 |
| Muslim Spain at around the eleventh century |
Introduction
Parshan and Darshan
are terms which usually describe a Torah commentator or exegete,
but who is the Sadran? The term Sadran means compiler or editor. This is not an expression one would expect to
find in the context of the Torah. This article, based extensively on the work
by Professor Richard Steiner[1]
from Yeshiva University explores instances where our classical texts make
reference to a Sadran. Interestingly, this is one of the most
peer-reviewed papers I have come upon in a long time.
Some of the texts originated in
Byzantium (Constantinople) and were discovered in the Cairo Geniza and
published by Nicholas de Lange. One is a midrashic commentary on Bereishit
and Shemot[2],
another is a peshat commentary by R. Reuel of Byzantium, on Ezekiel and the
Minor Prophets. Both texts are probably from the tenth or early eleventh
century and therefore pre-date Rashi (1040-1105). These different commentaries
have one thing in common, they both reference an elusive Sadran or biblical
‘editor’.
We shall also discuss other similar texts which deal with the notion of editorship in the better-known works such as Avot de Rabbi Natan and other predominantly Palestinian sources like the Jerusalem Talmud. These ideas later became popular in Northern France and Germany but, for a fascinating reason which we shall see, this radical view of a Sadran had no traction whatsoever in southern or Muslim Spain, also known as Al-Andalus.
R. Reuel of Byzantium’s references
to a Sadran
Reuel ascribes three anomalies in
the Book of Ezekiel to a Sadran (Steiner 2003:125). This should not come
as a surprise as the Talmud itself (Bava Batra 15a) refers to the Book of
Ezekiel (and the Twelve Prophets, Daniel and the Book of Ester) as being “written”,
not by Ezekiel but by the Great Assembly (Anshei Kenesset ha Gedolah)
of Ezra.
In one instance Reuel refers to
the Sadran working from a single source, and in another, the Sadran
is said to have had multiple divergent sources.
In the case of Ezekiel 8:5, Reuel
suggests that the Sadran extracted information from that verse and
inserted it two verses earlier (Ezekiel 8:3) in order to make it read easier.
Reuel comments:
מן
זה למד אותו הסדרן
ואמרו למעלה
From here the sadran leaned of it and mentioned it above.[3]
In this case, Reuel suggests that the original author would not have
described the relative location of a certain ‘gate’ in the earlier verse 3,
when it is only introduced later for the first time in verse 5 with the word והנה (“and behold”) which implies
it was a new sight for Ezekiel. For this reason, Reuel maintains that
verse 3 was an editorial insertion.
[Rashi’s grandson Rashbam (c. 1085 – c. 1158) explains that every usage
of the word והנה (“and behold”)
indicates something not known previously:
בדבר
שלא נודע תחילה אומר והנה[4] [
Reuel mentions this editor again a few verses later in his commentary on
Ezekiel 10:8:
מיכן
למדם בטוב היאך היו ואמרם
[F]rom here
he (the sadran)
learned well what they (the cherubs) were like, and mentioned them above.
In both instances the Sadran
is said to pre-empt the text by inserting information found later, into an
earlier section, in order to make the narrative flow in a smoother fashion.
But Steiner (2003:135) explains
that Reuel, besides speaking of a Sadran editing a text, also speaks of
a Sadran editing from multiple texts. Reuel’s comment on Ezekiel 35:6
refers to “two manuscripts” which the Sadran worked from:
ב׳
[ספרים מ]צא הסדרן
Here, these two manuscripts were different
versions of the same sentence and the Sadran in an attempt at preserving
both versions, incorporated them both into the new text.
Palestinian (Yerushalmi)
Talmud
Reuel’s references to a Sadran
in general, and one working from not just one but multiple sources in
particular, are not unique. The acknowledgement of, and desire to, preserve and
harmonise divergent texts is well founded on Palestinian rabbinic tradition.
