strike out 21. 7 as an interpolation
and to place
ch. 24
before 21. 1-14, and to delete 24.
a as a redactional link.
7
The
plain
man, however,
will
is
on the contrary accept 21.

earlier
as sufficient proof that ch. 9
than 21. 1-14.
The
'" There are, however, some exceptions to this consensus of opinion. Thus, the integrity of the whole of ch. 12 has been challenged by Schwally
(see below), and notably by A. S.
Cook {AJSL., XVI, 145-177).
The
latter
seeks to apply the redactional hypothesis to the whole of this section,

without, however, developing a coherent and self-consistent theory of the
composition of these chapters.

clusion
is
The evidence
for his rather startling con-
often of a purely subjective character, and in flagrant contradiction
to the express statements of the text.

fully into a discussion of his
We,
therefore, forbear from entering
arguments.

critics
SEGAL
forced
to
55
this
themselves would not have been

if
arbitrary and violent procedure
they had not pressed

"iniJ
unduly the
expression
literalness of the expression

is
in 9.
1.
The
sufficiently
explained by the slaughter of
Saul and his sons at Gilboa and the murder of Ishbosheth.
On
the other hand, a
little
consideration will at once prove

theory.
the baselessness of the
critics'
In his search for

full
victims for the Gibeonites, David
must have made
inquiry
for
the descendants of Saul.
The
first
person
mentioned as a likely victim would no doubt have been

Mephibosheth, who was the only direct male descendant
of Saul,
If so,
how could David have remained

must
also reject
ignorant
of the existence of Mephibosheth until after the tragedy of

21.
1-14?
7.
1
We
H.
P. Smith's conjecture
that
stood originally at the head of our chapter.

7. 2.
For
Cf.
7. I is
the natural and necessary introduction to

II
:
also
7.
T2\y ^3D
"^b
^nn"'jm.
loi. (ch. II.)
Some
critics assert
that the story of
David
and Bathsheba was originally independent of the story of

the siege of Rabbah.
But from
11. 7, 11.
15
ff.
it
is
plain
that the incident occurred while Joab and the
army were
city.
engaged on the prolonged siege of a certain

have a record only of one such
siege, viz.
We
of
the siege
Rabbah.
(or
'
If those critics
it is
do not believe the ancient writer

tell
redactor'),
plainly their duty to

is
us with what
other siege the story
connected.
259) holds ver. 21 to be an interpoin
Wellhausen
lation
(op. cit.,
because the reference to Abimelek

is
'
the
mouth
'.
of the king
an unnecessary piece of
historical erudition
But
it is
difficult to see
why
as a practical tactician
David
should not have mentioned this striking example of the

risk
which the besiegers ran by approaching too close to
56

Further, the
is
the enemj'.s wall,^^
critic
has forgotten that
the speech given in these verses
put into David's

If the critic denies
mouth
David
cannot
by the
narrator
(cf.
abDve, 69).
the right of showing his historical

surely deny such a right to the
erudition, he
historian.
One cannot
critic to this
help suspecting that the real objection of our

verse
in
is
that
it
proves the great antiquity of the narrative
Judges
ch. 9.
102. (ch. 12.) F. Schwally
followed
in his
by H.
P.
Smith
(o/>.
{ZATJV., 1892, pp. 153 ff.), cit., 322) and by W. Nowack

1-15 a to be a late interpowhich, he says,
to
'
commentary, declares
12.
7,
lation of the
same date
as ch.
had been
'.
assigned
by
authoritative
critics
the age of Josiah

in
The only argument, however, which he advances

of this theory
is
support
that no reference to Nathan's prediction

is
of the death of the child
to be found in the subsequent
paragraphs, vers. 15 b
writing history and
fif.
But seeing that the narrator was

the truth
of
not a dissertation on
it
prophetic prediction,
is
hard to understand
why he was
bound
to repeat the fact of Nathan's
rebuke and prediction.

David's conduct
On
in
the other hand,

vers. 16
fif.
how can one understand
without the foregoing paragraph?
Let us
critic is
concede, for argument's sake, that the view of this

correct,
and that God did not find anybody

how
in Israel
brave
" Mr. Cook

the
{ibid.,
156} asks,
else
was the
city to be taken, unless
army approached the wall?
Evidently the narrator
knew
of other
means besides exposing

between
But
ver. 15,
the besiegers to attacks from the wall, such as
famine, undermining, or night attacks.
He
that
also finds an
inconsistenci*
where David commands
Uriah alone should be placed

fell
in a position of
it
danger, and vers. 17, 24, where others
along with Uriah.
is
evident that Joab
was
not able to carry out David's order literally

first
(cf. ver. 24,
livV n33
'3),
and he look the
opportunity he could find
for bringing about Uriah's death, viz. during a sortie bj' the enemj'.
SEGAL
57
enough
to
communicate
to the king the divine displeasure
at his criminal action.

in
David, then,
like
other potentates
did,
pagan and Christian lands, could, and actually
commit adultery and murder without bringing on himself

any remonstrance whatever from the
the day.
religious leaders of
felt in
But surely he himself must have
the depth
of his heart that his conduct was contrary even to the
morality of the
'
Jahvism
it
'
of his
own
day, however crude

critics.
and inarticulate
may have been

for the
according to our
How,
then, could
David have had the effrontery
to fast
and to pray to God
recovery of the adulterous
child without having first obtained
God's pardon
for his
crime
Schwally
ff.
is
surprised that David does not display
in vers. 16
the contrition and humility of a penitent.
But assuming that David had not been rebuked, and had
not repented and been pardoned, our surprise ought to be
greater
still
that
David should have been so completely

sin,
unconscious of his terrible
and that he should not have
recognized in the death of the child a punishment for his

crime.
David's repose of mind in vers. 16
ff.
can be ex-
plained only
by
his previous repentance artd the prophet's
assurance of God's complete pardon.

103.
Schwally
is
shocked by the worldly character of

i
Nathan
as displayed in
Kings
ch.
i,
and he therefore
all,
concludes that Nathan was not a prophet at
but merely
a
later
in
some
public
intriguing
and
ambitious
courtier.
Only
generation,
life,
when prophets had become

had
felt
so prominent
the need
of having
some prophet
associated with David's reign, and so turned the worldly
Nathan
into a prophet,
and ascribed
7.
it
to
him the prophecies

critic
of our chapter and ch.

strikes out
In consequence our
boldly
NU3n wherever
occurs as an epithet of Nathan
58
in
I

Kings
i.
One may add

all,
that
critic
might have gone

priest at
further and theorized that
by such a method our Zadok

Nathan should
not cite as
reject
it
was not a
to
and that the epithet pan applied
him
side
by
side with S^33n applied to
be struck out as a late insertion.

evidence ch.
7
We
critic
will
and
12. 25, for the
may
as
insufficient to upset his critical hypothesis.

if
But,
we
ask,,
else
Nathan was not the great prophet of the day, what
was he?
How
did he secure the
commanding
in
position
i
at David's court
ch.
1 ?
which we
find
him occupying
Kings
his
Why
should
Adonijah have invited him to

(i
banquet along with Solomon, Zadok, and Benajah

I.
Kings
10,26)?
Why, moreover,
help
should David have demanded

?
his assistance at
Solomon's anointment
{ibid.^ vers.
32
ff.).
One cannot
superficiality
expressing one's astonishment
at
the
and
'
the frivolous scepticism displayed
by
such
'
critical
theories,
and one's amazement that such
absurdities
should be written, published, and copied by
academic scholars of repute.

104.
But Mr. A.
S.
Cook
{pp. cit.,
157) goes even further
than his
German
confrhe.
He
boldly declares the whole
of II. 27b-i2. 24a, 25 to be an interpolation.

story of the death of the adulterous child
is
The whole
a pure fiction.
The
child did not die, but lived

in
and grew up to become

of the
illustrious
king over Israel
the person
King
Solomon.
of the
And
so that great and wise king, the builder
Temple, the recipient of divine revelations, the
reputed author of two or three biblical books,
who
is
one
of the chief heroic figures in history, was really a bastard,
conceived
it.
in
adultery and murder!
We
refuse to believe
We
in
refuse to believe that the moral consciousness of
Israel
that great age had sunk so low
as
to
suffer.
SEGAL
sit
59
without a protest, a person of such an origin to

national throne.
105. Budde's conjecture that vers. 7
on the
b-9 a a
(to
i:''ya)
is
an interpolation has been shown by H. P. Smith

324) to be without foundation.
{op. cit.,
But
it
must be admitted
that Nathan's speech has undergone some ampHfication.
The
terrible threat in vers.

later scribe,
IT-12
in
is
probably an insertion
for
by a
who saw
16.
21-2 a punishment
David's sin with Bathsheba.

in vers. his
Further, the double mention
9-10 of Uriah's murder and of David's marrying
widow cannot be original. Smith {ibid.) regards HK "innn nms (vers. 9a/3-ioba) as an interpolation. But
. .
it is
not likely that the prophet would

It is true
fail
is
to mention the
murder of Uriah.
that there
nothing
in
the
parable corresponding to this crime.
In order to be quite
parallel to the application, the parable should
have stated
that the rich
man
slew the poor
man
before taking possesit is
sion of his lamb.
But, on the other hand,
not necessary
that a parable should agree in detail with the application.^^
Thus,
for
example, the parable of Jotham (Judges

(i
9.
8-20)
and the parable of the Prophet

correspond
order to
in
Kings
20.
39-42) do not
In
its
every particular with their applications.
fulfil its
purpose and impress the hearer with
beauty and
truth,
the parable must be an independent
story and capable of standing
by
itself.
This would not

details with
its
be the case
application,
if
it
were to agree
in
all
and serve only as a mask
to another story.
In spite, therefore, of the absence in the parable of a parallel

to Uriah's murder,
we may be
sure that the prophet
men-
tioned this deed together with the rape of Bathsheba, but
only once and not twice, as our present text has

B2
it.
Hence
cf G. F. Moore, Judges,
p. 245.
6o

conjecture
that
we
Nathan's
speech
in
the
ver. 9
application
ended with
ver. 9 a (to r\î6),
and that
is
really
the continuation of ver. 10, erroneously transposed.
The
o)
is
whole of
ver.
10 plus 9 b
is
an interpolation similar to the

ver. 10
.
following vers. 11-12.
Note that
(.
.
(.
'Jnnn
really a duplicate of ver. 9 a
nna).
"i3T
should
be
omitted, with Lucian, as an anti-anthropomorphic para-
phrase of 'iV^ and was probably added by the hand that

inserted the threat in loa.
We may
prior
to
add that
it
is
rather
surprising that the prophet
makes no mention of David's

their
adultery with
Bathsheba
legal
marriage
implied in n^'ab lb nnp^.

106. (chs. 14-20.)
There
is
no cogent reason
for conis
demning
14.
26 as an interpolation.
cf. 9,
Our
;
narrator
fond
of such picturesque details,
10 b
12.30 a;
13. 18 a,
&c.
Moreover, the description of Absalom's personal beauty
may
(cf. I
be intended to explain his father's fondness for him
Kings
I. 6,
See H. P. Smith,
op. cit., 338),
and also
6),
the ease with which he gained the people's heart (15.
The
richness of his hair
the narrator as a preparation for 18. 9b.^*
may have been emphasized by The mention

is
of a royal standard weight the

that
late
not necessarily a proof of
origin of the passage.
For even
if
we assume
it
the
weight
was of
Babylonian
origin,
in
is
quite
in
possible that the weight
had been adopted
Canaan
the pre-Israelitish period.

tion of
The
is
originality of this descrip-
Absalom's beauty
supported by the narrator's
statement of the other pretender

nst:
Adonijah 31U
refers to the
Nin DJi
isn
(i
Kings
is
i. 6),
which evidently
ot
beauty
"'
'n ")3T
an exact reproduction
in the
I,
the Aramaic
'm
N"^D^D which
is
commonly employed
Targumim
8.
to
paraphrase the divine Name,
"
Cf.
Mishnah, Sotah,

of Absalom described in our verse.
to contradict 18. i8ay3.
SEGAL
how
6l
14. 27
seems indeed
a later
But
to
it
is
hard to see
writer
would have dared
insert
such a contradictory-
statement without some explanation.

sons died before his rebellion.^^
107. 15. 24
Perhaps his three
must be taken, with the
critics, as
is
a gloss
similar to
original.
I 6. 15.
On
is
the other hand, 18. 15
undoubtedly
There
no reason
It
why
a later writer should
invent such a statement.

did
would seem that Absalom

and as Joab must have
not
expire
it
immediately,^'^''
thought
dangerous to leave him to die slowly, he there-
fore ordered his armour-bearers to dispatch
him
at once.
The
fact
that Joab
is
given here ten armour-bearers, as
compared with the one possessed by Saul and Jonathan,

need occasion no surprise.
In the high state of developin
ment
to
which the military profession had attained

it
David's reign,
chief of the
birth
is
quite possible that the commander-in-
army was
followed
by
ten
young men
of noble
who
acted as his pages or squires.
T08. 20. 23-6 forms the conclusion of the story of the
second period of David's reign, as

clusion of the story of the
first
8.
16-18 formed the con(cf.
period
above,
93).
Like those
verses, our passage here
must be by the author
of our book,
in
list
who broke
off here
ff.
with his borrowed document
order to give chs. 21

of officers of the
Observe the addition to the

(ver. 24),
(i
Adoram
who
held his
12. 18),
office
till
after
death of Solomon
Kings
and must
therefore have been appointed at the end of David's reign.
Observe further that the sons of David, who had become

discredited through the conduct of their brothers
*^
Amnon
literally.
Cf. Babli
Sotah
ii a,
and Kimhi and Ralbag, ad he.
"
Dl!5C:'2K
3^2
in ver. 14, like
n^KH 3^3, must
not be taken
62

priests
is
and Absalom, no longer act as the king's domestic

(cf. 8,
i8b), and their place

N't' is
is
taken
by
XT'y.
It
also
possible that
not to be identified with nn:r of

list
8. 17.
These considerations confirm the view that our

belongs to a later period than the one
in
8.
here
16-18, and
is
dispose of the theory of the critics that our passage
merely a redactional rehash of
8.
16-18.
See also Sayce,
Early History of Hebrews,
p. 444.
Miscellaneous Pieces,
109.
chs. 21-4.
The
last
four
chapters
of our
book
consist of
a series of six miscellaneous pieces,
viz. (i)
The
story of
the expiation of Saul's slaughter of the Gibeonites, 21. 1-14;

(2)
Exploits of four heroes of David against four champions

;
of the Philistines, 21. 15-22

ch. 22
;
(3)
David's
;
Hymn of Triumph,
(4)
David's Oracle, 23. 1-7
(5)
list
of David's
(6)
heroes and some of their exploits, 23. 8-39

census of the people and
generally agreed that
(i)
its
David's
It
is
consequences, ch. 24.

(6)
and
probably belong to one
document, the
the former, as
to
the
latter
is
being originally the continuation of

24.
i a,
shown by
i.
which can
(2)
refer only
(5)
calamity in 21.
Likewise
and
belong
together, and (3) and (4) are obviously also of a similar

nature.
Further,
i
we may
ch, 1-2
also accept the theory of the
critics that
Kings
belong to the same document
as 2
Sam.
chs. 9-20. the former being the direct continuation

it
of the latter, though

original
is
also quite possible that in the
document some other material intervened between

i
a Sam. 20 and
Kings
1-2.
But we cannot accept the

this section
view of the
in chs.
critics that the
whole of
later
comprised
21-4 was added by

its
hands as an append!.x to
i
the book after
separation from
Kings.
The
insertion
SEGAL
63
of the
list
of officers in 20. 23-6, which, as
above, emanates from the author of our book
we have shown who had

purpose, in
incorporated into his work the old document, chs. 9-20,

leads us to think that
it
was made of a
set
order to
reader
mark a break
in
the narrative, and to prepare the

different
in
for
other accounts
their
source and
nature from the preceding chapters.

that 21. 1-14 and
author.
its
Hence we conclude
ch.
complement
pieces
24 belong to our
author's
original
Whether these
are
the
work, or have been borrowed by him from another docu-
ment,
it is
impossible to decide with any degree of certainty.
The subdued
tone of these narratives and the mention in

I
21. 12 of nim?D, instead of r,?3inD, as in
31. 12,
would lead
one to the conclusion that they are not the author's own
work.
On
the other hand, the parenthesis in 21. 2 b shows

is
that the narrative
not very ancient.

it
For an older writer
would have thought

of the Gibeonites.
unnecessary to explain the character

is
It
not hard to explain
why
the
author placed these narratives here, and not earlier in

the book.
21. 7
shows that the famine took place
after
ch. 9 (cf. above, 100).
The
author, therefore, had to place
21.
1-14
after ch. 9,
but he probably did not like to inter-
rupt the document, chs. 9-20, which he was transcribing

into his
viz.
own work,
until
he had reached a suitable place,
after
the quelling of the rebellion of
Absalom and
i
ff.
Sheba'.
Perhaps, as
we have
indicated above, ch. 21.
took the place of some other narrative which stood
in that
document between
Sam. 20 and
Kings 1-2, and which
our author failed to adopt into his
own work.
no.
the
21.
1-14 and
ch.
24 were torn asunder by the insersequel 23. 8-39.

Philistines
tion of 21. 15-22, and
its
The
insertion
of
exploits
against the
may have
been
64
suggested by the mention of the Phih'stine victory over

Saul in 21. 12
b.
We
and
are also inclined to think that the

23. 1-17,
two poems,
position
ch. 22
were placed
in their present
by the same hand which inserted
21,
15-22 and
23. 8-39.
scribe
who
did
not shrink
from tearing
asunder 21. 1-14 and ch. 24 by the insertion of 21. 15-22;

23.
8-39 would surely not have had any compunction
in
separating his
own
description of David's heroes
by the
interpolation of chs. 22-23. 1-7.
that the most
suitable place for the
No Hymn
doubt he thought
which celebrated
1
David's victory over all his enemies (22.
b)
was
at the
end of the book
after
all
the accounts of David's wars
against internal and external enemies, and after the description of the struggle against the Philistine champions,
one of
whom had
The
actually sought to take David's

its
own
life
(21. 16).
Oracle, with
promise of perpetuity and

5),
prosperity to David's dynasty (23.
was suggested by
It is also
the concluding verse of the
Hymn
(22. 51).^'
list
quite possible that the placing of the

after the
of heroes (23. 8-39)
poem was due
to a pure accident.
its
The
interpolator
may
not have decided upon
incorporation until after
he had already copied
down
the two poems.
On
the other
hand, the whole insertion of 21. 15-23. 39 was placed where

it
stands, instead of at the
end of
ch. 24, because ch.
24
may have been

book, since
it
considered a fitting conclusion to the whole
closes with the divinely-ordained consecration
of the site of the future

in
Temple
of Solomon, an act which
a later time
was probably thought to have been the

(cf. 1
crowning achievement of David's career
Chron. 21. 3
fif.),
and which
the story
at the
of
same time served

in
1
as an introduction to
Solomon's reign " a.JQR.,
Kings.
Finally, the
V, 20I.

exploits against the Philistines (21. 15
earlier in the book, say after 5.
in his
ff.)
SEGAL
65
were not inserted

has done
hotch-potch polychrome
as Budde text because

25
the. interpo-
lator could not
have placed there the
Hymn
in
which, as
all
we have
internal.
said,
David celebrated
his
triumph over
his
enemies, Philistine as well as others, external as well as
III. (ch. 21.) 21.
2b-3aa
critics
(to
D''3ynjn)
need
not be an
interpolation,
as
the
assert.
It
may
f. ;
be merely
an explanatory parenthesis by the author himself, similar

to the parenthetic explanations in 4. 2 b
I 27. 8 b,
&c.
Ver. 12:
( 109), I 31.
3imo may show,

is
as
we have remarked above

31.
that our passage
from a document different from

I
It
does not, however, involve a contradiction to

the bodies
12,
since
suspended from the wall (=
niDinn
I 31. 10)
must have faced the broad place

21. 12).
in front of the
wall
(= 3imo
Thus, both passages are quite

It is therefore quite possible that
correct and consistent.
our passage here was incorporated into the book by the
same author who wrote

for H'-Wcn
,
31.
The reading
of the
Targum
and of some codd. of
LXX
its
drrb rod reLôv?
ncino for 3imo, rests evidently on a deliberate correction.

112. 21. 15-22
style to 5. 17-25.
in
its
is
similar in
compressed annalistic
It differs,
it
however, from that passage

5.
contents, since
does not deal, like
17-25, with
David's wars against the Philistines, but only with the

exploits of individual warriors.
In other words, instead
of a narrative of the Philistine wars, including as episodes

also
accounts of individual exploits subordinate to the
account of the wars, we have here accounts of the exploits
forming the principal theme, and the wars mentioned only

as
something subordinate, and as affording a background

VOL. IX.
F
66

For
this
to the exploits.
reason
it
is
very
much
to be
doubted whether our passage ever had any connexion with

5.
17-25.
It
is
certainly
wrong
first
to transfer our passage
to the end of ch. 5 without
explaining
how the passage

and transposed
became
here.
dislocated from
its
original position
For a discussion of the text of
chs. 22-23. 7
^^'
^^^^
Review,
vol.
V, pp. 209-31.
113. (ch. 23.)
Many
critics
think that 23. 13-17, which
according to ver. 13 a describes an exploit by members of

the Thirty, was placed in
its
present position
is
by an
'iDi
error,
and that the conclusion
of ver. 12
ver. 17
b:
iw
rha.
But
it
is
hard to see how the passage was so misplaced.

nc^CJ' in ver.
Again, the Qn3Jn

with the Dn33n
in vers.
16 a are evidently identical
n::'^*^
in ver. 17 b, viz. the
Three enumerated
8-1 1, so that the exploit of vers. 13-17 was per-
formed not by members of the Thirty, but by the Three

of vers. 8-11.
n^c6u'
nn:;'^^',
It
is,
therefore,
ver.
(Kere
n^b'Cf)
in
more probable that for 13 we should read niyb'Cfr] or
and omit
D'D'^li'no
t;'N"l
as a corrupt dittography of the
previous word.
may
perhaps belong to T-Vp 'at the
beginning of the harvest', as proposed by Budde.

original text
'n
The
m^l
would thus have read
(Dn:î'C^
or) ni^b\^*n
::\sn
ba
iN'aî
y-ap cn-i.
LXX and
list
Peshitta omit
altogether,
perhaps rightly.
114.
The whole
is
contains thirty-six names, whereas

ver.
the
total
given
in
39 as thirty-seven.
(cf.
Various
solutions have been offered to this difficulty
also
Kimhi
I
and Ralbag), but none can be deemed

jecture that the
fallen out
satisfactory.
con-
name and achievements
of one hero have
by some accident
after either ver. 19 or ver. 23.
That hero may have been
'nnn iô-nwS (I 26. 6) or n:n "na.

If SO, there
SEGAL
67
were really two
sets of
Three
in addition to
the Thirty
(=
Thirty-one).
By
adopting this conjecture

in vers.
we
shall
be able to retain the present text

.
18-19:
'Abishai
was the chief of
''lihun
(na'^B^n)',
'
the second
Three
Three;
' .
.
he had a reputation
riK'PB'n
among
the
first
(ver. 19)
'He was
;
'
the most honourable of
rt'^b^n',
the second
iTj'^cn
',
Three
first
but did not attain to the rank of
the
Three.
115. (ch. 24.)
The
text of 24. 10-17 has been suspected

P.
by many
ver. 10,
critics.
H.
Smith
rejects
'
as interpolations
because according to this verse

his denunciation'
(<?/.
David's repentance
comes before
V., 390),
and
. .
.
ver. 17,
because 'ver. 18 joins immediately to ver.

in
16.
Neither
what follows nor

prayer'
(zdid.,
in ver.
16
is
any notice taken by Y" of

fact there
this
391
f.).
But as a matter of
was no denunciation
at all
by Gad,
for the simple reason
that no denunciation was necessary, since
David was already

to
conscious
of
his
error
before
in
Gad had come

tells
him.
The prophet nowhere

had
17).
the chapter
David that he
sinned.
It is
David himself who

..ynnny),
cries ^nxun (vers. 10,

:
Budde re-arranges the

a,
text as follows
14,
vers. 10,
lib,
12, 13b, II
18.^^
13a, 13c
(.
15, i6a, 17, i6b,
But we must ask the oft-repeated question: how

complicated derangement
Further, a
little
did this
arise,
and from what
cause?
consideration will
show that the

the
present wording of our text
demands
its
present arrangever. 10,
ment.
If II
b had followed immediately upon
statement would have been expressed in the usual fashion,

thus: n^jM
-13
ba
'n
n^rt
im
\nî.
The
use of the pluperfect
construction with
shows that the event of the prophecy

viz.
was anterior
^3
to
some other event previously mentioned,

Haupt's
Cf. his text in
SBOT.,
p. 35,
and his notes,
ibid., p. 85.
F 2
68
to ver.
1 1

a
;
for the
prophetic word had
come
to
Gad
during the night before David had arisen
in the morning.-^^
Again,
if
ver. 13
b had originally followed upon
ver. 12,
and had formed the exact wording of the divine message

to Gad,
it
would not have been expressed
in
the form of
three interrogative clauses, but rather in a simple enumeration of the three penalties,
and would have been placed

12
b,
between
"im
'131
ver.
2 a
and
ver.
. ,
.
thus
ybv
bu)i -ISJS
uh^
D^d" n^b'^)
"lam Nim
D^B'nn n-^b'^ n^'-ixn
ayn
d-:b' v^b'
nno nnN i? ina "i^nxa. The present wording of ver. 13 b shows that it is really Gad's own paraphrase of the divine
Again, the
order
ver.
message.
original.
i6a-i6b
is
is
certainly
For the purpose of the writer
to
show the
favour which the angel
God showed
forth
the
his
Holy
City, that as soon as

strike
her,
stretched
hand to
God
diffi-
repented Himself of His
own
accord,
and before David had

is
uttered his prayer in ver. 17.

culties raised
The
truth
that the
by the critics are only The arrangement of our text is quite

represented
the
prevailing public
in
of their
logical
own making.
consistent.
and
In spite of the warnings and protests of Joab,
who no doubt
with which
opinion,*^*^
David himself agreed
the depth of his heart, the king
yet persisted in carrying out his object.

attained, the inevitable reaction set in,
But that object
and the king was
stricken with remorse for

in
what he had done, and apparently
the night time he prayed to

night,
God
for forgiveness (ver. 10).
The same
and before the king had
risen
in
the
morning, the prophet
Gad was charged
b}-
God
with a
message to the king to choose one of three

"^
evils as a
penalty
Cf. Driver's note,
ad
;
he.
to vers. 5-6,
Cf.
Chron. ai. 6
p.
Rashi here
and Pesikta Rabbati, ed.
Friedmann,
43
b.

for his sin (vers. 11-13).
SEGAL
choice,
69
David makes
his
comtrust
mitting himself to the mercy of

in
God
(ver. 14).
His
God was
fully justified
by the
event.
For as soon as
the destroying angel had reached Jerusalem, and before the

first
of the three days had passed (ver. 15

for the
a),
God bethought
(ver. 16).
Himself out of consideration
Holy City
in
David, however, ignorant of the

purpose, offered
(ver. 17).
change
to
the divine
up another prayer
spare the people
In answer to this second prayer

(ver. 18;
cf.
Gad
is
again
sent to
him
ver. 19 b),
with a message from

in
God, as he was sent to him before

prayer
(vers. lo-ii).
answer to
his first
II 5.
Having now arrived
at the
end of our inquiry into
the composition of our book,
we
will
summarize the
results
we have obtained
1.
in the following table
Author's original work:

I I
;
3. II,
18-21, 26
;
4. I
a (M. T.)
7.
2-17
8; 10.17-37; II
(.
. .
13; 14. 47-52; 15; 16;

a,
18,
6a^
njNVni)-8
I
a, 9,
12
13-16, 30-21
a,
33-6
a,
37-9 a;
19; 30.
a; 21. 3-16; 33; 33;

28. 1-2. 3-17,
24;
(.
.
25. I, 2-42(?),
.
43-4; 27;
30; 31-
19a /?
nn?:i)-25
29;
I.
1-18;
2.
1-9, 12-32;
3; 4;
5.
1-3, 4-5(?}>
21. i-i4(?);
10-25; 6; 7; 8.1-10,13-18; 20.23-6;

24(?).
2.
Old material incorporated by the author himself:

I 2.
12-17, 22-5, 37-313, 32-4, ^S-^

1-14, 16-21;
17.
7.
(?)
4. I
b-22
5;
14.
6.
1;
9;
10.
1-16;
a,
13.
2-23;
25-
1-46;
(?);
i-ii, 32-40, 42-8
49.
5T-4;
2-42
36.
70
II

1.
I
a,
19-27;
5.
6-9; 9; 10; II
12.
1-9
13-31;
13; 14; 15. 1-23, 24b-37; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20.122; 21. i-i4(?); 24(?)3.
Old additions found already

I
in
the archetype of
20.
LXX
21.
2.
i-io, 35-6
a.
;
i'^)'^
6.
15;
ib-42;
i;
28.
18-19 a
2.
II
15.
4.
lo-ii
21.
5.
4-5(?);
8.
11-12;
13.
9b-i2;
24a;
15-22; 22; 23.

in
Late additions not found

I
archetype of
LXX
2.22 b;
13. I
17.
12-14*,
15, 16-31=*=,
41,48
b,
50, 55-^"^',
18. 1-5*,
6a, 8b, lo-ii*
12b, 17-19*,
21 b, 26
b,
a9b-3o.^^
Passages marked with an asterisk were derived by the interpolator
from an old document.
We have
left
out of consideration in this Conspectus
the classification of certain disputed single words and phrases*
MEGILLAT
TAANIT AS A SOURCE FOR JEWISH CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY IN THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS
By Solomon
Zeitlin, Dropsie College.
CHAPTER
The
known
Origin of the Megillat Taanit.

booklet,
as
'
Megillat Taanit
',
gives a
list
of those days whereon, by reason of certain events there-
with associated, Jews are not to

brief reference
is
fast.
In most cases,
made
to the events that severally

is
mark
them, while
'
in
a few instances nothing
said save that

'.
it is
Yom Tob
whereon we are not to

their
fast
These days
recorded
in
were semi-holidays, and

special scrolls to
events
were
remind the people of these
semi-festivals,
which, on the other hand, were not to be put on a plane
with the holidays ordained

semi-festivals
in
the Pentateuch.
refers
To
it
these
says,
the
all
book of Judith
these days of her
when
'Judith fasted
widowhood except the
eves of Sabbaths, the Sabbaths, the days before
new moons,
It
the
new moons,
Israel
',
the holidays and days of rejoicing for the

Kal \apiioavvS)v olkov 'lo-parjX
(8. 6).
is
house of
may be assumed
ancient times,
history.
.
that the present Megillat Taanit
one
of a series of scrolls which circulated
among
be
the Jews in
in
commemorating important events
Jewish
the
Megillat Taanit
may
71
properly
called
Jewish viomtmentwn aerc percimiiis.
72
It
is

has no parallel in
Hebrew
historical literature.
It
not written in the narrative vein of the Books of the

series of
Maccabees, but consists of a

drical events,
unconnected calen-
which are arranged according to the Hebrew
dates and divided according to the Jewish calendar into
tweh'e
chapters
corresponding
to
the
twelve
Hebrew
months from Xisan to Adar.
The
IMegillah
is
written in Aramaic.
is
In age, Megillat
Taanit ranks next to the Scriptures, and

authority
Baraitot.^
ain3.2
accorded great
of the old
by the Tannaim,
It is cited in the
all
similar
to
that
Mishnah, with the expression
Of
the feast-days recorded in the Scroll, few
are
still
observed.
The
other festivals have sunk into
oblivion.
1
This was quite natural.

II
Their origin, as we
Mishnah Taanit
It
(15b).
so that the
was considered of great authority by the sages of the Mishnah, Tannaim of the first half of the second century were divided in
it
their interpretation of
(Taanit,
ibid, in
the Mishnah).
quotes the Megillah with the expression 3103.
In the Palestinian
The Talmud Babli Talmud NJn

not neces-
we
find citations from the

it
Megillah introduced by the expression K3n.

is
Incidentally
sarily
may
be pointed out that the expression
an allusion
tu
Oral Law, but also to a written Law.

until the time of
in
The opinion
that the
is
Mishnah was not written down

and
Rabbi Ashi, which
based on the use of SJO
pn
in the
connexion with Mishnah and

in the
Baraita, thus loses
much
TD''
of
its
strength.
NJD was used

Middle Ages.
Talmud
in
the
same manner as
and |pn
That the Mishnah
was written down can be seen from employed when emending a passage
"Jnp
the expression which the

in the
Amoraim
Mishnah,
viz.
N^DIT'D ^11011
Oni
thus implying a defective text, whereas the earlier Tannaim,

J?DC'.
like
Rabbi Tarphon, used the expression nyoi VDItiTl

VJ3"' implies oral tradition.
In the last
mentioned case the word

I
wish
to call attention
here to a highly interesting variant which
found
in the
in a
manuscript copy of the Tractate Abodah zarah (Spain, 1291)

of America.
Jewish Theological Seminary

edition, the manuscript reads
For inyDTib
in
the printed
b).
X^3n3 NanrO NHI (IHrDIJ^) (Ab. zarah 8

I
That the Mishnah was written down even before the time of Rabbi,
fully
shall
demonstrate
in a
work on
the History of the Oral
Law.
MEGILLAT TAANIT AND JEWISH HISTORY ZEITLIN

shall see,
73
was connected with the
victories of the
Jews over
the Syrians in the
Hasmonean
'
period and over the
Roman
When,
days
armies in the beginning of the

therefore, the Sanctuary
War
of Vespasian
'.
was destroyed and Jewish indepen-
dence
of
lost, their
raison d'etre was gone.

after
Thus
in the
Rabbi Joshua, not long
the
destruction
of the
Temple, we
holidays.
find that the people paid
no attention to these
They even decreed

1
a fast on
is
Hanukkah (Rosh
laid
ha-Shanah
8 b).
And
:
this
'
in
agreement with the
statement of Rabbi Jose

it
Since the
Temple
is
waste
is
permissible
to
fast
'
on the festive days which are

âN'J' ^JD
enumerated
Dn?
N'in.
in this Scroll
inniD
D^^p ::'ipi:n n'2
pN
However, these semi-holidays were not formally
abrogated by the rabbis.
They
gradually disappeared
this led to the dis-
from the practices of the people, and

cussion between
Rab and Hanina, and

'
their
colleagues
R. Johanan and R. Joshua ben Levi, as to whether the
Yamim Tobim
last
in the
Megillah
'
are abrogated."
will
In the course of this work
it
be shown that the

is
event chronicled in our Megillah
that which took

this,
place on the 17th of Adar, 66 c. E.
After
Vespasian
overcame
all
resistance in Galilee,
and with the conclusion

its
of the war the Jewish people lost
autonomy.
its
This
accords well with the date and circumstances of
com'
position which are preserved in a talmudic tradition.
It
was written', says the Talmud,^ 'by the colleagues of

[R. Eleazar ben]
Hanina ben Hezekiah ben Garon',
i.e.
a few years before the destruction of the Second Temple.
Eleazar was the leader of the Rebellion,
whom
Josephus
charges with having incited the people against the Romans.

3
Rosh ha-Shanah
Shabbat 13
b.
i8 b.
See the next note.
'
74

in circulating this Scroll
if
His object
people that
was
to
show
to the
they were fully resolved to throw off the

as great prospect of success
yoke of the Romans they had

as the
off the
Hasmoneans and
their followers
had of throwing
yoke of the Syrians.

is
This
corroborated by what the
Talmud ^
i.e.
says of
its
being compiled by inyDl nrjn [p nry^s],
by Eleazar
and
his associates
who
were leaders of the party in favour
of the war against the Romans.
The name by which we

this
it
book
are
'
accustomed to designate
indeed a misnomer, since
'
Megillat Taanit
is
does not discuss Fasts; on the contrary, it points out certain
days commemorative of joyful events and, declaring them

'
Yom Tob
',
prohibits fasting thereon.

'
It
seems to
me
that the
name
Megillat Taanit
'
is
of a later date, belonging
either to the talmudic or post-talmudic period.

this
Originally
'
book appears
or
roll),
to
have been called simply

in
Megillah
to
in
(scroll
and
in
this
wise
is
referred
the
Mishnah.
Thus
the Palestinian version of the IVIishnah
(Taanit 2) and in the Mishnah of Jerusalem (ed.
W. H.
b:>.''
Lowe,
I1S83)
we meet with the expression
n^^:?Dn
ain^n
This theory as to the original name of Megillat Taanit

is
corroborated through a scribal error which

**
is
revealed
Shabbat 13
b.
According
T]''::n
to the Scholiast,
it
was
'"I
b'C
p.
IDyD
^"j?
in:
n-'pin
p
it
n:yî?K.
in
Halakot Gedolot,
615 (ed.
Hildesheimcr;
is
stated that this Megillah
was written by
the elders of
Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel

"ilplb lbyL"3 pnj
et la
iry^S*
n^^j;3 n"'JVn
nb'iK)
13n3 DH
n^rn
n^J^n.
See Derenbourg, Essai

i,
stir I'htstoire
geographic de la Palestine, Paris, i8i2, note
and Graetz, Gcschichte der
Jttdciu HI", part 2, p. 810.

^
Sec Dikdukc
Sojcriin, Taanit, II,

is
i,
and
ibid.,
17 a
where
the manuscript
;
reading of the Talmud Babli too

is
given as nb^3fD3 DIDIin ^D

Cf. also Toscfta (ed.
the same
the reading of the Bodleian

2, 4
:
MS.
Zuckermandcl)
Taanit
rh''l122
p3in3n DU1D WtT^.
MEGILLAT TAANIT AND JEWISH HISTORY

in
ZEITLIN
(^legillah
75
the
Munich MS.
^DV
For Talmud Babli

"iK^y
5 b)
which reads nr nsi

prs*
x"'"iis
nyms* nv
riN
n"'3yn
n^^jon nTiani
"inDN* n^'':c2
-i^ry
ncnn, the Munich
MS.
reads
is
TC'y
iTj^Tsn
DV
ns'i i^'y
nyans nv
ns*.
This
a palpable error,
since the passage, 'The fourteenth

is
and
fifteenth are
NniD "CV
',
not quoted from the biblical scroll of Esther, but from

'
the so-called
plained
Megillat Taanit
'.
This error
is
best ex-
by the assumption
that the original text of the
copyist read n7Jm, which, owing to the context, he assumed,

referred to the well-known biblical Scroll of Esther.
Besides the Aramaic text of the Megillah, there exists

also a running
commentary, or
scholia, in
Mishnic Hebrew,
in
explaining the events which are mentioned
the Megillah.
These
of the
scholia, all
commentators are agreed, are the product

period."
Talmudic
That we cannot
rely on the
his-
scholiast
where he gives us what purports to be the

^
torical cause
this study.
''
will
be fully demonstrated
in the course of
Weiss, Dor Dorive Dorshaw,
II, p.
xxv.
Wellhausen, Pharisder unci Sadducder, pp. 56-63.
^6
CHAPTER
Chronology
ix
II
Maccabees
and
II.
A CURSORY
that
to the
examination of the Megillah reveals clearly

are there referred to belong
some of the events which

Maccabean
period,
and some are connected with

of the Maccabees and the"
the Great Revolt.
The Books
works of Josephus are therefore the primary sources upon

which the student must rely
in
order to determine the true
character of the dates and events which are mentioned in
the Megillah.
in these
Unfortunately, however, the dates mentioned
books are based on different systems of chronology

identified.
and cannot be readily
Before
we can
solve the
many
we
perplexing identifications of the dates of the Megillah,
shall therefore
have to examine
first
critically the respective
chronological systems of the
and second Books of the
Maccabees and of the Belliim hidaicum.

It is well
known
that there exists a discrepancy of one
year between the First and Second Book of Maccabees.^

In both books of Maccabees the chronology
is
apparently
this
is
based on the Scleucid

*
era.
In
Mace.
(i. lo)
According
(6.
to
Mace, Antiochus Eupator

;
laid siege to
Jerusalem
i),
r
in
the year 150
20-61
cp. 7.
i\ while according
to 2
Mace. (13.
to
(9.
this
siege and the peace

(6.
16) Antiochus
in 148.
were in the year 149, Similarly-, according IV died in 149, while according to 2 Mace.
2 Mace. 11
Mace.
28) he
died
(Compare
which contains the

letter in
letters of
Antiochus
Eupator
to the
Jews, and while the
which reference
is
made
still
to
the recent death of his father (Antiochus IV) contains no date,
the
presumption
is
that like the others,
which arc dated,
it
was written
in 148.)

clearly
rju
:
ZEITLIN
kv
'ir^L
77
'Autlo)(os 'E7ri(f)avi]S,
vlb? 'Avtl6)(ôv âcnXicog, 09
OfX-qpa
kv
Trj
'Pcofir),
Kal
kâa-lX^vaev
e/ca-
Toarco
Kal
rpiaKoarco
is
Kal
ilSSofico
âcnXcias
i
ÊWrjvonv.
The
current opinion
its
that the chronology of

E.,
Maccabees
takes as
starting-point Nisan 312 B. c,
while that of
2 Maccabees starts from Tishri 311
B. c. E.^
The view
that
Maccabees reckons the beginning of the Seleucid

is
era from the spring of 312
of course at variance with the

fall
established fact that the Seleucid era dates from the
of 312
B. C. E.^^
Nevertheless, this theory was forced upon

evidence.
scholars
by the following circumstantial

I
Ac-
cording to
with their
Mace.
(6. 20,
cp.
7. I)
Antiochus
V and
in
Lysias
s.,
army besieged the Temple mount

further explained that the
150 A.
at
and
it
is
Jews were
great
disadvantage in the siege, having naught to eat by reason

of that being the sabbatical year [otl ad^fSarov
Sia TO e^Sofxou 'iros elvai, 6. 49-53).
1"
rjv rfj yfj
..
Now,
the sabbatical
lib.
See Joseph
Scaliger,
Opus de Emendatione
lib.
Temporutn,
V
et
Dionysius Petavius,
De Dodrina Temp.,
;
II; Usher, Annal. Vderis
Novi
London, 1654 Noris, Epoch Syromac, p. 75, 1696; Erasmo Froelich, Annales Compettdiarii Regiim et reritnt Syriae, Prolegomena, Viennae, 1754; Ideler, Handbuch der Clironologie, I, pp. 531-4,
Testametiti, II,
Berlin, 1825
Schurer, Geschichie, 32-40.

'
Unger,
'
Die Seleukidenara der

CI.
Makkabaerbiicher
Akadentie der
I
{SitzungsbericMe der Philos.-Philol.-Hist.
der
k.
b,
IViss.
su
Miinclien,
its
1895)
thinks
that
the
chronology of
b. c.
and 2 Maccabees takes as

Gilbert,
'
ieriuiiiiis
a quo the spring of 311
See
also
Memoire sur
la
chronologic de I'histoire des Machabees'

et
{Memoires de VAcad^mie des Inscriptions

ClintoM, Easti Hellenid, III, pp. 370-7.
Belles-Lett res,
to
XXVI,
1759)
in
According
him the era
both
books starts from the autumn of 312 b.c.

^1
This
first
is
also the opinion expressed
by Prideaux, Connexion,
this
I,
p.
514-15,
'The
book begins the years of

;
era from the
spring, but the
second begins them from the autumn
and so did the Syrians, Arabs, and
Jews, and
all
others that anciently did or

first
now do
own
use this era'.
It is
very
strange that the author of the

this era
book of Maccabees should have computed

countrj-men, the Jews.
by
method
different
even from his
78

i,
year was from Tishri
164
i
b. C. E.
to Tishri
i,
163.^'^
Hence
312
as
if
the chronology of
Maccabees took Tishri of

S.
its
starting-point, then 150 A,
corresponded with
Tishri 163 to Tishri 162,
and the year of the siege which

If,
was 150
A.
S.
could not have been a sabbatical year.

it
on the other hand,

1
is
assumed that the chronology of

as its starting-point, then
B. C. E.
B. C. E.
Maccabees takes Nisan (312)

A.
S.
150
until
corresponds to the period from Nisan 163

B.
Nisan 162
C E,,
and the summer of 163
actually falls in
the sabbatical year.

in that
Thus the
siege can
be definitely placed
summer.^^
is
The
chronology of 2
i
Maccabees
If
i
postponed one year

its
beyond that of
Maccabees.
Maccabees reckons
era from Nisan 312, then the chronology of a
Maccabees
however,
must have begun from 311
B. C. E.
This
era,
could not have started from the spring of 311, but from the
autumn
dated
of 311, as
is
clearly proved from the letters

11. 17-33).
of
Antiochus
is
(2
Mace.
O"^
o^ these
letters
in the
month of Dioscurus
is
of the year 148, while
another of later date
marked Xanthicus of the year
148
2
which
shows that the era of the chronology of
Maccabees did not begin from the spring, Xanthicus, but
from the autumn
i.e.
Tishri 311
is
B. C. E.^*
This theory, however,

the Jews,
the
not acceptable.
civil
For among
beginning of the
year was always
reckoned not from Nisan, but from Tishri.

tradition was fixed
first
I'''
Thus the
the
^^
W^^yh nycn
r'X"!
ncna nnx3 'from

is
III.
day of
Schiircr,
Schiircr,
Tishri, the beginning of the year

I.e.,
/.
reckoned.'
p.
35
sec also below, chap.
^3 '*
'*
c, p. 214.
About the other

ibid.
(I
diftkulties see below, note 27.
See further
Ideler,
Handbuch,
2.
Rosh
ha-Shaiiah, p.
tells
Josephus
have employed Niese's edition

holiday's,
throughout) likewise
us that with respect to months,
and
ZEITLIN
79
The former theory

I
could
onl}''
i
with difficulty be reconciled
with the chronography of
Maccabees.
For according to
Mace.
16. 14,
year 177 a.s.

era in
i
in the
Simon the Hasmonean was killed in the month of Shebat. Now if the Seleucid
B.C.,
Maccabees began from Nisan 312

which Simon was
;
then the
year
month
135
in
killed
would
fall
in the
B. c. E.
the year 177 extending from Nisan 136 to
Nisan 135.
{Ant. XIII,
8.
But according to the account of Josephus

1-3, cp. XIII, 7. 4)
the year after Simon's
death was a sabbatical year, and that sabbatical year was

Tishri 136 to Tishri 135.'^
Again, according to
this theory,
the siege of Jerusalem

to
I
by Antiochus V,
s.
which, according
is
Maccabees, occurred in 150 A.
and which
in
is
described
of
as a sabbatical year,
must be dated
the
summer
163
B. c. E.
(cp.
above, p. 78), and this

if
opposed by the
Megillah which,
our interpretation
is
correct, dates the

(see
raising of this siege specifically
on the 28th of Shebat
below, chap. IX, No. VIII, p. 70).

I
venture to suggest a new solution to the chronological

of
i
difficulties
Maccabees.
as
is
The reckoning
known,
at
of the Seleucid
era has
its origin,
well
in the victory
gained
by Demetrius over Ptolemy near Gaza,

Seleucid dynasty was founded.
which time the
That
battle
was fought
in
the
summer
of 312 B. c.
E.,
for in the
words of Josephus
festivals,
Moses commanded
that the year should be counted from Nisan
(spring), but in connexion with matters of business
and general
affairs,
the
year should be counted from Tishri.

Kara to iâicoaioarov eros
tjStj
Anif.
t^s
viro
I,
3.
3 2we0r] 8e tovto t6
ixrjvl
traOos
Ncuc'ov
5'
apx^js, tv
divrtpcv, Aiai fitv iino
Mae5orcoi/ Kejofxivai, Mapcrovdvri
'E^paiojv
ovtoj
6s
yap
kv
AiyvnTcp ruv
kviavTov Tjaav 8iaTfTax<JTes.
Maivafjs 8e top iiiadv,
kari savOticus, /ifjva

'Efipaiovs npoayaycuv.
(xkvToi
npwrov km rafs koprah wpiae Kara tovtov

ovTOi
5'
AlyvnTov tovs
avToi
icat irpus
arrdjas rdy
Stoiarjaiv
;
els
to 6eTov ripAs fjpxtv. knl

Kocr/xov SiffpvKaê.
III.
ye irpdatis
Kal uvds Kal rfju

^'^
aWrjv
I,
rbv vpSnov
SchUrer,
p.
35
see also below, chap.
80

I,
{Contra Apiojicvi,
22, 184), following Castor, this battle
took place
in
the eleventh year after Alexander died
iuSeKccTcp jxkv erei
r^? 'AXe^dvSpov TeXivrfjs,

in
o)?
laropu
Kda-Toop.
Alexander the Great died

E.,^''
May
or
in
June
the
323
B. c.
and the eleventh year closed, then,
latter part of
May
or June 312 B.C. E.^^
All the
cities in
the
countries
around the Holy Land adopted the year
of the battle, as a
which established the
rule of the Seleucids
new
era,
but fixed the beginning of the year according
to the traditional
in
New Year
season which had prevailed
the respective countries.
For
instance, in
Damascus
while other
they counted the years of the Seleucid era from the spring
of 312 B.
cities
C. E.,
as can be seen on their coins;

their
^^
counted
It
era
from
Hyperberetaeus or from
Dius.-''
was quite
natural, therefore, for the Jews, too,
when they adopted

with
their
this era to
arrange
it
in
accordance
traditional
New Year
The
and their methods of
calendrical calculations.
interval from the coronation
of the king until Nisan was counted as year one of his

reign
;
and from that Nisan to the next Nisan
as year
1' ^3
Clinton, Fasti Hellenici,
II, p.
176.
II, p.
Droysen,
Schiirer,
Ideler,
/.
Gescltichie des
I,
Hcllenismus,
45.
"
20
37.
I,
c,
413-37-
Many
cities
under
Roman
influence began
their years
in
the
Seleucid era from the
month
of January.
Wieseler,
Chronologischc Synapse, p. 452.

lenismtts,
III,
According to Droysen, Geschkhte dcs Helwhile

it
pp. 364, 91,
Euscbius,
effect
dating
from
b. c.
the
origin
of
the Scleucidc dynasty, in
puts
January 312
Unger, Die
cities
I. c., pp. 300-316, thinks that many counted their years from October 313, and so likewise Porphyry reckoned the years of Olympiads not from the month of July 776 B.C.,
Seleukidennra dcr Makkabderbiicher,
which was the

Antiquities.
first
Olympiad, but from Dius 777 e.g. (Unger,

in
/.
c, p. 300)
and so does Joscphus reckon the years
connexion with Olympiads
in his
See more about
this
below, chap. IV.

two.^^
ZEITLIN
8l
Anniversaries and births which

^^
were dated not
from Nisan but from Tishri

If,
illustrate the
in
same
principle.
for
example, a person was born
the course of the

v/as
year, the rest of that year up
to Tishri
considered
the
first
year of his
life
from that Tishri to the next
Tishri his second year.^^
When,
Seleucidan
is
therefore, the
era,
Jews adopted the calendar of the

it
they moulded
to their view-point
that
to say, the
New Year
312
date was retained as the
first
of
Tishri, but Tishri
B. C. E.
marked the beginning
of the
second year of the newly-established

the
era, the interval
from
summer when
the battle of Gaza was fought until
Tishri 313 B.C. E. being counted as year one of the era.

I
Maccabees, written
for Jews,
in
Hebrew and
in
^^
in
Palestine, used the chronology of Judea.
Thus we can now

i
harmonize the date of Simon's death, given

as 177 A.
S.,
Maccabees,
with the account of Josephus describing the
year following Simon's death as a sabbatical year.
For
while
Shebat 177 A.
S.
corresponds to Shebat 136B.
C. E.,
the sabbatical year

Tishri 136 B.C. E.^^
began on the following
New
the
A. s.
Year,
Likewise, the date of the Megillah,
which places the siege of Antiochus

months,^''
al
in
winter
corre-
becomes tenable;
lo
b.
for the
year 150
Rosh ha-Shanah
" Rosh ha-Shanah, Mishnah, Jerushalmi, ibid. 56b. See also above, note 15. And this is what the Talmud says "ITybs ""(3 b'Sl'ob D''310 ^^"1^''' iDSH,
:
ibid.,
12
a.
'
They counted
the years of the successive generations from the
month of Tishri according

in Tishri.'
*^
to R. Eliezer,
who
said that the
world was created
See Rapoport, 'Eiek

I.
.
Millin, p. 92.
Midrash rabba Num.
2*
'
Hieronymi Opera
Praefatio in
lib.
Samuel,
reperi,
p.
459, Venetiis, 1770:
Machabaeorum primum
*^
libruni
Hebraicum
'.
secundus Graecus est
quod ex ipsa quoque
(ppdati probari potest

III.
See below, chap.
^^
See below. No. VIII.
VOL. IX,
82

E.,
spends to 164-163 B.C.

year.-''
which was a
full
sabbatical
^^
See below, chap.

i
III.
The
difficulties
is
which caused scholars
to
deny
that the chronology in
Maccabees
based on the year beginning in autumn,

Let us examine them
:
prove groundless on closer scrutiny.

(i)
7.
According
.
.
to
Mace.
7.
Demetrius became king
in 151 a.s.
43
we
it
learn that Nicanor
was
killed
on the 13th of Adar.

it
From The year

he
of his death
is
not recorded specifically, but
was no doubt
that
first
151, as further
killed,
on
(9.
3)
says that
when Demetrius heard

in
Nicanor was
month,
in
dispatched a great army against Judea
the
the year
152 AS.
And
i
so,
according to their understanding of the matter, the

3'ear
chronology of
Maccabees does not reckon the
from the autumn
for
the interval between the death of Nicanor until the time that Demetrius
heard the astounding news, would be very long, whereas other things point
to its
having been quite short.
Consequently they adopt the view that this

in the
chronology deals with a year that began

killed in
spring and that Nicanor

first
was
Adar 151
a.s.,
and that
in
Nisan 'the
month of 152
a.s.',
Demetrius received the news.

But, as
I
have said above, the chronology of

i.
Maccabees
is
really based
in
on the Judean chronology,

(Tishri),
e.
that in
which the year began
autumn
though the months are numbered from Nisan.
That the months
were
so counted is proved by i Mace. 16. 14, where it is stated that Simon was killed in the eleventh month, 'the same is the month Shebat'. The month of Adar in which Nicanor was killed does not belong to the winter
of 151 A.s. but to the winter of 152 A. s.,and

,
is in
ournotation Adar of 161 b.c.e.
The month
in
which Demetrius heard the report was, indeed, Nisan (ptJ'KT

This (corresponding to 161 b.c.e.)
nJKTI *Knnl5) in the year 152 a.s.
was a leap year, immediately succeeding the post-sabbatical year 1,150 a. s. was sabbatic), since neither in a sabbatic nor in a post-sabbatic year was intercalation of a month permitted (see below, p. 96 and note 62). The intercalation of Adar II quite well explains how so early as Nisan, Demetrius
could receive complete
official
reports and
;
absolute verification of
eight
what
(see
happened
to
Nicanor on the 13th of Adar

Handhucli su
i
weeks had elapsed
Grimm,
(2)
Exegelisclies
I.
Mace. p. 118.
in
According
to
Mace.
10. i,
Alexander Balas became king
i6o a.
s.,
and
after informing us that
he (the king) sent friendly messages

Priest, the writer
to
Jonathan
and appointed him High
goes on
to
say (lo. ai) that

in the
Jonathan put on the priestly garments year 160

a.s.,
in the
If in
feast of
Tabernacles
i
from which they deduce
the chronology of
it
Maccabees
years were reckoned from the autumn,
how was
possible for Jonathan's

This theory
is it
ZEITLIN
83
further corroborated in the account of

is
Antiochus IV as
said
to
given in
Maccabees, where he
year 137 A.
S.^^
is
have become king
in the
This,
according to the general notion, was 176-175 B.C.

said to
He
is
have died
"''
in
149
A.
S.,^^
i.e.
164-163 B.C.
But
as Niese
has well shown, this Antiochus, according to

3, i.e.
Eusebius, became king in Olymp. 151,

died in
175-174, and
Olymp.
is
153, 4, i.e. 165-164.
This, also according
to Jerome,
the chronology of Eusebius.^^
Niese further-
more has
clearly
shown
that the death of Antiochus

E.,^-
IV
of
must have been 165 B.C.
for
Polybius
"^
says (Book
XXXI,
chap. 12) that
when upon the
receipt at
Rome
the intelligence of Antiochus IV's death, and of his son's
ascending the throne, senators were sent as delegates to

Antioch, Cn. Octavius (consul in 165 B.C.) was at their
action on the feast of Tabernacles to occur in the
same year as the action of
Alexander Balas, which preceded

This second objection loses
its
it
by
less than a
month
? to
weight, as
we
have good reason
doubt
of
whether 160 belongs

Tabernacles
is
to
in,
that
part of the narrative
where the
it
feast
brought
and good reason For

or
to believe that
crept in through
misunderstanding of a scribe.
10.
in the Lucianic recension
we
find in
21
no mention of 160
a. s.
any other year
see ed.
Charles);
Josephus, likewise, makes no mention of the year 160
a. s. in his narrative
of the investiture of Jonathan on the Feast of Tabernacles.

2. I
{Antiq. XIII
and
2
3.)
/.
M.
and
r, 10.
'
29
/.
M.
6. 16.
3*
Niese,
Kritik der beiden Makkabaerbiicher', Hermes,
XXXV,
',
1900,
p. 494,
p.
id.,
Geschichte der griechischen ttnd macedomsclien Staaten, III,
208.
See
also
Abrahams,
'
Niese on the books of the Maccabees
JQR.,
XIII, pp. 508-19.

'^
^'^
Hieronymus, VIII, pp. 567-71

Geschichte, III, p. 218,
Eusebius, Citron., ed. Schoene.

b. c. e.
Niese placed the death of Antiochus IV in the winter of 165

note
7
See
'^
and his Kritik det Makkabaerbiicher,
p. 495-6.
Polyb. Hisior.
XXXI
(frag. 12) iiêa;s
7dp KaTaaTrjaavTf^ -npiaîvras

Kai AevKiov (i075\
Toi/f Trtpi
Tvaiov 'OKTaoviov
koa.
S,ir6ptov AoKprjTiov
84
head.^*

Neither the theory that
i
Maccabees dates the
beginning of the Seleucidan era from Tishri 312 or from
Nisan 312 (according to the generally accepted view),
would square with the date of Antiochus's death

164
B. c. E.
I
in
165-
On
the other hand, according to the theory

i,
which
have proposed, counting Tishri
312
B. C. E.
as
the beginning of the second year, the year 149 assigned

as the date of Antiochus's death, corresponds to
B. c. E.
165-164
as given in Eusebius and corroborated
by
Polybius.^^
^*
Niese,
/. c.
Zumpt, Annales,
p.
94
Clinton,
Fasti Hellenici, III,
p.
84.
''
At
first
glance Eusebius's statement that Antiochus IV reigned eleven
years, does not
seem
to square
with
is
Maccabees, where he
is
said to
have
reigned from 137 to 149.
This
easily explained,
however, by Eusebius's
method of counting only complete

X(\tVK0V
(T(ai
years, while
Maccabees counted from
his ascending the throne until he died.

fxiv
As Appian says (Syriaka 66)

kol
.
SwSfKa,
dwpaKTco:
aâ
dcrOfvws
5id
rfjv
rov itarpos
(Tvixpopav, 'AvTioxov hi
Sw5Ka oi
irKtipeaiv
and upon Appian's words
we
can place more reliance, since he preceded Eusebius a considerable time,
and undoubtedly had authorities for what he

only the whole years of kings' reigns
Alexander.
said.
That Eusebius counted
we
can see also from the case of
According
to his
in
chronicles Alexander the Great ruled only
twelve years, whereas
fact
he ruled more than that
his
reign lasted
twelve years and eight months.

irri
Says Arrian (VII, 28)
iâa'iKtvat hi bwStKa
Hellertici,
II,
Koi roiis
vktu
/i^vay toi;tow.
See Clinton, Fasfi
p.
176,
Oxford, 184 1.
Unger, as
chronology of
according to
143
A.
s.,
i
we have
i
already remarked
in
note
10,
thinks
that
the
Maccabees began with the spring of 311 b.c.e. because,

(i. 20),
Mace.
Antiochus returned from Egypt in the year

impression corresponded to
Palestine in the
if
and
this according to the general
170-69 B.C.E.
169 B.C.E.
Indeed, Antiochus IV
was
in
summer
of
Therefore,
i
according to
Unger's view,
we
1
say that
the
chronology of
Maccabees
starts from the spring of 31
b.
c, the 143rd
year must be from the spring of 169
to the spring of 168 b.c.
But Schiircr
{Gcschichie, p. 38, note 7) truly points out that
Antiochus IV was not only

in
once but several times
in
Egypt
(sec also
Wilcken
Pauly-Wissowa's RealIn
Enc
II,
2470-6, and Clinton, Fasfi
I/el. Ill,
pp. 317-29).
in
my
opinion,
of
Unger
is
correct in thinking that Antiochus
was
Egypt
in the
summer
ZEITLIN
85
the
We
are
now
in
a position better to understand

II. ^'^
chronology of Book
The
difference
between the
arises out
respective chronologies of these
two books
of
the circumstances in which these two books were written.
Whereas
Jews and
Maccabees, as stated above, was written for
in
Hebrew,
for
Maccabees was plainly an apologetic

Egypt, being merely an
work written
the Jews in
epitome of the larger Greek work of Jason.

stated himself:
to.
As
the author
vtto 'Ida-covos
tov Kvprjuaiov 8^8r}\o)iiiva

81'
8ia irivTe î^Xtcov, Treipaaro/xeOa

Tîxelv (3. 33).
It
is
ivbs crvvTdyfiaTOS kni-
but natural
is
therefore
that
the
(in
chronology of
3 Maccabees
not that of the Jews
Palestine) but the
chronology which was current throughout Hellenistic Syria
and Egypt, which dated the beginning of the Seleucid era

from the autumn of 313 B.C.E. Consequently, the Seleucidan
era of 3 Maccabees appears one
1
full
year
less
than that of
Maccabees, though they record the same event.
The
above,
calendrical year
p. 78).
among the Jews began

era.
in Tishri (cp.
It
was but natural therefore to retain
this
New Year
in
the
adopted Seleucidan
According to another
principle of calendrical calculation, which applied to the

political as well as the civil calendar, a fractional
year was
considered a year.
169 B.C.E.
as
Thus the year
149,
which according
But
this
This follows from Livy XLIV, chap.

first
it
II, 5.
was
not,
Unger supposes, the

(5.
invasion of Egypt, but the second.

that Antiochus
i.e.
Thus
Mace,
2 Mace.
1-2 1) alludes to
by saying
IV captured Jerusalem
Similarly
i
the second time

(i.
when he
returned from Egypt,
169-8.
29-54) states that Antiochus IV captured Jerusalem for the second time
after his first capture of the city
3.
two years
on
his return
from Egypt
in
the
143rd year a.
this matter,
(171-70),
i.
e. in
the year 145 a.s. (169-8).
See further on
below, the discussion of the chronology of the Books of the
Maccabees.
'^
See above, note
9.
86
to
is
1

Maccabees was the year when Antiochus IV died,
the
^
same
as 148 of 2 Mace. 9
to
and
11.^''
Vainly did Niese strive
show
{Kritik der beiden Makkabderbiicher)
that 2
Maccabees
is
more
historical than i
Maccabees, from the
fact that
2 Maccabees places Antiochus's death in 148 a. s., which according to the
commonly accepted view equals 165-4

death
in
b.
c, whereas
Maccabees puts his

this
149
a.s.,
which by
that
view would equal 164-3, ^nd

is
would
be contrary
difference
to fact.
As
have demonstrated, however, there

in their
no
historical
between the two books

See,
also,
dating of the death of the fourth
Antiochus.
the review by Israel Levi in
REJ.,
zu
1901, pp. 222-30,

Goitingeft, 1905,
and Wellhausen
pp. 117-63.
in Nachrichten der Kgl.
Ges. d. Wiss.
ZEITLIN
87
CHAPTER
The
III
The Order of the Sabbatical

the Seleucid era as
Cycles.
theo;y which we have advanced above regarding

it
was known among the Palestinian

in
i
Jews and as
it
was used
Maccabees, finds striking
corroboration in the various references to the sabbatical

cycles which are found in
i
Maccabees, Josephus, and
in
the Talmud, and
which have hitherto been considered

Despite the diverse nature
contradictory and conflicting.
of these sources
it
will
be found that the sabbatical years
to which they allude, and which belong to wholly different

periods,
all
harmonize with each other

i
if
we
calculate the
Seleucid era in
Maccabees according
to our theory.
it
Abundant
references to the sabbatical institution as
existed in the Second

literature.
Commonwealth occur
when
the seed
in
early Jewish
The year
of Release naturally began in the
Fall
and not
in the Spring,
was already sown

is
and the
in
trees planted.
The
crucial
problem
to determine
what years of a general era the sabbatical cycles began
and ended.
The
following
passages
furnish
the
chief
evidence by which the dating of the sabbatical cycle
may
A. s.
be computed
(i)
In
Maccabees we are told that the year 150
was
a sabbatical year.^^
(2)
From Josephus we
Simon
the
learn that
the year after the

a sabbatical
assassination of
year.^^
S8
I
Hasmonean was
sa
The
Mace.
.assassination having taken

20-54; Ant. XII,
9, 5.
place
^4,,/^
according
8. i.
6.
xill,
88
to
I

Maccabees
A. S.
in
in
Shebat 177
a.
s.,**^
the following year
was 178
(3)
Likewise we find
Josephus that the capture of

in
Jerusalem by Herod and Sosius was
a sabbatical year.*^
the
This event
is
dated Olympiad 185
in
consulate of
Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus.

(4)
Finally, according
to
tannaitic
authority the de-
struction of the
year.*^
Second Temple was
in a post-sabbatical
When
subjected to a critical examination, however, the

tally.
It
testimony of these sources does not seem to

already been pointed
out above
that
has
according to the
i
generally favoured theory the Seleucid era of

is
Maccabees
(i)
to be dated from
Nisan 313
s.
B. c. E.
The statement
that the year 150 A,
was a sabbatical year contradicts
the statement (2) of Josephus that the year following the
death of Simon was a sabbatical year
(cp.
above,
p. 81).
As
the
to
the capture of Jerusalem

of
by Herod and
Sosius,
consulate
it
Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus

E.,
establishes
as having fallen in 37 B. C.
and we are
further
informed by Josephus that the sabbatical year
overlapped the time of the siege and continued for a period

following the
fall
of the city, which occurred on a fast

;
day
{Anf.,
XIV,
16. 3
XV,
is
i.
2).
The
fast
day
to
which
Josephus alludes here

to the
taken
by some
scholars to refer
Day
of Atonement, and consequently the capture
of Jerusalem
by Herod and Sosius

10,
is
definitely dated
is
by
these as Tishri
Mace.
^y
B. c.
E.''^
This date
impossible,
<
16. 14.
Seder Olam Raba, Van der Chijs, dg

Volkcs Israel,
XXX
I/erode
<i ^t, XIV, 16. 2. Talmud Taanit 29 a. Magno, pp. 35-41 Ewald, Geschiclile des
;
IV;
Lewin, Fasti Sacri,
p.
59;
Gardthausen, Augustus
ZEITLIN
89
however, for one sabbatical year could not overlap the old
and the new year, which terminate and begin respectively

on the
is first
day of
Tishri.
Besides,
if
the sabbatical year

E.,
assumed
to have fallen in
164-163 B.C.
then the year

to
38-37 was a sabbatical

above interpretation,
it
it
year, whereas, according
the
would be necessary to assume that

B. C. E.,
if,
occurred
in
37-36
as
Josephus has
it,
the
sabbatical year continued after the capture of Jerusalem.
Most
this
of the later
scholars,
on the other hand, date
capture of Jerusalem in the middle of the summer,

B. c. E.^*
37
This accords well with the calculation that

B. c. E.,
the sabbatical year was 38-37
and also with the
statement that the sabbatical year overlapped the time

of the siege and the period following the capture of the
city.
But
this date of the capture of
Jerusalem fixes the

of 37 B.C.
E.,
beginning of Herod's rule in the

in this
summer
and
connexion a
later
passage relating to Herod's reign

of
the
sabbatical
obviously contradicts the calculation

cycle.
Thus, Josephus states that
in
the thirteenth year
of Herod's reign there was a famine in Palestine, and also
the seed that they sowed that year yielded no
fruit
the
second
year.'^^
Now
the thirteenth year of Herod's reign,
counting Nisan as the

to Nisan
'New Year
for
Kings', corresponds
to the
25-24
B. c. E.
But according
above calcu-
und seine Museum,
Zeit,
and
'
Die Eroberung Jerusalems durch Herodes

;
',
Rhein.
II,
1895, pp. 311-14
Unger,
/.
c, pp. 273-77
Kellner, Katholik,
1887, pp. Il8-2I.
"
Herzfeld,
die
'
Wann war
;
die Eroberung Jerusalems durch

?
'
Pompejus,
und wann
durch Herodes
Monatsschrift f. Gesch. u.
'
fVissensofi. des
Judenth., 1855, pp. 109-15
Kromayer,
(1894),
Die Eroberung Jerusalems durch
Herodes', Hermes,
p.
XXIX
II,
;
pp.
563-71; Graetz,
Geschichte,
III,
196
*^
Hitzig, Geschichte,
532.
9,
Ant.
XV,
9, I
comp. XV,
Schiirer
,1,
p.
367.
90

was
lation of the sabbatical cycles, the winter of 24 B. c. E.
a sabbatical year and cannot be reconciled with the state-
ment
that seed was

to
sown that
year.*
As
this
the
tannaitic reference
to
the sabbatical year

i.e.
preceding the destruction of the Temple,

accords well
with
68-69
of
C. E.,
the previous calculation

i
the
sabbatical. cycles on the basis of

reliability of this
Maccabees.
But the
critics
statement too was challenged by

the statement of Josephus that
who oppose
9. 7
to
it
Simon
the Zealot, in the winter of 68-69 C. E. (cp. Bell. hid. IV,
and
12), fell
upon Idumea with
his
army
all
like a host
of locusts, wasting the land and consuming

in the country.
that grew
Thus
it
appears that the Idumeans

I
who
did
observed the Jewish laws since the time of Hyrcanus

not observe this year as a sabbatical
year.'*^
These seemingly insurmountable
difficulties in the
way
of establishing the sabbatical cycle
may
be cleared by
a careful investigation of each passage, provided that our
theory of the Seleucid era
in
Maccabees
is
presupposed.
Thus we have already shown

Shebat 177
that, according to
our theory,
is
the year following the death of Simon, which

a.
S..
dated
was 136-135
s.,
B. c. E.,
which harmonizes
the
with the dating of 150 a.
or 164-163 B. C. E. as
8).
sabbatical year (see above, p.
As
to
the difficulties
which are raised by the passage
in
Josephus relating to the

it
capture of Jerusalem by Herod and Sosius,

first
is
crucial
to establish critically the
month and the year
in
which
this event
took place.
Neither the date of the

is
summer
of 37
B. c. E.
nor of Tishri of that year
acceptable.
fast
The
former implies that by the solemnity of the

referred to the sabbath.
Josephus
This
is
conceivable as regards
also
Unger,
/.
f.,
pp. 278 -80.
" See
Unger,
/.
c, aSo-i.
ZEITLIN
The
91
Dio, the pagan, but not Josephus the Jew.*^
latter
date
is
inherently contradictory, as has already been pointed
out, for the sabbatical year could not
extend both prior to
and
after Tishri.
Another date must therefore be estab-
lished in order to render this passage in Josephus in
any
way
intelligible.
The statement
befell the city of
of Josephus reads
' :
The
destruction
Jerusalem when Marcus Agrippa and
Caninius Gallus were consuls at

eighty-fifth
Rome,
in the
hundred and
Olympiad, on the
'.
third
month, on the solemnity

rfj
of the fast
TToXeL
Tovto to ndOos avvi^r]

'Pa>iir}
kirl
'lepocroXv/xLTcoi/
vnaTivovTO^ kv
MdpKov
jxr^vl
jiypiTTira Kal
KaviSiov
Kal
{KavLVLOv)
Tre/xTrrt]^
TdWov
16. 4).
it
rfjS
eKaroa-Trjs
rfj
oySo-qKocrrri?
6\v/X7ridSo9
tm
rpirco
iopTrj rfjs vrjareia^

in
{Ant.
XIV,
Now
Dio
Cassius,
describing the
same
event, refers
to the time of the Consuls Claudius

is
and Norbanus.*^
*^
Evidently there
I.e.,
bj"^
a contradiction between
tells
See Herzfeld,
p. 112.
Strabo (born 60-55 b.c.e.)

a fast day^
fj
us that
Jerusalem was taken Reinach, Textes,

{iv
rfj
Pompey on
rfis
vrjardas rjufpav.
p. 103.
Dio misunderstood and substituted sabbath day
Tov Kpovov fjufpa) (Dio,
were of the opinion

also
find
diligenter
Some Roman historians 15, 16). was a fast day to the Jews, which we in a letter by Augustus. Ne ludaeus quidem, mi Tiberi, tam sabbatis ieiunium servat quam ego hodie servavi' (Suetonius,
that the sabbath
'
XXXVII,
Augustus,
*
76),
and the same opinion
is
expressed by Pompeius Trogus,
Septimum diem more

'
gentis sabbata appellatum in

p.
omne aevum
is
ieiunio
sacrant
(Reinach,
: '
Te.xtes,
254), and also Petronius

'
under the same

p.
impression
et
non ieiunia sabbata lege premet
(Reinach, Textes,
266).
On
the other hand Josephus
nowhere
is
states that the sabbath
was
I.e.,
a fast day
to the
Jews.
Also Tacitus
silent
on
this
matter;
'
'septimo die otium

p.
placuisse
ferunt, quia is
finem laborum
tulerit
(Reinach,
305),
apparently unaware of Sabbath being a

*^
fast day.
Dio,
XLIX, 22-3
Kal
Faios 5e
Itj
'Soaatos rfiv
dpx^f t^s Tf
Svpt'as nai
rfji
KiXiHias trap' avTov
[Antony] Ka^wv tovs rt 'ApaSiovs TToMopKrjOivTai t

voao) raXaiiKuprjOiVTas fXfip^<^0-'''0
''O'
/J-fXP^
roTt Kol
Xipioi
f^" 'Avriyovov
fi'iitrjaf,
Toiif
(ppovpovs TOVS nap' tavTo) toiv 'Fajfiaiwv
wras
uTroHrtivavra fidxT) t(
Kal
92
THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW The

717
consulate of Agrippa and Gallus
the two historians.
was
in 37 B. C. E., in
A. U.
C, while that of Claudius and

716 A. u.
c.
Norbanus was
38
B. c. E.,
Choosing between
these two sources, Clinton rejected the testimony of Josephus

in favour of Dio,
and consequently placed the capture of

B. c. E.'"
Jerusalem
in
December 38
falls
Thus the capture
of Jerusalem
B. c. E.,
properly in the sabbatical year 38-37

is
and the month
preceded as well as followed by

this
the sabbatical season.
But
theory entirely invalidates

is
the testimony of Josephus, and what
more,
it
does not
explain the allusion to the fast-day.

It is
my
opinion that the difference between the two
accounts in Josephus and Dio respectively does not represent
a contradiction
respective
in
fact,
but merely a difference
in
their
methods of reckoning the consulate.
Dio reckons
the consulate from the date that the Consuls enter into
ofifice.
According to Varo, the term of the
Roman
consuls
at this time
began
in
March.^^
Josephus, on the other

in
hand, employed the Macedonian calendar,

KaraKpyyovra
is to.
which calendar
fitv
'ItpoaoXvfia ito\iopKia KartaTptifaTo.
iroWa
5^ Kal Sfivd
KOI oi 'lovSaioi Toils 'Pai/iojoi/s tSpaaav (to
fap
roi êcos avTuJv OvpiOiOtv iriKpo-
rarov
tart),
voWip
5t 5^ -nXdai avroi tnaOov.
(a\cv(jav ijXv "âp irpoTtpoi fiiv oi

oi
vntp ToC Ttfitvovs Tov Ofov
d/j,vv6fi(voi, irrftra 5 Kal
dWoi
iu
rfi
rov Kpovov
Kai Tort Q/iipa uivofiaafihTj, Kal tooovtov yt t^j OprjaKtias avrois TrfpiTJv uiart
Tovs irpOTfpovs
Ttivj fifrd
fj
rov Upov \iipa:Oivras napan-qaaaOai t< rbv "ôaaiov,

(s
7ri5^ flfitpa avOis
rov Kpovov (vtarr), Kal dviKOovras
avrd -navra ixerd rwv
Komijjv
rd vomôfuva wotâai.
TOV
5'
(Kfivovs fiiv ovv 'HpuSji Ttvl v 'Avtojvios apxftv
(vtrptipf,
'KvTifovov ipiaaTi'/ojat aravpw -npoaSriaas, t fxrjSds $aat\(vs
aXXos
viri)
twv
'Pcofiaiwv irreirovOft, Kal fifrd
tovto koI direafa^tv.
(irl
fiev St)
tov
Tt KXavhiov tov t( tiwpâvov tovO' ovtois iytvtTO.
Clinton,
Fasli Hel'emci, III, p.

p.
220
Fischer,
Romtsche
Zeittafeltt,
Altona, 1846,
350.
" Varro
numeres
pp. 98-9.
'.
6,
12
frag,
and 33
'si
Martio
ut
antiqui
constituerunt
See also Th. Mommscn, Die romtsche
Cliionologie, Berlin, 1859,

the Olympian year began in the
presently/^
fall,
ZEITLIN
shall
93
as
we
show
In the same manner, the consulate too was
reckoned not from the day when the consuls entered into
office,
but from the beginning of the Olympian year which

the autumn.
was
in
Thus the
consulates are fixed
by
Polybius.^^
Consequently the events which occurred be-
tween Dius
in
the
autumn months
and
in
March would,
the succeeding
according to this system, be reckoned

consulate.
If to this
explanation of Josephus's use of the Macedo-
nian calendar
*
the
we would add the statement of Josephus that destruction befell the city of Jerusalem ... in the
month
',
third
we
are in a position definitely to ascertain
the exact date on which the event occurred, and to identify

the 'solemnity
of the
fast'.
The
after
third
month cannot
mean
the third
month of
fell
the siege, as Josephus states
elsewhere that the city

months.^*
It
a siege of five to six

third
cannot refer
it is
to
the
month
of the
Hebrew
year.
calendar, as
placed together with the Olympian

in the third
It
can therefore only mean
month of
it
the
Olympian year of the 185th Olympiad, and

For the third month
must
furthermore be the Olympian year of the Macedonian

calendar.
in
the
Attic-Olympian
calendar corresponds to the
Hebrew
Tishri,
which makes
it
impossible to harmonize with the statement that the sabbatical season
preceded and followed the capture of Jerusalem.
The
^^
third
month
is
thus
the
month
of
Audyneus,
See below, chap. IV.

Nissen,
'
" Comp. H.
Rhein. Mus.
Die Oekonomie der Geschichte des Polybios
',
XXVI
(1871), pp. 241-82.

Bell. lud. I, 18. 2;
" The
V, 9.4
siege lasted from five to six months.
comp.
94

corresponds to December and January,
It
i.
which
e.
the
Hebrew month Tebet.

the
fast-day
refers
may
therefore be
assumed that
to
the tenth of Tebet,^^ and conse-
quently the capture of Jerusalem took place January 13-14,

37 B.C.
E.
717 A. U.
C.
This date would be placed
in
the consulate of Claudius

it
and Norbanus by Dio, while Josephus would advance

into the consulate of
Agrippa and
Gallus.
it
This date
fulfils
also the other conditions, namely, that
falls in
a sabbatical
year, and was preceded as well

tical season.
as followed
by the sabbamarks
The
date of the
capture
of
Jerusalem
the
beginning of Herod's reign.
According to the Jewish
calculation of the royal era from Nisan, the

in 37 B. C. E.
month
of Nisan
his
was the beginning of the second year of
reign.
Consequently, the thirteenth and fourteenth years

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

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

B. C. E.
first
while the sabbatical year was indeed 24-23
The
37
theory which
is
equally prevalent that the
year of Herod must be reckoned either from

B. C. E.
Nisan of
based on
or
from 10 Tishri of 37
B. c. E.
is
Josephus's synchronizing the seventh year of

that of the battle of Actium, which
Herod with
was fought on Septemassumed that we must

in
ber
2,
31 B. C.E.
first
From
this
it
is
consider his
year to have begun
the year 37 B.
c. E.'^
'Elf TOVT(p Kal TT]9 eTT* 'Aktl(o ixdy^rjs aviêcrTafiii^rjs
Kaicrapi
7rp69 'AuTcoyioi/ i/SSofiov [5'] ovtos 'HpcoSt] rrjs /SacnXiia^ irovs,

(TiicrOiicra
tj
yfj joav 'lovSaicav
{Ant.
XV,
5. 2).
This assumption appears groundless when we subject

' '*
Zech.
8.
19.
Schiirer,
Geschichle,
I,
p.
365, n, 6,
and
p.
415, n. 167;
Kromayer,
/.
c, p. 571.

the following text of Josephus on which
ZEITLIN
it
95
is
based to
a critical examination.
He
says
'
:
This time (when there

it
was war between the Arabs and Herod)

fight
was that the
happened at Actium, between Octavius Caesar and

in the seventh
Antony
it
year of the reign of Herod, and then

in
was
also that there
was an earthquake
Judea
'.
Josephus cannot mean that the battle of Actium coincided with the earthquake in Judea, as the former event
occurred in September,^^ while the latter occurred at the
beginning of the Spring.^^

unintelligible
if
This passage would be entirely

not fortunately have a parallel
we
did
reference to these events in the Bellum ludaicum, which

clears
up the true meaning of
this text
'
In the seventh
year of his reign (Herod's),
when the war about Actium

âcriXeia^ e^Sofiou, aK/id-
was
at the height, at the beginning of the spring the earth

'.
was shaken
Kut'
eros
fiî'
rrjs
ôvTOS Sk Tov 'Aktlov TToXifiov.

(TiiadeTa-a {Bell. hid. I, 19. 3).
dp-)(ofi.vov
yap eapo9
rj
yrj
Here Josephus
not the battle
identifies with the
time of the earthquake
{\id\y])
of Actium, but the war (TroXe/xos)

in
about Actium, which begun
the winter of 33-31 B,
c. E,,
was
at its height in the spring,^^
and culminated
in Sept. 2,
31 B. c.E.
As
Josephus states here plainly, when the war

its
about Actium was at
height, at the beginning of the spring,
that the earthquake took place, and this was in the seventh
year of Herod's reign.

the previous passage
^^
In such manner
we must
interpret
in Atitiq.
ttju
Consequently, the actual

rod 'ScrrT;x0piov
firjvos
:
Zonar, X, 30
ToiavTT] Tis
77
Kaja
dfurepav
rfi
also Dio,
:
LI,
vav/jaxia avTujv
StvTtpa tov 'S.nnen^piov eyevfro
see
Fischer, Romische Zeittafeln, p. 368.

^*
'Apxofxevov yap tapos
7)
yrj aeiadticra, Bell.

;
lud.
I,
19, 3.
Sfj
'*
Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, III
Dio, L, ir tov h\
rjpos 6 jxlv
'kvTwvioi
ovSapLOV (KivrjOr]
....
icai
6 'Aypiiriras ttjv re MeOdivrjy Ik wpocrfioK^s
Ka^wv.
96
battle of
first

Actium
fell in
the eighth year of Herod, and the

B. C. E.,
year ends properly with the month of Nisan 37
as
we have assumed.
The above explanation
is
based of course on the assump-
tion that the beginning of spring preceded Nisan.

is
This
contrary to Schlirer's views that the Jews reckoned the

first
spring season from the
of Nisan. ''^
There can be no
doubt, however, that Schiirer was in error on this point.
While the Jewish months are
lunar, the seasons
were fixed
according to the position of the sun, and in an intercalated

year, the beginning of the spring
must precede the sixteenth

31
B. C. E.,
of the
month of
Nisan.^^
The year
being a
pre-sabbatical year,
was
in fact intercalated in
accordance
with an ancient
rule.^^
The
entire discussion
of the date of the
capture of
Jerusalem by Herod and Sosius would not be complete

without the consideration of the supplementary statement
of Josephus: cocrnep eK TrcpiTpOTrfj^ rrj9 yivofi(.vrj9 knl UofiTTTjiov T019
'lovSaLoi? avfi(popd9.
rjfiepa
it
Kal
yap vn eKiivov
{Ant.
rfj
avrfj
edXwcrav
p.ra
(.tt)
eiKocrieTrTd
XIV,
16. 4).
On
the face of
Josephus appears to mean that the capture
of Jerusalem by Herod marked the anniversary of Pompey's
conquest of the Holy City.
Our date
the
loth of Tebet
can
hardly be taken as the anniversary of Pompey's

in all likelihood to
conquest of Jerusalem, as this appears
have taken place

accurately the
in
one of the summer months, or more

well-established
month of Tanimuz, in which a

p. 365, n. 6.
""
ei
Schiirer,
I,
nDlpnn
!?yi
3UN* bv nJC'n piaVD, see Talmud Sanhedrin 11-13
and Tosefta,
*=
]''b'i-\
ibid.
^no^N
n^yât' ^nvid3 nî n^yât^'3

;
nb p-i3vo pN
n^VâK' âiya -\2V^, T. Jerushalml Sanhedrin 18 d
Babli, ibid.

fast-day
fell.*'^
ZEITLIN
97
But
this
passage
is,
in
any event,
difficult
to reconcile with the facts, according to

cited
any of the above-
identifications
of the date of Herod's capture of
Jerusalem.
refers
For the conquest of Pompey to which Josephus
took place according to his
own testimony
in
in
the
in
third
month of the
siege*'*
on a fast-day
179 Olymp.
the consulate of Caius Antonius and Marcus Tullius Cicero,
which corresponds to 63
B. c. E.
Now
between 6^
B. c. E.
and 37
B. c. E.
there intervenes
only a period of twenty six years and not twenty-seven. This last consideration mal<es
pret
rfj
it
impossible to inter',
avrfj
yj/iipa,
'
the
same day
as
referring to the
anniversary.
It
must be assumed that fast-days on which
the respective events took place were not identical.
Only
thus
it
becomes possible to explain the
interval of
twentythe
of
seven years, namely, that the event of
Pompey
in
fell in
month
Tebet.
of
Tammuz
and that of Herod

fractional
the
month
Reckoning the
year from
Tammuz
to
Tishri or Dius as one year, Josephus properly counted the
intervening period as twenty-seven years.
As to
9,
the literal
meaning,
'
the
same day
',
this
can only be taken to
mean
B. c. E.
B. c. E.
the same day of the week.

fell
fell
on Tuesday or
Thus Tammuz Wednesday, while Tebet

Assuming
on Wednesday
6^
37
lo,
on Wednesday or Thursday.^^
fell
that the two

this
dates respectively
and
see
can also
be maintained on other grounds

'3
we
that
Josephus
See Prideaux, Hisioire des

For a
full
JitiJ's et
des peuples voisins, V, p. 517, Paris^
1726.
discussion about the capture of Jerusalem by
Pompey and
the reckoning of the years of Hyrcanus, see below, Appendix.
" Comp.
**
Bell. lud.
I, 7.
/.
4.
See also Unger,
c, p. 276,
where he
states that the loth of Tishri

b. c. e, fell
63
B. c. E. fell
on Sunday or Mondaj', and the loth of Tishri 37
on Wednesday or Thursday.
VOL. IX.
98

rfj
could well count, Kal yap vn' kKîvov

Tjixfpa fiiTct
err]
avrfj
edXaxrau
(iKoauTrTa..
That both Pompey's capture

on Wednesday
is
of Jerusalem and Herod's
fell
curiously
in
corroborated by an obscure and corrupt passage

historical
an old
document
[1
which
is
otherwise
unintelligible
n\T r\2^ ^sviD

nrai niai
.
.
.
n\i 3wX3 nyari]

.
Dvn iniN
n:iB'S"ia
nân
mnô
n^jB' ;di
2^'^')n''
i?c'
imoc-rDi [nn\n] n^yâc ^nvioi
nx
on^bv
aa^î
DniN
n-cK' noi
^-l^l^'
nnnixi pin
i'y
onjoiy nî^n
. . .
n-rj^-a
.n:ic'N-i3
Tyn nypnn
'cinb
nycna ^ymn B'nna
n:iN
12 (Tj'y) nyn::'3, Sedej-
Olam,
ch.
XXX,
ed. Neubauer.'"'
first
The
time
day on which the Temple was destroyed the

fell
on the 9th of Ab, on the day following the sabbath,

a post-sabbatical year and
in
in
the watch of Jehojarib.
Thus
also the second destruction
Both times the Levites
stood at their posts and recited their psalm.

did they recite
'
What psalm
And And
he hath brought upon them their own iniquity,

will cut
them
off in their
will cut
ow n
evil
The Lord our God

w as made
in
them
off.'
(Ps. 94.)
In the fourth month, in the seventh
day thereof a breach
the city during the
first
(Destruction) and on
the scven(teen)th thereof during the second (Destruction).
That
this
passage
is
incoherent
was already
felt
in
the Talmud, without any satisfactory

offered
there."''
explanation being
in
Thus,
it
is
well
known both
the
Talmud and
service
in
the works of Josephus that the sacrificial
was abolished on the seventeenth of Tammuz,

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

**
In Talmii'l Taanit
ami Erakin, the above passage

'''''
is
found with other
variants.
'
See Arakin ri-ia.

;
lal.nud laanit a6
I
:
'
TOnn
'.
bt33
nOD^
TJ'y ny3L''3
comp. BcU. lud.

daily sacrifice
VI,
2.
On
the seventeenth daj' of the

'i*"^'
month Ponemus the
(ffJcA^X"^/"^')
failed
ZEITLIN
that
99
made
that the sacrifices continued

is
till
the ninth of Ab. the
In addition, there
the
glaring
contradiction
Temple
is
said to have fallen

in
on Sunday, while the psalms
which the Levites chanted

sacrificial
accompaniment to the alleged

formed the recitation of
service of that
(cp.
day,
Wednesday
It
Mishnah Tamid),
must be assumed that the text represents an incomand defective Baraita.

.Tiw'ai
plete
The antecedents
of
nm nn
are not
n^lLJ'Sin of
the existing text, which refers to
the capture of Jerusalem

respectively,
by Nebuchadnezzar and Titus

to a missing sentence
but must allude
which
described the conquest of Jerusalem by

also as n^Jw'm njvj'Nia.
Pompey and Herod
Thus
interpreted, the allusion to the
Levites at the sacrificial service reminds one strongly of

Josephus's description of the siege and
fall
of Jerusalem
fact
under both these conquerors, where he emphasizes the

that the daily sacrifices were kept
up
till
the very
fall
of
the city/'^
It
only remains to be noted that the psalm
which the Levites are said to have chanted on these two
days respectively was the psalm which was recited every

Wednesday."'^
**
As regards
the time
:
read the following

assailing
'
when Jerusalem was captured by Pompey, we Many of the priests when they saw their enemies
in their
them with swords

their divine worship,
hands, without any disturbance went
on with
and were slain while they were offering their

',
drink-offerings and burning their incense
Bell. hid.
I, 7.
5.
As
regards the
time of Herod
we have
city
the following
. . .
and the lower
were taken
but
'When the outer now fearing lest
court of the the
Temple
should
Romans
hinder them from offering their daily sacrifices to God, they sent an
embassage, and desired that they would only permit them

for sacrifices
'
to
bring in beasts
J.
which Herod granted". Ant., XVI,

la
16. 2.
See
Lehmann,
",
Quelques dates importantes de

(1898
,
chronologic du second temple
REJ.,
XXXVII
'"'
pp. 1-44.
ch. 7,
Mishnah Tamid,
Mishnah
4.
Some
again object to our theory
as to the dates of these cycles of Shemittot on the ground that in accordance
lOO
We may
now
finally dispose of the last
argument which
was raised above, against the fixation of the order of the

sabbatical cycles, namely, that while the year preceding
the destruction of the
Temple was a
necessariU'
sabbatical year ac-
cording to the testimony of the Talmud, as well as on the

tlierewith
40-41
c.e.
would
be
sabbatic
year,
whereas
Go,
Josephus, in treating of the Jews petitioning Petronius not to place a statue

of the
till
Emperor
'.
in
the Sanctuary-, reports the latter as saying to them,

is
.
'
the soil
Schiirer aptl3' observes that this

:
'
not sufficient to prove the

.
j'ear non-sabbatical
dieses indirekte
positiven
I,
Argument
in
nicht stark
genug
ist,
um
die
iiberlieferten
'
Daten
Betreff
der
Sabbatjahre
um-
zustossen
{Geschichte,
p.
Stud.
H.
Krit.
(1879
p.
Also Wieseler, 35; see also pp. 495-507\ 529 inclines verj* stronglj' to the idea that that
conversation between the
Jews and Petronius took

n. 8) considers also that
place in 39-40
b. c. e.
Graetz {Geschichte,
III,
2.
40-41 c.e. could not
have been
a sabbatic year
by reason of what
is
stated in
Mishnah Sotah,
VII, 7: i^ron
L"\>{
Dsn:N riT^t:^
b2'\r\
^svion "^12^2 an b^' jiK'Nin d^v 'nvid

i>3pi
ij^r
ybv
T\Tb
vhb ran^rî Dôan imnac'i noiy Nipi

DDnjN*
noy
nnx
On
Pentateuch
iJ^HwS
xTnn
^n
1^
noN
niyon vry
na:
the least of Tabernacles in the post-sabbatical j'ear the king read the
'^before the multitude).
The Mishnah,
'
after stating that the king stood while reading, continues
And when he
read the passage, ''Thou mayest not put over thee a foreign
man'', his eyes were suffused with tears (the
Herodian
family'
was
falls
of
Idumean
brother:
origin'
the^'
said to him.
"Be
The
not afraid, Agrippa, thou art our

post-sabbatic
I
our brother art thou'".
year thus
in
41-42
until
c. E.,
whereas, as Graetz thinks, Agrippa

p. 433).
did not
come
to
Judea
the
42 C.E. {Moitatssch., 1877,
But
this objection will not afTect
matters, for admitting that Agrippa could not
have been present
at
service of Feast of Tabernacles in 41 b.c,
it
has never been proved that
the passage refers to Agrippa

Essai, p. 217, thinks Agrippa
I,
and not
to
Agrippa
II.
Derenbourg,
'
II
was meant, as does
also Biichler,
Die
Priester und derCultus im letzten Jahrzehnt des Jerusalemischen Tempels',

Bericlil der Isr.
.See also
Tlieol. Leliranslalt in IVien,
1895, p. 12,
and Hitzig,
II,
571.
Brann
in Monatsscli.,
1870,
II, for
pp. 541 8.
The word 'king'

In the
could
have been applied to Agrippa
besides his being king in Galilea, he
was, by appointment, given charge of the Temple.

evidences of his being called king, as
. .
Talmud we
find
in
the statement "]Ôri DSÎJN ^NL"

;
"Ity^Sx '3"l
"ITvi'N '3-1
nS Tatiluima Genesis, ed. Frankfurt, p. 6d, 170O ns ^'1D^ DSnjX ^:J' DlSnCDN (Sukkah 27 b).
(
SnL"

basis of our
ZEITLIN
refers
lOI
calculation, nevertheless Josephus

fruit in
to
the growing
the land of
Edom
which was invaded

E.).
by Simon
is
the Zealot that year (69 c.
This
difficulty
fact
easily solved
by the simple and well-known
that
the laws of the sabbatical year affected only the lands of

Palestine,
and had no application
in
Edom
or in
any other
country that was annexed to PalestineJ^
" See
<
.
.
Mishnah, Shebiith, VI,

is
i.
Many
scholars think that 69-70

.
was
sabbatic and that this

^''y"'^t^',
attested
by the Baraita
''Ni'irO
JTiDn 3"inK'2
which according
to
them means the
latter part of the sabbatic
year, in which the
month of Ab would be the eleventh.

^Ni'lM, Graetz,
Geschichte,
III,
Such
is
Caspari's
opinion [Life of Christ, pp. 23-6, 37^ and Graetz's understanding of the
expression
n''y"'3B'
2,
n.
8.
In
truth,
is
however,
the sabbatic
year was 68-69,

for
whereas n'^V^QC
''NiHO
the
following year, 69-70,

sabbatic.
which
we
have coined the expression, post-
That n^yStt' ^NlflD
in the
Talmud means the post-sabbatic year

is
and not any part of the seventh year
evident from
pj<
many
passages,
e. g.
n"iy2r
\S::'1D2
{<S n^ynt^'^
N^
7\l^*r]
pnnyo
'They do not
'.
intercalate,
is
neither in the sabbatical year nor in the post-sabbatical
This
also
evident from Ab. zarah 9

SntJ'
is in,
b.
tOiy XIH
is
yUCQ
^JB'
nn3
yn"*
S^T
|N?0 "'NH
in
''SJ2''J
'
If
any man
uncertain as to the year of the Shemittah he

in
he should count the years, from the year
which the Sanctuary was

in
destroyed and add one year, since that event took place
followed a sabbatic year
'.
a year that
This error
that the destruction of the
Temple was
but
in a sabbatic
year
we
find
not only
among modern
is
scholars,
among
the rabbis of the
Middle Ages.
This
even the idea of Rashi, see his remarks, and Tosaphot
on Ab. zarah 9 b.
of destruction
Not only were they misled into thinking that the year
sabbatic, but also as to the exact year.
in
was
According
to
e.,
some, the destruction took place

while others place
it
the year 3828 a.m., i.e. 67-68 c.

c. e.).
in
the year 3829 a. m. ^68-69
See Rashi and
Tosaphot,
ibid.,
and Seder ha-Kabalah, by Abraham ibn Daud (RabadJ. Both
dates are false.

the
The
destruction of the Temple, as

a.
.m.
is
known, took place
in
in
month of Ab, 3830

is
(69-70
c. E.).
This error
is
we
can detect
a passage in the Talmud, Ab. zarah 9 b,
which
from the
latest
Amoraim
:
or
an addition of a later time, confusing the two statements
'"1
"IDN
fl^N
m:^ ru'^ np ons ^7

and docs not appear
idx"-
dn
nnn pin^
niND ya-iN "inN NJ^:n
Onx) x:n
fluous
NTi'':noa .npn
in the
vh nnx nrna fn:n. [This nns is superSpanish MS. in the Jewish Theological
I02
The
correct order of the sabbatical cycles

later
in
was preserved
in
centuries
the
Gaonic schools and
Palestine.
'
According to
their calculation, says

1
Maimonides,
this year
4936 A.M. and

(11 75-6)
is
107 after the destruction of the
Temple
a post-sabbatical year'."^
dSj? nxn^fj DHNI
fi^s"
Seminary of America.]
D''w'^K'1
D^riNCI
CD^N
ny3"iS'
npn ^N
offers
nns'
i^nn pirn
: '
R. Hanina said
you a
field
i? np ons* -(? "ix^ Dx. After 400 from the destruction of the Temple, if a man worth 1,000 denarii for one denarius, buy not '. ^The
mc
niu
reason
it is
for this advice

: '
was
that the Messiah

if
would come.)
In a Baraita
field
stated
In 4231 a. m.
j'ou are ofTered for
one denarius a
is
worth
1,000 denarii, take not'.
The Talmud asks what

answer
:
the difference between

pJlT
the two, and gives the

'3B'
N^SO Nn^JnQT
of this
H^n
)r\'>^:'>2
S3\S
in the
D?r\.
is
The
difference
between R. Hanina's statement and that
Baraita
three j'ears.
The author
passage thought that the
destruction took place 3828 a. m., and R. Hanina's statement would applj'
to
after
4228
a. m.,
bj-
while according
to
the Baraita
it
is
4231
in
a. m.,
which exceeds
three years.
But the two statements are
agreement.
The destruction took place 3830 a. m., and R. Hanina's statement would mean after 4230 a. m. buy nothing', while the Baraita specifies 4231 as the
'
beginning of the period.
This statement about the cycles of Shemittot
is
corroborated by a wellin
known
Haggadah
in
the
Talmud
Sanhedrin 91 a
connexion
with
Alexander.
In telling of this dispute before him of representative
Jews
*
and Ishmaelites, the Haggadah ends with ^n^^ JT'yaB' H^C HHINI
j'ear
that
was
sabbatic'.
Alexander was
c3-cles,
in
Palestine 332
b. c.e.
Counting
back from 164-163 twcntj'-four
we
get 332-331 as sabbatic.
]2'\^rb î^Ni
JT'U^lt;'
rîiy2^
y3L"
nrc
N\-it;' it
nx" '-nn
nr
px-n
idî
^nil"'
'NV1D
nun.
Maimonides, Yaci Ita-Hasakah,
Shniiittah,
X,
6.
The year 4936 A. M. (i.e. 1175-60. e.) being, as Maimonides saj's in the name of the (ieonim, post-sabbatical, confirms our view on sabbatical cycles that 3830 A. M. (,69 70 C.E., year of destruction of the Temple) was postsabbatical, thus
is
making 158
cj'cles
but, according to Maimonides, 4936 a. m.
the year 1107 of the destruction of the Temple.

a. m.
Herein he erred, taking
as J'ear of the destruction 3829

detected in a passage
in
(68 69
c. e.),
which error we
alreadj*
Talmud
(see note 71 \
anil
As to how this crri>r arose among the (ôonim, nPO"' p3D, i.e. F.ra of Contracts, see below.
(
with regard to the
Jo be continued.)
THE RABBINATE OF THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE,

LONDON, FROM
Bv Dr.
C.
1
756-1843.
Duschinsky, London.
The
tales
history of the various Jewish communities, the
told about the
numerous Kehillahs, forms
as great
tales
and as important a part of Jewish history as do the

of
woe and persecution
of the Jews as a people, and as
the
political history of the Jews, in their relation to other
nations.
Every community, be
with
It
its
it
large or small, has
its
own
and
history
personalities,
scholars, benefactors,
cranks.
might be
difficult to write
the history of
a small non-Jewish
community, but monographs on many
a small Kehillah with no
more than 50
to
100 families
have often been written and form a valuable part of Jewish

history.
The Ashkenazi community
of
London was
in
at first a
small hebrah onl}% but very soon increased
numbers.
London, as the capital of the British Empire, as the centre

of the world's commerce, soon after the readmission of the
Jews
in
1650,
attracted
many
first
co-religionists
settlers
from
the
Continent.
Although the
were Sephardim,
}'ear
we
find a small
Ashkenazi community as early as the

^^^^
1659.
far
^" ^''75
community had already developed

Rabbi
in
so
as to be able to elect a
the person of the

in
learned R. Judah
Loeb
b.
Ephraim Anschel, who
ijo',
became Rabbi of Rotterdam.

vol. Ill, p. 105.)
(See jf.H.S.E. Transact.,
103
I04

Most
of the
Ashkenazi
settlers of that
time hailed from

first
Germany, only very few from Poland.

the
congregation,
The
Parnas of
from
Abraham,
first
or
R. Aberle, came
Hamburg, and the

and afterwards
Rabbi of Duke's Place Synagogue,

first
Uri Phoebush Hart, at
opponent of R. Judah Loeb's
his successor,
was a native of Breslau and was
known
as R.
Phybush
Bressler.
He was
in office
from 1692
until 1752.
His successor was Rabbi Zevi Hirschel Lewin.

I
Through the kindness of Mr. E. N. Adler
have been
life
enabled to obtain an insight into the spiritual
of the
Ashkenazi community under the guidance of Rabbi Zevi

Hirschel and his successor
in
office,
David Tevele
Schiff,
who was Rabbi

until 1792.
of Duke's Place
Synagogue from 1765
Mr. Adler allowed
me
the use of his manuscripts,
Nos. 1160, 124H, and 2286 and others.
MS. Adler 1248

called in
contains, on 84 folio leaves, most of the discourses which
Rabbi Zevi Hirschel Lewin, or

Hart Lyon, delivered during
in the years
as he
was
his tenure of ofifice in
London London
1756-63.
The
first
discourse
is
dated Sabbath
Beha'alotka 5517 (June 1757} and the last the Sabbath preceding Passover (Sabbath Haggadol) 5523 (March
1763).
MS. No.
160 contains talmudic and other notes
by David Tevele
in
Schiff,
some of them having been written

is
London.
MS. 2286
again the work of R. Zevi Hirsch.
Rabbi Hirschel Lewin

as
we
shall
call
him
for brevity's sake,

life,
and as he was
1721 at Reisha
generally called
in
in later
was born
in
Poland.
He
was the son of Rabbi Arych Loeb (Loewen-
stamm), then Rabbi of that town. a descendant of great men.
Rabbi Aryeh Loeb was
His father was Rabbi Saul of
THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE, LONDON

Cracow,
DUSCHINSKY
famous
IO5
and
his
grandfather
was the
Rabbi
Heschele Cracow, but the family traced their origin to
Rabbi Jacob Weil

called
of
Regensburg
(flourished
about 1435)
Mahari Weil, to Rabbi Meir of Padua (Maharam
Padua, died November 1583), Solomon Luria (Maharshal, died 1573), and even to the great Spanish statesman and
Hebrew
1508).
first
scholar
Don
Isaac
Abrabanel (born I437> î^^

R. Aryeh Loeb, was at
lived in the year 1728.
Rabbi Hirschel's
in Reisha,
father,
Rabbi
where he
still
Later he became Rabbi of Lemberg, then of Glogau and

lastly
of Amsterdam.
In
1734 he signs
in
Glogau an
approbation (nD3Dn) dated 17th of Sivan, 5494, to the
Talmud
edition printed at Frankfort
and
Berlin.
On
the
New Moon
of the
month of Tammuz, 5400

Amsterdam.
July 1740,
he received the
call to
Doubt has been expressed by various

whether Rabbi Aryeh ever
in his history of
historians as to
officiated in
(p.
Lemberg. Landshut
71) devotes a whole
the Berlin Rabbis

this
page to the task of solving

tion to the
mystery.
In the approba-
Talmud
edition just mentioned, he refers to
himself as Rabbi elect of Lemberg.
There being then

filled
no other proofs known of

in
his ever
having
the office
Lemberg, Landshut, having no evidence, ventures the

office,
opinion that he was only elected to the

actually
officiated
but never
in
there
{pp.
cit.,
p.
7a).
Dembitzer,
his excellent
work on the Rabbis of Lemberg,

II,
entitled
Kelilat Jofi (Cracow, 1888),
83 a (without referring to
Landshut's work),
at one
is
of the opinion that R.
Aryeh Loeb was

in
and
the
same time Rabbi of Glogau and of Lemberg.

the one
According to Dembitzer he lived sometimes

town, sometimes in the other.
We
need only look at the
map and measure
the distance between these two places
I06
to
is.

at once convinced
become
how improbable such
a theory
We
The journey by coach must have taken are now in a position to discard both
is
several weeks.
these theories.
(a
MS. Adler 2286

commenced
tells
a scholar's
note-book
in
so-called
'Torah book') by Zevi Hirsch written

in
Glogau, and
the year 1737.
The
title
of this manuscript
us that Rabbi Hirschel,
who was then studying under

all
his father,
made
these notes in order to keep a record of
the
new
points raised
by
his father in histalmudical lectures
delivered at his Yeshibah (College).

