DOCSLIB.ORG

R. Samuel Ben Meïr (Rashbam): His Torah Commentary and Its Transmission

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

CHAPTER THREE R. SAMUEL BEN MEÏR (RASHBAM): HIS TORAH COMMENTARY AND ITS TRANSMISSION 1. Rashbam’s Life and Works As with Rashi, little is known about his grandson.1 Usually, R. Samuel ben Meïr’s biographical data are given in relation to Rashi’s life span. Even Rashi’s date of death (1105) is cited from a manuscript from the year 1305 (Parma, de Rossi 175),2 copied 200 years later. The testimo- nies that Rashbam studied ‘in the presence of his grandfather’3 relate exclusively to Rashi. Given the fact that Rashi died in 1105, Rash- bam must have been at least 17–20 years old, meaning that he was born somewhere around 1085–1088.4 His date of death is unknown. According to Rosin, he died not earlier than 1158.5 Leviant assigns his death to the year 1174, Lockshin to the year 1175.6 According to Urbach, as well, he reached an advanced age.7 By and large, a variation of five years either way would not make much of a differ- ence. There can be no doubt that Rashbam lived in the early twelfth century. However, in what follows we will see that which Jews or 1 A comprehensive study on Rashbam’s life and works was published by Rosin (Rosin, R. Samuel b. Meir als Schrifterklärer) in 1880 (in German); for recent discussion on the issue see Japhet-Salters, The Commentary of R. Samuel ben Meir Rashbam on Qoheleth 12–13; Urbach, The Tosafists, vol. 1, 41; Lockshin, Introduction, 1–3. 2 Cf. Avraham Grossman, Rashi (in Hebrew) ( Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 2006) 21. 3 See Rashbam on Gen. 37:2; Even-ha-Ezer fol. 145a; see also the remark by רבנו שמואל בתוספות עירובין :(R. Joseph (cf. Urbach, The Tosafists, vol. 1, 51n44 ,see also Rosin, R. Samuel b. Meir als Schrifterklärer, 6; Urbach ;שפירש לפני ר' שלמה The Tosafists, vol. 1, 22n25 und 45n3–4. 4 Leopold Zunz, “Salomon ben Isaac, genannt Raschi,” Zeitschrift für die Wissen- schaft des Judenthums 1 (1822/1823): 277–384, 282–283 dates his birth to the year 1080; later on, in his Zur Geschichte und Literatur, vol. 1 (Berlin, 1845), 62 he redates it to 1085; according to Urbach, The Tosafists, vol. 1, 46 Rashbam was born between 1080 and 1085. 5 Rosin, R. Samuel b. Meir als Schrifterklärer, 9n6–8. 6 Leviant, King Artus, 57; Lockshin, Introduction, 1. 7 Cf. Urbach, The Tosafists, vol. 1, 39. 58 chapter three non-Jews he might have known or might have known him, will turn out to be an important issue. Rashbam’s birthplace is also in doubt. No cogent testimony has yet been adduced for any of the possible candidates: Rameru / Ramerupt,8 Troyes, or even Worms.9 It is usually assumed that he spent most of his life in Normandy, i.e., in Caen10 and Rouen.11 He earned his living by raising sheep.12 Equally contentious is the question of his literary œuvre.13 Aside from the commentaries ascribed to him in manuscripts, remnants of his exegetical works have come down to us from Abraham ben Azriel in his piyyu¢ commentary Sefer Arugat ha-Bosem (thirteenth century).14 However, since during the last ten years the issue of Rashbam’s authorship of the commentaries on Job, and the Song of Songs as well as the so-called ‘compilatory commentaries’ have become more and more controversial,15 we refrain from discussing this matter here. 8 See already Moritz Steinschneider, Hebräische Bibliographie: Blätter für neuere und ältere Literatur des Judenthums, 21 Volumes in 4 Volumes. 1858–1882 (Reprint: Hildesheim: Olms, 1972), vol. 20 (1880), 87. For a contrary opinion, compare Golb, The Jews in Medieval Normandy, 227n19. However, both Troyes and Ramerupt are located in the region Champagne-Ardenne where his grandfather lived and worked. ,(Tel Aviv: Devir, 1976) ,תולדות היהודים בעיר רואן בימי הביניים ,Norman Golb 9 36n95; there is no further reference to Worms in Golb, The Jews in Medieval Normandy, 226–227. 10 See Sefer ha Jashar § 41, S. 71; compare also Japhet-Salters, The Commentary of R. Samuel ben Meir Rashbam on Qoheleth, 13; Urbach, The Tosafists, vol. 1, 46.—Caen is the capital of the region Basse-Normandie, 79 miles south-west of Rouen located in the region Haute-Normandie. 11 Golb, The Jews in Medieval Normandy, esp. 226–245. 12 Compare Urbach, The Tosafists, vol. 1, esp. 46n13 and 14. 13 Compare Lockshin, Introduction, esp. 3–4. 14 Compare already Rosin, R. Samuel b. Meir als Schrifterklärer 13–17; Urbach, The Tosafists, vol. 1, 45–59; Japhet-Salters, The Commentary of R. Samuel ben Meir Rashbam on Qoheleth, esp. 14–18. For a detailed edition and explanation of the material from Sefer Arugat ha-Bosem see Touitou, Exegesis in Perpetual Motion, 208–225. Although Touitou is very cautious as to the ascription of some of the commentaries to Rashbam, he lists exegetical comments on Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Micah, and Zechariah. Unfortunately, except maybe for the comments on Isaiah, these exegetical remarks are too vague and lack a clear exegetical profile, because there is not enough material. Japhet-Salters, The Commentary of R. Samuel ben Meir Rashbam on Qoheleth 14–18 maintain that ‘Arugat ha-Bosem quotes only comments on Psalms. 15 Compare already Sara Japhet, “The Nature and Distribution of Medieval Compilatory Commentaries in the Light of Rabbi Joseph Kara’s Commentary on the Book of Job,” in The Midrashic Imagination: Jewish Exegesis, Thought, and History, ed. Michael Fishbane (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993), 98–130; for a recent discussion on the ongoing debate on the authorship of Rashbam’s and Joseph .
Recommended publications
  • TALMUDIC STUDIES Ephraim Kanarfogel

