The Daughter of My People: Arabic and Hebrew Paraphrases of Jeremiah 8.13-9.23 9004025529, 9789004025523

Citation preview

THE DAUGHTER OF MY PEOPLE

STUDIES IN SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS EDITED BY

G. F. PIJPER Emeritus Professor in Arabic Language and Literature in the University of Amsterdam

in ALAN D. CORRE

THE DAUGHTER OF MY PEOPLE

LEIDEN E. J. BRILL 1971

THE DAUGHTER OF MY PEOPLE ARABIC AND HEBREW PARAPHRASES OF JEREMIAH 8.13-9.23

BY

ALAN D. CORRE

LEIDEN E. T. BRILL 1971

The Publication of this work has been made possible by a grant from the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture New York City

Copyright 1971 by E. J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher PRINTED IN BELGIUM

CONTENTS Preface

VII

Introduction

1

Arabic Texts

13

Variant Readings

62

Notes

66

Translations

81

Hebrew Text

113

Notes

119

PREFACE This work is meant to appeal to two different groups of students; first to linguists, especially to those interested in Arabic dialectology; second to theologians and historians concerned with the culture of the Jewish people. I have tried to serve their separate interests by a set of notes to the texts published here which will interest mainly the former group, and an introduction, which will interest mainly the latter. Here I concern myself with some general considerations which will provide background information for both. In the year 70 of the current era the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed amid scenes of great carnage, the memory of which is pre­ served graphically in Josephus and the Talmud. The Jews interpreted this traumatic event as the divine punishment for the accumulated sins of themselves and their fathers, more especially for their causeless hatred of one another, idolatry and immorality. For generations they had ignored the warnings of the prophets who had been sent to them, and now the threat that Jerusalem would be ploughed like a field could no longer be deferred. Tradition relates that the climax occurred on the fourth day of the week; while the Levites sang the psalm of the day as they had done so many times before, "... and in their wickedness He will destroy them, the Lord our God will destroy them” the Roman hordes poured into the Temple, and “Israel’s body passed as smoke through the air”. Ever since, the Jews have commemorated the fire, blood and tears of that time by the fast of the ninth day of the Hebrew month Ab. On this day the observant Jew deprives himself of the normal pleasures of food, sex, intellectual exercise and the wearing of good strong foot­ wear. He goes about quietly as a mourner, not as if for an aged parent, but rather like a stunned young widow, whose husband died even before he could give her a child. The mourning is deepest on the eve which ushers in the fast, for the rabbis were aware that the sense of loss and loneliness is keenest at night; by morning it has moderated a little, and by afternoon the mood is one of a cautious optimism which trusts in the almost irrational aspect of God’s love for Israel, love undying, love no-matter-what — “What shall I do unto them, for they are the daughter of My people!” The religious services of the

VIII

PREFACE

day reflect this change of mood, despairing in the evening, somber in the morning, hopeful in the afternoon. The scriptural reading from the prophets for the morning service is taken from Jeremiah 8.13-9.23. This passage, which exposes so clearly the tender and sympathetic heart of that great prophet of doom and restoration, itself passes through these same phases of despair, healing and hope, beginning with a threat of utter destruction, passing through the cathartic relief of tears by the well-full and the fountainfull, and ending with the hint that the road to cure runs through the knowledge of God and how He wills mankind to be. In Sefardic (Spanish-Portuguese) synagogues it became customary to paraphrase these verses into Spanish, weaving in traditional homiletic interpreta­ tions. When the Jews were expelled from Spain in the fifteenth century they took this paraphrase along; in places where Arabic replaced Spanish as their vernacular, they replaced their Spanish paraphrase with an Arabic paraphrase, not of course in the language of the prophets and poets of the sons of Ishmael, but rather of the streets of Fez and Bagdad. Unlike the Spanish, no canonical version of the Arabic paraphrase appeared; each interpreter felt free to add material of his own. Some of these were written down (in Hebrew characters) to aid the memory for the next year. Since each one wrote his own dialect, these texts offer unusual opportunities for studies in com­ parative dialectology, since one does not often find a text basically the same written down in different dialects. Interest is added by the fact that written evidence for dialect difference can only be unravelled from Muslim texts with difficulty, since the Muslim always preferred to write the beautiful classical language, rather than write down what he was actually saying. The Moroccan might say 'ebba for the verb “to take”, but he would write the classical ’axada, much as we say namely and write viz., or as a medieval scholar spoke French or Italian but wrote Latin. The Jew, unconcerned for the ideal of 'arabiyya, which involved a committment to the tongue in its (real or supposed) pristine purity, used his Hebrew alphabet to spell out what he was actually saying, and provides evidences for an idiom far removed indeed from that of an Imru’l Qais or a Mutanabbi ; yet it is part of the variety which constitutes the wonderful Arabic language, and in accordance with linguistic egalitarianism has an equal claim to our attention. I have transcribed here three complete versions from manuscripts in the Bodleian Library and the Sassoon collection, and a fourth of

