Skip to main content <#maincontent> We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us! Internet Archive logo A line drawing of the Internet Archive headquarters building façade. Search icon An illustration of a magnifying glass. Search icon An illustration of a magnifying glass. Upload icon An illustration of a horizontal line over an up pointing arrow. Upload User icon An illustration of a person's head and chest. Sign up | Log in Web icon An illustration of a computer application window Wayback Machine Texts icon An illustration of an open book. Books Video icon An illustration of two cells of a film strip. Video Audio icon An illustration of an audio speaker. Audio Software icon An illustration of a 3.5" floppy disk. Software Images icon An illustration of two photographs. Images Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape Donate Ellipses icon An illustration of text ellipses. More Hamburger icon An icon used to represent a menu that can be toggled by interacting with this icon. Internet Archive Audio Live Music Archive Librivox Free Audio Featured * All Audio * This Just In * Grateful Dead * Netlabels * Old Time Radio * 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings Top * Audio Books & Poetry * Computers, Technology and Science * Music, Arts & Culture * News & Public Affairs * Spirituality & Religion * Podcasts * Radio News Archive Images Metropolitan Museum Cleveland Museum of Art Featured * All Images * This Just In * Flickr Commons * Occupy Wall Street Flickr * Cover Art * USGS Maps Top * NASA Images * Solar System Collection * Ames Research Center Software Internet Arcade Console Living Room Featured * All Software * This Just In * Old School Emulation * MS-DOS Games * Historical Software * Classic PC Games * Software Library Top * Kodi Archive and Support File * Vintage Software * APK * MS-DOS * CD-ROM Software * CD-ROM Software Library * Software Sites * Tucows Software Library * Shareware CD-ROMs * Software Capsules Compilation * CD-ROM Images * ZX Spectrum * DOOM Level CD Books Books to Borrow Open Library Featured * All Books * All Texts * This Just In * Smithsonian Libraries * FEDLINK (US) * Genealogy * Lincoln Collection Top * American Libraries * Canadian Libraries * Universal Library * Project Gutenberg * Children's Library * Biodiversity Heritage Library * Books by Language * Additional Collections Video TV News Understanding 9/11 Featured * All Video * This Just In * Prelinger Archives * Democracy Now! * Occupy Wall Street * TV NSA Clip Library Top * Animation & Cartoons * Arts & Music * Computers & Technology * Cultural & Academic Films * Ephemeral Films * Movies * News & Public Affairs * Spirituality & Religion * Sports Videos * Television * Videogame Videos * Vlogs * Youth Media Search the history of over 835 billion web pages on the Internet. Search the Wayback Machine Search icon An illustration of a magnifying glass. Mobile Apps * Wayback Machine (iOS) * Wayback Machine (Android) Browser Extensions * Chrome * Firefox * Safari * Edge Archive-It Subscription * Explore the Collections * Learn More * Build Collections Save Page Now Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future. Please enter a valid web address * About * Blog * Projects * Help * Donate * Contact * Jobs * Volunteer * People * Sign up for free * Log in Search metadata Search text contents Search TV news captions Search radio transcripts Search archived web sites Advanced Search * About * Blog * Projects * Help * Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape * Contact * Jobs * Volunteer * People Full text of "LEVENSON, Moses Mendelssohn " See other formats MOSES MENDELSSOHN'S UNDERSTANDING OF LOGICO-GRAMMATICAL AND LITERARY... LEVENSON, EDWARD RICHARD ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; 1972; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global 10. books of the Pentateuch, particularly Leviticus and Deuteronomy, or smaller units such as adjacent portions, chapters, or paragraphs, Men- delssohn's grasp of aesthetic connections is striking. Sandler, who did describe aesthetic and literary elements in the Bi'ur, did not do this matter justice. In separate places, for example, he discusses Mendelssohn's aesthetic treatment of Biblical poetry and Dubno's literary understanding of the kelal u-ferat and hagdamot, as we have mentioned.” Poetry, however, is by no means the only matter in which Mendelssohn was interested from the aesthetic point of view, nor is Dubno the only Bi'urist besides Mendelssohn who recorded literary insights. Mendels- sohn's approach to the entire Torah as a work of art is reflected every- where in his translations and tne Bi’ur throughout, by ali the assistants as well as Mendelssohn himself, explains and expands upon the stylistic features of the transiation. Our study consistently examines this in- trinsic iink between the transiation and Bi’ur and thus is more faithful to Mendelssohn's original purpose. As part of this treatment, we analyze also such topics as intention- al abridgment and internal structural order, concluding with analyses of poetic contexts and poetic thematic unity. For the latter, we trace the important influence on Mendelssohn of Robert Lowth, J. D. Michaelis, and J. Ge Herder, who were pioneers in elucidating the beauty of Hebrew poetry as poetry. Elsewhere in the chapter we illustrate Mendelssohn's veiled differences of opinion with Christian scholars, notably J. G. Eichhorn, the father of modern Bible criticism, as well as J. S. Semler and Michaelis (and the Jewish Spinoza), in the matter of criticism and source theorye The same aesthetic factor which inspired his love of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11. Biblical poetry contributed to his opposition towards the scientific dissection and critical study of Biblical prose. Mendelssohn is never explicit about his differences of opinion with the Christian scholars, but his implied reactions to their theories can be detected. As such, our study documents in detail for the first time the first Jewish tradi- tionalist reaction to modern developments. The present-day reader, we might emphasize, can benefit much from a study of this reaction, however critically-inclined ne or she might be; for Mendelssohn's appreciation of Pentateuchal aesthesic unity and connection of parts is nonetheless valid, whether one believes that the Pentateuch was composed by Moses through divine inspiration, as did Mendelssohn, > or that it was com- piled by a redactor. In presenting Mendelssohn's insights into the beauty of the Penta- teuch itself, our study examines the influence on him in this respect of ic heauty af th Cpe aucy’ Or the classical Jewish commentators. Though th sthetic beauty the Torah was not of primary interest to them, they still offer the begin- nings of an aesthetic appreciation of the Bible per se, and as such ap- peaied to Mendelssohn, as is reflected in the Bi'ur, Ramban, in partic- ular, should be noted in this regard. We illustrate, in general, the great extent of Mendelssohn's Jewish learning. He drew from the classical commentaries of Rashi, Rashban, ibn Ezra, and Ramban constantly; and the Bi'ur, as such, is an invaluable compendium of those sources. Mendelssohn's Jewish learning and creativ- ity should receive greater interest alongside his achievements in his other capacities as philosopher, civil libertarian, German aesthete, and literary critic. Indeed, SNH, in its large scope, should command at Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12. least as much acclaim as Mendelssohn's individual endeavors in the lat- ter two areas, © We earnestly hope that our dissertation will contrib- ute to a renewec appreciation of this Jewish cultural masterpiece. Sefer Netivot Ha-Shalom will be published once again, hopefully in the not-too- distant future, as part of the new edition of Mendelssohn's Gesammelte Schriften under Professor Altmann's editorship^'; the writer will be pleased if he has increased an eagerness for the coming of that date. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PART ONE: MENDELSSOHN'S APPLICATION OF ACCENTS IN THE ELUCIDATION OF INTERNAL SENTENCE STRUCTURE IN THE PENTATEUCH l. The Historical Context Three main functions are served by the accents, according to Aron Dotan, in his masterful prolegomenon to the Ktav edition of William Wickes’ two works on the accentuation of the Old Testament: l. the logico-syntactical parsing of verses 2. the indication of the phonetic accent (stress) of the word 3. the cantillation.! In the capacity of logico-syntactical signs, they indicate the proper lical sentence with each other by demon- strating the several pauses, as well as the linkage of words between each pause. As such, they are an invaluable hermeneutical guide for the reader in elucidating the meaning of the ancient Biblical text. Whether or not this function was the original one, it is certainly the most important ones paradoxically, however, the hermeneutical function of the accents has been studied relatively little, despite the dictum of Abraham ibn Ezra that one should not want or listen to any explanation not in accord with their explanation." Though the importance of the accents was known to the medieval Jewish commentators, their use fell into des- uetude in pre-modern times and their value has still not been compietely re-established. 13 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14. It is to the great credit of Mendelssohn and the Pi'urists that they were among the first Jewish scholars of the modern age who did recognize the importance of the accents in their Biblical study. Nevertheless, if the accents themselves are studied relatively little, Mendelssohn's im- portance in the chain of tradition dealing with them is known even less, if at all. In this chapter, we shall illustrate Mendelssohn's hermeneutical application of the accents, the first function listed above; and one of our purposes will Le co show the historical importance of SNH in their revival. The accents, in fact, serve no mean role as aids in Mendels- sohn's analysis of the structure and meaning of the Pentateuch, as re- flected in the Bi'ur and in the German translation as wells and we thus now deal with a fundamental underpinning of both as part of our study of these cultural monuments. Highlighting the great scientific value of Wickes' authoritative treatises, Dotan surveys the "relatively scarce and unknown" literature on the accents, ^ He begins with the tenth-century work of Aharon ben Asher, Sefer Digdugei Ha-Te'amim, a work which deals with the accents only as a guide to the inflection, vocalization, and pronunciation of the Hebrew text. Similar works in the next few centuries, such as Moshe ha-Naqdan's Darkhei Ha-Niuaud Veha-Neginot, did not go much further. It was Elijah Levita (with the Tuv Ta'am) who had a pioneering influence in estabiishing the study of accents as a pillar in the interpretation of Scripture; and it is noteworthy that for two hundred years he had a greater influence on Chri:tian Hebraists than on Jewish scholars. Dotan duly notes the contributions of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Christian exegetes Johann von Reuchlin, Samuel Behlius, Caspar Ledebuhr, Matthias Wasmuth, and others, without mentioning the name of one Jewish writer after Levita in this area. In another context, he does mention the important work of Menahem di Lonzano, the 'Or Torah, published in 1618, followed in the next century by the Minhat Shai of Solomon Yedidiah of Norzi (1740-1742); but these works are codices of voluminous Masoret- ical information about the transmission of the accents and the Biblicai text, rather than hermeneutical guides to the Bible. Detan credits the chain of thought from Levita to the Christian Hebraists as being the formative influence on the study of accents in the eighteenth century also. Solomon Hanau (Sha'arei Zimrah, 1718), an eighteenth-century Jewish authority on accents, who is praised for in- novations in the study of the relations between syntactical structure and accentual division, is said to "foliow in the footsteps" of the pre- vious Christian scholars in the matter of classifving accents; and Yehuda Leiv Ben Ze'ev, in his many editions of Talmud Leshon Ivri beginning in 1796, is said to maintain Hanau's system, albeit with different termi- lan Dotan's essay, most valuable for what it does contain, nevertheless manifests errors of omission. In dealing with treatises "specializing" in accents, he fails to cite the efforts of the medieval Jewish Bible commentators who took the hermeneutical function of the accents seriously in their works, although without necessarily devoting exclusive attention to them. The names of Rashi, Rashbam, ibn Ezra, Ramban, and others, do not appear in his discussion. Thus, Dotan ignores a major avenue of intellectual history, with consequent damage to his scheme of influences. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16. His omission extends to the Bi'ur, edited by Moses Mendelssohn from 1780 to 1783, which draws heavily on the wisdom of the commentators mentioned. Mendelssohn's German translation of the Pentateuch represents a herme- neutical application of tne accents par excellence; and the detailed dis- cussions in the Bi'ur, which delve deeply into the interpretations of the medieval Jewish scholars, frequently emphasize the accents in ex- plaining both the grounds cf the German rendition and the thinking of those scholars for its own sake. The Bi'ur, also, innovates in its dis- cussion of accents, in its investigation into the syntactical structure of tne Pentateuch verses, and, as such, deserves at least as much credit for innovation as Solomon Hanau's work. What is equally significant, though Mendelssohn shows due respect for Elijah Levita's views on the accents in his introduction to SNH, tne Or Li-Netivah, Levita is never mentioned in the Bi'ur itself in this connection 3 a reflection, perhaps, that, in Mendelssohn's view at any rate, Levita's role in the scholarly tradition of accent study, though important, was not pivotal. The Jewish tradition had more roots than one. Accordingly, it is misleading to suggest a direct continuity from Levita to the Christian Hebraists to Hanau and Ben Ze'ev, without taking into consideration other influences in the mainstream of Jewish thought. It would be safer, in fact, to attribute to the Christian Hebraists a direct influence only upon the European climate of opinion, affecting Jews also, which began to require a return to the lite: il meaning of the Bible from the previous accretions of scholastic hair-: pi. tting and hom- iletical flights of fantasy in Biblical study. The attent n to the accents, undoubtedly, played an important role in this rediscovery; a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17. theory of exclusive influence between Christian Hebraism and the Jewish study of accents, however, is tenuous, as the Bi'ur itself reflects. For while the Bitur shows sensitivity to the main thrust of Christian human- ism culminating in the European Enlightenment, which stressed the correct understanding of the literal text of the sacred literature, it is note- worthy that it is predominantly based on an inward Jewish turn in its examination of the earlier Jewish sources. The Bitur's attention to the accents falls within the framework of this relationships and this line of the tradition, correspondingly, deserves a much greater emphasis than has been accorded. Dotan, in his essay, proceecs to recount important developments in the nineteenth-century study of accents, leading up to Wickes’ works and he cites the effort of the Jewish scholars Wolf Heidenheim and Seligman Baer, who shared a common approach in this area: continuation of the tradition of the Masoretes in compiling masses of information about the transmission of the Biblical text and symbols.” (It is in this context that the earlier works of Lonzano and Norzi are mentioned.) Heidenheim and Baer are said to have introduced a major change in reacting against the excesses of the Christian Hebraists who analyzed Biblical verses on the basis of accent classification, but without adequate knowledge of the correctness of the accent transmission. Thus, they felt it necessary to go back to the ancients, and to define the correct accents on the basis of reliable Masoretical manuscripts, not unreliable printed edi- tions of the Bible. In this, Heidenheim is said to have introduced a 10 "turning point" in the study of Biblical accents. The importance of Wickes' subsequent work, in fact, according to Dotan, lay in the fact Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18. that he incorporated this approach of Masoretic exactitude, reaffirmed by Heidenheim and Baer, and combined it with the interpretative methods of the earlier Christian scholars: Wickes’! greatness arises from the creative synthesis of the approaches of the Jewish scholars of the nineteenth century with the approach of the seventeenth-century Christian schol- ars, a synthesis which, while reconciling and perfecting its constituents, in itself constitutes a new approach. This statement does not take into account, however, the important con- tributions of the eighteenth-century Bi'urs for the Bi'ur both antici- pates Heidenheim and provides the new creative synthesis attributed to Wickes. Mendelssohn was well aware of the importance of Masoretics, and, in fact, authorized as a component of the Bi'ur a voluminous Masoretic and Shalom Mesritch. It contains detailed information about all aspects of the transmission of the text, including that of the accents, Not only is it based on the Masoretical treatises of Lonzano, Norzi, and Meir ha-Levi 'Abulafia bar Todros of Toledo, but it makes reference to scores of other lesser treatises, as well as cid manuscripts of the 12 i : Bible. The Bi'ur was meant to be studied by scholars in conjunction with the Tigqun Sofrim; in the original 1780-1783 edition, in fact, both works were published in adjacent columns, though in later editions the Tigqun Sofrim is separately printed. Taken together, the Bi'ur and Tiggun Sofrim comprise a monumental effort in the Study of both the text inter- pretation and text transmissions and thus Wickes! creative synthesis was anticipated by fully one hundred years. Of course, Wickes deserves much credit as the central modern figure dealing exclusively with the accentss nevertheless, Mendelssohn and the Bi'urists shouid not be faulted, let Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19. alone ignored, because they range far beyond the accents too. The Bi'ur, along with its counterparts, the German translation and the Tigqun Sof- rim, deserves greater recognition in the history of Biblical study; and Dotan's omission in this respect is merely symptomatic of a general schol- arly disregard. Another example in the scant literature on the accents corroborates the fact of this lack of awareness. A. Ackermann's Das hermeneutische Element der biblischen Accentuation (1893)—one of the only books fol- lowing Wickes' treatises which Dotan considers respectable! 3— surveys a history of Biblical accent interpretation, attributing due weight to Rashi, ibn Ezra, and others, and stressing S. Hanau and S. D. Luzzato in modern times. As far as Mendelssohn's work is concerned, however, Acker- mann reflects the common lack of knowledge, allotting to it only one sentence in a work of one hundred pages, and even there, mentioning only 14 Solomon Dubno and the Tiamın Sofrim. Tt is necessary, therefore, to stress the hitherto neglected contributions of Mendelssohn and the Biturists to Biblical interpretation in the hermeneutical application of the accents. That the accents are of central importance to the Bi'urists becomes readily apparent from a perusal of Dubno's prospectus on SNH, the 'Alim Li-Terufah, and Mendelssohn's introduction, the "Or Li-Netivan. The former quotes the words of Abraham ibn Ezra that one should not desire or listen to any explanation not in accord with the author of the accents, adding, "for the author of the accents knew the explanation better than 15 we," In Part One of the latter, Mendelssohn discusses the accents at greater length, expressing the view that they were revealed with all Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20. their combinations by God to Moses at Sinai and were thenceforth trans- mitted orally from generation to generation by the leaders and scholars of the Jewish people, until they were finally set to writing at some later date. He supports the opinion of Azariah de Rossi that the nota- tion originated even before the codification of the Mishnah against the view of Elijah Levita that it was invented by Tiberian Masoretes only after the codification of the falmid. e Later on in Part Two, at the close of his survey of previous Bible translations, Mendelssohn underscores the importance of the accents in light of the neglect which had befallen them in recent times." Correct accents and vowels he considered second in importance only to correct letters and words; and he suggests that it would be one of the main pur- poses of his Biblical work to establish them and translate and interpret accordingly. The backdrop against which his initiative should be seen t was the rela n of Jewish and Christian Bible study in his time. Jewish Biblical scholarship, in his view, had not progressed be- yond ihe Judaeo-German translation of Yequtiel Blitz of Wittmund, pub- lished from 1676 to 1679, and was in a sad state; and Christian Bikle scholarship, though more developed, reflected a fundamental flaw in its estrangement from the Jewish Masorah. Mendelssohn's own words express the urgency he felt: The Christian translators, since they do not have the tradi- tion of the rabbis and do not heed the Masorah even to accept the vowels and accents in our possession, treat the Torah as a breached city wall, to which anyone can approach and do as he pleases. They add, omit, and make changes in God's Torah. Not only do they alter the vowels and accents, but even some- times the letters and words (for who can stop them?) according to their ideas and understanding; and because of inis they sometimes do not read what is written in the Torah, but what- ever occurs to them. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21. Mendelssohn felt that there was need for an effort on a large scale to revive the glorious tradition of Jewish Bible scholarship: "Though this situation might befit the Christian scholars and their students, it does not befit us, the House of Israel!"l? Accordingly, the study of accents, a unique tool in the Jewish exegetical tradition, finds eminent expres- sion in the Bi'ur, 2. Iwo Special Examples A singular illustration of Mendelssohn's application of accents occurs prominently in his introduction to the Ten Commandments in Exodus. The lengthy introduction is one of the most important sections of the Bi'urs; and it is significant that the accents are underscored in the opening words, which stress the uniqueness of the first two dibrot. Chapter 20: 2, "I am the Lord thy I" until "and those who keep My commandments" [Exodus 20:2-6 |—4A11 is one sentence according to the upper accents, even though two dibrot are in- cluded. You know that the upper accents were set in accord with the nature of the commandments. A sof pasug would have been required after the word "bondage" [v. 2], but these two dibrot were joined together because of their great exaltedness. For God uttered them in the first person; as our Rabbis have said, "We heard "5fE' and ' pf on! &j* from the mouth of the Almighty," Mendelssohn may have derived the Rabbinic attestation that the two dibrot are in a class by themselves directly from Ramban, who cites the same statement in his commentary to Exodus 20:7 and is so quoted by the Bi'ur in that place. Ramban attempts to resolve the contradition be- tween Exodus 19:19 ("Moses spoke and God answered him in a voice") and 20:1 ("God spoke all these words as follows") by means of this considera- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22. tions Whereas the Jewish people heard all the ten dibrot from God, they heard the last eight through the mediation of Moses and only the first two special ones directly from God as prophets.~° What Mendeissohn con- tributes to the discussion is his application of the upper accent which links together Exodus 20:1-6 as one continuous sentence. Mendelssohn's direct source may have been the "Or Torah of Lonzano, which established the two sets of accents for the Ten Commandments and is the authority according to whicn both transcriptions are reproduced in an appendix to the Bi'ur on Exodus. ^! In the words of Lonzano, quoted in the Tiqqun Sofrim on Exodus by Solomon Dubno, the upper accent indicates that the first two Commandments "were promulgated in one utterance."22 As in the Jerusalem, the discussion in the Bitur is consistent with the idea that these dibrot are not "immutable religious truths" which compel belief. The discussion in the Bi'ur, however, does not include the idea elaborated in the Jerusalem that they are "historical truths, "24 but rather deals in more traditional terms as to whether they can be considered "misvot." Mendelssohn is respectful to the views of Maimon- ides and others that they indeed comprise both positive and negative commandments, but appears to incline towards the opinion of the author of Halakhot Gedolot that the matter of belief in the existence of Sod, the main principle and root of all the 613 commandments, is in itself not included among them, and towards the opinion of Isaac Abravanel that the opening statement is neither a creedal nor a positive commandment, but a hagdamah to the commandments embodied in the rest of the dibrot.7° As we shall see in Part Three, the idea of a hagdamah as a literary preface anticipating or introducing a narrative is important in Mendels- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23, sohn's conception of the literary structure and aesthetic beauty of the Bible”; the introductory section of the ten dibrot is an excellent example. While it introduces the rest of the dibrot, it is offset from them. Furthermore, it conveys a central and fundamental idea, epito- mizing the essence of the rest of the dibrot and the 613 commandments, in turn. (Though Abravanel spoke of the first Commandment, specifically, Mendelssohn’ appears to have applied Abravanel's idea to the second one also, not defining clearly in his discussion which sources grouped the two dibrot together and which did not. ^) The accents, significantly, as indicated so prominently in the first section of his exposition, pro- vide support for Mendelssohn's view of the uniqueness of the literary preface, as they likewise prove to be a major tool in his analysis of the structure and meaning of the Bible in general. Related to the concept of a hagdamah in the Bi'ur's literary treat- ment of the Pentateuch is the principle of "kelal u-ferat," which Men- delssohn derived, probably via Rashi, from the baraita of Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yose ha-Gelili outlining the thirty-two principles of Biblical exegesis, ^) According to this principle, a detailed narrative or series is preceded by a general statement which epitomizes the whole; or, in the reverse case of "perat u-kelal," it is followed by a general na mhala iso TWIIVLCEe its utilizaticn of this principle, extending, for example, the scope of a kelal to section length or restricting a kelal to a mere word. The accents, to be sure, are often used in the Bi'ur as an aid in this liter- ary analysis. Here, therefore, we shall consider the role of the accents in assisting the determination of a kelal u-ferat by the Bi’ur, beginning Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24. with the rarer section-length kelal. Actually, we should not expect the accents to be applied to this classification, since they mainly relate to each other within the indi- vidual sentence. Nevertheless, Mendelssohn explored possibilities cre- atively on the basis of sound scholarchip, as we have scen in the case of Exodus 20:1-6, where he found a special technique by which to com- bine six sentences. The " [kP Sloja yy" section, Numbers 10:35f., is a similar example of a highlighted section, if we consider the in- verted nun Masoretical symbols enclosing this section as accents for the purpose of discussion, inasmuch as they are the only Masoretical symbols other than accents employed hermeneutically in the Bi'ur. They, in fact, serve a disjunctive function to two consecutive sentences, according to the Bi'ur, as do the disjunctive sof pasug for one sentence, etnah for a half-sentence, and lesser disjunctives for a portion thereof. The Biur accepts the Rabbinic opinion in Shabbat 115 that the sec- tion originally belonged in anothei context but was placed where it was, offset by inverted nunim, to separate two accounts of divine punishment inflicted upon the Children of Israel. But it goes further in specify- ing the original context: Accordingly this matter is not attributable to the first journey, but at every journey and encampment, it was so. When the ark traveled hig said, "Arise," etc., and when it rested, he 5 22 Dast tt ctc sa Lug Toy The " [I^k» tioja ':) " section thus consists of two prayers, each recited respectively at each emoarkation and encampment of the holy ark in the midst of the nation. The section was marked off in a uniaue manner to indicate that it should not be considered as relating an ordinary event within the chronological succession of the surrounding chapters, but as Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 250 transcending those chapters in referring to every journey of the ark. In this respect, the section represents a generalized occurrence, rather than a particular event. It can be understood as an unusual form of a kelal, although it is not named as such, with its perat being the many journeys of the people, enumerated subsequently in the Pentateuch., It is interesting that Mendelssohn—in bracketed remarks authored by him- self directly, not by his assistant for Numbers, Aaron Jaroslav—digres- ses here with a brief treatment of Psalms, He interprets the difficult Psalm 68 beginning with the first prayer of embarkation as having been composed by David on the occasion of the ark's ascent to the sanctuary. The words in question are thus, as in Numbers, a ritualized prayer, not a spontaneous single utterance, 3. The Determination of a Kelal u-Ferat: a Generaiity and its Details More explicit kelalim treated by the Bi'ur are not abstracted out of the immediate context, as is Numbers 10:35f., and govern their re- spective perat more directly. In decreasing order, the next unit of length is the single sentence; but since the accent defining a sentence, the sof pasug, is in a different class from the less obvious intra- sentence accents, it finds little hermeneutical application in this re- spect. One example, and a striking one at that, however, of a sentence- length kelal discussed by the Bi'ur with the aid of accents is the first sentence of Genesis: "In the Leginning God created the heavens and the earth." The key to the explanation lies with the first word in the next sentence, " Fra," whose vav is not a simple connective, according to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26. Mendelssohn, because it is notated with a revi'a. Genesis 1:2. And the earth—The use of this vay is not for connection, for the uses of vav are many, as I have indi- cated in my Introduction. Here it serves the purpose of re- suming the narrative. [Moses] opened [the second sentence] with what he finished [in the first sentence], as if he were to say, "But as for the earth which I mentioned." Therefore it is notated with a revi'a. In truth Moses did not speak in detail [bi-ferat] about the world to come, which is the world of the angels, but he included ii [kelalo | with "the heavens" whose creation he men- tioned in the first sentence. Rather he spoke in detail of the world of existence and corruptibility subject to man, be- ginning with “and the earth." In other words, the first sentence of Genesis is a kelal expressing in general the fact of the creation of both the heavens and the earth, whereupon the Biblical narrative resumes only with a detailed explanation of the latter, the former not being considered its province. Thus, the entire Bible, in effect, is a perat of only the second half of its open- ing kelal. A tantalizing curiosity is aroused about the history of the Moses could have told more about that, had God willed itl The revi*a is more important to Mendelssohn than the vay in sug- gesting this explanation, for it is a disjunctive accent, indicating a separation or pause. Here the separation occurs in an unlikely place, between the subject and the predicate, and it is to preserve this sep- aration that Mendelssohn is led to his explanation. It is interesting that his t.anslation in German corresponds precisely: "Die Erde aber war unfórmlich und vermischt." The crucial word in German is "aber," indicating an adversative in relation to the preceding sentence, in ef- fects "But as for the earth—the earth was formless and mixed up," as in the Hebrew paraphrase in the Bi'ur. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27. The oniy other example of a sentence-length kelal discussed in the Bitur in connection with accents is Exodus 23:32f. „MIR on akicdl @ pnd DIIP kd © f omk eG |? (Ò Zaka jar! Kd © A ae > (D paid pt WO > (9 The sequence of clauses is problematical and, for the sake of simplicity, I shall refer by number to the six elements in the two sentences, Men- delssohn disagrees with the rearrangement of Ramban, who stressed 6 in the second sentence by taking it out of order in the sequence IE 79 In that case, he argues, the etnah would have to conclude 5, separating 6 from 3-4-5. The force of 6 would thus be increased by being balanced against the whole of 3-4-5. He suggests, on the contrary, that the etnah, in its position after 4, divides the second sentence correctly, with each half referring to the respective halves of the first sentence, in the order of 1-3-4 and 2-5-6. Without specifying so, he thus indi- cates that he interpreted sentence 32 as a kelal of two elements, each explained by a perat in the following sentence. In accord with this ex- planation, the German translation makes use of an infrequent explanatory parenthetical addition: Du sollst mit ihnen und ihren Göttern keinen Bund machen (nämlich sie unter gewissen Bedingungen in dem Lande zu dulden). Sie sollen in deinem Lande gar nicht bleiben, sie kónnten dich zu Sünden wider mich verführen; du könntest verleitet werden, ihren Göttern zu dienen, und dieses würde dein Fall- strick sein. We shall see the use of the word "nämlich" to introduce a perat; here, likewise. it is used in a parenthetical note which, in explaining the in- explicit idea of a covenant with the indigenous population and their gods, clarifies the transition between the kelal in one sentence and the perat Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28. in the next. The decisive accents in the preceding two analyses, the revi'a and etnah, respectively, did not define the kelal itself directly; but the following discussions will deal with disjunctive accents which do. Shorter kelalim within individual sentences are offset directly by weaker disjunctive accents, the etnah or zagef, in most instances, but sometimes by the pashta or revi'a. ‘le shall proceed in the order of the text, ex- panding where appropriate, and hoping to make apparent the Bi'ur's art- ful and often beautifully subtle treatment. Genesis 26:5. TE pnnak AR 59k aye may) pi PPP RX ipid LU One After Solomcn Dubno, Mendelssohn's assistant for Genesis, cites the opinions of Rashbam, Rashi, and Ramban about the meanings of the four words signifying divine requirements, a long analysis written by Mendels- sohn follows, emphasizing that "MAN" is a kelal and that "tnt MPN YIA 2 is its perat. Dubno then closes with a brief comment that the zagef gatan on " INN " supports this interpretation and that Mendelssohn had translated accordingly in German: "Zur Belohnung, weil Abraham meiner Stimme gehorsam war, und meine Vorschrift beobachtete: nämlich meine Gebote, meine Gesetze, und meine Lehren." In addition to the word "Vor- schrift," Dubno may be directing special attention to Mendelssohn's ad- dition of the word "nämlich" to the Biblical account—a key word intro- ducing the perat directly and separating it from the kelai. Mendelssohn's interpretation is one of the most beautifully-written sections of the Bi'ur. He does not illustrate the four terms with exam- ples from Abraham's life and behavior, as do Rashbam and Ramban, 4 nor Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29, does he get involved with the problem of the extent to which Abraham ob- served the commandments in pre-Sinaitic times, as do all three commenta- ires Rather, he shows that ".A5/AQ4" is the general term of obedience to God and that " 51345" E DPP," and "DAN" represent different aspects of that obedience: " 3/2," being that which is observed primarily out of respect, for example, the request of a father; " DPD " (or t DI"); that which is observed primarily out of fear, as the command of a master or ruler; and "IN," that which is observed mainly for the sake of bene- " : i 2 36 fits received, as the instructions of a teacher. Genesis 27:3. DBD kJ) P2! pto pte kj kr ai A A v oT 4 Dubno observes that the zagef gatan on " 16) " indicates a kelal, for if the three words " poe pep "E " were all in a series, the 37 first would probably be notated by the connective merkha. Genesis 37:25. OR qti 031 Hk] P'küuJ parfnp! te This is a similar example of a kelal, for the pashta above "pk2J" is a disjunctive accent separating it from " Ch i 1." Rashi's transla- tion of "NED " as "collection of spices" is adduced in support, in addition to the pashta. Accordingly, Mendelssohn had translated the word as "Gewürze" ("eund ihre Kameele waren beladen mit Gewürze, Balsam, und Lotus."). The determination of " Ako J " as a kelal assumes special importance in view of the Bi'ur's great meticulousness in the ex- planation of the exotic "^93" and 161 ," with citation from widespread Jewish sources and comparison with Latin and Greek. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Exodus 3:6. ?»5Ak ingle piak blc ‘Ile one! m p s r mrs! nl DPI! ‘ade sedl pt | ` A In one of the bracketed sections indicating his own contribution to the Bitur on Exodus otherwise composed exclusively by Mendelssohn, Solomon Dubno follows the opinion of Ramban that the problematic singu- lar " "3k " refers to each one of the three patriarchs, as opposed to the opinion of ibn Ezra quoted by Ramban that it refers to its nearest modi- fier Abraham. He adds, however, that "DAL" is a kelal notated with a zagef, offsetting it from ‘Ape! fe pra. DA p? nak "fe ¿"its perat.°8 The German translation of "DAL" is simply the plural: "Ich bin der Gott deiner Vater, der Gott Abrahams, der Gott Jizchaks, und der Gott Jakobs." Exodus 9:22. nanan bil poko bs pio du Prk A 42 PI a 4 gro hea oae» aes F dri The kelal here, according to Mendelssohn, is " PIIN ," marked by an einah, with its perat the whole second half of the sentence. In the German translation, Mendelssohn had simply omitted it, translating only the last phrase, "p;5 BW S "s "so soll Hagel entstehn: über Menschen, Über Vieh, und über alles Krautgewächs des Feldes im Lande Mizrajim." à Leviticus 1:2. DNDAD w BI [m POA OP i5 PPE u 2322F JE IRRD 1632 pi ^22 [ Naftali Herz Wessely, the composer of the Di'ur on Leviticus, fol- lows Ramban in indicating 54242 e as the kelal, although he considers Ramban incorrect in ignoring the etnah separating '54522 pe" from the pre- vious clause.”” The German translation does not spare words in its Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3l. rendering: "...wenn Jemand von euch dem Ewigen zu Ehren ein Opfer dar- bringen will, so kónnt ihr eure Opfer von Vieh, entweder von Rindvieh, oder kleinem Vieh, darbringen." Unlike previous examples, " ]8/0ph" is not rendered in the indicative mood; and the perat " jte3n [! apae P" is not taken as a series, but rather two separate possibilities, hence the addition of "entweder" and the translation of the vav in "|ko yi" as "oder." It is curious that Wessely failed to acknowledge that ibn 40 Ezra, unlike Ramban, explicitly used the terms kelal u-ferat here. ee ONIN 2 pilen i fn of Mk ewe pasa aap] o UPD pk aoi? afna Ji npo! svn Aff Leviticus 7:3. aln» Mu Sk» I Uo a» p! pfp ski In the inordinately long treatment of en Pas 19 JN'fo in the ticus 3:0, the second sentence a about oD DIL in Leviti- RS tum an Tavs i, i VLA v lm Ma ARA mE NS p cus 7:3 ís also discussed. Mendelssohn, following Ramban, takes the word " ign" in both instances as a kelal followed by its respective rat, as in his translations in both places: "Alles Unschlitt davon"— "nämlich": "das ganze Schwanzstück" and "das Unschlitt welches das Ein- geweide tease Wessely, on the other hand, claims that " Iah," especially in the first sentence where it is notated with a pashta, does not have sufficient disjunctive force to be a kelal governing a whole sentence and he prefers to connect it only with " 5 ico. "*? In addition, he systematically interprets " irdn " with a suffix as having a different meaning from plain “adn "3 “the choice part" instead of "fat," referring in particular only to " fka." Wessely's disagreement with Mendelssohn Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32. ranges over two pages; though in his introduction to Leviticus he is ; 43 ; very humble in tribute to Mendelssohn, he emerges in the commentary itself as Mendelssohn's most contentious colleague. Fevithous 9:8. M nb ale pk maj») [92> fe epi kenn 321 bi ions dri 12 7 Ne T2 Se c D Wessely interprets the function of the zunah as separating different subjects in the carrying out of the particular sin-offering: the person offering the sacrifice in the first hal? of the sentence, and the priest in the second half. Accordingly, he takes "eol " in the first half to mean "he shall offer for sacrifice," ^ Mendelssohn, on the other hand, in bracketed remarks preceded by »k (meaning "the translator said"—the system for the Bi'ur on Leviticus), interprets " AKGPF ok ^k 20»: ajk? " as a kelal, referring to the priest, followed by the detailed procedures of the priest's ministrations ("...dieser opfert das Stück zum Sündenopfer zuerst: er kneipt nämlich hinten, unter dem Genicke den Kopf ab...."). He thus, in a different manner, obviates a difficulty inherent in "Y9 pm! ," for according to the grammatical order, the idea of sacrificing precedes details about earlier preparations. Leviticus 18:18. mips 2595 npn ko ark Sr DIU PPA DE AN rs Wessely questions the great emphasis placed by Rashi, Rashbam, and Ramban on 075," considering " ap ne of equal importance as a reason for the prohibition.” The etnah. he claims, separates the pro- rag X hibition from both its reasons, indicating that either is equally appli- cable. Wessely does not use the terms kelal u-ferat explicitiy in his Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33. analysis, but rather a related idea that the text states its main prin- ciple before detailing the reasons ("dj 94h"). Mendelssohn's opinion in this matter is not recorded, though he may well have disagreed with Wesselys for in accordance with Wessely's interpretation we would ex- pect the German translation to be "entweder...oder," as in one of our : _. 46 previous exampies. Mumbers 6:21. 73! ^g J? PID Aks O is E S ng) jy 98 ija 2 e vag) soup & P& ag 7 ny 'e» (f) The Bi'ur follows Ramban in taking (2) as referring to the sacri- fice of an ordinary nazir, and (3) as referring to a different possibil- ity than the first, that of a rich nazir who might wish to increase the number of sacrifices. Aaron Jaroslav, Mendelssohn's assistant for Num- bers, shows that clause (4) is thus a kelal separated from each of the possibilities by an etnah. He also alludes to the importance of the segol above the first "43!" without explaining what he means. Appar- ently he takes the segol as a disjunctive note separating (1) from (2) and (3), just as the etnah separates (4), giving us a kelal u-ferat 47 u-kelal. Deuteronomy 7:13. ‘IOI P. uo ")9 ce |a pon) panes NIk sae pid LU Bop abe IR 2533) pin qu [n Herz Homberg, Mendelssohn's assistant for Deuteronomy, indicates in a very brief comment that the etnah marks " (oM Pr?» " as a kelal, grinan kelas followed by its longer perat. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34. A grasp of the Bi'ur*'s use cf accents to elucidate the concept of kelal u-ferat, on the basis of the documentation and discussion which we have just seen, leads to a closer understanding of its essential nature. For inasmuch as the accents and the concept are both traditional, the Bi'ur, in applying them, thus exemplifies its own traditional framework. important also in a study of the Bi'ur is the determination of points of contact with Western culture and thought patterns. In respect to the kelal u-ferat, however, there is little connection between them; perhaps, nevertheless, one should not underestimate the importance of the fact that in four of the above examples Mendelssohn employs a Western symbol 48 of punctuation to represent the kelal u-ferat: the colon. 4. Ihe Indication of a Ma'amar Musgar: an "Enclosed Expression" The next area in our study, the Bi'ur's use of accents in defining the ma'amar musgar, reveals a closer relationship with liestern philology, for the ma'amar musgar is roughly equivalent to the parenthetical expres- sion in Western languages. The term was even translated as such into German in the famous Hebrew grammar of Ben Ze'ev (Talmud Leshon Ivri, 1796), who acknowledged in his preface that he had been influenced by Mendelssohnis contributions to the field of linguistics. ? The trans- lation “parenthetical expression" must, however, be understood to eneom- pass not only such units of the sentence as should be marked off by parentheses, but also those less "parenthetical" units marked off in Western languages by commas, known to the American schoolchild as “non- restrictive" nhrases or clauses. We therefore prefer a more encompassing Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35 translation, the "enclosed expression." In this area, the Bi’ur points out more clearly than in other re- spects the relationship of two accents to each others the one at the end of the clause or phrase in question, and the one at the beginning, which is, more accurately, the one at the end of the previous unit of the sentence. The Bi'ur's principle is that the disjunctive note (the ta'am mafsiq) ctosing the enclosed expression is greater than that clos- ing the previous unit. A favorite example which the Bi'ur adduces a few times in illustration” is Exodus 25:8f. POUR Jot @ Opa § jee) O PAD DYAD Nk paik akan jE ag jao O ‚Rap jo! pie MJAPAN The Bitur explains that (3) follows directly upon (1), whereas (2) is an enclosed expression, as indicated by the fact that the sof pasuq after (2) is greater than the etnah after (1). Tn the Bi'ur's paraphrase, in fact, (2) is enclosed in parentheses. It is not strictly a parenthetical clause, however, but rather a non-restrictive relative clause: "in which I may live amongst them, "71 The German translation, on the other hand, renders it as a non-restrictive purpose clauses: "Sie sollen mir ein Heiligthum verfertigen, so will ich unter ihnen wohnen. Völlig so, wie ich dir im Bilde zeige...." The Bi'ur gives thirty-eight explicit example:. of an enclosed expres- sion (a few others are implied). °? Besides the sof pasug and etnah, only two other notes feature prominently as terminal te'amim mafsigim: the tipha and zaqef. The four notes appear in this function respectively eight, twelve, eleven, and five times. In the remaining two examples, a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36. revifa appears once and a tevir, once. The breakdown indicating the re- lationship of the notes with each other is as follows: Terminal ta'am mafsig Terminal ta'am mafsia Number of of the enclosed expression of preceding unit examples I. Sof pasuq Etnah 8 II. Etnah Tipha 1 5 Zagéf 6 Segol 1 Revita 2 Pashta 1 'Azla 1 III. Tipha Revi'a 4 Tevir 4 Gershayim 1 'Azla i Pazer 1 Zagef Pashta 3 Revita 1 Gershayim 1 IV. Revita !Azla 1 Tevir Gershayim 1 Accordingly, the sof pasug and etnah are the strongest notes, as is ob- vious; the tipha and zagef are next in order of strength; and the revi'a and tevir follow them. At one point, Solomon Dubno indicates explicitly that the segol is a strong disjunctive note even approximating the force of the etnah"^; nevertheless, the segol is rarely treated in the Bi'ur, perhaps because it is less common than the others. Also, though the Bi'ur considers as disjunctives all the other notes in the second column, it accords little importance to them in its treatment of the logical ar- rangement of the Biblical text. In illustrating the Bi'ur's treatment of the enclosed expression, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3T. let us proceed down the chart according to the degree of strength of the terminal ta'am mafsig, beginning with the expression closed by a sof pasug and preceded by an etnah. The first two examples are cases where ine German translation employs parentheses. Genesis 13:10f. 427 522 P JM ks © qun ok HF (cet D DOING JM 2 Pic 3 Ane Ur) ap DD ale o © A j 5x3 DICH PIIN Fko 3 J&E O u. [992 522 f2 pk. GE IB OR © Als nun Lot sich umsahe, und den ganzen Kreis des Jardens besichtigte, welcher durchaus gewässert war (bevor noch der Ewige Sedom und Amorah zu Grunde richtete, war es wie ein Garten des Ewigen, wie das Land Mizrajim, und so war es bis nach Zoar hin); Da erwählte sich Lot den ganzen Kreis des Jardens.... Dubno shows that the whole second half of 13:10, both (4) and (5), is an enclosed expression defined by the sof pasua and next weaker preceding note, the etnah. He ailudes to the parentheses in the German transla- tion, adding thet the accents serve the function of parentheses for the Hebrew text.” lest one interpret (4) as a unit by itself, with (5) in apposition to (3), Dubno shows that Mendelssohn, following Rashi, inter- preted (5) as an elliptical clause (a migra gasar) connected with (4)°6 and therefore added the words "war es" in the translation. According to the former interpretation, he says, "MIÓ" would have to be marked by the etnahs in other words, the etnah would be the terminal ta'am mafsiq of (4) greater than the preceding ta'am mafsig, setting off (4) alone as the enclosed expression. This example illustrates an important feature in Mendelssohn's treatment of the Pentateuch. Although Biblical Hebrew style is based on Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38. the parallelism between half-sentences and even whole sentences, Mendels- sohn took pains to show the logical relationship between subordinate and main ideas.” Thus, in the German translation, 13:10 (1—5) is translated as a subordinate temporal clause, dependant on 13:11 (6). The enclosure of the whole second half of 13:10 helps clarify the precise relationship between its first half and 13:11. Genesis 453901 «| Nic je ox @ I> fc 956 fk IcAD Qs! (D A Roya DIMP iji iia NM © {j> [k > gk» aD) ©) Wenn ich nun zu deinem Diener, meinem Vater, zurückkomme, und der Knabe ist nicht bei uns (da dessen Seele mit der sein- igen verknüpft ist); Wenn er nun sähe, dass der Knabe nicht bei uns ist, so würde er sterben... Dubno shows that (3) is the enclosed expression defined by sof pasug and etnah, as in the cerman translations and he explains that it was neces- sary for the Hebrew to repeat the idea of (2) in (4) in order to re- establish the direct connection with (5). The German translation, in this respect, is even more emphatic than the Hebrew, repeating "bei uns" in (4), with heightened dramatic effect, whereas the "ape" of (2) is hot repeated in Hebrew, The isolation of (3) helps clarify the relation- ship between the several dependent clauses and the main verb in (5). In the next example, the Bi'ur clarifies the reasoning of Ramban with the ma'amar musgar concept, even though it proceeds to accept the opinion of Rashi, which was completely different: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39, Genesis 2:5f. Faka DI Pot 523€» We 1 (D paik 3 ofan kd > (3 DAS" PIC 230» ares FI (2 Ngee kc Wass pe Paler CD Q^k» fé 3E» yo Pk oper) hk» p vfs! akı © In connection with these two sentences there is a Rabbinic debate as to when the grass and vegetation were created. Whereas, according to one opinion, "On the third day they stood at the opening of the earth's soil, and on the sixth day they began to grow after He rained down upon them, "2 Ramban held that, according to the literal interpretation, the earth began to produce vegetation on the third day. The Bi'ur first ex- plains the opinion of Ramban, introducing into the discussion its more sophisticated research into syntax, namely the observation that (3) and (4) are an enclosed expression, and that a direct connection should be understood between a subordinate temporal clause, (1) and (2), and the main clause in (5). To paraphrase the text accordingly: Before there was vegetation (for God had not sent rain and there was no man to work the soil), then a mist rose and watered the whole face of the earth. 7 In other words, according to the explanation of Ramban, it was the mist which was the major aid in the creation of vegetation, and that origi- nated on the third day. Neverthelcsz, the Biter goes on to reject this interpretation in favor of Rashi's explanation cf " " as meaning "not yet," rather than “before 90 Accordingly, (1) and (2) are an independent declarative statement with (3) and (4) being dependent causal clauses of greater force than a long enclosed expression, as in the German translation: Allerlei Baumgewáchs des Feldes war noch nicht auf der Erde, und das Kraut auf dem Felde noch nicht gewachsen; denn Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. das ewige Wesen, Gott, hatte noch nicht regnen lassen auf Erden, und der Mensch war noch nicht da, das Erdreich zu bearbeiten. Aber ein Dunst stieg auf von der Erde, und befeuchtete die ganze Fläche des Erdreichs. (3) and (4) contain the causes for (1) and (2), not (5)3 and thus, as the Bi'ur explains: Only when God finally sent rain for the benefit of 6 man-—nn the sixth day—did vegetation begin to grow. d Numbers 1:45f. ? pale pips ETT jJ» IIo (> Ppi O) MET ae) cd) f> ©) ofyn DIR pe [>a ©) ‘o el Pt len 0. po» 9 ml & ep ble neh N ae Here (2) and (3) comprise an enclosed expression, not the predicate of (1), as according to ibn Bora. e According to the Bi'ur, (5) and (6) are the predicates and the subject in (1) is repeated in (4) to resume th Now let us proceed to examples where the terminal ta'am mafsig is an etnahs E charn nn ay » X429 ^j DED (o 555 TI T IAN PHD 4 o (D a D ayy wer kg» (9 The Bi'ur on this sentence tries to cope with the problem in (4) as to how Pharaoh's daughter could have given Moses a Hebrew name, expati- ating at great length on Isaac Abravanel's critique of ibn Ezra's opinion tnat "SQN " is a translation of the original Egyptian name NT de Though in the translation Mendelssohn interpreted that the subject of (4) and (5) was the daughter of Pharaoh— Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. äle Als der Jungling heranwuchs, brachte sie ihn der Tochter Paroh's; er war ihr wie ein Sohn. Diese nannte ihn Moscheh, und sprach: weil ich ihn aus dem Wasser herausgezogen habe— the Bi'ur agrees with Abravanel's view that the subject of both (4) and (5) was Moses! mother and that "{Q)'QN" in (6) was not a first person singular, but a second person (feminine) singular: Yokheved called her son "Moshe," saying to Pharoah's daughter that it was because she drew him out of the water. It adds, in support of Abravanel, that (3) should be taken as an enclosed expression, and thus "of" in (3) has no influ- ence over the rest of the sentence and cannot be taken as the antecedent of the subsequent feminine verbs. The Bi'ur then gives an alternative German translation to this effect: "der ihr wie ein Sohn war, sie (nàm- lich die Mutter) nannte ihn Moshe, und sprach (zu Pharaohs Tochter), weil du ihn aus dem Wasser herausgezogen hast. "9^ SS SSS ® 5 4094 apd Am ea! & (D t I j ] V i n PU P aps’ JP "0j 3P (2) and (3) are taken as the enclosed NON and (4) is a repe- tition of the subject in (1) before the predicate (5). The German translation of this example contains parentheses: Alle Personen, die mit Jakob nach Mizrajim kamen (nàmlich seine eigenen Nachkommen, ohne die Weiber der Sóhne Jakobs), zusammen sechs und sechzig Personen. Here the word "nämlich" in the translation is of interest. We have pre- viously observed its function in introducing a perat. In this example, it introduces more specifically, though not named as such in this place, a tosefet bi'ur, an explanatory addition. Compare, in this respect, Numbers 31:26, where an enclosed expres- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42. sion is shown to be an explanation of a previous unit in the sentence ( DN DAA) P Oka ‘HW hiph” R nk KL), The terms "342221 e3ka n explain, in a chiastic relationship, the terms " pipa" and "'AQP," which are interpreted as being two separate entities, not a construct. ^> The fact that a tosefet bi'ur can be classified as an enclosed ex- zcs8ion leads one to expect the more specific type of tosefet bi'ur, the rat, to be considered an enclosed expression too. To be sure, examina- tion of one of the examples of a kelal u-ferat which we have seen ear- iene reveals that the perat may be equivalent to an enclosed expression with the definitive accents merely considered in the reverse order: Exodus 3:6. park "SE © pk py (D "Ale Ae] ape inher pre! p Examining (2) as an enclosed expressior, one would focus on the etnah and proceed back to the zagef. In this case. where the Bi'ur agrees with Ramban in taking (2) as a perat, it begins with the zagef: Here the note zagef on the word " nk, a disjunctive greater than the notes after it until the etnah, indicates that " Stak inde" includes all of them [all three patriarchs] and that the following are its perat, as according to the opinion of Ramban of blessed memory. Let us now complete our treatment with examples af the lesser ter- minal te’amim mafsigim; first, one each of the tipha and zagef: Genesis 19:20. — 949. kun) ANL Ju app k4p ND [| 2/2 de) By @ (er SUR © sib (u Gfk © (2) is the enclosed expression, in parentheses in German: Siehe! diese Stadt hier ist nahe, dahin zu flüchten; sie ist auch klein. Erlaube, dass ich mich dahin rette (sie ist Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ja nur so klein), damit ich leben bleibe. è i ) ; f $ Genesis 43:30. pple $c (WP? 1042]. 2 @ joy apa ac MMOD Cpr’ A (2) is the enclosed expressions; and (3) is connected with (1): "Joseph eilte hinweg, denn seine Zärtlichkeit entbrannte gegen seinen Brüder, und suchte zu weinen..." We conclude with the only examples of the revita and tevir as ter- minal ta'am mafsig: Exodus 23:15. E^ ok PN! AD Ken NOI? ED Jk 193 7! ' Ink 09) 20k P IDNA nk In 5 plaka 03Jp in Mendelssohn explains in the Bi'ur that " pa ko " is the en- closed expression; and Dubno adds in brackets the explanation that the terminal xevi'a is greater than the preceding 'azla. The translation, accordingly, includes "wie ich dir geboten habe" in parentheses. Genesis 41:35. 20m MEDD NA» Pt» e P n. Sap PAN © Pri PEO 342 7 npr @ Fo 122310 (2) is considered the enclosed expression here, which does not sun- der the connection between (1) and (3). (3), in fact, is taken as a dative with "zu" in the translations Sie mögen. ..schütten das Getreide auf, unter der Gewalt Paroh's, zum Vorrath in den Städten, und verwahren solches. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9. Mendelssohn's Grasp of the Dichotomical Principle In the recognition of principles according to which units of a sen- tence are separated from preceding and succeeding units, the Bi'ur has made a definite contribution. With its attention to the te'amim maf- sigim marking pauses throughout the sentonce, in addition to the etnah which divides the sentence into two equal halves, it anticipated by one hundred years Wickes' much-admired elaboration of the theory of the "continuous dichotomy.. Though Wickes himself disparages much of the previous work in this area, he could not include the Bi'ur in his sweep- ing remarks, for he was unaware of its existence, as in the following quotation: omy was (according to Spitzner) C. Florinus, in his Doctrina de accent. divina, 1667. The two writers to whom is assigned the credit of having done most to establish the principle are J. Francke, in his Diacritica Sacra, 1710, and Ae B. Spitzner, in his Institutiones ad analyticam sacram textus Hebr. V. T. ex accentibus, 1786. The former of these works I have not been able to consult. The latter i have read carefully through. It relates chiefly to the prose accents, and con- tains some good hints, but nothing more. A satisfactory re- sult is certainly not worked out. 2 Consider also his note to a remark on the relationship between syntax and accentual division: The only scholar (as far as I am aware) who has treated this subject has been Ewald, in an appendix to his Lehrbuch der Hebräischen Sprache, pp. 869-873, but I cannot say that I have found his remarks of any services as my readers will understand, when I mentign that he altogether discards the dichotomical principle. On the contrary, however, the Bi'ur contains systematic ideas about Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45. the "dichotomical" function of disjunctive accents, which go beyond mere "good hints." It is not to be disregarded in the history of the continu- ous dichotomy hypothesis. The Bi'ur also deserves credit as a predecessor of Wickes in stres- sing the importance of individual disjunctive accents, rather than the "class hierarchy."/? of groups of disjunctive accents as developed chief- ly *n the systems of the seventeenth-century Christian exegetes, but also found in the works of Jewish scholars, such as Solomon Hanau and Yehuda Leiv Ben Ze'ev. For example, in Caspar Ledebuhr's Catena Scrip- turae, published in 1647, five major classes of accents are outlined in oxder of ranks 1. Rex—Sillug [Sof pasuq] 2. Dux—Etnah 3. Comites—Zagef, Segol, Tipha 5. Ioparchae—Pazer, Qarne Parah, Telisha Gedolah, Geresh, Pesiq Within each of the last three groups, in turn, Ledebuhr classified in- dividual notes in terms of rank. Solomon Hanau (Sha'arei Zimrah, 1718) arranges the accents ina similar order, although using only four classifications: 1. Melakhim—Sillug, Etnah ——— — i 2. Sarim--Secol, Zagef, Tipha, Revita 3. Peqidim—Zarga, Pashta, Tevir, Geresh 4. Meshorerim—Pazer, Telisha Gedolah Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46. Ben Ze'ev (Talmud Leshon Ivri, 1796), later than Mendelssohn, gives four main classifications also. In an introductory éectiong * they are listed as: l. Qesarim—Sillug, £tnah 2. Melakhim—Segol, Zagef-Qatan, Zagef-Gadol, Tipha 3. Sarim—Revi'i [zic], Zarca, Pashta, Tevir, Yetiv, Shalshelet 4. Peqidim—Pazer, Qarne Parah, Telisha Gedolah, Geresh, Ger- Curiously, in his more detailed analysis towards the end of his book, ^? he gives different names for the last two classes, Mishnim and Shelishim, with a different array of accents in all four, which, however, is the exact listing used by Hanau. The principle of rank within each classi- fication was accepted by Ben Ze'ev, and presumably it had been accepted by Hanau also. In fact, the different frameworks of Ben Ze'ev illustrate the different inter-class ranking of one important note, the revi'a. He elevated the revi'a from the third class to the second, apparently not vishing it to be considered the strongest note in the former, but the weakest in the latter. A systematic classification of accents in order of rank was not adopted by the Bi'ur. Of course, it accepts the predominance of the notes in the first two (or three, in the case of Ledebuhr) classes, but does not categorize them rigidly in order of strength. Rather, it ana- lyzes the relative strength of individual notes in a sentence to ascer- tain the force of the respective words they govern. Undoubtedly, the Bi'ur represents a major plateau in the simplification of accent theory, a process which culminated in the work of Wickes. In fact, several of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the notes in the last two classes of the previous scholars are very rare- ly mentioned at all, let alone accorded importance. The Bi'ur had no wish to fit every note into a strict hierarchy, but rather concentrated on the individual importance of the five or six chief notes in relation to each other. Their strength, furthermore, was analyzed only within the context of specific examples, not according to an absolute scale. It is interesting, in this light, that Mendelssohn's Commentary on Ecclesiastes, published in 1770, a full decade before the Bi'ur, con- 74 tains echoes of the old system. In the commentary on Ecclesiastes 1:5, for example, Mendelssohn makes use of such a classification of notes: PL QD 1915 fiim [Nipn T Wan kal WAP nj) One who knows the nature of the te*'amim will understand that the word # NIMM" is notated with a note [of the class] Sar Gadol; "Ak, " with a note [of the class] Pagid under the governance of the Tipha; " 55/5" with a uote Tor the class] Mesharet; " kip" with a note a the class] Sar Qatan. Mendelssohn enumerates three disjunctive classes here; and it is inter- esting that his system is slightly different from the systems of the scholars cited, for, unlike them, he does not put the zagef and tipha in the same class. His interpretation takes " fan pry fee as a unit in itself. Because of the zagef on emip" "fir is A considered the main verb linked to " LU. fa "with" fe (19 2/5" being a separate clause, but rather as a modifier of "kin b2j4 ": the sun shines yearning to set. Whatever the merits of this explanation, the classification of accents does not really add much. The important point is that Mendels- sohn appears to have restructured his whole approach to the accents in the preparation of tne Bi'ur, for the Bi'ur contains no such hierarchical terms of classification anywhere. Moreover, some later editions of the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48. Commentary on Ecclesiastes itself omit the brief section I have quoted. ^" At some point, Mendelssohn perhaps indicated his change of conception and directed that his original classification be disregarded. 6. The Indication of Emphasis and Expressiveness In the preceding discussion, we have devoted our attention to two technical concepts, the kelal u-ferat and the ma'amar musgar, involving the interrelationship between different units of a sentence. We shall now examine a more emotive topic: the application of accents to elucidate the Pentateuch's dramatic and expressive style. The Bi'urists delighted to show that the Pentateuch manifests a depth of feelings and the accents are attested, in this respect, to reveal emphatic pauses and exclamations. Often, in fact, an exclamation point is employed, either in the German transiation or in the Bi'ur's paraphrase, to convey the meaning of the text. Genesis 8:11. .— DDP AO nis »" aa ax m 2j» Hk cap TT t Solomon Dubno does not follow Rashi's interpretation of the problem- atic n f " (with two kemasim and a masculine ending) as an active verb TT nuc c in the past tense modifying "an," or that of ibn Ezra, modifying the understood " IPA o." Instead, he follows the Shorashim of David Kimhi in taking it as an adjective modifying n Mb "76 Likewise, the German translation renders: "Als die Taube zur Abendzeit zurückkam, hatte sie ein Ohlblatt, abgepfluckt, im Munde," rather than "...hatte sie Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49. abgepflückt ein Ohlblatt im Munde." The disjunctive accent under "UMS 5" according to Dubno, supports this interpretation, separating the phrase " DOA AG from the preceding, and indicating that Noah noticed that the leaf was plucked afresh only after his initial astonishment and joy at seeing the leaf at all. He offers an alternative German translation conveying the exact feeling: "Siehe, da war ein Öhlblatt! Abgepflückt, in ihrem Munde." Interestingly, he refers us to the Bi'ur of Exodus 2:6 for a similar treatment: " pine XJ 2|») afin sk IDOM PAY ." Nevertheless, Mendelssohn in this place does not foliow up Dubno's sug- gestion, ignoring the separation between " 2%)" and "5523," having ren- dered " 555 nj aD) "in his translation as "und es war ein weinender Knabe.” In the Bi'ur, following Rashbam, he connects " 2f'a_pk [ak api 76) Da" in the form of a kelal u-ferat, " aha " being taken as "child" ("das Kind"), with "7$j " the more particular "boy" (‘der Jüngling" or "der Knabe")?? but he does not stress the emotional assertion "ayj 2») H as Dubno might have wished. Genesis 13:13. ka En ek ni m 230 Riley t Much attention is paid in the Bi'ur to the accents of this important sentence, which is taken as the literary preface to the story of the de- struction of Sodom and 'Amorah. The etnah, Dubno explains, would custom- arily separate " 7120 Jt " from " 9 few 9$ Q^k(n) P762," inasmuch as it is the function of the largest note in a clause to separate the sub- ject from its predicate. Here, however, where the lesser zagef separates subject and predicate, the etnah has a different function: "to arouse Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90. attention to the enormity of the rebelliousness"—like an exclamation mark. It also balances wage against both the adjectives "P/ÓO " and " PGND »" preventing it from modifying only the nearer one. The German transiation has to rearrange the sentence to convey the same idea: "Die Männer von Sedom aber waren dem Ewigen sehr böse Menschen, und grosse Sünder." The tipha, furthermore, serves to indicate that " ‘of " and "DEN " are two separate terms in the second half of the sentence, with each being balanced against the first half, so that "gkw " modifies both "on" and " ein " also. Though the above examples from the Bi'ur were not paralleled by an exclamation point in the German translation, the following ones reflect a closer correlation: gene + Genesis 14:24, Ue ? ka pón p? »€ Ja | k We | ^ 13402 nra inp? PA [coAn Yo9fc JE E, o» Dubno indicates that ren on the basis of the revi'a over una," differs from the interpretations of David Kimhi and ibn Ezra, who linked "176P " with " 45" essentially as a construct. Mendelssohn, on the other hand, took " if 2" as having a first person pronomial suf- fix and being separate from " pues Abraham thus meant to emphasize his refusal in ihe preceding sentence to accept a material reward from the king of Sodoi, : This is reflected in t von mir! nur was die Bursche verzehrt haben...die mogen ihr Antheil nehmen." Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91. 2o» »kok) kJ »3^k Genesis 18:21. nf» | ie Ste DAD art a la »3k eb Pkl In the Bitur of this sentence, Dubno demonstrates a kind of accentu- ological pilpul: that the accents simultaneously reinforce two separate Rabbinic traditions. The more accepted interpretation of Rashi, Rashbam, Ramban, Onkelos, and Jonathan ben Uzziel takes "fo" as an idea in it- self, total destruction with God as the implied subject, not the people of Sodom; and Dubno shows that the pesig separating "ag >" from "joy" supports that interpretation. (He does not acknowledge, however, that both Rashi and Rashbam likewise relied on the support of the pesig. 7?) The German translation accordingly, apparently noting the etnah also, takes "aio" as a separate exclamation: "So will ich mich herablassen, und sehen. Wenn sie so gethan haben, wie das Geshrei vor mich gekommen, Verderben über sie!" On the other hand, Dubno shows that "ojo" is also joined with " j" by means of the connective munah, which would support the inter- pretation of ibn Ezra and Sforno that "44.2" means "all of them," refer- ring to the people of Sede He suggests that God's statement, ac- cording to this interpretation, is an introduction to the following narration about Abraham's pleading for justice, > for Abraham immediate- ly takes up the very question whether all were guilty. ] ) è Genesis 49:8. ER pink pa ape DID! E The revi'a on "IQ! ," which is a stronger disjunctive than the pashta on "3k," demonstrates, according to Dubno; that "59/5!" is to be taken by itself as the exclamation. This leaves the pronoun "anc" Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to reinforce the pronomial suffix E dE of " po» an example of another principle of interpretation in the Bi'uz*: The repetition of a pronoun indicates antithesis in relation to the preceding statement. Thus, Genesis Rabbah, quoted by Rashi, is actually close to the peshat in interpreting that after Jacob rebuked Reuben and Simon, Judah began to retreat in trepidation, whereupon Jacob cailed him back in encourage- ment, "Judah! But you are not like theme Or as in the literal Ger- man translation: "Aber du, Jehudah! dir werden deine Brüder huldigen...." Exodus 13:8. De INT nk ns Pra ur V D) prasad MIA PS 206 Mendelssohn followed the opinion of Rashi and ibn Ezra, adducing the revi'a in support, that "2% " is a demonstrative pronoun referring to the Passover observance of the Jewish people subsequent to the Exodus. " E YA" is an emphatic statement: God brought about the Exodus in expectation of that observance! To this effect, says Mendelssohn, the Rabbis expounded that one points to the unleavened bread and bitter harb when reciting the words " 35 YSEA" at the Seder. Mendelssohn expresses disagreement with Ramban, as well as with Rashbam, who felt that "D5" was a relative pronoun linked to "594" by means of an understood " 92k," namely: Commemorate that which God did at the time of the Enae Curiously, there seems to be an error in Mendelssohn's statement that the German translation is in accord with the interpretations of Rashi and ibn Bae: for the translation, "Dieses geschieht wegen dessen, welches der Ewige mir gethan, als ich aus Miz- rajim ging" is actually closer to Ramban and Rashbam. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53, 154 ee it Excius 15:17. P j /[J2 3 RIPA ... A C In a brief comment Mendelssohn mentions that " d " is notated by a zagef to separate it from the following " 3 „" which is a vocative. He could have added that the tinha in turn separates " 43 " from pus 2," as in the German translation: “das Heiligthum, O Herr! das deine Hände bereitet." Numbers 14:17f. Nki JORN Who 3 n2 lq T a T óh 25i Sigk pre ? Jaroslav states that "“3 N2," joined by the accents, is both a construct and a EL He should have added that the preceding tipha supports this explanation. Although he notes the concurrence of the translation of Onkelos (" ^3 4) /" lcn ($9 ee si"), Jonathan ben Uzziel (" 9 p^? kn > o! 22"), and Mendelssohn ("Lass doch, O Herr! die Grösse deiner Kraft sich zeigen"), strictly speaking, "n>" in the last two is not to be taken as a vocative. The exclamatory nature of "^3 ," at any rate, in both the Bi'ur and the German transla- tion, is clear. Numbers 5:22. [Ga nad ae DFD PINDKAND i te que | | r ik 202 AKI P. aly The Bitur does not deal with the exclamation at ali, as does the translation: "...die Frau spreche: es sei also, dieses geschehe!" Shalom Mesritch in the Tiqqun Sofrim for Numbers, however, offers an un- common explanation about the pesiq separating the last two words: " [se = is not a mere repetition to strengthen the meaning—as in the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94, translation—for we would thus have to have " [NEI prle," he says. The pesig, rather supports the Rabbinic interpretation that the second " pk" means that the accused adulteress accepts the verdict of the bitter-water 3 ; ifa 97 test as covering a sin with a Possibile second partner also.” We shall now analyze three short examples in which the accents sep- arate clauses in such a way as to enhance the expressiveness of the text, in addition to clarifying the meaning. Genesis 32:18f. Ink [2-6 pee’ I> Ankd 19? Sk 134 A ues As ° ijab ofk Wil © 2i» afel © ape Wo © " 7 af arth LS e bE IRD api (on ana aps P Dubno shows that the zagef separating (1) and (2) from (3) aids in elucidating the course of Jacob's thinking before his feared reunion with Esau. Though the text has three short questions, there are essen- tially only two main Classifications about which Jacob thought Esau would ask: the servants (1) and (2), and the flock (3). However many ques- tions Esau would ask about each, Jacob instructed that the servants should keep proffering gifts. The accents thus reveal the "depth of the literal meaning of the text," a level of meaning not explicit in the words themselves. Genesis 33:15. Ne We P6» [^ pus kJ DI jeg lol i QJ YN [p (Ink 2% ans Dale Dubno shows that the zagef clearly delineates two separate ques- tions, as according to Rashi and ibn Ezra, not Solomon ibn Melekh, the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36 composer of the Mikhlal Yofi, who read only ones "Why do I find such 89 favor in the eyes of my lord?" Mendelssohn, he indicates, followed the former basically in translating, "Wozu dieses? Lass mich nur vor meinem Herrn Gnade finden"—an even more gracious response. Genesis 38:29. [pk k3! JEY 13! YWD '2! ‚Po INL lop] Poa P* 320 »A OK! Here, likewise, Dubno shows that the tipha marks off two separate items, as according to the explanation of ibn Ezra and, this time, the Mikhlal Yofi also, which take " Pp PR " as an independent idea: "Be- hold the guilt of the breech is upon you (if your brother dies because of your pressure upon him) "0 The translation of Jonathan ben Uzziel, though it "transferred the meaning from the peshat to the derash, as is its manner occasionally," also understood two items?! —unlike, we may add, Ramban who dismissed ibn Ezra'!s opinion curtly as "making no sense." In German, however, we find explicit agreement with the latter: "Warum hast du so vorgedrungen? Auf dich kommt die Schuld des Vordringens.,"?? Finally, we shall conclude this section with two striking examples in which the language of the text is shown to be pictorial or mimetic. The accents are said to play an important role in illustrating the rich- ness of the description. Genesis 19:9. iol GLI ouf ka Inka Iren © Lo % 1041 CD Jo om) 1264 O aka Gla ko. 10307 (D. Pay ph xy ane G2 Dubno's paraphrase in the Bi'ur emphasizes the exclamatory nature of (1) and (2), defined by the revita and zagef, as in the German trans- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56. lation: "Sie antwortetens Gehe hinweg! und fuhren fort: Dieser einzige Mann kam als Fremdling hier an, und will schon Richter sein!" In addition, Dubno artfully shows that the phraseology of the verse contains a mimetic representation of the rabble of Sodom besieging Lot's home. The repeti- tion of " |9NKk'|" in (2) is not redundant, as one might suppose at first glance, but indicates a different faction of rscple as the subject. Like- wise, the change in person (1-2-3) from second to third to second indi- cates three separate groupings: (1) the people in unison; (2) and (3)— separate groups thereof. (5) may even be a different group altogether. Furthermore, Dubno comments that the revi'a, separating (1) from (2), is not as strong a disjunctive as the possible segol, so that (1) really blends into (2), in the manner of a mob's outcry. Genesis 42:25, Em 2 Jk TY 'l (2) Íj IO, »52f 233 e»t Anh a DL Ste Qe PDD Ra [Á P 229 £x 1 © This sentence presents difficulties in the shift between the finite construction in (2) and the infinitives in (3) and (4), as well as in the change from a plural verb in (2) to a singular verb in (5). Dubno ex- plains the former by considering the sentence elliptical and supplying omitted clauses between (1) and (2), and (2) and (3): Joseph commanded (to fili their containers with corn) and they filled their containers with corna; (and he commanded) to return their money.... The explanation of the latter problem focuses on the segol after (2) to hypothesize a hidden meaning. The segol, being a relatively strong disjunctive note, approximating and even exceeding at times the force of an etnah, according o Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57° to Dubno, indicates a distinct logical separation between (1-2) and (3-4-5). Dubno leads us to imagine the bustle in Joseph's court, the hierarchy of servants in his thrall, and the multiple means at his dis- posal of having his wishes enforced. Thus (2) refers to Joseph's menial servants at the granaries whom he commanded publicly, whereas the com- mands (3) and (4) were carried out in a different manner altogether and by a different subject, the singular subject of (5). The acts of return- ing the money and providing food for the journey were delicate tasks not to be revealed to the Egyptian publics; and consequently the subject of (5) had to be a close confidant of Joseph, perhaps even his son Manasseh, whom Joseph instructed (3) and (4) in the greatest of secrecy. The German translation, nevertheless, follows a different path in rendering this verse, adroitly eliminating both of the difficulties in interpretation, albeit with less subtlety of imagination: Joseph befahl, dass man ihre Gefässe mit Getreide anfülle, und ihr Geld wieder hineinlege, jedes in seinen Sack; ihnen auch Zehrung auf die Reise mitgebe. Man that ihnen also. The verb in (2) is not taken as being independent, completing the inten- tion of (1) and a supplied complement, but rather as a dependent verb in an object clause, equal in force to the infinitives in (3) and (4). All three verbs in (2-3-4), in fact, are translated as subjunctives governed by "dass." The distinction, furthermore, between the singular and plural verbs in (2) and (5) is simply blurred by the use of the impersonal "man" in both cases. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58. 7. Connective Accents Hitherto, we have dealt with examples of the use of accents in the Bi'ur in three specific areas, mainly: the keial u-ferat, the ma'emar musgar, and the emphatic or dramatic statement. It must be stressed, however, that the application of accents in the Bi'ur extends far beyond its treatment of these subjects. There are scores of additional examples, in which the relationship between words in the text is clarified. Most deal with disjunctives indicating a separationg but, as we have already seen in a few instances, some deal with connectives. This proportion, incidentally, is to the Bi'ur's credit; for in this matter also, the Bi'ur anticipates Wickes, who stressed the preponderant importance of the disjunctive notes and devoted heavily disproportionate attention to them, Seligman Baer, on the other hand, stressed the connective accents more, 94 At any rate, the Bi'ur presents a few examples of connectives; and we shall describe two interesting ones which also relate to the German translation, Leviticus tenet NR? sea PIMA IVA Dia) [PIR akal í un ADE AMER ND LD $225 “sw Wessely notes that the word "2392" might refer to either the sore itself or the color of the sore, and that it is the connective under "AIRD" which determines the latter in this case: '_nIa>" is joined with nah ," not " 599." Similarly, the German translation removes all Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29, ambiguity with its use of the words "keinen Glanz," indicating lack of color: "Der Priester sieht, dass in der Haut weisse Flecken sind, die keinen Glanz haben; so ist es ein Frieselausschlag.,.." Numbers 16:15. dl m Je» i ^ Sic INHI Qk4 au pP] ‚Pad 9nk Dk m» kh) pe PN Ik ann €f Jaroslav follows Rashi and Onkelos in joining "nk " as a construct with "Pp," whereas Rashbam and Ramban took "ank " as a modifier of "AND." According to Jaroslav, the connective accent under " ?nk" pro- vides a better proof for the former view than Rashbam's attestation for the latter that "Ink" is not a construct form. The text thus emphasizes Moses! decency towards every individual—he did not harm a single per- son.” In the German translation, too, there is no doubt that "Poy anke" is taken together and stressed more than "AP": "Nicht Einem von ihnen habe ich seinen Esel genommen, nicht Einen von ihnen have ich beleidigt." 8. Four Concluding Examples Finally, of the scores of additional examples we have alluded to, of which most are disjunctives, we should like to describe four of striking m > ER i TE NR tance. Two, in Leviticus 19, deal with ethical principles; and two deal with theological ideas concerning God's revelation, and punishment. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Leviticus 19:15. $2 ta [ce kb (ot^ m } REP kb TL GLN 0232 dip ja 239p ay Here the Bi'ur points out the function of the etnah in separating the last clause from the preceding and, in effect, in equating it in importance with the preceding. The clauses before the etnah are joined, but the final principle is separate—as if to say, “Outside of justice mercy is good and charity is precious; but in justice it is bad, for justice is.the province of God, and the law shall split the puntan m The German translation, as well, takes the etnah into consideration as a coordinating sign with adversative force, as indicated by its addition of the word "sondern": Thut kein Unrecht im Gerichte; verschone den Armen nicht, und achte nicht das Ansehn eines Vornehmen, sondern richte deinen Nàchsten nach der Gerechtigkeit. The translation may reflect further application of the accents in its use of a semicolon after the first clause— parallel to the zagef on "GIWA." Though there are two zagef's in the first half of the sen- tence, Solomon Dubno has elsewhere stated explicitly that in the case of identical disjunctives in succession, the first always has greater force?" ; and Mendelssohn, unwittingly perhaps, may have taken this rule into consideration. The result, in fact, is similar to a kelal u-ferat u-kelal, with strong disjunctives separating the ends from the middle. Leviticus 19:18. pn ya Ik o edi ^ Lf 3 je PINS POS panel The Bi'ur expatiates on this verse, with Wessely giving his custom- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61. ary long expianation and Mendelssohn, cn *his occasion, adding a comment of equal length in opposition to Wessely's view. According to Wessely, the tigha under as "is important as an indication that "to" is not to be restricted by " p^? " in the sense that one shouid love only some- one (virtuous) like oneself.” S He interpreted "p" as being a sep- arate elliptical clause: Love your neighbor, for he is equal to you— with Apos thus meaning a human being in general, created in God's image. He should have been more careful, however, to separate the clause by a comma in the alternative German translation he proposes in the Bi'ur: "Liebe deinen Nächsten der dir gleich ist." Mendelssohn, at any rate, also translated "P" as a separate elliptical clause, "Liebe deinen Náchsten, so wie du dich selbst liebst," apparently in consideration of the tipha too. Wessely ex- plains his disagreement with that interpretation, however, on the grounds that the Torah was not proposing a prescribed quantity of love— love equal in amount to one's self-love—it being clearly impossible to legislate that one should love indiscriminate humanity to that ken, s Mendelssohn, nevertheless, explains, according to his translation, that the Torah did not mean quantity of love at all, but quality. Of course, he agreed with the Rabbis, one's own life should take precedence in the case of conflict; but in cases of no conflict then one should love one's 100 fellow man in all the ways one loves one's self. Exodus 34:5. 2 Ra [erp PR as a3 pl Er 5 a ^ 5 kopi 192 j 2 Re Mendelssohn explains that the tipha separates "an" from "9," Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62, indicating that " 9" is the subject of "kap "> He called out His own name. He dismisses the opinion of Rashi, who nad followed Onkelos' rendering of " 33 kan [er p” (with "3" the possessive). Dubno, in the Tigqun Sofrim, explains further that Rashi implies that the subject a. of " le? " is Moses, and that, were " 4 " a possessive, the tipha would be under " [co t ," as in Genesis 12:8, with Abraham the subject (3 Ro lop me Mendelssohn similarly explains the second " [co p!l ," in v. 6, in cpposition to the Jerusalem translation, which said explicitly, "oyki oU ‘$31 „10° He interprets the attributes in verses 6 and 7 as the perat of v. 5: God called out His own name, namely the attri- butess and thus the interpretation according to the accent in v. 5 has a bearing on the interpretation of the whole section, enhancing God's role in the revelation, Der Ewige liess sich in einer Wolke herab, stellte sich bei ihm hin, und rief im Namen des Evigen; Námlich die Erscheinung des Ewigen zog vor Moscheh vorbei, und rief: Der Ewige ist unveränderlich! Das ewige Wesen!.... Leviticus 26:39. D'a Me ka LS D poa PEMD IDA! Rae Pak on» ei e I A serious theological problem is ew in this verse, which expresses the thought that future generations viii suffer grievously be- cause of the sins of their ancestors. According to Mendelssohn, in a bracketed section, the interpretation of Rashi and Onkelos that this would apply only if future generations follow in the evil ways of their 103 ancestors contradicts the reading of the accents, which separate Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63. "enable from mac." Thus, one cannot read, "because of the sins of und fathers [still] with them, they shall pass away," but rather, "because of the sins of fathers, together with and because of them [the fathers], they shall pass ya The German translation does modify this ex- treme formulation somewhat, however, adding "zum Theil" to convey a partitive ideas "...so wie auch zum Theil durch die Sünde ihrer Eltern mit ihnen hinschwinden-" Both Mendelssohn and Wessely accept the view that descendents actually suffer for the sins of ancestors, as against the authoritative opinion of Rashi, and both offer novel reasons. Wessely felt that most of the descendents willy nilly are morally tainted and do not sin like their ancestors only for lack of the opportunity to do so. God, there- fore, can still punish them for having the same corrupt intentions as their ancestors. Mendelssohn, however, felt it was a horrendous notion that God punishes people for their thoughts alone—incidentally, an interesting polemic against Christianity.10® He offers instead a unique theory about the interconnection of generations. What has hap- pened in the past, he feels, cannot fail to have an effect on the pres- ent. Because our fathers sinned, they were exiled from the land; and we still suffer exile as a result, not really for any sin of our doing. In this discussion, Mendelssohn does introduce a distinction be- tween the types of punishment suffered by ancestors and descendents, indicating that the descendents do not really suffer the same type of punishment. The ancestors were overwhelmed by a supernatural "miracu- lous punishment," whereas successive generations are oppressed only by a persistent "natural puni shment „10° Descendents are not punished Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64. afresh by God for ancestors' sins. Conditions from the past merely continue to exist in a natural way, and only a miraculous redemption can change theme We thus conclude our analysis of the Bitur's application of accents, The accents, as we have seen. provide the basis for minute examination into the structure of individual sentences. Now we must broaden our scope beyond the sentence itself to a study of the Bi'ur's conception of the interrelationship betwen groups of sentences, chap- ters, and larger sections of the Biblical text. The present chapter is the foundation, to some extent, for the broader undertaking. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PART TWO: MENDELSSOHN'S UNDERSTANDING OF LOGICO-GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE IN THE PENTATEUCH 1. The Historical Context Having shown that the accents are a basis for Mendelssohn's analy- sis of Biblical sentence structure, we now focus on his conception of hemshekh ha-'inyan, involving sentence structure in greater depth, as well as the logic underlying the interconnection of sentences. The concept comprises, in addition, his views on the relationship between larger units of the Pentateuch, upon which we shall concentrate in our next chapter. We thus, in all, present Mendelssohn's understanding of The subject in general is important in view of developments in eighteenth-century Christian Biblical criticism, chiefly the documentary hypothesis given prominence by Johann Gottfried Eidhhosh." Mendelssohn, in line with traditional Jewish sources, was concerned to uphold the unity of the Pentateuch against the burgeoning assaults; and one of the major aims of the Bi'ur, in fact, was refutation of the contemporary Netivah, however, that Moses wrote the entire Torah from "Tn the beginning" until "the eyes of ail Israel," even the last eight septences from "And Moses died" until the end of the Torah 65 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 666 could not have been sufficient to quell rising doubts; the times re- quired defeating the devil at his own game. Since, therefore, the modern approach was essentially literary, focusing on stylistic asperi- ties and discrepancies, Mendelssohn responded in kind, not content merely to "resoive" problems, but to illustrate the perfect inter- relationship of parts in the Pentateuch, as well as its aesthetic beauty. His concentration on the "continuity of the text," "connec- tions," and "the order of the accounts" exemplifies this literary purpose." It must be emphasized that Mendelssohn in the Bi'ur concealed most points of contact between himself and contemporary critics, in his de- sire to imbue his work with a traditional Jewish flavor. Eichhorn is mentioned only in the 'Or Li-Netivah, ^ and only in the analyses of po- etry in the Bi'ur did Mendelssohn allude to Christian scholarship." it is, therefore, no simple feat to trace the influence of Christian schol- arship on his work. A few times in this chapter, in the first part, we do suggest possibilities of a relationship between Mendelssohn and Eich- horns we prefer, however, to concentrate herein on Mendelssohn's en- deavors to clarify the connections between clauses and sentences. This will lay the grovndwork for our next chapter dealing with larger units, in which we wiii be able to treat major critical problems, such as the discrepancies in the accounts of Moses! father-in-law's visit" and dis- cuss more fruitfully the views of Eichhorn and others, Taken in itself, this chapter demonstrates a great historical con- tribution of Mendelssohn to the area of comparative linguistics. Men- delssohn manifests both in his German translation and Hebrew commentary Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67. a penetrating understanding not only of the idiom, but especially of the complex structure of the Hebrew language; and this has not been examined before. That his insights, as presented in this chapter, are quite original indeed may be inferred from the fact of negative evi- dence; for a study of much of the relevant source material known to have been in Mendelssohn's library (James Harris, Hermes, or a Philo- sophical Inquiry Concerning Universal Grammar; Georgius Kalmar, Prae- cepta Grammatica atque Specimina Linguae Philosophicae sive Universalis; LIE] and Johann Heinrich Michaelis, Erleichterte Hebräische Grammatica) re- veals only a tenuous relationship between Mendelssohn's thought and the ideas expressed therein.’ Mendelssohn was influenced more by Maimoni- des! Treatise on Logic, on which he had written a commentary in 1761, as is seen at the beginning of Part Three of the 'Or Li-Netivah Eu mie $o8NA DADA foa), where Maimonides, as well as his own commentary, are quoted. Nevertheless, the citations are only on the most basic matters, such as the subject and predicate, copula, and "binary" and "trinary" statements” For intricacies of sentence struc- ture, Mendelssohn goes far beyond Mainmonides also. Let us turn, then, to Mendelssohn's treatment of connections be- tween clauses and sentences. To a large degree, we shall be anaiyzing the subtle ways in which Mendelssohn dealt with sequence and subordina- tion, which will be shown to be two of his main concerns in his study of the Hebrew text. The parallel sentence structure cf Biblical Hebrew, with its series of clauses and whole sentences joined mainly by vav's, does not differentiate clearly between main and subordinate ideas; and the Biblical text, with its Hebrew two-tense system, in which the future Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68. with vav is often the equivalent of the past, frequently is ambiguous in the matter of proper sequence. Therefore, in translating the Penta- teuch into German, which is most precise in these respects, ` :ndelssohn has to wrestle with both of these problems. Both, to be sure, are interrelated, for an action or occurrence considered in a temporal re- lationship to another action or occurrence, whether anterior or poster- ior, is logically subordinate to the other. The temporal relationship is perhaps the most funaamental conn:^- tion of ideas; and we shall beoin with it before proceeding to consider other relationships, both subordinate and coordinate as well. Mendels- sohn clarified the sequence in a number of different ways: 1) the addition of adverbial modifiers; 2) subordination by means of the con- junctions "nachdem" and "bevor"; and 3) the use of different German tenses, such as the pluperfect or the future perfect. Sometimes he utilized more than one means concurrently. In studying examples of these in turn, we shall demonstrate Mendelssohn's great knowledge of the Bible, as well as of the commentaries, and his profound expertise in interpretation. 2. The Addition of Adverbial Modifiers One of the features of Mendelssohn's German translation, with re- lated explanation in the Bi'ur, is the addition of words which have no parallel in the Hebrew original. Adverbs and adverbial phrases, partic- ularly, are often inserted for clarification; for example, in Genesis 25: 29: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69. Pr en 23% Jf ies RAT 94] Ape i Jakob kochte einst ein Gericht. Und Esav kam vom Felde, und war abgemattet. Mendelssoh. felt it necessary to clarify the relationship between the narrative about the birthright commencing with this sentence and the preceding brief account of the birth and growth of the twins by means of the addition of "einst." "Einst" serves to highlight the section beginning with ve 29 and to indicate that the preceding sentences are but introductory and subordinate. (In this case, obviousiy, there is no doubt that they are anterior.) Solomon Dubno, in the Bi'ur, takes pains to explain Mendelssohn's intention, as well as his conception of the chapter's structure. According to the depth of its literal meaning the things mentioned in the section did not follow rapidly one after another, but there were intervals of years between them. The main purpose of the story was to relate the sale of the birth- right to Jacob, and therefore it first related the nature of Esau's evil from his youth, for he always chose the free life like a wild man brought up in the wilderness and he despised the yoke of fear and worship of God—the reason for the sale of the birthright. The text omitted a few things which are not central to this story and related how he came to the sale of the birth- right, the immediate reason; it said that once it happened that Jacob cooked a certain food. Esau came from the field tired and exhausted and desired to eat from it; and because of his great huncer he sold his birthright. You can under- stand accordingly the intention of the German translator in nis addition of the word "einst." The Hebrew text with its consecutive sentences introduced by vav's gives no indication of the relative strength of those sentences. Here, Mendelssohn subtly gives prominence to v. 29, and thus indicates where the introduction to the story ends and the main account begins. Whereas Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70. the Hebrew sentences are parallel, in German Mendelssohn deftly shows what is subordinate and what is central. Similarly, after the narration of Joseph's dreams, the same word appears at the beginning of the account about his kidnaping in Genesis 373123 PD PPAR [k3. Pk prof pk ofi Einst gingen seine Brüder, ihres Vaters kleines Vieh zu Schechem zu weiden. The Bi'ur indicates, as before, that a long 'nterval had passed and that the text now begins with the central narration, the result of smoldering jealousy which hed begun earlier." Often Mendelssohn is concerned to show that an event or action actually occurred prior to one related earlier, and he makes good use of adverbs in this endeavor. For example, he indicates that Exodus 2:1 of the preceding chapter, as specified by the addition of an adverbial phrase at the beginning: ! 1 IE pe ake pyy uf awai Uke EL Vor einiger Zeit ging ein Mann aus dem Hause Levi, und nahm eine Tochter Levi's. Besides being an application of the Rabbinic principle " PIPN JE DAPA OWE,” this sentence also suggests telescoped time, as in the previous two examples. The Bi'ur explains that the early history of Amram and Yokheved was omitted, because the text wished to "abbreviate until the birth of the Deliverer. "1 Thus, in this case, it is the sentence under discussion which is shown to be the subordinate one. The following sentence about the birth of Moses is the key one. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ti. By means of this explanation, which is derived directly from Ram- pn Mendelssohn deals with the critical problem of ine brevity of 2:1 vis-à-vis the expansion in chapter 6. For in 2:1 the text men- tions neither the birth of Aaron and Miriam, nor even the names of the parents, whereas only in chapter 6 (v. 20) do we learn the names of Amram and Yokheved, their relationship before marriage (she was his aunt), and Amram's longevity. The nature of chapter 6, which includes a complete genealogy of the tribe of Levi (vv. 16-25), in addition to a brief one of Reuben and Simeon (v. 14f.), interrupting the narrative about the preparations to meet with Pharaoh, suggests different sources than the one for chapter 23 but Mendelssohn gives no credence to such a theory, holding that it was the Bible's method to be purposefully brief in one place and more detailed in N ie Thus, one need not expect all the information to be unfolded in perfect chronological order at the beginning of chapter 2. In Genesis 4:3, we find the reverse formula in the translation: = njw DNI D A I? ep Py! Fou D Nach einiger Zeit brachte Kajin von der u. des Erdreiches dem Ewigen ein Geschenk. Though the phrase "nach einiger Zeit" is somewhat literal in this case, as a translation of " ply! Ton," it bears too close a resemblance to the phrase "vor einiger Zeit" for us to ignore the literary implica- tions which we have seen in the case of the latter. We have here, also, a case of telescoped time, except that the key phrase is located at the end of the abbreviated section, whereas in the other examples it was located at the very beginning. Here, on the other hand, Men- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72. delssohn, on the basis of Rashi, 1? translates the opening sentence with a pluperfect: nq pk of pl nap) pte ain Pk ^9: prkal Adam hatte seiner Frau Hava beigewohnt. Sie ward schwanger, und gebar Kajin.... It is interesting that German source criticism posited a seam in this place. According to Eichhorn, Genesis 2:4—3:24 was an "Einschaltung," whereas 4:1-26 was a J source, 1^ Mendelssohn, however, in his own way, understood a smooth transition between the chapters. Whereas in the previous examples the introductions to accounts are understood as having occurred prior to events related earlier, one brief introduction is shown to be simultaneous with the preceding, Joseph's earliest period in Egypt, related at the beginning of Genesis 39, is indicated as being simultaneous with the story of Judah and Tamar in Genesis 38, by means of the addition of the word "indessen" in the translation of 39:1: aG 9J NSN 31 Jo Joseph ward indessen hinuntergefuhrt nach Mizrajim. Und Potifare. ‚kaufte ihr 90680 The break in the narrative about Joseph by the narration about Judah presented a critical probleme Rashi, uncited by Dubno in this respect, gesting that the connection was that Judah's moral decline in chapter 38 had been precipitated by his role in Joseph's sale in chapter a Eichhorn, on the other hand, schematized that different sources were invoived: Genesis 37 heing an E source, harsh, characteristically, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73. towards the brothers (as if one could expect it to be otherwise), and Genesis 39 being a J source, sparing of them (this, in blithe disrespect of the fact that the brothers are not even mentioned once in the chap- ter). He considered Genesis 38, also, a J source,!Ó Mendelssohn, however, did not think in terms of different sources, but was concerned to render artful transitions between the chapters conveying the idea of close proximity in time. Besides "indessen" in 39:1, for 3831 m eo Pie len DBA! 394 [e 99 842 "2j ") he translates: "Um dieselbe Zeit ging Jehudah von seinen Brüdern hinab...," emphasi- zing "dieselbe," instead of the more literal "jene." in the case of "indessen," Mendelssohn relied upon the interpreta- tion of Sforno.!! Dubno claims that Mendelssohn, in this case, was guided by the form of the verb "2947," a clear past “simultaneous with the preceding action," not "an," a weaker past which would mean "after the preceding action."?® On this point, however, Mendels- sohn is inconsistent, for he makes no systematic distinction in this respect between a clear past and a future with the vav ha-mehapekhet. For example, in the case of 21:1, " U Ik 372 4) 3" with a clear past, there is no indication, either in the translation or the Bitur, Rashi notwithstanding, 1” that God's remembrance of Sarah had occurred before (or while) God cured Avimelekh, which was related in the pre- vious chapter. The sentence is rendered "der Ewige bedachte Sarah, wie er gesprochen.,..hatte"s and it is not "9PO" which is translated by the pluperfect. Conversely, in Exodus 2:1, which we have seea, " dj van ifc p" "is a future with the vav he-mehapekhet, but it is emphasized as being anterior, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74. Nevertheless, in relation to Genesis 39:1, compare an ordinary sentence in the middle of an account, Numbers 10:17, which contains the very same past verb: [PRK UJ "004 YAI pk Yr BOYI [ai 3912) Inzwischen ward die Wohnung aus einander genommen; und die Kinder Gerschon und Merari, die sie trugen, brachen alsdann auf. "Inzwischen," like "indessen," indicates that the tabernacle was being dismantied during the departure of the three tribes under the standard of Judah related previously. Though this seems a fairly obvious fact, it must be mentioned that Jaroslav in the Di'ur, apparently not con- sidering the intention behind "inzwischen," follows the wording of Ramban, who stated that the dismantling was beoun after the departure of those tribes. © Mendelssohn's translation, on the other hand, is more in accord with Rashi. t Many examples containing clarifying adverbs, as the last, are found in the middle of accounts. For instance, Exodus 11:9, with a pluperfect as well: f ow be 5 wel 3929 po'k SNU kd DW dk 3 A PSN Polca pain AIR? pend Der Ewige hatte dieses dem Moscheh schon vorher gesagt: Paroh wird euch kein Gehör geben, damit meine Wunder im Lande Mizrajim desto mehr werden. The Bi'ur merely explains that "nylc) " is the equivalent of a plu- perfect (" Nle ^221"), as in the German, without entering into detail 2 Perhaps Mendelssohn was hard-pressed by the position of this sentence, with " «XQ! icf" in the future, for, since the first nine plagues had already occurred and the tenth had been threatened, Pharoah was not, in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75. fact, to be given another opportunity to offer resistance. For this reason Mendelssohn may have changed the tense of "yk.ı] " to a plu- perfect, which he further strengthens by the addition of "schon vorher." This particular statement, accordingly, had been uttered by God much earlier while the nine plagues were happening. Mendelssohn's interpretation bears a relationship to the discus- sions of the medieval Jewish commentators, although this is unacknowl- edged. in fact, it comes directly from ibn Ezra, who frequently, as here, translated the Hebrew past tense as a pluperfect by means of the addition of " 2a2,»2? Also, the Bi'ur's explanation that" Tu (d EW pofi " was uttered by God during each one of the plagues is derived from Beben Rashi and Ramban, on the other hand, inter- preted God's statement as referring to Pharoah’s disobedience in the Sutures It is interesting that ibn Ezra, in his interpretation of the next sentence, reflects sensitivity to the problem of the inter- polation of the section " of 242 LAPD " (Ex. 1221-28) between the narrations of the first nine plagues and the tenth. By means of nis explanation he obviates the difficulty of a jagged break in the kaS Mendelssohn, likewise, appears to have been concerned about the con- nections in the text here—a good example of his reliance on medieval sources to solve a critical problem. Mendelsschn's acumen in clarifying tenses by means of adverbs and in thus showing the precise relationship between sentences and ideas is observed throughout his work, by no means only in sections where he may have felt the need to preclude critical problems. For example, let us take the case of Exodus 21:16, an example of a difficult Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 766 connection within a sentence. Jul pl [972 Kay & i22u CD Vk a Wer einen Menschen stiehlt, und verkauft ihn, man hat ihn aber vorher in seiner Gewalt gefunden, soll getódtet werden. Both Rashi and ibn Ezra interpret that the subject of both (1) and (2a) is the kidnaper, and that there is no logical contradiction between (1) = and (2-2a), for (2) occurred before ane Mendelssohn translated (2) accordingly, adding "vorher." (Curiously, however, the Bi'ur reflects an inconsistency in relation to the translation, for Mendelssohn there accepts the interpretation of Ramban. At first he appears to accept the opinion of Rashi; but suddenly he adapts himself to Ramban’s con- clusion that (2-2a) refers to the buyer and that the sentence should be understood in een) In Numbers 5:16-18, Mendelssohn's addition of an adverb is the key to his understanding of the section's sequence: 4 ob DINED) |PIP apıle PPPI — v. 16 DD 928 VGA [Ni jd lop PRIP pw [RIP pps! ve 17 PIND dle |J)JI ee ppl [29^ 362272 kn (ko pk Br) ^ Jo DUP Jj 222 qn?) v. 18 na OD NP AN 19259 POIN pe 292 pu Der Priester soll sie herzuführen, und vor den Ewigen stellen. Uamhan eli: Aas Dasan VULIILCL DULL USGL FLL einem irdenen Gefäss, und von dem Staube au Wohnung nehmen, und in das Wasser thun. Alsdann stellt er die Frau vor den Ewigen, bindet ihr das Haupthear los, legt das Rügeopfer, das ein Opfer der Eifersucht ist, ihr auf die Hànde.... $43^ > ^51; ^ an IV LALY LCS sag wee ser nehme dem Boden der hh £0 Mendelssohn, Jaroslav writes, disagreed with ibn Ezra, who interpreted the feminine object in verse 16 as referring to the meal-offering Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TT. mentioned in the preceding sentence (and again in verse 18), and who did not question the sequence of events. He, on the other hand, under- stood the object to be the alleged adulteress—on linguistic grounds: Were it the offering, the Hebrew would be " pP jal ," not " DIWYD uo? The objection of Rashi, which is suggested to have been in the back of ibn Ezra's mind, that " % Uc) za pe [222 Q/N$2! " in verse 18 is, then, redundant, the Bi'ur counters with the claim that the basic structure, according to the "order of the text," is a kelal u-ferat. Accordingly, verse 16 is a kelal about the woman being presented for trial; and verses 17ff. are its perat: After the priest took the special water, such and such happened, 0 Verse 17 is a slight variation having happened earlier; and it is thus introduced in German by "vorher." "% oF MED ple 923 2E» " (v. 18) is not paraiiei to verse 16, but is a subordinate idea iniro- ("thereupon"). A similar, but briefer, example of a rearranged time sequence, resembling also a kelal u-ferat, is the rendition of Numbers 8:7 about the purification of the Levites: kn w pri 259 (2) onaGS pak ar 22! (D pagia oral (D PaRa So gs van 17>! © Dieses aber sollst du mit ihnen vornehmen, um sie zu reinigen: besprenge sie mit Entsündigungswasser; (zuvor aber) lass sie mit einem Scheermesser sich ihren ganzen Leib ab- scheeren, und ihre Kleider waschen: so sind sie rein. 159 Here Mendelssohn indicates by means of "zuvor aber" in parentheses that (3) and (4) precede (2), as if their verbs were the equivalent of a future perfect tense. The discussion in the Bifur adduces the position Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 786 of the etnah in explanation, for the etnah separates (2) from those clauses. ere the sequence as written, the etnah would close (1); and (2-3-4) would then be the order of the rite. We shall conclude our treatment of Mendelssohn's use of adverbs with a look at "nachher" and "endlich." An example of the former is Leviticus 4:13f., which is best examined in light of Leviticus 4:22f, Leviticus im ^ E fu nk Deol fcm (eel » ek PUA cupa YOD «P PR — 5 kp oe ux rie 3)». Ifc ...und erkennt seine Schuld von selbst. Oder die Sünde, welche er begangen, wird ihm sonst bekannt gemacht.... In this example, Mendelssohn opposes Rashi's view that " Jk" is to be taken as "Pe"; and his translation "oder" specifies two alternatives precisely: Whether the prince recognizes his ovn guilt or has been informed of it, in either case he has to bring a Sino ering Men- delssohn emphasizes the alternatives further by adding "von selbst" in the former case and the adverb "sonst" ("otherwise") in the latter. Compare, however, his translation of Leviticus 4:13f.: NYO .. [se flot PFS $ Pl © LOIS Kan ME Gn? diti © Wenn die ganze Gemgine Jisraels irrt...und werden ihre Schuld gewahr. Nachher nämlich wird die Sünde bekannt, welche sie begangen, o e «32 The "nämlich" here reveals that Mendelssohn considered these sentences as a kelal u-ferat, that (3) explains (2) in some way. In a bracketed section in the Bi'ur he states that in the case of the guilt of an Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79. entire congregation there could be no clear distinction between self- acknowledgment or being informed of the fact, for "ali were together, both the acknowledgers and the informers.""" In other words, it was not a case of the people as a whole either acknowledging a collective guili on their own or being informed of it, for the sin covld only be first known to a select few, who later brought it to the attention of the whole group. Mendelssohn based his interpretation on the careful observation that the text here, unlike in the previous example, dces not read " jk," but only a simple vave He does not transiate "|NQfc" as "wenn sie erkennen ihre Schuld," but employs the vaguer word "gewahr": if they, not necessarily the whole group, "perceived" the community's guilt. (There is admittedly an ambiguity in the rendering of "INS fc|"s for ihe German appears to comprise two separate subjects simultaneously: the whole people, as well as the select fev.) The adverb "nachher," which is our main interest at present, conveys the idea of a lapse of time. After the initial perception of guilt, it was later revealed to the whoie community, Exodus 29:6f, 2 &Jc^ INVE fs n 14] Ne pj! | : Scam Mo Fund spi? ete PP} Sodann setzst du ihm den Bund auf den Kopf, und befestigst die heilige Krone (nämlich das Stirnblech) über den Bund. Endlich nimmst du das Salxthl, giessest auf sein Haupt, und salbst ihn. 4 fr SOJIN? INRI Mendelssohn, in his addition of "endlich" in the translation, makes it clear that he agrees that the order of the text is chronological: The Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. anointing did, in fact, occur after Aaron's hat was put on. In the Bi'ur, he explains that this was Ramban's opinion, as opposed to that of ibn Ezra, who took sentence 7 as a pluperfect occurring before the putting on of the hat. Ramban, cn the other hand, gave two possible interpretations. Either the hat was open in the middle and the oil was applied at the top of the head which was bares or, as according to Rashi, the oil was applied to the forehead.” The use of "endlich" in Genesis 8:1 is slightly different; it serves as a literary embellishment highlighting the conclusion of the story: INN? (P ona 2152 P Mu ni Ik profk 225°] DAPP WE Re Endlich dachte Gott an Noach und alles Thier, und an alles Vieh, welches mit ihm in der Arche war. ... 3. "Bevor" and "Nachdem" The second method by which Mendelssohn indicates temporal primacy is by means of the conjunctions "bevor" and "nachdem." There is only one example of "bevor" and unlike those with "nachdem," it is used to translate an adverbial phrase. TAL Lll rm nun ^ E nn ZU Le Luo my Vecve Anled funn por 3 di pre Bevor dieses geschah, hatte ich den Ewigen gefleht, und gesprochens Mendelssohn's translation, as explained in the Bi'ur, is based on the opinions of ibn Ezra and Ramban that the entreaty of Moses to enter Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8i. the promised land nad occurred before the charging of Joshua with the divine mission, ^ mentioned chiefly in Numbers 27:15-23 and recapitu- lated in Deuteronomy 3:217 (and later in verse 28). Moses"! words are to be understood as fitting into the structure of Numbers 27, in expanded form. Accordingly Deuteronomy 3:23-27 occurred when God said to Moses to climb Harha-Avarim (Numbers 27:12) and see the land before dying. Then Moses appealed that a new leader be appointed, and God arranged for the consecration of Joshua (Numbers 27:15-23). The rep- etition of the command to consecrate Joshua in Deuteronomy 3:28 is thus in the proper order after Moses’ entreaty. Herz Homberg, incidentally, made a mistake in his paraphrase of Ramban in the Bi'ur of 3:23. In accordance with the Bi'ur's practice of supplying references to Biblical and other sources, both those quoted by the Bi'urists directly and those utilized by the medieval commentators and incorporated indirectly into the Bi'ur, Homberg gives as the reference for " DAD PIRED 92 bk ^P " Deuteronomy 32:49. Though those words, in truth, were repeated there, Numbers 27:12 is the more pertinent reference, in view of the problem under discussion: the relation between the parts of Deuteronomy 3 and Numbers 27, The Bi'ur on Deuteronomy, in general, is more deficient in the matter of references than the four other books—not that there are many such mistakes, but that Homberg, unlike the other Bi'urists, was less thorough in supplying the references to begin with. In this ob- servation we do not wish so much to disparage Homberg as to point out one of the meritorious features of the Bi'ur. Its meticulous references, which a modern student might take for granted, are very valuable; and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Filmed as received without page(s) 82 , Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83. in this respect, the Bi'ur, both for pedagogical and critical purposes, is an improvement over the medieval commentaries which did not provide exact references in many instances, trusting the memory of the reader instead. "Nachdem," unlike "bevor" in the last case, is used pericdically to introduce clauses beginning with vav» Exodus 25:21f. fen in palen b p07 Sle SPY! (D v.a P Sk We MIER Ne [^ poke fk © HQ PAN 092? GOA poe Ipa CD ee P! NED v. 22 k Qut i9 rue P ode ONK? [ok & "E o Wenn du nun diesen Deckel oben auf die Lade legst (nachdem du in die Lade das Zeugniss gethan hast, welches ich dir geben werde); So werde ich dir zu bestimmten Zeiten daselbst erscheinen.... These sentences, which conclude the divine instructions for the fashion- ing of the cherubim, contain a redundancy—noticed by Rashi?9—in that the thought in (2) had been expressed earlier in verse 16 (" fic nl le pk Ye . N60 Ne Pk» ") at the close of the instructions about the ark, rings, and poles. Also, (2) precedes (1), logically—accord- ing to both Rashi and ibn Ezra’’—for the curtain would not have been attached until the tablets had been put into the ark. Mendelssohn, therefore, explaining the "continuity of the text," indicates the pre- cedence of (2) by means of "nachdem." He deals with the question of redundancy by making (2) a ma'amar musgar enclosed in the German in parentheses. Thus, he indicates that (2) was a mere subordinate Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84. clause, recapitulating the earlier expression. He construes clauses (1) and (3) in a "when—then" relationship, which we shall discuss later. To paraphrase: "When you attach the curtain above (after you have placed the tablets inside), then I shall appear to you at the prescribed times." The Bi'ur of this section reflects Mendelssohn's expertise in Masoretical study. Whereas ibn Ezra and the accepted version of Rashi?! read (5) as beginning with a wav, with consequent complication in interpretation, Mendelssohn corrected that reading on the basis of "all the exact texts." In addition, he adduced support from the manu- script of Rashi (with Rashbam) in his possession that Rashi's authoriza- tion of the reading was not authentic; for the manuscript explicitly stated, " In a & n2. Ik m Leviticus 1215. pasnn Me |92» [90]? CD Dpasia Wap! (D 199 Ik pen! @ PRIAN UP fe IN? Da) (P Der Priester nähert es zum Altar, kneipt den Kopf ab, und lásst solches auf dem Altar in Rauch aufgehen: nachdem das Blut ausgedrückt worden, an der Wand des Altars. Wessely explains that (4) occurs between (2) and (3); and he ex- pands on the reason for the seemingly inverted order of the sentence. Ihe reader is to understand, first of all, that the squeezing out of the blood applies not only to the blood from the head, but also to the blood from the bird's whole body and, secondly, that only the head was offered on the altar of incense (as clarified, he could have noted, by Mendelssohn's addition of "solches" in the translation). Were (4) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ar e inserted between (2) and (3), it would then refer incorrectly only to the blood from the head. Therefore, since (2) and (3) refer only to the head and (4) comprises more than that, it is separated. The squeez- ing out of the blood cannot conceivably occur after the haqtarahs and thus, the rendering with "nachdem" is quite skillful. Numbers 8:11-15. fene! aE ^5 jos DOP prıfn vk p» fj» vsi ^ DPI pk Wass pa poan Qk» fe pwp ne love! plo v, 1 , kp Ne DIE! Cand 9$ af gpk Dre! nk GN ankı EU o»k os pii» Me pond! ^gy »9)Jp Prk PQ?” eof ry fov Yo puw Pi» De RD) v.14 | Ne Shot emfa lear [9 19D] v. 15 DVD Alle „naja! RME pr Und nachdem Aharon die Levijjim, zum Zeichen, dass sie von den Kindern Jisraels abgesondert sein sollen, vor dem Ewigen die Wendung machen lässt, solien sie dem Dienst des Ewigen gewidmet sein. Die Levijjim legen nämlich ihre Hände auf dem Kopf der Stiere, und man bringt dem Ewigen zu Ehren einen zum Stnden- opfer, und einen zum ganzen Opfer, um die Levijjim zu versöhnen. Du stellst die Levijjim vor Aharon und vor seine Söhne, und lässest sie eine Wendung machen, sich dem Ewigen zu widmen. Dadurch werden die Levijjim von den Kindern Jisraels abgesondert, und sind mein eigen. Die Levijjim sollen hernach in das Stiftszelt gehn, ihren Dienst anzutreten, sobald du sie hast reinigen und mit ihnen eine Wendung machen lassen. [ya your | s ] In A problem in the Hebrew text, according to the sequence of the parallel sentences, is the repetition of the idea of //’] )» -^9J2. r Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86. three times in this short section (vv. 11, 13, 15). Rashi, according- ly, interpreted that each mention refers to each of the three Levite families, Kehat, Gershon, and Merari, in turn. Mendelssohn, however, considered that interpretation a fancifui derash; he solved the prob- lem, rather, by means of a literary explications The section, as ex- pleined in the Bi'ur, is organized on the principle of keial u-ferat u-ke131. ^ Verse ll is thus the opening kelal; and its first clause, with the first " J? Dk fy ," is merely a subordinate idea of introduction, not a separate command. After the wave-offering of the Levites, thev shall be dedicated to God's service. More specifically, the German text contains a circumlocutions After Aaron has the wave-offering of the Levites performed as a sign that they are to be separated from the children of Israel, they are to be dedicated to the service of the Eternal. This wording, which is not explained fully by the Bi'ur, can be understood in relation to v. 13f. of the perat. The actual command about the wave-offering, according to Mendelssohn, occurs in verse 13, and Mendelssohn interprets verse 14 as being a result clause subordinate to it, as prefaced by the adverb "dadurch." As such, his translation of the introductory kelal comprises the thought of both verses 13 and 14. Verse 15 is the concluding kelal, and, like the opening one, it does not express a separate command, but the summation: The Levites shall serve, as soon as ("sobald") the purification and wave-offering have been completed. In both of the kelalim, we see, «bi " and " Pal " are represented as being subordinate verbs anterior in time to the main verb in the sentence. Mendelssohn's subtle facility in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. translating the similar clauses in three different ways is impres- 45 sive. Numbers 17:13-17. Lampe zd ero [m pp po [psi] at von asin Fre npo $k a9 Se pork acy ve 15 (un ^3) DDE! go A ‚INIch DOW Ye 4 oat! — v. 16 a DA DGN RA pp fioe ya be a3 v. i7 v. 13 Nun stand er [Aharon] zwischen den Todten und den Lebendigen, und das Sterben hatte aufgehört...» v. 15 Nachdem das Sterben aufgehört hatte, kehrte Aharon zu Moscheh vor den Eingang des Stiftszelts zurück; v. 16 Und der Ewige redete mit Moscheh, und sprach.... Jaroslav, without acknowledgment, repeats the opinion of ibn Ezra al- most word for word that verse 15, which appears to conclude the account of the pestilence in which 14,700 of the Israelites perished, actually is connected with the next section. This, despite the Masoretical in- dication of a break (" 'Qıyn" and "^9 ") between the sentences. The Bi'ur makes a change in ibn Ezra's wording, however, to emphasize Aaron's return after the cessation of the pestilence; and the German translation, employing "nachdem" plus the pluperfect, rearranges the sentence to this effect.” Also, the translation begins verse 16 with "und" to show the connection—a practice which, unlike the use of "and" in the King James' English translation, or "und" in the German trans- lation of Luther, it generally avoids.” The similar translation of 17:13 bears comparison; there also the cessation of the pestilence is rendered in the pluperfect. The Bi'ur Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88. Goes not comment on this sentence, as ibn Ezra, Ramban, and Rashbam had not. It is interesting to speculate, however, that Mendelssohn translated as he did in specific disagreement with Rashi, who had written: He (Aaron) seized the Angel of Death and stopped him despite himself. The angel said to him, "Let me be, so that I may carry out my commission!" He (Aaron) answered him, "Moses has bidden me prevent you." The angel replied, "I am the messenger of the Omnipresent whilst you are but the mes- senger of Moses!" Aaron retorted, "Moses does not say any- thing out of his owm mind, but only at the command of the Al- mighty. if you do not relieve me, behold, the Holy One, Blessed be He, and Moses are at the entrance of the appointed tents; come with me and ask them!" This is the meaning of what is stated (v. 15): And Aaron returned unto Moses (i.e., returned together with the Angel of Death.)* Rashi connects the two sentences (vv. 13, 15), perhaps attempting thus to cope with the redundancy therein. His interpretation assigns a causal role to human agents, first to Aaron in verse 13 and then to both Aaron and Moses in verse 15, in the effecting of a divine action. Perhaps, Mendelssohn the rationalist meant to preclude precisely this interpretation by indicating that the pestilence had already stopped. If anything, it was the atonement of sin mentioned earlier (v. 12) which was the efficacious deed, not Aaron's act, with its eerie sug- gestions, of "standing between the living and the dead." Deuteronomy 16:8. p eis p^ mid (D ‚Daten DEEP kb probe 4 pr36 (& vr PII © Nachdem du sechs Tage unce-Aus2rtes Brodt gegessen, feierst du zum Beschlusse den siebenten Tag, dem Ewigen, deinem Gotte, zu Ehren, und darfst keine Arbeit verrichten. This sentence presents a serious problem in the light of Exodus 12:15, which states, "Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread." The Bi'ur Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89. first paraphrases ibn Ezra, with explanatory additions, to the effect that (2) should be taken with both (1) and (3): "You shall eat unleav- ened bread six days, and on the seventh day there shall be an aseret and you shall not perform work." Mendelssohn agreed with this inter- pretation in general, but solved the problem in a simpler manner, and in closer accord with the accents, by taking (1) as a subordinate clause introduced by "nachdem, "^? Also, aseret is not taken to mean a day of "festive gathering" different from the first six days, as ac- cording to Rashi, but "the close" (as in the Bi'ur's explanation of "5334 " in Deuteronomy 11:17). Thus, the explanation is: After you have eaten unleavened bread for six days, you celebrate the seventh as the conclusion ("zum Beschlusse") of the holiday. Of course, leav- ened bread is not eaten on that day either. 4. Tense Complexity We have already observed the use of the pluperfect in some of the previous examples. >? In our discussion of the third method for indicat- ing sequence, the use of the pluperfect and future perfect, one addi- tional example of the former will suffice: Genesis 2:1f. Peas bi doin PAR» if24 v. l ok tfc Lo EIN. miner pin probe Fall v. DEB We moin Pn XRP PPA paul Da vollendet worden die Himmel, die Erde und ihr ganzes Heer. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90. Also hatte Gott am siebenten Tage sein Werk vollendet, das er gemacht, ruhete am siebenten Tage von allem seinem Werke, das er gemacht. There is a problem here in the idea of God's finishing his work on the seventh day, which Mendelssohn solves by taking UTE as a pluperfect. Unlike an opinion cited by ibn Ezra, however, Mendelssohn's explanation did not attribute any of the pluperfect force of "foy " to the prepositional prefix "a" in " MIRIP PIA,” but to the verb form 2 52 itself. After interpreting " foq" as a pluperfect, he expands on complexi- ties in the matter of tense, showing, on the basis of the German, that the past comprises the imperfect, perfect, and pluperfect, and that the future comprises the future and future perfect.” In the German trans- lation Nendelssohn utilizes all these tenses, though we limit ourselves in our documentation to examples with the pluperfect and future perfect, for they provide the most striking evidence of Mendelssohn's skill. ie now bring four examples of a future perfect. In all cases the Hebrew verb is in the pasts; which suggested to Mendelssohn that, though future actions, they contain as aspect of anteriority also. Genesis 48:5f. | | = Produ Faea 6 paiya pIa JU end o^ 'f awoSA pk ‘fea X aj i»! [e p2 SH en» p» P en hk sad? Re bini .gpánJe 1k25! pripk Pe e..Die Kinder aber, die du nach ihnen erzeugt haben wirst, sollen dein sein. Sie sollen nach dem Namen ihrer Brüder benannt werden, in ihrem Erbtheile. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ne) puet "nad? " is a past-tense verb and Dubno explained the opinions of the EAEE about it at length. Rashbam's view that it is a past tense about the birth of other children does not hold, for if so, we would expect the names of the children to be mentioned somewhere. Rashi, ibn Ezra, and David Kimhi, as well as Onkelos, and Jonathan ben Uzziel, interpreted it as a clear nue Mendelssohn, on the other hand, paying close attention to the sequence of clauses, solved the problem of this verb with greater preciseness. Ir relation to the fol- lowing verbs, as Dubno says, it is indeed in the past; but obviously it still occurs in the future in relation to the moment it was uttered by Jacob. Therefore, Mendelssohn renders it in the future perfect.99 Numbers 32:19. akta q» f IAN f Ale dny | (ch 2 Spo 4 2919 VTA ilie re) er > Denn wir verlangen keinen Antheil jenseits des Jardens, nachdem uns zur Morgenseite des Jardens unser Erbgut wird zugefallen sein. The discussion in the Bitur does not resolve "kn" as a past in T T accordance with Rashi, nor a wish, as according to Ramban, but a future perfect, as in the translation: We will not demand any share on the other side of the Jordan after our inheritance will have fallen to us on the eastern side; Note the circumlocution to render " EY) ," as well as the translation of " ta" by means of "nachdem," which in this case indicates both cause and time. Exodus 26:30. 299 Jb» We IW [29? Sk INP AI TU Pi d Alsdann richtest du die Wohnung auf, nach dex Weise, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ‘Oo m welche dir auf dem Berge wird gezeigt worden sein. Mendelssohn translates and explains in the Bi'ur, on the basis of Rashi, that God said, when the time comes for the tabernacle to be built, Moses will have already been shown on the mountain how to do Fe =; it. Deuteronomy 28:52. 2 xe Pr pF oz pda» DINNID IA? S4 p! A 1323) VIE $’ i Du en AR nA» zn > fk APEG ps Tre er ec ...so wird es dich angstigen in allen Thoren deines Landes, das dir der Ewige, dein Gott, gegeben haben wird. Since ostensibly this section of future curses was uttered by Moses before the children of Israel entered the promised land in the first place, — is rendered as a future perfect: a time subsequent to sf i fv ra) o (b Interestingly, a similar mention of the future gift of the land (Deuteronomy 19:8) is shown in the Tiggun Sofrim to have future per- fect meaning, as indicated by a penultimate, as opposed to an ultimate, accent ejm does not contain a future perfect, and "Jos" in the above example » The German translation of that sentence, however, 5 under discussion is not marked by a penultimate accent. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5. More on the Kelal u-Ferat Examples of time sequence in which the anterior element is empha- sized are relatively infrequent because, generally, it is not necessary to employ a special device to indicate this; one generally assumes, un- less it is otherwise indicated, that the text follows the chronological order of events. In other words, the reader assumes that sentences are posterior to the preceding. The kelal u-ferat, however, is a dif- ferent matter, for the kelal transcends time sequence altogether. In the last chapter we showed how Mendelssohn determined the kelal u-ferat on the basis of the accents; and we have touched upon the kelal u-ferat in a few previous examples in this chapter, for instance, one in which we examined the anterior element of the perat.©° Now we should like to present a fuller structural analysis of this important principle, for it is truly a key one underlying Mendelssohn's literary understanding of the Pentateuch. For example, let us examine the way he treats the complexities in Exodus 24:13-18. paika on Se aw Fel iot E» 2l PPT v u. DBP 18 jae Nk PUPS? M) v. 14 ann Ne 6» o2" »»» fe aw del ve 15 É QJ ve 16 | 72 DoD) f'o 9 hs 3 9122 |? pi! nU pe se PJ'^ DW Sk kop 13 vo 17 | TP ^, 58508 sh yall dto v ‘Ip Mit ID MLW SE (ko 7 URD AE IA Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94. VND fk he ee py DW Kal v. 18 DFF PES PP PERA 539 DW 19] Perat v. 13 Moscheh und sein Diener Jehoschua stand auf; Moscheh stieg hinauf auf den Berg Gottes. v. 14 Zu den Ältesten aber sprach er: wartet hier auf uns.... Kelal v. 15 Moscheh stieg also auf den Berg, und die Wolke bedeckte den Berg. Perat v. 16 Die Herrlichkeit des Ewigen ruhete nämlich auf dem Berge Sinai, und die Wolke bedeckte den Berg sechs Tage; am siebenten Tage rief es aus der Wolke zu Moscheh. v. 17 (Die Erscheinung der Herrlichkeit des Ewigen war wie ein brennend Feuer, obea auf dem Berge, vor den Augen der Kinder Jisrael.) Kelal v. 18 Moscheh ging also in die Wolke hinein, stieg hinauf auf den Berg, und so blieb Moscheh auf dem Berge vierzig Tage und vierzig Nächte. The big problem in this section is the relationship between sen- tences 15 and 16. As Rashi noted, the Rabbis of the Talmud had al- ready debated this problem; and Mendelssohn copied Rashi, adding his own clarifications. According to one line of thought, the six days during which the cloud covered the mountain (verse 16) were the first six days of Sivan, before Moses ascended to receive the Ten Command- ments. The other opinion takes verse 16 as following verse 15 in strict chronological order: Those six days were the first of the forty during which Moses was on the mountain preparing to receive the were promulgated orally. This latter interpretation is fraught with complications, and ibn Ezra, who adopted it, had to cope with them in his own way. For exam- ple, assuming that Moses was on the mountain those six days, he would Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Me) n have been enveloped by the cloud; and ibn Ezra, indeed, interprets " |202'|" as meaning "the cloud covered Moses," not the mountain, so that no one could see him. With Moses thus covered by the cloud, the text nevertheless continues: "God called Moses from the midst of the cloud" (verse 16), and Moses "entered the cloud" (verse 18)3 and ibn Ezra has to interpret these later mentions of "cloud" to mean the very top of the mountain, "the pitch blackness in which was God "02 Mendelssohn was more in accord with the former opinion from the Talmud, adding, however, his application of the kelal u-ferat. Ibn Ezra's opinion, he felt, did not contain enough to explain soundly the continuity of the text and the duplication of statements. But if we ex- plain the text by way of a kelal followed by a perat, as is its manner in stories, as we have written in the introduc- tion to the book and in a few places in the Bi'ur, the con- tinuity and order of the statements are explained without any strain at all. His analysis is somewhat more complex than other such applications of this principle; for he outlines an interconnected perat-kelal-perat- kelal. Sentence 15 is taken as the kelal summarizing the idea ex- pressed in the previous two sentences; the key word indicating this in the German translation is "also" ("so," "thus"). Sentence 16 resumes, with additional details, the perat, explaining that kelal furthers and the translation therefore contains the word "nämlich." The sentence, thus, clearly explains the preceding and does not indicate a subsequent events The cloud had been covering the mountain for six days, when God summoned Moses to ascend. To preclude ibn Ezra's interpretation, Mendelssohn made a specific point of supplying the object in trans- lating " [no91)" ("bedeckte den Berg"). Having mentioned " 9 922" Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96. in sentence 16, the text explains that further in verse 17, which Men- delssohn considered parenthetical and enclosed in German. Finally, verse 18 conciudes the perat with the statement of Moses' actual as- cent, foreshadowed earlier in sentence 15.94 Though Mendelssohn does not say so specifically in the Bi'ur, his use of "also" in the trans- lation shows that he considered this statement, though the conclusion of a perat, as having some of the force of a kelal siege” Exodus 4:20. sp» f PADD [YA [ki pe Dk DRA nj! © gia paf? SC le DWN ppl D P2 23^ f AU Moscheh nahm also seine Frau und seine Kinder, liess sie auf einen [sic] Esel reiten, und kehrte in das Land Mizrajim zurück. Moscheh nahm auch den göttlichen Stab in seine Hand. In this sentence there is a question of the time relation between (1) that he took his staff. Rashi, therefore, states explicitly that the Torah does not attempt to render exact time sequences, meaning that (2) was simultaneous with (1) though it was written second. The Bi'ur explains, on the other hand, that (2) is a perat of a kelal in (1) and that there is no question of time sequence at a11.07 Leviticus 9:15. T ME ^k nenn oR ok np] © Pen [op wk mr O . 