According to the Palestinian (or Yerushalmi) Talmud:
ג'
ספרים מצאו בעזרה באחד מצאו כתוב ... ובשנים כתוב ... וקיימו שנים וביטלו אחד
They found
three manuscripts in the Temple court: in one was written ... and in two was
written ... They accepted the (reading of the) two and rejected the (reading of
the) single one. [5]
In other words, a rule of
majority was adopted in selecting the most accurate source material. In the
Palestinian Talmud, the number of biblical books found from which to base the
future authoritative texts, is three and not two as in Reul’s case, but the
overall theme of diverse source material used by a Sadran, is similar.
Avot de Rabbi Natan
This Yerushalmi is echoed
again in Avot de Rabbi Natan[6]
with almost the same wording. However, Steiner (2003:136) points out that
Ta-Shma (to whom he dedicates this research) has found versions of text which
refer not to בעזרה (texts found in the
Temple courtyard) – but to עזרה (Ezra the scribe).
According to these versions, Ezra now emerges as a major candidate for a
personality behind the anonymous Sadran.
Rashi and R. Yosef Kara
There is also a commentary
attributed to Rashi on Chronicles which refers to ג' ספרים מצא עזרא (three
books found by Ezra). Similarly, in Codex Munich 5 (dated 1233) in a commentary
attributed to R. Yosef Kara (on 1 Chronicles 3:22), it also states that עזרא מצא ג' ספרים (Ezra found three books) which he used as a basis for his
editing of the biblical texts.
Reuel, however, seemed concerned not so much with odd numbers of source
material (such as three books) but rather with how to deal with even numbers
where both texts would have to be preserved in some fashion and the ‘odd one
out’ could not simply be rejected.
Rashi on the finding of variant genealogical records
Steiner (2003:141-142) shows how Rashi, in the same vein, remarks in his
commentary on Chronicles regarding the discovery of genealogical records:
וכן
מצאו הרבה ספרי
יחוסין. כשנמצא גּ או הּ בטלו המועט וקיימו המרובים. וכשנמצאו זוגות ... הוצרך
לכתוב שתי פעמים שאין סדר יחוסן שוה
Similarly,
they found many
genealogical manuscripts. When there were three or five, they rejected
the minority (reading) and accepted the majority (reading). When there were
pairs (even numbers of manuscripts) … it was necessary to write the passage
twice, since the genealogies were not identical.
The commentary by the students
of Rav Saadiah Gaon
A commentary by the students of
Rav Saadiah Gaon, from the eleventh century and probably written in Kairouan[7]
(Tunisia, North Africa) states:
ואנשי
מזרח אומרים ב׳ ספרים מצא הסדרן וכתב כאן וכאן
But the
easterners say, “The sadran found two manuscripts (with different versions),
and he wrote one here and one there”.
In other words, the easterners (which usually refers to Babylonians, but probably in this instance is a reference to the Jews of Palestine, east of Kairouan) held that in one case[8], the Sadran found two manuscripts and incorporated both versions in the text to create what is sometimes called ‘doublets’. It should be made clear though, that Rav Saadia Gaon himself does not agree with this view (Steiner 2003:142-143). According to Rav Saadia Gaon in his translation and commentary on the Psalms (ed. Kapach), the entire Book of Psalms was written by King David in a prophetic vision. This, despite the fact that the Talmud (Bava Batra 15a) mentions ten sources which David used to compose his psalms.[9] Amos Hakham (2003: xvi) points out that Rav Saadia Gaon is “almost the only authority who maintains this radical view”[10](although there is a Talmudic precedent for this in b. Pesachim117a where according to R. Meir "All the praises stated in the Book of Psalms were said by David".)
