some light on the amsterdam and london …

SOME LIGHT ON THE AMSTERDAM AND LONDON MANUSCRIPTS OF ISAAC BEN MOSES OF VIENNA'S

ORZARUA'

EMILE G.L. SCHRIJVER* BIBLIOTHECA ROSENTHALIANA, AMSTERDAM

The attention paid by modern scholarship to the well known Sefer hasidim has had the effect that other medieval Ashkenazi works of comparable interest and importance have remained somewhat neglected. One such work is Isaac ben Moses of Vienna's Sefer 'or zarua\ a halakhic code of the traditional Ashkenazi type. In his Ashkenazim and Sephardim, HJ. Zimmels gives a characterization of Ashkenazi halakhic codification, which is also very appropriate for the Or zarua': '. . . in general the codifications of the German Rabbis dwell at length on a particular problem or law, explaining the Talmud at the same time, with the result that, far from condensing, they make additions. In other words, most codifications of the German school have a double function: they are codices and commentaries at the same time.' 1

As is often the case, most of the biographical information on Isaac ben Moses is found in the Or zarua' itself. 2 Isaac was born

* I would like to thank Brad Sabin Hill, Head of the Hebrew Section at the British Library, for the kind services extended to me during my visits to the Library and for promptly reacting to a cry of despair concerning a missing reference. Thanks are further due to Jaffa Baruch-Sznaj (Amsterdam), Lies Kruijer-Poesiat (Amsterdam) and Kathleen Middleton (De Bilt), who were in various ways involved in the preparation of this article. Mr. Leslie Lichtenstein (Antwerp) and Ivan G. Marcus (New York) provided me with some useful references and stimulated my research on the topic. Photographs of the Amsterdam manuscript are by Iman Heystek of the Photographic Department of Amsterdam University Library.

1 HJ. Zimmels, Ashkenazim and Sephardim: their relations, differences, and problems as reflected in the rabbinical responsa (London: Oxford University Press, 1958), 157.

2 The following is a listing of the most important literature: H. Gross, 'R. Isaak b. Mose Or Sarua aus Wien', Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums (MGWJ), 20 (1871), 248-64; J. Wellesz, 'Isaak b. Mose Or Sarua', MGWJ, 48 (1904), 129-44, 209-13, 361-71, 440-56, 710-12; H. Vogelstein, 'Zu Wellesz' Isaak ben Moses Or Sarua', MGWJ, 49 (1905), 701-6; J. Wellesz, 'Uber R. Isaak b. Mose's "Or Sarua'", Jahrbuch der judisch- literarischen Gesellschaft, 4 (1906), 75-124; H. Tykocinski, 'Lebenszeit und Heimat des Isaak Or Sarua', MGWJ, 55 (1911), 478-500; H. Tykocinski, 'Die Schiller Isaaks Or Sarua', MGWJ, 63 (1919), 333-7; S.A. Hforodezky], 'Isaak ben Moses aus Wien', Encyclopaedia Judaica. Das Judentum in Geschichte und Gegenviart, 8 (Berlin: Eshkol, 1932), 535-7; H. Tykocinski, 'Wien', in I. Elbogen et al. (eds), Germania Judaica. . . Van den dltesten Zeiten bis 1238 (Breslau: Marcus, 1934), 400-25; I. Kahan, 'Or Sarua als Geschichtsquelle', Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft fur Geschichte derjuden in der Czechoslovakischen Republik, 9 (1938), 43-99; V.

54 BULLETIN JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY

around the year 1180 in Bohemia, a region which he used to call k the land of Canaan'. This designation is not uncommon in medieval Hebrew literature and is mostly used to refer to the Slavonic lands. From the local religious customs which he describes it can be inferred that he was born in Bohemia, since in his era other regions had not yet developed the range of religious customs described in the Or zarua\ Additional proof of his Bohemian origin is the fact that in quite a few instances he incorporated glosses from everyday speech into his text, usually introduced as 'leshon Kena'arf; this language of Canaan appears to be the Bohemian vernacular of his days. The importance of Isaac's glosses for the study of Slavonic languages may be compared to that of Rashi's lo'azim for the study of the French vernacular. 3 He came, apparently, from a family of scholars. In his work he calls himself 'Isaac, son of Moses, son of Isaac, son of Shalom, of blessed memory',4 As there are no reliable references to sources dated later than the 1240s, it has to be assumed that he died around 1250. In 1246 he was still writing his work, since in the text he mentions this year (5006) explicitly. 5

Isaac ben Moses spent most of his life travelling through Ashkenaz. This brought him into contact with the most important Ashkenazi scholars of his age, with many of whom he studied. Isaac also stayed in Northern France, probably sometime around 1215. 6 Although according to his own statements his three most important teachers were Simhah of Speyer, Eliezer ben Joel of Bonn and Judah ben Isaac of Paris, the most famous of his teachers was certainly Judah He-Hasid. Later in his life he settled in Vienna, the city after which he is called by his pupils, among whom the most important is Meir ben Barukh of Rothenburg (c. 1215-93). Meir of Rothenburg studied with him for six years while in Wurzburg, where Isaac ben Moses had settled some time after his return from France.

Isaac ben Moses had two sons, Barukh and Hayyim, and a daughter. Barukh seems to have had a copy of at least part of his father's work in his possession (copied by himself?), which is referred to by the better known of the two sons, Hayyim, himself a

Aptowitzer, n"»ato iat>* joao (Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1938); S.Z. H[avlin], 'Isaac ben Moses of Vienna', Encyclopaedia Judaica (EJ), 9 (Jerusalem: Keter, 1971), 25-7; a critical modern treatment can be found in: E.E. Urbach, The Tosaphists: their history, writings and methods (Heb.), fourth edition (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1980), 436-47 and index.

3 I. Markon, 'Die slavischen Glossen bei Isaak ben Mose Or Sarua', MGWJ, 49 (1905), 707-21; on Judaeo-Slavic in general see: P. Wexler, Explorations in Judeo-Slavic linguistics (Leiden: Brill, 1987).

4 Sefer 'or zarua' (OZ), 1 (Zhytomir: Hankie Lippe and Josuah Heshel Shapiro, 1862), 227b, No. 769; for further references, see Urbach, Tosaphists (note 2), 436.

5 OZ, 4 (Jerusalem: Chajim Hirschensohn, 1890), 32b, No. 107.6 Urbach, Tosaphists (note 2) 438.

THE AMSTERDAM AND LONDON OR ZARUA' 5 5

halakhic scholar of some repute. 7 It is not very clear when he was born, but as he relies only on the literary work of his father, and never quotes him at first hand, J. Wellesz assumes that he was not one of his father's pupils and that, therefore, he must have been born towards the end of his father's life, probably in the 1240s. 8 His most important teacher was his father's most eminent pupil, Meir of Rothenburg. Apart from his Responsa, which were published in Leipzig in I860,9 he is best known for his major work, the Simanei 'or zarua', 10 or Or zarua' qatan (or simply Or zarua\ as opposed to his father's Or zarua' gadol), of which several manuscript versions exist. 11 Through this work, which is an abridgement of his father's magnum opus, many of his father's opinions found their way to the works of other medieval scholars like Mordecai ben Hillel (c. 1240-98), Israel of Krems (fourteenth century), Jacob ben Moses Moellin (c. 1360-1427), Israel ben Petahiah Isserlein (1390-1460) and Jacob Landau (fifteenth century). Many of these scholars explicitly state that they had not been able to get hold of a manuscript of the original Or zarua' gadol (although Isserlein mentions that he had once seen a manuscript on Neziqin and other tractates in Marburg, and that he knew of another Or zarua' in Regensburg). 12

Sefer 'or zarua' owes its title to the words of Psalms 97:11: 'Light is sown ('or zarua 9) for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart'. In the first paragraph Isaac explains that he had always liked

7 J. Wellesz, 'Hayyim b. Isaac Or Zaroua', Revue des Etudes Juives, 53 (1907), 67-84; S. E[idelberg], 'Hayyim (Eliezer) ben Isaac "Or zaru'a'", EJ, 7, cols 1508-1509, and the literature mentioned there.

8 Wellesz, 'Hayyim b. Isaac Or Zaroua' (note 7), 69.9 Sammlung von zwei hundert ein und sechzig Rechtsgutachten uber alle vier Theile des

Ritual-Codex, von R. Chajjim Aschkenasi b. Isaak b. Mose Or Zerua aus Wien . . . (Heb.), ed. J.A. Rosenberg (Leipzig: K.W. Vollrath, 1860).

10 A fine typology of the work is given by Urbach, Tosaphists (note 2), 442-7. Apparently the work was never printed.

11 Some of these have been misinterpreted to be copies of the great Or zarua', such as the manuscript mentioned in Joseph Simonius Assemanus's and Stephanus Evodius Assemanus's Bibliothecae apostolicae vaticanae codicum manuscriptorum catalogue in tres paries distributes, 1, photographic reprint (Paris: Librairie Orientale et Americaine, 1926; original edition Rome, 1757-59), No. 148. As Umberto Cassuto has pointed out this is a clear case of 'fraintendiment completo. Si tratta dell'Or Zarua' di Yishaq da Vienna (A.) Indices lucis perche il codice reca (f. 2) 1'intestazione Simane or zaru'a: il Melisso non ha capito che il titolo era Or zaru'a e ha tradotto letteralmente le parole Simane or. La numerazione dei paragrafi in lettere ebraiche gli ha fatto pensare a una concordanza alfabetica'; U. Cassuto, / manoscritti Palatini ebraici della Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana e la loro storio (Vatican City: Vatican Library, 1935), 117, n. 16.