PREFACE

IX

which parts are missing, from the British Museum; and to all of these institutions I hereby render thanks. From the British Museum also come a fifth text which consists of just one verse, and a sixth sufficiently similar to the Oxford ms. to give variant readings only. Translations are appended of the versions in Moroccan Arabic; they give an adequate idea of the content of the versions as a whole, and those who read classical Arabic should not have too much difficulty in understanding the original versions of the eastern dialects, once they grow accustomed to the orthographic conventions, help with which is given in the notes. A Hebrew version of the paraphrase, likewise recovered from manuscript, is also included. This helps to complete the picture from the liturgical point of view. My sincere thanks are due to the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, Washington, D.C., which in 1967-1968 granted me a fellowship to do research in England; to the administration of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee who nominated me for the fellowship and whose Graduate School gave me subsequent research support; to Professor S. Stein and Mr. Raphael Loewe who extended to me the hospitality of University College, London; to Professor J.B. Segal and Dr. J.E. Wansbrough of the School of Oriental and African Studies; and to the late Dr. S.M. Stern whose untimely death is a loss to Semitic scholarship. Despite my wife Nita’s serious illness during our stay in Europe she insisted that I give to my research the attention that was properly due her. Her sacrifice in behalf of scholarship was much greater than mine, and for this I am ever grateful. London, July 9, 1970

Alan

D.

Corre

INTRODUCTION In various times and places it has been customary for scriptural portions read in Synagogues to be translated into the vernacular and expounded. Israel Abrahams 1 expresses the view that the practice was for the benefit of the women : however, the reference in the book of Nehemiah 2 suggests that the practice is very old 3. H. Peri cites numerous medieval authorities who approved the use of the vernacular : it was only when the nineteenth century reform movement sought to replace in large measure Hebrew by the local vernacular that ortho­ dox opposition to the practice hardened 4. The early practice of trans­ lating the scriptures into Aramaic was replaced by translation into other languages as the knowledge of Aramaic died out, evoking protests at the weakening of a custom which had itself acquired sanctity 5. Peri quotes examples of the use in this context of various languages — Greek, Spanish, Provencal, Arabic, Persian, Italian. Among the Sefardim, the prophetic reading (haftara) for the ninth of Ab was one of the sections selected for translation 6: in some communities it is today the only one remaining 7. This text was printed 1 Israel Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages (Philadelphia, 1896) p. 345. 2 Neh. 8.8. 3 On the general question of use of the vernacular see the discussion in Leopold Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vortrdge der Juden, chap. 1, (Hebrew revised edition Jerusalem, 1954). 4 H. Peri, “Prayer in the Vernacular During the Middle Ages”, (in Hebrew) Tarhiz 24, p. 428.

5 Cf. J. Mueller, Q’nxin rVOWn1? nnsn (Berlin, 1891), p. 103. 6 Cf. my edition, Jewish Quarterly Review 48.1 (July 1957), pp. 13-34. 7 In Congregation Sahar Asamaim, London, the maftir (man charged with reading the prophetic lection) reads the Spanish and the Congregation read the Hebrew. The fact of this practice is incorrectly contested by M.J. Perath, “Een Spaanse Derasj& voor Negen Aw” Nieuw Israelitisch Weekblad 29 July 1960, p. 4. He is correct in pointing out that the translation is no longer read in Amsterdam. Incidentally, the Portuguese formula of prayer for the Royal Family is retained in Amsterdam, while in London English has been substituted. The practice of dividing the readings in Hebrew and Spanish is due to the halakhic rule that the reader should not translate for himself. Raphael Meldola (d. 1748) enacted for the community of Bayonne, France, that the maftir should not read the translation as well as the original NrP NVlP 'TUpD ...ttnoan R. Meldola, □'’IH D'ft (Amsterdam, 1737) fol. 8b. In Gibraltar the practice is continued with a text in which the Spanish is somewhat modernized. One of the four Studies in Sem. Lang, and Ling., Ill

