The Arabic Translation and Commentary of Yefet ben 'Eli the Karaite on the Book of Esther (Etudes Sur Le Judaisme Medieval) (v. 1)

The Arabic Translation and Commentary of Yefet ben #Eli the Karaite on the Book of Esther

Études sur le Judaïsme Médiéval Fondées par

Georges Vajda Dirigées par

Paul B. Fenton

TOME XXXVI

Karaite Texts and Studies Edited by

Meira Polliack Tel Aviv University

Michael G. Wechsler Moody Bible Institute, Chicago

Volume 1

The Arabic Translation and Commentary of Yefet ben #Eli the Karaite on the Book of Esther Edition, Translation, and Introduction

Michael G. Wechsler

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2008

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Japheth ben Ali, ha-Levi, 10th cent. [Sharh Megilat Ahashverosh. English & Judeo-Arabic.] The Arabic translation and commentary of Yefet ben 'Eli the Karaite on the book of Esther / edition, translation, and introduction [by] Michael G. Wechsler. p. cm. -- (Etudes sur le judaïsme médiéval ; v. 36) (Karaite texts and studies ; v. 1) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 978-90-04-16388-1 (alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T. Esther--Commentaries--Early works to 1800. 2. Karaites. I. Wechsler, Michael G. II. Title. III. Series. BS1375.53.J36 2008 222’.9077--dc22 2008017534

ISSN: 0169-815X ISBN: 978 90 04 16388 1 Copyright 2008 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

For my mother, Joan Mildred Wechsler née Hirsch

"zàå ïúl!ä"z íé!Öð ãÇá"ë äp!ä _éúÇl!ä"z íÇiä eã"a"ëð _a §§äãéøô䧧 ¬éåìä äãåäé—

CONTENTS Preface to the Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix

part i INTRODUCTION Chapter One Yefet’s Life and Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

Chapter Two Yefet’s Exegesis of Esther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Rationalistic Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Compilatory Aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Mu#tazilite Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Relationship to Rabbinic Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Midrashic-Talmudic Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Saadia Gaon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3. Abraham Ibn Ezra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Relationship to Karaite Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1. Salmon ben Yer¯uhim . ..................................... 5.2. Later Karaite Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 13 35 40 58 58 66 71 78 78 83

Chapter Three Yefet’s Translation of Esther. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 1. Literalistic Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 2. Alternate Translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 3. Selective Comparison to the Translations of Saadia and Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Chapter Four Other Karaite Commentaries on Esther . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 1. Judaeo-Arabic Commentaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 1.1. Salmon ben Yer¯uhim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 1.2. Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub Y¯usuf ibn N¯uh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 1.3. Judah Meir Taur¯ızi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 1.4. An Anonymous Abridgment from the School of Ibn N¯uh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

x

contents 1.5. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3699, fol. 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 2. Hebrew Commentaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 2.1. Jacob ben Reuben . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 2.2. Abraham ben Judah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 2.3. An Anonymous Byzantine Compilation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 3. Undetermined (Possibly Karaite) Judaeo-Arabic Commentaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 3.1. Ms. JTSA ENA 3336, frag. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 3.2. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 742 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 3.3. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4021. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Chapter Five Manuscripts Employed for the Present Edition . . . . . 137 1. Description of the Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 1.1. A/à . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 1.2. B/á . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 1.3. L/ì . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 1.4. P/ô . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 1.5. R1/1ø . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 1.6. R2/2ø . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 1.7. R3/3ø . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 1.8. R4/4ø . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 1.9. R5/5ø . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 1.10. R6/6ø . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 1.11. R7/7ø . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 1.12. T/ú . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 2. Relationship of the Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 3. Editing of the Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Chapter Six Some Methodological Remarks on the Annotated English Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Chapter Seven Signs, Sigla, and Abbreviations Employed in the Edited Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

contents

xi

part ii TRANSLATION Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 I. Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 II. Primary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 III. Secondary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 I. Manuscripts Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 II. Canonical References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 1. Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 2. Ancient Versions of the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350 3. New Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353 4. Qur"¯an . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353 III. Early Rabbinic and Midrashic Refrences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357 V. Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365 VI. General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372

part iii TEXT Text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3*–63*

PREFACE TO THE SERIES KARAITE TEXTS AND STUDIES

Interest in medieval Karaism—a stream of Judaism which may generally be described as “scripturalist,” “messianic,” and, at least with respect to established rabbinic halakhah, “anti-traditional”—has seen a significant and steady increase in recent years. While Karaism as a cohesive religious movement covers a wide range both in time and location—from the ninth century to the present and from Persia to North America—the focus of this scholarly efflorescence has been primarily on the history and literature of the Karaite “Golden Age,” centered in Persia-Iraq and Palestine of the tenth and eleventh centuries. It is from this period that Karaism’s most prolific littérateurs, adept thinkers, and influential personalities emerge—figures who, as recent studies have made increasingly clear, impacted the lives and thinking not just of their fellow sectarians, but of the Jewish community at large. Contributing to this flowering of interest in Karaism—and hence to the establishment of the present series—are three essential factors, the first of which is the significantly increased accessibility of primary sources relating to medieval Karaism. The bulk of these newly accessible sources consists of roughly 10,000 Karaite manuscript codices (most of them fragmentary), collected in the first half of the nineteenth century from various Karaite communities in the Middle East (especially Cairo) by the Karaite communal leader and bibliophile Abraham Firkovich (1787–1874). These manuscripts were eventually acquired by the Saltykov-Shchedrin (now Russian National) Library in St. Petersburg and are presently divided, along with several Karaite manuscripts from sources other than Firkovich, into various sub-groups identified by the sigla Yevr. (Hebrew) or Yevr.-Arab. (Hebrew/Judaeo-Arabic). Access to these manuscripts was generally denied to western scholars during the Soviet period and has only been made widely possible since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Over the past decade and a half the vast majority of these manuscripts have been photographed and made more widely accessible through various projects undertaken by the

xiv

preface to the series

Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts at the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem. Among the various western European libraries containing manuscripts of Karaite provenance, important collections of primary sources are also to be found in the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris, which contains around 25 Karaite manuscript codices (primarily the biblical commentaries of Yefet ben #Eli), and the British Library Collections of Hebrew manuscripts, which includes approximately 140 Karaite manuscript codices written in Arabic and Hebrew script. This latter collection was purchased from the illustrious bookseller and collector M.W. Shapira in 1882, who acquired the manuscripts during travels through H¯ıt (in Iraq) and Cairo. In addition, there exists a relatively small number of Karaite manuscript fragments among those salvaged from the Rabbanite Ben Ezra synagogue in Cairo, generally known as the “Cairo Genizah.” The Genizah’s vast contents, the majority of which are housed at Cambridge University Library and date primarily from the tenth to the thirteenth centuries, range across the spectrum of medieval documentary and literary texts, and hence provide fascinating insight into the life and literature of Mediterranean Jewry—primarily Rabbanite, though to a certain degree also Karaite—during a period that was previously shrouded in relative obscurity. The navigability and accessibility of this corpus has beengreatly facilitated by diligent cataloging efforts over the past decade. These have so far resulted in the publication of two volumes, published by Cambridge University Press, collectively describing and indexing 17,232 important fragments in Arabic and JudaeoArabic. The second factor relates to a certain tendentiousness which has to some extent characterized the history of research on Karaism. In popular Jewish circles, and in the wider academic discipline of Jewish Studies, Karaism has often been viewed as an isolated phenomenon. Its literature has not always been recognized as authentic, innovative, or interesting in its own right, and the productive influence it may have had on Jewish history or thought was by and large dismissed. To a certain extent this position has been shaped by the antagonistic mindset of medieval rabbinic sources in which Karaism was generally portrayed as the “enemy from within,” joining Israel’s external opponents in seeking to undermine the validity of Jewish tradition and threatening it with disintegration and collapse. Over the past few decades, however, there has occurred a paradigm shift in the research and understanding

preface to the series

xv

of Karaism as a cultural phenomenon, which is both central and integral to medieval Jewish and Arabic culture. This change is steadily breaking down the artificial barriers constructed between Karaism and other fields of Jewish and Islamic Studies. This is a slow yet distinctive process: as more Karaite sources are recovered or re-analyzed as expressions of an authentic and creative religious movement, their relationship with other Jewish and Arabic sources and their value for the study of medieval Jewish and Islamic history and literature are being increasingly recognized and appreciated. It is this last statement, in fact, which describes the third factor contributing to the growth of contemporary scholarship on Karaism. Though in one respect a facet of the second factor, it is significant enough to warrant mention in its own right—to wit, the increasing, selfnourishing sense of scholarly curiosity and excitement produced by the ongoing revelation of the contents of the aforementioned manuscript collections, which are gradually clarifying and restructuring our understanding of medieval Karaism, its historical roots, its literary background, and, of especial significance, the extent of its socio-economic and intellectual involvement in and influence upon the Jewish and Islamic world at large. The study of the history and culture of the Jews of the Islamic world in the Middle Ages, and of Karaism as one of its central phenomena, is becoming a compelling field of research, bearing the promise of rich scholarly rewards for scholars of Karaism specifically, as well as for those engaged in the wider research of JudaeoArabic culture and literature, medieval Jewish literature and history, Arabic literature and the history of Islam, medieval philosophy, or biblical exegesis. These three factors underlying the efflorescence of scholarship on Karaism have been recently explored in the introductory work edited by M. Polliack, Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources (Leiden: Brill, 2003). They have also provided the impetus for the establishment of the present series, entitled Karaite Texts and Studies. It is our hope that this series, which appears in association with the series edited by P. Fenton, Études sur le judaïsme médiéval, will serve as a locus of investigation into medieval Karaism based on the testimony of its extensive written remains. For the reasons discussed above, emphasis shall be placed on the “Golden Age” of Karaism, though the door shall certainly remain open to texts and studies pertaining to later peaks of Karaite creativity in the pre-modern period, such as in the regions of Byzantium, the Ottoman Empire, the Crimea, and Eastern Europe.

xvi

preface to the series

The series covers all genres of Karaite literature, written in Hebrew, Judaeo-Arabic, or other languages. Regarding Judaeo-Arabic texts we have decided to refrain from imposing one script (Arabic or Hebrew) and to leave the question of script open to the author’s decision according to considerations of genre and transmission history. In certain cases, such as biblical exegesis, the earliest attested manuscripts are in Arabic script, yet most of the transmission history of the texts is in Hebrew script and, no less importantly, the genre itself is part of a long Jewish tradition of biblical interpretation. Indicative of its direction, the series commences with an edition, translation, and extensive study of the Arabic translation and commentary on Esther (one of the most appealing and widely circulated biblical books among Diaspora Jewry in general) by Yefet ben #Eli, one of the greatest littérateurs of the Karaite Golden Age and, without question, the Karaite biblical commentator par excellence. It is hoped that this work will whet the appetite of scholars for the future volumes which are already in planning for inclusion in the series. Among these, in current order of preparation for publication, are: • The Arabic Translation and Commentary of Salmon ben Yer¯uh. am on the Book of Esther (Michael G. Wechsler). • The Commentary of Yefet ben #Eli on the Book of Genesis: The Abraham Narratives (Marzena Zawanowska). • The Commentary of Yefet ben #Eli on the Book of Genesis: The Joseph Narrative (Meira Polliack). • The Writings of Daniel al-Q¯umisi: An Edition and Translation (Barry Dov Walfish). • The Commentary of Yefet ben #Eli on the Book of Zechariah (Kees de Vreugd). • The Arabic Translation and Commentary of Yefet ben #Eli on the Book of Judges (Michael G. Wechsler). Scholars interested in contributing to Karaite Texts and Studies are invited to inquire of either editor concerning the series’ editorial guidelines and to submit their manuscript for initial review. The primary focus of the series will be on manuscripts containing an edited text (Hebrew, Greek, Judaeo-Arabic, and/or Arabic), English translation, and substantial introduction. Nevertheless, as a general policy, volumes of a more analytical, comparative, or discursive nature will also be considered for inclusion, depending on their subject matter, focus, scope, and scholarly contribution.

preface to the series

xvii

Finally, with respect to the realization of this series, we are indebted both to Michiel Klein Swormink, Brill’s Jewish Studies editor, for his encouragement and advice throughout the proposal process, as well as to Paul Fenton for his enthusiastic willingness to enable Karaite Texts and Studies to appear in association with the prestigious ÉJM series. April 2008 Meira Polliack Tel-Aviv University Michael G. Wechsler Moody Bible Institute Chicago

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Among the many individuals to whom I am indebted for providing the necessary material and advisory assistance that has enabled me to see this work, which constituted my doctoral thesis, to completion, my mentor Norman Golb ranks foremost. It was under his experienced, enthusiastic, and ever-challenging tutelage that my knowledge of Classical Arabic was refined and attenuated to the idiosyncracies of Judaeo-Arabic and my familiarity with Hebrew and Aramaic sources— from the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Geonim—deepened and broadened. Commensurate with the challenge of his tutelage has been the graciousness of his manner, and in this respect he has been to me a model not only of scholarly achievement, but also of scholarly comportment. I am also greatly indebted to my dissertation committee members Joel Kraemer, Meira Polliack, and Dennis Pardee for their continual input throughout the writing process; their suggestions have been incorporated into almost every page of the present work. Section II.3 (Mu#tazilite Influence) of the Introduction was presented as a separate paper in November 2006 at a international seminar on the topic of “Rationalism and Sacred Text, 10th–12th Centuries,” sponsored by the Centro de Humanidades, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (Madrid) and the Escuela de Traductores de Toledo, and has benefited greatly from the feedback of the conference participants, particularly from the comments of Professors Haggai Ben-Shammai, Mordechai Z. Cohen, Daniel Lasker, and Sabine Schmidtke. As regards the provision of both direct access to and/or copies of manuscripts and other archival resources, I am indebted to Doris Nicholson and the staff of the Bodleian Library (Oxford), Binyamin Richler and the staff of the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts at the Jewish National and University Library (Jerusalem), Jerry Schwarzbard and the Special Collections staff at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (New York), the staff of the Taylor-Schechter Genizah Research Unit at Cambridge University Library, the staff of the British Library (London), the staff of the Bibliothèque nationale (Paris), the staff of the Rijks Universiteitsbibliotheek (Leiden), the staff

xx

acknowledgements

of the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Orientabteilung, and the staff of the Universitetsbibliothek in Lund. My gratitude is also due to Joe Cataio for his tireless and consistently successful work in filling the multitude of interlibrary loan requests that I submitted to him. A deep debt of gratitude is owed to my wife Lydia. It was on account of her patient support, enthusiasm, and devotion that I was able to apply both the time and attention needed to bring this work to a timely completion. My gratitude—edged with apology—must also go out to my children, Avi and Elsie, for bearing with my remoteness, both physical and attentional, during the writing process. To my parents as well I shall be forever in debt for instilling within me those intellectual and disciplinary propensities that, over the course of time and varied influence, have led to my undertaking and enjoyment of such scholarly endeavors as this. It is, however, to the One who has sustained me through the completion of this endeavor that my greatest debt is due, and it is to Him, ultimately, that the present work is dedicated.

part i INTRODUCTION

chapter one YEFET’S LIFE AND WORKS Like many of the Jerusalem Karaites of his day, Yefet ben #Eli ha-Levi, known by his full Arabic name as Ab¯u #Al¯ı Hasan ibn #Al¯ı al-L¯aw¯ı1 . 2 al-Bas.r¯ı, would appear to have been an eastern émigré—specifically, as suggested by the nisba “al-Bas.r¯ı,” from the city of Bas.ra in southeastern #Ir¯aq.3 He was active within the prominent Karaite circle of “the teachers of the émigrés to Jerusalem” (mu#allim¯u "l-maq¯adisa) for all or most of the second half of the tenth century,4 and was still alive in the first decade of the eleventh century, as implied by the commendation ayyadahu all¯ah (“God support him!”) following his name in Ms. BL Or. 2554, written in A.H. 395 (= 1004/5 C.E.),5 as well as by the 1 In place of this Arabicized nisba is also attested, at the head of his name, the Arabic lexical equivalent al-Im¯am (Bargès, Excerpta, pp. v–vi). 2 Yefet’s son Levi ha-Levi (Ab¯ u Sa#¯ıd), in his muqaddima to íéøáã úùøô, refers to him—uniquely, apparently, in the extant literature—as úôé ãéòñ (see Pinsker, Geschichte, I, p. 169; II, p. 64). 3 On the significance of Basra as a center of both Muslim and Jewish learning, . cf. Ashtor, “Basra”; and Pellat, “al-Bas.ra.” For other biographical discussions of Yefet cf., in addition to the introductions of the various editions listed in the bibliography, Ankori, Karaites, p. 545; Ben-Shammai, “Edition,” pp. 29–31; Broydé, “Japheth”; Frank, Search, pp. 14–15; Fürst, Geschichte, pp. 124–140; Gil, History, pp. 788–89; Gottlober, History, pp. 72, 181; Grätz, History, pp. 313–14; Lehrman, “Jephet”; Mann, Texts, pp. 30– 32; Nemoy, Anthology, pp. 83–84; Neubauer, Bibliothek, pp. 15–18; Pinsker, Geschichte, I, pp. 87–88, 169; II, pp. 181–85; Polliack, Tradition, pp. 37–45; Poznanski, ´ Opponents, pp. 20– 30; Schur, Karaites, pp. 38–39; Skoss, “Jafet”; Steinschneider, Literatur, pp. 81–84; idem, Übersetzungen, pp. 941–42; Tamani, “Tradizione,” pp. 27–29; and Vajda, Commentaires, p. 115. 4 See Mann, Texts, pp. 30–31, 95, citing #Eli ben Israel All¯ uf (Ab¯u "l-Hasan #Al¯ı ibn . Isr¯a"¯ıl), who identifies Yefet as a peer of (Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub Y¯usuf) ibn N¯uh. and Ab¯u "l-Surri (#Al¯ı) ibn Z¯ut.a¯ , viz.: íìòîìàå àèåæ ïáà éøñìà åáà íìòîìàå ®®® çåð ïáà åçð ä¨ ñãà÷îìà éîìòî ˙ ÷ð éô éìò åáà íìòîìà øëã˙ å éøöáìà. See also al-H¯ıt¯ı, Tart¯ıb, p. 433: (óñåé á÷òé åáà) éìò äö ®®® çð ïá. 5 On this reading of the date in the colophon of the Ms., which contains Yefet’s commentary on Ruth and Song of Songs, see Hoerning, Manuscripts, p. 21, and Margoliouth, Catalogue, pp. 224, followed by, inter alios, Ben-Shammai, “Edition,” p. 29; idem, Genesis, p. 192; Mann, Texts, p. 31; Nemoy, Anthology, p. 83, n. 1; idem, “Karaites,” p. 605a; Schorstein, Rûth, p. 11; and Tamani, “Tradizione,” p. 29. Gil (History, p. 789), on the other hand, reads the date as A.H. 375 (= 985/6 C.E.). The former reading, however, is preferable given the commentary’s compositional date range of A.D. 990–1010

4

chapter one

commendation åäøîùéå ìàä åäééçé (“God sustain and preserve him!”), applied to him by his son Levi ha-Levi (Ab¯u Sa#¯ıd6) in his Book of Precepts (úååöî(ä) øôñ), composed in A.H. 397 (= 1006/7 C.E.).7 Considering, moreover, that Yefet may have engaged in literary polemics with Saadia Gaon (d. 942) while he was still alive,8 it would seem reasonable to set the minimum terminus ad quem of his lifetime at ninety years.9 As a writer Yefet was both prolific and influential—a combination which, among later Karaites, earned him such eminent titles as “the prince” (øùä),10 “the distinguished elder” (ìö˙ àôìà ê˙ éùìà),11 “the noble jurist” (ìéöàä ìéìôä),12 “the wondrous sage” (àìôåîä íëçä),13 “the (see Margoliouth, Daniel, p. v; Pinsker, Geschichte, II, p. 88; and, albeit advancing the more specific range of A.D. 988–c. 990, Ben-Shammai, “Edition,” pp. 29–31. See also Schenker (“Danielkommentars,” esp. p. 25), who suggests that Yefet composed two versions of this commentary, one in 980 and the other in 988, on which cf. Lehrman, “Jephet,” pp. 233–34). 6 Wrongly referred to among later writers as simply Sa#¯ıd or Sa#adia as well as Ab¯ u H¯ashim (Pinsker, Geschichte, I, pp. 119, 169), in the last instance due to the confusion of Ab¯u #Al¯ı (Yefet) and his son with the prominent 9th–10th c. Mu#tazilite figures Ab¯u #Al¯ı al-Jubb¯a"¯ı and his son Ab¯u H¯ashim (see Gimaret, “Mu#tazila,” p. 785aff.), both of whom are mentioned by the Karaite Joseph b. Abraham (Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub Y¯usuf al-Bas.¯ır) in his Kit¯ab al-Muh. taw¯ı (see Pinsker, Geschichte, I, p. 119; Poznanski, ´ Opponents, p. 42; Steinschneider, Literatur, p. 84, n. 1; Vajda, Muh. taw¯ı, p. 52). 7 See Pinsker, Geschichte, II, pp. 87–88. Although the commendation ১øé (= äîçøé äììà, “May God have mercy on him!”)—normally reserved for the dead—is also applied to Yefet in this passage, Pinsker explains such as either an ill-placed scribal insertion or a rare instance of application to a living person. It should also be noted, in favor of this terminus ad quem for Yefet in the early 11th century, that, in at least two places in his commentaries (ad øåîà úùøô and Joel), he quotes Hai Gaon, whose writings in all likelihood appeared no earlier than 994 (see Pinsker, Geschichte, II, pp. 148–51, 183; Lehrman, “Jephet,” p. 232). 8 See Pinsker, Geschichte, I, p. 20, n. 1; II, p. 88; yet cf. idem, I, p. 169; II, p. 37 (cited by Mann, Texts, p. 25, n. 46); and Mann, ibid., p. 31. 9 Cf. the following suggested times of Yefet’s birth: 910–915 (Harkavy, tentatively, apud Grätz, History, p. 313, n. æô; 915–20 (Auerbach, Proverbiorum, p. 2; Bargès, Canticum, p. ii); and c. 920 (Fürst, Geschichte, p. 124). See also Pinsker, Geschichte, II, p. 182, who suggests a lifespan of approximately 95 years; and Günzig, Proverbien, p. 16, who posits a heyday of 940–1008. 10 Margoliouth, Daniel, p.  (§ùä, which, however, may also represent íìùä, thus modifying the preceding §áøå §øî). 11 Ms. JTSA ENA 219 (no. 3356), vol. 1, fol. 2v (ìö ˙ àôìà íìàòìà ê˙ éùìà); vol. 2, fol. 1v; Ms. BL Or. 2399, fol. 1r (apud Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 202b); Ms. BL Or. 2400, fol. 1r (apud Margoliouth, ibid., p. 214b). 12 Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 142, title page (apud Batat, p. 42). On the use of Heb. ìéìô in the sense of Ar. faqih, cf. Mann, Texts, p. 151, n. 56. 13 Ms. Lichaa 10 (Lausanne [private collection]; see sec. V.1.3.), fol. 47v; Ms. BL Or. 2468, fol. 106v (apud Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 201a); Ms. BL Or. 2514, fol. 119v (apud Margoliouth, ibid., p. 223b); Bargès, Canticum, p. .

yefet’s life and works

5

discerning sage” (ïåáðä íëçä),14 “the perfect sage” (íìùä íëçä),15 “the great sage of Israel” (ìàøùéá ìåãâä íëçä),16 “the fortress, the tower” (ìåãâîä æåòîä),17 “the crown of our head” (åðùàø úøèò [Lam. 5:16]),18 “the great teacher” (ìåãâä ìéëùîä,19 §âä ãîìîä,20 or §âä áøä21), “resplendent teacher” (øéäæî ìéëùî),22 “the teacher of the Diaspora” (ìéëùî äìåâä),23 and “the chief of the interpreters” (íéøúåôä ùàø).24 Among his known works are the following:25 i. Commentaries (designated taf¯as¯ır or shur¯uh. ), in Arabic, on all26 the books of the Hebrew Bible, including comprehensive Arabic Ms. BL Or. 2400, fol. 1r (apud Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 214b). Pinsker, Geschichte, II, p. 19. 16 Ms. BL Or. 2501, fol. 251r (apud Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 209a). See otherwise Ms. BN héb. 294, colophon (apud Bland, Ecclesiastes, p. xxiv): àìôåîä ìåãâä íëçä; whereas simply ìåãâä íëçä in Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1846, fol. 1r; Ms. BL Or. 2502, fol. 1v (apud Margoliouth, ibid., p. 209b); and Bargès, Excerpta, p. 1. 17 Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 155, fol. 1r; Margoliouth, Daniel, p.  (ìãâîä æåòîä). 18 Ms. BL Or. 2468, fol. 106v (apud Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 201a). 19 Margoliouth, Daniel, p. ; Ms. BL Or. 2469, fols 33r, 35r (apud Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 199a–b); Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 117, colophon (apud Batat, “Catalogue,” p. 38). 20 Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 142, title page (apud Batat, “Catalogue,” p. 42); Hadassi, Cluster, fol. 84a (§217) (see also Dinur, Diaspora, p. 314 [§14]); Pinsker, Geschichte, II, p. 19. 21 Ms. Lichaa 10, fol. 47v; Ms. BL Or. 2468, fol. 106v (apud Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 201a); Ms. BL Or. 2514, fol. 119v (apud Margoliouth, ibid., p. 223b); Bargès, Canticum, p. . 22 Ms. BL Or. 2472, fol. 147v (apud Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 202a). See also åðìéëùî åðøéäæîå in Ms. BL Or. 2514, fol. 119v (apud Margoliouth, ibid., p. 223b), and Bargès, Canticum, p. . 23 Skoss, “Jafet,” col. 754; Lehrman, “Jephet,” p. 233. 24 Ms. BL Or. 2513, fol. 45r (apud Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 224b). 25 We have omitted from this list the collection of four polemical poems attributed to Yefet and directed against the Rabbanite Jacob ben Samuel (published by Pinsker, Geschichte, II, 19–24) since, as discussed by Mann, Texts, pp. 26–28, the real author is probably Sahl ben Mas.liah. (see also Nemoy, Anthology, p. 84, n. 2; idem, “Epistle,” pp. 145–46; although cf. Sokolow, Deuteronomy, pp. xxxiv–v). By the opposite token, there seems to us a slight possibility that Yefet is to be identified as the author of the Refutation (naqd. ) of (Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub Y¯usuf) ibn N¯uh. , mentioned by al-H¯ıt¯ı (Tart¯ıb, pp. 433, 438), for, though this work is attributed by al-H¯ıt¯ı to “the teacher Ab¯u #Al¯ı” (éìò åáà íìòîìà), which designation he earlier applies to an otherwise unknown scholar distinct from Yefet (pp. 432–33: éìò åáà íìòîìà íú˙ àéùðìà æòåá ïá ãåã íú˙ äãìåå éøöáìà éìò åáà), he later refers to Yefet by that same designation (p. 433: ïàë åä éìò åáà íìòîìà ïá ãéòñ åáà íìòîìàå ˙ éùìà íìòî). ãñà ïá ˙âøôìà åáà ê 26 Cf. the statement of Simhah Isaac Luzki, apud Mann, Texts, p. 1414: éäìàä íëçä . àöîð àåäå íéáåúëå íéàéáð äøåúä ìë ìò ùåøéô øáç éìò åáà äðåëîä éåìä úôé (åðáø áøä =) ø§§øä §éðò ºì§§ö) éðò ìò §éô åðîî åðìöà àöîð ÷ø ®åúåàøì åðéëæ àìå ìåãâ úåöî §ñ øáçå ®åðúãò éãéá íåéäë ãáìá äìôúä ([ïéðò=]. All of Yefet’s commentaries are fortuitously extant, though there is some question about his commentary on Lamentations, which, though excepted by 14 15

6

chapter one translation (tarjama) of the Hebrew text.27 Both of these components (i.e., commentary and translation) were, as will be discussed in section III.1 below, produced together and intended to be complementary. It has been suggested, moreover, in view of the divergence between the extant Mss of Yefet and citations by Ibn Ezra, that Yefet completed a second recension of his entire biblical commentary,28 yet the evidence for this from the Mss of Yefet is wanting, with the exception of that which may be internally deduced from his commentaries on Daniel,29 the Pentateuch, and, perhaps, Psalms.30 ii. A Book of Precepts (kit¯ab [al-]shar¯a"i#[?]), mentioned by Simhah . Isaac 31 32 Luzki and Solomon b. David, as well as by Yefet himself in his commentary on Leviticus and in his comments ad 1 Sam. 20:27 and Daniel 10:3.33 Insofar as Yefet’s biblical commentaries were, as shown by Marwick, composed in sequential order of the canon, this book would have been among his earlier works, though composed after his commentary on Genesis, wherein his intention to undertake such a work is expressed.34 That this work was indeed composed in Arabic, as surmised by Poznanski, ´ 35 is now confirmed by the identified fragments of it in the Second Firkovitch Collection.36

some (cf. Marwick, “Order,” p. 449; Steinschneider, Literatur, p. 82), is tentatively identified in one Ms. by Adler, Catalogue, p. 22 (see also Tamani, “Tradizione,” p. 71). 27 An inventory of all extant Mss of Yefet’s commentaries (and translation) known from published sources was published in 1983 by Tamani, “Tradizione,” pp. 47–73, from which, consequently, were excluded the majority of Yefet Mss in the Firkovitch collections, excepting those few noted by Steinschneider, Literatur, pp. 81–84. Of these latter see now, in addition to our inventory of Esther Mss in section V.1.5–12 below, the catalogue of Genesis Mss prepared by Batat, “Catalogue.” 28 So Lehrman, “Jephet,” pp. 233–34. 29 See Schenker, “Danielkommentars,” pp. 23–25. 30 On these latter two see Poznanski, ´ review, p. 306, idem, Opponents, p. 21; idem, “Writings,” p. 249, Steinschneider, Literatur, p. 81. Cf., however, Ben-Shammai, “Edition,” pp. 31–32, and Polliack, Tradition, p. 38, n. 4. 31 See the citation in n. 25 above. 32 Sklare, “Compositions,” p. 131. 33 On these references by Yefet see Sklare, “Compositions,” p. 131, n. 13. 34 See Sklare, “Compositions,” pp. 132–33. 35 Apud Steinschneider, Literatur, p. 341 (ad p. 84), contra idem, p. 84, n. 3, albeit more tentatively in Übersetzungen, p. 942; and Pinsker, Geschichte, II, p. 183. 36 See Sklare, “Compositions,” pp. 131–32, n. 14, to which list should be added fol. 2 of Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3312, otherwise containing Yefet’s commentary on Genesis (Batat, “Catalogue,” p. 55). Gottlober (History, p. 181) calls attention to a work

yefet’s life and works

7

iii. A Book of Prayers for the Entire Year (kit¯ab f¯ı "l-s. al¯aw¯at li-.t¯ul ayy¯am alsana), apparently written in Arabic,37 seeing that he refers to it under the aforementioned Arabic title in his Book of Precepts.38 This work, presently not extant, would also have been composed at some time prior to his commentary on Leviticus, in which his Book of Precepts, as a finished work, is mentioned. iv. A Book of Refutation (kit¯ab al-radd) of Saadia Gaon, presently not extant, mentioned by Yefet as a forthcoming project in his comment ad Gen. 1:14 and, as a completed work, in his comment ad Exod 35:3 and in his Book of Precepts.39 v. A grammatical work treating exchangeable letters (ah. ruf al-ibd¯al), mentioned by Yefet as a completed work in his comment ad Lam. 1:14.40 This work is presently not extant. vi. A book entitled äøåøá äôù, perhaps of a grammatical nature,41 mentioned by Yefet’s son Levi ha-Levi (Ab¯u Sa#¯ıd).42 This work, apart from Levi’s indirect citation,—the content of which is apparently distinct from that of the previous work,—is as yet non-extant, unless it is to be identified with the anonymous work published by Khan.43

attributed to Yefet by Hadassi (Cluster, fol. 84a–b [§§217–19]), consisting of 36 questions and answers about sacrifice and Passover, which are most likely excerpted from his Book of Precepts. 37 Contra Steinschneider, Literatur, p. 84, n. 3, citing the work, per Ms. BN 6707, Isaac under the Hebrew title äìôúä ïéðò (see also the reference to such by Simhah . Luzki in n. 25 above). 38 See Sklare, “Compositions,” p. 133, n. 19. 39 For the text of these first two references see Pinsker, Geschichte, II, p. 20, n. 1; Poznanski, ´ Opponents, p. 21; for the last see Sklare, “Compositions,” pp. 132–33, n. 17. 40 Munk, “Notice,” p. 312, n. 1. 41 So Fürst (Geschichte, pp. 126; Anmerkungen und Nachweise [Vierter Abschnitt], p. 4, n. 88), citing both the grammatical nature of Levi’s citation from this work (see Pinsker, Geschichte, II, p. 65) and the fact that this same title is applied to a grammatical work by Ibn Ezra. The identification as a grammatical work is nonetheless considered dubious by Steinschneider (Literatur, p. 84, n. 3) and Skoss (“Jafet,” col. 759), and completely dismissed (unnecessarily, in our view) by Broydé, “Japheth,” p. 73b. 42 Pinsker, Geschichte, II, pp. 65, 184. 43 I.e., Text 1 in Khan, Texts, pp. 13–173. Khan’s dismissal of the possibility (p. 17), originally presented by W. Bacher (apud loc. cit.), that Yefet is the author/source of this work is hardly justified, seeing that his two main reasons for such dismissal are unfounded—viz., 1) that there is no source “that attributes a grammatical work to Yefet,” and 2) that the scholar upon whose statements the work is based is identified as Sa"¯ıd, and “Yefet is not referred to elsewhere as Sa"¯ıd.” However, in introducing the citation from äøåøá äôù, Levi refers to his father as Sa"¯ıd Yefet (see also n. 2 above).

8

chapter one

vii. A work entitled Kal¯am, perhaps of a liturgical nature, extant in at least one Ms.44 viii. Three religious poems (íéèåéô), one of which bears the acrostic ïá ïñç éøöáìà éìò, one éìò ïá ïñç, and one ïñç.45 Yefet’s translation and commentary on Esther, which is part of the first and most substantial of his works noted above, commends itself on several counts to those interested in such literature—whether the parameters of this interest be medieval Karaism, medieval Jewish scholarship, or biblical scholarship generally. Among the medieval Karaites, Yefet’s represents one of the earliest extant endeavors in Arabic translation and systematic—or continuous46—exegesis of Esther, preceded only, and in both cases partially, by the translation and commentary of Salmon ben Yer¯uhim (secs. II.5.1; IV.1.1). As is generally true of the medieval . Karaites, Yefet adheres to a consistently rationalistic method of exegesis (sec. II.1), though at the same time exhibiting a unique eclecticism in his probing attention to background issues—encompassing various facets of history, culture, and religion—, his consideration of alternate views (sec. II.2), and a theological perspective clearly sympathetic to, if not influenced by, the views of the Islamic Mu#tazila (sec. II.3). Nor does he refrain from adopting views which agree with those expressed in Rabbanite sources otherwise disparaged by himself and his peers where such views fit within the strictures of his rationalistic approach (sec. II.4.1–2). In consequence of this eclecticism and the acumen of his exegesis, Yefet’s commentary on Esther—as his biblical commentaries generally—came to occupy a principal, if not unparalleled, position within the history of later Karaite exegesis, as evidenced by Viz., Ms. 250 in the collection of H. Fischl, Berlin (Steinschneider, Literatur, p. 84; Tamani, “Tradizione,” p. 39). The liturgical nature of the content of this Ms., which we have not examined, is questionably proposed by Steinschneider, ibid. (cf. Broydé, “Japheth,” p. 73a; Skoss, “Jafet,” col. 759; and Tamani, ibid.). 45 On all three see Pinsker, Geschichte, II, p. 181, as well as, on the second, idem, pp. 138–39. It may be possible that the second piyyû.t, which is found in àéðæç øôñ (on which see idem, pp. 137–40) and which we have been unable to check, also bears the nisba éøöáìà, since Pinsker fails to mention that this is part of the acrostic in the first. Editions have appeared of the first (Bargès, Excerpta, pp. xxiii–iv; Mann, Texts, pp. 31– 32; Davidson, Thesaurus, p. 244 [§482]; Dinur, Diaspora, p. 305 [§11; partial]; translated into English by Nemoy, Anthology, pp. 107–8) and last (Pinsker, Geschichte, II, p. 181, n. 2; Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 204b). The total of five poems attributed to Yefet by Tamani (“Tradizione,” p. 39) includes the four polemical piyyû.tim most likely authored by Sahl ben Mas.liah. (see n. 25 above) and the first of the three noted above. 46 I.e., section-by-section, verse-by-verse treatment, on which see Polliack, Tradition, pp. 15–16, 38. 44

yefet’s life and works

9

both the number of extant copies of his work47 as well as the discernable influence thereof upon later Karaite writers (sec. II.5.2). Among the Rabbanites, Yefet’s work on Esther—as also that of Salmon ben Yer¯uhim—is preceded by that of Saadia Gaon, whose . translation (Tafs¯ır 48) of Esther, due to its great popularity among Arabicspeaking (especially Yemenite) Jewry,49 is attested by multiple Mss in its entirety, though his commentary only in part.50 Only Saadia,

47 The total of 11 different Mss of Yefet’s commentary on Esther (see sec. V.1.1–11) is, as far as we are aware, greater than that attested for any other Karaite commentary on this book, the next largest number being that of Salmon’s commentary, which, although extant in 10 separately catalogued fragments, are representative of only four different Mss (see sec. IV.1.1). As to the rest of Yefet’s exegetical corpus, the Firkovitch Collections, as in the case of his commentary on Esther, contain a significant—if not the majority—portion of manuscript testimony (for the most part lacking from the inventory of Tamani, “Tradizione,” pp. 47–75), a listing of which is kept at the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts in Jerusalem. Thus, e.g., of his commentary on Genesis, 48 Mss have now been identified, 38 of which are Firkovitch Mss (Batat, “Catalogue,” pp. 16–77); of his commentary on Judges (currently in preparation by the present author), 20 Mss (including one Hebrew translation) have been identified, 17 of which are Firkovitch Mss; and of his commentary on Kings, 25 Mss have been identified, 20 of which are Firkovitch Mss (inventories of the latter two commentaries supplied by D. Sklare in a personal communication). 48 On Saadia’s use of this term, rather than tarjama, as reflective of the self-contained, interpretive nature of his translation, see Malter, Saadia, pp. 142–45; Polliack, Tradition, pp. 86–87. On Saadia’s occasional usage of the term tafs¯ır in reference to his commentary—or, perhaps, his commentary and translation together, which collective work he otherwise designates by the term #ib¯ara (see the quote in n. 51 below)—see Malter, Saadia, p. 325; Polliack, ibid., pp. 79–80; Ratzaby, “Esther,” p. 1154. 49 See Malter, Saadia, pp. 142–45; Ratzaby, “Esther,” p. 1154; idem, “Fragments,” p. 193 [1]. 50 For editions of the Tafs¯ır see Ratzaby, “Fragments,” p. 193 [1], n. 1. Of the commentary, 15 manuscript fragments have been identified and published by Ratzaby as follows: “Bible”: one frag. ad 1:10; “Commentary”: two frags ad 1:10–12, 22; “Esther”: six frags ad the intro., 1:1–2; 4:5–14; 7:5–6; 8:1–4, 9:13–19; “Fragments”: six frags ad 1:1–6, 22; 2:20–23; 3:1–2, 4–5 (one frag., too damaged to be usefully published, is supposed to contain partial comm. ad chaps 3–4). In the course of our research for the present edition, moreover, we have identified the following seven additional fragments of Saadia’s Esther commentary:

i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii.

Ms. JTSA ENA 3148 (shelf mark 7632), frags 3–5, ad 9:1–6, 11–13. Ms. CUL T-S Ar. 23.44; 6 fols, ad 2:23–3:8; 3:11–4:1. Ms. CUL T-S Ar. 33.31; 1 fol., ad 4:5–17. Ms. CUL T-S Ar. 49.99; 2 fols, ad 2:12–22(?), 4:5–5:14. Ms. CUL T-S Ar. 309.52; 1 fol., ad 1:1–2. Ms. RNL Yevr. II 700; 2 fols, ad 6:12–13; 8:16–17. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3866; 3 fols, ad 1:13–19; 2:9–15; 3:6–7.

10

chapter one

moreover, organizes his twofold work of translation and commentary51 on Esther in the same fashion as Yefet—viz., pericope-by-pericope, rather than, as does Salmon (for the most part), verse-by-verse. In their exegetical method, notwithstanding the incorporation of midrashic tradition by Saadia, both men—as, indeed, the Oriental Jewish exegetes generally—are also akin, though this renders the intriguing question of influence inevitably moot, apart from Yefet’s citation of views clearly attributable (though never, in the present work, attributed) to the prominent Rabbanite exegete. The question of influence by Yefet upon later Rabbanite exegesis of Esther, moreover, remains almost entirely moot, for the principal mediator of Yefet’s—and through him, apparently, of Karaite—exegesis among the Rabbanites, Abraham Ibn Ezra, offers no clear indication of having borrowed from our exegete in either of his two commentaries on the book (sec. II.4.3). Notwithstanding these insolubilities, it is clear that, as regards the history of Esther exegesis in general, Yefet’s contribution is to be considered substantial, both for its early provenance as well as for its expansiveness and depth.52 The well-known dictum, “That which has been is that which shall be … there is nothing new under the sun” (Eccl. 1:9), is, in our view, not unreasonably descriptive of the greater part of rationalistic Judaeo-Christian exegesis of the Hebrew text of Esther following Yefet. That he was aware of and sought to resolve the vast majority of exegetical cruces with which scholars have, to the present day, been ever grappling, is clearly borne out by a careful study of both his commentary and his translation. Close attention to the latter is 51 On this twofold structure—or, including the Hebrew text/incipits, threefold structure—see Polliack, Tradition, pp. xvi, 80, as well as Saadia’s introduction to Job (Qafih, . Job, p. 22; also cited by Polliack, Tradition, p. 80, n. 56): ¬úàøàáòìà éô éúãàòë äéô øéñàå ˙âàúçé àî éìà ãåòà íú˙ ¬àäàø÷é ïîì øëôìà éô ìöçú éúç ä¨ îè˙ úðî ä¨ îàú ä¨ ö÷ õð øñôà ïà éäå ïàéáá ïàéá éìà àäðî (“I shall proceed in (this book) according to my usual practice in commentaries [ #ib¯ar¯at]—to wit, I shall translate the text of a complete, properly-ordered parasha, so that (the whole of) it might be present in the mind of him who reads it; then I will return with explanation to that in (the parasha) which requires explanation”; see also the Hebrew translation of Qafih, . ibid.). The translation of Goodman (Job, p. 132, cited by Polliack, Tradition, p. 80), imprecisely suggests that the commentary would be composed only after the book was completely translated: “In this book I shall follow my usual practice in commentaries and translate the full text, chapter by chapter, so that each passage will be present to mind for the reader. Then I will go back and explain whatever requires explanation.” 52 Cf. Lehrman, “Jephet,” p. 240: “When it is borne in mind that he plied his quill pen at a time when exegesis and philosophy were in their swaddling-stage, respect for his omniscient [sic!] learning will grow apace and our debt to him increase manifold.”

yefet’s life and works

11

especially incumbent upon any who would assess the ability of Yefet as an exegete, for, in keeping with the dictates of both personal style and, one might say, a more popular focus, his solutions to textual cruces (lexical, grammatical, and syntactical) are most frequently borne out, not by explicit discussion laden with grammatical terminology, but by his choices as a translator.

chapter two YEFET’S EXEGESIS OF ESTHER

1. Rationalistic Method At the heart of Yefet’s exegetical method—as, indeed, that of the oriental Karaite and Rabbanite exegetes generally—is a devotion to rationalism and logically constrained inquiry of the sort ubiquitously attested in post-Enlightenment exegesis (the so-called “historical-grammatical” method),1 albeit precluding the dismissal of orthodox theological tenets which so frequently attends the latter. In its development this rationalistic approach may be traced back, before the sectarian schisms that eventually gave rise to Karaism, to the middôt (hermeneutical principles) of early rabbinic exegesis.2 The tendency evinced by these middôt towards a (quasi-)logical, if not always contextually-based, hermeneutic was no doubt nurtured among Jewish scholars in Muslim lands by the growth of speculative reasoning and rationalism—influenced in turn by elements of Christianity and, to a far greater extent, Hellenistic philosophy3—among their Muslim counterparts. Among the Karaites in particular this tendency was further spurred, on the one hand, by their general rejection of rabbinic authority (per the traditions codified in the halakhic and haggadic literature) and the consequent necessity of replacing it with a system of interpretation more compatible with their (re)focus upon the biblical text as the primary locus of authority,4 and, on the other hand, by the attacks upon Karaism, during the crucial

Cf. Jeanrond, “Interpretation,” pp. 438b–43a; Polliack, “Trends,” p. 395. Cf. Polliack, “Trends,” pp. 366–69. For a concise presentation of the three collections of early rabbinic middôt (i.e., the seven of Hillel, the 13 of R. Ishmael, and the 32 attributed to R. Eliezer b. Yose) see Strack & Stemberger, Introduction, pp. 16–30. 3 See, inter alios, Anawati, Études, pp. 91–305; Goldziher, Studien, pp. 85–114; MacDonald, Development, pp. 119–287, passim; Nader, passim; Pines, “Philosophy”; idem, “Problems”; Rahman, Islam, pp. 87–90, 117–27; Watt, Thought, pp. 182–250; Wolfson, Philosophy, pp. 58–70. 4 See Polliack, “Trends,” pp. 365–69; idem, “Voice,” the two opening paragraphs. 1 2

14

chapter two

formative period of Karaite exegesis (late ninth to early tenth cent.),5 of the great Rabbanite champion Saadia Gaon, whose highly erudite, rationalistic arguments necessitated a response in kind from his opponents.6 The Karaite exegetical approach may thus be viewed as an amalgam of concepts, stimulated and influenced by both Karaite as well as non-Karaite sources, and uniquely adapted to the distinctive ideology and expression of each individual exegete. Nonetheless, by the time of Yefet’s activity in the “early classical” or “consolidating” period of Karaite scholarship (second half of the 10th cent.),7 the non-Karaite (especially Mu#tazilite) influences upon his exegesis, though still discernible (see section II.3), had been filtered through and adapted by previous Karaite sources to such an extent that they were undoubtedly considered, because of their integrality, as thoroughly Karaite8—even, ironically, as exegetes such as Yefet disparaged the groups from which those influences ultimately derived.9 Yefet’s adherence to the rationalistic—or “linguistic-contextual”10— approach to exegesis advanced by his coreligionists finds its initial expression at the very outset of his exegetical endeavor, in the introduction to his work on Genesis, wherein he states his intention to provide both a translation of the biblical text as well as “an explanation of its

5 See Polliack, “Trends,” pp. 370ff., wherein oriental Karaite exegesis is divided into three major stages—viz., the formative period (late 9th–early 10th cent.), the early classical or consolidating period (second half of the 10th cent.), and the late classical period (11th cent.). 6 See Nemoy, Anthology, p. xxi; idem, “Karaites,” p. 604. 7 See n. 5 above. 8 Cf. Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, I, p. 323; II, p. xliv. 9 Thus, e.g., Yefet states in his comment ad Ps. 139:19–22 (per Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, II, p. 261, ll. 1–3, 20–22 [partial Hebrew translation: I, p. 321]): íñ÷ äðà íìòà ˙ ä àðøöò éô íäå òøùå ÷ìàë˙ á ìå÷é ïî íäðîô ïéîñ÷ éìò íîàìà ìéâ˙ðàìàå ïàø÷ìà áàçöà àã ˙ íã÷å íìàòìà ïî íäúãàáà éô äììà ìñé ®®® íéîã éùðàå òùø äìå÷á øàùà íäéìàå òùøìà øëã ˙ (!)ãùà íä ã˙ à éåé éàðùî ìá÷ êàìäìà éãúáé íäá ã˙ à íéîã éùðàå (“Know that éåé íòì øøö (David) divides the nations into two groups, one of which consists of those who profess the Creator and His law, who in this time of ours are the adherents of the Qur"¯an and (the adherents) of the Gospel, and to them he is referring by his statement, the wicked and men of bloodshed [v. 19] … (David) petitions for the annihilation (of God’s enemies) from the world, and he refers first to the wicked and men of bloodshed [i.e., Muslims and Christians] because (God) will begin annihilating them before those who hate the Lord [cf. v. 21] since they have greatly oppressed the people of the Lord”). See further BenShammai, Doctrines, I, pp. 319–22; Erder, “Attitude”; and idem, “Mourners,” pp. 225–29. 10 See Polliack, “Trends,” p. 395; idem, “Voice,” first paragraph.

yefet’s exegesis of esther

15

meanings according to what its words (alf¯azuhu) require.”11 This proce. dure, he goes on to say, stands in contrast to that of “another commentator” (referring, quite likely, to D¯aw¯ud ibn Marw¯an al-Muqammis., who wrote a commentary on Genesis drawn primarily from Christian sources, and in whose Kal¯am work #Ishr¯un Maq¯ala the views of the following heretical groups are discussed12) who has loaded his explanations with the views of the apostates, the dualists, the philosophers, and the skeptics,13 having undertaken to refute them and embellishing his book with (their views), and having thereby departed from the (plain) sense of the text14 ( #ib¯ara) of the book which he (originally) intended (to explain).15

Yefet’s clear devotion—like that of his coreligionists—to a hermeneutic focused upon the “words” (alf¯az) . or “text” ( #ib¯ara) of Scripture should not, however, be taken to reflect, as it occasionally has been by the Arabic heresiographers (vis-à-vis the Karaites generally), a hermeneutic which is rigidly literalistic, and so preclusive of ijtih¯ad or, as the method is otherwise designated, qiy¯as (analogical or deductive reasoning).16 His For the Arabic text see p. 92, n. 8 below. See Butbul & Stroumsa, “Genesis,” pp. 144–45, n.7; Hirschfeld, Qirqis¯an¯ı, p.40 (English trans. by Nemoy, Anthology, p. 56); Stroumsa, Maq¯ala, pp. 15, 21, 317 (Index of Religions and Sects). If indeed alluding to al-Muqammis., and if the phrase ghayruna min al-mufassir¯ın (see n. 15 below) is understood to mean “another commentator among us,” this would constitute significant support for the identification of al-Muqammis. as a Karaite (on which question see Stroumsa, ibid., pp. 16–19). 13 Or, “sophists” (sufist¯a"iyya). . 14 On this sense of the Arabic lexeme cf. Dozy, II, p. 91b. 15 éô àùç éã ˙ ìà ïéøñôîìà ïî àðøéâ ìë˙ ã àî úçú ìë˙ ãðô àðö˙ øâ ïò ˙âøàë˙ åä àîá ìâúùð íì ˙ ë˙ àå ä¨ ééàèñôñìàå ä¨ ôñàìôìàå ä¨ éåðú˙ ìàå ä¨ ãçàìîìà áäàã˙ î äøéñàôú äáàúë ïééæå íäéìò ãøé ã ˙ ìà áàúëìà ä¨ øàáò éðòî ïî ˙âøë˙ ô àäá [äáúë ºà§§ð] (per Butbul & Stroumsa, “Genäãö÷ éã esis,” p. 85; see also Polliack, pp. 41, 293). 16 On this latter signification of qiy¯as, often defined simply as “(reasoning by) analogy,” see Bernand, “Kiy¯ . as,” passim; Frank, Search, p. 24, n. 92; Hallaq, “Qiy¯as,” pp. 299– 306. For misstatements denying such analogical-deductive reasoning to the Karaites cf. al-Qalqashand¯ı (1355–1418 C.E.), S. ubh. , pp. 260–61:    :     11 12

 !" #$  %!" ,& '( )*+  - .  / ( " 012 3 45   6  78 %+ ,9 !; 'I => ?  ,@A => 9 ;B  ,(C  ,&'* D8  :=AE F 3G 0H 5    ,F!IJ   3G 78  (K ,LM  H 6 FE D ,N - => LM  H(AOP 1AE D ,F(D 78  & ' =" .$  12E 3G I Q (!+ (  (“They

[i.e., the Rabb¯an¯ıy¯un and the Qarr¯a"¯un] disagree on two matters. The first of these is the assertion of the literal sense [al-z¯ . ahir] (over against) the predilection for metaphorical interpretation [al-ta"¯aw¯ıl], for the Qarr¯a"¯un affirm the literal sense of the texts of the Torah [i.e., Scripture; see Lazarus-Yafeh, “Tawr¯at,” p. 393b], and they relate what is indicated therein with respect to God—may He be exalted!—such as the references to (His) form, speech, sitting down on the throne, and coming down to Mt. Sinai—in

16

chapter two

approach is, fundamentally, rationalistic,17 and as such requires that the biblical text be interpreted in a manner consistent with the normative usage of language and literary conventions, one important implication of which is that, as asserted by Yefet’s predecessor Daniel al-Q¯umis¯ı, “every word which is in Scripture has only one interpretation.”18 It must be borne in mind, however, that this charter conviction of early Karaite exegesis was formulated primarily in opposition to the derashtheir literal sense [zaw¯ . ahiriyya among the Muslims profess. From . ahirihi], just as the Z¯ this they are (inevitably) brought to the affirmation of anthropomorphization [al-tashb¯ıh] and the affirmation of (the divine attribute of) direction [al-jiha]. The Rabb¯an¯ıy¯un, (on the other hand,) adhere to the metaphorical interpretation [al-ta"¯aw¯ıl] of all such references indicated in the Torah [i.e., Scripture], just as do the Ash#ariyya among the Muslims”); and al-Maqr¯ız¯ı (1364–1442 C.E.), Khi.ta.t, II, pp. 476–77: >   +B H!A;B R    

!  S !  1A T & ' )* 1A (“They [i.e., the Qarr¯a"¯un] are also called al-Isma #iyya since they consistently undertake the work of (interpreting) the texts of the Torah [i.e., Scripture] without taking recourse to the methods of analogy [qiy¯as] and precedent [taql¯ıd]”). On the integrality of qiy¯as among the Karaites of the golden age see, in addition to our discussion below, the following excerpts from al-Qirqis¯an¯ı’s commentary on Genesis 1:1 (Hirschfeld, Qirqis¯an¯ı, pp. 42, 43):  FIU  AM %U " F 1 5 U " . H W H% =" AE 1 X! M  1YB   Z [;B (“Has not the person who rejects reason and its postulates, founded on inferences from proofs and analogies [almaq¯ay¯ıs], reached the height of insolence, not to mention his unbounded ignorance?” [trans. Nemoy, Anthology, p. 58]); \ ]B  H!; !  H!A 1YB  FIU  AM ((! 8 " ="  E 3 Z ^ _ 9 !O D8 ! ` I+  1I$ a( " S ! > => H!I = = (!)H! (!)H  Jc => 1   d C =+ A 4O (“Having thus explained the validity of reasoning, of the results yielded by rational and well-organized proofs, and of philosophical postulates built upon the science of analogy [#ilm al-qiy¯as], let us move on to discuss, before beginning with the commentary proper, those necessary preliminary things pertaining to the explanation of the meaning of Scripture and the interpretation of its seeming ambiguities” [trans. adapted from Nemoy, Anthology, p. 59]. For an example of Yefet’s explicit endorsement of qiy¯as and ijtih¯ad see Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, I, pp. 86–89; II, pp. 164–65; Hussain, Job, pp. xxvii; cviii–cix, n. 22; 6. It is also worth noting that the ben Joseph ha-Yerushalmi, whose approach is, 14th century Rabbanite exegete Tanhum . in our opinion, as rationalistic/literary-contextual as Yefet’s, also makes use of qiy¯as (cf., e.g., his comment ad Esth. 9:19, cited on p. 292, n. 632 below). See also, in general, BenShammai, “Trends,” p. 346. On the equivalency of ijtih¯ad (lit. “exerting oneself ”) and qiy¯as, see al-Sh¯afi#¯ı, Ris¯ala, pp. 288–303; Bernand, “Kiy¯ . as,” pp. 240a–241a; and Schacht, “Idjtih¯ad,” p. 1026a. 17 Cf. Ben-Sasson, “Character,” p. 9. 18 íéðù àìå ãçà ïåøúô åì ùé àø÷îá øùà øáã ìëì (Marmorstein, p. 196). See also alQ¯umis¯ı’s comment ad Mal. 2:9 (Markon, Commentary, p. 78): íéæáð íëúà éðô éúîù éðà íâå ¨ éøåú ìà éô úàìéåàúìà íúòôø íëðà ®äøåúá íéðô íúàùð éë ïòé íéåâä éðéòá íéìôùå íúøîà éë ¬ä äøåúä ïåøúôá íéðô òùúå íéòáøà ùé éë (“And so I have set my face against you (that you might be) despised and base in the eyes of the Gentiles, for you have promoted modes [p¯anîm] in the Torah—i.e., you have ascribed many interpretations to the Torah [i.e., to the same passage], for you have said there are forty-nine ‘modes’ [p¯anîm] [see the following note] by which to interpret the Torah”). Both of these are cited by Frank, Search, pp. 5, n. 19; 45.

yefet’s exegesis of esther

17

based interpretations and exegetical traditions of the Rabbanites19 and in no way precludes the ascription of more than one motive or reason to the biblical utterance or event from which a “single interpretation” is culled.20 Indeed, given the causal complexity of any real human undertaking, such speculation is all but required of any rationalistic approach to biblical exegesis that maintains the essential historicity of the persons and events described. Not surprisingly—though nonetheless notably—, such multifaceted speculation (whether innovated or recycled) is typical of Yefet, as exemplified by his comment concerning Mordecai’s swift dispatch of the king’s couriers in 8:10b: By (sending them out in the manner described,) Mordecai intended two things, the first of which was that the (new) report would not come late to the (Jewish) people who were in the utmost parts of the king’s realm so that they would be killed before the letters came to them; and the second was that their mourning and the futility which they felt would cease and sexual abandon might be forsworn.21

The two motives that Yefet offers in this comment for the swift dispatch should not be confused with his fundamental “interpretation” of the act Cf., e.g., al-Q¯umis¯ı’s deprecation, cited in the previous note, of manifold interpretation specifically in connection with the 49 “modes” of interpretation mentioned in y. San. iv.2 (21b; cf. also Num. Rab. xiii.15): íìåò ìù åðåáø åéðôì øîà äùî ìà §ä øáãéå íòè äî 19

àäúù éãë åáééç ïéáééçîä åáø åëæ ïéëæîä åáø úåèäì íéáø éøçà åì øîà äëìää àéä êàéä éðòéãåä 姧ìâãå ïééðéî øåäè íéðô 觧îå àîè íéðô 觧î úùøãð äøåúä. 20 Nor does this preclude the application of different, albeit rational, methods of interpretation, as evinced by Salmon in his introduction to the Song of Songs (trans., with slight modification, and text per Frank, Search, pp. 150 and n. 24, 293–94): àîì ¨ ôìúë˙ î ãàáòìà ñôðà éô ìàîòàìà ïà éøàáìà íåìòî éô ÷áñ ®àçðà §â éìò äáàúë ìæð ä ˙ àìàë êàã˙ [åçøùé] àîìòìà ˙âàúçé éã˙ ìà õ˙ çîìà øäàè˙ ìà àäðî ìåàìà éäðìàå øîàìàå øàáë ˙ ìé àîìòìà ˙&âàúçé éã˙ ìà õ˙ çîìà ïèàáìà éðàú˙ ìàå ®ãéòåìàå ãòåìàå çøù éô åôèìéå äéðàòî åöë ˙ î ïôìà àã˙ äå êìã˙ éìò áàåú˙ ìà ïî æåôìà åìàðéì äãéàåô øàäè˙ à éô íäñôðà åãëéå äö˙ àøâà ìú ˙ ìàú˙ ìà åçðìàå ®äøéñôú éìò ìîòð éã˙ ìà íéøéùä øéù äãö÷ íìòé àì ïèàá ìâ˙å æò äìæðé éçå åä ú ˙ î êìã˙ äéáð ãé éìò äçøùé çøùá àìà (“Since §âå åîøëì éãåã úøéù éãéãéì àð äøéùà äìå÷ ìú the Creator anticipated that actions vary in (the effects they produce) upon human souls, He revealed His scripture in (one of) three modes [anh. ¯a"]. The first is the purely exoteric [al-z¯ . ahir al-mah. d. ], which scholars need explain only literally, such as narratives, commandments and prohibitions, promises and threats. Second is the purely esoteric [al-b¯a.tin al-mah. d. ]; scholars must summarize its contents and explain its purposes with subtlety, exerting themselves to reveal its benefits in order to obtain some reward thereby. The Song of Songs, in whose interpretation we are engaged, belongs to this type. The third mode is an esoteric revelation [wah. y yunazziluhu #azza wa-jalla b¯a.tinan] whose significance can only be known via an explanation given by Him through His prophet, as in His statement, Let me sing of my well-beloved, a song of my beloved touching his vineyard, etc. [Isaiah 5:1]”). 21 Translation, p. 285; text, p. 50*.

18

chapter two

itself. Both motives presume the same single act, which latter is clearly determined by the linguistic-contextual features of the text alone—to wit, that the couriers were sent out impelled on swift steeds (see the tarjama ad loc.). Having established the meaning—that is to say, the interpretation—of the text on a linguistic level, Yefet’s rationalism compels him to deduce the motive or motives underlying the act so indicated,22 his probable course of reasoning in this instance falling easily into the following syllogistic schema: i. Mordecai would only have hastened the couriers in order to obviate the onset or continuation of something undesirable. ii. That which, on a national level, would have been undesirable to Mordecai (and within his power to affect) was a) the destruction of his people per Haman’s unmitigated decree, and b) the general despondency of his people in the face of impending genocide and their consequent laxness with regard to pure living. iii. Mordecai must therefore have hastened the couriers in order to obviate these two things that were undesirable to him. Whether or not this syllogism was precisely so formulated by Yefet, it is evident that deductive reasoning—in this instance, specifically, qiy¯as al-burh¯an (demonstrative syllogism)23—played an essential role in his exegesis. That the same holds true for analogical reasoning—i.e., qiy¯as in its more common sense24—may be gathered from Yefet’s following comment ad 9:28: Regarding the statement, And these days are remembered and observed (íéøëæð íéùòðå)—(the writer) recalls by these two (participles) two expressions previously mentioned in connection with the Sabbath, as per the statement, Remember (øåëæ) the Sabbath day (Exod. 20:8), and as it also says, to observe (úåùòì) the Sabbath day (Deut. 5:15). Thus the obligation (to observe) these two days became like the rest of (Israel’s religious) obligations.25

Schematically represented, Yefet’s reasoning is as follows: i. The verbal roots øëæ and äùò are employed in connection with the observance of the Sabbath, which is a religious obligation (wuj¯ub). ii. The same two roots are employed in connection with the observance of Purim. 22 See also the multiple motives posited by Yefet in his comments ad 4:4 (trans., p. 243), and 8:9ff. (trans., p. 285). 23 See Hallaq, “Qiy¯as,” p. 302. 24 Cf. Bernand, “Kiy¯ . as,” p. 238b; Hallaq, “Qiy¯as,” p. 288; Lane, Lexicon, p. 2578a. 25 Translation, p. 306; text, p. 59*.

yefet’s exegesis of esther

19

iii. Purim, like the Sabbath, must therefore hold the status of a religious obligation (wuj¯ub). Such analogical reasoning—specifically vis-à-vis the use of identical or similar phraseology (linguistic intertextuality)—is, of course, an ubiquitous feature of rabbinic exegesis. Among Yefet and his peers of the Karaite “golden age,” however, such reasoning was necessarily informed by the rational limitations of context (chronology, geography, etc.), whereas among the rabbinic exegetes—excluding, in large part, the oriental Rabbanites, who in this respect shared the approach of their Karaite counterparts—such limitations were often largely ignored. Thus, for instance, in an early exegetical tradition ascribed to R. Simeon/Shimon,26 the “wise men who knew the times” (éòãé íéîëç íéúòä) in 1:13 are identified as “the tribe of Issachar” since a similar phrase (íéúòì äðéá éòãåé) is applied to them in 1 Chron. 12:33.27 With Yefet, however, such analogical reasoning could hardly find acceptance, being obviated by several contextual-rational considerations—viz., 1) the indication in v. 14 that these “wise men” were at the forefront of the Persian-Median nobility and royal administration, 2) the unlikelihood of Jewish men being so intimately acquainted with the Persian úã ïéãå (explained by Yefet as “the judicial process of the Persians, as well as their laws and statutes”28), and 3) the unlikelihood that all the Persian king’s advisors were Jewish—much less from the same Jewish tribe. Further underscoring Yefet’s essentially rationalistic, rather than strictly literalistic, approach to exegesis is his not infrequent recognition of non-literal meaning—in most instances, specifically, idiomatic or figurative language—where the literal meaning would pose a theological or contextual-rational difficulty. In this respect Yefet is, again, fully in step with his peers,29 among whom this exegetical qualification is perhaps most clearly expressed by al-Qirqis¯an¯ı as the second of his thirty-seven “principles” (us. ¯ul) of exegesis: Scripture as a whole is (to be interpreted) in accord with its literal meaning, except where its literal meaning involves something objectionable 26

Apparently, the fourth generation Tanna Shimon ben Yohai. . Ab. Gur. ad loc.: ìù åèáù äæ [ïåòîù ºà§§ð] ïåîéñ §ø øîà ®íéúòä éòãåé íéîëçì êìîä øîàéå íéúòì äðéá éòãåé øëùùé éðáîå øîàðù øëùùé; Esth. Rab. iv.2: íéúòä éòãé íéîëçì êìîä øîàéå 27

äùòé äî úòãì íéúòì äðéá éòãåé øëùùé éðáîå 㧧ää øëùùé ìù åèáù äæ ïåîéñ §ø øîà åéä éî §åâå §åâå ìàøùé. See also Tg. Esth. I ad loc.: àòãðîá ïéîéëçã øëùùéã éåðá àéîéëçì àëìî øîàå ®®® àúéøåà øôñá àéðîéæå àééðãéòã. 28 29

Translation, p. 185; text, p. 13*. Cf. Polliack, “Trends,” pp. 379–80; Skoss, Genesis, pp. 37–38.

20

chapter two or implies a contradiction. Only in such as these or similar cases which demand a departure from the literal meaning—e.g., where a preceding or following passage requires it—does it become necessary to depart from the literal meaning.30

One such example of non-literal interpretation is Yefet’s comment concerning the “light” (äøåà) in 8:16: As to the statement, there was light—this is because their state was similar to the state of him who is in black darkness, yet when the second letters were written the darkness and dismay left them, and in place of their sorrow they took hold of joy and gladness, and in place of their being debased by their enemies their prestige was displayed.31

Though clearly non-literal, it cannot be claimed that Yefet’s interpretation of “light” here is free,32 for his reasoning is still bound by the strictures of context; the “light” is explained in accord with the literal signification of the following words, “and joy and gladness and prestige” (ø÷éå ïùùå äçîùå). Indeed, Yefet is explicating that which, in this instance, is in most cases no doubt intuitively perceived by the reader, such contextually-delineated figurative language being a normative convention of otherwise literal, human communication. Another aspect of Yefet’s exegesis usually subsumed under non-literal interpretation is his use of the method known as “prognostication” or, as we shall hereafter refer to it, “actualization”—that is, the application of predictive passages to events and people of the commentator’s own period, including recent history and the impending future (often with specific attention to the Karaite movement).33 Thus, for example,

Cited, with modification, from Nemoy, Anthology, p. 60. Arabic text (per Hirschfeld, Qirqis¯an¯ı, pp. 43–44):  D 8 " (!)FR$  a   T " N - ef  3 N - => N;  d C 30

78 F gU ahD N A C  ahD F(   1c 78  6 Zi  F gU _ N!W  78  6 > FU j 3 Qk! l! . See also al-Qirqis¯an¯ı’s fourth principle advocating the

figurative construal of anthropomorphic representations of God (Hirschfeld, Qirqis¯an¯ı, pp. 25–26, 45–46; Nemoy, Anthology, pp. 63–64). 31 Translation, p. 287; text, p. 51*. 32 Cf. Skoss (Genesis, pp. 37–38), who, inaccurately in our view (for the same reasons discussed in connection with Yefet), describes similar comments by #Al¯ı ibn Sulaym¯an as “free interpretations”—e.g., his comment ad Gen. 2:17 (ibid., p. 123): êìëà í[åéá] éë ˙ à úòãä õò ïî äì[ëà] íåé éô úåîìà ÷à÷çúñà äàðòî [úåîú úåî] åðîî íåé éô úîé íì ìëà àîì ã äìëà (“for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die—the meaning of this is that (he will) become subject to death in the day that he eats from the tree of knowledge, for when he ate he did not die in the day of his eating”). 33 See, e.g., Frank, Search, pp. 16–18; 165–203 (et passim); Polliack, “Trends,” pp. 379– 88, 393–94; Polliack & Schlossberg, “Prophets,” pp. 6–9.

yefet’s exegesis of esther

21

he explains the prediction “And at the time of the end (õ÷ úòáå) shall the king of the south push at him” (Dan. 11:40) in connection with the relatively recent Byzantine capture of #Ayn Zarba (962 C.E.), Tarsus (965), and Antioch (968) from the Muslims.34 Such actualization, it may be noted—especially as illustrated by the present example concerning “the time of the end”—, is consistent with the messianic-eschatological orientation of the Jerusalem Karaites,35 and so should not be construed in every instance as a type of non-literal interpretation. Yefet, like his fellow “Mourners of Zion,”36 sincerely believed that the literal fulfillment of these biblical predictions lay in their general period of history, the last part of which period was identified with “the time of the end”;37 where, therefore, the fulfillment of a particular prediction is not clearly delimited by historically specific content, these exegetes could quite

34 Margoliouth, Daniel, p. mm: nU n A$ =  + o =" áâðä êìî 1A"  "I  - $

A CE j n A"T   = $ H!  7E H'o L> S;I H!D M+ LM 'qr  Qj " Q (“A portion of the activity of the king of the south has already been realized in our

time—i.e., certain battles have taken place wherein he has taken from the Muslims’ frontiers Antioch, Tarsus, #Ayn Zarba and that region; yet aside from these there still remain other conflicts to arise between them”). For the dates of capture given above see idem, p. vi; Schenker, “Danielkommentars,” p. 19. As regards the Karaites specifically, cf. Yefet’s comment ad Song 5:7 (Frank, Search, pp. 162–63 [trans.], 297–98 [text]), which entire book he construes—less rationally, to be sure (albeit cf. Salmon’s second “mode” of interpretation cited above on p. 17, n. 20)—as a predictive allegory. 35 Cf. Astren, Understanding, pp. 66–98; Erder, “Mourners”; Ben-Sasson, “Character,” pp. 9–10; Frank, Search, p. 13; Gil, History, pp. 804–5; Mann, Texts, pp. 5–6; Nemoy, “Karaites,” p. 606b; and especially the parallels to the messianically-eschatologically oriented Dead Sea Sect discussed by Erder, “Sects”; Wieder, “Exegesis”; idem, “Sectaries”; and idem, Scrolls, pp. 95–127. See also the anonymous extract from a Karaite commentary on the Psalms published by Mann, Texts, p. 68, 100–2, in which the messianic age is calculated to arrive just a little bit after (äìåàâì èòî øàùðå) the commentary’s composition in 1336 Sel./1024 C.E. Such intense messianism, on the other hand, may well have been the exception, as suggested to the present author in a written communication from Prof. Polliack dated January 24, 2006: “In a recent discussion with Fred Astren we both concluded that the messianic element among the second generation Jerusalem Karaites was much less than we previously conceived—this is mainly due to their economic strength and other factors recently discussed in [Marina] Rustow’s PhD.” 36 ïåéö éìáà, on which self-applied title see, inter alios, Astren, Understanding, pp. 78–79; Ben-Shammai, “Mourners”; Erder, “Mourners”; Nemoy, “Karaites,” p. 606b; Wieder, Scrolls, pp. 126, 202–3. 37 That Yefet did not consider this time as having actually arrived may be inferred from, inter alia, his comment ad Ps. 74:9 (“There is no more any prophet; neither is there among us any who knows how long!”), which he interprets as an actualized lament concerning the absence of a ma´skîl to pinpoint for his people “the time of the end” (úò õ÷; Dan. 12:9) (see Frank, Search, p. 181).

22

chapter two

reasonably “actualize” that prediction by application of a literal interpretive method.38 In his commentary on Esther, however, there is hardly room for such actualization, since the book is entirely narrative and non-predictive. Nonetheless, in his introduction to the book Yefet appears to posit, by a sudden shift from the perfect to the imperfect verbal form, a clear, corporate connection between the Diaspora of his day and that of the biblical narrative. Each is an “expression” of the same historically transcendent (and primarily Rabbanite) ethnos39 which, by continuing in the commission of grave sins (dhun¯ub kib¯ar), will continue to experience national hardships (shad¯a"id) intended to induce them to repent: (Israel’s worship of idols and stars) was likewise (undertaken) in the rest of the lands of the Gentiles, though it ceased during the first of the Four Kingdoms—that is, the kingdom of the Chaldeans—after which they worshipped the idols no more. There are, however, (other) grave sins which they (i.e., the Rabbanites) practice (ya #mal¯unah¯a), such as astrology, seeking omens, augury, sorcery, sexual immorality, profanation of the Sabbath, and the like, and thus they are rendered culpable by these throughout the time of the Diaspora until they forsake them. Sometimes, moreover, they are excessive (yufri.t¯una) in their sins, and therefore God incites hardships against them at various times which prompt them to return to God in one fashion or another.40

On a more general level, whether extending to actualization or constrained to strict description of past history, Yefet’s exegesis may be divided into two distinct, overall foci—to wit, internally focused exegesis, which concerns the content of the text (i.e., what the text communicates, as delineated by historical and socio-political features, etc.), and externally focused exegesis, which concerns the form of the text (i.e., how the text communicates, as delineated by style, structure, literary and editorial concerns).41 While these two foci, to be sure, are hardly unique 38 Even where a prediction does contain historically specific content, it is not clear to us that actualization by Yefet is necessarily indicative of a non-literal approach, since the groups involved, such as the Jewish people, may well have been viewed as a historically transcendent ethnos (see below). 39 This concept of historically transcendent “corporate identity” is, of course, well attested in rabbinic thought, perhaps most notably in the Passover liturgy (e.g., ad the Four Sons). 40 Translation, pp. 160–62; text, pp. 4*–5*. 41 An alternative, though not fundamentally different, delineation of Yefet’s exegesis into three major foci is advanced by Polliack (“Trends,” p. 395)—viz., 1) “Questions per-

yefet’s exegesis of esther

23

among exegetes of that period to either Yefet or the Karaites generally, our commentator is nonetheless distinguished by the insightfulness and, to a certain degree, innovativeness which marks his awareness and discussion of various aspects pertaining to each. In the first instance, as regards internally focused exegesis, we see that Yefet is highly concerned, if not preoccupied, with reconstructing the historical background of the narrative. Thus, for example, in his extensive comment ad 1:1—which is essentially a continuation of his introduction42—he commences with a discussion of the royal succession to which Ahasuerus belongs, identifying each king in that succession from Nebuchadnezzar to Artaxerxes the Great43 and connecting each one to a major event or circumstance which is clearly intended to assist the reader in properly placing that king within the span of (biblical) history. In a similar vein, Yefet devotes a significant amount of space in his commentary ad 1:2–11 to a detailed reconstruction of the second banquet scene, explaining how the elliptically mentioned items in verse six were actually arranged. Quite innovatively he avers that there was not only an overhead canopy to protect the guests from “the starkness of night and day” (kashf layl wa-nah¯ar), but also that the area underneath this canopy was divided into several “sitting areas” (maj¯alis), each of which was separated from the others by curtains stretched from pillar to pillar. To this description Yefet adds (ad v. 11)—no doubt reflecting (per qiy¯as), to a certain extent anachronistically, the oriental architecture and custom of his day44—that the king’s “sitting area” (majlis) was at a higher level than those of his guests, overlooking the courtyard in which they were located.45 Particular testimony both to the extent of Yefet’s interest in the historical matrix of the biblical narrative as well as to his deductive taining to the historical background,” 2) “Identification of patterns of expression typical of biblical literature, as well as wider structural characteristics,” and 3) “Reconstruction of the editorial process behind the formation of the biblical text.” 42 On this practice of extending the introduction into the commentary see Simon, p. 72. 43 Viz., Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Belshazzar, Darius the Mede, Cyrus, Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes the Lesser, Darius the Persian, and Artaxerxes the Great, on which enumeration see pp. 166–67, n. 40 below. 44 Cf. the discussion of the majlis in Goitein, Society, IV, pp. 48, 63–69, and esp. p. 71: “The height of a room was conditioned by its function. A spacious majlis had to be lofty, the small adjacent rooms would have looked odd if they had been of the same height.” 45 For other medieval (Karaite and Rabbanite) depictions of the second banquet scene see Walfish, Esther, pp. 103–7, and pp. 177–78, nn. 87 & 88 below.

24

chapter two

acumen in reconstructing that matrix may be found in the brief statement with which he opens his commentary ad 3:12–15: “(The mudawwin) indicates that Haman hastily summoned the king’s scribes, with whose scripts the governors of the provinces were familiar (alladh¯ı ya#rifu umar¯a" al-buld¯an khu.t¯u.tahum).” In contrast to the two examples of reconstruction cited in the preceding paragraph, both of which are intended to clarify explicitly mentioned features of the narrative (i.e., the reign of Ahasuerus and the second banquet scene), the second part of this introductory comment finds no apparent exegetical justification. Whether or not the governors were familiar with the royal scribes’ scripts is irrelevant—and that they were so familiar can hardly have been intended by Yefet as a reason for Haman’s recourse to these scribes, seeing that their involvement in the mass publication of a royal edict would have been a matter of course. Indeed, Yefet’s commencement of this clause with the relative pronoun alladh¯ı is more reasonably suggestive of parenthetical rather than causal import, for the latter of which one would have expected him to employ the conjuction li-anna, as he typically does in such instances. Notwithstanding, however, its interpretive irrelevance, this comment belies a marked awareness—no doubt deductively achieved (again, per qiy¯as)—of administrative culture, for it is now known that the royal scribes of ancient Persia—as of Assyria and Babylonia—did indeed employ a distinctive “formal cursive” script which would have been familiar to administrators throughout the empire.46 Religious aspects of the narrative matrix are also treated by Yefet, who, in a significant display of his breadth of knowledge, explicitly— and uniquely, as far as we can tell, among the medieval Jewish exegetes—posits a Mazdean-Dualist theological motivation for the king’s decree concerning the worship of Haman: Regarding (Haman’s) statement, neither do they observe the king’s laws (3:8)— this refers to what the king commanded concerning prostration before Haman, though (the reason for) it is not recorded—to wit, that some of the Persians believed that the Divine Light (al-n¯ur) had certain active manifestations (af#¯al), and therefore, when they saw someone who was attractive and intelligent, they would opine that something of the Divine

46 See Naveh, “Script,” p. 343b: “The standards were fixed by the royal scribes, who wrote in a conservative formal cursive style. Everybody who learned to write was taught to follow the standard calligraphy of the formal cursive script but practically only the scribes adhered to the scribal rules.”

yefet’s exegesis of esther

25

Light existed within him, and so they would deem fit to worship him in a special fashion.47

Yefet’s rationalism is also manifest in the rather innovative extent to which he integrates character analysis and psychology into his exegesis. In contrast to the tendency attested in prior rabbinic exegesis towards approaching biblical characters as “mono-dimensional icons,”48 Yefet approaches them more soberly as individuals who are both multidimensional and psychologically complex. Though God remains sovereign over the events of the biblical narrative, the individuals concerned therein, being possessed of free will (i.e., ikhtiy¯ar, or qadar in the Mu#tazilite sense49), make choices and behave, whether for good or for bad, in accordance with reasons particular to them. Fostered, no doubt, by a somewhat homiletical, or “applicational,” tendency on Yefet’s part, these reasons—that is to say, the “why” of textual content as well as the “what” thereof—are consequently reckoned by him as an essential component of the interpretive “target.” The result is a “humanization” of the characters that permits—and, indeed, encourages—a more ready empathy and, as the case may be, emulation on the part of the reader. The actions undertaken by Mordecai and Esther are, in the end, no greater (or worse) than those that fall within the potential capacity of any man or woman.50 Thus, for example, Yefet writes

47 Translation, pp. 222–23; text, p. 25*. Cf. Zaehner, Magi, pp. 23, 35–41, as well as, inter alios, al-Shahrast¯an¯ı, Milal, II, p. 75 (on the beliefs of the Manichaeans): —' .  4h*  !s FA" 0H! > HA" + H!C HD &!j F+ 06M  … D 1] "  N U t EB  a 6  g!E  '  (“As regards the Divine Light—its substance is pleasing, distinguished, noble, … and attractive; its essence is good, honorable, intelligent, beneficial, and sublime; its active manifestations [fi#luhu] are goodness, righteousness, usefulness, happiness, orderliness, coherence, and concordance”). 48 Zawanowska, “Approach,” part two. 49 See Gimaret, “Mu#tazila,” p. 790a, and, inter alios, al-Shahrast¯ an¯ı, Milal, I, p. 62, on “the doctrine of qadar” ('    ) per W¯as.il ibn At.a¯ ":  ou B ,T > !C 3 AE `' I

,F!>  o u r , k!O  !> C^  ,  vhj T IA    ou B ,- O F!G v R 3 AE d  ,FA" => `o KM   ,H!*AM  H> M  C  , B  ,J  ![ 1>   IA " FD 78 => N' $ (“The Creator—May He be exalted!—is wise and just. It is impossible that evil and injustice should be attributed to Him; nor is it possible that He should desire of humanity that which is contrary to what He has commanded, or decide something for them and then requite them for such. Therefore man is the agent of good and evil, belief and unbelief, obedience (to God) and disobedience; and he will indeed be requited for his deeds, for the Lord—May He be exalted!—has given him power over all of this”). On the strong similarities between Yefet’s dogma and that of the Mu#tazilites see section II.3 below. 50 Cf. Zawanowska, “Approach,” part four.

26

chapter two

concerning Esther’s hesitancy to go to the king and Mordecai’s response (4:10–14): (One of her obstacles) was that it was not permissible for her to meet with the king except at the time he would be sitting in his court in the inner residence, and that if she went to him there apart from him summoning her she was concerned for herself that she would be put to death—and then, for neither Mordecai nor for her, would their goal be achieved concerning the removal of the decree from (the Jews) … (yet) she still desired that (Mordecai) would bear patiently with her until another time, whereupon, perhaps, the king would request her and it would then be possible for her to speak. However, when Mordecai heard this, he sharply sent back to her his reply, not because Esther was really saying to herself that the Jews would perish while she and all the Jews who were in the king’s residence would be spared, or because she was (only) concerned about the family of her father’s house, but rather because he wanted to provoke her greatly.51

The psychological complexity—i.e., the true humanness—of Mordecai and Esther is here highlighted by Yefet via two notable deductions— to wit, 1) though initially recalcitrant, Esther was not flatly resolved to ignore the situation,52 or to save only herself and her household, but rather she was at once determined to do something, albeit at a more opportune time; and 2) Mordecai, in a not uncommon parental move, intentionally overshot the mark and attributed wrong motives to Esther in order to prompt her to undertake immediately that which he knew she was already willing to do, provided the time was the most opportune.53 In consequence of this rationalistic-psychological approach, moreover, Esther is assigned a much more active—and hence positive—role by Yefet than that attested in prior rabbinic literature, where she is typically treated as a fairly passive participant.54 Perhaps the most evident—and, in the first instance, most innovative—examples of this are to be found at the end of his commentary ad 6:14–7:10, in an excursus regarding two interpretive “cruxes” (mas¯a"il).55 The first of Translation, pp. 243–44; text, pp. 32*–33*. Thus, e.g., Salmon, for whose comment ad loc. see p. 244, n. 412 below. 53 See also, referring to the present author’s translation, Polliack, “Esther,” fifth paragraph under “Yefet ben Eli.” 54 See, e.g., b. San. 74b: äúéä íìåò ò÷ø÷ øúñà ééáà øîà ¬éàåä àéñäøô øúñà àäå, and the comment thereon by Rashi; Grossfeld, Two Targums, p. 155, n. 15; and Walfish, Esther, pp. 39–40. Note also the emphasis upon Esther’s obedience to Mordecai in both targums ad 2:20. 55 Translation, pp. 271–73; text, pp. 44*–45*. 51 52

yefet’s exegesis of esther

27

these is, as expressed by Yefet, “whether this undertaking of Esther (i.e., the events from 4:15–7:6) was on her own, on the advice of Mordecai, or on the part of God.” He then answers, quite resolutely, that the undertaking was on Esther’s own initiative, for “she possessed merit and forethought and had no need for the advice of another,”—though he concedes the possibility that God may have “prompted her” to it in a dream. Yefet goes on to assert that even Esther’s deferment of her request to the second banquet—which is often explained as the result of trepidation of lack of nerve on her part—was premeditated, the novelty of which assertion may be highlighted by juxtaposing Yefet’s words on this topic with those of the great Rabbanite rationalist-exegete Abraham Ibn Ezra in his second commentary on Esther: Yefet

Ibn Ezra

(Esther’s) words (of petition) are carried over during the deferment of (the banquet) from day to day—that is to say, from the first day to the second day—concerning which we would maintain that she did not consider it proper to present (the king) with two requests in one day. Thus, on the first day she invited him, and when he inquired of her she said to him, as it were, “If the king is content, I will relate to him my desire tomorrow,” (the intention of) which was also that the king’s heart might become preoccupied with fulfilling her desire. Such is the case if she undertook this on her own counsel.56

It may be asked why Esther did not say to the king at the first banquet that which she said on the second day. The answer is that she was greatly afraid on account of Haman’s eminent status and feared that she would put her life in danger and bring no benefit to her people. She perceived, moreover, that, while the Jews in Susa had fasted, God had not accepted their fast since she saw no sign of acceptance. And so she delayed the matter, thinking, “Perhaps God will yet give heed to our prayer.” When, therefore, she saw that Haman had begun to fall, the fear left her and she said, This wicked Haman …! 57

The second crux concerns the distinctive omission from the book of God’s name. Among the several options offered by Yefet, one (the second), attributed by him to “(other) people” (qawm), is that the mudawwin copied it from the text which Esther wrote, and that in Esther’s letter there was no mention of the name of God, for she

56 57

Translation, pp. 271–72; text, pp. 44*–45*. For the Hebrew text see p. 272, n. 537 below.

28

chapter two disdained the idea that the scroll might fall into the hands of a people other than Israel and they would attribute the work of God to the work of another (god).58

While this basic premise (i.e., that God’s name was intentionally omitted to preempt its substitution by the name of a pagan deity) is also attested, prior to Yefet, by Saadia—to whom, indeed, the former may be alluding by his “(other) people”—, the latter attributes the initial writing of the book, and hence the wisdom of omitting the divine name, to Mordecai,59 whereas Yefet attributes such to Esther.60 In this, as in his answer to the previous crux, Yefet exhibits an atypical depth, or “balance,” in his exegesis, borne not of a prescient feminism but of a careful attention to psychology and logical inference extending from a highly developed rationalistic, or literary-contextual, hermeneutic.61 As regards externally focused exegesis—i.e., determining how the literary form of the text affects its meaning/interpretation—, Yefet’s comments, and one of his primary exegetical innovations, devolve upon the activity of the mudawwin62 (generally, “writer,” albeit see below). The first extant usage of this nomen agentis in connection with the composition of the Hebrew Bible is implicitly attested by Yefet’s earlier contemporary

Translation, pp. 272–73; text, p. 45*. So per Ibn Ezra, Comm. B ad 4:14 (éëãøîì äåö êìîä éë áéùä 짧æ äéãòñ áø ïåàâäå äìâîä §åúëéù), though in the extant portion of his commentary Saadia refers only generally to “those who believe” (ïéðîåî[ìà]; for the full text of both see p. 273, n. 539 below). 60 According to Yefet, 9:20a (äìàä íéøáãä úà éëãøî áúëéå) refers “to the letters which he wrote to (the Jews) in the year following the affair,” and not to the writing of the book itself (on which latter cf., e.g., Rashi: àéäù úåîë úàæä äìâîä àéä). 61 Cf. Polliack, “Esther,” seventh paragraph under “Yefet ben Eli”: “How can we explain this exegesis? Certainly the Karaites were no more feminists than other Jews in the Muslim world? I think it’s a result of their developed linguistic-contextual and literary approach to Scripture, which led to a deeper acknowledgement of the process behind its authorship. This type of pre-modern scientific thinking on the crystallization of the Hebrew Bible led inter alia to a positive view of Esther, which is … easily reconciled—if not paradoxically inspired—by some aspects of the Talmudic reading of Esther’s character.” 62 In a few, rare instances Yefet uses the form muhk¯ı (“storyteller, narrator”) as an . apparent synonym of mudawwin in its predominant sense of “narrator” (see Polliack, “Voice,” section V, last paragraph, and our discussion below). Notably, the concept of an “editor” or “narrator,” variously denoted by the Hebrew terms ïøãñ¬ ïøãåñ, and øãñî, is also attested by several medieval Rabbanite commentators in Byzantium, Germany, and northern France, and may have been influenced, to a certain degree, by this earlier Karaite conception of the mudawwin. See Brin, “Composition;” idem, “Hassadr¯an” (esp. p. 295, n. 14); Harris, “Awareness;” and Steiner, “Redaction.” 58 59

yefet’s exegesis of esther

29

al-Qirqis¯an¯ı, who, in discussing the first of his thirty-seven “principles” of exegesis, asserts that “Moses—peace be upon him—is the one who wrote down (dawwana) this Torah … as he says, And Moses wrote this Torah, etc. (Deut. 31:9).”63 As noted by Polliack, while al-Qirqis¯an¯ı— followed, apparently, by his younger contemporary Salmon b. Yer¯uham . 64—employs the Arabic verb dawwana as a semantic equivalent of the Hebrew verb k¯atab in its technical sense of “write down,” “record,” or “copy,” in affirmation of the rabbinic doctrine that “Moses recorded the entire text of the Torah whose wording was revealed to him by God on Sinai,” the hermeneutical context in which he expresses this principle nonetheless bears out a distinction in his view between the role of God and the role of Moses—to wit, that whereas the essential content, or “words” were revealed by God, Moses, as the mudawwin, Al-Qirqis¯an¯ı, Tafs¯ır, p. 43: NQ (T `Q   F!> =; + (!; (!I+  A+  gu p. 358. Sh¯ah¯ın (b. ca. 990) in his Kit¯ab f¯ı "l-faraj ba #da "l-shidda (Obermann, Hibbûr, p. 4 and Plate V): . ˙ î ïwåãî åä àî éåñ àäðî åâ˙øôúå àäéô åðàë ä¨ ÷éö˙ éô òîâ˙à ä¨ îàìì éøâ˙ ú˙ éãç øëã˙ ïî äéìë˙ à àì ìú ¨ òáøàìà äðîö˙ ú àî øéàñå éàðîùç éðá úìâîå øúñà úìâî àáàìà éìò éøâ˙ àîî àøôñ ïéøùòå ä ˙ îìà ïî ïéìåàìàå (“Nor shall I refrain from mentioning any àäðî åâ˙øôúå ãéàãùìàå ÷éàö event which befell the entire nation with respect to the distress in which they found themselves and the relief which they were (subsequently) granted therefrom, except for that which has already been recorded [mudawwan], like the scroll of Esther, and the scroll of the Hasmonaeans [i.e., ñëåéèðà úìâî, on which see Saadia, Daniel, pp. 219–33], and the rest [hardly implying the canonicity of the latter scroll, and perhaps suggesting that §à úìâî and §ç §á úìâî should be inverted] of those distresses and hardships in the twenty-four books which befell the patriarchs and ancient ones and from which they were granted relief ”). 64 Salmon’s use of the root d-w-n is attested in his commentary on Esther in 1) his introduction, where he employs Form II of the root to explain the sense of Heb. kt-b in Exod. 17:14 (Mss RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 1v & RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fol. 1r): äøåúìà éô ïåãé äðà äùî øîàå ®§§÷ìîò øëæ úà äçîà äçî éë 䧧ò äùîì ìà÷å äãéà éìò ÷ìîò êàìä ïàë ïàì òùåäé íñà ïéåãúá øîàå ®®® §åâå ïåøëæ úàæ áåúë §÷ë (“(God) said to Moses …, for I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek, etc. [Exod. 17:14b], and He commanded Moses that (the initiation of this judgment) should be recorded [yudawwana] in the Pentateuch, as per His statement, Write this for a memorial, etc. [ibid.] … enjoining (thereby) the recording [tadw¯ın] of Joshua’s name [which appears in Exod. 17:8–13 for the first time in the Pentateuch] because Amalek’s destruction was (initiated) by his hand”); 2) again in his introduction, with reference to the prophetic “recording” of the book of Esther: äåðååã (“they recorded it”), for which, significantly, is also attested the variant äåáúë (see the fuller citation on p. 195, n. 2 below); and 3) his comment ad 6:6, apparently in the itfa #al stem (see Blau, Grammar, §85), to denote the explicit recording of prophetic status (Mss. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3350, fol. 22v & Yevr.-Arab. II 110, fol. 12r): éô ïåãúà ã÷ì éáð ïàë åìå èìâ àã˙ äå éáð ïàë é[ëãøî ïà (?)íéîëçìà] õ˙ òá ïè˙ ã÷ àø÷îìà (“Some of the sages have claimed that Mordecai was a prophet, though this is incorrect, for if he was a prophet it would have been recorded in Scripture”). 63

§âå úàæä äøåúä úà äùî áúëéå  8 000 & ' . See also Polliack, “Conception,” √ See also the usage of ïåã by the 11th century Rabbanite Nissim b. Jacob ibn

30

chapter two

was allowed “a certain degree of creativity in presenting God’s words in the form of a written text.”65 Rather than viewing this as a disparity in al-Qirqis¯an¯ı’s thought,66 however, we would suggest that these roles were reconciled by him—as by Yefet, who likewise held to the divine origin of Scripture67—in a manner not dissimilar to that already attested in early Christian thought, according to which the content of Scripture extends solely from the will (λημα) of God, who at the same time, and to a certain degree unfathomably, “moved” the human writer to express that will, without the smallest shade of loss, in a manner confluent with his own style and patterns of thought.68 Nonetheless, while the concept of the mudawwin as a (divinely superintended) “fashioner” of Scripture was apparently first advanced, and related to the exegetical process, by al-Qirqis¯an¯ı (and maintained by Salmon), it was, vis-à-vis all the extant literature heretofore examined, Yefet who most fully developed and applied this concept as “a fundamental tool in his textual analysis of Scripture.”69 The term itself is employed relatively frequently in Yefet’s commentaries—seven times in the one presently treated70—and, with some exceptions, implied as a matter of course as the pronominal referent of the ubiquitous quotative expression qawluhu (“his statement”). As regards semantics, the term mudawwin, depending on its context, may be intended by Yefet in one of four senses—viz., “composer,” 65 Polliack, “Conception,” pp. 358–59. See also idem, “Voice,” section I, second-tolast paragraph. Al-Qirqis¯an¯ı’s use of dawwana rather than the more precise cognate kataba may be further explained as a reflection of the understanding that Moses, while having “copied” (kataba) a revelational Urtext given to him by God, subsequently (and by divine inspiration) “fashioned” (dawwana) it into the canonical text as we have it (see further our discussion below concerning Yefet’s use of mudawwin in the sense of “copyist” in the present commentary). 66 So Polliack, “Conception,” p. 359. 67 See idem, pp. 360–62, and Simon, Approaches, p. 93. 68 Cf. 2 Peter 1:21: “no prophecy (προφητε α, here signifying any OT pericope/statement [see Bauer, Lexicon, p. 722b]) was ever made by an act of human will (ελματι νρπου), but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (π εο);” and Theophilus, Ad Autolycum ii.9 (trans. Bauckham, 2 Peter, p. 233, with slight modification): “The men of God, who were inspired by a holy influence (πνευματοφροι πνεματος γ ου) and became prophets, were inspired (μπνευσντες) and given wisdom by God himself ”; as well as the other early Christian and Hellenistic Jewish statements cited and discussed by Bauckham, ibid., pp. 228–35. 69 Polliack, “Conception,” p. 355. 70 I.e. (folios per the basic text), ad 1:1 (6v); 1:16 (17v); 4:1 (45v); the absence of God’s name (66r, after his comm. ad 7:10); 9:5 (80r); 9:25 (86r; bis). All of these passages, with the exception of that ad 4:1, are cited in the discussion below.

yefet’s exegesis of esther

31

“recorder,” “redactor,” or “narrator,” the latter two being the most common, and the last, construed as “a fictitious entity that relates the events within the text, subsuming the voice of the author or one of the characters,”71 comprising Yefet’s main exegetical innovation.72 In his present work both of these senses are predominant—and, indeed, appear in most instances to overlap (see below). In one notable instance, however, Yefet clearly intends mudawwin in the second aforementioned sense of “recorder” or “copyist”—to wit, in his discussion concerning the omission of God’s name, the second possible reason for which— attributed by him to “(other) people” (qawm)—he commences with the statement, “the mudawwin copied it (katabah¯a) from the text which Esther wrote.”73 While the technical sense of “copied” for the Arabic verb kataba is clearly appropriate to the context—as for the Hebrew cognate k¯atab in Deut. 31:9—, we would suggest that, albeit at this point left implicit, Yefet does not intend the role of this mudawwin to be viewed as merely that of a copyist. It seems to us, in other words, that Yefet is here admitting the possibility that the mudawwin, whoever he might have been, copied the text as written by Esther, which, albeit containing all the essential episodes or “scenes” of the affair, was yet “less”—i.e., not as fully developed—as the canonical book. The implication, therefore, is that the mudawwin added, and perhaps, to a certain extent, refashioned, Esther’s Urtext into a package that was more “scripturally”—i.e., pedagogically, liturgically, and, as regards the festival of Purim, etiologically—presentable to the people. It is thus, for instance, that Yefet explicitly ascribes to the mudawwin, in his comment ad 1:1, the intention (qas. d) of informing us of the matter on account of which Israel enjoined upon themselves (the continual observance of) the two days of Purim … he links the report together (salsala al-qawl) in order to point out that the king prescribed that which Esther and Mordecai had in mind concerning the matter of the annihilation of Israel’s worst enemies, and also (to show) what they received as a religious obligation on account of these two days.74

71 Polliack, “Conception,” p. 362. Such is not to say, however, that such “fictitiousness” always characterizes the mudawwin in Yefet’s commentaries on biblical narrative, as is evident from the previously cited usage in his comment ad 1:1. 72 See Polliack, “Conception,” pp. 362; idem, “Voice,” section III, last paragraph; Polliack, “Trends,” pp. 398–99; Polliack & Schlossberg, “Prophets,” pp. 26–27. 73 For the full statement see above, pp. 27–28. 74 Translation, pp. 167–68; text, pp. 6*–7*.

32

chapter two

It is in this same vein, apparently, that Yefet implicitly identifies 9:23– 28 as a summarizing statement of the mudawwin rather than Esther when he writes, ad 9:25: The mudawwin indicates that the Jews found rest from their enemies (only) when Haman as well as his sons had been impaled.75

Notwithstanding the ambiguity attending the identification of the mudawwin in these instances as either the “redactor” or the “narrator” (or both), Yefet’s crystallization of the concept and incorporation of such into the exegetical process enables him to make distinctions between the “voices” of the characters and the “voice” of the mudawwin which reflect both a keener interest in and more precise understanding of the compositional process underlying the biblical text than is otherwise attested in Rabbinic sources.76 In his comment on 9:25, for example, he distinguishes between that part of the verse which represents, on the one hand, the “voice” of the king (who, per Yefet’s construal of íò øîà øôñä, ordered the messengers to accompany each letter with the verbal statement: §åëå äòøä åúáùçî áåùé), and, on the other hand, the “voice” of the mudawwin: As to the statement, they impaled him and his sons (on the stake)—this is not (part of) the messenger’s utterance, but rather a (summarizing) comment of the mudawwin, the proof of this being that his sons were impaled eight months and twenty-two days afterwards.77

The concept of the mudawwin thus serves Yefet in resolving an exegetical difficulty—to wit, how the perfect verb åìú (“they hanged”) in the second part of the verse is to be reconciled with the fact that neither Haman nor his sons were yet impaled at the point in time indicated by äàááå (“but when she came,” which Yefet explains as a retrospective reference to Esther’s second entrance before the king in 8:3) at the beginning of the verse. This last comment also exemplifies Yefet’s recognition of another important narrative technique assigned by him to the mudawwin and designated by the term ikhtis. ¯ar (literally, “abridgment, shortening”) and its derivatives (i.e., mukhtas. ara, ukhtus. ira, etc.).78 This technique, otherTranslation, p. 303; text, p. 58*. See Polliack, “Conception,” p. 368; idem, “Voice,” section V, first paragraph. 77 Translation, p. 303; text, p. 58*. 78 The term ikhtis¯ar and its derivatives are also employed by Yefet’s younger con. temporary Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub Y¯usuf ibn N¯uh, . although strictly with reference “to the elision of letters in the morphological derivation of a word … and the elision of words from 75 76

yefet’s exegesis of esther

33

wise referred to generally as “gap-creation,”79 involves the omission or abridgment of “certain elements of a narrative span or a prophetic utterance … from the explicit written form of a story or a prophecy, but [which] are nevertheless implicit in its literary structure or pattern.”80 In his treatment of such narrative or prophetic “gaps,” moreover, Yefet usually makes a distinction between one of two basic types—viz., simple omission (the withholding of non-essential information) or delay/retardation (the revelation of essential information “at a later stage of its time-sequence, in the form of a flashback or other narrative technique”81). An example of the former is found in his comment ad 1:16, concerning the reason that only the advice of Memucan, the seventh advisor, is recorded. After first suggesting that this was because the advisors were on a rotation system, and on this occasion it was Memucan’s turn to advise the king, he offers the following, alternate explanation: or perhaps each one uttered his opinion and none but the utterance of Memucan was pleasing to them, and therefore the mudawwin mentioned him to the exclusion of the others.82

It may be noted that Yefet does not in this instance employ the term ikhtis. ¯ar or any of its derivatives, though the technique itself is clearly implied—just as it is in his comment ad 2:19, in which he retrospectively identifies an instance of the latter type of gap-creation (i.e., delay/retardation): (The mudawwin) then says, And when the virgins were gathered together sˇ¯enît, (concerning which) that which is expressed in my translation of this verse is most likely—namely, that (the mudawwin) is referring to the time when a verse” (Khan, Diqduq, p. 147; see also ibid., pp. 128–31, and Polliack & Schlossberg, “Prophets,” p. 33, as well as, noting the usage of the term in Qur"¯anic exegesis in a sense similar to that of ibn N¯uh, . Polliack, “Conception,” p. 364, n. 34; idem, “Trends,” p. 404, n. 98; and idem, “Voice,” n. 32). 79 See Polliack, “Trends,” p. 403; idem, “Voice,” section IV, third paragraph. 80 Polliack & Schlossberg, “Prophets,” p. 33. See also Polliack, “Trends,” pp. 403–4; idem, “Conception,” pp. 363–64; idem, “Voice,” section IV, third paragraph. 81 Polliack, “Conception,” p. 363; idem, “Trends,” p. 404; idem, “Voice,” section IV, third paragraph. This technique of narrative delay/retardation is also noted by alQirqis¯an¯ı, who codifies such as the seventh of his 37 “principles” of exegesis (Hirschfeld, Qirqis¯an¯ı, p. 49):  D _ NDQ   DQ !"  D D D8 =" B  H*$ DQ $ d C j .] =" !" (“The Scripture, when recounting any given episode, may not mention everything that took place therein, but will mention that which it omitted from such in another place”; see also idem, pp. 27–28). 82 Translation, p. 187; text, pp. 13*–14*.

34

chapter two the maidens had gathered together from all the districts and provinces in order that there might be taken from them a second queen in place of Vashti; and so, by the expression sˇ¯enît he means, “for a second queen.”83

As Yefet goes on to assert, this flashback also includes the second part of the verse, thus indicating that Mordecai already held his position as a gatekeeper—for thus he interprets the phrase øòùá áùé éëãøîå êìîä—when Esther was first brought to the palace. In addition to fostering a more accurate understanding of the narrative chronology, this observation serves Yefet exegetically in his later comment ad 2:21–23, in which he suggests the possibility that the plot of Bigthan and Teresh was discovered during the same flashback period and communicated by Mordecai to Esther, who then told it to the king when she was first taken to him. An attendant implication of this possibility, moreover, may be that the revelation of the plot by Esther played a role in her favorable assessment by the king. Also attributed by Yefet to the mudawwin is the narrative technique of “resumptive repetition,” in which the end of a parenthetical or “backgrounding” passage is followed—and so delineated—by the repetition of the last thought in the main narrative or “foregrounding” section preceding that passage.84 One instance of this is identified by Yefet in the present commentary ad 9:5: He then states, And the Jews smote, (etc.), by which the mudawwin resumes (raja#a il¯a) his statement, the Jews gathered themselves together in their communities (… to lay hand on such as sought their hurt) (9:2), thus indicating that they gathered together to slay them and reiterating here that they did slay them.

According to Yefet, therefore, the main narrative is resumed in verse five, following the circumstantial information of verses three and four, by the repeated—albeit more specific85—reference to the Jews’ slaying of their enemies.86 Translation, p. 207; text, pp. 20*–21*. See Polliack, “Conception,” p. 363, n. 31; idem, “Voice,” section IV, third paragraph. On the contemporary terms “backgrounding” (for circumstantial/non-sequential information) and “foregrounding” (for logically or temporally conjunctive-sequential information), see, inter alios, Bergen, Discourse, passim. 85 Cf. his ensuing comment ad 9:5aβ (on p. 294 below). 86 This recognition of resumptive repetition is also implied by the commencement of verse five in many modern translations with summative “So” (if not intended in a strictly conjunctive sense). 83 84

yefet’s exegesis of esther

35

2. Compilatory Aspect The compilatory aspect of his work is clearly indicated by Yefet at the outset of his exegetical endeavor, in the closing portion of his introduction to the book of Genesis: We now begin with a translation of the words of this book and an explanation of its meanings, in accordance with what we have heard from our teachers, the Interpreters (mu#allim¯ın¯a "l-mufassir¯ın), and what we have read in the books of bygone scholars (al-m¯ad.¯ıy¯ın)—may God be pleased with them all—and in accordance with what occurs to us as being correct.87

The sources from which Yefet draws, as suggested by this statement, are of two types: scholars whom he knew personally (i.e., mu #allim¯ın¯a "l-mufassir¯ın) and whose views he had heard directly from them, and deceased scholars whom he had not known personally (i.e., al-m¯ad.¯ıy¯ın) and whose views, therefore, he knew of only from their writings.88 Both of these groups, moreover, appear to be subsumed by Yefet under the general designation of “the Teachers of the Exile” (mu #allim¯un al-j¯aliya), as indicated by the following statement from his commentary on Daniel chapter 12, wherein the same distinction between “hearing from” and “reading in the books of ” is made: We have explained this chapter in accordance with that which seems most reasonable to us among all that which we have heard from the Teachers of the Diaspora (mu #allim¯ın[!] al-j¯aliya) and read in their books.89

In addition to highlighting the compilatory nature of his exegetical work, the previous citation from his introduction to Genesis also makes clear—assuming, of course, a reflected integrity of intention and practice—that Yefet is to be regarded as more than a mere compiler or epitomizer of previous exegesis. His own exegesis is informed not only by that which he has culled from direct (i.e., personal) and indirect 87 àðéîìòî ïî àðòîñ àî áñçá äéðàòî õéìë ˙ úå áàúëìà àã˙ ä è˙ àôìà ä¨ îâ˙øúá éãúáð ïéç àã˙ äå ˙ ø ïééö˙ àîìà áúë éô àðàø÷ àîå ïéøñôîìà áàåö äðà àðì çðñé àî áñçáå ïéòîâ˙à íäðò §ú §à éö

(Butbul & Stroumsa, “Genesis,” p. 86). 88 See also Polliack & Schlossberg, Hosea, Introduction, chap. 4à (íééàø÷ úåøå÷î), first two paragraphs. 89  H! 5 (!)LA  A;  .!x  g$ F+  4B  g 1* Q =" (CE $  ID =" N +$ (Margoliouth, Daniel, p. y). An apparent Hebrew parallel to mu #allim¯ın(!) al-j¯aliya, as noted by Polliack & Schlossberg, ibid., is äìåâä éðá in Yefet’s prologue to Song of Songs (per Bargès, Canticum, p. 1): ®íéøéùä øéù øôñ øåúôì íéøåî ìë ìéëùî úøæòá ìéçúà äìåâä éðá åãîìå åøåä øùà íéøúåô éôî éðæà äòîù.

36

chapter two

access to both current and past scholars, but also by “that which occurs to us as being correct” (m¯a yasnah. u lan¯a annah¯u s. aw¯ab). That Yefet is referring by this to his own unique exegetical contribution, and not simply—if at all—to his part in determining which of several previous views is “correct,” is evident from the clear contrast between the identical expression (minus annah¯u s. aw¯ab) “that which occurs to us” (m¯a yasnah. u lan¯a) and “(the views of) bygone scholars” (al-m¯ad.¯ıy¯ın) in the following, closing portion of his introduction to the Psalms: And so we commence with a concisely presented elucidation of its words and determination of its structure and clarification of its meanings in order that the one who seeks may understand its secrets (sirrahu); and in most of (what we write) we are giving expression to (the views of) bygone scholars (al-m¯ad.¯ıy¯ın), though some of it consists of that which occurs (uniquely) to us.90

While highlighting his own unique exegetical contribution,91 this statement nonetheless makes clear that the bulk of Yefet’s commentary on Psalms—as also, in all probability, of his remaining exegetical corpus92—was culled from other sources. To draw too sharp a distinction between such sources and Yefet’s own contribution, however, would be to obscure the important “egalitarian ethos”93 of Karaite exegesis—an ethos which not only permitted, but to a certain degree required that the exegetical views of his contemporaries and predecessors be carefully considered and then discarded, adopted, or modified as deemed necessary. Like the Rabbanites, Yefet and the other early Karaites viewed exegesis as an accretive or chain-linked process, though one in 90 äøñ áìàèìà íäôéì øàöúë ˙ àá äéðàòî éàìâ˙å ä÷ñð áéúøúå äè˙ ôì çøùá éãúáð àð( à àäå ( ˙ òáå ïééö˙ àîìà ïò ïåøá( òî äøú˙ ëà éô ïçðå (Bargès, Excerpta, p. 10). See also the àðì çðñé àî äö

following statement from the closing portion of his introduction to Job (per Hussain, Job, p. 7, ll. 7–8): çåìé àîå äàðòîñ àî áñçá äàðòî øëã˙ å (!)÷åñôà (!)÷åñôà çøùá éãúáà àã˙ åäå àðì (“And so I shall commence with an elucidation of each verse and a discussion of its meaning, in accordance with what we have heard as well as what occurs (uniquely) to us”). 91 See also Polliack, “Trends,” p. 390. 92 Cf., for instance, the following statement from the closing portion of his introduction to Hosea, in which he attributes his exegesis on that book solely to “what we have heard and learned from our teachers” (per Birnbaum, Hosea, p. 3, ll. 21–23): éãúáðìô ˙ à íäáàú˙ àå íäðò äììà éö˙ ø àðéîì( òî ïî àðîì( òúå àðòîñ àî áñçá øôñìà àã˙ ä ä¨ îâ˙øúá ã ¨ ã˙ îàìúìà åòôð ã÷ (“And so we commence with a translation of this book, íäîéìòúá ä in accordance with what we have heard and learned from our teachers—may God be pleased with them and reward them, for the students have benefited from their teaching”). 93 See Polliack, “Trends,” p. 390.

yefet’s exegesis of esther

37

which the locus of authority and meaning was held to reside primarily in the last link in that chain, rather than in the collective weight of the previous links. This essential Karaite view is most concisely expressed in the famous dictum of the Karaite heresiarch #Anan ben David, “Search Scripture well and do not rely on my opinion” (ìàå øéôù äøåúá åùôç éúòã ìò åðòùú)94—which dictum is first attested, and contrasted with the Rabbanite attitude, by Yefet himself in his comment on the phrase úàæ äòùøä (“This is wickedness!”) in Zechariah 5:8: As to the statement, “This is wickedness!”—he designates this (aforementioned) “woman” (i.e., the woman of v. 7, representing the Rabbanites95) as “Wickedness” to make clear that they (i.e., the Rabbanites) are sinners in God’s eyes because they have composed these (mishnaic-talmudic) books and compelled the people to believe them and act according to them, having already judged those who disagree with them as deserving execution. They have not said, “This is what occurs to us and this is what has been handed down to us; yet seek for yourselves, O Israel, just as we have sought”—in which case they would have been free of the claim (against them) of the Master of the Universe—, as did #Anan (b. David), who said, “Search Scripture well and do not rely on my opinion.” So too said Benjamin (al-Nah¯awand¯ı) at the end of (one of his books),96 “I, Benjamin, am but one among thousands and tens of thousands; ‘I am neither a prophet nor a prophet’s son, etc.’ (Amos 7:14).” And so too has every one of the Karaite scholars (done); they have followed this same practice and held fast to that which seems true to them, while exhorting the people to search (for themselves)—to the extent that one may even disagree with his father without his father saying to him, “Why do you disagree with me?” And in the same manner a student (may disagree) with his teacher. For this reason, therefore, they have been excused before God if any error was found in some of the views to which they See Poznanski, ´ “Anan,” p. 184. The first two words of this dictum are alternatively attested in Ms. RU Warn. 12 as àúééøåàá åùéôç, on which see, as on the dictum generally, Ankori, Karaites, pp. 209–12; Frank, Search, pp. 22–32; Harkavy, apud Grätz, History, p. 189, n. 37 and p. 453, n. 140; Polliack, “Growth,” pp. 303–8; Wieder, Scrolls, pp. 88–89. On the general Karaite usage of the term äøåú in the sense of “Scripture” see Polliack, “Growth,” p. 304. As regards the pervasiveness of this exegetical egalitarianism among the early Karaites, see the pointed comment of al-Qirqis¯an¯ı (Anw¯ar, I, p. 14) concerning his coreligionists: “You will hardly find among them two who agree on anything” (B =O 1D => L   Lr z T CE), though as aptly noted by Khan, Tradition, p. 17, “It eventually became necessary … to limit the freedom of individual interpretation in certain fields, especially in Karaite law, where a large degree of consensus was required for the purposes of everyday life.” See also Ankori, Karaites, pp. 204–51. 95 See Poznanski, ´ “Anan,” p. 184 and n. 1. 96 “at … (books)”—so, conflating the elliptical expression äìå÷ ä ¨ îúàë˙ éô (“at the end of his statement”) in the Arabic text (see the following note) with the Hebrew rendering åéøôñî (!)úçàîá in Ms. RU Warn. 12 (apud Bargès, Excerpta, p. 59, n. 1). 94

38

chapter two held, and they have been pardoned by virtue of the fact that they sought to enlighten the eyes of the people and bring them out from the darkness into the light.97

This egalitarian ethos, while clearly manifested in Yefet’s commentaries by the personal contribution of “what occurs to us” (m¯a yasnah. u lan¯a), is also borne out in the compilatory component of his work via the tri-fold, consistently applied strictures of selectivity, partiality, and anonymity. As regards selectivity, Yefet’s normal practice in citing alternative views is to cite only those that are deemed possible or reasonable, rather than all those that are available—demonstrating that his role as compiler was in fact subservient to that of editor.98 Thus, for example, he writes in his commentary on Hosea, after his interpretation of 3:2, “(Others) have given this verse a different interpretation, though I have not mentioned it because it is unlikely”99; and again, after explaining ìàøùéá àåä àùð in 13:1 of the same book: “Other interpretations of (this clause) have been propounded of which I have omitted mention.”100 On occasion, however, when the crux is of a more ponderous nature, Yefet also cites views which he considers unlikely or implausible, though even then selectively, as in the present commentary ad 4:1ff., concerning the reason for God’s chastisement of His people via Haman’s decree.101 97 àã ˙ ä åúáú˙ à àîá äììà ãðò ïééèàë˙ íäðà óøòéì äòùø äùàìà àã˙ ä àîñ äòùøä úàæ §å÷å ˙ ë åìå÷é íìå ìú÷ìàá íäéôì[à]ë˙ î éìò åîëçå àäìòôå àäãà÷úòà ä¨ îàìà åîæìàå áúëìà çðñ éã ¨ áìàèî ïî ïéöìë˙ î åðàë ã˙ éðéçå àðú˙ çá àîë ìàøùé àé íúðà åú˙ çáå àðì ò÷å éã˙ ëå àðì §òìà áø ä ¨ îúàë˙ éô ïéîéðá ìà÷å éúòã ìò åðòùú ìàå øéôù äøåúá åùôç ìà÷ éã˙ ìà ïðò ìòô àîë äìå÷ ä ˙ ëå ìå÷ìà íàîúå éëðà àéáð ïá [àìå] àéáð àìå úåááø [éáø]å íéôìà óìàî ãçà ïéîéðá éðà êìã ˙ àå êìñîìà àã˙ ä åã˙ ë˙ àå ïééàø÷ìà àîìò ïî íìàò ìë ñàðìà åøîàå ÷çìà äðà íäì çàì àî åúáú ˙ ëå éðúôìàë˙ íì áàìà äì ìå÷é àìå äàáà óìàë˙ é ãçàåìà ïà éúç ú˙ çáìàá íìòîìì ãéîìúìà êìã ˙ à àî õ˙ òá éô ììæ íäðî éøâ˙ ïà ïéøåã˙ òî äììà ãðò åðàë êìã˙ ìô åôùëà àî éìò ïéáàúî íäå äåúáú ¨ îìè˙ ìà ïî íäåâ˙øë˙ àå ñàðìà øàöáà (Poznanski, ´ “Anan,” pp. 184–85 [= Mss BL øåðìà éìà ä

Or. 2401, fol. 172b, and BL Or. 2550, fol. 87a]). A partial Hebrew version, commencing with the statement of Benjamin, is cited from Ms. RU Warn. 12 by Bargès, Excerpta, p. 59, n. 1, and Dukes, Mittheilungen, pp. 26–27. See also Frank, Search, p. 32, and Polliack, “Growth,” p. 303. 98 Cf. Polliack & Schlossberg, Hosea, Introduction, chap. 4à (íééàø÷ úåøå÷î), paragraphs three through five. 99 ãéòá äðàì äøëã ˙ à íìå øë˙ à øéñôú ÷åñôìà àã˙ ä åøñ( ô ã÷å (Birnbaum, Hosea, pp. 102– ( 3). See also Polliack & Schlossberg, Hosea, Introduction, chap. 4à (íééàø÷ úåøå÷î), fourth paragraph. 100 àäøëã ˙ úøöúë˙ à (!)øë˙ à øéñàôú äéô ìé÷å (Birnbaum, Hosea, p. 198, ll. 7–8). See also Polliack & Schlossberg, Hosea, Introduction, chap. 4à (íééàø÷ úåøå÷î), third paragraph. √ On Yefet’s use of the eighth form of øöë˙ with the meaning “to omit,” see Piamenta, Dictionary, I, p. 129b, and Polliack, “Conception,” p. 363. 101 Translation, pp. 238–40; text, pp. 30*–31*.

yefet’s exegesis of esther

39

As regards partiality, Yefet generally expresses preference for one view over any others presented, employing such expressions as “It is most likely that …” (wa-yaqrubu anna)102 and “That which is most reasonable to me is that …” (alladh¯ı yaqrubu #ind¯ı huwa anna).103 On occasion, however, Yefet demonstrates ambivalence, offering no other expression of preference apart from that which may be inferred from the order in which the different views are presented—the first generally being the preferred view.104 Thus he comments on the phrase úåéä õ÷î íéùðä úãë äì (2:12): This means, after a year had elapsed for her and the aforementioned (cosmetic preparation) had been applied to her; yet it is also said that (the mudawwin) means by this that at the end of her (year) she would sleep with the king in the manner that wives sleep with their husbands.105

Similarly, after reviewing four possible explanations for the absence of any explicit reference to God’s name in the book (the first and apparently preferred explanation being that there was “no need for any mention of it, since (the scroll) originated as a (compilation of) popular narratives and annalistic reports”), Yefet concludes with the concessive statement, “Perhaps there is another explanation which we have not grasped—‘Blessed be he who understands mysteries!’”106 Lastly, as regards anonymity, Yefet almost never attributes any given view—alternative or otherwise—to a specific individual, preferring instead to introduce it with the expression q¯ıla (“it has been said”), yuq¯alu (“it is said”), q¯ala qawm (“(some/other) people say”), q¯ala ba #d. al-mufassir¯ın (“some interpreters have said”), or q¯ala mufassir ¯akhar (“another interpreter has said”).107 Admittedly, the practice of anonymous citation per se cannot be attached to an exclusively Karaite ethos, since the same practice is ubiquitously attested among the Rabbanites as well as Oriental Cf. ad 2:21–23 (translation, p. 212; text, p. 22*). Cf. ad 4:1ff. (translation, p. 239; text, p. 31*). For other expressions see, e.g., Birnbaum, Hosea, pp. ix–x. 104 See Birnbaum, Hosea, p. x; Polliack, “Trends,” p. 390. 105 Translation, p. 203; text, p. 19*. Cf. also Yefet’s comment on 8:15 (translation, p. 286; text, pp. 50*–51*): “And Mordecai went forth from the presence of the king in royal apparel, etc.—this being the apparel which (the king) bestowed upon him at the time that Haman said, Let them bring royal apparel, (etc.) (6:8), and so they are mentioned here (as well). And if we were to say that this was different (apparel) which the king bestowed upon him, such would not be unreasonable (lam yub #ad dh¯alika).” 106 Translation, p. 273; text, p. 45*. 107 On these last two expressions, which are not used in the present commentary, see Birnbaum, Hosea, p. 11, ll. 18, 23; Polliack, “Trends,” p. 390. 102 103

40

chapter two

writers generally;108 yet the distinctiveness of this practice as expressed in the exegetical writings of Yefet and the other early Karaites is centered in the fact that anonymous citation is the rule rather than a complement to the identification of sources. Thus, for example, in the commentary on Esther of the Rabbanite exegete Tanhum b. Joseph ha. Yerushalmi (d. 1291)—one of the last of the rationalistic Oriental Jewish exegetes—, in addition to 39 anonymous citations there are also attested 26 attributed citations,109 whereas in the presently edited commentary of Yefet, in which many more views are presented, not one source is identified.110 The reason for this practice, clearly, is the egalitarian ethos of Karaite exegesis, according to which the merit of any given view is qualified not by who expressed it, but by its degree of rational (literary-contextual) plausibility to the exegete.111 3. Mu #tazilite Influence In the first Muslim source to refer to the Karaites, the Kit¯ab al-tanb¯ıh wa"l-ishr¯af (“The Book of Instruction and Overview”) of Ab¯u "l-Hasan #Al¯ı . ¯ ibn al-Husayn al-Mas#¯udı (d. 956), the sect—albeit partitively referred . to as al- #An¯aniyya (“the Ananites”)112—is described as being “among Cf. Goldziher, Studien, pp. 3–4; Poznanski, ´ “Tanhoum,” p. 132. I.e. (per Ms. BLO Poc. 320, fols 215r–226r): the Midrash (4x, ad 1:3; 2:21; 3:2; 6:6), the midrashic-talmudic sages (16x, ad 1:1, 8, 19 [bis]; 2:9; 3:9; 4:3, 11, 14; 5:10; 6:12; 7:4 [bis]; 8:15; 9:13; 10:3), Josippon (1x, ad 1:1), Saadia Gaon (2x, ad 3:2; 4:4), Judah (Ab¯u Zakar¯ıy¯a) Hayy¯ uj (1x, ad 1:4), Jonah (Ab¯u "l-Wal¯ıd) ibn Jan¯ah. (1x, ad 2:9), and . Maimonides (1x, ad 9:13). 110 For rare exceptions to this rule on Yefet’s part cf. his comment on Zech. 5:8 cited above as well as the epilogue to his commentary on Daniel chap. 12 (Margoliouth, Daniel, pp. 86 [trans.], y–y [text]), in which he mentions Y¯usuf ibn Bakhtaw¯ı (probably identical with Y¯usuf Ibn N¯uh. [see Khan, Tradition, p. 7; idem, “Contribution,” p. 293]), al-Fayy¯um¯ı (Saadia Gaon), Salmon ben Yer¯uhim, and Benjamin al-Nah¯awand¯ı. . 111 See also Khan’s comment (Tradition, p. 16) concerning the practice of anonymous citation in Ibn N¯uh’s . grammatical commentary (al-diqdûq): “One consequence of this is that one particular opinion is not given authority by virtue of its attribution to a specific scholar. There is not attempt, therefore, to advocate an opinion on the basis of the authority of the person who expressed it. What is important for Ibn N¯uh. is not who said something but rather what they said.” See also Polliack & Schlossberg, Hosea, Introduction, chap. 4à (íééàø÷ úåøå÷î), paragraphs six and seven. 112 Though al-Mas#¯ ud¯ı elsewhere distinguishes between al- #An¯aniyya and al-Qar¯a"iyya (see Tanb¯ıh, p. 219, ll. 12–14: 9 ;/'   D TT I+   > d %{ H(!+ A  e"  " g! F+( 1I | 'T 1 C = }* A$  + H(!Y   t A ~'  3 5 ; Adang, “Sources,” p. 183 [trans.]; Gil, “Origins,” pp. 88–90), it seems to us that al- #An¯aniyya in the passage cited is comprehensively intended, since 1) the reference to those “who 108 109

yefet’s exegesis of esther

41

those who profess (God’s) justice and absolute unity” (wa-hum mimman yadhabu il¯a "l- #adl wa-"l-tawh.¯ıd).113 From this it is clear that al-Mas#¯ud¯ı (and his Jewish interlocutors114) viewed the Karaites as the Jewish equivalent of the Islamic Mu#tazila—a movement of rationalistic theologians (mutakallim¯un115) founded in the first half of the eighth century116—, who are typically described in Islamic literature as “those who profess (God’s) justice and absolute unity” (al-q¯a"il¯un bi-"l- #adl wa-"l-tawh.¯ıd).117 The constancy of this perception among Muslim heresiographers is underscored by the later statements of al-Shahrast¯an¯ı (d. 1153), who writes that, “as regards the doctrine of qadar they (i.e., the Jews) are divided along the same lines as the two groups in Islam: the Rabbanites among them are like the predeterminists and anthropomorphists among us, whereas the Karaites are like the Mu#tazila”118; and profess (God’s) justice and absolute unity”—as contrasted with the Rabbanites (alAshma#ath, which term is likely derived from the Aramaic lexeme àúòîù [“tradition,” “traditional/oral law”; cf. Adang, Writers, pp. 81–82; idem, “Sources,” p. 181])—is likewise applicable to the Karaites generally (as demonstrated by us in this section with respect to Yefet), and 2) that which he subsequently ascribes to them (and the Rabbanites)—viz., reliance in their biblical exegesis upon an Arabic translation based directly on the Hebrew text—is applicable to all the Jews (and contextually so intended by alMas#¯ud¯ı, according to Adang, “Sources,” p. 182, n. 11). As observed by Gil (“Origins,” p. 88), moreover, the manner in which al-Mas#¯ud¯ı reports on the views of al- #An¯aniyya and al-Qar¯a"iyya implies a time of writing “after the House of #Anan had joined the Karaites; Mas#¯ud¯ı was, in effect, relating to(! [omit]) #Ananite views that were essentially Karaite, which developed subsequent to the consolidation of Karaism.” 113 Al-Mas#¯ ud¯ı, Tanb¯ıh, pp. 112–13. See Adang, Writers, pp. 80–81; idem, “Sources,” p. 182; Gil, “Origins,” p. 88. 114 On al-Mas#¯ ud¯ı’s personal acquaintance with Jews, both Karaite and Rabbanite, see, inter alios, Adang, Writers, p. 45 (and the references to Shboul in n. 154); idem, “Sources,” pp. 182–83. 115 I.e., exponents of kal¯am (“discourse [on God]”—i.e., theology), on which see, inter alios multos, Gardet, “Kal¯am”; van Ess, Theologie, I, pp. 51–54; Wolfson, Philosophy; and, regarding Jewish philosophy in particular, Wolfson, Repercussions. 116 For a concise, recent presentation of Mu#tazil¯ı history and thought see Gimaret, “Mu#tazila,” pp. 783a–793b. For a recent, comprehensive treatment, see van Ess, Theologie, passim. 117 See, e.g., al-Maqr¯ız¯ı, Khitat, II, p. 345; al-Shahrast¯ an¯ı, Milal, I, p. 57 (as. h. ¯ab al. . #adl wa-"l-tawh.¯ıd). More simply, respectively reflecting their emphasis upon either God’s justice or His absolute unity, the Mu#tazila are designated al- #Adliyya or al-Muwah. h. ida (see al-Murtad¯ at, p. 2). . . a, Tabaq¯ 118 Al-Shahrast¯ an¯ı, Milal, II, pp. 12–13: vhj g F!"   " '     H IJM  &IKM D (!)9   !" H?AM D   (!)!+  " ah;B =" L . In our translation we have inverted “Karaites” and “Rabbanites,” which in the Arabic text are clearly soplaced as the result of either a lapsus calami on the part of al-Shahrast¯an¯ı or else—albeit less likely—an extremely misinformed source (see Gimaret & Monnot, Religions, p. 597, n. 17).

42

chapter two

al-Maqr¯ız¯ı (1364–1442), who writes that “the #An¯aniyya119 profess (God’s) absolute unity and justice and reject anthropomorphization (of God).”120 Among medieval Jewish writers, moreover, the influence of the Mu#tazila upon the Karaites (as well as some of the Rabbanites) is notably affirmed by Maimonides121 and the Byzantine Karaite Aaron b. Elijah (the Younger) of Nicomedia (d. 1369),122 whereas an intimation of such influence (upon the Karaites only) is offered by Judah ha-Levi.123 Among modern scholars, accordingly, many ideological and methodological parallels between the Mu#tazila and various Karaite littérateurs, especially al-Qirqis¯an¯ı and Yefet, have been noted and discussed.124 In contrast to al-Qirqis¯an¯ı, however, who has been identified 119 As with al-Mas#¯ ud¯ı, this designation is either comprehensively intended (on our reasons for which see n. 112 above) or an ill-informed distinction. 120 F!IJ =+  A  !  E H!+ + A " (al-Maqr¯ız¯ı, Khitat, II, p. 478). For treatment . . of the Ananites/Karaites by other Muslim writers see Adang, passim; idem, “Sources”; and Wasserstrom, “Heresiography.” 121 In his Guide of the Perplexed (per Qafih, Dal¯ala, I, p. 189): éã ˙ ìà øéñéìà øæðìà àã˙ ä àîà . ˙ òáì éðòîìà àã˙ äá ÷ìòúé àîå ãéçåúìà éðòî éô íàìëìà ïî äãâ˙ú ïééàø÷ìà ãðòå íéðåàâìà õ ˙ äá íàìñàìà àãúáà ìåà ïà àö˙ éà ÷ôúàå ®®® íàìñàìà ïî ïéîìëúîìà ïò àäåã˙ ë˙ à øåîà éäô äã ¨ ìæúòîìà íäå àî ä¨ ÷øô úðàë ä¨ ÷éøèìà (“As to that slight bit of kal¯am regarding (God’s) ä absolute unity [al-tawh.¯ıd] and that which depends upon (this doctrine) which you will find expressed by some of the Geonim and by the Karaites, these things they adopted from the rationalistic theologians [al-mutakallim¯un] of Isl¯am … and it so happened, moreover, that at the outset of Isl¯am’s start upon this path (of kal¯am) was a certain sect—that is, the Mu#tazila”). See also Wolfson, Philosophy, pp. 47–48. 122 Apud Grätz, History, p. 456 (citing from Aaron’s íééç õò, ed. Delitzsch [Leipzig, 1841], fol. 4): íäéðéðò åàøùë äìæúòî úåòã éøçà åëùîð íéðáøä éîëçî úö÷å íéàø÷ä éîëç äøåúä úåãåñéì íéîéëñî. For biographical data on Aaron see, inter alios, Gottlober, History, pp. 154–56; Mann, Texts, II, pp. 255, 1417; Nemoy, Anthology, pp. 170–71. 123 In his Kit¯ab al-Khazar¯ı (per Baneth & Ben-Shammai, Khazar¯ı, p. 191 [v.2]): úñìô ˙ ìà éðëì ®â˙øã ïåã éäàìàìà íìòìà éìà àå÷úøà ïéã˙ ìà ïééàø÷ìà ÷éøè êá êìñà àðåéò êì õë ˙ ì÷òìà íú˙ ñôðìà íú˙ ä¨ òéáèìà íú˙ úàö( ÷úñàìà íú˙ ä¨ ëøúùîìà éìåéäìì øå( öúìà éô êðéòú íú [éäàìàìà] íìòìà (“I will not make you travel the road of the Karaites who went up to theology without a flight of steps, but I will provide you with a clear outline, which will allow you to form a clear conception of matter and form, then of the elements, then of nature, then of the soul, then of the intellect, then of theology” [trans. Wolfson, Philosophy, p. 87]), concerning which Wolfson writes (ibid., p. 88): “What Halevi means to say here is that, unlike the Karaites, such as Joseph al-Bas.¯ır and Jeshua ben Judah who, as followers of the Kalam, preface their exposition of theology by a discussion of such concepts as thing, existent and nonexistent, eternal and created, atom and accident, motion and rest, I shall preface my exposition of theology with a discussion of concepts more fashionable in the current philosophy of emanation and shall begin with the lowest, matter, and go up step by step to form and element and nature and soul and intellect until I ultimately arrive at a discussion of theology.” 124 See, in the first instance, Ben-Shammai, Doctrines. Otherwise: Birnbaum, Hosea, pp. xv–xix; Bland, Ecclesiastes, p. viii; Erder, “Attitude,” p. 314; Hirschfeld, Qirqis¯an¯ı, pp. 1–26; Hussain, Job, pp. xxvii–xxxiv; Sokolow, Deuteronomy, pp. xix–xx; and Wendkos,

yefet’s exegesis of esther

43

as one of the primary mediators of Mu#tazilite thought in Jewish philosophical literature generally and Karaite philosophical-exegetical literature specifically,125 Yefet’s role with respect to such thought has been characterized primarily as that of an elaborator or indirect mediator of views which, though originally Mu#tazilite, were by his time so far integrated into the thought of his previous coreligionists and contemporaries as to be considered thoroughly Karaitic.126 Nonetheless, that Yefet had a direct cognizance of Mu#tazilite—as generally Muslim—doctrine (and therefore sources) can now hardly be doubted,127 and thus the extent to Jeremiah, pp. xii, 3 (ad l. 2), 16 (ad l. 7); as well as, more generally, Ben-Shammai, “Note”; idem, “Trends”; Cook, “ #Anan,” pp. 176–79; Grätz, History, pp. 214–21, 287, 315, 454–56; Nemoy, “Karaites,” p. 606b; Pines, “Doctrine,” pp. 163–64 [165–66]; Pinsker, Geschichte, I, pp. 7–9; and Schreiner, Studien, pp. 4–5, 23–25; Wolfson, Philosophy, pp. 86–88, 103, 121, 312, 345–46, 398, 471; and idem, Repercussions, passim. 125 See Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, I, p. 319: ïîæá åéìà íéáåø÷ä íéøçà íéøáçî íò ãçé äáùçîä úåøôñì íééìæúòî úåðåø÷ò ìù íúøéãçì íééùàøä úåøåðéöä ãçà éàãååá àåä éðàñ÷ø÷ úåðåø÷ò äãô÷äá åîàúåä åëøãù øåðéö åäéøä ¬÷åéã øúéì ¬åà ¬èøôá úéàø÷äå ¬ììëá úéãåäéä úéàø÷ä àø÷îä úåðùøôì íééìæúòî. Prior to al-Qirqis¯ an¯ı the primary representative of

Mu#tazilite thought in Karaism is Daniel al-Qu¯ mis¯ı, on whom see Ben-Shammai, “Trends,” pp. 340–44. See also al-Qirqis¯an¯ı’s explicit references in Kit¯ab al-anw¯ar to Ab¯u "l-Hudhayl (al-Qirqis¯an¯ı, Anw¯ar, pp. 248, l. 7; 304, l. 7), Ibrah¯ım al-Naz. z¯ . am (ibid., p. 304, l. 7), and Ibn Kull¯ab (ibid., pp. 190, l. 13; 192, l. 11); and Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, I, p. 232, n. 197. 126 See Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, I, pp. 319–23; II, pp. xliii–xliv (English summary). See also idem, “Trends,” pp. 341–42. 127 Cf. Hussain, Job, pp. xxxvi–xxxiv, as well as Yefet’s comments, albeit deprecatory, ad Ps. 94:8–9 (apud Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, II, p. 246 [Appendix 5, frag. 15], ll. 7– 10; Heb. trans.: I, p. 106, n. 29): ìú˙ î íäéô ïéîìëúîìà ïà åäå éðòî íòá íéøòåá äìå÷ éôå ¨ ìæúòîìà ìäâ˙à íäðà óøòéì íòá íéøòåá íäéô ìà÷ô íìàòìà éô íä÷áñ ïî ìë ÷åô íäðà ïåøé ä ˙ é àî éô ä¨ éòøìà íòá íéîëç (à 182§ åàìá äàø) ïåðåëé àì ïà éøçàå ìàøùé éðòî éô äéìà ïåáäã (“The statement ye senseless among the people has a (specific) meaning—to wit, that the mutakallim¯un among (the gentiles), such as the Mu#tazila, suppose that they are above all those who preceded them in the world, and therefore he says of them ye senseless among the people to indicate that, from the vantage of Israel, they are the most foolish among the (gentile) population in that which they believe; or, (to interpret this passage) more bluntly, there are no wise men among the (gentile) population”); and ad Isa. 47:9–10 (idem, II, p. 210 [Appendix 4, frag. 8], ll. 23–27; Heb. trans.: I, p. 322): éìà øàùà íú˙ ˙ ìà íäå êúááåù àéä êúòãå êúîëç ìà÷ô ä¨ ìæúòîìà íäå ìãâ˙ìàå øè˙ ðìà áàçöà éðòà íäö˙ òá éã ˙ éç ïî êúááåù àéä ìà÷å ®øè˙ ðìàå ú˙ çáìàá àéùàìà àåúáú˙ éå ä¨ ãçåî íäðà ïåòãé ïà ïåòãé íäðà ú ˙ ìà éðòîìà åä àã˙ äô òøùìà ê˙ ñðá ïåìå÷éå æâ˙òî åä ïåì÷ìà (“He then refers to a íäàúòà éã certain group of them—i.e., the exponents of philosophical speculation and dialectics, that is, the Mu#tazila; and so he says, Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, they have perverted thee, for they presumptuously assert that they (alone) are professors of (God’s) unity and have established matters by logical inquiry and philosophical speculation. He says they have perverted thee, moreover, due to the fact that they presumptuously assert that the Qur"¯an [lit. “the Disgrace(ful book)”] is a miracle and advocate the abrogation of the (Mosaic) Law [cf. Adang, Writers, pp. 192–222], and it is this notion that makes them

44

chapter two

which similarities to such doctrine are indicative of indirect or direct influence, or even parallel development, may be somewhat murkier than is typically presented. Especially prominent similarities to Mu#tazilite doctrine are to be found in the introduction of Yefet’s presently edited commentary, for therein all five of the fundamental theses (al-us. ¯ul al-khamsa) of the Mu#tazila may be discerned—albeit the second and third (and perhaps the fourth and fifth) in somewhat modified fashion—and, consequently, give one pause to consider whether, at least in this instance, Yefet did not in fact have the doctrinal canon of this Islamic sect specifically in mind. In any event, in our ensuing discussion of these similarities we shall follow the order of the five theses as typically presented in Muslim heresiographical and Mu#tazilite sources—viz., God’s absolute unity, His necessary justice, His obligatory fulfillment of His promise and His threat, the existence of an intermediate state, and the obligation of every believer to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil.128 The doctrine of God’s absolute unity (al-tawh.¯ıd), together with that of His necessary justice (al- #adl), stands at the very center of Mu#tazilite thought. It is with these two terms, as noted above, that the Mu#tazila are typically identified, and from which (specifically, God’s necessary justice)—as expounded by the Zayd¯ı im¯am M¯ankd¯ım Shashd¯ıw (d. 1034) following #Abd al-Jabb¯ar—all the other theses derive.129 It is not arrogant”). It should be pointed out that such disparaging statements concerning the Mu#tazila do not ipso facto preclude the possibility of Yefet’s being directly influenced by their doctrine—just as his disparaging remarks about the Rabbanites clearly do not preclude his direct use of Rabbinite/rabbinic sources, both early and contemporary. Such remarks should be viewed as rhetorical devices prompted by the purpose and tenor of the surrounding discussion. 128 See, e.g., M¯ ankd¯ım, Sharh. (elaborating on the Sharh. al-us. ¯ul al-khamsa of #Abd alJabb¯ar ibn Ahmad al-q¯ad. ¯ı [see Gimaret, “Mu#tazila,” p. 793]), p. 123:  d C =" D8 . CM > =   vAM  B  L?M L H?M  !>  >   A  ! :H 78. See also al-Ash#ar¯ı, Maq¯al¯at, p. 219; al-Mas#¯ud¯ı, Mur¯uj, III, pp. 184–85; al-Khayy¯at., Intis. ¯ar, p. 127 (Hs {P   .u =  ?>B ;    e% X!); Gardet & Anawati, Introduction, pp. 47–51; Gimaret, “Mu#tazila,” pp. 786b–87a; Watt, Thought, pp. 228–29. An alternative canon of four theses is also attributed to #Abd al-Jabb¯ar by M¯ankd¯ım (Sharh. , p. 122) just before the previously cited passage:   {  =f * =" D8 .Y J  n I   A  ! :HA' (“He states in (his book) Mukhtas. ar al-h. usn¯a that the fundamental doctrines of the faith are four: (God’s) unity/uniqueness, (His) justice, (the reality of) the prophecies, and (the reality of) the revealed laws”). 129 M¯ ankd¯ım, Sharh. , pp. 122–23:  r h{   {  F"A (!)#C a?  > ahD F+P  A =" 1j T !>  > …  A  ! :   =qM =" F F€' ND8  =>

N > =" #i B 1A    h" d A  & *A >E d c  LA!MM > 8G 3 AE F+ =" F+P  A d  =" 1j T L?M L H?M 7 D 0dQC B #i B   A  N !> =" B

yefet’s exegesis of esther

45

surprising, therefore, that these two fundamental theses are evident at the outset of Yefet’s introduction, in the series of adjectives by which he describes God—viz., “the Pre-existent (al-qad¯ım), the Unique (al-w¯ah. id), the Matchless throughout eternity (al-mutafarrid bi-"l-azal¯ıya), the Living One (al-h. ayy), the Omnipotent (al-q¯adir), the Originator (al-kh¯aliq), the Just (al- #¯adil).” Of course, the use of such adjectives per se, being perfectly consistent with Muslim orthodoxy, is hardly enough to posit a parallel with the Mu#tazila. It is, rather, the specific selection of adjectives and the order in which they are presented—as well as, albeit indirectly, the manner in which he explicates certain “essential attributes” (or “attributes of essence”) elsewhere in his exegetical corpus—that hearkens specifically to the latter. The first thesis, concerning God’s absolute unity (al-tawh.¯ıd), entails not only the orthodox affirmation of God’s external unity (i.e., that there is only one God, contra polytheism), but also, or more specifically, God’s internal, or essential, unity. According to the Mu#tazila God’s “essential” attributes (i.e., qualifications [s. if¯at] which are true of Him eternally, such as “knowing,” “powerful,” and “holy,” rather than those which are “merited” on account of what He does [i.e., “operative” attributes], such as “creating,” “nourishing,” and “charitable”) are not to be construed as “substantive” or “real” (i.e., as “substances” [ma #¯an¯ı] other than God and therefore co-eternal with Him who has eternally “acquired” [istaf¯ada] them), but rather as attributes which “necessarily inhere” (tustah. aqqu) in God by virtue of His own essence (li-dh¯atihi).130  gU LCM => a C 9  9 U + IA  =" h{  > 8G 3 AE F  =" ahD CM > =   vM  P =" ahC QD 0gU   1i B   A  + IA (“Know that, according to what (#Abd al-Jabb¯ar)—God have mercy on his soul—has expressed in (his book) Al-mughn¯ı, those of the doctrines of the faith which cognition absolutely enjoins upon the one who is mentally competent [al-mukallaf] are two, these being (God’s) unity and (His) justice … ‘the promise and the threat’ is subsumed under (God’s) justice, for such is the doctrine that when the Exalted One promises the obedient reward and threatens the disobedient with punishment, it is incumbent that He undertake and not deviate from what He has promised and what He has threatened, and it is in keeping with justice that he not deviate or mislead. (The doctrine of) ‘the intermediate state’ likewise falls into the category of (God’s) justice, for this is the doctrine that, because the Exalted One knows that it is for our good that He subject us to the practice of applying ‘labels and judgments’ (concerning spiritual status [see Watt, Thought, p. 230]), it was incumbent that He subject us to such, and it is in keeping with justice that He not relax what (He has made) incumbent; and the same applies to (the doctrine of) ‘enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil’”). See also Gardet & Anawati, Introduction, pp. 47–48; Gimaret, “Mu#tazila,” p. 787a. 130 See, e.g., M¯ ankd¯ım, Sharh. , p. 182: .'P n * NQ e% 3 AE F+ => = [!O A"

46

chapter two

Moreover, as apparently formulated by the Mu#tazilite shaykh Ab¯u #Al¯ı al-Jubb¯a"¯ı (d. 933), the most fundamental of these “essential” attributes—i.e., “that of which the other attributes are predicated”131—is God’s Pre-existence, qualitatively denoted by the term al-qad¯ım (“the Pre-existent”), which, notably, is also employed at the head of Yefet’s list. The corollary Mu#tazilite idea that this fundamental pre-existence of God was/is an absolute, or essential, unity is undoubtedly reflected in Yefet’s specific choice of the next two descriptions, “the Unique” (alw¯ah. id) and “the Matchless (or “Separated”) throughout Eternity” (almutafarrid bi-"l-azal¯ıya). Whereas the terminological relationship of the former description to the first Mu#tazilite thesis (al-tawh.¯ıd) is obvious, the latter, we would contend, is parallel to the notion expressed, e.g., by the q¯ad.¯ı #Abd al-Jabb¯ar al-Hamadh¯an¯ı (d. 1025), that existence (al-wuj¯ud) is necessary for the Pre-existent One (al-qad¯ım) due to His being specifically characterized by a state in which He is distinguished (bi-h. ¯al yubayyanu bih¯a) from all other existents.132 FE Q TU ‚ ! ‚ M > ‚ 'T $ F+D = = (“According to our shaykh Ab¯u #Al¯ı (al-Jubb¯a"¯ı), the Exalted One is necessarily inhered by [yastah. iqqu] these four attributes—i.e., His being powerful, knowing, living, and existing—by virtue of His own essence [li-dh¯atihi]); and al-Shahrast¯an¯ı, Milal, I, p. 58: ƒ & ! &' $ A B FE Q ƒ FE Q 'T $ FE Q  >   " F HY $ =+ A H $ n { (“(The Mu#tazila) assert, ‘(God) is knowing by virtue of His own essence [li-dh¯atihi], powerful by virtue of His own essence, and living by virtue of His own essence, not by virtue of Knowledge, Power, and Life—that is to say, eternal attributes, or ‘entities’ [ma #¯an¯ı], subsisting in Him”); idem, I, p. 106: FE Q  > =Y I5  "

M > F+D gU    >   = H{ M > F+D =R B ` FE Q F$ =A FE Q = 'T $

(“Al-Jubb¯a"¯ı states, ‘(God) is knowing by virtue of His own essence (li-dh¯atihi), (as well as) powerful and living by virtue of His own essence.’ And the intended sense of his expression ‘by virtue of His own essence’ is that (the fact of God’s) being ‘knowing’ does not require a (substantive) attribute—that is to say, either a ‘state’ of Knowledge or a ‘state’ which necessitates His being ‘knowing’”). On this first thesis generally see further, inter alios multos, al-Ash#ar¯ı, Maq¯al¯at, pp. 130–31; al-Mas#¯ud¯ı, Mur¯uj, III, p. 184; al-Shahrast¯an¯ı, Milal, I, p. 55; M¯ankd¯ım, Sharh. , pp. 151–298; Gimaret, “Mu#tazila,” pp. 787a–88b; Nader, Mu‘tazila, pp. 47–218; Watt, Thought, pp. 245–46; and Wolfson, Philosophy, pp. 112–234. 131 Frank, Attributes, p. 86, n. 57. See also idem, pp. 53–57; and al-Shahrast¯ an¯ı, Milal, I, p. 58: FE 8 #{ „j a    $ 3 AE F…( 2  T >B  H?AM HY I A `Q " (“Among those doctrines which are common to the (entire) group of the Mu#tazila is, (first of all,) the doctrine that God—may He be exalted!—is Pre-existent, and that Pre-existence is the most distinctive of His essential attributes”); idem, I, p. 108; as well as M¯ankd¯ım, Sharh. , pp. 181–82, and the sources cited by Gimaret & Monnot, Religions, p. 178, n. 4. 132 n TUM Y ;   LI  % F{ *jB TU F gU + " ?> 1U   (al-Jabb¯ ar, Mughn¯ı, p. 54, ll. 15–16). See also M¯ankd¯ım, Sharh. , p. 181:  B `Q TUM  3 AE F(     N { 7Q NTU (“God—may He be exalted!—is the (only) existent that has no beginning to its existence, and therefore we qualify Him by (the term) ‘Pre-existent’ [al-qad¯ım]”).

yefet’s exegesis of esther

47

Also noteworthy under the rubric of this first thesis—specifically, as it bears upon God’s “essential” attributes—is Yefet’s comment on the statement äåäéë ùåã÷ ïéà (“There is nothing holy like the LORD”) in 1 Sam. 2:2, in which both his reasoning as well as his use of terminology (ma #n¯a, yah. duthu, y¯ujadu, li-dh¯atihi)133—albeit applied to the distinctive biblical notion of God’s “holiness”—are clearly parallel to that of the Mu#tazila: Scripture employs this expression—i.e., “holy” (q¯adôˇs)—in connection with inanimate substances, such as vessels and plants, as well as animate beings, both irrational (i.e., animal) and rational (i.e., human, angelic), just as it employs (the expression) for the Creator; yet all of these (former) things are qualified by holiness as an entity (ma#n¯a) which “occurs” and is found (yah. duthu wa-y¯ujadu) in them, whereas the Creator is not holy by reason of an entity which “occurs” in Him, but rather He is holy by virtue of His own essence (li-dh¯atihi).134

The second thesis, concerning God’s necessary justice (al- #adl), entails that everything God does be constrained by the objective ideal of Justice, such being “that of wisdom (al-h. ikma) which reason (al- #aql) renders obligatory—i.e., the undertaking of action according to what is proper and beneficial (for His creatures).”135 Such action, according to the Mu#tazila, can never be arbitrary, for this would be morally repugnant (qab¯ıh. ), but is always to be considered “fitting” (h. asan), as writes M¯ankd¯ım: When we describe the Pre-existent One—may He be exalted!—as being “wisely just” ( #adl h. ak¯ım), the meaning of this is that He can neither do

133 On Mu#tazilite usage of these terms/roots see, in addition to our previous discussion and citations offered therein, Frank, Attributes, Technical Terms Index—Arabic, under ‘ny, h. dt, w˘gd, and ad-dât, and van Ess, Theologie, IV, Register: Wörter, Termini w-˘g-d, and d-w. (arabisch), under #-n-y, h-d-t, . 134 ïàåéçìàå úàáðìàå úàìàìà ïî úàãàîâ˙ìà éô ùåã÷ éðòà è ˙ ôììà àã˙ ä áàúëìà ìîòúñà ã÷å ˙ ìà éô (!)äúìîòúñà àîë ÷èàðìàå ÷èàð øéâìà óöú àäìë êìú þ5§ åàìá äàø »ïëì=ü ïëéì ÷ìàë ˙ ãçé éðòîá ùåã÷ ÷ìàë˙ ìà ñéìå àäéô ãâ˙åéå ú˙ ãçé éðòîá äùã÷ìàá þ100§ åàìá äàø »óöåú =ü äéô ú ˙ ì ùåã÷ åä ìá (Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, I, p. 236, n. 214 (citing Ms. BL Or. 2547, äúàã fol. 46v). Further on Yefet’s view of God’s unity and attributes see idem, I, pp. 191–258; II, pp. xxix–xxxvi (English summary). 135 d * FU => 1A ' {G   HCf  1A F!R   A  ?>B 1  g Q => H%*M  (al-Shahrast¯an¯ı, Milal, I, p. 56). On this thesis see also, inter alios, al-Mas#¯ud¯ı,

Mur¯uj, III, pp. 184–85; M¯ankd¯ım, Sharh. , pp. 301–608; Gardet & Anawati, Introduction, p. 49; Gimaret, “Mu#tazila,” pp. 789a–91a; Nader, Mu #tazila, pp. 96–98, 219–320; and Watt, Thought, pp. 231–42.

48

chapter two nor choose that which is improper (al-qab¯ıh. ), nor can He fail to uphold that which is obligatory (w¯ajib) upon Him; and that all of His actions are fitting (h. asana).136

This essential conception of God’s necessary justice is implied, no doubt, in Yefet’s use of the divine epithet “the Just” (al- #¯adil) in the opening of his introduction, just as it is explicitly reflected in following when, after noting that God has always fulfilled all that He promised Israel while at the same time reducing the punishment they deserved, he writes, With respect to Justice (al- #adl), therefore, it is not fitting (l¯a yuh. sanu) that He do aught but reward a deed of goodness (fi#l al-h. usn), though with respect to Reason (al- #aql) it is fitting (yuh. sanu) that He diminish from the punishment of the wrongdoer.137

Though clearly parallel to the Mu#tazila in discussing what is “fitting” or “not fitting” for God—i.e., what is obligatory (w¯ajib) upon Him— to do with respect to the objective ideal of Justice, Yefet also evinces a significant deviation from Mu#tazilite dogma in that he recognizes that God may—and did, in the case of Israel—exact less than required by pure Justice with respect to punishment. Like the Mu#tazila, Yefet views God’s adherence to the objective ideal of Justice (al- #adl) to be constrained in turn by His adherence to the objective ideal of Reason (al- #aql), which he also apparently construes in the same fashion as the Mu#tazila—to wit, as that which obligates “the undertaking of action according to what is proper and beneficial (for God’s creatures).” Unlike the Mu#tazila, however, Yefet elevates this latter constraint to the point that, whereas God is obligated to mete out the full reward for doing good, in meting out punishment for wrongdoing He may, in the interest of doing “what is proper and beneficial,” diminish from their punishment. Another significant reflection of Yefet’s emphasis upon the necessary justice of God is attested at the outset of his commentary on chapter four, where, in picking up on what is also the main theme of his introduction to the book, he seeks to identify the reason for God’s affliction of Israel by means of Haman’s decree. That Haman would have been

136  1i B N' i B  }!I 1A B F+ F T M " !C  > F+2 3 AE   { 8G %+ H D F A"  F!> gU   (M¯ankd¯ım, Sharh. , p. 301). See also Leaman, Philosophy,

p. 161. 137 Translation, p. 159; text, p. 3*.

yefet’s exegesis of esther

49

permitted by God to issue his decree and thereby afflict Israel without a reason that accords with the objective ideal of Justice is for Yefet, as it would be for the Mu#tazila, inconceivable. “Hence,” avers Yefet, “it is necessary (yajibu) that there be a reason which incited this great hardship against them.”138 In the longest section devoted to any given crux or question in his commentary, Yefet then proceeds to posit five different reasons, assessing each one in view of, inter alia, their conformity to his notion of “the justice of God” ( #adl all¯ah). The last reason and the one which Yefet advocates is, as also stated in his introduction, that the affliction was intended to lead the people to repentance, for when they saw that the Temple was being rebuilt and its sacrifices resumed, they adopted a “wrong response” (ta"w¯ıl f¯asid) and forsook their fasting and mourning “over their exile.” As in his introduction, however, Yefet here evinces a significant departure from the Mu#tazilite conception of God’s necessary justice, though in this instance not with respect to the extent of exacted punishment, but rather with respect to the reason for affliction. According to the Mu#tazila, exclusive of its function as an expression of punishment, affliction may also be meted out by God, as expressed by al-Jubb¯a"¯ı, solely “for the sake of (future) compensation (al- #iwad. )” or, as held by his son Ab¯u H¯ashim, “on the condition of both (future) compensation and to serve as a lesson”139 (this latter being the predominant view by Yefet’s time140). By contrast, Yefet, perhaps with this Mu#tazilite notion directly in view—if not the same as expressed by Saadia141—, prefaces his survey with the statement, We aver … that God does not afflict the nation of the sons of Israel (simply) in order to compensate them (li-yu#awwid. ah¯a) for (the affliction)—

Translation, p. 238; text, p. 30*. ^ + F  $ … ~A 1UP 9  78 ou ƒY I5  " ~A P 1A" =" j 

A!x ' I>B  ~A UJ 78 (al-Shahrast¯an¯ı, Milal, I, p. 109). See also M¯ankd¯ım, Sharh. , p. 493; Heemskerk, Suffering, pp. 157–60. 140 So per al-Ash#ar¯ı (d. 935–6), Maq¯al¯at, p. 253: &I>  M† F+ %I; F…( G H?AM cD  $

‚-  G FhG  C  ]A F+ B  ]A r Lq I (“The majority of the Mu#tazila maintain that God—be He praised!—afflicts (children) as a lesson to those who are mature, whereupon He rewards (the children); if he did not reward them His affliction of them would be an injustice”). See also M¯ankd¯ım, Sharh. , p. 493; and al-Baghd¯ad¯ı (d. 1037), Farq, p. 172. 141 This possibility was suggested to me by professor Mordecai Cohen (Yeshiva University). For Saadia’s expression of this view cf. the introduction to his commentary on Job (Qafih, . Job, pp. 13–14 [ä¨ ú˙ ìàú˙ ìà ä¨ ìæðîìà]; Goodman, Theodicy, pp. 125–26). 138 139

50

chapter two especially with respect to their Diaspora, which is realized in consequence of (murtahana bi-)142 their (unrepented) sins.143

As regards the third Mu#tazilite thesis of God’s obligatory fulfillment of His promise and His threat (al-wa#d wa"l-wa #¯ıd)—meaning that God is obligated to reward the obedient individual precisely as he promises and punish the disobedient individual precisely as He threatens144—, a clear parallel is to be noted, on the one hand, in the last of the descriptions of God with which Yefet commences his introduction—viz., “the one who keeps (His) promise and (His) threat” (s. ¯adiq al-wa#d wa"l-wa #¯ıd). On the other hand, Yefet clearly departs from the classical Mu#tazilite formulation of this thesis in that he admits that God can (and did) diminish from the precise punishment expressed in His threat, as he goes on to say: He did not promise them anything and then diminish from it; yet when they merited punishment on account of their reprehensible deeds He did diminish from (the punishment), as per the statement, for Thou, our God, hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, etc. (Ezra 9:13).145

The incompatibility of this view with the thesis as expressed by the Mu#tazila is highlighted by the following elaboration of M¯ankd¯ım: Were one to say that (God) … has made promises and threats, but that He might possibly withdraw from His threat, insofar as withdrawing from the threat would be a kindness, such a one would be a heretic (k¯afir) by virtue of attributing that which is (morally) ignominious to God … And were one to say that God … has made promises and threats and that, while it is impossible that He should go back from His promise and His threat, it is yet possible that in (addition to) the generalities of the See p. 238, n. 368 below. Translation, pp. 237–38; text, p. 30*. As pointed out to me by professors Daniel Lasker (Ben-Gurion University) and Haggai Ben-Shammai (Hebrew University), this statement does not necessarily indicate a preclusion from Yefet’s view of reward as justification for individual affliction. Indeed, in the introduction to his commentary on Job, Yefet clearly concurs with the Mu#tazilite view that God may allow affliction for the non-punitive purpose of providing an example or lesson (Hussain, Job, p. 3.12–14): ˙ ãàô äéìò áéàöîìàå ïçîìà øúàåú òî äðéã úçöå äãà÷úòà ïî øééâúé àì äðà ÷ìàë˙ ìà íìòå äìë äãòá ïî åùðé øöò ìë ãðòå äøöò ìäà ãðò ïåëéì ïçîìà áìåì úçú (“The Creator knew that, despite the continuous stream of trials and afflictions besetting him, (Job) would not waver in his belief and in the purity of his faith, and so He brought him under the heaviest point [lawlab] of such trials that his example [lit., “he”] might be (displayed) to the people of both his generation and every generation to arise after him”). 144 On this third thesis see, inter alios, al-Mas#¯ ud¯ı, Mur¯uj, III, p. 185; al-Shahrast¯an¯ı, Milal, I, p. 56; M¯ankd¯ım, Sharh. , pp. 611–93; Gardet & Anawati, Introduction, pp. 49–50; and Watt, Thought, p. 229. 145 Translation, p. 159; text, p. 3*. 142 143

yefet’s exegesis of esther

51

threat there is a proviso or exception which He has not specified, such a one would be a sinner (mukh.ti"146).147

Indeed, in this matter of doctrine (i.e., that God may diminish from his threatened punishment), one finds more of a similarity between Yefet’s view and that of the Mu#tazilites’ opponents the Ash #ariyya, the founder of whom, Ab¯u "l-Hasan al-Ash #ar¯ı, maintained that . when one who has committed a grave sin (s. ¯ah. ib al-kab¯ıra) departs from the world without repentance, his judgment is up to God—may He be exalted! Either He will pardon him in His mercy or the Prophet— God bless him and grant him salvation!—will intercede on his behalf, for he has said, “My intercession is for the grave sinners (ahl al-kab¯a"ir) among my people”148 … (God) is the master of His Creation; “He does what He will” (s¯ura 3:40; 22:18) and “He judges as He sees fit” (s¯ura 5:1). Were He, therefore, to place all of His creatures in Paradise, it would be no injustice; and were He to place them all in Hell, it would be no wrong; for injustice consists in the administration of that to which the administrator has no right, or the placing of something in that which is not its place. And because God is the Absolute Master, no injustice can be conceived of Him nor any wrong attributed to Him.149

Of course, as regards God’s general administration of reward and punishment, the Ash #ariyya and Yefet stand quite far apart, and hence the possibility of any direct influence is unlikely. In this instance, in fact, even the possibility of indirect influence is unlikely—or at the least 146 This term is apparently intended as a synonym of f¯asiq (cf. al-Shahrast¯ an¯ı, Milal, I, p. 65)—i.e., a believer who stands in “the intermediate position,”—on which see our discussion below.

147 C F+" aD !> =" #s P N !> =" #i  ou C >E > 3 AE F+G $ 

!> N > =" #i  ou B >E > 3 AE F G  $ " 03 AE F 3G }!I H" ]‡ ‚ " D

kM C F+ " 3 AE F F!I  9 c;  UO !> n > =" C  ou C (Sharh. , p.

125). It should also be borne in mind that by “a proviso or exception” (shar.t aw istithn¯a") is intended anything other than the divinely specified condition of repentance—that is to say, God’s threat of punishment concerns not the grave sinner generally, but, specifically, the grave sinner who dies in a state of unrepentance ( !+   Zj `Q †M

ICE' &!ID > HE !W ); cf. al-Mas#¯ud¯ı, Mur¯uj, III, p. 185; al-Shahrast¯an¯ı, Milal, I, p. 59; Gimaret, “Mu#tazila,” p. 790b). 148 On this quote see further Gimaret & Monnot, Religions, p. 332, n. 112. The Mu#tazila, consistent with their doctrine, maintain that Muhammad’s intended inter. cession in this statement is for grave sinners who have repented (see M¯ankd¯ım, Sharh. , pp. 688, 690).

149   F€ F q   3 AE F 3G FC C HE !W  !+   Zj 8G &!IC g { =" 7 M (F ˆ )   … (=  Y IC 1 P => O)  $ 8G ; F!> F 1{ =I F!" .J  C  '   jT  ! C  H5  Ax2 eYhs 1jT "   C^ 9 J  1A Fj h" eMM 7 M   FA]!W =" 9=J .]  v*M FC B !" v*  6 8G 'U 'U F! g B - F '* (al-Shahrast¯an¯ı, Milal, I, p. 139).

52

chapter two

unnecessary—for, like the Ash#ariyya, who base their view of God’s possible pardon of the unrepentant grave sinner upon, in part, the authoritative (albeit extra-Qur"¯anic) statement of Muhammad, so Yefet . supports his view by reference to the authoritative statements of Ezra and, in his ensuing elaboration, of Isaiah (1:9) and God through Ezekiel (14:22) and Jeremiah (5:18).150 It should also be borne in mind that, in contrast to the Ash #ariyya, and as already noted above, Yefet holds God’s bestowal of reward to be constrained by the objective ideal of Justice, as also, to an extent, His bestowal of punishment, though the latter may be “diminished” by virtue of the ideal of Reason (i.e., that which obligates God to undertake “what is proper and beneficial” for His creatures). The fourth thesis, rubricated as either the intermediate state (al-manzila bayna "l-manzilatayn) or the designations and the judgments (al-asm¯a" wa-"lah. k¯am), concerns the status of—and hence the designation to be applied to—an individual who, albeit professing the faith, has committed a grave sin (kab¯ıra)151 and not yet repented.152 Such a one is designated neither a “believer” (mu"min), since this is a “term of commendation” (ism madh. ), nor an “unbeliever” (k¯afir), since “the profession (of the faith) and the other deeds of (requisite) goodness are found in him” (alshah¯ada wa-s¯a"ir a#m¯al al-khayr mawj¯uda f¯ıhi), but rather he is designated a “wrongdoer” (f¯asiq).153 Such a one who dies without having repented of his grave sin(s) will be consigned forever to Hell, “for there is no abode between Paradise and Hell.”154

See pp. 159–60 below. I.e., “une infraction à la loi et non une dérogation aux coutumes et usages établis dans les différents groupes sociaux … Le gros péché est une révolte contre une loi naturelle, universelle, nécessaire, découverte par la raison” (Nader, Mu‘tazila, p. 303). See also al-Ash#ar¯ı, Maq¯al¯at, p. 214 (&!IC  &!q*  ‰   "hj ). 152 On this fourth thesis see, inter alios, al-Mas#¯ ud¯ı, Mur¯uj, III, p. 185; al-Shahrast¯an¯ı, Milal, I, pp. 64–65; M¯ankd¯ım, Sharh. , pp. 697–738; Gardet & Anawati, Introduction, p. 50; Gimaret, “Mu#tazila,” p. 791; Nader, Mu‘tazila, pp. 302–5; van Ess, Theologie, II, pp. 260–67; Watt, Thought, pp. 209–17, 229–30. 153 See al-Shahrast¯ an¯ı, Milal, I, p. 64. 154 '   H5 L ' T B F+P (M¯ ankd¯ım, Sharh. , p. 666). See also al-Shahrast¯an¯ı, Milal, I, p. 65 (citing W¯as.il ibn #At.a¯ " [though cf. Gimaret & Monnot, Religions, p. 187, n. 23]):   ) BG &jŠ =" X! 8G !" ‚  j '  1    " HE !W  &!ID => !+   Zj 8G (!A =" e" H5 =" e" (“When (a f¯asiq) leaves the world with a grave sin and no repentance, he forever becomes one of the populace of Hell, for in the end there are only two groups (of people): ‘a group in Paradise and a group in the Blazing Fire’ [s¯ura 42:7]”). 150 151

yefet’s exegesis of esther

53

A starting point for comparison to this thesis in Yefet’s present commentary is his introductory discussion of the circumstantial-theological framework of the book, according to which the Persian setting of the events described is taken as evidence of the continuing Diaspora (alj¯aliya) of the Jews—down to Yefet’s own day—occasioned by their continual commission of grave sins, even after having been punished for and cured of the grave sin of idolatry: There are, however, (other) grave sins (dhun¯ub kib¯ar) that they practice (ya#mal¯unah¯a), such as astrology, seeking omens, augury, sorcery, sexual immorality, profanation of the Sabbath, and the like, and thus they are rendered culpable (murtahan¯ın) by these throughout the time of the Diaspora (al-j¯aliya) until they forsake them.155

At this point, admittedly, Yefet does not specify the constituent groups comprising the subject, Israel (“they” in the quote), who are depicted as collectively perpetrating the grave sins. Nonetheless, that Yefet did in fact conceive of a three-fold distinction in spiritual status, parallel to that expounded by the Mu#tazila, for the constituent members of this collective subject is evident from his comment on Dan. 12:10 (on which book Yefet wrote a commentary apparently just after that on Esther156): He then says, (Many) shall purify themselves, and consequently divides the people into three groups … The sense of this phrase is that there are among the people devout and penitent individuals, who are the “wheat,” and (mixed in) among them are also the wicked of the people, whose food is unlawful, who profane157 the Sabbaths and the festivals, and who commit sexual abominations, (all) unrepentantly; yet God … will distinguish between them by annihilating the wicked, among whom some will perish by the sword, and some by plague, in accord with what is previously stated … (see Ezek. 20:38 and Amos 9:10), and so he says, (Many) shall purify themselves. (So far,) therefore, two groups are evident: those who are perfectly righteous and those who are completely wicked. He then says, and (many) shall make themselves white, referring to people who are intermediate (mutawassi.t¯ın) in the Faith, who do not keep the commandments in a perfect manner, but who are like a garment in which a spot of filth has set in, and which therefore requires the extirpation of those stains and subsequent washing, as is (elsewhere) said in this same (figurative) sense, all our righteousnesses are as a polluted garment (Isa. 64:5). When, therefore, the hardships (al-s. ¯arôt; see Dan. 12:1) draw near they will forsake those sins to which they (still) cling … and Translation, pp. 161–62; text, p. 4*. See Marwick, “Order,” p. 459. 157 Reading mubdhil¯ın (contra Margoliouth’s reading mubaddil¯ın, “(who) change”), on which see p. 161, n. 21 below. 155 156

54

chapter two so these are below the status of those of whom it is said, they shall purify themselves, for those are completely righteous, whereas these are intermediate (mutawassi.t¯ın).158

As in his introduction to Esther, Yefet here links the biblical situation with that of the Jewish people in his own day, among whom are intermingled the “righteous,” the “wicked,” and the “intermediate in the faith,” between whom God alone will one day distinguish. It stands to reason, therefore, that this same distinction was present to Yefet’s mind when discussing the Jewish people, likewise linked to his own day, in his introduction to Esther; in keeping with the purpose of this introduction, however, he focuses specifically on the role of that people—who are as yet an undistinguished conglomerate of righteous, intermediate, and wicked individuals—in perpetrating certain grave sins and thereby continuing to deserve the Diaspora. It may be possible, moreover, that, as with the previous two theses, Yefet’s view in this instance differs somewhat from that expounded by the majority of the Mu#tazila; for whereas the latter maintain that grave sinners (as. h. ¯ab kab¯ıra) who otherwise profess the faith are the ones qualified by the intermediate state, it may be inferred from Yefet’s abovecited comment on Dan. 12:10 that grave sinners (e.g., “those who profane the Sabbaths” [mubdhil¯ın al-sub¯ut], which act is expressly identified by Yefet as a grave sin in his introduction to Esther) belong to the category of those who are “completely wicked” (íéøåîâ íéòùø), which is clearly parallel to the Mu#tazilite category of “unbelievers” (kuff¯ar). According to Yefet, therefore, the intermediate state would ostensibly qualify anyone who fails in any way to maintain perfect (including, perhaps, the non-commission of unintentional sins159) obedience to the commandments (úåöî)—i.e., those who are neither grave sinners nor yet “completely righteous” (íéøåîâ íé÷éãö). In this respect, notably, Yefet’s view would be more akin to that of the Mu#tazilite ascetic 158 LIY E Lf { H(B ="  D   78 =" T M  000 a $ Hcr => S  " åøøáúé  $ r ?(!!"  B ‹  LICE T !>B  nI (!)L I ajf  D H(B ' O  !" HMf  " íëî éúåøáå =" + F  a( E D   a$ #!  =   " ' OB 7    ! .E F…( a$  $ 1* " åøøáúé  $ 7Q" éîò éàèç ìë åúåîé áøçá $ éá íéòùåôäå íéãøåîä úåöî A   =" LM(; a$   åðáìúé  $ r íéøåîâ íéòùø  a$  C => íé÷éãö 1q r F \IM 7E .$ 3 Z %!" H[; r F!" Œ* $ dr 1c  "  C 1!I; => B

D d+Q 7E       DE úåøö Œ$ 8 " åðéúå÷ãö ìë íéãò ãâáëå =AM Q =" FD íéøåîâ íé÷éãö 7YB  D 8 åøøáúé  !" 1!$  HII T 9B " øúðá éñáëú íà éë 9    $ LM; 9B  (Margoliouth, Daniel, p. Ž). 159

Cf. the following note.

yefet’s exegesis of esther

55

Ja#far ibn Mubashshir (d. 848–9), who held that “one who steals (even) a single grain is a ‘wrongdoer’ (f¯asiq), having derogated from the faith (munkhali # min al-¯ım¯an; i.e., having forfeited, until repentance, the designation of mu"min, ‘faithful’).”160 It may also be possible, however, that the “completely wicked” in Yefet’s comment are those who unrepentantly commit all of the grave sins indicated—i.e., those who are excessive in their commission of grave sins—, as suggested by the appositional syntax of the phrases “who profane the Sabbaths and the festivals, (and) who commit sexual abominations” (mubdhil¯ın al-sub¯ut wa-"l-a #y¯ad, murtakib¯ın al-faw¯ah. ish). The fifth thesis, rubricated after the manner of the underlying Qur"¯anic prescription,161 entails the obligation to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil (wuj¯ub al-amr bi-"l-ma #r¯uf wa-"l-nahy #an al-munkar), and to do so “with (every) opportunity and (all) ability: by the tongue, the hand, and the sword—howsoever one is able to accomplish it.”162 An evident parallel to this thesis is to be found in Yefet’s following statement— though the extent to which he intends the mode of intervention to include physical force (i.e., “the hand” and, even more so, “the sword”) is unclear163—, given after his explication of the manner in which God 160  B  .[ e; " &   HIf t' ;  >o (al-Shahrast¯ an¯ı, Milal, I, p. 81). See also al-Ash#ar¯ı, p. 215:  'T H$; Œ+ D G e; "  ‚ A H!*A gCE  JI  AU >?" Œ+ D H!*A ˆ cD  1$  (Ja#far ibn Mubashshir maintained that one who commits a sin intentionally is a ‘wrongdoer’ [f¯asiq], even if such consisted in the theft of one dirham or less, or any (other) sin”). See also idem, p. 214. 161 See suwar 3:104, 110, 114; 7:157; 9:67, 71, 112; 22:41; 31:17. 162 78 => ' $ #!D #!  !     &'    C‡ . (al-Ash#ar¯ı, p. 219). On this thesis see also, inter alios, al-Mas#¯ud¯ı, Mur¯uj, III, p. 185; M¯ankd¯ım, Sharh. , pp. 741–804; Cook, Commanding, pp. 195–226; Gardet & Anawati, Introduction, pp. 50–51; van Ess, Theologie, II, pp. 387–90; Watt, Thought, p. 231. 163 Concerning the application of extreme force for the purpose of stopping evil and producing good there appears to have been some slight diversity of opinion among the Mu#tazilite authorities—some, like M¯ankd¯ım (d. 1034) and Ab¯u "l-Husayn al-Bas.r¯ı . (d. 1044) nuancing their discussions towards restraint and avoiding explicit reference to the use of weapons, and others, like al-H¯ . akim al-Jishum¯ı (d. 1101), enthusiastically endorsing the use of the sword (Cook, Commanding, pp. 210–11, 226). In any event, Yefet’s use of the ambiguous verb yuzhiru (“(who) would manifest”) does not preclude . the idea of “escalation” (irtiq¯a")—i.e., if a wrongdoer is in one’s power, “it is incumbent upon us to forbid him with gentle speech, and if he does not desist we should harshen our speech towards him; if he still does not desist we should beat him, and if, even then, he does not desist, we should fight with him until he abandons that (sin)” (gU 

|  3G N E $ F  " ,N ] F  " , F (Jj F  " ,L   N +  !> 78 [M¯ankd¯ım, Sharh. , pp. 744–45]; see also Cook, ibid., p. 211). Of course, even if Yefet did accept the requisiteness of armed intervention during the biblical period in view, he would surely not have intended this to be extrapolated as a normative obligation

56

chapter two

judges/chastises His people, destroying the majority while yet sparing a remnant: Such is what God did with our forefathers when they were in the land, when they had become excessive in their sins and there was not one164 among them who would manifest (yuzhiru) both the enjoining of what is . good (al-amr bi-"l-ma#r¯uf) and what was required of them by God, as per His statement, Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, etc. (Jer. 5:1); and as He also said, And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand (in the breach), etc. (Ezek. 22:30).165

Also noteworthy in this passage is Yefet’s use of both the phrases “what is good” (al-amr bi-"l-ma #r¯uf) and “what was required of them by God” (m¯a yajibu li-ll¯ahi #alayhim), for unless intended as a hendiadys, these bear out the characteristically Mu#tazilite distinction between rationally apprehended obligations (#aqliyy¯at, tak¯al¯ıf/w¯ajib¯at #aqliyya) and revealed obligations (sam #iyy¯at, tak¯al¯ıf/w¯ajib¯at shar #iyya),166 which distinction is also clearly attested by Yefet in other portions of his exegetical corpus.167

by and for his dhimm¯ı readership (on the limitations of the judicial authority of dhimm¯ı Jewry during this period see Goitein, Society, II, pp. 311–45, esp. p. 330). 164 In keeping with classical Mu#tazilism, such a “one” would be any “Muslim who is able to perform the duty and satisfies the conditions [of enjoining good and forbidding wrong]”—including, presumably, women (Cook, Commanding, p. 222 and n. 146). 165 Translation, p. 160; text, p. 4*. 166 See, e.g., al-Shahrast¯ an¯ı, Milal, I, pp. 59–60: HA CO H"AM {  => E 

gU  }!I d U  f t >  1A   "A gu }!I  f  . T' 1I$ gU  ‚' Ij  ‚+ % ah  !> 9 !I+P F; T IA 3G ;' 3 AE `' I v M #! C T' 7QD (H! > =  ƒ^ H! > 7  7 !) (“(All the Mu#tazila) agree that both the fun-

damentals of the knowledge (of God) and gratitude for His beneficence are obligatory (upon man) irrespective of the receipt of specific revelation [al-sam#]; and it is incumbent (upon man) by reason (alone) to know what is good and what is bad, as it is also incumbent (upon him) to embrace what is good and avoid what is bad, the revealed obligations [tak¯al¯ıf] being (naught but) expressions of the grace of God—may He be exalted!—which He sent to men by the mediation of the prophets—peace be upon them!—for trying and testing (them), ‘that the one who perishes might perish on the strength of clear evidence and the one who lives might live on the strength of clear evidence’ [s¯ura 8:42]”); idem, p. 105; Gardet, “ #Akliyy¯ . at”; Gimaret, “Mu#tazila,” pp. 792b–93a; Gimaret & Monnot, Religions, pp. 270–71, nn. 22–26; Heemskerk, Suffering, pp. 120–22; Leaman, Philosophy, pp. 162–65; and Nader, Mu‘tazila, pp. 239–58. In contrast to its ultimate rejection by Muslim orthodoxy, this distinction between rationally apprehended and revealed obligations/theological knowledge was taken up, not only by the Karaites, but also (albeit not uniformly) by the Rabbanites, apparently through the mediation of Saadia (see, e.g., Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, I, p. 50; “Trends,” p. 347; Efros, Studies, passim). 167 See Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, I, pp. 50–100 (English summary: II, pp. vii–xvi); idem, “Trends,” pp. 346–48; and Birnbaum, Hosea, pp. xvii–xviii.

yefet’s exegesis of esther

57

In conclusion, it would seem that the situation with respect to Yefet and Mu#tazilite doctrine is similar to that respecting Yefet and rabbinic/Rabbanite exegesis—to wit, rather than rigidly characterizing the bulk of similarities in Yefet’s writings to the extant statements of this “outside group” as either primarily direct influences168 or primarily indirect influences,169 one should recognize a more fluid—or, better yet, tangled—state of affairs, according to which these similarities may be variously, and not always decisively, assigned to one of three categories: 1) direct borrowings/influences, as Yefet clearly had a first-hand knowledge of the group’s theological and conceptual distinctives, as well as direct access to a certain portion of their literary corpus (phraseological and lexical similarities are suggestive of this category); 2) indirect borrowings/influences, the ideas of the outside group being, by Yefet’s time, so far integrated into the thought of his previous coreligionists and contemporaries as to be considered thoroughly Karaitic;170 and 3) independent development, the similar views or doctrines having been originated by Yefet or other Karaite sources by virtue of a similar rationalistic conceptual approach or hermeneutic. Two or all of these categories, moreover, may overlap, each reinforcing the other to a lesser or greater degree. Indeed, as regards the last category, though possible, it seems to us highly unlikely that any given view expressed by Yefet is in fact the result of completely independent development, but rather, as is true of most of the ideas developed by scholars in every age, the product of

168

Cf. Birnbaum, Hosea, p. xv: “Yefet, like many Karaites and like some Rabbanites including Sa‘adyah, followed the religious philosophy of the Mu‘tazilites”; Hussain, Job, p. xxvii: “Yefet shows Islamic influence in general and the Mu‘tazilites’ views in particular”; and Wendkos, Jeremiah, p. xii: “Sa‘adya’s influence coincided with Yefet’s borrowing from Mu‘tazilite philosophical concepts governing Karaite interpretation of scripture.” 169 See Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, I, pp. 319–23; II, pp. xliii–xliv (English summary). See also idem, “Trends,” pp. 341–42. It should also be pointed out that, irrespective of the issue of direct or indirect influence, the manner in which one characterizes a given idea or concept not infrequently depends upon the assumed parameters of one’s discussion; thus, e.g., Wolfson writes (Repercussions, pp. 3–4) that the principle of God’s absolute unity (al-tawh.¯ıd) “was introduced by Philo as an extension, by philosophic reasoning, of the scriptural principle of the unlikeness of God … once introduced by Philo, it penetrated into pagan Greek philosophy and into Christian philosophy, and from the latter it was adopted by the Mu‘tazilites. When the spokesmen of Judaism of that period chose to follow the Mu‘tazilites rather than Muslim orthodoxy, ultimately, unbeknown to themselves, they were following Philo.” 170 See Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, ibid.