12 Wellesz, 'Hayyim b. Isaac Or Zaroua' (note 7), 83; Wellesz, 'tlber R. Isaak' (note 2), 84; Urbach, Tosaphists (note 2), 443. Leket Joscher des Joseph b. Mose. Colleclaneen seines Lehrers Israel Isserlein (Cod. Munchen No. 404, 405) (Heb.), 2, ed. J. Freimann (Berlin: H. Itzkowski, 1904), 14. It is not unlikely that the manuscript in Marburg mentioned by Isserlein is the London manuscript, while the one in Regensburg is perhaps the Amsterdam manuscript; see infra.


this particular verse because the last letters of the six Hebrew words which make up the verse together form the name of R. Aqiba. The Or zarua' is much more than just another halakhic compendium. As mentioned already, Isaac ben Moses travelled widely and was thus well informed about the different Northern French and Southern German communities of his age. Furthermore his work contains many comments on everyday life in medieval Ashkenaz and on actual historical incidents, besides many Responsa. The work is, therefore, a major source of information for the history of medieval Ashkenazi Jewry, dealing, as it does, with charity and marriage, clothing and hunting, education and ritual slaughtering, criminal law and superstition, and many other matters of a similar kind. 13

The structure of the Or zarua' is largely based on that of the Talmud. The first part (at least in the printed edition) deals mainly with laws from Seder Zera'im; the second part concentrates on laws from Seder Mo'ed; the third and fourth parts contain laws from Seder Neziqin. The first part is preceded by an exposition of the mystical meaning of the Hebrew alphabet, in the style of the Alphabet of R. Aqiba., and by the hilkhot sedaqah) which shows the extent to which Isaac ben Moses was influenced by the ideas of the Hasidei Ashkenaz. The foregoing should serve only as a very rough guide to the organization of the work. Note, for example, that the hilkhot niddah are found in the first part. The very nature of the Or zarua' meant that the discussion was not limited narrowly to the subject in hand, but rather that the whole complex of Halakhah was dealt with constantly. 14 There is no clue whatsoever as to the chronological order in which the various sections of the text were composed, although it is obvious that the composition of a work of the size of the Or zarua' - the manuscript used for the printed edition of the first two (of four) parts alone consists of 563 folio leaves of text, written in three columns per page - must have taken a lifetime. 15

Although they can give only a first impression of the wealth of information contained in the Or zarua', it seems appropriate to provide here translations of at least two classic passages.

OZ 2, 125b, No. 276:It once happened to R. Amnon of Mainz, a leader of his generation, wealthy, of distinguished ancestry, and pleasing appearance, that the [gentile] rulers and the bishop demanded from him that he would convert to their belief. He refused to listen to them and after they had talked to him day after day without him listening

13 For general discussions of the contents of the Or zarua', see the literature mentioned in note 2.

14 For a detailed table of contents of the manuscripts, see the descriptions provided later in this article.

15 The editorial process underlying the text of the Or zarua' as it is known today will be discussed later in this article.

THE AMSTERDAM AND LONDON OR ZARUA' 57

to them the bishop put him under great pressure and on the day on which they wanted to imprison him he said: I need to think about the matter for three days, and he said this to keep them away from him. [After three days Amnon refused to come of his own free will and was forced by the bishop.] And the bishop said: why, Amnon, did not you come at the appointed time? . . . And R. Amnon said: I plead guilty and may therefore my tongue that misled you be cut off. . . And the bishop said, not your tongue will I cut off, as it spoke properly, but rather your feet that did not come at the appointed time. [The bishop ordered that not just R. Amnon's feet but also his fingers were to be cut off, after which he was brought back to his house on a shield with his fingers lying next to him.] And therefore he was called R. Amnon, for he believed in God. [On Rosh Ha-shanah he was brought into the synagogue where the cantor started to recite the Qedushah] and R. Amnon said to him: wait a while and I will sanctify the Great Name and . . . then he sang 'unetanneh toqef qedushat ha-yoni1 ['Let us tell the mighty holiness of this day']. [Three days after he died R. Amnon transmitted the words to R. Qalonymus ben Meshullam Qalonymus in a dream, and ordered him] to send the hymn to all regions of the Diaspora as a witness and a remembrance, and the Ga'on did as he was requested.

OZ 4, AZ 55b, 56a, No. 203:I remember that when I, the author, was still a young boy [na'ar qatan] there were birds and trees drawn in the synagogue in Meissen and I decided that that was forbidden, since one will interrupt one's study and say, How attractive is this tree, and therefore, when looking at the beautiful tree, one does not pay proper attention to one's study and interrupts it. Similarly with a prayer, which requires proper attention; one cannot pay proper attention when looking at the trees that are drawn on the wall. 16

THE MANUSCRIPTS

The fact that the Or zarua' is a massive text is certainly one of the reasons why it was not often copied (the existence of the son's abridgement is another). 17 Today there exist only two medieval manuscripts of the text, besides some later fragments. 18 Neither of

16 For the martyrdom of R. Amnon, see now I.G. Marcus, 'A pious community and doubt: Qiddush ha-Shem in Ashkenaz and the story of Rabbi Amnon of Mainz', in Studien zur judischen Geschichte und Soziologie: Festschrift Julius Carkbach (Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitatsverlag, 1992), 97-113. Although similar insights can be found in the works of other Ashkenazi halakhic scholars, a careful study of pp. 55-6 of the Pisqei avodah zarah of the Or zarua', entitled Pereq kol ha-$elamim (semalim in the London manuscript) will certainly provide the Jewish art-historian with interesting information.

17 Also see the conclusion of this article.18 For example, there is one fragment of 366 leaves in the Bodleian Library, Oxford: MS

Opp. 40 (Olim 648), which I did not see. The manuscript, on paper, contains the text of the first part until No. 763 only. Malachi Beit-Arie kindly informed me that he identified the manuscript as: '[Ashkenaz, 17th century]. Ashkenazic cursive script'; A. Neubauer, Catalogue of the Hebrew manuscripts in the Bodleian Library . . . (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886), 127, No. 650. Two other post-medieval fragments in Ashkenazi cursive script on paper are preserved in the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York: Mic. 6549 (182 leaves copied in 1628) and Mic. 6553 (35 leaves on Berakhot, possibly also copied in the seventeenth century); see A guide to the Hebrew manuscript collection of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 3 (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary Library, 1991), 186.


the two manuscripts contains the whole text, but they are at least more or less complementary. The first manuscript, the one that was used for the editio princeps printed in Zhytomir by the brothers Hanine Lippe and Josuah Heshel Shapiro as late as 1862, now reposes in the Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana in the Amsterdam University Library. At the time it was printed, the manuscript was in the collection of the Amsterdam banker, Akiba Lehren. 19 The other manuscript is part of the collection of the British Library, London, since 1884, and was used for the edition of the remaining sections of the work (presented as parts 3 and 4), which was printed in Jerusalem by Chajim Hirschensohn from 1887 to 1890. The editor of the text of the Zhytomir edition is unknown, whereas the London manuscript was edited by the German scholar, Wilhelm Posen. For some reason Posen omitted the hilkhot shevu'ot (perhaps misreading shevu'ot for shevi'it, which was already included in the Zhytomir edition20). This section was published on the basis of the British Library manuscript by Aaron Freimann in 1911. 21

A clear indication of the limited attention paid until now to the textual background of the Or zarua* is the fact that, apart from the short descriptions in the respective manuscript catalogues, neither manuscript has been properly studied. Even E.E. Urbach seems to have made serious use only of the British Library manuscript, and not of the one in the Rosenthaliana. 22 What will be attempted hereafter is a sound codicological description of the two manuscripts, neither of which contains an indication of place or date of production, followed by a discussion of the editorial process that seems to underlie the text as it is transmitted in them, together with some first impressions of their textual reliability (based on cursory reading in the printed edition and in the manuscripts of a few, selected passages).

19 For a 'demystification' of the supposed shipwreck of this manuscript (as recounted by Akiba Lehren in a letter accompanying the edition), see the appendix to this article.

20 Urbach, Tosaphists (note 2), 444, n. 61.21 A. Freimann, 'Das JW»m> '««> ynt lix 'V', in M. Brann and J. Elbogen (eds),

Festschrift zu Israel Levy's siebzigstem Geburtstag (Breslau: Marcus, 1911), 400-2, Hebrew section: 10-32.

22 Urbach, Tosaphists (note 2), 440. In his main text Urbach describes the manuscript used for the Zhytomir edition as once belonging to the collection of Akiba Lehren, while in footnote 31 he speaks of 'the Rosenthaliana manuscript', without any further definition, and without mentioning that he is speaking of the same manuscript. On p. 443 he notices that the two manuscripts that were used for the printed editions are the only ones preserved at present, but nowhere else in the paragraphs dealing with the Or zarua' (pp. 436-47) does he mention the Rosenthaliana manuscript as such (although on p. 445 he speaks of 'the manuscript on which the first printed edition was based'), whereas the British Library manuscript is discussed at some length. Nor is the Rosenthaliana manuscript present in his list of consulted manuscripts.


AMSTERDAM, BIBLIOTHECA ROSENTHALIANA: HS. ROS. 3 23

Contents24Vol. i: fol. Ir: blank; fos. lv-9v: Alfa beta; fos. 10r-17v: Sedaqah; fos. 17v-78v: Berakhot; fos. 78v-91r: Hallah; fos. 91r-98v: 25 Kilayim; fos. 98v-104r: Orlah wehodesh ushevi'it; fos. 104r-109r: Miqwa'ot; fos. 109v-128v: Niddah; fos. 128v-136v: Shehitat hullin; fos. 136v-140r: Kissuy ha-dam; fos. 140r-160r: Terefot; fos. 160r-162v: Behemah ha-miqshah; fos. 162v-171v: Gid ha-nasheh; fos. 171v-181r: Basar behalav; fol. 181r: Mattenot kehunnah; fos. 181v-193r: Bekhorot; fos. 193r-207r: Tefillin; fos. 207r-240r: Yibbum weqiddushin; fos. 240r-248v: Halisah; fos. 248v-256v: Mi'un we'agunah; fos. 256v-268r: Gittin; fos. 268r-303r: Responsa; fol. 303v: blank.Vol. ii: fol. Ir: blank; fos. lv-24v: Erev shabbat; fos. 24v-63v: Shabbat; fos. 63v-67v: Mosa'ei shabbat; fos. 67v-73v: Millah; fos. 73v-74v: Yoledet; fos. 74v-148r: Eruvin; fos. 148r-167v: Pesahim; fos. 168r-175v: Rosh ha-shanah; fos. 175v-180v: Yom ha- kippurim; fos. 180v-194r: Sukkah; fos. 194r-196r: Hanukkah; fos. 196r-216r: Yom tov; fol. 216v: blank; fos. 217r-222r: Megillah; fos. 222r-229v: Bet ha-kneset wetashmishei qedushah; fos. 229v-230v: Hazkarat geshem wetal; fos. 230v-233r: Ta'anit; fos. 233r-235r: Nesi'at kappayim; fos. 235r-237r: Tisha be'av; fos. 237r-256r: Avelot; fos. 256r-260r: Rosh hodesh; fol. 260v: blank.

