Skip to main content

Full text of "The Targum to Canticles According to Six Yemen MSS. Compared with the 'Textus Receptus' (Ed. de Lagarde)"

See other formats


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 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
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 

' TEXTUS RECEPTUS ' (Ed. de Lagarde) 

By Raphael Hai Melamed, New York. 


i. The Targum, in its stage of oral transmission 
antedates the destruction of the second Temple, 1 but it 
was not until the third or fourth century that some of the 
books were committed to writing, 2 and certain versions 
received the sanction of the Synagogue. The time and 
place of the final redaction of the various versions in the 
several parts or books of the Scriptures, and their relation 
to one another, are still mooted questions. This much 
is certain, that the texts as we have them to-day, bear in 

1 Cf. Meg. 3 a, where tradition ascribes the origin of the institution of 
oral translation of the Scriptures into Aramaic, to Ezra. Cf. also Ned. 37 b, 
Jer. Meg. 74 d, Gen. R. 36, Sanhed. 21 b. 

2 The earliest official written Targum may probably be traced to Babylon, 
where the Onkelos T. was the first to receive the authority of the Rabbis. 
This Targum must have been written about the third century, since its 
Masorah dates from about this time. Cf. Bacher, JE., XI, 58 ; A. Berliner, 
Die Masorah sum Targum Onkelos, Leipzig, 1877 ; S. Landauer, Die 
Massorah zum Onkelos, Amsterdam, 1896. There are, however, traces of 
a written Targum earlier than that, although not officially sanctioned. 
In the time of Gamaliel I, a Targum to the book of Job was brought to him, 
which he ordered withdrawn from circulation. This same Targum made its 
reappearance in the time of Gamaliel II. Cf. Shabbat 115 a, Tosephta 
Shabbat XIV, Jer. Shabbat 15 c, Maseket Soferim V, 15 ; see also Gratz, 
MGWJ., 1877, 87, who maintains this to have been a Greek translation. 
Further, the statement made in the Mishnab, Yad. IV, 5 refers no doubt also 
to a written Targum. 

VOL. X. 377 C C 


their content the impress of successive ages and traces 
of varying linguistic influences. 

a. The official Targum on the Torah, called by the 
name of Onkelos, 3 is Palestinian in origin and dialect, 4 but 
its final redaction and authorization took place in Babylon 
about the third century, 6 where, as some believe, its 
vocabulary and grammar were slightly influenced. 6 

3. Parallel to the Onkelos, is the unofficial Jerusalem 
Targum I, 7 of a mixed Palestinian and Babylonian 

* This name, which is based on the passage in Meg. 3 a, arose in the 
post-Talmudic period, through confusion of the Aramaic translation of 
Scriptures with the Greek version of Aquila. Cf. PRE. 3 , Ill, 106; JE., 
XII, 58 ; Buhl, Kanon und Text, 1891, p. 173. 

4 Cf. Noldeke, Manddiscke Grammatik, p. 108 ; F. Rosenthal, Beth 
Talmud, II and III ; Berliner, Targum Onkelos, p. 107. See also F. Hommel, 
Theol. Littbl., 1902, col. 206, who maintains it to be a product of Babylon. 

6 According to Berliner, Onkelos was compiled by the second century ; 
Volck, however, places it in the fourth century, at the earliest. Cf. Berliner, 
Targum Onkelos, passim ; PRE. 3 , Ill, 106. 

6 Noldeke, Die semitischen Sprachen, 1887, p. 32 ; Die alttest. Lit., 1868, 
p. 257 ; Mandaische Grammatik, p. xxvii ; Dalman, Aram. Gram., p. 13 ; 
Bacher, JE., XII, p. 59. 

7 This Targum is now known generally as Jerusalem Targum I. It also 
bears the name of ' Pseudo-Jonathan '. It was not universally known during 
the early Middle Ages, the following apparently being the only ones who 
knew of its existence : Sar Shalom Gaon (Sefer Sha'are Teshubah, 1858, 
29 c), Hai Gaon (Harkavy, Teshubot hageonim, 124 f., 6 f., Berliner, Targum 
Onkelos, II, 173 ff. ; REJ., XLII, 235). Citations from it are to be found in 
the Aruch (cf. Dalman, Gram., 29 and 30), while Judah ben Barzillai and 
R. Meir of Rothenberg also speak of it (cf. Dalman, ibid., and Bacher, JE., 
XII, 60). After the fourteenth century, this Targum was erroneously called 
Targum Jonathan, Menahem Recanati being the first to ascribe it to 
Jonathan ben Uzziel (cf. JE., XII, 60). This mistake arose no doubt from 
a wrong analysis of the abbreviation <"n ( = , D?BTV D1)Hn). Cf. also the 
Zohar (I, 89 a) which contains the statement that ' Onkelos translated the 
Torah, and Jonathan the Mikra ' ; it is most probable that ' Mikra ' here 
means the Prophets (Bacher, I.e. ; RE J., XXII, 46), but that it was 
misinterpreted to mean the entire Bible, and hence the Pentateuch also 
(cf. Ginsburger ' Pseudo-Jonathan ', p. vii). Cf. also Zunz, Gott. Vor., 80 ff. ; 


dialect, 8 the nucleus of which originated in Palestine, 
probably earlier than the Christian era, 9 but whose final 
redaction did not occur before the seventh century. 10 

4. Linguistically very similar to Jerusalem Targum I, 
are two other Targumin on the Torah, the fragmentary 
Jerusalem Targum II, 11 and the Jerusalem Targum III in 
glosses. 12 

Dalman, /. c. We have the evidence of Azariah dei Rossi (Meor Enayim, 
ed. Wilna, p. 127) that he saw two manuscripts of a Targum on the Pentateuch 
that agreed in every detail, named respectively 'Targum Jonathan ben 
Uzziel' and 'Targum Jerushalmi'. The editio princeps (Venice, 1591) of 
this Targum was printed from the first mentioned manuscript, which bore 
the wrong title and perpetuated the wrong name. 

8 Cf Dalman, Gramm., p. 32. There is evidence, likewise, that the 
Targum Onkelos exercised some influence over it. 

9 Diverse opinions prevail among scholars as to the age of this nucleus. 
On the one hand it is claimed that there are elements antedating the Christian 
era and representing a Palestinian recension independent of the original of 
Onkelos. Cf. Noldeke, Die alt. Lit., p. 256; F. Buhl, Kanon und Text, 
p. 181; M. Ginsburger, Jud. Monatsschrift, XLI, p. 349, note 2; Schurer, 
Geschichte des jud. Volkes, I, p. 150 ; Bacher, JE., XII, 61 ; E. Kfinig, 
Einleitung in das AT., 1893, p. 100; Bacher, ZDMG, XXVIII, 59 f. On 
the other hand, it is maintained that these elements are to be traced back to 
the original source of Onkelos, which was the parent of both, and further- 
more, that the redactor of the Jerusalem Targum, while he used a recension 
of Onkelos current in Palestine, did not have access to a version of this 
Targum specific to Palestine. Cf. Dalman, /. c, and Worte Jesu, I, 68 f. ; 
Bassfreund, Jiid. Monatsschrift, XLIV, 481 ff. ; ibid., Das Fragmenten- 
Targum zum Pentateuch, Breslau, 1896 ; Lerner, Anlage und Quellen des 
Ber. R., 64. 

10 The Christian and Muhammedan religions are mentioned several times, 
and also the names of a wife and daughter of Muhammed. An African 
manuscript mentions the fall of Constantinople, 1453, but this must be an 
addition by a later scribe. Cf. Dalman, Bacher, &c. 

11 Dalman, Gramm., p. 33; cf. Bassfreund, Das Fragmenten-Targum 
sum Pentateuch, sein Ursprung und Charakter und sein Verhaltniss zu den 
anderen pentateuchischen Targumim, Breslau, 1896 ; Ginsburger, Pseudo- 
Jonathan, 1903. 