    TALMUDIC STUDIES Ephraim Kanarfogel

    chapter 22 TALMUDIC STUDIES ephraim kanarfogel TRANSITIONS FROM THE EAST, AND THE NASCENT CENTERS IN NORTH AFRICA, SPAIN, AND ITALY The history and development of the study of the Oral Law following the completion of the Babylonian Talmud remain shrouded in mystery. Although significant Geonim from Babylonia and Palestine during the eighth and ninth centuries have been identified, the extent to which their writings reached Europe, and the channels through which they passed, remain somewhat unclear. A fragile consensus suggests that, at least initi- ally, rabbinic teachings and rulings from Eretz Israel traveled most directly to centers in Italy and later to Germany (Ashkenaz), while those of Babylonia emerged predominantly in the western Sephardic milieu of Spain and North Africa.1 To be sure, leading Sephardic talmudists prior to, and even during, the eleventh century were not yet to be found primarily within Europe. Hai ben Sherira Gaon (d. 1038), who penned an array of talmudic commen- taries in addition to his protean output of responsa and halakhic mono- graphs, was the last of the Geonim who flourished in Baghdad.2 The family 1 See Avraham Grossman, “Zik˙atah shel Yahadut Ashkenaz ‘el Erets Yisra’el,” Shalem 3 (1981), 57–92; Grossman, “When Did the Hegemony of Eretz Yisra’el Cease in Italy?” in E. Fleischer, M. A. Friedman, and Joel Kraemer, eds., Mas’at Mosheh: Studies in Jewish and Moslem Culture Presented to Moshe Gil [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1998), 143–57; Israel Ta- Shma’s review essays in K˙ ryat Sefer 56 (1981), 344–52, and Zion 61 (1996), 231–7; Ta-Shma, Kneset Mehkarim, vol.
  • REVIEW: Rabbenu Tam