58

chapter two

an ongoing mental process which is guided and informed, both consciously and subconsciously, by an intertwined plethora of literary, personal, and experiential input. 4. Relationship to Rabbinic Sources 4.1. Midrashic-Talmudic Sources Notwithstanding their characteristic disparagement of rabbinic tradition—or, more precisely, of the sweeping authority accorded by the Rabbanites to the legal and exegetical traditions based in the Tannaitic, Amoraic, Saboraic, and Geonic corpora—the Karaites of the 10th–11th centuries (the “Karaite Golden Age”), as well as those influenced by their writings in later centuries, maintained a rich dialectical relationship with the sources of this tradition.171 Though often expressed, to be sure, in polemical fashion—the tone of which varies according to the personality, period, and place of the littérateur—, this dialectic, like Karaite exegesis generally, is fundamentally governed by the desire to determine the most rational meaning (and legal application, where relevant) of the canonical text—an approach which may otherwise be described as rationalistic scripturalism.172 Hence, where a rabbinic source attests an exegetical view of the (primarily) rationalistic (i.e., pesha.t) sort, the same or similar view, whether borrowed or independently formulated, may also be found to be advanced by one or more of the Karaite exegetes. On occasion, in fact, these latter will cite such views directly from the rabbinic sources, with or without explicit attribution thereto. Thus, for example, whereas Yefet polemicizes harshly against the Rabbanites, calling them “sinners in the eyes of God” (kh¯a.ti"¯ın #inda "ll¯ahi) for composing the mishnaic-talmudic corpus and imbuing it with divine authority,173 he nonetheless cites directly from this corpus in advancing exegetical views that, vis-à-vis the strictures of his literary-contextual— 171 See, inter alios, Ben-Shammai, “Controversy,” p. 22; idem, “Exegete,” passim; Nemoy, Anthology, p. xxiii; Polliack, “Karaism,” p. 308; Polliack & Schlossberg, Hosea, intro., chap. 2 (íééðáø úåøå÷î), sec. 1 (짧æç úåøôñ); Tirosh-Becker, “Sources,” pp. 319– 20; and our discussion above in sec. II.1. 172 On the fundamental role of scripturalism in the formation and early development of Karaism cf. Polliack, “Karaism,” pp. 299–303; Ben-Shammai, “Controversy”; idem, “Return”; and Cook, “"Anan.” 173 See his comment on Zech. 5:8, cited on pp. 37–38 (trans.) and n. 97 (text) above.

yefet’s exegesis of esther

59

or rationalistic-scripturalistic—approach, appear possible (as an option) or likely. Most notable in this regard in the presently edited work is his approbatory citation in Hebrew, at the outset of his commentary ad 2:21–23, of the benedictory formula “Blessed is He who prepares the cure prior to the affliction” (äëîì äàåôø íéã÷î êåøá),174 based upon the talmudic dictum attributed to Resh Laqish (b. Meg. 13b) that “The Holy One—blessed be He!—does not afflict Israel unless He has first created for them a cure” (íà àìà ìàøùé úà äëî àåä êåøá ùåã÷ä ïéà äìéçú äàåôø íäì àøåá ïë).175 In this instance, clearly, Yefet has no problem endorsing the rabbinic dictum (though he offers no explicit attribution) insofar as it conforms with, and—as he could not have failed to appreciate—offers a precedent dogmatic crystallization of, his own rationalistic assessment of the manner in which God “manages” His chastisements of Israel throughout biblical history. One must be careful, at this point, not to construe such direct appeal to rabbinic material on Yefet’s part as evidence of inconsistency, much less hypocrisy. As intimated above, it is not the existence of such material per se that Yefet and his co-religionists disparaged, but rather the imbuing of it (and dependent works) by the Rabbanites with sweeping—and hence practically divine—authority. In their thinking, if only the Rabbanites would admit the humanly idiosyncratic and imperfect nature of such material there would, ostensibly, be no justifiable basis for a truly “sectarian” schism. The Rabbanites’ fundamental sin, according to Yefet, is that they do not qualify their writings, as did #Anan and “every one of the Karaite scholars” after him, with the sentiment that “this (teaching) is what occurs to us and this is what has been handed down to us; yet seek for yourselves, O Israel, just as we have sought.”176 As far as Yefet is concerned, the writings of the Rabbanites, like those of the Karaites, the Mu#tazilites, or anyone else, constitute a well of ideas, each bucketful of which is to be tasted, then imbibed or discarded in accordance with the rationalistically-scripturalistically informed tastes of the one who draws. A number of indirect early rabbinic (i.e., Tannaitic through Saboraic) citations may also be identified in the present commentary, notwithstanding the absence of any explicit reference to “(the sages of) the 174 This same dictum, minus the benedictory head-word, is also cited by Salmon (see p. 212, n. 262 below). 175 See also Yalq. Shim., II, §§420 (ad Isa. 19:22); 1053 (ad Esth. 3:1). 176 Comment on Zech. 5:8, cited on pp. 37–38 (trans.) and n. 97 (text) above.

60

chapter two

Talmud” ([as. h. ¯ab] al-t¯almûd)177 or “the Midrash” (al-midr¯asˇ), in view of 1) the conformity of a given explanation, prefaced by the expression “it is said” (q¯ıla), “(some) people have said” (q¯ala qawm), etc., to an extant early rabbinic view, or 2) the specific attribution of an explanation to (ba#d. ) al- #ulam¯a" (“[some of] the scholars”), which term is apparently reserved by Yefet for the Tannaitic, Amoraic, and Saboraic sages, as distinct from the mu #allim¯un (“teachers”) and mufassir¯un (“interpreters”)—both Rabbanite as well as Karaite—of his own (including the Geonic) period.178 The latter identifying feature—i.e., attribution to (ba#d. ) al- #ulam¯a"— is attested twice in the presently edited work, both of them in Yefet’s commentary on chapter four. In the first instance, concerning the reason that prompted God to afflict Israel via Haman’s decree, Yefet writes, “we shall first mention that which some of the scholars (ba #d. al#ulam¯a") have said; then we shall state what we think about it.” Yefet then presents and refutes four alternative reasons, the first two of which are clearly attested in the early rabbinic corpus—viz.: i. The Jews worshipped Nebuchanezzar’s idol (see b. Meg. 12a; Ab. Gur., p. 35; Pan. Ah. . A, p. 47; Song. Rab. vii.8). ii. The Jews of Susa participated in Ahasuerus’ second banquet (i.e., they consumed forbidden foods—which, according to one early rabbinic tradition, were also served in vessels taken from the Temple [cf. Tgs. Esth. I & II ad 1:7]) (see Tg. Esth. I ad 4:1; b. Meg. 12a [and the comms. ad loc.]; Ab. Gur., pp. 32–33; Esth. Rab. vii.14 [18]; Song. Rab. vii.8). The third and fourth alternatives, however, we have been unable to locate in the early rabbinic corpus—viz.: iii. The Jews failed to return en masse to Jerusalem when Cyrus issued the decree permitting them to do so.

See, e.g., Yefet ad Deut. 33:4, apud Frank, Search, pp. 91 (trans.), 278 (text). See Polliack & Schlossberg, Hosea, intro., chap. 2 (íééðáø úåøå÷î), sec. 1 (úåøôñ 짧æç), fifth paragraph; Tirosh-Becker, “Sources,” p. 326. In a few instances, as noted by Polliack & Schlossberg (ibid., sixth paragraph), the expression ba #d. al-mufassir¯ın (“some [or “one”] of the interpreters”) is also used by Yefet with specific reference to an early rabbinic view (see also Birnbaum, Hosea, p. xiii, and Salmon’s use of such in the citation on p. 169, n. 47 below). By the opposite token, al-F¯as¯ı, once in his extant corpus, employs the phrase #ulam¯a" al-qar¯a"iy¯ın (J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 152, ll. 23–24; cited on p. 317, n. 748 below). 177 178

yefet’s exegesis of esther

61

iv. The Jews persisted in their unrepentant commission of grave sins (excepting idolatry, per Yefet’s introductory discussion). It may consequently be deduced that these latter two views derive from an early rabbinic source or sources known to Yefet but currently not extant,179 or else that they are not in fact early rabbinic views at all, but rather those of exegetes belonging to Yefet’s own period. As regards this latter possibility it may be noted that both of these alternatives, albeit the latter in more general fashion,180 are supplied by Salmon in his comment ad 4:3; in introducing both views, however, Salmon employs the general attributory formula (wa-)q¯ıla (“[and] it is said”), which Yefet, perhaps consulting Salmon at this point—and knowing of these views from no other source—, may have mistaken as an attribution to the early rabbinic corpus. In the second instance the term al- #ulam¯a" is employed, at the end of Yefet’s commentary on chapter four, as the collective attribution of two views otherwise attested in the early rabbinic corpus concerning the nature of Esther’s physical relationship with the king—viz.: i. She was forced to sleep with the king, “like one who is raped” (ka-"l-maqh¯ura) (see b. Meg. 15a [ad 4:16; = Ag. Esth., p. 45]; b. San. 74b). ii. She had not (yet) been approached by the king (see Tg. Esth. II ad 4:11).181 Otherwise, as regards the conformity of a given explanation—when prefaced by an impersonal expression such as q¯ıla (“it is/has been said”), etc.—to an early rabbinic view, we have been able to identify, 179 As regards the third view cf. the tradition, though not expounded in connection with the events of Esther, that “only a tribe and a half ” returned with Ezra upon the promulgation of Cyrus’ decree (Ginzberg, Legends, IV, p. 345; VI, pp. 431–2, n. 5). Though the lack of endorsement for this third view, at least among the BabylonianJewish sources, is hardly surprising, it is not unrelated to—and may in fact have been extrapolated from—the early tradition that Israel, during their Diaspora, became lax in their observance of God’s commands (see the proems of Resh Laqish and R. Eleazar in b. Meg. 11a, and the comment of R. Isaac Nappaha . [ad 4:5], ibid. 15a, as well as the discussion of Segal, Midrash, I, pp. 91–94, 113–14). 180 I.e., “they intermingled with the nations of the world and learned some of their vile characteristics” (àéãøìà íäîéñ ïî åîìòúå íìåòä úåîàá [22§ åàìá äååùä] åèìèë˙ à). For the full text and translation of Salmon’s pertinent comment see p. 240, n. 386 below. 181 In view of the rabbinic precedence of these views the reading #ulam¯a"una (“our scholars”) for al- #ulam¯a" in Ms. R1 (see the text, p. 34*, n. ad l. 7 may be reasonably identified as a later scribal “adjustment.”

62

chapter two

apart from those subsumed under reference to (ba #d. ) al- #ulam¯a", three probable citations from the early rabbinic corpus. Two of these are introduced by the formula q¯ıla and the other by q¯ala ¯akhar (“others say/have said,” “another says/has said”), which formulae are elsewhere employed in Yefet’s commentary on Esther to introduce explanations seven times182 and two times183 respectively, as is also, on eight occasions,184 the formula q¯ala qawm (“some people say/have said”). Of the three citations, two are presented as possible alternatives—viz.: i. On the manner in which Mordecai learned of the eunuchs’ plot (ad 2:22). Yefet, pp. 211 (trans.), 22* (text)

Tg. Esth. II ad loc.

It has also been said that God revealed it to him in a dream.

After this the matter was revealed by the Holy Spirit (var.: + “to Mordecai”).185

ii. On the reason that the king summoned Vashti to display her beauty (ad 1:10–11). Yefet, pp. 181 (trans.), 11* (text)

b. Meg. 12b

Others say that intoxication brought him to this, as per the statement, when the heart of the king was merry with wine—though if he had been sober he would not have desired it—, and that the queen knew that the intoxication had brought him to this, and therefore she did not come.

Therefore was the king very wroth (v. 12)—Why did (his anger) burn so greatly within him? Raba said, “She sent to him (saying), ‘O son of (my) father’s steward, (my) father drank wine before the thousand (Dan. 5:1) and did not become drunk, yet you [lit. ‘that man’] have become demented from your [lit. ‘his’] wine!’”186

182 I.e., ad 1:1, tarjama (alternate translation; see sec. III.2); 1:22 (bis, pp. 189 [trans.], 14* [text]); 2:12 (pp. 203 [trans.], 19* [text]); 6:12, tarjama (alternate translation; see sec. III.2); the reason for the omission of God’s name (pp. 273 [trans.], 45* [text]); and 10:3 (p. 317 [trans.], 63* [text]; most likely from the Geonic period). 183 I.e., ad the divine motive prompting Haman’s decree (subsumed under ba #d al. #ulam¯a"), and the nature of Esther’s physical relationship with the king (subsumed under al- #ulam¯a"), on both of which see our discussion in the preceding paragraphs. 184 I.e., ad 1:10–11 (bis, pp. 180–81 [trans.], 11* [text]); the divine motive prompting Haman’s decree (bis, subsumed under ba #d. al- #ulam¯a"; pp. 238–39 [trans.], 31* [text]); the reason for the omission of God’s name (ter, pp. 272–73 [trans.], 45* [text]); and the nature of Esther’s physical relationship with the king (subsumed under al- #ulam¯a"; pp. 247 [trans.], 34* [text]). 185 (éëãøîì + :১ð) àùã÷ çåøá àîâúô éæçúà ïëá. See also Pan. Ah. B, p. 65. . 186 àáà àáàã äéøééøåäà øá äéì äçìù àáø øîà ®éàä éìåë äéá ä÷ìã éàîà ®ãàî êìîä óö÷éå äéøîçá éèúùà àøáâ àåääå éåø àìå éúù àøîç àôìà ìá÷ì. See also Tg. Esth. II ad v. 12; Ab.

Gur., p. 13 (ad v. 10); Pan. Ah. . B, p. 60 (ad v. 10); Leq. Tob, p. 91 (ad v. 10); Ag. Esth., p. 14 (ad v. 11).

yefet’s exegesis of esther

63

The remaining citation, like those attributed to ba#d. al- #ulam¯a" and discussed above, is presented and rejected: i. On the proximity of India and Kûˇs (ad 1:1). Yefet, pp. 169 (trans.), 7* (text)

b. Meg. 11a

It is said that India and Kûˇs are adjacent, yet (the mudawwin) is referring to his area of dominion as crescent-shaped (.taylas¯anan).

(Samuel) said India and Kûˇs are adjacent to one another, and (the idea is that) just as he ruled over India and Kûˇs, so too did he rule from one end of the world to the other.187

In addition to the probable identification of early rabbinic exegesis as implied by one or another of the aforementioned introductory formulae, we have noted at least 47 comments in the present work which, although prefaced by no formulae, attest a fundamental, if not always specific, affinity with comments on Esther in the early rabbinic corpus.188 Nonetheless, whether—and to what extent—the latter were indeed drawn upon by Yefet, or—as is surely the case in many, if not most, of these instances—they represent coincidental agreement occasioned by (sporadic) application of an early literary-contextual (pesha.t) approach, remains unclear. The following nine examples will serve to illustrate: i. On the construal of äðéãî in 1:1 (and throughout the book) as “city” (rather than “province”). Yefet, pp. 170 (trans.), 7* (text)

Ibn Ezra, Comm. B ad loc.

(The mudawwin) further indicates that in the whole of his kingdom were one hundred and twenty-seven cities, aside from their outlying townships and (those areas) adjoining them, and these cities were like Damascus, Tiberius, Ramla, and those similar to them.

We grant it to our Tanna that it was written m˘edînâ ûm˘edînâ (Esth. 9:28)… so as to distinguish between those enclosed by a wall from the time of Joshua b. Nun and those enclosed by a wall from the time of Ahasuerus.189

187 ãòå íìåòä óåñî êìî êë ùåëå åãåä ìò êìîù íùë ®éîéé÷ ååä éããä éáâ ùåëå åãåä øîà ãçå

See also Tg. Esth. II ad loc.; Esth. Rab. i.4; Pan. Ah. . A, p. 45; Pan. Ah. . B, p. 56; Ag. Esth., p. 6. 188 I.e., ad 1:3–4, 6 (bis), 9, 14–16, 17, 18, 19, 20; 2:5 (bis), 7, 9, 10–11, 14, 16 (bis), 18, 22; 3:2, 3–4, 6, 7 (bis), 8 (bis), 9, 10, 12; 4:7, 8, 12, 16; 6:1, 10–12; 7:4, 5; 8:2, 6; 9:27, 28, 29, 31, 32; 10:3 (ter). The parallel passages in the early rabbinic corpus are cited in the notes ad loc. åôåñ.

189 ïåð ïá òùåäé úåîéî äîåç ïéô÷åî ïéá ÷ìçì ®®® äðéãîå äðéãî áéúëã åðééä ïãéã àðúì àîìùá ùåøåùçà úåîéî äîåç úô÷åîì.

64

chapter two

ii. On the source of Ahasuerus’ great wealth (ad 1:3–4). Yefet, pp. 175–76 (tr.), 9* (text)

Tg. Esth I ad 1:4

(It came) either from his having pillaged the countries which had rebelled against him … or else from all that belonged to Cyrus having passed on to him.

He displayed to them his wealth which had been left in his hands by Cyrus the Mede.190

iii. On the specific appearance of the “couches of gold and silver” (ad 1:6). Yefet, pp. 178 (trans.), 10* (text)

Esth. Rab. ii.8

(The mudawwin) then mentions the couches, indicating that some of them were overlaid with gold, and some of them overlaid with silver; or else the frame (of each couch) may have been overlaid with gold and its leg-posts with silver.

R. Judah maintained, “he who was fit for silver (was assigned) to silver; he who was fit for gold (was assigned) to gold.191 Tg. Esth I (= Tg. Esth. II) ad loc. … couches whose frames were of fine gold and whose legs were of silver192

iv. On the identification of éðù in 2:14 as an attribute of (íéùðä) úéá. Yefet, pp. 204 (trans.), 20* (text)

Tg. Esth. II ad loc.

(The mudawwin) indicates that, when she departed from the king, she would not return to Hegai, but would come into the care of another servant in a residence different from that (previous) one.

At eventide she would enter … and at morning-tide she would return to the second harem.193

190 äàãî ùøë ïî äéãéá øàúùéà éã äéøúåò úé ïåäì éåçà. See also Esth. Rab. ii.1 and Ab. Gur., p. 9, which, like Yefet in the remainder of his comment ad loc., cite Isa. 45:3. 191 áäæì áäæì éåàøä ®óñëì óñëì éåàøä øîà äãåäé éáø. 192 óñëã ïåäéòøëå áè áäãã ïåäéèéì÷ú ïéùâøã. Translation per Grossfeld, Two Targums, p. 33. 193 (ïééðéú ºà§§ð) àðééðú àéùð úéáì àáééú úåä àøôö ïãéòáå ®®® àìééò úåä àùîø ïãéòá. We see no reason here to follow Grossfeld (Two Targums, p. 46) in rendering àðééðú/ïééðéú adverbially as “again” (properly denoted by úåðééðú [see Sokoloff, Dictionary, p. 587a and Tg. Esth. II ad loc.]) rather than “second”—which latter is in fact adopted by Grossfeld in his earlier published translation (First Targum, p. 47).

yefet’s exegesis of esther

65

v. On the timing of Esther’s selection and entry before the king (ad 2:16 vis-à-vis 1:4–5). Yefet, pp. 198 (trans.), 18* (text)

Tg. Esth. II ad 2:8

Ahasuerus persisted in gathering the young women for three years, with Esther being taken only in the last. This indicates that Mordecai initially concealed her.

When Mordecai heard that virgins were being sought, he took and concealed Esther from the officers of King Ahasuerus … that they might not come and take her away.194

vi. On the identification of those days on which Esther’s fast was observed (ad 8:3ff.). Yefet, pp. 281 (trans.), 48* (text)

Esth. Rab. viii.7

Mordecai approached the king’s gate, crying out, on the day on which Haman had written the letters, after which they fasted for three days, Haman then being executed on the fourth day; and they fasted either for two days during the (Passover) feast [i.e., the 14th and 15th of Nisan], or else they fasted after the conclusion of the feast.

She said to him, Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Susa, and fast ye for me—neither eat nor drink—for three days—these being the 13th, 14th, and 15th of Nisan.195

vii. On the distinction between the first and second øîàéå in 7:5 (indicating two occasions of speaking, rather than one, emphatically). Yefet, pp. 268–69 (tr.), 43* (text)

b. Meg. 16a

The king first asked his servants who it was that had undertaken this, yet they uttered not a word … and so the king turned back to Esther and said, “Identify him, that I may do to him what he deserves.”

Why (does it read) wayy¯omer (followed by another) wayy¯omer? R. Abbahu replied, “At first (he spoke to her) through an interpreter, though when she told him, ‘I come from the house of Saul,’ he immediately (and directly) said to Queen Esther, (etc.).”196

194 é÷ôðã §ùçà àëìîã éåðáøáø ïî øúñàì àùèå ì÷ù ïééòáúî àúìåúáã éëãøî òîù ãëå äéðåøáãéå ïåúéé àìã àúìåúá éòáéîì. See also Pan. Ah. . B, pp. 63–64; Ag. Esth., p. 21. 195 úùìù åúùú ìàå åìëàú ìàå éìò åîåöå ïùåùá íéàöîðä íéãåäéä ìë úà ñåðë êì åì äøîà ïñéðá 姧èå 㧧éå ⧧é ïä åìà íéîé. See also Pirqe R. El., ch. 50; Leq. Tob, p. 103; Ag. Esth., p. 45 .

(implicitly, following Pirqe R. El.). 196 ìåàù úéáãî äéì äøîàã ïåéë ®ïîâøåú éãé ìò äìçúá åäáà éáø øîà ®éì äîì øîàéå øîàéå

66

chapter two

viii. On the eternal observance of Purim (ad 9:28). Yefet, pp. 306 (trans.), 59* (text)

Midr. Prov. ad Prov. 9:2

Even in the era of (final) redemption it shall be obligatory, as per the statement, nor shall the remembrance (of these days) pass from their descendants.

All of the appointed festivals will be annulled in the (messianic) future, yet the two days of Purim will never be annulled, for it is said, These days of Purim shall never pass away from the Jews.197

ix. On the partitive sense of åéçà áøì in 10:3. Yefet, pp. 316 (trans.), 62* (text)

b. Meg. 16b

(The mudawwin employs) the expression the majority of his brethren because the people had no lack of those who were envious or who did not behave equitably, and who did not therefore favor Mordecai as they ought to have.

To the majority (r¯ob) of his brethren, not to all (kol) his brethren—which teaches us that some of the (members of the) sanhedrin separated from him.198

4.2. Saadia Gaon Among the corpus of extant Judaeo-Arabic commentaries on the book of Esther, only those of the great Rabbanite littérateur Saadia Gaon (882–942) and his two younger Karaite contemporaries, Salmon ben Yer¯uhim . and Yefet, evince the two-part structure of alternating translation (itself alternating with each Hebrew verse or incipit) and commentary (see further sec. III.1 below). Saadia and Yefet, moreover, evince an even more precise structural similarity, in that they organize these alternations by pericope rather than, like Salmon (for the most part), by verse. Comparatively presented, together with the Masoretic delineations attested in the Aleppo Codex (MT-A)199 and the St. Petersburg (Leningrad) Codex (MT-P)200—with which, notably, Yefet shows greater

äëìîä øúñàì øîàéå ãéî àðéúà÷.

66.

See also Tg. Esth. II ad loc.; Leq. Tob, p. 108; Ag. Esth., p. .

197 àì äìàä íéøåôä éîéå øîàðù ¬íìåòì íéìèá íðéà íéøåôä éîéå ¬íéìèá íéãéúò íéãòåîä ìëù p. 111; Ag. Esth., p. 81. íéãåäéä êåúî åøáòé. See also y. Meg. i.5; b. Meg. 10b; Leq. Tob, . 198 ïéøãäðñ úö÷î åðîî åùøéôù ãîìî ¬åéçà ìëì àìå åéçà áøì. 199 200

Per Breuer, Crown. Per Elliger, Biblia.

yefet’s exegesis of esther

67

agreement (7x with MT-A and 8x with MT-P vs. 4x in both cases for Saadia)—, these are as follows (where ô = äçåúô äùøô and ñ = äùøô äîåúñ):201 Saadia (19)

Yefet (20)

MT-A (23)

MT-P (24)

1:1 1:2203 1:3–4204 1:5–22(?)205 2:1–11(?)206 2:12–20207

1:1 1:2–12

1:1–9

1:1–9

1:10–15 (ñ) 1:16–22 (ô) 2:1–4 (ô) 2:5–10 (ô) 2:11–20 (ñ) 2:21–23 (ñ) 3:1–7 (ô) 3:8–15 (ñ)

1:10–15 (ñ) 1:16–22 (ñ) 2:1–4 (ô) 2:5–20 (ñ) 2:21–23 (ñ) 3:1–7 (ô) 3:8–15 (ñ)

4:1–12 (ñ) 4:13–17 (ô) 5:1–2 (ñ) 5:3–14 (ñ) 6:1–7:4 (ñ) 7:5–8 (ñ) 7:9–10 (ñ)

4:1–12 (ô) 4:13–17 (ô) 5:1–2 (ñ) 5:3–14 (ñ) 6:1–7:4 (ô) 7:5–8 (ñ) 7:9–10 (ñ)

202

2:21–23208 3:1–5209 3:6–15210 4:1–4211 4:5–17212 5:1–14213 6:1–12 6:13–7:10214

1:13–22 2:1–4 2:5–20 2:21–23 3:1–7 3:8–11 3:12–15 4:1–17 5:1–8 5:9–14 6:1–13 6:14–7:10

201 Saadia’s delineation, as indicated in the footnotes thereto, has been reconstructed, in some instances tentatively, on the basis of the fragments published by Ratzaby as well as the seven identified by us in the course of research for the present edition (see p. 9, n. 50 above). 202 See Ratzaby, “Esther,” pp. 1173, l. 28 (last line)–1174, l. 1; idem, “Fragments,” p. 208 [16], ll. 25–26. 203 See Ratzaby, “Esther,” p. 1175, ll. 23–24; idem, “Fragments,” p. 210 [18], ll. 33–34; Ms. CUL T-S Ar. n.s. 309.52, verso. 204 See Ratzaby, “Fragments,” p. 211 [19], ll. 19–22. 205 Contiguous commentary is extant ad 1:13–19 (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3866, fol. 3v–r). 206 Contiguous commentary is extant ad 2:9–11 (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3866, fol. 1r). 207 See Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3866, fol. 1r–v. 208 See Ratzaby, “Fragments,” p. 203 [11], n. 38. 209 See Ms. CUL T-S Ar. 23.44, fol. 1r. 210 See Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3866, fol. 2r, together with Ratzaby, “Fragments,” p. 205 [13], n. 51. 211 See Ms. CUL T-S Ar. 23.44, fol. 5r. 212 Contiguous commentary is extant ad 4:13–17 (Ms. CUL T-S Ar. 33.31). 213 See Ms. CUL T-S Ar. 49.99, fol. 2v. 214 See Ms. RNL Yevr. II 700, fol. 1r–v.

68

chapter two Saadia (19)

Yefet (20)

MT-A (23)

MT-P (24)

8:1–17

8:1–2 8:3–17

8:1–2 (ô) 8:3–6 (ñ) 8:7–14 (ñ)

9:1–19215

9:1–19

8:15–9:19 (ñ)

9:20–28(?) 9:29–32(?) 10:1–3

9:20–28 9:29–32 10:1–3

9:20–28 (ñ) 9:29–32 (ñ) 10:1–3 (ñ)

8:1–2 (ô) 8:3–6 (ô) 8:7–14 (ñ) 8:15–9:4 (ô) 9:5–11 (ô) 9:12–19 (ñ) 9:20–28 (ô) 9:29–32 (ñ) 10:1–3 (ô)

This uniquely attested structural similarity between Saadia and Yefet further bears out the fact—already well-noted in previous editions and studies—that, notwithstanding Yefet’s occasional polemical raillery against the Gaon, the two share much in common with respect to the method as well as the content of their exegesis.216 To what extent, however, Yefet may have seen in Saadia “a worthy model”217 remains a moot issue. It is true, certainly, that, notwithstanding minor variation, many of the explanations advanced by Yefet are also to be found in the extant works of Saadia, yet many of these explanations are also attested in other exegetical sources—both Rabbanite as well as Karaite—from which Yefet may also have drawn. Indeed, to posit linear, or sole, dependence on one source alone for most of these explanations— whether presented by Yefet as citatory or not—would be imprudent considering that the exegetical process for Yefet, as for the modern biblical exegete, was, realistically, an ever-shifting amalgam of personal opinion (deduction), recourse to a variety of written sources, and peerto-peer discussion. In and of itself, therefore, the presence of a parallel, although permitting the possibility that Yefet may have drawn from Saadia (and even then not necessarily exclusively), does not justify the probability of such. In adducing the latter one must also consider the degree of agreement 215

7–16.

See Ms. RNL Yevr. II 700, fol. 2r–v, together with Ratzaby, “Esther,” p. 1178, ll.

216 See Auerbach, Proverbiorum, p. 4; Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, passim; Birnbaum, Hosea, pp. xx–xxiii; Bland, Ecclesiastes, p. viii; Frank, Search, pp. 14, 60, 251; Günzig, Proverbien, pp. 24–25; Hirschfeld, N¯ah. ¯um, p. 7; Hussain, Job, pp. lxxviii–lxxxix; Margoliouth, Daniel, pp. vii–viii; Nemoy, Anthology, p. 83; Polliack & Schlossberg, Hosea, Introduction, chap. 4, sec. á.4 (⧧ñø ºíééðáø úåøå÷î); Simon, Approaches, pp. 71–97 (passim); Sokolow, Deuteronomy, pp. xi, xv–xvii; Wechsler, “Proverbs 31:10–31,” p. 285; Wendkos, Jeremiah, p. xii. 217 Birnbaum, Hosea, p. xx.

yefet’s exegesis of esther

69

(counterbalanced by the likelihood of independent formulation), whether and to what extent the explanation is attested in previous sources (Karaite and Rabbanite), and whether the explanation is presented by Yefet as a citation. Thus, for example, though both Saadia and Yefet agree in explaining the prostration required before Haman (ad 3:2) as an intended expression of worship (Saadia: k¯ana suj¯ud #ib¯ada; Yefet: yasjud¯una lahu #al¯a sab¯ıl al-#ib¯ada), the probability of influence by the former upon the latter remains unlikely—as does, in this instance, even the possibility of such—insofar as this explanation is 1) quite reasonably within the deductive purview of the rationalistic exegetical method which was common to both of them as Oriental exegetes,218 2) universally attested in the early rabbinic corpus as well as among both medieval Rabbanite and Karaite sources (the only exception being, to our knowledge, the Rabbanite Tanhum b. Joseph ha-Yerushalmi, . who construes the required prostration as “an exhibition of deference and respect” [ikr¯am wa-ijl¯al]219), and 3) not presented by Yefet as a citation. Several of the explanations advanced by Yefet, however, are attended by a potential of derivation from Saadia that strikes us as being more than merely possible, though at the same time not squarely probable. This category, the constituents of which we would describe as being tentatively probable, is characterized by explanations which are 1) neither inevitably nor obviously within the deductive purview of the rationalistic exegetical method applied by Saadia and Yefet, and 2) attested in only a few other previous sources (at least one) from which—as additionally, perhaps, from Saadia and/or oral sources—Yefet may therefore have drawn. Thus, for example, both Saadia and Yefet explain íéæøô and úåæøô in 9:19 as “suburbanites” (rabd. iy¯ın/r¯abid.¯ın) and “suburbs” (arb¯ad. ) respectively, which parallel might otherwise be considered an instance of probable influence were it not also attested by the Karaite David b. Abraham al-F¯as¯ı, who preceded Yefet in Jerusalem by about a generation. Of course, the possibility also exists that the latter was himself influenced by Saadia, or that both were influenced by a common oral and/or sporadically written tradition of Arabic Bible translation.220 See also, as examples of this category, the construal by both exegetes of áø 218

See our discussion in sections II.1–2. For the entire comment, in which he undertakes a specific critique of Saadia’s view, see p. 215, n. 269 below. 220 See Polliack, Tradition, pp. 3–22, esp. the summary on pp. 21–22. 219

70

chapter two

in 10:3 as partitive (i.e., “most”), likewise attested in b. Meg. 16b, as well as their construal of åîò in loc. cit. as the pronominal referent of åòøæ (i.e., by explication, “his people’s seed”), likewise attested in Tg. Esth. I. Parallels that we have deemed as probable instances of influence by Saadia upon Yefet are those which, in addition to being neither inevitably nor obviously within the deductive purview of the rationalistic method applied by both exegetes, are 1) attested in no other previous source (Rabbanite or Karaite), and/or 2) presented by Yefet as citations. To this category, accordingly, belong the following three parallels from the presently edited commentary221: i. On the crescent-shaped spread of Ahasuerus’ kingdom, as implied by the reference to H¯oddû and Kûˇs in 1:1. Yefet, pp. 169–70 (tr.), 7* (text)

Saadia, Comm., pp. 1174–75

(The mudawwin) also informs us that his kingdom was from H¯oddû unto Kûˇs, and, though it is said that H¯oddû and Kûˇs are adjacent, (the mudawwin) is referring to his area of dominion as crescent-shaped (.taylas¯anan). This is similar to the statement, for he had dominion over all the region on this side of the river, from Tiphsah even to Gaza (1Kgs 5:4), for between Tiphsah and Gaza is an oblique route.

Both [India and Abyssinia (i.e., H¯oddû and Kûˇs)] are entirely in the region whence blows the South Wind, India being on that (part) of the latitudinal line which adjoins the East and Abyssinia being on that (part) of it which adjoins the West. Thus, the Scripture here delineates the kingdom of Ahasuerus only by its latitudinal width, not by its longitudinal width … Sometimes, however, (the Scripture) delineates [a kingdom] only by its longitudinal width, which is what it says concerning Solomon, for he had dominion over all the region on this side of the river, from Tiphsah even to Gaza (1 Kgs 5:4).222

221 These parallels encompass only the commentary proper of both exegetes, exclusive of their Arabic translations. For exegetical-translational parallels in the latter see the footnotes thereto. 222 èë ˙ ìà êìã˙ ïî ÷øùìà éìé àîéô ãðäìà áåðâ˙ìà áäî ä¨ äâ˙ éô àòéîâ˙ àîäðà êìã˙ ïåëéå þ®®®ü ¨ ëìîî àðäàä áàúëìà øøç äðî áøâìà éìà éìé àîéô ä¨ ùáçìàå àì è÷ô ìåèìàá ùåøåùçà ä ˙ øòá äããç àîáøå ®®® õ˙ øòìàá çñôúî øäðä øáò ìëá äãø àåä éë äîìù éô ìà÷ àî åäå è÷ô äö äæò ãòå.

yefet’s exegesis of esther

71

ii. On the referential distinction between the two terms áéåàå øö applied by Esther to Haman in 7:6. Yefet, pp. 269 (trans.), 43* (text)

Saadia, Comm., p. 1177

And she said, An adversary and an enemy, by which she meant, (he is) an adversary to me and an enemy to my people.

The sense of An adversary and an enemy may be two-fold—viz., an enemy to Esther’s people and a hater of Esther herself, or an enemy of her and a hater of the king, or an enemy of the king and a hater of the Lord of humanity, or an enemy of people and a hater of his own soul.223

iii. On the absence of any explicit reference to God in the book. Yefet, pp. 272–73 (tr.), 45* (text)

Saadia, Comm., p. 1173

Other people say that the mudawwin copied it from the text which Esther wrote (see 9:29), and that in Esther’s letter there was no mention of the name of God, for she disdained the idea that the scroll might fall into the hand of a people other than Israel and they would attribute the work of God to the work of another (god).

[If] those who believe had entered the name of the Almighty therein, the unbelievers would have entered in its place—having omitted it—the name of their deity; and it would have been those who succeeded them who were the reason for the recording of the idol’s name in one of the (royal?) historical records. However, since the unbelievers did not find any (divine) name in the text, they did not enter in place of it any name of their deity.224

4.3. Abraham Ibn Ezra The pervasive influence of Yefet’s commentaries upon those of the famous Andalusian littérateur, Abraham ibn Ezra (ca. 1093–1167), has been well noted by previous scholars225—and, indeed, is of such a kind 223 êìîìì õ ˙ âàá àäì åãò àö˙ éàå éä àäì õ˙ âàá øúñà ä¨ îàì åãò àøøëî áéåàå øö éðòî ïåëéå ˙ âàá ñàðìì åãò àö˙ éàå ïéîìàòìà áøì õ˙ âàá êìîìì åãò àö˙ éàå. äñôðì õ 224 íñà àäéô åë ˙ ñðéô äðàëî øàôëìà åúáú˙ àì àäéô (?)÷ú˙ åàìà íñà åúáú˙ à ïéðîåî[ìà] ˙ àì ááñìà åðàë ïéã˙ ìà þ251§ åàìá äàø] íä (?)ïéòáúîìà ïàëå íäãåáòî éô ïúåìà íñà úàáú ˙ é íì ä¨ ë˙ ñðìà éô àîñà åãâ˙é íì àã˙ à ïéøôàëìà ïëì øàáë˙ àìà ïî øáë˙ íäãåáòîì äéàæàá åúáú àîñà.

225 See Ankori, Karaites, p. 378, n. 59; Auerbach, Proverbiorum, p. 4; Birnbaum, Hosea, pp. xliii–xlvii; Broydé, “Japheth,” p. 73a; Hirschfeld, N¯ah. ¯um, p. 7; Hussain, Job, pp.

72

chapter two

as to quite reasonably permit our designation of Ibn Ezra as the greatest single mediator of Yefet’s exegesis (and hence of Karaite exegesis generally) among the Rabbanites. Throughout his exegetical corpus Ibn Ezra cites Yefet profusely by name (more than 100 times226)— sometimes more than any other exegete on the book(s) being treated227—and, apparently to an even greater extent, incorporates much of Yefet’s exegesis in non-citative fashion. In addition to his standard, concise commentary (Comm. A) on Esther contained in most editions of the Rabbinic Bible (úåìåãâ úåàø÷î), there also survives, in its entirety, a longer commentary (Comm. B) by Ibn Ezra on the book.228 In neither of these, however, does he cite Yefet by name. Nonetheless, the presence of influence may be reasonably quantified and assessed by means of the criteria discussed above regarding parallels between Yefet and Saadia, and the degree of influence likewise designated as either possible, tentatively probable, or probable. An example of the first category, accordingly, may be found in the construal by both exegetes of the relative pronoun at the head of 2:6 in reference to Mordecai (not Kish), who, having been exiled with Jeconiah, would therefore be an old man (according to Ibn Ezra, more than 90 years old).229 That Ibn Ezra was influenced here primarily by Yefet, however, cannot be deemed more than possible, since this view is 1) quite reasonably within the rationalistic exegetical purview common to both exegetes, and 2) well attested in sources antedating Ibn Ezra’s

xxxiv–xxxviii; Lehrman, “Jephet,” p. 234; Nemoy, Anthology, p. 83; Polliack, “Karaism,” p. 322; Polliack, “Trends,” p. 391; Polliack & Schlossberg, Hosea, Introduction, chap. 4, sec. â.1 (÷§§ãøå ò§§áàø ìò úôé ìù åúòôùä); Skoss, “Jafet,” col. 756; Sokolow, Deuteronomy, p. xiii; Tamani, “Tradizione,” p. 33; Wechsler, “Proverbs 31:10–31,” p. 285. 226 See Polliack & Schlossberg, ibid.; Simon, Approaches, p. 150. Most of these attributed citations are found in his extant second series of Hebrew commentaries written in France (the first set was written about a decade earlier in Italy; on the relationship between the two see, inter alios, Simon, ibid., pp. 145–53, and the literature cited therein). 227 So, e.g., in his commentary on the Minor Prophets, in which he cites Yefet 44 times (Birnbaum, Hosea, p. xliii; see also Simon, Prophets, p. 10). 228 This work survives in at least five different Mss and was edited by J. Zedner in 1850 (London) under the title íäøáà óñåéå, supplemented in that same year by L. Dukes in Literaturblatt des Orients 11, p. 341 (see Walfish, Esther, pp. 319–20). 229 Comm. B, 34r–v: äøùò éúùò åäéðëé úåìâ øçà êìî åäé÷ãö éë øúñà äç÷ìð øùàë ï÷æ äðäå àöé íéðù äîë ïá åðòãé àìå ®®® åðåáùçá äòè àìù ìàéðã øôñá éúøàá øùàë äðù íéòáù åøáòå äðù äðù §öî øúåé ïá äéä øúñà éîéá äðä íéîé ùãç ïá äéäù åðøîà íà äðäå ®íìùåøéî éëãøî.

yefet’s exegesis of esther

73

work.230 Similarly, though both exegetes explain the king’s insomnia in 6:1ff. as the result of God’s specific intervention,231 especial influence by Yefet remains (at best) only a possibility, since this view, which is arguably inevitable from a “religious” perspective, is standard in the earlier sources.232 We would also designate as a possible instance of influence Ibn Ezra’s explanation concerning the absence of any explicit reference to God in the book. His well known reasoning—viz., that the writer (i.e., Mordecai, according to Ibn Ezra; Esther, according to Yefet) sought to avoid the possibility of the blasphemous substitution of God’s name for that of another deity by non-Israelites among whom the book would circulate233—is attested as the second of four possible explanations offered by Yefet, and would in fact be justly categorized as tentatively probable were it not that, in his second commentary, Ibn Ezra attributes this view specifically to Saadia.234 This attribution does not, however, eliminate the possibility of influence by Yefet, for Ibn Ezra may have first learned of the view from Yefet and, finding it earlier advocated by Saadia, preferred to cite the latter. In any event, it may be reasonably affirmed that, in view of Ibn Ezra’s obvious familiarity with Yefet’s commentaries, the latter’s exegesis served, at the very least, as confirmation—or, if one prefer, a secondary influence—in this as well as other instances wherein a similar or identical view was encountered (before or after acquaintance with Yefet’s) by Ibn Ezra in another source—or, for that matter, independently formulated by him.235 In the category of tentatively probable influence—i.e., explanations which are 1) neither inevitably nor obviously within the deductive purview of the rationalistic exegetical method applied by Yefet and Ibn 230

2:6).

See Tg. Esth. II ad loc.; Pan. Ah. . B, p. 63; Ag. Esth., p. 19; Rashi ad b. Meg. 13a (ad

231 Comm. B (per Ms. BN héb 334, fol. 82r): åðéîëçî ãçà §îàéù äìéìç äìéìç ®äìéìá ãò ùåøåùçà ìù åúðù ããðì úåáéñ àéáäù ãò ìàøùé øîåùå ïùéé àì íùäù ùøãä ÷ø ®ïùéé íùä éë ìàøùé åìöðéù.

232 Tgs Esth. I & II; Ab. Gur., p. 38; Pan. Ah. A, p. 48; Pan. Ah. B, p. 74; Leq. Tob, p. 106; . . . Ag. Esth., pp. 60–61; and Rashi ad loc. 233 Comm. A, introduction: íéøôñ çìùéå íòè äæå éëãøî äøáç äìâîä úàæù éðéòá ïåëðäå

ìù íéîéä éøáãá äáúëðå íééñøôä äå÷éúòäå ïâùúô íòèë äìâîä àåäù ãçà øôñ äðùî íìåëå íùä ãåáë äðäå ®®® íúåáòåú íù àøåðäå ãáëðä íùä úçú ïéáúåë åéäå ⧧ò éãáåò åéä íäå íäéëìî äìâîá éëãøî åðøëæé àìù.

See p. 273, n. 539 below, where we cite also Saadia’s extant comment. Further instances of possible influence, on which see the footnotes in our translation of Yefet’s commentary ad loc., may be found in Ibn Ezra’s comments ad 1:4, 19; 2:5, 10(– 11), 14, 18; 3:7, 8, 10, 15; 4:7, 12, 16; 5:1, 8; 6:1; 7:8; 8:1–2, 17; 9:10, 20, 27; 10:3 (bis). 234 235

74

chapter two

Ezra, and 2) attested in only a few other sources (at least one) antedating Ibn Ezra’s work—we would place, for example, the explanation by both ad 1:18 of the óö÷ (“anger”) as being expressed by the husbands towards their wives as the result of the ïåéæá (“contempt”) expressed by their wives towards them.236 Though the specificity of these common explanations is compelling, the probability of influence is, nonetheless, rendered tentative in view of the fact that the same view is attested, among the previous sources, in Esth. Rab. iv.8237—from which, therefore, Ibn Ezra may have drawn, as may have Yefet. Even then, however, the aforementioned role of Yefet’s commentary as a source of confirmation, or secondary influence, cannot be discounted. In the same vein, moreover, may be cited the comment by both exegetes ad 1:22 that the letters were dispatched along with messengers who knew the language of each people to whom they were sent and would relate to them clearly what the king intended.238 Again, though compelling in its specificity, this parallel can be considered no more than tentatively probable since the same view is attested by Ibn Ezra’s older French contemporary Joseph Kara (b. ca. 1060).239 As regards the category of probable influence—i.e., specific parallels which, in addition to being neither inevitably nor obviously within the deductive purview of the rationalistic method applied by both exegetes, are attested in no other source (Rabbanite or Karaite) antedating Ibn Ezra’s work—we have identified the following nine instances240:

236 For Yefet’s comment see below, pp. 187 (trans.), 14* (text); for Ibn Ezra’s see p. 187, n. 134. 237 Cited on p. 187, n. 134 below. 238 For Yefet’s comment see below, pp. 189 (trans.), 14* (text); for Ibn Ezra’s see p. 189, n. 143. 239 See p. 189, n. 143 below. In addition to the two examples given here, moreover, instances of tentatively probable influence by Yefet may be found in the comments of Ibn Ezra ad 1:1, 2–3, 10–11 (bis); 2:1, 9, 20; 3:1; 8:10/14; 9:23, 32 (on all of which see our footnotes ad loc.). 240 As in our enumeration of probable parallels between Yefet and Saadia (see pp. 70–71), the present enumeration encompasses parallels only with Yefet’s commentary proper, exclusive of his tarjama. For exegetical-translational parallels in the latter see the footnotes throughout.

yefet’s exegesis of esther

75

i. On the construal of úãë in 1:8 in the sense of “according to (their) order,” meaning that various vessels were organized and presented by kind during each successive round of drinking. Yefet, pp. 179 (trans.), 10* (text)

Ibn Ezra, Comm. B ad loc.

(The king) also appointed their goblets and flasks of gold, and he appointed them of different kinds, so that each phase (of drinking) might be according to each kind.

At first they drank from small vessels, as is the custom in many places, and then afterwards (they drank) from large vessels—or the reverse.241

ii. On the reason for Esther’s silence about her kindred in 2:10 being to ensure her ability to properly observe the requirements of her religion. Yefet, pp. 202 (trans.), 19* (text)

Ibn Ezra, Comm. A ad loc.

As to the statement concerning (Esther), that she did not disclose her religion or her kindred and that Mordecai had charged her with regard to these—this indicates that he knew that (only) in this manner would her situation respecting her religion be kept in order, lest an ambush be set for her with regard to her food, drink, (observance of) Sabbaths, or (observance of) feast days.

Mordecai did this in order that she might observe the Law of the Lord in secret, that she might refrain from eating ritually impure meat and keep the Sabbaths without the servant perceiving it, for if the matter became known the king might force her (to break these laws) or kill her, seeing that she had been taken by force.242

iii. On Esther’s refusal to request anything for her entry before the king in 2:15 being motivated by her humility. Yefet, pp. 205 (trans.), 20* (text)

Ibn Ezra, Comm. B ad loc.

Hegai presented to her the clothing and jewelry which she should wear, though she herself requested nothing due to the humility of her soul.

She, (by contrast,) requested nothing apart from her humility and modesty.243

241 øáãä êôä åà ®íéìåãâá 맧çàå ®íáø úåîå÷î âäðîë íéðè÷ íéìëá äìçúá åúù

(fol. 33r [the

second of two alternative explanations]). 242 àìå úåúáùä øåîùúå úåìéáð ìëàú àìù øúñá íùä úøåú øåîùúù øåáòá éëãøî äæ äùò §ùôúð äçøë ìòá éë äðâøäé åà äðçéøëé êìîä àîù øáãä òãåé íà éë íéúøùîä åùéâøé. Cf.,

however, his later explanation in Comm. B, cited on p. 202, n. 213 below. 243 äåðòå úåìôù ÷ø øáã äù÷á àì úàæå (Ms. BN héb 334, fol. 79v).

76

chapter two

iv. On the referential distinction between íéùðä (= the king’s wives/concubines) and úåìåúáä (= the virgins whom he had not yet interviewed) in 2:17. Yefet, pp. 205–6 (trans.), 20* (text)

Ibn Ezra, Comm. B ad loc.

(The king) was drawn to her more than to anyone else—thus the expression more than all the women, by which (the mudawwin) is referring to the women who were already his, apart from the young women whom he had (recently) gathered together; and, again, the expression more than all the virgins—by which (the mudawwin) is referring to the virgins whom he had gathered together, seen, and gone into, one after the other.

And the king loved Esther—more than all the women who were already his, among whom was also Vashti, and more than all the virgins who had been gathered together.244

v. On the construal of 2:19 as an instance of narrative retrogression (i.e., “flashback”). Yefet, pp. 207 (trans.), 20*–21* (text)

Ibn Ezra, Comm B ad loc.

(The mudawwin) is referring to the time when the maidens had gathered together from all the districts and provinces in order that there might be taken from them a second queen in place of Vashti; and so, by the expression sˇ¯enît he means, “for a second queen.”

And when (the virgins) were gathered together, (etc.)—i.e., Vashti was taken in the same manner as Esther [perhaps read, “Esther was taken … Vashti”], the sense of sˇ¯enît being “this second time,” and the (overall) sense being that Mordecai was judging at the King’s Gate even before Esther had been taken.245

244 åöá÷ðù úåìåúáä ìëîå ®ïììëá éúùå íâ åì åéäù úåøéáâä ìëî ®êìîä áäàéå

334, fol. 79v).

(Ms. BN héb

245 èôåù äéä éëãøî éë §òèäå ®úéðùä íòôä úàæ úéðù §òèå ®øúñà êøãë (!)ä÷ìð éúùå ®õá÷äáå øúñà äç÷ìð àìù ãò êìîä øòùá (fol. 35r). See also his explanation in Comm. A cited on

p. 208, n. 239 below.

yefet’s exegesis of esther

77

vi. On the reading of Mordecai’s deed to the king, and hence Haman’s subsequent audience with the king (6:2ff.), having taken place in the morning (not immediately after 6:1). Yefet, pp. 258 (trans.), 40* (text)

Ibn Ezra, Comm. B ad 6:3

It so happened, however, that the person reading before him came upon this report, morning having already broken ...

This took place in the morning since it was not the custom of the royal officials to come to the king’s palace at night.246

vii. On the construal, vis-à-vis Esther’s statement in 7:3, of êúìàù and êúù÷á in 5:6 and 7:2 as permission to ask for two things (as opposed to their constituting a parallelism). Yefet, pp. 267 (trans.), 43* (text)

Ibn Ezra, Comm. B ad 7:3

She therefore said to him, as it were, “O king, you have already guaranteed me two things of which you have already notified me—namely, my petition and my request.”

She replied, “I have no other petition than that my life be saved; and my request is that my people be delivered”—for (the king) had given her permission to ask for two things.247

viii. On the construal of íîäì in 9:24 as denoting Haman’s intention to “confound” the Jews during their period of waiting, from the publication of his edict to Adar 13. Yefet, pp. 302 (trans.), 58* (text)

Ibn Ezra, Comm. B ad loc.

(The mudawwin) then says, because Haman the son of the Madat¯a, (etc.), thereby indicating that the underlying cause of what was being enjoined … was Haman’s scheming to destroy them and casting of the lot to confound them during their year (of waiting) until the thirteenth day of the month Adar arrived.

to confound them—before the time (of their destruction) came.248

246 êìîä ïåîøà ìà àåáì íéøùä âäðî ïéà äìéìá éë ø÷áá äéä äæå (fol. 37r). 247 íéúù ìåàùì úåùø äì ïúð éë åìéöäì éîò éúù÷áå äìéöäì éùôð íà éë äìàù éì ïéà ïòúå (fol. 37v). 248 ïîæä àá íøè ®íîäì

(fol. 39r).

78

chapter two

ix. On the use of terminology to describe the observance of Purim in 9:27–28 which is parallel to that used in connection with the Sabbath. Yefet, pp. 306 (trans.), 59* (text)

Ibn Ezra, Comm. B ad 9:27

As to the statement, And these days are remembered and enacted (9:28)—(the mudawwin) recalls by these two (participles) two expressions previously mentioned in connection with the Sabbath, as per the statement, Remember the Sabbath day (Exod. 20:8), and as it also says, to enact the Sabbath day (Deut. 5:15). Thus the obligation (to observe) these two days became like the rest of (Israel’s religious) obligations.

And one must not pass over—i.e., no man has authority to pass over this obligation—that they enact these two days—i.e., to prepare the food and the drink, for there is no actual power in man to enact (lit., “make”) the day. In the same sense (it is said), to enact the Sabbath day (Deut. 5:15).249

5. Relationship to Karaite Sources 5.1. Salmon ben Yer¯uh. im Among Yefet’s Karaite predecessors and older contemporaries, the extant sources enable us to adduce influence in the presently edited commentary by three—viz., Ab¯u Y¯usuf Ya#q¯ub al-Qirqis¯an¯ı, David ben Abraham al-F¯as¯ı, and Salmon ben Yer¯uhim, all of whom flourished . in the tenth century.250 Among these three, however, the most prominent source of influence by far is Salmon, to whom alone is attributed a comprehensive exegetical work, including Arabic translation, on Esther. With al-Qirqis¯an¯ı, who spent his life primarily in his native Iraq, we have noted a handful of parallels encompassing exegetical method (per the introduction to al-Qirqis¯an¯ı’s commentary on Genesis)251 and rejection of the 70-day fast (the span from Haman’s decree to Mordecai’s) enjoined by Anan b. David (per al-Qirqis¯an¯ı’s law code Kit¯ab al-anw¯ar 249 úà §îë ®íåéä úåùòì íãàá çë ïéà éë äúùîäå ìëàîä ïéëäì [®íéîéä éðù úà íéùò úåéäì] úåùòì åúáùéù ãò åðéëéù ®úáùä íåé (fol. 39r, emended per the text of Zedner, Commentary, p.

34).

250 Cf., inter alios, Hirschfeld, Qirqis¯an¯ı, pp. 6–7; Nemoy, Anthology, pp. 42, 69; Polliack, Tradition, pp. 58–59, 65; Skoss, Dictionary, I, pp. xxxi–xxxiii. On the possibility of Salmon being roughly the same in age as Yefet, or even younger, see p. 125, n. 10 below. On the exegetical influence of al-Qirqis¯an¯ı and al-F¯as¯ı on Yefet see also Sokolow, pp. xvii–xix, and, on the influence of Salmon, Bland, pp. vii–viii. 251 See above, pp. 19–20, 28–30, and 33, n. 81.

yefet’s exegesis of esther

79

wal-mar¯aqib).252 With al-F¯as¯ı—who, like Salmon and Yefet, was a member of the “Jerusalem circle” of Karaite scholars (mu#allim¯u "l-maq¯adisa)— parallels are more frequently attested, albeit primarily of a grammatical and lexicographical type (culled by us from al-F¯as¯ı’s lexical work Kit¯ab j¯am¯ı # al-alf¯az) and most clearly borne out in Yefet’s tarjama.253 The extent of influence by Salmon—with whom, in addition to accessing his commentary, Yefet must have experienced a certain degree of personal interaction—may be assessed in the same manner as that applied above with respect to influence by Saadia. As with the latter, we have applied our following assessment to parallels in the commentary proper—which for Salmon is extant ad 1:1–7:5, 8:10–9:12, 9:14–17, and 9:26–28 (see sec. IV.1.1 below)—with parallels in Yefet’s tarjama being indicated in the footnotes of our translation thereof. As an example of possible influence, accordingly, may be cited the view (albeit tentatively advanced by Salmon) that Esther was initially concealed from the king’s officials by Mordecai, as implied by the statement in 2:16 that she entered before the king in his seventh year and, hence, was taken to the first harem a year earlier (per 2:12), though the selection of virgins began immediately after his banishment of Vashti in the third year of his reign (per 1:3).254 In addition to Yefet and Salmon, however, this view of Esther’s concealment, which fits quite squarely within a rationalistic deductive purview, is also well attested in the early rabbinic corpus (see Tg. Esth. II ad 2:8; Pan. Ah. . B, pp. 63– 64; Ag. Esth., p. 21). Similarly, though the unusual form éðù in 2:14 is construed by both exegetes as attributive (i.e., “second”) rather than adverbial (i.e., “a second time,” “again”), this can be considered no more than a possible instance of influence insofar as the same attributive construal is also attested, among prior sources, in at least one Ms. of Tg. Esth. I and by Saadia.255 In the category of tentatively probable influence we would cite, for example, Yefet’s comment ad 2:11 that Mordecai “was continually keeping watch over her circumstances” (k¯ana yur¯a #¯ı ah. w¯alah¯a waqt ba #da waqt). Though on the one hand a quite reasonable—one might say almost obvious—explication of the phrase äá äùòé äîå øúñà íåìù úà úòãì, See p. 311, n. 721 below. See, passim, the notes to our translation of Yefet’s tarjama. 254 See p. 198 and n. 196 below. 255 See p. 204 and n. 222 below. For further instances of possible influence by Salmon see Yefet’s comments and our footnotes ad 1:1, 3, 6, 13; 2:5 (bis), 9, 10, 20; 3:2, 5; 4:14; 6:8; 7:4; 9:16. 252 253

80

chapter two

the suggestion of more than merely possible influence, on the other hand, is supported by the close similarity of Yefet’s wording to that of Salmon ad loc.: “he was keeping watch over her situation and studying her circumstances” (k¯ana yur¯a #¯ı khabarah¯a wa-yu.t¯ali #u ah. w¯alah¯a).256 In a similar vein, in their comments ad 9:10, both exegetes (albeit Yefet tentatively) explain the Jews’ abstention from the spoil as due to the ban on Amalekite property (see 1 Sam. 15:3)257—which view, on the one hand, is certainly within the bounds of reasonable, independent deduction from the historically pervasive (and well-nigh inevitable) view that Haman “the Agagite” and his sons were descended from Agag; though on the other hand, in favor of more than the mere possibility of influence, is the contingent, hardly inevitable implication that the other 500 men killed in Susa that day (see 9:6)—as also the 300 killed on the next day and the 75,000 killed throughout the rest of the kingdom, from all of whose spoil the Jews likewise abstained (see 9:15–16)—were also Amalekites.258 As regards instances of probable influence, we have identified the following eight: i. On the identification and enumeration of the kings of Persia (ad 1:1). Yefet, pp. 166 (trans.), 6* (text)

Salmon

The total number of the kings of Persia thus comes out to be five—namely, Cyrus, Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes the Lesser, Darius the Persian, and Artaxerxes the Great.

The total of the kings of Persia (identified in Scripture) is five—the first of them was Cyrus, then Ahasuerus … then Artaxerxes, and after him Darius the Persian … and after him Artaxerxes, the king of kings, etc. (Ezra 7:12).259

See p. 202 and n. 215 below. See pp. 294–95 and n. 645 below. 258 For further instances of tentatively probable influence by Salmon see Yefet’s comments and our footnotes ad 1:1, 4, 8; 2:13, 18, 21–23; 3:3–4, 7, 8 (bis), 15; 4:5, 16. 259 ®®® éñøôä ùåéøã äãòáå àúùùçúøà íú ˙ ®®® ùåøåùçà íú˙ ùøåë íäìåà §ä ñøô êåìî òéîâ˙ §âå àéëìî êìî (!)àúùçúøà äãòáå (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, f. 3v). 256 257

yefet’s exegesis of esther

81

ii. On identification of the exile of Jehoiachin (2:5), which included Mordecai, with the good figs of Jer. 24:2ff. Yefet, pp. 196 (trans.), 18* (text)

Salmon ad loc.

(The mudawwin) also indicates that his stock was from Jerusalem, and that he had been exiled among the rest of the exile of Jehoiachin, which represented the most distinguished of the exiles—they who are called good figs (Jer. 24:2ff.).

As to the statement with the captives— this is to indicate that (Mordecai) was one of the good figs.260

iii. On the construal of the phrase êìîä øòùá áùé in 2:19 as a specific expression denoting service as a royal gatekeeper (h. ¯ajib). Yefet, pp. 207–8 (trans.), 21* (text)

Salmon ad loc.

The statement Mordecai was sitting in the king’s gate indicates that at that time Mordecai was a gatekeeper in the king’s palace.

The statement Mordecai was sitting implies that before Ahasuerus took Esther Mordecai had no station in the gate of the king, as per the statement, And every day, etc. (v. 11); yet when Esther became queen, she made him one of the gatekeepers.261

iv. On the construal of ïùåù øéòä in 3:15 as a synecdochic reference to the Jews of Susa. Yefet, pp. 229 (trans.), 28* (text)

Salmon ad loc.

As to the statement and the city of Susa was perplexed—this statement may, on the one hand, be pertinent only to the Jews (of Susa).

As to the statement Susa was perplexed—this means (the people of) Israel who were in Susa were perplexed.262

260 úåáåèä íéðàúä ïî äðà ìãéì äìåâä íò §å÷ àîàå (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fol. 6r). 261 êìîìà áàá éô ä ¨ áúøî éëãøîì ïåëú íì øúñà §åùçà ã˙ ë˙ àé ìá÷ ïà ìãé áùåé éëãøîå §÷å

áàâ˙çìà ãçà äúìòâ˙ øúñà úëìî àîìô §âå íåéå íåé ìëáå §÷ë

fols 10v–11r). 262 åøééçú fols 17v).

˙ ìà ìàøùé éðòé äëåáð ïùåù §å÷å ïùåù éô éã

(Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467,

(Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467,

82

chapter two

v. On the two reasons for Mordecai’s refusal to change his sackcloth for the clothing Esther sent to him (4:4). Yefet, pp. 241 (trans.), 32* (text)

Salmon ad 4:2

She sent to him clothing that he might put it on and remove from himself the sackcloth and come to her … yet he refused, instead continuing wholeheartedly with his (wearing of) sackcloth and his crying out; and he did so for two reasons, the first of which was that his soul was compelling him to stick to it wholeheartedly until the decree passed. And the second was in order to increase Esther’s alarm, that she might apply herself as earnestly to the matter as was necessary.

Two thoughts (are in this verse), the first of which is that his soul was compelling him not to remove his sackcloth from his body until he had nullified this edict concerning Israel; the second is (that he was seeking) to convey news of it to Esther, so that she might know that it was a serious matter which had overtaken the Jews, the weeping and crying out being (expressed) along with the fasting in order that she might be anxious at heart for the deliverance of Israel and strenuously exert herself (towards that end).263

vi. On the view that the fast enjoined by Esther encompassed an unbroken 72-hour period and, hence, that she entered before the king in 5:1 while still fasting. Yefet, pp. 245–46 (tr.), 33*–34* (text)

Salmon ad 4:16

Then (she says, as it were), “Neither eat nor drink for three complete days (ayy¯am ma.twiyya) … And so the people fasted collectively, apart from the children; whoever among them was able (did so) completely, for it was incumbent that it completely encompass three days … As to her statement, and thus will I go in unto the king—she means to say, “I will go while I am fasting”

As to the statement, and thus will I go in unto the king—this is to say, ‘for I will go in to the king while I am fasting, and I will pull myself together and set my life at risk, and up to God shall be the fulfillment of my request.’264

263 äøæâìà äã ˙ ä äìèá ïà éìà äîñâ˙ ïò çñîìà ìéæé íì äðà äñôð íæìà äðà àîäãçà ïééàðòî (!)éìò éìò ìöç íéö˙ ò øîà äðà íìòúô øúñà [10§ åàìá äàø] àìà äøáë˙ ìöéì éðàú˙ ìàå ìàøùé ïò ˙ éô àäáì÷á íäúñú éúç íàéö òî ê˙ àøöå àëáå ãåäéìà (Ms. RNL àäñôð ãäâ˙úå ìàøùé õàìë Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 18r–v). 264 éìò ìîçàå ä ¨ îéàö àðàå êìîìà éìà [65§ åàìá äàø] ìë˙ ãàá éðàì êìîä ìà àåáà ïëáå §÷å ˙ ÷ äììà éìòå éçåøá øèàë˙ àå éñôð (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 24r). éúâ˙àç éö

yefet’s exegesis of esther

83

vii. On the view that Esther’s seven maidservants in 2:9 were Jewish, as indicated in 4:16 by her inclusion of them in her fast. Yefet, pp. 201 (trans.), 19* (text)

Salmon ad 4:16

(These seven) were Jewish, as her saying I also and my maidens will fast in like manner shows us, for had they not been from among the daughters of Israel they would not have grieved with her.

The statement I also and my maidens, (etc.,) indicates that her maidservants were of her religion, and if this was not the case she would not have appealed to God with them.265

p. 246 (trans.), 34* (text) She mentions her maidservants, moreover, because they were believers. (ad 4:16)

viii. On the sense of the phrase åéðôì ìåôú ìåôð in 6:13 being that Haman’s death would be occasioned by Mordecai. Yefet, pp. 261 (trans.), 41* (text)

Salmon ad loc.

Moreover, in their statement but thou shalt surely fall before him is implied the abrogation of what he had written to the provinces regarding the Jews—as also, perhaps, that (Mordecai) would kill him.

As to the statement, but thou shalt surely fall before him—they declared to him, as it were, ‘This situation which befell you is rather trifling, for you will in fact perish at the hand of Mordecai.’266

5.2. Later Karaite Sources Not surprisingly, Yefet, via his exegetical corpus, exercised enormous influence on later Karaite exegetes, both those in Muslim lands who continued to write in (Judaeo-)Arabic as well as those in Byzantium who wrote in Hebrew. As regards the latter, especially, the marked degree to which Yefet’s commentaries functioned as a primary source, through translation either in toto or in abridgement, has been well noted in previous studies.267 And no less, in the course of our preparation for the present edition, have we found pervasive attestation of Yefet’s 265 ïäá òôùú (!)ùú úðàë àî àã ˙ ä àìåìå àäáäã˙ î éìò åðàë àäøàåâ˙ ïà ìãé éúåøòðå éðà íâ §å÷å äììà éìà (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fols 23v–24r). 266 êðàå øéñé ìéì÷ êì éøâ˙ ã÷ éã ˙ ìà ìàçìà àã˙ ä ïà äåøùá §ôì ìåôú ìåôð {ìåôð} éë íäìå÷å éëãøî ãé éô êìäú (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fol. 9r). 267

See Ankori, Karaites, pp. 447–49; Ben-Shammai, “Edition,” passim; Frank, “Litera-

84

chapter two

exegetical imprint, variously shaded, on later Karaite exegesis of Esther as embodied by a handful of commentaries in both Hebrew and Judaeo-Arabic. Comprising the latter type are a partially extant anonymous commentary (ad 1:1–3:4), tentatively assigned by us to the school of Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub Y¯usuf ibn N¯uh. 268 (see section IV.1.4 below), and a completely extant commentary on Esther by Judah Meir Taur¯ızi (see section IV.1.3 below). In this second Yefet is cited twice by name, the first time in preface to a rather lengthy citation from his commentary ad 4:1–17 concerning the reason for the divine incitement of Haman’s decree against Israel, and the second time in connection with his view, indirectly cited, that Esther herself fasted an extra (fourth) day.269 In the anonymous commentary, by contrast, although Yefet is not explicitly cited in the extant text, his imprint is ubiquitous, the work apparently constituting, in large part, an abridgment of his commentary (and, to a lesser degree, that of Salmon).270 Representative are the following four examples, in each of which the same alternative explanations supplied by Yefet are, notwithstanding minor variation, also supplied in the anonymous commentary (i–iii in inverted fashion): i. Ad 1:7 Anonymous Commentary ad loc.

Yefet, pp. 179 (trans.), 10* (text)

Drinks (were served in vessels of gold—the vessels being) diverse—The designs (on the goblets) varied, and each one (of the guests) would be granted that one which he desired, or else each round (of drinking) would be according to a certain kind (of design).271

(The king) also appointed their goblets and flasks of gold, and he appointed them of various kinds, so that each round (of drinking) might be according to each kind, or else that each (guest) might drink from the vessels which he preferred.

ture,” pp. 531–33; Polliack, “Trends,” pp. 389–91; and the sources cited below on p. 86, n. 277. 268 The Ms., which is a copy, has been paleographically dated (by G. Khan) to the 14th–15th century (see Wechsler, “Commentary,” p. 102, n. 4). 269 For the text of both citations, the first of which, being a direct citation, we have included as a witness to Yefet’s commentary (under the siglum T/ú), see p. 143 and n. 24 below. 270 See Wechsler, “Commentary,” pp. 106–7, and, for a specific enumeration of parallels, nn. 26 and 27. 271 àî àìëù øåã ìë ïåëé ïà àîàå äáçé àî ãç[à]å ìëì áàâ˙éô ùå÷ðìà øééâú ®íéðåù úå÷ùäå ( ( (Wechsler, “Commentary,” p. 115).

yefet’s exegesis of esther

85

ii. Ad 1:9 Anonymous Commentary ad loc.

Yefet, pp. 180 (trans.), 11* (text)

Also Vashti—It is possible that she undertook a social gathering like the one previously mentioned—i.e., 180 days for the chief ladies, and, for the (other) women and (female) subjects, a week. It may also be possible, however, that she threw (a banquet) only for seven days for the chief ladies, exclusive of the (other female) subjects.272

(The mudawwin) then indicates that his wife did for the women as he had done (for the men)—either she prepared (a feast) for seven days only, and thus the men were in the courtyard and the women with the queen at another location, or else the wives of the leading men were with her for the six months, commensurate with that which was transpiring with the king.

iii. Ad 1:10 Anonymous Commentary ad loc.

Yefet, pp. 180–81 (tr.), 11* (text)

On the seventh (day)—Some people maintain that he erred with regard to this utterance and that his intoxication carried him away. Others consider him to have been exceedingly impetuous in all of his affairs … Still others are of the opinion that he was sagaciously prudent, the kings (of Persia) having determined that they should distinguish themselves273 by the showing of their wives.274

Now some people say that this was a customary practice of the Persian (kings), that they would bring out their wives in the presence of the people, and so the king was justified and not overstepping (propriety) … Other people say that the king was impetuous in all of his affairs, and this is one of them that he regretted. Still others say that intoxication brought him to this.

272 ä ¨ é( òøìàå ä¨ åñðìå úàú( ñìì àîåé §ôå §÷ øåëã˙ îìà ìú˙ î àñìâ˙î úìîò àäðà ïëîé ®éúùå íâ ¨ é( òøìà ïåã úàú( ñìì íàéà §æ úìîò àäðà ïëîéå ®àòåáñà (Wechsler, “Commentary,” p. è÷ô ä

115).

273 “distinguish themselves”—or, “draw honor to themselves” (yatajammal¯u, on which see Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 218a). 274 éô àã˙â äðåìä˙âé íå÷å ®øëñìà äìîç éã ˙ ìàå ìå÷ìà àã˙ ä éô àèë˙ à äðà íå÷ íàæ ®§éáùä íåéá ( ( ˙ àá åìî( ˙âúé ïà êåìîìà íñø ïàå ì÷àò íéëç äðà ïåøé íå÷å ®®® äøåîà øéàñ (Wechsler, íäéàñð øàäè “Commentary,” p. 115).

86

chapter two

iv. Ad 1:22 Anonymous Commentary ad loc.

Yefet, pp. 189 (trans.), 14* (text)

And speak according to the language of his people—Along with each letter was (sent) a messenger to explain it. It is otherwise explained that each man was to be invested with authority in accordance with his own ideology, and one must not disobey him.275

As to the expression, and speak according to the language of his people—it is said that with each letter was (sent) a messenger who knew the language of the people of that land in order to read them the letter and relate to them the matter just as it had happened. It is otherwise said that (the king) intended thereby that each man should command his wife in accordance with his creed and custom.

Representative of Yefet’s influence on later Hebrew-language Karaite commentaries on Esther are two Byzantine compilations, one an anonymous work extant in two Mss (see section IV.2.3 below) and the other by Jacob ben Reuben (ca. late 11th–early 12th centuries) as part of his comprehensive Bible commentary øùåòä øôñ (see section IV.2.3 below). The portion treating Esther in the latter, which is a concise digest of selectively gleaned and original comments and glosses,276 is, for the most part, cited verbatim in the anonymous compilation—which, adhering more to comprehensiveness and prolixity than selectiveness and concision, frequently expands on Jacob’s comments, also supplying a wider range of alternative views and evincing a pedagogical penchant for listing lessons, or principles, to be gleaned from the text. Yefet’s influence on both works, in any event, appears to be minimal—contrary to the high degree of dependence on Yefet otherwise ascribed to Jacob by scholars277—, and even where reasonably evident, as attested in the following examples, appears to have underwent a certain degree of revision or filtering through other sources; thus:

275 äáäã ˙ î áñ ç éìò ãçàå ìë øwîàé ìé÷å ®äéìò íìëúé àìåñø áàúëìà òî ®§îò §ùìë øáãîå ˙ é àìå (Wechsler, “Commentary,” p. 116). äéô óìàë 276 Overly severe, in our opinion, is Ankori’s assessment of Jacob’s opus as “a chaotic jumble of unskillfully abridged excerpts from various works, uncritically compiled …” (Karaites, p. 72). 277 See Ankori, Karaites, pp. 197, n. 105 and 447–49; Birnbaum, Hosea, pp. xxxviii–xlii; Bland, Ecclesiastes, pp. ix–x; Frank, “Literature,” pp. 532–33; Pinsker, Geschichte, I, p. 216; II, pp. 83–85; Poznanski, ´ Literary Opponents, p. 67; Sokolow, Deuteronomy, pp. viii–ix.

yefet’s exegesis of esther

87

i. On the view that one of the reasons that Ahasuerus threw the banquet described in 1:3–4 was to “gladden the hearts” of his subjects. Anonymous Commentary ad 1:3

Yefet, pp. 177 (trans.), 9* (text)

He threw the banquet … for the purpose of displaying his glory and wealth, as well as to bestow gifts and presents upon (his subjects) in order to gladden their hearts (ba#˘ab¯ur l˘e-hê.tîb libb¯am).278

(Ahasuerus) saw fit to prepare a banquet for the common people as well, in order to gladden the hearts of his subjects (li-yu.tayyiba qul¯ub al-ra#¯ıya).

ii. On the view that the second banquet described in 1:5ff. took place in the summertime, and that the h. ûr, karpas, and t˘ek¯elet in 1:6 denote the constituent elements of canopy erected to protect the guests from exposure to the sun. Anonymous Commentary ad 1:6

Yefet, pp. 177–78 (tr.), 10* (text)

(Scripture) indicates that they spread curtains over the courtyard as a canopy above (the people), either as an expression of honor towards them or else on account of the sun, for it was summertime.279

It was during the summertime that he set apart for them his inner garden ... by the expression h. ûr, karpas, and t˘ek¯elet (the mudawwin) is referring to (the banquet area’s) canopy—i.e., its overhead covering—which is to say that he made for (the sitting-place) something resembling a pavilion from these various colors since it would have been impractical for (the people) to remain under exposure both night and day.

278 áéèäì øåáòá úåàùîå úåçðî íäì úúìå åøùòå åãåáë úà åúåàøä øåáòá ®®® äúùîä äùòå (Ms. RNL Yevr. I 583, fol. 27v, cited in Wechsler, “Commentary,” p. 120, n. 94).

íáì

279 øåáòá åà ®íãåáëì íäéìò [**] äìòîìî äôåç åîë úåòéøé àéää øöçä ìò åèð éë òéãåäå õé÷ äéä éë ùîùä (Ms. RNL Yevr. I 583, fol. 27v, cited in Wechsler, “Commentary,” p.

122, n. 109).

88

chapter two

iii. On the alternative construal of the phrase and speak according to the language of his people in 1:22 as signifying either that the man of each house was to behave according to his “custom” or that a translator would be sent with each letter to clearly explain it in the language of each people. Anonymous Commentary ad loc.

Yefet, pp. 189 (trans.), 14* (text)

(Scripture) then says, and speak according to the language of his people— i.e., the men were to behave according to their custom … Another view: along with the (copy of each) letter he sent a translator who spoke the language of (each man’s) people.280

As to the expression, and speak according to the language of his people—it is said that with each letter was (sent) a messenger who knew the language of the people of that land in order to read them the letter and relate to them the matter just as it had happened. It is otherwise said that (the king) intended thereby that each man should command his wife according to his creed and his custom.

iv. On the view that, implicit in the king’s questions to Esther in 5:3 & 6 is the expectation that she wants (perhaps among other things) to honor a friend or constrain an enemy. Anonymous Commentary ad 5:6

Yefet, pp. 250 (trans.), 36* (text)

And the king said unto Esther at the banquet of wine, etc.—i.e., “Do you have a friend whom you want to honor? Or an enemy whom you want to destroy?” And what is your request?—i.e., “Whether you desire gold or properties, I shall do for you all that you request.”281

As to the statement, What wilt thou …? And then, and what is thy request? (5:3)—this indicates two things, the first of which is that he intended thereby to say, “If someone has troubled you, say (whom)!” And the second is (to say, as it were), “If you were intending to make a petition on someone’s behalf, that we should promote him to a lofty position—even that we should give to him half of the kingdom—, I shall fulfill it.”

280 åîò ïåùìë øáãéù ïîâøú áúëä íò çìù ১㠮®® íâäðîë íéùðàä åéäé ®åîò ïåùìë øáãîå §îàå

(Ms. RNL Yevr. I 583, fol. 30v, cited in Wechsler, “Commentary,” p. 127, n. 150). 281 .êúù÷á äîå ®åãáàì áéåà åà åãáëì áäåà êì ùé §âå ïééä äúùîá øúñàì êìîä øîàéå éøîàúù øáã ìë êì äùòà úåãù åà íéáåäæ éöôçú (Ms. RNL Yevr. II A 78 [the anonymous commentary], fol. 21v).

yefet’s exegesis of esther

89

v. On the construal of ùåáëì in 7:8 as denoting the king’s expectation that Haman’s intention is to murder the queen. Jacob ben Reuben ad loc.

Yefet, pp. 270 (trans.), 44* (text)

Will (you) even assault—i.e., “There is nothing else remaining for you but to kill my wife who is with me in the palace, for all of your desires have already been fulfilled; nothing remains but for you to assault her!”—that is to say, “Will you even assault the queen so as to (reduce her to) slavery and then to death?.”282

(The king) supposed that he wanted to kill her because of his anger towards her, and therefore he said, Will you even assault the queen with me in the house?—which is to say, “Is what you have already undertaken not enough for you, that you desire even to kill the queen with me in the house?”

vi. On the Jews’ abstention from the spoil in 9:10, etc. being due to specific instructions by Mordecai contained in separately written letters to the Jewish communities of the empire (distinguishing, ad 8:9, between the letters written to the Jews and those written to the satraps, etc.). Jacob ben Reuben ad 9:10

Yefet, pp. 284 (trans.), 50* (text)

But on the spoil they laid not their hand— (because) the prophets warned them (not to do so), or perhaps their leaders, or perhaps Mordecai had written to them that they were not to plunder them, but rather to give (the spoil) to the king.283

And so the king’s scribes … were immediately summoned, and (at Mordecai’s direction) they wrote letters to the Jews that they were to kill no one except he who was clearly among their enemies and that they were not to seize anything of the spoil.

282 [íà éë :RNL 駧ë] éë øáã êì øàùð àì [.êì øàùð äî[å] RNL 駧ë] .ùåáëì íâä ùåáëì íà éë êì øàùð àì åùòð êéöôç ìë éë [éúéáá :RNL 駧ë] úéáá éîò øùà éúùàì âåøäì §ùà ìë åãáòì ùéà äùòé §îë .âåøäì ïë éøç[àå] íéãáòì ùåáëì §òî àåä óñåð: RNL 駧ë] äúåà äâøäìå äçôùì äëìîì ùåáëì íâä [.âåøä[ì] íéãáòì ùåáëì ïë .õåôçé (fol. 310v = Ms. RNL

Yevr. II A 78 [the anonymous commentary], fol. 23r). 283 éìåàå íäéùàø éìåàå ®íåøéäæä [íéàé]áðä ®[§é §à àúéì :RNL 駧ë] íãé úà åçìù àì äæááå 駧ë] åðúé êìîì íà éë [§à àúéì :RNL 駧ë] íúà åììùé àìù íäéìà áúë éëãøî [åà :RNL 駧ë] [íåðúé :RNL (fol. 311r = Ms. RNL Yevr. II A 78 [the anonymous commentary], fol. 24v).

90

chapter two

viii. On the construal of äî in the two clauses comprising 9:26b (ìò åàø äîå íäéìà òéâä äîå äëë) as respectively denoting 1) the resting and feasting which characterized the first Purim celebration (see 9:17–18), and 2) the letter sent to the Jews by Mordecai enjoining the yearly continuation of that celebration (see 9:20ff.). Jacob ben Reuben ad loc.

Yefet, pp. 304 (trans.), 59* (text)

That which they had seen and reflected upon respecting the rest on the 14th (of Adar) for the purpose of eating and drinking. And that which had come unto them—this refers to Mordecai’s letter, (which directed them) to also observe the 15th da y.284

Regarding the statement, that which they had seen of it—this means what they had seen of what was proper (respecting the festal observance) in the first year (see 9:17–19, 22), whereas by the statement, and that which had come unto them, (the mudawwin) is referring to the second letters which (Mordecai) had written to enjoin these two days upon them.”

284 íâ íéé÷ì éëãøî áúë íäéìà òéâä äîå úåúùìå ìåëàì 㧧éá çåðì íúòãá åððåáúäå åàø øùà 駧ä íåé úà (fol. 311r = Ms. RNL Yevr. II A 78 [the anonymous commentary], fol. 24v).

chapter three YEFET’S TRANSLATION OF ESTHER

1. Literalistic Technique Among the medieval Karaites, whose extant Arabic translations of Scripture are generally characterized by “imitative”—that is, literalistic—technique, Yefet has been ranked as the “most imitative” of all.1 Such, at least, is the assessment of M. Polliack in her thorough study of Karaite Arabic translations of the Pentateuch—which assessment is consistent with our own regarding the book of Esther, of which the only other (positively identified)2 extant Karaite Arabic translation, discounting the few snippets supplied by David ben Abraham al-F¯as¯ı in his More so than this latter,— dictionary,3 is that of Salmon ben Yer¯uhim. . and much more so than Saadia, the primary representative of Arabic Bible translation among the Rabbanites,—Yefet exhibits a degree of imitation, both of syntactic as well as of lexical features, that may be generally described as slavish and, at times, even awkward (for examples see sec. III.3 below).4 Although taken by some as indicative of Yefet’s less-than-notable ability as a translator, if not also as a grammarian and lexicographer,—an assessment by no means shared among scholars,5—this slavishness is in fact congruent with Yefet’s purpose— Polliack, Tradition, p. 248. I.e., discounting the translation contained in the undetermined fragments described in sec. IV.3.2–3. 3 For a list of these see Skoss, Dictionary, p. lxxv. 4 Birnbaum (Hosea, p. xxxiii) goes so far as to claim—rather excessively, in our view—that Yefet’s slavishness is on occasion “carried to the point of absurdity.” For a thorough and much more reasoned study of Yefet’s translation technique, albeit as reflected in his tarjama to Genesis, see now Polliack, Tradition, passim (Yefet’s concept of translation is specifically treated, vis-à-vis his introduction to Genesis, on pp. 37–45). See also Nemoy (“Karaites,” p. 605a), who more reasonably describes Yefet’s tar¯ajim as “very literal and often grammatically awkward.” 5 As well noted by Birnbaum, Hosea, pp. xxxvi–vii, Yefet’s ability in this regard must be relatively assessed with respect to the still-blossoming field of Hebrew grammatical science in the 10th c. For one of the better assessments in this regard cf. Munk, “Notice,” pp. 310–337, and esp. his concluding summary on p. 334. Among the more 1 2

92

chapter three

to wit, that his tarjama be read in conjunction with his commentary, both of them functioning as interdependent, component parts of his overall exegetical enterprise.6 That this is so may be gathered from Yefet’s own declaration of intent in the introduction to his commentary on Genesis: Our intention has been (to provide) a translation (tarjama) of the words of this book and an explanation (takhl¯ıs. )7 of its meanings (ma‘¯an¯ıhi) according to what its words require.8

And again, underscoring the joint composition (generally pericope-bypericope9) of his tarjama and commentary (takhl¯ıs. ): Here (i.e., in our following work on Genesis) we begin with a translation (tarjama) of the words of this book and an explanation of its meanings (takhl¯ıs. ma‘¯an¯ıhi).10

positive of Yefet’s critics see also Neubauer, Bibliothek, p. 15; Pinsker, Geschichte, I, p. 169; and Sokolow, Deuteronomy, pp. xxvii–iii, as well as Sanders’ recent description (Review, paragraph 18) of Yefet, on a par with Ibn Jan¯ah, . as one of “the expert medieval grammarians.” Among the less positive (and, in our opinion, less relatively focused) cf. Broydé, “Japheth,” p. 72b; Grätz, Geschichte, pp. 313–14; and Margoliouth, Daniel, p. viii. Moreover, as regards Margoliouth—in connection with whom cf. Lehrman’s suggestion (“Jephet,” p. 234) of negative bias—, the few examples cited in support of “inaccurate” renderings are hardly determinative—viz., LK> (“dough”) for ÷åöá (Dan. 9:25), FD' J (“his communion”) for åúøáç (Isa. 53:5), and H U (“(the) response (of)”) for úåðò (Ps. 22:25; reading úå˙ð#ò [cf. the Targ., Pesh., and Vulg.]). As to the first of these, it may well be the case that Yefet’s Heb. exemplar had ÷öá, which he thus read as ÷öá; moreover, he clearly understood the meaning of the obvious cognate ä÷åö, which ad Prov. 1:27 (per Ms. JTSA ENA 219, I, fol. 9r) he renders ÷ðãìà (“waning from grief or illness [cf. Hava, Dictionary, p. 218b]”). As to the last two renderings, Margoliouth unreasonably sets his assessment parameters a majori, seeing that Yefet’s renderings are quite sustainable in context. 6 Cf. Bland, Ecclesiastes, pp. x–xi; Polliack, Tradition, p. 42; Idem, “Trends,” pp. 392– 93; Polliack & Schlossberg, “Prophets,” p. 2; and Birnbaum, Hosea, p. xxxiv. 7 On the application of this term to the commentary component of Yefet’s exegetical work cf. Polliack, Tradition, p. 42. 8 So, cited with slight modification from Polliack, Tradition, p. 41; Judaeo-Arabic text (ibid., p. 293; Butbul & Stroumsa, “Genesis,” pp. 85): àã˙ ä è˙ àôìà ä¨ îâ˙øú àðîæò ïàë àîìå ˙ àôìà äáâ˙åú àî áñçá äéðàòî õéìë˙ úå áàúëìà. äè 9 This observation applies, as far as we can tell, primarily to narrative. Poetic and aphoristic passages, on the other hand, are generally organized verse-by-verse (cf., passim, the editions of Bargès, Canticum; Birnbaum, Hosea; Bland, Ecclesiastes; Hirschfeld, N¯ah. ¯um; Hofmann, Psalm; Hussain, Job; Marwick, Retribution; Sokolow, Deuteronomy; and Wendkos, Jeremiah). On Yefet’s construal of pericopes (fus. ¯ul) see further Bland, Ecclesiastes, p. vi. 10 So, cited with slight modification from Polliack, Tradition, p. 43; Judaeo-Arabic text (ibid., p. 293; Butbul & Stroumsa, “Genesis,” pp. 86): àã˙ ä è˙ àôìà ä¨ îâ˙øúá éãúáð ïéç àã˙ äå ˙ úå áàúëìà. äéðàòî õéìë

yefet’s translation of esther

93

Notably, this alternating method of composition and arrangement is also adopted by Saadia,11 as well as, vis-à-vis the extant Mss,— though generally in verse-by-verse alternation,—by Salmon. That these two exegetes therefore intended a certain measure of interdependence for their own translations and commentaries is evident, though neither, as noted above, approaches the degree of often slavish imitation adopted by Yefet. The reason for this difference, we would contend, is due more to the purpose of the translators than to their ability as such; and the purpose of both Saadia and Salmon was to provide, to the extent that their religious traditions and scholastic conventions would permit, translations which were more interpretive than imitative (though never, at least with respect to Salmon, non-imitative), and more populist than pedantic. As regards Saadia, the most obvious indication of his translation’s interpretive nature is his own usual designation of such as Tafs¯ır (“interpretation”), which term was normally employed, by both Jewish as well as Muslim writers, to designate a commentary.12 This titular emphasis upon the interpretive nature of his translation is further borne out in the introduction to his Tafs¯ır on the Pentateuch, of which the heading reads as follows: The Elucidation (sharh. ) of the Torah by the Head of the Academy, Rav Saadia Gaon 짧æ, being a translation of the meanings (ma‘¯an¯ı) of the holy book known as the Torah, one of the prophetic books, from the holy tongue into the prevailing tongue of the translator’s time and homeland.13

Two features of this heading, in view of our present discussion, are of particular import. The first is the use of the term sharh. , which, like tafs¯ır, is normally used to designate a commentary; here, however, its See the citation from Saadia’s introduction to Job on p. 10, n. 51 above. See, e.g., Malter, Saadia, p. 143; Polliack, Tradition, p. 86: “By adopting the term tafs¯ır, Saadiah inferred that the Hebrew Bible, like the Qur’¯an, is essentially inimitable, and that his task as a translator is not to imitate the Hebrew text in the Arabic tongue, but to decode it within a coherent interpretive system and thus re-create it in a new cultural context.” Polliack (ibid., p. 80) also notes Saadia’s occasional, ambiguous usage of the term tafs¯ır in possible reference to his translation and commentary together, which collective work he also designates as #ib¯ara (see the citation on p. 10, n. 51 above) and, at least in connection with the Pentateuch, al-tafs¯ır al-kab¯ır (“the expanded elucidation”; ibid., p. 79). 13 áúë ïî ñã÷îìà áàúëìà éðàòî ˙âàøë ˙ à [åäå] 짧æ äéãòñ áø ä¨ áéúîìà ñàøì äøåúìà çøù ( ˙ îìà ïàîæ éìò ä¨ áìàâìà ä¨ âììà éìà ä¨ ñéã÷ìà ä¨ âììà ïî äøåúìà éî( ñîìà ä¨ åáðìà äðèåå äì ˙âøë (Derenbourg, Pentateuque, p. 1; Polliack, Tradition, p. 83, n. 67). 11 12

94

chapter three

intended sense is clearly that of “interpretive translation”—in which vein, notably, it was also applied, from the fifteenth century onwards, to the more vernacular reworkings (i.e., shur¯uh. ) of Saadia’s taf¯as¯ır.14 The second is the further description of Saadia’s “Elucidation of the Torah” as “a translation of the meanings (ma#¯an¯ı) of the holy book,” which stands in clear contrast to Yefet’s description of his own work, cited above, as “a translation of the words (alf¯az) . of the book.” Saadia, in focusing his attention as translator on the “meanings” (ma#¯an¯ı) of the text, accordingly brought into his translation that which Yefet generally reserved for his commentary proper. It was, after all, Saadia’s intention, as he states in his introduction, to provide a translation by which an audience might understand the meanings of the Torah with regard to its narrative, commandments, reward and punishment in their correct order and concisely, and in order that one who requires (to know) some story (of the Torah) will not be preoccupied with long discussions establishing evidence in every issue, which would be burdensome to him.15

Implicit in this intention is the resolution of any grammatical, lexical, or exegetical cruces encountered in the Hebrew text.16 Should his reader be interested in reviewing the evidence for any given translation, or pursuing more deeply the theological issues raised by the text, he would have to take recourse to a separate work—which is precisely what Saadia goes on to say, directing the reader to his “other book”17—i.e., his commentary on the Pentateuch, which was separately On these shur¯uh see Polliack, Tradition, pp. 81–82, and the further sources cited by her in n. 62. 15 So, cited from Polliack, Tradition, p. 83; Judaeo-Arabic text (ibid., p. 296; Derenbourg, Pentateuque, p. 4): íàè˙ ðå ÷ñð éìò àæâ˙å øîàå øáë˙ ïî äøåúìà éðàòî ïåòîàñìà òîñéì ˙ éô ïô ìë éìò ä¨˙âçìà ä¨ îà÷à ïî äèìàë˙ é àîá àî ä¨ ö÷ àäðî áìè ïî ìâù ìåèé àìå øöúë˙ î ì÷ú äéìò. 16 See also Saadia’s remarks in the last portion of his introduction (cited, with slight revision, from Polliack, Tradition, p. 84): “When I recognized all this I wrote this book, a rendering of the plain text of the Torah, delimited according to the knowledge of reason and tradition. When I was able to insert a word or a letter through which the meaning and intention (of the text) is revealed to one who is satisfied by an allusion, I did so, and from God I seek aid in achieving success in matters both religious and worldy”; Judaeo-Arabic text (ibid., n. 72 and p. 296; Derenbourg, Pentateuque, p. 4): àîìå ¨ ôøòîá [àøø( çî ºà§§ð] ãøçî è÷ô äøåúìà õð èéñá øéñôú áàúëìà àã˙ ä úîñø êìã˙ úéàø ä ¨ îìë äàéà òãåà ïà éððëîà àã˙ àå ì÷ðìàå ì÷òìà äòð÷é ïîì ãàøîìàå éðòîìà äá óùëðé àôøç åà ä ¨ çìöî ìë éìò ïéòúñà äììàáå êìã˙ úìòô ìå÷ìà ïî çéåìúìà. àéðãå ïéã øîà ïî àäãö÷à ä 17 The passage reads, as translated by Polliack, Tradition, pp. 81–82: “If he still wished after that to understand thoroughly the background of the rational commandments and the nature of the traditional commandments, and how the claims made by those who criticize the stories in the Torah are to be rejected, he should look up these matters 14

yefet’s translation of esther

95

produced.18 Yefet, on the other hand, in focusing his translation more upon the words (alf¯az) . of the text, often leaves cruces less than completely resolved, only to revisit them in his attendant commentary. Indeed, the essential dependence of Yefet’s translations, in contrast to the independence of Saadia’s, is further borne out by the observation that those of the former are, as attested by those Mss extensive enough to permit such determination, consistently19 accompanied by commentary,20 whereas the translations of the latter are frequently attested without it.21 As regards Salmon, an intimation of the relatively22 interpretive nature of his translation is to be found at the conclusion of his introduction to Esther: Having introduced these topics, we will now begin with an elucidation of this book (sharh. h¯adhihi "l-sifr) and an explanation of its meanings (takhl¯ıs. ma#¯an¯ıhi).”23

The latter phrase (takhl¯ıs. ma#¯an¯ıhi), it may be observed, is the same as that used by Yefet in both passages from his introduction to Genesis cited above, and is reasonably to be assigned the same referent— viz., the author’s commentary proper. The referent of Salmon’s initial phrase (sharh. h¯adhihi "l-sifr), however, is, at least at first sight, less clear. In keeping with the otherwise attested denotations of sharh. , the reference may be to the entire two-part work of translation and exegesis, the commentary proper (both phrases therefore constituting a hendiadys), in my other book, for this short one will only draw his attention to these and he will have to have recourse to it (i.e., the other book)”; Judaeo-Arabic text (ibid., p. 296; Derenbourg, Pentateuque, p. 4): òéàøùìà òéøùú éìò óå÷åìà êìã˙ ãòá ãàøà åä ïàë [ïàå] ˙ áìè áàúëìà éô õö÷ éìò ïòàè ìë ïòè ìåæé àã˙ àîáå ä¨ éòîñìà ä¨ òàðö ä¨ éôéëå ä¨ éì÷òìà ïî êìã ˙ ú÷éå êìã˙ éìò ääáðé øöúë˙ îìà àã˙ ä ã˙ à øë˙ àìà áàúëìà. äãö÷ äéö 18 Cf. Polliack, Tradition, pp. 81–82. 19 In view of the descriptions in the published catalogues, this is probably always the case, though the present author can definitively make this claim only with respect to Yefet’s work on Esther and Judges, all extant Mss of which, including the RNL Mss (most of which lack thorough descriptions), have been personally examined. 20 So, discounting Ms. Huntington 206 of the Bodleian Library (IMHM no. 16245), the content of which represents a significant reworking of Yefet’s tarjama (incorporating elements of his commentary proper) to the Latter Prophets (see Birnbaum, Hosea, pp. l–lvii; Ben-Shammai, Studies, p. 183; Polliack & Schlossberg, “Obadiah,” p. 71). 21 As regards, specifically, his Tafs¯ır to Esther, cf. Malter, Saadia, p. 325; Qafih, Esther, . p. 299; Ratzaby, “Fragments,” p. 193 [1] and n. 1; and Steinschneider, Literatur, p. 59. 22 I.e., relative to Yefet, since both still operate within the imitative parameters of Karaite translation technique. 23 äéðàòî õéìë ˙ úå øôñìà äã˙ ä çøùá ïàìà éãúáà éðàòîìà äã˙ ä úîã÷ ïà ãòáå (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 3v).

96

chapter three

or, as discussed above with reference to Saadia, an interpretive translation. That the last of these is in fact the intended reference may be deduced from the parallel, yet slightly more specific, statement at the end of Salmon’s introduction to Ecclesiastes: Having commenced with these words, we will now begin with an elucidation of the words of this book (sharh. alf¯az. h¯adhihi "l-sifr), followed by an explanation of its meanings (takhl¯ıs. ma#¯an¯ıhi) and a disclosure of its lessons.24

As in the previous citation, Salmon refers first to his sharh. and then to his takhl¯ıs. , albeit further specifying the latter by the phrase “a disclosure of its lessons” (kashf aghr¯ad. ihi). In the initial phrase, however, he adds the term alf¯az. (“words”), which is likewise employed by Yefet in the description of his own translation (tarjama alf¯az. h¯adh¯a "l-kit¯ab). Even more telling is Salmon’s use here of the conjunction thumma (“followed by,” “then”), clearly indicating a sequential relationship between the sharh. and the takhl¯ıs. /kashf which precludes the coincidental relationship attending the first two suggested references of sharh. noted above.25 Another relevant observation, as it bears upon Salmon’s use of sharh. in these passages, is his typical advancement of only one view, decisively stated, for any given lemma or topic raised in his commentary, to which may be contrasted the compilatory tendency attested by Yefet (see secs III.2 & III.5.1). These divergent tendencies, we would contend, find their complements in the translations, reflecting, on the part of the former Karaite, a more populist—even homiletical—approach, and, on the part of the latter, a more eclectic, academic approach. It would seem to have been more to Salmon’s purpose, in other words, to produce a translation that would be self-standing, and, therefore, necessarily more interpretive than Yefet’s—though not quite as interpretive (such that it might be considered non-imitative) as Saadia’s.26 24 õéë ˙ ìúá íú˙ øôñìà àã˙ ä è˙ àôìà çøùá ïàìà éãúáàô ìéåà÷àìà àã˙ äá úøãö ã÷ ã˙ àå ˙ àøâà óùëå äéðàòî (Ms. BL Or. 2516, fol. 11r). äö 25 This explicit indication of sequence via the use of thumma is likewise attested at the end of Salmon’s introduction to the Psalms—in which, it may be noted, he refers to his translation by the term #ib¯ara (“interpretation”) rather than sharh. , apparently because the latter is used in the preceding clause with reference to his introductory discussion (Shunary, Psalms, p. 175, ll. 431–33 [text]): àãáðìô ¬øôñìà äã˙ ä éô õ˙ øâìà õ˙ òá úçøù ã÷ ã˙ àå ¨ ðåòîìàå ãùøìà äìàñð äììàå äéðàòî õéë˙ ìú íú˙ ®äè˙ àôìà ä¨ øàáòá (“Now that I have ä explained some of this book’s objectives, we shall commence with an interpretation of its words, followed by [thumma] an elucidation of its meanings, and from God we ask for both guidance and support”). 26 As regards this last assertion cf., in addition to the content of their translations,

yefet’s translation of esther

97

Having so far emphasized the highly imitative nature of Yefet’s tarjama, we would also point out the not infrequent occurrence of partially imitative or even non-imitative renderings (i.e., additions, expansions, and paraphrases). Thus, for example, we find ãé ä¨ øã÷î áñç éìò êìîìà for êìîä ãéë (1:7), êìîìà ìú÷ for êìîá ãé çìùì (2:21; 6:2),27 ãðòå ˙ ðà ã˙ à øáöà øã÷à éëãøî óøò àî for òãé éëãøîå (4:1),28 àøà àî ãðò/øè 29 ¨ ˙ for éúéàøå ìëåà (8:6), äéðàúìà äáúë éô êìîìà äîñø àî äéô ìò ôé‘ ì for úåùòäì (9:1),30 íäðåìâ˙éå ãåäéìà ïåòô( øé åðàë for íéãåäéä úà íéàùðî (9:3),31 and íäðéã éô ïéìéë˙ ãìà for íäéìò íéåìðä (9:27).32 On the one hand, Yefet’s adoption of such renderings should not be completely surprising, for to expect a dogged adherence to slavishness on his part would be less than realistic—and, indeed, one might aver that such renderings are consistent with his larger purpose, ultimately promoting concision by obviating the need for further treatment in the commentary proper.33 We hesitate, on the other hand, to affirm the originality of such renderings in view of the observation that in Arabic-script Mss of Yefet’s works, which are consistently earlier (generally eleventh to twelfth cent.) than Hebrew-script Mss of the same Salmon’s description of his translation as “an elucidation of the words (alf¯az) . of this book” versus the description of Saadia’s Tafs¯ır as “a translation of the meanings (ma‘¯an¯ı) of the holy book” (both cited more fully on pp. 93 and 96 above). On the generally non-imitative nature of Saadia’s Tafs¯ır, in contrast to the generally imitative or partiallyimitative nature of Karaite translations, see Polliack, Tradition, pp. 245–91. 27 See p. 210, n. 249 below. 28 See p. 230, n. 338 below. 29 See p. 275, n. 554 below. 30 See p. 289, n. 612 below. This expansion, being longer than those typically attested in Yefet’s tar¯ajim—and by far the longest in his tarjama to Esther—, may well represent a scribal addition (see the first part of sec. III.2 below). 31 See p. 290, n. 617 below. 32 See p. 300, n. 668 below. 33 That Yefet’s commentaries are, nonetheless, unnecessarily verbose (cf. Grätz, Geschichte, pp. 313–14) is hardly a foregone conclusion. Given the compilatory aspect of his commentaries (see sec. II.2), and in comparison to the commentaries of his Rabbanite contemporaries (including Saadia), he is relatively succinct (see esp. Birnbaum, Hosea, pp. xxiii–iv). We would also point out that Yefet himself makes no express claim to concision, but rather, as expressed in his introduction to Genesis, to a delimitation of his exegesis to “that which is necessitated by the expressions,” excluding that which is irrelevant or heretical (Butbul & Stroumsa, “Genesis,” pp. 85–86: ˙âàøë˙ åä àîá ìâúùð íì ¨ ãçàìîìà áäàã˙ î äøéñàôú éô àùç éã˙ ìà ïéøñôîìà ïî àðøéâ ìë˙ ã àî úçú ìë˙ ãðô àðö˙ øâ ïò ä ¨ øàáò éðòî ïî ˙âøë˙ ô àäá äáàúë ïééæå íäéìò ãøé ã˙ ë˙ àå ä¨ ééàèñôñìàå ä¨ ôñàìôìàå ä¨ éåú˙ ìàå ä ¨ ÷éìë˙ ìà ä¨ ôö àùîå ä¨ øàáòìà äáâ˙åú àì àî éòãàå øéñôúìà ãñôàô ®®® äãö÷ éã˙ ìà áàúëìà ä ˙ î åä àîî íäáúë éô äåøëã˙ àîå íéåâìà áäàã˙ î éìò; Heb. trans. ibid, ú§§à áàúë éðàòîì óìàë p. 144, and, partially, Polliack, Tradition, p. 41).

98

chapter three

(generally fourteenth to seventeenth cent.), a much higher degree of imitation is attested. Insofar as no such Arabic-script Mss of his work on Esther have yet been discovered, we would illustrate this point by enumerating the relevant readings from Yefet’s tarjama to Proverbs 31:1– 29, as attested in the following seven Mss, only one of which is in Arabic script (scribal errors have not been noted): Ms. JTSA ENA 219, vol. 2, fols 121r–v, 124r–125r (17th cent.(?),34 Hebrew script) B Ms. BS Or. Qu. 828, fols 50v–51r, 53v–55r (undated, Hebrew script) L1 Ms. BL Or. 2402, fols 180v–181r, 183r–184r (1867 C.E.,35 Hebrew script) L2 Ms. BL Or. 2507, fols 164v–165v, 169v–171v (15th cent.,36 Hebrew script) L3 Ms. BL Or. 2553, fols 128r–129r, 131r–132v (11th cent.,37 Arabic script) P Ms. BN héb. 292, fols 226r–v, 229r–230r (17th cent.(?),38 Hebrew script) R Ms. RNL Yevr. I 578, fols 154v–155r, 158v–160r (15th cent.,39 Hebrew script) reliqui = all Mss apart from the one(s) cited ad loc.

A

i. Ad 31:1, àrî] L3 H*$ (“lore”); reliqui äøôñ éô àäð(å)åã ä¨ ö÷ éäå (“being lore which he recorded in his book”). ii. Ad 31:3, íé!Öpì] L1 L3 =/àñðìì (“to women”); reliqui éñðìà (“women”). iii. Ad 31:5, ÷w%ç"î: L3 ;‘M (“what is prescribed”); reliqui íñøîìà ï(å)åãîìàå (“what is prescribed and recorded”).40 iv. Ad 31:6, ïééå] L3 s  (“and wine”); reliqui øîë˙ ìà åèòàå (“and give wine”). v. Ad 31:6, Öôð] L3 X (“soul”); reliqui çåøìà (“spirit”). 34 The script of this Ms., although belonging to a different hand, exhibits clear stylistic affinity with that of Ms. P (1663 C.E.) of Yefet’s comm. on Esther. 35 See Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 217a. 36 See Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 218a. 37 See Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 219a. 38 The script of this Ms. exhibits stylistic affinity, albeit to a lesser degree than Ms. A, with that of Ms. P (1663 C.E.) of Yefet’s comm. on Esther. 39 So per the IMHM inventory. 40 In our published collation (Wechsler, “Proverbs 31:1–9,” p. 397) Mss B and P were here mistakenly omitted.

yefet’s translation of esther

L3  dJ (“Let him drink and forget”); R ˙ à éúç (“so that when he has drank and become àñðé øëñå áøù åä àã inebriated, he will forget”); reliqui àñðé øëñé áøù åä àã˙ à (“Then, having drank, he will become inebriated and forget”). Ad 31:7, ãå˙ò­økæé àì˙ ˙åìî#òå] L3 | 8 A DQ B N O N D (“and afterwards he will not remember his toil and his misfortune”); reliqui ïàøëñ åä àîäî äáòúå äãë øëã˙ é àìå (“and, however much he is inebriated, he will not remember his toil and his difficulty”). Ad 31:9, ­èô"Ö] L3 C (“judge”); reliqui íëçàå (“and judge”).41 Ad 31:10, dT"ë!î íéðéð"t!î ÷ç˙ Tå] L3 A! .] Œ!$ ! .]  A  (“Rarer than the place of precious stones is the place of her acquisition”); reliqui úé÷àåéìà ïãòî ãòá ïî øú˙ ëà àäòéá òö˙ åî ãéòáå (R úå÷àéìà) (“The place of her acquisition is much rarer than the rarity of trove of precious stones”). Ad 31:12, éîé] L3 a  (“days”); reliqui ïàîæ (“time”). Ad 31:14, ÷çYn!î] L3 AI  (“from a distance”); reliqui òö˙ åîìà ïî ãéòáìà (“from a distant location”). Ad 31:16, éX"t!î eäç֑ w!zå äC× äî"îæ] L3 r  FEQj " 1% Œ (“She considers a field and then buys it; by the fruit …”); reliqui úî( ä àã˙ à ˙ ïîå äúã˙ ë˙ à ì÷çá (“When she considers a field, she buys it; and øîú by the fruit …”). Ad 31:18, é!k] L3  (“that”); reliqui ã˙ à (“because”), on which see further sec. V.2 (p. 128) below. Ad 31:20, dtk] L3 R D/àäôë (“her palm”); reliqui àäéôë (“her palms”). Ad 31:20, ïå˙é"áàì äç"l!Ö äéCéå] L3 X I Œ;'   (“and her hands she stretches forth to the afflicted”); R ñéàáìà éìà úìñøà àäãéå (“and her hand she stretches forth to the afflicted”); reliqui úìñøà àäéãé ñéàáìà éìà (“and to the afflicted she stretches forth her hands”). Ad 31:22, dì] L3  (“for herself ”); reliqui àäúéáì (“her household”). Ad 31:24, éð#òð"kì] L3 U  (“to the merchant”); reliqui øàâ˙úìì (“to the merchants”). Ad 31:26, äç"út äé!t] L3 Œ%" " (“Her mouth she opens”); reliqui àäàô úçúôå (“And she opens her mouth”). Ad 31:27, äi!ô˙åö] L1 L3 => H"J/éìò ä¨ ôøùî (“She oversees”); reliqui ¨ ôøùîå (“And she oversees”). éìò ä

vi. Ad 31:7, çk"Öéå

vii.

viii. ix.

x. xi. xii.

xiii. xiv. xv.

xvi. xvii. xviii. xix.

99

äz"Öé]

41 In our published collation (Wechsler, “Proverbs 31:1–9,” p. 398) Ms. B was here mistakenly omitted.

100

chapter three

In view of these variant readings, the more imitative of which are consistently attested, as elsewhere in Yefet’s tar¯ajim, by the earlier, Arabic-script witness,42 we would conclude that it is highly likely that many of the partially imitative readings and perhaps most of the nonimitative readings in Esther are, as in the instances from Proverbs here cited, later scribal additions. In the absence of any direct manuscript evidence, however, this conclusion must remain, at least as regards its scope of application, necessarily tentative. 2. Alternate Translations In addition to the relatively concise expansions and paraphrases that pepper Yefet’s tarjama to Esther, there are also attested the following three alternate translations, introduced by either ìé÷å (“or, it is said,”)43 or åà (“or”): i. Ad 1:1 (ùåøåùçà): úùãàøæ ìé÷å øéùãøà (“‘Ardash¯ır’—or, it is said, ‘Zoroaster’”). ii. Ad 6:12 (ùàø): äâ˙åìà ìé÷å ñàøìà (“‘(his) head’—or, it is said, ‘(his) face’”). iii. Ad 8:9 (ùåë): ïàãåñìà åà ä¨ ùáçìà (“‘Ethiopia’—or, ‘the Sudan’”). Although seemingly out of step with his general tendency towards close imitation, such alternate translations are nonetheless congruent—or at least reconcilable—with the didactic purpose of Yefet’s translational endeavor, and are also sporadically to be met with in Mss spanning the corpus of Yefet’s tar¯ajim, as well as, and in fact to a much greater extent, in the tar¯ajim of the next generation of Karaite exegetes.44 Yet considering, on the one hand, that alternate readings are, by the simple 42 Though age alone does not, of course, indicate textual precedence, that such is the case with Yefet’s works is indicated both by the consistency of higher imitation in the extant Arabic-script Mss as well as by variant readings in the Hebrew-script Mss which are most reasonably explained as misreadings of an Arabic script Vorlage, on which latter issue see further our discussion in sec. V.2 below. Cf. also Ben-Shammai, Studies, pp. 194–206; Wechsler, “Proverbs 31:1–9,” pp. 394–95; idem, “Proverbs 31:10–31,” pp. 286–87; and, regarding Karaite works generally, Khan, “Script,” pp. 137–41. 43 Elsewhere in the corpus of Yefet’s tar¯ajim ìà÷éå is also employed (cf., e.g., Polliack, Tradition, p. 181), as well as, uniquely ad Eccl. 1:2 (per Bland, Ecclesiastes, p. 4), by øwáòé‘ ã÷å (“though it may be interpreted”). 44 See Polliack, “Methods,” pp. 384–87; idem, “Renderings,” passim; idem, Tradition, pp. 181–200, 263–70.

yefet’s translation of esther

101

fact of their presence (if not content), less imitative, whereas, on the other hand, 1) Yefet’s technique is generally more imitative than less so, and 2) the earlier, Arabic-script Mss of Yefet’s exegetical works attest a markedly higher degree of imitation, the originality of such alternate readings would appear suspect. In a recent study, moreover, at least some of the alternate readings attested in Yefet’s tar¯ajim to Zechariah, Song of Songs, and Daniel have been shown to be either possibly or almost certainly later (post-Yefet) additions.45 An assessment of the originality of the three readings noted above would therefore seem to be in order, in the pursuance of which we will first consider that which may be deduced from the extant Hebrew-script Mss of his work on Esther, followed by that which may be analogically applied vis-à-vis the originality of alternate readings in his other tar¯ajim. The data to be gathered from the extant Mss would at first sight appear to be rather limited, seeing that all of the Mss are in Hebrew script—placing them within the period of transmission spanning the fourteenth through seventeenth centuries46—and, in all those containing coverage ad loc., the alternate readings are consistently attested as part of the text. In view of the text history discussed in section V.2 below, however, we can, by deduction, proceed further, for there we aver that the eleven Hebrew-script Mss of Yefet’s work on Esther are in fact representative of three separate transcription types from Arabicscript Vorlagen, and in representatives of two of these types all three alternate readings are attested.47 It may therefore be concluded that all three of these readings were present for at least part of the stage of Arabic script transmission spanning the eleventh through thirteenth centuries—or, more likely, the eleventh through twelfth centuries, since it is to this period that the majority of Arabic-script Mss of Yefet’s works belong.48 The likelihood that these readings are original, vis-à-vis their implicit terminus ad quem in the twelfth century, is thus greater than that otherwise suggested by their exclusive attestation in Hebrew script.49 45 Ben-Shammai, Studies, pp. 194–206. See esp. his comment on p. 206: íéîåâøú êøåàì ¬ïéøåòéùì àìà ¬úçà úáá àìå ¬úôé éîéì äáøä úåøçåàî úåôå÷úá åôñåð íéèòî àì íééôåìç íéðù úåàî. 46 So, explicitly, for three of the Mss (per the colophons)—viz., Ms. A (1466), Ms. P (1663), and Ms. R3 (1619). See also our discussion in section V.2 and, specifically, the chronological assignment of all the Mss in our proposed stemma on p. 148. 47 I.e., on the one hand, Ms. R1, and, on the other, Mss A, L, P, R2 (only ad 8:9), R3 (only ad 6:12 & 8:9), & R4 (only ad 1:1). 48 See, again, our discussion and the sources noted in section V.2 below. 49 Note as well that the alternate rendering of ùåë as ïàãåñìà ad 8:9 is supported by

102

chapter three

As to that which may be analogically deduced from the testimony to alternate readings in Yefet’s other tar¯ajim, we would begin with a partial inventory of such readings as attested in the majority of available editions (published and unpublished) as well as a handful of unedited Mss. For each book we have parenthetically indicated the total number of alternate readings enumerated, followed by that portion of the tarjama surveyed.50 i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi.

Genesis (3x; 1:1–5, chaps 2–3): ad 2:12; 3:9, 19.51 Deuteronomy (3x; chap. 32): ad vv. 14, 15, 38.52 Judges (6x; 1:1–21:14, 21–22): ad 5:18; 13:25; 14:12; 19:8; 20:32; 21:9.53 Jeremiah (5x; selected portions54): ad 2:20; 4:31; 5:28; 27:19; 30:13. Hosea (7x; all): ad 5:5, 15; 7:6; 10:5; 11:4; 12:4; 14:9.55 Joel (2x; all): ad 1:18; 2:14.56

al-F¯as¯ı—a source both preceding and available to Yefet—in his dictionary s.v. (see p. 164, n. 31 below). 50 Also surveyed, though yielding no alternate readings, were Isa. chap. 47 (per Ben-Shammai, “Studies,” pp. 187–91) and 52:13–53:12 (per Alobaidi, Isaiah), as well as the entire tarjama of Obadiah (per Polliack & Schlossberg, “Obadiah,” pp. 72–79, and Marwick, Retribution, pp. 121–34) and Jonah (Marwick, ibid., pp. 137–58). Although three alternate readings are noted by the editors of the latter, we have discounted these, as well as those noted in Zechariah by Ben-Shammai, “Studies,” insofar as the Ms. uniquely attesting these readings (Ms. Huntington 206 of the Bodleian Library) is clearly a revision of Yefet’s tarjama, rather than a devoted component of his text tradition proper (cf. Ben-Shammai, Studies, p. 183, 199–202; Birnbaum, Hosea, p. v–vlii; Polliack & Schlossberg, “Obadiah,” pp. 71–72). Related in principle to this discussion of alt. readings are the occasional glosses, introduced by éðòé (“that is to say”), scattered throughout Yefet’s tar¯ajim. In the same sources surveyed for alternate readings we have found ten such glosses—viz., Deut. 32:47 (p. 171); Judg. 17:8 (fol. 113v); 19:8 (fol. 128v); Hos. 7:9 (bis) (p. 113); Amos 7:4 (p. 98); Jonah 1:15 (p. 144); Pss 3:4 (p. 4); 37:8 (p. 70); 37:14 (ibid.); 68:24 (p. 130); Prov. 16:21 (vol. 1, fol. 116v), 17:8 (vol. 1, fol. 123v); Song 1:10 (pp. 193, 203), 7:5 (p. 203), 8:8 (ibid.). Note that, ad Ps. 37:14, the gloss (with éðòé) is omitted in the older of the two Mss collated (Bargès, Zub¯ur, p. 72, n. 11; for a discussion of the two Mss see idem, Excerpta, pp. xxvi–viii, and Zotenberg, Catalogues, p. 38b). 51 Per Polliack, Tradition, pp. 305, 306 (bis). For the tarjama ad 1:1–5 we consulted the edition of Butbul & Stroumsa, “Genesis.” 52 Per Sokolow, Deuteronomy, pp. 74, 76, 142. 53 Per Ms. AOS A146, fols 38r, 77v, 83r, 128v, 148v, 158v. Lost from this Ms. is the tarjama ad 1:1–26, 11:11–29, and 21:15–25, of which the first two portions were respectively supplemented in our survey by Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 155, fols 1v–7r, and Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3354, fols 67v–73r. 54 I.e., per Wendkos, Jeremiah, 2:17–31; 3:17–5:9; 5:14–7:27; 14:20–22; 15:9–10; 26:1–16, 20; 26:24–28:1; 28:12–29:9; 29:19–30:17; 30:22–31:4; 31:8, 22; 31:23–32:9; 32:32–33:11; 33:14–36:14. The alternate readings are found on pp. 3, 38, 53, 112, 131. 55 Per Birnbaum, Hosea, pp. 79, 89, 109, 154, 170, 184, 224. 56 Per Marwick, Retribution, pp. 11, 20.

yefet’s translation of esther vii. viii. ix. x. xi. xii. xiii. xiv. xv. xvi. xvii.

103

Amos (4x; all): ad 3:12; 5:8, 22; 6:4.57 Micah (3x; all): ad 4:7; 6:12; 7:3.58 Nahum (1x; all): ad 2:5.59 Zechariah (1x; chap. one and selected portions60): ad 11:8. Psalms (20x; all): ad 2:2; 7:15; 10:1, 5, 8; 22:16; 37:7; 55:6; 60:14; 68:15; 71:17; 78:51; 85:11; 89:45, 49; 119:69, 129, 139; 135:14; 148:14.61 Job (3x; chaps 1–10): ad 9:26; 10:11, 12.62 Proverbs (18x; all): ad 7:22; 12:9, 25; 20:3 (bis), 6, 20; 21:5, 12, 14; 22:23; 26:4; 28:10; 29:5; 30:25, 31 (ter).63 Ruth (3x; all64): ad 2:14; 3:7; 4:1. Song of Songs (3x; all): ad 1:12; 3:5, 9.65 Ecclesiastes (2x; chaps 1–6): ad 1:2, 3.66 Daniel (24x; all): ad 2:8, 15, 22, 48; 3:5, 7; 4:2, 16; 5:5 (bis), 9; 6:4, 7; 7:10, 26; 9:24 (bis), 26; 11:12, 35, 45; 12:9, 13 (bis).67

One of the criteria for originality adopted by Ben-Shammai in his study of the alternate readings in Yefet’s tar¯ajim to Song of Songs and Daniel Per Marwick, Retribution, pp. 65, 78, 86, 91. Per Marwick, Retribution, pp. 191, 211, 215. 59 Per Hirschfeld, N¯ah¯um, p. 23. . 60 So per Ben-Shammai (“Studies,” pp. 182–87, 199–202), who, in addition to all of chap. one, collates only those verses wherein he found an alternate reading in Ms. Huntington 206 of the Bodleian Library (i.e., ad 2:10; 6:6; 6:8; 7:7; 11:5; 11:8; 14:20), which, being a revision of Yefet’s tarjama, we have excluded from our present assessment (see p. 102, n. 50 above). 61 Per Bargès, Zub¯ur, pp. 2 (with idem, Excerpta, p. 27, n. 4), 11 (n. 4), 15 (bis), 16, 39 (omitted in Hofmann, Psalm, p. 10!), 69, 107, 117, 129, 138, 156, 170, 179 (bis), 240, 244, 245, 264, 286. 62 Per Hussain, Job, pp. 183 and 141(bis), respectively. 63 Per Ms. JTSA ENA 219, vol. 1, fols 43v, 78r, 83v; vol. 2, fols 10v, 11v, 17v, 23r, 25r, 26r, 38v, 67v, 89r, 96v, 113r, 113v. 64 So, assuming that the citation of these three instances by Schorstein (Rûth, p. 12, n. 1) is comprehensive. 65 Per Ben-Shammai, Studies, pp. 203–4. We have excluded nine of the “alternate readings” cited by Ben-Shammai since these comprise, properly speaking, either a gloss (ad 1:10), expansions (ad 2:15, 16; 5:9, 11, 16; 7:5 [1o]), or explanations (ad 7:5 [2o]; 8:8). 66 Per Bland, Ecclesiastes, pp. 4, 5. 67 Per Ben-Shammai, Studies, pp. 205–6, although omitted from his enumeration were the alt. readings ad 2:8, 15, 22; & 6:4 (Margoliouth, Daniel, pp. ’, “, , & ’) of which the occurrence ad 2:22 is also attested in the earlier, Arabic script Ms. (see below). We have, moreover, omitted from our enumeration the “alternate reading” cited by Ben-Shammai ad 11:2 (é÷á àã˙ åä äøäàè˙ éìò ìå÷ éà êøáë˙ à àðé÷é ä¨ òàñìàå) seeing that, in the earlier, Arabic script Ms., it is in fact attested as an expansion ( 8 H>   = (!)N I =>  |Ij [not “corruptly,” as averred by Margoliouth, ibid., p. m, n. 8; cf. Ben-Shammai, ibid., p. 205]), of which the later is therefore almost certainly a revision. 57 58

104

chapter three

is whether they are mentioned, directly or indirectly, in the attendant commentary.68 By this criterion, of the 84 (out of 108 total69) alternate readings enumerated above for which attendant commentary is attested in the sources we consulted, the originality of 48 (57.1%) is supported.70 The validity of this criterion for establishing originality, however, is to a certain degree vitiated by the observation that, in at least two instances (ad Zech. 11:8 and Ruth 2:14, discussed below) the alternate readings were almost certainly added (post Yefet) on the basis of the commentary, and thus the possibility exists that the same is true for any, and perhaps all, of the alternate readings.71 A more determinative criterion, in our view, is the representation of those passages in which such alternate readings occur in earlier, primarily Arabic-script Mss—which, as already noted above, are significantly less affected by revision and accretion. The evidence thus gathered may be divided into two groups, these being 1) alternate readings attested in Arabic-script Mss, and 2) alternate readings which are unattested in earlier Mss, whether Hebrew script or Arabic script. The first group, derived from the sources available to us for the above enumeration, is as follows: i. Ad Judg. 21:9, íòä ãLt"úiå] Ms. BL Or. 2547, fol. 43r (prob. early 11th cent.72) "  a > " (“‘So the people were numbered’— or, ‘surveyed’”).73 There is no extant commentary ad loc. in the Mss surveyed. The root equivalency of the alternate translation is endorsed by al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 477. See Ben-Shammai, “Studies,” pp. 202–6. The 24 exceptions are Gen. 2:12; 3:9, 19; Judg. 21:9; Ruth 3:7; 4:1; and all the occurrences in Psalms excepting 2:2 and 22:16. 70 The 41 exceptions (i.e., those readings to which no reference is made in the comm.) are Judg. 5:18; 14:12; 19:8; 20:32; Jer. 27:19; Hos. 5:15; 7:6; 10:5; 11:4; 14:9; Amos 3:12; 5:8, 22; Micah 6:12; Ps. 2:2; Job 9:26; 10:12; Prov. 7:22; 12:25; 20:3 (bis), 20; 21:14; 28:10; 29:5; 30:31 (1o & 2o); Song 3:5, 9; Eccl. 1:2, 3; Dan. 2:8, 22, 48; 4:16; 5:5 (bis); 6:7; 7:26; 9:24 (bis); 11:12. 71 Certainly not irrelevant in this respect are those instances in which alternate interpretations/translations of words or phrases are attested only in the commentary, such as, e.g. (cited from the same sources as those surveyed above), ad Deut. 32:10: åäàöîé (p. 62); 32:14: áìç 1o (p. 75); 32:27: åøëðé (p. 121); Esth. 1:19: øåáòé àìå (p. 496 [text] below); Eccl. 1:8: íéøáã (p. 14); 2:1: äëñðà (p. 27); 2:8: úåãùå äãù (p. 32); 4:12: åô÷úé (p. 84); 4:14: íéøåñä (p. 86); 5:1: ìäáú (p. 91); Dan. 5:11: åøéäð (p. y”). 72 So Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 207b. 73 See also Ms. AOS A146, fol.158v & Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3355, fol. 121r: ãúòàô åã÷úôà åà íå÷ìà. 68 69

yefet’s translation of esther

105

ii. Ad Jer. 2:20, äòö˙ ] Ms. BL Or. 2549 (11th cent.) HO 1!$ H> KO74 (“‘audacious’75—or, it is said, ‘stretched out’”).The alternate translation—which is explicitly endorsed by al-F¯as¯ı (J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 519, l. 8)—is supported by Yefet’s comment ad loc.: +?  Q   (c N!W gME Uo @ " \ E ƒ (“In this passage he likens them to a z¯onâ [“harlot”] who ceases stretching out for her husband and seeks another”). iii. Ad Jer. 4:31, äì˙åç"k ìå˙÷] Ms. BL Or. 2549 (11th cent.) HRM n{ 1c HMM 1!$76 (“‘like the voice of a feverish woman’—or, it is said, ‘of a woman in labor’). Only the second translation is attested in Yefet’s comment ad loc.: => E }!*E ƒ HMM ƒ Bf Q 

+ (“This h. ôlâ is a woman in labor who screams and bewails her life”). iv. Ad Jer. 5:28, eú"Öò] Ms. BL Or. 2549 (11th cent.)   1!$ I>77 (“‘They have become fat’—or, it is said, ‘They have employed trickery’”). Whereas the first translation is endorsed by al-F¯as¯ı (J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 437, l. 42), only the second translation is attested in Yefet’s comment ad loc.: j ƒJ   = C  (“they were not satisfied until they had employed trickery”). This latter root equivalency, moreover, is attested in Yefet’s tarjama ad Dan. 6:4 for úé!Ö#ò78—viz.: ìàúçî åà øá( ãî (“‘contrived’—or, it is said, ‘employed trickery’), both of which readings are supported by the commentary, though the alternate is the more emphasized: êìîìà ˙ ë˙ à êìîìà äì éåúñà àîìô ®®® êéàìåà ìèáé ïà éô ìàúçé àã˙ åä ïàë ã ¨ ìéçå øéáãú éô (“The king was, behold, ìéì÷ô ìéì÷ íäòæðé éúç ä employing trickery to dismiss those men … and so, once his dominion was established, he began contriving and employing trickery in order to remove them little by little”).79 v. Ad Prov. 7:22, ìéå$à øñeî] Ms. BL Or. 2553 (11th cent.), fol. 16v U ' 1 5 dT  (“‘(the) fetter’—or, ‘(the) chastisement’—‘of a fool’”); Ms. JTSA ENA 219 (16th cent.), vol. 1, fol. 43v åà ìäàâ˙ìà èàáø ìäàâ˙ìà áãà. Only the root of the first translation is attested in Yefet’s commentary (ibid., fol. 45r): èáø ã÷ ãé÷ ìú˙ î àäòî äòàîúâ˙à Per Wendkos, Jeremiah, p. 3; date assigned by Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 211a. So, reading shu/ij¯a #a, rather than, as Wendkos, shaj¯a #a (“audacity”). 76 Per Wendkos, Jeremiah, p. 38. 77 Per Wendkos, Jeremiah, p. 53. 78 So noted by Wendkos, Jeremiah, n. ad l. 11. 79 Text per Margoliouth, Daniel, p. ’, though we have re-transcribed such back into Hebrew script so as to more accurately reflect the state of the Ms. 74 75

106

chapter three ˙ ìà äá øåú

(“his uniting with her (in sexual intercourse) is like a fetter by which a bull is bound”), whereas the alternate translation is adopted by Saadia (Proverbs, p. 69) and al-F¯as¯ı (J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 394, ll. 9–10 [albeit áéãàú]). vi. Ad Song 1:12, _ìnäÖ-ãò] Ms. BL Or. 2554 (1004/5 C.E. [copied during Yefet’s lifetime]) 7M TA Q 1!$ 7M ˆQ 3 (“‘Until the king’—or, it is said, ‘Since the king has returned’”); Ms. BN héb. 293 (1626 C.E.) êìîìà ãåòé ã˙ ðî ìé÷å êìîìà éã˙ ìà éìàå ñìâ˙éå.80 In Yefet’s commentary only the second translation is explicitly addressed81: (!)åúîãà ìò éúåéä ãò 1c Q åáñîá êìîäù ãò (" (“(Scholars) have interpreted ãò (here) as ‘since/while’ [mundhu], as in, ‘while [ãò] I was still in my own country’ [Jonah 4:2]”). Cf., similarly, Saadia, Song, p. 41: êìîìà íàã àî (“While the king”). vii. Ad Song 3:9, ïå˙éY!tà] Ms. BL Or. 2554 (1004/5 C.E.) 1!$ H' > ZT 82 (“‘a palanquin’—or, it is said, ‘a howdah’”); Ms. BN héb. 293 (1626 C.E.) ˙âãåä ìé÷å (!)ä¨ éãàîò.83 In Yefet’s commentary only the first translation of this hapax legomenon is cited as a possibility “according to (the word’s) literal meaning” (N - =>). The alternate translation is given by Saadia (Song, p. 69) and al-F¯as¯ı (J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 139, l. 191). viii. Ad Dan. 2:22, àV"Ö] Ms. BL Or. 2557 (12th cent.84) D ;  (1%85 (“‘is loosened’—or, ‘dwells’”). This phrase is not specifically addressed in Yefet’s commentary. The alternate translation, however, is attested by Saadia, Daniel, p. 41. The second and perhaps more significant group, providing almost certain testimony to the non-originality of the readings concerned, is as follows86: 80 Both of these are cited per Ben-Shammai, Studies, p. 193. In the edition of Bargès (Canticum p. ”) ïà is in place of éã˙ ìà. 81 See Bargès, Canticum. 82 Per Ben-Shammai, Studies, p. 203. 83 Per Bargès, Canticum, p. ”. On the reading (!)ä ¨ éãàîò see Ben-Shammai, Studies, p. 204, n. 5). 84 So Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 189a. 85 Per Margoliouth, Daniel, p.  and n. 3. The later, Hebrew script Mss in his collation read ïëàñ ìé÷å ìçðî. 86 We have omitted from the following enumeration the curious absence of íîäìà ìé÷å, in the older of the two Mss collated, from ùçàåôìà ìé÷å íîäìà ad Ps. 37:7 (Bargès, Zub¯ur, p. 69 & 72, n. 4), since the most reasonable explanation for this is scribal reduction. Of course, the possibility also exists (though unlikely in our view) that ùçàåôìà is the original reading and ìé÷å íîäìà was added later. Tentatively omitted

yefet’s translation of esther

107

i. Ad Zech. 11:8, é!á äì#ça] Of the four Mss collated by Ben-Shammai, two (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 298 [mid-sixteenth cent.] and Ms. BL Or. 2401 [1688 C.E.]) have ìé÷å éúäâ˙ ïî úö˙ øî ìé÷å éá úìë˙ á ¨ èôì éäå øö÷úå éðòîá àäéðòî ìé÷å éúãàáò úãäæ ÷à÷úùà àäì ñéì ä (“‘(their soul) was aloof towards me’—or, it is said, ‘it became sick of me’—or, it is said, ‘it forsook the worship of me’—or, it is said, its meaning is akin to that of øö÷úå. This root (lit., “expression” [lafza]), moreover, occurs nowhere else (in Scripture)”), whereas . in the oldest Ms. (RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3532) the second alternate reading (éúãàáò úãäæ ìé÷å) is lacking, and in what is apparently the next oldest Ms. (RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1410) the same alternate is written in the margin.87 In all four Mss, moreover, this reading is evident in the commentary ad loc.88: ãéøé éá äìçá íùôð íâå äìå÷å ¨ ëòàèá åãäæ íå÷ìà ïà äá. (“By the statement, äìçá íùôð íâå, äììà ä (the writer) means that the people forsook their obedience towards God”). ii. Ad Prov. 12:9, äìOð áå˙è] Ms. JTSA ENA 219 (16th cent.), vol. 1, fol. 78r øé÷ç åà óéë˙ ñ ïàñðàìà ïåëé ïà çìöàìà (“‘It is better that a man be a fool’—or, ‘despised’”); yet Ms. BL Or. 2553 (11th cent.), fol. 38r #![  +B }{B (“‘Better is the foolish man’”). The precedence of the reading in the Arabic-script Ms. is underscored by the attributive rendering of the adjective (#![ ), which is clearly closer to the Hebrew text than the predicative/substantive rendering in the Hebrew-script Ms. The alternate reading (øé÷ç) is attested—and apparently derived from—Yefet’s commentary ad loc. (ibid.): H!f =" #![;  ! F+ F T  h+ F$ (“By the expression äì÷ð (Solomon) does not mean that he is truly foolish or despised”). Of the two root equivalencies, moreover, only óë˙ ñ is given by Yefet’s older contemporary al-F¯as¯ı (J¯am¯ı #, II, pp. 552–53). iii. Ad Prov. 12:25, äpç"Öé] Ms. JTSA ENA 219 (16th cent.), vol. 1, fol. 83v àäéðçé ìé÷å àäéëçé (“‘he will talk of it (i.e., his ‘grief ’ from the following enumeration, moreover, is the absence in two Mss. of the alternate reading ä¨ øëî ìé÷å following øëîìà (for Heb. äi!îY) ad Mic. 6:12 (Marwick, Retribution, p. 211). This posthumously published edition, unfortunately, contains no introductory matter or explanation of sigla, and therefore, despite Marwick’s carefully constructed apparatus, is of only minimal value for text-critical issues. 87 On the dates of these Mss and their collation ad loc. see Ben-Shammai, Studies, pp. 183, 201. 88 My thanks to Cees de Vreugd for supplying me with his collated text of this comment.

108

chapter three

[ä¨ øñçìà])’—or, it is said, ‘he will bow (his grief[!]) down’”); yet Ms. BL Or. 2553 (11th cent.), fol. 42v F!^ (‘it (i.e., the ‘distress’ [íâ]) will bow (his heart)89 down’). In this instance the two translations in the Hebrew-script Ms. are semantically quite far apart, with the second (àäéðçé/F!^ [hardly reading äðç(é)!×é; cf. b. Yoma 75a]) clearly standing closest to a literal rendering of the Hebrew root. This observation, compounded by the morphological similarity of the two translations, suggests that the alternate translation (in this instance the first) arose from a scribal error in reading or writing the Hebrew-script n¯un as a kap, with the resultant reading of the verb as “he will talk” quite likely deriving “legitimacy” within the Hebrew-script text tradition by its apparent congruity with Yefet’s comment ad loc. (ibid.):  +B g$ 1j  $ F+ [S ] #AE  Q  FI$ g!M" }!%* C ƒ .U' 1$ >  D 8  … !+ [ ] aW  d] FW C!" !ID 1R" ƒA" 78  cD F%  r =+   $ (“By this saying the people are being taught that, should any of the various types of worldly distress beset a man’s heart … if he is wise he will resort to sound thinking and encourage his heart, saying, ‘O my heart, there are those whom greater (distress) than this has overtaken, and with me, therefore, is great grace.’ Thus he will overcome his distress”). iv. Ad Prov. 20:20, ˙ån!àå åé!áà ìlK"î] Ms. JTSA ENA 219 (16th cent.), vol. 2, fol. 17v ãéøôúìà éìò àîäãçà åà äéãìàå íúàù (“‘He who reviles his parents’—or one of them individually”); yet Ms. BL Or. 2553 (11th cent.), fol. 87v F   E O. The alternate translation is not addressed in Yefet’s commentary ad loc. v. Ad Prov. 21:12, ólñ"î] Ms. JTSA ENA 219 (16th cent.), vol. 2, fol. 25r áì÷î åà óéæî (“‘decrying’—or, ‘overthrowing’”); yet Ms. BL Or. 2553 (11th cent.), fol. 91r g. Only this latter translation, which stands closest to a literal rendering of the Hebrew root, is attested in Yefet’s commentary ad loc. (Ms. JTSA ENA 219, vol. 2, fols 89 On this construal of the feminine object of äðçùé as being the “heart” (áì) of the man, cf. al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 359, ll. 26–30): áì÷ ïëñé àã˙ à íâìà ®äðçùé ùéà áìá äâàã äìå÷å éäå ñôðìà éìà òâ˙àø ìå÷ìà ïà åìà÷ íå÷å ®àäçøôé ïñçìà íàìëìàå àäøñëéå äñôð éðçé øîìà ˙ éðàúìàá éâ˙é äðî ä¨ øú˙ ëìà ïàì ú˙ éðàúìàå øéëã˙ úìà ìîúçé áì ïà åìà÷ íå÷å .ä¨ ú˙ ðåîìà (“As úåáì ú to the saying, Care in the heart of a man boweth it down, (etc.)—this means, ‘when distress lodges in the heart of a man, it bows his soul down and crushes it, whereas good words make it glad.’ Now whereas some people say that the objectival referent in this saying is the ‘soul’ [nafs/nepeˇs], which is feminine [thus al-F¯as¯ı], others say that the reference is to the ‘heart’ [l¯eb], since (this word) is primarily feminine, (as per the plural form) libbôt”).

yefet’s translation of esther

109

25r–v): íäøéë˙ å íäîòð áì÷é §òú äììà ïà éðòé (“(This clause) means that God—may He be exalted!—overthrows their comforts and their prosperity”). The translation óéæî, on the other hand, may well have been prompted as a later addition by, inter alia, the lexical treatment of al-F¯as¯ı, who, in addition to endorsing the Ar. root óéæ as the general equivalent of Heb. óìñ, employs it in a specific translation of the verse in question, though in the context of an interpretation quite different from that of Yefet—to wit (J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 330, ll. 72–76): íìàòìà ˙âàúçà àã˙ à ìà÷ òøì ®®® ìéëùî äìå÷ ¨˙âàç ïà éà àãøìà éìà ïé÷ñàôìà óé( æé òùøìà úéá éìà ìãàòìà ÷éãöìà ä éåúñîìà ïò íäìéæéå ñàðìà áåì÷ ãñôé àîî åä òùøìà éìà (“(By this saying) he means, ‘When an intelligent, righteous man is dependent on the estate of a wicked man, he will decry the unrighteous to destruction’—that is to say, the dependency of a righteous man on a wicked man is one of those things which vitiates the heart of the people and discourages them from (pursuing) fairness”; cf., similarly, Saadia, Egrôn, p. 370; idem, Proverbs, p. 162). vi. Ad Prov. 21:14, ÷ça] Ms. JTSA ENA 219 (16th cent.), vol. 2, fol. 26r øâ˙çìà éô åà íëìà éô (“‘in the sleeve’—or, ‘in the lap’”); yet Ms. BL Or. 2553 (11th cent.), fol. 92r ‘C . The alternate translation may well have been added on the basis of al-F¯as¯ı’s statement (J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 541, l. 146) that “every (use of) ÷éç refers to a ‘lap’” (÷éç ìë øâ˙ç ®®®). It may be noted that Saadia, though also endorsing the general equivalency of ÷éç and øâ˙ç (Egrôn, p. 222; see also Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 223), renders the former in the present verse, like Yefet, by íë (Proverbs, p. 163). Neither translation is attested in Yefet’s commentary ad loc. vii. Ad Prov. 22:23, ÖôŽð íäéò"á÷˙ -úà òáJå] Ms. JTSA ENA 219 (16th cent.), vol. 2, fol. 38v íäîñâ˙ éô åà íäçàåøà éô íäéñë˙ àá ñë˙ áéå (“‘Those who debase them He will debase in their spirits’—or, ‘in their bodies’”); yet Ms. BL Or. 2553 (11th cent.), fol. 99v X[I 4  (!) j . Underscoring the non-originality of the alternate translation is the observation that it occurs in Yefet’s comment ad loc. as a complement, not alternative, to the first translation—i.e. (per Ms. JTSA ENA 219, vol. 2, fol. 39r): éô ìîòé äá ãéøé ùôð §å÷å ˙ úå íäîàñâ˙à éô òàâ˙åàá íäéîìàè˙ éìáé äììàå ®®® òàâ˙åàìà íäçàåøà áåã íäçàåøà (“By the expression napeˇs he means that (God) will set torments in their spirits … and God will wreak havoc on their oppressors by means of torments in their bodies, and thus their spirits will be despoiled”).

110

chapter three

viii. Ad Prov. 30:31, íéð"úî øéæYæ] Ms. JTSA ENA 219 (16th cent.), vol. 2, fol. 113v ïéðúîìà (!)÷èðëîî åà ãåãùî åà ïéðúîìà éå÷ (“‘The one which is powerful of haunches’—or, ‘The one which is firm’—or ‘girt’90—‘of haunches’”); Ms. BN héb. 292 (c. 1670 C.E.91), fol. 219r ïéðúîìà (!)÷èðëîî (!)ìå÷å 92ïéå÷çìà (!)åå÷ (“‘The one which is powerful of loins’—or, it is said, ‘The one which is girt of haunches’”); Ms. BL Or. 2402 (1867 C.E.), fol. 175r & Ms. BS Or. Qu. 828, fol. 43r ïéðúîìà (!)ïåéðëîî ìé÷å ïéðúîìà éå÷ (“‘The one which is powerful of haunches’—or, it is said, ‘The one which possesses stamina93 of haunches’”). This is a unique instance in which an alternate reading (ãåãùî) is omitted in later Mss, though it may be reasonably inferred from the variation in the three readings that they represent three separate (i.e., non-consecutive) text traditions, in the common ancestor of which ÷èðîúî was erroneously written ÷èðëîî (which in one of the text traditions was misread and perpetuated as ïåéðëîî). The alt. reading in question, it should be noted, is also attested by—and perhaps derived from—Ibn Jan¯ah. (Us.¯ul, col. 204): f T J F!" (" ... íéðúî øéæøæ. ix. Ad Ruth 2:14, ­èa"öiå] Ms. BL Or. 2513 (1331 C.E.) and Ms. BN héb. 294 (1612 C.E.) èáö˙ ìé÷å èéùô (“‘and he roasted’—or, it is said, ‘he took”); yet Ms. BL Or. 2554 (1004/5 C.E. [copied during Yefet’s lifetime]) U(O.94 Notably, the following comment related to the alt. reading is also lacking from the Arabic script Ms.: ìé÷å àäàèòàå ÷éåñ[ìà ïî + :BN 駧ë] óë èáö95 (“It is also said (that áöéå éì÷ äì means that) he took a handful of barley gruel and gave it to her”). x. Ad Song 3:5, äá#äàä­úà eøYå˙ò"z­í!àå] Ms. BN héb. 293 (1626 C.E.) ¨ áçîìà ïããâ˙ú ìé÷å ä¨ áçîìà åøåú˙ úå96 (“‘(lest) you awaken love’—or, it ä So, reading, with Auerbach (Proverbiorum, p. 29), ÷úðîúî. Such is the date suggested, vis-à-vis the script, by Auerbach, Proverbiorum, p. 8. 92 Cf. al-F¯ as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 507, ll. 97–98: ïéå÷çìà æøæî; and Saadia, Proverbs, p. 262: ïéå÷çìà æøæìàå. 93 So, reading ïëîúî, though see the following discussion. 94 Both readings per Schorstein, Rûth, pp. 12, xxviii. On the dates of the two BL Mss see Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 224; on the BN Ms. see Zotenberg, Catalogues, p. 39a. 95 Per Schorstein, Rûth, p. xxix, n. z). 96 Per Ben-Shammai, Studies, p. 204. In the edition of Bargès (Canticum, p. ), however, the two verbs are printed ïøåú˙ úå and ïãøâ˙ú, though we have followed BenShammai since 1) he consulted the BN Ms. upon which Bargès’ edition was based (Studies, p. 202), and 2) the reading åøåú˙ úå is confirmed by the Arabic script Ms. (fol. 61v), which we checked. 90 91

yefet’s translation of esther

111

is said, ‘(lest) you revive love’”); yet Ms. BL Or. 2554 (1004/5 C.E.)

HI%M 'cE. No comment related to the alt. reading is attested

in either Ms. In fact, further weighing against the originality of this reading, as well-noted by Ben-Shammai,97 is Yefet’s comment ad åøøåòú íàå åøéòú íà—viz.: ! vhj B =+ c !D B !E (“the interpretation of the first (verb) is like the interpretation of the second (verb); there is no difference between them”). The testimony of these earlier, primarily Arabic script Mss would thus appear to be divided, some alternate readings being attested and others not. By inference, however, the balance appears weighted in favor of non-originality, for the first group indicates only that its alternate readings were present at an earlier stage of transmission, whereas the second group would seem to indicate that its alternate readings, since they were not present at that earlier stage, were added at a later (postYefet) point (on the basis of, inter alios, al-F¯as¯ı and Saadia). Nonetheless, we would refrain from drawing any definite conclusions about originality or non-originality seeing that it has been ably demonstrated that alternate readings in the 11th-century tar¯ajim of other Jerusalem Karaites (especially Yeshu #ah b. Yehudah) are original and, apparently, part of a “well-developed translation tradition” nutured and shared within the Jerusalem circle (to which Yefet belonged).98 Moreover, as regards the seemingly determinative group of non-original alternate readings (i.e., those absent from the Arabic-script Mss), it remains an open question—especially in view of the suggestion that Yefet completed a second recension of his entire biblical commentary99—whether or not the alternate readings were in fact added (and other changes made) by Yefet himself.100 Indeed, the earliest dated Ms. among those of Yefet’s works, Ms. BL Or. 2554 (1004/5 C.E.), which was written during Yefet’s Ibid, p. 204. Polliack, “Renderings,” p. 225. See also idem, “Methods,” p. 384; idem, Tradition, pp. 256–59. Alternate readings are likewise attested in pre-Saadianic fragments of JudaeoArabic Bible translation, on which see Blau, “Fragment,” pp. 32–33 (ad Prov.), and Tobi, “Fragments,” pp. 98–99 (ad Gen.). 99 See p. 6 above. 100 The possibility that Yefet produced script-based recensions—i.e., one in Hebrewscript (on the use of which, among the Karaites of Yefet’s period, see Khan, “Script,” pp. 136–41) and one in Arabic-script (from which latter, if intended for a more Arabicized audience, he may well have omitted the alternate readings)—is vitiated by 1) the consistently early dating of Yefet’s Arabic-script Mss and late dating of his Hebrewscript Mss (see pp. 97–100 above and sec. V.2 below), and 2) the evidence in the extant Hebrew-script Mss of derivation from an Arabic-script Vorlage (see section V.2 below). 97 98

112

chapter three

lifetime,101 offers testimony (ad Ruth 2:14; Song 1:12; 3:5, 9) that is evenly split between both groups. And in the absence of further evidence or study such a “split” is perhaps the most appropriate qualifier of our assessment of the originality of “Yefet’s” alternate readings.102 3. Selective Comparison to the Translations of Saadia and Salmon The following comparison encompasses Esther 7:1–10, of which the translations of Yefet and Saadia are respectively taken from the editions presented in the present volume (just the basic text) and by J. Qafih. . The Arabic translation of Salmon is taken from Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fols 9r–10v, though this only contains coverage through verse five; his translation ad verses 6–10, as far as we are aware, is non-extant (see sec. IV.1.1 below). In view of our discussion in the previous two sections, it should be borne in mind that Yefet’s tarjama, which is in this case only extant in Hebrew script Mss, has almost certainly, albeit to an indeterminate degree, been modified over the course of transmission. 7:1

˙ iå: ä™k"ìnä øz"ñà­í!ò úå˙z"Ö!ì ïîäå _ìnä àá Yefet

Saadia

Salmon

àáøùéì ïîäå êìîìà àâ˙ô ¨ ëìîìà øúñà òî ºä

˙ àáøùéì ïîäå êìîìà àâ˙ íú ¨ ëìîìà øúñà òî ºä

áøùìì ïîäå êìîìà àâ˙ô ¨ ëìîìà øúñà òî ºä

The rendering of úåúùì by àáøùéì attested by Yefet and Saadia is congruent with the normal tendency of the latter to render l˘e + inf. constr. by li + finite verb, though Yefet’s own tendency, like that of the Karaite translators generally when the infinitive expresses purpose, is to render it by li + mas. dar, as attested by Salmon (áøùìì).103

101

See the first part of section I above. On the probability of originality for at least some of the alternate readings in Yefet’s tar¯ajim, cf. his noncommittal presentation of both translation options for äeú"aòéå (àäåòñðå ìé÷å àäåè˙ ìâå) in Mic. 7:3 (Marwick, Retribution, pp. 215–16, ll. 26, 41–44): éã˙ ìàô ˙ ìàå ®®® éáà éðúîî äáò éðè÷ ïî äå÷úùà àäåè˙ ìâå äåøñô úåáò äùòî ïî ä÷úùà àäåòñðå äîâ˙øú éã (“Those who interpret it ‘they have made it difficult [lit., “thick”]’ [see al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, √ II, p. 361] derive it from ( äáò, as in,) My little finger is thicker [äáò] than my father’s loins [1Kgs 12:10] …, whereas he who translates it ‘they have woven it’ [cf. Lane, Lexicon, p. √ 3032b] derive it from ( úáò, as in,) a work of cordage [úå˙á#ò] [Exod. 28:14]”). 103 See Polliack, Tradition, pp. 121–24. 102

yefet’s translation of esther 7:2

113

øz"ñà _úìà"g­äî ïéiä äz"Ö!î"a éðgä íå˙ia íb øz"ñà"ì _ìnä øîài˙å

:יòúå úeë"ìnä é!ö#ç­ãò _úÖwa­äîe _ì֑ ïúp!úå äk"ìnä Yefet

Saadia

Salmon

øúñàì êìîìà ìà÷ô ˙ ìà íåéìà éô àö˙ éà éðàú ˙ ìà ä¨ åòã éô ùéà øîë øúñà àé êúìñî ¨ ëìîìà ùéàå êì àèòúå ä óöð éô ïåëé ïà åìå êúéâá ºìòôú éúç êìîìà

éô êìîìà àäì ìà÷ô ˙ éà éðàú˙ ìà íåéìà àö ˙ ìà ñìâ˙î éô àî øîë ¨ ëìîìà øúñà àé êìàåñ ä êúáìè àîå äðéèòúô ¨ ëìîîìà óöð éìà åìå ä ˙ ÷úô ºàö

øúñàì êìîìà ìà÷å ˙ ìà íåéìà éô àö˙ éà éðàú áàøùìà ñìâ˙îìà éô øúñà àé êúìñî ùéà ¨ ëìîìà àîå êì àèòåéå ä êì%îìà óöð éìà êúéâá ºìòôúå

Whereas Saadia freely renders øúñàì by àäì104 and rearranges the word order of the first clause, both Yefet and Salmon retain both. Salmon’s rendering of ïééä by áàøùìà (“drink”), on the other hand, is less precise than the rendering by øîë˙ ìà (“wine”) adopted by Yefet and Saadia. In the next clause, whereas Saadia renders äìàù by ìàåñ (likewise Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 695), both Yefet and Salmon adopt the same gender cognate ä¨ ìñî105 (likewise al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 638), which allows Yefet to further retain the gender of the following verb (àèòúå < ïúðúå). Salmon, however, employs the masculine àèòåéå, apparently construing äî (> ùéà) as the subject, whereas Saadia paraphrases êì ïúðúå as äðéèòúô (“for you shall receive it”). In the next clause (2b), whereas Saadia renders äù÷á by ä¨ áìè (cf. al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, I, pp. 266–67; Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 107, n. 63), Yefet and Salmon adopt the phonetically similar lexeme ä¨ éâá106 (yet cf. ad v. 3), and, in contrast to Saadia’s use of ¨ ëìîî, they render úåëìî by êìî (so al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 212). In conä trast to Salmon, on the other hand, both Yefet and Saadia explicate the conditional-concessive nuance of the king’s statement by inserting åìå (“even if ”), to which Yefet further adds ïåëé ïà (“it should be”). The two different renderings of ùòú by Yefet and Salmon (ìòôú), on the one hand, and Saadia (àö˙ ÷ú), on the other, likely reflect what M. Polliack describes as the “cardinal split in the Karaite and Saadianic lexical traditions.”107

104 105 106 107

See Polliack, ibid., p. 240. For ä¨ ìàñî (see Blau, Grammar, §11âa). See Polliack, Tradition, p. 179. See Polliack, ibid.

114 7:3

chapter three ˙ å äk"ìnä øz"ñà ïòzå _ìnä ^éðéò"a ïç é!úàöî­í!à øîàz :é—úÖwá"a é!nòå é!úìà"Ö!a é!Ö"ôð é!ì­ïúp!z áå˙è֑ _ìnä­ìò­í!àå Yefet

Saadia

¨ ëìîìà øúñà úáàâ˙àô ä ˙ ç úãâ˙å ïà úìà÷å êãðò àè éìå÷ ïñç ïàå êìîìà äéà éçåø éì áäú êìîìà ãðò ºéúéâáá éîå÷å éúìñîá

úìà÷å øúñà úáàâ˙àô ˙ ç úãâ˙å ïà ãðò ààö êìîìà éàøå êìîìà éìàåñá éñôð éì áäé ïà ºéúáìèá éîå÷å

Salmon (!)ìà øúñà úáàâ˙àô ˙ ç úãâ˙å ïà úìà÷å éô è ïàå êìîìà éäéà êéðéò àèòú êìîìà éìò ïñç ºéúáìèá éáòùå éñôð éì

Whereas Yefet and Salmon (albeit corruptly in the latter text) retain Esther’s title (ä¨ ëìîìà), Saadia, in the same vein as his substitution of øúñàì by àäì in the previous verse, omits it—though whereas Salmon retains the literal signification of éðéòá with êéðéò éô, Yefet joins Saadia in resolving the idiom with ãðò (“on the part of ”). Saadia, moreover, renders êìîä êéðéòá in the third person, in agreement with the following clause (áåè êìîä ìò íàå), which, contra Yefet, Salmon, and the Masoretes,—by all of whom this phrase is construed as the second part of Esther’s protasis,—is apparently rendered by Saadia (paraphrastically) as part of the apodosis—to wit: “If I have found favor on the part of the king, then108 let him see fit to grant me …” Also in this second clause, in contrast to the more slavish rendering of Salmon, Yefet translates ìò, in agreement with his translation of éðéòá in the previous clause, by ãðò,109 and explicates the subject by adding éìå÷ (“my utterance”).110 In the apodosis, on the other hand, whereas Yefet and Saadia retain the formulaic repetition éúù÷áá ®®® éúìàùá, Salmon resolves it by the single rendering éúáìèá (on which equivalency see our discussion ad v. 2).

108 On this use of w¯aw to introduce the apodosis of ïà see Blau, Grammar, §307. Cf., otherwise, Qafih’s . gloss of Saadia (Esther, p. 314, note): øáãä ìá÷úéå ¬áåè êìîä ìò íàå êìîä úòã ìò . 109 See Polliack, Tradition, p. 137. 110 See Polliack, ibid., pp. 212–13, though she notes that such additions “are rarely found in Yefet’s translation” (p. 212).

yefet’s translation of esther 7:4

115

úå˙çô"Ö!ìå íéDá#òì el!àå ãa ֑ à"ìe âå˙ø#äì ãé!î"Öä"ì é!nòå éð#à eðYk"îð é!k

:_ì•nä ÷æð"a äåÖ˙ øvä ïéà é!k é!z"ÖU$çä eðYk"îð Yefet

Saadia

Salmon

éîå÷å àðà àðòá ã÷ ïàô åìå ãàáðå ìú ÷ð‘ å ìöàúñðì ãéáò àðìàâ˙ø ïåëéì àðòá àð( ë êñîà úðë ã÷ì øàåâ˙ àðàñðå àåñé ñéìô êìîìà úìñî ïò ˙ ãé àã˙ àá íøàöîìà éìò ìë ºêìîìà

àðòáà ã÷ àðàô ˙ ôððì éîå÷å àðà ã åìô ãàáðìå ìú÷ðå àãéáòì àðòáà àðà ïàì úëñîàì ààîàå ˙ à éàåñé àì åãòìà àã ºêìîìà

àðà àðòáðà ã÷ ïà ìú÷ì ìàöéúñàì éáòùå 111ïàë åìå ä ¨ ãàáàììå ˙ î àðòáðà ãéáòìà ìú êñîà úðàë éìà øàåâ˙ìàå éåàñî åãòìà ñéì ïà ˙ àá] ºêìîìà [àã

Like Saadia, Yefet renders íò by íå÷, whereas Salmon employs áòù (so al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 403; both equivalents are cited apud Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 532, n. 75). Also, as in the first verse, each infinitive is here rendered by Yefet and Saadia as a finite verb, whereas Salmon, in keeping with the usual Karaite tendency, renders each by the mas. dar. In the next clause (4bα), however, all three place the verb of the protasis before the indirect object, though Yefet’s normal tendency is to retain the original word order.112 In something of a reversal, moreover, Saadia slavishly retains the same preposition (ì) before the indirect object (albeit omitting it the second time), whereas Salmon adopts the clarifying equivalent ìú˙ î (“as”) and Yefet the clarifying expansion àðàñðå ®®® àðìàâ˙ø ïåëéì (“so that our men might be … and our women (might be)”).113 Also, in contrast to Saadia’s use of the simple perfect, both Yefet and Salmon explicate the pluperfect nuance of the verbs in the protasis and apodosis by prefacing to them the perfect of the root ïåë, as well as, in Yefet’s case, adding ã÷ to the opening of the apodosis. Still further, at the end of the apodosis, Yefet adds the clarifying phrase êìîìà 114úìñî ïò (“from petitioning the king”). On the renderings of the last clause (®®® éë êìîä) see our discussion on pp. 345–47, n. 505 below.

111 112 113 114

For àð( ë (see Blau, Grammar, §287). See Polliack, Tradition, p. 167. See Polliack, ibid., pp. 175–78, 226–27. For úìàñî (see Blau, Grammar, §11âa).

116 7:5

chapter three àeä äæ­éàå äæ àeä é!î äk ֑ "ìnä øz"ñà"ì øîài˙å Öå˙øå"Öç#à _ìnä øîài˙å

:ï˜k úå˙×#òì ˙åa!ì ˙åàì"î­øÖ#à Yefet

Saadia

Salmon

ùåøåùçà êìîìà ìà÷ô ¨ ëìîìà øúñàì ìà÷å ïî ä ˙ ˙ ä åä ïéàå àã˙ ä åä éãìà àã ˙ ìòôé ïà äáì÷ øñ( ˙â ºêìã

ùøåùçà êìîìà ìà÷ô ˙ åä ïî ä¨ ëìîìà øúñàì àã ˙ ìà åä ñàðìà éàå àøúâà éã ˙ òðöé ïà äáì÷ ºêìã

ìà÷å §å[ùç]à êìîìà ìà÷å ˙ åä ïî ä¨ ëìîìà øúñàì àã ˙ ìà àã˙ åä ïî éàå äòñåà éã ˙ ë ìòôéì äáì÷ ºêàã

Whereas Saadia omits the second øîàéå, construing it as pleonastic,115 Yefet and Salmon retain it, the former because he views the first øîàéå as being addressed to the king’s servants rather than to Esther, and the latter because he views each øîàéå as separately introducing the following two, and therefore distinct, questions.116 For the interrogative éàå, on the other hand, Yefet adopts the locative rendering ïéàå (“and where”; cf. al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 73; Koehler & Baumgartner, p. 38a) and omits äæ, whereas Saadia and Salmon render the interrogative by the morphological cognate éàå117 (“and which/what”; cf. Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 37; Ibn Bar¯un, Muw¯azana, p. 31) and the demonstrative by, respectively, ñàðìà (thus: “and what [i.e., of what rank118] among men is he”) and ïî (thus: “and which one”). For åáì åàìî all three offer divergent, albeit literal renderings, concerning which see our discussion on p. 264, n. 505 below. 7:6

˙ å _ìnä éð"ô!l!î úò"áð ïîäå ä֑ fä òTä ïîä áé˙åàå øö Öé!à øz"ñà­øîàz :ä™k"ìnäå Yefet

Saadia

˙ ä åäå åãòå íøàöî ìâ˙ø øúñà úìà÷ô àã êìîìà íàã÷ ïî øäáðà ïîäå éãøìà ïîä ¨ ëìîìàå ºä

˙ ä õ˙ âàáå åãò ìâ˙ø øúñà úìà÷ ïîä àã êìîìà éãé ïéá ïî ïîä ìàúäàô éãøìà ¨ ëìîìàå ºä

See Polliack, Tradition, pp. 239–41. For the commentary of all three ad loc. see pp. 268–69 and n. 525 below. Note that Saadia allows the possibility of the “two utterance” view adopted by Salmon. 117 See Polliack, Tradition, pp. 170–72. This imitative tendency, as noted by Polliack, is more pronounced in Yefet’s translations than in Saadia’s. 118 Cf. the gloss of Qafih, Esther, p. 314: íãà éðá ïéá åúâøãå åúìòî äîå. . 115 116

yefet’s translation of esther

117

The greater tendency of Yefet—as that of the Karaite translators generally—towards morphological imitation119 is evident here in his rendering of øö by íøàöî and úòáð (per Koehler & Baumgartner, Lexicon, p. 147a: “he was gripped by a sudden fear”) by øäáðà (“he became short of breath”), over against Saadia’s respective renderings by åãò and ìàúäà (“he became terror-stricken”). As regards the verb, cf. oth√ erwise al-F¯as¯ı’s equation of the root with Ar. òåø (“to frighten/alarm”; J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 255), as well as Ibn Jan¯ah’s . specific rendering ad loc. by Œ  (“he became flabbergasted”; Us.¯ul, col. 103). Also indicative of a greater tendency towards imitation is Yefet’s retention of the Subject-Verb word order of úòáð ïîäå, over against the more idiomatic Verb-Subject word order adopted by Saadia.120 Comprising an instance of lesser imitation, however, is the addition in Yefet’s tarjama of åäå (“namely”) before the climactic identification of Haman. As to Yefet’s rendering of éðôì(î) by íàã÷ (ïî), this is, as noted by Polliack, consistently attested by the Karaite translators and, vis-à-vis Saadia’s rendering (as normally elsewhere) by éãé ïéá, reflects a distinctive lexical/translation tradition.121 7:7

Öwá"ì ãîò ïîäå ïú ֑ é!aä úpb­ìà ïéiä äz"Ö!n!î ˙åúî#ça íJ _ìnäå

:_ì•nä úàî äòTä åéìà äú"ìë­é!k äàT é!k äk"ìnä øz"ñàî ˙åÖ"ôð­ìò Yefet

Saadia

˙ ìà ä¨ åòã ïî äúéîçá íà÷ êìîìàå øîë ˙ àãìà ïàúñáìà éìà ìñé ó÷å ïîäå éðàìë ˙ à ä¨ ëìîìà øúñà ïî äçåø à÷áà éô ã ¨ éìáìà úäúðà ã÷ ïà éàø ãðò ïî äéìò ä ºêìîìà

˙ ñìâ˙î ïî äúééîçá íà÷ êìîìà ïà íú ˙ ìà ó÷å ïîäå ïàúñáìà ïàðâ˙ éìà øîë ¨ ëìîìà øúñà ïî äñôð ïò áìèéì àîì ä ãðò ïî àãøìà äéìà ìîë ã÷ ïà ààø :êìîìà

The disjunctive opening of this verse (one might have expected í÷éå êìîä)122 is slavishly rendered by Yefet, whereas Saadia emphasizes the idea of consecution by paraphrasing the initial w¯aw as ïà íú˙ (“Then”; cf., by contrast, his rendering of the same in the next verse). On the

119 120 121 122

See Polliack, Tradition, pp. 170–73. See ibid., pp. 167–69. See ibid., pp. 179–80. Cf. Waltke & O’Connor, Syntax, §§33.2, 39.2.

118

chapter three

different renderings of ïúéáä úðâ, both here and in the following verse, see p. 172, n. 57 (ad 1:5) below. As to the infinitive ù÷áì, whereas Saadia, as typically for infinitives, renders it by li + subjunctive (áìèéì), Yefet, atypically, renders it by an asyndetic subjunctive (ìñé123).124 In Yefet’s translation, moreover, the somewhat elliptical object of Haman’s request (i.e., åùôð) is explicated by the addition of à÷áà (“the preservation of ”).125 As to Yefet’s rendering of äúìë by úäúðà (“had been settled/determined),” the same equivalency is attested by Saadia in his Tafs¯ır ad Gen. 44:12126 (éäúðàå < äl!k), whereas here, as in his Egrôn,127 he √ renders it by ìîë (see also al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 104; Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, cols 320–21). 7:8

øÖ#à äh!nä­ìò ìô˙ð ïîäå ïéiä äz"Ö!î úéa­ìà ïúé!aä úpb!î áÖ _ìnäå àöé øácä úéa ֑ a é!n!ò äk"ìnä­úà Öå˙a"ë!ì íâ#ä _ìnä øîài˙å äéìò øz"ñà ºe“ôç ïîä éð"ôe _ìnä é!t!î

Yefet

Saadia

˙ àãìà ïàúñáìà ïî òâ˙ø êìîìàå éðàìë ˙ àå øîë˙ ìà ä¨ åòã úéá éìà ò÷àå ïîäá àã ˙ ìà øéøñìà éìò ìà÷ô àäéìò øúñà éã ¨ ëìîìà ñáëú ïà êàøúà êìîìà éòî ä ˙ ä ˙âøë˙ àî øàã÷îå úéáìà éô ìå÷ìà àã ºïîä äâ˙å ãéáòìà åè( â éúç êìîìà íô ïî

úéá éìà ïàúñáìà ïàðâ˙ ïî òâ˙ø êìîìàå ˙ ìà ñìâ˙î øéøñìà éìò ò÷àå ïîäå øîë ˙ ìà êìîìà ìà÷ô ä÷åô øúñà úðàë éã ¨ ëìîìà ñáëéì àö˙ éàå úéáìà éô éãðò ä ˙ ä¨ îìëìà ïîä äâ˙åå êìîìà íô ïî úâ˙øë :éèâ

In Yefet’s translation, apparently in order to highlight the dramatic impact, the w¯aw in ïîäå is expanded to -á àã˙ àå (“there was/and behold,”). On the other hand, whereas Yefet slavishly renders the nominal relative clause äéìò øúñà øùà, Saadia adds the verb úðàë. In the following statement by the king, however, Yefet supplies a main, finite verb (êàøúà, “Do you really think …?”) to govern the infinitive ùåáëì and explicates the whole as a direct address to Haman, whereas Saadia retains the elliptical syntax and, like the majority of translators, expli-

123

For ìàñé (see Blau, Grammar, §11âa). Cf. Polliack, Tradition, pp. 121–24, as well as ad 7:1 above. On the asyndesis of object clauses in Judaeo-Arabic see Blau, Grammar, §334. 125 Cf. Polliack, Tradition, pp. 215–17. 126 See Allony, Egrôn, p. 234. 127 See Allony, ibid. 124

yefet’s translation of esther

119

cates it as an indirect query (i.e., “Will he even assault …?”).128 In rendering the interrogative -ä, moreover, Yefet atypically employs à rather than ìä,129 while Saadia omits it completely. In the second part of the verse, whereas Saadia adheres to a slavish translation, Yefet’s translation attests 1) an atypical reversal of the subject-verb word order in the first clause (êìîä ®®® øáãä > ìå÷ìà ®®® ˙âøë˙ ), 2) the addition of the adverbial modifier àî øàã÷îå (“and hardly”)130 and the consequent rendition of the w¯aw in éðôå as éúç (“when”131), 3) the rendition of the article in øáãä as the demonstrative -ìà àã˙ ä, and 4) the addition of the subject ãéáòìà (“the servants”),132 following a transitive-fientive construal of eôç, on which, as opposed to the stative construal implied by Saadia, see our discussion on pp. 265–66, n. 513 below. 7:9

ä×ò­øÖ#à õòä­äp!ä íb _ìnä éð"ô!ì íé!ñéXqä­ï!î ãçà äð˙åáYç øîài˙å än ֑ à íé!g!î#ç dá˙ b ïîä úéá"a ãî&ò _ìnä­ìò áå˙è­øa!c øÖ#à éë(cYî"ì ïîä ºåé™ìò eä%ì"z _ìnä øîài˙å

Yefet

Saadia

˙ ìà ïî ãçàå äðåáøç ìà÷å íàã÷ ïàéöë ˙ ìà ãåòìà àö˙ éà àã˙ åä êìîìà ìîò éã ˙ ìà éëãøîì ïîä êìîìà éìò íìëú éã ˙ ê˙ îàù ïîä øàã éô ó÷àå øéë˙ á ïéñîë ˙ ºäéìò äåáìöà êìîìà ìà÷ô òàøã

˙ ìà íàãë˙ ìà ïî ãçà äðåáøç ìà÷ô ïéá éã ˙ ìà ä¨ áùë˙ ìà àã˙ åä àö˙ éàå êìîìà éãé éã ˙ ìà÷ éã˙ ìà éëãøîì ïîä àäòðö éìò øéë ˙ ä¨ ë˙ îàù äìæðî éô ä¨ îéà÷ êìîìà ïéñîë ˙ ºàäéìò äåáìöà êìîìà ìà÷ô àòàøã

On Yefet’s construal of íéñéøñ here and throughout Esther as “eunuchs” (ïàéöë˙ ), as opposed to Saadia’s rendering of it as “servants” (íàãë˙ ), see also al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 355 (ïàéöë˙ íãë˙ ); Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 493 (IKM ; n. 4 [gloss]: (!*[M ); Qimh. ¯ı, Lexicon, p. 246b (íéñøåñîä);133 and, albeit defining it as “impotent” rather than “eunuch,” Ibn Bar¯un, Muw¯azana, p. 75 (ïéðòìà åäå ñéøñìì ñðàâ˙î ñéøñ). On the renderings of éðôì by íàã÷ (Yefet) and éãé ïéá (Saadia) see above ad 7:6. As to the

See Polliack, Tradition, pp. 167–69. See Polliack, ibid., pp. 130–31. 130 See Polliack, ibid., pp. 219–20. 131 On this sense of hatt¯ . a see p. 265, n. 512 below. 132 See Polliack, ibid., pp. 213–14. 133 All three of these lexicographers recognize the application of (íé)ñéøñ to men who are not eunuchs, although not in Esther. 128 129

120

chapter three

common rendering of äðä by àã˙ åä, this is, as noted by Polliack,134 consistent with the tendency of both scholars to so render the Hebrew particle when followed by a nominal clause and predicating existence (more than suddenness or surprise)—in which instances the other Karaite translators typically employ h¯adh¯a or inna. On the other hand, whereas Saadia retains the word order of the relative clause (êìîä ®®® øùà), Yefet, in an atypically less-imitative fashion,135 inverts his renderings of the direct and indirect objects. 7:10

:äë™ëÖ _ìnä úî#çå éë֑ "@Yî"ì ïé!ëä­øÖ#à õòä­ìò ïîä­úà eì"úiå Yefet

Saadia

˙ ìà ãåòìà éìò ïîä åáìöô çìöà éã :êìîìà ãøç ïëñ êìã˙ ãðòå éëãøîì

˙ ìà ä¨ áùë˙ ìà éìò ïîä åáìöô àäàééä éã ¨ ééîç úðëñ íú˙ éëãøîì ºêìîìà ä √

Both Yefet and Saadia agree in rendering äìú here—as ad 5:14; √ 8:7; 9:13, 14—by áìö (“to impale/crucify”), in contrast to which √ cf. the equation with e> (“to hang/suspend”) attested by al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 735, and Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 762. The different—albeit synonymous—renderings of ïéëä by çìöà (Yefet) and à(é)éä (Saadia; see also al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 113, and Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 311, l. 31, and n. 89) are also respectively attested ad 6:4. A review of their renderings √ of the 15 hif #il occurrences of ïåë in the Psalms,136 however, reveals this apparent consistency of translation to be illusory,—and therefore as non-indicative of separate lexical/translation traditions,137—for in only √ five instances did Saadia employ à(é)éä,138 whereas Yefet employed √ çìö in none.139 In the second part of the verse (10b) both render the disjunctive w¯aw140 as sequential-resultative (“then/whereupon”; cf. the LXX, JPSV [1917], RSV), though it should properly be construed as circumstantial (“while”). As to his rendering of äîç, Yefet atypically

Tradition, pp. 135–36. See ibid., pp. 164–69. 136 Per the editions of Bargès (Zub¯ur) and Qafih (Psalms). . 137 Cf., by the opposite token, the renderings of éðôì(î) in vv. 6 & 9 above. √ 138 I.e., ad 7:14; 65:7; 74:16; 103:19; 147:8. Otherwise, ˙ is employed 5x (ad 57:7; úáú √ √ 65:10;√89:3, 5; 119:133); çìö 4x (ad 65:10; 68:11; 78:8, 20); and ãúò once (ad 10:17). 139 àéä is employed 11x (ad 10:17; 57:7; 65:7 [gloss], 10; 68:11; 78:8; 89:3, 5; 103:19; √ √ 119:133; 147:8); áúø 4x (ad 7:14; 65:7, 10; 74:16); and éãä once (ad 78:20). 140 Cf. Waltke & O’Connor, Syntax, pp. 650–52. 134 135

yefet’s translation of esther

121

employs the lexeme ãøç rather than, as Saadia, the cognate ä¨ ééîç141 (cf. ad v. 7 above, as well as al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 558; Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 233; Ibn Bar¯un, Muw¯azana, p. 49).

141 Of 46 (out of 125 total) occurrences of äîç surveyed (including the present verse), 38 (in addition to one variant occurrence as the first part of a doublet ad Esth. 5:9) are translated ä¨ (é)éîç by Yefet (ad Deut. 32:33; Jer. 4:4; 6:11; 7:20; 30:23; 32:37; 33:5; 36:7 (bis); Hos. 7:5; Nah. 1:2, 6; Pss 6:2; 38:2; 58:5 (bis); 59:14; 76:11 (bis); 78:38; 79:6; 88:8; 89:47; 90:7; 106:23; 140:4; Prov. 6:34; 15:1; 16:14; 19:19; 21:14; 22:24; 27:4; 29:22; Esth. 1:12; 7:7; Dan. 8:6; 9:16; 11:44). Otherwise, six, of which four are in Esther, are translated ãøç (ad Ps. 37:8; Prov. 15:18; Esth. 2:1; 3:5; 5:9; 7:10), one ä¨ éîñ (ad Deut. 32:24), and one àîç‘ (ad Hos. 7:5).

chapter four OTHER KARAITE COMMENTARIES ON ESTHER

The following descriptive enumeration includes only extant commentaries1 on Esther, whether produced as independent works or as component sections of larger exegetical anthologies. Although presently excluded, additional exegetical material of Karaite provenance relating to Esther may also be found in translations,2 paraphrases (poetic or prosaic),3 muqaddim¯at,4 law codes,5 lexicons/glossaries,6 and other grammatical works.7

1

According to the information provided by Simhah . Isaac Luzki (18th cent.) in his chronicle of Karaite literature (edited by Mann, Texts, pp. 1409–43), commentaries on Esther, albeit as yet non-extant, were composed by Yeshu#ah ben Yehudah (Ab¯u "lFaraj Furq¯an ibn Asad) (ibid., p. 1413: íéáåúëå íéàéáðå äøåúä ìë ìò ùåøéô ®®® øáç àåäå; contra Mann’s skeptical assessment of this statement see Wechsler, “Commentary,” p. 105, n. 20) and Moses Mes.s.orodi ben Judah Mar¯uli (ibid., p. 1424: äùî úàùî §ñ ®®® øáç øúñà úìâî ìò ùåøéô), as well as, perhaps, by the ostensible disciple of Nahmanides (on . which, however, see ibid., p. 121, n. 239), Aaron (ha-r¯of¯e) ben Joseph (ibid., p. 1416, after mentioning his commentaries on the Pentateuch, the Former Prophets, Isaiah, Psalms, and Job: íéøàùðä úåàøì åðéëæ àì [íéáøä åðéúåðååòáå íéøôñ 㧧ëä ìë ùøéô éìåàå =] ø§§äåòáå). 2 See, e.g., albeit undetermined, Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 776, 9 fols. 3 See, e.g., albeit undetermined, Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 13; Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 27; Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 842; Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 875. 4 See, e.g., albeit undetermined, Ms. RNL Yevr. I 794. On the genre of muqaddim¯at generally, see Freimark, “Mukaddima.” . 5 See, e.g., al-Qirqis¯ an¯ı, Anw¯ar, V, p. 040 (Index); Hadassi, Cluster, fols 93v–94v; Elijah Bashyachi in his åäéìà úøãà (Israel, 1966), fol. 79r; and Judah Gibbor in his íéãòåî øôñ (per Ms. HUC-JIR 839 [formerly Schwager 1], fols 78r–106r; see Walfish, Esther, pp. 50–51, 229, 318). 6 See, as an example of the former, al-F¯ as¯ı, J¯am¯ı", II, p. lxxv (index of verses treated); for the latter see, albeit undetermined, BLO Mss Heb.c.19, fol. 123 (complete), and Heb.f.56, fol. 103r (only the last part, beginning with èé!áYÖ [5:2]). 7 See, e.g., the grammatical works (and their respective indexes) published by Khan, Texts; idem, Tradition.