313^
P'^P']
'
He
styles his father

2>b
n"3N D^JD^
'\T
nc'N n:i^:
p"p'^
nns V':
'ns
i"o)
nT3n)
R. Aryeh Loeb Rabbi of Glogau, who was formerly

(see,
Rabbi of Lemberg'
Rabbi of the
however, Megillat Sefer,
p. 67).
This leaves no doubt that for some time he was actually

latter congregation.
is
Rabbi Aryeh Loeb
described as one of the most
humble men that ever

saintly
life,
lived.
Of a quiet
no value
;
disposition and
for
worldly goods had
him.
He
never said a word which he did not mean
strict as
regards
himself he was very lenient and most tolerant to others.
Only on one point did he admit

that
of no compromise, and
was
in
his unrelenting opposition to the adherents of
the pseudo-Messiah Sabbatai Zevi.
He
sided with Jacob
Emden, who was

with R. Jonathan
his brother-in-law, in the latter's quarrel
Eybeschiitz.
Many members
of his
family (his father R. Saul and his grandfather R. He.schel)
had already before him actively combated the spreading

of the sect of
'
Shebsen'
(as the
adherents of Sabbatai Zevi
were
called).
Many
of the letters which he wrote against
Eybeschiitz arc printed in ICmden's works {Hifabkut, Sefat

Jitiict,
&c.).
Rabbi
Arjeh
Loeb's
wife
was
Mirj-am
(died
in

Amsterdam, 17th of Tammuz,
famous
DUSCHINSKY
claughter
107
1753),
of the
Haham
Zevi,
Rabbi of the combined congregations,

later
Hamburg, Altona, and Wandsbeck,
of
Amsterdam
ist
and Lemberg (where he died on Monday,

1718),
of lyyar,
who
likewise
I.)
came from a family
of great scholars.
(See Appendix
Born
of such parents,
it
is
no wonder that R. Hirschcl
Lewin was, from
his earliest childhood, brought
up
in
religious atmosphere, taught to love his people

tradition,
and
their
and he soon became an eminent
scholar.
The
education of Jewish children in those days consisted mainl}of Hebrew.
From
the age of five the child was taught

to night,
Hebrew, from morning

infrequently
and Hebrew only.
Not
many boys
was
of twelve or thirteen years of age
had mastered a considerable part of the Talmud.

similar nature
Of
Hirschel Lewin's early training, with the
exception, that in addition to the Talmud, he was taught

also
days.
Hebrew grammar, a very exceptional thing in those The MS. Adler No. 2286 was begun by him when
Hebrew
style,
he was only sixteen years old and gives proof that even
then he was a master of
possessed of a clear
head and had quite original
ideas.
later.
We
The
p.
do not hear about

first
is
him again
until
many
years
letter
which
1751,
we
possess from
him (Landshut,
72)
dated
written
when he was a
private scholar in Glogau.
This
is
letter refers to the
Emden-Eybeschiitz controversy and
addressed to his brother Saul, then Rabbi of

in
Dubno
(later
Amsterdam).
his
It
appeared
in
(p.
the booklet, Scfat Evict, 22

a).
of
uncle Jacob
Emden
Having married
Zevi Laz::adik.
Golde, daughter of David Tevele Cohen, Parnas in Glogau

(died on the 9th of Tishri, 551
p. 175,
1751
see
note
20j^
he settled there and continued his studies
lo8
under Rabbi Lemmil Levi, Chief Rabbi of that town.
At
the instigation of this teacher he wrote another letter to his

father R.
Aryeh Loeb, intimating

with
that
Eybeschiitz was
to
tired of the endless strife
give an undertaking not to
Emden, and was willing write any more charms

p.
or
amulets (printed
in
Edict Bejaakob,
59
a).
Rabbi Aryeh
Loeb
sent this letter to his brother-in-law Jacob

replied
',
Emden,
in
who
in
a bitter
'
spirit.
'
He
was disappointed
R. Hirschel
he writes,
whom
he had estimated to be a
in that
man
of strong will
and character, and
opinion had
asked him to be his messenger to the Rabbis of Poland
and win them over to
his side.
Instead of this he turned
conciliator, but there can
be no conciliation with the evildoer

his net
"
',
Eybeschiitz.
"
Keep away from
he ends up.
(Emden's
is
letter is
dated the 25th Adar, 5513

b.)
17.53,
and
printed in Ediit Bejaakob, p. 59

It is
nearly certain that he lived in Glogau for several
years.
When
in
1756 the Rabbinate of the Ashkenazi

vacant, R. Hirschel had
scholar, a great
congregation
already
linguist
in London became won fame as an eminent
Hebrew
the
and also as one who had some knowledge of secular
subjects.
He
was elected to the vacant

offer,
office in
same
year.
to
He
had received an
shortly before his election,
become Rabbi of Dubno
in
suc^ssion to his brother

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

Saul,
succeed his father
Passover, 1755, at the

in
age of 64; see Landshut, pp. 72 and 118) as Rabbi
Amsterdam.
government
The
fees,
conditions were that he should pay the

in
which had to be paid
Poland on the
for him.self.
'election of every Rabbi,
and to provide a house
He
refused, probably because he
had already received the
call to
London.
DUSCHINSKY
109
Rabi:i Zevi
Hirsch in London.
in
*Rabbi Hirschel was Rabbi

of the year
eight years.'
London from
of
the end
1756
It
until
the
ist
Sivan, 1764,
about
was during the Seven Years' War, when

England was the
the political conditions of Europe were totally different to
what they arc to-day.
ally of Prussia
and had to
fight against France, Russia,

critical
and Austria.
for
year 1756 was an especially
one
England.
The The
Henry
Duke
of Newcastle,
as
who had
followed his brother
Pelham
Prime Minister, began the war with only three

fit
regiments
for service.
England
in
suffered in that year
not onl}- defeats by the French
Minorca, losing Port

far
Mahon, but
from
also in
America the English arms were
victorious.
Part of the English Fleet was destroyed

parallel took possession of the
and a despondency without

population.
Chesterfield
'.
cried
in
despair,
'We
are
no
longer a Nation
office.
Under such external conditions R. Hirschel entered The first sermon which we possess from him was
by the King,
his duties.
at the
delivered at an Intercession Service^ ordered

^
It
is
not quite clear as to

liis
when he entered upon
Jacob
Kimiii in
'iC'D ribst* (p- 7; slates that
he was elected
beginning
of the j-ear 5517
dated
= Sidra
(September or October 1756), and signs a letter to him Noah (= November) 5517. The date of this letter
letters giving the
seems beyond question, the

tj'pe.
same being printed
in large
On
the other hand, in an
approbation to the book (Amsterdam,

it
1765, see Benjacob, No. 339}, Rabbi Hirschel states that he wrote
at the
in
Hague on Monday
London.
the 20th of Elul, 5517, on his

right,
way
to take
up his duties
This cannot be
and must have been a mistake of the printer
(the book having been printed eight years later),

the
who
very likely printed

as to Kimhi's
wrong
letters in large type.
There can now be no doubt

possess in
date being the correct one, as

delivered in
'*
we
MS. Adler, No.

p.
2248, a sermon
London on invyri3 n3B' = May 1757
3.
The manuscript
contains four sermons given at Intercession Services
no
and was held on Sabbath Beha alotka 5517

1757.
about June
in that
(MS. Adler 1248,^

fact
p. 3 a.)
He
remarked
discourse: 'The
special service
is
that
the king had
a proof that he does not
commanded a rely on his own

'.
strength alone, but prays for the help of

his congregation that they live in a
is
God
He
reminds
country where Israel
treated with
kindness and where they enjoy liberty.

in
This was said at a time when,
Germany, Jews were
required to pay, not only extra war-taxes in money, but
had to give up
or
silver.
all
boxes, watches, and rings,
made
of gold
If a
tax was not paid, the community had to
give hostages, and the lot of the
German Jews
'
of those
days was, accordingly, not an enviable one>

continues R. Hirschel, 'can help the
We
Jews
',
King
as
much
with
our prayers as by joining the

questioned nowadays.
of the King', referring
Army
some
'
an opinion very much

'
In another discourse,
to
victory,
by command
'The
to the
he says:
King does not

help of God.
attribute victory to his
own arms but

mean peace
;
We
Jews have double reason to be thankful

King's peace will
for us'.
for the victory, as the
'by Command of the King': (i) on pp. 2 a-2 b (2) pp. 21 a-22b; An 24a-27b, all of the year 5520= 1759-60. (3) PP- 233-243; (4)
Intercession Service
(see Gaster
:
was
held in the Sephardi
Synagogue on Feb.
in
6,
1756
History of the Ancient Synagogue Bevis Marks, p. 137),
Haham
^
Isaac Nieto preached the sermon.
(Published
Spanish,
when London
Richard Rcily, 1756-)
MS. Adler 1248

I
consists of ninetj'-one folio leaves,
numbered recto
only.
Fol.
is
a (ly-leaf,
fol.
:
2 contains short notes on various talmudical subjects.
Fol. 3 a begins
with
Q"y nyijn Svb ^-\1 ini^yn2 'Q n"3 N"y^ pJI^ HD

This manuscript belonged to Mr. Adler's
to
PD^ 2l"t3pn
father, the
n"T ^^n^ nVV.
late
Chief Rabbi, Nathan M. Adler, and was sent

J. of Lissa.
him as
find
Purim present by the Dayan R. Aaron, son of R.

first
We
on
the
fly-leaf the dedication
r"t3nn
Dni3 1132^
nmi^C' N'H
HTOD
ND-'^r^
*
"""13
pHN
nniNi
d.
'\'^^:lv
nxc.
Fiirtii, p. 84.
Sec Barbcck, Gesch.
Jiiden in Nihnberg iind
'
DUSCHINSKY
III
He
deals with the question as to whether
we are allowed
to rejoice at the
news of a great
victory,
which has involved

lives.
the loss of so
also to
many thousands
of precious
He
refers
the rise in the price of foodstuffs and to the bad
economic conditions of the country.
The poor
especially
suffered through the war, as the rich people selfishly
com-
plained of the sacrifices they had to make, and he pleaded

earnestly for the support of the poor.
He
mentions also
at
that
nearly
every kingdom
in
is
the
his
: '
world was
war.
Interesting in this discourse
reference to Aristotle
(nn^n
in
-ison
It
is
luonx an^) who said
War
is
a hateful thing
itself.
it
brings death to many, distress to more, but
when
land
it
over and has brought peace and victory to a

Often, apparently
to understand
becomes a laudable achievement.

events cause war, so that
trifling
it is difficult
how
for
sane people should risk
life
and honour and fortune

leaders of
such issues.
Only the monarchs and the

real reasons that cause
the peoples
it
know the
wars
invariably
;
is
the hope to enhance the renown of their countries

the prestige for which they are
is
it is
all fighting.
"
As
the
Macrocosmos, the world, so

R. Hirschel continues,
smallest sins, because
will
if
'
Man, the Microcosmos."
we must wage war even on our

we do not curb them
will
in
time they
difficult.
overmaster us and self-victory
be more
Men and
nations must fight for self-respect and
wage war
to a lower
in
against everything that threatens to reduce

level of morality'.
them
These are Rabbi Hirschel's words
these critical days
is
great words of a great mind.
In the
further course of this

as the
sermon he speaks to
anxious
'
his congregants
Rabbi who
for the strict
observance of
the religious ceremonies.

sins
warn you against the small
you have
fallen victims to.
The
shaving of the beard,
112
a non-Jewish custom, strictly and repeatedly forbidden in
our Torah
immorality
among young
(n^''3U
"'i^l),
people, the disregard
of the laws of purity

Sabbath;'^ these are
all
the desecration of the
very important, but you regard them
as minor matters, not realizing that they are the pillars on
which Judaism stands.

to light the
fire,
to
You direct a non-Jewish servant make fresh tea or coffee on Sabbath.

is
Do
not forget that the punishment for this sin
that
fire
breaks out in your houses, according to the .saying of the

Talmud,*' " Firebrands happen, where people desecrate the
Sabbath day."
sin
Jerusalem was burnt on account of that

p. 26).
(MS. A. 1248,
People carry things on the day
of rest even outside the city boundaries, likewise a transgression of an important commandment.''
The
disregarding
of the laws of purity brings the punishment of death
by
at
water upon you.'
He
says further,
'
See what happened
Portsmouth, the punishment that came upon our brethren

there through the waters.
Because they disregarded the

wives became widows, so
in the
laws of purity, so
*
many
is
many
Desecration of Sabbath
47
b,
mentioned
manuscript, on pages tab,
22
a,
*
''
and 73 a. See Talmud b. Shabbat 119 a.

62
a,
The
carrj'ing of anything
is
whatsoever on Sabbath day outside one's

according to Jer.
;
own
house and precincts

to
strictly forbidden
17. 21-a.
The Rabbis allowed

mixing, and
is
make an Erub = D^TJ?

manner.
which
literally
means
done
in the following
Two
'
poles are fixed at the
entrance to a street or number of streets connected with wire on top, like

telegraph
lines,
and the area thus closed

it is
in
was
mixed
'
into
one court.
Within the boundaries thus marked

be handled on Sabbath.
allowed to carry things which
may
The City
of London seems to have had such

its
Erubim, or was regarded as mixed area,

City bars.
boundaries being closed by the

his
Rabbi Hirschel complains that people of
time already
disregarded this religious rule and carried articles outside the City.
He
njni
says: N'c'Di'
]"\n
^h's>ii
NK'D D^NiTiJ^r .1031 nr33
niNHn
i3'3*y

children are
DUSCHINSKY
II3
us to fight the
now orphans. All this should be a warning to enemy within us, the evil spirit (y~in n^'').'
with a prayer for
He
concludes
King
and
Country,
beseeching that
everlasting peace
England's victory
all
may
be followed by
over the world.
The
he
incident of the drowning at Portsmouth to which
referred,
happened on the second day of Adar

find
I,
5518
(1758).
We
an account of
(p. 7),
it
in
the Minute-book of
I.
the congregation
in
(Paper by the Rev.

vol.
S. Meisels
124.)
Jewish Hist. Soc. Transactions,

*
VI,
p.
The
record says,
Eleven members of the congregation, young
and
old, lost their lives

'.
by drowning
the circumstances
are not stated
In
memory
of this disaster a
Hazkarah
lost,
is
(memorial-prayer), mentioning the names of the

recited four times a year in the
Synagogue
at Portsmouth.
The sermons
half,
that follow generally open with a talmudical
discourse, which must have lasted about one hour and a
and continue with a sometimes equally long moral

lecture.
It
haggadic
was, in those days, a regular thing
that the Rabbi,
who only preached two
or three times a
year, gave on these occasions sermons of three, sometimes

four,
hours'
duration.
The people mostly had

nearly
all
'
fair
knowledge
of
Hebrew and
'
could
as
it
follow
midrashic interpretation, a
Wortchen
was
called.
To
support one moral teaching the Rabbi would use two
or three such Wortchen, linked one into the other, which
were a kind of
intellectual gymnastics,
keeping the interest
of the listeners alive.

tion to preach
Although the Rabbi had no obligathree or four times, sometimes

if
more than
even only twice, a year
he was as good and eloquent
an orator as our Rabbi Hirschel, he preached more often.
The gap was

VOL. IX.
filled
by travelling preachers,
called
Maggidim,
I
14

to
travel
who used
from congregation to congregation,
generally during the winter months, delivering sermons.
There seem to have been such preachers

as
in
London,
too,
Rabbi Hirschel
p.
refers to
a).
them
in
one of his discourses
(MS. A. 1248,
44
The Ashkenazi
same
principle as
congregation was at the time of his
tenure of office already fairly organized, apparently on the
most
of the continental
communities of
questions
the time.
Apart from giving decisions
in ritual in
and preaching, the Rabbi's duties consisted
performing
the ceremonies at weddings, halizah, and divorce cases.
His chief duty was to study the Talmud and

mentaries and
to
its
com-
spread
this
knowledge.
Rabbi's
reputation and authority depended not so
much upon what
he actually did
for the
congregation as upon his fame as

in
a great scholar, and the esteem
which he was held
by Jewry
at
large.
R.
Hirschel had, as
we have
also
at
said,
the reputation of being an eminent scholar, nevertheless
he had the
seemed
going on
interest
of
his
congregants
in
heart.
Although most of
to be well
in the
his
time was spent
the study, he
acquainted with everything that was
community.
of his time appear to have rapidly
like the Gentiles,
The London Jews

their beards
become Anglicized. They dressed

;
shaved
as.so-
the ladies wore decollete dresses.
They
ciated with the English people, ate at their houses,
and even
went so
far as to
keep the
Chri.stian feasts to the neglect of
their own.
Christmas puddings seem to have been much

infrequent.*
favoured,
visited
and mixed marriages were not

and operas.
They
theatres
There were coffee-houses
Pages 4 b and 35
a.

which became meeting-places
however, were
DUSCHINSKY
II5
for card-players/^
Apostates,
rare, because, as
he says in a sermon, held

this
'
on the loth of Tebet, 5518,
'in
Country everybody
(p.
can do publicly what his heart desires

his voice
4 a).
He
raises
fearlessly against all these transgressions.

in
His
warning against mixed marriages was

strain
:
the following
'
The
children of a non-Jewish
wife are sure to
become
Christians, and, although the
non-Jews of our days

still
cannot be
category of
regarded as heathens,
"
they are
in
the
Ger toshab
" ^ {2^)r\
"ij),
are outside the Cove-
nant of
Abraham and have
not t^ken upon themselves the

its
is,
observation of the Torah and
precepts (Mizwot).
To
marry a non- Jewish woman

abandoning the
faith,
therefore,
tantamount to
even
if
she should become a Jewess.'
Festivals.
The
he says,
to
I
laws of Passover, Sukkah, the dietary laws, were

Referring to Sukkah
not observed in the proper manner.

'
This precept commands us to eat and to drink,

in
live
and to sleep
the Sukkah.
God knows
fulfil
that
this
always endeavoured
in its
in
my
younger days to
I
Mizwah
I
proper manner, and
was not
satisfied until
succeeded in having a large room, beautifully furnished,

for the purpose.
festival.
adapted
There
lived during the
whole
seven days of the

I
I
Now,
my
soul grieves that here

I
cannot
fulfil
this
commandment
as
ought to and as
(DJ?
used to do.
The bulk
of the people
pnn) go into
the Sukkah, say the blessing but do not eat even a morsel
of bread (nna) there, and go
home
to have their
meal outside
Pages 69 a, 73
it
a.
Card-playing was apparently very frequent, he

a.
mentions
1"
often, see pp. 19 b, 24 b, 33 b, 73

:
Literally
a settled stranger.
I
Il6
the Sukkah.
What blasphemy
They
in
not only do not

p.
keep the precept, but say a blessing
vain (MS. A.,
^S
^)-
They
the
say, "
God has commanded The same

it,
us to dwell in the Sukkah,"
and, as soon as they have said this, they go and transgress
command.
applies to the Etrog

in their
they pay
a good price for
and very often
ignorance do
not even examine whether one or more of the four plants

are not unfit for use
(^"iDS).'
Concerning Sabbath he has also several other grievances

to report.
Apart from the already mentioned

fire (see
points, in
p.
connexion with the kindling of
above,
113),
he
complains that sometimes even cooking

that generally the Sabbath
is
itself is
done, and
'
not observed as the
Holy
day
day
'
it
ought to
be.
'
If
you are thus keeping the holy

for various
',
he exclaims, after having reproached them

'
failings,
by doing things which even the Gentiles do not

I
do on Sundays,
ask you, "
Why
do you come to the

I
House of God?" God knows how
tired
am
of
my
life,
when
I
see
all
is
your doings
am
in
even afraid to hear what,

let
am
told,
happening publicly,
alone
of
how you
mentions
desecrate
the
Sabbath-day
private.'
He
among
other things that people have their letters opened
in front of the
Post Office on Sabbath.
'Although
it
this
is
not forbidden
(DtJTi
is
',
he says,
'
have heard that
is
a scandal
î^'n) in
the eyes of the Gentiles.'

It
'
What
'.
this
means
not quite clear.
cannot refer to tearing the letters

is
open, as he says,
to think that
it
not
forbidden
am
inclined
many
people gathered before the Post Office
on Sabbath mornings and asked non-Jews to open their

letters.
The
large gathering
may have become

all
a nuisance
to the general public.
Fearlessly he raises his voice against
disobedience

to the law.
'
DUSCHINSKY
'
I17
Day by day
all
',
he says,
we can
sin
see with our
own
eyes the decay of our people.
We
That
and act against
the law of
God
our endeavours are to associate with

is
the Gentiles and to be like them.

of
all
the chief source

^^
our
failings.
See, the
women wear
in front
wigs (nnaJ nN)
and the young ones go even further and wear decollete

dresses
open two spans low
and back (Dôny

a,
D^NVi"'
^nDD nnnnx^Di DiTJsijo), see pp. 12 b, 19
33
a,
62
a,
70
a,
and 70
b).
Their whole aim
is,
not to appear like daughters
of Israel (p. 16b).
On
the one side
we claim with
pride that
we
are as
good
as
any of our neighbours.
We
see that they
live happily, that their
commerce dominates the world, and
we want
talk,
to be like them, dress as they dress, talk as they
and want to make everybody forget that we are Jews.
But, on the other hand, are not better before
we
are too
modest and say
We
God
than the Gentiles,

all
we
all
come
from the same stock, are

sons,
descendants of Noah's three
and need not keep more than the seven precepts which
the sons of
Noah
are obligated to observe.

?
Know you
that ideas like these are the ruin of Judaism
We
must
be conscious that we are the chosen people of God, the
kingdom
of Priests, and behave as
it
behoves " Israel

!
",
the
Princes of the Almighty.

in
Reverse the order
Be modest
your personal ambitions, be content with the material

in this country,
advantages you enjoy

with your
faith.
but be not modest

to,
See where these thoughts lead you
and how we
live here.
We
dress on non-Jewish holidays

;
better than on our
own
festivals
in
the Christmas pudding

of the Apostles
which the Christians prepare

1'
memory
Parhon, the grammarian of the twelfth century, has already the same
grievances.
See
his lexicon
inVH
JT^^ntD, Posonii, 1844, p. 57,
s. v.
QV.
See also Zunz,
Rittts, p. 4.
Il8

Even the
children
is
more favoured than the Mazzoth.

the non-Jewish feasts "
that our holy
"
call
Holy " days and do not seem

the Sabbath.
" service
to
know
day
is
Soon they
will
come
to regard the
Habdalah
(ceremony
at the
conclusion of Sabbath) as a sign for the beginning of the

Sabbath.'
Communal
Organisation.
The only institutions the community apparentlypossessed

were the Synagogues.
in
Rabbi Hirschel does once mention
a sermon the Yeshibot, but only to state that they are
vanishing.
There was no
hospital,
and no schools were

a Bet-
maintained by the congregation.
The Rabbi had
Hamidrash
services.
for not
It
in
his
own
house, where he also held divine
appears that some one reproached him once

to
coming frequently
in
Synagogue, and his answer
was given
a discourse (p. 40 a) in which he appeals for

'
more frequent attendance of the Synagogue.

" It
Then
up
as an
excuse for not coming to Synagogue you quote the text

is
vain for you to rise
up
early,
because you
is
sit
late
"
(Ps. 127. 2),
and
my
answer to you
:
likewise with the
words of the Psalmist

3T 3py)
"
(Ps. 19. 12
D-|0C2 Dn3 inn nnay D:
My
servant
is
warned by them, and they watch

is
the heel of the great " (which
a witty translation instead

;
of the literal meaning of the text

is
" in observing
(oy
\\'C)T\)
them there
look
at
great reward
").
The people
well
indeed
(an 3py) the heel of the Rav,
goes.
know
full
how he walks and where he that many criticize me for not

I
coming to Synagogue, although

"
am
certain
that
my
tents
coming would not increase the number of Synagoguegoers.
They
stood
each
at
the doors
33. 8),
of their
and looked
after
Moses' (Exod.
can be equally
THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE, LONDON DUSCHINSKY

applied to myself, but
I
tell
II9
you:
Do
not judge me, you

music-halls,
who who
sit
in
the evenings in
beer-houses and
sleep in the morning and
do not come
to the
House
of the Lord, and then say that you stay
away because
is
you follow
I
my
example.
in
My
conscience
quite clear
pray to God
my
Bet-Hamidrash, a place designed

I
to the Glory of
God.
do not
sleep,
but pray with a
congregation of ten, at the same time as the service in

the Synagogue
is
being held, so that

I
I fulfil
all
the require-
ments of the Law.

(Ti3sn nilD
""^sd)
would, nevertheless, go to Synagogue
out of respect for the congregation, but for
my weak
state of health.
The congregation knows
that
not the desire for sleep keeps

impossibility of attending.'
refers again to
me
away, but the physical

(p.
In another sermon
35
a)
he
Synagogue-attendance, and protests against
people who had contracted mixed marriages having the

audacity to
demand being
in
called
up
to the Torah.
The decorum
reproach.
'
the Synagogue cannot have been above
People
gossiped
all
during
the
Service
(34 b).
Within the Synagogue
seem
to be friends
and have
confidential
news
to tell
one another, but outside disunion

(p.
reigns
among
the members'
12a).
He
attributes the
cause of disunion to the desire to be more than

neighbour, and to false pride.
one's
We
find
also
reference
irreligious
to
the
Shehitah.
The
Shohetim were
against this evil
:
often
'
and
he
feels
helpless
The Shohetim
are devoid of
Mizwot
words
12
b).
and ignorant, and what can the Rav do?' are
his
(mn
*
Htt'y^
ni nivcn | nnyiJD onyj
nr6^
o^Dniti'm, p.
The former
times were better than these.

for the
See how
many
hospitals
and houses
poor were built and maintained^

institution
is
and
here, with us, not
one such
to be found.
120
If

official,
any one does support a poor man or a poor

like
they
would
him
to
behave as
if
he were their slave and not
like the
man
of self-respect that he
was
in
former days.
(Very likely a personal note.) Try and imitate the Gentiles

in
this
See how
many
houses for the poor they have
built-
and surrounded with beautiful gardens.
houses for learning, called
They have Academies, where anybody who

all his
has a
thirst for
knowledge can go and study,

;
wants
one
being provided for

single
but
we do not
possess
even
Bet-Hamidrash.
19 b), they
Look
at our brethren the Sephar-
dim
(p,
have a Bet-Hamidrash and support

this support
is
several scholars.
Although
small and they
have to
find additional
is
means of
its
livelihood, nevertheless
the congregation
for
it.
doing
best and
deserves
praise
Especially
laudable arc
they as
many
a
Ba'ale
Batim (householders)
of study).
also take part in the Shiur (Portion
We, the Ashkenazim, have
neither
"
place
where
to learn, nor
where to teach, and the
kindness of
are too well
Gentiles" thus becomes our destruction, for

treated and so forget our Torah.'
we
The
Gentiles, he says
in 1759, P-
on
another occasion (Intercession Service held
24 b)
are versed in the whole twenty-four books of the Bible, but
our people are so ignorant that they can really recite
all
they
time
know
in
while standing on one foot.^^
They waste
their
coffee-houses and clubs playing cards, instead of
devoting some hours,

of the Torah.
It
is
when
done
free
in
'
from business, to the study
other congregations not far

It 31 a
from
'^
us, e.g. in
Amsterdam.
p.
were better
:
if
you would
Referring to Talm. B. Shabbat,
Hillel
was asked by a heathen

foot.
to teach him the
whole Torah while he was standing on one

'
Hillel
answered him
yourself; that
Do
not do to your neighbour what you would not like

is
is
the whole Torah, everything else
only the commentary,
go and study
'.
DUSCHINSKY
^^
121
read at least secular books instead of playing cards.'
In
another sermon
of the
people. neglect
'
(p.
8 b)
we
find again bitter complaints
to
teach
Torah
to
children
and young
The Yeshibot
are going from
bad to worse and

first
the children, while they are quite young are,
of
all,
taught by their parents the English language and customs,
and when they grow older they do not want to learn
Hebrew.
there
is
Thus
it
happens that when an old scholar

to take his place.
(i. 5)
dies,
nobody
In
olden times the

the sun goes
saying of Ecclesiastes
"The
sun
arises,
down
"
was
true, for when the sun of one Rabbi went under,

Israel.
another one arose and gave light to
We
find that
on the day Rabbi Akiba died Rabbi Judah Hanasi was

born.
In these times
lost for
when
a scholar departs from this
life
he
is
ever to Judaism, there are no young
men
to
replace him, and

is
thus the succession of scholars in Israel

is
broken.
All this
the result of our mixing
among
the Gentiles and of the desire to be like them.'
Historical Notes. In connexion with this exposition he mentions, as was
customary
in
Memorial
orations, the loss of
Rabbis who
:
had died within that year (1757-8).

(i)
Their names are

(2)
Moses Lwow Rabbi

^'
'*
in
Nikolsburg
,^'^
Abraham Moller
nionô
{^"3
''"ti3''D
^"^1 Y'3N
nsoa nnp^ ma s^n, see a., p. 27 a. ycb TWO "I'lnJD, Moses Aaron Lemberger known
first
also as
lastly
Moses
Lwow was
1757.
cii.,
Rabbi
in Leipnik,
afterwards
in Berlin,
and
Landrabbiner of Moravia
in Nikolsburg, in
where he died 17th Tebet,

p. 378,
5518, 28th
Dec,
See Feuchtwang
23.
Kaufmann-Gedenkbnch,
and Landshut,
op.
122

(3) (5)
''^
of Bamberg;!^
of
Wolf Rabbi
of Friedberg;i
(4)
(6)
Meir
Hannover
^'^
;
Abraham Rabbi
of
Emden
^^
;
Leb
and
of Heitzfeld
of
(7)
(9)
Jacob of Greditz (Graetz)
;2o
(8) Isaac
;
Hanau
2'
;
Akiba Eger Rabbi of Pressburg

In
^^
(10)
Zevi Hirsch of Hildesheim.^"
another Hesped
(Memorial Service) held on the 17th of Tammuz, 5522

1762
'
(p.
71a) he mentions the death

of
of
his
relative
the
Rabbi
Berlin
;
',
referring
to
David Fraenkel,^*
Fuerth,^''
Mendelssohn's teacher
the
Rabbi of
likewise
'5
nyanxa
p"p,
p"pi
bv
his
ton
pip,
n^^NO Dn-ON n"1D.

vol.
See Kaufmann, DpJD

formerly Rabbi of
31303
T
See
VII, p. 27.
to
He was
b.
Oettingen.
Fiirth, 1752.
1*
approbation
Baruk
Elkana's
minn
K'lT'S,
nmns
p"pi
" nai^n p"pi

and D. Kaufmann
''
Yin fi^wi mo. Yia TNO n"lO. See

DmaN
lh
n"iD
n"lO.
Emden,
Megillat Sefer, p. 144
in Monatsschrift, 1896, pp.
220 and 274.
lyioy p"p'^ i"3N
'^
D^ya^'^M p"p'^ n"3N

Jacob of Greditz =
Heit^feld or Hatzfeld
is
Heidings-
feld
near Wiirzburg
in Bavaria.
Y>yi'\:^
20
p"p'^
n"3S*
Spy
n"irD
was the son of

an ancestor 75 and
R. Hirsch of Pintschow and became Rabbi of Glogau.

of
in
He was
cit.,
Rabbi Dr. Kaempf of Prague.
See Landshut,
op.
p.
Emden
Edul
=*'
Beja'akob, p. 39
p"p'i n"3N*
a.
ii^]ir\
pvN* n"io.
22
nUt^'yiD
has
p"p'^
n"3N IJ^X N3py n"lD.
Aklba Eger the Elder was

not, as
Rabbi of Pressburg, died 15th of September, 1757 (and

iage,
it,
Zunz, Monats-
in 1746).
He was
Juden
author of the work Mislinat dc R. Akiba.
See Auerbach,
2'
Gesch. d.
in llalbersladt.
D^MDyi^>n
p"p-\
n"3N c-iM
uv
.Y'vo.
2*
\h'\2 p"p'^ n3N"3n nXB'.
David Fraenkel was a teacher of the
Philosopher, Solomon Maimon, and author of the
work
T\-\'^
]'y^p, a
com-
mentary on the
Palest.
in
Talmud
(sec Kayserling,
Moses Mendelssohn).
He
was
at first
Rabbi
Dessau, and became Rosh-Beth-Din in Berlin on the
14th Ab, 1743, and died, 55 years old, on 12 Nisan, 1762.
Died, 8r years old, on
Holleschau and
May 21, 1762. Worms, and was born
He was
in
formerly Rabbi
ca.
in
Frankfurt,
i68i.
See
DUSCHINSKY
I23
without mentioning his name, referring to David Strauss

of Frankfurt, and
Rabbi Moses Rapp,-^ Day an
of Frankfurt
on-the-Main.
There are only two other
historical references in this

is
volume of sermons.
The one
is
the mention of the Jews
who were drowned

Jungbunzlau
in
at Portsmouth, of
which we have already
spoken, and the other
an appeal for the congregation of

(K7D013),
Bohemia
fire
where the Synagogue
was destroyed by
55^^, P- 73)-
(Discourse on Sabbath Teshubah,
The
his
neglect of the
Torah
studies seems to have been
chief grievance against the
London community.
is,
It
occurs
many
times in the MS., but the following

'
think,
worth quoting,
Instead
of gathering
in
the houses
of
learning people go to operas, playsj concerts, and
clubs.^'^
There is no respect
for learning
and learned men.
Why then
He
cannot
should a boy be anxious to study the

yet grasp the meaning of
Law ?
studying Torah he
will
fulfils
Olam Habba (namely, that by a divine command for which he

become a Rav,
receive
reward
in
the world to come), what other
attraction could a child have than the wish to
a great and honoured
man?
Torah
"
I
If,
however, the
men
of
Torah
are not held in respect the child, naturally, has no wish to study, and thus the
is
forgotten.
Our Sages
this
in
the
c.
I,
Mishnah say
Mishnah
i).
Raise
up
many
disciples "
(Abot
rule
col187
;
was not able to follow

I
in
your congregation.
d.
have no pupils, not even a

Ges. Frankfurt, vol.
L. Loewenstein, Jahrb.
Lit.
VI,
p. 64.
1908-9,
p.
Barbeck, Geschichte derjuden in Nitmberg und Fiirth,

6
pHDT a"Q
;
\>"\>1
y'n
51D5<n na'IO
p.
n"lO hn:n -lINDni, died 27 Adar,

338.
1762
see Horowitz, Frank/. Grab.,
" 2vhpb
DiyOJIpi? Vb'sh y^SX^.
See also MS. A., pp. 69a and 73a
for similar expressions.
124
league (I3n) with

the
whom
in
could pursue
my
fail
studies.
Even
learned
in
men
the
the
community
to
train their
children
study of the Torah.

son (R. Saul), but
I
had one
pupil,
and that was
my
had
to send
his
him
away
(wife),
to another country.
There he found
helpmate
(p.
and
have found no other pupil since

the
41
a).'
'When God showed me

says in 1762,
'
way
to this congregation', he
which elected
me
to serve
them
in
the
name
of the Lord,
came with the
scroll of the
Law
is
to you, to
propound His teachings among you, and that

which
I
my work
me now
had
carry on
my
shoulders.
it.
established a Yeshibah
but have not succeeded with
What
is left
to
but
my
fear
voice " to publish righteousness in the great congre-
gation
" (Ps. 40.
10)?
See,
have not closed
my
lips,
no
of anybody, have done nothing with the object
of finding favour in the eyes of anybody, or in order to
gain pecuniary advantage.

help,
To God
alone do
idol.
look for
to the
and have never made gold

I
my
Thanks
Almighty
think that
possess enough of gold and silver, but do not

I
acquired
it
here.
;
God knows, one

all
cannot
become
rich
from a Rabbinate
one acquires from the

^^
holy service can virtually be carried on one shoulder.'
His one desire was to keep the flame of knowledge

alive
;
to that he devoted
all
his energy, but to the
end
con-
of his days he never liked the office of Rabbi.

sidered
it
He
:
'
a bitter path, a
bread of misery, and expresses

written in later
life
this feeling in a
Hebrew poem
alone
I
From Thy hand

tance (Ps.
for
i6. 5),
ask for the portion of

I
O God my inheri!
be
it
large or small.
let
shall
fall
thank Thee
an olive-leaf even, but do not "

INB'^ f|n33 Dnî>y
me
'3
into the
hand
mipn
niU]}
(Num.
7. 9).

of man.'
p. 109.)
DUSCHINSKY
125
(See
Hammagid,
1870, p. 125,
and Landshut,
In
London he
fruit
:
did not find the

*
field
where
his work-
would bear
iQV!
The
pillars
of the
Torah
totter,
very
are the students of the
Law who
desire to rise to
into
a higher standard, and these few are scattered
the
different distant parts of the town, live therefore a lonelylife
and cannot
profit
from one another.
There are no
be the future
Talmud-Torahs
of Judaism
for children,
and what
will
?
if this
state of affairs continues
See what
is
being done
in nearly
every congregation, large or small,

larger than yours or richer than
in
?
Germany.
Are they
you
And
is
yet
how many Synagogues and Bate Midrashim have

and
will
for
they founded to the Glory of God, as a sign that Judaism

eternal
never become extinct (62

co-operation
a).
b).'
He
munity
urged
(pp. 7
with the Sephardi comsays,
and 17
The Passover lamb, he

its
had
to be eaten in separate unions (nnnn), but for

all Israel
preparation
entered at one door
so should we, too, even though
we be two
all
distinct congregations, in matters that concern
Jewry, co-operate and act together.

In
many
instances he combines reflections of a religious-
philosophical nature with his moral teachings.

in those
Already
days there were people
in
London, who disregarded
the Jewish religious ceremonies.
He
was a
clear thinker,
and had a profound knowledge of Maimuni's Guide of the Perplexed, from which he took most of his philosophical
arguments, and made effective use of them
the views of the half-educated
pp. 4a, 31b, 32b, 33a, 39b).
in a superficial
in
combating
Jew of the day (cited on 'By studying philosophy

unbelievers.
manner people became
After
reading three or four pages of a philosophical book they
126

is
think they have found more wisdom than

all
to be found in
the folios of both the
Talmuds
'
(p.
15
b).
Maimonides
was
and Bahya
to
arrive
at
said that the chief precept of Judaism
the
belief
in
God by means
of intellectual
contemplation.'^^
Others argued against
this view,
holding
that
it
is is
better to believe without trying to understand.

called
in
Relief
Hebrew
'
Emunah =
'
trust.
human mind
themselves.
can
attain to
iinderstand God, those
As no who
think they have reached that standard are only deceiving
What
they really have achieved
is,
that they
believe in themselves, in the great

(p.
power of
their
own mind
its
33
a).
We
Jews have
to believe in the
Torah and
precepts as revealed to us
us in the oral tradition.
in
by God and
as
handed down to
Human
beings can never succeed
understanding God's Being. Maimonides,
who
considered
that the highest
human
perfection lay in truly grasping the
essence of God's
Being, did not
mean
this literally but
only said
it
as an apology against aggressions
by the religious
the view of our
thinkers of other nations.

all
He
also tried to give rea.sons for
the Mizvot, but he failed.
More
true
is
Rabbis, that mankind reaches the understanding of only when the body
parts from
God
the soul.
The
thirteen
articles of the creed are
supposed to embody every precept
of the Torah.
All the 613 Mizvot are only the means for the
in these articles.
'
:
attainment of the belief contained
If that
all
were
"
so^
why should
" (articles
not people say
believe in
these
Ikkarim
I
of creed), will say

else,
them every day, and

the other precepts
then
need not do anything
as
all
are only intended to bring
man
to the belief in
God and
to
prevent him from being an idolater'.
This argument would
be quite
in
accordance with the teaching of Maimonides,

*'
See Maimonides, Moreh,
II,
33.

and shows
at
DUSCHINSKY
religion.
127
once the fallacy of his doctrine, that the thirteen

Jewish
all
articles contain the essence of
R. Hirschel
of divine
comes to the conclusion that

origin
precepts are
and
all
equally important.
They
are not only
means
to
in
an end or a preventive against
idol worship,
but are
themselves a safeguard against the wickedness of man-
kind.
The Mizvot
are holy because their intention
is
to
make us holy and bring us nearer to God.

decide which precept
this reason
it
Man
is
cannot
is
important and which
not.
For
happens that people who by philosophical
thinking want to attain the understanding of

fall
God mostly
have spread
'
into sin.
The
to
spirit
of
enlightenment seems
'
to
London, and
his references to the
Philosophers
were
probably meant for those
who
studied the books of the
Measphim, the forerunners of modern Jewish research.
We
must not
think,
from what we have just heard, that

all
R. Hirschel was opposed to

the sphere of the Talmud.
learning which
fell
outside
Like his uncle, Jacob Emden,

critical
he possessed a deep historical sense, a
mind
far in
advance of the Rabbi of those days.
Most students of
his
time concerned themselves exclusively with the Halakic

side of the
Talmud.
To them
in the
it
was of more
said
interest to
know what a Rabbi
Talmud
and how he decided

that
a Din (point of law), than to
know
the
Rabbi Judah
Hanasi was not a contemporary of Rabbi Akiba.

Hirschel,
Rabbi
however,
held
that
Talmud cannot be
properly understood
its
without
thorough knowledge of
chronology.
He
impressed upon his students to study
the methodology of the Talmud, and

to read
recommended them
of the
Samuel Hanagid's Mebo Hatalimid, Simson of

Sefer Keritut and
other books
kind.
Chinon's
'
128
Later,

when Rabbi
of Halberstadt and head of an important
Rabbinical school, he used to give an historical introduction

to his lectures.
The
sources of the text, the commentators

all
and
their periods
were
discussed
before
he actually
commenced the reading

which was printed
joy.
in his
of the
Talmud
proper.
When
full
he
heard of the publication
of
Heilprin's
Seder Hadorot,
of
time in Karlsruhe, he was
The
publisher asked
'
:
him
for
an approbation of the does not need

testify
work, but he answered
work
like this
any approbation
(Auerbach,
that the sun shines
nobody need
p. 92).
One
of the
reasons
for
his
dissatisfaction
with his
position in
London was that he felt his preaching had not made people more religious. On Sabbath Teshubah, 1760 (p. 35a), he says: 'When first I came here I was
anxious to do something great,
benefit the
something
I
that
would
whole congregation.
had made up
my
if I
mind
could
flock
that nothing should be too
much
trouble for
me
only diminish religious transgression and lead

into the right path.
my
You brought me from

incurring great
a far-off land
across
I
the ocean,
to
I
expense thereby, and

is
said
myself,
"This surely
to
the work
I
of
God".
Although
knew my worth
:
be
little,
thought of the
saying of our Fathers

with
their
"
Those who occupy themselves

had courage and
after having
communal matters
help" (Abot,
c.
the merits of their Fathers are

2).
2; Mishnah
hoped
to succeed in
my
endeavours.
Now,
been with you
for four years,
and never having refrained

I
from pointing out your

hearkened to
failings,
see that
nobody has
me and
b).
I
that things have not improved in
any way
I
(p.
70
know, you have often wondered why
repeat so frequently
my
reproaches about your trans-
"

gressions of the
failings in public
DUSCHINSKY
129
Laws
of Sabbath and the festivals, of your

life,
and private
I
about the behaviour of your
women -folk,
But what
although
I
'
saw that
if I
my
words had no
fulfil
effect.
else could
do
would
my
my
I
duty
God
had spoken to me:
Call out with thy voice,

tell
do not keep
people their
also there
back, raise thy voice like a Shofar and

sins
and the house of Jacob
their failings".
kno a^
are
many
scoffers
among
you, who, like the Rasha' (wicked

:
in the Passover Haggadah, tell you D3^ riNrn mnvn hd What good is this service to you ? What right has the Rav to speak in the Synagogue of your private doings?
man)
''
"'
My
sad
answer to these people

lot for
is
"h
"n r\^V nr "lUya " It
is
my
it
which
I
was destined by Almighty God,

shall not
is
my
(p.
duty, which
be deterred from
fulfilling
70
a).'
Half a year
exclaims
I
later,
(p.
73b):
life
Tammuz, 1762, he 'God Almighty only knows how weary

on the 17th of
here.
I
am
it
of
all
my
cannot bear
any longer to
life.
behold
Is
that you do in public and in your private
not enough that for nearly 1,700 years
we have been
expelled from the table of our Father, are like sheep without a shepherd, and (n"iya)
befallen us,
children to
us,
how many misfortunes have how many kinds of illnesses have we and our bear, how many terrible wars have come upon
on account of our
sins
'.
and
all this
Notwithstanding the vigour of these utterances he was

a
man
of even and calm temperament.

'
:
He was
17 b).
averse to
all
sort of quarrel
It is
more necessary
(p.
to avoid strife
than to keep a fast-day' he says

outlook on
fulness
',
His general
'
life
was likewise calm and

(p.
peaceful.
'.
Forgetsages
in
he says
71a)
'is
very necessary
Our
recommend the
VOL.
IX.
provision
of a
number
of wine-cups
130
a house of mourning, so that the people

forget sorrow
may
drink and
is
and
pain.
To worry
It
over the past
not
the act
of a wise man.
increases
melanchol)' and
deranges the mind of man.^
R. Hirschcl
in Halberstadt.
life
In spite of this calm view of
he seems to have
life in
become more and more
dissatisfied
with his
London.
A few months
offering
tion.
later, at
the beginning of the year 1763, the
Halberstadt community
opened
negotiations
with
him,
him the
the
1
position of Chief
Rabbi
in their
congregaJ
On
6th of Shevat, 5523
(=
February,
763),
in
R. Elijah, son of Naphtali Hirsch Fraenkel, Parnas

Halberstadt,
as follows
'
:
who was on business in BerHn, One of the leading men of the

if
writes
home
com-
Berlin
munity had
elect
said to him, that
the people of Halberstadt
the
Rabbi of London, they simply pave the way

to
Berlin.
for
him
Halberstadt would only be a halting
stage and give the Berlin
community
a splendid opportunity
for observing the pastoral activity of the
Rabbi, and enable
them
to
judge whether he was worthy of the Rabbinate

'.
of Berlin
When, a few months
later,
the Parnasim of
Halberstadt recommended him for election (Sivan, 1763)

a letter was written to him,
in
which
this
passage of the
Parnas's letter was quoted, the Parnasim expressing their
anxiety that the possibility mentioned might become true.
The
that
so
letter of the
Parnasim says further
' :
They had heard

in
the
,2
study of Torah
HDt^'î
was very much neglected

âxn
n"'3n
ît^^-i
nni""
;y'
\\irh
mon nunn^
^''rn
ivv pi
N'aoi
nnin::'.-!
nnnoi"
oann nihyso jrs \Nnn

p. 210.)
-i3yn ^y niJNnn
Dnsn nynn
Archiiologie,
mîy.
70
;
See lalm. Babli
Ketubot 8b;
Krauss,
Tahn.
II, p.
A. Buechlcr, Afn-liaarez,

London and was causing him
position
DUSCHINSKY
he was anxious
in a really
It
I3I
to be dissatisfied with his

to
and
that,
for
this
reason,
exchange
his present office for
one
observant
congregation
to
on
the
Continent'.
having
happened
them on a former
elected, had,
occasion that a Rabbi,
whom
they
had
on
his
way
to them, accepted a call from
another congregation,^^ they were now anxious to avoid

a recurrence of such an event.
For
this reason
they must
but
six
ask him to give them not only his consent

also an undertaking to
in writing,
commence
his
duties
within
months
after his
election,
and not to leave them before

R. Hirschel replies in a
letter,
three years had passed.
remarkable
willing to
for
its
beautiful
Hebrew
style,
that
he was
but the
accept
the
position
offered
to
him
undertaking asked for he did not give until the

Shebat, 1764, when he received
in
month of
for
it
exchange
his
Contract
of
Appointment,
called
'Rabbinical
Letter'
(ni:ai 3n3).
This was handed to him in Amsterdam by

In another letter written in
Samuel Halberstadt
London
his
on the 32nd Shebat, 1764, Rabbi Hirschel

intention of
signifies
coming to Halberstadt between Pesah and
Shabuot
is
of the
same
year.
The Contract
of Appointment
dated the 14th of Ab, 1763.
He was
to receive a salary
of three hundred Thaler (^150
in
London he had 2^0},
a free house suitable for his position, and certain fees for
marriages and other ceremonies.
The community under-
took to
assist
the
Rabbi
in
founding or re-establishing
a Rabbinical
*i
Academy
of Frankfurt
(Yeshibah) by providing for the

his
The Rabbi was R. Jacob Cohen Popers, who on

a.
way to Halberstadt
was the
was elected Rabbi

to Halberstadt.
M. and remained there without ever going

in
He was
first
Rabbi
Koblenz.
In Frankfurt he
teacher of R. Tevele Schiff (see
later),
and died 70 years old on Sabbath,

II,
22nd Shevat, 1740 (Horowitz, Frank/. Rabb.,
pp. 82 and 105.
132
maintenance of twelve scholars.
On
his election the district
of Ravensberg rejoined the Halberstadt
community and
His moving
undertook to
pay the Rabbi a separate
salary.
expenses were defrayed by the congregation and amounted,

according to a detailed account
in the
possession of the
congregation, to 481 Thaler, 11 Groschen, and 6 Pfennig.
The Rabbi
(Auerbach,
received
'^^
on
his
installation
the
customary
Derashah present
consisting of 179 Thaler and 8 Groschen

91).
loc. cit., p.
His predecessor
in
Halberstadt was R. Meir Barbi,^^
who
(p.
in
1763 was elected Rabbi of Pressburg.
According
statement
ist
to Auerbach,
who
gives no authority
in
for
his
91), R. Hirschel arrived

1
Halberstadt on the
of
Sivan,
764.
This date does not seem quite beyond question.
He
signs an approbation to the

in
book
C^n rw:^ (printed
in
Amsterdam, 1765)
Amsterdam on Friday,
'
the 27th of
to,
Tammuz,
1764, where he says:

in,
am
on
my way
'."*
and
looking forward to officiate
Halberstadt
Landshut,
his
referring to this approbation, says that he

relations in
there.
went to see
Amsterdam,
far
his
brother Saul being chief Rabbi
So
he
is
quite correct, R. Hirschel went to
the wedding of his daughter Sarah, who was married to
R. Jacob Moses, the son of
his
brother Saul.
He
is,
however, not correct when he says that R. Hirschel went soon after his installation from Halberstadt to Amsterdam.
He
s^
passed through that city on his

clearly states in
way from London,
as he
the approbation just referred to,

to
Derashah present was given

similar to a
the
Rabbi on preaching his

called
first
sermon (Derashah),
wedding present likewise
by the
at
same name, on account of the discourse of the bridegroom delivered

the wedding or on the preceding Sabbath.
3
Meir Barbi, author of
'^"la
D"l"nD
r\"YZ',
Dyhrenfurt-Prag, 1786-92.

which, curiously enough,
is
DUSCHINSKY
133
mentioned by Landshut.
In the
work Zevi Laszaddik, published by Zevi Ezekiel Michelsohn,

Rabbi of Plonsk (printed
a
letter,
in
Piotrkow, 1904),
is
published
bearing no date, of Eliezer Libermann,
Dayan
in
in
London, addressed to Rabbi Hirschel, who was then
Amsterdam on
congratulates the
his
way
to
Halberstadt.^^
his
Libermann
Rabbi of
their
"iin3)
Rabbi and
brother, the
Amsterdam, on the occasion of the wedding of

children.
He
also mentions that a
young student
(nnN
who
tions
left
Halberstadt
two months previously and

told
had
arrived in
London had
him
of the elaborate prepara-
the
Halberstadt community were making for the
reception of the Rabbi.
fine
house
'
filled
with every-
thing of the best' was in readiness for him, and the com-
munity was awaiting

R. Hirschel
in
his arrival like the
advent of a
festival.
his reply to
Libermann does not
refer to
anything of a personal nature, but confines himself to the

ritual question asked.
He
writes that he
is
very worried
friend,
and low
is
spirited
and subscribes himself, 'Your

all
who
troubled on
sides
and careworn, who writes with

/(?c. cit.,
weak hand, &c. Zevi Hirsch' (Michelsohn,

is
p. 71).
Although no exact date

Elul, as he sends
given the earliest at which

letter is the
R. Hirschel could have written this
month
of
was therefore not

just
It
New Year greetings to Libermann. He only in Tammuz (date of the approbation

in
mentioned above) but also
Elul
still
in
Amsterdam.
consequently seems more likely that he entered upon
his duties in
Halberstadt shortly before the

not, as
New
Year,
5525
2*
=
'
1764 and
Auerbach
states, that
he came on
'Get
See also
letter of
Meshullam Zalman Emden
to his father in the

p.
of Cleve
affair,
dated 20
Tammuz,
1767, in
Or Hayashar,
79
a,
where he
mentions Libermann.
134

The wedding
left for his
the 1st of Sivan.
of his daughter probably
took place soon after the Fast of
Ab
and only
after that
day could he have
new
place of activity.
He
could not possibly have
come
there in Sivan
and gone
away again
for
two months shortly afterwards, while he

in
might have remained
Amsterdam
for that period before
proceeding to Halberstadt.
Soon
after his
arrival
he was called upon to settle
a dispute between
the congregation and his predecessor

certain
R. Meir Barbi.
R. Sender, of Braunschweig,
had presented the congregation with the sum of 6,000

Thaler, the interest of which was to be given one half to
Rabbi Barbi and the other half was to be

charitable purposes.
used
for
When
the
the Rabbi
left
for
Pressburg
the
donor wrote
to
wardens instructing them that
they should not send the half share of the income from the
said fund to
Rabbi Meir.
The
latter
made
a protest, and
the newly appointed Rabbi Hirschel successfully brought
about an understanding between the parties, Barbi receiving

in
commutation a sum equal
to the interest for five
and
a half years, and after the year 1768 the half share was to
be given to the Rabbi of Halberstadt
for the
time being.
In Halberstadt our Rabbi's chief care was devoted to

the development of his rabbinical school.
in
He
succeeded
bringing
it
to fame,
and many of
his pupils
became great
Rabbinical authorities
in later years.
One
of his pupils was
R. Loeb Kger, Rabbi

Berisch,
in
Halberstadt, another, Rabbi Issachar
became Rabbi of Hannover.
His pastoral activity

respected and
outside this Yeshibah
made him generally

had
honoured.
His congregants
unbounded
confidence
in
his
honesty and clearness of judgement, and he was able to

bring to
satisfactory
DUSCHINSKY
cases
135
dispute
for
conclusion
many
of
which had been before the Bet Din of Halberstadt
many
years previous to his arrival.

In
Nevertheless, he did not long remain in Halberstadt.
1770 he
left for
Mannheim.
Auerbach gives two reasons
for his relinquishing the office at Halberstadt.
The
congre-
gation of Bleicherode, formerly belonging to the district of
Halberstadt, had
some dispute with the
latter
congregation
and Hirschel decided

a certain
this
in Halberstadt's favour.
Thereupon
unnamed
individual insinuated that he decided in
way, on account of his dislike of the Bleicherode people,

did not welcome
who
him on
his arrival as other congre-
gations of the neighbourhood had done.

publicly,
This was declared
and
was a grave charge against the Rabbi's

and
an
attack
impartiality as judge,
on
his
honesty.
in
Although the Halberstadt community did everything

their
power to repair the assault on
their Rabbi's honour,
he himself never forgot the incident.

for his relinquishing the office,
The
other reason
is
mentioned by Auerbach,
in
that
there were
many
adherents of Eybeschutz
the
community.
Rabbi Hirschel had
in earlier years written
several letters in defence of his uncle Jacob
Emden.
He
had, as
ciliation
in
we have
he
mentioned, tried to bring about a reconfailed.
between him and Eybeschutz, but

is
Although
later years
in
not
known
to
have taken any active he was a nephew of
part
the dispute, the fact that
P2mden and son of R. Aryeh Loeb of Amsterdam, Emden's

vigorous supporter, was sufficient reason for the adherents
of
Eybeschutz to regard him as their enemy. The appoint-
ment of a Shohet with an authorization from Eybeschutz
may
have been regarded by him as a personal
slight,
and
confirmed him
in his decision to leave Halberstadt.
136
letter written
by Abraham Halberstadt, one of the

to
Rabbis of that
place,
Jeremiah Levy of
an
impartial
Berlin,"^
is
worth quoting,
as
being
opinion
of
his
work
of
in
Halberstadt,
Abraham having been an admirer

of the
says
is
'
Eybeschiitz,
family.
and consequently not a friend
Emden
gone
body.
He
us
That the great

as
man
has
away from
felt
real
loss
by every-
His personal
virtues, his activity in the

all praise.
community
were proud
and
in
the Yeshibah deserve
We
left
to have such a scholar at the head of our community.

will
Who
never
try to
replace
him
He
has undoubtedly
it
a difficult
will
position for his successor whoever
be, for
he
gain laurels or recognition however

imitate his predecessor.
is
still
much he may
The splendour
all,
of his personality
before the eyes of
and where one was used to
something good, only the better can be appreciated.

achieve being better than he
is,
To
is
indeed very
difficult.
Already there are cracks

which
I
in
the
body
of the Yeshibah,
fear will
be followed by
its
entire collapse.
More
and
than half of the Bahurim (scholars) have already
left,
they were the best ones.

it
Still it
may be God
has ordered
so,
that no strife should ensue in Israel.
The
small the
'.
spark of disunion which has
been glimmering
if
in
congregation might have increased
he had remained
To
judge from the last part of this letter, R. Hirschel's
relationship with
Emden was
at least
one of the causes

loc. cit.,
of his departure from Halberstadt.

pp. 192
ff.)
(See Auerbach,
R. Hirschcl in Mannheim.
In
"
Mannheim he succeeded Samuel Helman,

p.
or Hilman,
Brother of Judah Levy giandfatlier of Adclheid wife of Dr. Ziinz (see

120
.
Landshut,
DL'SCHINSKY
137
who had been one
of the chief supporters of Jacob Emden.
He
accepted a smaller salary than he had at his former
place (Halberstadt), proving
how
little
he valued worldly
goods where
his principles
and conviction were at stake.

rest
He
was not to
In
a
find
and
satisfaction
even
in
Mannheim.
sermon preached
there
on
Sabbath
Teshubah (between
year
T'nu^'S
:
New Year
and Atonement-day) of the
5531
1771, he complains of slanders which
were very frequent there.
{SteZevi Las.,^.
135.)
'
always
'
heard that Mannheim was a great kehillah', he

is
said,
but
it
not really
so,
they are very provincial
'
(Dn?DiS
Tiyr^'j*
iNr:i
nxn nSi:
i^^N3 N^-^w'
nn
lyî
n^nj n^rn
n^np-j*).
Mannheim
tion,
p. 256).
at that time
was a very observant congrega-
and consisted of 264 families (Loewenstein, Kiirpfalz,
He
once
said,
by way of a
in
joke, that in
London he
had money but no Jews,

and
in Berlin
Mannheim Jews but no money,

loc. cit.,
no money and no Jews (Loewenstein.

been elected to Mannheim
p. 255).
He had
finally
in 1768,
but
did not
in
go because he expected a
accepted the
call to Berlin,
and when,
1770, he
call,
he stayed there barel}'

so
little
three
years.
His ministration
his ever
left
mark
that
Carmoly doubted
in
having held the
office
of Rabbi
Berlin
Mannheim. ^^
Very
after
likely the negotiations with
commenced soon
thing important.
his
arrival,
and that may have

initiating
diverted his mind and prevented
him from
anyis
The Contract
of his election to Berlin
dated the istoflyyar, 1772 (Landshut,pp. 7S-80; Michelsohn,

op. cit., p. 149),
while the negotiations had
commenced
having
as
early as 1771.
^'
To
the proofs mentioned by Loewenstein for his

(p. 255, note
is
officiated
in
Mannheim
cit.,
now
to
be added the sermon in Michels6hn,
op.
p. 135.
(7V> be continued.)
THE RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM AS A SOURCE OF JEWISH HISTORY*

By Jacob Mann,
Jews' College, London.
I
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER
5.
{conchded).
Tivo anonymous letters by Babylonian Geonim.
The
paper,
two fragments printed here bear the evident stamp
of Babylonian provenance.
Fragment A, T.-S. 13
is
J. 25-^,
square hand, brownish ink,
long part of an
lines
appeal for support of the academy.

to
Only a few
seem
which
be missing from the beginning of the
letter
contains bitter complaints and reproaches about the complete indifference the outside communities
show towards
a close resem-
the school in Babylon.
The fragment has
blance to Saadyana, nos.

plaintive tone
is
is
XLV
and XLVI.
all
is
The same
Emphasis
characteristic of
of them.
given to the fact that the school
deteriorating owing
to
want from which
its
members
are suffering.
Only with
upon
to
great difficulty are talented
young men
prevailed
remain
in the school.
Rather than
suffer want,
they prefer
11.
to seek a livelihood elsewhere (cp. our fragment,
19
ff.).
The
verse
of 2
Chron. 31. 4
recto,
1.
(1.
30)
is
also
quoted
in
Saadyana, no.
Interesting
XLVI,
is
67.
(1.
the mention of CNjnn 'cmo

of the
21),
which
seems to have consisted

attended by
*i"i^nn
(1.
study of the Mishnah

(11.
still
youthful disciples
21-2).
The niDN
academy
23)
were already grown-up scholars themselves,
having children
*
who
See
refrained from attending the
vols. VII, 457-90, VIII, 339-66.
140

their being obliged to earn a living.
owing to
The
D'S^n
of the school are also mentioned in another Genizah-letter
from a Babylonian Gaon

Tdiri-l), 771
;
see
also
7QR., XVIII, 404 (^^^nni Ahimaas Chron., Neub. II, 130,

(cp.
is
Of more
I
intrinsic
in T.-S.,
'.
importance
fragment B, which
have found
'
Box
21,
marked on the wrapper

four leaves of a quire,
as
Didactic letters
"
It consists of
paper, size 17 x 12 cm., square hand with a turn to cursive.
After examination, the leaves turned out to contain speci-
mens of
letters of
is
letters
for
various
occasions.
i
Complimentary
and
2.
no special interest cover leaves

2
There
gap between leaves
and
3.
Fragment B then follows
on leaves 3 and 4 (verso,

leaf
It
first line).
The
rest of verso of
(D^Din^J).
4 contains a specimen of a
evident that a copyist
letter of
condolence
is
made
a selection of letters
emanating from a head of a school.

is
Thus fragment B
for
not the original, but there
is
no ground
doubting that
the copyist had before

residing in
him an
recto,
original letter
1.
by
Gaon
Bagdad
(fol. 4,
7).
The Gaon
requests
his correspondent to send questions
on subjects concerning
Bible,
(11.
Mishnah, and Talmud, and also the usual donations
16-18).
The same
n:^^y:r\
request
we read
c. E.
in
the letter
by
a Gaon of Pumbedita, dated 953

11.
{7QR., XVIII, 403.

p3 tî^nc
. .
19
ff.,
Y2.
p3
^^-^p^r^
"innm
nio^nn).
But the chief
interest of the
fragment
lies in
the author's
defence of the Rabbinic tradition.

laws, not
number
of traditional
mentioned
in
the Pentateuch, can be derived from

Bible.
the
other books of the
This proves that they
existed in early times.
Some
of
them are mentioned

is
in
the
4.
" The permnnent
class-mark of this fragment
now
T.-S. 13 J. 31.
RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEONIM

Bible, exclusive of the Pentateuch, but
MANN
I41
most of them were
known
to the scholars
(fol. 4,
and handed down from generation

11.
to generation
recto,
1-5).
In deducing a number
of traditional laws from the Prophets and the Hagiographa,

the writer of the letter shows in several points independence
from the Talmudic method, a
fact
unexpected from a
fail
Babylonian Gaon and one that does not
to
enhance
the interest in the argument which will be discussed here

in detail.
The
verse of
Sam.
20. 27
K^"in
'JtJ'n
is
evidently cited to prove

(fol.
the existence of two days
CJ'N"!
3,
recto,
11.
1-2).
Rashi and Kimhi translate
K'nnn
mnroo as the second
day of the month.

to
But Targum apparently took the phrase
mean
the second day of
New
Moon."^
We find Benjamin
Also Saadya took
Nehawendi accepting
this inference.^^
the verse in this meaning, against which Jefet b. 'Ali polemizes (cp. Pozn.,
'
7QR., X,
N^-J^n
251).^^
Also Salman
i.e.
b.
Jeruham
Ed. Lagarde,
Nni"-
nUy
is
Xipm ^-!nna^ NOVn, 'on the

',
following day which
was the
"113V of the
second month
the second day
n"1,
for
which the technical term

to
is
"113^.
Dr. Biichler has drawn
my
attention
the fact that
it
is
not the preceding
month
that
is
called
13iyO, as 39
a
generally assumed and stated, but the
new month.
N"!"'
In Erub.
(Mishnah and Baraita)
we
read -l3J?nn
;
ND^^'
^^^t:'
r\:i\:>r\
tTNT,
not Elul, but n"-) would be -|3iyD

13iyf3 Î^N, which
\:ii2u^ "i2iyr2 ::'nnn
is
Rashi supplements
T"3
IC'V''
KD^
not in the Mishnah.
See also Shebiit
lo^,
tOmBTl
iTh qn* n"-i3 np^ni
man
ns*.
The commentators
supply 7Vi^ after t^nnn.
But
of
in
the light of Erub. 39 a
CHnn
Thus
here
in
is
the
month on which the day
New
Year
falls, viz.
Tishri.
Targum
'
W^JTI KHT "lUy

''^
(for N3"''"Jn
Nmn
', i.
"lUy; can only be translated

e.
the
"n3y of the second (or
new) month
b}'
the second day of
New
Moon.
Cp. the extract printed
Harkavy,
Stitdien u. Mittcihtiigen, VIII, 176,
80
Aaron
b.
Elijah,
pj?
p, 5
a,
also quotes Saadya's view,
T\'^l\^
nj13
142
argues against the two days of
New Moon
b.
in
the diaspora.^^
Likewise the Karaite Aaron

Firkowitz, Koslov,i835, to
tion of the second
Jer.
17.
i
Joseph
in DnB^" -in2, ed.
Sam.
(7*), refutes
the deduc-
day of New Moon from

us
r\)^n to
this verse.^^
22
tells
about the prohibition of carrying
burdens from
Tmi
DUin
nitJ'l
which
11.
is
not men-
tioned in the Pentateuch
(fol. 3,
recto,
7-10).
The very
Jacob
same argument was used by a

b.
disciple of Saadya,
Samuel
ff.),
(cp,
is
about him Pozn., Katifmann-Gedenkbtich^

from the retort of Jefet
denoting that no
in
b. 'Ali.^^
169
as
evident
58.
Likewise
(7in
Isa.
13 as
common
talk
3,
nan) should be indulged

11.
on the Sabbath
(fol.
recto,
IO-I2J
b.
is
a point of dispute between Jefet b.
'AH
and Jacob
v>''^-\r\
Samuel.^*
D"y
b.
Nî
nhcn
pn:rnn
in his
n-jann
:njo
^sd
ds
""3
hm^ n^.
Meshullam
Kalonymos
polemics against the Karaites (printed by

Cohen, 569
p. 570).
fl'.)
Freimann, Judaica: Festschrift
Hermann
i,
also uses this verse

b.
of Samuel to prove tninil "lITy (no.
The Karaite Jeshua
Juda likewise refutes

of Saadya, 52).
i
this deduction (cp. Pozn., Karaite Literary
Opponents
Cp. Pinsker, p"b, d'hsd:, 16
n"n
Dô"- 'a
bv
iVits
:
Nin
'rn
pisn
^'nar*
^k^'Ni
'131
2
nvpo^
B'ln
n"'JcirD
u'Û'
d'j::'
D3^ iNVon
p'-jo
^Jsitri
D^JD'n.
b^
"jc^n
nv
n"i
^'-i
^jcn c-tnn
'3
:
i?jvy
xin
n^ cnnn mnoo
n"a nyn
mn?:c nô
nrN2
83
.TiT
hm cd^
'23
(n^japn ""byarr)
-inDnij
'd^
â
D^n' '2
nnyn
dv.
dni
n^n
'yan n\Ti
"'B'^k*'
dv
pipn p2npo vn
iK^'D
i^Ni
Pinsker, p"^, D'HSDJ, 21-a
Q-'XnJ
n^nD nVNI Tt^VS^ Tlim

-ini?
DD^nitrDja
'\'\^^r^
.
D^snp hn^na
>i?3
Tiiruyn i^nrn
-il*'n
NC'o ix^vin
sh
/
nm
nyn
npipn nxr
d^n::'d nacr
nva
Ni?i
minn
*
[c
nsr
r\'c'^Th
.tnt
nn
c"n
nooy^ inio npx C'Ta

N^Ji
Pinsker, /.c, aa
'yrh lai pa
to Isa.
in
tmsn
c,
lani' "lanro idni

''"13n3
y:D
"1311
nan?.
tJin.
But Aaron
b.
Joseph
(/.
39a) comments,
131
To
this prohibition
general, cp. Schechter's Zadokite
Fragment
MANN
143
The Halaka
be returned to
(fol. 3,
it
that in the Jubilee year a present has to

its
donor
recto,
II.
12-16).
deduced from Ezek. 46. 17 The Mishnah (Bekor. 52^) records

is
as a dispute between
R. Meir and his contemporaries

njDDni
. . .
(-13D3
njnon Nâni
d"-i
nan
i?3ri
pnnn psB'
^bn)).
is
But
it is
to be noted that the Biblical inference in Babli

25.
10,
from Lev.
n^riDn
mcTi
pmn
in^^cyt:
^nd nDD3
nmn
N"Dni
ns nui^.
The author
the next item
2.
of our fragment prefers to
adduce the explicit verse of Ezekiel.

Instructive
II.
is
(fol. 3,
recto,
if
11.
16-19, verso,
tJ'lp "ic^n
1-2).
From Haggai
it
12
we
learn that
it
not the
itself
but a thing in contact with

does not impart
'
touches any other

it
object,
î'^p''
sanctity
'
to
(C'lpa yjiâ
v^):::
ah).
Thus the
verse of Haggai
is
explained according
is
to
its literal
meaning.
Well known^ however,

B'lp "1K^3 is
the quite
different explanation in Pes. 17 a.
taken to mean
XOD 1^2, which imparts 'defilement'

is
to the cloth,
and
this
transmitted in succession to the articles of food men-
tioned in the verse (cp. the exposition of this Talmudic
explanation in Maimonides, Introd. to Mishnah
Comment,
and
on nnno itd, towards end).

/,
We
find
Ibn Ezra to Haggai,
c, polemizing against this explanation of the verse
insisting
on
its
natural
gives
meaning.^^
Also
the
Karaite
in
Jacob
b.
Reuben
this explanation.'^^
But
our
(H. part 10, 11.27-8), pni ^3J "l3n C^^N "131^ bn, and Yer. Sabb. 15b, top
11.
3-5
N^ynK'D
r\'<D''i6
'nn
mn
^^^1
"inx
12 ^nv
::'"-!
xa la
N^^n "i"n
N\n
Nnmc
B'np^
nd'^n rh
DN"i
noN
.
nin pjD.
NOD''
.
B'np''
.
^jdd
c^mp iy?3c>D3 B>nip

nr
3
nt^'a
]r]
bv
n^NK^n
nni
Inr
airiDn
n:^^'
noi?
ndc'
i3y
m
86
?B'np''n
nnann mab
in
nn^n ^n
Lj'ipn
Nin
n^?
ncran
dk'K'
Nî 5|:Dn na^ n^N

B>npn
ba
^2
yjj
n^:^'
nnx
nm
njnji
hdni
-ir*3.
D^jnsn
icon
lyjj
,
n^
pnn xim ona
yjj t;'on :ynpn

;
nc'yn 'd
ed.
Firkowitz, Kozlov, 1835, 20 b
Tj-a Nin :;nip
-ii"a
144

2.
fragment we see the Gaon taking Haggai
12 in
its
natural
to
meaning long before Ibn Ezra.

explain Lev.
6. 20,
This
necessitates
to which Ibn
Ezra
refers,
again
"il^'2
in
way
different
from the Talmud,
viz.
that
it
if t^'lip
'
has
'
immediate contact with an object,
will
sanctify
it.
But the Talmudic deduction
is
that this takes place only
when the
from the
yâ^c^
object touches and also absorbs

trnp ntra (cp. Pes.
some substance
:
45
s^
a, top,
'"ax
and
parallels
u'np"'
IB'N
ija
ny
mcna
^'n
T\'ihi
^13"
'i3i
nnu^'33
yy
Erom Ruth
a declaration
bolical
11.
4. 7
the
Gaon
infers that if
a person
makes
(VJ'd:
7y Ty),
it is
legally ratified
by the sym(fol. 3,
exchange of a shoe or any other thing

Evidently the inference
7X"ii:'"'3
verso,
2-6).
is
from the
last clause
of the verse
attestation.
Sin p^^^Nim
miynn nxn
in the
a.
l.
meaning of testimony,
(nny mrD nmynn nxn
on^yo vn
nr
So
yr\va\
also Ibn
nib'^n
b.
Ezra
miyn n^ca
"itryn
trnsjo ^^\
^y
p33n)
and Jacob
.
Reuben,
'D
(14
a),
nny
Nin
miynn
7X~iw"'3
The Gaon's
Thus,
e. g.,
inference essentially agrees with the

that
Halaka.
'
the
''C'^\>
is
not
restricted
to
shoes
'
only, but can consist of

a,
any other thing
(1N D^byj2
-ba), cp. B. m. 47
Kidd. 13a,
in
t\-w
pxc* D"ys
is
^^3
pjip
xjn
HDins.
Yet the way
which the inference

in
defined shows
('131
independence from the Baraita

Ps. 51. 19 evidently refers to
B. m. 47 a
'WDd).
11.
nii?: (fol. 3,
verso,
6-10),
because the next verse reads

Zion, build
'
Do good
in
Thy
'.
favour unto
Thou
the walls of Jerusalem
It
should be
noted that the

of the verses.
Agada does
Joshua
b.
not agree with this explanation
Levi seems to take Ps. 51. 19 to
-ir3^ -inna yrc' laan pa p-is niN-in^

".13n3
n:3
eiJ32
orx
in
nxun
Alph.
yr vh 1L"N "innn pai cnp.
Cp.
alho Hadassi,
Eshkol,
282, end, 283, 284, beginning.

refer to
if
MANN
H5
Temple-times.
When
the
Temple was
standing,
man brought
a burnt-offering, he had only the reward

contrite spirit
is
of his sacrifice.
as
if
But he of the
all
;
regarded
he had offered
b,
kinds of sacrifices, as Ps. 51. 19
shows (Sanh. 43
Ingenious
of a
top
Sotah 5
a).
r.
For other Agadic

c. 7
;
explanations of this verse, see Lev.

is
Pesikta 158
a.
the inference from Job 42. 15, that each

is
11.
man's daughters
(fol.
entitled
to a tenth part of his
property
D^D3J
is
3,
verso,
10-14).
The Halakah
But
of
"ilcr"'V
well
known
Job
(cp. especially
b,
the Baraita in Ket. 68

its
a,
bottom, and Ned. 39

this verse of
I
bottom).
deduction from
could not trace in the Talmud.^'

it
In conclusion
should
be noted that Job

quite
different
15. 18
is
explained
in
an early
Agada
from the
it
meaning the author of our fragment gives

recto,
11.
to
in fol. 4,
'>,-^
(cp.
the Baraita in Sotah 7
b).
is
Who
know
the writer of our fragment was
impossible to
gather from the part that has been preserved.

that he lived
in
We
He
only
Bagdad and was regarded

(fol.
as an
evi-
authority
by the people
4, recto,
11.
5-12).
dently tried to defend the tradition against the attacks of

the Karaites, and in doing so he endeavoured to take to his
aid the verses of the Prophets
and the Hagiographa.
In
order to forestall the retorts of his opponents, he gave the

verses their natural
meaning and avoided the Talmudic
method of deduction.
The
nearest thought
is
to identify
the writer of this letter with

at
Hai
b.
David,
who was Dayan
Bagdad
prior to his assuming the
Gaonate of Pumbedita.
According to Kirkisani, Hai and his father David trans"

Cp. also Rashi
to Job, v.
I.
:
Dy
H^m DH^
\T\l
P^DM inU'K'n IIHO

in the inheritance,
DTIKn.
For the Karaite view about a daughter's share

JQR.^ VIII,
692, note
3.
see Pozn.,
VOL. IX.
146

Book of Precepts from Aramaic into Hebrew,
its
lated 'A nan's
and examined
in, 503).
sources (cp. Harkavy,

this
Hebrew
is
Graetz,
Probably
Hai
b.
(cp.
nnTiJ^^N
DKi
referred to
by
and
Jefet b. 'Ali
and Sahl
Masliah as the author of a

Pinsker,
\>"\>,
book against the Karaites

183).
D''nsDJ,
148-51
his
But as the writer of the
letter requests
correspondent to send to Bagdad questions as well as

donations,
there.
It
it
seems that he was the head of an academy

therefore
is
more probable that he belongs
to
a later period,
at
when
the Pumbedita
Gaon had
his residence
Bagdad.
(recto)
entity
unn
"t'T'i
\^:b k'IB'oi U'-ry
nonD
^3
irns dhn
\ib
'a
n^ymci
uniN
[n]n DN
c'\x
nyv"
nw
\h
D^2*^n3
cnx
ij^^n
nna
oaijnaB^
iJn:N
truN
ntrj''
T-Ni ^B'1D Kin
D3ny
ij''D''d
'pK'
'31
ipn îid
hn c^n
nat?'^
*I^ni
[Da-TiJnjNn ijniK
omps n^
i[3^Jn [d
]"''
naini
nay
d^:b'
nain dn
h^
vn
vk'
DDK
^2[D^]cjn-in
"ir:3
n3j n^na^ D^pnv 13t D3>ni3N jn33 OD^niaui
oamî
na'-nii'XB'i
DDN irynr ^y onina ^^p'ons ptj'm Dy
D^pipn D3:n ^"133^ by onina

's
[nJtrN ''^Dûpn c*s3 by fm ^^nait^n nivo n^p i^n hni: n^cn pNtj'
by
eisi
IDNJ pNi
^'^n^va
ybo bv3 bsN3 pdd pimiD
i^b isn^
cnman cy p
by pxi^ 10
D3mn
Nb DN
1310 [bnn: dni] i3mi3i n3trn D3nN n3C'j dn
nbw
nyi
ynvn
'^
[-nitj'lcn X3J nK'N3

'3"i3tx
8
*'
pbyn [dhn
i^Jirnt^D
b3
l''ni
byi ^Tixih nt^ri
D^[n]y
3n
xb DN o[nb
^jiK'b]
p3nn t6^
nitj'n
obc^T "in3BV dn ibxb
Ps. 71. 33.

p''Dnjf
for
Ps. 78. 3.
;
Cp. Cant.
8. 6.
gives no meaning
read
;
pôm
p'J'm and
\\''y^T\^
being
d.
synonyms
'"
prayer
cp. Ps. 55. 3

s. v. '
77. 4,
and see Zunz, LUeraturgescft.
synag. Pocsie, 398 and 402,
Cp. Jcr.
Cp.
17. I.
Referring to the phylactery on the arm.

''
Isa. 49.
16
Cp.
Isa. 3a. a.
MANN
I47
[^3] nN-13
'3
1:^
-10 13N1
D^:i:
irx^n n^mxj
ijy
i^^ninn pooit:' ij^rpr
ni^
i^niN 15
noiy Nin
[ni]D\n nNi'031
in-tin
^'
n\t "icn iJT'in
^3
"ij^tfnp
rh'>b)
idnm
noy
dx
^3
3"ini iîn
"
ohyn
''nm id psi
n^jt
d-'Kib'
nipn
dov Tinn xb nx
r\^b]}
nbs na haa
bijnn' nac'na
[):b
ii''n^
^[y]i^ p-ini?
ab haa ni3x^ iîn
ib^n D^^yn d: iiom
Dm]oN DN nhy
in
ooitr
v^r'nan
â
yvn hdi
^3
-''^pN "noirb ^5 imo''

^3
ircmrî i:ynD
w:']}
nom min
oyin n:n xin

^3
itD3
djdn iJ^ncan nuyonî i:nDn
20
nis nyj ba
D'N:nn c^moi
nmno
tayo 1J^mJ1 idb>
nt3N*i'D^
D''s:;v
on^na D'^m niD^nn
njK' ^s* n:K'oi
cnon
i:n -iin
moN Dii mt^'cn nanî'n bx nnm nny!? in "lantj'n^

^nib'"'
rivs
xi'tj'
ns ins nnx
n-inanDDi
nnnx
[Dn'']m3iT nsi
Dn*3-i!*
npn dn [q]w?d ic'n

loy^j
ni^sy hnt ^3 d[iji "'tSyoj i3]n 25
P3D
nb
D[n]D^^ mvî
imin
ij[]ni)N
nnn abn
n^J
pro Nâ Dip^ nr o

?yob dv ^3 "nv
*3
bn^ 03^
n'6?Dtt ^jin
ivî
naa nn nab Thib nhv is^"*
pn
nîbni
D^jnan ns*
dj
ononN ^n ddin
[i]N^nn[3i]
^^ ':i
itbpî
nyn
''3
Nsî D'OB'.-i
nDyb Qyn nx
mv
-no^bn i'\Zinb D^bia^ oba d:>n ^3
yT
nobbi ini'b
ip3T ]v^b D^bni

i:3n
''3
D'':n3n n:r: Jinb o^Bn'i^ "sc'vb
by^ idnî h33 Dn>3-iv3 30

^"^'"'^
NDi-h 3iynb pb3Vn Dn^D3n pB'y^ n ayn pbvyn^ dni

y'3[tt']:i
n''i?y
nîha
ns
i:^st:i
i:n
onb
yne^j icj'n
^3
^3
ny o-niDi oTiB'ynD
iB'3y
msB':
nriNn
id^6
iB'N n::3i
nbi: ni^xi rnh
ionj )ybv i3i onb ddd nxi inun

w' iJ'oô ^^txi li^by ib:
^"^^3 f\b
cy n^k^y
D3 '"2^3B'N3
'03n bc'Dnn
px
'
Ps. 137. 5-6. Ps. 82. 5.

Isa. I. 30.
S9
1"'-
9'
Jer. 33. 25.

IPO
"^
Exod.
16. 4.
a,
a Chron. 31.
17 b.
4.
^"^
">"
Cp. Sotah 47
Temurah
Hullin 92
a.
148
B
npD"'i
{J'-l'-D
(fol. 3,
recto)
':^n B'nnn
mnoD
'31
sti
'"3^0 -1SD21 104
opp
-j-n i^^cnni
'nan
^^^'^^nv
[^ns
ncN
nnnn
nDD31
na:
5
niyni
loe^j-jjj,^,
DnnN^
n:n:
nvis*
-ib'K
"n'^n nirx nâni

'3
IIDN
K'T'El
n-'DI"'
xt^'D
in^y::'''
iN^vin sî 'nD3
D^mn
niB'-ii'
isDni
!?in
^^^
nnc^n dv3 D^Tiao 10
n2C'3
-12,031
nan
mn-in^ -iidn
^ttq
108.-131 ^311
3ityn
nVEn Nii'DD 'n33

fix "3
njnon
31
c'T'd ^Nprn*
njno
frT"
'n33 "i3??3 bnvn t):^2
ny.
li?
nn\ii vnsyjo
io
nnxb
in^n^t: 15
"1DD31
N''t':^
n3cn
"3
-imn n:v
yai33 yp.ijn
B^*
Ntj'>
crn^s ic'y
nn
)n
'n33 :rnp^ x^.c'npn
1B333 ya:i
'"*
^"^
nja
51J33
cnip
-iB'a
Sam.
ao. 27.
Cp. Tos. Ber. 316, Babli 30a, and Yer. 8 b bottom.

c. 4.
Dan.
6. 11
is
also used for this inference in Ber. 31 a (cp. Yer.
beginning).
See also
py p
^>3B'3
ep-i,
bottom, 1J33 ni3"ii3o niai^n
mcy^
n^D:3 ^3 ri3ns
i?33
^y
nyinc'
no t.^t
Nin.
nr
by
phn ^xnc"
nvidj
t6)
\i''\pQn
DN
'"'DN1
3-iycn 1333 in^3pn ^^sr.o .thc' nipo ^33^'
n33yn
îcio
i'N-iK'"'
'"
I
jnx 3-iyD3
Kings
8. 48.
J
"7 Jer.
17. 2.
i8
isa. 58. 13.
" Ezek. 46.
17.
MANN
verso)
149
(fol. 3,
^Ni |otr
i'Ni
|"n ^Ni nnjn ^xi Dni?n
^n
B>Ta
nn
D"':s^
laoai ""tj'niTn ^dko bn

^y
n-iy^
iT'o D^3ip iB'sa
-ik'n
^3
nxn 'nas
^yi
""bn in
D^^yn
'ic'^n
^53
W'pb minn
-isoni
'ji
nbiwn ^y
b'^n ?i^tr
^^M^yi
-im
"nnn
'nsa D^nnt 2-ipnD niân
nan:! nna^j n^ mnc'j

tj'Ta
nn
d'h^n
10
2VN
-iDom ^^2.,-inn
n^ dm^n
niân
^3
ncr^y
nns
^53
r\)bt2):
vji pn niB'n
}ni?
""a
rfax ^d5*3
inn n-iK^y jha
nvnn vnim
inns
-1DD31 ^^^nn-ns iina nijn:
nsoa
Nipn 'n33
Ni-ip^ D^n^^n
"â
c^nâ Niiy 15
:crnip
nv bî Qânn
min
nsoa
Drn
nvi dv DNi^xn
1^*
:
mm
I3n33 noî
innNn nvn
nyi pB>Nin
(fol. 4,
recto)
DDi'PD n^Ni anan
xh
ntjapa
'naa nc'iah m-i^n^
-un^j
nôanh
nti-'N
nuND
nny^
" Haggai a. la, "2 Ps. 51. 19.
115
nnâ
n^ji
n^r Dân
'131
^^^pn^n n^n:
ma^
4. 7.
Dn^
"^ Ruth
"3 Job 42.
15.
"* Neh.
8. i8.
Read
nm,
" Job 15. 18.
150
nnpbp nsnlaa nâw lamx

NCK) "inm -iiDX T-on oyn
'<pMP'\
nx
iNBn Sdqi IK'S mnDi
i'NiDC' "iK "ic^xa
ny âa
Do-i3t:i
l-na D3nx
nc'yn
'3
^n>-iini
^^'^
oDiyn ^^snn^
.nii'''ni
WJivm
nnion
15
njB^n pi Nnpon
nibxc' i'NC'ni
minn nx
^^^na pan
tni
mc^nn pi
n^cri d::'^
|yo^ "j^nmj
ns
D/iyn iTn") m5:'\n noTin
irni3i3 iny2
iâpn'"! "jn^
^y 20
(fol. 4,
verso)
mho
6.
nv3 ij^ni^^sni
Nahum
"JXina^N irn^s
[/<?
Geoft.^
II.pp. ^^
and
6g\.
The long index

tv/ice
of responsa printed in Geon., II, contains

till
the above name, which was
now entirely unknown.
On
b.
p.
58 the item reads

i^^
jrn^N Diro
list
mo p
ana nK'yoi
ni5"'nD
^:xnna^N
[yj].
Further, in a
cp.
of questions from Judah

this scholar, Poznaiiski,
\\rh^ dihj
Joseph
(of
Kairowan,
22)
about
INI-17 ''ir:^,
no.
we
read
^:NTiai'x
|Tn,
ano nj'ki
"^y yt2p.
It
therefore seems that this
a native of
Bagdad
time
in
(Bardan being a suburb of

''^
this city),
was
for a
Sam.
12. 33.
n',?Nt;',
is
"' jna, referring to
would be more
suitable.
"' Thus very likely
the lacuna to be completed.

Kairowan. The following fragment, T.-S. 10
to elucidate this point, and
will
MANN
J. 4^, will
151
help
also furnish
interesting
information about the connexions between the Jewries of

different countries.
Our Nahum
travelled from
Bagdad
as far as the
Magreb
(probably Kairowan).^^" There he bought antimony powder,

valuable as an eye salve, and
Hebrew
was to
books,
among them
his
a set of Talmud.
These he sent to Egypt, where

sell
representative, Hillel b. Isaac,
the powder, but
to take the
books to Jerusalem.
Afterwards
Nahum made
owed
over to his son Jannai the
amount
his representative
him.
latter's
Now
who
both
Nahum
and Jannai are dead, and the

b.
heirs,
Joseph and Nahum, claim from Hillel
Isaac,
lives in
Ramlah, the amount due to

(in
their father.
Their representative
Sicilian.
still
Palestine)
is
Masliah
b. Elijah,
the
The
in
last
fact
tends to show that the plaintiffs

that our
lived
is
Babylon, probably Bagdad, and
fragment
a part of a document drawn up at the

at
Supreme
Court of the academy
Bagdad.
It
has been sent to
Egypt
for the
purpose of taking further proceedings against
Hillel b. Isaac,
to
who
is
refused to repay the
sum he was owing

Talmud
Above
Nahum
and
his heirs.
Interesting
the mention of copies of the
being sent from Kairowan to Egypt and Palestine.
(VIII, 354) a copy of Berakot from Kairowan, containing

"" This
Nahum
is
perhaps identical with
Nahum
b.
Joseph,
who
writes
an Arabic
letter,
dated 2and Ab, 310 Sel = 998, from Kairowan to his master
Samuel
stayed
b.
Hofni (published by Goldziher, Rl^J., L, 182-8).
Leaving
Hofni
his
family in 'Irak,
in
''IDT
Nahum
b.
Joseph travelled as
mentions a
far as Andalusia,
and also
to
Mahdiya.
""^N "'T'D
in
He
(11.
letter sent
is
by Samuel
b.
min^
to
i4-i5)>
list
who
probably the Kairowan scholar

is
Jehuda
b.
Joseph,
whose
of questions there
the above reference
Nahum
'JNTID^S |tn^t<.
152

b.
a difficult reading, which Shemariah
Elhanan used, was
mentioned.
of the
In earlier times, however,
we know
to
of copies
the West.
Tahnud being
Paltoi
sent from the East
Thus
Gaon
sent to Spain a
Talmud with
a com-
mentary {jfQR., XVIII, 401, bottom).
Also Hasdai ibn

(cp.
Shaprut bought copies of the Talmud from Sura

ibid., 768).
Marx,
(recto)
n3>B'\n
"iVB'
^N irJD^ sa
^3
^î^^^^,-,
^^
'jn
-ux
i:>:d^
[i]i
[.thJk^
nB>yo
-i
^JN'nai'N Din3
i'-a
w:^ i
Dim
[eiJDV
aiyon
irti'
^JNTn3[^N] jrnn
mnj
xm
iprn ^d
Dnisi
D^^nip |rnn
DnsD Dy
b:i\h
i22tjn3 yni^n [hd^] n[ni]nD
pnv'
^b>n
'n
[nx] n:ô
3^:^'
onvo n^no ^x
jnîri
niofjn
Dnaoa m^V/i minon manbi ân

D^tJ'nî'
Qn3D3
n^yi
vdt b'pi ^nj

^s*
i^x
"laci
bn
b^-î xai D^tmîj
jprn
Din:
wm
123
jn:
[n]nsi
njno Dnaoni ^hd ^x .-ninon irnx
^x[:]''
Iki'Syi
n ua!?
'.jpi
i:ux '3x *JXTia

33j^3 n-11D3
no
a-i
-13D
irax^
-ix::'3
xh irnvrxi udxi
irax \sr
i^DV
-ii
|rnn
Dim xjan
^xi'-
jprn
ux
u^nîr ^'-iv
na
^^J^n
Ijy
>!?pD
n^^x n^3 n^^vn n
nx
[|]r
nmo
irjo i3di Dimi
^DT lioo h2ph
na
pnv^
ia îjM i nx perm nôi
n^no
iTn
irx
n^^^'o
n xai
Lnaoni minon
pn^
>3
nr ^!?m i
jyoi
pnv
b]ain
ii?
bn3 ^x n-iinon 'did
y-i[3jj
'31
irax '2X
pn
[oina xja-i
nnson
nr ^^JM T ^2p'c'
^y
1^
nxcoi
"'
pT
is left
out
perhaps read
;
TD
for
nU.
'^'
'" Jski, antimony- powder
eye-salve.
=PJp1'
'

7.
MANN
153
Panegyric in honour of a Babylonian Dignitary.

size,
Or. 5554, B, folio 20, parchment, square writing,
19 X 14 cm., forms a part of a

celebrity.
poem
>n^
in
honour of a great
strophes,
"i
.
The fragment
.
contains
y
twenty-one
nîan nyi n^JD
which give the acrostic

is
ny^
is
It
evident
that
the
poem
incomplete.
At
least
two
J
strophes at the beginning,
commencing with the
letters
and
respectively,
and
one strophe at the end, with T as
its first letter,
are missing in order to complete the acrostic

-i[tj].
[n]y 'iy^
n^:D
The poem has

in
for its hero the
same person
to
whom
are devoted the remarkable
poems published by Schechter
Saadyana (XXV, pp. 6']-']4. = yQR., XIV, 331-42) from a Cambridge manuscript. Acrostic and style are similar,
while the same
is little
names occur
in
both fragments.^^"^
is
There
doubt that the panegyric
in
honour of a prominent
is
leader of the Babylonian Jewry.

reference to the
This
clear
from the
1.
academy of Sura
life,
(iT'Dno, S. 66,
ff.)
to
is
which he imparted new

eulogized as
'
and from the
fact that
he
the strength of the dispersion in Babylon

1.
and
Edom
(S. 72,
'
(S. T^,
26),
whose
'
authority
is in
Shin'ar and his

all
awe reaches
11.
'Ar, and his repute goes through
countries
15-16).
(p. 6^).
This has been rightly pointed out by
Schechter
'l31
The
full
acrostic in S.,
"ITJ
im
DmaN
n^ljn nyi n!?JD,
proves that his
name was Abraham. This

b.
at
once disposes of the tentative identifications of the hero
of the
I.e.,
poems with Saadya or Samuel
Hofni, as Schechter,
and Ginzberg {ZfHB., XIV, 85-6) suggest.
Surely
the supposed author of the poems,

^^*
Abraham Hakkohen
the Cambridge fragments
For brevity's sake the British
Museum and
are cited as Or. and S. respectively, the latter according to the pages in
Saad\ana.
154

n. 8),
(according to Schechter, 64,
would not style himself
Marmorstein (JQR., N.
S.,
VI, 157) printed a few lines

its
from Or. and rightly pointed out
resemblance to the
poems
of the
in
Saadyana.
But
his identification of the subject

b.
poems with Abraham

b.
Sahlan
in
Egypt, a correis
spondent of Solomon
again
entirely
b.
Judah, the Jerusalem Gaon,
unwarranted.
in
Apart
from
the
in
fact
of
Abraham
Sahlan living
Egypt and not
Babylon,
he was not of such prominent a standing as to be the subject

of such a panegyric.
b.
As
will
be shown elsewhere,
Abraham
in
b.
Sahlan was the I3n of the Babylonian community
Fustat, and held a position similar to that of
Ephraim
Shemariah of the Palestinian community. One of Abraham's
two sons was Sahlan, styled

"i"iDn.
fjlîS,
rh'2
CN"i,
and
also
C^'N")
But the subject of the above poems had four sons,
one of
whom was
called Sahl.
Surely a Sahl
b.
Abraham
does not at once justify the identification with a Sahlan

b.
Abraham.
Leaving the question of identification
in
abeyance, we
gather from the poems several details about the entourage

of their hero.
Schechter
(p.
64)
assumed that he had
three sons called Baruch, Jannai, and
Solomon
"nx
(S. 66,
1.
a).
But
Din:
it
is
clear that
r\rh''^\
i
vsri
^n3
was none
else
but
mentioned
in line
(cp. also Pozn.,
ZfHB., VII,
line
i
172).
But both Schechter and Poznaiiski found

It
obscure.
r\ir\.
reads oniDn mn3
''S3
^X3> âxni
'DniNJ inâa
^ô^xntr''
The
>"
evident meaning
is
that the subject of the
poems has
this
How
Ginzberg {ZfHB., XIV, 85,
n. 5)
is
could find
in
line
an
allusion to Israel, the son of

I
Sam.
b.
Hofni,
inexplicable to me.
Nor can
ir,
detect the 'direct reference to

\r\'zr\
Samuel
b.
Hofni'
!).
in S. 67,
1.
laioij
moy
i^va (and not oncK inan "inxa

a synagogue of his
MANN
155
own where Jews assemble

(the father
for prayer.
The
reader,
Nahum
of Baruch, Jannai, and

(^XJ^ ""Bvn
Solomon),
recites the liturgical
compositions
being
a poetical metaphor for

allusion to
"iTy^xi
^NJ''
"W
ba
niJrn) in
a pleasant way.
73,
1.
This
^JT
^W
mJin
nrj it
is
borne out by S.
34: HOT
unn
xh
minn
(i. e.
Jannai and Eleazar
Kalir).
Perhaps the suggestion
reader
above.
Nahum is the He makes over

12 and 2709 G,
may be ventured that the same Nahum 'JNTin7K ]trhn mentioned

to his son Jannai the value of the
antimony-powder and
2838
I
the
a,
books as a present.
Bodl.
37 contain liturgical compositions
with the acrostic
Din^.^^^
Possibly they emanate from this
Bagdad
i^na 1V2
reader.
1:K^t^'3
Bodl. 2821, 5 b also contains a composition

n^'ian Q^b^ (evidently in
jrn
honour of a Nasi)
liturgical writer
with the acrostic pTn
Dinj
nD^tr.
This
may
be the second of Nahum's three sons.

2730,
Finally, Bodl. 9
2712, 21 c;
6g;
2847, 2oe,
f;
2705^ and 2848,
contain several liturgical compositions with acrostics
f\DV
^JNmi, (?)*n3^N
iJNma^N,
cjB'v,
evidently an abbreviation of ^JNmn^N,
"-JNTin, siKn\
im ^^)\
^JNTin^N
Perhaps the author

Jtri^N
is
the
grandson
of
Nahum
mentioned
in
the
document printed above (under
6).
To
return to the subject of the poems.

1.
In S. he
22) and
is
alluded to as the father of three sons (68,
two
daughters
(66,
1.
23
cp.
1.
1.
25
f.).
The author
wishes his
hero another son (67,
19).
In Or, already four sons are

It is therefore evident that
mentioned
(verso,
11.
11 -12).
Or. was written at a later period.
Altogether the poems
were probably composed on various occasions when the

author found
'-*
it
appropriate to eulogize his patron.

d.
Or.
'
Zunz, Litgesch.
synag. Poesie, 49a, states only
'
mutmasslich
c. e.
that
Nahum came
from the south of Spain or Fez not later than 1300
156

after
seems to have been written

person
(recto,
11.
an
illness
of the celebrated
4-5).
in
There are further mentioned both
S.
and Or. an
sister's
unnamed
two
sons,
brother of the subject of the poems, his
one by the name of Hasan, and also a son of his

Finally,
uncle ('his mother's brother'), 'Ali Hakkohen.
Abraham ha-Cohen,
of the poems,
Israel
his secretary,
and perhaps the author
Hakkohen and 'Amram Hakkohen,

in
conclude the number of persons mentioned
the poems.
These
will
be referred to
in
the foot-notes to the text.
In spite of the several persons mentioned in the poems,

it is still
difficult to ascertain
who
the person thus eulogized
was.
it
If the identification of
would give a clue that
Nahum 'JSTin^N im^N is correct, may lead to a solution. The

poems
(especially from Or.)
general impression from the

is
that the celebrated person as well as his brother were

political
more
than scholastic celebrities, probably Jewish

Netira's sons are out of question, as
to have been Sahl
grandees at Bagdad.
their
names
are
known
and
Isaac,
and
the former, the
more prominent, had only one
child called
Netira (cp. Harkavy, Berliner Festschrift, part H, pp. 34-43).
But next to Netira's

'
sons, there
were also the
influential
sons of
b.
Aaron
'.
As was shown
b.
above, their father was

as the
^11
Aaron
Abraham
Aaron.
Now just
\'V\'^
name Aaron
perhaps
recurs in the family, one of these

called
very likely was
Abraham.^2'
This
son of Aaron'
this
may
have been the subject of
panegyric.
He
all
was the
patron of the Pumbedita academy, and for

'"
of
b. It
we know
should be pointed out here that pHN*

b.
yC'1, the father-in-law
Aaron
Sargado,
who
82),
arranged the peace between Saadya and David

is
Zaccai (cp. Neub.

still
II,
evidently an older contemporary.
Our Aaron
was
alive in 953.

he might have used his influence
in
MANN
157
restoring the Sura

recto,
academy.
describe
all
The
lines
38-30 of
Or.,
would aptly
he stood for as regards the welfare of the

note that Netira's son Sahl
services
*
academy.
It is interesting to
had a synagogue of
Sabbath.
his
own where
were held every

'
The
equally influential
son of Aaron
might
also have been the
owner of a synagogue where the
services
were conducted by
Nahum
'JSnnapN \mbii.
afiairs
With our very

of the
scanty knowledge of the internal
Bagdad
community during the
life-time of the
Geonim Nehemiah,
to
Sherira, and Hai, the above identification can only claim
the rights of a suggestion.

in
But
it
seemed
all
me more
accordance with probability than
the identifications
suggested hitherto.
(recto)
jDcâ
yr bum
^^^'rim^pb yr^vz iv
mn
uai
^m
:nny
ioid" .TSjb'O
D1Nl^'b
<
nv'i^''
DID
1T2
k:
a^
^-^'aixnriD
^^^
n'î2\i^
ix non did
iyid^ t^'i^'i
1Jt^"np
D'':nNi
y:zh niinnB'nb
T'J^<^
nnuj
i-'^^
bninDi
nan
b:i
pcnn
visbi
-^njn
ijy
-jdj
^^û^k
nN^f
nnv n^
10
biv^)
"im ^2
l^DK'^
no
:nnni
^'
^'^^
pN
^b
inc'n mbyi
Cp. Job 39. 16
S. 73,
1.
35, inSTp, se.e Zunz, S>'rt^. Poesfe, 403.
Evidently the subject of the
poem was
just recovering
from an
illness.
^^'^
See Ps.
75. 9.
at the Caliph's
!'
Evidently the hero was a great political force, probably
court at Bagdad.
132
= irn^N.
"3 From
Tl^JJ-in,
Hos.
11. 3.
158
5)10 D"
ijK
Dm33 D^^mn na^
^d
'ffiioK
nio"'xi
'nxian nbiaB'n
"ietn nian riNX
""n^
bi
134. p^.
yt,,^
pi^p^gjp
>n*
"inj:"!
'^^so iinDn
-iT3n
t^j?
nmn
n^
imy
pyoD
nnyic"'
i^îamaN nay
riNi
iîp
Ni^n
]v
^^^'omj
u'^n
:n-ini:i
3it3
l^^^
s->p
25
i3[3]
inn
-iK^x
'npbn [n]"nn ni33 noo uyon
i**npai pv-i ^y T-n
Dcnp
'pi
^^^'npnn p'o
ik' îok'
:iT-i'n3 n^jDi
c'-ini n^nioi^K' {^-in
in^m
iTn')3n[o] pyv
^'nu:^1D ^sv
n^msna
TrrniD
d:i
mu
30
i^nn^Joi? 3N
n^ni3>B'*
mm
:nmn:D^
><
3-1
Cp. Exod. a8. 36. " Participle Hophal of DDH.

"* Ps. 105.
6, 4a.
is
iss
Dan.
4. 10, 20,
is:
jgr. 14. 9.
Possibly the author, presumably
Abraham Hakkohen,
alludes that he
i'
1*"
the
namesake of
his hero.
Cant.
8. 2.
See
Isa. c. 7.
Is
?
here a possible allusion to the hero's descendance
from the Davidic family

'"
p.
The
best explanation of this much-discussed

S., I, 235,
is
word
^Pozn.,
fKH^p
^{J'JN,
47; Davidson, JQR., N.

;
note 50; Chajes, Z/HB.,
XIV
(1910),
25
and Ginzberg,
ibid.,
87-8)
that
by Bacher
{ibid.,
82-3) as being a
Persian loan-word ^^L. 'a very usual designation in the meaning of

agminis, princcps populi "
'.
"dux
MANN
dk' ib
159
(verso)
nND3J2 "intt'np ]nDub^
Titryia
hdôd b22
i^
nu^'î
nxm
ncy
Db^no
-idt
riK'yn
:nnm
i*^n30
nD
dji
n'':irojpi
.^yvp
n:D nrn
nrc '^^.^^nD njnn
dn ntti ah
pin
pi?
5
nnn-in ni3Tn
'npaî jjsnj n-n i^
-ip\n
p-iy
bo
^**
nny2 pn N^^
'
'p-ini ra i^ô i:in n^h

ry
nnmv bn
nc'SJ i^b^b
p"in
"3
ajK'oh
îjo^ i^
nm
'^
niipni ^n''\Ti
c^mni ^Ncm
'niKrin nt^s
"i^
fn"-
'2pv'^ pn)i' nn:j ^yoji
'aip-iô niv:
-itr'^
in^'tr^
pon
i*":nnn2 n^^ncn dost DiTrirnxi 'aipy vo^

n'':''y
^*!]dvi
^hd
dji
-lk^N
muDi ^^n32
n^san n^syiD niih
noB'*
^^^^"i:hnj
TnNi nns n>n
D^yiB'yK' ^^yroi v^'
no
trnjj
15
D^yua iB>nc'ni iânni nni

:
ns
*D^y:n
^n^f:1
n''yr3
'
D3n ddk'o
jisv
la'-Dyn
^n1^N
p pn
1:1233 ^22
|i2D
n^pnvb ib'n aiun py
B'nNn vns nviNai 'pan m^

n''r:3
:nni:i
1*'-'
Dmijv bni
nip''
20
lox
"-nK
pjn
'^y
p^
lonnnna
na-ian
bn
1^2
Cp. Ps. 27.
3.
"3 Cp. Yer. Ber. IV,

hero's father
7,
and Babli Taan. 21

man.
b.
This shows that the
was
also a prominent
"* Read perhaps

1*^
pin
fr.
13, cp. Prov. 18. 10.

i*"
Cp.
Isa. 58. II.
These are the names of

and
his four sons.
1" Cp.
i'8
^^'
S. 66,
I.
23
Referred to
Cp. S. 67,
1.
in S. 67,
4,
1.
i
1.
AT.,
69,
1.
24,
71,
1.
7.
and
69,
25.
j6o
mnso
^^"
iti's:
tk'vi
^Cl5r sc'jna
i^n^K
invtss"
Q-i^^x*
nmc'D pan Dmaxi
'
d^vi 'n idi3^ fnan bn'i^
^^2
D':rinni t^'^^3
nrnxn
^J3^
D'':)3irD
noNi n'b^
nianan
mny
D"'::x:
jv.t
nam
II
Elhananan
b.
Hiishicl of
Kairowan.
till
This scholar was entirely unknown

Schechter published from the Genizah a
to
1899,
when
letter
by Hushiel
interest
Shemariah
b.
Elhanan, which aroused
much
{JQR., XI, 643-50).

the acrostic
in the
\>^'^^\n
The preamble
pn[^N],
of the letter contains
^m3
showing that he collaborated
composition of this alphabetic eulogy of Shemariah.

'~i
Hushiel styles his son pn^N
(11.
^6 and
62), again indi-
cating that he was already of the age and status of a scholar.
But more could not be gathered from the

position
epistle.
What
Elhanan held
in
Kairowan
after his father
remained
completely obscure.
His name turns up again
in
document of 1034
*313 pn^N which,
{7QR., XVI, 576) as

as Pozn., |S1TP
^L*':x,
.T3-13 -13 .TVjn^N ^K'ln
no. 10, has rightly pointed out,
must
read
non3 13
n*3:n
bs^rin
'3"i3
]irh^.
This
document
could have already supplied information as to Elhanan's

status
''O
at
Kairowan, had
I.
it
not been
entirely misunder1.
Cp. S. 67,
6.
3,
1" Cp. S. 67,
II.
'" Cp. S. 67,
and 69,
1.
24.

stood.
It
MANN
l6i
has not been drawn up in Kairowan, but in
Fustat
b.
("ivd).
This
is
clear
from the signatures Sahalon

b.
Abraham and Saadya

(p.
Ephraim.
As
indicated
above
b.
154),
and as
will
be shown elsewhere, Sahlan

leader of the Babylonian
father
uncle.
Abraham was the community at Fustat,

him.
the
spiritual
a position his
held before
Saadya
Alluf
b.
;
Ephraim was Sahlan's
Both bore
:i'n.
title
the latter was also called
nb
They
thus sign the document, probably not as witnesses, but as
the judges of the Bet-Din of the Babylonians at Fustat.'-^"
Now
this
document of 1034 includes a deed drawn up

Kairowan two years previously
'212
]:r\bii,
at
the Bet- Din of
(1032), and
signed
by
i'N'r'in
ri'2-\2
12
r\':^n,
and Abraham
b. D.iniel (for bs'lT, cp. Pozn., /.c, no. 3),
again not as actual
witnesses, but very likely as the judges of this court.
Hence
Elhanan
b.
Hushiel
is
head of the court,
^"''2
L"s~i.
The two Genizah fragments

fifteen
printed here,
more than
years after Schechter's publication, will throw

b.
new
light
on Elhanan
Hushiel's position in Kairowan.
Frag-
ment
(T.-S. 12. 194, 26
X 18 cm., paper, small Rabbinic
square writing, doubled into four columns, of which three

are occupied
by the
letter) is
a responsum
by our
scholar.
it
As
p3n
question and answer are
in
the same handwriting,
is
clearl)'
not the original but a copy.

pn
n-'n
Elhanan
is
addressed as
âf-j-N-i]
ii'ni
^n;n
mn.
^-^^
The
last title
was
also
borne by his father
Hushiel.
When
this
responsum
from
was written Hushiel was no longer

^^^
alive, as is evident
Thus
nos. 40
and 41 should be removed from the
list
of Poznai'iski's
"' R. Nissim in nnDt:n
^20
(ed. Goldenthal, 13 a^
rh2p2 Hl^'VOn nn
VOL. IX.
l62
THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW The

case dealt with in the question did not
the signature.
demand
the display of great
Talmudic
erudition.''^
But as
the hitherto only
known evidence
of Eihanan's learning,
the responsum well merits publication.
The Rabbi
the
shortly
recapitulates the case under discussion before giving his

decision.
The
pious conclusion,
'
May
Rock
in
His
to
mercy make me one of those who possess the
insight
^^'''
give a true decision and a righteous judgement', reveals

a modest and sympathetic trait of Eihanan's character.
Of more
historic
interest
is
fragment B, T.-S. 24.

letter
6,
vellum, square
writing,
forming a long
from the
to
'community of
Sicily', its
'Bet-Din and
elders',
the
congregations of Kairowan and the neighbouring Mahdija.
By
the
Sicily,
isle, is
probably Palermo, the leading congregation of

meant. ^^'
This important
letter is
much damaged
Yet the
re-
on both edges, especially towards the end.
mainder adds several
points
of
interest
to
our scanty
knowledge of the
life
of the Sicilian Jews.
The
epistle
opens with an alphabetic eulogy of the

;
communities addressed
three words, mostly alliterations,

(11.
are assigned to each letter of the alphabet
2-5).
As
heads of the Kairowan community are addressed PThanan

pn nâ
b.
(i.
e.
head of the court)

Probably
this
b.
Hushiel Hi and Jacob T::n

political
'Amram.
i''5
Xagid exercised some

^''iJ^J. no.
For a similar responsum, cp.

