214) MAHARAM OF PADUA AND THE DISASTROUS RIVALRY BETWEEN TWO PRINTING HOUSES:

The mid-1500s rogue (and cheaper) edition of Mishneh Torah by the Giustiniani Printing House.

MAIMONIDEAN CONTROVERSIES - PART II:

INTRODUCTION:

The printing press had just been invented. In Italy, newly established printing houses were vying with each other for a share in a very lucrative market. The printing of Hebrew books was no exception. 

In this article, we will look at the inside story behind what appeared to be the innocent printing of an early edition the of 12th- century Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, by Rabbi Meir Katzenellenbogen, known as the Maharam of Padua in the mid-16th-century.

I have drawn from the research of Professor Neil Weinstock Netanel[1] and also refer the Reader to a previous article Daniel Bomberg – The Story behind the Tzuras haDaf.

Additionally, I shall suggest a possible context to show how this story played out against the classical backdrop of tension between the rationalist followers of Maimonides (known as Rambam 1135-1204) and the mystics who followed the Kabbalah.

THE STORY:

In 1550, the Maharam of Padua (1482-1564) invests his own money and effort in preparing the text of Rambam’s Mishneh Torah – and writes a commentary on it together with his son. He then has it printed by a Christian printing house in Italy, known as the Bragadini Press. He does this because Italian Jews are not allowed to own printing presses.

Meanwhile, the Bragadini Press discovers that a rival company, the Giustiniani Press had copied the Maharam’s commentary without permission, undercut the price, and - for the cheaper price - even offered a criticism of his commentary!

The Maharam of Padua, understandably upset and faced with a financial loss from his investment (and after getting no support from the Italian Rabbinate) writes to a relative in Poland, the famous R. Moshe Isserless (known as Ramo[2]) in an early attempt at creating some form of copyright protection.[3]

R. Isserless, in response, forbids the purchase of the rival Giustiniani’s publication - on pain of excommunication - until Bragadini’s stocks had been sold out.

RATIONALISTS UNITE:

That is the quintessence of the story. 

However, lurking behind the scenes, there may have been another factor at play here which appears to have been ignored by many historians:

Both Maharam and R. Moshe Isserless were rationalists and loyal to Rambam.

Professor Netanel makes this point:

“The Maimonidean controversy continued to reverberate in the sixteenth century, with Katzenellenbogen and Isserles serving as leading proponents of Maimonides’ rationalism.

Katzenellenbogen virulently opposed the propagation of the mystical teachings of the Kabbalah.

And due to his intellectual prowess and commitment to the study of science, Isserles came to be known as the ‘Maimonides of Polish Jewry.’ ”

\

In 1558, the Maharam signed two bans against the study of Kabbalah[4]. He also opposed the printing of the Zohar[5].

As for R. Moshe Isserles, although he was well versed in Kabbalah, he also studied history and Aristotle (which he said he learned from Rambam’s Guide for the Perplexed). When another relative of his, Maharshal rebuked him for basing some of his rulings on Aristotle, he replied that ‘it is better to occupy oneself with philosophy than to err through Kabbalah.’[6]

On R. Isserless’ tombstone is written the epithet: “From Moses [Maimonides] to Moses [Isserless] there was none like Moses.” This was a not so subtle crib on the same epithet found on Rambam’s tomb.

Clearly, the Maharam and R. Isserless were supporters of Rambam’s philosophy.

WHAT WAS GIUSTINIANI’S MOTIVATION?

Having given some context to the rivalry, it would be interesting to explore just who was financing the cheaper edition of the fourteen volumes of Mishneh Torah by the Giustiniani Press which contained the additional bonus of a criticism of the Maharam, and whose commentary had now been moved to the back of the publication[7].

The reason why the Maharam chose Bragadini over Giustiniani in the first place is generally described as ‘unknown’.[8]

I would suggest a possible reason as to why the Maharam may have chosen Bragadini over Giustiniani:[9]

TENSION BETWEEN MYSTICS AND RATIONALISTS:

Could this saga have been part of the ongoing feud between the Kabbalists and the Rambamists, with the Kabbalists financing or at least encouraging the rival Giustiniani Press? Had Giustiniani just printed a cheaper edition, one could put it down to competition as he was known to have adopted cutthroat tactics in his business affairs. At one stage he put both the Bragadini and even the Bomberg printing houses out of business.

Giustiniani’s printers-mark had an image of a depiction of the Temple in Jerusalem over which in an unrolled scroll, appeared the words, “The glory of this latter House will be greater than that of the first,”[10] alluding to his vision of his Printing House overshadowing the other Printing Houses.

