Louis Ginzberg.

Geonica (Volume 1) online

. (page 19 of 20)
Online LibraryLouis GinzbergGeonica (Volume 1) → online text (page 19 of 20)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

' n'ttj has only an extract of this Responsum.

* R. Amram in his Seder, 51 a, differs from this view.

^ Comp. above, p. 194, n. i. ^° The author is R. Hai.

" This is the Responsum to which reference is made in bn"av:, 257.
" Comp. bi3\r«, II, 123. i' Read with y^uj : na-icnii.

^ Comp. bn'nr, 216, 270.




114 b Tin

>:cn p 393

«-(->p 376

:d"D ,J"3

D^DWjn 395

"«n 381

nD'^pn 'n

; 128 a j'^n

m^'^n 395


D>2iMn 381

^D ,3''J

□>ji«an 398

I'D D'n

*^«mn' 381


p^?a 398

II, 26 d ii^Di^

2 sTn;D 383

mnbni 399

II, 86 bi3W

D':Mi^n 383

s'^ap j"n

no:? 399

i^D s'n

'«Vn 383

tD^D ,a"j

D>3isjn 399

i"d D'n

mb^ 383

D'3iK3rr 399

a'^i j^^n

^'«:Tirj3 383


D^:w:in 399

*Dioy 383

niDbn 400

j^ip n'^D

nns 384

2*37 a"n

D'iis^n 400

I, 46 -i^iun

ncv 384

n^bpn 'n

; 130 a a"n

pM 400

I, 47 -i^'irn

n\L'n 384

5 >'xn 408

(^«b>n) 383 =

nn^'cu' 385

□'3iwn 408

258 =

"NH 386

The third list illustrates the French school by means of the
nD>"i n"iTn» ; quotations from y"nD not described as such are


nt2^i niTHD

25 a r'-iD

"•wsinto: 81

6 'a 'a jSJ^iD

'«:ti!d: 5

25 a i^'^iD

m'^tr: 81

14 b ^''-iD

''nm 8


8>n>52JO 81

4 b y"-iD

pu-'TO 8

25 b y^-iD

nttjo 83

II a r^'iD

^^ll^m 23

25 b y^-iD

>wi-i!d: 83

II a y''^D

im 23

i": :i"n

'^>2i-\r:: 87

24 b Jj'-ID

»«3TI^3 23


D'Diwn 91

■^En ,-]ny

n;uQ 23

II, 40 i^^'n

Dnb^TT^i 91

14 b !?''^D

no:? 25

28 a r''-iD

D^hv 91

'i* b^j

Drt^^DUJI 26

29 a S'^ID

>«:iT^3 93

'l '0 ji^^-lD

'to'jd 29

29 a r'^-iD

>«3Tir:: 94

'n 'q ,^"-10

'l>a 32

n^D nbjo ,r]''n

r«:> 94

i^a main Fi"n

iwi*? 50

29 a 3?''"\D

'SDTl'tD: 98

II a ^"10

^>4:"n:D: 50

II a y^-iD

D^bXD 99


□':wan 50

1 In n"^, 153, ascribed to E. Hai, but n^^cn, I, 45, agrees with "jn'niD.

"^ In the 'I«wr, ascribed to E. Hai.

=5 The words mniHTQi— pi are in the wrong place, they belong after nmn!D noni.

* Comp. above, p. 151, n. i, and b^^^a, II, 86. ^ Comp. ttj"^, I, 5-

* = Marx, Untersuchungen, &c. ' c\U ?

8 Comp. Hurwitz, ad loc; there can be no doubt that this mystical passage is
not of Geonic origin. * Comp. also D'ny, 260.