    REVIEW: Rabbenu Tam

    REVIEW: Rabbenu Tam traditiononline.org/review-rabbenu-tam/ Avraham (Rami) Reiner, Rabbenu Tam: Parshanut, Halakha, Pulmus (Bar-Ilan University Press, 2021), 503 pp. Today, 4 Tammuz (June 14), marks the 850th yahrzeit of Rabbenu Tam. This review draws our attention to an important new work on the interpretation, halakhic legacy, and controversies of a monumental figure whose rulings and readings continue to impact Jewish law until the present day. The name of Rabbenu Tam is ubiquitous in Talmudic commentaries and halakhic works from the twelfth century onwards. Rabbi Yaakov ben Meir of Ramerupt, who died in 1171, was a grandson of Rashi (who died in 1105, probably around the time that Rabbenu Tam 1/4 was born), brother of Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir (Rashbam) and uncle of Rabbi Yitzhak ben Shmuel of Dampierre (Ri ha-Zaken). Although Rabbenu Tam’s opinions are probably best known from the Tosafot printed around the Gemara, it is important to remember that those versions of his statements are mediated by two, three, four or even more generations of students and scholars who reformulated his statements and adapted them to the medium of a multivocal discussion. It is only when we turn to Sefer ha-Yashar, a collection of Talmudic analyses compiled by Rabbenu Tam and by his students, or to his responsa (preserved in a second volume also titled Sefer ha-Yashar, or in medieval manuscripts and other printed works), that we can hear Rabbenu Tam in his own words. For centuries, Rabbenu Tam has drawn the attention of scholars with the startling brilliance of his Talmudic interpretations, the discomfiting radicalism of his rulings, his relentless self-confidence and the ferocity of his rhetoric.
  • In the Following Verses from Devarim, Moshe Recounts the Events of Revelation at Sinai

    In the Following Verses from Devarim, Moshe Recounts the Events of Revelation at Sinai

    In the following verses from Devarim, Moshe recounts the events of revelation at Sinai. How does he describe his role? What inner contradiction comes from a comparison of verses 4- 5? Deuteronomy 5 (1) And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them: Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and observe to do them. (2) The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. (3) The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. (4) The Lord spoke with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire. (5) I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to declare unto you the word of the Lord; for ye were afraid because of the fire, and went not up into the mount, saying: To think about: What is a “face-to-face” encounter? What does it mean that Hashem spoke to the nation in such a manner at Sinai? Why might God have chosen to do so? According to verse 5, Moshe acted as an intermediary to “tell [the nation] the word of God.” How can this be reconciled with the direct encounter described in verse 4? What would be the point of Hashem speaking via a mediator? What does Moshe mean when he says “for you were afraid because of the fire”? Had the nation not been afraid, would the experience have been different? Why would God have chosen to frighten the people anyway? Did we hear the Ten Commandments directly from Hashem or did Moshe act as an intermediary? Right after the description of Hashem relaying the Ten Commandments, Moshe recounts how the people approached him, filled with fear: Deuteronomy 5 (20) and ye said: ‘Behold, the Lord our God hath shown us His glory and His greatness, and we have heard His voice out of the midst of the fire; we have seen this day that God doth speak with man, and he liveth.
  • Rabbenu Tam's Ordinance for the Return of the Dowry: Between