124

chapter four 1. Judaeo-Arabic Commentaries8

1.1. Salmon ben Yer¯uh. im was a conSalmon ben Yer¯uhi/ . . ¯ım9 (Sulaym/Sulaym¯an ibn Ruhaym) temporary of Yefet—possibly the older of the two—and a resident of

8 In the interest of thoroughness we include herein the following enumeration of Rabbanite Judaeo-Arabic commentaries, all of which we have examined in the course of research for the present edition. As regards the anonymous Mss, determination of rabbinic provenance was based on similarity to early rabbinic exegetical tradition(s) and/or explicit endorsement/citation of rabbinic-midrashic sources. The identification of several of these anonymous fragments as commentaries, moreover, is, in view of their sparse remains, necessarily tentative.

i. Saadia Gaon, for the edited and identified fragments of whose commentary, which is incompletely extant, see p. 9, n. 50 above. ii. Judah ibn Bal#am, one page of whose commentary is extant in Ms. BLO Heb. d.68, fol. 31v (published by Allony, Studies, p. 215; see also Neubauer and Cowley, Catalogue, col. 278; IMHM no. 2836/11). iii. Tanhum ben Joseph ha-Yerushalmi, whose commentary, comprising part of his . exegetical anthology Kit¯ab al-bay¯an, is completely extant in Ms. BLO Poc. 320, fols 215r–226r (see Neubauer, Catalogue, col. 77 [no. 363]; IMHM no. 17282). iv. An anonymous commentary wrongly attributed to Maimonides in the editio princeps published by Abraham ben Daniel Lombroso under the title úìâî ùåøéô í§§áîøä äöåðä áøå íéôðëä êøà ìåãâä øùðäì äìâîìà çøù àø÷ðä éáøò ïåùìá øúñà 짧æ (Livorno, 1759) (see Steinschneider, Literatur, p. 220, n. 27, w). On the attribu-

tion/provenance see Hirschfeld, “Notiz.” v. Ms. Qafih. 50, fols 52r–55v (IMHM no. 33542), ad 1:1–18 (incomplete), published by Qafih, . Esther, pp. 323–25 (see also ibid., p. 299). vi. Ms. JTSA ENA 3601, frags 14–15 (see Adler, Catalogue, p. 90: “Commentary on Esther”), ad 3:1; 3:2–3:4. vii. Ms. CUL T-S Ar.21.5, 1 fol. (see Baker and Polliack, Genizah, p. 88 [no. 1179]), ad 9:23–27. viii. Ms. CUL T-S Ar.17.5, 6 leaves/3 bifols (see Baker and Polliack, Genizah, p. 56 [no. 729]), ad 6:11–7:4; 8:1–2(?); and, belonging to the same manuscript, Ms. CUL T-S Ar. 49.52, 2 fols (see Baker and Polliack, Genizah, p. 494 [no. 7130]), ad 6:10. ix. Ms. CUL T-S Ar.22.33, 2 leaves/1 bifol. (see Baker and Polliack, Genizah, p. 103 [no. 1392]), ad chap. 9 (incomplete). x. Ms. BS Or. Qu. 943, fols 28r–29v (see Walfish, Esther, p. 314; IMHM no. 1861; 2192; photo no. 11/10), comprising the first two fols of the introduction; apparently a variant version of the work cited below ad xv. xi. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3965, 35 fols (IMHM no. 57821), lacking one or more initial leaves containing part of the introduction. xii. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 1250, 3 fols (IMHM no. 59537), ad 7:6–8:1. xiii. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 2703 (formerly RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 1071), 2 fols (IMHM no. 61190), ad 9:27–28(?).n xiv. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3230 (formerly Yevr.-Arab. II 61853), 6 fols (IMHM no. 59537), ad 1:7–15.

other karaite commentaries on esther

125

Jerusalem.10 That portion of his exegetical corpus which is extant and identified includes commentaries (with tar¯ajim) on Psalms, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther,11 though he is also supposed to have written commentaries on the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Job, Proverbs, and Daniel.12 Of his commentary on Esther there exist ten separately catalogued fragments (all in the RNL), six of which we identified in the course of research for the present edition.13 The starting point for our identification of these fragments was the explicit attribution of the commentary to Salmon in Ms. RNL Yevr.Arab. I 4467, fol. 1r (íëçä íçåøé ïá ïåîìù §øå §øî ìà÷å éãúáà). Any contentual correspondence, therefore, to this or its companion fragment, Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 110, was taken as determinative, as was also the connection of different fragments from the same Ms. as based xv. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3231 (formerly RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 1088), 8 fols. (IMHM no. 61854), ad 2:7–18; and, belonging to the same manuscript, Ms. RNL Yevr.Arab. II 3300 (formerly RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 1125), 10 fols. (IMHM no. 61910), from the introduction; apparently a variant version of the work cited above ad x. 9 On the spelling and pronunciation of this patronymic, which is also attested as Yer¯o/¯uh¯ . am (cf. 1Sam. 1:1, Margoliouth, Daniel, p. y, and the incipit of his commentary on Esther in Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 1v: (/ íçåøé ïá ïåîìù ®®® ìà÷å éãúáà íçåðé ïåéö (!)ïéðáá íëçä) and R¯ uh. ¯ım, see Davidson, Wars, p. 1, n. 1; Fürst, Geschichte, “Anmerkungen und Nachweise,” p. 28, n. 358; Pinsker, Geschichte, II, pp. 15, 130. 10 That Salmon was Yefet’s elder by one or two decades, though commonly held (see, e.g., Polliack, Tradition, p. 16; Simon, Approaches, p. 59), is by no means a foregone conclusion, being deduced from the periods of their most fruitful (and extant) literary output (Salmon, in fact, composed his first notable work at the age of 13 [see Gottlober, History, p. 207]). Salmon’s birth range has been placed between 910 and 915 (see Nemoy, Anthology, p. 69), which is roughly the same as that otherwise collectively suggested for Yefet (i.e., 910–20; see p. 4, n. 9 above). 11 This identification of Esther is based upon the Judaeo-Arabic fragments enumerated below. The Hebrew commentaries on Ruth and Esther initially identified as translations of Salmon’s Arabic commentaries (see Pinsker, Geschichte, II, p. 132) have since been respectively re-identified as a translation of Yefet’s commentary on Ruth and an anonymous Byzantine compilation (see Wechsler, “Commentary,” p. 106, n. 24, and our discussion in sec. IV.2.3 below). 12 See Frank, Search, pp. 12–13 and n. 49; Fürst, Geschichte, pp. 87–80; Gottlober, History, p. 207; Pinsker, Geschichte, II, pp. 130–35; Polliack, Tradition, pp. 15–16; and Steinschneider, Literatur, pp. 76–77. A translation and commentary on Isa. 52:11–53:12 is incorporated by Salmon into his translation and commentary on Ps. 72, for an edition and translation of which see, most recently, Alobaidi, Isaiah, pp. 65–123. See further on Salmon the sources cited by Gil, History, p. 788, n. 7. 13 Citations of Salmon’s commentary in the notes to the translation were taken only from the Mss already attributed to Salmon in the IMHM inventory—viz., RNL Yevr.Arab. I 4467, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4469 and RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295.

126

chapter four

upon similar script style and complimentary coverage—and, in the case of Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4469 and Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fol. 11, an identical stain pattern. Among the total of ten fragments consequently identified with Salmon’s translation and commentary on Esther, four Mss are represented, covering all but 7:5 (partial commentary) to 8:10 (partial commentary), 9:12 (partial Heb. verse) to 9:14 (partial commentary), 9:17 (partial Heb. verse) to 9:26 (partial tarjama), and 9:28 (partial commentary) to 10:3 (end): Ms. A i. Ms. RNL Yevr. II C 521, 2 fols (contiguous with [post] RNL Yevr.Arab. II 3295, fol. 1), containing the comm. ad 1:14 to the comm. ad 1:18. ii. Ms. RNL Yevr. II C 522, 5 fols, containing the following contiguous sections: 1) 1r–2v: the trans. ad 3:11 to the Hebrew text ad 4:1 (äìåãâ [lead word]); 2) 3r–v (contiguous with [ante] RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fol. 7): the Hebrew text ad 4:7 (íãáàì) to the Hebrew text ad 4:11 (íéòãåé); 3) 4r–5v (contiguous with [post] RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fol. 8): the Hebrew text ad 4:15 (íéàöîðä) to the end of the trans. ad 5:2. iii. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3476, 1 fol. (contiguous with [post] RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fol. 9), containing the comm. ad 6:11 to the comm. ad 6:12. iv. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468; 10 fols, containing the following contiguous sections: 1) 1r–5v: the second folio of the introduction to the Hebrew text ad 1:5; 2) 6r–v: the comm. ad 2:6 to the commentary ad 2:7; 3) 7r–8v: the Hebrew text ad 4:11 to the Hebrew text ad 4:16; 4) 9r–10v: the comm. ad 6:13–14 to the comm. ad 7:5. v. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4469; 1 fol., containing the comm. ad 8:12 to the last word of the Hebrew text ad 8:14 (äøéáä). vi. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295 (formerly RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 1125); 13 fols, in some disorder, containing the following contiguous sections: 1) 1r–v: the Hebrew text ad 1:13 to the comm. ad 1:14; 2) 2r–v: the comm. ad 2:5 to the comm. ad 2:6; 3) 3r: the comm. ad 2:10 to the trans. ad 2:11; 4) 3v: the comm. ad 2:9 to the comm. ad 2:10; 5) 4r–v: the Hebrew text ad 4:3 to the Hebrew text ad 4:4; 6) 5r–v: the comm. ad 2:8 to the comm. ad 2:9; 7) 6r–7v: the trans. ad 2:11 to the comm. ad 2:14; 8) 8r–v: the comm. ad 3:2 to the Hebrew text ad 3:5; 9) 9r–v: the trans. ad 6:9 to the comm. ad 6:11; 10) 10r–v: the comm. ad 2:7 to the comm. ad 2:8; 11) 11r–v: the last three words

other karaite commentaries on esther

127

of the comm. ad 9:14(?) to the Hebrew text ad 9:17; 12) 12r–13v: the comm. ad 8:17 to the Hebrew text ad 9:12 (ùîç).14 Ms. B i. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467; 24 fols., containing the following contiguous sections: 1) 1r–8v: the basmalah (commencing on fol. 1v) to the first word of the trans. ad 1:12; 2) 9r–14v: the trans. ad 2:14 to the first two words of the comm. ad 3:6; 3) 15r–24v: the comm. ad 3:8 to the trans. ad 5:2. ii. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 110, 13 fols., containing the following contiguous sections: 1) 1r–2v: the trans. ad 1:13 to the comm. ad 1:16; 2) 3r–4v: the trans. ad 2:7 to the comm. ad 2:9; 3) 5r–13v: the trans. ad 5:2 to the comm. ad 6:11. Ms. C i. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3350 (formerly RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 1144); 22 fols; assigned in the IMHM inventory to the 13th c.; in some disorder, containing the following contiguous sections: 1) 1r–2v: the introduction (lacking the beginning) to the trans. ad 1:5; 2) 3r–12v: the comm. ad 1:19–20 to the trans. ad 3:13; 3) 13r–v: the trans. ad 8:13 to the trans. ad 9:2; 4) 14r–v: the comm. ad 8:10 to the comm. ad 8:12; 5) 15v–r: the comm. ad 9:26 to the comm. ad 9:28; 6) 16r–22v: the comm. ad 4:3 to the comm. ad 6:6. Ms. D i. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 29, fol. 1,15 containing the end of the comm. ad 4:14 to the trans. ad 5:2. 1.2. Ab¯u Ya #q¯ub Y¯usuf ibn N¯uh. Ibn N¯uh, . mentioned in company with Yefet and Ab¯u "l-Surri (#Al¯ı) ibn Z¯ut.a¯ as one of “the teachers of the émigrés to Jerusalem” (mu#allim¯u "l-maq¯adisa), was a leading figure among the Karaites during the latter 14 In their proper order the folios should be read as follows (an asterisk indicates contiguous text between that folio and the one following): 1, 2, 10*, 5*, 3v*, 3r*, 6–7, 8, 4, 9, 12–13, 11. 15 The second folio of this fragment, although subsumed with the first under the designation øúñà ùåøô in the IMHM inventory, is from a commentary (Salmon’s?) on the Psalms (ad 7:8–15).

128

chapter four

half of the tenth century and beginning of the eleventh.16 Exegetical works which are clearly attributable to him include—all of them more or less extant—a grammatical commentary on selected verses throughout the Bible entitled simply al-Diqdûq (“The Grammar”) or Nukat diqdûq (“Grammatical Notes”), a commentary on the Pentateuch surviving in the abridgment of his pupil Abu¯ "l-Faraj H¯ar¯un ibn al-Faraj, and two commentaries on Lamentations, one consisting of nukat (“short notes”) and the other of a literal translation of each verse with attendant grammatical discussion.17 The extant portion of al-Diqdûq on the Hagiographa has been edited, with an annotated English translation and extensive introduction, by G. Khan.18 The portion treating Esther, which is complete, covers verses 1:2, 5, 8, 19; 2:9, 12, 15 (bis), 18 (bis), 20; 3:8, 13; 4:14, 16; 5:6; 6:3; 7:9; 8:6, 9; 9:5, 23; 10:3. 1.3. Judah Meir Taur¯ızi That Judah Meir Taur¯ızi lived no later than 1646 may be inferred from the signature of his son, who refers to him as deceased (àôåø íäøáà 20 䧧áöðú (!)æéøåú øéàî àôåø äãåäé çåðîä 19ø§§ëá øéàî) in a letter of that year sent by the Karaites of Jerusalem to those of Troki.21 From this it may also be inferred that Judah was probably, like his son, a resident of Jerusalem—having emigrated, perhaps, from Cairo22—and, also like his son, a physician (àôåø) by profession, which latter observation is further supported by the cognomen éôöìà íéëçìà (“the sincere physician”) applied to him in Ms. BL Or. 2517, fols 108r & v. Among his literary

On the passage cited see p. 3, n. 4 above. On ibn N¯uh’s . life and works see, in the first instance, Khan, Diqduq, pp. 5–11; and additionally al-H¯ıt¯ı, Tart¯ıb, passim; Khan, “Contribution,” pp. 292–303; Mann, Texts, pp. 34–34; Polliack, Tradition, pp. 55–56. 17 The suggestion (Khan, Diqduq, p. 6) that ibn N¯ uh. is the author of all the commentaries on the Hagiographa contained in the Ms. in which his nukat are preserved is, as we have elsewhere argued (Wechsler, “Commentary,” p. 104), unconvincing, primarily in view of the fact that he is mentioned only in the heading to his nukat. On the partially extant commentary on Esther in this Ms. (RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1755) see sec. IV.1.4 below. 18 Khan, Diqduq. The portion treating Esther is on pp. 486–93. 19 = éáø ãåáë ïá. 20 = íééäç øåøöá äøåøö åùôð éäú. 21 On this letter and the inferences drawn therefrom see Mann, p. 70, 125, 1207. See also, as regards the information here given, Margoliouth, Catalogue, pp. 194a–195b (no. 254); Neubauer, Bibliothek, p. 25, n. 4; Pinsker, Geschichte, II, pp. 143, 150; Steinschneider, Literatur, p. 258 (§212); and Walfish, Esther, p. 229. 22 See Mann, Texts, II, p. 70. 16

other karaite commentaries on esther

129

works are a completely extant commentary on Esther, attested by the aforecited Ms. as well as in Ms. BASH Kaufmann A29, pp. 205–55, and a non-extant commentary on Zechariah to which he refers in the former work. In his commentary on Esther, which is described by Margoliouth as being “kind of midrashic,”23 Judah cites Yefet (see sec. V.1.12 below) and Samuel (b. Moses) ha-Ma#aravi, as well as, with obvious respect,24 the Rabbanite authorities Judah ha-Levi and Bahya . ben Asher. 1.4. An Anonymous Abridgment from the School of Ibn Nuh A partially extant commentary on Esther, from the introduction to 3:4, is attested in Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1755, fols 61r–64v.25 Also contained in this Ms., which may represent one volume of an exegetical anthology on the Hagiographa, are the remains of commentaries on Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Songs (two separate works), Lamentations (two separate works), and Ecclesiastes. It has been suggested that Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub Y¯usuf ibn N¯uh, . who is cited in the title of the second commentary on Lamentations (fol. 58r: 26ò§§ð çð ïá óñåé áå÷òé éáàì äëéà úëð), is the author of the entire work;27 however, insofar as most of the comments are apparently abridgements from the commentaries of Salmon28 and Yefet, it seems to us just as likely, if not more so, that this work, and the Ms. generally, represents the compilatory-abridging work of one of ibn N¯uh’s . pupils, perhaps either Ab¯u "l-Faraj H¯ar¯un ibn al-Faraj or Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub Y¯usuf al-Bas.¯ır, or their own student Ab¯u "l-Faraj Furq¯an ibn Asad (Yeshu#ah b. Yehudah).29 Even more likely, perhaps, is Al¯ı (Ab¯u "l-Hasan) ibn Sulaym¯an al-Muqaddas¯ı, whose known works are . Catalogue, p. 194a, where he also notes Judah’s citation of the following authorities. Judah also refers to the Rabbanites generally as “our brethren” (àððàåë˙ à) and “our peers” (àðáàçöà) (see Margoliouth, Catalogue, pp. 195b–96a; see also Pinsker, Geschichte, II, pp. 143–44, n.1). 25 For an edition, English translation, and more extensive discussion of this commentary by the present author see Wechsler, “Commentary.” 26 = ïãò åçåð. 27 See Khan, Diqduq, p. 6. 28 In the commentary on Job Salmon is cited explicitly 19 times (see Wechsler, “Commentary,” p. 103). 29 For biographical information on these three see, inter alios, al-H¯ıt¯ı, pp. 439– 40; Ben-Shammai, “Yeshu#ah”; Gil, History, pp. 814–15; Khan, “Contribution”; idem, Tradition, p. 7; Mann, Texts, pp. 33–40; Pinsker, Geschichte, I, pp. 109–10, 115, 217–19; Polliack, “Tradition,” pp. 46–58; Skoss, Genesis, pp. 11–27. 23 24

130

chapter four

all compilations/abridgments of the works (some of them also abridgments) of his predecessors in the Jerusalem circle.30 1.5. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3699, fol. 24r–v This single folio contains incomplete commentary ad Esth. 4:4–5:8. Also included in the Ms., which consists of 34 folios, is incomplete commentary on Isaiah and Psalms. A note at the end (fol. 34r), written in the same hand as that used throughout, identifies the Ms. as the property (mulk) of Nathaniel b. Yefet, known as Ibn al-Bayr¯ut¯ı (úôé ïá ìàðúð éúåøéáìà ïáàá óåøòîìà). The commentary on Esther appears to be a compendium, one of the main sources for which was the commentary of Salmon ben Yer¯uhim, and which, as we have suggested for the pre. vious commentary, likely represents the compilatory-abridging work of a scholar belonging to the Jerusalem school in the late tenth or eleventh century. A selection of comments, paralleled with the corresponding portions of Salmon’s commentary, is given in following: Ad 4:11 Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I Salmon (per Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fol. 7r–v 3699, fol. 24r & Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3350, fol. 21v) úðàë ïîä áúë ïà ìé÷ øäù éô ⧧é íåé úðàë ïîä áúë ïà íìòú ïà áâ˙é ˙ ìà éìò øúñà úô÷å äéô 㧧é éôå ïñéð éôå ïñéð øäù éô ⧧é íåé íåéå øáë ˙ ãú 槧éìà íåéå ä¨ îéàö úðàë 駧æå 觧æå 姧è éìà ìë éìò øúñà úô÷å ã§§é ¨ áøùîìà úìîòå ïîä éìòå äéìò úîæòå êìîìà íåéå ä (!)㧧éå 姧éå 䧧é íåéå øáë˙ ìà ¨ ˙ ä ìîòé áçé àîá êìîìà úøáë˙ à 秧é 秧é íåé éôå äîéàö úðàë ïéòììà äã .áìöå ïîä ìú÷ ïñéð éô .áìöå ïîä ìú÷ 31øàäðìà êìú éôå àäáòù ìú÷éå It is said that Haman’s It is incumbent that you understand that Haman’s letters were written on letters were written on the 13th of the month Nithe 13th of the month Ni- san; and on the 14th thereof Esther became aware san; and on the 14th she of the matter; and on the 15th, 16th, and 17th she became aware of the mat- fasted; and on the 17th she went in to the king, ter; and on the 15th, 16th, presented her invitation to him and Haman, and and 17th she fasted; and prepared the banquet; and on the 18th she told on the 18th day of Nisan the king what this Cursed One intended to do— Haman was killed and i.e., to kill her people, and it was on this day that Haman was killed and impaled. impaled.

30 See Mann, Texts, pp. 41–42; Pinsker, Geschichte, I, pp. 175–77, 183; Polliack, “Tradition,” pp. 53–54; Skoss, Genesis, pp. 4, 28–36. 31 In Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 21v, the words àäáòù ®®® 槧éìà íåéå are omitted,

other karaite commentaries on esther

131

Ad 4:12 Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3699, Salmon (per Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I fol. 24r 4467, fol. 22r) ˙ä {éëãøî} òî ïàë ïà ìãé åãéâéå êúä òî ïàë ïà ìãé àã éëãøî éìà äòåâ˙ø éô êúä äøéâ (!)éëãøîìà äòåâ˙ø éô ®§îì åãéâéå ìà÷ äðàì äøéâ

®éëãøîì åãéâéå ìå÷é äðàì

(The expression) And they told indicates that there were others with Hathach when he returned to Mordecai, for it says, And they told Mordecai.

This indicates that there were others with Hathach when he returned to Mordecai, for it says, And they told Mordecai.

Ad 4:17 Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3699, fol. 24v

Salmon (per Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 24r)

ìàøùé éìò óàè äðà ìãé øåáòéå äìå÷ a ˙ åî ïî íäøîàå {í}äòîâ˙ éúç 31 òö ˙ ˙ .ìëë ùòéå ÷§§ë êìã (!)åìúúîàå íàéöìàá

ìàøùé éìò óàè äðà éìò ìãé øáòéå §å÷ ˙ åî éìà òö˙ åî ïî íäøîàå íäòîâ˙ éúç òö ˙ úîà åä ùòéå ®íàéöìàá ®àäøîà äìàú

The statement And he crossed over indicates that he made his rounds among the people of Israel in that area for the purpose of gathering them together and enjoining the fast upon them, and he complied with this, as indicated by the statement and he did according to all.

The statement And he crossed over indicates that he made his rounds among the people of Israel in that area for the purpose of gathering them together and enjoining the fast upon them. The statement and he did signifies his compliance with her order.

2. Hebrew Commentaries32 2.1. Jacob ben Reuben Jacob ben Reuben was a Byzantine Karaite, probably a native of Constantinople, who flourished sometime during the late eleventh–early clearly by error, since the following phrase øàäðìà êìú éôå is contextually nonsensical. The only other Ms. containing extant text ad loc., Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3350, fol. 17r, also omits àäáòù ®®® 槧éìà íåéå, though in place of øàäðìà êìú éôå, has—as apparently carried over to Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3699—ïñéð éô 秧é íåé éôå, which, being contextually sensical, most likely represents the correction of a scribe who did not have access to the earlier text tradition reflected in Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468. 31a The expected following phrase òö ˙ åî éìà was probably omitted here due to homoioteleuton. 32 For a comprehensive survey of medieval Rabbanite Hebrew commentaries on Esther see Walfish, Esther.

132

chapter four

twelfth centuries.33 He is known from at least two sources34 to have composed a commentary on the entire Bible entitled øùåòä øôñ, of which the portion treating Esther was published, as part of a larger selection covering Jeremiah through Chronicles (expecting Psalms), in 1836.35 His commentary, while attesting a certain degree of originality, is primarily a compendium drawn from previous Karaite sources, especially Yefet. References to and citations from Jacob’s commentary in the present edition are based upon the extant text of Ms. BN héb. 191, fols 309r– 311v.36 2.2. Abraham ben Judah Abraham ben Judah (the Elder/ï÷æä) was a prominent Karaite scholar of Constantinople (àðéãñå÷ éîëçî37) who flourished in the 15th century and produced, inter alia, a commentary on the entire Bible entitled øôñ àø÷î ãåñé which is extant in two Mss.38 The commentary is a broad, albeit concise compendium (ìåãâ øöå÷á ãáëð §éô39) drawn from previous Karaite as well as Rabbanite authorities, including, among the latter, the talmudic-midrashic sages, Ibn Jan¯ah, . Ibn Ezra, Joseph Qimh. ¯ı, and 40 ¯ David Qimh. ı. His commentary on Esther, significantly, relies heavily on Ibn Ezra’s later commentary (Comm. B in our bibliography, sub

33 On Jacob’s life and works see Ankori, pp. 196–98; Fürst, pp. 157–161; Gottlober, p. 180; Pinsker, Geschichte, I, pp. 216–17; Poznanski, ´ “Jacob”; Walfish, Esther, pp. 22, 229. 34 I.e., a letter from the Karaite community of Constantinople to that of Kukizow, Galicia, dated 1729 (apud Mann, Texts, p. 1275: øùòä øôñ ìòá ïáåàø ø§§øäåîëá á÷òé åðéáø íéáåúëå íéàéáð äøåúä ìò øö÷ ùåøéô àåä), and Simhah . Isaac Lucki’s account of Karaite literature (apud Mann, Texts, p. 1415: øáç ®®® øùåòä ìòá äðåëîä á÷òé ø§§øä ìåãâä íëçä íéáåúëå íéàéáð äøåúä ìë ìò ãàî ãîçðå ãáëð ùåøéô). 35 In Koslov (Eupatoria) in the Crimea. This was published together with, and apparently under the title of, Aaron b. Joseph’s exegetical work íéøùé øçáî (ad Josh.– Isa. 59) (cf. Kohler, “Aaron,” p. 15a; Lasker, “Thought,” p. 509, n. 11). 36 To the three other extant Mss of Jacob’s øùåòä øôñ listed by Walfish, Esther, p. 322, should be added Ms. RNL Yevr. 225 (Sklare, “Collections,” p. 901) and Ms. L.O.5 of the Universitetsbibliothek in Lund, Sweden (ibid., p. 918). 37 So Lucki, apud Mann, Texts, p. 1420. 38 See Gottlober, History, p. 149; Lucki, apud Mann, Texts, pp. 1420–21; Simchoni, “Abraham”; Steinschneider, Catalogus, pp. 1–5; Walfish, Esther, pp. 229, 316. 39 So Lucki, apud Mann, Texts, p. 1420; and, from the colophon in Ms. RU Or. 4739 (Warn. 1), copied in 1518 by his grandson Judah b. Elijah Tishbi (apud Steinschneider, Catalogus, p. 2): íàùòå íëøãì íéãøåôîå íéøæåôî åéä øùà í÷åã÷ãå íéðéðòäå íéùåøéôä ìë õá÷ ãçåéî íöòìå ãçà øùáì åéäå ãçà õáå÷. 40 See Steinschneider, Catalogus, pp. 3–4.

other karaite commentaries on esther

133

nomine), from which he at times quotes verbatim, usually anonymously.41 References to and citations from Abraham’s commentary in the present edition are based upon the extant text of Ms. RU Or. 4739 (Warn. 1), fols 234r–235v. 2.3. An Anonymous Byzantine Compilation (Hebrew) An anonymous Karaite commentary is attested by the following three witnesses: i. Ms. RNL Yevr. I 583, fols 22r–35r, from the beginning up to 3:2, at which point the scribe left the work unfinished. ii. Ms. RNL Yevr. II A 78, fols 11v–25v, containing the following contiguous sections (with minor to moderate lacunae): 1) 11v–15v: from the beginning up to 1:12; 2) 16r–21v: from 3:2 up to 10:1. iii. A marginal citation in Ms. Lichaa 10, Lausanne (private collection; containing Yefet’s commentary on Esther [see sec. V.1.3 below]), fol. 34v, concerning the eight reasons that Esther invited Haman to her feast (corresponding to the extant text in Ms. RNL Yevr. II A 78, fol. 22v). In the earlier parts of the first two witnesses is also contained a Hebrew commentary on the book of Ruth which, according to the heading (extant only in the first Ms.), is (a translation of) that of Salmon ben Yer¯uhim. . 42 On this basis it was first thought by scholars that the following commentary on Esther was also a translation of Salmon’s.43 It was eventually determined, however, that the commentary on Ruth is Thus, e.g., ad 1:1 (Ms. RU Or. 4739, fol. 234r): àéäù äëë øéòä úàø÷ðù §îé ®äðéãî äîåçì úåëåîñ (!)íäù §åìñîä íò äîåç úô÷åî (= Ibn Ezra, Comm. B, fol. 32v: úàø÷ð ®äðéãî øéòä úåáéáñ øùà äîåçì úåëåîñ ïäù úåìñîä íò äîåç úô÷åî àéäù äëë øéò); ad 3:1 (Ms. RU Or. 4739, fol. 234v): íéäìà êàñë åäåîëå øñç àáå íéøùä ìë àñë ìòî åèôùî ®íéøùä ìë ìòî àéáðä ããåò äàåáðäå ïëå (= Ibn Ezra, Comm. B, per Ms. BN héb. 334, fols 79v–80r: åäàùðéå 41

åäåîëå åúà øùà íéøùä àñë ìë ìòî åàñë úà íùéå §úë åìéàë ®àñë øñç ®íéøùä ìëî äìòîì íéàéáðä ããåò äàåáðäå íéäìà àñë êàñë); ad 7:6 (Ms. RU Or. 4739, fol. 235r): ®áéåàå øö ùéà ®øúñäá áéåàå ®àéñäøôá øö (= Ibn Ezra, Comm. B, per Ms. BN héb. 334, fol. 83r: øîàúå ®øúñá áéåàå àééñäøôá øö); ad 8:1 (Ms. RU Or. 4739, fol. 235r): äù ùéà åîë ®ïîä úéá úà åøùò úéá åà ®úåáà úéáì (= Ibn Ezra, Comm. B, fol. 37v: äù §îë ®ïîä úéá úà ïúð àåää íåéá åøùò úéá åà ®úåáà úéáì). Abraham cites Ibn Ezra by name twice (ad 4:14 & 9:31) in the approbatory formula 짧æ íäøáà §ø íëçä.

42 I.e., apud Markon (“Ruth,” p. 81), who edited this commentary on the first two chapters, employing both Mss: íçåøé ïá ïåîìù åðéáøì ®®® úåø úìâî ìò ®®® ùåøéô. 43 See Markon, “Ruth,” p. 79; Fürst, Geschichte, p. 88; Gottlober, History, p. 207; Pinsker, Geschichte, II, p. 132; Steinschneider, Literatur, p. 77.

134

chapter four

in fact a translation of Yefet’s,44 which conclusion was also therefore applied by some scholars to the following commentary on Esther45— despite, apparently, the attribution of the introduction to Salmon (äçéúô íçåøé ïá ïåîìùì) and the explicit attribution to the same of a comment ad 6:9 (Ms. RNL Yevr. II A 78, fol. 22r: úúì ïîä §à éë ®íçåøé ïá ïåîìù §àå äìåãâ áäæ úøèòå §à ïë éë ®ùéàä ùàø ìò äøèòå øúë íâ).46 In point of fact, this commentary on Esther is quite distinct from the extant JudaeoArabic commentaries of both Yefet and Salmon—not in the least with respect to the frequent plethora of alternative and/or complementary interpretations supplied in the former which far exceed the occasional (usually single) alternatives and/or complementary explanations offered by Yefet, and which stand in clear contrast to Salmon’s usual practice of supplying a single determinative explanation. Considering as well the many Greek glosses scattered throughout this commentary, it would seem most reasonable to identify it as—albeit still anonymous— a compendium deriving from the late eleventh or twelfth-century phase of what has been described as the “Hebrew Literary Project” of the Byzantine Karaite Community.47 3. Undetermined (Possibly Karaite) Judaeo-Arabic Commentaries 3.1. Ms. JTSA ENA 3336 (shelf mark 7682), frag. 4 Catalogued by Adler, p. 116: “Commentary on Esther (Arabic).” Mutilated; lightly rubbed and stained. Commentary(?) ad 3:15(?)–4:1. 3.2. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 742 Four fols; continguous; translation and commentary ad 9:5–31. Excerpts: 3r–v (ad 9:26): ä¨ òø÷ìà íñàá íéøåô ïéîåéìà äã˙ ä åîñ àã˙ ä ìâ˙à ïîô ˙ ú åðåëé ïàì ïîä àäçøè éúìà §òú ÷çìà ìàøùé åøëùé éúç äìòô àîì øàëã ˙ ˙ êìã ïî íäöàìë ìë éìò (“‘For this reason they named these two days 44

See Nemoy, “Salmon.” So Marwick, p. 459, n. 36a, followed by Tamani, “Tradizione,” p. 72. 46 Reflecting an obvious desire to reconcile this citation with Salmon’s supposed authorship of the commentary, the words íçåøé ïá ïåîìù §àå are underlined and identified in the margin, by a later hand, as “the words of the scribe” (øôåñä éøáã). 47 See Ankori, Karaites, pp. 415–52, esp. 446–49, as well as our earlier assessment of this commentary in Wechsler, “Commentary,” p. 106, n. 24. 45

other karaite commentaries on esther

135

Purim,’ after the name of the lot which Haman had cast, that it might serve as a reminder of that which he had done, that Israel might give thanks to the Equitable One—may He be exalted!—for His complete deliverance of them therefrom”); 4r: úáùìà éô ãøå àîî è˙ àôìà ä¨ ú˙ ìú˙ ˙ ä áåâ˙å ïà óøòéì äéùòå äøéëæå çåð íä ïéîåéìà äã˙ ä éô úøëã˙ ïéîåéìà ïéã ˙ î (“Three òàè÷ðà àäì ñéì ïà÷øôìà ïàî[æ] éô éúçå úàáâ˙àåìà øéàñ ìú of those expressions which are applied to the Sabbath are also mentioned in connection with these two days—i.e., ‘resting,’ ‘remembering,’ and ‘working’—so as to indicate that the obligation to observe these two days is equivalent to the other religious obligations, and that even in the time of messianic redemption there will be no discontinuation thereof ”). In the translation ad 9:20 & 30 ùåøåùçà is rendered øéùãæàìà—a misspelling of øéùãøàìà (al-Ardash¯ır) ultimately due to the misreading of Arabic ' (ø) as o (æ).48 3.3. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4021 One fol.; commentary ad 1:3–4, with Hebrew incipit and translation ad 1:4. Excerpts: ad 1:3: ñøô íã÷é äìë øôñìà éôå §îå ñøô ìéç àðää ìà÷ ˙ à éôå éãî éìò éãî éëìîì íéîéä éøáã øôñ ìò §÷ë ñøô éìò éãî íã÷é äøë ˙ åî ïàë ïàåéãìà ïàì àã˙ ä ñøôå àîëå ®®® êìîìà éô ÷áàñìà éãî íñàá òåö ˙ íã÷ êìã˙ éô òáú éãî ïàëå ñøôì ä¨ ìåãìà úðàë (“(The éãî éìò ñøô øëã writer) says here the army of Persia and Media, and throughout the book he places Persia before Media, though at the end he places Media before Persia, as per the statement in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia [10:2]—this is because the book (of the chronicles) was first established in the name of Media, the previous empire … yet when the authority shifted to Persia, and Media had been subordinated thereto, the mention of Persia was placed before Media”); ad 1:4: åä åúåàøäá §å÷ ˙ ðá ïàë åúåàøá ìà÷ åìå äøéâì êìã˙ äøàäè˙ à (“The expression ˙åúå˙àYä"a äøè refers to his displaying of (his wealth) to others, whereas if the writer had said ˙åúå˙àY!a (the meaning) would have been ‘while he beheld’”).

48

See pp. 144–45 below, and Ibn D¯a"¯ud, Qabbalah, p. 30, ll. 100 & 107 (et varr).

chapter five MANUSCRIPTS EMPLOYED FOR THE PRESENT EDITION

1. Description of the Manuscripts 1.1. A/à Ms. JTSA ENA 1651 (shelf mark 3395); 93 fols.; approximately 18.2 x 13.5 cm; 15 lines per page; rebound in modern boards; very good condition overall. Briefly catalogued by Adler, p. 15 (“the like [i.e., Jephet b. Ali’s Hebrew-Arabic translation and Commentary] on Esther: MS Damascus”), with the colophon reproduced as plate no. 76; see also Tamani, “Tradizione,” p. 71. This Ms., which we have taken as our basic text, is the earliest dated witness to Yefet’s work on Esther, as attested by the colophon on fol. 93v: éô äìâîìà äã˙ ä ê˙ ñð ïî ˙âàøôìà ïàëå 1 ¨ éàî ïàîú˙ å ïéòáñ ä¨ ðñ ïàáòù øäù òñàú ä¨ òáøàìà íåé—i.e., §îá §ùú §òæ §÷ì ä the Ms. was completed on Wednesday, the ninth of Sha#b¯an, in the year 870 A.H. (= April 5, 14662 C.E.). Following this is a note identifying the scribe and the place of writing: §÷æä §øå §øî ïá óñåé ... 3§öä ãáòä áúëå ú[ðé]ã[î]á éîåäæìàá òãåðä ò§§ð äùðî 6§ëðå (?)§æä ÷§§âë ïá 5ò§§ð øæòì[à] 4§ëðå ÷ùîã—i.e., the scribe was Joseph b. El #azar b. Manasseh, known as alZah¯um¯ı, and the place of writing Damascus.7 On fol. 1r, moreover, is a note indicating that the Ms. was at one point the possession (mulk) of Yeshu‘ah r¯of¯e’ b. Mordecai r¯of¯e’ (éëãøî 8ø§§ëá àôåø äòåùé øé÷ôìà êìî 1

= äøäîá øáùú äøéòæ ïø÷ì. Adler, Catalogue, apud plate 76, wrongly: 1477. Among the 32 dated Mss of Yefet’s commentaries enumerated by Tamani, “Tradizione,” pp. 33–35 (per the published inventory of Poznanski, ´ “Kopisten”), only nine definitely predate this one, nos 10–14 being generally dated to the second half of the 15th cent. 3 = øéòöä. 4 = ãáëðå ï÷æä åðáøå åðøî. 5 = ïãò åçåð. 6 = ãáëðå ï÷æä úùåã÷ úìåãâ ãåáë. 7 On the Karaite community of Damascus cf. Mann, Texts, pp. 201–55. 8 = éáø ãåáë ïá. 2

138

chapter five

There are some minor lacunae: 1) fol. 22 is blank, (excepting, curiously, the opening word äãåäé on the recto and the lead-word øúñà at the bottom of the verso), on which should be part of the tarjama ad 2:6 through the first two words of the Hebrew text ad 2:10; 2) the leaf after fol. 28 is missing, containing part of the commentary ad 2:5–20 (from íøçìà øàã éô à÷áúô øë˙ à ú÷å to ïåøùàáúéå àäìùðéå); and 3) the leaf after fol. 89 is missing, containing the latter part of the commentary ad 9:29–32 (from øúñà íàéö ïî äøëã˙ àî éìà øéùé úåîåöä) up to the Hebrew text ad 10:2 (beg.: åúøåáâå). Fol. 20, moreover, is out of order, and should properly follow fol. 28. ò§§ð àôåø).9

1.2. B/á Ms. BL Or. 2520, fols 174r–175v. Catalogued (without attribution) by Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 257a–b (“probably fifteenth century”). The first leaf contains part of the commentary ad 2:9–12 (from àîá øãàáô ¨ éðàú˙ ìà øåäù ä¨ úñìà éôå), and the second leaf the àäîñâ˙ ìàç çìöé to ä tarjama ad 3:1 (beg.: àúàãîìà ïáà ïîäì) up to the Hebrew text ad 3:7 (end.: ìéôä). 1.3. L/ì Ms. Lichaa 10 (Lausanne; private collection); 47 fols. Listed (not described) by Walfish, Esther, pp. 322, 384. Complete. On fol. 1r is pasted a label indicating, in printed Arabic, that the manuscript was received as a family inheritance from Y¯usuf L¯ısha# (Lichaa) (Hr ' d C Q .J! #; =Do   aM  H  H!Y >). Also, on the upper half of this folio, indicating possession of the manuscript at some point by the Taur¯ızi family of Karaites,10 is written the following, partially illegible in our photocopy: §ø[å §øî] ïá [...]äå (?)§úé ïá (?)íéøëìà ò[...] 12 ñ§§ðà éæéøåú úéáá [íéøë]ðä íäøáà 11÷§§âë; and below this: / äìâîìà çøù 13 [ò§§]ð éæéøåú óñåé ÷§§âë ïá äùî êìî—i.e., the commentary was at one point the possession (mulk) of Moses b. Joseph Taur¯ızi. On fol. 34v are contained two marginal comments, one in Judaeo-Arabic (upside 9 The same note of ownership is found in Ms. BN héb. 294, 174r (apud Bland, Ecclesiastes, p. xxiv). 10 On this family cf. Mann, Texts, p. 70, as well as the sources cited therein. 11 = úùåã÷ úìåãâ ãåáë åðáøå åðøî. 12 = äìñ çöð ïîà. 13 = ïãò åçåð.

manuscripts employed for the present edition

139

down in the upper margin; for the text and translation see p. 271, n. 535 below) and the other in Hebrew (in the right and lower margins), both written in the same later hand, concerning the reason for Esther’s invitation of Haman to her banquet with the king. The latter comment, although attributed to Salmon ben Yer¯uhim . (ïá] (!)ïåîìù §øå §î øéñôú ïî 14 䧧ò íçåø[é), is in fact identical to that in the Anonymous Byzantine Commentary, attested ad loc. in Ms. RNL Yevr. II A 78, fol. 22v (see our discussion of this in section IV.2.3 above). 1.4. P/ô Ms. BN héb. 295, fols 123r–172v. Catalogued by Zotenberg, Catalogues, p. 39; see also Birnbaum, Scripts, col. 313 (no. 387), and Tamani, “Tradizione,” p. 72. Complete. On fol. 172v is a colophon which reads as follows: áøä íàìë ïî åøëæå 15§ù §úé äìéìò àøåð úøæòá äìâîìà øéñôú íú ˙ éøàúá 17䧧áöðú éøöáìà éìò åáà úôé 16§áøå §øî àìôåîä íëçä ìåãâä øàäð ê ¨ ðñ ïåéñ ùãç ùàø ä¨ ðö˙ î ä¨ òîâ˙ìà ãòá ò§§á ìàåù øäùì ÷ôàåîìà äøéöéì 맧âúä ä ìàòîùéì óìàìà—i.e., the copying of the commentary was completed on Friday, the first of Sivan/Shaww¯al, 5423 A.M./107218 A.H. (= [per the Hebrew date] June 6, 1663 C.E.). 1.5. R1/1ø Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 272; 86 fols. Complete except for the last folio, which contained the latter part of Yefet’s commentary on 10:1–3 (extant up to àö˙ éà in his comment on the phrase åîòì áåè ùøã). Folios 12 through 20 are in a different hand. 1.6. R2/2ø Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3963; 25 fols. Lacunous and in disorder, containing the following contiguous sections: 1) 1r–6v: from the commentary ad 1:2–12 (beg.: êìã˙ á õ˙ øé íì éçàö ïàë åìå) up to the Hebrew text ad 2:8 (end.: úåáø úåøòð); 2) 7r–7v: from the Hebrew text ad 3:13 (beg.: ìk úà)

14 15 16 17 18

= íåìùä åéìò. = åîù êøáúé. = åðáøå åðøî. = íééçä øåøöá äøåøö åùôð éäú. The equivalent Islamic year should in fact be 1073 A.H.

140

chapter five

up to the commentary ad 3:12–15 (end.: éô ïéìéë˙ ãìà íéãåäéä ìë äìå÷ éôå 3) 8r–8v: from the tarjama ad 4:6 (beg.: éëãøî) up to the tarjama ad 4:11 (end.: [øà]ãìà éìà); 4) 9r–10v: the commentary ad 8:3–17 (beg.: ˙ ìà ìå÷ìà àã˙ ä ïëàì í[ë]éð[éò]á áåèë; end.: áñç éìò äðéãîå äðéãî ìë éð[à]ú áø÷ìàå ãòáìà); 5) 11r–v: the commentary ad 2:5–20 (beg.: ìâ˙( à éäå ïéëéåäé ¨ ëìîìà ïåëú); 6) 12r–v: the Hebrew text úàåìâ˙ìà; end.: øãàáô éúùå ãòá ä ad 3:7 (beg.: ìéôä) up to the commentary ad 3:1–7 (end.: íäìå÷á ïåàäúé[å] åòôø); 7) 13r–v: the tarjama ad 6:13 (beg.: è÷ñú ï[à] úàãúáà) up to the commentary ad 6:1–13 (end.: äøéâ éàø ã˙ ë˙ àé ïà ãàøà êìîìà ïà äáùé); 8) 14r–v: the commentary ad 6:14–7:10 (beg.: åãò ïîä ïà äãðò ïàáå êìîìà éëãøîì) up to the commentary ad 8:1–2 (end.: [øé]à[ñ] äéìà); 9) 15r–v: the commentary ad 6:1–13 (beg.: éëãøîá ìîòé ïà [áâ˙é] àî [éô] äøéâ; end.: éúç ä÷åô øîàìà äìå äîàìâ øàö); 10) 16r–v: the commentary ad 6:14–7:10 (beg.: ˙ ãðòå äáìöá; end.: êìîìà áì÷ éô (!)òçåî äì ïàë); 11) 17r–v: äãøç ïëñ êìã the commentary ad 8:3–17 (beg.: éìåàìà ä¨ òôãìà éô ìà÷ ïëàì éìåàìà; end.: áåèë ìà÷å ïîä áúë éìò ïåìîòé àìå); 12) 18r–v: the commentary ad 8:3–17 (beg.: ìöú úðàë ä¨ éðàú˙ ìà áúëìà äã˙ ä ïàì áø÷ìàå) up to the Hebrew text ad 9:3 (end.: íéãåäéä úà); 13) 19r–v: the commentary ad 3:8– 11 (beg.: ãøåôîå §å÷ éô àö˙ éà äâ˙ú[éå]; end.: ã÷ ïåëàô ìàîìà äðî ã˙ ë˙ à àìå); 14) 20r–v: the tarjama ad 4:16 (beg.: ä¨ ð( ñ äá øâ˙ú) up to the commentary ad 4:1–17 (end.: ãñôé ïëàì úîã( ÷ú éúìà ìéåà÷àìà ïî äøéâ ìú˙ î); 15) 21r–v: the tarjama ad 8:7 (beg.: êìîìà ìà÷ô) up to the tarjama ad 8:10 (end.: áàëø ˙âåéôìà); 16) 22r–v: the Hebrew text ad 9:18 (beg.: åá øùò) up to the commentary ad 9:1–19 (end.: ùèáìàá àì ìå÷ìàá ãåäéìà ïåðéòé åðàë ìëìà); 17) 23r–v, the bottom half of which is missing: the commentary ad 4:1–17 (beg.: àäñôð úìú÷ éä ïàô êìîä ãé úçú úìöç àäðàì) up to the Hebrew text ad 5:3 (end.: äëì[î]), the lost portion encompassing a small part at the end of the commentary (... øë˙ à ìà÷å ®áéø÷) and the entire Hebrew text ad 5:1; 18) 24r–v: the commentary ad 5:1–8 (beg.: éú˙ éâá êðî áìèàå êìîìà óøöðàô) up to the Hebrew text ad 5:14 (end.: äîà); 19) 25r–v: the commentary ad 9:29–32 (beg.: ä¨ ð( ñ äåìòâ˙ô íåìòî í[åé] ïéîåéìì àî ìú˙ î) up to the tarjama ad 10:3 (end.: [ä]ìñð ì[ëì]).19 ïéãìà);

19 In their proper order the folios should be read as follows (an asterisk indicates contiguous text between that folio and the one following): 1–6, 11, 12, 19, 7, 8, 20, 23, 24, 13*, 15, 16*, 14, 21, 17*, 9–10*, 18, 22, 25.

manuscripts employed for the present edition

141

1.7. R3/3ø Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 396420; 38 fols. On fol. 38 is a colophon which reads: òåáùá éùéîç íåéá øúåäå ìëà øîà øùà úøæòá øúñà úìâî ùåøéô íìùð úàéøáì íéðù äòùúå íéòáùå úåàî ùìùå íéôìà úùîç úðù ìåìà ùãçî éðù àåäå íìåòä—i.e.,

the copying of the commentary was completed on Thursday, the second of Elul, 5379 A.M. (= August 12, 1619 C.E.). The Ms. is somewhat lacunous and in disorder, containing the following contiguous sections: 1) 1r: a fragment of the introduction (beg.: the basmalah [òéùåîå ÷éãö ìà íùá]; end.: éìò §òú äììà ÷áé íì); 2) 2r–v: the Hebrew text ad 1:5 (beg.: øöçá íéîé) up to the commentary ad 1:2–12 (end.: úåøöåà íéøúñî éðåîèîå êùç); 3) 3r–v: the commentary ad 1:2–12 (beg.: äãàøî ãçàå äãàøî éìò øä÷é àìå) up to the Hebrew text ad 1:17 (end.: úà àéáäì); 4) 4r–v: the commentary ad 1:2–12 (beg.: ïééù øëã˙ ô íéøúñî; end.: êìã˙ ìë ãçàå ìë âì( áéì); 5) 5r–v: the commentary ad 1:13–22 (beg.: ìå÷ øéâ íäãðò ïëåîî) up to the tarjama ad 2:3 (end.: ïäøîâ àèòàå); 6) 6r–v: the Hebrew text ad 1:17 (beg.: éúùå úà) up to the commentary ad 1:13–22 (end.: ìà÷ íäãðò ïñçé íìå äãðò àî ãçàå ìë); 7) 7r–v: the last word of the tarjama ad 2:3 (ïäøîâ) up to the first word of the Hebrew text ad 2:10 (ìëáå); 8) 8r–v: the commentary ad 2:5–20 (beg.: àäðà äì ò÷å àîìô òö˙ àåî ä¨ ëìî ïåëú; end.: ãòá ïåìë˙ ãé íì éúìà øàåâ˙ìà ïî àäøéâ; 9) 9r–14v: the commentary ad 2:21–23 (beg.: ãòá ïî äøëã˙ é ïà ãéøé àîì ä¨ îã÷î) up to the Hebrew text ad 4:11 (end.: äéçå); 10) 15r–v: the commentary ad 2:5–20 (beg.: íú˙ äéìà ãòá àäñàø éìò ˙âàúìà ìòâ˙ äðà) up to the first three words of the commentary ad 2:21–23 (ä¨ îã÷î ìöôìà äã˙ ä); 11) 16r–22r: the Hebrew text ad 4:11 (beg.: äéçå) up to the Hebrew text ad 6:3 (end.: éøòð åøîàéå);21 12) 22v–36v: the last two words of the tarjama ad 6:11 up to the last word of the tarjama ad 9:30; 13) 37r–38r: the commentary ad 9:29–32 (beg.: ä¨ îàìà éìò ïéîåéìà øôñá áúëðå §å÷å) to the end (colophon).22

20

This Ms. is incorrectly attributed in the IMHM list to Salmon ben Yeru¯ him. . The Hebrew citation and following text through the third from last word of the tarjama ad 6:11 must, of course, continue on the verso (the last two words of the tarjama ad 6:11 being written on 22v in the microfilm), and so it seems that the true verso of folio 22 and the consequent recto of (what should be) folio 23 are stuck together—a situation apparently not recognized (or rectified) by either the folio enumerator or photographer. 22 In their proper order the folios should be read as follows (on the signification of the asterisks see p. 140, n. 19 above): 1, 2*, 4*, 3*, 6*, 5*, 7, 8*, 15*, 9–14*, 16–22, 23–38r. 21

142

chapter five

1.8. R4/4ø Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4255; 14 fols. Lacunous, containing the following contiguous sections: 1) 1r–6v: the second folio (or folio and a half) of the introduction (beg.: øåçñìàå ïàøéèìàå ìàôìàå) up to the commentary ad 1:2–12 (end.: àìå äãàøî ãçàå ìë âì( áéì); 2) 7r–14v: the commentary ad 1:13–22 (beg.: àäâ˙åæ ä¨ àøîà ìë ø÷çú êìã˙ á àäì) up to the tarjama ad 2:21 (end.: êìîìà ìú÷ àáìèå).23 1.9. R5/5ø Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4878; 3 fols. Lacunous, containing the following contiguous sections: 1) 1r–v: the commentary ad 1:1 (beg.: êìîìà áúë àîî ˙ àîðàå ïéáéø÷ ùåëå åãä ïà ìé÷); 2) 2r–v: the äìëéä èéàç éìò; end.: äìîò øëã commentary ad 1:13–22 (beg.: øîà óìàë˙ ú àì éúìà [àäøéâ]ì àèòé àäëìî ¨ ìéîâ˙); 3) 3r–v: the tarjama ad 1:18 (beg.: êìîìà) to the tarjama ad 2:7 (end.: ä øééâú ïò) up to the commentary ad 1:13–22 (end.: ïò òðîú ïàá êìîìà øîàé ˙ ãìà). ïàå àìöà äéìà ìåë 1.10. R6/6ø Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4382; 4 fols. Lacunous, containing, unbroken, the commentary ad 9:20–28 (beg.: áàúë ìë òî ãôðé éã˙ ìà áàúëå) up to the opening of the commentary ad 10:1–3 (end.: äìâîìà äã˙ ä éô øëã˙ ã÷ ¨ ÷ìòúîìà àäö˙ òá). ä 1.11. R7/7ø Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4380; 6 fols. Lacunous, containing, unbroken, the last three words of the tarjama ad 8:2 (ïîä (?)ìàéò [é]ìò) up to the tarjama ad 9:18 (end.: äðî øùò ñîàë˙ ). 1.12. T/ú An additional witness to the text of Yefet’s commentary consists of a rather lengthy citation by the 17th century Karaite Judah Meir Taur¯ızi, in his own commentary on Esther (see IV.1.3 above), concerning the

23

Apparently one leaf is missing between this and the previous section.

manuscripts employed for the present edition

143

reason for the divine incitement of Haman’s decree against Israel (i.e., the first part of Yefet’s commentary ad 4:1–17). Insofar as this is a citation, however, and has clearly been modified to a certain—albeit indeterminate—extent due to its presentation as such, we have cited only single word variants (not omissions or additions, except where these are otherwise attested) in our collation of the text.24 Even where such variants are indicated, moreover, they should be viewed, at best, as tentative. In the interest of comprehensiveness, the complete text of the citation is presented in following, per Ms. BL Or. 2520, fols 129r–v (dated 5460 A.M. [1700 C.E.]): ˙ ð àìåà áàåâ˙ìà íàå÷à ïò íàìë §áì §ëæ éåìä ìåãâä úôé éáø äàëçà àî øëã ˙ ááñ ïà íå÷ åìà÷ ®ìà÷ô äáåöúñà àìå äéìà ìàî àîå ®åä äãñôà å ®àîìò‘ êìã ˙ éìò íäàðòáàú åì §áì §ëæ ìà÷ ®øöðãëåáð íðöì íäãåâ˙ñ ú§§à ìãò éô æåâ˙é àì êìã ïéìéà÷ íäñéì ïéé÷àáìàå íðöìì åãâ˙ñ ìáá éô íå÷ ááñá ãåäéìà ìë á÷àòé ïà ˙ à íå÷ ïò øëã˙ íú˙ ®íäøéâ á÷àòéå êéàìà ú§§à êøúéô ®íäìå÷á ïà åìà÷ íäðà ïéøë ¨ åòãìà éô ùåøåùçà íàòè ïî åìëà ìàøùé ïà êìã˙ ááñ íäéìò §áì §ëæ åä ã( øå ®ä ˙ ìâ˙à ïî ïàë åìå ïùåù ìäà áðã˙ á ãåäéìà òéîâ˙ á÷àòé ïà æåâ˙é àì ïàá úðàë êìã ˙ íú˙ ®øéâ àì íäøéâ ïåã ïùåù ìäà éìò ä¨ ã( ùìà ááñ ïà åìà÷ íäðà íå÷ ïò øë㠕 ˙ ú êìã˙ êìîä ùøåë ïî àãðìà òå÷å ãðò §ùåøéì ú§§à úéá éìà ãåòöìà ïò íäôìë ˙ î ãàñôìà ïî ä÷çìé àì ìå÷ìà àã˙ ä ïà ìà÷ ®ãåòöìàá ìéåà÷àìà ïî äøéâ ìú ˙ à äâ˙å ïî ãñ ôé‘ ïë àì ®úîã÷ú éã˙ ìà ãâ˙åìà ìåæé àì ïàë ìé÷ àîë ïàë åì äðàì ®øë ˙ éìò ïåîãðé ïà åäå ®áðã˙ ìà ìàåæá àìà ááñ ïà åìà÷å ®ú§§à úéá éìà ïåãòöéå êìã ˙ ìàå ®àîéàã àäéìò ïéø( öî ìá àäðò ïéòâ˙àø íäñéì éã˙ ìà ä¨ éìàâ˙ìà ìäà áåðã˙ êìã˙ éã ˙ ìà ãåøå ãðò äåìòô àî àðòîñ àîá ïà åä øîàìà êìã˙ éô éãðò áø÷é íäéìà øáë ˙ à íäòéîâ˙ íäðàì ®êìã˙ ãö˙ á åìòô àîá ãìáå ãìá ìë éô àëáìàå ïæçìà éô åãë ®íäðò ˙âø( ôå ú§§à íäîçø ïà éìà úàîàéöìàå áãðìàå ãàîøìà ùøôå çåñîìà ñáìå ˙ ú§§à úéá ïà åòîñ àîì íäðà íå÷ìà ïà ìå÷à ®äñôð ïò ìà÷ §áì §ëæ äðà íú ˙ å íäúåìâ˙ éìò ïæçìà ïî äéìò åðàë àî åëøú ïéáàø÷ìà äéô åáø( ÷å øîò‘ ã÷ áàøë ˙ ïàëå ®áøùìàå ìëàìà éô åãë˙ àå ®íäðéáàø÷ ïàìèáå íäúàøàéãå íäñã÷ úéá êìã ˙ çá éùéìù úéá øî òé‘ ïà éìà êìã˙ æåâ˙é àì ïàì ®ãñàô ìéåàú íäðî åäéìà §éñ øåö ˙ ä éô àðòñåà ã÷å ®ééé ãåáë ãåâ˙åá 䧧ò çéùîìàå 䧧ò äéøëæ øéñôú éô ìå÷ìà äã ˙ òá àî ãðò 䧧ò àîî ìå÷ìà íàîúå ®éùéîçä ùãçá äëáàä ïåìå÷é ïéìéàñìà åú ˙ ìà ä¨ ã( ùìà êìã˙ ááñ éìò åùú( ôå åú˙ çá àîìô ®àðäàä äúãàòà ìåèé àäëø( ç éã ˙ ä ®íäðò èë˙ ñìà ìàæô ú§§à éìà åáàúô äãö˙ åìîòúñàå ®äåôøò íäéìò ú§§à àî àã ˙• íã( ÷îìà íìàòìà äøëã˙ §áì (!)§ìæ äøëã

24 As noted by Margoliouth, Catalogue, p. 194a, Taur¯ızi also cites Yefet with regard to the length of Esther’s fast (Ms. BL Or. 2520, fol. 132r: øåëã˙ îìà =) §áì §ëæ §ã˙ îìà úôé éáøå ¨ òáøà åøàöô àäì íåéå ìà÷ (äëøáì åðåøëæ [“The aforementioned sage Yefet 짧æ maintains ä that there was an (extra) day for (Esther), thus yielding (a total of) four”]), although this latter, much briefer citation is entirely indirect (cf. Yefet’s comment ad 4:16 on p. 246 below).

144

chapter five 2. Relationship of the Manuscripts

Any attempt to assess the relationship of the extant Mss of Yefet’s work on Esther must begin with the recognition that the script of composition, as that of early transmission, was Arabic rather than Hebrew.25 That this is the case may be established by the following three observations: i. The clear chronological distinction between Mss of Yefet written in Arabic script and those written in Hebrew script—viz., the former are predominantly early (eleventh and twelfth centuries), whereas the latter are predominantly late (fourteenth to nineteenth centuries).26 ii. Mistakes in Judaeo-Arabic Mss of Yefet which are most reasonably explained on the basis of an Arabic Vorlage—e.g., 1) the reading ˙ à for Heb. éë in five Mss of Yefet’s tarjama ad Prov. 31:18a, over ã against ïà/ —which concurs with Yefet’s comment ad loc.—in at least two extant Mss (one of which is in Arabic script), suggesting the misreading of  (ï) as 8 (ã˙ );27 2) the incorrect reading øéùãæà(ìà) in Mss A, L, & P of Yefet’s tarjama ad Esth. 1:1, over against øéùãøà in Ms. R1, suggesting the misreading of ' (ø) as o (æ).28 iii. Yefet’s tarjama in Arabic script Mss attests fewer glosses and expansions (which typically attend the transmission process), and is therefore more consistent with both his frequently attested slavishness as well as the supplemental purpose of the translation (see sec. III.1–2 above). Accordingly, among the eleven extant Mss of Yefet’s work on Esther, all of which are in Hebrew script, we have identified at least three separate transcription types, with the third being further subdivided into four text types; viz.:

25 Contra, inter alios, Lehrman, “Jephet,” pp. 236–37; and Hirschfeld (apud Lehrman, ibid., n. 13). 26 So, based upon a review of the dates indicated or suggested for Mss of Yefet by Margoliouth, Catalogue (see Wechsler, “Proverbs 31:1–9,” pp. 394–95 and nn. 10 & 11). This chronological distinction is, as noted by Khan, generally true for all Karaite Arabic-language Mss (Khan, “Script,” p. 137). 27 See Wechsler, “Proverbs 31:1–9,” p. 394 and nn. 7–9. 28 See the text, p. 5*, n. ad l. 10.

manuscripts employed for the present edition

145

i. Type A: Ms. R7. In two instances (both in the comm. ad 8:3–17)29 this Ms. attests readings which are absent from all the other extant Mss ad loc., most reasonably having been omitted due to homoioarchton and homoioteleuton. In the tarjama ad 9:3, moreover, this Ms. alone contains a rendering of íéðôøãùçàäå (> àøîàìàå).30 That these readings are to be explained on the basis of a separate transcription from the Arabic, rather than a precedent text type, may be adduced from the observation that the remaining Mss, as discussed below, attest a further difference that is itself most reasonably explained on the basis of transcription from an Arabicscript Vorlage—in which, therefore, the omissions noted above must already have occurred. ii. Type B: Mss R1, R5, and R6. In Ms. R1, as noted above, ùåøåùçà (1o & 2o) in the tarjama ad 1:1 is rendered by øéùãøà, over against øéùãæà(ìà) in the other Mss containing extant coverage ad loc. (i.e., A, L, & P), suggesting that, in the course of a separate transcription from the Arabic text, ' was misread as o, which error was then perpetuated in the descendants of the Type C family due to scribal ignorance of the Persian term.31 Also of note in this regard is the reading, ad 8:9, êìîä éðôøãùçà (most likely a scribal lapsus calami per 3:12), supported by all the extant Mss (i.e., A [in which the scribe wrote éðôøãùçà and immediately corrected it to íéðôøãùçàä], P, R2, & R3) except R1, thus affirming, in combination with the distinction already noted, a separate line of descent. Mss R5 and R6 have also been included in this Type due to their predominant agreement, among the extant Mss, with R1. Between these two Mss, however, the agreement with R1 is far greater in R6

See the text, p. 50*, nn. ad ll. 1 and 2. See the text, p. 52*, n. ad l. 16. 31 See also, as indicative of a precedent text type (though not necessarily a separate transcription), the following erroneous omissions (due to homoioarchton or homoioteleuton) in all Mss but R1: íðöìì ®®® àðøáë˙ àå in the beginning of the comm. ad 1:1; §ã ïîä ®®® ïéðñ in the comm. ad 2:5–20; éðàìôìà ú÷åìà éô towards the end of the comm. ad 2:5–20; íäñ ®®® ú˙ ìàú˙ ìà in the comm. ad 3:1–7; and êìîìà éìà in the tarjama ad 4:11. 29 30

146

chapter five

(67 out of 81 total lemmata [82.7%])32 than in R5 (23 out of 119 total lemmata [19.3%]).33 iii. Type C: Mss A, B, L, P, R2, R3, and R4. As noted in the previous discussion concerning Type B, the reading øéùãæà(ìà) in Mss A, L, and P is most reasonably indicative of a separate transcription from the Arabic text. The remaining Mss have been included in this Type due to their predominant agreement with these three. Among the Mss in this Type, moreover, four further text types are evident; viz: 1) Mss A & R2, the especial affinity of which is attested, inter alia, by the identical misspelling and supralinear correction of åòîúâ˙à in the tarjama ad 9:2; 2) Mss L & P, which attest a greater affinity than any other combination of Mss, the latter having derived ultimately—if not immediately—from L, as suggested, inter alia, by the omission therein of éîà (comm. ad 6:14– 7:10),34 which word is written, albeit deleted by marks of erasure above the line, in L;35 3) Ms. R4, which clearly descends from the same earlier type as L (of 10836 total R4 lemmata, 24 [22.2%] agree

32 Of the 14 non-shared readings, 12 are unique to R6 (7 of them being abbreviations and one an error) and two are attested elsewhere. Of the 67 shared readings, moreover, 44 are unique to R1 and R6, whereas, of the remainder, 14 are due to abbreviation, two to orthographic variation, one to the use of úáñ for úáù, and one to an error in the basic Ms. 33 All of the 96 non-shared readings are unique to R5, among which 11 are due to the use of a Hebrew incipit rather than the entire verse, 10 to orthographic differences, three to abbreviation, two to the use of the Arabic article rather than the Hebrew article, and two to error. Of the 23 shared readings, moreover, 19 are unique to the two Mss, whereas, among the remaining four, two are due to orthographic differences, one to the variant spelling øöàð úëá over against øöðãëåáð, and one to homoioarchton. 34 See the text, p. 43*, n. ad l. 14. 35 The reading äì àäúáçîå, which is attested in the comm. ad 2:1–4 only in Mss L and P (see the text, p. 15*, n. ad l. 15), should thus be regarded as a later addition (perhaps originally due to dittography) rather than as an omission, due to homoioarchton, from the other Mss (viz., A, R1, R2, R3, & R4). Similarly, the reading ïî ïéðú˙ à (for Heb. éðù) in the tarjama ad 2:21, also unique to L and P (see the text, p. 21*, n. ad l. 14), is to be regarded as a later correction rather than evidence of a precedent text type—the omission (attested in A, R1, R3, & R4) having occurred at least prior to the development of transcription Types B and C. 36 So, excluding readings unique to R4 that are due to error (22, such being, relative to the extant text, inordinately high in this Mss), abbreviation (11), or orthographic variation (7).

manuscripts employed for the present edition

147

uniquely with L [5] or L/P [19],37 while 7838 [72.2%] agree nonuniquely with L and/or P; conversely, unique agreement with the two remaining Type C sub-types [A/R2 and R3] is attested in only 3 instances39); and 4) Ms. R3. Regarding Ms. B, although a more specific assignment is impossible, it is clear from the two folios of extant text that it derives from an ancestor common to the last three sub-types (each of the seven Ms. B variants is shared with L, R3, and, excepting two instances where the text is lost, R4; beyond these three sub-types, conversely, one variant40 is shared with R1 and one41 with A). Following this assessment, a tentative stemma of the extant manuscripts of Yefet’s work on Esther may be presented as follows (wherein tr indicates the point of transcription into Hebrew script, and the broken lines represents two alternate routes of descent):

37 Of the five unique agreements with L, two are due to orthographic variation, and of the 19 unique agreements with L & P, six are due to orthographic variation, four to abbreviation, two to the addition of §òú (= éìàòú) after äììà, and one to error. Underscoring the precedence of L, moreover, is the observation that unique agreement between R4 and P is attested only once, consisting of the addition of §òú after äììà. 38 Of these—which include the 24 unique agreements with L or L/P—18 are due to abbreviation, 15 to orthographic variation, six to the addition of §òú after äììà, and six to error (one of which is only in the basic text [Ms. A]). 39 Of these, two (in R3 and R2) are due to error and one (in R3) to orthographic variation. There is, moreover, one instance of more substantial—albeit not identical— unique agreement between R4 and R3—viz., the rendering of Heb. õåá in the tarjama ad 1:6, for which R3 has øéøçìà and R4 has øéøç éðòé øùòìà, over against øùòìà in A, L, P, R1, & R4. However, rather than taking such as evidence of a closer relationship between R4 and R3 than the aforementioned spread of unique agreement would suggest, it would seem more reasonable to explain this shared use of øéøç as the result of either 1) independent scribal adjustment vis-à-vis the less common term øùòìà (see p. 173, n. 59 below), or 2) variant treatment of a precedent marginal gloss—i.e., øéøç(ìà)— which, having entered the manuscript tradition prior to the development of the text types represented by R3, R4, and L, was either ignored (L), adopted as a replacement of øùòìà (R3), or inserted as an in-text gloss (R4). Weighing more in favor of the former suggestion, it should be noted, is the relative infrequency of marginal glosses in the extant Mss of Yefet’s commentaries. 40 I.e., ïééìé for ïéìé. ( 41 I.e., writing the Qere íøîàë (for íøîàá) ad 3:4 in the margin rather than in the text.

148

chapter five

3. Editing of the Manuscripts The edited text is based upon Ms. A, such being 1) the oldest of the three dated Mss as well as an early witness (1466 A.D.) relative to the predominant chronological span of Karaite Arabic Mss in Hebrew script (fourteenth to nineteenth centuries),42 2) relatively error-free, and 3) practically complete. On the three occasions, each a single folio in length, where the text of Ms. A is lacunous, the basic text has been drawn from the extant portions of other Type C Mss—viz., Ms. R2 (the tarjama ad 2:6 to the Heb. text ad 2:8; a portion of the commentary ad 9:29–32 to the Heb. text ad 1:1]), or, where Ms. R2 is non-retrievable, Ms. R3 (the Heb. text ad 2:8 to the Heb. text ad 2:10; a portion of the commentary ad 2:5–20; the Heb. text ad 10:1 to the Heb. text ad 10:2), or where both are non-retrievable, Ms. L (a portion of the commentary ad 9:29–32). In our transcription of the basic Ms. and in the notes thereto, the following practices have been adopted: i. The punctuation—represented by colons in the tarjama and periods in the commentary—follows that of the basic Ms. (Ms. A: colons in the tarjama and raised dots in the comm.; Ms. L: spaces in the tarjama and comm.; Ms. R2: colons in the tarjama and spaces in the comm.; Ms. R3: colons in the tarjama and, in the comm., nothing except a colon at the end).

42

See p. 144, n. 26 above.

manuscripts employed for the present edition

149

ii. False starts at the end of a line have been omitted from the basic text. iii. Erroneous readings that have been corrected by the same or later hand have only been so noted for the basic Ms. iv. Notwithstanding the differing practices of the various Mss, the diacritical point has been included according to the practice of Blau in his Grammar (§28). v. T¯a marb¯u.ta, athough not normally distinguished by diacritical marks from final h¯e"—except, in some Mss, when the nomen regens of an id. ¯afa (in which case it may also be written as t¯av43)—has been indicated in every instance. vi. Shadda has only been included where indicated in the basic Ms. vii. Vowels in the Judaeo-Arabic text have been retained only where the reading is potentially in doubt. In the Hebrew text they have been omitted entirely. viii. Errors and suspected errors in the basic Ms. have been corrected, with or without extant support, and the corrected reading placed between two slashes (e.g., /àîäðîå/). ix. Exclamation points have been used to indicate errors or suspected errors among the variants. x. Abbreviations, although indicated in the Mss by supralinear dots or lines, have been indicated in transcription either by a single apostrophe (for one word; e.g., §òú = éìàòú) or a double apostrophe (for two or more words; e.g., 䧧ò = íåìùä åéìò). xi. Citations from the Hebrew Bible—and one talmudic dictum (in Yefet’s commentary ad 2:21–23)—have been presented in boldface type (e.g., §âå íìùåøé úåöåçá åèèåù äìå÷ë). For the sake of consistency, however, we have not so distinguished non-citative Hebrew words, phrases, and names, since it is often unclear whether these—or portions thereof—are in fact to be vocalized as Hebrew • rather than Arabic (cf., e.g., äãåäé êìî ïéëéåäé [for §é êìî §é?], • ¨ ìâ˙îìà?], and àøæò øôñ [for §ò øôñ?]). äìâîìà [for ä Finally, instances wherein a Hebrew citation deviates from the MT of codex Leningradensis B 19A (per BHS, 41990)—excepting, for the most part, the omission or addition of vowels letters (e.g., äðåùàø for äðùàø in 1:13) and obvious errors (e.g., äúùîä for äúùî in 2:18)—the reading of the latter has been noted. Of seven such deviations in total, five, being 43

See Blau, Grammar, §27àa.

150

chapter five

otherwise unattested in Hebrew Bible Mss, are quite likely the result of either Yefet quoting from memory or lapsus calami on the part of the scribe—viz.: éùòî for äùòî (Deut. 4:28), õøàî for õøà ïî (Jer. 44:28), íäéëøã for íëøã (Ezek. 14:22), íéìë ïî for íéìëî (Esth. 1:7), and the omission of úà (ibid. 7:8).44 The remaining two, however, are attested elsewhere, and, notably, occur uniquely in the early Ms. A—viz: ìà for ìò (Esth. 4:10), and the omission of íåéä (ibid. 5:4).45

44 On these see the text, pp. 4*, nn. ad ll. 12, 14, 5; 8*, n. ad l. 9; and 44*, n. ad l. 5 respectively. 45 See the text, pp. 29*, n. ad l. 21, and 35*, n. ad l. 6 respectively.

chapter six SOME METHODOLOGICAL REMARKS ON THE ANNOTATED ENGLISH TRANSLATION

In our translation and annotation of Yefet’s exegetical oeuvre on Esther we have adopted the following practices, most of which also apply to our presentation of primary source material in the Introduction: i. Literalness of translation, so as to facilitate comparison with and reading of the Judaeo-Arabic text. Any expansions for the sake of clarification have been parenthetically indicated. Occasionally, to avoid distracting or confusing the reader by over-literalism, we have chosen to paraphrase the text, the literal translation in such instances usually being supplied in a footnote. ii. Parenthetical identification of the mudawwin (on whom see our discussion in section II.1 above) as the subject of third person masculine singular verbs introducing citations of narrative and indirectly quotative passages from the Bible as well as the intent/meaning thereof (e.g., “(The mudawwin) then says” for ìà÷ íú˙ , “(The mudawwin) adds to this” for êìã˙ éô ãàæå, or “By this (the mudawwin) is referring to” for éìà äá øéùé). Citations of directly quotative passages, on the other hand, are typically referred to the speaker (e.g., “And (Isaiah) said [ìà÷å], Except the Lord of Hosts had left us a remnant, etc.”). iii. Translating the expression qawluhu, in most instances, as “the statement” rather than literally as “his statement,” so as to preclude any confusion on the part of the reader regarding the pronominal referent—which for indirectly quotative (i.e., descriptive) citations is usually the mudawwin (the constant parenthetical indication of whom would unnecessarily encumber the translation) and for directly quotative citations is either the speaker or, through the speaker/prophet, God (which of the two is not always clear). iv. Representing citations of the biblical text by the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) translation of 1917, following, in somewhat modified fashion, the practice adopted by L. Goodman in his English

152

chapter six

translation of Saadia’s commentary on Job, in which he presents Hebrew citations in “a modified King James English.”1 In this way, Goodman reasons, the reader’s perspective is brought closer to that of the medieval exegete, to whom the Hebrew Bible was “an ancient text … filled with ambiguities, poetic images, and figurative usages.”2 This more “removed” feel of the Hebrew text is, we believe, maintained for the contemporary reader by the aforementioned JPS version, which is itself a second-generation Jewish revision (via the Revised Version)3 of the King James Version of the Bible. We have, nonetheless, modified most of the JPS renderings so as to comply with the strictures of the citation, Yefet’s interpretation of the passage, and, on occasion, stylistic considerations. In a few instances, moreover, we have transliterated key words in a citation so as not make Yefet’s following explanation of these seem tautologous (e.g., sˇ¯enît in 2:194). All translations of Hebrew citations are italicized, as is also our translation of Yefet’s tarjama. v. Providing, in the footnotes, comparison not just with Karaite and Rabbanite/rabbinic sources preceding or roughly contemporary with Yefet, but also with later Karaite and Rabbanite exegetes, as well as with the ancient versions and modern (post-medieval Jewish and non-Jewish) sources. Though comparison with these later sources is, of course, not comprehensive, we have striven to ensure that it is representative—our purpose thereby being to more clearly define Yefet’s place within the entire extant continuum of Esther’s interpretive history, as well as to increase the exegetical utility of this work for those interested in biblical exegesis generally (and Esther specifically). vi. Translating, as a rule, only Arabic and Judaeo-Arabic citations from other primary sources (in the footnotes and body of our Introduction) so as to avoid unnecessary encumberment.

1 2 3 4

Goodman, Theodicy, p. xvi. Ibid. See Greenspoon, Translation, pp. 17–18. See p. 207 below.

chapter seven SIGNS, SIGLA, AND ABBREVIATIONS EMPLOYED IN THE EDITED TEXT

[] <> {} *

à á åàìá éæåã àååä úååäúä

ì ïééì

äð ò

ô ø

1

ø

2

ø

3

ø

4

ø

5

Encloses either 1) a restoration of missing or illegible text, or 2) a folio number of the basic text manuscript. Encloses text written above the line or in the margin. Encloses text marked for deletion by the scribe (by a strikethrough, supralinear dots, etc.). Signifies an illegible letter. Ms. ENA 1651 of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York. Ms. Or. 2520 of the British Library, London, fols. 174r–175v. J. Blau, íééðéáä éîé ìù úéãåäéä­úéáøòä ÷åã÷ã. Jerusalem, 21980. R. Dozy, Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes, 2 vols. Leiden-Paris, 2 1927. J.G. Hava, Al-Far¯a"id: Arabic-English Dictionary, Beirut, 51982. J. Blau, The Emergence and Linguistic Background of Judaeo-Arabic: A Study of the Origins of Neo-Arabic and Middle-Arabic. Jerusalem, 3 1999. Ms. Lichaa 10 (private collection), Lausanne. E.W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, 8 vols. London: Williams & Norgate, 1863–1893; repr., New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 1985. The Masoretic Text, per K. Elliger et al., eds., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart, 41990. The Septuagint, per R. Hanhart, ed., Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, auctoritate Academiae Scientarium Gottingensis editum, vol. VIII,3: Esther. Göttingen, 21983. Ms. héb. 295 of the Bibliothèque nationale, Paris. Ms. Yevr.-Arab. I 272 of the Russian National Library, St. Petersburg. Ms. Yevr.-Arab. I 3963, idem. Ms. Yevr.-Arab. I 3964, idem. Ms. Yevr.-Arab. I 4255, idem. Ms. Yevr.-Arab. I 4878, idem.

154 ø

6

ø

7

èééø

ú ñ§§ú

chapter seven Ms. Yevr.-Arab. I 4382, idem. Ms. Yevr.-Arab. I 4380, idem. W. Wright, A Grammar of the Arabic Language, Translated from the German of Caspari and Edited with Numerous Additions and Corrections, rev. W.R. Smith and M.J. de Goeje, 2 vols. Cambridge, 31955. Ms. Or. 2520 of the British Library, London, fols. 129r–v. The Tafs¯ır of Saadia Gaon to Esther, per J. K¯afih, . ed., ùîç éáúë éô ìò äðåùàø íòô øåàì íéàöåéä íé÷éúò íéùåøéô íò ... úåìéâî úåøàäå úåøòä úåàåáî óåøéöá ãé. Jerusalem, 1962, pp. 300–322.

part ii TRANSLATION

[1r] The Commentary on the Scroll of Ahasuerus of the Distinguished Sage, the Teacher Ab¯u #Al¯ı—God grant him mercy! [1v] In the Name of the Righteous God and Savior. Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus—that is, Ahasuerus who reigned, from India even unto Kûˇs, over a hundred and seven and twenty cities1—.

1 Heb. úåðéãî, on this rendering of which, contra the usual construal as “provinces,” see Yefet’s comment ad loc. (p. 170 below).

158

translation

BLESSED BE GOD, our God, the Pre-existent,2 the Unique,3 the Matchless throughout eternity, the Living One, the Omnipotent, the Originator, the Just,4 the one who keeps (His) promise and (His) threat,5 who has given (to Israel) that which He has promised, as per the saying, 2 Or “Eternal” (al-qad¯ım; cf. Efros, Terms, p. 105, s.v. íåã÷). The divine epithets here employed by Yefet, along with his ensuing introduction, bear out significant parallels to the characteristic theological formulations—specifically, the “five thesis” (al-us. ul alkhamsa)—of the Islamic Mu#tazila, for a discussion of which see section II.3 of our Introduction above (pp. 40–58). In his own introduction to Esther, by contrast, Yefet’s earlier contemporary Salmon ben Yer¯uhim . focuses upon the commonly inferred revival of the Saul-Amalek enmity (see pp. 197–98, n. 19 below) as well as the basis for the book’s inclusion in the Hebrew canon. Regarding the latter topic Salmon’s tone is apologetic, prompted, perhaps, by the Tannaitic anecdotes preserved in the Babylonian Talmud (Meg. 7a; San. 100a) concerning the book’s canonical status; thus (per Mss RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fols 2r–v, and RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3350, fol. 1r): ãçà øôñìà àã˙ ä ìòâ˙å ˙ å [äåáúë ºà§§ð] äåðååã àéáðàìà ïà íìòð éúç 㧧ë øàôñà äììà [ë8§ åàìá äàø] áåúë éìà äåîö ˙ ãòá ïàì äéô óìë˙ àì àã˙ äå éëàìîå äéøëæå éâç ïàë ùåøåùçà ïàîæ éô ïàì éáðúäå ùøåùçà øëã §âå äéøëæå àéáð éâç (“(God) established this book as one of the 24 (canonical) books in order that we might know that the prophets recorded it [var.: wrote it] and included it among the Books of God, for in the time of Ahasuerus lived Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, and (the writing of) this (book) did not follow (Malachi [who is the “seal of the prophets”]), since after the mention of (the reign of) Ahasuerus (in Ezra 4:6, it is written), Haggai the prophet and Zechariah [and hence also Malachi] prophesied [ibid. 5:1]”). The revival in Esther of the Saul-Amalek enmity is likewise emphasized in the Anonymous Byzantine (Karaite) compilation (on which see our Introduction, sec. IV.2.3), where such is construed as God’s primary punishment/chastisement for Israel’s covenant unfaithfulness, thus clarifying the very reason for which Scripture elsewhere mentions both Amalek (Exod 17:8–16; Deut 25:17–19) as well as the conflict between him and Saul (1Sam. 15:1–33) (see Ms. RNL Yevr. II A 78, fol. 13r: ®÷ìîò ìù ïéðòä øåúôå

òøæ ïî àåäù éââàä ïîä ïî ùåøåùçà éîéá ìàøùé ìò äìåãâ äøö äøáò éë ®÷ìîòá ìåàù ïéðòå ÷ìîò). 3 Or “the Absolutely Indivisible” (al-w¯ahid; cf. Efros, Terms, p. 22, s.v. ÷áåãî íùâ), .

which epithet, together with the previous (al-qad¯ım) and following (al-mutafarrid bi-"lazal¯ıya) epithets, recalls the first Mu#tazilite thesis of God’s absolute unity (al-tawh.¯ıd) (see pp. 45–47 above). 4 This epithet (al- #¯adil), together with Yefet’s following reference to that which “is not fitting” (l¯a yuh. sanu) for God to do with respect to (the objective ideal of) Justice, offers a general parallel to the second Mu#tazilite thesis of God’s necessary justice (al#adl) (see pp. 47–50 above). 5 “the Reliable … threat”—Ar. s¯adiq al-wa#d wa"l-wa #¯ıd, which epithet recalls the . third Mu#tazilite thesis of God’s incumbent fulfillment of His promise and His threat (wuj¯ub al-wa#d wa"l-wa #¯ıd), though a departure from the classical Mu#tazilite formulation of this thesis is evident in his following assertion that God can (and did) diminish from the precise punishment with which He threatened Israel (see pp. 50–52 above). See also in this regard the statement of Salmon in his own introduction (per Ms. RNL Yevr.Arab. I 4467, f. 1v): íâ óàå äøåúìà éô ìà÷å ãòå àîë äìö˙ ôá íäöìë˙ é êàìäìà éìò úôøùà åìå íúåéäá úàæ (“And though (His people) should be on the brink of destruction, He delivers them by His grace as He has promised, saying in the Torah: And yet for all that, when they are (in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, etc.) [Lev 26:44]”).

translation

159

there hath not failed one word of all His good promise (1 Kgs 8:56), for He did not promise them anything and then diminish from it; yet when they merited punishment on account of their reprehensible deeds, He did diminish from (the punishment), [2r] as per the saying, for Thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, etc. (Ezra 9:13). With respect to Justice, therefore, it is not fitting that He do aught but reward a deed of goodness,6 though with respect to Reason7 it is fitting that He diminish from the punishment of the wrongdoer. Thus have we found in Scripture that it says our fathers multiplied (their) sins beyond (those of) Sodom and Gomorrah, as per the saying, for the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the sin of Sodom (Lam. 4:6); and Ezekiel said, but in a very little while thou didst deal more corruptly than they in all thy ways (Ezek. 16:47); and (Isaiah) said, Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a remnant, etc. (Isa. 1:9); and the Blessed and Sublime said, How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? How shall I surrender thee, Israel? How shall I make thee as Admah? How shall I set thee as Zeboim? (Hos. 11:8)—though had not (God’s) displeasure and (Israel’s) sins become prodigious, He would not have said this. (God) has also indicated in the pericope (which begins) Son of man, when a land sinneth against Me, etc. (Ezek. 14:13ff.) that any country which has sinned [2v] against God obligates itself to one of His four blights: either famine, savage beasts, sword, or plague, and no one in (that) country is left untouched, even if there were in it a perfectly righteous man, such as Noah in his time, and Job in his time, and Daniel in his time; and though they had sons and daughters, God did not spare their children who were disobedient on account of their fathers’ righteousness. Following this,8 however, He indicates that, having sent these four blights upon Jerusalem, not everyone within it would perish— notwithstanding that the remnant was wicked—as per His statement, And, behold, though there be left a remnant therein that shall be brought forth, both sons and daughters; behold, when they come forth unto you, ye will see their way and their (wicked) deeds (Ezek. 14:22). This (passage) therefore demonstra-

“With … goodness”—see p. 158, n. 4 above. Ar. al- #aql, in place of which Ms. R1 has al- #adl (“Justice”), which latter is certainly a viable—if not the original—reading, more clearly highlighting the contrast between what Justice does not permit (viz., the diminishment of reward) and what it does permit (viz., the diminishment of punishment), on which see further p. 48 above. 8 I.e., Ezek. 14:13–21. 6 7

160

translation

tes the veracity [3r] of what we have said (above),9 which also (God) had presaged in the promise of the (New) Covenant when He said, But even in those days, saith the Lord, I will not make a full end with you (Jer. 5:18). Such is what God did with (our) forefathers when they were in the land, when they had become excessive in (their) sins and there was not one among them who would publicly undertake both the enjoining of what is good and what was required of them by God,10 as per His statement, Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, etc. (Jer. 5:1); and (as) He also said, And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand (in the breach), etc. (Ezek. 22:30). He did this, moreover, not only (when they were) in the land, but also (when they were) in the exile, for He said of them that they would serve other gods11 after their exile, as per His statement, And there ye shall serve (other) gods, the work of men’s hands, etc. (Deut. 4:28). He also said of those who were exiled to Egypt [3v] after the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of the nation (to Babylon) that they would worship stars12 and other things like them in the land of Egypt, though a remnant of them would endure,13 as per His statement, And they that escape the sword shall return out of the land of Egypt into the land of Judah, few in number (Jer. 44:28).14 Such (idolatry) was likewise (undertaken by the Jews) in the rest of the lands of the Gentiles, though it ceased during the first of the Four Kingdoms15—that is, the 9 I.e., that God diminished from the punishment which the Israelites merited on account of their sins. 10 “the enjoining … God”—Ar. al-amr bi-"l-ma #r¯uf wa-m¯a yajibu li-ll¯ahi #alayhim, which two phrases, insofar as such are distinctly rather than hendiadically intended, offer respective parallels to the fifth Mu#tazilite thesis concerning the obligation to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil (wuj¯ub al-amr bi-"l-ma #r¯uf wa-"l-nahy #an al-munkar) as well as the characteristically Mu#tazilite distinction between rationally apprehended and revealed obligations (see pp. 55–56 above). 11 íéøçà íéäìà, which is attested in several Masoretic Mss (and supported by the LXX, Tg. Onq., and Tg. Ps.-J.) for íéäìà in the following citation, and in view of which, therefore, the latter reading may represent a scribal correction per the dominant text tradition. 12 Or “constellations.” 13 “though a remnant of them had endured”—i.e., their idolatry continued despite the fact that God’s love for them was demonstrated in the continuing existence of a remnant. We have included this clause, which is found only in Ms R1, insofar as the following biblical citation would seem to require it. 14 Considering the context, Yefet also apparently intends the reader to recall from this citation the references in the same chapter to Israel’s idolatrous worship in Egypt (cf. vv. 8, 15–19, 25). 15 See Dan. 2:31–43; 7:1–28. The Four Kingdoms, according to Yefet (Daniel, pp. “, ”Ž), are 1) the Chaldeans, 2) the Persians, 3) the Greeks, and 4) the Romans (the iron/ten horns) and the Arabs (the clay/eleventh horn). The same schema is attested

translation

161

kingdom of the Chaldeans—after which they worshipped the idols no more.16 There are,17 however, (other) grave sins that they practice,18 such as astrology,19 seeking omens, augury, sorcery, sexual immorality,20 profanation21 of the Sabbath, and the like, and thus they are rendered by Saadia and Ibn Aqn¯ın (see Cohen, Qabbalah, p. 237). For a comprehensive overview of the identification of these four kingdoms by Jewish exegetes see idem, pp. 223–62. 16 The significance of God’s paradigmatic preservation of Israel, as well as the deterrent value of their divinely-inspired affliction, is also noted by Saadia, who employs the analogy of a man cured of an illness (Comm. [introduction], p. 1170): äéìò úú˙ ãç ïîì[...] ˙ ]ãçà éúìà áàáñàìà ìàîòúñà [àä]øâ˙æé §ô àîî êìã˙ ïàì ®®® [àäðî] õì[úë˙ ]àå ä¨ ìò ®®®[àäúú ˙ ]ëå úìàæ àîë àäìéæéñ äð[àå àä]ìú˙ î ú˙ ãç àã˙ à äáì÷ éå÷éå áéàöîìàå íåîâìà øéàñ éô ì[òôé êìã (“(Israel’s redemption from affliction may be compared) to one who contracts an illness and is cured of it … on account of which that (newly developed resistance) which is within him prevents (the illness) from (again) engaging with the (internal) causes that brought it about … and, when a similar (illness) befalls, his heart is encouraged that the (newly developed resistance) will cause it to pass just as (the former illness) passed; and likewise is it worked out with regard to the rest of the afflictions and calamities (that might befall one)”). 17 Yefet here brings his discussion of the people’s biblical disobedience up to his own time, in which he views the Diaspora as continuing chastisement (shad¯ıda) for the “grave sins” (dhun¯ub kib¯ar) which they (i.e., the Rabbanites) continue to commit (see also p. 162, n. 22 below, and our discussion on pp. 20–22, 52–55 above). 18 Implicit in this discussion of the “grave sins” (dhun¯ub kib¯ar) perpetrated by Israel and their consequent punishment by means of the continuing Diaspora (al-j¯aliya) is the notion that—as explicated by Yefet elsewhere in his exegetical corpus (e.g., in his comment ad Dan. 12:10)—there are, mixed in among those who “are excessive in their sins” (yufri.t¯una f¯ı "l-ma #¯as.¯ı), those who constitute an intermediate group which is neither completely wicked nor completely righteous, which notion parallels the fourth Mu#tazilite thesis of “the intermediate state” (al-manzila bayna "l-manzilatayn) (see pp. 52– 55 above). 19 Lit. “stars” or “constellations,” as in the previous paragraph referring to the idolatry of the Israelites in Egypt. In this case, however, the obviously intended idea is that of “astrology,” as explicitly in Ms. P. 20 “sexual immorality”—lit. “the mounting of the pudenda of forbidden women” (ruk¯ub fur¯uj al-muh. arram¯at), which expression, considering Yefet’s use of the term ruk¯ub, is no doubt intended to include the Karaite catenary theory of forbidden marriages (Heb. rikkûb). This view, which entailed a prohibition on marriage between anybody related by blood or marriage to either individual, proved inevitably problematic for the internal growth of the sect and was already (first) opposed by Yefet’s later contemporary Y¯usuf al-Bas.¯ır (cf. Mann, Texts, pp. 39–40, 140, n. 20; Gil, History, pp. 801–2; Ankori, Karaites, pp. 81–82). On our translation of the phrase employed herein in the more general sense of “sexual immorality,” cf. Yefet’s comment ad Dan. 12:10, cited on pp. 53–54 (trans.) and n. 158 (text) above. 21 Ar. ibdh¯al, on this sense of which cf. Ratzaby, Dictionary, p. 44 (citing the phrase ˙ á in Saadia’s comm. ad Ps 15:4), and the equation of ìã˙ á and Heb. ììç by úáñìà ìã al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 549, ll. 72–75: .äììçå ®êúá úà ììçú ìà ®úîåé úåî äéììçî ä¨ ìã˙ á ìç àðìå ˙ ®ìç˙ ì ùã÷ ïéá äðî íñàìàå ®ììçà àì ®úìl!çå äðæ˙. Cf. also Dozy, Supplément, I, p. øéòì àåä ìç

162

translation

culpable by these throughout the time of the Diaspora22 until they forsake them. Sometimes, moreover, they are excessive in (their) sins, and therefore God incites hardships against them23 at various times [4r] which prompt them to return to God in one fashion or another.24 Sometimes these hardships are by way of taxes or confiscations of property—which (two) are very common—and sometimes they are by way of the demand to renounce the Faith, as it is related to have befallen the (Jewish) inhabitants of Byzantium,25 and likewise, as anticipated at the end of the Diaspora, one will arise who will demand

60b (citing Ibn Bat.t.u¯ t.a’s use of the phrase F U Q, prostituer son honneur). In light of these examples Margoliouth’s reading nI L I (translated by him [p. 83], “(they) change Sabbaths”) in Yefet’s comment ad Dan. 12:10 (partially cited on pp. 53–54 & n. 158 above) √ should be corrected to nI LQI (“they profane the Sabbaths”). On Yefet’s use of ìã˙ á as a fourth rather than first form verb cf. the discussion and examples (though mainly mediae geminatae and mediae w¯aw/y¯a) cited by Blau, Grammar, §74. 22 “they are rendered culpable ... Diaspora”—i.e., they are indebted by their sins to the Diaspora (which rendering of al-j¯aliya we have adopted both here and in following so as to distinguish between Yefet’s exilic and post-exilic applications of the term), which Yefet views as God’s present chastisement (ˇsad¯ıda) of the Jews. Cf. also Yefet’s comment on the phrase íìåò ïåàøãì úåôøçì äìàå (“And some (shall awake) to reproaches and everlasting contempt”) in Dan. 12:2 (Margoliouth, Daniel, p. mŽ): $ Q  [éá ºî§§äð] éåéá íéòùåôä íéùðàä éøâôá åàøå FD N; j =" >  !AJ !; 78 4O d+Q Y IC .E F  U – 5 =" n   • ' {  #{ (“Isaiah—peace be upon him!—has already explained this phrase at the end of his book, as per the statement, and they shall look upon the carcasses of the men who have rebelled against the Lord [Isa. 66:24]; this is a description of what transpired with regard to those who died during the exile, having shown open enmity to God—may He be exalted!—by (their) grave sins”). 23 Towards the beginning of his commentary on chapter four, Yefet writes specifically concerning the reason for the hardship occasioned by Haman: “when the people saw that the House of God was replete with sacrifices and its rebuilding begun, they forsook that (state of) mourning in which they had been concerning their exile, the destruction of their homes, and the abolition of their sacrifices, and (instead) took up eating and drinking; and because this was an inappropriate response [see Taur¯ızi’s clarification on p. 240, n. 385 below], God incited this hardship against them” (trans., pp. 239–40; text, p. 31*). See also Hadassi, Cluster, fol. 93v: ìàøùé ìò ïîä úà §ä íé÷ä äîìå äøùò íéúù äðù ãò ùøëì úçà úðùá éðù úéáá úåìòî åìöòúðù ïòé úàæä äøöä íäéìò äàáå §åâå ১à 맧à éúèùô §åúëë òøä ïîä í÷ äæ ìòå äðù äøùò ùîç åìöòúðå ùåøåùçàì. 24

“one fashion or another”—lit. “a manner from among the manners.” Cf. also Yefet’s comment on the phrase åùòå å÷éæçé åéäìà éòãåé íòå (“but the people who know their God shall show strength, and prevail”) in Dan. 11:32 (Margoliouth, Daniel, p. Ž):  $   > 1!Y   !cD Zj &!cD L; Q dq H U ="  $ Q  åùòå å÷éæçé åéäìà éòãåé íòå   > Ui  `Q =>  $ ' J Q  F (“This began in the region of the West many years ago, when many among Israel forsook the Faith and confessed the creed [cf. Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 421b] of (the lord of the time), as is well known; yet concerning those who did not forsake the Faith, he says but the people who know their God shall show strength, and prevail”). 25

translation

163

the renouncing of the (Jewish) faith and the entering into his faith.26 And sometimes (the hardship) proceeds in a different fashion, such as that which happened to (our) forefathers in the time of Ahasuerus on account of the decree of Haman the Cursed, for he sought neither property from them nor the renouncing of (their) religion, but rather he set out to kill them, as we shall explain in its proper context, in the spot wherein it is incumbent that we explain it. And concerning such [4v] times as this it is said with reference to the (Abrahamic) Covenant, And yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, (I will not reject them,) etc. (Lev 26:44).27 God’s solicitude for us thus became evident in the time (of Ahasuerus), and the (Jewish) religion was strengthened, as per the saying, And many from among the peoples of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews was fallen upon them (Esth 8:17).28 26 Cf. Yefet’s comment on the phrase íéáø íäéìò ååìðå (“but many shall join themselves unto them”) in Dan. 11:34 (Margoliouth, Daniel, p. “): `Q 3 F !J F+ C ìò íéåìðä øëð éðáå    1jT  =" FD   =" j  => .E H6 NQ B åòùô[é]

1U Q T =" !cD j  8 äáäìáå áøçá cAM 9B * F   .  v(A" éåé   A 1A  78 (“It is possible that he is referring by (this expression)

úå÷ì÷ìç

to those who engage in willful transgression, since this term is also used for those who adopt the (Jewish) faith, as per the saying concerning the one who enters the Faith: Also the foreigners that join themselves to the Lord [Isa. 56:6]. Thus, notwithstanding that God came to the aid of those who were being felled [cf. Blau, Grammar, §82] by the sword and by flame [v. 33], many entered into the religion of this man, such being on account of the blandishments which he used on them”); and again ad 11:39 (ibid., p. m): 9 !O Hcr D8 => N(  =+ c  .s   B  F! F{     ãåáë äáøé F   . A [ ]

' ID  r  =] ' F  øéçîá ÷ìçé äîãàå FD \ M$ F!MA — c  íìéùîäå FD  I éáæò 7  `Q Q  FI Q =" jT  I Q DE  +B c a  Q 1AU F T '  R ou t  1$ F 1   gE M NQ 3 ˜I FI Q =" 1jT  1D    + 78 ùã÷ úéøá   > U[!" (“He mentions three things that (the wicked king) will do for the one

who confesses his creed, the first of which is he shall increase glory, which is the wealth and gifts [cf. Lane, Lexicon, p. 791a] he will grant to him; the second is that he will invest him with authority over countries, as per the statement, and he shall cause them to rule; and the third is that he will grant them fiefdoms, as per the statement, and he shall divide the land for a price, by which he is referring to lands of high price, though it may also be possible that he means by this (that the wicked king) shall have provided this (land) in lieu of the price for having renounced their religion and entered into his religion. This is what will ruin them who forsake the holy covenant [v. 30]—namely, that they will see that all who enter into his religion will attain these positions, whereas he who does not confess his creed is killed or burned, and thus they will depart from the Faith”). 27 The same verse is cited by Salmon in his own introduction (see p. 158, n. 5 above), as well as, ad 1:1, in b. Meg. 11a, Ag. Esth. (p. 5), and Esth. Rab. (proem, §4), in all of which the phrase íúåìëì (“so as to destroy them”) is applied to “the days of Haman” (in the first two per Samuel; in the latter per R. Hiyya, Samuel applying this phrase to . the period of Greek domination and referring íéúìòâ àìå [“nor did I abhor them”] to the Diaspora in Media [= Yalq., §775/214r]). 28 In his own introduction Saadia (Comm., p. 1172) likewise explores the theme of

164

translation (i 1)

(i 1) And it came to pass in the days of Ardash¯ır,29—or, it is said, of Zoroaster,30— that is, Ardash¯ır who reigned from India unto the land of al-Zanj,31 in all of which

God’s solicitude for Israel in establishing for them the means to both survive as well as maintain a strong faith in the face of the horrors of exile (æòå ìâ˙ àäáø àäôòñàô ˙ àá). In the book of Esther, he êìàîîìà ìàå[äà ïî] äéñà÷ú àî àäá éøàãúì àäì àäúàáú maintains (ibid.), the Jewish faith was strengthened by the very depiction of the material grandeur and military might of the Persians, which served as both a warning as well as a reminder to the Jews that the “religion of God” (d¯ın all¯ahi) finds its fundamental expression in spiritual adornment and nobility of the heart (ä¨ îòð (!)øåäö˙ éìåàìà ä¨ ö÷ìà ¨ îàìà ïúôé àìéì ®®® ä¨ ìâ˙îìà øãö àã˙ ä ìòâ˙ äëàìîà øéàñå äìàîå äùåéâ˙á äéäàáúå ùåøåùçà íòð ä 駧é éìåìà ìà÷ àîë ÷é÷çìà íéøëìàå &õçîìà æòìà ïéãìà åä äììà ïéã ïà øëIúúìô ®®®øàôëìà §âå éæåòîå éæò). 29 Although ùåøåùçà is designated “Ardash¯ır” by other medieval Jewish sources

(e.g., Ibn D¯a"¯ud, Qabbalah, p. 30 [text], l. 107; the Judaeo-Arabic chronicle published by Neubauer, Chronicles, II, p. 108, l. 9; and, among the other extant Judaeo-Arabic works treating Esther that we have examined, Mss II Yevr.-Arab. I 742, II Yevr.Arab. I 2186, II Yevr.-Arab. II 839, II Yevr.-Arab. II 875, and II Yevr.-Arab. II 977. Note also the early identification, in S. #Olam Rab. §30, of ùåøåùçà with àúñùçúøà, which latter is an etymological cognate of “Ardash¯ır” [see Wiesehöfer, “Ardaˇs¯ır I,” p. 371b]), we would suggest that, insofar as Yefet retains the Hebrew spelling ùåøåùçà everywhere else in his tarjama of Esther (though cf. Ms. R1 ad 1:2), he is here taking the opportunity to establish the broader historical context of the events depicted in the book and, following the Arabic historiographers, places the reign of Ahasuerus within the reign of the emperor Bahman, also known as “Ardash¯ır the Mighty” (Ardash¯ır ¯ı, Ta"r¯ıkh, I, p. 333 [= idem, History, al-.taw¯ıl al-b¯a #) or simply “Ardash¯ır” (cf. al-Tabar . p. 81]; al-Tha#¯alib¯ı, Ghurar, p. 378; Firdaws¯ı, Rois, p. 11). That “Ardash¯ır” here is intended by Yefet as a broader historical reference and not as an identification of ùåøåùçà is further underscored by the following alternate translation, “or, it is said, of Zoroaster,” since Zoroaster was never a king. Contra the disparagement of Yefet’s historical knowledge advanced by some (e.g., Margoliouth, Daniel, pp. viii–ix), this in fact evinces an historical acumen which, for his time, may be considered quite sharp (see further our discussion in section V.1 above). This also attestes to Yefet’s broader acquaintance with Arabic litterature and sources. 30 According to the Arabic historiographers and heresiographers—with whose works Yefet was undoubtedly acquainted (see the previous note)—, Zoroaster lived during the time of the Persian emperor Bisht¯asb/Visht¯asp, whose grandson Bahman/Ardash¯ır (see ibid.) appointed Ahasuerus, the husband of Esther, over “Babylon and its region” (cf. al¯ı, Ta"r¯ıkh, I, pp. 317–19, 333 [= idem, History, Shahrast¯an¯ı, Milal, II, pp. 65–66; al-Tabar . pp. 46–51, 81]; al-Tha#¯alib¯ı, Rois, pp. 256, 378). As to the genuineness of this alternate translation, see our discussion in sec. III.2 of the Introduction. 31 I.e., Zanzibar/Unguja, including, perhaps, a larger part of eastern Africa (see Lane, Lexicon, p. 1256b; Freeman-Grenville, “al-Zandj,” p. 445a–b). Cf., on the other hand, al-F¯as¯ı (J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 91, l. 27), who identifies ùåë with “the race of S¯ud¯an [lit. “the Blacks”]” (ïàãåñ ìéá÷), referring to the Saharo-Sahelian portion of Africa (see Kaye, “S¯ud¯an,” p. 752b; see also Yefet’s tarjama ad 8:9), whereas Saadia, (Tafs¯ır ad loc.), reflecting the more traditional identification (cf. Origen ad loc.: εως αιιοπιας), renders

translation

165

(domain) were one hundred and twenty-seven cities32—. (The mudawwin33) has already34 informed us of the actions which Nebuchadnezzar undertook against Jerusalem on three occasions,35 one after the other; he has related what happened to Daniel and his companions when Nebuchadnezzar sought the dream from the wise men; [5r] he has also informed us of what happened to his companions when the people were ordered to worship the idol; and he has also informed us of what took place in the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s son Evil-merodach— namely, what he did with Jehoiachin king of Judah; so too has it has informed us of what took place in the time of Belshazzar, his grandson, concerning what the angel wrote on the wall of his palace—(all) this is what happened during the time of the kings of the Chaldeans. (The mudawwin) has likewise related what took place during the time of the kings of Persia and Media, and so mentions what took place during the time of Darius the Mede concerning Daniel, up until he was cast into the pit of lions36; and after him arose Cyrus, the one who permitted the nation to go up and build37 the Temple38—the outlay for which came the term by ä¨ ùáçìà (“Abyssinia” [on which see p. 276, n. 560 below]; likewise ad every occurrence of ùåë rendered in his extant taf¯as¯ır [cf. the comment of Q¯afih, . Esther, ad 1:1]). Cf. also the comment of Judah ibn Bal #am ad loc. (per Ms. Bodleian Heb.d.68, fol. 31v): ä¨ ùáçìà ãàìá øë˙ à éìà ãðäìà ïî (“from India unto the end of the land of Abyssinia”); and, similarly, Tg. Esth I: ùåëã àáøòî ãòå àáø àéãðéä ïî (“from Greater India unto the West of Kûˇs”). 32 So per Yefet’s subsequent explanation (see p. 170 and n. 51 below). 33 On Yefet’s conception of the mudawwin and his role in the composition of Scripture, see pp. 28–34 above. 34 I.e., with regard to the chronological presentation of the events, not the arrangement of the books in Yefet’s canon, in which Daniel (as also Ezra-Nehemiah, from which Yefet derives his history of Cyrus [cf. Yefet, Daniel, pp. ’“, 32]) came after Esther (cf. Marwick, “Order,” p. 459). 35 For a representative account of Nebuchadnezzar’s incursions against Jerusalem ¯ı, Ta"r¯ıkh, I, pp. 316–25 (= idem, History, among the Arabic historiographers see al-Tabar . pp. 43–65). 36 I.e., this is the last event that Scripture records concerning Daniel during the reign of Darius the Mede. Cf. also Yefet’s comment at the end of Daniel ch. 6 (Daniel, p. ’“): @ ' T { J { +QjI `U  #{ Q  (“This [i.e., up to this point] is a depiction of what happened to Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius”). 37 “and build”—or, perhaps, “and (who) built,” reading wa-ban¯a (in support of which cf. Ezra 1:2; 2 Chr. 36:23) rather than wa-bin¯a". 38 “the Temple”—Ar. bayt al-maqdis, on this signification of which cf. Gil, History, p. 114; however, in light of Isa. 44:28, as well as Yefet’s following usage of bayt all¯ah in reference to the Temple, the meaning here, as at the beginning of his comment on this verse, may be the more usual “Jerusalem” (though cf. the variant reading al-bayt in Ms.

166

translation

from his own wealth—and thus the people ascended with the vessels of the House of God. This Ahasuerus [5v] then reigned after Cyrus, and Scripture relates what took place concerning Israel during his time, as we shall explain after we mention what took place during the times of the other kings of Persia. After Ahasuerus reigned Artaxerxes the Lesser, for he reigned (only) one year, and it was he who forbade that the Temple should be built when the Samaritans made an accusation against the Jews. Then after him arose Darius the Persian, to whom the governor of Syro-Palestine likewise sought to slander the Jews, though the matter turned out in the completion of the construction, and he provided from his own wealth the outlay for the House of God, just like Cyrus, and also furnished from his wealth the sacrifices and that which pertained to them.39 (The construction of the Temple) was thus completed during the time of (Darius), after whom arose [6r] Artaxerxes the Great, who was a friend of Ezra and Nehemiah. The total number of the kings of Persia thus comes out to be five—namely, Cyrus, Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes the Lesser, Darius the Persian, and Artaxerxes the Great.40 R1, as well as the clear implication of Temple rebuilding alone in Ezra 1:1–6; 6:1–12; Neh. 1:2–3; 2:5–8). 39 I.e., the Temple, or, perhaps, the sacrifices (cf. Ezra 6:9–10). 40 Likewise Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3350, fol. 1v): íäìåà §ä ñøô êåìî òéîâ˙ ˙ §âå ùåøåùçà úåëì[îáå] §øåëì úçà úðùáå §÷ë ùåøåùçà íú˙ ùø[åë] éî[éáå §÷ë] àúùùçúøà íú êìî àúñùç[úøà äãòáå] §âå ïéúøú úðù ãò àìèá úå[äå §÷ë éñøôä] ùåéøã äãòáå àúùùçúøà àéëìî (“In all there are five kings of Persia (identified in Scripture), the first of whom was Cyrus, then Ahasuerus, as per the statements, Now in the first year of Cyrus, etc. [Ezra 1:1; 2 Chr 36:22], And in the reign of Ahasuerus, (etc.) [Ezra 4:6]; then Artaxerxes, as per the statement, In the days of Artaxerxes, (etc.) [ibid. 4:7]; and after him Darius the Persian, as per the statement, and it ceased unto the second year (of the reign of Darius king of Persia), etc. [Ezra 4:24]; and after him Artaxerxes, king of kings [Ezra 7:12]”). Saadia, by contrast, taking Artaxerxes (in all of its occurrences) and Darius the Persian as the same person (perhaps construing the former as a throne name, on which cf. S. #Olam Rab. pp. 136–7 [§30]), posits four (Medio-)Persian kings—viz., Darius the Mede, Cyrus, Ahasuerus, and Darius the Persian (Comm., p. 1174): ñøôìà êåìî ïî §âìà êìîìà ïàë ìâ˙øìà àã˙ ä ïà ìå÷ðô ˙ ëà àì êåìî §ã íäòéîâ˙ ïà êìã˙ å ïééìáàáìà ãòá àðåëìî ïéã˙ ìà ìàéðãì ìàéøáâ ìà÷ §îë øú íéëìî äùìù ãåò äðä êì ãéâà úîà äúòå ºåì æåòîìå ÷éæçîì éãîò éãîä ùåéøãì úçà úðùá éðàå ˙ éà ùåéøã (!)àúñùúøà éîñé àî òî éîñé åäå ®®® §ã ïåøéöéô ñøôì íéãîò ïéá àîéô ìà÷ §îë àö ˙ ëå ä¨ éàâìà äðà ïéá úåëìî ãòå äìå÷ ïîô ñøô êìî ùåéøã úåëìî ãòå ÷éñàåôìà äã˙ ä ìëå êìã ¨ ìàçî àì àúñùçúøà åäô àøæò áàúë éô øåëã˙ î ùåéøã éô äøúàåúîìà ìéàìãìà äðéáú §îë ä ˙ àåîìà êìú (“We maintain that this man [i.e., Ahasuerus] was the third øéö÷ú øéâá òö

of the Persian kings who reigned over us after the Babylonians—that is to say, their total was four kings, not more, just as Gabriel stated to Daniel, And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to be a supporter and a stronghold unto him. And now I will declare unto you the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia [Dan. 11:1–2]—thus

translation

167

This Ahasuerus was thus the second of the kings of Persia, and (the mudawwin) relates in the book of Ezra that the Samaritans slandered Israel in his time, as per the statement, And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem (Ezra 4:6); yet (the mudawwin) did not say that (Ahasuerus) agreed with them at all in anything. This incident took place at the beginning of his reign, yet his reign was not yet consolidated, and for this reason he did not pay attention to their report. By the statement Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus [6v] (the mudawwin) is referring to all that which the scroll contains, the purpose of which is the recounting of what happened to Israel during his time, for all that which it mentions is connected with them—that is to say, since it was the intention of the mudawwin to inform us of the matter on account of which Israel enjoined upon themselves (the continual observance of) the two days of Purim, it was inevitable that he should recount what took place of their affairs (during the reign of Ahasuerus), from their first to their last. He therefore relates the

yielding four ... in addition to being called Artaxerxes he was also called Darius, as it is said in what occurs between these passages: even until the reign of Darius king of Persia [ibid., 4:5], for by its statement even until the reign (Scripture) makes clear that it was the endpoint; thus every ‘Darius’ mentioned in the book of Ezra is undoubtedly Artaxerxes, as the successive indications in those (other) passages will make perfectly clear”). So too, apparently, Ibn Ezra, taking úùùçúøà as an Aramaic designation for Ahasuerus (see p. 164, n. 29 above). The Karaite enumeration is thus slightly more accurate in distinguishing between Artaxerxes and the other kings, though the further distinction between “Artaxerxes the Lesser” (per Ezra 4:7–23) and “Artaxerxes the Great” (per Ezra 6:14; 7:8; Neh., passim) is inaccurate (though cf. Torrey, Studies, pp. 38–39, n. 1), the Artaxerxes mentioned in every instance most likely being Artaxerxes I (cf. Schmitt, “Artaxerxes I,” pp. 655a–656b; Olmstead, History, pp. 304–17). Both enumerations, however, are in disorder and, understandably enough, omit the intervening kings not mentioned in Scripture. Yet another enumeration is attested among the Arabic and Persian historiographers, who, after Bahman/Ardash¯ır b. Isfandiy¯ar b. Bisht¯asb (see p. 164, nn. 29 & 30 above), enumerate, until Alexander, Khum¯an¯ı (ibna Bahman), Darius the Great (b. Bahman), and Darius b. Darius; yet the administration of Persia, as part of “Babylon and its region,” is described as being assigned to successive vassal rulers, these being, during the time of Bahman/Ardash¯ır, Darius the Mede, Cyrus the Elamite, ¯ı, Ta"r¯ıkh, I, pp. 333–36 [= idem, Ahasuerus, and Cyrus (b. Ahasuerus) (cf. al-Tabar . History, pp. 81–88]; al-Tha#¯alib¯ı, Ghurar, pp. 377–407; Firdaws¯ı, Rois, pp. 1–48). In any event, the correct enumeration of Persian kings for the span in question should proceed as follows (per Kent, Old Persian, pp. 158a–159a): Cyrus (the Great) (559–29), Cambyses (529–22), Ariaramnes, Arsames, Darius the Great/the Persian (= the Mede?; cf. Koch, pp. 38a–39b) (521–486), Ahasuerus/Xerxes I (486–65), Artaxerxes I Longimanus (465– 25), Darius II Nothus (424–405; in Ezra 4:5 [cf. Saadia]).

168

translation

account of the feast41 so that we might know what the reason was for Vashti the Queen having been removed. Then he recounts to us the affair of the maidens and how the matter proceeded until Esther was taken in place of (Vashti) so that we might know in connection with what follows that she was the means of Israel’s deliverance from the decree [7r] of Haman. He then recounts to us the scheme of Bigthan and Teresh, as well as what became of Mordecai, and that this was the foundation for Mordecai’s own deliverance from the decree of Haman.42 Then he relates to us the account of Haman and his distinguished status, as well as what took place with respect to Mordecai in his gate, and that because of this Haman became enraged and sought the annihilation of the Jews. He then continues to link the report together43 in order to point out that the king prescribed that which Esther and Mordecai had in mind concerning the matter of the annihilation of Israel’s worst enemies, and also (to show) what they received as a religious obligation44 on account of these two days. Such is the entirety of the book’s content. (The mudawwin) then says that is, Ahasuerus who reigned due to (the fact) that there was another Ahasuerus who was the father of Darius the Mede, per the statement, of Darius the son [7v] of Ahasuerus, of the seed of Media (Dan. 9:1). (The mudawwin) therefore informs us that this one was not that one, since that one was not a king and this one was a king.45 41 Ar. da #wa, on this sense of which see Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 446a; Hava, Dictionary, p. 207b. 42 “from the decree of Haman”—better here, insofar as ïîä úøæâ is normally applied to the edict issued by Haman against the Jewish population at large, may be the reading of Ms. R1: “from what Haman had contrived against him.” 43 “He … together”—see our discussion on pp. 30–32 above. 44 “which they received as a religious obligation”—Ar. istasann¯uhu, on which form see Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 689a. 45 Likewise Saadia (immediately following the comment cited on p. 166, n. 40 above; Comm., p. 1174): äìá÷ ïàë ã÷å ùåë ãòå åãäî êìåîä ùåøåùçà àåä äìå÷ éðòî àî ñîúìð íú˙ ˙ ìà ®®® øë˙ à ùåøåùçà äìá÷ ïàë ã÷ ïà ãâ˙ðô ®®® ùåøåùçà úçà úðùáå ìà÷ §îë øöùìá ãòá êìî éã ¨ úá àëìî [aá102§ åàìá äàø] êé íì ùåøåùçà êàã˙ ... [éãî òøæî] ùåøåùçà ïá ùåéøãì (“We ä should then seek after the sense of the statement that is, Ahasuerus who reigned from India unto Kûˇs, before which clause ‘Ahasuerus’ was already mentioned ... for we find that there was another Ahasuerus before him ... who reigned after Belshazzar, as it says, In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, [of the seed of Media,] ... that [demonstr. pron.] Ahasuerus was definitely not a king”); and, albeit taking the Ahasuerus in Daniel to be a king as well, Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3350, fol. 1v): ùåøåùçà éîéá éäéå äìå÷ ˙ ä øéâ ùåøåùçà ïàë ãë ïà àðôøòåé ùøåùçà àåä úðùá §÷ë éãîä ùåéøã (!)ïáà åäå êìîìà àã ˙ äå §ùçà ïá ùåéøãì úçà (“The statement that ñøô ï[î] äáçàö ùåøåùçàå éãî ïî ùåøåùçà àã is, Ahasuerus, (etc.) apprises us that, in addition to this king, there already existed an

translation

169

He also informs us that his kingdom was from India unto Kûˇs,46 and, though it is said that India and Kûˇs are adjacent,47 (the mudawwin) is referring to his area of dominion as crescent-shaped.48 This is similar to the statement, for he had dominion over all the region on this side of the River, Ahasuerus—namely, the father [reading åáà] of Darius the Mede, as per the statement, In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus [Dan. 9:1]; yet this (latter) Ahasuerus was from Media, whereas the Ahasuerus (of Esther’s time) was from Persia”). Cf. also Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 32v), which is in this instance closer to Salmon: øåáòá ùåøåùçà àåä §òèå ïá ùåéøãì ùøåôî àåä øùàë åîù ïë äéä åúåëìî úøëäá ìáá ìò êìîù éãîä ùåéøã éáà äéäù éãî ìò êìî àåäå ùåøåùçà. 46 We have retained the Hebrew term in transliteration, both here and in following, insofar as Yefet’s rendering of ùåë in his tarjama by “the land of Zanj” (though cf. his rendering by al-Habasha [“Abyssinia”; alt. trans.: al-S¯ud¯an] ad 8:9) leaves the precise . geographical location of this area somewhat uncertain (see pp. 164–65, n. 31 above). 47 So in the discussion between Rav and Samuel recorded in b. Meg. 11a (cf. also Tg. Esth. II; Esth. Rab. i.4; Pan. Ah. . A, p. 45; Pan. Ah. . B, p. 56; Ag. Esth., p. 6), wherein both views (adjacent or at opposite ends) are presented, with 1Kgs 5:4 being cited as support by both sides. The view that the two were adjacent, it should be noted, does not necessarily imply geographical naïveté, since Kûˇs in this case may well have been identified by the Amora with the kingdom of Kush¯ana, which, during the first three centuries AD, encompassed most of the Indian subcontinent, Afghanistan, and parts of Central Asia (cf. Bivar, “History,” pp. 198–209, and Steinsaltz, Megillah, p. 47, marg.; albeit cf. Segal, Midrash, I, pp. 127–34). Such is also apparently the view of Salmon, who in this instance seems to rely directly upon the talmudic explanation; thus (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3350, fol. 2r): ìú˙ î [ï]éúáøà÷úî ïéúðéãî ùåëå åãåä ïà ïéøñôîìà õ˙ òá ìà÷ ã÷å ˙ î íìàòìà éìò àìåúñà äðà éðòé ùåë ãòå åãäî §å÷ éô àîà äðàëô äæò ãòå (!)çñôúî çñôúî ìú (!)øáòá äãø àåä éë äîìù éô ìà÷ [àî]ëå ùåëå åãä éìò éìåúñé ïî (“Some of the Interpreters have said that H¯oddû and Kûˇs are two adjacent provinces, as (in the statement) from Tiphsah unto Gaza [1Kgs 5:4], and it would seem the same therefore regarding the statement from India unto Kûˇs—the idea being that, just as one might exercise dominion [on which sense of yastawl¯ı see Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 843b] over H¯oddû and Kûˇs, so did (Ahasuerus) exercise dominion over (all) the world [cf. b. Meg. 11a: éããä éáâ ùåëå åãåä åôåñ ãòå íìåòä óåñî êìî êë ùåëå åãåä ìò êìîù íùë ¬éîéé÷ ååä], as it also says regarding Solomon, For he had dominion over (all) the region on this side (of the river, etc.) (ibid.)”). Contra Walfish (“Commentaries,” p. 336), however, this view is not the one taken by Ibn Ezra in his first commentary (and subsequently rejected in favor of the “opposite ends” view in his second commentary), since his explanation is in fact consistent with—and quite likely influenced by—that of Yefet (see the following note). 48 “as crescent-shaped”—Ar. taylas¯anan, which Persian loanword (taylas¯an) primar. . ily denotes a type of shawl. On the technical geographical sense of this term, normally applied to certain types of concave coastal formations (and the knowledge of which underscores the breadth of Yefet’s acquaintance with Arabic literary sources), see de Goeje, Bibliotheca, p. 291 (s.v. XI), as well as the diagram supplied by Reinaud, Aboulféda, p. 19, n. 1. This particular emphasis upon the crescent-shaped spread of Ahasuerus’ kingdom is likewise attested by Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: ìò êìî éðùä ùåøåùçà äæ ÷ø

úéîåøã ùåë ÷ø åãåäå ìàøùé õøàì úéðåôö ñøôå éãî õøà éë ùåë ïéáå åãåä ïéá åéäù úåøçà úåðéãî

(“Only this second Ahasuerus reigned over other provinces which were between India and Kûˇs, for the land of Media and Persia is north of the land of Israel and India, and only Kûˇs is south (of these latter two)”). See also Saadia, Comm., pp. 1174–75: ïåëéå [...]

170

translation

from Tiphsah even unto Gaza (1 Kgs 5:4), (for) between Tiphsah and Gaza is an oblique route.49 (The mudawwin) further indicates that in the whole of his kingdom were one hundred and twenty-seven cities, aside from their outlying townships50 and (those areas) adjoining them, and these cities were like Damascus, Tiberius, Ramla, and those similar to them.51 In this fashion ¨ ùáçìàå èë˙ ìà êìã˙ ïî ÷øùìà éìé àîéô ãðäìà áåðâ˙ìà áäî ä¨ äâ˙ éô àòéîâ˙ àîäðà êìã˙ àîéô ä ˙ øòìàá àì è÷ô ìåèìàá ùåøåùçà ä¨ ëìîî àðäàä áàúëìà øøç äðî áøâìà éìà éìé åãäî ìà÷ô õ ¨ ùáçìà éìà ïéöìà ïî äèë˙ éã˙ ìà ìåàìà åä íéìà÷àìà ìåèà ïàì ®ùåë ãòå äìå÷ ïà ïéáú ã÷ô ä ˙ øòá äããç àîáøå ®åàåáî ãò ùîù çøæîî §å÷ íà÷î åä ùåë ãòå åãäî éô ìà÷ àî åäå è÷ô äö ˙ à éäå øçáìà óøè éìò éä ä¨ æâ ä¨ ðéãîô ®äæò ãòå çñôúî øäðä øáò ìëá äãø àåä éë äîìù ãç øë (!)áåðâ˙ìà ãç øë˙ à éäå ä¨ éøáìà éô éãâ ïá íäðî àäçúô éã˙ ìà ä¨ ðéãîìà éä çñôúå íàùìì (!)ìàîùìà íàùìì (“… Both [India and Abyssinia (i.e., H¯oddû and Kûˇs)] are entirely in the region whence blows the South Wind, India being on that (part) of the latitudinal line which adjoins the East and Abyssinia being on that (part) of it which adjoins the West. Thus, the Scripture here delineates the kingdom of Ahasuerus only by its latitudinal width, not by its longitudinal width, and so says from H¯oddû even unto Kûˇs, the most extensive of the latitudinal zones being the one whose line is from China unto Abyssinia [cf. Y¯aq¯ut, Mu #jam, I, pp. 33–36; Jwaideh, Mu #jam, pp. 41–51], and it has already been shown that the statement from H¯oddû even unto Kûˇs is in place of the statement from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof [Ps. 50:1]. Sometimes, however, (the Scripture) delineates [a kingdom] only by its longitudinal width, which is what is says concerning Solomon, for he had dominion over all the region on this side of the River, from Tiphsah even unto Gaza [1Kgs 5:4], for the city of Gaza is on the edge of the sea, and is the limit of the southern border of Syro-Palestine, whereas Tiphsah is the city which Menahem b. Gadi conquered in the desert [cf. 2 Kgs 15:16], and is the limit of the northern border of Syro-Palestine”). 49 “is an oblique route”—lit. “is a route stretched obliquely” (m¯ıla tar¯ıq). . 50 Ar. ras¯at¯ıqih¯a, on which cf. Y¯ aq¯ut, Mu #jam, I, pp. 33–36: S Th  + o  N + O

S >  " T q &*I D   78   B `$ \' ? F!" .] 1D t ;  A  +  ;‡  &'C  „j   T q 1  > T  H? (“We have witnessed in our time

in the land of the Persians that by (the term) rust¯aq they mean every place in which there are farms and villages; yet they do not apply this (term) to cities such as Bas.ra or Baghdad, for its denotation among the Persians is the same as (that of the term) saw¯ad [“suburb”] among the people of Baghdad. It is, consequently, narrower (in significance) than the k¯ura and the ist¯an [i.e., districts, which are divided into ras¯at¯ıq; see idem, pp. 39–40]”). 51 This atypical understanding of BH äðéãî (Koehler & Baumgartner, Lexicon, p. 549: “province, district”), the morphological cognate of Ar. mad¯ına (“city, town, capital”; rarely “province” [cf. Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 575]), is also advanced by the talmudic sages in b. Meg. 2b: äîåç ïéô÷åî ïéá ÷ìçì ®®® äðéãîå äðéãî áéúëã åðééä ïãéã àðúì àîìùá äðéãî àîìùá äçø÷ ïá òùåäé éáøì àìà ®®® ùåøåùçà úåîéî äîåç úô÷åîì ïåð ïá òùåäé úåîéî úåøééò øàùì ïùåù ïéá ÷ìçì äðéãîå; Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 32v): àéäù øéò úàø÷ð äðéãî äîåçì úåëåîñ ïäù úåìñîä íò äîåç úô÷åî; and Elijah ben Solomon, Esther, p. 10: .äðéãî òùåäé úåîéî äîåç úô÷åî §åë äðéãî àîìùá 짧æç åøîàù åäæå ®äëåìî øéò ¬ãàî äìåãâ øéò àéä ïåð ïá. For the usual construal cf., inter alios, the comment of R. Levi ad loc. in Esth. Rab. i.9, as well as Saadia (Comm., p. 1175): ìîù ã÷ äðà ïéáú ä¨ øåëå øáðî äðéãî ïà ã÷úòà àã˙ àô ¨ øåë äðéãî ïà éìò ìãúñé ïéà ïîå ®®®ä¨ øàîòìà øú˙ ëà ñéìå ®äáúëë äðéãîå äðéãî §å÷ ïî øáðîå ä ˙ ïãîìà ïî äðéãî ìëì ãâ˙åé (“Insofar as it is assumed that a m˘edînâ is a minbar or ãøôî èë

translation

171

is made clear the large extent of his kingdom and the magnitude of his dominion52 [8r] and his wealth. (i 2–12) (2) In those days, when King Ahasuerus was sitting on the throne of his kingdom which was in Susa the fortress,53 (3) in the third year of his reign, he prepared a banquet for all his rulers54 and servants, the army of Persia and Media, the chief men55 and the governors of the provinces before him,

k¯ura [i.e., district], it is clear that (the kingdom of Ahasuerus) encompassed most of the inhabited earth ... And whence is it gathered that a m˘edînâ is a k¯ura or minbar? From the statement, each m˘edînâ according to its own script [v. 22], and a separate script is not attested for every city”); and Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, f. 4r): êìîä §÷å ˙ ä éìò ìéìãìàå ÷àøòìà ìú˙ îå äðéãî äøñàá íàùìà ìú˙ î éîñé äðàëå ãìá 맧æ÷ éðòé åãäî §÷ àã äáúëë äðéãîå äðéãî ìà (“(Regarding) the statement, who reigned from India (even unto Kûˇs, over one hundred and twenty-seven m˘edînâ)—(this) means 127 provinces, (each of) which was apparently called, like the whole of Syro-Palestine and like Iraq, a m˘edînâ. The proof of this is the statement, into every m˘edînâ according to the script thereof”). 52 Ar. #amal (cf. Steingass, Dictionary, p. 867a). 53 Or “(fortified) palace” ( #im¯ara; cf. Steingass, Dictionary, p. 866a; Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 171b). Cf., in a similar vein, the renderings of äøéáä by àúðøéá and àúøéá in Tgs Esth. I and II, respectively, ÷ñåâ˙ìà in the translations of Saadia (Tafs¯ır ad loc.) and Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fol. 4v), and øö÷ìà by al-F¯as¯ı (J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 220, l. 62; albeit II, p. 658, l. 89 [ad 2:3, 8]: ÷ñåâ˙ìà!) and Ibn N¯uh. (Diqduq, p. 487 [presented as one of two alternatives]). Cf. also Ibn Jan¯ah, . "Us. ¯ul (col. 92): *$ ïåîøà !E ( D *$ äøéá !E

R (“the translation of bîrâ is ‘fortress’ just as the translation of "armôn is ‘fortress’”); and Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 32v): ®úåéðøéá íéáøå äøéáä íãàì àì éë §îë êìîä ïåîøà äøéáä íùå íìéò úåáéáñ äðéãîä êåúá êìîä ïåîøà àéä äøéáä ïùåù éë ®øéòä ïùåù åððéà äøéáä ïùåù äæå íãå÷ êìîä øòùá åúáù øåáòá åãáì éëãøî ÷ø íää íéîéá äøéáä ïùåùá åéä àìå íéãåäéä {*}åéä íéãåäé åéä øéòä áåø éë äëåáð ïùåù øéòäå §åúëä §îà 맧òå øàáà øùàë øúñà ç÷ìúù. 54 Ar. quww¯ad, which rather broad term may also signify, inter alia, “governor,” “mayor,” “adminstrator,” “official,” or “officer” (see Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 417a). 55 “the chief men”—or “lieutenants” (Ar. al-bat¯ariqa; see Piamenta, Dictionary, I, p. . 34a [s.v. tM, citing a translation ad Esther 3:12 in Ms. CUL Add. 1200]; Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 94b; Lane, Lexicon, p. 217c). Al-ba.t¯ariqa is likewise employed for íéîúøôä by Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 5r; likewise ad 6:9) and al-F¯as¯ı (J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 486, l. 135). Otherwise, among the Rabbanites, cf. Saadiah, Tafs¯ır: úåúøìà (“the young bulls/steers,” deriving íéîúøôä from øô [cf. Q¯afih, . Esther, p. 301, n. ad loc.; Blau, Dictionary, p. 237b]); and Ibn Jan¯ah, . "Us. ¯ul (col. 596): v OB   Hj M FxE (“Its translation is ‘princes’—that is, the nobles”). Yefet otherwise employs ba.t¯ariqa to render íéðøñ, as ad Judg. 16:30 (per Ms. AOS A146, fol. 108r).

172

translation

(4) at which time he sought to [8v] show the people of the kingdom the riches of the glory of his reign and the gloriousness of the grandeur of his majesty, for many days, a hundred and eighty days. (5) And upon the completion of these days, the king prepared a banquet56 for all the people who were present in Susa the fortress, both great and small, (for) seven days, in the courtyard of the king’s inner garden.57 (6) (There were) white, violet, [9r] and azure58 (coverings) held up by cords of fine On this signification of da #wa cf. Lane, Lexicon, p. 884c. “inner garden” (Ar. jin¯an al-d¯akhil¯an¯ı [for d¯akhil¯ı])—or, perhaps, “inner arboretum” (cf. Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 220a; Lane, Lexicon, p. 463a–b; and the renderings of Saadia and al-F¯as¯ı cited below). On this adjectival rendering (not necessarily construal) of ïúéá (“palace” [Koehler & Baumgartner, Lexicon, p. 129b]) cf. also Tg. Esth. I: äàåâ àúðéâ úøãá àëìîìã; Esth. Rab. ii.6: õåçáî äðâ øîà äãåäé §ø ®äéîçð §øå äãåäé §ø ®êìîä ïúéá úðâ øöçá õåçáî øöçå íéðôáî äðâ øîà äéîçð §øå íéðôáî øöçå (cf. Steinberger, Midr. Esth., p. 87 [ad loc.]); Ibn Jan¯ah. (Us. ¯ul, col. 92), glossing ïúéáä úðâî in 7:8: 1j  Y f  (“from the inner garden”); Hai Gaon (apud Ibn Bar¯un, Muw¯azana, II, p. 163 [citing the occurrence ad 7:7]): øàãìà ïàúñá éà éúéáìà ïàúñáìà 짧æ ééàä §ø äéô ìà÷ (“R. Hai (Gaon)—his memory be blessed—explained it as ‘the domestic garden’—i.e., the garden of the residence”); and Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 33r): ®úøëåî íâ êåîñ àåäå ®ïîçø §îë úéá §æâî øàú íù ®ïúéá êìîä úéá ïúéá úåéäì éåàøå äøö÷ êøã àåäå õåçáîå úéáî ïëå ®íéðôì §îë åîòèå. Cf., otherwise, the renderings of ïúéá(ä) úðâ as 1) ïàúñá(ìà) ïàðâ˙ (“the garden-paradise,” or, perhaps, “the arboretum of the garden” [cf. Rashi: úåðìéàá òåèð ®ïúéá ºúå÷øé éðåòøæ íå÷î ®úðâ]) by both Saadia (Tafs¯ır ad 1:5; 7:7, 8) and al-F¯as¯ı (J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 333, ll. 7–8 [ad 1:5]); 2) øö÷ ïàúñá (“the garden of the palace”) by Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 6r [ad 1:5; ad 7:7, 8 are lost]), concerning which he writes (ibid.): àäðàì éðòîìà éìò øö÷ ïúéá úøñôå ¨ éãøô ä¨ èôì (“I have explained bîtan as ‘fortress’ according to the sense, for it is a rare ä [lit. “isolated”] term”). Cf. also the discussion and examples of Moorish architecture given by Walfish, Esther, pp. 102–5. 58 “white, violet, and azure”—whereas the last of these three lexemes (t˘ek¯elet) is consistently so-rendered by Saadia (Tafs¯ır: ïåâ˙ðàîñà), Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 6v: ïåâ˙ðàîñ), al-F¯as¯ı (J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 732, l. 14: ïåâ˙ðàîñà), and Ibn Jan¯ah, . "Us. ¯ul (col. 761: K+ ; ), renderings and explanations of the first two vary: for h. ûr (“linen curtains” [Koehler & Baumgartner, Lexicon, p. 299b]) are attested primarily 1) “white,” as adopted by Yefet; likewise Tg. Esth. I (= Tg. Esth. II [cf. Grossfeld, Two Targums, p. 126]: ïéøéôñë øååéç ïååâ õåáã ïòéøé; albeit cf. also 3) below), Samuel in b. Meg. 12a (úìéî íäì òéöä äðáì [= Leq. Tob, p. 90: ïåùì äðáì úìî ãåîìúá ìàåîù øîàãë úåðáì úåòéøé øåç øåéç âìúë äéùåáì áéúëãë ¬øåéç; Ag. Esth., p. 11]), Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 6v), al-F¯as¯ı (J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 528, l. 63), Ibn Jan¯ah. (Us.¯ul, col. 217), Ibn Quraysh (Ris¯ala, p. 259), and, perhaps, Ibn Bar¯un (Muw¯azana, I, pp. 44–45), who, after a lacuna following citations from 1:6 and Isa. 19:9, explains éøç in Gen. 40:16 by analogy with Arab. éøàåç, “white flour” (õ˙ éáà ÷é÷ã); 2) “curtains” (øéàúñ), which rendering is adopted ad loc. by Saadia (Tafs¯ır and Egrôn, p. 215), and 3) “azure,” or white/clear with an azure hue, for which cf., in the first place, the rendering of Aquila cited in Esth. Rab. ii.7: ïåðéøééà (= ερινον [“light blue”], not ερινεον [“wool”]; cf. Hanhart, Septuaginta, p. 63 and n. 2), as well as the renderings in Tg. Esth. I cited above, and Saadia, Tafs¯ır, ad 8:15: ÷øæà. The meaning “white,” it should be noted, is also given as a possibility by Saadia in his 56 57

translation

173

linen59 and purple (material) on spools of silver and pillars of marble; and (there were) couches of gold and silver on a pavement of flagstone, marble, alabaster,60 and mosaics.61

Egrôn (p. 215), and, as the rendering in Tg. Esth. I demonstrates, it is possible to infer this nuance from both of Saadia’s renderings in Esther (contra the criticism of Ibn Jan¯ah, . for which see p. 178, n. 88 below). For karpas (“(fine) linen” [Koehler & Baumgartner, Lexicon, p. 500a]), a hapax legomenon, in addition to Yefet’s rendering by “violet” (banafsaj¯ı), are also attested the equivalencies 1) “silk,” adopted by Saadia (Tafs¯ır and Egrôn, p. 255 [in the latter: (!)ãéãç], cited and dismissed by Ibn Jan¯ah, . [Us.¯ul, col. 338], who explains karpas generally as a color); 2) “purple,” adopted by Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 6v: øéôøô); 3) “green,” adopted in Tg. Esth. I (= Tg. Esth. II [cf. Grossfeld, Two Targums, p. 126]: ïéðúøë), as well as by most medieval exegetes (cf. Walfish, Esther, pp. 270–71, n. 17); and 4) “cotton (fabric),” adopted, perhaps, by Aquila (apud Esth. Rab. ii.7: ïåðéñôø÷ [= καρπασινον, “woolen” or “flaxen”; cf. Liddell & Scott, Lexicon, p. 879a]) and Ibn Quraysh (Ris¯ala, pp. 266 and 267, n. ad (209)), if implying comparison with the Pers. loanword S D. 59 “fine linen”—Ar. #ushar (on this meaning of which cf. Ratzaby, Dictionary, p. 101a; albeit Lane, Lexicon, p. 2051c: “a species of tree [or shrub] in which is a substance ... like cotton”), which rendering of bûs. is likewise adopted by Salmon, ad loc. (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, f. 6v; the portion ad 8:15 is lost), as well as, ad 8:15, by Saadia, Tafs¯ır, and Ibn Quraysh (Ris¯ala, p. 225, glossing õåá êéøëúå). In his Tafs¯ır ad the present verse, however, Saadia—as also al-F¯as¯ı ad both occurences (J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 203)—renders bûs. by its Arabic morphological cognate ()), meaning “linen or silk fabric” (cf. Wehr, Dictionary, p. 100b), whereas Ibn Quraysh (Ris¯ala, p. 135) explains it as æ( ÷ (“silk”). This latter rendering, moreover, is synonymously attested in Mss R3 and R4, both of which supply—as a susbstitution and as a gloss of al-#ushar, respectively (see the text, p. 8*, n. ad l. 7)—the variant reading al-h. ar¯ır (“silk”). Cf. also the explanations of bûs. (with reference to the occurrence ad 8:15) as “linen cloth” (Ar.  (D; Heb. íéúùô), following the targumic renderings of íéúùô and ãá by àöåá, supplied by Ibn Jan¯ah, Us.¯ul, col. 87 (citing the Targum ad Ezek. 44:18 and Hos. 2:11), and Qimhi, . Lexicon, p. 37a (citing the Targum ad Lev. 6:3); as well as the assertion of al-F¯as¯ı, s.v. ãá (J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 191, ll. 12–13 [noted by Becker, Ris¯ala, p. 124, n. ad §28]), that ãá (“cloth,” “(white) linen”), õåá (“byssus,” “fine linen”), ùù (“(white) linen”), and íéúùô (“flax,” “linen”) are synonyms (äéô ú÷ôú( à ã÷å ˙ àôìà òáøà). íéúùôå ùùå õåáå ãá éäå ãçàå éðòîì è 60 Ar. (wa-)marmar, which we have included in our basic text, notwithstanding its omission from all Mss but R1, in view of Yefet’s employment of the term for øã(å) in his comment ad loc. (ñôàñôìàå øîøîìàå íàë˙ øìàá ìö( ôî èì( áî äðà óøòô), and considering as well that the same equivalency is adopted by Saadia (Tafs¯ır), Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.Arab. I 4467, fol. 6v), al-F¯as¯ı (J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 402, l. 21), and Ibn Jan¯ah. (Us. ¯ul, col. 163). 61 “flagstone ... mosaics”—these four equivalencies are the same as those adopted by Saadia (Tafs¯ır), Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 6v), al-F¯as¯ı (J¯am¯ı #, I, pp. 200, l. 49; 402, l. 21; II, p. 315, l. 59), and, as regards the last three, Ibn Jan¯ah. (Us. ¯ul, cols 163, 718, 479). Regarding èäá, however, the latter writes (Us. ¯ul, col. 84): ùùå èäá (B +!W F!"  $ D] Uh    ou B 0a j D 9=O    C; ah  9 I } [FI ]  => 0vA  K%" FI (  0 M ~'B R   K  ~'B F ŒM   [UhI FI    UhI (%{ (Q )  Z ( C (“baha.t is balan.t—with a fath. a over the b¯a and the l¯am, and a suk¯un over the n¯un [albeit cf. Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 115a]—, which is

174

translation

(7) And drinks were served62 to the people in vessels of gold and in vessels differing from each other, and the royal wine was abundant in accordance with the bounty of the king’s hand.63 (8) And the drinking was according to the customary practice: there was no one who withheld;64 for so had the king ordered every overseer65 in his house, that he should enact the good pleasure of each man. (9) [9v] Vashti the queen likewise prepared a feast for the women in the royal residence which belonged to King Ahasuerus. (10) On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was glad from the wine, he told Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, and Abagtha, Zethar, and Carkas—the seven eunuchs who served King Ahasuerus— (11) [10r] to bring66 Vashti the queen before the king with the royal crown, in order to show (his) subjects and governors her beauty, for she was lovely of appearance.

something like marble. It is improper, moreover, to pronounce [balan.t as] bal¯a.t as others among us have pronounced it, for bal¯a.t is a type of stone with which the ground—i.e., smooth ground—is paved, whereas balan.t is a [different type of] stone which is not wellknown. It may be, however, that (in the works of these other [Judaeo-]Arabic authors) the copyists are the ones who have written bal¯a.t—in place of balan.t”). On ùù, moreover, see also Yefet ad Song 5:15 (Bargès, Canticum, p. 81): éìéìâ ìò 1c (!)a j ùù éãåîò n(I> ùùå èäá Fc ùù éãåîòå óñë (“I have interpreted ùù as “marble,” just as (in) ùù éãåîòå and ùùå èäá”). 62 “And drinks were served to the people”—lit. “And the serving of drinks to the people (was).” 63 Or “ability, capacity” (maqdara), on which cf. also Saadia, Tafs¯ır, both here and ad 2:18: êìîìà ú/ä¨ ðëîë (“according to the ability of the king”); and Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 7r) (elliptically for ãéë, if not textually corrupt): øàã÷î (“(per) the capacity/measure of ”); albeit (idem) ad 2:18: úøã÷îá. 64 “there was no one who withheld” (see Yefet’s explanation below)—or, though less likely, “there was no obstruction,” on which sense of m¯ani#cf. Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 619b. Cf., by contrast, the renderings of ñðà ïéà adopted by Saadia, Tafs¯ır: øéâá øä÷ (“without compulsion [reading ñð&à]”); and Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 7v): àøäà÷ ñéì (“there was no one who was compelling”; on the accusative tanw¯ın cf. Wright, Grammar, §159a); as well as the paraphrase of al-F¯as¯ı (J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 123, l. 88): ñéì øäà÷ àìå øáâ˙î (“there was no one who was compelling or coercing”). As regards the latter two, cf. also Ibn Ezra’s gloss of ñðà by çéøëî (Comm. A). 65 Or, “man of high rank” (cf. Lane, Lexicon, pp. 437c–438a); cf. Saadia, Tafs¯ır: àìâ˙à äìæðî (“leading men of his house”); and Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 7v): äìæðî øéáë (“chief man of his house”); and Tanhum, Esther, fol. 217r: äáàåðå äàøáë (“his . chief men and his deputies”). 66 “To bring”—Ar. li-yaj¯ıb¯u bi-, on which cf. Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 238a.

translation

175

(12) Yet Queen Vashti refused to come at the king’s command which had been sent67 to her by the eunuchs; thus the king became exceedingly angry because of her action and his rage burned within him. We have already indicated that of these kings there was not one who succeeded68 his father, as (in the case of) the reign of Babylon, which Nebuchadnezzar ruled, and then his son, and then his grandson. Yet when Cyrus was dying Ahasuerus overpowered [10v] him and killed him,69 though the rule was not consolidated by him as he intended until two years had passed, (during which time) he killed and banished many people, as it says at the end of the book, And all the acts of his power and of his might (10:2).70 Then, when his rule was established and set in order, he prepared this magnificent banquet,71 the like of which is not mentioned in connection with any of the other kings. His purpose in this, (the mudawwin) indicates, was to display his wealth—(which came) either from his having pillaged the countries which had rebelled against 67 “which had been sent”—or, though less likely, “which he had sent” (reading ba#atha rather than bu#itha). 68 Lit. “reigned in the place of.” 69 Cf., by contrast, Ibn D¯ a"¯ud, Qabbalah, p. 10 (text [= trans., p. 15]): ,짧ø] àåä êìîå åéä íéìåãâ íéëìîå äéðá éðù úà àåä âøäù éðôî íéèù úëìî åäúâøäå íéðù §â [ùøåë (so Josippon, ¯ı, Ta"r¯ıkh, I, I, p. 47 [§8], ll. 22–30); and, among the Arabic historiographers, al-Tabar . ¯ı, History, pp. 49–51), who describes one Cyrus Kay-Kaw¯an (the pp. 318–19 (= al-Tabar . Elamite) as having been appointed over “Babylon and its region” (b¯abil wa-n¯ah. iyatih¯a) by the Persian emperor Bahman, which latter, after three years, appointed one Ahasuerus b. Cyrus b. J¯am¯asb, who reigned for 14 years and was succeeded by his son Cyrus (the Great, apparently! [see Justi apud Perlmann, al-Tabar¯ ı, p. 51, n. 155]) who ruled for 22 . years, in whose days the building of Jerusalem was completed. 70 Similarly Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 32v [ad 1:2]): àì éë §åúëä äæ íòè ®íää íéîéá

åô÷ú äùòî ìëå äðåøçàá §úëå åì åéäù úåáø úåîçìî øçà ÷ø çåðî àöîù äëåìîä àñë ìò áùé çöðå íçìðù ®åúøåáâå; and, to a somewhat lesser degree, idem, Comm. A (ad loc.): íòèå §ìâîá áåúë äëëå äéä øåáâ éë ùåëå åãåä §åîçìîî è÷ùù ùåøåùçà êìîä úáùë. See also Yefet’s

comm. ad 10:1–2 on p. 315 below. 71 Cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 5r, and RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3350, fols 2r–v): àîìô íä÷àæøà éô åãàæå íäãàå÷ éìò åìö˙ ôà íäëìî ø÷úñà àã˙ à êåìîìà íñø ïî ¨ ú˙ ìàú˙ ìà ä¨ ðñìà éô êìã˙ ïàëå äúëìîî éìâ˙à òéîâ˙ì èàîñ òðö äòæàðî ïàë ïî éìò øäè˙ äëìî ïî ä (“It was a convention of the (ancient) kings that when their rule was consolidated they would confer benefits upon their officers and add to their (officers’) wealth; thus, when (Ahasuerus) vanquished those who were challenging him, he prepared a feast for all the notable men of his kingdom, this being in the third year of his reign”). This view that the banquet was thrown in response to the consolidation of Ahasuerus’ rule is likewise attested in Tg. Esth. II ad 1:3: ìæàå éåëøôà éåìò ïéãøîã ïøîàã úéà àé÷ùî ãáòã ïàî ìåèîå àé÷ùî ãáòå àúà ïåðéùáëå (cf. also Grossfeld, Two Targums, p. 124, apparatus ad loc.); Ab. Gur., p. 8; Pan. Ah. . B, p. 58; and Ag. Esth., p. 10; and would also seem to be implied in the discussion between Rav and Samuel in b. Meg. 12a ad 1:5.

176

translation

him, (the rulers) of which he had therefore put to death and plundered; or else (from) all that which belonged to Cyrus having passed on to him,72 for (Cyrus) had already conquered these areas73 and seized their goods, just as God had declared to him through His prophet Isaiah: And I will give thee the treasures [11r] of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places (Isa. 45:3). (The mudawwin) then mentions two things, the first of which is the wealth of the glory of his reign, by which it means his extensive outlay74; and the second is the honor of the splendor of his majesty, which is what he displayed of the precious vessels,75 fancy clothing, and the like. (The mudawwin) then indicates that (this state of affairs) took place during the six months of the rainy season,76 on every day that would lend itself to a feast for his rulers and distinguished servants, along with the governors77 of the provinces. It was, moreover, necessary that people should come and that people should go, that the kingdom not

72 So Tg. Esth. I ad 1:4: äàãî ùøë ïî äéãéá øàúùéà éã äéøúåò úé ïåäì éåçà. Cf. also Esth. Rab. ii.1; Ab. Gur., p. 9. 73 Or, perhaps, “districts” (cf. Steingass, Dictionary, p. 1345b). 74 Or, perhaps, “revenue,” “income” (Ar. nafaqa; see Piamenta, Dictionary, II, p. 493a). On this explanation of the construct chain see, similarly, Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fol. 5v): äøàñé ä¨ øú˙ ë (71§ åàìá äàø) øäè˙ äðà éðòé äøéâì äøàäè˙ àá åúàøäá (“B˘ehar"¯otô means ‘in his displaying to others’—i.e., he displayed the abundance of his wealth”); and Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 33r): áø øùåò åì ùéùå åô÷ú íäì äàøä; albeit Saadiah, taking ãåáë in a sense more congruent with Yefet’s explanation of the following construct chain (Comm., p. 1172): àîë êåìîìà ä¨ éðà øàäè˙ à ãåáë ºä¨ øåäùî éìò ìàîìà øàäè˙ à øùò ïåëé ¯ ser [‘wealth’] signifies the public exhibition of (his) wealth; äãîç éìë ìëî ãåáë ìà÷ (“ #Oˇ k˘evôd [‘glory’] signifies the exhibition of the vessels of the kings, as it is said, glory [k¯avôd] from every precious vessel [Nah. 2:10]”). See also idem, Am¯an¯at, p. 115 (ii.13). 75 “the precious vessels”—or, “costly royal accoutrements” (Ar. al-¯al¯at al-naf¯ısa; cf. Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 44b). Cf. also Saadia’s explanation of ãåáë cited in the previous note, as well as the early rabbinic tradition that Ahasuerus displayed to his guests the vessels taken from the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Tg. Esth. II; Ab. Gur., p. 9; Pan. Ah. . B, p. 58; Leq. Tob, p. 90; Ag. Esth., p. 10). 76 So, apparently, by deduction from the explicit reference to the garden location of the second feast, which Yefet, in following, places during the summer. Cf., in a somewhat different vein, Salmon, who places the second feast during the spring (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 6r): ìöô ä¨ ðñìà ïî ú÷åìà äã˙ ä ïàë ïà ìãé úðâ øöçá §å÷å ˙ ìà ìöô ä¨ ãîìà ìåè ïàë ãàå÷ìà ñìâ˙î ïàå øàåðìàå øäæìàå úà[**]æìà øåäè˙ ú÷å òéáøìà óéøë éúùìà ìöôå (“The expression in the court of the garden indicates that this time of the year was the spring season—the time of the appearing of … the flowers and the blossoms— and that the party for the commanders took place during the time of the fall and winter seasons”). 77 Ar. quww¯ad—see p. 171, n. 54 above and Yefet’s rendering of úåðéãîä éøù in his tarjama ad 1:3.

translation

177

deteriorate around him.78 Then, when the six months which were for the chief men and rulers were complete, (Ahasuerus) saw fit to prepare a banquet for the common people as well, in order to gladden the hearts of (his) subjects, that they might love him. It would have been impossible, however, for him to have done likewise for every one of the subjects [11v] in his kingdom, for such an affair would never have been concluded, and so he undertook this (only) for the subjects of the province79 in which the king was residing.80 Nor would it have been possible for the duration of the feast to be as long as he had made it81 in the case of the rulers,82 since this would also have brought ruin,83 and therefore he prepared (the feast) only for a period of one week. Now the feast for the elite84 he prepared in his sitting-room—just as Belshazzar had done85—as per the statement, the nobles and princes of the provinces being before him (v. 3), whereas the feast for the subjects he prepared in the courtyard, and he would look down upon them from the sitting-room in which he and his leading men were likewise eating and drinking. Supporting this view is the statement, On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine (v. 10), as well as the statement, in order to show the peoples and the princes her beauty (v. 11), which was (at) the place in which the subjects were gathered; [12r] and because it was during the summertime86 that he set apart for them his inner garden. (The mudawwin) then describes the (sitting-place’s) canopy, curtains, couches, and floor;87 thus, by the expression h. ûr, karpas, and t˘ek¯elet (the “around him”—or, “on his account” ( #alayhi), the idea being, in either case, that the rulers and officials for whom this first party was thrown would not stay in Susa for all 180 days, but rather would alternate in attendance, lest their absence result in political/military disarray and national ruin. 79 Or, “locality” (balad). 80 Cf. Pan. Ah. B, p. 58: éðáì äúùî äùòà øîà ¬úåðéãîä ìëì úåúùî äùòù íéîéä åîéìùäùë . éîå÷î. 81 “as he had made it”—lit., “as it had been effected by him” (ka-m¯a tamma lahu dhalika). 82 See 171, n. 54 above. 83 “this would also have brought ruin”—lit., “in this was ruin also” (f¯ıhi fas¯ad aidan). . 84 Or “nobles” (al-khaw¯ass). .. 85 See Dan. 5:1ff. 86 So, the previous feast having taken place during the six months of the rainy season (see the previous paragraph). 87 This description of the banquet area from top to bottom, as well as the view that the h. ûr, karpas, and t˘ek¯elet mentioned at the beginning of v. 6 signify colored fabrics which formed a protective canopy for the guests, are likewise attested by Gersonides and Immanuel b. Solomon of Rome (see Walfish, Esther, p. 106), who may, in this instance, be indebted to a Byzantine Hebrew translation of Yefet’s commentary. 78

178

translation

mudawwin) is referring (in the first place) to its canopy—i.e., its overhead covering88—which is to say that he made for (the sitting-place) something resembling a pavilion from these various colors since it would have been impractical for (the people) to remain under exposure both night and day. Specifically, he set up ascending marble pillars89 in rows to serve as dividing lines,90 then stretched the canopy from pillar to pillar, and then divided between them with curtains separating each sitting-area, as per the statement, on spools of silver and pillars of marble. (The mudawwin) also indicates that, of these curtains, there were those whose color was white, and those which were violet, and those which were azure; or else [12v] every one of (the curtains) may have been multicolored with these aforementioned (colors). He then mentions the couches, indicating that some of them were overlaid with gold, and some of them overlaid with silver; or else the frame (of each couch) may have been overlaid with gold and its leg-posts91 with silver,92 for

88 This quite natural inference that hûr, karpas, and t˘ek¯elet refer to coverings/hangings . with which the court was decorated is likewise explicated in several of the early rabbinic sources (cf. b. Meg. 12a; Tg. Esth. I (= Tg. Esth. II [cf. Grossfeld, p. 126]; Ab. Gur., p. 10; Leq. Tob, p. 90; Ag. Esth., p. 10), as well as by most of the medieval exegetes (cf. Walfish, pp. 103–7). Thus, e.g., Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ïåâ˙ðàîñàå øéøç ïî øéàúñá (“with hangings of silk and azure”); Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 6v): ïàë ïàúñáìà àã˙ ä ïà ìà÷ô (¡)ïåâ˙ðàñàå øéôøôå õ˙ éáà øéøç øåúñ äéô ÷ìòî (“(Scripture) relates that in this garden were suspended curtains of white, purple, and azure silk”); al-F¯as¯ı (J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 528, l. 63): ˙ éá áàéú˙ úìëúå ñôøë øåç (“(Hûr õ . in the phrase) h. ûr karpas ût˘ek¯elet (means) ‘white fabric”); Ibn Jan¯ah, Us.¯ul, col. 217: N!E `Q øåçå úìëú 1!$ D ™!I d !c úìëúå ñôøë øåç =A

%+ .+  HB  NQ  ®ïîâøàå õåá éìáçá æåçà HB  n ' ; F!" (" $ :~ ! K+ ; F+  H* Œ $ vQš v{M (B 0 R I Q =>  B ;B  (“The meaning of h. ûr

(in 1:6) is ‘white fabric,’ just as it is said, t˘ek¯elet w˘eh. ûr [8:15], the translation of which is ‘azure and white.’ It has also been translated ‘hangings’ [see Saadia, Tafs¯ır] on the evidence of the phrase held up by rings of fine linen and purple; yet this evidence does not preclude us from likewise gathering our own understanding from it, for that which is being described is omitted and the description has taken its place”); and Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 33r): íéòåáö íéñëîäå íéòöîä åéä éë åøùòî åàøù åäæ ®æåçà úìëúå ñôøë øåç úåáø íéðéò äàøîì. 89 “ascending … pillars”—lit., “ascending pillars—these being marble pillars—” ( #umud murtafi#a s. uf¯ufan wa-hiya #umud rukh¯am). 90 “to serve …. lines”—lit., “to be in place of walls” (li-tak¯una maq¯am al-h¯ıt¯an). .. 91 On this rendering of #ar¯an¯ıs cf. Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 122b. 92 “the frame ... silver”—likewise in Tg. Esth I (= Tg. Esth. II [cf. Grossfeld, Two Targums, p. 126]): óñëã ïåäéòøëå áè áäãã ïåäéèéì÷ú ïéùâøã. The opposite view is taken by R. Nehemiah in b. Meg. 12a: áäæ ìù ïäéìâøå óñë ìù [úåèîä] íä (= Leq. Tob, p. 90; Ag. Esth., p. 11; though in Esth. Rab. ii.8 he avers: áäæá íéôåöî åéäå åéä óñë ìù [úåèîä]). On the former alternative (i.e., that each was overlaid with either gold or silver) cf. the view of R. Judah in Esth. Rab. ii.8: áäæì áäæì éåàøä ®óñëì óñëì éåàøä øîà äãåäé éáø.

translation

179

the (enhancement of its) beauty—(the couches being provided in either case) so that the people would not sit on the ground. It would also have been necessary that, in addition to the couches, there be carpets and benches for the people to sit on,93 yet (the mudawwin) is being elliptical about their description, though he does mention the floor upon which were the pillars and couches, indicating that it was elaborately paved with marble, alabaster, and mosaics. (The king) also appointed their goblets and flasks of gold, and he appointed them of different kinds, so that each phase (of drinking) might be according to each kind,94 or else that each (guest) might drink from the vessels which he preferred.95 (The mudawwin) thus describes the sitting-place of the subjects, though he does not [13r] describe the sitting-place of the king, nor his couches and vessels—all of which (are mentioned in the former description) so as to indicate the magnitude of his wealth, for beyond this he undertook double for his leading men, and therefore he says in connection with the feast for his leading men, While he displayed the wealth of the glory of his reign, the like of which is not said in connection with the subjects’ feast. The statement And the drinking was according to the law; none did compel means that there was no one who withheld from any one of the (guests) what he desired, whether he desired much drink or whether he desired a little drink—all of which was (undertaken) so as to enable each one to attain his desire96 without being compelled against his will, in order that (the king) might cheer their hearts without imposing upon the

93

“that, in addition ... to sit on,”—so, taking “carpets and benches” (busu.t wamaq¯a#id) as the subject of (an) yak¯un (for tak¯un [cf. Wright, Grammar, §142aβ]), and thus yajlis¯una(!) as subjunctive (on this plural usage cf. Blau, Grammar, §182à). It may also be possible, however, that the latter verb is to be construed with the former verb (on the syntax of which cf. Blau, ibid., §§286, 287), thus yielding the translation: “that the people be sitting on carpets and benches, in addition to the couches” (cf. the Text, nn. 215 and 216). 94 Cf. Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 33r [the second of two explanations]): äìçúá åúù øáãä êôä åà ®íéìåãâá 맧çàå ®íéáø úåîå÷î âäðîë íéðè÷ íéìëá. 95 Cf., otherwise, Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fols 7r–v), who renders íéìëå ˙ à àìëåìà úðàëå íéðåù íéìëî by (!)øééâúî úàìàå (“differing vessels”) and comments: àã ˙ çéô àäåðñçúñàô úàìà ïéøö˙ àçìì åøö˙ çà (“it came about that àäðî ïñçà úàìà íäì åøö when the attendants brought out vessels to the guests and they approved them, they would bring out to them vessels better than [i.e, differing from] those”). 96 “so as to enable each one to attain his desire”—so, taking âìáéì as the subjunctive of Form II (li-yuballigh), as explicitly indicated by the use of shadda in Ms. R1.

180

translation

people anything which he provided, whether (they were) distinguished or common.97 (The mudawwin) then indicates that his wife did for the women as he had done (for the men)—either she prepared (a feast) for seven days only, and thus the men were in the courtyard and the women [13v] with the queen at another location, or else the wives of the leading men were with her for the six months, commensurate with that which was transpiring with the king.98 And so Vashti likewise prepared a feast for the wives of the subjects at a nearby99 location, though she herself sat with the wives of the leading men during these seven days. Thus she did as the king had also done. (The mudawwin) then says that on the seventh day—on which (the king) intended to seal his joy—he ordered his elite servants to hasten Vashti from her location to the sitting-room of the king, which overlooked the courtyard in which were the subjects,100 and to unveil her to them in order that they might observe her beauty, as per the statement, to show the peoples and the princes, etc.—the peoples therefore being those who were in the courtyard, and the princes being those who were in the (king’s) sitting-room. She opposed his command, however, and did not come [14r] as the king had intended, at which the king became furious. Now some people say that this was a customary practice of the Persian (kings), that they would bring out101 their wives in the presence 97 Cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fols 7v–8r): [àøáë ºàø÷] àøéáë øîà ˙ å æåâ˙îî áøùé ïî íú˙ å óøö áøùé ïåëé ïî íú˙ ïàå ®áçé àì àî éìò ãçà åøä÷é àì ïà äàéìåà íú ˙ ø ìîòéå áçé àî ïò òðîé àìô êìã˙ ìëàù àîå øéú˙ ë áøùé ïî íú˙ å ìéì÷ áøùé ïî åä ïî ìë àö ˙ äìå äøåøñ áì÷ðà áçé àì àî éìò øä÷ àã˙ à ïàô äàö˙ ø éìò ãö÷é ïà êìîìà øîà éðòîìà àã ˙ ø (“[The king] ordered the chiefs of his stewards not to compel àãçà øä÷é àìå ñàðìà àö

anyone concerning that which he did not want, for there would be one who would drink unmixed drink and there would be one who would drink mixed drink, and there would be one who would drink a little and one who would drink a lot, and so on. Thus, (the steward) would not hold back from that which (any guest) wanted, but would undertake the good pleasure of everyone according to his desire, for if he had forced that which (the guest) did not desire, (that guest’s) happiness would have been overturned, and for this reason the king commanded that they seek the good pleasure of the people and not compel anyone”). 98 This latter view is attested in Esth. Rab. iii.9, wherein íâ at the head of this verse is, according to one strand of exegetical tradition, taken to indicate that Vashti did for the women according to all that Ahasuerus had previously done for the men—i.e., ïéà §åëå ïéñéð äùùá åæ óà ïéñéð äùùá äæ äî éåáéø àìà íâ. 99 On this rendering of #al¯a haddin , cf. Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 255b. . 100 “which overlooked … subjects”—on this reference to the elevation of the majlis (“sitting-room”), see p. 23, and ibid., n. 44 above. 101 “that they would bring out”—Ar. an yaj¯ıb¯una, on which cf. Dozy, Supplément, I,

translation

181

of the people,102 and so the king was justified and not overstepping (propriety); yet (Vashti) objected that the common people should look upon her and so contravened this customary practice of theirs, and therefore they judged her deservedly.103 Other people say that the king was impetuous in all104 of his affairs, and this is one of them which he regretted. Still others say that intoxication brought him to this,105 as per the statement, when the heart of the king was merry with wine (v. 10)—though if he had been sober he would not have desired it—, and that the queen knew that the intoxication had brought him to this, and therefore she did not come.106 We incline to the first explanation, however, for if the intoxication had brought him to this, it would have come about when he recovered that he would have realized that what she had done [14v] was proper and he would not have sentenced her to that which (his advisors) had determined, but rather he would have commended her and not have found fault with her.

p. 238a (regarding the indicative form cf. Blau, Grammar, §175; idem, Development, p. 31). 102 Cf. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1755 (an anonymous Karaite abridgment, on which see our introduction, sec. IV.1.4), fol. 62r, wherein this view is cited (along with the following two, albeit in reverse order) in a somewhat different/reworked form: íéëç äðà ïåøé íå÷å ˙ àá åìî( ˙âúé ïà êåìîìà íñø ïàå ì÷àò (“Others are of åìöà úáùåé ìâùäå §å÷ë íäéàñð øàäè the opinion that he was sagaciously prudent, the kings (of Persia) having decided that they should distinguish themselves [cf. Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 218a] by the showing of their wives, as it is said, and the queen was sitting beside him [Neh. 2:6]”). Cf. also the same work ad 1:11 (ibid.): ïà ùåøåùçà áìèô ä¨ é( äàìà äéô ì÷àòìà åà çéìîìà õë˙ ùìà ïà íäãðò ïàë ìîåë ã÷ äðà íäéøé (“In their opinion the attractive or intelligent person had within him (a certain measure of) divinity, and thus Ahasuerus sought to show them that he had become complete [i.e., that his stature as king was perfected by virtue of his wife’s beauty]”). 103 This first view concerning the reason for Ahasuerus’ summons of Vashti, and, albeit to a lesser extent, the cause of her refusal, are paralleled by Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: íéùðä âäðîù úåëìîî éúùå úåéä ïëúéå íåãà õøà âäðî 맧â äëìîä éôåé úåàøäì äåö êìîäå øúúñäì. 104 On this meaning of s¯a"ir cf. Blau, Grammar, pp. 159, n. 23, and 321, ad loc. 105 Cf. Tg. Esth. II ad v. 12: àìå éúù àøîç àôìà ìéá÷ì àáà ®®® §øîàå àúëìî éúùå àáéúî êúååë ïéøùë àìã øîéîì ïéìéî àøîç äéúé éòèà; and, on a more implicit level, Esth. Rab. iii.13 [ad v. 11]): ïéëøáî ïä ïéçîùå ïéúåùå ïéìëåà ìàøùéùë ìàøùé ìù ïúøôë åáéà ø§§à øîåà úåéãî äæ ®úåìôú éøáãá ïä ïé÷ñòúî ïéúåùå ïéìëåà íìåòä úåîåàùëå 䧧á÷äì ïéñì÷îå ïéçáùîå àìå úéãî àì åðéà åá ùîúùî ùéàä åúåàù éìë ùôéè åúåà íäì øîà ®úåàð úåéñøô øîåà äæå úåàð äîåøòå ïä ïåäì øîà ®äîåøò àäúù ãáìáå ïä åì åøîà ®åúåàøì íúà íéù÷áî úéãùë àìà úéñøô

(cf. also b. Meg. 12b; Tg. Esth. II [ad v. 10]; Ab. Gur., p. 13 [ad v. 10]; Pan. Ah. . B, p. 60 [ad v. 10]; Leq. Tob, p. 91 [ad v. 10]; Ag. Esth., p. 14 [ad v. 11]). 106 Such is the second of two alternatives offered by Ibn Ezra in his first commentary

182

translation (i 13–22)

(13) Then the king said to the wise men, the ones who knew the times—for thus proceeded the king’s custom107 before all who knew law108 and judgment—, (14) those close109 to him being Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, (and) Memucan, the seven rulers110 of Persia and Media, the ones who saw the king’s face, who were established111 first in the kingdom: (15) [15r] “According to the law, what is required to be done to Queen Vashti for not undertaking the word of King Ahasuerus (which was sent)112 by the eunuchs?” (16) And Memucan said before the king and the rulers, “It is not against the king alone that Vashti the queen has acted wrongly, but against all the rulers and all the peoples that are in all the cities113 of King Ahasuerus.

as the reason for Vashti’s refusal (i.e., øåëù àåäù äáùç). In his second commentary, however, the king’s intoxication is adopted as the sole explanation—thus (per Ms. BN héb 334, fol. 77r): äðåò ã÷ôé éìåà àåáì äãçôúð ®åúåøëù øåáòá ïàîúå. 107 Or “manner” (cf. Steingass, Dictionary, p. 576a), after which, in Ms. A, is added: “that he would mention what befell him.” Such lengthy expansions, however, are made sparing use of by Yefet, and, considering that this reading is 1) attested only in one Ms., and 2) seems unnecessary to complete the meaning of either the Hebrew or Yefet’s translation, we have chosen to omit it from the basic text as an erroneously incorporated marginal gloss (see the text, p.12*, n. ad l. 2). 108 Or (both here and throughout) “custom,” “customary practice” (sunna). See also Saadia’s comment ad loc. cited on p. 185, n. 125 below. 109 “Those close”—lit. “and the one close” (wa-"l-qar¯ıb), which rendering is likewise adopted by Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fol. 1v). Rather than representing simply a slavish rendering of the Hebrew, however, this retention of the singular suggests that both Yefet and Salmon construed áø˙ wäå—as must be the case with its Arabic equivalent—as the predicate of the following plural subject (on which nonagreement in BH cf. Gesenius & Kautzsch, Grammar, §145.7(b)), and thus as the head of an independent parenthetical clause (contra, inter alios, Koehler & Baumgartner, Lexicon, pp. 1134a–35b; cf. Paton, Esther, pp. 152–53; Hirschler, Esther, pp. 251–52). Saadia (Tafs¯ır), by contrast, adopts the plural rendering ïéáø÷àìàå (“and the closest ones” [on the oblique ending cf. Blau, Grammar, §127à]), which may suggest that he construed áø˙ wäå as an anomalous substantival complement of ïéãå úã éòãé ìë. 110 Ar. quww¯ad (as also ad vv. 16 and 21), on which see p. 171, n. 54 above. 111 “who were established”—on this paraphrastic rendering of íéáùéä cf. Yefet’s comment ad loc. Both Saadia (Tafs¯ır) and Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fol. 1v), by contrast, render literally: ïéñìàâ˙ìà (on the oblique ending cf. Blau, Grammar, §127à). 112 So, explicitly, Saadia, Tafs¯ır: íàãë ˙ ìà ãéá ìñøîìà. 113 On this rendering of Heb. úåðéãî see Yefet’s commentary ad 1:1.

translation

183

(17) [15v] “(For) when114 the affair of the queen comes out unto all the women, it will result from this that the women will disparage their husbands to themselves, saying115 to them, ‘Behold, king Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen to come before him, and she did not come!’ (18) “And on this day the chief ladies of Persia and Media who have heard of the affair of the queen will speak in like fashion116 to all the king’s chief men, and to the extent that the king neglects changing this, so shall the women (continue to) disparage [16r] their husbands and the men (in turn) resent them.117 114 This rendering of éë as the head of a temporal protasis stands in contrast to the syntax of the Hebrew text, in which the second clause (äàá àìå ®®® úåæáäì) is subordinate (resultative) and the first, therefore, declarative (cf., e.g., the RSV: “For this deed of the queen will be made known to all women, causing them to look with contempt upon their husbands”). Cf., however, the similarly conditional renderings of this verse adopted by Saadia, Tafs¯ır: àñðìà òéîâ˙ éìà ä¨ ëìîìà øáë˙ ˙âøë˙ [bá10§ åàìá äàø] éã˙ à êìã˙ å ®®® ïäðåéò éô ïäìåòá ïéøæà; and, more recently, Levenson, Esther, p. 49: “When word of what the queen has done comes to all the women, this will make them regard their husbands with contempt.” 115 Lit. “in their (fem.) saying.” Like the Targumim (Tg. Esth. I: ïåäúåììîá [var. íåäúåììîá]; Tg. Esth. II: §øîà àúðéà ìë éåäéúå), as well as several modern commentators (cf., e.g., Hakham, “Esther,” p. 9; Fox, Esther, p. 274; Levenson, Esther, p. 49), Yefet takes . the subject of íøîàá to be the women alone (on the grammatical possibility of which cf. Gesenius & Kautzsch, Grammar, §135o). Cf., otherwise, Saadia, Tafs¯ır: åìà÷ éã˙ à, of which the subject may be either the men alone or men and women together (i.e., the people in general; cf. Paton, Esther, p. 159). 116 “in like fashion”—this brief addition proceeds from the assumption that a complement for äðøîàú is wanting, though whereas Yefet supplies an adverbial complement, apparently construing the verb as intransitive (cf. also his comment ad loc.), most commentators posit an objective complement; thus, e.g., Tg. Esth. I: àúðáø ïéøîà ïééåäú ïåäéøáåâì ãáòîì éàãîå éàñøôã; Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: ìåòô àåäå øåîà äéäé ®äæä íåéäå; idem, Comm B (per Ms. BN héb. 334, fol. 77v): íåéä äùòî íòèå ®øåîàä àåää íåéä ®äæä íåéäå; Rashi: øö÷ àø÷î äæ éøäå äæä øáãä úà êìîä éøù ìëì ®§åâå éãîå ñøô úåøù äðøîàú (among the moderns cf., inter alios, Fox, Esther, pp. 274–75; Gerleman, Esther, p. 68; Hirschler, Esther, p. 253; and Paton, Esther, p. 157; also Koehler & Baumgartner, Lexicon, p. 66a: “øîà never means to say without indicating what is stated”). For another understanding, however, cf. Saadia, Tafs¯ır: àñéåø òéîâ˙ì ®®® úàäàîå ñøàô úàñéåø ìåà÷úú ìâ˙àòìàá êìîìà (“the chief ladies of Persia and Media will immediately dispute with [cf. Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 421a, if not to be read ìåà÷ú with li- introducing the direct object, on which cf. Blau, Grammar, §269á] all the king’s chief men”); as well as his comment ad Gen. 4:8, in which he renders ìáä ìà ïé÷ øîàéå as ìáä ïé÷ ìåà÷ íú˙ (“Then Cain disputed with Abel”; Derenbourg, Pentateuque, p. 10): äéä äøéîà íúñ äúéä åìà éë ïë éúîâøú

íåéäå åì äîåãå áåúëì êéøö åðéà íéøáã úôìçäå äçéù ìáà ¬áåúë àì äæå ¬øîà äî ùøôì êéøö éãîå ñøô úåøù äðøîàú äæä (apud Qafih, . Esther, p. 303, n. ad 1:18; idem, Pentateuch, p. 17, n.

2).

117 “and to the extent ... resent them”—thus Yefet paraphrases the rather elliptical Hebrew phrase óö÷å ïåéæá éãëå, on which cf. also Esth. Rab. iv.8 and Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (cited on p. 187, n. 134 below). Otherwise, cf. Saadia, Tafs¯ır: àèë˙ ñå ààøæà êìã˙ á àôëå (“and in this is an ample amount of contempt and resentment”); and Ibn Jan¯ah, Us.¯ul,

184

translation

(19) “If, therefore, my advice is pleasing to the king, let him send forth118 a decree from his presence, and let it be written in the laws of Persia and Media—and let it not pass—that Vashti is not to come (again) before King Ahasuerus, and (that) the king shall give119 her royal position to a peer of hers who will be better than she, (20) “in order that120 the king’s decree121 which he shall enact be heard throughout all his kingdom—for it122 is great—[16v] and all the women will then honor their husbands, from the most distinguished of men to the most lowly of them.”