DV*0w'?2n. not
Paltiel, of
188
(bj-
MeshuUam).
1'*
'*'
in
the Karaitic sense.

is
Ahimaas Chronicle fame,

)'nx3i
said to
have been Nagid p30n
"iD-1'^23
^NX"'
biiV^y rbynr^ ^231

for the
local
nnvoa cmn ba ny ni^np^ (r. njj^n) NpnCXm ,Xeub. 11. 130;, Palermo stands here
to
whole isle. In 878, when Syracuse was captured by the Arabs, the
Palermo, where their coreligionists ransomed
in
Jews were brought
them.
Likewise, on the capture of Aversa
925. the parents of Sabbattai

(cp.
Donnolo were freed by the community of Palermo

Liter, 486}.
Zunz, Ziir Gcsch.
ti.

authority over
all
MANN
163
the North-African communities within
the Fatimid realm, except
Egypt and
b.
Palestine.
is
Another
a
Nagid
of Kairowan,
Abraham
'Ata,
known from
poem by Hai and

clear that Gabirol
other Genizah fragments (cp. Pozn.,
/. r.,
pp. 4-5, and Davidson,

in
JQR., N.
his
S., I,
231
ff.).
It is
(in
now
poem
to R. Nissim
Brody
and Albrecht,
(b.
1''u*n
^J)'t^,
36-7), sent greetings to
Elhanan
[d:
DI^S'I]
is
Hushiel) and Jacob Nagid

^yn^D
when concluding
Probably
in
13>DJ
1J}T
^yi
l^^^n
pn^Ni?.
this
Jacob
identical with the
Nagid spoken of
b.
the letter of 1035
written to
'^55-^)-
Ephraim
Shemariah of Fustat {JQR., XIX,
The
writer,
who probably
is
lived
in
Kairowan,
mentions therein that the Nagid
staying for a time in

(i.e.
Mahdiya
(11.
1S-21)
on the Nagid's return
to
Kairowan)
the case of the donation of 60 Denars which the Palestinian
Gaon
retained for himself will be discussed.
We
shall thus
learn that the
Kairowan people would
also support the
Palestine school under
Solomon
b.
Judah.
In a Genizah
fragment, to be discussed elsewhere,
we
find this
Gaon
corre-
sponding with Samuel

dealt with
b.
Abraham
of Tahort
it
who
has been
above (VIII, 357).

in
Finally,
should be pointed
11.
out that
nit:''^r\^
Hushiel's letter (JQR., XI, 650,
69-70)
clearly stands for

b.
Mahdiya whither Juda
n!?3
cn and
is
Joseph
Berakhya departed.
i:N
A
min^
son of the former

-12
perhaps
^r]r\i2
î^n trxn
ibid.,
h"]
îdv
(cp.
J OR., XVI, 691,
and Pozn.,
XVII, 168-70).
It
To
{alias
return to our letter.
has been written with the
object of recording the great services two Jews,
Hayyim
appears
for
Khalaf)
b.
Jacob the Spaniard and his son Nissim,

(11.
rendered to the Sicilian Jewry

i'**
13-16).^^
able to do
It
About 1040 Samuel

/.
ibn Xagdcla also
was
some good
this
Jewry iZunz,
c).
164

il.
from
their
60-1 that the writers of the
letter
requested from
Kairowan brethren to transmit

in
their epistle to other
communities
order that the noble example of these two

followers elsewhere.
Jews should
find
Thus
it
resulted
is,
that the original letter, for such our fragment clearly
as
the different signatures and
the beautiful clear writing

in
on
the
vellum show, came to Egypt and has been preserved

Cairo Geiiizah.
It is
an interesting
communal
person
service
that developed
way of among
appreciation of
the Jewries of
to the
those times.
The
testimonial was not

it,
presented
who
merited
but
was circulated among

'
the
important Jewish communities that his
fame go forth
'
throughout
all
the provinces
'.
',
and that others
see from
him and do likewise
As
far as the
fragment allows reconstruction, the service

in
of these
two Jews consisted
the
first
instance of reducing
a special impost and also obtaining a release from taxes
many poor Jews (11. 17-20). Moreover, a disaster befell many traders by the loss of ships laden with merchandise
for
to Egypt.
coast.
This must have happened near the Sicilian

the part that had been saved was landed,
that goods
When
the
ruler
ordained
belonging to people not
present on the boats should be sold by auction, and the

yield
to
go to the exchequer.
While
this
actually was
the case with the merchandise of the non-Jews, the two
communal
leaders succeeded in saving the goods of their
coreligionists
(11.
and having them returned to

to
their
owners
Egypt,
in
21-7).
is
As
6^
the
to
trade between Sicily and

the
reference
made
-''"bp'O
heading of a
responsum
-\y^'
Geon.
II,
'no >ro (ny?2ii'=) 'n^y cy
pisn.
Also there was some trouble about the burial ground.
certain
official,
it
seems,
made
new survey
of the

ground which would have resulted
as well as
in
MANN
confines,
165
number
its
of Jewish
non-Jewish tombs being outside
and
thus becoming desecrated
But these
communal
leaders
frustrated this design, while the
non-Jews could save their

(11.
tombs only by means of bribery
27-31).
The remainder of the

fluential
letter is obscure.
certain ]qw,
in-
Hakim, had been excommunicated, but he obtained

evidently his opponent.
support from non-Jew^s with the purpose of harming
in: 3"i "IQ,
The
also
case involved
some
monetary claim which concerned

Several people are mentioned,
viz.
the tax-collector.
b.
Abr.
David
b.
Labrat,
Sam.
b.
Moses
(I.
47), a certain
Abu'l Faraj who was to
travel to
Egypt
(1.
49),
Moses
(1.
b.
'Omar
b.
Juda of Aleppo
58).
Yahya the perfumer, and The last name is of

travelling
interest as
showing the connexions between the Jews of
different countries.
We learn also of Sicilian Jews

among
at once recalls
to Egypt.
^'^^
Finally,
the signatories of the letter
usual
name like Pappos b. Sabbattai among the Italian Jewry. The

as pi
namesakes
additional information as to Elhanan's position at

JT'n ::'N"i,
Kairowan
after his father's death,

'
opens up
letter of
anew the question of the

the
Four Captives
'.
The
Hushiel to Shemariah has been regarded to have

relegated
definite!}-
well-known account of Ibn

Hushiel writes
"i13y^
Daud
to
the
realm of legend.
l^mîo jnSD
1jnK''S^ '3
Hence he
voluntaril}-
came from a non-Arabic country,

his
probably Italy, to
Kairowan on
way
to
Egypt
to visit
^l:':n,
Shemariah (cp.Schechter,y(?y^.,XI, 643

i'-'
ff.,
Pozn., INITP
Cp. also above ;p. 151;, Masliah

b. Elijah,
b.
Elijah the Sicilian at

b.
Ramlah.
In
1016 a Sicilian Jew. 'Amrun

in Fustat to
had Ephraim
'
Shemariah arrested
i/i;-
answer
for
monetary claims REJ., XLVlll,
l66
no.

1
8,
Eppenstein,
Msclij'.,
1911, 324
ff.,
620
ff.).
But
Ibn
Daud
never said that Hushiel the father of Elhanan

captives,
was one of the four

Hananel.
but
Hushiel the father of
Schechter's sugrcrestion that the

in
name of Elhanan
this
had been changed

further refutation.
his father's
in the
Kairowan
find
into
Hananel needs now no
We
in
Elhanan using
name
after
death
the responsum printed above, and also
document
of 1032.
It
The people
of Sicily also address
him
as
Elhanan.
should be noted that the letter to

in
Shemariah must have been written before 1012,
which
year the famous Eg}'ptian scholar died, as will be proved

el.sewhere.
Thus
at least
twenty years afterwards he
still
retained
the
name
of Elhanan, which
was that of
his
grandfather.
But were Elhanan and Hananel brothers

tion
is
This assump-
now
in
rendered highly improbable.

his
letter
On
son
one hand
Elhanan.
Hushiel
mentions
only one
But
this
can be explained that Hananel was not yet of an

in his father's epistles.
age to be mentioned
however,
is
Inexplicable,
in
the fact that
Samuel ibn Nagdela
his well-
known
father,
letter of consolation to
Hananel on the death of

/r^Dian,
his
Hushiel
(printed
in
ff.,
VIII, 245-6, and

64-8), entirely
by
fails
Kaufmann, Magazin, V, 68
Rabbi
210
"i^-is*,
to even refer to Hushiel's other son, Elhanan.

is
The
late
eulogized for having merited such a son as Hananel,
who
is
called
nnn
ipij;i ^:>d
and other complimentary
titles.^*^"
This shows, by the way, that
Hananel was already a

;
prominent scholar on
""
his father's death

67.
11.
it
raises again the
ni^
nvi N\ 1878.
p.
5ir.
x^-irs '^nyx^ Ks::n N:n-i ^yi
N:-i2n
npan
n'lj^n-'Nn
^N''"'in
N:m
.
^31D"l
Nrv,njn hxi^h^
N:b?2 nn-^'i ^vnN NTir:i:m N-nn^-j- xn^niNn

^'rs
xhbr-j':^d.
nj^sKs ni23
Not
a
N^ n'ni^n mci ^-vnt
fsr:i
cnn
-ipu'i
word
is
said about tlic supposed other son, Elhanan.

above
difficulty of his not
MANN
the letter
167
being mentioned
is,
in
by
Hushiel.
But the chief question
why was
the supposed
elder son of Hushiel, Elhanan, entirely ignored'
by Samuel
title
ibn Nagdela
P3~i
''n
Surely a son that bore his father's

spiritual
of
::'S*"i,
and was the recognized

as the letter
head of the
Kairowan Jewry,
clearly shows,
by the
Sicilian
community
to in
his
ought to have been at
least alluded
a letter of condolence on his father's death sent to
supposed younger brother Hananel.
The
solution
must therefore be ventured that Hushiel,

is
the father of Elhanan, the father

Christian
Fustat.
not identical with his namesake,
of Hananel.
The former
left
voluntarily his
native country in order to visit Shemariah at
This probably took place between 990 and 1012,
during which time we find Shemariah holding the position

of CSI
at this
city.
Very
likely
Shemariah began
his
activities there before 991, in
which year Sherira and Hai
sent responsa to him.
But some years must have passed

far
before this Rabbi's
fame spread so
as
European
Christian country to induce Hushiel to set out on a journey

in
order to
visit
him.
On
his
way
to
Egypt Hushiel passed

his
Kairowan, and was persuaded to make
home
there.
He
must have had a great reputation

b.
as a scholar,
feet.
'd
and
probably Nissim
reverential
Jacob sat
to
at
his
Hence the
above
reference
him
in
nn2?2n
quoted
Also the poem of Samuel ibn Nagdela

Y, 21D nvix, p. 6H,
pp. 11-12, and
(printed
mMagaziji
and Brody, Berliner Festschrift, part

^sv:':'
H,
"i'::n
'n
n^" b, 14-15)
^vas
probably
written in honour of our Hushiel.

nia^t:'''
'pnssa
ny^pi
nsm
to
is
The line in^^ntt nw*'D:i certainly more applicable to

voluntarily
i<S).
man
that
came
Kairowan
""w":x,
than
to
prisoner (cp. Pozn., jSlTp
no.
68

Prior to the arrival of Hushiel b. Kihanan,
'
Kairowan
had the good fortune of ransoming one of the four captives ', who received viz. Hushiel, to whom later on a son was born,
the
name
of Hananel.
The
native countries of these captive
Baud's scholars has really no bearing on the veracity of Ibn

account.
his
Shemariah was probably a native of Egypt, where
Elhanan presumably held already the dignity But Shemariah undoubtedly of rsn (above, VIII, 35^)the attended the Pumbedita academy, where he gained
father
position of
Likewise head of the row of the Nehardeans Hushiel may have been a native of Italy or of Spain (as indeed Meiri reports, in Neubauer, ]\Ied. J civ. CJironicles, H, 225).
'
'.
But he studied
in
Babylon and was a colleague of Shemariah.
Owing
to the great
monetary
difficulties
under which the
Pumbedita school laboured,

in addition to those
prove,^*'^
as the fragments printed above,
known
before, clearly
and unmistakabl}for the
four scholars were sent to the
West
purpose
of collecting funds.
On
their
way from Babylon they must

there they went to
have
first
visited
Egypt, then North-Africa, and probably
crossed the sea to Spain.
From
Ital}',
and, after completing their mission, they took the boat
from Bari to Egypt wherefrom they would return to their

academy."'-
Their capture by the admiral of the Spanish
caliph must have been near the coast of Egypt.
This can
""
statement like
this,
1^0311:
S^ hll'Z nU''u"'n
,Tn
"-^
IXU^
noin
lyj^t?!
':2?^
\sni3
P'P'in-inr:
pnsji
S^j pn^ n on
vb'C noj^n
D':nnNn 'o-a nD:::nn nuj;Dnj vb

the
(Haievy, n^3K\s-in
furtlicr
nnn,
iii,
286;
words are overlincd by me), needs now no

>"
comment.
appears to
me
that
is
pnOSD
a
.
(Neiib.
I,
67
nx3 nn?^?^ D^D^n Vn

.
pnOSr" nSlpJ
nmrrri
corruption
for
DNL:D2
which Ibn Daud

this
usually calls DHi'tO (cp. p. 68

central communitj' of Egypt.
Their destination would have been
RESPONSA OF THE BABYLONIAN GEUNIM
MANN
first,
169
be gathered from the fact that the admiral' (or his henchman)
on the return journey touches
Alexandria
where
Shemariah
is
ransomed, then
Ifrikiya,
and
finally Spain.
is
In general outline Ibn Daud's account probably
based
It
on a genuine tradition,
is
though hardly correct
in detail.
very unlikely that the capture took place during the reign of
'Abdurrahman an-Nazzar(9i 2-61). Shemariah was probably

"ynnnj
miC'
t'{<"i,
already under Sherira, as the Bodl. fragment

;
{jfQR.yi, 223) tends to show
hence
after 968.
Moreover,
it
from the year of Shemariah's

gathered that
in 955,
death
(1012)
can be
the year which Rappoport, Leberecht,
and also Marx {ZfHB., XIII, 74) fix for the event of the More likely capture, Shemariah was still of a tender age.
the admiral's exploit happened in the reign of Abdurrahman's
son,
al-Hakam
II (961-75),
probably about
970.^"-^
There
HT "1^1
"3
IbnDaud himself states (Neub. 1,69):
jINJ
Nin'^'
"'D"'a
HM
Whatever reading is adopted, Abdurrahman was no longer alive then. His name was so famous in later times that it was brought into connexion with the coming of R. Moses to Cordova. The date 7C*'ri = 970 is to be preferred
to JC'li, since already in
991
we
find Sherira
Shemarya, who must have sent
his questions
and Hai sending responsa to some time before, and had
already then an established connexion with Kairowan (cp. above, VIII, 354);
lij-'n
is
now
out of the question.
It is
interesting to note that'lbn 'Usaibia
also
makes the independence
of the Spanish
the Bab3lonian scholars to have

'
Hasdai
b.
Isaac (ibn Shaprut)
',
Jews in religious matters from commenced from the time of al-Hakam. he writes, 'was among the foremost Jewish
to his coreligionists in Andalusia
scholars versed in their law.

the gates oi
He opened
Jews
of
knowledge of the
religious law, of chronolog}', &c.
Before his
time they had to apply to the
Bagdad on
legal questions,
and on
matters referring to the calendar and the dates of the festivals.
But
when
to
Hasdai was raised
b^'
al-Hakam
to a
all
very high position, he was able
procure from the oriental Jews

the
the works he required.
Since then
Jews
of Andalusia learned
of their former trouble' (cited by
what they knew not before, and we relieved Munk, La Philosophic ches les Jiii/s, p. 17.
bj'
The purchase
of
books from the Orient, inentioned
Ibn 'U.-aibia, recalls
170

Baud's description of the
IS
also a romantic" feature in Ibn
four captives hiding their identity
and pretending to be
ordinary travellers.
It is
evidently
more
in
accordance with
the facts that their captor calculated well the heavy ransom
he would be able to obtain for their release.
'
He
thus
brought Shemariah to Alexandria where, as the son of
presumably the
a high prize.
l^'HI
of Fustat, the captive probably fetched

that the
Knowing
to
Jewry of one country
^'^'^
would be unable
four
pay the exorbitant ransom

proceeded
prize
for
for all the
captured scholars, the admiral
next to
Hushiel.
Ifrikiya,
where
he
extorted
his
full
With
the other captives he finally arrived in Spain, where

for the
he probably made the Jews pay dearly

their scholars.
freedom of
As
they probably visited the countries from
Egypt
to Spain during their mission of collecting funds for
the academy, they must have been well-known
when they
were brought as prisoners.
The above
solution of
two scholars bearing the same

it
name
of Hushiel and living in Kairowan, will not find,
is
admitted, ready acceptance.
But
it
is
the only one that
appeared to
me
capable of solving the problem of Elhanan
and Hananel.
internal
life
With our
hitherto scanty
knowledge of the
it
of this important community,
is
natural that
the fact of Hasdai liaving bought copies of the

p. 152).
Talmud from Sura (above,
But
it
stands to reason that this independence was chien3' due

in
to a scholar of
(/.
R. Moses' type having settled

:
Cordova, as Ibn Daud reports

J-IS
c, 68 bottom)
^53
1N31
21V^n
|nN*"l
ll^D
^3
PX": îpm
'*'
It
should be kept
in
mind
that about
in
970 conditions were very
critical
in
Egypt.
Subsequent
to the
upheaval
connexion with Jauhar's invasion
of the country in 969, a great famine raged in
Egypt till the winter of 971-a Lane- Poole, History of Egypt in the Middle Agcs^, 104. Thus probably the Egyptian Jews were unable to ransom all the four scholars, and only
(cp
Shemariah was
freed, while the others
were taken
to
other communities.
MANN
171
the existence of the two namesakes Hushiel has not been

realized.
In 1057 Kairowan
local
fell
a prey to the Bedouins
and probably the

end.
Jewish community came then to an
The fame
father
of Hananel, the
Talmud commentator, and

His
of his
Hushiel was preserved to posterity.
contemporary who bore a similar name, Elhanan, and whose

father
was also a Hushiel, had been entirely forgotten
till
the Genizah finds recovered his

it
name from oblivion. Hence

by
ibn
resulted that
some
references to his father Hushiel
contemporaries, as R. Nissim and Samuel

(cp.
Nagdela
above, p. 167),
v.'ere
taken to apply to Hushiel, the
father of Hananel.
A
pi n"! 'Oil hn:n
x'^j*
(recto, col. i)
mn im in[D^-] p ^1noJ pm n [c'N'i]
iniNa pNi DiiiXn dhd mt'DJi d''d:n
VJ'^<'nJ
ah)
-ins*
nny
nyi tn?o cîj
D^yaim i^n:
nn2?:i
mpD^
dhin nn iD^m
nC'-
^Nic-'"'
jmx noy
^1:^"''^pm
tni ^'^'^^Nic^tD
10
c-'iin
jnisiD mN:!pti'
noi le'Dy DTyntr noj^n n-an

i^nji n^n
n:^^^
it
k"ipd bvi
pisn
nbyc^
u'-iiacn
pjy3
dhc
m^t:JL" 15
,\^'^
Judge, magistrate.
^'''''
Read
^ST,^''^
172
no
nnp^: d:in3 n^nnro
"'3
dh^T"^ 20
ab",
vn-j' K^fKM '':2D
nnx
it:'X"'n3
nzbv))
Btv^
nntl^'
i^n^L"
D-^na
inns
niy Nî
Dipo ^3D
mnnM
25
m^
naini
n*t:'h
D^''n*c Dipon-i:' nI^n
pn
n1?i
pn
ps*
nnn nôj
b-VOC' *D DK'^ j[\Xl] D^MJn ^VNI
(recto, col. 2)
[itTN N"ip]D
nD
Dnn:i
i^m D'ûp
13
[py]3in vni
ic'N^n"'
Dona
inii?o:i
nnip
in?:'
sh
Dn^D b'^rh u'C'n
n!?!
n^:ipni ba-i'ch
a^nn ison naoi
nDD:;' n^'<2T2n iniNc irxn id
D^vn Tr^
^^vr^n
I'^'^'r
lynm nan^
10
~in:n pri D'-OD^n nn^
ab Nr:nD px
Vl'-ntij
irj'
ibL"
i^n
nn
'r^x
N^N
X^
'L"X
31
"'^
B. kainma 114
a.
MANN
173
TN^'ô
D"'"'"ia
"ciJ
^''*N?:nnD ib''2N 15
D''3^nntt'
on
|V3 i^ni
[i^n:
n^!D]
(verso, col. i)
fi?
N?:i"pn
nT2Dn
i?iD''[a
....
nnDJK
nr^noi ain
nnno Nan
N3pD?:i
ppnp^D mc'C
pN*
ij^tiS
N^[i]
nvsnn X3^[nt
"'îns
-nD[''N*
p^^] 5
/'-^p]
psi
^'''-^S^ns
HT
p:3 ^y D^^yn l"is^ [inj]
HD"!
^n: ^DX' ^'^ô nr^
|n:i
;n:i
niD 10
inr^:^
SI
Nin
c'lN''
nnx
woiari D^ÛHB' -nariD

nn"i"'3D
nnDicn on ntovya
]r\''b
D^mn
n^bv^b
pini n!?D3
"laon ^^"^1 15
D>:yiD DN1
nrb^
1*^8
The marks on T denote

GittinsSb.
Tos. Ketubot
8, 3,
that the letter should be deleted.
1C9
I'ô
B. I.amma 10, 23
B, m. 21
b.
171
Read HO.
174
biivch liinji i:3n3
ii
nbn'ci
i:^
'"
Cp
B. k. 69 a
and
b.
xMANN
ID
176
c
J-
Jl.
n c
r
o
CI
C a
n
CI
.j\
a
n
a n
>
a n
c n X
'
2 n n
r~
'
g
a
n h a
'
a r n r
n
c:
c
*-
rx
a n a a
X
F r
r
'
n n
n n
F
ib
X Q X a
1
rt
:j
r a
\6
Q a Q
n c
f-
c a
X
Q n r;
F
CI
a
X
c a
a
it
5 c 1 a
r
CI
a
n
X c o
n n J r c X c
C
c
-'^
a
Q
r~
r n
c
r:
a
iz
__
a
n
rr
X
'^
a
n
c
p.
n r X
c
tz
n
o rr n
a X
c;
f-
n X c n r: a a X c n
n 5 n
c u Q a X
r a -p
-s
CI
c a
rr
a
IT
'-I
rz
F a
CI
00
a
X
'I
a
r
a
^1
#2.
CI
X
n
CI r 5
a X n
a
tz
n n
o
C a
c
rr*
2S
r a
a
r a
^
-r.
r
fj
n Q r
CI
a
n O a
r\
n -^
CI
c:
a
c
r-
rz
O
It
X
-
n Q
D
d
a
n
S a
as
KHSPO^S. OP THE 3.BV.ONU.

in
O.Om_.,,,
177
iz >
.^
r a
n Q 5
i3 rz
c
f-
C C a ^
f22
^ r-~ X
n
X
Q
IT
X
CI
C
^_
^
c S
n
F
^
^
*
r 5 F n a n X n rx a '^ h ^ rr a a a c
n
irr
a r a ;^
Hi-
a n a
*" ?5
Q
CI
"^
-^
a X r n a C
52
rz
5:
a
f-
a a
'^
r:
f-
a p
..r\.
c n
/r:
rr
n
r-
r-
a n
*"
<3 ^ n Q r
.-r\
IT a a J^ c a
&
a c a
/rz
r
a
c
52
en
a n
n n X 55 Q C n -^ r: a 2 Q a ir a Q i C '^ rv a a X fr a n CI a Q >i -^ a a r*
*
-
^ Q
a n
t>,
r a r n
CI
X rz n p
--r\
a
rr 22
52
r a
X n
.j\
tz
n n
>i
^ a n
i?
.
*
>t
r:
rr
ss
2C
n
c
P n
CL
IX

n
a
n c a
,_ 52
pi
c
r
c;
0%
rr
->
>t
a
:^
n r
52
Hi.
n
f/~
rr 52
X
52
a c n o ia
22 c:
rr
c c
-r^
n
r-
C
IT
n
't
X a
/-
a ^ IZ r-
a
n c
f52
a X a
"a -^
P a Q
a
52
r 7^ n r CI
->
a X
a Q c a n n tz a a c
c
a^
n a X
rr li
.-r\
n f r^
7>i
~r\.
C c n n a n F
& C a
IX
a a
a n
52
22 ^ h C 52
'
E n
?
I
fi
a
n
/S2
n
.-r\
c
"-^^
f1
X
VOL. IX.
S n rz
a /x
r:
IT
X c
O-
52
178
n
f-
r
s
^ c *"
r:
n
r:
^
'~
CI
r
n 11 Q
c p
a
n Q
3
r
rr
s ?
-TV
g 2 "
^ a
t-
n % -r^.
Q
'^
"
c.
i-i-
-'^
r^
?
I-
a c n
^
r:
'
f^
3 *-
r
#-
*-
C n a ^
El
5
n
r b
i^
n
TT
ti
n c ^ Q r
>=
5i
n n
MANN
79
55
X n n ^
n Q
--
?
a ^
Q a
-1%
r;
r s
CI
r h
rr
c
'n
r n
F
n.
rt
r
Q
n
as
1:^
Ir
r a r c n
Q
if
n:
n r
r
^
-!i
-^
r a
^
r
r
J-
P ^ '^
a C r r X ^
X.
n
^
n
J3k
'^
C
c n
n
r:
a
fi
THE PHILOSOPHY OF DON HASDAI CRESCAS

By Meyer Waxman, New
York.
PART
CHAPTER
Opinions
III.
II
INTRODUCTORY.
held by the Pre-Maimonidian Jewish Philosophers concerning the Problems of Omniscience, Providence, and Freedom OF THE Will.
problem of the freedom of the
will presents
The
thought.
one
of the most interesting aspects in the history of

Its roots lie far
human
back
in antiquity.
It
arose out
of the peculiar position that

nature, and at the
in
man
holds in the domain of
moment
that self-consciousness appeared

reflect
.man and enabled him to

his
upon the surrounding

related to
it.
world, and
own
personality as
riddle
Man
represents a puzzling
unto himself.
On
the one
hand, he
of being
feels
;
himself to be the master of things, the lord
on the other, contemplation teaches him that
he
is
only a part of that great mysterious environment
called nature.
Furthermore,
this
nature
is
not a haphazard
is
conglomeration of things and events, but there

of succession
a kind
and sequence, law and order, and to which
even he, nolens volens, must submit himself.
The
develop-
ment
of religion simply
changed the aspect of the problem.

with the will of the gods, instead
It placed
man
in conflict
of with the blind natural force.
With polytheism, however,
the gods were not strong enough to replace entirely the

i8i
l82
old something that rules over the destiny of man,
now
known by
the
name
of fate,
and were even themselves

it.
supposed to be dominated by
Homer
says,
is
'
When
no
the hour of fate comes for man, even a god
helpless,
matter
and
the
how much he loves him '." Herodotus goes farther, God is not able to avoid it.^^^ Thus problem becomes a much discussed subject in ancient
asserts that a
;
thought
and
it
can really be said that out of
this
dual
character of a man's position there developed Greek ethics
with
its
special emphasis
rise
upon contemplation and thought.

all-
With the
more
of monotheism, positing a being
powerful, all-wise, and all-knowing, the problem became,

acute.
How in
man
the face of such a being, in comparison
with which
his
dwindles into insignificance, can

?
man
save
personal
freedom
It
ought by the nature of the
conception of
the
first
God
to be given up.
Yet peculiarly enough,
monotheistic religion not only did not reject the

will,
freedom of the
but incorporated
it
as a dogma.^^^
The
story of the receiving of the ten
commandments
as
described in the Bible,'^^ as well as the term covenant used
innumerable times to designate the process of receiving

the
Law, implies
plainly that
man
many
is
free
and that the
Israelites
were entirely at liberty to

is
reject the
Law
of God.
The
idea of freedom
repeated
the
times in the Bible.^^*
One may argue
that
monotheistic
conception was
probably loose with the Hebrews
in the early times,
yet
none can accuse the Hebrew prophets, especially the

ones, of a lack of pure monotheism,
later
it
and
in spite of
the
freedom of the
"0
Iliad,
will
is
asserted
by them with
in Herodotus
the
I,
same
XVII, 446.
97.
1" Dr. D. Ncumark, ^Nnf^3
C^p^yn nilîn,
I,
pp. 81-6.
'" Exod.
19. 10.
"< Dcut. 30. ig.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS WAXMAN

Vigour as the unity of God."^
It is rather
185
a curious fact
that the problem of the compatibility of the freedom of
the will with that of God's omniscience and providence

is
never found
in
prophetic writings.
There are some

injustice,
allusions
in
the
Psalms
to
in
the
problem of
namely,
why
the righteous suffer and the wicked prosper,"

it
and quite a discussion of
Rabbinic
literature,^^^
but the
problem as a whole was never touched upon.
However,
it
was bound to crop up.

reflection
in
With the
rise
of scientific philosophic
manifestation of the
Judaism,
and the
desire to base religious
dogmas on
philosophic principles,
to be carried
to
its
the
monotheistic
conclusion,
conception had
logical
and as a
result
the problem of the

in
its
relation of
man and God appeared
full
vigour,
and demanded a solution.
similar
process was going on in the
Mohammedan
world.
The
Koran, preaching the purest and most abstract monotheism,
and carrying
predestinarian
vestiges
it
to logical conclusions, presents a decided

aspect,
though
in
it.^^^
some endeavour
But
to
find
of free will
human
reason
and
philosophic speculation
felt
indignant at such a conception,

rise of
and revolted against

115 1^^
it.
This brought about the
Cp. Micah
6. 8.
Ps. 37. 25, 26, as well as the contents of the

to be intended as
whole chapter, which

injustice.
seems
an answer
to the
problem of
The problem
i),
m
Nin
itself is stated
by Jeremiah
in a rather bold
way when he
;
asks (Jer. 12.
nja ^n ib^
N1SX
nn^^* n'v^'^
in ync
also
job grapples with the
problem, and cries out, nb

''D
'
DN noy
H^DSIC' ^JD
yd
(Job
1^3
:
mnJ
I'lN
the earth
:
is
given into the hands of the wicked
he covereth
the face of the judges

^1'
ii'^
if
not,
where and who
is
he
?'
9. 24).
Berakot
Prof.
7 a.
^
in his
Guyard
book on
',
Abd-er Razzaquu
et
son traite de
la
predestination et du libre arbitre

P- 3-
quoted by L. Stein
in his Willensfreiheit,
184
the sects

and various doctrines, attempting the solution
of the problem in one
way
or another.^^^
The
first
who
dealt with the problem in Jewish philo-
sophy was, as might be expected, Saadia.
Saadia
say's,
Man
is
free in
his actions,
and there
is
is
no intervention
on the part of God.
This fact
proved by the evidence
of sense, of reason, and of tradition.

that
We
see in daily
is
life
man
is
master of himself; he speaks or
silent at will,
does a number of other things or refrains from doing them,
and never conceives that anybody can restrain him

according to his wish.
superficial
in acting
This evidence, though
it
may seem
to us, carried a certain
amount
of conviction
to Saadia, who, following the Mutazilites, attached great
importance to conception, for whatever can be conceived

is
real,
and the contrary, whatever
is
not conceived does
not possess any reality.^^"
Hence
the emphasis laid
by
Saadia on the fact that
man
conceives and that accordingly
he
is
free.
it
Reason
testifies to
freedom.
First,
it is
proved
that
is
impossible for one act to be produced

If
by two
agents.
God
to
interfered in
human
actions,
it
would be
if
the effect of two agents,

forces
God and man.

act,
?
Secondly,
God
and
man
his
do a certain
what reason would there
be
for
punishment or reward
The
believer
the atheist would be on an equal footing.^-^
As
for the
l-no nvNi
nb:i\)2^)
nr
bv
"b
ii>')
.noi* xbi
mny^ nnnao
u^ni din
Wedeoth,
'jn
ed.
3in33L" nOOl
^DCn TnOI CniOn, Emunotn
Josefow, 1885, p. 64 b. " Cp. Introduction,
sect. 3.
a.
'" Einniiot/i Wedeoth, p. 65

his assertion that
Aristotle offers similar
arguments
to
prove
man
is
the originator of things.
He
says: 'Testimony
in that
seems
to
be borne both by private individuals and by lawgivers, too,
they chastise and punish those that do wrong, while they honour those
who
THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS
WAXMAN
185
objection on traditional grounds, he quotes a

verses to that effect.
number of
The problem arises then, How is it possible to conceive freedom of human action and at the same time prescience
of
God
If
God knows beforehand

does
it
that
man
will rebel
against His
will,
not follow eo ipso that
man must
is
act in this fashion, for otherwise God's
knowledge
not
perfect
Saadia replies that,
in
reality,
the supposed
is
conclusion does not follow.
God's knowledge
not the
cause of
human
is
actions.
Were
it
the cause,
we should
for
have to grant that man's actions are predestined,
God's
knowledge
eternal,
and
necessarily the effects

is
would be
determined, but the case
not so.
It
is
true that
He
knows beforehand the events

but
ever
that are going to happen,
He knows them
way man
is
in their true light.

select,
God knows
which-
going to
yet His knowledge does
not have any causal relation to the things which are going
to happen.
It is
pure knowledge without any active force.
The
fact that the things
happen
in
the future and
He knows
His
only one
them beforehand does not bear on the

knowledge
is
subject, for
above temporal accidents.

in
There
is
is
time existing
If
regard to God, and that
the present.
one
will
is
ask,
How
is
it
possible that,
if
God knows
silent
fact,
man
going to speak, yet he could have chosen to be

is
silent? to this the reply
made, that had he kept
God's knowledge would have taken cognizance of the

for
God knows the way man will choose after By way of illustration, we may compare
Of
course, here the reference
is
deliberation.^--
the prescience
act rightly'.
not to theological authority,

is
but political
III,
however, the force of the argument
the same.
Nic. Ethics,
V.
1'^-
Eumnoth
IVedeotli, p.
65 a-b.
l86

it,
of God, as Saadia conceived
to a
man
standing on a very-
high mountain, and from
this
exalted position he views an

passing
exceptionally long row of

passed,
men
by
some have
some are
passing, and
some
will
pass.
He
sees
them
is
all.
for his position is
very elevated, but his seeing
not the cause of their passing.^^^
However, we cannot
help admitting that a shrinkage in God's prescience has
been assumed by Saadia.
As
a result, objections to his
theory have been raised by later religious philosophers.^^*
But Saadia was very zealous to save human freedom, and
some
sacrifice
had
to be made.^^^
compatibility of the providence of
The problem of the God with the freedom

It
of the will
is
not treated by Saadia definitely.
seems,
nevertheless, from
believes in
the whole tenor of his book, that he
the existence of such a providence, for

it ?
how
In
could he not believe

are,
It is
found
in the Bible.
There
however, some passages bearing on the subject.

it is
one of them
stated that the events that
happen
to
man
are through Divine causality, but at the

are partly caused
as a
still
same time they
by man
himself, namely, that
some come
question
punishment
for his previous choice.^^^
The
remains open.
Are the
events predestined to happen

is
it
simultaneously with God's prescience of them, or
that
God
causes them to happen after the

?
human
is
actions have
taken place
But no such discussion
found.
Bahia, as an ethical philosopher, and a

"' Commentary to Emunoth Wedcoth, ad locum. "* Albo says that Saadia's view
denies
is
man imbued
almost tantamount to the opinion that
'"
God any knowledge The early Christian
of possibles.
fathers
encountered a similar
difficulty,
and
fullowed the same path.

prescience.
So
did Origen allow a kind of narrowing of God's
T\schtr, History of Christian
Dogma,
io6.
"
Etiiiiiwtli IVcdcoth,
66 b.
WAXMAN
much
187
with religious feeling, does not devote

to this difficult
conflict
discussion
problem
in its
philosophical aspect.
The
logical
between freedom and prescience, and the

resulting
contradiction
from the
full
conception of the
is
former, are hardly brought to light.
The problem
rather
viewed from the aspect of Providence.

it
He
does not call
the problem of freedom and necessity, but of necessity

justice.
and
The
point of gravity
is.
How
can
we conceive
Divine justice
in distributing
reward and punishment when

?
human
actions are pre-ordained
Bahia puts forth several

says, have
solutions to the problem.
Some, he
denied
Providence in regard to
human
actions,
and asserted that

God.
man
is
entirely free, thus saving the justice of
Some,
on the other hand, have given up freedom, but as for justice

they denied the possibility of the
to grasp
it.
human understanding Some admit Providence in human actions,

In such
left
excepting such as pertain to right and wrong.

acts choice
is
to
man.
This
is
really the traditional

It is also the
view expounded
in the
Talmud.^-^
one that
is
Bahia follows.
He
feels,
however, that the problem
not
solved yet, that there are points which

especially prescience
;
demand
a solution,
this last
is
not even mentioned by
name, but
it is
surely meant
all difficulties,
Just to cover
by the following explanation. Bahia adds that the ways of
God
It
are hidden from man, and
human understanding cannot

works
in
conceive the
way God's
justice
the universe.'-^
must be admitted that
this solution of the
problem
is
hardly a philosophical one.

127
Bahia's distinction between
-,"^3
-|)r)j^p
f^^
pnvi ycrn
''Ta
i^^ni
CDK'
128
nST'O
b.
pn
D''?Oi:'
^DH
.... r\'bv .... X:''jn,
xnn n n nsD
Niddah i6b; also
Berakot 33
ffobot ha-Lebabot, pp. 131-32.
l88

does not carry with
it
human and Divine knowledge
the
speculative characteristics which attend that of Maimonides,
who
ofifered
a similar suggestion (cp. infra).
It is
simply
a blind resignation of a believer to the
dogmas of
in
belief.
Halevi treats the problem of freedom
an accurate
actions
and philosophical manner.

are
possible
He
asserts that
human
it
and not necessary, and proves
from the
general belief of man.^^-' Halevi always laid great emphasis
on the generality of an idea and the consensus omnium.
As
for
the
conflict
it
of freedom
with
God's providence,
Halevi evades
by
asserting that there are two kinds of
Divine causality, direct and indirect.

first
As examples
of
all living all
of the
kind
may serve such
things as the order of the universe,

being,
the
way and manner of the composition
the genera of the vegetable kingdom, and
such pheno-
mena
that eo ipso testify to the plan of a wise
maker.
As
an instance of the second kind, we

fire.
may
quote the
burning of a log of wood by

of this
The immediate cause

;
phenomenon
is
easily explained
but this cause has

first
another cause, and so on until we finally reach the

cause,
still
the connexion
is
not a direct one.
We
have
then a fourfold division of events, divine, natural, chancewise,
and elective or choice-wise.^^

referred
The Divine
are those
that must be
immediately to Divine attention,
such as have been mentioned.
The
natural arise through

in view.
mediate causes (nryvos nUD), but with an end
The chance-wise
arise also
through mediate causes, but
with no particular order or design.

^^'*
The
p.
elective are those
Kuzari, cd. Isaac Metz, Hamburg, 1838,

(Corrected bi'Zifrinouitsch
119.
*'"
in his edition, p. I20,
^Vpn DNV)
31pn
D"in3D
IN.
Cp. for a similar division
tiic
Physics of Aristotle,
II,
56.

of which the
WAXMAN
Freedom
is
189
human
will is
the cause.
one of
system
the
mediate
causes.
We
have then a twofold
of Divine causality, the immediate and the mediate.
The
mediate through the causal nexus returns to God, but

the connexion
is is
a loose one, no force
is
exerted and
is
man
on
free to
choose. '^^
revert
to
Divine providence
thus saved, for
all
events
Him
indirectly.
Halevi
goes
polemizing against those that deny the possible.

If
He argues,
men
all
man
has no choice
in acting,
but
is
forced to perform
the act by the sequence of events, greater anger at the one

at the
why
?
then do
display
who
injures
them
willingly than
one who does so unwillingly

? ^^^
Are not
human
actions involuntary
In regard to the problem of the compatibility of the

prescience of
God
with freedom, Halevi does not add
anything
original,
but follows Saadia and the Mutazilites,^^^

the knowledge of an
in asserting that
is
event beforehand
not the cause of the realization of that event.
Halevi
lays a great deal of stress on the middle causes (cp. above).
His ethics thus receives a contemplative aspect. The middle

causes are powerful influences, and
it
is
necessary to
know
by
which to choose and which to
obviate.^^^
is
The
natural
causes are necessary, but yet there
possibility
a knowledge of facts to obstruct their results and avoid
them.
Halevi admits a special kind of Providence,

is
for
;
in his division of events there
one class of Divine action
and there
^^1
is
nothing preventing
The
of the
God from
mediate
interfering at
Kusari,
p. 120.
idea
causes
antiquity by the Stoics.

1*2
Cp. L. Stein
in his Willensfreiheit, p.
was known in no, note 175.
Kmart,
p. 120.
1^2 15*
Halevi alludes directly to the Muta'ziliah

Kusari, p. 122.
in that.
190
certain

occasions,
and
effecting
something immediately
even
in a
world of mediate causes.

of injustice.
It
is
He
evades, however,
if
the problem
possible,
he says, that
we
were able to penetrate and follow up the long

causes,
suffer
series of
we might
discover the reasons
why
is
the righteous
really
rely
and the wicked prosper, but

intelligence.
this
beyond
on the
human
We
must,
therefore,
knowledge
of
God and His

the
justice,
and admit our own
shortcomings."^
Abraham Ibn Daud,

philosophy,
is
first
Aristotelian
in
Jewish
a strong supporter of the freedom of the In

fact,
it
human
will.
is
his principal ethical foundation.

evil,
He
says,
Man
possesses the possibility to do

is
and the
stronger the inclination
in
a certain man, the harder
the struggle to overcome that inclination, the higher the
value which
is
attached to the virtuous
act.^^''
He
it is
utilizes
the doctrine of the twofold Divine causality, but

possible that he borrowed
it
hardly
from Halevi, as he evidently
know him.^^'' Most likely both derived it from common source. ^"^ In regard to the problem of prescience and freedom, Ibn Daud solves it in a very simple manner. He concedes that God's foreknowledge is undecided in regard to the exact way man will act. He knows beforehand that certain actions will be presented to human choice,
did not
"i (Zifriiiovvitsch
pnva) nv3
Duon ana m^pna
rhy\i^
-lt^^N^
ipnvi,
p.
125.
"'
Emunah
Ranialt, ed. Weil, Fran

p. 2,
'" In the introduction to the Emuuali Rama/i,

that he read Saadia's
Ibn Daud mentions
book as well as Ibn Gabirol, but makes no mention

to
of the Kusari.
This goes
prove that he was unacquainted with

it.
it,
for
otherwise he certainly would have mentioned
"*
On
this subject there is a difference of opinion
between D. Kaufmann,
note 43.
Atlnbittnilehre, p. 279,
and Stein
in his UlllcusfreiliciC p. 20,

but not which
radical in
it
WAXMAN
Ibn
I91
way he
will choose. ^"^
Daud
is
also
his theory of Providence.
According to him
far as things
extends only to the universals, namely, as
are connected with the order of the universe, but not to
the particulars.
He, however, excepts the human genus,

find
an exception which we
later
in
Maimonides.
He
the
introduces also an ascending scale of Providence, even in
regard to this genus.
Those that
strive
more
in
knowledge of God and the principles of reason are especially

looked
after.'^
is
The
question of the existence of evil in

its reality.
the world
answered by Ibn Daud by negating

evil in the
is
There
only.
is
no
world
God
meet
is
the cause of good
The answer
often repeated in Jewish as well as in
general philosophy.
also in Spinoza.
1^^
We
shall
it
in
a modified form
Etnunah Ramah,
p. 96.
"" ^B'lJNn
pom
''^^32
Dîvn nr niNVD:a nmt^n Dn333n n^nvyh

-iiy^c'a
n^sn^ innnr
v^N inn,
-inx
nmc'nn
nm""'
n>:D
iâ
^y njni Dian
/6rf.,
p. 97-
192
CHAPTER
IV
Maimoxidks' View and Crescas's Comments. Maimoxides, the

and philosophy
in
chief conciliator between
theology
Jewish thought, devotes much space
to the elucidation of the
problem discussed
its
in the
all
its
previous
aspects,
chapter,
as
well
as
to
solution
in
^laimonides, as his
the
first
predecessors,
distinguishes
between
cause of events and the proximate ones.
The
the
proximate ones he divides, as those before him, into natural,

chance-wise, and choice-wise.^*^
exclusive
gift
Choice, however,
is
of
man who
is
endowed with a
special faculty.
]\Iaimonides
Aristotle,^*-
introduces a distinction,
already
made by
is
between
desire,
instinctive
willing
choice.^*^
which
only
result
of
and human
He, however,
as Aristotle
it
does not connect choice with reason as

does.
much
Maimonides, as a theologian, attributes

Just as
to a direct
fire
act of the will of God.
God
willed that
should
tend upwards and earth downwards, so did

that
He
institute
man
be
shoukl
in
be master of himself, and his actions
should
^*^
1**
his
own
hands.^**
He,
like
Ibn
Daud,
Morelt. II, ch. 48; Guide, p. 222.
Moral choice
is
plainly voluntary, but the

;
two are not coextensive,

for
in
first,
voluntary being the more comprehensive term
children and
all
other animals share

III, 2.
in
voluntary action, but not
moral choice.
Ethics,
113b.
D^'^n
"hv^ ">KL"0
nnS PVI nnon
nn*n, Moich,
II,
ch. 48.
Notice the
distinction
><<
between
i,
mx
nTTQ
and D>>n '^yQ pV*l.

ch. 5, 4
;
Code, Div.
Teslmbah (Penitence),
Gnid(, III,
8.

recognizes the inclination in
WAXMAN
evil,
;
193
man
to
do
and therefore
the
assumes freedom as a standard of actions

struggle, the higher the
free will
more the
Since
it
worth of the ethical action.
was
instituted in
man by
the will of God,
may
to
on special occasion be taken away from man^, such as we

find in the case of Pharaoh.^^"^
all
This case
is
well
known
theological philosophers, Christian as well as Jewish.^'"^

course, such a possible limitation will not
Of
be pleasing
to the upholder of absolute free will.
In regard to the Divine knowledge, Maimonides, after
polemizing against some of the philosophers

to limit
it,
who wanted
is
asserts that
God
In
is
omniscient and nothing
hidden
from
Him.^*^
this
connexion,
Maimonides
remarks that great philosophers

period
to the
of the pre-Aristotelian
accepted
the doctrine of omniscience.
He
refers
book Dc Rcgiminc, by Alexander of Aphrodisias, where their opinions are quoted. The only one to whose
opinion
we
find
distinct
is
reference
is
Socrates.
In
Xenophon's Memorabilia he
the gods
quoted as preaching that

is
know
all
things,
what
said,
what
is
done, and
asserts
what
is
meditated
in silence.^*^
is
Maimonides further
that this
in
full
knowledge
eternal.
The problem then appears

to reconcile the
vigour,
How
are
we
freedom of
man
with this prescience?

finds in his
The answer
to
this
problem
^^*
Maimonides
Theory of Attributes
(cp. above).
Maimonides conceives the Divine

way, and says that
attributes in a negative
when applying the same

use them in an absolute
attributes to
God and man, we

i'5
homonymous
Chapters of Maimonides, ch. 8, ref. to Exod. 7. 3. H6 Origen, De Pniici/>iis, HI, i, grapples with this problem. "^ Memorabilia, I, 1" Gtiicie, III, 16. i Chapter
2.
i.
19.
VOL.
IX.
194
THE JEWISH Quarterly review

This theory contends that
it
way.
for the
is
absolutely impossible
of the attributes
human mind
to grasp the
meaning
applied to God.
Since the attribute of prescience forms

difficult}- is solved.
no exception, the
only when
The problem
in
arises
we
concei\-e
is
knowledge
the
human
sense.
With man, knowledge
correlative with fact.
Applying
it
the same conception by analogy to that of God,
follows
that God's prescience ought to agree with the fact, otherwise

it
contradicts
itself.
But since we do away with that

is
analogy and assert that His knowledge

the difificulty disappears.
different in kind,
God knows
^^^'
things beforehand,
is
yet the possible
still
remains.
This teaching
but,
not
merely a
concession
in
of
ignorance,
as
mentioned,
grounded
is
the theor)- of attributes.
God's knowledge
not a separate thing fiom His essence but connected

it,
with
of
and just as the essence,
it
is
unknown.
In the act
human knowledge we
is all
distinguish the yiD yiT yir, the

itself,
knower, the known, and the knowledge
but with
God
He
it
three in one.^^^
As
adds
for the question of Providence,
Maimonides
treats
in detail.
his.
He
The
quotes four different opinions, and then

is
fir.st
the Epicurean, den)Mng Providence

is
entirely.
The second
the Aristotelian, in the garb of
Alexander of Aphrodisias,'^^ namely, that Divine providence

ceases at the sublunar world.
in
But as Providence, even

in their
regard to the spheres, consists mainly

>'"'
preserva-
Gmdc,
III, ell. 20.
"*'
Chapters i-8.
similar
ii.se
of the
homonymous theory
is
made by
last
Spinoza, Cogttata Metaph.

Fischer's note 24
'**
V'l, 9.
It is
interesting to
compare with the
in his
Auhavg
it
to Spinoza.
is
As
for Aristotle himself,
doubtful wliether he ever expressed
any
opinion on the subject.

Platoii et Aristole, p
See Jules Lc Simon

f.
in iiis l^Hiide dr lo Tlhodicef de
100

tion,
it
WAXMAN
195
filtrates also to a certain
degree to the sublunar
world, in so far as the genera are

preservation.
endowed with perpetual
The
third
on the orthodox side
extremists of the Kalamitic movement assumingis
that of the Ash'aria
perfect subjection of the universe
and
its
beings to the
Divine
that
of
will,
denying chance and choice.

Mutazilites,
The
fourth
is
the
positing
freedom,
and
Divine
so
justice
and Providence at the same time.
They went
far in their
conception of justice, according to Maimonides,
that they extended reward even to animals for their being

killed.^'^
The
in
fifth
is
his
own, which according

tradition.
to
him
agrees
with
the
Jewish
Divine
providence
extends
the sublunar world to the
human
species onl)'.
The
other beings are subjected to chance or natural law.
However, he admits that the genera of other beings have

a kind of providence in so far as the natural law originates
from
differs
God.^'^*
As
it
is
evident, the
Maimonidian theory
in
from the so-called Aristotelian only
attributing
for
Providence to the
exception
is
human
in
is
species.
The reason
b)'
the
found
the possession
a
the
human genus
for Divine
of the mind, which
means of conveyance
emanation.
that
It follows, therefore, as
is
we
noticed in Ibn Daud,

perfect
the
one who
more
intellectually
^^
should
receive
more attention from Providence.^
Note.
Objections to
this last assertion
have been raised
by many
thinkers
religious thinkers,
and with
justice.
Among
the
is
also the Karaite
Aaron Ben Elijah inEsHayim.
izb
^''*
msn
po
^'^'Na
hth
b:b:
nnnro
^'-i, Motr/i, ch. 17.

in his exposition of
Guide, III, ch. 17.
For a certain inadequateness
the Mutazilistic teaching see Stein, Die

155
Willensfrfilicit, p. 86,
Guide,
III,
17, 18.
T96

chief critic, however,
is
The
will
Crescas himself.
I
This question
be discussed
in detail.
have also omitted Sor the

evil,
present the Maimonidian theory of origin of

as
as well
some philosophic arguments

length
for the denial of prescience
and Providence quoted by Maimonides.

cussed
at
These are
taken
disin
by
Crescas,
and should be
as
connexion with his own

of his theory.
solutions
they form a part
Crescas on Prescience.
Crescas, as a foundation to his discourse on the subject,
posits three principles, which, according to him, agree with
and are necessitated by

science of God,
(d)
tradition.
These are
(c)
(a)
the infinite
His prescience,
that His foreknowit.
ledge of the possible event does not change the nature of
He
proceeds then to analyse the philosophical doubts that
arise in
connexion with such conceptions, and, as usual,
reproduces
them
in
first.
First,
it
happening
perfected
that
is
this
this
is
world,
God knows the events follows that God is being

if
it
by
knowledge,
for
has been established

;
knowledge
a kind of perfection
but such conclusion
absurd, for
how can
the absolute Perfect be perfected

?
through the knowledge of inferior things

it
Second, since
is
known
that the
mind
in
conceiving things becomes
identified
with the concepts and assimilates
them
to its
essence,
it
follows that there will result a multiplicity in

for the things are
God's essence,
fourth
many.
The
third
and
arguments attack God's
assumed
knowledge of
particulars.
in
There were two current philosophical opinions

matter.
regard to the Aristotelian conception of the

first
The
denied entirely God's

to
knowledge of anything
to
external
Himself.
(This seems
be the right one.

cf.
WAXMAN
IQ/
above, Introduction, IV.)
The other,
following Alexander,
Particular things
admitted the knowledge of
universals.^'*^
can be conceived only through their matter and passive

intellect,
but
God
has no matter
it
follows that
He
cannot
conceive the particular things.^^^
Again, particulars are

is
temporal, and whatever relates to time
an accident of
motion
but
does not
God is above motion and time, He therefore know of the particulars. Finally, the positing
is
of Divine science of the world's affairs
untenable, as the
disorder in the natural sphere and the existence of evil

in
human
affairs testify.^"*^
These are the objections to the general principle of

positing God's knowledge of the world's affairs.
There
are several objections especially to several of the specific

principles,
namely, the
infinite science
of
God and His
pre-
science.
infinite?
How,
Is not
asks the opponent, can God's knowledge be
knowledge a comprehensive and determining

then, can the infinite be
is
thing?
How,
?
comprehended or
Again,
determined
There
then a contradiction in terms.
prescience seems to be impossible. Real knowledge of a thing

implies that the object
i'*"
known
i,
exists, for in
what consists
Gersonides, MiUiamot, III,
p. 120.
IS''
All these objections are also found arranged in a similar order in

III, 2.
Gersonides, Milhamot,
arrangement.
It
is
not necessary that he borrowed
However, we notice inCrescas a more logical them directly from

These objections
Gersonides, though the contents and form are similar.
were current
in the thought of the age.
Some
of them are also mentioned
by Maimonides. In the third objection there is a digression by Crescas which deserves some notice. It is the first with Gersonides. He says that
the particular
is
conceived through the hylean power such as sense and
imagination.
Crescas substitutes matter instead of sense.
That would agree

in matter,
with the Aristotelian conception of individuality which consists

for
it
is
this that gives

8. p.
the uniqueness since form
is
general to genus.
Metaph., XII,
158
Or Adonai,
29
a.
198

if
the truthfulness of a conception of things
not
in
the fact
that the mental conception of a thing agrees with the object existing outside of the
that
in
mind
''"'^
Furthermore,
if
we grant
God does know
things before their occurrence, a change

necessitated.
His knowledge
is
Before they occur
knows them
since the
will
as future happenings, after that as past.
He And
mind essence changes with the concepts, there

in
then be a change
His essence, but this
is
impossible.
The assumption
is
that the existence of possible future events

is
compatible with the prescience of God
also assailed.
If
we
posit that
God knows
before the realization of one

a future event,
of the
two possible aspects of
and
is
at the
same time we
of occurrence
is
still
;
assert that the opposite aspect
possible
then while
in
His prescience the opposite
conceived as possible, after the action occurs the

is
possibility
removed and
a change in the Divine
knowledge
necessarily effected.
Moreover, the assumption that

is
God
it
knows whichever aspect
going to occur proves to be

event,
in
untenable, for with a possible

possible,
as
far
as
is
either
side
may
be assumed.
Suppose, then,
that
we assume
the opposite side of that of which

if
God
is
prescient, existing,
in
so absurdities
would
result, (a) a
change
His knowledge,
(d)
is
a falsity in
it.
If that
cannot be the
case, the possible
done away with and God's prescience
involves the necessity of
human
actions.'*^*^
all
After reproducing at length
the objections, which,
as remarked, arc identical with those quoted

in his
by Gersonides
book Milhamoi (The Battles of the Lord), Crescas
quotes also the Gersonidian solution, though not mentioning

1'*
Cp. Locke's definition

I.
ot
knowledge
in
Essay on Htiniaii
(Jiicffisfn)i(/iii(j,
Bk.
4, ch.
""
Or
.'Idotiai, T r. II, p.
29
a.

him by name.
WAXMAN
199
The objection may be answered in the following manner The first which involves the question of God's perfection disappears when we consider that the
:
existence of other beings arises through God's existence,
and also conceived through His own conceptions.
His
knowing other beings would not mean then an additional

perfection, for
He knows them
through the general order

is
of things (P/DH ino), the principle of which
in Himself.^''^
is
The
second, raising the objection of multiplicity,
solved
by the same conception.
Since
God knows
the general
order which emanates from Himself, and this order unites

all
the different things
(for
though things are
different
-in
certain respects they are also connected in a certain aspect
and perfect each other),

their side of unity.
is
He
then knows the particulars from
In the
same manner the
third
in
doubt
order
refuted.
It
is
founded on the principle that
God must possess hylic powers, we grant the validity of the principle it does but though not follow that God should not know the particular things
to
know
the particulars
through their general conceived order wherein their unity

is
manifested.
The
doctrine of the inherence of things in
the general order also meets the fourth objection, basing

itself
is
on the fact that particulars

for
ajre
in time,
while
God
of
above time,
God's conception of the general order
does not depend upon time.

evil,
is
The
partial,
fifth,
the question
deferred
for
future discussion.
Again, the other

also
doubts,
named by Crescas
are
met.
it
The
is
difficulty of knowledge being infinite (cp. above),
done
away with by removing

in
the infinite.
Things are
their
imity.^''^
infinite
their
16^ 162
differentiation
III, 4
;
but not
in
The
Milhnmot,
Oy
Adoiiai, p. 29 b.
The words
in the text,
both
in
Gersonides and Crescas, are ^3'J-nD "inD,
200
THE JEWISH OUARTERL)^ REVIEW
general order preconceived by
God
is
finite.
In the same
way
the two objections
raised against prescience (cp. above)
are righted.
Since
God knows
things through their general
order which emanates directly from
Him, the things

is
are the
already existing, and surely there
no change
in
knowledge
itself.
If
God knew
is
the particulars in as far as

differ-
they are particulars, that

entiation, that
from the point cf their
change would be implied, but
He knows
this
is
them from
Finally, the
their general order,
and
this
is
is
not changed.
;
most
difficult
question
of
solved
the
of
question
of the existence
Possible
in
the
possible
in
spite
prescience.
events have
two aspects, and

in
may
be preordained
one way, and possible
the other.
From
the
aspect of general
order of events
of
they are
determined, but from the aspect

are indeterminate.
as they are
human
choice they
far
God knows these things only so
possible, but
He
does not
know which
side
of the possibility will be realized.
It is evident, therefore,
that
when Gersonldes speaks
of possible things as being
determined by the general order, he means that only their

possibility
is
determined but not their realization.
^"^^^
Crescas, in resuming the foregoing
discussion, points
out that the
reasoning of those philosophers
still
not
:
mentioning any name

(i)
compel us
to posit
two principles
order
God knows the particulars only through their general (2) God knows only that certain things are possible,
;
but not the manner of their realization.
From
these two
conceptions there follows necessarily a third one.
God
docs not
know
of the happenings of one of the possible

conceived arrangement,
i.e.
which means
literally
division
into
genera.
But the concept of genus implies always the notion of unity.

1" Milhamot,
III, 4
;
Or Adonai.
pp.
296-30 a.

sides,
WAXMAX
know
of the
20I
even a posteriorly'''
in
Were He
of
to
fact,
change
His knowledge would
be implied.
it
Before the
occurrence of the event
He knew
only as a possible,
and
after
it
as actual.
Crescas
.sees in
such an assumption
a shrinkage of God's science, a dangerous doctrine, and sets
out
in his
acute manner to refute
it.
These philosophers,
all.
he says, have not solved the doubts at

their insisting
In spite of
things
on unity by positing that
God knows
through the unified aspect, namely, the general order, these

philosophers, according to Crescas, have not succeeded in
removing multiplicity. True knowledge consists

things
in
knowing
through
all
their
causes,
mediate or immediate.
Knowledge of composed
conceived by the
things then would be perfect only

are
when the elements of which they
composed would be
knower, for the elements are causes
of things, but the elements are many, there follows then

that the
if
knower must conceive the manifold.
Again, even
we
grant that existing things form a kind of unified order
of perfection, this will be true only of the broadest genera,
such as the division of the kingdoms,
e. g.
the vegetative,
animal, &c., but considering the narrower genera or the

species,
we
find that
one does not perfect the other,
e.
g.
the horse has

If
no relation of perfection to the donkey.
we
posit, then, of
God
knowledge of genera.
Thirdly, even
if
He
cannot
escape conceiving multiplicity.

that
we assume
and
in-
God's knowledge
is
limited to the spheres

is
telligibles,
the difficulty
not solved, for though they
present a certain unity they also exhibit differentiation
the knowledge of the differentiating aspect would then
i'
TJ'Dsn --p^nD nnxn

"h
p^nn
p.
y:^"L:'
a.
-inxr nn
':
pjy
cn^
rnnn
13
nyn^
pS
Or Adonai,
30
202

multiplicity.^'^'^
imply
Lastly,
there
is
an
astrological
argument directed
chiefly against Gersonides,
who
attri-
butes great influence
to
the
spheres
and constellations.
arises,
The knowledge
due
of particulars
by God
according to
him, out of the order of the heavenly spheres, which order

is
to the various
combinations of the constellations.
But the combinations

in
may
be infinite
for the great circle

infinitely divisible.
infinite,
the sphere
is
a quantity,
and
it
is
It follows, then, that the
arrangements can be
and
so God's science does not escape multiplicity.

It is
evident, then, that the principal object in
removing
the manifold from Divine knowledge has not been obtained.
But there
is
still
greater error.
The
followers of the
foregoing theory,
in their
endeavoms
to put forth an
exaUed
conception of God, have attributed to
Him
imperfections,
namely,
finiteness.
If,
as they say,
it
God does
not
know
the particulars as particulars,

of particular things
in
is
follows, since the
number
infinite,
that
He
possesses ignorance
relation
regard to the
infinite,
and that the

is
of God's
knowledge
for
to His ignorance
as the finite to the infinite,
the
^
number
if
of things that
He
does
know
is
finite.
Again
God does
not
know beforehand which of the two

it
possible sides of an event will be realized,
appears, since
the
possible
events
are
incomparably greater than ihe

is
necessary ones, that
God
ignorant of most of the hap-
penings of the world.
Lastly, those philosophers, in order
to avoid the assumption of the possibility of a
change
in
God's knowledge, asserted that God does not know of the
nva n:n poa n^s^nntt
cr.i
u)n3
''"nvj
DiTrN::'
onnajn
D'b::'3i
D-yiT' 'n-l
3Tn
-133
pen Or Adouai.
,
p.
30
b.

result of a possible
If this is
WAXMAN
that
203
happening, even as a past occurrence.
the case,
we must evidently assume
God
is
ignorant of the greatest part of
human
all
is
history, for in the
long row
of centuries thousands of possible actions, events,

realized,
and occurrences were
and
these things escaped
His knowledge
such an assertion
certainly absurd. ^"^
To meet
butes.
theory.)
all
these doubts and objections, Maimonides
put up his theory of the
homonymity
of the Divine attri-
(See above in the exposition of the Maimonidian
This theory was severely attacked by Gersonides.

that
in
it
He
to
argues
is
impossible
to
speak
of
absolute
homonymity
regard to Divine attributes.
In attributing
God
in
certain qualities,
and speaking of them as belonging
to
Him, we inevitably borrow human conceptions.

question
furnishes
The
God.
case
an
example.
attribute
it
We
is
conceive
knowledge
But
in this
as a perfection,
we
also to
case no absolute
is
homonymy
possible, for
it
when one
attribute
predicated of two things,

as
it
is
im-
homonymous way, Again, when we negate certain attributes in regard to God, we do not negate them in an homonymous way. When we say, God is not movable, we do not mean that His net being moved and the not
possible to be used in an
does not
then convey the same idea.
being moved of a certain thing are absolutely homonymous,

for in this case the idea that
we wish
to
convey
is
not at
all
proved.
He may
be moved, and yet the movement has

call
all
no association with what we

go on negating.
in
being moved.
attributes are
Still
we
Again,
if
employed
an
homonymous way, why

it
shall
we not
say,
God
is
a body, conceiving
in
an absolute
call
homonymous way
with
no relation to what we
i*"*
body
p.
Gersonides, therefore,
a.
Oy Adonai,
31
204

all
assumes that
said
in
attributes
and knowledge included are
to differ in their application to
God and man only

solution
falls
degree, but
not in kind.
The Maimonidian
of the problem of prescience and the possible

the foundation being undermined/"^"
then,
Against the assailment of Gersonides, Crescas steps

forth as a defender of
Maimonides.
in
Knowledge
attributed
to
It
God and man must be

cannot be said that
it
an absolute
homonymous way.
content
differing in degree,
it
differs
only
in degree, for the
of
is
any
the
attribute predicated of things
and
same, no matter how widely

in vârious applications
the degrees
may
connote
may
is
differ, as, for instance,
the content of existence, which

as well as of other things.^*^*
predicated of substance
contents in both predi-
The
cations are the same,
namely being, but the degrees are

through
itself,
various
substance exists
while the other

in
things exist through the substance.
But
speaking of
is
the knowledge of God, since His knowledge

essential thing,
a kind of
in
and His essence
is
different
from ours
kind,
it
follows that the
same
will
be said of His knowledge.

attributes
It is true that negatively,
when conceiving the
under a negative aspect, namely knowledge, denoting not

ignorant, existent, not non-existent, the contents are one
when employed
application
position,
of
these attributes in a
is
God and man. But when applying positive way, we must admit that the
It
is
homonymous.
evident from the exoriginal, that Crescas
and more so on reading the
finds himself in his defence in a rather difficult position.

"' Milhamot,
'^*
III, 3.
Tlic
word
in tlie text is
is
nilDND which means

,
literally Categories,
but to one
who
not
acquainted with the Aristotelian conception of
Categories the word here would be confusing.
WAXMAN
205
He
and
apparently contradicts himself

in
in
defending Maimonides,
assuming the
homonymy
theory he changes his

first section,^^^
own
attitude which he expressed in his

distinctly states that existence,
where he
when applied
to
God and
in
man,
is
not used absolutely homonymously, but

likeness,^^"
a kind
of non-essential
and he speaks definitely of

contradiction
is
difference
in
degree.
insisting
However, the
removed by
negative
his
on the distinction between a

positive,
proposition
and a
and claiming that
while the negative content
which we are going to

Crescas admits that
may have a likeness, the positive assume may differ absolutely. Still,
is
it
only defensive, but he himself
probably holds a different view.
Towards the end of the

whichever way, whether
that
is
argument he remarks
following the
'Be
it
master
(Maimonides)
or that there
knowledge
is
applied
homonymously
only a difference
essential attribute
first
of degree as
as
it
we
in
say,
and denotes an
we showed
the third section
of the
tractate,
'"^
remains for us to solve the question

Crescas then proceeds to state his
in a different way.'
own
view.
The
real
and special distinction between the knowledge of God and

ours
is
that His knowledge
is
active
and causal, and ours

true plan of His
derivative.
will,
Through His knowledge and
the
known
existing
things
is
have
acquired
their
existence.
1^'
Our knowledge
I,
derived from the existing

and supra, ch.
is
See Or Adonai,
sect,
is
iii,
p.
22
a,
II, 2.
1""
The Hebrew word

;
pIDD, which
to be translated bj' the
whole
phrase
cp.
Maimonides, |V3nn
nVD
p-
43
n'ob i3r,3N nxn:!^ i?:^
inir^vy
nsin
i?y
mvi
iin^Ni r\)2^^p2 ion^k'
i?03
p^DD'^r'
no nnvo
p.
-^Tii
nipson
nnna
-^2^:-^
ir^y
inb'J
UiytJ', Or Adonai,
32
b.
206
things

by means
of the senses and imagination.^"'will
This
First,
fundamental difference
in
remove
all
objections.
regard to
God
it
cannot be said
it is
that
this
It is
knowledge
of
external things adds perfection, for
knowledge that
evident, there-
causes the existence of other things.

fore, that the things
themselves cannot add anything to their

it.
cause since they are dependent upon
The
difference
between Crescas's point of view and that of Gersonides
must be made
first
clear at the outset, as the solution of the
objection
by Gersonides
seems
to
be
similar
in
language.^'^
Gersonides also speaks of the fact that the

is
existence of other things
dependent upon the existence

is
of God, and that God's conception of other things
derived
through the conception of His

in this, that
self.
The
difference consists
;
Gersonides
left
out the voluntary element
the
God
of Gersonides, as well as of
followers,
some
others of the Peri-
patetic
was to a certain degree an imperfect

say,
is
personality.
God, they
the cause of existence, but
not directly, onl)' through a kind of emanation by means

of certain
causality.
emanative beings which
form a channel
of
He knows the beings by^knowing Himself, but He knows them onl)' by means of the general order
left
the details were

this loophole that
to the other
emanated beings.
It is
enabled Crescas to overthrow the whole

its
Gersonidian structure, and show

(see his
logical
unsoundness
argument above).
philosophical
The
great failure of the Peri-
patetic
theologians was that they stopped

absolute personality of
midway between an
"^
131V-1
-iv:'i
God and an
inri'O"' .... i3nyn'^ inyT" pa nnvan cnannc:'

iTijpi
b.
o^m niyôsa D^yiTno

p'CTTI, Or
'"'
nhvN
ijnyn'i
.niK^:fon
D^ynM
^:p
Adoiiiii, p.
not,
32
Milla
HI,
a,
and exposition above.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRESCAS^VVAXMAN

absolute impersonality.
207
path,
Spinoza followed the

is
last
and arrived
at his
system where God
not only the cause
of the world but also the ground; Crescas the first;
and
both of them succeeded
in a certain
way. Moreover, several
of their conclusions are strikingly similar, for the principle

is
really
one,
certain
wholeness,
but
of this
further.
Crescas
conceives
the
beings
will
as
arising
not
through
emanation, but through the
and plan of God, and

;
as every plan requires preceding
knowledge
it
God's knowcreative.
ledge of things therefore
is
causal, nay,
is
He
knows
it is
things, not because
He knows
Himself, but eo ipso;

exist.
in
through His knowledge that they

will are
This know-
ledge and
not to be construed
any gross form,
but, as has been discussed, they are essential attributes.
The second
tiplicity
objection disappears also, for there
is
no mul-
implied on account of the fact that the
known
true
things are
itself
many and
the mind assimilates and identifies
with the things known.
This objection
maybe
is
of a derivative mind, but not of
God who
the cause
of the existence of things, and thus
knows them whether

particulars without
one or many.
In this way,
God
also
knows the
using the senses and imagination as a means of conception,

for the particular also acquires its existence
through His
raised
knowledge.
The
question of time, which
is
by
the
is
fourth objection, namely, that particulars are in time,
removed,
for
even time derives
its
existence from
I)
Him.
that
Besides, Crescas has already shown (above, chapter
time
is
not an accident of motion but a mental concept.

existence
The argument from the

is
1
of
evil
in
this
world
deferred for a later chapter.^'^^
Or Adonaiy
p.
32
b.
208

Crescas then proceeds to discuss the objections which
he terms
partial.
The
question,
How
can knowledge comis
prehend an
infinite
number
of things?
answered
if
by-
maintaining that the objection would be valid

ledge were of a
it
the know-
finite
kind such as the

is
is
itself infinite
there
no
be
difficulty.
human is, but since The contention

connected
infinite
that God's knowledge
may
infinite is strictly
with the possibility of the existence of an

of effects, and this
is
number
above,
insisting
maintained by Crescas
(cp.
chapter
of this work).
The second argument

this
that foreknowledge of a thing implies already the existence
of the
thing known, for

is
it
is
that
constitutes
true
knowledge,
met by Crescas in the following manner.

he says,
is
The
is
as.sertion,
true of
;
human knowledge which

it is
derivative, but not of God's

it
His prescience of a thing

that which assures
that
will exist is real

its
and
true, for
the thing
existence.
The
other difficulty connected
with the question of prescience, the one of change, namely,

that there
is
a change
in
the status of the thing from being
a future happening to a past occurrence, and therefore also
a change
in
the knowledge of
it,
does not affect the know-
ledge of God, for
He knows
beforehand that at a certain
time the event will happen.

difficult
He
finally arrives at the
most
part
of the
problem, the
compatibihty of the
existence of the possible with God's prescience.
How
can
we
call
thing
possible
when God knows beforehand

?
whichever way
us a glimpse
possible.
it is
going to happen
theory of an
in
Here Crescas gives

apparent or nominal
to
of his
His
in
consistency
refusing
forces
admit
to
any
shrinkage
God's
prescience
him
abandon
a great part of the freedom of the will.
thing, he says,
WAXMAN
209
may be necessary in one way and possible in another.^'-^ As an example he cites the knowledge which a man has
of certain things that are possible of existence, as most
things are.
The knowledge
that
we have
is
of
them
necessi-
tates their existing, for
knowledge
an agreement of the
mental
ideas with the things existing.
Yet
this
knowledge
does not change their nature of being possible of existence.

In a similar way, the
knowledge of God knowing the way

does not change the nature of the
is
which man
possibility.
will elect It
must be admitted that the example
not
happily chosen, for

the
human knowledge
is
of things
is
a posteriori,
thing,
possibility of the existence
already a past
of
is
while the knowledge of
God which we speak

existing.
a priori^
and the
possibility
is
is
still
In addition,
human
we
knowledge
not causal, while that of

affect
God
is
is,
and His
prescience must
the
future
occurrence, unless
assume with Saadia that God's knowledge

of things
ever,
;
not the cause
but Crescas really argued the contrary.

is
How-
the question
will,
taken up again
it
in
connexion with
freedom of the
It
is
and he solves
quite dexterously.
a mooted question whether Spinoza's reputed
impersonality of
God
is
so complete as
many
of his inter-
preters want to attribute to him.^'^

assert that in spite of
There are others who
some passages which lend themselves
to such an interpretation, the
robbed
of consciousness.''^
God of Spinoza is not entirely The question what Spinoza

or intellect
is is
meant by God's knowledge

the previous conception.
dependent on
confusing, and
The language
'^
no
'vii 2"'inD nanr;
nvn^' pdd px "icisc^

n^,
r\]2i
n^ nsan"' n^ni
ih'.Dvya
i^'5
-imn 3vn
Zur
3"'n''
Or
.-J^fc^rt/;
p! 33 a.
Cp. K. Fischer, Spinoza,

Joel,
p. 366.
^'''
Genesis det Lehre Spinozas^ p. 16.
VOL. IX.
210

It
the passages often ambiguous.
seems, however, that
a certain discrepancy exists between his earlier remarks
on the subject of Divine knowledge

physica and that of the Ethics.
is
in the Cogitata
Meta-
In the former, his language
more
in
accord with the philosophico-theological terms.
He
attributes omniscience to
God, and of singulars more
than of universals.
In his polemics against those that want
to exclude singulars from God's science, he reminds us of
Maimonides
in
denying any existence to
universals.^"^
He
further speaks of
God
being the object of His

in
own
thoughts.
In the Ethics, on the other hand,

to proposition
the famous scholium
XVII
in the first
book of Ethics, Spinoza
remarks,
nature',
that neither intellect nor will appertain to God's

again, in
yet
the
same scholium he describes

and
will to
the
way he
attributes intellect
fashion, insisting
Maimonidian
on absolute
Again,
God in quite homonymy in

in a corollary
applying these attributes to God.

to proposition
'
XXXII,
in
the
first
book, Spinoza says

relation to the nature
all
Will and intellect stand
in
the
rest
same
of
God
as
do motion and
This
last
;
and absolutely
natural
phenomena.'
passage shows Spinoza's view of

yet he
God
to be impersonal
goes on to say in the

'
scholium to proposition VII, book H, that be perceived

b}'
whatsoever can
the infinite intellect as constituting the

'.
essence of substance belongs altogether to one substance
What
the
word
'
perceived
all
'
means here
is
difficult to tell.
Joel concludes that
that Spinoza means to say in the

is
scholium
''*
'
is
that there
no relation between the human

and Cogitata Metapli.,
ch. 7
Cp. Maimonides. Guide,
III, i8,
pt. II,
deinde res realiter existentes
Deum
ignorare statuunt universalium autem,
quae non sunt ncc ullam ^labent praeter singularium essentiam, cognitionem
Deo
affingunt
'.
WAXMAN
may
211
conception of these attributes and their real nature as they

exist
in
God.^"'
His conclusion, however,

is
be un-
justified,
but the discussion
beyond the range of our
work.
What
interests us
most are two
points,
which bear a
decided resemblance to the theory of Crescas.
Spinoza
speaks of the intellect of

in
God
as the cause of things both
regard to their essence and their existence.^^"
Things
in
arise
because they exist by representation as such
the
intellect of
God.
It is
'.
not clear what Spinoza
may mean
it
by
a
'
representation
great
To
take
it
literally
would mean
too
concession to
if
personality,
but whatever
it
intended to convey, even
we grant
that
may connote
the necessity of the unfolding of the attribute of thought, the formal side of
it is
almost identical with the teaching
of Crescas, which, as
that the
was shown, emphasizes the point

is
knowledge of God
the general
the cause
of things
not
of
only through
all
order,
but
of the
essence
things.
Again, Spinoza repeats continually that the

will of
intellect
and the
the same teaching that
God we
are identical.^^^
find in Crescas
It is
exactly
when he says
that 'through His knowledge and representation of His

will the things
is
acquired existence
'.^^^
Such a conception
efficient
necessitated
when knowledge
is
conceived as an
cause,
not
merely contemplation as Aristotle conceives

It
is
the Divine thought to be.
true that there
may
be
a difference of contents in these
two conceptions, that of
Crescas having a voluntaristic ring, while that of Spinoza

1''^
Zur
Genesis der Lehre Spinosas, p. i8.
1*0 Ethics,
1*1
1*-
Bk.
I,
Prop. 17, scholium.
Ethics, Prop. 17, scholium, p. 32.
Or Adonai,
p.
32
b.
P 2
212

still
is
a ground of causal necessity, but
the kinship of the
teachings cannot be denied.
It
not definitely
known
whom
in
Spinoza had
in
mind when he makes the statement

intellect of
connexion with the

'
God
God's
in
in
the foregoing
passage, This seems to have been recognized
by those who
and God's
have asserted that God's
intellect,
will,
power
is
are one
and the same'; but that

is
Crescas this idea

shall return
expressed clearly
evident.
However, we
to this subject later in the discussion

I
on
will
and creation.
wish, nevertheless, to
say a few words concerning

Spinoza,
in
K. Fischer's stand on the subject.

to proposition VII,
scholium
book
II
of his Ethics^
in
discussing
the unity of thinking and extended substance, remarks

'
This truth seems to have been dimly recognized by those

intellect,
'.
Jews who maintained that God, God's

things
and the
in
understood by God
are
identical
Fischer,
quoting this passage,^^^ does not attach

to
much importance
any
3-4
influence which
in
it
may
says
:
possibly indicate, but in

'
note
einer
his
Anhang he
Derartige Vorahnungen
sich
Identitatsphilosophie
finden
nicht
wie
man
in
gemeint hat bei Maimonides, sondern bei Ibn Esra, so

dessen beriihmtem Satz (Exod. 24),
nym ynv n3^

known)'.
xin ^3
(He alone
is
knower, knowledge, and

in this
Why
as well
Fischer should see
dictum the foreshadowing of the

is
Spinozistic identity of substances

as his discovery of
it
difficult to see,
in
Ibn Ezra alone.

in the
This identical
eighth chapter
dictum
is
quoted also by Maimonides
of his treatise
known
as
'The Eight Chapters', where he
says
is
'
It
has been explained that He, blessed be His name,

it
His attributes, and His attributes are He, so that
is
said of
Him
that
He
is
the knowledge, the knower, and the

Spinoza, p. 273.
'*'

known
It
;
VVAXMAN
213
life
'.
He
is
life,
living,
and the cause of His own
was also quoted quite often by the Arabic philosophers.
This dictum does not contain any other idea than the
Aristotelian conception that
God
is
the object of His
own
thought, and
it
is
quoted by Maimonides
in this sense to
show the
difference
is
between God's knowledge and that
of man, which
the knower.
something separate from the subject,

later
The
commentators of Aristotle
that
inter-
preted Aristotle to
mean
God
in
thinking of His
in
own
subject conceives ideas which are
realized
the world
as general principles, and so

It is in this
He knows
the universals.
sense that
it
was used by Ibn Ezra, following

that God's science
the Arabic philosophers

is
who maintained
in
only limited to general order, but no foreshadowing of

that dictum.
If
Spinoza can be seen

foreshadowing
surely cannot
is
any claim to
admitted on that basis alone, Maimonides
be excluded
from being a forerunner of
Spinoza, as has been shown.

is
That the
origin of the dictum
to
be found
in
the Aristotelian conception of God's

7
thinking quoted in Metaphysics, XII,
and
of a
in
9,
has been
Spinozistic
pointed
out by L.
Stein. ^**
Vestiges
identity conception can be found only
Crescas, but of
that later.
184
IVillensfreiheit, pp. 70, ir6.
To be continued.)
PALESTINE FROM MANY POINTS OF VIEW

A ROUND
pilgrims.
dozen of books on Palestine
lies
V>efore
us,
by
scientists, artists, journalists, students of
Holy
Writ, tourists,
apd
his individual point of view,
Each of the twelve authors approaches the subject from sometimes under the dominance of
Nevertheless, underlying the varieties of
is
an absorbing theory.
personal equation, there
its
a unifying motif.
The land
exercises
spell
upon
all
alike^ be he impersonal compiler or devout
religionist,
creative poet or superficial observer, or
an objective,
single-minded investigator.
willingly.
Not
all
yield
to
is
the
enchantment
Eventually, before their message
completely uttered,
they surrender.
inescapable
Palestine
is
The
land and
they
its
history are unique
that
that
is
is
the
conclusion
all
come
to.
And
is
why
an inexhaustible topic on which

Because there
libraries are written,
though
libraries already exist.
a unifying motif,
an
infinite
number
of variations can be evoked from the subject.
Palestine
and
Its Transformation.
By Ellsworth Huntington,
in
Assistant Professor of
Illustrations.
Geography
Yale University.
With
Boston and
New
York.
Houghton Mifflin
Zweiter Teil.
Company, 191 i.
pp. xvii, 443.
Die Landesnatur Paldstinas.

Dr.
J.
Erster Teil
Pfarrer in
Von
Valentin Schwobel,
C. Hinrichs'sche
:
Mannheim.
1914.
Leipzig
Buchhandlung,
Bibel.
I,
pp. 56, 52.
Series
Das Land der
Gemeinverstandliche Hefte
Hefte
i, 3.
zur Palastinakunde.
Band
Die Blumen
des
heiligen
Landes.
Syrien
Botanische Auslese einer
Friihlingsfahrt
durch
Zweiter Teil.
in
Von
Dr. S.
und Palastina. Erster Teil; Killermann, Hochschulprofessor

;
Regensburg.
Mit
Abbildungen 215
Abbildungen.
2j6
the JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Leipzig:
pp.
44,
J.
C.
Hinrichs'sche
:
Buchhandluno,
Bibel.
1915
35.
Series
Das Land der
Gemeinver
Hefte
5, 6.
standliche Hefte zur Palastinakunde.
Band
I,
The
and
Its
keynote of Mr. Ellsworth Huntington's book, Palestine

Transformation,
'.
is
contained in the words
'
pulsating
climatic changes
They
express the thesis he sets out to prove.
Apparently the theory they convey prompted the writing of the

book.
It is
a theory acquired legitimately by the author through
personal investigations in extended regions in Asia and Africa,
and
his personal investigations in the
Holy Land
its
are
adduced
as
corroborating and supporting evidence of
truth.
Palestine,
with
its
long history,
is
used as a specific illustration of the author's
views on the interrelation between climate and civilization.
Whatever
scientists
may
think of Mr. Huntington's theory of
'pulsating climatic changes',

scholars
and there
are
many
well-informed
who oppose
it
vigorously,
to the general reader the book

many phases
of
life.
produced under the

interest of a novel.
spell of a
compelling, inclusive idea has the
In one passage, Mr. Huntington asserts that
'the question of changes of climate touches

It is of direct
concern to the geologist, geographer, anthropologist,
archaeologist, historian, economist,

it
and
pathologist.
Indirectly
is
intimately related to a dozen other fields of study'.
The
statement does no more than justice to his book and himself.
He
has drawn into the purview of his subject the psychologist

nature.
and student of human

and
His
faith in the value of
geography, the science of the influence of environment on

his
human man
earth
history,
economic and
plant
',
spiritual,
the taste the

'
imparts to the
human
is
absolute and minute.
mere
to
lie
difference in the angle at which the limestone rocks
happen
seems a
slight matter.
Vet to
it
is
due
in large
measure the
fact
that Samaria was a
kingdom apart from Judah, and

children.
that (lilead
his
was the country through which Christ was passing on

to Jerusalem
way
it
when he blessed the

the
Unreasonable as
structure
may seem,
caused
the
same type of geological

of
caused the
Samaritans of the time of Christ to be despised by the Jews aiul

pL-oplc
Gilead
to
be
staunch
upholders
of
PALESTINE FROM MANY POINTS OF

Judaism
. .
VIEW SZOLD
217
'
(p. 28).
Details of this character are set forth

for instance, their sentiments,
throughout.
Samson and David,

and
their faults, their strength,
their exploits, are related directly to to the physical
the geographical situation
conformation of the
Shephelah (pp. 70-73). Incidentally these pages should be read as an illustration of the author's attractive, vigorous style, as the
chapter on Samaria, called
in
'A Contrast
relation
of Physical
Form
',
dealing
part' with the
same
close
between environment and

illus-
human
character and action, should be read for a typical
tration of his
method.
We
book.
the
have not yet gone beyond the subordinate theme of the

Its
main contention
of one-time
is
implied in the contrast between
evidences
populousness, to
be seen
in
the
remains of large towns, and the present waterless, arid stretches
devoid of humus from which crops
for only limited
numbers can
it
be coaxed.
'
Something
?
clearly has changed.
Has
been the
type of inhabitant
Is the present state
of the country worse
than that of the past, because the idle Arab has displaced the
industrious Jew,
and the
vacillating
Turk the strong Roman
Has
the substitution of misrule and
oppression for a just, firm
government caused the physical deterioration of the country?
Or has nature
conditions?'
herself suffered a
change which has brought
in its
train depopulation,
and
all
the miseries of the present unsettled
(p. 40).
The book answers

to
justify
the last question affirmatively, and attempts with
the
is
reply
an overwhelming wealth of
detail.
Testimony
versations
derived from architecture, archaeology, and conthe

;
with
nomad Beduin,
from
traffic
the
P'ellaheen,
and
;
the
missionary of to-day
or the absence of
(p.
traffic
from
warfare and raids (the latter are described
348) with a vivid-
ness testifying at once to the author's literary ability and the

physical
alertness
that
invited
personal
experiences,
thrilling,
dramatic, and instructive);
from deforestation viewed as cause

;
and
effect
from the cosmic changes recorded by geologic science
and from the sweep of

less
history during the long, though naturally

B.C.
than cosmic, period since 3000
Again and again the
2l8
point
is

pressed that people never
'
practise
nomadism
if
they
'
live in
a country where agriculture yields a secure livelihood

is
that there
no
'
temptation to raid and plunder

'
'
when food
'
is
abundant
that the
for a
movements due
to desiccation
'
might have
its
been resisted
time by a strong power,
but the drain on
resources would be so enormous that no government could long
endure
it
'.
In a word, for Mr. Huntington

'
:
all
the sign-posts of
',
deterioration point to one origin
pulsating changes of climate
causing the ups and downs of

times.
human
fortunes within historical

is
They alone
explain
why
Palestine
now not
a land
flowing with milk
and honey.
The author
ingratiates himself
with the faithful by his endorsement of the verbal veracity of
Holy
Writ, while dashing to the

settler.
ground the hopes of the modern
conqueror and
He
points out the twofold importance

:
of the question of climatic changes in Palestine
its vital
bearing
on Bible history and

for a
interpretation,
and
as offering the opportunity
specimen discussion of the climatic interpretation of the
history of the
whole ancient world.
These are Mr. Huntington's
wide-open gates to the vast realm of conjecture.
None can
'
rise
from a reading of
paying a tribute to
'
Palestine
and
Its
Transformation
its
without
its
seductive charm,
stimulating references
to history as well as present conditions,
and
its
comprehensive
consideration of
all factors,
economic and
scientific
field
spiritual,
which industry,
literary
is is
open-eyed observation, and

skill
acumen coupled with
can bring within the
of vision.
That the author

;
a single-minded investigator cannot be doubted
whether he
an objective
scientist
must be
left
to the
judgement of those
whose realms of knowledge he invades.

Pastor .Schwobel for one appears to question Mr. Huntington's
objectivity.
He
refers
to
him
twice
in
his
'
Landesnatur
Palastinas
',
only to dissent from his theories, once in connexion
with a point of rather fundamental methodic importance in the
'transformation' of Palestine:
'Whether disjointed Samaria
is
separated from the Judaean mass by a fault at

place,
some obscure
it
no one knows, though Huntington operates with
boldly
PALESTINE EROM MANY POINTS OF VIEW

as a fact
'.
SZOLD
219
Schwobel himself
is
proof against the siren voices of

in his insistence that Palestine
speculation, yet he yields to
none
must be looked upon by
all
who
deal with
it
as the land of the
prophets and the apostles, and that environment makes

that, as
man
it
he puts
it,
'every plant tastes of the earth in which
grows, in which by the will of

it
God
it
was made
to
grow, and
does not
like
every
sort
of
soil'.
He
sticks
manfully to
admitted
facts,
Accordingly the seven chapters into which his
and presents them with extraordinary detachment. little book is
divided give the reader a trustworthy and compact recapitulation

of the findings of
Holy Land,
the
its
modern science on the physiography of the geology and climate, the geographic forms and
hydrographic and orographic conditions prevailing there.

largely
It relies
on the geologic map of Blanckenhorn, but pays

Deutscher Palastina-Verein, and of individual
Their results are welded into a concise
Objective as the book
is,
due attention
Fund,
scholars
yet
to the investigations of the Palestine Exploration
of
the
and
travellers.
comprehensive statement.
it
and
though
it
purports to be only a
summing up
from the
of
modern
research,
is
shot through with warmth, issuing partly from the author's

religious devotion, partly
fact that
deep
he knows
his
Palestine eye to eye through

spite of himself,
his several visits to the land. his
In
its
he betrays here and there At the other end of the

was the scene.
yielding to
mystical charms.
spiritual scale, the

life
book
does not lack incidental references to present-day

historic life of
and
to the
which
it
There are illuminating
comparisons between Palestinian and German geographic conditions.
On
the subject of the present fruitfulness and healthful-
ness of the land, the author occupies a moderate position.

attributes the prevailing diseases to neglect,
He
and repudiates the

its
theory of recent climatic changes as the causes of
impoverish-
ment.
He
cautions the observer particularly against passing an
amateurish judgement on the possibilities of the land, especially

of the hills that appear bare to the layman's eye.
The book
is
a resume of
modern scholarship by one who

to boot.
is
himself a scholar,
and a lover of the land
220

Doctor Killermann's book may be described as a
floral itinerary
of the Holy Land, with the addition
of the
Lebanon
it
region,
is
Damascus, and the Hauran.

complete.
Even
as
an
itinerary
not
There
is
hardly a mention of the central strip

is
from
north to south, and the account of Galilee

to the size of the frame adopted.
inadequate in relation
As a
contribution to the botany

to either
of the
Holy Land
it
makes and has no pretensions
scientific
system or popular completeness.

tourist,
its
it
From
the point of
view of the
may have
claims upon his grateful attention
by reason of
knowledge.
availability without exacting the toll of previous
Occasionally apt references are
made
to the Bible
text in identifying
one or another
plant,
and everywhere the author's But

insight into the pecu-
presentation has the vividness of the personal impression.
even
in a popular
book the reader craves
liarities
of the flora of a land that possesses European, Asiatic,

characteristics;
that produces simultaneously wine,
and African
a temperate zone product, and the date-palm, a sub-tropical plant.
The
digressions from the field of botany into that of

are
tantalizingly superficial,
economic
agriculture
either a
and one need not be
Jew
or a militarist to find the closing sentences arrogantly
conceited: 'Once Palestine was really the Promised Land, land of wheat and barley, and vines and
(Deut.
there,
8. 8).
"a
"
figs
and pomegranates
If Christianity
if
might once more strike deeper root
and
in particular
from out of the clash of nations the
German element might

era of blessing
assert itself effectively as a leaven, a
new
and
fruitfulness
might break
for the
Holy Land.
That must be the conclusion reached by many a pilgrim as he

takes his departure from the beautiful, flower-strewn,
terra sancta
'.
and venerable
The Students' Illustrated Historical Geography of
By
the Rev.
Illustrated
the Holy Land. William Walter Smith, A.B., A.M., M.D. with One Hundred Half-tone Pictures of Bible
Places and Thirty-five Maps.
Philadelphia
The Sunday
School Times Company.
1912.
pp. 65, 43.

Palestine hi
SZOLD
221
By .Arthur William Cooke, M.A. With Topographical Index and Maps. 2 vols. London: Charles H. Kelly, igor. pp. xii, 196; xii, 254.
Geography and in History.
Sites de'laisse's d^ Orient
{Dm
'$>\r\2i\
a Jerusalem).
texte
et
Ouvrage
illustre
de 47 Gravures
tirees hors
d'une Carte en noir.
Deuxibme
.
Edition.
Paris.
Libr.airie
Hachette et
Cie.
1913.
pp. XX, 188.
The Story of Jerusalem.

Mediaeval
Ltd.
By Colonel Sir C. M. Watson,

Illustrated
K.C.M.G., C.B., M.A. &c.
by Genevieve Watson.
J.
Towns
Series.
London.
M. Dent
1912.
&
Sons,
New
York, E. P.
his
Button & Co.

book on the
pp. xx, 339.

'
Mr. Smith describes
title-page as
a popular
reading manual and text-book

latter
for teachers
and
clergy'.
The
it
purpose
all
it
serves to an eminent degree, furnished as
is
with
the
lists,
maps, and suggestions that make
its
packed
pupil.
pages
fruitful for instruction
whether used by teacher or
The
them
other description, as a 'popular reading manual', will be
endorsed only by those whose technical training may predispose

in favour of indexes as reading matter.
it
Except that
it
is
printed in unbroken lines,
is
to all intents
and purposes an
annotated catalogue of Bible places.
The
stricture here expressed
applies only to the title-page announcement.

is
Otherwise the book

'
indeed, to quote again from the
full
title-page,
',
an illuminating
course of lessons for the Sunday School

to
and
for those
who
aspire
be leaders of Sunday School
classes.
Students
will
be par-
ticularly grateful for the unfailing Bible references in the text next
to
list
each place mentioned

of pictures of places
for the
list
of reference books
for the
and scenery with the sources from which

and the suggestions
for
they
may be secured
pedagogy
for the questions
manual work attached

up-to-date
;
to each chapter, conceived in the spirit of
and above
all
for
the
numerous maps
illustrative of period after period of
Jewish and
New Testament
History.
In addition to the History and Geography of the Holy

the Eastern Empires
fails
Land Doctor Smith has chapters and maps on

and the journeys of
St.
Paul.
The
only feature that
to
222
measure up
value of
its

to the purport of the
is
book
as a whole,
and
to the
other parts,
the series of half-tone pictures.
They
are unattractive in execution,
and too small
to
make an impression
on the adult
other hand,
readers
is
learner, let alone
the younger student.
On
the
commendable
insight into the
needs and lapses of

pictures,
shown by not only

illustrated
text.
labelling
the
but also
marking the places

in the
by a reference
to the proper pictures
margin of the
It is to
be regretted that geography has
been interpreted on the whole as not including the economic

aspects of
life,
and
history as having
no concern with any Jews

is
but those of Bible times.
At
this
time the Palestine of to-day
as important secularly as Palestine will always remain spiritually.

It is
fair
to note that in
spite
of the absence of every literary

spirit.
device, the
book
is
permeated by a reverential
Its
accuracy
and minuteness are testimony
to the author's love for his subject.
Happy he who
knows
it
is
privileged to travel
in
the
Holy Land.
by heart, and
rest of us
Doubly happy he who
travelling there has his Bible
in the light of
modern
research.
For the
Mr. Cooke has performed a notable service.
His admirably
planned, handy volumes, with their clear print, their marginal

headings,
their
indexes,
and
their
nine
well-executed
maps,
facilitate resort to
the Bible itself even for the amateur reader of

is
Jewish history.
The work
characterized by a fine sense of
balance and restraint.
Details are never
enumerated
at
such length
as to jjroduce perplexity even in the

traveller,
mind of the stay-at-home
who
perforce follows his guide only on the maps.
When
matter
the differences
among
scholars in the identification of places are
cited it does not occur too often

interesting land, the
the
controversial
introduced but serves to afford the reader a glimpse of another
boundless domain of Bible research.
In
drawing
liberally
(and judiciously) upon the accounts of travellers
and
tion
critics, particularly
upon the reports of the Palestine Explora-
Fund and
Sir
George
Adam
little
Smith's indispensable classics,

to the grace
the author has
added not a
the value of his work.
and very largely to However, the perfect book of its kind

remains
still
SZOLD
223
to be written.
in
It will
have to combine Mr. Cooke's
wide reading, his interest

his gift
Old and
New
Testament
criticism,
of simple narra:tive, his appreciation of the
beauty of
natural scenery,
knowledge and of Jewish legend, and with an understanding of the economic possibilities of the land which,
of post-Biblical Jewish history
as
it
and
his religious sense, with a pervasive
is
precious to the followers of three great religions,
is
desirable possession to the inhabitants of three continents.
In
the historical part one misses the poetry of Jewish love of the
land,
and
in the geographical part, the relation to reality.
For
Mr. Cooke
at his best the reader
is
referred to the chapter
on
Lake Gennesareth, the region

passages from writers on the
ability
that always evokes the
most
effective
literary
Holy Land endowed with
and
artistic perceptions.
The chapters
five little
of theComte de Kergolay's
book on out-of-the-way
tourist,
Oriental sites, apt to
be neglected by the ordinary

to
form
monographs with an equal appeal

artist,
the Orientalist,
life
the archaeologist, the
the general student of
and
all
letters,
the lover of nature and of mankind, and not least of
the lover
of good literature.
whole.
Each chapter
masters
is
a complete and well-rounded
Some
of the pages bear favourable comparison with the of the Oriental atmosphere and
If
descriptions
of such
scenery as Pierre Loti and Hichens.

picturing the tints of rock
he
falls
below them
in
and
is
sky,
and
in
conveying the witchery

peer in
filling
of the
reader's
human
East,
he
more than
silence,
their
his
ears with
the
desert
and carrying the desert

chapter on Petra of the
perfume into
Nabataeans
is
his very
chamber.
The
is
an epic of
silence in nature, as that

Sinai,
on
St.
Catherine,
the monastery
on Mount
of the silence of the quietist.

is
Not even the echoes of the world-war, one
sure,
have rever-
berated in the old corridors through which the recluse Greek
monks have been gliding for centuries. The Comte de Kergolay enjoyed an
in
exceptional opportunity
that he
was attached
in
the spring of 1906 to the annual

St.
expedition of the Dominican Fathers of
Stephen's Biblical
224

The
research
Institute at Jerusalem.
journey took him from
Suez through the Sinai Peninsula into the ancient Moab, and
northward to the region east of the Dead Sea, and

the
his
book runs
gamut of
thirty-five
centuries, from the old mines of the
twelfth Egyptian dynasty at

it
Magharah
to trans-Jordanic France, as
established itself in
impregnable.
is
Kerak of the Crusaders, inaccessible and One of the most interesting passages in the book
dealt with.
the paragraph in which the persistence of the Crusaders' French

is
influence in the East
The author
their
maintains that
closely
the scientific party
met numbers of men and women

peasants,
resembling French
and heard
children in
like a
is
the
schools chanting the Koran to an old French
air,
Breton
slow to
Christmas
change.
carol.
For good and
for evil
full
humanity
The
ancient mines are
of utensils, not unlike our
own, testifying to the methods and ingenuity of remote days,
and the mines are

their
still
vocal with the suffering of the niiners

children.
and
young mine-working
day
Have
only the Egyptian
social workers of that
failed to leave their record in imperish?
able bronze and stone, and eloquent books of protest
M, de Kergolay's book abounds with

of Sinai
interesting material
the
its
;
Nabataean, (Ireek, Coptic, and Arabic inscriptions on the rocks

;
the library of the monastery of

;
Mount
Sinai with
palimpsests
the mosaics of
St. Basil
;
its
church
the history of Pharon
the regulations of
the position of
women among
to
the
to
Nabataeans, &c. &c.
word should be said
draw attention
the illustrations, and another to deplore the omission of an index.
The Story ofJerusalem^ by Colonel Watson,

the Mediaeval
is
an addition
to
Town
Series
in
harmony with the standard of
excellence
and
practical value that has attained to the status of a
tradition with the Series.

this Series
has an easy task.

is
The writer of none of the volumes The storied Middle Ages are lavish
in
of
material. It
superfluous to say that Jerusalem, so far from being
an exception, demands powers of compression and summarizing
beyond the ordinary.

by
all
The compensating advantage,
not shared
the unity
the subjects in the Series to a like degree,
is
SZOLD
it,
225
is
underlying the variety of experiences with which the writer

called
upon
to deal.
Whatever may have befallen
the
Holy
City has been the focus of the Christian's love and hate, and no
less of
Mohammedan
passion.
To
lay bare
its
inner
spirit^
the
writer
in
must indeed know the whole of
history, but for the
purpose
hand he need pursue only one

his task,
strand.
Colonel Watson has

is
performed
if
so far as Christian Jerusalem
concerned,
not with genius, at least with industry and satisfying brevity and
selective taste.
In respect to the structure of the

success.
achieves
notable
city, his book With commendable autocracy he

'
declares in favour of a particular hypothesis regarding the

cities
',
two on the two eminences, the dual habitation implied by the
dual termination of the early
name
of the
city.
He
sticks to his
choice throughout unwaveringly, without so

at
much
as a side-glance
free
any other theory, and so leaves the reader's mind

intricate argumentation.
from the
is
bewilderment of
His directness
re-
enforced by a clear outline-map of Jerusalem (happily so bound

into the
book
that
it
the
first
page to the
last).
may be kept spread The result is a
out as one reads from

literary visit to ancient,
mediaeval, and
reality itself.
is
modern Jerusalem that borrows vividness from Whether the hypothesis (p. 22) is correct or not, it
work with
it.
clarifying to
It affords
fail
the casual reader a startingin
point which he should not
to
keep
mind when he
is
lucky
enough
to view the
Holy City with
his bodily eyes.
In connexion
with this possible

the
gift
of fortune, the last chapter, a walk through
modern
city
along the supposed lines of the ancient walls,

in
should be borne
ticularly
mind by the
tourist (after the war) as par-
important and interesting.

author properly, in several introductory chapters, recounts
The
the ancient history of the city.
They
are practically the only

city
ones that contain any reference to the holiness of the

the Jewish
from
point
of view.
Twenty
lines
are assigned to the

fifty-
rebellion of Bar
Kochba, called only Bar Koziba, though
three lines are devoted to the napkin in which the
head of Jesus
There
was wrapped,
for the
purpose of proving Moawiyah's friendliness
to the Christian residents of the city

is
and
to the churches.
reference
to
Benjamin of Tudela, a quotation from the
VOL. IX.
226

is
Talmud, the passage from Josephus is cited in which mention made of Jesus, though without a word to indicate the disesteem
which
its
in
authenticity
is
is
held
the treatment of the Jews by the

is
Crusaders
noted
a tribute of admiration
is all.
paid to
Simon
Maccabee
and that
Nowhere
is
there a sign to proclaim
that there are Jewish aspects to the history of Jerusalem
nowhere
is
the admission, explicit or indirect, that

focus of the Christian's love
passion, devotion to
it
if
the
Holy City
the
and
hate,
and of Mohammedan
is
also of the essence of the Jewish spirit.

fact
As was implied above. Colonel Watson has as a matter of

written the story of Christian Jerusalem.
Some
degree of neglect
has been meted out even to the
Mohammedan
master.
From
the
Christian point of view he has performed his historic task as

satisfactorily as his topographic task.
He
observes due proportion
in
the presentation of his wealth of material,
and conveys the
spirit
of mediaevalism without offensive glorification of the section
he
is
most interested
to
in,
word of special commendation
is
owing
him
for
the
enlightening use of the pilgrims' pious
chronicles.
The
illustrations are effective
and
pleasing.
Newe
Reisebeschreibiing nac/ier Jerusalem viidt
dem H. Landte.
Beschrieben vndt im Trukh auszgangen durch

Slisanskv.
in
Anno
1662.
Mit 14 Abbildungen.
Leipzig, n. d.
to
Laurentium Volume 76
pp.
iv,
Voigtlanders Quellenbiicher.
140.
Slisansky's story of his journey
Jerusalem and the Holy

to
Land
is
an excellent specimen of the source-books used
good
advantage by Colonel Watson
in establishing the continuity
and
modifications of the Church history of Jerusalem.
Devout and
simple-minded, minute
in
the description of what he

in seeing
came
to see,
remarkably accomplished
all
nothing
else,
prejudiced against
that
is
non-("!hristian,
credulous, possessor of a simple, un-
adorned
text
is
style,
Slisansky has produced a record true to type.
The
compounded
pilgrims'
of descriptions of the holy places, legendary
matter,
customs, and
the inconvenience
attaching to
travel in the seventeenth century.
His
visit to
the
Church of the
Holy Sepulchre
is
doubtless a valuable contribution to the history

of the
SZOLD
227
church building.
is
The
to
only
spice
in
the even-flowing,
garrulous narrative
his denunciation of the Jews, for which
no
opportunity
is
allowed
go by.
According
to Slisansky the
Jewish
spirit is
wholly, without a residue,
compounded
of hate
for Christianity
and greed
in acquiring
and destroying
or prosti-
tuting the Christian holy places.
The
illustrations vie with the
text in point of quaintness and lack of balance.
The
editor has
done his work of annotating the source-book unobtrusively, but,

or therefore, effectively,
and the
printer, in
reproducing the type
of the original, has added his contribution to the old-world impression
made by
Slisansky's
narrative.
Though unconnected
It
with the main subject, the privilegium wipressoriutfi granted by
Emperor Leopold should be mentioned.

protection for three years with
it.
carried
copyright
Is
it
a reflection upon the
veracity of traveller's tales that Slisansky prints besides a duly

attested
document issued by a Church

visit to
?
dignitary,
who bears, among

to the chief of the
others, the title
Guardian of the Holy Mount Sion, proclaiming

the
the actuality of his
Holy Land and
Christian holy places
A Journalist in
New
Bible
the
Holy Land.
Chicago,
Glimpses of Egypt and Palestine.

Illustrated
By Arthur
York,
E. Copping.
by
Harold Copping.
H.
Toronto.
248.
Fleming
Revell
Company.
191
2.
pp. xiv,
Ways
in Bible Lands.
An
Lmpression of Palestine.
Illustrations
By
With 32 Photographs by Otto Holbach.

Tren'ch,
Maude M. Holbach.
Trubner &
from Original
London.
191 2.
pp.
Kegan Paul,
xii,
Co., Ltd.
219.
L.
Camera Crusade through
the LLoly Latid. Illustrations
By Dwight
Elmendorf.
1912.
One hundred
from Photographs
by the Author.
New
York.
Charles Scribner's Sons.
pp. xiv, 56; plates C.
Das Land
das Jedem heilig
ist.
Miscellen aus einer palastinenVerfasst
sischen Reisegesellschaft.
und herausgegebcn von

Budapest,
Josef Grunbaum, Oberrabbiner zu Balazsfalva.

