E.�The Rabbinical Literature

E.—THE RABBINICAL LITERATURE
Compare specially: Zunz, Die gottesdienstliclien Vorträge der Juden, 1832.—For the bibliography: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, 4 vols. 1715-1733.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, 3 vols. 1849-1863.—Steinschneider, Catalogue librorum hebraeorum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, Berol. 1852-1860.—Zedner, Catalogue of the Hebrew Books in the Library of the British Museum, London 1867.—Strack, Bibliographischer Abriss der neuhebr. Litteratur, in Lehrb. der neuhebr. Sprache und Litt., by Siegfried and Strack, 1884, p. 93 ff.
By “Rabbinical Literature” we understand that literature which has grown up out of the professional labours of the Rabbis or scribes. These labours consisted, not indeed exclusively, but mainly, in learned discussions and criticism of the Scriptures. Of such productions we have two different classes. On the one hand, some have discussed the law hypercritically in the jurist style; on the other hand, some have expanded and developed the sacred history and religious and ethical views by means of learned combinations. The productions of the first sort constitute the Halacha, or the traditional law; the productions of the second kind form the Haggada, or the legends, embracing religious and moral contents. For further information about both, see § 25, III.
The Halacha and Haggada were transmitted for the first hundred years by oral tradition only. In the Halacha strict adherence to literal accuracy in the transmission was insisted upon; whereas in the Haggada, greater freedom was given to subjective opinion and imagination. The final fixing of both in numerous and comprehensive literary works makes up what we style the Rabbinical Literature. The origin of this literature dates almost without exception from the earliest years of the period immediately after that treated in our history. Only the Haggadic treatment of Genesis, which is known under the name of the Book of Jubilees, belongs to our period; as do also the earliest, but no longer extant, contributions to the Halacha. But almost the whole of the rabbinical literature that has been preserved reaches no farther back than the last decade of the second century after Christ. It is nevertheless an invaluable source for the times of Christ, for the fountain of the there fixed traditions is to be sought away back, not merely in the times of Christ, but in yet earlier periods.
The Halacha has been written down partly in close connection with the Scripture text, therefore in the form of commentaries upon Scripture, partly in systematic order, grouping the materials under various headings according to the subjects dealt with. The works belonging to the latter class very soon obtained the pre-eminence. They embrace—1. The Mishna; 2. The Tosephta; 3. The Jerusalem Talmud; 4. The Babylonian Talmud. They may be comprehended under the general designation of Talmudical Literature. In all of them Haggada is mixed up with Halacha; this blending being most conspicuous in the Babylonian Talmud, and least discernible in the Mishna.
The Haggada makes its appearance mainly in the form of commentaries on the Scripture text. The Halachic, as well as the Haggadic commentaries, may be comprehended under the general name of Midrashim.
The traditional conception of the Scripture text is given expression to in the Aramaic translations or the Targums. They too, therefore, are to be mentioned here, although in the form in which they have come down to us they are probably to be dated about one hundred years after the time of Christ.
Finally, as the residuum of historical tradition, we must refer to still other historical works which make reference to the period of which we treat.
I. The Talmudical Literature
1. The Mishna
The word מִשְׁנָה(stat. construct. מִשְׁנַת, varied from מִשְׁנֶה, stat. construct. מִשְׁנֵה) has generally been rendered by the Church Fathers by δευτέρωσις.[31] This is correct, inasmuch as the verb שָׁנָה, according to its root significance, means δευτεροῦν, to repeat.[32] But in later usage “to repeat” came to be equivalent to “the teaching or learning of the oral law,” traditiones docere or discere. For the mode of imparting such instruction was by the teacher dictating the matter again and again to the pupils, or even by the pupils themselves being made to repeat it over and over again.[33] Hence מִשְׁנָה, which properly means “repetition,” came to be regarded as signifying the doctrine of the law, and even the doctrine of the oral law as distinguished from the written Thora.[34]
[31] A rich collection of patristic passages is given by Hody, De bibliorum textibus originalibus, etc. 1705, pp. 238-240.—I select the following:—Jerome, Epist. 121 ad Algasiam, quaest. x.: “I would fail to tell of the multitude of the traditions of the Pharisees which are now called δευτερώσεις, and which are silly fables. For indeed the size of my book forbids; and so many are vile, that I would blush to quote them.”—The same in Epist. 18 ad Damasum, c. 20: “But lest we should seem to omit any of those which the Jews call δευτερώσεις, in which they treat of all kinds of knowledge,” etc.—In his Comm. on Isa. viii.: “Shammai, therefore, and Hillel, of whom the former is a quibbling, and the latter a profane interpreter of traditions and δευτερώσεις, make void the precepts of their own law.”—In Comm. on Isa. lix.: “despising the law of God, and following traditions of men, which they call δευτερώσεις.”—In his Comm. on Ezek. xxxvi.: “For we expect the heavenly Jerusalem gemmed and golden, not according to Jewish fables, which they call δευτερώσεις.”—In. Comm. on Hos. iii.: “Loving traditions of men and dreams of δευτερώσεις.”—In his Comm. on Matt. xxii. 23: Pharisaei traditionum et observationum, quas illi δευτερώσεις vocant, justitiam praeferebant.—For passages from Epiphanius, see under, note 24.—In the Constitutiones Apostol. i. 6, ii. 5, vi. 22, the ritual part of the Mosaic law is called δευτέρωσις, in contradistinction to the true νόμος, or moral law.
[32] So in the biblical Hebrew. Compare also Sanhedrin xi. 2, meaning to do something over again.
[33] שנה, to teach, e.g. Taanith iv. 4; כך היה ר׳ יהושע שונה, “thus was R. Joshua wont to teach.” Compare Jerome, Epist. 121 ad Algasiam, quaest. x.: “When on certain days they expound their traditions to their disciples, they are wont to say οἱ σοφοὶ δευτερώσιν, that is, the wise teach traditions.” In the sense of “to learn,” e.g. Aboth iii. 7: “Whoever goes on the way and repeats (ושונה) and interrupts his repetitions (ומפסיק משנתו), and says, How beautiful is this tree, how beautiful is this field, Scripture regards him as one who has forfeited his life.”—Aboth ii. 4: “Say not, When I have time I will learn (אשנה): for perhaps thou wilt have no time.”
[34] Sometimes, as in the passage Aboth iii. 7, quoted in the previous note, משנה may be translated “repetition;” sometimes by “instruction,” as in Aboth iii. 8: “Whoever forgets a part of his lesson on the law (דבר אחד ממשנתו), is regarded by Scripture as,” etc. But, as a rule, it simply means the traditional doctrine of the law, especially in distinction from the written text, מקרא, Kidduschin i. 10; Aboth v. 21. In cases where later scholars teach differently from earlier ones, the earlier doctrine is called מִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, Kethuboth v. 3; Nasir vi. 1; Gittin v. 6; Sanhedrin iii. 4; Edujoth vii. 2. The Mishna is distinguished from the Halacha by presenting the legal tradition as the subject of instruction rather than as a judicial code.
The teachers of the δευτερώσεις were called δευτερωταί, Euseb. Praep. evangel. xi. 5. 3, xii. 1. 4.—Jerome on Isaiah 3:10, and on Habakkuk 2 : Audivi Liddae quendam de Hebraeis, qui sapiens apud illos et δευτερωτής vocabatur, narrantem hujusmodi fabulam.
The work specially designated by the name Mishna is the oldest codification of the traditional Jewish law that has come down to us. The material is here arranged according to its contents, distributed into six groups (סְרָרִים), containing altogether sixty tracts (מַסִּכְתּוֹת, sing. מַסֶּכֶת). In our printed editions, by subdivision their number is increased to sixty-three.[35] Each tract, again, is divided into chapters (פְּרָקִים); each chapter into paragraphs (מִשְׁנִיוֹת). The chapter division is very old; but the position and numbering of paragraphs is modern, and in the printed editions vary very considerably from those of the manuscripts.—The language of the Mishna is Hebrew; its contents, as we might expect, almost purely Halachic. Only two tracts, Aboth and Middoth, are Haggadic; and besides, Haggadic elements, to a small extent, are found in the conclusion of the tracts, or in the explanation of particular Halachas.[36]
[35] According to the original ordinance preserved, for example, in the cod. de Rossi 138, Baba kamma, Baba mezia, and Baba bathra form together only one tract, and also the Sanhedrin and Makkoth only one. Compare also Strack in Herzog’s Real-Encyclop. 2 Aufl. xviii. 300 f.
[36] Compare Zunz, Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge der Juden, p. 86 ff. A general sketch of the Haggadas in the Mishna is given in Pinner’s translation in German of the tract Berachoth, Introduction.
The names and contents of the sixty-three tracts are as follows:[37]—
[37] A more detailed list of contents is given by Pressel in Herzog, 1st ed. xv. 620-639, and also by Strack in Herzog, 2nd ed. xviii. 305-328.—The list of contents given above is mainly derived from “the explanatory list” given in Delitzsch’s Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (1870), pp. 113-118.
First Seder, ס׳ זְרָעִים
1. Berachoth, בְּרָכוֹת, on formulae of blessings and prayers.
2. Pea, פֵּאָה, on the corners of fields which in harvest must be left unreaped for the poor; and generally on the right of the poor in the produce of the soil, according to Leviticus 19:9-10; Leviticus 23:22; Deuteronomy 24:19-22.
3. Demai, דְּמָאִי, on the treatment of the fruit, especially about anything where it is doubtful whether it ought to be tithed or not.
4. Kilajim, כִּלְאַיִם, on the illegal mixing of what is heterogeneous in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, and in clothing, according to Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:9-11.
5. Shebiith, שְׁבִיעִית, on the Sabbatical year.
6. Terumoth, תְּרוּמוֹת, on the dues of the priests.
7. Maaseroth, מַעֲשֵׂרוֹת, on the tithes of the Levites.
8. Maaser sheni, מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, on secondary tithes, which are taken after the payment of the first tithes, and must, according to Deuteronomy 14:22 ff., be paid at Jerusalem.
9. Challa, חַלָּה, on the dough offerings, a 1-24th of the baking for home use, and 1-48th of the baking for sale, which, according to Numbers 15:17 ff., is to be given to the priests.
10. Orla, עָרְלָה, on the prohibition against using the fruits of newly-planted trees during the first three years, according to Leviticus 19:23-25.
11. Bikkurim, בִּכּוּרִים, on the presenting of the firstlings of the produce of the ground.
Second Seder, ס׳ מוֹעֵד
1. Shabbath, שַׁבָּת, on the Sabbath festival.
2. Erubin, עֵרוּבִין, on the binding together of separate localities for the purpose of freer movement on the Sabbath.
3. Pesachim, פְּסָחִים, on the Passover festival.
4. Shekalim, שְׁקָלִים, on the half-shekel tax, Exodus 30:11 ff.; Matthew 17:24.
5. Yoma, יוֹמָא, on the “day,” that is, the great day of atonement.
6. Sukka, סֻכָּה, on the Feast of Tabernacles.
7. Beza, בֵּיצָה, or Yom tob, יוֹם טוֹב, whether one may eat an egg laid on a feast day, and generally on the observance of feast and Sabbath days.
8. Rosh Hashana, ראֹשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, on the New Year festival.
9. Taanith, תַּעֲנִית, on the days of fasting and mourning.
10. Megilla, מְגִלָּה, on the reading of the “roll,” that is, of the book of Esther, and generally on the Feast of Purim.
11. Moed katan, מוֹעֵד קָטָן, on the feast days intervening between the first and last feast days of the great festivals.
12. Chagiga, חֲגִיגָה, on the duty of appearing at Jerusalem to offer at the three great festivals.
Third Seder, ס׳ נָשִׁים
1. Jebamoth, יְבָמוֹת, on levirate marriage with the brother-in-law, according to Deuteronomy 25:5-10.
2. Kethuboth, כְּחוּבוֹת, on marriage contracts.
3. Nedarim, נְדָרִים, on vows, especially with reference to their validity in the case of women, according to Leviticus 27. and Numbers 30.
4. Nasir, נָזִיר, on the Nazarite vow, according to Num. 6. and 30.
5. Sota, סוֹטָה, on proceeding against one suspected of adultery, according to Numbers 5:11-31.
6. Gittin, נִּטִּין, on writings of divorcement (נֵּט), and what gives legal claim to the obtaining of a divorce.
7. Kiddushin, קִרּוּשִׁין, on betrothal.
Fourth Seder, ס׳ נְזִיקִין
1. Baba Kamma, בָּבָא קַמָּא, “the first gate,” the first division of the threefold treatise on injuries, treating of the legal damages due for various kinds of injuries done by one to another.
2. Baba mezia, בָּבָא מְצִיעָא, “the middle gate,” treats of complaints and claims, especially between masters and slaves, employers and employed, borrowers and lenders.
3. Baba bathra, בָּבָא בתְרָא “the last gate,” on the municipal regulations most influential upon the development of social life.
