Skip to main content

Full text of "A New Responsum of Maimonides concerning the Repetition of the "Shmoneh Esreh""

See other formats


STOP 



Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 
purposes. 

Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early- 
journal-content . 



JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 
contact support@jstor.org. 



A NEW RESPONSUM OF MAIMONIDES 

CONCERNING THE REPETITION OF 

THE SHMONEH ESREH 

By Israel Friedlaender, Jewish Theological 
Seminary of America. 

In one of his responsa R. David Ibn Abl Zimra (died 
1573) refers to two Arabic responsa of Maimonides dealing 
with the repetition of the Shmoneh Esrek, and quotes the 
concluding portions in Hebrew. 1 One of these responsa 
was published by Geiger in his Melo Hofnaim? The other 
is found in a manuscript collection of Maimonides's responsa 
in the Bodleian. 3 Among the manuscripts of the late 
Steinschneider, which together with his books are now in 
the possession of the Jewish Theological Seminary, Professor 
Alexander Marx found and kindly placed at my disposal 
a traced copy of this responsum which the indefatigable 
master had prepared after the Bodleian MS. and intended 
to publish as far back as 185a. 4 The identity of this 
responsum with the second one quoted by Ibn Abi Zimra 5 
is evident from the literal correspondence of the Hebrew 
quotation with the respective portion of the original. 
While closely related in its subject-matter to the other 
responsum quoted by the same author and published by 

1 T*3T1 JT'IC, ed. Leghorn, no. 94. A summary of the same responsum 
of Maimonides, ibid., no. 5. A third responsum of Maimonides on the same 
subject (= Kobes, ed. Lichtenstein, no. 145) is briefly referred to, ibid., 
fol. 32 a, column a. 

2 Hebrew part, pp. 70 ff., edited from a copy of Joseph Derenbourg. 
8 Catal. Neubauer, no. 814 b, 11, fol. 17 b. 

4 Comp. Cat. Bodl., 1909, no. 123. 5 DW, fol. 31 b, col. 1. 

VOL. V. I B 



2 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 

Geiger, it is yet different from it and offers many an 
interesting point. 

In the following I shall first give a summary both of 
the anonymous question, which is extremely diffuse and 
written in very poor Arabic, and of Maimonides's reply 
which is characteristically lucid and concise. I shall then 
reproduce the Arabic text which is very faulty and, as the 
notes indicate, had to be corrected in a number of places. 
The Arabic text is accompanied by a Hebrew translation 
in which I have for the last few lines utilized Ibn Abi 
Zimra's quotation. 

The questioner, who had once come into personal 
contact with Maimonides, complains about a recently 
introduced custom in his community, according to which 
the Hazzan recites the Shmoneh Esreh aloud no less 
than twice: the first time without the Kedusha and the 
priestly benediction, so as to enable the uneducated to 
recite the prayers after him, the second time with the 
Kedusha and the priestly benediction. This innovation 
had been introduced by one of the Hazzanim, and the 
common people liked it so well that from now on they 
insisted that all other readers should do likewise, although 
the latter found this double recitation with a loud voice 
veiy inconvenient. 

A scholar who had arrived in their midst — from the 
reply we learn that he had come from a Christian country — 
suggested, instead, that the Hazzan should recite the 
Shmoneh Esreh but once, and this with a loud voice, thus 
dispensing altogether with the silent recitation. It was his 
opinion which he partly based on a Gaonic responsum, 
that the Hazzan, having once recited the Shmoneh Esreh, 
though it be without the Kedusha and the priestly bene- 



NEW RESPONSUM OF MAIMONIDES — FRIEDLAENDER 3 

diction, was, according to law, not allowed to recite it 
a second time. This opinion was substantiated by some 
other, evidently native, scholars, one of whom referred to 
the fact that the silent recitation was unnecessary, for the 
reason that it had originally been introduced solely for 
the benefit of the penitent, 6 while another scholar argued 
that the loud recitation which included the Kedusha was 
indispensable because, in his opinion, it was intended to 
enable the Hazzan to say his own prayers, but, having 
once recited the Shmoneh Esreh, although without the 
Kedusha, he thereby forfeited the right to repeat it, as no 
prayer, particularly the Musaf, can be recited a second 
time, unless its contents be changed. 7 They consequently 
proposed, as the foreign scholar had done, the same 
arrangement of one loud recitation, including the Kedusha 
and the priestly benediction, and the abolition of the silent 
recitation altogether. 