191
2.
pp.
viii,
147.
Q2
228

The
pilgrim spirit has survived the centuries,
and not only

all
in
the Russian devotee
who
arouses the admiration of
who have
had the enviable opportunity of observing his loving sacrifices for Even the his ideal, a visit to the holy places and the Jordan.
modern
clothe
tourist,
of small or great means,

it
it
and of small or great

Mr. Copping does not
his sprightly lines.
endowment, manifests
it
in
modified ways.
in
words, but
may be read between
After he has led his readers in pleasant paths from Haifa
southward through the land, and Jerusalem with
its
battle-grounds
tells
of Christian theological opinion has been reached, he

that
them
he
is
'
nowise qualified by any right of personal scholarship or
research to take sides on debatable questions of sacred archaeo-
logy
'.
This limitation and the author's recognition thereof make

its
the readableness of his book, and in a sense
value.
We
have
Mr. Copping's genuine reaction to Palestinian scenery and the

Palestinian
is life
of to-day, or the yesterday before the war.

for
And
it
worth while having Mr. Copping's reaction,
he
is
a wholewith the
souled and wholesome
human
being, with
much humour,
modern
intelligence expected of a metropolitan journalist, with
an
adequate knowledge of history, sacred and profane, with broad,

quick sympathies, with appreciation of spiritual greatness, suffering,
and achievements
all
qualities to
make him an engaging com-
panion during three weeks of journeying through Egypt and the
Holy Land.
the Bible
Bible texts are conspicuous by their absence, but
spirit
towards humanity permeates the
traveller's tale.
It is that spirit
which prompts Mr. Copping again and again to
remark on the variety of temperament manifested by the Arab

villagers
with
whom
that
he came
in
contact
one
hostile,
fifth
another
dignified, a
third
;
inert,
a fourth intelligent, a
his
curious and
goodhearted
prompts
warm
;
description of the Russian

that
pilgrim processions he encountered
prompts
'
his
comment
scope
on the Jews praying

that
at the
for
its
Wailing Wall, as
a scene in a drama
for
is
had humanity
his journey
theme and
eternity
its
'.
Though
as
was Cook-directed, the record

travels
as spontaneous
though no book of Palestine His fresh enthusiasm
had been written before

undisturbed
him.
for Palestinian scenery,

scientific theories,
is
by any of Mr. Huntington's
justified
by
his

brother's pictorial contributions to the book.
illustrations correct his words.
SZOLD
229
In one instance the

his
Mr. Copping maintains that

he reached Alexandria.
'
Western eyes beheld no East
until
The
Mediterranean', he says, 'had been just a sea, exhibiting appearances in
common
with the Atlantic and other vast areas of water.'
The
'
artist
brother saw differently and more truly
a view of
Smyrna from the Mediterranean

the
'.
when he sketched Taken all in all
Jotimalist in
Holy Land
affords
a couple of hours of
pleasant reading.
The theme
to
it,
of Mrs. Holbach's book,
if
one can be attributed
is
the opposite of Mr. Huntington's.

insist in explicit \vords that
it
From
preface to index,
is
'
her pages
the East
unchanging
is
'.
Apparently
to
does not enter her mind that her formula

in Nazareth.
likely
be discredited by her experience

latter
She and her
husband, the
the photographer
if
'
who
furnished her book
with thirty-two excellent,
not
strikingly original illustrations,
sought a carpenter's shop,

daily
such a one as that in which Jesus

early
worked throughout His boyhood and

left
manhood
'
'.
They
spirit
'
found only one such that had been

of modernity
'.
'untouched by the
impressions
Many
her
of her other recorded
are
equally evidences of an
awakened
open
that the
East.
to
facts
How
could one be
her
expected to have
reflections
eyes
who winds up
'
:
on the report
modern Jewish
colonization of
the
will
Holy Land was
unsuccessful, with the observation
Some
regard the failure of the Jewish colonies in Palestine as the

!
fulfilment of prophecy
'
The
reviewer desires to add an exclama-
tion point outside the quotation mark.
The book does more

sentimentality,
credit to the sentiment,
still
more
to the
of the
writer
than to
It
her
common
sense and
to
accuracy and imaginative powers.
seems profane to her
make
tea
on the terrace overlooking the Sea of
Galilee, or to set
out for Samaria with thermos flasks and a tea-basket hung on the
pommels
of her donkey,
and drink
It is
tea out of the flasks in sight of
the ruins of Samaria.
comforting to
know
that
common
of these
sense asserted
times.
If
itself sufficiently to
it
make
her drink the tea both
only
had
insisted
upon the expunging
'
230
passages and the several others in which she deplores her suc-
cumbing
to the attractions of a
cup of English
tea.
The time
futility
devoted to tea and such excursuses as that on the
of
medical science might instead have been spent profitably on

investigating the accuracy of
of the diction of her book. following up the course of
some of her statements of fact, and The authoress is chiefly interested in

history,
New Testament
and
in
doing
it
she
frequently with astonishing ease cuts the Gordian knot of

It
is
the controversies raging about the identification of places.
rather regrettable on the whole that, in view of her limitations,
she did not execute her
first
intention
to
'
write a
little
book
around her husband's
pictures.
That
is
the j^lan of Mr.
Elmendorfs book,
Camera Crusade
She draws
through the Holy Land.
In her preface Mrs. Holbach remarks on
the inevitableness of Bible language in Bible lands.
upon Egypt
for the illustration of her
general statement.
in a
The
is
words of Isaiah, 'the shadow of a great rock

force themselves
weary land',
upon her
there.
Mr. Elmendorfs whole book
an exemplification of Mrs. Holbach's, and of every

experience in this regard.
for
'
traveller's
He
supplies the illustrations, not alone

'
the
shadow of a
great rock
(Plate
XXXIII)
fairly
but of ninetyequal honours
nine other verses, scenes, and events, allotting

to
Old and
New
Testament
inspiration.
His admirable photois
graphs form an interesting gallery.

of text citations establishing
text citations
its
Each
supplied with a series
authority in
Holy
Writ.
These
would seem
to
make
his fifty-six pages of letter-press
superfluous.
The
latter
contain hardly
more than Bible quotations
strung together on the slenderest thread of a traveller's narrative.
Their only excuse

faith
is
the
artist's
obvious desire to
testify to
his
and
to
its
strengthening through his

faith
Holy Land experiences.

its
Everywhere
his
shines through,
A\'ell,
reaching
culminating
expression at Jacob's
hallowed
for the Christian believer
by
the meeting of Jesus with the
woman
of Samaria.
'
'
That curb-
stone over Jacob's well

for there the
says Mr.Elmendorf, was my "Ebenezer"; Lord helped me. There, at that stone, came to me
',
the
"Peace of God which passeth
all
understanding".'
More

helpful than the letter-press
is
SZOLD
231
the
map
at the
beginning of the
clearer
book, showing his itinerary by a line

'
much
than his
slender thread of narrative
'.
In Rabbiner Griinbaum's book we have a journal of Holy Land

travels
comparable with Slisansky's chronicle.

lie
But worlds, not

in
only centuries,
between the two.
Both are pilgrims
the
real sense of the word.
Neither has eyes or mind for anything
but the
'
holy places
see.
',
genuine and spurious.
Both see what they
have come to
all
The
blinkers of preconceived notions shut out
the
rest.
Both are
truly pious
and observant. So
;
far Slisansky
might have been of the twentieth century

seventeenth.
Griinbaum of the Griinbaum

Slisansky's
But there ceases the resemblance between the devout
Moravian Catholic and the devout Hungarian rabbi.

cannot attain
narrative.
to
the
naivete
and spontaneity of
Bible,
He
is full
of polemics, reflections, criticisms, longings,
digressions,
and quotations from

all sorts
Talmud, and Prayer Book,

literature varying
from encyclopedias and
of
modern
from
Rostand
to Roosevelt.
He
is
a sophisticated Jewish citizen of the
modern
world, albeit a Hungarian patriot.
Occasionally doubts
refuses to view
as to his modernity assail the reader, as
when he
an aviation meet
in
Budapest, because, though he cannot withhold
respect from the aviators, being a

'
'man of the Bible
',
he believes that
the heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth hath
He
given to the children of

last
men
'.
Fortunately this occurs in the

test
paragraph of his book.
Other
passages are
far less
obscurantist.
He
warns the Jewish pilgrim
who
accepts the need
of the Jewish colonization of Palestine, that he must entertain hospitably the idea of finding not only angels,
psalmists in the
prophets,
and
Holy Land.
with
It is
subject to the
many
defects
observable in other communities.
Griinbaum
travelled
a party of sixty-eight
Russians,
Englishmen, Austro-Hungarians, and Germans.

his
all
companions are recorded
in a list
attached to
The names of his book. They
were bent on the same errand as he, and they were equipped
with everything needed to
make
the observance of the Sabbath

sea.
and of the
ritual
law possible on land and
Nevertheless
232

century complains no less
Griinbaum of the twentieth
than
Slisansky of the seventeenth of the inconveniences of a journey

to the
Holy Land.
visit
Ostensibly the purpose of the caravan was
not only to
life
graves and indulge in memories, but to view the

it
of the Jews as
is
to-day in Palestine.
His book proves
to the observant reader that the latter object cannot
be attained
receptions
by travelling with a large company that courts

with blare of
that he
is
official
drum and
trumpet.
It
turns out^ in point of fact,
interested only in the most superficial
way
in the
new
hope
colonization, except to urge tolerance

that a
and
patience, in the
more
religious spirit
is
may be
infused into the
new Yishub.
Griinbaum indeed
a defender of the Halukah system.
He
advocates the building of houses for recluses and their families,

especially for such as
come
froni
is
Siebenbiirgen (Transylvania).
In externals the book, which

from
style
a translation by the author himself has
little to recommend it. The German characteristic of certain circles of Jews in Hungary. The proof-reading must have been done by a blind man. The transliteration of Hebrew words and phrases is systemless, and errors disfigure page after page. One
his
is
Hungarian
original,
the involved, archaic
illustration
must
suffice
'
:
On
the right [of the bridge] one sees
the
little
colony built by Moses Montefiore and the institution of

la
the Jewish hero de
Tura (!) of
New
Orleans
'.
In the course of
these reviews reference has been
made
at several points to the
scant treatment accorded to the Jewish element in the history

life
and
of Palestine.
in
It
must be admitted
regretfully that the sole

less
and only Jew

laid himself
our assemblage of writers on Palestine has no

to the charge of inadequacy.
open
is
In his book the

is
subject-matter
fibre of his
wholly Jewish, and he himself
Jew
in every
being.
But the meaning of Palestine

it
for the Jew,
to-day and always, can be conveyed,
seems, only by one
who
is
Jew, religionist, and poet besides.
Henrietta Szold.
New
York.
HUSIK'S 'HISTORY OF
MEDIAEVAL JEWISH
PHILOSOPHY'
A
History of Mediaeval Jeivish Philosophy,
:
By Isaac Husik,
1
New York The MacMillan Company, 1916. pp. + 462,

The
subject
8vo.
need of a handbook of mediaeval Jewish philosophy has

felt
been keenly
among
also
students devoted to the study of this
and was
generally recognized
by
their
teachers.
field,
Somehow
or other the Jewish scholars working in this
who
are, indeed,
very few in number, harbored an exaggerated opinion
as to the real difficulties involved in the preparation of such a
work, expecting, as
it
appears, to have the ground
more
fully
prepared by detailed investigations before a general and complete

history was to be undertaken.
Dr. Husik, while not unaware of
the difficulty of the task, nevertheless set himself to the work,
and
with a happy sense of proportion and a
full
understanding of
what
is
essential or unessential in the general
economy of such Jew

or
a book, succeeded in presenting to the intelligent reader,

Gentile, a very valuable
summary
whom,
of mediaeval Jewish philosophy.
The
general reader for

far,
in the main, this
book
is
intended,
and who so
subject,
owing to the absence of English books on the

or
had
little
no knowledge of
appreciate
this
aspect of Jewish
this
literary activity,
will,
by a careful perusal of
the
work, be put
of Jewish
in
position
to
fully
contribution
thinkers to the wide field

professional student, too,
of mediaeval
in'
philosophy.
But the
who
his
order to get acquainted with
the main philosophic problems and ideas of the middle ages,

heretofore
literature,
had
to
plod
way through
a mass
of
his
foreign
which often served only to deter him from

find in Dr. Husik's
will
proposed
work,
will
volume a systematic guide and
teacher that
enable him at the very beginning of his career
233
234

comparative ease the whole
field,
to survey with
growth, and
development of mediaeval Jewish philosophy.

In order to produce a
handbook of
it
the history of Jewish
philosophy, like the one before us,

that the author
is
of supreme importance
keep
strictly
within the sphere of thoughts of the

is
individual thinkers,
whose ideas he
to
present.
He
must
all
permit these thinkers, after having freed their doctrines from

incidental matter, to speak for themselves.
Unnecessary
inter-
ruptions of the
original writer's
arguments and discussions by
the insertion of the author's subjective opinion and disputable

theories are
bound
to
produce
in the
mind of the reader confusion
rather than
enlightenment.
Dr.
Husik shows throughout the
pages of his work that he was fully conscious of this truth.

anxiously avoids
all
He
unnecessary display of learning and needless
digressions into neighbouring fields, which

to philosophy.
do not
strictly
belong
of the
Instead,
he follows closely the works
mediaeval authors, epitomizing, their contents with

and, barring
sionally,
it is
literary skill
some minor
true,
points, with scientific accuracy.
Occa-
he allows himself
to interrupt the presentation
of the original author's views by inserting

as to the scientific value
some
of his observations
its
of a given doctrine or
logical or
historical relation to similar doctrines held
by other philosophers,
and the
like.
But
in all
such cases
found Dr. Husik's remarks,

length,
to
aside from their being of very moderate

instructive
be highly
and a valuable help toward a better understanding of

of sketching the works of the mediaeval writers,
the question at issue.'
The method
tions.
as here described, naturally brought about a
number
Active
of repeti-
For
it
is
well
known
that certain doctrines (e.g. that of
the
celestial
spheres and
their
motion,
the
Intellect,
Prophecy, Divine Attributes, Free Will, &c.) had

stock in trade of
'
become the
all
mediaeval philosophers, Jews, Christians,

to
It
would require too much space

I
give
here instances of such

pp. 46-7, 68, 90
f.,
insertions.
therefore refer the interested reader to

f.,
119, 138
f.,
146
226, 266, 274-8, 300. 366, 395

notice.
f.
There may be a few
others,
which escaped my
HUSIK
MEDIAEVAL JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

alike.
MALTER
235
and Mohammedans
it
In skimming the contents of a book
was not always possible to dismiss the parts bearing upon
these doctrines by a mere reference to a previous chapter, where
the matter had been dealt with in connexion with the teachings
of another philosopher.
a given doctrine in
For
in spite of the intrinsic identity of
the works of two different authors, such
doctrine often receives a
new
signification or occupies a different
place within the individual systems
of the respective authors,

separately.
hence
tried,
it
must be discussed each time
Dr.
Husik
however, to reduce these repetitions to a minimum, at
times
merely touching upon the ideas in general terms and
referring for details to previous discussions (see e.g. pp. 86, 147,
162, top, 206, 224,
and J>assim).
The work
is
divided into eighteen chapters, each dealing with
one of the leading mediaeval Jewish philosophers, beginning

with Isaac Israeli in the ninth century and ending with Joseph
Albo of the
fifteenth century.
few of the
b.
Hebrew
philosophic
his son,
writers later than
Albo
(e. g.
Joseph
Shem Tob and
Shem Tob,
in
Isaac Abrabanel, and others) are treated summarily
brief
'Conclusion' (pp. 428-32).
Each chapter begins
with a biographical sketch and a general characterization of the
author in question, which

reader
will
prove of special value to the

life
who
is
not acquainted with the
of the mediaeval
intro-
Jewish worthies.
duction
(xiii-1),
The whole
in
is
preceded by a learned
author traces
briefly
which
the
the
early
beginnings of rationalistic thought

a general way of the
principal
among
the Jews, speaks in

of
motives
Mediaeval Jewish
philosophy and
its
Greco-Arabic sources,
classifies the individual
philosophers according to their adherence either to the Kalam,
Neo-Platonism,
or
Aristotelianism,
and,
finally,
sketches
prestyle
liminarily the essential contents of their philosophy.
The
and manner of presentation leave nothing
to
be desired.
The
author absolutely masters the philosophic language required for

a clear and intelligible presentation of the abstruse problems of
mediaeval philosophy, so that the intelligent reader of the book

will find
no
difficulty in trying to
understand them.
236

Owing
to its general character the
book may appeal
also to
non-Jewish students of philosophy and hence
good fortune
edition.
I
to
appear at some future
therefore
I
deem
it
advisable to
may enjoy the time in a new revised add here some observa-
tions
will
which
made
while going through the volume and which
perhaps prove worth considering by the author for such an

Before taking up, however, the discussion of the details,
edition.
I
wish to set aright a statement
He
there points out that while
made by the author in his Preface. German and French scholars,

'
particularly the
former,
have done distinguished work in exthere

is
pounding individual thinkers and problems,

complete history of the subject
as yet
no
'.
for the student or general reader
Completeness
is
a relative term.
Taken
absolutely, Dr. Husik's

it
book
is
also incomplete, for he does not treat in
of
all
the
is
problems dealt with by those philosophers to

devoted, nor does he include therein
the Middle Ages.
all
whom
his
book
the Jewish thinkers of
In fact the number of philosophers selected
by him
for special treatment could easily
be doubled, though the
philosophy of those
whom
he omitted might not appear to every
reader as being of any particular importance for the history of
philosophy.
ception.
Moreover, philosophy,
like
too,
is
a very elastic conb.
Men
b.
Nahmanides, Solomon
(all
Adret,
Menahem
many
Meiri,
others,
Bahya
Asher
of the thirteenth century), and

in
who, of course, are not included
Dr. Husik's book,
were no professional philosophers; they were neither Kalamists nor

Neo-Platonists, nor Aristotelians, but they were highly educated
theologians
with
rounded
Weltatischauung,
who took
into
account also the best philosophic thought of their predecessors
and contemporaries.
Talmudic
that of
literary
lines,
Their influence on Judaism, not alone in

at
was enormous,
any rate much greater than
many
of the real philosophers,
and a description of
their
achievements outside of the
field
of the Halakah would,

in
therefore,
have a perfectly legitimate place
a complete history
of Jewish philosophy.
his
Now
fit,
an author may delimit the scope of

criticize
work as he sees
and one should therefore not
Dr. Husik, as did
some
of his reviewers, for not having included
HUSIK's mediaeval JEWISH PHILOSOPHY

in his
MALTER
237
work
all
the Jewish theological and Kabbalistical writers
of the Middle Ages. of the
He
has confined himself to the treatment
most prominent of those Jewish thinkers who stood
exclusively under the influence of Greco-Arabic philosophy,
and
view
he has done
as
correct,
this part well.
But
if
we accept
in
this point of
we cannot
works
follow
him
treating
as
a negligible
philosophy,
quantity
several
on the
history of Jewish
published prior to his
own
in various
European languages.
Thus
M.
Eisler's
Vorksungen
iiber die jiidischen

1
Philosophen des Mittel-
aliers,
three parts, Vienna,
870-1 883 (mentioned by Dr. Husik
in the
Bibliography only), while written in the form of lectures

is
and omitting some of the philosophers treated by Husik,
in
some
parts
more comprehensive than the work of the

pages.
latter,
Maimonides alone occupying fully 140

scientifically insignificant,
Nor can
J. Spiegler's
Geschichte der Philosophie des Judenthums, Leipzig, 1890, though
be entirely disregarded. Solomon Munk's

les Jidfs,
masterful Esquisse historique de la philosophie chez
em-
bodied
in his
Melanges, Sec, pp. 461-511, 522-528, exists also in
book form
tions
in a
German
translation with additions
and amplifica-
by B. Beer, and
in English
by
I.
Kalisch (referred to in the

brief
Bibliography),
it still
and though on the whole too
and compendious,
contains the basic elements of a history of Jewish philosophy.

is
Of
similar import
P. Bloch's Geschichte der Enhvickeliitig der
Kabbala
print oi
u7id der jiidischen Religionsphilosophie, Berlin,
Die jiidische
Religionsphilosophie in Winter
1894 (reand Wiinsche's

is
Die
jiidische Litteratur, II,
699-794).
J.
Overlooked
also the
learned work of the Dutch scholar, P.
MuUer,
De
Godsleer der
middeleeuwsche Joden, Groningen, 1898, which contains a very clear
and readable presentation

to
of the Jewish philosophy from Saadia
Maimonides,
inclusive, with
an elaborate introduction (pp. 4-58)

Finally, there
is
and copious notes

the
(pp. 161-87).
to
be mentioned
more recent work, Historia

in the
de la Filosofia espahola,
by
Prof.
Adolfo Bonilla y San Martin.

the author
first
According
to the outline given

is
by
to
is
volume (Madrid, 1908) the work
appear in eight volumes, of which the second (Madrid, 191 1)
devoted entirely (456 pages) to the history of Jewish philosophy
in
238

volume
is
Spain, while a considerable part of the third
to deal with
the history of Jewish mysticism in that country {Zohar, &c.).

nearly
all
As
Jewish philosophers lived in Spain,^ the work represents

Dr. Husik's book
that,
a fairly complete history of Jewish philosophy.

is
thus not the
first
in the field,
it is
though
first
it
must be admitted
its
aside from the fact that
the
of
kind in the English

it is
language,
it
will also serve
the purpose for which

its
intended to
much
It
higher degree than any of
predecessors.
would be overstepping the

all
limits of a review to point out
for correction
the
little
details
one notices
in a
book of over
to
500 pages.
important
:
Here may follow some which seemed
me more
The
'oral law'
(i.e.
Mishnah and Talmud) was not counted

to
by Saadia (introduction
of knowledge of truth
'
Emunot we-Debt) among

p. xli, top).
'
the sources
(Husik,
Saadia counts there
three general sources^ consisting of the senses
and reason,
to
which he adds the Bible as a

in particular.
special, fourth, source for Israelites
Saadia
did not refute 'thirteen erroneous views

'
concerning the origin and nature of the world

of these views, that of a creatio ex
ttihilo. is
{ibidem),
for
one
his
own.
Saadia was
i),
not called to the Gaonate of Sura from Egypt
(p.
for
he
had emigrated from Egypt

thirteen years prior to his
to the Orient (Palestine
and Babylonia)
fact has
appointment as Gaon. This
been
known
came
for the last twenty years, ever since the Genizah literature
to light,
which the author should have consulted.
The
per-
sistent translation of
nryw
It is
by
'traditional' laws (pp. 39, 167, 203,
passim)
is
misleading.
a technical term for those Biblical laws
which are not dictated by the human reason, but were ordained on
Mount Sinai (as the sanctification of the Sabbath, dietary laws, &c.). The word should be translated by revealed in contradistinction
'
',
to 'rational
'
laws.
Saadia borrowed the term from the Arabs and
was the first to introduce it into Jewish literature. On what ground does the author attribute to Saadia the statement that the Pan
The few philosophers who
lived in other countries, as Israeli, Saadia,
and others, are not entirely neglected by the author.

Spain as a youth, occupies pp. 275-415.
Maimonides,
who
left
HUSIK
MEDIAEVAL JEWISH PHILOSOPHY
MALTER
?
239
In the
theists believed in the pre-existence of the soul (p. 44)
text referred to there
is
no mention of Pantheists.
(pp. 86, 89, 92)
Too
much
origi-
emphasis
is
laid
by the author
on Bahya's
to
nality in his
distinction between Unity as applied
God and
that
predicated of other existences.

(p.
All the details in Bahya's arguments
92) are actually found in a
more concise form
at the
beginning
of the tenth chapter of Saadia's Emunot.

for the priority of unity over plurality is
That Bahya's argument

based on the idealism of
Plato
(p.
90), according to which unity and plurality are in the
same
relation
to
one another as the universal idea and the
individual object, seems to be the author's
own
interpretation
parallels.
and
His
should have been substantiated by some textual
further remarks in this connexion are quite interesting
and give a
one misses
new aspect
to Bahya's exposition.
In the presentation of Bahya's

God (p.
94
f.)
theory of the three essential attributes of

a reference to Saadia,
Emunot
(ed. Josefow, II, 5),

II,
who
is
the
source of Bahya
verse (Neh.
comp. Emunot,
quoted
end, where even the
same
by
of
9. 5) is
in support of the theory here given
the author as that of Bahya.
The doctrine given

it
in
the
name
Ibn Saddik (147-9) that the commandments the act of our creation, are for our own good,
happiness in the world to come, as
of the Torah, like

that
we may enjoy
taken over in
would otherwise not be

is
proper to reward us without any merit on our part,

all details
from Saadia's Emunot, chaps. III-V, which should have
been noted. The same applies to Ibn Saddik's description of the

Messianic world
(p.
149)
see
Emunot, VII-IX.
It
had escaped
it
even the notice of
Munk
{Guide des Egare's,
III, 128, n. 4) that
was Saadia, who was referred to by Maimonides {Morek,

as 'one of the later Geonim',
III, 17)
who adopted the
strange Mu'tazilitic
view, according to which even animals are to
be rewarded
in the
hereafter for undeserved sufferings (as slaughter, &c.) which they
had
to
undergo
in this world.
Saadia actually gives clear expres-
sion to this view {Emunot, III, 10, No. 4)
and Munk's mistake was
pointed out by Steinschneider {Polemische

ratur, pp. 337, 356, top).
und
apologetische Lite-
Dr. Husik, overlooking Saadia, takes

for the doctrine in
Ibn Saddik as the authority
question (p. 149).
240

(p.
In treating of Maimonides
292) and later on of the Karaite
Aaron
with
b. Elijah
its
(p.
noticing
origin.
377) he again reverts to the matter without The Saadianic origin was to be noted also
Saddik's
regard
to
Ibn
contention
(p.
149)
that
little
children,
who
to
are without sin, will likewise be recompensed in
the world
come
2
;
for
2,
their sufferings
in
this
world
comp.
;
Emunbt, VIII,
for in
IX,
end.
Such omissions are regrettable
a history of philosophy, as in the historical presentation

it
of any subject,
is
of special importance not only to reproduce
with accuracy the
seemingly detached theories of
its
various
exponents, but to try to uncover the inner relations of the latter

to
one another.
Dr. Husik does that quite often, especially in
discussing the larger problems, but not often enough.
That Judah Halevi was ready

if
to
admit the eternity of matter,

(p.
reason should
demand
it,
is
not so certain as the author
150)
believes.
He
is
unaware of the divergent interpretations given

in
by recent scholars to the passage

which he bases
p. 138,
the
Kuzari
(I, 67),
upon
and
his statement;
idevi,
see
Kaufmann,
Attributenlehre,
n.
56;
id.,
MGIVG., XXXIII
(1884), 208-14);
Hirschfeld,
his
I,
p.
374.
That
On
Terah was 'important' because of

the contrary he admits that Terah,
son
Abraham
(p. 163), is
not the idea Judah Halevi {Kuzari,
95) wishes to convey.
as others in the generations
between Noah and Abraham, was
devoid of the divine
spirit,
hence unimportant.
spirit
But Abraham
was not the continuator of the

that of Eber, in
of Terah, his father, but of

(s.
he studied.
whose
college, tradition says
Megillah, 17
a),
By
a fortunate discovery of S. Landauer
we
are
enabled to follow Judah Halevi's source with the certainty of

eye-witnesses
'
(p.
175).
The
discoverer was not Landauer, but
.Steinschneider,
whose remarks regarding Halevi's source had
escaped Landauer's notice (see Steinschneider, Hebrdische Ueberseizufigen, p. 18, n. 21

10,
n. 2).
;
cp.
Kaufmann, Gesammeiie
of
D''i'DD
Schriften, II,
The
is
translation
(Arabic
'^44) by 'fools'
(pp.
243-4)
in all instances incorrect.

fools,
Maimonides does not
speak there of
but of people
who
are ignorant in the field of
l)hilosophy or metaphysics, though they
may be
learned in other
HUSIK'S mediaeval JEWISH

fields.
PHILOSOPHY MALTER
five
241
It
should have been noted that the
causes enumerated
by Maimonides as preventing people from the study of metaphysics

(pp.
244 f.) are taken with very
slight modifications
from the end
of Saadia's introduction to the Emuiwt.

'
That
Maimonides had
'
no idea of the Alexandrian School and of the works of Philo

268)
is is
(p.
too venturesome an assertion.
While
it
is
true that
Philo
not mentioned in mediaeval Jewish literature by name,
his influence
upon
that literature
is
not subject to doubt (see

Poznanski,
Steinschneider.
JQR., XV,
;
394, especially
RE/.,
(1905), 10, 26-31
cp. also Siegfried, Philo
von Alexandria,
in
Jena,
1875,
pp.
299-302).
The
earlier Karaites
particular
show acquaintance with

Alexandrian
p. 395)'
Philo,
who
is
also
(cp.
meant
by
N.
'
the
I,
referred
to
by Kirkisani
JQR-,
S.,
The
reason advanced by Maimonides for the Biblical
prohibition
against
mixing divers seeds,

flax,
is,
or wearing garments
made
to
of a mixture of wool and

idolaters
that such mixing was the
custom of the
and
their priests.
all
Moses,
in his desire
wean the
its
Israelites
away from
idolatrous customs, therefore
thought
prohibition necessary,
though the custom

Husik,
not
(p.
in
itself
may be considered
not say
harmless.
Dr.
satisfied
with
'
Maimonides' reason, suggests

',
another
one
302).
Why
mix
he
asks,
'
the ancient
Hebrews were forbidden
to
divers seeds because they

to
had been from time immemorial taught
believe that there was something sinful in joining together
what
God
has kept asunder

too rudely the
and
in order not to
shock
their
sensibilities
new
religion let
them have these

vengeance, and
harmless notions in order by means of these to inculcate real

truth ?
I
'
This
is,
indeed, rationalizing with a

will
doubt that the reader
find that Dr.
Husik has here imGod's creation
proved upon Maimonides.
Gersonides' view that

is
was timeless, that the

literally,
six
days of the Bible are not to be taken
but as indicating the natural order and rank of the

not original with him.
It
things in existence (p. 357),
was
taught centuries before him by Saadia in his

the
Commentary on
le
Book
Yesirah
see
M. Lambert, Commentaire sur
Sefer
VOL. IX.
242

Arabic
text,
Yesira, Paris, 1891,
pp. 11-12, 87, French, pp. 27,
109.' Ha-Maor'
title
is
not a proper
name
(p.
363) but an honorary
of the
Karaite in question, derived from the
name
of his
main work.
He
is
known by
author wrongly puts in
name of Kirkisani, which the parentheses. The various views held by

the
the Karaite Aaron b. Elijah with regard to reward and punishment his reasons for in this world or in the world to come, as well as
the sufferings of Job (pp. 376-8) did not originate with Aaron They are all to be himself, nor with the Karaites preceding him.
and more especially in the commentary on Job (ed. Bacher, (Euvres completes, vol. V, Paris, 1899). What is the source for the the Rabbis of the Middle Ages were author's assertion that
found in Saadia's Emtinot, V, 2-3,
introduction to his
'
inclined to recognize
'
Christianity's claim that Jesus
performed
miracles
(p.
415)?
For statements of such importance the

;
sources should always be given
cp.
Saadia,
Emnnot,
III,
8,
who
disputes
the
claim
to
miracles
by the founders of the
non-Jewish religions.
Simon Duran deserved

him by the author
so as
the
in a
a better place than that allotted to

(p.
note of a few lines

states
447), the
to
more
whose
author
there
that
Joseph Albo,
philosophy
'
he devotes a special chapter of twenty-two pages,

his
owes the central point of
contribution to
'the
Duran
',
whom
he (Albo) never quotes, and that

brought against him
against one's
is
charge of plagiarism
'.
not far from justified

?
Why
then act
own
better insight
The Notes of Dr. Husik, I regret to say, are not quite satisThe book before us, though it takes into account the factory.
needs of the general reader,
of philosophy,
jjoint
is
destined to be used by students
who
are interested in the subject from a scientific
of view.
In the
Hebrew
works, epitomized by the author,
a large
number
of questions are dealt with, the discussion of

for
which Dr. Husik,
one reason or another, could not or would
not include in his presentation.
Many
of these questions
may
their
be
neither
Platonic nor
Aristotelian,
and the
like,
but
HUSIK'S MEDIAEVAL JEWISH PHILOSOPHY
MALTER
For
243
solutions were part of the philosophic systems of the mediaeval
authors,
and the ideas therein involved often had a decisive
influence
upon
their entire circle of thoughts.
brevity's sake
I shall illustrate
these remarks by only one point.
Saadia, in the
introduction to the third

stress
chapter
of the Emu?idt, lays special

in the
on the publicity attaching to the miracles related

tradition.
writers,
Torah and on the uninterruptedness of Jewish

idea was seized
it
This
using
upon by most of the mediaeval

Judah Halevi
80
actually
as a
weapon
in their controversies with Christian
and Mohamhis
it
medan
opponents.
builds
entire
philosophy on this idea, and
Abraham
f. ;
ibn
Daud
gives
much
prominence
(no~l nJICX, pp.
cp.
Guttmann, Die Religionsnor
philosophie des Saadia, p. 147,

Dr.
n. 3).
In the chapter on Saadia,

at
all,
Husik does not mention the matter

on Halevi
is
the idea
of the continuity of Jewish tradition properly brought cut even

in
the
chapter
(see
pp. 158,
162:
'the. chain of
individuals from
Adam
'.
to
Moses and
thereafter
was a remarkable
;
one of godly
men
It is
not a question of being remarkable
Halevi wishes only to emphasize uninterrupted continuity).
Only
when he reaches Abraham Ibn Daud

gist of the latter's
the author reproduces the

tradi-
argument from the continuity of Jewish

its
tion (p. 227, bottom) without, however, bringing out
historical in the
importance and
its
relation to Saadia
and Halevi.
It
was
Notes appended
of
to the
book
that the author could have disposed
much
valuable material.
In most instances a mere allusion
to the existence of such material,
and a reference
of
to
where the
student should look for further information, would have been

sufficient.
The summary mentioning

make up
some
recent
book on
Saadia or Maimonides, &c., at the beginning of the respective

chapter cannot
for this deficiency,
nor can. the selected
Bibliography, or the brief references to the pages of the

texts
Hebrew
will
upon which the author's expositions are based serve such

Assuming, as
I
purpose.
do, that
Dr. Husik's
book
as,
be
widely used by students of colleges and universities,

it
indeed,
should be,
cannot share the optimism he expresses in the
244
Preface
less
'

(p. viii) that
it
will
do the professional student good

student, the
'to get
than he wants.
The
man
of research,
is
always
glad to receive even
more than he has expected, and Dr. Husik,
with his perfect mastery of the subject, with his splendid ability
of presentation, was fully equipped to give
it.
Henry Malter.
Dropsie College.
GRAECO-ROMAN JUDAICA
Jiidisch-Christlicher
Schulbetrieb
in
Alexandria
Philo und
utid
Rom.
Literarische
Untersuchungen
Justin
zu
Clemens von
Bousset.
Testaments.,
Alexandria,
und
u.
Irenaus.
Lit.
Von W,
A.
u.
[Forschungen
zur Rel.
des
N.
Neue
319-
Folge, Heft
Gottingen,
6, her. von H. Gunkel u. W, Bousset.] Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 191 5. pp. viii,
The main
title
of the book
is
ambiguous.
'
Schule
'
in this
case denotes 'Academy', and an approximate translation would
perhaps be, 'Scholastic Tradition

of Alexandria
'.
Rome,
book
it
among the Jews and may be noted, is referred
Christians
to only in
the last few pages.

Essentially the
is
one of the many Quellenstudien which
have loomed so largely

decades.
in the
German
scholarship of the last
Professor Bousset undertakes to
show
in extant
is
works
taken
of Philo and Clement that a large part of the material
almost bodily from other sources and

of the independent
is
therefore not the product
thinking of these men.

it
But,
whereas
in
other investigations of this sort

material so
'
is
attempted to show that the
conveyed
'
is
incorporated into the body of the work,

it, it is
because the author desired to appropriate

the borrowed
argued here that

that
matter
is
not
so
incorporated,
it
Philo
and
Clement, in a sense, did not appropriate

contrary would have vigorously opposed
controversial
it,
at all,
but on the
it
if
they had met
in
form.
Why,
it
then,
was
it
introduced?
Simply,
declares Bousset, because
represented the scholastic tradition
of the actual schools in which Philo and Clement received their

training
and because they had

Philo
for that tradition
an unbounded
reverence.
As
far as
is
concerned, Bousset
is
concededly developmg
245
246

Brehier's excellent treatise, Les Ide'es
suggestions contained in
philosophigues et religieuses de Philon d^ Alexandrie (Paris, 1908).
He
analyses closely Leg. Alleg. I-III,
De
Ebi-ieiate
and De
Congressu Eruditionis Gratia (pp. 43-101).
It is in
these that he
regards his contention as demonstrated with particular clearness

(P'
153)-
He
finds
especially in
the
allegorical
commentary,
doctrines that are principally derived from the later Stoa, that
deal with biblical matters in a purely intellectual manner, and are
based on a philosophic sensualism.
All this
is
quite at variance
is
with Philo's general moral and homiletic purpose and
manifestly
opposed
to
his
fundamental dogma of the impotence of the
unaided human reason.

Bousset's
method
is
the familiar one of noting contrasts of
terminology between different parts of the book, of emphasizing

the absence of qualifying statements, and of setting forth apparent
contradictions or contradictory implications.
What was
by Philo?
Epicurean
It
the nature of the scholastic tradition so freely used
While of Hellenic origin
Stoic,
Neo-pythagorean,
it
was derived immediately from Jewish sources.
represented the teaching of the Alexandrian Jewish academies
where Philo was tramed and was characterized by a moral and

religious indifferentism.
Philo
may have had
the material before
him
in
the form of actual note-books or in the lecture-sheets
prepared by successive teachers for class-room use but not for

publication.
Bousset obtains these suggestions from

de?-
W.
Jager,
Studien zur Entwicke/ungsgeschichte

(191
2),
Metaphysik des Aristoteles

Genesis-
and Gronau, roseidonius und die jUdisch-clu-istliche
exegese (19 14).
For readers of
\.\\t
JQR.
the existence of such a school cannot
but be of the highest
interest.
Philo unquestionably
is
fond of
or
quoting authorities anonymously,
01 <^vo-t/<oi, 01 <^vo-ioAoyoSfTs,
leg.
more generally
ol
/xcV,
01
St
{De
spec.
5,
208).
These
anonymous
authorities
seem
clearly
enough,
as
Bousset and
Brehier contend, to derive from the later Stoa, but the essential
point of Bousset's argument
is
that they
come
to Philo through
Jewish mediation, to
wit, that
of an actual academic tradition.
RADIN
In
247
That certain Greek philosophic concepts were commonly used

in Jewish schools in Alexandria admits of little doubt.
div. haer. 280, in the
Tot's
d. rer.
phrase of Gen. 15. 15

is
<jv Sc u7reA.t'cr>; tt/uos
Trarepas,
the Statement
made by
Philo that some
(Ivtot)
take the 'fathers' to be the sun and moon,

apxiTviToi iSeai,
some understand the

Philo states these
some the
four primal elements.
three
views without
in
indicating
a preference,
in the
practice
rare
enough
ingly,
Greek
writers but
in
common
Mishnah.
Accordthe
we have
here,
a discussion of biblical
exegesis,
application of Greek philosophic concepts,
so that this
single
passage would of
thesis.
itself
give probability to
Bousset's
principal
Just
case,
i.
how
e.
far
he has established his contention in any given

fully
just
how
he has demonstrated the Greek source

as un-
and the Jewish mediation of the passages he brackets

Philonic, will
be variously decided.
The arguments
in the
main
are cumulative, so that an attack on any one point will not be
a conclusive answer.
If
Bousset were better acquainted with
Rabbinic
literature,
he would find the procedure of Philo in

to his
citing matter
opposed
own
views, without refuting
it,
not
quite so strange.
Legitimate question
is
may be
raised
on another
point,
and
that
how Bousset
reconciles the argument of the entire

(p. i) that
'
work with
the statement of the preface
the philosophic literature
properly
so-called
of the Jews
'.
arose in the time of Philo and
primarily through his labours
The second
sub-title.
part of the
book
(pp.
155-319)
is
devoted to
in
Clement and the two other Church Fathers mentioned
the
Just as Bousset followed the suggestions of Brehier

in
his
in
dealing with Philo,
treatment of Clement he bases
his
work on the researches of Collomp, Uue Source de C/ement

et des Hofne'lies
dÂlexandrie
Pseudo-Clementines {Rev. de Phil, et
Lift, et d'Hist.
Anc,
vol.
37 (1913), pp. 19-46).

in
Collomp, and
Theodoto, the
Bousset in
this
book,
find
the Excerpta ex
Eclogues and Strom. VI-VÎI, a complete dependence on, almost

a verbal citation
of,
Clement's teacher, Pantainos, the head of the
248

(cf.
school where the Alexandrian catechumens were trained

Hist. Eccl. V, 10,
i).
Eus.
Pantainos, however, and his school leaned
toward Gnosticism
as
in its
more mystical and

In
the
oriental forms,
which
the
rule,
Clement opposed.
case
of Clement,
admission of such great blocks of matter, quite opposed to his own

teaching,
is
explained by the reverential attitude Clement had

school,
for
toward
{Strom.
this
I,
which we have
his
own testimony
II, i).
The
of the
It
is
chapters on Justin and Irenaeus are merely applications

doctrine.
same
a highly stimulating and valuable work that the wellscholar
known Gottingen
here
presents,
and one
that
repays
careful examination, whether his conclusions are accepted or not.
Studien
ziir
Byzanthiisch-Jiidischoi
Geschichte.
\on
der
Prof. Dr.
Samuel Krauss.
1914.)
(XXI. Jahresbericht
in
Israelitisch-
Theologischen Lehranstalt
Wien, 1914.
Krauss's
Wien
fiir
das Schuljahr 191 3-
pp. 160.
Professor
study
is
divided
into
five
sections.
in
Section
deals
with the external history of the
Jews
the
Eastern
Roman Empire
from 476
c. e.
till
about the middle of

treats
the thirteenth century (pp.

social position (pp. 55-77).
1-55).
Section II
of their
Section III with their organization

.
and
distribution
(pp.
77-99
Sections
IV and
in
contain a
miscellaneous group of topics
Byzantium
Jewish Literature,
Byzantine cultural elements and

writings
Byzantine
Greek
in
Jewish
Lists of
and
in
liturgy,
Jewish
scholars in the Empire,
Emperors
Jewish writings, Jewish references to Byzantine wars,
and
finally
a discussion of Schechter's
ff.).
article
on the Chazars
UQR.,
The
a
field
N.S., III, 204

history of the
that
Jews
in
the Eastern
Roman Empire
If
it
is
is
has
that
been most undeservedly neglected.

for
remembered
mediaeval Europe that
Empire was,
in
a very real sense, the centre of civilization, the importance of the
Jewish communities there can scarcely be overrated.
Professor
RADIN
249
Krauss has put together data of a most interesting kind from both
Jewish and Byzantine sources.
sections are the second
Perhaps the most important
and
third, in
which the
social life of the

is
Jews
is
described.
Much
and
its
of this information
found only
it
in
scattered periodicals
collection here renders
conveniently
accessible for the
first
time.
is
Unfortunately the value of the work
marred by the defects that

In spite of his unques-
so often characterize the author's method.
tionably broad scholarship, Professor Krauss only too often allows
himself to be led into a recklessness of statement that makes

possible to accept his conclusions
it
im-
on many matters without renewed

is
examination.
In most cases that
due
to haste in composition.
So
in discussing the celebrated
Novel of Justinian (Nov. 146) the

merely means
phrase 8ta to fxaXio-Ta

'
Trept Ty]v ip/xrji'eiav <TVfx/3l3rjK6<s
particularly
because of what happened when the translation
(viz.
of the
LXX)
'
was made
two parts
',
and contains nothing

Similarly,
unintelligible
'in groups
(p.
58, n. 5).
',
Similarly Kara 8vo {in binos)

in
'.
means
of two
not,
from
his description of
is
the Basilica (p. 62)
nobody could
learn the fact that this code
merely an abridgement of Justinian's Corpus in sixty (not eighty)

books.
But a
specially flagrant
example of the author's
careless-
ness occurs in his discussion of the Chazar-document discovered
by Schechter
(p. 154, n. i).

'
Commenting on
Eigenname,
the
word
î'K'hs,
Krauss
says,
Das
ist
kein
sondern
Titel,
ein
Wiirdentrager mit
(citiert in
dem Titel Kapya<i, Constant. Porphyrog. c. 40 Magyar Nemzet torte'nete, i, 47), griechisch BorAo-o-a^^/?
geschrieben.'
Now
if
Professor Krauss had consulted the actual

in the
words of Constantine as they appear

in a
Bonn Corpus, and not
Hungarian
iii,
translation,
he would have read

to{)
De
ad. imp.
40
(Const. Por.
I75>
^-
^2) /tera
BouAtôv, tov TptTOV
ap)ôvTo<S
KOL Kapx*^ TovpKLw;.
And
later 6 BovAtôl's 6 Kap;âs vios ia-Ti tov

''^'CvU, therefore,
is,
KaA^
TOV Kapxa.
The word
as the obvious
sense of the passage demands, a

evident correspondence to the
name and not name BovXtIôv^ is
title,
and
its
additional
and
welcome evidence
of
how
authentic the sources of Schechter's
document
were.
250
However,

in spite of these defects,
Krauss has put scholars

be hoped
that
under obligation to
researches will be
him, and
it
is
to
further
made
in this field.
Syria
B.
as
Roman
pp.
vi,
Province.
H. Blackwell; New York

304.
By E. S. Bouchier. Oxford: Longmans, Green, & Co.,

:
1 9 16.
After a survey of the ethnography
and geography of
Syria,
Bouchier gives us
in
Chapters
II,
IV, VI, VIII, a brief history
of Syria from Seleucid days to the
Arab conquest.
complete
chapter (IV)
is
devoted to the Syrian imperial dynasty, and almost

Interspersed
cities
another (VI) to Palmyra.

of Antioch (III),
among them,
its
are accounts
and other
of Syria (V), and a discussion of
the country's produce

Finally, chapters
and the dispersion of
people (VII).
IX-XII
deal with Literature, Religion, Archishort bibliography
tecture
and the
Arts.
and a
full
index add
appreciably to the book's value.
Mr. Bouchier professes
to
make no
original contribution either
presentation or point of view.
He
has given a readable and
interesting account of the external and internal fortunes of an
important section and an important time.

sources
is
His command of the
adequate.
It
may be
said
that
no circumstance of
moment
has been altogether omitted, and the general reader

is
for
whom
fact
is
the book
intended
will
obtain a clear and

to the history of
full
conception
of what Syria
and Syrians meant
Rome.
That
one of the principal claims of the book upon the general
public.
Recent
of
art,
investigations, such as those of Strzygowski in
the
field
it
and Cumont
in
the history of religion,
have
made
the
clear that throughout the

cultural
to
Empire
of
it
is
in the
East that
economic and
centre
gravity
and
soon the
political as well
is
be sought.
But these views, generally
accepted
among
yet,
scholars, have
not filtered into current handpresentation
books as
and the
is
traditional
still
which almost
ignores the
East
the one
commonly
used, so that, for
many such
a book as Bouchier's will supply a needful corrective
Especially in
value.
its
RADIN
will
it
25I
prove of
account of Syrian emigration,

it
The
ordinary reader finds
difficult to realize the
enormous
range of the dispersion of Syrians and Syrian ideas, and the details
furnished, pp.
17 1-9, ought
to
set
right
many common
mis-
conceptions.
There
is
more than one matter which might be questioned.
So, in discussing the
Roman
attitude toward Syrians,
it
would
at
have been well

all
to stress the
vague character of the term Syrus

little
stages of
its
use.
Again, Gabinius was so
the
enemy
of
the Jews which he appears to be in pp. 26-7, that
we have the
famous statement of Cicero that he outrageously favoured them.
On
p.
50,
we have repeated
rests
the
traditional
account of the
Hadrianic rebellion, which
on insecure
footing.
On
p.
loi,
we might have been

of existing faiths, a
told of Elagabalus's attempt at the fusion
movement more
Again,
it
directly
undertaken by his
cousin Alexander.
that occurs
is
a wholly misleading statement
on
p.
116:
'Thus the exclusive

(viz.
Roman
law in the
commentaries which they

published
Ulpian,
Papinian,
and Gains)
became considerably modified by the cosmopolitan

itis
principle of the
to the
gentium.'
What Ulpian and Papinian brought

for
Roman
law was rather the systematizing influence of science
and philosophy, which was an imperative necessity

of empiric precedents as the
such a code
In
Roman
system had become.

it
discussing the various cities of Syria, pp. 172-89,
would have
been serviceable to mention the

as
set
political status of
1.
most of them
forth
by Ulpian, Dig.
cities,
15.
i;
e.g.
that
Tyre and
Heliopolis and other

ins
as well as
Berytus,
possessed the
Italicum
in
most cases
conferred
by Septimius Severus.
small^ there should
Further, in any biography, no matter a reference to
how
be
Mommsen
it
on the
Roman
Provinces
(i?. 6^., vol. 5).
In general
may be
said that the
book has a somewhat

by
it.
amateurish tone.
Scholars will profit
little
But
style
it
more
than compensates for that by the vividness of

interesting character of the
its
and the
information here
made
accessible.
ff.
Such pictures
and 222
ff.,
as Bouchier gives of Syrian student-life, p. 117
of the romantic
movement
that resulted in
some of
252

modern
fiction
the most important Greek romances, the parent of

(p.
231
ff.),
are not only well
done
in
themselves but present
details not easily
found elsewhere.
All this cannot but serve to
give a real content to the readers' conception of the time

place.
and the
Studies
in
the
History of the
Roman
pp. 94.
Province of Syria.
Princeton
:
By
GuSTAVE Adolphus Harrer.

University Press, 1915.
In
this
Princeton
Princeton dissertation, Dr. Harrer has prepared a
Prosopographia of the governors of Syria from the time of the

great revolt in 68 to about the time of Diocletian.
There are
Cilicia,
added appendices on The Separation of Syria and

Revolt of Pescennius Niger and
The
The
Divisions of Syria.
The work
is
is
one of painstaking and accurate scholarship, and
invaluable for chronological purposes.
One
cannot, however,
help wondering whether doctoral dissertations ought not to be

directed to a less arid
field.
Except as an exercise
in the use of
the sources, there
is
practically
no opportunity
for the application
of
critical
judgement.
the author calls
'
The governor whom

later identifies
unknown
'
(p. 28),
he
with reservations as Arrian, the historiographer,

Max
Radin.
Class. Phil., II (1916), 339.
New
York.
MANUSCRIPTS
ST.
THE LIBRARY OF JOHN'S COLLEGE

IN
of the matmscripts
in
the
descriptive
St.
catalogue
College,
Library
of
John's
Cambridge.
By
Montaciue
Rhodes
James. Cambridge: University Press, 1913. pp. xx + 389.
The Colleges and
Halls of which the great English Universities
consist generally possess old libraries of their own, including
more
or less important manuscript collections, apart from the University
Library.
For Oxford these were
listed
in
Coxe's catalogue in
also
1852, the few
Hebrew manuscripts being
included as an
appendix
in
Neubauer's great catalogue of the Hebrew manuscripts
of the Bodleian.
in the
Such a catalogue of the Hebrew manuscripts

is
Cambridge University Library
still
wanting,
to
Schiller-
Szinessy's
work only covering 72 out of 762 codices,
which now
N. Adler,
the Taylor-Schechter collection has been
added
(see E.
Transactions /eivish Hist. Soc.
of England, VIII, 12).
Hebrew manuscripts
in
the
Colleges
About we have only W. Aldis

which
Wright's appendix to Palmer's Catalogue of the Arabic, Persian,
and Turkish manuscripts

at that
in the library of Trinity College,
time (1870) possessed about thirty
Hebrew and Samaritan
manuscripts.
lately, since
This collection, however, has been greatly increased
we
his
learn from C. D. Ginsburg's preface to the fourth
volume of
Massora, that W. Aldis Wright had bought his
collection of manuscripts
Trinity.
and had arranged
to
bequeath
it
to
Ginsburg's collection consisted of about 100 volumes,
partly described
by Neubauer, Letterbode, XI, 157-65.

R. James, well
Since 1895
M.
known
to
many
readers by his
important contributions to the Apocryphal and Pseud-epigraphal
The Life and Miracles of St. William of Norwich, by Thomas Monmouth, the earliest case of the Blood
literature,
and
as co-editor of
accusation (see Joseph Jacobs, y(2^., IX, 748-55
has
under-
253
254

all
taken the useful task of making

accessible
these various
descriptions.
collections
by
short
for
and
careful
We
are
in-
debted to him
a series of seventeen catalogues,
some
in
several volumes, and, though in

his
some
cases he expressly restricts
work
to
the Western
manuscripts
of a college
even
of
in
those cases the few Hebraica are not excluded
his
are
catalogues
mostly describe the complete collections of the various colleges.
The Hebrew
importance.
the
manuscripts
in
these
collections
for
small
We
find a
in
Roman Mahzor
the Fitzwilliam
Day
of
Atonement
New Museum
Year's
and
(No. 230 of
in
the Catalogue of 1895); a copy of Prophets
and Hagiographa
Gonville and Caius College {Catalogue^ II, 1908, No. 404) of the
thirteenth century, probably written
in
England
for a Christian
student, a conjecture partly anticipated by Bruns in his edition of
Kennicott's Dissertatio
to
6^^;?^;-a//>
Braunschweig, 1783), pp. 377-8
Codex 93
a complete Bible in three volumes in

1904,
Emmanuel
Bishop
College {Catalogue,
Dr. William
Nos.
5,
6,
7) acquired by
Bedell when chaplain of the English embassy at
Venice,
Leon [da Modena] 'the Chief Chaiham of the Synagogue there with whose assistance he had, we learn, made great progress in Hebrew studies Kennicott found
c.
1600, through Rabbi
'
the date 5045
1285
in
the third
volume; James
later
artist,
finds in the
illuminated
title-page
;
the
work of a
perhaps an
for lining
Englishman
a couple of leaves of an old
ritual,
used
the cover of a Eatin Isaiah with glosses in
Pembroke College
Jews' College
{Catalogue; 1905, No. 59) turned out to be a remnant of the old
English ritual and was published

Jubilee
in
1906
in the
Volume pursuant There are a number
to
its
discovery by James.
of items
among
much
find
the Latin manuscripts

literature.
which are of considerable
interest for
Jewish
Stein-
schneider would have found very

for the
interesting information
translation literature.
We
in
here a Latin
Moreh
in
Trinity
{Catalogue,
III,
1902,
No. 1412), no doubt the old

1875, which has been printed
translation discussed
in Paris, 1520.
by Perles
Among
medical treatises of the same author, two

Blasii
translations of
Armengaud
of Montpellier offer important
MSS. IN ST.
JOHN
COLLEGE
MARX
255
epigraphs supplementing Steinschneider's Hebriiische Ubersetzimgen,

pp.
765
and 767.
f.
No. 178^
165) states
MS. Gonville Caius {Catalogue, I, tliat Armengaud translated liber

egrorum
et
1907,
moysis
egypcii et de regimine
sanorum
et specialiter de asinate
(Steinschneider corrects asinate^ from the Arabic mediante fideli

interprete
in
1294 and published

1302.
it
that
seems
to
be
the
sense
of
communtcatur in
Steinschneider's
question
{Sitzungsberichte der IVietier Akademie, Phil.-Hist. Klasse,

vol.
1905,
CLI,
p.
33),
whether
this
is
the
same
translation as the
tractates contra passioneni asmatis in
a Peterhouse manuscript
{Catalogue,
latter
text
The 1899, No. loi*) is not answered by James. is preceded by Maimonides' tract on poison by the
who
states that
same
translator,
he did the work
in
1307 at
Pope Clement V. A considerable number of astronomical and astrological treatises by Jews in Latin translations we meet in codex 11 85 of
the request of
Trinity College.
The second
i.
of them, the canones of
Abraham
Iiideus salmanticensis,
e.
Zacuto, are
no doubt
part of his printed
Almanach perpetuus
fourth
/.
(Leiria,
1496) which Columbus used; the
has
the
canones of Jacob Poel, while Steinschneider,
c, 615, according to the Cat.
MSS. Angliae
of 1697
;
quotes
possibly
to
MS. Thomas Gale
as containing the tables of the Poel

fifth
they are included in the
part of the codex,
which ought
be
compared with the Bodleian manuscript mentioned by

schneider.
Stein-
The
tracts of
Mashallah and Sahl ben Bishr (here in

10-12,
the usual corrupt forms Zebel and Zael) forming parts
14-15, and 19-22 of the codex,
if
compared with the
editions,
may
help to clear up the complicated bibliographical questions
concerning the writings of these authors, of which Steinschneider

treats in his
Arabische Literatur der Juden,
18-19.
Several of
these tracts occur in English translations in
MS.
Trinity College
1307.
Similarly,
we
find copies of Isaac Israeli's medical works,

;
mostly in Constantinus's version, and others

see, they offer
but, as far as I can
no points of
special interest.
is
The
last
of James's Catalogues, which
under review here,
is
that of St. John's College, the
one of which that great Christian
'
256
student of Rabbinic literature, Dr. Charles Taylor, was master for
many
years.
While
this
College has more
Hebrew manuscripts
than any of the others, except Trinity, their number does not
exceed four.
Three of these belong
to the oldest possessions of
the College, having been given in
1546,
and are described

w-as finished in
as
numbers
1-3.
The
first
of
them contains a Pentateuch with

1260
Megillot, Job, Proverbs,
and Haftarot, and
according to the epigraph, which was printed in the Hebrdische

Bibliographie,
XIX,
p.
23 from Wickes's copy.
James
gives
it
in
English translation.
We
learn
from
it
that
Samuel ha-Nakdan
August
pointed the manuscript for his brother (or friend, relation) Levi,
and
finished
it
Friday before the reading of xvn
""a,
i.e.
20,
1260.
Kennicott, overlooking this epigraph, judged the codex to

in
be written
Spain in the early fifteenth century.
The Nakdan
15, note,
was either French or German.

identifies
Neubauer, RE/., IV,
him
with
the
martyr Samuel
his fate in
ben
Eleazar
of
the
in
Niirnberg Memorbook,
who met
is,
Mosbach (Baden)
still
1297, but this identification
as Salfeld rightly
remarks in his
to
edition of the Martyrologium, pp.
283-4,
open
serious
The manuscript was provided later with Latin headlines and chapter numbers. One cannot understand how the learned
doubt.
cataloguer could state
'
:
Evidently writte?i or adapted for the use

'.
of a Western scholar, very likely a Franciscan
The
fact that
the codex includes the Haftarot as well as
its
whole arrangement
it.
makes the
first
alternative very unlikely

/.
the epigraph excludes

to cod.
On
the other hand, Bruns,

for the
c, p.
379
96 suggests such
an hypothesis
second manuscript, containing the end of

at
Judges (now wrongly bound
end of the codex), the

this
rest of the
I'ormerand the Latter Prophets, and he believes that
manuscript
and
that of Gonville
and Caius College mentioned above were

a copy of Rashi's
first
:
copied from one another.
MS.
is
of
much
greater value
it
is
com-
mentary on Prophets and Hagiographa from the

thirteenth century
;
half of the
the date
at the
is
not quite clear to
me
'
on the day
thousand
before the
New Year
end of the year of the
fifth
l)rjbably reads in
Hebrew D'D^n
'n n:::' 511D3 nrj'H L"N"^ any, i.e.
MSS. IN ST.
JOHN
Is
COLLEGE
MARX
Isaac,
257
sold the
August
31,
1239 (not 1238).
Samuel ben
who
for
book
to Nathaniel ben Jacob, the scribe or the

?
man
whom
it
was written
The commentary on
Chronicles, which, as
is
the last eight chapters of Job and on

well
known, are not by Rashi, ought
to
be examined.
If Darmesteter,
when
in
England
to
examine the
of this
at
French glosses
in
the Rashi manuscripts, had
known
interest
codex, he would not have spoken of the Rashi manuscripts
Cambridge
Reliques
as all of recent date
and
offering
no
see his
scientifiqicls, I, p.
115.
Codex 218 contains a copy

of the thirteenth century.
of Kimhi's D'!^"lB'n ~I2D
on vellum
end of
The Hebrew
scribble at the
in
MS.
78,
a collection of medical works

is
Latin translations,
to a
probably
due
to the fact that the
volume once belonged
Jewish physician.
Perhaps he wrote there some recipes.
In what language the Dominica oratio hebraice(J) in cod. 189
on the
flyleaf
is,
which begins
',
'
Abba hay
consiran mel odenson

se be le
',
epitre aemalatre
and ends
'
:
Adass sabilo naia
do
not know.
In the Index,
recorded, but
it
p.
372, under Bible Hebrew, No. 114
is
also
contains Jerome's version of the Psalter of the
Hebrew.
fol.
We
miss
the
reference
lists
to
the
Hebrew
letters
on
180 b of No. 107.
Such
we
also find
in several other
2,
fol.
catalogues of James;
see e.g. Corpus Christi, No.
278,
No. 48; Pembroke, No. 174; Gonville and Caius, No. 601,
fol.
310
b, partly with
French, &c.
Of
other items of Jewish interest, besides Latin Bibles and
Apocrypha,
we
find
Latin
Josephus, two copies of Petrus

Israeli's
Alphonsus, contra Itidaeos, and some translations of Isaac
medical works.
Perhaps
may add
the
'
ludi
pulcherimi
Salamonis quos
fecit
mandauit Regine Acrys nobilissime domine quos

filius
rex salamon
regis
dauid pulcriores quos poterit pro requestu predicte

fols.
domine',
fol.
70-75 of No. 155

predecessors, the
(cp.
also
MS.
Trinity
loSr,
128).
Like
all
its
volume begins with a short
258

lists
history of the collection,
of former owners, &c.
As
there
were no early catalogues of the collection, and that of 1 843 follows

the present arrangement, like James's, there was
no occasion
for
comparative tables with

catalogues of James.
earlier
numbers found
in
most of the other
Altogether 502 manuscripts are described
on 368 pages
267 of
them which
are mediaeval are dealt with
more
fully
on 318 pages; to the more recent ones, 'for the most

',
part of very slight importance
only 50 pages are given.
From
an introductory note
to
the latter (p.
319) we learn "that the
Oriental manuscripts outside of the
from the catalogue.

Dr. James
is
Hebrew ones were excluded The volume concludes with a good index.
on the successful completion of
can be seen from these remarks,
to be congratulated
his series of catalogues, which, as

offer
some
interesting information even for our field of studies.
Alexander Marx.
of America.
SOME LEAVES OF AN EGYPTIAN JEWISH RITUAL

Bv ROMAIN BuTiN, The
Catholic University of America.
In the Spring of 1916, Professor Camden M. Cobern

left
with
me
for
examination and study thirty-four Hebrew
fragments.
in Cairo
These he had obtained a few years before
from a trusty town Arab who had been with him
previously on several exploring expeditions.

originally
They doubtless
came
from one of the Genizahs of Cairo, pre-
sumably from the Ezra Synagogue where Schechter had

obtained such great treasures.
Twelve of the fragments
are printed leaves
and contain
various passages of the Bible.
Fiye of these printed pages
belong to a Bible (4to) of the early seventeenth or even

sixteenth century,
others are
and are without vowel-points.
The
more
recent.
Most
of the twenty-two manuscript fragments are of
a liturgical nature, but vary in age and palaeographical

peculiarities.
Fourteen leaves, however, written on paper,

;
evidently belong to one and the same book
to these
we we
have given more attention, and
in the
present article
give the results of our examination.
The
text exhibited by these fourteen fragments shows

in
highly interesting variants, not only

or expressions, but
individual
words
of the
rituals,
also in larger sections.

in
Some
readings are not to be found
any of our printed
and
for this,
if
for
no other reason, they ought to appeal to

259
S
VOL.
IX.
26o
all
those
who
are interested in the origin and evolution of
the Jewish Rites.
The Prayer Book from which
the leaves have been torn

for
must have contained not only the prayers

days, as the last folios belong to
really
work days,
If they
Sabbaths, &c., but also the text of the prayers for the Holy
Yom
it
Kippur.
come from the Ezra Genizah,

is
is
probable that the
rest of the ritual
now
is
still
extant, perhaps scattered in
various collections, as
often the case with Manuscripts
discovered
*
in in
recent
times.
(Compare
It
E.
N.
Adler,
Genizah
'
Jetvish Encyclopaedia.)
may
its
be possible
therefore that
some day
its
the text of this ritual

if
may be
reconstructed in
main sections
not in
It
entirety.
The page
16
lines, (6 b, II a,
is
about
6x41
(7 a,
in.
contains generally
sometimes 15
12 b, 13
a).
9 b, 14 b), and sometimes 17
The number
first
of letters in the line
is
not constant but varies from around 20 to over 30,

lower margin of the verso, the
folio is
In the
word of the following

at least
given as catchword.
folios
The
do not seem to have been numbered,

trace of the numbering.
we have discovered no
order and
For the
arrangement of the fragments we have been
guided partly by the Rubrics at the beginning of some of

the sections, e.g. 6a, 11 a; partly by the catchwords and
by the contents of the prayers themselves.

leaves.
We
have also
considered the similarity of the state of preservation of the

It is
probable that generally speaking adjoining
leaves
must have been detached at the same time and

little
formed
bunches exhibiting more or

It
is
less
the
sam6
characteristics.
evident that fragments
10-14 are
certain
consecutive and belong to

that
I
Yom
Kippur.
It is also
and 2 belong together, as do also 3-5, 6-7, 8-9,
AN EGYPTIAN JEWISH RITUAL
BUTIN
is
26
also
The arrangement
paratively easy.
of these
i
h'ttle
groups
com-
Fragments
;
and
3 contain
portions of
the
Shemoneh Esreh
their simple
form
is
evidently that
to
used for work days.
Besides, they
must belong
the
Morning
Service, as these leaves
must have been
in close
proximity to ^-^ which belong to the Morning Service and

give us JVS^ Wl.
Fragments 1-5,
therefore, belong to the

folio
is
Morning Prayer.
3 and 3
;
At
least
one
missing between
fdlio 2,
which must have contained the end of the

large
Amidah, would not have been

Similarly, at least a folio
it
enough
to contain also
the various supplications which precede the Half Kaddish.
must be
lost
between 5 and 6
contained some more supplications and the Full Kaddish.
The
we have
classification of
6-9
offers special difficulties,
and
hesitated a long time before adopting the order

"
given here.
At
is
the end of fragment

'),
there
is
the catchfol.
word n7D3
('
finished
this
same word begins
the
probabilities are therefore that 8
comes immediately
after 7.
But fragments 6-7 contain the Minhah Service
for
Work
Days, and of course must have been preceded by the

ordinary Morning Prayer, whereas leaves 8-9 contain the
special
Morning Prayers
for
besides, are
headed by the rubric

this rubric
Mondays and Thursdays, and End of the Morning

'
Prayer'.
Now
would
fit
better
if
the regular
Morning Prayer had com.e immediately

hardly be proper
Besides,
it
before,
and would
if
preceded by the Afternoon Service.

logical to
is
more
have the special

after the
Morning
ordinary
Prayers for
Shahrit.
Mondays and Thursdays
However, we have adopted the arrangement given here

for the following
reasons:
The catchword
word
;
n!?iD:)
naturally
leads to a folio that begins with that
it
is
true that
S 2
262 a
lost
folio

might have begun with that word, but
folios in close
it it
is
hardly likely that two

coincide, although,
proximity would thus

possible.
of course,
is
closer
examination of the fragments leads to the same conclusion.
Fragments 5-9 show the same mutilations and must have been together in the original manuscript folios 7 and 8
;
are the closest in that respect
they exhibit not only the
same
general mutilations but also the

injuries
;
same
little
creases
and minor
there
is
no doubt that they were together
at least after being separated from the rest of the manuscript,
and
all told, it
seems to us more probable that they have

in
been kept together because they were already together

the book.
The
writing on
fol.
is
well preserved, while

therefore,
it is
exceedingly faint on 7-9
fol.
6,
escaped some
vicissitudes which 7-9 underwent.

for
By
in
placing the section
Mondays and Thursdays

the order
:
before the
Minhah
Service,
it
we would have
and the
8, 9, 6, 7
which case
would
and
8,
be hard to explain the striking similarities between

dissimilarities of 6.
if
Furthermore,
a radical distinction
had been made
between the Morning
and
Minhah
Service,
we would
naturally expect the Rubric for the latter to begin with

71703,
as
we
is
find
ff.
and
11,
but this
is
not the case.
Our view
that the scribe
went on with the Minhah
Service immediately after the
Morning Prayer, and gave
afterwards what had relation to
Mondays and Thursdays.
Probably the
as
it
title
was stereotyped and was reproduced just
was even when the place of insertion would have
logically called for a change.
So we have the order: 1-5

Service
;
Morning Prayer
Service for
6-7 Afternoon
8-9
Special

10-14 they are certainly consecutive and
all
As
to
ff.

refer to the
BUTIN
Kippur.
263
end of the Afternoon and the beginning of the

for the
Evening Service
day before
Yom
and
Script. Portions of the rubrics
titles
are written in
large ordinary square characters

in
is
marked with three dots

rest is written in
a triangle,
e. g. i a,
3 b, &c.
The
what
are
known
as
Oriental
Rabbinic Script.
y.
The
If
letters
generally not joined, except b and
Yod and someletter

in
times
Wavv come between
or y
and another
the same word, they are often written over the ligature,
e. g. D3ii?v.
As more
characteristic forms
we may mention
=N
J*
J =
p.
Others, although similar
to the ordinary Rabbinic are yet different.
Some
of the
characteristics exhibited in these fragments are found in
some of the
in the
facsimiles published
by Neubauer, from MSS.

III,
Bodleian Library, Plates
VII, X, XIII,
XIX,
XXIX.
All these, except III, are more cursive than our
fragments, see p. 266.
Extended Letters.
Extended
letters
are
used
com-
paratively seldom and only as the last letter of the line.
The
letter
Mem
"D
is
the most
commonly extended
is
letter
yet not the whole body of the letter the top stroke
not D,
Ti,
extended but only

;
e. g.
a, 7
8 b, 10
14
b, 10,
&c.
Similarly n occurs as
letters that
12
b, 13.
The only
-j
other extended
a, i,
we have
noticed are
= ^,
13
10
g,
13
b, 14.
As
the
a rule, instead of extending letters to

is
fill
up the end
occurs,
of a line, either the line

first
left
unequal
or, as often
letter or letters of the following line are written

last
and cancelled by a slanting stroke overtopping the

letter,
the whole word

line, e. g. i a,
is
then repeated at the beginning of

3
a, 7
;
the next
3 b, 5
a, i,
&c., &c.
Abbreviations.
Abbreviations occur
very seldom in
264

we have noted
2 b, 3
;
these leaves,
"as
":i"
= ">?:SJC',
1 1 a,
10
a,
14; 12
a, i
irnnx
"Ul
= noui
4.
The two
regular
abbreviations 'N3
are
ni.T
:
nnx nna and PP?

'N3, PPp.
r^np, t:'np, B'np

first
marked with points
In folios 10-14 the

VwS'3
of these abbreviations occurs as

points, e.g. iia, 13; 11 b, 5.
also
marked with
Language and OrtJwgrapJiy.

fragments
rituals,
is
of course the
The language of the ordinary Hebrew of the Jewish

Kedushah 5
;
with passages in Aramaic, as in the Kaddish, 6b-7a,
and
in the
Targums of
in
the
a.
;
The
rubrics,
;
however, are written
Arabic, 6a, 3
8a
9a, 14
11 a.
Some of the forms of Arabic are classical, others are The Scribe apparently wrote according to sound
;
popular.
see, e.g.
Nina" and '^n2\
u a;
inr,
9a, 15, &c.

in these
Technical
Hebrew
e. g.
names have been preserved

nsB', N^sn, jrn, -1122,
Arabic
rubrics,
mv, &c.
There
is
a constant use of the viatres lectionis even

in
when the vowel

not only to
3
a, 2,
question
is
not unchangeable, this applies

e.
Holem
;
but also to changeable Sere,

is
g. i a,
&c., 8:c.
Kames
often written with N as

D^^'Ny,
mater
icctionis, e.g.
iNcmn, 2a, 3;
7a,
5, 9.
On
it
;
the other
hrmd Aleph
is left
out occasionally even
when
forms part
of the Radical, e.g.
m3C
for DN-iT^,
is
12a, 8
liDn for iJN'Dn,
14 b, 1-4.
Ordinary Segol
occasionally written with
Yod
as viaier lectionis, e.g. DTnnDl for Dninoi,
10
b, 5,
' ;
unless
we
read D^mnDT
Pi'cl,
'
shall
cleanse
them
but see
Ezek. 36. 25.
As
usual the combination ^S

nin' is
is
written
;
\^,
passim.
tetragrammaton
uniformly ^^
'J"ix,
this occurs
The even when
the biblical text quoted has
e.g.
is
8a,
6, 12, 16.
Punctuation.
In general there
no punctuation in the
middle or
at the
end of an ordinary sentence.
larger

break within a section
is
BUTIN
265
marked by two points juxtaposed

a, 3 In one case, the two points are
;
horizontally in line with the top of the letters, e.g. 4
10;
7 a,
4; 9
a,
13, &c.
vertical, 11 b, 10.
The end
by
of a section or a larger break
is
marked
regularly
four points
arranged as a vertical
lozenge, as in Ethiopic
Corrections.
points placed
(>), e.g. i a, 6 and passwL Words wrongly written are cancelled by over them (cp. Butin, The Ten Extraordinary
Points of the Torah),

instances a dash
9 b, 7,
is is
e.
g.
J a,
3 a, 1-4, &c,
in
a few
2 b, 5
used instead of the points,
e. g.
The dash
line to
also used to cancel letters put at the

in,
end of the
twice, see
fill
so that they would not be read
above under Extended Letters.

that has been omitted
10 b, 10;
is
A word
the
either written
^ is
above
line, e.g.
13a, 9; or the sign
inserted
over the place of omission and the word or words are given
in
the margin preceded

;
by the same
sign, e.g.
12
a,
12
(twice)
5 b,
3.
There must have been also an insertion

i,
on 6
a, 8
and 11 a,
as the sign
occurs in the text, but
the words or sentences to be inserted have not been preserved owing to the mutilated state of the margin.
cases, 12 a, 12
In two
and 12
b, 4,
where a correction has to be

line,
made
at the
beginning of the
the word
is
written just
opposite with the sign
leading to the place.

written in large characters are
e. g. i a,
Other Signs.
The
titles
marked by three
dots in a triangle,
i b, 5,
&c., &c.
These three dots are also found where the scribe has
apparently forgotten to write the
e.g. 3 b, 2,
title
in
larger
letters,
&c.
The
are
portions of the rubrics not written in large letters

or without a hook,
marked with a horizontal stroke with

3,
or ~, e.g. 6a,
4; iia,
3, 4,
&c.
266
At
times the portion of the hne immediately under the

is left
large letters
blank.
This blank space has no meaning

in
except to prevent the crowding of letters
the corre-
sponding parts of the
lines, e. g. i a,
4; 3a,
e.g.
7,
&c.
13,
Other signs apparently occur,

closer examination they are
10
a,
but on
letter
only a portion
of a
showing through the paper.

careful with smaller signs
One
has to be particularly
2,
and points, e.g. 4b,
&c.
The
peculiar sign on
b,
i,very probably indicates transposition-
Age and Country.

Age.
It is
somewhat
;
difificult
to assign a very definite

rest of the
date to these fragments

ritual is
very likely when the
found and edited a colophon
may
is
give us not only
the date but the
name
of the scribe and the exact locality
from which
it
was made.
Our opinion
therefore
more or
less conjectural.
As
far as
paper and sizing
is
concerned, the leaves could

;
be as late as the sixteenth century

the script
but when we examine
we come
to a less vague conclusion.
As
pointed
out above, the script resembles that of Plates III, VII, X,
XIII,
XIX,
XXIX
in
Neubauer's Facsimiles.
Plate III
is
an autograph of Maimonides and therefore written towards

the end of the twelfth or beginning of the thirteenth century
(cp.
Neubauer, Catalogue of Hebrew
MSS.
in the Bodleian
Library, No. 393).
The
characters and general appearance
are strikingly alike, yet the letters p and N are less cursive
in Plate III
than
in
our leaves, and their form
is
undoubtedly
Plate
older.
Plate
(Neubauer, No. 2353,
Ô and
XIX
(No. 2cc8), both of the sixteenth century; and Plate of the fifteenth century, exhibit a
far
VI I, end
more
cursive character

and are
later
BUTIN
is
267
than our leaves.

Lattes,
Plate XIII
an autograph
in
of Isaac de
and the MS. was finished

;
1372
(Neubauer, No. 1298)
it is
also
more
cursive, the
shape of
certain letters as well as the general
appearance point to
a date later than the Cobern leaves.
The
present leaves
would find their proper place between the time of Maimonides

and that of Isaac de Lattes,
thirteenth
i.e.
between the middle of the
and the middle
of the fourteenth century, very

first
probably towards the end of the thirteenth or

of the fourteenth century.
half
This
is
further borne out
by
a comparison with an autograph
letter of
Abraham, son
of Maimonides, of the early thirteenth century, reproduced
by E. N. Adler,
there
is
in
Jewish Encyclopaedia, Genizah', V, 61 2

'
a striking resemblance, and although
Koph
still
retains the
form found
in
Maimonides, Aleph leans strongly
to the form of our leaves.
Country.
that
it
As
to the
home
of the ritual, there
is
no doubt
was an Arabic-speaking country,
since the rubrics

little
are written in Arabic.
Furthermore, there can be
doubt that
this
country was Egypt, not merely because the
leaves were discovered in

is
Egypt but
also hecdiuse
Kol Nidre
a,
not given for the Evening Service of
Yom
Kippur, 11
a custom which, as far as

(see
'
we know, was
peculiar to
Egypt
Kol Nidre
',
in
the Jczvish Encyclopaedia, and the

Besides, the nature of the paper
authorities cited there).

is
too closely akin to the
Fayyum
papers, to
make
it
necessary for us to think of any other provenance.
Character of the Ritual.

This
ritual
was intended
for the use
of the
Hazan
is
or
Sheliah Sibbur and not for the congregation.

clear
This
made
from the
fact that the
form of the third Benediction
268
for the
Day
of
Atonement
is
the one used
by the Hazan
when repeating the Amidah,

for the Confession of Sins
also from the place assigned
on the same day.
When
the
is
Congregation recites the Amidah, the Confession of Sins

placed after
it
it,
but when the
Hazan
repeats
it,
he includes
in the fourth
tJic
Benediction (see Dembitz, Jezvish Service

ff.)
;
in
Synagogue and Home, pp. 165

is
the latter arrange-
ment
the order followed here.

ritual
This
does not correspond to any of the others.
Some
rite
of the passages and readings are found

in another,
now
in
is
one
and now
but the text as a whole

in
quite
distinct.
Thus, passages are found

in
Amram, Saadya,
rites,
Maimonides, Vitry or
pointed in the
to
some of the other
as will be
notes, in fact
whole sections are common
them
all.
Yet, this does not prove actual dependence

;
of this ritual on any of the others
it
proves merely that
it
draws from the same sources as the others.
The
dis-
crepancies are too numerous to allow of any other solution.
Certain sections arc undoubtedly very ancient and their
form older than that of any other

Confession
of Sins, Selihah
iJ3y,
rite,
such
as, e.g.
the
&c.
For much of the

to Gaonic
material found in these leaves

times.
we should go back
This
in
ritual,
however, shows the influence of Maimonides

prayers
many
of the
and also
in
their
arrangement,
especially in the arrangement of the section following the
Amidah on Work Days.

origin,
This
confirms
of
its
Egyptian
soon
re-
as
in
Egypt
the
Siddur
Maimonides
superseded that of Saadya.
There arc also
striking
semblances between our

recension
later),
ritual,
the Italian and a Sephardic
published
for
and
the
translated
by Ottolenghi
of Sins, All
(see
told,
notably
Confession
BUTIN
269
these leaves would belong to the Spanish
group rather
than to the Ashkenazi.
On
the various influences that

rites,
brought about differentiations between the

Ritus des synagogalen Gottesdienstcs, pp. 5
see Zunz,
ff.
We
leave to
more
skilled
hands the task of ascertaining
in detail the origin of
the special readings, but
we
feel
sure
that this text will prove of
some value
for the question of
the origin^ growth, and evolution of the Jewish Rites in

general and for the history of the Egyptian
particular.
Minhag
in
In the preceding notice

useless details, yet
it is
we have perhaps
entered into
hoped that they may be the means
of identifying
some
of the sister leaves scattered in various
places and inaccessible to the present writer.
Description.
Fol.
1
.
This
folio is
badly mutilated
eight lines are

It
missing and only

portion of the
rites.
five entirely
in a
complete.
contains a
Amidah
is
form different from the other

is
The
3.
writing, however,
perfectly clear
and
legible.
Fol.
This
probably the worst of the fourteen fraglines are left

;
ments.
Only three complete
but there are

other
lines.
portions, sometimes only a
word or two, of
five
Writing
account
in
itself legible,
but text hard to reconstruct on
of the
many
lacunae due to tears, holes, and

It
various mutilations.
continues
the
Amidah down
The
rest
to
Modim.
Fol.
3.
Contains
five
complete
lines.
badly
torn but showing portions of five additional lines.

clear
Writing
and
legible.
Fol.
3 a contains
some supplications
Half
preceding the Half Kaddish, the beginning of the
Kaddish,
in a
very fragmentary
state.
Fol. 3
b contains
270
the end of the Half Kaddish,
mm
Nini,
Ashres and the
beginning of Ps. 145.

Fol. 4.
Has
eight lines complete and two lines rather

legible.
fragmentary.
Writing clear and

145.
Fol. 4 a contains
the continuation of Ps.
Fol.
b,
end of
Ps.
145;
followed
11.
by
Ps. 146. 5
line
and
84. 13.
Them comes
the
irv^ Nai
5-10.
With
10 begins
Kedushah {Jewish
is
Encyclopaedia,
s.v.).
The
text of Isa. 59. 21-22
lost,
only the end of the Aramaic

of
fol.
Targum remaining on top

sixteen lines
a.
is
Fol. 5
are a
little
is
complete with
its
a few
lines
mutilated at the beginning and at the end, but

easily reconstructed.
the text
Writing clear and legible.

;
Fol. 5 a gives the end of the
Kedushah
;
then supplications
mostly agreeing with
Yemen
the differences in this section
down
to 5 b, 8 are not great
among
the various rituals.

is
At
the end of 5 b comes a section of which one line
given, but
which we have not been able

5 there
is
to identify.
After
fol.
at least
one
folio missing,
containing
its
the end of the supplications and the Full Kaddish with
complementary prayers
at the beginning of 6 a.
the end of those prayers are given
Fol. 6
lines (6b).
is
complete with sixteen
lines (6 a),
and seventeen
beginning
It exhibits the
same mutilations
at the
and end of the

writing
is
lines as fol.
5 (see below, pp. 282, 283).

Fol. 6 a,
its
1.
The
clear
and
for
legible.
3,
begins the
Minhah Service
Work
Days, with
Arabic Rubric.
fol.
The
text begins with

Ps.
mm
Nim
&c., as on
to
fol.
3 b.
1.
Then
comes
145 given
in full
down
4
b.
6 b,
1.
15.
The
same Ashres follow
as on
fol.
With
17 begins the
Kaddish de-Rabbanan.
I-'ol.
is
lines
and has the same

mutilations as the preceding two
faint
folios.
BUTIN
writing
in
is
271
The
very
and not easily
read.
We
succeeded
deciphering
some of
glass
the words only with the help of a strong magnifying

after
and
having cleaned the paper with dioxygen
by
means the paper was somewhat bleached and the writing stood out better by contrast. Fol. 7 a contains
this
;
most of the Kaddish de Rabbanan

Kaddish, followed
8.
(11.
fol.
7 b,
end of the
1
3-16) by two quotations from

i.
Kings
57-60 and Joshua

folio.
is
8-9.
The Minhah
lines
Service ends
with the
Fol. 8
and has the

;
same mutilations and even minor

writing
is
injuries as fol. 7
folio
the the
also very faint
and the
was treated
in
same way
read
as
fol.
7.
with
certainty.
The beginning of 1. The application
2 could not be
of
ammonium
sulphide gave the paper a bluish tint but failed to revive

the writing.
With
fol.
8 a begins the Special Service for

Selihah
iJ:y,
The order
of the prayers comes

ba our ritual reads
nearest to Italian, but instead of

8 b.
j?rD
is
This Selihah
not alphabetical and

rites.
exhibits an older form than that found in the other
Then
1.
follow
Fol. 9
Dîs*
l"ix ba,
1.
lo and the Thirteen Attributes,
14.
is
also complete with sixteen (9 a)
and
fifteen
(9 b) lines.
It
shows the same mutilations as the others. The

is
writing, however,
is in the
not as faint
on the other hand there
paper much more extraneous matter, stains and
other defects, which render the reading rather difficult in

places.
Fol. 9
11.
a,
I.
2 gives us the Shorter Confession of Sins,
after which,
14-16, comes an Arabic rubric telling of the
recitation of i:3^0 ir3N in a prostrate

irjyi ir^n,
form and of UDÎO

is
13'3K
;
but the
9 b,
te.xt itself
of the prayers
not given
fol.
then,
fol.
follow
some supplications
as on
a,
and
272

P.s.
the beginning of
of the leaves.
Ff.
20.
With
this folio
ends the
first
part
10-14 form a continuous text beginning with the

for
second half of the Confession of Sins

of the
Minhah Service
Day
preceding
Yom
Kippur, and ending with the
same
section for the
Evening Service of the same day.

is
The
text of the Confession
therefore complete.
They
first
cover the end
of the Service of the Afternoon and the
beginning
of
the
Evening Service, including
the
three Benedictions of the
Amidah
for
Yom
Kippur and
the greater portion of the Fourth Benediction, in which

is
included the Confession of Sins
when the Hazan repeats

Widdui,
p. 155).
the
Amidah
(cp.
Maimonides,
loc. cit.,
Fol. 10 contains the sixteen lines but with
many
is
short
breaks due
served as
it
to holes, tears, &c.

is
The
It
fol.
writing
well pre-
in these four folios.
contains the end of

11 a,
1.
the
Minhah
lib)
Service,
which ends on
i.
Fol. II, complete with seventeen

(fol.
(fol.
11 a)
It
and sixteen
contains the
lines,
is
fairly
viêll
preserved.
rubric in Arabic introducing the
Evening Service.
We
The
note the absence of any reference to
Kol Nidre.
in
opening prayers are merely indicated

their text
1.
the rubric but
is
not given.
The
text begins with the

variations
in
Amidah,
first
5.
There arc
interesting
the
two
Benedictions, which will be given in the notes.

].
Fol. lib,
is
5,
gives the Third Benediction, the
first
part of which
evidently based on Maimonides.

Fol. 12, also well preserved
and complete, continues the

12 b,
nriN.
1.
Third Benediction down to
fol.
15.
With
1.
15 begins
the Middle Benediction linnna

Fol.
13,
well
preserved
and complete, continues the

text
ofifers
Fourth
Benediction,
The
some
interesting

variants also pointed out in the notes.
BUTIN
The
fol.
273
Confession of
Sins included in the
Fourth Benediction by the Hazan

13
b,
1.
when he
repeats the
is
Amidah^ begins with

preserved
4.
fairly-
Fol. 14
not so well
but
offers
;
complete text with minor breaks, due to tears

is
the writing
legible.
Fol. 14
a,
1.
contains a section not found in

"i?^XJ
others
and taking the place of the usual

is
no.
The
List of Sins
given in
fol.
14 b, but in a form
rites,
much
not
shorter
than
in
most of the other
and resembling strikingly

identical
Ottolenghi's Sephardic
recension, although
with
it.
In the preparation of the notes

leaves with the
we have compared
these
to
following editions of the other

:
rites
which we have had access
ASHKENAZI
N. M. Adier, The Authorized Daily Prayer Book, London,
1
91
2.
W. Heidenheim,
S.
nON* JID^
IHO, Rodelheim, 1877.

Rodelheim, 1868.
3-i
Baer, ^JNnB^
muy -no,
A. L. Frumkin, D^KM Dnoy

Jerusalem, 1912.
r::3K'N*
mo
Di? n3'u*x
jHjnD n^sn "ihd,
jnjDJ
3pj;'
n^n -in^D, Warsaw, 19 lo.
Service of the Synagogue, 3rd ed., 6 vols.,
London, 1908-1913.
Sephardic
Salomone Fiorentino, Orazioni quotidiane
Ebrei spagnoli e portoghesi, Livorno, 1825.
per
uso degli
.... T-13D nDIJ

1821.
D"s?
.... nnno,
D''?^''^
2 vols.,
Wilna, 1878.
small vols.
L. E. Ottolenghi, D\S-|1J
n"irn, 6
Livorno,
Carpentras
I^NIDJ-'D-lp
\>"\>
:n:o3 D-sniJ DÔ^^ itd, Amsterdam, 1739.
Aragon
ii3N-iN
\>"p
jnjD^
nniMn
dvi
njcri
c-'si^
nirnn,
Salonica, 1809.
274
Italian
A. Hasda, Formulario ordinato tradotto delle preghiere Israelitiche di
Rito Italiaiio, Torino, 1902.

Venice, 1710.
Tyos-\ ^:3 Z'r\\> hr^'^ ;n:?DD -iithd,
Saadva
Various notes
in
Baer, Frumkin, and in T>andshuth's
mcy
muyn,
Persian
s.v.
Passages given by E. N. Adler,
JQR., X, 606
in
ff.).
ff.
jMaimonides
m^sn nDD,
at the
end of Ahabah,
Mishneh Torah, 4
vols.,
Wilna, 1900 (Ahabah, pp. 150
Vemex
p^nn nno
^di
nV xyjv P"? :n3C3 .... nân

portions,
is
-no, Wien, 1906.

of
Another Yemen (Babylonian) recension

Kaddi.sh,
the
Amidah,
and other
f.,
given in Dalman, IVorte
Jesu, 301, 305

13
ff-
also in
Holtzmann, Mischnah Berakot,
Amram,
Rashi,
in
Frumkin, as above.
"ino, ed. Buber, Berlin, 191
1.
'"B'"!
VlTRV
nt3*1
mrno, ed. Hurwitz, Berlin, 1893.

II.
Einkitung
Register
zum Mahzor
Viiry, Berlin,
1896- 189 7.
Palestinian Amidah
Published by
S.
Schechter,
/QR., X, 654
reproduced
in
Dalman,
loc. cit.,
299
Holtzmann,
loc. at.,
ff.
We
have also utilized the following
liturgical
works,
which, althou,q;h not giving a continuous text, have often

preserved ancient readings:
[.
Karo, '"n
niix, Wilna, 1500.
AiiUi)ARHAM, nn~nnN "isD, \Varsa\v, 1877.

Koi.-BO, 13 ^3, Fiirth, 1781.
Maharil, y'nn?2
-|DD,
Warsaw, 1874.
Hamanhk;, t,t ps
mn
nan
:"n:ron
isd, Berlin, 1855.
BUTIN
275
On
the
Amidah mention must be made

',
of Elbogen,
'Geschichte des Achtzehngebets
in
Moiiatschrift fib-
GescJiichtc n. Wisseiischaft d. Jiidentlmms, voJ.
XXXIX,
PP-
?>?><^^')
427
ff.;
5^?,^'
Abbreviations.
A
Am,
Ar.
Ashkenazi
O
P
Ottolenghi's edition of
Palestinian
Amram
Aragon
Carpentras
Italian
Amidah
Per. Persian
Abud. Abudarham
R
S
Roman Mahzor
Sephardic
Vitry
K M
Kol Bo
V Y
Yemen
Maimonides
VOL. IX.
276
Fol.
1.
Recto.
iii*api
ii''V"ix^
nm
b:i
[n"i]pi iJ^nii?j
^npb
pN.n
[ni]DJ3
yaiNO
mn
nn^
ni^^n
bN-it:>[^
^Ni
t:'bv i[i^Di
o
The Amidah
in
folio
is
9
the
opens with the end of the ninth Eulogy,
D''J5^'^
ri3"l3
I,
found in V, 90 (Hurwitz, p. 66). in Am.,

;
38 (Frumkin,
246),
Abud.,
p. 58, col. 2
is
K,
11,
4 c
ff. ;
in the other rituals in the usual place.

I,
Saadya's Amidah
given in Frumkin,
242.
The end
of this Eulogy does
not correspond exactly to any of the other rituals.
L.
2.
2D''D1, probably
an error
for
yD'0^
LI. 3-6.
Tenth Eulogy.
L. 4. J'Up?, so
others
fipb
"im
,
Nlpl, found
in
Am. and Abud.,
omitted in others.
L. 5-
rnno
so S, others omit
^3
so
and
ly^ns!?, so most rituals,
omitted in
L. 6.
and Sa.
J'3ptD.
Supply icy ^niJ
This Eulogy in Saadya
is
much
shorter
and
different.
LI. 6-8.
Eleventh Eulogy.
L. 8.
Supply probably
nmXI
]):'>
130
IDm.
Am.
reads
Î^Dl
immediately after n?nn3.
BUTIN
277
Fol.
I.
Verso.
\r\ny
pN
n"in Dîa nnb D-'Syvom
i^yi
D[n^Dnn]
i^yi
D^"5^v^
^53
%
iDH^
a^^^]
^Nic['
-lau'
^yi pn^'H nâ

iJC^jf'y^
6
7
lôm
D^
D^[n]Dnn b^b aiD

y
^
.
s 9
End
L.
of twelfth Eulogy,
The
differences
between the various
rituals
are too numerous to be listed.

I.
Read DîVyom, the

'n^N3''1
sign over the
indicates transposition.
letters
are,
L.
2.
should be n^3N''1,
the
middle
howevei,
doubtful.
On
this
Eulogy compare also
Per.,
is
JQR., X, 6io.
L. 5. Thirteenth Eulogy.
The
text
very close to Y, see also Per.
JOR.,
ibid.
L. 6.
Read n^):
Supply Supply
Supply n'2
py
nnxc'
(nD'^D).
L.
7.
jni '':^^^N
n''K>1
nin\
iDBâ.
;
L.
8.
nN3
L. g.
Only 7 and y are
visible
they belong very likely to
DHOy
Wp^TI.
278
Fol. 2.
nnyit:-'^n
Recto.
onn
mp
nr:>vn
n'^nr:)
^^3y
îb
n^Dxn 'n3 [D]vn

^<^'^
irip nnyiB^b ^3
jx^nnn
nx
iiJ
^ny^B'^
]
)ybv
D^m
i3^n^[N'
pp D^Dm
^n
^d
4
5
ijyK'im iJ'Ti^sn
o'-Dnna ^npi
n^s^D
nm
pj^nni
6
7
t6^ 3N
Dp
"3
Dôjm
LI.
1-3,
end of
fifteenth Eulogy,
^^
;
r\'0)i
flN.
This Benediction, of
course,
is different in
P, in
which
it
forms part of the preceding, cp. on this
Palestinian practice, Jer. Ben,

L,
2.
II, 4,
5a
IV, 3,
8a;
,
Jer. Taanit, II, 2,
65
c.
Y
ff.
omits
DVn
^3
and Am. DVil ?3
otherwise there are no
important variations in the

LI.
rituals.
Sixteenth Eulogy.
The
I.
differences are too
numerous
to
be listed^
This
ritual is
perhaps nearest to
all
The
title
|(x)Dn"in
3N
is
found in Per.
iJQR., X, 610)
also conjectural.
L. 4.
the others have
i:i?1p ]}}2^.
The
reconstructions are
Perhaps
we
should supply
iJ'i^lp yt3^,
and
1.
5 p^'IS.
L. 6.
The Yod
of pj^nni seems to be cancelled by a point.

is
L. 7. First
word
probably ^J3P0. 8
is
The
last
word of
1.
probably Dp""!.
BUTIN
279
Fol. 2.
Verso.
-ini'
ij^^n
)2]v^' ia i3^^n -nx
4
5
^y
^^ mi3 nni nrlT

bvy
v^2 nmoDH
b[v]) i?
b^^,'^
6
1
Ll. 1-2.
End
of the
Abodah, seventeenth Eulogy.

;
L.
I.
^137, so
Y, others omit
TS03, so Y,
I,
and
cp.
Saadya
in
Baer, p. 99.
Ll. 2
ff.
Eighteenth Eulogy, part of the Hazan.
L.
4.
Before niX,
A and
still
S read(S
IJTlV) nyi
;
D^J?^
supply NIH nriN.
L. 5. First
"im
cancelled by a line
visible.
supply înSin "1DD3, the top of
3 and 1
L.
6.
in "|333 is
Supply very
likely
nnipDH imiD'^:.
28o

FoJ. 3.
[):yij^'<
Recto.
'rhii
-isii
i^nty nB' \v^b li^nxDn

ii^îfiii
'n
!?y
I'bK'
nna nan
|i?6b
^j?
niotyn niiiy dn* i6c'
ii^nNcn
ô n^
ntj'y
m uy
'1
i:^Jiy
as*
"iirby^
4
5
w^nniK'D 131
'3 -)C"C'
jyD^
n''[niy]-i3
Nian
]
no^î n^niDô
tôm
P'i'^Zi')
n'
9
10
{')
Fol. 3.
Verso.
Nnron^J
HD^ya
|-i"'DNn
Nnnncin NnTK'[iJ
Kini
sh
py 133^
N'^1
Qim
12N
iok
raini
y'^
noNi
n'-nc^''
^3 T'y*
3''B'n^
Di[n] irjy ^^^ nyK'in
inon
4
5
'ma D^sînn tit

'])b[br\>
^ttôn
He's
1r^<-|p
n]iy tti""! nm"" ntJ'N V"
minn
n]i>D
6
7
nc'N
n33t:>
nyn [nc'x
Dib nSin
nhyjb
"IDti'
vni)N
]
n3-i [3ni
rhbrof.)
9
10
Recto.
LI. i-6.
is
End
of the supplications pieceding the Half Xaddish.

1i''*lTy
(1.
Every word
(1.
pointed and cancelled from
i)
down
to
lIDy*
4)
many
6
ff.
of the supplications must have
come before and were repeated

fol.
by mistake, see the exact order and wording on

Li.
9 verso.
for comparison, but
The Half Kaddish.
Hardly enough
ff.
is left
as this
Doxology occurs again
in full,
6b-7
a,
we
shall
examine
it
there.
L. 10,
Some
letters are still visible, but
they are doubtful.
Verso.
LI. 2-8.
LI. i-a.
End
of the Half Kaddish.
Dim
Nini followed by various Ashres.
This occuis again 6
a.
L. 6.
Should be '35^^
L. 7. After n33ti' Massorctic
Text has
in
17.
The number
of the Ashres
and their arrangement are different

LI.
the various rituals.
ff.
Ps. 145.

Fol. 4.
BUTIN
V"'
281
Recto.
onni pjn
i
niD ncn h:i d^sn tin
'3îD
nnj
iiDin'' "]n''C)ni
t^V'^ â
iniaô
ynin^
nm^
imuji noN^
Dôhy HD^D
nn^CJ'DOl
nniD^JD
[nn::']^ T^^' ^^
[.
.
.
'J'y
Dâisan ^[a^
in]ya d!?3N hn* Dn[ij

i'[3]^ ]3[''2^D'\
]
]
9
10
Fol. 4.
Verso.
iî'np
nti'
nyi ai'y^
nî'i
iT"
Tin^'j
)bbn Dijiy nyi
nnyo
innj i3n3Ni
nryn
npy^ ^nb' ni^N n^ i^Sn
n^
[^n]::'^
^sij jvi'^
S11
*13 non
V'''
DNJ
V''*
npya
yaâ
6
7
ntj'N
[itt'i]>
^nn
nus nniN
-iK'N
[n]^ n>23 ^noB'
wna nxr nmi n^^jy

[1
[
[.
.
y]nT ^sni lynr ^do

. .
.]
9
10
nn]Ni
D^y
Recto. Continuation of Ps.
145,
w.
8-16.
L. 6. Before DVOîy Massoretic
Text has ^3
21.
Verso. LI. 1-3. End of Psalm 145.
The Psalm
is
followed by two
Ashres from Ps. 146. 5 and

LI. 5-10.
84. 13.
Uba
le-Zion, with the

It
Kedushah.
riD
;
This section
(Frumkin,
I,
is
practically
;
alike in all rituals.
occurs in Am.,
;
302)
V,
;
n5f
(Hurwitz, 73)
other rituals at
L.
6.
Abud. 67
its
K,
14. 7
56, for
Rosh ha-Shanah
in the
regular place.
Place under ]V)i^
Nm
left blank.
L. g. Supply ']^DD at beginning and ^y"1T at the end of the line. L. 10. Supply nyl
nnyD mn^ lOS.
Then
follows the Kedushah.
282

Fol. 5.
Recto.
'nx yD'Ni
iDipoo
y''
nn
^jnctii
nnp^
VT
nynx
nD3 nna b^n ^v\
b)p
nnx
N>JD yv ^Np
nnn
nyj:cî
Nnn
^jn^DJi
-inND
y'>
yn mp^ nna
nyi ohyij nii'D^
piDNi pnntrm
^'^
4
5
n^n:3B' n^n
nixni
-lOB'
.
y'^
Nôi'y ^ci'yî D^y!? n*ni[3]^

^NTJ'''i
pni*""
6
7
irnnx
.
Dnnnx [\n]^N
ch)vb nsr
I^y 3n^ nuij'no

|iy
I'^^b
[.
Njh
-iD3^
[.
i]nn ^3
^3!?
Tiy^
aim sh isn
xini ^^jn
onn^
9 10
^''-^rh na*i[ni]
y"^
l^NTiP
^N*
non nil nSoi 31d
nn[Kj
n
12
''D
noN*
nmini nhy^ piv inpi[v]
nn-'NtJ'i'
yc'B ^y laiyi py a^): ti[d3]

""3
13
non
]^Dn
isn nyi? pnnn nî in[^ra] 14

cî33^
^"'^cn1
irnuiy
iJcn-T'
3itt'[''
Nin]
15
[3]py^^
L.
I.
nnJNE^n
;
b
11.
n^
mhv[o3]
3. 12,
16
End of the Targum

11.
of Isa. 6. 3
then follows Ezek.
with its
Targum,
2-5
Exod.
15.
18 also with
its
Targum,
5-6.
left
L. 6. After
n'ni3PD, DXp has been accidentally
out.
niN3X
is
cancelled by points.
L. 8. Supply
pni
L. 9. Supply n^riK'V L. ID. Supply

LI. 12-16,
is
""3.
passage from Micah
7.
18-19, omitted in almost
all rituals; it
found in Saadya, M, and Y.

(1.
M, however, leaves out from
n''"lNti'^ (13)
to
315^
15).
L. 16.
Supply
nx
|nn, mic.
7.
20.
Fol. 5.
Verso.
V'"'''
[n^D 3py'
^^]^^<
'\:b
33:^0 i3y niN3x
DV3 i:^ni3xi5 ny3i;'3 -i^^n

'u"
nr\'\2i6
V''
non
ban
'\:h
Dioy> ov
dv
V'^
"in3 Dnp
ij^nyit'^
"mx
Di3 irjy^
nt:\x
nix3v
"[n^JD
^ôn nyvjnn
y'^
13
)b
nun
4
5
\X31B 1X-IM
r\2)ob n',x i:Dy nK'y i:^x-ip
II
iman ii pf^Kfjfaji^^îHfmfVim'/fsail/'Âi^.J-i.''-
-^?:t"
^!J,>Li>=.-.
*i
'p'\
IWjyW*
WJ*? ])73J>IXi Pi Xii^
ii'''^^
1>
y* 2'xy 5i^ ^-P '^
J^di>
1^
e)/^*) kJ2)
Y* ceja*
f Jp.
^
111
Fol. 5a.
End
of
Kedushah and
supplications.
BUTIN
283
[nin^]^ uNinc' irans
nnn irn^s nnn

n[N
iJ^nb
pmn
ijiainn
nyn^
D^y
'-m
[i]n2nx i:^3b y^M inning
[.]
xh ?nb
y::
n^ jyo^ n^'sn
k'qj2[i]
n^nîr Dîya
[^^n]!?"!
ypn
-imt^rty 'nins*
t^'n^Ji
14
15
n'-tt'rsn
nio''^
nanai nnio
'a]
't i6
^3yn^
Dmax
in the
^3
irnx n[nN
N3n
oijiyn
16
Note the insertion written

at the place
upper margin,
it
is to
be inserted in
1.
where
the sign occurs.

.
L. 2. V inserts the section n^D V adds Umryi after IJ^nyiK''
^1"l3 after
I^NIp
of
I.
besides,
L.
4.
After *]2 Saadya seems to introduce another section Tl33

I,
TlOf ]Vw
Ps. 86. 17.
(Frumkin,
LI. 4-6.
317).
l^nonJI
mn'' omitted in Y.
The quotation from
"131 i^^]3 is
an addition not found elsewhere.
L. 6. 31tD is cancelled L.
7.
by
points.
Before lyn^N Saadya and
Am.
insert
Nin
IJ^JIIN ']\'\2
is
found
only in Y, which, besides, adds

LI, 8-9.
IJNnU "jn3
.
before 13X~13'^.
Am.
omits
HDN
;
fJlJI.
L. 8.
imin
;
riN generally omitted in the other rituals.
L. g.
Supply
min
after
HDN Y
I
;
adds IÛI HCÔ H^ ^y

.
nyD3
should be yD3
L. 10
ytJil
,
|Dn"in, so M, Y,
others simply NIH
Supply nna'';
I
imin^
others mostly "in3.

Q^'')
Y imin
,
niD^nij.
so
(Y
yt33),
]r\''\
Am. A, S and Abud.
other variants in
Baer, 128.
L. ir.
'\n nit:^yh
mdv^ y
;
nny!?! iJixnj "^n "c^y^
others
"^n ":ry^
nnyh.
L. 12. Supply
LI. 13-14.
"li>J
;
nXSn
C'Qini, so M,
Y,
others omit.
Others lyninX NI^NI

;
im^N.
others add nTH after
L. 14. Supply n3T:i or HN-lJ")

LI. 14-15.
D^yn.
n3*121
riTlJB'
omits
the various rituals read
differently.
L. i6. Beginning of a section not found at this place in any of the other
rituals.
284
Fol. 6.
Recto.
D'nvj
ny
:
:
S''
m:b^ ny ny^ nn
ij3*c*^
n)b'^y2
)DV
na iit
S''
jn'
iy^
nh'T în^^
na*im
n-n-j"V''
rmb
rih^
nhnS
'fmbk
n'':j'n^
sî py 123''
* inr:n ^3
ny-'B'i.T
Dim Nini n^y^ xh lax

Dvn
ij-ij^
4
5
't "-Dvon nc'N* "i3"'xip
i^cn
6
7
yn'>2
''acn^
nc'iS
V'""
mina
D'-ahnn tti
iii'i'n^
[vn]^N
yV
oyn nc'N
''ni'D
niy
n^l?nxi 13-13X
':î
'31
Dv
^>'>
ba
nyi
ni'iyi'
irDV 10
iwSD
^^moi
hna nyi nSy^ loc*

npn px 'inbi[3]h
itj^ iTinu[ai]
n
12
n^tJ'yo
'd3
nac"' "in^
in
nam nmn nuD
-nn
13
nDN"- TTiiNiiJ ntyi nn^c^s* ^>[n^?!5^3]

nnpi^'i lyn'- ^n1D
14
15
nar
nn3D[K inhnji]
310 non ^nî

Ll. 1-2.
ess
tin* ninni ;[ijn ijjt]
16
See also
fol. 7 b.
L. 3. Rubric in Arabic.
L. 4.
fol.
Beginning of the Minhah Service.