19692 2E] ip Ont Hierauf brachte er des Volks Opfer dar: nahm nämlich den Sündenopferbock, welcher fur das Volk war, schlachtete ihn, und behandelte dieses Opfer wie das vorige. Though ibn Ezra took (1) as meaning an actual sacrifice by Aaron Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97. on the altar, preceding (2), Mendelssohn, in a bracketed remark, ex- plains that (1) and (2) are a kelal u-ferat respectively. 68 (2) is thus introduced in the translation by "nämlich." Leviticus 16:6-11. if Qe pk n» 99 Ak PPP) v. 6 Ip» $421 1582 222! pna YR Ak np v. 7 7?21l e ll if Ye kn? Nk poe Mei AS Yc (no 99 Se Inu IR HR) ISS Zuerst soil Aharon seinen Stier zum Sündenopfer dar- bringen, und für sich und sein Haus versöhnen. Er nimmt die beiden Bócke.... Hierauf soll Aharon seinen Stier zum Sündenopfer dar- bringen, für sich und sein Haus versöhnen. Er schlachtet nämlich seinen Stier zum Sündenopfer. Sentence 11 recapitulates the thought in sentence 63 and the rabbis, who interpreted according to sequence, were forced to explain each sentence differently. Wessely, in accordance with Rashi, thus explains that the atonement in sentence 6 was Aaron's confession on behalf of his immediate family, his wife and sons, whereas the atone- ment in sentence ll was his confession for all his priestly brethren. Mendelssohn, however, in bracketed remarks, dismissed such exege- sis based on a “repetition of texts," taking sentence 6 about the ox of the sin-offering as a kelal, followed by a perat of two parts ex- tending as far as sentence 20,70 Sentences 7-10 discuss the assigning of lots to the two goats; and then follow 11-20, which combine the slaughtering of both the ox and the goat of the sin-offering, and the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98. ritual of sprinkling the blood of both. After the first part of the rat, Mendelssohn recapitulates the kelal in the first part of sen- tence 11 which, in turn, is connected to the second part of the perat by means of "nämlich." Though not specified as such in the Bi'ur, perhaps this example may be considered a form of kelal-perat-kelal- perate Exodus 32:28f. DAN 2232 uf Ur peyil „Uk olic KO kiap PPa PED |^ fel J IDEA Yor Uk > ^f py» eos! Ie» am WET DID QI POSE Jui Die Söhne Levi's thaten, wie Moscheh gesprochen. Da fiel vom Volke an demselben Tage ungefáhr dreitausend Mann. Moscheh hatte nàmlich gesprochen: Hiermit tretet euer Amt zum Dienste des Ewigen an, indem mancher sogar wider seinen Sohn und wider seinen Bruder sein muss. Dadurch bringt ihr auch heute den Segen auf euch. Mendelssohn makes clear here, by means of "nämlich," that sentence 29 is an explanation of the preceding verse, specifically of the phrase "alu 5342." His translation of "oak" in the pluperfect, in accord with the opinions of Rashi and ibn Ezra, as related in the Bi'ur, in- dicates that the sentence had been uttered before the killing carried out by the Levites. l Since we are primarily concerned with Mendelssohn's literary artistry, we shall examine further the various methods he employed to indicate the kelal u-ferat, which he considered so important. We have already seen the word "also," which Mendelssohn added very ofte:. 12 his translation to delineate a summarizing kelal. In a few places the Bi'ur comments on its functions Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99. Genesis 48:220. oyy UT 03! ap WEF (cin Pla P29A'! Dis nof onok pe P U 29421 p» 9k2 eft pt F Er segnete sie also damals, und sprach: durch dich wird das Volk Jisrael in Zukunft den Segen ertheilen: Gott lasse dich werden wie Ephrajim und Menaschscheh! Setzte also Ephrajim vor Menaschsche. "Also" appears twice in this sentence, and Dubno explains it in the Bi'ur: Although the text has already related this matter, it summarized briefly [kalal] at the end the whole matter which it had detailed, as we have stated in the introduction, for this is the method of the text's beautiful language. There- fore, the German translator added the word "aiso" in his translation, for it is the word applicable in German to, he brief repetition of the story a second time at the end. D Numbers 1:19. ‚jo 5239? 9379 (22 DW ^k ? 23 50k» (1) So wie der Ewige dem Moscheh befohlen hatte, also musterte er sie in der Wüste Sinai. Jaroslav would agree that (2) is a kelal. He focuses on the function of the vav in "927041 " as an indicator of the connection: The vav ha-mehapekhet in this word serves the purpose of the continuity of the text and the connection of the pre- ceding with what follows, meaning "As God had commanded earlier, [thus he mustered the people ]" and it is so trans- lated in German. It is the "also" in the translation by which, as he notes, Mendelssohn indicates tne connection described.” Now let us proceed to techniques of Mendelssohn which have not been observed hitherto. First of all, the word "unterwegs": Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100, Genesis 28:10f. DJIN pi (2 GAR Im 2p RÌN O) os PL FL pipa ga © Jakob zog aus von Beer Scheba, und reiste gen Charan. Unterwegs kam er an einen Ort, und übernachtete daselbst.... The problem here is the relationship of time and place between (2) and (3). Dubno observes that Mendelssohn's translation comprises two possible interpretations. ^ First, there is the interpretation of Sa'adya, derived via ibn Ezra, and of Rashi, that " p " in (2) does not mean "/cay" ("arrived"), but "nos ," a complement of "/c24 " in (1), together meaning "set out for" ("zog aus...und reiste gen"). Re- lated to this is Rashbam's view that "pfu" in itse'f means "went to- wards." According to the second interpretation, which Dubno attributes to ibn Ezra, but which is adumbrated more fully by David Kimhi and the Mikhlal Yofi, © sentence 10 is a kelal followed by its perat in ll. "Unterwegs" is the key word nere expressing this particular relation- ship. Mendelssohn appears to be expressing the same idea in Genesis 37: 14f. YOR (er!) [EP wid ponhUl ... . 3385 AEP 2)») Uke [nic 3N'I eoEr schickte ihn ab von dem Thale bei Chebron, und er ging nach Schechem. Unterwegs fand ihn ein Mann, da e. cuf dem Felds irre ding... Nevertheless, Dubno in this place favored the explanation of Rashbam that Joseph wandered in the desert near Shekhem after, having arrived there, he did not find his brothers. This is consistent with his un- derstanding of "kp" as in the Bi'ur of the previous example. His Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101. explanation of Mendelssohn's use of "unterwegs" thus misses the mark, for Mendelssohn appears to mean that Joseph got lost on the way to Shekhem. "^ Another method is the use of the adjective "folgender" in the translation: Leviticus 11:23-25. Leviticus Eoi (do f. Php ype ETE he Pi TED BW ENG! Praja YD P send add “pvp 36 (AG) PIAP OAD! Pndajn [Ro PI eeeAn folgenden sollt ihr euch verunreinigen: nämlich wer das Aas davon berührt, soll bis Abend unrein sein; Und wer von ihrem Aase tragt, muss seine Kleider waschen und bis Abend unrein sein. Here there is a problem of deciding whether " Ica» dich, " refers above or below. Whereas ibn Ezra decided the former, Wessely supports the opinion of Rashi and Rashbam that it refers to the carcasses men- 77 tioned later, according to the "tradition of our fathers." The translation with "folgenden" and "namlich" is consistent with this view. Deuteronomy 4:44. Soe Wa Jof DY PR We 204p». NH Folgendes ist die Lehre, welche Moscheh den Kindern Jisraels vorgelegt hat. Mendelssohn follows Rashi in interpreting this sentence as 2 kelal, though neither used the term explicitly, with its perat the detailed reiteration of the Mosaic law beginning with Deuteronomy 5:1. According to the Bi'ur, the section in between (4:45-49) is paren- thetical: a recounting that laws had been promulgated from the time Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102. the Jews left Egypt until they inherited the land of Sihon and Og, the point being that 5:1ff. begins a complete review in the plains of Moab of all the laws issued until that time. S On the other hand, Leviticus 26:46 is a kelal, summarizing the whole book until that point, in indication that all the laws in Leviti- cus were comprised within the covenant of Sinai. ij'a ^) £n) Ye niaipy| Po») PDD afle 7 DIN 3!D Jo IA 6 ico! ya fr Dieses sind die Gesetze, Rechte und Lehren, die der Ewige auf dem Berge Sinai durch Moscheh gegeben: als einen Bund zwischen ihm und den Kindern Jisraels. Wessely states that this was so because the people "learned them all through prophecy by means of the power of Moses! soul, which was unique among ecvlc before him and after him." The covenant referred to in Exodus 24:7f. (the "book of the covenant" and the "blood of the covenant") ‘ius was meant to inciude the laws of Leviticus also, ac- cording to Wessely. He does not say so explicitly, but he appears to be explaining Mendelssohn's addition of the phrase "als einen Bund" in the German translation. /? A word used to indicate the relation of a kelal u-ferat is the simple preposition "mit," as in Exodus 24:12. N aoe 284 fe ^ Dale PR DD) DODD ‘Ole > 2 9124521 BD JIp aI C2 mk? An CD nk pe Op Pepin’ papo RE CH Der Ewige sprach zu Moschehs Komme zu mir auf den Berg herauf, und bleibe hierselbst. Ich will dir die steinernen Tafeln mit der Lehre und dem Gebot geben, das ich darauf geschrieben, sie zu unterrichten. The relationships of (1-2-3-4) are problematical. Ibn Ezra gives two Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103. different opinions about (2-3): the first from Sa'adya that (2) means the written Torah and (3), the oral Torah; the second, his cwn view that (2) is the first and fifth dibrot (Ramban misquotes him as saying the first and the second) and (3), the other eight. At any rate, he said, following Sa'adya, that the antecedent of (4) is Gs and Men- delssohn assented, with the clarification that (1) is an indirect ob- ject and (2-3) the direct objects. Also, Mendelssohn combined the first opinion of ibn Ezra above that (2) is the written Torah and (3), the oral Torah, with the view of Rashi, also related to Sa'adya, that (2) and (3) both comprise the 613 commandments and that these are all comprised within the Ten Dibrot (1).°! Thus, (1) is a kelal, and (2-3) is its perat. In Hebrew (1-2-3) are parallel, but Mendelssohn artfully conveyed the meaning of the kelal u-ferat according to the commentators by subordinating (2-3) through the use of "mit." Another intesting example features the use of the word "hier": Exodus 19:8f. = Ian P£2 P ipe © 2) 3 929 Oe P I»uk!] ^9 Sic F6» ODF pk aW av [Da Pe pies ka tafe 2j» a be > owe CO DPD PÉD MU UREA s Niels Pol rns IR j M Té» ay jk DM 34" (Bd Die gesammte Nation antwortete einmüthig, sprachen: alles was der Ewige gesprochen, wollen wir thun. Moscheh brachte die Worte der Nation wleder vor Gott zuruck. Der Ewige sprach zu Moscheh: ich werde mich in einer dicken Wolke dir offenbaren, damit die Nation es höre, wenn ich mit dir rede; so werden sie auch an dir [sic] immer glauben. Hier berichtete Moscheh die Worte des Volkes an Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104. Gott 9? Mendelssohn, following Rashbam, takes sentence 9 as the perat of (1) in the preceding sentence 79 Whereas Rashi states that (2) and (4) are two separate actions, (2) occurring on the morning of the third day, and (4), on the morning of the fourth, Rashbam considers them the same, though he does not indicate the exact deu Mendels- sohn's use of "hier," at any rate, suggests a time difference, as in Rashi, between the two sentences; considering (2)and (4) the same, he nonetheless seems to indicate that it occurred after (3), not (1). Finally, let us consider "überhaupt," which is restricted to connecting a kelal u-ferat within the individual sentence. Leviticus 14:9. IXO e Jk php mindy PI» 2l nip px G nei &) [yo piap De i ic} Ieo WE am. Pia: (ORs AT TN o2] Q22N! rao oo» ^k Am siebenten Tage aber scheert er sich alie seine Haare ab: sowohl vom Kopf als vom Barte, die Augenbraunen; über- haupt alles Haar scheert er ab, wáscht seine Kleider, badet sich in Wasser und wird rein. Rashi had already noted that (1-2-3) is a kelal u-ferat u-kelal. Be- sides the "uberhaupt" introducing the last kelal, the translation em- ploys a colon to mark off the first one. The next exampie is similar; and explanation verbatim: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. M e (ou 9 Deuteronomy 14:26. Ro) aikp »&& Pr © fop RRN JI pj 2 hi un ($ 521 ["AI je3a) Spar @ . (29) ple DN pi»dk 3 yot PQ pric! _ Dort kannst du dieses Geld hingeben für alles, das dich gelustet: für grosses und kleines Vieh, Wein und andres Ge- tranke, überhaupt fur alles, was deine Seele wünscht; dieses sollst du daselbst vor dem Ewigen, deinem Gott, verzehren, und dir mit deinen Hausleuten eine Freude machen. Occasionally, "überhaupt" is the specific translation for a certain use of the preposition lamed, which Mendelssohn calls the lamed ha- kelali, as the indicator of a kelal. For example, Leviticus 11:26. Gf 12 affe Bol} Doa NoN Un We 243^2 posed oof PP PIENG afen afte PF! ‚ent pra SU? > Überhaupt alle vierfüssige Thiere, die getheilte, aber nicht durchgespaltene Klauen haben, oder nicht wiederkäuend sind; diese sollen euch unrein sein. Wer sie (nach ihrem Tode) berührt, soll unrein sein. The Bitur's most extensive treatment of the lamed kelali is at Exodus 14:28. "Uberhaupt," however, is not employed in the translation of that sentence or of the several others mentioned art 6. Vav ha-Hemshekh: the "Vav of Continuation" Our next topic involves, more specifically, the subordination of clauses. Mendelssohn is very much concerned, as we have observed, to delineate the relationship between subordinate and main ideas, indicat- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106. ing the precise logical relationship between them. Accordingly, one of his main concerns in the translation and in the Bi'ur is the ren- dering of the conjunction vav, which is divided, as according to the Bi'ur, into three different classes: the vav ha-hibbur, vav ha-hemshekh, and vav ‚ha-mehalege iS The first is obvious and receives very little attention, a rare reference being Deuteronomy 8:1f. u N Ih 13N Df lc > Qe ann P apne 3 2245 bin be 232 P P pic 0525! where the Bi'ur points out, in opposition to ibn Ezra, that 41" has a vav ha-hibbur.°? The second, on the other hand, is treated very frequently; and, in fact, analyses based on it are one of the charac- teristi: features of the Bi'ur. The term vav ha-hemshekh, the "vav of continuation," furthermore, focuses on the aspect of the continuity of the text and connections which are our central concern. Treatment of overall plan of elucidating the Pentateuchal hemshekh ha-inyan; and before turning to the vav ha-mehaleget, we shail analyze this thorough- iy.?9 f One of the main examples where the vav ha-hemshekh is explained is Genesis 5:5: G Ho'l DJL PRN PLn By "p Re Pak W p^ Als die Lebensjahre Adams neunhundert und dreissig waren, starb er. In the translation the first clause is not taken as being parallel and of equal force with the second, as in the Hebrew, but rather as a sub- ordinate temporal clause dependent on the second. The Bi'ur explains Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107. that the text has no need to inform us here, in an independent declara- tive statement, that Adam lived 930 years, for this can be deduced from the previous two sentences, which tell us that he was 130 years old when Seth was born and that he lived 800 years after Seth's birth. This sentence, rather, means that when Adam's life of 930 years was completed, he died; and the Bi'ur explains: There are many vav's in the Torah serving this purpose of joining two sentences between which is a connection of time or place or reason [ | AoA, Ik Pipa lk [N57 xp] like IISA m 56 3 283 de IPÒ PR KE Na 232» IDJ AkitlExodus 9:21). The example from Exodus is worth noting here, inasmuch as the Bitur in that place also explains precisely the relationship of de- pendence. Ibn Ezra was unable to explain the vav of "ag," merely stating that there is a similar usage in the "language of Kedar"—i.e., * al \9 in Arabic.” Mendelssohn, more specifically, considered it a vav ha-hemshekh joining two sentences of which one is based upon the other. It does not mean “this and that," but "if this, that" or "if that will be, this will be" as if [the text] had said, If there was a person who did not heed God's word, he left [his cattle in the field].92 Accordingly, Mendelssohn translates in German: Wer sich aber an des Ewigen Wort nicht kehrte, der liess seine Knechte und sein Vieh auf dem Felde, preceding clause. In the former example the Bi'ur enumerates connections of time, place, or reason. Temporal relationships, with the subordinate clause introduced by "als" in the translation, and causal relationships are Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108, frequent. (The latter example which we have just seen is causal: The person left his cattle in the field because he did not heed God's word.) Though indicated above, however, connections of place explained in the Bi'ur are very rare. We, at least, have not found a single one denoted by a vav3 Genesis 31:40 (" ADP bok pIa pa "—"Wo ich am Tage war, verzehrte mich die Hitze") must be excluded from consideration in this context for lack of a vav. Let us then turn our attention to the other two types. The indication of temporal clauses is straightforward; and two more brief examples, besides Genesis 5:5, will suffice. For instance, Genesis 27:1. ICON a 2 © n3! ne) ID p) (D UE iic Il ®© TIL Yr jos pe Ej DO Als Jizchak alt ward, und seine Augen zu trube wurden, sehen zu können, rief er seinen ältesten Sohn Esav, sprach zu ihm: mein Sohn!... Dubno explains in tne Bi'ur that (3) is the main clause, as indicated mainly by the vav in "[c7p’]," and that both (1) and (2) are dependent temporal clauses. The etnah after (2) serves to indicate that (2) is connected with (1), not (3). It is interesting that he uses the words "kp" and "na len" in his explanation to mean "dependent clause" and "main clause," and does not restrict its use to "protasis" and "apodosis" in conditional sentences.” Compare Exodus 16:21, where the conjunction "sobald" is used: fol oD Ue PAR PAR INe Id ONE qu» Phi Sie saumelten daher jeden Morgen ein, jeder so viel er zum Essen brauchte; und sobald die Sonne heiss schien, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109. zerschmolz es. The "causal" relationship in the Bi'ur comprises more than mere "SPO." Dubno, in another context, mentions the concepts of " AOD non" and " Ava n? 2,30»," the equivalents of purpose and re- sult.” The vav ha-hemshekh, iikewise, is shown to indicate these functions, as weil as simple causality, though the Bi'ur never says so explicitly in its discussions of it. We shall examine a few examples of each type in turn, beginning with the basic one, of which the characteristic feature in the German translation is the conjunction "so" defining the main clause following its dependent causal clause.”> Genesis 1:3. nesis 1 4 17 2] 5Jlc 1»! ellc INK’) Da sprach Gott: es werde Licht! so ward Licht. Mendelssohn in tie Bi'ur quotes the key words of the translation ("da sprach," "so ward"), explaining that the vav's of "oyki" and "nl" serve the "continuity of the text and the connection of the pre- ceding with the continuation."9Ó He thus indicates that he considers both the vav introducing the dependent clause and the one introducing the main clause as vavei hemshekh. Generally, however, it is only the second vav which is considered as the vav hemshekh. The connection is a PORE soar ao. tan mein 2 5 — m cent E L-—— L- Eum emphasized as being causal: Since God said, “Let there be light," E there was light. "So," if added in English to introduce the main clause, would be redundant; it is more appropriate, however, in German. Likewise, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Genesis 33:13. [E37 G LNI gpk pp Pipa? u ...wenn man sie einen Tag ubertreibt, so stirbt alles kleines Vieh, Or Numbers 36:3. n Pf fov Yr Gae yag IDEO Fol iniale nfpin IPER N! va LJA nap jt | nn Wenn diese nun Einen aus den übrigen Stämmen der Kinder Jisraeis heirathen, so geht ihr Gut von dem Erbgute unsrer Vater absses Related to these examples is the more obvious conditional sen- tence in which the dependent clause is introduced explicitly in Hebrew by a conjunction of condition. The following is one of many such examples: Exodus 23:22. k D TEN poi wate Ne Pak . 21523 ne Ip P | Wenn du also seiner Stimme gehorchst, und alles thust, was ich durch ihn sagen lasse, so werde ich deiner Feinde Feind, und deinen Widersachern zuwider sein (deine Feinde und deine Widersacher als die meinigen betrachten). In this case the first clause is introduced in Hebrew by " Pk." In the Bitur Mendelssohn labels the vav of "ipakj" asa" PUP M ep lil," a more specific use of the vav ha-hemshekh and also a more specific use of the word " 'kjp " than we saw in an earlier exam- ple.?! Nevertheless, this type of construction is related to the pre- vious causal relationship; fcr tho protasis in a conditional sentence still provides the cause underlying the subsequent action in the apodosis. The apodosis, accordingly, as in the previous examples, is introduced by "so." Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. lll. One last example of simple causality is worth mentioning for the sake of showing Mendelssohn's skill in interpretation. Unlike the others, this is not featured by the use of "so." Genesis Pa 24 Yost O aps! WO (o? '92 9 kD Jener sprach: Hat er mich deswegen schon zweimal untertreten, weil er Jakob (Untertreter) heisst? Dubno explains that, unlike Rashi who took Esau's exclamation as sug- gesting the real reason for Jacob's name with (3) being the reason for (2), Mendelssohn following Sforno gave an opposite interpretation. The name Jacob comes from “heel," as had been told earlier; and here Esau cries out asking whether (2) is not the reason for (3), as the rabbis put its "the name was the cause" (" P% nd") 28 Men- delssohn emphasizes that (3) is the main clause by putting it first in ticipation of the reason, that (3) was caused by (2): Since he was named Jacob, because of this he later tricked me. The use of the conjunction "weil" is interesting. In another context, Mendelssohn explains that "weil" indicates a reason that is "well-known," as opposed to the conjunction "denn," indicating a reason that is "not so well-known, "?? Now iet us consider purpose clauses, which are translated for the most part by the conjunction "damit," plus the subjunctive. For example, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112. Leviticus 10:9. p Nal ak A fe DU j" Np Efi YSIN pk Se paa Ppi Pin DPP Wein oder sonst etwas berauschendes sollst du und deine Söhne nicht trinken, wenn ihr in das Stiftszelt geht, damit ihr nicht sterbet: ein ewiges Gesetz bei euren Nachkommen! Or Leviticus 21:12. „ade ep Sn (de (9) ed april Auch deswegen [soll er] nicht aus dem Heiligthume gehn, damit er das Heiligthum seines Gottes nicht entweihe.... In this place Wessely calls the vav hemshekh preceding Sin di i a" PEC uyi ji ." As in the example before the last, "deswegen" is added to the translation of the main clause in anticipation of the reason in the subordinate clause. Or Numbers 4:15. api are p Pai gpa Je nook por [ook oPIO ~ini wel D Jw DOP YP la! [» niu (9 Djan 79? ÉIN CER n Ích4 adie UN! rp Sic rep "di © Wenn das Lager aufbrechen soll, so muss Aharon und seine Söhne erst das Einwickeln des Heiligthums und aller heiligen Geräthe geendigt haben; hernach sollen die Kinder Kehath herbeikommen, um zu tragen, damit sie das Heiligthum nicht unmittelbar anrühren und sterben. Dieses ist das Trage- geschäft der Kinder Kehath beim Stiftszelte. Jaroslav shows that (4) is a purpose clause as in the translation. Only after Aaron and his sons have covered the ark and holy utensils, can the children of Kehat approach, in order that they might not touch those things and die. The translation adds the word "unmittelbar" ("directly") in this clause; for after everything has been covered, then the children of Kehat can handle the holy objects. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113. The best examples of result clauses are Numbers 5:24, 27, where the whole context reveals Mendelssohn's scrupulous attention to the "continuity and order of the text." Numbers 5:23-27. 902 |??? Sen Aller Ak AP] v. 23 piod W gle PPA Pinnkam PID IN De Den NE ap! Oe aos PIINE PIKAD PM» DA Ieai G2 Sep? PJA De 28k» PW 9222 ppil — v. 25 „DRIN? Sk Dk Hopp) 3 Noy »pj» ne 1125 35244» Wop DpIwWAK nic PAD In [22D Fap) ee PID re sje» pk ape rh (3) S nen) (8) v. 27 QAM ska) PE (D sv 1 GO. purse D) / D. æ. C AIAN fe a O14) IR {cr} (7) DYER fi 323) PISNO TI SATT , 5 NT >) Ge yf BOPP Dbl aYew 2») 223 9 Ve 23 Der Priester schreibt sodann diese Verfluchungen auf einen Zettel, wäscht es ab in das ekelhafte Wasser hinein, v. 24 Und giebt der Frau das ekelhafte Verfluchungswasser zu trinken, dass es in sie hineingehe zum abscheulichen Ekel.... Ve 26 Nimmt von dem Mehlopfer eine Handvoll zum verduften, lässt es auf dem Altare in Rauch aufgehn, und hernach giebt er der Frau das Wasser zu trinken. Ve 27 Wenn er ihr das Wasser zu trinken gegeben, so wird der Erfolg dieser sein: Hat sie sich verunehrt, und ist ihrem Manne untreu gewesen, so geht das Fluchwasser in sie zum abscheulichen Ekel hinein; ihr Leib wird aufschwellen, ihre Hüfte schwinden, und die Frau wird zur Verfluchungsformel unter ihrer Nation werden. As in an example we saw earlier, we have a case of three similar clauses, (1), (3), and (4), which Mendelssohn interpreted in three dif- ferent ways in the translation," He solved the problem of redundancy Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114. by taking (1-2) as a kelal, explained in the successive sentences; (3) relates the act itself of having the woman drink the bitter waters and (4) merely recapitulates the preceding and introduces the clause ex- pressing the main resuit. (2) is a result clause as indicated in German by "dass" and the subjunctive. The result clause in the last sentence is more elaborate, beginning with (5), which is translated by a clause in itself: "so wird der Erfolg dieser sein." (6) is a subordinate conditional clause, and (7), introduced by a vav in Hebrew and "so" in German, resumes the thought begun in (5) in telling the consequences of the ordeal. Jaro- slav in the Bi'ur is very brief in his treatment of this section; but our previous analyses have provided us with the means of understanding all of his intentions. For example, he does not explicitly indicate redundancies, nor does he say that sentence 24 is a kelal. Also, he does not explain any vav hemshekh, though he does use the key word "non" for result. His mention of the "correct continuity and order of the text," however, reveals that he was fully attuned to the 101 subtleties of Mendelssohn's translation. In addition to the function of the vav hemshekh in indicating temp- oral and causal connections, it is shown also to introduce an object his use is rare in the translation. We have already SA à " : 3 " : 102 it in our discussion of Genesis 42:25 in our previous chapter ^; a similar example is Genesis 12:20: Ine Nar Unie ID @ Pye 3690 [Ur 81 O J IF oe $5 Na Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115. Und Paroh befahl einigen Männern über ihn, dass sie ihn und seine Frau, und alles, was er hatte, geleiteten. Ibn Ezra interpreted (1) and (2) as two independent clauses, with (1) being elliptical: Pharaoh commanded men (not to touch them); and they escorted them off. Mendelssohn, however, interpreted (2) as a dependent object clause: Pharaoh commanded men to escort them off. The vav in (2) is not named a vav hemshekh specifically; "13i " in (1) is merely described as being "connected with what follows "103 7. Ha-Vav Ha-Mehaleqet: the "Vav of Differentiation" The third vav classified in the Bi'ur is the vav ha-mehaleget, differentiating between that which it connects. It is translated in German as "oder." In itself, it is not common, but it ties in with some techniques of Mendelssohn which we shall examine shortly. Exodus 1:10. NDR Dikopd 1D WD DI [e JF DAPR) PAD Deo jr »Mi C2 Yr P piji (D Ijf'ijig fs (am Ph fosji ...wenn denn Krieg werden sollte, so könnte dieses Volk zu unsern Feinden übergehn, und mit uns streiten oder aus dem Lande ziehn. Mendelssohn takes (1) and (2) as alternatives, not complements, to each other: Either the children of Israel would fight the Egyptians and defeat them; or, at any rate, even if not, they might leave the country. 104 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116. Exodus 12:21. in) Pride one dem 75 [f »w ie» pow nt paininoeud [E3 a Ip?! © jow O Moscheh berief alle Ältesten Jisraels, sprach zu ihnen: holet oder kauft euch kleines Vieh für eure Familien, und schlachtet das Überschreitungsopfer. Here, Mendelssohn follows Rashi in considering (1) and (2) as alternatives: Either one should take the lamb from his own flock, or buy it at the market place. Likewise, in the following well-known example Mendelssohn follows Rashi: Exodus 21:15, „Dal MA Ink PAR DAI Wer Vater oder Mutter schlägt, soll getödtet werden. 8. Antithesis Related to the vav ha-mehaleget is the adversative vav indicating antithesis to the preceding. This is explained frequently in the Bi'ur and is rendered explicitly in the German translation by means of the addition of "aber"10° or "allein." Genesis 18:16f. P90 jo fr PUL Pep PW wp se PNY Sip e»oaki DUS Yk Ble PR AKN Jk 2054» ONE 5] Die Manner stunden von da auf, kehrten sich nach der Seite von Sedom, und Abraham ging mit ihnen, sie zu begleiten. Der Ewige aber sprach: Sollte ich vor Abraham ver- hehlen, was ich vorhabe? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117. Dubno, in his explanation of the translation with "aber," is not completely clear. He means either that God decided to broach the sub- ject to Abraham, in contrast with the angels who set off for Sodom forthwith and had not taken Abraham into their confidence—or that God knew He could expect better things from Abraham's descendents (as in v. 18f.), in contrast with the Sodomites who had to be destroyed.10° mE éJ2 C ica [tak 'DI6N T aps! AU Jakob aber besetzte sich in dem Lande, wo sein Vater sich aufgehalten, nämlich im Lande Kenaan. Following Ramban, Mendelssohn considers there to be a contrast between 37:1 about Jacob and the preceding chapter relating the geneal- ogy of Esau, particularly between the word "INEN " (37:1) and the word " Ppsnk" (36:43): Whereas Esau's possession of his territory had : 107 Exodus 33:11. po fi P!J? n Li n 5 2281 II fic Uk 583! OU WY JU [o YUP LUD? T pA Dko pun ew 2) .«».Alsdann kehrte Moscheh in das Lager zurück; sein Bedienter aber, Jehoschua, Nuns Schn, der ihm als Jüngling aufwartete, entfernte sich nie von dem Gezelte. Leviticus 24:15f. sid SRD P ija f leGn kept Pole ffo > C CF 5 [! 332 j^ le Ing’ PT ANI JUN 49 Pb va DNI PR LIE poc» Ir Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118. Den Kindern Jisraels mache folgendes bekannt: Wer seine Gottheit lästert, soll für sein Verbrechen büssen. Wer aber den Namen des Ewigen mit Lästerung ausspricht, der soll getödtet werden.... Genesis 31:29. xo pots Maf ig! "ET SNEP Sic One Que paak soft! Jo Té PION ape PE PI pb nat» Nun habe ich die Macht in der Hand, mit euch schlimm zu verfahren. Allein der Gott eures Vaters sprach vorige Nacht zu mir, und sagte: hüte dich mit Jakob (von der Rückreise) zu reden, weder im Guten, noch im Bösen. Deuteronomy 1:30-32. J P>’jod DELI gv RESTE pope 2X5 20k feo e»t p» km | 24» PPD H . 253» LP . PINA I 2 cid 2 i ? 252221 PODAL IP PWN PAJE 72 ...Allein ihr hattet bei allem dem kein Vertrauen zu dem Ewigen, eurem Gott.108 Like the adversative vav, and frequently in connection with it, Mendelssohn showed, a certain seemingly redundant use of a pronoun has an adversative function. We have already seen an example of this in our previous chapter, Genesis 49:8 (" pink p? 2p DD’ wy 109 That example is cited in the 'Or Li-Netivah, as well as a similar example, Numbers 14:317.110 a! bab pponk Qk pool ax ppokn nte Docs me 1634 gie per? D4 5^ BAP TE P pk pp) po) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. e..Eure Korper aber sollen in dieser Wüste verfallen. As according to Rashi, the use of "Pak "—the equivalent of the pos- sessive ("eok"), though appearing in the "nominative" case—serves to emphasize the distinction between the infants mentioned in the pre- vious sentence and the parents who were to perish in the desert. 1l! The previous pronoun appeared in conjunction with the pronomial suffix of a noun; most adversative pronouns treated by Mendelssohn; however, are connected to past or future verbs which ordinarily stand alone. Genesis 15:13-15. «31 £onkl Wiel Pe 525! uU. > on i pof "n f ka l oj e tine o poe f eie pak fi RD 5210 »2!0 Ya ...Du selbst aber sollst in Frieden zudeinen Vätern kommen, und wirst begraben werden nach einem glückiichen Altere Besides "aber," Mendelssohn adds the word "selbst," the antithesis being that, though Abraham's descendents would suffer in a foreign land (v. 13), he himself would live a long and peaceful life. Genesis 26:27. ^ A pn! e»t Inkl hic nk» 13 g2pk^ pint ink Pplefe ppl Da sprach Jizchak zu ihnen: warum kommt ihr zu mir, da ihr mich doch hasset, und mich von euch weggetrieben habt? Here the antithesis is indicated by the word "doch" ("however"). As Dubno says in the Bi'ur, the pronoun serves to "add strength and arouse attention to the person referred to," in this case, the people referred Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120. to, Avimelekh and Phikhol.!!? Genesis 37:30. opc ['hk Sic GLA fcr je aje yler 1j pe aha Kehrte zu seinen Brüdern zurück, und sprach: Der Knabe ist nicht da! Ich aber, wo soll ich hin? Ibn Ezra had already noticed the repetition of "fk „" but con- tented himself with the explanation that it was the "way of the lan- guage." In the Bi'ur, Dubno explains Mendelssohn's translation as indicating that the antithesis was between Reuben and his brothers: As opposed to the rest of the brothers, he, being the oldest would be blamed most for the loss of Joseph. Ge is 42:8. "et 422532 kf P» ME Pk fr oo Joseph erkannte zwar seine Brüder, allein sie erkannten ihn nicht. Dubno explains the antithesis between Joseph and his brothers, adding an infrequent Midrashic explanation, via Rashi, based on the interpretation of "sut as "recognized them as his brothers," hence, "was merciful." Joseph took pity on his brothers, whereas they had nct done so to him when they had had the opportunity > Exodus 19:5f. Oo if 2p) MD... Wu» P Eo _ prise Pr shee To on UP NE! P1) 25 pfni E ud ap P^ ...5so sollt ihr mein besonderes Eigenthum unter allen Nationen sein; denn mein ist die ganze Erde. Ihr aber sollt mir ein priesterliches Reich sein, und ein heiliges Volk. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121. In this case, one might miss the antithesis altogether, but for Mendelssohn's "aber" in the translation. In the Bi'ur he explains that the contrast is between (2) and (3): The whole world with all its peoples belongs to Me, but you are a special kingdom of priests. Mendelssohn relied on Sforno in this section, but clarifies the antithesis and explains the metaphor better by means of additions (italicized) to Sforno's wording: Really the whole world is Mine, and all the nations are Mine, and the whole human race is dearer to Me than ali the lower beings, for it alone is the ultimate purpose of them all, as they [the Rabbis] of blessed memory said: "Beloved is humanity, which has been created in God's image," and the saintly of the nations are certainly cherished by him; but "You shall be unto me a nation of priests." All the nations are like one people, and you are like the priests specially appointed for the worship of God—to make under- stand and teach the whole human race to call upon the name of God and to worship Him together.114 He concludes his close paraphrase about the chosenness of Israel: as the role of Israel will be in the future, as it is said, "And you shall be called the priests of God (Isaiah 61:6)." Sforno had included, interestingly, another quotation from Isaiah, re- ferring to Zion: "and as it is said, 'From out of Zion shall come forth 115 Torah?" (2:3). This verse is omitted by Mendelssohn. 9. Mendelssohn's Treatment of Ki Mendelssohn's skill in interpretation and translation can be seen in his treatment of other conjunctions also, besides the vav; the con- junctions to which he paid special attention are listed in the third part of the 'Or Li~Netivah.!*° Inasmuch as a complete analysis of all Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122. would take us far afield, we shall focus on " m," one of the more com- plex ones, by way of example. Mendelssohn was well aware cf its com- plexity and dealt with it with great care, relying much on traditional sources as always, but also reflecting his own independent resourceful- ness. In this respect, he based himself on the Rabbinic statement that "/5" has four different meanings: "k23 "— "because"; " i/o "—"if" or "when"; "kfk "—"but"; and " ea f3 "—" perhaps" 117; but he innovated in this as in other matters. First, let us consider the meaning ICH? ," which Mendelssohn dif- ferentiated in German, as we have mentioned, into "weil" and "denn." For example, Genesis 21:12f. k probe Well rin Gy 5] Y^ X?! Sk poak $ J op NO IR fk iep 1% P E Fe (aos pb kop! par > © je PA wee qe Me» [^ J d c1? Pr? 50 el PI | "n Aber Gott sprach zu Abraham: Lass dir nicht bange sein um den Knaben, und um deine Magd. Was dir Sarah sagen wird, gehorche! denn nur durch Jizchak soll dein Saamen genannt werden. Aber auch den Sohn der Magd will ich zu einem Volke machen, weil er dein Saamen ist. Dubno explains that the "3" in (2) is translated in German by "weil" indicating a reason that is well-known, unlike the " 'D" in (1) trans- 118 lated by "denn" indicating a newly-presented reason. In the Aramaic translations there is no such distinction. Abraham knew, of course, that Ishmael was his seed (2), whereas God just then revealed Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123. to him that only Isaac— stressed in German by the addition of "nuz"— would supplant Ishmael and carry on Abraham's name (1). Therefore, Abraam was advised not to ke troubled by Sarah's cruel treatment of Ishmael and Haganı > Exodus 13:17. Pen pk 3699 PR = eo Pk ee engl enj (cdl kip AIP 2 a vik 209 i AIH PA sapi, gpr Pea PR? Als nun Paroh das Volk ziehen liess, führte sie Gott nicht den Weg durch das Land Pelischthim, weil es sehr nahe ist; denn Gott sagte zum voraus: das Volk möchte sich beden- ken, wenn sie Krieg vor sich sehen, und nach Mizrajim zurück- gehn. According to one opinion, " /5" in (1) means "even though," but artly because that was not one I~ - of the Talmudic definitions.! Following ibn Ezra,!@! Mendelssohn took it as a conjunction of known cause ("weil"): It was well known that the Philistines were near; and God feared war would break out with the Philistines and the Israelites would return to Egypt because of the proximity. To Ramban's objection that if this were so, the order should be (2-1-3), Mendelssohn replied, perhaps taking the etnah 3) from (1) because of the different force of the respective reasons. Whereas (1) was known to all, (2-3). introduced by "denn," was known only to God. ^ Despite the differentiation just illustrated, however, most causal instances of "9" in the translation are rendered by "denn," Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. not "weil," as in the following example: Genesis 48:14. | | JN» kin) PAI Yoo & WU UW pk (oe pe Rn Qo fs Wien pki IDP DUN ’> je! pk $22 ...(er legte seine Hände mit Bedacht: denn eigentlich war Menaschscheh der Erstgeborne). Here it is ibn Ezra who understood "œ" as "even though." Mendelssohn, however, followed Onkelos, Rashi, and Kimhi in interpreting it causally in relation to " DL," which, as Dubno explains, is derived from "fo," not "twisting," as according to Rashbam and Ralbag. Jacob placed his hands on Ephraim's head with deliberation ("mit Bedacht"), for Menasheh was really the elder. In this case, Mendelssohn strengthens the causal clause by means of the addition of "eigentlich." In a different function, " 'D," meaning "that," introduces an ob- ject clause; and Mendelssohn utilized this meaning cleverly on occasion. Though it does not correspond to any of the four above definitions, there is evidence that Mendelssohn, wishing to maintain the Talmudic linguistic principle, first tried to include this meaning within the scope of " [eg ." Specifically, in his Commentary on Ecclesiastes, he interprets the " 49" clauses in Ecclesiastes 5:19 as the objects of the verb "554'"; and David Friedlander, the translator of Ecclesi- astes, rendered them accordingly: |"n n' nk 9295! DAP kb 'D lah apne DJEN pager O Er denke stets, seine Tage werden nicht viel sein, und Gottes Wille stimmt ja ein in seines Herzens frohen Genuss. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Mendelssohn states, though, that " 19” functions in the meaning of " k 34 „„224 The fact, however, that some later editions of Mendelssohn's Com- mentary on Ecclesiastes omit the statement that " /5" means "[. 22" may reflect Mendelssohn's revised view that this is incorrect, 17? Corres- pondingly, one of the lengthiest interpolations in the second edition of the 'Or Li-Netivah reflects a new understanding of this function of vn": If the speaker wishes to define the subordinate verb with tense, number, and gender [and not use the magor |, then the form of the verb is changed accordingly; a whole clause is retained which is joined to the main clauses by one of the conjunctions: " m," " LL >" "16D 9" " Wy" etc... The conjugation of the verb with "/2 " (dass) is called in foreign languages "conjunctive" [subjunctive], for a verb joined to the main clause changes in this way, unlike in Hebrew. Know and understand this, for I have not found in the work of any philologist of foreign languages the proper classification for this conjugay, on, even though they spoke of it afd sought it at length. Therefore, we should like to illustrate further this function of " /5" as understood by Mendelssohn. Ecclesiastes 7:19f. fan 242p yma m o PER ors C2 = Pon ork 9B) F^ ^: at = Ac (ft pif ai ne ok» 73> | = In this case, Mendelssohn provides his own translation in his conmentary, from which Friedlander deviates in the case of two words, as indicated in brackets: v. 19 Die Lehre wird dem Vernünftigen bekräftigt werden durch zehn Regierungen, die in der Stadt gewesen [waren]: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126. v. 20 dass kein Mensch auf Erden so gerecht sei, dass er nur [immer] thue wes gut ist, und niemals fehle. Mendelssohn thus takes (3) introduced by "/p" as the object of E: 1 in (1) in the senses The lesson will be confirmed for the wise man by ten governments that there is no man on earth so just as never to sin. Thus, Mendeissohn wrestles with the difficult problem of the relation- ship between these two sentences in their context, interpreted other- wise by a modern scholar as two contrasting aphorisms.17 Exodus 13:9, po [> ou aes fe lef at 2/2) © d ^ prop HD jit © PAN 2 pii» DPP PR > Dieses soll dir zum Merkzeichen auf deiner Hand dienen, und zum Denkzettel zwischen deinen Augen, damit die Lehre des Ewigen in eurem Munde bleibe (das heisst: sich immer fort- pflanze), dass dich der Ewige mit starker Hand aus Mizrajim geführt. Here Mendelssohn shows, on the basis of Ramban without acknowledg- ment, that (3) is the object of (1), emphasizing that (2) is a paren- : 128 thetical clause of purpose. Deuteronomy 15:18. KEN "025 ik pn P2? 20 ts © ?!|Q QR pars VOR IDL DW D © ^ " y 1 LON ean u P» pl % par! O Wenn du ihn frei abziehn lässest, soll es dir nicht ver- driesslich sein, dass er dir die sechs Jahre um den zweifachen Lohn eines Mietknechtes gedient habe; denn dafür wird der Ewige dich segnen, in allem, was du thust. As Homberg explains, Mendelssohn followed Rashbam in taking (2) as Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127. the object of " a! kf" in (1). The etnah, also, supports the inter- pretation that (2) depends on (1) and is not linked with (3). It should not vex the ovmer that he has to pay his Hebrew slave a double wage upon freeing him, that is, a generous bestowal of gifts in addi- 129 tion to the regular past wages. The remaining three functions of "/>" are not complicated. Two examples of "/5" meaning "if" or "when" ("wenn," in German) will suf- fice. Numbers 32:15. x IWA IPDS 71 fon popka palkp «2 342 PED f2) PPPU Wenn ihr euch von ihm abwendet, sc wird cr sie noch länger in der Wüste lassen, und ihr bringt diesem ganzen Volke Verderben. Deuteronomy 21:9 is more problematical: = BIDA DJP 937 wap RPE f D» | 1D A NGA UD PEEP Du aber hast auf diese Weise die Anklage unschuldiges Bluts von dir weggeschafft, wenn du das gethan, was in den Augen des Ewigen recht ist. Homberg explains that Mendelssohn translated in accord with ibn Ezra: If you do what is upright in God's eyes—that is, observe the ceremony of 'eglah 'arufah properly—you will thus remove tion of unrequited bloodshed. Rashbam and the Talmud, on the other hand, explain that the sentence entails the later discovery of the murderer, with "19" meaning "£2": You should remove the sin of bloodshed (by executing the murderer), because that is just in God's Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128, $55,190 "ty" meaning "but" generally appears in this sense after a nega- tive. Unlike the previous usage, Mendelssohn renders it in a number of different ways, as in the following four examples: Genesis 18:15. ko! D ıppn3 kb said. 252 2P2P NI D (ch Ak!) Sarah läugnete, und sagte: ich habe nicht gelacht; denn sie fürchtete sich. Er aber sprach: nein! du hast allerdings gelacht. Rashi and Rashbam had already noted that the first "/>" means "A3," and the second, VAY ." For the second Mendelssohn adds "allerdings" ("certainly") in Germen. Exodus 23:24. 9 ro) © c TINNY kk 3 Si 5 PIMP kil ee RED «Hi 89/9834 MALY DAR POPP e?? ID Bucke dich nicht vor ihren Göttern, diene ihnen nicht, und ahme ihnen nicht nach; vielmehr zerstóre sie, und zer- breche ihre Bildsäulen. Leviticus 25: Br if 9 © pipn 3s DON If Prien) ©) ONS Enke Piaum PIF > ® Grundstücke sollen nicht auf ewig verkauft werden; denn dass Land ist mein, ihr aber seid nur Fremdlinge und Ge- duldete auf meinem Boden. Wessely indicates in the Bi'ur that (3), essentially, not (2), is the reason for (1). (2) is not the reason, for the iand wculd still Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129, belong to God even if its human owenership would change. According to (3), however, the Israelites cannot sell the land because they have no right to; they are only sojourners in the land, as people in general are only temporary sojourners on aante Grammatically, though, the "15" in (3), according to Mendelssohn, is more an adversative in re- lation to (2) than causal, as reflected by "aber" in the translation: You cannot sell the land because I am the permanent owner, and you are only temporary. It does not follow a negative directly in this case; but perhaps it is understood as keing indirectly influenced by the negative in (1). Deuteronomy 737f. pt) p, POR lk Puta PH Gia PE o PIA WMD! P22 3 p / 35h VA POple ^3 BID n PINE 7 PaSA Nicht weil ihr etwa zahlreicher als andre Völker wäret, hat der Ewige euch angenommen und erwählt: denn in Wahrheit seid ihr die Wenigsten unter allen Volkern; Sondern bloss, weil der Ewige euch liebt...hat er euch mit starker Hand aus Mizratim geführt.... in Mendelssohn's treatment of the last function of " /5," meaning "a2," we find the addition of "vielleicht" in one example and the use of an interrogative verb and the subjunctive in the others. De 7:17. uteronomy 7:1 PIEP Plan palo NEP 1D , PUDE fik pdk Du wirst vielleicht in deinem Herzen sprechen: diese Völker sind grösser als ich, wie kann ich sie austreiben? Ur ofen Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130. In this case, the direct influence upon the German translation of Rashi, whom Homberg cites as the source, is quite clear. 1?? Deuteronomy 20:19. - p vfs pninb Paa pw ow Me Alp 72 pop Ps. piss 236 nk nep KE poop les il @ kp ya o © j : 2% kn > © Bun on kab © D20 e Wenn du vor einer Stadt lange Zeit liegen musst, um sie zu bestreiten, und zu erobern, so sollst du die Bäume nicht verderberi und mit der Axt daran fahren, denn du kannst ja Früchte davon geniessen, und musst sie also nicht ausrotten. Ist denn das Holz auf dem Felde wie ein Mensch, den man durch Bollwerk einschränken muss? (Die Bäume sind ja eure Feinde nicht, denen ihr zu schaden suchen müsst.) The "’>" in question introduces (5), whereas those introducing (1) and (3), respectively, serve the functions "wenn" and "denn" which we have already studied. Following Rashi's interpretation, again, Mendelssohn links (5) and (6), interpreting the whole clause as a question: Is the tree like a man, to be cut down in a siege? As he elucidates in his explanatory addition: Trees are not your enemies, which you should try to injure. Homberg, on the other hand, disagrees with Mendelssohn and fol- lows the interpretation of ibn Ezra that (6), referring to the city, connects with (4): You must not cut down a tree in order to reduce the city in a siege. Accordingly, Homberg takes (5) as a parenthetical expression, though he acknowledges that it does not fulfill Mendels- sohn's criteria for that, of causal forces because trees sustain the 133 life of man. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Deuteronomy 14:24f. wet Bip kf > @ po32 pad aa o) (D RR INR PIE ptic 2 pr Yc du pad pho! e p T; kf por e e Wäre dir aber die Reise zu beschwerlich, und du könntest solches nicht fortbringen, indem der Ort, den der Ewige, dein Gott, erwählen wird, seinen Namen dahin zu setzen, etwa weit von dir entfernt sein, und der Ewige, dein Gott, dich reich- lich gesegnet haben dürfte; So kannst du es zu Gelde machen.... Though " /»5," in these four instances (1-2-3-4), is not specifical- ly said to mean af 3," the subjunctives "wäre," "könntest," and "durfte" determine that this example is in that class. Homberg men- tions that (3) explains (1) and that (4) explains (2), which gives both (3) and (4) the force of "Íc3Y3 "s but nevertheless, (1) and (2) are the strongest clauses in the sentence and their mood influences the other two clauses in this respect as well: Should the journey be too dif- ficult and should you be unable to convey your tithe physically, in that the place which God will choose for His name may perhaps be too far removed from you and God may have blessed you abundantly, then convert the tithe into money and make the journey. Mendelssohn's treatment of " !D" as v ula ," especially the last example of this, in which he made full use of the subjunctive in Ger- man, exemplifies his understanding of the complexity of the mood of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the Hebrew verbs for Mendelssohn knew that the Hebrew verb can have subjunctive, as well as indicative, force. (This is in contrast with our examples of object clauses, where it is not the Hebrew verb which is subjunctive.) With his insights in this area, he frequently re- solves difficult problems in the sequence of the text in a pleasing, aesthetic manner. In one place, where the verb incidentally is intro- duced by " 19" also, the Bi'ur discusses the idea of the subjunctive explicitly in relation to Mendelssohn's translation. Deuteronomy 15: 4, 7, 11. f Pi A wy kf’ i E v. 4 nhl ^9 We POR 9 2595! pr ! ( e. DQ »bnJ ^i JJ paola en prk IDA pak p? DIP! > (3) ve 7 9! J = (3 Es sollte zwar keinen Dürftigen bei dir geben, denn der Ewige wird dich in dem Lande, das er dir als ein Erbgut zum Besitze eingiebt, segnen.... Wo aber in dem Lande...einer von deinen Brüdern dürftig sein wird.... Denn es wird in dem Lande doch nicht an Dürftigen mangeln.... Rashi an the first sentence (v. 4) and the subsequent places (3) and (4) (vv. 7, 11) in which it is stated as a certainty that poverty will not cease in the land. They solve the problem by interpreting that there will be no poverty, as in sentence 4, when the Israelites perform God's will Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133. and that there will be poverty when they will not. Homberg explains that Mendelssohn inclined to this view, but utilized his more sophis- ticated understanding of Hebrew to clarify the continuity of the text. Namely, the verb in (1) is in the subjunctive mood, as translated by "sollen" ("There should certainly be no poor person"), whereas the 1 corresponding verbs in (3) and (4) are in the indicative. Certain conjunctions introducing a possibility in the future, such as "4f" or " p" lead more naturally to the subjunctive, and Mendelssohn dealt with them carefully. Genesis 23:13. Se >37) 9713) Ria P4 ska [net agen de» on] @ "fii? IG ane Pb pE © DNR ipu pe 25A KI Jun P] ...mochtest du mich nur hören! so hatte ich das Silber für das Feld gegeben; nimm es von mir an! Alsdann will ich meinen Todten daselbst begraben. Following Rashi and Ramban, Mendelssohn takes the imperative "BAZ" after " n as the equivalent of " PENG "s and he interprets the verb T: as having subjunctive force. He interprets "'np) " in (2) as a sub- junctive also, in the pluperfect, considering (1) and (2) as protasis and apodesis: If you would only listen to me, I would have already 135 x given you [sic] the money for the field. Likewise, Genesis 19:19. moan Gho$ foie EE fet » PN} DEI? PU J? + ...Nun aber kann ich mich nicht auf den Berg retten, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 134. das Unglück möchte mich zu geschwind erreichen, und ich doch sterben. Or Genesis 26:7. pip» Rk jp» E Us Nk kr! m fon 2ko4 PAG '2 27? ...er fürchtete sich zu sagen: sie ist meine Frau. Die Stadtleute möchten mich umbringen, um Ribkah willen, denn sie ist schön von Angesicht. Mendelssohn's skill and innovation in the interpretation of the subjunctive are even more striking in the following examples where the mood is not clearly determined by the Hebrew conjunction: Genesis 31:27. apna REIKIA E DD Kol ss 12a! fna PPI oe..Warum hast du mir es nicht gesagt? so hätte ich dich hinweggeschickt mit Freuden und Gesängen, mit Pauke und Harfe, Dubno in explanation does not employ the term subjunctive, which in fact appears only one in the Bi'ur, at Deuteronomy 15:4 ("Konjunktiv"), which we have just seen. Instead, he terms "enr" a "past-future compound" and inserts the German in parentheses, adding the rudiment- ary observation that such "compound" verbs in Hebrew come either in the past or the fire =" Exodus 9:15. IRIA pró DT pou pk! 19) pk ph aps 2 b [| IPRM aon.’ mip anne es EER pdk Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 135. Zwar hatte ich eben jetzt meine Hand ausgestreckt, und dich nebst deinen Unterthanen mit der Pest geschlagen, und so warst du vertilgt von der Erde. The introductory "'5" here does not appear to be a factor of importance; the subjunctive mood lies in the verbs themselves. Leviticus PA k [PP PIJ |? 21A fic jak a As ipsle Dep Ir] “9 Nob ppi Dk! c 73 NSA alan ©) pr» Aen UT PL ! (D Aharon sprach zu Moscheh: Siehe! heute haben sie (meine Söhne nämlich) ihr Sundenopfer und ganzes Opfer dar- gebracht, vor dem Ewigen; und solchergestalt ist mir wider- fahren. Hätte ich nun Sündenopfer heute gegessen, würde dieses dem Ewigen wohl gefallen? Inasmuch as Aaron was mourning his two sons, he was uncertain whether he should have eaten from the sacrifices. Mendelssohn interprets (1) and (2) as protasis and apodosis in an unreal conditional sentence: If I should have eaten of the sin-offering today, would inis have suited God well? The next is a similar condition: Numbers 12:14. ‘ : t ! oA nes 45! sald DU die ? I mi PON? JEARL T k ^ © ! UR opel ajni Tiny PIERRE? Der Ewige sprach zu Moscheh: Wenn ihr Vater ihr in das Gesicht gespien hátte, sollte sie sich nicht wenigstens sieben Tage schümen? Sieben Tage soll sie ausser dem Lager eingespezzt bieiben, hernach soll sie wieder aufgenommen werden. Finally, let us examine Deuteronomy 1:11 in its context: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 136. Nk [ODD _ prea poik Aki v.9 ,f2ple Dice 35]. Pik kf popk nara parade ? v1 BOY PWD 22022 PPD PQA pmo dle poo pole For pomak abk 7 yon PF 283 »Qco P2Me p?2'l o») Polk) PONG 3AF [ee RAVE ya v. 11 ...(Ich wünsche, dass der Ewige, der Gott eurer Väter, eueri?8 noch tausendmal so viel werden lasse, und euch segne, wie er eurethalben verheissen hat). v. 12 Aber ach! wie kann ich allein eure Mühe, Last und Hader ertragen? who! " in sentence 11 is taken as a subjunctive, the German in this place empioying the usage "I wish that." Mendelssohn's interpretation of its connection in the section, as explained by Homberg, is interest- ings Moses' main thought expressed in v. 9 and repeated in v. 11 is that the burden of leading the nation was very heavy, especially as the people was so numerous (v. 10). Sentence 11, in this respect, is taken as a parenthetical wish to ward off the negative implications of the other remarks; and an antithesis is understood between sentences ll and 12: You should increase a thousand fold—but alas! How can I bear the burden??? To convey the subjunctive in German, Mendelssohn made ample use of auxiliaries, for example, "dürfen," "sollen," and "mógen," as has al- ready been seen, 1^0 In this context, after bringing two more examples with "sollen," we shall examine one striking example with "müssen" and two with "können." Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127. Genesis 49:26. So gos AN... pak Pow ple 4) 37370 Die Segen deines Vaters...sollen auf das Haupt Josephs kommen, auf die Scheitel des Gekrönten unter seinen Brüdern. The Bi'ur, two sentences later, in discussing Jacob's blessings in general (" f nic era [porad rc Vk plc e» "), explains that "sollen" indicates a prayer. Ibn Ezra had stated that Jacob had uttered predictions (49:3-27), and that the blessings mentioned in 49:28 were added by him later and were not specified in the text. Mendelssohn felt, on the contrary, that 49:3-27 were both predictions and blessings, that is, the predictions included Jacob's prayer that sin should not deprive the sons of the good fortune he foresaw. Accordingly, Mendels- sohn, as Dubno explained, translated the verbs of the chapter in two ways: "wird" (v. 10, " D9)DW Gre Jo! d "—'der Zepter wird nicht weichen von Jehudah"; v. 17, " Qp] j? 5)! "—"Dan wird sein eine Schlange") and "soll," as here.) Exodus MT Dien 3152 P 222 er api» BPA »1l loo Se ayia 2409 VIAN DNAP 51252 i Nap ppp We ‘AW 3127» TÉ eeevon dem Erstgebornen Paroh's, der auf seinem Throne sitzen sollte.... Mendelssohn in the Bi'ur copies Rashbam without acknowledgment, adding one word " kn," that "ikop k a" refers to Pharaoh's first- born son who was worthy or destined to sit on the throne in the future. Rashi, who took " aQj'" as an indicative, was led to the far-fetched Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 138. explanation that Pharaoh, with "679" in apposition to "Yan," was him- self a first-born son, but that God spared him for the sake of the future miracles at his expense 14? De :10. ; uteronomy 20:10 of Stag f Sic DPD ID | ofic Jap P! à 5 J Wenn du vor eine Stadt kommst, sie zu bekriegen, so musst du ihr zuerst den Frieden anbieten. Deuteronomy 20:10-18 outlines procedures for permissible war and obligatory war. Unlike Rashi who took 20:10 as relating only to the former, Mendelssohn followed the Rabbinic opinion that it is the intro- duction to both: In all cases the Israelites must sue for peace before e Significantly, he adds the auxiliary "musst" in the waging war. translation, taking tak dpi," perhaps, as a subjunctive conveying deter- mination or cohortationi^^ it was their obligation, not just an option. By means of this interpretation, as attested in the Bi'ur, he conscious- ly attempts to defend the Old Testament God against the charge of cru- elty leveled by eighteenth-century antagonists. 4? Examples with "können" may reflect a similar tendentious purpose to show that the laws of Judaism are not harsh and oppressives Exodus 20:9. prokdn p vei ru p! pe Sechs Tage kannst du arbeiten, und all dein Geschäft verrichten. Mendelsson is very consistent in his rendering of this idea that people could, but did not have to, work during all the six week-days, as in the translations of Exodus 23:12, 31:15, 34:213; Leviticus 23:35 and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 139. Deuteronomy 5:13. The Bitur does not expand on this thought. Perhaps Mendelssohn, in the transiation, wished to show that the world-view of Judaism was less burdensome than, say, the Puritan work ethic. Leviticus 19:17. gato p^ Jk ljep [9 prin DE Pp D212 len ifs [cp fi Hasse deinen Bruder nicht im Herzen; du kannst deinem Nächsten SE s eben (wenn er dich beleidigt hat nämlich) MEDI XY) DON j"7 , trage ihm aber das Vergehen nicht nach. In this case Mendelssohn subtly shows that Judaism is a religion of love, not of harsh authoritarianism. He adds in his translation a remark based on Rashbam that one can reprove one's fellow person only if the latter has caused obfengo to Above all, he translates " py'5Jh hoy" as "du kannst Verweise geben": You may, but you are not obligated to, give a reproach. Wessely disagrees with this interpretation, regarding it obligatory to point out the nature of the offense. He thus explains in the Bi'ur that, while "ppoip " does not mean "chastisement" or "pun- ishment," for "punishments do not correct sin," it does mean "clarifica- tion, "14? The rare reference "see below in the Bi'ur," inserted in some ver- sions of the translation after the explanatory remark 48 mav be meant. to emphasize Wessely's explanation over Mendelssohn's, since this interpreta- tion of Mendelssohn was one of the more hotiy challenged ones on the part of the Rabbinate. According to Marcus Horovitz, Rabbi Pinhas Ha- Levi Ish Horowitz fulminated against it at length in a sermon delivered in 1782, stressing the obligation of a Jew to admonish another Jew when- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 140. 149 ever necessary. R. Pinhas Ha-Levi objected especially to Mendels- sohn's determination of one explanation from among others, preferring the text to be understood in several different ways; for Mendelssohn's interpretation could not have been considered incorrect, having been de- rived from Rashbam, and possibly Ramban as wei, 0 Mendelssohn had a different purpose, however, as expressed by Horovitz: Was für Mendelssohn massgebende Veranlassung war, der Zusammenhang des Satzes mit dem vorangegangenen und nach- folgenden, das war für R. Pinchas nicht hinreichend, um die Schrift, gleichsam an eine Auffassung zu binden und jede andere auszuschliessen.1?l Horovitz thus calls attention to hemshekh ha-'inyan, which is not men- tioned here in the Bi'ur explicitly, though, in a bracketed section in 19:18, Mendelssohn links together his explanation of both 19:17 and 19: 18. From the point of view of the connection with 19:18, in fact, Men- delssohn's interpretation of 19:17 makes better sense than that of R. Pinhas Ha-Levi, both sentences being based on the principle of loving one's neighbor. You may rebuke your friend so that he might apologize and love will be restored (v. 17); do not carry a grudges love your fellow man as yourself (v. Ne) 152 11. The Pictorial Quality of the Text To conclude this chapter, we should like to illustrate a feature of the Bi'ur which we touched upon in the preceding chapter: the elucida- tion of the pictorial quality of the Biblical text.l?? Mendelssohn liked to show that the Bible contained a richly allusive dramatic narra- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4l. tive which in its own terse way presents much background information and sheds light on the complete "behind the scenes“ events. Though Mendels- sohn generally shies away from Midrashic explanations, in this respect he incorporates the Midrashic technique of reading between the lines. This is true in the Bi'ur especially where it is possible to reveal the complexity in the thought and action of a group, or the existence of different factions within a group. For example, Deuteronomy 21:7.: gb YR PIPP IJI —v.6 s 03! le Spo. DEA un» P 359 $3» Mk 2200 kb ipr (04k: Hl v7 l Her ES Iyi 73 N99 2Uc fou pres "02 v8 Ve 7. Und sollen gegen einander sprechen: (diese, namlich die Altesten) unsre Hände haben dieses Blut nicht vergossen, und unsre Augen es nicht gesehn. v. 8 (Jene, nämlich die Priester, erwiedern) Vergieb, O Ewiger! dem Volke Jisrael, das du erlóst hast.... Mendelssohn understood the elders to have uttered the quotation in sen- tence 7, and the priests, the words in the next sentence. This idea had been suggested by Rashi, Rashbam, and Ramban (not ibn Ezra too, as Hom- berg implies in his attribution to "all the commentators")! 94, but Men- delssohn went to special lengths to emphasize this point, and thus to present a more vivid description of the ceremony, by means of his two additions to the German translation. It is interesting to consider that Mendelssohn was motivated here by his understanding of the word Blu which is explained elsewhere as T comprising the alternative responses of different groups, a Wechselgesang Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 142. in iste?" This is a basic idea underlying Mendelssohn's brilliant ex- position preceding Exodus 15 on the parallelismus membrorum and general structure of Biblical poetry. 16 In fact, the subject we have been analyzing in this chapter, Mendelssohn's meticulous attention to the connections in the text and the precise relationship between sentences, as in this example from Deuteronomy, is integral to the development of his ideas on poetry, as we shall see in Part Three, 1”? We have already discussed in our previous chapter the Bi'ur's treat- ment of Genesis 19:9, in which several different bands of people are shown to make up the rabble besieging Lot's home in Sodom, each uttering different remarks 98 At Exodus 14:10-14, Mendelssohn, likewise, shows that the Israelites facing the oncoming Egyptians were divided into different groups. Ramban (14:10) is one source, but Jonathan ben Uzziel, who derived his information from the Midrash, is Mendelssohn's main source. Mendelssohn translates into Hebrew ben Uzziel's Aramaic com- ments at 14:13f. to conclude the Bi'ur of 14:10. Accordingly, on the basis of 14:13f., Moses uttered four different things to four different groups: corp dic (D P6? dk MM 2, J Py» poh Du! re 9 rose! IE Vo 7 PoF oop kb. pj» piro 3p Ne ENE? Se M |o pp vi © pof pni 3 @ .P He said (1) to those wishing to descend into the sea and perish; (2) to those ready to return to Egypt; (3) to those who wanted to fight against the Egyptians: and (4) to those who wanted to try to frighten and con- fuse the Egyptians by means of loud war cries. The Midrashic nature of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 143. this explanation is clears; the striking thing about Mendelssohn's adapta- tion of these remarks, however, is his belief that they capture the lit- eral meaning, for he considers them a “pleasing explanation which is acceptable according to the continuity of the text.” The central concept underiying Mendelssohn's study of the structure of the Penta- teuch thus appears here also. This example, though unlike previous ones in this chapter, is nonetheless a similar reflection of Mendelssohn's meticulous attention to the precise connections between clauses and sen- tences. Likewise, in the case of the preparation of the golden calf in Exodus 32, Mendelssohn determines the existence of different groups. First of all, on the basis of Rashi, there was the non-Jewish rabble who said, " nem ED adic " (32:4), addressing the Israelites in the second person, 160 Secondly, though there were many Israelites who idolatrously offered sacrifices to the calf, others intended their sacrifices for Gods for unlike 32:8, where it is said, “iF ipsi Puppet, the clauses " ew el fy ife " in 32:6 conspicuously omit any in- dication that the worship was solely for the eae” That not all the Israelites were idolatrous is also inferred from 32220, where there is no mention that Moses received any opposition to his stringent punish- ment of the sinners, an unlikely occurrence had all been given over to worship of the calt.162 Mendelssohn perhaps wished to demonstrate the basic loyalty of the Jewish people to God and its potential for rehabili- tation after the moral decline. Finally, in the case of the rebellion of Korah, the Bi'ur, follow- ing Ramban for the most part, shows that several different interests Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 144, were involved: a group of common people despairing of their lot under Moses! leadership and angry at the decree that the older generation would die in the deserts first-born sons who shared the frustrations of the above group but who were chiefly disgruntled for having been sup- planted by the Levites as cult-leaders; and Korah himself and others, including Levites, who were mainly disturbed by the elevation of Aaron i9 Accordingly, Numbers 16:5 (" 15 Ace Jt (D ^ 3 IPA 212p? Jl A") indicates God's confirming his choice of (1), the Levites, on the one hand, and (2), Aaron, on the other, in face of the respective opposition. 164 Furthermore, whereas in 16:8-11, Moses ad- dresses Korah and the Levites alone on their particular a in 16:12-15 he addresses Datan and Aviram, who voice the complaints of the first Sn According to this outline, the Bitur maintains, "the text can be understood in its proper order. „167 We thus conclude our analysis of the various aspects of Mendels- sohn's understanding of the "continuity of the text," as pertaining to the connections between clauses and individual sentences. Now we can proceed to our next chapter, where we shall study Mendelssohn's concep- tion of the relationship between whole chapters and larger units of the Pentateuch. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PART THREE: MENDELSSOHN'S UNDERSTANDING OF LITERARY CONSTRUCTION IN THE PENTATEUCH l» The Historical Context In examining Mendelssohn's treatment of larger sections, we shall illustrate his appreciation of the literary unity, connection of parts (semikhut ha-parshiyot), and aesthetic beauty of the Pentateuch as a whole. As might be expected on the basis of our previous studies, the Bitur (and German translation) is a rich quarry of insight on these matters in its defense of the traditional point of view against the emerging criticism. Being a traditionalist work, however, its observa- tions on Pentateuchal unity and connections are kept inconspicuous; and critical problems are not acknowledged. Nevertheless, Mendelssohn's veiled reactions to the latter in the translation and Bi'ur can be dis- cerned. As always, Mendelssohn relied on the classical Jewish commenta- tors, who frequently touched upon the matter of Pentateuchal unity in the form of reconciling contradittians in the text or questioning semi- khut ha-parshiyots and thus we shall continue in this chapter to illus- trate his profound Jewish scholarship, showing how he utilized this specialized knowledge vis-a-vis contemporary approaches to the text. Gentral to Mendelssohn's conception of the perfect unity of the Pentateuch is his premise, stated at the beginning of the "Or Li-Netivah, 145 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 146. that Moses was the author by divine inspiration.” Actually, Mosaic au- thorship in general was assumed by leading eighteenth-century Christian scholars. Though Richard Simon and Spinoza in the previous century had proposed the radical theories that the Pentateuch contained many sec- tions written by "public scribes" and was compiled by Ezra, respective- ly, they had not captured the mainstream of European thought. J. G. Eichhorn and J. D. Michaelis stressed the probability of Mosaic author- ship in view of the great antiquity of the Pentateuch,” each devoting several sections in their works to the refutation of contrary views, such as the theories that it was compiled by Ezra, David, or the high priest Hilgi'ah in the time of Sosfdhi Nevertheless, the very fact that they took the trouble to counter these theories indicates that Mosaic authorship was coming increasingly under attack. J. S. Semler, as a case in point, was more receptive to the iconoclastic opinions about post-Mosaic composition and quoted them with apparent relish, though he did not deny Mosaic authorship expiicttdy." Mendelssohn was more conservative than any of the above, for in affirming his belief in Mosaic authorship, he emphasized that Moses com- posed the Pentateuch in full, including the last eight sentences which describe his death—the phrase "in its entirety" in Deuteronomy 31:24 confirming the "absolute completeness" of all the Pentateuch's parts. Both Michaelis and Eichhorn, as well as Semler, allowed for interpola- tions and changes in the Mosaic narrative before the final redaction. Michaelis cites additions made after Moses, such as the last chapter of Deuteronomy. Likewise, Eichhorn and Semler deal with anachronisms and other additions from a later time which might be thought to cast a doubt Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 147. on the antiquity, as well as the unity, of the Bible.’ The Bi'ur, on the other hand, stresses that all problematic Biblical statements, such as Genesis 19:379 and 32:33, containing the words "until this day," were written by Moses. The reference to Dan in Genesis 14:14, considered by the critics, including Spinoza, to be a later substitution, is defend- ed as having been uttered by Moses in the spirit of prophecy. LU The eighteenth-century question of Moses! use of source material was more controversial theologically than scattered problematic sen- tences, bringing under even closer scrutiny the human aspect of Moses! work and the question of God's role in it. Scholars devoted much atten- tion to the sources for Genesis, in particular, the only period in the Pentateuch clearly before Moses' lifetime. Semler mentions, for example, ancient monumenta, either symbolic, such as pictures or songs, or writ- ten, such as accounts of family traditions. "Why should we deny that a writer availed himself of every aid that he could use?" He suggested that the written accounts had even appeared previously as distinct books, of which he claimed there are discernible traces in the Bible. Though Moses may have used them, it does not mean that he was not inspired by God. Nevertheless, Semler introduces a significant change of emphasis: Inspiration need not have meant revelations nowhere in Genesis, in fact, he quotes from Richard Simon, is it mentioned that God spoke to Hoses The theory of previous accounts mentioned by Semler had been devel- oped by Astruc twenty years earlier in his Conjectures sur les Memoires Originaux, the full title of which continues, dont il paroit que Moyse s'est servi pour composer le livre de la Genese. Astruc developed the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 148. novel theory that Genesis consists of thirteen separate strands, which he classified and analyzed, lettering them consecutively from A to y, ? His hypothesis of two main elements, A and B, characterized by the use of the divine names "Elohim" and "Jehovah," respectively, later became a commonplace. It is interesting that Astruc, unlike Semler, had no in- tention of questioning the divinity or Mosaic authorship of the Penta- teuch; according to a colleague, he needed much reassurance from pious and learned people before he dared to publish his work, 1? Nevertheless, he set in motion a revolution in Biblical criticism. Of the eighteenth-century scholars, Eichhorn paid the most atten- tion to Astruc's presentation, pruning down the number of documents, and issued a revised version stressing two major sets of documents for Gen- esis: "Urkunde mit dem Nahmen Elohim" and "Urkunde mit dem Nahmen Jehova," as well as a group of separate "Eingeschaltete Urkunden, "1^ Michaelis describes Astruc's system and refers to Eichhorn's treatment of it, but does not evaluate it beyond stating that it is too daring and artful and indicating that Eichhorn is in greater agreement with it than he. 1? The crux of the matter appears to be the question of Moses' active role as author, which Eichhorn compromises. Michaelis emphasizes Mos2s' creative genius and denies that Moses was a mere "compiler of scraps."1® Nevertheless, he, too, deals with the question of Mosaic sources, sug- gesting that Moses used post-diluvian written reports, folk tales, his- torical poems, and even foreign sources, such as Egyptian hieroglyphics and Edomite dosumente 4 but, in general, he was more conservative than Eichhorn, For example, he considered the creation account at Genesis Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 149. 1—2:3, which Eichhorn classified as an Elohist document, as having been divinely revealed to Moses 19 Much of the rest of the narrative, how- ever, he felt was accessible to Moses by human means. Michaelis did not exclude the possibility of God's teaching sections to him: Divine in- spiration may have aided in the selection of the true from the dross. But for the most part, he felt, God was unlikely to squander his miracles, when man could use his own tools. 1? Mendelssohn was well aware of the problem of Moses! sources; and although it is never formulated explicitly in the Bi'ur, in two places he provides a distillation of his approach, which reflects the influ- ence of his time. One is a comment at Numbers 21:14 in elucidation of the fragment from the alleged Sefer Milhamot Adonai that: Probably the whole text from" P2 PE" until " Un You [Num. 21:14-20] was taken from that book, and Moses wrote it in his Torah as a testimony [J9»?Y0 ] for Israel that they did not violate God's commandment in enterina beyond the border of Moab, for the border of Moab was indicated there.20 Mendelssohn's usage of the Hebrew "3%" here, significantly, is analo-. 21 gous to the Latin monumentum mentioned above. Even more striking is his original theory at Genesis 2:4 that the creation story in Genesis 1—2:3 is based on an earlier oral account: Probably the first portion from ".n'€k?02 " until TS E [Gen. 1—2:3] was transmitted by an elite from the days of the holy patriarchs, and perhaps it was handed down orally from the days of Adam and Seth, from fathers to sons—and through it those holy people taught their sons and students the secret of the Beginning and the creation of the world. From it that belief became well known at all the ends of the earth to every nation and language, until no nation or language could be found without a little knowledge or hint of that fundamental principle. But that tradition became spoiled in some places by the foolishness of would-be wise men and lies of poets, who set their mouths against the heavens and made up things which never were, in order to win over the heart of the masses Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 150. unenlightened by the light of God's Torah. They mixed up the truth with falsehood and retained only scant hints, like a glimmering light in night's pitch darkness.? Mendelssohn's acceptance here of an early creation account contrasts with his emphasis on divine revelation to Moses; even Michaelis accepted the idea that the creation story of Genesis 1—2:3 was revealed to Moses. Mendelssohn's comments, however, were prompted by his considera- tion of the critical problem of the different divine names "Elohim" and "Adonai" in the first chapters of Genesis and are clearly a reaction against the assertions of Astruc and Eichhorn that the different divine names indicate separate traditions and documents. Indeed, Mendelssohn defends the unity of the Torah. After postulating the existence of a previously-revealed tradition, he expands philosophically on the Rabbinic explanation of "Elohim" and "Adonai," adding, on the basis of Exodus 6: 3, that the latter name connoting God's special Providence and love did not apply to Genesis 1—2:3, but rather "Elohim" connoting God's abso- lute potentiality and creative ability. Therefore, when Moses our Master of blessed memory wrote the Torah from the mouth of God, he set at the beginning that traditionally- received portion, mentioning only the name "Elohim." He added "Adonai" to "Elohim" in 2:4 (" png k ^3. ples Phan"), the start of the narrative which Mendelssohn felt was intended primarily for Jews, to indicate that the God of absolute potentiality was the same revered God who cares for His servants and reveals His truth to His prophets, and is accessible to them when they call upon Him. 2 Significantly, this theory of a previous revelation and account is news yet while reflecting an awareness of eighteenth-century thought, it at the same time is in harmony with traditional ideas about the meaning of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 151. the divine names. It is adumbrated in the Introduction also, in the section dealing with the primacy of the Hebrew EN t" Related to the problem of pre-Mosaic source material incorporated into the body of the Pentateuch is that of the interrelationship of strata throughout. For as apart from individual smaller sections, there is the problem of the markedly-differing character—and author- ship—of the larger units: parashot, or even whole books, as in the case of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. In fact, Mendelsschn's sensitivity to the problem of Pentateuchal stratification is reflected in the very first paragraph of the 'Or Li-Netivah, which discusses the division of the Pentateuch into books. After stating that the Torah which Moses placed before the children of Israel is divided into five books, Men- delssohn gives a brief description of the contents of each book. Though he is ambiguous about the time of the division of the Pentateuch, the context and the statement that in Deuteronomy Moses "added command- ments and details which he had not mentioned before” in his teachings suggest his belief that Moses himself divided the Pentateuch into books, and issued them separately, > He appears to acknowledge indirectly the existence of different elements within the Pentateuch and the need to cope with the problem of their connections. Curiously, however, at the close of the first paragraph, Mendels- sohn quotes an alternative opinion from the Talmud (Shabbat 116a) that the Pentateuch was really divided into seven books, the book of Numbers constituting three separate books: the " joka sieh IFI" section at Numbers 10:35f., and the preceding and following chapters in Numbers." This brief quotation from the Talmud is quite challenging. Surely a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 152 inni section of two sentences cannot be considered a book according to normal standards; also, the fourth book, among the other six (Numbers 1—10:34), of the presumed seven-fold division, would be disproportionately smaller than any other. Why, then, did Mendelssohn introduce this unusual opin- ion, omitting any explanatory comment? It is interesting to speculate that he may have been reacting to a view such as that expressed by Michaelis, who was particularly engaged by a critical problem in the composition of Numbers bearing on the division of the Pentateuch. Michaelis denied that the accepted five- fold division was instituted by the author. He felt that there may have been more than five separate parts. For example, a division in the narrative signifying a new book may, according to Michaelis, occur at Genesis 25:19, the beginning of the history of Isaac. On the other hand, he denied that a clear division exists at the traditional breaks between the last four individual books of the Bible, Leviticus 8—10 describing the investiture of the high priest should be connected with Exodus 29, he pointed out. Numbers, furthermore, is not a well-inte- grated unit. The first half, he felt, belongs with the narration of the second year in the desert (mainly in Exodus); the second half, be- 27 ginning with chapter 20, with that of the fortieth, in Deuteronomy. Perhaps Mendelssohn was familiar with Michaelis" opinion about a problem in the unity of Numbers per se; his Talmudic quotation may have been specifically intended as an indirect acknowledgment of that view, besides being an attempt to show that the traditional Jewish sources provided a basis for coping with difficult contemporary questions. After all, as he indicates in a subsequent discussion in the "Or Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Li-Netivah, he recognized a distinction between the work of Moses and the later work of the Jewish Masoretes in codifying the Biblical text, 9 Their division of the Pentateuch into five books need not have been sacred to him, just as he had formulated a completely new arrangement of Ecclesiastes in his commentary on that work, which nonetheless was a strong defense of its overall literary nitus" Mendelssohn (-Jaroslav) does not repeat the Rabbinic statement from Shabbat in the Bi'ur on Numbers, nor does he deal there with the problem of the structure of that book. Several other large structural matters are examined, however, in the Bi'urg and it is these which we shall analyze first in this chapter. 2. Larger Structural Problems As we have just seen, Mendelssohn considered Genesis 1—2:3 a special section, having been transmitted orally in pre-Mosaic times. In the Bi'ur on Genesis 2:5, he takes pains to delineate its precise connection with the following creation account, maintaining that Moses, with consummate artistry, utilized the original account, which was but a general description of the wonders of Creation, and then proceeded to write a more detailed exposition. 1—2:3 and 2:4—4 are thus related as kelal u-ferat. For this explanation, Mendelssohn acknowledges a debt to Rashi and Eliezer, son of Yose ha-Gelili, in turn: 2:5 And all the bushes of the field, etc. The intention of this section T2:4ff.] is to inform you of the details of the creation of man and his wife, for in the above section it mentioned only the generality that God created them male and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 154, female [1:27], and now it informs you how the most revered Being and special Providence over man came to fix everything for his benefit, creating a helpmate for him from his ribs. And He gave them commandments, and taught man the knowledge to distinguish between His creatures, etc. There is in the baraita of Rabbi Eli'ezer son of Rabbi Jose ha-Gelili, which Rashi cites in this section [2:8], dealing with the thirty-two principles for the explication of the Torah, one principle according to which a deed following a generality is the detail of the latter. Mendelssohn then substantiates from Rashi that the deeds about man re- lated in chapter 2 (v. 7, God formed mans v. 8f., He made the garden of Eden grow [for him]; v. 15, He placed man in the garden; v. 21, He caused a deep sleep to fall upon him) comprise a fuller account of 1:27, and that 2:19f. (God created both the animals and birds from the earth; He brought the animals to Adam that he give them names) is a detailed version of 1:20, 24. He himself suggests elsewhere (Bi'ur 2:9) that the mention in 2:8f. of the creation of trees and the garden is a Keep this rule at hand because it is an important foundation and pillar in the understanding of the text, with the aid of which several places can be explained and without which they cannot be understood at all. Sometimes all the commentators have wearied and all men of valor have not been able to find their way in understanding the simple meaning; but when yo" remember this principle for explication of the Torah, you will find that they are simple, most easy-to-understand things, as you will see, God willing, in our commentary in a few places. As we have already seen in our earlier discussions, the principle of kelal u-ferat is central to Mendelssohn's analysis of intricate textual matterss here it is the key to his understanding of the rela- tionship between chapters. His application of it in this place is particularly noteworthy as an additional defense, besides his analysis Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 155. of the divine names. against the dccumentary hypothesis. In fact, his use of the term "men of valor" may well be an implied reference to the eighteenth-century Christian Bible critics in contradistinction to Jewish "mepharshim" mentioned just previously. Though he respected their erudition, he felt that he had superior stylistic evidence for upholding the traditional belief in Pentateuchal unity. The next problem of the same magnitude in the Bi'ur, involving a reconciliation of accounts, centers on Exodus 18, which narrates the visit of Moses' father-in-law, and its relationship to Numbers 10:29ff., which contains related information. As Mendelssohn states, the problems and possibilities are very numerous, and no explanation is free of dif- ficulties. One question is whether Jethro mentioned in Exodus and Hovav in Numbers are really the same person, as according to the Rab- nic ttum that Jethro had many different names. 92 Above all, there is the problem of the respective times of each account: Did the events of Exodus 18 occur before Sinai according to the order of the text, or must they be understood in a different order? Mendelssohn devoted much thought to these questions, as reflected in his lengthy comments; he was apparently particularly concerned to resolve these difficulties, insofar as thev are connected with the background of the Revelation at Co nas Smt LE Llar ere 4 = +3 ; Sinai. Significantly, however, in no other section of the Bi'ur does Mendelssohn struggle as much as in his sifting through Rabbinic opinion in the Bi'ur of Exodus 18. Consequently, in view of the importance of the subject and the unusual nature of his presentation, we shall examine this section of the Bi'ur at length. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 156. The Rabbis had already discussed thoroughly these various problems and formulated approaches. In the Mekhilta, quoted by Mendelssohn, we find two opposing opinions outlined in exposition of Exodus 18:1 ("And Jethro priest of Midian heard of everything God did for Moses and his people Israel"): What tidings did he hear that he came? He heard of the war of Amalek, reported in the preceding passage [17:8-16] and came—these are the words of R. Joshua. R» Eleazar of Modi'im says: He heard of the giving of the Torah and came. The former opinion stresses a logical consequential relationship between chapter 18 and the preceding section dealing with the war of Amalek; the latter suggests that chapter 18 is out of place in the text and must be understood as occurring after the Revelation. Mendelssohn at the out- set indicates his opinion that the chapter was based on preceding mater- ial in his interpretation of the second half of 18:1. DON [Mn OW |»5 ro! vat C) wo feh atf pale ats otk f» rt © prs fo! Pk 2 3» > @ Jithro, Priester zu Midjan, Moscheh's Schwiegervater, vernahm alles, was Gott für Moscheh und sein Volk, die Jisrael, gethan, als der Ewige nämlich Jisrael aus Mizrajim führte. For he takes (3), as indicated especially by "nämlich," as an anposi- tive to (2), hence the object of (1) also. Thus, what Jethro heard of was the Exodus, which had been described earlier—a view closer to Rabbi Joshua than to Rabbi Eleazar." But then Mendelssohn proceeds to consider different positions, first of all that of Rabbi Eleazar as upheld by Rashbam end ibn Ezra. Rashbam had felt that chapter 18 occurred after Sinai, but was inserted Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 157. earlier, so as not to interrupt the commandments; presumably, he means that the intention of the text was to preserve a close connection be- tween the Decalogue in chapter 20, "Mishpatim" (chs. 21—24), as well as, perhaps, "Terumah" (chs. 25ff.) and beyond, without the interrup- tion of a narrative section. Ibn Ezra, on the other hand, felt that chapter 18 was inserted earlier specifically as a foil against chapter 17: in order that the Israelites should remember the good deeds done them by Jethro, not less than the evil perpetrated by Amalek, and that in case the Kenites his descendents should ever dwell together with the Amalekites, as was later related in I Samuel 15:6, the Israelites should not destroy both indiscriminately.” Rashbam and ibn Ezra, however, did not explain satisfactorily the difficulty that chapter 18 does not refer explicitly to the Revelation. If indeed it occurred afterwards, we would expect 18:1 to have included mention that Jethro heard that "greatest of wonders and good deeds which God performed for Israel." Mendelssohn felt also that their interpreta- tion of 18:5 and 18:16 as referring to the Revelation was inconclusive. Next, then, he turns to Ramban, who understood chapter 18, in accord with Rabbi Joshua, as being pre-Sinai and Numbers 10 as referring to a second visit of Jethro .°° But Mendelssohn felt that one of the main links in Ramban's inter- pretation (18:5) was weak and adduces an analysis of the te*amim against him. DOW de pel jor aN PIP I fent] © ‚ofen 25 (9) PL ain la» WE@ ran be G Also reiste Jithro, Moscheh's Schwiegervater, und seine Söhne, und seine Frau zu Moscheh hin: zur Wüste, wo er sein Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 158. Lager hatte, am göttlichen Berge. According to Ramban, Jethro first met Moses in Midbar Sin and traveled with him encamping at Dophka, Alush, and Rephidim before coming with him to the Sinai desert and Mount Sinai. Specifically, in an attempt to resolve the contradiction between 19:2, which states that the Child- ren of Israel traveled from Rephidim and came to the desert of Sinai, and this earlier statement of 18:5, which suggests that they had al- ready reached Mount Sinai, Ramban interprets (3) as being a restrictive clause modifying (2) alone, and (4) being dependent only on "ga" in (1), not "Djip" in (3). Moses and the Israelites as yet were only in Midbar Sin, not at Mount Sinaig and Jethro alone had come first to Mount Sinai (1-4) from Midian, which was nearby. He sent word to Moses, who was in Rephidim, went there himself, and later doubled back with the Israelites to Mount Sinai.” Mendelssohn, however, felt that (3) cannot be a restrictive clause modifying (2) alone because the tipha concluding (3) is not a stronger disjunctive than the zagef gadol con- cluding (2). Therefore, (3) cannot be separated from (4) and joined to (2) alone; but is rather joined as much to (4) as to (2), the meaning being that Jethro came to Moses at his camp, which was at Mount Sinai. In Mendelssohn's view, this interpretation based on the te'amim pro- vided better support for the position, in accord with Rabbi Eleazar, that chapter 18 occurred after Sinai. Nevertheless, he maintained his stance that 18:5 was pre-Sinai by rendering "hall " as an incomplete action to the effect of "he set out for," or “he began to come" ("reiste," not " kam!) ,78 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 159. Mendelssohn next considers a third position,in the Bi'ur on 18:13, based on Rashi, tnat chapter 18 encompasses a broader span: from before the Revelation until the second year afterwards. Accordingly, chapter 18 must be understood as consisting of tw separate parts: 1) verses 1-12 narrating Jethro's coming, and 2) verses 13-27 narrating his in- stitution of subordinates to help Moses and his departure (v. 27). The former section is to be understood as pre-Sinai and the latter as occur- ring later, after Moses had descended from the mountain the second time, the day after Yom Kippur. As such, the latter coincides with the other account in Numbers 10.9? Thus, only the second half of Exodus 18 was out of place. In Mendelssohn's words, 18:13ff. may have been inserted earlier because after the text began relatina about Jethro, it com- pleted the whole story in order not to interrupt in the mid- dle, as is its method. Rashi is led to his explanation chiefly by the considerätion that 18:16 (" PMID pki 929i? Ihn ^k 169) ") could not have been uttered before the Revelation. As we saw earlier, however, Mendelssohn felt that this was not a conclusive reference to the Revelation, ut- tered afterwards; and, therefore, after dealing with Rashi at length— quoting two different lengthy manuscript readings after having been stimulated by Elijah Mizrahi to question the extant printed version—he concludes his explanation of 18213 with the alternate opinion given, though not accepted, by Rashbam that according to the view that chapter 18 was pre-Sinai, 18:16 could refer to the civil laws which the Israel- ites had had earlier. + Despite the precedents of the commentators, Mendelssohn was simply Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 160. not comfortable with the idea of rearrangina the Biblical text. At the very end of the chapter, at 18:27, he describes a fourth position, strictly his own, which may well be meant to be his "last word" after the give-and-take throughout the chapter: According to the literal meaning “And it was on the morrow" [v. 13] is probably explained as on the morrow of Jethro's comings this was before the Giving of the Torah as we have explained above. [Cf. Bi'ur cn v. 13, where he mentions this idea only in passing, concentrating instead on Rashi's opinion. 4 Jethro went with them to Horev to receive the Torahe | The narration “Moses sent off his father-in-law" [v» 27] was not in the first year but in the second year when they traveled from Horevs and because the text mentioned the coming of Jethro it “mentioned his departure and return to his own land, in order not to have an interruption in between, even though that was only in the second year after the Giving of the Torah.^3 Thus Mendelssohn indicates that only verse 27 can be understood as occur- ring after the Revelation, not vv. 13-26 as well, as according to Rashi. This position is similar in one major respect to the opinion of Ramban, according to Rabbi Joshua, that Exodus 18 occurred before the Revelation —except that he was explicit in excluding 18:27. The main difference is that Ramban had indicated that Jethro made two separate visits in Exodus 18 and Numbers 10, and Mendelssohn felt there was only one, in- tending Exodus 18:27 to be understood as occurring later after the con- versation recorded ir Numbers. Nevertheiess, although the fourth position expressed by Mendels- sohn in the Bi'ur of Exodus 18 may have been meant to be his last word, in the Bi'ur on Numbers 10:29 we find an important postscript.” There, the question of the names, Hovav, Jethro, and Re'u'el, and the rela- tionships to Moses are discussed more fully than in Exodus.. Whereas in Exodus it is generally assumed that Hovav and Jethro are the same Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 161. person, Moses! father-in-law, with Re'u'el being his father-in-law's father (cf. the Bi'ur on Exodus 2:18 in accordance with Rashi), the Bi'ur and translation of Numbers 10:29 introduce other possibilities: u DN LMP POND FENA Ja sap adv rll Zu seinem Schwiegervater (andere setzen: Schwager) Chobab, dem Sohne des Midjaniers Reuel, sprach Moscheh.... In parentheses Mendelssohn adds the thought, in the name of "others," that Hovav was not indeed Moses' father-in-law, but his bro- ther-in-law--hence, a different person altogether from Jethro. Ibn Ezra had tended to this position, as Mendelssohn noted in bracketed re- marks; his reference to "others" may include Johann David Michaelis also, who understood: At as meaning "Schwager" or "Frauen-Bruder, "29 Mendelssohn, in truth, appears to be more comfortable with this explana- tion himself. In addition he adds another twist in the Bi'ur. If not for the words of our scholars of blessed memory who said that Jethro had seven names, I would say that Re'u'el was the father of Zipporah and that she had two brothers, one of whom was named Jethro and the other Hovav. All three were called the "hotnim" of Moses, for all a man's relatives by marriage are*'called that, as ibn Ezra has written. Jethro a hoten of Moses came before the Giving of the Torah and returned io his own land on the morrow of his coming, and Hovav a boten of Moses also came to him and con- tinued to go with him. It was to this hoten that Moses said here "Go with us" [Num. 10:29]. There is no proof from his words "For you are familiar with our camping in the desert" [Nume 10:31] that Hovav was Jethro...according to the literal meaning of the text. Ferhaps Hovav also was familiar with their camping and paid attention to their needs. Accordinaly, most of the doubts befalling this matter are solved without any difficulty at all. (Italics mine) Here Mendelssohn adds the idea that Jethro left before Sinai also. He does not say so explicitly, but this explanation may have been especial- ly attractive tc him inasmuch as it enabled the complete unity of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 162. Exodus 18 to be preserved, for accordingly, even 18:27 need not have been interpreted as occurring after the Revelation. Jethro came for a visit and returned the next days and Hovav in Numbers 10 is a completely 47 different person. The next major critical preblem pertaining to literary structure is found in the Bi'ur of Exodus 24:1, where Mendelssohn attempts to fix the relationship of chapter 24 with the preceding chapters. The begin- ning of chapter 24 relates, in turn, a command of God for Moses to ascend the mountain (v. 1f.), Moses’ report to the people of "all the words and statutes of the Lord" and the people's acceptance (v. 3), Moses' writing down all the words of the Lord (v. 4), sacrificial of- ferings (v. 5f.), Moses! recital of "Sefer ha-berit" (v. 7), and his ascent (v. 9ff.). The position of this section is problematical inas- much as the text had never clearly stated that Moses descended from the mountain after the promulgation of the Ten Commandments; why, then, does God tell Moses to ascend in 24:1, if presumably he was still up there? Rashi, therefore, interprets 24:1-11 as occurring before the Pevalation. Accordingly, he interprets 24:4, 7, Moses writing down the words of the Lord and reciting the Sefer ha-berit, as referring to the text from Genesis to the Revelation, including the commandments given at Marah. 49 Mendelssohn, however, as we have seen, did not like to rearrange 49 sections in this way : and he followed the opinion of Ramban, Rashban, 7 and ibn Ezra that Exodus 24 occurred in the proper order. He accepts the interpretation of ibn Ezra, accepted also by Ramban, that in 24:1 God meants After Moses would have descended to teach the laws he should ascend again. Thus, the "words of the Lord" and the Sefer ha-berit Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 163. which Moses taught the people refer to the latest material.© The precise definition of the contents of the Sefer ha-berit is also problematical. inasmuch as Exodus 24:3f., 7 leave an ambiguity in the matter. Mendelssohn, nevertheless, followed the traditional view, as expressed by ibn Ezra, that it comprised the material from Exodus 20:19 through the end of chapter 23. Specifically, the Sefer ha-berit indicated in 24:4, 7 contained both " ^ 553 fo" and" eun fe" mentioned in 24:33 " Palin (> " refers to chapters 21—23 in "Mish- patim," and " 739m (> " indicates 20:19-23 as well. | Significantly, Mendelssohn may have been aware of the incipient trend among contemporary Bible critics to view the Sefer ha-berit as being a separate literary stratum exclusive of the Decalogue. Semler cites one lightfoot as the authority for this view, interestingly add- ing Rashi's view also: A libro illo foederis abfuisse decalogum, putat light- footus; aliter statuunt Iudaei qui a principio libri primi usque ad promulgationem legis et ad praecepta illa lla extendunt, quae data fuerunt in Marah. (Italics his) Spinoza, also, had described the Sefer ha-berit as extending from Exodus 20:22 to chapter 24, considering that section as one of the few extant pieces written by Moses.” Mendelssohn, on the other hand, wished to assert the close connection between the laws in "Mishpatim" end the Decalogue, as he affirms in his acceptance of the traditional inter- pretation of " PIGIA TE with vav at 21:1 (translation: "Dieses sind auch die Rechte"). Wherever afle is used, it cuts off the preceding section; eie rever 177 is used, it forms a continuation to the pre- ing section. Just as the preceding section [the Deca- | was from Sinai, so the subsequent section ["Mishpatim" ] Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. was from Sinai (Rashi, from the Mekhiita). The meaning is close to what ibn Ezra of blessed memory Wrote, that after the conclusion of the Decalogue God com- manded Meses to go down to the people and inform them of the rest of the commandments and statutes, and He said, "Thus say to the Children of Israel" (20:19). He began to warn him about idolatry and said he should enact e covenant with them upon his descent so that the Lord alone would be their God. As our Rabbis of blessed memory have written in Midrash Rabbah: "The entire Torah is dependent upon Law, Therefore, the Holy One Blessed Be He gave laws after the Decalogue.* At the end He repeated the warning about idolatry in the section "Behold I am sending an angel" (23:20), the nucleus of which says to extirpate the memory of idols and statues from the land of Canaan. He adopts a literary insight of ibn Ezra that both sections are unified around the theme of combatting idolatry. After the Ten Commend- ments, God enjoins the people in Exodus 20:19f. not to make idols of gold and silver; then, after the laws in "Mishpatim," Exodus 23:20ff. recapitulates the same idea—with one difference, as Mendelssohn says in a later quotation from ibn Ezra at 23:24: The second section adds the command to destroy, as well as not to worship, the false ode. Parenthetically, Mendelssohn underscores his own views on the centrality of the law in Judaism, as expressed in the Jerusalem; his quotation from Midrash Rabbah that the entire Torah is dependent on the Law is his own interpolation into what is otherwise a close paraphrase of Rashi and ibn Ezra, 6 Consistent with this emphasis is his rejection of Rashi's opinion that chapter 24:1-12 occurred before the Revelation and that the Sefer ha-berit comprised pre-Sinaitic material beginning with Genesis. Understanding the Sefer ha-berit as consisting largely of "Mishpatim, " Mendelssohn felt it was inextricably connected with the Decalogue as the basis of Judaism—the foundation of Judaism as law, not creedal principles. In addition to the interpretation of the vav Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 165. in "aflei," as the middle link between the Decalogue and "Mishpatim," in which he did follow Rashi, he conceptualized Exodus 24:1-12, the ratification ceremony on the part of Moses and the nation, unlike Rashi, as a form of unifying conclusion to both. The next major problem is the relationship between Leviticus 8—10, dealing with the consecration of Aaron and his sons, and Exodus 40, dealing with the completion of the Sanctuary, as well as the intervening sections on the sacrifices. As Eichhorn also was avare, some of the in- formation related in Leviticus had been related more briefly earlier in the different context of Exodus 40,7! Hinging on this problem is a much larger issue, the relationship between Leviticus and Exodus as a whole, indeed the relationship between Leviticus and all the other books of the Pentateuchs and Eichhorn, alluding to the mention of Aaron and sons in 40:12-15 and 31f prime recipient of God's command, whereas in Leviticus Aaron and his sons occupy center stage, states explicitly that Leviticus consisted of a different type of material, being a "Priestercodex," the contents of which were not as familiar to the nation as a whole as to the tribe of levi. s The theory of an arcane, specialized priestly code was undoubtedly known to the Bi'urists; and Wessely, in the Bitur on Leviticus 7:29 ave ee (these are the sacrificial laws "which God commanded Moses at Mount Sinai") may intend implicit rejection of it in his statement that the sacrificial accounts in Leviticus 1—7, like the laws in other books, were taught directly by Moses to Israel: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 166. When [God] commanded to make the sacrifices in the Sinai desert before the Tent of Meeting was erected, He informed Moses through prophecy of the laws of sacrifices and Moses taught the people the procedure of worship for that time. He had not yet commanded him to tell Israel the procedure of worship for future generations. But when the Tabernacle was erected, the laws were repeated in the Tent of Meeting and [God] arranged the accounts which he should tell Israel and write in the Torah. By then they already knew Aaron and his sons vere to be in charge of the worship. All the sections from the beginning of Leviticus until here [chs. 1-7] were related to him in order and he then taught them to Israel. This is the literal meaning of the text. And so, all the commandments were told to Moses at Mount Sinai, as [God] said: "Ascend the mountain to me, and I shall give you the stone tablets, the Torah, and the command- ments which I have written to instruct you" (Ex. 24:12). In the Tent of Meeting He taught them to him a second time in that language in which he should tell them to Israel and write them in the Torah. Here the centrality of Moses even in matters of priestly expertise is stressed. A few other examples with this emphasis are worth considering at nma ma tum tn a dota Dh vw. Add v w u Win question. The most important is Leviticus 1:1 where Wessely explains that the use of " [fic Yin" pic ^ 529] DIN bk kpl" is meant specifically to exclude Aaron: Our scholars have said it excludes Aaron.” There are thirteen divine utterances in the Torah to both Moses and Aaron, and in contradistinction there are thirteen which ex- clude Aaron. There are this many [of the latter] because one of the main principles of the Torah is "No other prophet arose in Israel like Moses," etc. [Deut. 34:10]. He is differenti- ated from all the other prophets in that he received the Torah through prophecy; and it is not in the power of any other prophet to receive this great light in his prophecy. This is what is meant by "And God knew him face to face."... It was necessary to establish the thirteen exclusions [of Aaron] that we not be led to assume that the thirteen |inclu- sions] mean Aaron was considered equal to Moses in the light of prophecy. The Bitur on Leviticus 10:8, thirdly, is more striking, for there Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 167. Wessely takes a liberty with the text and contradicts the primary opinion of ibn Ezra, the only commentator to explain this sentence: And God spoke to Aaron as follows—To Moses that he should speak to Aaron, as we have explained (1:1); the utterance was singled out for Aaron as a mark of respect. Ibn Ezra explained: "to Aaron—because he was a prophet," and this is not correct, because even though he was a prophet, he was not a Torah prophet. The main thing is as according to his second explanations "Through Moses, like ‘He spoke to Ahaz [through Isaiah].'"6O These examples provide evidence as to what the Bi*'urists might have thought about the "Priestercodex" theory. In affirming the divine promulgation via Moses of the priestly texts, they can be understood as establishing the integrality of that material in the Pentateuch, and in particular the unity of Leviticus with the preceding and succeeding books. This stress is particularly noteworthy in light of the eight- eenth-century fashion to consider Leviticus as being more primitive as exnressed, for example, in the opinion of Semler that the mass of ceremonies therein, perhaps having originated in Egypt and elsewhere, suited a backward populace and could not embody a true worship of Goa. According to the Bi'ur, on the other hand, the laws in Leviticus originated from Sinai, just as did the rest of the Pentateuch. The detailed discussion in the Bitur, attempting to assert the complete harmony between Leviticus 8—10 and Exodus 40 focuses on the relationship between Exodus 40:34f. and Leviticus 9:23, both of which mention a show of God's favor (Ex. 40:34f.3 "A cloud covered the Tent of Meeting and Glory of God filled the Tabernacle"; Lev. 9:23: “The Glory of God appeared to the whole people"). According to Ramban, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 168. quoted by Mendelssohn in the Bi'ur of 40:35, the two descriptions of the Glory of God filling the Tabernacle refer to the same event.62 The ramifications of this statement are broad; for if so, the consecration of Aaron and his sons completed on the "eighth day" (Lev. 9:1) and the erecting of the Tabernacle on the first day of the first month of the second year (Exodus 40:1, 17) coincided. Thus, the first day of the con- secration occurred on the twenty-third day of Adar, and Leviticus 1—8 (the narration of the sacrifices, and the first days of the consecration) occurred before Exodus 40. Rashi, quoted in the Bitur at Leviticus 8:2, in holding this view, explained that "there is no necessary chronological order in the Torah,"?? In this case, Mendelssohn equivocates briefly on the basis of Ramban, He does quote a brief Midrashic statement agreeing with Rashi's opinion, but he also states the position that Leviticus 1—8 might rep- resent a more detailed account of Exodus 40 and hence not be chrono- logically anterior to it; Probably...all the sections from the beginning of Leviti- cus until " ‘Jen P/'a'2' " [9:1] were uttered to Moses from the Tabernacle on the first day of the consecration. The cloud had not yet covered the Tabernacle....|Moses] com pleted all the work, and then the cloud covered the Taber- nacle....Afterwards [the text] returned to the beginning of the utterance to Moses from the Tabernacle, stating " kj"! DIN fk." All this is in the right order, in the manner of the text to finish a matter it had begun, and then to return to the hans nni no 34e WORE O Wessely, on the other hand, in the Bi'ur on Leviticus 9:1, takes a clearer stand in disagreement with both positions, stating that the divine appearances mentioned were two completely separate occurrences.°> The first, he felt, involved Moses alone on the first of Nisan when the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 169. Tabernacle was completed. Then when the cloud had lifted, Moses en- tered, heard from God the sacrificial laws, and began conducting the consecration of Aaron and his sons. On the eighth day of the con- secration God appeared again. Thus, the “eighth day" was the eighth of Nisan—and the text can be understood in its pzoper order. The discussions in the Bi'ur of Exodus and Leviticus are complex and divergent „66 Nevertheless, they are both predicated on the simple assunption that there is an organic connection between the two books. Also, they both reflect a reluctance—Mendelssohn's obliqueness not- withstanding—to rearrange large sections of the text in a different chronological order, Towards the end of Leviticus, another structural problem is pre- sented by the introduction to "Be-Har" (25:1) that God spoke the sub- sequent text to Moses on Mount Sinai. Wessely quotes Rashbam's brief comment "before the Tent of Meeting was erected," but he omits refer- ence to ibn Ezra's mere trenchant statement that "there is no necessary chronological order in the Torah" and that the portion "Be-Har" should be understood as belonging before the portion "Va-Yiqra," which God addressed to Moses from the Tent of Meeting, (The existing order, ac- cording to ibn Ezra, is the result of a conscious juxtaposition of "Be-Har" and "Be-Huqqotal," emphasizing that observance o yovel on the part of the Israelites, as described in "Be-Har," was one of God's main conditions for their future well-being, as described in the blessings and curses of "Be-Huggotai .")67 Wessely does not contradict Rashbam here; and Mendelssohn, also, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 170. as reflected in his use of the pluperfect in his translation, appears to have tended to the opinion that "Be-Har" had indeed been promulgated before the erection of the Tent of Meeting: OAKS yo 222 DW be 9 aa Der Ewige hatte zu Moscheh auf dem Berge Sinai gesprochen, wie folgt, But Wessely and Mendelssohn did not necessarily agree with ibn Ezra; for in this case, the Bi'ur utilizes the well-known Rabbinic explana- tion in Torat Kohanim, also brought by Rashi— Just as Shemittah with its general rules and minute details was ordained on Mount Sinai, so aiso were all commandments with their general rules and minute details ordained on Mount Sinaiĝ8— to the effect that this portion with its unique introduction should not necessarily be considered as prior to the other portions of Leviticus, but rather as exemplifying a property common to all those portions and others as well. All originated equally from Sinai. Leviticus, in fact, is considered altogether as one huge perat of the preceding book, as is reflected in the Bi'ur and translation of 26:46, which we have already examined in our previous chapter. P4 ? |n] ade _niripnl PORU prn» atk DAN PIP O IIP deo Ya P yr Dieses sind die Gesetze, Rechte, und Lehren, die der Ewige auf dem Berge Sinai, durch Moscheh gegeben: als einen Bund zwischen ihm und den Kindern Jisraels. Here Wessely explicitly states that this statement comprises the entire book of Leviticus up to 26:46, and he indicates that it all be con- sidered as part of the covenant mentioned in Exodus 24 (including, pre- sumably, chapter 27, which has its own close at v. 343 cf. Bi'ur ad Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 171. * . 69 [3 . ioċ)o We have already noted in our previous chapter that Wessely may have been specifically attempting to explain Mendelssohn's addition of the phrase "als einen Bund" in the German translation. 0 We did not note, however, that he differs in important respects from ibn Ezra and Rashi. Ibn Ezra felt the sentence comprises only the laws in "Jethro," "Mishpatim," and "Be-Har," consistent with his opinion at 2511,71 Rashi, focusing on the word A0 Jn " in the plural, felt the sentence refers to both the written and the oral Torot. Wessely, however, specifies that only Leviticus is included, explaining that IN" refers only to sections in that book, such as the laws pertaining to sacrifices and leprosy, classified by the word "pri" (e.q., 6:2, 75 - 14:2.) /? We noted earlier in this chapter that Numbers contains structural complexities of which Mendelssohn probably was aware, but that the 72 Bi'ur on Numbers does not comment on them. | Secondary questions about individual sections, such as the fragment from Sefer Milhamot Adonai, mei ones will be analyzed in other contexts, and we now turn to Deuteronomy, which, in the very first sentence of the Bi'ur, is indicated by Men- deissohn/4 to be tightly connected with the preceding books: Ihese are the words—This probably refers to the preceding books, for all the sayings of God are hooked and fastened together at the beginning, middle, and end.... Interestingly, both ibn Ezra and Ramban, the only ones to comment on the words " pinarn sd " specifically, interpreted them as referring to subsequent sections in Deuteronomy. According to ibn Ezra, they refer to the portions "Hef'eh," "Shoftim," "Ki Tese," and "Ki Tavo"; according to Ramban, they refer to the commandments of the whole book Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 172. starting with the Decalogue in "Va-Eshanan." Logically, there is not much difference between the position of the Bitur and that of ibn Ezra and Ramban; since Deuteronomy is a review of the preceding books, it matters little whether "these" refers to the text of the review or the preceding text reviewed. Nevertheless, the Bi'ur's explanation is noteworthy, especially insofar as it differs from the classical ones, in that it reflects the stress on an inherent connection between Deu- teronomy and the preceding books. Perhaps it is a case of "protesting too much," in view of the eighteenth-century questioning of the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy in particular. Eichhorn, for example, devotes a whole section to the authorship of Deuteronomy alone, in contrast with a section on the au- thorship of Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers taken together. © Though Eichhorn accepted Mosaic authorship basically, Semler, on the contrary, appears to be drawn to the unorthodox opinions, derived from Nicholas de Lyra, which he cites: Lyranus autem iam suo tempore narrat: sciendum, quod aliqui dixerunt, quod Moses non scripsit hunc librum; sed tantum protulit verba vel sententiam, quae Josua et alii senes memoriter retinentes in hunc librum conscripserunt, post mortem Mosis. Alii dicunt, quod Esdras scripsit prin- cipium et finem huius libri, addendo verbis Mosis, etc. Refutat Lyranus hanc sententiam et omnia ad Mosen refert scriptorem, praeter caput ultimum, Nos ea de caussa non putamus studiosius porro disputandum esses utatur, fruatur unus quisque suo arbitrandi iure, modo communem hominum 25 felicitatem et dei verum honorem melius adiuvari contingat.‘’ (Italics his) By emphasizing the complete unity of Deuteronomy with the preceding, Mendelssohn may well be attempting to preclude such a theory that Joshua and the elders wrote Deuteronomy after Moses’ death or that Ezra Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 173. added a beginning and an end to a Mosaic nucleus. 3. The Iwo Versions of the Decaloque The relationship of the Deuteronomy version of the Decalogue to that of Exodus is our next subject for study. Mendelssohn systen- atically explained the differences in detail between the two in the Bi'ur on Deuteronomy, as he had anticipated would be done when he wrote the Bi'ur on Exodus. © Significantiy, he rejected the explanation that the changes in Deuteronomy stemmed from Moses, as opposed to God. Eich- horn, ironically, focusing on the similarities between the versions as a proof of Mosaic authorship, commented that changes are likely to oc- cur, when a writer recapitulates material from memory, ^ Michaelis praised Moses for varying the language: If he had not, the Deuteronomy version would have been objectionable to the listeners, like a speech merely memorized or read.” Whether Mendelssohn was reacting to these scholars or not cannot be proved; a stronger case can, however, be pre- sented that Mendelssohn wished to disassociate himself from the view of ibn Ezra, who wrote in his lengthy introduction to Exodus 20: The Ten Commandments written in this portion ["Jethro" ] are the words of God without any addition or subtraction. They alone are written on the tablets of the covenant—not as the Gaon said that "zakhor" is on one tablet and "shamor" on the second. The Ten Commandments written in the portion of "Va-Eshanan" are the words of Moses.° In his epilogue following the Bi'ur on Exodus 20:14, Mendelssohn paraphrases Ramban and ibn Ezra at length on the Ten Commandments as a whole and their relationship with each other.® After acknowledging Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 174. his indebtedness, however, he proceeds to record thoughts which appear to be a direct rebuttal to other parts of ibn Ezra's introduction, most specifically the above example in which Moses is said to have written the Decalogue version in Deuteronomy. According to Rabbi Yanina ben Gamliel there were probably two stone tablets because one was especially for commandments between man and God [the first five] and the second, for com- mandments between man and his fellow man [the second five], as we have said. But according to the system of the scholars who said there were ten [Consandinents | on one tablet and ten on the other, it is to be wondered why, if so, there were double tablets. Apparently they were of the opinion that the first set of Commandments was written on one tablet and the later set in Deuteronomy on the second, because there are many differences and changes in the sentences and words. [Therefore, each set requires a separate tablet.] Both were promulgated by God, as our Rabbis of blessed memory have said: "Zakhor" and "shamor" were said in one utterance, what the [human] mouth cannot say and the [human] ear cannot hear. Ibn Ezra had interpreted the Rabbinic statement more figuratively: When we searched for what has been said about these things in ehant of She schol onc Gi. hlesced mamony wS found that they said "*zakhor' and 'shamor' were said in one utterance," This matter is harder than any of the difficul- ties we have had, as I shall explain, but far be it, far be it for me to say that they have not spoken correctly, for our opinion carries less weight than theirs. It is just that people of our times think that their words are to be taken literally, and it is not so.... It is a matter much to be wondered at that God said "zakhor" and "shamor" at the same times; [if so] it would have been more fitting for this, than for all the signs and mir- acles described, to have been written and explained in the Torah. If we say God's speech is not like the speech of any human being, how then could Israel have understood God's speech? For if a human hears "zakhor" and "shamor" at the same time, he understands neither this nor that, not even one word. In the case of "zakhor," if a human does not hear the zayin before the khaf and the resh, he cannot understand what the speaker is talking about....The whole letter zayin enters the ear before the khaf vav resh- If we say it was a wonder that "zakhor" and "shamor" were said at the same time, how could the ear hear them, If we say Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 175. also it was a wonder that the ear heard two words at the same time as is not customary in the case of two letters, why did the scholars of blessed memory not mention that this was greater than [God's] speaking [two words] at the same time. (Italics mine) As for the evidence according to which we feel Mendelssohn was re- acting directly to ibn Ezra herein, first of all, his stress on “what the mouth cannot say and the ear cannot hear" appears to be a reaction against ibn Ezra's scepticism about two separate aspects of the miracle, the people's hearing as well as the divine utterance. Secondly, in the Bitur on Deuteronomy, on the fifth and tenth Commandments, he re- flects a reaction against ibn Ezra, as we shall see below; and it is not improbable, therefore, that he does so here also. Thirdly, the clesing words of his lengthy treatment in Exodus are very unusual, especially in view of the fact that he was sensitive about the special importance of beginnings and ends, 9» Referring again to ibn Ezra, he states: Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra in mentioning in detail the differ- ences between the first and later Commandments made a big mistake, for he mentioned that in the first version " | Alu 1986 * is written before " )0)AD JOR," and that in the second "J95)ADn) )9)Q" is written before " [Wk /9A/," and it is not so, because in the second also it is written " J5]ND) MR pplicl 134] ."86 It is much to be wondered at how this stumbling block left the hand of that rabbi, who was very fearful of the word of God. One is struck by the relative vehemence of this criticism, such as is not found elsewhere in the Bi*ur, as well as by the prominence given it at the very close of Mendelssohn's epilogue, for it could have been tucked into the commentary on the verse itself. Is it not plausible that Mendelssohn had far more in mind than ibn Ezra's comparison of the versions of the tenth Commandment? Indeed, it appears that Mendelssohn Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 376. may be indirectly revealing animus against ibn Ezra's theory on the broader subject under discussion, the composition of the Decalogue in Deutercnomy. We venture to suggest, furthermore, that Mendelssohn may have even parodied ibn Ezra's language, perhaps unconsciously, in his criticism of ibn Ezra with the latter's own expressions: "And it is not SOceeeeand it is much to be wondered at...."87 Mendelssohn's views on the Commandments had been expressed earlier in the introduction to his commentary on Koheleth, where he stated that changes did not occur haphazardly in the divine accounts, for the Higher Intelligence does not bring about anything without any purpose. Accord- ingly, variations in the Decalogue versions were not for the sake of the beauty or sweetness of the language, but for amplification of mean- ing. Ibn Ezra is quoted there also, incidentally, to the effect that scriptural recounts of similar material "retain the meaning but change the words"; however, Mendelssohn goes beyond ibn Ezra in implying that ibn Ezra restricted himself too much to the peshat!®® The Bi'ur on Deuteronomy elucidates the main variations, For example, "zakhor" and "shamor" are explained on the basis of the Rab- binic statement: "Remember, with the mouths and observe, with the heart," "Zakhor," thus, entails the positive duties of sanctifying the Sabbath orally in joining with loved ones to recite the mighty deeds and wonders of the Creator, such as in the Kiddush. "Shamor," on the other hand, entails rest and the refraining from works and it is, then, explainable, on the basis of this context, that the Decalogue of Deuter- onomy adds the clause, not found in that of Exodus, "that your man- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 177. servant and maid-servant may rest like you, "8? The explanation in the Bi'ur is consistent, also, with another Rabbinic interpretation: that "zakhor" is a positive commandment and "shamor," a negative one. Men- delssohn, in fact, in his epilogue on Exodus, cites this—having derived it, apparently, directly from Ramban—as well as "Remember, with the mouths and observe, with the heart "90 Ibn Ezra, in his discussion of "zakhor" and "shamor," implied that the Decalogue in Deuteronomy was a later version than the one in Exodus. He is much more explicit about this, furthermore, in his treatment of the differing reasons for Sabbath observance in Deuteronomy 5:15 ("Re- member that you were a slave in the land of Egypt") and Exodus 20:11 ("For God created the heaven and the earth in six days...and rested on the seventh day"): The purpose of the "remembering" is the "observing," and ahenn sao care Uooknor' Sl che listeners ündersusod thar es at the same time. Moses did not have to mention the second time the reason that "God created in six days," for he said zight away [Deut. 5:12] "As the Lord your God has commanded you," just as if he said: "As it is written in your Torah from *Zakhor' to "And he sanctified it!" [Ex. 20:8-11]. Since God commanded that the man-servant and maid-servant rest and He did not explain why, Moses explained the reason saying "God's command that the man-servanc and maid-servant rest is so that you remember that you were a slave likewise in Egypt and that God redeemed you."?l (Italics mine) The Bi'ur. on the other hand, explains each reason for Sabbath obser- vence as being perfectly integrated in its own special contexts Deut- eronomy, which tends to the idea of rest and refraining from work, thus gives as the reason remembering that you were a slaves Exodus, which stresses "elevation of the soul towards God in holy investigations and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 178, divine accounts," states that God created the heaven and earth in six days and rested on the seventh, and therefore sanctified the Sabbath more than the other days of the week. It is to be for purity of the heart and dedication of the mind to think about the wonders of Creation, to recognize the mighty and awesome deeds of God, and to tell of His Honor and Greatness in choirs.92 In the case of the fifth Commandment to honor parents, the Bi'ur, surprisingiy, explaining the addition in Deuteronomy 5312 of the clause "as the Lord your God has commanded you," paraphrases ibn Ezra without acknowledgment: Even though it is a rational obligation for a human being to honor his father and mother, you honor your father and mother as God has commanded you, in order that you may receive additional benefit and reward from this,?? Its comment that the addition of "that it may be good for you" in Deu- teronomy is an explanation of "that your davs may be prolonged" in the first version sounds surprisingly like ibn Ezra, and unlike Mendelssohn; it too, in fact, may have been derived from ibn Ezra, from his comment- ary on Deuteronomy, or from Ramban there. Nevertheless, ibn Ezra specified, in Exodus, that it was Moses who was responsible for both additions?” and the Bitur, significantly, did not repeat that idea. In the case of the difference between the versions of the ninth Commandment (Exodus 20:13: "99€ 3f": Deuteronomy 5:17: " kil 96"), the Bi'ur does acknowledge its indebtedness—to Ramban. The words mean the same, it says, except that "kil" is somewhat broader, including all 96 false testimony, such as that which would not even stand up ir court. Likewise, for the different order in the last Commandment (Exodus Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 179. 20:14—" "d Jk Irap ks PIA 3 NDA kf "s Deuteronomy 518—" p? pa sie p (cb PO IMN kI"), the Bitur acknowledges indebtedness to both Ramban and ibn Ezra: [The text] adds an explanation, having "woman" precede "house," because man's instinct is bad from his youth, towards woman more than anything else (Ramban). It is the way of young men to love woman before they covet possessions (from ibn Ezra in "Jethro"). The usage "adds an explanation," again, sounds out of place; but it is significant nevertheless that the Bi'ur truncates ibn Ezra's wording, again omitting the idea that Moses was responsible for the arrangement of the Commandments in Deuteronomy.” The Biur turns next to the Sefer Ha-Misvot of Maimonides and the BI UT Tr m EA Mekhilta, in turn, for an explanation of "ak np kf " in Deuteronomy and the difference between that and " 94A) «f found in both versions. Ac- cording to both, "Iynp if" is understood as the perpetration of a deed to gain possession of the coveted object; "niknp d," on the other hand, is more a matter of desire in the heart, but it is nonetheless forbidden because it may lead to the more serious "DAN" and thence to 8 more forceful ries. Since the Bi'ur quotes the Sefer Ha-Misvot only rarely, relying throughout on the four major commentators for the most part, one is led to suspect that the section under discussion is the product of a special investigation. Indeed, a close scrutiny of the commentaries in Deuteronomy reveals that the interpretation in the Bi'ur can be better understood as a conscious reaction, supported by the invocation of a special authority, against the corresponding closing section of ibn Ezra in Deuteronomy: In this book which is an explanation of the Torah Moses Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 190, said " aikpp kf" instead of " ANPP." Many have said there is no sin in the thoughts of the heart, nor do they entail reward and punishment. But there are many proofs with which to reply to them and I shall not expatiate, but just quote: "The heart devises sinful thoughts"; “You did well as to what was in your heart"; "To the upright in their hearts"; and Moses said at the end, "In your mouth and heart for you to do it." The main principle of all the commandments is to make the heart upright. Most of them have been mentioned. The difference in punishment received by the premeditative sinner and the unintentional sinner is [also] proof against them. Unlike ibn Ezra, however, Mendelssohn did not acknowledge such a thing in Judaism as a sin of thought or of the heart, believing that Judaism was based on deeds and that sins had to be errors of commission, as he states in the Jerusalem in the context of a discussion about faith versus action: Among the precepts and ordinances of the Mosaic law, there is none saying, "You shall believe or you shall not believe." All say, "You shall do" or "You shall not do." You are not commanded to believe, for faith accepts no commands; it ac- cepts only what comes to it by reasoned conviction. All com- mandments of the divine law are addressed to man*s wili, io his capacity to act, 100 His interpretation of the tenth Commandment is consistent with this view, understanding the sins of desiring and coveting as involving eventual action. 4. Hashlamot and Haqdamot: Conclusions and Introductions Wiih this, we have completed our analysis of larger problems of Pentateuchal structure examined in the Bitur3 and now we direct our attention to the relationships between smaller units (semikhut ha- parshiyot). As a preliminary to the study of these relationships, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 181. however, we shall first demonstrate the sensitivity of the Bi'ur in the treatment of the conclusions and introductions of narratives, hashlamot and hagdamot. We have already seen two examples of hashlamot: in Exodus 18, where Mendelssohn suggests, in accord with Rashi, that the second half of the chapter may have been inserted earlier than where it belonged, so that the whole story would be completed without interruptions; and in Exodus 40, where he states, in accord with Ramban, that the text may have mentioned the appearance of the divine cloud before Leviticus 1—8 "in order to finish a matter it had begun, "101 Though in those particu- lar cases this interpretation was not sustained, as we saw, it finds more successful application elsewhere, mostly at the hands of Solomon Dubno 10? For instance, Dubno, on the basis of Ramban, explains that Genesis chapter ll purposefully closes with the death of Abraham's father Terah, even though Terah continued to live during the unfolding of a part of his son's life as told in subsequent chapters. Abraham is said in Genesis 12:4 to have been 75 years old; and thus Terah, who had sired him at age 70 (11:26), was t'en only 145. The statement at Gen- esis 11:32 that Terah died at age 205, therefore, is not in the proper chronological order, as ibn Ezra stated. As Ramban explained, however, it is a matter of literary style: It is the custom throughout the text to relate the life of a father, his siring ofa son, and his death; and then [the text] begins with the son. This may have served as an answer, as well, to Eichhorn's contention that Genesis 11 stemmed from a different source than Genesis jo to^ The same literary principle from Ramban is cited to explain the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 182. reference to Isaac's death in its location at 35:29, Rashi had cal- culated that this occurred twelve years after the selling of Joseph, related in chapter 37. His chronclogy is accepted by Ramban and the Bi'ur, but not his explanation that there is no necessary chronological order in the Torah, On the basis of Ramban, also, Dubno interprets Genesis 22:19, concluding the story of the 'agedah ("They went together to Beersheba, and Abraham settled in Beersheba") as a hashlamah, thus reconciling that statement with the statement in 23:2 that Sarah died at Hebron. Accordingly, it should be understood as extending well be- yond the events of chapter 23 in time, for it is the accustomed procedure throughout the Torah to complete one whole matter and then to begin another matter which precedes the end of the former, Dubno explains further that this statement can also be understood as a kelal. The text informs us Abraham went to settle in Be'er Sheva, and 23:2 is but a perat of that journey: On the way home he had to stop at Hebron to mourn the death of his wi £e, 109 Eichhorn, on the other hand, felt that the discrepancy stemmed from different Mur Other examples reflecting literary sensitivity to the force of concluding statements are neither as explicit nor as incisive. For in- stance, Nunbers 21:3 relating God's delivery of Canaanite cities to the Israelites—after He rendered them as herem, hence their name Hormah-—~ is considered in a similar manner as the preceding examples, except that the section in this case (21:1-3) is much shorter. The Bi'ur quotes Ramban at great length to the effect that 21:3 actually occurred long after the death of Moses: The king of Arad heard of the Israelites' coming (v. 1) and crossed to the eastern side of the Jordan in an attempt Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 183, to head them off; the Israelites thereupon vowed to dedicate his ter- ritory—on the western side of the Jordan—to God (v. 2); and this was accomplished by their descendents (v. 3—the text, thus, purposefully omits " aaa after " NLI SH) Ak m "). V. 3 is also related in its proper place at Judges 1:16f., but the text wished to complete the earlier account with a mention of the final outcome. Nevertheless, after the Bi'ur's long quotation from Ramban, it tersely comments that the opinion of ibn Ezra that Numbers 21:3 and Judges 1:16f. refer to different places was more correct. Thus, Hormah in Numbers 21:3 was on the eastern side of the Jordan and its conquest occurred in chronological order. Hormah in Judges 1:16f. was in the territory of the king of Arad, on the western side of the Jordans; and it was conquered at the later Nana Sa ha 4$ Used vU 110. o - - [ec] composed by Solomon Dubno, and Ramban is seen to be the major influence in this regard. Likewise, Dubno is the Bi’urist most responsible for the indication of hagdamot—a more original contribution. In the Bi'ur of Genesis 23:10, explaining the identification for the first time of Ephron the Hittite, he gives his most complete analysis of the technique: I have already written in the introduction [no longer ex- tant] that the stories of the Torah employ two methods: one is that in the narration of some central matter, the text may mention in passing something which is not, in fact, central to that story, but which is an introduction to a story which will foilow further on in the Torah. Sometimes that second story will be close to the introduction in its section, as in the case of "And the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and Ham was the father of Canaan" (Gen. 9:18). The text did not mention the name[s] of the sons of Shem and Japheth, nor even of the rest of the sons of Ham. It mentioned Canaan only because of the following story in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 184, which Canaan was cursed because of his father Ham. Sometimes that second story will be far from it [the introduction]. The second method pertains where Moses had not found a place to tell of the matter earlier, in which case he relates that introduction after the beginning of the story, as I have written in the portion"Be-Ha'alotekha'in the sentence "Moses and Aaron spoke, etc., because he took a Cushite woman" (Num- bers 12:1). This matter here is according to the second method. The two examples of the secona method mentioned here are the only such examples in all of the Bi'ur; accordingly, the clauses in Genesis 23:10 that Ephron used to sit amongst the sons of Heth and in Numbers 12:1 that Moses had married a Cushite woman are explanatory remarks in- troducing the new material, which provide a smooth transition from the preceding material. There are several examples of the two types of the first method, in which the introduction precedes the account, at a lesser or greater dis- tance. Genesis 9:18 relating that Ham was the father of Canaan is Dubno's favorite example and is quoted several times in the Bi'ur, 108 Rather than view the statement as a fragment which is deficient in not supplying the fuller genealogy, Dubno considers it as being a concise preliminary to Genesis 9:19-27, in which Ham and Canaan are the main actors. Likewise, the mention in Genesis 39:6 that Joseph was handsome is a preliminary to the account of the attempted seduction of him by Potiphar's wife (39:7-20); and mention in Genesis 39:20 that he was imprisoned together with the royal prisoners anticipates the account of his fortuitous meeting with Pharaoh's butler and baker (ch. 40). Other statements are explained as introductions further removed from the main accounts. Genesis 13:13 about the evil of the men of Sodom precedes the account of the destruction (19:23-29) by six chapters, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 185. Mention of the birth of Rivkah at 22:23 is meant to prepare the reader for the mission eastward in chapter 243 and the stress in 25:20 that Rivkah was the sister of Laban anticipates the future unfolding of the story beginning in chapter 27 (27 :42—32:1) . 