éã): =" v C .(H+B =  !M C; 9 f } H!€ +  =D) óö÷å ïåéæá éãëå

+  Q =D =AM  &T o éãëå (“Ûk˘eday bizz¯ayôn w¯aq¯as. ep means ‘and (there will be) an

col. 157 (s.v.

ample amount of ignominy and h. amya’—(this latter word being vocalized) with fath. a over the h. ¯a and suk¯un over the m¯ım [cf. Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 329b]—that is, ‘scorn.’ Moreover, the k¯ap in ûk˘eday is supplementary, the meaning being (simply), ‘and this is an ample amount of ignominy’”); as well as Tgs Esth. I: æéâøå ïéã êåç úñéîë àøáåñì ìéëé ïàîå; and II: éåìò æâøîì àúñéë éåäéúã úñîë. 118 “let him send forth”—so, perhaps, reading àö˙é (jussive; cf. also the LXX: προσταξ"τω βασιλικν). 119 “that Vashti ... give”—although Yefet’s rendering, like the Hebrew, may also be construed as including in the decree only the prohibition concerning Vashti’s admission to the king (cf. Gerleman, Esther, p. 68; Hakham, Esther, p. 10; Paton, Esther, p. 157, . and most others)—viz.: “that Vashti ...; and let the king give ...”—we have opted for the above insofar as 1) Yefet’s subordinate (final) rendering of v. 20 makes little sense following the reference to the transferral of Vashti’s position if such is construed only as a separate suggestion (cf. the following note), and 2) such is clearly implied in his commentary ad loc. (cf. p. 188, n. 136 below). This two-part view of the proposed decree is, furthermore, explicitly attested by Saadia (Tafs¯ır): àäëìî òôãé ïàå ®®® ìë˙ ãú àì ïàá (cf. also the JPSV [1917]: “that Vashti come no more ..., and that the king give ...”). 120 “in order that”—subordinate, apparently, to “let him send forth a decree from his presence, and let it be written in the laws of Persia and Media” (v. 19), both of which actions are requisite for ensuring national dissemination of and attention to the decree. 121 Ar. amr, which rendering of the Old Persian loanword íâúô emphasizes the specific contextual synonymity—as construed by Yefet—of this latter and the identically rendered BH lexeme øáã in v. 19. Saadia (Tafs¯ır), by contrast, although likewise adopting amr as an equivalent of both øáã ad loc. as well as íâúô in Eccl. 8:11, renders the latter herein by øáë˙ (“communiqué”). Concerning the equivalency of íâúô and øáã cf., otherwise, al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 490, ll. 39–40: øáã íåâøú åä íâúô (“Pitg¯am is the normative targumic equivalent of d¯ab¯ar [cf., e.g., Gen. 18:14]”), to which is added in one Ms. (ibid., apparatus ad loc., here cited in part): òö˙ åîìàá ÷éìé àî éìò øîà ááñ áàèë˙ ìå÷úô (“you may therefore explain (it) as ‘discourse’, ‘motive,’ or ‘decree,’ according to what fits the context”); Ibn Jan¯ah, Us.¯ul, col. 596: øáã íåâøú   íâúô, which definition is accompanied in one Ms. (ibid., n. 27) by the gloss $ ahD (“‘utterance’ and ‘saying’”); and Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: úéîøàáå úìä÷á ïëå øáã åîë ®íâúô. 122 I.e., the kingdom, most likely (cf. Yefet’s comm., ad loc., in which this explanation is the first of two). Note as well that the feminine gender of the Hebrew expression is appropriately retained insofar as mulk (“kingdom”) may take either gender (cf. Wright, Grammar, §292f ).

translation

185

(21) So the proposal was pleasing to the king and the rulers, and the king did according to the proposal of Memucan; (22) and he sent letters to all the king’s cities,123 to every city according to its script and to every people according to their language, that every man should be master in his own house, speaking according to the tongue of his people. (The mudawwin) indicates that when the anger seized (the king) he did not act rashly concerning (Vashti), but rather showed restraint [17r] so as not to undertake that which he would (later) disapprove. Since the most distinguished rulers were present, he then turned to them and asked them concerning that which it was requisite for him to do. The phrase who knew the times, (etc.) (thus refers to) people who understood the judicial process124 of the Persians, as well as their laws and statutes.125 On this rendering of mudun see Yefet’s commentary ad 1:1. “judicial process”—Ar. d¯ın, on our translation of which cf. Piamenta, Dictionary, I, p. 164a. In this instance the lexeme may otherwise signify “custom,” or, perhaps, “religion.” 125 Cf. Saadia’s comment ad ïéãå úã (per Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3866 [on our identification of which see p. 9, n. 50 above], fol. 3v): éòãé ì÷é íìå ïéãå úã éòãé äìå÷ éðòîå ¨ àö˙ ÷[ìà] íëç äá ãéøé ïéã äìå÷ ïà åä ®äãçå ïéã ãéøé úã äìå÷å ®óàöðàìàå ìãòìàá àä÷ôìàå ä ¨ ðñ äá (“As to the meaning of the áéø÷úìàå øéã÷úìàá àøîàìà äá íëçé àîå êåìîìà ä phrase y¯odê d¯at w¯adîn—it does not say simply y¯odê dîn—that is to say, by the expression dîn it means the rulings (h. ukm) of the judges and those well-versed in justice and equity, whereas by the expression d¯at it means the custom (sunna) of the kings (generally) as well as that which, by reasonable deduction, the governors would decide”). See also the rather lengthy comment of Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fol. 1r–v), who also cites an early rabbinic explanation and, in referring the reader elsewhere for his refutation of such, makes reference to what is apparently an Arabic version of his polemical work íùä úåîçìî øôñ (The Book of the Wars of the Lord) entitled Kit¯ab al-intis. ¯ar li-ll¯ahi (The Book of the Triumph of God): àîìòìà åøö˙ çà ä¨ ú˙ ãàç íäì úú˙ ãç àã˙ à ñøôìà êåìî íñø ïî ïàë ˙ îàå äìîúçà äìú˙ î éøâ˙ ã÷ éù ïàë ïàô íëçìà éô áâ˙àåìà ïò íäåìàñå äøéâ äìòô àî áñç éìò äàö ¨ ñàéñìà óèìá àîìòìà äåøáãéô ä¨ ú˙ ãàçìà êìú ìú˙ î ú˙ ãçé íì ïàë ïàå ®êåìîìà ïî íã÷ú ïîî ä ˙ òá åîòæ ã÷ìå éìò ìéìã §âå íéúòì äðéá éòãåé (!)øëùùé øëùùé éðáîå áàúëìà ìå÷é ïà (!)ïéðåáøìà õ 123 124

íäîìëðô øåáòìà íìò íéúòä éòãåé ïà åìå÷é ïà ïàìà §òä §ãåé §ëçì êìîä øîàéå §÷å øåáòìà ˙ ä úçøù ã÷å øë˙ à ä¨˙âå ïî (“It was a convention of the kings of äìì øàöúðàìà áàúë éô àã

Persia when a new event took place, that they would fetch the learned men and ask them about that which was proper (to do) according to the law. If, therefore, something similar had already taken place, (the king) sustained and endorsed (the matter) in accordance with what another one of the kings who preceded him had done; yet if something like this (new event) had not (previously) taken place, the learned men would address it with administrative grace. Some of the Rabbanites, however, have actually claimed that Scripture’s saying And of the sons of Issachar, men who knew the times, etc. [1Chr. 12:33] is evidence of intercalation, and (so regarding) the statement in question [lit. “now”], And the king said to the wise men who knew the times, they say that who knew the times (refers to) the science of intercalation [cf. Esth. Rab. iv.1 and Tg. Esth. I]. We will respond

186

translation

By the expression and those next unto him (the mudawwin) means those who were close in rank—(i.e.,) no one was closer than they to the king in his sitting-room. And by the expression who sat first in the kingdom (he) means that they were chiefs at the outset,126 for they strengthened his hand and supported him, and therefore he appointed them the most distinguished of his rulers—to which (group) one such as Haman could make no claim—, and this is the sense of the phrase who saw the king’s face.127 (The king then) said, What (shall we) do ... according to law, because they had generally recognized laws.128 (The mudawwin) then indicates that Memucan [17v] innovated129 the response, though he was the seventh; yet they did not dismiss (what he said)130 for one of two reasons: either each one of the seven would have to them, however, from another venue [perhaps a future, albeit non-extant, commentary on Chronicles], and I have already explained this in The Book of the Triumph of God [Kit¯ab al-intis. ¯ar li-ll¯ahi; see Davidson, Wars, pp. 51–77 (chaps. 4–8)]”). Cf. also Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: íéðåîã÷ä íéëìîä ìò åøáòù íéúòä åà úåìæîä úåîëç ®íéúòä éòãåé; idem, Comm. B (fol. 33v): éëìî ÷ç úã §òèå ®úåáéñä úåðúùä éôë úò ìëá úåùòì éåàøä òéãåäì íéöòåé §òèäå éðéã éìòá ïéãå ®íéîù úå÷ç úã §òèå ®úåìæîä éìòá íä íéúòä éòãåé ১éå ®äéìò ùé ïéã äîå ñøô ïéøæâ ìàéðã øôñá §éàø÷ðä íä ®úåìæîä. 126 Cf. also the two alternative explanations of this phrase, likewise based upon a temporal understanding of äðùàø, cited together with an abridged version of Yefet’s tarjama and comment ad loc., in Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1755 (an anonymous Karaite abridgement, on which see our Introduction, IV.1.4), fol. 62v: íäðà ìé÷ ®§àø íéáùåéä ˙ ìà éðòé ìåàìà éô åñìâ˙ ïéã˙ ìà ìé÷å ®íäìã˙ éì íäìàæàå êìî íäì ïàë ìé÷å ®êìî‘ ìà äì åáú( ø ïéã ˙ ìà (“Who sat first—It is said that íäëì( î ïî ìåà íäðà éðòé êìîìà éô àìåà íäáú( ø ïéã they supported a (rival) king, and (Ahasuerus) removed them (temporarily) in order to subdue them. It is also explained, ‘who sat at the beginning’—that is, who established the reign for him. It is also explained ‘whom he established first,’ meaning that they were the first of those to whom he gave dominion”). Saadia (Tafs¯ır), on the other hand, like Tg. Esth. I (àúåëìî éñøåëáã äàî÷ àâøãá ïéáúéã), attests a locative understanding of äðùàø: êìîìà ñìâ˙î éô àìååà ïéñìàâ˙ìà (“who sat foremost in the assembly of the king”). Likewise Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (per Ms. héb. 334 of the Bibliothèque nationale [Paris], fol. 77r): åúëøòîá åîò ãçà ïéàå ãáì áùåé êìîä úåéäì ñøô éëìî âäðî éë áåø÷ä íòèå

úåëìîá íòè äðäå ®ùù úåëøòî íäéøçàå íéãáëðä íéøùä åéìà äáåø÷ä äðåùàøä úëøòîáå ïåëð ïéàå ùåøåùçà êìî éðôì åéä íéëìîä éøù éë ১éå ®úåëìîä úëøòîá (cf. also Hirschler,

Esther, p. 252). 127 I.e., the phrase who saw the king’s face emphasizes that these seven rulers—because of their unique, initial support of the king—were of a rank which no one else, including Haman, could attain (cf. Yefet’s comment ad 3:1). 128 I.e., there were laws, according to Yefet, which even the king was bound to follow. 129 Or, “commenced with” (ibtada"a bi-), though the above translation (on which see Lane, Lexicon, p. 163b) seems preferable in view of the second possible reason (for their not dismissing Memucan’s advice) given by Yefet in following. 130 “Yet ... (what he said)”—i.e., they did not dismiss his advice though he was the most junior (and thus the last in enumeration) of the seven (cf. Tg. Esth. II, Esth. Rab. iv.6).

translation

187

had a turn during which the king would solicit his advice, and it was agreed that this time131 was the turn of Memucan; or perhaps each one did in fact utter his opinion and none but the utterance of Memucan was pleasing to them, and therefore the mudawwin mentioned him to the exclusion of the others. The statement Not only to the king hath (Queen Vashti) done wrong highlights the magnitude of her offense, and that it was a wrong against both the distinguished and the common alike, as per the statement, but also to all the princes and to all the peoples. He also indicates that if the report of her should come out to the general populace—(viz.,) that she disobeyed the king and the king did nothing to her, and that he in fact indulged her in this—every wife would disparage her husband, disobeying him and accepting neither his command nor his prohibition,132 [18r] and she would remonstrate against him, saying to him, “Are you better than the king? See now, he commanded Vashti to come to him, yet she did not obey!”133 He then says, And this day (the princesses ...) will say—that is to say, “from this day our wives will begin speaking to us in accordance with this utterance (of Vashti), for they are in attendance and have heard her response.” Then he says, And (there will arise) plenty of contempt and wrath, thus describing what would result from such if the king refrained from changing it, for the women would disparage their husbands and their husbands would (in turn) resent them,134 and in this, accordingly, would be ruin135 and loss. After having described the ruin to which the matter would lead if (the king) refrained from (addressing) it, (Memucan) then offers his own advice, saying, as it were, “Let the king decree that Vashti be prohibited Ar. daf #a, on this meaning of which see Hava, Dictionary, p. 210a. “neither his command nor his prohibition” (amrahu wa-nahyahu)—i.e., his absolute authority (cf. Wehr, Dictionary, p. 1179a), comprising both that which he orders her to do (amruhu) as well as that which he orders her to refrain from doing (nahyuhu; cf. Lane, Lexicon, p. 96c). 133 Cf., similarly, Tg. Esth II ad v. 17: ïî [?àáè] úà àîìéã äìòáì §øîà àúðéà ìë éåäéúå éúéîì úáö àìå éåîã÷ éúéú àúëìî éúùå §îàã ùåøåùçà àëìî. 134 “for the women ... resent them”—thus, as in his tarjama, Yefet explicates the rather elliptical phrase óö÷å ïåéæá éãëå, indicating that the bizz¯ayôn (“contempt”), expressed by the wives towards their husbands, would lead to the qes. ep (“wrath”), expressed by the husbands towards their wives. Cf., similarly, Esth. Rab. iv.8: äôéö÷ì äæä ïåéæáä éãë øîà áø úàæä; and Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fols 33v–34r): ïäéìòá úà äðéæáú íéùðäù ®óö÷å ïåéæá éãëå §òèå äëë ìò åôö÷é íäå. 135 Or, perhaps (both here and in following), “dissension” (fas¯ad; cf. Hava, Dictionary, p. 562a). 131 132

188

translation

completely from entering unto the king, and that her royal position be given [18v] to another who will not disobey the king’s command, and let such be written136 in the annals of Persia in order that it be remembered137 throughout the course of the coming generations, and no wife ever act towards her husband according to what Vashti did.” The saying and let it not pass means “and let no one violate the decree of the ruler”; or perhaps he meant by it, “let this matter138 not pass away, nor any variation set in concerning (the truth of) it.”139 As to the expression for it is great—either he meant by it the grandeur and large extent of the kingdom, or else he meant by it that the matter would be of great importance once it was settled.140 (The mudawwin then) indicates that the king and the rulers approved of his advice and acted upon it. Thus (the king) sent letters to all141 of 136 “and may such be written”—wa-an yuktaba, on this rendering of which (as introducing a main clause) cf. Blau, Grammar, §344à; idem, Development, p. 86. Whereas this clause calling for the recording of the decree is, in the Hebrew text, placed prior to the suggestion to prohibit Vashti’s admission to the king, Yefet’s present placement of such after the suggestion to transfer her royal position may well be intended to emphasize that this latter is, as opposed to being only a separate suggestion, also part of the decree (cf. p. 184, n. 119 above). 137 Or, “spoken of ” (madhk¯ur). 138 Ar. b¯ab, on this meaning of which cf. Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 124b, and Steingass, Dictionary, p. 135. 139 Concerning this latter view, which is the one adopted by Yefet in his tarjama—as by most scholars—, cf. also Tg. Esth. I: àúøéæâ àãä ìèáúé àìå; Tg. Esth. II: ìéèáé àìå; and Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (per Ms. héb. 334 of the Bibliothèque nationale [Paris], fol. 77v): íà åøéáòäì êìîá úìåëé ïéàå ®÷åçä äæ øåñé àìå øåáòé àì êøáã ®áåè êìîä ìò. For the former view, moreover, Yefet may well be drawing upon Saadia (Tafs¯ır), who supplies a doubletranslation of øåáòé àìå which incorporates both views—viz.: æåàâ˙úé àìå ìåæé àì éã˙ ìà (“that [cf. Blau, Grammar, §347ä] it neither pass away nor be violated” [on this latter sense of øåáòé cf. also Berlin, Esther, p. 18]). 140 Cf., in a somewhat similar vein, the alternative views represented by Rav and Samuel in Esth. Rab. iv.10: .àãäì àúáø äúåëìî àãä øîà ãç ®ìàåîùå áø ®àéä äáø éë àúåëìî àãäì àúáø àúéèç àãä øîà ãçå àúéèç. In keeping with the gender of the expression, however, most scholars—as, apparently, Yefet in his tarjama (cf. p. 184, n. 122 above)—have taken the former view, on which cf. also Ibn Ezra, Comm. B: äáø éë àåä óøåò äù÷ íò éë ®êì éúàèç éë éùôð äàôø §îë äáø àéäù ô§§òà ®àéä (on this concessive understanding of éë cf. also Berlin, Esther, p. 19; Levenson, Esther, p. 49; and Paton, Esther, p. 160; contra Fox, Esther, p. 275). The latter view, by contrast, is attested in Tg. Esth. I: àéä àáø àúøéæâ íåøà; and, perhaps, by Saadia, Tafs¯ır: øîàìà ä¨ îéö˙ à àäðà (“for it is a serious matter”). Cf. also Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1755 (a Karaite abridgement [see our introduction, sec. IV.1.4]), fol. 63r: àã( ˙â ä¨ îéè˙ ò ä¨ ö÷ìà äã˙ ä ìé÷ ä¨ îéè˙ ò ä¨ ö( ÷ìà ®äáø éë ¨ îéè˙ ò ä¨ ëìîî éä ä¨ øéáë ä¨ áéàð åà (“For (it) is great—i.e., the matter was great, (for) it is said ä that this matter was extremely important; or else (the reference is to) great calamity, since it was a vast kingdom”). 141 On this meaning of s¯a"ir cf. Blau, Grammar, pp. 159, n. 23, and 321, ad loc.

translation

189

his provinces, having written within them what Vashti did and what had been determined by him against her, and commanding the people that every [19r] man should both command and prohibit142 his wife, and she must not disobey him. As to the expression and speak according to the tongue of his people—it is said that with each letter was (sent) a messenger who knew the language of the people of that land in order to read them the letter and relate to them the matter just as it had happened.143 It is also said that (the king) intended thereby that each man should command his wife in accordance with his creed and custom.144 (ii 1–4) (ii 1) After these things, when the anger of King Ahasuerus had subsided, he remembered Vashti, and what she had done, and what had been decreed against her. (2) [19v] (Then) the king’s young men—his servants145—said, “Let the king command that there be sought out146 for him eligible147 young women who are beautiful of appearance. (3) “And let the king appoint commissioners in all the cities148 of his kingdom, that they may gather every eligible young woman who is beautiful of appearance unto 142 “both command and prohibit”—i.e., exercise complete authority over (cf. p. 187, n. 132 above). 143 So Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 34r), as the first of two alternatives: .åîò ïåùìë øáãîå ìëä åðéáéù éãë íòå íò ïåùìë øáãîå àöåé æåøëä äéä, which comment may well derive, if not from Yefet, then perhaps from his exegetical predecessor Joseph Kara (Esther, p. 6): íù çåìù àåäù íò ïåùìë øáãî íéøôñä úà êéìåîä çéìùä ¬åîò ïåùìë øáãîå. 144 Cf., in a similar vein, the paraphrase of åîò ïåùìë øáãîå adopted by Saadia (Tafs¯ır): ˙ î éìò àøéàñå (“and walking according to the ideology of his people”), from äîå÷ áäã which, along with its attendant—albeit non-extant—commentary, Yefet may here be drawing. 145 “the king’s young men—his servants”—thus Yefet appears to have taken the participle åéúøùî as an appositional substantive, and not, as explicitly so Saadia (Tafs¯ır: éã˙ ìà ˙ é [“who served him”; idem ad 6:3]), a relative attributive (cf. also the RSV: “who äðåîãë attended him”; and the JPSV [1917]: “that ministered unto him”; on the less likely possibility of taking Yefet this way cf. Blau, Grammar, §356). Tg. Esth. II, on the other hand, appears to distinguish åéúøùî from the “young men,” rendering syndetically éåðåèìùå; the w¯aw, however, may be epexegetical. 146 “that there be sought out”—lit. “that they seek out” (an yatlub¯u). . 147 I.e., pubescent/post-pubescent, yet unmarried (cf. Lane, p. 1948a, s.v. H' U), and therefore implicitly virginal. 148 On this rendering of mudun see Yefet’s commentary ad 1:1.

190

translation

Susa the fortress, to the harem,149 into the charge of Hegai the king’s eunuch, the keeper of the women; and let him grant150 their ointments.151 (4) “And let the young woman [21r] who is pleasing to the king be queen in place of Vashti.” And the suggestion was pleasing to the king, and he did accordingly. By the statement he remembered Vashti, (the mudawwin) means that he remembered her intellect and her beauty,152 as well as his love for her.153 And by the statement and what she had done, he means her disobedience towards the king, such that he became furious with her. As to the statement and what had been decreed against her—this is to say, that she was prohibited from showing to the king any part of (herself) which she did not produce for him at the time that he requested her, and that she became154 a prisoner, it being imposed upon her (henceforth) neither to command nor prohibit.155 His spirit thus moved him to (consider) another (queen), and when his young men156 perceived this they offered advice about it and stated their view, and he accepted their advice 149 Lit. (both here and throughout), as in the Hebrew, “the house of the women” (d¯ar al-nis¯a"). 150 “and let him grant”—lit. “and the granting (of)” (wa-i #t¯a"), representing a slavish . rendering of the Heb. inf. abs. ïåúðå, here intended to continue the grammatical signification of the preceding jussive ã÷ôéå (Joüon & Muraoka, Grammar, §123x; Waltke & O’Connor, Syntax, §35.5.2b). Cf., by contrast, the more idiomatic rendering of Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ïäøåîâ ïéèòéå (“and let them be granted their cosmetics”). 151 Ar. ghumarihinna (for ghamarihinna[!] or ghamrihinna[!] in Ms. A [see the text, p. 15* n. ad l. 11]), which lexical equivalency of (íä)é÷åøîú is likewise attested by Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ïäøåîâ (which form, although a possible, albeit unlikely pl. of &›‘W [see Wright, Grammar, I, §304.VI.3], should probably be taken as an erroneous scribal “correction” of original ïäøîâ, which reading is supported by Saadia’s use of ghumar both to explain ïäé÷åøîú in his Egrôn, p. 313 [s.v. III ÷øî], as well as in his rendering, ad 2:12, of ïäé÷åøî and é÷åøîúáå, on this latter of which cf. also Saadia’s comm. ad Prov. 20:30 [cited by Allony, ¨ øî①àîñé‘ êìã˙ ïîå éîé ®íéùðä é÷åøîúáå àñðìà ä ibid.]); al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 233, ll. 89–90: √ ïäé÷åøî (“From the same (root [i.e., ÷øî]) are designated the cosmetics of women (in the phrases) íéùðä é÷åøîúáå [Esth. 2:12] and ïäé÷åøî éîé [ibid.]”); and Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 393: 9  ' JB H(6M H! 5 q = ïäé÷åøî éîé ®íéùðä é÷åøîúáå ®ïäé÷åøîú ïåúðå (“(ä/íä)é÷åøîú [Esth. 2:3, 12] and (ïä)é÷åøî [2:12] signify clarifying, cleansing cosmetics for the skin of women”). 152 Similary Rashi: áöòðå äéôé úà ®éúùå úà øëæ; and, albeit tentatively, Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: øùà úàå 姧éå ïë ìò äéôé úà øëæù ïëúéå äôá ®éúùå úà øëæ. Cf. also Hirschler, Esther, p. 256; Hoschander, Esther, p. 71; and Paton, Esther, p. 164. 153 “as well … her”—Mss L and P: “as well as her love for him and his love for her” (see the text, p. 15*, n. ad l. 15). 154 On this sense of baqiyat see Blau, Grammar, §289, and Wehr, Dictionary, p. 84b. 155 “neither to command nor prohibit”—see p. 187, n. 132 above. 156 “his young men” (ghilm¯anuhu)—i.e., his servants (see the tarjama ad v. 2).

translation

191

since his spirit was already inclined towards such. In this, however, were certain types of ruination—namely, that he was causing a (permanent) separation between a man and his child,157 and placed great pressure upon the entire generation of the people (when his officials) took their daughters.158 The same great tragedy also befell Israel, for just as (the king’s officials) attained Esther, so too did they attain other (Jewish maidens). (ii 5–20) (5) There was a Judaean man in Susa the fortress and his name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite,159 (6) who had been exiled from Jerusalem among the rest160 of the captives that had been exiled with Jeconiah king of Judah, [R2 6r] which161 Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had exiled. (7) And he was a foster-parent raising162 Hadassah—that is, Esther—the daughter of his paternal uncle, since she had neither father nor mother; and the young woman was graceful (in her) outer qualities163 and beautiful of appearance, and when her father and her mother died, Mordecai took her to himself for a daughter.164 157

So, because she would thereafter be part of the king’s harem. “and placed ... daughters”—i.e., the number of eligible maidens was significantly reduced for that generation of men. 159 “a Benjamite”—lit. “a Benjamite man” (rajul biny¯am¯ın¯ı), rendering the abbreviated gentilic éðéîé ùéà, on which cf. otherwise Saadia, Tafs¯ır: éðéîé éðá ïî ìâ˙ø (“a man of the Benjamites”); as well as Tg. Esth. I (ïîéðáã àèáùéîã àøáâ) and Tg. Esth. II (ïîéðáã àèáù ïî). 160 “among the rest”—Ar. f¯ı jumla, on this meaning of which see Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 219a. 161 Ar. allat¯ı, which, being feminine, must refer to “the captives” (al-j¯aliya)—or else, albeit less likely, to either Judah or Jerusalem (on this latter cf. the abbreviated rendering of the LXX: #ς $ν αχμ"λωτος ξ Ιερουσαλημ, 'ν ()χμαλτευσεν Ναβουχοδονοσορ)— which view is likewise attested by Saadia (Tafs¯ır): [aà361§ åàìá äàø] éã˙ ìà ä¨ åìâ˙ìà òî ˙ á àäàìâ˙à éã˙ ìà ¬äãåäé êìî äéðëé òî ¬úàìâ˙à. The vast majority of exegetes and øöð úë translators, however, take “Jeconiah king of Judah” to be the referent of following øùà—as also, apparently, Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fol. 2v), although the possibility remains that he, like Saadia (who offers clarification with the feminine suffix in àäàìâ˙à), employed here an invariable masc. form of the relative pronoun: ä¨ éìàâ˙ìà òî ˙ ìà äãåäé êìî äéðëé òî úéìâ˙à [362§ åàìá äàø] éìà. §ãëåáð àìâ˙à éã 162 “a foster-parent raising”—Ar. h¯adin yurabb¯ı, by which Yefet expands slightly on . . Heb. ïîà, otherwise rendered simply àð/ïö˙ àç (“rearing”) by Saadia (Tafs¯ır), Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fol. 6r), and al-F¯as¯ı (J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 722, l. 33). 163 “outer qualities”—on this meaning of hilya see Hava, Dictionary, p. 140b. . 164 “for a daughter”—lit., “in the place of a daughter” (maq¯am al-bint). 158

192

translation

(8) [R3 7v] Thus, when the command of the king and his ordinance was heard, and when many young women were gathered unto Susa the fortress into the charge of Hegai, Esther also was taken165 to the king’s residence,166 into the charge of Hegai, the keeper of the women. (9) And the young woman was pleasing to him and obtained167 grace before him; and so he hastened to give her her ointments168 and her portions, as well as the seven maidservants who were regarded169 (by Esther) to be given her170 from the king’s residence, and he transferred her and he transferred her maidservants to a choice place in the harem.171 165 “also was taken”—so for ç÷ìúå (here in the tarjama!), which word, identical to that in the Hebrew text, would seem to be, if not an early lapsus calami or semantic “Hebraization” of the Arabic morphological cognate—although this latter possibility is unlikely considering Yefet’s usual practice of rendering waw-consecutives by Arabic perfects (cf. the variant úã˙ ë˙ àå)—, a rare instance in which the Hebrew verb is carried over, untranslated, into the tarjama. 166 “the king’s residence” (d¯ar al-malik)—so, rather than “palace” (as also, both here and throughout Yefet’s tarjama, for bayt al-malik), insofar as the the king’s residence (Heb. êìîä úéá [2:8, 13; 4:13; 5:1 (bis); 6:4]) is implicitly presented in 5:1 as being separate from, rather than a part of, the royal house (Heb. úåëìîä úéá [1:9; 5:1], rendered slavishly by Yefet as bayt al-mulk, and in our translation of the tarjama as “royal house”). Both structures, therefore, would have been component parts of the palatial compound. 167 “and obtained”—lit., as in the Hebrew, “bore” (wa-hamalat). . 168 Cf. p. 190, n. 151 above. 169 “who were regarded (by Esther)”—Ar. al-manz¯ur¯at, representing a rather slavish . rendering of Heb. úåéàøä. Our translation follows Yefet’s commentary ad loc., wherein he explains the term as “(the) choice ones” (mukht¯ar¯at), who were requested by Esther (cf. also Pan. Ah. . B, p. 64: äöåø äúéäù åîë ¬úåøòð (!)§å úçàå úçà ìëì øñîð äéäå ®®® ÷çöé ø§§à àéä; as well as, e.g., among the moderns, Koehler & Baumgartner, Lexicon, p. 1159a [12]; Bush, Esther, p. 357; Clines, Esther, p. 288; Gerleman, Esther, p. 71; Levenson, Esther, p. 59; Paton, Esther, p. 175; and Würthwein, “Esther,” p. 180). Otherwise, in the sense of “fitting” or “obligatory,” cf. Tg. Esth. II: ïééæçã; Saadia, Tafs¯ır: úàáâ˙àåìà; Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fol. 5r): idem, to which he adds in his commentary (ibid.): ¨ âì ïî úàáâ˙àåìà úåéåàøä úøñôå (“I have interpreted h¯ar˘e"¯uyôt as ‘the áâ˙àå éåàø ïéðàáøìà ä fitting ones’ per the idiom of the rabbis, (wherein) r¯a"ûy means ‘fitting’”); Ibn Jan¯ah, . "Us. ¯ul (col. 655): åàìá äàø] 9 M> gU  ` äì úúì úåéåàøä $ %;  U C   e! ` êëìå êëì àåä éåàø  $   [362§ (“Also among (the meanings of this root) is that which (has to do with) ‘obligation’ and ‘desert,’ as in ‘h¯ar˘e"ûyôt to give her’—i.e., the giving of them to her was obligatory—of (the same sense as in) their saying, ‘He is r¯a"ûy—i.e., deserving—of such and such’”); Rashi: ïéùåò ïëå ®äúøùì ®äì úúì úåéåàøä åùøãù äî åùøã åðéúåáøå ®ïìåëì; and Hirschler, Esther, p. 260. 170 “to be given her”—lit., as in the Hebrew, “to give her” (li-" #t¯a"ih¯a), concerning . which cf. also Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fol. 5r): àäì éèòéì; and Ibn Jan¯ah, . "Us. ¯ul (col. 655):  9 M> (for the full citation see the preceding note). As in our translation of Yefet, however, Saadia (Tafs¯ır) renders passively: àèòú ïà. 171 “to a choice place in the women’s residence”—so, clarifying the elliptical phrase ˙ éìà (“to a choice íéùðä úéá áåèì, on which cf. also Saadia, Tafs¯ır: íøçìà øàã úéá øéë apartment of the women’s residence”); and, on the addition of “in,” the LXX: ν τ,.

translation

193

(10) [A 23r] Esther had not disclosed her people or her kindred,172 for Mordecai had charged her not to disclose these.173 (11) And every day Mordecai walked before the courtyard of the harem, to know Esther’s welfare and what was being done174 with her. (12) [23v] Now when the turn of each maiden came to go in to King Ahasuerus, at the end of it having been (done) to her for twelve months according to the regulation of the women—for so were accomplished and completed the days of their anointing,175 six months with musk176 oil and six months with perfumes and the ointments of women— γυναικ.νι; Tg. Esth. I: àééùð úéáá; íøçìà; and Ibn Ezra, Comm. B [9 à §ñôì åøåàéá äàø] éúøàéá.

Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fol. 5r): øö÷ éô (fol. 34v): øùàë ú§§éá øñç àåäå íéùðä úéáá äãîòù ïîæ ìë

172 “her kindred”—Ar. wa-#ash¯ıratih¯a, on which rendering of BH äúãìåî cf. also Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 34v): äçôùîä åà èáùä äæ ®äúãìåîå; as well as, e.g., Berlin, Esther, p. 27; Gerleman, Esther, p. 71; Hakham, “Esther,” p. 16; Koehler & Baumgartner, Lexicon, . p. 556b; and Levenson, Esther, p. 59. Both Saadia (Tafs¯ır) and Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.Arab. II 3295, fol. 3v), however, render the term by its morpho-semantic cognate ãìåî (“birthplace, homeland,” or, albeit less likely here, “nativity” [see Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 840b]), on which cf. also the LXX: τ/ν πατρ δα; and Tg. Esth. I: àäúåãìå úéá. 173 On this addition of the object to ãéâú àì øùà cf. also Saadia, Tafs¯ır: øáë ˙ ú àì ïàá ˙ á àãçà (“that she should not disclose such to anyone”); as well as, e.g., Gerleman, êìã p. 71: “es nicht anzugeben”; Würthwein, “Esther,” p. 180: “es nicht zu tun”; the JPSV (1917): “that she should not tell it”; and the RSV: “not to make it known.” 174 “and what was being done”—or, perhaps, “and what would be done.” 175 “of their anointing” (ghamrihinna)—so Ms. A; or, perhaps better vis-à-vis the Hebrew, “of their ointments” (reading ghumarihinna, on which possibility see p. 190, n. 151 above). 176 Ar. misk, which equivalent of Heb. øåî is likewise adopted by Saadia (Tafs¯ır, ad loc., and Egrôn, p. 288), Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fol. 6v), and al-F¯as¯ı (J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 194, l. 40), yet dismissed by Ibn Jan¯ah. ("Us. ¯ul, col. 655), who offers three other, alternative explanations, including that of Hai Gaon: F$ 07M F!" (" øåîä ïîùá ®øåøã øî F(+ " F$ (  : F+ D ' 0 F+ 1!$ :=K!" E I+ X! 7M (B Q 1MI _ éøåî éúéøà ééàä [åðé]áø  $ .7M !W F+  $  [ 1MI éì éãåã øåîä øåøö d C $ X! ïîù ]

éøåî éúéøà

d C $ ! Q e"  $ 0H%Y  g(!I ˜{    I  =I F+ úáù N!E 

(“(The term) m¯or/môr [Exod. 30:23; Esth. 2:12] has been interpreted as ‘musk’ (misk), yet the statement I have gathered my môr [Song 5:1] discounts this, for musk is not a plant and so ‘gathered’ [albeit see Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 592a]. It is also said that it is eglantine [or ‘muscat’; cf. Dozy, ibid, II, p. 667a], and perhaps this is what it is; yet the statement and my hands dripped (with) môr [Song 5:5] refers to oil (of myrrh) [so Ibn Tibb¯on, Roots, p. 257: øåîä ïîù], though the Scripture’s statement my beloved is unto me as a bag of môr [Song 1:13] does not discount the opinion of him who says that it is something other than musk. Also, Rabbenu Hai, in his commentary on (the tractate) Shabbat, says that it is storax [cf. Dozy, ibid, II, p. 514b], which is a sweet-scented resin, and perhaps this interpretation befits Scripture’s statement, I have gathered my môr”). Cf. also Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fols 34v–35r): éë ïåëð åððéàå ÷ùåî åá ùéù §òèä éë ১éå ®ïîù åì ïéà éë ÷ùåî åððéà ®øåîä ïîùá øî éôèð éãéå §îà §åúëä; as well as the traditions represented in Tg. Esth. I and b. Meg. 13a.

194

translation

(13) then the maiden would go in to the king in this manner:177 all that she requested would be given to her to enter with from the harem into the king’s residence. (14) [24r] In the evening-time she would go in and in the morning178 she would return to the second harem, into the charge of Shaashgaz the king’s eunuch, the keeper of the concubines, after which she would not (again) go in to the king, unless the king desired her and she were summoned by her name. (15) [24v] When the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the paternal uncle of Mordecai, who had taken her to himself for a daughter, came to go in to the king, she requested nothing except what Hegai the king’s eunuch, the keeper of the women, advised; and Esther obtained179 favor on the part of all who saw her.

177 So per Yefet’s commentary ad loc., wherein the referent of äæáå is taken to be the second half of the verse, rather than any part of the previous verse (see below), and thus this entire verse as an apodosis to the obvious protasis opened by òéâäáå in the former. Cf., likewise, Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ìë˙ ãú ä¨ éøàâ˙ìà [cà27§ åàìá äàø] ä¨ ðàë ¬íñøìà éã˙ äáå ®®® ãéøú àî ìë àèòú ïà ¬êìîìà éìà (“then by this regulation the young woman would go in to the king—to wit, she would be given all that she desired …”); Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: äùåçë äéäúå äáùçî éãéì àáú àìù øåáòá äæå äöøúù äî ù÷áì úåùø äì ùé éë äæ øáãá ®äæáå; idem, Comm. B (fol. 35r): úøãä úéçùî äâàãä éë âàãú àìù §òèäå ®øáãä äæáå ®§øòðä äæáå íéðô; Tg. Esth. I (in which the protasis is restated and 13b is construed as asyndetically consecutive, if not as a second apodosis—although an understanding similar to that of Salmon [see below] cannot be ruled out): àúù éçøé øùò éøú ïéîìù éã øúá ïîæ ïéãäáå äì áäéúé ãé ïî øîéîì àéáö éã ïëøñå áø ìë úé àëìî úååì àìééò àúîéìåò; and Tg. Esth. II: äéì áéäééúî äåä äøîà úåäã äî ìëå §ùçà §ëìî íã÷ äìò àúéáø ïéãëå; as well as, e.g., Bush, p. 357; Hirschler, Esther, p. 262; and Hakham, Esther, p. 16. Salmon (Ms. RNL . Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fol. 6v), on the other hand, appears to construe 13a consecutively as the last part of the parenthetical comment begun in 12aβ (§åâå ïë éë), with 13b (here opened with -ô) constituting the apodosis of 12aα (opened with ãðòå; cf. Blau, Grammar, §306ã)—thus: ᧧é àäì ïåë àö˙ ÷ðà ïî ùåøåùçà êìîìà éìà ìåë˙ ãì ä¨ éøàâ˙å ä¨ éøàâ˙ ä¨ áåð âåìá ãðòå ˙ ñîìà ïäãá øåäù úñ ïäúøîâ íàéà åìîëé êàã˙ ë ïà éñðìà ä¨ ðñë øäù øîâå áàéèàìàá øåäù úñå ê ˙ ãú àäøîâ íàúà úâìá àã˙ à ä¨ éøàâ˙ìà íñøìà àã˙ ä òîå ºéñðìà àèòåé ìå÷ú àî ìëô êìîìà éìà ìë ®®® àäì (“And when the turn arrived for each young woman to go in to King Ahasuerus at the end of it having been (done) to her for 12 months according to the regulation of the women—for so were completed the days of their ointments, six months with musk oil and six months with perfumes and the ointments of women, according to which process the young woman, when she came to the end of her (period of) anointing, would go in to the king—she would then be given all that she requested …”); on which cf. also Würthwein, p. 180, and the Pesh. (in which, however, it is not clear that 13b is

         construed as an apodosis):   ...             ! . Otherwise, for the view that äæáå resumes the temporal protasis opened by òéâäáå in 12a, with 13b supplying the apodosis, see, e.g., Gerleman, Esther, p. 71; Moore, Esther, p. 16; Paton, Esther, pp. 179–81; the JPSV (1917); and the RSV. 178 “and in the morning”—or, “and at dawn” (wa-f¯ı "l-subh). . . 179 See p. 192, n. 167 above.

translation

195

(16) Thus Esther was taken to King Ahasuerus into his royal residence in the tenth month, which is the month of Tebeth, in the seventh year of his reign. (17) [25r] And the king loved Esther more than all the women, and she obtained favor and grace on his part more than all the virgins; and he set the royal crown on her head and made her queen in the place of Vashti. (18) Then the king prepared a great feast dedicated to180 Esther for all his rulers181 and servants; and he enacted a repose182 for the cities,183 and gave out gifts and presents184 according to the bounty185 of the king. (19) And at the time of the virgins’ gathering (for) a second (queen),186 Mordecai was sitting at the gate [25v] of the king. (20) Esther had not (yet) disclosed her kindred187 or her people, as Mordecai had charged her; and Esther performed the word of Mordecai, just as she did during the time he was raising her.188 (The mudawwin) mentions Mordecai and Esther, which two constitute the focal point as regards Israel, in accordance with what was previously said, and therefore he refrains from mentioning any others 180 “dedicated to”—Ar. bi-rasmi, by which Yefet explicates the genitive nuance in the construct chain øúñà äúùî—of which the nomen regens, mentioned already in 18aα, is omitted from his translation—as being that of advantage (cf. Waltke & O’Connor, Syntax, §9.5.2e). Cf. also the Pesh. (albeit taking øúñà äúùî as a second object): "#   $  %. 181 Ar. quww¯ad, on which see p. 171, n. 54 above. 182 I.e., a repose from the poll-tax (or land-tax; or both), as explained by Yefet in his commentary ad loc. 183 On this rendering of mudun see Yefet’s commentary ad 1:1. 184 “gifts and presents”—a doublet representing Heb. úàùî, on which cf. also Tg. Esth. I: ÷ìåçå ïðúî äì áäéå, along with the comment, ad loc., of Grossfeld, Two Targums, p. 48, n. 48. Of the two terms employed by Yefet, the former (jaw¯a"iz) is adopted by Saadia (Tafs¯ır) and Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 10r). 185 Or, perhaps, “ability” (maqdara), on which cf. p. 174, n. 63 above. 186 “(for) a second (queen)”—so per Yefet’s commentary ad loc., according to which this verse is to be construed retrospectively (i.e., as a narrative “flashback”) in connection with the previous gathering of virgins from which Esther was selected to be queen (see our discussion on pp. 33–34 above). 187 See p. 193, n. 172 above. 188 “he was raising her”—lit., “of his raising her” (tarb¯ıtihi iyy¯ah¯a), suggesting, perhaps, the Hebrew reading dú&à äð˙"îà"á—if not dð"îà"á (cf. Origen: εν τω τιηνεισαι αυτην) alone, åúà having been omitted, perhaps by error, from the translation. Cf., otherwise, the paraphrase of 20bβ offered by Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 56: F+ R =" Œ+ D 8  %D (“commensurate with her demeanor when she was in his rearing”); and Qimhi, . Lexicon, pp. 20b–21a: éåðë äððéà ১ääå ¬íù åà øå÷î àåä ®åúà äðîàá.

196

translation

among the daughters of Israel. He indicates that (Mordecai) was living at that time in Susa the fortress, though he was not born therein,189 as were born others among the people of the exile. He also indicates that his stock was from Jerusalem, and that he [26r] had been exiled among the rest190 of the exile of Jehoiachin, which represented the most distinguished of the exiles—they who are called good figs (Jer. 24:2ff.).191 At this time, however, he was an old man, for he had been exiled at a time elapsed seven years from (the beginning of) the reign of Babylon, then continuing on sixty-three years for (the rest of) the reign of Babylon, and then, for the reign of the Magians, a year for Darius, three years for Cyrus, and seven years for the reign of Ahasuerus,192 the total of which is seventy-four years—though we do not know how old Mordecai was at the time of his exile.193 (The mudawwin) indicates as well that 189 So, taking the referent of øùà at the head of v. 6 to be Mordecai, as opposed to Kish, on which (former view) see also Tg. Esth. I and II; b. Meg. 13a; Pan. Ah. . B, p. 63; Leq. Tob, p. 94; Ag. Esth., p. 20; Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fol. 2v): øùà . ˙ àìà éô ìå÷éå éãåäé ùéà ìà÷ àî ãòá äìâä ïéîéðá ïàì íéìùåøé éáùåé ïî ïàë äðà §÷ éðéîé ùéà øë ¨ ìçð [ë8§ åàìá äàø] åäì ïàë (“Who had been carried away is (to §âå óìàä òìöå §÷ë §ùåøé éô ä be construed) after the expression a Judaean man, at the end (of which verse Scripture) says a Benjamite—which is to say that he was from among the inhabitants of Jerusalem [cf. 2 Chron. 22:1; Jer. 8:1; etc.], for Benjamin had a portion in Jerusalem, as per the saying, and Zelah, Ha-eleph, (and the Jebusite—that is, Jerusalem) [Josh. 18:28]”); Rashi (ad v. 5): ùéà äãåäé úåìâ íò äìâù ìò ®éãåäé; and Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (cited on p. 197, n. 193 below); as well as, e.g., among the modern commentators, Berlin, Esther, p. 25; Hirschler, Esther, p. 258 (wherein Ibn Ezra is wrongly ascribed the latter view); Meinhold, Esther, p. 33; Moore, Esther, p. 20; and Paton, Esther, pp. 168–69. For the latter view—i.e., that Kish (or, perhaps, the geneology itself) is the referent—cf., e.g., Bush, Esther, p. 363; Clines, Esther, p. 287 (tentatively); Gerleman, Esther, p. 77; and Hakham, “Esther,” p. 14. . 190 “among the rest”—Ar. f¯ı jumla (likewise in Yefet’s tarjama ad 2:6), on this meaning of which see Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 219a. 191 Likewise Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fol. 6r): ìãéì äìåâä íò §å÷ àîàå úåáåèä íéðàúä ïî äðà (“As to the statement with the captives—(this is) to indicate that (Mordecai) was one of the good figs”). Cf. b. #Erub. 21b: ,íéøåîâ íé÷éãö åìà úåáåèä íéðàú íéøåîâ íéòùø åìà úåòøä íéðàú. 192 Per our translation, we have taken “the reign of the Magians” to be inclusive of “the reign of Ahasuerus,” which latter is so expressed, most likely, because it concludes the enumeration as the reign of current interest. 193 Except for a specific suggestion of 12 years as the terminus a quo for Mordecai’s age at the time of his exile, an essentially identical computation is presented by Salmon, notwithstanding 1) his separate enumeration of the first year of Mordecai’s exile under the Babylonians (thus: 1 + 62, as opposed to Yefet’s single enumeration of 63) and 2) his extension of the calculation’s terminus ad quem to the twelfth year of Ahasuerus; thus (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fols 6r–v [ad 2:7]): ä¨ ú˙ ãàçìà äã˙ ä ú÷å éô éëãøî øîò àðæéî àã˙ à ¨ ðñ ïéòñú ïáà äãâ˙ð áàñçìà ïî ïåëé àî ì÷àìà éìòå øéáë ê˙ éù äãâ˙ð §÷ë äéðëé òî éìâ˙à äðàì ä ¨ ðñ éô äéðëé úéìàâ˙ úðàëå §âå äìâä øùà ùàòô {*}ìáá êìî åúà ç÷éå §÷ë (!)§ëãåáð êìî ïî §ç ä ¨ ðñ §à ùåéøã êìîå ä¨ ðñ ᧧ñ øàöùìá äðáà ïáàå ìéåà äðáàå §ãëåáð êìî é÷àá ïéðñ §â ùøåë êìîå ä

translation

197

he was from among the descendants of Kish, the father of Saul, from the tribe of Benjamin, as it says, the son of Kish, a Benjamite.194 Now we already know that Ahasuerus prepared a feast in the third year of his reign, and he went in to Esther in the seventh (year) of

¨ ú˙ ãàçìà äã˙ ä ú˙ ãç ïà éìà ä¨ ðñ ᧧é ùåøåùçà êìîå ïàë àî ì÷àå §âå ùãç àåä ïåùàøä ùãçá §÷ë ä ¨ ðñ §ö êìã˙ ìô ᧧é äøîò (“When we determine the age of Mordecai at the time of this ä event, we find him to be a distinguished old man, and according to the least possible calculation we find him to be ninety years old, for he was exiled with Jeconiah, as per the saying, who had been exiled, etc. [2:6], the exile of Jeconiah having been in the eighth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, as per the saying, and the king of Babylon took him [2 Kgs 24:12]; he then lived on, continuing through the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, and his son Evil(-merodach), and his grandson Belteshazzar, 62 years; and king Darius, 1 year; and king Cyrus, 3 years; and king Ahasuerus, 12 years, until this event took place, as per the saying, In the first month, which is the month (Nisan), etc. [3:7]. Also, the least that his age would have been (at the time of the exile) was 12 years; thus, he was 90 years old”). This enumeration of royal succession and years of reign, from Nebuchadnezzar to Ahasuerus, is likewise in basic agreement with that attested, e.g., in S. #Olam Rab., pp. 124–31 (chap. 28), and Ibn D¯a"¯ud, Qabbalah, text, pp. 7–10/trans., pp. 10–15. Cf. also Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fols 34r–v): åäéðëé úåìâ øçà êìî åäé÷ãö éë øúñà äç÷ìð øùàë ï÷æ äðäå íä ãéçé éøáãå ®åðåáùçá äòè àìù ìàéðã øôñá éúøàá øùàë äðù íéòáù åøáòå äðù äøùò éúùò éëãøî àöé íéðù äîë ïá åðòãé àìå ®ùåøåùçàì íéðù òáù åøáòå ùåéøã íò ùøåë êìîå åðãåîìúá äðù §öî øúåé ïá äéä øúñà éîéá äðä íéîé ùãç ïá äéäù åðøîà íà äðäå ®íìùåøéî; as well as the early rabbinic tradition that Esther (notwithstanding her description as a äøòð!) was seventy-four (= the numerical value of äñãä) or seventy-five years old when she was

taken to the palace (see Tg. Esth. II ad v. 7 [75]; Gen. Rab. xxxix.13 [75; var. 74]; Ab. Gur., p. 18 [75; var. 74]; Pan. Ah. . B, p. 63 [74]; Leq. Tob, p. 94 [75]), in which regard cf. also . the assertion of Samuel cited in Gen. Rab. ad loc. that she was 80 (contra Rav’s assertion of 40). 194 This common identification of Kish as the father of Saul—not necessarily implying, on the part of Yefet, an understanding of Mordecai’s direct descendency from Saul—is likewise held by Salmon, in the introduction of whose commentary Israel’s divinely backed enmity with Amalek, as centered in Exodus 17:14–16, is given predominant attention and, vis-à-vis the playing out of this enmity between Mordecai and Haman, asserted to be the primary reason for the writing and inclusion of the book in Scripture; thus (Mss RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 1v, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fols. 1r–v, and RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3350, fol. 1r): íäëàìä ãö÷å áøçìàá ìàøùé à÷àì ïî ìåàô ˙ ìâ˙àì ÷ìîò øöî ïî íäâ˙åøë˙ ãðò ®§§÷ìîò íéåâ úéùàø §÷ë êàìäìàá äìñð éìò äììà íëç êìã ïäòàîúâ˙à [ú÷å éìà ºì§§ö] (!)ú÷åìà äá øéùé ®®® §§÷ìîò øëæ úà äçîà äçî éë 䧧ò äùîì ìà÷å ˙ ®®® ÷ìîòå ïåîòå ìáâ §÷ë âåâ òî ÷ìîò éìò ìàøùé øöð àîì äììà ïà éðòé §âå çáæî äùî ïáéå §÷ íú ˙ éìò äìì øëù äéìò áø÷å çáã˙ î àðá ìàøùé åãò ä¨ á÷àò äùî óøòå ñë ìò ãé éë øîàéå éðòîå ®êìã éô äììàì áøç ïåëé éìæàìà éñøë éìò ìàøùéì êìî ñìâ˙é ïà ú÷å äñôð éìò íñ÷à äììà ïàô äé ¨ ö÷å ãåãå ìåàù áøç ïî ìàéâ˙àìà øéàñ éìà ìéâ˙ìà àã˙ ä ïî éðòé øåã øåãî äìå÷å ®®® ÷ìîò éëãøî ä àIä àðì úá&ú%à éðòîìà àIäìå íã÷ú àîéô àðçøù àî éìò éúàìà ïàîæìà éô ïåëé àîå øúñàå œ øôñìà (“Now, the first one who came upon Israel in battle and sought to destroy them

when they went out from Egypt was Amalek, on account of which God sentenced his descendants to destruction, as per His statement, Amalek was the first of the nations, (but his end shall come to destruction) [Num. 24:20]; and as He also says to Moses ... for I will utterly blot out the rememberance of Amalek, etc. [Exod. 17:14b] … by which He is referring to the

198

translation

his reign, which indicates that Ahasuerus persisted in [26v] gathering the young women for three years, with Esther being taken only in the last.195 This indicates that Mordecai initially concealed her,196 though in the end he prompted her so that she took to heart the matter that God had in mind concerning His people.197 (The mudawwin accordingly) time of (Amalek’s) gathering together with Gog (against Israel), as per the statement, Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek, (etc.) [Ps. 83:8] ... Then (Scripture) says, And Moses built an altar, etc. [Exod. 17:15]—that is, when God granted Israel (initial) victory over Amalek and Moses perceived the eventual end of Israel’s enemy, he built and altar and offered thereon a thank offering to God for it; and the sense of (the following statement), And He said, “A hand upon the throne of the Lord: (the Lord will have war with Amalek) [Exod. 17:16a], is that God swore on Himself that as soon as a king would sit for Israel on the eternal throne, He would have war with Amalek … And by the expression from generation to generation [ibid. 17:16b] he means, from that generation through the rest of those generations spannings the battles of Saul and David, the affair of Mordecai and Esther, and that which will take place in the coming age, as we have explained above. It is for this reason, accordingly, that this book was set down in writing for us”). On this association of Mordecai with Kish through Saul see also Tgs Esth. I (ad 7:6) and II (ad 2:5); Pirqe R. El., chap. 49; Pan. Ah. . B, pp. 62–63; Midr. Meg. Esth., p. 23; and Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (contra Walfish, “Commentaries,” p. 339): âìãé äîì éë ®éúòã éôì ìåàù éáà ®ùé÷ ïá åéáàî ãáëð àåäù íùä çéùîì (!)ùçéî äéäéù éåàø äéä §åòå úåøåãä. For the view that Kish was Mordecai’s great-grandfather, cf. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1755 (an anonymous Karaite abridgement), fol. 63r (the first of two alternatives): ùé÷å äã( ˙â éòîùå äàáà øéàé ïåëé ïà ïëîé äéáà ã( ˙â (“It is possible that Jair was his father, Shimei his grandfather, and Kish his great-grandfather”); and Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: ìåàù éáà äéä åìéàå åéúåáàë ìåãâ äéä ®ùé÷ ïá àì íà ìåàù éðáî äéä éëãøî íà òãð àì 맧ò åéáà àìå êìî àåä éë ìåàù øéëæî äéä; as well as those scholars cited at the end of n. 189 on p. 196 above. 195 “with … last”—lit., “and Esther was not taken save in the last.” 196 So also, ad 2:8, Tg. Esth. II; Pan. Ah. B, pp. 63–64; Ag. Esth., p. 21; and, albeit . tentatively, Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fols 10v & 5r): àäðàì øúñà ç÷ìúå §÷å ˙ ë˙ à ìá÷é íìå òðàîå ìàúçà ã÷ äìòìå êìîìà øîà òôãé ïà éëãøî ïëîé íìå øàåâ˙ìà úìîâ˙ éô úã (“As to the statement, and Esther was taken—this is to indicate that she was taken along with all the maidens, and it was impossible for Mordecai to refute the command of the king—though perhaps (up to this point) he had already surreptitiously resisted and disobeyed”). Against this view, however, cf. Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (per Ms. BN héb 334, fol. 78v): íéãé÷ô êìîä ïåîøàá åéäù íéãé÷ôä úåîù áúëá ïúðù íòè ®åúãå êìîä øáã (!)øùàë éäéå 맧ò êìîä éúøùî íò äøâ êìîä ïåîøàá éë äéôåé äàøð øáë éë àáçúú àìù øúñà ìò íéøîåù õá÷äáå òîùäá áåúë. 197 On this inference that Mordecai previously knew or discerned that Esther was to play a part in the deliverance of her people, cf. Esth. Rab., vi.6: éëãøî íåéå íåé ìëáå

òøàéù ìåãâ øáã ãéúòù àìà ìøòì àùðúù úàæ ú÷ãöì øùôà øîà íéùðä úéá øöç éðôì êìäúî äéãé ìò ìöðäì íéãéúòå ìàøùé ìò (thus Rashi ad v. 11 [see p. 203, n. 215 below]); Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fols 3v & 3r [ad v. 10]): íìòìà äì íã÷ú ã÷ éëãøî ïà ìãé ˙ ä äâ˙àøë˙ úñà {àä}áø÷àå áåøö˙ ìà ïî áøö˙ á ïîä øîà ïî óåë˙ é àîá úáñúðà åìô áàúëìà ïî àã ˙ à ìå÷éå áàäé ïàë äðàì ìàøùé øîà éìò{éì} õ˙ øò àîì õ˙ øòúé íì àäúáñð éìò ïîä ó÷åå øúñà àã ˙ ìå íäì õ˙ øòà óéë íäðî (!)ä¨ ëìîîìà úðàë (“(This àäúáñð íúëú ïà øúñà éëãøî øîà êìã

verse) indicates that the knowledge concerning what would transpire on account of Haman’s edict was advanced to Mordecai in one fashion or another, and this inference

translation

199

indicates that she was his cousin, bereft of her father and mother, and thus he had taken her into his care since her charge was incumbent upon him in respect to kinship.198 In our language her name was Hadassah, the translation of which is “myrtle,”199 yet when she was taken in by the king she was called Esther, which in the Persian language means “star,”200 and this name remained upon her. (The from the text is likely, for if Esther had related her ancestry and Haman had become aware of her descent, he would not have stood against Israel when he did, for he would have been cowed and would have said (to himself), ‘If the queen is from them, how can I stand against them.’ For this reason Mordecai charged Esther to keep her kinship a secret”); and Ibn Ezra, Comm. A (ad v. 9; the second of three explanations, the last of which, cited on p. 202, n. 213 below, is favored by him): åà äàåáð êøãá éë åøîà íéøçàå ìàøùéì äãé ìò äòåùú àáúù òãé íåìçá; as well the possible inference from Leq. Tob, p. . 95: ìëåà äëëéà éë øîàðù ïéðòë ¬åúòá øáãä ãéâäì éãëå ¬êìîä éðéòá äæáúú àìù ®®® äãéâä àì §åâå éúéàøå. 198 Cf., by contrast, Salmon (Mss RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fol. 6v and RNL Yevr.Arab. II 3295, fol. 10r), who ascribes an element of utilitarianism—even fickleness—to Mordecai’s adoption of Esther: áàåú˙ ìà éô äúáâøå äðéã ïñç éìò ìãé äñãä úà ïîà éäéå §å÷å ˙ ú {ïà} éøé àìô íà àìå áà àì àäì ïåëé àî ã˙ à ä¨ îéúéìà äã˙ ä äúéáøúå úðàë àäðàì àäòééö ¨ îàìà øéàñ ˙âøô àäãé éìò ááñ äììà ïàå íñâ˙ìà ä¨ ðñçå øè˙ ðîìàå ä¨ øåöìà ä¨ ðñç ä¨ éáö (“The ä statement And he was bringing up Hadassah indicates both the excellence of (Mordecai’s) faith as well as his desire for (divine) reward; and his raising of this orphan was due to the fact that she had neither father nor mother, and because it would have been unseemly to neglect her, for she was a young girl beautiful of form and appearance, and sound of body—and through her, indeed, God effected the deliverance of all [see Blau, Grammar, p. 159, n. 23] the nation”). 199 Ar. ¯asa, which form represents, like Heb. äñãä, a feminine personalization of the otherwise masculine noun. Cf., otherwise, al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 424, ll. 21–23: êìã˙ ïîå ¨ ðàçéø éáøòìàá åîñé àîë äñãä úà ïîà éäéå äñãä øúñà úéîñà‘ (“From (the root ñãä) ä Esther is named H˘adassâ, just as in Arabic they apply (to girls) the name Rayh. ¯ana (“myrtle” [with t¯a marb¯u.ta, like ¯asa, as a fem. nomen personale], on which see Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 567a)”). 200 On this explanation of “Esther”—either held, or admitted as a possibility, by most modern scholars, who connect the name either to Neo-Pers. sa/it¯ara or Akkadian Ishtar (cf. Moore, “Esther,” p. 633a)—see also b. Meg. 13a: àîìå ¬äîù äñãä ºøîåà äéîçð éáø øäúñà íåù ìò äúåà íéøå÷ íìåòä úåîåà åéäù ®øúñà úàø÷ð (in which øäúñà is analyzed by Jastrow [Dictionary, p. 98b] as an Ithpe#el noun of øäñ!); Tg. Esth. II (in which the name is associated—correctly so if taken from Pers. stâra—with Gk. 0στηρ): íùë äîù éø÷úà àøéúñà úéðåé àäâåð áëåë (similarly in three Spanish Mss of Tg. Esth. I [see Grossfeld, Two Targums, p. 42, n. h]); and Tanhum, Esther, fol. 218r: ïî øàòúñî øúñà ïà ìé÷å . ¨ éñøàôìà éô åä éã˙ ìà ä¨ øäæìà áëåë íñà (“It is said that øúñà é÷áå àäìà è÷ñàô øäúñà ä ‘Esther’ is derived from the name of the planet Venus [lit., ‘the star of brilliance’], which in Persian(!) is (called) øäúñà, though the ä was elided and it became øúñà”). Cf., otherwise, Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 34v; surprisingly incorrect, if not support for Yahuda’s thesis [see apud Gerleman, Esther, p. 79] that the name is derived from the hypothetical Median lexeme *astra, “myrtle”): éñøô ïåùìá äñãä §åâøú ®øúñà àéä. As to the view that Esther was so-called only after being made queen, cf., albeit in a somewhat different vein, the view of R. Nehemiah cited above, as well as R. Judah in b. Meg. 13a

200

translation

mudawwin) also mentions her beauty due to the fact that the king had her beauty in view. (The mudawwin) indicates that, along with the rest of201 the young women who came in to the king’s residence, she came into the charge of Hegai, who [27r] was the keeper of the king’s women; and it was he who would embrocate them and prepare their ointments up until they entered unto the king. (The mudawwin further) indicates that, as Esther came into the charge of Hegai, God blessed her with favor on his part202 and it occurred to him that she would be the queen after (= Leq. Tob, p. 94): úøúñî äúéäù íù ìò ®øúñà äîù úàø÷ð äîìå ¬äîù äñãä ºøîåà äãåäé éáø . äéøáã. Cf. otherwise R. Meir (ibid.): íé÷éãöä íù ìò ®äñãä äîù àø÷ð äîìå ¬äîù øúñà íéñãää ïéá ãîò àåäå øîåà ïëå ¬íéñãä åàø÷ðù; Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fol. 10r): ãðò óøàòúîìà íñø éìò øúñàå äñãä ïéîñà àäì ïàë ïà ìãé äñãä {ú} úà §÷å ˙ ïô ®®® ïéîñà ïéîñàá (!)éñðìàå ìàâ˙øìà ïåîñé åðàë íäðà ìàøùé úà ç÷ì äéøçàå íòáçø éô §å÷ êìã ˙ ä ãòá àî éô éøåé íú˙ äëòî íåìùáà {*áà} íñà ïàë ïàå {à} åäéëéî àäîñà ïàë äëòî ïà äã êìî íéðù ùåìù äéáà éô §÷ë ìàéøåà (“The expression Hadassah, (that is Esther) indicates that she had two names—‘Hadassah’ and ‘Esther’—in accordance with the generally accepted convention in Israel—to wit, that they would name men and women with two names each … an example of such is the statement concerning Rehoboam, And after her he took Maacah [2 Chr. 11:20], though in what follows (Scripture) shows that Maacah’s name was also ‘Micaiah’ [ibid. 13:2]; and the name of Abishalom [1 Kgs 15:2] was also ‘Uriel,’ as per the statement concerning Abijah, He reigned three years (in Jerusalem; and his mother’s name was Micaiah the daughter of Uriel) [2 Chr. 13:2]”); and Tanhum, Esther, . fol. 218r: àäéìò áìâ íú˙ äá úá÷ì éñøàô íñà øúñàå éðàøáòìà éìöàìà àäîñà åä äñãä ˙ å êìîìà ãðò äá úôøò éã˙ ìà äðåëì øäúùàå (“‘Hadassah’ was her original, Hebrew äîãë name, whereas ‘Esther’ is a Persian name by which she was called, and which then prevailed upon her and became famous due to its being that (name) by which she was known to the king and his servants”). 201 “along with the rest of ”—Ar. min jumla, on this meaning of which cf. Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 219a. 202 “God … part”—on this recognition of God’s role in the favor shown Esther, see also the exegetical tradition recorded, ad v. 15, in Ab. Gur., pp. 18–19, and Pan. Ah. . B, p. 64, and Leq. Tob, p. 95 (here per Pan. Ah. . B): øúåé åéðôì ãñçå ïç äúèäù ¬ïç åäî éåì ø§§à .

øîàðù ¬ãñçå ïç äðåòè äúéä úàæå ¬åéìò äéä ãñç ìù äôéè ¬ãñç åéìà èéå áéúë óñåéá ¬óñåéî ãñçå ïç àùúå; as well as the lengthy comment of Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fols 5v & 3v): êìã˙ ëå (!)êìîìà ñôð ãðò ä¨ ðçå ä¨ ãàåä àäì ìòâ˙ äììà ïà ìãé äøòðä áèéúå §å÷ ˙ ç [ë8§ åàìá äàø] åäì ìòâ˙å ïç óñåé àöîéå §÷ë è˙ ç äáçàö ãðò óñåéì àèòà äììà áçàö ãðò è §âå úú ìçà äæä íåéä òùåäéì ìà÷å íéîò åòîù ìà÷å íòä ïç úà ïúð 駧éå §÷ëå åðç ïúéå §÷ë ïâ˙ñìà ¨ ìåãìà úìàæ àîìå ®é§§é ãçô éäéå ìà÷å (!)õøàä ìëá ãåã íù àöéå ãåãì ìà÷ êìîìà øåäè˙ ãðòå ä ˙ çìà àð÷æøé ìæé íìô úåìâ˙ìà éô àðìöçå åéîçø åìë àì éë åîò úà 駧é ùåèé àì éë íîàìà ãðò è §âå ïç úàùð øúñà éäúå øúñà éô ìà÷å ãñç äèä éìòå äøæò §÷å (!)ïçì ìàéðã úà íéäìàä ïúéå §÷ë ˙ ëå øúñà úà êìîä áäàéå ìà÷å (“The statement And the maiden was pleasing äøòðä áèéúå êàã

(etc.) indicates that God granted her favor and sympathy on the part of the king(!), just as God granted Joseph favor on the part of his master, as per the statement, And Joseph found favor [Gen. 39:4], and just as He granted him favor on the part of the warden, as per the statement, And He granted him favor [Gen. 39:21]. Likewise the statement, And the Lord granted the people favor [Exod. 12:36], and, The peoples have heard [Exod. 15:14]; and, as

translation

201

Vashti;203 thus he expedited that which would improve the condition of her body, for her ointments refers to cosmetics for facial blemishes204 which also clarify the (skin’s natural) color, and her portions refers to205 the food which would nourish her body.206 (The mudawwin also) indicates that (Hegai) provided for her seven young women to attend her,207 (with reference to whom) he says h¯ar˘e"ûyôt—that is to say, “the choice ones”208 whom she—by which I mean Esther—requested;209 and (these seven) were Jewish, as her saying I also and my maidens will fast in like manner (4:16) shows us, for had they not been from among the daughters of Israel they would not have grieved with her.210 And concerning the statement He transferred her [27v] and her maidens—this means that she was at first in one location, yet when it he said to Joshua, This day I will begin to put, etc. [Deut. 2:25]. Upon the appearance of the kingdom, moreover, it says of David, And the fame of David went out into all lands [1Chr. 14:17], and (later) it says, And the terror of God was (on all the kingdoms) [2 Chr. 20:29]; and though the State ceased and we came into the exile, (God) did not cease to bless us with favor among the nations, for the Lord will not forsake His people [1Sam. 12:22], for His compassions never come to an end [Lam. 3:22]. Likewise the statement, And God granted Daniel favor [Dan. 1:9]; and as Ezra said, He has extended mercy on my behalf [Ezra 7:28]; and as it says concerning Esther, And Esther found favor, etc. [2:15], and again, And the king loved Esther [2:17]. Like this is (the statement), And the maiden was pleasing (etc.)”); and idem ad ¯ı, Ta"r¯ıkh, I, p. 319: F!G ŒI(I 2:15, cited on pp. 261–62, n. 228 below. Cf. also al-Tabar . 1!Y ;G ƒI A{ O (“Esther became endeared to him by (divine) design for the sake of Israel”). 203 Cf. Pan. Ah. B, pp. 64–65 (following the comment cited in the previous note): ãåòå . éãë ¬êìîì úàùéð åæ øîåà äéä äúåà äàåø äéäù éî ìëù ¬äúåà úåèù÷î åéä øöçá åéäù íéùðä ìë åðúåà úãáëî àäúù. 204

Or, “freckles” (al-kalaf). “refers to”—Ar. huwa f¯ı b¯ab, on which see Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 124b. 206 “her portions … body”—so, e.g., along with most modern commentators, Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: äðéîù äúåéäì äìéëàä éøáãá úçà äðî åîë íé÷ìç ®äéúåðî; and the anonymous commentator in Jellinek, Commentaries, p. 7: ïìåëî äì úúì äúìéëà úåðî. Cf., otherwise, the views cited by Paton, Esther, p. 174. 207 “to attend her”—lit. “to stand before her” (yaqif¯una qudd¯amah¯a). 208 See p. 192, n. 169 above. 209 “whom … requested”—cf., otherwise—albeit not explicitly preclusive of Yefet’s view—Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fols 3v): äðà ìãé äé÷åøîú úà ìäáéå §÷å ˙ á àäì éèòà éã˙ ìà øàåâ˙ìàå àäøîâ{*} ïî àäáàáñà ïî éù éô ïåàäúé íì úàå §÷ë àäøéâ óàìë {éñøë} éìò àäåìâ˙éå àäåîãë˙ é øàåâ˙ (!){ä¨ }òáñ §æ àäì àèòé ïà íñø êìîìà ïà ìãé úåøòðä òáù êìîìà (“The statement And he hastened her ointments, (etc.) indicates that, in contrast to the other (maidens), he did not treat lightly any component of (Esther’s) ointments or the maidservants which he gave to her, as per the statement, And the seven maidens, (etc.,), which also indicates that the king decreed that (Hegai) should give to her seven maidservants who would serve her and prepare [cf. Lane, Lexicon, p. 447a, and Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 209b] her for the king”). 210 See Yefet’s comment ad 4:16 on p. 246 below. 205

202

translation

occurred to (Hegai) that she would be queen he lodged her in (another) location which was the most distinguished of the apartments which were in the king’s palace, for he had perceived that he would benefit from this when she came into royalty. As to the statement concerning (Esther), that she did not disclose her religion211 or her kindred,212 and that Mordecai had charged her with regard to these—this indicates that he knew that (only) in this manner would her situation respecting her religion be kept in order, lest an ambush be set for her with regard to her food, drink, (observance of) Sabbaths, or (observance of) feast days;213 yet if she were asked about such she held her tongue and mentioned nothing of it to Hegai. (The mudawwin) also indicates that Mordecai would walk back and forth before the residence in which were the young women, in order to gather information on the affairs of Esther and what would be done with her; accordingly, there would come to his knowledge that which would cheer him. [28r] This shows that he was aching at heart over his separation from her, and that he was continually214 keeping watch over her circumstances.215 211 “her religion”—thus, by ethnic association, for “her people,” in anticipation of the following comment. 212 See p. 193, n. 172 above. 213 Cf. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1755 (an anonymous Karaite abridgement [see our introduction, sec. IV.1.4]), fol. 63v: àäð[éã] úøäè˙ à ïà úôàë˙ àäðà áéø÷ìà ®§ñà äãéâä àì ˙ òáìà àäì íúé àôë˙ àìà òî àäðàå ®àäðéã àäì í( úé àìå ®ä¨ é‘ ã˙ àìàá úãö÷‘ úìú÷ úòðàî åìå õ (“Esther had not made known—The most likely explanation is that she was afraid that, if she had revealed her religion, she would have been targeted with derision and (the precepts of) her religion would have been unable to be fulfilled by her; yet, by reason of her secrecy, she was able to fulfill several, though if she had resisted (completely) she would have been killed”); and Ibn Ezra, Comm. A, after citing the views that Mordecai’s injunction was motivated either by fear lest the king reject her on account of her being from among the exile, or else so as not to endanger the future redemption to be effected through her (see p. 199, n. 197 above): øåáòá éëãøî äæ äùò éë éðéòá ïåëðäå

òãåé íà éë íéúøùîä åùéâøé àìå úåúáùä øåîùúå úåìéáð ìëàú àìù øúñá íùä úøåú øåîùúù §ùôúð äçøë ìòá éë äðâøäé åà äðçéøëé êìîä àîù øáãä; albeit idem, Comm. B (per Ms. BN héb 334, fols 78v–79r): éùéìù àåäå äìåãâä úñðë éùðàî äéä éëãøîù åðéàøù øçà ìåàùì ùéå àì êìîäù éëãøî äàø éë éðéòá ïåëðäå ®®® äîò ãéâú àìù øúñàì äåö äîì ìááåøæ íò äìåâ äìåòì àìù ãçôå ãàî äôé äúéä øúñà éë òãéå äéäú íò äæ éàî ùåçé àìå éôåéä ÷ø êìî úá úç÷ì ù÷á äðçéøáé êìîä âá úô{ìì} ìëàú àìù ãéâú àéä íàå äùàì äðç÷éå äúåîë àöîé. Cf., otherwise,

Salmon, whose view is cited on pp. 198–99, n. 197 above. 214 Lit., “time after time” (waqt ba #da waqt). 215 Cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fols 6r): àäøáë ˙ éòàøé ïàë äðà ìãé àäðî ïåëé ùéàå àäìàåçà òìàèéå (“This indicates that he was paying heed to her situation and studying her circumstances”). Cf., otherwise, the more specific purposes ascribed to Mordecai’s perambulatory routine in Tg. Esth. II: ïéñéð äîå øúñàã àîìù úé òãéîì àäãé ìò åãéáòúéà; Esth. Rab. vi.8: ìò ìåàùì íéùðä úéá øöç éðôì êìäúî éëãøî íåéå íåé ìëáå

translation

203

(The mudawwin) then makes known what would be done with the young women when they arrived at the palace, into the care of Hegai, for it indicates that each young woman would be attended to for twelve months: the first six he would soften her body with oils and ointments, and during the second six months he would attend to her with scents and exquisite perfumes, along with food which would nourish her body. And as to the statement at the end of it having been done to her (according to the regulation of the women)—this means, after a year had elapsed for her and the aforementioned had been done to her; yet it is also said that (the mudawwin) means by this that at the end of her (year) she would sleep with the king in the manner that wives sleep with their husbands.216 (The mudawwin) then says, And in this manner the maiden came unto the king, [28v] by which he is referring to what he mentions in this verse217— i.e., the statement, whatsoever she desired was given to her, by which he means that each one (would be given) clothing, jewelry, and perfume according to that with which she perceived that she would become more attractive.218 (The mudawwin) then indicates that this great outlay and abundant wealth would be for naught but one night, (during which) she would be with him so that he might consider her beauty íéôùë äì åùòé àìù øúñà íåìù úà úòãì ®äúåãð ìòå äîúë; Pan. Ah. . B, p. 64, and Ag. Esth., øîåà äéäù ¬íåé ìëá äéìò èéáîå [(!)êìîä º§çà íéðô] êìåä ææ àì éúùå úà âøäù íùë ¬äðâøäé àìù; Leq. Tob, p. 94: äúùîáå äìëàîá äá äùòé äî; as well as by . Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: íéàôåøì äëéøö àéä íà ®øúñà íåìù úà; and by Rashi: àì øîà éëãøî úòãì øæçî äéä êëéôì ìàøùéì òéùåäì íå÷ì äãéúòù àìà éøëð áëùîì ç÷ìúù åæ ú÷ãöì òøéà äôåñá àäé äî. 216 So, construing íéùðä úã as “the custom of wives”—i.e., specifically, their norma-

p. 22 (here per the latter):

tive participation in sexual intercourse with their husbands. Cf., otherwise, Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fols 6v), construing úã in the sense of “order” or “schedule”: éìò àãçàå íã÷úú íìå úìë˙ ã àäúáåð úâìá ïî ìëô áåðìàá (!)êìî éìà øàåâ˙ìà ìåë˙ ãá åîñø ã÷å ˙ ãé ìá éøë˙ àìà (“They had already determined the entering íéùðä úãë §÷ë ìåàá ìåà ïåìë of the maidens unto the king by turns, and so each one whose turn arrived would enter in, no one advancing before another, but rather going in one by one, as per the statement, according to the regulation of the women”). Most commentators, however— as apparently Yefet in the first instance—take íéùðä úã(ë) as referring to the required process of beautification described in the rest of the verse. 217 See the tarjama ad loc. and p. 194, n. 177 above. 218 Cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fol. 7r): §æìàå íéîùáìàå øåîä ïîù øë ˙ ã òî ˙ à àäñôð ïî äôøòú àîî ìàñúô {ú} àã˙ ä òî äá ïéæú àî òéîâ˙å øàåâ˙ àäðñç ãàæ äá úðéæú àã ˙ éáà ïî úáìè àî ùéàô àèòúô äá àäðñç ãàæ åìçìà òàåðà åà ïàåìàìà ïî ïàë àî åà øîçà åà õ (“In addition to the mention of the oil of myrrh, the perfumes, the seven maidservants, and all that with which she would additionally be adorned, (the maiden) would still ask for that by which she herself discerned that her beauty would be enhanced, and thus whatever she requested of white, or red, or any other (cosmetic) color or type of ornamentation by which her beauty would be enhanced would be given to her”).

204

translation

and her intelligence, as well as any other of all her attributes which he desired to explore, in order to ascertain whether or not she would be suitable to be queen in place of Vashti. Thus he would ask her about her religion, as well as about her kindred219 and her name, and he would record this for himself; then, if he wanted her one day he would summon her, as per the saying, she came in unto the king no more, except the king delighted in her, and she were called by name.220 If, however, she did not appeal to him at all, he would not request her [R3 8v] another time; rather, she would remain in the harem, that (the king) might, at the least, provide for her.221 (The mudawwin) also indicates that, when she departed from the king, she would not return to Hegai, but would come into the care of another servant in a residence different from that (previous) one.222 See p. 193, n. 172 above. Cf., otherwise, Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 9r), who construes v. 14b specifically in reference to the king’s selection of a new queen, implying, so it would seem, that those maidens who had not been selected (and who were therefore demoted to the status of concubines) would never be summoned by the king again: øîù §÷å ˙ ìàç õ÷ð àã˙ ä ïàëå ùâìéô àäàîñà êìîìà àäàìâ˙úñà àîì åä íéùâìôä ãåò àåáú àì ìà÷ íú ˙ ìà ïà éìà ä¨ ú( áìà éøë˙ à ä¨ øë äéìà ìë˙ ãú ñéìô êìîìà áâ˙òú íì àã˙ à éà êìîä ìà áâ˙òú éã ˙ åî êìîìà àäëìîéå ä¨ ëìî íñàá àòãúô êìîìà (“As to the expression, keeper of the éúùå òö concubines—once the king unveiled her (for coition), he called her a concubine, which was a reduction of status. (Scripture) then says, she came in unto the king no more—i.e., if the king was not pleased (with her), she would absolutely not go in to him another time, unless the king were pleased with her, in which case she would be called by the title ‘queen’ and the king would grant royal status to her in place of Vashti”). 221 “that ... her”—Ar. yujr¯a #alayh¯a faqat (cf. Lane, Lexicon, p. 415c; Dozy, Supplément, I, . p. 190a), the idea being that, since the king had slept with her (see Yefet’s comment ad v. 17) and thus disqualified her from being married to anyone else, he would, even if not desirous of seeing her again, ensure that her lifetime needs were provided for. 222 This understanding of éðù as referring to a second residence, as opposed to a second entry by the maiden (now a concubine) into the same harem (on which see below), is likewise attested by the LXX: τν γυναικ.να τν δετερον; at least one Ms. of Tg. Esth. I: àðééðú àéùð úéáì (contra the slavish rendering ïééðéú in the other Mss [though still hardly to be understood, with Grossfeld (Two Targums, p. 46), as “again”; see p. 64, n. 193 above]); Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ä¨ éðàú˙ ìà íøçìà øàã éìà; Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 9r, corrected per Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fol. 7v): àäðà éðòé àéä áøòá §å÷ ˙ ìà øàåâ˙ìà /éìà/ òâ˙øú àì àäðàì øë˙ à øö÷ éìà òâ˙øú çáàöìà éôå ä¨ ìéì äéìò àìâ˙ú úðàë éã ˙ ìà øö÷ìà éðù §âå äáù àéä ø÷ááå §÷ë íäòî úðàë (“As to the statement, In the evening she éðàú (went)—this means that she would be presented to him (as a bride) at night, and in the morning she would return to another building, for she would not return to the maidens with whom she had been, as per the statement, and on the morrow she returned, etc.; the term sˇ¯enî, accordingly, refers to a second building”); Rashi: éðùä ®éðù íéùðä úéá ìà; and Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (per Ms. héb 334 of the Bibliothèque nationale [Paris], fol. 79r [contra Comm. A, cited below]): éðù úéá àåäù íéùðä úéá ìà áù éðù øåàéáå; as well as, e.g., among the modern commentators (who usually correct to éðùä), Gerleman, Esther, pp. 219 220

translation

205

After having described the general situation of the young women, (the mudawwin) mentions the situation of Esther, indicating that Hegai presented to her the clothing and jewelry which she should wear, though she herself requested nothing due to the humility of her soul.223 However, other than the fact that Hegai adorned her with all that was within his power,224 (the mudawwin) conceals that which Esther acquired.225 He then indicates the time during which she went in to the king, so that we might know that the king remained without a queen for four years,226 and so that we might also know that between Esther’s entry (unto the king) and the decree of Haman were four years and three months, as we shall point out in connection with what follows.227 (The mudawwin) then indicates that when she went in to the king, and he saw her and examined her demeanor, he was drawn to her more than to anyone else—thus the expression more than all the women, by which (the mudawwin) is referring to the women who were already 72–73; Hakham, “Esther,” p. 17; Moore, Esther, pp. 23–24; Levenson, Esther, p. 59; and . Paton, Esther, p. 179. For the latter, adverbial understanding (i.e., “again,” denoting a second entry into the same harem) cf. Tg. Esth. II: úåðééðú; the Peshitta, perhaps, which omits any rendering of éðù (considered redundant vis-à-vis äáù [=  &]?); Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: äæä (!)íòôá êà åîë øëæ ïåùì íòèä àáå éðù íòô íòèä ®éðù íéùðä úéá ìà; Qimh. ¯ı, Lexicon, p. 397b: éðù íòô ùåøéô ¬éðù íéùðä úéá ìà; and, among the moderns (who usually correct to úéðù), Bush, Esther, pp. 365–66; Fox, Esther, p. 276; Hirschler, Esther, p. 262; and Würthwein, “Esther,” p. 180. 223 Cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 9v): íäñôðà éô ïéöéøç åðàë øàåâ˙ìà òéîâ˙ ¨ áåð úâìá àîìå äåáâ˙òéå êìîìà ãðò íäðñç ãéæé éúç äøéâå ä¨ ðéæ ïî äéìò åøã÷é àî ìëá øúñà ä ˙ ãì ìà÷ àî éìà øîàú øùà ìë úà àäøéâ éô ìà÷ àîë äá ïééæú éù áìèú íì êìîìà éìà àäìåë è÷ô éâä (“All of the maidens, for their own part, were strongly desirous of all that they could acquire of adornment and the like so that their beauty might be enhanced in the eyes of the king, that they might please him; yet when Esther’s turn came to enter unto the king she requested nothing by which to embellish herself, as it was said of the others—whatsoever she requested, (etc.)—save that only which Hegai indicated”); and Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (per Ms. BN héb 334, fol. 79v): äåðòå úåìôù ÷ø øáã äù÷á àì úàæå. 224 “all that was within her power”—or, “all that he was able.” 225 I.e., the support which she acquired, whether material or social, from others in the palace, as implied by 15b: “And Esther obtained favor in the eyes of all who saw her.” Cf., otherwise, Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 9v): ïàì øúñà éäúå §÷å ˙ ò øôàå è˙ ç àäì ìòâ˙ ìâ˙å æò äììà (“(Scripture) says And Esther (found àäàøé ïî ìë ãðò íéö favor) because God—Exalted and Sublime!—established abundant, powerful favor for her on the part of all who saw her”); as well as the early exegetical references cited on pp. 200–201, n. 202 above. 226 This explicit chronological deduction is likewise attested, among the early sources, in Pan. Ah. . B, p. 65 (= Ag. Esth., p. 23): íéðù òáøàù ãîì äúà ïëéî ¬§åâå øúñà ç÷ìúå øîàð [䧧á÷ä ìù åúáùçî äãîòù ãò º§ñà úãâàá óñåð] úåìåúá åì ïéñéðëî åéä; and Leq. Tob, p. 96: . øúñàì éúùå ïéá íéðù §ã åúåëìîì òáù úðùá. 227 See his comment in the following paragraph ad v. 17b.

206

translation

his, apart from the young women whom he had (recently) gathered together;228 and, again, the expression more than all the virgins—by which (the mudawwin) is referring to the virgins whom he had gathered together, seen, and gone into, one after the other, though he was drawn to none but Esther alone; nor did he wait to consider any of the other young women who had not yet come in [R3 15r] to him.229 Then, (the mudawwin says,) he set the crown on her head, by which to show that she was queen; and he says and he made her queen in place of Vashti to show that he remained all these years without a queen.230 (The mudawwin) then indicates the king’s delight in Esther—namely, that he prepared a great feast for the nobles dedicated to231 Esther, which, it is possible, he conducted for seven days so as to gladden her heart and distinguish her,232 as well as that the people might rejoice at the annunciation [A 20r] of her entry233 and ascension to royalty. He also withdrew the poll-tax234 from the people during this year so that the 228 This understanding of íéùðä as referring to the king’s prior wives/concubines, as also the consequent understanding of úåìåúáä as referring to all those women— only virgins—gathered together following Vashti’s dismissal, is likewise attested by Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (per Ms. BN héb 334, fol. 79v): éúùå íâ åì åéäù úåøéáâä ìëî ®êìîä áäàéå åöá÷ðù úåìåúáä ìëîå ®ïììëá. Otherwise, for the view that both groups refer to those women gathered together for the king’s selection, the first being married women and the second being unmarried women (i.e., virgins), cf. Esth. Rab. vi.11: åáìç §ø ®§åâå ®®® áäàéå úåìåúáä ìëîå íéùðä ìëî øîàð êëì åéðôì åàéáä úåàåùðä óàù ãîìî øîà; b. Meg. 13a: .®®® áäàéå íòè ¬äìåòá íòè ®íòè ¬äìåúá íòè íåòèì ù÷éá áø øîà ®úåìåúáä; and, variously following the previous two, Ab. Gur., p. 19; Pan. Ah. . B, p. 65; Leq. Tob, p. 96; Ag. Esth., p. 23. . 229 “nor … him”—Cf. Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1755 (an anonymous Karaite abridgement), fol. 64r (previously explaining íéùðä as referring to all those women—both previous wives and those taken after Vashti’s dismissal—with whom the king had hitherto slept [so also Berlin, Esther, p. 30]): ï( äá ìë˙ ã àî ïé÷á éúìà úåìåúáä ìëî äìå÷å (“The expression more than all the virgins refers to those who remained, with whom he had not slept”). 230 Underlying this latter comment, perhaps, is the seeming redundancy of the last clause (and he made her queen in place of Vashti), on which, as dealt with in the early sources, see Grossfeld, Two Targums, p. 47, n. 43. 231 “dedicated to”—see p. 195, n. 180 above. 232 “and distinguish her”—Ar. wa-yanshulah¯a, on this meaning of which see Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 673b: “au fig.: tirer quelqu’un de l’obscurité et l’élever à de hautes dignités.” 233 I.e., her marriage to the king, consummated on the night of her entry before him (see Yefet’s comments ad vv. 14 and 17). 234 “the poll-tax” (al-khar¯aj)—or, “the land-tax” (see Lane, Lexicon, p. 719b; Y¯ aq¯ut, Mu #jam, I, p. 42 [= Jwaideh, Mu #jam, pp. 62–3]). On the former sense, which is preferable here vis-à-vis Yefet’s following comment that this benefit was applied to the people in general, cf. Rashi ad àâøë éìã in b. Meg. 13a (= Ag. Esth., p. 23; cf. also Tg. Esth I ad loc.: ãáò àéëìôì àâøë ÷åáéù úééðäå): äçðäå åðééä ¬íëúìåâìåâ éñëî íëì çéðî éðà øúñà ìéáùá ºøîà äùò úåðéãîì; and, albeit reflecting a more inclusive understanding, Ab. Gur. B, p. 166:

translation

207

people might also be blessed on her account, for the feast which he had prepared just before this was (only) for the rulers who were with him. This (reference to alleviation of the poll-tax, however,) encompasses the people of Susa the fortress, as per the statement, Then the king made a (great) feast (unto all his princes and his servants),235 and it encompasses the people of the provinces, as per the statement, and he made a release to the provinces. The people, accordingly, were talking about this matter, and their joy on account of (Esther) abounded. After this, moreover, (the king) distributed presents to the people, as per the statement, and he gave gifts according to the bounty of the king. Thus it was a blessed year for the people on account of Esther’s entry236 unto the king.237 (The mudawwin) then says, And when the virgins were gathered together sˇ¯enît, (concerning which) what is expressed in my translation of this verse is most likely—namely, that (the mudawwin) is referring to the time when the maidens238 had gathered together from all the districts and provinces in order that there might be taken from them [20v] a second queen in place of Vashti; and so, by the expression sˇ¯enît he means, “for a second queen.”239 And as to the statement Mordecai was sitting in the úåéìâåâå úåéðåðøàå úåéñåîéã ïäî äðéô ¬äùò úåðéãîì äçðäå. Cf. also Jastrow, Dictionary, p. 664a (citing, inter alios, b. B. Bat. 55a), who defines àâøë in the first instance as “capitation tax.” On the general understanding of äçðä as signifying a release from taxes, cf. also Leq. Tob, p. 96: ñîä ïî íäì ì÷éä; Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: íäéìòù ñîä ïî íäì çéðä äãåáëì . (albeit Comm. B [fol. 35r]: äá íéáééç íäù êìîä úåãáòî ì÷äù ®äçðäå); and, among the moderns, Berlin, Esther, p. 30; Gerleman, Esther, p. 82; Hirschler, Esther, p. 264; Levenson, Esther, pp. 59, 63; and Würthwein, “Esther,” p. 181 (undecidedly). For other views see Fox, Esther, p. 276. On the use of khar¯aj to possibly imply, at the same time, both a poll-tax as well as a land-tax, see Yefet’s comment ad 10:1. 235 Yefet’s reasoning here would seem to be that, just as the reference to the king’s preparation of a feast for all his princes and servants in 1:3 is followed by an explicit reference to his preparation of feast for all the residents of Susa (1:5), so does the reference here to the king’s preparation of a feast for all his princes and servants (who, as in 1:3, were not necessarily residents of Susa) imply that the residents of Susa themselves partook of the following benefit. 236 Cf. p. 206, n. 233 above. 237 Cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 10v): àäúîà éìò ä ¨ ëøàáî úðàë ã÷å ˙ ïî äììà äááñ àîî ãòá àî éô äçøùà êàã˙ ô àäúîà àîàô àäúîà øéâ éìòå ìàøùé õàìë ˙ ò àîéìå íäì çìöà êìîìà ïàô àäúîà øéâ àîàå àäãé éìò íäâ˙øôå (“(Esther) had become àîéö a blessing both to her own people as well as to those who were not her people— as regards her own people, we shall explain such in connection with what follows concerning the salvation and deliverance of Israel which God occasioned through her; as regards those who were not her people, because the king prepared for them a great banquet”). 238 Or, “eligible women” (see p. 189, n. 147 above). 239 See the tarjama ad loc. On this retrospective construal of v. 18—described by Moore

208

translation

king’s gate—this indicates that at that time Mordecai was a gatekeeper240 in the king’s palace.241 Despite all of this, however, Esther did not disclose her people or her kindred,242 as per the saying, Esther had not yet made known her kindred, (Esther, p. 29) as “one of the most difficult verses in all of Esther”—see also Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1755 (an anonymous Karaite abridgement), fol. 64r (most likely following Yefet): êìîìà áàá éô àñìàâ˙ éëãøî ïàë §á ä¨ ëìî ïäðî ã˙ ë˙ åéì úåìåúáìà ïòîâ˙ àîãðò ®§÷äáå øúñà ìàç óøòéì (“When (the virgins) were gathered together (ˇs¯enît)—When the virgins had gathered together in order that a second queen might be drawn from among them, Mordecai was sitting in the king’s gate so as to learn of Esther’s situation”); Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: êìîä øòùá éëãøî áùåé äéä øáë úéðùä íòôä úàæ äéä íòèä ®úéðù úåìåúá õá÷äáå ùìù úðùá éúùå øáã ìò §úùîäå åúåëìîì òáù úðùá äæ éë; and idem, Comm. B (fol. 35r): èôåù äéä éëãøî éë §òèäå ®úéðùä íòôä úàæ úéðù §òèå ®øúñà êøãë (!)ä÷ìð éúùå ®õá÷äáå øúñà äç÷ìð àìù ãò êìîä øòùá; as well as, among the moderns, Levenson, Esther, p. 63 (undecidedly); Würthwein, “Esther,” p. 181; and those scholars cited by Paton, Esther, p. 187. Cf., otherwise, Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3350, fols. 9r–v), who follows unnamed others in construing the gathering described in this verse as an event subsequent to Esther’s coronation: àîðàå éúùåì äìú˙ îì ïàë òîâ˙ìà àã˙ ä ïà ìãé õá÷äáå åìà÷ ˙ î éøâ˙ ã÷ ìàç àã˙ ä ïà íìòðì úéðù ìà÷å àðäàä çøùìà ò÷[å] (“They say that the éúùåì äìú statement When (the virgins) were gathered (a second time) indicates that this gathering was similar to that of Vashti (in 1:9), though in this instance the details have been left out and it says simply a second time that we might know that an event similar to this had already taken place with Vashti”); as well as the early exegetical tradition explaining this gathering as an attempt by the king to make his new queen jealous and so divulge her background (see Tg. Esth. II; b. Meg. 13a; Pan. Ah. . B, p. 65; and Ag. Esth., p. 24). For yet further approaches to the crux interpretum úéðù, see Bush, Esther, p. 372, and Levenson, Esther, p. 63. 240 Or, “chamberlain” (h¯ajib), on which see further the following note. . 241 On this explanation of the phrase êìîä øòùá áùé—taken by most modern commentators as an idiom for service in the king’s court (see, e.g., Fox, Esther, p. 38, as well as the similar idiomatic usages in Aramaic and Greek noted by Rüger, “Tor,” passim, and Wechsler, “Novellae,” p. 164, n. 200)—see also Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fols 10v–11r), albeit taking the position to have been granted only after Esther’s coronation (on which see the preceding note): §åùçà ã˙ ë˙ àé ìá÷ ïà ìãé áùåé éëãøîå §÷å ¨ áúøî éëãøîì ïåëú íì øúñà äúìòâ˙ øúñà úëìî àîìô §âå íåéå íåé ìëáå §÷ë êìîìà áàá éô ä áàâ˙çìà ãçà (“The statement Mordecai was sitting implies that before Ahasuerus took Esther Mordecai had no station in the king’s gate, as per the statement, And every day (Mordecai would walk), etc. [v. 11]; then, when Esther became queen, she made him one of the gatekeepers”); as well as Leq. Tob, p. 96 (ad v. 21), although defining the position as . that of “judge” rather than “gatekeeper”: øòùá áùéì àøãú÷ åì äùòå éëãøî úà íéé÷ ãéî êìîä øòùá èôåù úåéäì ¬êìîä; Ibn Ezra, Comm. B ad v. 11 (fol. 34v)—as ad v. 19 (cited in the previous note)—perhaps following Leq. Tob . (loc. cit.): éëãøîì äìåãâ äìòî äúéä éìåì øúñà ç÷ìúù íøè àëìî òøúá äéäù ìàéðãá §åúë øùàë èôåù §òèäå êìîä øòùá áùåé äéäù íù åðàéáé éî éë íéùðä úéá øöç éðôì úëìì ìåëé äéä àì; and idem, Comm. A ad v. 11, more generally: êìäúäì íéúøùîä åäåáæò àì êìîä éúøùîî øúñà äùòî íãå÷ éëãøî äéäù éìåìå íéùðä úéá øöç éðôì. Cf. also, in a somewhat different vein, Tg. Esth. II ad v. 21: àéîåéá àëìî òøúá øúñà äéì úðé÷úã ïéøãäðñá áéúé éëãøîå ïåðéàä. 242

See p. 193, n. 172 above.

translation

209

etc.—by which (the mudawwin) means, she did not disclose it to the king, just as she did not disclose it to anyone else.243 (The mudawwin) then indicates that Mordecai had charged her with regard to such, adding in this second verse something of which the like is not mentioned in the first—namely, the statement and Esther carried out the commandment of Mordecai, just as when she was with him in the rearing, which implies both that Mordecai was interchanging messages with her regarding other things which she should do, and she would do them and not disobey him,244 as well as that she had already [29r] become245 queen, and her residence already set apart.246 Also, from the statement just as when she was with him in the rearing, we learn that she obeyed him247 while she was with him even before she was taken to the king’s palace, which shows that he thought of her as his own daughter, as also she thought of him as her own father.248 243 See v. 10. Cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fols 11r–v): äãéâä àì ìà÷ ã÷ ¨ éàëç (!)ìåàìà ìå÷ìà ïà ìå÷ðô §øúñà ïéà äìå÷ éðòî àîô øúñà ïà íìòðì úëìî àîì àäðò ä ¨ ëìî éäå àäìåá÷ ïàë ìá éðàòîìà ïî àðòî éô éëãøî éìò éäå úøééâú àìå áâ˙ò àä÷çìé íì ä ¨ ðö˙ ç éäå àäìåá÷ ïàë àîë (“(Scripture) already said Esther did not make known, (etc.) [v. ä

10]—What, then, is the reason for its saying, Esther had not yet (made known, etc.)? We maintain that the second [reading éðàú˙ ìà] statement is a report about her when she assumed royal authority, that we might know that conceit did not betake her, nor did she change; rather, she (continued to rely) upon Mordecai in every respect—indeed, her agreeableness while she was queen was just like her agreeableness when she was (Mordecai’s) ward”); and Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: íéñéøñì àìå êìîì ®äúãìåî úãâî øúñà ïéà äéðôì ãéîòäù. 244 Regarding this explication of Esther’s continual obedience to Mordecai—reasonably inferred by most commentators (cf., e.g., Hirschler, Esther, p. 266, wherein øîàî is explained as a collective noun)—see also Saadia, Tafs¯ır: äéàøá ä¨ ìîàò éä àîéàãå (“and she was continually undertaking his advice”); and al-F¯as¯ı, I, p. 114, ll. 164–65: øùàë ¨ éáøúìà ïàîæ éô àîë ìå÷ äì óìàë˙ ú ïåëú íì àäðà ìé÷ åúà äðîàá äúéä (“just as when she was ä with him in the rearing—that is to say, she would not oppose him on any directive, just as during the time of (her) rearing”). 245 On this sense of baqiyat see Blau, Grammar, §289, and Wehr, Dictionary, p. 84b, as well as the variant s. ¯arat in Ms. R1. 246 “set apart”—lit., “aggrandized” (kubira). This latter inference (that Esther had already become queen, etc.) was apparently reasoned by Yefet as follows: if both verses were referring to the same point in time—i.e., the time during which Esther occupied a choice place in the harem—one would expect v. 20 to refer solely, as in v. 10, to Esther’s silence per Mordecai’s charge; since, however, an added indication of Esther’s past obedience to Mordecai is given in 20b, this verse must be referring to a point in past time during which her continued obedience to Mordecai would have seemed less likely—viz., after she had become queen. 247 “obeyed him”—lit., “received his utterance” (k¯anat taqbalu qawlahu). 248 “he thought ... father”—lit., “he had appointed her unto himself in the place of a child, as also she had appointed him unto herself in the place of a father.”

210

translation (ii 21–23)

(21) In those days, during which Mordecai was sitting at the gate of the king, Bigthan and Teresh, two of the king’s eunuchs from among the guardians of the threshold, grew angry and sought to kill249 King Ahasuerus. (22) [29v] Yet this became known to Mordecai, and he related it to Esther the queen, and Esther told it to the king on behalf of250 Mordecai. (23) When, therefore, his report was investigated, it was found to be just as he had said,251 and so the two of them were impaled252 on a wooden post; and it was written in the ledger of the events253 of the times before the king. This section is a prelude to what (the mudawwin) intends to relate in following—namely, what Haman sought to do to Mordecai, as we shall comment upon in its place. And in connection with (scenarios) such as this, one affirms, “Blessed is He who prepares the cure before the affliction.”254 Now these two eunuchs were the most distinguished of the 249 “to kill”—so, paraphrasing Heb. ãé çìùì, on this rather obvious implication of which (as in Gen. 37:22) see also Tgs Esth. I & II; Gen. Rab. lxxxviii,3; b. Meg. 13b (= Leq. Tob, p. 96); Pan. Ah. . B, p. 65; Ag. Esth., p. 25 (ad 2:22); Salmon, comm. ad loc. (cited on p. . 211, n. 259 below); and Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 35r): äîøòá åâøäì §îë ®ãé çåìùì. More literal renderings, however, are given by Saadia, Tafs¯ır: àîäéãéà àãîé ïà (idem ad 6:2); and Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 11v): íäãé åãîú ïà. 250 “on behalf of ”—Ar. #an, which idiomatic rendering of íùá is likewise adopted by Saadia, Tafs¯ır. Literally, however, Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 11v): íñàá. 251 “it was … said”—see also the expanded renderings of the terse predicate àöîéå offered in Tg. Esth. I: èåù÷ çëúùéàå; and Tg. Esth. II (varr.): ïîéäî/èåù÷ çëúùéå; as well as by Saadia, Tafs¯ır: êàã˙ ë ãâ˙åô (“and it was found to be so”); Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.Arab. I 4467, fol. 12r): ÷ç ãâ˙åå (“and it was found to be true”); and Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 35r): äëë àöîéå øáãä ù÷áéå. 252 Ar. fa-sulib¯a), rendering Heb. åìúéå (“and they were hanged”), which equivalency . is likewise employed by Saadia (Tafs¯ır) and Salmon (loc. cit.), as also, for the eight √ remaining occurrences of äìú in Esther (5:14; 6:4; 7:9, 10; 8:7; 9:13, 14, 25), by both Yefet and Saadia (no other occurrence is extant in the tarjama of Salmon). Cf. also the √ “to hang, impale”) rendering by the Aram. cognate áìö (Jastrow, Dictionary, p. 1282a: √ in Tgs Esth. I & II ad loc. (varr in the latter;√otherwise in the Mss: éìú), as well as, in the former, ad all other instances save 9:13 (= ó÷æ, on which see Grossfeld, Two Targums, p. 85, √ n. 19), and, in the latter, ad 7:9, 10; 8:7; and 9:25 (ad 5:14: paraphrase; ad 6:4; 9:13, 14: éìú). 253 Ar. akhb¯ar, which term is likewise adopted for éVáã by Saadia, Tafs¯ır; albeit Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 12r): øééñ (“actions”), on which cf. al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 366, ll. 130–31 (one of several definitions): íñøå ä¨ øéñ øáã àðìå (“Among us øáã also means ‘action’ and ‘regulation’”). 254 This adage, quoted in Hebrew—as also, verbatim, by Salmon (see p. 212, n. 262 below), from whom Yefet may here be borrowing—is reflective, no doubt, of the

translation

211

seven aforementioned whom the king dispatched to bring Vashti—that is to say, [30r] the two of them never left the threshold of the residence in which was the king.255 (The mudawwin) indicates, however, that they became disgruntled with the king, though it says nothing about the reason for their disgruntlement with the king. Perhaps he had mocked256 them,257 and so they endeavored to kill him; yet this was disclosed to Mordecai. Perhaps he heard them speaking of it when they did not think anyone was there, though it has also been said that God revealed it to him in a dream.258 He then came to Esther and disclosed it to her, that she might inform the king to be on his guard against them,259 and she then spoke to the king on behalf of Mordecai, since he had sent her with (this information).260 It may also be possible, however, that she told talmudic dictum ascribed to Resh Laqish in b. Meg. 13b ad 3:1 (see also Pan. Ah. . A, p. 45; Leq. Tob, p. 97): äàåôø àåä êåøá ùåã÷ä àøáù øçà àáø øîà ®éàî øçà ¬äìàä íéøáãä øçà . ¬äìéçú äàåôø íäì àøåá ïë íà àìà ìàøùé úà äëî àåä êåøá ùåã÷ä ïéà ùé÷ì ùéø øîàã ®äëîì íéøôà ïåò äìâðå ìàøùéì éàôøë øîàðù. Thus also, e.g., Rashi ad 3:1: ®äìàä íéøáãä øçà ïúëîì äàåôø àøåá 䧧á÷äù ®ïîä úà §åâå êìîä ìãâ ®ìàøùéì äòåùúì úåéäì åæ äàåôø úàøáðù íäéìò äëîä àéáéù íãå÷ ìàøùé ìù; and Joseph Kara ad 2:23: éúù 䧧á÷ä íéã÷äù êãîì éøä äúéîä ïî êìîä úà éëãøî ìéöäù §éðù ¬úåëìîì øúñà úàùéðù äðåùàø ®ïîä úëîì úåàåôø.

255 “the two … king”—i.e., the two eunuchs, being the most distinguished, did not depart with the other five to fetch Vashti, but remained behind to guard the king. 256 Ar. askhafa, on this meaning of which cf. Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 638b. 257 Cf., otherwise, Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1755 (an anonymous abridgment from the school of Ibn Nuh), . fol. 64r: êìã˙ øéâá åà íäá ìãá äðàì íäèë˙ ñ (“Their anger was due to the fact that the king had replaced them, or the like”), on which see also the early exegetical tradition that the two eunuchs had been—or feared they soon would be— replaced by Mordecai (Esth. Rab., vi.13; Tg. Esth. I; Ab. Gur., p. 20; Pan. Ah. . B, p. 65; Leq. Tob, p. 96; Ag. Esth., p. 25). Other traditional explanations of the eunuchs’ wrath . include jealousy over Mordecai’s advancement (Leq. Tob, p. 96) and frustration with . their increased duties following the king’s marriage to Esther (b. Meg. 13b; Ag. Esth., p. 25 [ad v. 22]). 258 For both explanations cf. Pan. Ah. B, p. 65: ùéå ¬åì øîàð ùãå÷ä çåøá íéøîåà ùéå . íãà å÷éæä àìå íéìëä àìå íéøòåùä åá åòãé àìå äìéìá ñðëðù íéøîåà; and, for the latter, Tg. Esth. II: àùã÷ çåøá àîâúô éæçúà ïëá. 259 Although not clearly implied here by Yefet, the idea that Mordecai’s disclosure of the plot was prompted by loyalty to the king (as opposed only to concern for Esther’s welfare, or, at the worst, self-interest) is emphasized by Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 11v–12r): ó÷å àîìô äìú÷ éìò åîæòà êìîìà éìò àèë˙ ñ àîì ùøúå ïúâá ïà ìãé ¨ çéöð äãðò áâ˙àå ïàë íäøîà éìò éëãøî ìàéðã éô ìà÷ àîëå äúìîâ˙ éô øàö ã÷ äðàì êìîìà ä çéöðúî äåä (“(Scripture) indicates that when Bigthan and Teresh became angry with the king they resolved to kill him, though when Mordecai became aware of their plot it was incumbent on him to act with honesty towards the king, seeing that he had become engaged in his household—as it also says of Daniel, he was comporting himself honestly (Dan. 6:4)”). 260 Concerning Mordecai’s disclosure of the plot via Esther, cf., more deductively, Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 12r): äã˙ ä òôøú ïà øúñà àöå éëãøî ä¨ îëç ïîå

212

translation

it to him when she entered unto him (for the first time).261 Most likely, however, he heard the two saying “Let us kill him in such-and-such a place at such-and-such a time” and immediately confirmed this to the king, who then ordered their execution [30v] and impalement. He also commanded that (the account of) this be written in the book in which were recorded the events of the kingdom—and it was written in his presence, as per the statement, before the king.262 What he had written we shall comment upon in the section (beginning), On that night (6:1). (iii 1–7) (iii 1) After these events King Ahasuerus promoted Haman the son of the Mad¯at¯a,263 the Agagite, and raised him up and set his seat above all the seats of the rulers who were with him.

˙ çáìà ïåëéå êìîìà øéâ äéìò ó÷é [ã140§ åàìá äàø] ãç àì éúç àøñ êìîìà éìà øáë˙ ìà äéìò ú íäãé åô÷åé àîøâìà åñçé àìàì àøñ (“Wisely did Mordecai charge Esther to report this news secretly to the king, that no one other than the king might know of it, and that the investigation concerning it take place in secret, lest the adversaries (of the king) perceive it and stay their hand”). 261 So, taking vv. 21–23, like v. 19 (see Yefet’s commentary ad loc. and pp. 33–34 above), to represent a narrative retrogression (i.e., “flashback”). 262 Cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fols 12r–v): ìãé (!)ïåøëæ øôñá áúëéå §å÷ ˙ ä éìò éëãøî óéøùúá äîàîúà íö˙ òì êìîìà ïàå àîéö˙ ò úðàë ä¨ øéë˙ îìà ïà ïà øîà àçéöðìà äã ˙ ä ïåëéì éëãøî äá éôàë˙ é àî ùåøåùçà àñðà úåàáö 駧é ïà éìà êìîìà úøö˙ çá áúëú øîàìà àã ¨ îã÷î àã˙ ä ìòâ˙ ïàì äúîàå äá òôúðé êìã˙ ãðòô äëîì äàåôø íéã÷îå äú÷åì àáë˙ î ìàøùéì ä ˙ íé÷ùîä øù äììà àñðà àîë ïà êìã˙ å ïéòììà ïîä óéøùú ìá÷ äú÷åì åäì (!)åãòà éúç óñåé øáë éðçìù äéçîì éë §÷å §âå íäéðôì çìù §÷ë ®®® (“The statement and it was written in the Book of Remembrance[!] indicates that the good deed was great, and that the king, for the sake of achieving (commensurate) greatness in his bestowal of honor upon Mordecai for this act of loyalty, commanded that it should be written in the presence of the king, at which point the Lord of Hosts caused Ahasuerus to forget that with which he was going to reward Mordecai in order that this matter might be concealed until its proper time, thereby ‘preparing the cure before the affliction’ [cf. b. Meg. 13b and p. 210, n. 254 above]. Thereupon both (Mordecai) and his people would be benefited by the matter, for God had established this prelude (to redemption) for Israel before the elevation of Haman the Cursed. This scenario, moreover, is just as when God caused the chief cupbearer to forget the report of Joseph until it was brought back [reading ãéòà, u #¯ıda] to him at its proper time … as per the statement, He sent a man before them [Ps. 105:17], and, for (God) sent me (before you) to preserve life [Gen. 45:5]”). 263 “the Mad¯ at¯a”—so, as also, apparently, the MT, construing the h¯e" of àúãîä as the definite article (cf. Hirschler, Esther, p. 268), rather than—as with the ancient versions and most other commentators, including Saadia (Tafs¯ır) and Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.Arab. I 4467, fols 12v)—as a part of the name itself.

translation

213

(2) And all the king’s servants who were in the gate of the king were kneeling down and prostrating themselves [31r] before Haman, for thus had the king commanded them; yet Mordecai would neither kneel down nor worship him. (3) Then the king’s servants who were in the gate of the king said to Mordecai, “Why is it that you are transgressing the king’s command?” (4) And so it came about, when they spoke to him day after day and he would not yield to them, (that) they reported this to Haman, in order to see whether Mordecai’s assertions would stand firm, for he had told them that he was a Judaean. (5) [31v] When, therefore, Haman saw that Mordecai was neither kneeling down nor prostrating himself before him, Haman was filled with wrath. (6) The execution of Mordecai alone, however, was a paltry thing to him, for they had made known to him the people of Mordecai; and so Haman sought to annihilate all the Judaeans, the people of Mordecai, who were throughout the kingdom of Ahasuerus. (7) [32r] In the first month, which is the month Nisan, in the twelfth year of King Ahasuerus, he cast the Pur264—that is, the lot—before Haman from day to day, and from (the first) month to the twelfth month, which is the month Adar.265 264 “the Pur”—Yefet here supplies the definite article, if not simply vis-à-vis the following equation with ìøåâä, then also, perhaps, on the (correct) assumption that, as in the Neo-Persian of his day, such was lacking in Old Persian (see Kent, Old Persian, §262). Likewise, apparently, Saadia (Tafs¯ır): (ïîä ä¨ øö˙ çá) ä¨ òø÷ìà íäñ ò÷åà (“the lot of sortilege was cast before Haman”), if not an error for ... §ìà åä íäñ ò÷åà (“an arrow [or “lot”]— that is, the lot (of sortilege)—was cast …”). Cf., otherwise, the LXX: και πο ησεν φφισμα … κα1 2βαλεν κλρους … κα1 2πεσεν 3 κλ4ρος; and the Lucianic recension (after v. 10): κα1 β"λλει κλρους. On the possibility of such an “Old Persianism” in the Hebrew text, as well as the specific reason for such, see further Wechsler, “Old Persian,” pp. 184–85, to which we would also add the observation of Kent (ibid.) “that Xenophon uses Βασιλες without the article in reference to the Persian king (Anab. 1.7.1, 2, etc.).” See also our suggestion of an Old Persianism ad 6:8 (pp. 257, n. 475 below). 265 “and from … Adar”—this clause in the Hebrew is difficult and Yefet renders it slavishly (see also Tg. Esth. II), the only exception being his addition of the article before “twelfth” (al-ithn¯a #aˇsara), which, if not therefore serving as the definite attribute of “month” (on the omission of the article from which, see Blau, Grammar, §229), may perhaps be construed as a substantive; thus: “and from month to month, the twelfth being the month Adar.” Cf., otherwise, Saadia (Tafs¯ır): éðú˙ àìà éô ò÷åô ¬øäù éìà øäù ïîå øãà øäù åä øùò (“and from month to month, and so it landed on the twelfth—that is, the month Adar”); Ibn Jan¯ah, . Luma#, p. 254, ll. 2–5: ïîä éðôì ìøåâä àåä øåô ìéôä ïàë óñåä] ùãçì ùãçîå íåéì íåéî øéã÷úìà øãà ùãç àåä øùò íéðù ùãçì ùãçîå íåéì íåéî øùò íéðù ùãç ìò øåôä ìôéå øùò íéðù [úåòèá èîùð ¬äàøðë ¬àåäù ¬§§ùãç짧 ãåò (“they cast Pur—that is, the lot—before Haman from one day to another day, and from one month to the twelfth month, which is the month Adar—the meaning of which is, from one day to another day and from one month to another month, until the twelfth month, and the Pur fell on the twelfth month”);

214

translation

The statement, King (Ahasuerus) promoted (Haman), followed by the saying, and advanced him, indicates that (the king) first magnified (Haman’s) position for a limited interval, after which he set his seat higher than the seats of those rulers who had an official station266 at the king’s court,267 though he was still separate from the seven of whom it is said, those who saw the king’s face (1:14).268 When, moreover, (the king) elevated Haman, he commanded the gatekeepers to kneel down and prostrate themselves before him in the manner of worship, not merely in the manner of respect;269 for if it had been merely in the manner of respect, [32v] and Tanhum, Esther, fols. 219v–220r (apparently following Ibn Jan¯ah. and, therefore, . affirming our correction thereto): åà øùò íéðù ùãçì ùãç ìà ùãçîå íåé ìà íåéî øéã÷úìà ˙ åçðå ùãç ãò (“The purport of this is, from one day to another day and from one month to êìã another month, to the twelfth month, or, until the (twelfth) month, or something similar”); as well as the ancient versions (with the exception of Tg. Esth. II), from among which many modern scholars have taken the LXX as their basis for restoration (albeit following, in most cases, the Lucianic reading τρισκαιδεκ"την over against τεσσαρεσκαιδεκ"την in the LXX), assuming haplography ad ùãçì (= κ/το μηνς; cf., e.g., Gerleman, Esther, pp. 88–89; Hirschler, Esther, p. 273; Levenson, Esther, pp. 69–70; Moore, Esther, p. 33; Paton, Esther, p. 202; Würthwein, “Esther,” p. 183; and BHS). 266 “an official station”—Ar. martaba, on which see Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 508a: “gE M les siéges dans l’antichambre des califes abbâsides, où ceux qui se présentaient pour l’audience s’asseyaient chacun selon son rang.” 267 On this distinction between ìãâ and §åâå åäàùðéå as indicating two successive events of promotion, cf. Alshekh: ñåîéðäî ïéà 맧ò íéøùä ìëî ïè÷ ïîä §éä åéùëò ãò éë úîçîå íùéå 맧çàå ®åäàùðéå 맧çàå åúåà ìãâ äìçúá ®äâøãäá äéäé ÷ø íéøùä ìë ìò úçà íòô åìéãâäì §åâå åàñë úà. Also, regarding Yefet’s explicit reference to the rulers’ holding of seats at the royal court, see Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: éë íéøùä úåàñë ìë ìòî íòèä ®íéøùä ìë ìòî úåëìîä úéáá àñë åì ùé øù ìëì; idem, Comm. B (fol. 80r): úåàñë úåéäì äëåìîä èôùî äëë úåëìîä úéáá êìîä éøùì. 268

I.e., Haman was only promoted above “all the princes who were with him,” the seven previously mentioned princes—among whom Haman was not enumerated, and who were therefore not “with him”—constituting a separate, more eminent group (see Yefet’s comment ad 1:14 on p. 186 above). 269 This understanding of the obeisance due Haman as constituting an act of worship is likewise attested by the vast majority of pre-modern commentators, among whom see, e.g., Saadia, Comm., p. 1173 (his introduction): ìëå §÷ë äàø ïî ìë äì ãâ˙ñé àãåáòî[...] ˙ ïî éëãøî òàðúîàå ®ïîäì §ùîå íéòøë êìîä øòùá øùà êìîä éãáò òøëé àì éëãøîå §÷ë êìã ˙ àä [ïé]ã àìà óéøùú ãåâ˙ñ ñàðìì åãâ˙ñ ã÷ íäàðãâ˙å ïéøéú˙ ë [àé]ìåà ïà éìòå ®äåçúùé àìå àîì äã ˙ úîé æåâ˙é íìå íðöìàë øàö ä¨ ãàáò ãåâ˙ñ ïàë (“[Haman was made] an object of worship, äìú before whom all who beheld him would prostrate themselves, as per the saying, And all the king’s servants, that were in the king’s gate, bowed down and prostrated themselves before Haman; yet Mordecai refrained from such, as per the saying, but Mordecai bowed not down nor prostrated himself. And even though we have found many pious individuals who have prostrated themselves before men with a prostration of honor rather than faith, this (refusal by Mordecai) was due to its having been a prostration of worship, proceeding as idolatry, and it was forbidden for him to engage in such”); Salmon (Mss RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 13r, and RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fol. 8r): äòéøëìà úðàë àîì

translation

215

Mordecai would not have refrained from such, since Haman’s rank was above Mordecai’s rank in the palace. And so, though all the gatekeepers did it, Mordecai among them did not do it. Now at the time of his passing by, Haman did not care to look at the people, yet the gatekeepers saw that Mordecai did not stir from his æéâ˙úñé íìô äòøëðå äåçúùð åàá §÷ë è÷ô ìâ˙å æò äììàì éìà ïåëú ïà æåâ˙é àì äéåçúùäìà òî ˙ àîë êìîìà øîà óìàë˙ å ïîäì ãâ˙ñéå òëøé ïà éëãøî øöðãëåáð øîà äéøæòå ìàùéî äéððç óìàë §âå íìöìì åãâ˙ñé íìå (“Since the bowing down was accompanied by prostration, it was

not permissible that (the act) should be (done) before anyone save God—the Exalted and Sublime!—alone, as per the saying, Come, let us prostrate ourselves and bow down [Ps. 95:6]. Mordecai, therefore, did not consider it permissible for him to bow down and prostrate himself before Haman, and so he contradicted the command of the king, just as Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah contradicted the command of Nebuchadnezzar and did not prostrate themselves before the idol; and so on”); and the anonymous compilator in Ms. RNL Yevr. A II 78, fol. 16r, who, interestingly, claims observance of the same practice by the supposedly Judaized Khazars of his day: úåäìà ïîä úéåçúùä åæå éë åððîæá åðéàøå ®®® §âå ïéçåçéðå äçðîå §ëë ìàéðãì §ðãëåáð äùòù §îë ®ïîäì §çúùîå íéòøë §ëë […] ùéà íéãáåò àéXæë äéëøåú õøàá. Among the ancient/early sources cf., in the first instance, the LXX, Add. Esth. C 5–7, followed by Tg. Esth. I; Tg. Esth. II (ad v. 3); Esth. Rab. vii.6; b. Meg. 19a; b. San. 61b; Ab. Gur., p. 22; Pan. Ah. . A, p. 46 (ad 3:6); Leq. Tob, p. 97; Mid. Meg., . p. 175; Midr. Meg. Esth., pp. 22–23); Pirqe R. El., ch. 50; and Gen. Rabbati, p. 151. Cf., otherwise—and uniquely, as far as we can tell, among the medieval Jewish exegetes—, Tanhum, Esther, fol. 219v (ad 3:2): øñôîìà øöúðà ã÷ ®ïîäì íéåçúùîå íéòøåë . ˙ ˙ ä ïà úåùøãîìà õ˙ òá éô ìé÷ àîì àã˙ ä éô éëãøî òðúîà êìãìå ïîäì àãáòú ïàë ãåâ˙ñìà àã ¨ ÷éøè àîà ìå÷ðô ®ãáòúìà éðòî éô ìîòúñú àîðà äòéøëìà ïà ìà÷ô ®äðî úî ìò‘ ã÷ô ùøãìà ä ˙ ôììà øäàè˙ äéìò ìãé àîî êìã˙ ïà íòæé äðåë àîàå àäéô æéàâ˙ äìú˙ îå êìã˙ å ïî àì çöé àìô è ¨ äâ˙ ïî àîà ®íòæ àîë è˙ ôììà ä¨ äâ˙ ïî àìå éì÷òìà øåöúìàå éðòîìà ä¨ äâ˙ êìîìà ïàô ì÷òìà ä ˙ éàå ®äá éìåà åä ïàëì êìã˙ ë ïàë åìå äéìà åä ìöé íì àîá äøéæå éìò íòðé ñéì ãàò óéë àö ˙ ÷ð éìà ìéáñ àì êìîìà äáúøé àîìë ïà úðàë íäúðñ ïà ïåë òî äìú÷á ä¨ ð( ñìà êìú õ˙ ÷ð äö ˙ éà ùåøåùçà éìò áâ˙åì êìã˙ ë øîàìà ïàë åì äðà àö˙ éàå ®àãòú àìéã ñøôå éãî úãë ìé÷ àîë àö ˙ ìà ïî [(91§ åàìá äàø) ã˙ ë˙ úåîìà =] ã˙ ë˙ úîìà íðöìì ãâ˙ñé àîë ãâ˙ñé ïà ïî àîàå ®äøéâ åà áäã ˙ åäéìà ìá÷é íì àèë˙ äéô ïàë åìå ®åäéìà ãâðì åéëøá ìò òøëéå ìé÷ ã÷ô è˙ ôììà ä¨ äâ˙ äðî êìã ˙ å àìàìâ˙àå àîàøëà ïàë àîðà äì ãåâ˙ñìà ïà àã˙ à çéçöìàô íäøáà äìòô ã÷ô øëðî øéâ êìã ãåã éãé ïéá òáù úáå ®äöøà åéôà ìò êìîì åçúùéå àéáðä ïúðå õøàä íò éðôì íäøáà åçúùéå ˙ éà àðì÷ àîë §èì §ëæ åäéìà éãé ïéá íéùîç øùå ®êìîì åçúùúå òáù úá ãå÷úå ìé÷ àîë àö ˙ ïî éù éô øàëðà àìå äöøà åçúùúå åéìâø ìò ìåôúå ìà÷ àîë òùéìà éãé ïéá úéîðåùìàå êìã ˙ ìàå ä¨ ðçîìà áéáñú ïî äììà ãàøà àîì êìã˙ ïò òôøú éëãøî àîðàå (“As regards äãé éìò õàìë

this (passage) the Interpreter [i.e., Saadia] has maintained what is said in some of the midr¯asˇôt—namely, that this prostration was in worship of Haman, and it was for this reason that Mordecai refrained from such; and he has correspondingly averred that the root òøë is employed only in the sense of worship. Now we admit that, with respect to the d˘er¯asˇ approach—(the application of) which is (in this instance) well-known—, this view and the like are possible; yet as to (the Interpreter’s) claiming that such is borne out by the plain meaning of the words, he is incorrect, not only with respect to the words themselves as he claims, but also with respect to the overall import and rational assessment. With respect to rationality, (this is so) because the king would not have conferred upon his vizier that which did not apply to himself—and if this had been the case, surely the king would have been the first (to be worshipped). Also, how would (the

216

translation

position and so they undertook at first to scold him, saying to him, “O man, we fear for you as regards the king, for he has commanded this.” Yet he said to them, “My religion prevents me from prostrating myself in the manner of worship before any save God.”270 Now Mordecai knew that, if he had done this, he would have appeared to them to be worshipping a man, and therefore it was unallowable to him, just as it was unallowable to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to appear to be worshipping the idol.271 When, therefore, they heard (this response) from Mordecai, [33r] they knew that he was opposing it and that he was disdaining to prostrate himself before him; and when they saw him time after time doing this and flouting their advice, they reported it to

king) have reconciled the abrogation of this decree by (Haman’s) execution with the fact that, according to their law, it was impossible that anything the king prescribed should be abrogated, as it is said, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not [Dan. 6:9, 13]. If, moreover, the matter had so transpired, it would certainly have been incumbent upon Ahasuerus to bow down as well, just as he would have bowed down to an idol made of gold or the like. With respect to the words themselves, it is (elsewhere) said, and he bowed down [òøëéå] on his knees before Elijah [2 Kgs 1:13], and were there any sin in this, Elijah would not have accepted it from him. The proper view, therefore, is that the prostration before him was naught but an exhibition of deference and respect, which is not forbidden, for even Abraham engaged in such, (as it is said,) then Abraham prostrated himself [åçúùéå] before the people of the land [Gen. 23:12]; and Nathan the prophet, (as it is said,) and he prostrated himself [åçúùéå] to the king with his face to the ground [1Kgs 1:23]; and also Bathsheba before David, as it is said, Bathsheba bowed and prostrated herself [åçúùúå] before the king [1Kgs 1:16]; and the captain of fifty before Elijah §èì §ëæ, as we have already noted; and the Shunammite before Elisha, as it is said, she fell at his feet and prostrated herself [åçúùúå] on the ground [2 Kgs 4:37]; and in none of these instances is any censure (expressed). Mordecai, however, was disdainful of such since God intended that the occasion for both the tribulation and deliverance would be (provided) through him”). 270 See also the conjectured discourse set forth by Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 14r): éáäã˙ î éôå éãåäé àðà ìà÷ äéìò åøëðà àîì äðà ìãé åãîòéä úåàøì äìå÷å ˙ ðô äì åìà÷ô ®éãåäé àåä øùà íäì ãéâä éë §å÷ úçú àã˙ äô ä¨ øåöì ãåâ˙ñìà íàøç ïî êéìò óàë ˙ é äììà ïà íäì ìà÷ô {ìà÷ô} ìú÷ìà ïî äàáà ïëîé (!)àì àîë éðî äðëîé àìå äãé ïî éðöìë ˙ äå òùåäé ùìçéå §÷ë äàáàá ïéøôè˙ îìà åðàë àðàáà ìá àðàáà (“The åãîòéä úåàøì äìå÷ úçú àã statement to see whether (Mordecai’s words) would stand suggests that, when they rebuked him, he said, ‘I am a Jew, and in my creed the worship of a (material) representation is forbidden’—this underlies the statement, for he had told them that he was a Jew—and so they said to him, ‘We fear death for you.’ Then he said to them, ‘God will deliver me from (Haman’s) hand, and he shall not gain mastery over me, just as his ancestors could not gain mastery over our ancestors, but rather our ancestors were the ones who vanquished his ancestors, as per the saying, So Joshua overwhelmed (Amalek and his people) (Exod. 17:13)’—this underlies the statement to see whether (Mordecai’s words) would stand”); as well as in Esth. Rab., vii.8; Tg. Esth. II ad v. 3; Ab. Gur., p. 22; Pan. Ah. . B, p. 66; Leq. Tob, p. 98; and Ag. Esth., p. 27. . 271 This example is likewise cited by Salmon (see pp. 214–15, n. 269 above).

translation

217

Haman for two reasons.272 The first is what the Scripture mentions— namely, that they wanted to test his statement, whether or not he would still do this after Haman learned of it. The second is because they were afraid that Haman would himself become aware of (Mordecai’s disobedience) and that, if they ignored it and did not inform Haman, he would become angry with them and report it to the king. When, however, they did inform him of it, he did not accept their report until he had established (Mordecai’s) intent thereby and so saw that their report was true.273 Now he already knew that (Mordecai’s) penalty would be death, for he had disobeyed the king, yet he reasoned that the execution of (only one) Jew would leave no impression, and so he sought to kill all the Jews on account of the fact [33v] that all the Judaeans would say the same thing as Mordecai.274

272 Whereas Yefet infers an immediate response by Mordecai to the servants’ question in v. 3, followed in v. 4 by continuing advisement (to yield) before their informing of Haman (see Tg. Esth. II; Hirschler, p. 271), Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 13v–14r) appears to construe the servants’ “speaking” in the latter verse as their continuing attempt to determine the still unknown reason for Mordecai’s disobedience, which, when finally explained, is immediately made known to Haman: òéîâ˙ ïà ìãé àã˙ ä ˙ åòôøé (!)àìå êìîìà øîà éëãøî úôìàë˙ î åîè˙ òúñà äöàåë˙ êìîìà ãàå÷ äéìò åøëðà éúç äøáë ˙ äðà å÷÷çúå äîàìë åòîñå éìò ìãé åéìà íøîàá (!)äì §å÷ ®®® àãîòúå àãö÷ êìîìà øîà óìàë ˙ ìà åòôøé íì ãàå÷ìà ïà (“This (verse ïîäì åãéâéå §÷ë äéìò åøëðà ïà ãòá éìà ïîä éìà øáë [i.e., v. 3]) indicates that all of the king’s distinguished [or, “intimate”] officers regarded Mordecai’s contravention of the king’s command a serious matter, though they did not report his conduct [lit., “matter”] until they had reproached him and heard his words, and so verified that he was deliberately and willfully contravening the king’s command … The statement when they spoke (daily) unto him indicates that the officers did not report the matter to Haman until after they had reproached him, as per the statement, then they told Haman”). As regards this latter view see also the LXX: κα1 6πδειξεν α7το8ς 3 Μαρδοχα8ος :τι ;Ιουδα8ς στιν; and Ag. Esth., p. 28: àìù åàøù ïåéë ¬íåéå íåé åéìà íøîàë ïîäì åãéâéå ãéî åéìò ìáé÷. 273 Similarly Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 14v): ïà ìå÷ìà àã ˙ ä (!)ïà (!)ìã ˙ ô ãâ˙ñéå òëøé äøè˙ ðé íìô äðî äìàá øàã éëãøî øîàá ïîä åøáë˙ à {åøáë˙ à} àîì íäìå÷ úáú ˙ â ãúùà êìã˙ ãðòô äãðò (“This statement indicates that, when they informed äúéîçå äáö Haman of Mordecai’s behavior [lit. “matter”], he turned his attention upon him and, consequently, did not see him either kneeling down or prostrating himself; thus their statement was proven to him, at which his anger and rage became severe”). 274 “on account … Mordecai”—so per the statement in v. 6 that “they had made known to him the people of Mordecai,” from which Yefet reasonably infers not simply the communication of Mordecai’s ethnicity, but also that the religious affiliation of such, as indicated by Mordecai himself in v. 4 (see Yefet ad loc.), was the reason for his refusal to worship Haman. As an ethnically-based objection, therefore, the same would hold true for any Jew. See also, e.g., Leq. Tob, p. 98: àì éëãøî íòî àåäù éî ìë øîåìë ®éëãøî íò . éëãøî äååçúùä àìù êøãë íìöì äååçúùé; Alshekh, Esther: äùòé íà åì ìéòåé äî åáìá áùç ïîä åéúåá÷òá íéëìåäå éëãøî íò íéàø÷ð íéãåäé úåááøå íéôìà éë ®åãáì éëãøîá ïéã; and, among

218

translation

From the statement But it seemed contemptible in his eyes to lay hands on Mordecai alone we learn that the Jews were lowly, despised, and powerless during (Haman’s) time; thus he intended to kill the whole (of them). Yet he did not then hasten against them until he saw what the lot would show him.275 The time, moreover, was (during) the month Nisan, and so the lot was cast in that month. As to the statement from day to day, (etc.)—it seems that he divided up the days of the month, making them into thirty lots; then he took the months of the year and made them into twelve lots. There fell to him, accordingly, the lot of the thirteenth day, whereupon he cast the months and there fell to him the twelfth lot,276 which was from God—Blessed and Sublime!—so as to distance

the moderns, Hakham, “Esther,” p. 23; Hirschler, Esther, p. 271; Hoschander, Esther, pp. . 155–57 (albeit construing the term “Jew” as indicative merely of religious affiliation); and Moore, Esther, p. 37. Otherwise, for the view that Mordecai’s objection is based solely upon ethnic enmity, assuming the identification of Haman as an Amalekite, see, inter alios, Fox, Esther, pp. 44–46; Gerleman, Esther, p. 92; Levenson, Esther, p. 68 (noncommittally); and Meinhold, Esther, p. 43. 275 Rather than simply pointing out the obvious, Yefet no doubt intends by this comment to emphasize the importance of lot-casting to Haman as a form of divination— one which is well-attested in antiquity, both within Israel (see Prov. 16:33) as well as without (see, e.g., as regards the Mesopotamian cultures, Hallo, “Purim,” pp. 19–21), though as regards the ancient Persians, not clearly identified as an act of divination by the sources (i.e., Herodotus, iii.128; Xenophon, Cyr. i.6.45–46; iv.5.55—of which these latter two, however, although presenting lot-casting in a decidedly a-theological light, are probably more reflective of the author’s own sensibilities regarding lot-casting than those actually held by the Persians). Nonetheless, among the Zoroastrians of Yefet’s time (with whom, no doubt, he would have had some familiarity), commensurate belief in the propitiousness—or lack thereof—of any given day for undertaking any given work is well attested in the codified identification of each day of the year as being “preferable,” “average,” or “unfavorable” (see al-B¯ır¯un¯ı, Ath¯ar, pp. 231–32). 276 “it seems … lot”—this description of the lottery procedure, according to which the day was selected first, then the month, reflects the order of presentation in the Hebrew text: “from day to day, and from month to month” (see also Tgs. Esth I & II; Esth. Rab. vii.11; Ab. Gur., pp. 24–25; Pan. Ah. . B, pp. 67–68; Leq. Tob, pp. 98–99; and . Ag. Esth., pp. 29–30. For the reverse order cf. the anonymous commentator in Jellinek, Commentaries, p. 10). In contrast to the early rabbinic sources, however, which posit only seven lots for the days (spanning the week), Yefet more reasonably infers the creation of lots for all thirty days of the (lunar) month, on which see also (following Yefet) Jacob ben Reuben (Ms. BN héb 191, fol. 310r = Ms. RNL Yevr. II 78 A [an anonymous Byzantine Karaite compilation], fol. 16v): ïë øçàå íéôì÷ §ì åéäå §åéä íù §àå §à ìò áúëå ®®® §éôì÷ ç÷ì åãéá àåáé äéä øùàå íäá åãé çìùé ùçðîä äéäå ®®® íáøòîå íìáìáî äéäå §à éìëá íìë êéìùä åðîéñ äéä äæ—though as regards the months this latter posits a process of elimination roughly identical to that attested in Ag. Esth., p. 29. Cf. also Rashi: íåé äæéàá ®íåéì íåéî çéìöéù ùãçá; and the anonymous commentator in Jellinek, Commentaries, p. 10: ìéôäå åá íåé øùò äùìùì òéâäù ãò ìøåâ äìò àìå íåé ìà íåéî.

translation

219

the time (of their intended annihilation); and if it had been a near time, he would surely have killed a generation277 of Israel.278 (iii 8–11) (8) [34r] Then Haman said to King Ahasuerus, “There is a certain people scattered about and isolated279 among the peoples280 in all the cities281 of your kingdom; their customs differ from the customs of282 every people, and the customs283 of the king

On this meaning of #¯alam see Lane, Lexicon, p. 2141a. As regards this “delay” see also Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: åùòéù ãò ïîæä êéøàä íùäå åèìîéå äáåùú ìàøùé; as well as, ad 3:13, Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 17r): ˙ å ìàøùéì çàìö äììà ïî [à9§ åàìá äàø] ä¨ ìñîìà äã˙ ä øéë˙ àú ïàëå íäàãòà êàìäå íäì õàìë åéúçú òùø àáéå õìçð äøöî ÷éãö §÷ë (“The deferment of this affair was from God (as a means of) salvation for Israel and deliverance for them, as well as for the destruction of their enemies, as per the statement, The righteous is delivered out of trouble, and the wicked cometh in his stead [Prov. 11:8]”); and Leq. Tob, p. 101: §ä áéùäù ãò ùãåç ᧧é åúøéæâ àäùä . ìàøùéì äèéìô øàùð àì ïë éìåìàù ¬åùàøá åìåîâ. 279 I.e., separate from the other peoples; unassimilated—Ar. wa-munfarid, adopting the cognate root of Heb. ãøåôîå, which latter, however, has often been construed as a synonym for øæôî, the two therefore comprising a hendiadys for “scattered” or “dispersed” (thus, e.g., the LXX: 2νος διεσπαρμνον ν το8ς 2νεσιν; Peshitta: '" ()"; JPSV [1917] and RSV: “scattered abroad and dispersed”; Berlin, Esther, p. 39; and Hakham, “Esther,” pp. 24–25). As regards Yefet’s construal (on which see also his . comment ad loc.), cf. the hexaplaric LXX: και διηρημενον; Tg. Esth. I: ùøôúéîå; b. Meg. 13b: úåøéô äùåò äðéàù åæ äãéøôë ¬ãøåôî; Pan. Ah. . B, pp. 68: äðéà åæ äãøô äî ãøåôî 짧à 277 278

àì äøåúá íáø äùî íäì áúë ïëù ¬íìåòä úåîåàì äëåæå èìå÷ íäî ãçà ïéà êë ¬òøæ úèìå÷ íäá ïúçúú; Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 35v): íéøçà íò áøòúî àìå øæôúî ãçà íò; and, e.g.,

among the moderns, Bush, Esther, p. 381; Fox, Esther, pp. 279–80; Gerleman, Esther, pp. 88, 95; Hirschler, Esther, p. 273; Levenson, Esther, pp. 69–70; and Moore, Esther, p. 39. Less clear are the treatments of Saadia (Tafs¯ır): ÷øôúî (“divided” [appositional]); and al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 482, ll. 55–56: ÷àøúôà äìë ®ãøôîå øæôî (“[the root ãøô in] ãøåôîå, [as well as in Gen. 2:10 and 13:9,] all [denote] ‘division’”). 280 “among the peoples”—we have included this phrase per Ms. R1, insofar as the remaining Mss., which lack it, nonetheless contain the corresponding Hebrew phrase (íéîòä ïéá) in the previous citation. Leaving the door ajar, however, to the possibility— slight though it may be—of a true variant, is the absence of this same phrase from the Peshitta and, perhaps, the Lucianic recension, though in this latter it is most likely represented, together with êúåëìî úåðéãî ìëá, by ν π"σαις τα8ς βασιλε αις. 281 See p. 170 and n. 51 above. 282 “the customs of ”—an obvious inference, which, aside from the paraphrase in the Lucianic recension of the LXX (viz., 2ξαλλα νμιμα 2χων), is otherwise left implicit by the ancient versions, as also Saadia (Tafs¯ır): ä¨ îà ìë ïî ä¨ øééâúî íäððñå; and al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 412, l. 12: áòù ìë ïî ä¨ ôìàë˙ î íäîåñø. 283 I.e. (as also in the preceding clause), religious beliefs and practices (see Yefet’s commentary ad loc.).

220

translation

they do not observe, and there is nothing worthwhile to the king in letting them be284—that is, in letting them go on.285 (9) “If, therefore, it is pleasing to the king, let it be written concerning their destruction; and it shall be my duty286 to weigh out ten thousand purses287 of silver into the hand of those who undertake the work, to enter [34v] it into the king’s treasuries.” 284 On this construal of äåÖ ˙ in the sense of “worthwhile (lit., “equitable”)” (yastaw¯ı) or, somewhat more paraphrastically, “seemly” (yanbagh¯ı) or “right” (yas. luh. u), cf. Saadia, Tafs¯ır: êìã˙ éìò íäëøú êìîìàì äáùé ñéìå (“and letting them go on in that way does not befit [see Blau, Dictionary, p. 324a] the king”); Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.- Arab. II 3350, fol. 12r [tarjama]): àã˙ ä ìú˙ î éìò íäëøú êìîìà äáùé àìå (“and letting them go on in this way does not befit the king”); ibid. (comm.): êìîìà äáùé àì éðòé §ðäì äåù ïéà êìîìå äìå÷å ˙ é ïî [äúë]ìîî éô êøúé ïà (“it is not sˇ¯oweh, etc. means, ‘it does not befit the àäéìò óìàë king to let anyone remain in his kingdom who contravenes (his command and creed)’”); al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 654, appr. ad l. 21 (long version): íäëøú ãðò éåúñî éù ñéì êìîììå íäì äëøú òî éù äì éåúñé àì éà (“for the king there is nothing worthwhile [mustaw¯ı] in letting them be—that is to say, there is nothing about his letting them be which is equitable [yastaw¯ı] for him”); the glossator in the Rouen Ms. of Ibn Jan¯ah’s . Us.¯ul (col. 393, n. 40 [ad 3:8 & 5:13]): H!$ &   (“equivalence and value”); Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: úìòåú åððéà åà ïåëð øáã åððéà (“It is not a proper thing, or it is not a profitable thing”); idem, Comm. B (fol. 35v), alt.: íçéðäì äåù øáã åððéà (“it is not a matter worth letting them be”); Immanuel b. Solomon, Esther, fol. 200r: äåùéù øáã ïéà êìîì §îåìë ®íçéðäì äåù ïéà íééçá íçéðäì úìòåúå íåìë (“it is not sˇ¯oweh, etc.—that is to say, ‘there is nothing to which any comparative value or profit may be ascribed in letting them remain alive’”); and Tanhum, Esther, fol. 220r: çìöé àìå äì éâáðé àì éà íäëøú äì éåúñé àì (“to overlook them . is not worthwhile—that is to say, it is neither seemly for him nor right”). On the sense √ of äåù in the qal stem generally see also Ibn Quraysh, Ris¯ala, p. 337: àåñ àäøéñôú éåàñúîå (“The meaning of these (qal occurences) is ‘equivalence/worth’ [siwan or saw¯a"] and ‘equal/worthwhile’ [mutas¯awin]”). 285 “letting them go on” (ibq¯a"ahum)—or, “their being spared/pardoned” (see Lane, Lexicon, pp. 237c–38a). 286 “and … duty”—Ar. #alayya, on this sense of which see Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 116b, and Wehr, Dictionary, p. 748b. 287 Ar. badra (rendering Heb. øëë), traditionally equated with a sum of 10,000 (sometimes 1,000) dirhems (see Hava, Dictionary, p. 24a; Lane, Lexicon, p. 166a) or, assuming its precise equivalence to the Heb. kikkar, 3000 shekels (cf. Jastrow, Dictionary, p. 638a); thus, e.g., Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 393: H!+ I> [ c] vB Hrhr H!+ IA &' I  &'  áäæ øëë e+ T [e+   NQ ] + T J>   äøâ íéøùò  =+ IA  cM  H!>  c vB &J> C"  '  [e+ T B] 1!$ cM NQ (“Kikkar (in Exod. 25:39) is a badra, and the Hebrew badra is three thousand Hebrew mithq¯als [i.e., shekels], which is therefore (equivalent to) ten thousand Arabic mithq¯als [i.e., d¯ın¯ars; cf. Goitein, Society, I, p. 360]; and the Hebrew mithq¯al is (equivalent to) twenty gerahs [thus, e.g., Exod. 30:13], which is to say, twenty d¯aniqs—though these are d¯aniqs of the (Hebrew) mithq¯al, not d¯aniqs of the (Arabic) dirhem [of which each d¯aniq constitutes a sixth part]”). The value thus assigned to Haman’s bribe, following Goitein’s 1967 approximation (I, p. 359) of $100 to one d¯ın¯ar among the people of the Genizah period, would have been roughly equivalent (in 1967) to $100,000,000.

translation

221

(10) So the king removed his signet ring from his hand and gave it to Haman the son of the Mad¯at¯a,288 the Agagite, the enemy of the Judaeans. (11) And the king said to Haman, “The money is given to you; do with the people what is pleasing to you.”289 Since the lot fell just as (Haman) intended, it was inevitable that he should appear before the king, for he would not have considered doing anything apart from (the king’s) command; nor was it possible for him to say, “I have determined, as befits propriety, that you should execute all the Jews who are in your kingdom,” without (first) showing him the involvement of propriety in such. Indeed, do you not see [35r] that Memucan did not mention what was necessary to be done to Vashti until he had (first) mentioned the reason that it was fitting for (the king) to do such to her? Accordingly, Haman begins by mentioning the matters vis-à-vis which it is fitting for the king to destroy them. Thus he says There is a certain people, showing that it is a single people, and so the matter concerning them easily resolvable. He then says scattered abroad and dispersed, meaning that they are scattered among the provinces—not gathered together in any one city—and therefore their execution would have been difficult; yet despite this,290 because they are not gathered together in any one city, but rather mixed in among the people throughout the population of the cities, their execution is easy.291 Also envisaged by the statement and separated is (the idea) that “the Mad¯at¯a”—see p. 212, n. 263 above. On this rendering of the second half of the verse as an independent volitional clause rather than, as in the Hebrew, a subordinate final clause, see also the LXX: τ,. δ< 2νει χρ. =ς βολει; Saadia, Tafs¯ır (on the use of the imperfect in place of the imperative see Blau, Grammar, §176; idem, Development, p. 85): ïñç àî íäá òðöú íå÷ìàå êãðò (“And as for the people—do with them what is pleasing to you”); and Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 15r): êãðò ïñçé àîë íäá ìòôà íå÷ìàå (“And as for the people—do with them as is pleasing to you”). 290 I.e., the fact that they are scattered among the provinces. 291 I.e., whereas the dispersal of the Judaeans among the provinces (inferred by Yefet from the phrase ãøôîå øæôî) could theoretically have made their execution a difficult undertaking (assuming a somewhat sizeable distribution in both non-metropolitan areas as well as the cities), their specific distribution among the population of the cities of the kingdom (inferred by Yefet from the phrase êúåëìî úåðéãî ìëá íéîòä ïéá, construing úåðéãî as “cities” [see p. 170 above]) ensures that, through the strong administrative machinery and non-Jewish majority of those cities, their execution would be easily enacted—more easily, in fact, than if the majority of Judaeans were in any one city, in which case they might be able to offer significant collective resistance. See also Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 15r): íîàìà ãé úçú äìã˙ éô íäðà íéîòä ïéá §÷å 288 289

222

translation

they are not assimilating with the people, but rather standing alone,292 and others are not with them. He then says, and their customs are different, [35v] showing that they are not in conformity with the nations in respect to their customs, which is also why the people eschew them.293 Then he says, neither do they keep the king’s laws, which is the most distressing thing of all.294 His specific reference, moreover, by the statement, and their customs are different from those of every people, is to the matter of circumcision.295 And regarding his statement, neither do they keep the king’s laws—this refers to what the king commanded respecting the prostration before

íäéìò êîëçå êãé úçúå êúëìîî ïãî [éô] íäðà éðòé (!)êéúåëìî úåðéãî ìëá §÷å ïåøéñé (“As to the statement among the peoples—(this is to say) that they are living in abasement [or “submission”] under the hand of the peoples” [cf. Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 35v): .øæåôî ãçà íå÷îá øáåçî åððéà éë äæáð àåäå]; and as to the statement in all the provinces of your kingdom—(this is to say) that they are in the provinces [see Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 575] of your kingdom, and so under your hand; and your jurisdiction is over them”); as well as the variant reading ad b. Meg. 13b attested by Spanish family Mss (on which see Segal, vol. 2, p. 125; text cited from Steinsaltz, Megillah, p. 57 [marg.]): àëéà øîàú àîùå êúåëìî úåðéãî ìëá ®ïäì ìåëé äúà ïéàå êúåëìîì õåç ïäù øîàú àîùå ®íéîòä ïéá ®åäééðéî àãç àúðéãî. 292

“standing alone”—or, “are isolated/segregated” (mutafarrid¯ın), on which explanation of ãøåôîå cf., in addition to the material cited on p. 219, n. 279 above, Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: åìåë òø àåä êë ìë åéçà ìòî ùéà ãøôéù; idem, Comm. B (fol. 35v): ®ãøåôî §òèå åé÷ùîáå åéìëàîá ãøôúî. 293 Similarly Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 15r): ñéì éðòé úåðù íäéúãå §÷å (!)íäàã˙ îìà òéîâ˙ ïéôìàë˙ î íäðà ã˙ à íîàìà ãðò áçî íäì (“The saying and their laws are different means that they have no fan among the peoples because they are at variance with all the customs [reading áäàã˙ îìà] (of the peoples)”). Cf. also Yefet ad Deut. 32:27 (Sokolow, Deuteronomy, p. 119): ìàøùé éìò òåîâ˙î éä àãòàìà òéîâ˙ ñòë ïà äá ãéøé øåâà §å÷å ˙ î éô íîàìà òéîâ˙ì ïéðéàáî ìàøùé åðàë ã˙ à (“By the íò ìëî úåðåù íäéúãå ïîä ÷§§ë íäáäàã statement, I dreaded [Deut. 32:27], he is referring to the fact that the enmity of all the enemies is gathered against Israel because Israel is distinct from the rest of the peoples is their customs, as per Haman’s statement, and their customs are different from those of every people”). 294 Cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 15r): íì êìîìà ïðñ éðòé êìîä éúã úàå ( ˙ úîé íìå äåìá÷é íì øîàá êìîìà øîà åìå ïåìòôé (“(The statement neither do they keep) the äåìú king’s laws means that they do not observe the laws [or, perhaps, “customs”] of the king, and if the king were to issue a decree, they would neither accept it nor obey it”); and Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: äðäå ®êìîä äåöéù íé÷åçäå íéúãä åøîùé àìù àìà úåðåù íäéúãù éã àìå ïäî õåç åøîùé íòå íò ìë; idem, Comm. B (fol. 35v): íéáééç íðäå íéùåò íðéà êìîä (!)úã úàå äúéî. 295 Such is likewise mentioned, albeit as part of an aggadic litany of objected practices, in Tg. Esth. II: éðá ïî ïééðù éåäéðã §éøîàå ïåäéìò ïéñééç àìå ïåäéðá úìøò ïéøæâ ïéîåé àéðîúì àéîîò. Any specific reference to circumcision is otherwise lacking, however, in the more concise explications of íäéúã attested in Tg. Esth. I; b. Meg. 13b; and Ab. Gur., p. 26; Leq. Tob, pp. 99–100; and Ag. Esth., pp. 31–32. .

translation

223

Haman,296 though (the reason for) it is not recorded—to wit, that some of the Persians believed that the Divine Light297 had certain active manifestations,298 and therefore, when they saw someone who was attractive and intelligent, they would opine that something of the Divine Light existed within him,299 and so they would deem fit to worship him in a special fashion. Had the king not commanded such (worship), there would have been no offense attributable to Mordecai. After this (Haman) says, as it were, “If it is the opinion of the king to destroy the people of whom these [36r] are their characteristics, let it be written unto the provinces concerning their annihilation, and I shall weigh out for this ten thousand purses300 of silver which shall be entered into the king’s treasuries.” In his statement he offers this great wealth for one of two reasons: either he knew that the king would be overcome with greed for the taking of the money;301 or else because he had already said and it profiteth not the king to suffer them, though there was incumbent upon them a poll-tax302 which they—i.e., the Jews who were in the Land of Israel as well as those who were scattered among

296 This understanding of êìîä éúã as referring to the king’s theological/religious customs is likewise attested—albeit not in the same specific fashion—in Mid. Esth. vii.12: àéìðøèñ àìå ñãðì÷ àì íéøîùî ïéàù íéùåò íðéà êìîä éúã úàå. Cf., otherwise, Tg. Esth. I: ïéãáò ïåäéúéì àëìî éðéã úøéæâ úéå; Tg. Esth. II (ad init): ïéãáò ïåäéúéì àëìîã àúãéáéòå; idem (ad fin): ïéãáò àì äéúãéáéòå ïéëìäî àì àëìî éñåîéðáã ìåèî; b. Meg. 13b: íðéà êìîä éúã úàå 駧äô 駧äùá àúù àìåëì é÷ôîã ®íéùò (=Ag. Esth., pp. 31); Leq. Tob, p. 100: êìîä éúã úàå . àëìîì àðåøã íéðúåð íðéàù ®íéùåò íðéà; and, following the last (see Buber’s comment, ibid., n. 25), Rashi: êìîä úãåáòì ñî úúì ®êìîä éúã úàå; and idem ad b. Meg. in loc. cit.: úàå ïéðúåð ïðéà úåðåðøàå úåéìâìåâå íéñîå úåéøâðåà ®íéùåò íðéà êìîä éúã; as well as the comments of Salmon and Ibn Ezra cited on p. 222, n. 294 above. 297 “Divine Light”—Ar. al-n¯ur, on Yefet’s following discussion of which see pp. 24–25 above. 298 Ar. af #¯al, on which cf. al-Shahrast¯ an¯ı, Milal, II, p. 75 (cited on p. 25, n. 47 above). 299 Cf. the similar presentation of this view, in connection with Vashti, in Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1755 (an anonymous Karaite abridgement), fol. 62r (ad 1:11): ïàë ®àéáäì [ã ìîåë ã÷ äðà íäéøé ïà ùåøåùçà áìèô ä¨ é( äàìà äéô ì÷àòìà åà çéìîìà õë˙ ùìà ïà íäãðò8§ åàìá äàø] (“To bring (Vashti, etc.)—In their opinion the attractive or intelligent person had within him (a certain measure of) divinity, and so Ahasuerus sought to show them that he had become complete (by virtue of his wife’s beauty)”). 300 See p. 220, n. 287 above. 301 Cf., less psycho-deductively, Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 15v): ìà÷ ˙ à ä¨ øãáìà óàìà øùòìàå íäúãàáà áâ˙é [â51 ,á9§§ åàìá äàø] éìàä ìú˙ î ïà àîòîå ïîä øéë íäðî êìîìì (“Haman is saying that, aside from the fact that the annihilation of such (people) as these is requisite, the (sum of) ten thousand purses (of silver) is better for the king than them [i.e., than leaving them alone]”). 302 “a poll tax” (khar¯aj)—or (both here and following), “a land tax”; or both (see p. 206, n. 234 above). Cf. also the following note.

224

translation

the provinces—would pay out to the king, yet when this wealth (of Haman’s) was weighed out, (the poll-tax) would cease to be incumbent upon them.303 When, therefore, the king heard the description of these people, along with the mention of the weighing out of this great wealth, he seriously considered the sense of such (a course of action), saying to himself, as it were, “This man is wise and well-acquainted with the situation; yet if the people are according to this description, what304 obligates him [36v] to weigh out this wealth from his own purse? It is better that I should give him my signet ring with which to seal (the matter as he sees fit), and not take from him the money, and so have sold (the people) to him for his money which he would weigh out; nor shall I say to him ‘Write (an order) concerning their annihilation,’ but rather I shall say to him, ‘Do that which you deem proper.’ For if it becomes clear from (the situation) that he has acted properly, it will be good, and there will be no detriment in having given him the money, and if it was improper, the censure shall be on him, and we shall withdraw our statement,305 since we have conditioned (our) statement upon that which his actions befit.”306 When Haman heard this, therefore, he did not (stop to) consider the consequences of the situation, but rather, because of the ire in his 303 I.e., their taxes having been fully paid out by Haman, the Jews would have no further monetary obligation to the king, and thus Haman’s claim—that the king would occasion no profit from the Jews’ continued existence—would be realized. See also Pan. Ah. . B, p. 69, in which Haman’s offer is explained as a collective per capita substitute for the half-shekel Temple tax/offering (see Exod. 30:13): àåáéø §ñ ïåáùç êì íëåñ éðà 짧à íéôìà úøùò úìåâìâì ò÷áî (êìù ùåøéô) äìåò éøäå ¬úìåâìâì ò÷á àåáéø §ñ åðúð ¬íéøöîî åàöéùë óñë øëë íéôìà úøùòå øîàð êëì ¬êì ì÷åù éðà 䧧á÷äì ïéì÷åù íäù ì÷ùáå ¬óñë øëë. Likewise, albeit less clearly, b. Meg. 13b: ãéúòù íìåòä äéäå øîàù éî éðôì òåãéå éåìâ ùé÷ì ùéø øîà

ìò ïéòéîùî øãàá ãçàá ïðúã åðééäå ®åéì÷ùì ïäéì÷ù íéã÷ä êëéôì ¬ìàøùé ìò íéì÷ù ìå÷ùì ïîä íéàìëä ìòå íéì÷ùä; as well as, perhaps implicitly (see Grossfeld, Two Targums, p. 55, n.

18), Tg. Esth. I; Esth. Rab. vii.19; Ab. Gur., p. 27; and Leq. Tob, p. 100. . 304 Ar, ayy shay", on this meaning of which see Blau, Grammar, §52a. 305 This being possible because the order was not issued by the king himself, as in the event of Vashti’s dismissal (1:19). 306 This more ambivalent/pragmatic assessment of the king’s involvement in the affair stands in contrast to the traditional assertions of hatred and co-intentionality on his part; thus, e.g., Esth. Rab. vii.20: ïéøîà ïðáø ®ïîäì äðúéå åúòáè úà êìîä øñé éë

íøá øëåîì ïåáøò ïúéì ç÷åì ìù åëøã íìåò ìù åâäðî ®òùøä ïîäî øúåé ìàøùé úà àðåù ùåøåùçà ïåáøò ïúåð øëåîä àëä (cf. also Tg. Esth. II; b. Meg. 14a; Ab. Gur., p. 27 [and n. 113], 29;

Leq. Tob, p. 100; Ag. Esth., pp. 33–34). Note, however, that in most of these sources the . king is also initially ambivalent (albeit primarily due to fear of divine reprisal), and in one instance (Ab. Gur., p. 27) is made to claim, even after handing over his ring, that he desires “neither of their profit nor of their loss” (ïãñôäî àìå ïøëùî àì ù÷áî éðéà)!

translation

225

soul over (the Jews), hastened the letters concerning their destruction; and he was, in truth, from among the descendants of Amalek, who unceasingly molested Israel from the beginning of their (history), [37r] for which God commanded His people to annihilate them from under Heaven.307 Indeed, it may be possible that he was from among the descendants of Agag308 whom Saul spared, and from whom, therefore, this calamity proceeded. At the beginning of this section, moreover, he is not referred to as the enemy of the Jews; but when309 he came out310 with calumny and slander, (the mudawwin) thereupon says (that he is) the enemy of the Jews. (iii 12–15) (12) Then the king’s scribes were summoned in the first month, on the thirteenth day thereof, and all311 that Haman commanded was written to the king’s governors,312 307 This point and its relevance to the events in the book of Esther are discussed at length by Salmon in his introduction, for a portion of which see pp. 197–98, n. 194 above. Also in connection with this pericope, in Esth. Rab. vii.13 (ad 3:9), Haman’s descendancy from Amalek and a review of the Amalekite-Israelite conflict is presented as part of the content of Haman’s letters (cf. also Ab. Gur., p. 27; Leq. Tob, p. 100). . 308 So, ad loc., Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 35v): ââà úçôùîî ®éââàä. 309 On this rendering of Ar. hatt¯a as a protasis-opening “when”—which, vis-à-vis the . previous qualifier “beginning of ” (awwal), is preferable to the conjunctive rendering “until”—see Blau, Emergence, p. 118, n. 2, and Yefet’s tarjama ad 6:14 & 7:8. 310 “he came out”—Ar. z¯ahara, on this rendering of which cf. Dozy, Supplément, II, p. . 86b. 311 This representation of “all” as the subject of áúë, although possibly due to an erroneous scribal omission of the preposition corresponding to Heb. ë in an early exemplar (if not in fact reflecting an actual Hebrew variant), is also attested in the tarjama of Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 16r): ïîä øîà éã˙ ìà ìë áúëå (“And all that Haman commanded was written”); as well as, among the ancient translations, in the Peshitta:  *&    + ; and Tg. Esth. II: ïîä ãé÷ôã äî ìë áúëéàå. Cf., otherwise, Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ïîä äá øîà àî òéîâ˙ë áúëå (“And it was written according to all that Haman commanded”). 312 Ar. umar¯a" (rendering Heb./Old Pers. éðôøãùçà, which equivalency is likewise attested passim in Yefet’s tar¯ajim [i.e., Esth. 8:9, 9:3; Dan. 3:2, 3, 27; 6:2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8])—i.e., the governors of the provinces (see Yefet’s comm. ad loc.), which group is thus distinguished by Yefet from the “vicegerents” ( #umm¯al, rendering Heb. úåçô, as also ad 8:9; 9:3) who administered the cities. Saadia (Tafs¯ır, passim), Salmon (Mss. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3350, fol. 12v [ad 3:12] & Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fol. 13r [ad 9:3]), and #Al¯ı ibn Sulaym¯an (apud Pinsker, Geschichte, I, p. 207), on the other hand (albeit not necessarily at variance with Yefet’s construal of the office), render (í)éðôøãùçà by ¨ ÷øàèá (Saadia ad 3:12: úà÷øàèá), which term is otherwise employed by Yefet in his ä tarjama exclusively for íéîúøôä (1:3; 6:9). Cf., otherwise, Saadia, Egrôn, p. 187: áàâ˙ç

226

translation

and to the vicegerents313 [37v] who were over every city, and to the chiefs of every people, (to) every city according to its script, and to every people according to their language; in the name of King Ahasuerus it was written and with the king’s signet ring it was sealed. (13) And the sending314 of the letters was by couriers to all the king’s cities, that they should exterminate, kill, and annihilate all the Jews, both youth and elder, infants315 (“gate-keepers/chamber-lains”); al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 69, l. 272: ìàî( ò ìà÷éå áàâ˙( ç ìà÷é (“It is explained as ‘chamberlains’ and it is explained as ‘vicegerents’”); and Ibn Jan¯ah, . Luma#, p. 102, ll. 16–20: ä¨ áë( øî ä¨ è˙ ôì àäðà àìà àö˙ éà ä¨ éñàîë˙ ä¨ è˙ ôì íéðôøãùçàä êìã˙ ëå ˙ äáùà àî åà ì( ˙âàìà øéæåìà àäàðòî ä¨ éñàîë˙ ä¨ è˙ ôì øúùçà éðòà òî úáë( øú àäðà àìà êìã ¨ øö˙ ç ïåãäàùé [cà361§ åàìá äàø] éã˙ ìà éà ä¨ øö˙ çìà àøæå ïéúîìëìà éðòî ïàëå íéðô êìîìà ä êìîä éðô éàø éðòî éìò àîéàã äðåøéå (“So too is íéðôøãùçàä [8:9; 9:3] a quintiliteral word, notwithstanding that it is a composite word, by which I mean that øúùçà [cf. Avestan hˇsaθra] is a quintiliteral word whose meaning is ‘the most exalted vizier’ or something ˘similar to this, notwithstanding that it is combined with íéðô [“face/presence”]; and the meaning of the two words is ‘the viziers of the (king’s) presence’—i.e., those who witness the king’s presence and behold him continually, in accord with the sense of those who behold the king’s presence [1:14]”); idem, Us.¯ul, col. 78: 9 'o A HI(D H6 íéðôøãùçàäå . d D  [H!B d  ="] 78 Œ(! $ .&Rf (“íéðôøãùçàäå [9:3] is a composite word and its meaning is ‘the viziers of the presence,’ which I have already explained in the chapter on (nominal) constructions in Kit¯ab al-luma#”). 313 Ar. #umm¯al, rendering Heb. (< Akkadian) úåçô, on which cf. otherwise, passim in Esth., Salmon (Mss. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3350, fol. 12v [ad 3:12] & Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fol. 13r [ad 9:3]): ïéèàìñìà(å) (“the sultans/rulers”); Saadia, Tafs¯ır: àøîàìàå (“and the governors”); al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 457, l. 272: àîñé‘ å ®äãåäé õøàá íçô úåéäì ïàèìñ íçô àðìå éúìëà àì äçôä íçì äçô (“By us the lexeme íçô also signifies ‘sultan/ruler,’ as in to be a ruler [íçô, our indefinite translation of which follows al-F¯as¯ı’s apparent construal of the mem as part of the root; cf. BHS var.: äçô] in the land of Judah [Neh. 5:14]; and it is also pronounced äçô, as in I have not eaten the bread of the ruler [äçô] [ibid.]”); Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 569, ll. 25–26: ìåãâ ïäë H!j 1Y B ahD =" ïâñ !E B H!s t"   ! äçô !E (“The translation of äçô is ‘governor,’ and he is therefore above the deputy [i.e., the ïâñ, with which term äçô is paralleled in Jer. 51:23; cf. Ibn Tibb¯on, Roots, p. 400], for the meaning of ïâñ in the idiom of the early sages is ‘deputy of the high priest’ [cf. Jastrow, Dictionary, p. 955b]”). 314 “And the sending” (wa-irs¯al)—so, notwithstanding the employment of this verbal noun in construct to al-kutub (which definite rendering of Heb. íéøôñ is likewise adopted by Salmon [Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 16v]), in slavish rendition of the infinitive absolute çåìùðå (on which, as an LBH substitute for the finite verb, see Joüon & Muraoka, Grammar, §123x–y). See also Tg. Esth. I: àøãùìå. As in Ms. R1 (fol. 35v), however, which has here the variant ìñøàå (albeit, perhaps, a scribal adjustment), perfective renderings of çåìùðå are normative; thus, e.g., the LXX: κα1 πεστ"λη; Esth. Tg. II: ïåøãúùàå; Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 16v): ìñøàå; and Saadia, Tafs¯ır: (áúë)á ú˙ òáå. 315 Ar. (wa-)tifl, which lexeme, although morphologically singular, has been semanti. cally construed by us per the nomen collectivum óè (see Gesenius & Kautzsch, Grammar, §123a–b) for which Yefet—as also Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 16v)— slavishly employs it. Cf., otherwise, Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ìàôèàå; Esth. Tgs I & II: àéìôè(å); the

translation

227

and women, in one day, on the thirteenth of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and (that) their spoil should be plundered.316 (14) [38r] The transcript317 of the letter was to be established as law in every city, published among all the peoples, that they should be ready for that day. (15) And the couriers went out impelled by the king’s command, and the edict318 was established in Susa the fortress; and the king and Haman sat down to drink while the city of Susa was in a state of dismay.319 (The mudawwin) indicates that Haman hastily summoned the king’s scribes, with whose script320 the governors of the provinces were familiar; and it was also written to the rulers [38v] of every city in their321 script and their language,322 for it is to be expected that the king should have had scribes who knew the script of every people, as well Peshitta: , ; Origen: νηπια (και γυναικας); the JPSV (1917): “little children”; and the RSV: “children.” 316 “should be plundered” (yunhaba)—this passive rendering by Yefet of the Qal infinitive æåáì (“to plunder”; JPSV [1917]: “to take … for a prey”) is similarly attested by Saadia, Tafs¯ır: íðâé (“(and that their spoil) should be taken as booty” [reading yughnama, as implied by both his singular rendering of the verb as well as his explicitly passive rendering of the preceding inf. ãáàìå by ãàáéå]). Cf., otherwise, Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 16v): áäðìì (“for the plundering”). 317 Ar. nuskha, which equivalent of ïâùúô (elsewhere in BH only in Esth. 4:8 & 8:13) is also adopted by Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr. II C 522, fol. 2r [ad 3:14]; Yevr.-Arab. II 3350, fols. 13r [ad 8:13] & 16v [ad 4:8]), and, ad 4:8, by Saadia, Tafs¯ır, as well as by Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 596. The same Ar. root (n-s-kh), moreover, is employed by Saadia (Tafs¯ır) ad 3:14 and 8:13, albeit verbally in the paraphrase (for úã ïúðäì áúëä ïâùúô): ê˙ ñðå äòé÷åú ìòâ˙å áàúëìà (“The document was copied and its enactment confirmed”). See also Leq. Tob, p. 101: áúëä ú÷úòä; Ibn Ezra, Comm. B, fol. 35v: §îë íéãùë ïåùì ïâùúô . äçñð. Cf., otherwise, al-F¯ as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 492, ll. 71–72: áúëä ïâùúô ®úãä áúë ïâùúô úàå ˙ ú÷é (“ïâÖ"út denotes [see Blau, Dictionary, p. 551a] a writ or a circular”); and øåùðîå ì( ˙âñ éö #Al¯ı ibn Sulaym¯an (apud Pinsker, Geschichte, I, pp. 204–5), who construes úãä áúë (4:8) as appositional to ïâùúô: ê˙ ñð ìé÷å úàìâ˙ñ úãä áúë ïâùúô úàå áúëä ïâùúô (“áúëä ïâÖ"út [3:14; 8:13] and úãä áúë ïâÖ"út [4:8] denote ‘official records,’ though they are also explained as ‘copies’ [nusakh]”). 318 “and the edict”—Ar. wa-"l-sunna, rendering Heb. úãäå, on which cf. otherwise Saadia, Tafs¯ır, and Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fols 17r): òé÷åúìàå (“and the writ” [see Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 831b: “la décision que le greffier ou secrétaire écrit, d’après l’ordre du prince, sur un placet qu’on présente à l’audience”]). 319 “was … dismay”—or, “was … confusion” (tahayyarat). . 320 See our discussion on pp. 23–24 above. 321 Referring to the cities; yet in Ms. L (see the text, p. 27*, n. ad l. 13), referring to the rulers. 322 I.e., in contrast to the one (official) language employed for the letters to the provincial governors (see the preceding note).