I ,n'3rn ,r\">^

>>«n 231

□"•nxjrr 104

35 b y^'-D

p: 232

pbn ,-|"n5

c^^wn 104

35 a y^-iD

iSkmi-i 233

b"p a^n

D^3ii<jn 105

i^'td '0 y^D

mr'C' 233

ib"p D'^n

Dnbt^u.-MJi 107

35 1> y"^D

ni2'\n' 233

I I a ^"^D

u^^v 108

D^2ii<an 234

30 a y"nD

□ib^^ III

'n ; 44 a-43 c Ji^n

mabn 242


^D':isarT 114


31 a 27"-|D

Dibtt? 115

'iDi m^bnm 244

31 b r'^iD

KilltD^ 117

20 b ; 9 y"^

Ciixan 247

32 a y'^iD

'K3"nr:3 119

n"o ,b''j

•>Hl^^^'' 249


'n ;35c jj'n

'•Niin"' 139

I, 14-15 V'ujn

'xnrr 251

n"o y'a

'wnirr 146

^"v 'o"^^y

^;wn: 251


D'Dib?3n 179

^sb^n 255


'rr ;34dy'rT

mD:n2 194

« ony\u

*'^<n 255


'n ;34d Ji^n

y'na 194

nv^'i ^r)''v

^ '«nn' 261

a'^D mnbNir

m^b^<^^l 194

>"itq':D 261

36 a 5?'-iD

cib^^ 202

N^cp 'rr i^n

";n3 pnij 268

n"D ,b"a

■'snn^ 203

n": mnb«u;

'snx 272

36 b y"lD

□iQy 208

I, 99 ttJ^^U

D^.i«:n 276

37 a y"-iD

\S3"n'LC2 208

n": 'n ; 7 a j'^n

mDbn 278


^mnb^;!' 211

"c'iisjn 278

37 b y"nD

p; 211

II, 103 ^^"xa

□^:ib?jin 279

^D"p E"n

^D'3w:n 212

i"?:p 'rr ;29d a"n

'«nn' 279

37 a y"nD

Dim"' 213

n^op 'rr ,a''n

"no:? 280

* '«mn^ 213

n"p 'n j^^n

'«2T1!Q3 281

II, 109 v''w

5'i«?n 213

o^p 'n ja^n

nw 281

n"' '0 v'lD

n\rn 214

I'cp 'n ;29d ^'n

^^^^ 281

43 b y^-iD

'K21-I!:: 228

26 b ^-''-iD

□IDS? 284

43 b r"iD

^DTCy 229

^ Not Geonic, comp. above, p. 193, 1. 27.

' Not a verbal quotation.

^ The author is E. Natronai, comp. above, p. 43, note.

* Kead 'SOTi'i:^ in agreement with v''^ 1. e. and other authorities.

^ Hurwitz is mistaken in maintaining that R. Nathan in his 'Aruk, s.v. bjD,
ascribes this view to R. Zemah.

* MS. S of the Seder has likewise nn: and not Dm as printed text.
^ In q"io3 : ^Wiitq: ; comp, above, p. 149.

* Comp. bn"a^r, 162 ; if not for this statement of bn"2'^ I would be inclined to
ascribe this Responsum to R. Hai b. David, the contemporary of R. Hilai, and
not to R. Hai b. Sherira, who according to Mordecai, Pesahim, 583, holds an
opposite view.

^ In n"w ascribed to R. Matthetias.
1" Read pni? jns. " nwDiin ?

" Read «:'n ; in Mi"^', V, 100 and n"t', 102 : no^ without the name of his
father and accordingly one of the Geonim.





?36a v^iD

•Dnbw^rMji 353

m>2' 'd ^TiEi

" nnro


'^ ;37c-38b a'^rr

^«mn' 356

1 1 a j'^rr

msbm 587




is":p n^iD

^ D^2ixan 365



50 a X'^nD

'wiTtc: 374


n^D 'n ,a*n

'snn^ 382



46 b y'^iD

nir\i3^ 387

n"o ,b'':t



j^sin 'n ,i'n

''Itd'jd 387

n"o ,Yji



nnyo 388

52 b y"iD



'rt ;3id-33a j-'n

no'^'H 409

22 b ; 1 1 y^'M)




" c^:is3n


I, 24 ^''^n

'«Tin» 414

^2 ^<nnuj


h 24-35 i"^n

»N-nn^ 416



*m3bna 423

tD^DT 'n ;46d i^n



j^^uj n'^Mj

Dnb«\r'c;"i 433

*' D-lQi?