    Rabbenu Tam's Ordinance for the Return of the Dowry: Between

    Rabbenu Tam’s Ordinance for the Return of the Dowry: Between Talmudic Exegesis and an Ordinance that Contradicts the Talmud* Avraham (Rami) Reiner I. Introduction Rabbi Jacob ben Meir (France, 1100–1171), Rashi’s maternal grandson, is the rabbinic sage best known as Rabbenu Tam.1 Rabbenu Tam is known to students of the Talmud as a Tosafist. He is cited some 2,700 times in theTosafot that are printed alongside the Talmud itself in traditional printings; this fact, on its own, attests to his interpretive power and his great renown among Talmud students throughout history.2 Rabbenu Tam’s commentary addresses various * This article is part of a comprehensive study of the work and intellectual world of Rabbenu Tam. I am grateful to Elli Fischer, who translated this article from the Hebrew. 1 This moniker alludes to Gen 25:27, which states that the biblical Jacob was a “mild man” (“ish tam”) who dwelled in tents, and to a midrashic interpretation that understands the “tents” as places of Torah study (see, for example, Midrash Tanḥuma, ed. Buber [Vilna: Romm, 1883], Toledot 1:1, p. 124). See, however, n. 52 below. 2 Ephraim E. Urbach’s classic work, The Tosafists(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1980) (Hebrew), is the foundational text for becoming familiar with the Tosafist project. In this book, a lengthy central chapter is devoted to Rabbenu Tam and his method, and additional chapters are devoted to his pupils, who came from far and wide to study with him. See: Urbach, Tosafists, 60–113; 114–64; 165–226. See also Haym Soloveitchik, Collected Essays, vol.
  • Jephthahfs Daughter in the Jewish Exegetical Tradition

    Jephthahfs Daughter in the Jewish Exegetical Tradition

    • Jephthahfs Daughter in the Jewish Exegetical Tradition Deborah Abecassls, Department of Jewlsh Studles McGll1 UnIversity, Montreal July 1993 A 1hesis suhmllted to the ~acultv of Oraduate Studle~ and Research 10 parhal fulflllment of the requlrcmcnts orthe degree of Master of Arts (c) Dehorah Abecassis 1993 .. • Abstract • The blbllcal narrative of Jephthah and hls daughter (Judges Il 31-40) recounts the story of the J udge, Jephthah, ""ho \'owed toO ~aCflflce ta God ""hatever came to greet hlm upon hls rcturn from a VlctOrJOUS battle \i~ 1 th Ammon, and whose daughter became the vl,;tlm of thls vow Thl~ goal of thls thesls Ir; to examine a sam pie of the Je""lsh respon'.;e5 to lhls blbilcaillarralive from ancien! and medJe\ al tlmes through the twentleth cen!ury 1 he analy~l'i dèmonstrates the dl fficult nature of thls text. ItS IlngUlstlc and conceptual amblgUItICS, the ~olutlOns :0 a well-defmed senes of problems proposed by more than two do zen Jntt;~rpreters, and theIr fatlure ta deal wlth most of the hlstoncal and ethlcal problems that emerge from the story Le récIt blbltqu(~ de Jephthah et de sa fille (Juges Il 3\-39) raconte l'histOire du Juge, Jephthah, qUi Il fait un v ~ u de sacnfier à Dieu quoI qUI salt qUI vIenne le saluer des son Tf~t()ur d'une ba1.atlle vlctoneuse contIe Ammon, et dont sa fille est devenue vIctIme d,! c:e VI l U L .. ~ bul <le cette thesè est d'éxammer un échantIllon des reponses J ulves à ce mclt biblIque depllIs les epoques anciennes et médlevales Jusqu'au vmgtleme sIècle l'analyse démontre l~: caractère
  • Composing Arugat Ha-Bosem: How Piyyut Commentary Became Associated with Ḥasidei Ashkenaz

    Composing Arugat Ha-Bosem: How Piyyut Commentary Became Associated with Ḥasidei Ashkenaz