228

translation

as their language. As to the phrase in the name of the king—(the mudawwin) means by this that (the letters) were addressed from the king323 and sealed with his signet ring, and therefore each city’s letter was not to be opened except upon (that city’s) own public rostrum. Accordingly, each city’s ruler would announce that the people should gather together in toto to a place which would accommodate them,324 and then the letter sealed by the king’s signet ring would be opened and read to them. The letters, moreover, would remain with them—and, perhaps, (each city’s ruler) would have their reading continually repeated. In the letter it was written that everyone called a “Jew” should be killed, from one day old and above325—(including,) per the phrase all the Jews, proselytes to the religion—, and that they should be killed on the same day in all326 the provinces; [39r] and he also permitted them to plunder (the Jews’) wealth and did not appoint it for the king; all of which was to awaken the citizenry’s desire for the spoil, though Scripture does not mention the reason for this.327 By the phrase, the copy of the letter, (the mudawwin) means that in every city would be (deposited) a transcript of the letter, that it might be continually read and so the people clearly understand what was in it and be ready to kill (the Jews)328—and also that certain people be

323 Cf. the representation of the content of the letter, expressed by the king in the first-person, in Ab. Gur., pp. 29–32; Leq. Tob, p. 100; and Ag. Esth. pp. 36–38 (ad v. 14). . Otherwise, cf. the expression by Haman in Pan. Ah. . A, p. 47; and the ambiguous firstperson plural expression (in which reference is made to “all the provinces of King Ahasuerus”) in Pan. Ah. . B, p. 69. 324 Lit., “the people” (al-n¯as). 325 Cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fols 16v), who notes a specific connection between this edict and one of the prophesied consequences of the exile: äã˙ ä øîà àì øòðå ï÷æì íéðô àùé àì øùà §÷ë éñðå ìôèå àøéâöå àøéáë ìú÷á ïéòììà [bà51§ åàìá äàø] ïåçé (“This Cursed One commanded the killing of both great and small, babes and women, as per the statement, (The Lord will bring against thee a nation from afar …) that shall not regard the person of the old, nor show favor to the young (Deut. 28:49–50)”). 326 On this meaning of s¯a"ir cf. Blau, pp. 159, n. 23, and 321, ad loc. 327 I.e., the reason for appointing the spoil for the citizenry, rather than for the king. 328 Cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fols 17r): éô ìàøùé ìú÷é ïà ïéòììà ïîä øã÷ ˙ îå ïéããäî äã˙ ä éìà ïéãòúñî àãòàìà åðåëé ïàå ãçàå íåé òâ˙åå ïæç éô ìàøùé åðåëé éúç ìàøùé ïéôåë ˙ å áì÷ (“Haman decreed that Israel should be massacred in one day and òæôå ÷ì÷å óåë that their enemies should be ready for such, intimidating and terrifying Israel, so that they might be (immobilized) in (a state of) grief, heartache, fear, anxiety, and dismay”); in connection with which see also Esth. Rab., vii.25: ù÷áîå ÷åùì àöåé ìàøùéî ãçà äéä êðåîî úà æáæáîå êâøåä éðà øçîì åì øîåàå å÷ðåç éñøôä äéä ÷øé ìù äãåâà åà øùá àøèéì ç÷éì.

translation

229

commissioned over each city (to ensure) that (the Jews) would not flee to the open country329 and be saved. (Haman) then commanded the couriers to proceed swiftly on (their) journey, that the letters might swiftly arrive. And concerning the statement and the decree was given out—(the mudawwin) intends by this to say, “and the transcript of the letter which went to the king’s provinces was (issued) in Susa as well.” And perhaps many copies were made—indeed, if this were not the case Mordecai would not have acquired [39v] the copy of the letter330 which he sent to Esther, as we shall explain in connection with what follows.331 Then, after the letters were dispatched, the king and Haman sat down to drink, and were both cheerful.332 As to the statement and the city of Susa was perplexed—this statement may, on the one hand, be pertinent only to the Jews (of Susa),333 for (the decree) had come upon them unexpectedly, the letters having been dispatched and (the opportunity to avert) the matter having passed, while they had had no knowledge of it before the letters were dispatched; and so they were presenting a petition334 to the king to spare them, or else they were contemplating what he would permit them to do.335 On the other hand, (the mudawwin) may be referring by (this statement) to (all) the inhabitants of the city, for the Jews had immediately closed their shops and taken up fasting and vociferating, and therefore the (Gentile) people ceased from their labors, just as it is witnessed in this time of ours [40r] that most of the labor of the (Gentile) people ceases on the 329

“open country”—or, “deserts” (al-bar¯ar¯ıy). “the copy of the letter”—lit., “the letter of the transcript” (kit¯ab al-nuskha). 331 See Yefet’s comment ad 4:8 on p. 242 below. 332 Cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fols 17r–v): åàìá äàø] äã ˙ ä ïî äì íú àîì ˙ ëì áøùìàå ìëàìà éô ïàìà ã˙ ë˙ àô ìàøùé éìò äì íúé ìàçìà ïà øã÷å øîàìà [bà51§ úøú §âå íéîåøò úåáùçî øéôî áàúëìà ìà÷ ïëàì äáøè (“(The preliminary aspects) of the decree having been completed by him, and having established that the (intended) situation would be brought to pass by him upon Israel, (Haman) now takes up eating and drinking due to the abundance of his delight; yet Scripture says, He frustrates the devices of the crafty, etc. [Job 5:12]”); and Joseph Kara, Esther, p. 12: êåúî ¬úåúùì åáùé ïîäå êìîäå íúåáùçî åùòù äçîù. 333 So Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fols 17v): éã ˙ ìà ìàøùé éðòé äëåáð ïùåù §å÷å åøééçú ïùåù éô (“As to the statement Susa was perplexed—this means (the people of) Israel who were in Susa were perplexed”); Rashi: äáù §éãåäéä ®äëåáð ïùåù øéòäå; Joseph Kara, Esther, p. 12: ïéà éë ïàöä éøãò åëáð ïëå ¬ïåâé êåúî äðäå äðä íéòð íéëåáð ïùåù øéòáù íéãåäéäå äòøî ñôàá äðäå äðä íéòð íäì äòøî; and Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: íéãåäéä íùù ®ïùåù øéòäå §ëåáð. 334 “presenting a petition”—Ar. yarfa #¯una qissa il¯a "l-malik, on this sense of which see .. Lane, p. 2528a, and Dozy, Supplément, II, 352a. 335 I.e., to undertake in their own defense. 330

230

translation

Sabbath day, and selling and buying becomes sparse—and, to be sure, they already had friends (back then) among the Gentiles; thus they were (all)336 dismayed when they heard and there was read to them the transcript of the letters.337 (iv 1–17) (iv 1) When338 Mordecai learned of all that had been done he immediately339 rent his clothes; then he put on sackcloth, cast ashes upon his clothes and his 336 Or, assuming a more conjunctive relationship between this clause and the previous, the Gentiles are to be taken as the subject. 337 This latter view—i.e., that “Susa” here denotes all the inhabitants of the city—is the one apparently favored by Yefet (contra his usual practice of placing the preferred view first) in view of his comment ad 8:15, in which he identifies “Susa” with “the people of the land” (ahl al-balad) and explains their joy as a commensurate counterpart to the dismay of Susa in 3:15. See, similarly (contra the unjustified assertion of Paton, Esther, p. 211), Bush, Esther, p. 383; Fox, Esther, p. 55; Hakham, “Esther,” p. 27; and . Hirschler, Esther, p. 277. Cf., otherwise, Tg. Esth. I, wherein the “perplexity,” although likewise ascribed to the entire city, is explained as the result of the Gentiles’ joy and the Jews’ weeping: ìàøùé úéá àîòã àúåëá ì÷áå ïéàøëåð àéîò úåãçá àìáøòúî úåä ïùåùã àúø÷å. 338 Ar. wa-#inda m¯a, which temporal expansion of the waw in éëãøîå, along with the omission of “Mordecai” (contra the Heb. text) from the head of the following clause, is intended to clarify the circumstantial/disjunctive syntax of the initial w˘e- + non-verb sequence (see Waltke & O’Connor, Syntax, §§39.2.1d; 39.2.3c), on which see also Saadia, Tafs¯ır: äáàéú˙ ÷øë˙ ¬òðö àî òéîâ˙á éëãøî íìò àîìô (“And so, when Mordecai learned of all that had been done, he tore his clothes”); as well as the LXX: >Ο δ< Μαρδοχα8ος πιγνο@ς τ συντελομενον διρρηξεν τA Bμ"τια Cαυτο; Tg. Esth. I: òæá éëãøî òãé ãëå éåùåáì úé; and Tg. Esth. II: úîúçúàã àúøâéà úéå úøæâúéàã äéúøéæâ úé à÷éãö éëãøî àæç ãëå éåùåáì úé òæáå éëãøî øëãéà ãëå ®®® éåøåçàîå éåîã÷ ïåðéùåáì àøö; Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: øùàë åéãâá òø÷ ãéî øáãä äæ òãé; and idem, Comm. B (fol. 36r): =] äôø ১ôë äæ å§§å ®éëãøîå ìàòîùé ïåùìá [v  . Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 17v), on the other hand, renders slavishly: äáàéú˙ éëãøî ÷ùå ìòô àîìë íìò éëãøîå (“And Mordecai knew all that had been done; and Mordecai rent his clothes”). 339 This adverbial addition—as also the commencement of the following clause with thumma (“then” [for Heb. waw])—is apparently intended to distinguish Mordecai’s clothes-rending, as a “gut”-reaction which took place the moment he learned of the edict (see Ibn Ezra’s first comment cited in the preceding note), from his following, more deliberate donning of sackcloth and ashes, which items would have required a certain amount of time (following his immediate reaction) to procure. See also, in this respect, the exegetical tradition attested in Ab. Gur., p. 34, Leq. Tob, pp. 101–2, and Ag. . Esth., p. 40 (perhaps reflecting the alternative vocalization Öa"ìiå; cited here per Ab. Gur.):

¬íéîîå íçìî íúåà äðéòå ¬ïáø úéá ìù úå÷åðéú ìë õá÷ ¬äùò äî ¬åéãâá úà éëãøî òø÷éå ãéî íäéìò íé÷ù ùéáìäå; as well as, notwithstanding its omission of any previous reference to

Mordecai’s clothes-rending, the Lucianic recension (v. 2): 3 δ< Μαρδοχα8ος λDν ες τν

οEκον α7το περιελετο τA Bμ"τια α7το κα1 περιεβ"λετο σ"κκον κα1 σποδωε1ς ξ4λεν =ς π1 τ/ν α7λ/ν τ/ν 2ξω κα1 2στη.

translation

231

face,340 and went out into the midst of the city and let out a great and bitter cry. (2) He then came [40v] before the gate of the king’s residence,341 since it was forbidden342 for him to enter the king’s gate in sackcloth clothing. (3) And in every city and all343 the (other) places344 whither the king’s command and 340 “cast … face”—so, specifying the somewhat ambiguous reference to “wearing” (ùáìéå) ashes in the Heb., on this rendering of which see also Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.Arab. I 4467, fol. 17v): ãàîø äñàø éìò ìòâ˙å (“and he put ashes upon his head”); as well as the LXX: κα1 κατεπ"σατο σποδν; Tg. Esth. I: äéùéø ìò àîèé÷ éåùå; Tg. Esth. II: ìôìôúàå àøôòá áéúéå ®®® àîè÷á; the Pesh.:  * &+ ; the Vulg.: spargens cinerem capiti; Pan. Ah. . B, p. 69, and Ag. Esth., p. 41 (ad v. 2): åùàø ìò øôà ïúð; and Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 36r): íãà åðùáìéù øáã åððéà éë ®øôà åùàø ìò íùù ®øôàå §òèå. Saadia (Tafs¯ır), however, renders slavishly: ãàîøìàå çñîìà ñáìå (“and he put on sackcloth and ashes”). 341 “the gate of the king’s residence”—this expansion of êìîä øòù is similarly attested in Tgs. Esth. I & II, both here (àëìîã àøéèìô òøú) as well as ad most of the other 10 occurrences of this phrase in Esth. (2:19, 21; 3:2; 4:2 [bis], 6; 5:9, 13; 6:10, 12), excepting, in the former Targum (which otherwise inserts ïéøéèìô), 2:19, 21, and 5:9, and, in the latter (which otherwise inserts úéá), 2:19, 5:13, and 6:10; and also Tg. Ket. (inserting ïéøéèìô) ad the only occurrence of this phrase outside of Esth., in 1Chron. 9:18 (these statistics per Grossfeld, First Targum, pp. 112–13). See also Pan. Ah. . B, p. 69: øòùì êìäå êìî ìù ïéøèìô; Ag. Esth., p. 41: êìî ìù åðåèìôì òéâäù ãò êìäå; and, albeit substituting “palace” for “king,” the Vulg.: fores palatii. 342 “it was forbidden”—lit., “it was not permitted” (laysa yaj¯uzu), concerning which ad sensum expansion of Heb. ïéà, here employed idiomatically with ì + inf. constr. (see Joüon & Muraoka, Grammar, §160j, ad fin), cf. Saadia, Tafs¯ır: çìöé ñéì (“it was not permissible”); and Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 18r): äîñø ñéì (“it was not his prerogative”); as well as the LXX: ο7 γAρ $ν ξν; Tg. Esth. I: øáâì åùø úéì; Tg. Esth. II: ùðà éúéé àìã úøæâúéà äéúøéæâ(ã); the Pesh.: $- /  ; the Vulg.: non enim erat licitum; and most modern translations. 343 On this meaning of s¯a"ir see Blau, Grammar, pp. 159, n. 23, and 321, ad loc. 344 “and all … places”—this conjunctive paraphrase of Heb. íå÷î (on this construct usage of which see Gesenius & Kautzsch, Grammar, §130c; Joüon & Muraoka, Grammar, §129q), together with Yefet’s normative rendering of äðéãî as “city” (see p. 170 above), indicates that these two nomina loci were herein construed by him as both distinct as well as separate. This distinction, albeit not necessarily this separation (owing to the construal of äðéãî in its usual sense of “province,” and thus implying íå÷î to be a constituent location), is also attested in the Hexaplaric recension: κα1 ν π"σ(η χρFα κα1 τπ,ω; Tg. Esth. II: øúàå øúà ìëáå àúðéãîå àúðéãî ìëáå; and the Vulg.: in omnibus quoque provinciis oppidis ac locis; as well as by Saadia, Tafs¯ır (offering a doublet for íå÷î [in the second instance also standing in for øùà], if not in fact an expansion of äðéãîå äðéãî, in which case his translation of the former is appositional [see below]): ä¨ ðéãî ìë éôå ˙ åî¬ ä¨ éø÷å ä¨ éø÷ ìë éôå ä¨ ðéãîå (“And in every province [on this translation of mad¯ına òö see Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 575] and in every city, (to which) place …”); Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 18v), somewhat slavishly: òö˙ åîå ãìáå ãìá ìë éôå (“and in every province and place”); and, e.g., among the moderns (albeit some questionably), Gerleman, Esther, p. 101; Levenson, Esther, p. 77 (= the RSV); and Würthwein, “Esther,” p. 183 (transposing the verse after 3:15a). Cf., by contrast, the construal of íå÷î as

232

translation

the letter of his decree arrived, there was great mourning among the Jews, as well as fasting, weeping, lamentation, and sackcloth; and ashes were spread out for even the most prominent345 among them. (4) And so Esther’s maidservants and her eunuchs came [41r] and informed her, whereupon the queen became extremely disquieted; and she sent garments to clothe Mordecai and remove his sackcloth from upon him, yet he would not accept (it). (5) Then Esther summoned Hathach from among all346 the king’s eunuchs, whom he had appointed to be in her presence, and she ordered him to go to347 Mordecai to learn what this was and why this was. appositional (resulting in its frequent omission from translation) in the LXX: κα1 ν π"σ(η χρFα, οG; Tg. Esth. I (questionably, albeit see Grossfeld’s trans., Two Targums, p. 58): -ã øúà àëìéôå àëìéô ìëáå; and the Pesh.: -    ; as well as, e.g., among the moderns, by Bush, Esther, p. 389; Hirschler, Esther, p. 279; Meinhold, Esther, p. 50; and Moore, Esther, p. 45. 345 “for (even) the most prominent” (lil-ajill¯a")—this reading of Heb. íéáøì, contra the usual construal of this root (I ááø), ad loc., in the sense of “many” (pl. + def. art. = “the masses (of Israel),” not “many” [see Koehler & Baumgartner, Lexicon, p. 1171 (3.a)])—as, e.g., by Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 18v): øéú˙ ëìì—is likewise attested by Saadia, Tafs¯ır: àìâ˙àìàì; as well as, perhaps (if incorporating both senses), in Tg. Esth. vii.13, I: ïéòéâñ àé÷éãö éåìéò (àé÷éãö being a specification of “great ones”; cf. Midr. Hazit, . apud Grossfeld, Two Targums, p. 58, n. 10). 346 Lit., “the total/entirety of ” (jumla [constr.]), which fem. sing. addition is apparently intended to clarify Yefet’s construal of the following Heb. relative (rendered by him in the masc. sing.) as referring to Hathach alone (so also per the masc. sing. suffix in äô÷åà [for ãéîòä]), and not to the eunuchs (êìîä éñéøñ). This reading is likewise attested by Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ïéá äô÷åà éã˙ ìà êìîìà íàãë˙ ïî ãçàå åäå ¬êúäá øúñà úòãô àäéãé (“Then Esther called Hathach, who was one of the king’s servants, whom he had set in her presence”); and Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 20r): øúñà úòãô ˙ ìà êìîìà íãë˙ ïî êúäá (“Then Esther called Hathach from among àäîàã÷ äô÷åà éã the king’s servants, whom he had set before her”); as well as in the LXX: H δ< Εσηρ προσεκαλσατο Αχραα8ον τν ε7νοχον α7τ4ς, #ς παρειστκει α7τ(4; Tg. Esth. II (as also the Pesh., hardly reflecting the Heb. variant ãîò [so, e.g., Hirschler, Esther, p. 280], as opposed to offering a concise clarification of the syntactic crux): ãç êúäì øúñà úàø÷å 

àäîã÷ íéà÷ äåäã àëìîã äéñéøñ ïî; the Pesh.:      0+  $ +! !  !; the Vulg.: accitoque Athac eunucho quem rex ministrum ei dederat; and, e.g., among the modern translations and commentators, the JPSV (1917); RSV; Gerleman, Esther, p. 101; Meinhold, Esther, p. 50; and Würthwein, “Esther,” p. 184. Otherwise, for the view that øùà refers to the eunuchs—which view is supported by the reference to “her eunuchs” (äéñéøñå) in v. 4—cf. the NJPSV (1999); Bush, Esther, p. 389; Hakham, . “Esther,” p. 30; Levenson, Esther, p. 77; Moore, Esther, p. 45; and Paton, Esther, p. 217. 347 “to go to”—Ar. an yamurra il¯a, on which explanatory paraphrase of Heb. ìò (“concerning”; likewise in Yefet’s citation of v. 10 [see p. 234, n. 352 below])—for which there is no evidence of the variant ìà (which would still be elliptical) in the manuscript tradition of either Yefet or the Hebrew text—see also, e.g., the LXX (also incorporating åäåöúå): καB πστειλεν; the Pesh.: +- +*&; the Vulg.: praecepit ut iret ad; and Saadia, Tafs¯ır: éìà øéöîìàá äúøîàô (“and so she ordered him to proceed to”); as well as, among

translation

233

(6) So Hathach went out to Mordecai, to the city square which was before the king’s gate, (7) [41v] and Mordecai told him about all that had befallen him, and specified to him348 the amount of wealth which Haman had offered to weigh out and enter into349 the king’s treasuries on account of the Jews, in order to destroy them. (8) And he gave to him a transcript of the letter of the edict that was established in Susa to annihilate the Jews, in order to show Esther and apprise her (of it), and to direct her to go in to the king, in order to entreat him and petition him concerning the preservation of350 her people. the modern translations and commentators, the JPSV (1917); RSV; Bush, Esther, p. 389; Hirschler, Esther, p. 280; and Moore, Esther, p. 45. 348 “and specified to him” (wa-bayyana lahu)—an expansion apparently inferred by Yefet from Heb. úùøô (Koehler & Baumgartner, Lexicon, p. 978b: “exact amount of ”), which lexeme is defined among the Judaeo-Arabic lexicographers by, inter alia, the Ar. root byn—thus, al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 485, l. 114 (ad loc.): çøù ïàéá (“the elucidation of the presentation”); and Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 589: L!IE (“specification”)—the idea therefore being that Mordecai communicated the exact amount, as opposed to referring simply to an amount (and so confirming, by virtue of its specificity, both the accuracy and exigency of Mordecai’s report). See also in this regard Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ÷øåìà âìáî çøùáå (“and (he related to him) the specification of the amount of the silver”); as well as, citing the actual amount, the LXX: τ/ν παγγελ αν ... ταλ"ντων μυρ ων; and Tg. Esth. I: ¨ æéøô éøëë ïéôìà øùò óñë ïåîîã àøøã. Cf., otherwise, Salmon’s rendering of úùøô by (!)ä (“donation”) (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 20v), which choice he explains as follows (ibid.): àúùåøôà äîåøú ïàì íåâøúìà ä¨ âì ïî (!)ä¨ æéøô úùøô úøñô (“I have translated p¯ar¯asˇat as ‘donation’ per the idiom of the Targum, for (therein) t˘erûmâ [‘donation’] is (rendered by) àúùåøôà [which is from the morphologically cognate root of úùøô]”). 349 “and enter into”—so, as an explanatory paraphrase of the contextually elliptical preposition ìò (cf. p. 232, n. 347 above), perhaps construed here by Yefet in the sense of ìà—as also, apparently, by the LXX: ες τ/ν γ"ζαν; Tg. Esth. II: àëìîã éåæðâ úéáì; the Pesh.: )1 "; the Vulg.: in thesaurus regis; Saadia, Tafs¯ır, and Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 20v): êìîìà ïéàæë˙ éìà (“into the king’s treasuries”); and, e.g., among the modern translations and commentators, the JPSV (1917); RSV; Bush, p. 390; Levenson, p. 77; Meinhold, Esther, p. 51; and Moore, Esther, p. 45. Cf., on the other hand, the instrumental construal of ìò attested in Tg. Esth. I (see Grossfeld, Two Targums, p. 59, n. 17): àëìî éæðâ úéá ìò ïðîîã ïéøáæâã ïåäéãé ìò. 350 “the preservation of ”—this explication by Yefet of the object of Esther’s request, insofar as it follows his rendering of ìò (by f¯ı, as by Saadia, cited below) should be construed as an expansion of the indirect object äîò, and not as the direct object of ù÷áìå. On this intransitive reading of the pi #el infinitive (which normally does require a direct object), see also, in addition to the ancient versions (excepting Tg. Esth. I, cited below), Saadia, Tafs¯ır: àäúîà éô äðî áìèúå (“and to make a request of him concerning her people”); Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 20r): äðî áìèúìå àäáòù ááñá (“and to make a request of him on account of her people”); and, e.g., among the moderns, Bush, Esther, p. 390: “and plead with him on behalf of her people”; Gerleman, Esther, p. 101: “und vor ihm für ihr Volk zu bitten”; Levenson, Esther, p. 77: “and to entreat him on behalf of her people”; Moore, Esther, p. 45: “and

234

translation

(9) [42r] And so Hathach came and told Esther what Mordecai had said,351 (10) whereupon Esther spoke to Hathach and ordered him to say to352 Mordecai: (11) “All the king’s servants and the people of the king’s cities are familiar with what I am saying353—(to wit,) that any man or woman who goes in to the king, to the inner residence, though he was not summoned by him, [42v] his law is one: that he be put to death, unless the king should extend the scepter354 of gold and he therefore be spared. And I have not been summoned to go in to the king for thirty days.”

beg with him for her people”; Würthwein, “Esther,” p. 184: “und vor ihm für ihr Volk Fürbitte zu tun.” Cf., otherwise, on the inference of a direct object following ù÷áìå, Tg. Esth. I: äîò ìò ïéîçø éòáîìå; Esth. Rab. viii.5: 䧧á÷ä úàî íéîçø éù÷áå éîå÷ äúòå; Ag. Esth., p. 43: íéîçø êìîä ïî éù÷áå éîå÷ äúòå; and Hirschler, Esther, p. 291. 351 “what Mordecai had said”—so, as similarly ad v. 12, rendering the nominal direct object (éëãøî éøáã) in the Heb. idiom éðåìô éøáã úà éðåìôì ãéâäì, on which see also, e.g., the Vulg.: omnia quae Mardocheus dixerat; RSV; Bush, Esther, p. 390; Levenson, Esther, p. 77; and Moore, Esther, pp. 45–46 (albeit the latter two ad v. 12 [for øúñà éøáã]: “Esther’s words”!). 352 “to say to” (an yaq¯ula li-)—as ad v. 5 (see p. 232, n. 347 above), Yefet here specifies the purpose of Esther’s command, paraphrasing the elliptically-employed preposition ìò (so, for MT ìà, in all Mss of Yefet and an Ms. from the Cairo Genizah [see BHS], as also clearly implied by Salmon’s rendering éìò [notwithstanding ìà in his Hebrew citation], as well as by the midrashic expansion in Tg. Esth. I [following the initial rendering cited below]: ... éëãøî ÷ñéò ìò äéì úãé÷ôå; and Tg. Esth. II: ìåèî), on which see also the identical rendering of Saadia, Tafs¯ır; as well as the LXX: εEπεν δ< Εσηρ πρς Αχραα8ον Πορεητι πρς Μαρδοχα8ον κα1 εEπον; Tg. Esth. I: êúäì øúñà úøîàå éëãøîì àììîìå ìæéîì; the Pesh.:   2'- +- +*&; the Vulg.: et iussit ut diceret Mardocheo; and, e.g., among the moderns, Bush, Esther, p. 390; Hirschler, Esther, p. 281; and Levenson, Esther, p. 77. 353 “what I am saying”—this insertion by Yefet is apparently intended to clarify the personal connection between Esther’s general reference to the people’s (as opposed to her own) cognizance of the law and her specific response to Mordecai, whom she is thus implicitly/respectfully reminding of the law—and so the reason for her reluctance—by virtue of his inclusion among “the king’s servants” (see pp. 207–8 and n. 241 above). 354 Ar. qad¯ıb (constr.), which equivalent of Heb. èéáøù is likewise adopted by Yefet ad . its three other BH occurrences, all in Esth. (5:2 [bis]; 8:4), as also by Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3350, fols. 17r [ad 4:11], 19r [ad 5:2]; the occurrence ad 8:4 is lost), and by Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 754: äðùî =" .F gA #(A T>    5* F+ 1!$ áäæä èéáøù F [øñé ºî§§ðá] äëä íåâøú =" 1!$ D I; =+  =" ž Q C $ .èéáøù åà ì÷î åðîî ìèð |M FI‰ g 8  g!R$  áäæä èéáøù ( $ +  .ïéèéáøùá ®íéèåùá íúåà (“Also among (the quadriliterals) is èéáøù, of which it is said that it is the s. awlaj¯an [so Saadia, Tafs¯ır], which is a hooked stick that one sports with [see Lane, Lexicon, p. 1749]. In the Mishnah (it appears in the clause), ‘(If) he took from it a branch or a stick [ˇsarbî.t]’ [ #Abod. Zar. iii.10”]; and this term may also be employed in Aramaic in the sense of ‘whip,’ as in the targumic rendering of , he smote[!] them with whips [ˇsô.tîm] [1Kgs 12:11, 14; 2 Chr. 10:11, 14]—‘with sˇarbî.tîm.’ I maintain, however, that the áäæä èéáøù is a scepter [qad.¯ıb] made of gold which the kings keep close”).

translation

235

(12) So they told Mordecai what Esther had said,355 (13) whereupon Mordecai said to take back the (following) reply356 to Esther: “Do not think to yourself that all the Jews who are in the king’s residence shall escape,357 (14) [43r] for if, at such a time as this,358 you hold back from the petition concerning their situation,359 it is inevitable that relief and deliverance will come to them from

355

“what Esther had said”—on this rendering by Yefet of the nominal phrase éøáã see p. 234, n. 351 above (ad v. 9), as well as, e.g., the RSV; NJPSV (1999); and Bush, p. 390. 356 “to … reply” (an yarudda "l-jaw¯ab)—so, rendering Heb. áéùäì (otherwise rendered in v. 15 without the object by li-tarudda [hence: “to reply”]; albeit cf. Ms. R1), on which see also Tg. Esth. II (var.): àîòè àáúàì (albeit Grossfeld [Two Targums, p. 155, apparatus], adverbially: “with reason”[!]); as well as, e.g., the JPSV (1917): “Then Mordecai bade them return answer”; RSV: “to return answer”; and Gerleman, Esther, p. 101: “man solle Esther folgende Antwort geben.” 357 “that … escape”—this rendering of the Heb. purpose clause stands in contrast to the usual representation of Esther as the subject (cf. the RSV: “that in the king’s palace you will escape”), and the phrase íéãåäéä ìëî as comparative-adverbial (cf., with most translations, ibid.: “any more than all the other Jews”) or privative-exceptive (cf. Paton, Esther, p. 222: “apart from all the Jews”). Yefet’s apparently unique representation of “all the Jews” as the subject, however, may be due to 1) the omission of the preposition (ï)î (from ìëî) in Yefet’s Heb. text (the clause thus being understood, as it were: ìë èìîäì êìîä úéá(á øùà) íéãåäéä), although this possibility seems unlikely considering the lack of support for such in any Mss of the Heb. text or Yefet’s comm.; or 2) a construal of the preposition (ï)î in a partitive-comitative sense (if not in a more strictly comitative sense, on which cf. Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 380 [citing examples of ïî in the place of -á and ïéá])—i.e., “do not think … to escape in the king’s residence (being one) from among all the Jews (who are there),” which reading, while in fact recognizing Esther as the subject, was nonetheless paraphrased by Yefet in a more succinct fashion, representing at the same time the thought of escape for both the group (“all the Jews in the king’s residence”) as well as, by virtue of her implied inclusion in that group, Esther. With regard to this latter suggestion see also the insertion of the clearly comitative phrase (and probable alternative translation of ìëî) παρA π"ντας in one 13th cent. Ms. (93) of the LXX: :τι σωσ(η μνη παρA π"ντας ν τ(4 βασιλε Fα παρA π"ντας το@ς ;Ιουδα ους. Otherwise, cf. Saadia (Tafs¯ır), who renders the infintive transitively—perhaps reading ˙ é êìîìà úéá ïà (“that the èéìîäì—with êìîä úéá as the subject: ãåäéìà òéîâ˙ ïî êöìë king’s residence will save you from (the fate of) all the Jews”). 358 “such … as this”—Ar. mithl h¯adha "l-waqt, in light of which rendering—also [adopt]ed by Saadia (Tafs¯ır)—it is tempting to infer the (unattested) variant úàæë (for úàæä), as employed in the last clause of this verse. Among the moderns, however, similar renderings are adopted (without emendation of the Heb.), e.g., by Levenson, Esther, p. 80: “such a time as this”; Moore, Esther, p. 46: “a time like this”; and Würthwein, “Esther,” p. 184: “solcher Zeit.” 359 “from … situation”—on this explanatory addition (in which, on our rendering of Ar. b¯ab as “situation,” cf. Dozy, I, p. 124b) see also Esth. Rab. viii.6: .éùéøçú ùøçä íà éë êúîåà ìò àéøåâéðñ ãîìì àìù åéùëò é÷úùú íà ®éùéøçú; and Tg. Esth. I: é÷åúù ÷úùî íåøà éàãåäé ìò òéâôú àìå àéää àðãéòá. øúñà

236

translation

another place, while you and your father’s family360 will perish. And who knows whether you have (not) attained royalty for such a time as this?” (15) Then Esther said to reply to Mordecai: (16) “Go, gather all the Jews who are present in Susa, and tell them to [43v] fast361 on my behalf—neither to eat nor to drink for three days, night and day—, and I, as also my maidservants, will fast in like fashion; and in such (a state) as this362

360

“your father’s family”—Ar. ahl ab¯ıki, on which clarification of the Heb. idiom úéá see also Tg. Esth. I: êúäáà úéá úñéðâå (an apparent doublet, on which see Grossfeld, Two Targums, pp. 60–61, n. 29, albeit cf. Yefet’s use below [comm. ad loc.] of the phrase ahl bayt ab¯ıh¯a); as well as, among the moderns, Gerleman, Esther, p. 101: “deine Familie”; Levenson, Esther, p. 80: “your father’s family”; Moore, Esther, p. 46: “your family”; Würthwein, “Esther,” p. 184: “deine Angehörigen.” 361 “and tell them to fast” (wa-q¯ul [see Blau, Grammar, §8ë] lahum an yas¯um¯u)—this . paraphrase of the imperative åîåöå, as also Yefet’s third-person rendering of the following jussives åìëàú (ìà) and åúùú (ìà), serves to clarify Esther’s use of these plural volitives (as opposed to ñåðë êì at the head of the verse) in her response to Mordecai. 362 “in … this”—i.e., in her state of fasting (see Yefet’s comment on p. 246 below), which “stative” construal of ïëáå (otherwise in BH only in Eccl. 8:10) is likewise attested, e.g., by Salmon (cited on p. 246, n. 420 below); Hakham, “Esther,” p. 16 (alt.); Moore, . Esther, pp. 46, 51; and Paton, Esther, p. 226. Among the majority of translations and scholars, however, this adverb is construed as temporal-resultative (not always as purely temporal; cf. Gerleman, Esther, p. 102); thus, e.g., the LXX: ττε; Tg. Esth. I: ïë øúáå; the Pesh.: ; the Vulg.: et tunc; Ibn Quraysh, Ris¯ala, p. 135 (§27): ìà àåáà ïëáå ˙ éðéçå äøéñôúå ïëáå åúùòì áø÷é æàå §âøú íéòùø éúéàø ïëáå ºêìîä (“ûb˘ek¯en (in Eccl. 8:10 ã and Esth. 4:16) is a substitute[?] for w˘e"¯az, and its meaning is ‘and then’”); Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ã˙ éðéçå (“and then”) al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 225, l. 66: idem; Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 92 (s.v. ïëá; following Ibn Quraysh): ïëáå Fc .æàå íåâøú   åàáå íéøåá÷ íéòùø éúéàø ïëáå êìîä ìà àåáà (“ûb˘ek¯en (in Eccl. 8:10) is a substitute(?) for w˘e"¯az, and like it is ûb˘ek¯en (in Esth. 4:16)”); ibid., coll. 322–23:  ou 000 Œ' (r  78 A íéøåá÷ íéòùø éúéàø ïëáå & Y o F!" 9 I CE  F e  êìîä ìà àåáà ïëáå Fc .æàå íåâøú ïëáå C (“ûb˘ek¯en r¯a"îtî (in Eccl. 8:10) means ‘afterwards—’ or ‘then I saw’ … and it is possible that ûb˘ek¯en [in loc. cit.] is a substitute[?] for w˘e"¯az, and like it is ûb˘ek¯en (in Esth. 4:16). Concerning (this form,) moreover, it is most natural that its bêt is pleonastic”); Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 36v): åàáå íéøåá÷ íéòùø éúéàø ïëáå åäåîëå ®æàå ®ïëáå; Gerleman, Esther, p. 102: “Sodann”; Koehler & Baumgartner, Lexicon, p. 483a: “thereupon”; Levenson, Esther, p. 80: “After that”; Meinhold, p. 51: “daraufhin”; and Würthwein, p. 184: “dann.” Still otherwise (albeit not necessarily preclusive of the previous), cf. Qimhi, . Roots, p. 160a (construing the adverb instrumentally): ïëáå úåøéùä úéá [§ïë§ ìò ¬ì§§ø] åéìò àáúù ùéå êéáà

éîçøá çèáàå úãë àì øùà êìîì àåáà íéîçø åù÷áúå åðòúúù äæáå øîåìë ¬êìîä ìà àåáà øåöä; and Gesenius & Kautzsch, Grammar, §119ii (ad both occurrences): “then, on this

condition.”

translation

237

I will go in to the king, with which (act) custom does not agree;363 and as364 I have perished, (so) will I (again) perish.” (17) So Mordecai went over365 and did all that Esther had commanded him. It is necessary that we (first) mention what incited this decree against Israel at this time, since this is not explained in this passage. In preface to our remark, moreover, we would aver that God does not afflict366 the people of the sons of Israel simply in order to compensate them 363

“with … agree”—so, as an explanatory paraphrase of the Heb. relative clause øùà on which see also, e.g., the LXX: παρA τν νμον; idem, var., and the Lucianic recension: 0κλητος; the Vulg.: contra legem faciens invocata; and Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ä¨ ðñìà øéâ éìò (“according to the opposite of custom”). 364 On this comparative rendering of the relative adverb øùàë see also Tg. Esth. I: ïéãä àîìò ééç ïî ãáåà ïéãë àñðåàá êðéî úéøáãéàå éàùð úéá ïî úéãáåäã àîë éäå; b. Meg. 15a (= Ag. Esth., p. 45): êîî ãáåà êë àáà úéáî éúãáàù íùë ®éúãáà éúãáà øùàëå; and Leq. Tob, p. 103 (reflecting Tg. 1): éùôð éðà íâ éúãáà ¬êìöàî éúãøôðå êîî éúãáàù íùë; . as well as, e.g., among the moderns, Gerleman, Esther, pp. 102, 107 (albeit explicating causal force); Koehler & Baumgartner, Lexicon, p. 455a; and Würthwein, “Esther,” p. 184. Among the majority of translators, however, øùàë here is rendered conditionally— although, as demonstrated by Yefet’s comment ad loc., not necessarily to the exclusion of a comparative construal—; thus, e.g., the LXX: Aν κα1 πολσαι με (4; Tg. Esth. II: éúàã àîìòì à÷ìåç éì úéà ïåëììâá àîìò ïéãäá ãáàð ïéàå; the Pesh.: +" +" 0 ; Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ä¨ ãäúâ˙î úëìä úëìä ïàô (“And so, if I perish, I will perish (while) exerting (myself)”); Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 23v): êìäàô úëìä ïàå (“And if I perish, so I will perish”); and Ibn Ezra, Comm. B, fol. 36v: §òèäå ®®®éúãáà éúãáà øùàëå úùùåç éðéà úåîà íà. Still otherwise, for a temporal construal (i.e., “when”), cf. Gesenius & Brown, Lexicon, p. 455b. 365 “So (Mordecai) went over”—Ar. fa-j¯aza, literally rendering Heb. øåáòéå, on the sense of which Yefet reserves comment below. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 24r), on the other hand, offers a less usual explanation: óàè äðà éìò ìãé øáòéå §å÷ ˙ åî éìà òö˙ åî ïî ìàøùé éìò (“The statement So (Mordecai) íàéöìàá íäøîàå íäòîâ˙ éúç òö went over indicates that he made a circuit among (the people of) Israel, (going) from place to place until he had gathered them together and charged them concerning the fast”); as also, apparently, the JPSV (1999): “So Mordecai went about [the city]”; and Levenson, Esther, p. 80: “So Mordecai passed [through the city].” Otherwise attested views concerning the signification of this verb include 1) passing from the fortress to the city (so, e.g., Ibn Ezra, Comm. B [fol. 36v]: ïùåùá øùà íéãåäéä ìà éëãøî øáò; Hakham, “Esther,” p. 34); 2) passing over a river which separated the fortress from . the city (so, e.g., b. Meg., 15a [Samuel]; Ibn Ezra, Comm. B, alt. [per Ms. héb 334 of the Bibliothèque nationale [Paris], fols 81v]: øéòä ïùåùì äøéáä ïùåù ïéá øäð ùé åà; Fox, Esther, p. 64; Meinhold, Esther, p. 56 [tentatively]; Moore, Esther, p. 51 [alt.]); 3) passing on from before the king’s gate (Hakham, “Esther,” p. 34 [alt.]; Hirschler, Esther, p. 284; Moore, . Esther, p. 51 [alt.]); 4) crossing (i.e., “violating”) the first day of Passover by fasting (so, e.g., Esth. Rab. viii.6; Tg. Esth. I; b. Meg. 15a [Rav]; Leq. Tob, p. 103; Rashi); and 5) simply . going on his way (so, e.g., the LXX; JPSV [1917]; the RSV; Bush, Esther, p. 390; Paton, Esther, p. 226 [alt.]). 366 I.e., test by affliction (yamtahinu). . úãë àì,

238

translation

for (the affliction)367—especially with respect to their Dispersion, which is realized in consequence of368 their (unrepented) sins. It is necessary, therefore, that there be a reason [44r] which incited this great hardship against them. Hence, we shall first mention what some of the sages369 have said; then we shall state what we think about it. Some people say that the reason for such (hardship) was their worship of Nebuchadnezzar’s idol,370 yet this is an unsupported assertion since Scripture did not relate that the Jews worshipped it. And even if we followed them in this,371 it would have been impossible, with respect to the justice of God, that He should have punished all the Jews for the sin of a group in Babylon which worshipped the idol. Indeed, they are completely unable to defend their assertion, seeing that God refrains from punishing those and instead punishes others.372 Others say that (this hardship arose) since they ate from the food of Ahasuerus at the (second) banquet,373 and the refutation of this assertion is similar to the refutation of the first assertion, for it is impossible that all the Jews should have been punished for the sin of the (Jewish) residents of Susa [44v]—indeed, the news of them374 may not even have reached (the others).375 It would only have been possible for such (a view)376 to be advanced if the hardship had befallen the (Jewish) residents of Susa (alone), apart from the others. So, contra the Mu#tazila, on which see our discussion on pp. 48–50 above. “realized … of ”—Ar. murtahana bi-, the specific idea apparently being that the continuing Diaspora is brought about by God in “bond” for—i.e., in lieu of—their repentance over past and present sins (cf. Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 563b). 369 “some … sages”—ba #d al- #ulam¯a", referring, apparently—at least for the first two . views given—, to the early rabbinic sages (see our discussion on pp. 60–61 above). 370 See b. Meg. 12a: ìàøùé ìù ïäéàðåù åáééçúð äî éðôî éàçåé ïá ïåòîù éáø úà åéãéîìú åìàù ìù åúãåòñî åðäðù éðôî åì åøîà ®íúà åøîà íäì øîà ®äéìë øåãä åúåàáù [ìàøùé ¬ì§§ø º§é §ù §ù] 367 368

éðôî íäì øîà ®äúà øåîà åì åøîà ®åâøäé ìà åìåë íìåòä ìëáù åâøäé ïùåùáù ïë íà ®òùø åúåà [øöðãëåáð éîéá ºé§§ùø äååùä] íìöì ååçúùäù. See also Ab. Gur., p. 35; Pan. Ah. . A, p. 47; Song.

Rab. vii.8. 371 “in this”—i.e., that the Jews worshipped the idol. 372 I.e., according to this view God would have refrained from punishing the generation that supposedly worshipped Nebuchadnezzar’s idol and instead punished the later generation of Esther’s day which had nothing to do with that sin—which scenario is irreconcilable with any rational view of God’s justice. 373 See the citation from b. Meg. 12a in n. 370 above, as well as Tg. Esth. I ad 4:1; Ab. Gur., pp. 32–33; Esth. Rab. vii.14 (18); Song. Rab. vii.8; Ag. Esth., p. 45 (ad 4:16); Leq. Tob, p. . 101 (ad 4:16); Pan. Ah. . B, p. 70 (ad 4:16). 374 I.e., the Jews of Susa and their supposed consumption of the prohibited food. 375 “indeed … (the others)”—in which case, a fortiori, corporate punishment would seem even less just. 376 “such (a view)”—i.e., that they ate the prohibited food of banquet.

translation

239

Still other people assert that the reason for such (hardship) was their377 absence from the ascent to Jerusalem378 when the proclamation concerning such came from King Cyrus.379 Yet, although there does not attend this assertion the (same type) of deficiency as (attends) the two preceding assertions, it is deficient in another respect—namely, that if it was as is asserted, this grieving380 would not have ceased until their sin ceased—that is to say, (until) they ascended to Jerusalem and repented (of not doing so previously). It is also impossible that the reason for such (hardship) should have been those sins of the people of the Diaspora in which381 they have been incessantly engaged.382 Rather, it seems most reasonable to me concerning (such hardship) that, when we see what they did when the news (of the decree) reached [45r] them in each province, we learn that the reason for such was just the opposite of (that previously indicated)383—to wit, the people took up mourning, weeping, sackcloth, ashes, and lamentation—and nothing else is mentioned—, in view of which God had mercy on them.384 We would maintain, therefore, that when the people saw that the House of God was replete with sacrifices and its rebuilding begun, they forsook that state of mourning in which they had been concerning their exile, the destruction of their homes, and the abolition of their sacrifices, and instead took up eating

377

I.e., those Jews still in the lands of their Diaspora. Ar. bayt al-maqdis, on which see p. 165, n. 38 above. 379 See Ezra 1:1ff., and 2 Chron. 36:23. This reason is cited as the second of two possibilities by Salmon (see p. 240, n. 386 below). See also the Anonymous Byzantine Compilation (Ms. RNL Yevr. II A 78), fol. 18r: .ïîæä åúåàá äãáà §ùé åáéçúð äîì ®äìàù 378

®ùåøåùçàì ᧧é úðù ãò ùøëì úçà úðùá åìò àìå ®åìöòúðå åìùøúðå §ùåøéì åìò àì éë øåáòá ®§ùú åáéçúð ïëìå §ùåøéì úåìòìî äðù 姧è íéìöò åøàùðå ®§âå éúðúë úà éúèùô §ëë. On the possible

rabbinic provenance of this view see pp. 60–61 above. 380 I.e., the situation which occasioned their grieving. 381 I.e., in which sins. 382 I.e., since the Jews of the Diaspora never collectively repented of their sins—by which Yefet apparently has in mind those “grave sins” (dhun¯ub kib¯ar) of the (Rabbanite) Diaspora described in his introduction (see pp. 161–62 above)—, such cannot have been the reason for the hardship, which was resolved (and thus, by implication, its purpose of repentance achieved). Yefet may here have in mind Salmon, who offers essentially the same reason—i.e., intermingling with the nations and learning their evil characteristics—as the first of two possibilities (see p. 240, n. 386 below). 383 I.e., just the opposite of the previous assertion that the hardship was incited by sins which, in Yefet’s view, the Jews of the Diaspora continued unrepentantly to commit. Since, in this case, they did repent—as he points out in following—, the underlying sin must be sought in connection with that particular generation. 384 “had … them”—or, “forgave them” (rahimahum). .

240

translation

and drinking; and because this was an inappropriate response,385 God incited this hardship against them. Then, when they sought out the reason for such (hardship), they became aware of it and undertook just the opposite—namely, they returned to God from (their disobedience), upon which (God’s) anger withdrew from them. We have, moreover, already expounded this view in the commentary on Zechariah, [45v] (at the place) when the people sent (an inquiry), saying, Should I weep in the fifth month (…?), etc. (Zech. 7:3)—the repetition of our comment on which would here be too long.386 Returning to our place: the mudawwin indicates that when Mordecai and the rest of the Jews residing in Susa learned what had happened,387 they became disquieted, as the statement (at the end of the last section) already indicated. Thereupon Mordecai quickly betook himself to weeping, crying out, and wearing sackcloth and ashes, and he came 385 Lit., “result” (ta"w¯ıl, on this meaning of which see Lane, Lexicon, pp. 127a, 128c). Why this was an inappropriate response is specified following the citation of this clause by Judah Meir Taur¯ızi, per British Library Ms. Or. 2520, fol. 129v: éìà êìã˙ æåâ˙é àì ïàì ˙ çá éùéìù úéá øî òé‘ ïà (“because such was ééé ãåáë ãåâ˙åá 䧧ò çéùîìàå 䧧ò åäéìà §éñ øåö not permissible until the Third Temple would be built in the presence of lord Elijah 䧧ò and the Messiah 䧧ò, at the restoration of the glory of the Lord”). See also the comment of Judah Hadassi cited on p. 162, n. 23 above. 386 Cf., by contrast, Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 19r [ad 4:3]), who explains the threat to the Jews and their subsequent repentance on the basis of either the first or both of the two previous reasons cited and dismissed by Yefet: çåðìà àîàå ˙ à íäðà ìé÷ íäàéàèë˙ éìò íäúîàãð êìã˙ ìô àëáìàå íìåòä úåîàá [22§ åàìá äååùä] åèìèë ˙ ø àî ìâ˙àì íäðà ìé÷å ®åáàúå åòâ˙ø éúç ïèùì ïîä íäì äììà íà÷àô àéãøìà íäîéñ ïî åîìòúå åéö

ïà ú÷å ìàøùé ïò ìà÷ àîëå íéåâá åáøòúéå §÷ë íéìùåøé éô àðëñìàå úéáìà àðáì àøæò òî åòìèé ˙ àô øöî éô åðàë øîåàå §÷ë äòøô íäéìò äììà èìöô àéãøìà íäîéñ åîìòúå ïéøöîìàá åèìèë íúòåù ìòúå ìà÷ éôàö áì÷á §òú äììà éìà åëøöå åòâ˙ø ïà ú÷åå §âå åëéìùä åéðéò éöå÷ù ùéà íëéìà äãåáòä ïî íéäìàä ìà (“As to the weeping and lamentation—this is therefore (indicative

of) their repentance for their sins, it being said that they intermingled with the nations of the world and learned some of their vile characteristics, and therefore God raised up against them Haman as an adversary so that they would return and repent. It is also said that they (repented) on account of the fact that they did not consent to go up with Ezra to build the Temple and dwell in Jerusalem (because of their attachment to the nations), as per the statement, they mingled themselves with the nations, (and learned their works), etc. [Ps. 106:35]; and as it also says concerning Israel when they were in Egypt and intermingled with the Egyptians, learning their wicked characteristics, so that God incited against them Pharoah, And I said unto them, ‘Cast ye away every man the detestable things of his eyes, (and defile not yourselves with the idols of Egypt’) [Ezek. 20:7]; and when they returned to God the Sublime with a pure heart, (Scripture) says, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage. (And God heard, etc.) [Exod. 2:23]”). 387 Concerning Mordecai’s cognizance of the affair, cf., more specifically, Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 17v): ïî éù äéìò àôë˙ é íì áàâ˙çìà ãçà ïàë òãé éëãøîå ¨ ö÷ìà äã˙ ä ïî éøâ˙ àî òéîâ˙ (“And Mordecai knew—(since) he was one of the gate-keepers, ä there was not hidden from him anything of all that had transpired of this affair”).

translation

241

immediately, just as he was, up to the king’s residence,388 his intention thereby being to communicate with Esther about what he wanted (her to do).389 Since, however, he was unable to enter the king’s gate while sackcloth was upon him—for this was not in keeping with either the king’s custom or any other, as per the statement, for none might enter within the king’s gate clothed with sackcloth—, he stood at a distance, crying out in his fashion, [46r]. And when his cry was heard from the king’s residence, Esther’s maidservants went out to hear from whom it was—and lo, it was Mordecai! And being Jewish,390 and knowing that he was the queen’s paternal cousin, they brought her the news.391 When, therefore, (Esther) learned that he was unable to come to her, having sackcloth upon him, she sent to him clothing that he might put it on and remove from himself the sackcloth and come to her in order that she might accurately gather information about the affair from him, for she was certain that he would not have done this over a trifling matter.392 Yet he refused, instead continuing wholeheartedly393 with his (wearing of) sackcloth and his crying out; and he did so for two reasons, the first of which was that his soul was compelling him to stick to it wholeheartedly until the decree passed. And the second was in order to increase Esther’s alarm, that she might apply herself as earnestly394 to the matter as was necessary.395 388 As regards these actions, see further Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 17v–18r): ãåã ìåôéå §÷ë äTæâìà ìéèáúì ïéçìàöìà ìàîòúñà àã˙ ä ïàì øôàå ÷ù {÷} ùáìéå §å÷å ˙ åî ä¨ ðéãîìà èñå íäì ïàë ïà ìã øéòä êåúá àöéå ®§âå íéð÷æäå §ãøî ãö÷ô ïéçìàöìà äéô åòîúâ˙é òö ¨ øîå ä¨ îéö˙ ò ä¨ ÷òæ ÷òæå íú˙ éìà (“(Scripture includes) the statement and ìàøùé éìòå äñôð éìò ä he put on sackcloth and ashes because this is what the righteous made use of to avert the decree, just as it is also said (with regard to God’s judgment for the census), Then David and the elders, (clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces) [1 Chr. 21:16]. And he went out into the midst of the city—this indicates that they had a city-center in which place all the righteous were gathering, and so Mordecai proceeded there straightaway, letting out a great and bitter cry both for himself and for Israel”). 389 “his intention … (her to do)”—cf. Leq. Tob, p. 102: éãë ®êìîä øòù éðôì ãò àáéå . øúñàì øáãä òéâéù. 390 See Yefet’s comment ad 2:9 (p. 201 above). 391 Cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 19v): øáë ˙ íàãë˙ ìàå øàåâ˙ìà åøáë˙ à ˙ ú àäðà øúñàì éã˙ ìà ä¨ éùàçìà òéîâ˙ ïà éìò ìãé øúñàì éëãøî àîìô äáçúå éëãøî íãë ˙ åòôøå å÷ì÷ ä¨ øåöìà äã˙ äá äåãäàù (“(The fact that) the maidservants øúñà éìà äøáë and manservants reported Mordecai’s situation to Esther implies that all of Esther’s entourage (likewise) served Mordecai and loved him, for when they beheld him in this state (of fasting) they became troubled and reported his situation to Esther”). 392 Cf. the second part of Salmon’s comment ad v. 2, cited in n. 395 below. 393 Ar. #al¯a jumlatihi, on which cf. Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 219a. 394 “that she … earnestly”—or, “that she … hastily” (wa-tajidda). 395 As regards these two reasons, see also Salmon ad v. 2 (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I

242

translation

Thereupon (Esther) felt it necessary [46v] to send Hathach to him, for (Hathach) was of her religion and would likewise keep the secret,396 for he was a prudent man well-suited to this matter.397 And by her statement to know what this was, (etc.) she intends to say, “Why did you not take off your sackcloth and come, and what is this decree?” We then learn from Mordecai’s reply—(which, as it says, included) all that had happened unto him—that he explained to (Hathach) that Haman wanted to kill the Jews because he had not prostrated himself before him.398 And he told him of the wealth with which Haman had intended to compensate399 the king on account of the Jews,400 and he gave (Hathach) the letters so that he would read them to her and she would understand this. He then followed this up by commanding her to go to the king and entreat him on behalf of the Jews and to inform him that she was one of them, for up until this time he had not permitted [47r] her to tell of her people or her religion.401 When, therefore, she came to clearly understand the matter, (Esther’s) alarm increased and she sent Hathach, as well as some of her

4467, fol. 18r–v): äìèá ïà éìà äîñâ˙ ïò çñîìà ìéæé íì äðà äñôð íæìà äðà àîäãçà ïééàðòî ˙ ò øîà äðà íìòúô øúñà [10§ åàìá äàø] àìà äøáë˙ ìöéì éðàú˙ ìàå ìàøùé ïò äøæâìà äã˙ ä íéö ˙ éô àäáì÷á íäúñú éúç íàéö òî ê˙ àøöå àëáå ãåäéìà (!)éìò éìò ìöç àäñôð ãäâ˙úå ìàøùé õàìë (“Two thoughts (are in this verse), the first of which is that his soul was compelling him not to remove his sackcloth from his body until he had nullified this edict concerning Israel; the second is (that he was seeking) to convey news of it to Esther, so that she might know that it was a serious matter which had overtaken the Jews, the weeping and crying out being (expressed) along with the fasting in order that she might be anxious at heart for the deliverance of Israel and strenuously exert herself (towards such)”). Regarding the first reason see also Pan. Ah. . B, p. 70, and Ag. Esth., p. 42 (here per the former): íéðåùàøì äùòù íùë ¬íéñéð 䧧á÷ä éì äùòéù ãò ïàëî ææ éðéà øîà. Otherwise, cf. Ag. Esth., ibid.: åéìò ìá÷ àìù ¬ìá÷ àìå øîàð êëì ®®® úåëìî éãâá ùáìà éðàå øòöá øåáöä åäé øîà øåáöä ïî ùåøôì. 396 I.e., the secret of their relationship—which Esther had not yet revealed—and consequent parley concerning the decree. 397 Cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 20r): ìë ïî ÷ú ˙ åàå ïîåà ïàë (!)ïúä ïàì ¨ ú˙ ãàçìà äã˙ ä éô äúô÷åà àã˙ ä éìòå øúñà ãðò ïàë ïî (“It was because Hathach was the ä most reliable and most trustworthy of all those who (attended) Esther that she assigned him to this situation”). 398 Cf. the similar explication attested in Tg. Esth. I: ìò äéòøòã ìë úé éëãøî äéì éåçå äéèøãðàì ïçâ àìå ïîäì ãâñ àìã ÷ñéò; and Leq. Tob, p. 102: ®åäø÷ øùà ìë úà éëãøî åì ãâéå . 槧òì òøë àìù ÷ñò ìò; as well as by Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 36r): ®åäø÷ øùà ìë úà ãâéå ïîäì òøë àìù. 399 “intended to compensate”—lit., “compensated” (abdala). 400 “compensate … Jews”—cf. Yefet’s comment ad 3:9 on pp. 223–24 above. 401 See also Leq. Tob, p. 103: äì ïúð äúòî ¬úãâî øúñà ïéà äúò ãò ®äîò ìò åéðôìî ù÷áìå . éîòå éðà åðøëîð éë øúñà äøîà ïëå ¬äîò ìò øîàðù ¬úéãåäé àéäù òéãåäì úåùø.

translation

243

maidservants with him,402 to inform (Mordecai) of her situation and let him know that there was an obstacle preventing her from going to the king at that time, (concerning which) she held forth two reasons. The first of them was that it was not permissible for her to meet with the king except at the time he would be sitting in his court in the inner residence, and that if she went to him there apart from him summoning her403 she was concerned for herself that she would be put to death—and then, for neither Mordecai nor for her, would their goal be achieved concerning the removal of the decree from (the Jews). The second reason is her statement, and I have not been called to come in unto the king these thirty days—her intention by this being to show that she was afraid [47v] that the king may have changed his usual demeanor toward her because his passion for her may have been sated,404 and therefore, if she went in to him while his passion was in such a state, and he had not summoned her, this would also be an occasion for him to put her to death. Regarding, moreover, her (specific) statement these thirty days—this was a long time, and perhaps not even a week would (normally) pass her by that she would not go in to the king, on account of his passionate love for her; and since it is impossible that she would lie in what she said, God—may He be exalted!—must have distracted (the king) with various other things405 in order that his affection (for her) might be drawn out when Esther went in to him, for if (the king’s) interaction with her had been according to the usual protocol,406 the (prospect of) going in to him would not have alarmed her.407

402 “she sent … him”—so, drawing out the clear implication of vv. 10 (“Then Esther spoke to Hathach”) and 12 (“And they told Mordecai”). See also Yefet’s comment below ad the latter. 403 “if … her”—such, as suggested by Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (per Ms. BN héb 334, fols 81r–v), was a special prerogative of the queen: óñä éøîåù éë òåãéå ®íéòãåé êìîä éãáò ìëå äëìîä òåðîì åìëåé àì ÷ø àø÷é àìù éî êìîä ìà ñðëäì åçéðé àì. 404 Or, “finished” (tamma). 405 “various other things”—or, “tasty dishes” (alw¯an). 406 “the usual protocol”—i.e., every week or so, as Yefet earlier speculates. 407 I.e., although Esther could have sent a messenger via the customary administrative channel to request an audience with the king, thus obviating any risk on her part, she instead went immediately herself because Mordecai—to whom she was still deeply devoted (cf. Yefet’s comm. ad 2:20)—had so commanded her.

244

translation

(The mudawwin) then says And they told Mordecai because (Esther’s) maidservants went out with Hathach408 in order that the situation409 might be thoroughly disclosed to Mordecai,410 that he might not become angry with her, for the habit had never overtaken her that, when Mordecai would charge her to do something, [48r] she would bandy words with him about it. And even though she responded to him in this fashion, she still desired of him that he would bear patiently with her until another time, whereupon, perhaps, the king would request her and it would then be possible for her to speak. However, when Mordecai heard this, he sharply411 sent back to her his reply, not because Esther was really saying to herself that the Jews would perish while she and all the Jews who were in the king’s residence would be spared, or because she was (only) concerned about the family of her father’s house, but rather because he wanted to greatly provoke her. And he then says, as it were, “There is no doubt that God will relieve his people from this hardship, whether such comes about by your hand or by the hand of another; yet such is more incumbent upon you than upon another because your attainment of royalty was for this very time”—so per the statement, and who knoweth, etc.412 408 “(The mudawwin) then … Hathach”—see also Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fol. 7v): §ãøîì åãéâéå ìå÷é äðàì äøéâ éëãøî éìà äòåâ˙ø éô êúä òî ïàë ïà ìãé àã˙ ä (“This (verse) indicates that there was someone else with Hathach when he returned to Mordecai, for it says, And they told Mordecai”); and Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (per Ms. BN héb 334, fols 81v): åãéâä íéñéøñ íéðù ®åãéâéå. 409 Or, “state,” translating Ar. al-h¯al, which same lexeme is used above to refer to the . “state” of the king’s supposedly sated passion for Esther, and is most likely referring to the same here (see further the following note). 410 Yefet’s intention by this comment would seem to be that the maidservants—whose mediation at this point is implied by the plural subject in v. 12—were able to more effectively (or, perhaps, exclusively, if such had not been communicated to Hathach) relate Esther’s assessment of the state [al-h. ¯al] of the king’s passion for her and the consequent unlikelihood of her gaining an audience with him. 411 Or, “rigidly” (h¯addan), on which sense see Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 256a. . 412 Cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fols 8r–v): éëñôð éãäâ˙ú íìå éúìôàâú ïà éðòé ¨˙âøô íäì øäè˙ é äðàå åîò úà 駧é ùåèé àì éë §÷ë äúîà êøúé íì äììà ïàô ìàøùé øîà éô äâå ïî ä ¨˙âøãìà [aà51§ åàìá äàø] àã˙ ä éëâìá àî äììà ïà íìòé ïî éðòé (!)òéãåé éîå §å÷å ®®® øë˙ à àìà ä ˙ ìà §ù ÷ìçé áøòìå §÷ë éãéå êãé éìò äîå÷å ïîä êàìä ïåëå êãé éìò ïåëé ìàøùé õàìë˙ ì ïçð éã ÷ìîò êàìä ááñ ïåëð ïéîéðá ïî (“(This verse) means to say, ‘If you feign ignorance and do not apply yourself to the matter of Israel, God will not therefore abandon His people, as (Scripture) says, for the Lord will not forsake His people [1Sam. 12:22], but He will present relief to them from another quarter’ … And as to the statement, and who knoweth, (etc.)— this means to say, ‘Who knows whether God has not caused you to attain this position except (for the purpose) that the salvation of Israel might be by your hand, and the event of Haman’s destruction—as well as (that of) his people—by both your hand and

translation

245

When she heard his words, therefore, [48v] she knew that it was incumbent upon her not to delay her entry unto the king.413 And so she says, as it were, “If the matter is as you say, then it necessary that you go first to the (Jewish) residents of Susa, with whom you can quickly communicate,414 in order that they might fast daily on my behalf, for I fear death for myself.” Then (she says, as it were), “Neither eat nor drink for three complete415 days”416—this being that God might respond my hand, as per the statement, (Benjamin is a wolf that raveneth; in the morning he devoureth the prey,) and at even he divideth the spoil [Gen. 49:27], for we who are from Benjamin will be the cause of Amalek’s destruction’”). 413 Cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 23r): íàìëìà äã ˙ ä øúñà úòîñ àîì ˙ éô àäçåø [74§ åàìá äàø] úìã˙ áàå ìàøùé éìò àäáì ÷÷øå úðæç 駧é éìò úìëåúàå ìàøùé õàìë øåö éîçø (!)åìë éë ìà÷å úåàáö (“When Esther heard these words she was grieved and her heart filled with compassion for Israel, and so she devoted her spirit to the deliverance of Israel and trusted in the Lord of Hosts, as it is said, for the mercies of the Rock [never] come to an end (Lam. 3:22 [paraphr.])”); and Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 36v): éë äúàø øùàë ®§îàúå (§åâå) ñåðë ®åì äáéùä åîò ïéãä. 414 “with … communicate”—so, explicating Esther’s restriction of the fast to the Jews of Susa only. 415 Lit., “enveloped” (matwiyya, which root occurs twice more—and is similarly ren. dered—in this paragraph), indicating that, in Yefet’s view, the fast was to encompass a complete 72-hour period, with Esther continuing to fast, notwithstanding her change of clothing, upon her entry to the king on the third day (see Yefet below ad the phrase and thus will I go in unto the king, as well as ad 5:1). The same view is apparently held by Salmon, on whose comment see p. 246, n. 420, below. Otherwise, cf. Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: äìéì àåä áåúëä éë úåìéì éðùå §éîé éðù åðòúäå áøòá åìëà àì äðäå éùéìùä íåé ãò ®íéîé úùìù íåéå. 416 In contrast to Yefet’s silence regarding the identification of these three days (though cf. his comment ad 8:3 on p. 281 below), cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fols 7r–v [ad v. 11]): úô÷åå 㧧é éôå ïñéð øäù éô ⧧é íåé úðàë ïîä áúë ïà íìòú ïà áâ˙é ˙ ãú 槧éìà íåéå ä¨ îéàö úðàë 駧æå 觧æå 觧å íåéå øáë˙ ìà éìò øúñà äéìò úîæòå êìîìà éìà ìë [bà51§ åàìá äàø] äã˙ ä ìîòé áçé àîá êìîìà úøáë˙ à 秧é íåéå ä¨ áøùîìà úìîòå ïîä éìòå áìöå ïîä ìú÷ øàäðìà êìú éôå àäáòù ìú÷éå ïéòììà (“It is incumbent that you know that Haman’s letters were (issued on) the 13th day of the month Nisan, and on the 14th Esther learned of the news, and on the 15th, 16th, and 17th she fasted. Then, on the 17th day, she went in to the king, invited both him and Haman, and prepared the drinking-feast [or, “drinking-chamber”]; and on the 18th she informed the king of what this Cursed One wished to undertake—(namely,) to kill her people—and on that day Haman was killed (by being) impaled”); and, alternatively, Hadassi, Cluster, fol. 94v (§247): éë øåãñä ïéðòá êìîä éðôì øúñà äãîò çñôá øùò äùù íåé §âä íåéá. In both early exegetical tradition as well as among the medieval Rabbanites, these three days are normally identified as either the 13th, 14th, and 15th (so, e.g., Esth. Rab., viii.6; Pirqe R. El., ch. 50; Leq. Tob, . p. 103; Ag. Esth., p. 45 [implicitly, following Pirqe R. El.]), or the 14th, 15th, and 16th (so, e.g., Pan. Ah. . B, p. 71; Rashi ad v. 17 and ad b. Meg. 15a). Ibn Ezra, by contrast, pleads ignorance (Comm. B, fol. 36r): äðòúä éúî úòãì ìëåð àì 맧ò ®ïùåùá úãä äðúð éúî åðòãé àì éëãøî. Cf., still otherwise, the view of Anan b. David, cited by Saadia (Ms. CUL T-S Ar. 33.31 [on our identification of which see p. 9, n. 50 above], fol. 1v): ö˙ éà ïðò íòæ ã÷ìå ˙ åîìà àã˙ ä éô [218§ åàìá äàø] àãçàå àîåéå [àãçàå àìéì äá úãàø]à íåéå äìéì àäìå÷ ïà òö

246

translation

to them417 and establish mercy for them in the heart of the king. This (fast) was not, however, incumbent upon the children, but rather upon the one who was able. And so the people fasted collectively, apart from the children; whoever among them was able (did so) completely, for it was incumbent that it completely encompass three days.418 (Esther) then says, I also and my maidens will fast in like manner, which is to say, “I will fast four days—a day for myself and three days for the people.” [49r] She mentions her maidservants, moreover, because they were believers.419 As to her statement, and thus will I go in unto the king—she means to say, “I will go while I am fasting.”420 And as to her statement, which is not according to the law—she means to say, “My custom does not allow that I should go in to the king without him having called me.” And concerning her statement, and as I perished, I will perish (again)—she means to say, “I realize that I have, (in a fashion,) already been killed, this being due to the fact that I have been separated from the body of my people and come under the fist of an uncircumcised

àìéì àì àøàäð íàéà §â ãòá (“Anan has claimed, moreover, that in this instance, by her saying night and day, (Esther) is referring to one night and one day in addition to three days (of fasting) during the daytime (only), not nighttime”). 417 “That … them”—cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 23v): øúñà §å÷ ¨ ìåá÷î òîâ˙ìà éô ä¨ àìöìà ïà àäîìòå ïéãìà íåñøá øúñà ä¨ ôøòî éìò ìãé ñåðë êì ãðò ä 駧é úà êøáà íéìä÷îá ìà÷å 駧é íéäìà åëøá úåìä÷îá §÷ë äììà (“Esther’s statement, Go, gather together, (etc.,) demonstrates Esther’s knowledge of the practices of her religion and her awareness that prayer (uttered) in an assembly is acceptable to God, as per the statement, Bless ye God in full assemblies, even the Lord, (etc.,) [Ps. 68:27]; and (as Scripture also) says, in the congregations will I bless the Lord [Ps. 26:12]”). Cf. also Pesiq. Rab Kah., I, p. 141 (viii.2): àìå ïééæá àì ¬åäç÷é íéðöî ìàå ®øúñàå éëãøî äæ ¬ìëàé áòø ®ïîä äæ ¬åøéö÷ øùà ১ã íéáøì òöåé øôàå ÷ù ¬íéðåðçúáå äìéôúá àìà ïâîá. 418 See p. 245, n. 415 above. 419 See Yefet’s comment ad 2:9 (p. 201), wherein he cites this clause as proof of the maidservants’ Jewishness. Likewise Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fols 23v–24r): ˙ ä àìåìå àäáäã˙ î éìò åðàë àäøàåâ˙ ïà ìãé éúåøòðå éðà íâ §å÷å éìà ïäá òôùú (!)ùú úðàë àî àã äììà (“The statement I also and my maidens, (etc.,) indicates that her maidservants were of her religion, and if this was not the case she would not have appealed to God with them”). 420 On this construal of Heb. ïëáå see also Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 24r)—in whose comment, coincidentally, is attested one of the earliest occurrences (assuming it to be original) of the b-imperfect (see Blau, Grammar, §65; idem, Development, pp. 121–22): éñôð éìò ìîçàå ä¨ îéàö àðàå êìîìà éìà ìë˙ ãàá éðàì êìîä ìà àåáà ïëáå §÷å ˙ ÷ äììà éìòå éçåøá øèàë˙ àå (“(As to) the statement, and thus will I go in unto the éúâ˙àç éö king—(this is to say,) ‘for I will go in to the king while I am fasting, and I will pull myself together and set my life at risk, and up to God shall be the fulfillment of my request’”); and p. 237, n. 362 above.

translation

247

Gentile.421” Thus,422 she was grieved over what had befallen her, with the exception of that over which she was still in control,423 not having revealed her religion. Now, on the matter of Esther the (rabbinic) sages424 have disagreed, some of them maintaining that she was like one who is raped,425 for she had come under the hand of the king, and therefore, even though she would have given her life,426 it would not have been permitted her— even had [49v] she revealed her religion; indeed, nothing would have availed her (to this end), since the king would not have put her to death because he loved her.427 Nonetheless, that which was (still) incumbent upon her to do was that to which she could (feasibly) attain of (the obligations of her) religion, until (such time that) God would relieve her. Do you not see, moreover, that she did not embellish herself like the (other) women,428 and that God—the Blessed and Sublime!—does not reprove her on account of the fact that the uncircumcised unbeliever (sleeps) with her, for it had already been achieved by her that she would not eat anything except what she wanted,429 and (she also observed) the Sabbath and (every) festival, seeing that she had no (other) work to do, for (the mudawwin) makes clear that she ceased from her work

421 Or, “nation” (éåâ; cf. Jer. 9:25). As to the entire quote (“I realize … Gentile”), such represents a paraphrase of the first éúãáà in the last clause of v. 16 as a simple perfect (and øùàë as comparative), rather than as a protatic perfect (cf. Joüon & Muraoka, §167h) with near-future meaning (and øùàë as conditional), for examples of both of which construals see p. 237, n. 364 above. 422 I.e., in light of the preceding elucidation of the phrase éúãáà øùàëå. 423 “that over which she was still in control”—lit., “that which she was over” (m¯a hiya #alayhi), the reference being to those religious obligations which she continued to uphold, yet which would have been difficult, if not impossible, to uphold had she revealed her religion (see Yefet’s comment ad 2:10). 424 “the (rabbinic) sages”—Ar. al- #ulam¯a", on Yefet’s use of which term, esp. in connection with the following two views, see our discussion on pp. 60–61 above. 425 See b. Meg. 15a (ad 4:16; = Ag. Esth., p. 45): íåé ìëáù äéä úãë àìù àáà éáø øîà ïåöøá åéùëòå ñðåàá åéùëà ãò íåéå (Rashi ad loc.: êìéàå ïàëî ®åéùëòå ®ñðåàá éúìòáð ®åéùëò ãò éúòãî); and b. San. 74b: äúéä íìåò ò÷ø÷ øúñà ééáà øîà ®éàåä àéñäøô øúñà àäå (Rashi ad loc.: äùòî äá äùåò àåä ¬äùòî äùåò äðéà). 426 “given her life”—lit., “killed herself ” (qatalat nafsah¯a). 427 So, as obviously borne out by the events of ch. 5. 428 “she … women”—so per 2:15 (“Esther requested nothing except what Hegai … said”), the idea being that she piously endeavored, within the parameters allowed her, to avoid being selected as the wife of an “uncircumcised unbeliever.” 429 “what she wanted”—i.e., what was permitted by her religion (see Yefet’s comment ad 2:10).

248

translation

(upon entering the palace);430 and this431 is a likely assertion. Others say, however, that the king did not approach her432 at all.433 (v 1–8) (v 1) [50r] Then, while it was during the third day, Esther put on the royal robe434 and stood in the inner courtyard of the king’s residence, facing the king’s residence; and the king was sitting on his royal throne in the royal house,435 facing the house’s gate. (2) And it came about when the king observed Queen Esther standing in the courtyard, she obtained favor on his part, and he therefore extended to her the golden scepter436 that was in his hand. So Esther came forward and touched the top of the scepter. 430 The work in view, which would otherwise interfere with her religious obligations, is the procurement and preparation of food and cosmetics, etc., all of which, in addition to the services of seven maidservants, were supplied to her by Hegai according to 2:9. 431 I.e., the first view, that she was “like one raped” (ka-"l-maqh¯ura). 432 To sleep with her. 433 See Tg. Esth. II ad 4:11: ãëã éúé éèçé àìã àëìî éúé éòáé àìã àéìöî ïéîåé ïéúìú àä àðàå äùôð úåáö ïî àéîîò úéáì ìéæúå §ùé úðá ïî éáúùúã àúúéà ìëã éì äåä êúåì àéáøúî [éúéåä] §øùéã àéèáù éðéá àðñçàå ÷ìåç äì úéì. 434 “the royal robe”—lit., “the robe of royalty” (khil #a al-mulk), by which phrase Yefet clarifies the elliptically-employed Heb. lexeme úåëìî, on which see also the LXX (var.) and Lucianic recension: τA Bμ"τια τ4ς δξης; Tg. Esth. I: àúåëìî éùåáì; Tg. Esth. II: àùåáì §úåëìîã úùáì; the Pesh.: +-  3-"; the Vulg.: regalibus vestimentis; Esth. Rab. ix.1: äúøàôú éãò úàå äéôé éãâá øúñà ùáìúå éùéìùä íåéá éäéå; b. Meg. 15a (= Leq. Tob, p. 103; Ag. . Esth., p. 46): äéì éòáéî úåëìî éãâá ¬úåëìî øúñà ùáìúå éùéìùä íåéá éäéå; Saadia, Tafs¯ır, and Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, fol. 24v [tarjama]): êìîìà áàéú˙ (“royal clothing”); Salmon (ibid. [comm.]): íì éã˙ ìà ä¨ øë˙ úôîìà êìîìà áàéú˙ úñáì àäðà éðòé éùéìùä íåéá éäéå ˙ ë àã˙ ä ìú˙ îå úåôà ìå÷ ïî øöúë˙ àå íéøåòù ùù ãîéå §÷ë øöúë˙ î íàìë åäå íåé ìëì íäñáìú øéú (“Now it came to pass on the third day, (etc.)—this means that she put on splendid royal clothing which she would not put on every day, and this is an elliptical utterance, like the statement, and he measured six of barley [Ruth 3:15], in which ephahs has been elided from the statement; and like this there are many (others in Scripture)”); Ibn Jan¯ah, . Luma#, p. 254, ll. 12–13: úåëìî éãâá éà úåëìî øúñà ùáìúå (“and Esther put on royalty— that is to say, clothing of royalty”); Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: ùåáì íòèä ®úåëìî øúñà ùáìúå äãòì ùáìúå úìî éë úåëìî; and Rashi: úåëìî éãâá ®úåëìî; as well as, e.g., among the modern translations, the JPSV (1917): “her royal apparel”; the RSV: “her royal robes”; Gerleman, Esther, p. 108: “königliches Gewand”; Levenson, Esther, p. 88: “her royal robes”; Moore, Esther, p. 54: idem; and Würthwein, “Esther,” p. 185 (albeit emending the Heb. per Rudolph): “königlichen ‘Staat.’” 435 “the royal house”—see p. 192, n. 166 above. 436 Ar. qad¯ıb, on which rendering of Heb. èéáøù, both here and in the following . sentence, see p. 234, n. 354 above.

translation

249

(3) [50v] Then the king said to her, “What is (on) your (mind), Queen Esther, and what is your request? Even if it is for half of the kingdom, it shall be given to you.437” (4) And Esther said, “If it is pleasing to the king, let the king and Haman come438 to the banquet that I have prepared for him.” (5) Then the king said, “Bring Haman quickly in order to fulfill [51r] Esther’s petition.” So the king and Haman came to drink with Esther.439 (6) And the king said to Esther at the banquet of wine, “What is your petition, that it might be granted to you? And what is your request? Even to half of the kingdom, it shall be fulfilled. (7) Then Esther answered and said, “My petition and my request is— (8) if I have found favor [51v] on the part of the king, and if it is pleasing to the king that my petition be granted and my request be fulfilled—let the king and Haman come to the banquet which I shall prepare for them, and tomorrow I will do as the king has said.” It is possible that (Esther) wore the sackcloth under her (royal) apparel and so, when she went in to him, she went in with the clothing that she had (previously) been wearing. When she went in to him, moreover, there was no one else before him other than the young men who stood at his head. He had just woken up and sat down on his throne, and was sending out to summon whom he wanted, when in came Esther before anyone else had come in; and she stood in the place where it was proper (for her) to stand and did not rush audaciously into the house.440 When, therefore, the king saw that she had shown up without being 437 “Even if … you”—on this conditional expansion of the Heb. clause see also Tg. Esth I: êéì äéððúéà éúåëìî úåâìô àéòá úðà ïéà åìéôà; the Vulg.: etiam si dimidiam regni partem petieris dabitur tibi; Pan. Ah. . B, p. 71: ùòúå úåëìîä éöç ãò àéä íà ®®® êúìàù àéä äìåãâ; and Saadia, Tafs¯ır: àèòúô ä¨ ëìîîìà óöð éìà åìå (“Even to the half of the kingdom, it shall be given thee”); as well as, e.g., among the moderns, Bush, Esther, p. 401: “Even if it’s for half …”; and Moore, Esther, p. 54: “Even if it be half …” 438 Although the adverb “today” (Heb. íåéä) is included in the Hebrew citation of all the Mss of Yefet which are here extant (albeit supralinearly in Ms. A), in none of them is there supplied a translation of such (contra Saadia, Tafs¯ır), indicating that this word was lacking from the Hebrew text with which Yefet was familiar, just as it is from several of the extant masoretic Mss. 439 “to drink with Esther”—so, paraphrasing Heb. øúñà äúùò øùà äúùîä ìà. 440 On this construal of Esther’s standing in wait, outside the throne room, as a conventional prelude to the actual audience with the king, cf. Hirschler, Esther, p. 284.

250

translation

summoned, he knew that a serious matter had come to her attention [52r] which she was unable to push aside until another time, and that for this reason she was setting her life at risk. There was, (in this respect,) an arrangement441 between the king and his servants, that whenever a person would enter into that place (where Esther was standing) without having been summoned, they should be on the lookout, and if they saw that the king’s eye had settled upon that person and he extended to him the golden scepter, it was a sign that he would live; but if he did not extend to him the scepter, it was a sign that (the king) was angry with him and wished to execute him, and so they would execute him. Thus, when Esther entered without having been summoned the servants were unquestionably dismayed,442 and when (the king) looked at her and extended to her the scepter, there is no doubt that they happy for it. As to the statement, What wilt thou …? And then, and what is thy request?—this indicates two things, the first of which is that he intended thereby to say, “If [52v] someone has troubled you, say (whom)!” And the second is (to say, as it were), “If you were intending to make a petition on someone’s behalf, that we should promote him to a lofty position—even that we should give to him half of the kingdom—, I shall fulfill it.” This is because he was saying to himself that she was intending one of these two things. Yet in reply443 she requested that he and Haman attend her banquet, and nothing else. This444 indicates, moreover, that she had prepared the food and the drink and the rest of what was necessary for her to set in order before her entry unto him. The king then commanded Haman’s compliance and they came to her together. Now, the king knew that she had not set her life at risk for this matter (of the banquet), but rather for a different matter, and so, when his soul was gladdened with drink, he said, “Declare your petition and your request, that we might fulfill it immediately.” Yet she did not declare [53r] her petition, but rather said, as it were, “O king, I do have a petition and a request, though if the king desires to grant my petition and fulfill my request, let him and Haman come tomorrow to a second

441

Lit., “sign” (#al¯ama). Cf. Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: äîåàî äì øáãì åìëé àì øòùä éøîåùå úéîéðôä øöçä ìà §ñðëð äëìîä àéä éë. 443 “in reply”—lit, “the reply from her was that” (k¯ana al-jaw¯ab minha anna-). 444 Specifically, the perfect form éúéùò (“I have prepared”) in her reply. 442

translation

251

banquet which I shall prepare for them, and tomorrow I shall present my petition and seek from you my request.” So the king departed, his heart preoccupied with her, having discerned that she had deferred her petition for a reason that445 she would (later) reveal, and which we shall discuss in connection with what follows.446 (v 9–14) (9) Then Haman went out on that day joyful and glad of heart; but when Haman saw Mordecai in the king’s gate, neither rising up nor stirring from his place,447 Haman was filled [53v] with wrath against Mordecai. (10) Yet Haman restrained himself448 and went to his house; and he sent and fetched his friends and Zeresh his wife. 445 Ar. "an, on this use of which, to introduce a relative clause referring to an indefinite antecedent, see Blau, Emergence, pp. 175–76. 446 See pp. 271–72 below. 447 “from his place”—on this construal of the suffix in åðîî as referring to the place where Mordecai was sitting, see also the Vulg.: nec motum quidem de loco sessionis suae. Otherwise, for the construal “(before) his presence,” cf. Pan. Ah. . B, p. 71: àîù ïîä øîà ææ àìå ¬åéðôìî éëãøî æåæé; and al-F¯ as¯ı, I, p. 497, l. 7: äîàã÷ ïî òæòæú àî åðîî òæ àìå (“(w˘e)l¯o" z¯a# mimmennû (means) ‘he did not stir before him’); as well as most modern translations. 448 “restrained himself ”—Ar. (fa-)tasabbara, on which rendering of Heb. ÷ôàúé(å) cf. . al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 138, ll. 166–71: äìà ìòä äìå÷ ìú˙ î àäàèáàå ìàòôàìà øáöú äðîå ˙ îå êúîçøá àðò øáöú ìæàåðìà éìåàä ìú˙ î éìò ìä éðòé 駧é ÷ôàúú êéîçøå êéòî ïåîä äìå÷ ìú √ ¨ áå÷òìà àèáàìå ®å÷ôàúä éìà (“( ÷ôà) also ÷ôàúà ùéøçà íìåòî éúéùçä ìà÷ àðéàãòà ïò ä denotes the restraining of actions and their deferment, as in the statement, Wilt Thou restrain Thyself [÷ôàúú] for these things, O Lord? [Isa. 64:11]—that is to say, ‘Will You restrain Your compassion from us in view of such calamities as these?’—and as in the statement, The yearning of Thy heart and Thy compassions have been restrained [å÷ôàúä] from me [Isa. 63:15]. And with regard to the deferment of punishment from our enemies He says, I have long time held My peace, I have been still and restrained Myself (Isa. 42:14)”); and Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 66: .`(E (z IM{  ïîä ÷ôàúéå ®íçì åîéù øîàéå ÷ôàúéå äìòàå ÷ôàúàå .#($E IM*E å÷ôàúä éìà êéîçøå . E*+ rW > I*E éé ÷ôàúú äìà ìòä ÷ôàúäì óñåé ìëé àìå ' *M  0n (K" (“Wayyit"appaq (in Gen. 43:31 and Esth. 5:10) means ‘yet he restrained himself,’ ‘yet he showed endurance,’ ‘yet he took heart.’ Thus, the purport of tit"appaq [Isa. 64:11] is: ‘Will you refrain from helping us and assisting us?’ Of Thy compassions towards me hit"app¯aqû [Isa. 63:15]: ‘you are restraining yourself and holding back.’ And of w¯a"et"appaq [1Sam. 13:12] ‘and so I affected strength’”); as well as, in a similar vein, Ibn Bar¯un, p. 40: ä¨ ÷àôàìà ïàô ä¨ ÷àôàìà éðòî ñðàâ˙é ïà ïëîé ïîä ÷ôàúéå ïàáøà÷úî éðòîìà éô ãìâ˙úìàå (“It is possible that (way)yit"appaq [in Esth. 5:10] fits the sense of ‘recovery,’ for ‘recovery’ and ‘showing endurance’ are related in meaning”). Cf., otherwise, Saadia, Tafs¯ır: äìæðî éìà àâ˙ éúç êøçúô (“Yet he strayed (in his thoughts [cf. Q¯afih, . Esther, ad loc.: åøòöî åúòã çéñäì éãë íéðéðòå íé÷ñòá åîöò ãéøèä]) until he came to his house”); and, curiously, the Pesh.: &++  (“and he became enraged”).

252

translation

(11) And Haman recounted to them the glory of his riches, and the multitude449 of his sons, and all with which the king had exalted him and promoted him450 above the rulers451 and servants of the king. (12) Haman said moreover,452 “Indeed, even [54r] Queen Esther brought no one else to her banquet with the king other than me, and tomorrow I am also summoned to her453 with the king. (13) Yet all this is without worth454 to me the moment that I see Mordecai the Jew sitting at the king’s gate.” 449 “and the multitude” (wa-kathra)—so, as in most translations, rendering Heb. áøå, on which cf. otherwise Ibn Jan¯ah, . Luma#, pp. 20–21: ä¨ ôöìàá éî( ñé àîñàìà ïî ú˙ ìàú˙ áøö˙ å ˙ ìà ïî ãçàå ìë äá óöåé ä¨ ðàì íñà åäå âøä àðôöåå ®®® áø âøä íåéá ®®® àðìå÷ë ïéìå( àìà ïéáøö ˙ øò íñà ïî âøäìì ÷( úùîìà ìòàôìà íñà åäå áøìàá õ˙ øòìà ïéò åéðá áøå åøùò ãåáë úà åäå äö (“The third variety of nouns are called ‘adjectives’ because each one of the two former varieties [i.e., substantive and abstract/accidental nouns] are described by them, as per our saying, … in the day of the great [or abundant?] slaughter [áT âøä] [Isa. 30:25] … thus we have described slaughter [âøä]—which is an abstract noun [lit., “noun of the essence of the accident”]—by great [or abundant?] [áT]—which is an adjective derived for slaughter from its (corresponding) abstract noun—viz., greatness [or abundance?] [áø˙ ], (as in Esth. 5:11)”); Ibn Ezra, Comm. A (referring, inter alios, to Ibn Jan¯ah?): . §é÷ã÷ãîä §à ®åéðá áåøå íéáø íéðá åì ùéù åúùàì ãéâé êéà éë áø êìî úéø÷ åîë åéðá úìåãâ åùåøéô éë; idem, Comm. B (fol. 36v): áø êìî úéø÷ ®êìîä éáøå §îë íúìòî ìãåâ åéðá áøå §éô éë §àé; and Hoschander, Esther, p. 231, n. 2. 450 “and all … him”—on this evident construal (and consequent clarifying omission) of øùà úàå as appositional to øùà ìë úàå, see also Saadia, Tafs¯ır: êìîìà äîö˙ ò àî òéîâ˙å äôøùå (“and all with which the king had promoted him and honored him”); and the Vulg.: et quanta eum gloria super omnes principes et servos suos rex elevasset; as well as, e.g., among the modern commentators, Gerleman, Esther, p. 111: “und von allem, womit der König ihn geehrt hatte und womit er ihn … erhöht hatte”; Levenson, Esther, p. 91: “and all about how the king had promoted him and elevated him”; and Meinhold, Esther, p. 58: “und alles, womit der König ihn groß gemacht und über die Fürsten und die Diener des Königs erhoben hatte.” 451 Ar. quww¯ad, on which see p. 171, n. 54 above. 452 Ar. thumma, which rendering of the waw in øîàéå is likewise adopted by Saadia, Tafs¯ır. Cf. also the Vulg.: et post haec; as well as the modern translations. 453 “summoned to her”—Ar. mud #an (for ma/ud #¯uw [see Blau, Grammar, §§74, 113à] or ma/ud #¯ıy [see Blau, ibid., §105]) lah¯a, which rendering of the syntagm äì àåø÷—a likely Old Persianism/Eastern Aramaism (cf. Kutscher, “Aramaic,” p. 73) uniquely attested in BH—is similarly adopted (with the spelling ma/ud #¯ıy) by Saadia, Tafs¯ır. This directional construal of the lamed preposition is likewise implied by the Vulg.: apud quam … pransurus sum; and adopted, e.g., among the moderns, by Bush, p. 409; Gerleman, Esther, p. 111; Meinhold, Esther, p. 59; and Würthwein, “Esther,” p. 186. Cf., by contrast, the construal of such as a dativus auctoris (i.e., “by”) attested, e.g., by Hirschler, Esther, p. 288; Levenson, Esther, p. 91; Moore, Esther, p. 59; Paton, Esther, p. 239; the RSV; the JPSV (1917); and the NJPSV (1999). On the adoption of both senses cf. Keil, Esther, p. 357. 454 “without worth”—Ar. ghayr mus¯awin, rendering Heb. äåù åððéà, on which cf. al-F¯ as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 655, ll. 26–27: ä¨ îé÷ äì àî àã˙ ä ìëå (“Yet all this has no value”); and Saadia,

translation

253

(14) Then Zeresh his wife and all his friends said to him, “Let them prepare a stake fifty cubits high, and when it becomes morning455 speak to the king that they might impale Mordecai [54v] upon it, and then go joyfully with the king to the banquet.” So their advice was pleasing to him and he prepared the stake. During Haman’s departure from the banquet he directed himself towards Mordecai—and lo, he was (still acting) in accord with his previous deportment,456 neither rising from his place nor motioning towards him (in prostration). This therefore increased his ire and he was filled with wrath against him. Regarding the first time (Haman noticed this behavior), Scripture says and Haman was filled with wrath (3:5), while here it adds (the phrase) at Mordecai because (Haman) was seeking to execute him immediately,457 that he might be relieved of the ire which had seized him because of (Mordecai) on account of his mockery458 of him. Whereas, therefore, Haman’s joy was great when he departed from the banquet, his soul was immediately embittered; yet because of his forbearance he did not act precipitously against him, but rather summoned his friends and his wife Zeresh—for she was wise459— because he desired to consult their opinion concerning the matter of (Mordecai). [55r] And he recounted to them what they already knew about his wealth and the multitude of his sons, and how the king had

Tafs¯ır: àéù éãðò éåàñé àî éã˙ ä òéîâ˙å (“Yet all of this is worth nothing to me”). On this latter, transitive rendering, see also Ibn Ezra, Comm B (fol. 37r; the first of two alternatives): äîåàî ®éðéòá äåù åððéà äæ ìëå; and our discussion on p. 220, n. 284 above (ad äåù ïéà in 3:8). 455 “and when it becomes morning”—Ar. wa-idh¯a k¯ana bi-"l-ghad¯a" (construing the last word in the sense of ä¨ àãâìàá [cf. the comm. ad loc.], on the preposition of which, as denoting the direct object, cf. Blau, Grammar, §266ã), on which expansion of Heb. ¨ àãâìà ä¨ ðàë éã˙ àô (“And then, when morning comes around ø÷ááå cf. Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ä [or, perhaps, “when it is morning”]”). 456 “he was … deportment”—in Yefet’s view, therefore, the clause òæ àìå í÷ àìå åðîî is to be understood, not as a new component of Mordecai’s demeanor towards Haman (so, e.g., Bush, Esther, pp. 417–18; Clines, Esther, pp. 305–6; Levenson, Esther, p. 92; Meinhold, Esther, p. 59), but as an alternative reference to the same demeanor attributed to Mordecai in 3:2 & 5 (cf. Hakham, “Esther,” p. 38; Maier, Esther, p. . 103). 457 I.e., the additional phrase at Mordecai emphasizes that Haman’s anger is in this instance directed specifically against Mordecai, rather than against both Mordecai and his people, as in the previous instance. See also Hakham, “Esther,” p. 38. . 458 “his mockery”—Ar. (li-)ish¯afihi, on this sense of which root, in the fourth form, see . Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 638b (citing Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 183, n. 15). 459 Ms. R1 adds, “in his opinion” (#indahu).

254

translation

elevated his status, because he wanted to juxtapose (these things) with what was besetting him of Mordecai’s mockery. And he informed them that Queen Esther had also invited him just as she had invited the king, and that he would also be at her banquet tomorrow with the king. Then, when he had recounted these praiseworthy matters that were accruing for him, he said afterwards, “All these things do not compensate for the mockery which has overtaken me from Mordecai in the presence of all the king’s chamberlains.”460 When, therefore, they heard his words, they said to him, as it were, “If indeed you are in this exalted position before the king and the queen, then neither the king nor the queen will want him to make a mockery of you. Therefore commit the workmen tonight to complete the setting up of a tall stake [55v] of fifty cubits, then set out early in the morning, before going in to the banquet, and inform the king of what he is doing to you, and that he has disobeyed the command of the king, and then (the king) will give an order that he be executed and impaled;461 and when this has been fulfilled, go in to the banquet joyfully and glad of soul, and your heart shall not be preoccupied with the matter of Mordecai, nor shall your ire smite462 you on his account.” And so their advice was pleasing to him and he undertook it, setting up the stake upon which to impale Mordecai.

460 “in … chamberlains”—i.e., the main offense of Mordecai’s perceived mockery was its publicity—at least within the royal court—as inferred by Yefet from the added predication êìîä øòùá áùé (hence the obvious, commensurate publicity of Mordecai’s intended execution upon a 50-cubit-high stake; cf. Hoschander, Esther, p. 205). Cf., otherwise, Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: ñéòëî àåäå §ìåãâ §ìòî àéäù øåáòá ®êìîä øòùá áùåé íòèå éúåà; as well as, e.g., Bush, Esther, p. 418; Fox, Esther, p. 74; and Hakham, “Esther,” p. . 39. 461 “executed and impaled”—rather than construing these words as a hendiadic—in which case also uncharacteristic, if not counterintuitive—representation of Heb. åìúé(å) in v. 14, one should take this as a reference to execution followed by impalement (for the purpose of disgrace)—a practice well-attested in the ancient Near East (see Berlin, Esther, p. 32 [ad 2:23]; Clines, Esther, p. 306; Gerleman,√Esther, p. 113; and Levenson, Esther, p. 93) and here inferred by Yefet from the use of äìú (see also n. 252 [ad 2:23] above). 462 Ar. yaqtulu(ka), on this sense of which cf. Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 308a.

translation

255

(vi 1–13) (vi 1) During that night the king’s sleep escaped him, and (so)463 he ordered that the record book in which were reports of what had taken place in the past464 be brought out; and (the reports) were being read465 before the king. (2) [56r] Thus they continued uninterruptedly466 in the reading until they found467 it written that Mordecai had reported concerning Bigthana and Teresh, two of the king’s euncuhs from among the guardians of the threshold, who had sought to kill468 King Ahasuerus. (3) And so the king said, “What has been done for Mordecai with respect to honor and sublimity on account of this act of his?” Then the king’s young men—his servants469—said, “Nothing has been done with him.” (4) [56v] Then the king said, “Who is in the court?” Now Haman had already come470 to the king’s471 outer court in order to suggest to the king that Mordecai be impaled upon the stake which he had set up for him. 463

So, explicitly, in Ms. R1. “the record … past”—so, paraphrastically rendering Heb. éøáã úåðåøëæä øôñ ˙ à úàðàøëã˙ ìà ïàåéã (“the register íéîéä, on which cf. otherwise Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ïàîæìà øàáë of the records of the affairs of the past”). On the rendering “(in) the past” for (f¯ı) "lzam¯an see Blau, Dictionary, p. 276a. 465 “were being read” (k¯anat tuqra"u)—like its Hebrew equivalent (íéàø÷ð åéäéå), this compound tense suggests that the reading of the records continued for some time (viz., until the morning, when Haman came in [see 5:14]; cf. Ibn Ezra, Comm. B [cited on p. 258, n. 483 below]; Clines, Esther, p. 307; Hakham, “Esther,” p. 38; Keil, Esther, p. . 359; and Paton, Esther, p. 244). We have, moreover, retained this compound tense in our translation (in contrast to which cf. the typical rendering of the underlying Hebrew by the simple past [“and they were read”]) vis-à-vis Yefet’s paraphrastic reference in the following verse to the continuing process of reading. 466 “they continued uninterruptedly”—Ar. wasal¯u, on this rendering of which cf. . Lane, Lexicon, p. 3054c. 467 “Thus … found”—so, representing a relatively lengthy paraphrase of Heb. àöîéå, on which see also the Vulg.: (qui cum illo praesente legerentur) ventum est ad eum locum ubi scriptum erat. 468 “to kill” (qatl)—so, as ad 2:21, paraphrasing Heb. ãé çìùì (see p. 210, n. 249 above). 469 See p. 189, n. 145 (ad 2:2) above. 470 “had already come” (k¯ana qad j¯a"a)—so, reflecting a construal of àá here as a perfect form, as likewise Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ìë˙ ã ã÷ ïîä ïàëå; and most others (cf., e.g., Hakham, “Esther,” p. 38). Otherwise, reflecting a participial construal of àá, cf. Tg. . Esth. I(?): ìàò ïîäå (reading ìàò rather than ìàò, albeit cf. the var. ìò as well as Grossfeld, Two Targums, p. 70: “Haman had just entered”); Bush, Esther, p. 410: “just as Haman was entering”; and Levenson, Esther, p. 94: “Haman was coming.” 471 The omission here of any rendering of Heb. úéá in the phrase êìîä úéá is uncharacteristic of Yefet—úéá being explicitly rendered in every other occurrence of 464

256

translation

(5) And the king’s young men said to him, “Haman is standing in the court.” Then the king said, “Let him enter.” (6) So Haman entered and the king said to him, “What, in your opinion, is fitting to be done472 with the man whom [57r] the king desires to honor?” And Haman said to himself, “Whom would the king desire to honor more than me?” (7) Then Haman said to the king, “It is fitting that these (things) be done with473 the man whom the king desires to honor: (8) “Let them bring royal apparel which the king wears, and the horse upon which the king has ridden, and the crown474 which has been placed upon his head;475 this phrase by either d¯ar (cf. ad 2:8, 9, 13; 4:13; 5:1 [1o]; 9:4) or bayt (cf. ad 5:1 [2o])—and may therefore reflect an early scribal error. 472 “is fitting … done”—so, emphasizing the modality of the Heb. infinitive úåùòì, on which see also Tg. Esth. I: àãáåòúéàì éæç ïàî; and the Vulg.: quid debet fieri. 473 “It … with”—this opening addition suggests that, rather than construing Haman’s words as an instance of genuine anacoluthia (in favor of which cf., e.g., Berlin, Esther, p. 58; Bush, Esther, pp. 414–15; Fox, Esther, p. 76; Hirschler, Esther, p. 290; Paton, Esther, p. 248), Yefet understood the clause as an unmarked, proleptic dative (of advantage). See also, e.g., the Pesh.: "4; and the RSV: “For the man.” For various other construals cf. Bush (ibid.). Saadia (Tafs¯ır), renders literally: äîàøëà êìîìà ãéøé éã˙ ìà ìâ˙øìà. 474 “the crown”—although the Heb. text has úåëìî øúë—which phrase is explicitly rendered by Yefet ad its two other BH occurrences (1:11 & 2:17) by t¯aj al-mulk—the inclusion of the article points most reasonably to condensation (uncharacteristic though it is), rather than early scribal error (as may indeed be the case ad v. 4 [see p. 255, n. 471 above]), as the reason for the omission of the nomen rectum. 475 “and the crown … head”—so, taking the grammatical antecedent of the relative pronoun to be the crown rather than, as is indeed more grammatically natural, the horse—the reference therefore being to a crown which the king had worn (see also Yefet’s comment ad loc.), as opposed to one which had been placed on the horse’s head. For the former view see also the Hexaplaric recension: και δοητω διαδημα βασιλειας επι την κεφαλην αυτου; the Pesh. (construing øùàå as a temporal relative [cf. Gerleman, Esther, p. 117): % +-  1+ 5$+ / ; the Vulg.: et accipere regium diadema super caput suum; Esth. Rab., x.4 (indirectly): øîà ®àìéìë ïéãä ùéáì áñ åì øîà ÷ôðã ïåéë øôñî àìå àúåëìîã àìéìë ùéáì ùð øá úéà àúåëìî äæáî úà äî §éì; Pan. Ah. . B, p. 75 (= Ag. Esth., p. 62), and Pirqe R. El., fol. 121v (here per the former): åùàøá ïúéðù úåëìî øúëå êìîù íåéá; and, implicitly, Ab. Gur., p. 39, and Leq. Tob, p. 106 (here per the former): ïåéë . àì áåù ùåøåùçà ìù åéðô äðúùðù ïîä äàøù ïåéë ®®® ùåøåùçà ìù åéðô åðúùð ¬øúëä åéðôì øéëæäù ˙ ìà êìîìà ˙âàúå; Salmon (per Ms. Yevr. II øúëä øéëæä; Saadia, Tafs¯ır: äñàø éìò ìòâ˙ ã÷ éã A 78 [An Anonymous Karaite Compilation], fol. 22r): úúì ïîä §à éë ®íçåøé ïá ïåîìù §àå äìåãâ áäæ úøèòå §à ïë éë ®ùéàä ùàø ìò úøèòå øúë íâ; Ibn Jan¯ ah, . Luma#, p. 342, ll. 26–27: åùàøá ïúð øùà úåëìî øúëå ãàøà åùàøá úåëìî øúë ïúð øùàå (“wa"˘ asˇer nittan keter malkût

b˘er¯o"ˇsô means, and a royal crown which has been placed on his head”); Rashi (ad v. 9; following the tradition cited on p. 260, n. 494 below): äòø êìî ìù åðéò äàøù øéëæä àì øúëä úàå íãà ùàøá øúëä åðúéù øîàù ìò; and Tanhum, Esther, fol. 222r: åùàøá úåëìî øúë ïúð øùàå . åùàøá ïúð øùà øúëå äøéã÷ú (“The sense of (the clause) wa"˘ asˇer nittan keter malkût b˘er¯o"ˇsô is: and a royal crown which has been placed on his head”); as well as, among the moderns, e.g. (for

translation

257

(9) [57v] And let the apparel and the horse be presented (to him) by a man from among the king’s rulers—(that is to say,) the chief men476—and let them array the man concerning whom the king is pleased to honor, and let them lead him about on the horse in the city square, and proclaim before him, “Thus is it fitting to be done with the man whom the king desires to honor!” (10) Then the king said to Haman, “Make haste, take the apparel and the horse, just as you have said, and do accordingly with Mordecai the Jew who sits at the king’s gate; and take care that you not leave out477 anything from all that you have said.” (11) [58r] So Haman took the apparel and the horse, and he arrayed Mordecai and caused him to ride in the city square, and proclaimed before him, “Thus is it fitting to be done478 with the man whom the king desires to honor.” (12) Then Mordecai returned to the king’s gate, while Haman rushed to his house, mourning and with his head—or, it is said, his face479—covered. others cf. Paton, Esther, p. 248), Gerleman, Esther, p. 117 (construing øùàå temporally); Hakham, “Esther,” p. 42 (also construing øùàå temporally); and Keil, Esther, p. 360. For . the latter view (viz., that the suffix in åùàøá refers to the horse), which is that held by the majority of modern commentators, cf., e.g., Tg. Esth. I (the omission of the second clause, reflected in Grossfeld’s translation [Two Targums, p. 71], is most likely due to homoioteleuton): äéùéøá àúåëìîã àìéìë áéäéúéà éã; Tg. Esth. II: §åëìîã àøúë áéäéúéàå äéùéøá (pace Grossfeld, ibid., p. 170: “and let the royal crown be placed on his head”; although, on the possibility of understanding this targumic rendering in a temporally concomitant sense, and thus as a reference to the king’s crowning, cf. Gerleman, Esther, p. 117); and Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 37r): ïáà =] ñåðéøî §øå ®úåëìîä øúë ìò ùøã ùé äëëå ®êåôä åðéàù éðéòá ïåëðäå ®åùàøá ïúð øùà (!)úåëìîä øúëå ïåëðäå ®úåëåôä úåìîäù §îà [çàðâ˙ øéëæä àì 맧ò ®úåëìî øúë ñåñä ùàø ìò ïúðå êìîä åéìò áëøù òåãé ñåñ ìò åäåáéëøéù åùåøéô øáã ìôú ìà êìîä §îàù ãòäå ®ñøô éëìî âäðî äëë éë ®òãåðä øëéæ ÷éñôé éë äùòîá øúëä øúëä øñçé äîì ë§§à ®úøáã øùà ìëî (similarly in Comm. A); as well as, e.g., among the

moderns, Berlin, Esther, p. 60; Bush, Esther, p. 415; Clines, Esther, p. 308; Fox, Esther, pp. 281–82; Hirschler, Esther, p. 291; Levenson, Esther, p. 97; Maier, Esther, p. 109; Meinhold, Esther, p. 61; Moore, Esther, p. 65; and Paton, Esther, p. 248. For the view that this clause is intentionally ambiguous, reflecting an Old Persian syntactic exception which would permit construal of either the horse or the crown as the grammatical antecedant of the relative pronoun, depending on the king’s inclination, see Wechsler, Old Persian, pp. 183–85. 476 “the chief men”—Ar. al-bat¯ariqa, on which see p. 171, n. 55 above. . 477 “and … out”—Ar. wa-iyy¯aka an tusqita, on which paraphrase of Heb. ìôú ìà cf. . the Vulg.: cave ne … praetermittas. 478 “is … done”—on this paraphrastic expansion of Heb. äùòé cf. the Vulg.: (hoc) honore condignus est; and p. 256, n. 472 above (ad 6:6). 479 “or, it is said, his face”—on the likelihood that this addition represents an early scribal contribution—if not marginal gloss—, see our discussion in the Introduction, II.1.3.

258

translation

(13) [58v] And Haman recounted to Zeresh his wife and to all his friends everything that had happened to him, whereupon his wise men and Zeresh his wife said to him, “If Mordecai, before whom you have begun to fall, is from the stock of the Jews, then you will not gain mastery over him, but rather you will surely fall480 before him.” (The mudawwin) indicates that God dispelled the king’s sleep481 in order to prompt him to do what he (then did) set in motion regarding the bringing out of the book of the records. And (the king) requested this either in order to see whether or not the weariness of insomnia such as that which had overtaken him for some reason other than he was aware had also overtaken any of the other kings (before him); or else he desired to hear (the records read) in the manner of nighttime storytelling in order that sleep would overtake him by reason of the storytelling.482 It so happened, however, that the person reading before him came [59r] upon this report, morning having already broken,483 and (the king) had had no interest in anything that (the reader) had read to him apart from this report, for he read to him what Mordecai had done for the king—which (service) merited for him a generous reward.484 And so, when the reader sought to read another passage 480 “you will surely fall”—Ar. suq¯ut tasqutu, by which Yefet renders the Heb. inf. abs. . . + imperf. (ìåôú ìåôð) syntagm (on which in Classical Arabic, see Wright, Grammar, II, pp. 53–57 [§26]), in contrast to which cf. Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ò÷ú (“you will fall”). These renderings bear out the general trend noted by Polliack, Tradition, pp. 125–6. 481 “God … sleep”—on this common—and arguably inevitable (cf. Hirschler, Esther, p. 289)—inference, cf. the LXX: >Ο δ< κριος πστησεν τν Mπνον π το βασιλως; Tgs Esth. I & II; Ab. Gur., p. 38; Pan. Ah. . A, p. 48; Pan. Ah. . B, p. 74; Leq. Tob, p. 106; Ag. . Esth., pp. 60–61; Rashi: äéä ñð; and Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (per Ms. BN héb 334, fol. 82r):

ãò ìàøùé øîåùå ïùéé àì íùäù ùøãä ÷ø ®ïùéé íùä éë åðéîëçî ãçà §îàéù äìéìç äìéìç ®äìéìá ìàøùé åìöðéù ãò ùåøåùçà ìù åúðù ããðì úåáéñ àéáäù. 482 On this latter explanation see also Rashi (the first of two explanations [the second of which follows b. Meg. 15b]): ãò úåçéùå íéìùî íäéðôì íéøîåà úããåð ïúðéùùë íéëìîä êøã íäéìò úøæåç íúðùù; as well as, e.g., among the moderns, Hakham, “Esther,” p. 40; and . Levenson, Esther, p. 95. Cf., otherwise, b. Meg. 15b; Ab. Gur., pp. 38–39; Pan. Ah. . B, p. 74; Leq. Tob, p. 106; Ag. Esth., pp. 59–61; and Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: àéáäì íòè éë ১é .

øáã ìò ùåðò àîù åúðù äããðù øåáòá íéøîåà ùéå åøáòù åéøáã úòéîùá åâðòúäì íéîéä éøáã øôñ áåø÷ äæå åîé÷ä àìå øãðù; idem, Comm. B (fol. 37r): ÷ø éìà åúðù äããð àìù êìîä áùç àåä åúòã çéåøäì øôñä àø÷ð æà åì áéèîì ìåîâ íìù àìå ââùù øåáòá.

483 “morning … broken”—so, clarifying what Yefet clearly perceives to be the divinely ordained convergence of the reading of this report and the arrival of Haman “in the morning” (5:14) for his audience with the king. See also Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 37r [ad 6:3]): êìîä ïåîøà ìà àåáì íéøùä âäðî ïéà äìéìá éë ø÷áá äéä äæå. 484 Cf. the classical references, variously cited by commentators, to the Persian kings’ custom of generously rewarding their benefactors—viz., Herodotus, iii.138, 140; v.11; viii.85; ix.107; Thucydides, i.138; Xenophon, Hell., iii.1.6; and Plutarch, Art., 15.

translation

259

to him, the king said to him, “Is it not written there what was done with him as a reward for such?” And (the reader) said, “No.” Then the king asked his young men485 about this, “Perhaps something was done for him and it was not recorded?” But they said to him, “He has not been rewarded for any of it.” It was therefore upsetting486 to the king that Mordecai had accomplished this great deed and had not been rewarded for it with anything, for it would be an occasion for censure in the eyes of everyone who would read this passage and not see487 mentioned after it that with which the king had rewarded him for such, and they would ascribe this [59v] either to foolishness or to depravity and a lack of considerateness.488 He then said suddenly to his young men, “Who is outside in the court?” And it was reported to him, “Haman.” And so he said, “Bring him in,” whereupon the young men went out to him and said to him, “The king has commanded you to enter.” Then he entered and the king began by saying to him, “What is fitting to be done with the man whom the king desires to honor?” And then (Haman) said what he said. It is likely that the king wanted to consult the opinion of another489 concerning what was fitting to be done with Mordecai so that the young men and all to whom the report of Mordecai the Jew would come might say that (the delay) was per the advice of him on whose advice (the king) relied, and therefore the king would not himself be censured for it. Then, when the king asked Haman what was fitting to be done with the one whom the king would honor, it struck him that the (king’s) purpose in (saying) this was directed towards him, for it had happened to him before that the king would consult his advice [60r] and then do with him according to what he had told him. If, moreover, Haman had been at that rank of which he spoke to the king,490 he would not have spoken of it; yet his own rank was beneath it. We learn from this, accordingly, that the position which came to Mordecai was 485 On these “young men” (Ar. ghilm¯an, for Heb. íéøòð) cf., uniquely among the Karaite sources, the comment in Ms. RNL Yevr. II A 78, fol. 22r: íéñéøñä åìà íéøòð åéäå íéåâ äùòî äæ êìîä íäîò áëùé[ù]. 486 Or, “embarrassing” (sa #uba). . 487 “and not see”—Ar. wa-lam yar¯a, on which usage of lam in the sense of l¯a or laysa, see Blau, Grammar, §205â. 488 On this inference of concern on the king’s part over how the lack of reward would reflect upon him, cf. Moore, Esther, p. 64. 489 I.e., someone other than himself. 490 “that rank … king”—i.e., that rank indicated by the honors which Haman describes in vv. 8–9.

260

translation

above the position which came to Haman before him, and therefore (the mudawwin) says concerning (Mordecai that he was) next unto King Ahasuerus (10:3). Now God had directed that Haman would be the advisor (in this instance), for perhaps, had it been someone else, the king would not have accepted his advice. And if Haman had supposed that the question was for the benefit of someone else, he would not have said (what he did). Nonetheless, once the king heard Haman’s advice, it was inconceivable that he should do otherwise, for in (not following) it would a shortcoming attach to him. (The mudawwin) also indicates that when he said to Haman, “Do so with Mordecai,” it was extremely upsetting to (Haman)491—and how much more so that he went on foot in submission to492 Mordecai, in addition to the rest of what he did before him, for (the king) said to him at [60v] the end of the charge, Let nothing fail of all that thou hast spoken, and Haman was unable to disobey the king at all.493 Then (the mudawwin) says, So Haman took the apparel and the horse, without mentioning the crown, though it is impossible that (Haman) should have neglected it since (the king) had said to him in the presence of those gathered, Let nothing fail of all that thou hast spoken—and therefore it is included in the apparel.494 (The mudawwin) then indicates that, after

491 “(The mudawwin) … (Haman)”—Cf. (ad v. 10) Tg. Esth. I: êðéî åòáá ïîä äéì øîà ïéãä àîâúôë éìò øåæâú àìå éúé ìåè÷; Tg. Esth. II: ùàá éâñ ïéãä àîâúô [úé ïîä] òîù ãëå ïééøúùî äéöøç äéøè÷å åùéâúùéà éäåðåéòøå óìúñéà äéîåôå ïëùçúéà éäåðéòå éðúùéà éäååéæå éäåìò ïù÷ð àãì àã äéúáåëøàå; Pan. Ah. . B, p. 75: äúéî åì íøâå ¬ïîä ìäáð äòù äúåà; Ag. Esth., p. 62: ìäáð êë ïîä òîùù ïåéë; and Pirqe R. El., fol. 122r: ìäáðå úòáð ãéî ïîä äæ òîùù ïåéë. 492

“he went … to”—Ar. yatarajjala li-, on this sense of which syntagm see Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 514a. 493 Cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fol. 9v): àî òéîâ˙ éðòé øáã ìôú ìà §å÷å úøùà àîë ìòôú éúç äàñðú àì äúì÷ (“As to the statement Let nothing fail, (etc.)—this is to say, ‘Neglect nothing of all that you have said until you have done just as you have advised’”); and Ms. Yevr. II A 78 (an Anonymous Karaite Compilation), fol. 22r: ìà §àå øúëä øåáòá àåä ®øáã ìôú. 494 On this explanation concerning the omission of any reference to the crown (which, according to Yefet, was intended for the honoree’s head [see p. 256, n. 475 above]) in v. 11, see also the second of two alternatives offered by Tanhum, Esther, . fol. 222v: úà §å÷ éô ìë˙ àã äðàì åà àæàâ˙éà øúëìà øëã˙ øöúë˙ à ®ñåñä úàå ùåáìä úà ïîä ç÷éå úøáã øùà ìëî øáã ìôú ìà äì ìà÷ äðàì ùåáìä (“So Haman took the apparel and the horse— (the writer) omits any mention of the crown either owing to concision (of expression) or because it is implicit in the expression the apparel, for (the king) had said to him, Let nothing fail of all that thou hast spoken”). Cf., otherwise, the consistently repeated early exegetical tradition that the crown was omitted by Haman, as of v. 9, because he saw

translation

261

he had undertaken what the king had commanded, he entered his house mourning with a bowed495 head, for what he had undertaken towards (Mordecai’s) impalement he had replaced with becoming his servant,496 and (Mordecai’s) standing was (now) unquestionably above his own. And so, when his wise men who had advised him about the setting up of the stake saw him mourning and distressed they asked him what had happened, whereupon he told them; and their answer to him caused him to despair of holding any status.497 Moreover, in their statement but thou shalt surely fall before him is (implied) the abrogation of what [61r] he had written to the provinces regarding the Jews—as also, perhaps, (that Mordecai) would kill him.498

that the king did not desire to include it; thus (ad v. 9) Ab. Gur., p. 39, Pan. Ah. . B, p. 75, Leq. Tob, p. 106, Ag. Esth., p. 62, and Pirqe R. El., fols 121v–122r (here per the first): .

¬ùåøåùçà ìù åéðô äðúùðù ïîä äàøù ïåéë ®®® ùåøåùçà ìù åéðô åðúùð ¬øúëä åéðôì øéëæäù ïåéë øúëä øéëæä àì áåù. For yet another view, cf. the anonymous commentator in Jellinek, Commentaries, p. 15: êéøö ñåñäå ùéáìäì êéøö ùåáìäù àìà øúëì ïéãä àåäå ¬ñåñäå ùåáìä ïåúðå øéëæäì êøöåä àì êëéôì ùàøä ìò äðúåð åîöò íãàù øúëäå øéëæäì åëøöåä áéëøäì. 495 Ar. munakkas, on which construal of the Heb. lexeme éåôç cf. Qimhi, Roots, p. 113a . (ad 7:8): ò÷ø÷á åéðô åùáëð øîåìë ¬åôç ïîä éðôå ãîåò ìòåô [§äôç§ ùøåùä ¬ì§§ø] àåä øùàå êìîä éúøùî øîåìë åéøáçá øáåò ìòô åúåà íéùøôî ùéå ®êìîä åì øîà øùàî úùá åì äéä éë åúåìúì êìîä äåöé éë íéúøùîä åùéâøä éë íäéðô íéñëîù íéìúðä âäðîë åéðô åñë. This sense

does not, however, appear to preclude Yefet from construing the same lexeme in its more accepted sense of “covered,” as adopted in his tarjama (see also, e.g., Ibn Quraysh, Ris¯ala, p. 150 [§59]; Saadia, Tafs¯ır; Menahem, Mah. beret, p. 183, ll. 16–17; al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, I, . p. 570, ll. 8–13; Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 241, n. 36 [gloss]; Ibn Bar¯un, Muw¯azana, p. 51; and Jacob ben Reuben, Esther, fol. 310v [= Ms. RNL Yevr. II A 78 (an anonymous Byzantine Karaite compilation), fol. 22v]: äîéìëå äùåáá äôåç åîë å÷éç íò ùàø äñåëî ùàø éåôçå). 496 Cf. the (not unexpected) emphasis upon Haman’s servitude in the early exegetical sources, which, inter alia, variously elaborate the services (i.e., embrocating/anointing, bathing, feeding, hair-trimming) which he performed for Mordecai (Tg. Esth. II [ad v. 11]; Esth. Rab., x.4; b. Meg., 16a; Ab. Gur., p. 40, Pan. Ah. . B, p. 76, Leq. Tob, p. 107, Ag. . Esth., p. 64, and Pirqe R. El., fols 122r). 497 Cf. Hoschander, Esther, p 214. 498 “as … him”—underlying this comment, perhaps, is the assumption that the king’s honoring of Mordecai entailed the granting of an abiding rank beyond that of Haman, thus placing the latter in his power. Cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fol. 9r): ˙ ìà ìàçìà àã˙ ä ïà äåøùá §ôì ìåôú ìåôð éë íäìå÷å ãé éô êìäú êðàå øéñé ìéì÷ êì éøâ˙ ã÷ éã éëãøî (“As to the statement, but thou shalt surely fall before him—they declared to him, as it were, ‘This situation which befell you is rather trifling, for you will in fact perish at the hand of Mordecai’”); as well as Hirschler, Esther, p. 293; and Hoschander, Esther, p 215.

262

translation (vi 14–vii 10)

(vi 14) They were still talking with him when499 the king’s eunuchs overtook him and hastened to bring him500 to the banquet that Esther had prepared. (vii 1) So the king and Haman came to drink with Queen Esther. (2) And the king said again to Esther on the second day at the banquet of wine, “What is your petition, O Queen Esther, [61v] (for) it shall be granted to you. And what is your request—even if it should be for half of the kingdom—, that it might be fulfilled?” (3) Then Queen Esther answered and said, “If I have found favor on your part, O king, and if my utterance is pleasing to the king, let my life be given me at my petition, and my people at my request;” (4) for we have been sold, I and my people, to be exterminated, killed, and annihilated. Now if we had been sold so that our men would become bondmen

Ar. h. att¯a, on this sense of which see Blau, Emergence, p. 118, n. 2 (for other attestations by Yefet see p. 265, n. 512 below). 500 “and … him”—Ar. wa-asra #¯u bi-ij¯abatihi, rendering Heb. àéáäì åìéäáéå, on which see also Yefet’s rendering of ìäáú ìà (Eccl. 5:1) as òøñú àì (Bland, Ecclesiastes, p. 91). Cf. otherwise Saadia, Tafs¯ır: éâ˙é ïà ¬ïîäá åøãàáô (“and they impelled Haman to go”), each of which—notwithstanding Yefet’s rendering of Heb. -ì by Ar. bi-, as required by the verbal idiom—bear out the translational tendencies noted by Polliack, Tradition, p. 121. 501 Ar. fa-, by which Yefet here renders Heb. éë, which, when employed as a causal conjunction, is consistently rendered by Yefet and the other Judaeo-Arabic translators by Ar. li- #anna (see Polliack, Tradition, pp. 153–54). This exceptional rendering, therefore, underscores the exceptive construal of this clause implied by Yefet’s comment ad loc. (see also p. 267, n. 521 below). 502 “certainly not”—Ar. laysa, on this emphatic sense of which, preceding an imperfect, cf. Wright, Grammar, II, p. 159. 503 “yet … king”—so, reflecting a construal of Heb. øö as “adversary” (II øö per Koehler & Baumgartner, Lexicon, p. 1052a; thus also per the masoretic pointing with non-pausal q¯amas. [cf. Gesenius & Brown, Lexicon, p. 865b; Hirschler, Esther, p. 294]) rather than “adversity” (I øö per Koehler & Baumgartner, Lexicon, p. 1052a–b; see p. 268, n. 522 below), and in this case, consequently (assuming a disjunctive nuance of fa-, as implied by Yefet’s comm. ad loc.), a construal of this clause—considered by Moore (Esther, p. 70) “the most difficult clause to translate in all of Esther”—as exceptive (with éë!) to the previous one expressing the hypothetical circumstance of her silence. For a list of commentators and translations that take the same view see, in addition to those cited by Paton, Esther, p. 261 (grouped under the translation, “although the enemy cannot compensate for the loss of the King”), Hakham, “Esther,” pp. 44–45; as well as, . albeit not clearly taking éë as exceptive in each case, and exhibiting various construals 499

translation

263

and our women bondwomen, I would, to be sure, have refrained from petitioning the king; [62r] yet 501 the adversary is certainly not 502 worth the loss which will befall the king.503”

of äåù and ÷æð, the Vulg. (perhaps reflecting a Vorlage in which ïéà was lacking [cf. Hirschler, Esther, p. 294]): nunc autem hostis noster est cuius crudelitas redundant in regem; b. Meg. 16a (> Ag. Esth., p. 66): àúùä ¬äìè÷å éúùåá äá éð÷éà ¬êìî ìù ÷æðá äåù åðéà äæ øö åì äøîà éìè÷îì éòáîå éãéãá éð÷éà; Leq. Tob, p. 108: äùòéù çåéøä øîåìë ®êìîä ÷æðá äåù øöä ïéà éë .

ñîä íéðúåð íäå ¬óñë øëë íéôìà úøùò ïúåð àåä éë ¬êì ÷éæéù ÷æéä ãâðë äåù åðéà ¬êìîì øöä äæ íãéá úåëìîä úãåáò ìëå ¬äðùå äðù ìëá; al-F¯ as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 261, ll. 12–15: äåù øöä ïéà éë ˙ î àåñé àî éðòé êìîìà ä¨ é( ã˙ à ìú˙ î àåñé å( ãòìà ñéì êìîä ÷æðá ìà÷éå ®êìîìà éìò ãñôé àî ìú ˙( àúé àì íå÷ìà ïà éðòî éà êìîìà ä¨ é( ã˙ à ïî éù çìöî àìå éå( ñî å( ãòìà ñéì (“for the íäá ãçà àã

adversary is not equal to the damage to the king means, ‘the enemy cannot be compared to the loss to the king’—that is to say, he cannot be compared to that which would be lost to the king. It is also said (that this means), ‘the enemy is not worth or commensurate with any (single part) of the loss to the king’—the sense of which is that not even one of the people should be hurt (for Haman’s sake)”); Jacob ben Reuben, Esther, fol. 310v (= Ms. RNL Yevr. II A 78 [an anonymous Byzantine Karaite compilation], fol. 23r): éë

ïéà éë §òî ১㠮íéé÷ð íãá åîöòì êìîä ÷éæéå åúù÷á äùòéå äåùéù øöì øùëé àì ®äåù øöä ïéà øöä ïåøúé ïî êìîä ÷æð íà éë êìîä ÷æðá äåù øöä ïåøúé; and Tanhum, Esther, fols 222v– . 223r: àì åãòìà àã˙ ä ïà éà áðã˙ ìàá ä¨ éã˙ àìà ïî ìöçé àîì éåñ åä ñéì ®êìîä ÷æðá äåù øöä ïéà ˙ à áàñúëàå ä¨ îà ìú÷ éðòú ä¨ éö˙ ÷ìà äã˙ ä ïî êìîìà éìò ìë˙ àãìà àã˙ àìà éåàñé àìå ìãàòé àäîú ˙ äå íäîàúà êìîìà ìî( çúéô íéùðå óè øàáëìàå øàâöìà êàìäà ïî ãàøà àîë ä¨ öàë˙ å åãòìà àã ˙ òìà àã˙ àìà àã˙ ä ìú˙ î êìîìà éìò ìë˙ ãé íäúåàãò éô äö˙ øâ ãàôð ìâ˙àì äðà êìã˙ éåàñé àì íéè ˙ ìà (“for the adversary is not equal to the damage to the king means, ‘he is äúîé÷á åä íå÷é àì éã

not comparable to that loss which will result by (the commission of) the crime’—that is to say, ‘Surely this enemy is not equal to or worth the loss which will befall the king from this affair—that is to say, the killing of a nation and the acquiring of the sin of their (death)—especially as he intended with regard to the destruction of the small and the great, infants and women, the king bearing the sins of their (deaths). This enemy is not worth such, for in order that his objective concerning their hostility be properly carried out, there shall befall the king a commensurately great loss whose value will be inestimable”). Likewise construing øö as “adversary,” albeit exhibiting explicitly causal renderings of éë—and therefore inferring, so it would seem, either a less severe meaning of ÷æð (e.g., “annoyance” or “vexation”; cf. Keil, Esther, p. 365: “for the enemy is not worthy that I should vex or annoy the king by my accusation”) or else the usage of êìîä (÷æðá) as a subjective genitive (cf. Ibn Jan¯ ah’s . paraphrase cited on p. 268, n. 522 below)—are, e.g., the LXX: ο7 γAρ 0ξιος 3 δι"βολος τ4ς α7λ4ς το βασιλως; Tg. Esth. I: àëìîã à÷ðéæåàá àçååøå ïéîéè à÷éòîì úéì íåøà; Tg. Esth. II: éåù ÷éúù àááã ìéòá úéì íåøà  àëìîã àððèá; the Pesh.:    '/ "# 3 1 ; Saadia, Tafs¯ır: åãòìà ïàì ˙ à (!)éàåñé àì (“for the enemy is not comparable to the king’s detriment”); êìîìà àã Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fol. 10r): êìîìà [àã˙ àá] éåàñî åãòìà ñéì ïà (“for the enemy is not comparable to the king’s detriment”); idem (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fol. 10v): áì÷ ìâùå êìîìà àã˙ à éåàñé åãòìà äã˙ ä øàã÷î ïàô §á §ù øöä ïéà éë àîàå êìîìà (“As to (the statement) for the adversary is not equal to the damage, (etc.)—this is to say, ‘for the grandeur [see Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 314a] of this enemy is not worth the king’s annoyance or the preoccupation of the king’s heart’”); and Jacob ben Reuben, Esther, fol. 310v (the third of three explanations, the first two of which are cited above): íà ১ã

264

translation

(5) Then King Ahasuerus said—and he (also) said to Queen Esther504—, “Who is this one, and where is this one, who has emboldened his heart505 to do such?” (6) Thereupon Esther said, “(He is) an adversarial man and an enemy—namely, this wicked Haman!” And Haman became overwhelmed506 before the king and the queen. (7) And the king, in his wrath, betook himself from the wine banquet to the inner garden,507 while Haman stayed to implore508 Queen Esther to spare his life, for he saw that calamity had already been determined against him by the king.

éë åéìò êìîä ñòëé íà øöä äùòî äæ äåùé àì éë ùéøçà éúééä úåçôùìå íéãáòì íéøëîð åðééä äì÷ åðúøéëîå àåä ìåãâ êìîä ñòë (= Ms. RNL Yevr. II A 78 [an anonymous Byzantine

Karaite compilation], fol. 23r); as well as, e.g., among the modern commentators and translations, Keil (ibid.), Levenson, Esther, pp. 99–100, n. a; Paton, (tentatively), Esther, p. 258; the JPSV (1917): “for the adversary is not worthy that the king be endamaged”; idem (1999): “for the adversary is not worthy of the king’s trouble.” 504 “and … Esther”—so, distinguishing, per Yefet’s comment ad loc., between the first and second øîàéå, the first having been addressed to his servants. 505 “who ... heart”—so, indicating that Yefet took the object suffix in åàìî (on this transitive/quasi-stative usage of which root in the Qal stem cf. Joüon & Muraoka, Grammar, §78j) as proleptic for åáì (cf. eosdem, §146e), rather than as a reference to Haman (and thus åáì as the subject). This (former) view may also underlie the versional renderings in the LXX: :στις τλμησεν; and the Vulg.: ut (haec) audeat (facere); and is likewise adopted, among the moderns, e.g., by Bush, Esther, pp. 422–23 (see n. c); Clines, Esther, p. 312; Meinhold, Esther, p. 65, n. 20; and Moore, Esther, p. 71. For the latter view cf., notwithstanding the often passive/reflexive rendering of åàìî and consequent omission of the suffix, Tg. Esth. I: (äéááìá¯äéáéìá ºà§§ð) äéááéì äéëìîà éã; Tg. Esth. II: ˙ ìà (“whose heart äéáì áéùçã; the Pesh.: " 5'++ ; Saadia, Tafs¯ır: äáì÷ àøúâ˙à éã has become emboldened”); Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fol. 10v): äòñåà éã˙ ìà äáì÷ (“whose heart has permitted him”); Ibn Jan¯ ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 422: FEŸ åáì åàìî øùà F+ FE ` F+ (“"˘asˇer m˘el¯a"ô libbô means, ‘whose soul has filled him’—that is to say, ‘whose soul has instructed him’”); and Tanhum, Esther, fol. 223r: éà äàìî ®åáì åàìî øùà . asˇer m˘el¯a"ô libbô means, ‘(whose heart) has filled him’—that is to say, ‘(whose äéìò øàùà (“"˘ heart) has counseled him’”); as well as, among the moderns, e.g., Berlin, Esther, p. 69; Gerleman, Esther, pp. 121, 123; Hakham, “Esther,” p. 45; Keil, Esther, p. 365; Maier, . Esther, p. 115; and Paton, Esther, p. 259. 506 “became overwhelmed” (inbahara)—so, rendering (paraphrastically?) Heb. úòáð, on which cf. otherwise Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ìàúäàô (“whereupon (Haman) became terrorstricken”); as well as, among the Hebrew-Arabic lexicographers (as among the moderns), al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 255, l. 161: äúòå( ø äòø çåø åúúòáå äìú˙ îå .ä¨ òåø äúòá äðäå (“b˘e #¯atâ [Jer. 8:15 & 14:19] means ‘alarm.’ Likewise, ûbi #˘atattû [1Sam. 16:14] means ‘(and) it alarmed him’”); and Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 103: Œ  úòáð ïîäå (“nib #at [Esth. 7:6] means ‘(Haman) became flabbergasted’”). 507 “inner garden”—or, perhaps, “inner arboretum” (Ar. al-bust¯an al-d¯akhil¯an¯ı, rendering Heb. ïúéáä úðâ), on which see p. 172, n. 57 above. 508 “to implore”—Ar. yasal (for yas"al), on the omission of the preposition l- from which see Blau, Grammar, §334.

translation

265

(8) The king then returned from the inner garden to the house of the banquet [62v] of wine—and behold,509 Haman was falling on the couch on which Esther was, whereupon the king said, “Do you510 really think511 to assault the queen with me in the house?!” And this utterance had hardly left the king’s mouth when512 the servants covered513 Haman’s face. 509 Ar. idh¯a bi-, which addition by Yefet emphasizes the impropriety (cf. Hoschander, Esther, p. 233, n. 48) and consequent surprise occasioned by Haman’s behavior. 510 This construal of the king’s rhetorical query as being addressed directly to Haman (the only verb in the clause being infinitive, on which see the following note) is likewise attested in the LXX: NΩστε κα1 ... βι"ζ(η; and Tg. Esth. II (cited in the following note); as well as, among the moderns, e.g., by Fox, Esther, p. 83: “What, would you even ravish the queen …”; and Meinhold, Esther, p. 65 (cited in the following note). The majority of translators, on the other hand, construe these words as either an impersonal exclamation (so, e.g., Keil, Esther, p. 365: “Shall also violence be done …?”) or, as is more often the case, an indirect rhetorical query about Haman (so, e.g., Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ¨ ëìîìà ñáëéì àö˙ éàå [“Will he, moreover, indeed assault the queen …?”]). ®®® ä 511 “Do you really think” (a-tur¯aka)—Yefet thus supplies a finite (main) verb—which, apparently reflecting the king’s greatly agitated state of mind, is absent from the Heb.— to govern the following infinitive (ùåáëì, rendered by Yefet, as normally so, by the subjunctive), on which see also the Vulg.: etiam … vult opprimere; Tg. Esth. I: íøá àä áåëùîì ïéäìéà ïîä àúà àì àèùå÷á; Tg. Esth. II: éòá úà ®®® ùáëîì óà; as well as, among the moderns, e.g., Levenson, Esther, p. 100: “Does he also intend … to violate”; Meinhold, Esther, p. 65: “Sogar … Gewalt anzutun … (, wagst du)?!”; and the NJPSV (1999): “Does he mean … to ravish.” Otherwise, among the majority of translators, both ancient and modern, ùåáëì is rendered as a finite verb, either indicative or subjunctive. 512 On this sense of Ar. hatt¯a cf. Blau, Emergence, p. 118, n. 2, as well as Yefet’s similar . use of such in his comm. ad 3:8–11 (see p. 225, n. 309) and in his tarjama ad 6:14 (see p. 262, n. 499). 513 “the servants covered”—so, construing Heb. åôç as transitive-fientive, on which see also the Vulg.: operuerunt faciem eius; Ibn Quraysh, Ris¯ala, p. 151 (§59): íåâøú íùàø åôç íäñåø åèâ äøéñôúå àôç äñë (“h. ¯apû [Jer. 14:4] is a lexical synonym of äñë, ‘to conceal,’ and its meaning is ‘they covered’”); al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 570, ll. 8–10: ìë åèâ åùàø ùéà åôç ˙ îå ®äñàø ãçàå (“h. ¯apû [2 Sam. àèâ äìë ®íùàø åôçå åîìëäå åùá ®åôç ïîä éðôå ®éåôç åì ùàøå äìú 15:30] means ‘they covered,’ and of the same sense are h. ¯apûy [ibid.] and h. ¯apû [Esth. 7:8; Jer. 14:3; etc.], all of which signify ‘covering’”); Ibn Baru¯ n, Muw¯azana, p. 51: íùàø åôçå ˙ à (“h. ¯apû [Jer. 14:3] is (equivalent to the morphologically cognate åôç ïîä éðôå äðîå ®®® àåôë expression) ‘they concealed’ [ah. faw] … of the same sense is h. ¯apû [Esth. 7:8]”); Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: éî éðô êìîä éãáò åñëéù ñøô éëìî èôùî ïë éë åéðô åñë íòèäå íéúøùîä ®åôç ñøô éøôñá òåãé øáã äæå êìîä ãåò åðàøé àìù êìîä åéìò ñòëù; idem, Comm. B (per Ms. BN héb 334, fol. 83v): àìù åéðô úà íéúøùîä åñëé åñòëé øùàë íéëìîä âäðî äëë ®åñë ®åôç åéðéòá êìîä éðéò ãåò åòâôé; Jacob ben Reuben, Esther, fol. 311r (১ã): úòë íâäðî äéä ïë åâøäì äåöéù ãò ùéàä éðô íéñëîå ãâá íéàéáî ùéà ìò êìîä õåô÷éù (= Ms. RNL Yevr. II Esther, A 78 [an anonymous Byzantine Karaite compilation], fol. 23v); and Tanhum, . fol. 223r: àìô ääâ˙å éèâ ãçà éìò êìîìà èë˙ ñ éúî ïà ñøôìà ãðò ä¨ øéñìà úðàë ®åôç ïîä éðôå ˙ ìàå êìã˙ ãòá êìîìà äàøé (“Regarding h. ¯apû (in Esth. 7:8)—it ïéìòàôìà ïò åôç éô øéîö was the custom among the Persians that, when the king would become angry with someone, his face would be covered so that afterwards the king might no longer look upon him. The implied subject of h. ¯apû, moreover, is the ones who are performing

266

translation

(9) [63r] Then Harbonah, one of the eunuchs who were before the king, said, “Behold also, the stake which Haman prepared for Mordecai, who spoke well concerning the king, standing at Haman’s house, fifty cubits high.” Then the king said, “Impale him on it!” (10) So they impaled Haman on the stake which he had set up for Mordecai, whereupon514 the king’s anger subsided. (The mudawwin) indicates that the king’s messengers took no heed that Haman was with his wise men and his wife when515 they came up behind him and took him to the banquet, and so he entered vexed [63v] in spirit.516 Then, when they were drinking, the king repeated the action [i.e., the verb is transitive]”); as well as, among the moderns, e.g., Bush (albeit translating passively), Esther, p. 424; Gerleman (albeit translating idiomatically), Esther, pp. 123–24; Hakham, “Esther,” p. 46 (the second of two explanations; cf. below); . Keil, Esther, pp. 365–66; Maier, Esther, p. 116; Meinhold, Esther, p. 65; Moore, Esther, p. 72; Paton, Esther, p. 264; Würthwein, “Esther,” p. 189. For the construal of åôç as intransitive-stative (the subject therefore being ïîä éðô), cf. the LXX: διετρ"πη τ,. προσπ,ω (several, however, presume here the reading åøôç [see below], pace which cf. Yefet’s rendering of the passive participle éåôç by munakkas (“bowed, turned down”) in his comment ad 6:12 [p. 261 above]); Tg. Esth. I: àúäá åéôçúéà ïîäã éåôàå; Tg. Esth. II: ïééôç ìåä ïîäã éåôàå; the Pesh.: 26+  7-& ; Saadia, Tafs¯ır: éèâ ïîä äâ˙åå (“and Haman’s face was covered”); and Jacob ben Reuben, Esther, fol. 311r (the first of two explanations): úùåáä ïî åñëúð ®åôç (= Ms. RNL Yevr. II A 78 [an anonymous Byzantine Karaite compilation], fol. 23v); as well as, among the moderns, e.g., Clines, Esther, p. 313; Hakham, “Esther,” p. 46 (the first of two explanations); Hoschander, . Esther, pp. 224–26; and the NJPSV (1999). For yet further intransitive construals, albeit following the emendation of åôç to either a passive vocalization/stem (e.g., et%ç¬ åôçð) or else a different root (viz., åøåä or åøôç), cf., e.g., Fox, Esther, pp. 283–84; Freedman (apud Moore, ibid.); Hirschler (tentatively, first noting the transitive option), Esther, p. 296; Levenson, Esther, p. 100, n. c; Rudolph (apud Fox, ibid.); the NEB; and the others cited apud Bush (ibid.) and Paton, Esther, p. 267. 514 So, construing this clause, which is opened in the Heb. text by disjunctive w¯aw, as sequential-resultative rather than circumstantial (see Yefet’s comment ad loc. on pp. 270–71 below). 515 Ar. hatt¯a, on this sense of which (likewise attested in the last sentence of Yefet’s . comm. ad 3:8–11 and in his tarjama ad 6:14 & 7:8), see Blau, Emergence, p. 118, n. 2. 516 Cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fol. 9): äúôàå éúç íäìå÷ éô øëôé àî éôô ˙ ìà äììà ãðò ïî øéáãúå íìç àã˙ äô íéøáãî íãåò §÷ë êìîìà ìñø [183§ åàìá äàø] äúôàå éã ˙ ìà àã˙ ä ïàì ìòôé óéë äñôðì øéáãú ïîä øáãé ïàë éìà ìñøìà äìäîà àìô áéâ˙ò øîà ìöç éã äììà (“It was, accordingly, while (Haman) was pondering over the statement (of his wise men and Zeresh) that the king’s messengers overtook him, as per the statement, While they were yet talking, (etc.,) and this was (an expression of) insight and forethought on the part of God, in that [on this usage of alladh¯ı see Blau, Grammar, §347à] the messengers overtook him so that he was unable to make plans for himself regarding how he should act—for this thing which transpired was a miraculous affair, and therefore God offered him no respite”). Cf. also Ab. Gur., p. 41: äøîà ®®® íéøáãî íãåò

translation

267

his utterance to Esther, for she had said to him, and I will do tomorrow according to the word of the king (5:8). She therefore said to him, as it were, “O king, you have already guaranteed me two things517 of which you have already notified me—namely, my petition and my request.518 And I am not asking for something which will overburden you; rather, I am offering my petition in order that my life might be granted to me, and that my people might be granted to me at my request.”519 She then said, as it were, “I have only asked this of the king because we are on the verge of execution, though if the king had sold us to be bondmen and bondwomen520 I would have been content and would have neither petitioned the king nor burdened his heart.” Then she said, yet521 the adversary is not equal to the detriment to the king, by which she indicates

åãøîé àîù úåðéãîá ïåëøôéà åéðáå àåä ïéøåøáéã øúñà; Pan. Ah. . B, p. 76: ®åîò íéøáãî íãåò úåøâéà ïåäì áåúëé àìù ãò àìà ¬íìåòä ìëá ïåèééôéà åéðáå ïéñëåã àåäù éðà úòãåé øúñà äøîà óøåèî åáìù ãò ¬êìîä ìò åãøîéå; Leq. Tob, p. 108: ¬úåðéãîá ïéëøôéà ïîä ìù åéðá øúñà äøîà . ïîä úà àéáäì åìéäáéå øîàð êëì ¬êìîá åãøîéå åììä íéøáãä íäì øâùéù íãå÷ åäãëìà. 517 Cf. Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 37v): éîò éúù÷áå äìéöäì éùôð íà éë äìàù éì ïéà ïòúå íéúù ìåàùì úåùø äì ïúð éë åìéöäì.

See 5:6 & 7:2. Regarding, moreover, the structure of Esther’s petition, see Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fols 9v–10r): ïîäì âåñ êìîìà ïàëå ãåäéìà úìîâ˙ ïî øúñà úðàë àîì ¨ ìîâ˙ìà éô øúñà úìë˙ ã ã÷ô ãçà éðú˙ úñà øéâá ãåäéìà ìú÷ éô òôùú ïà úâ˙àúçà àî ìåàô ä ˙ ìå àäñôð øîà (“Since Esther was from among §ùá éùôð {úìàù} éì ïúðú úìà÷ êìã the community of the Jews, and the king had given Haman permission to kill the Jews without excepting a single one—Esther herself having therefore been included (for destruction, albeit unwittingly,) in the community—, she needed, first of all, to intercede for herself; therefore she said, let my life be given me at my petition”); and Jacob ben Reuben, Esther, fol. 310v (= Ms. RNL Yevr. II A 78 [an anonymous Byzantine Karaite compilation], fol. 23r): øåáòá êìîä éðôì äìàù åì äéäú íà íãà íééñøôä âäðî äéä åáåäà øåáòá ïë øçàå íãå÷ åùôð øåáòá íéøáã øáãì åì øùëé [øçà :RNL 駧ë] ãçà. 520 “though … bondwomen—cf., moreover, Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fols 10r–v): ïàì øéáãúì äììà íîúé àìô íé[ô]ìà úøùòå ïîä ìå÷ éìà øéùé åðøëî[ð] àäìå÷å íéãáòì åìàå àäìå÷å ®úàæ íâ óàå §÷ë àãáà úåìâ ìã éô àðëìäé àì ïà àðãòå ìâ˙å æò äììà §òì íúøëîúäå ãéòåìà éô ìà÷ äììà ïàì (“(Esther’s) statement, We have been sold refers to Haman’s statement, (and I will weigh out) ten thousand (talents, etc.) [3:9]”—yet God would not cease to watch over (Israel), for God—the Exalted and Sublime—promised us that He would never destroy us in the ignominy of exile, as per His statement, And yet for all that, (etc.) [Lev. 26:44]. As to her statement, If (we had been sold) for bondmen (… I would have held my peace)—this is because God had said in (His) warning, and ye shall sell yourselves (there unto your enemies, etc.) [Deut. 28:68]”). 521 So, contra the usual causal rendering of Heb. éë in this verse, per Yefet’s apparent construal of this clause as exceptive (see the tarjama on p. 262 as well as n. 501 above). 518 519

268

translation

that the one who desired their execution522 is certainly not523 worth the extent of loss which would befall the king, for the (Jewish) people would be completely annihilated, whereas in [64r] their preservation would be great profit—and, furthermore, none of the other kings which had preceded him had ever done anything like this.524 When, therefore, the king heard this, it was distressing to him, and he did not know who it was that had undertaken such. There is no doubt, moreover, that when she was expressing this utterance she was weeping and crying. The king then asked first his servants525 who it was that had undertaken this, yet they uttered not a word, either because they did not know or, perhaps, because they had already perceived (the situation) 522 “the one … execution”—so, bearing out the masoretic reading of Heb. øö (pointed with non-pausal q¯amas. ) as “adversary” (see the tarjama on p. 262 and n. 503 above) rather than “adversity,” for the latter of which—supporting, to be sure, a syntactically easier reading of v. 4bβ (assuming the less severe meaning “annoyance” for ÷æð)—cf. Josephus, Ant., xi.263: μτριον γAρ τοτο τ κακν; the Lucianic recension (albeit conflating, apparently, both construals of øö): Pνα μ/ λυπσω τν κριν μουQ γνετο γAρ μεταπεσε8ν τν 0νρωπον τν κακοποισαντα HμRς; Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 422 (albeit construing êìîä (÷æðá) as a subjective genitive): F+ ` åðøëîð úåçôùìå íéãáòì åìàå

7M 1I$   eh `8P Q  (R Q    (t =AE  eh R  D M $;  1  ! (g C  D (t (B 1 =AE (“If we had been sold for bondmen and bond-

women, (etc.)—that is to say, ‘If only we had made slaves, the injury [d. u/arr] which would have befallen us—i.e., slavery—would not have been comparable to this injury and this loss which has befallen us from the king—namely, death; for slavery would have been more desirable to us than death’”); and Ibn Ezra, Comm A (first of two explanations): àìù éãë §âéøä øçà äðîî äìòîì ïéàù ô§§òà äîåàî åðéðéòá äåù åðéìò äàáä úàæä §øöä ïéà éë éðåàöî ÷åöîå øö åîë íù øöä äðäå åúáùçîá ÷æð éãéì êìîä àáé; idem, Comm. B (fol. 37v; the first of three): éðåàöî ÷åöîå øö §îë íù àåäù øö §îë øöä §éô éë é÷éøôà éîëçî ãçà §îà äúéä àì éë úìáåñ éúééä äøöä úàæ éë ®äùéøçî éúééä äâéøäì àìå íéãáòì åðøëîð åìéà §òèäå êìîä ìò øòöå úåáùçî ÷æð àéáàù éðéòá äååù; as well as, among the modern commenta-

tors and translations, Bush, Esther, pp. 422, 427–28; Clines, Esther, p. 311; Fox, Esther, p. 282; Gerleman, Esther, p. 120; Hirschler, Esther, p. 295; Hoschander, Esther, p. 220, n. 45; Meinhold, Esther, p. 65; Moore, p. 68; Würthwein, “Esther,” p. 189; the NASB (1985): “for the trouble would not be commensurate with the annoyance to the king”; and, perhaps also construing êìîä (÷æðá) as a subjective genitive (although cf. Fox, Esther, p. 84), the RSV: “for our affliction is not to be compared with the loss to the king.” 523 “certainly not” (laysa)—see p. 262, n. 502 above. 524 I.e., Ahasuerus’ annihilation of an entire people would run ignobly against precedent. 525 Lit., “young men” (ghilm¯an), referring to those who had offered their advice in 2:2. Yefet’s view that the king first asked them is apparently due to the repetition of øîàéå in the Heb. text, on which see also, albeit in a slightly different vein, Tg. Esth. II: §ëìî §îàå §ëìî §úñàì äéðîâøúî øîàå äéðîâøúîì §åùçà; and b. Meg. 16a (> Leq. Tob, p. 108; Ag. Esth., . p. 66): ìåàù úéáãî äéì äøîàã ïåéë ¬ïîâøåú éãé ìò äìçúá åäáà éáø øîà ®éì äîì øîàéå øîàéå äëìîä øúñàì øîàéå ãéî àðéúà÷. Otherwise, for the view that the second øîàéå is simply pleonastic or else added for emphasis/reflective of the king’s anger, cf. Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ¨ ëìîìà øúñàì ùåøåùçà êìîìà ìà÷ô (“Then Ahasuerus said to Queen Esther”); idem, ä

translation

269

and were afraid to speak of it; and so the king turned back to Esther and said, “Identify him, that I may do to him what he deserves.” Thus he says, Who is he, and after that, where is he, wanting to know who he was and where he was, so that, if he was in that province, he might destroy him, and if he was in another province, he might write to it and have him killed. She therefore said, “Behold, he is sitting in your presence, not distant [64v] from you!” And she said, An adversary and an enemy, by which she meant, (he is) an adversary to me and an enemy to my people.526 When, therefore, Haman heard this, he knew that she was a Jew like Mordecai, and he consequently knew that misfortune

Comm., p. 1176:

˙ îàå ®íéåìäå íéðäëä íúåà åìòéå ãòåî ìäà úàå ïåøàä úà åìòéå ºåëìä [...] ìàú ¨ ö˙ ôì éô ®®® øéú˙ ë êìã˙ (“[…] (And the three eldest sons of íéðäë ìà øîà éô àîäúçøù §é äøéîà ä

Jesse had gone;) they went (after Saul, etc.) [1Sam. 17:13; cf. Ibn Jan¯ah. below]; And they brought up the ark of the Lord, and the tent of meeting, …; and the priests and the Levites brought them up [1Kgs 8:4]; and (there are) many more like these […] (and) regarding expressions of “speaking” I have elucidated 10 (such instances) in connection with the passage, ‘Say to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them …’ [Lev. 21:1]”); al-Qirqis¯an¯ı, Tafs¯ır, pp. 37, 57; Ibn Jan¯ah, . Luma#, p. 279, ll. 8–9 (sub ch. 25: éðâ íàìëìà éô àîî ãéëàúìì äéô ãéæ àî äðò [“That to which something has been added for emphasis, for which passages such additional words are unnecessary”]); Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 37v): §îàéå íéîòô øéëæä åéáà íäøáà ìà ÷çöé øîàéå §îë ®íòô éøçà íòô §îà åñòëáù; Tanhum, Esther, fol. 223r): . ¨ ˙ ïàéá äãàéæ éðàúìàå éôàë éìåàìà øîàéå (“The first wayy¯o"mer is sufficient, whereas the second is an obvious pleonasm”); and Abraham ben Judah, Esther, fol. 235a, apparently following Ibn Ezra (Comm. B): åäåîëå íòô éøçà íòô §îà ñòëù øåáòá íéîòô êìîä øîàéå íéáø åäåîëå øîàéå åéáà íäøáà ìà ÷çöé §îàéå. Yet further, for the view that the repetition of øîàéå reflects—and clearly distinguishes—the two questions subsequently asked by the king, cf. Saadia, ibid. (the second of two explanations, continuing the passage cited above): àåä éî éðòîå øø÷î ìå÷á äæ àåä éî ìåàìà ïéìå÷ ìà÷ ùåøåùçà ïåëé ïà êìã˙ ãòá ïëîéå ¨ ìñîìà (!)äæ àåä éàå éðòîå äöë˙ ù ïò ä¨ ìñîìà (“It is, moreover, also possible äúîàå äîå÷ ïò ä that Ahasuerus uttered two (distinct) utterances, the first being, Who is he, (expressed as) a decisive [i.e., distinct] utterance, and the sense of which is a question concerning his identity, whereas the sense of And where is he is a question concerning his people and his nation”); Salmon(?) (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, fol. 10v): äãàòà [àî]ëçìà õ˙ òá åìà÷ [...]à äðî øéã÷ú àã˙ åä ïî àäì àìåà [ìà÷] êìîìà ïà ïéúøî øîàéå (“Some of the sages have said that the repetition of wayy¯o"mer two times is because the king said first to her, Who is he, the implication of which […]”); and the anonymous commentator edited by Jellinek, Commentaries, p. 18: äðåùàø äøéîà íéîòô éúù øîàéå øîàéå ÷åñôá áåúë êëéôì äì øîà íéúù §ééðù äøéîà àéä äæå ®®® àåä ïëéä åä äæéà åéìò ìåàùì éðà êéøö øîàúùë óàå ¬äæ àåä éî äì øîà àåä íå÷î äæéàá àåä äéà äìàùù. 526 “an adversary … people”—see also the referential distinction between these two terms tentatively advanced by Saadia, Comm., p. 1177: ä¨ îàì åãò àøøëî áéåàå øö éðòî ïåëéå ˙ éàå ïéîìàòìà áøì õ˙ âàá êìîìì åãò àö˙ éàå êìîìì õ˙ âàá àäì åãò àö˙ éàå éä àäì õ˙ âàá øúñà àö ˙ âàá ñàðìì åãò (“The sense of An adversary and an enemy may be two-fold—(viz.,) äñôðì õ an enemy to Esther’s people and a hater of Esther herself, or an enemy of her and a hater of the king, or an enemy of the king and a hater of the Lord of humanity, or an enemy of people and a hater of his own soul”).

270

translation

had overtaken him—especially since he saw that the king’s anger had spilled over and he had betaken himself to the garden so that his anger might subside and the distress of his heart might be set aright. The king then returned to the sitting area in order to precisely527 determine just how the situation had occurred—and lo! Haman had cast himself upon the couch whereon Esther was, though (the king) did not realize that he was entreating her; rather, he supposed that he wanted to kill528 her because of his anger towards her, and therefore he said, Will (you) even assault the queen before me in the house?—which is to say, “Is what you have (already) undertaken not enough for you, that you desire even to kill the queen with me in the house? Yet you have already acted impudently towards me, and so how much more towards another!” Then, as soon as the eunuchs heard the king’s words, [65r] they covered his face, since they perceived that he did not desire to look at him,529 and that he was (as good as) executed. At this point Harbonah found an opportunity and mentioned Haman’s setting up of the stake for Mordecai, upon which to impale him. This indicates that the servants530 knew what Haman had done and were present at the time when that which Mordecai had done was read to the king.531 The king therefore ordered that he be impaled, Ar. ni #imm¯a, on this sense of which cf. Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 692a. So, rather than raping her (as usually construed by commentators and reasonably implied by Heb. ùåáëì [cf. Koehler & Baumgartner, Lexicon, p. 460]), on which former view see also Jacob ben Reuben, Esther, fol. 310v (the preferred of three explanations): 527 528

øàùð àì åùòð êéöôç ìë éë úéáá éîò øùà éúùàì âåøäì éë øáã êì øàùð àì ®ùåáëì íâä äâøäìå äçôùì äëìîì ùåáëì íâä äúåà ùåáëì íà éë êì (= Ms. RNL Yevr. II A 78 [an

anonymous Byzantine Karaite compilation], fol. 23r). Still otherwise, for the view that ùåáëì be understood in the sense of touching the queen’s clothing or approaching her in violation of court propriety, cf. Jacob ben Reuben, Esther, fol. 311r (the last of three explanations): äèîä ìöà áø÷ìå äëìîä ùåôúì âäðî ïéà éë äëìîä éãâá ùåôúìå ùåáëì ১ã (= Ms. RNL Yevr. II A 78 [an anonymous Byzantine Karaite compilation], fol. 23v); as well as, among the moderns, Bardtke (apud Bush, Esther, p. 430); Bush (ibid.); and Hoschander, Esther, p. 223 (citing Plutarch, Art., xxvii, 1.2). 529 “they covered … him”—cf., in addition to those comments cited on pp. 265–66, n. 513 above, Saadia, Comm., p. 1177: äâ˙å åèâé ïà ïàë íäìéáñ ïà éìò åôç ïîä éðôå äìå÷ ìãéå ˙ ñ ïî ìë (“The statement and Haman’s face was covered [on which construal êìîìà äéìò èë of åôç by Saadia see n. 51 above] indicates that their custom was to cover the face of everyone with whom the king became angry”); and the anonymous Karaite compilator in Ms. RNL Yevr. II 78, fol. 23v: äñëî [íé]àéáî ùéà ìò êìîä óåö÷éù úòá íâäðî äéä ïë åâøäì êìîä äåöéù ãò ùéàä éðô íéôçîå íéñëîå äåñîå. 530 See p. 268, n. 525 above. 531 “the servants … king”—cf., otherwise, the more negative construal of Harbonah attested by Saadia, Comm., pp. 1177–78: à÷ãöà ãçà ïàë åä ïåëé ïà àðåáøç øîà éô áø÷àìàå ˙ ìà ïîä øñá àôøàò äì àðãåâ˙åì éëãøîì ä¨ ùáëìà çàìöàá øàùà ïîî ïîä äìäà éìà äøñà éã

translation

271

whereupon his anger and vexation subsided; and so God destroyed the enemy of His people and relieved their distress, fulfilling His promise to them—namely, His statement, And yet for all that, when they are (in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them), etc. (Lev. 26:44).532 Concerning such times as these (the psalmist) likewise says, Nevertheless he regarded their distress, etc. (Ps. 106:44). It remains for us to discuss certain cruxes, the answers to which we shall discuss according to what is said about them.533 Among these, accordingly, is whether this undertaking of Esther was on her own, on the advice of Mordecai, or on the part of God. Now we would maintain [65v] that she possessed merit and forethought and had no need for the advice of another, for do you not see that she says to Mordecai, Go, gather together, etc. (4:16); though if we should say that God prompted her to it in a dream, it is possible. On the first day, therefore, she wanted to invite the king as well as Haman to the banquet—the king, in order that it might be made clear on his part whether there was any consideration534 of her in his heart or not, for with drink it would become quite clear, and (if so inclined) his heart would also be opened to hearken to what she would request, and he would fulfill her desire; and she invited Haman in order to keep him close to her, for if he had not been present with her he might have been able to slip out of her hand.535 (Esther’s) words (of petition) are then carried over ˙ éà åä óùë [§§ïåð í÷åîá ¬äàøðë ¬úåòè] ïî äéìò ú÷áèà ã÷ àäàø àîì äðëì äéà÷ãöàå àö ˙ à ïîä [é÷ì àî] à÷ìé ïà äñôð éìò óåë˙ ú äìòìå äîìòé ïàë àî (“The most äéìå äðà ïéáú àã likely view concerning Harbonah is that he was one of Haman’s friends, of those who had advised him to prepare the stake for Mordecai, (which view is) owing to our discovery that he knows of Haman’s secret which he had confided to his family and friends; yet when he saw that death [reading man¯un, on which, as a feminine lexeme, see Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 616b] had closed upon him, he too revealed what he knew— and perhaps he was afraid for himself, that, when it came out that he was (Haman’s) friend, there might befall him what had befallen Haman”); and the anonymous Karaite compilator in Ms. RNL Yevr. II 78, fol. 23v: ïîä éòø ïî äéä àðáøç äæ éë §îåì øùëé åà; as well as, among the earlier sources, in Tg. Esth. II; b. Meg. 16a; Pan. Ah. . B, p. 77; and Ag. Esth., p. 67. 532 See also Yefet’s citation of this verse in his introduction, p. 163 above. 533 On Yefet’s treatment of the following two cruxes (mas¯a"il) as a prime example of his rationalistic-psychological approach to the text, see our discussion on pp. 26–68 above. 534 Lit., “thing” (shay") 535 “And she invited … hand”—see also the following comment contained in the upper margin of Ms. L, fol. 34v: äðàì äúùîìà éô äøåö˙ çá úãàøà àäðà ñàð úîòæ àö˙ é[à] ¨ øö˙ ç éô äøö˙ çú úãàøàô ïëåî[î ?àö˙ é]à ïàëå éúùå ìú÷á øàùà éã˙ ìà åä íäîòæ éìò êìîìà ä [...ú]ãàøà àäðàì øúñà éìò (!)äö˙ éàå éúùå éìò äøáã [...]ô ìîò àî êìîìì úëçà àã˙ à éúçì [...]î øëúôéå êìîìà ÷îçðéô ä[®®®é]ã˙ ìà äøéáãú ïà (“Some people, moreover, maintain

272

translation

during the deferment of such from one day to the other536—that is to say, from the first day to the second day—concerning which we would maintain that she did not deem it proper to present (the king) with two requests [66r] in one day. Thus, on the first day she invited him, and when he inquired of her she said to him, as it were, “If the king is content, I will relate my desire to him tomorrow,” (the intention of) which was also that the king’s heart might become preoccupied with fulfilling her desire. Such is the case if she undertook this on her own counsel.537 If, however, it was on the part of God, then it was deferred until the morrow in order that God might do what He did with the king regarding his sleeplessness in order that that might transpire which did transpire concerning Mordecai, so that when she said, for we have been sold, I and my people, it would have a register in the king’s heart and it would become clear to him that Haman was an enemy of Mordecai as well as Esther. Also among these cruxes is that the name of God is not mentioned in this scroll. Accordingly, some people say that there is no need for any mention of it, since (the scroll) originated as a (compilation of) popular narratives and annalistic reports. Other people say that the mudawwin copied it from the text [66v] which Esther wrote,538 and that in Esther’s letter there was no mention of the name of God, for she disdained the idea that the scroll might fall into the hands of a people that she desired (Haman’s) presence at the banquet because, in their view, it was he who advised executing Vashti—for he was also(?) Memucan—and so (Esther) wanted to bring him into the presence of the king so that when she related to him what (Haman) had done, and […] which he had engineered concerning Vashti and (now) also concerning Esther, for she wanted […] that his planning which […] so that the king would become furious and recall […]”). In the same vein as Yefet’s explanation see also the third of eight reasons for Esther’s invitation of Haman set forth by the anonymous Karaite compilator in Ms. RNL Yevr. II 78, fol. 22v: úáäà éðà éë åì úåàøäì ùéà ãéâé àìù ïîä øåáòá øáã åì äãéâä àì éë êìîä òãé àìù øåáòá äúàðùì åì äúìâ àìù êì äéä ìåãâ ùéà éë àäéãéî ìöðéå çøáéå òîùéå ïîäì. 536

“from … other”—lit., “from day to day” (min yawm il¯a yawm). This view that the deferment of her request over the two banquets was undertaken on Esther’s own initiative is likewise expressed, albeit in a somewhat less flattering fashion, by Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 37v): äúùîá êìîì øúñà äøîà àì äîì ìåàùì ùéå 537

÷éæúù äãçôå ïîä úìòî ìãåâ øåáòá ãàî úãçôúî äúéä éë äáåùúä ®éðùä íåéá §îàù àî ïåùàøä àì éë íúéðòú ìá÷ àì íùäå ®ïùåùá øùà íéãåäéä åðòúäù äúàø äðäå ®äîòì ìéòåú àìå ®äùôðì ìçäù äúàø øùàëå ®åðéúìôú úà íùä ãåò òîùé éìåà äøîà éë øáãì äøçéà ®äìá÷ä ïîéñ äúàø p. 104: ãò øáãä äúìòä äæä òøä ïîä äøîàå äðîî ãçôä øñ ìåôðì ïîä. Cf. also Leq. Tob, . íðç ìò àì øîàéå ¬êìîä åá àð÷úéù éãë ¬äùôðë ïîä úà úáäåà àéäù êìîä éðéòá úåàøäì ãåàî íéôåöø íéîé §á åúåà ïîæì úàæä äìåãâä äáäàä. 538

See 9:29.

translation

273

other than Israel and they would attribute the work of God to the work of another (god).539 It is also said (that the name of God was omitted) with a view to the unclean, that an impure people540 might not defile it; since, therefore, the name of God was not in it, this was most circumspect.541 Still other people say that at that time there was no prophet or holy man,542 and therefore the name of God is not mentioned in (the scroll). And perhaps there is another reason that we have not grasped—‘Blessed be he who understands mysteries!’ (viii 1–2) (viii 1) On that day King Ahasuerus gave [67r] to Queen Esther the house of Haman, the adversary of the Jews; and Mordecai entered before the king, for Esther

539 Likewise Saadia, Comm., p. 1173: åúáú ˙ àì àäéô (?)÷ú˙ åàìà íñà åúáú˙ à ïéðîåî[ìà...] ˙ àì ááñìà åðàë ïéã˙ ìà íä (?)ïéòáúîìà ïàëå íäãåáòî íñà àäéô åë˙ ñðéô äðàëî øàôëìà úàáú ˙ é íì ä¨ ë˙ ñðìà éô àîñà åãâ˙é íì àã˙ à ïéøôàëìà ïëì øàáë˙ àìà ïî øáë˙ éô ïúåìà íñà äéàæàá åúáú àîñà íäãåáòîì (“[… If] those who believe had entered the name of the Almighty

therein, the unbelievers would have entered in its place—having omitted it—the name of their deity; and it would have been those who succeeded them [on this accusative construal of íä cf. Blau, Grammar, §251] who were the reason for the recording of the idol’s name in one of the (royal?) historical records. However, since the unbelievers did not find any (divine) name in the text, they did not enter in place of it any name of their deity”); Ibn Ezra, Comm. B ad 4:14 (fol. 36v; attributing the view to Saadia): äìàù ùéå äìâîä §åúëéù éëãøîì äåö êìîä éë áéùä 짧æ äéãòñ áø ïåàâäå ®úàæä äìâîá íùä §úëð àì äîì åúåà ïéôéìçî íééñøôä åéä ãáëðä íùä íù §úåë äéä åìéàå ®íéîéä éøáã øôñá ñøô ïåùìá äå÷éúòéå 槧ò íùá; Judah Hadassi, fol. 94v: øôñä äæá §ä íù øëæåä àì äîì ò§§ð éìéëùî åìàù ãåò ïä åäåðëéå åøëæ §òúé §ä íù åá åàöîé àìùå æà ñøôå éãî éøôñá áúëðå ÷úòåä øôñä äæ éë ïòé ºåáéùäå êøåáî åîù éäé §ä íù åáúë àì ïëì åäåæáéå íäéîìöå §äéäìà íùá; Jacob ben Reuben, Esther, fol. 309r: íéåâä íâ åéä §ä íù äìâîá íéáúåë åéä íà éë §îàð ®øôñä äæá §ä íù øéëæä àì äîì ১à ìòá íù §ä íùá åáúëé ñøôå éãî éëìî (expanded by the anonymous Karaite compilator in Ms. RNL Yevr. II 78, fol. 13v: íéáúë åéä íà éë ®§ùú ®øôñä äæá 駧é íù øéëæä àì äîì ®äìàù ñøôá áúëð øôñä äæ éë ®ìòá íù 駧é íùá åáúëé ñøôå éãî éëìî íéåâä íâ åéä 駧é íù úàæä äìâîá åäåáúëé §åòá äéäéù øáã ìë åùòé ïë éë ®úåøåãì ïåøëæ íäìù íéîéä éøáãá äéäéù íéåâä åäå÷éúòäå ®ìåãâ àèç äæå ìòáä íù 駧é íù úçú íéáúåë íéåâä íâ åéä 駧é íù øôñä äæá §ùé åáúë íàå ®íéëìîä øôñä äæá 駧é íù åáúë àì ïëìå). 540 “an unclean people”—i.e., the non-Jewish residents of the empire, among whom—as also assumed in the previous explanation—Esther’s letter would also be circulated. 541 “most circumspect”—or, “most shrewd” (ahwat). . . 542 “holy man”—Ar. wal¯ı (also “saint” or “mystic”), denoting one who, whether or not a prophet, is privileged with exceptionally close communion with God (cf. Radtke, “Wal¯ı,” passim).

274

translation

had disclosed543 that he was her paternal cousin.544 (2) And the king removed his signet ring, which he had taken from Haman, and gave it to Mordecai. And Esther appointed Mordecai over the house of Haman. By the phrase the house of Haman (the mudawwin) means his dependents and his children—that they might be in the position of his slaves, though it is also possible that (the mudawwin) means by it his position, which the king then entrusted to Esther, and over which Esther set Mordecai.545 The king then handed him his signet ring because he entrusted him with all546 the matters of the kingdom,547 just as Pharaoh gave [67v] his signet ring to Joseph.548 543 On the rendering of this verb with the explicit addition of an objective pronoun (direct or indirect), cf. the LXX, var.: 6πδειξεν γAρ Εσηρ τ,. βασιλε8; Tg. Esth. I: úàéåä äéì; Tg. Esth. II, var. (Ms. Vat. Urb. Ebr. 1 [1294 C.E.]): äì àåä äî øúñà úàéåçã; the Vulg.: confessa est enim ei; and Saadia, Tafs¯ır: äúôøò (“(Esther) had informed him”); as well as, among the moderns, e.g., Bush, Esther, p. 435: “had informed him”; and Moore, Esther, p. 75: “had disclosed to him.” 544 “her paternal cousin” (ibn #ammih¯a, as ad 2:7)—so, clarifying the Heb. phrase äî äì àåä, on which see also, ad loc., the Vulg.: quod esset patruus suus; and, albeit less explicitly, the LXX: :τι νοικε ωται α7τ(4. 545 Cf. Saadia, Comm., p. 1177: àäðà úøäè ˙ àå äì äúáäå àäðà éëãøî úà øúñà íùúå §å÷ àìéëå ïåëé ïà éìà ìæðé àì êìîìà øéæå åä ïîô àìàå äúìëå (“As to the statement, And Esther set Mordecai, (etc.)—(this means) that she gave (the house of Haman) to him and (thereby) demonstrated that she had commissioned him as a lord; for he who was the king’s vizier could not officially hold the position until he became commissioned”). On the former view cf. Leq. Tob, p. 109: úåøöåà ïîä õá÷ íéðù ùîç ®ïîä úéá ìò éëãøî úà øúñà íùúå . åúåëìîì äðù ᧧é ãò åúåëìîì §æ úðùî ®®® éëãøîì; Ag. Esth., p. 69: ÷éãöå ïéëé øîåà áåúëä åéìò

åéìò íéé÷úðå ¬óñà éëãøîì ¬óñàù ïåîî ìëå ¬øöà éëãøîì ¬øöàù äî ìë ¬÷åìçé é÷ð óñëå ùáìé [äðã] (àðã) ìò ãáòúé åìåð äúéáå; Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: áø øùåò éë ïîä úéá ìò ìùåî éëãøîå åðîî ìåãâ êìîä øçà ïéà éë úåçôùå íéãáò íâ åì äéä; idem, Comm. B (fol. 37v; = Abraham ben Judah, Esther, fol. 235r): åøùò úéá åà ®úåáà úéáì äù §îë ®ïîä úéá úà ïúð àåää íåéá; the anonymous Karaite compilator in Ms. RNL Yevr. II 78, fol. 23v: úà äðúî øúñà äðúð ùøéå ®åáéåà ïîä âøäðå úåëìî éãâá ùáìå ãáëúð éë úåáø úåçîù éëãøîì åàá ãçà íåéá éë éã ®úéáä ïîä íå÷îá êìîì äðùî íâ äéäå ®äðúîá åúéá úà íâ ç÷ìå ®åðåîî úà íâ; and the anonymous commentator in Jellinek, Commentaries, p. 17: ®®® íéãáòì äì ïúð åéúåðá éðáå åéðá ¬ïîä úéá úà åúéá úåùôð ìòå ïîä éñëð ìò ïåãà úåéäì ¬ïîä úéá ìò éëãøî úà øúñà íùúå.

On this sense of s¯a"ir cf. Blau, Grammar, pp. 159, n. 23, and 321, ad loc. he … kingdom”—cf. the Lucianic recension ad 8:17: κα1 νεχε ρισεν α7τ,. 3 βασιλε@ς τA κατA τ/ν βασιλε αν. Cf. also Saadia, Comm., p. 1177: äøæåúæà äðà éìò ìã [...] ˙âøã é[ô] ïîä ïàëî (“(The king’s transferal of his signet ring from Haman to Mordecai) indicates that he appointed him as a vizier of the same rank in place of Haman”). 548 This parallel is likewise noted, ad 3:4, in Esth. Rab. vii.7 (the second of three parallels noted between Mordecai or Esther and Joseph; = Ag. Esth., pp. 69–70 [albeit ad 8:2]): óñåé ãé ìò äúåà ïúéå åãé ìòî åúòáè úà äòøô øñéå 㧧ää äåù [ìçø éðá ìù] ïúìåãâå éëãøîì äðúéå ïîäî øéáòä øùà åúòáè úà êìîä øñéå áéúë ïàëå ùù éãâá åúåà ùáìéå. Although not citing this specific parallel, the circumstantial/literary affinities between the book of Esther and the Joseph cycle are implicitly acknowledged by the seven exegetical dicta 546 547

translation

275

(viii 3–17) (viii 3) Then Esther applied herself anew and spoke before the king, and she fell before his feet and wept, and she implored him to avert the evil of Haman the Agagite, and his scheme that he had devised against the Jews. (4) And the king extended to Esther the golden scepter, whereupon Esther arose and stood before the king. (5) [68r] And Esther said, “If my utterance549 is pleasing to the king, and if I have found favor on his part, and my utterance is acceptable before the king, and I am commendable of performance550 to him, let it be written to revoke the letters which (embody)551 the scheme of Haman the son of the Madat¯a,552 the Agagite, which he wrote concerning the annihilation of the Jews who are in all the cities553 of the king. (6) “For how am I able to be forbearing when I behold554 distress overtake my

pertaining to the latter, following the citation of Esth. 8:15, in b. Meg. 16a–b (cf. Segal, Midrash, III, pp. 121–43). 549 “my utterance” (qawl¯ı)—so, specifying the unstated subject of Heb. áåè. Saadia (Tafs¯ır), on the other hand, makes the king the subject (leaving the object unstated): ïà êìîìà ààø (“If the king deems it appropriate”). 550 “commendable of performance” (jayyida al-fi#l)—or, perhaps, more specifically paralleling the thought of the previous clause, “approvable (with respect to) the deed,” on which cf. Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ä¨ ãééâ˙ äá úðëå (“and (if) I have been approvable [i.e., acted approvably] in (this matter)”). 551 Lit., “which are” (Ar. allat¯ı hiya), by which addition Yefet clarifies the appositional nature of the Hebrew clause (éââàä ®®® úáùçî), in contrast to which cf. the relativeprepositional rendering of Saadia, Tafs¯ır: øéáãú àäá éúìà (“in which was the scheme”; see also Hakham, “Esther,” p. 50), as well as the relative-verbal rendering commonly . adopted in modern translations—e.g., “the letters devised by Haman” (JPSV [1917], RSV, ASV, et al.). 552 “the Madat¯ a” (spelled Mad¯at¯a in the basic text ad 3:1 & 10)—see p. 212, n. 263 above. 553 See p. 170 (ad 1:1) and n. 51 above. 554 “am … behold”—so, as similarly again in the second half of the verse, paraphrasing Heb. éúéàøå ìëåà, the second element of which is apparently construed by Yefet as an (hypothetical) action, or situation, which is contemporaneous, albeit distinct from the first—for which (i.e., ìëåà) he therefore supplies the verbal object “to be forbearing.” Cf., by contrast, the usual construal of éúéàøå as the semantic equivalent of an object clause; thus, e.g., the LXX: π.ς γAρ δυνσομαι δε8ν ... κα1 π.ς δυνσομαι σω4ναι; Tg. Esth. I (albeit also inferring a precedent verbal object in the same vein as Yefet): éîçîìå [àøáåñì ºà§§ð] àãúòúîì ìåëéà ïéãë éäå ®®® éîçéîì àøáåñì ìåëéà ïéãë éà; Tg. Esth. II: éæçéàå ìåëéà êéàå ®®® éîçéîì àìëé àðà êéäã ìåèî; and Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ÷éèà óéë ˙ ðà ïà ÷éèà óéë åà ®®® ãäàùà ïà (“How am I able to witness …? Or how am I able øö to watch …?”); as well as the majority of modern scholars (cf. Gesenius & Kautzsch, Grammar, §120e; Joüon & Muraoka, Grammar, §177h).

276

translation

people? And how am I able to be forbearing when I see [68v] the destruction of my kindred555?” (7) Then King Ahasuerus said to Queen Esther and to Mordecai the Jew, “Behold, I have already given to Esther the house of Haman, and him they have impaled on the stake, because he sent forth his hand against the Jews. (8) “Now you write to the Jews as is pleasing to you, in the name of the king, and seal (it) with the king’s signet ring; for the letter which [69r] is written in the name of the king and sealed with the king’s signet ring cannot be revoked.” (9) So the king’s scribes were summoned at that time, in the third month, which is the month Sivan, on the twenty-third thereof, and it was written, according to all that Mordecai commanded, to556 the Jews, as well as to the governors,557 the vicegerents,558 and the chiefs559 of the cities which were from India to Abyssinia560— or, the Sudan561—, [69v] in all of which (realm) were a hundred and twenty-seven cities; to every city according to its script, and to every people according to their language, and to the Jews according to their script and their language.

Ar. #ash¯ırat¯ı, rendering Heb. éúãìåî, on which see p. 193, n. 172 above. Ar. il¯a, literally rendering Heb. ìà, which is otherwise construed in the sense of (or as a substitute for) ìò (“concerning”; per v. 8), on which cf. Tg. Esth. I: éàãåäé ìò; the Pesh.:   ; Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ãåäéìà éô; and Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (per Ms. BN héb 334, fol. 84r): íðåùìëå íáúëë íéãåäéä ìò øîàì íòèå ®íéãéúò íúåéäì íéãåäéä ìà; as well as, e.g., among the modern commentators and translations, Clines (tentatively), Esther, p. 316; Moore, Esther, pp. 79–80; Würthwein (tentatively), “Esther,” pp. 191–92: “betreffs der Juden”; the JPSV (1917) and the RSV (1917): “concerning the Jews.” 557 Ar. umar¯a", denoting the provincial governors, on which see p. 225, n. 312 (ad 3:12) above. 558 Ar. #umm¯al, denoting, per 3:12, the mayors of the cities (i.e., mudun < mad¯ına, by which Yefet consistently renders Heb. äðéãî [on which equivalency see p. 170 and n. 51 above]). 559 Ar. ru"as¯a", denoting, per 3:12, the leaders of the people (aqw¯am < qawm, for Heb. íò)—i.e., ethnic or tribal group—present in each city. 560 Ar. al-Habasha—i.e., in general, “the habitable part of sub-Saharan Africa,” . bounded on the east by the seas of Qulzum and al-Zanj, on the south by the edge of cultivated land in Africa, on the west by Sijilm¯asa and Sudanese Takr¯ur, and on the north by the desert (Beckingham, “Habash,” p. 6b). . 561 I.e., the Saharo-Sahelian portion of Africa (see Kaye, “Su ¯ d¯an,” p. 752b), which equivalency of Heb. ùåë is adopted by al-F¯as¯ı, cited in p. 164, n. 31 above ad 1:1, in his tarjama of which verse Yefet otherwise renders ùåë as al-Zanj (i.e., Zanzibar/Unguja, in East Africa, including, perhaps, much of western Africa up to Abyssinia [see Lane, Lexicon, p. 1256b; Freman-Grenville, “al-Zandj,” p. 445a]). 555 556

translation

277

(10) He wrote in the name of King Ahasuerus and sealed it with his signet ring, and he sent the letters by means of the couriers,562 the riders of the choicest563 steeds,564 the offspring of the hardy breeding mares,565

562 Ar. fuy¯uj, for a comprehensive discussion of which, as represented in the documents of the Cairo Genizah, see Goitein, Society, I, pp. 284–91; esp. p. 284: “The couriers were called fayj, plural fuy¯uj, an Arabization of Persian payk, which is derived from p¯a, foot. Literally, the word means runner, but it was a most common term for the riders of the bar¯ıd [defined on p. 282 as “the governmental courier and intelligence service”] … The Hebrew equivalent of fayj in the Geniza records is r¯as. , runner, which is the biblical word from the book of Esther designating the Persian payk.” 563 Ar. al-furra, rendering, in an appropriately adjectival fashion, the Old Persian loanword íéðøúùçàä (“royal” [cf. Koehler & Baumgartner, Lexicon, p. 37a]; likewise ad v. 14), on which cf. also Origen’s rendering by οι μεγιστανες (“great men,” apparently construing íéðøúùçàä—along with íéëîøä éðá which he transliterates [υιοι των ραμαχειμ]—as appositional to éáëø). Cf., otherwise, the renderings of this lexeme as “stripped” in Tgs. Esth. I (éðééìåèøò) and II (éàìéèøò); “mounted couriers” in the Pesh. (-6$ , construing íéðøúùçàä, like Origen, as appositional to éáëø); “camels” by Rashi (íéìîâ ïéî õåøì íéøäîîä); “(well-bred/swift male) horses” by Menahem, Mah. beret, p. 36 (éñåñ íä . íéöøä [íéñåñ ºà§§ð]), al-F¯ as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 69, ll. 273–74 (íå÷ìà ä¨ âìá øàäîàìà éä íéðøúùçàä ùëøä éðàøáòìàáå [“A˘h. aˇst˘er¯anîm means ‘male horses’ in the language of the people (i.e., in Persian; cf. idem, II, p. 452, l. 28), and in Hebrew is (equivalent to) rekeˇs”]), #Al¯ı ibn Sulaym¯an (apud Pinsker, Geschichte, I, p. 207: øàäîàìà, following al-F¯as¯ı, though he also notes the alternatives àìåçôìà [for ä¨ ìåçôìà, “stallions], àìô [for åìô, “donkeys”; see Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 282a], and ïéãéøáìì [“(horses) for the couriers”]), the glossator ad Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 78 (n. 79: ‹ D =( I FID 1!s  \+ F+ (!)1!" [“It is said that it is a type of horse which the courier rides and is called Ikd¯ısh (cf. Dozy, ibid., II, p. 449b)”]), and, although perhaps construing íéðøúùçàä in a sense similar to Yefet, Tanhum, Esther, fol. 223v (ìãé íéëîøä éðá íéðøúùçàä §å÷å ®®® ìàâáìà ùëø ïà ìé÷å . ¨ ìéöà ìéë˙ ìà ïî óàðöà àäðà [“It is said that rekeˇs are mules [see Saadia below] … yet ä the (following) expression the a˘ h. aˇst˘er¯anîm, sons of the breeding mares indicates that they are a class of well-bred (or “purebred”) horses”]); and “mules”(!) by Saadia, Tafs¯ır (ìàâáìàå, as also ad v 14, construing íéðøúùçàä asyndetically, as a group distinct from “the horses” [ùëøä, rendered by Saadia, as by Yefet, ìéë˙ ìà]; see also idem, Egrôn, p. 188), Ibn Ezra, Comm. B, fol. 38r (øåîç åéáàù ãøô ìë éë ®úåéñåñä íä ®íéëîøä ®íéãøôä íä ®íéðøúùçàä

íéìéâø íäù íä ®íéñåñá íéöøä §òè äî 맧àå ®®® ïåúà åîàå ñåñ åéáà øùàî àåä áåè àéñåñ åîàå íéñåñá õéøäì), idem, albeit somewhat tentatively, Comm. A (íéãøôä ১é), Qimh. ¯ı, Roots, p. 32a (íéëîøä éðá øîàù äî àåäå ¬øåîçîå ñåñî íéðéî éðùî úåãáëðå úåìåãâ úåîäá äìîä ùåøéôå úåéñåñä éðá), and Abraham ben Judah, Esther, fol. 235r (íéãøôä íä). Standing undecided

between “mule,” on the one hand, and either “choice” (adj.) or “horses,” on the other, is Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 78: ùëøä éáëø 1!$ D F+ ùëø F T   AI  0 q F!" (" íéðøúùçàä (“(This word) has been interpreted (asyndetically as) ‘mules,’ though it is not unlikely that it is intended to refer to the rekeˇs [defined by Ibn Jan¯ah. (ibid., col. 679) as “swift/choice horses” ( #it¯aq)] itself, as it is said, the riders of the rekeˇs, the a˘ h. aˇst˘er¯anîm”). 564 Ar. al-khayl, rendering Heb. ùëø, on which see pp. 279, n. 570 below. 565 “hardy … mares”—Ar. rim¯ak (rendering Heb. íéëîø), on our translation of which see Lane, Lexicon, pp. 1158c and 186 (s.v. birdhawn).

278

translation

(11) [70r] (to publish) that which566 the king permitted the Jews who were in each and every city—(namely,) to gather together for their lives, to annihilate, kill, and destroy any armed force of any people or province opposed to them, (including) children and women, and to plunder their spoil, (12) on one day in all the cities of King Ahasuerus, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar. (13) The transcript567 of the letter was to be established as law in every city, displayed [70v] to all the peoples, while the Jews were to get568 ready for that day to avenge themselves on their enemies.

566 “that which”—Ar. alladh¯ı, rendering Heb. øùà, the grammatical referent of which, per his comment ad loc., Yefet takes to be the command specifically described in following, rather than the “letters” (íéøôñ) of the previous verse (see also p. 285, n. 599 below)—for which latter construal cf. the LXX: =ς πταξεν α7το8ς; the Vulg.: quibus imperavit rex; the Pesh.     8 1 ; Hirschler, Esther, p. 301 (favoring the Vulg.); Würthwein(?), “Esther,” p. 191 (“demnach”); the RSV (“By these”); and the NASB (“In them”). Cf., still otherwise, the construal of øùà as conjunctive, introducing a substantive clause (on which LBH usage see Joüon & Muraoka, Grammar, §157a), attested by Saadia, Tafs¯ır: å÷ååâ˙úé ïà ®®® ìòâ˙ êìîìà ïà (“that the king permitted the Jews … to band together” [yatajawwaq¯u, attested in the lexica only as a substantive]); and Tanhum, Esther, fol. 223v (following Saadia?): àèòà ã÷ äðà éà ä¨ ããùîìà ïà àðä øùà çøù . ˘ser here has been interpreted as the conjunction that [lit., ‘anna with úéëå úéë êìîìà (“Aˇ tashd¯ıd’]—i.e., ‘that [annahu] the king had permitted such and such’”); as well as, e.g., among the moderns, Bush, Esther, p. 436; Fox, Esther, pp. 98, 284; Gerleman, Esther, p. 125; Hakham, “Esther,” p. 52; Keil, Esther, p. 369; Levenson, Esther, p. 109; Meinhold, . Esther, p. 73; Moore, Esther, pp. 76, 80; Paton, Esther, pp. 274, 278; the JPSV (1912); and the NJPSV. 567 Ar. nuskha, on which rendering of Heb. ïâùúô see p. 227, n. 317 (ad 3:14) above. 568 “while … to get”—so, by which we have taken the w¯aw in Yefet’s rendering wayak¯un¯u (< Heb. úåéäìå)—as he would therefore have taken the w¯aw in the Heb. text—as indicative of concurrence (i.e., w¯aw al-ma #iyya; cf. Wright, Grammar, §15e), and thus the verb, commensurate with the Heb. infinitive, as subjunctive. The Jews’ preparation activity, according to this view, is thus to be viewed as distinct from, rather than the result of, the publishing of the edict before “all the peoples”—which view logically follows Yefet’s rendering of íéãåäéä ìà in v. 9 in its normative sense of “to the Jews” rather than “concerning the Jews” (see p. 276, n. 556 above), implying (in the former case) that separate communiqués were sent to the Jews. The purpose of displaying a copy of the edict before “all the peoples,” according to Yefet, would therefore be to ensure Israel’s unhindered right to “avenge themselves” on their enemies (so Ibn Ezra, Comm. B, fol. 38r: íäéáéåà âåøäî ìàøùé úà åúåðîì íò ìëåé àìù ®íéîòä ìëì éåìâ). Otherwise, for a strictly resultative construal of this clause in relation to the previous (according to which the w¯aw of úåéäìå is pleonastic), cf., e.g., Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ïéãòúñî ãåäéìà åðåëéì (“in order that the Jews might get ready”), Bush, Esther, p. 436; Hirschler, Esther, p. 302; Levenson, Esther, p. 114; Würthwein, “Esther,” p. 191; the NASB; and the NJPSV. Still otherwise, construing this clause as the content of the edict/command (i.e., as a noun clause), cf. Tg. Esth. I: ïéñåîéèéà ïéàãåäé ïåäéã; the Pesh.: "   0; and the Vulg.: (ut

translation

279

(14) The couriers, the riders of the choicest569 mules,570 went out, astonished571 and impelled by the king’s command; and the letter of the decree was issued in Susa the fortress.572

… notum fieret) paratos esse Iudaeos; as well as, e.g., among the moderns, Fox, Esther, p. 98; Gerleman, Esther, p. 125; Meinhold, Esther, p. 73; Moore, Esther, p. 76; and Paton, Esther, p. 276. 569 See p. 277, n. 563 above. 570 Ar. al-bigh¯al, which rendering of Heb. ùëøä is obviously strange given the necessity for speed and in view of Yefet’s rendering of the same lexeme ad v. 10—as by Saadia, Tafs¯ır, ad both verses—by al-khayl (“the steeds/horses”). Cf., in any event, Goitein’s observation on the use of mules by the fuy¯uj, cited on p. 285, n. 597 below. The basic understanding of ùëø as “horses” is also attested in the LXX (ad v. 14): οB Bππε8ς; Tgs Esth. I & II (bis): àùë(é)ø; and the Pesh. (bis): %8 ; as well as by the majority of scholars, among whom cf. al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 610, ll. 37–39: íéñåñì ®ùëøä éáëø øàäîà ùëø àðìå ˙ ìà øàäîàìà éä ùëøìå (“Among us ùëø also means ‘male éñøàôìàá íéðøúùçà àîñú‘ å óàôë horses,’ as in the riders of the rekeˇs [Esth. 8:10, 14], and for the horses and for the rekeˇs [1 Kgs 5:8]—which [rekeˇs] are the swift [or ‘light’] male horses, called a˘ h. aˇst˘er¯anîm in Persian [see 277, n. 563 above]); Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 679: ùëøìå (!).íéñåñìå ùëøì ®ùëøä éáëåø t A = (“rekeˇs (in Esth. 8:10, 14; Mic. 1:13; 1Kgs 5:8) denotes ‘swift/choice horses’”); Tanhum, Esther, fol. 223v (cited on p. 277, n. 563 above); and, although recognizing the . possibly different meaning implied by 1Kgs 5:8 (if not in fact affirming two different meanings), Abraham ben Judah, Esther, fol. 235r: äîåã äæ øçáðä êìîä ùåëøî ùëøä éáëåø íäù äáëøîä íåúø íäå ®ùëøìå íéñåñì ïáúäå íéøåòùäå øîàù ÷åñôî øçà ïéî àìà íéñåñ íðéàù

[é §ñôì áåè ç÷ì §ãî äàø] íéáåèä íéñåñä; as well as, representing the moderns, Koehler & Baumgartner, Lexicon, p. 1238b (ad loc.): “relay horses.” Otherwise, on the possibility of ùëø denoting “a different species” than horse, cf. Qimh. ¯ı, Roots, p. 353b: .äðåé éáø áúë

äðä éë íåðòãé àì úåøçà úåîäá íúåéä ïëúéå úåáø íéðù íäéìò åøáò àìù íéáåèä íéñåñä íä éë øçà ïéî àåäù äîåã ¬ùëøìå íéñåñì ïáúäå íéøåòùäå øîàå ¬ùëøä éáëø íéñåñá íéöøä ãéá øîà íéñåñä éúìåæ. 571 Or, “puzzled” (mundahish¯ın), rendering Heb. íéìäáî, in contrast to which cf. Yefet’s rendering of the same root ad 2:9 (ìäáéå) and 6:14 (åìäáéå) in the sense of “hastened” (i.e., by -á øãàáô and -á åòøñàå, respectively), as well as, ad the present verse, Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ïéøãàáî (“hastened”). Among the medieval lexicographers and exegetes cf. also ˙ ìå àîñé êìã al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 200, ll. 55–57: åìäáéå ®íéôåçãå íéìäáî åàöé ìàâ˙òúñàìà √ ¨ òøñ äìë íùî åäåìäáéå ®ïîä úà àéáäì (“And therefore [i.e., because ìäá indicates ä

‘astonishment’] it is also used to designate ‘hastening,’ (as in Esth. 8:14; 6:14; and 2 Chr. 26:20), all of which (occurrences) denote ‘hurrying’”); Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 85:

=A" êçåøá ìäáú ìà ®êéô ìò ìäáú ìà ®íéôåçãå íéìäåáî ®ïîä úà àéáäì åìéäáéå (  √ ‹MI  ( C   K>B .!5 (“On the other hand [i.e., in contrast to ìäá denoting

‘astonishment’ and ‘alarm’] are (the occurrences in Esth. 6:14; 8:14; Eccl. 5:1; and 7:9), the sense of all of which is ‘haste,’ ‘exertion,’ and ‘forcible action’”); Rashi: .íéìäáî íøéáòäì íéðåùàøä íéöø íéã÷äì íäì äéäù éàðô íäì äéä àìù éôì äøäî úåùòì íúåà íéøäîî; Qimh. ¯ı, Roots, p. 35a: ¬äé÷åøîú úà ìäáéå øçà ãáëå ®ïîä úà àéáäì åìéäáéå ãáëä øçà ïéðòå Esther, fol. 223v: ïéòøñî ®íéôåçãå íéìäåáî ïåæôçå úåøéäî ïéðò ¬êçåøá ìäáú ìà; and Tanhum, . ïéòåôãî (“m˘ebôh¯alîm û-d˘eh. ûpîm means ‘hurried and impelled’”); as well as, representative of the moderns, Koehler & Baumgartner, Lexicon, p. 111b: “in haste.” 572 See p. 171, n. 53 above.