i

2

INTRODUCTION

dozens of times in the late sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 8, yet the text varies little in content or even in wording, apart from the gradual elimination of non-standard words and idioms 9. Like the Aramaic versions, although of course to a lesser degree, this text acquired a sanctity of its own, and a problem arose when Spanish in turn ceased to be the vernacular language. Some (e.g. Congregation Sahar Asamaim in London) clung to it out of a sense of tradition : others (e.g. Shearith Israel in New York and Talmud Torah in Amster­ dam) dropped it entirely others replaced it with another language. In Corfu, where the Spanish Jews were small in number and Spanish fell early into disuse 10, 11 the paraphrase was translated into Hebrew, and the curious situation arose of a Hebrew text being paraphrased in a Hebrew re translation. This text is published here. Probably the community held in low regard the Apulian and Greek dialects which they did indeed use for religious poems, but did not feel were appropriate for translating scripture under conditions of formal religious worship. This text which is found in British Museum ms. or. 10279 11 is indicative of the low state of Hebrew scholarship in synagogues (Congregation Nefusot Yehuda, the so-called “esnoga flamenga”) also reads the prophetic lection for the Sabbath preceding the Ninth of Ab in Spanish — but this is a translation, not a paraphrase. 8 E.g. for the seventeenth century : Venice 1609, 1614, 1624, 1638, 1639, Amsterdam 1631, 1640, 1642, 1643, 1644, 1648, 1650, 1658, 1659, 1660, 1666, 1688, 1689, 1695. 9 Menasseh ben Israel’s edition (Amsterdam, 1631) attempted to make the text con­ form to standard Castillian, but made no substantive changes. 10 See Alan D. Corr6, “Una Elegia Judeo-Espanol” Sefarad 26 (1968). Some account of the community is given in the Jewish Chronicle (London) July 26, 1901, p. 25. 11 The ms. belongs to the Gaster collection and a description follows : Contains 44 leaves, paper codex. 10 x 14 cms. 1 column to a page, 18-20 lines to a page. First quire of 4 leaves is blank, except for scribbling. This is followed by five quires of 8 leaves, all inscribed except the last leaves of the second and fifth full quires. Numeration (recent, Roman numerals) starts with the first 8 leaf quire and runs through to fol. 39, omitting the blank leaf at the end of the second full quire. Contents: lr-4r. Fifth chapter of lamentations with a Hebrew commentary. Begins VD HN33 •o'? rrn na •" tot pica -ini'? nVaan ipo pmn icoa pin ns’K nVia : xin in urnan 4v-6v. H2tp3 3K3 nSIWI TT TTO 5v, bot.-8v. 3H3 nsran 3 *iy no 9r-10r. A Greek lament (cf. Brit. Mus. Ms. Or. 6276 fol. 12b.) D’^DNI mm*? “113T O’Vtprvnnno o’as oa*r idut ion The Greek begins : ID ’p’mp ’N ID IN OnDN ID ’p mm ID « ID’Dll

DIDD’N

3

INTRODUCTION

Corfu 12 since it is full of grammatical errors, some due to over-literal translation from the Spanish (e.g. 8.15 xb nm1? D'attnn UN for Sp. pensamos aver; nnn “p Vd for Sp. tanta matanga); and others due to imperfect knowledge of Hebrew (e.g. 9.3 insn 9.8, 9.13 Similar errors occur also in other texts in the manuscript (e.g. fol. ir Kin in; 33r nrw Qn»). In places where the Jews spoke Arabic various Arabic versions of the paraphrase appeared. As Kayserling pointed out, these are not simple paraphrases, but rather a kind of Midrash 13. These texts are of considerable literary and linguistic interest, and four versions are published here together with variant readings of another ms. and a fragment of another version. While much scholarly work has