4. Sanhedrin, סַנְהֶדְרִין, on the Sanhedrim and the criminal law.
5. Makkoth, מַכּוֹת, on punishment by flogging.
6. Shebuoth, שְׁבוּעוֹת, on oaths and offences against sanctity.
7. Edujoth, עֵדֻיּוֹת, “witnesses,” contains controverted propositions from all departments; the traditional validity is “witnessed to” by celebrated authorities.[38]
[38] The name of this tract, according to Levy, Neuhebraisch. Wörterbuch, iii. 620, ought to be given as Ediyoth; and Strack in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, xviii. 319, has been induced to accede to this demand. But the solitary example on which Levy relies, namely, malkiyoth, is not in point, since even in that instance the correct rendering would be malkuyoth. So also for chanuth we have manuscript authority in its plural form of chanuyoth, e.g. cod. de Rossi 138 has in Aboda sara i. 4 and Tohoroth vi. 3, חנויות.
8. Aboda sara, עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, on idolatry and generally on heathenism.
9. Aboth, אָבוֹת, or Pirke Aboth, פִּרְקֵי אָבוֹת, a collection of sentences from the most famous scribes, dating from somewhere about B.C. 200 to A.D. 200.[39]
[39] No tract of the Mishna has been so often printed and translated as this. Some of the more recent editions are mentioned in Div. ii. vol. iii. p. 30. In addition, compare Eighteen Treatises from the Mishna, by Raphall and de Sola, giving translations of Berachoth, Kilajim, Shebiith, Erubin, Pesachim, Yoma, Sukka, Yom Tob, Rosh Hashana, etc., London 1845.
10. Horayoth, הוֹרָיוֹת, decisions on unintentional offences caused by erroneous decisions of the Sanhedrim, and on unintentional offences of the high priests and princes.
Fifth Seder, ס׳ קָדָשִׁים
1. Sebachim, זְבָחִים, on sacrifices.
2. Menachoth, מְנָחוֹת, on meat-offerings.
3. Chullin, חוּלִּין, on the right method of slaying animals not to be offered, and on the eating thereof.
4. Bechoroth, בְּכוֹרוֹת, on the sanctifying of the first-born among men and cattle.
5. Arachin, עֲרָכִין, “treasures,” treating, according to Leviticus 27., of the redemption of persons and things which had been devoted to the service of the sanctuary, or had so devoted themselves.
6. Temura, תְּמוּרָה, on the exchanging of things devoted to God, Leviticus 27:10.
7. Kerithoth, בְּרִיתוֹת, on the penalty of extermination, or rather what those have to do who have unintentionally broken a command which involves the penalty of utter destruction.
8. Meila, מְעִילָה, on the embezzlement of things devoted to God, Numbers 5:6-8.
9. Tamid, תָּמִיד, of daily morning and evening sacrifices, and generally of the daily temple service.
10. Middoth, מִדּוֹת, of the size and arrangements of the temple.
11. Kinnim, קִנִּים, of the offerings of doves by the poor, according to Leviticus 5:1-10; Leviticus 12:8.
Sixth Seder, ס׳ טָהֳרוֹת
1. Kelim, כֵּלִים, on household furniture and its purifying.
2. Ohaloth, אֹהָלוֹת, on the defilement of tents and houses, specially by the dead, according to Numbers 19.
3. Negaim, נְגָעִים, on leprosy.
4. Para, פָּרָה, on the red heifer, that is, on atonement for pollution contracted from the dead, according to Numbers 19.
5. Tohoroth, טָהֳרוֹת, of the lesser kinds of defilements.
6. Mikwaoth, מִקְוָאוֹה, of the water fitted for bathing and washing.
7. Nidda, נִדָּה, of the defilement peculiar to the female sex.
8. Machshirin, מַכְשִׁירִין, properly “making fit,” treating of the liquids which, falling upon fruits, render or do not render them impure, according to Leviticus 11:34; Leviticus 11:38.
9. Sabim, זָבִים, on the running of ulcers and bloody issues.
10. Tebul yom, טְבוּל יוֹם, treats of the defilement which is removed by bathing, but requires isolation until the going down of the sun.
11. Yadayim, יָדַיִם, on the pollution and the cleansing, washing of the hands.
12. Ukzin, עוּקְצִין, on the defilement of fruits through their stalks and rinds or husks.
Tolerably sure results in regard to the age and origin of this work may also be gained from certain indications given iu the text itself. In innumerable instances, where the opinions of scholars on particular points of law are divergent, not only is the view of the majority given, but the views of the dissenting scholar or scholars, with the distinct mention of the names. In this way somewhere about 150 authorities are quoted in the Mishna; the most, indeed, only very seldom, but some almost through all the tracts. The most frequently cited authorities are the following:[40]—
[40] Since the editions vacillate here and there as to the name, I may say that the numbers given by me are taken from the so-called Jost edition of the Mishna, Berlin 1832-1834.
First Generation, from about A.D. 70 to A.D. 100
Rabban[41] Jochanan ben Sakkai, 23 times.—R. Zadoc or Zadduc.[42]—R. Chananya, president of the priests, סגן הכהנים, 12 times.—R. Elieser ben Jacob.[43]
[41] On the title Rabban, see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 315. The simple letter R signifies Rabbi.
[42] The name Rabbi Zadoc, or properly Zadduc, occurs sixteen times. But probably an older and a younger scholar have the same name.
[43] The name R. Elieser ben Jacob occurs forty times. Probably here also two bearers of the same name are to be distinguished.
Second Generation, from about A.D. 100 to A.D. 130
A. Older Group: Rabban Gamaliel II., 84 times.—R. Josbua [ben Chananya],[44] times.—R. Elieser [ben Hyrcanos], 324 times.—R. Eleasar ben Asarya, 38 times.—R. Dosa ben Archinos, 19 times.—R. Eleasar, son of R. Zadduc.[45]
[44] Those patronymics which are, as a rule, not given in the Mishna, are enclosed above in brackets.
[45] With reference to this name, the same may be said as about R. Zadduc.
B. Younger Group: R. Ishmael, 71 times.—R. Akiba [ben Joseph], 278 times.—R. Tarphon, 51 times.—K. Jochanan ben Nuri, 38 times.—R. Simon ben Asai, or simply Ben Asai, in the one form 4, in the other 21 times.—R. Jochanan ben Beroka, 11 times.—R. Jose the Galilean, 26 times.—R. Simon ben Nannos, or simply Ben Nannos, in each of these forms 5 times.—Abba Saul, 20 times.—R. Judah ben Bethera, 16 times.
Third Generation, from about A.D. 130 to A.D. 160
R. Judah [ben Ilai, or more correctly Elai], 609 times.—R. Jose [ben Chalephta], 335 times.—R. Meir, 331 times.—R. Simon [ben Jochai], 325 times.—Rabban Simon ben Gamaliel II., 103 times.—R. Nehemiah, 19 times.—R. Chananya ben Antigonos, 13 times.
Fourth Generation, from about AD. 160 to A.D. 200
Rabbi [i.e. R. Juda ha-Nasi or ha-kadosh], 37 times.—R. Jose, son of R. Judah [ben Elai], 14 times.
The chronology which has been here adopted, while in its leading outlines perfectly certain, cannot be vouched for in every individual case. The fact that the men enumerated in the same generation were really contemporary with one another, is evidenced by the circumstance of their being more or less frequently referred to in the Mishna as disputing with one another. Thus, for example, we find Rabban Gamaliel II., R. Joshua, R. Elieser, and R. Akiba frequently engaged together in conversation and discussion, and that, indeed, with such indications as show that R. Akiba was a younger contemporary of the three previously named.[46] So, too, we often find disputing with one another, R. Judah, R. Jose, R. Meir, and R. Simon. And in a similar way in respect to other scholars mentioned here, it can be determined with more or less certainty to which of the four generations each belonged.—But further, also, the succession of the generations can be ascertained by similar statements in the Mishna. R. Joshua and R. Elieser were pupils of Rabban Jochanan ben Sakkai;[47] also, R. Akiba is so described.[48] The men of the third generation, too, are linked on with the men of the second by personal relationships, etc.[49]—Finally, we are furnished with various outstanding points for the sure determination of an absolutely correct chronology. Rabban Jochanan ben Sakkai is said to have made various arrangements “after the temple had been destroyed;”[50] he was therefore alive immediately after that event. With this also agrees the statement that Akiba, who was about a generation younger, was a contemporary of Barcochba and a martyr during the war of Hadrian. In a like manner we may deal with the rest.[51]
[46] For the documents, see Div. ii. vol i. pp. 351-379, § 25, notes 199 and 207.
[47] Aboth ii. 8. Compare Edujoth viii. 7. Yadayim iv. 3 at the end.
[48] Sota v. 2.
[49] R. Jose passes a judgment in presence of R. Akiba (Terumoth iv. 13).—R. Judah was still a hearer of R. Tarphon (Nedarim vi. 6).—R. Simon takes part in a disputation with R. Akiba (Machschirin vi. 8).—R. Jose, Judah, and Simon tell about the views of R. Elieser and R. Joshua (Kerithoth iv. 2, 3).
[50] Sukka iii. 12. Rosh hashana iv. 1, 3, 4. Menachoth x. 5.
[51] Documentary evidence for all the above statements is much too voluminous to be given here. In single cases where the Mishna gives no decision, the sources that follow, Tosephta and Talmud, are drawn upon. On the men of the first and second generations more particulars are to be found in Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 366-379. On the third and fourth generations, compare literature given in Div. ii. vol. i. p. 351, especially the articles in Hamburger’s Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, pt. ii.; also Strack in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, xviii. 346-350.—I may mention that I have intentionally characterized the two groups of the second generation, not as two generations, because they are more closely connected with one another than either is with the first or with the third generation.
Our statistics, then, have thus proved that the Mishna must have been collected and edited toward the end of the second century after Christ, for in a later composition it might be expected that more recent authorities would have been employed. In fact, the composition of the work has been ascribed to E. Judah ha-Nasi, or ha-kadosh, called also simply Rabbi, who lived at the end of the second century after Christ.[52] But our statistics teach us something more even than this. It is clear that a couple of thousand of statements about the views of particular scholars could not have been transmitted by oral traditions. If in a work issued toward the end of the second century, by various scholars of earlier generations, even a couple of hundred particular decisions were communicated (by R. Judah ben Elai over six hundred!), there must have been written sources at their command. But the result of our statistics makes it probable that the final redaction had been preceded by two earlier summaries of written documents, one from the age of the second generation, and one from the time of the third generation. Certain phenomena in the text of the Mishna itself favour this theory,[53] as well as some rather obscure and doubtful traditions.[54] The opinion, still firmly maintained by many Jewish scholars, that written documents are not to be found before the time of Judah ha-Nasi, indeed not even in his days, is based upon the assumed prohibition of a written record of the Halacha, of which, however, the age and range of application are extremely uncertain.[55]—At any rate this much is beyond dispute, that in the Mishna the Jewish law is codified in that form which it retained in the schools of Palestine from the end of the first to the end of the second century after Christ.
[52] Compare on him: Bodek, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus als Zeitgenosse und Freund des Rabbi Jehuda ha-Nasi; also under title: Römische Kaiser in jüdischen Quellen, Thl. i. 1868.—Gelbhaus, Rabin Jehuda Hanassi und die Redaction des Mischna, Vienna 1880. Compare here: Strack, Theolog. Literaturzeitung, 1881, 52 ff.—Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, Abth. ii. pp. 440-450 (art. Jehuda der Fürst).—Some more literature in Strack, Herzog, xviii. 349.—On the period and the date of the death of R. Judah ha-Nasi, long discussions have been carried on between Rapoport and Jost. See Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. 48, and the complete report in Bodek, pp. 11-64; also Jost, Gesch. des Judenthums und seiner Secten, ii. 118 ff.—Rapoport takes A.D. 192 as the year of his death; Jost, A.D. 219-220. The grounds for either are not very certain, but Rapoport’s view seems more probable, though his statements about a friendly intercourse between Marcus Aurelius and Judah are very problematical.
[53] Kelim, fin. “R. Jose said: Happy thou Kelim (אשריך כלים), to begin with pollution and end with poverty.” It then appears that a redaction of the tract Kelim appeared in the times of R. Jose [ben Chalephta].—On various stages in the fixing of the tradition, whether oral or written, light is shed by such passages as treat of the meaning of propositions laid down by older scholars, e.g. Ohaloth ii. 3; Tohoroth ix. 3.