280

translation

(15) And Mordecai went out from the presence of the king in the attire of royalty, azure and white,573 and a large crown of gold, and a robe of fine linen574 and purple, while the city of Susa [71r] shouted and rejoiced.575 (16) For the Jews there was light and gladness and joy and honor. (17) And in each and every city and in each and every village—every576 place whither the king’s message and the letter of his edict arrived—there was joy and gladness for the Jews, a feast and a holiday.577 And many from among the peoples of the land became Jews,578 for the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them. 573 “azure and white” (sam¯anj¯un¯ı wa-abyad)—so, rendering Heb. øåçå úìëú, which two . lexemes occur elsewhere in Esther (and øåç biblically) only in 1:6, and are similarly (employing bay¯ad. rather than abyad. ) there rendered (see pp. 216–17, n. 60 above). 574 “fine linen”—Ar. #ushar, on which see pp. 217–18, n. 61 above (ad 1:6). 575 “shouted and rejoiced” (sahalat [normally applied to the whinnying of horses, . though adopted here for its phonemic similarity to the Heb.] wa-farih. at)—so, per the MT (and hence most other sources), construing äçîùå äìäö as perfect verbs rather than verbal adjectives, which latter reading (i.e., äçî"×e äì#äö) is implied, e.g., in Tg. Esth. I: àééãçå àçãá; Tg. Esth. II: [äååãç ºà§§ð] àéãçå äìäö; and by Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ä¨ øàñ ä¨ çøàô (“was joyful (and) glad”). 576 So, by which addition Yefet qualifies the otherwise elliptical Heb. appositive íå÷î. 577 “a holiday”—Ar. yawm tayyib (slavishly rendering Heb. áåè íåé), rather than the . more idiomatic lexeme #¯ıd. 578 “became Jews”—Ar., mutawahhid¯ın, reflecting—like the more Arabicized quadriliteral rendering √ïåãåäéúé adopted by Saadia, Tafs¯ır—the denominative formation of Heb. íéãäéúî from ãäé (< éãåäé), for an explanation of which process cf., e.g., Ibn Jan¯ ah, . Luma#, pp. 10–11, ll. 19–3: åöòéúéå àé ìú˙ î ìòôìà àô ä¨ éìöà àì ä¨ ãéàæ éäå íéãäéúî àé åìòâ˙ô ˙ ë àîì äðàì éìöàìàë äàé àåìòâ˙ àìòô äðî àåòèú÷é ïà àåãàøàå íéãåäéì íäìàîòúñà øú ¨ ðæ éìò íéãäéúî àåìà÷ô àé àîä äåàäå äãåäé àéå äãåäé àé éä íéãäéúî ïî àéìàå ®®® íéìòôúî ä ˙ àîìà ìòôìà äãåä àä éä àäìàå ìàá÷úñàìì àéìà ïàì ïàúãéàæ àîäå êåãåäé íéîò ïë ìò àäå éö ˙ ä ïî ã˙ åë˙ àî äá éîñîìà äãåäéå äìôúì äãåäé äãåä ïî ìá÷úñîìàå ìé÷ú˙ ìà ®ìá÷úñîìà àã ¨ ì( àãìà ä¨ ãéæîìà àäìà àåøâ˙àå ìòôìà àô éøâ˙î íéãäéúî éô ìàá÷úñàìà àé àåøâ˙à íäðëì éìò ä ¨ ÷é÷çìàá éäå íàììà éøâ˙î ìàãìà àåøâ˙àå ìòôìà ïéò éøâ˙î ì÷ú˙ ìà àô àåè÷ñàå ìòôìà ïéò ä ˙ éà àåè÷ñàå äìôúì äãåäé éô åàåìà åä éã˙ ìà é÷é÷çìà ìòôìà (“And (the é÷é÷çìà äîàì àö Hebrews) have treated the yôd of íéãäéúî—which is added, not a root-letter—as the first root-letter, just like the yôd of (õòé in) åöòéúé [Ps. 83:4]; for insofar as their usage of the noun íéãåäé increased, and they desired to derive from it a verb, they treated the yôd as a root-letter and coined the word íéãäéúî on the analogy of (the paradigm form) íéìòôúî … And the yôd of íéãäéúî is the yôd of äãeäé, whereas the yôd of äãeäé, as well as its h¯e", are the yôd and h¯e" of, (e.g.,) êåãå˙äé [Ps. 45:18], and are (therefore) added, for the yôd is for the future tense and the h¯e" is the (initial) h¯e" of äãåä, the past tense Hif#il verb, and the (anomalous) future tense form of äãåä is äãå˙äé [Neh. 11:17], from which future form the proper noun äãeäé is derived; yet in íéãäéúî they employed the yôd of the future tense after the manner of the first root-letter, and they employed the added h¯e", which indicates the hif #il, after the manner of the second root-letter, and they employed the d¯alet—which is in truth the second root-letter—after the manner of the third rootletter, and they omitted the true first root-letter, which is the w¯aw of äãå˙äé [ibid.], as well as it true third root-letter [i.e., the final h¯e" of äãå˙äé]”). The use of w¯aw rather than

translation

281

About two months after Haman was executed Esther saw [71v] fit to enter again unto the king—that is to say, (two months since) Mordecai approached the king’s gate, crying out, on the day on which Haman had written the letters, after which they fasted for three days,579 Haman then being executed on the fourth day; and they fasted either for two days during the feast580 or else they fasted after the conclusion of the feast,581 yet according to all the possibilities582 Haman was executed on Nisan, whereupon (the Jews) were reassured and their hearts set at rest, and they knew that at the same time583 there would be relief. And so, once Haman’s remembrance was cut off, (Esther) looked for a time at which it would be suitable for her to address the king concerning the matter of the letters which had been dispatched by584 Haman. She therefore returned (to the king) and on this second occasion yôd in Yefet’s rendering (ïéãäåúî) is puzzling, however, and may represent a later scribal √ semi-“correction” of original ïéãåäúî (“allied themselves with/became Jews” < hwd, “to repent/become a Jew” [see Lane, Lexicon, pp. 2905c–6a]), which form is in fact attested in Ms. R1, and concerning which see also Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 278, R. g. 81 (ad íéãäéúî):   =" []j  ` []T(  (“They became Jews—i.e., they converted [lit., ‘they entered into the faith’]”); and Ibn Baru¯ n, Muw¯azana, p. 60: éãåäé ïî ìòô íéãäéúî ˙ à (!)àãåä ãåäé ãàä ìå÷ì ñðàâ˙î åäå (“íéãäéúî is a verb derived from ãåäéìà úéîñ äáå áàú àã the noun éãåäé, and is related to (the root) in the expressions h¯ada [‘he repented/became a Jew’] and yah¯udu [‘he will repent/become a Jew’]. He (who is a éãåäé) is therefore one who has repented, and by (this term) are the Jews [al-yah¯ud] designated”), in connection with which Kokovtsov also cites (ibid., p. 110, n. 241) the following quotation by I. Goldziher (Beiträge zur Gesch. D. Sprachgelehrsamkeit bei d. Arab. I, p. 231 [cited as well by Wechter, Bar¯un, p. 213, n. 591]):  E ` 1KA &T I> > T  (+B (“(They are so-called) because they repented [h¯ad¯u"] of—i.e., renounced—their worship of the (golden) calf ”). 579 Although Esther herself, according to Yefet, fasted for four days (one for herself and three for the people), her first audience with the king having taken place while she was still fasting (see p. 246 [ad 4:16–17]). 580 I.e., on the 14th and 15th of Nisan, the first two days of the Passover-Unleavened Bread festival, the fast having commenced, according to this view, on the 13th, immediately after Esther’s exchange with Mordecai (likewise, e.g., Esth. Rab., viii.7; Pirqe R. El., ch. 50; Leq. Tob, p. 103; Ag. Esth., p. 45 [implicitly, following Pirqe R. El.]). The time that . had passed since Esther’s previous audience with the king would therefore have been 68 days. 581 I.e., from the 22nd to the 24th, the elapsed time since Esther’s previous audience therefore being 59 days—or, if including the day of her first audience (which inclusive method of reckoning is clearly attested by Yefet in his comment ad 9:25 [see p. 303, n. 687 below]), exactly two months. 582 Other attested fast chronologies include the 14th–16th (Pan. Ah. B, p. 71; Rashi ad v. . 17 and ad b. Meg. 15a) and the 15th–17th (Salmon; for the text and translation see 245, n. 416 above). 583 “at … time”—Ar. f¯ı" l-waqt, on which see Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 827a. 584 Ar. li-, on the use of which preposition to denote the agent of a passive verb, see Blau, Grammar, §269á.

282

translation

exceeded the first occasion585 in that she fell upon her face at his feet and wept and entreated him.586 When, therefore, he saw her in this state, he extended [72r] the golden scepter just as he had done on the first occasion. On the first occasion, however, it says, and she touched the top of the sceptre (5:2), whereas on this one it says, and she stood before the king—she arose and stood, all of which served to underscore the pressing need and petition. She likewise drew out the preface (to her petition), saying first, If it please to the king, after which she said, and if I have found favor in his sight, then, and the thing seem right before the king, and then, and I be pleasing in his eyes, by which, in every clause, she intends to say, “Since the time of my (initial) entry unto the king, he has found nothing in me which he has disliked. May he therefore fulfill my request that the letters which Haman devised and in which he wrote concerning the annihilation of all the Jews be revoked.”587 She then said, For how can I Referring to 5:1ff. Cf. Tanhum, Esther, fol. 223r: êáúå åéìâø éðôì ìåôúå êìîä éðôì øáãúå øúñà óñåúå . ˙ å àäîàøö˙ à íã÷ú øàð àôèàì éøâ˙ àî ãòá êìã˙ éìà úâ˙àúçà ®åì ïðçúúå ïëîé ïàë ñéì äðà êìã ˙ ãòá íäøåîà ïî øîà ìàèáà ñøôìà êåìî ãðò ìé÷å áéùäì ïéà §åëå áúëð øùà áúë éë §÷ë äâ˙åøë àãòú àì éã ñøôå éãî úãë ìàéðã éô (“And Esther spoke yet again before the king, and fell down at his feet, and besought him with tears—she deemed these (actions) necessary after the fire which had previously been kindled was not extinguished—such (owing to the fact) that it was impossible for the kings of Persia to annul any decree after it had been published, as per the statement, for an edict which is written … may no man reverse [8:8]; and it is also stated in Daniel, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not [6:9]”). 587 Cf. Saadia, Comm., pp. 1177–78: éô §úå [§ø] éðôì ìôúå ìàòôàìà äã ˙ ä éìà úâ˙àúçà íìå ˙ ÷ð äðî ñîúìú àã˙ åä ä¨ òôãìà äã˙ ä éô àäðàì ìå÷àô (!)éìåàìà ä¨ òôãìà äã˙ ä äá áúë ïàë àî õ ¨ úá äåìòôé àìà ñøôìà êåìî íåñø ïî ïàë ïî ìá êåìîìà éìò áòö øîà àã˙ äå ïàãìáìà éìà ä ˙ ä ùåøåùçà ïà àðì çöå ®®® ñøôå ééãîì úã éã àëìî òã ïåìå÷é ùåéøã áàçöà àðéàø ã÷ àðàì àã ˙î úîç êùë íãð ã÷ äðà éìòå §îå ñøô éúãá áåúëéå §å÷ë äéìà àäãòé íì äðò éúùå óøöá øîà ã ¨ áåòöìà äã˙ äá íäãðò øîàìà õ˙ ÷ð ïàë àîìô ä¨ ìéçìà êìã˙ éô äì ïëú íì §çà êìîä úâ˙àúçà ä ˙ ëå òøö˙ úìàå àëáìàå äéìâ˙ø éìò òå÷åìà ä¨ ãéëåìà øåîàìà äã˙ ä ìú˙ î éìà äúñîúìà ïéç øúñà êìã ˙ ä øéâ ä¨ ìñî éô àäîã÷ àãçà àøð íì àî è˙ àôìà §ãìà äã˙ ä ä¨ îã÷ú éìà §ö˙ éà úâ˙àúçà íà ºäã ¨ éðàú˙ ìà] éðà äáåèå §ãä øùëå §ç éúàöî íàå §è êìîä ìò (“Why, on this second [reading ä occasion, did she deem these actions necessary—viz., and she fell at his feet and besought him with tears? I maintain (that it is) because on this occasion she was urgently requesting of him the abrogation of that which he had already written (through Haman’s agency) to the provinces, and this was a difficult matter for kings. Indeed, according to the laws of the kings of the Persians, they were unable to do anything to (a sealed decree), for we have seen the associates of Darius saying, Know, O king, that it is a law of the Medes and Persians (that no interdict nor statute which the king establisheth may be changed) [Dan. 6:16] … And it is confirmed to us that this Ahasuerus, from the time that he had ordered Vashti’s dismissal from him, did not take her back to him, as per the statement, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, (that it be not altered, that Vashti come no more, etc.) [1:19]. Even though he regretted (his decision)—(as per the statement,) when the wrath of King Ahasuereus was assuaged [2:1]—he had no way out in this matter. Since, therefore, the abrogation of a decree by them was (undertaken) with such 585 586

translation

283

endure [72v] to see, (etc.), showing that she did not want to live and behold the death of her people or her kindred.588 When, therefore, (the king) heard her words, he had compassion upon her and he had compassion upon her ill-treated people. So he also called for Mordecai to come to him and he said to both of them together, as it were, “I have already demonstrated my love for you in that I handed over the house of Haman to Esther, while Haman was impaled because of what he wrote with respect to the destruction of the Jews.” And this statement by the king indicates that he did not know that Haman intended by his statement, If it please the king, let it be written that they be destroyed (3:9), that they were the Jews. This also indicates that he was critical of himself because of what he had done, and that he was desirous that no injury should overtake the Jews.589 He then stated that he was unable to revoke the letters which were dispatched by Haman, (adding, as it were,) “However, should [73r] other letters be written in my name, and sealed with my signet ring, and there be explained in them how the matter590 derived from Haman, and his unjust aggression, and that the king had executed and impaled him on account of such, then the governors of the provinces will act diligently according to the second letters and not act according to the letters of Haman.”591 Then he said, as is pleasing in your eyes,

difficulty, Esther deemed it necessary, when she urgently petitioned him, (to undertake) these weighty [cf. Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 837a] actions—viz., the falling at his feet, the weeping, and the beseeching. And she likewise deemed it necessary to preface (her petition with) these four expressions—which we see no one else (in Scripture) having prefaced to any petition apart from this one—viz., If it please the king, and if I have found favor …, and the thing seem right …, and I be pleasing (in his eyes)”). Cf. also the comment of Tanhum ben Joseph cited in the previous note. . 588 Cf. Ag. Esth., p. 70: ãåîòà êéàå ¬ïéâøäð ïä íà ¬ïäéøçà éì ùé íééç åæéà êìîä éðåãà åì äøîà ïãáàá éúéàøå ìëåà äëëéàå øîàðù ¬íúòøá äàøà ìàå ¬äìçúá éðéâøä ïâøåä äúà íà ¬ïîã ìò éúãìåî; and the anonymous commentator in Jellinek, Commentaries, p. 17: ¬ìëåà äëëéà éë éîò úåøö äàøàå íéé÷ìå ãåîòì ìëåà êéàä éë. 589 Cf. Eliezer Ashkenazi, Esther, p. 185: çìù øùà ìò øúñàì éúúð ïîä úéá äðä§ øîàå åîë úøçà äðúî åæ ïéàù øîà êëìå ¬úøçà äðúî àéäù úáùåç úàù åîë àì øîåìë ¬§íéãåäéá åãé äðååëä äúéä íà ¬äééìúä ïéðò íâå ®®® íòä úìöä àéäù äì éúúð äîöòá äúìàù ìáà ¬øúñà äáùçù øúñàì úéáä úúìå íåñøô àåäù åúåìúì ìáà ¬åúåìúì êéøö éúééä àì éëãøîì õòä ïéëä øùà ìò §åëå §åãé çìù øùà ìò§ åøîåà äæå ¬íòä úìöäì àìà éúéùò àì íåñøô àåäù. 590

Or, perhaps, “decree” (al-amr). Similarly the first of the following four explanations of the edict’s content set forth by Jacob ben Reuben, Esther, fol. 311r (= Ms. Heb. II A 78 [an anonymous Byzantine Karaite compilation], fol. 24r): éëãøî äùò êéàå íéøôñä úà áéùäì ïéà êìîä §îà éë òã áåäà äìçúî äéä ïîä éë úåðéãîä ìù íéøùì åáúë éë §éøáã [§ã ºì§§ö] (!)§â §îàå äøåðä åæ ìéôäå íéãåäéä úà úåñðì õôç êìîä éë åáúë [åà ºì§§ö] (!)æà ãøåî àåä éë øøáúð äúòå êìîä éðôì 591

284

translation

corresponding to his (prior) statement to Haman, to do with them as is pleasing in your eyes (3:11). This second592 statement, however, he uttered sincerely, (knowing) that they593 would not pursue any undertaking like that of Haman, for he had observed by their conduct that they would not undertake anything which would evoke criticism of the king or, especially, detract from his status, while they were opposing the work of Haman; for this reason, therefore, he said, as is pleasing in your eyes. And so the king’s scribes—perhaps they were the ones who had written the first letters—were immediately summoned, and they wrote letters to the Jews that they were to kill no one except he who was clearly among their enemies and that they were not to seize anything of the spoil594—only (to engage in) the killing. And they wrote to [73v] the governors, vicegerents, and chiefs of the provinces concerning both the killing and the plundering,595 though he granted permission for the killing to the Jews only, granting no allowance for the killing to any others, all of which served as a precaution that, among all their enemies, no one would be killed except an actual enemy. (Mordecai) also enjoined in the letters that they were to undertake the killing on the day whereon Haman had decreed that the Jews were to be killed.596 åà ®íéòøä íéùðàå íéåâä ìë ïçáéù õôç êìîä éë åáúë åà ®àì åà åúåëìî ãé úçúî åçøáé íà êìîá ãåøîì áùçå ïîä åúåà áðâ êìîä úòáè éë åáúë. Still otherwise, cf. Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 38r): §îà äëëå ®éãîå ñøô úã äëë ïéàå íéøôñä úà áéùäì êìîä ìëåé êéà ìåàùì ùé åâøäéù ïîäì äåö êìîäù øôñ åáúëéù àåäå äùòé äî éëãøîì êìîä æîøù ®äáåùúäå ®áéùäì ïéà øùàëå ®íéøáãä êôä ïîä ãéá êìîä úòáè (!)úéä øùàëå ®øãà ùãçì ⧧éá íäéáéåà úà íéãåäéä §òèì §éðåîã÷ åæîø øáëå ®íéãåäéá åúáùçî ãé çìùù øåáòá ïîä úà úåìúì äåö êìîì øáãä òãåð úåðåøçàä åîéé÷úð àì úåðåùàøä úåøâà éìåì §îàù äæä. 592

The first being his injunction: Write ye concerning the Jews. I.e., Mordecai and Esther. 594 So, explaining the statement in 9:10 that the Jews refrained from taking any spoil. On this distinction between the letters sent to the Jews and those sent to the authorities, see Yefet’s tarjama ad v. 9. 595 “both the killing and the plundering”—i.e., in the letters to the governors, etc., it was indicated that the Jews were permitted to both kill and plunder their enemies (see 8:11), though in his separate letters to the Jews (see the previous note) Mordecai indicated that they were to forego the latter right and undertake only the killing. See also the comments cited in p. 295, n. 647 below. 596 Concerning Mordecai’s selection of this day cf., more specifically, Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4469, fol. 1r–v): éôùà ïåëéì ìàç {ïàîæ}ìà àã˙ ä ïîä ãö÷ ìöàìà éô ˙ ä ïåëéì éëãøî ãö÷å ñôðìàì ïî íäòî äìòô àîá äììà øëù éìò äéô ìàøùé òîâ˙é ïàîæìà äã ˙ ä óàìë˙ á éëãøî áúë åìå äòåùéìà ¬úååäúä äàø] ïà íåé íäàãòà ìàøùé åìú÷é ïàá øîàå àã ¨ ðéãîìà äã˙ ä ìäà åìú÷é ïàëì åìöå ïà ãìá éà éô êìîìà áúë ìöé [137 §îò ãìáìàå íåéìà ä ¨ ëìîîìà øë˙ à éìà àãâ˙à øë˙ àìà éô çöé ñéì øëùìàå ãçàå íåé éô ìëìàì äòåùéìà ïåëú ñéìå ä ˙ à äâ˙åå ãçàå íåé éô ìú÷ìà éëãøî ìòâ˙ äã˙ äìô íåìòî íåé íåéìà åìú÷é ãåäéìà ïàë åì ïà åäå øë ˙ à éô äãòáå éøë˙ à ä¨ ðéãî éô àãâ˙å êìîìà áàúë ìöå àã˙ à ÷ìîò ìñð ïî ä¨ ðéãîìà äã˙ ä éô ïî éøë 593

translation

285

Concerning the couriers whom Mordecai sent, (the mudawwin) says that they were riding upon horses in order that the letters might arrive quickly. It is probable, moreover, that in each city to which the courier would come, he would mount a different horse than that which he had ridden (there).597 By (sending them out so,) Mordecai intended two things, the first of which was that the (new) report would not come late to the (Jewish) people who were in the utmost parts of the king’s realm so that they would be killed before the letters came to them; and the second [74r] was that their mourning and the futility which they felt would cease598 and sexual abandon might be forsworn. By the statement, that which599 the king had permitted the Jews, (the mudawwin) is referring to the (following) statement, to gather themselves

˙ ìà ïãîìà éìà åáøäé øáë˙ ìà íäá ìöúà àã˙ à ãòáìà éô íä éã˙ ìà ïãîìà ìäà ïëî àì ìú÷ éã ˙ äìô ìú÷ìà ïî øéú˙ ë àäéô úìôúé ïàëå ÷ìîò ìñð àäéô (“Haman ãçà íåéá ìà÷ (!)äâ˙ååìà äã

originally intended this state (of waiting until Adar 13) to be a needle to the soul (of the Jews), whereas Mordecai intended that this time would be one in which Israel would come together in thanksgiving to God for the salvation which he had wrought for them. If, however, Mordecai had written contrary to this and decreed that Israel should kill their enemies on whichsoever day the king’s letter arrived in any given province, they would have killed the people of that city on that day, and of the next province on the following day, (and so on) until the terminus of the kingdom. The (divine) salvation, accordingly, would not be for everyone on one day, and so their thanksgiving would not be definitively expressed on one recognized day. For this reason, therefore, Mordecai decreed (that all) the killing was to be on one day. Another reason is that if, on the day (they received the letter), the Jews had killed those who were from among the descendants of Amalek in that city, when the king’s letter arrived on the next day to another city, and after that to another, the people of the cities who were in the more distant part of the kingdom would not have been mastered [i.e., sifted of enemies], for when the news (of the second edict) came to them they would have fled to the cities in which the descendants of Amalek had already been killed, and in (these cities) many would escape the killing; for this reason, therefore, he said, upon one day, (etc.) [v.12]”). Cf. also the comment of Tanhum ben Joseph cited in n. 598 below. . 597 Cf. Goitein, Society, I, p. 285: “This institution [i.e., the governmental bar¯ıd/fuy¯uj; see p. 277, n. 562 above] maintained relay stations where the riding animals—mules, horses, or camels—were frequently changed, but one and the same messenger carried the dispatches entrusted to him from the starting point to the final destination.” 598 Cf. Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 38r): éëãøî äùò äæ ìòå ®íðåöøá àìù ®íéìäåáî íéöøä ìàøùé ìáà øéñäì øåáòá; and Tanhum, Esther, fols 223v–224r: éô ãéëàúìà éìà ˙âéúçàå . ˙ ìà òéðùìà øàè˙ úðàìà íäðò çéæéå íâìàå íäìà ïî ä¨ ìîìà áåì÷ éìò àî ìéæéì øéñìà åðàë éã ˙ úðé (“He required this emphasis upon (the speed) of the íäéàãòà éìò äñëòé ïàå äåøè journey in order to remove the grief and anxiety from their weary hearts and drive away the horrible waiting which they were experiencing—and to turn it around upon their enemies”). 599 “that which”—so, translating Heb. øùà in a true relative rather than conjunctive sense, on which see the following note and Yefet’s tarjama ad loc.

286

translation

together and stand for their lives.600 Moreover, the statement, that which the king had permitted (the Jews), may be (emphasizing) that which he had enjoined upon (the Jews), that some of them could gather together with others, whereas he did not grant a free hand to anyone else to engage in killing. As to the sense of the phrase, to stand for their lives—this refers to the emboldening of their hearts, for their hearts had become languid601 after they had departed from their country. Now, in connection with the former narrative (the mudawwin) says, And the king and Haman sat down to drink (3:15), while here he does not say anything like this since such was impermissible to Mordecai.602 In place of this, however, he says, And Mordecai went forth from the presence of the king in royal apparel, etc.—this being the apparel which (the king) bestowed upon him at the time Haman said, [74v] Let them bring royal apparel, (etc.) (6:8), and so they are mentioned here as well. And if we were to say that this was different (apparel) which the king bestowed upon him, it would not be unreasonable. (The mudawwin) also says, and the city of Susa shouted and was glad, which is a description of their603 state at the time that the second letters were written, for the people of the land were gladdened by this commensurate with their having been grieved on the first occasion. Then (the mudawwin) says, For the Jews there was light and gladness, (etc.), by which he is referring specifically to those who were residing in Susa 600 It is evident from this comment that Yefet views øùà, per its normative function, as strictly relative (rather than conjunctive), its grammatical referent therefore being either the command specifically described in following (another reflection, perhaps, of the Old Persian exceptive use of the relative pronoun prior to its grammatical referent? Cf. Wechsler, “Old Persian,” pp. 183–84), as he advocates, or the “letters” (íéøôñ) of v. 10, for examples of which latter as well as the conjunctive construal of øùà see p. 278, n. 566 above. 601 “had become languid”—lit., “had died” (m¯atat). 602 I.e., the possibility of the king’s drink (not to mention any food that might also be served) being prepared in a manner discordant with Jewish religious law constrained him from partaking of such. 603 I.e., the people of Susa in general—referred to by Yefet in following as “the people of the land” (ahl al-balad)—rather than just the Jews. This more inclusive understanding of “Susa” is likewise advanced by Yefet in his comment ad 3:15 (“but the city of Susa was perplexed”; see pp. 229–30 above)—albeit as the second of two possible explanations, the first being that “Susa” really means the Jews of Susa. However, in view of Yefet’s juxtaposition of the gladdening of the “the people of the land” here in 8:15 with their grieving in the former passage, it is apparent that the more inclusive explanation is the one preferred by Yefet for that former passage as well (contra his usual practice of placing the preferred explanation first). Cf., otherwise (ad 8:15), Leq. Tob, p. 109: øéòäå . ïùåùáù íéãåäéä åìà ®äçîùå äìäö ïùåù.

translation

287

the Fortress, for (the mudawwin) has also made reference to the Jews who were elsewhere, as he states afterwards, And in every city604 (… the Jews had gladness and joy).605 And as to the statement, there was light—this is because their state was similar to the state of him who is in black darkness, yet when the second letters were written the darkness [75r] and dismay left them, and in place of their sorrow they entered upon joy and gladness, and in place of their being debased by their enemies their prestige was displayed—specifically, when Mordecai attained his lofty status and the house of Haman was handed over (to him).606 And though (the mudawwin) omits mention of the thanks (they gave) to God, this was the first thing they did. It is likely, moreover, that Mordecai wrote to the rest of the Jews to whom the news would come that they should change their state (of mourning) when the letters came to them so that God’s favor towards them might be evident, and their enemies then become dumb and humiliated, and their gloating over (the Jews) disappear, and the heart of the Jews become emboldened for their conflict. 604 On this translation of Heb. äðéãî as “city,” rather than the usual “province,” see p. 170 and n. 51 above. 605 Thus also the anonymous Karaite compilator in Ms. RNL Yevr. II 78, fol. 24v: úåðéãîìù íéãåäé[ì] ïåùùå äçîù §âå äðéãî ìëáå §à ïë øçàå ïùåù éáùåéì äæ ®äøåà äúéä íéãåä[éì]. 606 Cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fol. 12r): øåøñå çøôì ïæçìàå íâ[ìà ...] ìà÷ ä÷òæ ÷òæéå §å÷ àæàáå éëãøî ùáìéå (!)ìà÷ ìà÷ äàæàá åéãâá úà §ãøî òø÷éå äìå÷ ìãáå

íäàãòà ïî ïéòæàô ïéôéàë ìàøùé åðàë àî àæàáå àöé éëãøîå ÷ù ùáìéé àæàáå äëë åéðôì åàø÷éå õøàä éîòî íéáøå ìà÷ (“[… the] distress and mourning [was turned] to gladness and

joy; and in place of the statement, And Mordecai rent his clothes [4:1], it says instead, and he clothed Mordecai [6:11]; and instead of the statement, and he cried out with a (great) cry [4:1], it says, and he cried out before him, ‘Thus, (etc.)’ [6:11]; and instead of (the statement), and he put on sackcloth [4:1], it says, And Mordecai went out (… in royal apparel, etc.) [8:15]; and instead of Israel’s being frightened and dismayed by their enemies it says, And many from among the peoples of the land (became Jews, etc.) [8:17]”); as well as Ag. Esth., p. 71: äùìùå ºø÷éå ïåùùå äçîùå äøåà 䧧á÷ä íäì ïúð íôåìéç ¬äìçúá äùòù ãôñîå éëáå íåöå ìáà øùò äùîçá çåðå øùò äòáøàáå äøùò äùìùá åìä÷ð íôåìéç ®ìàøùé åîö íéîé; the anonymous commentator in Jellinek, Commentaries, p. 18: øùà ìë úà òãé éëãøîå äìòîì øîàù úîåò ìë àöé åéùëò øîåà àåä ïåùìä åúåàá ¬øéòä êåúá àöéå øôàå ÷ù ùáìéå åéãâá úà éëãøî òø÷éå äùòð øôåñä ïúð ïåùìá åá íéãåäé ìù íúåðòøåô áúëðù ïåùìá ïéðòä ìë ïëå úåëìî ùåáìá êìîä éðôìî øîåàå øæåç àåä íéãåäéì ìåãâ ìáà äìòîì øîàù úîåò ìë ®íäì äàáùë íúçîù áåúëì åúòã õøàä éîòî íéáøå øîåàå øæåç íéáøì òöåé øôàå ÷ù äìòîì øîàù úîåò ìë ®äøåà äúéä íéãåäéì íéãäéúî; and the anonymous Karaite compilator in Ms. RNL Yevr. II 78, fol. 24r: .àåä ®äøèòì äëæ øôà úçúå ®õåáì äëæ åéãâá óéìçî äéä àìù úçúå úåëìî éãâá ùåáìì äëæ ÷ù ùáì åãéîùäì åáéåà õô[ç] äéäù úçúå ®ùéàì äùòé äëë åéðôì åàø÷éù äëæ øéòä áåçøá ÷òæù úçúå 駧é ìãâì äëæ øôàå øôòá åîöò ìéôùä éë úçúå ®åúãîùäå åáåéà ãåáà úåàøì äëæ åòøæ úéøëäìå àåä äøåà §à ®®® úåëìîä äðùî úåéäì äëæ §âå åéðéòá æáéå §ðù ïî[ä] åäæáä éë úçúå ®ìãâå êìåä åîù øåàì øàåáîå éåìâ äéäå ®àåä êåôäðå äúòå ®úãä äðúðùë íãéîùäì éåìâ äéäù êùçìå äìôàì åéäù äøåàì äìôàî åàöé éë äøåà §òî äæ ®íäéàðùá äîä íéãåäéä åèìùéù. See also Walfish, Esther,

pp. 63–64.

288

translation

Now, the period of time during which Israel was in grieving and mourning was less than the seventy days607—after which they joyfully encouraged each other in the deliverance from God—each city according to its remoteness or nearness, because [75v] these second letters arrived more quickly than those (of Haman).608 As to the statement, a holiday—it is likely that they took wives and prepared marriage-feasts609 on (that day). And as to the statement, And many from among the peoples of the land became Jews—among them were people from among their enemies, having converted to the faith of Israel for fear of the sword; and other people converted when they saw (the Jews’) good fortune after having been at the extreme end of ignominy.610 Furthermore, (the

607 I.e., the seventy days from the issuing of Haman’s letters on Nisan 13 (3:12) to the issuing of Mordecai’s letters on Sivan 23 (8:9). 608 “because … (of Haman)”—so per the additional predications of haste indicated in vv. 10 & 14 (compared with 3:13 & 15)—viz., the additional description of the couriers as “the riders of swift royal steeds” (íéðøúùçàä ùëøä éáëø) and the doublet íéôåçãå íéìäáî in v. 14 (contra íéôåçã alone in 3:15). Cf. Judah ben Shu/oshan, apud Solomon ha-Levi Alkabez, . p. 346: íéöøá ïë øîà àì ¬ùëøä éáëåø íéöøä ¬ì§§æ ®ì§§æ ïùåù ïá äãåäé ø§§ää áúëå

øîàå ®ùëøä éáëåø åéä ïàë ìáà ¬íäéìò íéáëåøù 秧á åøëæåä àì íù éë ¬íéðåùàøä íéøôñ ìù ïåöø íéé÷ì ïéæéøæë íéîéã÷î íà íåé ãìé äî òãåé éî éë íâ ®ìàøùé úà çîùì éãë ¬íéôåçãå íéìäåáî ïîä; Samuel de Uçeda, p. 270: ïîæäî íéùãç äùìù åøñç øáëù éôìù øùôàå ®íéôåçãå íéìäåáî íéðåùàøä ïî ïåæôçáå äìäáá øúåé åìàä íéöøä åàöé ïëì ¬øãàá ⧧é ãò; and Hakham, “Esther,” .

p. 53. 609 “prepared marriage-feasts”—Ar. yu #arris¯un, on this meaning of which see Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 109b. On this inference of the perceived propitiousness of this day for weddings see also the LXX ad 9:22 (äçîùå äúùî éîé): γαAς Hμρας γ"μων κα1 ε7φροσνης. 610 Cf. Rashi: íéøééâúî ®íéãäéúî; Ibn Ezra, Comm. B, fol. 38v (= Abraham ben Judah, Esther, fol. 235r), the first of two explanations: äãåäé úãì íéáù ®íéãäéúî; Qimh. ¯ı, Lexicon, p. 134b: õøàä éîòî íéáøå íéãåäéä úãì úåîåàäî áåùá [äãåäé/äãé ïî ¬ì§§ø] åðîî ìòåô äðáðå Esther, fol. 224r: ïéãìà éô ìåë˙ ãìà äàðòî ®íéãäéúî õøàä éîòî íéáøå íéãäéúî; Tanhum, . ˙ ì (“The meaning of (mityah˘adîm) is conversion to the äììà ïî äìäà áø÷å äôøù øåäè (Jewish) religion, occasioned by the display of (Mordecai’s) glory and the nearness of his people to God”); and Gersonides, Esther, p. 148 (second of two explanations): äæá äöøé åà íéãåäéä úãì íéáùå íéøééâúî íäù; as well as the citations in the latter half of n. 578 on pp. 280–81 above. Otherwise, on the construal of íéãäéúî as “pretending to be Jews,” cf. Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: §ãåäé èáù ìò åñçéúéù íéãäéúî úåéä ïëúéå; idem, Comm. B, fol. 38v (> Abraham ben Judah, Esther, fol. 235r: åìöðéù íéùçéúî åà), the second of two: (!)íéñäéúî åà øùò íéðù êåúá åìöðé éìåà äãåäé ìà; Gersonides, Esther, p. 148 (first of two explanations): íéãåäé íäù íîöò íéàøî åéäù øîåì äöåø; Alkabez, . Esther, p. 366 (first of two explanations, following Levi ben Gershon): íéãåäéä íåâøäé àìùì íéãåäéë åàøðù äöøé; Samuel de Uçeda, Esther, p. 275 (second of two explanations): áìî äéä àì åãäééúðù äî éë øîåì ãåò øùôàå øùôà äæ íòå ®íåâøäé àìù íäéìò íéãåäéä ãçô ìôð éë ù§§æå ®®® §ä úøåúá íùôð ä÷ùçù ùôðîå ìáà ¬íäéìò íéãåäéä ãçô ìôð éë éðôî íéãåäéë íîöò íéàøî äðåëä ¬íéãäéúî ù§§î éë øîåì íáøà åîéùé íáø÷á; and Elijah ben Solomon, pp. 194–95: §éô ®íéãäéúî õøàä éîòî íéáøå

translation

289

mudawwin) does not say concerning the Jews that they forsook their faith when the reports concerning their (impending) execution arrived, that they might be saved from the sword; and this therefore indicates that they continued in their faith, enduring patiently until the Merciful One would deliver them.611 (ix 1–19) (ix 1) [76r] In the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, on the thirteenth day thereof, whereon the king’s command and law drew near in order that what the king had decreed in his second letters612 might be executed, on that same day of the month whereon Israel’s enemies had hoped to gain mastery over the Jews, it was instead reversed so that the Jews set about gaining mastery over their enemies. (2) The Jews gathered together in their communities613 throughout all the cities of King Ahasuerus to kill614 those who were seeking [76v] their lives. And none of their enemies could stand firm before them, for the fear of them had fallen upon all the peoples.

¬éëãøî éîéá íéøâ íéìá÷î ïéàù (á ãë úåîáé) ù§§îë íúåà åìá÷ àì éë [¬íéãåäé ïîöò åùò] ïîöò åùòùѧíéãäéúî§ áéúë êëìå ®ãçô úîçî àìà åøééâúð àì éë íéøåîâ íéøâ åéä àìù ãåòå íéøåîâ íéãåäé íðéà úîàá ìáà ¬íéãåäéë; as well as, e.g., Fox, Esther, p. 285 (albeit preferring

“became Jews”); Hirschler, Esther, p. 303 (undecided); Koehler & Baumgartner, Lexicon, p. 393b: “to pose as a Jew”; and Moore, Esther, p. 82 (tentatively). Cf. also Gerim i.7. Still otherwise, for the construal “sided with the Jews,” cf. Berlin, Esther, p. 80; Hakham, . “Esther,” p. 54 (second of three explanations); and Levenson, Esther, pp. 116–17. 611 Cf. Alkabez, Esther, p. 366: íò úåîìù ãéâäì àáù øîàå ¬ùîî íéãäéúî øîåì êùôð íàå . äìàå ®íúã åøéîä àì ¬åäåðøàéáù 㧧ò âåøäì ãéîùäì íäéìò úøæâð äøæâä úåéä íà éë ¬ìàøùé éðá íúã úàå íäéäìà úà åáæò úàæä äøöä íäéìò àáá óëú.

612 “what … letters”—this represents a clarificatory addition distinguishing “the king’s command and law” mentioned herein from that initially issued in his name in chapter three. This is, moreover, the largest non-substitutionary expansion in Yefet’s tarjama and is quite possibly a scribal addition (see our discussion in the Introduction, sec. III.1–2). 613 Or “their villages” (Ar. qur¯ahum), referring either to the constituent parts or suburbs (cf. Yefet ad v. 19) of each “city” (Ar. mad¯ına, on which consistent equivalent of Heb. äðéãî apud Yefet, see p. 170 and n. 51 above). 614 “to kill” (li-yaqtul¯u)—so, as ad 2:21, 3:6, and 6:2, clarifying Heb. ãé çìùì. Cf. also Tg. Esth. I: àìè÷ì àèùåàì; Tg. Esth. II: àìè÷îìå ïåäéãé úé èùôéîì.

290

translation

(3) All the chiefs of the cities, the governors, the vicegerents,615 and the rest of those who administered the king’s business set about praising616 the Jews and honoring them617 when the fear of Mordecai fell upon them; (4) for Mordecai was eminent of status618 in the house of the king, and the news of him spread throughout all the cities, for the authority of619 the man Mordecai had been growing continually greater620 and increasing. (5) [77r] So the Jews slew their enemies with a slaying by the sword and a slaying without the sword,621 and with the destruction of their infants,622 and they did to their enemies as they pleased. 615 “the chiefs … vicegerents”—cf., on these three designations, p. 276, nn. 557–59 (ad 8:9) above. 616 Or, “raising in esteem” (yuraffi #¯un; cf. Dozy, Supplément, I, p. 542a). 617 See also the double rendering of Heb. íéàùðî in Tg. Esth. I (var.): úé ïðîîå ïéçáùî ïåäéìò ïéðåëøàì ïéàãåäé. The latter part of this rendering in the tarjama, however, is quite likely a scribal addition (see our discussion in the Introduction, sec. III.1–2). 618 “eminent of status”—Ar. kab¯ır al-mahall (on our construal of which latter cf. Dozy, . I, p. 313a), representing an amplification of Heb. ìåãâ, on which cf. Tg. Esth. I: ñåôåøèéôà ïëøñ áøå; and the Vulg.: principem esse … et plurimum posse. 619 “the authority of ”—Ar. amruhu, on which addition by Yefet cf. Tg. Esth. I (var.): óå÷úá éáøå ìéæà. 620 “growing (…) greater”—Ar. yukbaru (f¯ı kulli waqt), on which verbal rendering (and construal?) of Heb. ìåãâ, see also Tg. Esth. I: áøáøúîå ìéæàå (var.: óå÷úá  éáøå ìéæà); Tg. Esth. II: óé÷úå ìéæà; the Pesh.: (contra   in Lee’s ed.)   9; Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ˙ ò àâ˙ àî ìë äðàì (“for whatever he did, he grew greater”); as well as the predominant íö identification of this word among scholars as the infinitive absolute (cf., e.g., Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: øàåúä íùë àåä äðäå ì÷ä ïéðáî ìòåôä íù; idem., Comm. B [fol. 38v]: êìåä §òèä ìåãâå êåìä; Abraham ben Judah, Esther, fol. 235r: øå÷î àåä ìåãâå êìåä ÷ø ®øàúä íù ìåãâ éë; and Joüon & Muraoka, Grammar, §123s). Otherwise, for the rendering and construal of ˙ òå øéàñ; ìåãâ here as an adjective, cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fol. 13r): íéè Tanhum, Esther, fol. 224r: åäô êìåä éìò óåèòî äðàì øãöî àì ä¨ ôö àðä ìåãâ ïà áø÷àìà . ˙ ìåãâå êåìä êìåä ãéøéô àìàå äìú˙ î (“The most likely view is that g¯adôl here is øåñçå êåìä ãö an adjective, not an infinitive, because it is conjoined to hôl¯ek, and is therefore (grammatically) similar to it—unless (Scripture) intends (this phrase to be read/understood as) hôl¯ek h¯alôk w˘eg¯adôl [cf. Ibn Ezra, Comm. B], a reasonable counterpart (of which) is h¯alôk w˘eh. ¯asôr [Gen. 8:5]”); and, among the moderns, Gesenius & Kautzsch, Grammar, §113u. 621 “a slaying without the sword”—on this distinction between the type of killing indicated by Heb. âøä and the preceding áøç úëî cf. Tg. Esth. I: àôééñ úìéè÷ úçî ®®® åçîå ïéôìåâ úìéè÷å; Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 38v): úåðåùî úåúéîá ®âøäå áøç úëî (= Abraham ben Judah, Esther, fol. 235r); the anonymous Karaite compilator in Ms. Heb. II A 78, fol. 24v: àåä ïãáàå … ì÷îá (!)à (?)ùîçá åà úéðçá âåøäì àåä âøäå ®áøçá àåäå .[…] áøç úëî úåî õåôçéù ïéî ìëá úåîä ãåáà; and Samuel de Uçeda, Esther, p. 279: úåúéîå úåëî íäá åëä ïãáàå âøäå áøç úëî ù§§îë ¬úåðåùî. Otherwise (construing all three terms as synonyms), cf. Tanhum, Esther, fol. 224r: ä¨ çàöôå àôãàøú áøç úëîì àçøù àîäå ä¨ ãàáàå àìú÷ ®ïãáàå âøäå . (“hereg w˘eabd¯an means ‘(with) slaughter and (with) destruction’, which two (terms) are an elucidation, synonymous and eloquent, of makkat h. ereb”); as well as, among the moderns, Hakham, “Esther,” p. 56; and Paton, Esther, p. 283. . 622 Cf. Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 38v [= Abraham ben Judah, fol. 235r]): íéùðä ®ïãáàå

translation

291

(6) And in Susa the fortress623 the Jews slew and destroyed five hundred men. (7–9) And Parshandatha, /Dalphon, Aspatha, Poratha, Adalia, Aridatha, Parmashta, Arisai, Aridai, and Vaizatha,/ 624 (10) the ten sons of Haman the son of the Madat¯a,625 the Agagite, the adversary of the Jews, they (also) slew, but they did not lay their hands on the spoil. (11) [77v] On that day the number of those slain in Susa was presented before the king, (12) whereupon the king said to Queen Esther, “In Susa the fortress the Jews have slain and destroyed five hundred men and the ten sons of Haman. What have they done in the rest of the king’s cities? For if you have another petition, it shall be granted; and if you have another request, it shall also626 be granted.627” (13) [78r] Then Esther said, “If it is pleasing to the king, let him issue a decree for tomorrow in Susa, to the Jews who are in it, to the effect that they should do according to what he has decreed for today, and let them also impale the ten sons of Haman.628 (14) So the king declared that they should do accordingly, and the law was established in Susa while629 they impaled the ten sons of Haman. (15) [78v] That is to say,630 the Jews who were in Susa also gathered together on the fourteenth day of the month Adar and slew in Susa three hundred men, but they did not lay their hands on the spoil.

óèäå; and Alshekh, Esther: íúö÷ìå ®ùîî åâøä íúö÷ìå ®äâéøä àìá ãáì áøç úëî íúö÷ì åëä íäî øëæ íåù åøúåé àìù íòøæ úà óà åãáà.

See p. 171, n. 53 above. “Dalphon … Vaizatha,”—“etc.,” (§âå) in the basic text. 625 “the Madat¯ a” (spelled Mad¯at¯a in the basic text ad 3:1 & 10, albeit as here ad 8:5 & 9:24)—see p. 212, n. 263 above. 626 This rendering may imply a construal of ãåò with ùòúå, rather than, as normally, with êúù÷á äîå. 627 “For … granted”—so, rendering the two Heb. interrogative clauses and their dependent assertions as conditional sentences. 628 On Yefet’s omission from this verse of the concluding phrase õòä ìò, see p. 299, n. 663 below. 629 So (translating Ar. wa-), to clarify Yefet’s intent per his rendering of the next verse (cf. the following note). 630 This opening addition is apparently intended by Yefet to clarify that the action described in this verse (commencing with åìä÷éå) was not subsequent to the killing of Haman’s sons described in 14b, but rather contemporaneous, both actions being subsequent to the previous wayyiqt¯ol clause ïùåùá úã ïúðúå. 623 624

292

translation

(16) And the rest of the rest of the Jews who were in the king’s cities gathered together and stood for their lives, and found rest from their enemies, slaying among them seventy-five thousand—but not laying their hands on the spoil—, (17) [79r] on the thirteenth day of the month Adar, and they rested on the fourteenth day thereof and established it as a day of feasting and joy; (18) but the Jews who were in Susa gathered together on the thirteenth day thereof and on the fourteenth day thereof, and they rested on the fifteenth day thereof and established it as a day of feasting and joy. (19) Because of this631 the Jews dwelling on the outskirts, [79v] who live in the suburbs (of Susa),632 undertake on the fourteenth day of the month Adar a feast and rejoicing and a holiday, and everyone sends a portion and a gift to his neighbor. I.e., that which is described in vv. 16 & 17. “dwelling … (of Susa)”—Cf. Yefet’s comment ad loc. This rendering of Heb. úå/íéæøôä (Koehler & Baumgartner, Lexicon, p. 965b: “(residents of) the open country”) by the Arabic root rbd. —and accordant construal as “(residents of) the suburbs/outskirts” (cf. Lane, Lexicon, p. 1012b; Piamenta, Dictionary, p. 173a)—is likewise attested by Saadia, Tafs¯ır: õ˙ àáøàìà àø÷ éô ïéîé÷îìà ¬ïééö˙ áøìà ãåäéìà (“the Jews dwelling on the outskirts, who reside in the villages of the suburbs”); and al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 482, ll. 63–64: íéæøô åîñé àäéô ïàë( ñìàå ®õ˙ àáøà úåæøôä éøòá (“ #¯arê happ˘er¯azôt [Deut. 3:5] means ‘suburbs,’ and those who dwell therein are called p˘er¯azîm”); as well as, albeit in both cases cited as the non-preferred explanation, the glossator ad Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 585 (n. 81), and Tanhum ben Joseph (both cited below). Cf., otherwise, along with . the ancient versions and most moderns, b. Meg., 2b; Ibn Jan¯ah, . ibid., col. 585: ãáì .&'(M !W H(*%M !W FY I = ... úåæøôä éøòá íéáùéä ®íìùåøé áùú úåæøô ®éæøôä éøòî ¯ happ˘er¯azî úåæøôä éøòá íéáùéä  >  $ D FY I NQ =C; 3  íéæøôä íéãåäéä (“ #Arê [Deut. 3:5] and p˘er¯azôt [Zech 2:8; Esth. 9:19] … denote spread-out communities which are unfortified and unwalled, and the expression hayy˘ehûdîm happ˘er¯azîm [Esth. 9:19] is applied to the [Jewish] inhabitants of these spread-out communities, as it is said of them, who dwell in the cities of the p˘er¯azôt”); the glossator ad loc. (n. 81): = ... éæøôä éøò ¯ happ˘er¯azî [Deut. ~ '  ™' F!" (" 0' ;  X! [aà351§ åàìá äàø] `Q ` (“ #Arê 3:5] … are the villages which have no walls, though (the various forms of this root) have also been interpreted as ‘suburb(s)’”); Tanhum, Esther, fols 224v–225r: ®íéæøôä íéãåäéä . ˙ é éã˙ ìàå õ˙ àáøàìà ïàëñ éà éæøôä øôë ìé÷ ã÷å íìùåøé áùú úåæøô éìà ä¨ áñð ïåéö˙ áøìà ïà øäè ˙ éðéç àäéìà ñàé÷ìàá íéæøô íäéìò ÷ìèàå ãàìáìà øéàñ ïî ïùåù ìäà øéâ àðä íéæøôá ãàøîìà ã øùò äòáøàá çåð åìîòå øùò äùìù íåé éô íäìâù âøô íäìë íäðàì (“P˘er¯azîm, by comparison with p˘er¯azôt [Zech. 2:8], should mean ‘those who dwell in the suburbs,’ (just as) p˘er¯azî [1Sam. 6:18] has been explained as (a reference to) the residents of the suburbs; yet that which seems most evident is that the sense of p˘er¯azîm here is all those among the rest of the provinces who are not residents of Susa, whom he then termed p˘er¯azîm by analogy (with the Jews of the suburbs), since they all discharged their task (of slaughter) on the thirteenth day and undertook their rest on the fourteenth”); Qimh. ¯ı, Roots, p. 298b: íä íéæøô åàø÷ð úåæøôä éøòá íéáùåéäå ®®® äîåç àìå øöáî àì íäì ïéàù øåùéîä éøò; Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 39r): úåðéãîá íðéàù ®íéæøôä íéãåäéä; and Rashi: éøòá íéáùåé íðéàù ®íéæøôä äîåç. 631 632

translation

293

In these verses that we have set forth (the mudawwin) recounts what happened to the Jews on the thirteenth day of the month Adar, of the same year, and also what they did on the fourteenth day and the fifteenth thereof. He states first, accordingly, Now in the twelfth month, indicating that (the Jews) had not molested any of their enemies until the day arrived which the king had decreed for them—that is, the day on which their enemies had in mind to slay them, yet which was overturned upon them and on which (the Jews) slew them.633 (The mudawwin) then states, the Jews gathered themselves together in their communities throughout all the cities634 of King Ahasuerus, etc., indicating that they [80r] slew their enemies and that not one of their enemies could stand before them on account of the terror which God had cast into their hearts; no one, moreover, would help them, whereas everyone was helping the Jews—(albeit) with words, not with might.635 (The mudawwin) then states, And all the rulers of the cities, etc., indicating that the governors and vicegerents and the rest of those who administered the work of the king were venerating636 the Jews because of their fear of Mordecai637—or, more precisely, of (their Jewish) subCf. Saadia, Comm., p. 1178: êåôäðå §å÷ åä àãòàìà éìò úáì÷ ä¨ ãéëîìà ïà àìåà ìà÷ô ˙ ïîô àøåøñ íåîâìà àðì áì÷é ïà àðòî àðáø äãàò äá úøâ˙ àî éìòå àåä êåôäéå íòìá úðòì êìã ˙ ë äá àðôøò àááñ êìã˙ ïàëå êéäìà 駧é éðôé óéëå íéîéä úéøçàá ïåëéñ àîî áéâìà íåìò ïî àøéú [...] ïå÷àáìà ìàøùéå àö˙ òá íîàìà õ˙ òá (“(Scripture) first states that the plot turned about 633

upon the enemies—i.e., and it was turned to the contrary—indeed, it is in accord with Our Lord’s customary practice with regard to us that he should transform sorrows to joy for us. It is because of this, therefore, that the curse of Balaam the Lord your God turned to the contrary [Deut. 23:6]. This has also been a reason by which we have discerned many of the divine mysteries concerning that which will transpire in the end of days, and how some of the nations will annihilate others, while Israel will be enduring […]”). Likewise explicating the divine basis of this reversal, cf., inter alia, Tg. Esth. I: ïéâá àéîù ïî úëôäúéàå àúäáàã àúåëæ; and Ag. Esth., p. 71: ïéîåèøçä ìëå íéîñå÷ä ìë åîéëñäù íåéä åúåà äàøå àåá äøôåäå ®®® íäéáéåà ìò åá åèìùå ¬äìåãâ äòåùú åá íäì äéä íåéä åúåà ¬äîå÷ú åá ìàøùéì íäì ïéàù ¬ìëñé íúòãå øåçà íéîëç áéùî ¬ììåäé íéîñå÷å íéãá úåúåà øôî øîåà áåúëä íäéìòå ¬íúáùçî íéìùé åéëàìî úöòå åãáò øáã íé÷î. 634 “their communities … cities”—on these respective translations of íäéøò and úåðéãî, see p. 289, n. 613 above. 635

Or, “fighting ability” (al-ba.tsh). Cf. Elijah ben Solomon, Esther, p. 197: íéãåäéä úà íéãáëî §éô ®íéàùðî. 637 Cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fol. 13r): íîà éìò ãåäéìà òæô ò÷å àîë [å ¬â226§ åàìá äàø] ãéàæúìà ïî äåàø àîì ïéèàìñìàå àñåøìà éìò éëãøî òæô ò÷å êàã˙ ë ¨ ëìîìàå êìîìà ãðò äìçî íè˙ òå øàã÷îìà (“Just as the fear of the Jews fell upon the ä peoples, so too did the fear of Mordecai fall upon the chiefs and rulers when they beheld the increase of his greatness [on which sense of miqd¯ar cf. Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 314a] and the power of his position before the king and queen”); Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 38v): íéáåø÷ íúåéä øåáòá úåðéãîä éùðàî øúåé åúìòî åòãé íä éë éëãøî ãçô øéëæäå 636

294

translation

jects.638 As to the statement, for Mordecai was great in the king’s house—this means that he was exercising authority639 over everyone in the king’s house, Just as Joseph had been in the house of Pharaoh. He then states, And the Jews smote, (etc.), by which the mudawwin resumes his statement, the Jews gathered themselves together in their communities640 (… to lay hand on such as sought their hurt), thus indicating that they gathered together to slay them and reiterating641 here that they did slay them. He says, [80v] with the stroke of the sword, and with slaughter and destruction—thus they slew some of them with the sword and some of them without it, and also destroyed their infants.642 And by the statement, according to their will, he means they afflicted (their enemies) in accordance with what they had experienced from them643 in the past. (The mudawwin) then mentions those who were slain in Susa the fortress, reporting their number as five hundred apart from the sons of Haman. The reason, moreover, for setting a p¯as¯eq644 after each "¯et is that each one of Haman’s sons had a family and servants who were therefore connected with (the fate of) each one of Haman’s sons. It also states, however, but on the spoil they laid not their hand, indicating that they slew the people but did not plunder them—perhaps due to the fact

úåëìîä ìà ; and Eliezer Ashkenazi, Esther, p. 197: éëãøî éë ¬ñðä øôéñ äæä áåúëä äðäå úåëìîä éðéðò ìò íéðåîîä íéøùäå íéîúøôä íéëéøö åéä àìå êìîä úéáá íà éë åúìåãâ äúéä àì ïô äàøéä íäéìò äìôð ïë ìò ¬ìãâå êìåä àåä éë êìåä åòîåù äéäù úåéäá ìáà ®åðîî íéàøé íúåéäì äéäù åîë ¬úåëìîä ìò äðùî åúåéäì äðîúé. 638 Cf., by contrast, Alshekh, Esther: íäå íéîåúçä íéøôñä ïî åòãé íäù ®úåðéãîä éøù ìëå ãâðî ãåîòì ô§§ëò åà ®®® íéãåäéä úà âåøäì íéàùø íä íâù åòãé éë íéãåäéä ïî ììë åãçô àì ãâð íøæòì íéãåäéä úà íéàùðî åéä ÷ø åùò ïë àì íä ìáà úåúëä ïî ãçà íåùì øåæòì àìå íäéìò éëãøî ãçô ìôð éë ÷ø ®íéãåäéä ãçôî äéä àì äæå ®úåðåùàøä úåøâàä åîéìòäå íäéøøåö íá íå÷ðé éëãøîù åàøéå. 639 “exercising authority”—lit., “commanding and forbidding” (ya"muru wa-yanh¯ı). See also the amplifications of ìåãâ cited on p. 290, n. 618 above. 640 “their communities”—see p. 293, n. 634, and p. 289, n. 613 above. 641 Ar. wa-dhakara, our translation of which, clarifying Yefet’s identification of resumptive repetition (see p. 34 above), is based on his previous comment that v. 2 indicates “that they slew their enemies.” 642 “thus … infants”—so, distinguishing three different types of slaughter in the Heb. phrase ïãáàå âøäå áøç úëî, on which see also Yefet’s tarjama ad loc. on p. 290 and nn. 621 and 622. 643 “they … them” (Ar. k¯an¯u yar¯una minhum)—cf. Lane, Lexicon, p. 998b. 644 I.e., a mark of disjunction (cf. Gesenius & Kautzsch, Grammar, p. 59, n. 2).

translation

295

that they were from Amalek,645 or else because they did not care about the spoil of the slaughter,646 and so it came into the possession of the king.647 Then it states, On that day the number [81r] of those that were slain came, (etc.,) which indicates that the king wanted to ascertain their number.648 Likewise, the number of those slain in the rest of the provinces was reported to be seventy-five thousand, which easily exceeds the number reported for Susa since the number of (the king’s) cities was one hundred and twenty-seven. (The mudawwin) then indicates that the king told this to Esther in order to show her that he was pleased with such, and for this reason also he says to her, What is your petition (…) and what is your request, (etc.,) showing that if she had requested anything else he would also have done it. When, therefore, she heard his statement, and what is your request, (etc.,) she said, Let it be granted also tomorrow to the Jews that are in Susa, etc., whereupon the king decreed that it should be undertaken. And so on the second day (the Jews) slew three hundred men and impaled the sons of Haman, all of those whom they slew in Susa

So Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fol. 13v): ïàì íäéãéà åìñøà àî áäðìà éôå åì øùà ìë úà (!)íúîøçå ìåàùì §÷ë íøç ïàë ÷ìîò ìàî (“And upon the spoil they did not lay their hands because the property of Amalek was forbidden, as per the statement to Saul, And all that is his you shall place under the ban [1Sam. 15:3]”). Cf. also Tg. Esth. I ad v. 6 (as well as ad vv. 16–18): úéá ïî ïéìéôåø ïåäìåë ïéøáåâ äàî ùîç åãáåäå ïéàãåäé åìè÷ ÷ìîò; Gersonides, Esther, pp. 148–49: ,íäá íä øùà íéîòä ìë åéä àì íäéáéåàù øàåáî àåäå 645

ãâðë àìà äæ øùééúð àì éë øàåáî àåä äæìå ®åîò ìë úéçùäì úåùø ùåøåùçà íäì ïúéù ïëúé àì éë øåã øåãîå íã÷î íéãåäéä éøøåö åéä íä éë ¬íé÷ìîòä; and Samuel de Uçeda, Esther, p. 279: íéáåø÷ åéä àìù íé÷åçø úåîå÷î íäéøòá åéäù ïåéëù äðåëä ¬§åë íäéøòá íéãåäéä åìä÷ð øîàù äî çåìùì åöø àì ïëìå ¬íúåà åâøäé éìåà íäéáéåà ìë ìò íéî÷ åéä íàù åùùç ¬êìîä áùåî íå÷î ìà ìàøùé ìù íúòø éù÷áî íìåòì íäù åãáì ÷ìîò òøæá àìà ãé.

646 See, however, p. 284 above (ad 8:9), where Yefet explains that, in separate letters to the Jewish communities of the empire, Mordecai explicitly prohibited the seizing of the spoil. 647 Cf. Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: úåøöåàì äæáä äúéäù äáåè äöò úàæ íâ ®®® åçìù àì äæááå åúåöøì êìîä; idem, Comm. B (fol. 38v): ìà åöøúéù äëë åùòå ïîä éðá §é íò ùéà ÷§§úä äæááå íéâøäðä ïåäá êìîä; Rashi: ïåîîá äøö ïéò êìîä ïúé àìù ®íãé ®®® äæááå; Jacob ben Reuben, Esther, fol. 311r (= Ms. RNL Yevr. II 78 [an anonymous Karaite compilation], fol. 24v):

êìîì íà éë åììùé àìù íäéìà áúë éëãøî åà íäéùàø éìåàå ®íåøéäæä íéàéáðä ®åçìù àì äæááå íåðúé; Alkabez, . Esther, p. 301: åòðîéùå åúáåèá íéöôç íä éë êìîì úåàøäì äæ åùò 맧â éë øùôàå ¬êìîì ììùä àäéù íéöåø íä åéùëòå ¬æåáì íììùå êìîä íùá áúë åæ äáñì øùà ¬íäì øúåîá íãé íùàøá íìîò áåùé äæìå íúòø åù÷áù ìò íâ éë ¬ììùä ìò íäî ïååëîä ïéà éë; and Elijah ben Solomon, Esther, p. 204: úøéæâ íéé÷ì éãë ÷ø ¬ïåîî ìéáùá åùò àìù úåàøäì éãë ®íãé ®®® äæááå úåëìîä. 648 Cf., by contrast, Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 38v): êìîì øáãä úà åãéâä ìàøùé éàðù ®àá ìàøùé ìò ñòëé àîù.

296

translation

therefore coming to [81v] eight hundred, besides the sons of Haman and their households.649 (The mudawwin) then reports that the number of those slain throughout the king’s territory650 was seventy-five thousand, and he indicates that, just as the (Jews) of Susa did, not seizing the plunder of (their enemies), so too did they do in the rest of the provinces, not one of them laying his hand on their spoil.651 (The mudawwin) further indicates that the (Jews) of the provinces undertook the slaughter on the thirteenth day only and rested on the fourteenth day, whereas the (Jews) of Susa undertook the slaughter on the thirteenth day and on the fourteenth day, and rested on the fifteenth day. As to the meaning of the statement, rest from their enemies—it is that they ceased from their work and closed their shops, which follows in the same vein as the statement, that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou (Deut. 5:14). And by the statement, Therefore the Jews [82r] of the suburbs,652 (etc., the mudawwin) is referring to the suburbs of Susa only, and the passage distinguishes between Susa and its suburbs because the (Jews) of Susa undertook the

649 Cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fol. 11r): ä ¨ å÷ éðòîìà àã˙ äá àã˙ ä úãö÷ ¨ ëìîîìà òéîâ˙ éô øáë˙ ìà ìöúéìå êìîìà ãðò ìàøùé æò ãåäéìà åìú÷é ïà øîà êìîìà ïà ä ˙ à ä¨ ëìîîìà ìäà åìå÷é êìã˙ ãðòå ä¨ áùë˙ éìò íäåáìöå ïîä ãàìåà åìú÷å ïéîåé íäéàãòà ïàë àã ˙ ôú ã÷ô ïéîåé äãàìåàå ïîä áàçöà ìú÷á øîà äëìî ãìá éôå äúøö˙ çá êìîìà éô é÷á ïî éìò ìö ˙ éà àã˙ äå ãçàå íåé éìà åìú÷é ïà øîàé íì ã˙ à ä¨ ëìîîìà (“(Esther) pursued äøéáãú ïñç ïî àö

this (additional slaughter) for this reason: (to demonstrate) the strength of Israel’s esteem in the eyes of the king, and so that the news might spread throughout all the kingdom that the king had permitted the Jews to kill their enemies over two days, and that they had killed the sons of Haman and impaled them on a stake. Moreover, the people of the kingdom would say, ‘If the king, in his own presence and in the province of his (home) rule, permitted the slaughter of Haman’s friends and sons over two days, then he has dealt kindly with those who are elsewhere in the kingdom, since (there) he permitted (the Jews) to kill for naught but a day’—and this is also (reflective of the king’s) good forethought”). 650 Ar. amal, on this meaning of which cf. Lane, Lexicon, p. 2159a. 651 Cf. Salmon (Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, fol. 11v [ad v. 16]): à÷áé íì ïà ìãé àã ˙ä ¨ ëìîîìà éô ãìá ïî åçàøúñàå íäñôðàì åøöúðàå ãåäéìà äéô òîúâ˙àå [aá10§ åàìá äàø] éìà ä ¨ ìîâ˙ ïàå (!)íáöâàá åìú÷å íäéàãòà òéîâ˙ ïàå óìà 䧧ò ïùåù éô ìú÷ àî àåñ ÷ìîò ïî ìú÷ ïî ä §â[å] äæááå §÷ë ÷ìîò ïî éù åîðúâé íì §áä ïùåù éô äáàçöàå §ãøî ìòô àîë åìòô ìàøùé (“This verse indicates that there did not remain a single province in which the Jews did not gather together and stand for their lives, find rest from their enemies and slay those who hated them; and that the total of those slain from Amalek, excepting (the number) of those slain in Susa, was seventy-five thousand; and that all Israel did just as Mordecai and his kinsmen in Susa the fortress did, not plundering anything from Amalek, as it says, but on the spoil, etc.”). 652 “of the suburbs”—so, translating Heb. íéæøôä per Yefet’s following comment and tarjama ad loc. For further attestation see p. 292, n. 632 above.

translation

297

slaughter over two days, yet the people of the suburbs on one day, like the rest of the king’s cities, doing just as the (Jews) of those provinces did, and they rested on the fourteenth day. (ix 20–28) (20) Then Mordecai recorded these things653 and sent letters to all the Jews who were in all the cities654 of King Ahasuerus, both far and near, (21) [82v] to enjoin them to observe the fourteenth day of the month Adar and the fifteenth day thereof, throughout every year, (22) as the days on which the Jews found rest from their enemies, and as the month which was turned for them from sorrow into joy and from mourning into a holiday; that they should make them days of feasting and rejoicing, and of sending portions and presents655 to one another as well as charitable gifts656 to the poor. (23) [83r] And the Jews took upon themselves what they had begun to do, and what Mordecai had written to them; (24) for Haman the son of the Madat¯a,657 the Agagite, the adversary of all the Jews, had devised a plot against the Jews for their destruction, and had cast the Pur—that is, the lot—to confound them658 and annihilate them; So, reading al-khu.tub (for al-khu.t¯ub), on which see Lane, Lexicon, p. 762c. See p. 170 and n. 51 above. 655 “and presents” (wa-had¯ıya)—on this addition to “portions” (ansiba, rendering Heb. . úåðî), cf. the Old Latin version (apud Hanhart, Septuaginta, ad loc.): dona et partes; as well as the rendering of úåðî as “gift(s)” in Tg. Esth. I (ïåøåã [var.: ïéðåøåã]) and by Saadia, Tafs¯ır (àéàãä; yet cf. idem, Egrôn, p. 300). Cf. also the first of several equivalents offered by Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 381 (citing, inter alia, Esth. 9:22):HI*+  a $   ;   M> (“gifts, portions, allotments, and shares”); as well as the explanatory doublet of Qimh. ¯ı, Roots, p. 196a (likewise citing our verse, inter alia): íé÷ìçå úåðúî. 656 “charitable gifts”—Ar. bur¯ur (< birr [cf. Wehr, Dictionary, p. 61a], on this plural form of which cf. Wright, Grammar, II, §304, VI, 1), on which rendering of Heb. úåðúî see also, in addition to Yefet’s comment ad loc., Tg. Esth. I: ïðúî àú÷ãöã ïàòîå. 657 “the Madat¯ a” (spelled Mad¯at¯a in the basic text ad 3:1 & 10, albeit as here ad 8:5 & 9:10)—see p. 212, n. 263 above. 658 “to confound them” (Ar. li-yushawwishahum, rendering Heb. íîäì (from the root I íîä [Koehler & Baumgartner, Lexicon, p. 251a: “to bring into motion and confusion”])—cf., √similarly, Saadia, Tafs¯ır: íäîéäéì (“to confuse them”); and, albeit more generally ad íîä, al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, I, p. 446, ll. 17–18: êøçé ˙â&é( äé åúìâò ìâìâ íîäå (“H¯amam (Isa. 28:28) means ‘it agitates and stirs up’”); and the glossator ad Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 177 (n. 16): !CE H (“confusion and shattering”). More in keeping with this latter’s second equivalent, however, and rendering (if not construing) íîäì in a sense more 653 654

298

translation

(25) but when (Esther)659 entered before [83v] the king, he declared (that each messenger should say)660 along with661 the letter, “His wicked plot which he has

closely synonymous with following ãáàì, are Tg. Esth. I: ïåäúé àøîâîì (var.: ïåäéù(å)âùì [= Tg. Esth. I]); the Pesh.: :/; the Vulg.: ut occideret illos; and, if construing the two in infinitives as a hendiadys (as Bush, cited below), the LXX: φαν σαι α7τος. Cf. also, √ addition to the glossator cited above, the assignment of the meaning “shatter” to íîä √ (in connection with íé/åä) by Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, cols. 172, 176–77; and Qimh. ¯ı, Roots, pp. 78b, 80b. Among the moderns cf. Bush, Esther, pp. 466, 468 (as a hendiadys: “in order to demolish them utterly”); Clines, Esther, p. 327; Goldman, Comments, p. 31; Hakham, . “Esther,” p. 61; Hirschler, Esther, p. 311; Keil, Esther, p. 376 (“íîä, mostly used of the discomfiture with which God destroys the enemies”); as well as the RSV and NJPSV (1999): “to crush (them).” 659 So per Yefet’s comment ad loc. Otherwise, for the view that the suffix of Heb. äàááå—and thus the subject of the infinitive—refers to the event of Haman’s scheming (or to the implied “scheme” [åúáùçî?] itself), cf. Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 39r): ... äàááå ïîä äìúðù úåðåøëæä øôñá §úëéù êìîä §îà êìîä éðôì äùòîä úàæå äøæâä úàæ äøëæð øùàë åéðáå; Tanhum, Esther, fol. 225r: âìá àîìô éà ä¨ ö÷ìàå ìàçìà ú˙ éðàú àã˙ ä ®êìîä éðôì (!)äàåáåå . ¨ éö˙ ÷ìà åà ìàçìà êìú êìîìà (“Ûb˘eb¯o"¯ah—this feminine (suffix refers to) the úéëå úéë ìòô ä

situation and the affair—that is to say, ‘But when the situation—or the matter—came to the king’s attention, he did such and such’”); Bush, Esther, pp. 466, 481–82: “But when the matter came”; Fox, Esther, pp. 285: idem; Levenson, Esther, p. 124: idem; Clines, Esther, p. 327; Hakham, “Esther,” p. 61 (tentatively, as the first of two); Gerleman, . Esther, p. 136: “Aber als das kam”; Hirschler, Esther, p. 311; Keil, Esther, p. 376; Maier, Esther, p. 141: “Und als es … kam”; Paton, Esther, p. 296; Meinhold, Esther, pp. 88, 91–92; Würthwein, “Esther,” p. 195; and the NASV (1985): “But when it came.” Still otherwise, taking Haman as the referent (reading either ä&àááå or åàááå), cf. the LXX: κα1 =ς εσ4λεν πρς τν βασιλα λγων κρεμ"σαι τν Μαρδοχα8ον; and, proposing the corrected reading åàááå vis-à-vis the LXX, Hoschander, Esther, pp. 266–72. As for the construal represented by Yefet, see also Tg. Esth. I: øúñà úìò ãëå; Tg. Esth. II: úìòîáå øúñà; the Vulg.: et postea ingressa est Hester; and the Pesh:  $ +  ; as well as, in addition to the medieval Jewish commentators, Hakham, “Esther,” p. 61 (the . second of two); Moore, Esther, pp. 92, 94 (following G.R. Driver): “But when Queen Esther came”; the JPSV (1917): “but when she came”; the RSV: “but when Esther came”; and the NJPSV (1999): “But when [Esther] came.” 660 “(that … say)”—so per Yefet’s comment ad loc. 661 “along with”—Ar. ma #a, on our translation of which, taking Heb. íò to indicate the verbal addition to the letter’s contents of the phrase åùàø ®®® áåùé, see Yefet’s comment ad loc., as well as, albeit questionably so, Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ïà áàúëìà òî àìå÷ ìà÷å (“and he expressed his declaration along with [or, perhaps, “by means of ” ([cf. Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 601b), on which instrumental sense see below] the letter, that …”); Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: äòøä åúáùçî áåùé øôñä íò áåúëéù êìîä øîà; and Paton, Esther, p. 296: “He said in connection with the writing—Let …” Likewise reflecting a generally comitativeadditive construal, Heb. íò has also been taken to indicate a) the concomitant (albeit, in point of fact, slightly precedent) verbal expression by the king of the letter’s contents (cf. b. Meg. 16b [> Leq. Tob, p. 111; Ag. Esth., p. 76]: ¬ïðçåé éáø øîà ®äéì éòáî äøîà ¬øîà . øôñá áåúëù äî äôá øîàé ®åì äøîà), or b) the intended concurrence of Haman’s doom “Esther,” p. 61: (åùàø ®®® áåùé) and the official disparagement of his letter (cf. Hakham, .

translation

299

devised against the Jews is returning upon his own head!” And they impaled him and they impaled662 his sons on a stake.663 (26) Because of this they called these two days Purim after the name of the Pur.664

§åâå åúáùçî íâ áåùú ¬áåùé øùà øôñä­íò ºåøåòù àîùå). Otherwise, the difficult phrase íò øôñä has been construed as 1) instrumental (i.e., “by means of the letter”; cf. Rashi: íéøôñ áåúëì äåöå åéôá êìîä øîà åùàøá äòøä åúáùçî áåùúù; Keil, Esther, p. 376, and the

JPSV [1917]: “by letters”; Maier, Esther, p. 141: “befahl er mittels des Schreibens”; and, albeit in a somewhat different vein, the Vulg., construing Esther as the subject of øîà [apparently reading (ä)T"îà (cf. b. Meg. 16b, cited below)]: obsecrans ut conatus eius litteris Regis irriti fierent; and, taking øôñä íò as commencing the following quote, the NJPSV [1999] [followed by Fox, pp. 116, 285–86]: “With the promulgation of this decree”; 2) ablative/locative (i.e., “from the letter/book”)—if not in fact simply comitative (with, perhaps, a twinge of ablation), as suggested by the explanation of Jacob ben Reuben (cf. Tg. Esth. II [reading, as in the instances cited above, (ä)T"îà for øîà]: §úëã äî úøîà àøôéñá); Jacob ben Reuben, Esther, fol. 311r (= Ms. RNL Yevr. II 78 [an anonymous Karaite compilation], fol. 25r): åñéðëä ïë øçàå õåôçéù äî ìë éëãøî ïë áåúëì êìîä äåö øôñä íò àøå÷ä àåä øôñä íò øîà §îàù äæå êìîä éðôì øîåàä íúåà àø÷å êìîä éðôì §éáúëä); 3) spatial-adverbial (i.e., “in the letter/book” or “in writing”; cf. Ibn Ezra, Comm. B, fol. 39r [although perhaps reflecting a more strictly comitative reading; > (just the second explanation) Abraham ben Judah, Esther, fol. 235r]: ù÷áì øúñà àåáá §àé ®äàåááå íòè åà ®åéðá åìúé ãåòå ®åúåà åìúå åùàø ìò äòøä åúáùçî áåùé øôñá §úëéù êìîä §îà äîò ìò åéðáå ïîä äìúðù úåðåøëæä øôñá ®§úëéù êìîä §îà êìîä éðôì äùòîä úàæå äøæâä úàæ äøëæð øùàë éðéòá ïåëðä àåäå; Bush, Esther, pp. 466, 482; Hirschler, Esther, p. 311; Hoschander, Esther,

p. 271; Moore, Esther, p. 92; and the RSV); or 4) adversative (i.e., “despite the letter”; cf. Gerleman [following P. Haupt], Esther, pp. 136, 139: “trotz des Briefes”; Goldman, Comments, pp. 31–32). Among other translations cf., still otherwise, the omission of íò (the Pesh.), as well as the omission of the entire phrase (Tg. Esth. I [which adds äì to øîà]; Würthwein, “Esther,” p. 195). 662 This repetition of the verb is apparently intended by Yefet to clarify the summary intent of the Hebrew clause (õòä ®®® åìúå, construed as distinct from the king’s previous statement [see below, ad loc.])—which employs the verb only once—contra the assumption (as unreasonably advanced by Paton, Esther, p. 296) that this verse is presenting a contradictory picture of the two hangings (i.e., of Haman and of his sons) as simultaneous. 663 “a stake” ( #¯ud)—on this indefinite rendering of Heb. õòä—reflecting, it would seem, the view that Haman and his sons were impaled upon different stakes (see Yefet’s tarjama ad v. 13, from which he omits the phrase õòä ìò)—see also Saadia, Tafs¯ır: éìò ¨ áùë˙ (likewise ad v. 13). ä 664 “Purim … Pur”—cf., otherwise, the translation of Purim and/or Pur attested in the LXX: Φρουραι διA το@ς κλρους; Tgs. Esth. I & II: àñééô íåù ìò àééøåô: the Vulg.: Phurim id est Sortium eo quod phur id est sors in urnam missa fuerit; and Saadia, Tafs¯ır: éìò íàäñìà ˙ íñà (“‘The Lots’ after the name of that lot”). The Peshitta, uniquely, has: íäñìà êìã ;& 53  .8 -& (“Pur¯ay¯e, in accord with the name of Passover [p˘es. h. ¯a]”), on which see Wechsler, “Peshitta.”

300

translation

Therefore,665 in accordance with all the things666 (written in) this letter, as well as what they themselves had seen of it and what had befallen them, (27) the667 Jews established and took [84r] upon themselves and upon their descendants and upon all who converted to their faith668—and it will not cease from them—, to observe these two days according to what their669 prescription set forth670 and according to their671 set time, every year. 665

Yefet, like most translators and exegetes, construes this clause (... ìë ìò ïë ìò in connection with the following, contra which cf. Saadia’s rendering of the same (omitting ïë­ìò, on which cf. the LXX, Vulg., and Pesh.) as coordinate with the previous: íäìàð éù éàå ïàë éù éàå¬ ä¨ ìàñøìà äã˙ ä ä¨ øäàö˙ éô àî éìò ¬íäñìà êìã˙ íñà éìò (“after the name of that lot, in accordance with that which was clearly related by this letter, as well as that which had taken place and that which had overtaken them”). Cf., similarly, Tg. Esth. I: ïåäúé òøà äîå ïéãë ìò àæç äî àãä §úøâéàá ùøôîå àáúë ìåèî (Grossfeld, Two Targums, p. 193: “as is written explicitly in this letter … to them.”); Eliezer Ashkenazi, Esther, p. 215 (proposing a secular basis for the name): ìë ìò ïë ìò§ íäéìà)

øåöé÷á éëãøî çìùù §úøâàä éøáã ìò§ ¬§íéñð§ àìå §íéøåô åàø÷ ïë ìò§ øîåìë ¬§úøâàä éøáã úåéä ãò äæä ïéðòá §ä äø÷äù íéôåëúå íéðåùîä íéø÷îäå úåîåöä éøáã åòãé àì íäù ¬âìôåî §úé åúàî åéä íìåë íéøáãäù íñøåôî; and, albeit construing (ì)ë ìò in a comparativeoppositional sense, Samuel de Uçeda, Esther, pp. 295–96: ìò ïë ìò øîåì úéðù íòô øæçå äá ùé úàæä úøâàáù äàøú àìä ®ìøåâäå øåôä ïéðò êéðéòá ì÷é àìù øîåì ¬úàæä úøâàä éøáã ìë íúåø÷ì åøçá äæ ìë íòå ®®® íäéðéòá åàøù íéàìôäå äæä ìåãâä ñðä éèøô ìë úøôñî íéáø íéøáã úøâàä éøáã ìë ìòî øúé íéøåô åúåø÷ì åøçá øåîàä ìò ïë ìò øîåìë ¬éðùä ïë ìò ù§§æå ®íéøåô ìò íéøåô àìà äìàä íéîéì åàø÷ àìå ¬ïéàì áùçð ìëä ¬íäéìà òéâäù äîå äëë ìò åàøù äîå úàæä øåôä íù.

See p. 297, n. 653 above. On Yefet’s use of the conjunction fa- to introduce this main clause (the subordinate one commencing with ìë éìò in v. 26), cf Blau, Grammar, §306. 668 “who … faith”—so, rendering Heb. íäéìò íéåìðä (“who were joined to them” [cf. Koehler & Baumgartner, Lexicon, p. 522a]), on which see also, e.g., Tg. Esth. I: ìë ïåäéåìéò ïéôñåúéîã éàøééã; and the Vulg.: cunctos qui religioni eorum voluerint copulari; as well as Leq. Tob, p. 111: íéøâä åìà ®íäéìò íéåìðä ìë ìòå; Rashi: íéãéúòä íéøâ ®íäéìò íéåìðä . øééâúäì; Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: íéøâä íä ®íéåìðä; idem, Comm. B (> Abraham ben Judah, Esther, fol. 235r): 駧é ìà äåìðä øëðä ïá §îàé ìàå §îë ®íéåìðä íä íéøâäå; Jacob ben Reuben, Esther, fol. 311v: íéøâä íä; the anonymous Karaite compilator in Ms. RNL Yevr. II A 78, fol. 25v: åìá÷å åîé÷ íäéìò íâ úåøåãì äúòî íéåìðä; the anonymous commentator in Jellinek, Commentaries, p. 20: íäéìò øâä äåìðå øîàî ïéðòë íéøâä åìà; and Samuel de Uçeda, Esther, p. 297: éîòî íéáø åéä äìàä íéøåôä éîé úáñáù éôì ¬íäéìò íéåìðä ìë ìò åäåìá÷ íâå 666 667

íéøééâúîå íéãäéúîä íéøâä ìë ìò 맧â äæì øëæå æîøå ¬íäéìò íéåìðå íéøééâúîå íéãäéúî õøàä äìàä íéøåôä éîé úà íéùåò úåéäì ïë íâ åìá÷ íäéìò íéåìðå äàìäå ïàëî.

I.e., the Jews’, on which see n. 671 below. “what … forth”—Ar. m¯a warrada bihi, for m¯a awradahu (cf. Blau, Grammar, §§71, 266ã). 671 The referent of this and the preceding possessive is apparently taken by Yefet to be “the Jews,” since he renders the suffix in Arabic by the masculine plural and not—as would be the case if (as is usually the case) “these two days” was taken to be the referent—by the dual (so Saadia, Tafs¯ır: [bá10§ åàìá äàø] éîäú÷åå éîäáàúë [“the writing of them both and the (appointed) time of them both”]) or feminine singular 669 670

translation

301

(28) Thus these two days are remembered and observed in every generation, every tribe, every city, and every village; and these two days of the Pur672 shall not cease from among the Jews, nor shall the remembrance of them vanish from their descendants. [84v] By the statement, Then Mordecai wrote (etc.), (the mudawwin) is referring to the letters which (Mordecai) wrote to (the Jews) in the year following the affair,673 and in them he wrote that they were to continue their observance of both these two days, that they might constitute a reminder of what took place in the year that God redeemed them.674 The fourteenth day, therefore, would be (a reminder) of what befell the (Jewish) residents of the provinces—excluding Susa—, who found rest on the fourteenth day, whereas the fifteenth day would be a reminder for the (Jewish) residents of Susa, who found rest thereon according to what the (Scriptural) exposition sets forth, as it is said, the days wherein the Jews had rest from their enemies, etc.—that is to say, the (Jews) of the provinces found rest on the fourteenth day, and the (Jews) of Susa on the fifteenth day. (Mordecai) then enjoined that these two days were to be [85r] of the foremost standing—that is to say, they were to establish

(see Blau, Grammar, §122âa). Yefet’s construal of this suffix, at least ad íáúë, is likewise clearly attested in Tg. Esth. I: éàøáéò íåùø áúëîë; and b. Meg. 18a & 19a (here per the latter): íðîæëå íáúëë áéúëã ¬[á á §ùî] úéøåùà äáåúë àäúù ãò (thus Rashi: àäúù ®íáúëë úéøåùà áúë äáåúë äìéâîä; Alkabez, . Esther, p. 387: äìàä íéîéä éðù úà íéùåò úåéäì åìá÷ íáúëë åäæå ¬úéøåùà äáéúëá äáåúë äìâîä àø÷ìå; and Samuel de Uçeda, Esther, p. 297: íéðéáîù íäì ãçåéîä íáúëë äáåúë äéäúù êéøö ®®® íäìù áúëä äéäéù êéøöù ïåéë ¬íáúëë øîàå ïåùìä åúåàáå áúëä åúåàá. 672 This singular rendering of the Hebraized pl. íéøåô—which rendering is also adopted by Yefet ad 9:31, the only other instance in which íéøåô is prefaced by éîé—

is apparently intended to distinguish between, on the one hand, the name of the feast encompassing the two days (Yefet retains the pl. form for the three other occurrences of íéøåô, each of which, lacking the nomen regens éîé, refers either to the two days of the feast [9:26] or, more broadly, the entire festal observance [9:29, 32]), and, on the other hand, the item/event (the Pur and its casting) around which revolved the events underlying the feast (on this focal significance of the Pur see Yefet’s comment ad 9:26aα on p. 304 as well as comments cited there in n. 688). 673 Cf. Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 39r): íéøåôä éîé øåáòá 맧çà §úë åãáì éëãøî ®§åúëéå. 674 Cf. the anonymous Karaite compilator in Ms. RNL Yevr. II A 78, fol. 25r: éîéáå äéåìú àéäù úåðáø÷ä úçîùë íéøåôä úçîù ïéàå ®úåðáø÷ ìù íéøéù ïéàå 駧é úéáá äâéâç ïéà íéøåôä ®ùã÷ àø÷î íéøåô ïéàå ®íéùãçä éùàøå úåúáùäå ùã÷ éàø÷î úçîùë äçîù àéä äðéàå 駧é úéáá éë íáìá íåù[®®®] äòåùéä øëæ ®®® äòåùéä øëæ úçîù àéä íéøåôä úçîù ïëìå ®ïáø÷ íéøåô[á] ïéàå çîùðå äæ äùòð äòåùéä ïòîì.

302

translation

them as days of feasting and joy, and of giving food675 and clothing to one another, as well as charity676 for the poor. It then says, And the Jews took upon themselves—that is to say, they undertook it as a duty and it remained with them as an obligation. And by the statement, what they had begun to do, (the mudawwin) is referring to what they had undertaken in the first year,677 when the (Jews) of the provinces had rested on the fourteenth and the (Jews) of Susa on the fifteenth. And by the statement, and that (concerning) which Mordecai had written unto them, (the mudawwin) is referring to what Mordecai wrote to them in these letters—namely, his having enjoined (the observance) upon them for two reasons, the first being because they had previously undertaken such, and the second being because Mordecai had written to them concerning such, and therefore it was incumbent upon them to accept his directive, [85v] for among the Jews he was the foremost of his time.678 (The mudawwin) then says, because Haman the son of the Madat¯a,679 (etc.), thereby indicating that the underlying cause of what was being enjoined—viz., that they observe these two days—was Haman’s scheming to destroy them and casting of the lot to confound680 them during their year (of waiting) until the thirteenth day of the month Adar arrived,681 upon the coming of which day he would have destroyed them.682 Then (the mudawwin) says, but when she came before the king, by which he is referring to Esther’s entry unto the king on the second See also, ad Heb. úåðî, b. Meg. 7a–b; the Vulg.: ciborum partes; and Abraham ben Judah, Esther, fol. 235r: åäòøì çìåù äéä ïëåîä åìëàîî ®úåðî. 676 Cf. Yefet’s tarjama ad 9:22 on p. 297 and ibid., n. 656. 677 Cf. Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: éë §ìçúá åùò øùà åìá÷ù àåä ®®® úåùòì åìçä øùà úà íòè íéøåô äàáä §ðùá åùò; Jacob ben Reuben, Esther, fol. 311r (১ã): íùôðî úåùòì åìçä øùà úà íäéìò éëãøî áúë øùàî åìá÷ ïëå äðåùàøä äðùá (= Ms. RNL Yevr. II A 78 [an anonymous Byzantine Karaite compilation], fol. 25r). 678 “for two reasons … time”—similarly Samuel de Uçeda, Esther, pp. 291–92: íìåë 675

øáãá åìéçúä íäù ïåéëå ¬úåùòì åìçä øùà úà ãçàä ¬úåáñ éúùì äæå ¬ãçà ùéàë ãçà áìá åìá÷ ãåòå ®ãéúòì íéé÷ìå øåîâì åìá÷éù åìéçúäù ïåéëù íäì àåä éåàøå ¬øåîâ åì íéøîåà äåöîá ìéçúîä åìëé àì áúë øùà ÷éãöä éëãøî åúåéäì éë ¬íäéìà éëãøî áúë øùà úàå åøîåà àåäå éðù íòè åìá÷ íìë ïëìå ¬ïéøãäðñä ùàø äéäù èøôáå ¬åîéé÷ì äåöîå éåàø ÷éãöä øîàî éë ¬øáã åúåðòì ãçà ùéàë ãçà áìá. 679 “the Madat¯ a”—on this rendering of Heb. àúãîä see Yefet’s tarjama ad loc. and p.

212, n. 263 above. 680 See p. 297, n. 658 above. 681 “to confound … arrived”—cf. Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 39r [> Abraham ben Judah, Esther, fol. 235r]): ïîæä àá íøè ®íîäì. 682 “(The mudawwin) … them”—cf. Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: ïéã íòèä ®àúãîä ïá ïîä éë øùà íùä úåãåäì äðù ìëá äúåà åøëæéå íòøæ íùå íîù §çîð §òåùúä úàæ éìåì éë äæ åìá÷éù àåä

translation

303

occasion683 and her petition that he remove the decree of Haman. And by the statement, he commanded with the letter, he means that the king said to each messenger who would travel about with each letter that,684 along with (the publication of) each letter, he was to undertake to relay this message from the king685—to wit, that he had said, “Behold, his scheme”—that is, [86r] the scheme of Haman—“which he devised against the Jews is returning upon his own head,” for his scheme was the reason for his execution and impalement. When, therefore, the people heard the messenger relating this message from the king, their heart would be encouraged and they would know for certain that686 the king did not desire the destruction of the Jews, but rather (that) such was due to the undertaking of Haman. And regarding the statement, and they impaled him and his sons, (etc.)—this is not (part of) the messenger’s utterance, but rather a comment of the mudawwin, the proof of this being that his sons were impaled eight months and twenty-two days afterwards.687 Accordingly, the mudawwin indicates that the Jews found rest from their enemies (only) when Haman as well as his sons had been impaled. Indeed, that which compelled Mordecai and Esther to write to the Jews and to the governors and vicegerents of the king concerning the slaughter of their enemies—even though they could have written simply that the Jews were not [86v] to be killed—was two reasons, the first of them being to make evident the king’s anger towards their enemies, and the second being for fear that (their enemies) would kill them should they be caught off guard on another occasion, whereas if they killed them they would find rest from them, and after them everyone would be afraid to do (to the Jews) as Haman had done, for it would happen to them as had happened to Haman. The statement Wherefore they called these days ‘Purim’ indicates that the Jews called these two days Purim on account of the lot which Haman had cast, and which was therefore a reminder both of what he had úåìéìò åðëúð åì; ïîä ãéî §øùé.

idem, Comm. B (fol. 39r):

úà ìéöäì êéà íùä éàìô øéëæäì §òèä ®ïá ïîä éë

I.e., that described in 8:3ff. Ar. alladh¯ı, on this conjunctive use of which cf. Blau, Grammar, §347ä. 685 On this and other construals of the difficult phrase øôñä íò see pp. 298–99, n. 661 above. 686 Ar. li-anna, on which use of the prep. li- to introduce an object clause (if not as a substitute for bi-), cf. Blau, Grammar, §269à. 687 I.e., eight months and 22 days, reckoning inclusively, from the issuing of the king’s second letter on Sivan 23 (8:9ff.) until the impalement of Haman’s sons’ corpses on Adar 14 (9:13–14). 683 684

304

translation

undertaken as well as that they were to thank God for (overturning) such.688 And by the statement, Therefore, according to all the words of this letter (… the Jews ordained and took upon themselves, etc.), (the mudawwin) is referring to what I have already explained concerning (the verse) And the Jews took upon themselves, (etc.) (v. 23), and thus the phrase according to all the words of this letter is referring to the letters which Mordecai wrote [87r] to them.689 And regarding the statement, that which they had seen of it—this means what they had seen of what was proper690 in the first year, whereas by the statement, and that which had come unto them, (the mudawwin) is referring to the second letters which (Mordecai) had written to enjoin these two days upon them.691 688 Cf. Samuel de Uçeda, Esther, pp. 295–96: úøâàä éøáã ìë ìòî øúé íéøåô åúåø÷ì åøçá àéöåäì ïîäì åòéâä àåä éë ¬úàæä úøâàä éøáã ìë ìò äìåò àåäå ìøåâä ïéðò äéä ïéðòä éë ®®® úàæä ììë ìàøùéì âååãæî äéä àì ìøåâä äéä àì íàù ¬ïøîàãë ìòåôä ìà çëä ïî åúáùçî; and Judah ben Sho/ushan apud Alkabez, . Esther, p. 383: ¬ïë ìò éë øîà ïéðòä ìë ø÷ò äéä øåôäù éôìå øåôä ù§§ò àåäù øîàù; and Elijah ben Solomon, Esther, p. 214: ñðä íù ìò ®øåôä íù ìò ñðä ø÷éò åäæù ¬úåìæîä ìë úà 䧧á÷ä êôéäù.

689 “the letters … them”—i.e., the letters described in 9:20–22, which “second letters” of Mordecai (the first being those described in 8:9ff.) are identified by Yefet in following as the implied subject of íäéìà òéâä äîå. 690 “what was proper” (Ar. al-saw¯ab)—i.e., those things which characterized the Jews’ . initial festal observance described in 9:17–19 (and reiterated in v. 22). 691 On these latter two statements (íäéìà òéâä äîå äëë ìò åàø äîå)—in both of which the referent of äî is connected by Yefet to the festal observance (viz., the features of its initial expression and the letters enjoining the yearly continuation of such)—see also Jacob ben Reuben, Esther, fol. 311r (the second of three explanations): åððåáúäå åàø øùà 駧ä íåé úà íâ íéé÷ì éëãøî áúë íäéìà òéâä äîå úåúùìå ìåëàì 㧧éá çåðì íúòãá (= Ms. RNL Yevr. II A 78 [an anonymous Byzantine Karaite compilation], fol. 25v). Otherwise, for the usual construal of äî in connection with the events underlying the festal observance, cf. the LXX: κα1 :σα πεπνασιν διA τατα κα1 :σα α7το8ς γνετο; Tg. Esth. I (ad ïë ìò íäéìà ®®® ìë ìò): àúàìéâî éîâúôå àñéð éîåé ïåîñøôéã ïë ïéâá àúùá àúù ïîæ äéì ïéøèð ïë ïéâá

ïë ïéâá ïééìéàä àéøåô éîåé òá÷îì åæç àî ïéòãé ïåäéåäîì ìàøùé úéá àîò ìëì àòîúùéàì àãä ïåäì úèîã àð÷øåô ïåòãéå éëãøîì àñéð ïåäá ãéáòúéàã; Tg. Esth. I (ad íäéìà … íù ìò): ìò ïåäúé òøà äîå ïéãë ìò àæç äî àãä §úøâéàá ùøôîå àáúë ìåèî ïåäúé òøàã àú÷òå àúøåô íåù;

the Vulg. (v. 27): quaeque sustinuerint et quae deinceps inmutata sint; the Pesh.: .)   0 <1  ; b. Meg. 19a (àñéð ùéçøúàã ®®® äìéâîä úà íãà àøå÷ ïëéäî; cf. Rashi); and the majority of exegetes, both medieval and modern, among whom cf., e.g., al-Qirqis¯an¯ı (Anw¯ar, IX.16, ll. 18–19):  gII" R 78 . ` äëë ìò åàø äîå  $ F F  ; F!> "O $ + D _   +  ! 1{  ' (“(Scripture) says and that which they had seen of it, (etc.)—which is to say, ‘and in addition to such [i.e., Haman’s casting of the lot and the words of Mordecai’s letter], it [i.e., the naming of the feast ‘Purim’] is due to what they had seen and what had befallen and overtaken them of that which they had just observed, and from which God had protected them”); Leq. Tob, p. 111: äîå . äìúð ïîäå éëãøîì ñð äùòðù ®íäéìà òéâä äîå ®®® åàø; Saadia, Tafs¯ır: íäìàð éù éàå ïàë éù éàå (“what took place and what came to them”); Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: åàøù øåáòá ®åàø äîå íéðæàä úåòöîàá ®òéâä äîå ®íéàìôä; idem, Comm. B (fol. 39r): äæ åàøù íä ®äëë ìò åàø äîå íäéìà òéâä äî åäæå ®íäî åìá÷ íäéøçàå äùòîä; and Jacob ben Reuben, Esther, fol. 310r–v

translation

305

As to the statement, And (the Jews) ordained and took upon themselves—(the mudawwin) adds to this a clarification—namely, that they enjoined (the observance) upon themselves and upon their generations—as much posterity as Israel should have692—and, along with them, those who converted to the faith (of Israel), as per the statement, and upon all such as joined themselves unto them.693 And by the phrase, according to their694 prescription,695 (the mudawwin) is referring to what Mordecai’s letters set forth,696 by which he intended them to make (those two days) days of gladness and feasting, and a holiday, and of sending portions one to another and gifts to the poor,697 for this is what was written in the letters. And by the phrase, according to the appointed time thereof, he means, [87v] on the two days in the month Adar. (the first and third of three explanations [for the second see above]): äëë ìò åàø äøö äîå íéîéì åàø÷ ïë ìò ®íîåäì øåô ìéôä éë äëë ìò åàø ïòîìå §òî ১㠮®® íäéìò òéâä äçîù äîå øãàì ⧧é íãáàì ïîä ìù íéøôñ íäéìà òéâä ïòîìå íéøåô äìàä (= Ms. RNL Yevr. II 78 [an

anonymous Byzantine Karaite compilation], fol. 25v). 692 Cf. Yefet’s comment ad Jer. 35:6–7 (ïéé åúùú àì øîàì åðéìò äåö åðéáà áëø ïá áãðåé ˙ à øè˙ ð áëø ïá áãðåé ®®® íìåò ãò íëéðáå íúà) (Wendkos, Jeremiah, pp. 193–4): ìàøùé øàáã ¨ éöåìà äã˙ äá íäàö( åå äúåî ú÷å äãàìåà òîâ˙ô áø÷ ã÷ úåìâ˙ìà ïà éô êùé íìå éìò àäåìá÷å ä ˙ ëå ®®® êìã˙ ìú˙ îá äãàìåà éö( åé íäì íå÷é ìéâ˙ ìë êìã˙ ëå íäãàìåà ïåö( åé ïà ïåîæúìàå íäñôðà êìã ˙ ëå §âå íòøæ ìòå íäéìò íéãåäéä åìá÷å åîé÷ éô ìå÷ìà éùéîçä íåöå éòéáøä íåö éô ìå÷ìà êìã (“Jonadab the son of Rechab observed Israel’s retreat and had no doubt that the Exile was already drawing near; so he gathered his sons together at the time of his death and set before them this commandment, which they both took upon themselves and persisted in imposing upon their own children, and likewise every generation that would arise to them was likewise to impose the same upon their children … such is also the case with respect to the statement, the Jews ordained and took upon themselves, and upon their seed, etc. [Esth. 9:27], as also with respect to the statement, the fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, (etc.) [Zech. 8:19]”). 693 “those who … them”—on this construal of Heb. íéåìðä see also Yefet’s tarjama ad loc. on p. 300 and, ibid., n. 668. 694 I.e., the Jews’, on which see, in addition to Yefet’s comment, p. 300, nn. 669 and 671 above. 695 So, per Yefet’s following comment and tarjama, distinguishing the letters (úåøâà, as in v. 26, etc.) from their prescriptive content (áúë; cf. also Bush, Esther, p. 467 [= the NJPSV]: “the manner prescribed”; Gerleman, Esther, p. 136 [= Meinhold, Esther, p. 88]: “ihrer Vorschrift”; Levenson, Esther, p. 125: “the prescribed manner”; and the NASV: “their regulation”). Otherwise, for a construal of the latter in this verse as “handwriting,” as ad 1:22; 3:12; and 8:9 (bis), cf., e.g., Tg. Esth. I: éàøáéò íùåø áúëîë; b. Meg. 18a: åáúëéù åøéúä àì íéøôñ óà øîåà ìàéìîâ ïá ïåòîù ïáø ®®® àöé àì íåâøú äàø÷ ïì òîùî÷ àì àîéà íáúëë äá áéúëã äìéâî ìáà ®®® úéðååé àìà; idem, 19a (> Rashi): àäúù ãò íðîæëå íáúëë áéúëã úéøåùà äáåúë; and Leq. Tob, p. 111: úåðåùìä ìù ®íáúëë. . 696 “set forth”—Ar. m¯a warradat bihi, for m¯a awradathu (cf. Blau, Grammar, §§71, 266ã, and p. 300, n. 670 above). 697 This Hebrew description represents a combination of the expressions in vv. 19 and 22.

306

translation

And as to the statement, And these days are remembered and observed— (the mudawwin) recalls by these two (participles) two expressions previously mentioned in connection with the Sabbath, as per the statement, Remember the Sabbath day (Exod. 20:8), and as it also says, to observe the Sabbath day (Deut. 5:15).698 Thus the obligation (to observe) these two days became like the rest of (Israel’s religious) obligations. Accordingly, the expression throughout every generation means in every generation that arises to Israel. Then (the mudawwin) says, every family, by which he refers to every tribe that comes together according to their relatives and families to eat and rejoice;699 and the expressions concerning the cities and villages are likewise intended. Even a location wherein are only two Jews, for example, is brought under this charge, and they are to undertake what is required of them; and even in the era of (final) redemption700 it shall be obligatory, as per the statement, nor shall the memorial (of these days) perish from their seed.701 698 On this comparison to the terminology surrounding the Sabbath observance see also Ibn Ezra, Comm. B, fol. 39r (> Abraham ben Judah, Esther, fol. 235r, on the basis of which we here emend Ibn Ezra’s comment): ®÷åçä äæ øåáòéù íãàì] úåùø ïéàå ®øåáòé àìå úåùòì §îë ®íåéä úåùòì íãàá çë ïéà éë äúùîäå ìëàîä ïéëäì [.äìàä íéîéä éðù úà íéùåò úåéäì åúáùéù ãò åðéëéù ®úáùä íåé úà; Alkabez, . Esther, p. 393: éúàöî ¬éîì òãåð àì ùåøéôá ¬íéîéäå

äôá äøéëæ àéä ìáà ®äæ ìë øåëæì ãéîúðù øùôà éúìá àåä éë ¬áìá äðéà äøéëæ äðäå ¬ì§§æå áåúë íòøæî óåñé àì íåúçá åøîåàá ïéðòä ïëå ¬úáùä íåé úà øåëæ åøîåà 㧧ò; and—countering Ibn √ Ezra’s construal of äùò in these passages—Samuel de Vidas (apud Samuel de Uçeda, Esther, pp. 300–301 [cf. Walfish, p. 228]): íéùåò úåéäì áúë ১øä éë 짧æ ùàãéå éã ù§§øä áúë åéøáã éôì éë 짧æ ù§§øä áúëå ®íåéä úåùòì íãàá çë ïéà éë ¬äúùîäå ìëàîä ï÷úì ¬íéîéä éðù úà ºåðåùì äæå 짧æ àåä áúë ïëì ®úìåæ åà úéðòúå ãôñä øåñéàë ¬íää íéîéá äéäéù úåòéðî ìåìëé àì íåéî ùøôä ïéà øàåáîä éë äæå ¬áùçù äî ìò àì ¬äùòîä æåîøé äæìå éùéìù êøã ïàë ùé éúòãìå úåìåòôä ¬úáù úåöî íãàä íéé÷é øùàëå ¬íéøåô íåé äæå úáù íåé äæ àø÷éù ãò íåé àåäù ãöî íåéì ¬íéîéä øàùë àåä íåéä ãöî íéøåô íåé ïëå ¬úáù íåé åúåà äùåò éðà ïë íà ¬úáù úåøåö íä íää äæ ìòå ¬åúåà äùåòå äøåöä ùãçî éðà øäæéì éåàøä ïî øäæàå íéøåôì ãçåéîå éåàøù äî äùòà øùàëå 짧ëò ¬§åë éîé úà íéùåò úåéäì øîà. 699 Cf. Rashi: ãçé §éúåùå íéìëåàå ãçé ïéôñàúî ®äçôùîå äçôùî.

700 Or “victory” (Ar. furq¯an; cf. Lane, Lexicon, p. 2385c, and Ratzaby, Dictionary, p. 108b), on which see the following note. 701 “and even … descendants”—cf. y. Meg. i.5: ìèáéì ïéãéúò íéáåúëäå íéàéáðä øîà ïðçåé §ø

úìéâî óà øîà 짧áùø ®óñé àìå ìåãâ ìå÷ àîòè äî ®ìèáéì ïéãéúò ïðéà äøåú éøôéñ äùîçå ®íòøæî óåñé àì íøëæå ïìäì øîàðå óñé àìå ìåãâ ìå÷ ïàë øîàð ®ìèáéì ïéãéúò ïðéà úåëìäå øúñà åì íìåò úåëéìä–úåëìä; b. Meg. 10b: ®úøëé àì íìåò úåàì ®äìéâîä àø÷î åæ ®íùì §äì äéäå íéøåô éîé åìà; Midr. Prov. ad 9:2: ,íìåòì íéìèá íðéà íéøåôä éîéå ¬íéìèá íéãéúò íéãòåîä ìëù íéãåäéä êåúî åøáòé àì äìàä íéøåôä éîéå øîàðù; Leq. Tob, p. 111: ®åøáòé àì äìàä íéøåôä éîéå . çéùîä úåîéì åìéôà; Maimonides (following y. Meg.), Hilkhot Megillah, ii.18 (> inter alios, Ag. Esth., p. 81): –øúñà úìéâîî õåç çéùîä úåîéì ìèáéì ïéãéúò íéáåúëä ìëå íéàéáðä éøôñ ìë ìò óàå ®íìåòì ïéìéèá ïðéàù äô ìòáù äøåú ìù úåëìäëå äøåú éùîåç äùéîçë úîéé÷ àéä éøä àì íéøåôä éîé ¬ééðéòî åøúñð éëå úåðåùàøä úåøöä åçëùð éë øîàðù ìèáéé úåøöä ïåøëæ ìëù éô íòøæî óåñé àì íøëæå íéãåäéä êåúî åøáòé àì äìàä íéøåôä éîéå øîàðù åìèáéé; and Jacob ben

translation

307

(ix 29–32) (29) [88r] Then Queen Esther, the daughter of Abihail, along with Mordecai the Jew, registered all authority702 in order to establish this second letter of Purim. (30) And he sent letters to all the Jews, to the hundred and twenty-seven cities703 of the kingdom of Ahasuerus, (concerning) matters704 of peace and truth,

Reuben, Esther, fol. 311v (= Ms. RNL Yevr. II A 78 [an anonymous Byzantine Karaite compilation], fol. 25v): ùã÷îä ïééðáå çéùîä éîéá ®íòøæî óåñé àì. 702 “all authority”—lit., “all firmness” (Ar. kulla sal¯aba), rendering Heb. ó÷ú ìë úà, . which Yefet apparently construes as an object clause, on which see also Tg. Esth. II:

àô÷åú ìë úé; the Pesh.: +83 ; Bush, Esther, pp. 467, 485 : “wrote a letter in which she used all her authority”; Fox, Esther, p. 123: “conveyed in writing all the authority necessary”; Gerleman, Esther, pp. 136, 141: “allerlei Nachdrückliches”; S.E. Loewenstamm, apud Bush, Esther, p. 485: “wrote the whole valid deed”; and the RSV: “gave full written authority”; as well as, construing ó÷ú in the sense of “authoritative/powerful deeds” or “authority/power of the deeds/matters,” the LXX: :σα πο ησαν; Tg. Esth. I: àñéðã àô÷åú àãä àúàìéâî ìë úé; Tg. Esth. II, var.: àô÷åú ìë úé àñéðã; b. Meg. 19a: ,åùøã ãçà àø÷î ïìåëå ïðçåé éáø øîà ®®® §åëå äìéâîä úà íãà àøå÷ ïëéäî ïàîå ®ùåøåùçà ìù åô÷åú ¬äìåë øîàã ïàî ®ó÷ú ìë úà éãåäéä éëãøîå ®®® äëìîä øúñà áúëúå øîàã ïàîå ®ïîä ìù åô÷åú ¬äìàä íéøáãä øçàî øîàã ïàîå ®éëãøî ìù åô÷åú ¬éãåäé ùéàî øîàã ñð ìù åô÷åú ¬àåää äìéìáî; Leq. Tob, p. 111: ùéù åðãîì ¬ø÷éò ìë ®ó÷åú ìë úà ®®® áúëúå . éåáéø ìáà ¬ãáìá äùòîä ó÷åú øîåìë ¬ó÷åú ìë úà §åâå øúñà áåúëúå øîàðù ¬úàæä äìâîì äùøã ïìåë åáúëð àì ïîæ åúåàá åéäù íéøáã; Jacob ben Reuben, Esther, fol. 311v (= Ms. RNL Yevr. II 78 [an anonymous Byzantine Karaite compilation], fol. 25v): §ä úåøåáâ ®ó÷åú ìë úà íäîò äùòù; Eliezer Ashkenazi, Esther, p. 219: éôë íéèøôá úåëéøàä ìë 짧ø ¬ó÷åú ìë úà äø÷ù äî; Samuel de Uçeda, Esther, p. 307: éëãøîå äëìîä øúñà åãçé áì åãòåð äúò íðîà ÷ø ¬ãáì ïåçöðä øåôñ éåàøë øáãä íåé÷ì ÷éôñé àì éë åàø äîäå ¬ïåâäå éåàø ÷åæéç úåùòì ãçé ìë úà åáúë äöøé ¬ó÷åú ìë úà ®®® øúñà áåúëúå øîàù åäæå ®óåñ ãòå ùàøî òøåàîä ìë øåôñ ïúéøçà ãòå ïúéùàøî íìë íéøáãä ó÷åú; and Würthwein, “Esther,” p. 196: “über die ganze

Macht”; and the JPSV (1917): “wrote down all the acts of power.” Cf., otherwise, the construal of úà as prepositional (specifically, as indicative of manner [like bêt comitantiae], which usage of this prep. is otherwise unattested in the Hebrew Bible [cf. Waltke & O’Connor, Syntax, §11.2.4; Bush, Esther, p. 485]), attested by the Vulg.: ut omni studio; Esther, fol. 225v: úà Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ãéãùúìà òéîâ˙á (“with all emphasis”); and Tanhum, . ˙ î ó÷åú ®ó÷åú ìë (“Tôqep is like h. ôzeq [“force”]—i.e., ãéãùú ìëá íäéìà åáúë éà ÷æåç ìú he wrote to them with all force [or, ‘emphasis’]”); as well as, among the moderns, e.g., Hirschler, Esther, p. 314; Keil, Esther, p. 377; Levenson, Esther, p. 125; Maier, Esther, p. 144; Meinhold, Esther, p. 93; Moore, Esther, p. 93; and Paton, Esther, p. 300; and the NJPSV (1999): “with full authority.” 703 See p. 170 and n. 51 above. 704 Ar. khutub (for al-khut¯ub, on which see Lane, Lexicon, p. 762c, as well as p. 297, n. . . 653 above), rendering Heb. éøáã, on which cf. otherwise Saadia, Tafs¯ır: íàìë (“words”); and most moderns (“words,” “sentiments” [Bush, Esther, p. 467], “wishes” [Levenson, Esther, p. 125], etc.).

308

translation

(31) [88v] that both of the days of the Pur705 be upheld at their set times, as Mordecai the Jew and Queen Esther had enjoined upon them, and just as they had established upon themselves and upon their descendants (to hand down) the report of the fasts and their lamentation.706 (32) And the declaration of Esther confirmed these matters707 of Purim; and it was written in the book. (The mudawwin) indicates that Esther also wrote letters to (the Jews) which were distinct from the letters which had been sent to them by Mordecai. That is to say, Mordecai wrote to them in the first year, those being the letters which were written in the name of the king and sealed with his signet ring, and in which was no mention at all of Purim; then, in the second year, he wrote letters to them on the subject of the two days of Purim only, as previously reported;708 then Esther wrote a third letter to them, though (the mudawwin) says the second rather than [89r] the third due to the fact that there was no reference to the (two days of) Purim in the first letter as there was in the letters which were sent by Mordecai,709 and therefore, because the second letters (of Mordecai) as well as these which Esther wrote included the mention of these two (days), he says this second.710 Esther’s letter, moreover, included

See p. 301, n. 672. “(to hand down) … lamentation”—on this construal of the meaning and syntax of Heb. íú÷òæå úåîåö éøáã, see Yefet’s comment ad loc. on p. 310 and, ibid., n. 718. 707 See p. 297, n. 653 above. 708 See 9:20ff. 709 “by Mordecai”—i.e., on Mordecai’s own authority, in contrast to the first letters which, although written and dispatched by Mordecai, were done so on the king’s authority (i.e., in the king’s name and sealed with his signet ring; see 9:10). 710 On this view that the phrase úéðùä úàæä refers to a third letter written by Esther (and Mordecai), see also the Vulg.: scripseruntque Hester regina filia Abiahil et Mardocheus Iudaeus etiam secundam epistulam; the anonymous Karaite compilator in Ms. RNL Yevr. II 78, fol. 25v: äúùî éîé íúåà úåùòì éëãøî áúëù [úøâàä] éøáã íéé÷ìå ÷æçì øúñà äáúë [øú]ñ[à] äáúë íâå ®çìùå äðùàø úøâà éëãøî áúë éë ®úéðùä úàæä [íé]øåôä úøâà íò äçîùå úéðùä úàæä íéøåôä [úø]â[à] úà íé÷ì §ðù éëãøî áúëù äðùàøä úøâà éøáã íé÷ìå ÷æçì; and, among the moderns, e.g., Hakham, “Esther,” p. 63; Hirschler, Esther, p. 314; Keil, . Esther, p. 377; Meinhold, Esther, p. 94; and Paton, Esther, p. 300. Otherwise, for the view that úéðùä úàæä refers to the second letter of Mordecai described in 9:20ff., cf. Ibn Ezra, Comm. B, fols 39r–v (= Abraham ben Judah, Esther, fol. 235v): úéðù úøâà àéäå íéçëùð åéä øáë äøîàî éìåìéà éë ®íéøåôä éøáã íéé÷ øúñà §îàîå [äæ] ìò ãòäå ®éëãøîì; Tanhum, Esther, fol. 225v: éúìà ä¨ éðàú˙ ìà ä¨ ìàñøìà äã˙ ä úéáú˙ ú éô ãéãùú ìëá íäéìà åáúë . úéðùä úàæä íéøåôä úøâà úà íéé÷ì §å÷ åä ãéòìà áéúøúá úáúë (“They wrote to (the Jews) with all emphasis concerning the confirmation of this second letter which was written 705 706

translation

309

two things, the first being all authority, and the second, to confirm this second letter of Purim. By the statement all authority it is referring to what was previously mentioned of the power of Ahasuerus at the beginning of the book,711 which (there) contains a full account of him;712 and by the statement to confirm this second letter of Purim it is referring to the incumbency of Purim. And so, the first letters were occupied solely with the matter of the killing of (Israel’s) enemies, the second letters were occupied solely with the matter of [89v] Purim, and the third letters included both the authority of King Ahasuerus and the mention of Purim. The statement And he sent letters, (etc.) indicates that Mordecai wrote letters to all the Jews who were in the kingdom of Ahasuerus. And the phrase peace and truth means that he ensured the propriety713 of the two (days)—that is to say, the rectitude of (the people’s) bearing714 and their ritual.715 Then (the mudawwin) says, to confirm these days of Purim, which is what was previously stated.716 And by the statement, as Mordecai the Jew and Queen Esther had enjoined upon them, he is referring to the letters

to establish the feast—this is (what is meant by) the statement, to confirm this second letter of Purim”); and the anonymous commentator in Jellinek, Commentaries, p. 21: ¬úéðùä ®®® íéé÷ì íéøåô úåùòì äá áåúëù úéðùä úøâéà úà íéé÷ì §øúô; as well as, among the moderns, e.g., Moore, Esther, pp. 93, 96 (tentatively). Alkabez. (Esther, p. 398), adopting yet another view, takes úéðùä úàæä as a reference to the letter initially written by Mordecai to counter Haman’s decree (this latter therefore being the “first” letter): úøâà éë áùåç éðà íéáåúëä øåòéùå ®ïîä çìùù äðåùàøä úøâàä ìèáì çìùù éëãøî úøâà àéä úéðùä úàæä íéøåôä àìå íéîéé÷ úéðùä úøâàä éøáã åéäéù éãë íäì éøùôàä ÷æåçå ó÷åú ìë úà éëãøîå øúñà äáúëù åìëéå åôåñé. For still a fourth view, according to which úéðùä is construed adverbially (i.e., “a second time”), cf. Tg. Esth. II: úåðééðú; and Eliezer Ashkenazi, Esther, p. 219: úéðù úåøâà íäì áåúëì éëãøîå øúñà åîéëñä. Several modern scholars (e.g., Bush, Esther, p. 470; Gerleman, Esther, p. 141) suggest omitting úéðùä, citing support from the LXX and

Pesh., yet such is tenuous evidence at best, since the translators of these versions, having understood “this second letter of Purim” to be the one previously sent by Mordecai (unquestionably so in the LXX: κα1 2γραφεν Εσηρ ... :σα πο ησαν τT τε στερωμα τ4ς πιστολ4ς τ.ν Φρουραι), may well have omitted “second” for the sake of clarity (cf. Fox, Esther, p. 125). 711 I.e., Esther explicitly registered in her letter her authority as queen—which authority, and underlying power, was extended from that attributed to Ahasuerus in the opening pericope of the book. See also p. 307, n. 702 above. 712 “a full … him”—i.e., the extent of his rule, majesty, and might (cf. esp. 1:4). 713 Ar. sal¯ama—i.e., their proper observance. 714 Or, “attitude(s)” (ahw¯al). . 715 Cf. Leq. Tob, p. 110: äìéâîä íåé÷ ®úîàå; Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: íéáééç íäù ®úîà íòèå . íùôð ìò åìá÷ øùàë íéøåôä øåîùì. 716 I.e., the intent of this clause is the same as that (íéøåôä ®®® íé÷ì) in v. 29.

310

translation

which were written to them concerning the matter of Purim only.717 And by the statement, and as they had ordained for themselves and for their seed, he is referring to the statement, The Jews ordained and took upon themselves, and upon their seed (9:27). As to the phrase [L 46r] the matters of the fastings—(the mudawwin) is referring by this to what he mentioned concerning the fast of Esther and the (Jewish) residents of Susa, as well as of the rest of the (Jewish) residents of the provinces until there came to them the letters concerning the killing of their enemies. He adds to this statement, moreover, and of their crying out, so as to indicate that they were crying out to God on those days.718

717 “the letters … only”—i.e., the letter of Mordecai described in 9:20ff. (see Yefet’s discussion in the previous paragraph). It would appear, moreover, that, insofar as Esther is presented as a second subject with Mordecai, Yefet understood her to have participated in the composition of this letter, though not its authorization. 718 As indicated by these last two comments, and as suggested by his tarjama ad loc., Yefet construes the phrase íú÷òæå úåîåöä éøáã—identified as the record of the fasting and lamenting described in 4:1ff.—as the object of åîé÷, on which see also Tg. Esth. I (although, depending on how one understands éîâúô, this may also be classified under 1) below): ïåäúåìöå àéîåö éîâúô ïéøéëã ïåäéåäîì ®®® ïåäéùôð ìò ïéàãåäé åîéé÷ã àîë. Although maintaining the same syntactic construal of this phrase (i.e., as the object of åîé÷), such is otherwise identified as 1) the specific obligation of fasting (i.e., the Fast of Esther) and lamenting(!) in connection with Purim (cf., e.g., the Vulg.: et illi observanda -/ 3  = susceperant a se … ieiunia atque clamores et Sortium dies; the Pesh.:  0 0 +-> 0 > ./!-& 0   0 %6/; Alkabez,. Esther, p. 401: 㧧áàøä

åùøéô ïëå ¬íú÷òæå íòè äæå ¬äðù ìëá øãàá ⧧é íåé úéðòú íúìá÷ ìò úåîåöä éøáã ùøéô íéáø; as well as, among the moderns, Bush, Esther, p. 467; Keil, Esther, pp. 377–78;

Moore, Esther, pp. 93, 96–97; and Würthwein, “Esther,” p. 196), 2) the matters of, or instructions concerning, the initial fasting and lamenting undertaken by the Jews in 4:1ff., construing such as either the direct object of åîé÷ (though this makes little sense in view of the phrase íòøæ ìòå; cf., e.g., Elijah ben Solomon, Esther, p. 220: øùàëå äìéâîä úà åéùëò åìá÷ ïë ¬äøöá åéäùë §íú÷òæå úåîåöä éøá㧠åìá÷) or the indirect object (cf. Rashi, Responsa, p. 156 [no. 128]: åøáòù úåøöäå íú÷òæå úåîåöä éøáã ìò øîà÷ éëä íéñéðì øëæ íéøåô íéãåäéä íäéìò åìá÷ ¬ïîä éîéá íäéìò), or 3) the times of fasting and lamentation ritually adopted by the Jews prior to the events of this book, which are thus cited as precedents for the ritual adoption of Purim (cf., e.g., Ibn Ezra, Comm. A: åîéé÷ éë íòèäå úáèå éøùúå áàå æåîúá ïäù §éøëæ øôñá íéøëæðä ìò úåîåöä éøáã íòèå íìáà éîéá úåðòúäì íòøæ ìòå íùôð ìò åîéé÷ øùàë íéøåôä éîéá çåîùì íùôð ìò íéãåäéä åðòúéù íåéö àì àéáðä éë úéáä óøùðå øéòä ò÷áåä øùàë; Tanhum, Esther, fol. 225v: éøáã . ˙ àîàå ãàðñàìà ÷éøè éìò øúñà íåö áéúøú àã˙ äì ãðñà ã÷ ®íú÷òæå úåîåö íäðà åäô õðìà øäàè ˙ àîë íäéìò êìã˙ ïåúáú˙ é úéá ïéá éúìà äðù íéòáùìà éô àäåðñúñà åðàë éúìà úàîàéöìà åúáú ˙ ìå äéøëæ øôñ éô ïàá àîë §åëå éùéîçä íåöå éòéáøä íåö éäå éðù úéáå ïåùàø úåîåöä ìà÷ êìã òîâ˙ìàá [“the matters of the fastings and of their crying out—the observance of the fast of

Esther has been based, after the traditional manner, upon this statement; however the plain meaning of the text is that they enjoined (the days of Purim) upon themselves just as they enjoined (upon themselves) the fasts that they had introduced during the

translation

311

Now, whereas Esther’s fast took place in Nisan, the fasting of (the Jews in) the rest of the king’s provinces differed for each city, (taking place anytime) from the arrival of the unhappy719 news until the good news reached them,720 and thus there was no [R2 25r] definite (fast) day which they could therefore establish as a ritual observance, such as those (which were established) for the two days (on which they had rest from their enemies). Because of this, the assertion of anyone who has come to believe in the incumbency of fasting for seventy days721 is

seventy years that were between the First Temple and the Second Temple—namely, the fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, etc. [Zech. 8:19]—just as it is clearly indicated in the book of Zechariah, and it is for this reason that it says the fasts, in the plural”]; as well as, among the moderns, e.g., Berlin, Esther, pp. 92–93; Clines, Esther, p. 329 [tentatively]; Fox, Esther, pp. 126–27; Goldman, Comments, p. 33; Hoschander, Esther, p. 287; Levenson, Esther, pp. 125, 131 [tentatively]; and the NJPSV [1999]: “These days of Purim shall be observed at their proper time, as Mordecai the Jew—and now Queen Esther—has obligated them to do, and just as they have assumed for themselves and their descendants the obligation of the fasts with their lamentations”). Cf., on the other hand, the construal of íú÷òæå úåîåöä éøáã as the subject, with øúñà øîàî, of íé÷ in v. 32 (thus b. Meg. 16b: ïðçåé éáø øîà ®àì úåîåöä éøáã ¬ïéà øúñà øîàî ®íé÷ øúñà øîàîå äìàä íéøôä éîé úà íé÷ øúñà øîàîå úåîåöä éøáã; Samuel de Uçeda, Esther, p. 302: ,éàîå øîàîå øîàù åéøçàìù ÷åñôä íò úëùðî àåä äùôð éôðàá àúìî íú÷òæå úåîåöä éøáã øîà÷ã ¬íú÷òæå úåîåöä éøáã úåôøèöäá àìà ¬§åë íéé÷ øúñà øîàî ãáì àìù äðåëäå ®§åë íé÷ øúñà ìù øáã äéäéå ïéðòä íééå÷éù òééñ ú§§éùä äæ úåëæá ¬ä÷òæå úåîåö ¬äáåùú 駧ò àééúàã àúìîå àîéé÷).

Ar. al-maysh¯um, on which see Dozy, Supplément, II, p. 853a. “unhappy … them”—i.e., from the issuing of Haman’s decree on Nisan 13 (3:12ff.) until the issuing of Mordecai’s/the king’s decree on Sivan 23 (8:9ff.). 721 I.e., the seventy days spanning the arrival of the “unhappy news” and the arrival of the “good news” (see the previous note), which fast period, according to al-Qirqis¯an¯ı (Anw¯ar, I, 13, ll. 4–5), was instituted by Anan ben David and was apparently to be observed, like the Islamic fast of Ramad¯ . an, during daylight hours only (cf. Nemoy, Anthology, p. 335 [ad I.14]; Wieder, Scrolls, pp. 98–99; and the view of Esther’s fast attributed to Anan by Saadia, cited on p. 245, n. 416 above):   LAI; a{ gU  ïåéñ =" J> Hcr 3 ïñéð =" J> Hcr (“And he enjoined a fast of seventy days, from the thirteenth of Nisan to the twenty-third of Sivan”; for al-Qirqis¯an¯ı’s critique of this fast see ibid., IX.16, ll. 12–20). Anan also enjoined fasting on the two days of Purim, claiming that Mordecai and Esther later changed the Jews’ initial celebratory practices (ibid., l. 6; IX.16, ll. 7–11 [al-Qirqis¯an¯ı’s critique]). Among the later Karaites these Ananite fasts were set aside in favor of either a three-day fast on Adar 11–13 or, as Yefet advocates in following (in agreement with the Rabbanite practice [cf. the following note]), a one-day fast on Adar 13. For an enumeration (and discussion) of these cf. Hadassi, Cluster, fol. 94r–v (§§246–47): øùò äùìù íåé ïî íúìçú íåé §ò éëãøîå øúñà ïéðò úåîåö íåöì íéðåîã÷ä åàø 719 720

åîöù íéîéä úùìù íåöì §éðåøçàä åëîú ®®® éùéìù §çì íåé íéøùòå äùìù ãò íúéøçàå §àä ùãçì íáåø íéàåø ®®® çñôä éîéì íðîæá àìå íéøåôä éîéì íéáåø÷å §éîã÷åî øúñàå éëãøî íò ïùåù éùðà íéøåôä éîéì êåîñå áåø÷ §à íåé íåöì.

312

translation

annulled; he should instead fast on the thirteenth day of Adar, since on it was granted Israel’s relief following the severe affliction that they had formerly been dreading from their enemies;722 yet if (the fast were to be held on a day) other than this, there would be no basis for making it obligatory.723 (The mudawwin) then says, And the declaration of Esther confirmed (these) matters of Purim, thus indicating that Esther had previously undertaken to confirm these two days (as a ritual obligation) upon the people.724 Consequently, the statement and it was written in the book bears two (alternative) explanations: either (the mudawwin) may mean by it that at first she only spoke her declaration and they acted upon it, after which she recorded it in the letters and dispatched it to them;725 or else he may be referring by it to the prophets’ recording (of her declaration)

722 “he should …. enemies”—see also Ibn Ezra, Comm. A (implying that the threeday Karaite fast [see the previous note] is undertaken in Nisan [on Passover]?!):

ãéîú ïë §åðòúäì ïééåàø ìàøùé ìëå øáãî áåúëä ïñéðá åðòúäù íéîé §â ìò éë åøîà íéùéçëîäå ã÷ôä íåé úéðòúä åòá÷ 짧æ åðéîëç éúòã éôìå. It is unclear whether this one-day fast

on Adar 13 was practiced first by the Rabbanites or by the Karaites, though among the former such was almost certainly a post-talmudic develpment, since the first clear testimony of the Rabbanites doing so comes from the Muslim writer al-Ya #q¯ub¯ı (first quarter of the ninth c. to circa 905)—albeit confusing the fast with that of Tevet 10, commemorating the commencement of the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem (see Adang, Writers, p. 73 and n. 15)—followed by al-B¯ır¯un¯ı (973 to circa 1050; Ath¯ar, p. 280, being the first correct, explicit reference: H M N A `'I a{ J> — c a!  [“On the thirteenth (of Adar) is the Fast of the B¯ur¯ı (i.e., Purim), meaning “the lot-casting”]) and, among the Rabbanites (per Hoschander, Esther, pp. 283–84), Jacob Tam (1100–71) in a comment on the talmudic dictum of Samuel ben Isaac (which in its context, and as Rashi’s comment on such bears out, is concerned simply with the question of when to read the Megillah): àéä ìëì äìéä÷ ïîæ øùò äùìù (b. Meg. 2a). For an alternate practice among the early post-talmudic Rabbanites cf. Sop. xvii, 4: ïéà íåöä éîé äùìù íéøåôì éðôî íéøåôä éîé øçà úåðòúäì åâäð 駧àáù åðéúåáø éðùå éùéîçå éðù ïéãåøô àìà ïéôåöø íúåà ïéðòúî ïéîéã÷î ïéàå úåðòøåôá ïéøçàîù ãåòå åéøéáçå øåð÷éð. 723 See also Hadassi, Cluster, fol. 94v (§247): íá íåöðå úåáãðë §áùçð ®®® øúñà úåîåö áéè éîé íà éë êúòãá åæë §éòéãåî íðéà §éðéðòä éë úåáåçë §áùçð àìå úåàáö §äî øëù åðì äéäé éìåà äçîùå äúùî §éîéä éðù íä úåùòì åìçä øùà úà §éãåäéä ìá÷å áåúëë úåøåãä åìá÷ äçîùå äúùî (!)êéðåéáàì úåðúîå åäòøì ùéà (!)úåöî çåìùîå øîàù àåä §äéìò éëãøî áúë øùà úàå. 724 I.e., since v. 29 states that Esther registered (Heb. áúëúå) all authority—not that she “declared and had written, etc.”—the verbal declaration (Heb. øîàî) mentioned in this

verse, though included in her letter (thus the reference to such confirming these matters of Purim), would most reasonably have been expressed on a prior occasion (thus the first of Yefet’s following two explanations). 725 Cf. Alkabez, Esther, p. 401: äáéáç äúéä äîë åðòéãåäì äæä áåúëä àá ¬íéé÷ øúñà øîàîå . íåé÷ åì úúì ¬øôñá áúëðå ®íéøåôä éøáã úà íéé÷ äøîàî éë ¬ìàøùé ìë éðéòá äìåãâå; and Samuel de Uçeda, Esther, p. 308: øôñá áúëð ïëå ¬äìàä íéøåôä éîé úà íéé÷ øúñà øîàî íúåà íéé÷ äøîàîù.

translation

313

in the book—that is, this book (of Esther) as it is established726 and as we read it727—by the command of God, may He be exalted! (x 1–3) (x 1) [R3 37r] And King Ahasuerus laid a tax728 on the land and on the islands of the sea; (2) [A 90r] and all the outworking of his authority729 and might, and the expli-

726 By this Yefet’s means, apparently, the final form of the book as established by the prophets who wrote/compiled it, which form—notwithstanding, perhaps, some orthographic variation—is the same as that extant among the Jews of Yefet’s day. 727 Cf. Ibn Ezra. Comm. B, fol. 39v (> Abraham ben Judah, Esther, fol. 235v): §úëðå äìá÷ä éøáãá §åúëë äðù ìëá ìàøùé äåàø÷éù äìâîä úàæ ®øôñá (contra his explanation in Comm. A: ùøãî åðàöî àì øùàë øôñä ãáàå íäéîéá òåãéä àåä ú§§éáä §åçúôá ®øôñá áúëðå øùéä øôñå §ä úåîçìî øôñå ìàøùé éëìîì íéîéä éøáã éøôñå äîìù éøôñå åãò); and b. Meg. 19a: øôñ úàø÷ð äìéâî ®®® åáìç éáø øîàå; as well as, albeit clearly at variance with Yefet’s construal of the subject of áúëðå, Tg. Esth. I, var.: àééøåô éìéî åîéé÷úéà øúñà øîéî ìòå àúìéâîá ïáúëú(é)àå ïéìéàä; and the Vulg.: et omnia quae libri huius qui vocatur Hester historia continentur. Otherwise, construing the canonical book of Esther as the implied subject of áúëðå, cf. Tg. Esth. I: úáéúëúéà éëãøîã éåãé ìòå ïéìéàä àééøåô éîâúô åîéé÷úéà øúñà øîéî ìòå à÷èéôá àúìéâî; and, apparently construing øôñá in the sense of “in the Bible,” Rashi:

åäæå íéáåúëä øàù íò äæ øôñ áåúëìå äòá÷ì øåãä éîëç úàî äù÷á øúñà ®§åâå íé÷ øúñà øîàîå øôñá áúëðå. 728 Ar. khar¯aj (by which Yefet, per his comment ad loc., means both “poll-tax” and “land-tax”), which equivalent of Heb. ñî, albeit in the pl. (khar¯aj¯at), is likewise given by al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 218, ll. 9–10. Cf., otherwise, Saadia, Tafs¯ır: ä¨˙âøàë˙ ä¨ îã˙ (“an external debt”—i.e., a debt applying either to subject lands outside of Persia and Media proper, or, as Ibn Ezra suggests [Comm. A ad loc.], to lands outside of the empire which desired to maintain peace); and, specifically citing our verse inter alia, Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 382, l. 15: ä¨ éæâ˙ (“poll-tax” or “land-tax” [on this latter meaning see Lane, Lexicon, p. 422b]). See also p. 206, n. 234 above. 729 “his authority”—Ar. sal¯abatihi (lit., “all his firmness”), rendering Heb. åô÷ú, which . equivalency is likewise adopted by Yefet in his tarjama ad the two other biblical occurrences of Heb. ó÷ú (9:29 [cf. p. 307, n. 702 above] and Dan. 11:17 [Margoliouth, Daniel, p. ]). Cf., otherwise, Saadia, Tafs¯ır ad loc.: äúãù (“his strength”; ad 9:31: ãéãùúìà [“emphasis”]; ad Dan. 11:17: ÷ú˙ åà [“strongest”]); al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı #, II, p. 749, ll. 32–33: ä¨ å( ÷ ¨ áìâå (“power and predominance”); and Tanhum, ä Esther, fol. 225v: äúå÷ ®åô÷ú äùòî ìëå . ˙ éà ó÷åú éðòî ïî äãééàúå äúøã÷å àåä ÷æç éë ó÷úå äòøô áì ÷æçéå ˙âøú éðàéøñìì ñðàâ˙î åäå àö àåä óé÷ú éøà (“Toqpô is ‘his power,’ ‘his might,’ and ‘his authority’—of the same sense as Tôqep [9:29]; and it is the same in Aramaic, (as is evident from the fact that) the targumic rendering of wayh. azz¯eq [Exod. 9:12; 10:20, 27; 11:10; 14:8] is w˘etaqq¯ep, and h. ¯az¯aq [Num. 13:31] is taqqîp”).

314

translation

cation730 of the greatness of Mordecai to which731 the king advanced him, are they not set down in the register of the affairs of the past732 of the kings of Persia and Media?733

730 Ar. wa-bay¯an, on which rendering of Heb. úùøôå cf., in addition to the lexicographic sources cited on p. 233, n. 348 above (ad 4:7—the only other occurrence of this lexeme [not root] in BH), Saadia, Tafs¯ır: çøùå (“and (the) exposition”); and Tanhum . ben Joseph, fol. 225v: éåé éô ìò íäì ùåøôì éðòî ïî àäçøùå àäøéñôú ®éëãøî úìåãâ úùøôå ˙ éà óñëä úùøô éô ìé÷ êìã˙ ëå äùøô íäìå÷ ìú˙ î àäìéöôú ìé÷å ®øáã øùô áåì÷î åäå (“and àö the p¯ar¯aˇsâ of Mordecai’s greatness—i.e., its ‘clarification’ and its ‘exposition,’ of the same meaning as lipr¯osˇ (until it should be made clear) [Lev. 24:12], which (root) is metathesized in the expression, the interpretation (p¯esˇer) of a matter [Eccl. 8:1]. It is also said (that p¯ar¯asˇâ ad loc.) refers to its ‘detailed accounting,’ in keeping with (the Jews’ post-biblical use of) the expression p¯ar¯asˇâ—and the same is also said with regard to the p¯ar¯asˇâ of silver [Esth. 4:7]”). Cf., in quite a different vein, the earlier renderings of úùøôå in the LXX: πλοτν τε; the Vulg.: et dignitas; and the Pesh.: :"3+. 731 “to which”—or “by which,” of which the antecedent in either case, as required (< úìåãâ). In slavish by the fem. relative allat¯ı (rendering Heb. øùà), must be azama . adherence to the Hebrew text, however, Yefet maintains the ellipsis of the following preposition and retrospective pronoun (e.g., äá; on the frequency of such omissions cf. Joüon & Muraoka, Grammar, §158i). Mss L, P, and R3, on the other hand, have the masc. form alladh¯ı, which may be taken in reference to Mordecai (i.e., “whom the king advanced”), although considering the awkwardness of such an “identifying” reference to Mordecai (cf. Bush, Esther, p. 495; Fox, Esther, p. 287), this form is best understood—if not, otherwise, as a careless scribal “correction” in the sense just noted, or in reference to bay¯an (< úùøô; cf. Fox’s rendering cited below)—as a simple grammatical substitution of the kind noted by Blau, Grammar, §361àa. In this same vein see also the Vulg. (albeit including úùøô, rendered dignitas [see the previous note], as part of the antecedent): dignitas atque sublimitas qua exaltavit Mardocheum; and most moderns (e.g., Bush, Esther, pp. 493, 495; Gerleman, Esther, p. 143; Keil, Esther, p. 380; Paton, Esther, p. 303; Würthwein, “Esther,” p. 196; the RSV; and the NJPSV [1999]). Otherwise attested views include 1) the construal of Mordecai as the antecedent (i.e., “whom the king exalted”; so Gordis, Esther, p. 63; Meinhold, Esther, p. 95; and Moore, Esther, p. 98); 2) the construal of úùøô as the antecedent (thus Fox, Esther, p. 287: “and the details of Mordecai’s greatness with respect to which the king promoted him”; idem, p. 128 [more idiomatically]: “and the account of how the king had exalted Mordecai”); and 3) the construal of øùà as appositional to úùøôå and a constituent subject (included in íä) of íéáåúë (i.e., “how the king advanced him” [cf. Gesenius & Brown, Lexicon, p. 83a (§8aα), citing 1Kgs 14:19; 2 Kgs 14:15; 20:20]; so Hoschander, Esther, p. 294; and the JPSV [1917]). 732 “the affairs … past”—Ar. akhb¯ar al-zam¯an, which rendering of Heb. íéîéä éøáã is likewise adopted by Saadia, Tafs¯ır, both here as well as ad 6:1. In the latter instance, however, Yefet has “reports of what had taken place in the past” (akhb¯ar m¯a jar¯a f¯ı "lzam¯an), though such may in fact be a latter scribal expansion. On the construal of al-zam¯an here (as ad 6:1) as “the past” see Blau, Dictionary, p. 276a. 733 “Persia and Media”—so, reversing the Heb. order, which latter is maintained in Mss R1 and R2, just as in the preceding Heb. citation contained all the Mss which are here extant.

translation

315

(3) For Mordecai the Jew was the vizier734 of King Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and approved by most735 of his brethren, seeking the good of his people and speaking peace to all their progeny.736 This indicates that737 (the mudawwin) concluded the book with a reference to what had transpired of [90v] the affairs of Ahasuerus, since he already mentioned in this book some of (those affairs) pertaining to what he needed (to mention) on the subject of Israel, as I have explained in connection with the commencement of the book.738 He specifies, therefore, that when the rule was consolidated by him as he intended, after two years had passed, he laid a tax on the land and on the islands of the sea—i.e., a tax on both lands and heads.739 Then he says, And all the acts of his power and of his might—which is referring to those with whom he fought and killed until the kingdom was consolidated by him and his affairs were set in order.740 And by the statement 734 Ar. waz¯ır, which equivalent of Heb. äðùî is likewise adopted ad loc. by Saadia, Tafs¯ır; and Tanhum, Esther, fol. 225v: êìîìà ïî äáúø éðàú˙ éà áéàðå øéæå ®êìîì äðùî . (“Miˇsneh (here has the sense of) ‘vizier’ and ‘deputy’—i.e., second in standing from the king”). For a different construal see below, n. 741, ad fin. 735 Ar. akthar, rendering Heb. áø ˙ , as opposed to the commonly attested non-partitive construal of this lexeme in the sense of “multitude” or “mass” (thus, e.g., the Vulg.: plebi fratrum; Samuel ben Meir, Esther, p. 22: éôì åéçà ìëì ïéãä àåä áåúëä ÷ã÷ã àì ¬åéçà áåøì åèåùô; Samuel de Uçeda, Esther, p. 314 [though later admitting the possibility of the partitive view]: åéçà áåøì äöåøîå éåöø äéä íìåòì éë åúåãéñçå åúìòî äúéä êë ìë éëãøî íðîà åéçà áåøì éåöøå ù§§æå íúåà ïåãé àåäù åá íéöôç íìåëå; Bush, Esther, p. 493; Fox, Esther, p. 128; Gerleman, Esther, p. 143; Gordis, Esther, p. 63; Hakham, “Esther,” p. 65 and n. 17; . Hirschler, Esther, p. 316; Keil, Esther, p. 380; Levenson, Esther, p. 132; Maier, Esther, p. 147; Meinhold, Esther, p. 97; Moore, Esther, pp. 98–99; Paton, Esther, pp. 304–5; Würthwein, “Esther,” p. 196; the JPSV [1917]; the NJPSV [1999]; and the RSV). On the former view see further Yefet’s comment ad loc. on p. 316 below as well as, ibid., n. 744. 736 “their progeny”—lit., “its progeny” (Ar. naslihi, slavishly reflecting Heb. åòøæ), in which, per Yefet’s comment ad loc., the pronominal referent is taken to be åîò (rather than Mordecai), on which construal see also Tg. Esth. I: á÷òé úéáã äéòøæ; Saadia, Tafs¯ır: íäìñð (“their progeny”); Rashi: åîò òøæ ìëì åîò ìò áñåî ®åòøæ ìëì; and Samuel de Uçeda, Esther, p. 312: íéðè÷ åéä ïééãòù åîò òøæì åìéôà éë åðòéãåäå ¬åîò ìò óñåî åòøæ éåðéëå íåìù íäì íéã÷î äéä íéøåçáå; as well as, e.g., among the moderns, Bush, Esther, p. 493; Fox, Esther, p. 129; Gordis, Esther, p. 63; Hakham, “Esther,” p. 66 (the second of two . explanations); and Maier, Esther, p. 149. 737 “This … that” (arrafa annahu)—this introductory phrase is awkward and, insofar as such is absent from Mss R1 and R6, may well represent a poorly motivated scribal addition. 738 See pp. 166–68 above. 739 See p. 206, n. 234 above. 740 On this retrospective construal of vv. 1–2aα, see Yefet’s opening remarks ad 1:2–12 on p. 175 above.

316

translation

and the explication of the greatness of Mordecai (the mudawwin) is referring to something that he does not mention in the book. He then indicates that all (of these things) had already been written down in the register of the kings of Persia and Media, though he omits mention of them in the book because they do not pertain to the affair of Israel. As to the statement, [91r] For Mordecai the Jew, (etc.)—this resumes the clause and the explication of the greatness of Mordecai. And by the expression second to the king (the mudawwin) means that only the authority of the king was over (Mordecai’s) authority, and he ranked after the king.741 This also confirms what we have previously said—that the rank of Mordecai was above the rank of everyone else.742 (Similarly,) the statement and great among the Jews means that he was also the most eminent leader of the Jews. And regarding the statement, approved by the majority of his brethren—this means that his deeds were approved owing to his faith, his kindly interaction with them, and his fulfillment of their needs—though (the mudawwin employs) the expression the majority of his brethren because the people had no lack743 of those who were envious or who did not behave equitably, and who did not therefore favor Mordecai as they ought to have.744 (The mudawwin) then says, seeking the good of his people, 741 Such is the usual understanding, on which see also, e.g., Tg. Esth. I: àúô÷ìà (Grossfeld, Two Targums, p. 90: “second in rank”; Jastrow, Dictionary, p. 73b: “a high dignitary in Persia”); Tg. Esth. II: øâùúô (ibid., p. 1256b: “second in rank”; Grossfeld, ibid., p. 195: “viceroy”); the Vulg.: secundus a rege Asuero fuerit; Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 735, ll. 6–7: (! A ( A `Q =c  F =r ùåøåùçà êìîì äðùî (“Miˇsneh to the king means (that he was) the second to him, and the one who was reckoned as the second (in rank) after the master”); Ibn Ezra, Comm. B (fol. 39v): ïéàù ãçàë äîåã êìîä ®éãåäéä éëãøî éë (äë è ᧧î) (!)äùìùä §úë àåäù ùéìùä åéúçúå ®íéðù úåîãë äìòîá åéìà áåø÷äå ®åì äîåã; and the comment of Tanhum ben Joseph cited on p. 414, n. 734 above. Otherwise, for a . construal of äðùî in the sense of “successor,” cf. the LXX (= the Lucianic recension): 3 δ< Μαρδοχα8ος διεδχετο τν βασιλα (cf. Jahn, Ester, pp. 66–67 & n. ad loc.). 742 See pp. 259–61 above. 743 Ar. takhullu, on this sense of which cf. Lane, p. 777c. 744 On this partitive construal of the phrase åéçà áøì—rendered by Yefet in his tarjama “by most of his brethren” ( #inda akthar ikhwatihi)—see also, e.g., b. Meg. 16b: àìå åéçà áøì ïéøãäðñ úö÷î åðîî åùøéôù ãîìî ¬åéçà ìëì (> Rashi, who adds: úåëìîì áåø÷ äùòðù éôì ˙ à ïî øéú˙ ëì (“by many of his brethren”); Ibn Ezra, åãåîìúî ìèá äéäå); Saadia, Tafs¯ır: äúåë Comm. A: íéçàä úàð÷ øåáòá ìëä úåöøì íãàá úìåëé ïéà éë ®åéçà áåøì éåöøå; Joseph Kara, Esther, pp. 21–22: åàø øîåì åéøçà íéðéìî åéäù íäì éåöø §éä àìù åéçà äö÷îù êãîéì ¬åéçà áåøì

íéëìî áìù åðì §éäù §ã éìåì ãáàìå âåøäìå ãéîùäì åðøëîð åãé ìòå ïîäá øâúðù éëãøî åðì äùò äî íäéàðåùá äîä íéãåäéä åèìùé øùà úååöì êìîä áì äèäå åãéá; and Tanhum, Esther, fol. 225v: . ˙ à øú˙ ëà ãðò éö˙ úøî ®åéçà áåøì éåöøå ãë( ðúé ïî äá øáúòé ïà áâ˙é àäéáðú àðä 짧æ åäáð ã÷å äúåë ˙ òà äá øáúòé ïî ãâ˙é ñéì äðàô äããàö˙ é åà äãéøé àì ñàðìà õ˙ òá ïåë äéìò áòöéå éëãøî ïî íè ˙ ëàìà ìá òéîâ˙ìà äðò õ˙ øé íì ä¨ ìæðîìà åìò ïî âìá àîå ìòô àî äìòô ãòá éã˙ ìà (“and øú

approved by the rôb of his brethren—i.e., (he was) approved by most of his brethren. And

translation

317

indicating that (Mordecai) was working diligently at that which would benefit them, striving earnestly for such with his life and his wealth, as well as encouraging their faith. And the statement [91v] speaking peace to all his seed means that he fostered reconciliation among his people and mediated between them, the expression his seed having the sense of the seed of his people.745 It is said, moreover, that in our language (the expression) his seed (zar #ô) can function in two ways: on the one hand, one may intend by it the child of the man from whom he is (begotten), whereas, on the other hand, one may also intend by it the one from whom he is descended.746 In like fashion the expression môladtô may be “his child,” as in the begotten (môledet) of your father (Lev. 18:11), and your begotten (môladt˘ek¯a) whom you beget after them (Gen. 48:6), whereas, according to some of the interpretations of môladt˘ek¯a (Gen. 48:6), one may also intend by it the one who is begotten from them,747 (as also in) in the land of môladtô, in Ur of the Chaldees (Gen. 11:28).748

those of blessed memory have here issued counsel of which it is incumbent that he take heed who is unhappy and who is struggling with the fact that some of the people do not want him or are hostile towards him—to wit, the one who takes heed of such (counsel) will never become greater than Mordecai, who, even after accomplishing what he did and attaining the height of ranking, was still not approved by everyone, but rather the majority”). Among most moderns, however, áø here is construed non-partitively in the sense of “multitude” or “mass” (see p. 315, n. 735 above). 745 So, construing åîò as the pronominal referent of åòøæ, on which see p. 315, n. 736 above. Cf., otherwise, Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul, col. 203, l. 17: F .!5 åòøæ ìëì íåìù øáãå (“l˘ekol zar #ô means ‘to all his kinsfolk’ [cf. Ibn Tibb¯on, Roots, p. 137: åúçôùî éðá ìëì]”). 746 Ar. mawl¯ud—i.e., per the context, indirectly begotten. 747 “from them”—i.e., from Ephraim and Manasseh, and, hence, indirectly from Joseph. 748 Cf., otherwise, al-F¯ as¯ı (J¯am¯ı #, II, pp. 151–52, ll. 17–24 [s.v. ãì]), who defines úãìåî in the sense of “fostering”: ã÷å ®êåáà ä¨ éáøú ãéøé êéáà úãìåî êéáà úùà úá úåøò äìú˙ îå ¨ øåëã˙ î áàìà ïî ãìàåúú éúìà ïàìå êåáà ïî äãéìéã äìå÷ éô íâ˙øúîìà èìâ êúåçà úåøò éô ä ˙ éàå ®äâ˙å àðää øéøëúìì ñéìå õåç úãìåî åà úéá úãìåî êîà úá åà êéáà úá íåñøìà ïî ñéì àö ˙ ìèá àã˙ àå ®áàìà ä¨ àøî úðá áàìà úðá éô ìà÷é ïà úãìåî éô ïééàø÷ìà àîìò øéñôú ç( ö êìã ¨ ãàìå àì ä¨ éáøú äðà êéáà (“Like this [i.e., with the sense of “fostering”] is (môledet in) the ä môledet of your father [Lev. 18:11], meaning ‘the one fostered [lit. ‘the fostering’] of your father’—though the Targumist erred in his rendering, ‘who is born to your father’ [Tg. Onq. ad loc.]—, for she who is begotten by her father is mentioned (previously) in The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother, whether reared at home or reared abroad [Lev. 18:9], and here [i.e., in v. 11] there is no reason to repeat (this idea), nor is it customary for the father’s daughter to be described as ‘the daughter of the father’s wife.’ As, therefore, this (view of môledet meaning ‘begotten’) is obviated, the explanation of the Karaite sages [#ulam¯a" al-qar¯a"iy¯ın] that the môledet of your father has to do with fostering, not begetting, is proven sound”).

318

translation * * *

Praise be to God who is solicitous of Israel during the times of her afflictions and attends to her affairs, as it is said, For the Lord will not cast off His people, neither will He forsake His inheritance (Ps. 94:14); O Israel, that art saved by the Lord [92r] with an everlasting salvation; ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded to all eternity (Isa. 45:17). Blessed be the Lord unto eternity. Amen and Amen.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Manuscripts 1. Academy of Oriental Studies, St. Petersburg / Санкт-Петербург Филиал Института востоковедения Российской Академии наук (AOS): A146. 2. Bibliotheca Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Budapest (BASH): Kaufmann A29. 3. British Library, London (BL), Oriental Collection (Or.): Or. 2399, Or. 2400, Or. 2401, Or. 2402, Or. 2468, Or. 2469, Or. 2472, Or. 2501, Or. 2502, Or. 2507, Or. 2513, Or. 2514, Or. 2516, Or. 2517, Or. 2520, Or. 2547, Or. 2549, Or. 2553, Or. 2554, Or. 2557. 4. Bodleian Library, Oxford (BLO): Heb.c.19, Heb.d.68, Heb.f.56, Hunt. 206, Poc. 320. 5. Bibliothèque nationale, Paris (BN): héb. 191, héb. 292, héb. 293, héb. 294, héb. 295, héb. 334, héb. 670. 6. Cambridge University Library (CUL): Add. 1200, T-S Ar.17.5, T-S Ar.21.5, T-S Ar.22.33, T-S Ar. 23.44, T-S Ar. 33.31, T-S Ar. 49.52, T-S Ar. 49.99, T-S Ar. 309.52, T-S Ar. n.s. 309.52. 7. Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati (HUC-JIR): HUC-JIR 839 (formerly Schwager 1). 8. Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York (JTSA), Elkan Nathan Adler Collection (ENA): ENA 219, ENA 1651, ENA 3148, ENA 3336, ENA 3601. 9. Lichaa (L¯ısha#) Collection (private), Lausanne: Lichaa 10. 10. Russian National Library / Российская Национальная Библиотека, St. Petersburg (RNL), Firkovitch Hebrew (Yevr.) and Judaeo-Arabic (Yevr.-Arab.) collections: Yevr. 225, Yevr. I 578, Yevr. I 583, Yevr. I 794, Yevr. II 700, Yevr. II A 78, Yevr. II C 521, Yevr. II C 522, Yevr.-Arab. I 117, Yevr.-Arab. I 142, Yevr.-Arab. I 155, Yevr.-Arab. I 272, Yevr.-Arab. I 298, Yevr.-Arab. I 742, Yevr.-Arab. I 776, Yevr.-Arab. I 1410, Yevr.-Arab. I 1755, Yevr.-Arab. I 1846, Yevr.-Arab. I 3312, Yevr.-Arab. I 3354, Yevr.-Arab. I 3355, Yevr.-Arab. I 3476, Yevr.-Arab. I 3532, Yevr.-Arab. I 3699, Yevr.-Arab. I 3866, Yevr.Arab. I 3963, Yevr.-Arab. I 3964, Yevr.-Arab. I 3965, Yevr.-Arab. I 4021, Yevr.-Arab. I 4255, Yevr.-Arab. I 4380, Yevr.-Arab. I 4382, Yevr.-Arab. I 4467, Yevr.-Arab. I 4468, Yevr.-Arab. I 4469, Yevr.-Arab. I 4878, Yevr.-Arab. II 13, Yevr.-Arab. II 27, Yevr.-Arab. II 29, Yevr.-Arab. II 110, Yevr.-Arab. II 842, Yevr.-Arab. II 875, Yevr.-Arab. II 1250, Yevr.-Arab. II 2703, Yevr.-Arab. II 3230, Yevr.-Arab. II 3231, Yevr.-Arab. II 3295, Yevr.-Arab. II 3300, Yevr.Arab. II 3350. 11. Rijks Universiteitsbibliotheek, Leiden (RU): Warn. 1 (Or. 4739), Warn. 12.

320

bibliography

12. Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz (BS): Or. Qu. 828, Or. Qu. 943. 13. Universitetsbibliothek in Lund, Sweden (LU): L.O.5. II. Primary Sources Ab. Gur. = ïåéøåâ àáà ùøãî. In S. Buber (ed.), àúãâàã éøôñ [Sammlung agadischer Commentare zum Buche Ester]. Vilna, 1886; repr., Jerusalem, 1989, pp. 1–42. Ab. Gur. B = ïåéøåâ àáà ùøãî ìù äùãç äøåãäî. In Z.M. Rabinovitz (ed.), éæðâ äæéðâä ïî ãé éáúë éôì 짧æç éùøãî ìù äîåã÷ä íúøåöì ºùøãî. Tel-Aviv, 1976, pp. 161–70. Abraham ben Judah, Esther = ben Judah, Abaraham. Commentary on Esther in Ms. RU Or. 4739 (Warn. 1), fols 234r–235v. Ag. Esth. = àåä íâ àáåîä ¬éðù ãé áúëì äàåùä íò ¬ïîéúî ãé áúë ô§§ò øúñà úãâà ãøàôñ÷àá íéøôñä øöåàá àöîðå ¬ïîéúî [Agadische Abhandlungen zum Buche Ester]. Ed. S. Buber. Krakau, 1897; repr., Jerusalem, 1989. Al-Ash#ar¯ı, Maq¯al¯at = L(*M vhj  L!h;B nB . Ed. N.H. . Zarz¯ur. 2 vols. in 1 (continuous pagination). Beirut, 2005. Al-Baghd¯ad¯ı, Farq = t L t . Ed. I. Ramad¯ . an. Beirut, 2003. Al-B¯ır¯un¯ı, Ath¯ar = H! s  > H!$ I ' rB d D [Chronologie orientalischer Völker]. Ed. C.E. Sachau. Leipzig, 1878; repr., Leipzig, 1923. Al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı # = The Hebrew-Arabic Dictionary of the Bible, known as Kit¯ab j¯am¯ı # al-alf¯az (Agron), of David ben Abraham al-F¯as¯ı, the Karaite (tenth. cent.). Ed. S.L. Skoss. 2 vols. [Yale Oriental Series, Researches, 20–21]. New Haven, 1936– 1945; repr., New York, n.d. Al-H¯ıt¯ı, Tart¯ıb = Margoliouth, G. “Ibn al-H¯ıt¯ı’s Arabic Chronicle of Karaite Doctors.” Jewish Quarterly Review, o.s., 9 (1897), pp. 429–443. Al-Jabb¯ar, Mughn¯ı =  A  ! d  =" =qM , vol. VI/1: K  1 A . Ed. A.F. al-Ahw¯an¯ı; revised by I. Madk¯ur. Cairo, 1962. Al-Khayy¯at., Intis. ¯ar = %M ˆ +  => (T  ' *+B d D. Ed. Naybirj. Cairo, 1987–88. Al-Maqr¯ız¯ı, Khi.ta.t = H?M FMs  vAM ' rB  FMs DQ ' I>B  ž> M d D. 2 vols. Cairo, 1892; repr., Beirut, n.d. Al-Mas#¯ud¯ı, Mur¯uj =  5 T A g Q Z. Ed. K.H. . Mar#¯ı. Beirut, 2005. Al-Mas#¯ud¯ı, Tanb¯ıh = v OB  F!I d D. Ed. M.J. de Goeje [Bibliotheca Geographorum arabicorum, VIII]. Leiden, 1894. Al-Murtad¯ at = H?AM n II d D [Die Klassen der Mu#taziliten]. Ed. . . a, Tabaq¯ S. Diwald-Wilzer. Beirut-Wiesbaden, 1961. Al-Qalqashand¯ı, S. ubh. = 9 J+B H> {  =J>B }I{. Vol. 13. Ed. M.H. . Shams al-D¯ın. Beirut, 1987. Al-Qirqis¯an¯ı, Anw¯ar = Kit¯ab al-anw¯ar wal-mar¯aqib—Code of Karaite Law. Ed. L. Nemoy. 5 vols. New York, 1939–45. Al-Qirqis¯an¯ı, Tafs¯ır = see Hirschfeld, Qirqis¯an¯ı. Al-Q¯umis¯ı, Minor Prophets = see Markon, Commentary. Al-Q¯umis¯ı, Psalms = see Marmorstein, “Fragments.”

bibliography

321

Al-Sh¯afi#¯ı, Ris¯ala = Islamic Jurisprudence: Sh¯afi #¯ı’s Ris¯ala. Trans. M. Khadduri. Baltimore, 1961; repr., India, n.d. Al-Shahrast¯an¯ı, Milal = 1%  1M d D. Ed. A.F. Muhammad. 3 vols. Cairo, . 1948. ¯ı, Ta"r¯ıkh = |M  B  ' E. 6 vols. Beirut, 2005. Al-Tabar . ¯ı, History = The History of al-Tabar¯ Al-Tabar ı (Ta"r¯ıkh al-rusul wa"l-mul¯uk). Vol. . . IV: The Ancient Kingdoms. Trans. M. Perlmann. Albany, 1987. Al-Tha#¯alib¯ı, Ghurar =  !; S | ' Ij 'W / Histoire des rois des Perses par Aboû Mans.oûr #Abd al-Malik ibn Mohammad ibn Ismà #ìl [this . identification with #Abd al-Malik … al-Tha #¯alib¯ı, however, is now considered tentative (see Bosworth, “al-Tha#¯alib¯ı,” p. 426a)]. Ed. and trans. H. Zotenberg. Paris, 1900; repr., Tehran, 1963 (Publications de M.H. Asadi, No. 4). Alkabez, . Esther = Alkabez, . Solomon ha-Levi. úìéâî ìò ùåøéô ºéåìä úåðî øôñ 짧öæ õá÷ìà éåìä äîìù åðéáø … åøáç øúñà. Jerusalem, 1996. Alobaidi, Isaiah = Alobaidi, J., ed. and trans. The Messiah in Isaiah 53: The Commentaries of Saadia Gaon, Salmon ben Yeruham and Yefet ben Eli on Is 52:13– 53:12; Edition and Translation [La Bible dans l’histoire; texts et études, 2]. Bern, 1998. Allony, Egrôn = see Saadia, Egrôn. Alshekh, Esther = [øúñà úìâî ìò] êéùìà øåöé÷. In øùò íéðù íò úåìâî ùîç íéùåøéô. Jerusalem, n.d. ASV = The Holy Bible … Newly Edited by the American Revision Committee. Camden, N.J., 1901. Auerbach, Proverbiorum = Auerbach, Z., ed. and trans. Iepheti ben Eli Karaitae in Proverbiorum Salomonis caput XXX commentarius, nunc primum arabice editus, in latinum conversus, adnotationibus illustratus. Bonn, 1866. Bacher, Wurzelwörterbuch = Bacher, W., ed. úøáçîî éðùä ÷ìçä àåä ¬íéùøùä øôñ ïá äãåäé §ø ùã÷ä ïåùì ìà å÷éúòäå çàðâ˙ ïá äðåé §ø áøò ïåùìá åøáç ÷åã÷ãä ïåáú [Sepher Haschoraschim: Wurzelwörterbuch der hebräischen Sprache]. Berlin, 1896; repr., Jerusalem, 1966. Baneth & Ben-Shammai, Khazar¯ı = Baneth, D.H. and H. . Ben-Shammai. áàúë (éøæë˙ ìà áàúëìà) ìéìã˙ ìà ïéãìà éô ìéìãìàå ãøìà [The Book of Refutation and Proof on the Despised Faith (The Book of the Khazars), Known as The Kuzari]. Jerusalem, 1977. Bargès, Canticum = Bargès, J.J.L, ed. and trans. Rabbi Yapheth Abou Aly Ibn-Aly Bassorensis Karaitarum doctoris sapientissimi in Canticum Canticorum commentarium arabicum. Paris, 1884. Bargès, Excerpta = Idem, ed. and trans. Excerpta ex R. Yapheth ben Heli commentariis in Psalmos Davidis regis et prophetae. Paris, 1846. Bargès, Zub¯ur = Idem, ed. Kit¯ab al-zub¯ur [Libri Psalmorum David regis et prophetae versio a R. Japheth ben Heli Bassorensi Karaitâ]. Paris, 1861. Becker, Ris¯ala = see Ibn Quraysh, Ris¯ala. Birnbaum, Hosea = Birnbaum, P., ed. The Arabic Commentary of Yefet ben #Ali the Karaite on the Book of Hosea, Edited from Eight Manuscripts and Provided with a Critical Notes and an Introduction. Philadelphia, 1942. Bland, Ecclesiastes = Bland, R.M., ed. and trans. The Arabic Commentary of

322

bibliography

Yephet ben #Ali on the Book of Ecclesiastes, Chapters 1–6. Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, 1966. Breuer, Crown = Breuer, M. et al., eds. äøåñîäå çñåðä éô ìò íéáåúë íéàéáð äøåú åì íéáåø÷ä ãé éáúëå äáåö íøà øúë ìù [Jerusalem Crown: The Bible of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem]. Jerusalem, 2000. Butbul & Stroumsa, “Genesis” = Butbul, S. and S. Stroumsa, “éìò ïá úôé ùåøéôä º[éøáò íåâøú íò] äîâåãì úéúøå÷éá äøåãäî—úéùàøá ùåøéô ¬éøöáìà 5–1:à úéùàøáì.” In H. Ben-Shammai et al. (eds.), úéãåäé­úéáøòá ãéä éáúë úåøå÷î ;äîâåãì âåìè÷ »úéùàøá ùåøéô ¬éøöáìà éìò ïá úôé º§õéáå÷øéô éôñåàá íéø÷çîå [Judaeo-Arabic Manuscripts in the Firkovitch Collections: Yefet ben #Eli al-Basri, Commentary on Genesis; A Sample Catalogue; Texts and Studies]. Jerusalem, 2000, pp. 79–179. Cohen, Qabbalah = see Ibn D¯a"¯ud, Qabbalah. CSCO = Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium, editum consilio Universitatis catholicae Americae et Universitatis catholicae Lovaniensis. Paris-Louvain, 1903– present. Davidson, Wars = Davidson, I., ed. ïá ïåîìñ éàø÷ä úåðòè ììåë ¬§ä úåîçìî øôñ ïåàâ äéãòñ áø ãâð íéçåøé [The Book of the Wars of the Lord, containing the polemics of the Karaite Salmon ben Yeruhim against Saadia Gaon]. New York, 1934. Derenbourg, Pentateuque = Derenbourg, J., ed. óéìàú ä¨ éáøòìàá ä¨ éøåúìà øéñôú éîåé( ôìà óñåé ïá ïåàâ àéãòñ åðéáø [Version arabe du Pentateuque de R. Saadia ben Iosef al-Fayyoûmî] [Oeuvres completes de R. Saadia ben Iosef alFayyoûmî, 1]. Paris, 1893. Eliezer Ashkenazi, Esther = Ashkenazi, Eliezer ben Elijah. Commentary on Esther in H. . David (ed.), ¬èùôä êøã ìò íìùä ১øâä ùåøéô íò øúñà úìéâî øæòéìà ø§§øäåî ïåîã÷ä ïåàâäì ç÷ì óñåé øôñå ®®® 駧ùø ùåøéô íòå ®®® ãåñäå æîøä éæðëùà. Jerusalem, 21991.

Elijah ben Solomon, Esther = ben Solomon, Elijah, the (Vilna) Gaon. Commentary on Esther in H. . David (ed.), íìùä ১øâä ùåøéô íò øúñà úìéâî ïåîã÷ä ïåàâäì ç÷ì óñåé øôñå ®®® 駧ùø ùåøéô íòå ®®® ãåñäå æîøä ¬èùôä êøã ìò éæðëùà øæòéìà ø§§øäåî. Jerusalem, 21991.

Elliger, Biblia = Elliger, K. et al., eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart, 41990. Esth. Rab. = äáø øúñà ùøãî. In äáø ùøãî øôñ, vol. 2. Vilna, 1887; repr., Jerusalem, n.d. Firdaws¯ı, Rois = Le Livre des Rois par Abou"lkasim Firdousi. Trans. J. Mohl. Tome 5. Paris, 1877. Gersonides, Esther = ãé­éáúë éô ìò (⧧áìø) íåùøâ ïá éåì åðéáøì úåìéâîä éùåøéô íéøåàéáå úåøòä ¬úåàçñåð ééåðéù ¬úåìéá÷î ¬úåøå÷î éðåéö ¬àåáî íò íéðåùàø íéñåôãå. Ed. Y.L. Levi. Jerusalem, 2003. Gimaret & Monnot, Religions = Gimaret, D. and G. Monnot, trans. Livre des religions et des sectes: Traduction avec introduction et notes [Collection Unesco d’oeuvres représentatives; Série arabe]. Vol. 1. Leiden, 1986. Goodman, Theodicy = Goodman, L.E., trans. The Book of Theodicy: Translation and Commentary on the Book of Job by Saadiah Ben Joseph Al-Fayy¯um¯ı [Yale Judaica Series, XXV]. New Haven, 1988.

bibliography

323

Grossfeld, Two Targums = Grossfeld, B., trans. The Two Targums of Esther, Translated, with Apparatus and Notes [The Aramaic Bible, 18]. Collegeville, 1991. Grossfeld, First Targum = see Tg. Esth. I. Günzig, Proverbien = Günzig, I., ed. Der Commentar des Karäers Jephet ben "Ali Halêvi zu den Proverbien. Zum ersten Male nach mehreren Handschriften edirt, mit einer Einleitung und Anmerkungen versehen. Krakau, 1898. Hadassi, Cluster = Hadassi, Judah ben Elijah. øôëä ìëùà øôñ. Eupatoria (Kozlov), 1836, fols. 93v–94v. Hanhart, Septuaginta = Hanhart, R., ed. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, auctoritate Academiae Scientarium Gottingensis editum. Vol. VIII,3: Esther. Göttingen, 21983. Hirschfeld, N¯ah. ¯um = Hirschfeld, H., ed. Jefeth b. Ali’s Arabic Commentary on N¯ah. ¯um, with Introduction, abridged Translation and Notes [Jews’ College [London] Publication no. 3]. London, 1911. Hirschfeld, Qirqis¯an¯ı = Idem. Qirqis¯ani Studies [Jews’ College Publication No. 6]. London, 1918. Hofmann, Psalm = Hofmann, Th., ed. and trans. Der XXII. Psalm in das arabische übersetzt und erklärt von R. Jepheth ben Eli ha-Baçri. Tübingen, 1880. Hussain, Job = Hussain, H.A., ed. Yefet ben Ali’s Commentary on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Job I–X. Ph.D. dissertation. University of St. Andrews, 1986. Ibn Bar¯un, Muw¯azana = ä¨ éðàøáòìà ä¨ âììà ïéá ä¨ ðæàåîìà áàúë ïî äèéìôä øúé ¨ éáøòìàå [«Книга сравненiя еврейéãøôñä ïåøá ïá ÷çöé íéäøáà åáà åøáç øùà ä скаго языка съ арабскимъ» Абу Ибрагима (Исаака) Ибнъ Баруна]. Ed. P. Kokovtsov [Къ исторiи средневековой еврейской филологiи и еврейско-арабской литературы, I]. St. Petersburg, 1890/1893, Russian text and analysis: pp. 93–158; Judaeo-Arabic text: pp. 25–100; and idem, ed., íéùãç íéèå÷ì äæéà ¨ éáøòìàå ä¨ éðàøáòìà ä¨ âììà ïéá ä¨ ðæàåîìà áàúë ïî. In ïåøá ïá íéäøáà éáàì ä Новые матерiалы для характеристики Iехуды Хайюджа, Самуила Нагида и некоторыхъ другихъ представителей [Къ исторiи средневековой еврейской филологiи и еврейско-арабской литературы, томъ II]. Petrograd, 1916, Russian analysis: pp. 216–40; Judaeo-Arabic text: 153–72. Ibn D¯a"¯ud, Qabbalah = A Critical Edition with a Translation and Notes of the Book of Tradition (Sefer ha-Qabbalah) by Abraham ibn Daud. Ed. and trans. G.D. Cohen. Philadelphia, 1967. Ibn Ezra, Comm. A = ibn Ezra, Abraham. Commentary on Esther (version A) in íéùåøéô øùò íéðù íò úåìâî ùîç. Jerusalem, no date. Ibn Ezra, Comm. B = Idem. Commentary on Esther (version B) in (unless otherwise indicated) Ms. BLO Poc. 184, fols. 32v–39v. Ibn Jan¯ah, . Luma# = çé÷ðúìà áàúë ïî ìåàìà æâ˙ìà åäå òîììà áàúë [Le livre des parterres fleuris: grammaire hébraïque en arabe d’Abou"l-Walid Merwan ibn Djanah de Cordoue]. Ed. J. Derenbourg. Paris, 1886. Ibn Jan¯ah, . Us.¯ul = {B d D [The Book of Hebrew Roots by Abu"l-Walîd Marwân ibn Janâh, Called Rabbî Jônâh]. Ed. A. Neubauer. Oxford, 1875; reprint, Amsterdam, 1968. Ibn N¯uh, . Diqduq = see Khan, Diqduq. Ibn Quraysh, Ris¯ala = ÖéUe÷ ïá äãåäé ìù §äìàñX§ä. Ed. D. Becker [úåøå÷î éòéáù øôñ »äì íéëåîñä íéîåçúáå úéøáòä ïåùìá íéø÷çîå]. Tel-Aviv, 1984.

324

bibliography

Ibn Tibb¯on, Roots = see Bacher, Wurzelwörterbuch. IMHM = Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts, the Jewish National and University Library, Jerusalem (íéøôñä úéá ¬íééøáò ãé éáúë éîåìöúì ïåëîä íéìùåøéá éàèéñøáéðåàäå éîåàìä). Immanuel b. Solomon, Esther = ben Solomon, Immanuel, of Rome. Commentary on Esther in Ms. BP 2844 (de Rossi 615), fols. 184r–217v. Ish¯o #, Questions = E.G. Clarke, ed. and trans. The Selected Questions of Ish¯o bar N¯un on the Pentateuch, Edited and Translated from MS Cambridge Add. 2017, with a Study of the Relationship of Ish¯o #d¯adh of Merv, Theodore bar K¯on¯ı and Ish¯o bar N¯un on Genesis [Studia Post-Biblica, 5]. Leiden, 1962. Ish¯o #dad, Hosea = C. Van den Eynde, ed. and trans. Commentaire d’Iˇso‘dad de Merv sur l’Ancien Testament. T. IV: Isaïe et les Douze [CSCO, 303/Syr. 128 (text), 304/Syr. 129 (trans.)]. Louvain, 1969. Jacob ben Reuben, Esther = ben Reuben, Jacob. Commentary on Esther in Ms. BN héb. 191, fols. 309r–311v. Jellinek, Commentaries = Jellinek, A., ed. íçðî §øì äëéàå úåø øúñà ìò íéùåøéô 짧æ éúôøö éðåìô ùéàìå ¬í§§áùøì ¬àø÷ óñåé §øì ¬øæòéìà øá äéáåè §øì ¬åáìç øá. Leipzig, 1855. Joseph Kara, Esther = Kara, Joseph ben Simeon. Commentary on Esther in Jellinek, Commentaries, pp. 1–10. Josippon = Flusser, D., ed. ,ãé­éáúë éô­ìò äâåîå øåãñ øåàì àöåé ¬ïåôéñåé øôñ úåàñøâ éôåìéçå íéøåàéá àåáî úééååìá [The Josippon (Josephus Gorionides), Edited with an Introduction, Commentary and Notes]. 2 vols. Jerusalem, 1980–81. JPSV = The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text: A New Translation. Philadelphia, 1917. Jwaideh, Mu‘jam = Jwaideh, W., ed. The Introductory Chapters of Y¯aq¯ut’s Mu‘jam al-buld¯an. Leiden, 1959. Khan, Diqduq = Khan, G., ed. and trans. The Early Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought, Including a Critical Edition, Translation and Analysis of the Diqduq of Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub Y¯usuf ibn N¯uh. on the Hagiographa (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics, XXXII). Leiden, 2000. Khan, Texts = Idem, ed. and trans. Early Karaite Grammatical Texts [The Society of Biblical Literature Masoretic Studies, 9]. Atlanta, 2000. Khan, Tradition = Idem, ed. and trans., in collaboration with M.A. Gallego and J. Olszowy-Schlanger. The Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought in its Classical Form: A Critical edition and English Translation of al-Kit¯ab al-K¯af¯ı f¯ı al-Lu˙ga al- #Ibr¯aniyya by Ab¯u al-Faraj H¯ar¯un ibn al-Faraj (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics, XXXVII). Leiden, 2003. Leq. Tob . = øúñà ìò áåè ç÷ì ùøãî. In S. Buber (ed.), àúãâàã éøôñ [Sammlung agadischer Commentare zum Buche Ester]. Vilna, 1886; repr., Jerusalem, 1989, pp. 85–112. LXX = see Hanhart, Septuaginta. Maimonides, Hilkhot Megillah = äìéâî úåëìä. In M.Y. & Sh. Shulsinger (eds.), 짧öæ ïåîééî ø§§á äùî åðéáø ìåãâä øùðäì ä÷æçä ãéä àåä ¬äøåú äðùî, vol. 1. New York, 1947, fols 182r–185v (pp. 363–70). M¯ankd¯ım, Sharh. = Shashd¯ıw, M¯ankd¯ım (wrongly attributed on the title page

bibliography

325

to #Abd al-Jabb¯ar ibn Ahmad [see Gimaret, p. 793]). Hs {B 4O. Ed. . A. #Uthm¯an. Cairo, 21996. Margoliouth, Daniel = Margoliouth, D.S., ed. and trans. A Commentary on the Book of Daniel by Yefet ibn Ali the Karaite (Anecdota Oxoniensia). Oxford, 1889. Markon, Commentary = Markon, I., ed. åøáç øùò éøúì ùåøéô—øùò íéðù ïåøúô éñîå÷ìà ìàéðã [Commentarius in librum duodecim prophetarum quem composuit Daniel al-K¯ . umissi]. Jerusalem, 1957. Markon, “Ruth” = Idem, ed. “íçåøé ïá ïåîìù éàø÷äì úåø úìâî ìò ùåøéô.” In Livre d’hommage à la mémoire du Dr. Samuel Pozna´nski (1864–1921). Édit par le comité de la grande synagogue a Varsovie. Warsaw, 1927, pp. çò–åö. Marwick, Retribution = L. Marwick, ed. Retribution & Redemption: Yefet Ben ‘Eli on the Minor Prophets. A Lost Work of Lawrence Marwick. n.p., n.d. [2003]. Marmorstein, “Fragments” = Marmorstein, A. “Fragments du commentaire de Daniel al-Kumissi sur les Psaumes.” Journal Asiatique, IIème série 7 (1916), pp. 177–237. Menahem, Mah. beret = Menah. em ben Saruq: Mah. beret; edición crítica e introducción. . Ed. A. Sáenz-Badillos. Granada, 1986. Midr. Meg. = Gaster, M., ed. “The oldest version of Midrash Megillah, published for the first time from a unique manuscript of the Xth century.” In G.A. Kohut (ed.), Semitic Studies in Memory of Rev. Dr. Alexander Kohut. Berlin, 1897, pp. 167–78. Midr. Meg. Esth. = øúñà úìéâî ùøãî. In A. Jellinek (ed.), íéùøãî ®®® ùøãîä úéá ®®® íéðåù íéøîàîå íéðùé íéðè÷ [Bet ha-Midrasch: Sammlung kleiner Midraschim und vermischter Abhandlungen aus der ältern jüdischen Literatur], vol. 1/1. Jerusalem, 31967, pp. 18–24. Midr. Prov. = éìùî ùøãî. Ed. S. Buber. Vilna, 1893; repr., Jerusalem, 1965. NASB = The Holy Bible: New American Standard. Nashville, TN, 1977. NEB = The New English Bible with the Apocrypha. Oxford, 1971. Neubauer, Chronicles = Neubauer, A., ed. Medieval Jewish Chronicles. Vol. 2. Oxford, 1895; repr., Jerusalem, 1967. NJPSV = TANAKH: the Holy Scriptures—The New JPS Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text. Philadelphia, 1985 (for the text of Esther we have usually cited Berlin, Esther). Obermann, Hibbûr = Obermann, J., ed. The Arabic Original of Ibn Shâhîn’s Book . of Comfort, known as the Hibbûr Yaphê of R. Nissîm b. Ya‘aqobh [Yale Oriental . Series; Researches, XVII]. New Haven, 1933. Num. Rab. = äáø øáãîá ùøãî. In äáø ùøãî øôñ, vol. 2. Vilna, 1887; repr., Jerusalem, n.d. Pan. Ah. . A = §à çñåð ¬íéøçà íéðô ùøãî. In S. Buber (ed.), àúãâàã éøôñ [Sammlung agadischer Commentare zum Buche Ester]. Vilna, 1886; repr., Jerusalem, 1989, pp. 45–51. Pan. Ah. . B = §á çñåð ¬íéøçà íéðô ùøãî. In S. Buber (ed.), àúãâàã éøôñ [Sammlung agadischer Commentare zum Buche Ester]. Vilna, 1886; repr., Jerusalem, 1989, pp. 55–82. ¯ı, History. Perlmann, al-Tabar¯ ı = see al-Tabar . . Pesh. = Ceriani, A.M., ed. The Syro-Hexapla on Esther in Translatio Syra

326

bibliography

Pescitto Veteris Testamenti ex codice Ambrosiano sec. fere VI photolithographice edita. Vol. 1: Genesis—Threni. Milan, 1876, pp. 442–47. Pesiq. Rab Kah. = ìëî úåàçñåð ééåðùå ãøåôñ÷åà ãé áúë éô ìò ¬àðäë áøã àú÷éñô àåáîå ùåøéô íò äæéðâä éãéøùå ãéä éáúë [Pesikta de Rav Kahana, according to an Oxford manuscript with variants from all known manuscripts and Genizoth fragments and parallel passages with commentary and introduction]. 2 vols. Ed. B. Mandelbaum. New York, 1962. Pirqe R. El. = øåàéá íò ñåð÷øåä ïá ìåãâä øæòéìà éáø àðúäî øæòéìà éáø é÷øô øôñ 짧ãøä. Warsaw, 1862; repr., Jerusalem, 1990, fols. 119r–123r (ch. 50). Polliack & Schlossberg, Hosea = Polliack, M. and E. Schlossberg, ed. and trans. òùåä øôñì éàø÷ä éìò ïá úôé ùåøéô. Forthcoming; final draft furnished by M. Polliack. Polliack & Schlossberg, “Obadiah” = Idem, “øôñì éàø÷ä éìò ïá úôé ìù åîåâøú úøàåáîå úøòåî äøåãäî ºäéãáåò.” Pe"amim 89 (2001), pp. 61–82. Qafih, . Dal¯ala = Qafih, . Y., ed. íåâøúå øå÷î ¬ïéøéàçìà §äìàìã–íéëåáðä äøåî. 3 vols. Jerusalem, 1972. Qafih, . Esther = see Saadia, Tafs¯ır. Qafih, . Job = Qafih, . J., ed. éîåéô óñåé ïá äéãòñ åðáø ïåàâä ùåøéôå íåâøú íò áåéà 짧öæ. Jerusalem, 1973. Qafih, . Pentateuch = Idem, ed. and trans. äøåúä ìò ïåàâ äéãòñ åðéáø éùåøéô. Jerusalem, 1963. Qafih, . Psalms = see Saadia, Psalms. Qimh. ¯ı, Lexicon = Biesenthal, Jo.H.R. and F. Lebrecht, eds, éáøì íéùøùä øôñ éæðëùàä ¬éåìä åäéìà éáøî íé÷åîéðä íò ¬éãøôñä éçî÷ óñåé ïá ãéåã [Rabbi Davidis Kimchi Radicum Liber sive hebraeum bibliorum lexicon, cum animadversionibus Eliae Levitae]. Berlin, 1847; repr., Jerusalem, 1967. Rashi, Responsa = Elfenbein, I., ed. éøôñå ãé éáúë êåúî úåñðåëî ®®® 駧ùø úåáåùú úåçúôîå úåøòäå àåáî íò íéðåùàø [Responsa Rashi, Solomon ben Isaac, ex codicibus librisque impressis congessit praefatinem annotations indices adiecit dr. Israel Elfenbein]. New York, 1943. Ratzaby, “Bible” = Ratzaby, Y., ed. and trans. “àø÷îì äéãòñ áø éùåøéôî.” Sinai 109 (1992), pp. 183–211 [1–19]. Ratzaby, “Commentary” = Idem, ed. and trans. “øúñà ¬äëéàì äéãòñ áø ùåøéôî (íéùãç íéòè÷ äøùò) ìàéðãå.” Sinai 111 (1993), pp. 1–26. Ratzaby, “Esther” = Idem, ed. and trans. “øúñà úìéâîì äéãòñ §ø ùåøéôî.” In S. Israeli, N. Lamm, and Y. Raphael (eds.), óñåé éáø ïåàâä åðøåî ãåáëì ìáåé øôñ ÷é§öééáåìåñ éåìä áåã. Jerusalem, 1984, pp. 1153–78. Ratzaby, “Fragments” = Idem, ed. and trans. “úìéâîì äéãòñ áø ùåøéôî íéãéøù øúñà.” Sinai 104 (1990), pp. 183–214 [1–22]. Reinaud, Aboulféda = Reinaud, J.T., ed.  I E d D [Géographie d’Aboulféda]. Paris, 1840. RSV = The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version containing the Old and New Testaments. New York, 1973. S. #Olam Rab. = íìåò øãñ ùøãî [Midrash Seder Olam]. Ed. D.B. Ratner, with a prefatory scholarly survey … by S.K. Mirsky. Jerusalem, 1988. Saadia, Am¯an¯at = úàðàîàìà éô øàúë˙ îìà áàúë ¯ úåòãáå úåðåîàá øçáðä øôñ 짧öæ éîåéô óñåé ïá äéãòñ åðáøì úàãà÷úòàìàå. Ed. Y. K¯ afih. . Jerusalem, 1995.

bibliography

327

Saadia, Comm. = see Ratzaby, “Esther.” Saadia, Daniel = éáø ùåøéôå 짧öæ éîåéô óñåé ïá äéãòñ åðáø ùåøéôå íåâøú íò ìàéðã õ§§éøäîì ø÷åã÷ãä ÷ìçå éîìùåøéä íåçðú. Ed. J. K¯ afih. . Jerusalem, 1981. Saadia, Egrôn = ïåàâ äéãòñ áø úàî éðàøáòìà øòùìà ìåöà áàúë / ïåøâàä [Ha"egron / Kit¯ab ’us.u¯ l al-shi#r al-#ibr¯an¯ı by Rav S˘e#adya Ga"on]. Ed. N. Allony [The Academy of the Hebrew Language, Texts and Studies, VIII]. Jerusalem, 1969. Saadia, Job = 짧öæ éîåéô óñåé ïá äéãòñ åðáø ïåàâä ùåøéôå íåâøú íò áåéà. Ed. J. K¯afih. . Jerusalem, 1973. Saadia, Proverbs = 짧öæ éîåéô óñåé ïá äéãòñ åðáø ïåàâä ùåøéôå íåâøú íò éìùî. Ed. J. K¯afih. . Kiryat-Ono, 21994. Saadia, Psalms = 짧öæ éîåéô óñåé ïá äéãòñ åðéáø ïåàâä ùåøéôå íåâøú íò íéìäú. Ed. J. K¯afih. . Jerusalem, 1966. Saadia, Song = íéøéùä øéù ìò ùåøéô. In íéàöåéä íé÷éúò íéùåøéô íò ®®® úåìéâî ùîç afih. úåøàäå úåøòä úåàåáî óåøéöá ãé éáúë éô ìò äðåùàø íòô øåàì. Ed. J. K¯ . Jerusalem, 1962, pp. 3–132. Saadia, Tafs¯ır = øúñà ìò ùåøéô. In íéàöåéä íé÷éúò íéùåøéô íò ®®® úåìéâî ùîç afih. úåøàäå úåøòä úåàåáî óåøéöá ãé éáúë éô ìò äðåùàø íòô øåàì. Ed. J. K¯ . Jerusalem, 1962, pp. 300–322. Samuel ben Meir, Esther = ben Meir, Samuel. Commentary on Esther in Jellinek, Commentaries, pp. 1–10. Samuel de Uçeda, Esther = ø§§øäåî ®®® øåàéá íòå ®®® 駧ùø ùåøéô íò øúñà úìéâî íéðåéö ¬úåøå÷î ¬àåáî óåøéöá 駧úë êåúî äðåùàøì òéôåî ®®® àãéæåà éã ìàåîù Kaufmann. Jerusalem, 1993. úåìéá÷îå. Ed. H.A. .

