The Commentary of David Kimhi on Isaiah: Edited, with his Unpublished Allegorical Commentary on Genesis 9781463213121

Citation preview

T H E COMMENTARY OF DAVID KIMHI ON ISAIAH

THE COMMENTARY OF DAVID KIMHI ON ISAIAH Edited, with his Unpublished Allegorical Commentary on Genesis

LOUIS FINKELSTEIN

GORGIAS PRESS

2008

First Gorgias Press Edition, 2008 The special contents of this edition are copyright © 2008 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. Published in the United States of America by Gorgias Press LLC, New Jersey

This edition is a facsimile reprint of the original edition published by the Columbia University Press, New York, 1926

ISBN 978-1-59333-675-2 ISSN 1935-4398

GORGIAS PRESS 46 Orris Ave., Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA www.gorgiaspress. com

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standards. Printed in the United States of America

PART I CHAPTERS 1 - 3 9

CONTENTS Page

Note by Professor Richard Gottheil Preface

XI XIII

Introduction I. The Life of R. David Kimhi XVI II. R. David Kimhi as Commentator XXIII III. Texts On Which This Edition Is Based . . . XLIII Appendix I. Kimhi's Allegorical Commentary on Genesis . LIII Appendix II. The Loazim in Kimhi's Commentary on Isaiah LXXV Appendix III. Variants from the Guadalajara Edition . . . LXXX Appendix IV. The Order of the Commentaries XCIV Hebrew Text Kimhi's Introduction to his Commentary on Isaiah . . . . Kimhi's Commentary on Isaiah

vii I

N O T E

O

ne of the leading Jewish grammarians and exegetes of the Middle Ages was David Kimhi. Living in France, he was also cited as Maistre Petit, and had an influence not only upon those of his own race who busied themselves with Hebrew and with Biblical matters, but also upon others outside of his immediate circle. For some time the want has been felt of a critical edition of his commentaries upon that part of the Bible that have come down to us. In the present volume Dr. Finkelstein has given us such for that part which deals with the Book of Isaiah. With much care and forethought he has used the earliest editions of the text, of Guadalajara 1482, of Soncino i486, and of Lisbon 1492 — each of which is based on an independent source. In addition some manuscript material of portions of the commentary has been put at his disposal. To this critical edition, Dr. Finkelstein has prefixed an introduction, in which he not only gives a detailed account of the life of the author, but also a hitherto unknown philosophic commentary upon Genesis, chapters 2, 3 and 4. I commend heartily the following work to all those who are interested in the history of Biblical exegesis. RICHARD

Columbia University December 17, 1924.

GOTTHEIL

PREFACE

I

t is eight years since I began to prepare the edition of Kimhi's commentary on Isaiah, the first part of which appears in this volume. The suggestion that such a work would supply a widely felt want came to me originally from Professor Alexander Marx, who also aided me considerably in obtaining the necessary material for the volume. Professor Richard Gottheil, under whom I studied at the University, at once realized the importance of editing this popular commentary and helped me in many ways in the course of my work. The edition was completed in 1918, but the printing of it was delayed because I entertained the hope that with the return to normal conditions after the war, it might be possible for me either to borrow or to secure a photograph of the only copy of the Guadalajara edition of Kimhi's commentary on Isaiah now extant, which is to be found in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary in Breslau. After years of waiting this hope was given up, and the volume was sent to press. It was only then, that I was enabled through the courtesy of Dr. Chaim Heller of Berlin to include the variants from that edition as an appendix to the work. The value of a critical edition of Kimhi became continually more apparent as the work of preparing it proceeded. From the citations of the various texts in the Introduction, particularly those in Chapter III (p. XXXIV) the reader will see at once how with time the texts became more and more corrupt. Most of the citations of the Targum were omitted or shortened in them, and the ravages of the censor are only equalled by

—

XIV

—

those of the careless copyists and printers who again and again omitted whole sentences and even paragraphs. Even the printed texts on which this edition is based are very scarce, and the convenience of having an edition in which the variants are listed and the sources of the various quotations are given, need hardly be dilated upon. A s an appendix to the Introduction to this work I felt that it would be highly appropriate to publish the only part of Kimhi's work which has not hitherto been printed, his philosophical commentary on Genesis, chapters II, III and IV. In editing this treatise I have had the use of Ms. Adler 82, now in the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America,

as

well as of photographs of three Bodleian Mss. of it which Dr. A. E. Cowley kindly put at my disposal. The Lisbon text of the commentary of Kimhi on Isaiah in the Seminary

lacks

a number

complete copy of the commentary

of pages. which

Fortunately

a

is found in the

Case Memorial Library was lent for the purpose of this work by the librarian Dr. C. S. Thayer. Professor D. S. Blondheim of Johns Hopkins University was kind enough to supply the identifications of the glosses (loazini) in this commentary

and

they are presented in an

Appendix to the Introduction. The members of the Faculty of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America took a keen interest in this work and were ever ready to give helpful advice.

Professor Marx as

Librarian was in a position to be of more direct assistance, but I have also received much aid from Dr. Cyrus Adler

and

Professors Louis Ginzberg, Israel Davidson and Morris Levine. When I was in England Mr. Elkan N. Adler permitted me to examine for use in this volume the fragments contained in Ms. Adler 2545.

This text has proved to be of particular

interest as it contained a number of long interpolations from a later period.

—

XV

—

The late Professor Israel Friedlander and Dr. Wilfred P. Kotkov, the careers of both of whom were ended so suddenly and so tragically, were very much interested in this edition of Kimhi. It was at the suggestion of Dr. Friedlander that I had intended to include in the Introduction a discussion of the influence of Kimhi on modern exegesis. I have, however, been informed that an English translation of the commentary is now being prepared in connection with which the matter will doubtless be discussed more thoroughly than would be possible here. The indices of the sources used by Kimhi will appear with the second part of this work, which is already prepared in Ms., and the publication of which will, I hope, not be long delayed.

Louis Jewish Theological Seminary of America June 14, 1925.

FINKELSTEIN

INTRODUCTION CHAPTER I

THE LIFE OF DAVID KIMHI "Tsrael was dispersed among the nations only for the purpose 1 of gaining proselytes," 1 according to the opinion of one of the rabbis of the Talmud. Whether the few proselytes that were added to the house of Jacob during the last two thousand years have not been more than offset by the loss of many of the people through conversion and persecution, may well be doubted. But if Israel has not gained in numbers through the years of wandering and homelessness, it has gained in wealth of ideas. Wherever the Jews came they assimilated thoughts, even if they failed to assimilate persons. From every country they took, on their exodus, not the treasures of gold and silver which the promise to Abraham had led them to expect, but a wealth of understanding. Every land in which Israel sojourned has left its impression on the history of the people, not merely in the stains of tears and blood, but in the more inspiring and infinitely more attractive creations of Jewish literature. The influence of the environment in which the Jews lived on their mode of thinking and on their literature, is nowhere more strikingly illustrated than in the difference between the works that emanated from the Jews in Spain and those that came from the hands of their brethren in France. The Spanish Jews were philosophers, scientific grammarians, lexicographers, philologisst and exegetes. Those of France were first and last, 1

Pesahim 68 b.

— XVII — Talmudists. Not that France lacked commentators on the Bible. The most popular commentary on the Scriptures remains even to this day, that of Rashi. Nor can it even be said of the land which produced men like R. Samuel b. Meir (RasJtbam and R. Joseph Kara 1 , that it was deficient in ability to interpret the Torah and the Prophets literally, as well as homiletically. But it must be admitted that with all the remarkable intuition which some of the French commentators showed in their ability to grasp the meaning of a passage, it was impossible that they should thoroughly understand the Bible without the aid of the grammatical studies that were being pursued in the southern countries. The keen intellect of Rabbenu Tam J certainly clarified many a dim passage in the Talmud, and his methods sometimes strike one as being strangely modern. But when he applied his powers to Biblical exegesis and Hebrew lexicography, he was easily vanquished by R. Joseph Kimhi a man of much smaller attainments but who had the advantage of knowing the works of Hayyuj and I b n j a n a h s , of the existence of which Rabbenu Tam was apparently unaware. W e thus see in France and Spain two separate streams of Jewish thought — the one may perhaps be best characterized as Talmudic and traditional, the other as philologie and philosophical. It was the good fortune of the Jews of Provence, that they were situated on an island, as it were, in the midst of these two streams. The Provençal Jews were thus enabled c. 1085 — 1160. See Rosin, R. Samuel b. Meir, Breslau, 1880. fl. c. 1100. See Poznanski's Introduction to the commentary of R. Eliezer of Beaugency on Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets (Warsaw 1913), pp. XXIII—XXXIX, and Einstein, R. Joseph Kara ttnd sein Commentar zu Kohelet. 1

2

3 c. 1100—1170. For his life see Weiss, Toledot R.Jacob Tam (1883), and A. Berliner in J. J. L. G. Vol. I, (1903), p. I, seq. See Mathews' edition of the Sefer Hagaluj, Berlin, 1887. 5 Early grammarians and lexicographers, flourished in the tentb and eleventh centuries. b 4

-

XVIII

—

to perform a peculiar service to the literature of their people, by synthesizing the learning of the south with that of the north, or if we should use modern equivalents, reconciling the traditional opinions and interpretations which were current in Northern France, with the scientific views which had gained a foothold in Spain. It was their position of vantage which enabled the Jews of Provence, though comparatively few in number, to produce in a relatively short period such master Talmudists as Meiri, R. Jonathan of Lunel, R. Isaac b. Abba Mari of Marseilles, the author of the Ittur, and R. Abraham b. David of Posquieres, as well as such translators and commentators as the Ibn Tibbons and the Kimhis. In the writers on the Talmud and in the Bible exegetes of Provence, we notice the tendency to combine the systematic and scientific methods current in Spain, with the wealth of learning and intuition that was the strength of the French scholars. In no one did the two currents of Jewish thought find a more complete union than in R. David b. Joseph Kimhi. This scholar was born in Provence about the year 1160, probably fifteen or eighteen years after his father had migrated thither from Spain. When he was about five years old his father died, so that he owed his learning primarily to his older brother, R. Moses Kimhi. From his youth, he tells us, he spent much of his time in the study of the Talmud, but his primary interest was doubtless grammar and exegesis in which his father had ' gained some fame and in which his older brother was showing promise. Aside from these bare facts, we know nothing of R. David's early life. He wrote voluminously after he reached the age of forty, 1 but apparently did not write a line — at least nothing that has been preserved — before that. 1 This is evident from the fact that in his earliest work he cites the translation of the Moreh by Ibn Tibbon which we know was only completed in 1205. Furthermore he always refers to Maimonides as being no longer alive. Maimonides died in 1205.