12 Dalman, Gramm., p. 29. These glosses bear the superscriptions, 

c c a 


5. Corresponding closely in vocabulary and grammar to 
the Onkelos Targum, 13 is the Targum to the Prophets, 
which received official sanction only in Babylon, where its 
final redaction occured in the fifth century. 14 

6. An official Targum to the Hagiographa never existed, 
but there are Targumic versions to most of the books, 15 
which are independent in origin and character. In content, 

tWlDDlr), WnriN KnDU, and iD^EnT 1 'n. These have been published in 
early editions of thePentateuch(Lisbon,i49i ; Salonica, 1520; Constantinople, 
1546; Venice, 1591. Passages parallel to Exod. 13. 17 and 14. 21 are also 
found in the Mahzor Viiry, 167, 305 ff.) and more recently by Ginsburger 
from manuscript sources (M. Ginsburger, Das Fragmenten-Targum , 1899, 
pp. 71-74 ; J. Bassfreund, Das Fragmenten-Targum zum Pentateuch, 1896, 
pp. 40-44 (reprints from the earlier editions) ; cf. further, H. Seligsohn, 
De duabus Hierosolymitanis Pentateuchi Paraphrasibus, I, 1858, p. 37 ff. • 
Perles, Jiid. Monatssckrift, 1876, p. 368 f. ; A. Epstein, REJ , XXX, 

PP- 44-5.1)- 

13 Dalman, Gramm., p. 16. This Targum was traced back by tradition 
to be the work of Jonathan ben Uzziel (Megillah 3 a). Luzzatto identifies 
this Jonathan with Theodotion, as Onkelos is identified with Aquila. As 
early as the time of the Babylonian Amora, Joseph bar R. Hiyya, it was 
generally accepted, and quoted with great frequency in the Academies 
(cf. Bacher, Ag. Bab. Amor., p. 103). Hai Gaon apparently considered 
R. Joseph to be its author, but he was probably its earliest redactor (cf. 
Aruch, II, 293 a, 308 a). Cornill views this Targum as of greater antiquity 
than that of Onkelos, since it is more paraphrastic in character and free 
from anti-Christian polemics (Cornill, Einleitung in das AT., 1893, p. 308). 
But this view is untenable since these qualities issue from the nature of the 
prophetic books which are more didactic than the Pentateuch, and from the 
total absence of anti-Christian polemics in the Babylonian schools (cf. 
Dalman, /. c). 

14 It seems probably certain that the redactor of this Targum had before 
him the Targum Onkelos (cf. the translations in Judges 5. 26 with Deut. 
22. 5 ; a Kings 14. 6 with Deut. 14. 6 ; Jer. 48. 45, 46 with Num. 21. 25, 29) ; 
but opinion is divided as to whether the redaction is the product of one 
hand. There are numerous parallel translations and obviously later inter- 
polations to be found (cf. Eichhorn, Einleitung, I, sec. 217 ; Berthold, 
Einleitung, II, p. 580). 

15 There is naturally no Targum to Ezra, Daniel, and Nehemiah. 


they vary from strict literalness to amplified Mid rash, 
manifested on the one hand in the Targum to Proverbs, 16 
and on the other, in the Targum to the Five Scrolls. 17 
Linguistically, they are composite in character I8 and their 
sources likewise are a mixture of very ancient material 
combined with later matter drawn from Palestinian and 
Babylonian literary compilations. 19 Their redaction took 
place sometime between the fifth and eighth centuries. 
The Targum to Canticles, which is here published, was 
probably written in the latter period, there being traces of 
Arabic influences. 

7. Finally, a Jerusalem Targum to the Prophets and 
Hagiographa also seems to have existed at some time, 

16 This Targum agrees in major part with the Peshitta version, with 
which it probably shares a common source, cf. Ndldeke, in Merx's Archiv, 
II, 246 ff. ; Baumgartner, £tude critique sur Vhat du texte du livre des 
Proverbes, Leipzig, 1890, 267 ft". > Geiger, Nachgelassene Schriften, IV, 112. 

17 It is interesting to note that there are three Targumim (cf. Catal. 
Codd. MSS. Bibl. Bodl., I, p. 432 ; Eichhorn, p. 437) on the Book of Esther 
and that the Targum to this book is the only one of the Hagiographa books 
which is recognized by the Halakah, cf. Masek, Soferim, XII, 6. Some believe 
that Targum II on Esther is a Palestinian parallel to the first. Cf. Merx, 
Chrest. Targ., ix; Bacher, JE., XII; Dalman, I.e. 

18 Psalms, Job, and Chronicles are linguistically similar to the Jerusalem 
Targum to the Pentateuch, that is, they are of a mixed character and were 
produced about the same time Cf. Bacher, Jiid. Monatsschrift, XX, 208 ; 
XXI, 408, who seeks to make these Palestinian in origin and of about the 
fourth or fifth century ; see also Baethgen, Jahrb.f. Prot. Theol., VIII, 447, 
455 ff. Rosenberg and Kohler show that the ground-work of the Targum on 
Chronicles is as early as the fourth century, although its redaction did not 
take place until the eighth century"; cf Geigers Zeitsch., VIII, 72 f., 135 f., 
263 f. It is interesting to note that Jerusalem Targum I and II are quoted 
in this Targum ; cf. PRE. 3 , Ill, p. no. 

19 Dalman, p. 35. Cf. 5. 14, where the names of the precious stones in 
the breast-plate of the High Priest are mostly Arabic. Cf. also below, § 36. 
See further, S. Landauer, Orientalische Studien, pp. 505 ff. 


of which at present only fragments and glosses are 
known. 20 

8. With the invention of systems of vocalization, 21 the 
consonantal text of the Targum, as in the Hebrew original, 
was provided with symbols fixing the pronunciation in 
accordance with the tradition locally prevalent. Three 
distinct types of vocalization are now known to have 
existed ; (1) the so-called Tiberian 22 system, or the sublinear, 
the only one known prior to 1839; (3) the Babylonian 23 
system, or the superlinear, discovered in 1839 ; and (3) the 
Palestinian 24 system, also superlinear, which was discovered 
in 1894. 

20 Lagarde published marginal glosses of the Prophets from the Reuchlin 
Codex. Cf. Prophetae Chald., 1872, pp. vi-xhi ; fragments from Joshua, 
Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Jonah, and Zechar., are 
found in this Codex. Some corrections from a manuscript are to be found 
in Baer-Delitzsch, Liber Jerem., p. vi, note 1 ; cf. further, Bacher, ZDMG., 
XXVIII, 1 ff. ; Dalman, Aram. Dialektproben, p. 12. According to Kohut, 
the Aruk quotes from a Targum Jerushalmi to the Prophets and Hagiogr. 
Cf. Zunz, Got/. Vort., p. 80 ff. But these are not always dependable and 
they may be only variants of the current Targumim. See Dalman, p. 29 f. 

21 Cf. C. Levias, /£., XII, 446 ff. 

22 It is by no means settled that the names used for the vowel systems 
are accurate. They indicate at most the place of their usage rather than of 
their origin. Cf. Neubauer, JQR-, III, pp. 604-22; Margoliouth, Transactions 
of the Ninth Congress of Orient., II, London, 1893; NOldeke, Mand. Gramm., 
Introd., p. 5; Barnstein, Targum Onkelos, pp. 6-7; Kahle, Massoret. del 
Ostens, Leipzig, 1913, pp. 204, 157 ff. 

23 Three distinct types have been distinguished in the development of 
this system : (1) the simple type as shown in Targum M5S. and Neo- 
Hebrew texts ; cf. Merx, Chrestotnath. Targum, p. xv ; Margoliouth, Proceed. 
Society Bibl. Arch., XV, p. 165 ff. ; Praetorius, ' Uber das Babylon. Punkt. 
des Hebr.', ZDMG., LIII, 181-96; Friedlander, Monatsschr., 1894, 215. 
(2) The complex or composite type found in Codex Petropolitanus dated 
916, Berliner, Festschrift, pp. 18, 30. (3) The type exemplified by the Berlin 
MS. Or. qu. 680 ; Friedlander, fQR-, VII, 564 ff. ; Proceed. Soc. Bibl. Arch., 
1896, pp. 86 ff. ; Kahle, 'Beitrage zur (5eschichte der Hebr. Punkt.', in 
Stade's Zeitschr., XXI, 273 ff. 

24 Until all material shall be made available, the varying stages of 


9. It is probable that these various systems of vocaliza- 
tion influenced one another to some extent, and that in 
the form we now know them, do not represent the original 
character of their respective types. 25 

10. The Tiberian system of punctuation, it seems, was 
not originally adaptable for Aramaic texts. 20 Hence it is 
quite probable that in the earliest texts of the Targum 
supplied with vowels, the superlinear system was used, and 
that with the more universal usage of the sublinear system 
the former was transposed into the latter. 27 

11. Some internal evidence as well as external testimony 
points to this fact. A comparison of the text of the 
Targum, as contained in the Sabbioneta edition, 28 with 
the genuinely Babylonian MS. Or. qu. 680, strikingly reveals 
their common source of origin. Notwithstanding the many 
corrupt forms it contains, the Sabbioneta text shows all the 
ear-marks of a Babylonian or superlinear punctuation. 29 
The same may be said of the Parma MS. de Rossi, No. 7. 30 

12. Furthermore, an explicit statement is found in the 
Codex de Rossi, No. 13, of the Parma Library, that it was 
transcribed into the sublinear system from a copy pointed 
with superlinear vowels. 31 

development in this system cannot be definitely fixed. It may be assumed, 
however, that the still unpublished Genizah Fragments are of the oldest 
type. Kahle, Der Masoretische Text, p. 29, note 1. An intermediate stage 
was published in C. Levias's article in the AJSL., XV, and in the text of 
Neubauer, JQR., VII, 361 and Kahle, Stade's Zeitschrift, XXI, 273. the 
third stage is presented. 

2« Kahle, pp. 157, 158. 26 Ibid., p. 204. 2 ' Ibid. 