Schorstein, Rûth = Schorstein, N., ed. Der Commentar des Karäers Jephet ben ’Ali zum Buche Rûth, zum ersten Male nach drei Mss. ediert, mit Einleitung und Anmerkungen versehen. Berlin 1903. Shunary, Psalms = J. Shunary, “Salmon ben Yeruham’s Commentary on the Book of Psalms,” Jewish Quarterly Review 73/2 (1982), pp. 155–75. Simon, Prophets = Simon, U., ed. ºøùò­éøúì àøæò ïáà íäøáà §ø éùåøéô éðù úøàåáî úéòãî äøåãäî [Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Two Commentaries on the Minor Prophets: An Annotated Critical Edition]. Vol. 1: ñåîò ¬ìàåé ¬òùåä. Jerusalem, 1989. Skoss, Dictionary = see al-F¯as¯ı, J¯am¯ı’. Skoss, Genesis = Skoss, S.L., ed. The Arabic Commentary of #Ali ben Suleim¯an the Karaite on the Book of Genesis. Philadelphia, 1928. Sokolow, Deuteronomy = Sokolow, M., ed. and trans. The Commentary of Yefet ben Ali on Deuteronomy XXXII. Ph.D. dissertation. Yeshiva University, 1974. Song. Rab. = äáø íéøéùä øéù ùøãî. In äáø ùøãî øôñ, vol. 2. Vilna, 1887 (vol. 3 of 3); repr., Jerusalem, n.d. Steinberger, Midr. Esth. = Steinberger, A.S. . et al., eds. øúñà ºøàåáîä äáø ùøãî. Jerusalem, 1986. Steinsaltz, Megillah = Steinsaltz, A. ¬íâøåúî ¬øàåáî ¬äìéâî úëñî ºéìáá ãåîìú ã÷åðîå. Jerusalem, 1989. Stroumsa, Maq¯ala = Stroumsa, S. D¯aw¯ud ibn Marw¯an al-Muqammis. ’s Twenty Chapters [#Ishr¯un Maq¯ala), Edited, Translated and Annotated (Études sur le judaïsme médiéval, XIII]. Leiden, 1989.

328

bibliography

Tanhum, Esther = ben Joseph, Tanhum, ha-Yerushalmi. Commentary on Es. . ther from his Kit¯ab al-bay¯an in Ms. BLO Poc. 320 (= Neubauer’s no. 363), fols. 215r–226r. Theodore, Scholiorum = A. Scher, ed. Theodorus bar K¯on¯ı. Liber Scholiorum, pars prior (CSCO, 55/Syr. 19). Louvain, 1910. Tg. Esth I = Grossfeld, B., ed. The First Targum to Esther, According to the MS Paris Hebrew 110 of the Bibliothèque Nationale. New York, 1983. Tg. Esth II = Idem, ed. The Targum Sheni to the Book of Esther: A Critical Edition Based on MS. Sassoon 282 with Critical Apparatus. New York, 1994. Vajda, Muh. taw¯ı = Vajda, G., ed. and trans. Al-Kit¯ab al-Muh. taw¯ı de Y¯usuf al-Bas.¯ır (Études sur le judaïsme médiéval, XII). Ed. D.R. Blumenthal. Leiden, 1985. Vulg. = Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem. Ed. R. Weber et al. Stuttgart, 41994. Wechsler, “Commentary” = Wechsler, M.G., ed. and trans. “An Early Karaite Commentary on the Book of Esther.” HUCA 72 (2001), pp. 101–37. Wechsler, “Proverbs 31:1–9” = Idem, ed. and trans. “The Arabic Translation and Commentary of Yefet ben ‘Eli on Proverbs 31:1–9.” Revue des études juives 161/3–4 (2002), pp. 393–409. Wechsler, “Proverbs 31:10–31” = Idem, ed. and trans. “The Arabic Translation and Commentary of Yefet ben ‘Eli on Proverbs 31:10–31.” Journal of Jewish Studies 54/2 (2003), pp. 283–310. Wechter, Bar¯un = Wechter, P., ed. and trans. Ibn Bar¯un’s Arabic Works on Hebrew Grammar and Lexicography. Philadelphia, 1964. Wendkos, Jeremiah = Wendkos, P.D., ed. The Arabic Commentary of Yefet b. Ali the Karaite on the Book of Jeremiah: 150 Folios Edited from Three MSS with Critical Notes. Ph.D. dissertation. Dropsie College, 1969. Yalq. = åðéáø áøä øáçå è÷ìù ®®® íéáåúëå ¬íéàéáð ¬äøåú ìò ùøãî—éðåòîù èå÷ìé ïééîã èøåô÷ðàøô ÷§§÷î ¬íéðùøãä ùàø 짧öæ ïåòîù. 2 vols. Vilna, 1898; repr., Jerusalem, 1980. Y¯aq¯ut, Mu#jam = Mu #jam al-buld¯an. Ed. M. Abd al-Rahm¯ . an al-Mar#ashl¯ı. 4 vols. Beirut, n.d. Yefet, Amos = see Marwick, Retribution, pp. 43–120. Yefet, Daniel = see Margoliouth, Daniel. Yefet, Deuteronomy = see Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, II, pp. 182–200; Frank, Search, pp. 267–80, 314–17; Sokolow, Deuteronomy. Yefet, Ecclesiastes = see Bland, Ecclesiastes. Yefet, Exodus = see Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, II, pp. 140–73. Yefet, Ezekiel = see Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, II, pp. 221–28. Yefet, Genesis = see Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, II, pp. 63–139; Butbul & Stroumsa, “Genesis”; Frank, Search, pp. 281, 282–88, 289–90, 310, 313; Polliack, Tradition, pp. 305–6. Yefet, Habakkuk = Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, II, pp. 231–32. Yefet, Hosea = see Birnbaum, Hosea. Yefet, Isaiah = see Alobaidi, Isaiah, pp. 125–204; Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, II, pp. 205–19; idem, “Studies,” pp. 188–91; Frank, Search, pp. 291–92, 311. Yefet, Jeremiah = see Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, II, pp. 219–21; Wendkos, Jeremiah. Yefet, Job = see Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, II, pp. 279–95; Hussain, Job.

bibliography

329

Yefet, Joel = see Marwick, Retribution, pp. 1–41. Yefet, Jonah = Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, II, pp. 229–31; Marwick, Retribution, pp. 137–59. Yefet, Leviticus = see Frank, Search, pp. 263–67. Yefet, Micah = see Marwick, Retribution, pp. 161–224. Yefet, Nahum = see Hirschfeld, N¯ah. ¯um. Yefet, Numbers = see Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, II, pp. 173–82; Frank, Search, p. 280, 311–13. Yefet, Obadiah = Ben–Shammai, Doctrines, II, pp. 228–29; Marwick, Retribution, pp. 121–35; Polliack & Schlossberg, “Obadiah.” Yefet, Proverbs = see Auerbach, Proverbiorum; Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, II, pp. 264–78; Günzig, Proverbien; Wechsler, “Proverbs 31:1–9”; idem, “Proverbs 31:10–31.” Yefet, Psalms = see Bargès, Excerpta; idem, Zub¯ur; Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, II, pp. 234–63; Frank, Search, pp. 300–310; Hofmann, Psalm. Yefet, Ruth = see Schorstein, Rûth. Yefet, Samuel = see Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, II, pp. 201–5. Yefet, Song = see Bargès, Canticum; Ben-Shammai, “Studies,” pp. 182–87; Frank, Search, pp. 295–96; 297–98. Yefet, Zechariah = see Ben-Shammai, Doctrines, II, pp. 232–33; idem, “Studies,” pp. 182–87. Zedner, Commentary = J. Zedner, ed. ¬øúñà ìò ò§§áàøä ùåøéô àåä ¬íäøáà óñåéå àðééðú àøåãäî [Abraham Aben(!) Ezra’s Commentary on the Book of Esther, after Another Version]. London, 1850. III. Secondary Sources Adang, “Sources” = Idem. “The Karaites as Portrayed in Medieval Islamic Sources.” In Polliack, Guide, pp. 179–97. Adang, Writers = Adang, C. Muslim Writers on Judaism & the Hebrew Bible, From Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm [Islamic Philosophy, Theology, and Science, XXII]. Leiden, 1996. Adler, Catalogue = Adler, E.N. Catalogue of Hebrew Manuscripts in the Collection of Elkan Nathan Adler. Cambridge, 1921. Allony, Studies = Allony, N. úåøôñå ïåùì éø÷çî [Studies in medieval philology and literature], eds. Y. Tobi, A. Hat.al, and Sh. Morag. Vol. 4. Jerusalem, . 1989. Anawati, Études = Anawati, G.C. Études de philosophie musulmane (Études Musulmanes, XV). Paris, 1974. Ankori, Karaites = Ankori, Z. Karaites in Byzantium: The Formative Years, 970–1100 [Columbia Studies in the Social Sciences, 597). New York-Jerusalem, 1959. Ashtor, “Basra” = Ashtor, E. “Basra.” In Cecil Roth et al. (eds.), Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 4. Jerusalem, 1971, cols. 310–12. Astren, “Studies” = Astren, F. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Medieval Jewish Studies: Methods and Problems.” Dead Sea Discoveries 8/2 (2001), pp. 105– 23.

330

bibliography

Astren, Understanding = Idem. Karaite Judaism and Historical Understanding [Studies in Comparative Religion]. Columbia, SC, 2004. Baker and Polliack, Genizah = Baker, C.F. and M. Polliack. Arabic and JudaeoArabic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections: Arabic Old Series (T-S Ar. 1a–54) [Cambridge University Library Genizah Series, 12]. Cambridge, 2001. Batat, “Catalogue” = Batat, E. “äîâåãì âåìè÷.” In H. . Ben-Shammai et al. (eds.),

®úéùàøá ùåøéô ¬éøöáìà éìò ïá úôé º§õéáå÷øéô éôñåàá úéãåäé­úéáøòá ãéä éáúë íéø÷çîå úåøå÷î ¬äîâåãì âåìè÷ [Judaeo-Arabic Manuscripts in the Firkovitch

Collections: Yefet ben #Eli al-Basri, Commentary on Genesis; A Sample Catalogue; Texts and Studies]. Jerusalem, 2000, pp. 11–77. Bauckham, 2 Peter = Bauckham, R.J. Jude, 2 Peter [Word Biblical Commentary, 50]. Waco, Texas, 1983. Bauer, Lexicon = Bauer, W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Trans. and adapted by W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich. Chicago, 21979. Beckingham, “Habash” = Beckingham, C.F. “Habash, Habasha: iii. Al-Ha. . . . bash in muslim geographical works.” In Gibb, Encyclopaedia, III, pp. 6b– 7b. Ben-Sasson, “Character” = Ben-Sasson, H.H. “úéàø÷ä §íéðùåùä§ úãò ìù åúåîã . íéìùåøéá.” Shalem 2 (1976), pp. 1–18. Ben-Shammai, “Controversy” = Ben-Shammai, H. . “The Karaite Controversy: Scripture and Tradition in Early Karaism.” In B. Lewis and F. Niewöhner (eds.), Religionsgespräche im Mittelalter [Wolfenbütteler MittelalterStudien, 4]. Wiesbaden, 1992, pp. 11–26. Ben-Shammai, Doctrines = Idem. áå÷òé óñåé åáà ìù úéúãä äáùçîä úåèéù éìò ïá úôéå éðàñ÷ø÷ìà [The Doctrines of Religious Thought of Abû Yûsuf Ya‘qûb al-Qirqisânî and Yefet ben ‘Elî]. 2 vols. Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1977. Ben-Shammai, “Edition” = Idem. “àø÷îì éìò ïá úôé éùåøéôî úåàçñåðå äøåãäî.” Alei Sefer 2 (1976), pp. 17–32. Ben-Shammai, “Exegete” = Idem. úéðáøä åúáéáñå éàø÷ä ïùøôä. In M.H. Goshen-Gottstein (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Panel Sessions: Bible Studies and Ancient Near East. Jerusalem, 1988, pp. 42–58. Ben-Shammai, “Mourners” = Idem. “ïåéö éìáà ìù úåðé÷ä éøãñå úéðèééôä äøéöéä íéðëúäå úøâñîä—íéàø÷ä.” In S. Elizur et al. (eds.), íééçå úåøôñ ºàøæò úñðë øùééìô àøæòì úùâåî íéøîàî úôåñà ®úñðëä úéáá [Knesset Ezra: Literature and Life in the Synagogue. Studies Presented to Ezra Fleischer]. Jerusalem, 1994, pp. 191–234. Ben-Shammai, “Note” = Idem. “A Note on Some Karaite Copies of Mu‘tazilite Writings.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 37/2 (1974), pp. 295–304. Ben-Shammai, “Return” = Idem. “Return to the Scriptures in Ancient and Medieval Jewish Sectarianism and in Early Islam.” In E. Patlagean and A. Le Boulluec (eds.), Les retours aux Écritures: fondamentalismes présents et passés [Bibliothèque de l’École des hautes études; Section des sciences religieuses, XCIX]. Louvain, 1993, pp. 319–39.

bibliography

331

Ben-Shammai, “Trends” = Idem. “Major Trends in Karaite Philosophy and Polemics in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries.” In Polliack, Guide, pp. 339– 62. Ben-Shammai, Studies = Idem. “àø÷îì éìò ïá úôé éîåâøú ìù çñåðä úøåñîá íéðåéò.” In H. Ben-Shammai et al. (eds.), º§õéáå÷øéô éôñåàá úéãåäé­úéáøòá ãéä éáúë íéø÷çîå úåøå÷î »äîâåãì âåìè÷ »úéùàøá ùåøéô ¬éøöáìà éìò ïá úôé [JudaeoArabic Manuscripts in the Firkovitch Collections: Yefet ben #Eli al-Basri, Commentary on Genesis; A Sample Catalogue; Texts and Studies]. Jerusalem, 2000, pp. 181–206. Ben-Shammai, “Yeshu#ah” = Idem. “éîìùåøé éàø÷ íëç ìù åúåîãì–äãåäé ïá äòåùé ১éä äàîá.” Pe"amim 32 (1987), pp. 3–20. Bergen, Discourse = Bergen, R.D., ed. Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics. Winona Lake, Ind., 1994. Berlin, Esther = Berlin, A. Esther: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation [The JPS Bible Commentary]. Philadelphia, 2001. Bernand, “Kiy¯ . as” = Bernand, M. “Kiy¯ . as.” In Gibb, Encyclopaedia, V, pp. 238b– 42a. Birnbaum, Scripts = Birnbaum, S.A. The Hebrew Scripts. Part One: The Text. Leiden, 1971. Bivar, “History” = Bivar, A.D.H. “The History of Eastern Iran.” In E. Yarshater (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 3(1): The Seleucid, Parthian, and Sasanian Periods. Cambridge, 1983, pp. 181–231. Blau, Dictionary = Blau, J. íééðéáä éîéî íééãåäé­íééáøò íéèñ÷èì ïåìéî [A Dictionary of Mediaeval Judaeo-Arabic Texts]. Jerusalem, 2006. Blau, Emergence = Idem. The Emergence and Linguistic Background of Judaeo-Arabic: A Study of the Origins of Neo-Arabic and Middle-Arabic. Jerusalem, 31999. Blau, “Fragment” = Idem. “On a fragment of the oldest Judaeo-Arabic Bible translation extant.” In J. Blau & S.C. Reif (eds), Genizah research after ninety years: The case of Judaeo-Arabic. Papers read at the third congress of the Society for Judaeo-Arabic Studies (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, 47). Cambridge, 1992, pp. 31–39 (chap. 5). Blau, Grammar = Idem. íééðéáä éîé ìù úéãåäéä­úéáøòä ÷åã÷ã [A Grammar of Mediaeval Judaeo-Arabic]. Jerusalem, 21980. Bosworth, “al-Tha#¯alib¯ı” = Bosworth, C.E. “al-Tha #¯alib¯ı, Ab¯u Mans.u¯ r.” In Gibb, Encyclopaedia, X, pp. 425b–26a. Brin, “Composition” = G. Brin. “íééàø÷ íéðùøô úñéôúá àø÷îä ïî úåéùøô øåáéç óñåé ïá ïåøäàå ïáåàø ïá á÷òé ìù íééðùøôä íäéáúëá ïåéò ºúéøáò éáúåë.” Beit Mikra 171 (2002), pp.305–21. Brin, “Hassadr¯an” = Idem. §§øcñîäå ïøãñ秧 L˘esˇonénu 66/3–4 (2004), pp. 291–95. Brody, Manuscripts = Brody, R., incorporating work by E.J. Wiesenberg. A Hand-list of Rabbinic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections. Vol. I: Taylor-Schechter New Series [Cambridge University Library Genizah Series, 5]. Cambridge, 2001. Broydé, “Japheth” = Broydé, I. “Japheth ha-Levi.” In The Jewish Encyclopaedia, vol. 7. Ed. I. Singer et al. New York, 1904, pp. 72a–73b. Bush, Esther = Bush, F. Ruth/Esther [Word Biblical Commentary 9]. Dallas, 1996.

332

bibliography

Clines, Esther = Clines, D.J. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther [The New Century Bible Commentary]. Grand Rapids, 1984. Cook, “#Anan” = Cook, M. “#Anan and Islam: The Origins of Karaite Scripturalism.” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 9 (1987), pp. 161–82. Cook, Commanding = Idem. Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic Thought. Cambridge, 2000. de Goeje, Bibliotheca = de Goeje, M.J., ed. Bibliotheca geographorum arabicorum. Vol. 4: Indices, glossarium et addenda et emendanda ad part. I–III. Leiden, 1879. Dinur, Diaspora = Dinur, B.Z. éôì íéøåãñå íéëåøò úåãåòúå úåøå÷î–äìåâá ìàøùé úåøòäå íéøåàéá ¬úåçéúô úôñåúá íéðîæäå íéðééðòä. Vol. 1, book 2 (ìàøùé úåãìåú, vol. 5). Tel-Aviv, 1961. Dozy, Supplément = Dozy, R. Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes. 2 vols. LeidenParis, 21927. Dukes, Mittheilungen = L. Dukes, Literaturhistorische Mittheilungen ueber die ältesten hebräischen Exegeten, Grammatiker und Lexicographen nebst hebräischen Beilagen. Vol. 2 of Beiträge zur Geschichte der aeltesten Auslegung und Spracherklärung des Alten Testamentes. Eds. H. Ewald and L. Dukes. Stuttgart, 1844. Efros, Studies = Efros, I. Studies in Medieval Jewish Philosophy. New York, 1974. Efros, Terms = Idem. Philosophical Terms in the Moreh Nebukim [Columbia University Oriental Studies, XXII]. New York, 1924. Erder, “Attitude” = Erder, Y. “øåàì øñåî úåéòáì éìò ïá úôé àø÷ä ìù åúåñçééúä áë-àë ¬â úåîùá áåúëì åùåøéô.” Sefunot n.s. 7/22 (1999), pp. 313–33. Erder, “Mourners” = Idem. “The Mourners of Zion: The Karaites in Jerusalem in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries.” In Polliack, Guide, pp. 213– 35. Erder, “Sects” = Idem. “The Karaites and the Second Temple Sects.” In Polliack, Guide, pp. 119–43. Fox, Esther = Fox, M. Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther [Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament]. Columbia, SC, 1991. Frank, Attributes = Frank, R.M. Beings and Their Attributes: The Teaching of the Basrian School of the Mu‘tazila in the Classical Period [Studies in Islamic Philosophy and Science]. Albany, 1978. Frank, “Literature” = Frank, D. “Karaite Exegetical and Halakhic Literature in Byzanitum and Turkey.” In Polliack, Guide, pp. 529–58. Frank, Search = Idem. Search Scripture Well: Karaite Exegetes and the Origins of the Jewish Bible Commentary in the Islamic East [Études sur le judaïsme médiéval, XXIX]. Leiden, 2004. Freimark, “Mukaddima” = Freimark, P. “Mukaddima.” In Gibb, Encyclopaedia, . . VII, pp. 495b–96a. Freeman-Grenville, “al-Zandj” = Freeman-Grenville, G.S.P. “al-Zandj: 1. As a territorial term.” In Gibb, Encyclopaedia, XI, pp. 444b–45b. Fürst, Geschichte = Fürst, J. Geschichte des Karäerthums. Bd. 2: Von 900 bis 1575 der gewöhnlichen Zeitrechnung. Leipzig, 1865; repr., Hildesheim, 1975. Gardet, “#Akliyy¯ . at” = Gardet, L. “#Akliyy¯ . at.” In Gibb, Encyclopaedia, I, pp. 342b–43a. Gardet, “Kal¯am” = Idem. “#Ilm al-Kal¯am.” In Gibb, Encyclopaedia, III, pp. 1141b–1150b.

bibliography

333

Gardet & Anawati, Introduction = Idem and M.-M. Anawati, Introduction à la théologie musulmane: essai de théologie comparée (Études de philosophie médiévale, XXXVII). Paris, 1948. Gerleman, Esther = Gerleman, G. Esther [Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament, XXI]. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1982. Gesenius & Brown, Lexicon = Gesenius, W. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Trans. E. Robinson; ed. F. Brown; with the cooperation of S.R. Driver and C.A. Briggs. Oxford, n.d. Gesenius & Kautzsch, Grammar = Gesenius, W. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Ed. and enlarged by E. Kautzsch; trans. G.W. Collins; rev. A.E. Cowley. Oxford, 21910. Gibb, Encyclopaedia = Gibb, H.A.R. et al., eds. The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition. 12 vols. 1960–2002. Gil, History = Gil, M. A History of Palestine, 634–1099. Trans. E. Broido. Cambridge, 1992. Gil, “Origins” = Idem. “The Origins of the Karaites.” In Polliack, Guide, pp. 73–118. Gimaret, “Mu#tazila” = Gimaret, D. “Mu#tazila.” In Gibb, Encyclopaedia, VII, pp. 783a–93b. Ginzberg, Legends = L. Ginzberg. The Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Philadelphia, 1909–38. Goitein, Society = Goitein, S.D. A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza. 6 vols. Berkeley, 1967–1993. Goldman, Comments = Goldman, J. øúñà úìâîì úåøòäå íéøåàá. Tel-Aviv, 1932. Goldziher, Introduction = Goldziher, I. Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law. Trans. A. and R. Hamori. [Modern Classics in Near Eastern Studies]. Princeton, 1981. Goldziher, Studien = Idem. Studien über Tanchûm Jerûschalmi. Leipzig, 1870. Gordis, Esther = Gordis, R. Megillat Esther—The Masoretic Hebrew Text with Introduction, New Translation and Commentary. New York, 1974. Gottlober, History = Gottlober, A.B. íéàø÷ä úåãìåúì úø÷á øôñ. Vilna, 1865; repr., Jerusalem, 1972. Grätz, History = Grätz, H. (S.). . ìàøùé éîé éøáã øôñ. Trans. S.P. Rabinowitz, with notes and supplements by A. Harkavy. Part 3: úôå÷ú ãò ãåîìúä úîéúçî ãøôñá ìàøùé úîëçå úéø÷çîä úéðáøä úçøôä. Warsaw, 1908; repr., Jerusalem, 1972. Greenspoon, Translation = Greenspoon, L.A. “A Book ‘Without Blemish’: the Jewish Publication Society’s Bible Translation of 1917.” Jewish Quarterly Review 79/1 (1988), pp. 1–21. Hakham, “Esther” = Hakham, A. øúñà. In A. Mirsky et al. (eds.), úåìéâî ùîç. . . Jerusalem, 1990. Hallaq, “Qiy¯as” = Hallaq, W.B. “Non-Analogical Arguments in Sunni Juridicial Qiy¯as.” Arabica 36 (1989), pp. 286–306; reprinted in idem, Law and Legal Theory in Classical and Medieval Islam [Variorum Collected Studies Series, 474]. Aldershot, Great Britain, 1994, article II.

334

bibliography

Hallo, “Purim” = Hallo, W.W. “The First Purim.” Biblical Archaeologist 46 (1983), pp. 19–26. Harris, “Awareness” = R.A. Harris, “ïåôö éðùøô ìöà àø÷îä úëéøòì úåòãåî® úôøö.” Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 12 (2000), pp. 289–310. Hava, Dictionary = Hava, J.G. Al-Far¯a"id: Arabic-English Dictionary. Beirut, 51982. Harviainen, “Transcriptions” = Harviainen, T. “Karaite Arabic Transcriptions of Hebrew in the Saltykov-Shchedrin Public Library in St. Petersburg.” In E. Fernández Tejero and M.T. Ortega Monasterio (eds.), Estudios Masoréticos (X Congreso de la IOMS) (En memoria de Harry M. Orlinsky). Madrid, 1993, pp. 63–72. Heemskerk, Suffering = Heemskerk, M.T. Suffering in the Mu #tazilite Theology: #Abd al-Jabb¯ar’s Teaching on Pain and Divine Justice [Islamic Philosophy, Theology and Science: Texts and Studies; 41]. Leiden, 2000. Hirschfeld, “Notiz” = Hirschfeld, H. “Notiz über einen dem Maim¯uni untergeschobenen arabischen Commentar zu Esther.” In G.A. Kohut (ed.), Semitic Studies in Memory of Rev. Dr. Alexander Kohut. Berlin, 1897, pp. 248–53. Hirschler, Esther = Hirschler, G. øúñà úìéâî. In A. Kahana (ed.), íéàéáð äøåú úåìâî ùîç ºíéáåúë ®éòãî ùåøéô íò íéáåúëå. Tel-Aviv, 1930, pp. 222–316. Hoerning, Manuscripts = Hoerning, R. British Museum Karaite MSS. Descriptions and Collation of Six Karaite Manuscripts of Portions of the Hebrew Bible in Arabic Characters. London, 1889. Hoschander, Esther = Hoschander, J. The Book of Esther in the Light of History. Philadelphia, 1923. Jahn, Ester = Jahn, G. Das Buch Ester, nach der Septuaginta hergestellt, übersetzt und kritisch erklart. Leiden, 1901. Jastrow, Dictionary = Jastrow, M. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. New York, 1903; repr., New York, 1992. Jeanrond, “Interpretation” = Jeanrond, W.G. “Interpretation, History of.” In D.N. Freedman et al. (eds.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 3. New York, 1992, pp. 424b–43b. Joüon & Muraoka, Grammar = Joüon, P. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2 vols. [Subsidia biblica 14/I–II]. Trans. and revised by T. Muraoka. Rome, 1996. Kaye, “S¯ud¯an” = Kaye, A.S. “S¯ud¯an, Bil¯ad al-.” In Gibb, Encyclopaedia, IX, pp. 752b–61a. Keil, Esther = Keil, C.F. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: The Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. Trans. S. Taylor. Grand Rapids, n.d. Kent, Old Persian = Kent, R.G. Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon (American Oriental Series, 33). New Haven, 1953. Khan, “Contribution” = Khan, G. “The Contribution of the Karaites to the Study of the Hebrew Language.” In Polliack, Guide, pp. 291–318. Khan, “Script” = Idem. “On the Question of Script in Medieval Karaite Manuscripts: New Evidence from the Genizah.” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 75/3 (1993), pp. 133–41. Khan, “Transcriptions” = Idem. “The Medieval Karaite Transcriptions of Hebrew into Arabic Script.” In J.L. Kraemer (ed.), Israel Oriental Studies, vol. 12. Leiden, 1992, pp. 157–76.

bibliography

335

Koch, “Darius” = Koch, K. “Darius the Mede.” In D.N. Freedman et al. (eds.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 2. London, 1987, pp. 38a–39b. Koehler & Baumgartner, Lexicon = Koehler, L. and W. Baumgartner et al. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Trans. and ed. M.E.J. Richardson et al. 5 vols. Leiden, 1994–2000. Kohler, “Aaron” = Kohler, K. “Aaron ben Joseph, the Karaite.” In The Jewish Encyclopaedia, vol. 1. Ed. I. Singer et al. New York, 1901, pp. 14a–15b. Kutscher, “Aramaic” = Kutscher, E.Y. “Two ‘Passive’ Constructions in Aramaic in the Light of Persian.” In Z. Ben-Hayyim et al. (eds.), Hebrew and . Aramaic Studies. Jerusalem, 1977, pp. 70–89. Lane, Lexicon = Lane, E.W. An Arabic-English Lexicon. 8 vols. London, 1863–93; repr., Beirut, 1968. Lasker, “Thought” = Lasker, D.J. “Byzantine Karaite Thought.” In Polliack, Guide, pp. 505–28. Lazarus-Yafeh, “Tawr¯at” = Lazarus-Yafeh, H. “Tawr¯at.” In Gibb, Encyclopaedia, X, pp. 393b–95a. Leaman, Philosophy = Leaman, O. An Introduction to Classical Islamic Philosophy. Cambridge, 2002. Lehrman, “Jephet” = Lehrman, S.M. “Jephet b. Ali, the Karaite: His Place among Biblical Commentators.” In H.J. Zimmels et al. (eds.), Essays presented to Chief Rabbi Israel Brodie on the occasion of his seventieth Birthday [Jews’ College Publications, New Series, 3], English volume. London, 1967, pp. 231–242. Levenson, Esther = Levenson, J.D. Esther [The Old Testament Library]. Louisville, 1997. Liddell & Scott, Lexicon = Liddell, H.G. and R. Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon, with a Revised Supplement. Rev. and augmented by H.S. Jones, with the assistance of R. McKenzie and with the cooperation of many scholars. Oxford, 91996. MacDonald, Development = MacDonald, D.B. Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence and Constitutional Theory. New York, 1903; repr., London, 1985. Mahler, Karaites = Mahler, R. íééðéáä­éîéá úéãåäé äìåàâ­úòåðú ºíéàø÷ä [Karaites(!): A Mediaeval Jewish Movement for Deliverance]. Trans. E. Shmu"eli. Merhavyah, 1949. . Maier, Esther = Maier, G. Das Buch Esther [Wuppertaler Studienbibel]. Wuppertal, 1993. Malter, Saadia = Malter, H. Saadia Gaon: His Life and Works. Philadelphia, 1942. Mann, Texts = Mann, J. Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature. Vol. II: Karaitica. Philadelphia, 1935. Margoliouth, Catalogue = Margoliouth, G. Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the British Museum. Part I. London, 1899; repr., 1965. Marwick, “Order” = Marwick, E.L. “The Order of the Books in Yefet’s Bible Codex.” Jewish Quarterly Review 33 (1942–43), pp. 445–60. Meinhold, Esther = Meinhold, A. Das Buch Esther [Zürcher Bibelkommentare, Altes Testament; 13]. Zürich, 1983. Moore, “Book” = Moore, C.A. “Book of Esther.” In D.N. Freedman et al. (eds.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 2. New York, 1992, pp. 633a–43a.

336

bibliography

Moore, Esther = Idem. Esther: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [The Anchor Bible, 7B]. New York, 1971. Munk, “Notice” = Munk, S. “Notice sur Abou"l-Walid Merwan ibn-Djana"h et sur quelques autres grammairiens hébreux du Xe et du XIe siècle.” Journal Asiatique, 4eme série, 15 (1850), pp. 297–337. Nader, Mu‘tazila = Nader, A.N. Le système philosophique des Mu‘tazila (Premiers penseurs de l’Islam) [Recherches publiées sous la direction de l’Institut de Lettres Orientales de Beyrouth, III]. Beirut, 1956. Naveh, “Script” = Naveh, J. “Aramaic Script.” In D.N. Freedman et al. (eds.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 1. New York, 1992, pp. 342b–345a. Nemoy, Anthology = Nemoy, L. Karaite Anthology [Yale Judaica Series, VII]. New Haven, 1952. Nemoy, “Epistle” = Idem. “The Epistle of Sahl ben Mas.liah.” . Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 38–39 (1970–71), pp. 145–77. Nemoy, “Karaites” = Idem. “Karaites.” In Gibb, Encyclopaedia, IV, pp. 603b– 608a. Nemoy, “Salmon” = Idem. “Did Salmon ben Jeroham Compose a Commentary on Ruth?” Jewish Quarterly Review 39/2 (1948), pp. 215–16. Neubauer, Bibliothek = Neubauer, A. Aus der Petersburger Bibliothek. Beiträge und Dokumente zur Geschichte des Karäerthums und der karäischen Literatur. Leipzig, 1866. Neubauer, Catalogue = Idem. Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library [Catalogi codd. mss. Bibliothecae bodleianae, pars XII]. Oxford, 1886. Neubauer and Cowley, Catalogue = Neubauer, A. and A.E. Cowley. Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library. Vol. II. Oxford, 1906. Olmstead, History = Olmstead, A.T. History of the Persian Empire. Chicago, 1948. Paton, Esther = Paton, L.B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Esther [The International Critical Commentary]. Edinburgh, 1901. Pellat, “al-Bas.ra” = Pellat, Ch. “al-Bas.ra: I. Bas.ra until the Mongol conquest (656/1258).” In Gibb, Encyclopaedia, I, pp. 1085a–86b. Piamenta, Dictionary = Piamenta, M. Dictionary of Post-Classical Yemeni Arabic. 2 vols. Leiden, 1990–91. Pines, “Doctrine” = Pines, S. “La loi naturelle et la société: la doctrine politicothéologique d’Ibn Zur‘a, Philosophe chrétien de Bagdad.” Scripta Hierosolymitana 9 [Studies in Islamic History and Institutions], pp. 154–90; reprinted in Stroumsa, Works, pp. [156–92]. Pines, “Philosophy” = Idem. “Islamic Philosophy.” In P.M. Holt et al. (eds), The Cambridge History of Islam, vol. 2B/8: Islamic Society and Civilization. Cambridge, 1970, pp. 780–823 (chap. 2); reprinted in Stroumsa, Works, pp. [3–46]. Pines, “Problems” = Idem. “Some Problems of Islamic Philosophy.” Islamic Culture 11 (1937), pp. 66–80; reprinted in The Collected Works of Shlomo Pines, vol. III: Studies in the History of Arabic Philosophy. Ed. S. Stroumsa. Jerusalem, 1996, p p. [47–61]. Pinsker, Geschichte = Pinsker, S. øåèàøòèéìäå àø÷î éðá úã úåøå÷ì—úåéðåîã÷ éèå÷ì

bibliography íééáøòå íééøáò ãé éáúë 駧ôò íäìù

337

[Lickute Kadmoniot. Zur Geschichte des Karaismus und der karäischen Literatur]. Vienna, 1860. Polliack, “Conception” = Polliack, M. “Karaite Conception of the Biblical Narrator (Mudawwin).” In J. Neusner & A.J. Avery-Peck (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Midrash, vol. 1. Leiden, 2005, pp. 350–74. Polliack, “Esther” = Idem. “Did Esther Write Her Own Book? – The Character of Esther and the Concept of Biblical Authorship in the Commentary of the Karaite Yefet ben Eli.” Unpublished paper; furnished by the author. Polliack, “Growth” = Idem. “íéàø÷ä áø÷á àø÷îä úåðùøô ìù äúçéîö.” Sefunot 7/22 (1999), pp. 299–311. Polliack, Guide = Idem, ed. Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources [Handbuch der Orientalistik. Erste Abteilung, Nahe und der Mittlere Osten, 73]. Leiden, 2003. Polliack, “Karaism” = Idem. “Medieval Karaism.” In M. Goodman et al. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies. Oxford, 2002, pp. 295–326 (chap. 12). Polliack, “Methods” = Idem. “Medieval Karaite Methods of Translating Biblical Narrative into Arabic.” Vetus Testamentum 48/3 (1998), pp. 375–98. Polliack, “Renderings” = Idem. “Alternate Renderings and Additions in Yeshu#ah ben Yehudah’s Arabic Translation of the Pentateuch.” Jewish Quarterly Review 84/2–3 (1993–1994), pp. 209–26. Polliack, Tradition = Idem. The Karaite Tradition of Arabic Bible Translation: A Linguistic and Exegetical Study of Karaite Translations of the Pentateuch from the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries C.E. [Études sur le judaïsme médiéval, XVII]. Leiden, 1997. Polliack, “Trends” = Idem. “Major Trends in Karaite Biblical Exegesis in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries.” In Polliack, Guide, pp. 363–413. Polliack, “Views” = Idem. “Medieval Karaite Views on Translating the Bible into Arabic.” Journal of Jewish Studies 47 (1996), pp. 64–84. Polliack, “Voice” = Idem. “The ‘Voice’ of the Narrator and the ‘Voice’ of the Characters in the Bible Commentaries of Yefet ben ‘Eli.” Unpublished chapter to appear in ìåàô íåìù ãåáëì ìáåéä øôñ; furnished by the author. Polliack & Schlossberg, “Prophets” = Polliack, M. and E. Schlossberg. “Historical-Literary, Rhetorical and Redactional Methods of Interpretation in Yefet ben #Eli’s Introduction to the Minor Prophets.” In G. Khan (ed.), Exegesis and Grammar in Medieval Karaite Texts [Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement, 13]. Oxford, 2001, pp. 1–39. Poznanski, ´ “Anan” = S. Poznanski. ´ “Anan et ses écrits.” Revue des études juives 44 (1902), pp. 161–87; 45 (1902), pp. 50–69, 176–203. Poznanski, ´ “Jacob” = Idem and R. Gottheil. “Jacob b. Reuben.” In The Jewish Encyclopaedia, vol. 7. Ed. I. Singer et al. New York, 1904, pp. 41a–42a. Poznanski, ´ “Kopisten” = Poznanski, ´ S. “Karäische Kopisten und Besitzer von Handschriften.” Zeitschrift für hebræische Bibliographie 19 (1916), pp. 79–122; 20 (1917), pp. 79–83. Poznanski, ´ Opponents = Idem. The Karaite Literary Opponents of Saadiah Gaon. London, 1908 (reprinted from Jewish Quarterly Review, o.s., 18 [1906], pp. 209–50; 19 [1907], pp. 59–83; 20 [1908], pp. 74–85, 216–31). Poznanski, ´ Review = Idem. Review of G. Margoliouth, Catalogue of Hebrew and

338

bibliography

Samaritan Manuscripts in the British Museum, part 1 (London, 1899). Revue des études juives 41 (1900), pp. 301–8. Poznanski, ´ “Tanhoum” = Idem. “Tanhoum Yerouschalmi et son commentaire sur le livre de Jonas.” Revue des études juives 40 (1900), pp. 129–53; 41 (1900), pp. 45–61. Poznanski, ´ “Writings” = Idem. “The Anti-Karaite Writings of Saadiah Gaon.” Jewish Quarterly Review, o.s., 10 (1898), pp. 238–76. Radtke, “Wal¯ı” = B. Radtke, “Wal¯ı.” In Gibb, Encyclopaedia, XI, pp. 109b– 112a. Rahman, Islam = Rahman, F. Islam. Chicago, 22002. Ratzaby, Dictionary = Ratzaby, Y. ïåàâ äéãòñ §ø øéñôúá úéáøòä ïåùìä øöåà [A Dictionary of Judaeo-Arabic in R. Saadya’s Tafsir]. Ramat-Gan, 1985. Roth, Encyclopaedia = Roth, C. et al., eds. Encyclopaedia Judaica. 16 vols. Jerusalem, 1971–72. Rüger, “Tor” = Rüger, H.P. “’Das Tor des Königs’—der königliche Hof.” Biblica 50 (1969), pp. 247–50. Sanders, Review = Sanders, J.A. Review of Biblia Hebraica Quinta: Fascicle 18: General Introduction and Megilloth. Review of Biblical Literature (online): http://bookreviews.org/pdf/4725_4867.pdf Schacht, “Idjtih¯ad” = Schacht, J. “Idjtih¯ad.” In Gibb, Encyclopaedia, III, p. 1026a–b. Schenker, “Danielkommentars” = Schenker, A. “Der Karäer Jafet ben Eli, die Buyiden und das Datum seines Danielkommentars.” Bulletin d’études karaïtes 1 (1983), pp. 19–26. Schmitt, “Artaxerxes I” = Schmitt, R. “Artaxerxes I.” In E. Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. II. London, 1987, pp. 655a–656b. Schreiner, Studien = Schreiner, M. Studien über Jeschu‘a ben Jehuda. Berlin, 1900. Schur, Karaites = Schur, N. History of the Karaites [Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums, 29]. Frankfurt am Main, 1992. Segal, Midrash = Segal, E. The Babylonian Esther Midrash, A Critical Commentary [Brown Judaic Studies, 291–93]. 3 vols. Atlanta, 1994. Simchoni, “Abraham” = Simchoni, J.N.H. and eds. “Abraham ben Judah ben Abraham.” In Roth, vol 2, col. 150. Simon, Approaches = Simon, U. Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms: from Saadiah Gaon to Abraham ibn Ezra [SUNY Series in Judaica]. Albany, 1991. Sklare, “Collections” = Idem. “A Guide to Collections of Karaite Manuscripts.” In Polliack, Guide, pp. 893–924. Sklare, “Compositions” = Sklare, D. “óñåàá íéòåãé àì íééàø÷ íéøåáéç §õéáå÷øéô.” In D. Sklare, in cooperation with H. Ben-Shammai, ãéä éáúë úåøå÷î ¬äîâåãì âåìè÷ ºøéöáìà óñåé éøåáéç º§õéáå÷øéô éôñåàá úéãåäé­úéáøòá íéø÷çîå [Judaeo-Arabic Manuscripts in the Firkovitch Collections: The

Works of Yusuf al-Basir; A Sample Catalogue; Texts and Studies]. Jerusalem, 1997, pp. 127–39. Skoss, “Jafet” = Skoss, S.L. “Jafet ben Ali ha-Levi.” In Encyclopaedia Judaica— Das Judentum in Geschichte and Gegenwart, vol. 8. Berlin, 1931, cols 754–59. Sokoloff, Dictionary = Sokoloff, M. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic

bibliography

339

of the Byzantine Period (Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash and Targum II, and Publications of The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project). Ramat-Gan, 22002. Steiner, “Redaction” = R.C. Steiner, “A Jewish Theory of Biblical Redaction from Byzantium: Its Rabbinic Roots, Its Diffusion and Its Encounter with the Muslim Doctrine of Falsification.” Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal 2 (2003), pp. 123–67 (http://www.biu.ac.il/js/JSIJ/2-2003/Steiner.pdf). Steingass, Dictionary = Steingass, F. A Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary. London, 1892; repr., New Delhi, 2000. Steinschneider, Catalogus = Steinschneider, M. Catalogus codicum hebraeorum bibliothecae academiae Lugduno-Batavae. Leiden, 1858. Steinschneider, Literatur = Idem. Die arabische Literatur der Juden. Frankfurt a.M., 1902; repr., Hildesheim, 1964. Steinschneider, Übersetzungen = Idem. Die hebraeischen Übersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher. Berlin, 1893; repr., Graz, 1956. Strack & Stemberger, Introduction = Strack, H.L. and G. Stemberger. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Trans. and ed. M. Bockmuehl. Edinburgh, 1991; repr., Minneapolis, 21996. Stroumsa, Works = Stroumsa, S., ed. The Collected Works of Shlomo Pines. Vol. III: Studies in the History of Arabic Philosophy. Jerusalem, 1996. Tamani, “Prolegomeni” = Tamani, G. “Prolegomeni a un’ edizione dei commenti biblici di Yefet b. Ali.” Bulletin d’études karaïtes 2 (1989), pp. 23–28. Tamani, “Tradizione” = Idem. “La tradizione delle opere di Yefet b. Ali.” Bulletin d’études karaïtes 1 (1983), pp. 27–76. Tirosh-Becker, “Sources” = Tirosh-Becker, O. “The Use of Rabbinic Sources in Karaite Writings.” In Polliack, Guide, pp. 319–38. Tobi, “Fragments” = Tobi, Y. “äéãòñ áø øéñôúì íãå÷ äøåúì éáøò íåâøú éãéøù ïåàâ.” Masorot 7 (1993), pp. 87–127. Torrey, Studies = Torrey, C.C. Ezra Studies. Chicago, 1910. Vajda, Commentaires = Vajda, G. Deux commentaires karaïtes sur l’Ecclésiaste [Études sur le judaïsme médiéval, IV]. Leiden, 1971. van Ess, Theologie = van Ess, J. Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra: Eine Geschichte des religiösen Denkens im frühen Islam. 6 vols. Berlin, 1991–1997. Walfish, “Commentaries” = Walfish, B.D. “The Two Commentaries of Abraham ibn Ezra on the Book of Esther.” Jewish Quarterly Review 79/4 (1989), pp. 323–43. Walfish, Esther = Idem. Esther in Medieval Garb: Jewish Interpretation of the Book of Esther in the Middle Ages [SUNY Series in Judaica: Hermeneutics, Mysticism, and Religion]. Albany, 1993. Waltke & O’Connor, Syntax = Waltke, B.K. and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, Ind., 1990. Wasserstrom, “Heresiography” = Wasserstrom, A.M. “Heresiography of the Jews in Mamluk Times.” In J. Waardenburg (ed.), Muslim Perceptions of Other Religions: A Historical Survey. Oxford, 1999, pp. 160–80. Watt, Thought = Watt, W.M. The Formative Period of Islamic Thought. Oxford, 1998.

340

bibliography

Wechsler, “Novellae” = Wechsler, M.G. “Two Para-Biblical Novellae from Qumran Cave 4: A Reevaluation of 4Q550.” Dead Sea Discoveries 7/2 (2000), pp. 130–72. Wechsler, “Old Persian” = Idem. “øåàì (ç §å øúñà) §åùàøá úåëìî øúë ïúð øùàå§ ä÷éúò úéñøô.” Beit Miqra 157/2 (1999), pp. 183–85. Wechsler, “Peshitta” = Idem. “The Purim-Passover Connection: A Reflection of Jewish Exegetical Tradition in the Peshitta Book of Esther.” Journal of Biblical Literature 117/2 (1998), pp. 321–27. Wehr, Dictionary = Wehr, H. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (Arabic-English). Ed. J.M. Cowan. Ithaca, NY, 41994. Wieder, “Exegesis” = Wieder, N. “The Dead Sea Scrolls Type of Biblical Exegesis among the Karaites.” In A. Altman (ed.), Between East and West: Essays Dedicated to the Memory of Bela Horovitz. Oxford and London, 1958, pp. 75–106. Wieder, “Sectaries” = Idem. “The Qumran Sectaries and the Karaites.” Jewish Quarterly Review 47 (1956/7), pp. 97–113, 269–92. Wieder, Scrolls = Idem. The Judean Scrolls and Karaism. London, 1962. Wiesehöfer, “Ardaˇs¯ır I” = Wiesehöfer, J. “Ardaˇs¯ır I: i. History.” In E. Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. II. London, 1987, pp. 371b–76b. Wolfson, Philosophy = Wolfson, H.A. The Philosophy of the Kalam. Cambridge, Mass., 1976. Wolfson, Repercussions = Idem. Repercussions of the Kalam in Jewish Philosophy. Cambridge, Mass., 1979. Wright, Grammar = Wright, W. A Grammar of the Arabic Language—Translated from the German of Caspari and edited with Numerous Additions and Corrections. Revised by W.R. Smith and M.J. de Goeje. 2 vols. Cambridge, 31955. Würthwein, “Esther” = Würthwein, E. “Esther.” In idem, Die fünf Megilloth [Handbuch zum Alten Testament, 18]. Tübingen, 1969, pp. 165–96. Yahuda, “Name” = Yahuda, A.S. “The Meaning of the Name Esther.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1946), pp. 174–78. Zaehner, Magi = Zaehner, R.C. The Teachings of the Magi: A Compendium of Zoroastrian Beliefs. London, 1956. Zawanowska, “Approach” = Zawanowska, M. “The literary approach to the Bible and its characters in Yefet ben Eli’s commentary on the Book of Genesis: An example of competing females in the story of Abraham.” Unpublished paper; furnished by the author. Zotenberg, Catalogues = Zotenberg, H. Catalogues des manuscrits hébreux et samaritains de la Bibliothèque impériale. Paris, 1866.

INDEXES

I. Manuscripts Cited AOS A146 102n53, 104n73, 171n55 BASH Kaufmann A29 129 BL Or. 2399 4n11 BL Or. 2400 4n11, 5n14 BL Or. 2401 38n97, 107 BL Or. 2402 98, 99, 110 BL Or. 2468 4n13, 5n18, 5n21 BL Or. 2469 5n19 BL Or. 2472 5n22 BL Or. 2501 5n16 BL Or. 2502 5n16 BL Or. 2507 98, 99 BL Or. 2513 5n24, 110 BL Or. 2514 4n13, 5n21, 5n22 BL Or. 2516 96n24 BL Or. 2517 128 BL Or. 2520 (B, T) 138, 142–43, 240n385 BL Or. 2549 105 BL Or. 2550 38n97 BL Or. 2547 47n134, 104 BL Or. 2553 98, 99, 105, 107–9 BL Or. 2554 3, 106, 110, 111 BL Or. 2557 106 BLO Heb.c.19 123n6 BLO Heb.d.68 124n8, 165n31 BLO Heb.f.56 123n6 BLO Hunt. 206 95n20, 102n50, 103n60 BLO Poc. 184 75n241, 76n245, 77n246, 77n247, 77n248, 78n249, 133n41, 169n45, 170n51, 171n53, 172n57, 175n70, 176n74, 178n88, 179n94, 186n125, 187n134, 188n140, 189n143, 193n171, 193n172, 193n176, 194n177, 197n193, 198n194, 199n200,

206n228, 207n234, 208n239, 208n241, 210n249, 210n251, 214n267, 219n279, 220n284, 222n291, 222n292, 222n294, 225n308, 227n317, 230n338, 231n340, 236n362, 237n364, 237n365, 242n398, 245n413, 245n416, 252n449, 253n454, 257n475, 258n482, 258n483, 267n517, 268n522, 269n525, 272n537, 273n539, 274n545, 277n563, 278n568, 284n591, 285n598, 288n610, 290n620, 290n621, 290n622, 292n632, 293n637, 295n647, 295n648, 298n659, 299n661, 300n668, 301n673, 302n677, 302n681, 303n682, 304n691, 306n698, 308n710, 313n727, 316n741 BLO Poc. 320 40n109, 124n8, 174n65, 199n200, 200n200, 214n265, 215n, 220n284, 256n475, 260n494, 264n505, 265n513, 269n525, 277n563, 279n570, 278n566, 279n570, 282n586, 285n598, 288n610, 290n621, 292n632, 298n659, 307n702, 308n710, 310n718, 313n729, 314n730, 315n734, 316n744 BN héb. 191 89n282, 89n283, 90n284, 132, 218n276, 261n495, 263n, 265n513, 266n513, 267n519, 270n528, 283n591, 295n647, 299n661, 300n668, 302n677, 304n691, 305n691, 307n701, 307n702

342

indexes

BN héb. 292 98, 99, 110 BN héb. 293 106, 110 BN héb. 294 5n16, 110, 138n9 BN héb. 295 (P) 101n46, 101n47, 139, 144–48, 190n153, 314n731 BN héb. 334 73n231, 75n243, 76n244, 133n41, 182n106, 183n116, 186n126, 188n139, 198n196, 202n213, 204n222, 205n223, 237n365, 243n403, 244n408, 258n481, 265n513, 276n556 BN héb. 670 7n37 BS Or. Qu. 828 98, 99, 110 BS Or. Qu. 943 124n8 CUL Add. 1200 171n55 CUL T-S Ar. 17.5 124n8 CUL T-S Ar. 21.5 124n8 CUL T-S Ar. 22.33 124n8 CUL T-S Ar. 23.44 9n50, 67n209, 67n211 CUL T-S Ar. 33.31 9n50, 67n212, 245n416 CUL T-S Ar. 49.52 124n8 CUL T-S Ar. 49.99 9n50, 67n213 CUL T-S Ar. 309.52 9n50, 67n203 HUC-JIR 839 123n5 JTSA ENA 219 4n11, 92n5, 98, 99, 103n63, 105, 107–10 JTSA ENA 1651 (A) 101n46, 101n47, 137–38, 144–48, 182n107, 190n151, 193n175, 249n438 JTSA ENA 3148 9n50 JTSA ENA 3336 134 JTSA ENA 3601 124n8 Lichaa 10 (L) 4n13, 5n21, 101n47, 133, 138–39, 144–48, 190n153, 227n321, 271n535, 314n731 LU L.O.5 132n36 Q¯afih. 50 124n8 RNL Yevr. 225 132n36 RNL Yevr. I 578 98, 99 RNL Yevr. I 583 87n278, 87n279, 88n280, 133 RNL Yevr. I 794 123n4 RNL Yevr. II 700 9n50, 67n214, 68n215

RNL Yevr. II A 78 88n281, 89n282, 89n283, 90n284, 133– 34, 139, 158n2, 215n, 218n276, 239n379, 256n475, 259n485, 260n493, 261n495, 263n, 264n503, 265n513, 266n513, 267n519, 270n528, 270n529, 271n531, 272n535, 273n539, 274n545, 283n591, 287n605, 287n606, 290n621, 295n647, 299n661, 300n668, 301n673, 304n691, 307n701, 307n702, 308n710 RNL Yevr. II C 521 126 RNL Yevr. II C 522 126, 227n317 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 117 5n19 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 142 4n12, 5n20 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 155 5n17, 102n53 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 272 (R1) 101n47, 139, 144–48, 159n7, 160n13, 164n29, 168n42, 173n60, 179n96, 209n245, 219n280226n314, 235n356, 253n459, 255n463, 281n578, 314n732, 315n737 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 298 107 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 742 134, 164n29 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 776 123n2 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1410 107 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1755 128n17, 181n102, 186n126, 188n140, 198n194, 202n213, 206n229, 208n239, 211n257, 223n299 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1846 5n16 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 2186 164n29 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3312 6n36 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3354 102n53 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3355 104n73 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3476 126 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3532 107 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3699 130–31 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3866 9n50, 67n205, 67n206, 67n207, 67n210, 185n125 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3963 (R2) 101n47, 139–40, 145–48, 314n732

indexes RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3964 (R3) 101n46, 101n47, 141, 145–48, 173n59, 314n731 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3965 124n8 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4021 135 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4255 (R4) 101n47, 142, 146–48, 173n59 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4380 (R7) 142, 145–48 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4382 (R6) 142, 145–48, 315n737 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4467 29n64, 81n261, 81n262, 82n263, 82n264, 83n265, 95n23, 125, 125n9, 125n13, 127, 130n31, 131, 158n5, 171n55, 172n57, 172– 73n58, 173n59, 173n60, 173n61, 174n63, 174n64, 174n65, 175n71, 176n75, 178n88, 179n95, 180n97, 195n184, 197n194, 204n220, 204n222, 205n223, 205n225, 207n237, 208n241, 209n243, 210n249, 210n250, 210n251, 210n252, 210n253, 211n259, 211n260, 212n262, 212n263, 214n269, 216n270, 217n273, 219n278, 221n289, 221n291, 222n293, 222n294, 223n301, 225n311, 226n314, 226n315, 227n316, 227n318, 228n325, 228n328, 229n332, 229n333, 230n338, 231n340, 231n342, 231n344, 232n345, 232n346, 233n348, 233n349, 233n350, 237n364, 237n365, 240n386, 240n387, 241n388, 241n391, 241n395, 242n397, 245n413, 246n417, 246n419, 246n420, 248n434 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4468 29n64, 80n259, 81n260, 83n266, 112–16, 125n13, 126, 130, 131n31, 158n2, 171n51, 171n53, 176n74, 191n162, 196n191, 196n193, 197n194, 199n198, 244n408, 244n412, 245n416, 261n498, 263n,

343

264n505, 266n516, 267n519, 267n520, 269n525 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4469 125n13, 126, 284n596 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4878 (R5) 142, 145–48 RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 110 29n64, 125, 127 RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 13 123n3 RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 27 123n3 RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 29 127 RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 839 164n29 RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 842 123n3 RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 875 123n3, 164n29 RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 977 164n29 RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 1250 124n8 RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 2703 124n8 RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3230 124n8 RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3231 124n8 RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3295 125n13, 126–27, 182n109, 182n111, 185n125, 191n161, 192n169, 192n170, 193n171, 193n172, 193n176, 194n177, 196n189, 198n196, 198n197, 199n198, 200n200, 200n202, 201n209, 202n215, 203n216, 203n218, 204n222, 214n269, 225n312, 226n313, 260n493, 287n605, 290n620, 293n637, 295n645, 296n649, 296n651 RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3300 124n8 RNL Yevr.-Arab. II 3350 29n64, 127, 130, 131n31, 158n2, 166n40, 168n45, 169n47, 175n71, 197n194, 208n239, 220n284, 225n312, 226n313, 227n317, 234n354 RU Or. 4739 132n39, 133, 269n525, 274n545, 277n563, 279n570, 288n610, 290n620, 290n621, 290n622, 299n661, 300n668, 302n675, 302n681, 306n698, 308n710, 313n727 RU Warn. 12 37n94, 37n96, 38n97 Vat. Urb. Ebr. I 274n543

344

indexes II. Canonical References

1. Hebrew Bible Genesis 1:1 1:14 2:10 2:17 4:8 8:5 11:28 13:9 18:14 23:12 37:22 39:4 39:21 40:16 43:31 44:12 45:5 48:6 49:27 Exodus 2:23 9:12 10:20 10:27 11:10 12:36 14:8 15:14 17:8–13 17:13 17:14–16 17:14 20:8 25:29 28:14 30:13 30:23 35:3 Leviticus 6:3 18:9 18:11

16n16 7 219n279 20n32 183n116 290n620 317 219n279 184n121 216n269 210n249 200n202 200n202 172n58 251n448 118 212n262 317 245n412 240n386 313n729 313n729 313n729 313n729 200n202 313n729 200n202 29n64, 158n2 216n270 197–98n194 29n64 18, 306 220n287 112n102 220n287, 224n303 193n176 7 173n59 317n748 317

21:1 24:12 26:44 Numbers 13:31 24:20 Deuteronomy 2:25 3:5 4:28 5:14 5:15 23:6 25:17–19 28:49–50 28:68 31:9 32:27 33:4 Joshua 18:28 Judges 2:19 16:30 1 Samuel 2:2 6:18 12:22 13:12 15:1–33 15:3 16:14 17:13 20:27 2Samuel 15:30 1 Kings 1:16 1:23 5:4 5:8 8:4 8:56 12:10

269n525 314n730 158n5, 163, 267n520, 271 313n729 197n194 201n202 292n632 150, 160 296 18, 78, 306 293n633 158n2 228n325 267n520 29 222n293 60n177 196n189 104 171n55 47 292n632 201n202, 244n412 251n448 158n2 80, 295n645 264n506 269n525 6 265n513 216n269 216n269 70, 169n47, 169n48 279n570 269n525 159 112n102

indexes 12:11 12:14 14:19 15:2 2Kings 1:13 4:37 14:15 15:16 20:20 24:12 Isaiah 1:9 5:1 19:9 19:22 28:28 30:25 42:14 44:28 45:3 45:17 47:9–10 53:5 56:6 63:15 64:5 64:11 66:24 Jeremiah 2:20 4:31 5:1 5:18 5:28 8:1 8:15 9:25 14:3 14:4 14:19 24:2 35:6–7 44:8 44:15–29 44:25 44:28

234n354 234n354 314n731 200n200 216n269 216n269 314n731 170n48 314n731 197n193 52, 159 17n20 172n58 59n175 297n658 252n449 251n448 165n38 64n190, 176 318 43n127 92n5 163n26 251n448 53 251n448 162n22 105 105 56, 160 52, 160 105 196n189 264n506 247n421 265n513 265n513 264n506 81, 196 305n692 160n14 160n14 160n14 150, 160

51:23 Ezekiel 14:13–21 14:22 16:47 20:7 20:38 22:30 44:18 Hosea 2:11 3:2 11:8 13:1 Amos 7:14 9:10 Jonah 4:2 Micah 1:13 7:3 Nahum 2:10 Zechariah 2:8 5:8 7:3 8:19 11:8 Malachi 2:9 Psalms 7:8–15 15:4 22:25 26:12 45:18 50:1 68:27 74:9 83:4 83:8 94:8–9 94:14 95:6

345 226n313 159 52, 150, 159 159 240n386 53 56, 160 173n59 173n59 38 159 38 37 53 106 279n570 112n102 176n74 292n632 37, 40n110, 58n173, 59n176 240 305n692, 311n718 103 16n18 127n15 161n21 92n5 246n417 280n578 170n48 246n417 21n37 280n578 198n194 43n127 318 215n

346 105:17 212n262 106:35 240n386 106:44 271 139:19–22 14n9 Proverbs 1:27 92n5 7:22 105–6 11:8 219n278 12:9 107 12:25 107 16:33 218n275 20:20 108 20:30 190n151 21:12 108 21:14 109 22:23 109 30:31 110 31, passim 98–99 Job 5:12 229n332 Song of Songs 1:12 106, 112 1:13 193n176 3:5 110, 112 3:9 106, 112 5:1 193n176 5:5 193n176 5:7 21n34 5:15 174n61 Ruth 2:14 110, 112 3:15 248n434 Lamentations 1:14 7 3:22 201n202, 245n413 4:6 159 5:1 279n571 5:16 5 7:9 279n571 Ecclesiastes 1:9 10 5:1 262n500 8:1 314n730 8:10 236n362 8:11 184n121 Esther 1:1–4 175–76

indexes 1:1

1:2–12 1:2–3 1:2 1:3–4 1:3

1:4–5 1:4 1:5–6 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9 1:10 1:10–12 1:10–11 1:11 1:12 1:13 1:14–16 1:14 1:15 1:16–20 1:16 1:17 1:18 1:19 1:20 1:21

23, 30n70, 31, 63, 70, 74n239, 79n255, 80, 80n258, 100, 144, 157, 163n27, 164–71, 276n561 315n740 74n239 171, 175n70 63n188, 64, 87 79, 79n255, 87, 135, 171, 175n71, 177, 207n235, 225n312 65 73n235, 80n258, 135, 172, 176–77, 309n712 23, 87, 177–79 172, 175n71, 177, 207n235 64, 79n255, 87, 147n39, 172–73, 280n573, 280n574 84, 97, 150, 174, 179 75, 80n258, 174, 179–80 63n188, 85, 174, 180, 192n166, 208n239 85, 174 180–81 74n239, 177 23, 174, 181n102, 181n105, 223n299, 256n474 175 19, 79n255, 182, 185 63n188, 214 19, 182, 186, 226n312 182, 186 186–87 30n70, 33, 182, 187 63n188, 183, 187 63n188, 74, 183, 187 63n188, 73n235, 184, 187–88, 224n305, 282n587 63n188, 184, 188 185, 188

indexes 1:22 2:1 2:2–4 2:2 2:3 2:4 2:5–7 2:5 2:6 2:7 2:8 2:9

2:10–11 2:10 2:11 2:12 2:13 2:14 2:15 2:16 2:17 2:18 2:19

74, 86, 88, 171n51, 185, 188–89, 305n695 74n239, 189–90, 282n587 190–91 189, 255n469, 268n525 171n53, 189–90, 190n151 190 195–97 63n188, 73n235, 79n255, 81, 191 72, 73n230, 191 63n188, 191, 198–200, 274n544 79, 171n53, 192, 197–98, 200, 256n471 63n188, 74n239, 79n255, 83, 192, 200–202, 241n390, 246n419, 248n430, 256n471, 279n571 63n188, 73n235 75, 79n255, 193, 202, 209n243, 209n246, 247n423, 247n429 79, 81, 193, 202, 208n241 39, 79, 190n151, 193, 203 80n258, 192n166, 194, 203, 256n471 63n188, 64, 73n235, 79, 194, 203–4 75, 194, 201n202, 205, 247, 247n428 63n188, 65, 79, 195, 205, 247–48 76, 195, 201n202, 205–6, 256n474 63n188, 73n235, 80n258, 174n63, 195, 206–7 33–34, 76, 81, 195, 207–8, 212n261

347 2:20 2:21–23 2:21 2:22 2:23 3:1

3:2 3:3–4 3:3 3:4 3:5 3:6 3:7 3:8 3:9 3:10–11 3:10 3:11 3:12

3:13 3:14 3:15

74n239, 79n255, 195, 208–9, 243n407 34, 59, 80n258, 210, 212n261 97, 146n35, 210–11, 255n468, 289n614 63n188, 210–12 210, 212, 254n461 59n175, 74n239, 211n254, 212, 214, 275n552, 291n625, 297n657 63n188, 69, 79n255, 213, 214–15, 222–23 63n188, 80n258, 215–17 213 147n41, 213, 274n548 79n255, 213, 217, 253 63n188, 213, 217–18, 237–40, 289n614 63n188, 73n235, 80n258, 197n193, 213, 218–19 24–25, 73n235, 80n258, 219–20, 221–24, 253n454 63n188, 220, 223–24, 225n307, 242n400, 267n520, 283 224–25 63n188, 73n235, 221, 275n552, 291n625, 297n657 221, 284 24, 63n188, 171n55, 224–25, 225–26, 226n313, 227–28, 276n557–59, 288n607, 305n695, 311n720 219n278, 226–27, 228, 288n608 277, 227n317, 228–29, 278n567 73n235, 80n258, 81, 277, 229–30, 231n344,

348

4:1–3 4:1 4:2 4:3 4:4 4:5 4:6 4:7 4:8 4:9 4:10–14 4:10–12 4:10 4:11 4:12 4:13–14 4:13 4:14 4:15 4:16

4:17 5:1 5:2 5:3 5:4 5:5 5:6 5:7–8 5:7 5:8 5:9 5:10

indexes 286, 286n603, 288n608 240–41, 310n718 30n70, 38–39, 97, 230–31, 287n606 82, 231 61, 231–32 82, 232, 241 80n258, 232, 234n352, 242 233 63n188, 73n235, 233, 242, 314n730 63n188, 227n317, 233, 242 234 26 242–44 150, 234 130, 234, 245n416 63n188, 73n235, 131, 234n351, 235, 244 244 192n166, 235, 256n471 28n59, 79n255, 235– 36, 273n539 235n356, 236 61, 63n188, 65, 73n235, 80n258, 82, 83, 84, 143n24, 201, 236–37, 245–47, 271, 281n579, 281n580 131, 237 73n235, 82, 192n166, 245n415, 248–49, 256n471, 282 234n354, 248–50, 282 88, 249, 250 150, 249, 250 249 77, 88, 249, 250, 267n518 250–51 249 73n235, 249, 272 251, 253 251, 253

5:11 5:12 5:13 5:14 6:1–3 6:1 6:2 6:3 6:4–6 6:4 6:5 6:6 6: 7–9 6:7 6:8 6:9 6:10–12 6:10 6:11 6:12 6:13 6:14 7:1–10 7:1 7:2–3 7:2 7:3 7:4 7:5 7:6–7 7:6 7:7 7:8 7:9 7:10 8:1–2

252, 253–54 252, 254 220n284, 252, 254 120, 210n252, 253, 254, 255n465, 258n483 77 63n188, 73, 73n235, 212, 255, 258, 314n732 97, 210n249, 255, 258, 289n614 189n145, 255, 258–59 259 120, 192n166, 210n252, 255, 256n474 256 29n64, 256, 257n478 259–60 256 79n255, 256, 286 134, 171n55, 225n312, 257, 282n586 63n188 257, 260 257, 260, 287n606 100, 257, 260–61, 266n513 83, 258, 261 262, 266, 279n571 112–21 262 77 262, 266–67, 267n518 262, 267 63n188, 79n255, 262, 267–68, 272 63n188, 65, 264, 268–69 269–70 71, 264 172n57, 264 89, 150, 172n57, 261n495, 265, 270 210n252, 266, 270 210n252, 266, 271 73n235, 274

indexes 8:1 8:2 8:3 8:4 8:5 8:6 8:7 8:8 8:9–12 8:9

8:10 8:11 8:12 8:13 8:14 8:15 8:16 8:17 9:1 9:2 9:3 9:4 9:5 9:6 9:7–9 9:10 9:11 9:12

273–74 63n188, 274 32, 65, 245n416, 275, 281–82, 303n683 234n354, 275, 282 275, 282, 291n625, 297n657 63n188, 97, 275–76, 282–83 120, 210n252, 276, 283 276, 282n586, 283–84 284 89, 100, 101n49, 145, 169n46, 225n312, 276, 278n568, 288n607, 290n615, 295n646, 303n687, 304n689, 305n695, 311n720 17, 74n239, 277, 279n570, 285, 286n600, 288n608 278, 285–86 278 227n317, 278 74n239, 279, 285n598, 285, 288n608 39n105, 172n58, 173n59, 178n88, 275n548, 280, 286 20, 280, 286–87 73n235, 163, 274n547, 280, 287–88 97, 289, 293 289, 293, 294n641 97, 145, 225n312, 226n313, 290, 293–94 256n471, 290, 294 30n70, 34, 290, 294 80, 291, 294 291, 294 73n235, 80, 89, 291, 294–95, 297n657, 308n709 291, 295 291, 295

349 9:13–14 9:13 9:14 9:15–16 9:15 9:16 9:17–19 9:17 9:18 9:19 9:20–22 9:20 9:21 9:22 9:23–28 9:23 9:24 9:25 9:26–27 9:26 9:27–28 9:27 9:28 9:29 9:30 9:31 9:32 10:1–2

303n687 120, 210n252, 291, 295, 299n663 120, 210n252, 291, 295 80 291, 295–96 79n255, 292, 296 90, 304n690 292, 296 292, 296 69, 289n613, 292, 296–97, 305n697 304n689, 308n708, 308n710, 310n717 28n60, 73n235, 90, 135, 297, 301 297, 301 90, 288n609, 297, 301–2, 304n690, 305n697 32, 304 74n239, 297, 302 77, 291n625, 297, 302 30n70, 32, 210n252, 281n581, 298–99, 302–3 303–5 90, 134–35, 299– 300, 301n672, 303, 305n695 78, 135 63n188, 73n235, 97, 300, 310 18, 63, 63n188, 66, 301, 306 63n188, 272n538, 301n672, 307, 308–9, 312n724, 313n729 135, 307, 309 63n188, 301n672, 308, 309–12 63n188, 74n239, 301n672, 308, 311n718, 312–13 315n740

350 10:1 10:2 10:3 Daniel 1:9 2:22 2:31–43 3:2 3:3 3:27 4:5 5:1 6:2 6:3 6:4 6:5 6:7 6:8 6:9 6:13 6:16 7:1–28 9:1 9:25 10:3 11:1–2 11:17 11:30 11:32 11:33–34 11:39 12:1 12:2 12:9 12:10 Ezra 1:1–4 1:1 1:2 4:5 4:6 4:7 4:7–23 4:24

indexes 207n234, 313, 315 135, 175, 313–14, 315–16 63n188, 66, 70, 73n235, 260, 315, 316–17 201n202 106 160n15 225n312 225n312 225n312 167n40 62, 177n85 225n312 225n312 105, 211n259, 225n312 225n312 225n312 225n312 216n269 216n269 282n587 160n15 168, 169n45 92n5 6 166n40 313n729 163n26 162n25 163n26 163n26 53 162n22 21n37 53–54, 161n18, 161n20 239n379 166n40 165n37 167n40 166n40, 167 166n40 167n40 166n40

6:9–10 6:14 7:8 7:12 7:28 9:13 Nehemiah 2:6 5:14 11:17 1 Chronicles 9:18 12:33 14:17 21:16 2Chronicles 10:11 10:14 11:20 13:2 20:29 22:1 26:20 36:22 36:23

166 167n40 167n40 80, 166n40 201n202 50, 159 181n102 226n313 280n578 231n341 19, 185n125 201n202 241n388 234n354 234n354 200n200 200n200 201n202 196n189 279n571 166n40 165n37, 239n379

2. Ancient Versions of the Hebrew Bible Old Latin 9:22 297n655 Peshit.t.a (Syriac Version) Esther 2:12–13 194n177 2:14 205n222 2:18 195n180 3:8 219n279, 219n280 3:12 225n311 3:13 227n315 4:1 231n340 4:2 231n342 4:3 232n344 4:5 232n346, 232n347 4:7 233n349 4:10 234n352 4:16 236n362, 237n364 5:1 248n434

indexes 5:10 6:7 6:8 7:4 7:5 7:8 8:9 8:10 8:11 8:13 8:14 9:4 9:24 9:25 9:26

251n448 256n473 256n475 263n 264n505 266n513 276n556 277n563 278n566 278n568 279n570 290n620 298n658 298n659, 299n661 299n664, 300n665, 304n691 9:29 307n702, 309n710 9:31 310n718 10:2 314n730 Septuagint (LXX, including the Lucianic recension) Deuteronomy 4:28 160n11 Esther 1:19 184n118 2:6 191n161 2:9 192n171 2:10 193n172 2:14 204n222 3:2 215n 3:4 217n272 3:7 213n264, 214n265 3:8 219n279, 219n280, 219n282 3:11 221n289 3:13 226n314 4:1 230n338, 230n339, 231n340 4:2 231n342 4:3 232n344 4:5 232n346, 232n347 4:7 233n348, 233n349 4:10 234n352 4:13 235n357 4:16 236n362, 237n363, 237n364 4:17 237n365

351 5:1 6:1 7:4 7:5 7:8 8:1 8:6 8:11 8:14 8:17 9:22 9:24 9:25 9:26

248n434 258n481 263n, 268n522 264n505 265n510, 266n513 274n543, 274n544 275n554 278n566 279n570 274n547 288n609 298n658 298n659 299n664, 300n665, 304n691 307n702, 309n710 314n730 316n741

9:29 10:2 10:3 Targumim Targum Onqelos Leviticus 18:11 317n748 Deuteronomy 4:28 160n11 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (Yerushalmi) ad Deuteronomy 4:28 160n11 Targum Esther I (Rishon) 1:1 165n31 1:2 171n53 1:4 64, 176n72 1:5 172–73n57 1:6 64, 172n58, 178n88, 178n92 1:7 60 1:13 19n27, 185n125 1:14 186n126 1:17 183n115 1:18 183n116, 184n117 1:19 188n139 1:20 188n140 2:5 191n159 2:6 196n189 2:9 193n171 2:10 193n172 2:12 193n176 2:13 194n177

352

indexes 2:14 2:18 2:21 2:23 3:2–3 3:2 3:7 3:8 3:9 3:11 3:13 3:15 4:1 4:2 4:3 4:6 4:7 4:8 4:10 4:14 4:16 4:17 5:1 5:3 5:13 6:1 6:4 6:6 6:8 6:10 6:12 7:4 7:5 7:6 7:8 8:1 8:6 8:9 8:10 8:13 8:14 8:15 9:1 9:2

79, 204n222 195n184, 206n234 210n249, 211n257 210n251, 210n252 215n 231n341 218n276 219n279, 222n295, 223n296 224n303 224n306 226n314, 226n315 230n337 60, 230n338, 231n340, 238n373 231n341, 231n342 232n344, 232n345 231n341 233n348, 233n349, 242n398 234n350 234n352 235n359, 236n360 236n362, 237n364 237n365 248n434 249n437 231n341 73n232, 258n481 255n470 256n472 257n475 231n341, 260n491 231n341 263n 264n505 198n194 265n511, 266n513 274n543, 274n544 275n554 276n556 277n563 278n568 279n570 280n575 293n633 289n614

9:3 9:4

290n617 290n618, 290n619, 290n620 9:5 290n621 9:6 295n645 9:16–18 295n645 9:22 297n655, 297n656 9:24 298n658 9:25 298n659, 299n661 9:26 299n664, 300n665, 304n691 9:27 300n668, 301n671, 305n695 9:29 307n702 9:31 310n718 9:32 313n727 10:3 70, 315n736, 316n741 Targum Esther II (Sheni) 1:1 63n187, 169n47 1:2 171n53 1:3 175n71 1:4 176n75 1:6 64, 172–73n58, 178n88, 178n92 1:7 60 1:10 181n105 1:12 62n186, 181n105 1:16 186n130 1:17 183n115, 187n133 1:18 184n117 1:19 188n139 2:2 189n145 2:5 191n159, 198n194 2:6 73n230, 196n189 2:7 197n193, 199n200 2:8 65, 79, 198n196 2:9 192n169 2:11 202n215 2:13 194n177 2:14 64, 205n222 2:16 79 2:19 208n239 2:21 208n241, 210n249, 231n341 2:22 62, 211n258 2:23 210n251, 210n252 3:2 231n341

indexes 215n, 216n270 217n272 213n265, 218n276 222n295, 223n296 225n311 226n314, 226n315 230n338, 231n340 231n341, 231n342 231n344 232n346 231n341 233n349 234n352 61, 248n433 235n356 237n364 248n434 231n341 73n232, 258n481 257n475 260n491 261n496 231n341 263n 66n196, 264n505, 268n525 7:8 265n510, 265n511, 266n513 7:9 271n531 8:1 274n543 8:6 275n554 8:10 277n563 8:14 279n570 8:15 280n575 9:2 289n614 9:4 290n620 9:25 298n659, 299n661 9:26 299n664 9:29 307n702, 309n710 10:3 316n741 Targum 1 Chronicles 9:18 231n341 Vulgate Esther 4:1 231n340 4:2 231n341, 231n342 4:3 231n344

353 4:5 4:7 4:9 4:10 4:16 5:1 5:3 5:9 5:11 5:12 6:2 6:6 6:8 6:10 6:11 7:5 7:8 8:1 8:11 8:13 9:4 9:22 9:24 9:25 9:26 9:27 9:29 9:31 9:32 10:2 10:3

3:3 3:3–4 3:7 3:8 3:12 3:13 4:1 4:2 4:3 4:5 4:6 4:7 4:10 4:11 4:13 4:16 5:1 5:9 6:1 6:8 6:10 6:11 6:12 7:4 7:5

232n346, 232n347 233n349 234n351 234n352 236n362, 237n363 248n434 249n437 251n447 252n450 252n452, 252n453 255n467 256n472 256n475 257n477 257n478 264n505 265n511, 265n513 274n543 278n566 278n568 290n618 302n675 298n658 298n659, 299n661 299n664, 300n665 300n668, 304n691 307n702, 308n710 310n718 313n727 314n730, 314n731 315n735, 316n741

3. New Testament 2Peter 1:21

30n68

4. Qur"¯an 3:40 3:104 3:110 3:114 5:1 7:157 8:42 9:67

51 55n161 55n161 55n161 51 55n161 56n166 55n161

354 9:71 9:112 22:18

indexes 55n161 55n161 51

22:41 31:17 42:7

55n161 55n161 52n154

III. Early Rabbinic and Midrashic References Aggadat Esther 1:1 63n187, 163n27, 169n47 1:3 175n71 1:4 176n75 1:6 172n58, 178n88, 178n92 1:11 62n186, 181n105 2:5–6 73n230, 196n189 2:8 65n194, 79, 198n196 2:11 203n215 2:16 205n225 2:17 206n228 2:18 206n234 2:19 208n239 2:21 210n249, 211n257 2:22 211n257 3:4 216n270, 217n272 3:7 218n276 3:8 222n295, 223n296 3:11 224n306 3:14 228n323 4:2 230n339, 231n340, 231n341 4:4 242n395 4:8 234n350 4:16–17 65n195, 281n580 4:16 61, 237n364, 238n373, 245n416, 247n425 5:1 248n434 6:1 73n232, 258n481, 258n482 6:8 256n475 6:9 261n494 6:10 260n491 6:11 261n496 7:4 263n 7:5 66n196, 268n525 7:9 271n531 8:2 274n545, 274n548

8:6 283n588 9:1 293n633 9:25 298n661 9:28 66n197, 306n701 Babylonian Talmud Bava Batra 55a 207n234 #Eruvin 21b 196n191 Yoma 75a 108 Megillah 2a 312n722 2b 170n51, 292n632 7a–b 302n675 7a 158n2 10b 66n197, 306n701 11a 61, 63, 163n27, 169n47 12a 60, 172n58, 175n71, 178n88, 178n92, 238n370, 238n373 12b 62, 181n105 13a 73n230, 193n176, 196n189, 199n200, 206n228, 206n234, 208n239 13b 59, 210n249, 211n254, 211n257, 212n262, 219n279, 222n291, 222n295, 223n296, 224n303 14a 224n306 15a 61, 237n364, 237n365, 245n416, 247n425, 248n434, 281n582 15b 258n482 16a–b 275n548 16a 65, 261n496, 263n, 268n525, 271n531

indexes 16b 18a 19a

66, 70, 298n661, 299n661, 311n718, 316n744 301n671, 305n695 215n, 301n671, 304n691, 305n695, 307n702, 313n727

Sanhedrin 61b 215n 74b 26n54, 61, 247n425 100a 158n2 Gerim (minor tractate) i.7 289n610 Midrash Abba Guryon 1:3 175n71 1:4 64n190, 176n72, 176n75 1:6 178n88 1:10 62n186, 181n105 1:13 19n27 2:7 197n193 2:15 200n202 2:17 206n228 2:18 206–7n234 2:21 211n257 3:4 215n, 216n270 3:7 218n276 3:8 222n295 3:9 224n303, 225n307 3:11 224n306 3:12 228n323 4:1–3 60, 238n370, 238n373 4:1 230n339 6:1 73n232, 258n481, 258n482 6:8 256n475 6:9 261n494 6:11 261n496 6:14 266n516 Midrash Esther Rabbah proem, §4 163n27 i.4 63n187, 169n47 i.9 170n51 ii.1 64n190, 176n72 ii.6 172n57 ii.7 172–73n58

355

64, 178n92 180n98 181n105 185n125 186n130 74, 183n117, 187n134 188n140 198n197 202n215 206n228 211n257 215n 274n548 216n270 218n276 223n296 225n307 60, 238n373 224n303 224n306 228n328 234n350 235n359, 237n365, 245n416 viii.7 65, 281n580 ix.1 248n434 x.4 256n475, 261n496 Midrash Genesis Rabbah xxxix.13 197n193 lxxxviii.3 210n249 Midrash Hazit . 232n345 vii.13 Midrash Leqah. Tov (on Esther) 1:4 176n75 1:6 172n58, 178n88, 178n92 1:10 62n186, 181n105 2:6 196n189 2:7 197n193, 200n200 2:10 199n197 2:11 203n215 2:15 200n202 2:16 205n225 2:17 206n228 2:18 207n234 2:21 208n241, 210n249, 211n257 ii.8 iii.9 iii.13 iv.1 iv.6 iv.8 iv.10 vi.6 vi.8 vi.11 vi.13 vii.6 vii.7 vii.8 vii.11 vii.12 vii.13 vii.14 [18] vii.19 vii.20 vii.25 viii.5 viii.6

356 3:1 3:2 3:4 3:6 3:7 3:8 3:9–10 3:9 3:11 3:12 3:13 3:14 4:1 4:2 4:7 4:8 4:16

211n254 215n 216n270 217n274 218n276 222n295, 223n296 225n307 224n303 224n306 228n323 219n278 227n317 230n339 241n389 242n398 242n401 237n364, 238n373, 245n416 4:17 65n195, 237n365, 281n580 5:1 248n434 5:4 272n537 6:1 73n232, 258n481, 258n482 6:8 256n475 6:9 261n494 6:11 261n496 6:14 267n516 7:4 263n 7:5 66n196, 268n525 8:2 274n545 8:14 279n570 8:15 286n603 9:25 298n661 9:26 304n691 9:27 300n668, 305n695 9:28 66n197, 306n701 9:29 307n702 9:30 309n715 Midrash Megillah (ed. Gaster) 3:2 215n Midrash Megillat Esther (ed. Jellinek) 2:5 198n194, 215n 3:2 215n Midrash Numbers Rabbah xiii.15 17n19

indexes Midrash Panim Aherim, Version A . 1:1 63n187, 169n47 3:1 211n254 3:6 215n 3:12 228n323 6:1 60, 73n232, 238n370, 258n481 Midrash Panim Aherim, Version B . 1:1 63n187, 169n47 1:3 175n71 1:4 176n75 1:5 177n80 1:10 62n186, 181n105 2:5–6 73n230, 196n189 2:5 198n194 2:7–8 65n194, 79 2:7 197n193 2:8 198n196 2:9 192n169 2:11 203n215 2:15 200n202, 201n203 2:16 205n225 2:17 206n228 2:19 208n239 2:21–22 62n185 2:21 210n249, 211n257 2:22 211n258 3:4 216n270 3:7 218n276 3:8 219n279 3:9 224n303 3:12 228n323 4:1 231n340 4:2 231n341 4:4 242n395 4:16 238n373, 245n416, 281n582 5:3 249n437 5:9 251n447 6:1 73n232, 258n481, 258n482 6:8 256n475 6:9 261n494 6:10 260n491 6:11 261n496 6:14 267n516 7:9 271n531

indexes Midrash Proverbs 9:2 66, 306n701 Midrash Song of Songs Rabbah vii.8 60, 238n370, 238n373 Mishnah #Avodah Zarah iii.10 234n354 Palestinian (Jerusalem) Talmud Megillah i.5 66n197, 306n701 Sanhedrin iv.2 (21b) 17n19 Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana viii.2 246n417 Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer chap. 49 198n194 chap. 50 65n195, 215n, 245n416, 256n475,

260n491, 261n494, 261n496, 281n580 Seder #Olam Rabbah chap. 28 197n193 chap. 30 164n29, 166n40 Sopherim (minor tractate) xvii.4 312n722 Targumim (see also Index II. Canonical References: Ancient Versions of the Hebrew Bible) Yalqut Shimoni i.675 (Lev. 26:44) 163n27 ii.420 (Isa. 19:22) 59n175 ii.1053 (Esth. 3:1) 59n175

IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Abraham ben Judah (the Elder) 7:5 269n525 8:1 274n545 8:10 277n563 8:14 279n570 8:17 288n610 9:4 290n620 9:5 290n621, 290n622 9:22 302n675 9:24 302n681 9:25 299n661 9:27 300n668 9:28 306n698 9:29 308n710 9:32 313n727 #Al¯ı (Ab¯u "l-Hasan) ibn Sulaym¯an . al-Muqaddas¯ı 3:12 225n312 3:14 227n317 4:8 227n317 8:9 225n312 8:10 277n563 8:13 227n317 8:14 277n563 9:3 225n312

357

Alkabez, . Solomon ha-Levi 8:17 288n610, 289n611 9:10 295n647 9:27 301n671 9:28 306n698 9:29 309n710 9:31 310n718 9:32 312n724 Alshekh 3:1 214n267 3:6 217n274 9:3 294n638 9:5 291n622 #Anan ben David 4:16 245n416 David Qimh. ¯ı 1:6 173n59 1:10 119 1:12 119 1:15 119 2:9 279n571 2:13 119 2:14 119, 205n222 2:15 119 2:20 195n188

358 2:21 119 4:4 119 4:5 119 4:16 236n362 6:2 119 6:14 119, 279n571 7:8 261n495 7:9 119 8:10 277n563, 279n570 8:14 277n563, 279n570 8:15 173n59 8:17 288n610 9:19 292n632 9:22 297n655 9:24 298n658 Eliezer Ashkenazi 8:7 283n589 9:3–4 294n637 9:26 300n665 9:29 307n702, 309n710 Elijah ben Solomon 1:1 170n51 8:17 288n610 9:3 293n636 9:10 295n647 9:26 304n688 9:31 310n718 al-F¯as¯ı, David ben Abraham 1:1 164n31, 102n49, 276n561 1:2 171n53 1:3 171n55 1:5 171n53, 172n57 1:6 172n58, 173n59, 173n60, 173n61, 178n88 1:8 174n64 1:20 184n121 2:3 171n53 2:5 171n53 2:7 191n162, 199n199 2:8 171n53 2:12 190n151, 193n176 2:20 209n244 2:23 210n253 3:8 219n279, 219n282, 220n284

indexes 3:12 3:14 3:15 4:7 4:16 5:9 5:10 5:13 6:9 6:12 6:14 7:1–10 7:4 7:6 7:7 7:8 8:9 8:10 8:14

226n312, 226n313 227n317 171n53 233n348 236n362 251n447 251n448 252n454 171n55 261n495 279n571 113–21 263n 264n506 172n57 172n57, 265n513 164n31, 102n49, 226n312, 276n561 277n563, 279n570 171n53, 277n563, 279n570, 279n571 172n58, 173n59 226n312, 226n313 171n53 171n53 171n53 292n632 297n658 313n728 313n729 317n748

8:15 9:3 9:6 9:11 9:12 9:19 9:24 10:1 10:2 10:3 Gersonides 1:6 177n87 8:17 288n610 9:5 295n645 Hai Gaon 1:5 172n57 2:12 193n176 Ibn Bal#am, Judah 1:1 165n31 Ibn Bar¯un, Ab¯u Ibr¯ah¯ım Ish¯ . aq 1:5 172n57 1:6 172n58 1:10 119 1:12 119 1:15 119 2:3 119

indexes 2:14 119 2:15 119 2:21 119 4:4 119 4:5 119 5:10 251n448 6:2 119 6:12 261n495 6:14 119 7:5 116 7:8 265n513 7:9 119 7:10 121 8:15 172n58 8:17 281n578 Ibn D¯a"¯ud, Abraham 1:1 164n29, 175n69, 197n193 Ibn Ezra, Abraham: Commentary A 1:1 167n, 169n47, 169n48 1:2 175n70 1:8 174n64 1:11–12 181n103, 182n106 1:131 186n125 1:18 183n116 1:20 184n121 2:1 190n152 2:5 198n194 2:9 199n197, 201n206 2:10 75, 202n213 2:11 203n215, 208n241 2:13 194n177 2:14 205n222 2:18 207n234 2:19 208n239 2:20 209n243 3:1 214n267 3:7 219n278 3:8 220n284, 222n292, 222n294 3:15 229n333 4:1 230n338, 230n339 4:16 245n415 5:1 248n434, 250n442 5:9 254n460 5:11 252n449

359 6:1 73n233, 258n482 6:8 257n475 7:4 268n522 7:8 265n513 8:2 274n545 8:10 277n563 8:14 277n563 8:17 288n610 9:4 290n620 9:10 295n647 9:23 302n677 9:24 302n682 9:25 298n661 9:26 304n691 9:27 300n668 9:30 309n715 9:31 310n718, 312n722 9:32 313n727 10:1 313n728 10:3 316n744 Commentary B 1:1 63, 167n, 169n45, 169n47, 170n51 1:2 171n53, 175n70 1:4 176n74 1:5 172n57 1:6 178n88 1:7 179n94 1:8 75 1:12 182n106 186n125 1:13 1:14 186n126 1:18 183n116, 183n117, 187n134 1:19 188n139 1:20 188n140 1:22 189n143 2:5 198n194 2:6 72n229, 197n193 2:7 199n200 2:8 198n196 2:9 193n171 2:10 75n242, 193n172, 202n213 2:11 208n241 2:12 193n176 2:13 194n177

360

indexes 2:14 2:15 2:17 2:18 2:19 2:21 2:23 3:1 3:8 3:14 4:1 4:7 4:11 4:12 4:14 4:15 4:16 4:17 5:7–8 5:11 5:13 6:1 6:3 6:4 6:8 7:3 7:4 7:5 7:8 8:1 8:8 8:9 8:10 8:13 8:14 8:17 9:3 9:4 9:5 9:10 9:11 9:19

204n222 75, 205n223 76, 206n228 207n234 76, 208n239 210n249 210n251 214n267, 225n308 219n279, 220n284, 222n291, 222n292, 222n294 227n317 230n338, 231n340 242n398 243n403 244n408 28n59, 273n539 245n413 236n362, 237n364, 245n416 237n365 27, 272n537 252n449 253n454 73n231, 255n465, 258n481, 258n482 77 258n483 257n475 27, 77, 267n517, 272n537 263n, 268n522 269n525 265n513 274n545 284n591 276n556 277n563 278n568 277n563 288n610 293n637 290n620 290n621, 290n622 295n647 295n648 292n632

9:20 9:24

301n673 77, 302n681, 303n682 9:25 298n659, 299n661 9:26 304n691 9:27 78, 300n668 9:28 306n698 9:29 308n710 9:32 313n727 10:3 316n741 Ibn Jan¯ah, Jonah (Ab¯u "l-Wal¯ıd Marw¯an) His Grammar (Kit¯ab al-Luma#) 3:7 213n265 3:12 226n312 5:1 248n434 5:11 252n449 6:8 256n475 7:5 269n525 8:9 226n312 8:17 280n578, 281n578 9:3 226n312 His Lexicon (Kit¯ab al-Us. ¯ul) 1:2 171n53 1:3 171n55 1:5 171n53, 172n57 1:6 172n58, 173n58, 173n59, 173n60, 173n61, 178n88 1:18 183n117 1:20 184n121 2:3 171n53, 190n151 2:5 171n53 2:8 171n53 2:9 192n169, 192n170 2:12 190n151, 193n176 2:20 195n188 3:8 220n284 3:9 220n287 3:12 226n312, 226n313 3:14 227n317 3:15 171n53 4:7 233n348 4:8 227n317 4:11 234n354 4:13 235n357 4:16 236n362

indexes 5:2 5:6 5:7 5:8 5:10 5:13 6:9 6:12 6:14 7:2 7:3 7:4–10 7:4 7:5 7:8 8:4 8:9 8:10 8:13 8:14

234n354 113 113 113 251n448 220n284 171n55 261n495 279n571 113 113 115–21 220n284, 268n522 264n505 172n57 234n354 226n312 277n563, 279n570 227n317 171n53, 277n563, 279n570, 279n571 8:15 172n58, 173n59, 178n88 9:3 226n312, 226n313 9:6 171n53 9:11 171n53 9:12 113, 171n53 9:19 292n632 9:22 297n655 9:24 297n658, 298n658 10:1 313n728 10:3 316n741, 317n745 Ibn N¯uh, Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub Y¯usuf 1:2 171n53 Ibn Quraysh, Judah 1:6 172n58, 173n58, 173n59 3:8 220n284 4:16 236n362 5:13 220n284 6:12 261n495 7:4 220n284 7:8 265n513 8:15 172n58, 173n59 Immanuel ben Solomon of Rome 1:6 177n87 3:8 220n284

361

Jacob ben Reuben 3:7 218n276 6:12 261n495 7:3 267n519 7:4 263n 7:8 89, 265n513, 266n513, 270n528 8:8 283n591 9:10 89, 295n647 9:23 302n677 9:25 299n661 9:26 90, 304n691, 305n691 9:27 300n668 9:28 307n701 9:29 307n702 Joseph Kara 1:22 74, 189n143 2:23 211n254 3:15 229n332, 229n333 10:3 316n744 Judah (ben Elijah) Hadassi 3:6 162n23, 240n385 4:16–5:1 245n416 9:22–23 312n722 Judah ben Shushan (or: Shoshan) 8:14 288n608 9:26 304n688 Judah Meir Taur¯ızi 3:6 84, 142–43, 162n23, 240n385 4:16 143n24 Levi ben Gershon 8:17 288n610 Maimonides 9:28 306n701 Menahem ben Saruq . 6:12 261n495 8:10 277n563 8:14 277n563 al-Qirqis¯an¯ı, Ab¯u Y¯usuf Yaq¯ub ibn Is.h¯ . aq 7:5 269n525 9:26 304n691 Rashi 1:5 172n57 2:1 190n152 2:5 196n189

362 2:9 2:11 2:14 3:1 3:7 3:8 3:15 4:17 5:1 6:1 6:9 8:10 8:14 8:17 9:10 9:19 9:20 9:25 9:27

indexes 192n169 198n197, 203n215 204n222 211n254 218n276 223n296 229n333 237n365, 245n416, 281n582 248n434 73n232, 258n481, 258n482 256n475 277n563 277n563, 279n571 288n610 295n647 292n632 28n60 299n661 300n668, 301n671, 305n695 306n698 310n718 313n727 315n736, 316n744

9:28 9:31 9:32 10:3 Saadia Gaon His Arabic translation (Tafs¯ır) of Esther 1:1 164n31 1:2 171n53 1:3 171n55 1:5 172n57 1:6 172n58, 173n58, 173n59, 173n60, 173n61, 178n88 1:7 174n63 1:8 174n64, 174n65 1:14 182n109, 182n111, 186n126 1:15 182n112 1:17 183n114, 183n115 1:18 183n116, 183n117 1:19 184n119, 188n139 1:20 184n121, 188n140 1:22 189n144 2:2 189n145

2:3 2:5 2:6 2:7 2:9 2:10 2:12 2:13 2:14 2:18 2:20 2:21 2:22 2:23 3:1 3:7 3:8 3:11 3:12 3:13 3:14 3:15 4:1 4:2 4:3 4:5 4:7 4:8 4:10 4:11 4:13 4:14 4:16 5:1 5:3 5:4 5:10 5:11 5:12 5:13 5:14

190n150 191n159 191n161 191n162 192n169, 192n170, 192n171 193n172, 193n173 190n151, 193n176 194n177 204n222 174n63, 195n184 209n244 210n249 210n250 210n251, 210n252, 210n253 212n263 213n264, 213n265 219n279, 219n282, 220n284 221n289 225n311, 225n312, 226n313 226n314, 226n315, 227n316 227n317 227n318 230n338, 231n340 231n342 231n344, 232n345 232n346, 232n347 233n348, 233n349 227n317, 233n350 234n352 234n354 235n357 235n358 236n362, 237n363, 237n364 248n434 249n437 249n438 251n448 252n450 252n452, 252n453 253n454 210n252, 253n455

indexes 6:1 6:2 6:3 6:4 6:7 6:8 6:9 6:12 6:13 6:14 7:1–10 7:4 7:5 7:6 7:7 7:8 7:9 7:10 8:1 8:4 8:5 8:6 8:7 8:9 8:10 8:11 8:13 8:14 8:15 8:17 9:3 9:4 9:13 9:14 9:19 9:22 9:24 9:25 9:26 9:27

255n464, 314n732 210n249 189n145 210n252, 255n470 256n473 256n475 171n55 261n495 258n480 262n500 112–21 263n 264n505, 268n525 264n506 172n57 172n57, 265n510, 266n513 210n252 210n252 274n543 234n354 275n549, 275n550, 275n551 275n554 210n252 164n31, 225n312, 276n556 277n563, 279n570 278n566 227n317, 278n568 277n563, 279n570, 279n571 172n58, 173n59, 280n575 280n578 225n312 290n620 210n252, 299n663 210n252 69, 292n632 297n655 297n658 210n252, 298n661, 299n663 299n664, 300n665, 304n691 300n671

363 9:29 9:30 9:31 10:1 10:2

307n702 307n704 313n729 313n728 313n729, 314n730, 314n732 10:3 315n734, 315n736, 316n744 His commentary on Esther 1:1 70, 166n40, 168n45, 169n48, 170n51 1:4 176n74 1:13 182n108, 185n125 1:22 171n51 3:2 69, 214n269 4:16 245n416 7:5 269n525 7:6 71, 269n526 7:8 270n529 7:9 270n531 8:2 274n545, 274n547 282n587 8:3 9:1 293n633 10:3 69–70 His Egrôn (vocabulary list) 1:6 172n58 2:3 190n151 2:12 190n151, 193n176 3:12 225n312 7:7 118 8:9 225n312 810 277n563 8:14 277n563 8:15 172n58 9:3 225n312 9:22 297n655 Kit¯ab (al-mukht¯ar f¯ı) al-am¯an¯at wa-"l-i#tiq¯ad¯at 1:4 176n74 Salmon ben Yer¯uham . His Arabic translation of Esther 1:2 171n53 1:3 171n55 1:6 172n58, 173n58, 173n59, 173n60, 173n61 1:7 174n63, 179n95

364

indexes 1:8 1:14 2:6 2:9

174n64, 174n65 182n109, 182n111 191n161 192n169, 192n170, 193n171 2:10 193n172 2:12–13 194n177 2:12 193n176 2:18 195n184 2:21 210n249 2:22 210n250 2:23 210n251, 210n252, 210n253 3:1 212n263 3:8 220n284 3:11 221n289 3:12 225n311, 225n312, 226n313 3:13 226n314, 226n315, 227n316 3:14 227n317 3:15 227n318 4:1 230n338, 231n340 4:2 231n342 4:3 231n344, 232n345 4:5 232n346 4:7 233n348, 233n349 4:8 227n317, 233n350 4:10 234n352 4:11 234n354 4:16 236n362, 237n364 5:1 248n434 5:2 234n354 6:9 171n55 7:1–5 112–16 7:4 263n 7:5 264n505 8:13 227n317 9:3 225n312, 226n313 9:4 290n620 His commentary on Esther 1:1 80, 166n40, 168n45, 169n47, 171n51 1:2–3 175n71 1:4 176n74 1:5 172n57, 176n76 1:6 178n88

1:7 1:8 1:9 1:13 2:5–6 2:5 2:6 2:7 2:8 2:9

179n95 180n97 208n239 185n125 196n193 81 196n189, 196n191 199n198, 200n200 198n196 192n169, 200n202, 201n209 2:10 198n197, 202n213, 209n243 2:11 202n215, 208n241 2:12 203n216, 203n218 2:14 204n220, 204n222 2:15 205n223, 205n225 2:18 207n237 81, 208n239, 208n241 2:19 2:20 209n243 2:21–22 211n259, 211n260 2:23 212n262 3:1 210n254 3:2 214n269, 216n271 3:4–5 217n273 3:4 216n270 3:7 219n278 3:8 220n284, 221n291, 222n293, 222n294 3:9 223n301, 267n520 3:13 228n325, 228n328 3:15 81, 229n332, 229n333 4:1 240n387, 241n388, 287n606 4:2 82, 241n395 4:3 61, 240n386 4:4 241n391 4:5 242n397 4:11 245n416, 281n582 4:12 244n408 4:13–14 244n412 4:16 82, 83, 245n413, 245n415, 245n416, 246n417, 246n419, 246n420 4:17 237n365 5:1 248n434

indexes 6:6 29n64 6:8 256n475 6:10 260n493 6:11 287n606 6:13 83, 261n498 6:14 266n516 7:3 267n519 7:4 267n520 7:5 269n525 8:12 284n596 8:15 287n606 8:17 287n606 9:3 293n637 9:10 295n645 9:13 296n649 9:16 296n651 Samuel ben Meir 10:3 315n735 Samuel de Uçeda 8:14 288n608 8:17 288n610 9:2 295n645 9:5 290n621 9:23 302n678 9:26 300n665, 304n688 9:27 300n668, 301n671 9:29 307n702 9:31 311n718 9:32 312n724 10:3 315n735, 315n736

365

Samuel de Vidas 9:28 306n698 Tanhum ben Joseph ha-Yerushalmi . 1:8 174n65 2:7 199n200, 200n200 3:2 69, 215n 3:7 214n265 3:8 220n284 6:8 256n475 6:10–11 260n494 7:5 264n505, 269n525 7:8 265n513 8:3 282n586 8:8 283n587 8:10 277n563, 279n570 8:11 278n566 8:12 285n596 8:14 277n563, 279n570, 279n571, 285n598 8:17 288n610 9:4 290n620 9:5 290n621 9:19 292n632 9:25 298n659 9:29 307n702, 308n710, 313n729 9:31 310n718 10:2 313n729, 314n730 10:3 315n734, 316n741, 316n744

V. Modern Authors and Editors Adang, C., xv, 40n112, 41n112, 41n113, 41n114, 42n120, 43n127, 312n722 Adler, E.N., 6n26, 124n8, 134, 137 Allony, N., 118n126, 118n127, 124n8, 190n151 Alobaidi, J., 102n50, 125n12 Anawati, G.C., 13n3, 44n128, 45n129, 47n135, 50n144, 52n152, 55n162 Ankori, Z., 3n3, 37n94, 71n225, 83n267, 86n276, 86n277, 132n33, 134n47, 161n20

Ashtor, E., 3n3 Astren, F., 21n35, 21n36 Auerbach, Z., 4n9, 68n216, 71n225, 110n90, 110n91 Bacher, W., 7n43 Baker, C.F., 124n8 Baneth, D.H., 42n123 Bargès, J.J.L., 3n1, 4n9, 4n13, 5n16, 5n21, 5n22, 8n45, 36n90, 37n96, 38n97, 92n9, 102n50, 103n61, 106n80, 106n81, 106n83, 106n86, 110n96, 120n136, 174n61

366

indexes

Batat, E., 4n12, 5n19, 5n20, 6n27, 6n36, 9n47 Bauckham, R.J., 30n68 Baumgartner, W., 116, 117, 170n51, 172n57, 172n58, 173n58, 182n109, 183n116, 192n169, 193n172, 232n345, 233n348, 236n362, 237n364, 262n503, 270n528, 277n563, 279n570, 279n571, 289n610, 292n632, 297n658, 300n668 Bauer, W., 30n68 Becker, D., 173n59 Beckingham, C.F., 276n560 Ben-Sasson, H.H., 16n17, 21n35 . Ben-Shammai, H., . xvii, 3n3, 3n5, 6n30, 14n8, 14n9, 16n16, 21n36, 42n123, 42n124, 43n125, 43n126, 43n127, 47n134, 50n143, 56n166, 56n167, 57n169, 57n170, 58n171, 58n172, 68n216, 83n267, 95n20, 100n42, 101n45, 102n50, 103, 104n68, 106n80, 106n82, 106n83, 107, 107n87, 110n96, 111, 129n29 Bergen, R.D., 34n84 Berlin, A., 188n139, 188n140, 193n172, 196n189, 206n229, 207n234, 219n279, 254n461, 256n473, 257n475, 264n505, 289n610, 311n718 Bernard, M., 15n16, 16n16, 18n24 Birnbaum, P., 36n92, 38n99, 38n100, 39n103, 39n104, 39n107, 42n124, 56n167, 57n168, 60n178, 68n216, 68n217, 71n225, 72n227, 86n277, 91n4, 91n5, 92n6, 92n9, 95n20, 97n33, 102n50, 102n55 Birnbaum, S.A., 139 Bivar, A.D.H., 169n47 Bland, R.M., 5n16, 42n124, 68n216, 78n250, 86n277, 92n6, 92n9, 100n43, 103n66, 138n9, 262n500 Blau, J., 71n224, 82n263, 82n264, 111n98, 113n105, 114n108, 115n111, 115n114, 118n123, 118n124, 149, 158n2, 162n21, 163n26, 168n45, 171n55, 176n74, 179n93, 181n101,

181n104, 182n109, 182n111, 183n116, 188n136, 188n139, 188n141, 189n145, 190n154, 191n161, 194n177, 196n189, 199n198, 200n202, 209n245, 211n260, 213n265, 215n, 220n284, 221n289, 223n299, 223n301, 224n304, 225n309, 227n317, 228n325, 228n326, 229n332, 231n343, 236n361, 240n386, 242n395, 244n412, 245n413, 245n416, 246n420, 251n445, 252n453, 253n455, 255n464, 259n485, 262n499, 264n508, 265n512, 266n515, 266n516, 273n539, 274n546, 245n414, 284n596, 292n632, 293n637, 300n667, 300n670, 300n671, 301n671, 303n684, 303n686, 305n696, 314n731, 314n732 Breuer, M., 66n199 Brin, G., 28n62 Broydé, I., 3n3, 7n41, 8n44, 71n225, 92n5 Brown, F., 237n364, 262n503, 314n731 Buber, S., 223n296 Bush, F., 192n169, 194n177, 196n189, 205n222, 208n239, 219n279, 230n337, 232n344, 232n346, 233n347, 233n349, 233n350, 234n351, 234n352, 235n355, 237n365, 249n437, 252n453, 253n456, 254n460, 255n470, 256n473, 257n475, 264n505, 266n513, 268n522, 270n528, 274n543, 278n566, 278n568, 298n658, 298n659, 299n661, 305n695, 307n702, 307n704, 309n710, 310n718, 314n731, 315n735, 315n736 Butbul, S., 15n12, 15n15, 35n87, 92n8, 92n10, 97n33, 102n51 Clines, D.J., 192n169, 196n189, 253n456, 254n461, 255n465, 257n475, 264n505, 266n513,

indexes 268n522, 276n556, 298n658, 298n659, 311n718 Cohen, G.D., 161n15 Cohen, M., xvii, 49n141 Cook, M., 43n124, 55n162, 55n163, 56n164, 58n172 Cowley, A.E., 124n8 de Goeje, M.J., 169n48 de Vreugd, K., xiv, 107n88 Davidson, I., 8n45, 125n9, 186n125 Derenbourg, J., 93n13, 94n15, 94n16, 95n17, 183n116 Dinur, B.Z., 5n20, 8n45 Dozy, R., 15n14, 85n273, 161n21, 162n25, 168n41, 168n44, 169n47, 170n51, 171n53, 171n54, 171n55, 172n57, 173n61, 174n64, 174n65, 176n75, 178n91, 180n99, 180n101, 181n102, 183n116, 184n117, 188n138, 191n160, 193n172, 193n176, 196n190, 199n199, 200n201, 201n205, 201n209, 204n221, 206n232, 211n256, 214n266, 220n286, 222n291, 225n310, 227n318, 229n334, 231n344, 235n359, 238n368, 241n393, 244n411, 253n458, 254n462, 260n492, 263n, 270n527, 271n531, 277n563, 245n413, 283n587, 288n609, 290n616, 290n618, 293n637, 298n661, 311n719 Driver, G.R., 298n659 Drory, R, xiii Dukes, L., 38n97, 72n228 Efros, I., 56n166, 158n2, 158n3 Elliger, K., 66n200 Erder, Y., 14n9, 21n35, 21n36, 42n124 Fenton, P., xiii, xv Fox, M., 183n115, 183n116, 188n140, 205n222, 207n234, 208n241, 218n274, 219n279, 230n337, 237n365, 254n460, 256n473,

367

257n475, 265n510, 266n513, 266n513, 268n522, 278n566, 279n568, 289n610, 298n659, 299n661, 307n702, 309n710, 311n718, 314n731, 315n735, 315n736 Frank, D., 3n3, 15n16, 16n18, 17n20, 20n33, 21n34, 21n35, 21n37, 37n94, 38n97, 68n216, 83n267, 86n277, 125n12 Frank, R.M., 46n131, 47n133, 60n177 Freeman-Grenville, G.S.P., 164n31, 276n561 Freimark, P., 123n4 Fürst, J., 3n3, 4n9, 7n41, 125n9, 125n12, 132n33, 133n43 Gardet, L., 41n115, 44n128, 45n129, 47n135, 50n144, 52n152, 55n162, 56n166 Gerleman, G., 183n116, 184n119, 192n169, 193n172, 193n173, 194n177, 196n189, 199n200, 204n222, 207n234, 214n265, 218n274, 219n279, 231n344, 232n346, 233n350, 235n356, 236n360, 236n362, 236n362, 237n364, 248n434, 252n450, 252n453, 254n461, 256n475, 257n475, 264n505, 266n513, 268n522, 278n566, 279n568, 298n659, 299n661, 305n695, 307n702, 309n710, 314n731, 315n735 Gesenius, W., 182n109, 183n115, 226n315, 231n344, 236n362, 237n364, 262n503, 275n554, 290n620, 294n644, 314n731 Gil, M., 3n3, 3n5, 21n35, 40n112, 41n112, 41n113, 125n12, 129n29, 161n20, 165n38 Gimaret, D., 4n6, 25n49, 41n116, 41n118, 44n128, 45n129, 46n130, 46n131, 47n135, 51n147, 51n148, 52n152, 52n154, 56n166 Ginzberg, L., 61n179 Goitein, S.D., 23n44, 56n163,

368

indexes

220n287, 277n562, 279n570, 285n597 Golb, N., xvii Goldman, J., 298n658, 299n661, 311n718 Goldziher, I., 13n3, 40n108, 281n578 Goodman, L.E., 10n51, 49n141, 151–52 Gordis, R., 314n731, 315n735, 315n736 Gottlober, A.B., 3n3, 6n36, 42n122, 125n10, 125n12, 132n33, 132n38, 133n43 Grätz, H.(S), . 3n3, 4n9, 37n94, 42n122, 43n124, 92n5, 97n33 Greenspoon, L.A., 152n3 Grossfeld, B., 26n54, 172–73n58, 175n71, 178n88, 178n92, 195n184, 199n200, 204n222, 206n230, 210n252, 224n303, 231n341, 232n344, 232n345, 233n349, 235n356, 236n360, 255n470, 257n475, 300n665, 316n741 Günzig, I., 4n9, 68n216 Hakham, A., 183n115, 184n119, . 193n172, 194n177, 196n189, 205n222, 218n274, 219n279, 230n337, 232n346, 236n362, 237n365, 253n456, 253n457, 254n460, 255n465, 255n470, 257n475, 258n482, 262n503, 264n505, 266n513, 266n513, 275n551, 278n566, 288n608, 289n610, 290n621, 298n658, 298n659, 298n661, 308n710, 315n735, 315n736 Hallaq, W.B., 15n16, 18n23, 18n24 Hallo, W.W., 218n275 Hanhart, R., 172n58, 297n655 Harris, R.A., 28n62 Haupt, P., 299n661 Hava, J.G., 92n5, 168n41, 187n131, 187n135, 191n163, 220n287 Heemskerk, M.T., 49n139, 56n166 Hirschfeld, H., 15n12, 16n16, 20n30,

33n81, 42n124, 68n216, 71n225, 78n250, 92n9, 103n59, 124n8, 144n25 Hirschler, G., 182n109, 183n116, 186n126, 190n152, 192n169, 194n177, 196n189, 205n222, 207n234, 209n244, 212n263, 214n265, 217n272, 218n274, 219n279, 230n337, 232n344, 232n346, 233n347, 234n350, 234n352, 237n365, 249n440, 252n453, 256n473, 257n475, 258n481, 261n498, 262n503, 266n513, 268n522, 278n566, 278n568, 289n610, 298n658, 298n659, 299n661, 307n702, 308n710, 315n735 Hoerning, R., 3n5 Hofmann, Th., 92n9, 103n61 Hoschander, J., 190n152, 218n274, 252n449, 254n460, 261n497, 261n498, 265n509, 266n513, 268n522, 270n528, 298n659, 299n661, 311n718, 312n722, 314n731 Hussain, H.A., 16n16, 36n90, 42n124, 43n127, 50n143, 57n168, 68n216, 71n225, 92n9, 103n62 Jahn, G., 316n741 Jastrow, M., 199n200, 207n234, 210n252, 220n287, 226n313, 316n741 Jeanrond, W.G., 13n1 Jellinek, A., 201n206, 218n276, 261n494, 269n525, 274n545, 283n588, 287n606, 300n668, 309n710 Joüon, P., 190n150, 226n314, 231n342, 231n344, 247n421, 264n505, 275n554, 278n566, 290n620, 314n731 Justi, F., 175n69 Jwaideh, W., 170n48, 206n234 Kafih, . Y. See Qafih, . Y. Kautzsch, E., 182n109, 183n115,

indexes 226n315, 231n344, 236n362, 275n554, 290n620, 294n644 Kaye, A.S., 276n561 Keil, C.F., 252n453, 255n465, 257n475, 263n, 264n503, 264n505, 265n510, 266n513, 278n566, 298n658, 298n659, 299n661, 307n702, 308n710, 310n718, 314n731, 315n735 Kent, R.G., 167n40, 213n264 Khan, G., 7n43, 33n78, 37n94, 40n110, 40n111, 84n268, 100n42, 111n100, 123n7, 128, 129n27, 129n29, 144n26 Koch, K., 167n40 Koehler, L., 116, 117, 132n35, 170n51, 172n57, 172n58, 173n58, 182n109, 183n116, 192n169, 193n172, 232n345, 233n348, 236n362, 237n364, 262n503, 270n528, 277n563, 279n570, 279n571, 289n610, 292n632, 297n658, 300n668 Kokovtsov, P., 281n578 Kraemer, J., xvii Kutscher, E.Y., 252n453 Lane, E.W., 18n24, 112n102, 163n26, 164n31, 171n55, 172n56, 172n57, 173n59, 174n65, 186n129, 187n132, 189n147, 201n209, 204n221, 206n234, 219n277, 220n285, 220n287, 229n334, 234n354, 240n385, 255n466, 276n561, 277n565, 281n578, 292n632, 294n643, 296n650, 297n653, 306n700, 307n704, 313n728, 316n743 Lasker, D., xvii, 50n143, 132n35 Lazarus-Yafeh, H., 15n16 Leaman, O., 48n136, 56n166 Lehrman, S.M., 3n3, 4n5, 4n7, 5n23, 6n28, 10n52, 72n225, 92n5, 144n25 Levenson, J., 183n114, 183n115, 188n140, 192n169, 193n172, 205n222, 207n234, 208n239,

369

214n265, 218n274, 219n279, 231n344, 232n346, 233n349, 233n350, 234n351, 234n352, 235n358, 236n360, 236n362, 237n365, 248n434, 252n450, 252n453, 253n456, 254n461, 255n470, 257n475, 258n482, 264n503, 265n511, 266n513, 278n566, 278n568, 289n610, 298n659, 305n695, 307n702, 307n704, 311n718, 315n735 Liddell, H.G., 173n58 Loewenstamm, S.E., 307n702 MacDonald, D.B., 13n3 Maier, G., 253n456, 257n475, 264n505, 266n513, 298n659, 299n661, 307n702, 315n735, 315n736 Malter, H., 9n48, 9n49, 93n12, 95n21 Mann, J., 3n3, 3n4, 3n5, 4n8, 4n12, 5n25, 5n26, 8n45, 21n35, 42n122, 123n1, 128n16, 128n21, 128n22, 129n29, 130n30, 132n34, 132n37, 132n38, 132n39, 137n7, 138n10, 161n20 Margoliouth, D.S., 4n5, 4n10, 5n17, 5n19, 21n34, 35n89, 40n110, 53n157, 54n158, 68n216, 92n5, 103n67, 105n79, 106n85, 125n9, 162n21, 162n22, 162n25, 163n26, 164n29, 313n729 Margoliouth, G., 3n5, 4n11, 4n13, 5n14, 5n16, 5n18, 5n19, 5n21, 5n22, 5n24, 8n45, 98n35, 98n36, 98n37, 104n72, 105n74, 106n84, 110n94, 128n21, 129, 138, 143n24, 144n26 Markon, I., 16n18, 133n42, 133n43 Marmorstein, A., 16n18 Marwick, L., 6n26, 53n156, 92n9, 102n50, 102n56, 103n57, 103n58, 107n86, 112n102, 134n45, 165n34 Meinhold, A., 196n189, 218n274, 232n344, 232n346, 233n349, 236n362, 237n365, 252n450,

370

indexes

252n453, 253n456, 257n475, 264n505, 265n510, 265n511, 266n513, 268n522, 278n566, 279n568, 298n659, 305n695, 307n702, 308n710, 314n731, 315n735 Monnot, G., 41n118, 46n131, 51n148, 52n154, 56n166 Moore, C.A., 194n177, 196n189, 199n200, 205n222, 207–8n239, 214n265, 218n274, 219n279, 232n344, 232n346, 233n347, 233n349, 233n350, 234n351, 235n358, 236n360, 236n362, 237n365, 248n434, 249n437, 252n453, 257n475, 259n485, 262n503, 264n505, 266n513, 266n513, 268n522, 274n543, 276n556, 278n566, 279n568, 289n610, 298n659, 299n661, 307n702, 309n710, 310n718, 314n731, 315n735 Munk, S., 7n40, 91n5 Muraoka, T., 190n150, 226n314, 231n342, 231n344, 247n421, 264n505, 275n554, 278n566, 290n620, 314n731 Nader, A.N., 13n3, 46n130, 47n135, 52n151, 52n152, 56n166 Naveh, J., 24n Nemoy, L., 3n3, 3n5, 5n25, 8n45, 14n6, 15n12, 16n16, 20n30, 21n35, 21n36, 42n122, 43n124, 58n171, 68n216, 72n225, 78n250, 91n4, 125n10, 134n44, 311n721 Neubauer, A., 3n3, 91n5, 124n8, 128n21, 164n29 Obermann, J., 29n63 O’Connor, M., 117, 120n140, 190n150, 195n180, 230n338, 307n702 Olmstead, A.T., 167n40 Paton, L.B., 182n109, 183n115, 183n116, 184n119, 188n140,

190n152, 192n169, 194n177, 196n189, 201n206, 205n222, 208n239, 214n265, 230n337, 232n346, 235n357, 236n362, 237n365, 252n453, 255n465, 256n473, 257n475, 257n475, 262n503, 264n503, 264n505, 266n513, 278n566, 279n568, 290n621, 298n659, 298n661, 299n662, 307n702, 308n710, 314n731, 315n735 Pardee, D., xvii Perlmann, M., 175n69 Piamenta, M., 38n100, 171n55, 176n74, 185n124, 292n632 Pines, S., 13n3, 43n124 Pinsker, S., 3n2, 3n3, 4n5, 4n6, 4n7, 4n8, 4n9, 5n15, 5n20, 5n25, 6n35, 7n39, 7n41, 7n42, 8n45, 43n124, 86n277, 91n5, 125n9, 125n11, 125n12, 128n21, 129n24, 129n29, 130n30, 132n33, 133n43, 227n317, 277n563 Polliack, M., xiii, xiv, xvii, 3n3, 6n30, 8n46, 9n48, 10n51, 13n1, 13n2, 13n4, 14n5, 14n10, 15n15, 19n29, 20n33, 21n35, 22n41, 26n53, 28n60, 29n63, 30n65, 30n66, 30n67, 30n69, 31n71, 31n72, 33n78, 33n79, 33n80, 33n81, 34n84, 35n88, 36n91, 36n93, 37n94, 38n97, 38n98, 38n99, 38n100, 39n104, 39n107, 40n111, 58n171, 58n172, 60n178, 68n216, 69n220, 72n225, 72n226, 78n250, 84n267, 91, 91n4, 92n6, 92n7, 92n8, 92n10, 93n12, 93n13, 94n14, 94n15, 94n16, 94n17, 95n18, 95n20, 97n26, 97n33, 100n43, 102n50, 102n50, 102n51, 111n98, 112n103, 113n104, 113n106, 113n107, 114n109, 114n110, 115n112, 115n113, 116n115, 116n117, 117, 118n124, 118n125, 119n128, 119n129, 119n130, 119n132, 120, 124n8, 125n10, 125n12, 128n16, 129n29,

indexes 130n30, 258n480, 262n500, 262n501 Poznanski, ´ S., 3n3, 4n6, 6n30, 6n35, 7n39, 37n94, 37n95, 38n97, 40n108, 86n277, 132n33, 137n2 Qafih. (also Kafih), . Y., 10n51, 42n121, 49n141, 95n21, 114n108, 116n118, 120n136, 124n8, 165n31, 171n55, 183n116, 251n448 Radtke, B., 273n542 Rahman, F., 13n3 Ratzaby, Y., 9n48, 9n49, 9n50, 67n201, 67n202, 67n203, 67n204, 67n208, 67n210, 68n215, 95n21, 161n21, 173n59, 306n700 Reinaud, J.T., 169n48 Rüger, H.P., 208n241 Rustow, M., 21n35 Sanders, J.A., 92n5 Schacht, J., 16n16 Schenker, A., 4n5, 6n29, 21n34 Schlossberg, E., 20n33, 31n72, 33n78, 33n80 35n88, 38n98, 38n99, 38n100, 40n111, 58n171, 60n178, 68n216, 72n225, 72n226, 92n6, 95n20, 102n50 Schmidtke, S., xv, xvii Schmitt, R., 167n40 Schorstein, N., 3n5, 103n64, 110n94, 110n95 Schreiner, M., 43n124 Schur, N., 3n3 Scott, R., 173n58 Segal, E., 61n179, 169n47, 222n291, 275n548 Simchoni, J.N.H., 132n38 Simon, U., 23n42, 30n67, 68n216, 72n226, 72n227, 125n10 Sklare, D., 6n32, 6n33, 6n34, 6n36, 7n38, 7n39, 9n47 Skoss, S., 3n3, 5n23, 7n41, 8n44, 19n29, 20n32, 72n225, 78n250, 91n3, 129n29, 130n30 Sokolow, M., 5n25, 42n124, 68n216,

371

72n225, 78n250, 86n277, 92n5, 92n9, 102n52, 222n293 Steinberger, A.S., . 172n57 Steiner, R.C., 28n62 Steingass, F., 171n52, 171n53, 176n73, 182n107, 188n138 Steinsaltz, A., 169n47, 222n291 Steinschneider, M., 3n3, 4n6, 6n26, 6n27, 6n30, 6n35, 7n37, 7n41, 8n44, 95n21, 124n8, 125n12, 128n21, 132n38, 132n39, 132n40, 133n43 Stemberger, G., 13n2 Strack, H.L., 13n2 Stroumsa, S., 15n12, 15n15, 35n87, 92n8, 92n10, 97n33, 102n51 Swormink, M.K., xv Tamani, G., 3n3, 3n5, 6n26, 6n27, 8n44, 8n45, 9n47, 72n225, 134n45, 137, 139 Tirosh-Becker, O., 58n171, 60n178 Tobi, Y., 111n98 Torrey, C.C., 167n40 Vajda, G., 3n3, 4n6 van Ess, J., 41n115, 41n116, 47n133, 52n152, 55n162 Walfish, B.D., xiv, xv, 23n45, 26n54, 72n228, 123n5, 124n8, 128n21, 131n32, 132n33, 132n36, 132n38, 169n47, 172–73n57, 177n87, 178n88, 198n194, 287n606, 306n698 Waltke, B.K., 117, 120n140, 190n150, 195n180, 230n338, 307n702 Wasserstrom, A.M., 42n120 Watt, W.M., 13n3, 44n128, 45n129, 46n130, 47n135, 50n144, 52n152, 55n162 Wechsler, M.G., xiv, 68n216, 72n225, 84n268, 84n270, 84n271, 85n272, 85n274, 86n275, 87n278, 87n279, 88n280, 98n40, 99n41, 100n42, 123n1, 125n11, 128n17, 129n25, 129n28, 134n47, 144n26, 144n27,

372

indexes

208n241, 213n264, 257n475, 286n600, 299n664 Wechter, P., 281n578 Wehr, H., 187n132, 190n154, 209n245, 220n286, 297n656 Wendkos, P.D., 42n124, 57n168, 68n216, 92n9, 102n54, 105n74, 105n75, 105n76, 105n77, 105n78, 305n692 Wieder, N., 21n35, 21n36, 37n94, 311n721 Wiesehöfer, J., 164n29 Wolfson, H.A., 13n3, 41n115, 42n121, 42n123, 43n124, 46n130, 57n169 Wright, W., 174n64, 179n93, 184n122, 190n151, 258n480, 262n502, 278n568, 297n656

Würthwein, E., 192n169, 193n173, 194n177, 205n222, 207n234, 208n239, 214n265, 231n344, 232n346, 233n350, 235n358, 236n360, 236n362, 237n364, 248n434, 252n453, 266n513, 268n522, 276n556, 278n566, 278n568, 298n659, 299n661, 307n702, 310n718, 314n731, 315n735 Zaehner, R.C., 25n47 Zawanowska, M., xiv, xv, 25n48, 25n50 Zedner, J., 72n228, 78n249 Zotenberg, H., 102n50, 110n94, 139

VI. General Index Aaron ben Elijah (the Younger) of Nicomedia, 42 Aaron (ha-r¯of¯e) ben Joseph, 123n1, 132n35 Abbahu (amora), 65 #Abd al-Jabb¯ar ibn Ahmad, 44, . 45n129, 46 Abraham ben Judah (the Elder), 132–33. See also Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Abrahamic Covenant, 163 Ab¯u #Al¯ı al-Jubb¯a"¯ı, 3n6, 46, 49 Ab¯u "l-Faraj H¯ar¯un ibn al-Faraj, 128, 129 Ab¯u "l-Faraj Furq¯an ibn Asad. See Yeshu#ah ben Yehudah Ab¯u "l-Hudhayl, 43n125 Ab¯u "l-Husayn al-Bas.r¯ı, 55n163 . Ab¯u H¯ashim, 3n6, 49 Ab¯u "l-Surri (#Al¯ı) ibn Z¯ut.a¯ , 3n4, 127 Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub Y¯usuf al-Bas.¯ır. See Joseph ben Abraham Abyssinia (al-h. abasha, identified with Kûˇs), 70, 100, 165n31, 169n46, 170n48, 276

actualization. See prognostic exegesis Akkadian, 199n200, 226n313 Aleppo Codex, 66–68 Alexander the Great, 167n40 #Al¯ı (Ab¯u "l-Hasan) ibn Sulaym¯an . al-Muqaddas¯ı, 20n32, 129. See also Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Alkabez, . Solomon ha-Levi. See Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Alshekh. See Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Amalek: ancient enmity with Saul revived in Esther, 29n64, 80, 158n2, 197n194, 218n274, 225, 245n412, 295 Amoraim, 58, 60 #Anan ben David: his exegetical dictum (“Search Scripture well …”), 37; his seventy-day fast, 78, 311n721; on Esther’s fast (4:16), 245n416. Ananites. See al-#An¯aniyya al-#An¯aniyya, as a general designation of Karaites among Muslim

indexes heresiographers, 40–41, 42 anonymous citation, practice of (among Oriental writers), 39– 40 antagonism: by Rabbanites towards Karaites, xii ##aqliyy¯at (rationally apprehended obligations), 56, 160n10 Aquila (Jewish translator into Greek), 172–73n58 Ardash¯ır (identified with Ahasuerus), 100, 135, 144, 146, 164, 167n40, 175n69 Ariaramnes (Persian emperor), 167n40 Arsames (Persian emperor), 167n40 Artaxerxes “the Great,” 80, 166, 166–67n40 Artaxerxes “the Lesser,” 80, 166, 166–67n40 al-Ash#ar¯ı, 44n128, 46n130, 49n140, 51, 52n151, 55n160, 55n162 al-Ash#ar¯ıya, 51–52 as. h. ¯ab al-t¯almûd, 60 al-Ashma#ath (Muslim designation for the Rabbanites), 41n112 ASV Bible, 275n551 Avestan (language), 226n312 b-imperfect (earliest Judaeo-Arabic occurrence?), 246n420 ba#d. al- #ulam¯a". See (al-) #ulam¯a" Baghdad, 170n50 al-Baghd¯ad¯ı, #Abd al-Q¯ahir, 49n140 Bahman (Persian emperor). See Ardash¯ır Bahya . ben Asher, 129 Bashyachi, Elijah. See Elijah Bashyachi Bas.ra (in Iraq; as a center of Jewish learning), 3n3, 170n50 bayt al-maqdis (Jerusalem or the Temple), 165n38, 239n378 Ben Ezra synagogue (in Fustat), xii Benjamin al-Nah¯awand¯ı, 37, 40n110

373

al-B¯ır¯un¯ı, 218n275: on the “Fast of B¯ur¯ı (= Purim),” 312n722 Bisht¯asb/Visht¯asp (Persian emperor), 164n30 Byzantium (and Karaite literary creativity), xiv, 83, 86–90, 131–34, 177n87 Cairo, xi, xii, 128 Cambyses (Persian emperor), 167n40 China, 170n48 circumcision, 222, 246–47 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (Madrid), xvii Constantinople, 131–32 Crimea (and Karaite literary creativity), xiv Cyrus ben Ahasuerus, 167n40 Cyrus (the Mede/the Great), 64, 80, 165, 166, 166–67n40, 175–76, 196, 197n193, 239 Damascus, 63, 137 Daniel al-Q¯umis¯ı, 16, 16n18, 17n19, 43n125 Darius II (Nothus), 167n40 Darius the Mede, 165, 166–67n40, 168, 196, 197n193 Darius the Persian, 80, 166, 166– 67n40 David Qimh. ¯ı: a source for Abraham ben Judah, 132. See also Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther derash-type exegesis, 16–17 dhimm¯ı, 55n163 dhun¯ub kib¯ar. See “grave sins” Diaspora, 161n17, 161n18, 162, 162n22, 163n27, 238–39 dittography (in Yefet Esther Mss.), 146n35 divine chastisement of Israel, 22–23, 49–52, 59–61, 143, 158n2, 158n5, 159–63, 237–40 Divine Light, the. See al-n¯ur divine origin of Scripture, 30

374

indexes

Eastern Europe (and Karaite literary creativity), xiv #Eli (Ab¯u "l- Hasan ##Al¯ı) ben Israel . All¯uf, 3n4 Eliezer (the second generation tanna), 61n179 Eliezer Ashkenazi. See Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Elijah Bashyachi, 123n5 Elijah ben Solomon. See Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Escuela de Traductores de Toledo, xvii “externally focused” exegesis (as applied by Yefet), 22, 28–34 al-F¯as¯ı, David ben Abraham, 69, 78–79, 60n178, 79, 91, 104– 7, 108n89, 109, 111, 112n102, 123n6, 161n21. See also Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Firdaws¯ı, 164n29, 167n40 Firkovich (also Firkovitch), Abraham, xi flashback (narrative retrogression). See mudawwin: and ikhtis. ¯ar … or “gap-creation” Four Kingdoms, the (in Daniel), 160–61 free will (in Yefet’s exegesis), 25 “fundamental sin” of the Rabbanites, 59 fuy¯uj (postal couriers), 277n562, 279n570, 285n597 “gap-creation” (or narrative delay/retardation). See mudawwin: and ikhtis. ¯ar … or “gap-creation” Gabriel (angel), 166n40 Genizah (Cairo), xii, 220n287, 234n352, 277n562 Geonim, 58, 60 Gersonides. See Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther “grave sins” (dhun¯ub kib¯ar) and divine punishment/chastisement, 22, 53–55, 161–62, 239n382

Hadassi, Judah. See Judah (ben Elijah) Hadassi Hai Gaon, 4n7. See also Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther al-H¯ . akim al-Jishum¯ı, 55n163 halakhah, rabbinic, xi hapax legomena, 106, 173n58 haplography, 214n265 Hellenistic philosophy and oriental Jewish exegesis, 13 Herodotus, 218n275, 258n484 Hexapla, 219n279, 231n344, 256n475 “historical-grammatical” exegesis, 13 H¯ıt (in Iraq), xii al-H¯ıt¯ı, 3n4, 5n25, 128n16, 129n29 Hiyya Rabba (tanna), 163n27 . homoioarchton (in Yefet Esther Mss.), 145, 146n33, 146n35 homoioteleuton (in Yefet Esther Mss.), 145, 257n475 “humanization” (in Yefet’s exegesis), 25–27 Ibn Aqn¯ın, Joseph, 161n15 Ibn Bal#am, Judah, 124n8. See also Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Ibn Bar¯un, Ab¯u Ibr¯ah¯ım Ish¯ . aq. See Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Ibn Bat.t.u¯ t.a, 162n21 Ibn D¯a"¯ud, Abraham, 135n48. See also Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Ibn Ezra, Abraham: influence by Yefet, 6, 10, 27, 71–78; a grammatical work of, 7n41; a source for Abraham ben Judah, 132. See also Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Ibn Jan¯ah, Jonah (Ab¯u "l-Wal¯ıd Marw¯an), 109–10, 253n458: cited in the Esther commentary of Tanhum ben Joseph ha. Yerushalmi, 40n109; a source for Abraham ben Judah, 132; Yefet held on a par with, 92n5. See also

indexes Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Ibn Kull¯ab, 43n125 Ibn N¯uh, Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub Y¯usuf, 3n4, 32n78, 40n110, 40n111, 84, 127– 28, 129, 211n257. See also Y¯usuf ibn Bakhtaw¯ı; Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Ibn Quraysh, Judah. See Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Ibn Sh¯ah¯ın, Nissim ben Jacob: his use of the root d-w-n (Form II), 29n63 Ibn Tibb¯on, Judah, 193n176, 226n313, 317n745 Ibrah¯ım al-Naz. z¯ . am, 43n125 ijtih¯ad (analogical-deductive reasoning), 15, 16n16 ikhtis. ¯ar (“abridgment”). See mudawwin: and ikhtis. ¯ar … or “gap-creation” al-Im¯am, as equivalent of ha-Levi/alL¯aw¯ı, 3n1 Immanuel ben Solomon of Rome. See Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther “internally focused” exegesis (as applied by Yefet), 22–28 Iraq, 3, 171n51 Isaac Nappaha, . 61n179 Jacob ben Reuben, 86, 89–90, 131–32; on the absence of God’s name in Esther, 273n539. See also Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Jacob ben Samuel (polemical opponent of Yefet), 5n25 Jacob Tam, 312n722 Ja#far ibn Mubashshir, 54–55 Jerusalem Circle of Karaite teachers (mu #allim¯u "l-maq¯adisa), 3, 79, 111, 127, 129–30 Jonah ibn Jan¯ah. . See Ibn Jan¯ah, Jonah (Ab¯u "l-Wal¯ıd) Joseph ben Abraham (Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub Y¯usuf al-Bas.¯ır), 4n6, 129, 161n20

375

Joseph ben El#azar ben Manasseh, al-Zah¯um¯ı (scribe), 137 Joseph Kara, 74. See also Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Joseph Qimh. ¯ı: a source for Abraham ben Judah, 132 Josephus, Antiquities, 268n522 Josippon, 40n109, 175n69 JPS Tanakh (1917), 151, 184n119, 189n145, 193n173, 194n177, 219n279, 227n315, 227n316, 232n346, 233n347, 233n349, 235n356, 237n365, 248n434, 252n453, 264n503, 275n551, 276n556, 278n566, 298n659, 299n661, 307n702, 314n731, 315n735 Judah (Ab¯u Zakar¯ıy¯a) Hayy¯ uj, . 40n109 Judah (bar Ilai; tanna), 64, 178n92, 199n200 Judah (ben Elijah) Hadassi, 5n20, 7n36, 123n5; on the absence of God’s name in Esther, 273n539; on the different ritual fasts associated with Purim, 311n721, 312n722; on the divine chastisement of Israel in Esther, 162n23, 240n385. See also Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Judah ben Elijah Tishbi, 132n39 Judah ben Shushan (or: Shoshan). See Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Judah Gibbor, 123n5 Judah ha-Levi, v, 42, 129 Judah Meir Taur¯ızi, 128–29; on the divine chastisement of Israel in Esther, 84, 142–43, 162n23, 240n385. See also Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Karaite exegesis: formative period, 13–14; early classical or consolidating period, 14; “egalitarian ethos” of, 36–38, 40; late classical period, 14n5, 83–84;

376

indexes

messianic-eschatological aspect, 21; and Mu#tazilite influence, 57 Karaite “Golden Age,” xi, xiii, 19, 58 Karaite catenary theory of forbidden marriage (rikkûb), 161n20 Karaite manuscript collections, xi–xii Karaite translation technique (in general), 91, 111, 112–13, 115, 117, 120 khar¯aj (poll-tax), 206n234, 223–24, 313n728, 315 al-Khayy¯at., 44n128 Khazars, 215n Khum¯an¯ı (ibna Bahman; Persian emperor), 167n40 King James Version of the Bible, 152 Koslov/Eupatoria (in Crimea), 132n35 Kukizow (in Galicia), 132n34 Kush¯ana, kingdom of, 169n47 land tax. See khar¯aj lapsus calami (in Yefet Esther Mss.), 145, 150 Levi (tanna), 170n51 Levi ben Gershon. See Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Levi ha-Levi (Ab¯u Sa#¯ıd), Yefet’s son, 3n2, 4, 7, 7n43 Lombroso, Abraham ben Daniel, 124n8 al-m¯ad.¯ıy¯ın (“the bygone scholars”), as distinct from mu #allim¯ın¯a #lmufassir¯ın (“our Teachers, the Interpreters”), 35 Magians, reign of, 196 Maimonides: affirms Mu#tazilite influence on the Karaites, 42; cited in the Esther commentary of Tanhum ben Joseph ha. Yerushalmi, 40n109; commentary on Esther wrongly attributed to, 124n8; on the permanency of

Purim, 306n701. See also Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther majlis (“sitting area,” in Yefet’s description of Ahasuerus’ second banquet), 23, 177–80, 180n100 M¯ankd¯ım Shashd¯ıw, 44, 45n130, 46n131, 46n132, 47–48, 49n139, 49n140, 50–51, 52n152, 52n154, 55n162, 55n163 al-Maqr¯ız¯ı, 16n16, 41n117, 42 mas¯a"il (“cruxes,” in Yefet’s commentary on Esther), 26– 28 Masoretes, 114 al-Mas#¯ud¯ı, 40–41, 44n128, 46n130, 47n135, 50n144, 51n147, 52n152, 55n162 Mazdaism-Dualism (underlying the decree to worship Haman), 24–25, 223 Median (language), 199n200 Meir (tanna), 200n200 Menahem ben Saruq. See Index IV. . Medieval Authors ad Esther Messiah/messianic age, 66, 240n385, 306 middôt (early rabbinic exegetical principles), 13 al-midr¯asˇ, 60 Moses ben Joseph Taur¯ızi, 138 Moses Mes.s.orodi ben Judah Mar¯uli, 123n1 “Mourners of Zion” (Karaite appellation), 21 mu#allim¯ın¯a #l-mufassir¯ın (“our Teachers, the Interpreters”), as distinct from al-m¯ad.¯ıy¯ın (“the bygone scholars”), 35 mu#allim¯u "l-j¯aliya (“the Teachers of the Exile”), as a general expression comprising mu #allim¯ın¯a #l-mufassir¯ın and al-m¯ad.¯ıy¯ın, 35 mu #allim¯u "l-maq¯adisa. See Jerusalem Circle of Karaite teachers mudawwin (the biblical writer– redactor–recorder), 27, 28–34, 151, 167, 240, 303; and divine

indexes superintendence, 29–30; and ikhtis. ¯ar (“abridgment”) or “gapcreation,” 32–34, 76, 195n186, 207n239, 212n261; and the omission of God’s name, 272–73; and “resumptive repetition,” 34; and the “voice” of the biblical author or character, 31; as inspired “refiner” of non-canonical Ur-material, 31–32; synonyms for, 28n62, 29n64 muh. k¯ı (“storyteller, narrator,” as a synonym for mudawwin), 28n62 muqaddima (literary genre), 123 al-Muqammis., D¯aw¯ud ibn Marw¯an, 15 al-Murtad¯ . a, 41n117 Muslim philosophy and oriental Jewish exegesis, 13 Mu#tazilites, xvii, 4n6, 8, 14, 25, 40– 58, 238n367; and divine epithets, 45–48, 50, 158; Five Theses (alus. ¯ul al-khamsa) of, 44–58, 158n2, 158n3, 158n4, 158n5, 160n10, 161n18; and God’s “attributes of essence,” 45–47, 59 Nahmanides, 123n1 . narrative delay (or “retardation”). See mudawwin: and ikhtis. ¯ar … or “gap-creation” NASB (New American Standard Bible), 268n522, 278n566, 278n568, 298n659, 305n695 Nathaniel ben Yefet (Ibn al-Bayr¯ut¯ı), 130 al-Naz. z¯ . am. See Ibrah¯ım al-Naz. z¯ . am NEB (New English Bible), 266n513 Nehemiah (tanna), 178n92, 199n200 NJPSV Tanakh (1999), 232n346, 235n355, 237n365, 252n453, 264n503, 265n511, 266n513, 278n566, 278n568, 298n658, 298n659, 299n661, 305n695, 307n702, 311n718, 314n731, 315n735

377

al-n¯ur (the “Divine Light” in Mazdaism), 24–25, 181n102, 223 Old Persian, 184n121, 213n264, 225n312, 252n453, 257n475, 286n600 omission of God’s name (from Esther). See mudawwin: and the omission of God’s name Origen: his Greek translation of the Bible, 164n31, 195n188, 227n315, 277n563 Ottoman Empire (and Karaite literary creativity), xiv Passover: coinciding with Esther’s fast, 65, 237n365, 245n416, 281, 281n580; liturgy of (and actualization), 22n39; theologically/soteriologically linked with Purim, 299n664 Persian kings, enumerations of: 166–67n40 pesha.t-type exegesis, 58, 63 Philo, 57n169 Plutarch, Lives: Artaxerxes, 258n484, 270n528 poll tax. See khar¯aj prognostic exegesis (also: actualization), 20–22, 53–55, 161n17, 162 proselytes (to Judaism), 228, 280n578 al-Qalqashand¯ı, 15n16 q¯ıla: to introduce an exegetical view (likewise: yuq¯alu, q¯ala qawm, etc.), 39–40, 60–62; used by Yefet to introduce an alternate translation (likewise: yuq¯alu, aw, and yu#abbaru), 100–111 al-Qirqis¯an¯ı, Ab¯u Y¯usuf Yaq¯ub ibn Is.h¯ . aq, 19–20, 37n94, 78– 79, 123n5; and Mu#tazilite parallels, 42–43; on the 70day fast established by Anan, 311n721; use of the root d-w-n

378

indexes

(Form II), 28–30, 33n81. See also Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther qiy¯as, (analogical-deductive reasoning), 15, 16n16, 18–19, 23, 24 al-Q¯umis¯ı. See Daniel al-Q¯umis¯ı Ramla, 63 Rashi: ad Esther in his responsa, 310n718; his Talmud commentary, 26n54, 73n230, 206n234, 238n370, 247n425, 281n582, 304n691, 312n722. See also Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther “rationalistic scripturalism,” 58–59 Rav (amora), 169n47, 175n71, 188n140, 197n193, 237n365 Resh Laqish, 59, 61n179, 211n254 “resumptive repetition.” See mudawwin: and “resumptive repetition” rikkûb. See Karaite catenary theory of forbidden marriage RSV Bible, 183n114, 189n145, 193n173, 194n177, 219n279, 227n315, 231n344, 232n346, 233n347, 233n349, 234n351, 235n355, 235n356, 235n357, 237n365, 248n434, 252n453, 256n473, 268n522, 275n551, 276n556, 278n566, 298n658, 298n659, 299n661, 307n702, 314n731, 315n735 Saadia Gaon: on the absence of God’s name from Esther, 28, 71, 273n539; cited in the Esther commentary of Tanhum ben . Joseph ha-Yerushalmi, 40n109, 215n; His Egrôn (vocabulary list; not ad Esther), 109; his mediation of the Mu#tazilite ideas, 56n166, 57n168; his Tafs¯ır and comm. to Daniel, 29n63, 106; his Tafs¯ır and comm. to Genesis, 118; his

Tafs¯ır and comm. to Psalms, 161n21; his Tafs¯ır to Proverbs, 106, 109, 110n92; his Tafs¯ır to Song of Songs, 106; influence on Yefet, 66–71; mentioned explicitly by Yefet, 40n110; newly identified fragments of his Esther commentary, 9n50, 67n201; on Anan’s view of Esther’s fast, 245n416, 311n721; on the divine chastisement (and solicitude) of Israel, 49, 161n16, 163n28; on the Four Kingdoms of Daniel, 160n15; on the succession of Persian kings, 166n40; organization of his commentary, 9–10, 66– 68, 93; polemics with Yefet, 4, 7, 68; polemics with Karaites generally, 14; precedence of his Esther commentary, 9; translation technique, 91, 93–96, 112–21; use of the term tafs¯ır rather than tarjama, 9n48, 93–94; use of the term #ib¯ara, 9n48, 93n12; use of the term sharh. , 93–94. See also Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Saboraim, 58–60 Sahl ben Mas.liah, . 5n25, 8n45 Salmon ben Yer¯uham (also: . Yer¯uhim): author of a K. al. intis. ¯ar li-ll¯ahi (= S. milh. a˘ môt haSh¯em?), 185n125; chronological place of his commentary on Esther, 8, 9, 78; extant Mss. of his Esther commentary, 9n47, 125–27, 139; his extant exegetical corpus, 125, 133– 34; his introduction to Song of Songs, 17n20; mentioned explicitly by Yefet, 40n110; and Ms. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3699, 130–31; on the divine chastisement (and solicitude) of Israel in Esther, 61n180, 163n27, 239n379, 239n382; on Mordecai’s

indexes prophetic status, 29n64; on the revived Saul-Amalek enmity in Esther, 29n64, 197n194, 225n307, 295n645, 296n651; on the succession of Persian kings, 80, 166n40; organization of his commentary, 10, 66, 93, 96; spelling of his patronymic, 124, 125n9; translation technique, 91, 93, 95–96; use of the expression ba#d. al-mufassir¯ın, 60n178; use of the root d-w-n (Form II), 29; use of the term #ib¯ara, 96n25; use of the terms sharh. and takhl¯ıs. , 95– 96. See also Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Samaritans, 167 sam #iyy¯at (divinely revealed obligations), 56, 160n10 Samuel (amora), 63, 163n27, 169n47, 172n58, 175n71, 188n140, 197n193, 237n365 Samuel ben Isaac (amora), 312n722 Samuel ben Meir. See Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Samuel de Uçeda. See Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Samuel de Vidas. See Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Samuel (ben Moses) ha-Ma#aravi, 129 sanhedrin, 66 script: Arabic vs. Hebrew in Mss. of Yefet, 97–100, 144–48; varied for Haman’s letters per city, 23–24, 227 al-Sh¯afi#¯ı, 16n16 al-Shahrast¯an¯ı, 25n47, 25n49, 41n117, 41n118, 46n130, 46n131, 47n135, 49n139, 50n144, 51n146, 51n147, 51n149, 52n152, 52n153, 52n154, 55n160, 56n166, 164n30, 223n298 al-Sh¯am (Syro-Palestine), 166, 170n48, 171n51 Shapira, M.W., xii Shimon ben Yohai . (tanna), 19n26

379

Sijilm¯asa, 276n560 Simhah . Isaac Luzki, 5n26, 6, 7n37, 123n1, 132n34, 132n37, 132n38, 132n39 Solomon ben David, 6 St. Petersburg (Leningrad) Codex (of the Hebrew Bible), 66–68, 149 stemma of extant Yefet Esther Mss., 148 Syriac version. See Peshit.t.a, the Syro-Palestine. See al-Sh¯am (al-)Sudan (identified with Kûˇs), 100, 101n49, 164n31, 169n46, 276 ¯ı, 164n29, 164n30, 165n35, al-Tabar . 167n40, 175n69; on the divine basis of Esther’s endearment to the king, 201n202 al-t¯almûd, 60 takhl¯ıs. (“explanation/commentary”), 92, 95–96 Takr¯ur (Sudanese), 276n560 Tanhum ben Joseph ha-Yerushalmi: . his citation of sources in his Esther commentary, 40; his exegetical approach, 16n16, 69; reference to Saadia in his Esther commentary, 40n109, 215n; the witness to his Esther commentary, 124n8. See also Index IV. Medieval Authors ad Esther Tannaim, 58–60, 158n2 Taur¯ızi family of Karaites, 84, 128–29, 138, 142–43, 162n23, 240n385. See also Judah Meir Taur¯ızi; Moses ben Joseph Taur¯ızi t.aylas¯an (geographical term), 63, 169n48 “Teachers of the Exile.” See mu #allim¯un al-j¯aliya al-Tha#¯alib¯ı, 164n29, 164n30, 167n40 Theophilus, Patriarch of Antioch, excerpt from Apologia ad Autolycum ii.9, 30n68

380

indexes

Thucydides, 258n484 Troki (in Lithuania), 128 Tiberius (city), 63 (al-) #ulam¯a" (also: ba#d. al- #ulam¯a"), 60– 63, 238n369, 247n424, 247n424; #ulam¯a" al-qar¯a"iy¯ın, 38n97, 60n178, 317n748; #ulam¯a"una, 61n181 variants (in Yefet Mss. Bible citations), 149–50, 160n11, 225n311, 234n352 W¯as.il ibn At.a¯ ", 25n49, 52n154 Xenophon: Anabasis, 213n264; Cyropaedia, 218n275; Hellenica, 258n484

al-Ya#q¯ub¯ı: on the Rabbanite fast of Adar 13, 312n722 Y¯aq¯ut, 170n48, 170n50, 206n234 Yeshu#ah ben Yehudah, 111, 123n1, 129 Yeshu#ah r¯of¯e" ben Mordecai r¯of¯e", 137 Y¯usuf (Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub) ibn N¯uh. . See Ibn N¯uh, Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub Y¯usuf; Y¯usuf ibn Bakhtaw¯ı Y¯usuf ibn Bakhtaw¯ı (=Y¯usuf ibn N¯uh?), 40n110 Y¯usuf L¯ısha# (Lichaa), 138 al-Zanj (identified with Kûˇs), 164, 169n46, 276n560, 276n561 Zanzibar/Unguja. See al-Zanj Zoroaster, 100, 164

63*

text

éô ïéìîò ìîòé åòøæ ïà ìé÷å ®åîò òøæ éðòé åòøæ ìëì äìå÷å ®íäðéá èñ åúéå íäðéá

˙ ìà äá ãéøé åä éã

/àîäðîå/ .äðî

˙ ìà ïàñðàìà ãìå äá ãéøé àîäðî ®àðúâì åä éã

˙ î äãìå ïåëé ã÷ åúãìåî äìú˙ îå ®äðî ãåìåî úãìåä øùà êúãìåîå ®êéáà úãìåî ìú ˙ òá éìò íäðî ãåìåî åä éã˙ ìà äá ãéøé ã÷å ®íäéøçà êúãìåîå ïî øéñàôúìà õ 5

.íéãùë øåàá åúãìåî õøàá *

*

*

àäãéàãù úà÷åà éô äúîàá éðàòìà ìéàøñà äàìà ïàçáñ åúìçðå åîò éåé ùèé àì éë äìå÷ë àäìàåçà éòàøéå úòåùú [à92] éåéá òùåð ìàøùé ®áåæòé àì

10

åîìëú àìå åùåáú àì íéîìåò êåøá .ãò éîìåò ãò ïîà ®íìåòì éåé

.ïîàå

˙ ìà éô óñåð ô ¬ì [íäðéá 1 úèéìô) àî äðî àåø÷ì ùé éìåà à [àîäðî 2 §å÷å 3ø ¬ô [äìå÷å 1 øéë ,(?)ô ¬à ;ô éìåàå ì êë [àîäðîå 2 .3ø­å ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(193§ åàìá éôì åðéà íà ¬ñåîìå÷ 8–7 ìàøùé ô ¬ì [ìéàøñà 7 .§à ïî §áä äð÷åú à [øåàá 5 (úîãå÷ä äøòää äàø) àî äðî 3ø ùåèé 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [ùèé 8 §å÷ë 3ø ¬ô [äìå÷ë 8 íäìàåçà ... íäãéàãù ô ¬ì [àäìàåçà ... àäãéàãù 3ø ¬ô [ãò 11 (!)åúìçéðå åà (!)åúìçåðå ì [åúìçðå 8 ([BHS äàø] 4QPsb =) úà óñåð ô ¬ì [éåé 8 .àúéì ì [.ïîàå ... êåøá 13 íåìùå óñåð

text

62*

àìä êìîä åìãâ øùà éëãøî úìãâ úùøôå åúøåáâå [à90 à] åô÷ú äùòî ìëå

(2)

äúåøáâ˙å äúáàìö ìòô ìëå ºñøôå éãî éëìîì íéîéä éøáã øôñ ìò íéáåúë íä

˙ à ïàåéã éô ä¨ úåáú˙ î éä ñéìà êìîìà äîè˙ ò éúìà éëãøî ä¨ îè˙ ò ïàéáå øàáë ºéãîå ñøô êåìîì ïàîæìà

/éåöøå/ íéãåäéì ìåãâå ùåøåùçà êìîì äðùî éãåäéä éëãøî éë (3) 5 ùåøåùçà êìîìà øéæå ïàë éãåäéìà éëãøî ïàô :åòøæ ìëì íåìù øáãå åîòì áåè ¨ îàìñìàá íìëúîå äîå÷ì øéë˙ ìà áìàè äúåë˙ à øú˙ ëà ãðò éö˙ øî å ãåäéìì íéè˙ òå ä

ùøã åéçà áøì

˙à ã÷ äðàì ùåøåùçà øàáë

[á90]

ºäìñð ìëì

˙ á äìâîìà íúë˙ äðà óø ò ïî ïàë àî øëã

¨ ÷ìòúîìà àäö˙ òá äìâîìà äã˙ ä éô øëã˙ 10 ìàøùé éðòî ïî äéìà ˙âàúçé àîá ä ãéøé àîë êìî ìà äì íú àî ãðò ïà óøòô ®äìâîìà øãö éô úì÷ àîë

˙âàøë˙

˙ øàìà éìò ˙âàøë˙ ìà ìòâ˙ ïéúðñ äì úö˙ î ïà ãòá øçáìà øéàæâ˙ éìòå õ

˙ ®íâ˙àîâ˙ìàå áàøúìà ìú÷å áøàç àî åäå åúøåáâå åô÷ú äùòî ìëå ìà÷ íú ˙ úðàå êìî ìà äì íú éúç äá øéùé ®éëãøî úìãâ úùøôå äìå÷å ®äøåîà úîö

˙ é íì éù éìà 15 êåìî ïàåéã éô áúë ã÷ òéîâ˙ìà ïà óøòô ®äìâîìà éô äøëã

˙ á ÷ìòúé äñéì ã˙ à äìâîìà éô êìã˙ øëã˙ é ïà øöúë˙ àå ®éãîå ñøô ®ìàøùé øáë

äðùî äìå÷å ®éëãøî úìãâ úùøôå äìå÷á ÷ìòúé éãåäéä éëãøî éë [à91] äìå÷å ®êìîìà ãòá åäå è÷ô êìîìà øéâ ãé äãé éìò ïëé íì äðà äá ãéøé êìîì

¨ áúøî ÷åô éëãøî ä¨ áúøî ïà àðì÷ àî éìò êìã˙ ìãô ìåãâå äìå÷å ®ìëìà ä ˙ éà ïàë äðà éðòé íéãåäéì 20 åä ®åéçà áøì éåöøå äìå÷å ®ãåäéìì ñééø øáëà àö ˙ ÷å íäòî ä÷àìë˙ àå äðéã ïî ä¨ é ö˙ øî äìòôà úðàë äðà áøì äìå÷å ®íäâ˙éàåç àö

˙ øé åðåëé íìô óöðé íì ïîîå ãàñç ïî ä¨ îàìà ìë˙ ú ñéì ã˙ à åéçà àîë äá åö

˙ ®áâ˙é äéô ã ˙âéå íäòôðé àî éô áòúé ïàë äðà óøò ®åîòì áåè ùøã ìà÷ íú ˙ éà íäðéã çìöéå äìàîå äñôðá çìöé éðòé ®åòøæ ìëì íåìù øáãå [á91] äìå÷å ®àö

3 (à374 §îò ¬ïééì äàø åæ äøåö ìò) äúøåáâ˙å 3ø [äúåøáâ˙å 2 íéáúë ì [íéáåúë 2 [éä 3 (!)ñéì ô [ñéìà 3 (731 §òä ,417 §îò ¬åðîåâøú äàøå ;aà361§ åàìá éôì íúñä­ïî) éã˙ ìà úåùèùåèî íéìîä 2ø 駧ëá ;äðá åîë) ñøôå éãî 2ø, 1ø [éãîå ñøô 4 (191§ åàìá äàø) íä 3ø 3ø, 2ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì êë [éåöøå 5 éãåäéìà éëãøî ïàë 1ø [ïàë ... éëãøî 6–5 (ú÷ôåñî úö÷ ïúàéø÷å óø ò 9 .(äð åîë) àúéì 6ø ¬ô ¬ì [ïàë 6 øáåãå 3ø [øáãå 6 áåøì ô [áøì 5 (!)åéöø à ;6ø, .äøåùì ìòî ä÷éçî éðîéñá ÷çîðå éëãøî áúëð åæ äìî éðôì à [ùåøåùçà 9 .àúéì 6ø, 1ø [äðà ˙ úðàå íå÷îá [úîö˙ úðàå 14 (aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã˙ ä ô [äã˙ ä 10 áúëð êëù ,(á21§ åàìá äàø) úîè 16 (!)ñøôìà ô ¬ì [ñøô 16 .àúéì 1ø [äá 14 §å÷å 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 14 .1ø­å ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá .úåòèá ¬äàøðë ¬èîùð 1ø [êìã˙ 16 (2319 §òä ìéòì äàøå ;äðá åîë) ñøôå éãî 1ø [éãîå ñøô 17 §å÷å 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 17 .1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ¬(â206§ åàìá äàø) ñéì íå÷îá [äñéì 16 1ø [éëãøî ä ¨ áúøî 19 åäô 1ø [åäå 18 §å÷å 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 17 §å÷á 3ø, 1ø ¬ô [äìå÷á øçàìå ¬ïåèéåìèåéåîåä ìùá èîùð ô ¬ì [ãåäéìì ... éðòé 20 §å÷å 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 19 äúáúøî ˙ éà ïàë äðà éðòé .íéãåäéì ìåãâå §å÷å óñåð (íäâ˙éàåç ... éåöøå äìå÷å) àáä ùåøôä ãåäéìà éìò ñééø àö 21 .äàáä øçàì åæ äìî äáúëð 1ø [úðàë 21 ïà 1ø [äðà 21 §å÷å 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 20 ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù—(â9§ íù äàø) úåòè åðéà íà—(à9§ åàìá äàø) äìàòôà íå÷îá [äìòôà åàìá äàø [ñéì 22 áåøì ô ¬ì [áøì 21 (óéãò) ìà÷å 1ø ;§å÷å 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 21 .3ø­å, 1ø ¬ì [äìå÷å 24 íäòôðé àî éô ãâ˙éå 1ø [äéô ... éô 23 (!)åðëé 1ø [åðåëé 22 àì 1ø [íì 22 .ã206§ øáåãå 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [øáãå 24 §å÷å 3ø ¬ô 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [éúìà

61*

text

˙ äðà éðòé ®úîàå íåìù éøáã äìå÷å ®ùåøåùçà êìî éô ïéã˙ ìà ãåäéìà àîäðîö ˙ ®íäðéãå íäìàåçà ä¨ îà÷úñà åäå ä¨ îàìñ ®äìàä íéøôä éîé úà íé÷ì ìà÷ íú ®äëìîä øúñàå éãåäéä éëãøî íäéìò íé÷ øùàë äìå÷å ®ìå÷ìà äá íã÷ú àî åäå øùàëå äìå÷å ®è÷ô íéøåôìà éðòî éô íäéìà úáúë éúìà áúëìà éìà äá øéùéå

5 ìòå íäéìò íéãåäéä åìá÷å åîé÷ äìå÷ éìà äá øéùé ®íòøæ ìòå íùôð ìò åîé÷

˙ àî éìà äá øéùé úåîåöä [à46 ì] éøáã äìå÷å ®íòøæ ìäàå øúñà íàéö ïî äøëã

ãàæå ®íäàãòà ìú÷á áúëìà íäéìà úãøå

/ïà

éìà/ ïàãìáìà ìäà øéàñå ïùåù

˙ øöé åðàë íäðà óøòéì íú÷òæå ìå÷ìà éô ®íàéàìà êìú éô §òú äììà éìà ïåë ˙ ðî ä¨ ðéãî ìë óìúë˙ é ïàë êìîìà ïàãìá øéàñ íàéöå ïñéð éô ïàë øúñà íàéöô ã ˙ ìà íäàâ˙ ïà éìà íåùéîìà øáë˙ ìà 10 2ø] íäîàéöì ïëé íìô ®áééèìà øáë

/ìöå/

˙ ïî ìå÷ è÷ñ êìã˙ ìô ®ïéîåéìì àî ìú˙ î ä¨ ðñ äåìòâ˙éô íåìòî íåé [à25 éìà áäã

˙âøô

˙ à øãà ïî øùò ú˙ ìàú˙ ìà íåé íåöé àîðàå àîåé ïéòáñ íàéöìà áåâ˙å äéô ïàë ã

¨ îéè˙ òìà ä¨ ãùìà ãòá ìàøùéì øéâ àîàå íäàãòà ïî àäðåò÷åúé åðàë ìá÷ éúìà ä ˙ ®äáåâ˙åì äâ˙å àìô êìã˙ øúñà ïà óøòô ®íéøåôä éøáã íé÷ øúñà øîàîå ìà÷ íú ˙ ä úéáú˙ úá ú÷áñ 15 àîà ®ïéøéñôú ìîúçé øôñá áúëðå §å÷å ®ä¨ îàìà éìò ïéîåéìà ïéã ˙ ®äåìòôô è÷ô àìå÷ äúìà÷ àìåà àäðà äá ãàøà ïåëé ïà éô úáúë àäðà íú ˙ ôðàå áúëìà øîàá ïàåéãìà éô àéáðàìà úáúë äá ãàøà ïåëé ïà àîàå ®íäéìà úã .äàø÷ðå úåáú˙ î åä àî éìò äìâîìà äã˙ ä éäå §òú äììà (3–1 ,é) ˙âàøë˙ 20

ùåøåùçà êìîìà ìòâ˙å :íéä ééàå õøàä ìò ñî ùåøåùçà êìîä íùéå

(1 ,é) ˙ ˙ ºøçáìà øéàæâ éìòå õøàìà éìò

(!)äðéãå äìàåçà 6ø, 1ø [íäðéãå íäìàåçà 2 (!)àäðîö˙ 1ø [àîäðîö˙ 1 §å÷å 6ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 1 6ø, 1ø [äá øéùéå 4 §å÷å 6ø, 1ø ¬ì [äìå÷å 3 íéøåôä 6ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [íéøôä 2 íéé÷ì ô [íé÷ì 2 [äìå÷ 5 .àúéì 6ø, 1ø [äá 5 (!)øùàëàëå ô [øùàëå äìå÷å 4 §å÷å 6ø, 1ø ¬ì [äìå÷å 4 øéùé ,(§§áéú맧ä =) ìá÷å ÷éúòîä áúë äðåùàøá à ;äðá §§éø÷§§ä êë [åìá÷å 5 §å÷ 6ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì ô ¬ì ;6ø, 1ø êë [ïà éìà 7 .àúéì 6ø, 1ø [äá 6 §å÷å 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 6 .§åä úà óéñåä êë­øçàå ˙ øöé ô [ïåë˙ øöé 8 íäéàãòà 6ø, 1ø [íäàãòà 7 (!)éãøå ì ;ãøå ì [úãøå 7 (!)éã˙ ìà åàìá äàø) åë [äåìòâ˙éô 11 (!)ìöé 6ø­å ¬ô ¬ì ;(ìöé ïî äð÷åú) 1ø êë [ìöå 10 .àúéì 6ø, 1ø [§òú 8 (175§ [ìá÷ 13 éô 6ø, 1ø [ïî 12 íåöìà 6ø, 1ø ¬ô [íàéöìà 12 è÷ñé 6ø, 1ø [è÷ñ 11 äåìòâ˙ô ì 6ø, 1ø [ìîúçé 15 àîàô 6ø, 1ø [àîàå 13 íäéàãòà 6ø, 1ø [íäàãòà 13 .àúéì 6ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [éäå 18 .àúéì 6ø, 1ø [§òú 18 ïàåéã 6ø, 1ø [ïàåéãìà 17 (!)äðà 6ø, 1ø [àäðà 16 ãçà óñåð ùøùçà :íù §§áéú맧äå ;äðá §§éø÷§§ä êë [ùåøåùçà 19 .àúéì 1ø [åä 18 åäå 6ø, 1ø

text

60*

øúñàå éãåäéä éëãøî íäéìò íé÷ øùàë íäéðîæá äìàä íéøôä éîé úà íé÷ì

(31)

˙ [éì] ºíú÷òæå úåîöä éøáã íòøæ ìòå [á88] íùôð ìò åîé÷ øùàëå äëìîä úáú ˙ à àî ìú˙ [î àîä]úà÷åà éô øåôìà ïéîåéìà àìë éãåäéìà éëãøî íäéìò úáú ˙ à àî ìú˙ îå úàîàéöìà ìå÷ íäìñð éìòå íäñôðà éìò åúáú ˙ úáú˙ øúñà ìå÷å :øôñá áúëðå äìàä íéøôä éøáã íé÷ áèë

[ä¨ ]ëìîìà øúñàå ºíäë˙ àøöå 5 øúñà øîàîå (32)

ºïàåéãìà éô áúëå íéøåôìà éìåàä

˙ ôð éã˙ ìà áúëìà øéâ áúë íäéìà úáúë àö˙ éà øúñà ïà óøò ®éëãøî ïî íäéìà úã ¨ ðñìà éô íäéìà áúë éëãøî ïà êìã˙ å íñàá úáúë éúìà áúëìà éäå éìåàìà ä

˙ ®àìöà íéøåôìì øëã˙ àäéô ïëé íìå äîúàë˙ á úîúë˙ å êìîìà 10 íäéìà áúë íú

¨ ]éðàú˙ ìà ä¨ ðñìà éô áúë ®ìå÷ìà äá íã÷ú àîë è÷ô íéøåôìà éîåé éðòî éô [ä úéùéìùä

[à89]

˙ ìàú˙ áàúë øúñà úáúë íú˙ ì÷é íìå úéðùä ìà÷å ®íäéìà ú

˙ àîë íéøåôìà øëã˙ ä¨ ìåàìà áúëìà éô ñéì ïà åäå éðòîì áúëìà éô àîäøëã ˙ äå ä¨ éðàú˙ ìà áúëìà àîäøëã˙ ïîö˙ ú àîðàå ®éëãøî ïî íäéìà úã˙ ôð éúìà àã ˙ ìô øúñà úáúë éúìà 15 àîäãçà ïééù øúñà áàúë òîâ˙å ®úéðùä úàæä ìà÷ êìã ìë úà äìå÷ô .úéðùä úàæä íéøåôä úøâà úà éúìà äìâîìà ìåà ïî ùåøåùçà

/ä¨ å÷/

ïî

/íé÷ì/ ˙ íã÷ú äøëã

˙ ìàå ®ó÷ú ìë úà éðàú àî éìà äá øéùé ó÷ú

˙ à úðîö˙ ú ®íéøåôìà áåâ˙å éìà äá øéùé íéøåôä úøâà úà íé÷ì äìå÷å ®äøàáë ¨ éðàú˙ ìà áúëìàå ®è÷ô íäàãòà ìú÷ éðòî éô úðàë ä¨ ìåàìà áúëìàô éô úðàë ä

¨ áàìö úòîâ˙ ä¨ ú˙ ìàú˙ ìà áúëìàå ®è÷ô íéøåôìà [á89] éðòî 20 ùåøåùçà êìîìà ä ˙å òéîâ˙ éìà áúë áúë éëãøî ïà óøò íéøôñ çìùéå äìå÷å ®íéøåôìà øëã

˙ [éì] 5–2 úåîåöä 1ø [úåîöä 2 íéøåôä ô ¬ì [íéøôä 1 íéé÷ì ô [íé÷ì 1 ïéîåéìà àìë úáú 3 íäéìò úéáú˙ úì ô ¬ì ;åúáú˙ éì 1ø [úáú˙ [éì] 2 .úøçà ãéá äáúëð åæ úôñåú à [íäë˙ àøöå ... ˙ ä 6ø, 1ø [àìë â126 ,å–ä226§§ åàìá äàø) éîåé íå÷îá [ïéîåéìà 3 .àúéì ô ¬ì ;(óéãò íåâøú) ïéã 1ø) íéøåôìà 6ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [øåôìà 3 íàéà ô ¬ì ;6ø ¬é§§ëá áúëð êëù ,(305 §îòá íùì äîìùääå 3 ([2243 §òä ìéòì äàø] íàéàì íàúäá) íäúà÷åà ô ¬ì [àîäúà÷åà 3 (óéãò íåâøú) (íéøôìà ˙ àîëå 6ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [åúáú˙ à ... ìú˙ îå 4 úáú˙ àîë 6ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [úáú˙ à ... ìú˙ î óñåð ô ¬ì ;åúáú ˙ ˙ ô ¬ì ;(!)áàáñàå 6ø, 1ø [ìå÷ 4 íä ô ¬ì [íäëàøöå 5 (!)úàîàåöìà ì [úàîàéöìà 4 áèë 6 (!ä¨ îâ˙øúä åîë ¬êë) íéøôä äìàä 6ø [äìàä íéøôä 6 íéøåôä ô [íéøôä 6 íäúë˙ øöå ˙ ìà 8 (43 §òä ,63 §îò ¬åàìá äàø) éàìåàä ô ¬ì [éìåàä 7 .§à ïî ¬äàøðë ¬§ú˙ ä äð÷åú à [úáú˙ éã ˙ ôð 6ø) úã˙ ôðô 6ø, 1ø [éëãøî ... éãé­ìò øåçéàá äôñåð ¬äàøðë ¬äðåùàøä §ôä 1ø 駧ëá) íäéìà (úã ˙ ìà ô [éúìà 9 (úåòèá äîøâðù éàãååì áåø÷ ¬úìáøåñî ãåò äàéø÷äù ïååéëîå ;øôåñä åúåà äàø) éã [ä¨ ìåàìà 13 (305 §îòá íùì äîìùääå â126§ åàìá äàø) ïéîåé ô ¬ì [éîåé 11 (aà361§ åàìá ˙ ìà 1ø ¬ô [éúìà 14 .ô­å ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(aâ27§ åàìá äàø) éìåàìà íå÷îá åàìá äàø) éã ,íù äàø) éã˙ ìà íå÷îá äàáä äìîä äðéà íà ,(aà51§ åàìá äàø) äã˙ ä íå÷îá [àã˙ äå 14 (aà361§ [íé÷ì 16 §à 1ø [àîäãçà 15 (aà361§ åàìá äàø) éã˙ ìà 6ø ;àúéì 1ø [éúìà 15 .(aâ361§ äìîä ìòî ,äôñåä ìù íúñä­ïî ¬ïîéñ áúëð à 駧ëá) úåòèá ¬äàøðë ¬èîùð ô ¬ì ¬à ;6ø, 1ø êë 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ô 16 íéøôä 1ø [íéøåôä 16 .(åðîåìéöá óãä éìåùá íåìë àöîð àì êà, éðàú ˙ ìàå ¨ å÷ 17 §å÷ô 6ø, ¬ì [äìå÷å 18 ùåøåùçà êìî 6ø, 1ø [ùåøåùçà 17 (!)ìå÷ ô ¬ì ¬à ;6ø, 1ø êë [ä ¨ ìåàìà 19 øëã˙ óñåð 6ø, 1ø [éìà 18 .àúéì 6ø, 1ø [äá 18 §å÷å 6ø, 1ø ¬ô éìåàìà íå÷îá [ä ¨ òîâ˙ ô ¬ì [úòîâ˙ 20 (!)éðàú˙ ìà ô [ä¨ éðàú˙ ìà 19 .ô­å ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(aâ27§ åàìá äàø) ä àúéì ô ¬ì [áúë 21 §å÷å 6ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 21 êìî 6ø, 1ø [êìîìà 20 (cà27§ åàìá äàø) 6ø, 1ø [òéîâ˙ 21 áúàë 6ø, 1ø [éìà ... áúë 21 .(úîãå÷ä äìîì ïåéîãä ìùá èîùð ¬íúñä­ïî) ìë

59*

text

äîå äìå÷å ®íäéìà éëãøî [à87] àäáúë éúìà áúëìà éä úàæä úøâàä éøáã ìë

¨ ðñìà éô áàåöìà ïî äåàø éã˙ ìà éðòé ®äëë ìò åàø òéâä äîå äìå÷å ®éìåàìà ä ˙ éì áúë éã˙ ìà ä¨ éðàú˙ ìà áúëìà éìà äá øéùé íäéìà äìå÷å ®ïéîåéìà íäéìò úáú ˙ åîæúìà íäðà åäå çøù êìã˙ éô ãàæ ®åìá÷å åîé÷ íäìàéâ˙à éìòå íäñôðà éìò êìã ˙ ãìà íäòîå øëã˙ ìàøùéì àîäî 5 ®íäéìò íéåìðä ìë ìòå äìå÷ë ïéãìà éô ïéìéë ˙ á ãö÷å éëãøî áúë äá úãøå àî éìà äá øéùé ®íáúëë äìå÷å íäåìòâ˙é ïà êìã ˙ ä ïàì ®íéðéáàì úåðúîå åäòøì ùéà úåðî çìùîå áåè íåéå äúùîå äçîù éîé åä àã ®ïéîåéìà éô øãà øäù éô [á87] äá ãéøé

./íðîæëå/

äìå÷å ®áúëìà éô áåúëîìà

˙ î ïéúè˙ ôì àîäéô øëã˙ ®íéùòðå íéøëæð äìàä íéîéäå äìå÷å úáùìà éô ïéúøåëã ˙ ä áåâ˙å øàöô ®úáùä íåé úà úåùòì ìà÷å úáùä íåé úà øåëæ äìå÷ë 10 ïéîåéìà ïéã ˙ ®ìàøùéì íå÷é ìéâ˙ ìë éô åä øåãå øåã ìëá äìå÷å ®úàáâ˙àåìà øéàñ ìú˙ î íú ïåìëàéå äìäàå äúáàø÷ òî òîúâ˙é ìéá÷ ìë éìà äá øéùéå ®äçôùîå äçôùî ìà÷

˙ åî ìëé àìô ®àø÷ìàå ïãîìà ìäà éô ìå÷ìà êìã˙ ëå ®ïåçøôéå ïééãåäé äéô ïåëé òö ˙ éà áâ˙ú ïà÷øôìà ïàîæ éôå ®àîäì áâ˙é àî ïåìòôéå àìà àìú˙ î àì íøëæå äìå÷ë àö 15

.íòøæî óåñé (32–29 ,è) íé÷ì ó÷ú ìë úà éãåäéä éëãøîå ìéçéáà úá äëìîä øúñà áúëúå [à88]

(29)

¨ ðáà ä¨ ëìîìà øúñà úáúëå ºúéðùä úàæä íéøôä úøâà úà éëãøîå ìéçéáà ä ˙ ìà íéøåôìà áàúëìà àã˙ ä åúáú˙ éì ä¨ áàìö ìë éãåäéìà ºéðàú ùåøåùçà úåëìî äðéãî äàîå íéøùòå òáù ìà íéãåäéä ìë ìà íéøôñ çìùéå