—

XIX

—

Shortly after the year 1205, he published his Sefer Miklol, the first part of which is devoted to Hebrew grammar (Helek Ha-Dikduk) and the second to lexicography (Helek HaInyany. This work shows maturity of judgement, and a wide acquaintance with the older sources. Already here, Kimhi reveals his love ofTalmudic and Midrashic quotations with which he always spices his books 2 . On several occasions he introduces philosophical discussions into his work, and twice he quotes the Moreh Nebukim3 of Maimonides. Strangely enough the first of these citations is from the translation of Ibn Tibbon, but the second is from that of Harizi. The success of his Sefer Miklol was such that one of his father's pupils living at Narbonne, asked R. David to write a commentary on Chronicles, 4 a book which in those days, as in ours, was very much neglected. Apparently this work was very well received, for Kimhi proceeded to write commentaries on the Psalms,5 the Former Prophets, the Later Prophets 6 and the Book of Genesis.? In connection with his commentaries on Ezekiel and on Genesis, he wrote philosophical tracts containing allegorical interpretations of certain chapters of these 1 This part is sometimes called by Kimhi Shorashim, and under this title it is g e n e r a l l y cited. 2

himself

Sefer Ha-

S e e for instance roots: DDJ, n y .

3 T h e citation of Ibn T i b b o n ' s translation occurs under root HD3' that from Harizi's translation under root ton. 4 F o r the proof of the fact that the c o m m e n t a r y on Chronicles was written before any of the others, see A p p e n d i x I V . 5

In A p p e n d i x I V ,

proof is presented tending to show that the

c o m m e n t a r y on Psalms was written after that on S a m u e l and b e f o r e that on Kings. 6 F r o m the introductions to these works it is evident that the commentaries on the L a t e r Prophets were written after those on the F o r m e r Prophets.

7 In spite of Geiger's statement (Kebuzat Mda.ma.rim. p. 249) Kimhi in his c o m m e n t a r y of Genesis does mention his c o m m e n t a r y on Chronicles ( S e e commentary on Genesis 10,4). b*

— books.1

XX

—

H e also wrote at some time a short compendium of

the rules for writing Scriptural Scrolls, called Et Sofer.2

Other

works are attributed to him but the authenticity of their ascription is in doubt.J In his old age, Kimhi took a vigorous part in the defense of the works of Maimonides against the anti-Maimunists.«

In

connection with this struggle he undertook a journey to Spain, where he endeavoured to win over to the Maimunist R. Judah Alfakhar, a leader in Spanish Jewry of the day.

cause The

1

The allegorical commentary on Ezekiel chapter I has been published in Rabbinical Bibles since 1548; that on Genesis is published for the first time below, Appendix I. 2

Lyck, 1864. 3 Neubauer's ascription to Kimhi of a commentary on the Moreh Nebukim and the creed of Maimonides is based on a misunderstanding. (See Neubauer, Catalogue of Bodleian Mss., Vol. 1, col. 775). The tracts referred to by Neubauer are anonymous but are followed by Kimhi's allegorical commentary on Genesis which in this particular manuscript lacks the usual heading. Since this treatise begins with the words nnjn "inDjn ensi> aw» Neubauer, who knew that the allegorical commentary was by Kimhi, assumed that the preceding tracts were also by him. I have been enabled through the courtesy of Dr. A. E. Cowley to obtain photographs of these tracts, which are attributed to Kimhi, and am quite certain from their style, their method and their content, that they are not by Kimhi. The commentary on the rnitspn D1BB published in Kobez Debatim Nehmadim (Husiatyn, 1902) and in Horowitz D'awKl bv ]min, II. p. 60 and attributed to Kimhi, is also of doubtful ascription (See Marx, Z. f. H. B. 9,62). The same is true of the polemical work ascribed to him in Milhemet Hobah, Constantinople 1710, regarding which see further Geiger, Proben jtid. Verteidigung gegen christliche Angriffe in M. Bresslauer, Deutscher Volkskalender u. Jahrbuch, 1852, pp. 44—45. The collection of crisuV p' "VI ni31»n which are printed together with R. LippmannMiilhausen's lins: 1£D are taken from Kimhi's commentary on Psalms. The commentary on the book of Ruth ascribed to Kimhi is not his (See Zedner, Catalogue of Hebrew Books in the British Museum, p. 141). Dr. H. B. Levy in his catalogue BpBEHpD (Hamburg, 1900) Ms. 152,4, records: p"v^ n t m » »ITS David Kimhi iib. d. Ritual d. Schachtens. His collection now forms part of the Municipal Library in Hamburg and deserves further examination, although it seems unlikely that the work can be by our author. 4

See Kobez Teshubot Ha-Rambam,

Part. Ill, niKJp nrun, pp 1—4.

—

XXI

—

letters that were interchanged between Kimhi and Alfakhar on this occasion are of the utmost interest, giving us a better picture of the man than we can gain from his more objective works. The meekness of his tone, and his patience with the abuse heaped on him by his correspondent, cannot but raise him in our eyes. It is clear that already in his own day, his commentary on the description of the Chariot was considered an inferior work. On the other hand, the very fact that he was chosen to represent the Maimunist cause in Spain certainly proves that the fame of his works had spread beyond the borders of his own country even in his own lifetime. The correspondence between Kimhi and Alfakhar took place in 1232, and it is evident from it that Kimhi had completed all his commentaries, with the possible exception of that on Genesis, before that time. A few years after his famous journey he died. He had succeeded in the almost four score of years which he lived in creating a commentary which contained the scientific views of the Spanish Jews, but which was written in the lucid, popular vein, that inevitably made it the treasure also of the French, the German and the Italian Jews. The great popularity enjoyed by Kimhi's works among later generations is strikingly shown by the large number of manuscripts of them which are still to be found in the important libraries, and perhaps even more by the many editions through which the works passed. The commentaries on the Prophetical books were printed before the text of these works and before Rashi's commentary on them, just as Rashi on the Pentateuch appeared before the text of that book. That Kimhi on the Psalms is one of the first Hebrew books published, the date of which is known, and that the commentary on Isaiah was printed thrice in the decade between 1482 and 1492, is remarkable testimony to the high esteem in which the author was held. This reverence for him was by no means limited

—

XXII

—

to the small groups of scholars. The many editions of the Haftarot accompanied by his commentary, which appeared from 1505 to our own day, are evidence of the admiration that the wider circles of educated laymen had for him. One of the results of the great popularity of Kimhi's works was that the older commentaries, which had been written in Arabic, were forgotten. Kimhi and Ibn Ezra became the standard scientific commentaries on the Prophetical books and writings like those of Ibn Balaam and Ibn Chiquitilla on which they had so largely drawn were completely lost till the new interest in the history of Jewish exegesis brought them to light in the last century. But if Kimhi's clear and flowing style was responsible for the oblivion into which some of the earlier commentaries fell, he and Ibn Ezra must, on the other hand, be credited with having done more than any other individuals toward bridging the gulf that separated the Spanish and French schools of Jewish Bible interpretation. It was the work of Kimhi which served as the stepping stone by which the Gentile scholars gained admission into the sanctuary of Scriptural learning as understood by Israel. It was Kimhi's works that were first translated into other languages, and of all the Jewish commentators he exerted the greatest influence on later Christian exegesis. It is no accident that five centuries after his death, he was quoted in the classic biography of a language 1 which he never understood, and in a country which he never visited.2 Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson. The standard biography of R. David Kimhi is that of Geiger, first published in the Ozar Nehmad II, 157, and reprinted in his Kebuzat Ma'amarim, first edition, Berlin 1877, p. 30, re-edited by Poznanski, Warsaw 1910—1, p. 231. See also article on him in Ersch u. Gruber, Encyklopaedie, section II, volume 36, p. 56. For further bibliography see Jewish Encyclopedia VII, 494, to be supplemented from the list given by Newman, Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements, p. 326. 1

2

C H A P T E R II.

R. DAVID KJMHI AS COMMENTATOR R, David Kimhi's primary claim to greatness as commentator rests on his peculiarly lucid style in which the most abstruse matters of grammar and exegesis are successfully imbedded in a very readable running interpretation of the text before him. He is particularly successful when he attempts, as he sometimes does, to sum up a picture of events from various Biblical passages. Thus in his commentary on II Kings 18 14 (see text below, p. 214) he gives a fine summary of the historical events regarding the movements of Sennacherib as he gathered them from the various sources in the Scriptures. He separates the homiletic, rabbinic interpretation very carefully from the purely exegetical remarks and from the grammatical statements that he makes to clarify a point. The citations of the Targum which are made regularly in the prophetical works are always inserted at the end of his comment. Kimhi habitually comments only on those verses which seem to him to be particularly in need of elucidation. In his commentary on Isaiah the difficulty of the text made it necessary for him to make some remark on practically every verse. 1 When, however, he reached the less difficult book of Jeremiah Kimhi reverted to his original method, as he says in his introduction to that work (ed. Soncino, 1485): •pIXBT f^DHt Etf-SB^ *pS(P D-'plDDH 71 tn ISDH STOK N^ti w y B " 1ED3 wtsyt? ibs mpo bon pios inn pice N"? ]pip-6 . Doii?ti-in Di"IDD n j m x VWJ>® ins 1 Compare for example his commentary on II Kings 18 13—an (reproduced on pags Z14—226), with any part of his commentary on Isaiah.