(1.
Dim
Nini followed by various Ashres and by Ps. 145
9) as on
b.
L. 8. After Selah an insertion
must be made as the sign referring

7]22U Dyn
"""Iti'N
to the
margin
is
there
it
should be
\p
as on
fol.
3 b.
L. 9. Ps. 145.
BUTIN
285
Fol. 6.
Verso.
Disn
^ni?
ynin^ it21^ imnji no^<^
niai'n -ini3/r3 iniDô

']^)D
nn
nu3i vnnuj
D^cîy ^3
^'^
4
5
nm nn ba
b^ bb ba
P]piri
-jn^c'?ooi
D^si23n
D^âin n^^sin ^d^
pvn
^n
yac'O"!
nn-
riN
n^niD inya
V'*
s 9
10
"p vc^yD
nôni
nNi
iniN-!p^
TJ'N i?3^
vam bn VNmp b^
nx
y''
[pn^;]
2)'\p]
[S''
'B'n yotr^ nnyic' nxi nEyy vn[-i^ pvn]
n
12
'nn ^3
riNi
vaniN
idi::'
Dy''D'r[i]
T1T1 ns im^
S''
ri^'"""
nôc" D^yc'in
13
TI3J i^mNi nyi nSyi? ic'np Dir

[npy^J^N::'
ncn
ntj'a
14
15
nc'N
n> ib^n
Di?iy nyi
nnyn
n^
[n noj^yn
[x]nn
Continuation of Ps. 145.
L. 6.
L. 7.
nm
n^D:r cnpnî T'lin^
17
D/23n cancelled by
points.
ITSD^ Massoretic Text n35J'V
LI. 15-16.
L. 17.
Same Biblical quotation as on 4 b, 11. 3 and 4. The Kaddish With 17 begins the Kaddish de-Rabbanan.
1.
in
whole or
in
;
part occurs in
I
all
rituals.
(P. B., p. 86, Baer, 127, 153)

;
(p. 372)
(p.
74)
;
(p. 95,
100; cp. also Dalman, Worte Jesit, p. 305]

;
V
I,
(Hurwitz,
p.
64)
Abud.
184;
(p. 40)
{loc. cit.)
I,
Ar. (pp. 5
b,
22 b, 23 aj
Am. (11, Frumkin,

184 note
3)
;
I,
HD, Frumkin,
317); Saadya
(in
Frumkin,
7,
2 b-d).
L. 17. After
iim
(N3~i)
adds JON see Abud.
286

Fol.
7.
Recto.
bî p.T^nai |o''Dvai
pa^'^nn
iTnoma
tdk'
Nvo^Nj? iDîS'yî ol'Ny^
T13D nan
nnnc^-'i
i'i'nn''
xc'jn^ nbyn* orDnn^ naan^

[N^jj^yb Nin
nnnn*
6
7
inn
bv
n-irnpn
xn-^:;'
n''o:j'
"nnn>
Ni'''yi>
snnac'in
NDDia
fox
ncNi
bo noWn pôxn
9
10
1
....
, . .
]):]>]
n^D^n nô^n ^3 bv) pn^'ôbn
^^
pnn N-inxn
D^*^'
Nc^np NnniN3 pp'ôyn

Nn^
[N]:m
N3î
pDî pni? N^D'cn
nnsi ins' ^33
12
I^N noNi nini nnai

nc'iy
NH^N nip
N*nDn[i]
13
D-^n n^dc* jd n3-i n^^bu
^T
14 15
jcN
nosi
i^snc" bi'i 13^

oîjc
ba
L.
!
[i'y]
D^nn vomni VDiiwa

faint as to
16
The words n*niy"13 N^3 are so

n"'n'':r?3
be almost
illegible;
but
see 3
a, 6.
nOi"*!, so Y, S,
An, and Abud.
L. 2.
L. 3.
n^}2]J
pnD"'1, so
so
b^l pn*^n31,
M and M and Y
Y.
;
others ^3 ""^nn.
Abud. omits
"*'n3
L. 4.
After 3^^p there are two points;

;
following sentence
L. 5.
reads NH^
,
pX, therefore, belongs to the pH. |DN nN1 3np, cp. Abud. and K.
but
:
L. 6.
different
Some add fON see K. The verbs are practically alike in all rituals, Am. and Saad3a read obpH* instead of ??nn^
in
the order
is
this ritual
seems
to
have 1330'
L.
L.
7.
the place of
"INSnV
p.
On
Nin 1*13, sec Abud.,

at the
42
NP^y?
line.
is
here repeated as
in
Y.
8.
Supply Nncnjl
Supply |i3n
bv'\
end of the
;
L. 9.
L. 10
rituals,
bm^''
omits ^Nlf*
I,
bv.
^Jyi
Supply probably p3n'1, with .^bud. and Y add nothing.
or,
JD ^3
with the other
L. II. Kti'^np; Abud. positively
condemns
this
;
form although used by

is
many
he
insists that
in
we
should read Nn::'np

line
XDC'np
ni
found
in
and
S and bracketed
L.
I
Y.
At the end of the
supply
13.
omits X37, and most authorities also p3^;

ti:b
-,
has
p3^
;
pni>
pn^lN:^; S poh
all.
Y njS pn^
in
Dalman Nibi
]'\rh ]^^b)
Abud.
omits
Dp'J* shoulil
be
HWC M, S, and Y omit.

LI. 13-14. Differences
ritual
BUTIN
to
287
listed.
between
rituals too
numerous
be
Our
does not correspond to any other.
L. 15. Supply another substantive.

L. 16.
rituals
is
Other
rituals insert
XIH
after
VnilD
nti'i?'
omits
Vrom3
1.
and
.
all
omit what comes between
VtDm3and
of next page,
r,,,
D''!nn
not absolutely certain.
Fol.
7.
Verso,
in^
iy^
''^'
tiy
'^
S''
D'?i ^h"^^'
DwS*
ri>3
ijcy I3sn^x
''
S'
D"i^^2 loy
i-in^
^Ni iJ^nTy ks* irriDx oy n\n t^tn^
nabî v^N i:^33^ niDni> nioni? irEro^
iB'N n^JN
nm
y^
vnjî
irnnx
ns* niv
DDV
iJ^n^N
^x D^3np
^js^ ^nj:nnn
&
9 10
nny
px
dsej'o nVl^'y^
lyoi?
V3*n
bn
na^^
10V3 nv -im ^NnB>* loy

sin
y"'
n'-nbvvn
'3
j'-ixn
ôy
^53
n[yn]
n
13 14
15
'm T'30 nrn minn nao

ni:ry^ mo^jri jyo^
. .
r-^n-
n^
my u
i'33
nb''i'i
ddv
rr-ini
n^3m nx
i'N
nîj^'n
rx
'3
3in3n
piyn
[l^n]
fttsi pin Tn"'Vi* n^jh b"'3B'n
nc'N* !'33
Tn^N
y"-
-joy 13
nnn
^ni
16
n^3
L.
I.
73 repeated by mistake
after nci'y
most
rituals
read
13''7y
U\?U
Ll. 3-12.
Quotation from
i.
Kings
8.
57-60
this
and following section
quoted from Joshua

other
after
rituals.
It
(II,
12-16) are not found in this connexion in the
occurs in Ar, at the end of the Service for the second day
31
a.
;
Rosh ha-Shanah,
Note
^',
L. 3,
not ^^
is
besides,
to
it
seems
to be cancelled
by a
point,
although the point

L, 5. First
too
weak
be identified positivelj'.
niDHp
L. 6, Masso ratio Text reads Vt325i'1

L.
7.
Vpm
VniXO.
VrU""! a
mistake for VriM
L. 8. After ^J37
we
;
should add
nirT" as in the biblical text.
L. 9, Supply nb''b^
V3"n ^33
r,2bb not found in the biblical text.
L. 10. Supply DSB'DI, L, 14, Supply TNT.

L. 16.
Supply l^n.
288

Recto.
Fol.
8.
ITnîS
Nnra' x^dhn*
p
psn
^N-iB^^
nd3
lb HK^yni
^:d3
V'"
Dnvo
loy
dk>
ijyc'-i
"iJNun nin
dvhd
Ti^vo nnoni ISDN

[i:]"'NDna
avc''
i^nipnv
-in'
lîp in d^^^td
Dî'-k^'iT
[nann!?] loyi
\bii ):'<]rhii
u^nuN
niJiyni
b:ib
v^^
nnyi irnu'-aD
[bv]
V'^
T^^
lyD^
"iN*ni
vji3nn bn) inay

^^^N
n^sn
^!:^po
IJIN*
nun
D''OK^n
y'"-
n-iyni
i3ni0B'
ns
nx-ii n^j-iy
"-a
np[a]
unjN irnipn^ ^y ab
yj2n-\
noK' Nip3 "i[k'n]

Dî'[^3o]
D[''2-in]
bv
"3
T^s^ irûnn
V'^
na[''C'p]n
S'"
J^n^D
nyoK'
2
is
y"^
Ll. 1-3.
Rubric
in
it
Arabic
the
to
first
word
of
1.
too faint to be read

1.
with certainty, but
seems
be in
p''D"ini.
Likewise after ND3,
3,
two or three words cannot be

as,
'
read.
We
'.
would expect some such meaning
after they
have read the Tephillah
The
is
rubric must have been

visible.
marked
of
with the usual signs, but these are no longer

the Service for Mondaj-s and Thursdays
The arrangement
similar to the one indicated
by
Am.,
nV (Frumkin,
ff.
I,
393).
9.
Ll. 4
Passage from Dan.
T5-19.
ND^^fin for nN''i"in.
L. 5. After
QnVO
biblical text
has npIH
T3.
L. 8. "in^ is a mistake
and was probably cancelled by points or by a dash
no longer
visible.
"|:*^^<
L. 12. After CJOB'n biblical text reads
jynb,
but omits
these two
after
words
I^TN
after "J^'N-
Biblical text has also
M7S
for ^7N,
and adds yot^l
L. 13. nin' omitted in biblical text. L. 14. After "]j:y biblical text has n>^y.
L.
16.
Tlic final
He
is
extended according to
its
cursive form.
BUTIN
289
Fol. 8.
Ê^
Verso.
""3
Tha
i2yo^ "inNn ^n
->
ntryi
iras
ij'':y
'iM:y
loy
!?j?i
in^y ^y
i^'-jy
iJ''jy
iJiyc^^
Nn^s*
i3''jy
ir-nni
iD-i^y
i^mn
lyjy
ij"':y
i:^ni3
4
5
i^DNDn b^b
nnai irjy
ii\y\
iJ"'jy
irjy
\ni5N
ij^jy
i3^jy
pn^""
i:''3n
nnnax
-i"'3x
6
7
Vn mry
ij-i^y
ir^y irjy 3py^

3:t^'
niDsn
ij"'3y
irjy
ii'':y
D''D3[K'n]
'i3''iy
Nnijni
nujn
"ij^jy
ijnjn
9 10
.
"Dâs*
']ik
^^
-UTin
T^m
nna
[d'^]
ni^n: riNnp: n-'omn ijyn
n
12
pi
mp
vjy!?
nynin
inon
y""
[1]
N-ip-i
fjy
n-^ iDy
V'^
a^f'TT'i
pya
m-ii
13
[Nip^lJ V3D
Sliy''i'
<
"ICNJ DC>1
^jn'
S''
14
15
[nD]n
mi
d^sn nnx pam

N5Jî3
Dim
y^ V>
.... py
.
n'zhab non nvi: nDsi 16
HNDni
Nnp3
it is
L.
I.
After "JOt^ biblical text has

Selihah Anenu.
LI. 2-10.
In most rituals
alphabetical.
recension
simpler.
is
entirely different from
any found
II,
in the rituals,
and
The present is much

it
See Am., rp (Frumkin,

Cp. Baer, 599.
313).
Most
rituals
have
for the
Day
of Atonement.
9.
L.
Supply
13"'3y at
the beginning of the line.

letters to
fl
L. 10.
The word and

is
be supplied are not clear

in the
.as
the letter pre-
ceding
UTin
then,
either
or
latter case
it
would be probably
it
lynnyj,
form.
L. II.
LI. 13
some such word

any
'^^)\y should
precede; but
is
too
doubtful to allow
positive conjecture.
D^2N "l^N px has here
a different
Supply nriN, the lower portion of n seems

ff.
to be visible.
Exod. 34. 5-9.
L. 16. Supply ya^DI
29
Fol.
9.
Recto.
i:^nns \n^Ki
iJNii'N
x3x
>
i^n^nai
ejiiy
^:^p1
d^jd
ny
ijn pnk'
irnnno
4
5
i3Ni2n xî i3niN
D^nv y:sh noN^c

>sn inai ):bn
ijâo i:Dcn
inja
i:f2r^s*
irnuxi unjK UNtsn ^3n
6
7
[m]r
i:yc-ini iriyn
[i:nji3 y-i
[
"ijvy ipc'
iri]y
ino
i3îN3
iriD
M'ib
9
10
[i3pin]K' ijyB>n
Li'-niDn
simy
):''^p
imv
u^yn
Tn^^*'2o
mo
n
12
13
[nnJKi
u^
ni:i^
n^
DnB^\n T'^st^'oî
n'B'y nj3N â ij^^y
Nan
>
^y p^nv
i:n3xi
nn:i ^^y lyia* fin

in:i
i^yB'-in
14
15
ysn
in
nya i^d^d irnx îpM

ij''3i'r2
nsi
L.
i3^jyi
u^Jn
i3in
insbx
jo
16
I.
After
nn?01 Am. adds many other
supplications.
LI. 2-14. First part of the Confession of Sins.

full
The
Confession occurs
in
on
fol.
13 b. 4
Here we note only the differences between the two

6; before pstj' 6
folios.
L, 4.
IJ^nnna should be irnjnnn,
cp. 13 b.
13 b.
reads
L.
''b.
5.
After
y:sh
1
13 b. 8 adds
I^J^C.
Both verbs occur
in
L. 9. ^3"'nD
13b. 12, reads 13T1C.
many
rituals;
after lîy, supply IjyC'S, as in 13 b. 12.

LI. lo-ii.
13
b,
14
has three verbs beginning with
as also the other
rituals
at
an earlier date only one verb probably occurred.
L. 14. Should be Dnnji.
L. 15. Should be innjl.

LI.
i/<
fl".
This rubric
is
almost identical with Am...
TOp (Frumkin,
II,
308)
for the
I,
corresponding passage on these two days, see Am.,
riD
(Frumkin,
302),
Y,
p. 6a.
RUTIN
291
Fol,
9.
Verso.
"-o
[ajTiDy
S" ^^ "ii'^K'n nijiy
Dm
vi'
unn Nin o
snin \v^b nn'bori ôv

-113T
T'lsm i:nn "iiam

3
\t^K
'31
unry i^mN nay

^Dt^'
-iiar
irn^^
4
5
iyb''vni
1133 -im bv
"^yw
1:3 ijy
m m
""3
lyjiy
DN
'3
IOC' fyoi? "UTiNun ^y nsai

incj' jyoi?
6
7 s
c^
ntry
V""^
-iitoTD
nn:::'''
n^b^?
i3i<t:n
lb irnn[Êro]
''
m^; dio
^1\>J2 ^-lry n^B*" 3py''T

in^Jiyi
ni>K nc^
^^yD''
10
Tnimo
^3
1131''
n
nj[c^n>]
12
X/^ in^fy
bi n^33b
^3
lb
|n>
n^D
[x]^D> ijinj irn^N

[V"-]
y^t^'in
0*1^31
i^nyiir'^n nji[-i:]
13
Tiyn^
nny
'I^n1^Ntô
iiT'jy^
^3
V''
14
15
[ytr^]
nnnî )îp
^"oujd
in^ttô
Ll. 1-8, see fol. 3 a. 1-6.
This occurs with few variations also in Y,

14. 7,
11,
I,
and S
they omit quotations from Jer.
6-8.
After this they recite^
the Half Kaddish.

L.
7.
"131
"'3
cancelled by a dash.
L. 8. Ps. 20.
L. 9. Supply ijy> L. 10.
nn^
is
The missing word

3py''T
probably 133{J'\ which had been wrongly
repeated.
H^N
I
should be of course
apy
\n7N.
L. II. Supply
WOT.
VOL. IX.
292

Fol. 10.
Recto.
UNt:' D"'NDn bvi ntry^
pny^ niryn i6
pa'-^n
i3xt:>
DVs'Dn bv^ p["ip DjiT^y pn-'^n
4
5
'n 13NC' D^Nt:n

pn""'n i^Nc'
bi n^y[2nx] nip^D
^yi
onîjy
D^Non
ma
i.T'^y
[pa^] ^n
6
7
WNB* D^NDn ^y^
DîDtJ'
^1^3
nnô |[n^^]y
tnî^y
nn
p[jn p]n
nn
nin^ro
ynns
p3"n
nsne'
s 9 10
ni[vD
D''ib
bv'\]
Hij'y
nivjD ^y n^^po
p'xc' ^yi îb nîbn ^yi nK^yn
s^
u^
Dî^j
[J]J^N:^'
riNi
y:tib dij[-ion]
''jd^
12
[^y] i:N[:]m
)ynbi<
r\)r\>b
inns nd3
yn^
-i3*t3
''i[b]
13
ni[-inDj]n ":i^
ij^
ohs
14
15
niijy!?
Dîy ny iyj3!5i
ni^ [jjni]
li3y
LI.
ni^""!
fol.
nNTH
14 b. 5
ff.
;
nmnn n3n
[^3
ns]
16
1-12 are a duplicate of
see the notes on the latter
place.
Note that
in
this section
there
is
a constant variation between

!
DHvy
and
pvy
once
we
is
find
even DlUvy,
3-
The
14
reconstruction of
b.
the missing words in this page can easily be

L. II. 1J7
to dittography L. 12.
made from
16;
it is
W)bi
]ytil^
omitted
in 14 b.
wrong
insertion due
with preceding or following
line.
Supply 73n with Am.

^)b}
II,
,
LI. 13-14. "JC'
V, A, S,
read D^])^T^ DM^J

I^Jsi? 'lb
"X*'
1313.
Am. (Frumkin,
341) "j^;
1313
DH î^b ^H. Abud.
reads (p. 133) "ICWB' 1D3
im^N
This
'H 1>:2^ '"IDVI ''1^
bsH
he mentions the
"103
;
the fact that
many
inserted
D^3 py UNDHI between 1J\n^X and

ritual
he
condemns
LI.
this addition.
reproduces this rejected reading.
14-16.
Quotations from Deut. 29. 28.
The
It is,
section
in3y Tni
in
is
generally not found in the rituals in this place.
however,
;
and S
when
the Confession
is
repeated
in
the Evening Service

(p. 137 b).
it is
also found in
Rafter the Confession of the Morning Scr\ice
Fol. 10.
Verso.
p3^
i
"idn
i
nnnoiD
'noi lyyt'D
no ms^jc y^zh
^30 irn^N
V' i^'P^ '^'P^
BUTIN
293
"'T
bv ainD[3] linnni oninD

D''n[nnt3]i
D"i3''i'y
d'-d
4
5
'd
>
bo
Tip-in nx"'3j
[DjsriN
nnuN
Q'-h^j
boi
oaTiiKota
nhoi bn)D i^D
13^
ps
T'iv[^20')] 13^
i6^ IV
'%'i<
nns
7sn::^^
[iy
ni3i]yp
10
'uiy it^3yi iK'ayi \xi3 'rx 'n["ivi3]
n
12
[']^n3 ^3x
-isy ^nn^'iJ
^-in
ab 1^x3
^nni*i3K>
\nbx y^ i^js^ ^3x
^nnno3
[-iJD]im
[^p]
,
.
13
yishD
ii^*-i
^^'
nobi
ntJ'n
x^[
]
y'"-
14
15
...::' noi TiDnti'
no xonx
x^tj'
m^x
["sjin T'^nns
înoi pîtD
TiMy'i:'
nm
16
bx
L.
I.
Quotation from Ps.
19. 13
ilO
is
of course a mistake for
''O.
;
LI. 5-6.
Quotation from Fzek. 36, 25.

lectionis in
D13py should be D3 vy
most
note
the mater
L.
all
7.
TnilDI
1.
1.
for Dn"inD"l.
folio, in
This continues
b,
16 of preceding
rituals.
Am.
omits
from loa, 16-19

sections.
.
10.
does not seem to have either of the following
two
L- 8. 13^ ...
1-|3ni
M, V, and Abud. omit

ri''3
A, S read
1
111")
11.
">n
1-2.
^3.
NPX
L. 10.
is
We
and
might supply possibly

line.
73 l?OyP
title, is
;
cp. 7 b,
written above the
^^7N, although a
not written in square
letters.
omit
all this
Hne down
to
ilDX
V, S omit down to 7X1C'''.
L. II. First
L. 13.
1k^'3y"l
;
is
in the other rituals
:
So Abud.
"bx nin^ omitted
S amplifies
L. 14.
Supply ^^33 with the other
rif.uals.
L. 15
After '^T^K A, S. Abud. read "TinX

1:^î'X
;
^"^f?X1
has plural suffixes
IJTinX \n^X1
Am. irnbx
simply.
After
NUnX
Am., M, A.
S,
add
my.
Tioni:' for 'nxon'C'.

.
.
Ll. 15-16. TT'iyti'
HDI not found

15
is
in the
other rituals
verb to be
supplied at the end
of
1.
uncertain, but possibly

;
TiyK'Dvi'.
plÔ
ÎHOI
so
is
Am. and
omitted in
V A
;
and S
read'
p"lO
has
nnO
has plilD.
all rituals.
; ;
294

Fol. II.
Recto.
''iniD^
DV nnjo mb)i n!;o3

r^'b
n^ nb
bx
T-yo
r\i6): 'nrini'
i^yo^x
Dv^ in;' nicfb jfn^N

i2i? "fin
'21
nn5
iiaa nva
nacrx mb)i ^lo

-ns;:'
^''''
*^vî Ti
nnS'n
4
5
nnan
NnnT
v^S^ m^Dyî?
i5n:n i5xn
npy
'n^xi pni*^ ^î'N1 Dn-i3N
nnnn
x''3f3i
^01: |V^y
^n N-iiam
-iiajn
^n:n
nns
'non "i:Din
fyDi?
î^n njip D'-aiu

Dn''jn
li^ro
irnsr [nnjnsa loty
>J2^ ^ni:
10
1SD3
. .
.
u'-ansi
D^'nn |*Dn
^x D'^n^
D^^n
^>Nii
n
12
"n li'o D'-^n
n'nba
>
']:vK>b
V"'
Dîy^ "in:
[n"']nio
nnx
omas' po
13
14
ts
y^rin^
an nnx dtid iThd
'n-13 D^nr:
D'^bin
-Tno nona o^^n

D'-^Qij
bbo
D>m
bD[n]
XDni
"[DID
D''n-i3
16 17
n>pD) n'iV2i6 lycyoi nniowx i['']n[oi]

L.
I.
End
have
in
of the Minhah Service.

still
After
p"11D''
and S add
D''y"l
D'^ni
and
further additions.
Probably there were also some words

is
left
out
this ritual,
as the sign referring to the margin

is
found after
pTlD'j but no trace of such words

LI, 2-5.
now
visible.
Rubric
in
Arabic
as far as the
Amidah Amidah
II,
the Service
is
the same
as on Sabbath. L.
4.
najJ'n should be
I,
niâ.
On
the
for
Yom
S.
Kippur, see A,
Service Book,
p.
22; Baer, 410;

38
;
O,
V,
III,
37
I,
I.Iasda, p.
p.
Mahzor, 145; 325; Am., np and Xjp (Frumkin, II, 292, 344)
col.
Frumkin,
351 (Hurwitz,
;
389
Abud., 140,
R, 6r a
C,
Rosh ha-Shanah,
30 b
Ar., 59 a.
L. 8.
bnjn
repeated by mistaKe.
L. 10. DrT'n ''22b, Saadya reads

L. II.
DnnnX
Dy"l6 (Frumkin,
I,
34, X).
PX omitted
it
in
the other rituals; after
170
Per. adds jcrn, and
after D^'na
adds
D>"'n
W^bn
12.
Instead of ^:V^b. Persian reads
yi^b
:
"Jl
D\n^X we
D'TI
find a great variety of readings in the rituals
A, S
"Itiy "]?0
wX
',

Am.
^n (^n) D^^!?x
;
;
BUTIN
;
295
-jIjid
i,
R iny
ba
iblO
bn):
,
(R i^d) ^n ks
it is difficult
Abud.
^n i?N
nny
Per.
iny
ijNIJ
'n
&c.
to
know what word
should be supplied at the end of the

LI. 14-15.
line, y^l^ltDI
or JJD.
Like S
Am., V, and
omit {jDH TTltt.

II,
LI.
17.
DiJVnN^
jytyO, so
Saadya (Frumkin,
237) and Per.
JQR.,
X, 606) omitted
in all
the other rituals.
Fol. II.
Verso.
'^y^'<b
D"\:sh nio:rJ nnnriti isy
injinx
d'tio
nr^n
'di
nnujn
^yn naiDD
''
nTiô nvnni? nns* jonji c-in^

l^fnyji
n^Dmn
^Ni
4 5
t^hpS
D^non
n^"'nD
î5
bv
V""'
"î^'
"1313 n^B'iB'D nc^np

nr
c'^k'ji
6
7
ppp 1DN1
^N
nr
nipi
I53
in'^n:
n^
mm
inn
nua
niaa
pxn
nI^d
nisnv
' n-'N
d"^ni:j>
vmc'Di
D^Jiy Ni?n iîji
9
id
II
p-i?3"ixi
pna^^'D
n^'nyni' iina dipd

>
'in 1J''3^ HDipJDD
IDpOD
y'^
1133
^[aJnD
^3
mnrD
ij^by
iiôni ysin
lytrîj
12
3np3
[l]i3t;'n
iJ'-D-si
|VV3 iiiôn ^no
[i]:x
13 14
ir^n3
>
ij
[D^]^t:'n^
ni^npo
-jina tj'ipnni
[hjann
15
16
[lyjj^yi
D^nvj
nvjS ny ny^ i^y
[njyxin
Ll. 1-2.
DTID
"]^
"l^TniSl
not found in the other

:
rituals.
L. 3. After
nyitJ'^.
other rituals add
(V,
\:b) n''m*D1 n^Httl
nÔD
H^JD
Then begins the

is
special addition for the ten Penitential days,

""O.
which
in all rituals
introduced by "JIDS
(NDmn,
;
note spelling for pn*in,

I,
thus Am., Per., S, C, Ar., Abud. (141. i)
D"'K)n"in,V, A,
R.
See
Baer, 384.
D^lOm NPD,
not found in the other rituals.

Ar., C,
Ll. 4. D'l^n^
D^?3m3, so Am.,
Abud.; the others invert
D''^ni'
D"')3m3.
L.
to
5.
Persian reads differently {JQR., X, 614).
Third Eulogy, extends

1.
down
to
13 b,
1.
15.
For the section down
12
a,
3,
the differences with the other rituals are too
numerous
to be
296
listed.
We
give only the variants from
and
with which
it
is
very
similar,
i^nyji,
n3"'^rrj.
L. 6. "JK',
M
,
and
Y nWXH.
After
nk'-'l^^'O
should be ntJ'ÎB'lO.
L. 8.
mm
M
Y
omits.
n''ijXi::',
L. 9, ^bl:,
L. 10. (64,
1.
omits.
adds HT^ HT.
iViyn^,
omits; before pnDB'D
inserts
Dn^'wb
See Abud.
I).
L. 12.
mno, M
and
omit; after
VSIH,
Y
:
adds Xt^Jnni.
LI. 13-14.
(Exclusively-) 1j''^n3
"lyCî?,
.... 3np3,
tion doubtful.
and Yomit and read
M and Y omit reconstrucM ^^ IJHJX, and Y "J^ 1JN.

;
L. 15. niiripO,
L. 16.
ny nyi?,
M and Y omit. m and y ini
nnij.
Fol. 12.
Recto.
r
n' bv "y^ 1313 -\w niDôa nrxin
ini
in^
"3
>
n'"
i^^n
nm
Nin
-in!?
iw yrha
^'''
Nin trnpi
Dn
i?K)
nn^
^^
^n^j '\ybj2r]
4
5
^N
V'*
nyi nb)vb c'lo^

in
n^ irn^N*
nns*
ini^)
innD
j5li
<
cm pi
hn: ibD
^y irn^N
r\-\2^
6
7
ND
i?D
^y ^nD^^<^
"j^c-yo
i?D
I^JD^ nnntj'î ^*E'yc^

[ L
niN-i"'i
nns mi3x
]
oîa
iK>y>i
Qi^-i:'
n^xnan b^
33''!?3
ijyn^c'
10D
iJivn
10
ir
irD>3 n-iDii iT'a

b''
1)22 |n
riy
yzih^
"^
poi^ti'ncy
pSi
>
mnc
mpn
^y
n-iij
I^c'i
^B>1
12
'riD
i^L'nn^
t^^î'^ nSin loy^
13
l[v]-iK^ nncu' ^b D^^n*b
na jinns
14
15 j6
'nyi "inay
'3
nn^ pp nnôv
>:^''
-]i^y^ ivi:'[cj
-1^3
mnron th^b'd
p^
n[D"'"iyiJ
L.
I.
"rj*,
L.
LI.
2.
After
M ^f^p n3i3 mcNn, y ycnp in, Y adds "jnay.

is
it
n"'C'3
iicNn.
3-6.
This section
evidently taken from

as the regular third
Am.
(^Frumkin,
for
I,
236,
33)
who, however, gives
Eulogy
work
days.

It is
BUTIN
is
297
the sarr.e
is
also very close to
and Ar.
In the other rituals the end

in
but the beginning
is different,
while
Abud. and
the beginning
similar
but the end disagrees;
is
entirely dififerent.
;
L.
4.
I
1D''^0n, so
omit.
Am., Ar.
yb^:.
"jPO Am.,
I,
Ar. omit.
Nin
Am. and
L. 5. mn'^ omitted in
*iyi U?)]}b,
most
rituals
after 13\nPN others rituals
add ^''20.
is
and
omit.
7K,
Am.
omits.
The Yemen
recension
given
in
Dalman, Worle Jesu,

L.
7.
p, 306.
NO, others
correctly
HD.
'\'^}i't2r\
L. 8.
Tr\2'^ for nXliB'.

rituals.
should be either l^t^^yn or D''tryi2n
with the other

L. 9. L. 10.
Supply
rwvb.
others DÊT
;
wh^,
supply
-]'33^.
im^X
HinV
L. II. 1''JS^D, so
Y, others
L. 12. "["O^y, the last
two
letters
having been damaged by a tear were

sufficiently legible the
is
written above, as the
word was not
whole word was
written in the margin.
After py read 73, which

1.
put in the margin.
mnU'
L.
for nN*13B', see

13.
8.
After
Hipn,
Am., M,
S, Ar.
read
n^lD.
lOy
b,
reads
ly^
mnv
Fol. 12.
D''nK'''i
'\r\i2^'''\
Verso.
INT' D^-jnv
i^^j"
m
p
pni
>
iron
in^y^
pipn
n^3yn
'3
nnîyi
nnn
d'-T'Dhi
nij^n ja^y^ n^Jij nyc'-in
i?3i
.td
'yn nr^^yn ni3ôi

'3''
'pNn
Th^6^='oi2
npyn
4
5
nn3
D"'^'^Nni
T]i2'\p'!2)2
-incTii
c^c^nâi
^y 3in33
"3
jr:;
-in3 ^tj'yo ^3
^y nnnD
p::'^
nu3
i^ypr n::i
inu3
n?:nn nc-ni njaijn

Dî'B'nui fvv -in3
mam
mxnv
vrpr
V'^
nN^3j n>
[V"'
p5^'?3
lô]
11133
10
ir 12
'p
nmn
3in33
'T133
njî
inb
ivv ^^^^^<
ahy^
ii^^ nc;'ip
r\>
niN3v
y^
.133^1
-iDNii
"bbn
nm
13
298
i3mn2
hhk
^"^P^
lô[n S']^^
^jjao
15 16
[i]n n^x-n
^:n\ii
nans D^y[n
L.
L.
I.
TNI so
M, V, R,
,
Per.,
and some MSS. of A, the others have pD.
2.
;i3pn other
rituals
L. 3. ^31 omitted in A, S,
pspn R V has
;
^3
^D
nhs
... ^3 omitted in Abud.
|B>V3,
C and Abud.
p]32.
L. 4. n^tJ'OD omitted in
LI. 4-5. "l^KTl
, .
.
the
first
two
in
letters written in the
margin.
riDPCI omitted
the other rituals, but found in
and
partially in Per.
LI- 5-6.
pnnai .... nCilpCD,
not found elsewhere.

"1JI
L. 6.
Am., V, Y, Per. C, Ar. read
mno
"13\n^N
niH"'
(C 112^'),
nnN
Ti^joni (V, c,
Nin).
in the other rituals is different,
'\'>]J
Ll. 7-8.
The reading
most of them having

;
(Am., S, Ar. y^1pJ2) ']îp

"131
D'-^t^'n'-ai
11133 pB'D |VV nHD
inverts
peTo jvx nn3i iTy n^^c'nâ.

LI. 8-12.
Am.
1.
omits
11.
all
from IJJI to
niH'' 'JvD''
others, except Y, omit
down
to 1133,
L. 13. After n* l^^n,
Am., A, V, S, Ar. read

;
]t3B'
N"11J1
rtHN
mip
(Y -|DN:i) 3"in33 "iny^30 ni^N pSI

instead of lONJI they have 317133.
L. 15. Note that on
M
is
and
read as our ritual but
Yom
Kippur *]bon
substituted to
7Xn
is
L. 16. Middle Benediction.
On
this
we
have collated also a MS. of the
twelfth century, belonging to Prof. Hyvernat.
The
M.S.
not complete
it
but
it
gives this section for the Feast of Pesah.
We designate
2.
H.
Abud.
also gives this section for the Feast of Pesah, p. 113, col.
o\. 13.
Recto.
i
Tminy^ uoi^D una^pi i^nivm

nNip ^ybv
Nip?:)
N^^ntD^j
Nni3ni -nsjn
hi:n locn
V''
Dv
nrn
riN
n3nN3 um^n
1^^
I^ni
t^'^p
oniDin div dv nxi nrn
4
5
n3nN3 irniJiy ^3 ^y
jna .1123^ nn^^D^
pcji^
A^^y
/.
.^.
ii
25âP 23iV Y^*-
Fol. 13 a.
Portion of the Fourth Benediction for the evening service of
Yom
Kippur.
BUTIN
-laf ipa''
299
i^Tinx inar ir:n3T
v^^'
noy
isa
insr nnny
nn p
n-'C-'o
inar 10
JT-a
nyic^^ nann^ nnio^ T^s'? ^nib'^

n[Tn] c'np
'K'[in]^"i
n
12
NipD nva cromi nonh
in^
):2
Dm^
nrn
oniaan div avni

iJ'"i3n iryînbi
13
[nnijtoi?
(?)
13 irnf'x
v"'"'
14
15
^n^
uyK^'ini
ij-'^^d
nana^
12 irnpia
iris m:;
^n''^t^'
bn
13
irv^n irx ....
16
17
nnotr 13 irnoc'
nmxi
|i:[''
.]
For
this
page see Plate.

so
L. 2. L.
3.
Nnuni ni3an
nin"'
others mostly B'npni.
Am.
omits.
LI. 3-6.
rituals.
This section does not correspond exactly to any of the other

0- 3) to QIX
(1.
From N"lpD
4) all rituals omit
but after
DniD^n
n^n
(1.4)
o, An, Abud. add
nm
'îp
Nipn Dv na
nin
'i'wn
nn^bo cr ns.
in the
This must also have been the reading of

occurs for the Feast of Pesah (34 b).
various rituals, at least in details.
as the corresponding formula
LI. 5
and 6 are also different
After
m33?
Am., V, A, S add PiriD?;
Dn\*D
"1:1
N*1pD omitted
.
in
V.
Am., Abud., An, and
insert here
hno
L. 9
ff.
)Trbti.
L. 8. After litjnJT V, A, S,
C add UJIipDI.
line.
jnar written above the

2),
V, A, S,
place
IT'ti'D
inST before
"K'n''
fnaT; Abud. (113.

all
H, O, R, An,
(182) follow the
same order
as here;
omit -JIUD p^12 JVV 11131. LI. 11-12. Words and arrangement slightly different in the various
rituals.
LI. 12-13.
HTH
DV3 same remarks

nn~h, o.
as above,
II.
3-6.
LI. 13-14. iry^tJ'inh 1J3
An
"c'lnî iri'y i3
nnn^
others
omit.
LI. 15-16.
At the end
D''^n?
of
1.
15 there seems to be
tv^'o letters,
fP, which
would give us
at the
beginning of
to
1.
16,
The
following
word
is
perhaps lySK'J, as the

I.
seems
be
still
partly visible.
From
13''NC'3 (!)
of
16 to X"l1Jni 13 b,
L. 17.
1.
2 are additions peculiar to this ritual.

13.
Supply ^3n
300
Fol. 13.
Verso.
Din
'y
QiDmi
i^^N
^D
nyiK'^
1212 snijni naajn

onni
^ws*
ijyc'ini ):^bv
li^D
i3''jni
XJX
-^
nnx mn-n pjn

wS*nn
^3
irry
4
5
irn^Dn 1^:2^
PNl"
'd^
irnux
\n^Ni irn^N*
iJ^njnriD ij''3^d Di?ynn ^si

siniy 'C'pi
6
7
T^s^ ^3X
"n^xrii*
0^:3
ny
ijn
i:N'Dn s'h ijn:N D''pn:*
irabo
unr
ijy"t:'-ini
ij''iyn
'sn
mm
13^1:
10
i:aT3
yi
ij2t
'-\?^
iJ^su uor^n
iji-id [i:]vi?
n
12
i:yj'2
iny
mo
ij^\s'':
'n unn^D* ijytj'n
?i"iy
)y2^p
[m-i]v
13
14
15
l^]D-n
.
i:-iD
laynyn iryn [i:3y]n
N*]î
Qn'Cf^n T'DDB'DCi Dâiun
noN
nn^c-y
'3
i3''^y
N2n ^y pn^' nnsi
1:^
16
L. 3. After
IJ'ijni
C and
Ar. insert ^"iHOI
After i:>^y,
inserts
IJD^D
L. 4 to the end of the fragments
is
the Confession of Sins.
It
is
found
I,
twice in Am., once partly,
TV,
for
in
Mondays and Thursdays (Frumkin,

Service for
395,
here
II,
Am.
I)
and completely
II);
;
Yom
I,
Kippur,
rfp (Frumkin,
p.
339>
Am.
V,
NJC' (Hurwitz, 390);
partly in Hasda,
48;
partly, p. 65
the others in the regular place.

ff.
On
all
the following pages
compare Baer's Rifual, 414

fol.
The
first
portion occurs in these fragments,
a.
N3X found
in
O, omitted
in others.
L. 6.
in fol.
1JOP0 omitted
4.
in all rituals
except
(I
""D^
omitted by
all
and also
9a.
7.
Instead of 1JK p^L*',
Am.
and
II)
reads i:XC.
I,
L.
After f|-ny
Am.
I,
V,
I.
R, add DtH -1312; ^CS:t^^ V, A,
Ar. -IDI^;
Am.
II
IDNJ ^Nl
L. 8. 1J^3?D omitted in
M;
(so 9a, 51;
most
rituals
read 13\n^X
nin''
iyni3tS
M^NI

L. 9. "ni2N1
.
.
BUTIN
omits "2ii)
301
IJNDn, thus Y,
;
I,
R, Ar.
Am.
IJmX
and
read 1JXt3n 13nJN
omits IJNOn and connects "3S1 tjnJN with

lists
the verbs that follow.
In the following alphabetical
some
rituals
have
several duplicates for the
same
letter,
probably due
to
to a
process of borrowing
and harmonizing,
such duplicates
this ritual;
;
cp. Baer, 415.
C seems
have the greater number of

in
we
mention here only those words that are not found

;
they are: 1J3JJ
n'2)D D>D^1 mnntt' IJ^^n, 1jnn

9a,
1.
IJina,
ijyae-*:,
iJB'ni;
m'x^; i3Dn,
i:''nD (see foi.
9); npa*^
ni:^^
L. 14. 1''0~nJO, in
all rituals
we
read "JTIIVOD and so also
fol.
a,
1.
11.
In almost
is left out.
all
rituals
J"'t33t^DD1
is
transposed before Q^2)^, and
DHC'
L. 15. Before
N^ V
reads
13"'iyn
-|C*''1
supply
1.
HIC
13.
L. 16. All rituals read p3 before

in
X3n
so 9 a,
p^lV iinS omitted
Am.
II.
Fol. 14.
Recto.
*
Dim nnt<
'n c^N^D
ijyc>"in
'a
umsi
nnitiri
nn^K'j;
i 2
nnicnn ^y
^npoi
irry 1^
n^tra
"-^
nii?n'D naitj'nn byi

î'*
unnann
n^n^N
^'^
ly bai^'' nnic' -noN3

niiK^ "idnji T'Jiyn
niti>i
4
5
inp
ny
^xiti'^
vkx noNi
v"''
ba
onm
D3oy
6
7
ana noijfoi 21D npi py SK^n

i"'3o
nnN
niJJti'ni
niYvi'tn
i^^nst^
'y
ynv
'n
l^n^^
yni''
nnnojni
10
c'sin nriN
[.
.
nno
|mii
nii^ym nîy
jt22
n
12
p]n 3^1
nrb
y'>
mn
n^*">
^3
^[^3^y] nj[:i3
nno]: pxi noa D^yj lan

t^LsJ^'^
'^l']
13
iJ^[nnN ^rha])
13^
h
15
^ncm irnNDn
irniJiy i?3^ nboni
)^b
'yi
iryâ
16
Ll. 1-9.
section on repentance
;
which takes the place of the short

2.
"ICNJ
no
of the other rituals
it
includes a quotation from Hos. 14.
In
302
line 5

y^
"ly ^S"lt^^
line.
is
iM)^ are cancelled by points; words inserted from

found in Hasda (^9) and in
preceding
L. lo. This section

service for
Yemen
(66) in the

;nU1 Y, O, Ar. read DXni.
L. 12.
At
the end of line supply 72 as in
M,
and many MSS. of the other
rituals.
L. 14. Before
LI. 15-16.
\T M, A, S
insert
pQ.
Supply ^Zirhn
after
mn\
and the
its
We
have not found

all
twô rituals that
agree perfectly in this
section.
Practically
have the three verbs "iDDn, bnOD,
WDD
three substantives U^riNDn
IJiyCS ^13^ni3iy but each one has
own
:
combination of them, and
its
own
order in their arrangement.
reads
"riNDn
n^Dn,
"Jiy
bnnan, "CS ISan.
The exact order has been

f.
a matter of discussion, as
we
find in
Abud. 142, 2
1.
See also Baer, 416.
Here the missing word

other verbs occur
later.
at the
beginning of
15 must be "IDSnC; as the

PJ?
two
After )y? supply 73
Fol. 14.
NtDn
bv'\
Verso.
njjc2 y:zb
'\:i2n^
ndh
bv'\
iJNDnc'
NDH
bv'\
iHD y:^b
liDnc'
I^DHB'
pai-in
NDn
WNB'
r3"'"'n
bv^
DJ1W
unk'
^^3^^ IJOHB'
NDH
p^nn
4
5
p2''''n
cndh
^yi
nri'bv
uxty n^nDn byi
ni^'y
D^n-i^y
xi?
6
7
i:nc
D"'Nt:n ^yi ntryi> pnjcr
ns^yn
im^
nip!?D
D'-NDH ^yi HB'yn

|'n"'>n
n^j
ijyi
DiT'i'y
pa'-'n
uxc' q^ndh
pip
pn''^n
9
10
D.T^y
p2'"'n
UNC
D''NDn ^yi D^yans
n^n
nn"'^ pa^^n i:Ny> d'-sdh ^yi

Dn''^y
nna
coc'
n
12
yans
n^j-ipD
pn^^n
D'sdh
bv^
it's
HEinK^ i'in p:n pn

di^'d ^[yi
nin-'io
13
nryn n^
13b
n]^v
i3i>
ni[vrD ^y]
14
15
D^'i^j
[jJ^Nty [^yi
Djô^jn [b]yi
LI.
5.
The
list
of sins
is
generally alphabetically arranged, but the
number
of
names
varies greatly.
and S have 44
Am. and
have 28;

a few of the letters having
BUTIN
303
more than one

;
Abud. agrees with Am. and

;
with few differences

arranged, but in
Ar. has 29
has 24
has 36, not alphabetically

of 18, after each one of
the sins are divided into

:
two
lists
them
is
the invocation
i:p "123 137
b^WO
it is
;
13?
n?D-
This ritual has only six
names not
alphabetically arranged,
very close to
which has the same

is
six names, reading T>tO instead of jnT

LI. 5-16.
LI. 5-12.
the order, however,
different.
Are a duplicate of fol. 10 a. Here again there is a great

occurs nine times in
;
diversity of readings in the rituals.
The formula p^^Tl

times in
and S
five
times in
Am.
seven
;
and Abud.
twelve times in
fourteen times in Ar.

is
eight
times in this ritual as also in

L. 6.
and V, but the text
not the same.
pnX'
this occurs
only in Ar.
On
I,
this
see the note of Davis,
Service ofihe Synagogite,
Day
of Atonement,
p. 80.
left out.
L. 12. After D^NtJn insert 13SC

LI. 14-15.
11.
which has been accidentally
The missing elements have been reconstructed from

is
10 a,
9-10.
L. 16. This text
correct as against 10
a,
1.
ir.
1
i
LIST OF POEMS
ON THE ARTICLES
OF THE CREED
By Alexander Marx,
of America.
Since early times the Thirteen

Landshuth,
fifteen
Articles of the Creed
have often been the subject of religious poetry.
In 1862
Aiimde
ha-Aboda,
II,
230-1,
enumerated
Hebrew poems on
^
the subject, besides

in
some prayers
reform Prayer
in prose
and a few German imitations

in
Books, which had their prototypes

verses
referred
the mediaeval
German
by Zunz
to
by the Maharil.
II,
In an appendix to
He-Chahia, IX, part

stating that he
1873, Schorr quoted a letter

thirty-seven
knew
poems
treating of the
Articles of the Creed.

tions
I
A list
{Ibid.,
of thirty-two of such composi-
was compiled by
Berliner,
ZfHB., XII,
;
1-14, to which
127).
added eleven more
XIII, 191
XV,
Lately
Dr. Hirschfeld in a very interesting article took up the

subject and published nine
discussing
at the
poems on the Creed from MSS.,

a few other
list
same time
Berliner's
at
poems
{jfQR.,
N.
S.,
V, 529-42).
with the additions was

I
inaccessible to
him
the
time.
have found several

list
more poems, and while the following

to completeness,^
1
lays no claim
it
enumerates eighty-eight poems on the

Simon ben Samuel,
over
ti'Hp
To
these might be added
mTn
(Thiengen,
1560; Zunz,
-
Literaiurgeschiclite, p. 516).
have not even thoroughly gone

in
Zunz's
Literatiirgeschichtc.
S. Sachs
his
manuscript catalogue of the Glinzburg library describes

N'vJ?
cod. 3673 as
Dnpy
Cinn,
virithout stating
what
it
contains-
Perhaps the rich materials on the Creed collected from numerous books
306
Creed, including for the convenience of the reader the

information contained in the aforementioned
will,
I
articles,
and
It
hope, not
be considered entirely superfluous.
shows how popular a topic the Creed has been

poetry from the thirteenth century to the
poets of
all
for religious
last,
and how
countries, Italy, Spain
and Provence, Algiers,
Morocco, Turkey, Palestine, Persia, Yemen, and even India

as well as
Germany and Holland have
tried their skill in
this subject.
In order not to interrupt the

sions, I
list
by lengthy
discus-
wish to add
in
the
first
place a few remarks to
Dr. Hirschfeld's article which induced

subject again.
me
to take
up the
',
In his
'
Curiosities of Jewish
Literature
London, 1913,
as well as in the article
under discussion,
Dr. Hirschfeld tries to dispute the authorship of the famous

Yigdal, the prototype
^
of
all
these poems, ascribed since
and manuscripts by Dr. Schechter may yield some additions

Schechter had lent them
inaccessible now.
'
but Dr.
to
Professor
Guttmann of Breslau, and they are some

ed.
It
has even served as a model for several parodies, and as there
is
confusion about this point in recent
works
ÎX^1Î,
it
is
not superfluous to clear the
matter up in a note.
Safir,
In
JH 7V^
by David Nassi of Candia,
Paris,
1866, p. 17 seq.,
we
find a
parody beginning
very similar
DO D'H^N
to the
îni
iniNî'D I'm
M2^ n3T
^3n:^'n.
As
this llnc is
beginning
of another parody by Elijah ben Ilayyim of Genazzano, which
we
print
below, Steinschneider in the corrections at the end of his Jewish Literature,

P- 377i
considered the two identical, and assumed that David incorporated

of Elijah into his book.
8,
the
poem
This was repeated
in
Maker's translation,
p. 32.
p. 336,
note
and
in
Davidson's Parody in Jewish Literature,
Being
in the
possession of Edelmann's copy of Elijah's poem, Steinschneider, after
the publication of David's booklet, realized his mistake and corrected it in the Munich catalogue under No. 3125. comparison of the following text with that of David will remove every doubt. It is taken from the copy of
Edclmann which, with Steinschneider's

Theological Seminary.
It is
library,
now
belongs to the Jewish

:
introduced with the words
liT'^'N
Ui\2
^nHM
LIST OF
POEMS ON THE CREED
MARX
of
307
Luzzatto, Nvon
to Daniel ben
':2
:n303 nirnDi? nujo, Livorno, 1856, p. 18,

;
Judah
he ascribes
it
to
Immanuel
Rome.
IT
nniy^ n, and runs thus:
innnx^
sjid
ny Nun d^s3 mo^^ sin

fji:
tj'^ti'i
nns
1^ jn
nncnpa
">n''t^'s^^
sijiddi siiiD
ntj*
sin
|ni
fii:n
mm
pas
nay
tid''^
sin:
-l:^s
nm
^3^ jop
c^-iirr
inia^Di inbn:
n-iv
ivi: b^b "ly
imam
in^n
inim^c'
^ma ba
njn: in^ôa yac^
imaî'nn n:iyi ^nn nr
my
i^sin
102 ^siK'^n op ab
p3
13D
^5^2
niDn^
Dy^
jnj
pni nnin
inîT^ ?us5J'rDi ^s*
n^n
d:i
mic' Pj^^nn nD3
inonpa -im
inyB'-iD
qiDi? D'-no
i:nnD naiv hnr pity
yn vîb
inj i^ya
"'i
im
c'\s^
hoj
nitjri
inyiEj'"'
mis mis
imt:'''
i3''n'''j'D
nsu
nrm
si?
in^nn
in^n
Dot:>
imin^ ^s nniD^
non ini ba. n^m dtid nnpyi onoD n^n: nsr

?vS
pli'',
In a manuscript note, Steinschneider refers to a third parody on Yigdal
by Joshua Segre beginning:
ninC'M TI sb
and found
in
MS. Oxford 2406

NO' 453
>
end, and probably, cod. Halberstam 324 (Cat. Hirschfeld,
cf.
Krauss, ZfHB., VIII, 22), followed by a fourth one by Simsori-
Kohen Modon.
No. 59 end)
in
The
latter
print here
from a manuscript of Joshua..

XI,.
Segre's, "IPD Dli'S, part II (Cat.
Schwager and Fraenkel, Husiatyn,
our Library:
yjoji np^'
nariB'î
ims'VD Sin
rib c-^s ^''bs ^djj'T"
innns
sin r\tvb^
nns
ninn
"ivu fuiii
on
?ii3n
nm p
nin
'oi
is:
indnp
in''{js"ii
s^n nsr sSn

sr:D
?ii:i
\h
nM
nnuj
rsi
nnj
i?iD:
inii^Di inijinj
p^nm
nsn bi
rvn
byi
|ni
Dîy pns ij>s

sin jt'doi
nr
n^'ro^
?
"imssni inbuD nsn:

injiDn s^^
irr-i
no
î;
nû
ija
sî:
?
nny
^s
!?hpo
nirij:
psj isnp
jn^
-j^si
nos
nnm
inijirb
^n d^p^s icy
td^
njs^^m ^>s
VOL. IX.
308

claims that the
in
He
to
p.
identity
of
many
expressions with
Immanuel's poem
the fourth chapter of his Mahberot,
which Zunz, Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie,

507, drew attention, and which Chajes pointed out in
detail
[ZfHB., XI,
159), precludes a difference of author-
ship, unless. the
one poet impudently plagiarized the other,

a clue to Immanuel's
is
and he
^N
"iy^.
finds
name
in
the words
This
hardly better than Landshuth's discovery
of the
name
Jehiel ben
if
Baruch
in
the last stanza.
It
would
should
be surprising indeed
a poet of Immanuel's
skill
full
not have been able to indicate his
poem
if
he were anxious to do
forget
so.
name in As to the
in
any
other point,
we must never
thought of
Luzzatto's
in
how
proof
differently literary property
was
those times.
Dr. Hirschfeld's objection to

is
positive
equally
little
convincing.
the British
C')),
Luzzatto mentions an Almanzi MS.,
now
in
Museum
in
(Catalogue Margoliouth,
II,
No.
616^''
written
1383
for
Daniel ben Samuel, which introduces the Yigdal
ininp3 NDin b:h ivc'ni

iny-Lr^na
y-i
mx
b:
nio2
py msD!? n2 t><
n'^\6 jnj
Ninn
pn
!?n
n'\h^n dn
inyi:r^ 3td ->3t

\rbr)T\
HD-j*^
nic
^3
inn^n
rr-c^
nv
TN
ny
b^-wh
nnx ^n ^:ônod
n3 ny
nns
n"yc' n2yi>
nns nan
nW
A
It
Catalogue 6
parody on Yigdal without any further indication is recorded in ol Chaim M. Horowitz, Frankfurt a. M., 1884, under MS. 122. is not clear whether the converted Gerard Veltuyck, ambassador of
Charles
to Turkey, in his
the articles of the Creed and tries to refute

IVisscnschttJt,
^^nC, Venice, Romberg, 1539, deals with them in poetical form. Delitzsch, Kitust toid JiidcHi/itaii, Grimma, 1833, p. 288, calls it: Lehr^r\^T\
'
gcdicht Ober die jQdischcn
Dogmen und
I,
die Irrthiimlichkeit derselben
'.
But Wolf.
derived
all
Bibliol/ieca
Hcbraca,
282;
III, 171,
whence
it
seems Delitzsch
'
his
'.
information, uses the
much
less definite term,
disciplina
ludacoruro
LIST OF
POEMS ON THE CREED

r\"r\b]
MARX
DTTDir
D'''\pv
309
J"'
with the heading:
^Jpi
hii':i
-i"no3
pn mi.T
-\"ni222,
and another MS., a Pentateuch, in the

1
Venice Talmud Torah, written
398-1405
;
in
it
Pisa and
also occurs
Perugia, which gives the same information

in a third
MS., formerly
in Pisa,
in the possession of Schorr,

;
which
was written
1397
see He-Chaluz, IX, part II, p. 50.

is
The
writer of this
MS., Meir ben Samuel of Aries,
also the copyist of
MS. Oxford
MSS.,
189, which, like the British
Museum MS.
Samuel.
period,
clear
just mentioned,
was written
for Daniel
ben
The
three
therefore,
come from
the
same
and from one
circle.
But their statement seems
and authentic.
It
hardly admits of Hirschfeld's
interpretation that the scribe advisedly used the term "^D
instead of "inn to convey the idea that,
when compiling
as well
a Prayer Book, Daniel ben Judah incorporated the Yigdal

into
it.
As
it
happens, in the British

is
Museum MS.
"^''nM DIT'D'i:'
as in that of Schorr, Yigdal
preceded by another
:
poem
f''
on the Creed with a similar heading

wr^'O
"i"tt'"'
Dnpy
D''i:'nsn
n::'D.
This poem forms a part of
the compilation Sefer ha-Tadir, but there can be no doubt

that the compiler of the
book
is
also the author of the

is
poem
term
to
{jfQR., N.
S.,
VII, 126).
Furthermore, there
very good reason

"inn in this
why
the writer should have avoided the
connexion. That word can only be applied

the
thirteen
the
one who formulated
principles
of
Judaism, to Maimonides.
Only the
poetical arrangement
and wording was the work of the poet, and that the scribe
expressed by llD.
We
shall
therefore
have to follow
Luzzatto and deny Immanuel the authorship of Yigdal.
Immanuels
Halberstam MS.
poem
is
which
Hirschfeld
prints
in
from a
found separately also

see
two Parma
MSS.
(de Rossi 404 and 1379:
H.
B.,
X, ico) with a
3IO
similar introduction as that of Hirschfeld's
MS. according
I
to his Descriptive
Catalogue.
In a note*
give a col-
lation of Hirschfeld's text with a
MS.
first
of the Sulzberger
(S),
Collection of the Jewish Theological

in
Seminary
edition
which
many
(B)).
cases
agrees with
the
(Brescia,
1492
The second poem

Solomon Nathan.
the heading
]n: t:'Nni3n
of Hirschfeld's
is
by Judah ben
has
In a
MS.
of the Sulzberger Collection

it
(Catalogue II of Schwager and P'raenkel, No. 208)

:
ni?iNo \n: hd^-c
rM)n^
'-\
b'i'Mn
n2r\b
nnpy f^
'no nîDon niJi^n lao pTiyo.
It
formed the end
of the author's introduction to his translation of Gazzali's

D'aiDiijan ni:i3
;
see Steinschneider, Catalogue Berlin,
I,
86
and 132
last
lines.
Curiously,
it
was printed under the

after
name
of Nahmanides,
Fano 1503,
Musar Haskel and

of
Ezobi's silver bowl (H. B., XI, 105).

this edition,
The unique copy

hardly
offers
now
part of the Sulzberger Collection of the

123),
Seminary Library (Z/HB., XI,

*
any
The manuscript which was bought from Deinard

folio,
consists of fifty-two
leaves small
of which seven
(i, 13,
31, 36-38, 49) as well as the
end
from chapter 25 onward are missing.
The order
of the chapters
is
someto 14
what
ol
different from the editions, No. 10 corresponding to 21,
and 21
the editions, while 11-14 correspond to 10-13.
The
I.
variants are according to the lines
s B nio^y. 3. s as njun. 4. s omits 13. 5. b ])'C'irh. 6. s nnDin, s b 2^20 {o\-b2\^. 10. s mu, b nnio, 7. s b inbin:. s b D^yni* "bv- 15- s b Ni*r:% s ix. 17. s b Dn. 26. s ba nb\i^ ^d. 27. s pM, B pea. 30. s ->Nn s'vd\ 32. s inanyn, b in^nyn. 34. s b nîxon. 37. s tj-n >i2 b, b tj*n b^ ^x. 40. b bî. 4T. B nniT. s niNU3. 43. .s vinxo. 46. s b inrSnK 47. s b inyou-n
for inrw"3.
48.
|?:n':
nn.
48b-5oa. omitted
55-
in
B.
49.
S DO^
for
DH'.
54-
-\\^'ii
ti'n,
H D^w
nyi.
s Nam, d>o\
65.
sjii^nv
ih^dni.
^s*.
60.
70.
s b 'dSh. 62. s pî, 64. B B nya, h na^, s b nin dd". In the heading read inVD.
"innnî.
71.
ry oybv, s omits
s DniNn\ s b nx.
LIST OF POEMS ON
variants.^
THE CREED
page from
MARX
311
The
facsimile of a
this little
volume
in the Jeivish Encyclopedia^
V, 340, contains the greater
part of our poem.

Hirschfeld's sixth
poem
It
is
is
by Moses ben Yekuthiel
under whose name

itirgeschichie,
it is
correctly recorded
by Zunz, Literais
p. 510.
the one which
ascribed to
Moses de Rossi of Cesena

Schorr
a
in the British
Museum and
the
MSS. it MS. of the Sefer ha-Tadir in ZfHB., X, 172. The following list is arranged according
mentioned above;
;
was published from
to
the
I
first
names of the authors

Fischmann
61,
for the
sake of consistency
last
have
done so even with those of the

72,
century (Baer 75,

58, Rosenthal
Hamburger 32, Loewenstamm

Berliner's
Samoscz
34).
numbers which follow neither
alphabetical nor chronological order are referred to at the
end
in
every case by B.
Hirschfeld's
poems
are quoted
by
their
Roman
numerals.
About
ten of the
poems and
a few references were brought to
my
attention
in the
by
my
friend
Dr. Israel Davidson,
who found them

all
course of his
work on a complete index of

on which he has been engaged
are excluded from the
list,
the printed
Hebrew poems
Karaite poets
for
some
time.
because they have a Creed of their

It is
own
consisting often articles.
remarkable that
in spite
of that the Yigdal was accepted even in their ritual (ed.
Wilna, 1892,
vol.
II, p.
252) where
^n
it
is
preceded by an
imitation beginning:
?"i:n^1
DM^n* Dn"", with the acrostic
Moses ben
5
Joseph.*^
I.
It
reads
4 INK'i,
1.
8 "12^3, our
MS.
\2
Halberstam notes from

cf.
MS. Ghirondi 13p3. The correct reading is "13 N?3, -a i62 ''b^'Vl Nn 133 '^^^yn NH (L. Ginzberg).
a
^
Babli
Sukkah 45
Besides
this that ritual
has IV,
p. 78,
a prose prayer beginning with an

III, p.
enumeration of the
articles of the
Creed and
314, a
n''"ip3
poem by Moses
ben Elisha
'^^1212
of Troki, beginning HIliD
V2~\ii
minD
''313.
312
Of
of
the texts added at the end the

in D*N"i13
first
is
found on
is
a loose leaf
CD^b
"iirnr:,
Venice, 1693, which

7,
full
MSS.
notes and additions (Cat. Rabbinowitz
MS.
No.
to
52, then
MS. Halberstam), Nos.

Parma MSS.,
No. 5
2, 3, 4,
and
7,
go back
MS. de
Rossi 997, and are taken from S. G. Stern's

part VIII, which formerly be-
copies from
longed to Halberstam, and

Collection.
is
now form
part of the Sulzberger
printed from the two autograph
MSS.
described under No. 60,

discussed under No. 64.
No. 6 from the unique edition
Only sixteen
(Nos.
of the
poems
listed
here remain unpublished
2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 18,
22, 24, 31, 41, 57, 59' 65, 74, 80, 81).
Of the printed ones three were inaccessible to me (Nos.

32, 37, 79),
is
all
the others
have examined myself.
It
remarkable how
first
many
of those
in
enumerated here
for
the
time were found
the various
collections of
liturgical
poems
of Eastern origin,
which were mostly printed
small editions, and are not very

I
common.
it
Time and
again
found additions to
my
list,
and
is
is
quite possible
that the real
number of
these
poems
considerably larger.
in
But
it is
almost impossible to attain completeness
such
a collection.
Isaac ben Solomon's treatise on the Creed, mp"" nJD, Eupatoria, 1834,
and
J'V,
Simha
Isaac Luzki's
commentary, Q"!!!! niX,
to
Aaron ben
Elijah's
C^n
by
Eupatoria, 1847, are also preceded by

All these
poems on the
subject.
poems
first
follow the formulation of the Karaite creed
Elijah
Bashiatzi in the
chapter of the part of his code in^pN

fT.
miN
dealing
with the prayer (ed. Odessa, 1870,
78b-85a), and not the older one of

33 3-34
"),,
Judah Hadassi
in
his
HEian
PIS'J'N (Alphabet,
which, by the
way, precedes Maimonides's by several decades.
::
LIST OF
1.
POEMS ON THE CREED

xlt^DJ
MARX
313
Aaron ben Mas'ud

in ^HDcri
''J1,
Vienna,
ca.
1890/ 21 b-22
b.
2.
Abigdor Kara
(died in Prague, 1439)
Cod. Oxford 2256''

3.
Zunz, NacJitrag,
p.
25 (B
14).
Abraham
ending DTiD
see
m\:i-^r\
n-n^ in T'orn nyi nnc'n ni'"'N,
MS. Landshut
(B
it
moy,
p.
231
Zunz,
p.
539.
30.)
In
spite of the almost identical beginning,
seems from
the difference of the end that

4.
it is
not the same as
Abraham
See text
n^j'D
I.
niD^
onpy on rr\m ^bv n^N
5.
Abraham ben Joseph

nniD^ mcj? ^b^ Tsro
in
it
of Burgos.
'jk
(So
^::
ed. ^^îna)
nniD\n
nio''
Wr\
Dtj'n
Dnpy
a"'
^y niTT' TK', Livorno, 1896.

214^",
(B 7 quotes
from MS. Vatican

19.
De
Rossi 997).
See also
No.
6.
Abraham Kohen noNo

Cod.
riN
npi "'jyoB' p.
De
Rossi 997
Zunz,
516; see text
II.
7-8.
Abraham ben Solomon

niN'VD pjpi pjy
ha-Sefardi
hi
rr'^sna Dê*
nox ^n
at
with acrostic
li'nSD
nîjn
nmax, and,
end, Dm3t
mDOn, and:
with acrostic Dmns*.
^
Autograph MS.
am
at
end of
jn
nn
^J1
The copy
of the
Seminary Library lacks the

I
title-page.
TlDw'l
was
printed on the binding of the book.
not quite sure of the date.
314

written in
1457
ôi'
this
Abraham,
2, p.
in
possession of
Schorr
9.
see He-CJiahiz, IX,
^^
f.
Akiba ben Juda

Hirschfeld IX.
ibn
T^^^
10.
Anonymous
î:n''
"ISO
''n
^n
MS. Oxford
11. Ditto:
n-i\*^
1190,
fol.
106.
11133^1 phr\r\ nnjti'
Tw.mn
'^^^
continuing nn^K' innnxi iniS''VO follows Gabirol's ^^
'NK'
without any
indication that
it is
new poem (owing
to
the similarity with the end of that
poem
n?D:;'jn
^3 nc'N
ym::^
Ti2n
1^)
in
n"n3t'
n'^c,
Livorno, 1841,
12 b;
fol.
4b;
ninrD'J',
Livorno, 1H55,
fol.
DTii^N nnc',
Oran, 1880,
pp. 36-7, Siddur Fez
i^yifr\ i'3D
ni^sn -inD .JiDnpn nnnx
DN22L" DTJ'inn p"p 3n3D3, ed. Rafael
Aaron ibn Simon,

first
Jerusalem, 1889),
it
fol.
4 a.
In the
and third text

'nks*
precedes
Abraham
ibn Ezra's hdc: ^3
n^lJN, in
the former equally without division.

12.
Ditto:
NunrD
!:>
lyncti'
'mn-ja
n>'n>
xini
h\h
'n
'r\^
nL**î
nsc' Tcâ -i^l3Sn
iniN^VD
ny
j\s*i
x^-nj
n3nw"'i
D^l^s*
Hj^ 'nar Dip
In this
way
the poet addii his

M-ith
own
verses to the whole
of
bna"*,
always rhyming
the middle of the lines

D^JllDTD,
of the latter (comp. No. y}^\
Calcutta, 1856,
No. 69,
fol.
25 b
seq., ^STC'^
nn^DT, Aden, 1891, No. 11,

91,
ff.
fol.5bj-^^., D'înnnsn,
13.
Aden, 1902, No.
66 a-67
a.
Ditto:
nn^j'x 'd:s 'rh ^3JX
htv^ ^3 nvv^
ni^::'
m^t:^
alphabetical
hymn
in D\"i^N *n3B',
Oran, 1880, pp. 33-4.
LIST OF
14.
POEMS ON THE CREED
MARX
315
Ditto:
in
the liturgical booklet DVn "no, Bagdad,

a,
1870,
ff.
49 b-50
15. Ditto
:
alphabetical
s*
to
n^nn nyuji
I't:'
n:nj Dîy bt;^
headed
iri3B'3
nnc'
nbp^
.
. .
'vu in nismni nisna mnntjrii

nor^, Florence, 1755,
n^c'
'd
n2B>
nD
nx
fol. i seq.
16. Ditto:
'n
''jiyDD n-i"in
nyni?
''J?:n3
nsm:
n"iv
nynj nroi?
ntj'o
nsia^ sniJ
])îp Diti'D n-iiji
inx
"""ivn
"ry INT-
n-'C'D"!
n^nn
n'î^'ô)
^dij nayj
t^'i'C'
n'^c^j
rr'ni'j
ma
)bii
^jvjnn onarJi dîd-i3
nnpy
^-lt^y
onp^n nniD^ nn
12
a,
In ninB>
fol.
yniC',
Livorno, 1855,
Tiroc'l
""Jl,
fol.
Siddur Fez,
2 a, b,
and
fol. i
a,
these four lines are
immediately followed by four verses with the acrostic

PNint:^,
which no doubt form a poem by themselves

D''i?K'n"'^
(beginning:
17. Ditto:
):b]}^
D''DC>
3311
"IK').
nns ^133 Nô
two
lines
MS.
British
Museum
(Margoliouth III 891),
Hirschfeld VIII.
18.
Ditto:
iriNnj 3iK^n tn
n3^ nron
ff.
iniDnp3
im
ni:^}
'bn
î:;
MS. Munich
19. Ditto:
VN''33 yT-
3 10,
109 and 200.
i3y: ponpi
!?io:
^m
njicn
(pni)
i<^
pn3 innnNi
n-iin3
"iniN^VD
ntyoi?
rN3v
(xin) 13 iTHD yc""
(n-iini)
d^
These two
noni po
lines
are found in
liDi?n
Hayyim
no,
II,
ibn
Musa's
they
(see
Kauffmann,
112);
occur twice, in the middle and at the end of
Abraham
3r6

ben Joseph of Burgos' nnn'ibn
n^tj>
(see
No.
5)
in
David
as
Husain's bab mis
(No.
28) they are

'^''U,
used
beginnings of the lines; in n"ra'^

fol.
I
Livorno, 1841,
12 b;
'nocn 'n,
4a;
nincc' yaiK', Livorno, 1855,

fol.
fol.
a, b,
and Siddur Fez,

'N'J',
3 b, they are followed
by
Gabirol's py
as
if
the two belonged together, while
in Isaac Kuriat's liturgical collection pn^"" ppni
nux n^m,
middle
pDlpI,
Livorno, 1899,
fol.
302
a,
they are found
in the
of other piutim, with
omission of the
word
preceded by the verse

n"ni:y
on;a
nKin tj'x
TiniD^ htc'v ^b:t^2

first
'nji?:N
We
cannot decide whether one of the

lines or
two authors
composed these
from an older
20.
whether both borrowed them
poet.
Ditto
1^
px
;
nict^'j
nnx nvcj
Cod.
21.
De
Rossi 997
see text IIL
Ditto:
"imonp^
n"ii^'
px
mm
n'i^:
two
22.
lines; Hirschfeld
VIL
Ditto:
nbvi X11J1 hij ba p^^y
MS. Oxford
23.
1 1
88, fol.
237
b.
Ditto:
D'jr:y3 ^yt:j
d>c^
n^y^ njn
mp
in four
modern poem
for confirmation
;
on Shebuoth
stanzas of four verses each
the third stanza contains
the Creed, the numbers 1-13 being written over each

article.
The poem
is
the eighth of twelve lithographed
poems
for holidays
and special occasions, printed on

filling
one side only, each poem
a page.
It
seems to
LIST OF POEMS ON
THE CREED
in
MARX
317
have been published
in
Germany
the second half of
the nineteenth 'century.

24. Ditto:
pa
''ns
on onpy mc'y r^h^

T"
MS.
Paris 840, see Steinschneider
bv
pp,
II, p. 3.
25. Ditto:
nox
at
ins'
ynn
end of ninna
"ISD,
Constantinople, 1515, and Cremona,

loi,
1558, and, from
MS. Montefiore
Hirschfeld V.
(B
26.
15.)
:
Daniel ben Judah (Italy,fourteenth century) the famous
see above.
In some texts, as in the

is
Roman
two
:
Machzor,
in
an additional verse
found at the end,
Siddur
Fez and
Tictyi ""n,
a b, the following
imim
(Bi.)
^N'
-no^
on
\n
onp^y^
inxn:!
n-iB'j;
^h^ rh^
n::'D
in!?nn
n^ ny
ny
"jnn
ddn
min
27-30. David b.
Aaron ben Husain (Morocco end of the
eighteenth century^) has in his in? n?nn, Amsterdam,

1807, the following four n-inn nac n'-n
fol.
poems on the creed

DsriN* yn
ns*
ninN
13
a,
No.
I,
reprinted in D'n^N
TintJ',
pp. 39-41.
was
of
An
elegy of his on the sufferings of the
Jews
p.
of Morocco in 1790
published by D. Kauffmann, REJ., 37, 1898,
123-6.
DvtJ'n"'
Some poems
"""ly"',
our author were reproduced

1866
;
in
Moses Reisher's
Lemberg,
see
p.
Steinschneider, Jitdische Schriften zur Geographie Palaestiuas,
No.ioi,
ff.
54
f.,
note Nos. 9-12 which occur in the same order in

third
IH? n?nn,
edition
21-2.
The
of
them
is
also
printed in
the
third
of
pSn mCT,
(cf.
Safed, 1876, as well as in D^JIOTD, Calcutta, 1854, No. 138

S., II,
Bacher, JQR., N.
382) and in W^rhn.

b
'â*.^^ p.
138.
The
Elijah
song,
of the
nnb nbnn,
\''t2i>^2
fol.
23
a,
was reproduced
in the lithographic edition

3
niyOD, Bagdad (?the
title-page has
2), 1866,
pp 79-80.
3l8
mint:
fol. fol.
m
b,
npy
No.
.-iTcy
'cb'd
nnon
n^yj b)p2
ymt:',
bub
mix
14
5,
reprinted in ninoc*
^n2w', p.
Livorno, 1855,
13 a-b, and O^nba
^6.
tizb
fol.
mhn:
nis^s:
n::'iy!?
n^:m ixn nisnim nnû'

treats the subject at the
17 b, No. 19,
his n')i'^
;
Again he
ni^bn
end of
bv nnnrs',
(fol.
which
consist
of
ICG verses
the passage
52) begins
miry
31.
lyb^
'ip]}
nn^jinî i^'^b n^yoi
nnpnoa
^Jin:
nanN
mu^'-N
David Franco Mendes (Amsterdam, 1713-92), Cod.

Oxford, 1993, includes his Qnpy
:"'
b^
i^bia
n^tr.
(B
19.)
32.
David Hamburger,
nrsr,
Metz, 1787, a poem on the
creed at the occasion of the consecration of a

scroll
;
Torah
see Benjakob,
onsDn
(?)
nviN, p. 160,
No. 208, and,
for
p.
another edition
T.
1788, under the title B'B'(?),

is
596, No. 93
23.)
The
publication
inaccessible to me.
(B
SS.
David ben Saadyah (Yemen)

n^DJ
nc'iD
nny
^jn rs
"la
'nnr ids
n-c'
nv-i ''ba
with acrostic nnyc'

12) in
^NIC'^
nn, including
Hr
(exactly like
fol.
nn^DT,
Aden, 1891, No.

fol.
18,
io-ji,
D^jnn nan,
34-
Aden, 1902, No. 90,

(died, Breslau,
6â.-66a.
David Samoscz
1864)
in
C'N,
I,
Breslau, 1834, pp. 72-9, translated from

of his in the D\-li3N 'n3L*', Oran, 1880 (not 1885 as
The seventeen poems

Bacher has
it,
are equally found in Dlb ilSiri. They are besides the two poems on the creed, pp. 58 (19 c), 60 (20 a), 61 (20 c), 68 (32 b), 69 (33 d), ibid. (33 b), 138 (21 d), 184 (23 b) signed with his full
I.e.,
p. 383)
name and 42
ff.
(15
a\ 61 (20
28
c),
80 (35
b),
93 (15
46
c),
185 (29
a),
186 (28
c),
191 (aS b) signed 1)1.
The same
a,
applies to the
a,
poems of his
a,
in ninDL" ySICT,
b,
aa
b,
a3
b,
ff.
25
b,
29
a,
30
35
b,
40
a,
47
a,
47 b, 48
and
in
'nrX'l '31,
14 b, 64 b, 70 b, 72 b, 85 b, 86 b, 96 a, 97 a, 105 b, 106 a, 106 b,
109b, Ilea, 113a, 119b, 120a 2 poems;, 120b, 123b, 128a, 132b.
: :
LIST OF
the
POEMS ON THE CREED

of Kley,
',
'
MARX
319
German
Es
ist
ein Gott, so tout's aus
jedem Munde
(B
35.
25.)
which
is
printed on the opposite pages.
David ben Zimra (died

^DiDi
in Safed,
i573)
""p^n
-|1J<,
nJO
'n
fol.
in
MosesHagiz
(B 22.)
fiDlp
Venice, 1703,
in
D\"i7N
8 b-9,
and
with omissions of verses

p. 34.
ojS.
Tinc',
Oran,
1880,
David ben Solomon Vital

century)
(of
Patras and Arta
sixteenth
in
his
16.)
nn^
on^^D,
Venice, 1546,
fol.
93; Zunz, 534.
(B
37.
Eliakim
ijN
miyn nnoito nnp
in nn''n
nn''{J',
Constantinople, 1545, No. 218, Zunz,

28.)
549, No. 16.

38.
(B
Hananiah Eliakim Rieti
(died in
Mantua, 1626)
in
"intJ'n n^''N',
i^c'
Mantua, 161 2,
.
.
fol.
149-50, and n^N

fol.
"idd
pnv 'ann
onann, Mantua, 1662,
57 b-59
a.
(B 21.)
[Hayyim
39.
ibn Musa, see No. 19.]
Hezekiah
miVI
JIU
rS2
T-n^l
N^T23
MS. De
Rossi 997, Munich 210,
fol.
109
Zunz 506,
see text IV.

40.
(B
9.)
Immanuel ben Solomon (Rome,
ca.
1300)
in
nnnno, chapter IV towards the end, Hirschfeld I;

(B
2.)
see above, p. 309.
: ,
320
41. Isaac:

npm:
Cod. Oxford, 11 90,
f.
,
-p
no
^njv
106,
42. Isaac Lattes (Italy, sixteenth century):
niD' pnn^ nin^
c'^s*
b^b
a'îno
nivo ims''VO
iT'tJ'xnn
on back of
43. Isaac
title
of rwnbn nanyD, Ferrara,
1.557.
Mandil ben Abraham Abi Zimra (Algiers, middle
of the sixteenth century)
with acrostic pm ^njo in m^DT

fol.
''Tli',
Livorno,
1872,
49
the
a,
Tunis, 1905,
verses,
in
fol.
38
a,b, and,
''Jl,
with omission
;
of
last
TirDK'"!
39 b-40 a
Zunz,
î^r; 535-
44. Isaac
Satanow
(died, Berlin,
1804):
in
npn -ns m:N,
Berlin, 1732, 19 a-b.
(B
34.)
45. Isaiah Hurwitz (died 1628 in Jerusalem)
towards the end of his

fol.
n"^:^',
ed.
Amsterdam, 1698,
417
b.
(B
27.)
46.
Isaiah Nizza:
N"J3J
N''ô
nriNt:'
't^n^rn i^^ns
fol. 4.
niiji
-"li'D
n^
in his "1B'^^ ^^^,
Venice, 1633,
47. Israel
ben Moses Nagara

5)13
(Palestine, sixteenth century)

h-hd: tti''
ab \MDip
in
Landshuth, nDivn moy,
p. 147,
D>:ior3, ed.
M. H.
P'riedlaender,
48.
No.
3.
(B
17.)
^)
Jacob Almalih ben Joseph (Fez, eighteenth century

with acrostic pTn
n'!?Nai^s 3py> in 'nocî ^Ji, fol.
48
a, b.
Sec
his elegy on the persecutions of 1790, ed. D.

cf.
Kauflmann, ZZ)il/G.,L,
found in
p.
238-40,
235-6.
poem
of
liis
for
Purim
is
ninCC
VJWi^
fol.
34 b
set/.
: :
LIST OF POEMS
ON THE CREED
MARX
321
49.
Jacob Berdogo (Rabbi of Miknas, Morocco, nineteenth

century)
n'unzh nr^nn
in his
jniJ
bub
no'-yj
nsî
Pip,
nDiD'\'îi
collection
of
poems apy
London, 1844,
PP- 4-550.
Joab ben Jehiel (Rome, thirteenth century)
in the
II,
ff.
Roman Machzor
77 b-78
ed. Luzzatto, Livorno, 1856,

niB'-i),
(3'V nnntt' B'npb

IV) nâ, I,
and from a MS.

23
j-^^.
in
Leuchter, D'-Mn^
1894,
p.
(B
8.)
51.
Jonathan
n\nn
a^t:^
nbi in:iN
j"'
thirty-four lines
headed Dnpj?
followed
by Nini
DMnn
s"y a"N.
inter-
The
alphabet
is
by the
acrostic
It is
inJin''
rupted by
three superfluous wavs.
printed on the
last leaf of Nnâ
a^ba nsD
(ri'Dâno nvniN), Bresitz,
1796
(not reprinted in the later editions).

5a.
Joseph
in n"n3::' Ttr, Livorno,
841,
fol.
5 b.
^^.
Joseph
possibly the compiler of the most interesting
MS. Sammelband,
Hirschfeld, 129)
V-I50
'yrh
mv, MS. Halberstam 48
(Cat.
ns3
i?i3s*
pyi
pa rc'ni
o'^'ii'
labn tijicn
Hirschfeld III.
54. Joseph:
innnxn Ti^'m }vby
'Ji
onx
is
According to Cat. Paris 66 1^
it
by Joseph Ezobi,
anonymous,
the last line
while Dukes, describing the same manuscript {Literaturhlatt dcs
Orients^ 1847, p. 456), calls
it
although the author gives his
name
in
::
322
(siDV

^3N).
Hirschfeld
IV from MS.
British
Museum
p.
891 (identical with Catalogue D>ân, No. ^6,
20);
For nviuj nnnn Margoliouth has

Zunz, 569, No. 17. (B II and
nviJ3
(?),
read
nnn.
13.)
[Joseph Chiquitilla, see 62.]

^j.
Joseph
Baruk ben Jedidjah
Zechariah
:
of
Urbino
(Mantua, middle of the sixteenth century)

"V'c")
ms* pnn mi
]vbv
in
his
T'J'n
a.
mm
nnn^ tc*
liarro,
Mantua, 1659,
fif.
24 a-25
56.
Juda ben Solomon Nathan (Provence,

on'î'pn
ca.
1350)
rha)
it
mijx
Fano, 1503, under the name of Nahmanides, Hirschfeld

II (see above, p. 309); Zunz, 509. 57.
(B. 10.)
Kalonymos(?)
ncc* ic'N nhs*
-\iri
dîn iS
oSy ihn
From
these lines of
Codex
30""^
of the
Municipal
Library printed by Delitzsch

concludes that the
in Cat.
Leipzig Berliner
<
poem
deals with our subject.
The
authorship
58.
is
conjectured by Delitzsch.
(B
4.)
Markus Loewenstamm
nnin^n ^y pis- a''Dn
in
{jn
i?
"-a^
his
1
nrnnn n^"^ mnno,

(B
26.)
Breslau,
1832,
No.
38,
pp.
11-18.
59. Mattathiah nn'
Cod. Cambridge 40 XII

Szinessy,
I,
A,
fol.
155 b (Cat. SchillerD'"'n

j'y.
p. 91),
fourteen lines headed
LIST OF
60.
POEMS ON THE CREED
MARX
323
Mehalalel Halleluyah ben Sabbatai of Civita
Nuova
(Rabbi of Ancona
in
the time of the Sabbatai Zebi
movement
^")
moD
fol.
1^3
n^:x n-iiji |v^y
i?^
yb-ica
author
of the autograph manuscript of his "12D
iT'pPn
containing prayers, 18 hymns, and 65 letters

or
directed
to
by
the
him
(Cat.
Schwager
&
Fraenkel XI, No. 100) presented to our Library by

Messrs. Ottinger
in
;
fol. 7
b-8 a of a second manuscript
the Sulzberger collection brought
by Deinard from
Another
647.
Bologna.
This
is
probably a clean copy made by the

first
author himself from the
manuscript.
manuscript
is
found
in
the
Gunzburg Library, No.
See text V.
61.
Meir Rosenthal
fifteen lines
ca. 1S50.
^^
:
pnv ''W'^
'b
inns
:""'
with heading Dnpy
bv,
Frankfurt
a.
M.(?)
On
we
the last line
rii'ltt*
poy
Txn
printed with
heavier type.
^^
On
the other side cniD?

in
"it^r
beginning
\?^
On
fol.
II a
find a
glowing poem
honour of
"l"*N V'lS JV^J2
HTina nu; uv'tq;*^ iran hi:n ann n"n tîn nnr "JTJsrN n^yn
.
nrn
at
r,rn
nry n-'y^
vsmn
\r\:
irnn
mn
vbv
-i*^n
N*nb"i
into
which
.
. .
the
end of the manuscript has been changed
nnxa. hymn
W^K'TprO n'l p33 bv) ir'iTQJ
nna
^yi U-inhx} ^y.
in the second
manuscript
we
only find the latter poem.

of his
The autograph
D''pDD, which
Responsa Collection ,11133 7?n containing sixty-five

,
was
offered in Catalogue R. N. Rabbinowitz, No.
4,
1883,
;
MS. 16
it
is
MS. Halberstam
425,
now
b^'
part of the Sulzberger Collection
includes the responsum mentioned
Nepi-Ghirondi,
p. 233,
No.
5.
His commentary on the Pentateuch,

E. N. Adler's Librar}-.
^1
Dvvn
îHp, forms
MS. 200
of
The
poet
is
probably identical with the editor of Jacob ben Asher's

1838,
to
commentary on the Pentateuch, Hanover, commentary pD ''CtJ'3 on the Midrash Rabba

Roedelheim, 1857, Krotoschin, 1859.
and the author of the
Deuteronomy and Numbers.
VOL.
IX.
324
irh'':^

nnn^no, by the same author see Cat. Wagenaar, Amsterdam, 1904, No. 187.8, now in the Library of the
;
New York
62.
Seminary.
al-Dubbi)
Meir ben Isaac ibn Aldabi (Hirschfeld:

(wrote in Toledo, 1360).
at the
end of his
fol.
r]:']J2ii:\
'b'lli^
(Zunz, 506), in
MS.
Montefiore 48,
5 b,
and MS. Danon

;
(^DC'vVn, II, 141),
ascribed to Joseph Chiquitilla

63.
Hirschfeld, pp. 533-4-
Menahem
MS.
p.
of Lutra
nr
n3ir:Nn
nijoo
nr ^lyjo nnas* n^siN
nnio
Leipzig, 30^, printed

;
in
Delitzsch's Catalogue,
395
German
translation in Delitzsch, WissenscJiaft,

p.
Kunst
510.
64.
iind
Jndenthum, Grimma, 1838,
196; Zunz,
(B3.)
Menahem ben Moses Tamar

D^y inx
nDwX
ncN cn^N nnx

jl"J
with acrostic 'ôx Pin non

of his D'^TCn TC'^s.
1.
nc>D
p DmD
'JS.
Fol. 4
a,
e. a.
;
probably Salonica early

see text VI.
part of the sixteenth century

12
As
It
this
book
is
nowhere recorded,
collection in the
a short description of the unique

is
<opy of the Sulzberger

place.
in
consists of twelve leaves (two signatures of six leaves each), has

D'^l^tlTI
"\''tJ'
no
title
page and begins with the heading

'"ID?.
to
which a former
in full in
owner added lOn Dn3J3

lines
The
author's
name
is
mentioned
12-13.
(to
^^
'''
'*
treatise
in poetic
form
on
the laws of poetry and
metre
be added to those enumerated by Rosin, Reime und Gedichte

Ibn Esras,
I,
Abraham
j'.nd
pp. 5-6), dedicated to his son

(4 b,
Samuel
(i b, line 9).
based on Ibn Esra's ninjf
line 11).
;
Each
rule is illustrated
by
:
a sample, one of these being our

D>y:;'Di
poem
fol.
4 a, b).
The
text begins
Ff.
niJiy -^nion ")-nxb bn>
>33^
"-^nnti'
Dnt22.
53-12
contain "ICn
and, with the author's
Dn3D TTl? niims wliich are found in the Machzor Romania, own commentary. ^X m?Din3n in Cod. Warnei- 34
,
LIST OF
65.
POEMS ON THE CREED
MARX
325
Moses
my
66.
DJ1
-ipn
nip nnis np^ ^nin

fol.
lij
^m''OT "Tinjc
MS. Munich
Moses Hagiz
210,
109.
(Palestinian traveller, Altona, 1704-38):

n^yj
'ivn
"iVD Nini
nS nnN
ba
bii
in his D'^Tin
nnv, Wandsbeck,
ca, 1730, at the end.
67.
Moses ben Jacob Adhan (Morocco)
in
apy
^lp,
London, 1844, pp. 122-4.
68.
Moses ben Joseph ha-Levi

v-nmnj bb^
ed.
'o^
"-^'d^
niNi
''^zi:
tt
38
Neubauer, n^:nn, XIII,
1869,
p.
from MS.
Oxford
2239 as
anonymous.
The
author's
rD"?3T,
name was
pp. 94
established
by Shereshevsky and
tdid.,
and
^^.
The latter mentions a suggestion of Rittenberg

Moses Sacut whose name,
to ascribe the authorship to
however, was Moses ben Mordekai.

(Steinschiieider, Cat. Leyden, pp. 139-44)
where our
treatise is quoted as
Dn^K'Tl
this
"l^k^*
n"12X (Steinschneider,
ed.
/.
c, p. 142).
passage on metre from
commentary,
find
Dukes, Litcmiurblatt des Orients, IV, 340.
On
fol
12 b
we
rhymed calendar
rules with heading nnblJ^. beginning:
']1JD7X
The author was born
c.
1460
he
mentions a plague of 1466 (Cat.
Leyden, 141, 395) wrote (i) a super-commentary on Ibn Esra's com.mentary on the Pentateuch (Cod. Warner 29 see Steinschneider, Cat.
;
Leyden, pp. 120-23)

274)
;
in Philippopel, 1514 (Zunz,
Gcsammelte
Schriften, III,
(2) finished a
commentary on Esther, Ruth, Proverbs (Cod. Oxford,

QiJ0w'2 ^Ji^NI, written 1524,
p. 11),
353) in 1529 in which he mentions (3) a commentary of his on D''3TND and

mriif.
(4)
grammar
is
mentioned by Jacob
to
Roman
{Lctterbode,
XII,
and thence
Wolf, &c.
in the
Appendix
Buxtorf's
Bibltotheca Rabbiiiica, Bartolocci,
Steinschneider wrongly takes
this date to refer to the copy, not to the
author (^Jewish Literature, 140, and
Index, p. 32) although in H.B., XIX, 63 he seems to have seen that his
literary activity
fell
in the
beginning of the sixteenth century.
Menahem
was
a grandson of Zechariah
ha-Cohen see No.
88).
: :
326
69.

Moses da Trani
wc^'H
in his
D^^!'wX n"'3,
(Safed, 1505-80)
nyba DipNi
']i2^
pxx
3 b.
Venice, 1576,
fol.
70.
Moses ben Yekutiel de Rossi of Cesena (Rome, 1373)

inon
Ijk
xj
Z/NB., X,
172, under the
iwd name of Ahitub,

ben
Hirschfeld
VI under
p.
that
of Yekutiel
Moses
(see
above,
310); Zunz, 510.
(B
5.)
71.
Naphtali Cohen (Ostrogh, Posen, Frankfurt, died 1719)
towards end.
his often printed ^n~i

72.
The poem nu
is
found
in the
beginning of
Nahman ben
^now
in D'-nT n:D,
Isaac ha-Cohen Fischmann:

n^n'-
nrh]} nvioj
\)Dipb
"tim: nnujD nr
bn
na
IV, Lemberg, 1858, p. 54.

56.]
[Nahmanides, see
73.
Saadyah ben Jacob ibn Danan (North Africa)

nyaK' njna^ in '3
in D\n^N
'niK',
nun
fol. 3.
pp. 32-3, Siddur Fez,
74.
Samuel
di Caceres
MS. Oxford,
75-
1993.
(B
19.)
Seligmann Baer
Dîy ^N^ TK' njnx
in his edition
of
uv
Dpb,
Roedelheim, 1877, pp.
vii-viii.
76.
Shalom ibn Aaron
Iraki
ha-Cohen:
id::'
ma
in his
ff.
]
noN naxi nnx
ohy
\)1h
brother's edition of D^Jlora, Calcutta, 1856, No. 42,

1
5 b- 6
a.
LIST OF
POEMS ON THE CREED

(nn:^, Persia,
MARX
bi6 lino
327
77.
Simon Tob Melamed

nnpy mB'y ^h^
ff.
1775):
p:3 ptn ontr"' py nxni >n
lob-iia and
before the thirteen chapters of his
Persian
theological
work nn pN
in
nx"'n
(see
Bacher,
noB'\
ZfHB., XIV,
Jerusalem, 1901,
51-2),
fol.
Israel
Jezdi's
bsiti''
15 (see Bacher, jfQR.,
XIV,
a.
118)
and
78.
in
\V)i
n3i:n, Jerusalem, 1914, fol. 39
b-40
Solomon Ephraim Lentschiitz

D"'NvrD:n
(died, Prague, 1619): \nM
^3 N'-von D"'Nnn3 ^3
at the
niu
mn
n\n nr^N
nns
added
end of the fourth edition of
B'SJn niNisn lao,
Altona, 1765, in fug am vacui as taken
nwiy
(!)
"IDDO
nnSN where
79.
did not find
it.
Solomon
century)
ben
Masaltob nxD
(Constantinople,
sixteenth
n^yj
in
"iivd
h\t>
nÛ'
his
collection niTOTi
;
DH'^tr,
Constantinople,
1545,
No. 263
80.
Zunz, 532-3.
(B 29.)
Solomon ben Ruben Bonfed (Provence, 1400):

ly piK'
mp
;
'n^s*
MS. Oxford,
II,
1984,
fol.
45 see Kaminka
in
niyoci miDO,
1895,
p.
112 and Zunz, 518.
81.
Solomon Nasi
Mahzor Avignon MS. (where

with
Dî:n "iô -jnt
?
?).
(B
in
6.)
Identical
n^
no,
Zunz, 489,
which the parts
begin with NJX

82-3.
Solomon
d'
Oliveyra (Amsterdam, died, 1708):
at the
end of Yim niyntr
^^!?^
ppni
nsnp mo, Amsterdam,
1691, and in later edd.
quoted by
as found at the
end of
31D
"ilN,
Amsterdam, 1675,
^"^^ i" ^^S.
Oxford
328
1993.
subject

In
the
former place another

is
poem on
the
by the same author

"^''C.
found, headed as in the
MS.
(B
84-7.
navc'O
It begins:
19.)
Solomon Sasportas (Rabbi of Nizza,

ony::'
'C"^\
died, 1724) in
his
Amsterdam,
1725
(see
Cat.
Bodl.,
pp. 2389-90) has four

lines of n'Ti
"h
n]jDi:^
poems on our
fol.
subject.
In the 108
DD which begins,
""cra:
2 a, with the
words
n'-T
:""'
ains, after 11 lines the

:
sub-heading
mn
fol.
npy
follows, beginning
5 a
mn
''^p]}
:"')
-iny'n
nno
:"^
bv n^nio'
-i^b'
begins
fol.
10 a
-^'^jr
nniDD nTj'y
/did.
:
r^cr^
m^
nniD^ Dnpya
mio
*3n
(B 20.)
88.
Zechariah ha-Cohen (Greece, died, 1440

D'-w:^
^^)
D'-Tc
MS. De
Rossi,
nnnn onpn^ 997, MS. Schorr
nnp' onpya
;
see j'lSin, IX,
2, p.
54,
text VII, Zunz, Z//^., p. 379, 650.

'"
(B
12.)
The
date of the author's death
is
recorded at the end of his criticism
of Nahmanides, niN3p
nmc,
as
I,
IXn
D^B' 1^D3^ 1"D 'H

it
DV
in Schiller-
Szinessy, Catalogue Cambridge,

describing
i8o, Sciiillcr takes

3,6, p.
for 1446, Hirschfeld
two complete manuscripts (MGIVJ,,
364
= James H. Loewe,
Louis Loewe,
in
descriptive catalogue of a portion of the Library of Dr.
London, 1895.
rightly
p.
58) puts the death Nov. 1445, although

in that
Brann
a foot-note
remarks that
is
year the 15th of Kislev was a Monday.
The
correct date
no doubt Thursday, Kislev 15th, 5201

Incidentally
the
of
INn
standing for the thousands.

this
= Nov. loth, 1440, it may be mentioned
that the
poem published from
manuscript by Hirschfeld (il/CW^.. 413--=
LIST OF POEMS
89.
ON THE CREED
n'Ip'V
^''"n
b]}
MARX
329
Anonymous, headed
rnn
90.
Solomon Yishaki
Dn^K'n nriDNi
in Paris
i!?
nnin^
in
anitj'p
on^n nnL"x
^!>
This
poem was copied
1461 during a sea voyage
from Chios to Candia.
Between the two poems the manuscript contains

with some variants headed
'iDT
Hr
hd^b'
)^''2lb
nnx
Subsequently
91.
found that
di Riete
Moses ben Isaac
(Rome, 1388-^. 1460) devoted

in
seven stanzas to the Creed

part
ff.
the second chapter of
of his DV^D
a.
t^^npo,
ed. Goldenthal, Vienna, 1851,
6 b-7
38
69
26
68
46 50
41
47
48
34
15
58
16
33
LIST OF POEMS ON
THE CREED
MARX
331
TEXTS
114
cinp^y
j"-'
^y nx: nc'pi
''D
omnx
nic^
Dn3 on^T
nr'D
Dnp''y on nn^'y
::'û*
n^X
onn^
x:'Dj
loy "inx px nnx ij\x-iO
lovyn piDnp
nonci
mnoo ohyn p^T

n:^r:3
Dp x^
pr
Dit:'3
n3S'^n''
x^
pxj
t:; n^ ^y nr:x
nniH
pnj
U'nixj
^3^ nsiv
D^niD^ n-ctt
nna^
D^ny")
in'-'i:'?^
rh'C''
D\-in D''yc'"n
pD''
)'pb
II
y'r
15
Dni3x
'-ii?
nnx
nt:xD nx
D-i3T^
nan
nx in^
^y
mn3
npi
'jyc-j*
D"i?o"ix^
d: n-'ôys
n:r^c'
nv ^^n
HD
!?y
inyi
no^:ri
nc'?2i
DiSD xin
ni'SB' x''2;nn
oy mc^y
D-ipn miJD
Dîy!?
n"'"inx
pnxn
ncx ^x nix^vo
iniD''C'D
1^
nr
-ipy^
cc
n^nn
Dn1^^^ nnpn
"1131X1
nxL"D
xh nnx xim
im
nno
x^î
7ii:
pxi
xini
-i?:in2
nsmro ^^n iniovyi

'!:'n
n^yi
^53^
i^r:!!?
nbni n'cxn
1^
pc'xi xini
ihu^ PP px nuy n2^

D^rDx^
na^ xia re'x xin: bi

D^D'ôn
^3c npy yiT^

''^3
bx n:n2 inxn:
D-xnn
niin
vnixiaj
D'X"'3jn
^D^ pnx xin ncroi

list.
See No. 4 of the
list.
15
See No. 6 of the
332

nim ana
\r2H:
I'v
no
n-i"iDn
Tiâ nioyn lyî
ny'11
P'j'n
nc'N
VV12:
did
i^voj
ny
ny^
.-ini:D
1^
bî^rh
iDnn^
nx
j'np^
i'^rrX ini>:^y3
mn
mn^
III
ih^n ny
lij'ran
inccn pcnp
hd ^y anaa
'b
pN mDK'j nnx nv3
N'l^r:^
Nvc: pi^mn ^âo
n^NC' -inN
cnD
'31
vn''
1^013 2ID
DN )^V
y"l
DK
invo ^y
n"y
"mn ins
aina nr
IV
1'
Dvrnn
i?":
D"3-in -lanc'
nnpy f"
bv n^prn
on
ncyc*
x-nD3 naiy!?
nivci
pnp
p2i naa
mp"
L*'a:i?
D^NOJ ^3
i?y
mn' mjon
Y'prM ny ^33
nyanxn inyn
p3J3i
^N*
noiy
y\i^n
mnn
Sec No. 20 of the
list.
nj;na
121
" See No. 39
of the
list.
LIST OF
POEMS ON THE CREED MARX

"ISC
333
D\S"'2Jn
nmn
D^cai^
nipim DTiyn
nirDii^nn
nn
^3
-im DnyT
\nr22 in;?i
imy Tnan
N\n
-It's*
im
nn^DJ nb pN
mion
{J'^N
ijsoi
mnj
nnir:n
i^Nn
bi' D^B'
astJ'Dn
inN
mini
D^!?15^
N^^l
mnD Dnns
D''i'inB'
^'^m ^Ni3
iK'yi
miB'a nv^:
nJiDN Dnn
^^^^1pJD Nin
po
nn pnsD
pN*
onDTi aynipi
miDB* nany
n3-i2
v^y
V19
mn
npy
^y imio'- .nroco nn^' Diip

njT'i
nciN^
.nac^n Dr^ T'K'
"iiotk)
niyun
'-n
ccm
^j
-nyi3ni nriM niyi^n
ynso
"iôn ^p^s
:pc
riws*
linn
n^^:
'lonnN
nK' nN innn
"'n
riD'trj
"iriNO inxoj
18
Read Nipn
or N"lipD
(I.
Davidson)
1 21
See No. 60 of the
list.
2"
Three times repeated.
Niioa.
334
one'' a'-Tv 0^3
-onnD
nio n'b:
"omno
^^^''337
'v:d2 niy pip
"I'^'V?
nj:^':
Linn
3"]-iin
'v:yi
n^^
'3
tJ^KH
noB'
riN "linn
"-n
b
.-13''
in''3
iT'pj
Nin
ny
'nîvn
n:o
nn nnj
n'^nob
]n''n
m
ny
nm307
13b
noty nx innn
^n
n^co
miK^p N\n Dîy ny
'n-n^n n^ na pN
mo
'miDC' ^33 ny?
"i3-ip3
mriD niD ^3
'13^:1
vn-
[jyis
-nh
b'Vx
ba nx*
nmx
yc'ib d:
^n
nmaro
ni2i:;:
Dub nnb
nmna it
inpn^-
mnn
p^*
noB' ns Ti3n
b
^3
ik
niD cy
HDî HD^
nw:
''n
^c:^'>
t^np ny 2b
'novî bxi3
bn:*'
nB' nx Tian
no^j
'Qr^nn
nrrr'j
c'n*3
'imin ny
D>yi
Dnnn pnv my
:
'ooipn o^no [X3K

-"inaiLJo yai?''
pij'
nx Ti3n
'n
nhy piN
oi'y: b'D3
-iB'N
nriN
noN
D\nbN nnx
pyo
dni n^jji xvcj

-cNi *iniV3 i^n'
24
nnx3 N^ Dj
"
J^''*'^"-
"
1VT.
Sec No. 64 of the
list.
LIST OF
POEMS ON THE CREED
MARX
335
N^
F113
N/1 ajc'3
b^b ponpi pori
n3^ lOK'^ Dnrb

noB'i D"'NOj
inn
nc'D
jn5
n^yj
I'm
Dy^
n^m
-''on
''jnx
nny
"i^y
nin"ip3
iTy
y?î ^''H
''J3
"-am
-yD3
D^c'''
n-i'ii'^N
nns
Di?:n
-it:\s'
)^vb
cnp
n^r2
rohy
ny")
Dîy
-01
âni
I'-iN
onpy
i"ir\ "rhan ciiDi^sn
nntry t'^trn on rha
DDnn
ij'-mi
i:niD ^pk'd
ima 12m'
Dntr> Dn-'K'
nnma
pnoM
nD3ni
pDi^D 133
Dmnun
DnnNn
r\)22b Tin D:ot3

ni^j'yi
nc'^tj'
ncD
n^3j
Dni2D on
^53
min
niDi
nii niD>
niD''
Nin n:iDN
25
See No, 88 of the
list.
na^ px
-iiDiDi nr
Nini
ponp
ii?
xini
^N Nî
N'-n^
*iiD
luy
'i^Ji
Dnnon
ni^j^
noDn 33^
N''3i^
niNi niD
Dm:
ny3-is3
cb
"bv
any: oy
Dnp'i:'
d^jpt itry
ba
nS
nnin^
in:
ncrx
nmn
"tib'
n-sn^
:i'''N*
pô^ 16 n^D^ N^ ohyij

oniDi
Qia nuc'n
1^
|nini
3"'B'i
cnoi
S-'Dti'D
Nini
cmn
xini
i^ysa
ihc:
^Nui bNic-n ^N
DntJ'3
"''bto^b
n:a''i
nas i^y onay
njc:^'"
njHD
nin^
omtj'p ri 2'D^3n B'sj -nri

.T!jpn
ini35 N^n nyn* pT

n^^
iiaT
Kami
on
2
27
Read inni
(I.
Davidson).
(I.
Read
t'NT'
1^
Davidson).
2*
Schorr reads
nDaH.
THE MENORAT HA-MAOR

Time and Place of Composition.
By Israel Efros, Johns Hopkins
University.
Concerning
very
little
the Menorat ha-Maor of Isaac Aboab,

far.
has been written so
All
we have
is
a brief
yet
essay by Zunz on the authorship of the book.^

the book
is
And
surely a promising subject for scientific research.
Much
of
its
for
example might be gathered from an examination

from a comparison of
references to the Jerushalmi, regarding the latter's
textual
history
or
its
copious
quotations from the Midrashim for the history of Midrashic

literature.
Jewish science
still
has
much
is
to unravel
and
to illuminate.
My
present purpose
its
merely to determine
the date and place of
authorship.
for
That the book

'
Menorah
'
which brevity sake we was composed by a man named Isaac Aboab,^

will
call
is
evident from the introductory
poem
^Nn
"ion
is
the acrostic
that Isaac
of which yields nnus* pnv> llTn.^

1
But who
See
Ritiis, pp,
is
205-10.
it
'
The name
Arabic ^Âj>\, and
was
so originally pronounced
but
already in the sixteenth century

signing his
Cf.
we
find a scion of that family, Imanuel,
name in the Spanish book Noniologia, and elsewhere, Aboab. JQR., X, 130, and Loenstein, Die Familie Aboab. ' The poem was apparently composed by some one else otherwise the
;
acrostic
would have been
in the first person, viz. 3n"l3X
pPlV
^
''JN.
That
the closing hemistichs give us the
noticed by Meyer Wiener (cf. poem was probably dedicated
words n"n^r DHI^N Î'b was already Ha-Maggid, IV, 32), who surmised that the
to the
memory
of a certain R.
Abraham
337
338

?
Aboab
Is
he
to
be
identified
with
the
disciple
in
of
the
Isaac Campanton, bearing the
same name, who died

?
year following the Spanish Expulsion

the sixteenth century,
affirmatively.
'
chronicler of
x^'-n''
itH:, answers the question

'
In his inauthentic history called npnpn

n::^ ^n:il:-iis3 -io3:i
d^-l:*:;'
DPtJ'PK^
'-\
he states :"vi
b)!:
nan nnnx pnr

^tj'nn
'"i.
'r
nn
n'o^no n\m
iixr^n
r^yc
1^
vni iy)i:n
"innn
ins
(3"n ^'v)
nni3o nao nan xini

into
pojDJp
This opinion
was not called
question
down
to
the
end of the
Di:^,
eighteenth century,
that
when Azulai,
in his n'b'iHn
noticing
Abraham
Zacuto speaks of Isaac
Aboab
the author
of the Menorah, without mentioning
him
as his teacher,
began to doubt the validity

a
scientific
of this ascription.
At
last
investigation
was attempted by Zunz, who
reached the conclusion that our author lived not at the
end of the
in 1320.
fifteenth century, but in the year
1300 or
latest
Now
first
instead of proceeding with our date-inquiry, let us
examine the sources of our book and the problem as

its
to the place of
composition.
The
logic of this
method
of procedure will reveal
itself, I trust, in
the course of the
discussion.
unwarranted suggestion. Besides, the poem bears no dedicatory
it is
entirely an
character
case.
no description of the addressee, which would usually be the

closing hemistichs give us one
To my mind, the opening and the word of the
complete statement of the author n"n^r

(perhaps the
the fourth
initial
first
Dm3N* ""m^
being ""ai^)
;
2^^2ii pHV^ nU'iT
closing hemistich should be ^^^"11^3,

i.
word
in the acrostic therefore

is
e.
Isaac Aboab, son
of R. Aboab.
This
highly significant
father,
it
for in addition to giving us the
name of our author's

problem.
in
also furnishes us with a clue to the date-
Identifying this R.
Abraham with R. Abraham Aboab mentioned
the Responsa of R. Judah b. Asher entitled Zikion Jeliudah, p. 53,

to the conclusion that Isaac
;
we
come
Aboab
lived at the
end of the fourteenth
century
more of which
later.
THE MENORAT HA-MAOR

I.
EFROS
339
The Sources of the Menorah.

can by no means be called an original
Just a cursory glance will impress one with
It
is
The Menorah
production.
its
mosaic and eclectic character.
a collection of
legendary stories and moralistic passages, topically arranged,
gleaned from the two Talmudim^ and the Midrashim.

the
latter,
Of
mention
is
made of
R.
the Midrash Rabba,^ Mekilta,^
Sifre/
Chapters
Rabbati,"
of
Eliezer,^
Tanhuma,^
Pesikta,^"
Ekah
Midrash Tehillim/^ Midrash
Mishle.^^
Midrash Shir ha-Shirim/* Midrash Zephaniah/^ Midrash

Kohelet.i
The
references to the Bab3donian

;
Talmud are
by
too
numerous
to
be
mentioned
quotations from the Palestinian

is
Talmud are found

its
in chs. 51, 52,.
100, 106 (here the Jerushalmi
referred to
older
title ''J3T
S")D3
smyo),
^
108, III, 113, 120, 131, 142, 151, 162, 270.
i59> 170, i8r, 186, 194, 205, 238, 254, 276, 284, 300; for
For quotations from Bereshit Rabba see chs. 81, 92, 105, 131, 138, 155, Shemot Rabba,
;
see chs. 29, 86, 92, 96, loi, 195, 224, 248, 297, 312, 329
forVaikra Rabba,
see chs. 50, 69, 96. 148, 149, 151, 153, 158, 195, 198, 254, 332; for Bamidbar Rabba, see chs. 133, 170. 313; for Debarim Rabba, see chs. 51,96, iii, 192,
222, 223, 225, 247, 296.
6
"
See
chs. 52, 142, 146, 155, 159, 225, 237, 243, 292, 294.
See
See
chs.
i,
41, 51. 64, 96, 123, 126,
144, 198, 223, 232, 253, 265. 275,
298, 329.
chs. 43, 45, 52, 80. 96, 100, iir, 113, 131, 159, 173, 201, 205, 215,
238, 275, 279. 284, 290, 296.