As a matter of fact, one of the Hazzanim had followed 
this custom on certain occasions, particularly on Saturdays 
and holidays, when the service was unduly prolonged, or 
in the case of the Minhah service at dusk when the time 
was short. 8 But the common people complained about it 
because they preferred to have two loud recitations. The 
learned, on the other hand, were equally dissatisfied 
because the loud recitation of the Hazzan interfered with 
their private devotion for which the silent recitation afforded 
the only opportunity. 

The writer had once personally heard Maimonides's 
opinion on this subject but he no more remembered exactly 
what that opinion was. 

6 Who wish to pray for forgiveness without being overheard, comp. 
b. Sofah 3a b. 

7 Comp. b. Berakot 21a and Yad, Hilkot Tejillah, I, 9. 

8 Comp. Maimonides's responsum Melo Hofnaim, p. 74, 1. 7 from below. 

B 3 



4 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 

In his reply, Maimonides, true to his systematic trend 
of mind, begins by stating the law. The Talmud requires 
a double recitation of the Shmoneh Esreh, the first silent 
recitation on the part of the whole congregation so that all 
who can read, including the Hazzan himself, can fulfil their 
duty, and the second loud recitation by the Hazzan to 
enable those who cannot read to recite the prayers after 
him. The divergent opinion of Rabban Gamaliel, who 
assigns a different motive to the institution of the silent 
recitation, 9 does not touch this particular principle, according 
to which every one who can read is obliged to recite his 
prayers for himself. 10 

As for the recent custom of a double loud recitation, it 
is not only a waste of time but also in contradiction with 
the Talmud which regards the practice of raising one's 
voice in private devotion as a sign of ignorance. 11 

Regarding the opinion of the foreign scholar who 
suggested the abolition of the silent recitation, Maimonides 
informs the questioner that he had seen what that scholar — 
who, by the way, came from a Christian country 12 — had 
written to R. Nissim and R. Shemariah and, while he 
agreed fully with his opinion, he by no means approved of 
his argumentation. For the proofs cited by this scholar to 
the effect that the silent recitation is altogether inadmissible 
are extremely weak and untenable. 

Yet, while required by law, the silent recitation ought 
nevertheless to be abolished on entirely different grounds. 

9 b. Rosh hashanah 34 b. According to R. Gamaliel the silent recitation 
is intended to enable the reader to prepare himself for the loud recitation. 
See the discussion of R. Gamaliel's opinion in the other responsum of 
Maimonides, Melo Hofnaim, pp. 70 ff. 

w Comp. Yad, Hilkot Tefillah, VIII, 9. 

11 Comp. b. Berakot 24 b ; comp. Yad, loc.cit., V, 9. 

12 DIli'K (read n«^2) "IK^K }D. Rome might mean Byzantium, 
although it is often used in the larger sense of Christian. 



NEW RESPONSUM OF MAIMONIDES — FRIEDLAENDER 5 

For experience has shown — and here Maimonides sub- 
stantially repeats what we know from the responsum 
published by Geiger — that those who can read, having, 
during the silent recitation, read their prayers for themselves 
and thus, according to the law, fulfilled their duty, become 
during the loud recitation extremely restless, talk to one 
another and behave altogether indecorously. Those, again, 
who cannot read, inferring from the attitude of the educated, 
that the loud recitation is of no importance, behave likewise 
and even leave the synagogue, so that the very purpose for 
which the loud recitation was instituted, i.e. to enable the 
uneducated to repeat the prayers after the Hazzan, is 
defeated. Hence the abolition of the silent recitation has 
become a necessity. There being only one recitation — 
that of the Hazzan with a loud voice — the educated will 
during that time say their prayers silently, while the 
uneducated will listen attentively and the whole service will 
be orderly and impressive. 13 This arrangement will not only 
be a saving of time but will also remove the Hillul Hashem 
which consists in the fact that the non-Jews — Maimonides 
has particularly in mind the Mohammedans whose services 
are characterized by almost military order and precision — 
make fun of the Jews who spit, hawk, and talk during their 
prayers. The abolition of the silent recitation is, therefore, 
imperatively demanded by the particular conditions of the 
times. 14 

13 Ibn Abl Zimra in his summary of this responsum (t*3"n T\'"0, no. 5) 
similarly interprets Maimonides's attitude D^tfyWH nWIJO DpD $OD 

arbsn iim "rnb t6i prh &61 p'DDn? vbv iron p'spot?. 