—

XXIV

—

While R. David Kimhi usually pays much attention to the interpretations given by his father, R. Joseph, there is one matter in which their methods differ. R. Joseph sought so far as possible to explain the repetitions, parallelisms and synonymous expressions of the Bible as being of special significance. In one or two cases he admits that the Scriptures repeat themselves (compare Sefer Ha-Galuj, p. 23) but usually he holds that each word has a particular meaning. When, for instance, Jeremiah cries, "Trust not in lying words, saying: The Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord are these," (7.4) the elder Kimhi feels that the repetition of the word tovr must be interpreted. He explains that it was used thrice "because there were three parts, the porch, the Temple proper and the Holy of Holies." "ON 'OlIKI byr\ Dioys l o w . . . -ip» •nyi by intain p pmsn errs V't 1 •VO-n ^TTI D ?!« DTO nvbv ITW ^ (cited by R. David Kimhi in the Sefer Ha-Shorashim, root tan, and in his comment to Jeremiah ad loc.). When Isaiah wrathfully calls out: •a 1JWB am TIBDHl "Children have I raised and exalted but they have rebelled against me" (1. 2), R. Joseph Kimhi feels that the use of the synonyms Titan and YlBBVl can only be explained as VWStW DTIBBim TlTlfQ DVltaj "I have raised them through my Torah and exalted them by my Presence," (quoted in the commentary of R. David Kimhi ad loc). The obscure expressions 21TJN in I Kings 14 10, are taken by R. Joseph Kimhi to refer to two different classes of wealth (cited by R. David in his Sefer Ha-Shorashim, root ")XJ>, and in his comment to the passage): SlfW "lt*1J?n HSJ? V't "OK "OHK nrD »Tl^a airy KOTP mpon 21TJN DYD3 US? "Asur means the money which is placed in the treasure house; while Azub refers to the flocks which are left in the field." In opposition to this method the younger Kimhi developed the theory that pt)"6 » . , p y n the Scriptures often make use of parallelisms and repetitions for the sake of emphasis.

—

XXV

—

I do not at the present writing recall any instance of the enunciation of this principle in the commentary on the Book of Chronicles, or in the commentaries on the Former Prophets. But it occurs quite often in the commentaries on the Later Prophets, on the Psalms, and even in that on the Book of Genesis (See in particular R. David's comment on Isaiah 19 12; 27 1, 32 18, 40 1, 57 16; Psalms 18 3, 75 6, 96 13, 105 13; Genesis 49 ")• On the other hand R. David always endeavours to interpret not only the Qeri (i. e. the Massoretic text as read) but also the Ketib (MT as written) where the two are not alike. According to him the traditional text of the Scriptures was established by the Men of the Great Synagogue on the basis of the manuscripts available at the time. In most instances they adopted the text that appeared most valid, but where they were in doubt they accepted one reading for the writing and another for the reading. Hence both the Qeri and Ketib are of equal validity. R. David's statement regarding this matter is so important that it must be quoted in full (from the Introduction to the commentary on Joshua, ed. Leiria, 1494): -)tS>N3 n\TO K^l npl np 3TD1 npl STD DJ?tS 2irDN DJ r6«n niVon "o n«iii loipcn nn«i nn« b arriE^ ojm nn1? T i n Dinsnn i ^ m i nnsDn n a « n i w s i ro^at? ^ p iksdj np^no ikxd may mn«w n"?njn n o » 'wasi ina m w n anjn raw « t o mpoai anjn ^ ann in« arts anaas aijsaa n r o k^i p m o nna 1» *npj man n r o m a n by .ftme -p-ni b^b^d i n n n r o pi "I will also give in each passage the interpretation of the Ketib and the Qeri, as well as of the Ketib which is not to be read, and the Qeri which is not to be written, whenever I can do so. For these differences of reading occur because in the course of the first exile the books were lost, the scholars dispersed, and the students of the Torah died, so that the men of the Great Synagogue who restored the Torah to its previous

—

XXVI

—

status found differences of reading among the manuscripts and they accepted the reading of the majority according to what they thought best. Where they could not determine the truth with certainty they inserted the reading with the provision that it be not read, or they wrote it on the margin (so that it might be read) but omitted it from the main text, and similarly they accepted one reading for the main text, and put the other on the margin." This rather modern view of the origin of the various Scriptural readings might have sounded heretical to many of Kimhi's contemporaries. Yet Kimhi unhesitatingly re-asserts it in the course of his commentaries. Thus in his comment on I Kings 17 14 he remarks that the readings nn (the Ketib) and ]nn (the Qeri) are both correct and he adds (ed. Soncino, 1485):

m i m«najn wantw n t o a -o npi ainaa w i j n nana 1221 by naj? tói p n m « «naiai -p nn« «na¿a [^«sid "rs] piosio . f i r o a mn«m a n s a » nn«n lanai Divva "in the course of the Dispersion the texts became confused and one text was found to read thus and another otherwise. A s it was impossible to decide which was correct, the one was adopted, and the variant placed on the margin." The differences in reading between the book of Genesis and the corresponding parts of the Book of Chronicles are similarly explained by Kimhi. For instance he explains the fact that the B'Oin of Genesis 10 4 are called ffOHI in I Chronicles 1 7, as follows: n^KTip rnt? ty D'oicnpn a^arojn a^an\n n e e a n\snm n'^na an« ^a niatyn vikimi t r n a a^-np i w en n'^na ntn 1SD3 anaii mtoipn nn«a n ^ K i a naaa ana: p^s1? B>'"Hai .t?'"na nn n"Vn «up nt a«i nn« at? tan -a jrnin^> n m s a "Those who investigated the books of genealogies which were written in ancient times, in some cases read the names with a Dalet and in some cases with a Resh. The names were thus handed

—

XXVII

—

down among the men in variant forms both with Dalet and with Resh. Therefore in the book of Genesis one of the forms was adopted and the other was written in this book (of Chronicles) so that everyone might know that both forms refer to the same name in spite of the fact that in one case it is read with Dalet and in the other with Resh" (Commentary on I Chronicles I 7)Kimhi was doubtless helped in arriving at these rationalistic explanations of the development of the Qeri and Ketib as well as the differences between the readings of the various Scriptural texts, by his good fortune in having access to an unusually large collection of manuscripts. We are not told whether the books he consulted were his own or the property of others but it is quite clear that the number of books at his disposal was extraordinarily large for the period. He consulted numerous copies of the Scriptures from which he cites variant readings (see for example Sefer Ha-Shorashim, roots ?in and nni; commentary on Judges 6 19, I Kings 7 18, II Kings 1 7 3 1 and I Chronicles 2 54). Nor are the manuscript sources quoted indiscriminately. With scholarly accuracy Kimhi takes care to mention the origin of each manuscript when he knows it, and also to inform us when he employs a manuscript of reputed correctness (p^llD 1BD). In one instance he refers to a Palestinian manuscript which had important massoretic notes {Sefer Ha-Shorashim, root, 'ynniii p i r n nan« ^roi ^ » i t prra ison w k h isnyaV o^mi The famous Sefer Hillcli, which served as a standard text for the Spanish Jews for many centuries, is cited several times in Kimhi's works, generally, however, in the name of R. Jacob b. Eleazar (See Strack, Prolegomena Critica in Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum, pp. 16—17}. It is true that from his commentary on Psalms tog 10, one would get the impression that Kimhi himself had seen the work, since he writes, without mentioning

—

XXVIII

—

any secondary source: vty 2VD K^tS^lt» ^ n 1SD31 ,i)ttn .Tnitt rv6 n n o a n [ed. Naples 1487 and Codex Adler 1318; First Edition wrongly D'Mri "lfiDDI] Nevertheless the matter must remain uncertain in view of the fact that the very passage is quoted in the Sefer Ha-Shorashim (root EH"i) in the name of R. Jacob b. Eleazar. Of course it is possible that after Kimhi had written the Sefer Ha-Shorashim, he visited Toledo, where the ancient book was kept, and had the opportunity of examining it so that he could quote it directly. Kimhi consulted, however, not only old manuscripts but other works in order to arrive at the correct text of the Scriptures. In his commentary on Joshua 21 7 he remarks that some scrolls contain two additional verses, which in his opinion ought to be omitted. In regard to this question he consulted many old manuscripts and also a responsum of R. Hai Gaon. Kimhi also made use of a copy of the list of variants in the so-called Codex Severus. Thus he says in his commentary on Genesis 1 31 (p. 9 b) n N ^ r w i n " n i t o a v o m m m r o t i k x d mki niD

mo

nam

Drrintn

Kntroan

koyidi

ntuj

nrvn

ktti

(See also A. Epstein, in Chwolson Festschrift, p. 51). The same care which Kimhi uses in establishing the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, he employs also in fixing the text of the Targum. In this connection also he investigated the reading of a number of manuscripts (see Sefer Ha-Shorashim, root H^K; commentary on Judges 9 4; I Kings 19 2, 20 20; Isaiah 14 19). We also find citations from the various Targumim on the Hagiographa in his works (Targum on Ruth, Sefer Ha-Shorashim, root BJ?, Targum on Psalms in commentary, II Kings 17 31, but not in commentary on Psalms, concerning which see below, p. XCV, and Targum on Job in commentary on Isaiah 13 10). Even more important than these are his citations from the Targum shel Tosefta (see e. g., commentary on Judges 1 1 1 ; I Kings 22 20; II Kings 4 1, 4 6, 4 7, 13 21), concerning which

—

XXIX

—

both Zunz (Gottesdienstliche Vorträge), p. 77 ff.) and Bacher (in Z. D. M. G. 28 1 ff.) have written elaborately. But Kimhi's scholarly interest in the establishment of a correct text was not limited to the works on which he was commenting and the Targumim, but extended also to such books as the Mishna and the Talmud. Thus in his comment on I Kings 7 7; he cites the Mishna Abot, 4 16» with the following remark: J ^ p l t ^ DJ3TO "H3 "TntllSS )pnn 1 1 ) 3 « » 103 7 ' B D 3 m e n s nWHDU m Similarly in I Kings 209, he cites from Sanhedrin 102 a the passage regarding Ahab's veneration for the Torah both in the form: minn n« "OBO m-fllK 3 " 3 3 n a i n s n and also in the form: m w n H« T33t? ^£50 wnw nanitr. On the other hand like most of the writers of his day, Kimhi relied on his memory in making quotations and this accounts for the vast number of inaccuracies that occur in regard to them. Thus he cites the passage E^K 3^3 iTDKTID ni31 (Proverbs 19 21) as from the Psalms (Joshua 1 1 19). Less startling but no less strange to a modern reader are the many inaccurate quotations from the Scripture that occur in his works. In the very first verse of Isaiah he quotes the passage of II Chronicles 272: DTIWD nj>n njtt as DWWO DJ?n -nj>. Perhaps more serious is his citation in Isaiah 2 8, of 1 Kings 10 27, as substituting JfVI Ü133K3 D^tFITS ipsn ns nnbv for the D-03K3 "j^an jrm of the original. It is not unusual for him to confuse verses. Thus he cites in Isaiah 5 22 rtönbisb ^Tt iJlt^DM. This is doubtless the result of the confusion of the verses nan^O1? ^n 'OltNrn of Psalms 18 40 with the ^»in 'OUNDn ^Kn of v. 33 of the same chapter. Thus, too, the reading of II Kings 1 9 9 Hpmn JMSBn cn'pn1? N T run ID« 1 ? ms is confused with that of Isaiah 37 9 Jittt^l D H ^ KS'' by and the result is the citation in the form Dr6r6 KT tSTD I^D Hpmn ty y n m in the comment on Isaiah 20 5.