[54] Epiphanius, Haer. 33. 9: Αἱ γὰρ παραδόσεις τῶν πρεσβυτέρων δευτερώσεις παρὰ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις λέγονται. Εἰσὶ δὲ αὗται τέσσαρες· μία μὲν ἡ εἰς ὄνομα Μωυσέως φερομένη· δευτέρα δὲ ἡ τοῦ καλουμένου Ῥαββὶ Ἀκιβά· τρίτη Ἀδδὰ ἤτοι Ἰούδα· τετάρτη τῶν υἱῶν Ἀσαμωναίου. In almost the same language Epiphanius expresses himself in another passage, Haer. 15: Δευτερώσεις δὲ παρʼ αὐτοῖς τέσσαρες ἦσαν· μία μὲν εἰς ὄνομα Μωυσέως τοῦ προφήτου, δευτέρα δὲ εἰς τὸν διδάσκαλον αὐτῶν Ἀκίβαν οὕτω καλούμενον ἢ Βαρακίβαν· ἄλλη δὲ εἰς τὸν Ἀνδὰν ἢ Ἄνναν τὸν καὶ Ἰούδαν· ἑτέρα δὲ εἰς τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἀσαμωναίου. Quite a wrong statement is made in a third passage, Haer. 42: μάθε … πότε δὲ ἡ παράδοσις αὐτοῖς γέγονε τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, καὶ εὑρήσεις ὅτι τοῦ μὲν Δαβὶδ μετὰ τὴν ἐκ Βαβυῶνος ἐπάνοδον, τοῦ δὲ Ἀκιβᾶ καὶ πρὸ τῶν Βαβυλωνικῶν αἰχμαλωσιῶν, γεγένηται, τῶν δὲ υἱῶν Ἀσσαμωναίου ἐν χρόνοις Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ Ἀντιόχου.—By the “Deuteroses of Moses,” is meant Deuteronomy; by the “Mishna of the Asmoneans,” most likely the ordinances of John Hyrcanus, who set aside the Pharisaic statutes, and so created a new system of law. A code of this Asmonean law is, it would seem, referred to in Megillath Taanith, § 10. Compare Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, p. 103.—Mention is also made of a series of Halachoth by R. Akiba in Tosephta Sabim i., while by “the Mishna of Akiba” in Sanhedrin iii. 4, only his oral doctrine is to be understood. Compare on Akiba’s work as a redactor: Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, p. 46; Jost, Geschichte der Judenthums, ii. 112; Gräz, Geschichte der Juden, iv. 430 f.
[55] For more detailed information, see Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclop. xviii. 331-337. According to Grätz, even in the fourth century the Mishna had not yet been committed to writing.—Frankel especially, in modern times, has insisted upon the assumption of written Mishna collections before that of R Judah ha-Nasi. In his Hodegetica in Mischnam, 1859, he assigns a Mishna to R. Akiba and one to R. Meir. Compare further: Lewy, Ueber einige Fragmente aus der Mischna des Abba Saul, Berlin 1876.—Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 399-401.—Hoffmann, Di erste Mischna und die Controversen der Tannaim (Jahresbericht des Rabbiner-Seminares in Berlin, 1882).—Lerner, Die ältesten Mischna-Compositionem (Mag. für die Wissensch. des Judenth. xiii. 1886).—Derenbourg sums up his opinion as follows (Revue des études juives, vi. 41): “It is well known that from the time of the destruction of the second temple down to the commencement of the third century of the Christian era, there have been different redactions of the Mishna. The first complete redaction seems to have been undertaken by R. Akiba before the war of Hadrian. Upon the reopening of the schools under the first Antonine, R. Meir resumed the same work, and then R. Judah the patriarch, descended from the famous family of Hillel, composed the code which has served as a basis for all subsequent rabbinical studies.”
2. Tosephta
The Mishna of R. Judah ha-Nasi has generally received canonical rank, and has served as the basis for the further development of the law Another collection that has come down to us, the so-called Tosephta, תּוֹסֶפְתֶּא, additamentum,[56] has not attained such a rank. The material here gathered together belongs essentially to the age of the Tannaites (הַנָּאִים in Aramaic, meaning δευτερωταί, the scholars of the age of the Mishna). The arrangement is quite the same as that of the Mishna. Of the sixty-three tracts of the Mishna, only Aboth, Tamid, Middoth, and Kinnim are wanting in the Tosephta. The other fifty-nine tracts, not merely fifty-two, as Zunz in his Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge affirms, have their exact parallels in the Tosephta. The two are therefore closely related. The precise nature of their relationship has not yet indeed been made sufficiently clear. But there are at least two points which may be stated with absolute certainty:—1. That the Tosephta is laid out in accordance with the plan of the Mishna, and professes to be an expansion of it, as the name itself implies; and 2. That the redactors had at their command in carrying out their scheme sources which are older than our Mishna. Hence, on the one hand, in the Tosephta we have authorities cited which belong to the post-Mishna times; while, on the other hand, the Tosephta has not unfrequently retained the original and complete literal quotation where the Mishna has given only an abbreviated text.[57] The Haggada bulk much more largely in the Tosephta than in the Mishna.
[56] Not to be confounded with the Tosaphoth, the explanations of the Babylonian Talmud from the French rabbinical schools of the Middle Ages. See on these Tosaphists: Zunz, Zur Geschichte und Literatur, 1845, p. 29 ff.
[57] From this Zuckermandel has wrongly concluded that the Tosephta preserved to us contains the original parts of the Palestinian Mishna which formed the text of the Jerusalem Gemara, while our Mishna has sprung up in the Babylonian Amora school as a new codex, partly abridged, partly amended, from the Tosephta.
A complete separate edition of the Tosephta was issued for the first time quite recently by Zuckermandel, Tosephta nach den Erfurter und Wiener Handschriften mit Parallelstellen und Varianten, Pasewalk 1880. Supplement containing summary, register, and glossary, Treves 1882-1883.—On the Erfurt manuscript: Zuckermandel, Die Erfurter Handschrift der Tossefta, Berlin 1876; and Lagarde, Symmicta, i. 1877, pp. 153-155.—Previous to this, leaving out of account separate editions of special portions, the Tosephta had appeared only in the editions of the Alfasi. On these and on the separate editions of portions, see Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, i. 34-36, 173; Steinschneider, Catalogus librorum hebr. in biblioth. Bodleiana, col. 647 sq., 1087 sqq.; Alter Zedner, Catalogue of the Hebrew Books in the Library of the British Museum, pp. 365 f., 757.
A great part of the Tosephta, consisting of some thirty-one tracts, is translated into Latin in Ugolini Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrarum: in vol. xvii. Schabbath, Erubin, and Pesachim; in vol. xviii. the other nine tracts of the second Seder; in vol. xix. the following eight tracts of the fifth Seder: Sebachim, Menachoth, Chullin, Bechoroth, Temura, Meila, Kerithoth, Arachin; in vol. xx. the whole of the eleven tracts of the first Seder.
On the Tosephta generally, compare: Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, 1832, pp. 50 f., 87 f.—Dünner, Die Theorien über Wesen und Ursprung der Tosephta kritisch dargestellt, Amsterdam 1874.—Zuckermandel, Verhältniss der Tosifta zur Mischna und der jerusalemischen Gemara zur babylonischen (Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissensch. des Judenthums, 1874-1875). By the same, Tosifta-Variantem (Monatsschrift, 1880-1881).—Schwarz, Die Tosifta des Tractates Sabbath in ihrem Verhältnisse zur Mischna kritisch untersucht, Carlsruhe 1879. By the same, Die Tosifta des Tractates Erubin in ihrem Verhältnisse zur Mischna kritisch untersucht, Carlsruhe 1882.—Hoffmann, Mischna und Tosefta (Magazin für die Wissenschaft des Judenthums, ix. 1882, pp. 153-163).—Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, ii. 1225-1227, art. “Tosephta.”—Brüll, Begriff und Ursprung der Tosefta (Jubelschrift zum neunzigsten Geburtstag des Dr. L. Zunz, Berlin 1884, pp. 92-110).—Pick, Die Tosefta-Citate und der hebräische Text (Zeitschrift für die alttestamentl. Wissensch. 1886, pp. 23-29).—Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, xviii. p. 298 f.
3. The Jerusalem Talmud
On the basis of the Mishna the juristic discussion was carried on with unwearied energy and zeal in the schools of Palestine, especially in that of Tiberias, during the third and fourth centuries. By means of the codification of the new material that was in this way gathered together, there sprang up in the fourth century after Christ the so-called Jerusalem, or more correctly, Palestinian, Talmud.[58] In it the text of the Mishna is taken statement after statement in regular succession, and is explained by a casuistical system of distinctions that becomes ever more and more subtle and over-refined. For the purpose of explanation not only are the opinions of the “Amoreans,” the scholars of the post-Mishna age, drawn upon, but very frequently dogmatic utterances of the Mishna age. Such propositions as are borrowed from earlier times which have not been incorporated in the Mishna, are called Baraytha, בָּרָֽיְתָא “extranea,” scil. traditio. They are quoted in the Talmud in Hebrew, whereas for the rest the language of the Talmud is Aramaic.—The date of the composition of the Palestinian Talmud may be determined from the fact that, although indeed the Emperors Diocletian and Julian are mentioned, no Jewish authorities are referred to who can be assigned to a later period than the middle of the fourth century.[59]—Besides the Halacha, which forms its principal contents, we also meet in it with rich Haggadic material.[60]—Whether the Palestinian Talmud ever went over the whole range of the Mishna is still a disputed point. Only its first four Seders, together with the tract Nidda, have been preserved to us, and the tracts Eduyoth and Aboth are wanting.[61]
[58] תַּלְמוּד means teaching, doctrine; e.g. Sota v. 4-5, vi. 3. תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה, Pea i. 1; Kethuboth v. 6; Kerithoth vi. 9.—The two component parts of the Talmud, the Mishna text lying at its basis and the explanatory discussion, are distinguished as “Mishna” and “Gemara.” But this use of the words is unknown in Jewish antiquity. In the Talmud itself the so-called Gemara is always “Talmud.” See Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, xviii. 299.
[59] See especially Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, p. 52 f. The passages referring to Diocletian are also given in Lightfoot, Centuria chorogr. Matthaeo praemissa, c. 81 (Opp. ii. 28).
[60] The Haggadic passages are collected in the work Jephê marʾeh (יִפֵה מַרְאֶה) of Samuel Japhe in the sixteenth century. See here: Wolf, Biblioth. hebr. i. 1104, iii. 1109, iv. 995. Fürst, Biblioth. Judaica, ii. 9, 96. Steinschneider, Catalog., col. 2427. Zedner, Catalogue of British Museum, p. 750 f. Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclop. xviii. 364 f.—A German translation of Haggadic passages is given by Wünsche, Der jerusalemische Talmud in seinen haggadischen Bestandtheilen zum ersten Male in’s Deutsche übertragen, Zürich 1880.
[61] For traces of the existence of other portions, see Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, p. 54 Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, xviii. 337 f.
4. The Babylonian Talmud
The Mishna is said to have been brought to Babylon by Abba Areka, usually called Rab, a scholar of R. Judah.[62] In the schools of that place, too, it came to be used as the basis for continuous juristic discussion. The boundless accumulation of material here also led gradually to its codification. This was in all probability undertaken in the fifth century after Christ, but was not brought to a conclusion before the sixth century.—In the Babylonian Talmud as well as in the Palestinian, the statements of older scholars were frequently given in the Hebrew language. The Talmud itself was written in the Aramaic dialect of Babylon.—The Haggada is here represented still more literally than in the Palestinian Talmud.[63]—The Babylonian Talmud, too, is incomplete. There are wanting: The whole of the first Seder with the exception of Berachoth; Shekalim out of the second; Eduyoth and Aboth from the fourth; Middoth and Kinnim and the half of Tamid from the fifth; and the whole of the sixth with the exception of Nidda. See Zunz, p. 54. It therefore embraces only 36½ tracts, while in the Palestinian Talmud 39 tracts are dealt with. Nevertheless, the Babylonian Talmud is at least four times the size of the Palestinian, has been much more diligently studied in Europe since the Middle Ages, and stands in much higher repute than the other.[64]
[62] For an account of this scholar, see Mühlfelder, Rabh ein Lebensbild zur Geschichte des Talmud, Leipzig 1871.
[63] See Zunz, p. 94.—The Haggada from the Babylonian Talmud is collected together in the work En Jacob (עֵין יַעֲקוֹב) or En Israel (עֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל) of Jacob Chabib, belonging to the fifteenth century. On this compare Wolf, Biblioth. Hebr. i. 590 f., iii. 456 f., iv. 866 f. Zunz, p. 94. Fürst, Biblioth. Judaica, i. 151 f. Steinschneider, Catalog. col. 1196 ff. Zedner, Catalogue of Hebrew Books in British Museum, p. 746. Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, xviii. 364 f.—A German translation of the Haggada in the Babylonian Talmud is given by Wünsche, Der babylonische Talmud in seinen haggadischen Bestandtheilen wortgetreu übersetzt und durch Noten erläutert, 3 parts, published in 1886, 1887, 1888.
[64] In reference to the mode of reference here adopted, it may be observed that the tracts of the Mishna are quoted according to chapters and Mishnas; those of the Palestinian Talmud either in the same way or according to the page number in the editions of Cracow; those of the Babylonian Talmud according to the page numbers, which are identical in all the editions. For example, M. Berachoth iv. 3, or simply Berachoth iv. 3, means therefore the Mishna; jer. Berachoth iv. 3 refers to the Palestinian Talmud; bab. Berachoth 28b, or simply Berachoth 28b, indicates the Babylonian Talmud.