14 In his other responsum, Melo Hofnaim, p. 74, 1. 18, Maimonides speaks 
more pointedly of ' these times and these places '. — I should like to observe 
in passing that in the above responsum the verb 3]13 and the noun n3n3, 
which occur a number of times (pp. 72, 11. 14, si, 25 ; 74, 1. 4 ; 76, 11. 5, 9), 
are to be read 3m and Sam. 



THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 



Hebrew Translation 



nuv mb twmn i^nnnt? jtodh nana niw a"' 1 
.-6ann ns |rnn ani> ino* twfa "iiavn ^am? pra (i»*n) n^ann mnon «»rn 

wat? 't }d D'aiD aw ninaea 

ntwp xb fitrb w nj> nnan 

(i^-i) ntnpnn tti S> pi ayna nanai 

ni>ann thd* a"nxi ,pni>n oanpn? 

nanai ntiTtp na Tew -iiava mas n£t?n Sunt? i»a nnx Tna jd 

e>ni>n nx jrnn tci^t? sraon nn .ayrn 

tnrtrw jdjd wn ibid iy T\w 'i p 

D'Jtnn nnx win avun ,anpD 

nf t?mi> i5»nnm ponn wjn jn nxdi 

ffnn by rwp nn ftn i?a to 

di Spa S^ann? vrbn njn mix D'nnoot? (5>*i) 

T>D^n xacai .nempa nye> ^aw nwrw ioa 

ni>ann "hdd mwt nnnt? yxn inx Dan 

ntmpa tvxt ihddi inn a"nxi nenp a^a 

nvini nempa nnx Dj?a (tmn) y"td' 

t6i '•pa uw id rix na awi m$>an nwn n-nonn 

new w a"j -ion a"nx .awa w mis wio* 

fcipn nx xnpm ntsmp xb n«?n rmonn 

Tina nan .nwpa Tiorh mini' »atn uj>k 

\)nib naitwi nfa tw man 

n^anntj' didn3 nri> pirn un: nnns a^oan »Tei>ni 

"irw now awn n:pn yao crfa rupru bjdn 

16 Composite Hebrew words are regarded as defined, without the 
definite article. Comp. a similar example in my Selections from the Arabic 
Writings of Maimonides, p. 41, note c. 