—

XXX

—

The omission or addition of the particle is a very common error. Thus he cites Amos I s as pt^DT IT'ia AN v n a i f l instead of ptfOT m a Tnatri (Isaiah 7 8); and n^JI of Numbers 6 9 as ItPiO n^Jl (Isaiah 7 20). Naturally there are more free quotations from the Book of Chronicles than from the books that are more commonly read and therefore better known. Thus the passage Ua iTISO "IDW^S nj"?n nVjn "TK (Chronicles 5 6) is cited (Isaiah 8 20) as n ^ n n ^ n -\m Kin rnso while nmxan nnj?n bs by ]rm nypa^ "HOWt of II Chronicles 32 1, is cited 1 (Isaiah 1024) as Dtpsrpi n m s a n m i r r n y

^

bp

]m.

There are a number of loose quotations from Talmudic sources. The following is a partial list of such citations found in the various works of our author: Where quoted in Kimhi

Miklol, p. 158a

Form given by Kimhi Probable Source

•niyn rrvan

^ n«

Mishnah Baba Kamma 6.8

Form in Source

Hint? ^ m ^ntys ]ij?ts n i t n a "iaij?i noiaj

DOT lines

n u n n -¡in1? bv n a a

npHi

n« "^im

vmn rmn

Sefer HaShorashim root: 133

7\b "123» Hullin 8 b «D13T

«n^aa

«a 11 «

w

«r^a KD1ST ¡rnsa»^

root: aa^>

" 1 7 a a n -in« na^on

inxi

Mishnah Baba Kamma 6.4

nai?! i n «

«a

a^n na^an

1 It should be noted of course that in this case the verse from Chronicles has been confused with the corresponding passage in II Kings 18,13, which reads: dwdjvi mi,T by h » k nnruD r6j?.

—

XXXI

—

Where quoted in. Kimhi

Form given by Kimhij Probable Source

root: DJ

ffia^nt? 1« Hullin 58b ix rvn^n ijsnin n b « »

root: ISO

root: p3D root:

p"?J?

root: n j ?

root: ipff

13» ^ ISO

pisi nn« i s o pso » 1 « m»î>i> nia mao 1JS0 npity 1131» n a non f a inj^ ]ipi^O 1JS0 nxa «lì? «in»

Baba Batra 62 a

Form in Source

n"?a«» 1« ijarnn ^>«10»

10«

naij^n nai& ninim )31«1 ISO aij?oi m?o

pSDT »1« 1 m»*? ? nia 35a maon IJSO Aboda n:ao i«o Zara 12b ... 101« 0"1 «iJH Berakot 101« «aipj? "i my1? lion pa r a » i KMH Sabbath 25b Kiddushin

]i«

101«

nsa )ipiho «0}?t5 i«0

nai 10« inn» IJSO •?"« . . . . tpu «011? na« f]j? «in» IJSO I D Care must be taken however to distinguish between such loose citations, and cases where Kimhi actually had a text different from ours. Thus under the root n n o Kimhi cites the Talmudic passage 10$? nnOJ» DIpO. This occurs in the printed texts in Hullin 56b as 10J? nnOJ» ba. But a comparison of the variants in Dikduke Soferim shows at once that DlpD 113}? nnoi» is the older and correct reading.

—

XXXII

—

In making lengthy citations Kimhi is usually very careful. His quotations from Rabbinic sources are thus of great importance in the establishment of their texts. Often however he relies on secondary sources. For quotations from the Talmud and Midrashim often his source seems to have been Rashi. His dependence on Rashi becomes evident when the slight changes made by Rashi in his habit of quoting Midrashic passages are freely transcribed by Kimhi. Thus on Isaiah 17 i, Rashi cites the passage beginning ptM3"Q "lOIJ? l y n y toidi as nynjn r o e i ptyo-a This change is found also in Kimhi. 1 The statement occurs in several places and nowhere but in Rashi and Kimhi do we find the word mSDI instead of "VOtDI. Again the statement that the decree against Moab was made when Balak hired Balaam is found nowhere, so far as I could ascertain, but in Rashi and Kimhi (Isaiah 16 7). While it is possible that Kimhi may have used another source, the fact that his statement of the legend agrees with that of Rashi verbatim., lends color to the belief that he took it from Rashi. In the case of parallel passages in the Scriptures, Kimhi, in his earlier works, is inclined to reproduce his comments verbatim, making only slight additions in order to clarify a point or to illustrate his words with some remark from Rabbinic literature. In later times he preferred merely to refer to the earlier comment. Thus in the chapters Isaiah 36—39, he mentions his commentary on the corresponding portion of the Book of Kings, and confines himself to making short notes on the passages that are found only in the book of Isaiah. Similarly in the case of Jeremiah 52, he notes that he has already commented on the text in the corresponding chapter of Kings, and only adds a few remarks. 1

See Ekah Rabbati, petiha, 10.

—

XXXIII

—

It is very fortunate for us that he did repeat himself in his earlier works as this gives us an opportunity of seeing very clearly how his style developed.

Below are reproduced

the main passages which occur more than once in Kimhi's commentary, the forms in which they occur in the different books being set side b y side.

T h e portions are taken from

I Chronicles 15 8—18, which corresponds to Psalms 105 1—10; II Chronicles 6 1 — 23, corresponding

to I Kings 8 13—32;

Psalms 18 4—31

corresponding to II Samuel 22 4—31;

finally

comment

the

long

and

on I Chronicles 18 12, which

is

repeated in connection with Psalms 60 1, and again in connection with I Samuel 8 13. In establishing the text for the sake of comparison use was made of the early editions and such manuscript material as was available.

The

variants are given in the footnotes.

T h e following material was employed: Book

Sources

Notation

Chronicles Rabbinical Bible, Venice 1548

Psalms

T

C o d e x Adler 2809, now in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America

M

Ed. 1477 (ed. pr.)

T

Codex Adler 1318, now in the library

Samuel

of

the Jewish Theological Seminary of America

H

Ed. Soncino, 1485

T

Ms. Sulzberger (Cat. Schwager 2, No. 198; Italian

hand, X V

century)

of

Kimhi

on

Former Prophets in the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America Ms.

(Cat.

Schwager

No. 33; Spanish, X I V

and

. . . .

Fraenkel

century) of

39,

Kimhi

2

—

XXXIV

Book

Kings

—

Sources

Notation

on Samuel in the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America . . . .

J

Ed. Soncino, 1485 Ed. Leiria, 1494

D »

.np c r t n n

. r r n .ta , « a w n

nm

n m 'nf? nin -idki latn imp ¿np^i amnwo^ nn

annt^ m nn piys1?

BB>3 t o p «

n o 1 ? » ) TI a t n « i p « UKI IDS V6K

imp

IDS 1«

«ip^i 103

(.13

71 " p i

.it

«"o)

nnm^

'n

nnrt

nin ,n i«ip :

i d p 3 i t n p 1 « (.na .m

ide>3 5 b p s q i 3 n at? K-ip'n i d s 71

f n

(.1.01 n ^ t n a ) 'n dbq disk at? vm^ty b^djd l y n n nyta inn by •Tityl?s3 bbynm m^yn

iymn apo inn (.i .y n w n ) ti î v r M y "®i . w i ^ y a^Djn by a^na^sa Wiynrw ni^yn

: p « n nan

:)in«n nan

: ^ 3 3 i n e a .1^ n e t ib r w

.3

10 {"6331 n s a .1!? n o t

nt îmtwi dj .vnis^s: ^>33 in"1» jn»n vni«i?BJ i>33 n 6 }D3»j> rwyv anna ni«^>sji 3 ^ n o t f ' i t n p at?a M n n n

r w

.ta

: w i k ^ b j ^33 mw

an«

.ltsnp

by ^ n n n i ? torn a n « / n w p a o 15 b p s ni»yn b

at?a

Mnnn

.•
3 a ^ y n bs

noty p

by n^by

p by p a n n3n3 vnpw 1103 b 1« 'n wpaa an«» ass!? nots»

^>3 1« ti wpae an«» 0333"? naty meisne I^BKI 'n »pao

n e a r n i » i « n )d i ^ b k i t i t f p 3 »

n n i « a p p a a B 3 3 an 1 ?

tnpin

ipnp

nniK a^p33 'n bbo nn"? 20

.'n1?» n ['n 4

¿npni n [^npbi 2 .'V .T [vte 3 .MB

.1

[nel 10

.Ten Dnep .1 [D3D$> 13 .1^6« 1» ,n [I^BKI 18

,'b .T [mwa pijsb 2 .'b .« [VnMp "Bi 7 .^321

,K

10

—

XXXV

—

n^nn 1D3 uiy « i p j )n«n . t t m .n

n^n w «np¿ pi«n .itijn 'n w n .ÍO

(.«D .ny

my

N^NN)

ÍNJ? ^ b

p i

^tab

JM

SIRÓ»

LAS

my

)n«n p » a w i ray orna« jnt ,1

(,HD ,ny n^nn) isaai . m y ynt .y s . . . n s y a r r a « jn? d ^ t i vaya .ijinb» 'n sin .? ^33» B"y« *n «in .T a^tyn í t u b «im vtDñty» p a n utj^K «in rasera p « n nay lirúKi wn^K «in ií?i3 nay iD3 . a m a « n« rns .a ias .D.TI3K n« n-O nt?« .TES n « 'n m s sinn av3 mrop ¡o n« 'n rra «mn oro 3irot? viro i»« 1 ? n n i a r r a « Tiro u ñ ó l ü t ó m 3 B . T D K m n n ini«I (.n1« .ia rmtna) naui rr-nn nni«I (.ÍT< .ID n w n ) "01 "vojn "ini^a nrm pns'1'? nyn»ni nnjn -ibós rrn pnxó nyntym yu -¡b *npi pnsia o t?"D3 pror ^«yat^ ni3j>3 í ó pn:r U ñ ó i d « » na 13 (.311 .«3 a » ) 15nn33 -¡jn^ i » « » na ^ rmap -ia« «b nyntsoi ¡ v m tas nrvn pw 1 ? nyi3t?3i

mpyn nrvn nyi3t?m pres11 "injn .«3 w ) yu -f> «ip^ prcra •o b « j Tystw ^ 3iD3» las pmr pns11 rnpjn nirn nyopm (.3^ prraó nato (.ta .33 a » ) 'n .33 o») tijdbo 13 3W3» tas "nyntw -,ts»« nj?n»n n« Tnaipni 20 n« Tiio^pm pnr6 (.ta 3mji (.3 .13 db>) 7 0 « an-ató on-ató Tiy3Btt n»« nyiatrn V s ] f n « T i m n« Tiia^m na« m n n nniKi (.a11 .p a » ) 7 0 « .pnt^1? nyntín (.ai ,r n») [in« ^«i» 11 pin!? m ^ y n njmtym 53^3 j^tys nnin nnvan ijn? by a^j/ nn3 25 p i wy by xb nvn»ni m n n n s i s n« npy'p pns'» i a « t(.ta .33 Dt7) D-13« ,'b ,-í [pns"3 '3 ®"B3 14 n ['n n«3 18 'nyaiíji .i [3T3 - - - 3"JI 21 ,3in3® IB: pns^