However, the addition of the criticism of the Maharam, the relegation of his commentary to the back of the work, and the fact that many Italian rabbis did not support the Maharam - may imply some further ideological agenda in addition to commercial ‘sour grapes’.

In fact, when Giustiniani published his rival edition, he wrote that certain unnamed ‘leading scholars’ had convinced him to hurriedly put out a better edition of the Mishneh Torah as opposed to the ‘second-grade’ Bragadini edition by ‘one rabbi from Padua[11] who longed to stand among the greats.’

Also (perhaps coincidence or perhaps relevant), in 1545 the very first work to be printed by Giustiniani was Nachmanides’ commentary on the Torah which has been described as “...basically a mystical work against Maimonides...[whose writings] he and his colleagues believe to be sheer heresy.”[12]

By contrast, Bragadini’s first printed work was Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, and more tellingly, in 1551 he even printed Rambam’s controversial rationalist writings of The Guide for the Perplexed.[13] This, again, may show the general persuasion of those behind the publishing house. 

ITALY BECOMES A HOME FOR SPANISH-JEWISH REFUGEES:

One must also consider the historical reality at that time:

The Spanish Inquisition resulted in the expulsion of Jews from Spain, just decades earlier, in 1492. This triggered a mass exodus of Jews from Western and Central Europe and by 1550, the central and northern Italian peninsula had become home to tens of thousands of Jewish refugees, and was virtually the only part of Western Europe where Jews remained.

Many of the Jews would have brought with them their mystical bias and strong Kabbalistic traditions from Spain. It is obvious that these tensions would have played out in Italy when they confronted people like the Maharam, who had banned the mystical Zohar.

CHRISTIAN INTEREST IN JEWISH MYSTICISM:

Furthermore, Christians were showing interest in Jewish mysticism [See Kotzk Blog 221 for how Elihayu Bachur began teaching Kabbalah to Cardinals.] and, as we saw during the earlier Maimonidean controversies, Jews and Christians sometimes formed expedient alliances against the Jewish rationalists who followed Rambam. [For more see: The Maimonidean Controversies.]

This too may have had some bearing on why the issue of the rival printing presses eventually found its way to the Pope.

One account says Giustiniani told the Pope that Rambam’s book was “a blasphemous work that should be banned for its defamations of the true Christian religion.”[14] It is highly probable that Rambam’s rationalism (which included a non-literal way of understanding angels, and which had no room for the notion of evil spirits and demons etc.) may have been considered blasphemous even by the Church.

THE PAPAL INVESTIGATION:

After R. Isserless had issued his verdict which effectively banned Giustinani’s publication of Mishneh Torah, the latter retaliated by going to the Pope for support. Giustiniani countered R. Isserless’ edict by encouraging apostate Jews to denounce the Maharam’s commentary as “objectionable to the Church.”[15] The Pope appointed six cardinals to oversee the investigation.

Both Bragadini and Giustiniani were represented by Jews who had converted to Christianity, and unfortunately, the tribunal soon ‘deteriorated to a general attack on the Talmud’.[16]

THE BURNING OF THE TALMUD IN ITALY:

The ruling of the panel was to burn all copies of the Bavli and Yerushalmi Talmud! All copies of the Talmud had to be surrendered within eight days. And for the next ten years, no Hebrew books were to be permitted to be printed in Venice.

On Rosh Hashana 1553, the edict was carried out and all copies of the Talmud were burned in Rome, and later elsewhere as well.

THE EARLIER BURNING OF THE TALMUD IN FRANCE:

Of course, historically, this was not the only example of the Church burning Jewish books. If ever there was a case of history repeating itself, this must be it:

Three hundred years earlier, the Talmud was also burned, although not in Italy but in France. After Rambam’s death in the early 1200s, “the ‘Guide for Perplexed’ was...burned publicly by Jews and non-Jews. There were Jews in France who informed against the book to the Catholic Church, saying that it made slights against Christianity.”[17]

At first, the Jews themselves burned Rambam’s books and just ten years later, in 1242, the Church burned all available copies of the Talmud. This incident was sparked by Rambam's work, the Guide for the Perplexed, which had been translated into French. [See The Dangers of Translating Hebrew Texts.]

This is an earlier example of how anti-Maimonidean Jews had denounced the writings of Rambam to the Christians in France which resulted in Jews burning manuscripts of Maimonides on the same square as, a decade later, the Talmud was then burned by the Dominican Christians.