16 Read nniJT. 



NEW RESPONSUM OF MAIMONIDES — FRIEDLAENDER 



Arabic Text 



D^rnta m!>nno» avba nxs h!>k nDN^s &nn 'a rbtsov n" 1 - 

HN^N Jw6n Qrb TID» BVI&K "113«6k ^V jK flpl HN^N -|K1DN W1 

'•naty * p d*»o dw ninae^K « 

ntrnp -via jimi> w ^n nnan 

rota |»p5>ni»K ^3D ^y in ayna nana tb\ 

nt6xi>N no* jn*v ^t nyai cn^x anjp^ 

na-iai ntpnpi'K xn»a Vi -iu^k ^"im n^ majfot NDa nntc ina |o 

wrbbtt )mbtt |pi» ni>K jroefo xiro twro 

man "iok m ndjn "D{6k ^n vim? « ;d 

cMrni>K fya ninncx np jxa anp p 

na ni'D' 1 nssa iwoaiiK ijy pna 

jmiw *i>y i>prv -|h nxsa jtn i>a 

"onnix |&6yxa >i>jp ;k e>ni>i>N "uy fibre jk 

n^n fin fin KD^a rremp^ta n«i>xi>N "Yy in s»a yrv* 

fw6xi>K -nD' 1 nd ha }e» jxa -ikb>n tean 

nenpa twtai tid» jut on tramp tm 

jwa ncynpiwa mnw nyan mo^ 

xi>i »pa wnb> »d na &oxvi ir6an in -itODKiw ii>n 

^ h^n js i>sp n^n njs on pm» *|iniv 

nysn^N jp^i nttmp -ma "iktv^k -jin 

♦a naii ,neTrpi>K3 -nD' 1 yn' ni> w t6 

|itui> nawn iin '•a }k not&a fya 

nbaniw ]x "onhpa ~fr~\ tjdk 'can nnsiri fyai 

tap fyai answi ropn yao »nb ni>y? xdjk 

17 The text is no doubt corrupt. Read perhaps Vy* VTC m 8(23. 

« Read -IKIXN^N = "WHDKiJs. 

19 The suffix shows that fyD is plural. 



8 the jewish quarterly review 

Hebrew Translation 

vbsrb nti nempa rmonn nm? 

>pa i:w '•d m kw nai ins n^t? ^ 

xnpns? ruwtnn rrnonn b -jcd taxi 

man t na xv naatr rwp «b iron nx (rn) 

"3bo nw nempa inonh niri-6 ii> -iidx (rx) 

tnn ox x^x rnniD naw enw n^ann rrnn txe> 

nnix bbznnb TiDxt? tjmo ni>an iwai -on na 

nnx oya ntyvipa "met? tnn pas nnvm ,uwa w 

'ixnn mr ,nnx nyt?a *pa wm nn i»vy trwi 

i>3 nnD^ nr ^y twrnn *mx idd naai ,nisryi> 

nnx qsjd / niHffiB> ponn mrw ,ni>Bn 

pmn njra xi>x n^?T nw xi>i rrempa 

mid w in mnas? ba n^pna^ in 

ova mniN» nyt? ty nwan waa raw Tixntra 

penn nsp "^ya yn nt nvn nwetwi pa jdt ix 

Nim enruw anson nr x^>x w k^>b> "obd 

-nrir 3"nxi nswp x^a nxnpnn -p*idib> 

owpan nnwxn byi ,nBmpa n»at5> i^am 

itnn »*y bt&h mtDn taan 

^ann^ a»sn ont? '•jdd rwip tubs nmx rrenyn 

nxra ihp nx jtnn iTmoboi dovy^ e>n^ 

spurn iyD> (^npn nx) x»-ipni> na n-nDnn 

p Da nni> y-isi mai on^an C5>answi nnyn 

cnb ^anni> n^w wxi ntmpa nnx nya -mwa 

nenp wi ntaa nta ioy i^an^a xi>x 

20 Read }W1». 

21 h is struck out. Instead of JK^X i>3, read |X^X3 = Ji'b. 