.'b .« [nniop 14 K^i [nn'n pns^ 16 .pns1 -ii;j)3 pin1? apsr!? ni1? pin^ 23

k^k

IDK

,ij?-it by apjr^ rrveyn nyia^n jnt by 13 eòi? nna ^«-its^ Kb nyiatrni m a n nn\n nnrnn j m apyò pren -id« p i w y by 5 TjnAi I'P urna* naia m ^ì? itr« -pue p « n« inttrù -jn« 5 (.n .na dp) amató ovó« ]ö in« bib .]n« i 1 ? -»«!? .1 p « n« ]n« -¡b idíó .m • canini !?an : p 1 0 « m a t a b a n : p -io« m « i i n « bib t t o r r -ma na:l? .Banana .as .a toiDt? .rp D^nn ^ s n o ijkbo ,'n «-ip« Wno •OKtw ,'n «np« ^ n o ^niSnna iaWn»w Wno -n «ip«i uWniw bbnn -n «np« ttsnn tyvm WKB t« IN Vienna .nie natPD : uiaaD / J I B B « .n 15 .mo ^an junao . U I B B K .n anp ana .Tnt? mptnn n m n en j m i ) ,tóv ^an ma ronn ^uoa nip^non

ybm

a w

isa

niob

^an

i^s^i

in«

nj^yi

(.y

a!? nnait? nnxn v n a r e "«1 n^nn nnsa (.n .n jm-r) ntwo "'ß 1« vnu«-n ivnmjc tn«n riran by nt H3«i -in« p j y «mi na« i^«a bvt, 7-n by nati»» 20 loa ni»1? anp ana rnbmn c « i p j D^pmn n^jn -o mo lanai mp^nen ^ o a rrnt? • p a p e bi -letw ma onapo s ^ a « lmtjwa Titian «ipji (.n ,a nay 'by 7 ^ 1 injmna natw «in» -ja ^ n ntno nixa n w ">B jrwi nptna 25 ruaiDD «im nape by nat^ .'ni^Bna ,a [vnSnro 13 ,'b .1 ['mac '31SBN 15 •mjtnni .a [vnumi 19

.ripi^nen - [nipVnon 21

—

XXXVII —

baia» yn

by sxnyy

D^nn bybì

^m

an n m n .'Oinjni ty-òa ^ m i

msn p «pi^n Vmn ib«a bvtn bs by -10« ty'òai «pit^n ^>ma yen

*?a by io«

ty-òai

: rònjn

a » bjr^a . t ì f 1« ra^i«» ycni

a»

ty-òa

.t;t

ik vn^K»

VRNH -I»B«I PA^TI NYA N^I JRCNN .5 ^N: TSNS1? : (.2 ,b .TOT») "JNSO N^M p n b m

p a«a pay N"^

•òan YTRIN) M 1 ^

^A^N NYAI 1

5 (.3 .b ¡TOT ) INA» N^NA p

i n w p B naa -TARI

ina

i s a a a:nn ]ran ytsnn

^ a n ,1

N^TTNO "?«IAT? ISDI NNN P I N

a w a j ban iaa pjwn n^-mo ^«int?) a w a j ^an ina . . . nr«a v i j w i .(.n .1 1 0 1 « ^ .me '•»pia ^iianp :(.n •'¿SA

pm by bvo ,ie«a \vy rhy .e p-in by b&n ,ia«a ]vy rhy .a 'n *]« ?« ma a ^ w a IBK in«ipi 'n ma a ^ i s a IB« VBO .(.ai ,aa anai) in«ipi b « n va» tr«i .(.o11 .aa a m i ) : a b « n reo raw» t?« ,^a«n i s a ^ m i aVa«n VBO n s s ^ m ròna « T I a^nnai . « T I :ANI« NJN UA» I K W j ^ n i itwn n«-p nt?«a p ntyp m y w .ai» meri .a-1 na»n asinai aia me>n .anp annwn nrppwn auma n^nyn «in a-'o mtrn -o i n « p y m a1-» nt auiyn -it?pnna '»a i n « p y m arppwm laa ita ir a ^ n npp 20 a^an p marini natwn n\"m nta (.»!? .? K"D) paia Van a n n i t r ì .o^pnc ^ y «in ita it an^pna a^ayntwi •natrnn ia anai ,'n n i nn« "o .ssa 25 man . n i i ^ n nn« "a .aa «vi rnsm .tysn yy nr «mi mn «vi n:aa nyitynm na^nn «^n mi«n nino nj;i»nni na^nn patrn n^y -\am inti n^um nnsn 1 » « » inti njum ."^nai .3 [o-^rnaì 16 m .u [munì 28

.bmn ìd3 .n [bniD 2 .njro .n [nyDi 5 .'V .n [ibn 2 .nnn n [ìnn 12 msn nya ,n |/:»n msn 25 .na nn» itrns

— XXXVIII — bxw

D^nn •jrnijn -o .b "jmtjn .nn: p m -p 13 ,b BntWD piKi /311K nru *I3»N antro p-ito .1311« i-mj »QB>É< nam jrv ias pitrn «31 natí"! j i r 103 puso «31 p i a^nn) nnns i r (.1 .tss ibvo) mt^ [(.1 .ta ^tfts) rtarn V'n] w a ntnpV ^ n « «a w (.1 .tes sien 1 ® 1« (.1 .tra a^nn) anns tib> j ^ k pi ano k-iik tói ••sil« k t k kVi 1311« i m a fii« 101K1 atsosf? "3"ik n y noin j ^ k n y rom 3^-ik a^iN p i ano nniK in33 ni-iNia^ JHK niYna^ 3^-JK -IBKI DBOD^ •OMK s a m bí3¿ a^-o m n e a a»33« 10« ama i»33 1 0 . . . BmD31 .DH3 B33K 3l!n3 1^K3 a b t m v . o n a^an .^«n .ib -6« sin .13-n a^an .^«n .ib Tipnss -b snwn ínticos B»K bsb ntsny rrtsnjny nai r r a n ^ n » jiKBTiBm imoKi arij?tri3 w k ^ i b^k a ^ a i nen-oi m e a r a ira bn a^B viseara ^33 •o'-itói Tp-ws ^ s ^ m vrajras B^BTIS nii8K3i iffvs -pai 15 ^33 j w nens imam BnjNTO t v e b a ovpita it?i"n ip by Vsn :pd vocera b a ppitai roiaam . a ^ T .n

note

. » - k ,1 /a i r c n

nm

pera naieo1« .nabv ñas t« .ai ia« .Vb-ijd .« pe^tr 'n n a « » nrn ív33 nnsn pj?n xim ^bijd "03 -jinn pyn tom ^Bijn ^ t w ^3 "pns 20 ^tnen 133 -pn3 Tiaan n a « » ios (.«i a r a n ) bz-iy) pj? sirot? ias ni33 t v » «mi (.na .03 n í a » ) 133 71ro vías»! -iokb> Kim . . * raiyi? enpon aipos p j n nipón pjn ni33 t v » «mi b x w 11133 ntyj? )3 -ia«» iasi rwy p i a « » 1031 n3j>V »npan : ¡ a p t t i Vi3t n ^ s i n ^ i » ^3t n ^ s inas» ysvfTW 25 "b nbv) o . o ^ i y i n s ^ .11 pj^nai 3131 nbw v .aróiv .3 xb 13 Biai>iy rn »b ;ij?33i 3131 an vn »b a b^ij> ívt ,'n

.6 [pe'» 'n 18 •IB«!? .B [aini» 21

—

XXXIX

—

tfíhti b w ti

iraan ma*'

mpon

i»«

nt

ama«

cbti

nipón

nipón

dk

o

npytr

(.n

ua

vn

nipón

vby

nipón

m-iai)

nrroK

b»

nmon

•n i t n p i vby

nn

m

kiíw

pnsi n «

1

-IOIKI

n«T

runao

nKT

mn

nnr6

ñipen

jn" 1

Kints>

dn

13

npy»

•n í K i p i 1 3

•>3 n m t r o

m a n n

mpon

mot^n

n a t o nti m o ^ i y n \ a w i n m

no«i o

la^tt

io«i

nNY

n«ii

i n p p

int i o « i

tonará

nn

nt?

motw

iva :

miíw

na

ti t v i

« i n 13 y ^

inti a v i t o n

i»«

m

prcr

nnr^

n»

nipón

ma*'

n-nion

U3

-rni

by

vni^iy

10 t?K wbiy by nt? tm -\n¡>}& nnain

'W

w a « 5 i n i K 3 -o n « T ' -n m a

m i t o "o n«-!- a

^s^o

nob&

nna^n

n ^ s n j?o»ni ^ ^ 0

ntn

sin n-on

i n ^ a n p a ntn n^aa ^ s n o n nn»

i^k

-pníi

i w i

i^ks

o

-pipo

by s ó k

too

25 » p a i n ^ s n y\mb

inbsn

yot^ni

t¡y po«n^>

n^ijrn

nipos

- i n a : n ntn m p o n

n^an

13

j n » e ó ntn n ' o a « s a i n t n j

.na

pjnsn »pa

m«n

nn«

f i n 20 7 3 1 3 1 n \ - w

b« yioeó

lais-i K i n m p o " 7 3 3 » s " j ? « i

by

p a n

ni?iyn J W

: ntn n n a «'131

no«n

• 7 ^ 3 ^ ñ i p o "jb p « ^ o n by

nbiyn

~¡b n s 3

,rp rwr6

«m

-pann

ñ i p o ~¡b p «

mpo nns ^

.mean noib

15

n t y n n i " f n n n n n « 13 f o n n ^ p n 1 « p

k s i -o n n i n e « n n a^t?

mpoa

b

V^sn^o

—

XL

—

tracts ì^nn u a " ^

Dwn

.n1?« ì a

kiwi

ua«^

,»b

n t w a p y a K t « .lyotwi!? n y i a »

as

.nb«

12 k b w

n a i « a nwtro p y a

1

ptsò « i n » (.- . 1 3 a n a i ) n a i « a

: ain

«in»

bap!? j n t w n « a i bapb y a t w n « a i

.nb«

n'">i .ntn n^aa T i a t e anp o a n

«ai 5

,aa

nyiap na

">B

p n

ana-i)

,nb«

«ai

t n t n n^aa ^ n a t a ^ s b n b « n

nb«n

ym yapan

by

«ai

j 'jnano ja ma nn«t?

