The First Discovered Leaves of Sefer Ḥefeṣ
Sefer Ḥefeṣ (SḤ), an early medieval legal code, was formerly known to scholars only in passages and references cited by Ashkenazic Rishonim. No part of the book was extant in any previously known manuscript. The text published here consists of the first fragments of SḤ to have been discovered. These...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Penn Press
1991
|
| In: |
The Jewish quarterly review
Year: 1991, Volume: 82, Issue: 1/2, Pages: 51-136 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | Sefer Ḥefeṣ (SḤ), an early medieval legal code, was formerly known to scholars only in passages and references cited by Ashkenazic Rishonim. No part of the book was extant in any previously known manuscript. The text published here consists of the first fragments of SḤ to have been discovered. These four leaves were found in the bindings of Latin codices in the library of the Jagellonian University in Cracow. The text contains an exposition of portions of two tractates of the Babylonian Talmud (Bava Qamma and Bava Meṣiʿa), interspersed with quotations of pertinent passages from the Jerusalem Talmud and gaonic rulings. For over one hundred years scholars have debated the nature of SḤ: its style, authorship, date, and provenance. After examining these leaves and identifying them as part of a codex of SḤ, it is possible to draw the following conclusions: (1) SḤ is similar to, and all but identical with, another work entitled Sefer Metivot (SM); (2) SḤ circulated only in greater Ashkenaz during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, while SM was known in other geographic areas during roughly the same period, and several fragments of that work found their way into the Cairo genizah; (3) it appears that the two works were originally one and then separated into two traditions; (4) there is no evidence to support the commonly held theory that SM was the earlier of the two works, and indeed SḤ may be earlier, as it was compiled not later than the beginning of the tenth century; (5) the provenance of SḤ may not be Qayrawan in North Africa, as assumed by several scholars, but possibly Italy or Byzantium; (6) the position of Italy and Byzantium as important centers of study of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds during the gaonic period (primarily in the eighth through tenth centuries), as well as the contribution of these centers to the codification of Jewish law, merits further investigation. An annotated transcription of the text found in these leaves is appended. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1553-0604 |
| Reference: | Errata "Addenda and Corrigenda: "The First Discovered Leaves of Sefer Ḥefeṣ," "JQR" 82 (1991): 51-136 (1992)"
|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: The Jewish quarterly review
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.2307/1455004 |