^"J^p '^ ; 34 c J^n

'Niin> 435

69 d :^n

niDbnn 644

*D'D"iwn 435

II, 37 ''i:^?^



50 b S^^lD

'ra'^D 437

"I'^cpn 'n ; i26d i"n



42 b V^^D

pn:? 440

III, 48 biDW



^D"ID2> 445



a^in 3"n

^'«nn> 458

1* ^«mn'


29 a y^no

uirji" 463
nnrc 519

* The passage of the Seder is quoted literally on p. 202, and it seems there-
fore that the source for the Responsum given on p. 353 is another one
than the Seder.

^ In n"iD ascribed to R. Hai, but comp. above, p. 195, n. 8.
^ In y'n anonymously.

* Neither in i"n I, nor in y'n II.
^ Comp. G. S., pp. 309-10.

^ Not in the printed text of the Seder nor in the MSS.

^ Comp. Hildesheimer, ad loc. ; our text reads differently.

' Comp. Albargeloni, m^:?' 'd 'e, 177 and 341.

' Comp. T\"^, 6, where this Responsum is made use of.
" In his code, comp. above, p. 165.
11 Comp. G. S., 250.

1' Comp. Auerbach, in his commentary on blSTT^*, II, 82.
^' Comp. above, p. 151.
'* Neither in y'n I, nor in a'^n II.


The Impoktance of the Geonic Responsa.

Defective and incomplete as is the state of the
Responsa transmitted to us, so must be our judgment of
their value. From Rabbi Shashna, about 680, until
the death of Rabbi Hai in 1038, about eighty Geonim
officiated as such, but barely more than a third are repre-
sented in our Responsa literature^, and yet it is hardly
open to a doubt that, if not all, at least a large majority
of them must have given written expression of one
kind or another to their views upon religious questions.
But even of the Geonim from whom Responsa have come
down to us, we know only one side of their activity, and
of that side not enough to furnish grounds for an impartial
and adequate judgment of their place in Jewish develop-
ment. In the Responsa Collections available at the present
day the Geonim appear as Halakists exclusively^. Even
the few Responsa that deal with Haggadic material touch
upon it merely in the course of explanations of Talmudic
passages. Thus what we know of the Geonim in relation
to the Haggadah is not their independent view, but only
their activity as commentators. And yet it was precisely
in the domain of the Haggadah, in other words, in theology,
religious philosophy, and related subjects, that the Geonim
made no attempt to harmonise their views with those of
the Talmud; their purpose was simply to explain the
Talmud regardless of their own predilections. " Know
that we are not, like some others, in the habit of explaining
any matter apologetically, in contradiction to the real

^ Almost all are on record in Miiller ; the only ones to be added are
the two Geonim by the name of Kimoi, whose Eesponsa are found in an
anonymous Halakic treatise published in J. Q. B., IX, 681-761 (comp.
above, p. 104, n. i), and Rabbi Hezekiah ben Samuel, who, to be sure, was
not actually a Gaon ; comp. above, p. 7, n. i.

2 p"j, 15, is surely not a Responsura, and its Geonic origin is very


meaning of him from whom it proceeds. We will there-
fore expound to thee the opinion of the Tanna, his real
meaning and his true purpose, without pledging ourselves
for the correctness of the assertion made by him." These
words of Rabbi Hai ^, who, in opposition to Rabbi Saadia
and the philosophising school that followed him as its
head, insisted upon an unbiassed explanation of the views
of earlier teachers, characterise not only his own intel-
lectual attitude, but also the spirit prevailing in the
Academies so long as they remained untouched by alien
influences. At the same time, his words make apparent
how difficult it is to reach a knowledge of what the actual
views of the Geonim themselves were. And yet, if any
doubt had been entertained as to the theological trend of
the discussions in some of the Responsa of the Geonim,
it would have been dispelled by the list of Responsa printed
in nu?^^ nSip, 69-70, containing twenty-eight items, almost
all of a theological nature^. In that batch there were
Responsa on the translation of Elijah and of Enoch, on
Shabuot as the Feast of Revelation, on the sufiering Messiah
of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, on the death of the
Messiah referred to in Zechariah xii. 16, and on many other
interesting points, not one of which has been preserved
in the Responsa literature now known to us. A com-
parison of Responsa lists in niob^ nbnp with our available
Responsa Collections, leaves no room for doubt as to the
guiding principle adopted for the latter. It was plainly
intended that they should consist of Halakic and Talmudic
material exclusively. This is the only possible explanation