Codicology26 The text is written on calf parchment of varying thickness. It is not always possible to distinguish between hair and flesh sides. Where such a distinction can be made (fig. 1), sheets usually have not been arranged according to Gregory's rule. Natural holes in the parchment, many of which were repaired already during preparation, occur throughout the book. The manuscript is in a poor state of preservation. All leaves show severe water-staining, which is at its worst in the first half of the first volume, in its last quire, and at the beginning and end of the second volume. Luckily

23 L. Fuks and R.G. Fuks-Mansfeld, Hebrew and Judaic manuscripts in Amsterdam public collections, I: catalogue of the manuscripts of the Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana, University Library of Amsterdam (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 48-9, No. 95.

24 The arrangement of this table of contents is based on that of the printed edition, partly for the sake of clarity of reference, but also because the hierarchical structure of the manuscript is somewhat inconsistent. Pages described as blanks are original blanks and may contain later annotations; see 'Marginalia'.

25 The end of Hallah and the beginning of Kilayim are missing in the manuscript. Since there is no caesura, they were probably missing already in the exemplar. They can be supplied from the London manuscript where they can be found respectively on fos. 99r, col. 1, 1. 40-41 and 132r, cols. 2-3 of vol. ii; Urbach, Tosaphists (note 2), 440, n. 31.

26 Unless otherwise stated, reference is made to both volumes.


(and strangely) the water-stains affect legibility only occasionally. This is especially the case in the first half of the first volume, where at times the parchment has become very brittle. Since the parchment was not stretched while drying, many leaves have become rather transparent, which is a natural phenomenon. Apart from the water damage many leaves also show more common signs of wear and tear. There have been several restoration phases during which many of these were repaired, using different types of parchment (but mostly calf). Attempts were also made to re-stretch the parchment, the signs of which (small holes in the outer margins that are not prickings) are still clearly visible on many of the leaves. Throughout the manuscript the same carbon-ink has been used, in shades varying from dark to plain brown. On the pages with considerable water damage certain soluble ingredients of the ink coloured the parchment in and around the text area, hardly ever, as already indicated, seriously affecting legibility. Vol. i: 303 fos. Vol. ii: 260 fos. In both volumes there are two old Hebrew foliations in ink in the left-hand upper corners of the rectos, and a modern foliation in Arabic numerals in pencil in their right- hand lower corners. Measurements in millimetres:

Vol. i Vol. ii 80r 210v 70v 180r

Height 443 446 432 442Upper margin 42 45 40 48Text 323 308 317 314Lower margin 78 93 75 8010 lines of text 73 68 72 69Number of lines 45 45 45 45

Width 324 322 325 324Inner margin 55 54 52 51Column 57 57 59 60Intercolumnium 20 20 18 19Column 59 59 59 58Intercolumnium 17 18 18 19Column 60 58 58 58Outer margin 56 56 61 59

Collation: vol. i: 1 6+ (the single leaf and the modern parchment fly-leaf were sewn together to make up a bifolium), 2-388; vol. ii: 1-31 8, 324, 33 1 + 1 +6 (two single leaves followed by three bifolia). Throughout the manuscript one or two catchwords with rather simple penwork decoration were written in the bottom margins of the versos of the last leaves of the quires, aligned against the inner marginal line (i.e., inside the inner margin). On fos. 7v and 119v of vol. i and on fol. 240v of vol. ii only part of the decoration has been preserved.


Usually there are forty-six pricks, occasionally forty-eight, in the inner and outer margins, for forty-five lines of text, pricked from the first leaf of the folded quire. The pricks in the outer margins have been cropped in most instances. There are double pricks for the third lines from the top and bottom, and for the two lines on each side of the middle horizontal (though occasionally only for the middle horizontal line itself). The fifth and thirty-third quires of vol. i have an additional line of unused pricks in the inner margin. Horizontal lines are ruled by plummet (fig. 1) on both rectos and versos, usually from inner to outer (-most) vertical boundary lines, with the exception of the lines with double pricks and the first and last lines, which are usually through-lines (although the first and last through-lines have been omitted occasionally). There are vertical boundary lines, ruled by plummet on both rectos and versos, for the three columns, guided by single pricks which have been frequently preserved, while an additional vertical boundary line occurs in the outer margins at a ten millimetre's distance from the regular boundary line. At times the ruling has been applied rather carelessly, as can be seen from the many retracings that occur. The text is written between the ruled lines. The ruling of the second quire of vol. i is puzzling: there are no traces at all of ruling applied by plummet; rather, it seems as if there has been blind ruling only. This impression may be the result of the severe water damage in this quire, but one wonders, then, why in all other equally damaged quires ruled lines are still easily visible. The scribe used a semi-cursive Ashkenazi script of different heights, one height for the text and different heights for the titles; there do not seem to be hierarchical principles behind the use of the different heights. Only occasionally does he use an alef-lamed ligature. Only the title of the hilkhot sedaqah (i: fol. lOr) has been written in a large Ashkenazi square script. On fos. 5v, 57v (fig. 2), 91r, 96v, 143v, 147r, 183v and 255r of vol. i, and on fos. 6v, llv, 46v, 47v, 48r, 59v, 60r, 65v, 98r, 106v, 109rv, HOr, 117v and 209r of vol. ii, the scribe decorated his own name 'Nehemiah' with rather naive ornaments (fig. 2). 27 On many leaves he elongated the descenders of letters written on the last lines with an extra curved line. On fol. llOv of vol. ii the scribe vocalized one word. The tetragram consists of a double yod, with an extra upward pen stroke to the left. To fill out a line the scribe regularly dilated those letters that have horizontal bars. He also used different graphic fillers. The most common of these is best described as an unfinished taw, with a missing right-hand stroke, and an extra accent indicating that it should not be read; another less common one is the first stroke, or

27 1 have not been able further to identify the scribe.


part of the first stroke of an Joym,28 again with an extra accent. At times two graphic fillers are combined. On certain pages (e.g., vol. ii: fol. 120v, col. 2) the scribe used a long row of strokes, rather like a zigzag, to fill the last line that would otherwise have been left blank. He also regularly anticipated the beginning of the next word at the end of the line, to repeat it in full on the next, always adding an accent to the letters to indicate that they should not be read. The last of these anticipated letters is often a graphic filler. Broken mem, shin and '<2/e/are uncommon. Although he regularly allows two, three or even more letters to protrude into the left-hand margin the scribe employed all the ususal devices to prevent this. He compressed the last word(s) in the line and/or abbreviated them. Protruding letters are often written in the margin with a certain space between the word and the remaining letter (often the ten millimetre's distance between the ruled left-hand marginal line and the extra ruled line). Corrections are usually made by simply striking out the incorrect word and adding the correct word above or in the margin, in which case one usually finds a correction mark above the text and in the margin. Insertions are treated similarly. Special words and phrases are usually indicated by accents above the letters, consisting of either single or double pen strokes, or of small double crosses. There appears to be no clear hierarchical structure behind the use of accents. The manuscript is bound in two modern half-leather volumes, with wooden boards. In both volumes there is one modern parchment fly-leaf at both ends. The book was slightly cropped during an earlier binding.

Decoration Both volumes have illuminated opening-word panels, which have suffered greatly from the water. In the first volume (on fol. Iv; fig. 3) there is an opening word 11X, written in a large square Ashkenazi script, executed in blue and gold and attractively outlined in red ink with abstract penwork and bird motives, written within a rectangular frame, which was originally probably executed in silver (!), surrounded by yet another rectangular frame, executed in blue, red and brown ink and decorated with red abstract penwork. Under the resh, within the silver frame, there is a tree with five birds, similar to those used in the outlines of the letters, executed in red ink. In the

28 In fact, this is an example of what M. Beit-Arie called 'deliberately writing strokes which might be the first stroke of several different letters'; M. Beit-Arie, Hebrew codicokgy. Tentative typology of technical practices employed in Hebrew dated medieval manuscripts, second edition Qerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences, 1981), 89.


second volume (on fol. Iv; fig. 4) there is an opening-word panel with the word »rm, executed in a manner very similar to the opening- word panel in the first volume, but without the bird motives. On fol. 157v of vol. i, there occur three schematic drawings in the text. The manuscript contains a number of drawings, executed in brown ink. On fol. 194r of vol. i, a bird was drawn in the bottom margin. In vol. ii several occur: fol. 57r: an abstract drawing; fol. lOOv: an attractively executed deer with the Hebrew word >l* written underneath, together with an outline of the head of another animal; fol. 151 r. the remnants of a sketch of perhaps a unicorn (or a deer); fol. 174r: the outline of what should probably have been an animal head with the words 9Np f»N (?) )>3 t?» written inside in a (two?) later (eighteenth to nineteenth-century) hand(s); fol. 179r: in the bottom margin there is a very interesting grotesque head with a very prominent nose (fig. 5), which seems to share certain characteristic features with the decorations of a mahzor described by Michel Garel in his D'une main forte (Paris, Bibliotheque de 1'Alliance Israelite Universelle, MS 24). 29 Garel ascribes this manuscript to the (Southern German) St Gallen region (now Switzerland). Judging from the ink, which seems to be the same as the ink used for the text, it is very likely that the scribe is responsible for most of the drawings (with the exception of the one on fol. 174r of vol. ii). On fol. 56v of vol. ii an originally hollow letter was filled in (probably later) with blue ink.

Marginalia Vol. i: fol. Ir: there occur, besides some scribbles, two German inscriptions, mentioning the name of the former owner, Saul of Berlin. The larger reads: 'Herrn Saul Hirsch Sohn des Herrn Oberlandrabbiners Herrn Hirsch Lobel'; the smaller, of similar content, is followed by a year '[1]78[?]'- 30 Vol. i: fol. 303r: the following text written in small medieval Ashkenazi square script occurs: tt»'a»py 'ia a?y» »)N »DttJin. 31 Vol. i: fol. 303v: the names of (probably three brothers) Jacob, Leib and Judah ben Yosef are written in different square and cursive Ashkenazi hands.