Clearly, this was a ‘tried and tested’precedent for Jews to convince the Church that Rambam’s writings were too rational and too heretical even for the Church.

At that time, R. Yona Gerondi (1180-1263), the teacher of Rashba and a cousin to the father of modern Kabbalah Nachmanides, went to the Christians - the Franciscans and then the Dominicans - pleading:

“Look, most of our people are heretics and unbelievers, because they were duped by R. Moses of Egypt [Maimonides] who wrote heretical books. 

You exterminate heretics, exterminate ours too.”[18]

THE AFTERMATH:  

Back to Italy in the mid-1500s: The devastation was such that after the Italian burning of the Talmud, the Maharam of Padua wrote that people should not rely on his opinion anymore because there were no copies of Talmud left for him to reference.[19]

In Italy, as a consequence of the burning of the Talmud, the emphasis of Torah study now changed to other areas where books were available and still permitted to be printed. These included Halachik works and, of relevance to our discussion: “The period also saw a rise in the study of Kabbalah, the first editions of its main sefarim appearing at that time, although the question of its study was a matter of fierce controversy among the Rabbanim of Italy.”[20]

CONCLUSION:

Whether by design or accident, the long term effects of the Bragadini-Giustiani controversy resulted in a victory for the mystics, with Kabbalah rising to a position of pre-eminence.

Taking all this into consideration, it is difficult to accept that the Bragadini-Giustiani conflict - usually just described as a business deal gone wrong - was disconnected from the deeper and latent conflict between the mystics and the rationalists. 

---

[1] See: Maharam of Padua v. Giustiniani; the Sixteenth-Century Origins of the Jewish Law of Copyright

[2] Ramo wrote the notes (haMapah) to the Shulchan Aruch of R. Yosef Karo.

[3] According to some opinions, rivalry over the Mishneh Torah was not the cause of the conflict, since three years had passed since its printing. Instead, it was over the rival editions of the Talmud from these two printers.

According to another opinion, the dispute was over ‘anticipated rival editions of the Talmud by these printers.” (Edict Ordering the Confiscation and Burning of the Talmud, Library of JTS.)

[4] Shlomo Tal, Meir ben Isaac Katzenellenbogen, in Encyclopedia Judaica.

[5] In Defence of Preachers by David Darshan, p. 17.

[6] Responsa No. 7. However, more recently, another aspect of R. Isserles’ complex personality has surfaced with the publication from a manuscript of his commentary to Zohar. Also, he often quoted Kabbalistic sources for his Halacha and wrote that the “words of the Zohar... were given at Sinai” (Mishor 2010 p. 50.)

[7] Further studies in the Making of the Early Hebrew Book, by Marvin J. Heller, p. 308.

[8] See The Printers Feud and the Burning of the Talmud, by R. Akiva Aaronson. Or according to Netanel: “When Katzenellenbogen decided to publish a new annotated edition of the Mishneh Torah, he approached Giustiniani to handle the printing, but, for whatever reason, the two did not come to terms.” [Emphasis mine.]

See also The Makers of Hebrew Books in Italy, by David Werner Amram, p.255: “For reasons unknown to us Giustiniani did not satisfy the rabbi...” [Emphasis mine.]

[9] This is pure speculation as I have not seen this recorded anywhere. However, most of the writers (excluding Netanel), have been historians and obviously not interested in the hashkafic relevance of connecting this story to the ongoing Maimonidean conflict - which was so fundamental in influencing the future of Judaism, up to this very day.

[10] Chaggai 2:9.

[11] The Ramo had referred to the Maharam as the ‘Rabbi of Padua’.

[12] Jewish Virtual Library: Maimonidean Controversy.

[13]Titolo: Tracing the Hebrew Book Collection of the Venice Ghetto, p.31.

[14] Stop the Presses, by Eliezer Segal. See also: The Venetian Ghetto: The History of a Persecuted Community, by Riccardo Calimani, Chapter 7.

[15] Gardens and Ghettos, Jewish Museum, p. 250.  The ‘deterioration’ from antagonism towards Mishneh Torah to the Talmud may be explained by the fact the Mishneh Torah was effectively a summary of the Talmud – and the two might have become regarded as two sides of the same coin.

[16] Further studies... Ibid.

[17] Jewish History, Maimonides, by R. Berel Wein.

[18]  Iggerot Kena’ot III, 4c. (Leipzig 1859).

[19] She’erit Yosef 1.