1 h^y, 99. The expression ^\^tT\h is probably an imitation of the Talmudic
imn« ni by mcnb in Gittin, 17 a ; comp. 'Aruk, s. v. imn^< ni and rp.

2 It will not do, of course, to assign all these Responsa to the end of
the Gaonate and ascribe them to Rabbi Hai. In fact, the list is headed
D'iixj'?. It is noteworthy that the first list, i''d-\ deals with difficult
chronological problems in the Holy Scriptures, some of them being
the data used by Hiwi Albalki as weapons against the authenticity
of the Scriptures. Dr. Poznanski in his essay on Hiwi, p:rr, VII, 112-37,
makes no mention thereof.


for the phenomenon that most of the Responsa of Halakic
bearing recorded in the lists just referred to have been
preserved in our Collections ^, while those of Haggadic
content have disappeared wholly and entirely.

Limited thus to pure Halakah, the Eesponsa nevertheless
are of very considerable value. In the first place, they
called forth a new species of literature, which in a measure
shares with the Talmud the distinction of being the only
department that can be described as peculiarly Jewish.
Correspondence between scholars existed before Geonic
times, nor was it an activity confined to Jews. But Re-
sponsa are something more, at all events something other
than correspondence between scholars. The Geonim were
not requested to give their views upon vexed religious
questions merely on account of their scholarship and
attainments, but because they were at the same time, in
virtue of their high office, the representatives of legal
authority. It is true that in an overwhelming number of
cases the Geonim appeal to the authority of the Talmud.
The Tannaim and Amoraim had a similar relation to the
Bible as the only source of law. Yet it would be
ridiculous to say that the teachers of the Talmud did no
more than explain the Biblical law ; their activity
was equally fruitful in elaborating the fundamental
law. Halevy holds that, barring two ordinances, there
is nothing in the whole of Geonic literature not taken
from the Talmud. The same logical process would properly
lead to the conclusion that with the exception of the so-
called "seven commands of the scholars," pn"n ni^D yn:r,
the Talmudic time produced nothing but what is prescribed
in the Pentateuch. The Tannaim and Amoraim felt justi-
fied in considering their " ordinances and fences " as devised
in the spirit of the Scriptures, and the Geonim were

^ Of the fourteen Eesponsa in the list, p. 72, the following can be
traced : 's in V':, 55 ; 'j in Y'Trn, II, 46 ; 'i in Tf"i, 197 ; 'n in -nioy, I, 25 b ;
'^ in nnirn 'M'XD of Kabbi Meir of Rothenburg, ed. Bloch, 177 ; 'n in y^u',
43 b, I ; ^^'^in c"n, 187