28 Berliner, Targum Onkelos, I. 

29 Kahle, p. 205 ff., Berliner, Targum Onkelos, II. 

30 Ibid., Berliner, p. 132 f. 

si Cf. Kahle, 205, H. L. Strack, Zeitschrift f. d. Luth. Theol u. Kirche, 
XXXVI, 1875, p. 622. Berliner, Targum Onkelos, 134. 


13. Thus it appears that the superlinear vocalization 
is probably the oldest known in the Targum texts, and 
that this system, due to its gradual disuse, was changed 
into the one common now. 32 

14. This transposition of the Targum vowels led naturally 
to inaccuracies and mistakes, which multiplied in pro- 
portion to the number of new manuscripts written and new 
editions published. Elias Levita, in his Introduction to the 
Meturgeman, laments the confused state of the Targum 
texts, and the multitudinous variations in vocalization which 
then existed. He, as well as Buxtorf and others, proposed 
to bring some order into the chaos by correcting these 
texts on the basis of Biblical Aramaic. 33 This was done 
to some extent, 34 but the method possesses no scientific 
value. 35 

15. Such was the state of Targumic texts until the 
discovery of the Yemen MSS. threw a flood of light upon 
this department of Semitic learning, and stimulated active 
research therein. These MSS. have proved of invaluable 

32 It is at present impossible, with the evidence available, to come to 
a final judgement in this matter. It may be that the Tiberian system of 
punctuation was originally employed for Targum texts in those localities 
where it prevailed for Hebrew, and that we have to-day an independent 
Tiberian tradition in these texts. But this cannot be settled, as Lagarde has 
pointed out, until all the pure Tiberian manuscripts shall have been carefully 
studied and compared. Cf. Lagarde, Mitteilungen, II, 174. And even if 
this should be conclusively established, which seems dubious (cf. Kahle, 204), 
nevertheless, the worthlessness of the current Tiberian Aramaic texts is 
established beyond doubt. 

33 Berliner, p. 185 f. ; Merx, Chrest., viii ; idem, ' Bemerkungen flber 
die Vocalisation der Targume ', Verhandlungen des Fiinften Internationalen 
Orientalisten- Congresses, 1881, I, p. 159 ff Mercier and others corrected the 
Targum on the basis of Syriac. 

34 Idem. 

35 Merx, Chrest. T., viii ff. 


aid in the reconstruction of the Targumic text and its 
grammar, which Levita despaired of producing with the 
material then available. 

16. Numerous works have already been published upon 
the basis of these Yemen MSS. 

(1) Merx published a goodly number of excerpts from 
MSS. in the possession of the British Museum, covering 
sections of the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the ' Dream 
of Mordecai \ 36 

(2) Pratorius has published the Targum to, Joshua 37 
and Judges ss after Berlin codices. 

(3) Dalman used for his Grammar, Aramaic Dictionary, 
and Specimens of Aramaic Dialects, Prof. Socin's MSS. 
and codices in the British Museum. 39 

(4) Barnstein used for his work on the Onkelos to 
Genesis a MS. of the British Museum, a Montefiore codex, 
and a MS. belonging to Dr. M. Gaster. 40 

(5) The complete Targum to Onkelos was published by 
the Yemenite Jews, with vowels transposed into the 
sublinear system. 41 

(6) Wolfson published from a Berlin MS. the first 
twelve chapters of the Targum to Jeremiah. 42 

(7) Silvermann issued the first ten chapters of the 
Targum to Ezekiel from the same source. 43 

(8) Alfred Levy published the Targum to Koheleth 
based upon British Museum MSS. and a Gaster codex. 44 

36 Porta Linguarum Orientalium, VII, Merx, Chres. Targumica, Berlin, 

37 Das Targum zu Josua in Jemenischer Oberlieferung, Berlin, 1899. 

38 Das Targum sum Buck der Richter, Berlin, 1900. 

39 Aram'nisch-Neukebraisches Worterbuch, Frankfurt a. M., 1897-1901. 

40 The Targum of Onkelos to Genesis, London, 1896. 

41 The Torah, Jerusalem, 1894-1901. 

42 Halle, 190a. 4S Strassburg, 1902. 44 Breslau, 1905. 


(9) Kahle issued numerous extracts of the Targum 
based upon codices in Cambridge, Oxford, and Petrograd. 45 

17. The following edition of the Targum to Canticles 
is based on six manuscripts of Yemen origin, and on the 
text contained in Paul de Lagarde's Hagiographa Chaldaice. 
The texts, hitherto current, were reprints of the Editio 
princeps, issued by Bomberg in Venice in 1517, into which 
numerous errors and corruptions have naturally crept. 
While the Lagarde edition re-established the original 
Bomberg consonantal text, no attempt has yet been made 
to compare this with the text current in Yemen, nor has 
any effort been made to establish its vocalization. 

The following manuscripts have been used in the 
preparation of this work : 


18. MS. A is part of Or. 1302, in the possession of 
the British Museum. The Targum of Canticles covers fols. 
154 a-186 b. A photographic reproduction, three-quarters 
of the original size, is in the possession of the Dropsie 
College. 46 

The writing is in clear square characters, twenty- 
four lines to a page, and measures, without margins, 
5^"X3|". The Hebrew verses are each followed by the 
Targum, an Arabic translation of the Hebrew verse, and 

45 Kahle, Masoreten des Ostens, Leipzig, 1913. 

46 I take this opportunity of thanking Dr. Cyrus Adler, President of the 
Dropsie College, for securing and placing at my disposal the photographs of 
MSS. A, B, E, and F. I also wish to express my indebtedness to the 
authorities of the British Museum, and of the Bodleian Library for their 
kindness in permitting these photographs to be made. I am likewise 
under obligation to the Rev. G. Margoliouth of the British Museum, and to 
Dr. A. E. Cowley of the Bodleian Library, through whose kindness I secured 
these reproductions. 


by an Arabic commentary. In the Hebrew text both the 
Raphe sign and the dagesh are employed, while in the 
Aramaic the Raphe sign usually occurs over the letters 
n 3 1 5 3. tr is diacritically marked. 


19. B is an Oxford MS., 2333 MS. Opp. Add., a photo- 
graph of which is in the Dropsie College. There are 
thirty-eight leaves in the photograph, the last seven of 
the original MS. having been omitted since they contain 
only the Arabic commentary. 

The writing which is in square characters, covers 
4!" x 2§", and contains generally twenty-six lines to a page. 

The Hebrew verse is followed by the Targum, and by 
an Arabic translation and commentary. There are generally 
Raphe signs over the letters n 3 1 l 2, as well as a dia- 
critical mark over the &. In the Hebrew text both the 
Raphe sign and the dagesh is used. 

The MS. contains many marginal notes which cannot 
be deciphered from the photograph. On the margin of 13', 
20 1 ', and 2 1 1 ' some Rabbinic explanations of the text are 


20. MS. C, which dates from the sixteenth century, 47 
belongs to the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 
and came from the collection of Judge Mayer Sulzberger, 
who presented it to the library of that institution. It 
consists of thirty-one heavy paper leaves, 8" x 5I", written 
on both sides. 48 

« Cf. A. Marx, JQR., New Series, I, 65, 66. 

48 I take this opportunity of thanking Prof. A. Marx, the librarian of the 


The writing which is in clear square characters covers 
6 x 4i" of each page, thus allowing ample margins on all 
four sides, except on the inner, where the binding materially 
reduces it. 

There are generally seventeen lines to a page, oc- 
casionally, however, eighteen or nineteen. The edges are 
considerably worn out and crumbling, while the corners 
have been rounded off by wear. Leaves 25-8 inclusive 
were bound in reverse order. 

The MS. ends at 8. 8 after giving two lines of the 
Targum. On 2Q a some later hand wrote the concluding 
Hebrew verses of the book, 8. 9-14, with a massoretic 
note on the margin. One leaf in the middle, which con- 
tained the Hebrew and Targum of 7. 9-12 inclusive is also 
missing. The Hebrew and Targum of 3. 2 having been 
omitted in their proper place are inserted after 3. 5. Some 
later hand, however, wrote the Hebrew -of 3. 2 in the 
margin after 3. 1. 

Pages i a , i b , and 2 a contain an Arabic introduction 
written by a different hand. Each Hebrew verse is followed 
by its Targum and a literal Arabic translation of the 

There are numerous marginal readings and super- 
scriptions by two or three different hands, one of which 
is in a bad scrawl. A number of the marginal readings 
coincide with L, and appear to be corrected from it. 

The inner margins in a number of places, and the 
upper left-hand portion of the last page, are so worn out 
that the writing cannot be deciphered. 

The Hebrew text generally has a Raphe sign over the 

Jewish Theological Seminary of America, for placing this manuscript and 
the following one at my disposal. 


letters n a 3 1 1 3. & both in the Hebrew and the Targum 
is diacritically marked. A dagesh lene and dagesh forte 
are frequently found in the Hebrew words. These were 
inserted, sometimes by the original scribe, and sometimes 
by a later hand. A later hand pointed with sublinear 
vowels, and also inserted musical signs over many of the 
Hebrew verses. 