29 M. Garel, D'une main forte. Manuscrits hebreux des collections francaises (Paris: Seuil, 1991), 139-40, No. 102.

30 From Fuks's transcription of the Hebrew inscription 'in Ashken. curs, writing* beginning with barukh, the last four words should be omitted as these make up a different inscription, and were, besides, written in a square hand; Fuks and Fuks-Mansfeld, Hebrew and Judaic manuscripts (note 23), 48, No. 95.

31 The reading of the last four letters is uncertain.


Vol. ii: fol. Ir: there are traces of some practically illegible notes (owners' inscriptions?) in Hebrew and German. The manuscript is full of later annotations in different cursi ° Ashkenazi hands (fig. 1), although most (especially those at tf beginning of vol. i and in vol. ii) seem to be written by one hanc', presumably that of Saul of Berlin. 32 The annotations usually, although not exclusively, consist of references to relevant talmudh literature. Many anticipated words have been struck out, probably in preparation for the typesetting of the text from the manuscript (fig. 1). Since the scribe numbered (in Hebrew) the simanim only to the end of Berakhot (vol. i, fol. 78r), Hebrew numbering of the remaining simanim was added later. The numbering is not identical to that of the printed edition.

EvaluationThe manuscript contains no indication of its date and place of production. From the fact that both parchment with distinguishable sides and parchment with completely equalised sides occur, while prickings are found in both inner and outer margins, and ruling is applied by plummet on both rectos and versos (with one possible exception), it may be deduced that the manuscript should be dated sometime between 1260 and 1300. 33 The manuscript should obviously be localized in the Ashkenazi area, most probably in Southern Germany, an assumption that may be confirmed by the similarity between the grotesque drawing (fig. 5) that occurs in one of the bottom margins which was most probably made by the scribe, and the decoration of another manuscript, elsewhere ascribed to the St Gallen region. It is clear, however, that the evidence is too weak to make definitive statements on the precise provenance.

LONDON, BRITISH LIBRARY: MS ORIENTAL 2859 AND MS ORIENTAL 286034

ContentsVol. i: fos. 3r-13r: Alfa beta; fos. 13r-23r: Sedaqah; fos. 23r-l lOr: Bava qamma; fos. 110r-219v: Bava mesi'a; fos. 220r-291v: Bava batra. Vol. ii: fos. 2r-32v: Sanhedrin; fos. 32v-84v: Avodah zarah; fos. 84v-99v: Hallah; fos. 100r-125r: Niddah; fos. 125r-132r: Shevu'ot; fos. 132r-140r: Kilayim; fos. 140v-144r: Orlah; fos. 144r-145v:

32 See the appendix to this article.33 Beit-Arie, Hebrew codicology (note 28), 22-6.34 G. Margoliouth, Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan manuscripts in the British

Museum, 2 (London: British Museum, 1905), 137, Nos. 530-1.

r r

Fig

ure

1:

Am

ster

dam

, B

ibli

oth

eca

Ros

enth

alia

na,

Hs.

Ros

. 3,

vol

. ii,

fol

58

vSh

owin

g th

e gr

ains

in

the

parc

hmen

t, ru

ling

by

plum

met

, la

ter

anno

tati

ons

in t

wo

diff

eren

t ha

nds

and

the

late

r st

riki

ng o

ut o

f an

tici

pate

d le

tter

s

yts ; 3 r - t*t>n3 irytip

A 'Jjtams or? -vrt srn,

37

f : w

if 9» v\ ft* p WW»-"» F^ ot rr^ts bv r

or?

I ; igure 2: Amsterdam, Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana, Hs. Ros. 3, vol. i,fol. 57v

Showing multiple decoration of the scribe's name L Nehemiah\ severe water damage and prickings in the outer margin

Figure 3: Amsterdam, Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana, Hs. Ros. 3, vol. i,fol. Iv

Decorated opening-word panel

4: Amsterdam, Hihliotheca Rosenthaliana, Hs. Ros. 3, vol. ii,fol. Iv

I)eci>raled openm,u-\\iM\l panel

00

<o

***** -f + f /'**/

tr>

CN4

E u

V

Figure 5: Amsterdam, Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana, Hs. Ros. 3,vol. ii, fol. 179r

Drawing of a grotesque in the bottom margin


Hodesh; fos. 145v-147r: Sehorah bidevarim ha-asurin; fos. 147r-216r: Berakhot; fol. 216v: blank.

Codicology35 The text is written on calf parchment of varying thickness, with the exception of the first leaves of both volumes which are made of goat parchment and are later additions. As the grain is at times easily visible (for example in the spread of fos. 165v-166r), hair and flesh sides of the parchment can usually be distinguished quite clearly. Sheets have not always been arranged according to Gregory's rule. The parchment is generally in a fine state of preservation, but soiled at the beginning and end of the two volumes. Throughout the book small natural holes occur in the parchment, which have usually been restored accurately. There is some occasional staining, often caused by candle-wax which appears at strikingly regular intervals. Throughout the manuscript the same carbon-ink has been used, in shades varying from black to plain brown. Both volumes have a modern lead-pencil foliation. Vol. i: [1] (fol. 2) + [289] (fos. 3-291) leaves (fol. 1 is a fly-leaf); between fos. 227 and 228 a quire of four sheets is missing; old Hebrew foliation, starting on fol. 3: N-roi tbv(?*l), is hardly legible from fol. 271 (Tin) onward. Vol. ii: [1] + [215] (fos. 2-216) leaves, with old Hebrew foliation, starting on fol. 2: N-i\?n. At the beginning of vol. i occasionally a later running title is present; part of the titles have probably been cropped but it should be doubted whether there were any in the rest of the manuscript. Measurements in millimetres:

Vol. i Vol. ii 80r 210v 70 v 180r

Height 493 495 492 491Upper margin 50 48 50 53Text 346 368 371 366Lower margin 97 79 71 7210 lines of text 78 80 82 78Number of lines 44 46 46 46

Width 330 334 337 332Inner margin 50 52 48 50Column 59 59 60 60Intercolumnium 20 21 21 20Column 60 60 60 60Intercolumnium 21 22 20 20Column 60 60 60 60Outer margin 60 60 68 62

35 Unless slated otherwise reference is made to both volumes.


Collation: 36 I 7 (1 1+6?; the later parchment leaf was added before the first leaf and is left out of consideration here), 2-268, 27 10 (to accommodate a natural break), 288, 29 is missing, 30-378; vol. ii: I 8, 26, 3-58, 6 1+1 ~f I (three loose leaves,37 all having catchwords, the one on fol. 42 added by the hand that also added the Hebrew numbering), 7-278, 286 . All quires also have a consecutive numbering in Arabic numerals, starting from the back, written in the left-hand lower corner of the first page of the Hebrew quire. (Part of) a later running title can still be read on fos. 23rv, 24r, 25r, 26r, 27r, 28r, 29r, 30r, 31r, 32r, 33r, 34r, 35r and 36r of vol. i. Throughout the manuscript usually one, occasionally two (fol. 235 of vol. i, and fos. 162 and 186 of vol. ii) or three (fos. 58 and 106 of vol. ii) catchwords, occasionally abbreviated, with varying, sometimes not unattractive abstract and figurative decoration (mostly birds), were written in the bottom margins of the versos of the last leaves of the quires, usually inside the inner margins. Most of the catchwords have been preserved completely, with the exception of those on fos. 73, 201 and 267 of vol. i, and fos. 15 and 194 of vol. ii, where part of the catchwords has been trimmed, of those on fol. 276 of vol. i and on fos. 90, 98 and 114 of vol. ii, where only part of the decoration has been preserved, of the one on fol. 145 of vol. i which has no decoration at all, and of those on fol. 9 of vol. i and on fol. 39 of vol. ii, which are lacking altogether. There are usually forty-six or forty-seven pricks, in the inner and outer margins, for forty-four to forty-six lines of text, pricked from the first leaf of the folded quire. The pricks in the outer margins have been cropped in most instances. Only rarely do double pricks for through-lines occur. Horizontal lines are ruled by plummet (both in brownish and greyish shades) on both rectos and versos, ideally from inner to outer(-most) vertical boundary lines. Through-lines do occur, ideally the first three, the middle two and the last three lines, but as pricking and ruling have been applied rather carelessly other 'through-lines', which were obviously never meant as such, also occur. There are vertical boundary lines ruled by plummet on both rectos and versos for the three columns, guided by either single or double pricks, which have been preserved only occasionally, while an additional vertical boundary line occurs in the outer margins at approximately ten millimetre's distance from the regular boundary line. The text is written indifferently either between the ruled lines or

36 The manuscript was bound very tightly, as a result of which it was occasionally very hard to establish the precise construction of the quires; in such cases usage has been made of the binding threads (if at all visible), of the catchwords and of a possible identical appearance and/or thickness of conjugate leaves within the quire. With the exception of the first quire of vol. i this procedure was usually successful.

37 The inner marginal prickings are preserved on the stubs which are found between fos. 39 and 40; as a result the outer marginal prickings have also been preserved. The three leaves were pricked together through the recto of fol. 40.

a*

*) *|O *>*>»**

t«»* 4>*w %»«i» *)*

- - —— y— —— .— -,,..,- «JO^M-

- r/ tanxr^ Jn^/mo «>« Hn> -Mid**jn ̂ 'Vy-t fea, ̂ ytf^euet}^

'p")l4i_

i

Figure 6: London, British Library, MS Oriental 2859 (vol. i), fol. 79\ I nusual ruling pattern with text written at the bottom of the page

7*» ' odn»

)«?-tm

')»

t*

»

-!»w> V

0V

»»»»» 4lb

Figure 7: London, British Library, MS Oriental 2860 (vol. ii),fol. 149r

Decoration of the scribe's name 'Moses'


directly below them. Occasionally the scribe crudely drew a vertical boundary line diagonally through the intercolumnium from one prick in the top margin to a non-corresponding prick in the bottom margin (e.g., on fol. 4r of vol. ii). Furthermore there are many retracings of already ruled lines. On fol. 179v of vol. i, two lines of text were written below the ruled frame to finish a paragraph.