persuaded of their implicit adhesion to the Talmud in all
their decisions. This view taken by the Talmudists and
the Geonim of their own activity may be conceded to be
correct theoretically, but we are not thereby hindered
from recognising it as a fact that Biblical law is not
identical with Talmudic law, nor the latter with Geonic
law. Every age has its problems, and though the law
remained unchanged for all times among the Jews, the
laws underwent modification along with the times. Let
us consider only the varied development of Divine worship
in the Geonic time. Built up on principles laid down in
the Talmud, it yet is totally different in form from the
service customary during the Talmudic time. Or, to take
another illustration, in y"^, 67 b, 60, we have the Geonic
decision that a husband may marry a second wife only
with the consent of the first. The aim of the Talmudists,
to entrench and increase the rights of women, is evident
in a large number of their enactments, and the Gaon who
gave the above decision felt himself in accord with the
spirit of the Tannaim and Amoraim, though in this given
concrete instance he was striking out into his own new
path ^. And as the rights of women were developed during
the Geonic period, so also were the rights of slaves. Thus
we have a number of Geonic Responsa that grant liberty
to a slave whose master has had intercourse with her. The
reasons adduced against the validity of this Geonic decision
on the basis of the Talmud cannot be set aside lightly ^.
No doubt, the Geonim were aware of their opposition to
the statements of the Talmud taken literally. They felt
secure in the other consciousness that they were acting
in its spirit. Bab Amram's decision^, that it is not per-
mitted to take usury from a non-Jew, cannot be authenti-
cated by resort to a Talmudic expression. If, nevertheless,
Bab Amram forbade it strictly, in any circumstances, he

^ Yebamot, 64 a, bottom, is another case ; comp. ^4ir!"n on the passage.
2 Comp. the Responsa in Saadyana, 76-8, and I'V, I, 164-5.


thereby proved the potentialities for development latent
in the Rabbinic law.

These examples, which might readily be multiplied
twentyfold in every department of the Rabbinic law, will
probably suffice to give an indication of the real value
of the Geonic Responsa. Viewed thus, the Responsa are
much more important than the codifications by the Geonim.
In the latter, it is the Talmud that is given the opportunity
to speak ; in the Responsa it is the spirit of the Geonic times.
For this reason, the Responsum became an example and
a model for later generations. Their leaders and teachers
used it as a means for making the Rabbinic law effective
according to the changing circumstances of the times. The
Responsa literature, created by the Geonim, developed,
as to quantity and quality, into one of the most important
branches of Rabbinic activity.

The chief distinction of the Geonic Responsa, in com-
parison with later Responsa, is that they became of
fundamental importance for other departments of Rab-
binical literature. The older commentaries on the Talmud,
those of the North African school, for instance, are scarcely
conceivable without the Responsa of the Geonim ^. It may
be said confidently that Rabbi Hananel's commentary is an
outcome of the Responsa by Rabbi Hai and Rabbi Sherira.
They not only served him as a formal model for the
explanation of the Talmud, but they contain such wealth
of material for this very purpose that to this day they may
be resorted to with great profit to the student. And as for
Rabbi Nathan ben Yehiel, the great lexicographer, for him
and his investigations, especially those into Aramaic word-
structure, the Responsa were a veritable treasure -trove.
His 'Aruk is in large part a collection of Geonic glosses on
the Talmud. Let the interested student compare the frag-

^ There is no telling to what extent Kashi made use of the Geonic
writings. The different readings he offers often go back to differences of
opinion among the Geonim ; comp., for instance, Rosh ha-Shanah, 28 a
with UJ^TD, I, 36.



ment published in G.S., pp. 318-35, containiDg linguistic
explanations bearing on the treatise Shabbat, with the
corresponding headings in the *Aruk, and he cannot but
be convinced of Rabbi Nathan's dependence upon the
Geonim. Rabbi Abraham ben David, of Posquieres,
showed keen insight in judging of the value of Geonic
contributions to Rabbinic literature. He said, " At the
present time we may not explain a Talmud passage other
than the Geonim, unless we have irrefutable evidence
against their conception of it — which is never the case."


fw or ^''** = n-ii m^i, by R. Isaac of Vienna.

^'^< or n''n.v = D"n mm.v, by R. Aaron of Lunel.

h^:iVii, by R. Abraham b. Isaac of Narbonne.

a": = nnjino o^^iwn ninrn ; the second volume of this book.

Tf2 = Rpsponsen der Geonim, by A. Harkavy.

'?'j = iD''nn p'? jC'iii^an mr-;i?n.

p"j = n-i''n pb-12 ,'jyD-Np ;D^3"imp □>:wj mnirn.

j^n-mbn: nwn ed. Venice; ed. Hildesheimer is quoted as 'n :'

D''n = jo''nn ,Np^<-|p irbb^o ; o^^is'jn p mpics m^bn.

i''D = ''-iTcn -nine.

y''-iD = c"ioy 't -IID.