The literature of the Mishna and both Talmuds, their editions, translations, and commentaries, are carefully enumerated by Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraica, ii. pp. 700-724, 882-913; iv. 321-327, 437-445.—Winer, Handbuch der theolog. Literatur, i. pp. 523-525.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. 40-49, 94-97, confines himself to the Mishna and Palestinian Talmud.—Neubauer, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, Oxford 1886, nos. 393-407.—Schiller-Szinessy, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts preserved in the University Library, Cambridge, vol. ii. pp. 1-12.—Zedner, Catalogue of Hebrew Books in the Library of the British Museum, 1867, pp. 545-555, 739-751.—Raph. Rabbinovicz has written in Hebrew a critical review of all the complete and separate editions of the Babylonian Talmud since A.D. 1484, Munich 1877.—Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie) xviii. 342 ff., 357-368.—We specify only the following:—
EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS OF THE MISHNA
Mishna sive totius Hebraeorum juris, rituum, antiquitatum ac legum oralium systema cum clarissimorum Rabbinorum Maimonidis et Bartenoras commentariis integris, etc. Latinitate donavit ac notis illustravit Guil. Surenhusius. 6 vols. fol. Amsterdam 1698-1703.
The Mishnah on which the Palestinian Talmud rests, edited from the unique manuscript preserved in the University Library of Cambridge, Add. 470, 1, by W. H. Lowe. Cambridge 1883. An exact reproduction of a valuable Cambridge manuscript, which, however, is not “unique,” since there is certainly another of the same kind, the cod. de Rossi 138, at Parma, representing the same text in perhaps even a better form.
Eighteen Treatises from the Mishna. Translated by D. A. de Sola and M. J. Raphall. London 1843.
ששה סדרי משנה וכו׳. 6 vols. Berlin 1832-1834. Issued by authority of the Society of Friends of the Thora and Science at Berlin, under the direction of J. M. Jost. The printed text with a German translation in Hebrew writing and a short Hebrew commentary.
Mischnajoth, Die sechs Ordnungen der Mischna. Hebrew printed text, German translation and exposition, by A. Sammter. Part I. giving the First Seder. Berlin 1887. If this edition be carried out to completion in accordance with the promise of its first part, it will be most worthy of recommendation for the use of the Christian theologian. The German translation follows closely that of Jost, but it is printed in German letters.
Editions of the Hebrew texts, with short Hebrew commentaries, have in all times been issued in large numbers. Of the more recent editions, we may name those of Sittenfeld in Berlin 1863, of Cohn in Berlin 1876.
EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS OF THE PALESTINIAN TALMUD
The editio princeps was issued by Bomberg in Venice in folio, without mention of the year; but this was, according to Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraica, iv. 439, either A.D. 1523 or A.D. 1524.
Besides this other three complete editions have appeared: at Cracow A.D. 1609, at Krotoschin A.D. 1866, and at Shitomir in 4 vols. fol. A.D. 1860-1867.—Several other editions have been projected, but were stopped after the appearance of one or more parts. See Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclop. xviii. 343.
A Latin translation of a great part of the Palestinian Talmud, extending to nineteen tracts, appeared in Ugolini Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrar., namely, in vol. xvii. Pesachim; in vol. xviii. Shekalim, Joma, Sukka, Rosh hashana, Taanith, Megilla, Chagiga, Beza, Moed Katan; in vol. xx. Maaseroth, Challa, Orla, Bikkurim; in vol. xxv. Sanhedrin, Makkoth; in vol. xxx. Kiddushin, Sota, Kethuboth.
An English rendering of the French translation of Moses Schwab has been undertaken. The first volume, containing the tract Berachoth according to the Jerusalem Talmud, was issued in the end of 1885. The French translation began to appear at Paris in 1871; and up to this time ten volumes have been issued, containing thirty-three tracts.
WÜNSCHE, Der jerusalemische Talmud in seinen haggadischen Bestandtheilen in’s Deutsche übertragen, Zürich 1880, gives only the Haggadic passages.
SCHILLER-SZINESSY, Occasional Notices of Hebrew Manuscripts; No. 1. Description of the Leyden Manuscript of the Palestinian Talmud. Cambridge 1878.
EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS OF THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD
The editio princeps was published by Bomberg at Venice in 12 vols. folio, A.D. 1520 ff. With this edition all subsequent issues agree exactly in the numbering of pages.
Among later editions there is none that can be regarded as satisfactory on critical grounds. The prejudices of Christian editors led unhappily to the perverse corruption of the text. On this point, see Neubauer, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, p. 1099. On the other hand, the persecutions to which the Jews were subjected occasioned such bitterness of feeling on their part that they forbade, under severest penalties, the printing in the Mishna or Gemara anything that had reference to Jesus of Nazareth. See circular to this effect printed by Leslie in his Short and Easy Method with the Jews. London 1812.
The Fragment of the Talmud Babli Pesachim of the Ninth or Tenth Century, in the University Library, Cambridge, edited with notes and an autograph facsimile, by W. H. Lowe. Cambridge 1879.
IN UGOLINI’S Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrar., three tracts of the Babylonian Talmud are translated into Latin; in vol. xix. Sebachim and Menachoth; and in vol. xxv. Sanhedrin.
Several single tracts have been translated into German: Berachoth, by Pinner, Berlin 1842; Aboda Sara or Idolatry, by F. Chr. Ewald, Nürnberg 1856; Baba Mezia, by Sammter, Berlin 1876; Taanith, by Straschun, Halle 1883; Megilla with Tosafat transl. into German, by Rawicz, Frankf. 1883; Rosch ha-Schanah, by Rawicz, Frankf. 1886; Rabbinowicz, Legislation civile du Talmud, 5 vols. Paris 1877-1880, discusses passages on civil law from the various tracts of the Talmud.
WÜNSCHE, Der babylonische Talmud in seinen haggadischen Bestandtheilen wortgetreu übersetzt, etc., 2 vols. 1886-1888, gives only the Haggadic passages.
FOR CRITICISM OF THE TEXT
RABBINOVICZ, Variae lectiones in Mischnam et in Talmud Babylonicum quum ex aliis libris antiquissimis et scriptis et impressis tum e codice Monacensi praestantissimo collectae annotationibus instructae, written in Hebrew, not yet completed. Vols. i.-xv. Munich 1867-1886.
LEBRECHT, Handschriften und erste Gesammtausgaben des Babylonischen Talmud, No. 1, Berlin 1862, deals only with the manuscripts.
HELPS IN REGARD TO THE LANGUAGE
BUXTORF, Lexicon Chaldaicum, Talmudicum et Rabbinicum. Basel 1640.—A reprint of this work has been issued by B. Fischer. Leipzig 1874.
LEVY, Neuhebräisches und Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim, vol. i. 1876, ז-א; vol. ii. 1879, ל-ח; vol. iii. 1883, ע-מ; vol. iv. still incomplete.—Also: Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim und einen grossen Theil des rabbinischen Schriftthums. 2 vols. 1867-1868.
JASTROW, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yérushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. Vol. i. London 1886. Containing 96 pp. quarto, and reaching down to אספריסא.
HARTMANN, Thesauri linguae Hebraicae e Mischna augendi particula, i. ii. iii. Rostock 1825-1826. A diligent collection of the non-biblical linguistic materials of the Mishna.
GEIGER, Lehrbuch zur Sprache der Mischna. Breslau 1845.
DUKES, Die Sprache der Mischna, lexikographisch und grammatisch betrachtet. Esslingen 1846.
WEISS, משפט לשין המשנה, Studien über die Sprache der Mischna, in Hebrew. Vienna 1867.
LUZZATTO, Grammatik der biblisch-chaldäischen Sprache und des Idioms des Talmud Bibli. From the Italian by Krüger. Breslau 1873.
STRACK and SIEGFRIED, Lehrbuch der neuhebräischen Sprache und Literatur Carlsruhe 1884.
GENERAL LITERATURE ON THE MISHNA
The most complete and comprehensive treatises on the origin and character of the Mishna, are the three following works written in the Hebrew language:—
FRANKEL, דרכי המשנה, Hodegetica in Mischnam librosque cum ea conjunctos Tosefta, Mechilta, Sifra, Sifri. P. I. Introductio in Mischnam. Lips. 1859.—Also: חוספות ומפתח לספר דרכי המשנה, Additamenta et index ad librum Hodegetica in Mischnam. Lips. 1867.
BRÜLL, מבוא המשנה, Einleitung in die Mischnah, enthaltend das Leben und die Lehrmethode der Gesetzeslehrer von Ezra bis zum Abschlusse der Mischnah. Frankfort 1876.—A second volume has been published under the title, Einleitung in die Mischnah, ii.; Plan und System der Mischnah. Frankfort 1884.
WEISS, דור דור ודורשיו, Zur Geschichte der jüdischen Tradition. Vol. i. From the earliest Times down to the Destruction of the Second Temple, Vienna 1871; vol. ii. From the Destruction of the Second Temple down to the close of the Mishna, 1876; vol. iii. From the close of the Mishna down to the completion of the Babylonian Talmud, 1883; vol. iv. From the close of the Talmud down to the end of the first five thousand years according to Jewish reckoning, 1887.
SCHILLER-SZINESSY, article “Mishnah” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. xvi. 1883, pp. 502-508.
TAYLOR, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, comprising Pirke Aboth and Pereq R. Meir in Hebrew and English, with critical and illustrative notes. Cambridge 1877.
ROBINSON, The Evangelists in the Mishna; or, Illustrations of the Four Gospels drawn from Jewish Traditions. London 1859.
BENNETT, The Mishna as illustrating the Gospel. Cambridge 1884.
JOST, Geschichte der Israeliten seit der Zeit der Makkabäer, iv. 103 ff.—Also: Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Secten, ii. 114-126.
ZUNZ, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, 1832, pp. 45 f., 86 f., 106 f.
GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden (2 Aufl.), iv. 210-240, 419-422, 430 f., 479-485, 494 f.—Also: Beiträge zur Wort- und Sacherklärung der Mischna (Monatsschrift für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums, 1871).—Also: Die Mischna in mündlicher Ueberlieferung erhalten (Monatsschr. 1873, pp. 35-41).
DÜNNER, Veranlassung, Zweck und Entwickelung der halachischen und halachischen exegetischen Sammlungen während der Tannaim-Periode, in Umrisse dargestellt (Monatsschrift für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums, 1871).—Also: R. Juda ha-Nasi’s Antheil an unserer Mischnah (Monatsschr. 1872, pp. 161-178, 218-235).—Also: Der Einfluss anderer Tannaiten auf B. Jehuda Hanassi’s Halachah-Feststellung (Monatsschr. 1873, pp. 321 ff., 361 ff.).
HAMBURGER, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, Abth. ii. 1883, pp. 789-798 (art. “Mischna”).
On the scholars quoted and referred to in the Mishna, the “doctores Misnici,” see Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 351-379 (§ 25, IV.).
GEIGER, Einiges über Plan und Anordnung der Mischna (Geiger’s Wissenschaftl. Zeitschrift für jüdische Theologie, Bd. ii. 1836, pp. 474-492).
COHN, Aufeinanderfolge der Mischnaordnungen (Geiger’s Jüdische Zeitschr. für Wissensch. und Leben, Bd. iv. 1866, pp. 126-140).
LANDSBERG, Plan und System in der Aufeinanderfolge der einzelnen Mischna’s (Monatsschr. 1873, pp. 208-215).
DERENBOURG, Les sections et les traités de la Mischnah (Revue des études juives, t. iii. 1881, pp. 205-210).
On the various series of tracts in some of the principal manuscripts and editions, see the tabulated list by Strack in Herzog’s Real-Encyclop. 2 Aufl. xviii. 302-304.
DÜNNER, Einiges über Ursprung und Bedeutung des Tractates Edajoth (Monatssch. 1871, pp. 33-42, 59-77).
JELLINEK, Die Composition der Pirke Aboth (Füret’s Literaturblatt des Orients, 1849, nos. 31, 34, 35).
FRANKEL, Zum Tractact Aboth (Monatsschr. 1858, pp. 419-430).
BRÜLL, Entstehung und ursprünglicher Inhalt des Tractates Abot (Jahrbb. für jüd. Gesch. und Literatur, vii. 1885, pp. 1-17).
A complete list of the Old Testament passages, quoted in the Mishna, is given by Pinner, Tract. Berachoth, Einl. fol. 21b.
ON THE PALESTINIAN TALMUD
Arguments against the generally accepted opinion that the Jerusalem Talmud had been revised from the Babylonian Talmud, are given in Fürst, Literaturblatt des Orients, 1843, nos. 48-51.
FRANKEL, מבוא הירושלמי, in Hebrew, with the Latin title: Introductio in Talmud Hierosolymitanum. Breslau 1870.—Also: Einiges über die gegenseitigen des Beziehungen des jerusalemischen und babylonischen Talmuds (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums, 1851-1852, pp. 36-40, 70-80).
GEIGER, Die jerusalemische Gemara im Gesammtorganismus der talmud. Lit. (Jüd. Zeitschr. 1870, pp. 278-306).—Also: Der Jerusalem. Talmud im Lichte Geiger’scher Hypothesen (Monatsschr. 1871, pp. 120-137).
WIESNER, Gibe’th Jeruschalaïm. A study on the nature, sources, origin, conclusion, and on the author of the Jerusalem Talmud, edited with critical notes by Smolensky. Vienna 1872.
ON THE TWO TALMUDS GENERALLY
WOLF, Bibliotheca Hebraea, ii. 657-993, iv. 320-456.