The commentary by R. Yosef
Kara (Qara)
R. Yosef Kara does not seem to
distinguish between odd and even sources but certainly references multiple and
variant sources. Commenting on 1 Chronicles 9:1 he says:
ואני
הסדרן הייתי עמהם
בגולה ומצאתי קצת מן הייחס שלהם בג' ספרים ולא היו דומין זה לזה ומה שיכולתי לחבר
זה אל זה כתבתיו כאן בספר זה ומה שלא יכולתי לחבר כתבתיו בסיפרי בעזרא
And I, the sadran, was with them in
the Exile and I found some of their genealogy in three manuscripts that were
not identical. Whatever I was able to combine, I wrote here in this book, and
whatever I was not able to combine, I wrote in my book, Ezra.
In 1 Chronicles 11:26 R. Kara
writes:
בשביל הספרים שמצא
And in 1 Chronicles 21:5, he
writes:
מפני
הספרים שמצא
Both these cases refer to variant
“books the Sadran had found”.
R. Eliezer of Beaugency on the
Sadran
R. Eliezer of Beaugency[11]
was a student of Rashbam and he refers to “the scribe who put all of his
[Ezekiel’s] words together” (Steiner 2003:129):
... אבל הסופר
שכתב כל דבריו יחד הוסיף לפרש מה שסתם וקיצר בשני מקראות הללו
Rashi on Ruach haKodesh and
Kotev Sefer:
Steiner (2003:130) suggests that
R. Eliezer of Beaugency built on the work of Rashi who said that verses 1 and 2
of the book of Ezekiel are not the words of Ezekiel:
ויהי
בשלשים שנה. סתם הנביא דבריו ולא פי' שמו מי הוא ולא פירש למנין מה מנה לפיכך הפסיקה רוח הקודש את דבריו
בשני מקראות הסמוכין לזה ללמד מי הוא הנביא וללמד למנין מה מנה
The prophet
presented his words obscurely and did not tell his name, who he was; nor did he
explain from what date he was counting. Therefore, the holy spirit interrupted
his words in the following two verses to teach [us] who the prophet was and to
teach [us] from what date he was counting.[12]
It is not certain that Rashi
would have gone so far as to refer to a Sadran when he used the
expression רוח הקודש (holy spirit), but it was clearly something or someone other
than Ezekiel. However, in Judges 5:31, Rashi does refer to a כותב הספר (writer of the book):
אין
זה מדברי דבורה אלא מדברי
כותב הספר
These words are not Devorah's, but the words of the writer of the
book.
Midrash
Lekach Tov on the Sadran
The Midrash Lekach Tov,
authored by R. Toviah b. Eliezer (c. 1100) also makes reference to a Sadran
(Steiner 2003:126). This case refers to a literary problem in Genesis 42:34,
concerning Joseph and his brothers who are told to bring their youngest
brother, Benjamin, back to Egypt:
וְ֠הָבִ֠יאוּ
אֶת־אֲחִיכֶ֣ם הַקָּטֹן֮ אֵלַי֒ וְאֵֽדְעָ֗ה כִּ֣י לֹ֤א מְרַגְּלִים֙ אַתֶּ֔ם
כִּ֥י כֵנִ֖ים אַתֶּ֑ם אֶת־אֲחִיכֶם֙ אֶתֵּ֣ן לָכֶ֔ם וְאֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ תִּסְחָֽרוּ׃
The brothers tell their father
Jacob that Benjamin has to be brought back with them to Egypt and then Simeon
who was held by Joseph as surety, would be “free to circulate [traffic] about
the land”. The problem is that we do not find in the text that Joseph said
that.
Midrash Lekach Tov comments
on this verse:
ללמדך
שיש לדרוש להוסיף על דברי האגדה בכל מקום, לפי שהסדרן מקצר הענין, שהרי
לא אמר למעלה ואת הארץ תסחרו, והם סיפרו לאביהם ואת הארץ תסחרו[13]
(This is)
to teach you that it is necessary to expound (and) to add to the narrative in
every place, since the sadran
abbreviates, for he (Joseph) did not say above (in the sadran’s narrative) “and
you shall traffic in the land” and (yet) they reported to their father (that he
said) “and you shall traffic in the land.”
