Observations on a Little Known Edition of Tractate Niddah (Prague, C

CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE OBSERVATIONS ON A LITTLE KNOWN EDITION OF TRACTATE NIDDAH (PRAGUE, C. 1608) AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE TALMUDIC METHODOLOGY OF THE MAHARAL OF PRAGUE1 A unicum of tractate Niddah, printed in Prague in the first decade of the seventeenth century, sheds light on a previously unknown attempt by Rabbi Judah Loew (Maharal; 1525–1609) to implement his pedagogical theories. This text, which exists in a fragment of nine pages, is unusual in that it is not accompanied by any commentaries. In printed editions of the Talmud, the text is, with rare exception, accompanied by the basic works of talmudic exegesis, Rashi and Tosafot. They are to be found in the first printed talmudic treatise, Berakhot, and the first book printed by Joshua Solomon Soncino in the northern Italian town of The exceptions to this format 2.(1484–1483) גמר"א Soncino in the year are primarily the Sephardic treatises printed in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, where Rashi, but not Tosafot, adjoins the text.3 Another exception is the Cracow edition of the Talmud, issued from 1616 to 1620 by Aaron and Mordecai ben Isaac Prostitz, where the Arukh was substituted for Tosafot.4 1 The original version of this article was published in The Torah U-Madda Journal 8 (New York, 1998–99), pp. 134–50. I would like to thank Rabbi Jerry Schwarzbard, The Henry R. and Miriam Ripps Schnitzer Librarian for Special Collections, and Mr. Yisrael Dubitsky, Public Services Librarian, Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary, for bringing this edition of Niddah to my attention. I would also like to express my appreciation to Rabbi Schwarzbard for reading the draft of this article and for his comments. 2 Concerning the development of the talmudic page, see my “Designing the Talmud: The Origins of the Printed Talmudic Page,” Tradition 29:3 (1995): 40–51. 3 Tractates printed in Spain include Rashi but not Tosafot. The practice of printing Tosafot with the text was, however, accepted in Sephardic communities in the sixteenth century, as can be seen from tractates printed in Constantinople and Salonika. 4 The Arukh by R. Nathan ben Jehiel (1035–c. 1110) is a compendium of talmudic terminology which also explicates and analyzes difficult passages. It makes reference to Midrashim, cites decisions of the Geonim, and describes Jewish customs. Raphael Nathan Nata Rabbinovicz, Ma’amar al Hadpasat ha-Talmud, ed. A. M. Habermann (Jerusalem, 1952), 85, observes that only the brief explanation of terms of the Arukh, not its subject-commentary, is printed with this Talmud. Furthermore, even this shortened version is not printed throughout the Talmud nor is it applied in a consistent manner in all the tractates. Heller_F24_298-314.indd 298 10/29/2007 6:51:53 PM a little known edition of tractate NIDDAH 299 There are rare instances when tractates were published lacking both Rashi and Tosafot, the volume consisting of the text only, that is, Mishnah and Gemara, without any accompanying commentaries. Three treatises, in addition to the edition of Niddah under discussion here, are known to have been so published. They are an incunabulum edition of Hullin, attributed to an early unknown Sephardic press, assumed to have been printed in the style of manuscript treatises, which were, more often than not, written in that manner; an edition of Bava Mezia, apparently printed in conjunction with but not part of the Cracow 1616–1620 Talmud;5 and a miniature edition of Sukkah, dated 1722, but missing both the name of the printer and the place of printing. These examples have already been treated in varying detail.6 Copies may be found among the holdings of major collections of Hebraica. This is not the case for the tractate Niddah which is noted briefly in only one bibliographical work and mentioned in passing in a paper on the responsa of Maharal.7 It exists, as noted above, in a unicum fragment. It is the intent of this article to describe this little known text, to attempt to identify its printer, and to determine the circumstances of its publication. The physical characteristics of the treatise can be simply stated. The fragment consists of nine leaves, a title page and eight text leaves, and measures about 19 cm. The volume is not physically attractive. It was printed on paper of poor quality and the letters, both on the title page and in the text, are blurry, unclear, and worn. The title page is stark, that ,נידה without ornamentation (fig. 91). The tractate name, spelled is, with a yod in the manner of early editions of the tractate, is set in a large square Ashkenazic font; the place of printing is in a smaller square font, both typical of Prague. A third, even smaller square font, is used for a header. The remainder of the text of the title page is in 5 I would like to express my gratitude to Ms. Doris Nicholson and Dr. Richard Judd, Department of Oriental Books, Bodleian Library, for supplying me with facsimiles of Bava Mezia and Niddah (1620) from the collection of the Bodleian Library. These tractates and their relation to the c. 1608 Niddah edition are addressed below. 6 Concerning Hullin and Bava Mezia, see my Printing the Talmud: A History of the Earliest Printed Editions of the Talmud (Brooklyn, 1992), 41–45 and 387–89. Concerning Sukkah, see my Printing the Talmud: A History of the Individual Treatises Printed from 1700 to 1750 (E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1999). 7 See Yeshayahu Vinograd, Ozar ha-Sefer ha-Ivri 2 (Jerusalem, 1993–1995), 535, n. 158: “Tractate Niddah. Prague, [1608]. Without commentaries. [A facsimile is in the JNUL]. An incomplete copy is in the JTSL” and Isaac Yudlov, “Teshuvot Maharal mi-Prag,” Sefer ha-Zikkaron li-Khevodo . Maran Rabbi Ya’akov Bezalel Zolti (Jerusalem, 1987), 265. Heller_F24_298-314.indd 299 10/29/2007 6:51:54 PM.

Load more