WAEHNER, Antiquitates Ebraeorum, de Israeliticae gentis origine fatis, etc., vol. i. pp. 231-584. Göttingen 1742.
BARCLAY, The Talmud, London 1878; containing selected treatises from the Mishna and Gemara, with commentary.
LIGHTFOOT, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae, on Gospels, Acts, Romans, and 1 Corinthians, in Opera Omnia. Francker 1699, vol. ii. pp. 243-742, 783-928.
OORT, The Talmud and the New Testament, reprinted from the Modern Review. London 1883.
DEUTSCH, The Talmud, in Literary Remains. London 1874.
DAVIDSON, article “Talmud” in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, vol. iii. Edinburgh 1862.
PICK, article “Talmud” in M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclop. of Bibl. Theol. and Eccl. Literature, New York 1881, pp. 166-187.
STRACK, article “Thalmud” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, xviii. 297-369; a particularly careful and complete statement of rich and voluminous literature.
JOST, Geschichte der Israeliten seit der Zeit der Makkabäer, Bd. iv. 1824, pp. 222 f., 323-328, nebst dem Excurs “Ueber den Talmud als historische Quelle,” im Anhang, pp. 264-294.
ZUNZ, Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge, pp. 51-55, 94.
PINNER, Compendium des hierosolym. und babyl. Talmud. Berl. 1832.—Also: Einl. in den Talmud, vor seiner Ausgabe und Uebersetz. des Tractates Berachoth.—Also the first twelve sheets of the same, containing Maimonides’ Preface to Seder Seraim (German and Hebrew).
FÜRST, Die literarischen Vorlagen des Talmuds (Literaturbl. des Orients, 1850, n. 1 ff.).—Also: Kultur- und Literaturgesch. der Juden in Asien. 1 Thl. 1849.
FRANKEL, Ueber die Lapidarstyl der talm. Historik (Monatsschr. 1851-1852, pp. 203-220, 403-421).—Also: Beiträge zur Einl. in den Talmud (Monatsschr. 1861, pp. 186-194, 205-212, 258-272).
GRÄTZ, Die talmudische Chronologie (Monatsschr. 1851-1852, pp. 509-521).—Also: Zur Chron. der talm. Zeit (Monatsschr. 1885, pp. 433-453, 481-496).—Also: Gesch. der Juden, iv. 384, 408-412.
PRESSEL, art. “Thalmud” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl., Bd. xv. 1862, pp. 615-664.
JOST, Geschichte des Judenthums, ii. 202-212.
BEDARRIDE, Étude sur le Talmud (142, p. 8). Montpellier 1869.
AUERBACH, Das jüdische Obligationsrecht, Bd. i. 1870.—Gives in the very full introduction, especially pp. 62-114, a history of the development of the Talmud.
BRÜLL, Die Entstehungsgeschichte des babylonischen Talmuds als Schriftwerkes (Jahrbb. für jüd. Gesch. und Literatur, ii. 1876, pp. 1-123).
DERENBOURG, art. “Talmud” in Lichtenberger’s Encyclopédie des sciences religieuses, t. xii. pp. 1009-1038.
HAMBURGER, Real-Encyclop. für Bibel und Talmud, Abth. ii. (1883) art “Talmud, Talmudlehrer, Talmudschulen” (pp. 1155-1164), and various articles on individual teachers.
WEISS, Zur Geschichte der jüd. Tradition, iii. 1883
BLOCH, Einblicke in die Geschickte der Entstehung der talmudischen Literatur, Vienna 1884 (see also: Brüll’s Jahrbb. für jüd. Gesch. und Literatur, vii. 1885, pp. 101-106).
In the editions of the Babylonian Talmud, in vol. ix., at the close of the fourth Seder, we meet with several pieces which do not belong to the codex, but in part at least reach back to the Talmudic age:—
(a) The Aboth derabbi Nathan, an expansion of the Pirke Aboth, with many stories about the life of the Sage and other Haggadic legends. Its present form was given it first in post-Talmudic times.
A recension of this tract, diverging from the usually printed text, has been edited by Taussig, ניה שלום, Neweh Shalom; 1st part, containing Aboth di R. Nathan, is a recension differing from the printed text, Seder Tannaim w’Amoraim and Varianten or Pirke Aboth, from manuscripts in the Royal Library at Munich, edited and annotated, Munich 1872.—Both recensions are given by Schechter, Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, hujus libri recensiones duas collatis variis apud bibliothecas et publicas et privatas codicibus edidit, Vienna 1887.—A Latin translation of the common text is given in Tractatus de patribus: Rabbi Nathane auctore, in linguam Latinum translatus opera Francisci Taileri, London 1654.—Compare generally: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, ii. 855-857.—Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, p. 108 f.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, iii. p. 19 f.—Zedner, Catalogue of British Museum, p. 748.
(b) The so-called small tracts: on these compare Jost, Geschichte des Judenthums, ii. 237 ff.; Zedner, Catalogue, p. 748 f.; Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclop. xviii. 328.
1. Sopherim, on the writing of the roll of the law, and the various exercises of the Synagogue. Belonging to post-Talmudic times.
Separate edition: Masechet Soferim. Der talmudische Tractat der Schreiber, nach Handschriften herausgegeben und commentirt von Joel Müller, Leipzig 1878. Compare generally: Zedner, Catalogue, p. 749; Zunz, Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge, p. 96 f.; Hamburger, Real-Enc. Supplem. p. 104.
2. Ebel rabbathi, or euphemistically Semachoth, not Simchoth, on the treatment of corpses, and on the customs observed in reference to the dead. It is quoted in the Talmud. Zunz, p. 90. Brüll, however, contests the idea that the tract cited in the Talmud is identical with the one that has come down to us. See Hamburger, Supplement, pp. 51-53.
3. Kalla, on marital intercourse and on chastity in general. According to Zunz, p. 89 f., it is probably older than the Jerusalem Talmud.
4. Derek erez rabba, on social duties, Zunz, p. 110 f.; Hamburger, Supplement, p. 50 f.
5. Derek erez suta, Precepts for Scholars, Zunz, pp. 110-112; Hamburger, Supplement, p. 50 f. Separate edition: Der talmudische Tractat Derech Erez Sutta nach Hand-schriften und seltenen Ausgaben mit Parallelstellen und Varianten, kritisch bearbeitet, übersetzt und erläutert von Abr. Tawrogi, Königsberg 1885.
6. Perek schalom, on peace-making, Zunz, pp. 110-112.
Seven similar small tracts have been recently published by Raphael Kirchheim, under the title שבע מסכתות קטנות ירושלמיות, Septem libri Talmudici parvi Hierosolymitani, Frankfort 1851. These are the following:—1. Massecheth Sepher Thora; 2. M. Mesusa; 3. M. Tephillin; 4. M. Zizith; 5. M. Abadim; 6. M. Kuthim; 7. M. Gerim.—The sixth tract was published separately, with a commentary, under the title: כרמי שמרון, Introductio in librum Talm. de Samaritanis, Frankfort 1851.—On the tract Gerim, which was earlier recognised, see Zunz, p. 90. It is of later date than the Talmud.—On all the seven, see Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie, Supplementalband, p. 95, article “Kleine Tractate;” Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, xviii. p. 328 f.
II. The Midrashim
In the Mishna and the two Talmuds the Jewish law, the Halacha, is codified in systematic order. Another class of rabbinical literary works attaches itself closely to the Scripture text, commenting upon it step by step. These commentaries or Midrashim, מִדְרָשִׁים, are partly of Halachic, partly of Haggadic contents. In the older ones, Mechilta, Siphra, Siphre, the Halacha predominates; the more recent ones, Rabboth and those following it, are almost exclusively Haggadic. The former, in respect of age and contents, stand in very close relation to the Mishna; the latter belong to a later period, and are not the product of juristic discussion, but the residuum of practical lectures delivered in the synagogue. The following three works therefore form a group by themselves:—
1. Mechilta, מכילתא, on a portion of Exodus.
2. Siphra, ספרא, on Leviticus.
3. Siphre or Siphri, ספרי, on Numbers and Deuteronomy.
All the three were frequently made use of in the Talmud; Siphra and Siphre being also expressly quoted (Zunz, Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge, 46, 48; on Mechilta, see Geiger’s Zeitschr. 1866, p. 125). In their original form they date back to the second century after Christ, but were revised and altered in later times. The Mechilta is ascribed to R. Ishmael (see on him, Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 373, 374). This opinion, however, is based simply on the fact that in Mechilta, as well as in Siphre, sayings of R. Ishmael and those of his school are very frequently quoted. The theory of Geiger is extremely problematical, that the original form of the Mechilta and Siphre represented an older Halachic tendency, which had already disappeared from the Mishna, Siphra, and Tosephta.—The Haggada is only feebly represented in Siphra, more strongly in Mechilta, and in Siphre “there are considerable passages almost exclusively Haggadic, which comprise at least three-seventh parts of the whole work” (Zunz, Die gott. Vorträge, p. 84 f.).—The language of these, as well as of the other Midrashim, is Hebrew.
On the older editions of these three Midrashim, see Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, ii. 1349-1352, 1387-1389; iv. 1025, 1030 f.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. 76 f., iii. 125, 126.—Steinschneider, Catalogue librorum Hebr. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, Berol. 1852-1860, col. 597 sq., 627 sq.—Zedner, Catalogue of the Hebrew Books in the Library of the British Museum, 1867, pp. 515 f., 699 f.—More recent editions are the following:—
מכילתא. Mechilta. Der älteste halachische und hagadische Commentar zum zweiten Buch Moses. Krit. bearbeitet von J. H. Weiss, Vienna 1865.
ספר מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל על ספר שמות וכו׳, Mechilta de Rabbi Ishmael, the oldest Halachic and Haggadic Midrash on Exodus. Edited after the oldest printed editions, with critical note, explanations, indices, and introduction by M. Friedmann, Vienna 1870 (reviewed in Monatsschr. 1870, pp. 278-284).
ספרא דבי רב הוא ספר תורת כהנים וכו׳, with commentary (“Hatora vehamitva”), Bucharest 1860.
ספרא דבי רב הוא ספר תורת כהנים וכו׳, also under the title: Sifra, Barajtha zum Leviticus, mit dem Commentar des Abraham ben David, etc., ed. by Weiss, Vienna 1862.
ספרי. Sifré debé Rab, der älteste halachische und hagadische Midrasch zu Numeri und Deuteronomium, ed. by Friedmann, Vienna 1864.
A Latin translation of the Mechilta is given in Ugolini Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrum, vol. xiv. Also a Latin translation of Siphra in the same volume, and of Siphre in vol. xv.
On the three above-named Midrashim generally, compare: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, ii. 1349 sqq., 1387 sqq.; iii. 1202, 1209; iv. 1025, 1030 sq.—Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, pp. 46-48, 84 f.—Frankel, Hodegetica in Mischnam, p. 307 sqq.—Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 393-395.—Joel, Notizen zum Buche Daniel. Etwas über die Bücher Sifra und Sifre, Breslau 1873.—Weber, System der altsynag. palästinischen Theologie, 1880, p. xix. f.—Strack, art. “Midrash” in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, ix. 1881, p. 752 f.—Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, ii. pp. 721-724, 1166 ff., articles Mechilta and Talmud. Schriften.—Schiller-Szinessy, article “Mishnah” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. xvi. 1883, p. 507 f.—Hoffmann, Bemerkungen zur Kritik der Mischna (Magazin für die Wissenschaft des Judenthums, xi. 1884, pp. 17-30).
On Mechilta and Siphre: Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, pp. 434-450.—Also: Jüd. Zeitschr. für Wissensch. und Leben, 1866, pp. 96-126, and for 1871, pp. 8-30.—Pick, Text-Varianten aus Mechilta und Sifre (Zeitschr. für die alttest. Wissensch. 1886, pp. 101-121).
On Mechilta: Frankel, Monatsschrift für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Jude. 1853, pp. 388-398; 1854, pp. 149-158, 191-196.
On Siphra: Frankel, Monatsschrift, 1854, pp. 387-392, 453-461. Geiger, Jüd. Zeitschr. xi. 1875, pp. 50-60.
Besides Siphre, there is yet another Midrash, on Numbers, the so-called second or small Siphre, Siphre suta, סיפרי זוטא, which is known only from repeated quotations given from it in Yalkut and other Midrashic works. It seems also to have belonged to the Tannaite period. See in regard to it: Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge, p. 48; Brüll, Der kleine Sifre, in the Jubelschrift zum siebzigsten Geburtstage des Prof. Dr. H. Grätz, Breslau 1887, pp. 179-193.
The following Midrashim contain almost nothing but Haggada:—
4. Rabboth, רבות, or Midrash Rabboth, מדרש רבות.
This is made up of a collection of Midrashim on the Pentateuch and the five Megilloth (the Song, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther), which took their rise in very different times, but were subsequently gathered together as one whole under the above name.