In this instance the Sadran
is said to have omitted earlier references to “circulate about the land”
for the sake of brevity (מקצר
הענין). Perhaps R. Toviah b. Eliezer is also alluding to a Parshan
or Darshan in the sense of internal exegeses or inner biblical midrash
(שיש לדרוש
להוסיף) in cases where the Sadran is vague.
Midrash Sechel Tov on the
Sadran
The Midrash Sechel Tov,
authored by R. Menachem b. Shlomo in Rome in 1139 often quoted from Midrash
Lekach Tov (Steiner 2003:127-128). On the same verse from Genesis 42:34
mentioned above (regarding Joseph and Benjamin) Midrash Sechel Tov
writes:
מיכן
שיש רשות לגיבורי כח לדרוש ולהוסיף על דברי הגדת העניין בכל מקום לפי כחן, כי דרך הסדרן לקצר הענין ובא
במקום אחד ושונה ומוסיף ומחדש
From here
(we learn) that the mighty (darshanim/parshanim) have license to expound and to
add to the words of narrative in every place, since the practice of the sadran is to abbreviate
and then, in another place, to repeat and add new things.
Both these Midrashic works
speak of quite some leeway granted to the Sadran, and suggest activity
in some form by the Darshan and Parshan to compliment or expand
on the final form produced by the Sadran. At what point does an editor
also become a contributor and a commentator?
All in all, the Midrash Sechel
Tov refers to the Sadran in five places (Steiner 2003:127). Some other
examples follow:
1) Genesis 41:4 deals with
Pharaoh’s dreams and describes Pharaoh “waking up”, וַיִּיקַ֖ץ פַּרְעֹֽה.
On this, Midrash Sechel Tov comments:
זה
סיפור הסדרן
[T]his is the narration of the sadran.
2) Genesis 47:26 describes how
Joseph imposes a tax of one fifth on the Israelites which stands “until this
day”:
וַיָּ֣שֶׂם
אֹתָ֣הּ יוֹסֵ֡ף לְחֹק֩ עַד־הַיּ֨וֹם הַזֶּ֜ה עַל־אַדְמַ֥ת מִצְרַ֛יִם לְפַרְעֹ֖ה
לַחֹ֑מֶשׁ
The Midrash Sechel Tov
comments that the expression “until this day” is the work of the Sadran:
אלו
דברי הסדרן
3) Genesis 36:31 discusses the
eight Kings of Edom who ruled before Saul, the first king of Israel:
וְאֵ֙לֶּה֙
הַמְּלָכִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר מָלְכ֖וּ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ אֱד֑וֹם לִפְנֵ֥י מְלׇךְ־מֶ֖לֶךְ
לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
The problem is that
this section is inserted into Genesis which was long before the period of the
Israelite kings. These verses are therefore anachronistic in that they refer to
a much later historical era. This difficulty led some commentators like Ibn
Ezra to say that they were indeed written at the time of Genesis but with a “spirit
of prophecy” which was able to foretell the future. (More on Ibn Ezra
below.)
The more pragmatic
and historically conscious Midrash Sechel Tov adopts a different
approach:
וכתבם
הסדרן יחדו כדי
לסיים ענין התבן והקש לסלקם מעל הבר
[T]he sadran put them together
in order to finish off the matter of the straw and stubble, removing them from
the grain.
In other words, for some
theological reason, the Sadran intentionally inserts this section into
the Genesis narrative and it has nothing to do with seeing into the future.
Rashbam on the Sadran
1) Rashbam refers to a Sadran
in his commentary on Kohelet (Ecclesiastes 1:1-2) which begins with:
דִּבְרֵי֙
קֹהֶ֣לֶת בֶּן־דָּוִ֔ד מֶ֖לֶךְ בִּירוּשָׁלָֽ͏ִם׃ הֲבֵ֤ל הֲבָלִים֙ אָמַ֣ר
קֹהֶ֔לֶת הֲבֵ֥ל הֲבָלִ֖ים הַכֹּ֥ל הָֽבֶל׃
The words of Koheleth son of David, king in
Jerusalem. Utter futility! - said Koheleth -
Utter futility! All is futile!