[20] The Printers Feud...ibid.

193) DANIEL BOMBERG –THE STORY BEHIND THE TZURAS HADAF:

Bomberg edition of Mikraot Gedolot 1525, edited by Yaakov ben Chaim Adoniyah.

INTRODUCTION:

It is often emphasized - when teaching any section of Torah, especially to children – that the exact printed format with the original page layout of the text should be used. So, for example, one shouldn’t just type out the wordage, but rather copy the primary text from the Gemora or Chumash itself.

This is known as Tzuras haDaf, or the format of the page, which is said to be beneficial for students to learn from and become acquainted with – almost as if it has some mystical significance.

In this article, we are going to look at the fascinating and rather surprising story of how that basic format of a typical Chumash and Gemara which we use today, was first developed.

DANIEL BOMBERG:

Daniel Bomberg[1] (1483-1549) was the father of printing and publishing when it came to Jewish religious books. He was born in Antwerp and he was a Christian, yet he wasn’t just a printer – he became the catalyst for the preservation of our main Torah texts as we know them.

All in all, Bomberg published about two hundred Jewish books, many for the first time.

MAHARAM OF PADUA:

Among the rabbis Daniel Bomberg employed and consulted with, were some of the most respected of the time, including R. Meir ben Isaac Katzenellenbogen (he was the founder of the Katzenellenbogen family), known as the Maharam of Padua:

The Maharam of Padua authored the well-known responsa work, She’elot uTeshuvot, and was an interesting rabbi in his own right. He was related to R. Moshe Isserles who referred to him as the Rabbi of Padua, and he was known for his more lenient and liberal rulings. He also referred to the non-Jewish months by name (in some cases) which was very unusual for a rabbi of that time.

To illustrate the dangerous spirit of those difficult times: In 1549, the Maharam of Padua was involved in printing the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, under the licence of another printing press, the Bragadini press. Jews were not allowed to own printing presses but they were allowed to operate them, under the patronage of non-Jewish owners.

At the same time, a rival printing press - the Giustiniani press – pirated the Bragadini press’ Mishneh Torah. Things turned sour and the censors got involved and the result was a large-scale burning of Talmudim and other Jewish books.[2]

In another instance, the Maharam of Padua wrote that one should not rely on his opinion because he had no copy of the Talmud to refer to, as all the manuscripts were burned[3]. This additional burning of the Talmud took place around 1553 under Pope Julius III, who was advised to take such action by Jews who had recently become baptized!

DANIEL BOMBERG AND HIS TALMUD:

In Venice, Daniel Bomberg adopted aspects of the earlier Joshua Soncino format of 1483, with what is known as the ‘foliation'[4] (such as Bava Kama 52b) and what has become the universal format of the Talmud page, with Rashi on the ‘inside’ and Tosefot on the ‘outside’. 

Bomberg added the other commentaries which are found at the back of printed tractates of Talmud. Soncino had only printed sixteen tractates and did not access all the Talmudic manuscripts which Bomberg was able to source. This made Bomberg’s Talmud much more reliable.

To this day, the standard and conventional layout of the Talmud follows the 1523 edition of the Bomberg Talmud.

It took him four years, from 1519-1523, to produce his Talmud, which was project managed by R. Chiya Meir ben David who was a judge on the Beit Din of Venice.

POPE LEO X:

The Bomberg Talmud was published with the approval of Pope Leo X (although he died in 1521), who showed special favours to the Jews. He was a patron of all forms of study, having raised the salaries of the eighty-eight professors who taught at the Roman University and he wanted to elevate the church by encouraging all intellectual pursuits. He believed that the printing of the Talmud would help him in the ascension of the Church.

FIRST EDITION OF MIKRAOT GEDOLOT – UNDER FRIAR FELIX PRATENSIS:

As mentioned, in Daniel Bomberg’s Venice publishing house, he consulted expert sages, scholars and rabbis. But one of his main consultants was Felix Pratensis, a Jew who had converted to Christianity to become an Augustinian Friar! In fact, it was Felix Pratensis who first encouraged Bomberg to publish Torah books in the first instance.

Daniel Bomberg’s first published work, as early as 1517, was the Chumash (Five Books of Moses) with many commentaries (some which had never been printed before), and it was entitled Mikraot Gedolot.  Friar Felix Pratensis was particularly involved in this publication, and it was also endorsed by the Pope.

The first Mikraot Gedolot was not widely welcomed by the Jews, because it had mistakes with cantillation or musical symbols, but the fact that the apostate Pratensis was involved was also a major part of the objection.