Trsr, by R. Isaac b. Abbamari, ed. Lemberg, i860.

one, by Rashi, ed. Constantinople, 1802.

n^hxD nbnp, Geonic collection, ed.Wertheimer, Jerusalem, 1900.

bTf2Z' = Tipbn ^b2V,e6. Buber.

Y'xD = C':ii<jrT mnurn . . . pi2 ^-irr.

^"^^ = r\r\xs^ ny;i^, by R, Isaac Ibn Gajat.

sn^-i ^ r\"y^ n:u? n^^^i'^n |3o"-irr i-iin . . . cn^rr min.

Coronel = sy-in |y>n bi-nip '":? c':isjn ni2mn.

G. S. = Genizah Studies ; the second volume of this book.

Gra.etz= Geschichte der Juden, vol. V, third edition.

Haley-y = Dorot ha-Rishonim, III.

Harkavy. See n^j.

'Ittur. See titq?.

J. Q. iJ.= Jewish Quarterly Review.

Mafteah = Einleitung in die Responsen der Geonen, by Dr. J. Miiller.

Pardes. See dtiD.

R. ^. J. = Revue des Etudes Juives.

Sherira = Letter by R. Sherira, ed. Neubauer.

Z. H. B. = Zeitschri/tfixr hebrdische Bibliographie.


P. 4, n. I end. The Geonic Eesponsum in bri'^l^, 38 and
E. Sherira, 33, 22 ; 34, 6 refer to the same persecution during the
reign of Tiaif, and there can be no doubt that either JDHi in
bn''2^ is corrupted from >Dim or n)0^2^ from n»K^3. Friedmann,
in the introduction to his edition of"! IHvN ''D, 10 1—2, has drawn
unwarranted conclusions from this corrupted passage. — P. 8, n. i,
1. 8. Attention should be called to the fact, that " the Ten of the
first row " have their parallel in the Trpanoi him of the old
Palestinian councils. Comp. Schiirer, Geschichte d. jud. Volkes, II,
253, fourth edition. — P. 10, 1. 8 read Kimoi. — P. 1 2, 1. 12 from below.
Nahmanides, NH^n, 28 d, quotes a Geonic Responsum where the
triad (?) pX31 Pjli'X D3n occurs. — P. 12, 1. 11 from below. Comp.
Midrash Shemuel, XX, 106, ed. Berber: nS^K mnnno n^Sl pNtJ'
^"2. Does it refer to the triad of the presidency of the Sanhedrin 1
Yerushalmi, Sanhedrin, II, 20 c reads nC'P^D niDD. — P. 13, 1. 13
(note). Attention should be called to the fact that DDK '"1, the
successor to R. Judah ha-Nassi, was his secretary, comp. Genesis
E. LXXV. — P. 25, 1. 14. Comp. '■\^^n 'D, section pD, 77a ed. Venice,
where |**1N = TV. — P. 25, n. i end. Comp. Midrash ha-Gadol, 190,
nno hv ^y^^'OV^, and the same in Gaster, DVSryD, 4 ; the Aramaic
equivalent is: hv Dp ,* comp. HuUin, 97 b. — P. 29, 1. 12. E. Sherira
speaks ofR. Elhanan as one who was: nnitrn ^h^^ nhli rrmi; "the
three rows " are referred to in Mishnah, Sanhedrin, IV, 4, and the
Midrash ha-Gadol, 741 : JUK^VK^ D"'»3n n^D^^n b^ nniK> ^b^ li'N
ny ^533 DiTJai?. — P. 32, n. 3. But more likely {J'Nnn is to be read,
the title of the head of the Kairwan academy. — P. 40, n. 2. The
distance between Bagdad and Sura as given by Funk in the map
attached to his Juden in Bahylonien, II, is by far too great. —
P. 51, 1. 9 (note) read Dl^'roi, 32, 86— P. 53, 1. 6 from below. In
the Egyptian academies the title jn TT'l, shortened from rx^l 3N
pn, was used (Saadyana, 81), and there can be no doubt that \)M
as title of the head of the Suran academy is shortened from
Spy |1N3 nn''B^^ tJ>N"i . The description of the academy as 3pN'' p^<i