Rashbam comments:
שתי
מקראות הללו. דברי קהלת. הבל הבלים. לא אמרן קהלת כי אם אותו שסידר הדברים כמות שהן
These two
verses, “The words of Koheleth” and “Vanity of vanities” were composed not by
Koheleth but by the one
who put the words into their current order.
2) Ecclesiastes 12:8 reads:
הֲבֵ֧ל
הֲבָלִ֛ים אָמַ֥ר הַקּוֹהֶ֖לֶת הַכֹּ֥ל הָֽבֶל׃
Rashbam comments that the last verses from 12:9-14 were also not written
by Kohelet:
הבל
הבלים. עכשיו נשלם הספר. ואותן אשר סידרוהו אמרו מיכאן ולהבא
Vanity of
vanities—Now the book is completed. Those that edited it composed (what comes) from here on.
German (Ashkenaz) and Southern
Spanish positions on a Sadran working with multiple sources
Up to this point, our sources on
a Sadran working with multiple and variant sources, have been from
Palestinian, northern French and German rabbinic sources. These particular
views remained loyally dominant in those places right up to the eighteenth
century (Steiner 2003:147). Thus, even the author of Sha’agat Aryeh, R.
Aryeh Leib Gunzberg (c. 1695-1785) wrote:
וי"ל
דעזרא העתיק דברי הימים מכמה ספרים שמצא ... מש(ום) ( הכי) יחוס הדורות אינן על
הסדר; גם יש סתירות הרבה מניה וביה, ומד(ברי) (הימים) לס׳ עזרא, כי בספר א מצא כן
ובספר א כן, וכמו שמצא כן העתיק
One may answer
that Ezra copied Chronicles from several manuscripts that he found … Because of
this, the genealogy of the generations is not in order; moreover there are
contradictions both internally and between Chronicles and the Book of Ezra. For
in one manuscript he found one thing and in another manuscript he found
another, and he copied (each) just as he found (it).
However, this was not at all the
case in Provence (southern France) and particularly not in southern (Muslim) Spain,
with the Andalusian rabbis. In Christian (northern) Spain we do find references
to an editor, but not in the Muslim south.
The Spanish exegete, Ibn Ezra
(1089-1167) speaks of the psalms being written by ruach hakodesh (a
spirit of prophecy). Commenting on Psalm 106:47, Ibn Ezra writes:
אמר אחד מחכמי
מצרים כי זה המשורר היה בימי השופטים לפני
מלך מלך לבני ישראל על כן הוא אומּר וקבצנו מן
הגוים. וחכם אחד אמר כי
זה המשורר היה בבבל והנכון בעיני כי זה המשורר
דבר ברוח הקדש
One of the
Egyptian scholars has said that this poet was in the days of the judges, before
the Israelites had a king; that is why it says “and gather us from the
nations.” And one scholar has said that this poet was in Babylonia. In my
opinion, the correct (explanation) is that this poet spoke with divine
inspiration (of the future)…[14]
Steiner (2003:154-156) shows that
certain pattens of thought become quite evident when considering the approach
of Ibn Ezra apropos biblical texts. Ibn Ezra never raises the matter of chronology
or anachronisms and generally assigns the Great Assembly of Ezra very little editing authority. He also rejects the view
that textual variants are due to multiple sources. Similarly, he makes no
mention of the Palestinian and German rabbinic ideas that Ezra found older
“books” (מצא
ספרים) from which he based his reconstruction of biblical
texts. Furthermore, Ibn Ezra rejects the
notion of tikkun soferim (corrections of the scribes[15]) and claims that it was never a widely
accepted position being merely a daat yachid (an individual view) and
carried no real authority.