(a) Bereshith Rabba, on Genesis. According to Zunz, it was compiled in Palestine during the sixth century. The last five chapters on Genesis 47:28, and what follows, hence from the opening words of the passage וַיְחִי, called also Vaiechi rabba, are certainly of later date; according to Zunz, p. 255 f., of the eleventh or twelfth century. Compare generally: Zunz, pp. 174-179, 254-256. Lerner, Anlage des Bereschith rabba und seine Quellen, in Mag. für die Wiss. des Jud. book vii. 1880, and book viii. 1881. Wünsche, Der Midrash Bereschit Rabba, in’s Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1881.
(b) Shemoth Rabba, on Exodus, owes its origin to the same pen as Vaiechi rabba, and so belongs to the eleventh or twelfth century. Zunz, pp. 256-258. Wünsche, Der Midrash Shemoth Rabba, in’s Deutsche, übertragen, Leipzig 1882.
(c) Vayyikra Rabba, on Leviticus, was compiled, according to Zunz, in Palestine, somewhere about the middle of the seventh century. Zunz, pp. 181-184. Wünsche, Der Midrash Wajikra Rabba, in’s Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1884.
(d) Bamidbar Rabba, on Numbers, written, according to Zunz, by two different authors, both of whom made use of Pesikta, Tanchuma, Pesikta Rabbathi, and the works of still later Rabbis. Zunz places the second author in the twelfth century. Compare generally: Zunz, pp. 258-262. Wünsche, Der Midrash Bemidbar Rabba, in’s Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1885.
(e) Debarim Rabba, on Deuteronomy, compiled, according to Zunz, about A.D. 900. Zunz, pp. 251-253. Wünsche, Der Midrash Debarim Rabba, in’s Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1882.
(f) Shir Hashirim Rabba, on the Song, also called Agadath Chasith, from the words with which it opens. It belongs to the later Midrashim, but is “presumably older than the Pesikta Rabbathi.” Zunz, p. 263 ff. Chodowski, Observationes criticae in Midrash Shir Hashirim secundum cod. Monac. 50 Orient, Halle 1877. Wünsche, Der Midrash Shir ha-Schirim, in’s Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1880.
(g) Midrash Ruth, somewhere about the same date as the preceding. Zunz, p. 265. Wünsche, Der Midrash Ruth Rabba, in’s Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1883.
(h) Midrash Echa, on Lamentations, also called Echa Rabbathi. It was compiled, according to Zunz, in Palestine, in the second half of the seventh century. Zunz, pp. 179-181. J. Abrahams, The Sources of the Midrash Echah Rabbah, Leipzig Dissertation, 1881. Wünsche, Der Midrash Echa, Rabbati, in’s Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1881.
(i) Midrash Koheleth, or Koheleth Rabba, belonging to somewhere about the same time as the Midrashim on the Song and on Ruth. Zunz, p. 265 f. Wünsche, Der Midrash Koheleth, in’s Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1880.
(k) Midrash Esther, or Hagadath Megilla, makes use of, according to Zunz, p. 151, Josippon, written about A.D. 940, and first quoted in the thirteenth century. Zunz, p. 264 f. Wünsche, Der Midrash zum Buche Esther, in’s Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1881.—Originally, according to Jellinek and Buber, closely connected with this Midrash, is the “Midrash Abba Gorion,” edited by Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrash, i. 1853, pp. 1-18; and by Buber, Sammlung agadischer Commentare zum Buche Esther, Wilna 1886. Compare also Brüll, Jahrbb. für jüd. Gesch. und Literatur, viii. 1887, pp. 148-154, who expresses himself opposed to Jellinek and Buber’s view.
On the entire Rabboth and its editions, compare generally: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, ii. 1423-1427, iii. 1215, iv. 1032, 1058.—Steinschneider, Catalogus libr. Hebr. in Bibliothecum Bodleian., col. 589-594.—Zedner, Catalogue of Hebrew Books in the Library of the British Museum, pp. 539-542.—Strack, art. “Midrash” in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, ix. 1881, pp. 753-755.—Schiller-Szinessy, art. “Midrash” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. xvi. 1883, p. 285 f.—Theodor, Die Midraschim zum Pentateuch und der dreijährige palästinensische Cyclus (Monat. 1885, 1886, 1887), seeks to show that the chapter division rests on the three years’ Palestinian cycle.—Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, Supplementalband, pp. 107-111, art. “Midrash Rabba.”—Editions with Hebrew commentaries are numerous in recent times. For example, that of Warsaw 1874, of Wilna 1878.
5. Pesikta, פסיקתא.
The Pesikta does not treat of a whole biblical book, but of the biblical lessons for the feast days and the more important Sabbaths of the entire year, taking up sometimes the readings of the day from the Pentateuch and sometimes those from the prophets (Zunz, p. 190). Since the work is frequently quoted from in the later literature, Zunz made the attempt to reconstruct the text without having a copy of the work within reach, and succeeded in producing what in all essential points agrees with the original. The complete text was first edited by Buber in A.D. 1868.—Owing to its manifold resemblances to Bereshith Rabba, Vayyikra Rabba, and Echa Rabbathi, Zunz, p. 195, considered that the text of the Pesikta must be regarded as dependent on these, and hence set down the time of its composition at A.D. 700. So also Geiger, Weiss, and Hamburger. On the contrary, Buber, Berliner, and Theodor regard the Pesikta as older than those Midrashim.—It must have originally begun with the reading for the New Year (Zunz, p. 191; Geiger, Zeitschrift for 1869, p. 191); whereas in the manuscripts which Buber follows it begins with the Feast of Dedication.
Edition: פסיקתא, Pesikta. Die älteste Hagada, redigirt in Palästina von Rab Kahana. Herausgegeben nach einer in Zefath vorgefundenen und in Aegypten copirten Handschrift durch den Verein Mekize Nirdamim. Mit kritischen Bemerkungen, Verbesserungen und Vergleichungen der Lesearten anderer drei Handschriften in Oxford, Parma und Fez, nebst einer ausführlichen Einleitung von Salomon Buber, Lyk 1868. German translation: Wünsche, Pesikta des Rab Kahana, nach der Buber’schen Textausgabe in’s Deutsche übertragen, Leipzig 1885.
Compare generally: Zunz, pp. 185-226.—Carmoly, Pesikta (Monatsschrift, 1854, pp. 59-65).—Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, iv. 495 ff.—Weber, System der altsynagog. paläst. Theol. p. xxii.—Strack, article “Midrash” in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, ix. 1881, p. 755 f.—Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, Supplementalband, p. 117 ff., art. “Pesikta.”
Besides this Pesikta de Rab Kahana, or Pesikta simply, there are other two works which bear that name:—
(a) Pesikta Rabbathi, which, like the older Pesikta, treats of the biblical readings for certain feast days and Sabbaths of the Jewish year. The date of its origin is the second half of the ninth century. Zunz, p. 244.
(b) Pesikta Sutarta, a Midrash on the Pentateuch and the five Megilloth, by R. Tobia ben Elieser of Mainz, in the beginning of the twelfth century. It was quite a mistake to give to this book the name of Pesikta, for it has nothing at all in common with the other two books that bear this name. Compare Zunz, pp. 293-295. A Latin translation is given in Ugolini’s Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrarum, vols. xv. and xvi.
On these two works and their editions see: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, i. 391, 720 f., iv. 1031.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. 160, iii. 427.—Steinschneider, Catalog. libr. Hebr. in Biblioth. Bodl., col. 631 sq., 2674 sq.—Zedner, Catalogue of Hebrew Books in Library of British Museum, pp. 633, 758.—Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, ix. 756. Hamburger, Real-Encyclop., Supplement, pp. 119-122, art. “Pesikta.”
A “New Pesikta,” which is closely related to the Pesikta Rabbathi, but shorter and more popular in style than it, has been edited by Jellinek in his Bet ha-Midrash, vol. vi. 1877, pp. 36-70.
6. Pirke derabbi Elieser, פרקי דר׳ אליעזר, or Baraytha derabbi Elieser, ברייתא דר׳ אליעזר.
A Haggadic work, in fifty-four chapters, which follows in all essential respects the course of the pentateuchal history. It goes into specially minute details about the creation and the first man, and then again it lingers over the story of the patriarchs and the Mosaic age.—It was written at the earliest not before the eighth century (Zunz, p. 277).
Compare: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, i. 173 sq., iii. 110, iv. 1032.—Zunz, pp. 271-277.—Sachs, Bemerkungen über das gegenseitige Verhältniss der Beraita des Samuel und der Pirke de R. Eliesar (Monatsschr. 1851-1852, pp. 277-282).—Strack and Hamburger are referred to in the last note. Pinner gives an outline of its contents in the introduction to his translation of the tract Berachoth (1842).—A list of editions, etc., is given by Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, i. 232.—Steinschneider, Catalogus, col. 633 sq.—Zedner, Catalogue, p. 221.—A Latin translation is given by Vorstius, Capitula R. Elieser ex Hebraeo in Latinum translata, Lugd. Bat. 1644.—Proof that the Barajtha derabbi Elieser is different from the Barajtha R. Samuel is given by Zunz in Steinschneider’s Hebr. Bibliographie, vol. v. 1862, p. 15 f.
7. Tanchuma, תנחומא, or Yelamdenu, ילמדנו.
A Midrash on the Pentateuch. Zunz fixes the date of its composition in the first half of the ninth century, and assumes that it had its origin in Europe, perhaps in Greece or in the south of Italy. It obtained the name Yelamdenu from its frequent use of the formula: “It is taught us by our Master”—Yelamdenu rabbenu.—Zunz has proved, pp. 226-229, that both of these designations, Yelamdenu and Tanchuma, were originally applied to one and the same Midrash. But the author of Yalkut had before him two different recensions, which he distinguished as Yelamdenu and Tanchuma (Zunz, p. 229 f.). And the common printed text is also distinguished from both of these as a comparatively recent abbreviation of Tanchuma; so that we have in all no less than three recensions of the text of this Midrash. Buber edited the original text of Tanchuma in 1885. Up to this time, however, we have no complete text of Yelamdenu. In opposition to Buber’s opinion, that the original Tanchuma is older than Bereshith Rabba, Pesikta, or the Babylonian Talmud, Neubauer has written in the Revue des études juives, xiii. 225 sq., and Brüll in the Jahrbb. für jüd. Geschichte und Literatur, viii. 121 ff. Tanchuma, however, is undoubtedly the oldest Haggadic Midrash on the whole Pentateuch (Zunz, p. 233).
On the common printed text and its editions: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, i. 1159 sq., iii. 1166 sq., iv. 1035.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, iii. 409.—Steinschneider, Catalogus, col. 596 sq.—Zedner, Catalogue, p. 543.—Recent editions have been issued at Stettin 1864, at Warsaw 1875.
Midrasch Tanchuma. Ein agadischer Commentar zum Pentateuch von Rabbi Tanchuma ben Rabbi Abba. Zum ersten Male nach Handschriften aus den Bibliotheken zu Oxford, Rom, Parma und München herausgegeben etc. von Salomon Buber, 3 vols., Wilna 1885.
Fragments from Yelamdenu and Tanchuma are given in Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrash, vol. vi. 1877, pp. 79-105. Fragments of Yelamdenu in Neubauer, Le midrasch Tanchuma et extraits du Yélamdénu et de petits midraschim (Revue des études juives, xiii. 1886, pp. 224-238; xiv. 1887, pp. 92-113).
For a general information reference may be made to the following: Zunz, pp. 226-238.—Weber, System der Altsynagogalen Palästinischen Theologie, xxiv. f.—Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, ix. 757 f.—Theodor, Buberʾs Tanchuma (Monatsschr. 1885, pp. 35-42, 422-431).—Die Midraschim, zum Pentateuch und der dreijährige palästinensische Cyclus (Monatsschr. 1885, 1886, 1887).—Bacher, Zu Buber’s Tanchuma-Ausgabe (Monatsschr. 1885, pp. 551-554).—Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, Supplementalband, p. 154 f., art. “Tanchuma.”—Brüll, Jahrbb. für jüd. Gesch. 1887, pp. 121-144.
8. Yalkut Shimoni, ילקוט שמעוני (from לקט, to collect).
This is an immense Midrashic compilation on the whole Hebrew Bible, in which, after the style of the patristic Catenae, explanations of each separate passage are put down in order, collected from the older works. According to Zunz, p. 299 f., the work was composed in the first half of the thirteenth century.—A certain Rabbi Simeon Haddarshan is named as the compiler, whose native place or residence is said to have been Frankfurt-on-the-Main. Zunz supposes that he was Simeon Kara, who, in the beginning of the thirteenth century, lived in South Germany.
Compare: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, i. 1129 sq., iii. 1138.—Zunz, pp. 295-303.—Rapoport in Kerem Chemed (written in Hebrew), vii. 4 ff.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, iii. 327 sq.—Steinschneider, Catalogus, col. 2600-2604.—Zedner, Catalogue, p. 702.—Strack in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, ix. 738.—Recent edition, Warsaw 1876-1877.
III. Targums
The Targums or Aramaic translations of the Old Testament also belong to the Rabbinical Literature, inasmuch as expression is given in them likewise to the traditional understanding of the Scripture text. This is especially true of those which are not strictly literal, but rather free paraphrastic renderings of the original.—We mention here only the Targums on the Pentateuch and on the Prophets, for the Targums on the Sacred Writings or Kethubim can scarcely come under consideration by us owing to their late origin.