ior-i2r. ijp ptfVa Vra pD bmw n bv mi pb nrp The Greek begins :

yyvbl'X VtiVKyp

WDlpn ID DlpjDn HpID DID

12r-13r. A Ladino lament with the rhyming words in Hebrew. The Spanish begins : IVa : llVirH IXDXDtf iOij? ’Kll iTlliN npan T’a IT’NnDtTT ]ND KDV IDIp ’NJI llpj? &nj?»n 13r-13v. A lament in Hebrew and Judeo-Italian. It begins : •,,7 iT’n ’j? lore : nrmn Try] osn u1? |ni: nnixi ’aa or1'? mn oi,n

D,l7ii la’oio •’j?

’NiB : D’Vna

14v-15v. An Italian lament on the destruction (cf. Brit. Mus. Ms. Or. 6276 fol. 7a). Va’n nun UTiiisai inpa am irxana m

The Italian begins :

SHpail D’a ^7

’IDDi] ,Bj?,D

TD HIOPK

16r-18v top. The story of Hannah and her seven sons, in Hebrew (in prose)

Begins : nmB Q» HinV Hl’p 18v-19v. The story of the son and daughter of R. Ishmail in Hebrew (prose) Begins: numBi Viu )na Vxynm n nai ^a1? nrp 19v-21r top. The story of Zechariah Begins : nBlTD D» n’lDt* *? APp 21r-24v. The story of the ten sages slain by orders of the government Begins: nmB ay HBiVa ’inn rmy1? npp 24v-3Ir. The haftara for the Ninth of Ab. Each verse is followed by a Hebrew commentary. 31v-32r. Further laws for the fast. 33r-38v. A story of the horrors of the siege. □'"ID *11D0 12 But not low enough to prevent squabbles over ritual minutiae. See the book S7Q1T nfcnp *1Dt^ (Salonika, 1755) which details a protracted dispute over a liturgical matter on the island. 13 “... nicht blosser Paraphrase sondern ebenfalls eine Art Midrasch ...”. M. Kayser­ ling, Homiletisches u. Literarisches Beiblatt ale Anhang zur Bibliothek judischer Kanzelnredner II, (Berlin 1872), p. 35.

4

INTRODUCTION

been done on the “classical” period of Judeo-Arabic and on the modern spoken dialects 14, little is available on the intervening quasi-literary language. Since these texts represent what is essentially the same item in various dialects, they provide material for the history of the develop­ ment of the Arabic language, and enable us to compare various dialects of the Jews and how they wrote them down. On account of the over­ whelming influence of the Koranic dialect, Moslem texts say much less to us about the spoken language at any given point in time than do Jewish and Christian texts, even though these were also affected in many instances by the norms of classical Arabic 15.

The Manuscripts

The Arabic materials are derived from five manuscripts : 1. Bodleian ms. Hunt. 415 fol. 173r-179v designated 0. 2. British Museum ms. or. 10385 fol. 39r-40v designated B2. 3. British Museum ms. or. 10151 fol. 60r-61r designated B3 and fol. 62r69v designated Bl. 4. Sassoon ms. 661 p. 1-15 designated SI. 5. Sassoon ms. 736 p. 2-4 designated S2. The Bodleian Manuscript This manuscript is described in A. Neubauer, Catalogue of Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library vol. I (Oxford, 1886) col. 215-216 no. 1006. According to the scribe’s signature the manuscript was com­ pleted on the first of Kislev 5422/1661. It forms part of the Huntingdon collection purchased for the museum in 1693 and said to originate in Aleppo. It is carefully written in a small, neat hand in rabbinic cursive and is complete. Some few parts have been damaged by damp and are illegible. The manuscript is referred to as “Ubersetzung u. Comm.” 14 See Joshua Blau, A Grammar of Medieval Judeo-Arabic (Jerusalem, 1961) and bibliography there. On the modern period see e.g. Louis Brunot and Elie Malka, Textes Judeo-Arabes de Fes (Rabat, 1939) and Glossaire Judeo-Arabe de Fes (Rabat, 1940); Louis Brunot, “Notes sur le parler arabe des Juifs de Fes” Hesperis I Trim 1936; Marcel Cohen, Le Parler Arabe des Juifs d'Alger (Paris, 1912); David Cohen, Le Parler Arabe des Juifs de Tunis (Paris, 1964). 15 Cf. Joshua Blau, The Emergence and Linguistic Background of Judeo-Arabic (Oxford, 1965) especially chapter two.