The tenth quire of vol. i (fos. 74-81) is irregular. On the bifolia 74.81 and 75.80 (the point indicates conjugate leaves) single pricks, preserved in the bottom margins only, were used for the vertical ruling; the pricks were made from fol. 74r through the two folded bifolia (74.81 and 75.80). On the bifolia 76.79 and 77.78 single pricks, preserved in the top margins only, were used for the vertical ruling; the pricks were made from fol. 79v through the two folded bifolia (79.76 and 78.77). On the bifolia 74.81 and 75.80 forty-five single pricks, preserved in the inner margins only, were used for the horizontal ruling (again pricked from 74r through the two folded bifolia), while on the bifolia 76.79 and 77.78 fifty pricks, preserved in the inner margins only, were used (again pricked from fol. 79v through the folded bifolia). With one exception none of the pricks was used to rule lines. This exception proves that the two inner sheets of the quire (76.79 and 77.IS) were intended originally for use in another manuscript. On fol. 79v (fig. 6) fifty lines were ruled for only forty-four lines of text. At the bottom of the page, however, one word (without any connection with the text) is written upside down from below the original first ruled line (as in this period in Ashkenaz pricks were usually made from the first leaf through the folded quire). The scribe obviously decided to use the two already pricked bifolia in spite of the one word already written on the first page, and decided to overcome this relatively minor problem by turning the two bifolia around and inserting them inside the regular two bifolia to form a 'regular' quire of four sheets. The text is written in a semi-cursive (Northern French?) Ashkenazi script. Ashkenazi square script of two different heights, and a large semi-cursive script, were used for headings, while a different, 'more cursive' semi-cursive script was used for ending formulas. The 'alef-lamed ligature is very rare, but does occur, both in semi-cursive and in square scripts. Generally the text seems to have been written rather hastily, as is also clear from the abundant use of abbreviations. On fos. 25 Iv and 290r of vol. i, and fos. 34v, 115r, 114r, 149r (fig. 7), 169v and 192v of vol. ii, the scribe wrote his own name 'Moses' in square instead of semi-cursive script and, in most cases, decorated it. 38 Vocalized words occur on fos. 233v and 268v of vol. i and on fol. 170r of vol. ii. The tetragram is usually formed by a double yod with an abbreviation mark.

38 1 have not been able to identify the scribe further.


To fill out a line the scribe regularly dilated those letters that have horizontal bars, with a preference for lengthening the upper horizontal stroke toward the end of the line rather than dilating the whole body of the letter. He also used various rather simple graphic fillers, the most common being best described as one, or a number of unfinished yods (or simple pen strokes) that look somewhat like a zigzag. Slight variations on this pattern also occur. The scribe was apparently reluctant to anticipate the beginning of words; in those rare cases in which he did anticipate, the last of these anticipated letters are often marked. On certain pages (e.g., vol. i, fos. 99r, 272v) the scribe used a row of strokes, looking like a zigzag, to fill a last line that would otherwise have been left blank. At times he simply did not fill out the line. When a blank space would normally have had to follow, the scribe occasionally filled the line with a 'mirrored' 'S' (e.g., vol. ii, fol. 33r). The scribe does not seem to have paid much attention to a straight left-hand marginal line. He usually just compressed and/or abbreviated words at the end of, and within, the line (within the abbreviations broken alef, mem and shin are not uncommon). Despite his relative carelessness in this respect he hardly ever allows the text in the third columns of recto leaves to exceed the outermost (additional) marginal line. As a result of this working method protruding words are never a problem. Corrections of one or two letters are usually made by simply striking out the incorrect letters, and by writing the correct words above, either in small square, or in semi-cursive or in cursive script. Insertions are marked by a sign in the text and added in the margins, as are occasional critical remarks by the scribe on his exemplar (vol. i, fol. 14r, 39r [<\i >*n pbn n>)n >)abv town...], 139v, 176v and 254v and vol. ii, fos. 14r, 30r, 45r, 99v-100r). On fol. 152r of vol. ii the scribe erased an incorrect text. On fol. 233r of vol. i he corrected a metathesis of two words by writing an 'alef and a bet above them to indicate the right order. Special words and phrases are usually indicated by accents above the letters, consisting of single or double pen strokes. Paragraph endings are at times indicated by a mirrored 'S', or by one regular and one mirrored 'S' (e.g., vol. ii, fol. 154v). Bound in two volumes in nineteenth-century gold-tooled black half-leather. On the spine of the first: ISAAC BEN | MOSES. I OR ZARU'A | HAG-GADOL. | HEBREW | VOL. | I. I BRIT. MUS. | - | ORIENTAL | 2859. On the spine of the second: ISAAC BEN | MOSES. | OR ZARU'A | HAG-GADOL. I HEBREW | VOL. | II. | BRIT. MUS. | - | ORIENTAL I 2860. On the tail-edges a later hand added the Hebrew words Or zarua' heleq rishon and Or zarua' heleq sheni, respectively, both with a Magen Dawid drawn above. The first volume has three paper fly leaves at the beginning and two at the end, and further contains a


loose letter already described by Margoliouth; the second volume has two paper fly-leaves at the beginning and three at the end. The last parchment leaf of vol. ii apparently was once pasted onto the wooden board. The whole book was cropped slightly during an earlier binding.

Decoration The titles of various parts of the text have been singled out or decorated in different ways, usually rather naively. These decorated words occur on fos. 3r, 11 Or, 191r and 264r of vol. i, and on fos. 2r, 32v, 84v, lOOr, 125r, 140v, 144r, 147r, 186r and 211r of vol. ii. On fos. 212r and 226r of vol. i diagrams occur within the text.

MarginaliaMost later additions have already been described and discussed properly by George Margoliouth (M) and Aaron Freimann (F). 39 A short listing may therefore suffice here. Vol. i, fol. Ir (fly-leaf): blank. Vol. i, fol. Iv (fly-leaf): '. . . descriptions, on modern paper, of two works by Nathanael (Diodato) Segre . . . A.D. 1622' (M); a description from R.N. Rabbinovicz's catalogue No. 7 of 1884 (item No. 13) (F, in detail). Vol. i, fol. 2r: title-page and table of contents, added by Abraham ben Natanel Segre (F, with additional information on the Segre family and on the use of the manuscript). 40 Vol. i, fol. 2v: blank. Vol. i, 'attached on guard at the end': '. . . a legal document . . . dated . . . Nov. 13, A.D. 1742 ... by which Samson Segre enters into a covenant with Jacob London and Isaac Berakhyah Qanton with regard to the printing of the text of the MS in Amsterdam, London, or some other printing press possessing similar excellent type. . .' (M). Vol. i, fol. 29Iv: '. . . an Italian note, signed by the censor, Bart°

39 Margoliouth, Catalogue, (note 34), 137, Nos. 530-531; Freimann, 'Das ynt iw 'O mvmi 'vnb '(note 21), 400-2.

40 That the manuscript has been in Italian hands may indicate that the manuscript of the great Or zarua', which Judah ben Eliezer Ha-levi Minz (c. 1408-1506) took with him when he left Mainz for Italy in 1462, is the same as the London manuscript (see also note 12); Urbach, Tosaphists (note 2), 443. In his Responsa Minz quotes liberally from his own Or zarua' gadol (at the same time using Hayyim Or Zarua"s abridgement, by the way). On fol. 26r of the Venice 1553 edition he mentions an old marginal annotation which, admittedly, I have not been able to locate on the relatively poor microfilm of the London manuscript which I have at my disposal (I did not know the reference when I investigated the original). It is clear that only a sound comparison of the lengthy quotations in Minz's Responsa with the manuscript will prove whether the above assumption is valid; Judah Minz, npijr* mt *n [ji"iv] (Venice: Aluise Bragadini, 1553), 22r-29v, Nos. 12, 13.


Rocca di Praterino, and giving permission to Abraham Segre to hold the book, to send it where he pleases, and to have it returned at his pleasure' (M). Vol. ii, fol. Ir: table of contents, added by Abraham Segre (F). Vol. ii, fol. Iv: blank. Vol. ii, fol. 216r: '. . . a note of the censor . . . of the same import as the note in Or. 2859, fol. 291b' (M). A later owner marked parts of the text by drawing little hands in the margins (see e.g., vol. ii, fols. 34v, 35r). Occasionally later owners' annotations occur in the manuscript. The censor expurgated certain parts of the text. Expurgations appear especially in Avodah zarah (e.g., vol. ii, fos. 33rv, 49r; often only the zayin of the abbreviation has been expurgated; e.g., vol. ii, fol. 61r)

EvaluationThe manuscript contains no indication of its date and place of production. Although the equalizing technique has been employed, hair and flesh sides of the parchment are distinguishable, while prickings occur in both inner and outer margins and ruling is applied by plummet. It may therefore be deduced that the manuscript was copied between 1260 and 1300. 41 A comparison of the script used in the manuscript with that of certain of the rare manuscripts whose Northern French origin is testified by a colophon or some other evidence, and the fact that hair and flesh sides can be distinguished easily, suggests a Northern French rather than a German origin. On the basis of the comparison there seems to me good ground for ascribing the manuscript to the end of the transition period in which the old Ashkenazi parchment with clearly distinguishable hair and flesh sides, was gradually replaced by parchment with equalized sides (and which, more importantly, also involved a change in pricking and ruling practices),42 that is to say, probably to the last decade of the thirteenth century.

CONCLUSION

In his work on the Tosaphists E.E. Urbach has been the first to pay serious attention to the genesis of the Or zarua'. 43 He noticed, a fact pointed out earlier in this article, that there is no internal evidence supporting a chronological distinction between the various stages of

41 Beit-Arie, Hebrew codicology (note 28), 22-6.42 It should be noted that in Northern France the old technique of distinctive sides

persisted alongside the new, until the expulsion of the Jews from Northern France in 1306; Beit-Arie, Hebrew codicology (note 28), 25.

43 Urbach, Tosaphists (note 2), 440-2.

THE AMSTERDAM AND LONDON OR ZARUA' 7 1

the production of the text. Since there are explicit references within the text to the author 'of blessed memory' and to later additions made by Isaac ben Moses himself, Urbach argued that: 'it is clear therefore, that both during and after his life simanim were added both by his son and his pupils, and that furthermore the author himself added to his words after he had composed and arranged them . . . and one may doubt whether he ever considered his composition as finished at all' (p. 440f).