9? Likewise, in a brack- eted note at Exodus 2:22, Dubno explains that the text mentions only the birth of Moses' son Gershom, not Eliezer, because it intends the sentence to be an introduction to 4:24-26. He adopts the interpreta- tion of Jonathan ben Uzziel that it was Gershom whom Zipporah circum- cised (4:25) after God had sought to kill him. This explanation is an attempt to preclude a serious critical problem—the omission of any reference to Eliezer, though the text in 4:20 refers to Moses! "sons." Although in this case Dubno is unconvincing, in the other examples he succeeds in conveying a sense of the artistic craftsmanship embodied in the composition of the Pentateuch. 5. Semikhut ha-Parshiyot: The Juxtaposition of Sections The elucidation of the logic behind semikhut ha-parshiyot serves the same purpose. We have already touched upon this topic at the be- ginning of this chapter, as well as in our previous chapter! i5; but now we are ready to illustrate it more fully, proceeding, generally, in the order of the text. Chapter 15 in Genesis relating Abraham's covenant with God is shown to follow closely upon the events of the preceding chapter, which des- cribes his war against the five kings and his rescue of ist. Thus, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 186. God's reassurance tc him in 15:2 ("I am a shield for you; your reward is very great") should be understood, in accord with ibn Ezra, as re- ferring to these two things: I have saved you from the kings, and your reward is great for relying on Me in carrying out the rescue of your nephew, In relation to this explanation, the Bi’ur, in analysis of the phrase " ndkn PRIA We" in 15:1, utilizes the principle from Gen- esis Rabbah that "nk" means "immediately after," whereas " /9 pk" means "a long time after,"112 Mendelssohn, correspondingly, rendered the phrases to the same effect in the German translation: Nicht lange hernach ward dem Abram in einem Gesichte das Wort des Ewigen also. vot It is interesting that Eichhorn had expressed the exact opposite thought about the relationship between chapters 14 and 15, considering chapter 14 an "Einschaltung," which did not connect at all with chapter 15, a J source ("mit dem fünfzehnten Kapitel knüpft es gar nichts"). Chapter 14, he felt, stemmed from a much more ancient source, as is reflected by the unusual name for God in v. 19 and the ancient place names, with clarification by Moses, in vv. 2, 3, 7, 8, and 17,114 Dubno explains the same introductory phrase at Genesis 22:1 (" eco PAR? jh mi") as signifying that the chapter is "joined to the preceding section"; and he quotes Rashbam's interpretation that God brought tne trial of the 'agedah upon Abraham, Sao T ponnoting an "ordeal," as a punishment for his treaty with the — Avimelekh, related in chapter aio In this case, however, Mendelssohn's trans- lation is more literal ("Es war nach diesen Begebenheiten, als Gott Abraham versuchte...."); and Mendelssohn, in accordance with his Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 187. different understanding of " "Hé may have disagreed with Rashbam that chapter 22 was a logical consequence of chapter 21. A consequential relationship is clarified by Dubno, on the basis of Ramban, between Genesis 18 describing the angels' promise to Abraham of the birth of a son, and between the preceding chapter relating Abraham's circumcision. In the Bi'ur of 17:4 (" Pt PR 2]? ke p Je [tap pief Sa) "), he explains that the "covenant" referred specifically to the circumcision, after which Abraham would become a "father of a multitude of peoples" and that God ordained that the circumcision precede Sarah's conceiving, for the sake of the sanctity of Abraham's seed, 17 Though this explanation is taken from Ramban without acknowledgment, in 18:1 Dubno gives Ramban due credit, quoting his opinion that, despite the beginning of a new portion at that point, chapter 18 is "joined to the portion before it."ll9 Dubno adds that Mendelssohn understood 18:1 as a kelal previewing the subject of the 119 whole chapter, and his statement introduced by "doh" suggests that Mendelssohn differed from Ramban's view that 18:1 was based on the pre- cedinge In truth, however, Mendelssohn understood 18:1 in both ways, as can be seen in the addition of "ferner" as well as "nämlich" in the German translation of 18:1 and 18:2, respectively: (cond liem 9 Mie kan e!» Pp» foka npe AU Ku») ee PE Pas] Pye NR DJA) (rl LJE kel Der Ewige erschien ihm ferner, in dem Haine das Mamre. Er sass eben in dem Eingange des Zeltes, als der Tag sehr heis: wär, Er hub nämlich seine Augen auf, und sahe: da stunden drei Männer nicht weit von ihmeoo. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 188. Eichhorn, on the other hand, understood a break between the chapters, Classifying chapter 17 as an E source and 18:1—19:28 as a J source, as characterized briefly by the use of the different divine names in each section, 17? The connection between the enumeration of Jacob's sons at Genesis 35:22b-26 and the preceding section which concluded with the mention of Reuben's misdeed with his father's concubine Bilhah presented a serious critical problem, especially in the matter of the transition within v. 22. Michaelis expressly understood a lacuna in that sentence, which he went so far as to indicate by a visual symbol in his German translation (----). In his notes he explains that the text might have described an outspoken curse against Reuben, the pregnancy of Bilhah, or any of ten or so other unmentionable things—which was later deleteg, 1?! Eichhorn considered all of chapter 35 an E source, but he nonetheless also felt that vv. 22-26 were out of place, I^^ Mendelssohn, who did not counten- ance such theories, was hard-pressed to render the proper connection, as reflected in his curious addition of "aber" in v. 22: loan Pla for joco m PAR u merk motu [Alles pa Ü 7 e p 2 t5 P/J& aps! yr pr] Als Jisrael noch in dem Lande wohnte, da ging Reuben hin, beschlief die Bilhah, seines Vaters Kebsweibs und Jisrael erfuhr es. Es hatte aber Jakob zwölf Söhne. Apparentiy, the adversetive in the translation is based on the interpre- tation of Ramban, quoted by Dubno, that the text stresses Jacob's humil- ity: Though he was dishonored by Reuben, he did not disinherit him, but Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 189. en the contrary, continued to include him among his children, 123 Genesis 35:22, according to the Masorah, contains a "break in the middle" (" pe? Ck? kpoo"). In Book One of his Einleitung, Eich- horn, dealing with the Masorah, lists 35:22 as an example of a "Piska" and states that the Masoretes may have meant to indicate lacunae by means of this tern, 124 the Masoretic term1?9; but he could not, at any rate, have agreed with It is hard to say how Mendelssohn understood Eichhorn. Eichhorn also lists Numbers 25:19 as containing a" Too pe AKA"; and in this case also Mendelssohn did not conceive of a lacuna, as in his translation: Numbers 25:19—26:1. DIAN 'onk 19] 256 SIC fa ee fle ’ 3 nik'] ME [»2» [Pk IA Es war nach der Seuche; Als der Ewige zu Moscheh und zu Elasar, Sohn des Priesters Aharon, sprach, wie folgt. The Bi'ur stresses, on the basis of ibn Ezra (unacknowledged), that 26:1 was joined to the preceding: The census in chapter 26 was specifically instituted in order to learn how many people survived the pestilence mentioned in chapter 25 and would inherit the promised iana ^P The last treatment of sequence in Genesis deals with the relation- ship of chapters 37—39, which we have already examined within the context of our preceding chapter.” Problems of a different sort emerge in the study of the last four books of the Pentateuch, in which the material is not so exclusively narration. Mendelssohn, for example, was concerned with the interrelationship of the parts of Exodus 12: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 190. namely (1) vv. 1-28, the prescriptions for the first Passover ritual; (2) vv. 29-42, a brief narration of the start of the Exodus; and (3) vv. 43-50, additional Passover iaws. Eichhorn felt that (3) is a sup- plement, which provides a clarification of the first part. For example, it stresses that all people partaking of the Passover sacrifice be 128 The organization of the chapter circumcised (vv. 43f., cf. v. 19). is indeed problematical, for (2) allegedly occurs on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan (v. 29, "pfifm 3NA 'p1"), whereas (3) contains laws for the fourteenth and might be expected to precede (2) and be connected with (1). Mendelssohn, following Ramban, who cites Rashi in turn, agrees that (3) "waspromulgated on the fourteenth of Nisan" and that the concluding statement in ve 50 that the Israelites observed these commandments precedes v. 29 in time. He states that (2), however, was made to precede (3), to stress God's satisfaction with the trust of the Israelites in Him, as reflected in v. 27f.; the juxtaposition of (2) to (1) indicates that He immediately kept His promise to take them out = Interestingly, Mendelssohn here tolerates a temporal re- of Egypt. ! structuring of the chapter. Exodus 16:32-36 describing the commemoration of an omer of manna before God really belongs later with the description of the Sanctuary, as Eichhorn noted, S Rashbam and ibn Ezra had expressed the same thought; and Mendelssohn adopted their opinion, combining the wording of both without acknowledgnent. Accordingly, the section is included with the previous story of the manna (16:13-32) to juxtapose two miracles concerning the same subject: the appearance of manna, in the first place, and the fact that the commemorative omer was able to last for Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. i è 3 successive generations.” 1 Mendelssohn's elucidation of the connection between the portions of "Terumah" and "Tesaveh" is our next ltem. First he quotes ibn Ezra's opinion that in "Tesaveh" the text began to describe the atten- dants of the Sanctuary and their duties, whereas in "Terumah" it des- cribed the Sanctuary itself, with its furnishings and implements, He then stresses, however, that the commandment of the ner tamid at the be- ginning of "Tesaveh" (27:20f.) should be understood as being offset against the contents of "Terumah," inasmuch as it is an eternal command- ment, whereas the latter deals with the preparation of the Sanctuary in Moses! time. Thus "Tesaveh" is introduced differently from "Terumah," especially insofar as the pronoun "Df" is included with the verb, a stylistic feature which, as we have seen, Mendelssohn interpreted as indicating aniithesis, ^ Correspondingly, he adds "aber" in his trans- lation. Exodus 25:lf. ; T m i7) DRA [ic 9 IR DDR inl fiov ya be 273 Exodus 27:20. fen ja pk 512p pp yif ipo 255 R pat myl ITE oe..Du sollst aber auch den Kindern Jisrael befehlen.... In this matter, he was influenced by ibn Ezra, but probably even more by Rashbam, who indicated, though, that the contrast was heightened by the 133 force of the different verb "312p ," not the pronoun, Admittedly, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the question here is not the relationship of the whole portion of "Tesaveh," but only of 27:20f., with the preceding portion; neverthe- less, this may be implied. One of the subjects described in "Tesaveh" is the perpetual sacrifice (29:38-46), as ibn Ezra noted and was quoted by Mendelssohn; perhaps Mendelssohn understood the whole portion, as well as its first commandment, as being future-oriented in contrast with "Terunah, "134 The last connection discussed by Mendelssohn in Exodus is quite simples the relationship of "Pequdei" to the preceding portions. At the beginning of "Pequdei" (38:21), Mendelssohn quotes Rashbam without acknowledgment that it comprises the "accounting of silver, gold, and copper"; but he then adds the Rabbinic explanation from Exodus Rabbah: When the work of the sanctuary had been completed, Moses said to Israel, "Come and I shall make an accounting for you,"135 Thus, "Peaudei" includes the calculation of exnenses for the construction and furnishings in the previous portions. The connection of the account about Nedav and Avihu (Leviticus 10) with the preceding is more intricate; here Mendelssohn, in his transla- tion and bracketed note in the Bi'ur, reflects a dependence upon Rashbam. Leviticus 9:24—10:2., pagan fe Diep) 9 yotw Re 3A ypnA Uk [uis ac) AY pak ya inp lp prop wfe TELA] efc [>> Jpn E213 219 kE otc 224 Qc 9 Yos [2752] ppik Sep) 3 rods V kan 7 "ob uw Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 193. 9324 Es fuhr eine Flamme von dem Ewigen aus (nämlich aus dem Allerheiligsten) und verzehrte auf dem Opferaltar.... 10:1 Die Söhne Aharons aber, Nadab und Abihu, hatten jeder seine Rauchpfanne genommen, Feuer hineingethan, und Weihrauch darauf gelegt, brachten also vor den Ewigen fremdes Feuer, welches er ihnen nicht befohlen hatte, 10:2 Als nun die Flamme von dem Ewigen herausfuhr, verzehrte sie dieselben, und sie starben vor der Erscheinung des Ewigen. Rashbam had explained that the "strange fire" which Nadav and Avihu offered was with the morning incense preceding hagtarat ha-avarim men- tioned at 9:19f. and that the fire from God which destroyed them was the same fire which had consumed the sacrifices mentioned at 9:24. Their incense was unacceptable because it was kindled by their own fire (" jr 0c (17279 7) at a time when the nation awaited the miracle of the divine fire 136 Accordingly, Mendelssohn makes pronounced use of the pluperf- ect tense in his translation of 10:13 and he renders "9 Ur & fe3pi» in 10:2 by a temporal clause, with "Flamme" being defined by the def- Wessely disagreed with the interpretation of Mendelssohn and Rash- bam, attempting to "rehabilitate" Nadav and Avihu, as Sandier notes, and minimize their sin.i?7 Ina very lengthy argument, he stressed that the text be understood in order: The unacceptabie offering came after the descent of the divine fire, and the two were killed by a second blast of the same. They were merely guilty, Wessely explains, of an excess of enthusiasm in a wish to make an additional offering after the acceptance of the previous ones. Nor was their fire itself "strange," for it was taken from the altar, but it was the offering which was in- appropriate. As such, Wessely suggests, "Ole should be understood in the sense of " 20 (c, v "fire-offeringe" ^ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 194. Mendelssohn's bracketed note in 10:1 makes short sehrift of Wessely's long explanations he indicates simply that "225 Qk" be taken literally, as according to Rabbinic opinion. ^ Wessely's view is in- teresting nonetheless; perhaps he was motivated by moralistic feeling against contemporary "enthusiasts," such as the Hasidim, who, he may have felt, exceeded the bounds of wisdom in excesses of devotion. Wessely, in general, deals more with the classification of sections in the context of Leviticus as a whole than with semikhut per se, inas- 140 For much as the various sections are intrinsicaliy independent. example, he empnasizes that the section about the son of the Egyptian who blasphemed God's name (24:10-16) fits in with the general subject of Leviticus, holiness, rather than delineate its relationship with sur- rounding sections. He rejects traditional interpretations as being un- literal, though he does show some interest in the view of Rabbi Berekhya, quoted by Rashi, that the man ridiculed the prescription in ihe previous section (24:8) for the show-bread to be set before God on the Sabbath. Just as Leviticus, according to Wessely, deals with holiness: the sacri- fices (" 129p» pYIp")s personal cleanliness, sexual morality, and ethics (" Saal fg» purp")s and the seventh and jubilee years (" Pk? pU? ")—here the subject is the holiness of God's name which, in this case, the Torah chose to stress by means of a story. It did not provide a prohibition against blaspheming God earlier, he explains, as it did in the case of cursing parents (20:9), because the thing was so unthinkable; only after the deed occurred, did Moses have the need to inquire from God about the punishment, as we learn in vv. 13-16, where the general law is juxtaposed to the punishment of this particular Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 195. : 141 sinners Towards the conclusion of chapter 1 in Numbers (ve 52), we find an unusual summary of the contents of 1—5:4, which is an attempt to come to an understanding about the structure therein, A contrast between the Israelites in 1:52 and the Levites in 1:50, 53 is drawn, which, it is 142 suggested, influences the succeeding chapters. a apki v. 50 a pai fe siio aT?” EN i yp? [PRN pre) ES pal ong» 299 7 Ve 92 ED UL (ene NG pl >35 1567 fy Ue! E, 1p? kh POR QA yi pni pon Ve 52 Die Kinder Jisraels sollen sich lagern, Jedermann bei seiner Truppe und bei seiner Fahne nach ihren Heerene Ve 53 Die Levijjim aber sollen sich um die Wohnung des Zeugnisses herumlagerne ee» Accordingly, the Israelites are to Camp at their respective encampments; the Levites, on the other hand ("aber") » must camp around the Sanctuary to protect against the encroachment of strangerse This is followed by a detailed census of the former by tribe in chapter 2, but then by enum- erations of those Levites from one month and older taking the place cf the first born (325-51), and of those from thirty to fifty working in the Sanctuary (che 4). Thus, the contrast in chapter 1 extends to 2 vis-a-vis 3 and 4. In addition to the enumerations, the camp arrangements BEEN 195. 1 141 sinner. Towards the conclusion of chapter 1 in Numbers (v. 52), we find an unusual summary of the contents of 1—5:4, which is an attempt to come to an understanding about the structure therein. A contrast between the Israelites in 1:52 and the Levites in 1:50, 53 is drawn, which, it is suggested, influences the succeeding ae kl . 50 pha pe FT? AWD v "ELEM IN Cs yp? pans o/26] - MI 9977 P v. 52 igJn/ fru fco t yA ypi ‚PN iuo Fe Ch! ve 53 DIN aus 2/250 Ijp’ poin) TETT Jane Ss $95 5 »» Ki NAH PRN SAU IE eif» IONS un i v. 52 Die Kinder Jisraels sollen sich lagern, Jedermann bei seiner Truppe und bei seiner Fahne nach ihren Heeren. ve 53 Die Levijjim aber sollen sich um die Wohnung des Zeugnisses herumlagernoeoo Accordingly, the Israelites are to camp at their respective encampments; the Levites, on the other hand ("aber"), must camp around the Sanctuary to protect against the encroachment of strangers. This is followed by a detailed census of the former by tribe in chapter 2, but then by enum- erations of those Levites from one month and older taking the place of the first born (3:5-51), and of those from thirty to fifty working in the Sanctuary (ch. 4). Thus, the contrast in chapter 1 extends to 2 vis-à-vis 3 and 4. In addition to the enumerations, the camp arrangements Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 196. of both the israelites and the Leviies are given in chapters 2 and 4, respectively; and the section 5:1-4 dealing with the removal of impure people from the camp is thus explained as being juxtaposed purposefully: After the camps were set up, God commanded that they be kept holy and that impure people be sent cut. This comment is repeated in the Bi'ur of 5:2, where comparison with Ramban reveals him to be its unacknowl- edged sources > In the case of the section dealing with the Sabbath wood-gatherer (15:32-36), Ramban is given credit. According to him, the episode fol- lows logically upon the distresses related in chapter 14, namely God's gezerah against the wilderness generation and the death of the ma'apilim. Apparently, he meant that those afflictions precipitated a moral degen- eration among the people, resulting in a flagrant disrespect for God's Sabbath laws. The next section on the sisit (15:37-41), furthermore, as according to Ramban, is specifically related to the preceding; after informing Moses that the wood-gatherer should be punished by stoning, God immediately prescribed the wearing of the sisit as a symbol to re- mind the Jewish people of its obligation to observe the laws in general and the Sabbath in paltredas ^ Thus, Mendelssohn adds in his trans- lation of v. 37 the word "ferner": NIE Qh Se 7 9237 Ferner sprach der Ewige zu Moscheh, wie folgt. A connection between 25:1-9, describing the depravity of the Israel- ites with the daughters of Moab and their worship of Ba'al Pe'or, and the preceding sections about Bil'am had already been demonstrated in the Talmud, as was noted by Rashi and Ramban in turn, 149 Thus, it was Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 197. Bil*am who gave the advice to overcome the Israelites by seducing them and sapping their moral strength. Ramban explains further, as is quoted in the Bi'ur, that it was unlikely for such a large scheme to have been initiated by the women themselves, but of course was devised by the leaders who had consulted with their chief advisor. This explanation has a literal basis in 31:16 and provides a reason for the Israelites’ killing of Bil'am mentioned at 31:8—references which otherwise might be interpreted as stemming from a different source, The Bi'ur, on the basis of ibn Ezra and Ramban, gives two ways of understanding the position of the chapter on vows (Numbers 30:2-16). Ibn Ezra offers a fascinating insight that it be considered as follow- ing the request of the two and a half tribes, in chapter 32, for per- mission to inherit the eastern side of the Jordan. For after Moses the Promised Land, he charges them to "fulfill the words of [their] mouths" (32:34). It is recorded, furthermore, that his instructions were relayed to El'azar, Joshua, and the heads of the tribes (32:28). The section on vows, which begins with the similar expression of fulfil- ling the words of one's mouth (30:3) and which was addressed to the heads of the tribes (30:2), thus, fits in neatly in the other context, Ramban, however, felt that the section should be understood as a continuation of chapters 28-29, dealing with festival offerings: After the text completed vows to the Almighty (" ppb 199) ")s it began to deal with vows among mortals (" (fjgp 199) ),146 Mendelssohn appears to have in~ clined towards the latter view, as reflected in his addition of "ferner" to the translation of 30:2, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 198. NETS, fiou yaf nda» RJO Ík a 2274 Moscheh redete ferner mit den Stammhäuptern der Kinder Jisraels, und sprach.... We have seen that he did not like to dislocate the text, in the manner suggested by ibn Ezra. The next matter is the position of the section describing Moses' institution of the cities of refuge on the eastern side of the Jordan (Deuteronomy 4:41-44), for it interrupts consecutive speeches of Moses. Mendelssohn adopted Rashbam's opinion that it was meant to provide a break between Moses' lengthy introduction (1:6—4:40) and his detailed exposition of the laws beginning with 55:197 He was aware of the special quality of the former, terming it in fact a "petiha" in tne Bi'ur of 1:6,148 It is interesting that Eichhorn, similarly, consid- A Darb aana m ne nee 13 A zc PESE IP 2 24 ES 149 +h h WS 1 + + 5+ erca »euveronoiy a4 GS a univ in ivcS6115 though his view that it was included in the text by means of a process of patchwork compilation could not have been countenanced by Mendelssohn. Rashbam is the main source for the Bi'ur's discussion about the "system of the sections" within Deuteronomy 11: specifically, (1) Moses! exhortation to observe the commandments (v. 8f.); and (2) the contrast between the mountainous Promised Land watched over by God and Egypt, which is watered "like a vegetable garder" (vv. 10-12) 7? Àn explana- tion, furthermore, that (3), the well-known section " yw pk pal" (vv. 13-21), is a recapitulation of (1-2) is taken from Ramban without acknowledgment.!?! Unlike Rashi, who on the basis of Sifre stated that the Holy Land is unquestionably more fertile than Egypt, 19? Rashbam understood the contrast in (2) differently: It is more of a challenge, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 199. for its quality varies; it is better than any other iand for those who observe God's commandments and is worse, for those who do not. (3) re- peats this idea, as Mendelssohn indicates by the addition of "also" in his translation: Deuteronomy 11:13. ve Spy fic WARP FIR gk wal Werdet ihr also meinen Geboten gehorchen.... A connection is traced, on the basis of Ramban, between the pro- hibitions against eating animal blood (12:23-28), idolatry (vv. 29-31), and false prophecy (13:1-6). Whereas ibn Ezra stated that the section on idolatry was based on the premise of defeating the nations (12:29) and inheriting their land (12:20), Ramban discussed the relationship between the three sections in greater depth. Accordingly, consumption of animal blood, idolatry, and false prophecy were integrally-related and mutually-reinforcing abominations: ^ The Bi'ur stresses. on the basis of Ramban, that Deuteronomy 29, which contains an exhortation of Moses to the people, is "connected" to the previous sections detailing the covenant in the plains of Moab. Whereas the concluding statement of chapter 28 (v. 69) conveys a note of finality, after which one might understand a different source to begin, the Bi'ur states that Moses called the people (29:1) in order to "arouse their attention" to what he had just told them in the name of Gu This statement, at variance with ibn Ezra, who explained that Moses called them to ratify the covenant, L9 is consistent with Mendelssohn's translation that "Moses gave a speech": Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 200. san Gee! fo bk RIN kop" Moscheh hielt eine Rede an ganz Jisrael.... The aspect of the interconnection between chapter 29 and the preceding is also treated earlier in the Bitur of 27:15, where the twelve curses from ve 15 to v. 26 are explained, on the basis of Rashbam, in the light of " ‘abe 30 nn poJ» " at 29:28, Thus, all the projected offenses, such as humiliating parents, are those customarily perpetrated in se- cret end as such known only to Cod. In support of this interpretation, Rashbam notes, interestingly, that the two offenses of the twelve known to take place in the open, idolatry and assault, are explicitly defined by the adverb " ? po»" (vv. 15, 24) 156 Rashbam is alio the source for the last observation in the Bi'ur on literary construction: the connection between the portions "Ha'azinu" and "Ve-Zot ha-Berakhah." as reflected in the "vav" of "Ve-Zot." Ac- cordingiy, the two are balanced against each other, in the sense of "This is the song and this is the blessing." More specifically, after 157 the rebuke against the people in "Ha'azinu," the blessing follows, 6. Kissur: Intentional Abridgment Related to the previous discussions on literary craftsmanship in the Pentateuch according io the Bi'ur is the exemplification of a tech- nique which the Bi'ur calls "kissur," indicating intentional abridgment. By maintaining that material which may have appeared in a parallel place was omitted on purpose in the section under discussion, the Bi'ur Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 201. attempts to defend the integrity of the Pentateuch against critical probing. This explanation was utilized somewhat more by Solomon Dubno than by the other Bi'uristss more examples, therefore, are found in the Bi*ur on Genesis than in the other books. For example, we find in Genesis 5:3 the significant clause, omit- ted in the case of Cain and Abel, that Adam begat Seth "in his image according to his form." This was one of the crucial factors in Eich- horn's determination that 5:1-28 is a continuation of the E source from 1:1—2:3 (with 2:4—3:24 being an "Einschaltung" and ch. 4, a J source), the style of E being characterized by the use of "pin?" and , 913" (besides, of course, "Elohim") found at 1:26f. and again at 5:1-3, but not in the intermediate dhaptens t Dubno, however, adopts Ramban's explanation, without acknowledgment, that the words were used to describe the birth of Adam and, again, of Seth, because "the world was established [np] from him," but that the text had not wished to "expand" in the case of Cain and bep" In stories, according to the Bi'ur, "the text at times abbrevi- ated without revealing the central deed," such as in the case of the act against Noah, "which his youngest son did to him" (9:24). Dubno accents the Rabbinic explanation " ren? fc) 1029 ki ," supplying unusual evidence from Berosus the Chaldean that it was more particular- ly 10% ə He inclines towards ibn Ezra's interpretation that the son in question was not Ham, but the grandson Canaan, thus providing a smocther transition between v, 24 and ve 25, as reflected in the con- nective "und" in the German translation, which Mendelssohn generally avoided at the beginning of sentences: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 202. v. 24, [OPP jJ? ib DRY 28k. pb 9! Ve 25. "Ir „nk AK!) ve 24. ...erfuhr er, was ihm sein jüngster Sohn gethan. Ve 25. Und sprach: verflucht sei Kenaan!160 Dubno's explanation is noteworthy because of the additional exam- ples of abbreviations which it suggests, namely between vv. 35, 36 in Joshua 21 ( a list of Levite cities) and after 2 Kings 21:17 (mention of the death of the evil Israelite king, Manassah); for comparison with Chronicles reveals the omission of several cities in the former case (cf. 1 Chron. 6:63f.) and Manassah's prayer to God for forgiveness in the latter (cf. 2 Chron. 33:12-20). He believed these omissions were intentional, though he did not give a satisfactory explanation, but merely relied on the authenticity of the Masoretic text, 191 Eichhorn, significantly, grappled with the problem in Joshua in different contexts. For example, he classified that omission, in the seventeenth of his eightecn classes of scribal errors, as homoioteleu- ton. He singled out the omission, furthermore, in his general remarks of criticism at the conclusion of his treatment of the Masora. Stating that the Masora was not the non plus ultra in Old Testament criticism, he describes raging waters as having already inundated the Holy Scrip- tures before the Masoretes erected their dam, The "violation" of the two sentences in Joshua, which the Mascretes did not r»cti^y, is Eich- horn's chief case in int, Though Dubro did not explain this particular abbreviation, elsewhere he states the methodological prin- ciple from Rashi that "the text abbreviated here, but explaincd in „163 Chronicles at greater length. Perhaps he may have been defensive Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 203. in general about the larger issue of the differences between Parallel- stellen, which Eichhorn emphasized was a splendid focus around which to organize a critical study of the Biblical text 164 In conversations within a narrative, according to Dubno, the text can be seen to have abbreviated; and in this respect, as we have seen before, the understanding of the peshat approximates the Midrashic "reading between the finesse For example, in the case of the snake's words in 3:1, Dubno follows ibn Ezra (without acknowledgment) in taking iiis f" as meaning "even": "Did God even say, 'Do not eat from any tree in the garden!?"— with the beginning of the conversation inten- tionally omitted. Mendelssohn, similarly, added "auch" in his trans- lation (as well as "wohl" conveying the interpretation of Onkelos M [po T! bs 23. Hf. p’adk ONE "2 i eeehat auch Gott wohl gesagt, ihr sollt von allerlei Baum des Gartens nicht essen? In support of this explanation, Dubno quotes Rashi (also without ac- knowledgment) that, though the snake saw Adam and Eve eating from the trees, he entered into a long conversation with Eve, in order to get her to mention the tree of knowledge. Lubno adds his own empuasis that the text "abbreviated the beginning of his conversation."16° One of Dubno's important contributions in the matter of kissurim was the stress that extra-Biblical material may shed light on the con- cise accounts in the Bible. Such an account illuminat.d by ar extrane- ous source is the problematic section Genesis 25:21-43, which lists the Edomite kings “who ruled in Edom before 3 king ruled over the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 204. Israelites" (v. 31). As Sandler notes, this section engaged Biblical critics since the time of ibn Ezra, for it appears to be an interpola- tion inserted in the text at a late date with hindsight of Saul's mpnarchyen Isaac ben Yashosh of Spain, for example, disparaged hy ibn Ezra, considered that it was inserted at the time of Jehoshaphat; Eichhorn, likewise, felt that it could not have been written before the 188 Dubno, on the other hand, accepted the traditionai time of David. view that the "king" in question was Moses, the section not being a later interpolation, and in support of this view placed great weight on the testimony of the Sefer Ha-Yashar: According to its stories many difficulties in the Torah are solved and its ridges are straightened out, as will be seen further in my commentary; but in order not to depart from the intention of this composition I will not copy its words at length. Anyone wishing to study them should look at that book for it is easily accessible, and he will find calm for his soul. According to the stories mentioned there all Alla no Pe oe i. tel ee ee a ann (hate on bien min as Y these kings ruled 235 years and “before a King ruied over the Israelites" refers to Moses. Similarly, Dubno alludes to details in the Sefer Ha-Yashar des- cribing the death of Enoch, Abraham's relationship with Nimrod, and a period of rule by Moses over ana, °° The latter information, he suggests, was especially important for elucídating the enigmatic ref- erence to Moses! "Cushite (Ethiopian) wife" in Numbers 12:1. Rashbam, quoted in the Bi'ur there, cited the "Chronicle of Moses" as the author- ity that Moses indeed ruled in Ethiopia end had an Ethiopian queen; and Dubno, in Genesis, indicating his own authorship of the section in Numbers, reveais that he considered the source to be, more specifically, the Sefer Ha-Yashar. Ibn Ezra, interestingly, who felt that Zipporah was the Cushite woman, wrote in Exodus 2:22 that the "Chronicle of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 205. Moses" could not be believed because "it was not written by prophets or scholars on the basis of the tradition"; but Dubno took sharp ex- ception to his view, stating that that principle applied only to mat- ters which contradict the tradition or reason, not simply to extrane- ous material. Other material can be trusted, he emphasizes, inasmuch as the Torah "shortened accounts which have no bearing on the instruc- tion of God's ways and commandments for His people, "170 Other Bi'urists also dealt with kissurim. Mendelssohn, for exam- ple, concerned himself with the glaring omissions in the genealogy at Exodus 6:14-27, which, after including the sons of Reuben and Simon, lists the family of Levi more fully, in a concentration on the direct ancestry of Moses and Aaron, and c its any mention of the remaining sons of Jacob. Eichhorn considered this section an incomplete frag- ments Mendelsschn explains, however, according to Ramban, that the text wishes to emphasize that the tribe of Levi did not gain its pre- eminenve over the other tribes fr’m having produced Moses—brt pre- sumadly from its subsequent loyaity to God during the episode of the golden calf. It, theref re, ‘ndicates at this point that Levi was still only thira after Reuben and Simon, 7! Mendelssohn explains the first two sectionsof Exodus 11 (vv. 1-3 and 4-8), in which God predicts the tenth plague and the Exodus to Moses, as belonging earlier at the end cf chapter 10 when Moses was seeing Phaiaoch for the lest time. The prediction was thus repeated as a warning by hoses to Pharaoh, though the text does not say so ex- plicitly. This interpretation is derived from Ramban (11:1)—and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 206. Rashi (1124), in turn; perhaps, also, Mizrahi—its premise being that Moses" words to Pharaoh in chapter 10 do not provide Pharaoh with enough information as to the dire consequences of his hard-heartedness. Mendelssohn, following Ramban, explains that chapter 10 is thus a case 172 to show that 11:1-8 of kissur, with a supplement coming at 11:1-8. is connected, furthermore, at the very end of chapter 10, Mendelssohn adds the word "hier" in his translation of 11:1: DW bk 3 len po»S9nu fri 2609 Fr (eink 9nk Kl 208 Hier sprach der Ewige zu Moscheh: Noch eine Plage will ich auf Paroh und Mizrajim bringen.... His precision is admirable; a pluperfect, on the other hand (as in 11:9), 172 would not have conveyed exactly the meaning that 11:1-8 com- prised Moses! last words to Pharaoh, in accord with his statement at 10:29 that ne would not see Pharaoh's face again. Several additional examples of kissurim are found in the Bitur, but most are minor omissions and are not of import in this chapter, 74 One illustration of a small omission, however, serves to exemplify the Bi’ur's stress on an integral connection between Deuteronomy and the preceding books, In Numbers 14:41f., namely, Moses warns the ma'apilim not to ascend the mountain in violation of God's command, yet the specific command of God had not been expressed: ^9 9 hk PIAN Pk 24.208 2 NÉ) PEIN kê lp) poarpa 9 [c "2 IEP Fe poak ob resp eh In Deuteronomy 1:41f., however, the same information is repeated, with Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 207. a slight change of wording according to which God did express the pro- hibition to Moses explicitly: DODD E IPAP e PIS oiik fe 9 Mk PORIPA '[f't D INDEP kd) IXP Eò 2> Jos Ie ID cb] The reason for the change, explained in the Bi'ur on Numbers, is ab- breviation. Ramban, the direct source (unacknowledged), did not state this principle explicitly; added in the Bi'ur's paraphrase of Ramban is the explanatory remark that the text "abbreviated here and did not indicate that commandment."175 The last matter we shall discuss in this section is a case of a larger omission. After the narration of Moses' command in Deuteronomy 27:11-13 that six tribes are to stand on Mount Gerizim "to biess the relates that the Levites would respond (v. 14) with twelve curses (vv. 15-26). The structure is cryptic, for the relationship between the subjects is unclear and there is no follow-up about the blessings. Homberg, however, relies on the description in Sotah, via Rashi, that, with six tribes standing on each mountain, the priests and Levites, together with the Holy Ark, took a position in the valley in between. They called out the first of the twelve blessings (the converse of v. 15) towards the tribes on Mount Gerizim and then called out the first curse towards the tribes on Mount Ebal; they then proceeded in turn until they completed all twelve blessings (converses of vv. 15-26) and all twelve curses. Both sets of tribes answered "Amen" after both Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 208. 17 the blessings and the curses. Thus, a whole section of blessings has been omitted from the text. Mendelssohn's translation is based skillfully on the Talmudic description: Deuteronomy 27:12-14. ve 12. ppp op [e PED pk pop igus! pbk ve 13. oe fay 297 ay fon l Jan! obk v. 14. Coot Ele > fie Daki pba spel ‚son v. 12. Folgende Stamme sollen auf dem Berge Gerissim stehn, dem Volke den Segen zu ertheilenecee v. 13. Folgende aber sollen zur Verfluchung auf dem Berge Ebal stehnecee ve 14. Die Levijjim sollen mit lauter Stimme wechselweise gegen Jedermann von Jisrael ausrufen, Accordingly, he emphasizes the centrality of the Levites in two ways. First of all, he clarifies the clause " p^» ism! odk " (v. 12) to the effect that the six respective tribes would only share ("ertheilen") in the blessing of the people; and secondly he renders 'jowk) ef» 1x ," consistent with his original understanding of "hn as we have seen 177 as "the Levites should call out alternately" ("wechselweise earlier, ausrufen"), not "answer." "Wechselweise" suagests the alternation be- tween blessing and curses and perhaps it also comprises the utterance of the Levites and the "Amen" of the people, though this is indicated separately in ve 15: ‚nic ouk] PED P fet e Und das ganze Volk soll darauf antworten und sprechen: es werde wahr! Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 209. 7. Seder: Internal Order Now let us examine the Bi'ur's sensitivity to the internal order of a section from the point of view of its structural form. First, we shall deal with some small matters before discussing subjects of great- er importance, such as the Ten Commandments and chapters 19 and 26 in Leviticus. For example, in the genealogy at Exodus 6:14-26 which we have discussed earlier, L9 Mendelssohn shows, on the basis of ibn Ezra (unacknowledged), that though horizontal branches on the family tree of Moses and Aaron are described, the longevity of only the direct vertical line is indicated. Thus, after mention of the sons of Reuben, Simon, and Levi, only Levi's years are given (v. 16); after the sons of Levi's sons (Gershom, Kehat, and Merari), only Kehat's years are given (v. 18); and of Kehat's sors, only Amram's years are given (v. 20). Mendelssohn adds an observation in the name of Rashbam that the direct vertical record extends back to the earlier genealogies from Noah to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as ahead to the later genealogies.!7? In the case of the ten plagues (7:14ff.), Mendelssohn quotes a pithy comment of Rashbam (7:26) that before every third plague Moses did not warn Pharaoh in advance. He warned Pharaoh about the blood and frogs (7:17, 27), but not about the lice; about the swarms and vermin (8:17. 9:2), but not the boilsz and about the haii and locusts (9:18, 10:4), but not the darkness. We have observed, also, that Mendelssohn Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 210. ünderstood a resumption of the cycle in the case of the tenth plague, considering 11:1-8 as the warning for that. 190 In the Bi'ur on Leviticus 13:9, Wessely elucidates the employment in the Torah of a chlastic order, which he calls "explaining from the latter to the former" (" NICH» die DT p RI"). The heading of the chapter at 13:1 introduces three types of leprosy: " ppo0 ik LO MPA Jic "; and Wessely shows that the subsequent treatment in detail of these types takes them in reverse order: NMA (13:4£.)5 90 (13:6-8); and eR (13:9ff.). Here, additional examples are given, most notably the structure following Genesis 1:2, which intro- duces three main elements of primordial chaos: " Pen IJD jap ," formlessness, confusion, and darkness. According to Wessely, God corrected the problem of darkness first: "Let there be light" (Gen. 1:3-5); then He corrected the problem of confusion by collecting the waters into the heavens (vv. 6-8) and the oceans (vv. 8-10); and then He began to give the world form, with the creation of vegetation (v. 11ff.). This observation had not been made in the Bi'ur on Genesis l written by Mendelssohn; it is an interesting example that "there is an order in the words of the Torah, "18 Mendelssohn's epilogue to the Bi'ur on the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 presents a beautiful schematization, in a close paraphrase of ibn Ezra and Ramban, of a progression, or more accurately a degres- sion, from the first to the tenth Commandment. For the first six he draws mostly upon ibn Ezra's introduction at 20 Tua Accordingly, atheism, a denial of the first Commandment, is a greater sin than Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 211, polytheism, violation of the second (here Mendelssohn also stresses acceptance of the Exodus, unlike ibn Be Polytheism is a greater sin than violation of the third Commandment, taking God's name in vain, which may not entail disbelief in one God. Then comes ob- servance of the Sabbath as a remembrance of Creation ("a great prin- ciple in the faith of re) Pa followed by honoring parents, the human partners of God in creation. Parents are the intermediaries be- tween God and human beings. Correspondingly, the fifth Commandment is the dividing point between the first four Commandments, matters "between humans and God," and the last five Commandments, matters "between humans and fellow humans"; and thus God is mentioned in the fifth Commandment, as in the first four and in contrast with the last fives Of the latter, "Do not murder" is, of course, the most serious, followed by "Do not commit adultery," at which point Mendelssohn begins to rely more on Ramban (20:13). Adultery, thus, is violence against parental honor and is the perpetration of a lie, because children born from illicit union and not knowing their father will give their re- spect to a false father, much as idolaters worship false sie This is followed by the eighth Commandment, "Do not steal," for which Men- delssohn tends to favor Ramban's explanation that it means stealing souls, kidnapping, over that preferred by ibn Ezra that it means steal- ing property—"a violence against a human being's freedom which is a gift of God more precious than all wealth and property, "197 Next is "Do not bear false witness"—against committing verbal vsolenee, t followed by "Do not covet." For the latter Mendelssohn's starting point is Ramban's statement that a person who does not covet anything Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 212. will never harm his fellow human being, but he expands considerably, stressing the relative importance of the tenth Commandment much more than either Ramban or ibn Ezra. In fact, he states that it, together with the first Commandment, wgre both "keys" to the rest of the Com- mandments. Accordingly, the degression outlined from beginning to end should be studied also as a progression in reverse order: A person who does not covet anything will never harm his fellow human being, for as a result of coveting one is led to deal falsely and lie, steal, murder, commit adultery, desec- rate the Sabbath and festivals, and humiliate parents. One is ied to hate and envy humanity. But whoever is not covet- ous loves and honors humanity. Worries, sorrows, and sighs depart from his heart. He trusts in the Lord his God to 189 sustain him; and he casts upon Him his burden [Ps. 55:23]. Ibn Ezra had stated that the first Commandment was the yest”; and Mendelssohn's understanding of the term mafte'ah may owe something to ibn Ezra's concept. It is most significant, however, that Mendelssohn considers the tenth Commandment of approximate importance as a maf- 2e ah also—a reflection of his rationalistic emphasis on keeping the 191 desires and emotions in check. The Bi'ur on Leviticus 19 provides another, related, study cf internal structural order. Whereas Mendelssohn relied heavily on ibn Ezra and Ramban in his discussion on the order of the Ten Commanaments, in the explanation of the fundamental laws of Judaism in Leviticus 19, which those two commentators understood as being analogous to the Ten Commandments (19:2) , 19 Wessely chose to chart his own course. He stresses six basic principles in the chapter: (1) 19:3— " ik? ^ paki Nk Ge ." Humanity is created in God's image, and parents are partners of God in that creation. Respect for Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. parents, therefore, is as essential as for God. It is the foundation of the Torah, influencing a respect for humanity in general Par (2) 19:3— " |) NEA IARR Ak." As testimony to the wonder of creation, this is the fundamental observance of Judaism. Wessely adds that all the other holidays and commandments, likewise, are based on God's SE (3) 19:4— " epp Je Nap fie ." This command bids us to recognize the exaltedness and holiness of God. Wessely expands the definition of idolatry to entail not merely "idol worship," but any detraction from God's greatness, such as the pursuit of unreai and use- less things. Included among them is the belief in "superstitions" ("Aberglauben"), which have no rational basis—an interesting eighteenth- century emphasis.1”> (4) 19:5-8— " IIPAN PJS Of pin pas PRID 9t. This exemplifies the importance of reverence and good intentions, not just in the matter of the sacrifices, but in the observance of all the commandments. 196 (5) 19:9, 10— " pork 9139 Jr por3pal ." Here the sanc- tity of the Holy Land is emphasized, where, even in the case of non- sacred matters, one must act in a holy manner and give to the poor.177 (6) 19:11ff.— "12h25 kki I JAA bp ." These are matters be- tween man and his fellow man, in which one should sanctify himself from lust and desire and strive to emulate the ways of God, Who is just and upright. 178 Wessely does not indicate where the sixth principle ends. Perhaps he too, in accord with ibn Ezra and Ramban, understood the whole chapter as being an analogue to the Ten Commandments, the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 214. sixth principle comprising all of the last five Commandments ("between man and his fellow man"), but simply was not confident in delineating any further, ^? Lastly, in the Bi'ur on the predictions of blessings and curses in Leviticus 26, Wessely describes a systematic five-part structure in the chapter related to the topical order set forth in Ezekiel 14:12-23. Ezekiel prophesied a four-fold catastrophe if the people should continue to sin: famine (v. 12), wild beasts (v. 15), the sword (v. 17), and pestilence (v. 19); and Wessely utilized this classification, adding a fifth catastrophe applying only to the Holy Land: the removal of the divine presence, destruction of the Sanctuary, and exile. Conversely, 200 he traced five sets of blessings, unlike Ezekiel. Four blessings come first: abundance, security, peace, and life, foilowed by the promise of God's abiding presence in the Holy Land, of the Sanctuary, and of prophecy. Abundance is described in 26:4, 5a. Security and peace are described in v. 6 as being specifically the ab- sence of wild beasts and the sword (" Gn jr 6o D'N IPRA Po3skr "Xp kë PNI"); and life, entailing health and fertility, is described in v. gr, 201 Then comes the blessing of God's presence in vv, 11-13. At the beginning of the section on evils to come, Wessely quotes ibn Ezra's statement that, though "scatterbrains" have commented on the disproportionate length of this section in relation to th= previous one, the text merely indicates the blessings in general and the curses Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 215. in greater detail to frighten the listeners. Wessely adds that, in fact, the blessings will be more numerous than the curses and will take effect immediately, whereas the curses will take effect slowly and in augen The scheme of the curses is outlined thus: First comes a brief introduction indicating a moderate infliction of com- bined pestilence, famine, and the sword (v. 16f.), and then the four classes: famine (vv. 13-20); wild beasts (v. 21f.); and both the sword and pestilence, here taken together (vv. 23-25). The fifth class, removal of God's presence, is described in we 27-32. Each classification, interestingly, is accomp-aied by a formula indicating "sevenfold" punishment for the people's sins (vv. 18, 21, 24, 28) 293 There is a loose end in llessely's treatment, for, as he himself notes, famine appears in three different contexts (vv. 20, 26, 29). He explains this on the basis of the three types of famine mentioned in Avot: famine from drought (the first class), famine from siege, and famine from total destruction, ^4 Wessely appeers to be on weak grovnd, furthermore, when he suggests that his classifications can be applied to the poetry of "Ha*'azinu" and to the ten plagues as er Nevertheless, his presentation in the Bi'ur of Leviticus 26 is success- ful. As an illustration of his literary sensitivity and compatibility with Mendelssohn's literary aims, his structural analysis of the chap- ter should not be underestimated. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 216. 8. Poetry: Poems in Their Context We have reached our last subject in this chapter, the special treatment accorded by Mendelssohn to the poetic sections of the Penta- teuch. (In view of his special interest in Biblical poetry, he can be assumed to be the guiding inspiration behind the Bi'ur on all poetic sections, even where another author is explicitly indicated, such as 206 , Dubno on Genesis 49. We shall not deal herein with Mendelssohn's insights into Biblical poetic form per se, such as the various types of parallelism between poetic hemistichs. A full treatment of this subject would require a dissertation in itself, with a concentration on Mendelssohn's extra-Pentateuchal poetic endeavors, most notably his 207 Garman translations of Psalms and the Sona of Sonocs mrad nema meine z examples from these books, in fact, are preponderant in his famed introduction to Exodus 15, the Song of the Sea. Here we shall discuss, rather, Men- delssohn's treatment of the relationship between a poetic section and its context. After dealing with this topic, we shall illustrate Men- delssohn's insights about the thematic unity of individual poetic sections. The song of Lemekh (Genesis 4:23f.) is the first poetic section analyzed by Mendelssohn in the Bi'ur. Ep pend af STERN ryg pus 9 Ak ‚le agen Pub 'Y poros af #306 spp? Ck > Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 217. SEAN PEAL abl D Ppl PIER '> To obviate what he considered was a welter of confusing opinions amongst the commentators, he said that in such a matter it is correct to accept the words of the "true bearers of tradition," namely the Rabbis of the nace They had told the story, as is well-known through Rashi, that Lemekh was blind and was accompanied on a hunt by his son Tuval Cain, who, upon seeing what he thought was an animal in the trees, but which was really Cain, instructed Lemekh to shoot at him. Lemekh did so and killed Cain. Upon learning that he had killed Cain, he became unnerved and clapped his hands together in shock. In his blindness, however, he did not see that Tuval Cain was standing too close to him; his hands clapped Tuval Cain's head between them killing him also. Thereupon, Lemekh's wives became estranged from him; and he had to appease them saying that his crimes were unintentional and that, if harm were to befall him, he wouid be avenged by God more than Cain, whose crime was premeditated. This story, an attempt to explain the different pieces of the poem, especially " tan? of N NE? Ck '>" ("I have killed a man with a wound and a boy with a bruise"), is obviously far-fetched; and Mendelssohn, despite his attestation of the Midrash's reliability, was drawn to a contemporary Christian source for a better explanation. Pre- ceding a lengthy paraphrase of that source is his statement that "an author who is not of our people has found a pleasing and agreeable way according to the continuity of the text" (my italics). Accordingly, the connection with the detail related in v. 22 that Tuval Cain was Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 218. the originator of copper and iron implements is crucial. In Mendels- sohn's words, society was becoming victimized by brigands and pirates as violence began to multiply over the face of the earth; and settlers and farmers had to take a stand, build fortifications, and find a way for the weak to defend themselves. Tuval Cain's inventions were a boon for them, and it was these which Lemekh thus Glorified in song. He had not killed a soul, but was exulting that, should anyone wound or bruise him, he would now be able to take appropriate revenge. Cor- respondingly, Mendelssohn, taking "De?" as a potential action in the future, translates: Einen Mann erschlage ich zu meiner Wunde, Und einen Jüngling zu meiner Beule. The song of Lemekh is thus a paean about the invention of weapons men- tioned in the preceding sentence, ^9? fied. Sandler, following M. Z. Segal, takes it as J. G. Herder's Vom Geist der EbrMischen Poesie; and there is indeed a similarity between Mendelssohn's paraphrase and Herder's treatment in that work. Never- theless, the latter is far shorter than the formers and the possibility remains that Herder was not Mendelssohn's Sure 211 and in Allusion to a Christian scholar is rare in the Bi'ur, this case, somewhat problematic, for Mendelssohn could have emphasized more, in its stead, the contributions of ibn Ezra and Ramban. Ibn Ezra had interpreted IR" as a future; and Ramban had suggested a connection between Lemekh and the invention of weaponry, writing that 2 Lemekh had, in fact, taught that craft to Tuval Cain. Given the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. eclectic method of the Bitur in deriving interpretations from the classical commentaries, it is rather surprising that Mendelssohn did not give more prominence to the statements of ibn Ezra and Ramban which support his interpretation and that he went so far as to criti- cize the Jewish commentators for their lack of agreement?!) —whi ch was, of course, by no means unusual, as Mendelssohn well knew. Ap- parently, though, Mendelssohn wished to express that in the matter of poetry, Christian scholars had don» fundamental groundwork and had greater influence upon him. In his need to be oblique, owing to the xenophobia of a large element of his readership, he could not acknowl- edge his indebtedness to those scholars and could only allude to the opinion of an unnamed Christian. To balance accounts, however, he may have decided not to give the Jewish commentators as much credit as he could have. In the Song of the Sea, the major problem of interest, according to Mendelssohn, is the relationship between hoses" triumphal ode at Exodus 15:1-18, the summation in ve 19, and Miriam's song in v. 20f. First of all, whereas ibn Ezra understood v. 19 as being part of Moses’ song (Michaelis so rendered it in his German translation), Mendelssohn followed Ramban that it was an explenatory addition in prose, empha- sizing that the song was indeed sung at the moment of completing the crossing. Pia [DAR] [2222 679 O10 kp '> pin ow Ne e» ? 2€] 9n pu Mala 1259 fiot UL Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 220. Dieses geschah, als Paroh's Pferde mit Kriegsgespann und Reiterei ins Meer hineingingen; der Ewige aber die Wasser des Meers über sie zurückkommen liess, und die Kinder Jisrael im Meer auf trocknem Boden gingen. Thus Mendelssohn prefixes "Dieses geschah" to his translation, taking "19" as meaning "when," in accord with Ramban, as well as Rashi and 214 Rashbam. The emphasis is noteworthy inasmuch as it also serves to reinforce the unity of the ode itself. Doubts had already arisen about the second half of the ode—in Herder's words, "passages...such as it might appear could not yet have been sung there"—referring to the sub- sequent conquest of Canaan, ^19 "Dieses geschah," however, clearly in- dicates Mendelssohn's view that the song was sung as a whole at the time of the crossing. Mendelssohn's interpretation of Miriam's song is a striking re- flection of the influence of Robert Lowth. aga fn» ak pak MP Die’ aya er Al am wien Popa D 912 ple Pu» f? TE PION pre [et Pia AN? IPD] oo rks alch '> 9f 4" Zu gleicher Zeit nahm Mirjam, die Prophetinn, Aharon's Schwester, die Pauke in ihre Hand; und alle Weiber gingen hinter ihr her mit Pauken und Tanz. Mirjam sang jenen entgegen: singt dem Ewigen, der hoch erhaben sich zeigt! Ross und Reiter stürzte er ins Meer. In the Bi'ur he states clearly that Miriam and all the women sang re- sponsively with the men, in contrast with Rashi's opinion derived from the Mekhilta that Miriam conducted a separate song of the women = if so, Mendelssohn notes, "42'€ would have to be " AL" [sie This is derived from Lowth's explanation that Miriam and the women sang in response to the choir of men in an opposite choir, as is suggested Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 221. Beh (v. 21), according to his understanding of the verb as meaning "respond alternately."^7 Likewise, in the translation, Men- delssohn makes two significant additions to convey his precise meaning: He renders VEM in accord with Lowth, as "sang jenen entgegen"; and he prefires "Zu gleicher Zeit" to the translation of v. 20. In his introduction to the ode, Mendelssohn outlines different Rabbinic theories about the types of alternative response of the male Israelites to Moses: (1) repetition of the first poetic foot only, (2) strict repetition foot by foot, (3) alternation of hemistichs, and (4) a combination of alternation and joining in unison. He tends to the lacter theory, given in the Mekhilta, that Moses and the Israelites alternated hemistichs, but joined together upon reaching such key verses, not characterized by parallelism of hemistichs, as " ele 7 IN? 4 NEN 718 on the basis of Lowth, furthermore, he under- stood Miriam's song as a fixed refrain repeated several times while Moses and the men were ine T This clever theory about the con- nection between vv. 1-18 and v. 20f., incidentally, is an interesting literary defense against the later view that Miriam's song in v. 21 is the oríginal version of the ode, with vv. 1-18 being an expansion com- 220 posed many centuries after the event. The influence of Lowth is discerned again in Mendelssohn's treat- ment of the poetic listing of places quoted from Sefer Milhamot Adonai at Numbers 21:14-20; for, although Lowth mentioned this section only in passing, Mendelssohn gives prominence to his explanation that it was a precise delineation of borders. Lowth had written that the sec- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 222. tion indicated the borders of the Emorite territory, through which the Israelites passed to the Promised Land after defeating Sihon. Mendels- sohn modified this interpretation only slightly, stating that the places were the borders of Moab and that Moses indicated them in detail to emphasize that the Israelites did not step within them. As such, he understands the section to have been added as a clarification of the fact mentioned in v. 13 that the river Arnon was the boundary be- tween Moab and the land of the Emorites, as is reflected in his trans- lation: Ve 13 OPINA 1c uk SAN UL río] PRN inne p_irgn 131% infor PAI akin ['a akin Sing [Unkc > = 9 ET WOA Whe! |? be jU^k pij» ^k! aior 25) M Von da brachen sie auf, und lagerten sich jenseits des Flusses Arnon, der in der Wüste fliesst, und aus den Gränzen des Emori hinausgeht; denn der Fluss Arnon est die Gränze Moabs, zwischen Moab und Emori. Daher findet man in der Geschichte der Kriege des Ewigen: Waheb zu Suphah, und unter den Bachen Arnon. Mendelssohn is careful not to blur the meaning of "/? fr in v. 14, rendering it precisely by "daher" ("accordingly") as a connective with the preceding. In contrast, the commentators had interpreted the section as re- ferring to stops of the Israelites, at many of which God wrought mira- cles for them or gave them victories; Rashi (and Onkelos), for example, understood "dor" as referring to the miracle of the Red Sea. This approach had presented problems, one of which was the fast that Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. most of the places listed could not be traced elsewhere, such as in "Mastei," the detailed account of the nation's journeys. Nevertheless, even Mendelssohn concedes that the places may have served as stops for the people, or more specifically, for one or another tribe among then, as well as being on the boundary. We noted earlier that Mendelssohn classified this section as an "MZ" in accord with the eighteenth-century understanding of monumen- ta. He emphasized that the section was taken by Moses from a pre- existing source, and that one cannot know what the full intention of the original author was in mentioning ic In this matter, Mendels- sohn was influenced by ibn Ezra. Ibn Ezra had been ahead of his time in understanding the Sefer Milhamot Adonai to have been an earlier source, and the Bi'ur here gives him due credit. According to Spinoza and Herder, on the other hand, Moses was the author of the book, it being the same book as that mentioned in Exodus 17:14 con- taining the record of the Amalekite war. Spinoza, however, had stressed that the fragments from that book in the Pentateuch, as well as from Sefer ha-Berit, represent by and large the only extant material remaining from Moses, the rest of the Pentateuch being a much later composition. Perhaps Mendelssohn's unique emphasis of his own here, in fact, may be understood as a direct reaction against Spinoza; while agreeing that the fragments were indeed the more ancient source, he nonetheless maintained that Moses was the author of the later, not the earlier, Work. 79 The second "testimony" in the chapter at vv. 27-30 referring to the earlier conquest by Sihon of that part of Moab between the Arnon Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 224, and the Yabok is easier to understand in general, and Mendelssohn deals with it more briefly. It is worth noting that his definition of Š feu" at ve 27 (" px» Ia ule [2 fs") as unsung poetry, with paral- T hemistichs of equal length in which "things answer to things," is 226 taken directly from Lowth. In explanation of the difficult hemi- stich, v. 30a, I3 3€ Ran Pale Pott Hin ist ihre Herrlichkeit! von Cheschbon bis Dibon, Mendelssohn, in the name of "one who explained," interprets " P9!" as being derived from a singular noun u meaning ae. The dominion of Moab was lest from Cheschbon to Divon. Mendelssohn ap- pears to be referring to Herder, who interpreted "% j" as meaning "yoke"s Ihr Joch ist nun dahin! Von Cheskan bis gen Dibon! Interestingly, Rashi, who gave the same explanation, is acknowledged 227 only secondarily. Finally, let us examine the relationship, in Mendelssohn's view, of the last section of "Ha'azinu" (Deuteronomy 32:28-43) with the pre- ceding; it presents a difficulty in interpretation, inasmuch as there is a possible ambiguity about the subject. After the poet describes God's anger at the faithlessness of the Jewish people (vv. 15-25), he states in v. 26f. that God would destroy them, if only He did not wish their enemies, in a similar denial of Him, to gloat. The poet then continues to decry evil of people (v. 28ff.