    Jewish History (2021) 34: 199–215 © The Author(s) 2021 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10835-021-09381-8 Composing Arugat ha-Bosem: How Piyyut Commentary Became Associated with H. asidei Ashkenaz ELISABETH HOLLENDER Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany E-mail: [email protected] Accepted: 3 September 2019 / Published online: 9 April 2021 Abstract Based on Ivan Marcus’s concept of “open book” and considerations on medieval Ashkenazic concepts of authorship, the present article inquires into the circumstances sur- rounding the production of Sefer Arugat ha-Bosem, a collection of piyyut commentaries writ- ten or compiled by the thirteenth-century scholar Abraham b. Azriel. Unlike all other piyyut commentators, Abraham ben Azriel inscribed his name into his commentary and claims to su- persede previous commentaries, asserting authorship and authority. Based on the two different versions preserved in MS Vatican 301 and MS Merzbacher 95 (Frankfurt fol. 16), already in 1939 Ephraim E. Urbach suggested that Abraham b. Azriel might have written more than one edition of his piyyut commentaries. The present reevaluation considers recent scholarship on concepts of authorship and “open genre” as well as new research into piyyut commentary. To facilitate a comparison with Marcus’s definition of “open book,” this article also explores the arrangement and rearrangement of small blocks of texts within a work. Keywords Abraham b. Azriel · Arugat ha-Bosem · Piyyut commentary · German Pietism · Authorship · Medieval Ashkenaz For several decades medieval texts have been perceived as lacking textual stability. This understanding has informed much of medievalist research and led to discussions on how medieval texts were created and transmitted.
  • REVISED FM Comm Bible

    REVISED FM Comm Bible

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS What does “Miqra’ot Gedolot” mean? “Miqra’ot Gedolot” is a Hebrew expression meaning something like “Large- Format Bible” or, more colloquially,“The Big Book of Bible.”The famous “Second Rab- binic Bible” of R. Jacob b. Hayyim (1525) was a Miqra’ot Gedolot. What do you mean “a” Miqra’ot Gedolot? Are there more than one? Absolutely. There are “Miqra’ot Gedolot”to the Torah or Pentateuch,to the Megillot (the Five Scrolls), and to the other biblical books as well. Moreover, the same biblical book can appear in different versions:“Miqra’ot Gedolot” refers to the format, not the contents. So what is the Miqra’ot Gedolot format? It consists of the Hebrew biblical text in large print; a “Targum”or translation of the text (in rare cases more than one); and commentaries on the text, often accompanied by explana- tory notes.That’s why we have titled this English version The Commentators’ Bible. Which translation is included in this Miqra’ot Gedolot? We have included two translations:the old Jewish Publication Society translation of 1917 and the new JPS translation of 1985. Why include both? Both were translated by the preeminent Jewish biblical scholars of their day, but the OJPS is more literal and the NJPS freer and more readable. More importantly, the purpose of the Miqra’ot Gedolot is to help explain difficulties in the biblical text. Because translators are often forced to pick a single one of several possible explanations of what the Hebrew text means, comparing two different translations is the best way for someone who doesn’t know Hebrew to judge whether there is a difficulty in the original text.
  • Parshat Hashavua Yeshivat Har Etzion PARASHAT VAYERA Rashbam's Interpretation of the Story of Avraham and the Angels by Rav Elch

    Parshat Hashavua Yeshivat Har Etzion PARASHAT VAYERA Rashbam's Interpretation of the Story of Avraham and the Angels by Rav Elch

    Parshat HaShavua Yeshivat Har Etzion PARASHAT VAYERA Rashbam's Interpretation of the Story of Avraham and the Angels By Rav Elchanan Samet A. ANGELS DISGUISED AS HUMANS " )1:81(And God appeared to him in Elonei Mamrei, while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. )1:81(And he lifted his eyes and saw, behold, three men were standing before him. And he saw, and he ran towards them from the entrance to the tent, and he bowed down to the ground". What is the content of this revelation of God to Avraham? Verse 2 seems to move on directly to a new subject: "And he lifted his eyes and saw, behold, three men…." From this moment onwards, Avraham is energetically involved in welcoming his guests. What, then, is the purpose of God's revelation to him in verse 1? The Rashbam sees verse 1 as a general description, whose details are to follow – starting with verse 2. The content of God's revelation to Avraham, then, is the appearance of the three angels, and what they say to him. The Rashbam comments8 '"And God appeared to him' – how? In that three men came to him, who were really angels. For there are many instances where, if an angel appears, he is called by the name of the Shekhina, as it is written (Shemot 23:21), 'For My Name is within him' – the emissary is considered like the one who sent him. Likewise, (Shemot 3:2), 'And an ANGEL OF GOD appeared to him in a plume of fire from within the shrub,' and there we find (verse 4), 'And GOD saw that he had turned aside to look,' [i.e.
  • The Commentary of Rabbi David Kimhi on Proverbs: a Case of Mistaken Attribution 1