Basing himself on Isaac's own words in the Or zarua\ Urbach went on to prove that the work developed step by step, and that Isaac made intensive use of his own liqqutim., his extracts from the entire rabbinic literature, and even reconsidered his views after having consulted them. From the Responsa of his son Hayyim, furthermore, it is known that the father also maintained a qoves, a compilation of halakhic material which more or less served as a preparatory version of the great work, although not everything collected in the qoves made it into the final text. The fact that the work is full of cross-references, Urbach argued, is ample proof that the author constantly added to his own words, most probably in the margins of his own manuscript, and that afterwards these later additions were incorporated into the original text by the master's pupils and/or by scribes.

Urbach also stressed that the division into four parts, as is found now, was most probably not implemented by Isaac ben Moses himself, an insight confirmed by the Amsterdam and London manuscripts. Both manuscripts seem intended to provide a coherent text, starting off with the section on the Hebrew alphabet and the hilkhot sedaqah. Only after these two sections do the manuscripts diverge, although, if the Amsterdam manuscript is taken as a reference, the sections following Avodah zarah as they occur in the second volume of the London manuscript, with the exception of Shevu'ot which was published later by Aaron Freimann, are again an overlap.

The analysis of the two manuscripts presented here, ascribing them to the period between 1260 and 1300, implies that both are almost contemporary with the author, who died probably around 1250. Stretching Urbach's hypothesis just a little bit further one may argue that it is very doubtful whether many other medieval manuscripts of the text have ever existed, although an admittedly limited comparison of the overlapping texts clearly shows that the two scribes used different exemplars (in quite a few instances the London manuscript seems to provide a longer [later?] text). 44 There

" That two different exemplars were used is also shown by the fact that the end of Hallah and the beginning of Kilayim are absent in the Amsterdam manuscript, but present in the London manuscript.


seems no reason to assume, however, that the two scribes worked from just one exemplar. With Urbach's reconstruction of Isaac's working method in mind, it is very plausible that different versions of substantial parts of the text circulated among Isaac's students and that the scribes, aware of the symbolic meaning of the opening sections (Alfa beta and Sedaqah), both put these sections at the beginning of their manuscripts and arranged the remaining material in the somewhat coincidental order in which they are now.45 This is confirmed by the fact that the order of the Halakhot in Hayyim ben Isaac's abridgement of the Or zarua' is again slightly different, and by the fact that the Responsa which follow the text are clearly later additions, as is shown by the number of duplications of Responsa already occurring in the text. 46

The very existence and popularity of Hayyim's abridgement of his father's text may have had a decisively negative influence on the dissemination of the original text. This influence was probably greater than that of the massiveness of the text, a factor mentioned, it should be stressed, by the son himself in his abridgement. 47 After all, many massive texts were copied during the Middle Ages, and I see no reason why a text as important as the Or zarua' should not have been copied, regardless of its size. Another point that should be made is that all known later references to manuscripts of the great Or zarua' discussed here could in principle be taken as referring to one of these two manuscripts, which may again be an indication that, perhaps, there never existed other substantial manuscript versions of the text. Finally, the relatively early date proposed here for the production of the two manuscripts - both were most probably copied before Hayyim finished his abridgement - may be further evidence that the son's work threw the father's completely into the shade.

In this article I hope that I have made clear that careful study of the original manuscripts of Isaac ben Moses's Or zarua' is an urgent desideratum. It is even more necessary, since there are important textual differences between the printed editions and the manuscripts on which they were based. Especially the Zhytomir edition shows considerable divergencies from the manuscript,48 and seems to be,

45 Urbach, Tosaphists (note 2), 444.46 Urbach, Tosaphists (note 2), 445, who also discusses responsa by Isaac ben Moses

.vhich were not included in the Or zarua'.47 Urbach states that the son made his abridgement because the text 'did not reach a

great dispersion, as a result of its great size and the problems connected with copying it, and that he therefore composed an abridgement of it'. Reference could also be made, however, to the problems involved in obtaining a reliable exemplar; Urbach, Tosaphists (note 2), 442.

48 This has already been noted by Norman Golb, 'In search of the original home of the Great Mahzor of Amsterdam', Studia Rosenthaliana, 10 (1976), 199, n. 25: '. . . I was able to compare some pages of this MS with the printed text edited (from this very MS) by Akiba Lehren (Zhitomir 1862), and noticed various discrepancies between the MS and the


not a faithful copy, but an ideal text, based, indeed, on the manuscript, but also utilizing the many quotations in the works of the son and of the followers. The Jerusalem edition, prepared by someone working under the scholarly influence of the Wissenschaft des Judentums, Wilhelm Posen of Frankfurt am Main, is certainly a more faithful copy of the underlying manuscript (as is Aaron Freimann's later edition of Shevu'ot), but in the Jerusalem edition, too, divergencies do occur. Of course a critical edition of the text, incorporating all textual witnesses (as proposed by Golb), and perhaps even presenting them in a synoptic manner, would be perfect. For the time being, however, a relatively low-cost reproduction of the Amsterdam and London manuscripts would be a stimulating first step, enabling more researchers to study Isaac ben Moses's Or zarua' and, above all, to enjoy its rich contents.

APPENDIX:THE STORY OF THE SHIPWRECK OF THE ROSENTHALIANA OR

ZARUA'AND ITS DEMYSTIFICATION

The story of the manuscript (now in the Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana) used for the Zhytomir 1862 edition, and the later interpretations of that story, read almost like a fairy tale, but they are in urgent need of correction. The story begins with Akiba Lehren (1795-1876), a well-known Amsterdam banker and spiritual leader of the orthodox Jewish community in Amsterdam. 49 In the 1850s and 1860s he owned the manuscript, and in a letter dated 25 Shevat 5621 (Tuesday, 5 February 1861), which was added to the first printed edition produced by the brothers Hanine Lippe and Josuah Heshel Shapiro in Zhytomir (Ukraine) on the basis of this manuscript, he included the following account (fig. 8):

... It is this Sefer 'or zarua', a manuscript in two volumes by R. Isaac of Vienna . . . that came into my possession from the collection of my father-in-law, brother and leader, the revered Abraham Zevi Hirsh [Hirshel] Lehren [1784-1853], of blessed memory. In earlier days this beautiful book used to be the proud possession of the author of the work Besamim rosh, R. Saul, son of Sevi Hirsh, Av Bet Din of Berlin, as is written on the cover of the book in Ashkenazi script, and as may be deduced from the handwriting of the notes found on the leaves of the manuscript, which is

published version. A new edition of the entire work, taking into consideration not only this MS and the one in the British Museum but also variant readings of innumerable passages preserved in still other MSS of this work [!], would undoubtedly be an undertaking of great value for Hebrew scholarship.'

49 M. Eliav, 'R. Akiva Lehren: the man and his work', Dutch Jewish History, 2. Proceedings of the fourth symposium on the history of the Jews in the Netherlands . . . Jerusalem: Institute for Research on Dutch Jewry, 1989), 207-17.


n c

n

pB-gr£s8B|i882r, ' *- n_>s h R J .£ e * F_a

I£

§ \-

pTL0 X0D ur

>•• j!~li <r- 15j

>^%

A iN

\t

imr»

•Pp*ssep- Pis.*?? 1

Pggtg fl SP^B*fds I

' ISR gl J8g £o r

r

aC.-Q P !>

PlpB

00^Ho"

.faa

o> u=(AVa •s«n -^["3 Qw "Q

^i *§*« 3 a^IiJ." c §'i -SP•S «£••§o ^£^j:N"ed3*N IHO

^

IM .wvt^ V

</3

000> IHa£


identical to that of notes found on a leaf in a copy of the work Turei 'even, by the author of the Sha'agat Aryeh, Aryeh Leib, which also reposes in the above- mentioned collection [i.e. of Hirshel Lehren] which God bestowed on me (and see the fourth column of fol. 35 of the Besamim rosh, where he quotes from the manuscript). After his death the book was sent [we'aharei yamaw or we'aharei yamim; shalahand not nishlah: did he send the book?] to another city unknown to me, by ship over the sea, and the ship and everything that was in it was wrecked, and the manuscript that was inside went under the sea and the waves went over it, as a result of which the book is covered with water stains and certain leaves are torn. And the good God, whose eye is on the God-fearing and their deeds, protected this book and prevented it from going down to the depths and saved it from destruction. He sent a stream through the mighty waters and brought the book to the border of West Friesland [in the province of North Holland], which is on the seacoast, and He led a fisherman to the place. He saw the book, lifted it from the sea and brought it to a certain Jew, resident of the city of Lemmer [in the northern province of Friesland], and he, after having heard of the glory of my great brother of blessed memory whom I mentioned before, brought it to his home and sold it to him for good money. . .

The former owner of the manuscript, Saul of Berlin, or Saul Hirschell, was the son of Sevi Hirsh Levin, who from 1772 until his death in 1800 was the Chief Rabbi of Berlin, and from 1758 to 1764 served as Rabbi of the Great Synagogue in London. Saul of Berlin adhered ardently to the ideas of Moses Mendelssohn, and published his opinions in a work Mispeh Yoqte'el (Berlin: Jiidische Freyschule, 1789) under the name of Obadiah ben Barukh of Poland. He also published Besamim rosh (Berlin: Jiidische Freyschule, 1793), already mentioned by Akiba Lehren, a partly forged collection of responsa, also meant to defend the ideas of Mendelssohn and his followers. 50 The publication of these works caused a great commotion among the rabbinical authorities of his days, and although his father defended him, Saul was forced eventually to leave Berlin, where he had gone after giving up a rabbinical position in Frankfurt an der Oder years before, and to make his way to London, where 'he died contrite and penitent (as his will shows) on November 16th, 1794, and was buried with great solemnity in the old cemetery of the Great Synagogue, which out of compliment to his father and his brother embodied his name in the list of its departed Rabbis'. 51

In the 1904 auction catalogue of the collection of the Amsterdam bibliophile N.H. van Biema the manuscript was described by Sigmund Seeligmann. 52 Since it is not listed in the

50 A list of Saul's literary activities can be found in: M. Samet, 'R. Saul Berlin and his works' (Heb.), Qiryat Sefer, 43 (1968), 429-41.

51 C. Roth, The Great Synagogue London, 1690-1940 (London: Edward Goldston and Son, 1950), 182-4.

52 S. Seeligmann, Catalog der reichhaltigen Sammlung hebrdischer u. judischer Bucher, Handichriften, Portraits, etc. nachgelassen van \r.H. van Biema in Amsterdam (Amsterdam: Joachimsthal, 1904;, 209, lot 3581 (and not 5381, which is a printing error).