In the Targum, the letters n 3 1 1 frequently have the 
diacritical Raphe sign, while occasionally a dagesh is 
also found. 


21. MS. D, 49 likewise belongs to the Jewish Theological 
Seminary of America. It is fragmentary in character, con- 
taining only eleven leaves, measuring 8" x 5J", written on 
both sides of heavy paper. Each side contains fifteen lines 
in a hand that is clear, but neither as fine nor as firm as C. 

The fragment begins in the middle of the Targum of 
1. 1, and continues to 2. 2. Only a few words of the 
Targum to this verse are given, when it breaks off to 
resume in the middle of the Targum of 7. 9. Continuing 
from this point until it reaches the Hebrew verse of 8. 2. 
the fragment ends. 

Each Hebrew verse is followed by its Targum. Except- 
ing an occasional dagesh in a Hebrew word there are no 
diacritical points of any kind. Some Hebrew words are 
pointed with sublinear vowels, and supplied with a few 
musical accents. Several words omitted in the text are 
placed in the margin. 

49 Cf. JQR., New Series, I, 65. 


22. MS. E, is part of Or. 2375 in the possession of the 
British Museum. The Targum covers foil. i68 1) -T84 b . A 
photographic reproduction, three-quarters of the original 
size, is in the library of the Dropsie College. 

The writing is in clear, square characters, in double 
column, twenty-four lines to each, and measures 7t"x5¥- 
On the margins is a massora parva, and at the bottom of 
each page a massora magna. 

The Hebrew verses are pointed with sublinear vowels, 
and supplied with musical accents. A horizontal line over 
the letters n a 3 1 i 2 indicates the Raphe sign, which line 
is also found over the letters n and N. C is likewise dis- 
tinguished by a diacritical point. The dagesh is ccnstantly 
used both in the Hebrew and Aramaic text. 

The Hebrew verse is followed by the Targum, and by 
an Arabic translation of the former. The MS. frequently 
begins a word at the end of a line, and repeats the word, 
or part of the word, on the line following. 

23. MS. F is part of Or. 1476 of the British Museum, 
and covers foil. i b -27 b . A photographic reproduction is in 
the library of the Dropsie College. 

Except that this MS. is poorly written, and in many 
places blurred and illegible, it is almost identical with E. 
The writing measures 4!" x 3^", and contains seventeen or 
eighteen lines to a page. 

24. An analysis of the various texts reveals an essential 
difference between all the Yemen MSS. on one hand, and 


the Lagarde text on the other. Apparently there are two 
underlying recensions, both of which have attained their 
present form independently of one another. These varia- 
tions include independent readings, morphological and 
syntactical differences. 

25. While it must be admitted, at the outset, that, on 
the whole L preserves a superior consonantal text, there 
are numerous independent readings and constructions in 
the MSS. which establish beyond question a different 
archetype and origin. 

26. While all the MSS. form one group among them- 
selves as opposed to L, they are by no means uniform in 
their readings. Indeed, a casual analysis of their respective 
texts reveals special affinities among several of them. 

The six MSS. divide themselves into four distinct 
groups, all bearing the characteristic stamp of their common 
origin, but each possessing features peculiarly its own. 
Thus, A and B bear characteristics distinctively their own, 
and form one family group, while E and F are likewise 
especially and peculiarly related one to the other. Of 
course differences exist between A 'and B and E and F 
respectively, but most of these are traceable to individual 
peculiarities of their scribes. C stands apart, representing 
a group all its own, while D, though fragmentary, likewise 
possesses features distinctive to itself. 

The frequency with which C contains readings peculiar 
to EF would indicate that it is more intimately related 
to that group than to AB. And likewise D possesses 
stronger affinities with both C and with EF than with 
AB. The fragmentary character of D, however, precludes 
any positive conclusions. 

If we represent Y as the original Yemen text, as 



distinct from the text of L, the following diagram would 
portray the various groupings of the MSS. : 

And if T 1 is made to represent the original Targum of 
Canticles and L\ the original archetype of L, the following 
diagram would represent the grouping : 




A. Independent Readings. 

27. Convincing testimony for two independent recen- 
sions of the L(agarde) and Y(emen) texts, mentioned 
above, is to be found, for example, in the independent 
readings in 4. 12, in which the variants are scarcely to be 
accounted for, save on the ground of independent, original 
versions. L, pan jnaoa pa jo'nm 'p^aata jpaai pvoo ynhnai 
pro »tm nsrwb cisnoi xfrx ninno p'sn |«n. While all 
of the Yemen MSS. are not uniform in their readings, their 
differences are only slight, and such as would be expected 
in MSS. coming from the hands of different scribes. 

28. In 4. 11, we also have what appears to be inde- 
pendent readings of L and Y. Nmrjn Wire* p5>VOT JTjni 
Tro^ea wax "bt: yxpb) span my pnniaD ]rbi ncnipn 
paa$>iK nna pana w& nm cam ai>na pptid inacini pw. 
Apparently the reading of L jr6r 'to distil' is better than 
prb\ in Y. 

29. In 5. 13, curiously enough, the same variants are to 
be found, the former having pr6r, while Y has pr6l. There 
is a strong possibility that the archetype of Y did not 
understand the rarer word jr6r, and substituted the more 
common \\rbt for it. Then again the Hebrew texts in 
both places, roeon naa and niSDa 'to distil' or 'to drip', 
would seem to require in its Aramaic paraphrase some 
such word as nbt. The text of Y, however, is clear, and 
points back to an independent version. 

30. A further illustration of the independent versions of 
VOL. X. D d 


L and Y is found in 4. 9. L Tins* "]T^rn ni? n& bj? $P3p 
na»n ^ nt*? i>y jpap wov nti h ♦sjyb n^non ^-lt^n Nntwa 
twta jd nnai p-nruD 'aan jo nru xpnv Nin n "?» n noir 
nnnv i>y Nnwtai «Wa Haw mm Kiirv trax The text of 
Y is apparently defective here, all the Yemen MSS. 
omitting the first clause. The Hebrew text which repeats 
, 3 , n33?, seems to require the double passage oi? n)b by pup. 
The scribe of the original Yemen version probably allowed 
his eye to wander in transcribing this verse, and inserted 
the phrase by jnp Wtt wm wib which belongs to the 
omitted clause, in the wrong place. The reading of L 
T33 n was corrupted in Y to T33-|, which also omits Npnx. 
The text of L thus seems to be better preserved, although 
it is not beyond possibility that the shorter text of Y may 
have been the original reading. At any rate, the uniformity 
of all the MSS. of Y show that they belong to one and the 
same recension, different to that underlying L. 

31. There are, moreover, other differences which point 
to these independent versions. Thus in 5. 4 the variations 
in reading considerably alter the sense of the passage. 
Thus: ointib pv ab btrw rra sojn mrp Dip p -bina na 
fWl^ arvoh. It is difficult to say which reading is to be 
preferred. Both give good sense, but L seems to connect 
with the previous verse, 5. 3, slightly better than Y. 

3a. Likewise in 1. 8, the two versions show material 
difference in the thought expressed, tavbi Vfctob ;ini> N'jqn 
sntyoa. It is possible that L has an independent text, but 
since the context requires some such text as Y, it seems 
more likely that the latter is the correct and more original 
reading. The variants in L can then be accounted for through 
scribal error. tidd!> was probably 'cno^ ; and a later hand 
found it necessary to correct lb to prb. 


33. Further illustrations of this divergence between L 
and Y are shown in the following passages: 1. 1 TnDy 
)ir6« jo rotw |H kw pin ND^jn nowix Nmn?; i. i 
mow nxnn run dn^yi ; 60 i. i ttmbm ppbh pya xnta •on ; 
a. 5 NjyDjJ "nsi ; 2. 8 bttiw rva ndj? jun* urn piya ; 5. 1 jn 
j»i> nnyriNT tuia ; 5. 8 prin^m pn^y rv^riN. 

34. In 5. 14 L and Y differ essentially in the order in 
which the names of the tribes are given, as well as in the 
names of the precious stones on which the names were 
engraved : (5) naw\ (6) |$>nr, (7) p, (8) ii>naj, (9) "u, (10) "icn. 51 

35. The names of the precious stones differ almost 
entirely, those of Y agreeing with the Hebrew text in 
Exod. 29. 17 ff. and 39. 10 ff. The names in L are 
apparently Arabic equivalents of the Hebrew: 62 (1) Yonx 53 
(^1), (2) p<py da*), (3) PW IPT3 U*5), (4) ^ 5i (>f), 
(5) "mow (Vj), (6) nrw (y^), (7) xhn y>), (8) todm (yut), 

(9) riN3D (^», (io) MIT'S (jrjjz-J), (il) U'lD, (13) TlDJSK. 
ABC have margins or superscriptions giving other names 
of precious stones in place of those in the text. AB have 
ten such substitutes, three of which agree with L, while C 
has all its ten substitutes agreeing with L. EF have no 

36. A further divergence between L and Y is to be 
noted in: 5. 14 nn by jb^j Ktmpn ttimi nb^ y^ i>y fybi 

«» Cf. T 1 Sam. 2. 1 mCtO DKUJ m*13. 