—" IFS Qak 'Jé "), predicting God's future judgments; and it is possible to understand a shift to the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 225, evil of the Jews' enemies, not a continuation of the earlier lashing against the Jews themselves. Thus did ibn Ezra, Rashbam, and Ramban interpret the section in accord with the position of Rabbi Nehemiah in Sifre. Rashi tended towards the opposing opinion of Rabbi Jehudah that the section was directed against Israel, though he quoted both rabbis in details; and Herder was comfortable with the interpretation that the subject continued to be eras Mendelssohn, however, agrees with the position of Rabbi Nehemiah and explicitly states in the Bi'ur of 32:28, on the basis of ibn Ezra, that " M3s 9a v s refers to the enemies of Israel.” Mendelssohn's interpretation of " in93 19>)! " in v. 27 is somewhat different. After explaining " 155] = meaning "deny," from ibn Ezra without acknowledgment, as in ids-transfation "die Gegner würden die Wahrheit verkennen," he quotes from Rashi, also without ac- knowledgment, that the enemy "attributes their power to a stranger (7994), to whom greatness does not belong"—a pointed reference to désust This statement is worth pondering, especially in view of the fact that Mendelssohn does not attack Christianity elsewhere in th Bi'ur and does not generally employ such homiletical word plays in his 230 explanation of the literal meaning of the text. 9. Poetry: Thematic Unity Now we shall illustrate Mendelssohn's contributions in the matter of poetic thematic unity. In the blessings of Jacob (in the Bi'ur on Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 226, Genesis 49, written by Solomon Dubno in clarification of Mendelssohn's opinion?91), Mendelssohn imprinted his own stamp in the definition of themes, For example, the blessings to Judah and Joseph, Dubno writes, depict both the political power and economic well-being foreseen for the tribes. The blessing to Simon and Levi, on the other hand, con- sists primarily of a description of their personality "s Genesis 49:5-7. PIPADA enh f pink a Jisne 19122 TUA Fk pop KJ hap lk PZOA IL 17% RII 0A) R'e qo» Pak? O Dptp > PPK! — Sk o pok 919/c ME ed ole mps'a prone Schimon und Levi sind gleiche Brüder; Werkzeuge der Gewaltthatigkeit sind ihre Verwandschaft. in ihren Rath komme nicht meine Seelei in ihre Versammlung werde nicht mit eingeschlossen meine Ehre! Denn in ihrem Zorn erwürgten sie den Mann, und in ihrem Muth- willen lahmten sie die Ochsen. Verflucht sei ihr Zorn! denn er ist heftig} und ihr Grimm! denn er ist störrig. Ich will sie zertheilen in Jakob, und zerstreuen in Jisrael. As such, Mendelssohn may have been influenced by the emphasis of Herder in Briefe, das Studium der Theologie betreffend that the blessings in T 33 general present a "Charaktergemahlde" of the sons; ^ though he ex- presses that idea explicitly only in this case. His understanding of a unified depiction of character can be appreciated better in com- parison with the opinions of Rashi and ibn Ezra, who tried to squeeze historical facts from the poetry. The differing interpretations of " Ue ^? POKEA 'D QUU EE Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 227. WM |^» pJI3221 " provide a good focus. Rashi interprets the first clause as referring to the killing of Hamor and the Shekhemites (ch. 34) and the second clause as referring to their wish to elim- inate Joseph, compared elsewhere to an ox3 and ibn Ezra interprets both clauses as referring to the leveling of Shekhem, taking "5€ " in the second as "MT," which he explains as meaning the walls of the city, Mendelssohn, on the other hand, understands " (/g" in " Rie Ip?» Poka '2" as referring to any opponent (actually he fol- lows the second opinion of Rashi) and" jp 17% £JI2^21 " as mean- ing "laming oxen," a metaphor describing their strength and cruelty, but which might never have actually happened. Accordingly, Dubno ex- plains, the verbs in the sentence should not be considered as indica- tives of fact, but as "beynonim describing the [sons' ] EN n i Though Mendelssohn renders the verbs as imperfect indicatives in his translation, he may have done so in order not to encumber his artful rendition vith an awkward circumlocution, such as "they were wont to" in English. Similarly, Dubno writes that the verses on Dan, who is compared to a snake and a viper (49:16f.), are not to be interpreted as ref- erences to Sanson, as according to Rashi and Ramban. He differs also from ibn Ezra and Rashbam, who interpreted tne metaphor as depicting the "might" of a snake, and, like Herder, writes that it depicts Dan's slyness and craftiness in battle,479 An excellent example of Mendelssohn's emphasis on a central uni- fying theme is his treatment of the first part of Bil'am's fourth Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 228. prophecy at Numbers 24:17-19. mop Bl Joc ae ke) tjek fow Gag DE. N 92/2 203 ‚SUP p om y PER ow! rile IQ nu» pra) Xo! PIPE > pD) Pin ors den tl , ) DNA PL eal»! aptW ?27 . T we 8 Ich sehe hin, noch ist er nichts erblicke ihn, aber nicht nahe. Ein Stern aus Jakob tritt hervor, ein Scepter erhebt sich aus Jisrael: zerschmettert die Häupter Moabs, zertrümmert alle festen Mauern. Edom wird Erobrung, Seir seiner Feinde Erobrung, und Jisrael siegreich sein. . Aus Jakob wird der Herrscher kommen, ein Rächerz bringt um, was übrig ist. Whereas Ramban interpreted the section as referring to the Messiah, Mendelssohn follows ibn Ezra who understood it as referring to David. He criticizes Rashi, significantly, for alternating between each as the subject, stressing the idea of a poem's "inclusive meaning." It is perhaps not coincidental, in this light, that Mendelssohn's most unique interpretations are precisely for those parts which Rashi had interpreted as referring to the Messiah, namely " and a o opr n 236 (v. 17) and " omy 990 Paka! ape’ 7" (v. 19). He inter- prets " p ja " in the former as meaning Moab's "strongly-built city walls," deriving " Jat from " pja"? —not as the descendents of ae li T Seth, all the nations of the world, whom the Messiah would lay low. In the latter, he rejects the interpretation of "^^(A4" as meaning "from the city"—Edom (Rome), whose survivors the Messiah would destroy—considering it instead as a participial substantive from "Org" ("arise,""stir") in the hiph'il meaning "one who stirs up an Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 229, army to fight," or an "avenger" ("Rächer"). As the subject of the sentence, this refers, in Mendelssohn's view, to David's general Joab, who is in fact said in 1 Kings (11:16) to have kiiied all the males in Edom, S For the interpretation of this section Michaelis can be seen to have had decisive influence on Mendelssohn. First of all, compare his translation especially in the matter of the two interpretetions just cited: Ich sehe ihn, aber er ist jetzt noch nicht, Ich erblicke ihn, aber er ist nicht nahe! Ein Stern gehet aus Jacob auf, Ein Scepter erhebt sich aus Israel, Es zerschmettert die Enden Moabs, Und durchdonnert alle, die veste Mauren bauen. Das feindliche Edom wird erobert werden, Das feindliche Seir wird erobert werden, Und Israel grosse Thaten thun. Einer aus Jacob wird herrschen, Und ein Rächer die Flüchtigen vertilgen. Michselis had similarly construed " Na" in " JE pP" as being de- rived from " aja," but emended the word slightly to read " Ja": [He T destroys all]'who build strong walls.’ He did not go into detail on 2 A ; " ; ; 39 nor did he explain the reasoning behind his this in his notes, translation of "YON ," inasmuch as the notes were meant for "Unge- lehrtea"; he emphasized therein, however, that the section refers strictly to David. Michaelis had his own axe to grind in this re- spect, inasmuch as he wished to combat a Christian interpretation that the section was a prophecy anticipating Christ. That would have been a most improper characterization of the Messiah, he said, who came rather to make the world more blessed than to wreak destruc- 240 . tion. It is most interesting, in this light, that Mendelssohn, in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 230. a special consideration of Ramban's interpretation that the section refers to the Messiah, similarly stresses the ideal of peace which the Messiah would realize, quoting Isaiah 2:4 to this effect. As for the prophecy in Ezekiel of the war of Gog and Magog, he writes, that would be a defensive war which would take place around Jerusalem alone. The Messiah would have no wish to go beyond the borders of Israel to des- 2 troy Moab and other countries. = Michaelis likewise influenced Mendelssohn's interpretation of the invocation at the offering of first fruits (Deuteronomy 26:5-10). The key sentence is the first, the subject of which is unclear: Con ipa PR og gw BA 997 PU pO jp YS PL om eeeMein Vater, der zu Aram wohnte, musste herumirren; zog nach Mizrajim, lebte daselbst als Fremdling mit einer kleinen Familie, und ward zu einer grossen, mächtigen und zahlreichen Nation. Both Rashi and ibn Ezra considered "’pk " as being Jacob, although they T differed on " gpk INDkK ": Rashi understood "Qa/k" as a transitive and " IN9E" as referring to Laban (the Aramean Laban wished to "destroy" Jacob); and ibn Ezra understood "opik" as meaning "poor," referring to the condition of Jacob when he fled to Aram from Esau, Rashbam, however, considered " mk" as being Abraham, taking " sik " as meaning "wandering" (Abraham was a wanderer from Aram) ,242 Michaelis, however, interpreted the clause as comprising both Abraham and Jacob, as does Mendelssohn, who suggests that "Dk" be understood in a generic sense as "Familienstamm." Also, Michaelis Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 231. translated "99k " by "herumirren" ("Mein Vater war ein herumirrender Mesopotanier"), as does Mendelssohn. Mendelssohn, however, wished to be more precise than Michaelis, as well as Rashbam, in the rendering of "9Plk ." Whereas the former took it as meaning "wandering about" and the latter, as "migrating from," Mendelssohn conveys the double idea of "coming to" ("der zu Aram wohnte") and "having to leave" ("musste herumirren") Aram—which was true of both Abraham and jacob Finally, let us examine Mendelssohn's interpretation of the theme of God's watchfuiness over Israel in Deuteronomy 32:10f. [mt ff IPAL 5294 Paka 19 k9y' J IR [o 13]53! 12/JIà! jgpaarse fn^! Ese K JJ? ay! IY . ! A p»k & Ikea app! j9J? 09 Er stand ihm bei in wustem Lande, in der Eindde gräss- liches Geheuls; umringt es, giebt Acht darauf, bewahrt es wie das Augenbild. Wie der Adler sein Nest bewacht, Uber seinen Jungen schwebt, breitet seine Flügel aus, nimmt und trägt es hoch auf seinen Schwingen. In tne case of yet" and " i? nıg'," Mendelssohn departs from the interpretations of the Jewish commentators and can be seen again to nave followed Michaelis. ‘Whereas Rashi, and Onkelos, understood "afia" to be a transitive verb meaning "provide wisdom," namely, Torah, Mendelssohn stresses that the word has to be consistent with the rest of the verse and as such is intransitive, meaning God is under- standing and attentive to the Jewish Bone His translation "giebt Acht darauf" is similar to that of Michaelis! "hatte Acht darauf," Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 232. though the different verb "giebt" in the present, instead of the past, conveys a greater and continuing solicitude on His pape a Mendels- sohn, likewise, interprets " i? 9%'" as fitting in tightly with the general theme of God's protection. He, therefore, disagrees with Rashbam and ibn Ezra who explained it as referríng to an eagle's arous- ing its eaglets and removing them from the dedico His translation "bewacht" is more closely related to Michaelis’ translation "verthei- diget" and paraphrase in his notes: "für sein Nest eifersuchtig ist, und es rächet," should anyone attack its young. In these verses, significantly, Mendelssohn expresses sensitivity to a correct understanding of the "continuity of the text." In the latter, furthermore, he states: "Such is the meaning according to the continuity of the text and the charm of the image," suggesting that one aspect of beauty in poetry lies in the connections of words and ideas. He thus reflects in his study of Biblical poetry the same interest in precise "connections" that we have examined in his study of Biblical prose. As such, his approach to tie text as a whole is unified. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABBREVIATIONS GS Moses Mendelssohn's gesammelte Schriften, ed. Prof. Dr, G. B. Mendelssohn. 7 vols, (really 8 vols., considering the two parts of Vol. IV) Leipzig, 1843-1845. JubA Moses Mendelssohn, Gesammelte Schriften: Jubiläumsausgabe, ed. Fritz Bamberger, Haim Borodianski, Simon Rawidowicz, Bruno Strauss, and Leo Strauss. 7 vols. ap- peared. Berlin, 1929-1938. (We have used Vols. XIV and XVI, Hebräische Schrif- ien I and III, ed. Haim Borodianski. SNH Sefer Netivot Ha-Shalom. Verzeichnis Verzeichnis der Büchersammlung Moses Mendelssohns, ed. Herrmann Meyer. Soncino-Gesellschaft, 1926, Reprint of Verzeichnis der auser- lesenen Büchersanmmlung des seeligen Herrn Moses Mendelssohn. Berlin, 1786. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FOOTNOTES We have used primarily, in our study and writing, the Prague 1860-1862 edition of SNH, published by S. Freund. During two separate intervals we used Leviticus and Deuteronomy in the Vienna 1846 edition, published by Schmid and Busch, while the respective volumes in the Prague edition were being rebound. (Both sets contain the German translation in Hebrew transliteration, the Bi'ur, Targum Onkelos, and Rashi's commentary, as well as Haftarot and Megillot. The Prague edi- tion contains, also, a commentary on the Bi'ur, entitled Ha-Me'amer, by Moshe Landau and Wolf Me'irs and the Vienna edition contains addi- tional Pentateuch commentaries: Ha-Mishtadel by S. D. Luzzato, Boser 'Olelot, by Joseph and Simon Santo, and Ha-Korem by Herz Homberg.)* Regardiag the text of the Bi'ur, comparison of these editions reveals only infrequent minor differences in punctuation; and we have not felt it necessary to specify the particular edition of Leviticus or Deuter- onomy quoted. We have also used the German translation in German letters, pub- lished separately in GS, Vol. VII. This contains minor differences in usage and form, besides punctuation, from the translation in trans- literation (see the editor's preface, pp. lili-iv, in the matter of previous editions of the translation in transliteration); and sometimes a clarifying note will be necessary. All our quotations of the trans- lation are from the former, but occasionally we adopt the punctuation and usage of the latter; and whereas all of Mendelssohn's explanatory additions to his translation appear as footnotes in the former, we re- tain the latter's parentheses. Finally, we have used Vol. XIV of JubA for the 'Or Li-Netivah and the "Alim Li-Terufah, Mendelssohn's introduction to SNH and Solomon Dubno's prospectus, as well as for Mendelssohn's Commentary on Ecclesi- astes (all according to the first edition). The brief notes of editor Haim Borodianski (Bar Dayyan) are valuable. Unfortunetely, copies of this volume are extremely rare, all but two originals having been de- stroyed in Germany immediately after publication in 1938 (I have had access to a xerox reproduction in the possession of Brandeis University Library). G. Kressel has published a reprint of the 'Or Li-Netivah (edition unspecified) as the first volume of his Devarim Nedirim: Mahadurot Hadashot shel Sefarim Yigrei 'Erekh (Bat Yam, 1967) 3 and, for the cofivenience of the reader who might have easier access to this reprint, reference to Kressel's text will follow the reference to JubA, Vole XIV, in parentheses. 234 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 235. INTRODUCTION lə For a description of the Tiggun Sofrim, see my Part One, p. 18f. and Peres Sandler, Ha-Bi'ur La-Torah shel Moshe Mendelson ve-Si'ato: Hithavuto ve-Hashpa'ato (Jerusalem, 1940), pp. 85-89. 2. M. S. Samet, "M. Mendelson, N. H. Veisel, ve-Rabanei Doram," Mehgarim be-Toldot ‘Am Yisrael ve-'Eres Yisrael Le-Zekher Sevi 'Avneri Haifa, 1970), p. 234. 3. See the list of seventeen editions in Sandler, p. 183f. The list is not completes it fails, for instance, to mention the Prague 1860-1862 edition of SNH which we have used, The last edition he men- tions was published in Warsaw in 1888. 4. Edited by Harry M. Orlinsky (Philadelphia, 1970). >. Ibid., Pe 40. 6. See Sandler, p. 170f. 7. Meyer Kayserling, Moses Mendelssohn: Sein Leben und seine 8. Heinrich Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, Vol. XI (Leipzig, 1870), pp. 41-50, 585-590; Joseph Klausner, Historiah shel Ha-Sifrut Ha-'Ivrit Ha-Hadashah, Vol. I (Jerusalem, 1930), pp. 52-63. 9. Samet, pp. 233-244. See pp. 246, 248f. on the Vilna Ga'on's positive attitude to SNH, especially to the Bi'ur on Leviticus by Wessely. 10. Moses Mendelssohn: A Biographical Study, Chapter Five (U. of Alabama Press, 1973). ll. "Moses Mendelssohns kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung," Gedenk- buch für Moses Mendelssohn (Berlin, 1929), pp. 129-157. An equally good treatment of this subject has been given by Mordekhai Eliav, Ha-Hinukh Ha-Yehudi Be-Germaniah Bi-Ymei Ha-Haskalah Veha-Emansipasiah (Jeru- salem, 1961), ppe 29-39. TM 12. Bd. 40,1, pp. 244-2525 Bd. 44,1, pp. 226-2455 Anhang zu Bd. 37- 52,2, ‚Pe 742-7515 Bd. 56,1, pp. 256-262. See Sandler, pp. 188-192, 249. 3 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 236. 13, Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. VI (Cincinnati, 1929), ppe 327-348. 14. See note 1. 15. Pp, 1-48, 160-232. Sandler's accounts of Dubno's resignation and the opposition to SNH (pp. 22-30, 194-218), are mentioned by Samet, De 234Af. 16. Pp. 49-72. For the transiation of "der Ewige," see pp. 63-66 and Franz Rosenzweig, "Der Ewige: Mendelssohn und der Gottesname," Gedenkbuch, pp. 96-114. l7. Ppe 73-97 » 18. Pp, 98-159. 19. P. 1463 Çu i 5 F korys 4192 n 52[5$2- isco DLLD TEC raga K 29^ ul ole Plc: fico feda 5 D 23A ! ^e'Akilc 7 JOE PRIMER Ze RO E » "Iun n -n foo $e pu?! 20. JubA, Vol. XIV, p. 243f. (Kressel, p. 23): foje U IE pepe” JEI NIEDA IID 296 pir P Fe oah robr LJE PRL tej pa DDE »»3 5 opal PEIN PGJ Ie Ike, P'ui3 2. POON O RPDA po po? Ik [SP PUD „RER 93 PX PAIE P'o0n Mk) Cf. letter #227 to Avigdor Levi, dated May 25, 1779, JubA, Vol. XVI, pe 2825 a ys PR pr Fak „ige IF opt" PINIIPD 25)» 'QneNd PPE WOW mij IED FED» We pija PISONT Miej Ink >23 F opo PID JESN NO] We Ik, TL "n P d» ajo NÉ PRR Ik „(169 Dap) [wj 553 Fe JO IE 953! „dk 23% [1252 PPD 5I 9'5 opp! 22) | Ip P J n53 Ty) 2'5) „290 ne jerk ip e 1 21. "Or Li-Netivah, p. 244. (Kressel, p. 24): 2k prow Paj" PHD ple QD, 1p] 42A. Wi WLP QAD WIA HIDI :pona 2393 2 w LU»! t, J D RA 3 2222 Pr = GI "i Je PIP JIN® PIPP I pRa 53 lk , NEN: DID Ik , BEND Cf. also Solomon Dubno, "Alim ara: JubA, Vole XIV, pe 239: f IMBA IWR, Al 795 PAR IST Ic} [orp 136 a PUAN "Qc? Bn Garni! 937 Wea pp se 2n) | kj "is: on) JIA p Ip p ' rm d run ky ie IDHIARN IED RIDA pM MWe B e oy a P da ok at bah Quo n c: ip 7 DAA noo! ONKAD P D Pk ie „2% Qa atop p3] Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 237° And Naftali Herz Wessely, Mehallel ke'a, preceding the Prague edition of the Bi'ur on Genesis, p. 17, side 2: px] 'on CY peba aGa hea 321p pk ka E fcio vidi QEF e»on DNL , PD DWE T poi pin) ED phar jdn n3 FIN lpi [E eae 25, 9622 P 53 j^ DUpPD 533 ‘ep oq» quj SPEND Oh TPA Be b IZ GAD ty a any 1 A o2 FIP pat ih Yr, P I Se 2 (nz, - 5 ; ij ble NIP aga) YAD L) n)? ae pr DN DHD wk fé ,Qkn PNY 99232 SUM l 7 3 au za 4 we DA rapoje vu af 22. See my Part Two, p.257, note 3. 23. Pp, 129-132, 148f. 24. Above, poofes Sandler, pp. 72-81, 132-135. Sandler also touches briefly upon Mendelssohn's application of the kelal u-ferat, pp. 104f,, 107. A See the "Or Li-Netivah, JubA, Vol. XIV, pp. 211-213 (Kressel, De 5f e). 26. See, for er ample, Mendelssohn'!s contributions to Bibliothek der schönen n Wissenschaften und der freien Künste; Briefe, die neueste litteratur betreffend; and Allgemeine deu deutsche Bibliothek, in GS, Vol. IV, Parts One and Two. 27. The new edition will be a completion and an enlargement of the Jubilàumsausgabe, begun in 1929, of which only seven volumes ap- peared. According to the "Einladung zur Subskription" of Friediich Frommann Verlag, Stuttgart (8 pp.), twenty volumes have been planned, of which volumes 15-18 are projected for SNH. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PART ONE 1. Aron Dotan, "Frolegomenon—Research in Biblical Accentuation: cua CNG GENER A dum TTY Ses GE TES NENNEN | SS EE CERES SN TESS ER SE NE | Cee? Ld me pe vii. 2. Dotan, idem, refers to Wickes, A Treatise on the Accentuation of...Psalms, Proverbs, and Job, pp. 1-3, who suggests that the function of cantiiiation actually came first. In a long and valuable note in his edition of the Kusari, II, 72 (a medievai locus classicus on the accents), David Cassel, Das Buch Kusari des R. Jehuda ha-Ievi (Berlin, 3d ed., 1909), p. 172, concurs with Wickes?’ opinions "Was nämlich die Accente betrifft, so haben sie bekanntlich den doppeiten Zweck, dass sie zuerst die Tonstelle bezeich- nen, Zweitens als Interpunktionszeichen dienen." cm “fe NOD (hi rf sake kf parco ive Æ Ice eoo Ss quoted by Wickes, ibid., p. 4, note 9, and "Accents in Hebrew, " Jewish Encyclopedia (New York and London, 1901), Vol. I, p. i57. Wickes adds a brief reference, " f!]jk4 4b." Ibn Ezra's work is more correctly entitled Me'oznei Leshon Ha-Kadesh. I have consulted the Offenbach 1791 edition, in which page 4b corresponds as the refer- ence for the quotation. 4. Dotan, p. viii. His historical survey until the works of Wickes is contained in nn. viii-xvi. A survey of works from Wickes to the present is found in pp. xx vili-xlii. 5. After having discussed sixteenth- and seventeenth-century studies on pp. ix-xi, he mentions the works of Lonzano and Norzi on pe xiv in connection with the work of the nineteenth-century scholars Wolf Heidenheim and Seligman Baer, 6. Ibid., pe xif. Mendelssohn knew Hanau's work, acknowledging it in the 'Or Li-Netivah, JubA, Vol. XIV, p. 248 (Kressel, p. 25f.): [cr » nbs J) A 735942» a n2 an Q4» Pk 4D pole E Res [ie ls FOAN bidzpe IPJ JP Yapa 200 fer bs ES w” a AN 19900 DIA [» by Un pardon Fra Ip ara 238 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 239. The latter work is the Sefer Sha'arei Netimah of Sclomon ben Moshe Helms, to which Solomon Dubno added notes (see below, note 73). Dubno himself, in his 'Alim Li-Terufah, acknowledges Hanau, JubA, Vol. XIV, Pe 330. Te Dotan, De viii. 8, In fact, Levita is not mentioned much in the Bi'ur at all. An infrequent reference to him (his Nimmugim to Kimhits Sho, Shorashim) is found in Genesis 37:25. 9. Dotan, pp. xii-xv. 10. Ibid., p. xii. ll. Ibid., pe xvi. 12, *Or Li-Netivah, p. 245f. (Kressel, p. 24); 'Alim Li-Terufah, pe 329f. “A full list of sources used by Dubno vas given iven in his Birkat Yosef (Dyhernfurth, 1783), quoted by Sandler, p. 87f. 13, A. Ackermann, Das hermeneutische Element der bibiischen Accen- tuation: Ein Beitrac zur Geschichte der hebräischen Sprache (Berlin, 1893). Cf. Dotan, p. xxix. 14. Ackermann, p. 69, mentions Dubno in connection with the schol- ars of the Masorah, Lonzano and Norzi: "Als Dritter schliesst sich auf demselben Cebiet Salomo Dubno an, der in seinem massorethischen Pentateuch-Kommentar [sic!] Tikkun sopherim ganz nach Noizi's Muster gearbeitet hat, durch die grössere Zahl der zur Vergleichung heran- gezogenen Handschriften aber noch bedeutendere Sicherheit bietet." In calling the Tigqun Sofrim a Bible commentary, he betrays ignorance of its precise nature also. 15. 'Alim Li-Terufah, y wee Cx s% ie Š R29 ou UTE NER, HON! i29» 31 Phi» FER o f Dubno seems to be in error in attributing the words of the last clause to ibn Ezra. Cf. above, note 3. 17. Ibide, De 242f. (Kressel, Pe 22f.) 18. Idem. Mendelssohn mentions in passing the Judaeo-German translation of Joel Witzenhausen, published from 1678 to 1687. As Borodianski mentions in his critical notes to the fOr Li-Netivah, JubA, Vol, XIV, pe xcii, this was co much better translation than that of Blitz; but Mendelssohn does not give Witzenhausen credit. Borodianski has corrected Mendelssohn's dating of the two translations. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 240, 19. Or Li-Netivah, p. 243. (Kressel, p. 23.) 20. or ap! (chI jk [42 IONk 25 oar 293 INQ LAN ‚n»» AD Me 55 PND ^ol ‚93 WS PAR ee. ZORpR ‘on Apo ie Sate "ON cot! F pone 07232. IE foe ea SCP fo» n Ne DA 376 Cow! ben enz0» f rk pap va Fe Mon pein 7 fak , (G: a 97992) paiT nn GAR. 7) 93! P $n ‚Du ME pr} ay) 20) „Yen wik PANI en ENU NOAD obep AME! (LOW, ae a 1369 ‘ae d fin | oa 523) DW POM fD p?! , PSAN Uk ij IR Us e» ] n 12 él (e: € fat) 22»), [2 PR) WEIR aww fk 7 023 PRP 1» | 61 A p Pre n Ei oka 7 ica PRIA) e iie S o 4 M ro Aa nb nak fa NORD okey dak ("3 pn23) er» Y Mk 5 » Pas 942 ^k) PORI fip Bw we P" Goo ai? Jut 21. The Bi'ur on Exodus, 1860 Prague ede, p. 265b (communal read- ing, with tatam elyon); p. 266a (individual reading, with tatam tshton). A Christian work by George Christopher Dachsel, Biblia Hebraica Acéen- tuata (Leipzig, 1729), known to have been in Mendelssohn's library Verzeichnis, pe 13, #201), discusses the two sets of accents for the Decalogue, pp. 261-265, without commenting on the linkage by the upper accent of the first two Commandments. 22. The Tigqun Sofrim on Exodus, che 20, introductory section: pre ro f) p nk YS IAIA lein@ 25 poof a Biel (^3 siba |??? ura ib nor ya ,P151532 panna Y 5 pyar -No33 ane Aasa (ot per ano , N38 Jar As MC E D) Joi) VAR) We WAR A I have used a separately-paginated text. The frontispiece is missing, and no bib.:ographical information is available. It is interesting that Dubno, after a very lengthy discussion about the rontroversies over the uses of the two sets of accents, takes exception to the authoritative verdict of the 'Or Torah that the ta'am elyon is for communal reading and the ta'am tahton for individual read- ing. Dubno tends to the converse opinion, stating merely that Jews are "not prophets, nor the sons of prophets." He thus alludes to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 241. Ramban (!), who felt that the Jewish people had heard the first tw Commandments directly from the mouth of God as prophets. According to Dubno, Jews should not hear the ta'am elyon in communal reading, for that was more similar to the divine utterance at Sinai. 23. Moses Mendelssohn, Schriften zur Philosophie, Aesthetik, und Apologetik, ed. Moritz Brasch (Hildesheim, 1968), Vol. II, p. 429: Nun rief die göttliche Stimme: "Ich bin der Ewige, dein Gott! der dich aus dem Lande Mizraim geführt, aus der Sklave- rei befreit hat" u.s.w. Fine Geschichtswahrheit, auf die sich die Gesetzgebung dieses Volks gründen sollte, und Ge- setze sollten hier geoffenbart werden, Gebote, Verordnungen, keine ewigen Religionswahrheiten. "Ich bin der Ewige, dein Gott, der mit deinen Vätern Abraham, Isaak und Jacob einen Bund gemacht, und ihnen zugeschworen hat, aus ihrem Samen eine mir eigene Nation zu bilden. Der Zeitpunkt ist endlich gekommen, da diese Verheissung in Erfüllung gehen soll. Ich habe euch zu dem Ende aus der Sklaverei der Aegyptier erlöset, mit unerhörten Wundern und Zeichen erloset. Ich bin euer Erreter, euer Oberhaupt und Kónig, mache auch mit euch einen Bund, und gebe euch Gesetze, nach welchen ihr in dem Lande, das ich euch eingeben werde, leben und eine glückliche Nation sein sollet," Actually, Mendelssohn quotes only the first Commandment in the Jerusalem; but note the phrase '"u,s.w." ("und so weiter") following his quotation (not reproduced in Alfred Jospe's English translation, Jerusalem and Other Jewish Writings [New York, 1969], p. 70). One might assume that Mandel 'sohn wished it to comprise the second Commandment as well, just Swe CSS as the two are linked together in the Bi'ur. 24. qu "Alles dieses sind Geschichtswahrheiten, die ihrer Natur nach auf historischer Evidenz beruhen, durch Autorität bewährt werden müssen, und durch Wunder bekräftigt werden können." S" fero ING ‚nik i$» AAI? pe f$» e a)? v N?» est $5» an 72, SHP kj uda 91 Ink Ds 03 oes ffc RA 1Q N Cc!; 92 2) A » Lm apot ofi st pol Pr oo Fe foa PE fo 25. ) ID DAU p ‘ isin HP DI tee. T al^ apo Ne Jt pe 3 22 A QU oA WOOP ak: pr)? Prope Pi rps i. Dp aM bi» Res Mu Na = vr 2 p a M ia» utat e b, Gs ost. 29)? Y- IP DU T NUS AD d iiic. 2 "22 der ie p JJNNR E i ee Pus Iie ot 3 5j p DYP Pr NOL ILA uini: Ir (co CLA Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 242, N PENDS Ups) PLAID RA WER 35D EX EPYIDD m I efe DIN th kfn J'ic&] , ge AUD Kin DUD 2202 un b Dating 7 “ok us? PA Pr $??232 IK?) en MUON EDEL : 3?! kh, MET P'a fA» aA Jo Fk pak 7 SJ d aao fa NEIND PIDA Oy) PP us INEB e ns IR ua) NI RIND JH EPD NPI Rn pr d Reha] 9 4592 EO TE ?J'n22 26. Pp. 183-185. 27. Mendelssohn shows that the Rabbis, in th? statement he quoted (p. 21), and Maimonides considered the two dibrot together. He is less ciear in this respect about the Shen. sources he cites, the Sefer Ha-Hinukh, the Semag, and the Semag. He discusses the opinions of the author of Halakhot Gedolot and Isaac Abravanel, at any rate, only in connection with the first Commandment. 78+ 5 Ry wpe [epo APA a pire , ie of DUPIL NIN Pip P [Pid] ner DPA 15 "RO DURP “yes IG fla are DEL fo „194 Pk 151 >? POY Cf. also Maimonides, Guide to the Perplexed (London, 1956), Part Two, 42, p. 237, about Genesis 32:25, and the Bi'ur ad loc. 29. TA ka KJR DI of: IRUR , Apa. i$ a V5 ula? toc das SP 7 A ivoonb D. ar) and , INIM 5 RA, i, ponkdd! m Pad Neon Torf ony i fic 251! TEPPA Neno ph i ; = KENNEN WE | Wen 40) DIR 52 Da 5 N AE rana ET Heje tous) paie Bras prable Pp” 2P: pian (aD NSN P Ple pR " pu J jue, 2k] UP en) 137 13 m Tra ik “9 IN nje KE W, IB IVO L d L jk > di NL wo PPk [7 iEn o PRPA jor Cf, Hendelssohn's introductory note to his German translation of Psalm 68, GS, Vol. VI, p. 362: "Es scheint dieser Psalm ein Triumph- gesang bei Einführung der Bundeslade gewesen zu sein. Die ersten vier Verse wurden abgesungen, sobald die Lade aufbrach. Der Anfang hat eine Beziehung auf 4 Moses 10, 35, und enthält dieselben Worte, mit einer kleinen Ausführung des Gedankens." Cf. also Joel Brill's commentary to Psalm 68:1f., Sefer Zemirot Yisrael [with Mendelssohn's German transla- tion in Hebrew transliteration] (Dyhernfurth, 1826): ^j pk pk oj p? 312, ple akan FOR IVAN pra pr: PIE JAA” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 243. 23») FNL "3 OA WDA 224]2. Pro) INRA 194F Ik 23 1 fic p?! PAID "ale aN WKNA, [Ik 2 POOP 15! nove: fig Pip ö "Bua Sour pr? eink Fe (^ aina) Pa Blof temporary objection that the earth, only a tiny mote in relation to the entire universe, receives far too much attention proportionately in the creation story. He defends the Bible by arguing that Moses was only writing a history of the earth, and from an earthly point of view. 326 G. C. Dachsel proves to be Mendelssohn's direct source for this interpretation, p. 83: "Dn. J.H.Michaelis in Institut. Paedag. Germ. de Accent. Pros. & Metr. p.59. haec profert circa majorem Rbhia in prima voce*kj!, quod unam vel alteram circumstantiam lectori attentius considerandam sistat, siquidem sacer Historicus, postquam in vel. tantum in genere locutus de creatione coeli & terrae, in specie nunc describat terram, quae pars altera hujus universi potissimum homini in ipsius usum a Deo ordinata sit, ut probe consideret, quod, priusquam plenior exornatío subsequuta, ista adhuc vasta & inanis fuerit. Sic etiam B. Pfeifferus in Manud ad Accent. p.25./2kJy ob Rbhia 1 $234. --eGfied-70--L zo AaLı3. .ı e T a $5.2Y emphatice exponi debere dicit subinteilecto quod attinet." (ital. his) = ,[9 Yilel 94 b Jp Jas»! Scan WE DINE ER A f. 4 le IG a, eub. Df am’ vd ka (ad kf AINIA ^ se ER p> ] / ] r a3 | ^ pma he yis RPK) d "^ 12:12 AIR AEA LEE P aaa PIAP PRP [kae plndlen v (Inlc " E fa "n mm get ar in! Ia 14 DININ DAN ‘punt an so 3 plo Kop! JY . A—-— Jl Pla A o to U pw DJIN RBH JE i = pue us ee OP h) J^ T UPC NXA ale 2 Foo ey KIND Lichte p^ T ^ [^7 Na nal j J Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 244. > NER IND ppm ng JA256 „DAN ee" TEIN sF, Uk MIN d5p IND PDP PIN PYL PRI IPIN p NER spoof e Rp Udy VEN PIE IND PEG PAR (kr £23 „PP ‚Pr? Minn y P ar FRE PrP NEL San v€ HDI FSS DERDI pbi. ys) sc 3b. i " PL kia 249? PIR AIAN KJIN PLD [88 251" „FR kia (Sio pe = Me 3059 Er jo e Tio JJ225£ IND Urs DNS FMW (AP), AIRES (56 DREAD pep PPLE WIN? Wk Pi ION PDL PIN? DIAD [13> pkan Kan WPD fa PEt, oni d Ptol DON (py [RD te mike JONR ‚IR a see Se ») 35€» FS [NIRA PWD N 23 n IT ( phy 9266 He pr loj l^ fca! (X KEN Ff PIND PONIN DP 4 at peed Apa DRS ID UL DAIG Wy PE '2 NIND ane 2 u DAP (oj! , 2 nio» ke % a Pa RÈ : NN a a Va po ae ae "m d | Onl)? DDE OH Yin > pk»! PIN a Ka Nea DBD oS PM BAI, Y rn SEA S62 S oo Arn EIE ZAD PREP JM finan P D ^ n^ a : o Pa , PIRES RINNA Who PIADA Ec Kon api ap gpd pr PHB,’ eu ve» bs PNGAL PINT i 5194») DUP? PE 37. The translation is "So nimm nun dein Jagdgeräthe, dein Gehänge und deinen Bogen, gehe hinaus auf das Feld...." Mencelssohn's translation of " (rn " as "Gehänge" is particularly skillful: In taking it as a collective noun, he combines the meaning of Onkelos (sword) with that of Jonathan ben Uzziel and Rashbam (quiver). n n : . kia TENE, Jak oaie 12 Wk fi], Ud HE RR ae be "ook By PRA 12252 f? phe) ERST loos es pop jee PINE GD jy wy)! Peon? Dk EV $54» pe afr) GJ 635) e M pond Pani felis Ship p? t T o» BUE, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 245° X. (uo PDP ott [5 ^A , 94222 In“ ‚Pr ‘fe Gap hae 4 ) ) 4 [? anke ob, ten] [EID [1 5529» jr , 24902» I" LEN ars »fil kI? no» A PE ok, DDJA [33D PORD O ofen a" 2| Jo. 4) Cre va una kL ED n KT own DADAP jA Pk WD RAAD In Ca ji ph mo DDL Varta pk nad 79 2731» (di ie» J^ CP ah m . DJP 71631 op (59 , Ih) Wo pa f sv t k2(6 pk de ki $Y i27? p NDAP |N ae a u n 121352 j; 22 DL ARD J^ pad (#37 | ) 41. Leviticus 3:9: "Vom Freudenopfer, bringt er als Feuer- opfer, dem Ewigen zu Ehren, alles Unschlitt davon; nämlich das ganze Schwanzstück soll er bei dem Rückgrat abschneiden, auch das Unschlitt, welches das Eingeweide bedeckt. ..." , Leviticus 7:3: "Alles Unschlitt davon soll man opfern: namlich das ganze Schwanzstück, das Unschlitt, welches das Eingeweide bedeckt." 42. In the Bi'ur on Leviticus 3:9, Wessely distinctly states, " —— 9J'&J2 afm lan > [esis and likewise. for the case of 7:3, he states, " Pabna [al Dich f'a dps» [Puo Ga ra] proan PU? jor vy thus connecting " pika" with the preceding. Nevertheless, Wessely appears to equivocate about the lat- s hevino m exact opposite earlier, that "iain" was elal separated from its peratim: E 1912 IND PH] IBIpop ALR jie ?!(592 |^! "EE |^ pola pe»? de, u ae re ^ a [y 9 2 1322 T aoti Eo no J N) 127 ji ^ NÒ 233] ere) [2 KON? er s [Hox 24 2 nal 9122 ) ! tn? m? uan ie $3 oJ? ge "a NE pIE? pue o Eng l 215 p) DAIk RP IAA oae zT ef in? P po N22)? DJi y fp igp PLP Wa 97? L 7 NT. » PIR ESRA IEO , í nan ka PR pin 2 rt peg P Pw 13! NP? P n Rgl fe. IS : AT z Por? no DN BH ^b»? Pe 2y abo ^) pursa? No» PL abn HEP nikon PF ie ai! gka 15 (no N63 J2* 4) kdo) T (js n2 kb) (nA?) 3J” [ DQ 2À PD % Gto ^L»f "E253; p Ka? IAL (ui Pur „ED Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 246, nb? fle icio.» L Laf Q, PAIN» ,h D (op ‚ER fle 2255) „DER R Jt» df1 pe kin ge br TM = , {22 bk Dap WIN) 3 , hk nj [co pr Unik 2 [Io x c 5 2) pj (65 Pün)aican 2777 Parke foon wo wapa le k 7 J a) IQ ppp peor Y'AP PP & | ak yA IRO pA a M $$, NY T £5 12 49 Bd ,h' n! kop), TIN vk dj PR! pe, 2998 pago IND "1 PAO Wk Jal ,5P 5 d DIE PIRN loko 7 ME] PA WP JE Sak „138.15 a ue R NIE » Il, DIBE 225 f fcf 2p21 Qk eas "i pe. a pU Sp» MTS, pP’, DE, 5 yt 5)3f UT 55 J S DM HPA) atk J^ Mk eh mos Ante 15, BNE! : n DMA IN S AD ee hen, e wl i For Ph rp 9 kr» : NP 3 ie kr IDP Ph ns aan oh Der pk $69 5^ afi kal a mid Nj o ju anf D, jap Pow nu reru d nn "DÀ Lt plo po] eq AINE a BILE, ^ us > HW 46. Cf. the xmi of Leviticus 1:2, p. 302. The German translation of this verse is: "Du sollst nicht eine Frau neben ihrer Schwester nehmen: Eifersucht zu erregen, neben ihr, und bei ihrem Leben, auch inrer Schwester er Soho po | | RAD, KR ala Qo! oo ee Abd Lade erri ano cis 17% “14 195^? (> MS 25 5) »3]) DER X oe a d s ie SE von] Wiles DOA 929,25] J"? aye p a a D) 5B) ye v» PEY é is py? z js DR! fe kA tei cal NDAD RN: A I$ not [e e We 153] ' dig i f ae e$ 511553 PUP ff (n4) modd [po "n (2 E^ 35» Poop NINO) Indigo» pr MJ A. 2, Mo» du v 48. Gene 26:5: Lev. 7:3, 5:8, 18:18. Cf. EN pp. 28, 31-33; and notes 41 and 46. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 247% 49. Judah Leib Ben Ze'ev, Sefer Talmud Leshon Ivri (Vilna, 1883), pe VII, refers to both Mendelssohn and Meiners: EP Noche PS PIIP MPNO IANA] ASD an porn" Pa Pon» 222 pég , 9732 wor ean Bhic 9n pr? Kf ^4» po] Sn? kin ‚nik Gin DEA kin ‚IS PRIM [> PU RD [ 4 AFTDR D4” Re IB inn (6537) Pps we Kop)? rer UMP ee oS) kapj? 10962 = PADNA MARSD GN IR DID OT = "wire nc AUes? RR p njjw ku» (oss ES oot. Y Spk Spe lox? os JU? 3 4 (| In Matamar Dalet ("Mi-Siddur ha-Milot ve-Hibbur ha-Mishpatim u- Minhag ha-Lashon"), paragraph 365, p. 340, Ben Ze'ev defines and taeng lates "ma'amar musgar" in this way: Jx Nien „NR? pró? KIA DY pi (ogsaa) m pak Ip EAN ak 7? ky I? Ppl, (SO? FIR ID» » nk oa» i jie qi P’ (aN ue a0? ^ ie] 50. This example is referred to four times in the Bi'ur on Gen- esis: 2:5; 13:10; 19:24; and 23:18. i ? ? i] D: 32 ING PRIA IM eain» PU i woh jes! , 3324 ——— > Ip PLPP a ene ) PT ACA CN kon P DRIN kon jou) en: Go, ORR po) ^J Jk ooi tje ?% PB» D M m) J Ö » NE? Pua pp? / an a a EON Alan | 9? GW > d t is = 4 2 52. Cf., for example, the Bi'ur on Genesis 10:14 (" P'o ki tys Exodus 23:2 (" Pa pie ngs * "); Leviticus 7:36 ("pik Inu pra * ")— Mendelssohn's bracketed remarks; or Numbers 6:4 (" £5 si 7) doni 22), t 53. I. 20 mE Gen. 2:5, 13:10, 19:24, 23:18, 30:27, 44:30; Exe 25:8f.: Num. 1:45. I. A^ — «X Gen. 34:13. A — ? Gen. 49:9; Ex. 2:105 Num. 27:16, 31:26, 32:34, 33:40. ^ — “% Gen. 14:17. A oos > Gen. 18:19, 24:15. A — ù Sen. 46:26. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 248. A — Gen. 40:5. o 12:8, 19:20, 27:23; Num. 11:28. . 21:9, 23:95 Num. 15:28, 32:38. V \ Ke ums uM Geite 39:17. t . 33:2. V e 28:9. . 43:30. $5 — v Num Gen — ) Gen. 20:7. 20:9. 24:27. Gen Gen. 25:6, Ex, IV. e _r 23:15. y ~- "7 Sen. 41:35. This chart illustrates the importance of Solomon Dubno in the Bi'ur's analysis of accents. Dubno, besides composing the Bi'ur on Genesis, wrote sections of Exodus and Numbers ('Or Li-Netivah, p.246 [Kressel, p.25]). In Exodus his contributions are bracketed; by means of this chart, we can trace his influence on Numbers more precisely. fco S Ife 5* Giaa... " (525 PIIA mk1] 22 AW Un BZ Oi -— Ton nof pap PIR, lepti Ie 54% 6? 15? $ Myjak ees * DAR PIA eae IND, LNA Bie ro PETI Dubno's en is no longer San: He had wished to preface it to the Bi'ur, presumably in addition to the 'Or Li-Netivah, but Mendels- sohn vetoed his idea ('Or Li-Netivah, p.247f. [Kressel,p.25]s Sandler, p.26). That was one of the main causes of the. strained relations between them. As far as the force of the segol, compare the statement in the Kusari, 11,90, p,190: “DINED Jn [c 9^5» sple {cad m p p Dae s 22^2| ps »109 $02)" | i NUP, ?JL!a ; S D k WE cen I 5o! PINS» Wiggs a ec Un) l P J LTD fie» DUE pe "efi Mus 7 OR j the Q ZU jl "2 BT 2A > ab 2 3 j ^t Ff "diuo 3 > aju > whip punter ah dy Piko Dk? 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 249. Jk ^3 apr | ab, IGNI Fors 3) bo 3537 kopa » „DON í IND DIUNA) 972 doj "P130 fsi 55 RA Rd y 3 ee me VINE gp pap > p [2] Dachsel, pp+153-155, dee this sentencs, emphasizing that " DDkIR 363" is not joined logically with "P9357 an ." Mendelssohn's addi- tion of "war es" serves the same purpose, and perhaps Dubno here has misunderstood Mendelssohn's main intention. 57. See Part Two for a fuller, NP À 2:2 MUYA WISH / of this subje , TT Yan Y 0522 nr? 5e. Sy pan RRA a je. on Ipnd 9) Y] wy g This is an alleged quotation from Genesis Rabbah according to Ramban, who is quoted in turn by Dubno. It is not found in Genesis Rabbah, however, as C.B.Chavel notes, Perushei Ha-Torah Le-Rabbenu Moshe ben Nahman (Ramban), 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1959), Vol. I, p.32. Chavel suggests a substitute quotation from the Talmud, Hulin 62b: ljc3 ^9. fad 139" PND? p» Mp?! [9:99 PIc KATH Y) Ppa 13W61 P' O3 (DN, mid t P yp! Poker MO ie P s 2 i 7, 2) 90 aes © »»kb PIC PAI, ano ie eie à 06 k paka Me T No Pk apa) Qk? m T 5t | 6? I3 oe fe d» 2» ) DN99 Do ^9 J?! ' > APPA ge) Tai EHE di PS, Mid 2 o pn 259 gran f ] u v L en in ans P F D ja f ] URL Vd M E jn BE ] Y | age qoo E IP "nen pee (di PU | In! yor PS P \ N e) ana , POS Rn d rod T 6l. DUS e a (F 413M Feds m I ‚99% J ptr INO e rin [AR "TA ap mazda, WEA pu pm 5) ‚SPP 62. of pp Yr a ADT e3192? "EAP jo )y joo Loy ^» PS jan AM AI 1e ONKN EE woe 5 63. After quoting at length Abravanel's proof that the Torah pre- serves the original form of proper names, the Bi'ur continues: ! IN. SED d He , |? nagar »hkl - UE 33 gigi PRP Jn ?) J fis ponoND NX 290? 2/2 pk pao Id we, Unt as. Mi fy olo 0222 CHIN TES wl b Hs IP km NT Lara vow Ok Band Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 250. b ! J 20 3) JAX ‚DER pwns (oD IVW PEM, EVD PA 3 por 64. Cf. Dachsel, p.242. Dubno is the author of at least the last part of the Bi'ur on Exodus 2:10, although thi bracketing is confusing: elc A (dr INI? D'I, ?J092, Sic Janae "pa 28 fun 2" Ey Gp (>< e P ^t) [ei kl [»ks rk ku ook 743] p " REM R3 ONE pb rz ij (7*5 6 0/5659 13) choo ?(IE Hm a af D) Cen ani msn opp) DENT, vr IC % N) Kok Pf» Da IH POND NINA kip a8 , og wa ni »» tf») GLD kJa L ELM 553 K [ng en 2 a nah Wf d ‘ ) Care ANO» fio AD) "(592 PIN D DUAR [YEP 65. nipbn fy oles lap, DADADI Palen” WEE RIAR MN DNA d “Fh, DEOIN Nhw [7 Job (12 oo zn) nn A “AW p VETE 45594 mpl POON fur by par) EAD RI 2 ipli» $ $ d LP ne", [er eich ur ee PUN ann fy PIRAN pa» EL» ff (Go? AR oR sle, ey qo ji 66. P.30. 67. The full translation is: "Halte die Feier der ungesäuerten RUGHENs sieben „Tage nämlich sollst du ungesäuerte Kuchen essen (wie ich dir gebo ten habe) um die bestimmte Zeit des Ährenmen nats, dens in don selben bist du aus Mizrajim gegangen...." In the 1860-1862 Prague edi- tion, "wie ich dir geboten habe" appears in parentheses; in GS, it appears incorrectly as a footnote of Mendelssohn. 68. Dotan, p.xvii, evaluates Wickes’ contributions in this respect: "Wickes enters into minute details of the rules of the various disjunctive accents, rules depending on the length of the verse. the clause, etc., and of the distance of the dichotomy from the end of the verse, the clause, etc. These rules, the perfection and elaboration of which are !lickes' main inno- vation, have raised his books to a first class scientific level." 69. Wickes, A Treatise on the Accentuation of ... Psalms, Proverbs, and Job, p.38, note l. 70. Ibide, p.39, note 2. 71. Dotan, pp. xvi, X-xiie 72. Ben Ze'ev, p.67. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 251. 73. Ibid., p.351, within a longer section, "Ma'amar Vav," pp. 349-369, on the accents in the prose books of the Bible. This section is followed by the Sefer Sha'arei Ne'imah, with Dubno's notes (see above, note 6), on the accents in the three poetical books of the Bible, ppe 376-400. 74. JubA, Vol. XIV, pp.148-207. Dubno's graphic diagrams of a few individual verses, such as Genesis 10°14, with one to five vertical bars dividing elements (cf. Sandler, p.130f.), reflect the old system also. Dachsel divided verses throughout with vertical bars and may have been an important influence on Dubno in this respects cf. his analysis of Genesis 10:14, p.146f. 75. My inference in the text was based on my comparison of two editions: the Berlin 1770 edition, reprinted in JubA, and the Prague 1862 edition (Vol. V). I have subsequently checked all editions of the Commen- tary on Kohelet (it follows the Bi'ur on Deuteronomy in each case) in Widener Library and must acknowledge that the evidence is not clear-cut. The section in question indeed does not appear in the Berlin 1833 and in the Prague 1834 and 1862 editions; but it does appear in all the others: Offenbach 18093 Vienna 1818, 1837, 18465 Fürth 1824; Sulzbach 18373 and Vilna 1857. jer uaa o» PE pes ape” iin Ur, Den Spon Pel SS WOR nome 2 JI» fe pay H9 kin P6 ab ple aa euo» YA IF a) 25» Ara? 1} ay akin e£ (c 150. (5!9 TE (59, PROP 735») . HA fs ae God '02 56 INA IG off en) TuT LIDL IIR d Jr» 7 wA" Bork pho I" , UR DING lea Man jos SJN fel» Ink... Kia Pko DEIA "9 file jn 5 EJ» Pk AIK? ILV ITY PODES 2214 fu») HAR Ik 225 pI} DDN Kin) 225 ^uifo un rh)’ a Dk DN WD (of... DAT) 224 Sio PE 9) us Dom Al» ONE ID 925] Te 525 E Rt ^os kt. ar) kD fe 3» PN DIA 2 ? un Af P Edy" 36300937 -o (a LIA % m MD Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 252. Ram Ua f ak yn. 126528 32:9 DOA rks ka 395A UL BRAD. P Zu Ind PRE KID dk J? ea P of po TUE OMe jos qn we Une pf 5 N I'he kt bo 7 ak fs asp aefa pór Nicsa Dun $2 ae Wa 1983 ert 53», FJ KJ pre cl GPA p>, DPE ke OR 970p feb], NA fe on Iv PODI [Wu — IE kine "gla nin. SEL 2521 doin Jn?! P? w PJ? Sle k DAA ob wo! [13 pe Cf. Dachsel, pel59f., Mendelssohn's probable source for this explanation. 1. |t pat 209 Evan oP | ito" s kom ^ per? epi 1 p fee akan bys 9 elc »kok ino 7 p» (Uto pn Me Ko [159 [2 , DPN pe 773 peopel ee P502 ` C27 Sn o a d ad Ne N nad» Pp? Lr E P > ofi. PID AUS ke ay, E Pan pi^, P Mi p. nash ^q GIR [7 1 Pe i ie 5) Id f » T ^ 7.00 S ,PP» an t "9g Prik NL ink ST Se Ba Ae». 19 agr Ink SA xD ko» IP op Qe T ip! ts €^ 19 |» o een 3692 PSD ias PE Thre 1Y? Is? al “opin PR pea ply ic P IS UP? GI. Paf Cpe MERE Pak IR) 24A ' fua" PA pe of u(i PE swe) d ono a s oppo PEL Bo. anie DD sp aan) pn: Gl „MAD 039 2! am ' 2?) QP a 105 n Sp 12 "ui D un » $5 ) ‚r3] Onn P ne. Lp io a» npo. pr jm 2 5 pur j Ws PINS ac 1c} 137 WAP apt l^ p) | > J 9 ! E3. LIN pape aint 2 ose Pit I "m Jem P non! Mk mi iJ NCS | $5 Qr r E 22 pe Ti : 132 7? PIPAN |l llc)» E u d put » IDA D adr = s i a A A" A PPE 1k31 ^V 4 pof Neg POZA F2 I )))N] N |n im I3 es X 2k) tole P (e 1309 ) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 253. "EBD PEIA [21,25 UMA malen guar! Jof. pip ja Ft. ELIT ipk 3p D 3208 5 D4 USCA W [Ama , pe Kc? (api > fo f ni PHI... ESP DUNA Pk " fk 80 efi, (S n» Pray ‘Ie! 3 E 9/2 Ay npo» ^ [120^ “ao "(v9 P6 INV POY PAD NR 85. See ej» PLP | jou ‘concluding the section quoted in note 83. £6. DID, f 3 no 3 n2 ty RE aps” 23 DL DAINA , jka T Pa lo, oy DO apap U ee» RM PE man PIL ) ik £1»? >) 1^ apie ,?n2 & 3?! [ri »" eii. PEZ YAWN | ok [Ws e 15) 24 |? TO? R ,22:0 02342 2290 prep ler 25) Pk u: cal me. E woe k 55 ir SA? 1y34 P D NIS |t ilf of n p E »5nf f j des Sip oe js 4 x pats 125" --a favorite "s in the pitur, used also by in his commentary to Genesis 37:2: "P'[lgko» NGA 1667 ay AL p ET [9€ MO? pk 6j] IPEER ew eof? PUM [co ~ l YRD Aka 15 95K f Aa 7 DAF wel DEA E of na et Fa ma DIO Dre C On Lb DER jn | [3k AL) oin rx TR OU Fej ae pao 18 J5i jii Jia jn Bak 25 3 M b pA a 3222 P F Ned ! bt Jo ?3l.2 oo 2% ID * Go:pb JUR, ‘og Fle pink m rk) Fan > 2% oa pri Er: E" AR epnee ane roi kor AG a 2 "With what great power hast thou IE S. d: | and for thee will it be to prevails; for thou wilt possess the kingdom," ihe Pentateuch, with the e Fragments s of the Jerusalem Targum from from the Chaldee (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1968), 2 vols. in one, Vol. I I, p.294. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 254. N. ? 2 1399 ON IN TOT „Ga: ‘ps MEA , [342 "C DP j ‘el fone D4 God P t aJ « jan (c34 3j 996 Joep Ramban, on Se AT hand, interprets the four words as being one idea: "Dar PR) MIS oon I3pR $19 95, JÌ Ple" Dachsel, p.208, may be a more direct source Fort Mendelssohn's interpretation. 93. Pp. 5l, 53. 94, Dotan, pexvif. The word "conjunctive" appears in the scholarly literatures but Professor Frederick Sommers of the Philosophy Department at Brandeis University has advised me to use the word "connective," the idea of "conjuncticn," in logic, implying some disjunction also. 95. The interpretation of Rashbam and Ramban for this verse is diagramed graphically in the Bi'ur, as are a few verses in the Bi'ur on Genesis (see note 74). Sandler, in fact, pel48f., suggests that we have here a trace of Solomon Dubno's work. di Gwi F, Gop frs | £5" 10: kop! pike : 9 Ip... QORP b ex Eb - 5 " ) 5 GR fale ,»p' WIND), 23€ abi Paiki Dp. [diat PLE |?» ap sr 17. DP A lo iib ba À P f Noa, MWe IZ > IR YA : De GWD) Poke 95? i pl! j 09^ (Jo j PWN APON 3 Dika D2 18, fr »ki^ n6 fap alka PP IND Fark n „DINO "x s do | GER DER knal? Ge PASG Aaka DAP PAD [2t „ie Jo) > 2p» n gin a pot Qe e3k (450 INV pen, p^? sfa alt, ? m ? ape f? eg RION ke ID au» $ a ae gm iA ree ox Ryan aka eh ms d ps NNSS pe azik 0065, 18 02) UL 502), whs t P Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 255, | sop SE s] „PR loo TE ' Sea AIND Me no PM fe s YNNE ALD S 2 >] NR Lok T P [Fe > PR park »Qok EL mise oo» PIP Peja SERI à Ng AUN iti Pimp , RADA Ole We Pk 2c 2 A395 PGA ance sn 5» 003 Pa An pot par 2 top X P3E» ank! Wed , 1E? tle aria resin LE, pO 3 a Por an SL WED, 35k |» al peint Pe OD Lele ; "v z S . y pw? [np Il. J, tho ao je pvp (opi! ,2:3P ME 9E 7 Sick 3 A (i? £12 aI owe [os “33 sare Pie ^j PRM font PED [2! 3 Eada (op) PEOUw Da ev? T p lc nil t | 3 A J n (n: os) ol 9 eno ra PAGA P» 2j» ^3 up! frs bho PR WED 3 PRD [oo fin) 75 IR U fap WBA PR ^ op apka V »k5) 2)! Pr) Xo (1 Op) ue ay (qwe [IPD ki» PRR Jp) ea xt. eno Qo) "my af ^s Pto ie ajos EE E 102. On the Jerusalem translation see the 'Or Li-Netivah, p.235f. (Kressel, p.18f.) and Sandler, p.38f. jka 103. ; T Su GE: pop, 2— et ete pi rk rt perp opik D „DT PHP Fre PPK NOS O 0 ET ponyalc DRE I'D [IPM (da japrak ‘aypa die gern ipe: > piel E: kp Dane Po PYN SE? Te P oo "oj, ly! PE Lyk + or» PE and (0? QF gm s \c |! ] ki qt] pad mat PY DIA) BNe [D Inn f$ Tram Pa 5 M pl ew pi ew P -— " p» ani Uo? me ine & S. f [f$ k P) d N 3,8 ste P an end pa Ee ‘0b I$ proayp PPL : s Pe LAIS emgra PPM ron E» (sk) 59 MOP ©) NO ip I» jc e Pry a) ions fid abo se] om PP cies [en E S E kir a Je T loh iy o] YN v AD ar din ER NS 9 923 i & DDE FE, Re en jm E dad / Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 256. o») pt» PR Ton Pk 25 , 6244 No! (chi ban P3 fs Hpk DID DND «, £32 GN hier or mie N? 2) 23 B PDN YD, Op Ye '»nk eic ,k 9» Pt [352 PE 1 PIADA "EY 293 Fs hen Sis Pao P» Ph YE pay» Km WI sae lol. ma EI en E Re PYGPD Pa» Pe PM e a Naka Me [eho >39 fe Papa PRP Fan gi piene LN” | 19 Ik ID 1 [32/2 We is? P)?)94 | nje „(ea p is iur WD Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 257 » PART TWO lə Die Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Leipzig, 1780). Ref- pud in this chapter are derived from the third edition (Leipzig, 1803). 2. JubA, Vol. XIV, p. 211 (Kressel, p. 5). 3. The key terms in the "Or li-Netivah are " [!/$? Pla" and "5NÍ47 OD" (see my Introduction, notes 20 and 21). In the Bi'ur, the term "Papo PUN" occurs often also. In addition, we find al- ternatively in place of the word " pono" the words " URN, "o" YPN," "EIS." " DR" and "490" with one or another of the a and words. Many of these combinations can be observed in our quotations from the Bi'ur. See my notes, Part Two, 30, 40, 44, 45, 63, 73, 90, 96, 101, 134, (151), 159, 1633; and Part Three, passim. As can be seen in notes 49, 98, 134, and 152 in Part Two, the expression "Dipop 9/69" appears to be approximate to "ajnon pn" in the sense of the "meaning" of the text in respect to its connections. 4. P. 241 (Kressel, p. 22). 5. See my discussions of Mendelssohn's treatment of poetry, Part Three, pp. 216-232, particularly pp. 217-219, 224 (also p. 161). 6. Pp. 155-162. 7. Harris, in a beautifully-written treatise on language in gen- eral, first ed., 1751 (Verzeichnis, p. 19, #1), analyzes thoroughly such topics as parts of speech, tense, and mood. His examples, how- ever, are culled from English, Latin, and Greek literature, not the Bibie. Mendelssohn probably learned much from his work, but no real dependence can be demonstrated. Kalmar's work, Berolini, 1772 (ibid., p. 16, #258), more than being a study of language in itself, is an attempt to formulate a sys- tem of symbolic logic transcending language. It is interesting that some of his symbols are Hebraic, such as the letter vav. The work, apparently, did not influence Mendelssohn. Michaelis' grammar, Halle, 1738 (ibid., pe 33, #272), on the other hand, was more relevant, though, as far as a grasp of Hebrew structure goes, Mendelssohn could not have derived that much from it. He may have been influenced somewhat on individual points, however, For example, Michaelis, p. 236, mentions the Biblical practice of omitting the subject: "als 94, Aki scilicet 2/[c7 und QNT Gen. 48, 1.2"3 and the Bi'ur ad loc. corresponds precisely. Mote Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 258. importantly, Michaelis observes that the Hebrew verb is best understood at times with the help of a German auxiliary. See note 140. I have been unable to locate another book in Mendelssohn's library, Meiner, Die Wahren Eigenschaften der hebraischen Sprache, Leipzig, 1748 (Verzeichnis, p. 30, 4227). 8. Part Three of the 'Or Li-Netivah is dependent specifically on Books 1-3, 10, and 13 of the Treatise on Logic. The sections of Mendels- sohn's commentary reproduced in the 'Or Li-Netivah are on Book 3. lle have 1923) mu Bi'ur Milot Ha-Higavon, with Mendelssohn's commentary (Pressburg, 833 For the translation of " "jg onk " and " "OK Ikr“ (*Or Li- Netivah, p. 252 [Kressel, p. 27f.]; Treatise on Logic, Book 3) as "binary" and "trinary" statements, see Milot Ha-Higayon: Maimonides’ Treatise on Logic, critically edited on the basis of manuscripts and early editions and translated into English, by Israel Efros (New York, 1938), pe 37. In JubA, Voi. XVI, p. 290, letter #272 to Moses Fischer, dated March 6, 1784, Mendelssohn states, significantly: PID Amp LL Geor [Ie (e fog ron Ceip Wicks k? die" A ny c'4 Ut DT iG 5. ijui. E offic? 2f M5 IEEE IPIS G J ae /3 (en TOA, (NP [S » n3 PI"? E fk (3 >) Gien Fol e Cage jour? fj" | Ai 9 % niSpa Se Dino ^21» mwa ki" ai gh rere NER nz 2 25H05 »ki»» 5024 GIO 75990 IND AXI e “(net Gark) («32 PW J IO — jolojt IND PONE as 18 MAN LE LIU au fg 2i 1 poke 15 QA Sch 1$ | 1h23 RIP ^ e pp), 5) ow 21D, Ipe PL cd UPRA Opa? 925p EU (een 5 ron falle» prhagn a oin! PE 0104) jo nk qune hae ne DFID MIP Wika PIPIN file (on 1% oe MES 7699 sp J2 Wk, ak V ie en m Pr? * Pp 1» 9 p aX» jpn 349), ioa MEN ge? PE The Bi'ur, in general, avoids use of the principle " ?bhl(cA! i n ANJAY (see Part Three, psesim, and Sandler, pe 133f.). This passage appears to reflect an early attempt to retain a Rabbinic thought pattern, which was later abandoned, fi pok P4 Ema Nain ED NA osi pag FAL PRI I PF lle In the Bi'ur on" Y p'PA Cle ," Ramban is not acknowledged, though at the end of the explanation pf" fi " Mendelssohn wrote " 22 RAM." Perhaps he thought it would be understood that he was continuing to rely on him, 12. As we shall see in our next part, pp. 200-208 this is a common Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 259, principle in the Bi'ur, though it is not mentioned explicitly here. d Jf» PRP ARD 63! PIEDI" , [ig perm PID AN? Pk, xi re J?! $ | en TE len PUP nr WY (fiat HoD P355 rie TRE PERL Men FRI NO Kg? p» pur $7 4J? 1§ y» gover DEJE 'p Rashi At that the idea of el uperfect force, is derived from the form of the verb, a past in eee without vav ha-mehapekhet. Mendels- sohn, however, is not consistent on this point. See p. 73. I 14. Eichhorn, Vol. II, p. 335, 199 [14 | | 55 3?» fon" , e: (doo Yor, E? sl asd fe par! job '9> |» woand p , Ta iiv» Free pl »n 16. Eichhorn, Vol. II, pp. 337, 350, 362. P. 350: "Kap. XXXVII, 1-36....Diess ist dem Charakter der Urkunde mit Elohim gemáss, die andre mit Jehova verschweigt ihre schlechten Handlungen gegen Joseph fast über- all. Endlich die Verkaufung Josephs an Potiphar erzählt die Urkunde mit Jehova unten XXXIX, 1 auf die ihr eigene schonende Weise," P. 362: "Kap. XXXIX, 1-23. -Ueberall der Nahme Jehova V.2.3.5.21.23. Die Verkaufung Joseph's an Potiphar ist auch schon von der andern Urkunde K. XXXVII, 36 erzählt. Die Brüder Josephs werden hier, wie sonst in der Urkunde mit Jehova, geschont. n hk J^», yo d 35m Fon“, fe: et PAIRA , Ds ) NSA IPEA fen apor an GIF 07! Ink ae 3 ics h ' 5JnA po), (leo 62) 2? (Boos? "le 30k! Topic epu pl, () (E 0)? i (EHS PDL RC 32! kb) WIA Sop PN we Pe T ROLNO PYP omo ser 570 WHU 25 Pl (n. que (eke pt) DAR ple 329 3) J092] E "OI a eon "e 19, Ne kot PYP 292 DIR , keko ee? St far 2» fig pesto) onk p» 305)" h: BUR DER np DYD so Je lg?) al [^9 ka) $9.» ple grand 18 re DA pl Q RID Is hale ar 102] OND t 7) ^05 DIN m AM Án 2j HN JP nz pio Ya ja JA? BOL 26 PODNA jorí Sy» P | Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 260. aka) jo, Ppap? NY x9 2j RD pe „342 JPNDD o 21 „P/RLDOR ASHANA a” zz " ^ PUD NODA fp» Din! 63 10] hk u." , 21. „Rashi differs from Ramban, as Jaroslav failed to observe: „ we NDR SE POD 112) pak 102 231» fe? youd 3: “29 The German translation, incidentally, reflects Mendeissohn's care to avoid the Hebrew repetition of nouns. Though repetition of the word "Jo " may be aesthetically pleesing in Hebrew, Mendelssohn preferred to avoid it in German, translating ” RE zd " as "die sie trugen," 2, ED 23. C 221 onen“ Gik! ne 4 ez Gamo ML URS sin ai NT Y 242A We retain the spacing of the inui "vorher gesagt," instead of "vorhergesagt" as in GS. [nf 23. abn GoW 7767 jus pian) pep ME DJ 24. Mendelssohn made one small change, however: ,, ‚PR IEA onik DD ETT N nk: pen | $5? wie LÉ amb Dr? POO EAI? an Soph g robk nd «P p» bs Eu as. Z JIR X o/A " ye an Beg OND Jos) WID WO! Her PIR jaa" RÈ, (SMD DIA Sale E ,, PPK fco Ye Pr UK u De 24 om Ebr Joppa P234» HE x i Bojer fiot! Ya Pie E ( ok. oI i C ak 26 PHD Aw 26, fo WA) Ie (cl VAX, a T el 307 fs OND c 25 „nk [aN- S cm a]: = ee > tk any 63Nka [ho - -k: LANE 24» 03 p» ^ nn rh "PISAD je NND (cine $koe '9 | y c jc 27. "loojn ok po“: 266^ DE Jet [e IE Ra OAD [Gla Owl IDDM! AJEL P^T* “pa rar DEZ D“ PR NIE S, aL PM KIR PAP PIP’ P un re 2 SDIch IODA ^5 onki , iof K a jJ» OP (Ana, np)» Fs DOIN Line lY Jarl 19a DAE We 1^ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 261. 1 Ti a n MRA nj? 10'097 [ed Pkl ‚pe & I2 15 hon Fo PR’? ns ^A) fe ' of apd 2"h ALLA N ife 29. ny, 2 nik propa „ACD 229389, ten no a tj dg ery Ako) ^2 en nob, AP gm smal ont KY ob M 121, An DODD PRU bine 4) us ks 'D 7 ob "pop pi? Ir wa P hey 05 (clap : 2 »nk us as 2 od 99° {eS ga leon eh vo Eros iot li pp auge ports ap 1993 > 73 vgl ‘99 one PINN 2^ a 20 lon : p PaL eco ne Us dis ^ Pa DUE 99 57 9 NO D’ y : ED (29 Papon [63J! 2v aa 96! AAI 5 eae nen JW? PINT PDPN p 7 p (722 p? yank »2) Qo? or NED 930 PI BI yap DPA) al IND M rey xorg „EI tte 3 (co piee "m [kl oin» IE P'RUN ^eua f. fe ijs a a is nie | 21, PNE rg (hic g9 Hie aa CR ss 3! ^^ : tja, gef 184? po, 83a Pk IND XVD Ike NKR E5 phe ^f ^en ^ pc waa lk PE ole 32, The translation in transliteration contains the less poetic "Gemeinde," instead of "Gemeine." 23 (ol h'a onfe kd .. AADA 3 Ji .. PRIN en "pl [ou bel kn» pi De Loc 1 DEBS hie k'2 : 9c Pp In kP (rn er gel [ota Ind %7 Ife MEJ (d aor kék pos 2 2 915) Gpe NEA ED VIL Wok ginn "> Ir - Fiery "DI Pople ENL otc) , P 24 , h ana f PT jo PNKA JD, > aBa b» , o RS Tajo yap "t kn» WYJ) 34. We have omitted the word "es," found in GS after "giessest," inasmuch as it was added by the editor, with the explanation: "das es hat Mend. nicht," s 3$. mn AAEL ‚en hs, "n ry tu mr PRO aa? 2p e ee D) I y n9 24 D. ise PIMP ay D apn Ik [a pe (1,2 SILA eco Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 262. ok anal ; po iur pull gn ny vot, Var PA D " 2 ] "BRE P^ oo fay Mich FS Nk pU, 5| 17 A eds 3 INJJNPR WADI Janie! a ane ,&2'P PID? , LSE l ‚(> ay a m n And pris oki ug! 242 uia ! 2) 1 25 a Qo» pe Weed I2 ble (pr? rad lc p jon Pp 2 D “(bok DI) 58)» nk p3 pot ? a ext! a PO IRRD 0224]9 M? , [PAOD por IA? a aum 2 35 e des oy Per nu font ILIE pinta 2 a Ae 49! or 35h, pie pon Y an cdd eT LL qu Kur 1251 ee ern IND (1:52 sso pvt I yO? ka? eae ^ Jey DIR” DLE d [mo m eot kh, re, 22 KWÈ 37. " kf [c 2 tA ipl2 YD! ki" --the identical temporal adverbial phrase is translated differently: "Dem Jehoschua gab ich damals folgenden Befehl." ahs "y NER c Lh pot» "TEE »xif UI ia nk ko Se DD]! ONL] ^20 Mak So2 ans | Lins NYE AO rio 592 (d? 122b OK igna. PA. HA IK 7922 Ne pe 2 »ki ko:D MA , 2) 3 5k» f" , PR, 58 ak 4. pi^ 27 ORD), n en Pup 771 PER nm? ‚2:22 MR, Wea DED Ma PR ae 251 ‘to. ,e/2)po2 PUD 2)» - JMMI le] 525€ híc ,^Y6» IE Pr, | jJ Pod» DEN NA opk int 222 AY, PHP dem E = AM o» D PD Ak pago Wh , PS SpA vw I ann Jg Nass PE ob FE 3k rn E In! 5422 If RIVO NIDIA SO p» Die» ITEY » cA], A E JEN Nk IND o » L'U A. tsu ^T dk Ie xl ? p k i 7» A NEL pe DIC o pot 5 n Kost jak niil. o3 22» .3)2L me fol p p ,Pe, 2 pont MEER PIN PPD Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2636 9. ROP Ij X [cepe]? 2 Ap Ik » Vf. P nE” = £e U I, iLL 2k DIE OMe V Nc ‚ir pei P) Pak Dk] xal shy, V AS ple RIDI iy 9090» (2) ,21p22 N? " Mile joe 55 rk De > pk) aga (Var pom Fé ro ROD " M. 15522) ONG n EDR AE, 252 pede pe apy alae le» Nos '2 iid fu, So Mp die 2k al Ie P, a LA (polo PPPA PEI) SWED op €rojf About the manuscript with`Rashi and Rashbam in Mendelssohn's possession, see the 'Or Li-Netivah, p. 246 (Kressel, pe 24 G Inn, ED) PI ‚NZ cur An oom P ui i pex an Inte ^ 2 3 3 Ee Took. Rawr I fle, (ain [irs Yr rn Au aD Sn 2) 8o» HOGI PPI? V. DNJ? A ouo? opo ue T if KIEL ames (fa $< ere) Nt AX a p 259 Ji na ae Fike 0k? anh RP j by au! KX y v9) p McA sip) RID ice Los du) ; is y P3 T ic» ane B28 3h9 2 inp, dos pie d Zo AN ph API 5222. anl Qo? er "rs Yvy Pap ROD Gyo Sen AIPE Yen br RNL ui Pu Popk >p ter» joo ln dit av? (bof Js ] nf N, por ia yO hp TER. ine qu ew. e e 162 Alc pak for, kn 83/2 , MES qi b poi And a5) DUE UP, " JONG (PRD) Ea (c3) pf 03)» II sposi "m. S p p Ker ‘9h Dp 2» ny ku pal rad ie 853p Om LO) Ya eB) POM Geo FI ^W [cP hi WAI NEID WO ak?) 302 g ^3 "lam PATI 242 725) 9% ond nte i ^) “OD yay” 45. In! IR ES un PP pl le Ji ) " fae erb Po! qti po PRLDE PE 9 9 Jd nk r^ K 32e vfq» Plead PpD? "nk PE 2 PA QP ICAP apd) 291r» 96 PP jJ» DEA sk Sapa PUP I'e P Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 264. K Pie PINE PP PRA uo aA [PY 23302 Ss nkopda_OkAP I (yee PWD Napa ef [is Pak Pur se ‚pas e" ,1:5' 22242 , 6268 [RE D 222 N Qe» Vad! 2702] Pki nr? pou n f "PRD ^24 sg? DI! ^k mE POS Ic Pale PL INCH, Mikal „kan DOM PL a “pr JER Ab Sk PG 93 5k Spur mox) We ionk PU 47. Cf. Franz Muncker, "Moses Mendelssohn und die deutsche Literatur," Gedenkbuch, p. 51. See note 88. 48, The translation is taken from M.e Rosenbaum and A, M. Silbermann, Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth, and Rashi's Commentary (London, 1946), Vol. IV (Numbers 3 Pe 84. +. AI PI'al i Arf pe m Jn: P33 ea n d. box (neo fr» Pp . N94 d Pw’ DRE) pcs DIR pf 5 N X VAR MINE 7 uU num) Ee ee) ane Gel POP INL 4yoMen PEAD IR aI (A) ” N20» a 43 phen pin! UN Prpuonk fu? Co $o. 1) sple >A? Are p 2138 EEK oe? Gale tcp jor , RO), 2E. f BY (€? , QP PEN Ores SBE} uà Nee o: (5 (o rsh) PRO re a = bo ! fo v^ (c (St en 290 [19 EL 10 © bake / I3 jp 9A [49 "ww PPL (CA? ips NE S [ISN 7 ol opor 23.08 pn» IN! (o! na py 2¢@ ani, EP? "n “aps I»! £àl ACHT 51. Pp. 72, 74fe, 87. 52. Jva a poe CI a ger sphere loge [PR "EV iat ers pp? di AVM yr Popp I2; iN? P SATT ante | ne DPD AD t 120? Pra Es ‚Pe, En T VEI n>? rao et wa ,(IG „D SNE) ipiagtp [52 53 PINE 2, DN ara DW | Nin IND DS d oor , fao PEE |o PMN P6 Ping) (nr ON, OWED n PK) mo» open 92 QU. Js WEP p pq? wer! x (apte v8) [ gx NS qula Ck? 7 jp PO f GENE BWP Ido (rs xGG 94 06 na Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 265, es) Sy vp (lo pr job) 72 Pfr oed! are pK» ON Nae 3 Gap po x) fou pa (earl ri ONE! res PX] iion Mba) P park] 3» won, rn PE U QED [32 JP 7 $139 at oa? FR A 5249 vA Q v IND Ips A~ ‘ye DL ?/v6 € (cro Pas ed ^ 5 44 las» 9! a Nt «op Pr IPD MY > a Jue». » 2 PHIDE NPD 29/c 253 MT noel Iikan | 16) „REN! Qed 22 plow B: 4! (owl one eoi Ink ina Sc) peP, „EPA > D Gi of IANA) yof amen Ife YER PEE’? oF $3» nlc DID We adını " LI: do, do fa 96 fea) Fp Re ^o air boo propa 325) ocn oe HC) DRG (rw po Kay (ài 05 p^99 IT ap? Gar] eifpJic WEP P, P zt gis (n? 25 INK! .. „of ple RRA QIE TC ig N -" DID WOH PROD PINE , 9/5 PURER PP 2 Agde te kc» Dk p» YL p» Yr e ps qu? í " e) PRA. Pu a tse ae GA O07 ) PNL 1224] TET t" 199 ae a, b kop? 55. Judah Leiv Ben Ze'ev, Sefer — Leshon Ivri, p. 298, refiects a dependence on the Bitur in his treatment ment of the future perfect, He cites this very example. P. 24 Di Jule" , Pe kr t$ 1423? . e qe) eer puoi [/? pj t» aoe aby [v D pere T». 305€ DWI YD MN eae nM La Wc prs ‚yo 56. aye ^22 TES A 72k '2" AT ab ata g IRP HM JF |? meas [ip Tet Le | If en e D M iin > P6 DAP 5s | Nes. ilc Sale end kin 2 x ii Fe A 1J8) b^» aon G. Pake ob PGag YEW » J e i o> apn PRU red Tk) o» PIN ] Jj kr PEO Ik P - eo^ Man en 2519. 55^ s fco x ED? 29 f'k Nc5n gr? ple lj jsp: e E. ye: "ei io Es Can sk a i IPEN PPE AIR SPJ f «à! , DPPH du pi pus joi 2H» [2° Kan“ i Eus. Aue D/A A (ch, pi eh S oeil m 25^ JN Wo» (y lo Aa Cis) yp Tm "^90 pe f D! 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 266. (a0 NAL uui? JAZ lat bale, pk» fef Py x n ef, de Par PID PPR IND, DP on WAP st, >? N jc 3*5 Pola i42 PIRNI 9422 NORA IR) (us Perk 9? [ "D IE ar m kaf 2P 2 Y hy U «^ TEN : Gi p:)23,P/22/0 Ne [LP a, Fe a EI er NAD IV 2 TT a RTD po» ET; f GP Pli Fl 92 a6 ct ? Pi Deuteronomy 19:98; " - PI Sk post ? sn? Pkl ok? P sk P uy -" "Wenn der Ewige dein Gott deine Gränze emtert: «und giebt dir das ganze Land ein...." The three other examples, besides Deut, 28:52, which we have brounht, all contain regular penultimate accents (" íi, "on d DP Der "), In the case of "ale? » " of course, the accent indicates past tense, 60. P, 76f. Gl. Kuna) yer? „ger soo SC LUE MT fa $4 PING PIN! DRL Iblc MATT: poA U RI gu ae pn PP JA [n f RE ay KF nn 092) and IND! pk 4 PMID "a DON fie kv, (n7 Dr IUNI AW P aaa MALE IDO fof, mM At 4? BAD (pl) BORA? 2 TUR : E 1329) «| ONF 9/22 2Jn22 pene (cfc e m Qs. Dans ne, yee a) P», eet po oy Ros P! ST aw pn ji D'OR DONG 6J2]» CQ pani, ND! E Dor DR 30128 £2. d DOM ann ? s» 7 b xo ej, m m PR NN DRA fk (ol 2 ke apo Da . P34 Ink? Kor, iuc V Pf N "6 ISD KNB 93, io if Ko NEJI IN i pin 020 ‘in d T LAR TAT ) 3; PIN? PRL [TEA an DON Ji yer ae RN pyle Reo ory ae no ar 9e» il pt c R Io DIT ALAS. Ja ns ae fie pi OQ 194] 9?» a 956» ^f f. al m. T Aps j2) 3192? PUR IAD UD IK, WP ok ot k yak Pe mon PWD ^k? 4 24 Pa f'k T es poni ote ST BIA o) Pk 231. sot ae DCAD IHIN DN> J Ae N. ajot. IND , Ds. o Contrary to Mendelssohn's statement here, there is no discussion of the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 267. kelal u-ferat in the 'Or Li-Netivah, but merely of the lamed kelali, pe 258' (Kressel, p. 31). See p.105. Et — pobka om fic 29n hse (ë í pee) of 2257 „PR nil Al nr OOP Wb 2d Mkt (3! DOD?) FE PWC PPSP de INER DM] ek? Cv 210. 02 Ac 262 nz PP bh s obs SWL, fp >>? ont N CIID pk 20D [9,3 Je ba R A AT ^? Yp VOR. QNkI ‚25 DP 3 ID VIR "ppp, P N DONE '? ko WRR PIS) , PN" m nof 2 2k?| VPR ja! ie ) pnb? PRD AM (5 i C192) DEN Jerre RE m 7^, xo te, UJ, gom INGEN IND of» — 2 qt» k^» DDR INK) 10190 ON on. T TOW PRIPAD (DOF Od 02 5. Note DM b» fn WELL Ste fe! JED PR RN kD daa font J2 , Jf» GR o PDIP Ika” bee 25 85 den WA pu 65. For a discussion of Mendelssohn's use of "also" in German, see p.98f. 66. GS contains "einem," with the E "bei Mende: einen." ii MN 'k Ric) a nk IW ny 22:3 DING nel (pu fier Ke PÍIp 5 2 P ar 7Q9) , fh ae P7?) 1? | 4 (^o o nki HP 15 yor D s. " RK... Arien AL yl” AE’ rL yk 3 7 Gay oQ "T 2224! Poh 24 [23V pk, NIA a Men Q Oe (chic ER, SIN POPE te p? £n Je? um M; ONL npo ? 3215. Ré» Po apr Dp we |! y AP! D NPP? [? (ste Wed 019 , PS We NJL Wk, TE Jd ae, Of. IEA 921 IM. [Dak >" 21" en AU Repel „er Ink 5 Pada nk fe n »3w! (ER OPER PL 79912 Tor aps JO} Plain» [21 INK fei N36 08 > i» N?» AR, 27 rp Pe, to WEN D Iya J251 8027 ies Jub prre (V Lae PERN) ? JE IS? P" G PL 70. (ag. are 45 Lye gue Es ina za rni i fo $51» A a n Y lo e Qo dft UE oy n) DML ff» ? aa 1 Joo) 2,952 , [Io nn 53 ue ap 233 Es fe 2 i?! fs 21 IF : Dy» ,0? P? 04 Pg Yon PF ey ok muy sf» RD Vay rier eof p^ 6371 sts), v9» PP MCS UNGS D Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 268. gap 2 (8 2109 ) 241 25D Ink ,V9D_pOPR PPP bi frage Wk 5 »Je? 76 Ipi Nn» 79 kt GNR) PESIO, ,4^24- 709 DOT ‚Erd Q IGI N? ff 125 nux SSI) On PA? a i Jor i R P'sIp2? WP u aka Salers '&y Is? br..." ,Go:pb DING DIEA. ipi d Dp IDP A )A lc. ARD) DU Q4 AK! k praöle ^9 3M IND paf We 022) DON INKY" „RR, ced PID NaF Lipp p 25523? PNk pio Pak" ‚RE Rn 2j >] np I F “AG "pias ) PiE 72. Dubno's introduction was rejected for publication by Mendelssohn and is no longer extant; see Part One,note 54. 73, A IEN? 29)». Mn, PIPL aqu m ^k 52 ^ j ONEND Pens f» ^ 193 Yo a pu? N PN) D he a a AP p £9 The vav nere is similar to a causal vay Be see below pp. 109-114. 72347 , HD 74 "TN lice 2340 Ar, 2]pD POL 7 S ^2 P, E iy WPL PN p hke sa, IK (s A^ D 129? 5 SK Ua (ch Km PEN 234? a AD Sono eo [c (Le ‚PA ner AR) a, IE E D PPS od ak 25» pog UO agn In 00 SnkI ^9 49) 62k ean Ne? E Er BN Go PT a IND app‘ Ça | [He 1D m EI} 2,3 pie 35 WIN Sp, » 9. aon ka’) (C aha »» IL WEAD juo WY ar M Pp [cD p» LAL Ian 207052 > l Y uf OA TID !a Nk PIR 1292 Jb OVE PR | 29:3 EH KER PUID IR ank fio [ol PEW li»: É 19 jipa Wie " ‚RR, ka 4€ Jak 15. posh 3 an pb > | $$ a " 'D Ik Pla abn MT p 3o pot IN ^k») oh m [4-7 $n nt ir DN oe (cla | > RR ‚Pin [ak WA pee Fon) Pak die of! Pj [p nal NIN) pelo) P232? | a Des! ! N3 jo) IPE Pfr Ba df ¢ 92) gu n ic scio miS Em > JN E» N jns Mendelssohn, 'Or en pe 244 (Kressel, pe 24), mentions that he used Kimhi's Shorashim, but that Kimbi's commentary on the Pentateuch was ur- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 269 available. (It remained unpublished until 1852; cf. M. Kasher, Sarei Ha-Elef [New York, 1959], pe 57.) In the 'Alim Li-Terufah, JubA, p. 330, Solomon Dubno cites the Mikhlal Yofi of Solomon ibn Melekh as a source for the Pi'ur, adding that it had plagiarized heavily from the Shorashim. It bears much similarity with Kimhi's commentary also; and the respective explanation. o£" name! KJ" are identical. Kimhi's commentary is included in Migra'ot Gedolot, Rabbinic Bible with Forty*Four Commentaries, 5 vols. (Austria: Jüdischer Verlag, n.d.). A photo offset of the Amsterdam 1684 ed. cf the Mikhlal Yofi has recently been published (1971 ? I was the first borrower of the Widener Library copys no modern bibliographical information is provided). E for fu pk ax ki DOL fea” agi RED? PEIR (ct PARNA "35 spl (NE I\9 Ale Nk POL $9k ^L 237 PEM !3Jo uc? PE) POD ph ‚RW noon) 2 lc x? “YOR 29:9 aon] ‚je? op sgjF Cf. Lazarus Goldschmidt, ede, Sefer Hajaschar (Berlin, 1923), p. 147. Dubno placed great credence in this as an ancient and reliable source, cf. Sandler, p. 115f. you " Bar n a a RR eya bE" 22 e >; PER a al DON] Pps rye (f, Pk icAG a$ El 5 dn Pre PAI u n c O^ ID p lh valet P25 15 AKO "nes n o To Pl enn i2? p’ plo Pda oot d P'ho y po? [t 19/5 NK 73 PAG maps! prem RR ||? eo iia, Sh ofgal [^ Ma rents p2 kan beds bo aC Caja WU p able pet {ce uin Yen? gc n WE ena Dg OI ae Jo Cnn ke " entaj? 1710; pp SS Qoa africa Ppke nó II? B S gag P233 lea 1& — goof ipi (Ire 15,25] DES! d IOU 202 NÉ ES Zon 239% NEN (cin 25 ALOR jo! mot Ppa Naak nur! poem ep m a» f "of oii gi We 201p PED! = jo peor owl) NER ONIS PIDID |? 