reminds one of the Aramaic expression ND ''T'lKI i<"lp^ used by
R. Ashi, Berakot, 17 b, in speaking of the grandeur of the Suran
academy, and there is no need to look for Latin or Persian models
for the px: as Kohut {Aruch Completum, s.v.) and Sachs {Beitrdge,
II, 83) do. Comp. also Abul R. Nathan, 25, ed. Schechter : |ixa
yj^'^^NI in''i'J^ nr ]1'rn. — P. 53, 1. 12 from below. Comp. ^"^, I,
63: NniDI NynnnJ, where Nj;nnnJ = NnnnD"lS5 and J.Q.R., VI,
2 2 2. — p. 58, 1. 8 (note). Comp. M. Coen •':]Ni?Dn% 297, and Jacob
Schorr D^DDH '•J^y "l''N» , 2 7 b-2 8 b, concerning the use of the Talmudic
expression i\']2\> n^nv — P. 71, 1. 20. Comp. n^^ ni?n3, where
Enoch introduces himself to Moses as yi'^ '»2^<. — P. 71, n. 2.
Comp. Targum, Isaiah xi. i, and Midrash Tehillim, XVIII, 157,
where p p = descendant. — P. 77, n. 2 end. The scholars of
Kairwan (?) probably had in their mind the passage of Yerushalmi,
Maaserot, IV, 51b: ni^ nnyi? = nDn ^DIlDn, which statement
implies that ^^V^b nynip n^^K^n pDD, else the Talmud would have
said HDK^n pSDl instead of r\2^ 3ny. Halevy I. c. and Eatner
D^'i'SJ^n^l |V^ n^nX, Pesahim, 124, are of the opinion that the
scholars of Kairwan refer to a passage not found in our text of
the Yerushalmi. — P. 87, 1. 8. Comp. however N^^IN in G. S.^
390. — P. 88, n. 5. Comp. nC^M 'd, ed. Rosenthal, 80 : ^N^^? '"11
nnn^ D^:iN3i? ti'Nn n\1K> ; for nnnt^ is to be read ^yzi^. — p. 93,
n. I. Lerner, Jahrbuch d.jiid. lit. Gesellschafi, I, 210 et seq., tries
in vain to prove the dependence of the Yelamdenu on the Sheeltot. —
P. 93, n. 2. There can be no doubt that the author of the ^plS
N"1 was well acquainted with the Bahli, but this does not imply
that he was a Babylonian. The Jewish custom spoken of in
chap, xvi is a Palestinian and not a Babylonian one, as can be
seen from D''3niJD ^vPI, 37, ed. Miiller. The use of |Tn in the meaning
of "T13V nvC' in this Midrash is in all probability of Palestinian
origin ; the ^<^JD^ anjo, an offset of the Palestinian anJD is the
only one to use N''JTn in the meaning of D^::i^S. — P. 94, 1. 18.
Miiller in the introduction to his edition of D''121D 'dd, 21, main-
tains that the author of ''d 'DD made use of the Sheeltot, but I
am not convinced of the correctness of this view. The Sheeltot
quotations in one version of the Tanhuma are later additions. —
P. 94, n. 3. Sheelta, LXVI on rT'Jyn properly belongs to the
pericope NK^n, a part of which is read on fastdays, and not to
bnp'^) as the editions have it; br^^^l^, 260, quotes this Sheelta


properly as nt5^D bn'^n ^<ni^^XK^.— P. 96, n. i, 1. 8. Comp. 'd
"lEJM, 98 and 210. — P. 108, n. i. The author of the i?n"ntt^ quotes
a number of passages from the a"n which are not found in our
versions, comp. the list of quotations given below, pp. 19 1-7. —

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19

Online LibraryLouis GinzbergGeonica (Volume 1) → online text (page 19 of 20)