51 Ii and Y agree as to the other six names, all reading: (1) J31N1, 
(2) JiyDC, (3) <lS (4) miff, (11) «1DV, (12) PD'33. C, however, 
reverses the order of (5) p and (6) 13 W of Y. It is noteworthy that L 
follows the order of the names given in T J Exod. 39. 10 ff., but Y agrees 
with none of the orders recorded in the Pentateuch. 

62 Cf. S. Landauer, Orientalische Studien, pp. 505, 506. 

63 AB agree with L and write TOriN . 
« AB read ^13 1313. 

D d 2 


twrtonD nDj?; 65 6. 3 •■dtpi HKbv no5> xrbs> mk ndv jonroi 
'« twnp row ncN •'OTm ; 7. 9 Wns nvirb mm pjn prai 

37. The differences cited below are mostly in individual 
words which continue to bear out the impression that L and 
Y are independent in their text origin. 1. 1 nxiaJ rtt"0 ; 

1. 9 sen iid ; 1. 15 TD'an ti-d "paiy jun" 1 km ; 66 a. 1 kiwim ; 

2. 5 mm 'cans; a. 5 -ib>sd; 2. 8 tintbJ? ; 2. 14 twi; 57 2. 16 
K'pnx p-uu; 68 4. 1 imns ■>»; 4. 2 jiito dm; 4. 12 pr6nt?D 
mh ; 5. 4 tafariM ; 59 5. 10 pwt?; 60 5. 11 "sJto ; 5. 14 pi™ 
nwjD ; 6. 2 jwpxDtn ; 61 6. 8 pDan ; 6. 8 pn-iry mjSo ditud^k 
mb*-){> ; 7. 1 paa»D noi ; 7. 2 pnrma ; 7. 6 nmpo^; 7. 11 b^kh ; 
8. 1 NHro; 02 8. 4 psn^>; 63 8. 7 ptwD prtn ; 8. 7 pwano w; 
8. 8 1/^DT ; 64 8. 9 NTi M-3DQ * l^axi. 63 

B. Fuller Readings. 

38. In the following passages L preserves fuller readings 
than Y. Most of these appear to be additions or expan- 
sions made by a later hand. These apparent additions 
of Ii are placed in brackets : J. 9 TTDTn [»nwii>"m] ; 1. 10 
Klin [hp] ^v ; 1. 13 mni ncx [md*t Mn n] ; 2. 2 jTjnij 
nvm ['icnp Mprn xmiM p k^bd mn h ; 2. 7 wu [xti] b 
Kan? ; 66 3. 4 |jn-ic [rva NDjn] ; 3. 7 ^ yarwn] pin Ktnpi» rva 

65 Curiously enough A has. the same reading as L (excepting K2!Yn 

MtJHlpI which A reverses in order). This reading seems superfluous. 

It probably was originally a gloss which later crept into the text of L. 

Some later hand corrected A from L. 

56 Cf. Hebr. text. <" Y nearer Hebr. 


68 Y is better = ' heroes '. F reads 'naiJ • 

69 Y somewhat better. Cf. T 2 Kings 17. 6. 

60 IPJflDtr, unusual pi. ; correct form is NnpEt? or Mnny»B'. 

61 Cf. 8. 4 ,2 Y nearer Hebr. text. 
•' Cf. 6. 2. M Ii is better ; cf. Hebr. 

66 Cf. Hebr. 66 Cf. Deut. 2. 14; 2. 16. 


[in na nobw N3^»a 'it by ; 3. 10 nw jon yret* *i] x'jax ti£ 
[anna ; 3. 1 1 [it 1 twin twi^ya safe nota iayi xni^tiDi tun] 
jw noy nyanx swi^ei wn; 67 4. 1 [twi^a] •a-n-i; 5. 13 
[pejo] ppnpi; 68 <5. 8 [n«jb»!ji] tpcoy; 7. a [whddi] phjDa; 
7. 10 twvo [oral]; 8. 1 [n^] p-)0«l ; 69 8. n iToy 70 j^si 

39. In the following passages it is difficult to say 
whether the fuller readings of L are expansions of the 
original or whether the shorter readings are abbreviated 
forms of what originally were fuller : 1. 1 "itiSD^ [rv:Dt] xns ; 

1. 1 pin nit [ana piam]; 2. 16 [nvm] sop 1 to:y ['aia]; 
3. 5 [iTapni] xnx xyiid ; 3. 6 nw Dip [^»] n^s ; 4. 16 idd 
xrxia [nm] som ; 5. 16 [spai] anno; 6. 12 pp'Djn [ppnvj ; 
7. 6 [ww no^J ttntop ; 7. 8 [tata] pnn\ 

40. There are a few passages in which Y is fuller than 
L. They are mostly of little consequence : 1.4Y"" liDN 
xvby bs pan [Dip]; i-5 i'tnty m [kov]; 1.7 penary pa»« 
nty [piaw] ; 1.8. ^totpn xnswa nib; 1. 12 moby [b]a; 

2. 14 ^ib" 1 [rya] K»y; 2. 15 $>k-ie» nu [tray]; a. 16 na^j 
[ton] ^"iv ; 3. 5 [nonaa] nra«p wn ; 3. 6 btnw [nn] ; 4. 14 
i»du [nae>] to [b oy] ; 5. 3 [xncKi] bmwn xntwa ruy ; 6. 9 
[tra&jn] nnoi'. 

C. Explicit Readings. 

41. There are a number of cases in which the text of L 
is more explicit than that preserved in Y. It is hardly 
possible to say which are the original readings. 1. 1 Dip 

bvaern xa'pn [nm 1 ]; 71 1. 12 pnvvn [pw] mn; 72 2.4 w ^ys 
ryai> [nvr]; 2. 14 pnnoe [pin] p ; 2. 16, 5. 10 [mnn] tap*; 

67 Cf. T 1 Kings 8. 65. L appears to be a gloss. 

68 L reading unnecessary. e9 L smoother. 
70 AB erroneously write iT^y . 

7 » Cf. T Isa. 30. 29 i>SWH HSppn Dip. 72 Cf. 7. 9. 


2. 17 [tarm] sbiy " " mji; 2. 17 [ma] prw; 8. 8 wbt> 

42. Y, too, has a number of explicit readings not con- 
tained in L. 1.6 T^k ; 1.8 NrWD N3^D [)ir6] nScsT JOT 1J? ; 
1. 14 [tnio jd] new nru pa sn ; 73 2. 12 [iwias] ornat^ -, 4. 1 
[istnen] twam ; 5. 1 -pewa miop jt> [xijna] n^ap ; 5. 2 nDDi 
pnn'' [«''J; 5. 11 rvnniK [»b»-i]j 7.9 ['max] Dmax. 

43. L has a fondness for full names, for specific titles, 
and for exact localizations which Y almost consistently 
omits. 1. 9 [?|iDn] nd 11 ; 2. 15 [wiat«] apm; 3. 4, 5 ntwi> 
[toa:] ; 3. 4 [jman] nwn ; 3. 4 [rroewc ;i: na] ycinn ; 3. 6 
[ju -ia] yew; 3. 7 [fo-iB>n] nai>o ro^; 4. 1 no^ [Kate]; 
5. 4 [p] Dts»te ; 74 5. 7 [.mm] tote wpisn ; 5. 14 ante nnax 
[Nt&n] ; 6. 2 [iwiW ia] teann ; 6. 4 [d^>etv3 Kate] note; 
8. 12 note [Kate]i>. 

44. There are two instances, however, in which Y pre- 
serves fuller titles than L. 2. 7 rJ>toe>H Jinan] TWO ; 8. 13 
[n«33] note. 

D. Order. 

45. In the following passages the order of certain 
phrases in L differs from the order preserved in Y. Most 
of these passages, however, retain a better sequence in Y. 

1. 1 xina new inns; 1. 9 vnenai Tiwn <nirviteni; j. 12 
prwa n panai'jn ami by nam ; 2. 3 wnnx nac^ci <tm ; 75 

2. 8 ricoi) a-nm tnio by; 4. 16 mot< ^tncn Kntroa; 5. 9 

toav nix wjn n:x ; 7fl 5. 15 jwibv pcm ; 6. 1 wet? na 

noa jai; 6. 9. xa-ip jinn; 7. 5 jyt? ^m jmtt; 7. 6 Knoin bj? 

73 T nearer Hebr. cf. Exod. 32. 15. " Cf. Josh. 19. 47. 

75 Only C m « writes NJliriN ; Y uses N:nBD which is wrong. 

76 C apparently agrees with L, although it does not preserve the full 
text. Cf. 5. 9, &c. 


trorna ; 7. 7 nzbw aa^o ; 8. 13 ^tni note mp p • • • v ' P"isn 
anvJ? ; 8. 13 -p^n bp sw-iik wotw. 