.a^acn yatwi n n « i i"sj>«

.nostri

p a i "iptsò y a t w b

nn«

yzvr a« ttoi* ntn ja

ny»a

ib

-pan

main i«T"i

>b by

j a ^ n i o a n s n *)«

une

«b

aipan tMiyn

.a!?

jnsa

an«

nns^i

ivnn

ntn

« v i ) i « m itnpai i b k j p p

'•¿a

ytnb

nTPtr

i a « i p nra " p a r v b « n aai *jTiaa

nina

iya»an

i«m

twiyn

« n a n mi - p i n a « m nt bai u a a

jnsnn

«ipil)

lenpai

by

twiyn

ytsnnb

ana

1« iptsò

-o n a « a

by

twiyn

o

nix

:(."?

nr

pnsb yatwn

yatw

yen í w » ana n r « . y t n y B n n b Bina i y a » a n

nn«»

n t n m a i n a i p a n •»a

« i n nt bai u a a n n s M ntn n o n .di

.ja

" o a i r a " » ib * p « ö

y ^ a 15 p - n x n b i

niTnaa

.naspi

1

niTnaa y a

ntn n^aa

^

pite

«mi

tya»an

1« -ipvb y a t w n 20 na«a

yatw

«im

5 yapan D^nn

•n ,D

. r

«•oa a*i« n «

b«ia»

r\bx

nsaai

....

nia»

n » m .D [nyiaw uawrr . r r r u B t r t .o [ r r n v a i t ó

1 4

JT'VÖVI .D f'iOVl

7

.-jnniB ,D [ i n n o

8

,'b .D [103 D'OBLI

9

.o ["pan"

.¡r

.n

"\v>y d ^ p n b a ^ a

17

.ynwort ,D [ i p ' 2 » o n 22

nba

,'Ui m i n x p

isaa

13

.TV* ^ a « i

bi«» 1 ?

—

XLI

—

D^nn

n ^ n nan

n s m a n a n w a -iai«

D o a n w y a m « *?a«

atra a m « nait a ^ n n

nia»

i v t nbyní?

ivy

«oa

din

-a«»

m n mi n n « aipaa n a n r m s p n ^ n s i a ^ a v i n a n a i n!?a « u r6a a n « n « s n a n n^ns ja ' w a K i n^a « o a a n « n « nsDa ivy mm m t y naiat? a i « 'ais ^«íat? -isaai a n « i b i » a n e a n •pi a « v a t r i a ^ n n • a i « n^aTt n a n a i n ^ a « v a a n « n «

B^bvi n a n a i rj 1 ?« -i¡2>y

nJ8t? i o H i n

nm

itrj? n^E» ->san

a n « nanear

n«-o

man^a nmnpa nmn

an« '»i« m n naaa •ai« a n a a n ^trai a ^ n n -isaai a n «

DW

ani«

ibixi

*iat

a«ti

nam

n : a » "ib«i w a « 5 "tsaa fj^«

urj? n¿a&> ^>«i8¡y

-iai« ^»«la» •o

alisan

w a

-isaai

an«

n«ui

io nrvn b-ik

apa

pi

ais

na«

an«

nan^a

nanf?B

nmnBO

a^nna

aína

anna a i « n «

]a

-o

inixna

i n i s n a a m a p ••a a - i « •opai i&y aw ' a i « q - i « b i n a i s a i s n « i a » 1 - ! n n n i m « n « i O t r y n i i a » a n a a n i s naiatp r 6 « v n a n « a i a - i « a i a - i « n « -pi a « r a n « n a r 6 a -o n « u a i p a a ' a s i n a n 1 ? » 'nvttya n m n -ibi1? m n i a n » m » n m ? vn a n « a i a ^ n n a a i n a p - o a - i « a-i« am anay i j w -IB«I ^ K a n n a a i « n s m i x n a i r a « o nan n a « a i •wxiV'n ai-cansan " i a « i a n « n m a n a y 2 o m 8 8 i n a i x a n « n « i 20 ' 8 « i n a n e a n ntsnj? m n 'm i s o a m a t r n b « v n a n « a i l a « ">í?nnai m n i a-i« i a « i w y n t a isyy B^tr n a « i a « i" a m a n a y "itsw nai^> n a n a i - i a i « a i a n « IBIÍ? n m a i « n a a n .rton n fnVo .n ['bik .'V ,n [noi« .n ['bw [Vn -loxi

.'b

, o n « .n

5 7 8

g

18

.1 [nti 3 .3 ,3 [n^o « ' i 4 .nVon «"33 ,3 [nVo 8"33 6 .n^on .3 [nns ' « o í 12 .DI« 'Di» n ^ n " i m i i .-IBD3 .i [1BD31 13 .n'^n n .3 [o^nn 13 .3 [ ' a i « 14 , < n n » n « i > .3 [o'ins 19

.D'V'H . « [n^nn .n«i nonbo . « [díii« ,'b . « idi«I ,n'" ,1 [iwy nisw . m i « . « [ID« .ni&nbn [nanbo monbo - [nonbo . o ^ ' n a . « [n^nni .oís m « . « [ n n « i n » ' ['B«I nwiy

.*> .1

1 1 2 6 9 10 11 12 17 20

c ^ n a i , « [ ' ^ n n a i 21 a'"1 .T [ll?J? D"3» 22

—

XLII

D^nn nwy w a « nam

^KiB®

-o a ^ n

n^nn

m«i

b'-b 1 ?«

ana

nan

nts^trana my

- » o n nta a w a»

a w

onion

w a

nro inn

a w

5 i t e r o « «o b i s v i n a n a nam

non^on

aten m «

naiorn

"ot

n s o a i iate>

•o i n na«

ateo pi

nmsna

nanean

ipiyn isan

«in

5 atem

nay

nr¡>

nVnn

m«i a ^ «

on«

itero«

ley

ms«i

u n o idi!? m m

naneen Bi"Q

TWVf

nam

a w

-p

-wy

abater

a^nna

us«»

^ a « nroneto

natstr

a w

,-fro n a n e e n n a n - o n

iD«iawisi»a^nnai

Kirrt? •odd i e n a « a t r a

^ a «

nanean

ib? d w

!?a *Dt n e n n e n r ò n n 10 n e n n e n by

rem

inDi«ai d i « a m antsy

p

•»•ok "rtt?

nnrn -nsn

dm array n e w

p ms«p

-usiVa a w

in«

an«

normen a w

inn

—

o ^ «

n^nn

¡o •or

rwy

a n a nani

rmt

a w a n a y ntery a " n « i

-m

nVnn

^Ntoff ote>a

mn isoai

nanean

; ipiyn

«in»

d w a n a n a m nonets -ib«b> i n n

n t a 15 a w a w

*)!?«

a n

~\vr¡)

a^nnais

p m » 20

-101b

n a n a nan nena« n n « o»a nanean mn

^ao^n

« i r w vb

a«

w

ba l a t n a n e a n r 6 n n 20 by i)V« "WJ? •ot

"©an

13 n r t

naiapn

ntai

atra

iate?

nanean

npiyn .1 ['3

I

.ni?» ,n [nabv 3 •njiBW .1 [ m i B » n 11 A .n h

13

— n s n .n'"1 .1 ..1 [n®j> nao» .T .J [ n i n n a i

«in 3 7 8

.D'inai •3'" .1 ,J [tWP D-J» 9 .o^na .3 [ n ^ n n a 15 .n"M.T[n»)>njiB»n 21

,'b .« [ n a r r a n . .K [ p i n x i .3"" [npy

1 2 4

.D-^n "®D3 .K [ n ^ n n a 5 ."B^ ['IBB 8 .Kin "s iK [«in® 12

CHAPTER IH

TEXTS ON WHICH THIS EDITION IS BASED

I

n preparing this edition of Kimhi's commentary on Isaiah I have had the use of some manuscript material and of the first three editions of the work which, being printed from different codices, are independent in their readings. The texts at my disposal may be divided into two groups, those of Spanish and those of Italian origin. A.

MANUSCRIPTS.

The main manuscript which I employed was that of Kimhi's commentary on the Later Prophets, written in 1462 (Cat. Schwager and Frankel, 39. 34). This text, which belongs to the Italian group, is of greater value for the second part of this work, than for this part, as the portions of the original manuscript dealing with Isaiah chapters 1—22, and 32 5—43 7 have been lost and replaced by a later hand from the Soncino edition. Another and in many respects very useful manuscript has been that of Kimhi's commentary on the Haftarot (bound after the commentary of R. Joseph ibn Shoshan on Shir Ha-Shirim). This text likewise will be more valuable for the edition of the commentary on Isaiah 40—66 than for this volume, since in its present condition, it begins with the Haftarot of the end of Numbers. In this part it could be used only in connection with the commentary on Chapter I. The text belongs to the Spanish group.

—

XLIV

—

A third manuscript, also of Spanish origin, was found in the Adler collection (Cat. Adler 2545). This text contains a number of excellent readings, but particular interest attaches to the many interpolations by a later writer which it contains. It covers Isaiah 1 30 to 3 10 and 68 to 7 25. These three manuscripts are found in the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Besides them Professor Alexander Marx recovered from some bindings of old books a few leaves of other Spanish manuscripts of this commentary. While these leaves may come from different sources, they are treated as a unit for the purposes of this edition. They have been bound in a miscellaneous volume of fragments of old Hebrew commentaries. B.

EDITIONS.

