mḳṿmm shl khtvy hyd htymnyym vmsṿrt hnṿs'ḥ shl vvly fs'ḥym / The Place of the Yemenite Manuscripts in the Transmission-History of b.Pesaḥim
מקומם של כתבי היד התימניים במסורת הנוסח של בבלי פסחים / The Place of the Yemenite Manuscripts in the Transmission-History of b.Pesaḥim
In a series of studies published beginning in the 1950's, E.S.Rosenthal divided the manuscripts of b.Pesaḥim into two distinct groups, which represent an early split in the transmission of the Talmud: the "vulgata" group, consisting of the majority of witnesses (including the printed...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | Hebrew |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
HUC
2003
|
| In: |
Hebrew Union College annual
Year: 2002, Volume: 73, Pages: לא-עז |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | In a series of studies published beginning in the 1950's, E.S.Rosenthal divided the manuscripts of b.Pesaḥim into two distinct groups, which represent an early split in the transmission of the Talmud: the "vulgata" group, consisting of the majority of witnesses (including the printed editions), and the lishna aharina or "alternative version," which he claimed was represented primarily by two manuscripts from Yemen (JTS Enelow 271 and Columbia x893). The present study offers an alternative model: the two textual traditions are represented in their purest forms by MS Vatican 125 and MS Munich 6, respectively. The Yemenite manuscript tradition of Pesaḥim, by contrast, is a later development. The vast majority of the unique readings in the Yemenite manuscripts are attested only in Yemen; if these truly represented a Babylonian tradition we would expect to find confirmation of more of these readings in European manuscripts. Furthermore, the Yemenite variation is almost always an addition to the basic text found in other manuscripts (in one case more than one hundred words are added!). Numerous Yemenite glosses cite parallel sources and commentaries, including those of Rashi, the ʿArukh, and Rabbenu Ḥananel. Moreover, even in those cases in which the Yemenite reading is parallel to the more common reading, rather than a gloss, the Yemenite version is demonstrably more developed: it addresses a textual problem found in the more common reading, reacts to parallel sources, or adjusts the text so that it conforms with opinions of classical commentators. |
|---|---|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Hebrew Union College annual
|