As
to the notion of textual variances, Ibn Ezra wrote:
ויש אומרים
בעבור היות הדל"ת והרי"ש דומים במכתב, על כן דדנים רודנים דעואל רעואל.
ולפי דעתי שהם שני שמות לאדם אחד כמשפט
Some say that the graphic similarity between dalet and resh is the reason for Dodanim ~ Rodanim (Gen 10:4, 1 Chr 1:7), Deuel ~ Reuel (Num 1:14, 2:14). In my opinion, they are two (different) names for one person, as was the norm....
The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish,
Kittim and Dodanim (Genesis 10:4).
וּבְנֵ֥י יָוָ֖ן
אֱלִישָׁ֣ה וְתַרְשִׁ֑ישָׁה כִּתִּ֖ים וְרוֹדָנִֽים׃
The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish,
Kittim, and Rodanim (1Chronicles 1:7).
לְגָ֕ד אֶלְיָסָ֖ף בֶּן־דְּעוּאֵֽל׃
From (the tribe of) Gad, Eliasaph son of Deuel (Numbers 1:14).
וּמַטֵּ֖ה גָּ֑ד וְנָשִׂיא֙ לִבְנֵ֣י גָ֔ד אֶלְיָסָ֖ף בֶּן־רְעוּאֵֽל׃
And the tribe of Gad. Chieftain of the Gadites: Eliasaph son of Reuel (Numbers 2:14).
And as to the notion of Ezra arranging the verse divisions in the Torah, Ibn Ezra writes in his commentary on Ecclesiastes 9:27:
עזרא הסופר הפסיק הפסוקים
Ezra the scribe introduced the verse
division (lit., separated the verses).
However,
elsewhere he ascribes the verse division to the Great Assembly which he
lauds with great admiration:
ונחה רוח ה', רוח חכמה ובינה על ...
אנשי כנסת הגדולה, לבאר כל חתום במצות ... גם הם היו משיבי טעם וילמדו הבאים
אחריהם חפץ כל ענין ע"י טעמי המקרא, והמלכים והמשרתים והסתומים והפתוחים
והדבקין והפסוקים, ועינים היו לעור; על כן נצא בעקבותיהם ונרדוף אחריהם, ונשען
עליהם בכל פירושי המקרא[16]
The
spirit of the Lord, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, rested upon ... the
men of the Great Assembly to explain every mystery of the commandments.... They
were also conveyers of sense and taught all who came after them the meaning of every
matter … and they served as eyes to the blind. For that reason, we go in their
footsteps and follow them closely and rely on them in all biblical
commentaries.
And
again, Ibn Ezra comes to the defence of Ezra the scribe whom he suggests
probably instituted biblical verse division:
יש מפרשים רבים
מטעים את המפסיק ... ואני לפי דעתי אתמה מזה תמהון גדול איך טעה המפסיק, ואף כי אם
הוא עזרא הסופר. והכלל כי המפסיק לא היה אחריו חכם כמוהו, כי הנה ראינו בכל המקרא
לא הפסיק כי אם במקום ראוי
There are many exegetes who declare the
versifier to be in error.... And I, according to my understanding, am greatly
amazed at this, how (it is possible to believe that) the versifier erred,
especially if he is Ezra the scribe. The fact is that there was no one as wise
as the versifier after him, for we see that, throughout the Bible, he never
made a verse division in an unsuitable place.
We
see time and again how Ibn Ezra has a most deliberated defence of everything
related to biblical literature. This is in stark contrast to his counterparts
in Christian Spain and Germany who openly spoke of a Sadran using
sometimes multiple source material and exercising some degree of literary
autonomy.
Why
the split along cultural lines?
Why
is this dramatic divergence of views on the existence of a Sadran spilt
so sharply along cultural lines?