The earliest edition of Kimhi's commentary on the Later Prophets is that printed by Solomon ibn Alkabez Ha-Levi in Guadalajara, 1482. Of the original edition which consisted of 400 copies (see Marx, Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, XI, 104) only three are known to have survived: one in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary in Breslau, one in the Parma Library, and the third (in which the commentary on Isaiah is lacking) in the British Museum. This text which of course belongs to the Spanish group shows less evidence of censorship1 than any subsequent edition, but on the other

1 Thus Kimhi's daring reference to Christianity in his comment on Isaiah 2,22, is given in full: '131 n'-isun nsinsri » t pioan ma t r dj. On the other hand in the comment on Isaiah 21,8, the word iw1 is omitted. T h e passages in the notes on Isaiah 34,1 and 63,1, in which E d o m is identified with R o m e are not deleted; in the discussion regarding the meaning of the word almah in Isaiah 7,14, no censorship is detectable; on the other hand in the comment on 66,17, in which the words v m n nwa 1^31« are made to refer to the Christians, the offending words are omitted in the Guadalajara

—

XLV

—

hand, the inexperience of the early Spanish printer has resulted in a number of defects of workmanship. There are many repetitions of letters, words and even whole lines, substitutions of the wrong letters are frequent, and there are a number of omissions by homoioteleutonT. The second edition is that which accompanied the first printing of the text of the Prophetical Books, Soncino, 1485—6. The edition is based on an Italian source and thus has no connection with that published at Guadalajara. Omissions and mistakes are rarer in this than in the preceding edition. The word Nozrim is omitted in several cases and the polemical passages have either been omitted or so mutilated as to be rendered meaningless4. The third edition, Lisbon 1492, was like that of Soncino printed with the biblical text and like that of Guadalajara based on a Spanish manuscript. There are even more traces of censorship in this text than in that of 1485—6. Indeed every passage that might be interpreted as an attack on Christianity was omitted. Perhaps we may see in this self-censorship the reaction of the expulsion of the Spanish Jews on their brethren in Portugal.

edition, although curiously enough, the Soncino edition contains them and deletes instead the following passage: on» o^KyoffTt lb« "i33j)nl •oaym ypwn which would seem to offend the Mohammedans rather than Christian Italy. It appears from this examination that the Guadalajara edition was prepared under censorship of some kind, but that in the year 1482, the methods of expunging passages and mutilating books had not yet been as fully developed as they were in 1492, or even in i486. 1 This is evident from even a cursory examination of the variants from this text given in the Appendix III. Thus on page 73, 1. 3, the words ^INt? nwBNi are omitted by homoioteleuton. An example of a simple error is the substitution of DWSJ for CJllU on p. 74, 1. 1. But it is hardly necessary to multiply examples. 2 See note above, and compare variants to passages noted.

—

X L VI

—

The fourth edition, that of Pesaro, 1515, is based on that of Soncino, with which it is practically identical.1 The text used in the first Rabbinical Bible (Venice, 1517) is based on that of the Pesaro edition, and this in turn served as basis for the text used in the Rabbinical Bible of 1548. Beginning with the Venice edition of 15x7, in which the text of the Targum is for the first time printed with that of the Hebrew Prophets, we find that the quotations of the Targum in the commentary are frequently abbreviated or omitted entirely. Needless to say, the number of accidental errors increased in the later editions, but there were even in very late editions some intentional "corrections." Thus when Kimhi (Isaiah 319) quotes the Mishnah2 as saying ni^ljil flTOIJJ in accordance with the reading found in all the manuscripts and early commentaries, the Warsaw edition of the Rabbinical Bible has rnbljn rvttW nrmy in accordance with the printed text of the Talmud. Besides these complete editions, there have been a number of editions of Kimhi on the Haftarot published separately. Of these the earliest is that of Constantinople, 1505.3 It is not possible to ascertain whether a manuscript of Italian origin or the Soncino edition was used for the greater part of this work. It contains a number of errors, and very often the Targum quotations are omitted. In the case of only one Haftarah, that on Debarim which consists of Isaiah, Chapter I, the readings are generally identical with those of the Spanish texts. It thus seems probable that a Spanish edition or manuscript was used for this Haftarah. 1

See Note A. at the end of the chapter. Mishnah Sabbat 6,6. The reading niVljn nr2"ij> is also found in Aruch s. v. ^¡n. It is only on the basis of this reading that we can understand the passage in the Talmud of Jerusalem commenting on this Mishnah. (See also Ahabat Zion, ad loc.) •3 See Note B. at the end of the chapter. 2

-

XL VII

-

On the other hand the similar text of Kimhi accompanying the Haftarot which appeared in Venice 1516 is merely an extract from the earlier Italian editions of the commentary. The same applies to the excerpts from Kimhi published by Muenster together with a Latin translation (Basle, first half of 15th century) and to those found in the D"UJ fJJfi by R. Elijah b. Menahem Rabba, Sirmido 1591 (Ms. Jewish Theological Seminary of America, Cod. Adler 563). Strangely enough, however, both of these latter texts read mj> instead of HSJ? in the commentary on Isaiah 3 3 (see text, p. 17, line 3). It may be mentioned that the commentary on Isaiah has also been translated into Latin by Caesar Malanimeus. This translation which was published in Florence 1774 naturally is based on the Italian editions. In establishing the text here presented the Soncino edition was taken as the basis. Wherever the Lisbon text or that of the manuscripts or of the Constantinople edition was clearly superior theirs was accepted and the Soncino reading given as variant. No notice was taken, however, of the differences of reading between the received text of the Scriptures and the form in which they are cited in the commentary except in the comparatively few instances where all the texts of Kimhi agreed in giving a reading different from the common version. In a few respects strict accuracy has been sacrificed to uniformity Thus the word Vav is always spelt 11 although the forms VI and 181 occur. The Tetragrammaton is always marked 7t in accordance with the usual practice of the Soncino edition even in cases where the particular passage was taken from another source. As mentioned above the reading of the Guadalajara edition could not be included in the apparatus, and they are printed in Appendix III, pp. LXXX—XCIII. Fortunately, however, the Thesaurus Typographiae Hebraicae of Dr. A. Freimann made available a facsimile of the first page containing Kimhi's introduction and

—

XLVIII

—

the first few verses of the commentary, inclusion of its readings for that part. I gratified at this because the Soncino text of poem was clearly defective and my other contain it. I have followed mentary on the part chapters 36—39. My of its readings with editions of the Book

in time for the was particularly the introductory sources did not

the Lisbon edition in inserting the comof the Book of Kings corresponding to text, however, is based on a comparison those of the Soncino and Leiria (1494) of Kings.

The following system of notation has been used: Source Notation Ms. Jewish Theological Seminary, Kimhi on Later Prophets S 2 Ms. Jewish Theological Seminary, Kimhi on Haftarot Codex Adler 2545 3 Miscellaneous fragments of Spanish Mss. 1 T Ms. traj r y e Codex Adler 563 n Ed. Guadalajara, 14822 1 Ed. Soncino, 1485—6 D Ed. Lisbon, 1492 b Ed. Leiria, 1494 (for part of commentary on Kings printed, pp. 214—26, and 231—32) 0 Ed. Constantinople, 1505, Kimhi on the Haftarot . . 3 Excerpts from Kimhi by Muenster (only p. 17, line 3) 'D A D D I T I O N A L N O T E A. The relationship of the various editions to each other will become evident from an examination of the following examples which are taken practically at random from various parts of the book. The Pesaro edition is based on that of Soncino. Innumerable instances might be cited to show this, but the following will suffice: 1 Some of these were discovered only after the book was in press, so that the variants from them are inserted with those from the Guadalajara edition in Appendix III. 1 See p. L X X X — X C I I I .

—

XLIX

—

A. Isaiah 11,10 (page 78, line 4). Guadalajara 11333 innao rrnn ^B 1 ? Lisbon ni333 innia rrrm Soncino H333 rrnn - p ' i i Pesaro 11333 ¡rrr "pis'? It is evident that in the Pesaro edition an attempt is made to corrects the erroneous reading of the Soncino which, as we can now see by comparing the Spanish texts, resulted from the accidental omission of the word inruo. All the later texts, including such early editions as Venice 1517 and 1548, and such late editions as that containing the complete commentaries of Kimhi (in one volume), Lemberg 1878, and that of Warsaw, 1902, have retained the "corrected" reading of the Pesaro edition. The reliance of the edition of Venice 1517 on that of Pesaro rather than on that of Soncino, is nowhere shown more strikingly than in the following example: B. Isaiah 19,11 (page 113, line 15). Soncino p ' j B 13 n«1 Pesaro pVo 13 nto Venice, 1517 p b e -ojiki Venice, 1548 p b o "Qn«i The meaningless "OJiKl resulted from the fact that in the Pesaro edition the words 13 nto, while still recognizable as intended for two words, are printed with less separation than is usual between two words. In some of the later editions, such as those of Lemberg and Warsaw, the printers realized the error and, probably on the basis of the printed Targum, corrected this reading. A very strange "correction" occurs in connection with the passage in Isaiah 13,16, where the qeri is nJ33B>n and the ketib is mbitrn. C. Isaiah 13,16 (p. 84, line 19). Soncino nj^jwni 3in3 .nJ33»ni Pesaro np m^wm 3W3 mSDwni Venice, 1517 'ip nibjBmi 3W3 nJ33tMii Venice, 1548 -ip nj33e>ru 31D3 m^ami Lemberg, 1878 '"lp nj1»»™ 3T3 .U33®ni Warsaw, 1902 'ip nahtwn 3vo nisswni It is evident that in this case an attempt was made in the 1548 edition to correct the clearly mistaken text found in that of 1517. But that the correction was not based on anything but conjecture is seen from the fact that the word np was retained, although it does not occur in the basic Soncino edition. Other examples of the dependence of the edition of 1548 on that of 1517 may be given: d

—

L

—

D. Isaiah 20,4 (p. 118, line 2). Soncino nmuV i n B3 pop VK i"a mini «,»« (.n'^p "oy io i"a m i n i n aea pnxi YK i\nnn p b n a n^Kia iaia b i ni»a ean "j!?na innp 'IBK IÓK IBU lan fjia uh nie ni«a ean Y?na yipm -ijn pan ]a o 'ai®? m i nti n:e orai pi -ipnan man na«e laai V'n na«e laa (a"j? YS B^BB) «ine yaan naan njn1? y w a ieii«n ben ia ntn beaa nai^ IS nsian NJRTO yipm JB ròyab -ai1? •sn IBUI ,wnp MN yp-Ò -IJ> nietoa iaia bt inane nai aiben nyiYi annasi aibbn ani nie«ia iai neea nsue ni-prn 'a)b nsn iinnn p b m :nbja ijeYse laa naabi njaì?n b b a ,-nsi a e a i p n n« nipen 1 ? p y a « s r -inji .10 20 :ueTDe iaa abi «ini pn nipen!? pj?no ysien b e n «in neb> ana eie niaae aibn n$m«n an nj?an«^ .•b ,1 [ton 1