129. NID NIND POE ERU nn Aa " 5 a Plan) VHD Ik rep) a Form bak „ra ee rN gfe > Wo) PUPA Ne oka DW Sera $3279 0842,07 Pont) s Q2. Ike PNICIP DFW FD Pa) IWF We -MHP ale PEU nsn p SAN DMN (ape PYA ^s» Me akin DIR? ito ID YW naam N N :12 ka pl Pk 16. JN O9 A DINED e bs AR ipo abl | c kop’l u? (Kl Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 270% Oz m 9 DH 90 nl IDNlc> [ot RL PIA Aa? pare, jo AA J02 RE NIIP PI Dja Nen ‘bl 033 nk aW ppl Tel PER ISEA PpD fe LID ND (ha: ENTIS 9/2232 2 POND 5 DNA) por EUR PI pIoKFR DA Wa IR en PLOW! IND 2kı2 Vik boy Wonk "tro. nine Eu Eulen jain» bs AS DIED MPI ai Bink) su (be 269) YO go. RPD We [ICE 2 oNÍe u“ L7: 32 NNE , kafé ak : i? APD LF PRY D NIZAM! 2p» PK A init ré N RR DUP „An apooe PP 901p? DA e 4 72 OPK) jo Jp! IIA ett. pto or awd Yr) wear íi 2194» IRQIAND) Reon 012032» PUPA 19 Ip? oh as bui So) Wen» uibs FOR Ole EoI: jang] PPR? io d e lias] DIND SIDA ME PUP, DA PPIP PUP ‚923 »" €, dogm fetes) awa DNS. PR TT DONS d Ud NN e De, ae e preg m Ano kS Rn '> nS» f 2e. ne apo 5; Iu Sdan pny? J* 5 IPR p? "OX / N 25» 45 DINO M0), 3 mon» poo$ (loa p (Sp PR? INN Pry IP Ny 5)52) 23 cf 30 82, G has "an dich"; the translation in ae Saber "st dir," ES agl bo we, WE ED Be bic RE 292 OW €. L0 AO 5 Me $107 guis ( EP Jk » gl oe as y^p "DE ki Shio 4 »w j25| 2 be PS NOM ob I : w bor ^ 25 aom pf 204 if wk a DM c») 2 on loo, PNY o 123 pe (s Sn, EN “9 ? 9223» (^9 2 2 hk t290! cae |: > p m DR Je 9M 3g joon TAK IND RE 525 jx pen} PEP 2 i Pupa 1 T JO? f| [96 pia ^4 b opa Pk DU BLN , n: , $T. Pa 3 (c P4» OR 3 ET) f x D " Rip noo ka. n4? Pra N 3 HON „OR psp gei pron? , Wha / $5. (2| aber 22% M n Het vie Bar 070 (kön ana? FF, pe) "ES, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 271. (6). SP» He par Bical Yor ip 195) 40104 (092. aw , 25? 2452 Ur (c, Sk], 24222 „12: MGE, pol pn Pea INEND i SR benh ai Ika e 944 IND (8k) (c$2 | ILEL apo ons a UP jf» ING kın PE Arbon Ep! (pf ne 87. " MN fi ify fof " in Exodus 14:28 is translated "aus dem ganzen Heere Paroh's." S a p?3 bre Son f$ po! ANE. DIE > bf [> :42 IND Se non De (5 pf W, arp! wE PRIM) A! ftc? nl fo: 95 TY $, (6,92) jan? p~ foi x ur kSk 20 t: 3 PINA) 9o» fof PP di y go ee Coed and Dkr Pk > n2 soap! dba ee >k) P621 29» pO EA? INO (997 D INS )9h! {Pm p?! du FFP f 054 j? j 2| T$ [ro Kb) „| "2 MA Ps EN eco» 221p IL any aha I, (2 FR) gno vis NE Po» ‚Pay (ke: 9v T Puan). ie pine pi fu e VP» Pe Gran m 9/4? 88. Ben Ze'ev, pp. 323-325, in a systematic enumeration of fifteen usages of the vav, reflects a heavy dependence on the Bi'ur. The majority of the fifteen are anticipated in Mendelssohn's treatment ent of the vav ha- hemshekh. Franz Muncker, p. 51 (cited by Sandler, p. 59), mentions Mendels- sohn's variegated treatment of the vav explicitly: Während Luther im allgemeinen wie das hebräische Original kurze Sätze in der schlichtesten Weise durch koordinierende Partikeln an einander reihte und sogar das "vav," das durch- schnittlich zweimal in jeder Zeile des Grundtextes begegnet, fast immer mit "und," höchstens dann und wann auch mit "da" übertrug, bildete Mendelssohn grössere Perioden, subordinierte die logisch zusammengehörigen Sätzchen und Satzglieder unter einander und wechselte auch ausserdem beständig mit den Ver- bindungswörtern. Für die genannte hebräische Conjunction brauchte er Z.B, bald "und," bald "da," bald "aber," "nun," "so," "also," Us Se Weg sehr oft liess er sie auch ganz unlibersetzt. Mitunter zwar wurde durch diese Periodisierung der ursprüngliche Sinn des Originals, den Luther völlig verfehlt hatte, erst klaTe..." Cf. also Sandler, pe 121, n. 13, especially his observation that the problem of understanding the vav has continued to engage linguists and Bible scholars. y4. vines £32 Ph O(n PELE 242 £2, k:n 923 PHEA ! pof 2p! /D 213 Plu ^ eo) QE i25 AP ap ond I rl 7T k pai e)» nk DAR PE Mri rato D D 3 f 25k di 102 ped Pe 6?!) 205 ^ed 29» % Ake 022551 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 272 e SITES > Pap P J'lc, nikki MEI pyr sle (k2)4 0k» PHL! AYID Pod’ pe TUE 90. Compare the summation of Ben Ze'ev, p. 325, on the vav: Mo [J£ auf 137 (WI, RIND 209! Qut pile Pr je" p E Pan x2! a7 PIENA Jio pe ES, Work i pipa PR > DIN pay "of ,25 PE 2 ER Despite the fact that a is Meran in his treatment of the vav, it is odd that in his grammatical section of the 'Or Li-Netivah (Part Three: ML g»0WQ 99225 ınfad"), he gives it disproportionately little attention, merely saying, pe 265 (Kressel, p. 36): Naleph f» QU 97» ft Lrilead DaD DINN pres a2)” Icha js ? ID» NDI PINE O jos 82 A DOSE KIS? qe» ME ‚OR INEL 22?» P'N$9) Ic] p? AUR pf lis) A 2 [tà P nipo! ,? 221231 Fl (1? P Kressel's version contains minor changes indicative of the second edition of the 'Or Li-Netivah (cf. Borodianski's collation of second edition variants, JubA, Vole XIV, ppe Ixxxiv-xcvii). ‘Or Li-Netivah was first published ‘separately in the fall of 17823 in the next year a slightly revised version was published at the beginning of Deuteronomy in the first edition of SNH. In all subsequent editions, this version precedes Genesis. wy PIR 52D) afk ‘Sa APDIP PEI Tm Jf 7-956" 48 ‚222 PIPI) (yrs Ik sat [227 22. VP NG Rn o io» AB eR DES jo sf» RE ay CORN | ^t 225i Ai pena en DI db 99 25 ID PE IK, M5 Pk D fake, 25 PA 24 a Er. erg 2)? 3997 de IPE PR [cB We Uk or? Pk wle iR ) ka 13. 695 PIPDD D(H)... " ijo kr DES kop 4k , PY" 1221 793! T kD „kın P eve? nese ow JY 02) td Pe DU un A ton „gel 1 f NP fci» kaw) n; ‚DJ pe IDOR ER kp? PR Jo pole on!M» P I» NENP gle eae 1) A “PIS PNI US QED > 94. In the Bi'ur on Gen. 18:19, he contrasts the conju da " mo " and Se pe. > KIET PY ranh slot mfa? ipl Fe ak?j? , d 7208 PS 42 2 DEC e AND 11. gc 532 fa QU POLE ooa, leo: Ç An [co 4$ [rk Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 273. LHendelssohn had included these terms in his discussion of prepositions in the 'Or Li-Netivah, p. 258 (Kressel, pe 31): AANO 0733 TIE LINN (o i Piae AX Ja U CR 0232 (ALIA fiel , [e 7€!» ik je Idi Riss T IPED IND EDD DRO > jol: pi 22547 [n 5? = ANS YN? PPOR) Kan nin p» (ina 2292. |^ n A iid Fick ime» de -POPI 95. Compare the 'Or Li-Netivah, n. 90 above, where he is not so precise. See also p,83f.and n. 40. le indicated that the clauses in Ex. 25:21f., which we numbered (1) and (3), were connected in a "when"-"then" relationship. Causality, of course, is involved there also besides mere temporality. i YED DOIN Wea (I „gl MKIA DIEA (o! d p! asst Pon NAA) NENA PUDE PL IRU Ie Il? I ” (39k (c5 [5^9 k3) EBO PRIN 202 up 97, See above, p.108. 7f. Po K] me tof... ror? „18:52 NUR ‚NER PIPIS leo 12142. PR pki sf PPO IPI Dh! WM paleo aJ» 93 fipa inp»! 296» PY k> vor nal Mc Jr i nn”. ^ aiu ert Mt wb OL) N Rn La ATA NID toy yale RU PRIX JD fee Fp RI Wo Men kb DPM D fe DDO os pn) !4JjoRfco e (4n INQ v Y CID 7? 1A SPER BMD RR ps j^ 2? oer DIY (ha pean fr (peo DNP PIG ppb enia] PA n ape ap Wt oq io» bj proe i ES e ree ARG PYEL 25 Pop yt NED Eoo TE ing e 23202 bon) P^ A[cA» “A POPPA LIP DOP! us x oct u [npn J» JDD) Pk MNI? pie 99, See below p. 122f. 100, Above, Pp. 85-87. ,92:2 IPAP ER lol. S Fb wen pk ape! a Ne spe! EI Aik 080 25 PER akoj Joy ‚pam DE DU lo AD DPN ko» pe a [LON 5294 Aporne of ] Muri PF DR ik aU, DRED Pra MO 9D! pepe We „PN Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 274. DPU |? ole 206 DIN uad Jie ]22» a DINN ud d PEI p> v» Aka) Pk wa po apo hoD) AP " Pot ner pinon pun 125 ^i! Dh a pipea pfo? Wea} Ier PA? Ne 2,021", En mop Ep PLIP |J?! „9 NIG) 3» DINGI Pkt DEPON PED > rox " 102. P. 56f. OR »»9 he I" „>: P NUN? pie m |a d as T ER; yaoa 7 25 yl CR Pic met rfi DBE ODER ow os AVL ESP Pp?) on : ID 19973 NJI2257 $590 NC leo pk n Ak] =; J2J ^ (el > er Job peop) rol log. IED ANAN of an an ie INR MED, 22. AG ko NNA Ty) pok MI i, ik M ef i an MJP 2/5! NNO „| n3} kb Pk k 1 J pry pee, aio 7 2 Po» eam IK Wak fat f E NS (che PPM P! 105. See the 'Or Li-Metivah, n. 90 above. 106. nlogo INKL DN Js ON [c 2 73! phere o INK, 4 m HO IN |e peu die ENT '[2 MP I)E IP P2) Bu , SoM PRIPIN 24 WF 2 Tidak. vct ^ Jost an er, ‚PM DEN Ijk 2O2NP iQ in kl 9138 We s sie EWES looo 195") “3 Q23 INL tia jp SER 529 «P» PR PEDJA "fp de [U9 Pk Jk poy ps „ke 3 MYC ER 107 pole In JBN Pora ope at! pif ke le "2 1 166 D CN REA EN 2d f DADES pad ksi end E F: a Mako np 9C T Qm SS F si MNAM Yor 9] $ Pons Mad RR nf > PRP Itf kj, n x0 ee 2) ica 25 PL , | ar iof ae N j21,(jP 99) 25 prs k "(> m sp) (c fa 7: Pc 923 Mba ) lnL 24? NPAPI“ Pb "eso Po % E P Spi) CONIA PINEA Pe Be ee I> 357 23) Poy Ped PINK OS N ol DBD ORI ^j ic PAAD PED J} PD? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 275. 110. "Or Li-Netivah, p. 262f. (Kressel, p. 34). di ‚oh Of opi PD Rhe pongo1" ab 13! 52142 AD ba (185% A px. poh PIED YY PP pin 'D fio? £19) J|22 pV , Vics PN NIPA PNP DNFDRA U?25 Wea PIPA Ik. pri} Fr rae oF 25» plora joy , 792» „kind Ik pón p Pk k Al! [ro €' ^ ) 4228 ur pow Pl, rs ale) ie 242 PIAA fo’ P29 foD ll ; 2k Hark? y x "fc QA I(yoQy E tp ody Fer js. [c2 PIR jn Ben T i^ pira IA aya Jap , Mle P plc $ TPAkI", 42 :/2 NUM Pika Parfi (ice Dank Oa PE kon PID "22 pha rea > PWED ea$ ft fà YIQN m J) Woo x pfe Me Uka EJE ipl PAJE D aja xs PPD jo kE RIKI, DA DRDE "I3. leno foo” (nk Jic for j^. NaN ato Per fM? PPPLD eno pve Inkl yor fee ca fi ond [2t ao Shin] De OPM Ae HI DENS SQjanre for) Jow? E P») gf Pmı [Mle dt. 9:5» 12/2 1[DONJLO Ih Fie fl 2) “nun IP Aaji £7» $V 121909 AP i (og xk apo Sepa.” | |a (^ DINE , 12/00 | ay Ba BR op Ye [uo NIND 1920 (ci» "2 PER PINJA , i £k PIA fon pba [c 5 A) - Pak „an (pak) [4^ Hig D ur» 2 nor pora [aea ur £2 A wd eo f rop fti ‚790 "65 Fok Pion! M glen) poe? P d ap 253! mar NINA ‘ans 91122 EXT an 5 DIAO l = | “he pot 19965) /9 Rap P$? kagi "Rien JW» PR SC Pii Pi fos Pf wien io LT RU IER o 282 1956 ki» 5 Poo P'c3AJ» on 'g2k op een N? 4 pork? , POD ! Y k: ; k gn Ak Ion) eS 32 Laal us E (06>) pee KR ANNIEO [> P90 EST th rv» Pic! : PIE / > PD pf ^ti Gi BR paler PIDID PRIA IND gu, Pe Ps Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 276, "3nk POL ap A geo PH (op ue LE ]»Nk2 kiah 2! aut Ser! ys EDAM "m Gi ‚Pr ‚229 DIN kc MIA 2 00k 2) fg) ? jao £i PI IIND DN 96h how [96 WAR IND” PR, NUR n) Ga anf) erp F PO anal [9 ID DII TONKS... n ee 1990 DD If ONE! Q3» PRIA " pnka paw T ray ‚ed Ik It. tOr Li-Netivah, pe 265 (Kressel, p. 36): e (3a IJ) IENE aka [Re ojo FE Mn PA e" MPG A | j iun A EA te Fea, nt» MIPA SINR] EL T2 £l op! p: ars TOs? er (2) sap ae pe Dahn (a) : Wea 5i []'5 , ‘rm OP À: ots 5 lle add a.few words and commas in the he appropriate places on the basis of Kressel; cf. Borodianski's collation of second edition variants, JubA Vole XIV, pe xcvi. 117. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 90a and Rosh Ha-Shanah 3a. See, Gee, note 119 below, and Rashi, Rashbam, and the Bi'ur on Genesis 18:15. 118. Cf. above, p.111, and the 'Or Li-Netivah variant, Borodianski, ibid., p. xcvii (Kressel, p. 36): 25J47 ete» ANA |“ 4 de ufs SFY er» Pk EE i os Inn "QU, pain 73 pki uo, (Sell) PD? K ^ J } "s et uum, (ID >62 d E | eo s E pei quc e X Dj! ji hoe 22 d lef pis n mM DP cå OR ^ ofi M IE Sc PRO) Pf ar EET ID gaa !A5 kc» ny 2 an Ef jos d oat D 22 ak, 9L b» DL PEN a ink zaile e! pee AR fp?» KEIN 2230 In FOND $ ‚I? Er (27 and 15 NENA (en) PEP "XV 220 y. ie iu E angi R( Lop Vic! DP Me y $ R k 37 l dad DPO PIR, (c1? ips 5 ait, i3) Ki» P a ne 5 Qe p, (Sv Pho Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission , 4 277. ae PRD PIP , IP arp 12" , 5 i£! DINE pika Y- u AP lu»& afk DW Ik : (c4 [Plea fine 2", kak sth AR! (af He Mp PE DIDI "9 dt He soe ro vw eol) Ae won £40» PDN “a phap) 7h ink Gp > O) >07 Deo Praypon Ilic 5t» ji Pliki E pay) fs? 249 7D PM y ? ^34 pop PP 107 P VL pa i n 1? DID '2 AIPIN PO NEU oF [leo de, ne, = [ZZ .. "n 1942) ,p12 lup. Khk WI” PE I Pk 22^ 1D »T Map '9 Ro] ka? KID for 28» PE '2 I pb. pud Pinte PRJ kb and WEC 2 ee fe ys? ob 8 Br "ao? bad nun ppebe Pk 122, Ig >’ 2 ( DADI zd ,Pe VER nyki 16 » 25 fr p / 2 Ad. ues Pato I. Pk dua PED PRJ? in 2707 = Pafi Ph) ch) oe! PYG DIN PD PED PNP 9) kia os ana f?o» Pa? & Pipa PA 123. Mendelssohn's Commentary on Ecclesiastes, with Devid Friedländers translation, was first published in Berlin in 1789 (JubA, Vol. XIV, p. lxxvii). The commentary itself had first been published in 1770 (this ed. is repro- duced in JubA, Vol. XIV). The 1789 ed. was inaccessible to me; I have used the commentary and translation folioving the Vienna 1846 and Prague 1860- 1862 editions of the Bi'ur on Deuteronomy. 124. JubA, Vol. XIV, p. 179: PP mew kf > [D Wk as‘ 0:2 fap nt, AE oen | Ka) '5 2 [yip kE 01951 YONI ‚Prem i25? p3p PRED N FPN Pr De aps p'nseAR 0125] .fe2 pef» WU > o» 125. For example, the Commentary on Ecclesiastes, ad loce, following Deuteronomy in the Prague 1860-1862 ed. of the Bitur. 126. ,Borodianski, pe xcvi es « 34f.): ‚im Tip Ins U phan Inn Seok ans Aula 39»! Pk Ut > PL AID) 6 or PEE aika mios arti , 1:99 Pre? hu 2l E s P94121 IND aie? ENT O , MENDA ppl. f dpt wen a aj Hola o, (Papier) voto loj) (et) to ner P6 E02 I if: page P Mon, aga ok» FF Uo wn fe opin! RD US END PIDIDINDN ADES i 7235 DEA? HT) Ink DN c£ 2,25 PR , ) ) I lo ut , DINN T 12? 20. fc Cf. above, p1l4f.,iendels- .|1? ^36 2 sohnts treatment of an object clause introduced by a yav, with a subjunctive “m Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 278. in German, 127. Robert Gordis, Koheleth—The Man and his World: A Stud of Ecclesiastes, 3rd augmented ed. (New Y York, 1968), p. 278 278: 7: 19-20. The connection of these verses with the preceding is not obvious though some association between them evidently exists. V. 19 may be a quotation of a con- ventional proverb, extolling wisdom as giving a man the self-assurance he needs, The theme is common in Wisdom teaching (cf. Pre 21:22, 24:5). The structure of the verse, as well as the reference to "the ten rulers," makes it cer- tain that we have a proverb, original or borrowed, here. Koheleth characteristically negates this praise of Wisdom by citing (v. 20) another accepted principle, that perfect goodness, which is identical for the Wisdom writers with wisdom (cf. vv. 15f. above), is never attainable to man. On the use of contrasting quotations, cf. note on Ecc, 4:5 and 65 Job 12:12a and 13, and Intro.... 128, > ; , ,e [ONES DJk! Ee INTER (7 F aal” f nk 95 d kigla 3 pe JRID PY% pr 12241 pus "b f md 49) , YOR A oft 3 pop ae ae an MORD 24 Ñ) p S a SVAN p VOP p919% (in 15]. POI “psd Woh olga 129, kf , PDC 228 AU D", n: 4€ pa? Wha y an ij PR) mE apn If I] DPR SD OWEN (on yR, Hee m [ Bn IE pia apke ,ppik smit PYR (D$! Fay wl “ype PE Q [Jo Ve. 722. nin [OM [o IPP fur J, PRGN, PYD Ife en SPM OE i5 325 WER Puis 2309 Sen "gp fio PLD i napa kaf do Mika aa, (ko P223 DE 130. Inn Pk Run, PS. nn U'?n n P ep, (jT vers] ota n Nk [2 pk pn eB mote (cin) UP 5) Jpn DOES ^ Mo g a ij any > of 7». i ee Ap? | y aki 21555 sika Yak em Nr ln 2834 M DK Op PL Jeo? ii pex 1e 15 Ze RJ P3 PDL an AO Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 279. BLS f ert d Faka fo” , g2:»2 kapi plea PTT YT 1: e ue or os ep» Ph 3 Par- RS. IDA) 3! MPN Pkt (cf [a fof onk PE morjo Ph 3961 jn 22 2 PISK punkt 24100 ok. "OAK Ppk P!» POI ZEN 2 In) 24 Inkt PoF FE? II E Pro Ibm PIIL PINI? PEL, ds If 15, PUN Pp fo 2044 IA 2h PD D Nea Ern [21 we 2n? zo kn prof op CEK , fen war 132. - 3 Al fci kap? je Akpo“ 22:9 nen 133. 195 sen Gs pakn.2" „0:0 pro? ibis UAU 2 27, 330» WK PIED 5 AS no IC DEIN pe? of 2300 4. 2. "TP kA PRP AF yo "tj RD ENS! 367 '?10'2 OD CRD) 1 Imre en '5 pl ^f nk? ID d zr D PER E akon O job Paka fe £f [2 PAPAL D K kia PRED "n 2 kata "n 2, am ^t9] 215442! 5202 i 7 PEND? prop kD Wl, ip an 1342 2f k nn Uvnto) ob "o rN T PIE [mf Pin £r» me TARA DS en 2 : SE Toi WED ka pR’??? kəf (men d. ek» D ) py KF vl! O ne dE poko 5£9)A7 INAR gry? 3 LJP 1572 95. kl ‚9J SNA Rn 90» inl Pj plea prop pen 79), nd PPM 2p iaoa AIH DAF UNJ Kb, PF” [, 34, PBLA 1943 ie ook" nur poe? Am, AD } )5 coe In Pk 5j E b p JSt na m Tr 22 kiak A dos: kd wi pe» "ak 2) AE, Gof Im 10. ONO ^ aaien ego ot / M. ic» [yee ESI 9I v» War OB) oak mÂ) n?» IE [29 |? b. fk Er oe vci (2,1 vds ex) Dn 125] . (ok te Y Ijk? peo» kJ T Pawe IRPI? j NRL (cà 2 llc de Ff, TU] ywy kef D pee qe oí 5 7 d, nih PEL DR PAA PD A dar’ IE P nf NEL ang DO VPIJA) PAR a al omen Jy yel OM, bl PIDA R i UTE fs ty fio e Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission 20. afer 2f» 'e»,(]'5 C] Ses ex) len [JRA Pk © Wiel SNIN Pk 7? Ik 25 P fok PAK Pr WIR Yer fh 1139 era? [eat EP ys) Ile P> am. Wk PE PM P'nipo2 pi) W 125 ; IE Hep d, PIDA F5. — wf, sont 1S aple Plc pk Ns IUD ‚ED o eden Pk Dp Pk EL, [RA See aoe wo igh? [45 Jf J 276 IR IEP yon PHI? .. p pe» HI IRPJ l)e qe 2357 INEND ^an) AE WD 4k P Jhke "nk, RN Bn ph JU) VAD Foon wD Sle Ife L 10», 25 [BER UT ONL IK DE DIa ple fk) Tad Ih, AE LPN Jt Ib. f DDDIN VN ner", 4o kc? UI IN? (a fe UW 5 oun DNI 21 A i DNFTT? ANO WEP lk»! PPPDIIRN bao YT (Cpg EN)? r P'E 66 Ok» A5) IPE: 135 DED MB] QM [WP Prif ^r peo ues |J 52» 137. GS has "Gesicht"; the translation in transliteration, "Angesicht." 138, GS has "euer," with the explanations "bei k EU DAL Mr, pa pale syl g perl PPZ PKD ‚VOR WRIA) PIAA 89 IJE flc INE , PON WEN, IND (LI? j c9? IED ant) PINSD TWh P25 Por Py) P2k pi GE pm 7D LNG! (cuc OL ajof pe» ’ADIDD PIP Pra Wc ' hk Aiki (pk xak) PEYWD JH» pd 140. Cf. Johann Heinrich Michaelis, Erleichterte Hebräische Gram- matica (alie, 1738), p. 229f.: "Ein einzelnes oder blosses Verbum, so effectun oder eine völlige Wirckung ordentlich anzeiget, muss bisweilen nur durch können, solien, wollen, unternehmen, pflegen, zulassen, Gelegen- heit geben, und des Verbi Infinitivum erkläret und verstanden werdenz als: 'hhi£. ich hätte können aufstrecken Exod. 9,15...." (Itai. his) Cf. above, pl% fq [is exam 1 . ' POS 323 Ve Pksı " no (Gu. MUOR Ica 5i NUR ETE SUNT bs wo por EE pP COL fol Popke frp? Rk A PaL Pula f£ p) Vref caja ^2? Je AL pe es ane erik Pra} PIOR INL IIEP SIIA [ie Ml priak Prd 093 aye PES! wk PER? ae 1 yfi DP YDS [523 fd SDPRR Alpra 9257 kd} RME PPA Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 281. porn K 1526 Pk joon , P) 192 phy foro KID Lavon Ye hice ae (2 ps. Pink » oJ! Berg [POP PD PR) je 2G cov)... 20082» GPa bia pA pads kan DS PEI erie (cof MYER nian pnb BI pomum ba PR ur 241, PFE [phot kno pog IR Flap “oe DAP rn ( Fes) ho PEIS IE lend Ary) PENR 762 142. ko Fe pwn mW WPA “Cora! AML, f. DD 2122 EID (EWR) oni Tan IP) Polo» ja Ze DINED pics PER "op Sle ‚Iko3 be auf VEN ? E ge 950» 15 i 7 STU ^ nf / I, d Iri d “kya PL?IPN > popg ‚kr 113. ‚2 Ponk ^» St 353p 5", S 2 ı 2 mM): a (ST otn 12 PER $9194 IND PABA PLPOP on IR" xs 2^3 opo] ("o neg) Tex ree Mpo? Be App ano] OPIA POD Harp pAhbar 34» FU 25 Mangan 'pd [2 “fp 29)02 20DA an) ck PZN ALP H É Ba mnan pok PR» DR? 42 PIRS KIDDE PIA"DL (un D ita vh» prof PYLE OP og TR INNS bI vr ' 9 2°7 (bi P PIND 1D IPDA stp led) Pew us D 5p DG) Pp Ki oR Pj ODD eare PAI PALM NAG) 22)25 pord APPIR PIPID 2 DADEW PL Pih] 213 aden Pat» IEA ,P225» FOM PYP J>! S36») PYA (ID) DAD PIRID PIL QONA MR? Ifc [21 > d "eni JP? Sf À Survey of Syntax in the Hebrew Old Testament (Grand Rapids, 1964), p. 78. N Whip 14S, h? | AND _PINA LE T BREI ap Pk 9 Pop’ INA . oso AS £51 73 Se P'jcéopwa "Joy PP 252 !JoonkM, T EDIL ba P. [SEP (2A 2 ae een nen d poised is A42 k 144, Cf. J. Wash Watts [cin i25] , DION dk (cop , ko p! : PON 2.63 2134 IN BAD KJIP Pg») , (SPE) NO F3 joe 46, aafo oink pk pt ke”) 51:0 £022 , P702 »16 a) ii PU msi ee ol Akapp EA /^ MD! pO pw] DEEL aw Fr IJMOL pio) tle pare D TR Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 282. "77 A, pars ple pd Jp NDD ` » 4S! G k kop) DIES fs oar) ajia poan INF , 69 092 rof di 52) Leon jf IND CP IFS ken EF jo IUE ANE Pki 1992 ASC" IkGn PE, |onpB PAE (a) PONE PIE [oC pios fJ) toa Iondin LER MEN olt pba MJUE UNE ej. rite 6^2 3k NOD 29450 2n21h eds fi pNka DPHED) & c ‚19828 iF 29/0 wc EIR PD? Soo lem 9 9k Pale |! 22 X 6JQ Wie > ‚Ten ae DOIN! LJ VON RER POJN Sm 198 bin 'D pe ens fé | anal E DUNI DIW JOI, MSI of N (1a ^ € Pd N » p! (ch 75 , INOA NIDE iu (rh DER We PIF en i909 PIAL, pp P, bk isi ere" 2 We have been unable to locate Ma'ayan Sanit, but cf. Wessely's Gan Na'ul, 2 vols. (Amsterdam, 1765), Vol. I, p. 95 (Bayit Rishon, Heder 10, Halon- 17) on "Misvat Ha-Tokhehah." 148. It is found in the Vienna 1846 edition and, according to Marcus Horovitz, Frankfurter Rabbinen (Frankfurt a. M., 1882), Vol. IV, pe 97, in the Offenbach 1808 edition. 149, M. Samet, however, in "M. Mendelson, N. H. Veisel, ve-Rabanei Doram," p. 247, argues that the brunt of Rabbi Pinhas Ha-Levi's attack was aimed more directly against Wessely's "Mikhtav "Sheni," which conciudes wit a discussion cf reasoned tokhehah and a trans] atian into Hahraw af C Naia I N NAD AD e RE SA dee VA Zu bbw wus abe WAL ANA vA Ado SA B E) ui. SA VM NAA su Wet wh Mendelssohn's appeal, in his introduction to his translation of Manassah ben Israel's Vindiciae Judseorum, for freedom from religious coercion, Sefer Divrei Shalom Ve-Emet (Warsaw, 1886), pp. 106-119. ISO. WD Pp DIP P ER [looi N , 4: (^ f, aN ae P PEU Ic Je E alpon DN Py an PRO 9) din NIE DDD “EIA Ip Fak 231392 ER pd esr 151. M. Horovitz, idem; Sandler, p. 202. Compare, on the other hand, the objection of Rabbi Lzekiel Landau to Mendelssohn's work, Sandler, p. 204: i ofw ah e i Du Qoro QED ESR nina ss EE d on (of Wierd 990 pled Ç'PO iy "2 T» d ape en 4^ ple ETE an fate a jog eot Dp a 2) RIDD Plu» MPN JJ c "Pay Pie Vat Ve X m ND QDI ID 152, The disagreement between Mendelssohn and Rabbi Pinhas may even be reflected in the Bi'ur itself. Compare the following exchange between Wessely, who may have have been influenced by Rabbi Pinhas, and Mendelssohn: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 283. ‚Je Gn fé IN eer kan kd... (eG n Mx ktp 72» pe OA Ms Poo Kf .. pP) EY / RE PNIID ,¢ Enke pits ^d Hipp fir, »»fo "né Ae BN woof Ul an IE Gn Me (p ] Ir NR fs ^ pag on 1552213 » («be „Het Po) f$ >) 3) 22) aoe a pond DIG fox n !O 3 ORY (> Sc] i ,nh: Gr, — ts T e RE DON PIPP MOR Je fis ppop MIR FT: \n’512 6 I PM opf Dk nic Kap kb N DKON LG [c ? n [m (eb), pre i es 4 T rM qM roy Pk '2 NT i rap poppa 909770 EST ag >> ps Hl, Pn/JI f sje Sm kV u Pier Id ef ce E E a»k! 153. Pp. 95-57. Ziko pnp? Iki E a DDJ) T 1598 Kb | Ly} 1 19, > foa pi Ye pane Pa ns p- mo? KID ” dic Y a 2 qu “dyson , Tu A WS la P/200» IJI PRIPAD oret" oy A de d jn» fina fe Paro a Jg Pi D DPA PIDAJA JN PIPAD BD! ID a di D Ic», DR ^ Ceo! pase o9» nA 181, SYA P199 | ISS, 28 T?) Pb Ipo aka apr, suko BAD | Dk Fay ve p2^3 Unk nus Ets Tut nn» fe f iod x (SEN) EEA EID I PARDEE ME NEN a The Bi'ur's introduction to Exodus 15. See, for example, Ks Prague 1860 edition, pe &b: Ble POD Ifi | Ae Plo pias ns rea pine Me! a Nn n Akins 3pbo PP $i Inippyio n Hs cay i IF 1504" If fi noT ffe IF Dap 1e LP roli Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 284. 5 hr DA UL xm, ary dipa Ip Ij] , 402 inp ifle, wt Er 157. Pp. 216-232. 158. P. Sof. woods iN Q PER 159. Kuna gyo opi Phil uo STET p onic PS don Meo! RID Si pot nn 2) (s Kar PURIN PINE Pid k site ento JIR Top) fie PR p! fs PN AND XI ens aS be 4: ia Ip£3] Pople Pro fuot! YA nino» WP? PO! s o 12% 3 Se op) Ipé3. PAA Po» Pt m St ia x» 25) , jA PR e). $Poimf E ,SADEA DOWN PAI 207€) PAE I DON PEPP] PAS DNndA SEP 8192 Por PPN] LISSE DIN IE, 222^ a>_pd) pO (oF pep ARNT R eur PFNP (SEO EA Ole Ye gt Ile?) DIE Buch mos pin x a PpDk2b rec) kb Pin pDA Jk Pp» ^ ANE nao eot Spe! Darin 129€» kd WE vei Fika | A JAD) PR; ^! LLM JNI3 POAP ET 7: a Kar Rn 195 E 59 >k] See ee Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1959), Vol. III, pe 153 Vol. VI, p. 4f., note 23, 160. nylef (ch) Se! zT fk" „7:0 DU E DIE pak fe aN 95 994A | N PAWL [EN ‚PER abc PIDID JONAN [2] (785) fat IE 1177 f? »nkl IPI BL PAI ae PED [IND PPL , (eo! DISD PIRNI Dipin pinot PED | i py 15 : PR lol. i 18 Ge one EF en BP BE [De wk rA 22 pt Fen E 23 Pipas d 2 IS WP DWE Pe» WE » fe po so [ris ] IE IPRS!) M ; RL hL, ap PIGEN Im 1D [one IPI T DAF , P RaRo = apn 52105 DEPPI pair DAI, 369 — PRI DED 2,585 PY? NON EK naf ner 25 PA Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. eof 22 Wile Ae iln IB) eto Ik fous if iJ», 5 = Oe poo] Pole re ageh po Pr ft Probe 163. or Ie fri ) SW " Iba!" „éS 02542 PELLS] px jp pies PRJ GOP 9 Fr [l2] pm) PONP mr». RE? roin» ree PED ae PA jp 25 DIS A) , |^» KFI d Po IDIN ['p TP US kin WAL FC P2159 2. PNP AW Io] Re po pn} f) &)pf TS, IGE ROW PIND RAI pip Jio4 Pak Se Fi RAR S Uto u AND p»yoy)» Ds I» aja, 5422 > USR v eti» Ik PUPP VA Be ae eign phon PEJ) DIED "afa IOP! $2152 pp in EP UF Qiu In Kb Xs "030 fs Mosi? Nal 242 pot» dit, IDAR IE lo — eG qv DIL app pes, M 29e pk” > > fos dc Q A2 Hv (5 Yon P PLP TAT d pem e (> aD; 4 0 du» P'E Po'bno IE Ets ! wor ur PRA» P555» PD iis en nae 5 le Pinto oxi PPD dp ov por pa 19 fils pe) (fare a) p>k ny 2» P ^ p: , ge ibs, ps op? aka, l P/lc I pn > nge "Y GPR ph m 09! ntl, FEP PED pj? PEPPA 2 MALI iR? 56 Pb AS DN tH Alle» ? PE ^29 382 AF ( me = ak fh P?) t ionik fanai Po oy ye) PO Wi 13) fy PH Ica, Donn k Rh pip b US £ „| k3 k ro te ipn 549 IND IDIN INS’ DI Op) lob 230 Mer Hn d ome pat ni 223 RA 167. See note 163, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PART THREE . "Or Li-Netivah, JubA, Vol. XIV, pp. 211-213 (Kressel, p. 5f.): ae IZ negi PAPUA |^ ale DAPA p Apo 3 JJ 9£A aJa“ AI Jk 24 FE NIPP fo 7€ DIN N'I [A pjiopka P’ploo DJINL ON 2 9? MN 29 LH UL) v6 NUM ^20. nd Ml FETA Pr 190 gf AL 4» PIIP 1559 pk PP DW noo m nk) 2981 , PPL? Apt fe? Glia paso Fr POW pap PR „(a2 ref 953) PAP € 2. Benedict Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (London, 1862), pp» 180-1845 Richard Simon, Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament (Rotter- dam, 1685), p. 17: “Nous distinguerons dans les cing Livres de la Loi, ce qui a été écrit par Moise, d'avec ce qui a été écrit par ces Prophetes ou Ecrivains publics. On attribuera à Moïse les Commandments & Ordonnances qu'il donna au Peuple; au lieu qu'on pourra faire auteurs de la plus grande partie de l'Histoire ces mêmes Ecrivains publics." 3. Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 3rd. ed. (Leipzig, 1803), Vol. II, pp. 263-274 (iMi413-415: "Moses kann Verfasser dieser Bücher sein"). Mendelssohn owned the first edition of this work, published in 1780, and was thoroughly familiar with it (Ver- zeichünis, pe 27, i#166-168). It is the only Christian work, excluding the seventeenth-century polyglot Bibles, mentioned by name in all of the "Or Li-Netivah and Bi'ur (‘Or Li-Netivah, p. 241 [KPsse!, p. 22]). Johann David Michaelis, Einleitung in die góttlichen Schriften des Alten Bundes (Hamburg, 1787), ppe 150-171 (2429-32: "Bücher Mosis sind von Mose selbst"). We utilize material in this book though it was published a fei; years after the Bi'ur, inasmuch as it is the most sys- tematic presentation of the author's scholarly views on the Pentateuch and recapitulates in depth the tenor of his earlier writings. Mendels- sohn knew Michaelis! earlier works wells he possessed in his library Michaelis! transiation and notes to the Old Testament (Verzeichnis pe 14, 5219-231), to the Pentateuch portion of which we shall refer often (see below, note 46, for the main reference). In addition, he owned his Syntagma Commentationum, 1759 (Verzeichnis, p. 14, #217); Mosaisches Recht, 1774, parts 3, 5, and 6 (Verzeichnis, p. 44, 4501-502); and the journal he edited, Die Orientalische und Exegetische Bibliothek, Vols. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 15 (Verzeichnis, p. 45,14[503-511). Mendels- sohn also corxesponded with Michaelis, Meyer Kayserling, Moses Mendels- sohn (Leipzig, 1862), pp. 507-5195 Hermann Z. Meyer, Moses Mendelssohn Bibliographie (Berlin, 1965), "Briefregister," p. 243. 286 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 287. 4. Eichhorn, Vol» II, pp. 253-256 (#410: "Esras kann sie nicht abgefasst haben"); pp. 257-260 (#411: "Weder die Priester zu Josias Zeit, noch der den Samaritanern zugeschickte Priester hat sie erdichtet"); pp. ae (#412: “Auch zwischen David und Josua sind sie nicht abge- fasst"). Michaelis, Einleitung, pp. 171-196 (##33-41: "Sind Mosis Bücher von Esra?"); pp. 197-200 (#42: "Sind Mosis Bücher von David?"); pp. 201- 205 (#43: "Sind die Bücher Mosis von Hilkia?"). 5. Johann Salomo Semler, Apparatus ad Liberalem Veteris Testamenti interpretationem (Halle, 1773), pp. 63-68: "Patrum plerique, quicquid Bellarminus et alii aliter interpretentur, per Esdram demum omnes libros denuo instauratos arbitrati sunt, postquam per Manassem combusti at in captivitate babylonica perditi fuerant. Post plurium seculorum silen- tium, R. Abenesra, si Spinozae credimus, primus, sed subobscure et timide, eam sententiam prodidit, non esse istos libros a Mose [cf. Tractatus, pp. 170-173, for Spinoza's analysis of ibn Ezra's commentary to Deuteronomy 1:1].... Pauci vero ita interpretantur, uti Bellarminus (lib, 2. de verbo dei c. 1) collegisse Esdram librorum exemplaria, quae hic ibi supererant, atque emendasse eas partes, quae forte corruptes fuerant. Haec sententia utraque Iudaicis sacris opinionibus est satis contraria; tamen ad rem christianam nihil quícquam damni inde redundavit. Nec in- venio ego, rem periculi aut sceleris adeo immanis plenam esse, quod quidam statuerunt, non superesse libros Mosis ipsos, authenticos; sed excerptos et exscriptos ab alio.... Istas sententias prodidit Isaacus Peyrerius, in systemate illo theolog. ex Praeadamitarum hypothesi, 7 ma Ame J mam ION cnn 4 LU "Tr VUpe L paye lU oye voor Sed et Thomas Hobbesius, in Leviathan parte 3, c. 33, putat, dici libros Mosis, non quod a Mose scripti sint, sed quod de Mose agant...." (italics his) There is no evidence of this or any other of Semler's works, such as his translation of Elias Levita's Masoret ha-Masoret (Halle, 1772), in Mendelssohn's library; Mendelssohn did, however, keep abreast of his work, In a letter to Michaelis of June 1772 (Kayserling, p. 517), he gives a mixed evaluation ^f Semler's ability. There is also a record of correspondence between the two (Bibliographie, p. 246). 6. "Or Li-Netivah, p. 212f. (Kressel, p. 6). See note 1l. 7. Michaelis, Einleitung, pp. 159-163; Semler, pp. 79-100 passim, where he deals briefly in turn with the individual books of the Penta- teuch; Eichhorn, Vol. XI, pp. 378-381 (#429: "Einwürfe gegen das hohe Alter dieses Buchs [Genesis]"); pp. 417-424 (#440: "Einwürfe, dass Mose nicht Verfasser der vier letzten Bücher sein könne"). A `“ i ) aia 8 ae fp qoi, DRA min erm Se GP SRA ER " (P29) 9 99 Jk ANIL Wep W v6 PI? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 288. 9. fatio oz 3a tend LL pbiak Hear riba (c? sten, kd DSN _ph Or 2f, s WA DD * ol "eft rela XIIE mann APD DWN fedle OTE! JA 10. {una $0 DIA kD, jp, 21:3) DAP PER. : J'9€ 4€ TI e$] , £03 ik. Vf php) 2» pt) D , PUMP [72 “eS $3! Ipkip [o DON > /? 2er? 4 Sapo! [? Jee Cf. Spinoza, p. 174: "It is further to be remarked that certain places are mentioned by names which they did not bear in the time of Moses, but by others which they acquired subsequently; as, for example, where Abraham pursued the enemy even to Dan (Gen. 14:14), a name which the city did not obtain till long after the death of Joshua (Judges 18:29)"; Michaelis, Einleitung, p. 160; Semler, p. 82, Eichhorn, however, Vol. II, pə 380, felt that the Dan changed from Layish in Judges 18:29 may have been a different place altogether than the Dan mentioned in Gen. 14:14 ("Könnten nicht zwei ganz verschiedene Städte einerlei Nahmen erhalten haben?").. 11. Semler, p. 69f.: "Fuisse antiquioribus ex temporibus quaedam monumenta, sive symbolica, et in picturis et carminibus; sive scribendi adeo quodam beneficios nec est omnino a verisimilitudine alienum, nec ludaeis quibusdam dubium fuit, Cur igitur negemus, scriptorem usum omni illo ministerio, quo uti potuit? Fa res illorum observatione adiuvatur, qui videntur sibi animadvertere, distinctorum librorum non obscura vestigia in istis libris Mosis, praecipue in Genesi; ex iilis igitur hos compositos esse. Ceterum non desunt iam a longo tempore, etiam inter Pontificios et nostros, qui perspexerunt: etiam traditionis do- mesticae beneficio, per istas familias patriarcharum eius generis nar- rationes potuisse ad Mosen pervenire; ut sit fere eadem caussa, ac est illa Lucae, qui Evangelium suum sic scripsit, ut aliorum varia ministeria adhibuerit. Nec hac ratione abest omnis occasio aut opportunitas illius adiumenti, quod ad animum scribentis bene componendum, integritatemque et probitatem pertinuit; quod inspirationem dicere solent; licet sic hoc loco intelligatur, ut differat a revelatione.... "Post Simonium, qui tamen minime prímus omnium sic sensit, (argumentum istorum librorum priorum, quod tempore Mosis antecedit, Mosen sine revelatione potuisse colligere ex variis monumentis, ex tra- ditione cet.) multa de hac caussa scriptis variis agitata fuerunt; vid. Ezech. Spanhemii Lettre a un ami, ou l'on rend compte d'un livre, qui a pour titre, histoire critique du vieux testament; respondit Simonius, in response a la lettre de M. Spanheim; atque copiosius, sub finem des lettres choisies, volum, 2. Nititur autem praecipue hac ratione: it n'est point marque dans toute la Genese, que dieu ait dicte a Moise, ce qui y est rapportes il n'est point aussi dit, qu'il l'ait recu par un Esprit de Prophetie etc." (italics his; French unaccented) 12. E. Böhmer, "Astruc," Realencykiopádie für Protestantische Theologie und Kirche, ede. Herzog-Hauck, 3rd. ed., Vol. II, pp. 162-170, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 289. especially p. 165, 13. Ibid., p. 162f. Astruc had been a doctor and professor of medicine, Doctor Lorry, an associate in the Paris Faculté de Medecine, wrote the year after Astruc's death in 1767: "Il était bien sûr de ses intentions, mais il avoit peur que quelques esprits forts ne crussent pouvoir, de ses Conjectures, tirer quelque induction contre la divinité des Livres saints. It eut besoin d'Ótre rassuré long-temps par des personnes pieuses et instruites, avant de donner cet Ouvrage, qui n'est que curieux sans etre dangereux." 14. Eichhorn, Vol. II, pp. 292-364. 15. BMicheeiis, Einleitung, pp. 295-301 (#57: "Astrucs System"), especially p. 301: "Die Zwölf [sic] Columnen kommen mir für die da- mahlige Zeit zu künstlich, wenigstens als zu gewaat, und ohne Beweiss angenommen, voreeee Herr Hofrath Eichhorn hat das Astrücsche System, mit dem er mehr tibereinstimmet, als ich, in Zweiten Theil seiner Ein- leitung umgearbeitet, in manchen Stücken verbessert, auch es wahrschein- licher und gefallender vorgestellt, als Astruc." 16. Ibid., p. 294: "Mosis Absicht ist ganz und gar nicht, die Quellen zu erschöpfen, alles zu schreiben was er weiss, und keinen Brocken verlohren gehen zu lassen, sondern aus einer grossen Menge von dem, was er wusste, blos das auszuzeichnen, was ihm zweckmässig zur Geschichte seines Volks vorkam.... Er ist also gewiss nicht wofür ihr Astruc anzusehen scheint, ärmlicher Brockensammler, der nichts, wovon er ein naar Zeilen hat, umkommen lassen will." 17. Ibid., pp. 281-293 (#55: "Was für Quellen möchte Moses gehabt haben?"). 18. Eichhorn, Vol. II, pp. 335, 338; Michaelis, Einleitung, p. 269f.: "Soll dis wahre Geschichte sein, und dafür will sie doch Moses wohl ge- halten wissen, so kann er sie von keinem andern haben, oder haben wollen, als vom Schöpfer selbst, aus eigentlicher göttlicher Offenbahrung, denn kein Mensch war kei der Schöpfung der Welt gewesen, der von ihr Geschicht- schreiber hätte werden können.... Ist die Schöpfungsgeschichte vom Schöp- fer selbst offenbahrt, und hat Moses als göttlicher Gesandter und Stifter einer Religion geschrieben, warum soll ich weiter über Mose hinausgehen? eee. Rückt Moses, wie ich allerdings glaube, Nachrichten der alten Umwelt von der Schöpfungsgeschichte ein, so dächte ich gingen sie offenbahr mit Cap. II,4 an, vo sich auch die Schreibart merklich ändert, und zugleich in die vergangene Zeit des dritten und sechsten Tagewerks wieder hineingegangen wird." (ital. his) 19. Ibid., pp. 286, 291: "Ich rede hier gar nicht von göttlicher Inspiration Mosis, die ihn untrüglich leitete, das wahre aus dem schlacken- haften auszuwählen, sondern blos von ihm als Menschen.... Schliesse ich auch hier Gottes Leitung gar nicht aus, allein da Gott Wunder nicht ver- schwenderisch thut, nicht den, der nicht rechnen kann, beim Erzählen zum Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 290. Vergleicher verschiedener Chronologien erhebi, so sehe ich auch auf die natürlichen Hülfsmittel, die den Menschen in den Stand setzten, eine solche Geschichte der Vor- und Urwelt zu schreiben." ^ 77 ifc2 008 DATA PIE pe J^^' kia je PEI 20. ,'4J58fc PELAA [I3 351... (o 2109) n i pees Je kad ap) pe j i£» 2]p2? \ (. 9. POLL WINE TI LP? Ippo DON Papo) WO 096? 105 9A pA “DEW fia PIPO A AEN 7 i02] (81, RE EY ZP NORE 21. P. 147, See note ll. 22. 21592 DPL Pr wa 912 IR AIR. MPIC DINN afko IME EANN PRES FE NUA [Y PJD Malka Jn 29 fr PION DY PIE DWN PPR NAI, ea Qo PINE) pt PIR PAD Pj» js 22! pias A 13) Pa kaa 2k 2 rap] AIAN), PEN? UID UP? 9 21 $41 1091 DN (KIND [22 Tf, pot PE FS ʻE POY mM DD o4 £j? kn? 1052 ARP AL TT e?» POD JW 54? JE ^ ? RA p 29 PINRP IPR Qe PIJP RAP) ee fo» 7 Wan PEPE poo J? kb We Pa Prin 19A),LV ee Pia? Ky 0582 Ae» lave) 3 lp ak pof 24] ki Rk "Hot off puto G3upan Dko PN PANI Pk 72 P» ^£tJ 23. Ean PIS R PRL) FK Ot UP) ren NAG Den P7992) p9 Mat d TETTE fioi If ok PInoy) DPED E Pk ^2 7927 IE ^ WY 0092. 9k AK MI, ward Py aap) Pan Ak Ban 9d apo WED DPA ES (£i mnt) pnd T ?25 [di FIND (ran POI 2pm "fap ,? O A 219 (o fs Ra Gin» ipe: Ar og Poe t ok 223 | DIDDI 936 ale DIDS 7 om Boro pui Oe a vr E Pinsk I md PI? Plame Jka EIN 2/2 p picco PII PRD Kin 42 312 ae pfn? 19,56 ki» [Jk flop wo? Prd KIAD , PERJE 1 "poli 3 24. "Or Li-Netivah, p. 216 (Kressel, p. 7): Y» Pho pE pind) 025 6 p? lav» pi» 1 D PAKE ^ B "Ak 219,2 ple PAIL P? rn. „0679 AUN MP Gi. AINA BOL PAL [sn VONK) EDP Or Door ISN [PP NI AP Ne [64€ 29k Dp PIAL PPO Jt , ^J JP Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 291. Jp ‚kun? ye PRR "JP Paya) pay ik 1004 pofa PION JI, RU Od Ind PIE Py) Wer IDO PR Dk? TE» DA fr PSE IED ,08€ H oy? Wh 03 99 (ke: 2 pera woof The chapter reference (2:1), as well as Borodianski's correction (1:31) in his notes, JubA, Vol. XIV, p. lxxxv (last line), are mistaken. The reference should read 2:4, which we have just quoted. 25. The question of Mosaic division of the Pentateuch into books was taken up by Michaelis, Einleitung, pp. 301-307 (#58: "Eintheilung in fünf Bücher"); see below, note 27. Semler passed over the question very briefly, p. 62: "Minus constat, utrum divisio in libros quinque sit omnino antiquissima, cum soleat liber legis semper allegari, in numero Singulari. Maioris momenti est quaestio, de auctore horum librorum," (Ital. his) Eichhorn, reflecting his particular point of view, preferred to speak of Moses! compilation, rather than division, of his material: e. g., Vol. II, pp. 403-405 (#436: "Zeit der Sammlung des zweiten, dritten und vierten Buchs"). 26. "Or Li-Netivah, p. 211 (Kressel, p. 5): " > pend PD Dah du IP palarlp ‘900 WAL Un [j^ e" DN |21, INS Yom. 390 Yan fin, INSS Jom BO E» wie, "91990 29, pen) 02944» 599 É NJ INS Jap 990 > ON 27. Michaelis, Einleitung, pp. 305-307. Of course, Mendelssohn could not have read this particular exposition, for it was published in 17875 we have not discovered an earlier formulation. On p. 306, Michaelis expresses the possibility of a twofold or threefold division of the Penta- teuchs "Auch kann ich nicht begreifen, was Mose bewogen haben könnte, seine Schriften in fünf Bücher einzutheilen. In zwei, das verstände ich, denn die Geschichte zerfällt natürlicher Weise in zwi Theile, Vorzeit, und seine eigene Zeit. Auch eine Abtheilung in drei Bücher wäre ganz natürlich, 1) Vorzeit, bis zur Einwanderung der Israeliten in Aegypten, und Tode Josephs, alles was wir jetzigen ersten Buch lesen. 2) Auswanderung aus Aegypten, und Geschichte der ersten zwei Jahr in der Wüsten, bis 4 B. Mos, XIX. 3) Die mit 4 B. Mos. XX angehende Geschichte des vierzigsten Jahrs, bis zu Ende. Allein gerade diese natürlichen zwei oder drei Bücher haben wir nicht, sondern fünf, deren drittehalb in die zwei ersten Jahre des Zuges durch die Wüste gehören, und anderthalb in das vierzigste." 28, 'Or Li-Netivah, pp. 224-228 (Kressel, pp. 12-15). 29. “Haqdamah Li-Megillat Qohelet," JubA, Vol. XIV, p. 159f. Christian David Ginsburg, in his Coheleth (reprinted together with his Song of Songs with a prolegomenon by Sheldon H. Blank [Ktav, 1970]), p. 78f., describes Mendelssohn's arrangement, as well as David Friedländer's elucidation of it (in Der Prediger, aus dem Hebräischen, Berlin, 1788, pp. 82-86), pp.79- 84. dá lu 'D oya (lon 25 WU m DR _plYora ka „PIDDA MINIP DND p Dki pg E E. plana Vie v7 0! Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 292. KIN && POND S iy PInrofi „FR ufi ejk ar fi DWP nb 22521, PIPIR MGO AP? P73! Pp "jr MPA To Pts PORT ppt KIND, PRPO?) erp». MSD ^ LANI 2422 24 RR ‘Pik DEI ^A „Pen PS 3l. gpk PR »kn Ja w, io Je. pim , r IN <> Propo "laa praniar PIPON Géaj kf [tert p ix e “Oop Papon Fle Jh? nk nnb pode U Y 32. Cf. Rashi on Exodus 18:1, from the Mekhilta (Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, ed. J. Z. Lauterbach, "Tractate Amalek," Vol. II, p. 164): a a Feo YD 5*5 asp 12 UW fiers id IKIP) PUR PPR 33. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 162: 3 '94 |»2 IP’ nel (cd) “GAL gn ANDE lead GAL DÉIN. W; NEE N onl n 342 web up Zi TN Eger " kD 2n Qu EAM lo GNC an RT 3 ree = 2 A 5 J Ppt "| : an a m pws piale ox Ye PIORA Qoi Pro 221 PIPI pia» onm fE NAI ^ deb gel] of, fia) PIPNI AU! P agw Fk Y» poss ba n^ e» 251 TET 2 3s. no) kD NO DAR cl ka (d Un i. 235 )hAl Jum 9 sof 552 DI P9197 _ploe Paad Ik? = Appa í a JR $4 PUD "212 a ee BAP a )545Q ^ JAZ IPER 2 DMR CALI N i 5 2) uo is 12 ^tf Sip mp 52 ibus 2 m Ls ay f» yon fot 129R i (eee 4 Pkl; PRA um PIN PARP YP JR PUT EDD fif ^21 n A. 3b. 225 p aka cia EE RP PUI An 47 (32, DREN Pk 2 XN [R28 294 A NP ~ n PIP 16 72° je MaG mefa ar 201242 (0, E i poro DR ANk ppoyp) Sule P96[c 2 5 9 yr Aot. pad U f'k pn 530 YOps JPR IPR DAP ANT? Sp) ID fi Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 293. gaia athi DWE DRL DA GARR MT MAR: wt an 7» "P 5k) Pr u. POE ra PIED PERYA IPR PP? D e ah maL Tap: m] l 5k bie 1b pe 1 yn k RN Du [£5 p nou IE Ob PR pint qai Me os. 13% Fe if pe» B {cla arp D JODA JA DAN 55! Mendelssohn had begun to draw on Ramban, without acknowledgment, earlier in the Bi'ur on 18:1. Ramban had first rejected the opinion that 18:5 and 18:16 refer to the Revelation. Also, it was in paraphrase of Ramban that Mendelssohn described the Revelation as "that greatest of wonders," with a few interesting changes: Ramban had called it "one of the greatest wonders"; Mendelssohn unequivocally called it "the greatest of wonders," adding as well the term "good deeds," perhaps emphasizing the idea of bene- faction for Israel, as opposed to belief-compelling miracle. 35 5342 piper PA 55 [PAOD pep «^ „PR men 20IpAI P?!91909) Ligie 2003 FEDI ‚po 22 ot iN to 5284! , [© 51 (1 joe) pide kr Jap? pnp IK OWE ould PPE P "9p I2» AD Yio na ble PEQYA DE! pind iia fe PW BAID? PIIP IAD AIEI SAP ION Ez? > P’ DES, Pi pre an aW 272 (cf. DIN fie Jap! ka dus A i 3 7 p o pa3)» fé nom PL D/P br» el POM E ipo PË iov feat F6 DIBOIN PPLP 2» MIND! eo "cC ; 7 aW de PE JR) BW ppp p ka Aa p " lo») E i 7)? 5 P (pat ott 2D py p Yle aw ofc ^c! 5 pk Pug al AW 3 a F pe pron PMEG nj» 39 [E P ge JM IPIND ntn 1D, esp) ove PA! Zs sO rn Qt. PDR gt piat, Kent £m ROOT EN zur 193) £X nip» [cape Ik? 9 17? ae m ND DbL GE UI RO? ka pm us Pen PP 9k PAI Am S&) So! jn WED PN P^ od 252 moar lot, owe, np! nen Fe nime [P REP OE ap [cin Mc M Im f^ 1J^53 „II. bic ae pe afin ob asic poles, jad Pr Wes PICÓV PIP e Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 294. aan Ste rap’ RP Werk Um? 2 n6 1067 VAY YP 90 NJ P Pk p93) po 5234 Pk ID !jgo YP PIN pj FR 9n £m ^c PE 09942 fle rang) PIE? PINS (> ka PNO 4nfe !'4J5 Me PLIPND) MID n» NAD If pi elm P», SSE kaf pear’ nw be x nn "on " £n? DIE A sane NS ro n nont P nn rud DODAN DONAN TONI ,'090 YG PD, aD RP ae PP POPAN kfk oig 909k tlc p n2 Wi 222 J^ in i ID), T Rk the 001p pst PUP NDR Me SH kD OD) 9€ 291» ADIL , LAD ti Pak? IT, ox DRM 20! ‘WLP 4a nat No ^k Good DOP - SAD QW} PP PIAL PAR 242872 ph 2 RPE PINK (RK 52e» am? ap] 6 Ps hyp mI ee 7o. plea 75)p LON £3/5€ OID pled jk / / Ju POLP / EIL: poo3 PE, Ink 44? DAN N)009 (> 213 kÉ AI ; KR leon at " UI np! 10222 5) p22 yr NÉ (OU Ré J 7 INERI , 2) pop i pP! ER e s je 2» PE i DU inj (cd) 492 22m [558 oy PTUS DPN (mS) S " I» ayn kb Me IE [2 DA P? SR GS PROD NO AT M C T PID i an 1979 ppp pki | 7 Fie PSren Pob T» IIMA | oe 19 fir 199 A Q PR. pIpD® Vj PAG) op if PR PR PPD PI ut eat xi) Coon "mz ! £0 paw JW PRP VN kA Pk Nok AED ple and" „FT, » Ip) WR D Loe? JOE 'D fe pien PRD v T J, SI DeL PaP kp CAI pp I$ 2 22% BNSIO RJ? jn " le TL (i WE DAR) 18 13 , DODA D se JOD) OIG PIE FED P) jf pA The German translation is consistent: "Des Morgens darauf sass Moscheh, das Volk zu richten. Das Volk stand um Moscheh herum, von Morgen bis Abend." (Ital. mine) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 295. 2 M , p GOP 2^3 fel m , 244 DII , 52: P „kA 109 Mo Wn P IP 2S ND), UM DEE PIPAN ivl eof DW PSY 19651, 954». Fand arind PA Jap ofl ‚ofen! ,RO IPN P40[2 DIED) FR pl 2 DUP? Alta ova kb EL 25 1239k bic IIR) pofa Ph 0/242 Jap! JE'2 » 256 VALA apk jO 3» Pk o5 24 WD aXe , P^ poet KK "an? pr 44. Ramban, curiously, did not comment on the relationship of 18:27 to the other sections, but apparently considered it post-Sinai also, refer- ring to Jethro's return home to Midian just after the Revelation, in the first year. 45. In truth, it is foreshadowed very briefly in the Bi'ur on Exodus 18:1: — Sha ny pny felon PLOD NAUDA le wee P RI) (pA RR O PIKI 92 IW 46. Johann David Michaelis, Deutsche Uebersetzung des Alten Testa- ments, mit Anmerkungen für Ungelehrte (Göttingen und Gotha, 1770-1773 Pentateuch]), note to Numbers 10:29: "Schwager/ Ich muss etwas zurtick- nehmen, das ich aus Uebereilung in den Anmerkungen zu 2 B. Mos. 11,18 andern nachgesagt habe. Sie halten Chobab für den Schwiegervater Mose, und das könnte das Wort auch gar wol heissen: allein eben so gut kann es auch Schwager, oder Frauen-Bruder, bedeuten, und das schickt sich hier besser zum Zusammenhang." 47. The Bi'ur does not, however, sustain this interpretation later on. At Numbers 24:21, on the prophecy of Bil'am about the Kenites alleged- ly descended from Jethro, it is said, on the basis of Ramban at 10:32, that, among the Kenites, Bil'am saw Jethro, who had consented to remain with Moses. The implications of this brief statement eluded Mendelssohn; for not only does the statement contradict his formulation at 10:29, but it contradicts his earlier interpretation of Exodus 18:27 that Jethro did return toM#ian eventually. Solomon Dubno, it appears had written the nucleus of the commentary on Numbers 24, and 23 (cf. 'Alim Li-Terufah, JubA, Vol. XIV, pe 330f.), including perhaps 24:21, before Mendelssohn added his interpo- lavion «t 103295 Mendelssohn would probably have changed the wording of 24:21, had he had the opportunity to review his galley sheets more care- fully. His interpolation at 10:29 was probably a later, more definitive, attempt to clarify the whole difficult problem. "€ $39 inj, ‘el Ale ol [ia^ & : 32 ut m Py? DIL IAL U DD PI! P [9^? DED kph 22) PAINI POD PR Prk mn PD pll RWD DAP JAY zo í lea „u rap DP $4 "toro [2] WIE b» pode (fap) er, QPP), WP [PA PE cou To plod] aM APO u aM Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 296. PP, OA DUNA , [P<] nw POU, 2/2 163,2 42H 24D PIRI neo] SLE BWP 2]p] [ea PRP Ak? KI PUAN kin 3 poor ) ID PE DIIP UM Sj [^ B d n QU GRIP PER JP u PWA 49. We have found only one major instance in which Mendelssohn does tolerate a temporal reordering of the text. In the Bi'ur on Exodus 31:18, he appears to agree with Rashi that the order of the text is not chronological, quoting him to the effect that the account of the sin of the Golden Calf and the subsequent reconciliation with God (31:18—34:35) should precede the collection for the Sanctuary (25:1ff.). Accordingly, "Une 9238 1i E22" in 31:18 refers directly to "Mishpatim" and is rendered by a pluperfect in the German translation ("Als er ausgeredet hatte mit Moscheh auf dem Berge Sinai"). For a minor example of reordering in the Bi'ur, see Mendelssohn's treatment of Exodus 12 on p.l89f. These are the exceptions, nevertheless, not the rules he generally avoids applicaticn of the Rabbinic principle "DYNA 2Dik/] PIPIA [c ." C£. Part Two, note 10. d j So —— 53)» ^a ep ^ pfi" , fe 99 pne eA NIC I?» ono, pct» PP Jh PID i» (aoa? k r RD] Re» VO X PAD 1e] 202p PM Be E PAOD Pp) Ato t BY Ippo) Pan en to» JL Ys rto PeR 22492 WER [Ale 277 ?hk Pinjoor DEA)... SIF [WU (chi PD AED RI 5s top 5 Y. ian hem 9 fe ,o»'tt JE > APINN 2k? 5), PARA) ANID) YA? 277 Man Dee _pno pr ^nk 59) »4k [2 old LIBE, (gt [pk d j LÍ. ifi L. ainn on e3t fou mon Bl YA Prki apk IGE man DA 20. ' TIRET "PIRITA PIDA) on TIAN 290 22 vf ,^ , dd uo , f MER fe wp ao en ,9 BR FEN ER JA up j , (9 ST aco e! (os (P) Y. pA» ja a elo Prk] UT epo) T PAn ST. poly AVJ Ra IFA IND Da ane Ck rin Wea in PP [^ nar P Isar nple AGDE PPA D 3 2v, 3:32 Af v N5hn nDO fur 21999 Pk INR 9 108? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52. Semler, pe 87. 53. Spinoza, p. 175f.: “We have intimations of another of Moses! books [besides 'The Wars of God' (Numbers 21:14) and 'The Encampments' (Numbers 33:2)] (in Exodus 24:4, 7) entitled ’The Book of the Agreement, ' which he read to the Israelites when they first entered upon their cove- nant with God. But this book or epistle could have contained little more than the commandments or laws of God, which are given in the book of Exodus (20:22 to 24), as no one will deny, who reads the passages referred to above with impartiality and any soundness of judgments; for there we find it stated that Moses, as soon as he saw the minds of the peopie suitably disposed for the alliance with God, proceeded to commit to writing the discourses and the laws which God had imparted to him, and then, having first performed certain ceremonies, with the dawn of day he read the conditions of the compact about to be made in presence of the whole assempbly of the people, who doubtless understood, as with one accord they assented to them. From the shortness of the time employed in reading, then, as well as from the nature of the compact to be con- cluded, it follows that the Book of the Agreement could have contained littie beyond what has just been stated," 2 m ofk Ak JC Pipa Ñ ote » kif eT nk ife Jic IPON P? [IROD M , PIRI Boy pfl „PS on BRD LAF DEP 2]i2] ‚(and 2424 ka) ,' o ib i PO P4 Hc PIR DONT POS DID PIIRID PW > y >) pl Soe yo Fe oak 22 Mfc! PGOU PI nA? D a Il d ur 22» PRS POP RORE MEL, $6 Bf RSME >! i2] be Pa an) PIRR 12272 hk, Palei P207, j^ Gin DP 29 IP e „am QD 45 une " fe v 952) 25N fen [NIAID PE Wie N"? m, F ^7 4 Mle AD HP Naf DNL (5:42 nF) M pi^ pyi& '2fíc 2j / | [or T p foo» pf flen 225 SS. Ig4-«3k^7 MS fiu DIPY kd „32:4? Par _ ab | 20 5 oH, AU bre prone ^90 PERIA 4002529. ) ` ynang 2907 FO, [X a | nl 20 Sion [u» lcs 506 ^ f) 25 ien 39590» pbnpot (en, T? (d pe? MD AN 54 IN 23 NIDA ^90 $0») 702 ’? ‘Or Bu)? yo (erp fro GE VDD 'D , WARP FIER MP pk? > i of BAG K ur nn O DREI (ed) MEAP un et Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 298. 56. Exodus Rabbah (Jerusalem, 1962), “Seder Mishpatim," 30,15, De 165b: En 1 j be ok" DDE i2 02»? un) 225 GRR "Ip D2? p 7 k [ A. M AD fee 125) je PII>EN BPIRIKL ! JAD AN GFE dS’) WR PY nk HIER x 90 Nk por kK ph Kr Gt AEN z anle Gr Ro fcl ‚I pop PIR Prd JP. jike "Poir ES d. anc 9^) Gee id gj (E DEU) KL [32 57. Eichhorn, Vol. II, p. 401: "Der angenommene Zweck dieses Buchs, in dasselbe alles zu sammeln, was in einen Priestercodex gehörte, fällt bei Levit. VIII. IX. X sehr deutlich in die Augen. Der Entwurf zu den Vorkehrung und Feierlichkeiten bei der Einweihung der Priester, gehórte zum Entwurf der Stiftshütte, und musste daher 2 B. Mose XXIX seinen Platz bekommen. Da das zweite Buch auch die Ausführung eines jeden ent- worfenen Stücks angibt, so wird zwar auch 2. B. Mose XL ihre Einweihung kurz und in einer andern Verbindung gemeldet, aber die ausführliche Erzählung davon in das dritte Buch, den eigentlichen Priestercodex, verspart 3 Buch Mose VIII. IX. X" 58. Idem; "Das dritte Buch sammelt die Bestandtheile eines Priester- codex, dessen Inhalt nicht allen Gliedern der Nation so geläufig sein durfte, wie dem Stamm Levi. Hier lässt sich das Zusanmenstellen nach der Materie nicht verkennen." Ibid., pe 430: "Das dritte Buch wird durch seinen Inhalt vom zweiten getrennt; es ist ein Priestercodex, so geordnet, dass das Ab- sichtliche in der Zusammenstellung der einzelnen Stücke sich nicht ver- kennen lässt, und sondert sich vom vierten Buch durch die Unterschrift ab: 'Diess sind die Gesetze, welche Jehova den Israeliten durch Mose am Sinai qegeben hat.'" 59. Torat Kohanim (Pietrkov, 1911), 2,14 De Tre: DIVAA INK] NA Al Ps [> DI h yk , pak pk (uf PER" “Nk [Dk ce Pants [Ore £' SUPP INK] |a obl i ig inf eQ "5 Vt iW Ni 321 DU Se ke» laj? $k [Pha po UAE sk 60. In 16:1 Wessely adds, on the basis of an analysis of the mean- ing of "224," as opposed to " Wk," that Moses was to "explain fully" all of God's commendments to Aaron. After the death of the two sons of Aaron, he says, God informed Moses through prophecy of the reason for their death, the sanctity of the devir, heykhal, and 'azarah, and the high priest's ministrations on Yom Kippur. Moses, had been thoroughly instructed in these matters by God (16:1—" SQW ifc 9394"); he was to tell them to Aaron and write them down in le explaining them orally as much as necessary (16:2—" Ink nk Kk OQ). Finally, there is Numbers 31:28, in which the priest Elazar is the one described as instructing the soldiers regarding the booty cap- tured from the Midianites. Unlike in the case of Lev. 10:8, ibn Ezra does not equivocate here, explaining thatElazar merely began to explain in detail what Moses had instructed in general in 31:27; and Jaroslav copied his opinion verbatim in the Bi'ur. (Thus we have a form of kelal followed by a lengthy perat in vv. 21-24.) Jaroslav ignores Rashi's ex- planation that Moses could not expound these laws in detail because, due Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 200. to his preceding flare-up of anger (v. 14), his intellectual powers failed him. 61. Semler, p. 89: "Nos certe non pudet aut poenitet eius esse sententiae, 1) hunc librum nihil quicquam spectare ad alios homines, qui non fuerunt huius societatis cives. 2) tot caerimoniarum illam molem rudi populo convenire, quarum non paucae etiam Aegyptiis aliisque gent- ibus, quae politeia non carebant, iam fuerant usitatae. 3) verum et perfectum dei cultum his ritibus, licet sint multi symbolici, non prae- cipue contineri, ignoratum potius adhuc fuisse illum nobiliorem re- iigionis modum...." À related eighteenth-century idea, "priestly fraud," however, the priests' mystification of the people in their cult leadership for the sake of enhancing their own power (cf. Frank E. Manuel, The Eight- senth Century Confronts the Gods [Cambridge, 1959], pp. 47- 53) is re- flected in tk Bitur elsewhere, at Genesis 41:3, in a discussion of Egyptian priests. Br 2 9251 Lf» UE [pA 2 " Sf DR ien 25 WD [42 DEE [>w DNR I» [2n] TI jon Pk fede fcd fico tu (P Yy un f DOD DPL LK INK "2 Ner PIA IPD ds >) oP TOT [> , [ok Dia n dic € ol : 9)gO pod fol esp ^) "of? ^ff DRIP 2$ kK 25 (IER > (© R) PSD P 13 ^? xP ho) Spk Wks! " on A Ci af pE ate IND aD dun? e m ps sk 7 N92 (c4 N ícói S/N ate ue N 63. Dale) 15 agra x d D”, PP kp, ne GEF. spa DDICA) PIPIN pick, PR "Y a Ó- ^ Ju 14 IOD P wb aaka Iren [4 ne ia EWR Ps0) w 90 reel feb p ppl J^ JOY no, 9n PENG HbE op & > au "n [7 ha > BED Pa M IN Bm lk]. 15 Po hes 1779) 25n/ f p jo ED Qoo. De d foy mye PUP dpi D pat m TE ann Be Bo toad PE pol 2 p 20 n Dy» uS p s Pain on pi a pt) ‚nk? Nie pe» s 2 ki, 393? uS a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 300. gilcipio N'A T I" RAF arm We 25$? > peop Se 2? OPK! DA) Alpan PPFD ,|12] NOA 25 $1 ARS AN be P Hki -Ipin par 214 bl ‚I? f aol (us? 1(c9 279 25, UL 0» Pla >, l2) Jn QOND f. (fel P Pikal PIPN [E (bt ? [b apay t. noo» nit ap? On Ramban's attestation from Midrash Hazit, see the Chavel editio Ramban's commentary, Vol. I, p. 537, note 62: " COINA 24 OMEN ! DEN fed. hd fe (So ay k k, PIND AL, " , ~) NIE? EIN icini „yo Bra mi, ( er E ER Ger ay | aie AE ank PID INED [0] PI a 284 2 Se QP.) Nic nie LED POO PIA 4 (pin Á NE) or p Alc 3 OW fer IND PRD ($ RA) PPO (om 924) 03) ale bie Seppe ati „jo X s N JNPINÍC» SS EUM. d Er, 10) iki, sind (J^) j»»lc 1j» tani S e 4122) ... MW [5k ple DOD IM (up prod phot 7 > Row t ak? AT PORN Fey mag] an ER por) , ut» jue) vt 9j] dh xe PRAY, R Pe ron ly atin Ft ^ E i ak? Pin D eR 2D PS ey P-D -S 5 k i i p. pn ne Ir pk Lu ah mn, a foo (> 7722 66. See Mendelssohn's lengthy analysis in the Bi'ur on Exodus 40:2, on the basis of Mizrahi, Talmudic sources, and variants, of the quotation from Sifre containing Rabbi Akiva's opinion that Mishael and Elsafan were the unclean ones in Numbers 9:6, who were forbidden to parti- cipate in the celebration of Passover in Nisan. According to that opinion, Mishael and Elsafan were unclean until the fifteenth of Nisan, having come in contact with the bodies of the slain priests (Leviticus 10:4f.). This implies tket Nadav and Avihu, killed by God on the "eighth day," in fact died on the eighth of Nisan. In lending a measure of PP Y^ port for that opinion in acgord with ibn Ezra (" sae 2 3202 JE IA ¥PKID ap?! RUPS PER iD Preuß YN PH onl, PAE JE PRAGA ID PR), Mendelssohn, in addition to Wessely, indirectly establishes the posteriority of Leviticus 9 to Exodus 40, in contrast with the views of Rashi and Ramban. 67. A tf iO 592 DW y: h 5231] uui» (erp 4E : "SEIN YN pne X (Je 5572 S P5 PRO 2 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 301. DOOD 14) so)» oni PIPN [f^ ‚rat ak _ DR] 0 Ann 0Ja35 i5 DE POR pylon X) kr P9) ^, 25» Phu 207544) PRIND oki MO na)po> ie NED kom a Fr ok 2% ds» EID ve c c2 7 ns L 2 a Ak A gmk Mose 955») 10k» nat fs dE PES MNA 19 68. Torat Kohanim ("Be-Har" 1,1), p. 142: Yona 33k DAL [ye aw ‚Mile Yo om sw dc "o 211" eR O soley AN ow Ask S'ON 10A] nein d y» "YON PDIP PrP IHE] PP Pe, JO & oka P fear Php afk "Lido (opi E> a a a POWI PR PE pue Oe diga Pr aaron DI aya MID IND. MIL Ife» PPP? $) A uU z ^ ^ So 19) CO 7) z JND, font A NOID DARD 27289 n ob E ds x M 992 PE DW Pp Je) etn YSRA (OPT 22 580 3» dk? P232» Po 9 md WB 22» PF DP AK pad MED PGA) Ponp P fs pran y? (o 25 IME) PN NIPIND DQ ANE) POR DIR)? PP PINa BO JOL 2, ze 22)» WE bag nek (jae ng? .552| P2 HI DD NPOIPD Pr ID PAJ py k per) a Jp de vii M ^ 29 nE m afer 8:52 „€ Pn) A PE DARD 6 th JONG) plo ... Ak To 552 Jee! PR > 195) S41 Pots nop ape ej PN DE gf (r$ 5 D 0) LNI DIINA DJApo/Q [p Jo as DION “pile IRIS ery, up WED INN MES EE Cf. Eichhorn, Vol. II, p. 430, quoted in note 58, on Leviticus 27334, 70. P. 102. TI. NODA Pa) n2» Pr” iM: ep?) „(2 dk K avon "255 myo oR poo) PWP ays NC! onc» 2)n» JP dD No 522 DINO Urea ['2 5€» Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 302, pyre eN 29 fta nl PPDA DUDAS AES eo MAS UN) 72. [69 aan ohne 5] pn au " ‚PR. Pk? 73 Above, Do 151-153, 74. Mendelssohn composed the Di'ur to the first two and last two portions of Deuteronomy ("Devarim," "Va-Eshanan," "Ha'azinu," and "Ve- Zot ha-Berakhah"), as he indicates in a letter to Herz Homberg written in June, 1782. (GS, Vol. V, p. 656): "Ich wünsche besonders, dass Sie mir bald melden kónnten, ob Sie sich entschliessen kónnen und wollen, den Commentar zum Pentateuch fortzusetzen. p/op@ und 'J JnhKk sind fertig, auch sen und 52522! so gut als geendigt. nil P! wollte ich mir auch noch vorbehalten; bliebe also fagfi:23,9!001€ UN, ANS [ea die noch unentschieden sind. Sie müssen aber gar bald sehen kön- nen, ob Ihre Verfassung es zulässt, sich mit solchen Arbeiten abzugeben." 8 Toy fr PR lup. ar’ (2232 Mk "keik 9222, Wk'D i BO) DIN Mer NDR DISK] 7 DIME [5 o PNQPR 9296 PP) T dD apie N {ID [7 2% Pk paver “ig Sere (c MA ^24 re PIPIA Pp pu PPA PION 76.. Eichhorn, Vol. II, pp. 408-410 (#438: "Wer Verfasser des fünften Buchs ist?"); pp. 410-417 (#439: "Wer Verfasser des zweiten, dritten und vierten Buchs ist?"). 77. Semler, p. 98f. ae Epilogue to the Decalogue, following the Ei'ur on Exodus re wie Ips gaa WURDE PMP Pan Pob» (59 I 29K Yet 79. Eichhorn, Vol. II, p. 413: "Begreiflich ist die Ruckkunét zu denselben Worten und Redensarten bei der Identität der Verfasser.... Wenn gleich die Einkleidung verschieden ist (tie wenn man aus dem Ge- dächtnis schreibt): so kommt der Verfässer doch sehr häufig auf die- selben Worte zurück. Dieser Fall ist auch 5 B. Mose VIII, IX, beim Dekalogus 5 B. Mose V, 6ff. vergl. mit 2 B. Mose XX UcSello” 80. Michaelis, Anmerkungen [cf. note 46] (to Deuteronomy): Cape Ves Və 6-18: "Bei dieser Wiederhohlung der Zehn Gebote wird man bisweilen etwas anders ausgedrückt finden, als im zwanzigsten Capitel des zweiten Buchs. Wer eine Rede hält hat nicht nöthig, die Stellen, die er anführt, gerade mit völlig eben denselben Worten herzusagen, ja es ist beinahe den Zuhörenden etwas anstössig, wenn es lässt, als hätte er sie auswendig gelernt, oder läse sie ab. Man gesteht ihm gern die Freiheit zu, in den blossen llorten etwas zu ändern, oder auch etwas zur Erklärung dazu zu setzen." Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 303. 81. Ibn Ezra on Exodus 20:1, Hamishah Humshei Torah (Jerusalem, London, New York, 1950), pe 81 (Exodus is separately paginated), side 2, column 2; its RID 25A Je Jk 42» DID PIRIPIRI PIIRID NIS" lk ^a» npg fs Pr a\poD PIPE P») . PELNI OO Oo me» WY PPD PÉR cip »/25 D [lcg » Wh We DRA 7523 PZ AIRDE PRODA PPID P232» pt! 02. See below, p». 210-212. 83. Ibn Ezra, loc. cite, p. 81, side l, columns 1,2 5 LIONAR [icy . m5 Fe 14e aN $5n 0592 jr 7 92 ETE (24 505 20232 A! NIG) IPE RI? INR 2/25 ID » i2) V2» [dd OME Shh ef ni wee WED IS 720. 95/23 15 IARR? LP "fe pr eC? BIO DORI UM? ^B PRAL (fo) [fam 0732 as 2|» p Wel PENNO PIPD VOAL AIND DA Jw» fer 2^5) DNk PAR INK WQS E27 ple Tonk PEI RR P UE nika (oA 2) Pk PAD ID | ee» YD? pen E 2j2 Pak f» WO DON [k "p n 25 fj “aed pap SUNY 2124 WNC AN aE EA $ $55 1J Pre Re am ae eee NLIS Q ; v» D i? ap IDAR gigi t MS 2 er ys MN v Ka e DJD ... Jk? s ETTE. Kc ANE "pap 5) iN X) 5153 ^ iie »» de E] Pk DNA A bn 'nQ kn WEM DIN ae Ka Nk] Phy ‚SE? 2519/2455 fc 15 NO LD m miM E2INO É ons " pric PAP 5123» ji ^22 fap F5 Po 84. le Wr NV Yu 2n qM PC a 'of Pa EIN ny p dk» [ki 523 TIS oo» KO 2^ , | U This version is found in the istis de-Rabbi Simon bar Schal, Te De, Epilogue de R2 TAX iv 39 SS. 9 Hoffman (F TA rt a. Me, 190 Jethro," 20, FGIR | Hie £V TDA Pio Roy Ink ru 3 ae 22 PIR However, the E de-Rabbi Be ed. Lauterbach "Ba-Hodesh, tt Parashah 7, p. 252, refers only to the divine speech aspect of “the miracle: ok 'k€ »4 JINR] WE WIR PR L WRI 125" ^J? Wid 93) DR 85. He in fact had just recently stated that the first and last Commandments are the "keys" to the rest. See below, p. 212. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 303. 81, Ibn Ezra on Exodus 20:1, Hamishah Humshei Torah (Jerusalem, London, New York, 1950), p. 81 (Exodus is separately paginated), side 2, column 2 jv: RLD IOP je Jk 4» DODD PAPII P0292 2 pres" (c. moga ppg be P'21po» PIPE Pay . PENI NBSP U nis» ONY WPL? NIP kip 925 9 juc gr" Wh Wed MA 72533 PA noi NW P'ALPOD PHP INT 82. See below, p». 210-212. 83. Ibn,Ezra, loc. Cite, p. 81, sidg 1, columns 1,2: i IONIER Affe no. Fe "ut an b5n 0299 Idan »8co UPD (^4 50» 0732 2^) JONI) IDE YRI IWR 0/25 o » 12) IP? (52 ox. syn OETA) wok oe ue PIPI > IARD WD Mle 00 QE? SAJO PR O83 PRIR (15) T M EN DPI Pe PENNO SOINA 15)9A] PIPO 25 Ia "Meo 275) pk pr DNG 22D eb» 533 fle Tonk PE IPJ PINY Hika lon a Pk PID ID ERD 5153 jon: 22 Gao Dia Pk (2 Loon DON [O'OI 94 Ay 25 Kö IOs 225 JINR] 5425 SNC aN p» [d Miya) $55: nr At Re e am eee I 1222 D Nf Do uou 3! Alda) IRA? 2j»! / s EA bar SE Eos, ne BP = ne SNUP de nk pap Wy 2/25 2 Nye » (do a’ AD BE 25 "oM. 7135 Pals > BE Nk] Phy, SE? 25 ah DA „DIE TB RIND É nn " ppic NOR Wasp [aA 322 fr fs P e4, Pk D lur Wed TR) 5 Jpn ON PX TEN [RI 52534 HO! sD Mee aN DAT This version is Sm in iine RECS de-Rabbi Simon baz Yohai, S De, Hoffman (Frankfurt a. Me, 190 NES ro," 20, 8, p. DN I S SIND [9k DOK. EL PI DA? fc TT » ik (os INK) PAR Mese the Mekhilte de-Rabbi wo ed. Lauterbac "Ba-Hodesh," Parashah 7, p. 252, refers only to the divine speech aspect ofthe miracle: Ok 'ke PN JINR] WE VPIP PYL WU 2724" JJ? Wi 93) IR? 85. Me in fact had just recently stated that the first and last Commandments are the "keys" to the rest. See below, p. 212. Epilogue, followi ki oS THE Bi'ur on Exodus 20: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 304. 86. Ibn Ezra, loc. cite, p. 80, side 2, column 2: » IIND) JOIR SRRI. IIND) 1918 P9IP UnNfci EA SEI E “UNE! 19% le 0 pe ain lS sco No IAN kó " , 3" :2 Jus. C a n F ove I rh) 108) Lk) 19761 5 v2 Dil h 7 INN ksi" QD" » 2529 [rS F : DUE Eo OR. IPN IRE] 1294. 97. 1919 Rie T^" ' [es 262 ^6] le» 5$ [^ AE IRID »4 ALD) TO Afr PENNO P $52? 1D IA EEE FING QA ^3"? PNI [cFo/ krer EFD I AIR > N RP PED pP ODID Ky" ED ROND DO) i tg nno (un At - EDI WIN IIL Akl d ae 2 CN IND EUM ERA arm 2? bp ALS? Solomon Dubno also criticized ihn Ezra, hut not quite so forcefullv, cf. Sandler, p, 123 and below, note 170. 88. Haqdamah Li-Megillat Qohelet Tai Vol. XIV, pe T bs 24 247 HDD edv pt INEN > aj IR per [E 2]? E Kup Bf Ufa cn IRMR IER Rk ESEJ pu fino. ua c PEI NP FCD) Vor noa ORE A jui binta POS ? Hone DE 29502 '9J I 9 Mp p V) [d 1j 02 PA PRED HO m ma 99 p LNA} 2 wor k? S E Looe S? DPA DJ e 25 2 d »3» ow nto Tic oM. p Fo e P537» BF jn won ROP > ^ INIER NAT © JDP oR Yin») UJO Ne FR? opo og QUA { ^» Bj om L ple A 3d ie d 7 ol pins (m AIR DDP Pk o 3 m wq o roe 5i»? 292 Henry Englander, p. 347, note 37, states that, ‘whereas [ibn Ezru's commentary on Exodus 20] is of a critical nature seeking to explain the variants in the two Decalogues, Mendelssohn's is theological." This contrast is too stark; for, as we see, Mendelssohn tried to ii^ the variants also. o» P) nk aller PED Pos Pika ILI DP TUM ge MIR PP RE 084 » "ik Py Alfio» -MRA PIN DID now NAW Pk ond 10 DSP IP DYN PIZSPL Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 305. Pin) 0/9 Aa} ] Na Par PY? P az Prac) PY por 2194 Jin à Tan FINK [62 IR (c^ JP NE JI hung F a: m AR NP DAN “Poon wu , js Fr gue [nh SNET AF DRAF Dicom), 198729 pon mate Sioa IND 2 OBE 1D 271 , PIND He To Pi PISFANI, PNA 792 0/25 E N an RR [e * SED RRo I2) 9^? he IND) PPID ED RON DIW PIK E Ona IQ PS y^ 7 d^ PDP WEIL er jo 12% P Bel rd o ddp rn ET Fr E m jd ib "han 7t DE, , p2 n pu "s peg fry po) DND an n on 2, ie Qx ^ D» > iA. JÉu2. 2 7154 Ji 23, 2 M 9124” m d Us ai L DIKA Ki M Ov Prk INRI » 3» ınık wj 035! DEN ed E Vos 2277] b L » 1 91. Ibn Ezra. cits; p. 81, side 2, column 2: SIND fu» HDHD psy DJa” 0)2^ PR nik OT. i T e DE» [feo . An int o ps no ! , SP NDAD D “2 9X6 PIN’ pero PE os 3 "oho alle gas JOIA ES QUE DET pru E 925 WAPA ED NO PRL 564 : IE» | "nil p. aul. 150.55 INF PUD too (f) DAES! 5342 DINI VRC _MIL WOAPL DISC? d con Pre) Michaelis, Anmerkungen (to Deuteronomy), also explained that Deut. 5:15 was added by Mosess "V. 15. Dieser ganze Vers, und das Ende des vorher- gehenden, sind nicht eigentlich Worte des dritten [sic] Gebots, sondern Mosis, der es erkläret, und einschärft." TT , Ki Tf Ui E OW "7 dn deren Hee p zu ^ [ES As RNS ae Jer P3] Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 306. p) PINDD PINDDNA pe I» NRL PA is wp) qn " j ) b ^ i J 5 Ale PDk ic Dco M PR ME ^? Dias Pip! na "o IAC, Foe IR Pom DRY TR PIAA pa jo br woo PIR YY DAAD UI, DEP n2. ED W Yon 199927 DAI BOF) pykofji ^3 pink ap , 20/372 Fo? eD, “SUE apne 14061 19/22 15. fipur 73 post 3 23 28", 30:2 fe De» " De Pak DE ANe 222, TNT EUST. PED SHE i '34 E TOU DAIT TE GPPWL'O , ? Pow p Ibn Ezra, loc. cit., p. 81, side 2, column 2: T oJ" ! : 2p. YU Nki ^t pki PS Me PPD Hal e» - no RD ohh One DW OAR DJD) .. mk ^ fed IE Ph, JID iP nn DAI. eer 4 vu" NAP ky PIE 029.9 Ip! PIR DIS Ç [vA ) [* P In IHR YP P! ME oy F Qu aufi" „PR, Mer piao pipi pan ee er C10 ,? NORIA "Jic jo "i JE? (en. M wt IND £ d "pial Pye NER Hl nong nad "60:9 Fe MK pE ^g > 32d Po aa Men Pom .." 10:9 Plow? , [PAP ; p^ ay" indi 0/7 poe) Ian Mea DAP oM P ie 95. See the quotation from ibn Ezra in note 93, 96. aa M ^W oeii (ci mE", SP POP NLD ost € fo Apr Hio ERE EDK £r» IPERE st EA SO [KO elo FPP 24 fF IIAP IE RAN [EQ ‘aber / PAYS WEN uo, fo ope fat o (su i kdl OIA 25] $ qo "Hk 22, cr l / ux [BADD 17. Soi ^ pc AAP k$",n':? , eR. PER Wr [OA 162 Paka j PID "ni » Qc» PIP? d PP ^c» lE) PUIMAD p>”) (16: 919102 ep "hi > (ia NU 0902. cial» NA) LIP) epp Ium Ibn Ezra on Exodus 20:1, p. 81, side 2, column 23 p. 82, side 1, P SHEP ND Ip? PO Ye Pa aR KF ok POM Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 307. DEI DRK > 335] ADIL YAS VHD! UR) Na PAE [2 ? í > vk o»3 fy PIO | . MEAP PROP nos : PR 22 MIC! opp DRE psp PA PAR? TCU tail change from "Hl PUIN PD POINAD "2" to 1999 NDP on 4 c 2 mL pia PR En. pyre FRRR) ME] wae PR i09) 192A. Fan pili pha MORL OW ype LH apples om? sii» Fr AD lek fio? us A o DREN WSR [> Fe DIN PET 7 fb 22 Ao eb [c PON qol) ab ok Nik pof Fot LUA F P Lo SAk] 5 Jk» FE apd DIIP kd [brs NEJI 94D? A ee ed A» PL LONE PR IX JOP IPP > S * ili ofk 18]e QAP PEI Pur m. 545 5909 IW MIC” ‚30:2 RELLE o onle Paa) Sik pp kF Ak Whp £6 DI? pis s ND? loo Ly Mor nor Pr el abn patty ie Mc Ioh 151p of Pod Dh 7? pP kE dl P us $10» 5A aW PPP» PoU, PrP Pe ap OP INGE >>>) Fr 24 $3) aha otf nn? JP 27 irai Epo 55 TB. DIANA ailepa ps Lon p ki, ve^ DU) $4 P'a2»6 an NBOP WIN DR QHINDR CIN Ep DAD G9» — NEN 2] > 10C. Mendelssohn, Jerusalem, trans. Jospe, pe 71. 101. Above, ppe 159, 168. 102. Sandler, pp. 133-135, has mentioned these features of Dubno's analysis briefly, including his elucidation of the kelal u-ferat in narrative sections. N Kon MER 103. a(n, PR PAD PN pfe woe PE. ks ot se ak PETE WAL ver "2 (1? page mna Ub >p21 ,/2 anf DJL PA FT Ei MEAT cL LEE JS 4 Yi3/ I ek) PAl D Ye C e x ‘Ge 2% anna ple „L PUW PMP pu pk» nobseY PI Pon P ARIN ase PIDI E DAP Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 308, N99 lo», [PP [ER PRM y 2^ (ppl jaw 1955) RUE 2) p? 104. Eichhorn, Vol. II, pp. 336, 343, 359 (Urkunde mit dem Nahmen Elohim: Kap. XI, 10-26, 27-323 Urkunde mit dem Nahmen Jehova: Kap. XII--XIII,18). d PRODE kay", SER Ak SEA m, 4t e P on! T Vor DIWED 2 “Fos apo ap 5k Gre May nad eps? DD 56 oN NOS IPE POI mu) PR WER aA oan] pnp »f» 2pp WARS E ka PRS Dr, pham ee kJ 7! 