Steiner (2003:157) cites Talmage
who gives a possible reason for Ibn Ezra’s reluctance to discuss all these critical
issues of biblical texts:
R. Abraham
[Ibn Ezra] … spent much of his career in Muslim Spain, where the Jews were
frequently accused of tampering with the biblical text for the purpose of
obliterating alleged references to Mohammed.[17]
Accordingly, because of the claim
that was popular in Muslim Spain at that time that Jews had falsified the
Bible, Ibn Ezra felt compelled to uphold its authority and was therefore
reluctant to divert from his fundamentalist approach to biblical study. Steiner
(2003:158) writes:
I suggest
that Ibn Ezra was deeply affected by this claim, which was current in Andalusia
in his youth, and that he continued to be influenced by it, perhaps only on a
subliminal level, when he wrote his commentaries in Christian Europe.
It is probably for this reason
that Ibn Ezra and other Spanish commentators particularly from the south, were
most reticent to speak of any interference in the compilation of biblical books
whatsoever. This is why they were not prepared to write about the activity of a
Sadran, while their brethren across the border felt free to speculate
about the matter of some form of biblical editing.
Further reading
Kotzk Blog: 316) PATTERNS IN THE SUPERCOMMENTARIES ON RASHI:
[1]
Steiner, R.C., 2003, ‘A Jewish Theory of Biblical Redaction from Byzantium: Its
Rabbinic Roots, Its Diffusion and Its Encounter with the Muslim Doctrine of Falsification,’
in Jewish Studies Internet Journal (JSIJ), vol. 2, 123-167.
[2] See
Nicholas de Lange: Scholia on the Pentateuch.
[3]
Translations are all from Steiner unless otherwise indicated.
[4]
Rashbam on Genesis 29:25. See Rashbam also on Genesis 26:8 and Exodus 4:14. Steiner
does not mention this but Rashbam was also known for his sometimes daring
commentaries to the extent that ArtScroll censored some of his commentary from
their edition of Mikraot Gedolot [See Kotzk
Blog: 075) WHY WAS RASHBAM SO RUTHLESSLY ATTACKED AND CENSORED?] Is it
possible that Rashbam, like Reuel, was also alluding to ‘purer’ texts which are
distinctive by their use of the typically biblical presentative particle "והנה" (“and behold”) and show less
interpolation by an alleged editing process?
[5] y.
Taanit 4.2, 68a.
[6] Avot de Rabbi Natan, version B, chap.
46.
[7] See פירוש על דברי הימים מיוחס לאחד מתלמידי סעדיה
הגאון, ed. R. Kirchheim, (Frankfurt am Main, 1874) 29.
[8]
Regarding a discrepancy between 1 Chronicles 9:3 and the Book of Ezra and
Nehemiah 11:4.
[9] Bava
Batra 15a (Sefaria): “David wrote the book of Psalms by means of ten
elders of previous generations, assembling a collection that included compositions of
others along with his own. He included psalms authored by Adam the
first man, by Melchizedek king of Salem, and by Abraham, and by
Moses, and by Heman, and by Jeduthun, and by Asaph, and by the three sons of Korah.”
[10]
Hakham, A., 2003, The Bible: Psalms. With the Jerusalem Commentary, vol.
1, Koschitzky Edition, Mosad Harav Kook, Jerusalem.
[11]
Pronounced Bojhonsy: See Beaugency
pronunciation: How to pronounce Beaugency in French (forvo.com).
[12]
Translation from Sefaria.
[13] Midrash
lekach Tov, ed. S. Buber (Vilna, 1880) 1. 210-211.
[14] Translation
from Steiner. This view of Ibn Ezra is similar to that of Rav Saadiah Gaon as
we saw earlier.
[15] According
to rabbinic tradition there are eighteen instances where the scribes made
(generally minor and grammatical) corrections to the biblical text.
And the truth is that the sadran, the orech, is everywhere.
ReplyDelete