INTRODUCTION

5

in M. Steinschneider, Die Arabische Literatnr der Juden (Frankfurt, 1902), p. 287. As to language, it is apparent that the scribe was familiar with the norms of classical Arabic and attempted to apply them. Thus the definite article appears always as even before letters where the l is assimi­ lated. The full form of the relative hVn is usual, although the vulgar form •’btf also occurs. The scribe uses a diacritic after N in certain words (e.g. NISN) presumably to indicate that the N represents tanwin. Hypercorrections occur, e.g. for Non-classical elements include b-imperfects; first person singular forms of the imperfect of the verb in n- as well as a first plural in n-u; negations followed by —si; possession indicated by or ttNrQ; II forms of the verb where classical usage requires IV forms; confusion of emphatic and nonemphatic consonants; also certain lexical items and various Hebrew loans especially for religious technical terms. Details may be found in the notes on this and the other manuscripts. In the transcription the first column of the recto is called a, the second 6, the first column of the verso is called c; the second d. The British Museum Manuscripts Ms. or. 10385 is part of the Gaster collection. It is mentioned in the Museum checklist but is otherwise undescribed. It is a paper codex measuring 11 x 15 cm. The original numeration was 100-16-1; missing of the original numeration are fol. 1-8; 13-16; 21-31; 37-38; 45-46; 51; 53-54; 62-63; 69-70; 77-78; 88-90; 90-94; 96; 98-99; 1; 3; 9-10; 13. Three unpaginated leaves have been inserted after fol. 39, and are numbered 11-13 in the museum pagination. The manuscript is a scrappy collection of sermons, kabbalistic symbols and folk-remedies. Fol. 19-23 contain a haggada (Passover service). Our text is on fol. 39r40v (75r-76v of the original numeration). Since fol. 77-78 of the original numeration are missing, our text breaks off after the beginning of v. 8.18 and the rest is missing. The text is identical in content with O, hence a list of variations only is published here. The following ortho­ graphic and linguistic differences in this text may be noted : 1. Final p| is used; O uses b. 2. The diacritic on D and D is normally omitted; it is used on } and s. 3. The definite article is not written separately and is usually V (N when assimilated).

6

INTRODUCTION

4. More Maghrebi forms occur e.g., *unK orrm 'im&l but classicizing forms also e.g. DimDN. 5. The name of God is written riN^N. compared with 0 nWx. Ms. or. 10151 is likewise part of the Gaster collection, mentioned in the checklist, but otherwise undescribed. It is a paper codex measur­ ing 8.5 X 11.5 cm. The original pagination runs up to 102. Missing are 1-6; 89; 96-98. 67-81 and 83v-85r are blank. In the museum’s pagination the contents are as follows : lr-59v Hebrew elegies for the ninth of Ab ; 60r-61r a fragment of a version of the Arabic haftara for the ninth of Ab in a different hand from the preceding pages (our text B3); 62r-70v part of the Arabic haftara for the ninth of Ab in the same hand as the elegies (our text Bl); 71r-73r part of the story of Hannah in rhyming Arabic; 73r-74r part of the story of Job in Arabic. Text B3 is a paraphrase of Jeremiah 8.15. It relates an expanded version of the story in the Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 38b with a parallel in Midrash Lamentations 1.16.51. The child’s name is given in these sources as Doeg b. Joseph (or perhaps this is the name of the father; the text is not quite clear). In this brief text the phoneme j is represented by 1 with a sublinear diacritic. Eusebe Vassel16 notes that this representation is Algerian usage; in Tunis and Meknes j is indicated by ) with a supralinear diacritic. This suggests the text may be of Algerian origin. It would appear that /j/ and /z/ had merged in the dialect of this text as jfcOB and PTS7 appear, both from y y.. The scribe was aware that his single phoneme corresponded to two in good Arabic and hence used T and \ indifferently. The form of the relative ^ also suggests Algerian origin, as Moroccan texts prefer h or^K; however, the form H also occurs in this text, /s/ and /s/ have also merged (ppNfc Dina OND P0..N&) we may also note “impiety, wickedness” MTn “going to slaughter ...”. Text Bl is written in a neat rabbinic hand. It is written in Maghrebi dialect with no attempt to follow classical norms. The relative pronoun is ad7, the usual form in the dialect of Fez described by Brunot and Malka. The n- prefix is usual for the 1st person impf. of verbs; some interesting forms are referred to in the notes. There are inaccuracies and omissions in the ms. See the notes for other textual problems.