What the Bomberg’s Mikraot Gedolot did do was to innovate the Torah text by organizing it into Chapters and Verses. Although this reference system had been in use in Christian circles since the 1200’s, this was the first time it was used in a printed text of the Torah. It has remained the standard printing procedure ever since then. Many would find this surprising as every Chumash we open today, naturally has chapters and verses and one somehow imagines that it was always like this.

Bomberg wanted to be as accurate as he could with his versions of the printed texts, but his hands were tied by some of the restrictions of the Church. In the case of R. David Kimchi, known as the Radak, much of his commentary was indeed censored as some of his writing contained anti-Christian polemics. However, in fairness to Bomberg, he later published a limited edition of the full text of the Radak as a separate enterprise.

SECOND EDITION OF MIKRAOT GEDOLOT – UNDER YA’AKOV BEN CHAIM ADONIYAH (1470-1538):

A second revised and corrected edition of Mikraot Gedolot was published a while later, this time with Tunisian born Yaakov ben Chaim Adoniyah as editor – and that became the format for all future Mikraot Gedolot. He was an expert in Nikud or vocalization, and also edited the first edition of the Jerusalem Talmud and Rambam’s Yad. Later Adoniyah was also to convert to Christianity - yet his edition remains the standard we still use today.

 DAVID GINSBURG (1831-1914):

A more modern scholar, who studied and wrote about Yaakov ben Chaim Adoniyah, was David Ginsburg. He was born to a wealthy family in Warsaw and studied in top Polish Yeshivot.

Yet - in keeping with the strange history of those involved in perpetuating our sacred texts - he too converted to Christianity. He moved to England and became Christian David Ginsburg.

Ginsburg considered Yaakov Adoniyah as a type of ‘mentor’ (although he had lived three hundred years earlier), and he took up the subject almost where it was left off by those early pioneers who worked with Bomberg. Ginsburg continued the search for portions of text from the countless manuscripts scattered throughout Europe and the East.

Christian David Ginsburg translated into English Yaakov Adoniyah’s Introduction to Mikraot Gedolot:

(NOTE: I couldn’t help but notice that the original Mikraot Gedolot of 1525 was called Shaar Hashem haChadash [see picture at beginning of article] whereas in Ginsburg’s book he refers to it as Shaar Hashem haKadosh.)

In 1867, in his preface to his second edition of his English translation of Yaakov Adoniya’s Introduction, Ginsburg writes rather mysteriously:

“...For the elaborate Indices, I am to a great extent indebted to a friend, whose name I am not at liberty to mention.”

One wonders who that individual could have been and why his identity was kept from us.

[Perhaps the following excerpt may shed some light:

“Inspite of his personal status his works are still cited and used by many present day talmidei chachamim and serve as an invaluable work towards preserving the massorah of the correct text of Tanach. Seforim Online offers the original 4 vols. in the 6 vols. Edition.”[5]]

Ginsburg gives an overview of the life and times of Yaakov Adoniyah:

“Very little is known of the life of JACOB BEN CHAJIM ADONIJAH, who rescued the Massorah from perdition, and for the first time collated, compiled, and gave to the world in a printed form the grand critico-exegetical apparatus, bequeathed to us by the Jews of olden times. In his celebrated Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible, which we publish with an English translation, he tells us that he was a resident of Tunis...Hence he is also called Tunisi...

For more than seven years (1510-1517) Ibn Adonijah roamed about homeless in the different towns of Italy, where at that time Hebrew literature was greatly cultivated and patronised by the highest of the land; and where popes and cardinals, princes and statesmen, warriors and recluses of all kinds were in search of Jewish teachers, in order to be instructed in the mysteries of the Kabbalah.

Whether it was owing to his conscientious scruples, which would not allow him to initiate Gentiles into this esoteric doctrine...[he did not find work, and] he had at first to endure great privations during his sojourn in Rome and Florence. He at last went to Venice, where the celebrated Daniel Bomberg, of Antwerp, had at that very time established his famous Hebrew press (1516), and...he at once became connected with the printing office.”

Then Ginsburg informs us that it wasn’t only the ‘Rabbinic Bible’ or Mikraot Gedolot, that Yaakov ben Chaim Adoniyah edited, but also:

 “...the entire Babylonian Talmud, published by Bomberg in 1520-1528, was partly edited by Jacob b. Chajim [Adonijah]...simultaneously...Ibn Adonijah also worked at the editio princeps of the Jerusalem Talmud.”