1. ONKELOS ON THE PENTATEUCH. The few notices about the person of Onkelos that are to be found in the Talmud describe him sometimes as a scholar and friend of the elder Gamaliel, according to which he must have lived about the middle of the first century after Christ, sometimes as a contemporary of R. Elieser and R. Joshua, according to which he must have lived in the first half of the second century. They agree only in this one particular, that he was a proselyte.[65] The Chaldaic translation of the Pentateuch which has been ascribed to him is distinguished from all other Targums by its almost painful literalness.[66] Only in a few, and those mostly poetic, passages (Genesis 49; Numbers 24; Deuteronomy 32-33), does it incline towards the Haggada by fanciful exposition.[67] In other places departures from the text have been occasioned simply by a desire to avoid anthropomorphisms and expressions or modes of representation that seemed to be unworthy of God.[68] The dialect of Onkelos is, according to Geiger[69] and Frankel,[70] the East Aramaic or Babylonian. Nöldeke in his earlier writings[71] described it as “a somewhat later development of the Palestinian Aramaic already represented in some of the books of the Old Testament;” but latterly he has adopted the more definite view, that Onkelos is a Palestinian production re-edited in Babylon, “in general conformed in respect of language to the Old Palestinian dialect, but in respect of particular phrases very decidedly coloured by the dialect of Babylon.”[72] At a very early period Onkelos secured a great reputation. The Babylonian Talmud and the Midrashim frequently quote passages from it.[73] And in later times, indeed, it had an entire Masora devoted to itself.[74] It has been often printed, e.g. in the rabbinical Bibles of Bomberg and Buxtorf, and in the London Polyglott. Berliner has issued a critical edition.[75]
[65] See De Wette, Introduction to the Old Testament, Boston 1843, § 58. Frankel, Zu dem Targum der Propheten, p. 4.
[66] Nöldeke, Die alttestamentl. Literatur, p. 257 f.
[67] Zunz, Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge, p. 62. Specimens of translation in Volck, art. “Thargumim” in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, xv. 366-369. Hävernick, Introduction to the Old Testament, Edin. 1852, p. 332.
[68] Volck in Herzog, p. 369.—Langen, Das Judenthum in Palästina, pp. 209 ff., 268 ff.—Maybaum, Die Anthropomorphien und Anthropopathien bei Onkelos, etc. Breslau 1870.—Geiger, Jüd. Zeitschr. 1871, pp. 96-102.
[69] Geiger’s Jüdische Zeitschrift, 1871, p. 93.
[70] Zu dem Targum der Propheten, p. 5 f.
[71] Die alttestamentl. Literatur, p. 257.
[72] Lit. Centralbl. 1877, p. 305.
[73] See the passages in Zunz, Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge, p. 63 f.
[74] Compare Bleek, Introduction to the Old Testament, § 350, London 1869, vol. ii. p. 440 f.—Berliner, Die Massorah zum Targum Onkelos. Leipzig 1877.
[75] Targum Onkelos. Herausgegeben und erläutert von A. Berliner, vol. i. text; vol. ii. notes, introduction, and index. Berlin 1884. Specimens of the text with Babylonian system of points are given in Merx, Chrestomathia targumica, 1888.
2. JONATHAN ON THE PROPHETS. Jonathan ben Uzziel is said to have been a scholar of Hillel, and must therefore have lived during the first decades of the Christian era.[76] The Targum ascribed to him embraces all the Prophets, Nebiim, that is, the historical books and the prophets properly so called. It is distinguished from the Targum of Onkelos by its decidedly more paraphrastic character. “Even in the case of the historical books Jonathan often acts the part of an expositor; in the case of the prophetical books again, such a style of exposition is uninterruptedly pursued as makes it really a Haggadic work.”[77] In respect of dialect, what was said above of Onkelos is equally applicable here. Jonathan also soon attained a high reputation, and is very frequently quoted in the Talmud and Midrashim.[78] Like Onkelos, it has been often printed; e.g. in the rabbinical Bibles of Bomberg and Buxtorf, and in the London Polyglott. Lagarde issued a small critical edition on the basis of a codex Reuchlinianus.[79]
[76] See the passages in De Wette, Introduction to the Old Testament, § 58. Volck, p. 369.
[77] Zunz, pp. 62, 63. On the character of the translation and paraphrase of Jonathan, see Bleek, Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 441, 442. Keil, Introduction, vol. ii. p. 260. Hävernick, Introduction to the Old Testament, Edin. 1852, p. 533. Frankel, Zu dem Targum der Propheten, pp. 13-40.
[78] See the passages in Zunz, p. 63.
[79] Prophetae Chaldaice. Paulus de Lagarde e fide codicis Reuchliniani edidit. Lips. 1872.—Specimens of the text with Babylonian pointing in Merx, Chrestomathia targumica, 1888.
According to the traditional views which we have thus reported, the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan were written somewhere about the middle of the first century after Christ. Zunz and many recent scholars still are inclined to set them down to that period. But this opinion has been ably contested, especially by Geiger. A series of circumstances strongly supports the idea that both works must have been wrought up in Babylon, where a rabbinical school had been first established during the third century after Christ. Geiger therefore assumes that both Targums were composed, or rather revised and edited, in Babylon not before the fourth century.[80] Frankel agrees with him in all essential points, only putting Onkelos a little earlier, as belonging to the third century.[81] This latter opinion might be supported by the fact that Onkelos seems to have been made use of by Jonathan.[82] The idea that the Targum on the Prophets was edited in the fourth century is also confirmed by tradition, for the Babylonian Talmud quotes it as the “Targum of R. Joseph,” a Babylonian teacher of the fourth century.[83] But as to Onkelos, nothing whatever is known of his existence save that he composed the Targum that is named after him. For the notice which the Babylonian Talmud (Megilla 3a) gives of Onkelos and his Chaldaean translation of the Pentateuch, is to be found in the parallel passage in the Jerusalem Talmud attached to the name of Aquila and his Greek translation (Jer. Megilla i. 9). And the latter is undoubtedly the original form of the statement. Elsewhere, too, the names אונקלוס and עקיִלס are interchanged.[84] It seems therefore that in Babylon the old and correct statement about a translation of the Pentateuch by the proselyte Aquila was erroneously attached to the anonymous Chaldaean Targum, and that the name Onkelos therefore is merely a corruption of the name Aquila.[85] But even if the two Targums were first issued during the third and fourth centuries, it cannot be doubted that they are based upon earlier works, and only form the conclusion of a process that had been going on for several centuries. Even the Mishna speaks of Chaldee translations of the Bible.[86] The New Testament is sometimes found in its rendering of Old Testament passages in striking agreement with the Targums (e.g. in Ephesians 4:8),—a clear proof that the latter in respect of their materials reached back to the Apostolic age. Also express mention is made of a Targum on Job in the period preceding the overthrow of the temple.[87] Fragments even from the time of John Hyrcanus are preserved in our Targums.[88] From all this it is evident that in our Targums materials are made use of which had been gradually amassed during many generations, and that the works which we now possess were preceded by earlier written treatises. The linguistic character of the Targums, as Nöldeke has quite correctly maintained, testifies to the history of their origin. For in spite of their being revised and issued in Babylon, the Palestinian character of their language is unquestionable.
[80] Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, 1857, p. 164.
[81] Zu dem Targum der Propheten, pp. 8-11.
[82] Zunz, p. 63. De Wette, § 58.
[83] Frankel, Zu dem Targum der Propheten, p. 10.
[84] De Wette, Introduction to the Old Testament, § 58.
[85] Bleek, Introduction to the Old Testament, vol. ii. p. 441. Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, iii. 61-64. Berliner, Targum Onkelos, ii. 98.
[86] Yadayim iv. 5.
[87] Zunz, Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge, p. 61 f.
[88] Nöldeke, Die alttestamentl. Literatur, p. 256.
3. PSEUDO-JONATHAN AND JERUSALMI ON THE PENTATEUCH. Besides Onkelos, there are other two Targums on the Pentateuch, one of which contains the whole of the Pentateuch, while the other comprises only separate verses, and gives often only renderings of isolated words. The former is ascribed to Jonathan ben Uzziel; the latter is designated by the editors “Targum Jerusalmi.” That the former cannot have been written by the author of the Targum on the Prophets has long been generally admitted. But Zunz[89] has also shown that Pseudo-Jonathan and Jerusalmi are only two different recensions of one and the same Targum; that both are quoted by older authorities (Aruch and Elia) under the name “Targum Jerusalmi;” and that even the recension now existing only as a fragment had been before the older authors in its complete form. The last statement may be questioned. Geiger thinks that the fragmentary Targum was from the beginning only “a collection of detached glosses,” not probably on the Pseudo-Jonathan but on the primary recension.[90] According to Seligsohn and Volck, the Jerusalmi was “not a fragment of what had originally been a complete paraphrase, but a Haggadic supplement and a collection of marginal glosses and various readings on Onkelos; but Pseudo-Jonathan, on this basis and, upon the whole, with the same tendency, composed a later redaction of the Jerusalmi.”[91] Bacher regards the fragmentary Targum as a collection of portions from the oldest Palestinian Targum. On the basis of the latter arose on the one side Onkelos, on the other side Pseudo-Jonathan, who already made use of Onkelos.[92] At any rate, Pseudo-Jonathan and Jerusalmi are most intimately related to one another, and might best be designated as Jerusalmi I. and II. The attributing to Jonathan of the more complete issue is probably due to an erroneous interpretation of the abbreviation תי, which means תַּרְנּוּם יְרוּשַׁלְמִי.[93] This Jerusalem Targum transmitted in its twofold recension is related to the Targum of Onkelos as “a midrash for the simple explanation of words. Onkelos is only sometimes an expositor; the Jerusalemite is only sometimes a translator” (Zunz, p. 72). “His language is a Palestinian dialect of the Aramaic; hence we must pitch upon Syria or Palestine as its author’s native country; and this assumption is confirmed by the oldest examples we have of the way in which the work was referred to—תַּרְנּוּם אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל”[94] (Zunz, p. 73). As to the date, Pseudo-Jonathan, seeing that in his work there occur the names of a wife and daughter of Mohammed, cannot have composed it before the seventh or eighth century.[95] But besides those later portions it contains, like the other Targums, and perhaps even to a greater extent than these, fragments from a very early period, so that it may justly be styled “a thesaurus of views from various centuries.”[96]—Both recensions have often been printed, as, e.g., in the London Polyglott.
[89] Zunz, Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge, pp. 66-72.
[90] Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, p. 455.
[91] Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, xv. 372.
[92] Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenland. Gesellsch. 1874, p. 60.
[93] Zunz, p. 71.
[94] Zunz, p. 66. Geiger, Urschrift, p. 166.
[95] Zunz, pp. 75-77. Geiger, p. 165. Nöldeke, Die alttestamentliche Literatur, p. 259.
[96] Nöldeke, Die alttestamentliche Literatur, p. 259.
For the literature on the Targums and their editions, see: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, ii. 1189 sqq.—Le Long, Bibliotheca sacra, ed. Masch, Part ii. vol. i. 1781, pp. 23-49.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. 105-107, iii. 48.—Steinschneider, Catalogus libr. hebr. in Bibliothec. Bodlei. col. 165-174.—Berliner, Targum Onkelos, 1884, ii. 175-200.—Volck in Herzog, Real-Encyclopaedie, xv. 1885, pp. 375-377.
ON THE TARGUMS GENERALLY
HÄVERNICK, A General Historico-Critical Introduction to the Old Testament, translated by Dr. Lindsay Alexander, Edin. 1852, pp. 328-330.
ETHERIDGE, The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch; with the fragments of the Jerusalem Targum: from the Chaldee. 2 vols. London 1862-1865.
DEUTSCH, article “Ancient Versions” in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, American edition, vol. iv. pp. 3395-3424.
DAVIDSON, article “Targum” in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature. Ginsburg: Articles in the same Cyclopaedia on “Onkelos” and “Jonathan.”
DE WETTE, Introduction to the Old Testament, § 58, and corresponding parts of the Introductions of Keil and Bleek.
Targums on Ruth and Jonah, literally translated by O. T. Crane. New York 1888.
ZUNZ, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, 1832, pp. 61-83.
WEBER, System der altsynagogalen Palästinischen Theologie, 1880, pp. xi.-xix.
HELVICUS, De chaldaicis bibliorum paraphrasibus. Giessen 1612.
CARPZOV, Critica sacra V. T. 1728, pp. 430-481. According to Winer, Grammatik des bibl. und targum. Chaldaismus, what more recent works give about the Targums is largely taken from these treatises of Helvicus and Carpzov.
WOLF, Bibliotheca Hebraea, vol. ii. 1135-1191, iv. 730-734.
EICHHORN, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Bd. ii. (4 Aufl. 1823) pp. 1-123.
GFROERER, Das Jahrhundert des Heils (1838), i. 36-59.
FÜRST, Literaturblatt des Orients, 1840, Nos. 44-47.
FRANKEL, Einiges zu den Targumim (Zeitschrift für die religiösen Interessen des Judenthums, 1846, pp. 110-120).