22 MS. suggests rather n3D?X, but the D is not quite certain. The 
context demands n3??X = i£**1H- 



NEW RESPONSUM OF MAIMONIDES — FRIEDLAENDER 9 

Arabic Text 

vbsrb in nenptaa n^x^N sin jn 

*pa wnb> 12 ns nw nai im n»!?p ta 

jpi» n^N h^>N nN*1VN^N '•b biy |K1 

flB^N iT3 NSp ilJN Wllp TJ3 Tia^N 

in nE'np "iNnD&a Ty yjT 1 ;n n^j? cm 

B>in dn n^n n?n tb ^n dw ni>sn pan 

t&m n? n^> h!>n fjoio rfon pNa^si nan na 

mnNi hjjbt ncnp^ to in n^N^Ni 20 pri"i3 

3»o5>n sin jn!>n 21 i>3 va uw '•di ravy nwi 

^3 TID" 1 jx ih ^y D^N f*ya -tonyNa W jn 

mriNi nya*t x.tinixn iinco^N win* nabs 

prm npi *b n^>n ih 5>j)B» n^i ntrnp^a 

quid cd 11 in rut? ^a ■'B uynsb in 

inh^n "b iraa npii» d^n »b 22 na^>N i>ND nin 

•nno^N fya ^y ih pea tan npi in 

im mriD^N anjota "]h n!>n itt vb in 

y?T> dd nenip TJa ppi»n lis* jn 

owpaiw fNacs^Ni ntjnpi5N3 HN^X^N T-y 

E>n^N }rni>N inisn Dn^y 3yy 

t^v on jwt in rwnp Tja n^yai nta 

ira jtni?N jn^jkob qhob:^ mb 

t^nani isbn 1 ' 23 pp^N nxnvN^N 

"an^a* ns'n i^nai annab^ wnni oru«n*iN 

tprta liv on ip>o» n^> nenpa mnw nysn tixn nin 

ntnip^N la^no 11 ! noba nob 26 nao 26 in^ jn n^n 

2 8 Read probably pp^ni> =. ^-abJ. 

21 Read Dnb »J\ 2^ Read N"6x. 26 Read nj». 



IO THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 

Hebrew Translation 

nm nbv b (F^phn djw 'pa wats* »e ay nma 

onoiK an i»rw rwyb an$> nmo nj on .ma 

b nbna x"kti noK't? no b trnb 

. anbn pawn «h vnano (nbi) nb 

e>nb ban^ owe jnjo uw iiok ennui 

>iW noi nempa -mo* a"nNi 

DaDNi nab 'pan nx w-pw ton s?nb 

ibdd Qieiffl met? aipoa ww *vat* 

e>n .jvjswt mnonn b tjdid 'pa «w 'di 

rrennpa nnx nnnD.n pi rrnn» sin itnnp annt? 'd 

nox' masn p '•pa nw '01 

'pa uw »oi nba nb synb my 

b b wain 't xvi px raj?' 

wee nay yos? naai , nanai nana 

ibx ichw (pip nan nrrc pyn nta 

inDna ,p*iin wn unar bx wai> noyi 

.'ixnn Kin nrw wyn nx iymni? w a'D" 

crib ban's? Die>an araon in m 

man bki ntyinpa n'no' a"nxi 

mm' a'nsi cnb ns ftnn N'np't? trnrow 

mm • s6 in nnio nennpa nbnn TnD'i 

awn p Sea niaw nabion nnoan 'aa nsjnnpn nnnin 

xw i'b tidd^> "pissr 'ixnn rnircnn 

bn lbam? Nim ^"r a'oann upns? nd 

pa ban px banns? '» b main n» nvi cnb 

a"ra«i bpn p mb in x*t?n 

27 The text is rather obscure. Perhaps it is faulty spelling for lab' = 
yd.Xi : they do not trouble the reader (with the repetition of the prayer). 



NEW RESPONSUM OF MAIMONIDES — FRIEDLAENDER II 

Arabic Text 

ma"x rvi>tj> ^labxa" t6i "p3 «*nb> "a yo 

tap" dn uia"a nii>ya" jn ani> j"nd "jh bn "jin "a 

!>a "a n»6x "a iia»v n"i>B> hp" nd 5>a srnb 

ann^x 28 swnni t6x* nmbs p nob 

erfa "6x1 (s Bit?a jnjio snn \x i^p nas dipi 

pb" i^n aim nemps mo" ih isni 

nubi npa einy p fpb" "ita in tawa w^n "a 

dm 'pa uw "d!j "ixnta -wtok^k "by nxDnyNbai 

tWXTfbvQ nn» 1N1XK J13" NDJK JN3 3JKlbtf "N"1 p 

hp" awD "pa fia" hSk -i13«Aki 

»pa uw "»i mobaa nob nyo B>nba 

b "by main »i" x"xi"i jdn 3"3nD" 

Nruo yDD Nnaiboo jxa lpi naiai nana 

NrnoNON nny^NDD pi "K> "««&« ann "a 

xnbxaa man pn" x!»i win* pa niroioi 

3?ki!>k in n»"ni amv sl N»nD"i»yna ayjn 

wrb to "ifo Bitpata jnjobx in son 

ynxhx bm wiipbtn M *itroK ibi nyai 

jsrv T.h iyai t?n!>!>N [tnta }pb" jk mnx ""6n 

u"-iin •ah dN j"kd ntnip^a nto?m *ro" 

dwn p biaa tram mbsnsn nn»an "aa nmpn nmm 

in maionyN "aaa" "ita 3Jni!>n 3nu$>n 

babx "bx" jn mi b"\ d"Danbx nam no 

83 pia pa* vh abii p ba main "i" nvi eriba 

lh nyai nyKtata p rrvi m ni3"v n"be> 

2 8 Read probably <&)&m vb). 29 Read NO man". 