And that’s not all, because:

“...within twelve months...he edited...the stupendous legal and ritual code of Maimonides, entitled, Mishne Thora...to this code, which appeared in 1524...Ibn Adonijah wrote an Introduction.

It is perfectly amazing, to find that the editing of these works, which would itself more than occupy the whole time of ordinary mortals in the present day, was simply the recreation of Jacob b. Chajim; and that the real strength of his intellect, and the vast stores of his learning, were employed at that very time in collecting and collating MSS [manuscripts] of the Massorah, and in preparing for the press the Rabbinic Bible, which was published in 1524-25...”

Ginzburg then quotes Yaakov ben Chaim Adoniyah:

“Behold, I have exerted all my might and strength to collate and arrange the Massorah, with all the possible improvements, in order that it may remain pure and bright, and shew its splendour to the nations and princes...This was a labour of love, for the benefit of our brethren, the children of Israel, and for the glory of our holy and perfect law...

As regards the Commentaries, I have exerted my powers to the utmost degree to correct them in all the mistakes as far as possible: and whatever my humble endeavours could accomplish was done for the glory of the Lord, and for the benefit of our people. I would not be deterred by the enormous labour, for which cause I did not suffer my eyelids to be closed long, either in the winter or summer, and did not mind rising in the cold of the night, as my aim and desire were to see this holy work finished.”

This is how Yaakov Adoniyah describes his boss, Daniel Bomberg:

“When I explained to Bomberg the advantage of the Massorah, he did all in his power to send into all the countries in order to search out what may be found of the Massorah...and we obtained as many of the Massoretic books as could possibly be got. He was not backward, and his hand was not closed, nor did he draw back his right hand from producing gold out of his purse, to defray the expenses of his books, and of the messengers who were engaged to make the search for them in the most remote corners...”

ANALYSIS:

There are many ironies in this story: Besides the Maharam of Padua and R. Chiya Meir ben David, the other main participants were either Christian (Daniel Bomberg and Pope Leo X), or Jews who had converted to Christianity (Friar Felix Pratensis, Yaakov Adoniyah and Christian David Ginsburg).

The extent of this irony should not be lost because it is difficult enough to study the Torah with all its main commentaries, the Rambam’s encyclopaedic Mishneh Torah, the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmudim – let alone know how to collect the most accurate source material for all those texts and then collate and edit them.

Such work requires special minds even more expansive than the great students who later study them. The Reader is urged look at Hachi Garsinan, to get some perspective of just how variant some of the source texts are – to the extent that they can change the meaning of the matter under investigation.[6]

What had happened to Felix Pratensis that he became a Friar and why did converted Jews encourage Pope Julius III to burn the Talmud?

And after reading about Yaakov Adoniya refusing to teach Kabbalah to non-Jews because of the value he placed on the esoteric tradition; and how he tried to make a Kiddush haShem and relentlessly laboured on behalf of ‘our brethren, the children of Israel’- one wonders why such a scholar was later to leave his own religion for another.

One of the heroes of the story must surely be Daniel Bomberg himself who spent his own money to fund the collection of accurate manuscripts (and who fought against censorship as we saw with his limited edition of Radak) and bequeathed to later generations works which were to become the cornerstone of all future Torah learning. 

He must surely rank among the righteous of the nations.

---

[1] Sometimes referred to as Bombergi.

[2] Cecil Roth, History of the Jews in Venice, p. 256.

[3] She’erit Yosef 1.

[4] The is a difference between foliation and pagination: Pagination is defined as: “consecutive page numbering to indicate the proper order of the pages, which was rarely found in documents pre-dating 1500, and only became common practice c. 1550, when it replaced foliation, which numbered only the front sides of folios”.

[5] Massorah Massoreth Massoretic RabbinicHebrewBible.  C.D.Ginsburg. 1865. 1905. 4vols. plus 3 vols.
[6] My friend, Mendy Rosin recently visited R. David Bar-Hayim in Israel, and he writes: 
"...He [R. Bar-Hayim] then showed me what he was currently working on, comparing various early manuscripts of the Mishna for discrepancies. It also just so happened that on the screen at that time, he showed, was a page from the Gemora (possibly Bavli Nedarim 62a at the bottom) where a verse from Vayikra was quoted but missing a whole world (the four-letter name of Hashem if my memory recalls correctly). Rav Bar-Hayim mentioned that there are many instances of single letter differences between our text of the Torah and what the Gemora quotes - but a whole world is irregular."