9
See
See See See
chs. 2, 41, 88, 95, 96, 106, 123, 129, 133, 140, 142, 192, 213, 238,.
253, 254, 290.

10
chs. 92. 97. loi, 118, 141, 149, 150, 153, 154, 166, 192, 230, 275,
279, 282, 284, 291. 293.

11
clis.
286, 304, 305, 310.

i,
12
chs.
17*, 89, 102, 105,
170,
172*, 208, 282, 288*, 312, 329.
The
in
star on
some
of the foregoing references indicates that they are missing

his introduction to the
Buber's
^'
1*
list in
Midrash Tehillim,
p. 38.
See
chs. ir, 53, 64, 136, 246.

it is
See chs. 80 (here

Ch. 171. IX.
named
'Hasita'}, 238.
IS
^5
Chs. i8i, 253.
VOL.
34

Of the
rarer Midrashim,
mention
;
is
Hashkem,^" no longer extant
of the
made of the Midrash Hupat EHjah Rabba,^'^

quotation
is
and
of the Sefer Hekalot. In ch. 93, he states

'
The
last
note(i.
worthy.
C^'C
T3
ni^M naon
Dn3
itJ'X-i
3in3l
e. in
the prayer
Baruk Sheamar')
is
fO^Dni
nun
]"z,
but the passage

Hekalot.
vol. II,
not
found
in
our fragmentary Sefer
Jellinek, in his
introduction to Bc^ ha-]\Iidrash,
has collected a number of quotations not found in
our Hekalot.
Furthermore,
it
Is
well
known
Hai.^^
that
there
existed another Hekalot, surnamed Zutarta, mentioned in
some Gaonic responsa
attributed
to
It
seems
lines in
strange, however, that a prayer based on certain
the Seder Elijah Zuta, chapter
4,
work of the middle of
the tenth century, should be referred to as having attained

definite
form and containing a fixed number of words

is
in
the Hekalot which

fixation of the
somewhat
older.
The
fact is that
the
number of words along with the mnemonic
symbol
is
given
first
by the author of the Rokeah, who seems

source.
to be the
Hence
think that the author of
the Menorah borrowed this passage from the Rokeah, and

''
See chs. 30, 51, 222, 225, 229.
Zunz
in his Ritiis, p. 205,
advances
this as a proof for the earlier date of the
Menorah, since the 'mention of

In his Goitcsdienstliclic
Midrash Hashken ceases with Israel Alnaqua'.
Vortrdge, p. 294, he evidently corrects himself and states that this Midrash
was known
statement
Rcshit
is
until
the end of the fifteenth century.

;
Yet even the

is
latter
in
not quite exact
the Midrash
Hashkem
mentioned
the
Hokmah by
See
S.
Elijah de Vidas,
who
to
lived at the
end of the sixteenth
century.
p.
Buber's lutmduclioH
Midrash dekah Tob^ Wilna, 1880,

is
21a.
its
Be
it
also noted that this Midrash
never mentioned
in
the
Menorah
ff.,
by
other name. Wchizhir.
Cf. Zunz's Gcsamnielte Sc/iri/Uii, pp. 251
and Geiger's Jiid

'*
Zeilschrift, 1875, p.
95
is
et seq.
See
ch.
201.
This fragment
in
not found in the fragments of the
llupat
Elijali
Rabba, contained
the Reshit
Hokmah.
"
Cf.
Taam Zckenim,
p. 56,
and Teshubot ha-Geonim, Lyck, 99.

essay in the Hashiloah,
As
for their ascription to Hai, sec
my
XXX,
463
fif.

EFROS
;
THE MENORAT HA-MAOR
341
mistook the origin to be Midrashic
though strangely
in the
enough the Rokeah

It
is
nowhere mentioned
Menorah.
shows, however, that our
author knew of the Sefer
Hekalot.
It
is
to be noted that in those places
where Aboab
gives his source very vaguely

his
first
as
'it is
said in a Midrash'
is
hand knowledge of the source
questionable.
The
in
story about the tailor
who
outrivalled the magistrate

fish
bidding high prices for a good-sized
on the day
before
Yom
Kippur
a story quoted from 'a Midrash'
(ch. 295), is
really taken
from the Tur on the laws per-
taining to the
see.
Day
of Atonement, as
The
story of
we shall subsequently Abahu complaining on his death-bed

is
of his lack of social activity (ch. 228),
taken verbatim
from
Israel Alnaqua's
'
Menorah
'.^^
His statement that

his
Adam
was given the law of female menses along with

' :
homiletical interpretation of the verse in Genesis
I will
make him
a help suitable for him
'
(ch. 180) is
found
in the
is
Sefer ha-Miisar, which, as Dr. Schechter has proven,
mere paraphrase of Alnaqua's Menorah

'
'.^^
His quotation
in
from a Midrash
'
'
ntî^D moc'l
D'-a
Ti3? is
found
the
Semag
^nyotn who writes D^3 inT C'mo The idea is contained in the Pesikta to the Ten Commandments as follows D^^ mv^ |n: nnr U'"N "iN
of R. Moses of Coucy,
ncn^n
niCD'l ("^'^d).
K^> >3
"rm? D^l'D^Do on nn^na dn

T\'<:)'y'r\
n-'bto^DD
on mo-'Na
ns*
D^ynr nrsK'
"'^k^v?
jn:.
It is
obvious that the author borrowed
his quotation not
from the Pesikta but from the Semag.
In ch. 113, he copied verbatim from the Tur, 292, in
explaining the cryptic
meaning of the three Sabbatical

}^g
Amidahs.^2
20
22
jj^
(,j^
jq^^
cf.
^^^^^
^ 'Midrash' concerning
pj'-nn pis.
21
Schechter
p,
in the Monatsschriff,
b.
XXXIV,
Z 2
114
ff.
Compare Tosafot
to
Hagigah,
342

fro
swaying to and
is
during prayer
whilst the true source

Similarly,
sit
the Sefer ha-Manhig, whence the extract.

'
his
Midrashic
'
quotation forbidding
one to
is
within
a certain area of a
man
and
that
his
'
is
praying,
'
really an extract
from
the
Tur
Midrashic
story
about
the
sagacious
woman who
in
offered instructions to her daughter
before the nuptial ceremonies as to the position of the
husband
a household a story which Zunz calls a

is
'
strange
Midrash', but which

style of late
strongly reminiscent
is
by
its
very
moralistic literature,
'
literally
copied from
Israel
Alnaqua's
Menorah
'.^"
We
see, then, that
our author's range of reading was not
exclusively Midrashic.
He made
considerable use of Gaonic

earliest
and later Rabbinic writings.

is
The
Gaon mentioned
Jehudai Gaon
(ch. 297).
Gaon's 'Siddur'
(ch. 97).
He was familiar with Amram He quotes a responsum of Hai

Rosh
at
and another one by 'a Gaon' which likewise means Hai,^*

but these two quotations are borrowed from the
the end of Tractate
Rosh ha-Shanah.^^
niN3
;'
In ch. 293,
Aboab
dji.
^^
quotes
"3
i"yp n"yp
It is
'^D
pn^;>
'n
ain nuiL-na
mn^
Ch. 176.
not found in the fragmentary remains of Alnaqua's
Menorah contained
in the
II,
Reshit Ilokmah, but in the Bodleian MS.

6i
;
See
D'JSnp PnJ by Dukes.

**
also Rabbinische Sprachkttnde, p. 5.

'
Alfasi
would
refer to
Hai as
the
Gaon
',
see Hashiloah,
/.
c, p. 560,
note 3.
"^'^
Indeed the greater part of ch. 290, from the words ^p'lSa
is literally
13''\'DK'
103
Ity^'N ''2"n
from the Rosh,
some
parts omitted.
Furthermore,
the whole passage in the
Rosh
is
reproduced
in the Tur, 981, but the
Menorah-passagc bears greater resemblance to the Rosh.

ignore the Tur, however,
of the
is
That he did not
evident from the fact that he adopts the reading
Tur tnnn ^31 nJK' ^33

is
h^X
n""13 instead of the reading of the
Rosh, which
only
HJC'
^33 Î^N n"~13.

It
The reason
for
Aboab's
adoption of the Tur's reading will appear in the seqiiel.

*"
The
text
is
apparently corrupt.
reads
Dt.*'3
ni3VL."n3 31113
;'
D31
133-11
nnyo
13311
nn^:y 3i i"yp n"yp
|r:'D
nis:
pn^'^
'i
3in
THE MENORAT HA-MAOR

Unless the word
it
'
EFROS
in
',
343
Teshubot
'
is
'
used
a very loose sense,
would seem that Gayyat's
Shaare Simhah
where the
quotation occurs, was originally a collection of responsa.
His extract from the 'Teshubot ha-Geonim

is
',
in
ch. 297,
found in the
naiii'n
ny:r, lo, 67.
More numerous are his references to Rabbinic literature. The nnno nbo^^ of the famous R. Nissim of Kairwan, is
mentioned twice
(chs. 95, 133)
;
but in both cases
it is
highly
doubtful whether
fact is that
Aboab
used the original source.

in the
The
both quotations are reproduced

freely
Manhig,
which drew as
from the DnriD roi^-^ as our book
drew from the Manhig.
Thus Zunz's argument

cogency.
that our
still
author must have lived at an early period since he
used the
nnno
n73D loses
its
Our book
further-
more mentions Rashi, the Rashbam's commentary on Baba

batra (ch.
(ch. 95),
1),
Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch

(chs. 60, 129).
and Alfassi
The anonymous quotathe
tion in the introduction, introduced with
expression
b.
V^y nJDNI,
is
found
in
the Eshkol of
Abraham
Isaac
Ab
Bet Din of Narbonne.

':i
Maimonides, apparently a favourite

3":
nypn
>d:
n^snn dvd nns

OnaD*.
ynn^
the
nn-ion
D:^'3
d'-jhi:
rnc' "nh
before
pun nmy^ n^
D"Jl3y
Evidently
word
belongs
31; while the word ''CJ is an error; it should be N73. Cf. Tosalot on Rosh ha-Shanah, 33 b yiD 5|1D3n lUZU N^N DlJ^y 3-| 1102 p"l nypn abi nns* nynn. This title was apparently at one time a favourite among Jewish authors. Aboab mentions in the introduction a work by Sherira bearing
:
''''
the same name.

^^
Cf.
Rapaport's biography of R. Nissim, note 25.
See Cassel
in
Zunz^s Jubclschnff, pp. 131-33.

in the
To
his hst of quotations
from the ''"inD H/SD
Manhig may be added the one

tabernacle,
Cf.
relative to
Aaron and the dedication of the

though the source
Pentateuch,
contains
is
which occurs
in the
Manhig,
there omitted.
Nahmanides' commentary on the

in
Num. 8. 2. Be it many passages that are

in the
also noted that ch. 95
our Menorah
strongly reminiscent of the passage on the

in the
Kaddish
Orhot Haj'yim and
Kol Bo.
344
with Aboab, was honoured with eleven direct, beside a
number
his
of indirect references.^^
(chs.
There are quotations from

60, 334),
Mishnah commentary
fiom his Code

(ch. 79, 149,
(chs. 71, 294, 312, 316),
and from
his
Guide
221, 237, 300).

n33:n
"isc,
The
latter
work he designated
famous
as
the
showing that
the
anti-Maimonidean
disturbance must have subsided in his day and the popular
sentiment settled in favour of the great Jewish thinker.
Coming to post-Maimonidean writers, we find references to Abraham b. Nathan of Lunel, whose Manhig was
extensively used though only in two places acknowledged
(ch. 80, 82); to
Nahmanides' commentary
',
(chs. 133, 152); to
the latter's
nificant
'
Iggeret ha-Kodesh
is
which, with a few insig-
modifications,
(chs.
entirely
to
incorporated
in
the
Menorah
'
181-5);^
;
an
'
unknown work
'
entitled
;
Haye 01am '^^ Semag of Moses

noticed,
to Anatoli's
Malmad
(ch. 93)
to the
of Coucy, which again, as
we
already
was
;
freely
used
though mentioned
kabbalistic
only once
entitled
(ch.
'
155)
and to Ibn
'
Latif's
work
Shaar ha-Shamaim
further
(chs. 237, 292).
The
ethical literature
is
represented
by the Mibhar ha-Peninim, the

all
Musere ha-Pilosophim, and the Mishle Shu'alim,
of
which are not mentioned by name but anonymously referred

*'*
His theory
that
high intellectual attainments result from the prein the phjsical constitution of
dominance of the dry element

plagiarism from Maimonides'
'
'
man,
is
literal
Shemonch Perakim',
in
ch. 8.
This plagiarism
is
mentioned
Brill's Jalirliiicher, II,
i66.
Stein-
schneider, however, in his Ilebraisclie Bibliogra{)liic, 1876, p. 89, unwilling

to
charge our author with literary larceny,

'
is
rather inclined to doubt

';
Nahmanides' authorship of the

not the only
Iggeret ha-Kodesh
but Nahmanides
was
the
man whose works won our author's affections. " This work is also mentioned by Alnaqua. Cf. Schechter
in
Mottatssclmjt,
XXXIV.
125.
See also bvr\^' "h^M Jinîn and the Bodleian
(Jatalogiie, p. 142b.
THE MENORAT HA-MAOR

to, viz.
:
EFROS
The
Menorah
is
345
last b.
-iDôn 'c^n nos* or
ncs* npnr^n ^mh."in
author whose
Jehiel,
name
is
found
in
the
Asher
who
is
mentioned
two places only
(chs. 94, 97),
but has been utilized, as we already observed, in
many
more.
Yet the sources
of our
book do not terminate with the

have already given one or two
;
Rosh
indeed
it
will
not be hard to detect traces of later

I
writers in the Menorah.
examples where Aboab drew upon the Tur

cite a
shall
is
now
few more.
In ch. 132, the tractate Soferim
quoted
regarding the sanctification of the
New Moon,
;
and the same

in
quotation
is
given in the Tur, 426
but
both cases
is
a certain part of the talmudical passage quoted
omitted
nT3
iS"'i
and
^b
at the
NÎ1
end the following

2pi;'
is
added inn "non

^Jip
TJ^n
i^di
iniu inn
inn
']mv
inn
T^'v.
Evidently one of them, of the Tur and the Menorah, copied

the other and not the tractate Soferim.^^
That
it
was the
author of the Menorah
who
copied from the

final
Tur can be
|D^D1
seen from the fact that he uses the
words npy
32
The epigram
'^2]}
^<"l^,
\n^
n^3"
DN
in
^^NV nnys IT*! niD?3

49,
\-i''
mx
bv niD
among
"in3D,
niD7
occurring
It is
ch.
was apparently
''^C'D
a favourite
Jewish authors.
found in the
wbViU
and
in the
DTJan
and
is
copied
in
Kalaz's IDIt^H *1SD.

:
The poet Joseph Ezobi

nih
is
sings in
a slightly different form

n-iiDX
The saying
expression
imn ic'DJ ^^n mos* d^'' dni onmn DiyO Q''ODnn nslJ^D (ch. 59)
DV^''
i'^B'n
itdn
analogous to the
]2,
imn
H^T'CO
is
in
-mjni
1^512.1
I'b
1]}^.
The proverb HC^yO HID nDtiTlD

on the Pentateuch (ynTD
riPPin
borrowed from Bahye's commentary

in
HC'ID),
written
1291.
See
Winter
u.
Wunsche,
33
Jiidische Litteratur, II, 321.

in tractate Soferim, according to
The reading
many
early authorities,
viz.
Manhig, Rokeah, Kol Bo, was apparently
invi''
yr\2 1N13
in3
IB'lpO *]n3, and such indeed is the reading in the Basle edition of Soferim of 1580 however the current editions vary.
;
346
tb
TJD-i

NNTi
as a
Avi'/,
commenting upon
find in
it
nrnn
131,
nni^nt^' '1^3
2pjr^.
Another example we
ch.
where he
introduces a reason for the custom prevalent
among Jewish
women
OHDIN
not to work
,
011
the
New Moon,
tells
with the words
t^'n
the passage being Hterally transcribed from the us that he learned the
Tur, 417, where the author
reason from his brother R. Judah.

cites
fast
In ch, 295, our author

his
a story of the King
who commanded
only son to
on a certain day and ordered his servants to entertain
the prince with a festival on the preceding day so as to

alleviate the fasting,
the source of this story being the
Tur, 439-
His explanation of the solemnity of Hoshanah

-inN
'i>\r\
Rabba, Dinnn
bni Dôn ^y
pjn^j
mi^'
â^, is
also
will
literally taken from the Tur, ^ 664.
These examples
suffice
to
show
that the
Tur was not an inconsiderable

did not find
it
source for our author
who
appropriate,
however, to express acknowledgement and indebtedness.
The
was
idea of individual ownership in the

still
domain of
intellect
unknown.
later writer
Even a
exploited
than the author of the Tur was

for
by Aboab
Asher
his
work
refer
to
Israel
Alnaqua, who died the death of a martyr together with
R. Judah
b.
in
Toledo, in the year 139 1.
His book,
a namesake of our Menorah, has not seen the light yet
only a part has been published by Elijah de Vidas
in his
work
called
'
Reshit
is
Hokmah'. Hence a
full
comparison of
the two works
as yet impossible.
But comparing the
published fragments of Alnaqua's work with our Menorah,
we
arrive at the conclusion
first,
that the one must have

it
made
use of the other
and secondly, that
is
our author
who
Let us take for example Ahiaqua's chapter on Judges and chapter 222 to
utilized Israel
Alnaqua's collection.
THE MENORAT HA-MAOR

230
the
in
EFROS
347
our Menorah, and
we
shall see that
both begin with
same excerpt from the Midrash and
avail themselves of
the same quotations in the course of the discussion, and In some make the same comments. Menorah becomes a splendid summary
places indeed our
of Alnaqua's book,
an abridged edition.
lengthy passage
cannot
resist
quoting one rather
Aboab,
N^^T
ch. 86.
Alnaqua on Education.
jnvi
-\vyc>b)
ab^
-^rwb
ms
nj
"inv3 nnr^
ms invi
uic'h vs
njij
t:'"3i
ab^' ^"2)
ijrDJD
in
^jsn VDJD
nîj'
mi;D
nm
^3n*
nana
Nin:i^
n'^"^*
ijn 'jan -im^ abiy

''"dvni
un
lob'
inviry^
im::'y^
"jsn
pi
-iiyîjn
;d ip-'mn^
binu'
ib
in
pn
1^{^'y
dn njuo
v:sn
yju D-Dyabir
i^''3n*
nonn
nsn
imp''
dn
3wsn xin hjijd -inv i3"o

>;3Da
^ns
m
i33n
'JDD
-inv
nnr
m
i^
i^
njuro
im
n"L:'y
in
lan
Nctr
p
ID
i3p'm''i
D'-TDnn
mn^
ina"-
"idn^
idn''
dn
i31
i:DtD
-ja
un
n''t^y
n^''
inD-in*'
DN1 nnnnni nxjpni n2\sn
nnb 3sn
nmn
n:3D3
n^^y^
in
din
N!?:^'
r"yi
''s
hdn
icîpi
n-'cy lai
le'C'ipnn
:3"nNi
N^m pn
nnN
Dvcp
dni
jiNJpa
invy
d"'J3"'
N^njn
^c^;y
yotr^
TiDna
i^VN
nc'yD
n?:N
.r3N nua
.D''"inN
)C']}^
j-'ijsn
Dit^'p
mytj'n
nan
ny
name
n\nc*
nmD
pn
nan aNn
i:n
i?ya n\ni li^vN i:a ^^n1

'h
prnn
iDnn
nai
'jsa
nNO
i:ayn>
onnN
la n^^v
D^:ijra
nniNi
isn:?:)i
^:i^d
bv rhbp Nan
^jd
naxn inun
"]a
nnan
yCw*
noiN
n\ni
ncnyn
^yi
lai
nr^'yu;
nnn ua
B'"'N
nsD ny nnyiaoi
idn
pn
--rya
nann
nînî:^
na
intryca
iniN Dy DDipnn^ cpai

.
v^^' dni ia Nîvaoi i3d pHnn"*!

pja
c'-nnB'ai
vaN
'ja
b^'
irn
^ya
I'-aN
cnnN
iK^yt:'
nam^D
nan
lb nnn n^b
ni^N
'^y
'rT'B'yi
^'n nana
nna Nvva
in nN: na^na in nioi'

i:a
"'j'^ya
nann n\n nr:N on
noa noN-i
isidi ^ji^d
nND
ijna::'*
noiNC'
Dnyiacn
nnann
nc'yK'
nr
nan
hnj
348
\-i''w'j;u*

sin
*3s*
icy DDipnn m^b
n'C'v
nI'II
/\sin n^v^y
n^yo
ncn:
rn''^
niD-in vicc6 'JN îxm pna xbc'
'n^
inaco rân
na
nm
N^ Dsi
D'yin ^'cyo
^y nib^pi
"n'-tyy
sin n:
^nnc"'
|oi
ni^^-yb niNnî
pn
yD::'^!^
DnyiDon
nnmn
ddin
im
iid
imoa nsj "in

ijn
-iDixc D^^t33
onm^ nnn
ynvn
no^
-ny^:)n
nx
i^
p^mrh
n^"n
n^'Tw^ nro i?:n>i i^
mn
xmLir:ix
nnônn
ipiâ
P""
m^
I'^y
impî
pas
nonn
nna-Nni
Nine
.
y-iv
nnnD3
nil-
nxn
aip^t:^:3
an nam
nn
^^''^^
"^^ T^^'^ ^^^^^

ijirra^
-iipa
p:3
D^non
nâ
n^'-c-a
nron
^12
nt^'y^
nii!;r:^n
ns^'ini
nD3Dni
""^^"^^
Dî'in
^'^""'^^
my mb
niiîDn
Tî'
po nivD
axn
n^'y"'::*3i
jT'&'yai
n"j2
uij^n^c
nxTi
nn^xni
SIN
Q-113
iT'a
nî^n
ivj'P"'
nna
n:>v31
nhî
naio
pjD
lovya nnis
ijn?D^''i
nsjpn
ens!? axn ^nnc"* ....
la nicy^
i3a^
n-in"
nb'C 1J2 'jsn in^^p^ in insin''

N^'rr:i
onN
dn nnnnni
iroy
na\sni
3Nn
nn-'L" in
inn^c Iu'DNI v^n ^^3co

dni
.
DtîpnM
pn
Dy
nano
cnc'
nxb
yiN''
pna
n"'^
iN'^nD in r\:yc'D nrr-D uai?

nD3''i
nL"yn nj3D n'b xnî
un
yoc"' ncij'
nann
^13D^
n''n::'
inD-)n''i
mN
i^VN i:n n^ni

-1D1N1
Dânn ^vn
isdd
n\-ii
lyc'n
^^^
nan
n''K'y
Dy nainn
i^
-iidini
nnN tdui
ini:n
idin piijoi finno
maa^ nND ny 12n

VHN
c'^nn-L-a
'n"'C'y
mm
i^n
i:afyDc-*i
!?yn
nNo nnyiaro
onm
i^âiâ
vnx
^*L^
L"\xn
iniN oy DDipnn^
::*p3i
V3N
Dnm
ijnc nt:iN Nine

Nin
'jn
onan hdn cn
uoipnn
-sro
ib nin no^
doi:di
i^
ncN
piD N^c
ab CN1
n^:n
"'n"'eye
ir^y
r\^b i^xa
nnyiao
^jn >in-i
"n^'J'y
D'-y-in
êyo ^d ^y dhn
ni^^pi
main
yice^
o^ôa
^P3
Dân^ einn
TT'B'y
noi? -ir^Ne
nnyiacn
onmn
n''"L"ni
oniN
^3D
':nc'i
Nê ynv nnno^n ynr

^b*3::'3
nroNM
i^
.3D -imi NIC iDiN Ninei

I
-idin
Nine nnsnn
have overlincd
all
the passages in Alnaqua's
column
THE MENORAT HA-MAOR

that
constitute
skilfully
EFROS
our
349
the
excerpt
from
work.
Notice
how
our author was able to present the essence

in
of another's ideas
their original
their original garb
though not with
label.
Notice furthermore that the story

in
about the saint and his son introduced

with the expression
'
our Menorah
some one
said
said
'
is
evidently original
with Alnaqua.
Another
'
idea which
'
:
Aboab
*
introduces
the salvais
with the words
some one
namely, that
tion which the children
may
bring to the parents
greater
than the salvation which the parents

children' (ch. 87),
is
may
render to their
also
taken
from Alnaqua's chapter
on education.
This,
I
think, will suffice to prove that

;
Aboab
freely
drew upon Alnaqua's work
and here ends our investigaMenorah.
tion into the sources of the
The
its
subject that
now
invites our attention
is
the place of
composition.
2.
Place of Composition.
lived
That Isaac Aboab, the author of the Menorah,

in Spain,
no one seems to doubt.
Why
the
should one doubt
when
the title-page clearly reads 'TiDDn

is
nnnx
to
pnv^
And
the
apparently there
contrary.
deficient in
nothing
the
in
book
to
prove
In
fact,
is
book seems
be
remarkably
what
Renown as local colour.
Yet there
is
something that proves the contrary.
Aboab's references
to prevailing customs and rites leave us no doubt that he
did not live

to
in
Spain, but in France.

in
The following references

confirm the truthfulness
Minhagim
the
Menorah
will
of this statement. In ch. 93, our author speaks of the significance of the
prayer called Baruk Sheamar which
is
to be said before the
350
Psalms.^*
Now
the author of the
Manhig
states that the
French custom was to say Baruk Sheamar before the

Psahns on a week day as well as on a Sabbath, but
according to the custom in Spain and
the Psalms preceded Baruk
author,
in
the Provence,
Sheamer on a Sabbath.
in
Our
making no
distinction
ritual.
this
case,
evidently
followed the French

In ch.
103, he brings a passage from the

in the INIanhig
Midrash
fro
which he found
about
swaying to and
jnjo
pi,
during prayer, and remarks Dn''Dnn
while
the
Manhig adds nn-om nsis

In ch.
"-jm in2J2 p).
152, in connexion with

13 pD''DiD'i
Hoshanah Rabba, our

t:"v3 )r22
author writes: nnji DmciD
imiyoa pmoi.
Now Abraham
and
in
of Lunel tells us that in France, in Provence,
Ailemania additional Psalms

in
were
recited
this,
on
Hoshanah Rabba, but not

tells
Spain.
In view of
in
how
also
can one claim that our author lived

us that
lighting
Spain
He
candles
on that day was purely
a French custom.^^
In ch.
286,2*5 Q^j.
author states that
it
is
customary to
^'
-)K)i<'C
inn ni^nnn
nj^npnn Ijpn D:1.
Now see
tj^'^n
Manhig
(Berlin,
1855), p-
10a:
-"js^
n3L"2
p3
ijinn
pa
idi^
nsiv jhjd
m3*i3n nnt< d"vi

quotation from the
r\2'C'2
^>nnn^
Nvnnai tisd
it
is
:n:oi
.... omtDTon
nac bu niTCln ^"2
"-JD^
nuaipni.
is
to
be noted that Aboab's

;
Malmad
also given by
in this
examination will reveal thai Aboab
" See Manhig (Warsaw,
1885',
pp.
Abudraham and yet close drew from the original. 109-no: NVranSI nSli* JilJO
case
n3f
bv'
omoTD
na-i
|di
njyt'ina
.
. .
idi^
mao
p-ixn
'nbv
hn^jo^ni
n::'npi
P'birh ns-iv3
mtm
D>3it3
co'
-ixB'a iDirD3
nai
D:3:fD nnoc
biy
d^^jn
nnc
onmn bn
D^yin3
itsyci?
vi?y is^cini
',
Tw"3 b^2i6
N^C
find:
p:ni3 DJI 3N.
Nowcomp,
p>1
Tur, 'Orah-Hayyim
ch. 951,
where we
nODD
r"'D
-lt>3?D
Dn^HM
TJ^t^N
JHJOI
THE MENORAT HA-MAOR
EFROS
351
abstain from meat during the nine fateful days preceding
the ninth of
this
Ab
and from various sources we learn that
was not a Spanish custom.

In ch, 290, our author speaks of sounding the Shofar
during the month of Elul as a fixed institution, but this

again was only a P'rench
minhag.
The
origin
of
this
custom
is
to be found in a certain passage in the Chapters
of R. Eliezer, and
in
Spain quote
it
this
when the Rosh and the Tur, who wrote passage they deem it necessary to
In the same
fast
remark that
was not a Spanish custom.

it
chapter, our author tells that
is
customary to
on
the last day of the year, and

'
we
find in the
Manhig
that
it
is
customary
in all
France, and
fast
among most
of the
scholars
of Provence to
'.^^
on the day before
Rosh
ha-Shanah
Thus we
ritual
see that our author follows in all cases the

in opposition
and the customs of France, very often

of Spain.
to those
is
The
inevitable
conclusion therefore
that Isaac Aboab, the author
of the
Menorah, though
lived
of Spanish origin, as the
name unmistakably implies,^^

Spain but
place,
in
and composed
his work, not in
France.
When
clue
to
that change of
homes took
we have no
Perhaps
See
also
speak with any amount of certainty.

]""<)
in the latter
')^2D
0^1:3
D''yi03
i^^H) n"'1C1 I^^XI.

:
Rokeah,
"1^X21.
ch. 310.
Abudraham
S7
clearly states
p.
jnJDH Hf
:
DJJ'D
nh flWIXn
n"-i?o
See Manhig,
îN
D'k^'iy
87
yipn^ i^\xi î^x
^'nnn^ ns-iv :njo

,
Dtro
DTiai^^ni b'ba n"nn yipn^
irpnn 12b ...

of tract
'
nv
bn
'
]?*X1 .
See
also above, note 25.
The Rosh (end
Rosh ha-Shanah
also regard
it
;,
Tur
(ch. 981),
and the
"["ll?
HTiV (Warsaw, 1880, p.227

Aboab's statement
:
as an
Ashkenazic minhag.
As
to
ni3J?nn7 D''3mJC IJ^VO D3

in the
n"l 3ny3> we have the corresponding statement

n"-i
^^
Manhig,
p.
Br
my
m:ynn^ NVi'^nns 'mh ani nsiv

2.
:n:r2.
See above, note
352

Almohade
persecu-
part of the twelfth century, during the

tion,
his
ancestors
left
the Spanish peninsula and sought
refuge in the North where, as Benjamin of Tudela reports,
Jewish communities enjoyed peace and tranquillity.

all
At
events Isaac
soil.
Aboab
lived
and composed his Menorah

to deal with the
'
on French
problem of
see
We
are
now prepared
Having determined the where whether we cannot equally determine the when
date.
'
',
let
'.
us
3.
Date of Composition.
way
In
of introduction, on Zunz's brief
Just a word, by
essay on our subject.
my
opinion
it
falls
short of the
standard of Zunz's other writings.

hastily
Conclusions are so
that
drawn,
arguments
:
so
unconvincing,
it ?
one
instinctively asks
is
Did Zunz write
That our author
not identical with Isaac Aboab, the Castilian, one of the
Spanish exiles of 1492
he
has proved well.

at
But
if
the
Menorah was not

century,
written
the
end of the fifteenth
of the fourteenth
to our
why presume that it was written at the beginning ? He argues that from the introduction book, we gather that Aboab wrote two more works,
ritualistic
;
one halakic and one

lived at the
and he asks
If the
is if
it
author
end of the fifteenth century,

?
how
possible
that the two works were lost
Now, even
we admit
the
major premise that works of the fifteenth century

lost,
cannot be
we need
not admit the minor premise that
the two works were
lost.
They were not
lost
because
they were never written.
Indeed, he does not state that
he wrote the two aorks, but that he intended to write

them.^'^
And
as he began to
c*ino
. . .
compose the Menorah
in his
" i6 Nmaxi
CiMiin nyn
nmn
"riyn
nnn^ ^n3Dni -im^ ^n^nnnr |V3

n:"ip3
airiDS*
3"y
Nnycc'
n>:r\b
3iu
THE MENORAT HA-MAOR

later
EFROS
realized
353
his
days/"
?
is
it
-not
likely
that he never
intention
Or take another argument
of Zunz's.
The
Menorah never mentions the Tur by name,

parallel passages
in spite of the
which are to be found
in
both works
consequently, the Menorah must have preceded the Tur.
Now,
first,
if
the Menorah
preceded the Tur,

Secondly,
why
does
not the Tur mention the
Menorah?
we have
example,
seen that our author very often makes use of works without
due acknowledgement.
He
incorporates,
'
for his
Moses
yet
b.
Nahman's Iggeret ha-Kodesh

'
in
Menorah,
the Iggert
we should not say
that the
Menorah preceded
think
ha-Kodesh because there are
parallel passages
I
and he does
have already
itself
not mention the latter by name.
proved that
it
was the Menorah which availed

it,
of the
Tur, but did not openly refer to

refer to Israel
as
it
did not openly
Alnaqua's
'
Menorah
'.
Zunz's position
now being abandoned, what

?
is
our
answer to the problem of date

clusions reached in our
In the light of the con-
investigation into
its
the sources of
our book and into the place of

to this last problem
that the last
is
composition, the answer
not far from sight.
We
is
have seen
Alnaqua's
work
utilized
by our author
'Menorah', which was written not long before 1391, the

year before
its
author's martyrdom.
Let that year be
our terminus a quo.

locate the to'inmus
nix3i nnytt'
Let us see w^hether we cannot equally
ad quem.
nix-if'
We find the book mentioned

Dîti'-isn
(i.e.
D>on
n^rsi ^n^Nicj' nnix

^J1:^'N^2
>B>nsi
njnnN^ jT^y^-ns^ sno ^v\^ nnyn and the ^JDH inh'tT).

<o
mijon
njaxi
the p-is*
See introduction
ptH iniND
nîyn
nns*
p^n T\7h
"'ib
""JN^D
r\'i7\
^y
^y^x^
Nnv^
nr
^ma nun^
nn-iDa poyn^D
^n^^^
lyL"
354
as early as

Abraham Seba, who
reader to
in his lien
inv,** referring
it
to a certain midrashic passage, does not quote
himself
but
refers the
the Menorah
fact
indicating
that the
book enjoyed popularity as early
as the end of the
fifteenth century.
The name
1500.'*-
of our book also occurs in a
MS.
dating from about
But the termimis ad quevi

Indeed the greater part of
can yet be moved a

the fifteenth
territory.
little
nearer.
century must be excluded from the problematic

is
It
well
known
that the
Kaddish originally
bore no relation to the conception of death, but was a mere
doxology
recited after a talmudic discourse
but gradually
that
prayer,
some
and
kabbalistic
notions
clustered
around
it
early in the fifteenth century

It
assumed a sombre
aspect.
it
then became customary for the orphans to recite
daily for eleven
months
after the passing

b.
away
of a father
in Ave
or a mother.
In the works of Isaac
Sheshet Barfat and
the Kol Bo,

search the
we
find the beginnings of this

find
is
custom
yet
if
Menorah thoroughly we
no trace of the
Mourner's Kaddish.
The Kaddish
indeed mentioned
doxological
children
(ch. 27)
and commented upon, but only

significance.
in its original
Moreover,
Aboab speaks
of
how
can save their parents from the throes of Hell
would
it
not be appropriate there to speak of the Kaddish
He
of
quotes rather at length the legend about Akiba
who
met a ghost running impetuously, bent under a heavy load
wood
to feed the tongues of flame in

daily,
Gehenna which by the
consumed him
Bareku
and Akiba
is
told
by the dead man

repetition
that no one could save

of
(ch. 9).
him except
in the
his son
Now
course of time, this legend
was so modified as to include the Kaddish as equally

See
*'
Scfer Dcb.nrim,
p. 129.
Rifus, p. 210.
THE MENORAT HA-MAOR
EFROS
355
possessing the power to redeem the dead, and was therefore
made
I
the origin of the institution of the Mourner's
Kaddish.^^
Why
is
Abcab
is
silent
about
it
in
this
cone
nexion
think this
more than an argumentuvi

territory cannot
silentio.
Thus our problematic

part of the fifteenth.
lived in France,
embrace more
than the last part of the fourteenth century and the earlier
And when we remember
that
Aboab
where no Jews were found from 1394, the
year of the Expulsion, to 1426, we finally reach the conclusion that
Aboab must have
lived at the latter part of

in Paris
the fourteenth century.**
He
probably lived
where-
French Judaism was then centred, and where the Jews

lived
peacefully
and
unmolested
under
the
reign
of
Charles V, the kind monarch

of a Jewish maiden.
(r"S"')
who was said to be enamored Thus when Aboab writes nny ?3M
D^:n3 onô^ ^3
DV ^^n
y3Vt^'^
D^nitî
mx
to
îi D^tf'iyB':
the
words cannot
refer
to
Spain,*^ nor
Germany, where
very
tale is heart-
Jewish suffering was so intense that
its
rending, but only to French Judaism and to that particular
time when there was yet peace
for the
Jews and
light,
though only
disappear
in
like the pale light of the
wintry sun soon to
a cold long night of infinite darkness.
But while the fortune of worldly goods smiled upon the

Jews of France, there was
in the
spiritual
and
intellectual lethargy
very land of Rashi and the Tosafists. True, a certain
scholar
named Mattathiah
ynr
niN,
ii, 6,
b.
Joseph who succeeded to be
*<
Cf.
n.
of
Our supposition, above in note 2, that our author was the son R. Abraham Aboab, meets therefore with no objection in point of time.
**
Cf.
Hasdai Crescas's
to
letter to the
Jewish community of Perpignan.
See also introduction
"1"^? HTi*.
VOL. IX.
A a
356
THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEWexempted from wearing
the favourite of the king, and was
the badge of shame,*'' tried to institute academies in France
and
to spread talmudic lore;
and some talmudic MSS.
that had been confiscated were returned
by the king
to
the jews; yet as there was no general, hearty craving for
halakic studies,
all
attempts
failed.
'
What
shall
be done
at this time', our author asks wailingly, 'when owing to
our sins the academies consecrated

creasing?' (ch. 244);
shall
is
to learning are de-
again, in ch. 270,
he writes: 'What
be done at this time when owing to our sins knowledge
rare
and the sages of
Israel are
few and
far
between?
'
At
last
Aboab
conceived
a
his
scheme of saving
French
Judaism.
He abandoned
worldly pursuits and betook

unintelligible
himself to the pulpit.'*^

*'''
The halakah became

: '
Cf. Charles's
'
Ordinances', V, 498
Exceptez tant seulment

Isaac
b.
Maistre
Mattathia et sa mere et
Abraham son
fils
'.
Sheshet also speaks of
Mattathiah as a favourite of the king, as well as of his attempts to open

talmudical academies.
*^
See his Responsa, 270.
That preaching was
now
his vocation is evident
from what he says

p"'y^
. .
in
the introduction:
also from
cm^
niOSNB'D b^V
epilogue
;
'hy\
ITipl 12
.
DJ1,
and
what he says
in the
I^D^X t6^ ^2
nilD^
"TT'X'I
niCinoa inaDB' no
public'.
It
is
\yp2b.
He
furthermore states that he did not
introduce any material unfit 'either to be taught or to be preached in

to be noted that
sermons occupied no leading position

(i)
;
in
French Jewry of that time, for two reasons;

elaborate to allow ample time for the preacher
their ritual
was
too
(2) the
French Rabbis
Gottesdicnstliche
were
too
much engrossed
in pilpulistic studies.
See Zunz,
Votircige, ch. 22.
We
can
now
understand
why Aboab
It is
spoke so complain-
inglj- of pilpulistic
Halakah and casuistry.

is
furthermore to be noted
it
that while the
Menorah
merely a collection of material for sermons,
is
clear from the paucity of biblical interpretations, that Aboab's a greater resemblance to the French
sermons bore
model which was a mere string of
Midrashim and Haggadahs, than

Anatoli's and Nahmanides'
a
to the
more elaborate Spanish model
like
is
and Nissim Gerundi's, the basis of which

rest is
;
scriptural
text
and the
tlic
cxcgctic, based on
Bible
the
Tho Spanish type was French type was an independent moral

commentary.
THE MENORAT HA-MAOR

to the masses, but there
is
EFROS
357
yet enough in the haggadah to

old,
convey to
all,
young and
quintessence, the ethics of Judaism.
men and women, the moral To those he could

;
reach
by the
his
living word,
he preached
for
others,
he
in
composed
Menorat ha-Maor.
Suddenly, however,
1394, the Jews were ordered to leave France, and French
Judaism came to an abrupt ending.

the
And
yet, thinking of
number
of editions which the
book was
privileged to
it
see,*
and considering that down to our own day
served as
a spiritual guide for the Jewish
woman, the workman, the

realize our
rank and
file
of Israel,
we can
enormous
in-
debtedness for
the historic
continuity of Jewish learning
and Jewish morals, to the author of the Menorah, Isaac
Aboab.
discourse, interwoven with stories and sayings gleaned from post-biblical
literature.
^*
Aboab's sermons were of the French

p. 1071.
tj'pe.
See the Bodleian Catalogue,
a 2
KEDESH-NAPHTALI AND TA'ANACH

By Julian Morgenstern, Hebrew Union
Practically
Judges 4
is
College.
all
Biblical
scholars
are
agreed
that
merely a prose account of the victory of the

Canaanites, which
is
tribes of Israel over the

in older, poetic
described
their con-
form
in
Judges
5.
They base
roles in
clusion
upon the
fact that
Deborah and Barak,
Jael and
in in
Sisera play practically the
same
Judges 4 as
Judges
5,
and that
in
both chapters the battle results

for
Israel.
an overwhelming victory
since prose generally,
if
They argue
that,
not invariably, represents a later
stage of literary evolution than poetry, and since, moreover,

ch.
4 describes the battle as taking place on the banks of the
Kishon, near the foot of
Mount Tabor,
it
furnishes merely
a later, rationalized version of the great Battle of Ta'anach,

in that
it
ascribes the victory in the

his
main
to the prowess of
Barak and
in the
men, and speaks of divine intervention only
most general and non-committal manner.

is
Of
similar rationalistic nature

killed Sisera while
the version of ch. 4, that Jael

in ch. 5,
he slept rather than, as
while
he bent his head, unsuspectingly, to drink the milk she had

brought.
Furthermore, these scholars

passive
maintain the
altogether
and
insignificant figure of Jabin,
King of Hasor,
the version
is
whose general Sisera was, according

ch. 4,
to
of
was borrowed from Joshua

359
11,
where he
repre-
360
sented as the leader of a federation of northern Canaanite

city-states
conquered by Joshua. With

let
this,
almost without
exception, they
the matter
rest.
Yet there
quite
as
are differences between

as
the
two
versions,
significant
is
the
points
of resemblance.
In
Judges 5 Sisera
in
king of a powerful Canaanite city-state
the Kishon Valley,

cities
presumably, since these are the

in
only
mentioned by name
the entire poem, either
Ta'anach or Megiddo.
He
is
also the leader of a powerful
coalition of Canaanite city-states, apparently all situated

in this
same
valley, against
an equally powerful league of

In Judges 4, however, he
neighbouring Israelite
is
tribes.
merely the general-in-chief of Jabin, King of Hasor, an

little
important Canaanite city-state, located probably a

south-west of the Waters of
Merom, some
forty miles or
more from the Kishon Valley, and separated from there
by a southern spur
of the
Lebanon Mountains.
the mountains about
Sisera's
camp Ms
place,
located at Harosheth-Haggoiim, an unidentified

in
presumably situated
midway
between Hasor and Mount Tabor, on the northern edge

of the Kishon Valley.-
This
is
an unfavourable and rather
improbable
ch.
site
it
for
such a camp.
Why
the version of
4 located
there will
4.
becom e
clear shortly.
According to
4-6, Barak hails from Kedesh-Naphtali
and Deborah from the country of Ephraim.

ciated with the well-known
'
She
',
is
asso-
palm of Deborah
situated
between
'
Ramah and
nowhere implied
Bethel,
in
apparently the same tree

that
It
is
ch. 4
Ilarosheth-Haggoiim was the

his
capital of Sisera, as
'*
Moore
1
states (///[<>,
no), or anything but
camp.
Moore
{op. cil.,
19) liesitatingly accepts the identification of

at the
Harosheth-
Haggoiim with Tell Harothieh,

suggests that in ch. 5 Sisera
western end of the Kishon Valley, and

king of this Canaanite city-state,
may have been
even though
it
is
not mentioned there.
MORGENSTERN
361
which was called \illon-baclmth because another Deborah,

the nurse of Rachel, was, according to tradition, buried
beneath
it.*^
According to Judges
5.
15,
Deborah seems
Barak was
to have been of the tribe of Issachar, while

either
of
Issachar,
or,
as
it
should
most probably be
emended, of Naphthali."*
Moreover,
in
ch.
4 Deborah
is
prophetess and a
judge, and to her the tribes resort to receive justice, or,

as
is
more
likely
implied
in
the words
DDtt'O?
ipyi,
to
consult the oracle and receive oracular decisions and laws.
But
an
in ch.
t'KltJ'â
5 she
is
none of these.
7),
if
At
the most she
is
only
DX
(ver.
that
term had, perhaps, some

all
specific designation.
Actually she plays not at
the role
of a prophetess, but only the simpler and far more primitive

role of the
battle-maiden,
somewhat
similar to
that
of
the
Ayesha
at the Battle of the Camel,^
who accompanied
tribes into battle, chanting a
song of warfare and triumph

Apparently, as the
to spur the warriors on to victory.

tribes of Israel
advanced
in culture
and
civilization, the
old tribal
forgotten,
nomad methods of warfare were outgrown and

and the
role of
Deborah, no longer understood,
was changed to that of a prophetess and co-leader of the

tribes with Barak.
Furthermore, ch. 4
the actual
site
is
quite confused in
In fact
it
its
account of
of the battle.
contains two distinct
and contradictory accounts of the

to vers. 6 and 12,
battle-field.
According
Barak mustered
his
army
at
Mount Tabor,
while Sisera drew up his
army along
the Kishon (vers. 7
and
2
*
13).
After his defeat Sisera fled north-eastward through

35. 8
cf.
Gen.
Moore,
cit.,
op. at., 113.
See Moore,
Cf. Damiri,
op.
151.
Haydt al-Hayawdii,
trans. Jayakar,
434
ff.
362
the mountains, hotly pursued by Barak.

his
He
passed
by
permanent
camp
site
at
Harosheth-Haggoiim, and
lost his
even past Hasor, the capital of Jabin, and finally

life
in the tent of Jael at Sa'annaim near Kedesh.
On
the
other hand, vers. 9 and 10
state
explicitly that
Barak
sites
mustered his men
at Kedesh-Naphtali.
identified.
The two
cannot possibly be
Between them there cannot

historical battle
be the
site.
least
doubt which was the correct

1 1
Joshua
tells
of the defeat of Jabin of

tells
Hasor
at the
Waters of Merom,
the
army
of this
of the defeat just as Judges 4 same Jabin of Hasor under Sisera

little
of at
Kedesh-Naphtali, just west, or a
north-west of the
is
Waters of Merom.
a
Unquestionably Kedesh-Naphtali
site
more exact determination of the actual

and the event
II.
is
of this
battle,
the
same
as that referred to in
Joshua
The
version
which locates the battle on the banks of
the Kishon, just below
Mount Tabor,
is
manifestly the result
of an attempt to harmonize the account of the Battle of
Ta'anach of Judges 5 with the Battle of Kedesh-Naphtali of
Judges 4 and Joshua
11,
and to make them seem one

this version
battle.
Apparently the authors of
were none too well
acquainted with the topography of the Kishon Valley.
For
its
Mount Tabor
ed-Duhy
is
fully eight miles

is
from the Kishon at
nearest point, and

or Little
separated from the stream
by Jebel
fled
Hermon.
Furthermore, to have
northward from the banks of the Kishon below Mount

Tabor, Sisera would have had to cut his
way through
These
facts
the entire army of Israel coming down from the north, and
to
pass
by the camp
Moreover,
of
Israel
on Tabor.
suffice to
prove the harmonistic character of the version

5.
of ch.
4.
19 seems to indicate that the victory

over Sisera's
in
MORGENSTERN
363
army was gained on
the banks of the Kishon
the vicinity of Ta'anach and Megiddo, rather than near
Mount Tabor.
In the harmonized account of the two battles in Judges
4,
the battle had to be fought on the banks of the Kishon.
For the was so

not be
role played
by
this stream in the Battle of
Ta'anach
essential that, while the authors of

specific
Judges 4 might
it.
about
it,
they could not entirely ignore
On
far
the other hand, the site of the battle could not be too
removed from Kedesh-Naphtali to
lose the connexion

it
with that city and territory, and
make
impossible for
Sisera to flee thither from the battle-field.

single
Therefore this
the
composite
site
battle
was
located
at
seemingly
favourable
far
of
Mount Tabor,
fairly
in the author's
mind not
to
removed from the Kishon, and
also
accessible
Kedesh-Naphtali by a
easy road over the mountains.
And
to further this process of harmonization
and
identi-
fication, the
camp
of
Sisera was located
at
Harosheth-
Haggoiim, between Tabor and Kedesh-Naphtali.
These considerations make

is
it
probable that Judges 4
not merely a prose account of the same great battle

tribes of Israel over the Canaanites,
and victory of the

that
is
described in the older poetic version of Judges 5,

rather a
battles
but
is
composite, harmonistic narrative of two

of
distinct
that
is
Kedesh-Naphtali and
that
of
Ta'anach.^
This
confirmed by one further and most
significant consideration.
Judges 5
tells
that a call
was
sent to
all
the then related tribes of
Israel.''
Of
these,
Ephraim,
*
Machir,
Benjamin,
Issachar,
Zebulun,
(33),
and
Moore
This conclusion had been previously reached by Budde
(109),
''
and Nowack
(31).
Judah, Levi, Simon, Caleb, and other southern tribes are not mentioned.
364
Naphtali'' answered the call and participated in the battle,
while Reuben, Gilead, Dan, and Asher refused to obey the
summons.
On
the other hand, Judges 4,
5,
and 10 state
expressly that only
Zebukm and Naphtali
participated in
the Battle of Kedesh-Naphtali.
The
natural tendency of Israelitish historiography

tribal traditions,''
was
toward nationalization of ancient
towards
representing an ever larger group of tribes as acting in

concert for a
common
end.
Finally, at
some time
all
after
the evolution of the nation
under David,
early pre-
Davidic
tribal
traditions
were
completely
nationalized.
They now came
to tell that from the very beginning Israel

tribes,
had consisted of only twelve

nation, acting in concert
always constituting one
under one leader, and conquering

together and
at
the
whole land of Canaan

in
one
time.
all
Manifestly the account

Israel under
Joshua 11 of the victory of
Joshua over Jabin of Hasor and
his allies at
the Waters of
Merom,
is
only a nationalized version of the
ancient tribal battle of Kedesh-Naphtali against this
same
Canaanite enemy.
In view of this evident tendency of Israelitish historio-
graphy,
it
would be surprising indeed to
find the older
version in Judges 5 telling of the

issued to ten tribes,
summons
to battle being
and of
six of these actually partici-
pating in the battle, and the later version telling that the
call
came
to only
two
tribes,
Zebulun and Naphtali, and

in the
that only these

contest.
two
tribes
is
were actually engaged

obviated when
The
difficulty
we
15,
realize that
Substituting Naphtali for the second Issachar in ver.

ver. i8
"
;
and comparing
cf.
above,
'
p.
361.
',
Sec
my
Foundations of Israel's History
in
Ceulral Cott/etrtice of
Atmricaii Rabbis, ymrftoojt,
XXV
(1915), 256
ff.
MORGENSTERN
two
365
we have
to do, not with one, but with
distinct battles
in
in the Battle of
Ta'anach six tribes participated, while
that of Kedesh-Naphtali only Zebulun and Naphtali were
engaged.
And
they were engaged
for the
obvious reason
that their territory, or the territory which they sought to

acquire,
was contiguous
to,
and endangered by the powerful

Kedesh, and other similar
and
hostile neighbouring Hasor,

in
Canaanite city-states
the vicinity.
These had
feel
to be con-
quered before the two tribes could

established.
themselves safely
interest tended to
Community
into a fast
of danger
and
unite
them
and enduring
coalition.
in
The
intimate
association of Zebulun
and Issachar
Gen. 49. 13-15 ^^^

later
Deut. 33. 18
f.
may
indicate that at
some not much
date Issachar, too, came to be regarded as a

this coalition.
member
six
of
On
to
the
other hand. Judges 5 states
that
tribes
participated in the Battle of Ta'anach, while four refused
obey the summons.
The
reason
is
obvious.
The
terri-
tories
of Reuben, Gilead, Dan, and
Asher were
farthest
removed from the Kishon Valley, and were consequently

not immediately threatened
by
the Canaanite coalition,

Issachar,
while
the
territories
of
Zebulun,
Machir or
Manasseh, and seemingly also Ephraim, touched upon the

Valley, and so were immediately endangered.
But,
it
may
be
asked, why, in
such
case,
should
Benjamin and Naphtali, whose

far
territories
were quite as
removed from the danger zone as those of Gilead,

to the call
?
Dan, or Asher, have responded

is
The answer
conditions
its
simple, and indicative of ancient tribal
in
Israel.
Naphtali responded undoubtedly because
league
with Zebulun, and possibly also with Issachar, must have
been
by
that
time firmly established.
And
similarly.
366

as
is
Benjamin responded because,

Biblical evidence,
it
attested
by abundant
and was
felt itself closely related to,
probably at that time united in a similar league with
Ephraim and Manasseh.

seem that
On
the other hand,
it
would
in the early tribal history of Israel,
Dan, Asher,
itself,
Reuben, and Gilead constantly stood each by
alone
and unsupported by other

tribes
tribes.
Manifestly none of these

with
other tribes, and
had entered into
coalition
their relations with the
remaining tribes of Israel were
only of the loosest.

isolation
is
Certainly just this picture of tribal

in
conveyed
regard to Gilead
and Dan by
the stories of Jephtha and of the overthrow and migration

of Dan.
This consideration would imply the existence

Israel
in ancient
of two federations, each consisting of three con-
tiguous tribes, one north of the Kishon Valley, and one

in
central
Palestine.
for
These two groups of
tribes
had
been held apart
a time by the Kishon Valley, which
remained
for a long, uninterrupted period in the possession
of the powerful Canaanite city-states situated in the Valley.
A common
danger from
this
common enemy,
apparently
too powerful for either group alone to resist successfully,
impelled these two groups of tribes, six in
all,
to
make
the
is
common
cause.
Together they achieved a great victory,
with momentous and far-reaching consequences.
Had
it
Canaanites gained
the
victory
instead
of
Israel,
impossible to even imagine what the results migh<- have

been.
Certainly Judaism would never have evolved; and

its
without Judaism and
daughter religions, Christianity
and Islam, the history of mankind would have been vastly

different.
at
this
Truly civilization was hanging in the balance moment, and the Battle of Ta'anach may well

be
regarded
as
MORGENSTERN
decisive
battles
367
of
one
of
the
most
history.
About
a century and a half later history repeated

scale.
itself,
but upon a larger

this time in the
A third federation of Israelite tribes^

into existence,
extreme south, had come
chiefly through the organizing genius of one
man
David.
cut
off
This
southern
federation
was
almost
entirely
from
free relations with the northern
groups of tribes by
Canaanite possession of a stretch of land extending from

Jerusalem on the east to Gezer on the west.
territory all the high roads connecting
Through
this
Judah with the north
country passed, and were completely controlled by the

Canaanites.
Common
danger from the Philistines

tribes,
now
new
compelled the northern group of

against their will, to
though somewhat
make common
cause with the
southern tribal federation.
But before he could
offer united,
systematic resistance to Philistine aggression, David had

to join the
two parts of
his
kingdom
in fact as well as in
name.
Accordingly, disregarding the Philistines for the
moment, David attacked and conquered Jerusalem, and

thus obtained control of the lines of communication between
north and south.
The conquest
and a
of the Philistines followed.
common
interest
common danger
The key
from a
common
enemy had once more
united two federated groups of tribes.

to the apprecia-
The
nation of Israel was the result.
tion of these successive steps in the evolution of the nation
of Israel out of originally separate, independent tribes or
small tribal groups,
is
furnished
by a
correct differentiation
between the battles of Kedesh-Naphtali and Ta'anach, and

an understanding of their antecedent conditions and their
consequences.
Unquestionably the Battle of Kedesh-Naphtali preceded
368

by how long a period
it
that of Ta'anach, though

possible to determine.
is
im-
For not only was the natural and

from a small group of two
but
also,
logical trend of tribal federation tribes to a
larger group
of six,
had Ta'anach
preceded Kedesh-Naphtali, we certainly would have reason

to expect that not
merely two, but at

in the Battle of
least
six, tribes
would have participated

Certainly
Kedesh-Naphtali ^'^
Deborah, Barak,
Jael,
in
and Sisera are integral

5,
figures in the ancient

in
poem
Judges
it
and consequently
Equally
the Battle of Ta'anach which
describes.
certainly, the leader of the Canaanite forces at the Battle
of Kedesh-Naphtali was Jabin of Hasor.

leader in
Who
the Israelite
this battle was cannot be determined, other than
that he must have been a

ticipating tribes,
member
of one of the two par-
Zebulun or Naphtali.
Nor can anything

two
Israelite
be determined as to the details of the battle, other than

that
it
resulted in a complete victory for the
tribes, broke the power of the Canaanite city-states in the
'"
That the Battle of Kedesh-Naphtali preceded the Battle of Ta'anach

inferred also from the fact that Joshua
it 1 1
may perhaps be
to
ascribes this victory
Joshua, implying thereby that
was won
in the early
period of the
far
sojourn of the tribes in Canaan.
That the Battle of Ta'anach,
more
important, so far as the consequences
were concerned, was not

it
in similar
late,
manner
and was
also ascribed to Joshua,

still
was
probabli' because
at the
happened too
too definitely
remembered
time
when
national traditions
as to the early tribal period
were shaping themselves. The strange and seemingly superfluous second reference
5. 18, after
{.,
to
Zebulun and
Naphtali in Judges
both tribes had apparently been sufficiently
referred to in vers. 14
identify the
may
possibly be due to an even earlier attempt to
two
battles than that in
Judges 4
(cf.
Moore,
op.
cit.,
156
f.).
The expression niw' ^DHD,

whatever spot
in the
the heights of the
field,
of Judges 5. 18,
would
describe the topography of the site of the Battle of Kedesh-Naphtali at
tableland of Naphtali
it
may have been

in
fought,
much
better than the site of the
Battle of Ta'anach
the low-lying
Kishon
Valley.
MORGENSTERN
369
Galilean highlands completely, and permanently established
Zebulun and Naphtali

Similarly,
in that district.
the great
in
victory
at
Ta'anach broke the
Canaanite power
the Kishon Valley.
The
capture of
Jerusalem by David caused the greater part of the southern
Canaanite
strip to pass into Israelite
hands, although Gezer,
on the western edge, held out
until the reign of
Solomon. ^^
Shechem and Gibeon, other Canaanite

apparently absorbed gradually
it
strengholds, were
in
Israel.^ ^
In this way,
finally
would seem, the greater part of Canaan passed
into Israelite possession.^^
"
^^
Kings
9. 15.
;
Joshua 9
In
Judges 9;
I
Sam.
21.
^^
passing,
cannot refrain
from referring to Professor Haupt's

address
34,
interesting
and
stimulating
presidential
before
the
American
I
Oriental
Society,
myself
in
'Armageddon' (^JAOS., agreement with a number of his

cannot subscribe to
5.
412-27).
While
find
conclusions,
in
and particularly
with
that, that the several references to

I
Jahwe
all
of the original poem,

not to
that,
his conclusions,
Judges 5 were not parts and especially

11. 5, 7 are
that T1"ID of Judges
23 and D1"1D of Joshua

this
corruptions of "n2)0.
Largely as a result of
identification,
Haupt
paper
concludes that Joshua 11 and Judges 4 and 5 are merely three different
versions of one single battle.
That
cannot follow him in
this, this
of course shows.
'
THE RABBINATE OF THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE,

LONDON, FROM
By Dr.
C.
1756-1842.
Duschinskv, London.
R. Hirschel as Chief Rabbi of Berlin.
He
was elected Chief Rabbi of Berlin and the provinces,

'
his title being-
Oberlandesrabbiner
'.
The
first
clause in
the Contract stipulates that his chief duty should be to
attend the Bet-Hamidrash. to study and teach Torah to

old and young and to deliver a special talmudic discourse
at the beginning of every
term (Nnsnn
N?lD/23),
His duties
were further (2 of Contract) to preach on Sabbath Haggadol
and Sabbath Teshubah,

remuneration.
for
which he received additional

in
He
had to administer the Jewish law
religious matters as well as in civil disputes
brought before
him.
Tal,
Amongst
to
his obligations
was also the reading of the
Geshem, and Neilah
services.
The custom
for the
Rabbi
read the Neilah service at

is still
the conclusion
of
Atonement-day
in
force in
orthodox congregations,
while the reading by the Rabbi of the Tal and

services
Geshem
was not general, and

It
has
since
entirely -been
abandoned.
does not seem to have been usual even^

of the
at the beginning
nineteenth
century.
'
It
is
not
mentioned
in
Rabbi Ezekiel Landau's Rabbinical Letter

elected
when he was
Chief Rabbi of Prague (edited

I,
by
Kaufmann
was
called
in
Yearbook Haeshkol,
his seat
pp. 177
fif.).
In the
Synagogue he had
up
on the
left
side of the ark,
and
to the reading of the
Law
every Sabbath to
the third portion (Shelishi).
His salary was 50 Thaler
a month
(i
Thaler was 6 Gulden

371
= approximately
loj-.,
p.
the
VOL.
IX.
372
yearly salary was consequently about ;^30o) from the Berlin
community, but
district
other
congregations
belonging to
the
paid
him additional remuneration.

to
separate
fee
was due
him
for every function
performed and for
very decision given by the Bet Din.

In Berlin his fame as a scholar was soon established
and
to his
Yeshibah flocked students from
far
and wide.
even
In those days,
when
hardly anj' Rabbi possessed
a superficial knowledge in secular subjects, our Rabbi,
who
was
was well read
in
various branches of worldly literature,
regarded as a phenomenon.
Even a knowledge of Hebrew

as an innovation,
as
grammar was unusual and was regarded

which
laid
'
any Rabbi open to suspicion

Modernisers
'.
fraternizing
with the
Mendelssohn was then at the
zenith of his career, and R. Hirschel was not afraid to give
an approbation
to his edition of the
German
translation
of the Bible, which called forth a strong protest from
many
Rabbis of Poland, Austria, and even Germany. This approbation was signed the 12th of Elul, 177H, and the Bible
was printed
in
Berlin
in
1783.
R.
Hirschel
hails
the
publication as a necessity from the jfezvish point of view.
All the nations, he says, have prepared translations of the

Bible,
and such Jews as desire to read a German translation
had to use those of Christians which contain many mistranslations
due to theological
bias,
and entirely contrary

translation published,
in
to Jewish tradition.
The Yiddish
of
with
the
sanction
the
Four-lands-Synod,
1679,
gives no
satisfaction to those
who speak
Whilst
a grammatical
German.
skill
He recommends
the translation and praises the

in
and efficiency of Mendelssohn.
Halberstadt
R. Hirschel had already become an admirer of Mendelssohn, as
may
be seen
from a
letter
of
Glcim,
the
poet,
to
DUSCHINSKY
373
F. E. Boysen, a priest, written in August, 1770, in which
he
states that
the Rabbi admired the Socrates of BerHn

fact
and was proud of the

from
his race.
that this Genius

p. 83,
had sprung
(See Landshut,
reprinted from Geiger's
Jiid. Zeitschrift, vol.
X, 1872,
p. 232).
Gleim's opinion of
R. Hirschel
of this
is
worth quoting from
this letter.
man
regarding Jewish scholarship
The views are, you may

'
believe me, thorough, profound^ and vigorous.
There
is
nothing treacherous, nothing
false,
nothing misanthropic
is
about him, and as

honest.
far as I
know, he
naturally good and
Herr Loebel wishes,
my
friend, that
you should
know
the great worth of the old teachers of his people in
the same
way
as
you know and appreciate Mendelssohn's
merits in philosophy, and he has asked
me
to tell
you that
he so wishes.'
When,
in 1777, the civil jurisdiction
of the Rabbis was
abolished and vested in the ordinary courts of justice, the
Government asked the Chief Rabbi Hirschel Lewin

and marriages.
to
compile an excerpt of the Jewish Laws on inheritance,

wills,
trusts,
At R.
the
Hirschel's
request
Mendelssohn compiled a
treatise dealing with these matters.
Apparently Mendelssohn did

although the book,
whole
work
himself,
under the
title
Ritual- Gesetze
der
Juden, was published as having been written by the Rabbi.

(Berlin, 1778.
See Kayserling's Moses Mendelssohn,

''^
p.
38 1 .)
The friendly relations

s
between Mendelssohn and the Rabbi

is
proof of the friendly relations between them
in
the
London
Bet-Hamidrash
translations of
library in form of a manuscript volume, containing
some of Aristotle's works presented
Hebrew by Moses ben Menahem
of Dessau to Zevi Hirsch, Rabbi of Berlin, as Purim-presentin 5533
1773.
(See Neubauer, Catalogue, No. 43, 4, p. 18.) Ber Goldberg, in Hammagid, 1879, p. 54, states that he saw a book in London which Mendelssohn
presented to R. Hirschel
;
he probably refers to this manuscript.
B b 2
374

latter
became strained when the

friend
attacked
Mendelssohn's
Xaphtali Herz
'
Wessely, for having written a letter

'
entitled
letter
Words of Peace and Truth

in
(nNi Di^C'
its
nm).
to
The
the
II of
(printed
Berlin,
1782)
owed
the
origin
following circumstances.
When
'
Emperor Joseph
'
Austria issued, in 1780, his
Toleranz-Edict
full
in
which he
'
promised the Jews of Austria

as they were worthy of
it
',
political rights
as soon
he ordered them to establish
German
schools and to train their children in handicrafts.

strictly
This was regarded by the

onslaught on their religion.
to learn
orthodox Jews as an
children will have
If their
German
and other
'
Goyish
'
things, they will have
no time and also no inclination to study the Law, the

religion of their Fathers.
They thought
that the order
to establish schools
was only a pretence and was really

the Torah and intended to
aimed
at the destruction of their children irreligious
make
Truth
(Goyim).
It
was then that
Naphtali Herz Wessely issued his 'Words of Peace and

',
in
which he asked his people not to disregard the
Emperor's wishes.
for
He
endeavoured to disperse the anxiety

just
their
religion
and explained that they could

in
as
well keep their religion
speaking a correct and gram-
matical as a
listened
corrupt
German, namely Yiddish.
Many
Galicia,
to
his
words.
Most of the Rabbis of

Later
however, raised their voices against Wessely as they had

against
Mendelssohn's
Bible
translation.
events
proved that the apprehensions of the Rabbis were well

founded.
culture
The Emperor
Joseph's attempt to force his
own
upon the Jews of Austria and Galicia was

a liberal and high-minded man,
ill-judged.
He was
who would have
liked to see all the people under his rule civilized, educated,
and happy.
But
his
methods
in
achieving this end were

too rapid.
DUSCHINSKY
reforms.
375
He
recognized
his
this, for
with one stroke of the
pen he revoked before

as the
liberty
death
all his
As
far
Jews
and
wêre concerned, instead of giving

full
them
at once
political
rights,
and thus an opportunity
of acquiring knowledge, he forced
upon them schools of

not conforming
the prevalent type, with teachers,
who were
Jews and who did

children from
their
utmost to alienate the Jewish

It
is
their faith.
from that time that the
aversion of the Galician orthodox Jews to secular studies

dates, for
it
was not so
in earlier times.
When Haham
for
in
Zevi
was elected Rabbi of Lemberg, he was praised

able to speak to the
being
Government
officials
their
own
language.
eighteenth century,
They were far-seeing men, the Rabbis of the who did not believe in taking the Jew
and making a modern scholar
right out of the Ghetto
of him.
Rabbi Hirschel probably foresaw the danger which

threatened the Galician Jews.
Although himself a
lover
of secular studies, he did not believe in the too sudden
modernization of the Jew.
Possibly the expectations he
had placed
realized,
belief
in
Mendelssohn's Bible-translation were not

unsettled in their religious
scholars. ^^
many young Jews were

the desire to
by
become German
He may
even have regretted having given his approbation to the

Bible-translation,
When
Wessely was attacked by the
eastern
Rabbis,
and the Rabbi of Prague, R. Ezekiel

for
Landau,
had excommunicated him

reform,
supporting
the
Emperor Joseph's
against
this
Hirschel
likewise
protested
friend
of
Mendelssohn.
felt
Possibly he was
that
:
urged to this by these Rabbis and

39
if
he remained
Dllîn
,
See Bernfeld, Biography of S. J. Rapaport
'i"^''
Berlin,
1899, p, 3.
376
silent

he would be risking his reputation as an orthodox
Rabbi.
remains
Whatever may have been the reason, the

that
fact
he joined
tried to stop
in
the
general
attack
against
Wessely and
him from printing
his works.
;
He
even did his
best to have him expelled from Berlin
Mendelssohn, however, intervened on his behalf.
He
in-
duced the Minister von Zedlitz to write to Daniel

President of the Berlin Jewish
interest,
Itzig,
community,
well
in Wessely's
and
this intervention, as
as several letters
by
the
Mendelssohn to David Friedlaender, secured peace to
much harassed
scholar.*"
There appeared anonymously
a small
pamphlet called
TC'V 3n3
'A
just letter', in
which
the author satirically deals with the question of learning
Hebrew grammar and speaking German
correctly.
It is in
the form of a dialogue between an ultra-orthodox Rabbi
and a modern youth, and was a vindication of Wessely's

'
Dibre Shalom
'.
The author was no other than R. Hirschel's

in
son Saul, Rabbi

to cause our
Frankfort on the Oder.

also.
This son was

attacked the
Rabbi other anxieties
He
in
well-known Raphael Cohen, Rabbi of the threefold congregation
Hamburg, Altona, and Wandsbeck

book Tor at Jckuticl
an anonymous
booklet entitled Mizpch Jehntiel, which was a strong attack

against the
(Berlin,
1772),
and
its
author R. Raphael Cohen,
whom
he accuses not only of
having written a large book on
trifling matters,
and of
in-
accuracy, but also of deciding religious questions contrary

to
Law
and of having been guilty of plagiarism.

Isaac, son
The
and
of
book was published by

his
of Daniel
Jafife,
brother-in-law
David Friedlaender, two
friends
Mendelssohn.
As
**
author figures nominally Obadiah son

Poland, the real author, however,
op.
tit.,
of Rabbi Baruch from
Sec Kayserling,
pp. 307
fl".
THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE, LONDON ^DUSCHINSKY

being Rabbi Saul ben Hirschel.
In the
377
month
of Adar,
5549 (1789) the book left the press (see Zedner, p. 619) and was sent out broadcast to all prominent Rabbis, In
Hamburg, where Raphael Cohen was highly

caused
great
consternation,
respected,
it
and
it
seemed unjust
that
a book, that had been printed and
known
for sixteen years
previously, should form the ground for such a violent attack
on the honour and scholarly reputation of the Hamburg

Rabbi.
The Bet Din
of Hamburg promptly issued a

its
Herem
author.
(ban) against the
book MizpeJi Jekutiel and
R. Hirschel himself was greatly annoyed at

book, and, not knowing
to sign a
this slanderous
who
the real author was, prepared
Herem
6.
against him,
when one of
'
his
friends,
it
R. Meir Weil, whispered to him,

Saul
'
Oh,
my
Master,
is
(2
*
Kings
see Landshut, p. 91, cited

',
by H. Adler
Exhib.
in his
Chief Rabbis of England
in Jcivish Hist.
Papers, p. 283).
a ban against his

this,
The own
father
son.
had not the heart to issue

Landshut gives as reason
for
that he regarded
him
to be of
unsound mind
[ibid.,
p. 92).
Saul, however, proclaimed in a second
pamphlet
the right of the author of the Mizpeh to criticize any work
by any Rabbi, and

no
justification
states that there
were no grounds and

author.
for
excommunicating the
The
1789
booklet, consisting of 16 pages in 8vo., entitled Teshiibak
of R.
Saul
to
Rabbi Moses, was printed
in Berlin,
(Zedner,
father,
p. 682).
is
On
pp. 15-16 appears a letter from his
which
:
a confession that his son was the author.

suspect
He
says
'
Do you
me
?
not to have joined the
Herem
knows
and
his
for
personal reasons
that in anything that concerns the honour of
Thank God, everybody God

interest of either
Torah
would not regard the

sons.
my
brothers or
my
The Herem would only
increase
378

and give reformers an opportunity to laugh
"
strife in Israel
at
"Talmide Hakamim
(scholars).'
The whole
letter,
however, contains nothing which constitutes a valid defence

of his son.
lished
With the same

letters,
object R. Hirschel next pub-
two more
both from anonymous writers,
purporting to come, one from a Rabbi in

the other from a
Germany and
Rabbi in Poland, together with a Repp. 94-9), in which he states
sponsum of
his
own (Landshut,
that the author of the MizpeJi proves
by
his
work
that he
is
great scholar.
He, R. Hirschel,
is
aware of the
fact that
the author studies Torah day and night, that he wrote his
criticism in true religious enthusiasm
and
in the conviction
that
certain
passages in
the
Tor at
Jekiitiel
might be
construed as decisions against the traditional Law.

critical
The
writer of
points
in
Mizpeh
Jekiitiel raised his voice against
these
fear
honesty and
to
religious
fervour
without
of
causing
losses.
I
himself harm,
inconvenience
and
pecuniary
sive,
His language
may have
;
been too aggresis
and
do not approve of that
nevertheless, there
no
justification for
excommunication.'
He warns
his con-
gregants not to take any notice of the same, and that
anybody who regards the author

deserves to be, and
is
as subject to the
ban,
to be regarded as
excommunicated.
letter
from K. Ezekiel Landau of Prague to R. Saul
follows this decision
fn pDD.
Landau says
in this letter
that a controversy between

a
two great scholars cannot form
ground
for
excommunication, but reproves the author for

offensive
is
having used
language against a great
Rabbi.
This
p.
letter
dated the 29th of Sivan, 5550 (Landshut,

is
9H;.
There
also another letter in a similar .strain
which the Prague Rabbi wrote to Saul on Elul the 17th,
5549
{ilîil"
p.
99),
R. Saul himself wrote an apologetic

Responsum on the
Haineaseph, 1790
matter, which
222).
DUSCHINSKY
in
379
the
was published
is
(p.
He
mentioned there as
forthcoming pubHca-
Rabbi
tion
of Frankfort
and
refers to the
of a
volume of Responsa, the famous NJOnnn XD3.

office as
This work he had printed at the same

Jckutiel,
called
the Mizpeh
namely
in the
Verlag der Jiidischen FreyscJude,
D"'ny: 1"iJn
mnn,
at Berlin in 1793,
and brought
still
more trouble upon himself and

respected father.
grief
and annoyance to
is,
'
his
The
*^
full
title
of the book
Responsa.
Besamim Rosh, 392 Responsa by

R. Asher
b.
great teachers, mostly
by
di
;-*2
Jehiel
which were collected by Rabbi Isaac
Molina, a great scholar of the time of the Bet Joseph

printed with notes and additions, called
Saul, son of Zevi Hirsch, Chief
NJDim
NDa,^^
'.
by
Rabbi of
this
Town
Soon
after its
publication doubts were expressed as to
whether the great Rabbis had actually written the Responsa

attributed
to
them.
Wolf Landsberg, formerly Rabbi
of Wallerstein, published a booklet called Zeeb Jitrof

inD^ 3xr,
and pointed out that the author of the book
declared lawful certain matters which are really forbidden
according to Jewish law.
'
If the author of the

',
book had
'
had any regard
for his father
says Landsberg,
he would
not have done such a
thing.'
Rabbi Mordecai Baneth,

**
Chief Rabbi of Moravia, went further and declared

the whole book was a forgery
that
by R.
Saul, denying that
either Asheri or Isaac di Molina
had ever written or seen

in the
these Responsa.
i
*-
R. Saul had stated

in
preface that
Called
'
Rosh', died
Toledo, 1327.
to
Joseph Caro, author of the Shulhan Ariik and Bet Joseph

in
Turim
born
*3
Spain 1488, died
in
Safed Nisan 1575.

Cp. Talm. B. Bezah 16 a and Abodah Z.,
Literally: a tasty dish.
p.
38 a.
*
Sec Likyatiirhlatt
d. Oiicnis,
1844, pp, 53 and 140.
38o

in
when
Piemontc some years before, he bought the
MS
from a Turkish
Rabbi
called
Hayyim
b.
Jonah Sabi.
defence
R. Hirschel thereupon again
issues a booklet in
of his son and calls heaven and earth as witnesses that he,
personally,
had the MS. copied

later
b}- his
son R. Solomon
(Solomon Herschel,
himself had
Piemonte.^^
it
Rabbi
index
in
London) and that he

the work while in
against
prepared an
to
Some
If
it
of the people
and attack the editor had seen the
who now write MS. and had
read
it
with pleasure.
were as the enemies of his son
allege,
then he would be the guilty party for having assented to

the
publication and given
his
approbation to the book.
Landshut remarks on
to understand
this (p. 104) that
he was at a
loss
how R.
Hirschel could have written in this
manner.
Azulai, Straschun,
Zunz have
fully
proved that
the Responsa attributed to Asheri and other early scholars
were never written by them.R. Saul seems to have

lost his position
as
Rabbi
in
Frankfort-on-Oder soon after the publication of the MizpeJi

Jekiitiel.
In Hameaseph, 179
(p- 222),
he
is still
mentioned
as holding that position, while in the title to the of forged
volume
Responsa there
It
is
no mention of
his then being
Rabbi
at Frankfort.
would seem that by the publication
of the Mif^peh he had already lost whatever respect and
esteem he had possessed
in his
community. He, apparently,
moved
in
to Berlin prior to 1793, because he describes himself

title
the
of the Responsa as
'
Saul
b. Hirschel,
Rabbi of
was
our congregation'.
But even
in Berlin his residence
made unpleasant
*'-
after the publication of the latter
work.
He
writes
IJIDl^D
have found no other reference of his sojourn journey there.
in
Piemontc or any reason
for his
He
states in 1791 that
it
was
a mailer of ten years previously.

For
in
it
DUSCHINSKY
381
ideas which evidently belonged to the Mendelssohn
school
are
propounded
all
as
coming from Asheri, whose

is
aversion to
cation
is in
secular learning
well
known.
The
falsifi-
some
places even clumsy.
References are
made
to circumstances which did not exist in those
bygone days,
however,
296,
but which existed at the time of Mendelssohn and R. Saul.

(See Brann in Graetc-Jiibclschrifi, p. 257
;
cp.,
Straschun
S. J.
in
Fuenn's KiryaJi
in
Neemana/i,
p.
and
13.
Rapaport
Biography of Nathan Hababli, Note
The
latter scholars praise
Saul as scholar and clever head.)

his friends, left
R. Saul, seeing himself abandoned by

Berlin
later,
and
his
proceeded
brother
to
London, where, a few years

elected
ill
R.
Solomon Herschel was

In
Rabbi of the Ashkenazim,

that
Halle he became so
he made his
will.
However, he reached London,

his
where he died soon
after
arrival
on
the
23rd
of
His name is Heshvan (i6th November), ^555 = i794still mentioned in the Hazkarah recited for the Rabbis on
Holy
days.
Michelsohn {Zevi
La.':.,
p.
176) doubts the
veracity of the statement that he ever
came
to
London.
We
have,
however, the testimony of a

states that
death,''^
Orients,
scholar
named
rein
Meyer Joseph, who

peatedly before his
*^
he
visited
him there
and
published his will
and H. Adler, he. cit., Kerem Chemed, IV, p. 239. See also I. Abrahams in JQR., vol. Ill, p. 471. Mejêr Joseph was also known as Michael Josephs, and was generally called Meyer KOnigsberg. He was a native of KOnigsberg (Oct. 8, 1761), came to London 1781, and was See
Literatttrblatt d.
1844, p. 714
p. 284.
letter
by Meir Joseph
is
printed in
one of the founders of the Free School.
(Information of Mr. Israel Davis.
See
also Jeiv.
Enc,
vol.
VII,
p. 274.)
Dr. L.
Lowe
in
in
Kcrem Chemed, vol.

in
IV,
p. 232,
mentions that Meir Joseph had one son
China and another
New
York. Joseph translated into Hebrew the Statutes of Dukes Place Synagogue
(London, 1827) and was author of an English and
Hebrew
Lexicon, entitled
vol.
DvD
B'"nO (London,
1834).
Steinschneider in Hebr. Bibltogr.,
V,
p.
39
382

1
Oricjii. Literatiirblatt,
844.
Moreover, apart from the
will,
Meyer Joseph published an elegy on the death of R. Saul, 'n Tn3 hs'i:' niD ^y nyr^n Sp, in three verses of six lines each. Joseph adds hereafter: 'It was in the year 1794
when
this
exceptional
man
died here, and
think
have
a right to publish this
article as I
was the only
friend
he
had here.
I
He was
some
on a long journey, the object of which

also to stay in
do not remember any more, and intended

for
London
time.
I visited
him
daily,
often together for hours at a time, and, although

(in
we remained I am now
1844) 83 years
old,^'
the impression he
made upon me,

he
fell
his eloquence
and
his
whole personality remain unforgettable

after his arrival
ill
to
me.
i&'N
months
it
with
cramp {Krdinpfc) and
was
who
closed his dying eyes.

respect.
On He
his death
the
London community paid him

behind him
was buried with great honours on the 25th of Heshvan,
1794.
On
arranging the things he

I
left
found
this will,
which
then copied for myself.
The
will stipulates
that R. Saul wished to be buried in his clothes, just as
he
would be found,
of other men.
in
some
will
forest far
away from
until
the graves
The
was not found
some time
out in
after his burial, as Dr.
Abrahams already pointed
7QR., HI,
mentions that
:
p. 371.
'
The London Jews College Library was enriched by

late
several
hundred volumes from the library of the

presented by his son Walter'.
in
Meir Joseph (died 1849)

J.
Leopold Dukes wrote a memoir about M.

in
Orient. Litb.. 1850, pp.
7-10
which he describes him as a charming

scholar
personality,
who was
a protector of every Jewish
who
in
visited
London.
'His house was a meeting-place of Jewish students

stud^' of the
London,
where otherwise the

also
Talmud was an unusual

is
thing'.
Dukes
wrote his tombstone-inscription which

Jew. Em.,y\\,
this, his
reproduced
at the
end of the
memoir.
"
p. 274.
gives M. Joseph's date of birth as 1863.
It
was
according to
own
testimony, 1761.

Saul
DUSCHINSKY
(born
383
was the son-in-law of Joseph Jonas Fraenkcl,

of
Silesia
in
Landrabbiner
Breslau
1721,
died
20th October, 1793), having married his eldest daughter
Sarah (born 1744), and having thus become nephew of the
famous R. David Oppenheimer, Chief Rabbi of Prague,
whose wife was Rabbi Frankel's

WertJieiiner,'^. 96, note i).
sister
(Kaufniann, Samson
R. Saul had a son called Aryeh

his
Judah Loebusch or Lewin, who afterwards succeeded
grandfather and was the last of the Chief Rabbis of the

province of Silesia.
This Aryeh Loebusch, likewise, had
a very sad end. Born in 1765 he spent his childhood with his
maternal grandfather at Breslau, later he became a pupil of

his grandfather R. Hirschel in Berlin
in
and spent also some time
Frankfort-on-Main at the Yeshibah of Rabbi Phinehas
Horowitz,^^ teacher of the famous Moses Sofer
known
as
in
the
Hatam
was
Sofer.^^
He became
was
Rabbi of Dubienka
Poland and on the 3rd of July, t8oo, Lewi Saul Fraenkel,

as he
ofificially
styled,
elected as
'
Chief Rabbi of
the Province of Silesia with the exception of Breslau and
Locum Tenens
ibid.,
of the
Rosh-Bet-din of Breslau
father,
'
(Brann.,
p. 267).
Like his
he had an inclination for

In the preface
the modern Mendelssohn type of Judaism.

to the
book Or Enayim
and
of
Solomon
all
Peniel, a
work on
mysticism, he mentions nearly
the Greek philosophers,
modern
classics
scientists in
one breath with the Rabbis
of olden and recent times in the obvious desire to impress
the reader with his profound knowledge
in
all
subjects.
sound Talmudist and good Hebrew writer he read withall
out any system

*8 *'
kinds of secular books, and probably

'
Called the
'
Haflaah
a.
after a
book he published.
Tishri,
Born
in
Frankfort
M. 1763, died as Rabbi of Pressburg, 25th
5600 (Oct.
3, 18391.
384
thereby unbalanced his mind.

of
When
in
1807 the Sanhednn

to
Paris
was
summoned by Napoleon
'
discuss
the
modernization of Judaism, Lewin received a passport to

travel there
'
on family matters
for
which he had asked,
on the ground that a
relative of his, a certain Carl
Anton
von Pavly, had died
in Paris
and
left
a considerable fortune,
to part of which he
was
'
entitled.
Before his departure,
however, he addressed a
to
letter to his coreligionists referring

in
the
'.
latest,
is
most wonderful, events
the Christian
world
to
He summon
such
!
overjoyed at Napoleon's happy inspiration
the Sanhedrin,
Christians,
and says: 'You
can profit
Spirit
from
upon
whom
rests
the
of
God
Examine,
therefore, carefully the resolutions of the to

their
Sanhedrin and
listen
^'*
appeal
'.
In
the further
course of this letter

religions,
in
he advocates a general reform of all
which Jews and Christians, Turks and idol

all
worshippers should
unite
into one
universal religion.
In spite of this plea he later tries to prove that Jesus
was
his
a descendant of the house
of
David.
This
made
still
position quite clear to everybody.
Although he
'
uses
the
title
of
'
Oberlandesrabbiner von Schlesien

to
the Jews
had
long ceased
in
regard him as one of their own.
Already
1796, before he
was appointed
in Breslau, his
grandfather, R. Hirschcl, to
whom
he had announced his
intention of visiting him, writes to
him on the 13th of

he does not wish
Tammuz
him
to
to Frankfort-on-the-Oder, that
after
'
come, especially
the great thing (21 ni"yo)
which he had lately been guilty of '.^^

'important event' he refers
his grandfather
to,
Wc
it
do not know what
but
would appear that
was ashamed of him, and that he was

in
Tliis
letter
was published
Breslau by Adolf Gelir

6I
in
1807 and
consisted of sixteen pages.
Sec Zcvi Las.,
p, 176.

afraid of
^DUSCHINSKY
385
this
what people would say

in his house.
if
he were to receive
grandson
In 1809 the Schlcsische Provincial'
Bldtter published the announcement that
Lewi Saulssohn
Fraenkel having, by virtue of his altered religious persuasion,
embraced
'.
Christianity, resigns his post as Chief
Rabbi
of Silesia
is
not
What became of him during the next six years known. The tale goes that he repented soon after
and spent
his life as a
his conversion
beggar wandering
from town to town, and everywhere spending his time at

the Bet-Hamidrash
in the
studying Talmud.
He made
notes
books he read and these were always excellent,
proving the writer to be a great scholar.
When
the Rabbis found these notes and inquired after
the writer he usually had
already
left
the
town.
Like
Cain he had no
rest
on
earth, never slept
where he had
in.
spent the day, always disappearing before night set

1
In
at
81 5 he arrived, a complete
wreck
in
body and mind,
the Jewish
hospital at
Frankfort-on-the-Main, where he
died as true Baal Teshubah (repentant) on the 27th of
Heshvan, 5576 (30th November, 1815).
But now to return to R. Hirschel Lewin. The scandals

caused by his son, Saul, embittered his
there was no animosity against
life.
Although
him personally, the part he
took
in
defending his son's literary falsifications probably
caused
many
of
of his
former friends to turn against him.

still
His position had become
more unpleasant when the

publicly
Rabbis
against
Poland
and
Germany
R. Zevi
his
is
protested
Wessely's
Dibrd Shalom.
Schiff,
Among
the
letters
which Rabbi Tevele

as
Hirsch's
brother,
successor
Rabbi
in
in
London, wrote to
is
R.
Meir
Dayan
and
Frankfort,
one which
of special interest,
throws
clear
light
on the
whole
affair.
The
386
letter
is

dated
the
2oth
of
Klul,
1782
(see
Appendix
about
to part II),
and R. Tevele writes there with reference to

:
R. Hirschel as follows
'
It is
now known here

I
all
the Rabbi's departure from Berlin.

of the letter which he
left
have seen a copy
behind with instructions that
the same should not be opened until six days after his
departure.
He
it
is
now
letter
said
to be in Vienna,
and from
the letter
I
appears he intends going to the Holy Land.
have also seen a

of
from the Rabbi of Lissa to the

also
Rabbi
Amsterdam,
as
copy of a sermon of
the former, in
which he blames R. Herz Wessely, and

letter.
strongly disapproves of his

clearly written, full of wise
This sermon
is
very
and pious words, and carefully

ofifejice
construed so as not to commit an
against the
Emperor (Joseph
II).
it
From
the letter
and sermon of
in
the Rabbi of Lissa
appears that they did the same

in
Posen (preach against Herz Wessely), and
Vilna they
burnt the letter of R. Herz Wessely outside the town order of the famous
by
Gaon R. Eliah
also that the

at
first,
Rabbi
of Prague likewise preached about

is
it
but
now he
obliged to remain quiet,
is
only acting secretly, and

to
induces
other
famous
Rabbis
condemn
him
(i.
e.
Wessely).
After
all this it is
easily to understand that the

in his ofiice,
Rabbi of Berlin could not continue

If
and
left.
you can send me a copy of the proclamation issued
there (namely, at the
Synagogue of Frankfort)
Rabbi
Hin'^chel's
letter,
should
is
be glad to receive
it.'
which
printed in Landshut's work, sets forth the reasons for his
leaving
in
a slightly different
form.
He
says that he
saw he could
congregation.
since reform
not
improve the religious status of the
p:specially difficult
its
had become
his
task
had raised up
head and estranged the young

people from their
Palestine,
faith.
DUSCHINSKY
387
He had
decided to migrate to
and asked the leaders of the community to forgive
him
for
not leaving with a solemn farewell.

is
The answer
in office until'
of the Parnasim
not extant
they, however, succeeded in
inducing him to return

his
to Berlin
and remain
death on
Monday
the 4th of Elul, 5560

of the
800.
He
had spent
his life as
Rabbi
most important congre-
gations then existing.
His fame as a Rabbi and leader

.still,
was known
his
life
far
and wide throughout Jewry and,
alt
he had hated being a Rabbi.

this,
Nevertheless, or on
account of
he devoted
all
his life to
promoting the
welfare of his people, bearing high the standard of the
Torah, which he loved from the depth of his heart.
He
was the
last
of the Chief Rabbis of Berlin.
brilliant
preacher and great scholar, he commanded respect wherever
he appeared.
Although
in later
years he always writes in

little
unhappy
strain,
there are
many
bonmots of
his in
circulation
showing that he possessed a deep sense of

In
humour.
many sermons he
offers witty interpretations

:
of biblical and talmudic sayings
" ""ivn
p.
*]mi
".
In a dis-
course given in Berlin [Zevi

his congregants to restraint.
La.':.,
142) he
admonished
follow
They should not

spirit, is alive in
what
their hearts desire,

see.
and not always desire what
their eyes
The
Jezer Hara, the evil

in
everybody
and must be kept and
check by
'
strict
I
adhesion to the Torah

says,
I
religious precepts.
Once
I
met a man, he
who
had
seemed
familiar to me, but
did not
remember where
previously seen him.

low-spirited.
He was
then very downhearted and
Some time
I
later I
beheld the same

streets.
man and
saw him running busily about the

to
He
only nodded
me and
VOL. IX.
ran away.
met him again a short while aga

in a restaurant, treating
here in Berlin.
He was sitting
himself
C c
388
well.
I

asked him
I
who he
Hara.
is
was, and
why he had
:
avoided
me when
met him
before.
He
answered
time
I
" I
am
the
vil spirit, the Jczer
The
first
saw you was
in Halberstadt,
which
a very religious
community and
I
business was not at
all
prosperous with me, as

felt
hardly
had any customers and

not speak to anybody.
so downhearted that
I
it
would
When you
next saw
me
was
in
Mannheim.
There
had plenty to do,

persuasions and
for the people

I
were
inclined to listen to
my
was busy
all
day
long and, therefore, could not stop to speak to you.

n
Here,
Berlin,
have, at
last,
found satisfaction, the whole

I
Kehillah readily follows
me and
it
can
now enjoy myself ".'

Jezer
So
far as
we
are concerned
seems a pity that R. Hirschel

the
does
not
state
what
opinion
Hara had of
London Jews.
Literary Activity.
His
literary activity
was many-sided.
Halakic responsa
of his are to be found in

tions,
many
in
of the contemporary collecthe book Zevi Lazzaddik,
list
of which
is
given
by Michelssohn
notes in
all
(pp. 15 1-2).
He
used to
the books he studied from,
make extensive and many of these

So
of
of
are preserved in the Bet-Hamidrash library in London.

far
the book Zevi Lazzaddik
is
the only complete

this
is
work
his
which was separately published, and

It
also
more
the nature of a collection.
contains talmudic notes,
some
responsa and sermons, copied from various manuscripts in

the Bet-Hamidrash library.
phical notes
The appendix contains
biogra-
by the
editor
Michelsohn,who claims to be one

'
of the Rabbi's descendants, under the title
Bet Zaddik
'.
Besides these the book contains
many
is
occasional verses,
a
some of them humorous.
Interesting
poem on Purim
THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE, LONDON DUSCHINSKY

entitled cnis^ "iDlci pvn
389
ni -The daughter of wine (or a

for
barrel of wine)
and a moral
Purim
'.
This
is
a warning
against the custom of getting
drunk and disorderly on

a Mizwah, based on
Purim under the pretext of

the talmudical saying
:
fulfilling
Everybody must drink wine on
Purim
until
he does not know the difference between

'
"amo "inni
pn nnx
(Talmud
Cursed be
Megillah
Mordecai
'
b.
Haman and blessed be He points out that 7 b).

literally.
the sages never intended this saying to be taken
The
festivities
of Purim bore a holy character in olden
times and not like at present, when people only keep that
part of
Purim which
refers to eating
and drinking (and to do
what they
like to do).''^
'
short elegy on
Zion
in
Ruins
'
is
given in the book

in
list
Bet Meshtllam, edited by the same Rabbi Michelsohn

Pietrkow, 1905
(p. 57),
where the editor also prints a

and
charms,
of homeopathic remedies
some
of
them
which
Kabbalistic, similar to the recipes contained in
MS. Adler
2286
(pp.
133
ff.).^
The Bet-Hamidrash
late
library
consists
mainly of the
Solomon Herschel's books
and manuscripts has several MS. written by R. Hirschel.
The MSS.
misleading
Jetvs'
of this library were catalogued
by the
in
late
Dr. Neubauer and the Catalogue was published under the

title
Catalogue of the
Hebrew MSS.
1886).
the
College,
is
London
meant
(Oxford,
Under
in
:
'Jews'
College'
52
the
Bet-Hamidrash
Mulberry
Pages 1-13
and
Of
the further contents of the book are to be noted
haggadic notes to the Pentateuch, pp. 32-91 Talmudic

responsa,
collectanea
among which
5544,
the editor interweaves
some
of his
for
own.
On
pp. 92-140 are haggadic discourses, among the.m one
Sabbath before
in
Passover,
held
in
Berlin
(p.
108),
another
held
Mannheim,
5530 (p. 117), one to the Penitential Sabbath, 5531, likewise given in Mannheim, while pp. 154-6 contain small verses, some of them already
previously published.
*'
About
this
manuscript
sec
Appendix
II.
C 2
39
Street and

not the Institute known as Jews'
College.^*
MS. No
Berlin.
22 contains notes on the Turim copied from the
margins of the books belonging to the R. Zevi Hirsch of
On
folio
140 of this
MS.
is
to
be found the
will
Leb Norden, Jacob Kmden's friend. This will was published by Dr. Israel Abrahams in JQR., IV, p. 341. Michelsohn mentions another MS. written by R. Hirschel
of R.
which
is
in
the possession of
and contains discourses

on the occasion of
his
M. Isaac Beharier of Lodz, held in London in the year 1756

and on the following
installation,
Sabbath Haggadol and Sabbath Teshubah and thus seems

to
complement MS. Adler 1248.
The
British
Museum
possesses a copy of Sabbatai Bass's Siftc Jeshenim with The Order of manuscript notes by R. Zevi b. Aryeh.
Service at the consecration of the
New
Synagogue, on the
the
'
13th
of
September,
i83<S,
contains
Consecration
(!)
Anthem composed in Hebrew by the late This Anthem is reprinted in Hirschel'.

Service of the reopenings of the
Rev. Dr.
H.
the Order of
New Synagogue
'n),
'n),
on the
2nd of September 1847
(T"-in
hh^ x"3
and of the 6th of

in
September 1855 (Voin

Service at
h'h^
fi
also
the Order of
the Opening of the Branch of the Great Synagogue
Portland Street, London, on March 29, 1855, and frequently

since.
Mr. Israel Solomons possesses a poem by R. Hirschel

It
to
be used at the consecration of a Sefer Torah.
was
'^
No. 24 of Neubauer, Cat., contains responsa to R. Herz Pintschow, and
on
folio 41
has the date Venice, 1744

is
folio
42
is
dated Rovigo.
to
Page
i8,
No. 43, 4
a manuscript
which was presented
R. Hirschel by Moses
Mendelssohn.
in
At the
sale of the property' of the late R.
Solomon Herschel
March, 1843, was sold a small Kiddush-cup 'containing the medal of the
tlic
Emperor Vespasian commemorating the conquest of Judea, presented by great Mendelssohn to the father of the late Rabbi '. It fetched
guineas.
five
Some
of R.
Hirschel's
poems are published

title: ^32f
in
Kobak's
Jtscliuruu, others in I/aniagitl,
XIV, under the
nPHi.

used
X'j*: 'a,
DUSCHINSKY
391
1819,
by
his son
R. Solomon Herschel,and was

-\''\^,
printed under the

Place, Aldgate.^^
title -nr:r?D
by H.
Barnett, St. James's

referring to
9th, 1794, are
Two
letters
by R. Hirschel
the quick burial of the dead, dated
November
printed in Zeitschr.f. GcscJi. d. Judenihiiins in Deutsckland,

vol. Ill, pp.
216
fif.
Approbations
R.
Hirschel
gave
to
the
following
works
^^
'3"n
by R. David
b.
Raphael Meldola, Amsterdam, 1793

Elul, 1757).
(appr. dated
Amsterdam, 17
Pentateuch,
Amsterdam
(Proops), 1764 (dated Halberst., 27
Tam-
muz, 1764).
Responsa
Maimonides,
inn
~IN2,
Amsterdam,
1765
(dated
Halberst., 22 Shebat, 1765).

m2J"i TiDC' 'd of Isaac- b.
Moses Satanow,
Berlin,
1773 (dated
Berlin, 6 Elul, 1773).
Job with Commentary ("im
"iw'D
"120
HT),
Berlin,
1777 (dated
4 Adar, 1777).
D^'n
Vn
'd of
Hajjim
b.
Josua Cohen (dated 28 Adar

b.
II, 1777).
Q^CB'
niny
'd,
by Baruk
Jacob, Berlin, 1777 (dated 27 Tebat,
1777)-
pea 'dd ^y D^D^J 'I
'n,
Berlin,
ed.
1778 (dated 3 Kislev, 1777).

translation in
Pentateuch
Dv^J'n
niTn:
Mendelssohn with
German,
Psalms:
i?Xi*C"'
Berlin, 1783 (dated 12 Elul, 1778).
mTCT,
Berlin,
1785-90 (dated 15 Heshvan, 1783).
Pentateuch with Commentaries, ed. Frankfort-on-Oder, 1784 (dated
22
B>nip
Tammuz,
'd,
1784).
b.
niw
by Simon
Nata Walisch,
Berlin, 1786 (21
Elul,
1786).
5=
Josephs.
The Sefer Torah was presented by ^'r SjDV ni:cn3 boyr = Semi The booklet consists of i6 pages 12'. There are seven poems,
T\ti\>'i\,
one for each

general.
each consisting of six verses, dealing with the objects
of the Revelation and the value of Torah for Israel and the world in
392
ny2
nCK
of Isaac Satanow, Berlin, 1784 (lyShebat, 1784; conalso
tains
an
approbation
by Rabbi
Saul,
Rabbi of
Frank fort-on-Oder ).
Responsa:
D''p10y
D'^r:
of R. Eliah Mizrahi, &c, Berlin,
1777
(19 Sivan, 1777).
nn3D
mnnD,
Berlin,
1778 (dated i3Heshvan, 1778).

Berlin,
blijDD 'd,
Hebrew Grammar by Hajjim b. Naphtali Coeslin, 1788 (dated 1788, no month and day given).
L"S-|
Responsa:
113*J'nn
D"'DC'2, Berlin,
1793 (see above), (dated 1793).
/*^3 of
David
b.
Meir Friesenhausen (about

1\>T nnijin,
whom
cp,
now
'pin
C. Duschinsky:
London, 1918,
p. 27),
Berlin,
D''''n
1796 (dated 18 Ab, 1796).

b.
by R.Jacob Hajjim
Josua Cohen, Berlin, 1796 (dated
28 Adar H).
D'w'TJ'n 'd ed. Isaac Satanow, Berlin, 1787 (dated 26 Elul, 1783).
niairi n:iL" 'd
of R.
Simon Kahira,
ed.
Amstd., 1762
(dated
30 Shevat, 522).
P3"n
pi? 'd ed. Frankfort-on-the-Oder,
1781 (dated 28 Adar
II,
1780).
(This
list
does not pretend to be complete.)
To the list of notes made by R. Levi to various works, enumerated

by Landshut, p. 112, used by Kohut
;
is
to
be added the Aruk, ed. Basel, which was

Introd., p.
liii.
cp,
Aruk Completum,
His Family.
Rabbi Hirschel's
first
wife was, as already mentioned,
Golde, daughter of David Tevele Cohen of Glogau.
She
died in Berlin on Thursday, ist of April, 1794 (ist of lyyar,

5554),
and had borne him three sons and three daughters.
R. Saul was the eldest son, the second was

Tevele, called Berliner,
Abraham David
and the
in
third
was R. Solomon
Herschel, afterwards Rabbi
London. His three daughters

his
were
(i)
Sarah,
who married
at
nephew, Jacob Moses, son

^"^
;
of his brother Saul, Chief Rabbi of Amsterdam
(2) Reisel,
^ Jacob Moses was
first
Rabbi
in
Filehne and afterwards succeeded
his father as Ciiief Rabl)i of
Amsterdam, where he died on the 15th of
DUSCHINSKY
393
''^
;
wife of Ber Ginzburg, Rabbi of the province of Russia

(3)
Beilah, second wife of Mordecai,

in
It
Rabbi of Tiktin.
She
was well versed
talmudic literature and an excellent

is
Hebrew
writer.
reported that she held a Hcsped

left
(necrologue) on the death of Rabbi Asher of Wisin, and

will written in classical
Hebrew
at present in the possession

z^/it'.,
of a certain Berl Raschkes (]\Iichelsohn,
p. 17S,
note 23).
R. Hirschel's second son, David Tevele of Pietrkow, was

a saintly and very charitable man.
He was
all
a well-to-do
his free time
merchant with an extensive business, but
was devoted
to the study of the Torah.
He was
offered
the post of Rabbi in Pietrkow, an important Jewish centre,
but refused
it.
He
died at the age of 85.
Before his death
he warned
his
children to keep away from the

if is
Law
Courts.
He
never sued anybody, even
large
sums were involved.
A
(p.
letter to
him by
his father
printed in Zevi Lazzaddik
178), dated Berlin 1790, and the certificate of 'Haber'
given by R. Hirschel to David Tevele's son

is
Aryeh Loeb
(p.
likewise
to
be found
of
in
the
same work
1791.
180)
and
of
bears the date 8th
Tammuz,
Another son
fifty
David Tevele, Isaac Nathan, was
for
nearly
years Rabbi
in Bielagora, and died there on the 9th of lyyar, 1864.
Many
Adar
^^
of R. Hirschel's descendants
still
occupy positions
as Rabbis in Russian communities.^*

II,
5575
1825.
His wife Sarah died on Wednesday, the 8th ofEluI,
1797, three years before her father's death.
The Province
20.
It is
of Russia
in
was one
called
'
of the four represented in the
Four-Lands- Synods held

p.
Poland and Russia.
See Zunz
pHiTI l^y,
59,
c.
'.
the
part
White Russia on the borders of

in 1797, three
Poland
^8
R. Hirschel's second wife,
whom
he married
years after
his first wife's death,
when he was
76 years old, was Sprinza, daughter of
Abraham of Hildesheim,
a descendant of
Haham
Zevi.
After the Rabbi's

p. 114).
death she married Zabel Eger, Rabbi of Braunschweig (Landshut,
394
APPENDIX
Rabbi Zevi Hirschel Lewin's Ancestry.

His
father was, as already stated,
Rabbi Aryeh Loeb

Rabbi
in
Loewenstamm.
and
He was
born
in
1690, the son of

later
Saul then Rabbi in Lakatch,

Brisk,
in
who
became Rabbi
1701 became successor of his father the great
Rabbi Heschele Cracow.

for
He was
and
left
not very popular there
some unknown
reason,
Cracow three years

and
in
later
in 1704.
For some years he
lived in Breslau,
in
1707
he was elected as Rabbi of the Ashkenazim

It
Amsterdam.
journey to
of
was not
his fate to officiate there.

in
On
his
Amsterdam he passed away

lyyar, 1707.
Glogau on the 17th

;
(See Landshut,
. .
p. 71
Dembitzer, H,
p.
83
and Carmoly,
D''3niyn,
p.
34).
His son Aryeh Loeb
eventually held the

called.
ofifice
to which his father
had been
Aryeh Loeb's grandfather. Rabbi Heschele Cracow*

his time.
was one of the greatest talmudical authorities of
Even
the foremost scholars of his
day
like
far
R. Mendel
Krochmal, Chief Rabbi of Moravia
living
away from
his sphere of activity, accepted his decision in ritual matters.
(See Resp., Zeviah Zedek, No.

fit.,
107,
and Dembitzer,
loc.
n, 46
a.)
Many
people regarded him as a saint^ and
many
his
are the tales of wonders and miracles
woven around
name. His wife was the granddaughter of R. Saul Wahl,

'
the famous
one-day king of Poland.

'
R. Heschele at
first
acted as Rabbi in Lublin and Brisk, then migrated to Vienna

in
order to plead for help on behalf of his brethren in Poland.
He
remained
in
Vienna
for
some time and
in
1665 became
Rabbi of Cracow, where

afterwards.
his son
R, Saul succeeded him
R. Heschele was the son of Rabbi Jacob of
DUSCHINSKY
395
Lublin and grandson of R. Ephraim Naphtali Hirsch (died

1664) of Brisk.
R. Aryeh Loeb's wife was the daughter of the Zevi
Haham
His
who
likewise
came
of a family of great scholars.
father
was Rabbi Jacob son of Rabbi Benjamin of Wilna.
Rabbi Jacob was son-in-law of Rabbi Ephraim Cohen.

Rabbi of Buda (Budapest),
Jerusalem,
who
afterwards
settled
in
author
of
the
Responsa
collection
Sha'ar
Ephraim.
Jacob
(See preface of this work, ed. Sulzbach, 1688).

in
Emden
his
Autobiography,
Megillat
Sefer
right
(p. 3), states
that R.
Ephraim possessed a pedigree

Priest.
up
to
Aaron the High
R. Aryeh Loeb and his wife Miryam had two sons and
three daughters.
The
sons were
(i)
R.
Saul
and
Rabbi
Hirschel
the daughters were:
Dinah, wife of Saul

;
Halevy, Chief Rabbi of the Hague
(2)
Sarah, wife
;
of
R. Isaac Halevy of Lemberg, Chief Rabbi of Prague

(3)
and
Naitsche, wife of Moses Zolkiew, Parnas in
Lemberg
Dinah
letter in
(see
Bet Meschillam,
p. 66).
The
eldest daughter
was a very good Hebrew

excellent
in
scholar.
She wrote a
Hebrew
to her brother R. Hirschel, then
Rabbi
in
Mannheim, on the 3rd of Tammuz, 177c

p. 158).
(printed
Michelsohn's Zevi Las.,
Rabbi Aryeh Loeb gave
approbations to various
works.
As Rabbi
of
Reisha
he signs one for the

the
work apy nnîn by Jacob Eulenburg?

the
approbation
bears
date
484=1734:
1727, and
to
the
to
Pentateuch, printed in
Dyhrenfurt,
"yr^
'pn
finally
Moses Jekutiel Kaufmann's

which approbation
loc. cit., p.
is
(Dyhrenfurt,
1747),
dated in Reisha, 1728.