16 “La Literature Populaire des Israelites Tunisiens”, Revue Tunisienne, 11, p. 273288.

INTRODUCTION

7

The Sassoon Manuscripts These manuscripts are described in D. S. Sassoon, Ohel Dawid (Oxford, 1932) volume 2, pp. 837-838 and 857-858. They are undated but would appear to belong to the early nineteenth century. 51 (Sassoon 661) is written in Maghrebi Arabic, the most curious linguistic feature being the confusion of l and n. Possibly this represents merely a palatalization of the n, but probably the phonemes had merged in this dialect. The scribe writes the two letters in very similar fashion; perhaps this reflects his uncertainty as to which he ought to use. However, the presence of a ligature in kdlu in 8.13 where one would expect kdnu leaves no doubt of the confusion 17. The classical phoneme j is generally represented by z. The form in 8.14 poVK) represents the usual Moroccan pronunciation, this word doubtless being a loan from another dialect. 52 (Sassoon 736) is written in a tiny hand in a book measuring 41/4” x 3” and is almost impossible to read with the naked eye. The text is very short, and the language, although not the content, is closest to that of 0. Distinctively Maghrebi forms are absent. This is the only manuscript which uses the Arabic form of the name Nebuchadnezzar nba Its highly telegraphic style suggests that this text was not meant to be read as is, but that it served rather as a set of notes on which the reader could expand as he saw fit.

The Relationship of the Texts

It is hoped to prove the following propositions : 1. The Arabic texts are dependent on the Spanish and not vice versa; 2. The Arabic texts are dependent on one another and do not represent separate versions of the Spanish; 3. The original Arabic version was prepared by a Maghrebi speaker in a classicizing style; from this there developed(l) texts for use in the Maghrebi dialect area in which pretence to the classical language was dropped, and (2) a brief abstract of the original version for use in Baghdad, in which Maghrebi forms were removed. With reference to the first point, it may be mentioned that ms. 0 a\

17 This confusion is found sporadically elsewhere; cf. the spelling of the classical ttA 1r in the other mss.

8

INTRODUCTION

is to be dated in the seventeenth century, after the Spanish haftara was already in print, while the other manuscripts, although they cannot be precisely dated appear not to be very old; they probably all date to the early nineteenth century. This would not in itself prove the ante­ cedence of the Spanish; however, the very first verse of the text will give an indication. The Spanish translates pn n'lN pH by no komo las ubas dela vid, i.e. the Hebrew is rendered midrashically “it is not (a case of) grapes on the vine” that is to say, “not like grapes on the vine”. The peculiar twist given to the translation brings in the notion of a comparison while retaining the negative. The Arabic translates the Spanish roughly, and takes out the negative, while retaining the comparison. It would, I submit, be impossible to get directly from the Hebrew text to the Arabic. The distance from the original Hebrew “there are no grapes on the vine” to the Arabic “like grapes on the vine” is too great; the Spanish rendering links the two, and was un­ doubtedly the intermediary. Possibly an earlier Arabic version read ND in a negative sense, and this N& was omitted by a scribe on account of the presence of another or the similarity of the surround­ ing consonants. The fact too that the same idea, so far from the Hebrew, is found in all Arabic texts suggests that all the texts are related. It seems unlikely that the idea would have risen independently in different areas. Nebuchadnezzar is also mentioned by name in all Arabic texts, although he is not referred to at all in the Spanish. Other verbal similarities among the Arabic versions (e.g. the phrase V7XV3 )XD10 found in all Arabic versions of 8.17 without warrant in the Hebrew, Aramaic or Spanish) suggest that the Arabic versions all stem from a common source. It is probable that 0 is the original Arabic text, or very close to it. Many Spanish Jews emigrated to north-west Africa, which is in close proximity to Spain, and this is prima facie a likely place for such a translation to have been made. The translator who produced 0 tried to write good Arabic, but as the notes indicate, his mask slips, and the Maghrebi forms creep in. Thus he begins (8.13) with a form like DirriDN but by the time he gets to 9.11 slips into B2 is a later edition of the same text, with the classical forms less in evidence. In Bl, B3 and SI the classical language is lost utterly, and we have a reflection of how Jews in different parts of the west were actually reciting this text. Thus the correct p •’b in 0 (8.16) is corrupted to IT'D in the latter Bl. The scribe of SI, probably finding vr'D before him, and noting its clumsiness, omitted it altogether. S2 represents