1899 Lehren auction catalogue it may be assumed that van Biema had obtained the manuscript directly from Akiba Lehren's collection, since his mother was Akiba Lehren's niece. 53 At the van Biema auction the then curator of the Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana, Jeremias Meijer Hillesum, bought the manuscript for the library for 115 guilders, as may be learned from an annotated copy of the catalogue which is kept in the library. Seeligmann's description provides the following information on the history of the manuscript:

... In losen Bogen, da dieses MS. als Vorlage fur die Ausgabe Szytomir 1862 fo...

. gedient. . . Die Handschrift lag im Wasser (s. Vorrede des A. Lehren z"l in der gedruckten Ausgabe), daher an manchen Stellen starck fleckig und das Perkament runzlig.

In an exhibition catalogue of 1919 J.M. Hillesum added a new element to the story. He wrote: 54

As is clear from an inscription on the first leaf and from certain notes added to the text, at the end of the eighteenth century the present manuscript was owned by R. Saul, son of the Berlin Chief Rabbi Zwi Hirsch, himself Rabbi in Frankfurt am Main[!]. R. Saul quotes from the 'Our Saroeang' in his work: 'Besamiem Rousj'. While his father was still alive R. Saul died in London in 1794. It is not unlikely [!] that after R. Saul's death the valuable manuscript was sent back to his family in Berlin and that at that time the shipwreck mentioned by Akiba Lehren in his introduction[!] to the Sytomir edition of 'Our Saroeang' took place. The manuscript was sold by a fisherman to a Jew in [!] De Lemmer [in the Northern province of Friesland], who took it to Amsterdam and, in his turn, sold it to Akiba Lehren's brother Herschel Lehren. The waves left their traces in the manuscript and occasionally damaged the parchment.

The next to deal with Lehren's story is none other than Samuel Yosef Agnon. In his 1938 Sefer, sofer wesippur he recounts the following: 55

This Sefer 'or zarua' which is in our hands was printed from a manuscript. This manuscript was sent by ship to a certain city. The ship was wrecked on the open sea, and everything that was in it went down to the depths. It so happened that a fisherman threw out his net in the sea of West Friesland to pull out fishes and he pulled out a bundle of writings. He looked at the script which looked like the script of the Jews, and brought it to a certain Jew from the townsmen of Lemmer. He saw that these writings were words of the Torah. Together with the fisherman he went to R. Sevi Lehren, who was a great scholar, the same R. Sevi Lehren who was

53 Catalog der reichhaltigen Sammlungen hebrdischer undjudischer Bticher, Handschriften ... nachgelassen van . . . Rabbi Meijer Lehren, Rabbi Akiba Lehren . . . (Amsterdam: Joachimsthal, 1899), 194-5.

54 Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana. Een keur uit de handschriften en boeken (Amsterdam: Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana, 1919), 6, No. 6.

55 S.Y. Agnon, o*iov 5i>i O'taiv >j> o»iw»fr .tia>vi law lav (Tel Aviv, 1938), 89-93; I used the reprint, published in Jerusalem by Schocken Publishing House in 1978, where the story is found on p. 277.


treasurer for the land of Israel. 56 He bought this book for a lot of money and added it to his library, and it was kept and hidden with him for several years. After his death the book was inherited by his brother, R. Akiba Lehren, who sent it to the printers of Zhytomir who printed it on beautiful paper and with beautiful letters for the benefit of the public, and the public enjoyed its light.

In 1968 Moshe Samet tried to tear this legend to pieces: 57

The story that was printed by R. Akiba Lehren regarding the vicissitudes of the manuscript of the Or zarua' ... is pure legend. 58 The manuscript was not transferred at all, when R. Saul fled to London by boat. 59 It remained in Berlin in the hands of his father who left it to his grandson R. Aryeh Leib. The grandson tried to have it printed with the glosses of his father [which were indeed added by Saul] and sent it for inspection to the Rabbi of Cracow so that he could praise its authenticity. . . Only afterwards did the manuscript come into the possession of the man who sold it, together with the fairy tale, to R. Sevi Hirsh Lehren in Amsterdam for a lot of money. . .

Although he does not explicitly mention it as his source, Samet seems to base himself on the foreword, entitled Kokhav nogah, to the supposedly second edition of Sefer 'or 'enayim by Solomon ben Abraham Peniel (in fact it is the third edition: the first had appeared in Constantinople, c. 1515-20, the second in Cremona in 1557), which was edited by Saul of Berlin's son Aryeh Leib, also known as Lewin Saul Frankel, 60 and which appeared in Breslau in 1806. 61 There Aryeh Leib gives a survey of the most important books from his library,62 among which is the manuscript of the Or zarua', and

56 Reference is made here to the Pekidim and Amarcalim of Amsterdam, an organisation that collected moneys for the Holy Land from all over Europe and was headed by the Lehren family for fifty-five years; see, e.g., Eliav, 'R. Akiva Lehren' (note 49).

57 Samet, 'R. Saul Berlin' (note 50), 435.58 This information was copied in the entry on Isaac ben Moses of Vienna, in the EJ, 9, 26.59 It is not clear to me how Samet got to know of this element of the story. Hillesum's

1919 exhibition catalogue is not in his bibliography, so, if he did not know Hillesum's publication, he must have learned it from a written or an oral source unknown to me.

60 For an account on Aryeh Leib's life, his apostasy, his return to Judaism and his death in great poverty, see: M. Brann, 'Geschichte des Landrabbinats in Schlesien. Nach gedruckten und ungedruckten Quellen', Jubelschrift zum siebzigsten Geburtstage des Prof. Dr. H. Graetz (Breslau: Schottlaender, 1887), 266-76. Leeser Rosenthal, founder of the Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana, remembered having seen a letter by Aryeh Leib written on his sick-bed in which he made full repentance; L. Rosenthal, Anhang. Yode'a sefer. Bibliographisches Verzeichniss eines grossen Theiles der L. Rosenthal'schen Bibliothek, vom Sammler selbst geschrieben und handschriftlich nachgelassen, 16, No. 93, published together with: M. Roest, Catalog der Hebraica undjudaica aus der L. Rosenthal'schen Bibliothek (Amsterdam: s.n., 1875).

61 He also refers to Sevi Halevi Horowitz's Kitve ha-geonim (Pieterkov: Hanokh Henekh Polman, 1928), 19-20, n. 1-4 and 136, n. 2, where, however, only secondary references can be found.

62 The matter is further complicated in a review by M. Brann of Isaac Benjacob's Osar ha-sefarim, MGWJ, 30 (1881), 378: 'So theilt z.B. Benjacob (Schin 994) ein Verzeichnift von Biichem mit, deren Abfassung er, auf Grund einer Angabe in Sefer sha'ar ha-yihud [the foreword to an edition of the Hovot ha-levavot] (Frankfurt an der Oder, 1779, 8), dem Naftali Hirsch ben Mardochai Theomim, dessen Vater und dessen Grofivater Isaak Joseph


gives an account of his (eventually fruitless) attempts to have the text printed: 63

. . . and the great Sefer 'or zarua' by R. Isaac of Vienna, with the annotations of my revered father of blessed memory, to which I wrote a foreword to have it printed [hiqdamti lehadpis zeh ha-sefer]. . . I therefore sent it... to R. Hananiah Lipman . . . and he gave his approbation to have it printed [and to] the Rabbi of Cracow . . . who also witnessed it[s authenticity].. , 64

In 1973 the manuscript was described in the printed catalogue of the manuscripts of the Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana:65

At the end of the 18th cent, the ms. belonged to Saul b. Zvi Hirs, rabbi of Frankfurt-on-the-Main [!] and later of London [!]. After his death there in 1794, the ms. was sent by boat to the owner's father Zvi Hirs, chief-rabbi of Berlin. On the way the ship was wrecked and the ms. in a wooden cask [!] was swept ashore in Friesland [!]. A fisherman found the cask and sold it to a Jew in [!] the city of Lemmer, who resold it in Amsterdam to the banker Akiba Lehren [!].

In 1980 some additional details were added:66

Occasionally a spectacular item could be bought. From the legacy of N.H. van Biema the library obtained in 1904 for 110 guilders [!], the legal codex 'Or zarua" by Isaac ben Moses of Vienna, which was copied in the 14th century. This fine medieval manuscript, containing coloured and illuminated initials, was owned, at the end of the eighteenth century, by Saul ben Zwi Hirsch, initially Rabbi in Frankfort on the Main, later in London. He died in 1794, relatively young of age. After his death the precious manuscript was sent by boat from England to his father, Zwi Hirsch, Chief Rabbi of Berlin. On its way the ship wrecked in a storm [!] near the coast of Friesland [!]. The case in which the manuscript was packed [!] was washed up the coast of Friesland and was found by a beachcomber [!]. He sold it to a Jew in De Lemmer, who in his turn sold it to the Amsterdam banker Akiba Lehren. Akiba Lehren published the manuscript with an introduction in 1862.

Theomim zuschreibt'; this list is strikingly similar to the one published by Aryeh Leib; also see: Brann, 'Geschichte des Landrabbinats in Schlesien' (note 60), 269. As Saul of Berlin was married to Sarah, the daughter of Isaac Joseph ben Hayyim Jonah Te'omim (d. 22 October 1793) of Breslau the manuscript of the Or zarua' (and some of the other books mentioned) may have come into his possession through his father-in-law (although he eventually divorced Sarah). In the Sefer sha'ar ha-yihud there is also a reference to annotations by Naftali Hirsh ben Mordecai Te'omim's father; see also: E. Landshuth, ... ofitwoi ovn >VJN JJ>T>OT (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1884), 105-10. By the way, Aaron Freimann's reaction to Brann, that the manuscript of the Or zarua' used for the printed edition is in Frankfurt am Main, (Heb. 8° 256) is incorrect: 'Miscelle', Zeitschrift fur hebraische Bibliographie, 4 (1900), 159.

63 Solomon ben Abraham Peniel, Sefer 'or 'enayim (Breslau: s.n., 1806), [8v-9r]. To me there seems to be no clear textual evidence to support Samet's assumption that Aryeh Leib wanted to include his father's notes in a printed edition. Nor is it clear to me from where Samet learned that Sevi Hirsh Levin left the manuscript to his grandson.