E. Verbs. 

46. In the cases cited below L and Y use different but 
cognate verbs. Thus in 1. 16, L reads fB^B, Pael pt. act. of 
the root una, while Y has |C?B from root TS. 77 In 6. 3 L has 
aaatn from the root 33J to collect, gather (flowers, &c), 
Y pJOT from the root 'aa, which, while having the same 
meaning, is used generally of debts or taxes. In 6. 9 L 
NTnsi a pt. pass., meaning ' to be devoted to ', in Y is found 
as KTrn from the root "tn\ 

F. Suffixes. 

47. In the following passages L differs from Y in having 
nouns in the absolute form, while Y appends some personal 
suffix. Thus in 1. 3 taic* rva tvyb; 1. 6, 4. 16 k^k; 78 
4. 10 poDia ; 5. 3 xntaa ; 6. 3 tn^m nna ; 7. 6 n^n ; 8. 9 

NBD3; 8. II KV-ab *VtM. 

In the following passages L has personal suffixes attached 
to nouns which Y omits. Thus 1. 6 j«nwo; 1. 13 "py; 79 
3. 5 tvtik ; 4. 7 iojjt ; 4. 10 yp^in an am ; 4. 13 tw ; 
5. 1 nsnpo rra; 5. 13 wan; 6. 5 "j^W; 7-5 T^; 7. 8 
T^na ; 8. 1 'mx p ; 8. 4 w ; 8. 7 nnsyK 

G. Number. 

48. In the following passages, while it is immaterial 
whether we read sing, or plur. in the text, L differs from Y 
in number:. 1. 4 N^ca; 3. 5 nssnB; 3. 9 p"BM ; 4.13 
to^K; 4. 16 witia; 7. 8 t6antO; 7. 13 tocna; 8. 7 xnan. 80 

77 Although C has pB>B and E p'&B, they also are derived from »B>3. 

78 Cf. 7. 6. 79 Cf. Onk. Exod. 3a. 7. 
80 L refers to tnnn, T to ^ob. 



49. Difference in orthography, phonetics, morphology, 
and syntax are also to be noted between L and Y. While 
each variant taken by itself would not prove significant, 
the sum total of their differences bear out the impression 
that the Yemen MSS. issue from a source independent of L. 

A. The Orthography of l. 

50. Characteristic of the orthography of L is its decided 
preference for final n. It writes no and n»3 almost in- 
variably, but occasionally we find a final N, as in Kjnt5>, 
WVB\ Further, I» prefers to use , ' 1 to 1 ; thus we have | M J3, 
prp, pb&i, but also nuj, nvmB>D. 

B. Phonetics. 

1. Consonants. 

51. The following consonantal differences are to be 
noted between L and Y : 8. 5, L |33-|, Y pan ; 81 7. 6, L 

worna, Y s'D-n; 4. ia, L p^b:k3, y p^B^o. 

2. Vowels. 

In half or completely closed syllables a is changed to 
e or 1, as, 2. 5, L *DrVN, ABE <dM ; 8. 11, L n"3TJJ3, Y 
iranyf. When followed by a labial 1 becomes ii, as, 1. 7, 
L NnoirD, Y RnbrD. XJ or 5 is changed to I in 4. 14, 
L N*VD, Y tnfe or tnib. 82 In 5. 13, likewise, L has NTD3 
and Y tniba. 

81 C erroneously pointed the word J13"l. L is probably correct; cf. 
G. Dalman, Grammatik des Judisch-Palastinischen Aramdisch, Leipzig, 1905, 
p. 104 ; hereafter abbreviated ' Gr. '. 

82 Probably N11D is the better form ; cf. play on WIO = W N*10 , 
T 2 Esther 2. 5. 


C. Morphology. 

1. Verbs. 

52. Peal : Pf. 3 m. s. A number of instances of forms 
with , are found in L which Y omit: 1. 14 i^Dpl; 3. 10 
Wtol ; 6. 8 VM31 ; 8. 7 3TT. Pt. act. f. s. : 8. 13 K3W. Inf. : 
L writes regular form with D, but Y has the unusual form 
without o: 1. 7 K3in[»]i>l; 2. 9 xbn[»]^. Inf. l"l? and »"j? 
verbs: L writes forms with 1, Y without: 1. 7 nrVD^; 5. 4 
arwoin ; 7. 9 ap^b. Pael pf. 3 m. s., 6. 2, l i»ap, y bvp ; 
Aphel pf. 3 pi. 5. 7, L nw 1^31X1, Y mitalXl ; impf. 3 m. s. 
8. 4, L -113T, Y -i3T ; impv. m. s. with suff. 2. 14, L VPiriK, 

Y Wnx ; inf. 5.12, L tovwb, Y N3D\<& ; 8. 6, L NTplK^, 

Y N^ixi'; Ithpeel inf. 1. io, L N3\TnK^, Y N3nTi^. Ishtafal 
pf. 3. 6, L rmw, Y 3rflK'N1. Quadrilateral, pt. pass. 7. 3, 
L DJnDriD., Y D'JTBnD. 

2. Nouns. 

53. The form J'ODD'Q = ' spices ' is to be found only in L, 
while Y uses pDDi3. 83 Cf. 4. 6, 4. 10, 4. 13, 4. 14, &c. The 
form [1DD?3, too, is found only in L, cf. 7. 17, and in 2. 15 
we find in L DD13(^), while in Y DD3(iO- In the majority of 
cases L writes the word ' sanctuary ', as KSHpIO, and in a 
few instances as KBHpD. While it is uncertain what vowel 
is intended over the D in the latter cases, L alone has an 
u vowel for this word. Y writes either NE>*ipD or Ntnpo. 
Cf. 1. 8, 17 ; 2. 14; 3. 6, &c. L has singular noun forms 
in 1. 8 WVjn for Y Knnjn 84 ' shepherds ', and in 2. 15 Km"D3 85 
for Y Kmi33 ' first-born '. 

83 In 4. 10 C uses form prUDD3. 

84 D writing only one noun, 111, has correctly the singular NJIIJTi, but 
F incorrectly writes the singular with two nouns. 

85 Jastrow gives this form ; cf. p. 170 a. 


54. The following further differences are to be noted 
between L and Y in their noun forms. The first of the 
cited passages is L: 1. 12 pana-i^l), paia-|j?(l), 8c mixed 
crowd; 1. 16 w^iiaa, KJahaa; 87 2. 9 wrmtw, ktw^k, 88 
frame wall ; 2. 14 ]Vn, pi'ii ; 2. 14 wrm, tcnjnn, steps ; 3. 9 
N^aut, XJ"bD, 89 species of cedar; 3. 11 KnW>BD*l, N^DOI, 
booths ; 4. 3 pa-otNi, pj'oiiKi, 90 chiefs ; 4. 6 nnav(i), nnw;i), 91 
demons; 4. 8 pin, jm, 92 gifts; 4. 14 piKli>N ^DPK(1), 
;ll«fo6 ipDX(1) ; 93 5. 3 -jnaiDD, "pnaiKDD,* uncleanness ; 5. 15 
pt?oi>j(3), jn?o!»«(a) [c pBnoi)«(3)], species of cedar ; 6. 6 kd'OK 
niD"3N ; 6. 6 ni^uO), N^»0) ; 94 6. 9 sno^, srib^, perfect ; 
7. 5 prnpns(a), pjopna(a) ; 8. 1 spy, xpir, [aprr]. 

3. Relative Pronoun n. 

55. L has a preference not shared by Y for writing the 
Relative **j as a separate word ; consequently we have a 
number of passages in which Y joins the particle to the 
following word; cf. 1. 9, 12 ; 3. 10; 4. 1, 4, &c. 

86 Cf. panaT]?, T. Num. n. 40, Gr. 164. 

87 The pointing of the manuscripts clearly indicates that S3 is suff. 
Hence 'in our — '. This at once makes it impossible to translate with 
Levy, 'in the Thalamus' (290a). Jastrow 1146b translates, 'our lot', 
combining the word with Tal. W11B3, Ber. 16 b (so Rashi U^nua). But 
the reading of the Munich MS. W7I33 (vocalized NJ«"t1£a : a sort of Keri), 
so also Y. Ber. 7 d bottom, suggests the translation 'in our bed'; so 
Kohut, Sup. 16, note 4. Certainly 1JEHJJ in our text precludes any other 
translation. Cf. also Mid. R., a. I. 

88 L is better with suff., cf. Hebrew l^ro. But the form Kn^CX 
is better. Cf. Noldeke, Maud. Gramm., 113, 98, note 2; Noldeke, Neue 
Beit., 143, note 4, 144. 