    The Commentary of Rabbi David Kimhi on Proverbs: a Case of Mistaken Attribution 1

    journal of jewish studies, vol. liv, no. 2, autumn 2003 The Commentary of Rabbi David Kimhi on Proverbs: A Case of Mistaken Attribution 1 Naomi Grunhaus Stern College for Women, New York n his book The Commentaries on Proverbs of the Kimhi Family (Hebrew), I F. Talmage attributes the commentary on Proverbs contained in MS Vat- ican Ebr. 89 to Rabbi David Kimhi (Radak).2 The manuscript itself ascribes authorship to Joseph Kimhi, Radak’s father, although the elder Kimhi was not its author, as the commentary is different from the known commentary on Proverbs of Joseph Kimhi.3 An annotated full version of the text is pre- sented in Talmage’s book, alongside the commentaries of Joseph and Moses Kimhi, with the supposition that it is in fact Radak’s commentary.4 Attribution of the commentary to Radak is based on U. Cassuto’s remarks in his description of the manuscript.5 Talmage offers further evidence from the text of the commentary to corroborate Cassuto’s attribution of the text to Radak. This paper challenges the assignment of the commentary to Radak.6 1 It is my pleasure to acknowledge the support of a faculty research incentive grant for this paper from Stern College for Women, made possible through the generosity of Ms E. Billi Ivry. I would also like to thank Yisrael Dubitsky of the Jewish Theological Seminary library in New York for his gracious assistance in locating and using some of the primary sources examined in this article, for some important methodological insights related to those sources and for reading and commenting on the entire article.
  • Moses Mendelssohn and the Project of Modern Jewish Philosophy Xi

    Moses Mendelssohn and the Project of Modern Jewish Philosophy Xi

    Edited by Moses Michah Gottlieb Mendelssohn , , & Translations by Curtis Bowman, Elias Sacks, and Allan Arkush Brandeis University Press Waltham, Massachusetts Uncorrected Page Proof Copyrighted Material Contents Foreword ix Introduction: Moses Mendelssohn and the Project of Modern Jewish Philosophy xi I | Polemical Writings The Lavater Affair and Related Documents (1769–1773) Prefatory Note to Selections 1, 2, & 3 3 1 | Lavater’s Dedication 5 2 | Open Letter to Lavater 6 3 | From “Counter-Reflections to Bonnet’s Palingenesis” 16 Prefatory Note to Selection 4 31 4 | Letter to Rabbi Jacob Emden, 26 October 1773 32 Prefatory Note to Selection 5 36 5 | Letter to “a Man of Rank” (Rochus Friedrich Graf von Lynar) 37 Jerusalem and Related Documents (1782–1783) Prefatory Note to Selection 6 39 6 | From the Preface to Vindiciae Judaeorum 40 Prefatory Note to Selections 7 & 8 53 7 | “The Search for Light and Right” 55 8 | Mörschel’s Postscript 68 Prefatory Note to Selections 9 & 10 70 9 | From Jerusalem, or on Religious Power and Judaism 72 10 | From Letter to Naphtali Herz Homberg 124 The Pantheism Controversy (1785–1786) Prefatory Note to Selection 11 125 11 | From Jacobi’s On the Doctrine of Spinoza 127 Prefatory Note to Selections 12 & 13 140 Uncorrected Page Proof Copyrighted Material 12 | From Morning Hours 142 13 | From To Lessing’s Friends 153 II | Writings on the Bible Prefatory Note to Selection 14 175 14 | From Introduction to Commentary on Ecclesiastes 176 Prefatory Note to Selection 15 182 15 | Introduction to Translation of
  • Authors, Targets and Versions of Ibn Ezra's Iggeret Ha-Shabbat