64 The two approbators may very well be Sevi Hirsh David Halevi of Cracow and Hananiah Lipman Meisels of Pieterkov, who also approbated the 1806 Or 'enayim.

65 Fuks and Fuks-Mansfeld, Hebrew and Judaic manuscripts (note 23), 48-9, No. 95.66 L. Fuks and R.G. Fuks-Mansfeld, 'De handschriftenverzameling van de Bibliotheca

Rosenthaliana', Studia Rosenthaliana, 14 (1980), 170.


Traces of the disastrous passage, such as sand, seaweed and little shells between the parchment leaves [!!!] and aggressive salt water stains in the text, have been visible in the manuscript for quite some time. . . It was not before the sixties that the manuscript was restored according to the newest methods and was bound in two fine volumes.

A year later, in 1981, some of this information was copied in a Canadian exhibition catalogue:67

According to the legendary account by the editor Akiba Lehren of Amsterdam, the manuscript on which this edition was based, while en route from London to Berlin, was swept ashore in Friesland following a shipwreck at sea and preserved in a wooden cask.

In 1990 the present author's fantasies were added to the already beautiful legend. In the exhibition catalogue, The image of the word, one can read:68

In his [Akiba Lehren's] introduction [!] he mentions the fact that his brother had bought the manuscript from a Frisian bookseller [!], who had bought it from a fisherman, who found the book in a case [!] that was cast ashore in De Lemmer [!], a small village in the northern province of Friesland. The fact that the manuscript has obviously been soaking wet may prove that at least part of this fantastic story is true. At times the parchment has even become transparent (as it was not stretched during the process of drying).

Shortly after the exhibition, and after having told the story many times during guided tours, I gave way in a newspaper article to the serious doubts that had in the meantime entered into my mind. This article included a first tentative reconstruction of the story, but again some new fantastic details were introduced:69

The Encyclopaedia Judaica considers Akiba Lehren's story to be pure legend. . . It is noted that Saul of Berlin, who left for London relatively young of age, in one of his works makes explicit mention of the fact that he had left the manuscript with his father [!] and that therefore after his death (as an in my opinion unlikely translation of Akiba Lehren's text reads [?]) the manuscript could not have been sent back to Berlin. The manuscript was left by the father of the deceased Saul to his son-in-law [!!!] who tried to base an edition of the text on it. Only afterwards had the manuscript come into the possession of the bookseller [!] who sold it to Hirschel Lehren. Part of this information is based, however, on later interpretation and not on the text of Akiba Lehren, who to begin with clearly states that he did not know where the manuscript was sent and who further speaks of water damage. The only element that, for the

67 B.S. Hill, Incunabula, Hebraica and Judaica. Five centuries of Hebraica and Judaica . . . (Ottawa: National Library of Canada, 1981), 61, No. 62.

68 E.G.L. Schrijver, 'Hebrew manuscripts through the ages', in S.R. de Melker et al. (eds), The image of the word. Jewish tradition in manuscripts and printed books. Catalogue of an exhibition held at the Jewish Historical Museum, Amsterdam (14 September-25 November 1990), (Amsterdam and Louvain: Amsterdam University Library and Peeters, 1990), 20.

69 E.G.L. Schrijver, 'Manuscript Or Zarua vondst van een juttende visser aan Westfriese kust', Nieuw Israelietisch Weekblad (7 December 1990), 17.


sake of chronology, should be altered therefore in Akiba Lehren's story is the fact that between the ownership of Saul of Berlin and of Hirschel Lehren (or, more precisely [!] the beach-combing fisherman) is the ownership of Saul's brother-in- law [!]. An important part of the history of this 'beach-combed' book is herewith reconstructed, but one question, already in the mind of Akiba Lehren, remains unanswered: who exactly sent the manuscript when, whereto and why?

This would have been an appropriate ending to the development of the legend, had it not been for a fine example of oral library history that was published in 1992, by someone whoworked in the library from January 1951 until the summer of 1954 : 7o

I was even more surprised by the fact that in an unlocked closet in a black box the 14th-century beautifully illuminated manuscript of the work Or zarua' was kept. As I was told, the manuscript had come into the possession of the Rosenthaliana at the beginning of the century in a rather unorthodox manner. After the ship in which it was supposed to be sent from Hamburg [!] to New York [!] was wrecked in a raging storm on the North Sea it was swept ashore on the beach of one of our Frisian Islands [!]. Through a beachcomber and certain other institutions it ended up in the Rosenthaliana. Shortly after I left it was restored thoroughly, but I have myself still been able to see and touch with my fingers the more than a half century old water stains caused by the sea water.

As noted already the story urgently needs careful revision, as fact and fiction overlap in a manner not seen too often. The following information may be considered as reliable:

• The manuscript was owned by Saul of Berlin, who added his notes in the margins of many leaves and quotes from it in his Besamim rosh.• Saul of Berlin may have obtained the manuscript from his father- in-law, Isaac Joseph ben Hayyim Jonah Te'omim of Breslau.• After Saul's death the manuscript was owned by his son Aryeh Leib, whose attempts to have the text printed proved fruitless, despite the approbations he had already received on the basis of a foreword he wrote.• In the 1850s and 1860s the manuscript was owned by Akiba Lehren, who inherited it from his brother Hirshel.• The manuscript was bought by Hirshel Lehren from a Jew who lived in the town of Lemmer, in the northern province of Friesland.• The manuscript has been soaking wet.• Certain leaves of the manuscript are badly damaged.• The manuscript was used for the 1862 Zhytomir edition.• When Akiba Lehren sent off the manuscript to Zhytomir to have it printed it consisted of two bound volumes.

70 S. Bloemgarten, 'Mijn baas Leo Fuks', Studia Rosenthaliana, 26 (1992), 7.


• Akiba Lehren did not know where the manuscript was sent after Saul's death.• Akiba Lehren claimed that the book was cast ashore in West Friesland, which is in the province of North Holland.• In 1904 the manuscript was auctioned in loose quires and bought by the Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana for 115 guilders.

And the following elements of the story should be considered as legendary:

• Saul of Berlin did not work in Frankfurt am Main (Hillesum, Fuks), but rather in Frankfurt an der Oder, from where he left for Berlin.• Saul did not serve as a rabbi in London (Fuks); his name was only added to the list of deceased London rabbis out of respect for his father and his brother.• There is no evidence that Saul took the manuscript with him to London and that it was sent back to his family (Hillesum), or, more explicitly, to his father (Fuks) in Berlin (Hill), after his untimely death.• There is no direct proof that Saul had left the manuscript with his father (Schrijver), or that after his death the book was 'not transferred at all' (Samet).• There is no reason to assume that the manuscript was owned by Naftali Hirsh ben Mordecai Te'omim rather than by Aryeh Leib (Benjacob, Brann).• There is no direct proof that Aryeh Leib inherited the manuscript from his grandfather (Samet).• Sevi Hirsh Levin did not leave the manuscript to a son-in-law (Schrijver).• There is no direct proof that Aryeh Leib wanted to include his father's glosses in his planned edition of the manuscript (Samet).• It is very unlikely that the manuscript was sold to Hirshel Lehren shortly after the supposed shipwreck, when the manuscript was sent back to Berlin after Saul's death in 1794 (Hillesum), since Hirshel Lehren was born in 1784 and as a ten-year-old boy would certainly not be the most obvious buyer for the manuscript.• The same can be said of Akiba Lehren (Fuks). Being born in 1795 it is impossible that in the same year, or even shortly before he was bom, in 1794, he bought the book.• Akiba Lehren did not write an introduction to the printed edition (Seeligmann, Hillesum, Fuks, Schrijver), nor did he edit it (Hill). The text included in the edition is a letter, a mikhtav te'udah, which he sent to the printers and which was published together with the approbations.• The book was not cast ashore after a raging storm (Fuks) in Lemmer (Schrijver), Friesland (Fuks, Hill), but rather in West Friesland, which is in the province of North Holland.


• The manuscript was not sent by boat from Hamburg to New York and was, as a consequence, not cast ashore on the beach of one of the Frisian Islands (Bloemgarten71 ).• In Akiba Lehren's account there is no mention of a net thrown by the fisherman, nor of the nature of the contact between the fisherman and the Jew from Lemmer, nor is there any suggestion that the two of them went to Hirshel Lehren together (Agnon72).• There is no mention of a wooden cask in which the manuscript was packed (Fuks, Hill, Schrijver).• The book was not bought from a Jew in Lemmer, but from a Jew from Lemmer (Hillesum, Fuks).• There is no mention of a Frisian bookseller (Schrijver).• There is no mention of a beachcomber (Fuks) or a beach-combing fisherman (Schrijver).• The manuscript was not bought by the Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana for 110 (Fuks) but for 115 guilders.• There is no indication that until the post-war restoration the manuscript still contained sand, seaweed and little shells (Fuks). This fact would certainly have been noted by Sigmund Seeligmann in the 1904 auction catalogue; it would have been visible on a 1923 photograph of the manuscript which is kept in the library, and it would have been remembered by Salvador Bloemgarten, who touched the manuscript with his own fingers. Besides it is very hard to imagine how all this material got between the leaves of the manuscript, since, as Akiba Lehren's words imply, it was still bound when it went to Zhytomir, and was probably only sent back in loose quires (as suggested by Seeligmann). The sand, seaweed and shells are even more unbelievable when one takes into account the fact that in the same article the manuscript is said to have been packed in a wooden cask.

It is tempting to try to re-interpret all the foregoing details, or even to come up with some new thoughts on the matter. I now find it hard to believe, for example, that the book has, in fact, been in the water for a long period of time, since parchment absorbes water rather easily and the water damage would have been even more serious than it is now. Besides the text is in most cases still clearly legible. As already noted above the only thing that I would dare to defend is that the manuscript has been soaking wet. It seems wise, therefore, to stick to the bare facts, as more than enough fiction has been published already on this interesting case of the transmission of a post-medieval Hebrew text.

71 It should be stressed that Bloemgarten only recalls what he heard.72 For obvious reasons Agnon will have been interested more in the literary quality of the

story than in its historical reliability.

some light on the amsterdam and london …

Documents