.-¡inni .K [pn TIMI I .pn "3 .3 [pn 1 .nwn [nins 2 .'jìxbk ,1.3 .« [ìysa« 1 .nrni^Kn j .nvn^Kn .3 [ni^nbxn 5 .'b ,K [yn sia 4 •nvniKnsi .K 8 .poynn [poy/r 7 . 9 :b .1 [t'k 9 ['ai1? 12 .p"r .3 [niNB »un 11 .i ["dk ii ,'b .3 [nissn 14 .yaa .2 .3 [p-vao 14 .»tra« ,3 ['B3n 13 .¡on mi n .ini .3 [inn 15 ,rp"in [ypib 15 .nrn .3 [nj3^n 18 .3 [rwwa 17 .vnnna [vnnn 17 ,'b w nip»n^ .« .1 3 [TIB" «sv 19 .na&b [noo^i 18 . .3 [nip»n!? 20 .pyo .i [jnyna 20 ,'b .3 [i:t?v£® la: 20 ,n't?«in nj?3"i«i .3 .n^N-i nysn«1? n^m .3 [tr®io. nyai«^ 21 ,niB3 nnw .3 [maa» 21 ,3 .nysiK [nj)3i«n 21 .n3 n [on3 21

—

LVI

—

semam a m p i a n a ^ n u p s «in n ^ n

.pstm smiam ivsn

,mns

lOBtwa by i T a y a i n ^ n ] n n « m ^ p i n i m « ^ « n p i '•jraaan i b s s « i n i« n e w

na^> n m a ^ m p s t n 1 2 m m - m a m

n t p p n a i "i'pin « i n » •'¿bis d p - p ï s i « n i m a s itr« nimsn nb«i man ^tyam an 1 ?

n$nn«V m m

pisai

pitai nnrun

aniaipasi amatso a ^ m - i s ì s « b « bvo r w a "ü a n s

an« n v y «xaam

ta

ans it?«

ans «im n w i s ta

by - j e a

^ « n "»e n a « s ansnn w i i

-ns"

" p ^

a»ai ie«

toon

nnnan

b"i

nei« m i m

ppa

uy-rn

ans

ugnisi i m «

n«

p i na-nab

n i n n ^ i

-tiyi

l a s n s t ? l a s 'Di'? ' s i i ( . s , m m j w )

nanae

« s a i n 10

o^oy

nns

anstn ansns ib

'n n p n

intyn» 'ay

Dinpbi

"ia«a 15 tninn

.15

«b« ,n

wsi

ym

nbiyn n « n s e

(.n"ep

am

aitam v t y

tsnipn

a^nV«

npM

a ^

^«sv

abusan

l a s n « s iy

5

s"?n

by) i 1 ? m a n >a n s n a s n u n n i s a s

a i p e b a i p e a í n p t e «"? . a i « n

n«n

« i n » "»bV

i b d s -ib>« a n s - t n n l ? « ta n t ? a

í e m n s n s i n b i y n tsrnn a ^ p b

n w i s )

" p ^

my

nena

1«

"'S1? «^>« b t r a s - ] - n

n1?« n r o

ata n n n n

«^>« m a s « ^ 1 n u n

i m « T\by

ym

n-nti>n e i n " « t a

np wü

ana

: ansae vb

man»

«in

ann n n n i n »

ab v

amaipai

w«

ma»i

d^soj

•o m u s a n ••sa t m p n n n s .-6«

ta .isij?

i n j n iß 1 ?

s t r i n n bv

moan

,t"e

nsn

i n « n « n « a s 20

a^vrmn nai nrsn na .3 [ p a m i nvsn i . n w n .n [miro i [jnain 3 .awin bv n .1 [ 3 n n n bv 3 .pisa []033 2 . p a i n nsi . n i m m .t [riman 5 .b .a [dw 4 ,'b .1 ^^ 4 . ,-ipi n^i .1 [nVi i p 7 .'S .1 [•"û-o 7 .T [moa 5 .n»j» ,a [n»p 9 ,mpB3i 0313*01 n a i ^ m .3 [inioipnai 8 .nnitipo ,3 [omoipoi 10 .«soa» . i [«sein 10 h . j [DVD H . o n m n n ,nb«n D'tmn ,3 ,a [ D T O nb« 1 1 .3 [Sa by "¡dd ns by\ n"w«i3 ibd3 iw« 12 .»b ,J [ y « 12 n ' i a i n .3 [ n n m nV« 12 ,'b «"? [ m i n »b 14 ,'b .5 [3na 13 .ps'D .t [-¡od 13 •'S .J [obiyn n « ^ 3 B i » n n 3nai 15 .nmain .3 [S«n 14 .'S .T ,« [Dlitn n « 17 .D'ISB P » B n [D'ÌSBB 16 ,D!\T "3 H [OMWn 16 / n a n a » iûa ,3 ,'b .1 [ ì i s n a » ina 20 ,'b .t [im« nby n n « p i 18 T S ÌKBTHB 'Sin) ,3"p »pofi ,nK1 'B '1BD3 «SB3n 1>$I3 [n®0 JH' T « "3 1 1 ," 'D) -pbina «31BI ( 3 " ? :b p i s / a pbn ,0*3133 m ì a l"y [mbj>n» «bs 1 8

—

LVII

r ò n n -o . - u n a 1 ?

j n t nfi& 1« n m « n jb i s y « i n .pjn

ir«

pn ,py

ps

non n b n j>ibj i » « nnoVnnm

tyis

—

mio

irov^

n:maa

intynt?

1

intym

navtyn

nana ?

nti a » a n p ò nt?« n o n n i y m i t r «

«ipin

jvtyn

bivn

-i?$?a Di'1 Di'1 byti

m l n m n m n n » i ? n n n i n n w T Ò 3 B ^jnsn a ^ « i n «tibbò n a ' ò n « m m3j>i?

maty'n

"?«

«sv

«^>i 13 m i n n i ì r a i

mnj?^

ib«»

na

n a « i n y ^ 3 3 i n i « "Din i b i » n\Ti a r i a n i n n n a n D i b »

«in

p w »

p i a nt? )"}>) n n i n i m n 3 3 b"\ ' n i

m a p i ? -nabn nt m a ( ? " b

: m s a nt yy

^13« p n mso p«

o

baa

*i a « ^ a n « n by a s n ^ « mix 1 ?

n\-nn^i ibatya -intia « i n

p n ^y n1? m a m p n o

biù

pyn

ninban

n ^ « «a^> « 1 3 0 3 a n o

nnt? n a s n n

nasn

ia«n

«mi

1«

by

iy n w

in«

mi»

i n s a ^ « ^ i a ^ n n yy

tojpp

an^y

«sa ' t«i p 3

pn

7W3

itr«

«in

n'óy ? d^>id3 -7103 « i n

nj> 1 ^ « « 3 1 *b ns b a

113^1 1

ani p n yy

yy

1

.t6«

,^>3«n

-i«t5>3 m n t « i

mtya

a^nn

a i p a n « i n » p n 710 !?« «n^> n s - w ibi p n a^iBìn pn

poi

nini a^strn a^n ^ j n

iB3 a n ^ B ^ a ^ n

masnni

n nt maj>^„ (8"p 'B ì s b t i b 'sin) ,«"b «pDB ,3py 'ibdì*

—

LVIII

—

ara pìm nini

^a U B O ^>a« n «i> j n i a i a n j n n ì * j ? o i .17 b i v - r « \-6«n b t r n o . m a n m e n a n ^ a « b t ? n a ^ B a a ants> ^ a n v i i K r a m p a y n n n p i e iaaa ,)b " p c - p ^ i a p a y n n xb a « «pan m o a n e « i n n t p y « na^> a - i « n f i r n aita a ^ « a .18 n a i « n )» d i k ì i n « t w j w j v o idi 1 ? m i . n a i a - i t y il? v r w y i ^ b b bbs n i n t j n pDjin*1 « t e i^ia ^ a t r i T . T » a i o « b n e ? «T.Tt? n y ih - p * ; a a « a n a t r a pDj>rw m e i m a a a i i B a n a t r a va'* aiaT 1 « m i n n « ^ a n i w n a i i n ^ n a '«ansa i m t j n n a O ^ N n a t w ^>«n i a n s j "p 1 ? O N S Y N by •òat^n p^nn T O ^ I n - m a n a n « a ] n : i ^ a a n s y ant? a ^ n •tya -i«t?a p ntry t ò t ? n v n n i n i a n a n ; a ì ^ n a n ^ « - D J W A « n BOTS>n 71-n1? i a p a r w , ' B t w imi M A N

B «

« 2 M

, N A - I « N

JB

D T I ^ K

TI

I S ^ I

.19

n t i » e a a-i«n « i p i * i » « !?ai «npi n a niKi^ «ini m a ' ? na-i«n ]a antr a n a a u r n ^ i a ^ a a t c a n . I B P « i n •'aisn B J D B I b^ian Q J D B yr i a n ? « b t ? a « m i nniD^ p a « i m Va in 11 iVa^a «ini a m a » « i n m i n t a m a ^ w a ^ « m e i n^tnaan n ^ « a piann^> biwn m inaan ^ « n o iasj?a pian 11 iaaa B - ò s p n T n 71-iT « ^ p a « a^ia by ] r i « «ini a n a h a i a n a i .iaaa n w b j n n i a m ^ m a !?aa h n t y «^>« aniBa n a n a n v w na«» 1 n ^ n t5>sa a i « n « n p « i t ? « "?a . 2 0 •òjn i a w m « i maVtrn by j?aan n a a n nyib n a i a i?«n j n a » .a .« [ J H D J I rns i««n «b .ip^rr ,a .pbn yjio .« [p^n .'b .1 [no «in nini 3 .> ,3 [i?«n 19

—

LIX

—

d - i k ^ i na«» noi nenm naixn am ano a ^ s » a p » bs B^n n w » i^a»a B-t«n « s a «•?» m i n j j a -itj? « s o «•? Va« -ity ib nini» i b » a «so «Vi ninBjn payni» manan nV«a tana poyn^i ruja vm B« )b»V 5 V«n Va« ,|t¡ni a - i « n Vy n e n n a ^ n V « -n V a n .21 ai-ili «