89 It is probable that L is the correct reading. 

90 Cf. a PX wp. 91 Cf. Gr., 165. 
92 L is better. Cf. Suipov. 

83 The Ar. reads as one word pN^N^DpNl. Cf. Jastrow, 113 a, 
£ vKaKorj, dydWoxo", pieces of aloe-wood. 
94 Cf. the passages. 


4. Preposition }». 

56. In a number of passages L assimilates the preposition 
t» to the following word, while Y retains it as a separate 
word. There are, however, a few instances in which L does 
not assimilate JD, while Y does; cf. 1. a, 9; 2. 1, 14; 

6. 2, &c. 

5. Adverbs. 

57. L always writes the adverb pan = so, while the MSS. 
prefer pan. L always writes ;n^K = but, while the MSS. 
write |Vi& or pn^S. In 3. 7, L writes the adverb iro»X = a 
little, as one word, while Y writes in I s *. In 8. 4, L writes 
p no, while Y shortens the form to kd. 

6. Conjunctions. 

58. L always writes ncaTt, while Y writes nmti, xoaxn, 
and sometimes nD3»n. In 2. 6, L writes epN ' also ', Y s|K. 

D. Syntax. 

1. Absolute and Determinate States. 

59. L seems to have a stronger preference for nouns in 
the determinate state than has Y which prefers the absolute 
form; cf. 1. 11 NSDD; 2. 9 NIU; 3. 5 KJDnV 5 5- 1 WBHip; 5. 8; 
5. 1 ; 6. 2, &c. Though few in number, cases are not 
wanting in which Y has the determinate, and L the 
absolute form. 1. 9 ittin; 4. 6 poDU ; cf. further 2. 17 ; 4. 16; 

7. I; 8. 6; 14, &c. 

2. Periphrastic Genitive. 

60. (a) There is a large number of passages in which 
L expresses the genitive relation with the relative 1 or H 
where Y omits the relative. Apparently L has adopted, 
in these instances, the construction of the later language, 

95 Cf. T Deut. 36. 15. 


while Y retains the older construction. 96 There are, how- 
ever, a few instances in which the tables are reversed ; cf. 
1. 1 nw n *it by, 2. 3 rrniKT 'Djnai and 2. 12, 14 ; 5. 10, 
15 ; 6. 5 ; 8. 8. But 7. 6 nd S> noi> ; 7. 13 nnstr nh^. 97 

(#) L prefers to affix a pronominal suffix to a noun 
governing the genitive, and Y places it in the absolute. 
Thus 1. 9 *"n rvnn ; 3. 6 nmatn n»n«n ; and 5. 7; 8. 7. 
But one case is found in which we have the reverse ; 7. 1 1 
aobv n»n rrnrniNa. 

3. Relative *i. 

61. In the following passages L substitutes a preposition 
for the relative pronoun 1 of Y. Thus 1. 5 K»3t6D3, WDt&Dn ; 
5. 10 nd^j? noi>, N»i>j? non. In 7. 13 the case is reversed, 
Y using the preposition for the relative of L, , N»jn Wp"i1B, 
KDJ& Wp*llB. 

4. Suffixes. 

62. In a number of cases L expresses the object of a 
verb as a separate word, while Y employs pronominal 
suffixes. Thus: 5. 7 nTl' 1 itaiNI ; 5. 7 ^ lpUTK; 5. 12 fOin^l 
r6; 8. 6 frv w. 

5. Pronoun. 

63. L and Y differ in several passages where a personal 
pronoun is included in either text for the sake of emphasis. 
Thus: L, 1. 1 lrPK ri'DlB nns; 8. 12 WN ^rrab ; Y, 4. 4 Jirx 

6. Ethical Dative. 

64. In 2. 3, L differs from Y in omitting an ethical 
dative; WD 'Wk. 

96 Cf. Margolis, Manual of the Aramaic Language of the Talmud, Munich, 
1910, p. 63 ff. 

97 Cf BA, Ezra 5. 5, 12 ; 6. 9, 10. 


7. Particle TV. 

65. The objective particle JV is less frequently omitted 
in L than in Y. Cases of omission of the former occur in 
3. 4; 5. 4; 7. 1 ; 8. 7; of the latter, in 1. 4, 6, 14 ; 3. 3 ; 
7.2,6; 8.5. 

8. Adverb and Conjunction. 

66. In the following passages Y substitutes the con- 
junction 1 to convey the meaning either of the adverb p 
or of the adverbial phrase p "irDDI : 2. 14 m»K1; 2. 16 
JMW . 

9. Gender. 

67. The noun JTj? being of common gender, L and Y 
construe it as feminine and masculine respectively ; cf. 6. 9 ; 
8. 8. Likewise Di'n: of common gender is taken by L as a 
masc, while Y takes it as a fern.; cf. 8. 6. In 1. 1, L 
writes the pf. fern. "O. \h nawntn }Dta, apparently being 
influenced by the indirect object fv, while Y writes the 
masc, agreeing with the direct object. 

10. Verbs. 

68. Peal : in 4. 1 6, L employs an impv., where Y writes 
an impf. : ^3p1, b'ap'l. 98 In 8. 13, L writes pf., and Y an 
act. pt. : may, K*Uy. In 8. 12, L writes a pt, Y an impf. : 
D^t? W, ubw. In 4. 8, L and Y differ as to the person: 
L Jl^yn, Y l^JWl." In 4. 13; 8. 1, L has pt. pass., Y pt. 
act.: perm, pcrni; 100 ktddi, tnDDl. In 8. 13, l uses the 
inf., Y the impf.: nct^, 101 ID'H. In 4. 15, L and Y use 
the Pe. and Pa. pt. respectively: P3D3T, paDJDT. . In 3. 10, 
L has Pe. and Y Aphel : vbw H, tbwn. In 8. 1, L uses 
the Ithpeel pf., Y the pt. : ^im, ^ano. 102 In 8. 4, L has 

98 Y is better. 

99 L is more consistent in its person, though Y is not in error. 

100 Act. pt. better. 101 L is somewhat better. 102 T is better. 


Ithpeel pf., Y the Ithpaal pf. : IMynN, 133$ms\ In 8. 4, L 
uses Ithpeel pt, Y Ithpaal pt. : pano, pants. In 8.4, L 
writes a Shafel while Y has an Ishtafal : ;1WH, prWH. 
11. Prepositions. 
69. In the use' of prepositions the following syntactical 
differences are to be noted between L and Y. In 1. 6, 
L omits the preposition 7 although the verb rps generally 
requires it, but Y reads NnnyD7 n7SD7. In 3. 10, L uses JD 
pleonastically before rm^J?, while Y writes TI17J7. Although 
unnecessary, in i. 7, L uses 3 m in instrumental sense, while 
Y omits it: thus L TO1D3 WIS, Y rPDia Tina. In 2. 16, L 
slightly alters the sense by its use of a different preposition 
to that of Y: thus L writes aim cones, Y 104 aim DJna7. 
In 3. 11, while L omits the preposition, Y uses a 3 in a 
local sense, thus: L fV5H Ktsyi, Y JVX31 KDjn. In 5. 4, 7; 
7. 1 a, L uses 3 in a local sense, while Y uses 7 to indicate 
direction toward, thus: 5. 4, L iianai n?n?3 pnn' »7JM, Y 
n3m ri7n77 prw ^asi; 105 5. 7, L .17313 nw 7»31K1, Y 'taiKi 
n?3i7 nw ; 7. 12, L xyiN3 jinn- ni.T '?jn, y Nyix? prm* »'' '7a«. 
In 6. 12, L uses the preposition 7 after the verb pDl and 
P7TID, while Y uses 3 ; 7. 13 MBU7 pTio, Y 106 KiBias p7TiD1; 

6. 12, L Drnan? pDTi, Y Dmas-a pen. After a verb 
signifying appointment to something L uses no preposition, 
while Y makes use of a 7 ; thus: 7. 6, L 1?J> 'aenxi K37e 
KB>n, Y xt^")7 K37D. In 7. 12, L repeats the pre- 
position 3 before each of the two nouns governed by the 
same verb, while Y employs the preposition but once. In 

7. 14 the case is reversed. Thus 7. 12, L '37331 Kni7a 11p3 

10 3 Cf. BDB., sub. 3. 1M Cf. T Num. 21. 24 3"im DJnB7. 

'05 Cf. T a Kings 17. 6 n7rl73 Jinn' 3TI1K1 1inK7 7K1B» n» '7JN1 

ho "nv |tiJ iru 1131131. 

106 C and D incorrectly write NJS1J3 . 


x'ddjj, y n'ddj? iJ?b\ xnta inpa ; 7. 14, l nanai snsD 'Djnan 
xmix, Y srmiN 'Djnsai xnao ^risa. In 7. 10; 8. i, 4, 
L and Y use different prepositions to express the same 
idea: 7. 10, L " ' • rmmsn, Y Wis nsoaaai; 8. 1, L xjoy, 
Y tab ; 8. 4, L nbvmb, Y 'but ^y. 
12. Miscellaneous. 