»« =13*. « Read n» n»"byn3. 

82 ReadTlV"? 33 Read J"3 P"I3. 



12 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 

Hebrew Translation 

na ntsnpa on i>ip3 i^am v"£»n -mrr 1 

nyi vnt ,*pa uw »d ns KWii> 

Sn^oj pn piSrr *6i nsbnn nth onsann 

pi nniN wpnn ia&> rupnn nsra 

p!»in W>dj jan b« rwj& wi sin 

ni>an rupn eniw at?in aw torn nna nsia 

nab mbn v"e> "n^> na Kin t?ni> 

35 -tn inbna nbna tap rrajo aine> n»3i 

nxna> •>» bi Kin irain hi na sv 

•>P3 wm pa "•pa pa inbn b t,idd!j 

b pn rwn niD'' -ist? '■a nab nrso 

. i»vy nbn3 obx inam *i» aw un* 'pa 

ninono mat new sruon nt b« 

j»t lias sin dt i>ipa twya w nbnn 

sine' >d bi> i>na habi bn nanS" iini> 

rwj» inn inbna tap ywo ton nwi »pa 

ntjnpa nm cya iM>bjt cm bs paD t6a root? 

onycw n»i .nitu invm am nnvn torn nab 

mana »isn sin ip& nns rov-we onsann nnso 

on Vipa nns oya s"twi $>brw ^"n 

i»ik "on bhz vrb de> nw s«b»i ntrnpi 

*jb» rwayoe 1&61 nriia arob nta 

nnOB> ni D*D3 i TO V13T WST 

man m^w on3 w nn3n ob om cnw d*w 

.Trw nroo imw acin writ? ivyn^ EHMnei 

rwib nvNi toam i>b crib nbn db> 

1MDT3 40v ISn 13B> "1»1K 'Mil ph 11X0 niBaiWl 
31 Read JK. 86 See the Arabic text. 

36 Here seems to be a lacuna. &W begins the apodosis. 

37 Read tap. 38 Read Dpa. 39 Read tab. 



NEW RESPONSUM OF MAIMONIDES — FRIEDLAENDER 13 

Arabic Text 

na ntnnpa ]nhm^ 'tow ma 11 * iri>B> wv 

anno in xnm *pa i:w 'o tin xw^> 

xnaro nam xnan xnix nami>« mn <a ^x^oa jan e£xa< xh naW>x mi onsan^x 

13 ta^o: jai ^xa 11 xo:xi i>j»» }x aaxi 

ntbx a'mn 5>xx 34 jo npny nax im nax n? 

•vj x^> ln^an nm n^t? inch na t?n^x 

Mc, n5>x nnxh* ■'b nx^xa tf>y no nay nasi 

jx nxnx ;o S>ai in inam n» na xx< 

•>pa i:w pa »pa pa nnx^>y ^y nonv 

i>a 5>a n:e>n mo" 1 nxs? '•a nai>n n^xi 

iov$> n^ana xi>x inam n» xw wn »pa 

nxnxx to man n^x jnao^x xnn xoxi 

■>oa ina |x^>yxa coya w nx^x 

w ;o i>a ib D'Dj? woti i>an nan^ pro 

bys> mi ini>ana 3 "6i spoco ton -wi ^pa 

ntnnpa nnnxi mo bv "ma xoxi t,b> xb i>m 

DnyoD h^ni *pnxi>xi nux^x ma 38,i pa 

mniay xnan ma di~6x 39 nxi>ai>x xo^y fan }j? 