    Authors, Targets and Versions of Ibn Ezra's Iggeret Ha-Shabbat

    Sefarad, vol. 79:1, enero-junio 2019, págs. 123-161 issn: 0037-0894, https://doi.org/10.3989/sefarad.019-003 Authors, Targets and Versions of Ibn Ezra’s Iggeret ha-Shabbat; A Polemic against Calendrical Heresies* Leor Jacobi** Bar-Ilan University orcid id: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7670-3197 Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Iggeret ha-Shabbat is a short, three chapter polemical work devoted to refuting calendrical heresies. A prologue describes the fantastic circum- stance of its composition: the Sabbath Day appeared to Ibn Ezra in a dream and delivered a poetic lament castigating him for contributing to heretical desecration of the Sabbath. Voluminous scholarship has been devoted to the question of whether the heretical work refuted is the Commentary of R. Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam). This literature is reviewed in toto, with a focus on Samuel Poznański’s seminal 1897 study identifying the heresy with the obscure Mishawite sect. The importance of the earliest known manuscript is first noted; copied in Lleida in 1382, it served as a basis for a little-known 1840 edition. The authenticity of the fantastic prologue – previously published separately, appended to various Rabbinic volumes – had already been questioned in the 18th century. Manu- scripts that Samuel D. Luzzatto (Shadal) wrote and corrected by hand in preparing his first edition are reviewed. A previously unpublished note of his addresses a responsum by R. Hai Gaon, paraphrased by Ibn Ezra or his students in two different works, regard- ing tequfot superstitions, magical forces associated with the solstices and equinoxes. Keywords: Abraham Ibn Ezra; Karaites; Jewish Calendar; Mishawites; Samuel Da- vid Luzzatto.
  • 35-50 Mancuso

    35-50 Mancuso

    Piergabriele Mancuso Hebrew Science in Early Medieval South Italy: ∗ Greco-Latin Astrological Lore in Hebrew Garb 1. Southern Italy, an area of cultural convergence Set in the middle of the Mediterranean, a few miles from northern Africa and along the most important commercial routes between east and west, the Jews of Byzantine Apulia, southern Italy, were involved in a process of cultural revitalization that between the 8 th and the 11 th centuries brought Hebrew – a language that they had largely neglected in favour of other linguistic codes (mostly Latin and Greek) – back to its original role as a tool of written communication. As underlined since the time of the Wissenschaft and more recently in research by Bonfil, 1 the Jews of southern Italy benefited of a twofold influence: the –––––––––––––– ∗ This article is a slightly revised and augmented version of a paper read at the conference on Latin into Hebrew: the Transfer of Philosophical, Scientific, and Medical Lore from Christian to Jewish Cultures , that was hosted by the University of Paris in December 2009. I express my most sincere gratitude to Professor Gad Freudenthal for his constructive critcism and insightful suggestions. All errors, imperfections and faults are only mine. 1 R. Bonfil, “Between Eretz Israel and Babylonia,” Shalem 5 (1987) 1-30 (Hebrew); Id., “Tra due mondi. Prospettive di ricerca sulla storia culturale degli Ebrei dell’Italia meridionale nell’alto Medioevo,” in Italia Judaica I (Atti del Convegno di Bari, 1981) , Istituto Poligrafico, Roma 1983, 135-158 (repr. in Id., Tra due mondi. Cultura ebraica e cultura cristiana nel Medioevo, Liguori, Napoli 1996, 65- 91); Id., “Myth, Rhetoric, History? A Study in the Chronicle of Ahima‘az ,” in M.