HERZFELD, Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael, Bd. iii. (1857) pp. 61 ff., 551 ff.
GEIGER, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel (1857), pp. 162-167.
VOLCK, art. “Thargumim” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclop. 1 Aufl. xv. (1862) pp. 672-683; 2 Aufl. xv. (1885) pp. 365-377.
LANGEN, Das Judenthums in Palästina (1866), pp. 70-72, 209-218, 268 ff., 418 ff.
NÖLDEKE, Die alttestamentliche Literatur (1868), pp. 255-262.
BÖHL, Forschungen nach einer Volksbibel zur Zeit Jesu (1873), pp. 140-168.
SIEGFRIED, Philo von Alexandria (1875), p. 281 ff.
HAMBURGER, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud.
MERX, Bemerkungen über die Vocalisation der Targume (Abhandlungen und Vorträge des fünften internationalen Orientalisten-Congresses zu Berlin 1881, ii. 1: Abhandlungen und Vorträge der semitischen und afrikanischen Section, Berlin 1882, pp. 142-225).—Also: Johannes Buxtorf’s des Vaters Targumcommentar Babylonia (Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theologie, 1887, pp. 280-299, 462-471; 1888, pp. 41-48).
ON ONKELOS
WINER, De Onkeloso ejusque paraphrasi chaldaica, Lips. 1820.
MAYBAUM, Die Anthropomorphien und Anthropopathien bei Onkelos und den spätern Targumim mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Ausdrücke Memra, Jekara und Schechintha. Breslau 1870.
SINGER, Onkelos und das Verhältniss seines Targums zur Halacha. Berlin 1881.
BERLINER, Targum Onkelos, herausgegeben und erläutert, vol. ii., Notes, Introduction, etc. Berlin 1884.
LUZZATTO, אוהב גר Philoxenus sive de Onkelosi chaldaica Pentateuchi versione (written in Hebrew). Vienna 1830.
RÖDIGER, art. “Onkelos” in Ersch und Gruber’s Allgem. Encyklop. Section iii. Bd. iii. (1832) p. 468 f.
LEVY, Ueber Onkelos und seine Uebersetzung des Pentateuch (in Geiger’s Wissen. Zeitschr. für jüd. Theol. v. 1844, pp. 175-198; continued in Fürst’s Literaturblatt des Orients, 1845, pp. 337 ff., 354 ff.).
ANGER, De Onkelo Chaldaico quem ferunt Pentateuchi paraphraste et quid ei rationis intercedat cum Akila Graeco Veteris Testamenti interprets. 2 Partt. Lips. 1846.
PRESSEL, art. “Onkelos” in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, 1 Aufl. x. (1858) p. 613 f.
SCHRÖNFELDER, Onkelos und Peschittho. Studien über das Alter des Onkelos’schen Targums. München 1869.
GEIGER, Das nach Onkelos benannte babylonische Thargum zum Pentateuch (Jüdische Zeitschr. für Wissensch. und Leben 1871, pp. 85-104).
NEUBÜRGER, Onkelos und die Stoa (Monatsschr. 1875, pp. 566-568; 1874, p. 48).
BACHER, Das gegenseitige Verhältniss der pentateuchischen Targumim (Zeitschr. der DMG. 1874, pp. 59-71).
ON JONATHAN ON THE PROPHETS
KLOSTERMANN, Anzeige von Lagarde’s Ausgabe, in den Stud. und Krit. 1873, pp. 731-767.
FRANKEL, Zu dem Targum der Propheten. Breslau 1872.
BACHER, Kritische Untersuchungen zum Prophetentargum, in Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländ. Gesellsch. xxviii. 1874, pp. 1-72.
CORNILL, Das Targum zu den Propheten, in Zeitschrift für die alttestamentl. Wissenschaft, 1887, pp. 177-202.
KLEIN, Bemerkungen zu Bacher’s “Kritischen Untersuchungen” (Zeitschr. der DMG. xxix. 1875, pp. 157-161).—Bacher, Gegenbemerkungen (in same, p. 319 f.).
ON JONATHAN AND JERUSALMI ON THE PENTATEUCH
WINER, De Jonathanis in Pentateuchum paraphrasi chaldaica. Erlangen 1823.
PETERMANN, De duabus Pentateuchi paraphrasibus chaldaicis. P. I. De indole paraphraseos quae Jonathanis esse dicitur. Berol. 1829.
BÄR, Geist des Jeruschalmi (Pseudo-Jonathan), in Monatsschr. f. G. u. W. des Jude. 1851-1852, pp. 235-242.
SELIGSOHN, De duabus Hierosolymitanis Pentateuchi paraphrasibus. Breslau 1858.
SELIGSOHN UND TRAUB, Ueber den Geist der Uebersetzung des Jonathan ben Usiel zum Pentateuch und die Abfassung des in den Editionen dieser Uebersetzung beigedruckten Targum Jeruschalmi (Monatsschr. 1857, pp. 96-114, 138-149).
GEIGER, Das jerusalemische Thargum zum Pentateuch, in Urschrift, etc., pp. 451-480.
GRONEMANN, Die Jonathan’sche Pentateuch-Uebersetzung in ihrem Verhältnisse zur Halacha. Leipzig 1879.
LAGARDE, Eine vergessene Handschrift des sogenannten Fragmententargums (Nachricht. von der kön. Gesells. d. Wissensch. zu Gött. 1888, pp. 1-3).
IV. Historical Works
Besides the Talmud, Midrashim, and Targums, there are also the following treatises, which ought to be classed among the works belonging to the circle of rabbinical works, inasmuch as they stand related in one way or another to our history. Only the first named, however, can be regarded as of any particular historical value.
1. Megillath Taanith, properly the “Book of the Fasts,” a list of those days on which, owing to some association or another, any joyous event (especially during the period of the Maccabees) could not be celebrated. The observance of such days is already presupposed in Jdt_8:6.[97] Our list is quoted even in the Mishna, Taanith ii. 8, and seems to have been compiled in the first century after Christ. The text is Aramaic; the much later commentary is in Hebrew.—The little tract, which in earlier times was not very highly esteemed, has been found of great historical importance, and much use has been made of it, especially by Derenbourg and Grätz.
[97] Jdt_8:6 : ἐνήστευεν πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς χηρεύσεως αὐτῆς χωρὶς προσαββάτων καὶ σαββάτων καὶ προνουμηνιῶν καὶ νουμηνιῶν καὶ ἑορτῶν καὶ χαρμοσυνῶν οἴκου Ἰσραήλ.
Edition with Latin translation: Meyer, Tractatus de temporibus sacris et festis diebus Hebraeorum, etc. Accedit מנלת volumen de jejunio, Amstelaedami 1724.—Derenbourg in his Histoire de la Palestine (1867), pp. 439-446, gives the Aramaic text with a French translation.—Compare generally: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, i. 68 f., 384 f., ii. 1325 ff., iii. 1195 ff.,iv. 1024.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, i. 9, under Abraham ha-Lewi.—Steinschneider, Catalogus libr. Hebr. in Biblioth. Bodlei. col. 582.—Zedner, Catalogue of the British Museum, p. 517.—Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, pp. 127, 128.—Ewald, History of Israel, vol. v. p. 381, vol. viii. p. 280 sq.—Grätz, Gesch. der Juden, iii. pp. 597-615 (n. 1), and 685 ff. (n. 1).—Wellhausen, Phar. u. Saduc. pp. 56-63.—Schmilg, Ueber Entstehung und historischen Werth des Siegeskalenders “Megillath Taanith,” Leipz. 1874.—Joel Müller, Der Text der Fastenrolle (Monatsschr. 1875, pp. 43-48, 139-144).—Brann, Entstehung und Werth der Megillat Taanit (Monatsschr. 1876, pp. 375 ff., 410 ff., 445 ff.).—Cassel, Kritisches Sendschreiben über die Probebibel; II. Messianische Stellen des Alten Testaments. Angehängt sind Anmerkungen über Megillath Taanith, Berlin 1885.—Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, Supplementalband, pp. 104-107, art. “Megillath Taanith.”
2. Seder olam, also called Seder olam rabba, an exposition of the biblical history from Adam down to the time of Alexander the Great, with some notices also of later times.—It is quoted in the Talmud, and is ascribed to R. Jose ben Chalephta, who lived about the years 130-160 after Christ. This supposition, however, rests simply on the fact that R. Jose is quoted nine times as an authority.
Much more modern, composed at the earliest in the eighth century, is the Seder olam sutta, a genealogical work, which treats first of all of biblical times, and then seeks to give an unbroken list of the princes during the Babylonian exile.
An edition of both, with a Latin translation: Chronicon Hebraeorum majus et minus, latine vertit et commentar. perpet. illustravit J. Meyer. Accedit ejusdem dissertat. 3, Amstelaedami 1699.—Compare generally: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, i. 492-499, iv. 1029 sq.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. 107 sq.—Steinschneider, Catalogus Bodlei. col. 1433-1437.—Zedner, Catalogue of the British Museum, p. 689 sq.—Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, pp. 85, 135-139.—Ewald, History of Israel, vol. i. pp. 200, 209, vol. viii. p. 49.—Fürst, Literaturblatt des Orients, 1846, pp. 547-552.—Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, iv. 200.—Hamburger, Real-Encyclopaedie für Bibel und Talmud, Supplement. p. 132 f.
3. Megillath Antiochus, a short legendary history of the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the conquests of the Asmoneans. It belongs to the post-Talmudic age, and is historically worthless. The original Aramaic text was first printed in the present century. Numerous older editions give a Hebrew translation, which in its manuscript form is still extant.
On the manuscripts of the Aramaic and Hebrew texts, see especially: Curtiss, The Name Maccabee, Leipzig 1876, p. 36 sqq. In addition, consult: Merx, Chrestomathia targumica 1888, p. xvi., which calls attention to two manuscripts of the British Museum (Oriental Manuscripts, 2377, 2212) as giving the Aramaic text with the Babylonian pointing.—Bartolocci in his Bibliotheca rabbinica, i. 388 sqq., gives the Hebrew text with a Latin translation. The Latin translation alone is copied by Fabricius in his Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 1165 sqq.—A modern edition of the Hebrew text: Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch, i. (1853) pp. 142-146.—The Aramaic text was first edited by Filipowski in 1851: The Choice of Pearls … to which is added the Book of Antiochus, published for the first time in Aramaic, Hebrew, and English, by H. Filipowski, London 1851. Also more recently by Jellinek in Bet ha-Midrash, vi. (1877) pp. 4-8.
Compare generally: Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, i. 204 sq., iii. 130.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. 317.—Steinschneider, Catalogus libr. hebr. Bodlei. col. 206 sq.—Zedner, Catalogue of British Museum, p. 51.—Zunz, p. 134.—Ewald, History of Israel, vol. v. p. 287 sq.
4. Josippon or Joseph ben Gorion. Under this name there exists, written in Hebrew, a history of the Jewish people from Adam down to the destruction of the temple by Titus. The author wishes to pass himself off for the ancient Josephus, but calls himself erroneously Joseph son of Gorion, and not infrequently departs so widely from the rôle which he had assumed as even expressly to quote from the true Josephus (Zunz, p. 150). The latter is, indeed, abundantly made use of, but in a very free and eclectic manner, while much purely legendary material is introduced from other sources. It would seem that this author had before him, not the Greek text, but a Latin translation of Josephus, and for the Bellum Judaicum, indeed, only the paraphrastic and loose rendering of the so-called Hegesippus. According to Zunz, pp 150-152, the work originated in Italy during the first half of the tenth century after Christ.
Among the numerous editions, the following deserve to be mentioned: Josephus Gorionides s. Josephus Hebraicus juxta venetam edit. latine versus et cum exemplari Constantinop. collatus atque notis illustratus a J. F. Breithaupto, Gothae 1707, in Hebrew and Latin. The same with a new title, Gothae et Lips. 1710.—A Hebrew-Latin edition had been already issued at a much earlier date by Sebastian Münster, Josephus Hebraicus diu desideratissimus opera Seb. Münsteri, Basil 1541; but it was disfigured by many arbitrary abbreviations.—A Latin translation of the whole text was given by Gagnier, Josippon sive Josephi ben Gorionis historiae Judaicae libri sex, ex hebraeo latine vertit, etc., Oxon. 1706.
Compare generally on the work and its editions: Oudin, De script. eccles. ii. col. 1032-1062.—Wolf, Bibliotheca Hebraea, i. 508-523, iii. 387-389.—Meusel, Bibliotheca histor. i. 2 (1784), pp. 236-239.—Fabricius, Bibliotheca graec., ed. Harles, v. 56-59.—Fürst, Bibliotheca Judaica, ii. 111-114.—Steinschneider, Catalogus libr. hebr. Biblioth. Bodlei. col. 1547-1552.—Zedner, Catalogue of the British Museum, p. 344 sq.—Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vörtrage der Juden, pp. 146-154.—Delitzsch, Zur Geschichte der jüdischen Poesie, Leipsic 1836, pp. 37-40.—Külb, art. “Josephus Gorionides” in Ersch und Gruber’s Allgem. Encyclop. Sec. ii. Bd. 23 (1844), p. 184.