I,
(See Landshut,
71, Dembitzer,
p.
132
a,
and
Zunz, pnxn TV,
p. 158.)
In Glogau he signs an approbation on the 17th
of Sivan, 1734, to the Talmud-edition Frankfort-Berlin.
396
APPENDIX
MS. Adlkk
II
'22(S6.
This MS. contains 138 quarto pages, many

arc
of which
only
half filled
and a good many are blank.
The
contents arc mostly short notes written

ical lesson at
down
after a
talmud-
the Yeshibah.
R. Hirschel used this book
for several years.
On
p. 61
b we
find, after his signature,

^:s^ "n r]-\pn nr
the date pzb n"pn |Dp Dm-: "s DV
14th of
Adar
n"pn
= 1742. On p. 67 b is ])J2n 31"d nvn = 17th of Tammuz of the

I,
5502
the date given
same
year.
p.
But
we
find
:
many
'
notes of
much
later origin.
I
On
I
91 b he
;
writes
in
It is
now twenty
I
years since
wrote the foregoing
the
meantime
found a reference to what

:
said here in
the book of Responsa

are the
first
pC'C'
N"-ino i"c'n3
'.
Most
interesting
title
and
last leaves.
Fol.
has an elaborate
in verses,
the contents of which
we have already mentioned.

same
as a secondary
'
Fol. 2 a
is
a continuation of the
'
title.
Fol. 2 b has a
Nice song for Hanukkah
(n::):rh
nsj iDi),
a rather primitive, but considering the youth of the author,
remarkably well written

TaoDx::' piipir pin^'H
calls
' '
verse.
Then
follows
b]}
ns:
mn
A nice
conundrum on chess what he

'
'.
the
game
of Chesstable
This verse
is,
in spite ot
a few linguistic errors and platitudes, quite a remarkable

piece of work.
Here
I will
only mention that R. Hirschel
compares chess to a
his
battlefield.
The King
all
is
guarded by
statesmen, the knights and bishops, and has a dutiful
wife at his side.
The Queen manages

in his
his affairs for
him, while the King

at
high dignity only moves one step
a time wherever he goes.

lives.
His soldiers fight for him
regardless of their
Fearlessly they go forward in

is
one straight
line.
There
no withdrawal, no avoiding
DUSCHINSKV
fight for himself.
397
danger, they fight and die on the battlefield, and only

all his soldiers
when
are dead
is
must the King
The
nr^n^Da
verse
obviously written under the influence of

:
Ibn Ezra's poem, which likewise begins with the words

t:^' "iivc\s
(cp.ed.Kahana,
195
ff.,
p.
i56,and Steinschneider's
Schach bci den
jfiidefz, p.
also Hcb. Bib/., XII, p. 60).
We
a
have further
(p.
3 b) a short verse on Passover,

'
an acrostic on the Alphabet and his name
Zevi',
and also
poem
dealing with Israel's covenant with his Heavenly

(p.
Father
to
4 a).
Moses Chagis,
On p. 5 a is the address Haham in Amsterdam.

not copied.
P. 5
only of a
It
letter
was probably
the beginning of a letter by his father R.
Aryeh Loeb,
riddles,
but the letter

while on p.
7
itself is
b has a few
we find the beginning
of a letter to Naphtali
Herz, Rabbi of Pintschow.
Equally interesting
P. 129
is
the concluding part of the volume.

for a sick
b contains a kabbalistic remedy
woman,
for
and on pp. 130 b and 131a we have ten more prescriptions

various maladies,
nature.
all
of either homoeopathic or kabbalistic
Pp. 135-7 form the index of the book prepared

itself
by R. Hirschel, in
nature.
an indication of the
writer's scholarly
APPENDIX
Title page of
III
MS. Adler 2286 and some

the same.
Title
selections
from
page: (Folio
a).
y:?b :^VN icn
r\zr\
d-id^ nân
u"1>\>
id
'c'
nrn
nson
398
nnon hua ncnn
jni
inn^ npy^ n^sn ba njs
jnny "ns*
nn:
-i^tn
iminn
n-iniD
bn
np3S
b mmpo
îb
njuî
iijd
n^Jib ^sv
^30
n:)
/mion nwa
]n: nK'N
,myi
pnn^
^jnp
iina la^^ns
nijm DyD
in: 'b
nnxn
^^ô ninnî
^:3r
D^mya
piu'
n^j "n
ni3Di
Q'^nn }>-in3 i3^s"2î

i>5
dvovd
pin""
T*i3n
nx mnîj
]'2nb unîi )n n^
P"2^
Folio 2
a.
C3i^ S3-ID D''D3n Dyi:

pN:n
-irnn
nN
n'^ niD na:^^

n"id3
"'"j
"ics*
^'r
D^jnnsi
D'':iti'N-i
D^poisi riDDin
nis'3
1"":
"ib
'cm^n
N^Dion a"nNn nSnjn nnx^ ih nSnn

D':sb
"\-i
n"3 n"y
inn nsiD
aâiDi
n::'N
i"v^
Njib p"pn n"2N

"as*
a^b "n^s i"d
nua
p"p2
2113 TC'N ncDnn 3X
uni niD
i.t:
wSin
mân an^
Yia
Dnan nain cnn .mi::n haijen mc''

pxjn -3K ^:nNi iqdd pK
nni2i
i!?in
n-i3D3i inann nipn inoan

i>;y
'3
isd^d
o
"ni
\nî
.nnpî Dn?2n3
"""-iJ
T'D^ni n^D^ri
bi
ninai nibn ni^n r^y n33 nyn iSB'D
.CMnn
nnxn
i^n:;'
nTC'^3 ^s^s^
.WKi'n
six
^3
loy
"'3^X3
.vjvy^
^b
^b
3ni3i
^^^n
W'pb
^313n
^nnr^s
wxi?
bm
"^36^3 iDp ^3:n ^jni
^^3 c'oncM inx
xi3^
\v^b
.idid t2y3
.nson by D3n3bi

-12'''^
DUSCHINSKY
loc'
399
i^c'
-i^N riNT ns-i
"-J
''"):
\)iiin
'nsi
.i!?nj^"!
niDDn
jyo!?
na
riNT
D^pînDi?
'yrD'co
s*m
-jus'i
D"'''n
}*y
nowc' min n^n

^xcr
-iCisa
D'^^n
pxi D''^nn tit na

'33
Tin t^n
nî
*c"03 'J^nk'
ynn ab
"ic>n*i
l^ry
"ic^'ND
."TT'K'y
Tnos
m^y^
"ibi tivcndji
Tipinn:
,D^Sin
pbm
mnn
p^ni
nn^^'n pbn nnt^n
DV^n
D'-pi^n
ncôni?
'jcri'
iiTnp^m
D::'Dni
*3S p"n (?) nriDon pi^m
pn pbm lan
p^n
ms'*
Fol. 2 b.
n::^
nr
fs
.ni^no
otJ*
'j:;'^
.no^ni nra 2"y novD

p^nn: mnoi njnjD ^di
rnnnôi
-i>t:>
"nir-'x
nnNn
nuno
.D''a''is'n
jnn^
D^nv3 nr
-iNtrjn
':^>
njnnn
.n^Di
"'m
t:;
.noo hdd
n:''''nni
inDni
nnxn njncn ^n nit
I'm
i:^'N
be
a"^
.nîm* nniD
'^ Q^ynp mn |m .nu^b^

D'3^?:n
Dnn
.D^^âc
ui
ni^
ynp nibn:n nijnon oy
niJins
"2311
.Qnn:
^jcr
.onnj ohs
Qîjo^
în
.nnns* oninn
D^nnp
.n^'^p^
.Dnv3Di
.njic:'snn
mic^n ni*oi
icj'r
.d'':u:i
'jcn
.omnv
"y^f
^N nonô
intTN*
oy Nin
-jijoni
n:n^
onoiy
nn'^:'
non^jDn îo .onny n:inc'
.Q''n3D:n r-iL"i iîDn ^jd^
.ncnn nya:
^3
Dnoy
ntDDiL-D
ni3y3
^53
.i?}2n
T^b
nnroiyn
nsôni
.onDiy nprnn
,i?^
->i5j'^
.men
n^>
D"y ^^n N^^
.ni5y3
mt:y
.nîjincn ntr^Nm
13^?^
33nni .m:ie'n D^smn

.D^j^nj
-i:i'u
iioB'b nriDiy
D^rtr
wSV'
D':prni
.mn^
J2QL>03
mpy nnxi
>3
.niî3j i^
ncî^^ci
,mbpbp]}
D':prn
nprn3
.i333y'
n^
^y:''
c'^ni
n\*in
.ni*nc3 Nim
^yôs^
D'03m
,N3vn nc^ Dnc'm
ivsn
nnD bs ly
ay
'B'n-i
î
:r)33
/jsnn>
D'3în
,Dnnx
nriD
1^
iJN
Dn'3^0
id>J3' nôysi
n3nNi n3n 313 ^mc^n

xi*
D^nniQi lo^^y vnirc' ini3>
fyb loipD
]])}2b
ba |iNn> nr:m
.nvin NV'
,nvns noim ,nvnn
400

Folio 3
a.
i^'b ijnjoo n:^^

r.'3
ab
,)2br\r2b
?)
-it's
DnyD
.onajn
îibn
-\2d
i!?Dnc
dk3i
nu3
.noni'Dn
iôn
-ixira
,Dnio yans D"y
D3ib\n
^n!?"DiDn
"Ml
^"i:nM
lyo^
pnv?on
2"yi
/jd"
fnymx^
dh^js
Dnu'ni
HDu^ ^n^nni Dnôiyn D^^jnn

ijN
nn^jo ,nn^<3^
ids Dn3''n:i
nj:in
IDT 33nn
d:i
n*î
_,D3^n
nns mc*
D"yi nî^D
irDn-i"*
tit Dîshn
^nnninsi? nrn-
^dh^js lao" n^ nns^ni
sh
is"-
onoipya
ids'"
n"'bnni /"jins
ns
-notj'i'
^vjs ">2y ^x
b'''n
dn
'2
.onnv ^n
xh
nj
n:non nva n^nciyn o^banni ma-bn

-i-j'N*
oni?
nij'^::'
^dd^d ivn
':sib
tj'n
DîDi
QmD
n^bc D"y
pnnw
^d
lyoD'' ^nron^n ni^nnn
non
ij^'K
nsi
ni?2n
niDy
n'L*"'^c'n
mvjâ îTn D^njo ipnT

,i^"n
omo
nci^c s"y
xn""
D3
nnsn nicai
nyn
"J3
pnio''
i^'-sn^
i^cn ^y
'bi)
^moytD ^y noyi nDV' nn'

'i>y
mxn
3"yi ..T'nai nb'^n

,"ins ijiij
rr'jii'n
iôn
^mna
'd^
nnx nnx ^Dnoyci d3vd

'
nx3x nnyi
"ym
"iid
TD^:
nty-ia
,nvn
nioy^
xh
,iny y^*DX2
.v2^pD
^j-iT
niy nnx
.laiya
Tl^'i
î'xi
^nav^-m n^ya ^y
ipina
]':>:]b
maiDD
^na^*]
ibvxi ,nvi:i
id dxi naa dx
(?
inx
b^
,i-iyn ^q^
imn
,iDiy
onnini?
fpr iâ
jpr
,njnDa
,ia''ix
nian^)
"\ni
^riDnb^
iDii^D
aan
nvDi
an'
iniana
.no^^ ntry icrx

^'any
nii^yon
nx /nva
nciy xavn
â
-I'.Dn^
,n^nn
pn^j-j"
;\b
nmx
on-'ja^ n^ni^c' njvrjî
lanx
^lan
DHDi^D
^x nvpn
Dm
a^Lô im^c'
nijc^^ îât^
'sh
nnx
i?ai
,nîa
n:nnn nx
jD ^xx' XIX'
nx n'm pox Tina

-itjî
layjaa ^pB'y it^^x n^^'ycn

nu'yj ,nvo:ri
nr
'a
nx
TDy
-iB'x
niDa loy a-ipa

,-i^Dn
/Dvy^ pnx
y^r
'dh
'!?a
,nvpn
bx i2n>
ar'iD
nâ ^x
i?m nam
jan^
nxi ,ioipDa vjs^

^nc'^x
.D'D'Dnc'D
lij
nnx inaa oâ^D

nxT
^yc*
nvn^
x^
nnn
^:^x^
nu'xi'
nx /ne'x nnpib
ix D^t^: ^nc
nnx i^d^
jan^
bx
mwy
':r\
x^nt? nBxn
ma
.ncxia nia^ nna
|n:i ^n:i::'x-in
incx nnn ,njT'

db'!?
.nSnnh
n^ya
.nDaij nx3 "lor

iDyi
D'b'.vo
;ii)
Dâ
yao
'"v
i^^ni
n id ,d>^x
ks*
^x
n"î^\"n D^na-j'
Kin
nâo v^h
xân
mac
nt^'y
>a'ix
ny-ia
^y nKnâ
.n'j'D
nmn
nyn
|DX3
THE GREAT SYxNAGOGUE, LONDON

Folio 3 b.
,D^r:wn |o
/-|-n^:L^'1
DUSCHINSKY
40I
mm
i:^
nnini
D'-on
iini iJ^mni .onvjô ijs^*vi xin

n-ii3:n ^s^d n-j'f:n
^32 n^ny .nmnn npb

Nia"*
nv^n^
dji
ip^'ni
,ni3i3D
ny^ hdv
nîxj
dv xin nos :niriTD
N\n
min
Translation.
Title-page
(i a).
Hear,
Israel
I will
This book contains 139 leaves on which

before you,
statutes.
I
arrange
of
what Thou,
have
O Holy One, wilt offered my prayer to the

;
teach
me
Thy
our
Most High God,

us,
the
God
of our Fathers
will
be gracious unto
God
'King
Make us understand Thy statutes and enlighten our eyes in Thy Law. O Almighty God, turn to the prayers of Thy beloved Jacob, Thy only one, and give wisdom in Thy great mercy to Zevi son of Aryeh Thy servant and teach him all Thy numberless secrets in the Torah which Thou gavest with Thy hand to Moses Thy saintly (servant). In the following I will arrange
help us.
before you, and as
I
He
shall write
it
will
be made plain, that

all
'which
is
perfumed with myrrh and incense and

3. 6).
the
powders of the merchant' (Cant.

to
God
in
is
our King,
Him
is
due
praise, I will praise
Him
assemblies and
congregations, for
He
me
gave
(the
us, as
cherished treasure, the
perfection of beauty
Torah).
The Dweller
and
to
(of
of the
Clouds
may
grant
to understand
be able to
write down the words of the Fathers
my
Father).
He
in
gave
me
also a small portion,
and
He may
gift
grant
me
under-
standing with a double measure as a
from Heaven,
His great Goodness and Mercy

land of Life, and
may He
bring us into the
may
God's Glory be revealed.
5537 a.M.
402

Folio z a
(i
is
blank).
Behold how pleasant are to

wise,
my
palate the words of the
which are a cure
for the soul.
These are novellae
to the
Talmud, Tosaphot and com(of
mentators Rishonim and Aharonim

times)
olden and late
by the Gaon the great Rabbi,
&c., R.
Aryeh Loeb.
formerly was
is
Head
Rabbi
of the Congregation of Glogau,

in
who
Lwow
the Imperial Residence (Capital), he
my
Master and teacher, my father, who in his great wisdom and learning has produced many new interpretations and
explanations of the Talmud.
When
these novellae
became
more and more numerous, while the quality of the scholars and pupils of my father became more and more inferior,
and every one of them wrote down the products of
father's
my
and
mind, to use them in later
life in
I,
talmudical dissmallest
putes as his
own achievements,
so
the
humblest of
to write
my
father's pupils,
I
have made up
my
mind
down what
heard from him, so as to preserve
my father's words, who is too busy with communal affairs. When my father saw this (book) he spoke to me You do right, my son, write down everything so that you may
:
learn the
way
is
of
: '
life,
which
is
is
the
way
of the Torah, ot
which
it
',
it
said
She
a tree of
life
for those
it
and what you do not know, ask me, as

will
is
said
who grasp Ask

'
:
thy father and he

will tell thee
'
show
7).
thee, thine elders
and they
(Deut. 32.
These words
have taken to
heart and have done accordingly, as your eyes will see.

I
have divided
this
book
into five parts, the
one
is
the
part of songs, then the part of the riddles, the part of the
Peshat, while the part of the Peshat
is
again divided into
the part of the father and of the son and of the writing.
Zevi Hirsch
b.
Aryeh Loeb.

Folio a b contains
first
DUSCHINSKV
Hanukkah.
403
nice song for
Then
follows
nice coiiundruiii on the

I
game
called Chess {Skachtable)
will sing
a song of war, founded
on wisdom
and
understanding.
the other,
to
Two
kill
armies are arranged

enemies.
in
one opposite
is
their
parts,
Each army
if
again
divided
into
two
order that
the one
it
army
down,
in
comes and beats the

the other
part can
first
part, bringing
right
still
escape.
They
are
arranged
eight rows each on one side.
Between the two Kings

with thirty-two different
with their great armies
is
field
ways
in
which paths run, and there they arrange their
battles.
fierce
The camps
all
are like trenches and forts.
Young
wise,
men,
heroes.
Two
warriors riding on white asses,

their
and two elders (bishops) dear to

at the sides of the first
King and
and
row two princes are standing, and
the King himself with his Queen take part in the battle
on the high
princes
are
hilltop.
In front of the King and his honoured

servants
eight
(pawns)
they face the
first
strong onslaught, and the
Queen who stands
at the side
of the King, moves about for
him everywhere. This
praise-
worthy
wife, the
ornament of her husband, walks about

;
the whole battlefield to guard her beloved
the elders pro-
ceed
first
to guard the various paths and the knight goes
with them on roundabout ways.

straight in front of
He
has three paces, two

like the elders,
him and one sideways

(the
the
wise
men.
He
knight)
hurriedly goes
forth,
nobody can stop him

strength.
as he
would push him away
in his
He moves
in
in front of the
people until he reaches
the desired position, and the princes, the generals of the
army, proceed
an even step
in
unity and friendship (with
VOL.
IX.
D d
404

;
one another)
sometimes they take the King to their side
and take
him.
his
former place to hinder the enemy from reaching

for
They open up
his usual
him a way of escape, but when

out,
the King has once stepped
he does not change any

to cither of the four
more from
sides,
manner
to
move
like
the
ordinary
soldiers, as
the King, even
in
war-time, keeps his dignity, and he takes only one step to
whatever side he proceeds, slowly and evenly.

the
the
All these,
of
King and
four,
rest,
his
officers,
can
turn
to
every side
according
to
the
player's
wish
they
move
their
and
and
like their
coming and going so are
attacks, except for the infantry,
who
stand in front facing

line
the battlefield, for they go only
in
one straight
and only
in
move one
field.
They
are,
however, like the knight
their attack, for they hit out
sideways and give no quarter.
When
they move, however, they do not turn and cannot

their
go backwards, they cannot turn to
enemies but have

This
to meet them face to face to guard their master.
infantry
who
stand before the entourage of the
King have
accordingly three ways of moving forward, and also those of them
who stand
those
at the side, can, at the
beginning of the
forward,
battle, step
out like giants (heroes) three rows
and
all
who have
there.
If
stepped forward these three rows
have to stop
any one attacks the King

him, and so also
in
his
whole
army has
party,
to
all
die
for
the opposing
and
have according to the
will of
mankind
(the
player) to stand on their assigned places.
Now
fourth
will explain to
you
their order of position, each

his place in the
one according to his
status.
The King has
row
in
the middle of his people.
He
must not
stand at the side, so that he

to
may
not be caught.
Next
him
his
helpmate stands, the honoured one by her

consort's side,
DUSCHINSKY
405
and next either of them stands an Elder

as
is
to
show them the way
meet, to every one according

is
to the rules whether high or low
his position.
At
the
side of each Elder stands a proved rider to keep order in
the camp, and a General stands next to him to instruct
him what
him,
to do.
When
he fights the enemy he stands^ by

the brother-in-arms).
in true affection (for
The
eight
messengers are marched up

sent
first
in front of all these,
they are
of
all
to
get
information about
officers)
all
the
enemy's
position,
and each one (of the
sends his messenger
or keeps
if
him back and they are

them on
instructed
what
if
to do,
misfortune befalls
their
way.
But
he
is
able to get from one end of the battlefield to the other
without coming to harm, he becomes his own master, and a prince of his people
in his old place.
like the
one before
whom
he stood
If that
one (the
officer) is slain
and
is
no
more, he takes his place or even comes back to the court

of his
as
King and becomes a woman (Queen), but not a King

impossible for two Kings to have one and the same
it is
crown, but one King

is
may have two

this
is
wives.
in
If his first wife
gone and taken, he takes
one
her place, puts the
royal crown on her head as
the right of the wife, the
crown of her husband, she
is
his
ornament and honour.
A
threw into the deep
if
Song for Passover.
Give praise and thanks to God the Mighty, Pharaoh

sea,
He
but His people he led through as
on dry
land.
He
sent ten plagues against Pharaoh
my
enemy, by the hand of the man from the

It
is
tribe of Levi.
Moses who
led us out of
Egypt,
Dd
406

Folio 3 b.
He
let
us walk on dry land in the midst of the sea,
brought us down the Torah from Heaven, which he received
from the
lips
of God, divided
is
it
into five parts
all
well
arranged and observed
the
Torah and her explanation.

on that day
will
Pesah
is
the
day of
relief,
come help
to
the chosen people,
He
will lead
us out of our exile, then
we
shall sing a
new
song.
line
(Here follows a verse of which each

a letter of the Alphabet.)
begins with
APPENDIX
Will of
Copy
R.
IV
Saul
of
p..
Zevi Hirsch.^^
of the will
Rabbi Saul son of Rabbi Zevi

I
Hirsch, Chief Rabbi of Berlin, which
copied word for

after his
word from
his
own handwriting, found on him
death, which occurred on Sunday, 33rd of

'
Heshwan, ^5^5'
where
The
lot
of
man
is
unknown
to himself, as to
and when (he would
die), it is
therefore the duty of every-
body who goes on a

is
journe}' to
make
shall
it
a will as long as he
alive (and decide)

all
what he wishes should be done to him
and to
that
is
his
when God
so
have gathered him

the duty of a
from under Him.

travelling
if
The more
is
man
in
from land to land, from town to town, especially

I
he
is
a sickly man.
am now on
m}- journey here
Halle, and intend to travel to distant lands,

I
and perchance
.shall
not be able to speak to any one about myself; then

will find
any one who

pocket of
me
it
dead, he will find

shall
my
will in the
ni)' coat,
llic
and
be to him as
if it
were the
" From
Hebrew
in Oiinit.
LiibL, 1844. pp. 712
13.

words of
willing to
DUSCHINSKV
"iDn),
407
is
my
lips,
and
if
he be a righteous man, who
do a true kindness (nS TO

:
may
he
fulfil
my
'
words, as follows
Everything that
be sent to
it
is
found upon me, be
it little
or much,
may
me.
my
father, the
Rabbi of
Berlin, after he has
taken from
the purchase-money
for a burial
place for
All the writings, however, which shall be found in
my
to
trunk or
in
any other
receptacle,
it
shall
be forbidden
it.
anybody
to take even one leaf

left
and
to read
Every-
thing shall be
in paper,
be sealed up and sent to
my
are
above-named father or to
my
children or to trustworthy
men
in Berlin,
and they
(to
shall give
them
to those
who
worthy of them
whom
I
they concern).
'The following
I
ask for myself:
No
garment which
have upon
shall
me
shall
be taken away, just as they find me,

in
they
find,
bury
it
me
some
far
forest,
or in
any place they

has been
only
shall
I
be
away from
the graves of other
people.
And
ask everybody whose
heart
touched by
the fear of God, not to talk behind
my
coffin
on account of
my
having asked
for
;
this,
for
he
cannot
know the reason for this stipulation who speak blamingly about me, shall be
they do as
'
however, even those

forgiven
only
if
ask.
will
it
Any
{2^n''
one who
act, in
any of the points written

sin to
here, against
my
will,
will
be counted as a great
him
m) and God
''
will not forgive
him
as
anybody
who who
has knowledge of the

says,
Talmud knows
I
that only one
do not bury me
at all " should not
be obeyed
but a stipulation like this one (which
have made)
may
be made
'
in one's Will.
And God,
beings,
to whom are known all the desires of human He knows my intentions, and will yet help me to
4o8

life in
good days and a

(when
I
which
may
serve
Him
in pleasure
I
shall
be able to serve him amidst joy), when
shall
be able to devote myself to Torah and wisdom, which give

joy to the embittered heart and soul, and be able to live
in
quietness and safety without being tied to a seat of vanity
(M. Joseph's note
" referring to the office of
Rabbi, which
he hated, as
is
well
known
to
everybody
").
These are the

has given
still
words of one with an embittered soul

to drink of the cup of misery
whom God
enough and more and
has not given up
in his heart to
pray to God and to hope.
Saul.
(hxK> |Dpn
''3N).'
The
stone
following
is
the inscription of R. Saul's tombstone
to which Mr. Israel

is
Solomons
called
my
attention.
The
standing near the wall facing the entrance at
the Alderney
Road Cemetery
in
Mile End, London.
(N^33n) DD-iiDDn b)i:n ann

n:p)
-icn''
.... ^Njn DC'u .... orn ny
(?Dnn
"iâ
\p)]})
2)12
'a
-n"inD nio
nro n"D Nin
(?n"s) i33ina
.
.
i"ij cf-i'n
dv^n i^'^^ 'av n"inn

J2"-\)
N>
p^-13 p"pi
Ym
. . . .
('3X)
IIN
D
.
.
n'J'N
DN
nun''
nany "na
pnx
P"Di' n':pn p'^'n
(y'i?
/;^
coittifiucd.)
NOTE ON 'SOLOMON
Under
this
B.
JUDAH AND SOME
OF HIS CONTEMPORARIES'
the above heading Dr. A. Marmorstein printed in
(vol.
Review
VIII, 1-29) an article which included
new
material from the Genizah.
The
history of the
is
Jews
in
Egypt
and
in Palestine
under the Fatimid Caliphs

will
not yet written.

the
This deficiency
only be
made up when
for
remarkable
Genizah finds completely see the

from the
will
light of publication.
Judging
till
past,
we
shall
have to wait
fact.
many
a year yet
this
be an accomplished
Every contribution, therefore,

this
that
augments our knowledge of

is
obscure period of Jewish

to
history
it
to
be gratefully accepted.
But
be of
scientific value,
must, of course, adequately present the
new
material.
Only
a few have the opportunity of re-examining the originals from
which
this material is taken.

is
When
manuscripts are improperly
used, the result

is
a tangle of false conceptions to unravel which
indeed an uncongenial as well as thankless task.
Working on a contribution
to
the
history of
this
period,
for the
based chiefly on hitherto unpublished Genizah material,

last
three
years,
had the occasion

in
to to
study the fragments

a
Dr.
Marmorstein
used
additfon
good
many more.
I
With a single-minded purpose of serving

remarks on his paper.
I.
scientific truth,
am
constrained, though with great reluctance, to
make
the following
Before dealing with Solomon
b.
Judah proper, Dr. Marmorof the Palestiniarl school
stein discusses the preceding
Geonim
(pp. 3
ff.).
The Memorial
List
(MS. Adler 2592), on which he

to
bases
his
genealogy of the
Geonim belonging
It is
Ben-Meir's
to say, that
family, cannot be fully considered here.
enough
there
exist
three
other
lists
about
this
family
(Bodl.
fif.
2874"
and 2443, discussed by Poznanski, REJ., LXVI, 60 409
the third
410
in the very

same MS. Adler 2592) which Dr. Marmorstein
entirely
overlooked.
As they
are
all
contradictory, one
list
cannot be
chosen at random without adducing other data for its veracity. But a signature in T.-S., 13 J. I6'^ Moses laiDH b. Isaac -|3nn
b.
Solomon lann
this
b.
Meir Gaon,
is
is
the cause of a long argument
whether
Solomon 12nn
flf.).
the famous Ben-Meir, the opponent
of Sa'adya (pp. 4
The
obvious,
and
at the
same time weighty,
objection (already brought forward by Poznanski) that Ben-Meir,

styled HT'C"" "CX"! even by his adversaries,
would not be mentioned
here simply as a Haber,
i.
e.
one that held a diploma from the
academy, does not deter Dr. Marmorstein from deciding that
Solomon is the Ben-Meir (p. 6). But why this superfluous arguing about a mere signature?
Let us see what the fragment contains besides the signature, to
whom
it is
addressed,
it is
if it
be a
letter,
and who
else
is
mentioned
therein.
Now
an
epistle written
by Moses IDIDH to a highly
influential elder,
Abu
Sa'ad b. Sahl, in request of support.

is
writer mentions that he

is
ill.
in a hurry to visit his grandfather,
The who
But
Accordingly Solomon
this
"i3nn
was then
to
still
alive.
who
is
Abu
Sa'ad?
From about 1025
1048 we find him

at
having intimate connexions with
the Fatimid court
Cairo.
The Caliph az-Zahir bought from him a beautiful Sudani slave, who became the mother of the next Caliph al-MustansTr (1036The Queen-mother (Wallda) wielded great power in 1094). the court, especially since 1036, when she acted as regent for Her former Jewish master, Abu Sa'ad, her seven-year old son. had since then become a persofia grata till he was assassinated
in
1048 (see Wiistenfeld, 'Geschichte der Patimiden-Chalifen

der
Gottiiigcft
iii.
'
in
Abhandluiigen
vol.
Geselhchaft
der
JVisse?isckafien,
XXVII, Abteilung
H.).
The Genizah
has preserved
his
several fragments bearing

.\h\x
on
this
Abu, Sa'ad and
brother
Nasr, the sons of Sahl al-Tustari (modern Shuster in Persia),

will
which
be published by
me
elsewhere.
Now
in
is it
at all likely that the Ben-iSIcir of
921 was
still
alive
Abu
Sa'ad's
lime?
The answer
is,
of course, in the negative.
Several other data prove conclusively that Ben-Meir was succeeded
NOTE ON SOLOMON
by a
nnnn.
(to
viz.
B.
JUDAH
MANN
my
Meir
41
son, called Meir,

I
who
is
the father of the above
Solomon
can only give here the result of
investigations
be printed elsewhere) as to the Gaonic family of Ben-Meir,

Moses, Meir
I,
Judah = Ben-Meir
Marmorstein
fix
(921),
II,
Abraham,
a
Aaron, Joshiah (1015).

But, writes
Dr.
(p.
8),
'We
have
further
fragment which enables us to
the chronology of these Geonim.

Sicily.
letter,
fragm. Adler, mentions severe persecutions in
The letter is written by Tl^X bar Hakim to Hananiah " Ab bet din " The father's name is missing. Hananiah ben na''C'\T C'NI is the father of Sherira, who became Gaon in the year 938;'9.
.
.
We
assume, therefore, that Moses and his son Aaron
lived
before 939.'
What
is
this
has to do with the Palestinian
Geonim
the reader
at a loss to find out.
But, forsooth, there occurs

telling us) the
in the fragment (without Dr.

n'lJJ'N''
Marmorstein
name
that
'
of
at
NJ1D1
[wan
^]a':^'^^
l^'X-i.
This led Dr. Marmorstein

father,
once to assume that Hananiah was Sherira's
and
I.
the
head of the school

question arises,
the Palestinian
'
is
his
supposed Gaon Joshiah
Again the
What Gaon?
has the scholar of Pumbedita to do with
Now
follows
...':':
let
us state the
facts.
The
3n
address (verso) reads as
[ny^n
-i3
'nba
n[N
^]jo
n^::n
3[-i]
moi
[n]'iip
pNi? niDi^[t:'
an]
htc^m
j^'xi
in[3n]
....
[12]
Accordingly
Hananiah was a Kohen, and

is
his
identity
with
Sherira's father
out of the question.
The
contents of the letter

Joshiah,
'
(which
will
be printed elsewhere) are thus.

',
the head
of the school
wrote to Sicily requesting donations for his school.

a Sabbath,
in the
They were duly promised on
when
the Gaon's letter
was read before the congregation
synagogue.
But before
the contributions could be collected such a heavy impost was
made by
enclosing
the government that
many people were

like to reply to the
ruined.
The
elders of the
community do not
Gaon without
some money.
Abu'1-Hayy, probably the local scholar.
412

Ah
of the {Palestinian) acadeiny,
to
therefore writes to Hananiah, the
informing
him of what happened, and promising

Elul.
do
his
best for the school during the ensuing festivals.
written
on Rosh Hodesh
Let
The letter is This Hananiah Hakkohen was

shown
is
Ab
under Joshiah, Gaon
of Palestine in 1015, as will be
elsewhere.
for Dr.
me
also add, that there
no
justification
whatever
Marmorstein's suggestion (pp. 13 and 15) that there were

in
two academies in the Holy Land, one

in
Ramlah and the other
Jerusalem.
the latter city,
Only the Gaon sometimes resided, instead of in in the neighbouring Ramlah, the capital of the
This
with and,
province of Philistia (Filastin) and the seat of the governor.
was the case with Ben-Meir,

occasions, with
2.
'
Joshiah,
on
several
We
Solomon b. Judah. come at last to this Gaon.

is
Writes Dr. Marmorstein
In a fragment Adler there
a Selihah, beginning )*"isn rhil n^SN,

still alive (p. 14),
written in the year 1362
(=1051), tvhen he was
and the years of

1052/3
(p.
his
Gaonate were from 1025
till
his death about
i6y
Now
this Selihah (it is a loose leaf in

:
MS. Adler
NO^
(i)
(2) px:
2804) has really the following beginning

aDL"N nJD -i"x
'oi jîxn nP3:
no^C
li'^^l [^]D"in
^h^
npnx
*D
(3)
'
nn^^D^x
mn
D'["i]dn
^ny
(4).
When our
maste?-
Solomon Gaon
died,
Sel.'
Ephraim composed
(
this Selihah in the
middle of lyyar 1362

is
= 1051
3.
c. E.).
The
author of this elegy
most
likely
Ephraim
dual
h.
Shemarya of Fustat.
Further comments are needless.

the
'Solomon
of
prevented
re-establishment
of the
authority
1
the
Palestinian
infers
Gaonate'
(pp.
14-15).
This
)r.
Marmorstein
from a few lines cited from MS. Adler

3) deals with a rival of
to
2<So4.
b.
This fragment
(it is fol.
Ephraim
Shemarya
in Fustat,
and has nothing
do with a supposed
fully printed
opponent of the Gaon.

where.
The
letter will
be
else-
The
following corrected readings of the lines cited by

are
Dr. Marmorstein
for 1^'K [in]3
given here.
;
For
nr
13C\T
|\S*
h'l
read
13*ori
73
read V^X 1DDN3
for
pin
read *0 TlT
nr
pN.
npi^n[o -hî n^ pp[Tno i3n] px npi^no^ oxi onoL" dl" c'pacL".
'
The
italics
arc mine.
'
NOTE ON SOLOMON
Dr. Marmorstein actually
left
B.
JUDAH
MANN
the banker.)
413
us in the middle of a sentence.

'jn^lE^n,
(On
the same page, for ^jn-nt^n read
4.
Writes Dr. Marmorstein
(p.
16),
'We
:
hear
it
very soon,
leaders
J.
already in Solomon's time, that people said
The former
always stood against the blood of their colleagues (T.-S., 13

vide
9^
now REJ., LXVIII, p. 45).' I have only to refer to my remarks in this Review (vol. VII. 481), whence it is clear that Solomon b. Judah made these remarks himself about the spiritual
leaders
(b.
(D''"k^N*-i)
-
in Fustat, speaking also disparagingly of
Elhanan
Shemarya).
Dr. Marmorstein,
entirely failed to
who published
it
I.
this
important
letter in
RE/.,
will
understand
its drift.
The whole
fragment
be reprinted by me, as
has been carelessly edited.

c, p. 46,
11.
Compare
this
the two versions in REJ.,

p. 17,
18-24, and in
3CJ'1'
Review,
note 17.
As
for the latter, for C'nipn T-ya
nJJ13^
TV^ 3K'S*, The for iyi?N [Pncryj] nkTNn read [ij\i^N=] irs nDyn ic'N3. (i. e. I bear the meaning is, What can be done, the name is called title Gaon), and it is impossible to reject what our God adorned (me) with.^ These bitter words of the Gaon were due to the great
D'^N \yhi< read iTJJD^ [DNI^X irn^JN^] D\S I^N B'llp
pain the opponents of Ephraim
b.
Shemarya
presents;
in Fustat
caused
him by
though
their letters.
They accused him

because
of
his
of siding with Ephraim,
unworthy,
and
they even
threatened to denounce Solomon
to the government.
The
cor-
responding lines read in the MS. (but cp. the version in
RE/.,
i^n
a
c, 45,
11.
6-9
!),
n^jji3>
maijcn (read
i?{<) i?y
^^y h^2\h
nyn
an
^3
nar [nipDn=] p^n

l>ni[:nr2J lyo^
nr\'hv
â
D-iyn
nnain
-],i^^cc'î
îxi
n^ ^^^ ^n^cnn
n^^'id
h^
T^r\
ncNî nrnraN pna r^y ncî yn nv

llSia''
b^:
02
'\'\)jrb
1J^nn:N
l^msCDI.
The whole
epistle deals
with a
communal
dispute in Fustat.
And
yet Dr.
Marmorstein
exclaims
(p. 17), '/$ //
not tindeniahly established* that the enemies
wanted another man
in
Solomon's place, and had one ready

b.
Trying to find opposition against Solomon

2
Judah's Gaonate
called
Both Elhanan the elder and

479; VIII, 344.
Obviously alluding to Job 40.
his son
Shemarya are
t^Kin, see
I.e.,
2
*
ro.
Read
therefore perhaps
myn.
The
italics
are mine.
414
where there
vol.

is
none, Dr. Marmorstein discovers (in this Review,
VI,
6 1-2) a
poem
in
MS. Adler 3363.

'
7,
from which he
copies two lines, and adduces that
the dignity of
Solomon
b.
Judah was
ff.
fiercely attacked
'.
Now
!)
this
fragment
(it
really covers
Sab and
9a)
is
a copy of the well-known

in
poem
of Gabirol
(another Solomon b. Judah
honour of
his patron Yekutiel,
already printed in Duke's nD^tr n"^, no. 8 (p. 13), in Sachs' ^"n^,
16-36, and in Brody's edition. Heft

that in the line
I,
no.
3.
^"O
Needless to say
^NL'TI DXI,
min^
HJDb'C
"^3
p"i
nr Nin
Gabirol
speaks of himself
5.
On
pp. 18-19
^^^-
-Marmorstein makes statements about

b.
the adversaries of
Ephraim
Shemarya, which he
torn
first
tries to
support
by quotations from
entirely misconstrued.
fragments
from their contexts and
In the
instance,
what do the
lines
of T-S., 13
J.
15' (p. 18, note 22)
mean?
epistles.
Solomon
writes to
Ephraim
after
that prior to this letter he sent

festivals
him a few
lines (nnitr)
the
in
reply to his
Therein Ephraim
reported the doings of his
opponent.
That person held the
diploma of Haber
satisfied
(~13n),
given by the Jerusalem school, but not

it
with
it,
he exchanged
for
the
'
title
AUuf
the
of the waters
Babylonian
academy.
He
accordingly
despised
of Shiloah to drink
the waters of the Euphrates'.
Solomon,
naturally, maintains that this
Palestinian degree
is is
is
'
higher.
man only lost The academy
thereby, since the
of the Holy
Land
the
'
alma mater
(dn), whereas the seat of learning in
Babylon
a step-mother (nx nc'N). deal with

tliis
Several other fragments (to be printed

scholar
in
elsewhere)
Fustat
allegiance to the former school for the latter.

it
who changed his The title Alluf,

the
history
can be stated with certainty, was never bestowed by

Palestine,
academy of
of the
and has nothing

Palestinian
for
to
do with 'the
'
organization
of the
Geonim
nii)ir2,
(p.
18).
In
*n^3^
note 22 for [?'']Tb read
n.-ad
T^,
nsU'D read
for
ino
DnD
C'lD "n^lb.
is
But a typical example

(p. 19),
the following. Writes Dr. Marmorstein

(i.e.
'Furthermore, we see that he

the lay
Solomon
in the
b.
Judah)
asked a man, perhaf^s
head of the iommunity
Diaspora
NOTE ON SOLOMON
or in Palestine, Saadya
support Ephraim
l>.
B.
JUDAH MANN
415
Israel,
during his stay in Egyft^" to

'.
with the royal authorities

T.-S.,
As evidence we
J.
have (note 23) the second half of

half Dr. Marmorstein did not copy.
13
it
17'".
The
first
But
is
just there that the
name Sa'adya
b. Israel occurs.
The
correct text of the whole
fragment deserves to be given here.

[T.-S., 13 J. 17'', paper, square writing, size 24-4
17-8 cm.]
Recto.
[ni]3D
i:s[^]t;'Ji
\hryy\
imnx nx
[irjjs^ px
^-2
""^
oy nx
x'-noi
x^'iro
[^Jâ^
nvn r^x ^h^rrh
irnijn -imn jp[n]^

\V'i\>\
[-1J331
nxrn n^y[^^] îxn ^xne*^ |-ixn

r\'\r\
[oy
inn]
fpin
nvai ^t' [n3n]n ^x D'^nnan

xja-i[i
""iK'yn
[i]p''n
n2D3n
innyo
nn:"
xnjo
nc'np inD
n-iinyn
ici'x
'^
D''^*ii'iTi
nn
nnoni nnio
^XTJ'''
'i-\
'nn
vijx
X3 h'h nnn[b] nina
[ijrr-n
iT-n
[iti']
ipT"
ijn^Di
iy-ic'
n-nn ^x
^xn::'^
ninai?
r\\<\i
^y\
ijn^n
nn
10
x'':j':b
nanx
^3i
Dyiini?
mssni
inmc'^!?
^x"^t^'^
pm3 nyn
n^yo ^3^ 'ixn xin
nixni
^j^m
B'xn [^JS^ irb^-x xin]

[p]Tn^ ^x njjir
Di^t;a
iîy
nrn^ nvn
'^xi
unp Dnyion
x:;^tr
nn^nn
ans
ir:y
^jivii
n"-
n::r
xa""
loipo ^x oyn ^si
ann nnnnno
xv^c-'
nx
^3i
'3
niy^no nnt^^ nsipr ppi non T'n
'':iv-i
15
nâc* na
nn^^
nî3' pxi
nxo^ noy 3x3
'nb
Tin
niv
T- >ryi
nnmn
^3 vjal? nin^ np"'

inx''V''3
on^
i:x[^c']ji
'
nonn cy xim
Dnv?:!^
nn^
nx'â^
nQV?:
[bx]nc'> n^3
j^yn
nnxsn pnxn nxn
nyni
nyn n^[3]n
yne^*
20
aiu bnci jn QX''^fnn^ nnsc^nn
bm nnniom
dixi dni^x
[n]xo [^nr i]niDni
nuD
di^l"i
idi^:;'i
3:
5 '
min^ ^mn nnnjn n^L"

italics
The
are mine.
,
;
Read nK'iyn.
S., IX, p. 158,
Read 13n^D1 our leader
for this
word see JQR., N.

**
note 141.
Cp.
Sam.
4. 3.
4l6
We
first
learn from this letter several details of interest.
In the
first
instance
we
see that Daniel b. 'Azarya was not the
Nasi
in the
Holy
Land, but that already in Solomon's time a descendant

(This Nasi
is
of David settled there.
indeed mentioned in some
other epistles of the Gaon.)
Unfortunately his
name
is
is
not
preserved in our fragment, of which the beginning
missing.
Solomon
people.
writes that
he
is
very pleased that the Nasi intends
leaving Egypt for Palestine, where he will be the leader of the
The Gaon
b.
has already written to the Haber (probably

setting forth
Ephraim
Shemarya)
how
the division of authority
(in Jerusalem) was to be arranged so that
no
friction arise
is
between
himself and the newcomer.
(Our fragment
not written to
Ephraim but
b.
to
some other person

in
1.
in Fustat, very likely
Sahlan
Abraham, because
his
21 greetings are sent to the corre-
spondent and
there
is
son.
In the numerous letters to Ephraim

his,
I
never mentioned a son of
only a son-in-law, Joseph
by name.)
The Gaon
and
continues
have
spoken
to-day
(in
Jerusalem) to the important elder, Sa'adya b.

to 'our lord
Israel,
to write
leader, the elder
and the glory of the house
of Israel
for his
',
informing him of
here.
my
love for the Nasi,

all
and
my
desire
is
settling
He
deserves
honour.
I
The time
pressing because the festivals are at hand, and
want him to be
letters
with us (in Jerusalem) before
New
Year.
to
Let him obtain
patent from the (central)

authority,
government
to the
be able
to act here with
and put an end

'
rampant
tell
strife
of which the
e.
Gaon had enough.

visited the
Our Nasi
(It
will
him
(i.
this
great
dignitary) all the details.'
seems that the Nasi had already
Holy
I
City,
and was
well acquainted with the local state
of affairs.)
am
(i.
anxiously expecting a letter reporting his (the
Nasi's) departure
his kindness
'
from Egypt.
'He
(this dignitary) will
do
it
in
e.
obtain from the government in Cairo (Fustat)
a decree of authority for the Nasi).

for
May God
hear
my
prayers
',
him, for (his) brother, 'the glory of the house of Israel
and
the
their
noble family.
Let
me
state that these
two brothers are
the above-mentioned
AbQ
Sa'ad and
Abu
all
Nasr,
who were
very people to obtain from the Caliph
the political power
NOTE ON SOLOMON
required by the Nasi for
is
liis
B.
JUDAH
MANN
in Jerusalem.
417
This
new regime
the plain
and obvious meaning of our fragment.

for his
What
ground,
?
then,
6.
had Dr. Marmorstein
statement quoted above
Dr. Marmorstein has found in several Genizah fragments

ff.)
(pp. 20
references to the formidable revolution in Palestine
and Syria (1024-29) against the Caliph az-Zahir. It should be stated at once that one leader of the rebels, Hasan, was not of
the
Banu Gariah,
as Dr. Marmorstein prints, but of the

z.
Banu
Islam,
Jarrah (j-'C^j see Becker, Beitrdge

I,
Gesch. Agyptens u titer

b.
d.
pp. 44
ff.).
Furthermore, the Resh Kalla Sahlan

is
Abraham
numerous
;
resided not in Kairowan but in Fustat, as
clear from
S.,
fragments (see also
my
remarks in JQR., N.
IX, p. 161
is
the
residence of Sahlan's father, Abraham, in Fustat
also evident
from the Arabic address, JQR-, XIX, 726, no.
11).
But Dr.
Jews
in
Marmorstein has discovered in
T.-S.,
13
13"* J.
that
Damascus were imprisoned

Accordingly Solomon
b.
for
taking
part
in
the
rebellion.
Judah
(to wit, in
(!),
Jerusalem) writes to
Suhlan
b.
Abraham (in Kairowan

'
according to Dr. Marmorstein)
to inspire
the
Resh Kalla
to take steps with the authorities
on
behalf of the Jewish prisoners in Damascus' (pp. 20-21).
a play with geography

naturally the central
To
release
prisoners
in
What Damascus
Fatimid government in Cairo had to be
approached.
What
by the
help could the
Gaon
in
Jerusalem hope to
obtain for them from the intervention with the authorities (in
Kairowan
to Fustat,
!)
local
Resh Kalla
to
But the
letter
was addressed
and has nothing
do with the
rebellion.
Before briefly indicating

readings.
its drift, I
give the following corrected

w-riting, size
The fragment
is
1.
is
of paper, square
25-5
17-4 cm., badly preserved, torn at the bottom of the left-hand side.
Its
beginning
intact.
i)
Hence
the dots by Dr. Marmorstein
(note 30, before

nn"" ^N,
(1.
should be deleted.
read ijprnni,
|ni,
(1.
In
1.
2 for nn''
^N read
in^c>j
3) for Tiprnni
6) for
i^mi
pi
for
read
[lJ]^>ni
Dn[^v] in^c:
^3
for
'3,
pin^JI
read pIDJI,
(1.
9)
nn^^N [n^]t^
for 1^3
read Dn^
(1.
rn]^tJ'[jJ
for ^NIp^N read TNrp^N,(l. 10)

for
read
(1.
''^3,
ri)
omit the second ps',
n^lD read
^si? i-j-ji
[ijni'ia,
12) for ^3D pin^sn read ^SD [nrn] pnân, for
4l8

HD read
[nNirvJ']
no
'J1
'2^ TC'Ji,
(1.
13) for
i:nm
read [D]im,
(1-
for '131 -^ for
W 'IN
read
':\i^
'" ^0' '3 N^ "IN, [bv] "liy I"'

? ?
.
14)
mp3 read
[ni]pj[l],
for "I3N only

(1.
">
N can be read,
for
miyi
D'ipD read [o'ljpo
'i[3^'m],
i5)forn'Ti.nD read 2110,
for jprn
read in[3n], read 31 read
(1.
16) for nXDIsh^vS* read -|N'33^X US', for
31 .101
for 15^X3
[iJDi, for i3^;î:u^

(1.
nipjm read H'sks
"i3N 2)p:r],
i:j'N3,
17) for {1r\)iV)

(1.
ba ':3-hm only ....

[piirn
(1.
''J3'^l"']'"'^
can
be safely read,
18) for (nvinn) supply
bn] to
fill
up the
p''l'in
space, for iniD read m^, for blMi read
^31S*,
19) for N*"i[p.]

..
read NIlTIJ read

for
[^'>
P^-i]'^r],
for [I'^Jlj?
.
read
. .
Dnij:j>, (1.
20) for
.7^2^ nîni
D''Nt:nn,
"ija^ nh[l3], for 1X3

.
''NUinn read niN3 [njni]

3inD
qs*
D^D
^ read
for
d{3^*]c3,
for
read
(1.
flNI,
(1.
21) for
DM
read
i3:i,
HM
'31
(in3) read
n^n[p|n3,
22) after
pX3,
.
1130^
2^) for
130* i6,
supply [iC'3], for HNII DIN PN3 read [njsil
C'-'N
. .
(1.
Nin read
(1.
mi?l, for
(?)
DniN
DO''
S'i?
read D^
13
niN
(1.
24) for sn"- X^

13n3''
(?)
Dnn^'J^ read 1X13[*]

. . .
X^ DD^XC',
,
25) for
(1.
.... Q"'3n3
for
read 1
.
L"
ni31 n^X31
D'3n3 [l3]n3%
D''13]l3,
(1.
26)
...1313 read
[^]^^V
nnMH
rhii[n
27) for
(1.
MyJlt^n read iyoc*n,

for
is
(1.
28) for TiOC' 1331

for ID]}" read
(1.
read *nn[3 ll331,

11oy\
(1.
29)
pmnn^
read
pmnnh,
30) the
first
bn
vocalized b^, for d:3^ read 0133^,

n^J^^t;',
(1.
31) for
{1)^n
xh
nî^tr
read [nrr^jn xbi
32) for i3Xi .... read i:x

(1.
i[3"']n^L^'^] ''"^>
. .
after P37 several letters are missing,
33) for ^31

"^bnp,
Dl^^^l
pIV
read
read
^31
"^[^]1DD
for
Dl^kTl,
"|>1\
for
(1.
7^np read
for ^131^31
"ni3iiy31,
n' read
34) read fjlT-OO

t^"
[*]oc;'0
|
3in3^ i'xtrx
|nvin].
The margin
1
reads as follows
^niyin
|yo^
nnillb
mvo
[]v]ob)
D31
| |
X'^'Vl
|
xh
j
DHo inx nx
I
x^
'3
j
nvn
|
[i
'nn3
loc*
[>Jnvp ixoi5[i]
'01
>*^y
I
px3i
31
I |
iy xim 1213
^nnpb ab
j
^nnion
31 [1
^xi
I
i3nn
"Z'l^]
-So
^x ['n3n3]
|
1331 *nii
nop3i >*n3
|
v'i-
jn3n nîQx
is
31 10 i3nn ^x
[D]>3n3o loip
D3 ^xiol"
Set, e.g..
.111,1'
'-\)
5|-DO
an uncle from the maternal side in contrast to

lo
:
HI.
Ibn Ezra to
Amos 6.
1S1D01 V3X *nx 1111 *3
10X
::"'"'1ip
10X 'nx.
"*
Sahlan's maternal uncle was a scholar by
name Saadya
b.
Epliraim, as will be
shown elsewhere.
strokes indicate the lines of the margin.
The perpendicular
NOTE ON SOLOMON
no
j
B.
JUDAH -MANN
|
419
3-1
|
bn'i
[vc']
I
|
apy^
m
|
id
irns* [^xi]
niry^
Itr'N*
|
^nppi c'xi nD[^]

|
m::'^^
-jm [oj^nvi
I
dsdn
|
oipon nn^ bai
mnnn
^wn^
for
no an
the
.... noijty
mk*^ 3pyi
IC^yn
DDn''^^*"'1.
In the addition
between
11.
27-8 read
nnann
after
!
pi.
So much
correctness of Dr. Marmorstein's copy
As
a
regards
the
subject-matter
of the
letter,
it
deals with
communal
dispute between Rabbinites
and
Karaites.
(Several
will
other fragments have a bearing on this episode.

printed in another connexion.)
jurisdiction of the former.
They
be
The
in
latter
used
to
be under the
But
1024 the Caliph issued a decree
that independence in religious matters be granted to each sect.
The commander-in-chief
edict also in
his
in Syria
was ordered to carry out

affairs
this
province.
From 1024-g
and
of
this
were chaotic
there owing to the rebelHon,
Act of Tolerance could not

it
be carried out.
effect.
But with the restoration of order

is
began
to
take
(This
summary
my
construction of the data to be
given elsewhere.)
Now
certain scholars of the Palestine school

translates
{nan,
taken
Dr. Marmorstein
'partners'!)
seem
to
have
contravened in Ramlah
to
this
Government
Act, were arrested
and
an
Damascus, where the commander-in-chief ad-Dizbiri

'Adi
b.
probably resided then.
Menasse
city.
(b.
al-Kzaz) was
important Jeivish Katib in this

official capacity,
No
doubt acting in an
he informed the prisoners that they would be
released on condition that they took an oath by
God and
came
the
Caliph no more to use the
title
Haber, and never again to hold
any communal
other
office in Palestine.
The
to
Karaites
in with in the
demands
in
that a separate
shop be assigned to them

sold
Jewish bazaar where meat be
them which was not
examined
the
Rabbinic way (npna), that they should be

festival
allowed to trade on the
days fixed by the Rabbinites,

b.
and other
Rabbinites
instances.
Solomon
central
Judah
writes to Sahlan
to
obtain influential support in Fustat (Cairo) for the cause of the

;
let
the
government be induced
in their
to
send
word
to
Ramlah and Damascus

to
favour.
The Gaon
It
energetically appealed
other influential Jews
in Fustat.
should be added that ultimately the Rabbinites had the better
VOL. IX.
E e
420

The whole
is
of their opponents.
here.
subject cannot be fully discussed

letter
But one thing
beyond doubt, that our
has no
bearing whatever on the rebellion of 1024-9.

But, writes Dr. Marniorstein
(p. 23),
^
If there were
the slightest
doubt about the dating of the letters, one other fragment shows undeniably " that the revolution took place in the time of Solomon,
and furthermore
those countries
'.
that
it
liad
a very sad influence on the Jews in

this.
Nobody
tell
denies
There are some Genizah

during the rebellion.
fragments which
of the Jews
in
us a good deal about the terrible sufferings
Jerusalem and Ramlah

T.-S.,
But the
fragment
13
J.
20^^,
which Dr.
Marmorstein
adduces as evidence (note 32), has nothing whatever to do with

this crisis.
He
has discovered therein a tribal prince PTT^N
\1 ^\>'y
and
of transliteration the
Banu Guriah (rnV33 ''J3). Thus by some strange way Banu Jarrah (above, p. 417) become in MS. Banu Gariah, Banu Guriah, mvnj in. But the MS. reads (I. 15) aV^ÎI ^yy (vocalized in the original !). Thus .... a letter from
also the
:
'
Mukhtar the Arab, and he

prince
said
that
my
son Jabarah
sent
'
(Another fragment has expressly "iSD^D

*
'
mK33.)
As
for the
"'P3'',
had Dr. Marmorstein considered the
letter,
dated
She-
Kislev (i) 340 Sel. (=1028), from Alexandria to
Ephraim
b.
marya {JQR., XIX, 250-4), he would have found that the 'noble' His relatives and ''P3"' plied the honourable trade of slave-dealer.
trade-fellows were
Mukhtar (mentioned
his son Jabarah.
'\n
JQR.,
I.
c,
and
in
our
fragment,
in
1.
r)
and
Saracen pirates infested
those
days the
eastern
Mediterranean,
at
and boatloads of
the
captives
from Byzantium were landed
Egyptian ports,
chiefly Alexandria.
Several other Genizah fragments of this time
mention Jewish captives from Byzantium

co-religionists
whom
letter
their
Egyptian
is
had
to ransom.
It
And
our
here
one of
these fragments.
probably does not emanate from Alexandria,
where the most representative Jew then was Netaneel Hakkohen

b. El'azar,
but from some other Egyptian port, probably Damietta.
Nathan Hakkohen, negotiates with the captors about the ransom of the Jews. Some of the captives were also sent
elder,
An
" Tlic
italics
are mine.
NOTE ON SOLOMON
to
is
B.
JUDAH
MANN
42I
(There
Barkah
(1.
16), farther
west on the North-African coast.
no ground whatever
for identifying this

!)
Nathan Hakkohen with

mentioned
in
a Nathan "I3nn (no

b.
Kohen
in Fustat,
b.
Solomon
Juda's
letter
to
Ephraim
Shemarya, Saadyana, XLI, as
Dr. Marmorstein does.)
In conclusion, the following corrected readings of the fragment

are given here.
It
is
torn across
the
whole right-hand
side.
Thus
dots,
indicating missing letters, should be placed at the

line.
beginning of each
estimated from
1.
The
In
1.
length
of a whole
line
lb,
can be
11.
for nnpl^
D''i:''i?i,
read nnp
(1.
for
pni2N
for
(1.
read ptT'aN,
[C'paJl],
(1.
3) for
D^'iJyi
read
(1.
4) for n[? :nn] supply
for
njjy read
r\):v\
6) for iJâ^Jni read liS^m,

(1.
DV
9)
read DV3, for nb'b read

for inpi? read inpi, for
(1.
(1.
nb^bn,
8) for nyc>) read n)^,

(1.
ph
read
IT,
l^.?!,
10) for i:3n3 read 1J3[k']i,

TV',
12) before
'\:^:pib
read
for '^n^
(1.
read
for
^"Dpn read C'Hpn,

'jn
13) for [D]nb read
rh)i[n'],
15) for
mvn:
read
mWi
muy
'"22,
(1.
17) before nns* read p,
(1.
18) for
,.,,n read [nnjnx,

(1.
for
nND2 read nND3,

mi2y,
(1.
(1.
for (?)n-i::i^n
read nmtrn,
19) for
read
20) read Dnibn[^]

D"l"i2y
D[b''^"'i] n'-ri,
1.
for
nnayn read onnyn,
21) before
is
read [ijrnr^ni, of
22 only the last word
[dJhvX
preserved.
The moral
for themselves.
of the above strictures
is
obvious.
The
facts
speak
Needless to
say, history
worthy of the
name
cannot be reconstrued by such a method.
Jacob Mann.
London.
e 3
RECENT BIBLICAL LITERATURE

Alttestajnentliche
Shtdien
Rudolf Kittel
zum
60.
Geburtstag
dargebracht von A. Alt, G. Beer, F. Bohl, G.

J.
Herrmann,
G. Holscher,
PuuKKO, W, Rothstein, C. Steuernagel, Y. Wilke.

F.
vofji
Dalman, M. Lohr, O. Procksch, E. Sellin, W. Staerk,

zur
IVissenschaft
{Beiirixge
Alten Testament, herausgegeben von

13.)
Rudolf Kittel,
Heft
1913.
Leipzig:
J.
C. Hinrichs'sche BuCHHANDLUxr;,
pp. 262.
Among
Rudolf
influential.
the younger generation of Bible critics in Germany,
Kittel
stands
out as
one of the foremost and most

in
He made
Having
himself conspicuous
every
field
of
biblical research, but especially in textual criticism of the
Old
Testament.
of the
started with a reconstruction of the history
Hebrews
{Geschichte
der Hebrder,
1888-92),
he soon
perceived that the primary need
for biblical scholars
everywhere
results
was a new edition of the Hebrew Bible summarizing the

of century-old textual criticism.
After years of painstaking labour
such an edition was accomplished by a group of trustworthy

scholars under his leadership,
and though not every one would
subscribe to
still
all
the emendations introduced in the foot-notes,
every student must feel indebted for this great service which
considerably alleviates his

Kittel
is
burden and minimizes
his
labour.
also
prominent as an exegete, having written excellent
commentaries on Kings, Chronicles, and Psalms.
But even
more than
in
writing he exercised a great influence as teacher
ex cathedra, having raised a group of gifted young scholars around
him who pursued

It is
his
method with the same

this
gratifying results.
these scholars who, in recognition of their master's .splendid
services,
brought forth
admirable volume of essays, written
in
the
strict scientific style
of their teacher.
423
424

The
collection opens with
'
Israels
Gaue unter Salomo
'
by
Albrecht Alt.
The
author deals with the important geographical

in
i
and topographical passage
Kings
4,
7-19, discussing ver. 10,
particularly the obscure Soko,
which hitherto had been identified
as esh-Shnvcke found both in the southern mountains
and
in the
western
hills
of Judea.
Showing the
infeasibility
of either of
these identifications he proposes a third locality by that name,

a village Shuiveke, situated
on the western edge of the Samaritan
mountains, overlooking from the north the entrance of the great

valley of
Ndbhis
into the plain

list
list
of the coast.
Its antiquity is
attested from the well-known
of Palestinian cities conquered

of high-priests in the Samaritan
by Thutmosis III
domicile of the
from the
chronicle published by Neubauer, where

last high-priest
;
Soko
is
named
as the
and
also from a crusader's docu-
ment of the year 1253 where the place appears asCasale Socque. The study of literary elements in the Bible, championed by
Budde and Gunkel,

As an
is
now
very fascinating and quite fashionable.
instance, G. Beer ('Zur israelitisch-jiidischen Briefliteratur')
deals with epistolography

in pre-exilic times,
among the Hebrews. He traces

it
its
origin
when
was largely shaped
after
Babylonian
models
its
development
in post-exilic days,
finally,
when the Persians

its
were the predominant element; and,

in
popularization
the
Graeco-Roman
period, when, alongside of the ordinary
business letter, the learned epistle
makes
als
its
appearance.
Franz Bohl contributes
'
N~l3, bara,
Terminus der Welt',
schopfung im alttestamentlichen Sprachgebrauch

of
which
is
part
a contemplated work
on the age and development of the
Old Testament idea of

shades of meaning,
creation.
The
author furnishes here a

its
thorough and exhaustive study of the word bara,

its
history
and
subjective
and objective
relations,
and the
ex nihilo implication.
G. Daln)an discusses the species of flour

(
in the
Old Testament
the current
as
Die Mehlarten im Alten Testament').
He
finds
translation of
this implies
nop
'flour'
and
n^JD
'fine
flour' misleading,
n7D
to be thinner than nop.
As a matter
of
fact,
after
a comparison of talmudic and
rabbinic
passages on the
REIDER
among
that
425
the the
subject and a study of the process of flour production
Beduins
in
Palestine,
he
arrives
at
is
the
conclusion
opposite holds true,
viz.
that
TVD and
really fine
groats derived
riDp.
from the kernel of the wheat and therefore thicker than
Owing
to its fatness, sweetness,

is
purity,
it is
the costliest kind

tarts.
of flour in the Orient and
used mostly for fancy cakes and

of
Ezechielstudioi,
in Ezekiel
('
Johannes
Herrmann, author
offers
an
exhaustive study on the divine
names
Die Gottes-
namen im
Ezechieltexte').
From
nin""
'">
statistical
is
data he establishes
the fact that the
compound
"'J^N
used almost exclusively
with the introductory formula

''
'n "IDN na, the closing formula

;
'^ DNJ, or in addressing the

in all other cases.
Almighty by name
while niH'
is
used
He
also tries to justify this process from
internal evidence.
In the matter of numerous discrepancies in
the Septuagint, he believes in the genuineness of the masoretic

as against the
Greek
text.
Incidentally he arrives at the con-
clusion
different
that
the
Septuagint
version
of Ezekiel
in
is
is
by three
supported
hands (1-27, 28-39, 40-48),

scholars.
('
which he
by other Septuagint
Gustav Holscher
tentums
')
Zum
Ursprung des
:
israelitischen
Prophe-
puts up the query
Is
.'
prophecy
fails
in Israel of ancient
Hebrew
or
Canaanite origin
He
to
find
the
ecstatic
manifestation of prophecy in the desert,
among
the pre-Islamic
is
Beduins, or
it
among any
other Semitic tribes, but
able to trace
to Syria
it.
and Asia Minor, whence he maintains the Semites bor-
rowed
He shows that pure
Semitism was
free
from vaticination,
it
while the heathen tribes of Asia Minor possessed
in a
prepon-
derating degree and transmitted
it
to the
whole inhabited globe.

is
Max Lohr
('Beitrage zur Jesaiakritik')
one of those who pin
their faith to the
modern
all
metrical theory,
and
for that
purpose
have recourse to
other versions.
kinds of readings in the Septuagint and

tries
He
to reconstruct
29. 1-7.
Isaiah,
ch.
17.
i-ii;
28. 1-4, 7-13, 14-22,
23-29;
But the reconstruction

violent emendations andi
in this case spells destruction.
excisions are committed in the

result
Many name
of the
Kinah metre, the

all
being an academic Hebrew text having
the ear-marks
426

fervour
of European logic but lacking the characteristic
and
charm
of the great rhetorician.
O. Procksch ('Die letzten Worte

antiquity
Davids')
champions the
Sam.
23. 1-7),
and
originality of David's
last
words
set
(2
which modern commentators are prone to
down
as post-exilic
on a par with Psalms. He leans towards the view of Klostermann and Gressmann, who consider it one of the oldest lyric poems in the Bible, dating back to the Davidic age. In his
comments on
A. F.
the text the author introduces emendations, but

fail
these, while improving the metre,
to
improve the
style.
')
Puukko CJeremias
Stellung
zum Deuteronomium
of
claims that Jeremiah's attitude to the

passive at
first
Book
Deuteronomy was
This
although already
and then became decidedly antagonistic.
explains the otherwise strange
phenomenon
that,
a prophet during the revival of King Josiah, he kept aloof from

the movement, because concentration
and regulation of the

cult
cult
constituted a mere compromise hardly in agreement with

lofty principle of
his
abandonment of the
and the improvement
of the heart.
J.
Wilhelm Rothstein
Sam.
institutes a rhythmological investigation

i.
of David's dirges (2
19
ff.
and
3.
33
f.).
The
result
may
be imagined when we
consider that these rock-ribbed verses have
to stand muster before the author
who
insists
on forcing them
:
into
the
Procrustean
suits the
bed
of
an
in,
immutable 4
while the rest
scheme.
discarded
Whatever
scheme goes
is
as spurious
and ungenuine.
is
Surely,
Eduard
Sievers has
done
a great service, but this
more than balanced by the harm

text,
and mischief of the
ultra-radical critics of the masoretic

se.
who
are bent
upon destruction per

('
E. Sellin
Das
î^S),
Zelt
Jahwes
')
argues that the tent of
tht-
covenant (njDO
though proved by Wellhausen to be unhisstill
torical in the Priestly (.'ode,
was an
historical fact during the

it
migration of the Jews in the wilderness, where

place of God's revelation.
served as the
in
Moreover, such a tent was found
Palestine in pre-Solomonic days, though not with the functions
ascribed to
it
by P.
REIDER
427
Willy Staerk, in 'Ein Hauptproblem der hebraischen Metrik',

takes Rothstein to task for a law laid hebraischen
lyric
down
in his Grundziige des
Rhythmus
(1909), to the effect that 'all verses of a

itself
poem forming
'.
a unit in
follow the
same rhythmic
opened
scheme
He
insists,
and
rightfully so, that this principle
the flood-gate of wilful emendation and arbitrary criticism of the
masoretic text of the Bible, whole verses and passages being
swept away because they do not
fit
this self-constituted
scheme.
He
a
is
of the opinion that mixed rather than uniform metres are
the rule in early
Hebrew
lyrics,
and
to prove this
he analyses
number
of such compositions, both short and long.
What
'The
to
results are
mixed metres, even and uneven,

&c.).
in
various orders
(2:2, 2:3, 3:3, 3:4,
This
is
sound
let
criticism.
mountain
mountain.'
will
not go
to
Mahomet,
which
Mahomet go
the
Any
metrical system that lays claim to recognition

to the text
fit
must be adapted
it
aims
to elucidate, but never
should the text be cut to
a hypothetical metre.
(i
The prophecy on
by modern
Steuernagel
critics
('
Eli's
progeny
Sam.
2.
27-36)
is
considered
Carl
an insertion by a deuteronomistic hand.

iiber
Die Weissagung
atomic
die Eliden
'),
through an
anatomic (or
tories of
shall I say
?) analysis
fostered in the labora-
Wellhausen, wants to prove that

is
this
passage lacks unity

:
and hence
the product of several hands
vers.
27-34, with
the exception of a few phrases due to a later editor, were

in the eighth or the
composed
end of the ninth century, while 35-6 are
deuteronomistic.
verses
literary
Indeed,
how
is it
possible that a passage of ten
should belong to one

criticism of
man ?
Such
is
the destructive the Occidental
some
scholars.
How
little
mind understands
Fritz
the literary proclivities of an Oriental people
Wilke ('Das Skythenproblem im Jeremiabuch ') subjects
the Scythian problem to a
considerable learning that the

to the wild Scythians
new investigation. He argues enemy from the North cannot
with
refer
who, according to good historical authority
(Herodotus
is
not reliable), just brushed through the coast of
Palestine but never entered the mainland.

raries,
Like his contempo-
Zephaniah,
Habakkuk, and
Ezekiel,
Jeremiah has
in
428

implacable
mind the
Chaldeans who were
to
play
such
an
important part in the shaping of the future destiny of the Jewish people. wMTa fm. The scientific facts of to-day are the exploded
fallacies of
to-morrow.
Is tradition
going to be restored
Jêden
tmd Aufsaize von D. Hermann Gunkel.

I913.
Gottingen:
VaNDENHOECK & RUPRECHT,

These
essays,
pp. viii+192.
dedicated to the Collegium
Academicum
of
the University of Christiania for the bestowal of the degree of
Doctor of Theology, have been collected from various German

periodicals where they appeared during the last decade.
Con-
sidering their excellent tenor
and
sterling value
it
is
no small
merit to have resuscitated them from the dusty heap of ephemeral
and very often inaccessible magazines, where they escaped observation
and even casual
attention.
The purpose
of the author in
tells
presenting them in a permanent form was, as he

preface, to emphasize
us in the
once more his constructionist attitude with
regard to
modern
biblical criticism.
As
is
known, the followers

outdo
their masters
of
in
Kuenen and Wellhausen endeavoured
to
over-minute analysis and destructive criticism of the text of the
Scriptures, establishing a radical school of

sole
Higher Criticism whose
purpose
was to multiply sources ad infinitum and thus

text.
accomplish the dehistorization of the
The
fact that quite
often they operated with tools that were
more than questionable
did not matter
much
to them, as long as they could tear
down
and
another brick from the ancient edifice.
Naturally, every safe
sane student of the

destructive school
disrepute.
school,
is
liible
revolted against this
negative and
of criticism,
and
its
spokesmen came into

this
Gunkel, who belongs to the moderate wing of
on the
ilefensive trying to parry the attack.
of the most
brilliant
Old Testament
critics
As one he knows how to
mitigate the adverse judgement by declaring his disinterestedness
'

in his scientific research.
REIDER
429
His textual and comparative studies
are not an end per
se
the latter aim at a reconstruction of the
history of religion, the former have as their object
an underEeli-
standing of the history of biblical literature.

gionsgeschichte
These two
in
and
Literaiurgeschichte
is
go
hand
hand and
are
complementary. Gunkel
to build
their
sponsor and he has endeavoured

Certainly such a policy,
them upon a
is
rational basis.
the author claims,
not destructive but exceedingly constructive.
The
collection opens with
an oration on Bernhard Stade,
delivered on the occasion of the presentation of Stade's picture

to the Theological Faculty at Giessen
on
May
8,
1908.
Only
a student of Stade
who
lived in the
immediate propinquity of the

description and
master could offer such an

characterization of the
era in biblical research
intimate
minute
man who
stood at the threshold of a

effort
new
and by sheer
leaders.
managed
to
become
one of
its
most prominent
Alongside of Wellhausen he
began to reconstruct the history and religion of the people of

Israel,
and
finally
laid
down
his results in his
Geschichte des
Volkes Israel
and
Biblische Theologie des Allen Testaments.
In
contrast to the sage of Gottingen, his forte lay in synthesis rather
than analysis, in collective pictures rather than individual delineations.
Gunkel describes him
as a great fighter willing to stake
everything on the altar of his convictions, as a powerful polemist
brooking no compromise, as a theologian who
fails
to
see in
science a deterrent to religion, as a patriot Avho sees an advance-
ment of the
State in the progress of the Church.
Perhaps one of
his greatest merits lay in the establishment of the Zeitschrift

die Alttestamentliche
all
fur
JVissenschaft,
under whose banner

is
still
rallied
the
new
forces
and whose influence

its
alive to-day, long
after the
demise of
eminent founder.
In 'Ziele und Methoden der Erklarung des Alten Testaments
Gunkel outlines the essence of
biblical exegesis,
its
aim, and the
means by which
write a
this
aim
is
to
be attained.
It is
an interesting
to
essay and should be read by every neophite
who undertakes
commentary on the
criticus
Bible.
The
requirements are severe,

Besides
and the apparatus
grows to great proportions.
430

knowledge of
political history
textual criticism, a
and archaeology,
of like
a religious frame of mind, and
many
other requisites
nature, one must bring along an aesthetic appreciation of the
context
and a
species, narrative
power of discrimination between the various and poetical, in Jewish literature. Only in this
evidenced from
In this age of
the
wise can one produce a meritorious and lasting piece of work.
That Gunkel
his
is
not only preaching to others
is
eminently successful commentary on Genesis.

it
comparative studies
text,
is
no longer enough
it
to
know
Hebrew
we must compare
to
contemporary
If
literary
documents
among neighbouring
nations.
our embryonic exegetes would
only follow Gunkel's advice we would be spared
many
insipid
and jejune commentaries.
One of Gunkel's
greatest efforts
was by way of advocating a new

viz.
discipline in the study of the

Israelitic literature, in the
Old Testament,
that
a history of
history
same sense
we understand a
of English or
scholars,
German
literature.
Among modern Old Testament

first
Graf Baudissin was the
to point out the necessity
for historians of Israelitic-Jewish literature to differentiate
between
various species and styles of writing {Eitileitujig in die BUcher des
Alien
Testaments).
In
this
sense
Budde
to
(Geschichte
der
alt-
htbrdischen
literary
Literaiur)
in
endeavoured
determine the
various
strata
the Bible.
But Gunkel made
this the pivot

it
of his
manifold activities and endeavoured to expound

P'or
'
on
more than one occasion.

Israeiitische Literatur.
full
statement,
cp.
his
Die
a
His essay Die Grundprobleme der

'
israeli-
tischen Literaturgeschichte
outlines
the
First
essentials
of such
comprehensive history of
l)rose
literature.
comes a
division into
and
poetry, then
a subdivision
of these
headings, and
treat-
within each category the material treated
and the form of
ment have
is
to
be determined.
Another important consideration

in oral or written circulation,
whether a certain section was

it
and
whether
case
was anonymous or credited to an author.

find out the personal
In the
latter
we must
and other
characteristics of
the author.
Finally,
we must
institute
a comparison with related
sjjccies in the literatures of foreign countries.
RECENT BIBLICAL LITERATURP:

Gunkel
essays
(pp. 65
latter is
offers
REIDER
analysis
in
ff.),
43 I
his
some specimens of such an

narrative
(pp. 93
on
ff.),
'
the
Samson
(pp.
ff.).
38
the
Ruth
with
idyl
and the Psalms
Closely related to the

',
Die Endhoffnung der Psalmisten
dealing
the
eschatological element in Psalms.
'Agyptische Parallelen
zum Alten Testament' and 'Agyptische

two related
comparaespecially
Dankheder' seek
literatures.
to establish a basis for parallels in the
It is interesting to
note that in the field of
tive
literature
Gunkel
is
quite conservative.
This
is
marked
in his sceptic attitude to Jensen's sensational
Gilgameschit
Epos
all
in der
Weltliteratiir (pp.
149
ff.).
He condemns
with
as
with
a
the emphasis at
is
his
command and
trenchant
sarcasm as
within the boundaries of decorum.
Like Eduard
Meyer, he brands these excrescences of Pan-Babylonism as 'wild

phantasies
',
since
they are not based on a sound method of

it
comparison.
According to Gunkel,
is
not enough to establish
the degree of similarity between two events in order to prove

their interdependence, but
we must
If
also
determine the degree
of dissimilarity
to see
between them, and then weigh the two degrees

stronger.
which
is
Jensen would have applied such
a test most of his phantastic theories would have been nipped in

the bud.
is
On
the whole, Gunkel, the theologian and Hebraist,
very jealous of the irresponsible interference of Assyriologists

their
and
meddling with the Bible.
To
judge the Old Testament,

:
he maintains, one must know something more than cuneiform
one must have a deep insight into the various books

be able to gauge
'
in
order to
their
mode
'
of speech and thought.

literary
Die Oden Salomos deals with certain
and
historical
aspects of the newly discovered

finds that
it is
Odes of Solomon.
The
author
in
a product of the synchretistic-gnostic
movement
20,
the early days of Christianity (about 150).

tion
in
He
31,
offers a transla-
and
literary analysis
of odes
24,
42,
39,
29, 36,
order to
show the general trend of thought manifested
in
them.
'
432
The Culture of Ancient Israel. By Carl Heinrich Cornill, Professor of Old Testament History in the University of
Halle.
pp.
Chicago:
The Open Court Publishing
Co., 1914.
iv+ 167
Types.
12 plates.
Hebrew
Studies in
Hebrew
Life
and Thought.
M.A., D.D.
Rev. F. R.
Montgomery Hitchcock,
pp. 313.
By the London
Franxis Griffiths, 1913.

It
is
not a
new book by
the gifted
Old Testament scholar
that the
Open
Court Publishing Co. presents to us, but rather
a collection of independent essays that appeared at various times
and on various occasions.

of Israel
',
The
first,
entitled
'
Rise of the People

traces in sharp
and
translated by A.
H. Gunlogsen,
and
bold outlines the origin and development of the people of Israel
from Abraham to David, as related
in
the Octateuch, with the
modifications, of course, of the doctrine of the Higher Critics.
The
second, with the caption
'
Moses, the Founder of Mono-
theistic Religion',
and rendered
into English
by Lydia G. Robinson,
gives an excellent character-sketch of the great law-giver
who shaped
Israel
the destiny of Israel and gave
them
true
and unalloyed monotheism.
The
and
third,
headed 'The Education of Children in Ancient
translated by
W. H.
Carruth, offers a psychological insight into
the pedagogical
methods of the ancient Hebrew.
The
fourth,
"Music
is
in the
Old Testament' (translated by Lydia G. Robinson)

this
an interesting exposition of
popular and yet abstruse
subject of the Bible.
As
further illustrations, twelve plates with
musical instruments are added at the end of the book.
The
fifth
and
last essay,
'
The Psalms
in Universal Literature
'
(translated
by W. H. Carruth), furnishes various reasons why the Psalms

belong to mankind as a whole, constituting part and parcel of
universal literature.
scholar,
In these essays, Cornill, the great textual

a
appears
as
popular writer
style is
on some
intricate
his
Old
Testament subjects.
unimpeachable.
His
is
charming and
treatment
He
an adept
in presenting old things in a

is
new and
interesting light,
and with him one
sure to glean

some new information on
well-nigh exhausted.
REIDER
deemed
433
heretofore
subjects which were
The Rev. Montgomery Hitchcock

ment
is
discusses the leading types
of the Old Testament and their lessons to mankind.

subjective, coloured with a Christian pigment.
His
treat-
Indeed,
considering the extent of the moralizing element, the essays might
be suspected as being a
series of homilies
and sermons such
as
are preached in churches for the guidance of the congregants.
At
least the style

it
is
homiletic.
Nevertheless, the
author con-
siders
incumbent upon himself

of the
its
to give in the preface a brief
exposition
to
documentary theory of the Pentateuch and
combat
latter-day excrescences.
He
also takes a fling at
the radical Encyclopedia Biblica
and the Pan-Babylonian school

treating
of
Winckler
and
Jensen.
In
of
the
Psalter
he
advocates the excision of the vindictive type of the psalms

also those of a purely local
and
dis-
and temporary
interest.
Two
courses
on the Ideal Servant and the Messianic Type have
special application to Jesus of Nazareth.
Herod^s Temple,
Structure.
its
New
Testament Associations and
its
:
Actual
By W. Shaw Caldecott.
pp. xv
London
Charles
H. Kelly [1913].
+ 395.
Outline Lectuve on Herod'' s Temple of the
New
Testament.
By
W. Shaw Caldecott.
Model of
[1913].
With Photograph of the Author's
the
Temple.
London
Charles H. Kelly
pp. 16.
the Throne.
The Cherubim and
By A. Stacy Watson.
pp. vi -1-115.
London
Morgan &
Scott, Ltd., 191 3.
Mr. Caldecott's volume on Herod's temple concludes the cycle on Jewish temples to which the author has devoted ten
years of his
life.
Like
its
predecessors i^The Tabernacle^ Solomon's

it
Temple, The Seco?id Temple in Jerusalem)
deals not only with
the structure but also with the history of the edifice.
In fact
434

first
the latter occupies the
half of the
book and almost over-
shadows the former, so that one cannot escape the suspicion that the New Testament associations overpowered the author's
sense of orientation and
is
architectural bearing.
This suspicion
confirmed by a close examination, which shows the treatment be subjective rather than objective.
to
The
point
of view
is
Christian throughout
else
and
is
emphasized beyond measure.
What
state-
can be said of a book which, having set out to give an exact
description of Herod's temple, winds
up with the cryptic

Altar,
ment
and
that
'
Jesus the Christ

'
is
at
once Temple and
Priest
Sacrifice
Moreover, allusions are made here and there to
'pharisaic bigotry'
and darts are hurled

is
at the
Rabbis of the
Talmud.
temple
Very illuminating
the attitude of the author to the

last
Mishna Aliddoth dealing with the measurements of the

:
he impugns
for
its
accuracy and trustworthiness, yet draws
upon
it
his
measurements.
His main source
is,
of course,
Josephus.
temple.
who is very painstaking in his Where Josephus and Middoth
descriptions of Herod's
conflict the author tries
all
to force a
compromise between the two, leaning

In the reconstruction of
the time to
the side of Josephus.
this
magnificent
building Mr. Caldecott
makes use of a threefold

had three
cubit.
From
a study of the metrology of the Bible he arrives at the conclusion

that the biblical cubit
distinct lengths,
each having
courts
a specific application. a cubit of a foot of a foot and a
He
therefore gives to the

;
Temple
and a
fifth
;
half
to the
Temple
buildings a cubit
to the golden furniture of the Sanctuary
a sacred cubit of nine-tenths of a foot.

arbitrary
still
need hardly be
It
is
told.
That this scheme is quite Our knowledge of the cubit is

it
uncertain.
not impossible that

;
varied in length at
still
different
times and with different objects

it.
but we
lack the
means
to determine
No wonder
his
plan looks more like
a square, while,
us,
from
all
accounts that
have come down to

Altogether the
Ezekiel's
we expect
cither a trapezium or trapezoid.

scientific
treatment
lacks
precision.
Thus
temple,
considered by
is
many
scholars as a matter of prophetic imagination,
construed as a reality and often confused with the second or

Zerubbabel's
temple.
REIDER
435
An
appendix
at the
end of the book
contains an English translation of the Mishna IMiddoth reprinted
by permission of the Palestine Exploration Fund from the volume on Jerusalem. The translation is by Bishop Barclay, corrected by Dr. Chaplin from a comparison of various Hebrew texts.
Mr. Caldecott introduces some insignificant variants, and also
adds by way of notes extracts from the commentary of Rabbi
Obadiah of Bertinoro.
notes are rarely correct.
plans,
The Hebrew words reproduced in Of great assistance are the two
these
large
one of Mount Moriah and another of Herod's Temple,,
inserted in a pocket of the cover.
The
Outline Lecture
is
a resume of the larger work, giving
the most essential features of the great building and a few
New
Testament
is
associations.
The
photograph, very well executed,
made from
London.
a model on view at the publisher's book saloon
in
Mr. Watson's book on the Cherubim belongs

of fancy.
It is true
to the realm
the author
makes an attempt
to define this
enigmatic word, but he loses himself in a labyrinth of mystical
arguments and esoteric doctrines from which he

extricate himself.
is
unable to
An
lntroductio7i
to the
Old Testament, chronologically arranged.

Ph.D., D.D., Professor of
By Harlan Creelman,
Language and
Literature,
Hebrew Auburn Theological Seminary.

pp.
With a foreword by Frank Knight Sanders, Ph.D., D.D.
New York: The Macmillan Company, 191 7.

The Old Testament.
Library, No. 3.)
xxxiv+383.
By Chilperic Edwards. (The Inquirer's London Watts & Co., 19 13. pp. vi+ 154.
:
The Literature of the Old Testament.

Knowledge).
pp. 256.
By George Foot Moore, Harvard University (The Home University Library of Modern
New York
By
Henry Holt &
Co. [1913].
The Bible of To-day.
the Rev.
Alban Blakiston, M.A.

xvi
Cambridge:
at the
University Press, 1914. pp.
+ 240.
VOL.
IX.
F r
436
Biblisches

Handbuchfurhbhere
Lehranstalteii.
Von H. Herkenne,
Dr. theol., Privatdozent an der Universitat zu Bonn,
K. Massierer, Religions- und Oberlehrer
am
:
und Oberlyzeum zu
Biblische Texte.
Crefeld.
Erster Teil
und Lyzeum Bibelkunde und

Stadt.
Bibelkunde bearbeitet von K. Massierer,
Biblische Texte bearbeitet von Dr.
H. Herkenne.
pp. vii+ 165.
F.
Bonn
Verlag von Peter Hanstein, 19 14.
The Bible
its
Origin and Authority.

pp.
By W.
Lofthouse, M. A.
London: Robert Cullev.

The Making of
the
vi 4- 151.
Old Testament.
M. A. (Manuals
The Making of the
for Christian Thinkers).
By William F. Lofthouse, London: Charles
H. Kelly [1915].
Bible.
pp. 144.
By Samuel M. Vernon.
pp. 191.
New York
The Abingdon
Press [1916].
Bible Books Outlined.

Analysis, Synopsis,
Bible.
By Arthur Emerson Harris.

Philadelphia
An
C.
and Diagram covering each book of the

:
Vol.
Old Testament.
The John
Winston Company [191 6].

Introductions to the Bible have
scholars.
pp. 140.
become a fashion with

is
biblical
In
some countries
to put out
it
customary
for
every
Old
Testament professor
an introduction, whether he has
something new to say or not.
And
it
yet
is
it
must be
realized that
the best has been done, and that
very difficult to turn out

fact,
something novel
in this line.
As a matter of
are
the larger
number of introductions
and independent research.
introduced
lies
nowadays
simply modifications
of their great predecessors, and cannot lay claim to originality
The
only innovation that

of arrangement
may be
in
the
direction
of material.
And
it
is
this matter of
arrangement that constitutes the raison
d'itre of Professor
Creelman's elaborate and comprehensive work.
As the
is
title indicates, it is arranged chronologically, and there no gainsaying the usefulness of such an arrangement. It
focusses the attention of the reader
on the
an
entire literary output

air
of a certain period, and
thus lends
of finality to
his
judgement.
It
synchronizes
and synthesizes various
literary
REIDER
437
species which by their nature are incorporated in different books,
and so
gives us a vivid impression of
all
the creative activity

is
of the people of Israel at one time. with precision in the present work.
This new scheme
handled
the
The ground covered by

first
Old Testament
is
is
divided into different periods, and each period
subdivided into two parts.

the period
In the
the historical narratives

originating in
is
it
relating to
and the
literature
are
treated;
logical
in the
second the
biblical material
given in chronoprophetical
outline,
supplemented by notes.
Thus the
and other
species of literature receive their right historical setting,

outlines furnished,
and the Old Testament, by means of the
may be
read and studied in

it
its
chronological order.
its
In point of
literary criticism
leans pre-eminently on
illustrious predecessor,
Driver's Introdiulion to the Literature of the

this
Old Testament.
judicious,
It is
feature that
makes the treatment sane and
and
recommends the book

version of the Bible.
style
as a reliable aid to students of the English
An added
so
brief
merit
is
the terse yet explicit
by which the author was enabled to include so much

within
information
compass.
will
There
are
three
appendices and four indices which

quick reference.
prove very useful for
'The
religious
Inquirer's Library'
is
to consist of a series of
handy
and low-priced volumes dealing with the fundamental

controversy,
issues of
such as theism,
immortality,
the
Bible,
is
it
morality, &c.
interesting
in
The
present volume on the Old Testament

respect.
more than one
In the
first
place,
contains a
maximum
of information within a
minimum
of space
in the twenty-nine chapters the author runs through the
whole
gamut of Bible
way.
subjects, treating
them
in a brief but rational

is
In the second place, the treatment

to date,
quite
admirable
and up
which puts
it
above the
level of a
mere encyclo-
pedia or Bible dictionary.

it
To
mention but a few headings,
deals with the
Pentateuch, the
Hebrew text, the composition and date of the Hebrew cosmogony and its parallels in Babylonian
source of Semitic law, the religion
historic
and Sumerian
of
Israel,
literature, the
biblical
and heathen chronology,
romance,
f 3
438
popular

fiction,
wisdom
literature,
Hebrew
philosophy, the poetry
of hatred and love, the
Hebrew
canon, and others.
As
a novelty
four chapters are devoted to the Elephantine papyri and the
Jewish colony in Egypt, and these certainly make interesting Herein reading, though their deductions are not always correct.
lies
the weakness of the author
he out-Herods Herod
in his
radical attitude
towards the
Hebrew
Scriptures, subscribing to
every idiosyncrasy of irresponsible
critics.
In his judgements
the
he
follows
blindly
the
protagonists
of
Pan-Babylonian
forms
theory, while Black

his vade
and Cheyney's Encyclopedia Biblica

he
mecum.
Like these his predecessors

can
hardly
knows
no
the
else,
moderation,
veracity
I
and he
biblical
hide
is
a sneer whenever
of a
statement
involved.
Nothing
believe,
condemns
these captious critics

in trusting
more than
their un-
compromising attitude
records.
every other but the
Hebrew
How
popular.
different
is
Professor Moore's concise

!
and
authoritative
treatment of the subject
His
little
volume
is
thorough and yet
Every statement of
his
is
exact, for
he knows how
to
winnow the wheat from the

so as to
is
chaff.
He
presents the most essential
points of the introductory science in a laconic
and
field.
clear style,
make
it
evident even to a tyro in this
The book
written for Christian readers,
hence the
ecclesiastical arrange-
ment of Daniel with the Prophets.

is
it
Another point of departure
the excision of Jonah from the with Esther
Minor Prophets, and coupling

Notes
and Ruth
as
mere
narratives or novelettes.
are dispensed with altogether.
short bibliography
and an index
add
to the usefulness of the book.
Blakiston's
volume
constitutes a general introduction to the
Scriptures as a whole, aiming to give a brief
and succinct survey
of the entire field of biblical study as a preliminary to special
and detailed introductions.

This phase
Its pivot is
the reconciliation of the
doctrine of inspiration with the

is
new
first
literary-historical criticism.
treated
in
the
chapter, where
the
author
endeavours to prove that inspiration applies only to the religious
REIDER
439
Bible.
and not the mythological and legendary elements of the
The
latter,
;
therefore, are
it is
legitimately subject to a rationalistic
analysis
nay,
the Divine will and purpose that they should

to the late dates assigned to
so be studied.
As
some documents,
and divine
documents
the
that does not detract from their inspirational character

origin,
for
each successive editor
who
pieced
together was inspired through revelation to accomplish that act.
vicissitudes of time, but this too
Even the form of the documents was changed through the was done through inspiration.
is
In a word, inspiration
responsible for everything, even

is
for
the final shaping of the canon, and, what

for the
more remarkable,
if
modern documentary hypothesis
For,
God
did not
want us to analyse the Bible

with the reason to do
it.
He
would not have endowed us
Sic eunt fata

text, literature,
hominum
The second
is
chapter deals with the
and canon of the Old

indicated
Testament.
briefly
Every phase of these three subjects
but authoritatively and in a commendable

is
style.
The
greatest space
allotted to the third chapter on the text, canon,
and
literature
of the
the
is
New
is
Testament.
The
treatment here,
circumstantial.
particularly
of
text,
more minute and
The
and
last
chapter
given to the religious

in other
affinities
of Judaism
Christianity,
which
words means the tracing of the

religion.
development of the Nazarene creed out of the Judaic

This chapter
is
chiefly historical,
dealing with the history and
chronology of the Jews and the surrounding nations, Babylon,

Egypt, Persia, and
Greece, and
closing with
an appreciation
of the indebtedness of Christianity to the Old Testament and

to Judaic thought.
At the end of each chapter there

is
is
fairly
comprehensive bibliography. There
also added, as
an appendix,
a handy
style.
a table of the extant Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian literatures,

chronologically arranged, up to about a. d. 180.
It is
and
useful volume, of
good appearance, and of an excellent
Bible manuals are not rare in Germany, but the manual by
Herkenne and Massierer

colleges
all
is
written
for Catholic
Its
schools
is
and
and from the Catholic standpoint.
aim
to present
the information necessary to an understanding of the Scriptures
440
together with extracts from biblical texts, especially of the didactic
and prophetic
text-books.
variety,
barring
those already found in current

is
subsequent aim
should
to give a brief exposition of
Bible history which

to
in
serve
as
practical
preparation
task
advanced students and teachers of the Bible.

such an undertaking
is
The main
to
crowd
in as
much
offer
information as
possible within a limited space,

in doing.
and
this the editors
succeeded
Within one hundred pages they
an introduction
to both the
Old and
New
Testaments, a physical and political
geography of the Holy Land, an archaeology, and other things

pertaining thereto.
Of
course
it
is
evident that this cannot be
done except
is
in bare
outline
here.
and
clear-cut definitions,
and
this
the
method adopted
Arguments are barred
altogether,
and
results are formulated in laconic statements.
As might have
and
to
been expected, the editors shun modern

the
biblical criticism
documentary hypothesis
of
the
Pentateuch,
clinging
tradition
and
to
the ecclesiastical teachings about
inspiration.
The new
wild
to
theories are alluded to, but only to be dismissed as
and unfounded.
on
The
greater part of the
book
is
devoted
Old Testament
briefly.
texts
culled from various books
and comdeal
mented
The second volume should
with
biblical history
and chronology.
in his
Mr. Lofthouse
volume on the Bible dwells more on
the authority than the origin of the Scriptures, discussing the
Bible
as
revelation
is
and
its
logos
as
spirit.
The
Christian
standpoint
Bible and
is
over-emphasized.
The opening
chapter on
the
its
names
is
instructive.
Quite novel and interesting
the inclusion here of a comparison of the Bible with other
sacred books of the East, like the Vedas and the Koran.
The
English versions receive special treatment, while

treated together.
all
others are
Mr. Lofthouse's second volume on The Making of

Testament
is
the
Old
a short
textual history
and succinct account of the canon and of the Old Testament, traced from the early days
of the versions
down
to
the age of the Massorites.
The
last
RECENT BIBLICAL LITERATURE REIDER

chapter
441.
on
the
Hagiographa deals also with the Apocrypha

is
The
treatment
conservative and exact, closing with a most
essential bibliography
and index.
is
Mr. Vernon's book

revelation rather than
a homily on
the
truth
of Christian
an impartial disquisition on the making

is
of the Bible.
The
centre of gravity
the
New Testament,
the Old
Testament receiving but scant and only casual attention

are handled manu iiupropria, and
in
Both
anything but a judicious
and dispassionate way.

wind up with a
fiery
It
is
quite appropriate that he should
discourse against critical studies of the Bible.

result of practical
Mr. Harris's outlines of the Bible are the
work
in
Bible
class,
where
one
book was analysed and

is
diagrammed each week.

particularly
in
The method
Bible
good and commendable,

for
Christian
classes
which alone
it
is
intended.
Its usefulness
hinges mainly on the various diagrams,

in
which are of great help
studies of this kind.
The
student
gets at a glance the whole extent
and import of a book.

differ in
The
form
diagrams are sometimes even very elaborate, and
from one another.

another on the
The
present volume
is
to
be followed by
New
Testament.
The Unsealed Book, or
How
the Bible
Came
to
:
By W. Melville Harris, M.A.

Missionary Society [19 15].
London
Many Lands. The London
pp. 152.
the Americaji Bible Society,.
One Hundredth Annual Report of

19 T 6. Together with a
list
of auxiliary societies, their officers,

:
and an appendix.
1916.
New York
American Bible
Society,.
pp.639.
Mr. Harris relates the story of the marvellous and phenomenal

spread of the Scriptures
in recent times.
Since propagation was
the result of translation, the author traces this process of translation
from the
earliest
times
till
our
own
days.
Only
that,
barring the Septuagint and Vulgate, he confines himself to English

versions,
whose
efforts
origin
he narrates
British
in detail.
He
then comments
on the
of the
and Foreign Bible Society and
442

tlieir
kindred associations in
tion in
all
indefatigable crusade of ChristianizaPortraits of great Bible translators
parts of the world.
and
facsimiles of
some
versions
accompany the
story which has,
as an
added
feature, suggestive topics for discussion at the close
of each chapter.
The one-hundredth annual

Society,
report
Issues,
of the American
Circulation,
Bible
under the
headings
Translation,
and Revision, records increased and

chaotic
activity despite
the abnormal
conditions
is
produced
by the World War.

so far
The
greatest progress
recorded in China, a country
unaffected
by the great
struggle.
The
total distribution
of Bible copies
It is interesting
during 19 15 amounted to nearly eight million.

to note that in the one
hundred years of
its
existence (18 16-19 16)

all
the Society disposed of 117,687,591 volumes in
the parts of
the habitable globe.
But the distribution of Bibles does not

managers seem to
the only way to get
it
constitute a criterion for conversions, as the

think.
Some buy
profit
a Bible because that

;
is
rid of the missionary
others get
it
in order to resell
and make
Report of
some
on
it.
There are numerous cases
in the
Bibles being burned by Catholic priests after their distribution.
Despite
all this,
the untiring zeal of the Society must be admired.

is
The
in
full
story of this effort
related vividly by
the
Henry Otis Dwight

Society
The Centennial History of

1
American Bible
(New
York,
916).
Gains
Bible from Modern Criticism, and other Essays. By Frederick Smith, P. H. Wicksteed, G. C. Field, J. W. MoRiTZ Weston, S. H. Mellone, William Wooding,
to the
C.
Gordon Ames, Alex. Webster. London British and Foreign Unitarian Association, 1913. pp. vi + 314.
:
Suggested Explanations of some supposed Bible Inaccuracies.
By
George
pp. 76.
A\'illiams, an
Honorary Secretary of the Open-Air

:
Mission for Ireland.
London
Headlev Brothers,
[1913].
443
The Truthfulness of the Scriptures, ^^'ith a comprehensive notice By the Rev. Gavin of recent controversies on the subject.
Carlyle, M.A. London
Elliot Stock, 191 3.

Criticism.
pp.
xi+
128.
The Old Testament and Modern

College by Rev.
Six Lectures preached
before the University of Dublin in the Chapel of Trinity
Andrew Craig
London
:
Robinson, ]\LA. (Donnellan
Lectures, 19 12-13).
Luzac
&:
Co., 19 13.
pp. 76.
Some Mistakes of the Higher Critics. By S. B. Macy. With seven London: H. R. Allenson, [19 13]. illustrations and map.
pp.
1
10.
The
Bible
ten essays comprising the neat
little
volume Gains
to the
from Modern Criticism had been issued separately in the Unitarian Penny Library, but now they appear in a permanent book form. As might be expected, they represent the point of
view of modern Unitarians in dealing with Bible criticism and
religious questions generally.
The
first
two
('
Gains
'
to the Bible
from Modern Criticism by

'
J.
Frederick Smith, and

'
Old and New
Views of the Old Testament
by Philip H. Wicksteed) endorse
the results of the Higher Critics, and
show the preponderance
of advantage over disadvantage gained through them.

Doctrine of the Trinity in Recent Apologetic' by G.
'The
Field
argues against the recent conception of Trinity on a philosophic

basis.
The Rev. Alex. "Webster deals with The Unitarian Movement in Scotland its Justification', 'The Religious Message
'
:
of Robert
Burns
'.
',
and
these
'
Robert Louis Stevenson and Henry

appears that the path of Unitarianism
is
Drummond
in Scotland,
is
From
it
where Calvinistic dogmatism
strongly entrenched,
not altogether smooth.
W.
Moritz Weston relates why he
ceased to be a
Roman
The
other essays
'
'The Revelation
Changes
Catholic,
and
finally
became a Unitarian.
seen
of the Father' by Sydney H.

I
'
Mellone,
Religious
'
that
have
'
by
^^'ilIiam
Wooding, and
God's Part and Ours
by C. Gordon Ames
are likewise concerned with various aspects of Unitarianism.
Mr. Williams's attitude
is
based on Catholic tradition, according
to which the Bible was inspired by
God, and hence every
jot
and
444
tittle in it is

immaculate and
faultless.
All seeming errors have
satisfactory solutions, but in
many
cases
human
infirmity hinders
a recognition of them. a
To
prove this assertion he presents
number
of such solutions in both the
Old and
New
Testaments,
which are really forced harmonizations of apparent contradictions, and take us back to the primitive state of exegesis in the days of
the
Church Fathers.
Such explanations may be accepted

fail
sine
dubio by pious and unruffled minds, but they
to
convince
unbiased and independent
intellects.
It
ought to become clear
even to Catholics that the best way to demolish Higher Criticism

is
by meeting
it
on
its
own ground and combating

later, if
it
with
its
own
but
to
is
weapons.
it
This would, of course, require Herculean
efforts,
must be done sooner or
the conservative creed
assert itself side
by side with the radical hypothesis.

likewise,
in
Mr.
Carlyle
the
name
of
faith,
attacks
the
rationahstic
school of Bible exegesis which, in his estimation,
aims to undermine historical Christianity.

severe with
He
is
particularly
German
critics
and
their iconoclastic
methods which
However,
his
produced that enfant
terrible
Higher
late
Criticism.
argument
is
purely sentimental and shallow, despite the fact that
he adduces the testimony of the
Lord Kelvin as
to the
existence of a supernatural, divine power.
The
fact is that this
point has never been questioned by any of the higher critics,
whose sole concern

Scriptures.
is
the literary and historical aspect of the

fail
Mere fulminations
to
meet the
issue
which
is
based on
facts,
and verbosity will not take the wind out of the

It is
futile
sails
of an intelligent opponent.
of
to
quote the opinion

of philologists
missionaries
against
the verisimilitudes
and
historians of high repute,
and
it
is
certainly
presumptuous
to pin
one's faith exclusively to
Canon
(lirdlestone's Foundations of the
Bible
and Studies
in
Old Testament
to hit,
Criticism.
As
the matter
stands the shafts
fai'
and the arguments against evolution

carry.
and the documentary theory do not

Mr. Robinson
fighting valiantly
is
another champion of the conservative cause,

it focis.
pro aris
He
enters the
lists
against

the
REIDER
445
modem
school of Bible criticism in general, and in particular
against the Graf-Wellhausen theory.

diatribes against Driver
He
launches philippics and

to propagate
and
his confreres
who helped
the heresy of post-exilic authorship of the Bible.
His arguments
and
refutations
are
drawn
largely
from
Assyrian-Babylonian
late.
records which have
become
with the
familiar to
us of
;
Lecture
deals with certain features of the Pentateuch
U
V
with the Mosaic
Ritual
HI and IV
Daniel.
Book
of Isaiah
and VI with the

text,
Book
of
Nineteen
illustrations
accompany the
which ends with an invocation to Jesus.

Miss Macy's
is
little
volume was written

is
to
show
'
that the Bible
not a book of legends, which

;
out of date in these enlightened
days time
but that
it is
a Book of Truth, the historical value of which

clear
'.
is
making more and more
Unfortunately the author
sounds the asseverative rather than the argumentative note, which

in the small
compass of the book may be pardonable.

baseless
But these
assertions are sometimes
and
ridiculous, as when, in
still
the part dealing with the

spurious
xviii, 3,
New
Testament, she
clings to the
{Antiquities,
and interpolated statement
of Josephus
3) in order to prove the existence of Jesus.
Miniatur-Bibel.
Die ganze
heilige Schrift.
Nach dem Urtext
gegeben von
und mit Beriicksichtigung der besten Uebersetzungen herausDreizehnte Franz Eugen Schlachter. Auflage neu bearbeitet von K. Linder und E. Kappeler.
Bonn
The Holy
a.
Rh.
Johannes Schergens,
Old and
1913.
pp. xi-|-733.
Bible, containing the
New Testaments translated
out of the original tongues, and with the former translations

diligently
compared and
1
that of the edition of
1 1
or
King James's version

J.
The text conformable to commonly known as the Authorized (Holman Pronouncing Edition).
revised.
Philadelphia: A.
Holman
Co., [1914].
pp.
12644-32
534-109 + 94 + 4The Emphasised

Bible.
A New
Translation designed to set forth
the exact meaning, the proper terminology, and the graphic
446

style of the sacred originals
;
arranged to show at a glance
narrative,
speech, parallelism, and logical analysis, also to
enable the student readily to distinguish the several divine
names
and emphasised throughout

tongues.
after the
idioms of the
Hebrew and Greek

select references,
With expository introduction,
and appendices of notes. By Joseph Bryant The Standard Publishing Cincinnati RoTHERHAM. Company, [1916]. pp. 920 [Old Testament only].
:
The Holy
Bible,
containing
the
Old and
a
New
Testaments.
Authorized Version.
topical references
to
With
all
new system
of connected
the greater themes of Scripture,
with annotations, revised

definitions,
marginal renderings, summaries,
chronology, and index.
To which
are
added
helps at hard places, explanations of seeming discrepancies,
and a new system of paragraphs.

ScoFiELD, D.D.
Edited by Rev. C.
edition.
I.
New and
improved
New York
191 7.
Oxford University
pp.
vi
Press,
American
Branch,
1370.
first
Schlachter's translation of the Scriptures appeared
in 1905,
and since then has experienced thirteen

is
editions.
Its popularity
due
to
its
miniature
:
size,
which does not infringe upon the

is
clearness of the type
the latter
far
quite small yet distinct, and,
owing to the India paper,

translation, while
from overtaxing the eye.

is
The
to the
made from the Hebrew original, Oerman idiom. The text is continuous,
changes.
accommodated
the
except where the
subject
Space
is
also
gained through
use
of
the
modern economizing orthography.

it
The new
edition differs
from the older ones in that

chapter.
bears
titles at
the head of each
few explanatory notes are appended at the end.
In
the
Holman Pronouncing
and accented, and the
diacritically
Bible
every proper
name
is
syllabified
letters
which have variable

to the best
sounds are
standards
marked according
This
modern
is
of
pronunciation.
comprehensive
volume
attractive through clearness of page,

is
admirable type-setting (which
the work
of the
famous Riverside Press), and a balanced

arrangement of references.
REIDER
is
447
At the close there
'
Treasury of
Biblical Information' arranged by the Rev. F. N. Peloubet, D.I).,
containing a chronology, an enumeration of the English versions

of the Bible, weights and measures, Jewish coins, and
useful things.
many
other
Then
follows
',
'
Oriental Lights
',
'
Illuminating Bible
Texts and Bible Truths
by means of a vast array of pictures

descriptions
and
illustrations that really illustrate, with
and
ex-
planations of Oriental objects, of Bible manners and customs
and everyday
in
life
in
Palestine,
and of the recent
discoveries
Babylonia and Egypt which have shed a new
light
on the
Old Testament.
This
is
followed by a comparative concordance
and four thousand questions and answers on the Old and New Testaments, intended to open up the Scriptures for the use of
students and Sunday-school teachers.
The Emphasised
version of the
Bible
is
a reprint of the 1897 edition.
The
here,
text.
Old Testament, with which we are concerned

late Dr.
was adjusted to the
Ginsburg's massoretico-critical
Emphasis was secured

but
as
in various ways,
such as varying indenta-
tions of the lines, varieties of type, increased size of the page,

distinct
signs,
above
everything
to
else,
through
diction
original.
accommodated
closely as possible
to
the
Hebrew
The
notes
call
attention
Massoretic variants, and also
to
variants
in versions
and commentaries.
translator
retains
While following the

the
ecclesiastical
Hebrew
diction
the
order
of the books.
The apocrypha
are eliminated, but get a special
note at the end.
The
Scofield Reference Bible, which was published
first
in
1909, and was distinguished by a

references
new system of connected
topical
(like
and other improvements of a marked character

paragraphs),
analytical summaries, expository notes, clear-cut definitions,
and
division
into
lies
now
before
us in a
new and
improved
edition.
decided improvement are the chronological
data on the top of each page.
Another addition
is
a Panoramic
View of
the whole Bible to
show the unity of the book.
But
the improvements are not only on the literary but also on the
: :
448
mechanical

side.
are substituted for

is
much
neater.
The page is more distinct, Arabic numerals Roman, and the whole appearance of the book There are fifteen maps at the end of the book
as a geographical guide.
Old Testament Legends.