INTRODUCTION

9

a precis of 0 on which the man charged with the reading could elaborate for himself.

The Literary Quality of the Paraphrase

The style of the paraphrase can only be considered in the light of the purpose for which it was composed. The Ninth of Ab commemorates the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem on two occasions, and as a result a solemn fast was decreed for that day and all enjoyment proscribed 18. In particular the study of the Torah is prohibited, since it “refreshes the soul” (Ps. 19.8) and thus fulfils a function for the spirit analogous to that which food fulfils for the body, producing a comparable euphoria. Exempted are the books of Lamentations and Job and the chapters of Jeremiah which threaten doom, such as those paraphrased here, as well as similar sections of the rabbinic literature, e.g. Midrash Lamentations. The function of the paraphrase is to utilize the permitted themes, and thereby bring the listener to repentance, since this, and not self-affliction, is the essence of the fast19. Accordingly, the paraphrase aims to bring home to the listener his sorry state of disgrace and exile, and move him to the repentance which alone will effect the end of the exile. The sermonic technique of simple but emotive language with much repetition is used. There is no great sense of literary form; all the illustrations tend to the same message : sin has brought terrible destruction : repentance can wipe out sin; ultimately comfort will come. The outpouring of grief at past wrongs and present sorrows doubtless had a cathartic effect on the listeners, enabling them to express and partly mitigate their private sorrows. Of the various manuscripts 0 is easily the most polished in style. The Maghrebi texts are much rougher, with an absence of smooth transition between topics. As has been noted already, S2 is probably to be regarded as a set of notes rather than a complete text. All versions were surely meant to be heard rather than read. The chant and inflec­ tions of the speaker must have compensated for their literary deficien­ cies. 18 On the relevant laws see the codes of Maimonides, Mishne Torahy hilkhoth ta’anith and of Karo, Shulhan Arukh, orah hayyim, chaps. 554-560. 19 The Jewish sages observed that in Jonah 3.10 it does not say that God saw their sack-cloth, but their works (Mishna, Ta’anith 2.1).

10

INTRODUCTION Sources of the paraphrase

The major source of the legends found in all the versions of the Arabic paraphrase is the Midrash Lamentations (ML) an early constituent of the Midrash Rabba consisting of a running commentary on the book of Lamentations, preceded by a set of proems which may or may not have formed part of the original compilation. Both the proems and the running commentary are utilized in the paraphrase. Here follows an identification of the midrashic material in the texts. Those features which stem directly from the Spanish paraphrase are not in general included. 8.15 (SI, B3) An elaboration of the story of Doeg b. Joseph ML 1.16 (51) cf. 2.20 (23) and Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 38b. 8.16 The Targum explains pD as a reference to idol worship, i.e. “on account of (the calf which they worshipped in) Dan. Kimchi in his commentary ad loc. mentions this, and also explains that Dan was a border town. The Spanish gives the explanation of the Targum only; S2 gives Kimchi’s explanation only; 0 and B2 give both. SI and Bl omit the reference to Banias which was probably unfamiliar to them. (0, Bl, SI) 400 academies in Bethar; the blood of the slain reached the sea (“sea” is corrupted to “Bethar” in SI) : ML 2.2 (4). (Bl, SI) R. Eleazar was saving Bethar through his prayer; non-putrefaction of the bodies : ML 2.2 (4). The immoral behavior of the daughters of Zion : ML 4.15 (18). 8.17 The Spanish here reads mordervosan i matarvosan thus conflating the original Hebrew text (DDDN IDttTl) with the paraphrase of the Targum (pDIV p^Up'n). This is followed by all Arabic versions except S2 which reverts to the Hebrew. (Bl) You will truly weep : cf. ML 1.2 (23). 8.18 (all) The prophet has no strength to lament : cf. ML Proem 2 (and Spanish). (0) The enemy did as they desired : ML Proem 24. (0, SI) God changed over the angels of fire and water : ML 2.2 (5). 8.19 (0, SI) The Levites do not wish to sing for their captors : Cf. Midrash Pesikta Rabbati, 31, 144. 8.22 (0, SI, Bl) Hanina b. Dosa knew if the sick person would live : Mishna, Berakhoth, 5.5.