120 js MR AND DANS INED 9008 Sf, hk, it ae JF 1 goal DUNS S any» p SITE > NLI De D [SD Pag p» IDE (ff 2962 ERP? Du VL mi pni DMI Aaa hr KY [9^ ON 9 PPA SP Ich SS ANP > Gr pei fu» ’2 (COL AlI Y "nf ka pk (^e Z pfi je pr ee DR] DIO 507 anf a Joan pre BAX kal 257 Ul oh pel 106. Eichhorn, Vol. II, pp. 336, 345, 360 (Urkunde mit dem Nahmen Elohim: Kap. XXII,1-10, 20-24, Kap. XXIII, 1-20; Urkunde mit dem Nabmpn Jehova: Kap. XXII, 11-19). Q> pin MOD "iU" „le: feo RIAR MER monk Tow t 7 PETI Y 19 ,0Bek Kor an PE 193] 58 954] B M TU) NN DREI [Uo fe ein NE) OAD ' "i nk poo WD E? 224)? Pd OME for AC NER DAG MEJ Spo» pel p » [4 PIPN? PR y] PPT Dk) PADE loni Pan l RIA Va ! DD DIR 4 IA? ee 207 ‘i JU yp) ron 2 E ‚up PIN) DE PM | nn IRPL ARED W902 pj v mn ob Pj SE 4 A f | IN? NOD MER) ana PEN DD 2 5l E (og IDEF PIDEN u p f6 Bee por PGI) 2 GOP AIOR u z 5k pe P» ne» Ih i bom NEL FE > fa >D 2D 108. The Bi'ur on Genesis 9:18, 13:13, 20:4, 23:10, 24:1, 26:15, 39:63 Exodus 2:23. s D Ppl’. NEED PPP, ime P? nk OR. en Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 309, 109. For the last five examples, see the Píi'ur ad loc., except in the case of Genesis 22:23, for which see the Bi'ur on Genesis 22:20: p je »43 pn D ISD A? DODD) .." if ¢ AL RL Weer DIL Ap A) PML PORR Sie „PRONI % /9) „Ur o^ DBP "EP Pn. 372^ v€ [DE YAP > PAP) Coal "m NO. alpon 3P aja PR PD P DUAL DIES LEP R P3 NÒ yr P : "e c DHS af 2247 Jh! 0: J iol PPD!) “yp Nel Ure De aM np [F0 QAO Ang i: Pio VP PEDI ek» o) 2n pot K d obl e] ^» pon Prt IF pt (9% odi Bo) DAFT? BRAIN 3 195) ,2]^ Noy at bobo u ips? 2 oot UN? fin! k ex mn PIPE ar In (RL POL 24 5721 25 30: d TOUD Soop noJo J21 , fn ^ff nk dre UOD JPI llle Pp. 70-73, 153-155. l2. — 0933 . Paak [nn de" IP DMI DE? D M5) ! c bror DSP PHID( Bak” eoi» of | > 2[c 7 2Y TRO " Ka E e S Ton ye B eps! ed IWO Oke owle|R Prod S, [ico 9232? Mt" „PR boy Jk DIN TT DE 3^ 25 DIDI ‚een !njye Cf. Genesis Rabbah, "Seder Lekh j 29 kon Jim "o 61] Lekha," 44,6, pe 90a. 113. Curiously, GS omits the words "des Ewicon" for " ^ 593," They are found, however, in the translation in transliteration. Vawter n) M Ld Ls [es i NDS m” ~ Gr 114. Eichhorn, Voi. II, pp. 294f., 336, 363. 15. Aic PII pe Jay, fe: A> NUR, ERA ‚IR 5592 Te DEIN sii» PAID OPE Te owe {& pıpn P ann Ne PFD Nk PIPE rad adler PI 232 mie in Poren i2 ple 1D y CEAC 52) inter [^ prak (co) D. DIA IE 9f Skins 3 fi DL 76. prs! ie py D 25289. e5332» INI [lem hpk „2:P2,PR 3 ann RENE /42| le X. 132] / 707 Ij N; Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 310. 70) pofon J29 .. Pk Jon] pipe Pk 02 nes & nas P? PPIX (BRIAN NISP II DLP Poo RE IE DA DELON FES IDEY PF apo! P918 pal porjm P J se) 2 prop PIP are» Rashbam had mistakenly given " FID) p'o02?7 »hk |" as the reading for Genesis 22:20. Dubno corrects him and gives the proper reading, but in so doing inadvertently violates the rule he had given earlier at 15:1 from Genesis Rabbah. 116. Dubno quotes M.'s beautifully-written definition of this term: NIE Pos? SED "4 JORE PLIPND Er" , RC , DUBNA Hic e. PARP Ne 31» fc, 2r PEON oe [45 G»o b9»2 pj» UL fehi , 1/24 IND Pro PWR EM WL PIE poppw ID skip Pak UL pro?2[2 to 222 PISTE D PIPND) PD (4: LECT Pan nn. Ic IDR oj» pe Poja „(of lap (ark PY Do «3f Jos A A hs Bon pure PINE POJN ‚(> ue 2232) PINTO DRE DA 'nE lof] [NO Aaa a eee ^L ? fe vl Wie? nb JJ» ano n fia’ 5 / nich pant Uu» WIPE Pw?! „(RER AaB KID en 1D ROI SON IJ? AICP Fo NIGND JN 0848. POND ee Pk '5 35] epa») Nalin NUDE PP eX fe oa ie D PD JAR D VDP DN ADORN DAD? D? e ^H Par f DP] Pj ot al OND aR RAND DENRA L POY JON YND SE DO pe NIAE, BRED 7 Ir ae CAN Pro? Pina nf 270022 2 Pmak rk no} proßkp) Wk 25» p292 Sst > en MEER 1053» 185] ne FAET Plow 1] (IND) 9! f PR owl , Unies IDIS RE £5)» fik» odi» E PIR d» T ob) cb». let ier > v3» fa (6515 769 fark ER % a Mendelssohn's definition thus comprises , Ie (500% / i = the meanings of "probing" and "strengthening by adversity." liT pina fero, ane pron ayn” 9:5! miter ER un X DAP PIAD htl 1»x€p E I 2 oe ji ' 5 D do DVL Dope pain An, Fe ine 2i). PU Ay rg go DT. F ME feu ei nt! NRW PER Nasa 690 3 19€ o „ie NIP | 1D Ma bos Yan ^ FE c») pee Pm fs uro Hoa] í 3 Iaf) ENE Wk okay 3 IN pr ij PAE Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 311. 1, 'm79 "s SR 93 8» gt pi» eif v apa dak”, „ar Nos DIPL MIN Sb pipa us Nd 29 € ya B artt $ $4 Ro alcian [ico v. K kip Yen mn fE f leol 025] NR TSR) no poor Bo abe NODA X (pios ans NCADP PID PI 0902 NIT? VADO: A285 NNR 1902 PIS opty PRN if» eno 30! he 25053 Ee 25 ef ‚Ark 4 nlc PINAR? NIE de akor jo ate DOAN fum ko POO, BD 3 (he MT usn je o WON Shi , 4 ) {con DJL WR fe) on und 92029 2 Pre Dubno presumablv on To his owm introduction, which is not extant. He states that the position adopted by Mendelssohn is in accomiänce with Rashbam, but Mendelssohn may have derived it more directly from the ci- tation from Maimonides in Ramban (cf. Guide for the Perplexed, trans. M. Friedlander [London, 1956], II, 42, p. 237). 120. Eichhorn, Vol. II, pp. 336, 343 ("Der Gebrauch des Wortes Elohim v. 3, 7, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23 eignet dieses Kapitel unsrer Urkunde zu"), 359 ("Ueberall hier der Nahme Jehova: XVIII, 1, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 26, 333 XIX, 13, 14, 16, 24, 27."). 121. Michaelis, Anmerkungen (to Genesis): "Cape 35, V. 22.----] Diese hier gesetzten Striche zeigen einen leeren Raum an, der sich im Hebräischen findet, und dessen Ursache nicht aus- gemacht ist. An einzigen Orten, wo er stehet, ist er ein Zeichen, dass etwas mangelt. Es wäre nicht unmöglich, dass dis auch hier der Fall sein könnte: doch ist es nicht gewiss, und was ausgelassen ist, das wird kein bescheidener Uebersetzer zu errathen wagen. Es kann ein Über den Sohn ausgesprochener Fluch, eine Niederkunft der Bilha, oder zehnerlei anderes sein, an das wir nicht denken," 122. Eichhorn, Vol. II, pp. 337, 350 ("Etwas fremd bleibt frei- lich die nochmahlige Einschaltung der Söhne Jacob's V. 22-26"). Hee ie O INS 55 790 ‚OU YAR” , 22: aj Mkaa Dk PANS dn)! (cdi T, A INA IAE" S Je. i$ i PEUT Uo Hm v NO pu DRS oh [uk AJN fi») ^M py raj PST pur Le k ^ UR geek J i P1 PORT RR Er rd vem 2515 3 aka oso! (c? 917: s POD. . 1PIka Ip! f 922 ON Je ffs A KUN INL es d en DE Uere art fa Pai Pow wnt fs b babe pk qui DE EX G e) CJ P Mow 19944 Ik Uno (23: KR 61 (02:9 N47) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 312. 124, Eichhorn, Vol. I, p. 320f. (#153: "Piska"): Endiich merkt auch die Masora die Stellen an, wo sich der Schriftsteller entweder nicht präcis genug, oder euphemistisch ausdrückte, also ein Satz zu fehlen schien, und befiehlt, in dem biblischen Text durch eineh leeren Raum, Piska genannt, anzuzeigen, dass sich bei demselben ein Supplement anbringen lasse. 125. The Tiggun Sofrim on Genesis 35:22 discusses this sentence at length, but only in the matter of the two different sets of te'amim given by the Masoretes for it. 126. 2 WP POP DIN fk ^ ON I" E:12 2382 pik'a " 3 m3 RED 29212 '^hk DR IEA , 20/0 ple ny fe rll [2 oko ap beh onk able Prima d€ >, fan a! wk EUM DO pU hk PON PIINIA ON ned p? a 127. Pp, 72f. 128. Eichhorn, Vol. II, p. 398: "Diese Gestalt der Bücher kann niemand anders, als aus der Zusammensetzung einzelner Aufsätze erklären, welche der Ordner so zusammen stellte, wie sie von Zeit zu Zeit abge- fasst waren.... Wie oft kommt der Verfasser aufs Passah zurück, bis er sich in seinen Verordnungen darüber selbst Gentige thut, und alle Feier- lichkeiten und Pflichten bei demselben gesetzlich bestimmt hat! Den ersten Entwurf gibt er 2 B. Mose XII, 1-28; einen Nachtrag fand er gleich nachher nöthig 2 B. Mose XII, 43-50, weil er (wie es scheint) beim Ueberlesen des Vorigen bemerkt hatte, dass nicht unbestimmt gelassen werden dürfe, in wie fern ein Fremder an dem Passamahl Antheil nehmen (V. 43.44 vergl. V. 19) und zwei Familien dabei zusammen treten dürften (Ve 46 vergl. Ve 4) eL ck jo? A Pa, poo» App J^", 6^: ^! SINR Jia anff ‘icy fuod! In © 0x1 DIOP [po ORAS too» PWA np fak eb 5 3/2 DA PUP DNI [Pa PR Dich PPIM! OD IFMSA 09 DAF DIPS? wO D Ik Benton NIPE, npn Ur Pi? er gg WEL Y ND nosy pal prne aid aff p» 07 ar or [967 A - d E hy ow a PP) POOP Ibn Ezra, on the other hand, expiained, ad loc., that vv. 43-50 contain the laws for "pn? pO" as opposed to " "DEN peo." 130. Eichhorn, Vol. II, p. 390f.: "Auch der Befehl Moses an Ahron, ein Gefüss voli Manna aufzustellen, 2 B. Mose XVI; 32, scheint erst in die Zeit der Vollendung der Stiftshütte und ihrer innern Ein- richtung zu gehören." 131. par atf pat ft 204 Why tUe DIE ET lea 52 DOD ann PU NR [PE ee o» UR 2) i f "gF [AD NER, OJP 490b 25» ph42 DZ RPE? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 313. 132, afnpr ? ‘Dbk pian apil ` PSD ANL DIEA JOWI P > P noel PRI o 10 20» paw Poy Laß dna, pona) Bh»! afisa pasar) ooo»! FLD jou „BE 25 J'e PAYSA P? ER mie PIN IPI PHA PIND Pki ,25 [ND LE S Pn FoR Cop?! YPF IV PWUPFN? Pe PIRU PEJ P2 ning IND PILIGINI w' vo. AFE POM Pre 2/242 Shy , po kapdi E NED pasn & Mpa MEE liri Lot! 2 Mk) A aw VODA pple pyr? fe joo. ts pope pr 3250 Dr is 35 WI 'of 212» Apel PIE WID Joh PIP ndn De DIP wee wo, DIY De PE oak Marl mof ud a pg p8 ms Kl WD Sa oik]a fj guorof rfi For Mendelssohn's understanding of pronoun inclusion as indicating antithesis, see our previous chapter, pp. 115-121. 133. ote kro if DBI anki” , 52 SIN , PRR O pak JWD Bd ALF 245 p f Ip! mo JA m d ME Lr» ZDF DIR) aja DE Ika | At, pf. 17139 2^ Dl ^4 i i 5 k IW) NIA DEW T pe pf pef? DPL. DP RIKI 134. The subject of the ner tamid recurs again in Leviticus (24:1-4); at that place also a division is noted by Wessely (in the Bi'ur on Lev. 24:2) between it, together with 24:5-9 on the show bread, and the pre- ceding section (chapter 23) describing the holidays. The organization- al principle is the same: The former are perpetual matters, whereas the latter are governed by the annual calendar. It is interesting that Rashi (at Lev. 24:2) felt that Exodus 27:20f. was really a preview of the command in lev. 24:1-4, "SI" meaning "you shall command in the future," not for the future, as according to Rashbam. Wessely, on the other hand, felt that the repetition of a passage need not have@ffter- preted in such a way. Several passages, he says, are repeated in the Pentateuch, such as those dealing with the Sabbath, in each of which additional laws are taught. is 3325 M on RU apa” AWW PÈ Nk JOID DILAN DWEJU x [Pn ?» Jof [pas jer: OW] Cf. Exodus Rabbah, "Seder Pequdei," 51,4, pe 187a. ke i bf nii nin fo INKE NO AOD » mi IA deres Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 314. 1%. „liaki 2| KB: fa ID?’ "DAG kapil, PAD J^ min WORE INPP Clk PE D % Ha ka ABN fe HE PIKE 9)» IP R 5C, DR rasa nam fe Plo IERI BIER 249 Pla 284 PNE 9/3 KF Re D25 €t [DP FI 512 MF pry pasin [i Nc POP pak IPI PP PA DIE Me NPG PIN PIL "ob Gre» SE qc Jat. ae 22^ o> NDR PNL R R25 5f 192 24 re and pro AIC dl ILF Nap KY eror [DS NKR wo PR JW fco Em "genen Rea PON PNLR pr BM "uo Woo R Vc KIN fa» „Bike PIN) 9 yoke Ac. & BAI 137, Sandler, p. 142f. 137. MENT) DZ de" A: PY oy] a) obi ‚19 of (197 KDD) 23J| ‚2302 fx PIA] PR OD PRI Dearth) apa PA Jak „7 19 NC [059 126 227 163] (bi ‚apa puo peep nk (p sop PJE YF 2 PD i PME DE KP DU 195) A PIN kole , [2 RER DON 2 POD M Ik ‚PP O 109012. PIP pase PD i dun a PI DE IND £f ANN Le [ko rika 925 Ge [KI L2 "Et © wy 103) (Sk, 995 Ue Dipl Dale Bko Ue Ped UNE P ' gk 999,9 DD DRK ju (ek 59) [ook ^ i'ur of 1611, furthermore, liessely notes that the juxtaposition In the Bi'u oz the warning for Aaron not to come to the Sanctuary at "just any time" to the mention of his sons' death indicates that their sin was simply an unauthorized approach. 139. | Cf. Sandler, idem: " 4 pf» pio tof ? | PM? ‚09? |UR? P ic 3; D A NÉ fa „k = (cd pP”) ‚iR D & 4 a 1 J e 12292. pak ya Iko& WD Ink 529 (2 Te ut 23) i$ onk [kot 2 Jot oen fi PAD P IE 7 JA? 7 jo y of Iejofi 225 Re WY ow , Ue fa Prop tu 721 pimak ANA 35 Ver Ina. ine £554 € əki > Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 315, sje oy») P222 m fk Ij (BF *o)ge y5 owk jol fd Cf. Mendelssohn's translation of Numbers 26:61 J.03322 a Re (" ^3 UM 225 Re Panprd [uos ki AU AM "): "Nadab und Abihu kamen um, als sie vor den Ewigen gemeines Feuer |! 01222 I" tk brachten," 140. Some of Wessely's comments about classification in Leviticus appear obvious to ihe modern reader, but perhaps were less so to contempo- raries untrained in the systematic examination of the Bible, For example, at 15:1 he quotes the statement of ibn Ezra that chapter 15 deals with "hidden" venereal illnesses, unlike chapters 13-14 dealing with visible leprosy. At 21:1, also, he quotes Ramban that the succeeding portion is addressed to the "priests, sons of Aaron" because it deals with matters concerning all priests outside the purview of the Sanctuary, whereas earlier portions concerning the Sanctuary and the sacrifices are intro- duced with a reference to "Aaron and his sons" (e.9., 6:2). The position of the section about the violation of a maid-servant designated for marriage (19: 20-22) stimulated more thought. Wessely notes (in the Bi'ur on 19:22) that it was included within chapter 19 and not with the laws about incest in "Aharei Mot" (chapter 18) because the matter could not really be classified as incest and was, therefore, comprised within the heading "JoJ#@ guphk" in 19:19. Hence the unusual punishment of both the offending male and the girl: They did not receive the death penalty, as in the case of incest; and the man had to bring a guilt- offering. I. PEO fint awe [? "VT t 92 kp! , TEN? ah Geom >na h $5 poo? itor Kd, [ko 25 1190 apai a NU?IP NUT? (Eo Bl Inr IP kap’ »got ‘ob v9 bi ELI 2 SC, NICH Nerv. [f 9? 5277 Bien puap K 98 ane AS pes eogi „PR [kot uoi ‚PORT Sana PPO! poh ah sQ fora MUT)» Pk 5, N er Od: Pala ile We In» PYM PROPL 195 „25? p A pie We > £n» une f& DARD j5) iG LR y (oA) I» INF sh, Ac) pole DN pW ale per PAL Nk ae N Glow ICA INA kim Pkt UP hy VPIP E iud PD m "n e ! 2 PIJ KI por 2521 » AK V2 7 a TN Polk Idi e Hosp df aask ake hd, lias if j i) P7 Wiad, (55:89 NR QR JNO k 24 ois Ed a aln ^e o Sk IN blc DDR (d DMD PRO rk A os pie Ino ala pad 1929y Uk 2 f pend Ye pep pak ow / S92 Mo! >|PN? ‘Sle adn (ar tw Y?! kb ^ pl, DS ANO P )962 Qo Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 316. ROW PED * $5), SIERI, DIU pw £d „31 DOM ^» k3 INSTEN Whe NS ^» kg! [sd 85 Yun i» sore 5 no, afb KI DOAK DON Mk Wag PUPA 25 pale Jeo 25 "ioo awe) uf PSO FO. Fe okey, Fin WP Yr)” Atk PAR Ur [j' dot! YR D Ak, Jr 2'mo) DNE ICR = yp pda Pliki , owo PEA Wand 12M bs ek 995 1259! [eR MAR ga: Rp RUND PUY N | a pip! kb) POMP tE pip Ska Lonk! . 336» p P's d DONN RE [ero IS an de Jm ph» P > Jf Phe 730 m NIDA H Gagy (50 & p 2 E. NIWA nc paid p DA Prin Ur 1245 s " [63)5) ERN VSE Plo DR PUK [nA Ji» J PNE pa a0V4 ane P DAREI UE poo PpZP $90 ' pS; io? ds a MJN apy! 1990 WL! | ” Nn» [T P'EN (9 FB. — wk" a (nj In IPL, 272 22342 VER f i 20 ( FOL SIP ND |n PilenGn rye a> PIPI SYMP 720 (2p)! 1229) r IY, PPAR WETT an)" 3:16 ^ D n x od | | ON PINE. 10 TRIN la». yh? "9 , P f Ss Hope ^ (5 AT , ipu 25) [5499 JE? (tio dio: 29 [s PAIN? DREN apk 25» pon ?'» D RUPA? : DLO PD spk pn !2 NEC koe! 7 1 P6 25! IA PIAR $3 »5 We IPKI 259 LA odi vie f i AD || AMIS [le POD Pe mL fcit f Ibn Ezra did note (15: 2,32) a connection between the account of the wood-gatherer and the proscription in v. 30 against anyone acting with a "high hand." INS, — ku afr fk pid” fe: 22 Wa PD, DPD Ef 242 11529 kai (^ pape kpi Pe? pay % Ss pof e) ow. Pige ppitjE DR Pk > PYP rasa s$) , 9 ifa pk Pap 3457 PRO if) "2 pus =: Chow 4275 In) , £)95x 4196 Ein. 5952 vifo WIL jap Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 317% 21 €*? P521] ! pale ay alt IND ‚ung © 242 DNI In EHEN i2) Sats] AMPA IN?> poh I5 '9 913 We 5232 25 ,9: 21 ^2342 l'a. RP IP licae. [en LANDON Ole 2558 Jkh ppl? "k^ E [REP PDION [Bind PRS DEN DAL PHA? MAI 4. «C NA. Qed Ck ni Nay] APS p ‚(83 62: 123 (apd) NE 2451. OF J249» C) D) plow k8/» P owe 93) 3p UL je> awk) ,P2!N23JI Polo J aF diab ^9) "Deshi pn a^f) p3ko low lan F221 092 M), aw poat ge” ke i3 P2 kn 22.8 pM DL aW MAD 700 A BROOD RPO PAID Ska 19 (edle „Far DAD 25 AP D4 Wk E50 SOD Se VED PEND, HD BOF PW 3 yess % Despite a statement in the Bi'ur on 5:1 that a detailed exposition of the laws begins at that point, a later qualification is provided at 12:1 that the detailed version begins there. Its quotation from Ramban at 9:8, in fact, explains the logic underlying the order of much of the intervening section. Accordingly, before the explanation of the Torah Moses wished to rebuke the people for their sins. He explained the Ten Commandments (5:1-18), ; added the section about God's Oneness (624-9), and gave several warnings about idolatry (7:1-6,25f.5 8:19f.). Then he issued stern rebukes about all the sins the people had committed since they re- ceived the Torah (9:7-24). The usage "explained the Ten Commandments," quoted from Ramban, contradicts Mendelssohn's approach to the Deuteronomic Commandments, which we have analyzed in detail (above, pp. 173-180 ); it was Homberg, however, not Mendelssohn, who was responsible for the Bi'ur on 9:8 (see note 74). d: fe POD PIA? , Uka ME pino WO fup ,! ine’? nr 2 S? Ink XIM PANE PCT g 6 NO Em , Enn! p» ape ose fti POE [rps 19/2] ki D la» Baa fin eok ao 25 POY DA? papkin! porn» nt ank JN 5 RRS Fe RE TEE 149, Eichhorn, Vole II, p. 396: "5 Buch Mose Gates "d A auch ein einzeiner Aufsatz zu sein, der auf eine eigene Haut mit einer Unterschrift geschrieben worden. Und wenn einzelne gelegentlich geschrie- bene Aufsätze bloss zusammen gestellt wurden; so müssen Verbesserungen auf Verbesserungen, Nachträge auf Nachträge folgen—wie auch der Augenschein lehrt." Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 218, NOIR J>, Pop io” ier pron? DIER fon Da Mesa Popp 12 /"3 9p ow grk Pia 188D Pan 2 ponit (FT NZa Gy rey, LIN ied WTP pa GAE (an3 (ke PIH To Dye INL Ea 2k We Dy fab pol pak C Pam ne pe MGa PEG (P) PIC Ho pert aa polle 7 ys ^a Gy Prone g Ple Sere’ ^ [PR] QP v6 ISI. pon f [en "EE Fr Sok TS ‘fe! En ‚DW BUNT 109697 PH DAP puto Pues „NER? AN 51293 Jy mpi! 2k 119 PO, phota PB) ^02 PEO fi DAD (y. 9o Wer ank POT fib, pprnke 2 Tile joo sns] IM PL W tes 25 P ODI , PN 1$ 2. 16 fd, 13 » 9, As As nis B ac O | POON PR Pro Yun ARTE TD: m appar DING Jl 2JA'2 ” (wo) 162 904 pall Par ble fers IV Iso, 153. Pa&% pas! PIP! P 2:8! „P223 ED d 5 $99» mo km DAD 2» „(Jr posue . IU) „ENT, rhe esit pri ; pa P7? o Aris ce [950] Prager) PIPSIA NAD i un Bio AA ie "(i Ipe [PAID ABW) e (e192 99% PY in À (> PAL pe, DAN MI $09» bó Pf > 3 3 ] / IVa (akon) iae rk AI! kb PIE? PF nzj' kÉ PR,» 3 p9’ anf Yapork DA 08) a KE Day POSED Ps TIM _NelalA anok akap „HE fe En Annan pr PER 92 MIDE e PIRIPIND SIENA DP? ka Pe, TER pont ISE 4 519 »0c 222 1992 able”, fo: h2 P2223 a - U ya ne prod am rk NUc jo 27» arfr nie IN Pea gene Y "anıpr Pak PID 0j ok PRIL hpk „ai los" lo 81923 ER ; bl» (cf > aul oko. Pak [ko we ere PAID mar 795 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 319. w C J pio IWE kin kopy PAG, (02) er Dann SDR [yon , 123 The beginning of this covenant is not defined; presumably, the covenant was understood as being the whole book of Deuteronomy, even including parts of Numbers. The Bi'ur, at any rate, is concerned only to show the connection of chapter 29 with the two trestments of blessings and curses beginning at 27:11. 155, p Se WN lo» " [eio p?23 lafi [Pk " 91) Pad] Prk Ink |? fs vox pros ‚how Ib, vk» Yor PRI 10:52 PRI ER Ei of pI p® mata pfi) , Par ors RR SE? 2X PID NDS put PRN Tin PEP ROKK MO n 7 à p» te Ju ‚129 DONT Ji iol , 2502 PES hl AT (9 vo. Pk io, EDE Ika feb Wepre n mé Pr T "» pk ' tj ? o op AJp24 [NO WIE? Pook 9) 250]? JM j" | DW] PP! [ey N, Br soo PRA yg (9. MPO 4 5 2j j IPH 2X5» 97D M Sen P / 9399 Y .. DIN ,£?? PHO, J (nit ET J i t “hs 523 UEDA IST. RNE poy soap ip Rip? ROBE” A Eoo (a2 (> sea 2M 293 K nu DIR RI Mle dot dp PL p^ ^g] PHALA Jj lc? P d DPI Wk ,»2572 pko) W] Zn ,F& DINF IND Sk of po [2>9) 2 4n Jo > ' (r9) PID st 9? 158. Eichhorn, Vol. II, pp. 335, 338: "Kap. V,1-28.... Hinter ihm musste dann billig eine neue Ueberschrift und eine kurze Nachricht vom Ursprung der Menschen die Geschichte selbst eröffnen; auch war's nicht unnatürlich, dass er bei der Wahl seiner Worte auf die im ersten Kapitel gebrauchten Ausdrücke Rücksicht nahm. Kap. V,1.2.3 vergl. Kap. 1,27.28 [268.]." M } 1D — 2, k 3| Pol NNP [n P Am Nu ia NEJA INES) Jive PIE? aD Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 320. ^ op i ‚oben INIP UNER Jo PD apa Ha (ko to ym ud @ j> 29 jak ‚Par pokah 989 ££. FPI r7» MP Wk] 20:912 INE Eg hom) PILL Yad t JAN JPY PIP |BWD DD 7D Ibo. íg Valo, 052 Ha” „37° er, A WHO pp & yah, tja Jor ^ PODA Poa PP R ol G JP > n ai an POP 294) (d) UAAR eso» nU? by pe um RIND IPY Dy (di BIPD pr PIED DNO IP 2j? Flop) "ote Af 17377 [5n fA JD DAF BE o REN lop) PoR p. PA [o] 1090 fc! p At 29 WER "100l W9 19959 RR) G 3772 bp Ph 9j" . . PAG We have been unable to locate the direct source from which the reference to Berosus was derived. Josephus, with whose works Mendelssohn was familiar (Verzeichnis, p. 5, #803 p. 6, #497, 99, 104), did quote Berosus occasionally (e.g., Contra Apionem I, 129-153), but not on this matter in his Jewish Antiquities. lel. Pf "5€ [ona J Yew 25" appt.” ‚PRO [phe sw! PK prion YR 120p j (rf 3f Seo fr 122) BYP! DA loy» 92 flou > N IRIN noop Pe Jap] go 40 UE >A) 45! 521 PIL PR 554] if > aon iw (GF SOK? ? Poa gi Qe?» 7 3 eo | EET JEU MEL a NA A „ORION ff nop hi apap Mji 7 die J^ an ZO ^, eb P 162, Eichhorn, Voi. I, p. 240f. (#105: Siebenzehnte Quelle: Moio T€ MevToV) "Die beiden Verse (Jos. XXI.36.37 sind wohl wegge- fallen, weil v.36 und 38 mit (Wl anfingen." P. 3295. (#158: Masora-— Mängel derselben): "Aber das non plus ultra der Kritik des A, T. ist sie auch nicht, und ganz unverstellt, wie viele glauben, konnte der Hebräische Text durch sie nicht erhalten werden. Schon hatte wildes Wasser die heilige Quelle getrübt, ehe die Masorethen ihren Damm darum gezogen haben: und da sie in der Kunst, den wilden Strohm abzugraben, viel zu ungeübt waren; sollten sie mit unter nicht auch reines, heiliges Wasser weg geleitet haben? Tasteten sie nicht zwei Verse im Josua (XXI,36.37) an, die sie nicht hätten antasten sollen?" Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 321. I3, iy n, PAYD P pF" 10:3 ae» PER [PF RD Ir j545). P9229 123pÀ. lkopAp JA GPL 2D Ra [jj IRE pol PO al 2D 20 jd pp? P Je oa P EDD PIS 97 "wt [s Bro , 12 DE, If hy! aN alpo2 WI dI, (n: > Sein) 237 260 be A Dp?) 91183 yel (OID! F W P sum Ajpo» ^23 oh hk WE R m»! Prk PAI Y passen pk! Yer! INS fle ifie ne 254» an pip de 31? ba’ kb pool “RQ eof rn RD PINA AIA) 1523 23? fk U Qk? 164. Eichhorn, Vol. I, pp. 294-299 (#139b: Parallelstellen: Kurze Anzeige dieses Mittels). P. 294: "Parallelstelien sind nicht bloss Quellen von Varianten, sondern auch ein herrliches Nittel, sie zu beurtheilen, und entstandene Fehler zu entdecken und zu verbessern, so bald man nur nicht glaubt, dass die verwandten Stellen, bis auf alle Kleinigkeiten, mit einander überein stimmen müssten." 165. See Part Two, ppe 140-144. Mn Ode ey ‚ler aa ost fob P>5 WIR Wibi yp Tor Iris PIPE PODI IAI — "sp & > +90 IP ler Id D [> Von! pyra , Pink Oak © fer e£ ten Pok Wk > Fen [ND (iD! IPA ape. [BIRD AMP? le PE? MD P 2) Jo) 3 WE OL ani pa Pé 2p of RIK! SRD DINO DW PEIE ple nko Fe Dial , 144P JODI HA IPER 2298 er] IARE 192 PD? 7% PIN foo Ne wp APD , joe e pos /5 Fe eval [c Jit. PIPA? > DFI 2419) PIDE P3 DAF IANA ^ gig» »bufí PII REL ysk PL Dubno suggests that Mendelssohn inclined more to the interpretation "h(a" than to "/2€ fS," but actually Mendelssohn's translation com- prises both. 167. Sandler, p. 115f.3 Michaelis, Einleitung, pe 162; Semler, pe 8lf.: "Nos omnes non statuimus, ut quidem arbitror, inesse istis additionibus, aut mutationibus nominum propriorum, aliquid, quod ad TWTRPIAV animorum vel hilum adferat.... Cur igitur christiani sacro Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 322. quasi metu terrentur, ne umquam eius rei quid opinentur? Talis €b)«Deia. Iudaeos apprime decet; sed Christianorum ingenia non subsunt isti servituti. Inepta est atque illiberalis illa sedulitas, si audet legem nobis omnibus scribere, atque nos ad Iudaismum litterarium ad- ducere. Sic, quod Genes. 36, 31 scribitur, hi sunt reges, qui regna- verunt in Edom, antequam dominaretur Rex in filios Israels; intellex- erunt quidam de regibus Idumaeorum, antequam David eos subigerat, 2 Sam. 8, 14, itaque et statuerunt, hanc partem serius additam fuisse. a an priores istos reges intelligere, ab Esavi etate usque a sis imperium; Carpzovius autem, pag. 58 praefe suam sententiameoee" (italics hz) Ed dnd 168. Eichhorn, Vol. II, p. 379. kh: IE MUR PHR '9Nil t! E32 379 ist 925 I0 adler” KA tase 2] kay er 2D [ct EN EN oe D lagn /2 Don Ak) DAP pil to kann 61 ‚DER? PE o am NES 65 eji diES. nen) pon For Ife [es onl, 3090» tt [9 pone 9^1) pin pto I BYP jp; flere! p» ^u be Oe oy P PIL 234 "oh pfw 2. Ur 54) PAWD 22l 2 Log) pe u sf DHA) DID D praik t pbi» bei RO sap (oup! Wa © 15909 Ik indi ea» nk ds 1592 » ^31 ano. nite $ 3) INL kap '22 11992 NDD ^g, Y 169. See Part Two, note 76; Sefer Hajaschar, ed. Goldschmidt, ppe 11-14, 37-46, 251-258, (c: 9 52382 ka 110. wA Die FC fx DWL "Fotos Ne ED Tom É Giep ‘ab spk an £5) 5h POR kbi „NE ach npl Yo Poem Dk P a PID ’INIR Dk 7120 ror) , 9) »94) && Ip 1» 2302 ff? R DOD i519» 24) 907 Pk PRID Zah Dh 3k „DW A 25239 IN PO Ik PEJ Do fc neo $26. apr a k Panlon PIPP Pk m Von Kh MR aj» IB prok [E 20» ^ P'251»4 PAL Ik y por 2 AD Ik POY? iv O19 aoa DIIP ?^)pn O DOPOD 72 pn2 |J Le Por s m P EWE wg 5 o8 neos NU P> [f Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 323. om le» na? .Ak5 jo An À 22:2 am EA (>k " D u IQ pin Ie Pik a | Dap k jo & 322| flop» 1» ee pos; PUD Nr E rer PO) DNIA) qo» E ooo PFI, jun 090 sts 304 DOW En ja) E:F MUR ‚er a R> [( a 257 e oL T 2J0. piopnk RID 294) Aò IIM PREIA Fe PO 12 PRP yo Phi Ne 1D Pp $ IRA NRD DRED Jg. ls 19 ^ DEN ar Aa? fapt CHR > (hor RN (ep A yh PO PO $4n IPIDDAR PE lo par E AS xp > c9» PaF 392! ‚PIE? kaja 609? av per yt Ér fc? por, GOWN) PUN Ike? Prof pino? Ce pr} ote ne Ile y ZIR Ike , 2j )» SEM PÜpoA PIE PL) SP? aa oe ° NEAR ‘OD 252 199 ObD Wer , 2 PND ^26? (nar? 5 £] pd SBA! s Jo [an PALISI pl ak Fs SNP PRE PION OAK E ; (uS) INNI 25» Door ? ok, P»? PÍ5)o0» [^^ ((c/9) U "s Ino) pad 129? Predictably, Eichhorn, Vol. II, p. <258f., and Michaelis, Anmerkungen, Numbers 12:1, do not attempt to identify the Cushite woman as Zipporah. 171, Eichhorn, Vol. II, p. 397: "So ein unvoiiendetes Stück scheint 2 3. Mose VI,14-27 zu stehen. Die Genealogie fängt mit Ruben und Simeon zn, wird bei den Geschlechtern des Stammes Levi ausftip@ficher, um die Abstammung Moses und Ahrons zu zeigens schliesst sich aber mit ihnen, ohne sich auf die Nachkommen Jacobs von seinen übrigen Söhnen zu verbreiten. Und doch ist man berechtiget, von ihnen wenigstens eine "FG so kurze Notiz, als die von Ruben und Simon ist, zu erwarten." 5 Gre E PUY Pplak p's ko afk” P I DIR PIR Pride PNF po fon) ne? pU aw Jing „Kl paul 3 N yy v PANL dle [D pref en 3 2J^ &V apo RA us pt? n s c WW 9) HCl [EM ORD 9152 "If. PL DE fc E epee UN hol; | PY oj] eo D) INA PEI? Mendelssohn's emphasis, in Ia with Rashi H ibn Ezra (fi'ur 6:13,28), that Exodus 6:28-30 is a natural recapitulation of 6:13 is notewor thy, in contrast with Eichhorris analysis that it was a later gloss, ibid., p. 397f. nof vara aW dé 2 uk", (eife! DWE, hia 2391, Pr fon kf WELL k JIN 1778. 25 15 4k] T nk Kon; Je: ki] ane way I If NI ge» iD ,P'^)eon PLP Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 324, na (3f: i Bro IE WE finn FID 31e NSN pa kP ike DEED AIS PO Sl beo Don id^ kb PE (eoo preven pure Pi ^p 9 Sc ad E O Dk a Den DING PR MER [er [BO »nta] 7 jn 3 det MAL RD Nog 196a , 2? Nk 22 RW MR), TL Jile» ee ds Jo , CINN (550 15 »k!2J Ie PONT J p DONDL 22 Wej MSD DODI > RR, In24/ mik 7 Ip IN? Ry 23:39 EL Map proSnn for ora Ik by Sp phir DP ayn) 19 262% A aL ANT ER D ppl P 1») 1o Ho! YP en 609 Jof Iia. DoNkJR pore EI? en per "je Mk? Porn (8 of [Dig 122 173. See Part Two, p. 74f. 174. For example, see the Bi'ur on Genesis 18:13, 21:32, 26:295 Exodus 16:13 Leviticus 9:23. We have already mentioned an example from Exodus 2:1 in Part Two, p. 7Of. 1D US. ponm ppb ab UP „un? ORUP ET y f^ pp stm afl 9 at Nit We PIED Iro! DAD JINN -n? 59" Lj v i Le We Sic 2) ae ^ YO pk PORN P k mi Us Fk a n 2 y N: / nm H 2) 7) 9 P) 2) I" J 2» jak ,255 722 SND kòl 9)p2? 22) ‘one prep aa pof omk ft ^ IN DIDP bet IM , eh “poanp Iie > nni 14 Ren a p» EUN VS ) 079 2? NDJERA ? =- L2 1/0, i 3 (e Lc A pro jf JPS PSOE D Yos Sp AR mk (10, pel s X34 Eo ouf [PEM Prip Pn»? NC. op Yes DRY Rika 5m IDa IHN) PIP 07 'DhD PAY? PiS 292 1505) hn NE [ins ifie! died, 11 AON! Te UNE W VE Qc» Mole PNI 00 j^ IOI PT j ^ Cen pa n (49) pins ky ORE nok xL Pe P. aes " (6263) 25 pan Ares IE NE dios Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 177. See Part Two, pa4lf, and below, n.220£, and note 217. PELD Mi, afle pel IND, une. © $55 € DIER "H9 M9! Pan R59 Sic H gp er UREA '$)50c2 178. P. 205 We "n Ai oa» "uf ty JO" 40: HWE era ^n 5/257 s "P A] RE 9 (305 "n 04247 ‘el ae 533! »n (di PINS "nj»i ESTI pe "n lhl DDP gan NR & PROD NEY RO In 922. "262 $1506 ^ n£J A n w DIN PUL "n Dee DED [i62 IJIN fe? UP IF R Panky , Bye! ft Pronk PB Ne e MD, DIN MJR Ihe] PONY NIG P^, DOP AYR Pis Jera Nfr Phi PYAR er 15442] PCT 5i 5 h^, 46 kage pk rien] $5] 72 180. P. 205f. ^it» ,PRk HBA 2 pers vl", G;f ko pl ; isi Akel Nic a Mant, 2965» K potio a 1? a eae s de yide ud fi ae Di ,.p ^99 nre M (ien > Qni (pal IRP IND N? de PAR , n ip 7? >) , IDA Rp PONE % De in [Reg pel ape! pe pst je P, Poe K03j ks E Lo NP? 2 Pp oo k2 P^, Bi Teo jo = 25 90 12 > npnkı ‚2072 D DON) DIPU NNION | pus IR wn pho ner ı JEL WE 182, Ibn Ezra on Exodus 20:1, p. 82, side 2, column 23 pe 85, side 1, column 2. k'a 183, 51^ 945 To) ING , YR SNIN P [ioo 103917. Si afal paint DIA p pk 9 inte quen WNL WD, “AAA DI | j np) , $42 d ost ak] Gah 0 PA 1 ans e9k» PN ER ! al p^ IN MESIA [Ww ! ('fc (A JT j ae A PO Suy [c 9/2 a pr) PIDIN IND) DPP of [A "PEE PIDIN MINDI DPP of [er CL —— WIND) DIA n kB a kan ok ont Porn? Me Ones Pon pok, Unb) pe rel ^9 '9 Heorodiedd with permission of the copyright owner. Further rapredlietion ee without permission. Ge 32 VIAN RH 212852) Du 22] IMMER Wed pn Du Bea YU up YA Jut Lt N S NAP INP fo fe “one Ik We fo» Wk fos) ^ 1D [t u Je: DNR , ko Ik DD "oy u POUD pre , A? Ibn Ezra implies that knowledge of God Himself is more accessible to the learned, whereas acceptance of the Exodus has to suffice, as an understanding of God's deeds, for the non-learned. Mendelssohn, however, stresses the centrality of the Exodus for all. id HU Yto Ye» olaa" „RR „ie fik D PQ 24 [ID 75, IPSA SIRO ie / " hr (oA pobica wo ıpfar okoki , 913 ik OF pr a 10 sf, DAD NUM 6/222. "I9 2/ ‚ds irs WR í DOPA MD DJD: LOGE pak] NUR DRM S © PiN ven Pr 2] JAU :86N UA EIP DP a kis Esa Na [NE 9/9 kidd f ID_ Mk '5 MIR IND ,259 NEA U T " fov DJIA JIOA o» 1251, (p (d pepe) Pal Jf5. ek») 2k» YOA sink” PE pa _ Pak» Sms Pe» R4 prawn LAIDED jo ergy pak DID | IND Bk» YP DIP) PRA YAN If't hI PADD! ks Pki NDE PIE par WISH PIDE PIE [RR DIN N 72777, Wk IP PIL pee 6523 Ann (np! pares PAT PIA 'Jf62 e» Qr SP PA» PHA 924) KSI Xu Nat» D PO aD "OD Dagny E> fio ak PR) IPN ile (io $9221 KF Pki Ip Bra qmi PPW PAL YFP -A»fc anof " PLS " „PR, u "MIR Pp Ife, NIIP b ] uo 25) * , 32 PR, UEP Pika P3 piaedi 7 Pen aN a 90nd kml DRA Kur kine File ja D4 DK! VI jak © iN 532 Pade a» e PND Wah ag "Y (a! o p Alae? UIA HEP ONP Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 327. obkf pela» IP Pe Ne n3? AP ID, OR nr Paak Ale wo ky apl ak Poh PLD K 95[€ aggro “LE? Pr ee] fe Phak ib UHR ONN INKL APIA" | PR ik la rR PIO DMP evn ki» DI N22] YJE? Pk) PIAN ‚212% pD [oA p! ht» MN (ae AA? kÀ ink 58i" phd PR 258 pk ap LA AM DAJE YNRA " | & D RE. ka pk ea ee ROJ AYIp IND nm [^ uo Sp tl .09J PIA kg p? nu^ , FO PR, Lu? os Ayw 0124? > Dk" 3:2 ‚R „PER B en AY. MED oun? C [8527340 4] [? kr", ki» „RR (orgy [Pk iu BAS ap! ER m" ED PR, 2 = “mans PID X N) DINN ht IMR 7 5292] “ p ?"2 PL EA DODD YA ın Ply isto pgs ud IS yea oa? eun! Dar f fpi Pih m9») ayei peli groß Pre» ka’ | Bp py» P! „Polle Jod MDD fb KA mor» np PIN? Nl?» IPIN VON PIDI WA» pl PIEI [IWP RR Wl Toad det ot pate “9p PC ARE NEU?! "13 EEE Nn pow IND Pa PIA Li, De IPR BP "del f^ Pa 2 Mendelssohn's word 1 MU in v A94 ke ff APPA " indicates that he felt the first and last Commandments, besides being keys to the other eight Commandments, were the keys to the 613 misvot as well. 190. Ibn Ezra on Exodus 20:1, p. 82, side 2, column 2: Pop Pfio prone Gn, IN kin) 023 PP PHY kır a?" JM 342 kip 0 ‚19? ANI, ric Pye [ 4? he pi,o] j^» LI ES 4 J Ip 2 onc? „I (aM pow f otn P lB? p >, dcs kr '2 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 328. 191. Cf. Mendelssohn's bracketed note explaining the sin of Moses in the Bi'ur on Numbers 20:12: 5 E DW AM?» 157, Re nk, Sey” JUPE R RAE» 9 [Y DID Ne "fj Fe ple n PIR PP Kp WD DN) NES? DROW? Pope DFEN PWD PUPA : P^alpon NG 2 Je? Ue RAA wn) 769» NE? P SE PINEN , po AB I! Yard P3) DP, CD [EI 53v PA , DEDA Wd [RD 1130 ne PRE app £0» PYESA Pr mw P, DIPUN ED 7) pan jo kilay Prk wa licor kE iis DOING DIR ner” 2 a: kop) 2 [ak 325 YA kip IKD PAKI Ink Ve pA pNP PI PE /25 DZD KB YPI, sco PIA Win bP PR - pAle Nel PE Mc kb pp MOP er Ps Tkp kb Masle ara »neo» e "Pkt DOD 94]5 pt s mp kB) pp EA iena £T. PUED in wor mag am [opi D" „FR, [24? (e? 4% "a[lc DIDIA ju NO 232 fo &C yon wie WP? "Abk! ko? PIPI) zr» Kb Pre 9 Yk o» PPD INA 620p les} (coo pIpdd [cap kb poy [Ep (à. PDA JONR !PIPAL_NK [cra ppd) Paw Pr 24 ape Heap Paks Iie Ric ko? Piai PAR Pi Pur v Br PPO) ffe [ph (c¥ peo p? fs INSP fb (cop PAD] Eres co» PIPI AD KP ,2)9J 4f Zr M AR F QAND ZPD F5» Ip kB kad PP) P k I, f ^^ ao NIDA [eoo PY PUID ose] OWP E ple PON P aw 193. [pp , lc»! toki ik Oe" eo (o? DER zs p ^5pn'o^ ip ptu esti PES koaj esto o n p> M" apf M sone tto Japan ble oos» ano ^ jio dan» Dj p» 0t! pos am a One® /N2) “Jak PIDA PRIINI 2"? JF ES J PETI Pb Pim [le 186 3) DAWA pe» ne Gof) PiP DID DO nk D DPRDAD NU >. 2 a> 1542! ape pO M DPI, NIP" ak Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 329. di ré" Je ape? 24, LOWEN IN 20 ^" > “> 190022 fof pl T GEP IOA Pen PEN» Pk kon Per 72 Jira» 0^8 [» = a p e rai 295! PÉ ph, upon a DIPA VID DA UNL NI PR kfar fi. BAP, YY PRO DIIN soi, mkFajr Pr nel] 222A 0. 2. POWER IND, Yen Ney PO» Pk ^ DRS PW! NLL > me | DE We (plkfo] 225 f 162) prima P pp (es > gin) JP) LOIN Rn PIPAR icy pro Ikon poty We Uk ank j8! ^ PAID PIWA TE 45. n 0l» Y» 194 ‚BEER fic 1j9 Ste 9:0 ‚PR NI 2599 Ja YIN] fr» YI PIN "OD PR» NINA a í | p 1 de Foon P'Pf Mui, Pil» pe nyo RPALWP a p j? v6. run 1P Pe Ale 199 fp di dest, k f fk Din Pf pra Fr oak Ej» nomen RL PIRRE DAMN DUP PA ndi fale RAY mak kon Pk DAPA 'ON GAPL MÉID 'AD DIO) KEW fon VVL, WINA Pk he A [3 Nie)» eo a ap IPNI? ) 10) MADD 9 [220 9JO : a E a (ea) of Ors! pfoon PA 2 3 fly ~j PIED N02 gio! JD) PER, (pup Cf. Frank Manuel, pp. 74-78, in reliance on The Natural History of Superstition (London, 1709) by John Trenchard. 1. bs Klann 9962 19% [PAS 9I j ar P 832. FED PIRWN PAU pin D SVR DONDI P ‚UP 5328) DJ IN JI UNES dp PA fU» PND ‚Don DRAN) Pha io Ho ps pir Pe) " ma kaf fcu " PRIPP Prd PINK 25 dk." 2:6) E 2 FIRS hof PIANA [owen pisea pisri PET PER eh PRID NOIR 0) 2128 DJIA 117. ook 237 nk Zen 5)" GG Pe DIES. PT, » 95s PE TIER PUPP fr VDI "no IPOD 12) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 330. gpl 15) 25 79) , PYRE Jot. ja gr! 29/37 AE nip Di? ANS T 224p kf foi Fr wo , da pie pen We Den alg 12 /i2: DD ok pi Por» d > ES Polen Sela p by / AAC | l a PN jon 198. n kr: Gi pe. (19) eR» > prin 12^ ‚jap (d I an: DINDI) ally» DIN RAPE APs PIE | AN save chi 20 nis pt, DP pe» 19995 IND’ 199. There is a suggestion in the Bi'ur on 19:3 that the entire section is concluded at 19:18 (see note 193), but this is not followed up any further. In fact, Wessely's introductory words in the Bi'ur on 19:2 do indicate consideration of the chapter as a whole as a unified entity: ole APR | ay IgA 15 269 ala. aN, Mer VA nee p ab H D JE , Spa kim jo, X5 "Ro OM „a2 i RA [>D (c e' b [k:27 WOD 553! WIS DA IWEJE -MOND h> PDF S494 29 PJ «ii , [22 For the delineations of Ramban (from Vayigre Rabbah) and ibn Ezra, see note 192. u SER LM Lopi” „312 [enl lea. mt LAN Nın- ea ox od [t^ "OM oos cUm ainan I! 234 JON , XNX». PPP? IP Ap») N2»529 MU. re WIRD ae | wel qoi» or MY Pk "Jof BIG QR DPP PRA l2 p j . PIIERNn P'230 "VO Mek) PPARA ARSEN JPP A J229 93) DIP WI DD | SO [AL ‚sic PSN’ peiaja / 4 2 PIRO Pa 25] ... PPP) PIR mU wale orn? J? pé»nle wj, DIYer? MIR 1990 aE „520° fo ') V9] JApfov Ykajı mo P622 poe» 290 NIC AJ feou Peal [» IGE MF A292 eco 9 fern Fer Eje £27] IPER MoR K (ub ^90 t ,? A NU Al, [5 BFORD Dko to (BV) pin lua») Po) R 13) pef. iig) Pa PIN ^" s PENSE PIND PONAR INN PP 6 ! ) P 95 »4à? Jm Q pan [PIM 2J^5t JPO (upk ZAJN p! oy 5 p DL VD AD PLL 3p VE! DN: ER P? : ike RIG aja Lee ETE u^ PD PAIRED p79 90 DZ Plica fow F6. , PINE? ^k f PFN p Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 331. afi pe kın Pl, 14 9000» PGAR WO jo nka >fi9f "PINE une i ip Ik aria nas pe WP dub "JE 201. PD, A (at WEF PUP 290D 123 S aaa ,23 8]. Nar 225 1JN P) NW [12 din cate E opel on i M $ NOAD 190 IR 13)5 ‚Ik? PX RI gli? RE 02 “AND 367 Dp NNT PR AY laD... DAD EID DON qs pfl ile) C y n ER ID hr DHE [PL , DADA) PIA Nm) 4 Lp 7992 ko ap» .. PIENES sk” „50.12 a 55 ‚Me 15A[c (chi pO ADN NA INE PP_D Ink PM) * t if»? PLANS MEP MeL PIN DJY kdle Dko lod |36 Pk), Ipk ao ?? MT Ier ff PE! , ed b 2307 Pipe Pa on» IJN PEI „Ro 096» PL Xe! f mA ^ el b x D Inde LC ana (om op “pl LD III YEN ?00 po’ rr I DR IAIN PU RJ tg M w eee A93, Hank x60 DIN DINK REN map”, PR py» FED PP Jon 924 d (dic ,293 EE 2 N? p) PI) PEI) POP JAIA DE EID 22 TARY a kb Plo AXI PP ls 199 AR pras | ; Bio fp X tip» Seen JPME map» PEE, "E T $e kot vo) rel IPAP [52 p opt bed WW Des l » N 2J'22 125,-2525& UPR 530» Vl, ES yr 3 MS _DNION (095 92 Dk sn 20092 CFO I " NiCISJ2 | "m2 ‚RR IDR FGO ERIK vob P2JM SAL", | > j£ ,P2 Un bs Fou BO Y wt ju 3 "EGE AGDA PAIN Jar) afo »/» Pk 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 332. 204, PIOINICD NI »0K. DJD Vis (2: lO Pe fapa PNL "hall. i3 FR WI „NPK? Pig PD, I? VR pn aP kin) „2,0 12] ES pado p oe Jk oj VOJE Ike ODE MBIEN MERN PR, J >: pue NES tir M A = >62 IC? kl k3) P’ epli, » Fao: roi igh POPP 205, Pre NIDIAD !90.. Rae hc PR pom DI, anb DEI AD, PL, N ko WEP? ne ION [?! ... USER o'p prio E je gio SN IQA 1)^kaQ. IND , PU 239 5 Hr par UE : (8 ! 5059) 3 DN ND 9 206. See note 231, Dubno also composed the nucleus of the Bi'ur on Numbers 23 and 24 (cf. note 47). 207. See GS, Vol. VI, pp. 125-366 and 367-390, respectively. 5:3 UP, MENA 20%. NE 3af DED wk a", m AD Dk M22 05» 9, ID NICH? P^ dle en 242 aED preneda PEE Nie 24. U^ pi Wik 54! (Ic Ins Sicz PINIPS PDIP Ja , 2 ^ B » Sans PARR Prpak? papan Fi lao an pa OS si» [p lolo fe 08 284 13" 207, — ijwf Jan fd Wk Ile op PAB [cH]! Pn 43 DD PIN'AR pop? Qe ,P!2)p22 p Ps pon! 2 ee e nf ony ih» PO n 1533 ? 2)A9 Ek» os SA pps ra INQ 249 E? ir Mns .NNON NS np SND ! pi PINE? AID 196 fe a UNI n3 JI YA » qe] un? Pin) e»! dt fe Ue All d a Yen al arn 0692 Pam) en un pip IIR pn plo» f a PIR 72 „IR? H pkl, map Ak ‚in ik 2^ 1972 We Ran») ,2? a PAR san 194R 11 UDD AIMED hk 2 pub [^ [P Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 333, [?' f AKI, rY 7A) pie AA PAPRD, Í5 [P400 92 "PIE PRA LPA ft lE. DA 210. Sandler, pe 103, n. ll; M. Z. Segal, "Le-Heqer Suratah shel ha-Shirah ha-Miqra'it," Sefer Klausner (Tel Aviv, 1937), p. 99, n. 34. Cf. Johann Gottfried von Herder, Vom Geist der Ebräischen Poesie, Vols. 1-3 in Sämmtliche Werke, 60 vols. in 30, ed. Johann Georg Müller (Stuttgart und Tübingen, 1827-1830), Erster Theil, Zweite Ab- thellung, p. 58: "Kurz, hier ist das kleine Triumphslied, ich kann's ihnen aber nur ohne Assonanzen, ohne Reime geben: Ihr Weiber Lamechs, höret meine Rede, / Hört meine Sage! Ich tÜdte jetzt den Mann, der mich verwundet, / Den Jüngling, der mir eine Beule schldat. Soli Kain siebenmal gerächet werden, / So wird's itzt Lamech y siebzig siebenmal. Er fuhlte nämlich die Uebermacht des Eisens und Schwerts gegen die Angriffe andrer Mordinstrumente." o Nor was the paraphrase taken from Herder's Alteste Urkunde des Menschengeschlechts, Sämmtliche Werke, vols. 5-7. Both works were found in Mendelssohn's library (Verzeichnis, p. 22,##81, 82; p. 14, #it 236, 237). 211. See above, p. 161, and below, p. 224, for two additional examples. 212. (pn PRE? 39) Pla ^ NLII JAM kon hage [NR Jot afik hiv " prINO Plas PRIND Part, AID DUA DER SP ORR ‚ler / f ' 4^ n5 ' Mes x9 fin Eaa 1253 of (b Wap ako? TO [2I o ka pop Uk AE 09 de o. PR , BB? PR N po OND TYE s yd 948i en D iR» pe 948 MAJD SNIP N ARD NE USERN en: ye n [€] Pal DNpeAD ! i Ass (Kun N II Zu een» 2039 9) 5552 (an > rk SINN IN prD Den [DID Sk Ada For Mendelssohn's mention of Ramban in passing, see note 209, 213. See note 208, 214. Michaelis, Uebersetzung, Exodus 15:19: "Denn Farao, mit Pferd, Wagen und Reutern wagte sich ins Meer, - R Und Jehova liess Fluthen uber ihn zuruck kommen, Aber Israel ging in dem Meer auf trockenem Boden." Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 334. 24 PRU [co OWE EU 54^» (mb ‚lea 2" LOG NUR, DIEI 5 Pp 51 15252 36D 00 (er > p^ofiki TOY I? 'D RD Jw PRD ftot! Ja 28a p)» Wok pr ^" Ary P'D PODA Pallets »| DO! [ 4&2 Hj ; 0j PUP Y kin) PD PLA IQ >k, (p? 7965? ifo Porok piowkui»e. F) MODNA kG Jin [ipn Pla PR 7890 olo fa 0 aay PU 9 CT YS 1e »£^9 O10 fen > VU gk we ile , [> ed 151/79 ppoba 5 gab PD p^ ^ DRA pisi» dr»? IR »|c'a]» PA Dppö 5k o 276 o, dd ux DIAS 2]J6^£ 20» Y luu E ee p ne y J UD, n > PARA! "ioo pr Fe [roy aw ^^ ] aa PAW P!, 215, Herder, Vom Geist, Zweiter Theil,' ste Abtheilung, p. 160f.: "Vielleicht endet hier der Gesang [v. 18] und das folgende wáre nur eine kurze Wiederholung des Inhalts...so dass diese Zeilen gleich- sam der Denkspruch waren, den von der ganzen Begebenheit jeder im Gedächtnis behalten musste. Wenn Stellen in diesem Liede sind, von denen es schiene, sie konnten damals noch nicht gesungen werden: so denke man, dass Tempel, Heiligthum und das Land, wohin sie ziehen sollten, in Gottes und Moses Geist schon da war, und dass dieser da- durch auf die Anstalten und Züge, die gemacht werden sollten, im Triumph gleichsam vorbereitete." Al. An oa eal XN” [cd |G Ind esr) AR PION Ind fen > I y oi D, Jo PI) PION anf! A PIW fene Ja) aN fs Sgne akan [5b , kh pa © f É ) (X 2p[5 P» P pu Me 9f 1t AN E | P [o con je: 167] AND 25k a] PIDDA jD E den NO» 7 werde f jon): ue c ) eed ot j PR, Jf Pr} Aile fum Pint. au e. sat 255i 217. Robert Lowth, Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, trans. from Latin (De Sacra a Poesi | Hebraeorum, um, Oxford, 1753) by by G. Gregory (Andover, 1829), Lecture 19, pp. 154-156, P. 156: "[The custom of singing in alternate choruses] pervaded the whole of the poetry of the Hebrews; insomuch that what was said of the heathen muses may still more strictly be applied to those of the Hebrews— 'they love alternate song.' On this occasion also it may not be im- proper to remark, that the word AJY which properly signifies to answer, is used more generally to denote any song or poems whence we cen only infer, either that the word has passed from particular to general use, or that among the Hebrews almost every poem possesses a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 335. sort of responsive form." Mendelssohn's important review of Lowth's work, published 218. Introduction to the Bi'ur on Exodus 15, Prague ed., p. 85, side 15 Infa (ae 30 #2) Gier IN Ina. sie nina pipe fn 1025 9021" 1^N AS ar | ae / 4 U yD Ic HC “Zo PRE we aN [T] anik € , 9^» dE e 2230 dfe Iff p f sony UU ferm oke nk 'D Nk DEN job oe (ND 1092 ,oMk& on © aly nk Gere! Hse [2] ik LY, NEN Mic EEE ONE DN hy DORE oak fener Ff 209 ont 50H, SP “Onna YNE ©9)94 202 I3] 2 NIE DNA] 1 DICH Pkg "2 Ale PAI PEJO Wk DING PR [c9 0p» DO fci? D ng n gk we PW „SWL 2 ^Alt AUN Kl 2» tk Ik feoti (fioe 92e! sic s(n €! INL Jonfe deoe | spl Uk 9 NK adn IDI Ble 25 Pale gk! a ! ) 4 (c. ['242/ PAID Ppa PI PN INIle 'Ic3p Ja 246i. > [d] Ink fep oH SE DRK INEI PPD Din DRN INE PONEI opt [un doo] WD OM BY NIE ae, PID DNI 12919) O10 Yale jio OY „DK DK, 7 m" UY, SNDEN RIE 5 n No WD ot OIE E nv] PPk [ye k^" PAR ok PN INL ^ pan Rk 3 ys [ntl Popke (JE Pin Yar asm 572» FE IIR ppl WE para Pron PME? USE 0009 Pole» HIND) ^ AID [RF jean ju6 Pes LL Pp, 117252 wo p? NBAA iD? [Jt We Ek Pe le 1^8] -M expla JG 2 169) 709 [had ,X2J0N {ss mer eae d d sr M fe ead ‚ESP? Paa f'e peo? hao > n Ain. PAPI Hl ‚ed PER LN fici 44». Hox k> |709/ Cin) , [UN ice "QP PAP DRG 024f 242 219. See the quotation from the Bi'ur on 15:21 in note 216. Mendels- sohn, however, does not express this idea as clearly as Lowth, p. 154f.: "One choir usually performed the hymn itself, while the other sung a parti- cular distich, which was regularly interposed at stated intervals, either of the nature of the proasm or epode of the Greeks, In this manner we learn that Moses with the Israelites chanted the ode at the Red Seas for ‘Miriam the prophetess took a timbrel in her hand,and all the women fol- lowed her with timbrels, and with dances; and Miriam answered them,' that is, she and the women sung the response to the chorus of men: 'Cantate Iehovae, quiae magnificae sese extulit; 'Equum equitemque in mare deiecit.'" Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 336. ] 220. Robert H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York, 1948), p. 281. 221. Lowth, p. 41f.: "We advert to some other verses, a little different in kind, to which the same historian appeals (as well known and popular) in testimony of the truth of his narration. Thus, when he relates the first incursion of the Israelites into the country of the Amorites, in order to mark more precisely the boundaries of that state, and to explain more satisfactorily the nature of the victories not long before achieved over the Moabites, he cites two fragments of poems; the one from the book of the wars of Jehovah, the other from the sayings ( Paten ) of those who spoke in parables; that is, as appears from the nature of things, from some panegyrical or triumphal poem cf the Amorites." PELD p% 251 9 Nana aoon“ , 2 e2 IPINA RD (> por) e» yo X 991 PE Im [gio Piano? ye am a leer? Y. fko Uf isch WO» DIN Puno! fcio» 20» ap Pw pÈ oun Sipp Bro pR >> aim Nogh 2J (di „pen IN Fe nnt vom akii sii» PO DoI 95M DO [UN |e Im 02242 nk. Dk 709? Wo fr aut ds AM er. g ^| sry IPAR ajile INSS kiad IND el METS) A de di GID PIDDA © 199 DAD po ki B92 (^e d RR Witt BE ea ee a AIA 5522 IS Ja Pa o PV] PRIN? osy ui nn? ! G oN 19 qii PAJEN i jt kan shir Yom viu]? 15257». leh uus M. an pipe IR . “ ) If Ze) Q IVAP lu»? 2992 Bh JI? apn 94 IES z nag llc kot! Jr DRON LWIA P? Pe FED TA N j D filo PoP alen "dog QAM Mk 2) De PR NY ON RUNNIN IND In SMP ^)» 194 kb DW) gr a die HOL E anf 123 ug IWD 252 IDL, HR? PP Din@ NINA» Pk’ : f aan) Poe» WU!) „AR PF PLOWOD ANID? Jr PUE? Be "apk PNA der ipdfe NPD p ne ” oif ^ Ik 222, [237 [c 992 2Nk ‚> t t re AR ny HF an ii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 337. JM ONIS £19 Slo! snl... PROP ADI nk” PR RO D: 19 PID Pol 2227) Pas 2» I% PIIM 15 55. fou» Ife by one p fs” , RR, Paw Play PIN! NLD Jk POs] Alps ID PIP foe WE 18/79) , POR proa ale! Sle end PAaL okad npe 7 725 „kal [UMC Foa Leje PoJ fs plo] 1:255). Sapnk [Pare 223. See above, p. 149, and note 221, dnd Yan DP /? NINA noor“, PR Ik, ar ‚me PER 2 ANDEN pL PR DIN IN Sy {joa ae Y?» PIN Pik) 1378 PAD PO ‚>, ponak SINN HAR T3 DNR (cot u PPD 7023) 19€ po) Ed Von l 225. Herder, Vom Geist, Zweiter Theil, Zweite Abtheilung (Sämmtliche Werke, vole 3), pe 117: "Als Moses nothgedrungen den Amalek schlug, fing er ein Buch der Kriege Jehovahs an, das auch spáter- hin fortgesetzt wurde; nur wenige poetische Stellen sind uns daraus ubsrgeblieben." Spinoza, p, 175: "It is as clear as the noonday light that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but by one who lived many ages after him. And then when we inquire for the books which Moses himself wrote, as they are referred to in the Pentateuch, we make sure from these references that they were other than any of the five books now generally ascribed to him. First, it is known from Exodus (17:14) that Moses by God's command wrete "the war against the Amalekites"; where or in what book however we do not learn from the chapter just quoted; but in Numbers (21:14) we find a book quoted which is entitled "the wars of God," in which, without doubt, was comprised the history of this war against the Amalekites; and, further, the account of all those encampments which we are told in Numbers (33:2) Moses himself described. We have intimations of another of Moses! books in Exodus (2434, 7), en- titled "the book of the Agreement" [See note 53]...." 226. ıD DAJ BP, ro" ae IPINA dr fs MoI [uoto PD pn. 243295 1524 GAMO LTE PAWN Ico (cian 53042. $62) kv? [le pnm, 25516 SP 26 ?'n)po» ifle Pb Da) voa Sk on? INGA PAUL ANY ET e 7 (erp pofi ninAD OOD WAD GONO PRO Àl Lowth, pp. 35, 38, 43: "The word "4J44N " (or Psalm) according to its etymology, is expressive of a composition cut or divided, in a peculiar manner, into short and equal sentenceseee. A poem is called in Hebrew " Jg N ; that is, as was before remarked, a short composition Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 338. cut: and divided into distinct parts. It is thus called in reference to the verse and numbers. Again, a poem is called, in reference to the diction and sentiments, " SeN "3 which I take to be the word proper- ly expressive of the poetical styles... Of these three modes of orna- ment at least [the Hebrew poets ] make the most frequent use, namely, the amplification of the same ideas, the accumulation of others, and the opposition or antithesis of such as are contrary to each other; they dispose the corresponding sentences in regular distichs adapted to each other, and of an equal length, in which, for the most part, things answer to things, and words to words." Mendelssohn accepts Lowth!s observations about the word " Ra," but appears to have had reservations about Lowth’s analysis of the word " ANAN" [from " MMS" "to cut," not " 2N4"] as contrasted with " KN ." Mendelssohn substituted the word "sm " for the genre contrasting with " RN «" 227. Herder, Vom Geist, Zweiter Theil, Zweite Abtheilung, pe 119. Y) tog (er 8/90. Wn, Poy!” „Piko oat Pk 5 25, "of ao), (Dike Ca) 9198 7] I» [6H w2 pi " c» DHL EN. Nt "joa GAMO 122 PX Yor ANP? RD Tad aso ae FRUWD DP [ob nn non) I" NOA] Ko p69 os [Poo o Tip. apse "2? une we] | PE [PUR akin rrr bre! 32. TO j N) iat PPA 22 pinnk Pla. Ipnge 292), EN 53! Map y ar IpfpJI nee? DOY ie ‚Ni YJ Spak 113 Dun) tart Frere! YO Laas f AIG 36 ^ot o. Pakok poak fiot: af a a Lo KY IND "oy 21079 nun) ">91 e [39,0 à] ac aa TES lp} so Jacl 74 SINN PO IND DAD NSP "7 Beginning with v. 32, Rashi provides two separate commentaries for this section, according to the interpretations of each rabbis but he gives the interpretation of Rabbi Jehudah first. Cf. Herder, Vom Geist, Zweiter Theil, Erste Abtheilung, p. 80, note 2: "Auf einmal setzt sich der Dichter in den Anblick des traurigen Ausganges dieses Volks; und o wie genau, wie lange und schrecklich ist die Weissagung erflillet worden! Und der Gesetzgeber des Volks musste sie selbst thun, musste mit solcher prophetischen Aussicht sein mürbe gemachtes Leben schliessen!—ein Schkksal, das nur ein Fels, wie Moses war, ertragen konnte," Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 339. a (^ nk [oka an). £^ f P^ 23 DEP : AWD gro (> 20738. ,'^962 HIND) PI DIL o2 ies? nn , NEAN. fcfc, hoe rako DEP R)I PYD 25) , 5€ T FAK PAL) [2 i» PA ‚Dun 12? Uto d eo ' DJ» up S" no pd, PR PER PI IED PAR JQP nS Wk fas re M ' k'a * 30. IND, 1029? POD, 122] 4» Ps, | MUP 5333 J22]! $039 NED Pa MUA) one a" 231, See the preface to both the "Bi'ur Ha-Kagar" and the "Yeter Ha-Bi'ur" on Genesis 49 in parallel vertical c, i f an AK oE“ PS a tnd 72 Nc^ “OP er) bel : Alan? 2 Sp 25 op RON R pas MD ZI» a n a, ESS pan pn po? oo» f. "Jof We ade fan pot Lafer DDR 22 AC È ~ ) St? PS 226 o 22222 vpi Mat Pep]? Geo» OA 25 poit oU j pa OD INT £207? qua ; prj f Sa ka! unie Yay [TA 02552 Apu qu Ne jor 524)» PPIMND Pha WRI), P ee A To ngl „25 DIAA LDA. 2» 4l "M 25 : (ui Jo», en PIa AIID CR 7 IP U sen o2? [PN PTE peo (fl Irie’) poral dale Forfi ONO Pin 22 Ir pp? eol (9n! 73) PINS PER ep? PhO pp) NK! AE ^cl U^ fc IND [PPS tore HP PA UE ipe»ica apt! ‚6 y ) E I nts pif 2531 obi Eis MER pip? PT gg Pob phi 2) lam f oM fea pared PEPP pa D : R AERP 2h. 35k G R piled n Qo of par” | 7 (37a 5^ IPIN DAA PNIL 7 Pins?! 25 Oak PASAT PLD ues LR fie up ‘ee die , P Inge kaf pa Wpp nee joo dr > Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 340. 233. Briefe, das Studium der Theologie betreffend (4 parts, Sümmtliche Werke, vols. 13, 14), Erster Theil, p. 60: "Die Lokalumstände des Landes, das Jakob seinen Söhnen anweiset, habe ich im zweiten Theile vom Geist der ebräischen Poesie [Zweiter Theil, Zweite Abtheilung, pp. 71-89] aus einander gesetzt, und den Segen des Patriarchen als eine Landkarte Kanaans entwickelt; hier zeige ich auf das Charaktergemählde seiner Söhne." (italics his) Mendels- sohn possessed the first part of Briefe in his library (Verzeichnis, pe 47, #564). ann dc Ce juo» poke to” (€ JUR RD. fc (ox? Pk nara GÍ ... 9E tko kfk PHD (ARD psd Pr gt yrs fji ^5! po Vos KIL Ue P uo» Paka ITF we P E " $$ 922 IW VDA MER WR Lope Tor. ^F ope ij» Ue le HAND) INDI OR 2 PND PR Rie o?" eh " D QD INE dhl... ^ $2 n4 TO "n 7 p» 4 g as AID DOPIN £» 19 apy IGA "of PE 2j» .. Rie (o9 Paka a" PE, skin" = DPF nye BR le) Uu) 922 tik PX PPAnra eh di jua fa») , PRID ef 21152 wap BPA papa an ‘O04 »5Y nbja Pinto Lipf loge [P4 2 ogob y'a 039 DIEA T "(099 DNPEAD FS SIND fak qr o UNO f'k 1019 A Ipar IN 95 Pik . ILDN P152 I$ piwne JL dict , PESA »P31 PIJI veo p^ ,' I JS? D (PWAk POHL Dd D LPN J2 > >D) , Kran o IEE up) Ky PR "lcs. gp Fork se IPI (eb) IPR (cb P2 g i Ava) „eke AAP! (eh PPAPAL | ! Vo: Ucar ‚IR 235, Pr 2) o2 [UN 4 wy M Be U) IN fle gae, rd efile .. | 880» 19 P , [IRM DIN? iN DO), LD PUBS ay IRN D6! IN? veni. I^ o» ND PN PISE fip it IMA Opi ra n PET i C ^n » 4 »X 2 2 NM Po [cb 2, Mn ^ M NR Herder, Briefe, Erster Theil, p. 72: "Mich dünkt, hier sei bloss von der Klugheit zu urtheilen, und von der verschlagenen List Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 341. die Rede, die in Dan's Namen und Charakter lag, und durch welche sein Geschlecht Ross und Mann, d.i. den überlegensten Feind bezwingen würde. 236. Rashi had not defined his subjects clearly, as Mendelssohn points out in the Bi'ur on Numbers 24:17. From Rashi*s explanation of " Aapé'a 37i" (24:19) one could infer that he understood the previous two sentences to refer entirely to David, but this is probably incorrect; hie an of "AL jj? P» pope" (ve 17) probably refers to the mess ° Nese ADD Naa, 2 fw (i eok" ae 210) tot DPN 35] PH 3X pH» 219 f 502 15 d e [4 i pak R DARD ann VOR paka aps OPE aen 3l? FÉ PR 24» pe?» HR (a? ij. SENI Wee [o WE n " l (3) Phion Nico (^ pt yA b Ba) wot 106 (efor! UL HM PEJO 34 IK Wa fe 25 vore! Pc, [orm Pak R uas P'a) ine jing) Pletal wig See! Pe yok i D PRON a OF yay) np. phi je 95 PE OPER E i a AX oy? P ror per ous] Pf? G unis 0% a EU Shale Jeo Us? |? ki re [rye ZL 25 a Fe spp pef ost (= > NICH? pind je pre j ^ = RE Pete tht) 9)? [AN D 276 2 PK! 377 oe zn hr)? WR p H DAD MSD "* vhn k 22 HER Í Pc d is D iF aka] ... PAD MODEA > MIR 54 SAID KAA YARE Tor ud ti» BUDD | 590 o» 24 olii ,913 WN MU EE k NEST OR aww FIn) = Meg? akiRJE zone prt PUn en prt i 5 ipbon F en» : Zon ov») dik 12! unie] f bios Pu ? } a (P § te ett. ipa rena ins tnl] fam PE o „98 , 5:35 BWP Pen 237. Mendelssohn does briefly concede the possibility that the subject may be the Messiah here, but he at any rate insists that thc object can oniy be Moab, not the whole world. i 4 Eus „a pfi PION uso tool d ok jp P, [Peal P PA!) INID MAJO Qo! ;|[c! Pap SEN ION HESA (£2 OF No pdf DAD) (242 WP ur f» 993990 v pp» PIJP? jor! NND ^» [iu POW uk PARID bn wÈ qvo! , JJP Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 342. Pnàjt MHL Ya fe akim pa, pS PPR, as YOR 024)? aan fore Fort o pi perdi pim ofa Rr pa) akin ~ ^35) 4] ipa fi Es Uwan pb p> Ifc 23€ —— puoou» Boyd P Pokal”, G72 DP). PIIKAL Dans MW ILDO PPIP pP? , [N ^N RO 4 "E ^ 2) (d "361 NIY PID k Pp PN [cD nopp Áof ! wa PPI pl IW? of PE P DEN non 2») , 9% JPA m ppt 239 Pp! Uu») , OPk WA (lp poo» o ppt LPNS nie? Aga ples» Pk ole) , prole Ke ^n J^ 52. 924] (ap [p]? kan job ,25(052 PIA PY NIE E 'nj« $692 [YAN ID fes, oNmor p» [aw KID WA DNR I sobs (4g qm, 19H pe PPIE mw IP IND, [P6 ) ! 309» VI obi» dt PA, Mb do] , PR PONEN 4. 23 input 40 DMI D Pda IRV AD ajio "ob ) Pp d i DNA POR yale flc Nc NAD (939 9€ WAR akh [ain , P. yi DEP f ot Pn Nw 72 »Ip5 pP}, Ap IB ol {3G.fe fc PPN) PIER 225 P 11799 Rd N A J A O [21 [PIIDNAL ann PD al? > >) a”, Me 4 EY IL 99 alu fé PR OWA POR PDI D PPI | PIRINI Ju» PO "vw 239. Michaelis, Anmerkungen (to Numbers): Cap. 24, V. 17: "Die veste Mauren bauen/ Ich bin auch hier bei der gewóhnlichen Leseart geblieben, ob ich gleich von den Punkten der Juden abgegangen bin. Nach diesen heisst ess alle Kinder Scheth." [He actually does, however. change the yod to a vav.] 240, dem: "Ein Stern/ ... Dis ist kein anderer, als David: die Erfüllung findet man 2 Sam, VIII, 2. Man denke doch hier ja nicht an Christum: den suche man wo er zu finden ist, z.E. im 2ten, i6ten, 22sten, 40sten, 110ten Psalm, im Jesaia, Jeremia, Ezechiel, Zacharia, Malachias allein man verwandele den Erlöser des mensch- lichen Geschlechts, den allgemeinsten Vlohlthäter, nicht in einen Unglückstern, nicht in einen, der Moab zerschmettern, und wel gar alle Kinder Seth, d.i. alle Menschen, zerstören soll. Die haben es zwar gut gemeint, die diesen Stern von Christo ausgelegt haben, sie irren aber gewiss, wie ein jeder ohne meine Hülfe sogleich bei unparteiischem Lesen der Worte im Zusammenhang sehen kann, und wirklich, sie entehren Christum, War für David rühmlich ist, die Zerstórung des Moabitischen Reichs, ist für den Messias, der nicht gesandt war, dass er die Welt richte, sondern dass die Welt durch ihn seelig werde, ein sehr unschickliches Gemähide." Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 343. 241. Ph t T Plt“ NE Sra 4! 13> VARNA PIER DOR 1563 oF 24 JAM, joie? Prk Dope ]j» evo [BADD SE Pk pp 767 oF Pine , n» pin Ss kiDn pksa Dklafr 33 KAS SUP UNL P v^; ten jo!» , PRAD LL uk oot kot Mk pr 19! dan i Jjt Jk 2 BT) 2 ,9" bpm 3619/9 PNB _ CPR Fok fu» | if AA j£ »9» pi, PRI DEF 79 ms» SYE PY 5 ek Ca TET Balu akn) INS Ple NIk DND Fn p P , [m 3? p Jj? VAY Pp) oy D po03! Pk He! feo! F545 E nc FE 1S GF pow ob pip! &F pega PEP ETSI t > Thi BEZ) DRIN ppd Jd [o Ofc bP PS F » rap We ABRED) a i a kA pO a KE ses» pangan DIP PIR? PINE |W7 sat, ee my » fiot RIOD P! » fi lead? 72 2 ery PIP IRK? ‘PD pIAID peak ppBrkd peg fete MAL ^) NNI DD) JM» NEON» Ass kpk DL Yr > 27? P) JAM» lA ME »» Wie po» "Ue DR eia] pr OI plan Pash pol») PD J' VOR dE DE aan (e We "je (er! kb api PIPL DI Pipe a f. P LC Y ron N oa pen ars 1 f FIIR DOSEN kb nic? Pri an | . p uo pinkk parp pad "Qon iir ie fua Mte Feind Papy onfa kr» m Ke jee Pu | rH, IQON DIDAN ‚rk Qdle yak? , 2:12 PIAS. i “a » nk Pango 5 Ak "nd Qo | ı9k vr pik wok k pn? p IN en opr). RR, VED S Ile ed , a " es 7? E = ER D purs 4204 7 M Je Fre ke alki, a : ? )»»e IN) P222% POI PRN El WIKI (Pol =); Seip [ad eller 23 >be - 243. Michaelis; EN en (to Deuteronomy): Cap. 26, V, 5, "Ein herum. dime Mesopotamier/ d.i. ein aus Mesopotamien abstammender herumziehender Hirte, der nirgends eine veste Wohnuna hatte, noch dazu ausserhalb Mesopotamiens in ein fremdes Land gezogen war, und dessen Enkel wieder einmahl aus dem Lande, darin er gebohren war, nach Mesopotamien fliehen musste. Dis ist der Sinn der Worte, wenn man sie mit der Geschichte im ersten Buch Mosis vergleicht." Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 344, | DN} uw] 14 JOR D PL AAD PE | 25)" , R Dita one fs" 2 25) PISS 0134 2 pL " Gait pnp RR IR [c] oa}! pp! PD AIC f Qpra ME fer 2k»! [581 2 »Wfc] ran PSO ak» ‘ple fs NA (i , UPA PIN Prke by PRIDI; PS) And DL dtc» Q' [hk PAS jl pk IkOR) (PEN apeh Nka) See a similar interpretation of "ne" in the Bi'ur on Exodus 3:6, analyzed in Part One, p. 30. 244, op inj hal Phe DER WIN >] v er 3 (op pr kn) ‚> ID pag AIR |-J2» fe O RANY WPL jan], | iphis ro fk kj Fer 2) |?! IND > Oy eS)" pho ps ob Mois 249 LIGA 9252 pio wie (É: c >») Jay AFi file feo} IND , pfe Me Uk PAN no j Jai," [to Inik WR) av Go appre PE EXE infe np BR 7D „Dk JAD WEM jz 5 Foo (die pfi Pani en 245. Michaelis, "s » Deuteronomy 32: 10f.: "Er fand es in der Wiste, In der Einóde, die vom Geheul der Raubthiere widerschallets Er umcab es von allen Seiten, hatte Acht darauf, Und bewahrete es wie einen Augapfel. Wie ein Adler sein Nest vertheidiget, Uever seinen Jungen lieget, Die Flügel ausbreitet, und sie darauf nimt, Und sie auf seinen Schwingen trägt." 246. Lowth, incidentally, p. 125f., comments on the "con- siderable difficulty" in the tenses here, there being an intimation of past events in the form of the future tense. He suggests that the poet imagined he was back in the past and looking to the future: "You will readily judge whether this passage can admit of any other explication, than that of Moses supposing himself present at the time when the Almighty selected the people of Israel for himself; and thence, as from an eminence, contemplating the consequences of that dispensation." unk peed Ii. PEPE] AE LOGAN, Up a 1:28 „RR, kD Po oH Jm, (»2: fea a6!) We 1123 m >, PPk bs phos „BAD |I. uve fef) pigs p TX (5 io! PR) mhas 20 J?! 5» IYI DD SEN INDE U Pliki ska Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 345. u [2l ,p5J f^ I[NM prank Jp fe nipipa jn? sp? (ye DAD Wyo Ber Ox lh). WEND a sie pad proonk foie e Fo, Up Fe DIA DP NT poj uo! PIANT PI pAn pos 33^! ET] pois Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIELTOGRAPHY Abraham ibn Ezra. Me’'oznei Leshon Ha-Kodesh. Offenbach, 1791. "Accents in Hebrew," Jewish Encyclopedia (Neu Vork and London, 1901), I, 149-158. Ackermann, A. Das hermeneutische Element des biblischen Accentuation: Ein Beitrag - zur ur Geschichte der hebräischen Sprache. Berlin, 1803. Altmann, Alexander. Moses Mendelssohn: A Biographical Study. Univer- sity of Aiabama Press, 1973. Ben Ze'ev, Judah Leiv. Sefer Talmud Leshon Ivri. Vilna, 1883. Bernfeld, Simon. "Moses Mendelssohns kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutuic," in Gedenkbuch für Moses Mendelssohn, ed. Verband der Vareine für jüdische Geschichte und Literatur in Deutschland. Berlin, 1929. Böhmer, E. "Astruc," Realencyklopädie für Protestartische Ihe logie und Kirche, eds. Herzog-Hauck. 3rd ed. Il, 162-170. Brill, Joel. Sefer Zemirot Yisrael (Psalms, with Mendelssohn's German transiation). Dyhernfurth, 1826. Dachsel, Georg Christopher. Bibilia Hebraica Accentuata. Leipzig, 1729. Dotan, Aron. "Prolegomenon—Research in Biblical Accentuation: Back- grounds and Trends," preceding William Wickes, Two Treatises on the Accentuation of the the Old Testaments... New York: Ktav, 1970, pp. vii-xlvi. Dubno, Solomon. "Alim Li-Terufah, in Gesammelte Schriften: Jubiläuns- auscabe. Vole XIV. Breslau, 1938. Pp. 323-231. , and Shalom Mesritch. Tigqun Sofrim. (Frontispiece missing: place and date of publication unknown.) Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried. Einleitung iB das la s Alte Testamente 3 vols, 3rd ed. Leipzig, 1803. list ed. puvlished in 1780. ] 346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 347% Eliav, Mordekhai, Ha-Hinukh Ha-Yehudi Be-Germaniah bi-Ymei Ha-Haskalah Veha-Emansipasi afi. Jerusalem, 1961. Englander, Henry. "Mendelssohn as Translator and Exegete," Hebrew Union College Annual. Vol. VI. Cincinnati, 1929. Pp. 327-348. Ginsburg, Christian David. The Song of Songs and Coheleth, in The Library of Biblical Studies, ed. Harry M. Orlinsky. New York: Ktav, 1970. Ginzberg, Louis. Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Philadelphia, 1959, Goldschmidt, Lazarus, ed, Sefer Hajaschar. Berlin, 1923. Gordis, Robert. Koheleth—The Man and his World: A Study of Ecclesi- astese 3rd ed. New York, 196% Graetz, Heinrich. Geschichte der Juden. Vol. XI. Leipzig, 1870. Hamishah Humshei Torah (Rabbinic Bible, including the commentary of E Elijah Mizrahi). l vol. Jerusalem, London, and New York: Horeb, 1951. 2 1, 2059451, Herder, Johann Gottfried von. Älteste Urkunde des Menschengeschlecht^, in Samntiicne Werke, ed. Johann Georg Müller, Volse 5-7. Stuttgart und Tübingen, 1327-28, . Briefe, das Studium der Theologie be- treffend, in Sämmtliche lerke, ed. Johann Georg Müller. Vols. 13-14. Stuttgart und Tübingen, 1829. « The Spirit of Hebrew Poetry. trans. James Marshe 2 vols. Burlington, Vermont, 1832. Sámmtliche Werke, ed. Johann Georg Müller. Vols. i-3. - Stuttgart und Tübingen, 1827. Horovitz, Marcus. Frankfurter Rabbinen. 4 vols. Frankfurt aeMo, 1881-3885. ihe Pentateuch, with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from the Chaldes, trans. J. We Etheridge. New York: Ktav, 1968. Judah ha-Levi, Das Buch Kusari des R. Jehuda ha-Levi, ed. David PE Gowers tambien IES UNETSHND gregi ete Cassel. 3rd ed. Berlin, 1909. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 348. Kalmar, Georgius. Grammaticalische Regeln zur Philosophisc:..a oder Allgemeinen Sprache. Vienna, 1774. ae e Praecepta Grammatica atque Specimina Linguae Philosophicae sive Universalis. Berolini, 1772. Kasher, Menahem M.e, and Jacob B. Mandelbaum. Sarei Ha+'Elef: A Milienium of Hebrew Authors. New York, 1959, Kayserling, Meyer. Moses Mendelssohn: Sein Leben und seine Werke. Leipzig, 1862. Klausner, Joseph. iD^torish shel Ha-Sifrut Ha-'Tvrit Ha-Hadashah. Vole I. Jerusalem, 1930. s Lowth, Robert. Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, trans. from Latin [De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum. Oxford, 1753.] by G. Gregory. Andover, 1829. Manuel, Frank E. The Eighteenth Century Confronts the Gods. Cambridge, Masse; 1959, Mechiita de-Rabbi Simon b. Jochai, ed. D. Hoffman, Frankfurt a.M., 1905. Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, ed. Jacob Z. Lauterbach. 3 vois, Phila- delphia, i949. Mandalssohn. Macec. Mi fury Li-Meaíiiliat Qohelet. in Geearmmalte Schriften. y 505. IL UP Llenocilcdu Wane lors GM DET = CR Or OI. ences nee ae a . 1 Dior eT € Jubiläumsausgabe. Vol. XIV. Bresiau, 1938, e Bitur Li-Megillat Qohelet, with German translation by David Friedländer, in Sefer Netivot Ha-Shalome Vienna, 1946. Vole V. Pp. 206-242. . Bi'ur Li-Megillat Qohelet, with German translation by David Friedlander, in Sefer Netivot Ha-Shalom. Prague, 1862, Vole Ve Pp. 60-97 (Appendix). . Commentary on Maimonides! Bi'ur Milot Ha-Higayon. Pressburg, 1933. som IV). Leipzig, 1843-45, . Hebräische Schriften (Vol. III), Briefwechsel, in Gesammelte Schriften, Jubiläussausgabe. Vol. XVI. Berlin, 1929. . Jerusalem and Other Jewish Writings, trans. and ed. Alfred Jospe. New York, 1969. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 349. Mendelssohn, Moses. 'Or Li-Netivah, in Gesammelte Schriften, Jubiläums- ausgabe. Vol. XIV. Breslau, 1938. Pp, 211-268. oe "Or Li-Netivah, in Devarim Nedirim: Mahadurot Hadashot shel Sefarim Yigrei Erekh. Vol. I. Edited by Ge Kressel. fat Yam, 1967. — . Schriften zur Philosophle, Aesthetik und Apologetik, ed, Moritz Brasche 2 vols. Hildesheim, 1968, e Sefer Netivot Ha-Shalom,. 5 vols. Vienna, 1846. . Sefer Netivot Ha-Shalom, 5 vois. Prague Meyer, Herrmann M. Z. Moses Mendelssohn Bibliographie. Berlin, 1965. s ed. Verzeichnis der Büchersammlung Moses Men- delssohn. Suuciiw-Gesellschaft, 1926. (Reprint of Verzeichnis des auserlesenen Büchersammlung des seeligen Herrn Moses Mendels- sohn. Berlin, 1786.) Michaelis, Johann David. Deutsche Uebersetzung des Alten Testaments mit Anmerkungen für Ungelehrte. (Pentateuch). Gdttil ttingen und Gotha, 1770-73. . Einleitung in die göttlichen Schriften des Alten Bundes. Hamburg, 1787. + > uU ^ c . Praelectiones de Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum [of Robert Lowth] ibise et Lpimetra. Oxford, 1763. Michaelis, Joaann Heinrich. Erleichterte Hebráische Grammatica. Halle, 1738. Midrash Rabbah (on the Pentateuch). 2 vols. Jerusalem, 1962. Migra'ot Gedolot (Rabbinic Bible with Forty-Four Commentaries;. 5 vols. Austria, nede Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides). Bi'ur Milot Ha-Higayon, Pressburg, 1833. The Guide for the Perpiexed, transe Me Friedlander. london 1956. ——— . Milot Ha-Higayon: Maimonides’ Treatise on Logic (critically edited on the basis of manuscripts and early editions and translated into English), trans. Israel Efros. New York, 1938. eins. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 350. Moses ben Nahman (Nahmanides). Perushei Ha-Torah Le-Rabbenu Moshe ben Mahman'(Ramban), ed. Rabbi C. B. Chavei. Jerusalem, 1959. Muncker, Franz. "Moses Mendelssohn und die deutsche Literatur," in Gedenkbuch für Moses Mendelssohn, ed. Verband der Vereine für jüdische Geschichte und Literatur in Deutschland. Berlin, 1929. Ppe 41-70 e m Orlinsky, Harry M., cd.-in-chicf. Notes on the New Translation of The Torah. Philadelphia, 1970. Testament. New York, Old Pfeiffer, Robert H. Introduction to the 1948, Rosenzweig, Franz. "Der Ewige: Mendelssohn und der Gottesname," in Gedenkbuch für Moses Mendelssohn, ed. Verband der Vereine für 3üdische Geschichte und Literatur in Deutschiand. Berlin, 1929. Pp. 96-114. Samet, M. S. "M. Mendelson, N. He Veisel, ve-Rabanei Dorem," in Mengarim be- Toldot ‘Am Yisrael ve-"'Eres Yisrael Le-Zekher Sevi 'Ameris Sandler, Peres. Ha-Bi'tur La-Torah shel Moshe Mendelson vecSi' ato. Jerusaiém, 1941. Segal, M. Ze "Le- -Heger Suratah shel ha-Shirah ha-Miqra‘it," Sefer Klausner. Tél Aviv. 1937. Pp. 90-108. Semler, Je S. Apparatus ad Liberalem Veteris Testamenti Interpreta- rm dd tionem, Halle !agdeb., 1773. Simon, Richard. Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament. Rotterdam, 1862. Solomon ben Isaac (Rashi). Pentateuch, vith...Rashi's Commentary, trans. li. Rosenbaum and A, Me Silbezr n. 5 vols. London, 1946. Solomon ibn Melekh. iiäkhlal Yofi. Amsterdam, 1684. (Modern reprint, date and place of publication not given.) Spinoza, Benedict. à Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. London, 1862. ist ed. published in 1670. | Steinmann, Jean. Richard Simon et les origines de l'exégàse biblique. Paris, 1959. "Tetamim," in Ozar Yisrael: An Encyclopedia of All Matters Concerning Jews and Judaism [Hebe ], ede Je D. Eisenstein. 10 vols. New York, 1911, V, 27-29. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 391. Torat Kohanime Pietrkov, 1911. Watts, Je llash. A Survey of Syntax in the Hebrew Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1964. Wessely, Naftali Herz, Gan Na'ul. 2 vols, Amsterdam, 1765. e "Mikhtav Sheni," in Sefer Divrei Shalor. Ve-Emet. Warsaw, 1886. Pp. 37-119. Wickes, William. Iwo Treatises on the Accentuation of ihe Old Testament (A Treatise on the Accentuation of the Three So-Called Poetical Books of the Old Testament, Psalms, Proverbs, and Jobs and A Treatise on the Accentuation of the Twenty-One So-Called Prose Books of the Old Testament), in The Library of Biblical Studies, —— ed. Harry M. Orlinsky. New York: Ktav, 1970. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Pe Pe 41, 1. 7 74, 1. 28 75, le 13 81, lines 11, 15, 22, 24 136, 1. 15 257, 1. 13 346, 1. 13 82 ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA For "Pharoah" read "Pha»aoh." u " st LL n it n" u Substitute "Mendelssohn" for "Homberg." ([Cf. note 74, p. 302.] t "as explained by Homberg," For "passim" substitute "notes 34, 209, 236, 244, and 246." After "Berlin, 1929," add "pp. 129-157." Omitted. Error in pagination. 352 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.