70. In the following phrase Y avoids repeating the noun, 
since the connexion is so close as to make it unnecessary : 
5. 1 a NS1D nyi xnwi xcno. The apodosis of the sentence in 
3. 10 differing in L and Y, the position of the conjunction 1 
is different : DIB ' ' ' ' Wl fW tbwtn "lrtai. 


A. Lexical. 

71. As stated above, the text of L in many places is 
much better preserved than in Y. All of the Yemen MSS. 
transmitted defective and faulty readings. Not a few. of 
these are homoeoteleuta, while others are plain omissions. 

1. Homoeoteleuta. 

72. The bracketed words in the following are omitted 
by Y: 1. 17 [p pw vnTTVen pin unrn pnx] p; 2. 6 pna 
[pna c^c5« ah paa pm^y p nni kb»3 wy] ; 4. 8 nn: ^y] pann 
[parvn n^m wd^ ; 8. 5 $>tnfc>H KjnNi> xnaio p nptai] nova 
[sdv3 «m» nsm i>y ppasnoi ; 8. 9 noavi na b!>b*b5> N'DDyi?] wn 
[itn n»h ; 8. 1 1 [nn» now d^iu] niv ; 107 8. 13 spDa] banwn 

2. Omissions. 

73. The following omissions occur in Y : 2.2 'oi'S [wa] 
n'odv ; 2. 3 [^] ptdj ; 2. 12 nai!D^> [was] jyai ; 2. 14 kehpib 
[tut] ; 108 2. 17 nijamp jv [pn] anp ; 3. 3 [fontm Kne>aa mex] 

107 Cf. Hebrew text. 

i" 8 Cf. ^orf. 5A<> Hashirim, JQR., VII ; DDKC i>3 l^ip riK WE8W1 


inaew ; 3. 5 xjnx 'a'pnai nixav mrra ^>*wn sneoa] pai> n'jnt5>K 
[^nty-i ; 109 [k3-it n' p-iayni] Dia'Ta; 3. 7 xnana twirni] 
Di "iiBO [pni> NnnDD ; 3. 8 an'-nx 'oansa [p-pnx] pnha ; 4. 1 
jmruo ['an'] ; 4. 2 p'ai [lvn] ; 4. 10 Tpnsn [ao] men ; 5. a 
torn naja [xntaa pw 11m]; f/p'jj 'sd jd ^cns] "iu n'X'vi 
naja; 5. 3 may nso inns pnam 73*30 was? n'p'^D] naa 
n'E»np [wxi i'B"a piaiy; 6. 1 Kn3'ae> [p'ao]; ['a] lnantyn h; 
6. 5 ['n'] ipHVN; 6. 6 fan noa'n [11m] ; uo 6. 7 [jo] -13 
n'nno ; m [pnhao] pp^v ; 6. 10 nay? [pjnw noa] ; 7. 1 xbpi> 
[nwaj]; 7. 8 nyass [pom]; 7. 13 tuona [snip's] p'tai; 
8. 7 n'nn'tra [|o]; 8. 11 [winta] .tdj? j^si. 

There are a few omissions to be found in L : 1. 1 inns 
[dwdis] mr6tt ; a. 5|Wik['k]; 2. 7 pjc pni>n [Dip] pan ; a. 9 
.tdj& [srni] Norn; 3. 6 iwj [xnau] bintwi; 4. 4 fa^ai 
[rra] p'Dy xim NnniN. 

3. Doublets. 

74. Errors that appear to be doublets are found once in 
L and once in Y. L, 4. 1 btr\& n'3NDj£ ND^ : Y, 5. 4 
nan -aai. 112 

4. Scribal Errors. 

75. The following scribal errors are to be found in L : 
1. ia XT33 ; 4. 11 pja^N; 7. 8 njn-ix. 

Y, on the other hand, has many more scribal errors. 
a. a nWodt ; us a. 3 toneo ; a. 5 pnx 'x l^ap ; a. 9 oni ; a. 14 

nnb'ana any i^ip 'a niaa i>ipa >:sb D'i&ano. Cf. also jerus. sh. 

178 b, Mek. 14 b. 

10 9 Cf. Hebrew text. 

110 CE add mm, F ",m after nca'D. A verb is necessary, but all the 
manuscripts have it in the wrong place. L preserves the best text. 

111 Cf. Gr., 232 and 6. 8. 

118 C corrupts "I3T, to IDT,. It is interesting to note that the Ar. 
supports the reading of L. 

us Five different readings are preserved in Y. 


SON; 3. -2 |inD31; 5. 15 Nin W; 6. 7 KWIXa ; 6. II ^TN, 

pmh ; 1U 7.5 nob ; 8. 3 mtj>p, snh ; 8. 4 Vn\ 

B. Grammatical. 
1. Verbs. 

76. The following errors in verbal forms are to be noted 
in L: 3. I VlWWN ; 115 5. 3 J1TB1BK ; 116 5. 7 1DVD1 ; 5. 13 
•OID; 117 8. 1 p?3D; 118 8. 14. WIS W. Y contains the fol- 
lowing errors in verbal forms : a. 8 NQB1 (NBD1 EF) ; a. 4 

31J?D; a. 16 mil; 8. I] ID). 119 

a. Suffixes. 

77. The following errors in suffixes occur in Y where 
L has the correct form : 1. 6 JJIB^X ; 120 piVDID ; a. 3 nips ; 
a. 9 sntotw ; 121 a. 17 twmip ; 6. 5 T*>nDK ; 8. 5 pOX ; 8. 1 1 -r?. 

3. Gender. 

78. In 1. 1, L repeats six times an error in the gender 
of the ordinal following the fern, noun KtlW, writing the 
masc. nxn^n 'w, wan 'v, rwen '&, nanw V, nsjrat? 'e>, 'b> 
n«jwn, for the correct fern, readings of Y, WV»vi>n % 'v 
awa-i, &c. 

In 6. 4, L likewise incorrectly writes yopo WIN for Y 
'a nsn-iN, 

In 1. 8 and 5. 3, L incorrectly writes the impf. 3 f. pi. 
H'T and pvr for the masc. of Y pn\ 

In 1. 4 and 8. io, L incorrectly takes Met to be a fern, 
noun, writing Krwn 't, and WOT ttvirai. Likewise in 6. 3 it 

114 Apparently Y did not understand 31?3?, which, of course, is the 
correct reading. 

115 Cf. Gr., 367. 1" Cf. Gr., 372. 
»' Cf. Gr., 35'- " 8 Cf. Gr., 351. 

119 A pt. is required. 

120 CDEF have other incorrect forms. 

121 Cf. above, note 88. 

VOL. X. E e 


takes ND'C to be fern., writing NDV KWI31. Incorrect also 
is the gender of L in the following passages : — i. 8 Kinn3i 
twinr ; 1. 15 -psiy pw ; 4. 2 (my) ;pta ; 4. 6 top* Daw nvn ; 

5. 1 (xnt>»K) bxi ; 5. 14 prrrra p"vru xn^a-io ; 

7. 2 (bKnc"*) ]pbo ; 7. 4 (|*into ripe) j^non ; 7. 14 Km warn 
jynp , and 8. 9 tfpr no JpDyi NmiX mar (double error). 

Errors of gender in Y are not as frequent ; these occur 
in 1. 8 tp »b>s31 ; 1. 14 in kid>k ; 1. 17 aw Ntnpo )V3 ; 2. 11 
^ddt wrae nnoi ; 8. 14 £xd Karon font^n Knt>«33 »3d. 

4. Number. 

79. L writes the following plural forms of nouns in 
place of the singular : 1. 12 prvm ; 2. 15 pH ,| 1D3E>D ; 5. 1 
WinK ; 7. 9 prwri ; and the sing, instead of the plur. in : 
2. 7 paint* ; 7. 3 tfrm. 

Y has the following sing, instead of the plur.: 2. 14 
maiD ; 4. 2 ; 6. 7 3pyn xayi KTW ; and the following plurs. 
in place of sings. : 6. 7 twnana ; 7. 9 pin K3VD3 ; 8. 9 KrVniK 

5. Prepositions. 

80. In 4. 3 L omits the preposition 3, in Knita p ,, y3; 
and writes 3 for 3 in 6. 4 KDVi ; 6. 10 KJWip3, 

6. Conjunctions. 

81. In the following passages L incorrectly adds the 
conjunction 1 : 2. 7 JD1 ; 2. 14 spm 131 ; 3. 10 B»1S1 ; 5. 5 ;nX3 
K31pl ; 122 6. 9 Kp'Dyi ; and in the following incorrectly omits 
it: 2. 13 N3*D ^PK; 7. io KDD 'K ; 8. 2 n'B ; 8. 11 nn3. In 
5. 16, L writes conj. 1 for relative "i: pK3anD1. 

In the following passages Y incorrectly adds the conj. 1 : 
1.5 byt : and omits it in : 4. 1 1 T^b ; 8. 1 n<3 pio» ; 8. 1 

12a Cf. J II, Gen. 49. 5, tdip 'OrcH.