INTRODUCTION

11

8.23 80,000 priests; breaking the children’s skulls : cf. ML 2.2 (4). 9.1 (0, Bl, SI) The departure of the Shekina in ten stages : ML Proem 25. 9.2 (0, Bl, SI) Nebuzardan quiets the blood of Zechariah : ML Proem 23; II.2 (4). 9.9 (0, SI) Jeremiah weeps over the severed fingers : ML Proem 34. 9.10 (0, SI) The twenty-four thoroughfares etc. : ML 1.1 (2) (0 inserts ‘‘thousand” in each case, a slip or exaggeration not followed by SI). 9.17 (0, SI) Blood reaches the sea : ML 2.2 (4). 9.18 (0, SI, S2) The appeal to the patriarchs; Moses speaks to the people who think he has come to save them : ML Proem 24. 9.20 (0) Nebuzaradan could not subdue Jerusalem and wanted to return : ML Proem 30.

Printed Editions

Information is given here on about a dozen printings of forms of these texts. Generally the printed editions are unreliable and full of printing errors, as the type setters did not know Arabic. In this list Yaari refers to A. Yaari, Hebrew Printing in the East pt. 2 (Jerusa­ lem, 1940) and Vassel to Eusebe Vassel, “Bibliographic”, Revue Tunisienne pp. 51-120, 200-264 (1904-1907). 1. 2. 3. 4.

Calcutta, undated mv DS7 3*0 nswn mODH (Yaari 111). Calcutta, 1844 n'n mBDn Printed by Eleazar Arakie (Yaari 13). Livorno, 1853 '0 (British Museum). Livorno, 1864 p'p iniTDD •any pnnD ov mo nswn m&Dn nso rTDlNI 2'IV “TNin Quoted by M. Griinbaum, Jiidisch-Spanisch Chrestomathie (Frankfurt, 1896) p. 36. Cf. Yaari, p. 101. 5. Bombay, 1886 (bmvro 0*0 Ttf) ''OW iniO *,DD 0*0 nSWO mODH ■nnn (Yaari 41). 6. Bombay, 1889 02 OiO 7]2Vrb mODH m\00'l 20 rTNOl p'O lYITp TTO

nowon oidto *rsr "odo no nooni *rsr T*no p'p imoo onr Vo n*w nno'pn noVon irnmx nV^oo nnn m ttt oio m VKptT n'n Vw .roV o'onnn moo n'T nmnon 20 For the explanation of this phrase see D.S. Sassoon, Ohel Dawid (Oxford, 1932) vol. 2, p. 838.

12

INTRODUCTION

7. Tunis, 1899 nxwn nrb m&Dn xim man1? ny *idd ed. Simah Levy. Printed by V. Finzi (Vassel 128). 8. Tunis, 1906 k'sp onn 3n3» nrmffD nxa moDn. Printed by Sion Uzan (Vassel 437bis). 9. Livorno, 1906 nDiM Vs; 2X2 'o rnDDn.-.D^ai nrnnx nao (L.H. Elmaleh, Philadelphia). 10. Baghdad, 1908 2X2 nswn mt3Dn (Yaari 137). 11. Livorno, 1912 ninn 71 '0 (British Museum). Of these, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10 are eastern, i.e. similar to S2 and 3, 7, 8, 9 are western, i.e. similar to SI.

ARABIC TEXTS

loku

ci,x i,ax diui.^

q^um