jx^yxa nnnxi hid -iwv n»5>ts> ^ ;x yjp 

hpx yxa ruia t?ni> on pa 11 oh ntsnpi 

■oxi> iToyoo tub) rfivo xna^n T,h 'a 

nnot? ni d^dj i T3 nox^a n<xn 

■ma &r n'a oxb nb mi i?"c 

jian |x na* 1 xi> njx jo» n:xa noa ftw 

na^ys ^«in axai ni»Dj cn^a nxi>v on 

X33XDT '•a annD' lina nax hpx yah xna n^nao 

nm rtb& "bv xo n:j> jx "£n xnrax rbv hx to 

40 Beginning with this word I have followed Ibn Abi Zimra's translation, 
except for a few slight alterations. 



14 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW 

Hebrew Translation 

x"e> 41 -ittrvew torn msasc n3D "obd* 

imin n» syi ^anne> 'd b di hp3 ^ann^ 

-iinti n^na nrwi> 1« nan djj isd^ yob 7ian< 

48 nt nx-wai 15m wa -iw pi-n mttDno wb 

me> aiem psd *i>a p Kin qj nB^j* »pa uw wan 

^canni main h* n^ t6 am *pa u»kb> ns b 

tone* nbsnn s"u> -inn n-naya -kj>k n:ian 

i>npn Man' 1 t6t» d:dki »pa wwr ns Nixing 

ni>an x"t? nns i>an i^smt* s6k ^a erfa 

ioj> bbsrv bbsnrb jhw *o So ntsmpa nnx 

sV dv nha una 11 ! uw owpa viSom twiSa 

oSna i&on njiaa ^awi S>k nyn So <jbi 

1133 S>y linn nann nwi anain w 

nDvi 48 mrnn nians pom* *n?vi 

D'linw ona:n pa Dcan^t? Dt?n SnS>n 

anS>an Tina anaooi a^nai wpp^-i 

nn 49 T»n n? csn an nnp 

niaon nvo D»»tn iS>N3 *S>vn 60 pa3 nnwi 

rwo anai 'mate' 

« Ibn Abi Zimra has instead *a!> BT S>lp3 3"nK1 B>nSo lS>S>aiT «S>B> 
"IITffEOt?, summing up the matter under discussion. 

« Read nnnS) = <£jji- tt i. a. z. inix. 

« I. A. Z. adds nwan n"3D. 

45 %. — Si, ' to repeat '. Manuscript has TV which perhaps suggests 
that it is a Hebrew word : TV , so?. naflH ^BP. 



NEW RESPONSUM OF MAIMONIDES — FRIEDLAENDER 15 

Arabic Text 
iruin t son ^x jd b 3^pa* }t6yaa 
3^1 jtonni> in a nnn5>N kdk 

•jh "NT K1KB B3D'1 pD'l nbj^K }D nnjl 

tnn jn jD'i it? n^3 nha sirs in ^ye* ip3 ia»s n^tt peta 

?i3 , >i n^y now *6 "in<x n^B> nhp nta 

Wi main *t tor t6 torn va T-a in jo $>3 

46 Kin nta to's n^s? 45 n-v r6jK p nta ivpbn 

tr&iP N^ DKai'K JK3 NIKS »p3 13W J1K tfOTij 

nt6x nm rrto? -inx W>n ^* 5>a nan prfc 

nyo 'br finw 5>a rrempa mnw 

nye W>n jail ycD* epsy -n bi erfa 

i>3^ Utt'B (131133 rti>3pi>N Jl^pnDD "Dyni 

axtaa ^y noNi»N nvi jnain n» ikx* np 

yarn' 1 ! -itroni>K Sb arm n»xpnDNi 

nin^K [S3 aiata nay ^sn h!>k ae>n Wn 

annsW 'b is Kinnnrvi nib3ot Kipn* 1 

in xnam nannw^ tna iDt6t* }t6 

61 i>"r b>d foi Kntonsn ti^n 3N3DN^ jd naotN^N nnn »a nay ^ik!>n 

46 Read in. 

47 Probably to be read Dm , although Ibn Abl Zimra seems to have had 
a similar reading. 

« I. A.Z. somewhat freely TWlNn miB yaCl. 

49 I. A. Z. adds l^y D^TJIDI which is a double translation of nannXE". 

50 I. A.Z. adds "nsni. 

51 Omit y"\ which was added by the copyist.