James,
ten
Being
stories out of
some
of the less-
known apocryphal books

illustrations
of the
Old Testament.
By M. R.
With
Litt.D., Provost of King's College,
Cambridge.
:
by H.
J.
Ford.
London
Longmans,
Green &
Readings from
Co., 1913the
PP- XXV
T57.
Old Testament. Selections from the English home and school and for supplementary Arranged in the class-room in reading and English. work Louise Emery Tucker, M.A. New York and edited by
Bible for reading in
SxuRGis
Through
& Walton
Day
Company, 1913.
by
pp.
vi+260.
the Bible
Day.
Devotional Commentary.
Arranged for Daily Reading By Rev. F. B. Meyer, B.A. Outline and Review Questions for each with Introduction,
Book.
By James McConaughy, Managing Editor American

Illustrated from Paintings
:
Sunday-School Union.
by Leading
Modern Artists. Volume I Genesis to Joshua. Philadelphia American Sunday-School Union, [1914]- PP- 218.
The
interest.
legends, told in a simple narrative style, are gripping in
The
first
two
stories
from the Book of Adam, and Eve

after their expulsion
deal with the adventures of
Adam and Eve

The
from the Garden of Eden.

experiences of Abraham
third gives
some
phantastic
as related in the Apocalypse and Testa^ment
Then follows a delightful narrative about the of Abraham. romantic exploits of Aseneth and Joseph, derived from the Greek
History of Aseneth.
Testament of fob.
The story about Job is taken from the The exploits of Solomon and the Demons
The Rest of
the
come from
Baruch
the Testament of Solomon.
Words of
deals with
Ebedmelech the Ethiopian and the death
of Jeremiah.
collection.
The well-known Ahikar legend winds up the The drawings by Mr. Ford are well executed, and
serve to illuminate the text in a high degree.

The
is
449
'
object of the Readings
is
to furnish to the children
an
insight into the
myriad beauties of the Book of Books'.
This
such
done by
selecting from the great
mass of the
biblical text
&:c.,
stories,
poems, nature descriptions, character studies,

to
as are
apt
most strongly
text
appeal to
the
young imaginative mind.
The
used
is
that of the Revised Version, except in Psalms
and other
adopted.
poetical portions
where the verse arrangement of the
Modern Readers' Bible

is
(edited by Prof. Richard G. Moulton)
further object of the
book
is
to
promote the study

connexion with
of simple yet forceful English
among
the young generation, and
hence the author advises
to use this
volume
in
TAe Old Testament Phrase Book.

Mr. Meyer's homiletic commentary
is
arranged
in
small
portions for daily reading in consecutive order.

scholarly interest
Points of merely
are
omitted.
There are frequent references

from the Old to the
to other parts of the Scriptures, especially
New
Testament.
When
completed
for
for the
whole Bible
this will
form a good
little
text-book
Christian
homes
as
well
as
Christian Sunday-schools.
The Books of
the
Pentateuch.
Their Origin, Contents, and

Professor of
Significance.
By Frederick Carl Eiselen,
Old Testament Interpretation

(Biblical Introduction Series).
in Garrett Biblical Institute
New York The Methodist

:
Book Concern,
Worte Mosis.
[1916].
pp. 351.
Herausgegeben von Dr.
Hugo Bergmann.
:
{Die
Weisheit der Vdlker.)
Minden
i.
W.
I.
C. C. Bruns, [1913].
pp.vi+234.
Though
lies
Bible introductions abound, there
is
need
for just
such a volume as Professor Eiselen offers here.

in the fact that
it
Its raison d'etre
constitutes a special introduction to the
Pentateuch, comprehensive and scholarly,
and
yet written
in
a popular language and

of the Bible.
style, so as to satisfy the

is
average student
Of
course, originality
not claimed, and the only
novel features are the
mode
of treatment and arrangement of
45
material.

Naturally,
is
the
fair
author
clings
to
the
documentary
hypothesis, but he
enough
to state in great detail also

full
the
traditional view, to
which he devotes four

to
chapters.
It is this feature that is
bound
enhance the value of the book,
especially in the face of the one-sidedness of
many
other intro-
ductions.
Furthermore, the argument

in ordinary terms,
is
clear
and moderate,
irrelevant
couched
material.
and not overburdened with

a
little
Some might have wished

is
more thoroughness
Mexateuch, but, as
in the style of Holzinger's Einleitufig in den
the author emphasizes, he

scholars.
writing for students
and not
for
That the book
is
up-to-date
and abreast with the

it
latest
currents in Bible criticism
is
manifested by the fact that

critics
takes
cognizance of the new school of textual
headed by Dahse,
Eerdmans, Wiener, and Troelstra.

features,
This and other interesting
such as a history of Old Testament Introduction at the
beginning and the historical and religious value of the Pentateuch

at the end,
make
it
this
a useful manual for colleges and seminaries.

this is the first in a series
In conclusion,
might be stated that
of four volumes introductory to the Old Testament.

will deal
The second
with the Prophets, the third with the Writings (Kethubim),
and the fourth with the formation of the Old Testament Canon,
the condition
and transmission of the Hebrew
text,
the place
of the Old Testament in the light of

Dr. Bergmann's
object
as a
is
modern
criticism,
&c.
Its
book
is
literary rather than
critical.
to exhibit
Moses not merely

and wise
as a law-giver but also
man
of great words the

life
sayings.
An
introduction
depicts
first
of IMoses, then the various theories about of Moses' are well-chosen excerpts
the Pentateuch.
The 'Words
from the
five
books, both poetical and narrative.
Curiously
enough, the editor includes here the nineteenth psalm ascribed

to Moses.
His reason
is
given in the introduction
it
is
not
what Moses actually said or did that counts, but what people
think he said or did, as
Ahad Haam,
in
his
profound essay on
Moses, puts
it
an archaeological truth does not necessarily
mean an
historical truth.
The book
is
well printed,
and has a
neat appearance.
photographic reproduction of Michelangelo's

Moses adorns the
graphy, and this
is
REIDER
451
biblio-
frontispiece.
An
appendix contains a
followed by an index.
Genesis.
Ubersetzt und erklart von P. Ceslaus Dier, O.P.,
Magister der Theologie.
Paderborn
1914.
pp.
Druck und Verlag von
Ferdinand ScHONiNGH,
iii
+ 386.
Israel's Account of the Beginnings, contained in Genesis i-xi.
By
Walter M. Patton,
Literature
Northfield, Minn.
Ph.D., D.D.,
Professor
in
of Biblical
College,.
and History of Religion

Boston:
Carleton
The Pilgrim
the
Press, [1916J..
pp. xii+ 182.
The First Chapter of Genesis as

atid Religion.
Rock Foundation for
Science:
By Albert L. Gridley, A.M. Richard G. Badger (The Gorham Press), [19 13].
There
is
Boston
pp. 216.
an insuperable hiatus between Dier's work and, for
instance, Gunkel's vast

it is
and erudite commentary on Genesis.

level,
above the ordinary
Yet and even smacks of modernism and
progressivism.
E pur si
The
his
niuove.
it
of the Catholic authorities,

for
lays the original
Though bearing the imprimatur Hebrew as the basis

true, is
comment
instead of the Greek of the Septuagint or the Latin

author,
it
of the Vulgate.
is
compelled to
offer
an
apology for this breach of august Catholic tradition, and to state

distinctly
that
departure
should not be construed as an
infringement of the Tridentine decree.
Be
this as
it
may, his
departure
is
certainly in the right direction.
Moreover, he adopts.
the documentary hypothesis of the Higher Critics, until recently-
tabooed among Catholic commentators, emphasizing
all
the while
that by doing this he does not depart from the teachings of the
Catholic Church.
Genesis, he
still
Indeed, while recognizing various sources in

clings to the decision of the Bible
Commission no
of June 27, 1906, according to which the Pentateuch was com-
posed by Moses.
To
the
the conservative mind,
it
seems, there
is
palpable incongruity in this apparent contradiction.

are gone
destructive
The days
when
documentary theory was looked upon as

faith. More and more the view moderate criticism not only does not harm
and undermining the
asserts itself that a
VOL. IX.
G g
452

in
its
but even helps religion

there
is
historical perspective.
Of
course,
a limit to criticism,
and extremes are dangerous.
The
Church, and for that matter the Synagogue, will never brook
the exaggerated views and sensational deductions of the Pan-
Babylonians, whose Cyclopean learning, to borrow a phrase from
Kant, lacks one

original.
eye.
The comments add nothing new and

and,
They
are based chiefly on Catholic authorities
in a subsidiary degree,
on other sources.
The Church
Fathers,
as might have been expected, are quoted in extenso.
Gunkel
and
his
congeners are referred to here and there, but mostly

Unfortunately, the author does not operate with
fails
for refutation.
the proper tools, and in the end he

Ulysses.
Avith
It is also
to
bend the bow of

quotations teem
unfortunate that the
Hebrew
What
?
is
mistakes,
both consonantal and vocal, and
evince
utter
carelessness on the part of the author.
the use of basing

this
a commentary on the Hebrew original and then presenting
Hebrew
in a disfigured
and distorted shape

is
Dr. Patton's volume
an instance of specialization, or rather
atomization, applied to the science of exegesis.
The problem
the
of Genesis, owing to literary criticism and comparative research,
has grown
to
such vast
proportions
it
(comp.
voluminous
to break the
commentary by Gunkel)
book up
into
its
that
becomes necessary
each
section
is
parts
and
treat
separately.
This
process has
merits, not the least of
which
the encouragement
given to the bewildered student to grasp one thing at a time.
Undoubtedly
this
was the motive that prompted Professor Patton
to deal only with a small section of Genesis, especially since the
volume was expressly written

for schools
for college students.
As
a text-book
and
colleges
it is
well
planned and properly arranged.
Instead of a
literal translation
a paraphrase of the text has been
used, and free
comment on
the story has been employed to draw
out the implications of the writer's narrative.
In the notes at
the end of each chapter literary and textual matters are treated
more minutely. and conforms

writer's story
The manner
of treatment
is
literary-historical,
strictly to
modem
biblical criticism.
The
priestly
and
the Jahwist's account are given separate con-

sideration.
to Genesis,
453
The
introduction deals with general matters pertaining
such as sources, character of the history, epochs of
the history, the world of Israel, the land of Israel, and, last but
not
least,
the
literary
is
character of the
Hexateuch.
Towards
i-xi.
the end there
summary
of the teachings of Genesis
An
that
appendix contains the Babylonian Epic of Creation and the
Babylonian Deluge Myth.

it is
Not the
least of its merits
is
the fact
well indexed.
All in
all it is
an admirable
little
volume
be
for schools
and
colleges, though, as the author
modestly admits,
It is to
originality has
been no part of the essential aim.
hoped
that the author will soon be able to publish other instalthis series.
ments of
Mr. Gridley confines himself to the story of creation

first
in the
chapter of Genesis.
The
title
hardly expresses the primary

author,
it
aim and purpose of the book.

in the
The
is
true,
states
foreword that his object

religion
is
to point out the reconciliation
and harmonization of
is
and
science, but
back of
all
this
his
desire to attack
the bogey of Higher Criticism and to
reaffirm
the
divine inspiration of the Scriptures.
Indeed, his
i
demonstration
concerning
the
agreement
of
Genesis
with
the greater part
modern science occupies only the minor part of the book, while is devoted to commonplace arguments about
fall
the
of man, redemption, salvation,
and
similar articles of
Christian theology.
The
first
four
chapters
constitute a well-
meant attempt
with
years
all
;
to
prove the biblical cosmogony to be in harmony
the advances in astronomical science for the last hundred

also that the biogenesis in the Bible absolutely corresponds
with the records in the rocks or the geological strata.
But, while
operating with scientific terminology, the treatment

scientific
is
not
strictly
and
exact.
Authorities
are
quoted
element
in
is
extenso,
but
sine loco,
and altogether the

fills
scientific
overshadowed
by the theological, which

of the argument
up the
'
rest of the
book.
The
pith
Obeyed
'
and
The author
The Bible as an Authority to be is contained in The Reasonableness of the Christian's Faith also gives his own experience of God's presence
'
'.
and guidance.
G g
454

in Genesis.
The Divine Names
By the Rev. John Skinner, M.A.,

Exegesis, Westminster
D.D., Professor of Old Testament

College,
Cambridge.
pp.
viii
London
Hodder & Stoughton,
[1914].
+ 303.
Dahse's bold challenge to the Higher Critics in his Textkritische

Materialien zur Hexateiic/ifra^ê (191 2) was answered variously by
many
b>-
critics,
among them
and
is
Sellin,
Gressmann, and Konig, but
none so
forcibly
clearly as by Professor Skinner in the
present volume, which

in
the outgrowth of a series of articles

It
the Expositor for

is
1913.
should
be prefaced
that
the
contention
between the higher or
literary
and lower or
textual
criticism of the Pentateuch.
The
former's champions are legion,
tht
latter's
a mere
is
:
handful, struggling to gain ground.
But though
their progress
little
very slow, nevertheless they are forging ahead
by
little
from the timid attempts of Klostermann and
Lepsius to the definite pronu/iciamiento of Dahse and Wiener

there
is
quite a hiatus.
Their position, in a nutshell,
is
that the
documentary hypothesis, presumably based on the

of divine names,
is
classification
it
groundless and untenable because

in the
hinges
on the assumption that the theophorus names had been preserved

is
Pentateuch
in their original form,
an assumption which
not borne out by a careful study and investigation of these
names.
The degree
Scriptures
of corruption in the textus receptus of the
Hebrew
generally
is,
according to them,
this
much
greater than
is
supposed,
and hence
text
cannot be used as
a criterion for the division of sources.

that
their
It will
be seen from
of
this
advantage increases with

text,
the
diminution
trust-
worthiness in the Masoretic
and hence Dahse goes

equivalents
in
to great
lengths in searching for discrepancies between the divine

in
names
various
the
Hebrew
original
and
their
the
recensions and versions.

Skinner, in his refutation, maintains that (i) the documentary
theory
is
based on many other

it
criteria besides that of the divine
names, and
is
only
when taken
Hexateuch
together that they furnish us
Ariadne's thread leading through the labyrinth and the mixtum

composiitim
of
the
(2)
generally
speaking,
the

Masoretic
text,
is
455
with
all
its
shortcomings
and acknowledged
before
discrepancies,
more
reliable
and trustworthy than any version

(3)
or
translation,
to
the
hoary Septuagint included;

Masoretic
to
text
we
any
undertake
Septuagint,
compare the
latter
with
that
of the
the
ought
is
be
established
beyond
reasonable doubt, which
not the case at

the
the
present time.
To
code
text
prove
these
assertions
in
author discusses minutely the

;
fundamental passage
;
Exod.
6. 2, 3
the problem of the priestly

;
the various
its
recensions
of the Septuagint
;
the
Hebrew
and
Samaritan counterpart
other ancient versions, and

crystallized
its
the limits of textual uncertainty.

in the following highly interesting
His deductions are
passage which, because of
intrinsic
value
and important bearing on the Masoretic

full
text,
deserves to be quoted in
'
(p.
165
f.)
On
is
general grounds, the
MT
has substantial claims to be

(a)
preferred to a variant of the
LXX
in all doubtful cases,
The
MT
the result of successive transcriptions in one and the same

;
language
another.
text
the
It is
LXX
is
a translation
from one language into
not denied that a version
may
;
represent a purer
than a recension in the original language

is
but in the absence

is
of proof that this
the case, the presumption

it
all
in favour
of the original, because
is
not subject to the uncertainty which

;
inevitably attends the mental process of translation
especially
when, as
is
abundantly clear
in the case of the

(^)
LXX,
;
word-for-word
translation
was not aimed
at.
The
MT
is
the lineal descendant
of the
official
Palestinian recension of the
OT
the
LXX
as
repre-
sents at best an Alexandrian recension
whose
text
was certainly
that
not transmitted with

Palestine.
the
same scrupulous
Palestinian
fidelity
of
For
[c)
as regards the divine names, the Samaritan that
Pentateuch
practically
shows
the
text
has
undergone
no change from a time
prior to (or at all events not
much
later than) the separation of the Palestinian
and Egyptian
in a state
It
recensions.
The
LXX
text,
on the contrary, has been

its
of perpetual fiux as far back as
history can
be traced.
makes no
difference whether this be
due
to accident or (as
;
Dahse
has tried to show) to deliberate revision
on
either view the fact
456

God
have been handled with a freedom
{d)
remains that the names of
which was not allowed
to Jewish scribes,
While the
LXX
contains particular readings which are

to
shown by
internal evidence
its
be superior
proves
I
to the
Hebrew,
yet
it
an examination of
is
general
text
that
on the whole
that
inferior to the
will
Masoretic
Hebrew.
from the
real or
do not think
this
be disputed by any
is
competent Old Testament
scholar.
The
MT
often
emended
LXX,
but practically never except for some
superiority,
supposed, attaching to the reading presupposed by

{e)
LXX
in
particular cases,
in
The
In
liability to
error
is
far greater in
Greek than
Hebrew.
the
original
text
we have the
rm''
distinction, not easily overlooked,
between a proper name
and a generic name DM^wS.

of two appellatives
to Ks
Ki'pios
In Greek we have only the difference
and
^cos (often
contracted in
MSS.
and
6%),
a difference without
therefore
^cos.'
much
to
significance to a Greek-
speaking writer, and
apt
be effaced through the
natural predilection for
Skinner devotes a special chapter to Dahse's quasi-constructive

Pericope hypothesis showing
In this he
is
it
to be artificial
and groundless.
by Dahse
probably
right.
Synagogue lectionary with the

features painted
arbitrary characteristics
and peculiar
could hardly ever have existed in practice.
Moreover, Dahse's
process of reconstruction, assuming one or two prophetic redactors,

a liturgical editor, and then again a theological editor,
is
hardly
an improvement on the multiple
Js, Es, Ds, and

is
Ps of the
documentary theory.
critics
The
truth of the matter
that the textual
are going to extremes on a par with
tlie
higher
critics.
Or
else
what
to
is
the meaning of Professor Schlogl of Vienna in
proposing
change
every
Jahwe
in
Genesis
to
Elohim
{Expository Tivies for September, 1909).
On
the other hand,
whatever strength Dahse has

side, in his
lies
on the negative or destructive
attempt to imjiugn the Masoretic text by pointing

it
out
some discrepancies between

fails
and the Septuagint.

stiuarely,
Here
shown
Skinner does not always meet him
and
as a result his
is
argument
in
to
convince.
Skinner's weakness
It is
also
other respects, though very rarely.
certainly inconsistent

to argue against Dahse's
REIDER
457
manner of construing the divine names

documentary hypothesis, and
at the
as the sole arbiters of the
same time
is
to believe that
Symmachus's
translation of the Bible
only a revision of that of Aquila, simply because the two agree
in the rendering of divine

is
names
in
Genesis
(p. 153, note).
This
the
more strange
by
in
since Skinner
knows very
well that of these
minor translations we possess only a few fragments, hardly enough

to judge
It
such an important matter.

that Skinner
is
must be admitted, however,

fails
an able fencer,
though he
to
demolish
his
opponent completely.
He
certainly does not effect a reductio
ad absurdum, which he would
have liked to do.

is
Like a sensible
man he
realizes that there

its
modicum
of truth also on the other side, but
real size
cannot yet be gauged.

attempt at
fairness.
Hence
his
moderation and studied
It is certainly
a credit to the author to have
preserved a calm and
unimpassioned attitude throughout the

face
book,
especially
his
in
the
of
the
less
somewhat
in his
provocative
demeanour of
lucidity of
opponents.
Not
favour are his
argument and
his
fluidity
of diction, which are rarely

It
matched among
inherited
that
opponents.
seems that Skinner has

style
for
crystalline
and
transparent
which
Driver was so beloved and to which few scholars ever attain.
To
But
popularize
such an abstruse
criticism
is
and adumbrated subject as

with which
Pentateuchal
this is
an
art
few are gifted.
what Skinner has accomplished.
Under
his
magic
solved,
pen the obscure becomes illuminated and the enigmatic

with the result that the volume, in
elusiveness of the subject, forms agreeable reading.
spite of the intricacy
and
The Beacon Lights of Prophecy.
An
Interpretation
of
Amos,
Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Deutero-Isaiah.
By
Albert
of
pp.
xii
C.
Knudson,
Professor in Boston University School

:
Theology.
New York
Eaton
&
Mains,
[1914].
281.
The
Secotid
Book of Kings.
By G. H. Box, M.A., Lecturer
in
Rabbinical Hebrew, King's College, London (The Revised
458
THE lEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Version edited for the Use of Schools).
Cambridge
at the
Univkrsitv Press, 1914.

TJie
pp.
xv+157.
Book of Jonah. A Study of Biblical Purpose and Method. By the Rev. T. H. Dodson, M.A., Rector of Wootton, London Society Northampton, and Canon of Lincoln.
:
FOR Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1916.

Patience.
{Select
pp. 84.
An
Alliterative Version oi
Early English Poems.
Edited by Prof.
Jonah by the Poet of Pearl. L Gollancz,

;
Litt.D., F.B.A., King's College,
London
Honorary Director
:
of the Early English Text Society.)
London
Humphrey
[41 leaves
MiLFORD (Oxford University

and
3 plates.]
the Myrtles.
Press), 1913.
The Alan among
vStudy in Zechariah's Visions.
By the Editor (The Short Course Series edited by Rev. John Adam.s, B.D.). New York Charles Scribner's Sons,
:
1913.
pp. viii+142.
The Divine
Short
Drama
:
of Job.
By Charles
F.
Aked, D.D. (The

pp. viii+ 144.
Course Series edited by Rev. John Adams, B.D.).

Scribner's Sons, 1913.
is
New York Charles

The aim
of Professor
Knudson
to give a vital interpretation

its
of the prophetic movement, and especially

representatives.
six greatest literary
He
does
this in the
form of semi-popular lectures
intended primarily for the preacher and layman, not the professional biblical scholar.
Hence
questions of literary criticism
are eliminated, though the main conclusions of
modern
biblical
scholarship are assumed.
Noteworthy are
his views
concerning
the history and nature of prophecy dealt with in the opening

chapter.
He
and
believes, in the
first
place, that
prophecy with the
Hebrews was an indigenous

literary
rather than an exotic product, being
quasi-rational rather than ecstatic
and sensational
to establish
like that of the
surrounding Canaanites.
all,
If
it
we want
author
any relation
philosophy.
at
the author thinks
must be with Creek

insists
In
the
second
place,
the
that
eschatology preceded literary prophecy instead of the
reverse,
and hence
there
is
no reason why the Messianic passages should
RECENT BIHEICAL LITERATURE
REIDER
459
be eliminated from the writings of the pre-exiHc prophets.

treatment
is
The
quite interesting, the

briefly
main
characteristics of each
prophet being illuminated
and concisely through a running
commentary on
his
most important statements.
The aim
is
of the Cambridge Bible for Schools, as A. H. McNeile,

it
the general editor for the Old Testament, puts

to explain the
in the preface, at the
Revised Version
for
young students, and

main
same time
to
present, in a simple form, the
results of
the best scholarship of the day.
This aim has been attained

in
by Professor Box,
as
by those preceding him
the
series.
Within a very small compass the

is
gist of accumulated research

style.
presented in a plain yet attractive
short introduction
deals with authorship, date, sources^ and chronology. Palestine

is
A map
of
appended
at the end.
Mr. Dodson's Jonah hardly deserves much
consideration.
allegorically in
As
is
well
known, Jonah has been interpreted

:
various
ways
he
typified
in
turn
recalcitrant
and repenting
Israel, the
missionary Christian Church, and even the entombed

Jesus.
and
resurrected
Canon Dodson's
city,
exposition
falls
in
with the Old Catholic conception of Jonah as a bigoted Jew,

unwilling to testify to a Gentile
and angry
that
Cod had
spared
it.
The poem
in the
'
Patience
'
is
derived from a vellum manuscript

is
Cottonian collection of the British Museum, and
an
English product of the close of the fourteenth or the beginning
of the fifteenth century.

of composition
in 1864,
is
The
author
is
unknown.
It
The
place
first
the north-west Midland.

in 1869,
is
was published
and again
by the Early English Text Society.

elaborate.
The
present edition
more
The poem
consists of
a prologue on the
virtue
of patience, four chapters containing
the Jonah narrative, and a brief epilogue.
Two
crude drawings
accompany the
in the other
text
is
in
one Jonah
is
thrown into the whale,

Curiously
It
is
he
preaching to the people of Nineveh.
enough,
in
both
he looks the typical mediaeval Jew.
interesting that the
poem
is
patterned after the Vulgate.
For
460
THE JEWISH gUARTERI.V REVIEW
the purpose of comparison the editor appends the Vulgate text
of Jonah with WycHff's version opposite
it.
Similarly,
is
for
the
elaborate description of the storm at sea a parallel

in the
adduced
appendix
attributed to
his notes
are
poem De Jona et Nineve,' formerly The editor's preface is illuminating, Tertullian. The glossary is helpful to an full of erudition.
Latin
'
the
understanding of the
difficult
idiom.
is
The
teachers
Short Course Series
designed primarily for ministers

for
and preachers, and secondarily
laymen and Sabbath-school
who
are
interested
in
a scholarly but also practical
exposition of Bible history and doctrine.

brevity
is
As
the
title
implies,
the soul of the undertaking, the aim being to depict
the most essential points of a subject in a series of connected

studies.
The
;
Bible commentaries in the

at
series
are
homiletic
biblical
in character
the same time they are based on sound
criticism, following the latest authorities in this field of research.
Mr. Adams's volume discusses only the
first
six
chapters
of
Zechariah containing the visions, leaving the other chapters no
doubt
for
a future volume.
is
Dr. Aked's
book comprises the
whole of Job, and
admirably arranged and treated, as

:
may
be seen from these headings
the Insurrection of Doubt, the
Restoration of Faith, Satan in Literature and in Life, Eliphaz

the Seer, Bildad the Sage, Zophar the Ordinary Soul, the Inter-
vention of Elihu, the Speeches of Jehovah.

followed by an
further study.
Both volumes are
appendix containing a short bibliography for
Sovgs of the Jewish Church.

Psalms.
An
Introduction to the Study of the
By James T. Pinfold, M.A., B.D. Charles H. Kellv, [1913]. pp. 223.

The
Titles
London
of the Psalms.
Their Nature and Meaning explained.
By James William Thirtle, LL.D., D.D.

London: Morc.an
The
Sofigs,
Popular edition.
pp.
viii
&
Scori' Lin., 1916.

the
+ 386.
By
Jfymfis,
and Prayers of
Old Testament.
Charles Foster Kent,
Ph.D., Litt.D., Woolsey Professor
REIDER
46
Old
of Biblical Literature in Yale University (The Student's
Testament).
pp. xxi
New York
nach
Charles Scrikner's Sons,
1914.
+ 305.
Israels
Die Fsalmen
dem Versmass
in
der Urschrift verdeutscht

Leipzig.
von D. RuD. KiTTEL, Professor
Leipzig
A.
DeichertscheVerlagsbuchhandlung,
Die
schonsteti
1915. pp.viii
+ 217.
Karl
Fsalmen.
Leipzig
:
Uebertragen und erlautert von
BuDDE.
C. F.
Amelangs Verlag,
[1915]. pp.125.
\"er-
Erkldriing der Psalmen und Cantica in ihrer liturgischen
wendung, von Prinz Max, Herzog zu Sachsen, Dr.

et jur. utr.
theol.
Regensburg und
Rom
Druck und Verlag von
Friedrich Pustet, 1914.
pp. 528.
set to
The Resp07isive Psalter, containing the Psalms
chant-forms
in accordance with the Parallelisms of Hebrew Poetry, and
designed to conduce to a natural and expressive rendering

of the words on the part of both the choir
and congregation.
:
By Rev. James Eckerslev, M.A., Eltham, Kent. London SiMPKiN, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co. Ltd., 19 13.
pp. xxxii4- 296.
The
Hymn Book
Green &
of the Ages.
Being the Book of Psalms with

S.
a short commentary. Co., 1913.

the Life
By
B.
Macv.
London
Longmans,
pp. viii4-659.
TheFsalter and
of Fray er. By Annie H. Small. London

pp. xviii+158.
dates,
and Edinburgh: T. N. Foulis, 1914.
Mr. Pinfold deals with the nature, the authorship, the

the compilation, the poetry, the music, and the
titles
of the Psalms.
Further chapters are devoted to the conception of deity, ideas
about man,
sin
and
life,
its
consequences, personal religion, views
concerning future
imprecatory and messianic psalms, and the
Christian use of the Psalter.
There
is
nothing original in
all this.
The
treatment
is
quite popular, being intended for Bible students
and Christian
pastors.
elimination of foot-notes
The fluent style and the almost complete make it attractive even to the layman.
it
As a
special
and detailed introduction
is
quite desirable,
and
462
its

usefulness
is
further
enhanced by the
fact
that
it
takes
cognizance of modern criticism.

Dr. Thirtle's volume on the
titles
of the Psalms experienced
two successive editions

essentially the same.
in
1904 and 1905.
The new
issue
is
Its
purpose was to expound a new theory

titles
with reference
to
the enigmatic
of the psalms,
viz.
that
the present superscripts are really postscripts belonging to the
preceding psalms
(in
accordance with Hab.
3),
a circumstance
which, in the mind of the author, seemed to unravel the knot
and
and
solve the difficulties of the Psalter.
Furthermore, through
D''JK'1:^',
fanciful interpretations of difficult terms

riTiJ,
such as
nny
]\yYC
he endeavoured
to
divide
the Psalter according to
seasons.
Incidentally, he argued for the antiquity of the
Psalms
say,
against the school of
modern
criticism.
Needless to
his
its
argument, though plausible, was not convincing, especially in

philological
phase.
And
for
title,
this
impression
difficulties,
still
lingers
to-day.
He
certainly accounts
its
some
as in the case oi
Ps. 88 with
double
but in the great majority of cases

fails
is
he appears
to juggle with
words and
to
convince the reader.
The
lengthy exposition of his thesis

in the
followed by the text of

in his
Psalms
Revised Version, arranged
novel way.
for
Professor
in
Kent
is
editing the
Old Testament
a logical
students
an English
translation,
and
in
and chronological
all
arrangement.
The
present
volume
to
contains
the
lyrical
elements, classified according
their
content and dominant
motive, and arranged as far as possible in the order in which
they
were written.
is
The
translation,
though
leaning
to
on
the
English versions,
the
quite independent,
and aims
reproduce
measured beat and the strophic rhythm of the original Hebrew. There are brief summaries on the margin, and copious
notes, both critical
and explanatory,
at the
bottom.
include references to variants in ancient versions.
The latter The author

text
adopts emendations in the
text,
but
fails
to give references to
their originators or state the departure
from the Masoretic
(such
is,
e. g.,
the invocation in David's
Lament over Saul and

Jonathan,
p. 71).
463
is
His attitude towards the Hebrew metre
sound, refusing to treat the lyrics in accordance with a theoretical

strophic structure which involves a sacrifice
and curtailment of
The Introduction deals with the general characteristics and different types of Hebrew poetry, the structure and authorship of the Book of Lamentations, the origin and
the time-hallowed
text.
interpretation
of the
Song of Songs, the music and song

literary
in
Temple
service,
the
and
historical
background of the
It is a pains-
Psalter, the structure
and
history of the Psalter.
taking piece of work, and will prove
of great
benefit to the
English student for
whom
it
is
intended.
Kittel's metrical version of the
Psalms
is
practically a reprint
from
his larger
work containing a translation and commentary

world (Z>/V Psalmen
iibersetzt
for the learned
und
erkldrt, Leipzig,
AIte?t Testa-
19 14, constituting part of the series Komniejitar

ine7it
zum
edited by Professor Ernst Sellin).
Even the
preface quotes
the other work as to the
manner of translation,
Kittel's object
was
to adhere to Luther's version as closely as possible,
and
at the
same time
in the
to reproduce the peculiarities of the
Hebrew metre
idioms
German
rendering.
It is
difficult task
which only a man

both
with
a sound and intimate
knowledge
Kittel
of
can
text
accomplish, and, of course,

is
possesses both.
The
carefully printed
and
well arranged.
For proper orientation

titles
the superscriptions and
other
extraneous
introduced by
is
editors are given in bold-face type, while the text
in italics.
In addition, ever}' psalm bears a

the subject-matter.
title
in
Roman
type indicating
is
The beauty
of the volume
enhanced by
photographic reproductions of musical scenes and drawings of

instruments from Oriental antiquity.
Budde's
'
Most
Beautiful Psalms
'
is
a product of our period
of storm and stress.
While the
soldiers in the field are provided
with abridged Prayer Books and tiny Bibles to guide them in

their
communion
in
with the
God
of Hosts, the people at
home
are furnished with an abridged Psalter which will help to comfort
them
their distress.
Indeed, the psalms have been chosen
464
with a view to the present situation (comp. Ps. 11 and 12), and
the learned editor, however objective he
may have wished

In a book
to be,
even alludes to the war occasionally.
like this the

like
main point
is
the choice to be made,
and a man
it.
Budde
and
may be
finest
relied
upon
to
know how
and
to
make
He
culled the
specimens of
faith
resignation,
of
penitence
supplication.
Some
other
psalms might have been included
but for the fact that the editor was limited to the round
fifty.
number
We
Ps. 22,
much such my God, why 'jMy God,

miss very
in
a sterling and ringing outcry as

hast
Thou
forsaken me?'
The
chosen psalms are given
new
elegant
German
rendering,
which
to the
is
truly poetical
though simple.
The
translation adheres
Hebrew, preserving even the
spirit
of the
Hebrew
metre.
Of
course, here
and
there, in difficult passages,
emendations are
introduced to
titles,
make
possible a popular rendering.
The
puzzling
Critical
as
might
have
been
expected,
are
omitted.
explanations are offered at the
end of the book.
brief but
learned introduction gives the most essential information about

the origin, constitution,
and
literary
make-up of the
Psalter.
The commentary
by Prinz
to the
Psalms and other songs of the Bible
Max
is
for practical, liturgical purposes,
and was
first
delivered in the form of lectures at the Seminary of the Arch-
bishop of Cologne.
breviary as a basis,
It
takes the text of the
Roman
is
Catholic
to
and adheres
as closely as possible
the
hermeneutics of the Catholic Church.

in
The
exposition
homiletic
character,
and leans very much on the Church Fathers.

is
Considerable space
devoted to the various uses and employin
ments of each psalm

find the
first
the liturgy.
Among
the Cantica
we
song of Moses (Exod.
15. 1-19), the
song of Moses
from Deuteronomy (32. 1-43), Hannah's song of thanksgiving

(i
Sam.
2.
r-io),
David's prayer (i Chron. 29. 10-13), Isaiah's

(Isa.
song of praise (12. /-6), Hezekiah's song of thanksgiving

38.
ro-20),
Habakkuk's psalm
(3. 2-19), the song of praise of
Tobii (13. i-io), of the three youths

of Daniel, and others.
in
the apocryphal parts
REIDER
465
Ever since the memorable days of the Oxford Movement

attempts have been
made
to revive the ancient to

its
Gregorian modes,
and
to restore the
Church chant
pristine simplicity.
As an
antidote to the centuries-old secularization of religious music the
pure primitive chant was to

in
all
its
be resuscitated and rejuvenated
glory
and
stately
its
movement, such
as
accompanied
the Nazarene faith on
triumphal march throughout the world.
The
this
point of greatest emphasis was that the melos must follow
the logos, and not vice versa as was the case heretofore.
To
end, church
all,
composers proceeded to recast many chants

to
and, above
create a
new frame
for
the
perennial and
universal psalms.
in the
Many
Psalters
resulted,
each one differing
conception of melody and the arrangement of material.

is
The
only
present Psalter by Rev. Eckersley

it
along the same
lines,
emphasizes the application of melodic parallelisms to the
parallelisms of
Hebrew
poetry.
The composer
advocates Aquilean
literalism in translating the
psalms into the musical idiom.
Every
mood and nuance

in
in the text
must be expressed correspondingly
the melody.
But
this
can hardly be done with primitive
modes and
It
is
scales of a limited range, such as
he operates
with.
the secular chromatic scales that lend themselves best to

painting.
mood
Hence
the chants in this Psalter are extremely

features.
monotonous, and lack any striking
As
regards the form
they are bipartite (theme, counter-theme), and, where the psalms

are longer, tripartite (theme, counter-theme, theme).
to the
In fairness
composer
it
must be stated
:
that he does not insist
on
the adoption of these melodies

principle of literal rendering,
he only wants to emphasize the

as to the melodies, they can
and
be varied
to suit the individual taste.
Miss Macy presents the Prayer Book version of the psalms
accompanied by a devotional commentary.

is
The arrangement
entity.
by chapters, each chapter being treated as an
First
comes the whole
text of a chapter, then follows general
comment
with Christian applications, and finally comes an ancient prayer
resembling the text in
its
phraseology.
In the Introduction the
466
author contradicts the statements of the Higher Critics as to

the late date of
some psalms.
Miss Small likewise deals with the Psalter as the fountainhead

of prayer and devotion.
discipline
preface contains observations on the

life
and some discoveries of the

psalms,
sixty-three
in
all^
of prayer.
Then
follow
the
chosen with a view to
devotion and prayer.
The
text is that of the short-lived
Genevan
Psalter, with certain editorial modifications to suit the

taste.
modern
The whole
is
cast into stanzas.
Marginal notes indicate

Albrecht Diirer's
the devotional use and the Psalmist's method.
well-known drawing,
'
The Praying Hands,'
serves as a frontispiece.
The Poem of Job. Translated in the metre of the Original by Edw. G. King, D.D., Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge.
Cambridge:
Koheleth.
at the
University Press, 1914.
pp. xii-f 116.
Metrical
Paraphrase of the Canonical Book
of
Ecclesiastes.
By George Roe.
that of
With an Introduction and

the
many
notes
comparing the philosophy of Koheleth,
Hebrew, with
of Persia.
pp. 83.
Omar Khayyam, the astronomer-poet New York: Dodge Publishing Company, [191 2].
Dr. King's Job

the
principle
is
a metrical translation in conformity with
of
accented syllables
enunciated
in
1).
his
Early
Religious Poetry of the

this principle,
in a line, the
Hebrews (Cambridge, 191
Following
and
in order to get only three

is
accented syllables
author
compelled to introduce many emendations

for
is
of the
Hebrew
text,
which he draws mostly upon
Kittel's
Biblia Hebraica.
He
not quite felicitous in his independent

'
emendations.
Thus
his rendering of 39. 29,
Doth
the griffon
mount up
at thy telling?
(juite
Or
the vulture
make
it
nest on high?'
may be
admirable
''31
metrically,
is
but
is
based
on
an
emendation of
to
nn, which
anything but convincing:
orthographically the one could not be clianged into the other,
and grammatically the

i:p
fern,
nn
could
not be
the subject of
D^T.
This
is
another illustration of what mischief scholars
RECENT
are prone to
BIBLICAF.
in the
LITERATURE -REIDER
of metre.
467
commit
name
to
in the
The
author further
commits the mistake, common

a gloss whatever does not
fit
many
critics,
of declaring as
narrow confines of his scheme.

7.
As an
just
instance,
it
he
is
singles out as a gloss the fine passage

still
4-5
because
obscure and does not
suit
his
scheme.
Otherwise the book
is
an earnest attempt to smooth down the
rough and rugged
style of the
Hebrew, and
to
couch
it
in a
good
and
clear English.
The
notes are particularly interesting where
they call into comparison the great masterpieces of Occidental

literature.
Of
still
greater value would
be a comparison with
the great works of the Orient, notably with the classic poetry
of the Arabs.
difficulties
This,
am
convinced, would
clear
up many
which now appear insurmountable.
Mr. Roe's paraphrase of Ecclesiastes in rhymed quatrains was

written as a
companion
to his translation
it
of the RubaHyat of
Omar Khayyam.
original
As
is
a piece of poetry
reads well, but the

in
Koheleth
hardly
recognizable
the
paraphrase.
Whole passages and

difficult
sections are omitted because they appeared
to the translator.
of Koheleth with that of

brief
The comparison of the philosophy Omar Khayyam in the foreword is too

real contribution
and
superficial to
form a
on the
subject.
The
Assumption
of Moses.
\\'ith
Translated
by William
Notes.
John
{Trans-
Ferrar, M.A.
lations of
Introduction and
Series I
:
Early Doawients.
:
Palestinian Jewish
Texts.)
Societv for Promotinc; Christian London Knowledge, 19 17. pp. 42.
The Apocalypse of Baruch. By the Rev. Canon R. H. Charles^ D.D. With an Introduction by the Rev. W. O. E.
Oesterley,
Series I
:
D.D.
{Translations
of Early
Documents.
:
Palestinian
Jewish Texts.)
London
Societv
pp. 96.
FOR Promoting Christian Knowledge, 191 7.

The Apocalypse of Ezra
(2
Esdras 3-14).
Translated from the
Syriac text, with brief annotations.
By G. H. Box, M.A.
Series I
:
{Translations of Early Documents.
Palestinian
VOL. IX.
468

Jewish Texts.) London
:
Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge,
The Testaments of
D.Litt.,
191
the
7.
pp. 115.
Twelve Patriarchs.
D.D.
With an Introduction by the Rev.
By R. H. Charles, W. O. E.
Documents.
:
Oesterley,
Series
I
:
D.D.
{Translatiotis
of Early
Palestinian
Jewish Texts.)
London
Society
pp. 108.
for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 191 7.

The Book of Enoch.
By R. H. Charles, D.Litt., D.D. With an Introduction by the Rev. W. O. E. Oesterley, D.D.

(
Translations of Early Dociim-ents.

Texts.)
:
Series I
Palestinian
Jewish
Society for London pp. 154. Christian Knowledge, 191 7.
Promoting
The Wisdom of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus). By W. O. E. Oesterley, D.D. {Translations of Early Docmnents. Series I: PalesLondon Society for Promoting tinian Jewish Texts.)
:
Christian Knowledge, 1916.

The
pp. 148.
Wisdom
Jewish
of
Solomon.
By W. O.
E. Oesterley, D.D.
Series II:
{^Translations of
Early Doctiments.
:
Hellenistic
for Society London Christian Knowledge, 191 7. pp. 94Texts.)

It is
Promoting
planned by the
editors,
W. O.
E. Oesterley
:
and G. H. Box,
first
to issue three series of post-biblical writings
the
comprising
Palestinian-Jewish
and cognate
texts of the pre-Rabbinic period

;
the second embracing Hellenistic-Jewish texts

taining Palestinian-Jewish
the third con-
and cognate
texts of
Rabbinic times.
The scheme includes

selections
therefore the
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,

tractates,
from
Philo
and Josephus, some Mishnic

to the Bible.
and
also
some mediaeval commentaries

students with
short,
The
is
object
of these series, as stated by the editors in their preface,

to
primarily
furnish
cheap, and
handy text-books,
which
will facilitate
the study of the particular texts in the classteachers.
room under competent

and comments, and the
and since
Hence
the scarcity of notes
restriction in size.
So
far
these works,
with few exceptions, were available only in elaborate and expensive

editions,
their
importance
is
only second to the Bible

itself,
it
REIDER
in a
469
was deemed advisable
to edit
them
popular guise.
The
translations of the apocryphal texts are for the

lines
most part
edition
on the same
as
those
in
Charles's
splendid
of
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Oxford, 191 3). Those by Charles

himself were taken over verbatim from the larger edition, the
editor only writing an introduction to them.
The main
way
to
difficulty
must have been

texts
to circumscribe the notes in a

alike
attractive
to
the student and layman.
make the The same

and
discretion
had
to be
used with reference to the introductions,

in a succinct
:
which deal with every phase of the book, but
compact way.
date,
They comprise the headings

contents,
title,
authorship,
language,
bibliography^ and,
as
an aftermath,
importance of the book
for the
study of Christian origins, without
which
no
such
that
Christian
undertaking
would
be
complete.
However
may
be, the editors deserve praise for this neat
and popular
edition,
which
is
a desideratum.
It is
not too
much
to expect that henceforth a greater
number of people may delve
into this interesting branch of ancient Jewish literature.
Joseph Reider.
Dropsie College,
H h
RECENT ARABIC LITERATURE

The Mystics of Islam.
Litt. I).,
Y>y
Revnold
G.
A.
Nicholson, M.A.,
Sons,
Hon. LL.D., Lecturer
in Persian in the University
of
Cambridge.
London
Bell and
1914.
pp. vii+178.
Although
its
mysticism
in its
wider sense
is
nothing more than
a pantheistic faith, each religion has produced a mystic system of
own which
bears
its
specific impress.
Mystics
all
the world
over are of kindred temperament, but their doctrines are necessarily

influenced by race and religion.
The general
outlines of Kabbalah,
Sufism, and Christian mysticism are practically identical, but in

the details there are essential differences.
The Jewish
mystic
has
the Bible as the centre
of his
independent speculations,
while his
Mohammedan
brother never loses sight of the Koran.
Even
in cases
where the terms are apparently identical there are
different shades of
meaning when employed by the mystics of the
various religions.
As Dr. Nicholson
rightly
observes,
A.x.i
of
the Sufi and Nirvana of the Buddhist, though the terms are synony-
mous
signifying the passing
away of individuality, have

is
different
is
connotations.
For
'
while Nirvana
purely negative, fana
accompanied by haqa, everlasting

obvious that the study of Sufism
parative religion
life in
is
God'
(p. 18).
It is
thus
of vast importance for
comBut
and the various phases of human thought.
the material for a comprehensive and exhaustive study of this subject

is
almost inaccessible, as by
literature
in
far
the greater
is
still
i)art
of the
immense
Arabic and Persian
unpublished.
This, however, offered no serious difficulty in the preparation of
the present volume, which, in accordance with the plan of the
Quest
Series, is
designed to give the general outlines of mystic

Dr. Nicholson has admirably acquitted himself
little
thought in Islam.
of his task,
and produced a delightful

471
book, which
is
of value
472
to the
THE JEWISH yUARTKR]-V REVIEW

layman as well as
to the scholar.
^Vhile various
monographs
fore-
on Sufism have appeared from time to time by some of the

most exponents of Islam,
research,
to
this
book bears the mark of
original
and contains material which has hitherto been inaccessible students. The author tells us that he has drawn upon material
collected by
him
for the last
twenty years, and every paragraph
bears testimony to his erudition
and
insight.
In addition to
that,
the various doctrines are presented in a pleasant and popular

form,
and
this in itself
is
an achievement when dealing with an
abstruse subject.
As
to the origin of the

to
name
'
Sufi
',
the Arabs and Persians

it
themselves seem
have
lost sight of
long ago, and offered
numerous explanations, one more

the view of
fanciful than the other.
In his
introduction Dr. Nicholson rejects
them
all,
and
rightly adoptsi
/^{/'(wool),
Noldeke who derives the word Sufi from
the early
Muslim
ascetics having, in imitation of the Christian
hermits, clad themselves in coarse woollen garments.
(See also
Freytag's Lexicon,
s.
v.)
Considerable space
is
also devoted to
the influence exerted over Sufism by Christianity, Neo-Platonism,
Gnosticism,
and
Buddhism.
Historical
evidence
points
to
Buddhism
faith
as having
more
in
conmion with Sufism than any other

conquest of India there
in
or doctrine.
This
is
especially the case with the Persian
mystics, for prior to the
Mohammedan
had
been flourishing
Buddhist
monasteries
Balkh.
Never-
theless there are
fundamental differences between the Sufi and

aptly
the Buddhist.
As Dr. Nicholson
and
pithily puts
it,
'The
at
Buddhist moralizes himself, the Sufi becomes moral only through
knowing and loving God'

first
(p. 17).
Strange as
it
may seem
sight, Jewish mysticism, while having
many
it.
points of contact
with Sufism, exerted no direct influence over

is
Mohammed,
is
as
well
known, borrowed
although
freely
from Judaism, and Geiger's Was hat
Muhammed
exhaustive,
islamischeii
von dem Jiide?ithum aufgoiommen ?
by no means
de^,
Mittwoch's Ziir Entstehungsgeschichte
Gebets laid Kiilius overstates the case.

of
But
in the
early
centuries
Mohammedan
supremacy, which
set
the
Oriental
mind
ablaze, the process of influence
was reversed, and
HALPER
473
the Jews assimilated Arab culture, representing a happy blending

of the products of various races, to their advantage.
One need
Jewish
merely refer to the

science
brilliant
Spanish epoch, which produced the

in
all
its
of biblical
philology
ramifications,
philosophy, and Neo-Hebrevv poetry, to be convinced of the debt
Jews,
if
not Judaism, owe to the Muslim world.
It is possible
that Jewish mysticism of the later period did not escape that
influence, but the comparative study of
Kabbalah
is
not as yet
even in
its
infancy,
and nothing
definite
can be asserted.
good
many
their
of the mystic
poems
of Ibn Gabirol
latter
and Ibn Ezra have

be
Muslim
parallels,
and the
Yakzan.
consciously imitated Ibn

it
Sina's Risalai
Hai
b.
At the same time
is
to
pointed out that there are echoes of biblical mysticism in some

of the Sufi poems.
in this connexion.
Psalms 42 and 63 may be profitably compared
In
six chapters
Dr. Nicholson describes the most important

it
aspects of Sufism, but
should be remarked that the
title
of the
volume
is
not quite in harmony with the contents.
It is
not with
the mystics
themselves that the author acquaints us, but with
some
aspects of mystic thought.
Chapter
I deals with the
Path
which leads to the goal of the

is
Sufi.
comprehensive description
given of the dhikr, which Muzlim mystics regard as the keystone
of practical religion.
While Dr. Nicholson successfully explains
the significance of this ceremony to the mystic, I do not think he

is
right in considering the English
word
'
recollection
'
the most
to
appropriate equivalent of dhikr
(p. 45).
The dhikr seems
be
a relic of an ancient form of worship
common
to the early Semites.
In the
'
Koran
',
^
'
in this
connexion should best be rendered

'.
mention
not
remember
Its
equivalent
is
is
of frequent occur-
rence in the Bible, where the Hifil form

especially
iî'^r^?
used.
Mention may
20. 8)
be made
of "i^?"
^rn^N nin^-QK'a (Psalm

In the latter case
it
and
D''"!''3|?3n
(Isa. 62. 6).
seems to have
a technical sense.
in the
is
There
is
some evidence
20.
that the
is
Kal was used

causative.
It
same
sense, for in
Exod.
24 the Hifil
is
not unUkely that the use of the Hifil
due
to
its
being a
is
denominative verb.
In these cases the synonym of IDT
Nip,
474
which
is

by
3.
far the
more frequent of the
two.
See e.g.
Ps. 105. i,
if
Deut. 32.
This phrase would best be understood
taken to
mean
a repetition of God's name, and this must have been the
ordinary form of worship before prayers in the

introduced.
modern sense were
God knows
the innermost secrets of man's heart,

is
and the mere mention of His name
sufficient for invocation.
The
story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal (i Kings 18. 20-40),

this
where
It is to
phrase occurs several times, thus becomes very clear.
be observed that the
Mohammedan
which
is
formula
ajJI
^1 j^l
Î
is
identical with D\n^xn Nin
nin"'
repeated twice in verse 39.

is
remarkable survival in present-day Jewish liturgy

is
the latter
formula, which
repeated seven times on the
Day
of Atonement.
No doubt
they
the
number seven has a mystic
significance, but the

until
Sufis repeat their formula
an indefinite number of times
become exhausted.
and
The
incessant repetition of a word or

all his
phrase enables the Sufi to concentrate

object
senses
all
on a
particular
to put himself into a trance.

'
At
events the idea
of
'
recollection
does not
suit here.
The
'J'he
other chapters deal with Illumination and Ecstasy, the
Gnosis, Divine Love, Saints and Miracles, and the Unitive State.
fourth chapter, Divine Love,
is
perhaps the most interesting,
and many of the
extracts recall passages from the Zohar.
Throughlist
out the book Dr. Nicholson carefully avoids giving a mere
of
names and books, and

of
clarity.
rightly sacrifices
is
completeness for the sake

of a larger work, which,
This volume
is
not a
re'siiine
we
are told, the author
preparing, but a selection of interesting
aspects of Sufism.
In such a
mode
of treatment no two writers

selections.
would agree as
to the
most appropriate
Every scholar
has his favourite authors and books, to which he

give
may unconsciously
altogether.
undue prominence, while omitting others

excerpted
This
becomes apparent when one notices

ijuotations
is
that the greater part of the
from
Niffari,
an unknown wandering
is
dervish,
whose Arabic book Dr. Nicholson
editing,
is
and from
Jalaluddin
Rumi.
On
the other hand,
there
not a single
reference to the Egyptian poet

especially
Omar
b. al-Farid,
whose poems,
read
with
the
al-Taiyyah
al-Kubra,
have
been
RECENT ARABIC LITERATURE HALPER
475
delight by mystics as well as by general readers of Arabic poetry.
Nor
is
there a single (luotation from the melodious

(the
and tender
the author
poems of Majnun
refers to
madman) about
is,
Layla, to
whom
of the Kitab al-Aghani devotes considerable space.
Dr. Nicholson
taste,
him only by the way. This
however, a matter of
and the author
certainly has a right to
be guided by
his
own
prejudices and predilections.
The Treaty of Mis r
in Tabarl
an essay in historical criticism.
By A.
J.
Butler, D.Litt, Fellow of Brasenose College.
Oxford:
at the
Clarendon
Press, 1913.
pp. 87.
Babylon of Egypt : a study
in the history
of Old Cairo.
By A.
:
J.
Butler,
the
D.Litt.,
Fellow of Brasenose College.

Press, 1914.
pp. 64.
Oxford
at
Clarendon
The conquest
Islam
offers
of Egypt during the early days of the rise of

for the historian.
fascinating material
But, as
is
the case with
almost
all
important periods in the history of
mankind, the
up.
details of this event
have not hitherto been cleared
This
is
largely
due
to the uncertainty of the sources

this subject are based.
upon
which the investigations into

historians, especially 'Pabari,
The Arab
have described
this period at full
length, but there
is
sufficient
ground
to question the authenticity

difficulties
of
some
of their
statements.
The
enhanced by the Coptic
aufliorities
are still more whose version does not
always coincide with that of the Arabs.

definite conclusions, the
first
In order to arrive
is
at
modern
historian
accordingly obliged
texts of the
of
all
to give
an accurate interpretation of the
Arabic and Coptic writers and then weigh the validity of the
statements of one native author against those of the other. There
obviously
of some
discredit
is
room
for divergence of opinion.
deplorable tendency
modern
historians
is
to generalize too readily

its
and
to
one source because some of
statements have proved

another.
erroneous, while putting implicit faith in
Not
infre-
476
quently racial and religious bias has played an important part

in
investigations of this kind.
Coptic writers, being Christians,
are regarded by
some
Christian historians as
than
the
Arabs.
But
the
unbiassed
detail
J.
investigator
its
more trustworthy knows no

merits.
generalities,
and judges each

Dr.
on
own
Some time ago

volume
entitled
A.
Butler
published
an excellent
The Arab Conquest of Egypt (Oxford, 1902),
which was based upon a careful and painstaking study of the Owing to the difficulty of the subject, he original sources.
naturally
had
to
make use
of conjectures
and combinations, some

Stanley
of which have not stood the test of minute criticism.
Lane-Poole, another erudite Arabist and brilliant student of that

period, offered different theories
and
interpretations of
some of
returns
the texts,
and Dr.
Butler, as a fearless investigator,
now
to the subject to revise
some of
and
to
his former conclusions
which
have proved
untenable,
defend others against which
ill-founded objections have
been
raised.
At present he
limits the
scope of his investigation to the study of some of the traditions

recorded by Tabari, especially in connexion with the treaty of
Misr.
For some reason or other, Dr. Butler had used Zotenberg's
edition,
and by
referring
his views.
to
de Goeje's work, he was able to
correct
some of
and
He
chiefly takes issue with
Lane-
Poole,
gives a detailed investigation of the time
and place
treaty,
of the treaty, the parties to the treaty, the
meaning of the
the authenticity of the treaty
the identity of al-Mukaukis.
Two
of the most important points where he seems to have proved his case satisfactorily
may be given
^"5
.
here.
In the treaty occurs the
clause LJ5 Jl *'^W.
great deal
depends upon the accurate

in the
interpretation of the
text
word ^y^\ which occurs three times
(once i^Jl).
Dr. Butler defends the view which takes this
word
shall
to signify Nubians,
and renders the clause

(p.
'
:
The Nubians
similarity
not settle
among them'
34).
striking
occurs in the Treaty of Jerusalem, which contains the following

clause
:
'
None
of the Jews shall dwell with
them
in Jerusalem.'
I,ane-Poole offers a novel interpretation of this word which he

xQ\-\(\{:xs
garrisons.
Ltymologically this translation
is
equally pos-

sible,
477
on
Dr. Butler's opinion notwithstanding.
Even
easily
Freytag,
the authority of native lexicographers, gives the

agme?i, from
meaning homiiium
be derived.
use in the sense
which the idea of garrison can

is
The
as
objection that 'there
no authority
is
for
its
o{ garrisons at so early a date' (p. 38)
not of sufficient weight,

for
we do not
at present possess
even the material
an
historical
Arabic lexicon, the greater part of the literature

lished.
still
being unpub-
There
is,
however, a textual difficulty which renders

untenable.
is
Lane-Poole's
explanation
In one
sentence of the
treaty the phrase i_>yJl^
jjy'l
used.
Now
as the garrisons are
supposed
garrisons
'
to
is
be Roman, the expression 'the Romans and the

quite unintelligible.
This argument in
itself
is
of
sufficient cogency to establish the accuracy of Dr. Butler's view.
The
other
is
case
in
which
is
also
established
in
favour
of
Dr. Butler
connexion with the identity of al-Mukaukis.

is
Here, too, the evidence
conflicting,
but a thorough examination
of the various passages would lead one to identify al-Mukaukis
with Cyrus,
'
the imperial patriarch and viceroy
'.
The
and
evidence
from the Coptic writers supports

excludes any other hypothesis
confusion and uncertainty
;
this identification,
it is
practically
among
the
Arab authors
that
exist.
While
it is
true that Dr. Butler

it
has a tendency to disparage the Arab writers,
must be admitted
that in this instance his disinclination to give credence to their
statements
out,
is
fully justified.
These
writers,
as
he
rightly points
seem
to
have caught the name al-Mukaukis by hearsay or

it.
tradition without understanding
Nothing
is
gained by Stanley
Lane-Poole's attempt to
governor, and the Dr. Butler
is
identify
al-Mukaukis with some subskilfully
combined evidence
marshalled
by
overwhelmingly against
this
view.
Latin, Coptic,
Many
ancient and mediaeval writers
Greek,
and Arabian
speak
of Babylon of Egypt, but

this
some uncertainty
exists as to the exact
usage of
term at the time of the
Moham-
medan conquest
practically
is
of Egypt.
in
All
modern
scholars
site
have been
unanimous
in
assuming that the
of this Babylon
somewhere
the region of Fustat or Old Cairo.
But the
exact definition has hitherto been
matter of doubt.
Some
478

down
to a
native writers narrowed this term
Roman
fortress built
by Trajan and called Kasr al-Shama', but there are passages

which unmistakably point to a
question
is
city called
by that name.
As
all
this
of importance for the history
and topography of the

the
Arab conquest, Dr. Butler has exhaustively examined

available material,
and
lays the result of his investigations before

sets out to establish three propositions
:
the scholarly world.

(
I
He
Babylon was the recognized name of a town or

;
city of great
importance many centuries before the conquest
(2) the
(3)
this
term
usage
was so understood
prevailed for
at
the time of the conquest
some
centuries after the conquest.

relates that
He
begins with
Diodorus Siculus who

Asiatic
a number of prisoners from
Babylon seized a strong position on the Nile, and founded

This
city
a settlement which they called Babylon.
was known to
is
Josephus, Strabo, Ptolemy, and

definite in his description,
others.
Ptolemy especially
and
tells
us of a canal flowing through
the city
])r,
of
Babylon.
Butler absolutely militates against Pauly
The cumulative evidence adduced by who contests the

historical origin.
is
view that the

Later on the
name Babylon in Egypt had a real name Fustat, the origin of which
the Byzantine
signification
in
ôaa-aTov, supplanted that of
Babylon whose exact

latter
was therefore forgotten.
The
term survived
Coptic.
Mohammedan
however,
is
authors
who
flourished centuries after the conquest

fortress.
speak of Babylon as
if it
were merely a
Their evidence,
inconclusive,
and
is
obviously outweighed by that of
the earlier writers.

exclusive.
The
its
fact that there
Moreover these statements are not mutually was a city named Babylon does
Dr. Butler aptly reminds us of the City
not preclude the possibility of there having been a fortress in that

city
bearing
name.
of
London and the Tower of London. As Dr. Butler's essay is historical and
There
is,
geographical,
it
naturally
contains few textual notes.
however, one remark which
should be slightly modified.
In quoting the geographer Idrisi^

first
^J is
who has
mistake
the
name
.J^Li,
he observes that 'the

note
2).
clearly
a copyist's error'
lies in
(p. 39,
But
it is
more
likely that the
the diacritical points:
.JjL:^
should be read s^JLj.

The
HALPER
479
confusion of diacritical marks has often caused difficulty to

Karaitic writers especially were in the
editors of Arabic texts.
habit of omitting most of these marks.
Uber das Ehe-
ji/id
Fainilienrecht
der Mohaiiimedanei-.
:
Von
Wien INIanzschk K. u. K. HoF- Verlags -und Universitats-Buchhandlung, 1914.

pp. vi
Dr. Emerich von Kaurimskv.
+ 8i.
Mohammedan
countries find
it
Even
not so
residents in
difficult to
familiarize themselves with the internal life of the

is
Muslims.
It
much
mistrust as his peculiar standpoint of morality that

taciturn about his private affairs.
life,
makes the Mohammedan

rarely^ if ever,
He
speaks of his family
and
will
certainly not
allow
a stranger to cultivate the acquaintance of the

of his household.
It is therefore
female
members
not surprising that the
average European has distorted notions about the moral standard

of the followers of
Mohammed.
But the student interested
in
Islamic institutions has no difficulty in obtaining ample information
from Arabic
all
literature.
The Mohammedans,
religious
like
the ad-
herents of
their laws
other important
still
creeds,
'
have codified
true believer
'.
which are
binding upon every
Dr. Emerich von Kaurimsky has collected the most characteristic
laws appertaining to marriage, divorce,
and family
life in
general,
and presented them
in
popular form for the benefit of readers
who
are not acquainted with the Arabic language.
He
bases his
studies
on the Koran, on the books of the
Abu
Hanifite school,
on the decisions, and on other codes.

that the fundamental difference
He
correctly points out
between some of these laws and among European nations is due to the different aims of marriage. To the Mohammedan, marriage is merely a means of propagating the human race, and the idea of partnerthose in vogue
ship for
life is
almost entirely absent.
The
Arabist will hardly find any
new
material in this
little
480

is
volume, which
obviously not intended for him, although the
author usually gives

terms.
It
is,
a transcription of some of the technical
however, the student of sociology
accurate and reliable information about the inner
who will mode of
derive
life
of
hundreds of millions of the

will
human
race.
The European
reader
find
it
strange that the bridegroom has to give a certain

as
sum
of
money
dowry
(^4^) to the bride, her parent, or guardian.
This involves the idea of acquisition, which was shared by the

ancient Hebrews,
who
also gave
"in?D
(see
Exod.
22. 16),
and with
NC'j).
whom
the verbs for marrying signified buying (np7,
rsl\>,
Incidentally this
law sometimes protected the
woman
call
it
against
K*"!:).
divorce, or expulsion, as the
Arabs and Hebrews
(jiU,
Other points of
interest will
be found in connexion with the laws
prohibiting the marriage of certain classes of relatives (which
include a wet-nurse), the laws of inheritance, and the laws of a
minor.
Verneinungs-
und Fragepartikeln
iind
Verwandtes
iin
Kur'dn.
Ein Beitrag zur historischen Grammatik des Arabischen.
Von
Dr. phil.
Gotthelf Bergstrasser,
Leipzig:
J.
Privatdozent an
der Universitat Leipzig.

pp. 108.
C.
Henrich, 1914.
During the
golden period of
their
literature,
the
Arabs
of
devoted a considerable part of their
ability
to
at
the
study
grammar and
works
in
lexicography.
The
detail
teachers
the
schools
of
Basrah and Kufah produced an amazing number of grammatical
which every minute
was discussed and explained
in various ways.
the Arabs in this
Some idea of the magnitude of the labour of field may be gained from Howell's monumental
that historical
still
work.
It
is
therefore surprising
grammars and
This, to
lexica of the Arabic language are
a desideratum.
some
extent, indicates a lack of interest in Arabic philology
on
the part of
modern European
scholars.
The
difficulty
of such
RECENT AFiABlC LITERATURE

a work must not be underrated.
vast
HALPER
is
it
48
Arabic literature
exceedingly
and
not easily accessible to scholars,

or lexicon based
in
and
is
obvious that
literature
grammar
on a small portion of the
would not be much

less,
advance of the existing books.

to -elucidate various details
Nevertheshould be
sporadic
attempts
heartily encouraged, as they
may form
the nucleus for a compre-
hensive work.
Dr. Berg.strasser confines himself in his present

to
volume mainly
collected
the usage of the negative and interrogative
particles occurring in the
Koran.
With great assiduity he has
all the passages and classified them into various groups. Each chapter begins with a statement about the usage of the
particle
under discussion
this is followed
by an exhaustive table
of the verses containing that particle, while the lengthy notes

frequently explain
its
exact force in the various sentences in the
Koran. This
for variants,
in itself is a praiseworthy
achievement.
As
a source
Dr. Bergstrasser
especially
made
use of the commentaries by
native
writers,
those
by Zamahshari
and Baidawi.
collected
He
also consulted the

It
works of modern European grammarians.

that the material thus
must be admitted
and
classified does not advance our knowledge of the development of
Arabic grammar to a considerable extent.
The
passages are
mechanically grouped together, and do not seem to yield
much
but
beyond the
there
is
statistical results.
The
facts are well registered,
a lack of insight into the niceties of the language.
conspicuous instance
laisa
may be
given in connexion with the particle
(chap. 4, pp. 17-20).

its
This
is
a negative particle which

it
derives
particular force from the preposition with which
is
combined.
%.Z)S
^jl^
has a different signification from

is
sj
^j^
or
^^,
but this
entirely
due
to the preposition used
m each
the
case and not to the inherent force of ^jJS.

strasser
And
yet Dr. Berg-
groups
the
is
verses
together
in
accordance with
prepositions.
This
as illogical as to treat the different
meanings
of e*Jic
and
o*-.>
under
482
THK JEWISH OL'ARTKULV REVIEW

7-AfaMsifi Ibn
Alîi
Taghri Birdi's An>ta/s entitled ati-Nujum
Edited by William az-Zdhira ft Muliik Misr wal-Kdhira. Berkeley: at the University Popper. Vol. VI, Part i, No. i.
OF California Press, 1915.
pp.
vi+164.
Vol. VI, Part
i,
No.
2,
19
6.
pp. 165-321.
The enormous literature of the Arabs abounds in historical works which may justly fill the Jewish historian with envy. In
the entire range of post-biblical literature the purely historical
books are a negligible quantity, and

of names, which
it
is
with overwhelming joy
that the student clutches even at a faded
and
tattered fragment
containing a
strangely the
list
'
is
accidentally discovered.
for
How
scraps
and
bits
'
used as sources
Jewish history
contrast with the bulky volumes of the Arabs describing every

detail
1
Nothing
is
too trivial for the
Arab
historians.
the trouble of describing every minute point as

'five
They take they know it, and

is
a chain of authorities from
whom their
information
derived.
While the native chroniclers are not always reliable, for due allowance must be made for the prejudices and idiosyncrasies of
individuals, the
modern
investigator of the various phases of the

to
history of the
Arabs has ample material

'
draw upon, and

straw'.
is
generally spared the task of
making bricks without
To
be
sure,
he has to use his judgement as to the accuracy of every

is,
detail,
but the general trend of events
as a rule, quite plain.
\\'hen Weil wrote his Geschkhte der Chalifen he excerpted from
the native writers, and had

jectures.
no need of making ingenious conis
But a
in the
writer of the gaonic period
obliged to guess
and
to
fill
gaps by making clever combinations and taking
the clue from an accidental remark which occurs in an obscure
book.
it
And
when
a
falls
structure
to pieces
has
been plausibly erected,
not
infrequently
through the discovery of a
fragment.
Among
style,
it
the
Arab
historians
of the
fifteenth
century
Abu
His
M-Mahasin Ibn Tagri Birdi occupies a prominent position.

is
true,
is
not very
graceful,
in
approaches the Arabic dialect spoken
many places it Egypt in our own limes.

and
in
HALPER
But
his
483
He
Ibn
full
also lacks that graphic vividness

al-Athir,
which characterizes Tabari,

others.
Ibn
al-Tiktika,
and many
works are
of detailed information, and

faithful
as he draws near his
own
times
he presents the
record of an eye-witness.
His father took

his description
a leading part in the wars against Tamerlane,
and
of that period, although not unprejudiced, has the merit of being
a faithful account from the sultan's point of view.

Professor Popper
is
to
be congratulated on
his assiduity in
far
continuing the publication of these Annals.
Thus
he has
published the second volume and part of the third, and

offers
now he
two parts of Vol. VI.
He
all
promises to give later on the
completion of the third volume and to publish Vols. IV and V.
The
text,
which
is
based on
available manuscripts,
is
well
is
edited,
and the high standard of the

maintained.
preceding volumes
is
successfully
An
eclectic
text
offered,
and the
editor selected
propriate.
those readings which he

the
variants
deemed
are
the most ap-
In some cases
of a grammatical
nature,
and the
editor usually adopted those readings which are
supported by our present knowledge of Arabic grammar.

is
This
obviously a precarious
'
mode
of procedure, as
is
it
is
quite likely
that the 'grammatical

'
reading
a copyist's correction, while the
ungrammatical
'
one may be
dialectic
and peculiar
to the author.
arbitrarily
However, as there are no other

be regarded as a guide.
criteria,
grammar may
One
instance should
be mentioned
^J^.::5J1 Vsst .kU
where the editor did not choose the better reading.

of the text
in note
(p. 73,
1.
15)
is
inferior to
._>l::5LJl Ijji
^J^LlJI recorded
m.
The
editor's notes,
which are concise and not very

variants, but
numerous, deal mostly with textual

light
is
now and
again
thrown on obscure words and expressions.

is
The primary
explanatory
object of this edition
to
make
the Annals accessible to scholars,
and there
notes.
I
is
hardly any necessity of giving too

^
many
should like to point out that note
of p. 51 ought to
be modified.
^*^1,
Professor Popper has righdy adopted the reading
which
suits the context

^z.Ji\
most admirably; but
cannot agree
is
with him that the variant

suitable.
It
may
stand for
*^jJl,
which
^^^11
hardly
seems to
me
that in a cursive
hand
would be
I
i
VOT.. IX.
484
easily

misread as
in
^sySi.
There are also a few corrections to be

P. 160,
1.
made
connexion with the poetic quotations.

iat^-,.
10, the
metre demands the vocalization

the end of
is
1.
Insert the
word
p.
Jjia5^
1.
at
10,
18, p. 301.
The poem beginning

first
with
302,
correctly
given as Kamil, but the

JJoj.
1.
word does not
scan.
Read perhaps
read
Ibid.,
1.
13
vocalize ^!.
Instead of ^Jl?
Jii {ibid.,
18).
An
work.
important improvement introduced in
this
volume
is
the
dates on the margin.
This naturally
facilitates reference
to this
further
improvement may be suggested
for the future
volumes, namely, the introduction of suitable headings for the

various paragraphs.
These headings may best be placed on
the margin, to indicate that they
do not form
part of the text.
The
necessity of such headings
may be
realized from the fact that
pp. 1-135 û" practically under
one heading. Only on the margin
of PP- 73-85, dealing with the biography of Tamerlane,
do we
have the specified heading
^^
A=^/
There are many other
important sub-divisions which can easily be specified in a similar
manner.
These two
pages,
parts of the
volume extend over 32

fifteen years
closely printed
a.h.).
and cover a period of
(801-815
They
treat of the first sultanate of al-Nasir Faraj b.
Barkuk (801-808),
second sultanate
the brief sultanate of

of al-Nasir Faraj
b.
Mansur 'Abd
al-'Aziz, the
Barkuk (808-815), and the beginning of the

Ibn Tagri Birdi follows
preceding volumes, he
sultanate of al-Musta'in billahi al-'Abbas.
up
his
method most consistently. As
in the
gives a detailed description of the events during each period,
and
then takes up every year separately, devoting considerable space

to the
is
prominent
men who
died during that time.
Very pathetic
campaigns.
the
necrology during the years
of Tamerlane's
'
:
About the year 803 the author remarks Only God knows the number of people who died by his (Tamerlane's) sword during
that year' (p. 143).
The
state of the Nile
is
also recorded for
each year.
full
Tamerlane's exploits and cruel acts are described at
length.
He
is
naturally represented
as
the
conventional
tyrant,
and
his physical deformities are particularly
emphasized.

The
author considered
it
485
necessary to
make
hands
a long digression,
life.
devoting several pages to some incidents in Tamerlane's

relates that the tyrant
He
was born with
his
filled
with blood,
which indicated that he would shed blood

account
is
(p.
74).
curious
given of his death (pp. 279
ff.),
which reminds one of
the death of Antiochus Epiphanes.

Birdi pays a glowing tribute to
At the same time Ibn Tagri Tamerlane's bravery and to his

details
love of knowledge.
his
For further
he
refers the reader to
book
entitled
al-manhal al-sdft wal-mustaiifl bcCda al-wdfl.

tally
In general his descriptions
with the character of
'
Timour
by the English poet Matthew Gregory Lewis.
'i^\j^\ Jl sjj.j^.
London: Bible Lands Missions' Aid
Society, 1912.
J^..-J\
pp. 181.
i-'U,.
f^- Jl JJjJ'
(?).
London: Bible Lands Missions
Aid Society
Christian
pp. 167.
missionaries
view with
grave
concern the rapid
spread of Islam in Africa and other parts of the world where
Arabic
is
spoken.
Mohammedans, on
Christianity.
the
other hand,
point
with pride to the circumstance

coreligionists
that rarely
does one of their

failure
embrace
The
of Christians
in that direction
in
has usually been attributed to the lack of books
Arabic to explain the tenets of Christianity to the followers of
Muhammed.
To be
sure, the Syrian Christians

is
and the Copts,
whose mother-tongue
Arabic, have a literature of their own,
but the Orientals do not employ the proselytizing methods of the
Western missionary.
It
is
necessary to master
the
tenets
Islam before one would attempt to refute them.

Christians
The
Syrian
and Copts, however, would
rarely venture to read
even
the Koran, and they are therefore hardly qualified to produce

controversial literature.
Still,
apologetic books in Arabic appear

I
i
486

One
of the books of this character
is
from time to time.
the
so-called Apology of Al-Kindi, which caused somewhat of a It was published by the Turkish sensation some years ago.
Mission Aid Society, and in 1882 Sir William Muir printed an

essay attempting to prove the authenticity of this book.
See
Jour7ial of the Royal Asiatic Society, N.S., Vol. 14 (1882), pp. 1-18,
317-18.
The
first
book, whose Arabic

it
title
is
given above,
is
a reprint of this Apology, and

the untenability of Muir's view.
may
not be amiss to point out
The book
contains two epistles, one written by 'Abd Allah b.
Ismail the Hashimite inviting his friend 'Abd al-Masih b. Ishak
the Kindite to embrace Islam, while the second

refuting
all
is
by the Kindite
the arguments in favour of Islam and inviting the

to
Hashimite on the
adopt the Christian
faith.
This information
is
given
title-page,
and
it is
further specified that the two
supposed
writers flourished during the khalifate of
al-Ma'mun about the

end of
year 861.
While the Apology
is
not explicitly ascribed to al-Kindi,
the famous philosopher of the Arabs,
and the note
at the
the
book
tells
us that
it
is
not
author was to the philosopher,
known how closely related the there is some insinuation that

and
this
the apologist was a celebrated personage,
gave
rise to
the the
confusion of the names.

tribe of
Before the advent of
Muhammed,
it is
Kindah was under the influence of Judaism, and
not
unlikely that
later they
some members were adherents

to
to Christianity,
but
seemed
have become Muslims.
D'Herbelot's view
that
the
philosopher was a Jew was

de PEgypte
convincingly refuted
Allatif,
p.
by
De
Sacy (see Relation
par Abd
417).
Similar attempts to prove that he was a Christian have also failed.
He
was a Muslim, although he was persecuted by

It is
his coreligionists
for his heretical doctrines.
therefore quite obvious that the
philosopher could
not have been the author of the Apology.
Muir
rightly dismisses this ascription, but thinks that there
were
a Kindite
and a Hashimite
at the court of
al-Ma'mun, contempo-
raries of the philosophers,

epistles.
and
is
that they respectively wrote the

al-Biruni's statement:
His main support
'Likewise
'Abd
al-.VIasih b.
Ishak al-Kindi, the Christian, in his reply to the

Book
of 'Abd Allah
b.
HALPER
them
sacrifice,
487
(the
Ismail al-Hashimi, relates of
Sabeans) that they are notorious for

at present they are not able to practise
human
it
but that
openly' {^Chronology of
Ancient Nations, ed.
Sachau,
p.
187).
Nothing,
however,
is
known
even
of this al-Kindi or al-Hashimi,
and
al-Biruni's remark,
if it is
genuine, does not
tell
us about the age during which
these writers flourished.

century,
Al-Biruni lived at the end of the tenth

his
and the apologist may have been

is
contemporary.
Moreover, there
epistles
not a particle of evidence to identify these
with
the
books referred to by al-Biruni.
careful
reading of the book would lead one to the inevitable conclusion

that both epistles were written by
one and the same man.
In
the present edition al-Hashimi's epistle occupies only twenty-three

pages, while al-Kindi
'
is
allowed one hundred and thirty pages to

latter epistle
state his case
'.
The
teems with quotations from
the Old and
New
Testaments, and reminds one of the Yiddish

All the supposed
'
pamphlets of
sages
'
this nature.
Christological pas-
are
quoted
and explained, and

to
the
author has very
uncomplimentary references
Judaism and Islam.
He
naturally
passes severer judgement on the former, as the prospective convert
must
after all
'
be treated with some consideration.

'.
This
is
by no means a
to take
pious fraud
It is
quite legitimate for an author

into their
two
fictitious
characters
and put
mouths argu-
ments through which the superiority of his own doctrines becomes

manifest.
Judah ha-Levi
skilfully
employed
is
this literary
mode
of
expression in his al-Khazari, and nobody

the conversations actually took place.
preface to the epistles bears out
asked to believe that

a matter of fact the
It says
:
As
my
contention.
'
It
has
been related that
in the
time of al-Ma'mun there lived a man,

(I
one of foremost of the Hashimites,

descendants of 'Abbas),
Islam.
.
.
think he was
of the
to
famous
for piety
and adherence
He
had a
friend,
a Kindite, famous for his adherence

. .
.
to Christianity, in the service of the khalif.
For some reason
or other,
we
are unwilling to mention their names.

letter to the Christian.'
The Hashimite
is
wrote the following

this preface ?
It
Who
the author of
could not have been written by a later editor or

is
copyist, as there
no conceivable reason why he should suppress
488
their

names.
The
only possible explanation

tells
is
that the author,
before giving the epistles,
us vaguely
who
his characters are.
He
that
naturally did
not want to ascribe his
epistles
to
definite
persons.
it
This will also explain another difficulty.

this
Muir remarked
book was not
It
was strange and unaccountable that
better
known and valued
in
Christian
countries.
would
indeed be unaccountable, were the book to have been written

by a prominent
man
of the middle of the tenth century

if
but the
difficulty disappears,
we assume
that the epistles are the
work
of a Nestorian or Jacobite Christian

after
who
lived
many
centuries
al-Ma'mun.
Muir
lays great stress

is
upon the
style of the
book.
But, as far as this
concerned, the book could have been
written to-day by a Maranite or Coptic priest, especially with the
aid of a Western missionary.
The Arabic
dailies, weeklies,
and
monthlies, published in Egypt and Syria, contain articles that

surpass the epistles in rhetorical power.
at
We are
told
by the editor
the end of the book
that he
is
made
use of transcripts of two
manuscripts, one of which
stored in a library in Constantinople,
while the other belongs to one of the libraries of Egypt (or Cairo;
^.tui
is
ambiguous).
These manuscripts bear no
date,
and do not
give the
name
of the copyist.
The vagueness
of which
of the description
naturally adds to our suspicion.
The second book^

Guide
to the Right
the
',
title
is
may be
it
'
translated
'
The
Path
anonymous, and does not bear the

Presumably
was issued from two
epistles
'.
date or place of publication.

the
same
press
and about the same time
as the
It
contains ten chapters in which specific

are refuted.
Mohammedan
full
traditions
Each
tradition
to
is
given at
length,
and then
displays
examined and proved

a thorough mastery
of
be impossible.
The author
Mohammedan
it
theology and traditions.
His
style is rather
good, but
has the faults
common
In
to
its
modern Arabic
of treatment
it
writers
is
who
are fond of verbosity.
many mode
similar to the
Manar
al-Hakk, or The Beacon,
translated into English by
Muir (London, 1894).

B.
Halper.
Dropsie College.
THE ORIGIN OF THE SHULCHAN-ARUCH

Die Entstehung
Halachah.
des Shtilchan-Anich.
Beitrag zur Festlegung der

;
Von Dr. Ch. Tschernowitz. Bern AcadeMISCHE BUCHHANDLUNG VON MaX DrECHSEL, 1915. pp. 79.
The
'
talmudic saying
nc'Dn tsyio DK-'sn nii'Dn
\ih
r\yr\r:>
nc'sn
it,
If
you attempt
if
to grasp too
little
but
you grasp a
much you may not be you may be able to hold it
able to hold
',
may
serve as
first,
a good advice to a certain class of authors, reminding

to define to themselves the
them
scope of the subject which they

its
set
out to treat in their works, and then to remain within

scribed limits.
limits himself to
circum-
If
the
author accurately defines his task and
one special subject or one particular problem

have a firm grasp of
his subject
he
is
more
likely to
and
to
be able
to bring out clearly
whatever new theory he has to advance or
whatever contribution he has to make to the solution of the
problem with which
his
book
deals.
If,
however, he does not so
Hmit himself but drags into the discussion of his special theme
questions
of other subjects
it,
and
vast
problems only remotely
connected with
all
then, unless he be a great master, his grasp of
these
various
problems
is
is
likely
to
be weak.
And
if
the
compass of his book

will
small, his treatment of the various questions
lack in thoroughness.
He may
at
touch upon
many remote
some
aspects
theories,
questions and minor problems, discuss superficially

of the
main problem, hint
or
refer
to
different
without bringing out clearly whatever theory of his

to offer.
own he has
truth
The work
of the
before
nî'Sn
us
is
the best illustration
of the
saying:
X^
T[yr\r::)
nC'DH.
The
is
author did
not
grasp
many
of the problems which he touches
upon
in this small
volume.
His treatment of the main theme
inadequate.
His
theories are unfounded, his discussions are superficial,
and many
489
490
of his statements are inaccurate and frequently contradict one
another.
The
work, as indicated by
its
title,
purposes to deal chiefly
with the genesis of the Shulhan Aruk, but only a very small
proportionof it
deal with the
in the
is
given to the treatment of this subject.
Pages 1-22
methods of teaching and the
definition of terms used
talmudic literature, which have no bearing upon the genesis
of the Shulhan Aruk.

superficial
Pages 22-4 contain a few general and
remarks about the development of the Halakah studies
during the thousand years which intervened between the close of

the talmudic period and the appearance of the Shulhan Aruk.
Pages 24-7 contain an account of Joseph Karo's
life,
his
purpose
and method
in
composing the Shulhan Aruk, a comparison of the

faults
Shulhan Aruk with the Tur, the
and shortcomings of both

in
these codes, in what they are alike
and
what they are not
alike.
Pages 28-79 deal with the opposition to the Shulhan Aruk and
its final
acceptance, the activities of
its
commentators, as well as
with the works of other great rabbinical authorities of that period.
most, only six pages can be considered
Thus, out of the 79 pages which the book contains, at the as, in a manner, dealing
with the genesis of the Shulhan Aruk.
This
is
a great
fault of the
book, but
it
is
the least as com-
pared with the other serious faults and grave mistakes to be found
in
it.
I shall limit
myself to pointing out only a few of the wild

in
theories
and unwarranted statements

tells
which the book abounds.
The
author
line
us (pp. 11-12) that the early sources hardly
draw any
between Halakah and Haggadah.
The
distinction
between Halakah and Haggadah was made only by the Geonim

after the
completion of the Talmud.
It
would require more

full,
space than allowed to
me
for
this
review, to cite, in
the
numerous passages
distinction
is
in
I
the talmudic literature in
which such a
made.
can only refer to Levy's Dictionary and

v.
Bacher's Terminologie,
s.
n^^n and THIU.

his
But our author must have forgotten

p. 5, that in
own statement on
order to be able to appreciate the Halakah one must
go back
to the
Haggadah, which the
so// /res
always contradistinguish
ORIGIN OF THE SHULCHAN-ARUCH

from the Halakah,
LAUTERBACH
49I
So the sources do distinguish between Halakah

unfounded
and Haggadah.
On
custom
pp. 12-14 our author advances the following

relation of
and confused theory about the

:
Halakah
to
Minhag
or
The terms nS?!! and jnjO 'custom', have always been

.
identical,
all
and
that
the ancient teachers use the expressions 'practices', 'customs' for
of the popular custom
But the authoritative power was regarded as the highest authority from which all valid decisions issue. The Halakah always relies for its support upon The Halakah is even subordinated to the JHJC as the popular custom. the higher source. The rule therefore was that in cases of conflict between Even the Halakah and the Minhag, the former must yield to the latter.
which we subsume under the term Halakah.
the teachers of the
Law, would, whenever the Halakah

vahd.
conflicted
with
a custom, recognize the latter as authoritative and
The
halakic
decision acquires binding
power only
is
after
it
becomes a popular custom.

merely theoretical
Accordingly,
the
Halakah
merely custom accepted by the teachers.

It is
In itself the Halakah possesses no binding power.
teaching which must not necessarily be followed in practice.
Aside from the contradictions contained in these statements

(for if
n^^n and :nJD were always identical, one could not have
to
been made subordinate

have come
the
other and
they
could
never
into conflict with one another^ and there could not have
been a must
rule that
when
conflicting with
if
one another the Halakah

it
yield to the
Minhag, and
there was such a rule,
could
have been enacted only by the teachers of the Law, why then
state that even the teachers of the
Law
acted upon this rule), the

It
is
theory advanced
ceivable
that
is
absolutely unfounded.
is
almost incon-
one who
familiar with the talmudic literature
should form such an opinion about the character and the authority
of the Halakah.
The talmudic
passages which the author cites
in support of his theory are either altogether misinterpreted or
taken out of their context and given general application, other

talmudical passages to the contrary notwithstanding.
Thus
in support of his statement that the

rules, the origin of
Mishnah contains
numerous halakic
which can be traced only to
popular customs, our author quotes the saying of R. Johanan in
492
p.

II,
Peah
6 (17 a):
no yiv nnx pNi

But there
IT-
nnn nsSn nxn dn

n^y^sn ^n na'o
at
all
'roD
r\i^'r2b
nr:NJ nia^n ncD nnty inx
im^
nr^cn
mypi::'r3
pnîi.
is
no mention
in this
saying of halakic decisions which have their origin in popular
custom, and
am
inclined
to
think
that
R. Johanan would
resent the implication that what he designates as Halakot
com-
municated to Moses from Sinai were merely popular customs.
As proof
R. Joshua
ain:i
for his
statement that the Halakah always leans on

its
the popular custom as

b.
support, our author quotes the saying of

6,
Levi
(p.
Peah VII,
20 a)
JiDDn N'HB' Ti^bn b^
:nij
nnvn no nsii nv
nn^D
no ynv nnx psi pi nna.

only
But
this saying expressly states that
when
i.
the
Halakah
is
vascillating in regard to a certain question,
e.
when the Halakah

It certainly
has no definite decision about
it,
the established practice of the
people in regard to that question should be followed.
does not say that the Halakah in
its
definite rulings
and decisions
:
needs the support of the popular custom.

3n:ci?
The
saying
poJIp^' DK'D
pD:ip 13 r]:)brh (p.
Pesahim IV,
3,
30 d) which our author
further cites in support of his statement, proves just the contrary.
For
this
saying presupposes the inferiority of the jnjD as compared

It plainly
with the Halakah.
says that even the disregard of a

just as the disregard of a halakic
in
mere custom
rule.
is
to
be punished
there,
From
the context,
the Yerushalmi
we
further
is
learn that the rule
itself, viz.
that disregard of a
custom
cited
to be
punished, cannot be sustained.
The precedent
there in
support of this rule was a case of a violation of a rabbinic law and

not of a mere custom.
As proof
for his
statement that the teachers would recognize

its
the custom as valid notwithstanding
being in conflict with the

I,
Halakah, the author

ii1>
cites
from
p.
Shekalim
46 a the phrase
its
HD^np
bin ynjn, which he takes out of

misinterprets.
context, mis-
quotes,
and
The
discussion there has no reference
whatever to cases of conflict between Halakah

It
and Minhag.
deals with the question whether the religious observances in

in
connexion with Purim obtain also

in a leap-year or not.
the
first
month of Adar
:
R.
Honah
of Sepphoris says
'
In Sepphoris,
LAUTERBACH
493
Rabbi Haninah has introduced the custom

of R.
to follow the opinion
Simon
b.
Gamaliel
is
',
mentioned
in the Baraita there.

:
To this
"IDN nb
intro'.
saying of R. Honah,
then added the remark

said that R.
Tr\:n
nbn
i6
n:ibr\b
it
sn 'R. Honah only
Haninah had
duced
as a mere custom but not that the Halakah should be so

is
The
difference
it
very important, for
if it
was introduced merely
as a custom,
may have been due

had been declared
to considerations for local or

in other places.
it
temporary conditions and need not be followed

If,
however,
it
as a
Halakah
would have
general validity and had to be followed in other communities also.
Thus, the discussion there proves rather the superiority of the

halakic decisions
over
mere custom, contrary

]y^^1 TNtt
ink:
to
our author's
statement.
In the same manner our author misinterprets the

r\b
passage in b. Tannit 26 b:
'"ID
HD^n nONI 'Ht
pniD
It
is
""niN ]y^~\l
is
N^ C^^mÔ jnJD -idnT

plainly this
it
:
.NPI^'DD.
The meaning
says.
of this saying
According to the one who
a Halakah, we declare
in the public discourse, so that all
the people
to
it
may know it and guide themselves by it. But according the one who says, It is merely a Minhag, we should not declare in the public discourse, for we are not so sure about it as to
make it an authoritative rule binding upon the people. However, when consulted by an individual we should inform him that it is
a proper custom.
This again, contrary to our author's assumption,

is
proves that the Halakah
by
far superior to the
Minhag and of
in
more binding
authority.
From
the
same passage
Tannit our
author could have learned to distinguish between a mere popular
practice Dyn Ijn:
and a recognized
and JHJD
religious
custom
ariJD.
This
would have helped him

phrases, HD^n ^Dnro jnjD
to take at their proper valuation the

XiTtt'
two
ny
nyapj ri^bn psK'
which
apparently lend support to his theory about the authority of the
Minhag.
Against the saying r^^bn ûnrD jnJO we could
question
cite the
talmudic
(R. H.
15 b)
?\nb \yp2^
):n:
''2
NIID-'K Dlpoa.
And
against the saying in the post-talmudic Tractate Soferim
XIV, 18
3n3D NiTir ny ny^p: HD^H ps'C
argument
? NTI^"'D
H'hn N:p:?03
we might rightly use the talmudic HuUin 63 a. But the same IDS*
,
494
passage in the tractate Soferim refutes the interpretation given by
our author to these two phrases by adding the following qualifying

statement:
pNK' jnjo bin
ppTil
MJD HD^n ^D3

j?o
jnju noxt:' nn
tells
nynn
us,
îptj'a
nyioD n^n
i3'i<
minn
n^si
^b.
This expressly
for
that
only such customs as
had a good reason
being
established and proofs from the Torah to support them, are to be
considered as authoritative.
In
other
words,
the
established
Minhag
presume
receives
that
it
recognition
is
and
authority
only
because we
those
other
former authorities
aspects
based upon some halakic teaching of who introduced it. (I have treated
of the
relation
between
as
the
halakic
teachings
and
established
religious
practice,
the
product of the religious
consciousness of the people, in an essay on Tradition and the
Jewish
Consciousness,
to
be
published soon by the
Central
Conference of American Rabbis.

of the authority of the Halakah,
The importance
will,
I
of the question
hope, justify
my
having
given so
much
space here to the refutation of this one theory of
our author.)
On
pp.
31-2 the author advances the following theory about
the different attitudes towards religious laws the Spanish and
and practices held by

:
German
authorities respectively
In regard to the observance of the dietary laws,
we
find the
German
rabbis to be lenient and the Spanish rabbis to be

is
more
strict.
This difference
due to the different
political
and
In
social conditions
under which the Jews
of the
two countries
lived.
Spain the relations between Jews and

fearing that the
non-Jews were
friendly.
The Rabbis,
Tiiis
Jews might become

between the Jewish
In
assimilated, were, therefore, anxious to erect a barrier
and non-Jewish population.
they believed could be best achieved
by
tlie
insisting
upon a
rigid
observance of the dietary laws.
Germany, on
other hand,
the separation
between Jews and non-Jews was wide

special measures to
enough and, accordingly, there was no need of such

prevent assimilation.
This difference between the Spanish and German

noticeable in the fact that the
io
tlie
Jews in regard to the ritual laws is already German Jews were more zealously careful
religion
observance of their
and
its
observances than the Spanish Jews.
Here again the author

Hut aside from
this,
is
the very
confused and contradicts himself. phenomena yvhich our author sets
LAUTERBACH
495
out to explain by his social-political observations refute his theory.

For, as a matter of fact, the tendency to be strict in the interpretation
and application of the dietary laws prevailed among the

rabbis,
German
while
the
Spanish
rabbis
were comparatively
lenient in this regard
The author
to which very
has a special fondness for sweeping generalizations
many
of his
numerous
I
false
and contradictory
statements are to be attributed.
shall
mention only a few.

in Palestine ceased at
in
According to our author the patriarchate

the same time
when
the Babylonian
Talmud was completed,

fact,
the year 520 c.e. (p. 22).
As a matter of
the patriarchate
last patriarch
ceased about the year 426, after the death of the
Gamaliel VI.
On
p.
23 our author makes the sweeping statement that the
Spanish scholars were the only ones
who pursued grammatical

is
and exegetical
of refutation.
studies.
This
is
a statement which
hardly worthy
Another such sweeping generalization
is
his statement
on the
same page,
that
the
German
authorities
occupied themselves
almost exclusively with the codification of the Halakah while the
Spanish scholars busied
themselves with the expliination and
expansion of the talmudic logic and with a theoretical study of

the Torah.
On
tively,
viz.
p.
25 he
makes
Alfasi,
Maimonides, and Asheri, respec-
the representatives of three main tendencies in Judaism,
the Babylonian, Spanish,
and German.
On
p.
26
(11.
'
1-3) he states that the Shulhan
Aruk
is
like the
Tur only
in its
Disposition
'.
Otherwise
it is
11.
essentially different
from the Tur.
But on the same page,
24-7, he contradicts
'
:
himself by making the
following statement
It
(the
Shulhan
the Tur.
in
Aruk)
is,
as already stated,
it is,
merely an
extract
from
Accordingly,
different
as regards contents
and arrangement,
nowise
from the Tur.'

28 he stated that the
'
On
Aruk'.
p.
Sephardic scholars have nowhere
stated expressly their position or attitude toward the Shulhan
But, on the
same page and on
p.
29 he quotes a few
496
Sephardic

authorities
who
expressed
themselves unfavourably
about the Shulhan Aruk.
The author
siDV
JT'S
occasionally uses
the
titles
of the
two works
and "iny inh'i;*, interchangeably. He speaks of the Shulhan Aruk when he means the Bet Joseph and vice versa. This indiscriminate use of the titles of the two works, probably
aided by the printer's
devil,
has
produced a rather comical

Thus, on
for his
confusion in the dates which the author gives to the completion
and publication of the two works.

that
p. 24,
we
are told
Karo began with the preparation
work
1.1^22).
ÎDV JT'l in the

It
year 1552 (obviously printer's mistake for
took him
twenty years to collect his material and twelve years more to
compose the work,
W'hich he finished in Safed in the year 1554.
On
p.
p.
25
siDI'
we
are told, further, that after
Karo had completed
his
work
26,
n^3 he decided to write the Shulhan Aruk.

stated that the
in
first
Then, on
it is
and second
part of the Shulhan
Aruk appeared
years 1553
Venice
in the year
1550, while the third and
fourth part appeared in Labbionette (should be Sabbioneta) in the
and 1559. According to these dates the second part of the Shulhan Aruk were published at
years before
is
first
and
least four
Karo had decided
to write the same.
This confusion
to the
due
to the mistake
which the author made in assigning
Shulhan Aruk the dates 1550, &c., the years of the publication of
the Bet Joseph.
The
printer will probably share in the responsibility for a large
proportion of the minor mistakes, such as mis-spelled words, faulty

references,
and inaccurate quotations which are found on almost
every page of the book.
Many
of the
awkward expressions and vague and meaningless
phrases which abound in the book
may be due
to the difficulty
which the author seems to have in expressing himself in German.

Jacoi! Z.
Lauterbach.
Hebrew Union
College.
BARTON'S 'THE RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD'

The
Religio?is
of the IVorld.
By George A. Barton, Professor
of Biblical Literature and Semitic Languages in Bryn

College.
Illinois,
Mawr
The University of Chicago

pp. x
is
Press.
Chicago,
+ 349.
series
The book
religion issued
one of a
of
Handbooks
of ethics and
by the University of Chicago Press.

:
In fifteen
chapters Professor Barton delineates successively

primitive peoples
religion of
;
the religions of
;
the religion of Babylonia and Assyria the religion of the ancient

;
the
;
Egypt
Hebrews
Judaism
Mohammedanism
religions of
Zoroastrianism
;
the religion of the

;
Vedas
;
Buddhism and Jainism

Japan
;
Hinduism
the religions of China

;
the
;
the religion of Greece
the religion of
Rome
and
Christianity.
At the head of each chapter are

literature
selections
from the religious

ideas
which give expression to the principal

in
and the and
spirit
embodied
is
the rehgion treated in the

evaluation of
chapter,
at the close
a brief
summary and an
for
'
that religion, followed
by short bibliographies
supplementary
reading', divided into two classes according to the library facilities
of the student.
An
appendix gives a further lengthy bibliography
for the use of the teacher,
and a second appendix suggests an

by the student.
Within 307 pages Professor
parvo.
outline of a
book
is
to be written
iti
The book
summary
a muliiwi
Barton has succeeded in giving a comprehensive and rounded out

of the principal tenets
and
characteristic manifestations,
their origin
and
historical
life,
development, and their relation to the

the great religions.
is
other factors of
of
all
The well-known
broadmindedness of the author

the book.
says
'
:
exhibited in every chapter of the chapter on Judaism he

is still
Thus
spirit
in
summing up
The
of Judaism, whether orthodox or reform,
noble.
Jews regard themselves as heirs of the prophets, as the
497
498
preachers of monotheism, and the champions of social righteousness.

.
They have
in
modern times
'
:
furnished, too, a
(p. 95).
good quota
estimate of
to a
of the world's notable philanthropists'
The
Islam closes with the words

religious system that
Much must be conceded

if it
commands
the devotion of nearly one-sixth
of the population of the globe, even

it is
must be recognized
that
not the natural instrument for the expression of the religious
feeling of the
most refined
'
(p.
115
f.).
Professor Barton's views of the origin

religion of the
and
history
of the
Semites and of the ancient Hebrews, with his
theory of a matriarchal social organization and a mother goddess

as
a prius,
shall
is
well
known from
his Sketch of Setnitic Origins.
We
only mention that
in the present
book he suggests as
'
a probable meaning of the Tetragrammaton,

passionate love'
gives
will
life
he
(p.
61,
cf.
Semitic Origins,
p.
').
284:
who causes 'He who
the most probable original
meaning
(p. i)
: '
Anthropologists
take exception to the statement
Paleolithic
man
did
not shape the stones employed

artifacts
for tools.'
Unquestioned stone
have been found in river-gravels, and in caves and rock-
shelters, the high antiquity of
which has been attested not only by

the
their
geological
placement but by their association with
remains of extinct species of animals, such as the

rhinoceros, reindeer, &c.
mammoth,
So also there
is,
is
no evidence of a
Copper Age
'
(p.
2),
that
of a
universal stage of culture

it
characterized by the sole use of copper, though

that in
is
very likely
some
parts of the world copper
was the
first
metal of
which implements were made.
The book
will fully serve its

it is
purpose as a text-book for the
college for which
primarily intended.
But the general reader,
too, and even those acquainted with the special and larger works
of Hopkins, Jastrow, Moore, Toy,
and others
will
find
is
it
useful
and handy
for reviewing their
knowledge.
The
index
full
and
is all
thorough, and the typographical arrangement of the book

that could be desired.
I.
M. Casanowicz.
U.S. National Museum.
KOHUT'S EDITION OF 'NATHAN THE WISE'.

Nathan
the Wise.
dramatic
Lessing. Translated from the

Edited, with
poem by Gotthold Ephraim German by Patrick Maxwell.
an Introduction, comprising a Biographical
Sketch of the Authoi, a Critical Analysis of the Poem, and
an Account of the Relation between Lessing and Moses
Mendelssohn, by George Alexander Kohut. New York Block Publishing Company, 191 7. pp. 388.
It was Goethe
so wonderfully
if
prolific in
such suggestions
with
who
advised that every year

art,
we should renew acquaintance

retain our love of beauty
best.
our treasures of
we would
highest
and
appreciation of what
etchings or priceless
is
and
Merely to possess choice

is
gems and
art
paintings
not enough
they
in
must be brought
from time to time,
closer to us,
if
and studied with
rapt devotion
and knowledge are
to fulfil their mission.
The
suggestion
religion
has
a wide application,
literature,
especially
to
the
domains of
and
which are apt
prove of
secondary value unless they become more than merely reminiscential.
So
far
as
Judaism
is
concerned,
the Mosaic
anticipated the sage of

to be
'
Weimar by
insisting that the
Code Law was

life
actualized
'
in
each day's record.
The
daily identification
of Israel with statutes and ordinances, which were 'our

the prolongation of our days
translate religion into
life
',
and
had only one purpose

life
in view, to
and
into religion.
Our Law
in its
broader sweep and later development was practically pedagogic.

It
was never meant to be

its
like a cold storage
product to be taken
out of
cell
mechanically at certain intervals and then to be

It
returned once more to darkness and silence.
was
felt
that
the daily association with symbols would inspire ethical ideals,

as has been proved in the lengthening centuries of Jewish history.
In
its
application to literature, Goethe's counsel has perennial
VOL. IX.
499
K k
500
force,

and
is
'
Nathan the Wise
'
is
a notable case in point.

It
That
drama
as
a costly jewel not for the cabinet alone.

its
must be
taken from
shelf at regular intervals,

gifts
and
carefully studied
one of those precious
which enrich mankind and ineffably
promote the consciousness of our

character,
if
common humanity one
in
varied in characteristics.
in
Dr. Kayserling,
his
enlarged
and revised biography of

issued
twenty-five
tells
its
Mendelssohn (1888), which was

earlier,
first
years
devotes one of his divisions to Lessing, and
the story
author's
of his
famous drama and
its
close relationship to
friend of thirty years' intimacy.

'
He
shows, too,
how
the ambitious
'
Der Jude
';
',
written in enthusiastic youth, developed into

that
Nathan
the Wise
Faust,
he compares
in
work
as a life-composition to Goethe's
begun
youth and completed in old age.
Kayserling,
despite his penchant for flowing eulogy rather than cool criticism,
gives a
mass of interesting
details as to character
and
incidents,
referring to the zeal with
which the drama has been studied and
the striking parallels brought from Jewish and other sources.

It
is
idle,
save to gratify the moment's curiosity, to search

in
for
parallels
the analysis of such- a masterpiece.

local,
Truth
is
universal the intuitions of genius are never
depending
upon
soil
formation or the trade winds.
Why
should not anti-
cipations
and
repetitions
of thoughts be found in the ethical
sayings of nations
that truth his
and creeds?
Who
best
tells
is
a truth makes
less to
own.
The
origin of a thought
be con-
sidered than
its
practical influence.
The
ever-recurring question
of Lessing's indebtedness for the parable of the three rings need
not unduly puzzle the reader.
He
refers to
rest.
Boccaccio as his
source
'
his own inventiveness did the
Some
see parallels
elsewhere which are more or less satisfactory, but such resemblances, real or fancied,
As a
It
librarian Lessing
may occur unconsciously or unaccountably. was at home among books, and would not
it
have hesitated to give more definite data had
been necessary.
taste
was a happy thought of Cleorge A. Kohut, whose
and
'
K.nyserlinp:, p 3-10
Kohiit. p. 25.
KOHUT's edition of
'
NATHAN THE WISE 'ISAACS
5OI
scholarship have already been evidenced in the world of literature,

to
issue
a Lessing book
to
at
this,
of
all
it'-
eras in
essential
history
when
mankind needs
be reminded of
to
brotherhood,
however hopeless seem the task
many
of us with limited vision.
Making Maxwell's
ample notes and
translation, issued originally in
London, the
volume's nucleus, he has added a readable introduction, with

illustration,
its
which give the book a distinction

publishers
and
quality
of
own.
The
have aided in the
necessary details of binding and typography.

entertaining
as
well
as
Mr. Kohut
has
is
an
scholarly
editor,
and
admirably
his edition
condensed
is
his information
from the sources.
Hence
strife
'
indispensable to lovers of literature in general and students of
Lessing in particular, in these days of world

ideals,
and vanishing
'.
when we
all
need the spur and solace of Nathan the Wise
Abram
S.
Isa.acs.
New York
University.
K k?
BINDING LIST NOV 1
19>!3
DS 101
J5
The Jewish quarterly reviow.
New ser.
V.9
PLEASE
DO NOT REMOVE
FROM
THIS
CARDS OR
SLIPS
POCKET
UNIVERSITY
OF TORONTO
LIBRARY

The Jewish Quarterly Review. 1910. Volume 9.

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Jewish Quarterly Review. 1910. Volume 9.

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

:u

JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

PHILADELPHIA THE DROPSIE COLLEGE FOR HEBREW AND COGNATE LEARNING

AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

'The Religions of the

of the Great Synagogue,

Efros, Israel: The Menorat Ha-Maor

Recent Arabic Literature

of Esther in the Light

Nathan the Wise

History of Mediaeval Jewish

Responsa of the Babylonian

as a Source of Jewish History

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

Kedesh-Naphtali and Ta'anach

Rorcnt Biblical Literature

SzoLD, Henrietta: Palestine from

Chapters III and

Jewish Chronology and

THE BOOK OF ESTHER

erroneous identification of the king of Esther.

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

even the Scriptures',

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

how once upon

danger to the Jews

was averted by natural

circumstances, without any visible divine intervention.

our sceptical age, we

should expect such a story to be held

Just the contrary has happened.

None among them

by modern exegetes, except a

by some partly doubted, partly

denied, by others denied altogether.

current interpretatreatment of the storj'

for the unfair

of Esther by not a few of the

unhistorical character, but for the purpose of impressing

upon the mind of the reader

fabulous absurdity, frequently distort the

and make forced interpretations.

them would be more convincing

The arguments and theories of an if they were presented in

objective manner, and

at the contents of this story, its

THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

tion hardly admits of a

evident that already in antiquity the facts had

been distorted and represented

two hundred years or more

after the events of

the story occurred, and

knew nothing about the

of those events, corrupted the text according to their

The Alexandrian Jew who

a time, however, before the

version, being a free

and paraphrastic translation, naturally

does not square with the original

manner the proper

This phenomenon gave cause to suspect the

point to Carl Siegfried, in his