(30) ¨ ¨ ¨ ˙ 20 êìî äðéãî äéàîå ïéøùòå äòáñ éìà ãåäéìà ìë éìà áúë úòáå :úîàå íåìù éøáã ¨ ðàîàå ä¨ îàìñ áèë˙ ùåøåùçà ºä [äá 3 §ìå÷å 6ø ;§å÷å 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 2 §ìå÷å 6ø ;§å÷å 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 1 åä ô ¬ì [éä 1 ,(aà361§ åàìá äàø) éúìà íå÷îá [éã˙ ìà 3 §áìà 1ø ;(!)éðàú˙ ìà ô ¬ì [ä¨ éðàú˙ ìà 3 .àúéì 6ø, 1ø íàúäá ¬øéñôúá åîë ¬êë [åìá÷å 4 §ìå÷å 6ø ;§å÷å 3ø, 1ø ¬ô [äìå÷å 3 .ô­å ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù 6ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 6 §å÷ë 6ø, 3ø, 1ø ¬ì [äìå÷ë 5 §øùéì 6ø [ìàøùéì 5 .äð ìù §§éø÷§§ì àîäåìòâ˙é 6ø, 1ø [íäåìòâ˙é 6 (144§ ,á ¬èééø äàø) ãøå ô ¬ì [úãøå 6 .àúéì 6ø, 1ø [äá 6 §å÷å è§§é §ñô ìù óåøéö [íéðéáàì ... éîé 7 çåìùîå 3ø ¬ì [çìùîå 7 äçîùå äúùî ô [äúùîå äçîù 7 8 (äøåùä ùàøá) úéååúä äìôëð 6ø [áåúëîìà 8 íéðåéáàì 6ø, 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [íéðéáàì | .᧧ëå 6ø, 1ø [äá 8 (!)íøëæå 3ø ¬ô ¬ì ¬à ;6ø, 1ø êë [íðîæëå 8 §ìå÷å 6ø ;§å÷å 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ë 10 úáñìà 6ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [úáùìà 9 §ìå÷å 6ø ;§å÷å 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 9 .àúéì 11 .úåòèá ¬äàøðë ¬èîùð 6ø, 1ø [ìë 11 §ìå÷å 6ø ;§å÷å 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 11 §å÷ë 6ø, 3ø, 1ø [äúáàø÷ 12 øéùé 6ø, 1ø [äá øéùéå 12 øéùé 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [øéùéå 12 ìàøùé éðáì 6ø, 1ø [ìàøùéì ¬(à10§ åàìá äàø) éø÷ìà íå÷îá [àø÷ìàå 13 ïåáøùéå óñåð 1ø [ïåìëàéå 12 äúàáàø÷ 6ø, 1ø [äìå÷ë 14 .(175§ åàìá äàø) åìòôéå íå÷îá ¬äàøðë ¬êë [ïåìòôéå 14 .6ø­å 1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù 3ø [íé÷ì 16 áåúëúå ô [áúëúå 16 .§ø ïî ¬äàøðë ¬§ñä äð÷åú à [óåñé 15 §å÷ë 6ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [íéøåôìà 18 (aà27§ åàìá äàø) úðáà 6ø, 1ø [ä¨ ðáà 17 íéøåôä 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [íéøôä 17 íéé÷ì (úåéúåà åà) úåà ïî §ùä äð÷åú à [çìùéå 19 §áìà íéøôìà 1ø [éðàú˙ ìà íéøåôìà 18 íéø%ôìà ô .úøçà

text

58*

˙ ìà éìåàìà ä¨ ðñìà éô äåìòô àî éìà äá øéùé éô ïàãìáìà ìäà åçàøúñà éã ˙ ìà éô ïùåù ìäàå øùò òáàø íäéìà éëãøî áúë øùà úàå äìå÷å ®øùò ñîàë ˙ íäîæì éðòé áúëìà äã˙ ä éô íäéìà äáúë àî éìà äá øéùé åä §ãçà ïééùì êìã ˙ á íäéìà áúë éëãøî ïàì éðàú˙ ìàå ®àìåà êìã˙ á åãúáà íäðàì íäéìò áâ˙åô êìã

˙ ®ãåäéìà éô ïàîæìà íã÷î äðàì [á85] äìå÷ åìá÷é ïà 5 àúãîä ïá ïîä éë ìà÷ íú

˙ ä ïåìòâ˙é ïà áâ˙å àî ìöà ïà óø òô íäëàìä éìò ïîä øá ã àîì åä ïéîåéìà ïéã ˙ ìàú˙ íåé éôàåé ïà éìà íäúðñ ìåè íäùåùéì ä¨ òø÷ìà çøèå øãà øäù éô øùò ú

˙ ã éìà äá øéùé ®êìîä éðôì äàááå ìà÷ íú˙ ®íäãàáà íåéìà êìã˙ àâ˙ àãàô ìåë ¨ éðàú˙ ìà ä¨ òôãìà éô êìîìà éìà øúñà äìå÷å ®ïîä úøæâ íäðò ìéæé ïà äúìàñå ä ˙ ìà áàúëå áàúë ìëá øîé ìåñø ìëì ìà÷ êìîìà ïà äá ãéøé øôñä íò øîà 10 éã ˙ åä ìà÷ äðà êìîìà ïò ìå÷ìà àã˙ ä ìå÷é ïà áàúë ìë òî ãôðé äøéáãú òâ˙øé àã

˙ ìà ïîä øéáãú [à86] éðòé ááñ ïàë äøéáãú ïàì äñàø éìò ãåäéìà éìò øá ã éã

˙ éëçé ìåñøìà ñàðìà åòîñ àã˙ àô ®äáìöå äìú÷ íäáì÷ éå÷ êìîìà ìå÷ ïò êìã ˙ ïàë àîðàå ãåäéìà ä¨ ãàáà ãéøé íì êìîìà ïàì åð÷éàå äìå÷å ®ïîä ìòô ïî êìã

¨ éàëç åä àîðàå ìåñøìà ìå÷ åä ñéì åéðá úàå åúåà åìúå 15 éìò ìéìãìàå ®ïååãîìà ä

˙ àå øäùà ä¨ éðàîú˙ á êìã˙ ãòá åáìö äãàìåà ïà åä êìã˙ ìà÷ô ®àîåé ïéøùòå ïéðú ˙ ìàå ®íäðî ãåäéìà åçàøúñà äéðáå ïîä åáìö àîì ïà ïååãîìà éëãøî ˙âåçà éã

ã÷å íäàãòà ìú÷á äìàîòå êìîìà àøîàå ãåäéìà éìà åáúëé ïà éìà øúñàå àîäãçà ïééù åäô è÷ô ãåäéìà åìú ÷é [á86]

éô

åãâ˙å

˙à àã

˙ åé íäåã

ïà ïî

˙ óåë

åä

˙ ìàå éðàú

àì

ïàá åáúëé ïà íäðëîé ïàë

˙ ñ ïéáéì 20 ®íäàãòà éìò êìîìà èë

˙ àô äøúô øë˙ à ú÷å ìòôé ïà íäãòá ãçà ìë òæôéå íäðî åçàøúñà íäåìú÷ àã äìàä íéîéì åàø÷ ïë ìò äìå÷å ®ïîä ÷çì àîë ä÷çìéô ïîä ìòô àîë íäá

¨ òø÷ìà ìâ˙à ïî íéøåô ïéîåéìà ïéã˙ ä åîñ ãåäéìà ïà óøò ®íéøåô àäçøè éúìà ä ˙ éìò äììà åøëùé ïàå äìòô àîì äøëã˙ ú êìã˙ ïåëéô ïîä ìò ïë ìò äìå÷å ®êìã ìò äìå÷ô ®íéãåäéä ìá÷å éô äúçøù àî éìà äá øéùé ®úàæä úøâàä éøáã ìë 25

˙ ô [ñîàë˙ ìà 2 òáàøìà íåéìà 1ø [òáàø 2 áúë 1ø [äáúë 3 §å÷å 3ø, 1ø ¬ô [äìå÷å 2 ñîàë 1 4 .àúéì ø [åä 3 (89–88 §îò ¬úååäúä äàø) àäãçà 3ø ¬ì ;àîäãçà ô ;§à 1ø [§ãçà 3 äá ˙ á 1ø [êìã˙ á íäéìà 4 ïàìå 1ø [ïàì éðàú˙ ìàå úåòèá äìîä äìôëð à ;§å÷ 1ø [äìå÷ 5 íäéìà êìã áúëð êëù ,(175§ åàìá äàø) åìòâ˙é íå÷îá [ïåìòâ˙é 6 .231§ åàìá äàø [ïàîæìà 5 .óãä ùàøá [øäù 7 (!)íåé óñåð ô ¬ì [éìà 7 .óãä éìåùá—øçà ãéá äàøðë—ï÷åúå ïåòìâ˙é áúëð à ;ô 駧ëá 1ø ¬ô [äìå÷å 9 ¨ éðàú˙ ìà 9 äàåááå ì [äàááå 8 .àúéì 1ø [íåéìà 8 .àúéì 1ø §áìà 1ø [ä ïàì 12 .äøåùì ìòî ä÷éçî éðîéñá ÷çîðå áúëìàá áúëð åæ äìî éðôì à [ìëá 10 §å÷å 3ø, ì 駧ëá êà) àúéì ô ¬ì [êìîìà ... ìåñøìà 13 òîñ 6ø, 1ø [åòîñ 13 äðàì 6ø, 1ø [äøéáãú [åúåà 15 §å÷å 3ø, 1ø ¬ô [äìå÷å 14 .àúéì 1ø [êìã˙ 14 ãøé 1ø [ãéøé 14 .(ìåñøìà øàùð ¬äàøðë ¬èîùð 1ø [ïà 16 ïåãîìà 1ø [ïååãîìà 15 êìîìà ìåñø 1ø [ìåñøìà 15 åúà 3ø, 1ø ¨ éðîú˙ á 1ø [ä¨ éðàîú˙ á 16 .úåòèá íåé 1ø [àîåé 16 øåäù 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [øäùà 16 (142§ åàìá äàø) ä 1ø [ãåäéìà åìú÷é 19 äéô 1ø [íäðî 17 çàøúñà 1ø [åçàøúñà 17 ïåãîìà 1ø [ïååãîìà 17   (89–88 §îò ¬úååäúä äàø) àäãçà 3ø ;§à 1ø [àîäãçà 19 åä 6ø, 1ø [åäô 19 .àúéì 6ø ;ìú÷é 6ø, 1ø [ìòô 22 ãçàå ì [ãçà 21 §áìàå 1ø [éðàú ˙ ìàå 20 ïàáéì 3ø ¬ô ¬ì ;ïééáéì 1ø [ïéáéì 20 24 §òú óñåð 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 24 ìòô 6ø, 1ø [äìòô 24 §å÷å 6ø, 3ø, 1ø ¬ô [äìå÷å 22 äìòô §å÷ô 6ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ô 25 §å÷å 6ø, 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å

57*

text

íéãåäéä ìò áùç øùà äòøä åúáùçî áåùé øôñä íò øîà êìîä éðôì äàááå

(25)

˙ ã ãðòå :õòä ìò åéðá úàå åúà åìúå åùàø ìò òî ìà÷ êìîìà [á83] íàã÷ àäìåë

˙ ìà éãøìà äøéáãú òâ˙øé áàúëìà åáìöå äåáìöå äñàø éìò ãåäéìà éìò øá ã éã

ºãåò éìò äéðá

5 úøâàä éøáã ìë ìò ïë ìò øåôä íù ìò íéøåô äìàä íéîéì åàø÷ ïë ìò

(26)

˙ ä åî ñ êìã˙ ìâ˙à ïî :íäéìà òéâä äîå äëë ìò åàø äîå úàæä éìò íéøåô ïéîåéìà ïéã

˙ ìú˙ î éìò åàø àîå áàúëìà äã˙ ä áèë˙ ìë éìò êìã˙ éìò øåôìà íñà ìöå àîå êìã ºíäéìà øåáòé àìå íäéìò íéåìðä ìë ìòå íòøæ ìòå íäéìò íéãåäéä åìá÷å åîé÷

(27)

˙ ô :äðùå äðù ìëá íðîæëå íáúëë äìàä íéîéä éðù úà íéùò úåéäì 10 åìá÷å åúá ú

˙ ãìà ìë éìòå íäìñð éìòå íäéìò ãåäéìà [à84] ïà íäðò æåâ˙é àìå íäðéã éô ïéìéë ¨ ðñå ä¨ ðñ ìë éô íäú÷å ìú˙ îå íäáàúë äá ãøå àî ìú˙ î ïéîåéìà ïéã˙ ä ïåìòôé ºä

äðéãîå äðéãî äçôùîå äçôùî øåãå øåã ìëá íéùòðå íéøëæð äìàä íéîéäå (28) :íòøæî óåñé àì íøëæå íéãåäéä êåúî åøáòé àì äìàä íéøåôä éîéå øéòå øéòå ˙ î ïéîåéìà ïéã˙ äå 15 ä¨ ðéãîå ä¨ ðéãî ìëå ìéá÷å ìéá÷ ìéâ˙å ìéâ˙ ìë éô ïéìåòôîå ïéøåëã ¨ éø÷å ä¨ éø÷å ˙ ˙ ˙ ïî àðôé àì àîäøëãå ãåäéìà ïéá ïî åæåâé àì øåôìà ïéîåé ïéãäå ä ºíäìñð

[á84] /–/ ˙ ä êñî åîæúìé ïà àäéô áúëå ä¨ ú˙ ãàçìì ä¨ éðàú˙ ìà ïåëúì àòéîâ˙ ïéîåéìà ïéã ˙ú 20 øùò òáàøìà íåéìàô ®íäðò äììà ˙âø ô éúìà ä¨ ðñìà éô ïàë àîì äøëã ˙ ìà ïùåù øéâ ïàãìáìà ìäàì äéô éøâ˙ àîì ®øùò òáàø íåé éô åçàøúñà éã ˙ ìà ïùåù ìäàì äøëã˙ ú øùò ñîàë˙ íåéå äá íã÷ú àî éìò äéô åçàøúñà éã ¨ ðñìà éô íäéìà àäáúë áúë éìà äá øéùé éëãøî áúëéå äìå÷ ä

åçàøúñà éðòé ®§âå íäéáéàî íéãåäéä íäá åçð øùà íéîéë äìå÷ë çøùìà

˙ íåé éô ïùåù ìäàå ®øùò òáàø íåé éô ïàãìáìà ìäà ïà íæìàô ®øùò ñîàë

˙ ä ïåëú 25 ä¨ åòã íàéà àîäåìòâ˙é ïà åäå ä¨ ãçàåìà ä¨ ìæðîìà éô [à85] ïéîåéìà ïéã ˙ ®éôòö˙ ìà éìò úà÷ãöìàå òìë˙ ìàå íàòèìà äáçàöì ãçàåìà éãäéå çøôå íú ˙ åîæúìà éðòé íéãåäéä ìá÷å ìà÷ úåùòì åìçä øùà úà äìå÷å ®íäîæìô êìã [ãåò 4 (à159§ åàìá äàø) ìò ì [éìò 3 (aâ361§ åàìá äàø) éúìà ô ¬ì [éã˙ ìà 3 åúåà ô [åúà 2 .3ø­å 1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(bà51§ åàìá äàø) àã˙ ä íå÷îá [äã˙ ä 7 (óéãò íåâøú) ãåòìà 3ø ¬ô ¬ì §§éø÷§§ä êë [åìá÷å 9 .äøåùì ìòî å÷á äðåùàøä ä÷çîðå äøåùä ùàøá äìîä äìôëð à [éìò 7 ìòî ä÷éçî éðîéñá ÷çîðå äðù ìëá áúëð åæ äìî éðôì à [íáúëë 10 ìá÷ :íù §§áéú맧äå ¬î§§äðá ˙ àãìà ô ¬ì [ïéìéë˙ ãìà 11 åúáú˙ 1ø [åúá ú˙ ô 10 .äøåùì äàø) åìòôé íå÷îá [ïåìòôé 12 ïéìë 16 äìéá÷å äìéá÷ ô ¬ì [ìéá÷å ìéá÷ 15 .úåòèá èîùð ô ¬ì ;1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(175§ åàìá éðîéñá ä÷çîðå úéååúä áúëð à ;1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(128 ,â126§§ åàìá äàø) éîåé íå÷îá [ïéîåé ;3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì êë [/–/ 18 ìåæé ô ¬ì ;(à10§ åàìá äàø) éðôé íå÷îá [àðôé 16 .äøåùì ìòî ä÷éçî úàæä íéøôä úøâà úà íé÷ì [á84] ó÷ú ìë úà éãåäéä éëãøîå ìéçéáà úá äëìîä øúñà áúëúå à ˙ àä ì [ïéã˙ ä 19 .àúéì 1ø [äá 18 áåúëéå 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [áúëéå 18 §å÷å 1ø [äìå÷ 18 :úéðùä ïéã ¬ì [íåéìàô 20 §òú óñåð 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 20 (aá122§ åàìá äàø) àðåëéì íå÷îá [ïåëúì 19 .àúéì 1ø ¬ô [§âå 23 íäéáéåàî ô ¬ì [íäéáéàî 23 §å÷ë 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ë 23 íåéìà éô 3ø ¬ô ... åäå 26–25 ãçàå ìë 3ø [ãçàåìà 25 (!)ä¨ ìæðî 3ø [ä¨ ìæðîìà 25 íäîæìàô 1ø [íæìàô 24 27 (251 ,175§§ åàìá äàø) àîä ïåìòâ˙é ì [àîäåìòâ˙é 25 .ïåè÷øàåéåîåä ìùá èîùð [ãçàåìà §å÷å 1ø ¬ô [äìå÷å

text

56*

˙ íåé éô åçàøúñàå øùò òáàø íåé éôå øùò çåðå äìå÷ éô ãàøîìàå ®øùò ñîàë çåðé ïòîì äìå÷ éøâ˙î éøâ˙é åäå íäðéëàëã å÷ìâå ìîòìà ïò åìèá íäðà åä íäéáéàî

˙ àáøà éìà äá øéùé ®íéæøôä [à82] íéãåäéä ïë ìò äìå÷å ®êåîë êúîàå êãáò õ ˙ å àäö˙ àáøà ïéáå ïùåù ïéá ÷øôìà àøåàô ®è÷ô ïùåù ïùåù ìäà åìú÷ àîì äðà êìã

˙ î ãçàå íåé éô õ˙ àáøàìà ìäàå ïéîåéìà éô 5 åìòô àîë åìòô êìîìà ïãî øéàñ ìú .øùò òáàø íåé éô åçàøúñàå ïàãìáìà êìú ìäà (28–20 ,è) ìëá øùà íéãåäéä ìë ìà íéøôñ çìùéå äìàä íéøáãä úà éëãøî áúëéå

(20) ˙ ˙ ˙ áúë úòáå áèëìà äãä éëãøî áúëô :íé÷åçøäå íéáåø÷ä ùåøåùçà êìîä úåðéãî ˙ ìà ãåäéìà ìë éìà ºïéáéø÷ìàå ïéãéòáìà ùåøåùçà êìîìà ïãî ìë éô ïéã íåé [á82] úàå øãà ùãçì øùò äòáøà íåé úà íéùò úåéäì íäéìò íé÷ì (21) 10 ˙ éì ºäðùå äðù ìëá åá øùò äùîç øãà øäù éô øùò òáàø íåé åìòâ˙é ïà íäéìò úáú ¨ ¨ ðñ ìë éô äéô øùò ñîàë˙ íåéå ºäðñå ä äçîùì ïåâéî íäì êôäð øùà ùãçäå íäéáéàî íéãåäéä íäá åçð øùà íéîéë (22) úåðúîå åäòøì ùéà úåðî çìùîå äçîùå äúùî éîé íúåà úåùòì áåè íåéì ìáàîå

˙ îå íäàãòà ïî àîäéô ãåäéìà åçàøúñà éã˙ ìà íàéàìà ìú˙ î :íéðéáàì 15 øäùìà ìú ¨ åòã éîåé àîäåìòâ˙éì áééè íåé éìà ïæçìà ïîå çøô éìà íâìà ïî íäì áì÷ðà éã˙ ìà ä ˙ ìì øåøá êìã˙ ëå äáçàö éìà ãçàå ìë ä¨ é ãäå ä¨ áöðà ú˙ òáå çøôå ºéôòö

ºíäéìà éëãøî áúë øùà úàå úåùòì åìçä øùà úà íéãåäéä ìá÷å [à83]

(23)

ºíäéìà éëãøî áúë àîå äåìòôé ïà äá åãúáà àî íäñôðà éìò ãåäéìà ìá÷å øåô ìôäå íãáàì íéãåäéä ìò áùç íéãåäéä ìë øøö éââàä àúãîä ïá ïîä éë

(24) 20

øá ã ãåäéìà ìë íøàöî éââàìà àúãîìà ïáà ïîä ïàô :íãáàìå íîäì ìøåâä àåä

¨ òø÷ìà åä øåôìà çøèå íäúãàáà éô ãåäéìà éìò ºíäëìäéå íäùå ùéì ä

1 àö˙ éà óñåð 1ø ;ïåè÷øàåéåîåä ìùá èîùð ô [øùò òáàø ... òáàø íåé éô åçàøúñàå 1 êë [íéæøôä 3 §å÷å 3ø, 1ø ¬ô [äìå÷å 3 §å÷ 1ø [äìå÷ 2 íäéáéåàî ô ¬ì [íäéáéàî 2 §å÷ 1ø [åçàøúñàå 6 ìòô 1ø [åìòô 5 .àúéì 1ø [éô 5 .àúéì 1ø [äá 3 .äð ìù §§ø÷§§ä (aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã˙ ä ô [äã˙ ä 8 íé÷çøäå 3ø [íé÷åçøäå 8 áåúëéå 3ø ¬ì [áúëéå 7 åçàøúñàô 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [ïéáéø÷ìàå ïéãéòáìà 9 (cà361§ åàìá äàø) éã ˙ ìà 3ø [ïéã˙ ìà 9 àäá 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [áúë 8 éô 12–11 (!)ìòâ˙é ô ¬ì [åìòâ˙é 11 íéé÷ì 3ø [íé÷ì 10 (óéãò íåâøú) ïéãéòáìàå ïéáéø÷ìà 3ø, ˙ íåéå 1ø [äéô ... ¬ì [íäéáéàî 13 åçàð ô [åçð 13 .àúéì ô ¬ì [äéô | (úåòè éìåà) øùò ñîàë ïî ï÷åú à [àîäåìòâ˙éì 16 áéè 1ø [áééè 16 íéðåéáàì 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [íéðéáàì 15 íäéáéåàî ô ˙ ìì íå÷îá [éôòö˙ ìì 17 íàéà ô ¬ì [éîåé 16 (aà122§ åàìá äàø êà) àäåìòâ˙éì åàìá äàø) àôòö .§é ÷åñôî äòôùåäù ñåîìå÷ úèéìô ìùá éìåà—(øéñôúä äàø) úåòèá èîùð ì [éââàä 20 (γbà11§ íäúãàáà 1ø [íäúãàáà ... ãåäéìà 22 ìéôäå 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [ìôäå 20 1ø [äìå÷

55*

text

ìëá íäéøòá íéãåäéä åìä÷ð ìà÷ô ®äéô íäåìú÷å íäéìò áì÷ðàô äéô íäåìú÷é

ãçà ó÷é íì äðàå íäàãòà åìú÷ [à80] íäðà óøòô ®§âå ùåøåùçà êìîä úåðéãî

˙ éà íäðéòé íìå íäáåì÷ éô äììà äçøè éã˙ ìà òæôìì íäîàã÷ íäàãòà ïî àö úåðéãîä éøù ìëå ìà÷å ®ùèáìàá àì ìå÷ìàá ãåäéìà ïåðéòé åðàë ìëìà ìá ãçà

5 ïàèìñìà ìîò éô ïéôøöúîìà øéàñå ìàîòìàå àøîàìà ïà óøòô ®äîàîúå

¨ é òøìà øãâ˙àå éøçàå éëãøî ïî íäôåë˙ ìâ˙à ïî ãåäéìà ïåì ˙âé ìåãâ éë äìå÷å ®ä

˙ î êìîìà øàã éô ïî òéîâ˙ éìò éäðéå øîàé äðà åä ®êìîä úéáá éëãøî àî ìú ˙ ®äòøô øàã éô óñåé ïàë åìä÷ð äìå÷ éìà ïååãîìà òâ˙ø íéãåäéä åëéå ìà÷ íú ˙ å åìú÷éì åòîúâ˙à íäðà ìà÷ô ®íäéøòá íéãåäéä ®íäéô åìú÷ íäðà àðää øëã ˙ òáå óéñìàá íäö˙ òá åìú÷ô ®ïãáàå âøäå áøç úëî 10 äøéâá íäö

[á80]

ìà÷å

˙ ò äá ãàøà ®íðåöøë äìå÷å ®íäìàôèà åãàáàå íäðî ïåøé åðàë àî áñç íäåáã

˙ íäããò òôøå äøéáä ïùåù éô ïéìåú÷îìà øëã˙ íú˙ ®ä¨ éö˙ àîìà íàéàìà éô ñîë ¨ éàî ïîä éðá ïî ãçàå ìëì ïà åä ÷ñô úà ìë ìòâ˙ ïà éô éðòîìàå ®ïîä éðá øéâ ä ˙ ðî åðàëô ãéáòå ìàéò úà åçìù àì äæááå ìà÷å ®ïîä éðá ïî ãçàå ìë éìà ïéôàö 15 åà ÷ìîò ïî íäðà ìâ˙à ïî ïà ïëîé íäåáäðé íìå ñàðìà åìú÷ íäðà óøòô ®íãé

˙ éç ïî íåéá ìà÷å ®êìîìì áìñìà ìöçå ìú÷ìà ïò áäðìàá åìâúùé àì íäðà ú ˙ äå ®íéâåøää éìò ó÷é ïà ãàøà êìîìà ïà éìò ìãé àã

[à81]

øôñî àá àåää

¨ ñîë˙ íäããò òôø ïàãìáìà øéàñ éô ïéìåú÷îìà ããò êìã˙ ëå ®íäããò ïéòáñå ä

¨ éàî äðãî ããò ïàì äøéáä ïùåù éô øåëã˙ îìà ããòìà ïî áéø÷ ˙âøë˙ é åäå óìà ä ˙ á øåøñî äðà àäôø òéì øúñàì êìã˙ øëã˙ êìîìà ïà óøòå ®ïéøùòå ä¨ òáñ 20 êìã

˙ à éù úáìè ïà äðà éøåé ®êúù÷á äîå êúìàù äîå àäì ìà÷ êìã˙ ìå ìîòé øë ˙ éà ®§âå §ùá øùà íéãåäéì øçî íâ ïúðé úìà÷ êúù÷á äîå äìå÷ úòîñ àîìô ®àö ¨ éàî ú˙ ìú˙ éðàú˙ ìà íåéìà éô åìú÷ô êìã˙ ìò ôé ïà êìîìà øîàô åáìöå ïàñðà ä

¨ éàî ïàîú˙ [á81] ïùåù éô åìú÷ àî òéîâ˙ øàöô ïîä éðá ®íäòàáúå ïîä éðá øéâ ä ˙ êìîìà ìîò éô ïéìåú÷îìà ããò øëã˙ å 25 åìîò àîë ïà óøòå óìà ïéòáñå ä¨ ñîë ˙ ë íäáìñ åã˙ ë˙ àé íì íäðà éô ïùåù ìäà àî äðà ïàãìáìà øéàñ éô åìîò êàã ˙ ìàú˙ íåé éô åìú÷ ïàãìáìà ìäà ïà óøòå ®íäáìñ éìà äãé íäðî ãçà ãî ú ˙ ìàú˙ íåé éô åìú÷ ïùåù ìäà ïàå ®øùò òáàø íåé éô åçàøúñàå è÷ô øùò ú

.àúéì 1ø [ùåøåùçà ... íäéøòá 2–1 (!)åìà÷ô ô [ìà÷ô 1 .(úåòèá èîùð éìåà) àúéì 1ø [äéô 1 6 §âå 1ø [äîàîúå 5 ùèá ô [ùèáìàá 4 §òú óñåð 3ø, 2ø [äììà 3 .àúéì 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [§âå 2 øàã 7 (à10§ åàìá äàø) àäðéå 1ø [éäðéå 7 §å÷å ô, 1ø [äìå÷å 6 éøçàå øãâ˙àå ô [øãâ˙àå éøçàå §å÷ 1ø [äìå÷ 8 ïåãîìà 1ø [ïååãîìà 8 íäéáéåà ìëá óñåð 1ø [íéãåäéä 8 øàãìà 1ø [êìîìà 10 àðäàä 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [àðää 9 (!)åìä÷éì ô ¬ì [åìú÷éì 9 .(úåòèá èîùð éìåà) àúéì 1ø [íäðà 9 ˙ òá 1ø [íäö˙ òáå ô ¬ì [éðòîìàå 13 .àúéì 1ø [äá 11 (!)åìà÷å ì ;§å÷å 3ø, 1ø [äìå÷å 11 íäö 18 .àúéì 1ø [ïà 15 (!)íäåäáðé 1ø [íäåáäðé 15 äðà 1ø [ïà 13 ÷åñô 1ø [÷ñô 13 éðòîå ¨ òáñ 20 (à127§ åàìá äàø) ïåòáñå íå÷îá [ïéòáñå äàø) ïåøùòå íå÷îá [ïéøùòå 20 òáñå 1ø [ä [§ùá 22 §å÷ 1ø [äìå÷ 22 (!)íäì ô ¬ì [àäì 21 (!)íäôøòéì ô ¬ì [àäôø òéì 20 (à127§ åàìá ¨ ú˙ ìú˙ ô ¬ì ;ú˙ àìú˙ 3ø [ú˙ ìú˙ 23 .àúéì ô ¬ì [§âå 22 ïùåùá 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì úéååúä áúëð à [ããò 25 ä 27 íäðî ãçà äãé 1ø [äãé íäðî ãçà 27 .àúéì 1ø [éô 26 .äøåùì ìòî ä÷éçî éðîéñá ä÷çîðå áìñìà 1ø 27 ïî áäðìà óñåð 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [éìà

text

54*

ìà÷ô :åìú ïîä éðá úøùò úàå ïùåùá úã ïúðúå ïë úåùòäì êìîä øîàéå

(14)

ïùåùá åâøäéå øãà ùãçì øùò äòáøà íåéá íâ ïùåùá øùà íéãåäéä åìä÷éå

(15)

¨ øùò åáìöå ïùåù éô ä¨ ð ñìà úìòâ˙ å êìã˙ ìú˙ î åìòôé ïà êìîìà ºïîä éðá ä

˙ ìà ãåäéìà ïà åäå [á78] :íãé úà åçìù àì äæááå ùéà úåàî ùìù ïùåù éô ïéã

¨ éàî ú˙ ìú˙ ïùåù éô åìú÷å øãà øäù ïî øùò òáàøìà íåéìà éô àö˙ éà åòîúâ˙à 5 ä ºáäðìà éô íäéãéà å÷ìèé íìå àðàñðà âåøäå íäéáéàî çåðå íùôð ìò ãîòå åìä÷ð êìîä úåðéãîá øùà íéãåäéä øàùå

(16)

˙ ìà ãåäéìà øéàñå :íãé úà åçìù àì äæááå óìà íéòáùå äùîç íäéàðùá éô ïéã ¨ ñîë˙ íäéô åìú÷å íäàãòà ïî åçàøúñàå íäñôðà éìò åô÷åå åòîúâ˙à êìîìà ïãî ä ºáäðìà éô íäéãéà å÷ìèé íìå àôìà ïéòáñå 10 äúùî íåé åúà äùòå åá øùò äòáøàá çåðå øãà ùãçì øùò äùìù íåéá

(17) ˙ ˙ òáàøìà íåéìà éô åçàøúñàå øãà øäù ïî øùò úìàúìà íåéìà éô [à79] :äçîùå ¨ åòã íåé äåìòâ˙å äðî øùò ºçøôå ä äùîçá çåðå åá øùò äòáøàáå åá øùò äùåìùá åìä÷ð ïùåùá øùà íéãåäéäå (18) ˙ ìàú˙ íåé éô åòîúâ˙à ïùåù éô éã˙ ìà ãåäéìàå :äçîùå äúùî íåé åúà äùòå åá øùò 15 ú ¨ åòã íåé äåìòâ˙å äðî øùò ñîàë˙ éô åçàøúñàå äðî øùò òáàø éôå äðî øùò ä ºçøôå øùò äòáøà íåé úà íéùò úåæøôä éøòá íéáùéä íéæåøôä íéãåäéä ïë ìò

(19)

˙ ìâ˙à ïî :åäòøì ùéà úåðî çìùîå áåè íåéå äúùîå äçîù øãà ùãçì ãåäéìà êìã

˙ àáøàìà éô ïàëñìà [á79] ïéö˙ áàøìà 20 øãà øäù ïî øùò òáàø íåé éô åìîò õ ¨ é ãäå ä¨ áöðà ãçàå ìë ìñøéå ãééâ˙ íåéå çøôå ä¨ åòã ºäáçàö éìà ä

˙ ìàú˙ íåé éô ãåäéìì éøâ˙ àî àäàðèñá éúìà ÷éñàåôìà äã˙ ä éô øëã˙ ïî øùò ú ˙ å øùò òáàø íåé éô àö˙ éà äåìòô àîå ä¨ ðñìà êìú éô øãà øäù ®äðî øùò ñîàë ˙ åé íì íäðà óøòô ®ùãç øùò íéðùáå àìåà ìà÷ô ïà éìà íäàãòà ïî àãçà åã

˙ úðé ïàë éã˙ ìà íåéìà åäå êìîìà íäì íñø éã˙ ìà íåéìà àôàå 25 ïà íäàãòà åøè åìòôà 7ø [åìòôé ïà 2 .àúéì 7ø [åìú ... êìîä 1 .§å ïî äðåùàøä §ðä äð÷åú ¬äàøðë à [ïúðúå 1 2 úìòâ˙ô 7ø ;(ì ò ˙â ô àøO åà, b142§ ,á ¬èééø äàø) ìòâ˙ô 1ø [úìòâ˙ å 2 .úåòèá èîùð 1ø [êìã˙ 2 7ø [íãé ... íéãåäéä 4–3 íééãåäéä :íù §§áéú맧äå ¬î§§äðá §§éø÷§§ä êë [íéãåäéä 3 ïñåñ ô [ïùåù ˙ ìà 7ø [ïéã˙ ìà 4 .úåòèá äìîä äèîùð ì [ïùåùá 3 .àúéì ¬ì [ïùåù 4 (cà361§ åàìá äàø) éã 6 ú˙ àìú˙ 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [ú˙ ìú˙ 5 åìú÷ô 1ø [åìú÷å 5 (229§ åàìá äàø) íåé 1ø [íåéìà 5 ïñåñ 1ø úðéãîá ô [úåðéãîá 7 .àúéì 7ø [íãé ... íéãåäéä 8–7 à÷ìèé ì [å÷ìèé 6 ïàñðà 7ø [àðàñðà [íäàãòà 9 (cà361§ åàìá äàø) éã˙ ìà 3ø [ïéã˙ ìà 8 íäéáéåàî ô [íäéáéàî 7 çðå ì [çåðå 7 ˙ âà[á ïî] 7ø [íäéô 9 íäéàãòà 7ø óìà 1ø [àôìà 10 ïåòáñå 7ø [ïéòáñå 10 (äð åîë) íäéö [íéãåäéäå 14 .àúéì 7ø [äçîùå ... øùò 12–11 áäðìàá 1ø [áäðìà éô 10 (218§ åàìá äàø) [äùåìùá 14 .àúéì 7ø [äçîùå ... åìä÷ð 15–14 íééãåäéäå :íù §§áéú맧äå ¬î§§äðá §§éø÷§§ä êë ˙ ìà íå÷îá [éã˙ ìà 15 äùìùá 3ø ¬ô ô ¬ì [ïùåù 15 .1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(cà361§ åàìá äàø) ïéã ¨ åòã 17–16 .úøçà úåà ïî §â˙ä äð÷åú à [äåìòâ˙å 16 íåé óñåð 7ø [éôå 16 ïñåñ çøô 3ø [çøôå ä ¨ åòãå øúé (à 駧ë ìù) óãä éìåùá áúë𠧧éø÷§§ì íàúäá êà ¬î§§äð ìù §§áéú맧ä êë [íéæåøôä 18 ä ˙ áàøìà íå÷îá [ïéö˙ áàøìà 20 çåìùîå ô [çìùîå 19 íéæTôä :3ø­å, 2ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëáå ,§å ïåö ˙ ä ô [äã˙ ä 22 ãéâ˙ 1ø [ãééâ˙ 21 (117§ åàìá äàø) ïééö˙ áàøìà 1ø ;(à127§ åàìá äàø) åàìá äàø) àã (!)àì 3ø ;(!)åì 2ø [íì 24 ìà÷å 1ø [ìà÷ô 24 íé÷åñôìà 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [÷éñàåôìà 22 (aà51§ (!)àäàôå ô ¬ì [àôàå 25 (à10§ åàìá äàø) àìà ô ¬ì [éìà 24

53*

text

êìåä éëãøî ùéàä éë úåðéãîä ìëá êìåä åòîùå êìîä úéáá éëãøî ìåãâ éë

(4)

˙ å êìîìà øàã éô ìçîìà øéáë éëãøî ïàë ïà :ìåãâå ïãîìà ìë éô òéàù äøáë ºãéæéå ú÷å ìë éô øá ëé äøîà éëãøî ìâ˙øìà ïàë ã÷ô

íäéàðùá åùòéå ïãáàå âøäå áøç úëî íäéáéà ìëá íéãåäéä åëéå

[à77] (5)

5 ä¨ ãàáàå óéñìà øéâá ìú÷å óéñìàá ìú÷ íäàãòà ìë éô ãåäéìà åìú÷å :íðåöøë ºåãàøà àîë íäàãòà éô åìîòå íäìàôèà åìú÷

¨ øàîòìà ä

ïñåñ éôå :ùéà úåàî ùîç ãáàå íéãåäéä åâøä äøéáä ïùåùáå

(6)

¨ éàî ñîë˙ åãàáàå ãåäéìà ºïàñðà ä :§âå àúãðùøô úàå (9–7) (10)

10 ä¨ øùò :íãé úà åçìù àì äæááå åâøä íéãåäéä øøö àúãîä ïá ïîä éðá úøùò

ºáäðìàá íäéãéà åìñøé íìå åìú÷ ãåäéìà íøàöî éââàìà àúãîìà ïá ïîä éðá

˙ éô :êìîä éðôì äøéáä ïùåùá [á77] íéâåøää øôñî àá àåää íåéá íåéìà êìã

(11)

¨ øàîòìà ïñåñ éô ïéìåú÷îìà ããò àâ˙ ºêìîìà íàã÷ ä úåàî ùîç ãáàå íéãåäéä åâøä äøéáä ïùåùá äëìîä øúñàì êìîä øîàéå

(12)

15 äîå êì ïúðéå êúìàù äîå åùò äî êìîä úåðéãî øàùá ïîä éðá úøùò úàå ùéà

¨ øàîòìà ïñåñ éô ä¨ ëìîìà øúñàì êìîìà ìà÷ô :ùòúå ãåò êúù÷á åìú÷ ä ¨ øùòå ïàñðà ä¨ éàî ñîë˙ åãàáàå ãåäéìà åìòô ùéà êìîìà ïãî øéàñ éôå ïîä éðá ä ˙ éà àèòú éøë˙ à ä¨ éâá êì ïàë ïàå êì àèòúå éøë˙ à ä¨ ìñî êì ïàë ïàô ºàö ïùåùá øùà íéãåäéì øçî íâ ïúðé áåè

[à78]

êìîä ìò íà øúñà øîàúå

(13)

20 ãðò ïñç ïà øúñà úìà÷ô :õòä ìò åìúé ïîä éðá úøùò úàå íåéä úãë úåùòì

˙ î éìò åìîòé ïà àäéô éã˙ ìà ãåäéìì ïùåù éô ãâìàá íñøé ïà êìîìà íñø ìú ¨ øùò ïåáìöé ïàå íåéìà ºïîä éðá ä

2 éëãøî ìçîìà øéáë ô ¬ì [ìçîìà ... ïàë 2 ã˙ à 7ø [ïà 2 .àúéì 7ø [ìåãâå ... éëãøî 2–1 ìâ˙øì 3 øáëå (äø î à àøO) äøîà 1ø [øá ëé ... ïàë 3 ã÷å 7ø [ã÷ô 3 êìîìà ïãî 7ø [ïãîìà 7ø, 1ø [åìú÷å 5 íäéáéåà ô ¬ì [íäéáéà 4 .àúéì 7ø [íðåöøë ... íéãåäéä 5–4 .àúéì 7ø [éëãøî 1ø [àîë 6 íäéö ˙ âàá 1ø ;íäéàãòà 7ø [íäàãòà 6 äøéâá ô ;(!)óéñìàá ì [óéñìà øéâá 5 ìú÷å ¨ øîàòìà 7ø [ä¨ øàîòìà 7 ïùåù 7ø, 1ø [ïñåñ 7 .àúéì 7ø [ùéà ... äøéáä 7 àî ¬ô ¬ì [§âå 9 ä úàå éñéøà úàå àúùîøô úàå àúãéøà úàå àéìãà úàå àúøåô úàå àúôñà úàå ïåôìã úàå 7ø, 3ø, 1ø [àúãîìà 11 .àúéì 1ø ;ïáà 3ø [ïá 11 .àúéì 7ø [íãé ... ïá 10 àúæéå úàå (éãXà :äð) éãéøà 1ø [åìñøé 11 ìú÷ ô [åìú÷ 11 .(äð øåàì óéãò) àúéì 7ø, 3ø ¬ô [éââàìà 11 àúãîä 7ø àá 12 íéâøää ì [íéâåøää 12 áäðìà éô 7ø [áäðìàá 11 (175§ åàìá äàø) ïå÷ìèé 7ø ;å÷ìèé [ùòúå ... øúñàì 16–14 ä¨ øîàòìà 7ø [ä¨ øàîòìà 13 ïùåù 7ø [ïñåñ 13 .àúéì 7ø [êìîä ... 7ø [ä ¨ øàîòìà 16 ïùåù 7ø [ïñåñ 16 éô àã˙ åä 7ø [éô 16 äëìîä ô [ä¨ ëìîìà 16 .àúéì 7ø 17 .àúéì 7ø [êìîìà 17 (óéãò íåâøú) éô 1ø [éôå 17 ä¨ ñîë˙ 7ø ¬ô ¬ì [ñîë˙ 17 ä¨ øîàòìà ¨ ìàñî 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [ä¨ ìñî 18 éù éà 7ø [ùéà éèòé 7ø ;àèòú 1ø [àèòúå 18 (aâ11§ åàìá äàø) ä íñøú 7ø [íñøé ïà 21 .àúéì 7ø [õòä ... íà 20–19 [ì]îòú 7ø [àèòú 18 åìå 7ø [ïàå 18 [íåéìà ... ãâìàá 22–21 .§úä íå÷îá 짧ö ¬äàøðë ¬§éäù, é ïà ,øôåñä åúåàî ¬óñåð äøåùì ìòîå, [ãåäéìì 21 ïñåñ ô ¬ì [ïùåù 21 .àö˙ éà ãâ éô íåéìà íñø ìú˙ î éìò åìîòé ïà ïùåù [éô éã˙ ]ìà 7ø [ïåáìöé ïàå 22 .1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(cà361§ åàìá äàø) ïéã˙ ìà íå÷îá [éã˙ ìà 21 (!)éãåäéì ì .åáìöéå 7ø ;(175§ åàìá äàø) åáìöé ïàå íå÷îá

text

52*

˙ é íìå ®ìHìà ä¨ éàâ éìò åðàë ïà ãòá íäìàá÷à ïî åàø àîì íäðà ãåäéìà ïò øë ã

˙ ìãô ®óéñìà ïî åöìë˙ úéì íäìú÷á øàáë˙ àìà úìöå àî ãðò íäðéã åìë˙ éìò êìã .ïîçøìà ˙âø ôé ïà éìà ïéøáàö íäðéã éìò åé÷á íäðà (19–1 ,è) êìîä øáã òéâä øùà åá íåé øùò äùåìùá øãà ùãç àåä ùãç øùò íéðùáå

(1 ,è)

øùà àåä êåôäðå íäá èåìùì íéãåäéä [à76] éáéà åøáù øùà íåéá úåùòäì åúãå 5

˙ ìàú˙ ìà éô øãà øäù åä øùò éðàú˙ ìà øäùìà éôå :íäéàðùá äîä íéãåäéä åèìùé ú ˙ ìà äðî øùò äáúë éô êìîìà äîñø àî äéô ìò ôé ì äúð ñå êìîìà øîà ìöå éã

˙ ìà øäùìà ïî íåéìà êìã˙ éô ä¨ éðàú˙ ìà ãåäéìàá åèìñúé ìàøùé àãòà åìî à éã ºíäàãòà éô ïåèìöúé ãåçéìà øàö ïà éìà áì÷ðàô

íúòø éù÷áîá ãé çìùì ùåøåùçà êìîä úåðéãî ìëá íäéøòá íéãåäéä åìä÷ð

(2) 10

íäàø÷ éô ãåäéìà åòîúâ˙à :íéîòä ìë ìò íãçô ìôð éë íäéðôì ãîò àì ùéàå

˙ é íìå íäçàåøà [á76] ïéáìàè åìú÷éì ùåøåùçà êìîìà ïãî ìë éô ïî ãçàå úáú ºáåòùìà òéîâ˙ éìò íäòæô ò÷å äðàì íäéãé ïéá íäàãòà íéàùðî êìîì øùà äëàìîä éùòå úåçôäå íéðôøãùçàäå úåðéãîä éøù ìëå

(3) /àøîàìàå/ ïãîìà àñåø ìëå :íäéìò éëãøî ãçô ìôð éë íéãåäéä úà 15 ãðò íäðåìâ˙éå ãåäéìà ïåòô øé åðàë êìîìà úìàîò éô ïéôøöúîìà øéàñå

ìàîòìàå ò÷å àî

ºíäéìò éëãøî òæô

˙ àìà 2 åëøú 7ø, 1ø [åìë˙ 2 ¬(à106§ åàìá äàø) å÷á íå÷îá [åé÷á 3 íäéìà óñåð 7ø, 1ø [øàáë 7 ˙ ˙ ¬ì [ïîçøìà 3 íäðò âøô ø ;íäîçøéå íäðò äììà óñåð ô ¬ì [âø ôé 3 .7ø­å 1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù [íåé 4 äùìùá 3ø ¬ô [äùåìùá 4 .àúéì 7ø [íäéàðùá ... àåä ùãç 6–4 ïàîçøìà 3ø, 2ø, 1ø ¬ô 5 (!)íåéë ì ¬ô [íåéá 5 .àúéì ô [åúãå 5 .àúéì ô [åá 4 .úøçà úåà ïî §éä äð÷åú ¬äàøðë à ˙ ìà 3ø [øùò ... øäùìà 6 éðú˙ àìà 7ø, 1ø [éðàú˙ ìà 6 éáéåà ì ¬ô [éáéà åàìá äàø) øäù øùò éðàú 7 íåé óñåð 7ø [øùò 7 (çé ÷åñôì ä¨ îâ˙øúäå 247§ åàìá äàø) ú˙ ìàú˙ 1ø [ú˙ ìàú˙ ìà 6 ø (247§ ãåäéìà 7ø [ìàøùé 8 ìîà 7ø ;(91§ åàìá äàø) åìîå 1ø [åìî à 8 .§ä ïî §úä äð÷åú à [äúð ñå åèìñúé ïà 7ø ;úåòèá äìîä äèîùð 1ø ;(175§ § åàìá äàø) ïåèìñúé ì [åèìñúé 8 (î䧧ð åîë) 9 .àúéì 7ø [øàö 9 úì÷úðàô 7ø [áì÷ðàô 9 ãåäéìà éìò 7ø ;ãåäéìà éô 1ø [ãåäéìàá 8 äéô [íäàãòà 9 .7ø­å, 3ø, 2ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ¬(à20§ åàìá äàø) ïåèìñúé íå÷îá [ïåèìöúé 1ø [åòîúâ˙à 11 çåìùì ô [çìùì 10 .àúéì 7ø [íéîòä ... íéãåäéä 11–10 íäéàãòà 7ø 7ø [ùåøåùçà 12 .1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ¬(à10§ åàìá äàø) íäéø÷ íå÷îá [íäàø÷ 11 òîúâ˙à 7ø, 1ø [íäéãé 13 íäéàãòà 7ø [íäàãòà 13 .íì ïî ï÷åú à [íìå 12 éáìàè 7ø [ïéáìàè 12 §ùçà 15 .íéð úåéúåàä åð÷åú à [íéðôøãùçàäå 14 .àúéì 7ø [íäéìò ... úåðéãîä 15–14 íäéãéà 7ø, ¨ ìàîò íå÷îá [úìàîò 16 .úåòèá äìîä äèîùð 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì ¬à ;7ø êë [àøîàìàå åàìá äàø) ä åòôøé 7ø [ïåòô øé 16 .7ø­å, 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(aà27§

51*

text

˙ éøë˙ à äã˙ ä ïà àðì÷ ïàå ®àðää úøëã˙ ô êìîìà äéìò àäòìë

.úåëìî

ùåáì

˙ äå ®äçîùå äìäö ïùåù øéòäå ìà÷å ®êìã˙ ãò áé íì ú÷åìà éô íäìàç óöå àã ˙ á åø ñà ãìáìà ìäà ïàì ä¨ éðàú˙ ìà áúëìà úáúë éúìà éô åîúâà àîë êìã

˙ ®éìåàìà ä¨ òôãìà ïéîé÷îìà éìà äá øéùé ®äçîùå äøåà äúéä íéãåäéì ìà÷ íú

˙ ìà ãåäéìà øëã˙ ã÷ äðàì ä¨ öàë˙ äøéáä ïùåù éô 5 äãòá ìà÷ àîë àäøéâ éô éã ïî ìàç äáùé ïàë íäìàç ïàì äøåà äúéä äìå÷å ®§âå äðéãîå äðéãî ìëáå

˙ ìà íäðò ìàæ ä¨ éðàú˙ ìà áúëìà úáúë àî ãðòô ®àãåñ äîìè˙ éô ìöç íàìè ˙ àî ìãáå çøôìàå øåøñìà éô åã˙ ë˙ à íäðæç ìãáå øééçúìàå íäúìã

[à75]

¨ ìéìâ˙ìà ä¨ áúøìà éô éëãøî øàö ã˙ à ä¨ öàë˙ íäæò øäè˙ íäàãòà íì ñúå ä

˙ ïò øöúë˙ à ã÷å ®ïîä øàã 10 ïà áø÷éå ®äåìòô àî ìåà åäå äìì øëùìà øëã ˙ ìà íäéìà ìöé íäìàç åøééâéì øáë ˙ éå åìã

íäàãòà íëáðéå íäéìò äììà

éã˙ ìà ãåäéìà øéàñ éìà áúë éëãøî ˙ ô ïéáéì áúëìà íäéìà ìöú àî ãðò ìö

¨ ãîìàå ®íäáøç éô ãåäéìà áì÷ àå÷éå íäéìò íäúúàîù ìåæúå úðàë éúìà ä ˙ ãòá íú˙ íåé ïéòáñìà ïåã àëáìàå ïæçìà éìò ìàøùé àäéô åøùàáú êìã

15 [á75] ïàì áø÷ ìàå ãòá ìà áñç éìò ä¨ ðéãîå ä¨ ðéãî ìë äììà ïî ˙âøôìàá

¨ éðàú˙ ìà áúëìà äã˙ ä áø÷é áåè íåéå äìå÷å ®êìú ìåöå ïî áø÷à ìöú úðàë ä

íéãäéúî õøàä éîòî íéáøå äìå÷å ®àäéô ïåñø òéå àñðìà ïåëìîé íäðà äéô

˙ ã ïéøë˙ à íå÷å ®óéñìà ïî óåë˙ ìàøùé ïéã éô åìë˙ ãô àãòàìà ïî íå÷ íäéô åìë

˙ ä ô ¬ì [äã˙ ä 1 àðàäàä 7ø ;àðäàä 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [àðää 1 øëã˙ ô 7ø [úøëã˙ ô 1 åàìá äàø) àã ˙ [êìã 2 äì óñåð 3ø ;äéìò óñåð 1ø [ãò áé 2 àäìòâ˙ éøë˙ à [ä¨ ]òìë˙ 7ø [àäòìë˙ éøë˙ à 1 (aà51§ ˙ ìà íå÷îá 3ø [éúìà 3 §ùå §ìäö 7ø [äçîùå äìäö 2 .àúéì 7ø áúëð êëù ,(aâ361§ åàìá äàø) éã 1ø [åîúâà 3 (àîë ïî ¬äàøðë ¬§§ï÷åú§§) (!)àîì 7ø [àîë 3 åøñ 7ø [åøñà 3 .7ø­å 3ø, 1ø 駧ëá   .àúéì 7ø [äøéáä 5 øéùéå 1ø [øéùé 4 §øåà 7ø [äçîùå äøåà 4 (ñåîìå÷ úèéìô ¬äàøðë) åòîúâ˙à ˙ ìà íå÷îá 3ø [éã˙ ìà 5 (úåòè ¬íúñä­ïî) õàë˙ 7ø, 1ø [ä¨ öàë˙ 5 áúëð êëù ,(cà361§ åàìá äàø) ïéã [äìå÷å 6 .àúéì 3ø ;ìå÷ìà íàîúå 1ø [§âå | §îå 7ø [§âå äðéãîå 6 §å÷ë 7ø [ìà÷ àîë 5 .7ø 駧ëá [úáúë 7 ã÷ óñåð 7ø [ïî 6 äáùú (ïàë 1ø) úðàë 7ø, 1ø [äáùé ïàë 6 §å÷å 7ø, 3ø, 2ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì ,90§§ åàìá äàø) íäìì ã˙ íå÷îá [íäúìã˙ 8 ìãá íú˙ 7ø [ìãáå 8 (144§ ,á ¬èéø äàø) áúë 1ø 10 §òú óñåð 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìì 10 ä¨ áúøîìà 7ø [ä¨ áúøìà 9 íäéàãòà 7ø [íäàãòà 9 (183 ˙ ìà íå÷îá [éã˙ ìà 11 äìòô 7ø [äåìòô 10 éäå 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [åäå êëù ,(cà361§ åàìá äàø) ïéã .àúéì 1ø [íäéìà 12 ìöúà ô [ìöú 12 åøéâé ïà 7ø, 1ø ;åøé âéì ì [åøééâéì 11 .7ø 駧ëá áúëð ô ¬ì [íëáðéå 12 .àúéì 1ø ;§òú óñåð 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 12 ïàáéì 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [ïéáéì 12 §é ïî ¬äàøðë ¬§àä äð÷åú à [àå÷éå 13 (183§ åàìá äàø) øñëðúå 7ø ;(à182§ åàìá äàø) åîëáðéå äð÷åú åæ äìîù äàøð êà ,42§ åàìá äàø) àå÷áå 7ø [àëáìàå ... àå÷éå 14–13 .(à10§ åàìá äàø) ¨ ãîìàå 14–13 .àúéì 1ø [áì÷ 13 (183§ åàìá äàø) íäðæç éô ãåäéìà ([1ø 駧ë äååùä] àå÷éå ïî ä 7ø, 1ø [áø÷ìàå ... íú ˙ 15–14 àëáå ïæç ô ¬ì [àëáìàå ïæçìà 14 .úåòèá èîùð 1ø [àëáìàå ...  ˙ ä ô [äã˙ ä 16 §òú óñåð 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 15 .àúéì ô ¬ì [úðàë 16 (aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã 17 (!)ïåñëòéå 1ø [ïåñø òéå 17 íäìå÷å 7ø ;§å÷å 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 16 ìöå 7ø [ìåöå 16 .àúéì ;(!)íéãäéúéî 3ø [íéãäéúî 17 §ãäéúî §àä 7ø [íéãäéúî õøàä 17 §å÷å 7ø, 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å ˙ íå÷îá [óåë˙ 18 §ùé 7ø [ìàøùé 18 úã ô ¬ì [ïéã 18 (!)ìå÷ 1ø [íå÷ 18 (!)íéãäúéî ô àôåë ˙ à 7ø, 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [ïéøë˙ à 18 òæô 7ø ;(218§ åàìá äàø) ïåøë

text

50*

˙ ìà ìå÷ìà àã˙ ä ïëéì íëéðéòá ¯§èë åá úåùòì ïîäì §å÷ ìú˙ î éìò äìà÷ éðàú /àîä[ðà] àîäðéã éàø ã÷ äðàì ïîä ìåë˙ ã [ìú˙ î] àìë˙ ãé àì/ àîäðà ÷é÷çú ˙ ìô ïîä ìòô ïéøëðî àîäå ä¨ öàë˙ äìàç õ÷ðéå êìîìà áéòé àî éô àìë˙ ãé àì êìã ˙ ìà íä íäìòì êìîìà áàúëá ú÷åìà éô åòãúñàô ®íëéðéòá áåèë ìà÷ åáúë éã ˙ ïî øéâ åìú÷é àì ïà ãåäéìà éìà àáúë åáúëô éìåàìà áúëìà 5 íäúåàãò øäàè ˙ ë˙ àé íì íäðàå àøîàìà [á73] éìà åáúëå ®è÷ô ìú÷ìà ìá áìñìà ïî éù åã ˙ ìú÷ìàá íñø äðà àìà ®àòéîâ áäðìàå ìú÷ìàá ïàãìáìà àñåøå ìàîòìàå ˙ ìë ìú÷ìà éìà ìéáñ íäøéâì ìòâ˙é àìå ®è÷ô ãåäéìì ìú ÷é àì ïà èàéúçà êìã ¨ ìîâ˙ éô ïà ïîä íñø éúìà íåéìà éô ïåìú÷é ïà áúëìà éô íñøå ®åãò øéâ íäàãòà ä ˙ ìà ïåáëøé íäðà éëãøî íäá ú˙ òá éã˙ ìà ˙âåéôìà éô ìà÷å ®äéô ãåäéìà ïåìú ÷é 10 ìéë ¨ ðéãî ìë éô ïàë äðà áø÷éå ®ä¨ òøñ áúëìà ìöúì øéâ áëøé ˙âåéôìà àäéìà éâ˙é ä ˙ ˙ á ãàøàå ®äáëàø ïàë éã˙ ìà ñøôìà íå÷ìà ïò øáëìà éèáé àìéì §ãçà ïééù êìã [à74] éðàú˙ ìàå ®áúëìà íäéìà ãøú ìá÷ åìú ÷é ô êìîìà ìîò óàøèà éô ïéã˙ ìà ¨ ìàèáìà ïî äéìò íä àîå íäðæç ìåæéì êìîä ïúð øùà äìå÷å ®ìñàðúìà êøúå ä êìîä ïúð øùà äìå÷ ïåëéô ®íùôð ìò ãåîòìå ìä÷äì äìå÷ éìà äá øéùé ®íéãåäéì 15

˙ òá òî íäö˙ òá åòîúâ˙é ïà íäì äîñø éã˙ ìà äìå÷ éðòîå ®ìú÷é ïà íäøéâ åì ëé àìå õ ˙ ïà ãòá íäáåì÷ úúàî ã˙ à íäáåì÷ ä¨ éå÷ú íùôð ìò ãåîòìå ®íäãìá ïî åâ˙øë

˙ ìú˙ î ì÷é íì àðääå ®úåúùì åáùé ïîäå êìîäå éìåàìà ä¨ ö÷ìà éô ìà÷å êìã ˙ ìãá ìà÷ ìá ®êìã˙ éëãøîì æåâ˙é ñéì ã˙ à ùåáìá êìîä éðôìî àöé éëãøîå êìã

˙ ìà ú÷åìà éô äéìò àäòìë˙ éúìà áàéú˙ ìà éäå ®§âå úåëìî 20 åàéáé ïîä [á74] ìà÷ éã

;(!)êéðéòá 1ø [íëéðéòá 1 .ïåèéåìèåéåîåä ìùá èîùð 3ø, 2ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì ¬à ;7ø êë [§èë ... §ëéðéòá 1 ¨ ìàî১ úîçî) ïëì íå÷îá [ïëéì 1 §òá 7ø àì 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ;7ø ¬é§§ëá áúëð êëù ,(5§ åàìá äàø ;§§ä 2 .ú÷ôåñî äîìùää [àîä[ðà] 2 .ú÷ôåñî äîìùää [[ìú˙ î] 2 ÷é÷çúìà ô ¬ì [÷é÷çú 2 ïë (!)áåòé 7ø [áéòé 3 .ïåè÷øàåéåîåä ìùá èîùð 3ø, 2ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì ¬à ;7ø êë [àîä[ðà] ... àìë˙ ãé àì 4 §ëéðéòá 7ø [íëéðéòá 4 .àúéì 1ø [ìà÷ 4 ïàøëðî 7ø [ïéøëðî 3 (!)ä¨ öàë˙ å 7ø [ä¨ öàë˙ 3 ˙ ìà íå÷îá [éã˙ ìà 4 .àúéì 7ø [íä 4 (!)íäîìòì ô ¬ì [íäìòì 4 áàúë 7ø [áàúëá äàø) ïéã 1ø [åáúëô 5 (aâ27§ åàìá äàø) ä ¨ ìåàìà 7ø, 1ø [éìåàìà 5 .7ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(cà361§ åàìá 駧ëá áúëð êëù ¬(â205§ åàìá äàø) àì íå÷îá [íì | (àáä äàø) àìå 7ø, 1ø [íì íäðàå 6 áúëô 7ø, 1ø [àìå 8 ìú÷ìà 7ø, 1ø [ìú÷ìàá 7 áúëå 7ø, 1ø [åáúëå 6 àéù 7ø, 1ø [éù 6 .3ø­å 1ø áúëð êëù ,(175§ åàìá äàø) åìú÷é íå÷îá [ïåìú÷é 9 àìà 7ø [àì ïà 8 àìéáñ 7ø [ìéáñ 8 íìå ˙ ìà íå÷îá [éúìà 9 êìã˙ óñåð 7ø, 1ø [éô 9 .ô­å ì 駧ëá 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(aâ361§ åàìá äàø) éã 1ø ;ïàéù 7ø [ïééù 12 ˙âéô 7ø [˙âåéôìà 11 (175§ åàìá äàø) åìú÷é íå÷îá [ïåìú÷é 10 .7ø­å 1ø     (aä11§ åàìá äàø) àìàì 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [àìéì 12 àäãçà ô ;àîäãçà 3ø [§ãçà 12 (!)ïàéù óñåð ¨ ìàèáìà 14 áúëìàá ñøôìà 1ø [áúëìà 13 ïà 7ø [ìá÷ 13 .àúéì 7ø, 1ø [øáë˙ ìà 12 ¬ì [ä 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ 15 §ãåäéì §îä 7ø [íéãåäéì êìîä 15 §å÷å 7ø, 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 14 ä ¨ ìàèá ô ô ¬ì [äìå÷ 15 éðòî óñåð 7ø, 1ø [ïåëéô 15 §ð 7ø [íùôð 15 ãîòìå 1ø [ãåîòìå 15 §å÷ 7ø, 1ø [ãåîòìå 17 §å÷ 1ø ¬ì [äìå÷ 16 §å÷å 7ø [äìå÷ éðòîå 16 §ãåäéì §îä 7ø [êìîä 15 §å÷ 7ø [úåúùì åáùé 18 (úåòè ¬íúñä­ïî) àã ˙ à ô [ã˙ à 17 úúàî 7ø [ä¨ éå÷ú 17 (!)ãîòå 7ø ;ãîòìå åàìá äàø êà ¬úåòè éìåà) ìå÷é 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [ì÷é 18 àðäàäå 7ø, 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [àðääå 18 §ùì §ùé 20 êìîìà äéìò àäìòâ˙ áàéú˙ 7ø [äéìò ... áàéú˙ ìà 20 §îä 7ø [§âå ... êìîä 20–19 (aâ8§ (aâ361§ åàìá äàø) éúìà ô ¬ì [éã˙ ìà

49*

text

˙ ú ïà çìöé ú÷å úàø ïîä øëã˙ òè÷ðà àîìô ®ä¨ çñô ú÷åìà éô ïà êìîìà áèàë ¨ éðàú˙ ìà ä¨ òôãìà éô úãàæå äúãåàòô ®ïîäì úã˙ ôð éúìà áúëìà éðòî éô éìò ä ˙ å úëáå äéìâ˙ø ãðò àääâ˙å éìò úò÷å àäðà éìåàìà êéúá àäéàø àîìô äéìà úòøö ¨ òôãìà éô ìòô àîë áäã˙ ìà áéö˙ ÷ ìà÷ ïëì ®éìåàìà ä

[à72]

¨ øåöìà êø ç ä

˙ ä éô ìà÷å ®èéáøùä ùàøá òâúå éìåàìà ä¨ òôãìà éô 5 ®êìîä éðôì ãåîòúå äã ¨ îã÷îìà éô úìàèà êìã˙ ëå ®ä¨ ìñîìàå ä¨˙âàçìà íéè˙ òú àã˙ ä ìë úô÷åå úîà÷ ä ˙ ®åéðéòá ïç éúàöî íàå úìà÷ íú˙ ®áåè êìîä ìò íà àìåà úìà÷ô úìà÷ íú ˙ á úãàøàå åéðéòá éðà äáåèå úìà÷ íú˙ ®êìîä éðôì øáãä øùëå ìë éô êìã ˙ ÷éô ääøëé éù ééô øé íìå êìîìà éìà éìåë˙ ã ú÷å ã˙ î áàáå áàá éô éúâ˙àç éö ˙ ®ãåäéìà ìë êìäé ïà àäéô áúëå ïîä øá ã éúìà áúëìà ãøú ïà 10 éë úìà÷ íú ˙ ðúå ä¨ àéçìà ãéøú àì àäðà úøåàô ®éúéàøå [á72] ìëåà äëëéà àäîå÷ ìú÷ øè

˙ çúñàô ®ïéîåìè˙ îìà àäîå÷ íçøå àäîçø àäîàìë òîñ àîìô àäúøéùòå øö ˙ ã÷ àòéîâ˙ àîäì ìà÷å äéìà àö˙ éà éëãøî øàã úîìñ àîá íëì éúáçî úøäè ˙ äå ®ãåäéìà ä¨ ãàáàì äáúë àî ìâ˙à ïî ïîä áìö å øúñàì ïîä ïî ìå÷ìà àã

15 áúëé áåè êìîä ìò íà äìå÷á ãö÷ ïîä ïà íìòé íì äðà éìò ìãé êìîìà

˙ äðà éìò àö˙ éà ìãéå ®ãåäéìà íäðà íãáàì ïà ãéøî äðàå äìòô àî éô äì íàã ˙ ôð éã˙ ìà áúëìà ïà ìà÷ íú˙ ®àã˙ à ãåäéìà ÷çìé àì àäã ø ïëîé àì ïîä ïî úã

˙ á úîúë˙ å éîñàá øë˙ à áúë [à73] úáúë àã˙ à ïëì ïàë óéë àäéô çø ùé å éîúàë ˙ ìâ˙à ïî äáìöå äìú÷ êìîìà ïàå äéã òúå ïîä ïî øîàìà àøîà ìîòúå ®êìã

˙ ìà áúëìà éìò ïàãìáìà 20 §ëéðéòá/ áåèë ìà÷å ®ïîä áúë éìò ïåìîòé àìå ä¨ éðàú

˙ ìà 7ø [éúìà 2 äéô óñåð 7ø [êìîìà 1 (ìéáñ åðéà íà ¬úåòè) áèàë˙ é 7ø [áèàë˙ ú 1 åàìá äàø) éã ¬ô ¬ì [úëáå 3 àäðàì 7ø [àäðà 3 äúãåàò 7ø, 1ø [äúãåàòô 2 ïîä ïî ô ¬ì [ïîäì 2 (aà361§ êìúá 1ø [êéúá 3 àäàø 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [àäéàø 3 .àúéì 7ø [äéìà 3 (à106§ åàìá äàø) úéëáå 3ø 5 §ùä 7ø [èéáøùä 5 .àúéì 7ø [ä¨ òôãìà 5 ïë àì 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [ïëì 4 áéö˙ ÷ìà 7ø [áéö˙ ÷ 4 5 ãîòúå 3ø, 1ø [ãåîòúå 5 ä¨ òôãìà óñåð 7ø, 1ø ;(aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã˙ ä 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [äã˙ ä 6 êìã˙ 7ø, 1ø [àã˙ ä 6 úô÷å 1ø [úô÷åå 6 úîà÷ àäðà óøòô 7ø [úîà÷ 6 §îä 7ø [êìîä ¨ ìàñîìàå íå÷îá [ä¨ ìñîìàå 6 ä¨˙âàçìàå ä¨ ìñîìà 7ø [ä¨ ìñîìàå ä¨˙âàçìà 6 íéè˙ òúì 7ø [íéè˙ òú ä 1ø [úìà÷ 7 .àúéì 7ø [àìåà 7 .3ø­å, 2ø ¬ô 駧ëá áúëð êëù ¬(à9§ åàìáå ,140§ ,à ,èééø äàø) 7ø [úãàøàå 8 §òá 7ø [åéðéòá 8 §îä 7ø [êìîä 8 §òá 7ø [åéðéòá 7 (úåòè ¬íúñä­ïî) ìà÷ (â205§ åàìá äàø) àøé 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [øé 9 äéìà 7ø, 1ø [êìîìà éìà 9 ã˙ ðî 7ø [ã˙ î 9 úãàøà 7ø [êìäé ïà 10 àäá 7ø [àäéô 10 ãøé 7ø [ãøú 10 .àúéì ô ¬ì [éúâ˙àç 9 àéù éô 7ø [éù ééô 9 [íëì 13 àö˙ éà óñåð 7ø [àîäì 13 àäøéùòå 7ø [àäúøéùòå 12 .àúéì 7ø [éúéàøå 11 êìäéì ¬ì [äìå÷á 15 äá áúë 7ø, 1ø [äáúë 14 ïéòììà óñåð ô ¬ì [ïîä 14 (íëì ïî ï÷åú) àîëì 7ø 7ø [íäðà 16 §áàì 7ø [íãáàì 16 .äøåùì ìòî ä÷éçî éðîéñá ÷çîðå ïî óñåð ;§å÷á 7ø, 1ø ¬ô 16 .à269§ åàìá äàø [äì 16 (!)íàø 2ø ¬ô [íàã˙ 16 .úåòèá èîùð 1ø [ãåäéìà íäðà 16 éìà 17 .§ø ïî ¬äàøðë ¬§ãä äð÷åú à [ãéøî 16 ïà ãéøé àì 7ø [àì ïà ãéøî 17–16 éìò 7ø [àî éô ˙ ìà 17 (à10§ åàìá äàø) éã˙ à íå÷îá [àã˙ à 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(aà361§ åàìá äàø) éúìà íå÷îá [éã ˙ ôð éúìà áúëìà ãø 7ø [àäã ø ... áúëìà 17 (â205§ åàìá äàø) íì ô ¬ì [àì 17 .3ø­å 1ø úã ˙ à 18 .àúéì 7ø [úáúë 18 ïë àì 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [ïëì 18 êìã˙ ïëîé àìå áòöé ïîä ïî íå÷îá [øë 1ø [ïàë 18 éîúàë ˙ å 7ø, 1ø [éîúàë˙ á úîúë˙ å 18 .ô­å ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(188§ åàìá äàø) éøë˙ à (!)éô 7ø [éìò ... ïîä ïî 20–19 êìîìà øîà 7ø [øîàìà 19 éøâ˙ 7ø,

text

48*

àåä øùò íéðù ùãçì øùò äùåìùá ùåøåùçà êìîä úåðéãî ìëá ãçà íåéá

(12)

˙ ìàú˙ íåé éô ùåøåùçà êìîìà ïãî ìë éô ãçàå íåé éô :øãà ùãç øäùìà ïî øùò ú ˙ ìà ºøãà øäù åä øùò éðàú íéãåäéä úåéäìå íéîòä ìëì éåìâ äðéãîå äðéãî ìëá úã ïúðäì áúëä ïâùúô

(13)

¨ ðéãî ìë éô ä¨ ð ñ ìòâ˙úì áàúëìà úë˙ ñð :íäéáéàî í÷ðäì äæä íåéì íéãéúò 5 ä ˙ ä éìà ïéãòúñî ãåäéìà åðåëéå áåòùìà ìëì íåéìà àã

[á70]

¨ ðéãîå óåùëî ä

ºíäàãòà ïî åî÷úðéì úãäå êìîä øáãá íéôåçãå íéìäáî åàöé íéðøúùçàä ùëøä éáëø íéöøä

(14)

˙ ä¨ ø ôìà ìàâáìà áàëø ˙âåéôìà :äøéáä ïùåùá äðúð øîàá ïéòåôãîå ïéùäãðî åâ˙øë

¨ øàîòìà ïñåñ éô ìòâ˙ ä¨ ð ñìà áàúëå êìîìà 10 ºä

êéøëúå äìåãâ áäæ úøèòå øåçå úìëú úåëìî ùåáìá êìîä éðôìî àöé éëãøîå

¨ øö˙ ç ïî ˙âøë˙ ñàáìá êìî ìà ä ¨ ðéãîìàå ïàåâ˙øàå /øùò/ ïñåñ ä

(15)

éëãøîå :äçîùå äìäö ïùåù øéòäå ïîâøàå õåá

˙ ïî øéáë ˙âàúå õ˙ éáàå éðåâ˙ðàîñ êìîìà éãøå áäã

ºúçøôå úìäö [à71]

(16) 15 äçîù òéâî åúãå êìîä øáã øùà íå÷î øéòå øéò ìëáå äðéãîå äðéãî ìëáå (17) ºæòå øåøñå çøôå øåð ãåäéìì ïàëå :ø÷éå ïåùùå äçîùå äøåà äúéä íéãåäéì

íéãåäéä ãçô ìôð éë íéãäéúî õøàä éîòî íéáøå áåè íåéå äúùî íéãåäéì ïåùùå

˙ äéìà ìöúé éã˙ ìà òö˙ åî ìëå ä¨ éø÷å ä¨ éø÷ ìë éôå ä¨ ðéãîå ä¨ ðéãî ìë éôå :íäéìò øáë

˙ øàìà áåòù ïî øéú˙ ëå áé è íåéå ä¨ åòã ãåäéìì çøôå øåøñ äúð ñ áàúëå êìîìà õ

˙ à ïéãäåúî 20 ºíäéìò ãåäéìà òæô ò÷å ã

˙ ãìà ãåàòú ïà éàøìà ïî [á71] øúñà úàø ïéøäù åçðá ïîä ìú÷ ïà ãòá ìåë ˙ øàö åäå êìîìà áàá éìà àâ˙ éëãøî ïà êìã˙ å ®êìîìà éìà áúë éúìà íåéìà éô ê

®òáàøìà íåéìà éô ïîä ìú÷å íàéà ®ãéòìà

˙âåøë˙

/ä¨ ú˙ àìú˙ /

˙ ãòá åîàöå áúëìà ïîä êìã

ãòá åîàö ïåëé ïà àîàå ®ïéîåé ãéòìà ïî åîàö åðåëé ïà àîàô

˙ ãðòô ®ïñéð éô ïîä ìú÷ äåâ˙åìà òéîâ˙ éìòô 25 åîìòå íäáåì÷ úãäå åðàîèà êìã [íåé 2 §ùçà 7ø [ùåøåùçà 2 äùìùá 3ø ¬ô [äùåìùá 1 .àúéì 7ø [øãà ... ìëá 2–1 ˙ àìà 1ø [øùò éðàú˙ ìà 3 ú˙ ìú˙ 7ø [ú˙ ìàú˙ 2 .(äð øåàì óéãò) àúéì íå÷îá ¬äàøðë) éøùò éðú ¨ øùò ä¨ ðú˙ àìà äàø) àåä ô [åä 3 (235§ ,165 §îòì ,323 §îò ¬åàìá äàø åæ íééàìë úøåö ìòù, ä :íù §§áéú맧äå ¬î§§äðá §§éø÷§§ä êë [íéãåäéä 4 .àúéì 7ø [íäéáéàî ... áúëä 5–4 (á49§ åàìá 5 íäéáéåàî ô ¬ì [íäéáéàî 5 íéãåúò :íù §§áéú맧äå ¬î§§äðá §§éø÷§§ä êë [íéãéúò 5 íééãåäéä 9–8 ä¨ ðñìà 7ø [ä¨ ð ñ 5 .3ø­å, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(aà27§ åàìá äàø) ä¨ ë˙ ñð íå÷îá [úë˙ ñð äìî éðôì à [áàëø 9 íéìäåáî ô ¬ì ;§á ïî §îä äð÷åú à [íéìäáî 8 .àúéì 7ø [äøéáä ... éáëø 7ø [ä ¨ øàîòìà 10 ïéùåäãî 7ø, 1ø [ïéùäãðî 9 .äøåùì ìòî ä÷éçî éðîéñá ÷çîðå åâ˙øë˙ áúëð åæ [éðåâ˙ðàîñ 13 éëãøî ˙âøë˙ å 7ø [˙âøë˙ éëãøîå 12 .àúéì 7ø [äçîùå ... éðôìî 12–11 ä¨ øîàòìà ˙ ìà ô ¬ì [áäã˙ 13 ïåâ˙ðàîñà 7ø ¬ô ¬ì à ;7ø, 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì êë [øùò 13 àãøå 7ø [éãøå 13 áäã ... äðéãîå 18–16 .àúéì 7ø [ø÷éå ... äúéä 15 ïùåù 1ø [ïñåñ 13 .å à ÷åñôì åîë ,(!)øù òìà ˙ ìà 18 ä¨ éø÷å 7ø [ä¨ éø÷ ìë éôå 18 (!)åúúå ô [åúãå 16 .àúéì 7ø [íäéìò äàø) éúìà ô ¬ì [éã 20 ïñç 7ø ;áééè 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [áé è 19 øîà 7ø [øáë˙ 18 .àúéì 7ø [äéì 18 (aâ361§ åàìá [áàá 22 éô óñåð 7ø [ãåàòú 21 (à106§ åàìá äàø) úéàø ô [úàø 21 ïéãåäúî 1ø [ïéãäåúî .7ø­å, 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(aâ361§ åàìá äàø) éã˙ ìà íå÷îá 3ø [éúìà 22 øàã óñåð 7ø 24 ïåëé 7ø [åðåëé 24 §ã 7ø, 1ø ;ä¨ òáøà 3ø ¬ô ¬ì ¬à ;øù÷ää øåàì úåéäì êéøö êë [ä¨ ú˙ àìú˙ 23 (98§ åàìá äàø) úàãä íå÷îá [úãäå 25 .àúéì 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [åîàö 7ø, 1ø

47*

text

éë êìîä úòáèá åîúçå êìîä íùá íëéðéòá áåèë íéãåäéä ìò åáúë íúàå

(8)

éìà åáúëà íúðàå :áéùäì ïéà êìîä úòáèá íåúçðå êìîä íùá áúëð øùà áúë

˙ á åîúë˙ àå êìîìà íñàá íëãðò ïñçé àîë ãåäéìà áàúëìà ïàô êìîìà íúàë

˙ á íú ë˙ é å êìîìà íñàá áúëé [à69] éã˙ ìà ºãø é ñéì êìîìà íúàë

5 íéøùòå äùìùá ïåéñ ùãç àåä éùéìùä ùãçá àéää úòá êìîä éøôñ åàø÷éå éøùå úåçôäå

/íéðôøãùçàä/

(9)

ìàå íéãåäéä ìà éëãøî äåö øùà ìëë áúëéå åá

äáúëë äðéãîå äðéãî äðéãî äàîå íéøùòå òáù ùåë ãòå åãäî øùà úåðéãîä

˙ éô êìîìà áàúë åòãúñàô :íðåùìëå íáúëë íéãåäéä ìàå åðåùìë íòå íòå êìã ˙ àìú˙ éô ïåéñ øäù åä ú˙ ìàú˙ ìà øäùìà éô ú÷åìà òéîâ˙ë áúëå äðî úìë ïéøùòå ú ˙ ìà ïãîìà àñåøå ìàîòìàå àøîàìà éìàå ãåäéìà éìà éëãøî øîà àî 10 ïî éã

¨ éàîå ïéøùòå ä¨ òáñ êìã˙ ä¨ ìîâ˙ éô éã˙ ìà [á69] ïàãåñìà åà ä¨ ùáçìà éìàå ãðäìà ä ˙ î íå÷å íå÷ ìë éìàå àäèë˙ ìú˙ î ä¨ ðéãîå ä¨ ðéãî éìà ä¨ ðéãî ãåäéìà éìàå äúâì ìú ˙ ìú˙ î ºíäúâìå íäèë íéöøä ãéá íéøôñ çìùéå êìîä úòáèá íúçéå ùåøåùçà êìîä íùá áúëéå

(10)

˙ å ùåøåùçà êìîìà íñàá áúëå :íéëîøä éðá íéðøúùçàä ùëøä éáëø íéñåñá 15 íúë

¨ ø ôìà ìéë˙ ìà áàëø ˙âåéôìà ãéá áúëìà ìñøàå äîúàë˙ á ºêàîøìà ãàìåà ä

ãéîùäì íùôð ìò ãîòìå ìä÷äì øéòå øéò ìëá øùà íéãåäéì êìîä ïúð øùà

[à70] :æåáì

(11)

íììùå íéùðå óè íúà íéøöä äðéãîå íò ìéç ìë úà ãáàìå âøäìå

¨ ðéãîå ä¨ ðéãî ìë éô éã˙ ìà ãåäéìì êìîìà àèòà éã˙ ìà íäñôðà éìò åòîúâ˙éì ä 20 íäáìñå àñðå ìôè íäì ïéîøàöîìà ä¨ ðéãîå íå÷ ùéâ˙ ìë åãéáéå åìú÷éå åìöàúñéì ºåáäðé

íåâøú) éìò ô [éìà 2 àáúëàô 7ø ;áúëà ïî ï÷åú à [åáúëà 2 .àúéì 7ø [áéùäì ... åáúë 2–1 3 [à]îúë˙ àå 7ø [åîúë˙ àå 3 àîëãðò 7ø [íëãðò 3 (!)àîá ô [àîë 3 ááñá 7ø ;(óéãò .àúéì 7ø [íðåùìëå ... éøôñ 8–5 äîúàë˙ á 7ø [êìîìà íúàë˙ á 4 äîúàë˙ á 1ø [êìîìà íúàë˙ á ïåèéåìèåéåîåä ìùá íúñä­ïî) ìàå §éä èîùð 3ø, 2ø ¬ô [ìàå íéãåäéä 6 äùåìùá 1ø [äùìùá 5 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ;1ø êë [íéðôøãùçàä 6 .úøçà ãéá äàøðë ¬óãä éìåùá óñåðå èîùð ì ;([ä ¨ îâ˙øúä äàø] ¨ îâ˙øúä úà íâ äàøå ;᧧é â ÷åñôá éåèéáä åúåàî úòôùåî ñåîìå÷ úèéìô ¬äàøðë) êìîä éðôøãùçà ¬ä à ;(úìáå÷îä çñåðì íàúäá) úøçà ãéá ¬äàøðë ¬ï÷åúå ì 駧ëá áúëð ïë íâå ¬(äðá äîéàúî àéäù åãåäî 3ø, 2ø [åãäî 7 .úéååúä óñåð àì êà ¬äøåùì ìòî §é äôñåðå §íì §éä äúðåùå éðôøãùçà áúëð ... ú˙ àìú˙ 9 ú˙ ìú˙ 7ø, 1ø [ú˙ àìú˙ 9 åðùìë 1ø [åðåùìë 8 .ïåèéåìèåéåîåä ìùá èîùð 2ø [äðéãî 7 [ãåäéìà éìà 10 òéîâ˙ 7ø, 1ø ;òéîâ˙á 3ø, 2ø [òéîâ˙ë 9 (óéãò íåâøú) äéô ïéøùòå ä¨ ú˙ àìú˙ ô ¬ì [äðî 7ø [ïàãåñìà ... éã ˙ ìà 11–10 ïãîìà éô éã˙ ìà àñåøìàå 1ø [ïãîìà àñåøå 10 (!)éãåäéìà 7ø ¨ éàîå ... ä¨ òáñ 11 òáñ 1ø [ä¨ òáñ 11 .àúéì 7ø [ä¨ ìîâ˙ 11 .ïåè÷øàåéåîåä ìùá èîùð §æ 7ø [ä íúñä­ïî) áëøä ô [ùëø 15 .àúéì 7ø [íéëîøä ... íùá 15–14 (!)íå÷ìà 3ø [íå÷ 12 §÷å §ëå ˙ á 7ø [äîúàë˙ 16 .èîùð 3ø ¬ì ;§ù[çà] 7ø ;§à 2ø [ùåøåùçà 15 (ñåîìå÷ úèéìô¬ êìîìà íúàë ô [ãîòìå 17 .àúéì 7ø [æåáì ... êìîä 18–17 ãàìåàå 7ø [ãàìåà 16 (!)áëàø ô [áàëø 16 ˙ ìà íå÷îá [éã˙ ìà 19 éèòà 7ø [àèòà 19 ãåîòìå óñåð 7ø [åòîúâ˙éì 19 (cà361§ åàìá äàø) ïéã ïéîãàöîìà 1ø [ïéîøàöîìà 20 åãéáé åà åìú÷é åà åìöàúñéå 7ø [åãéáéå ... åìöàúñéì 20 åô÷éå ïåáäðé ô ¬ì [åáäðé 21 íäáìñ åáäðéå 7ø [åáäðé íäáìñå 21 (!)ìàôè ô ¬ì [ìôè 20 (úåòè éìåà) (175§ åàìá äàø)

text

46*

ïëîéå ®äì ãéáòìà íà÷î åðåëéì äãàìåàå äìàéò ïîä úéá äìå÷á ãàøà úìòâ˙å øúñà éìà êìîìà àäîì ñô äì úðàë éúìà äúìàîò äá ãàøà äðà

˙ êìîìà äéìà íì ñå ®àäéìò éëãøî øúñà øåîà øéàñ äéìà íì ñ äðàì äîúàë

.óñåéì äîúàë˙ [á67] äòøô àèòà àî ìú˙ î ä¨ ëìîîìà (17–3 ,ç)

úà øéáòäì åì ïðçúúå êáúå åéìâø éðôì ìôúå êìîä éðôì øáãúå øúñà óñåúå

(3) 5

íàã÷ úîìëúå øúñà äãåàòå :íéãåäéä ìò áùç øùà åúáùçî úàå éââàä ïîä úòø

˙ ìà äøéáãúå éââàìà ïîä ø ù æéâ˙éì äì úòøö˙ å úëáå äéìâ˙ø íàã÷ úò÷åå êìîìà éã

ºãåäéìà éìò øáã

êøçå :êìîä éðôì ãîòúå øúñà í÷úå áäæä èéáøù úà øúñàì êìîä èùåéå

(4)

˙ ìà áéö˙ ÷ øúñàì êìîìà 10 ºêìîìà íàã÷ úô÷åå øúñà úîà÷ô áäã

éðôì øáãä øùëå åéðôì ïç éúàöî íàå áåè êìîä ìò íà øúñà øîàúå

(5)

àúãîä ïá ïîä úáùçî íéøôñä úà áéùäì áúëé åéðéòá éðà [à68] äáåèå êìîä ïñç ïà øúñà úìà÷å :êìîä úåðéãî ìëá øùà íéãåäéä úà ãáàì áúë øùà éââàä

¨ ãé ˙â àðàå êìîìà íàã÷ ìå÷ìà íé÷úñîå äãðò àè˙ ç úãâ˙å ïàå êìîìà ãðò éìå÷ ä

˙ ìà éââàìà àúãîìà ïá ïîä øéáãú éä éúìà áúëìà ã øá áú ëé äãðò ìòôìà 15 éã ˙ ìà ãåäéìà ä¨ ãàáàá áúë ºêìîìà ïãî ìë éô ïéã

ïãáàá éúéàøå ìëåà äëëéàå éîò úà àöîé øùà äòøá éúéàøå ìëåà äëëéà éë

(6)

˙ ðà ã˙ à øáöà øã÷à óéëô :éúãìåî øáöà øã÷à óéëå àìáìà ïî éîå÷ ÷çìé àî øè éúúð ïîä úéá äðä éãåäéä éëãøîìå äëìîä

:éúøéùò êàìä [á68] àøà àî ãðò øúñàì ùåøåùçà êìîä øîàéå (7) 20

ùåøåùçà êìîìà ìà÷ô :íéãåäéá åãé çìù øùà ìò õòä ìò åìú åúàå øúñàì

˙ åä éãåäéìà éëãøîìå ä¨ ëìîìà øúñàì åáìö äìå øúñàì ïîä øàã úéèòà ã÷ àã ºãåäéìà éô äãé ìñøà äðà ìâ˙à ïî ãåòìà éìò

[àäîì ñô 2 àäîìñ 7ø [àäîì ñô äì 2 àö˙ éà óñåð 7ø [ïëîéå 1 §å÷á 7ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷á 1 úà ï÷éúå (äøåùì ìòî ä÷éçî ïîéñá) §ôä úà ÷çéî æà, (?íìñ)úô áåúëì ÷éúòîä ìéçúä ¬äàøðë à 1ø [äîúàë ˙ 4 éúòà 7ø [àèòà 4 äéìà êìîìà 7ø [êìîìà äéìà 3 éä 7ø, 1ø [øúñà 3 .§úä 1ø ;(cà27§ åàìá äàø) úãåàòå íå÷îá [äãåàòå 6 .àúéì 7ø [íéãåäéä ... øáãúå 6–5 .àúéì 7ø, 7ø [êìîä ... øúñàì 9 (!)æåâ˙éì ô [æéâ˙éì 7 äéìà 1ø [äì 7 [ú]òøö ˙ úå 7ø [úòøö˙ å 7 úãåàòô [øúñà 13 .èîùð 1ø [øúñà 11 .àúéì 7ø [êìîä ... øúñà 13–11 êøçô 1ø [êøçå 9 .àúéì 7ø [ãøá áúëé 15 ä ¨ ãééâ˙ 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [ä¨ ãé ˙â 14 (216§ åàìá äàø) è˙ ç 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [àè˙ ç 14 .àúéì 7ø   ¨ ãàáàá 16 àúãîä 7ø ;àúàãîìà ô ¬ì [àúãîìà 15 ïáà 7ø [ïá 15 ãøú ïà áúëú óñåð 7ø [ä [óéëå 18 éøà àî ãðò 7ø ;úøè˙ ð àã˙ à 1ø [øè˙ ðà ã˙ à 18 .àúéì 7ø [éúãìåî ... ìëåà 18–17 ìë 21–20 .7ø­å, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ¬(à10§ åàìá äàø) éøà íå÷îá [àøà 19 óéë íà 7ø [ùåøåùçà 21 íééãåäéá :íù §§áéú맧äå ¬î§§äðá §§éø÷§§ä êë [íéãåäéá .àúéì 7ø [íéãåäéá ... êìîä 22 (251§ åàìá äàø) åäå 1ø ;äàéàå 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå 22 (!)äëìîä 2ø ¬ì [ä¨ ëìîìà 22 §ùçà 7ø (!)áìö ô [åáìö

45*

text

˙ çúñà ìåàìà íåéìà éôô àãâà êìîìà éðàâ ïà äì úìà÷ àäáìàè àîìô äúøö ˙ äå àäúâ˙àç àö˙ ÷á êìîìà áì÷ ÷ìòúé éúç àö˙ éà äéôå ®éúâ˙àç äì úì÷ ïàë ïà àã

˙ úøë˙ åô äììà ä¨ äâ˙ ïî êìã˙ ïàë ïàå ®àäñôð éàø ïî àã˙ ä úìòô éúç ãâ éìà êìã éúç éëãøî ïî ïàë àî ïàë éúç äîåð øåôð ïî êìîìàá äììà äìòô àî ìòô

˙à 5 ïîä ïà äãðò ïàáå êìîìà áì÷ éô ò÷åî äì ïàë éîòå éðà åðøëîð éë úìà÷ àã ˙ ä éô äììà íñà øëã˙ é ñéì äðà àö˙ éà ìéàñîìà ïîå ®àö˙ éà øúñàå éëãøîì åãò äã ˙ àå õö÷ àäðàì äøëã˙ éìà ˙âàúçé àì äðà íå÷ ìà÷ô ®äìâîìà ìà÷å ®úøâ˙ øàáë

¨ ë˙ ñðìà ïî àäáúë ïååãîìà ïà íå÷ úáàúë éô ïëé íìô øúñà úáúë éúìà [á66] ä ˙ øúñà ïåáñðéå ìàøùé øéâ íå÷ ãéá äìâîìà ò÷ú ïà úäøë àäðàì äììà íñà øëã 10 øàäèà øéâ íå÷ àäñîé àìà àîèìà ä¨ äâ˙ ïî ìé÷å ®äøéâ ìòô éìà äììà ìòô

˙ ïàë äììà íñà àäéô ïëé íì àã˙ àô ú÷åìà éô ïëé íì ïà íå÷ ìà÷å ®èåçà êìã ˙ à éðòî äì ìòìå ®äììà íñà àäéô øë ã˙ é íì êìã˙ ìô éìå àìå éáð äéìò ó÷ð íì øë

.íéæø òãåé êåøá

(2–1 ,ç) íéãåäéä øøåö ïîä úéá úà äëìîä øúñàì ùåøåùçà êìîä ïúð àåää íåéá

(1 ,ç)

˙ éô :äì àåä äî øúñà äãéâä éë êìîä éðôì àá éëãøîå 15 êìîìà àèòà íåéìà êìã ˙ ãå ãåäéìà íøàöî ïîä øàã ä¨ ëìîìà øúñàì [à67] ùåøåùçà íàã÷ éëãøî ìë

˙ ã˙ à êìîìà ºàäîò ïáà äðà øúñà úøá ë

éëãøî úà øúñà íùúå éëãøîì äðúéå ïîäî øéáòä øùà åúòáè úà êìîä øñéå úìåå

20

/éëãøîì/

(2)

˙ ìà äîúàë˙ êìîìà àç ðå :ïîä úéá ìò àäàèòàå ïîä ïî æàâ˙à éã ºïîä úéá éìò éëãøî øúñà

[àã˙ ä 3 àã˙ äô 1ø [àã˙ äå 2 ïà 1ø [éúç 2 .àúéì 1ø [àö˙ éà 2 êìîìà àãâ 1ø [àãâà êìîìà 1 ˙ àô íå÷îá [úøë˙ åô 3 §òú óñåð 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 3 .àúéì 1ø [êìã˙ 3 êìã˙ 1ø äàø) úøë [äììà .äìòô àî äììà ìòôé 1ø [äììà ... ìòô 4 øë˙ åô 1ø ;(!)úøë˙ ðô ô ¬ì ;(91 ,aã11§§ åàìá ˙ ä 6 §òú óñåð 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 6 (!)ïàëå ô ¬ì [ïàáå 5 §òú ô ¬ì ;§òú óñåð 3ø, 2ø ô [äã ¨ áàúë íå÷îá [úáàúë 8 (!)ïåëé ì [ïëé 8 ïåãîìà 1ø [ïååãîìà 8 (aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã˙ ä äàø) ä 10 §òú óñåð 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 9 áàúë 1ø ;3ø­å, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(aà27§ åàìá [ïà 11 §òú óñåð 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 11 .àúéì 1ø [ìòô 10 §òú óñåð 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 14 øøö 1ø [øøåö 14 äøëã˙ ð 1ø [äéìò ó÷ð 12 §òú óñåð 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 12 .àúéì 1ø [éëãøîì 18 úøáë˙ à 1ø ¬ô ¬à [úøáë˙ 17 íééãåäéä :íù §§áéú맧äå ¬î§§äðá §§éø÷§§ä êë [íéãåäéä éòéáø ïééðá) áàâ˙à 3ø, 2ø [æàâ˙à 19 .äøåùì ìòî ä÷éçî éðîéñá ÷çîðå ïîäì áúëð åæ äìî éðôì à 19 äàèòàå ô ¬ì [àäàèòàå 19 àäæàâ˙àå 1ø ;([74§ åàìáå ¬à238 §îò ¬à ¬éæåã äàø] §§áéâ˙§§ ìù (?)ìàéò 7ø ;øàã 1ø [úéá 20 (!)éëãøîìì à ;3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì êë [éëãøîì

text ¨ öàë˙ å èøôà ã÷ êìîìà éàø äðà ä

äàôàå

44* ˙î ã÷ àìáìà ïà íìòô éëãøî ìú

íà÷å äãøç ¨ ˙ ˙ ˙ äñôð çøè ã÷ ïîäá àãàå äö÷ìà äãä úøâ óéë àîòð éö ÷úñéì ñìâ˙îìà éìà ˙ å ®àäéìà òøö˙ é äðà íìòé íìô äéìò øúñà éã˙ ìà øéøñìà éìò ãàøà äðà ïè ˙ ìô àäéìò ä÷ðçì àäìú÷ àî éðòé ®úéáá éîò äëìîä ùåáëì íâä ìà÷ êìã ¨ ëìîìà ìú÷ú ãéøú êðà éúç úìîò àî êàôë ééìò úøñâ˙ ã÷ô úéáìà éô éòî ä ˙ ìà òîñ àî øàã÷îô ®éøéâ óéëô íäîìòì ääâ˙å åèâ [à65] êìîìà íàìë ïàéöë ¨ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ øëãô äöøô êìã ãðò äðåáøç ãâåô ®ìåú÷î äðàå äøöáé ãéøé àì êìîìà ïà ˙ äå ®äéìò äáìöéì éëãøîì ãåòìà ïîä çàìöà åîìò ïàîìâìà ïà éìò ìãé àã ˙ ìà ú÷åìà éô ïéøö˙ àç åðàëå ïîä äìòô àî éëãøî äìòô àî êìîìà éìò éø÷ éã ˙ éâå äãøç ïëñ êìã˙ ãðòå äáìöá êìîìà øîàô äúîà åãò äììà ãàáàå äè ˙ ä ìú˙ î ïòå ®§âå íúåéäá úàæ íâ óàå §å÷ åäå äãòåá íäì àôàå íäà÷ù íçøå äã ˙ ðå àäøëã˙ ð ìéàñî øëã˙ àðéìò é÷á ã÷å ®§âå íäì øöá àøéå ìà÷ úà÷åàìà øëã ˙ ä øúñà úìòô ìä àäðîô ®êìã˙ éô ìé÷ àî áñç àäáàåâ˙ íà àäñôð ïî àã ˙ ô àäéô ïàë ïà [á65] ìå÷ðô ®äììà ä¨ äâ˙ ïî íà éëãøî éàø ïî øéáãúå ìö íàîúå ñåðë êì éëãøîì úìà÷ àäðà éøú éìà àäøéâ éàø éìà ˙âàúçú íìå ˙ éìà àäëø ç äììà ïà àðì÷ ïàå ®ìå÷ìà íåéìà éô úãàøàô ®æàâ˙ íàðîìàá êìã ˙ éà ïîäå àäúåòã éô êìîìà ìöçú ìåàìà ïà äðî ïééáúé àúç êìîìàô ®àö ˙âøôé àö˙ éàå ®àãé ˙â êìã˙ ïéáé áàøùìà ãðò ïàì àì íà éù àäðî äáì÷ éô ïàë ˙ çàå ®àäúâ˙àç éö˙ ÷éå äáìèú àî úàöðàì äáì÷ äðàô àäãðò äìöçúì ïîä úøö ˙ àç ïëé íìåì éô íàìëìà é÷áå ®àäãé ïî úìôðé äðëîé ïàë ã÷ì àäòî øö ˙ ìà íåéìà éìà ìåàìà íåéìà ïî éðòà íåé éìà íåé ïî êìã˙ øéë˙ àú ìå÷ðô ®éðàú .ãçàå íåé éô [à66] ïéúìñî äìñú ïà àáàåö êìã˙ øú íì àäðà êìã˙ éô

˙ ®äáì÷ áøë àãäéå äãøç ïëñéì ïàúñáìà éìà êìîìà òâ˙ø íú

2

.úøçà úåà ïî §àä äð÷åú ¬äàøðë à [íà÷å 2 (!)äëøç ô [äãøç 2 ïà óñåð 1ø [éàø 1 ¬íúñä­ïî) (!)ñìâ˙î ì [ñìâ˙îìà 3 .àúéì 1ø [êìîìà 2 (à10§ åàìá äàø) éãäéå íå÷îá 1ø [àãäéå ˙ àô 1ø [àã˙ àå 3 (!)àî ò ô [àîòð 3 (!)ñìâ˙ìà ô ;(§§éì১ ñçéä­úìîì ïåéîã ìùá úéåúä äèîùð àã 6 äúìòô 1ø [úìîò 6 (äð =) úà óñåð 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [ùåáëì 5 .àúéì 1ø [äéìò ... éã˙ ìà 4 óñåð 1ø [ãéøé 8 (à182§ åàìá äàø) åòîñ ô ¬ì [òîñ 7 éìò óñåð 1ø [óéëô 7 .àúéì 1ø [ãéøú 12 àãòà ô ¬ì [åãò 11 §òú óñåð 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 11 êìîìà ãøç 1ø [äãøç 11 ïà äìå÷ 3ø, 1ø [§å÷ 12 äãäòá 1ø [äãòåá ãåò óñåð 1ø 駧ëá) õøàá óñåð 3ø, 1ø [íúåéäá 12 ˙ ä 3ø, 1ø ¬ô [äã˙ ä 12 .àúéì ô [§âå 12 (íäéáéåà ïî ¬äàøðë ¬ï÷åú 1ø 駧ëá ;aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã ˙ä éìåùá àî áúëð ì 駧ëá) àî ìë óñåð ô ¬ì [ìä 14 §âå íäì øëæéå óñåð 1ø ;àúéì ô [§âå 13 (äã ˙ ä ïî ¬äàøðë ¬ï÷åú) äã˙ ä 1ø [àã˙ ä 14 (óãä ¬ì [íà 15 åà ô ¬ì [íà 14 ([bà51§ åàìá äàø] àã [˙âàúçú 16 íìô 1ø [íìå 16 øéáãú 1ø [øéáãúå 15 §òú óñåð 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 15 åà ô àìà íå÷îá [éìà 16 .ïåè÷øàåéåîåä ìùá èîùð 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [àäøéâ ... éìà 16 êìã˙ éô óñåð 1ø ïî äìîä äð÷åú à [úìà÷ 16 .ì 駧ëá (éìà ïî ¬äàøðë ¬ï÷åú êà) áúëð êëù ,(aá10§ åàìá äàø) 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 17 §âå óñåð 1ø [ìå÷ìà íàîúå 17 íéãåäéä ìë úà óñåð 1ø ¬ô [ñåðë 16 .(ú)ì÷ ˙ éà ... ìöçú 18 §òú óñåð 3ø, äàø) éúç íå÷îá [àúç 18 ïîäå êìîìà àäúåòã éô ìöçé 1ø [àö 19 àäéìò 1ø [àäðî 19 ïééáúú 1ø [ïééáúé 18 .àúéì 1ø ;3ø­å 2ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ¬(à10§ åàìá 20 .àúéì 1ø [àäãðò 20 àãééâ˙ 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [àãé ˙â 19 (!)ïåëé 3ø [ïéáé 19 áøùìà 1ø [áàøùìà ìé÷ô 1ø [ìå÷ðô 22 úìôà 1ø [úìôðé äðëîé 21 (!)ïåëé 1ø [ïëé 21 .§é ïî §àä äð÷åú à [äðàô 23 (140§ ,à ¬èééø äàø) äìàñú 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìñú 23 (!)éøú 3ø ;(!)àøú 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [øú 23 íåé 23 (!)éúìàñî 2ø­å ì ;3ø­å ô 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(aâ11§ åàìá äàø) ïéúìàñî íå÷îá [ïéúìñî ãçàåìà íåéìà 1ø [ãçàå

5

10

15

20

43*

text

ïîä äùò øùà õòä äðä íâ [à63] êìîä éðôì íéñéøñä ïî ãçà äðåáøç øîàéå

(9)

êìîä øîàéå äîà íéùîç äáâ ïîä úéáá ãîò êìîä ìò áåè øáã øùà éëãøîì

˙ éà àã˙ åä êìîìà íàã÷ ïàéöë˙ ìà ïî ãçàå äðåáøç ìà÷å :åéìò åäåìú ãåòìà àö ˙ îàù ïîä øàã éô ó÷àå øéë˙ á êìîìà éìò íìëú éã˙ ìà éëãøîì ïîä ìîò éã˙ ìà ê ˙ ïéñîë˙ ºäéìò äåáìöà êìîìà ìà÷ô òàøã

5

éìò ïîä åáìöô :äëëù êìîä úîçå éëãøîì ïéëä øùà õòä ìò ïîä úà åìúéå

(10) ˙ ˙ ºêìîìà ãøç ïëñ êìã ãðòå éëãøîì çìöà éãìà ãåòìà ˙ êìîìà ìñø åôàå éúç äúâ˙åæå äàîëç òî ïîä ïàë àî ìôâà äðà óøò äôìë ˙ ãô ä¨ åòãìà éìà äåã˙ ë˙ àå êìîìà ãàòà åáøù àîìô ñôðìà [á63] øîøîî åäå ìë 10 äéà äì úìà÷ô ®êìîä øáãë äùòà øçîå äì úìà÷ àäðàì ìå÷ìà øúñà éìò

˙ ã÷ êìîìà àî ìñà ñéìô éúéâáå éúìñî àîäå ®àîäàéà éðâìáú ïàééù éì úðîö

®éúéâáá éúî à éì áäú å éçåø éì áäú ïà éô éúìñî ìòâ˙à àîðàå êéìò ì÷ úé

˙ êìîìà úìàñ àîðà úìà÷ íú˙ ïàë åìå ìú÷ìà éìò àðôøùà ã÷ àðàì êìã

˙ ø éîàå ãéáò ïåëðì êìîìà àðòàáà éìò ãéæà úðë íìå êìîìà ìñà íìå úéö ˙ ìà ïà úôøòô ®êìîä ÷æðá äåù øöä ïéà éë úìà÷ íú˙ ®äáì÷ 15 íäìú÷ ãàøà éã ¨ îà óìúé äðàì àã˙ àìà ïî êìîìà ÷çìé àî äøàã÷î éåàñé ñéì éôå àäøñàá ä ˙ òîå øéáë òôð àäà÷áà åìòôé íì êåìîìà ïî äøéâ ä÷áñ ã÷ô êìã

[à64]

˙ ìòô ïî íìòé íìå äéìò êìã˙ áòö êìã˙ êìîìà òîñ àîìô ®êìã˙ ìú˙ î êìã ˙ ä ìå÷ú úðàë àäðà éô êù àìå àìåà êìîìà ìà÷ô ®éëáúå ÷äùúúå ìå÷ìà àã ˙ ä ìòô éã˙ ìà åä ïî äðàîìâì 20 åà åîìòé íì íäðàì àîà äîìëá å÷èðé íìô àã ˙ à ìà÷ô øúñà éìà êìîìà òâ˙øô äåìå÷é ïà åòæôå êìã˙ á åñ ç ã÷ ïåëé äéøëã

˙ ®äæ àåä éî ìà÷å ®ä÷çúñé àî äá ìòôà éúç ïà ãàøà ®àåä äæéàå ìà÷ íú ˙ à ãìá éô ïàë ïàå äëìäà ãìáìà éô ïàë ïà éúç åä ïéà óøòéå äôøòé áúë øë

˙ çá åä àã˙ åä úìà÷ô ®äìú÷å äéìà øö úìà÷å ®êðò [á64] ãéòá øéâ ñìàâ˙ êúøö

˙ òîñ àîìô ®éúîàì åãòå éì íøàöî éðòú ®áéåàå 25 ä¨ éãåäé àäðà íìò ïîä êìã 7

úéá 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [øàã 4 ìà÷ô 1ø [ìà÷å 3 åäìú 1ø [åäåìú 3 äåáâ 3ø ¬ì [äáâ 2 ¨ åòã 1ø [ä¨ åòãìà 9 .(äøåùä ùàøá) úåòèá äìîä äìôëð ì [éìà 9 äçìöà 1ø [çìöà øúñà ä éøçà ,122 §îòì] 312 §îòå ¬â–á9§ åàìá äàø) àäéà íå÷îá [äéà 10 .àúéì 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [ñôðìà 9 11 .1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(bâ11§ åàìá äàø) ïàéù íå÷îá [ïàééù 11 .1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,([173§ êëù ,(aâ11§ åàìá äàø) éúìàñî íå÷îá [éúìñî 11 êìîìà àîäàéà éðâìáé 1ø [àîäàéà éðâìáú ô­å ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(140§ ,à ¬èééø äàø) ìàñà íå÷îá [ìñà 11 .3ø­å ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(aâ11§ åàìá äàø) éúìàñî íå÷îá [éúìñî 12 äéìò 1ø [êéìò 12 .(ìñà ïî ï÷åú ô 駧ëá) 14 àðòàá 1ø [àðòàáà 14 åìô 1ø [åìå 13 àðôøù 1ø [àðôøùà 13 .3ø­å ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(bá10§ åàìá äàø) àîà íå÷îá [éîàå 14 øàåâ˙å óñåð ô ¬ì [ãéáò 14 .àúéì 1ø [êìîìà ¬ô ¬ì [ìñà 14 .(äøåùì ìòî ä÷éçî éðîéñá äìîä äèîùð ì 駧ëá) àúéì ô ¬ì ;3ø­å ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð 14 .1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ¬(á205§ åàìá äàø) àìå íå÷îá [íìå 14 (140§ ,à ¬èééø äàø) ìàñà 3ø ˙ àìà íå÷îá [àã˙ àìà 16 éåñé 1ø [éåàñé 16 ìú÷ ô ¬ì [íäìú÷ 15 (!)éøæà 1ø [éìò ãéæà äàø) éã 19 .àúéì 1ø [àã˙ ä 19 .àúéì 1ø [êìã˙ 18 êìîìà êìã˙ 1ø [êìã˙ êìîìà 18 (à10§ åàìá 21 .àúéì 1ø [êìîìà 21 êìã˙ 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [àã˙ ä 20 .àúéì 1ø [êìîìà 19 ÷äùúå 1ø [÷äùúúå [êúøö˙ çá 24 .àúéì 1ø [äìú÷å 24 ìòôàì 1ø [ìòôà éúç 22 ìà÷å àäéìà 1ø [ìà÷ô ... éìà ¨ éãåäé 25 éúîà åãò 1ø [éúîàì åãòå 25 êìîìà ä¨ øö˙ çá 1ø ¬äàøðë ¬§àä äð÷åú êà) àéãåäé ì [ä (éøå÷îä áéúëä åäî èìçäá åðì øåøá åððéàå ,[câ27§ åàìá äàø] §ä¨ ïî

text

42*

äëìîä øúñà êúìàù äî ïééä äúùîá éðùä íåéá íâ øúñàì êìîä øîàéå

(2)

˙ éà øúñàì êìîìà ìà÷ô :ùòúå úåëìîä éöç ãò êúù÷á äîå êì ïúðúå éô àö

¨ ëìîìà øúñà àé êúìñî ùéà øîë˙ ìà ä¨ åòã éô éðàú˙ ìà íåéìà êì àèòúå [á61] ä ºìòôú éúç êìîìà óöð éô ïåëé ïà åìå êúéâá ùéàå áåè êìîä ìò íàå êìîä êéðéòá ïç éúàöî íà øîàúå äëìîä øúñà ïòúå

(3) 5

˙ ç úãâ˙å ïà úìà÷å ä¨ ëìîìà øúñà úáàâ˙àô :éúù÷áá éîòå éúìàùá éùôð éì ïúðú àè ºéúéâáá éîå÷å éúìñîá éçåø éì áäú êìîìà ãðò éìå÷ ïñç ïàå êìîìà äéà êãðò

åðøëîð úåçôùìå íéãáòì åìàå ãáàìå âøäì ãéîùäì éîòå éðà åðøëîð éë

(4)

ìú ÷ð å ìöàúñðì éîå÷å àðà àðòá ã÷ ïàô :êìîä ÷æðá äåù øöä ïéà éë éúùøçä

úìñî ïò êñîà úðë ã÷ì øàåâ˙ àðàñðå ãéáò àðìàâ˙ø ïåëéì àðòá àð ë åìå ãàáðå 10

˙ ãé àã˙ àá íøàöîìà àåñé ñéìô [à62] êìîìà ºêìîìà éìò ìë

åàìî øùà àåä äæ éàå äæ àåä éî äëìîä øúñàì øîàéå ùåøåùçà êìîä øîàéå

(5)

˙ ä åä ïî ä¨ ëìîìà øúñàì ìà÷å ùåøåùçà êìîìà ìà÷ô :ïë úåùòì åáì åä ïéàå àã :äëìîäå

˙ ìòôé ïà äáì÷ øñ ˙â éã˙ ìà àã˙ ä ºêìã

(6) 15 ˙ åäå åãòå íøàöî ìâø øúñà úìà÷ô ¨ ëìîìàå êìîìà ºä ïééä äúùîî åúîçá í÷ êìîäå (7)

êìîä éðôìî úòáð ïîäå äæä òøä ïîä áéåàå øö ùéà øúñà øîàúå

íàã÷ ïî øäáðà ïîäå éãøìà ïîä

˙ä àã

åùôð ìò ù÷áì ãîò ïîäå ïúéáä úðâ ìà

äúéîçá íà÷ êìîìàå :êìîä úàî äòøä åéìà äúìë éë äàø éë äëìîä øúñàî

˙ àãìà ïàúñáìà éìà øîë˙ ìà [á62] ä¨ åòã ïî 20 äçåø à÷áà éô ìñé ó÷å ïîäå éðàìë ¨ éìáìà úäúðà ã÷ ïà éàø ã˙ à ä¨ ëìîìà øúñà ïî ºêìîìà ãðò ïî äéìò ä äéìò øúñà øùà äèîä ìò ìôð ïîäå ïééä äúùî úéá ìà ïúéáä úðâî áù êìîäå

(8) :åôç ïîä éðôå êìîä éôî àöé øáãä úéáá éîò äëìîä úà ùåáëì íâä êìîä øîàéå ˙ àå øîë˙ ìà ä¨ åòã úéá éìà éðàìë˙ àãìà ïàúñáìà ïî òâ˙ø êìîìàå ò÷àå ïîäá àã ¨ ˙ ìà øéøñìà éìò 25 éòî äëìîìà ñáëú ïà êàøúà êìîìà ìà÷ô àäéìò øúñà éã ˙ ä ˙âøë˙ àî øàã÷îå úéáìà éô ºïîä äâ˙å ãéáòìà åè â éúç êìîìà íô ïî ìå÷ìà àã

êë [àèòúå 3 .3ø­å ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(aâ11§ åàìá äàø) êúìàñî íå÷îá êë [êúìñî 3 1ø [úáàâ˙àô 6 éìà 1ø ;àúéì 3ø ¬ì [éô 4 .àúéì 1ø [ïåëé 4 (à10§ åàìá äàø) éèòúå íå÷îá ,ô 駧ëá åîë ¬åà [à10§ åàìá äàø] ãâ˙àå íå÷îá) ãâ˙å úðë ì [úãâ˙å 6 (cà27§ åàìá äàø) ä¨ áàâ˙àô ,([173§ éøçà ,122 §îòì] 312 §îòå ¬â–á9§ åàìá äàø) àäéà íå÷îá [äéà 7 úãâ˙å úðë ô ;(úãâ˙àå ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(áäé :ñ§§úå ,100§ åàìá äàø) áäåú íå÷îá [áäú 7 .1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù 1ø [âøäì 8 .3ø­å ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(aâ11§ åàìá äàø) éúìàñî íå÷îá [éúìñîá 7 .ô­å úåòèá äìîä äìôëð ì [ã÷ì 10 ([γbà11§ åàìá äàø] àîà íå÷îá) éîà 1ø [øàåâ˙ 10 âåøäì ¨ ìñî 1ø ;(aâ11§ åàìá äàø) ä¨ ìàñî 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [úìñî 10 úëñîà 1ø [êñîà 10 .(äøåùä ùàøá) ä ˙ ãé 11 (à10§ åàìá äàø) éã˙ à íå÷îá [àã˙ àá 11 (à10§ åàìá äàø) éåñé íå÷îá [àåñé 11 ì [ìë [àã˙ ä åä 14 ìà÷ íú˙ 1ø [ìà÷å 13 .úøçà úåà ïî §òä äð÷åú à [éìò 11 ïåøáãé ô ;(!)ïøáãé ˙ä ô íà÷ô 1ø [äúéîçá íà÷ êìîìàå 19 ïîä øäáðàô 1ø [øäáðà ïîäå 16 (óéãò íåâøú) åä àã 23 (140§ ,à ¬èééø äàø) ìàñé 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [ìñé 20 ïîä ó÷åô 1ø [ó÷å ïîäå 20 äãøçá êìîìà [êàøúà 25 (aâ361§ åàìá äàø) éúìà ô ¬ì [éã˙ ìà 25 (ñåîìå÷ úèéìô ¬íúñä­ïî) éåôç ô [åôç ˙ éà ãéøú óñåð 1ø àö

41*

text

˙ ïà äì ò÷å êìîìà äæòé ïîá ìî òé áâ˙é ùéà ïîäì êìîìà ìà÷ àîì äðà íú ˙ ë˙ àé êìîìà ïà êìîìà ïî äì ÷áñ àîì äéìà äéô ãö÷ìà ìîòéå [à60] äéàø ã

˙ éúìà ä¨ ìæðîìà êìú éô ïîä ïàë åìå ®äìå÷é àî áñç äòî ïàë íì êìîìì àäøëã

¨ áúøîìà ïà êìã˙ ïî àðîìòô ®àäðåã äúìæðî úðàë ã÷ äðëì àäøëã˙ é éúìà ä ˙ ìå äìá÷ ïî ïîäì úìöç éúìà ä¨ áúøîìà ÷åô éëãøîì úìöç 5 äðùî äéô ìà÷ êìã

ïàë íì äøéâ ïàë åì äìòìô øéùîìà ïîä ïàë ïà ÷ô å äììàå ®ùåøåùçà êìîì

˙ ®êìã˙ ì÷é íì äøéâ ááñá ä¨ ìñîìà ïà ïîä ïè˙ åìå ®äìå÷ ìá÷é êìîìà äðà íú

˙ éô ïåëéô äøéâ ìîòé ïà æâ˙é íì ïîä ìå÷ êìîìà òîñ àîì íìòå ®äéìò õ÷ð êìã ˙ äéìò áòöé éëãøîá êìã˙ ìòôà ïîäì ìà÷ àã˙ à äðà àö˙ éà ïà óéëô àãâ˙ êìã

˙ à [á60] éô äì ìà÷ô äéãé ïéá äìòô àî øéàñå éëãøîì ìâ˙ øúé 10 ìà ìå÷ìà øë

˙ é ïà ïîä ïëîé íìô §øáã øùà ìëî øáã ìôú ïîä ç÷éå ìà÷å ®àìöà êìîìà óìàë ˙ é íìå ñåñä úàå ùåáìä úà äì ìà÷ äðàì äðò øö ÷ ïåëé ïà æåâ˙é ñéìå ˙âàúìà øëã

˙ ®ùåáììà éô ìë˙ àã åäå §áã §à §î øáã ìôú ìà ä¨ òàîâ˙ìà ä¨ øö˙ çá äðà óøò íú ˙ ã êìîìà íñø àî ìòô ïà ãòá àî ìãá äðàì ñàøìà ñë ðî ïéæç äúéá éìà ìë

15 äåàø àîìô ®äìàçî àì ä÷åô øîàìà äìå äîàìâ øàö éúç äáìö éìò ìîò ïàë

˙ ã çô éøâ˙ àîò äåìàñ íåîâî ïéæç ãåòìà çàìöàá äéìò åøàùà ïéã˙ ìà äàîëç íäú

¨ ìæðî äì ïåëú ïà ïî äåñéàé äì íäáàåâ˙ ïàëô äá åéðôì ìôú ìôð éë íäìå÷ éôå ®ä .àö˙ éà äìú÷é ïà äìòìå ãåäéìà ä¨ äâ˙ ïî ïàãìáìà éìà áúë [à61] àî èà÷ñà (10 ,æ–14 ,å) äúùîä ìà ïîä úà àéáäì åìéäáéå åòéâä êìîä éñéøñå åîò íéøáãî íãåò

20 åòøñàå êìîìà

˙ ïàéöë

äå÷çì éúç äòî

˙ úî ïéáèàë

(14)

íä ãòá :øúñà äúùò øùà

¨ åòãìà éìà äúáàâ˙àá ºøúñà úìîò éúìà ä òî àáøùéì ïîäå êìîìà àâ˙ô :äëìîä øúñà íò úåúùì ïîäå êìîä àáéå

(1 ,æ)

¨ ëìîìà øúñà ºä

[ïà 2 äéìà 1ø [äì 2 (rem. b ,βa15§ ,á ¬èééø äàø) §òé ïà óéãò [ìî òé 1 .àúéì 1ø [êìîìà 1 ... ä¨ áúøîìà 5–4 .àúéì 1ø [êìã˙ ïî 4 .àúéì 1ø [ïîä 3 äãðò àî 1ø [äéàø 2 (!)ïàå 1ø [äìå÷ 7 .àúéì 1ø [êìîìà ïàë 7 .àúéì 1ø [øéùîìà 6 .ïåè÷øàåéåîåä ìùá èîùð ô ¬ì [÷åô 9 äøéâáñá ïî ï÷åú à [äøéâ 7 (aâ11§ åàìá äàø) ä¨ ìàñîìà 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [ä¨ ìñîìà 7 êìã˙ 1ø b ,βa15§ ,á ¬èééø äàø] §ôé ïà óéãò) ìòôé 1ø [ìòôà 9 (úåòè éìåà) ïàë 1ø [ìà÷ 9 ïà 1ø [äðà ˙ 9 äðà óñåð 1ø [éëãøîá 9 ([rem. éëãøî øéâ ïàë åì äðà éúç óñåð 1ø [àãâ˙ 9 .àúéì 1ø [êìã [ä¨ òàîâ˙ìà 13 (!)ãö÷ 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [øö ÷ 12 ã÷ óñåð 1ø [ïåëé 12 úøáã 3ø, 2ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [§øáã 11 ˙ ã 14 úøáã øùà ìëî 3ø, 2ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [§áã §à §î 13 òîâ˙ ô ¬ì ï÷åú à [ïéæç 14 òâ˙ø 1ø [ìë [äåñéàé 17 .àúéì 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [äéìò 16 .úåòèá èîùð ô ¬ì [éìò 15 .(§é éìåà) úøçà úåà ïî §æä .äñéåé óéãò êà ,1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(175 ,aá11 ,â6§§ åàìá äàø ;  =) äðåñéåé íå÷îá êë 20 ìåôú ìåôð 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [ìôú ìôð 17 àåä íéãåäéä òøæî íà ô ¬ì [íäìå÷ ... äåñéàé 17 21 (83§ åàìá äàø) åòøúñàå ì [åòøñàå 20 (à127§ åàìá äàø) ïåáèàë˙ úî íå÷îá [ïéáèàë˙ úî .74§ åàìá äàø [äúáàâ˙àá

text

40*

˙ ëä äîàã÷ àãàðå ä¨ ðéãîìà ä¨ áçø éô äáëøàå éëãøî ñáìàå ñøôìàå ÷çúñé éã ˙ ìà ìâ˙øìà òî ìîòé ïà ºäæòé ïà ãéøé êìîìà éã ˙ éëãøî òâøô :ùàø éåôçå ìáà åúéá ìà óçãð ïîäå êìîä øòù ìà éëãøî áùéå (12) ºäâ˙åìà ìé÷å ñàøìà àè âî å ïéæç äúéá éìà ïîä òôãðàå êìîìà áàá éìà ùøæå åéîëç åì åøîàéå åäø÷ øùà ìë úà åéáäåà ìëìå åúùà ùøæì ïîä øôñéå (13) 5 éë åì ìëåú àì åéðôì ìôðì úåìçä [á58] øùà éëãøî íéãåäéä òøæî íà åúùà åìà÷ô äôãàö àî òéîâ˙ äéáçî ìë éìòå äúâ˙åæ ùøæ éìò ïîä õ ÷å :åéðôì ìåôú ìåôð ˙ ìà éëãøî ãåäéìà ìñð ïî ïàë ïà äúâ˙åæ ùøæå äàîëç äì è÷ñú ïà úàãúáà éã ºäîàã÷ è÷ñú èå÷ñ ìá äéìò øã÷ú ñéìô äîàã÷

¨ áàâ˙à ïî äéìà êø çú àî éìà äëø çéì êìîìà íåð øôðà äììà ïà óø ò 10 áàúë ä

˙ î êåìîìà ïî äøéâì ÷çì ìä øè˙ ðéì àîà êìã˙ ñîúìàå ®øàáë˙ àìà ä÷çì àî ìú

˙ òîñé ïà ãàøà ïà àîàå ®àì íà äôøòé ááñ øéâ ïò øäñìà ã˙ ë ïî éìò êìã [à59]

˙ éãçìà éìò íåðìà äã˙ ë˙ àéì ä¨ øîàñîìà ú˙ éãç íñø ìöå äðà ÷ôúàô ®ú

¨ ö÷ìà äã˙ ä éìà äîàã÷ øà÷ìà ÷ìòú äì ïëé íìå äéìò øâ˙ôìà øâ˙ôðà ã÷å ä ¨ ö÷ìà äã˙ äì øéâ äéìò äàø÷ àî òéîâ˙ éô 15 éëãøî äìòô àî äéìò àø÷ äðàô ä ˙ ìà êìîìà òî ìöô àø÷é ïà øà÷ìà ãàøà àîìô ®ìéæâ˙ àæâ˙ äéìò ÷çúñé éã ˙ éìò äàæâ˙ äòî ìòô àî áåúëî íú˙ ñéìô êìîìà äì ìà÷ äéìò øë˙ à êìã

˙ ïò äðàîìâ êìîìà ìàñô ®àì ìà÷ äì åìà÷ô ïååãé íìå äòî ìîò äìòì êìã

˙ ä éëãøî ìòô ã÷ ïåëé ïà êìîìà éìò áòöô êìã˙ ïî éù éìò àô àëé íì àã

˙ ä àø÷é ïî ìë ãðò íåîã˙ î ïåëéô éùá äéìò àô àëé íìå íéè˙ òìà øîàìà 20 àã àîà

[á59]

˙ î àøé íìå òö˙ åîìà äåáñðéô äéìò êìîìà äàæàâ˙ àî äãòá øåëã

¨ îä ä¨ ì÷å ä¨ ìàã˙ ð éìà àîàå ìäâ˙ìà éìà éô àø á ïî äðàîìâì ú÷åìà éô ìà÷ô ®ä

˙ ô äá åìë˙ ãà ìà÷ô ïîä äì ìé÷ô ïçöìà êìîìà äì åìà÷å äéìà ïàîìâìà ˙âøë

˙ ãô ìåë˙ ãìàá êøîà ìâ˙øìàá ìîòé ïà áâ˙é ùéà äì ìà÷å êìîìà äàãúáàô ìë ˙ ë˙ àé ïà ãàøà êìîìà ïà äáùé ®äìà÷ àî ìà÷ô äæòé ïà êìîìà ãéøé éã˙ ìà 25 ã ˙ äá ìöúé ïî òéîâ˙å ïàîìâìà ìå÷é éúç éëãøîá ìî òé ïà áâ˙é àî éô äøéâ éàø øáë

˙ éìò êìîìà íàìé àìô äéàøá ÷ú˙ é ïî éàøá ïàë êìã˙ ïà éãåäéìà éëãøî ®êìã óñåð ô ¬ì [äîàã÷ 1 (à10§ åàìá äàø) éãàðå 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [àãàðå 1 ñáìå ô ¬ì [ñáìàå 1 ˙ ëàä ô ¬ì [éã˙ ëä 1 ãéøé 1ø [ãéøé êìîìà 2 ìâ˙øìàá 1ø [ìâ˙øìà òî 2 ìòôé ô [ìîòé 2 éã .§éå ú§§éá ïî ¬äàøðë ¬§ñä äð÷åú à [øôñéå 5 .àúéì 1ø [äâ˙åìà ìé÷å 4 òâ˙øå 1ø [òâ˙øô 3 êìîìà (íéðå÷éñ÷ìá §§II àø÷§§ äàø êà ¬úåòè ¬íúñä­ïî) åäàø÷ ô ¬ì [åäø÷ 5 åéáäà 3ø, 1ø [åéáäåà 5 7 ä÷çì 1ø [äôãàö 7 õ÷ô 1ø [õ ÷å 7 ìôð ô [ìåôð 7 ìåôðì ô ¬ì [ìôðì 6 (!)òøæ ô [òøæî 6 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 10 .äøåùì ìòî å÷á ÷çîðå ìëå áúëð åæ äìî éðôì à [ùøæå 8 ìà÷ô 1ø [åìà÷ô 13 (!)ú˙ éç ô ¬ì [ú˙ éãç 13 .úåòèá ¬äàøðë ¬èîùð 1ø [êìã˙ 11 øôð 1ø [øôðà 10 §òú óñåð 3ø, ¨ øîàñîìà çáöìà 1ø [øâ˙ôìà 14 (98§ åàìá äàø) éøà÷ìà íå÷îá [øà÷ìà 14 øîàñîìà 1ø [ä ˙ ä 1ø ;(aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã˙ äì ô ¬ì [äã˙ äì 15 .àúéì 1ø [äì 14 ìéîâ˙ 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [ìéæâ˙ 16 äã ˙ óñåð 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [àî 17 (98§ åàìá äàø) éøà÷ìà íå÷îá [øà÷ìà 16 äì óñåð 1ø [ìà÷ 18 àã ïåéöì àìù §§í짧 ìù äæ ùåîéù ìò [íìå 21 (!)äéðàîìâ 1ø [äðàîìâ 18 (!)ìà÷ô 3ø [ìàñô 18 [ìäâ˙ìà 22 .àúéì 1ø [êìîìà 21 øëã˙ é àìå 1ø [øåëã˙ î ... íìå 21 .â205§ åàìá äàø ¬øáòä [äàãúáàô 24 ïåìå÷é 1ø [åìà÷å 23 (!)äðàîìâìì ì [äðàîìâì 22 ä¨ àðãå 1ø [ä¨ ì÷å 22 ìäâ˙ 1ø (!)àî ì [ïî 26 .úøçà úåà ïî §îä äð÷åú à [êìîìà 25 .àúéì 1ø [ìà÷å 24 (!)äà àáúàô ô (!)èàìé 1ø [íàìé 27 .àúéì 3ø [êìã˙ 27

(!)ìå÷å

39*

text

˙ ìà ä¨ ôëñàìà éè˙ ôàç ïî êìîìà ïàéöë˙ ùøúå àðúâá ïò éëãøî øáë˙ à ïà áåúëî ïéã ºùåøåùçà êìîìà ìú÷ àáìè åéúøùî êìîä éøòð åøîàéå äæ ìò éëãøîì äìåãâå ø÷é äùòð äî êìîä øîàéå

5

(3)

¨ ìàìâ˙ìàå æòìà ïî ìòô éù éà êìîìà ìà÷ô :øáã åîò äùòð àì éìò éëãøî òî ä ˙ êìîìà ïàîìâ åìà÷ô àã˙ ä äìòô ºàéù äòî ìòôé íì äîãë

êìîì øîàì äðåöéçä êìîä [á56] úéá øöçì àá ïîäå øöçá éî êìîä øîàéå

(4) ˙ àâ ã÷ ïàëå ïçöìà éô ïî êìîìà ìà÷ô :åì ïéëç øùà õòä ìò éëãøî úà úåìúì ˙ ìà ãåòìà éìò éëãøî áì öé ïà êìîìì ìå÷éì ä¨ é ðàøáìà êìîìà ïçö éìà ïîä éã ºäì çìöà

10 ïàîìâ åìà÷ô :àåáé êìîä øîàéå øöçá ãîò ïîä äðä åéìà êìîä éøòð åøîàéå

(5)

˙ ãé êìîìà ìà÷ô ïçöìà éô ó÷àå ïîä ïà äì êìîìà ºìë ïîä øîàéå åø÷éá õôç êìîä øùà ùéàá úåùòì äî êìîä åì øîàéå ïîä àåáéå

(6)

˙ ãô :éðîî øúåé ø÷é úåùòì êìîä õôçé éîì åáìá éù éà êìîìà äì ìà÷å ïîä ìë

˙ ìà ìâ˙øìàá ìîòé ïà êãðò áâ˙é äñôð éô ïîä ìà÷ô äàæòà ãéøé êìîìà [à57] éã

15 ïà

áâ˙é

˙ ëà äæ òé ïà êìîìà ãéøé ïîì ºéðî øú

êìîìì ïîä ìà÷ô :åø÷éá õôç êìîä øùà ùéà êìîä ìà ïîä øîàéå

(7)

˙ ìà ìâ˙øìà òî äã˙ ä ìîòú ºäàæòà êìîìà ãéøé éã ïúð øùàå êìîä åéìò áëø øùà ñåñå êìîä åá ùáì øùà úåëìî ùåáì åàéáé

(8)

˙ ìà ñøôìàå êìîìà äñáìé éã˙ ìà êìîìà ñàáì åáéâ˙é :åùàøá úåëìî øúë áëø éã ˙ ìà ˙âàúìàå êìîìà äéìò ºäñàø éô ìòâ˙ éã

20

øùà ùéàä úà åùéáìäå íéîúøôä êìîä éøùî ùéà ãé ìò ñåñäå ùåáìä ïåúðå

[á57]

(9)

äëë åéðôì åàø÷å øéòä áçøá ñåñä ìò åäåáéëøäå åø÷éá õôç êìîä

àñåø ïî ìâ˙ø ãé éìò ñøôìàå ñàáììà ìò ˙âé å :åø÷éá õôç êìîä øùà ùéàì äùòé

˙ ìà ìâ˙øìà åñáìéå ä¨ ÷øàèáìà êìîìà éìò äåáëøéå äæ òé ïà éô éåàä êìîìà éã

˙ ìà ìâ˙øìàá ìîòé ïà áâ˙é éã˙ ë äîàã÷ åãàðéå ä¨ ðéãîìà ä¨ áçø éô ñøôìà 25 ãéøé éã ºäæòé ïà êìîìà ïë äùòå úøáã øùàë ñåñä úàå ùåáìä úà ç÷ øäî ïîäì êìîä øîàéå

(10)

êìîìà ìà÷ô :úøáã øùà ìëî øáã ìôú ìà êìîä øòùá áùåéä éãåäéä éëãøîì

˙ ìú˙ î ìîòàå úì÷ àîë ñøôìàå ñàáììà ã˙ ë˙ øãàá ïîäì éãåäéìà éëãøîá êìã ºàéù úì÷ àî òéîâ˙ ïî è÷ñú ïà êàéàå êìîìà áàá éô ñìàâ˙ìà

30

áåçøá åäáéëøéå éëãøî úà ùáìéå ñåñä úàå ùåáìä

[à58]

úà ïîä ç÷éå

(11)

˙ ë˙ àô :åø÷éá õôç êìîä øùà ùéàì äùòé äëë åéðôì àø÷éå øéòä ñàáììà ïîä ã [åìà÷ô 5 (é8§ åàìá äàø êà ¬úåòè éìåà) ééè˙ ôàç 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [éè˙ ôàç 1 ïééöë˙ 1ø [ïàéöë˙ 1 .§ä ïî §àä äð÷åú à [åéìà 10 àâ˙ ã÷ ïîä 1ø [ïîä àâ˙ ã÷ 8 .úåòèá èîùð 1ø [ïàîìâ 5 ìà÷ô [äàæòà 14 êìîìà ãéøé 1ø [ãéøé êìîìà 14 õåôçé ô ¬ì [õôçé 13 ìà÷ô 1ø [åìà÷ô 10 äååùä) äæàæòà íå÷îá [äàæòà 17 .1ø­å ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(88§ åàìá äååùä) äæàæòà íå÷îá ... êìîìà 19 .§ê åà §ï ïî §ñä äð÷åú à [ñàáì 19 .1ø­å ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(88§ åàìá ˙ ìà 20 àäéìò áëøé ô ¬ì [äéìò áëø 20 .ïåè÷øàåéåîåä ìùá èîùð 1ø [äñáìé ô ¬ì [éô ... éã áåçøá 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [áçøá 22 åäáéëøäå 1ø [åäåáéëøäå 22 éìò ìòâ˙é (aâ361§ åàìá äàø) éúìà ˙ 29 áùéä ô [áùåéä 28 .àúéì 1ø [éô 24 éëãøîì úì÷ àî ô ¬ì [éëãøîá êìã 1ø

text

38*

¨ ø îìà ïò äìú÷ áìè äðàì éëãøî ìò àðää ãàæå ®äîç ïîä àìîéå éìåàìà ä ¨ çøô ïàëô ®äá äôàë˙ ñàì äðî äìë˙ àãé éã˙ ìà õ˙ éâìà ïî çéøúñéì ú÷åìì ïîä ä

¨ åòãìà ïî äâ˙åøë˙ øàã÷î äéìò ìâ˙ òé íì äîìçì äðëì ú÷åìà éô äçåø úøîøîúå ä ˙ ë˙ àé ïà ãàøàô ä¨ îéëç úðàë àäðàì äúâ˙åæ ùøæå äàáçà àòãúñà ìá éô íäéàø ã ¨ øú˙ ëå äøàñé ïî äåôøòé àî íäéìò õ÷å êìîìà òôø àîå äéðá ä

[à55]

äáàá 5

˙ ñìà ïî ä÷çìé àîá ÷áèé ïà ãàøà äðàì äúìæðî øúñà ïà íäôøòå ®éëãøî ïî óë ˙ î äúáø ÷ àö˙ éà ä¨ ëìîìà ®êìîìà òî àäúåòã éô äãâ äðàå êìîìà úáø ÷ àî ìú

˙ ä ìë êìã˙  ãòá ìà÷ äì ä¨ òîúâ˙îìà úàãåîçîìà øåîàìà äã˙ ä øëã˙ àîìô äã

¨ øö˙ çá éëãøî ïî éð÷çìé éã˙ ìà óë˙ ñìàá éôú íì åòîñ àîìô ®êìîìà áàâ˙ç ìë ä ¨ ëìîìàå êìîìà ãðò ä¨ îéè˙ òìà ä¨ ìæðîìà äã˙ ä éô úðë àã˙ à äì åìà÷ äîàìë 10 ä

¨ ìéììà ïåâøôé ïà òàðöìà øé öô êá óë˙ ñé ïà ä¨ ëìîìàå êìîìà ãéøé ñéìô ïî ä ¨ åòãìà ìåë˙ ã ìá÷ ä¨ àãâìàá øë áå òàøã˙ ïéñîë˙ ä

[á55]

àìéåè àãåò çàìöà

˙ ã÷ äðàå êá äìòôé àî êìîìà óøòå äìú÷á øîàé äðàô êìîìà øîà óìàë ¨ åòãìà éìà ìë˙ ãà êìã˙ íú àã˙ àô äáìöå êáì÷ ìâùú àìô ñôðìà áééè ïàçøô ä ˙ éâ êìú÷é àìå äáàá éô 15 ãåòìà çìöàå äéìò ìîòå äãðò íäéàø ïñçô ®äúäâ˙ ïî êö .äéìò éëãøî áìöéì (13–1 ,å) íéîéä éøáã úåðåøëæä øôñ úà àéáäì øîàéå êìîä úðù äããð àåää äìéìá

(1 ,å)

¨ ðñ úøôð ä¨ ìéììà êìú éô :êìîä éðôì íéàø÷ð åéäéå ïà ìà÷å äéìò êìîìà ä

˙ à äéô éã˙ ìà ä¨ øëã˙ úìà áàúë áà ˙âé íàã÷ àø÷ú úðàëå ïàîæìà éô éøâ˙ àî øàáë

ºêìîìà 20

éøîùî êìîä éñéøñ éðù ùøúå àðúâá ìò éëãøî ãéâä øùà áåúë àöîéå [à56]

¨ àø÷ìà éô åìöåô åãâ˙å ïà éìà ä

:ùåøåùçà

(2)

êìîá ãé çìùì åù÷á øùà óñä

˙ éâìà íå÷îá [õ˙ éâìà 2 àðäàä 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [àðää 1 (aâ27§§ åàìá äàø) ä¨ ìåàìà ô [éìåàìà 1 äàø) è ¬ì ;äáàáçà 3ø, 1ø [äàáçà 4 äçøô 1ø [ïîä 2 .3ø­å, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ¬(á21§§ åàìá ˙ ñ 1ø [éëãøî ïî óë˙ ñìà 6 äãðò óñåð 1ø [ä¨ îéëç 4 åúùà ô ¬ì [äúâ˙åæ 4 äáàáçàá ô éëãøî óë ¨ àãâ íå÷îá ¬äàøðë [äãâ 7 (cà27§ åàìá äàø) ä¨ áø ÷ 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [úáø ÷ 7 äá åàìá äàø) ä [úàãåîçîìà 8 .3ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã˙ ä ïî ï÷åú à [äã˙ ä 8 àãâ 1ø ;(â6§ ¨ òîúâ˙îìà 8 .§ä ïî ¬äàøðë ¬§àä äð÷åú à ;(188§ åàìá äàø) ä¨ ãåîçîìà íå÷îá åæ äìî éðôì à [ä ˙ ä ô ¬ì [äã˙ ä 8 .àúéì 1ø [êìã˙  ãòá 8 .äøåùì ìòî ä÷éçî éðîéñá ÷çîðå òîàâ˙ìà áúëð àã [ä¨ îéè˙ òìà ä¨ ìæðîìà 10 (aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã˙ ä 1ø [äã˙ ä 10 àì 1ø [íì 9 (aà51§ åàìá äàø) äàø) åâ˙øôé íå÷îá [ïåâøôé 11 (á30§ åàìá äàø) øééöô 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [øé öô 11 ä¨ îè˙ òìà 1ø ˙ ã 12 äìåè óñåð ô ¬ì ;àòàøã˙ 1ø [òàøã˙ 12 (!)àìåè ãåò 1ø [àìéåè àãåò 12 (175§ åàìá ìåë 14 §522( åàìá äååùä êà ¬úåòè éìåà) ä¨ åòãìà êìåë˙ ã ô ¬ì ;ä¨ åòãìà éìà êìåë˙ ã 1ø [ä¨ åòãìà ˙ éâ íå÷îá [êö˙ éâ 15 (â205§ åàìá äàø) íìô ô [àìô 14 áéè 1ø [áééè êëù ¬(á21§§ åàìá äàø) êè ¨ ðñ 18 (cà27§ åàìá äàø) ä¨ øôð 3ø [úøôð 18 ïñçàô ô ¬ì [ïñçô 15 .1ø 駧ëá áúëð ô ¬ì [ä ˙ úìà 1ø ;(!)ä¨ øàëã˙ úìà ô [ä¨ øëã˙ úìà 19 ìà÷ô 1ø [ìà÷å 18 (aà27§ åàìá äàø) úðñå úàøëã (!)åãâ˙é ô [åãâ˙å 22 àäúàø÷ 1ø [ä¨ àø÷ìà 22 çåìùì ô ¬ì [çìùì 22 (!)äàø÷ ô [íàã÷ 19

37*

text (14–9 ,ä)

àìå êìîä øòùá éëãøî úà ïîä úåàøëå áì áåèå çîù àåää íåéá ïîä àöéå

(9)

˙ éô ïîä ˙âøë˙ ô :äîç éëãøî ìò ïîä àìîéå åðîî òæ àìå í÷ áééèå ïàçøô íåéìà êìã ˙ åî ïî òæòæú àìå íå÷é àìå êìîìà áàá éô éëãøîì ïîä éàø àî ãðòå áì÷ìà äòö

ºãøç éëãøî éìò ïîä [á53] éìúîà

5 ïîä øáöúô :åúùà ùøæ úàå åéáäà úà àáéå çìùéå åúéá ìà àåáéå ïîä ÷ôàúéå

(10)

˙ òáå äúéá éìà àâ˙å ºäúâ˙åæ ùøæáå äàáçàá áàâ˙å ú øùà úàå êìîä åìãâ øùà ìë úàå åéðá áøå åøùò ãåáë úà ïîä íäì øôñéå

(11)

˙ ëå äøàñé æò ïîä íäì õ ÷ô :êìîä éãáòå íéøùä ìò åàùð àî òéîâ˙å äéðá úøú

ºêìîìà ãéáòå ãàå÷ìà éìò äòôøå êìîìà äøá ë

10 éë äúùò øùà äúùîä ìà êìîä íò äëìîä øúñà äàéáä àì óà ïîä øîàéå

(12)

˙ éà äðà éúç ïîä ìà÷ íú˙ :êìîä íò äì àåø÷ éðà øçîì íâå éúåà íà íì [à54] àö

˙ éà àðà ãâ éôå éøéâ êìîìà òî àäúåòã éô ä¨ ëìîìà øúñà áâ˙ú àäãðò àòãî àö ºêìîìà òî øòùá áùé éãåäéä éëãøî úà äàø éðà øùà úò ìëá éì äåù åððéà äæ ìëå

(13)

˙ àð àðà éã˙ ìà ú÷åìà éô éãðò éåàñî øéâ àã˙ ä ìëå :êìîä 15 ñìàâ˙ éãåäéìà éëãøî øè ºêìîìà áàá éô êìîì øîà ø÷ááå äîà íéùîç äáâ õò åùòé åéáäà ìëå åúùà ùøæ åì øîàúå

(14)

ïîä éðôì øáãä áèééå çîù äúùîä ìà êìîä íò àáå åéìò éëãøî úà åìúéå

˙ àå òàøã˙ ïéñîë˙ ê˙ îàù ãåò åìîòé äéáçî ìëå äúâ˙åæ ùøæ äì úìà÷å :õòä ùòéå àã

˙ ãàå äéìò [á54] éëãøî ïåáìöé éúç êìîìì ì÷ àãâìàá ïàë 20 éìà êìîìà òî ìë

¨ åòãìà ºãåòìà ìîòå äîàã÷ íäìå÷ ïñçô ïàçøô ä ˙ àå íéã÷ìà äìàç éìò åä àã ˙ éâ ìà÷ ®ãøç äéìò éìúîàå è

¨ åòãìà ïî ïîä ˙âåøë˙ éô éëãøî ïî äãö÷ ìòâ˙ ä ˙ äãàæô äì êø çúé íìå äðàëî ïî í÷é íì êìã

í÷é íìå 1ø [àìå íå÷é àìå 3 í÷ ô ;íà÷ ì [íå÷é 3 éëãøî ô ¬ì ;269§ åàìá äàø [éëãøîì 3 ¨ éîç 1ø [ãøç 4 (γbà11§§ åàìá äàø) àìúîà íå÷îá [éìúîà 4 íìå áéå óñåð à [àåáéå 5 ãøçå ä äàø) øáöúàô ô ¬ì [øáöúô 5 åéáäåà 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [åéáäà 5 .äøåùì ìòî ä÷éçî éðîéñá ÷çîðå ,á ¬èééø äàø) áàâ˙ 1ø ;140§ ,á ¬à238 §îò ¬à ¬éæåã äàø [áàâ˙å 6 äøàã 1ø [äúéá 6 (75§ åàìá [íäì 8 (à234 §îò ¬à ¬éæåã äàø) äúæåâ˙ ô [äúâ˙åæ 6 äáàáçàá 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äàáçàá 6 (140§ 9 .3ø­å, 2ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(aà27§ åàìá äàø) ä¨ øú˙ ëå íå÷îá [úøú˙ ëå 8 íäéìò 1ø 11 .úåòèá èîùð ì [íà 11 .úåéúåàä ïéá §éä äôñåð ¬äàøðë à [äàéáä 10 (!)éãáòå ô [ãéáòå áúëð êëù) éòãî åà (74§ åàìá äàø) åòãî íå÷îá [àòãî 12 àì ô ¬ì [íì 11 .àúéì ô ¬ì [éúç åéáäåà 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [åéáäà 17 áùåé 1ø [áùé 14 äàåø ô [äàø 14 .(105§ åàìá äàø ;ñ§§úá [áèééå 18 àåáå ô [àáå 18 äåáâ 3ø, 2ø ¬ì [äáâ 17 .úøçà úåà ïî §ùä äð÷åú à [åùòé 17 ¨ àãâìàá íå÷îá ¬äàøðë [àãâìàá 20 (à234 §îò ¬à ¬éæåã äàø) äúæåâ˙ ô [äúâ˙åæ 19 (!)áèéå ô ä 1ø 駧ëá áúë êëù ¬(íùì úôé ìù åùåøéôá íâ àåäù åîëå ,[dâ27§ åàìá äååùä] äðáù ø÷áá(å) =) (ë8§ åàìá äàø) ìå÷ 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [ì÷ 20 .ã266§ åàìá äàø (øùéä àùåîä úà ïééöì) §áä úôñåú ìò. ˙ ïà ú÷å ô ¬ì [˙âåøë˙ éô 22 (175§ åàìá äàø) åáìöé íå÷îá [ïåáìöé 20 ìòâ˙ô ô ¬ì [ìòâ˙ 22 ˙âøë 23 äîñø 1ø [äìàç 22 (256§ éøçà ,172 §îòì ,326 §îò ¬åàìá äàø) äàã˙ àå 1ø [åä àã˙ àå 22 äàø) àìúîàå íå÷îá [éìúîàå 23 (74§§ åàìá äàø) äãàæàô ì [äãàæô 23 (!)êøúçé ì [êø çúé (γbà11§§ åàìá

text

36*

˙ åîìà êìã˙ éìà ïàñðà ìë˙ ã éúî äðà äîãë˙ å êìîìà ïéá ä¨ îàìò ïàëå àòãé íìå òö ˙ éìò úò÷å ã÷ êìîìà ïéò ïà åàø ïàô ®ãöøìà ïåìòâ˙é ïà äá êø çå ïàñðàìà êìã

˙ ÷ìà äì êø çé íì ïàå ®ùéòé äðà éìò àìéìã êìã˙ ïàë áäã˙ ìà áéö˙ ÷ìà äì áéö ˙ ã àîìô ®äåìú÷éô äìú÷ ãéøéå äéìò èë˙ àñ äðà éìò àìéìã ïàë øéâ ïò øúñà úìë

˙ ÷ìà àäì êø çå êìîìà àäøè˙ ð àî ãðòå äìàçî àì ïàîìâìà åøé çú àòãúñà 5 áéö

˙ ®êì äî äìå÷å ®êìã˙ á åø ñ íäðà éô êù àì àîäãçà ®ïééù éìò ìãé êúù÷á äîå íú

˙ ìàå ®éìå÷ô ïàñðà êàã˙ à ïàë [á52] ïà äá ãàøà éô éìñú ïéãéøú éúðë ïàå éðàú

¨ ìéìâ˙ ä¨ áúøî éìà äìöåð ïà ïàñðà ìòôð àðàô êìîìà óöð äéèòð äðà åì éúç ä ˙ å ®êìã˙ àäðî áàåâ˙ìà ïàëô ®ïéøîàìà ãçàì äúãö÷ àäðà äñôð éô ìà÷ äðà êìã ˙ äå ®øéâ àì àäúåòã éô ïîäå åä øö˙ çé ïà äúìàñ àäðà 10 úã òúñà àäðà éìò ìãé àã ˙ ã ìá÷ äçìöú ïà éâáðé àî øéàñå áàøùìàå íàòèìà êìîìà øîàô ®äéìà àäìåë

˙ ú íì àäðà êìîìà íìò ã÷å ®àäãðò àòéîâ˙ àìöçå ïîä ä¨ áàâ˙àá àäñôðá øèàë ˙ äì éì÷ áàøùìàá äñôð úáàè àî ãðò ìà÷ô ®äøéâ åä øîàì ìá éðòîìà àã äéà úìà÷ ìá àäúìñî

[à53]

ì÷ú íìô àìâ˙àò àäìòôð éúç êúéâáå êúìñî

¨ éâáå ä¨ ìñî éì êìîìà 15 åä éâ˙é éúéâá ìòôéå éúìñî éèòé ãéøé êìîìà ïàë ïà ïëì ä ¨ éðàú˙ ä¨ åòã éìà àãâà ïîäå êðî áìèàå éúìñî ìñà àãâà àðàå ®àîäì àäìîòà ä

˙ å àäðà íìò ã÷å àäá ìåâùî äáì÷å êìîìà óøöðàô ®éúéâá ïà äâ˙åì àäúìñî úøë

.ãòá àî éô äøëã˙ ð ïçðå äàøú

3 (!)êøçé 1ø [êø çå 2 .§ãä äôñåð åà äð÷åú à [êìã˙ 2 (175§ åàìá äàø) åìòâ˙é íå÷îá [ïåìòâ˙é 2 5 àäéàòãúñà 1ø [àòãúñà 5 .1ø ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ¬(å226§ åàìá äàø) áéö˙ ÷ íå÷îá [áéö˙ ÷ìà 7–6 ìà÷ óñåð 1ø [íú˙ 6 §å÷å 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 6 (á30§ åàìá äàø) åøééçú 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [åøé çú àäãçà ô ;§ãçà 3ø ¬ì [àîäãçà 6 (äèîì 1287 §òä äàøå) àîäá ãàøàå 1ø [äá ãàøà àîäãçà [éìñú 7 .àúéì 1ø [éðàú˙ ìàå 7 (á6§ åàìá äàø) éì÷ô 1ø [éìå÷ô 7 (89–88 §îò ¬úååäúä äàø) óéãò [àðàô 8 .àúéì 1ø [ïà 8 (175§ åàìá äàø) ïéìñú 1ø ;(140§ ,à ¬èééø äàø) éìàñú 3ø ¬ô ¬ì ˙ ìòôð 9–8 (äàáä §òää äàø êà) ïçðô åàìá äàø) åìöçå 3ø [àìöçå 12 êúéâá ìòôà 1ø [êìã íå÷îá [éì÷ 13 (!)äøéâå 3ø ¬ô [äøéâ 13 àäçåøá 1ø [àäñôðá 12 (!)àîäìöçå 1ø ;(aá122§ 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [êúìñî 14 øúñà àé óñåð ô ¬ì ;3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ¬(á6§ åàìá äàø) éìå÷ íå÷îá [äéà 14 (aâ11§ åàìá äàø) àäúìàñî 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [àäúìñî 14 (aâ11§ åàìá äàø) êúìàñî ¨ ìñî 15 .1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,([173§ éøçà ,122 §îòì] 312 §îòå ¬â–á9§ åàìá äàø) àäéà ¬ì [ä ¨ éâáå 15 (aâ11§ åàìá äàø) ä¨ ìàñî 3ø ¬ô ìòî ä÷éçî éðîéñá ÷çîðå éðëìå áúëð åæ äìî éðôì à [ä (aâ11§ åàìá äàø) éúìàñî 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [éúìñî 15 ïë àì 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [ïëì 15 ä¨ éâá éìå 1ø ;äøåùì ¬([íùì] 241 §îòå ,1 §òä ,33 §îò ¬úååäúä ¬åàìá äàø) àãâ íå÷îá [àãâà 16 êìîìà ô ¬ì [åä 15 ¬åàìá äàø) àãâ íå÷îá [àãâà 16 (!)ä¨ åòãìà ô ¬ì [ä¨ åòã 16 .àúéì ì ;1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ¬èééø äàø) éúìàñî ìàñà 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [éúìñî ìñà 16 ([íùì] 241 §îòå ,1 §òä ,33 §îò ¬úååäúä ˙ à íå÷îá [úøë˙ å 17 .úåòèá äìîä äèîùð 1ø [íìò 17 (aâ11§ åàìáå ,140§ ,à åàìá äàø) úøë ¬úååäúä ¬åàìá äàø [ïà 17 (aâ11§ åàìá äàø) àäúìàñî 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [àäúìñî 17 (91 ,aã11§§ .176–175 §îò

35*

text

˙ ìà áäã˙ ìà áéö˙ ÷ìà êìîìà àäì êø çô ñàø úëñîå øúñà úîã÷úô äãéá éã ˙ ÷ìà ºáéö

úåëìîä éöç ãò êúù÷á äîå äëìîä øúñà êì [á50] äî êìîä äì øîàéå

(3)

¨ ëìîìà øúñà àé êì àî êìîìà àäì ìà÷ô :êì ïúðéå óöð éô åìå êúéâá àîå ä 5

ºêì àèòú àäðàô êìîìà øùà äúùîä ìà

¨ åòãìà ä

íåéä

ïîäå êìîä àåáé áåè êìîä ìò íà øúñà øîàúå

éìà ïîäå êìîìà

éâ˙é

(4)

ïà êìîìà ãðò ïñç ïà øúñà úìà÷ô :åì éúéùò ºäì úìîò éúìà

äúùîä ìà ïîäå êìîä àáéå øúñà øáã úà úåùòì ïîä úà åøäî êìîä øîàéå

(5)

10 àâ˙ô øúñà úìñî [à51] ìòôéì ïîäá åòøñà êìîìà ìà÷ô :øúñà äúùò øùà ºøúñà òî àáøùéì ïîäå êìîìà éöç ãò êúù÷á äîå êì ïúðéå êúìàù äî ïééä äúùîá øúñàì êìîä øîàéå

(6)

˙ ìà áøù ä¨ åòã éô øúñàì êìîìà ìà÷å :ùòúå úåëìîä éúç êúìñî ùéà øîë ºìòôúô êìîìà óöð éìà êúéâá ùéàå êì àèòú

15

ºéúéâáå éúìñî úìà÷å øúñà úáàâ˙àô :éúù÷áå éúìàù øîàúå øúñà ïòúå úà úåùòìå éúìàù úà úúì áåè êìîä ìò íàå êìîä éðéòá ïç éúàöî íà

(7) (8)

ïà :êìîä øáãë äùòà øçîå íäì äùòà øùà äúùîä ìà ïîäå êìîä àåáé éúù÷á

˙ ç úãâ˙å éâ˙é éúéâá ìòôúå éúìñî àèòú ïà êìîìà ãðò ïñç ïàå êìîìà ãðò [á51] è ¨ åòãìà éìà ïîäå êìîìà ºêìîìà ìà÷ àîë ìîòà àãâàå àîäì ìîòà éúìà ä ˙ ìà áàéú˙ ìàá úìë˙ ãå àäáàéú˙ úçú çñîìà úñáì àäðà ïëîé 20 àäñáìú úðàë éã

˙ ãô ®äéìà úìë˙ ã àã˙ à ®äñàø éìò óå÷åìà ïàîìâìà øéâ äîàã÷ ñéìå äéìà úìë ˙ ãô äãéøé ïî éòãúñé ú˙ òáå äé ñøë éìò ñìâ˙å çáöà äðàë ïà ìá÷ øúñà úìë

˙ ãìì íâ˙äú íìå óå÷åìì çìöé éã˙ ìà òö˙ åîìà éô úô÷åå àäøéâ ìë˙ ãé éìà ìåë

[à52] õ˙ øò

ã÷ ïà íìò àòãúñà øéâ ïò úôàå ã÷ êìîìà àäéàø àîìô ®úéáìà

˙ êìã˙ ìô øë˙ à ú÷å éìà äòôã àäðëîé àì øéáë øîà àäì 25 ®àäçåøá úøèàë

éìåà) úñîå 1ø [úëñîå 1 .1ø ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ¬(å226§ åàìá äàø) áéö˙ ÷ íå÷îá [áéö˙ ÷ìà 1 ˙ øúñàì êìîìà øèð àî ãðòô áúëð åæ äìî éðôì à [ìà÷ô 4 (!)êì ô [äì 3 (ñåîìå÷ úèéìô 5 ïà 1ø [éô 4 .äøåùì ìòî ä÷éçî éðîéñá ÷çîðå äãðò è˙ ç úìîç ïçöìà éô ä¨ ô÷àå ä¨ ëìîìà úåòèá óñåð ì [êìîä 6 àáé ô [àåáé 6 (à10§ åàìá äàø) éèòé äðàô 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [àèòú àäðàô éøå÷îä èñ÷èá—äð ìù 駧ë äîëá äøñç àéäù—åæ äìî äììëåä àì ¬äàøðë [íåéä 6 êìîäå íå÷îá êë [úìñî 10 àåáéå ô ¬ì [àáéå 9 .駧äë ìëá äîåâøú äøñçù ïååéëî ¬úôé ìù (äðå) ¨ ëìîìà ìù) ìà óñåð à [øúñà 11 .3ø ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(aâ11§ åàìá äàø) ä¨ ìàñî äàø] ä ¨ ëìîìà óñåð 1ø ;äøåùì ìòî å÷á ÷çîðå ([1ø 駧ë íå÷îá [êúìñî 13 ìà÷ô 1ø [ìà÷å 13 ä 15 (â9§ åàìá äàø) (!)úç ì [éúç 13 .3ø ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(aâ11§ åàìá äàø) êúìàñî 18 àè˙ ç 1ø [è˙ ç 18 .3ø ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(aâ11§ åàìá äàø) éúìàñî íå÷îá [éúìñî ˙ ìà 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [éúìà 19 .3ø ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(aâ11§ åàìá äàø) éúìàñî íå÷îá [éúìñî éã ¬([íùì] 241 §îòå ,1 §òä ,33 §îò ¬úååäúä ¬åàìá äàø) àãâ íå÷îá [àãâàå 19 (aà361§ åàìá äàø) íäñáìú ô ;(193§ åàìá äàø) äñáìú ì [àäñáìú 20 ìòôà 1ø [ìîòà 19 .1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù [çáöà 22 (!)àäîàã÷ ô ;162§ åàìá äàø [äîàã÷ 21 úìë˙ ãå 1ø [úìë˙ ãô 21 (191§ åàìá äàø) 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [àäéàø 24 .àúéì 1ø [óå÷åìì 23 .àúéì 1ø [øúñà 22 .úøçà úåà ïî §öä äð÷åú à àäàòãúñà 1ø [àòãúñà 24 .àúéì 1ø [êìîìà 24 (a9§ åàìá äàø) àäàø 3ø,

text

34*

˙ ìú˙ å éñôð ïò íåé íàéà ä¨ òáøà íåöà éðòú .ïë íåöà éúåøòðå éðà íâ ïò íà[é]à ú ˙ å [à49] .ä¨ îàìà éðòú ®êìîä ìà àåáà ïëáå àäìå÷å ®úàðîåî ïäðàì àäéøàåâ˙ úøëã

˙ ãà ïà éúãàò øâ˙ú íì ïà éðòú úãë àì øùà àäìå÷å ®ä¨ éåàè àðàå ìë˙ ãà éìà ìë ïà éðà úîìò ã÷å éðòú ®éúãáà éúãáà øùàëå àäìå÷å ®éðéòãúñé ïà øéâ ïî êìîìà

¨ ö˙ á÷ úçú úøöå éúîà òéîâ˙ ïò úâ˙øë˙ ã÷ àîá êìã˙ ïåëéô úìú÷ 5 úðàëô ®ìøò éå˙â ä ˙ à ã÷å ®àäðéã øäè˙ ú àìå äéìò éä àî éìò àäðåã ïî àä÷çì àî éìò ä¨ îåîâî óìúë ¨ øåä÷îìàë úðàë àäðà íå÷ ìà÷ô øúñà éðòî éô àîìòìà ãé úçú úìöç àäðàì ä

˙ à [á49] åì éúç êìã˙ àäì æåâ˙é íì àäñôð úìú÷ éä ïàô êìîìà íì àäðéã úøäè ˙ ìàô ®àäàåäé äðàì àäìú÷é àì êìîìà ã˙ à àéù àäòôðé äìîòú ïà àäéìò áâ˙å éã òð öúú íì àäðà éøú éìà ®àäðò äììà ˙âøôé ïà éìà ïéãìà ïî äéìà ìöú àî åä 10

˙ ë˙ àåé àì §òúå §áú äììàå éñðìà ìú˙ î ã÷ äðàì àäòî øôàëìà óì÷àìà ïåëá àäã

˙ éà ãéòìàå úáñìàå äãéøú àî àìà ìëàú àì ïà àäì íú àäì ïëé íì äðàì àö ˙ à ìà÷å ®áéø÷ ìå÷ åäå àäìîò ïî àäúìàèá ïéáéô äìîòú ìîò íì êìîìà ïà øë .àìöà àäéìà íã÷úé (8–1 ,ä) úéîéðôä êìîä úéá øöçá ãîòúå úåëìî øúñà ùáìúå éùéìùä íåéá éäéå çúô çëð úåëìîä

[à50]

(1 ,ä) 15

úéáá åúåëìî àñë ìò áùåé êìîäå êìîä úéá çëð

¨ òìë˙ øúñà úñáì ú˙ ìàú˙ ìà íåéìà éô ïàë àîìô :úéáä ïçö éô úô÷åå êìî ìà ä ˙ ç ä¨ éðàìë˙ àãìà êìîìà øàã äëìî éñøë éìò ñìàâ˙ êìîìà ïàëå êìî ìà úéá éã

˙ ç êìî ìà úéá éô ºúéáìà áàá éã

èùåéå åéðéòá ïç äàùð øöçá úãîò äëìîä øúñà úà êìîä úåàøë éäéå

:èéáøùä ùàøá òâúå øúñà áø÷úå åãéá øùà áäæä ˙ ç úìîç ïçöìà éô ä¨ ô÷àå ä¨ ëìîìà øúñàì äãðò è

(2) 20

èéáøù úà øúñàì êìîä

˙ ð àî ãðò ïàëå êìîìà øè

˙ àìú˙ å 3ø ;ä¨ ú˙ àìú˙ å ô ¬ì [ú˙ ìú˙ å 1 éðà óñåð ô ¬ì [éðòú 1 àäøàåâ˙ ô ¬ì [àäéøàåâ˙ 2 §âå 1ø ;ú óñåð 1ø [éðòú 2 .äøåùì ìòî ä÷éçî éðîéñá ÷çîðå úãë àì øùà áúëð åæ äìî øçàì à [àäìå÷å ˙ ãà ïà 4–3 .àúéì 1ø [ïà 3 (!)éðàå 1ø [àðàå 3 éðà ¬ô ¬ì [éðà 4 .úåòèá èîùð 1ø [êìîìà ... ìë 1ø ;(!)àäðéã 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [àäðåã 6 éúö ˙ á÷ ô ¬ì [ä¨ ö˙ á÷ 5 àîë 1ø [àîá 5 (32§ åàìá äàø) éððà 3ø 1ø [àîìòìà 7 .äøåùì ìòî ä÷éçî éðîéñá ÷çîðå àä÷çì áúëð åæ äìî øçàì à [àî 6 (!)àäðåë 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(aâ8§ åàìá äàø) æâ˙é íå÷îá [æåâ˙é 8 àì ô ¬ì [íì 8 .àúéì 1ø [ãé 7 àðàîìò βcä11§ åàìá äàø) éù íå÷îá [àéù 9 ([!]àäòôîé ïî ¬äàøðë ¬ï÷åú) àäðëîé ì [àäòôðé 9 .1ø äìîòú 10 (74§ åàìá äàø) àäàåäà ô [àäàåäé 9 .àúéì ô [êìîìà 9 (172–171 §îò ¬úååäúäå, ,(aá10§ åàìá äàø) àìà íå÷îá [éìà 10 §òú óñåð 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 10 (!)ìîòú 1ø [åä 11 .øàåâ˙ìà ïî àäøéâ (βa142§ èééø äàø) òðöúé àîë 1ø [éñðìà ìú˙ î 11 .1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù êøàáú 1ø [§òúå §áú 11 .3ø­å ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(γbà11§ åàìá äàø) àñðìà íå÷îá [éñðìà ;ïàáéô 3ø ¬ì [ïéáéô 13 .úåòèá ¬äàøðë ¬èîùð 1ø [äðàì 12 §àáú 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [§áú .éìàòúå ˙ 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [ä¨ òìë˙ 17 áùé ì [áùåé 16 ãåîòúå ô ¬ì [ãîòúå 15 (!)ïàë éô ô åàìá äàø) úòìë ãðòô 1ø [ãðò ïàëå 22 úãîåò ô ¬ì [úãîò 20 (úåòè ¬íúñä­ïî) êìîìà ô [úéáìà 19 (aà27§ ¨ ëìîìà 22 .àúéì 3ø, 2ø [àî 22 éäå óñåð 1ø [ä 2

33*

text

˙ ú àäðà éøåú êìã˙ éô àäö˙ øâå .íåé íéùìù äæ êìîä êìîìà ïåëé ïà [á47] óàë ˙ ã ïàô àäéìò ãâ˙å íú ïåëé ïàì àäðò äúãàò øééâ äìàçá ãâ˙åìàå äéìà úìë ¨ ìéåè ä¨ ãî éä íåé íéùìù äæ àäìå÷å ®àäúìú÷ ááñ êìã˙ ïàë àäéòãúñé íìå ä ˙ ãú íìå òåáñà àäì øîé ïëé íì äìòì ïà æåâ˙é àìå ®àäéô äôâùì äéìà ìë ˙ ã éô ä¨ áçîìà ïéáúì ïàåìàá äìâùà §òú äììàå äúøëã˙ àîéô ä¨ áã˙ àë ïåëú 5 ìåë ˙ ãìà àäìåäé íì íñøìà éìò éøàâ˙ àäðî äáø ÷ú ïàë åì äðàô ®äéìà øúñà ìåë

˙ äðàì éëãøîì åãéâéå ìà÷å ®äéìà éìà ìàçìà óùëðéì êúä òî àäéøàåâ˙ åâ˙øë

¨ ãàòìà àäì øâ˙ú íì äðàì àäéìò ãøçé àìàì éëãøî éëãøî àäøîàé ïà éô ä ˙ á äúøáë˙ à àäðà àîòîå ®äéô äããàøúå øáöé ïà äðî úãàøà êìã

[à48]

éùá

˙ à ú÷å éìà àäì 10 òîñ àîìô ®íàìëìà àäðëîéô àäáìèé êìîìà ìòìô øë

˙ àäñôð éô ìå÷ú úðàë øúñà ïà éìò àì ãàç àäéìà áàåâ˙ìà ã ø éëãøî êìã ˙ ìà ãåäéìà òéîâ˙å éä àðòúå êìîìà øàã éô ïéã

/à÷áúå/

ïåëìäé ãåäéìà ïà

éô êàù êùé ñéì ìà÷ô ®àãéâ˙ àäëø çé ïà ãàøà àîðàå àäéáà úéá ìäàá éä

˙ ïàë ïà ä¨ ãùìà äã˙ ä ïî äúîà ïò ˙âø ôé äììà ïà åäô àìàå êãé éìò êìã

˙ áâ˙é ïëéì ®êøéâ ãé éìò ïåëé 15 åä êìî ìà éìà êìåöå ïàì êøéâ ïåã êéìò êìã

[á48] äîàìë úòîñ àîìô ®§âå òãåé éîå äìå÷ë ú÷åìà àã˙ äì ˙ à úìà÷ô ®êìîìà éìà ìåë˙ ãìà ïò øë˙ àúú àìà àäéìò éìò øîàìà ïàë àã ˙ ìà ïùåù ìäà éìà íã÷úú ïà áâ˙éô ìå÷ú àî éúç ìâ˙àòìàá íäéìà ìöú ïéã ˙ ®ìú÷ìà ïî éñôð éìò óàë˙ à éðàì íåé éááñá åîåöé åáøùú àìå åìëàú àì íú ˙ å ®ä¨ éåèî íàéà ú˙ àìú˙ 20 ®íäúîçø êìîìà áì÷ éô ìòâ˙éå íäðî äììà ìá÷éì êàã ¨äôàë ñàðìà íåöéô ®øã÷é ïî éìò áâ˙é àîðàå ìàôèàìà éìò áâ˙é àã˙ ä ñéìå ˙ ®íàéà ú˙ ìú˙ éåèé ïà áâ˙éô éèìà éìò íäðî øã÷ ïîå ìàôèàìà øéâ úìà÷ íú áâ˙é äðà úîìò

1ø [ïåëé

2 (16

§òä

,84

§îò ¬íùå ¬ë6§ åàìá äàø) éøú íå÷îá [éøåú

1 (!)íéùìåù

1ø [íéùìù

1

¨ ìú÷) åæ äøåö ìò [àäúìú÷ 3 àìå ô [íìå 3 .àúéì àäìú÷ 3ø, 1ø ¬ì ;à588 §îò ¬àååä äàø (ä 1ø ;àìå ô ¬ì [íìå 4 (193§ åàìá äàø) åä ô [éä 3 §ì 1ø [íéùìù äæ 3 §å÷å ô ¬ì [àäìå÷å 3 ¬ô ¬ì [ïéáúì 5 éìàòú 1ø [§òú 5 àî éô ì [àîéô 5 íìå 1ø [àìå 4 àäá 1ø [àäéô 4 àì åæ äìî éðôì ô [àäéøàåâ˙ 7 íñø ì [íñøìà 6 (è8§ åàìá äàø) éøâ˙ íå÷îá [éøàâ˙ 6 (!)ïåëúì 3ø

[äããàøúå 9 .1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(aä11§ åàìá äàø) àìéì íå÷îá [àìàì 8 .úåòèá øàåâ˙ áúëð ˙ úòà 1ø [äúøáë˙ à 9 àî òîå ì [àîòîå 9 êìã˙ éô 1ø [äéô 9 (87§ åàìá äàø) äããúøúå 3ø úøã ¬ô ¬ì [úðàë 11 (218§ åàìá äàø) àãàç íå÷îá [ãàç 11 áàåâ˙ àäéìà 1ø [àäéìà áàåâ˙ìà 11 12 .1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(175§ åàìá äàø) åëìäé íå÷îá [ïåëìäé 12 .úåòèá ¬äàøðë ¬èîùð 3ø ô ;(!)àäáçé ì [àäëø çé 13 (!)÷áúå 3ø, 1ø ¬à ;(à10§ åàìá äàø) é÷áúå íå÷îá ¬ô­å ì êë [à÷áúå úñéì 1ø [êàù êùé ñéì 13 (á30§ åàìá äàø) àãééâ˙ 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [àãéâ˙ 13 (!)àäëøúé 3ø ;(!)àäëçé ˙ ä ô [äã˙ ä 14 §òú óñåð 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 14 êàù ¬ì [êøéâ ... åäô 15–14 (aà51§ åàìá äàø) äã 15 (ìåãâä íå÷îá §âå ô) ìåãâä åîù øåáòá åîò úà éåé ùåèé àì éë §å÷ë óñåðå ˙âøôé êøéâ ãé éìò ô ˙ 15 ïë (àìå ô ¬ì) àì 3ø ¬ô ¬ì ;(5§ åàìá äàø ;§§ä¨ ìàî১ úîçî) ïëì íå÷îá [ïëéì ô ¬ì [êìã 3ø, 1ø ,ô ¬ì [§âå 16 §å÷ë 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ë 16 (á50§ åàìá äàø) éëéìò ô ¬ì [êéìò 15 .àúéì 17 (!)àäðà ô ¬ì [äðà 16 (cà27§ åàìá äàø) ä¨ îìò ì [úîìò 16 úåëìîì úòâä úàæë úòì íà (cà361§ åàìá äàø) éã˙ ìà ô [ïéã˙ ìà 18 äøëã˙ 1ø [ìå÷ú 18 (â205§ åàìá äàø) íì ô ¬ì [àìà íå÷îá [íåé 19 úåòèá ¬äàøðë ¬èîùð 1ø [éúç 18 (192§ åàìá äàø) àäéìà ô ¬ì [íäéìà 18 ˙ àìú˙ 20 úåòèá ¬äàøðë ¬èîùð 1ø [åáøùú àìå 19 (218§ åàìá äàø) àîåé ¬ì [äììà 20 §â 1ø [ú ˙ ä 21 íëúîçø 1ø [íäúîçø 20 (192§ åàìá äàø) àäðî ì [íäðî 20 §òú óñåð 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [áâ˙é àã [ú˙ ìú˙ 22 (à182§ åàìá äàø) åîåöéô ô ¬ì [íåöéô 21 ([aà51§ åàìá äàø] äã˙ ä ô) àã˙ ä áâ˙é 3ø ¬ô ˙ àìú˙ 3ø ¬ô ¬ì §â 1ø ;ú

text

32*

˙ à éøâ˙ àî éìò ïùåù éô ïéîé÷îìà ãåäéìà øéàñå éëãøî ìå÷ìà íã÷ú àîë åáøèö ˙ àøöìàå àëáìàá éëãøî øãàáô ®äá åä àîë àâ˙å ãàîøìàå çñîìà ñáìå ê ¨ áèàë˙ î êìã˙ éô äãö÷å êìîìà øàã åçð éìà ú÷åìà éô ®äãéøé àîá øúñà ä ¨ ð ñ éô êìã˙ ñéì ã˙ à çñîìà äéìòå êìîìà áàá éìà éâ˙é ïà äðëîé íì àîìô ä

ãòá ïò ó÷åô ®÷ù ùåáìá êìîä øòù ìà àåáì ïéà éë äìå÷ë äøéâ àìå êìîìà 5

˙ äë˙ àøö êìîìà øàã ïî òîñ àîìô øàåâ˙ úâ˙øë

[à46]

˙ øöé åäå äîñø éìò ê

˙ òîñúì øúñà åä ïîî êìã ¨ ëìîìà ˙ äðà äðëîé àì äðà úîìò àîìô ®øáëìàá àäéìà ïéâ˙ô ä äéìòå ˙ ìà íìòúñúì àäéâ˙éå äðò çñîìà éç ðéå àäñáìé áàéú˙ á äéìà úú˙ òá çñîìà øáë ˙ ìá÷é íìô ®øéâö øîàì êìã˙ ìòôé íì äðà êùú íì àäðàì ä¨ çö éìò äðî êìã ˙ ìòôå äë˙ àøöå äçñîá äúìîâ˙ éìò íà÷à ìá íæìà äðàì àîäãçà ®ïééùì êìã ˙ ˙ ã âúå øúñà ÷ì÷ ãéæéì éðàúìà ®äøæâìà ìåæú ïà éìà äúìîâ˙ éìò íé÷é äðà äñôð ˙ òáú ïà êìã˙ ãðò [á46] úâ˙àúçàô ®áâ˙é àîë ä¨ ö÷ìà éô äðàì êúäá äéìà ú àäìå÷å ®øîàìà àã˙ äì çìöé ì÷àò ìâ˙ø ïàëå àö˙ éà ø ñìà íúë˙ éå àäðéã éìò ˙ ä ùéàå éâ˙úå êçñî òìë˙ ú íì àîì äá ãéøú .äæ äî úòãì íìòðå ®äøæâìà äã ãåäéìà ìú÷ ãàøà ïîä ïà äì çøù äðà åä åäø÷ øùà ìë úà éëãøî áàåâ˙ ïî ˙ å ®äì ãâ˙ñé íì äðà ú˙ éç ïî ááñá êìîìì ìàîìà ïî ïîä ìãáà àî äì øëã ˙ òééù íú˙ ®êìã˙ éìò ó÷úå àäéìò íäàø÷éì áúëìà äàèòàå ãåäéìà ïàá êìã ˙ úúå êìîìà éìà ìë˙ ãú ïà àäøîà íäðî àäðà äôøòúå ãåäéìà ááñá äéìà òøö ˙ ˙ éìà äðàì àîìô ®àäðéãå àäîå÷á øá ëú ïà àäì [à47] ÷ìèé íì ú÷åìà êìã ¨ ˙ éà àäéøàåâ˙ ïî äòîå êúäá úìñøàô àä÷ì÷ ãàæ àãéâ˙ äö÷ìà éìò úô÷å àö ˙ éô êìîìà éìà ìåë˙ ãìà ïò àäòðîé òðàî íú˙ ïà äôøòéå àäøáë˙ äôø òéì êìã àìà êìîìà òî òîúâ˙ú ïà àäì ìéáñ àì äðà àîäãçà ïééùá ú÷ìòúå ®ú÷åìà ˙ ã ïà àäðàå ä¨ éðàìë˙ àãìà øàãìà éô äñìâ˙î éô ñìàâ˙ ïåëé ú÷å éô éìà úìë ˙ àäì àìå éëãøîì íúé àìå ìú÷ú ïà àäñôð éìò úòæô àäéòãé ïà øéâ ïî íú ˙ ìàå ®íäðò äøæâìà ä¨ ìàæà éô àîäãàøî ìà àåáì éúàø÷ð àì éðàå àäìå÷ éðàú íò ïáà äðà ïôøòéå úàéãåäé ïäå éëãøî åä

˙ àô àã

àäéâ˙é

[äá 2 (à127§ åàìá äàø) ïåîé÷îìà íå÷îá [ïéîé÷îìà 1 .úåòèá ¬äàøðë ¬èîùð ô ¬ì [ãåäéìà 1 ˙ àøöìà ïî 1ø [ê˙ àøöìàå àëáìàá 2 .àúéì ô ¬ì ô ¬ì [åä 2 ñàáìå 1ø [ñáìå 2 àëáìàå ê [ïôøòéå 7 (!)åäå ô [ïäå 7 ó÷å 1ø ;(!)ó÷éô ô [ó÷åô 5 §å÷ë 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ë 5 øåëã˙ î óñåð 11 ìòôé 1ø [ìòôå 11 ïà 1ø [äðà 8 ïëîé ô ¬ì [äðëîé 8 íì ô ¬ì [àì 8 (!)ïåôøòéå ô ¬ì 14 éðàú˙ ìàå 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [éðàú˙ ìà 12 (89–88 §îò ¬úååäúä äàø) àäãçà ô ;§ãçà ì [àîäãçà 15 äæ äî ìòå óñåð 1ø [äæ 15 §å÷å 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [àäìå÷å 14 øåîàìà äã˙ äì 1ø [øîàìà àã˙ äì (!)äã ù ô [çøù 16 åäå 1ø [åä 16 §å÷ë óñåð 1ø [éëãøî 16 (aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã˙ ä ì [äã˙ ä ˙ å ô ¬ì [øëã˙ å 17 (!)ãâ˙é ô ¬ì [ãâ˙ñé 17 .àúéì ô ¬ì [äðà 17 èîùð éìåà) àúéì 1ø [ïîä 17 (!)êìã ïî §èä äð÷åú à [äàèòàå 18 íäááñá 1ø [ãåäéìà ááñá 18–17 .(äàáä äìîì ïåéîã ìùá úô÷åô 1ø [ó÷úå 18 .1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(191§ åàìá äàø) àäàø÷éì íå÷îá [íäàø÷éì 18 .§à éìà 22 ãéâ˙ óå÷å 1ø ;(á30§ åàìá äàø) àãééâ˙ 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [àãéâ˙ 21 ïðçúúå óñåð ô ¬ì [êìîìà 19 ¬úååäúä äàø) àäãçà ô ;§äãçà ì [àîäãçà 23 ú÷ìòúô 1ø [ú÷ìòúå 23 .àúéì 1ø [êìîìà .äøåùì ìòî å÷á ÷çîðå éìà áúëð åæ äìî éðôì à [òî 23 éìà óñåð 1ø [àäì 23 (89–88 §îò ¨ éðìë˙ àãìà ì [ä¨ éðàìë˙ àãìà 24 ô ¬ì [àäéòãé 25 .úåòèá èîùð 1ø [øéâ 25 (á6§ åàìá äàø) ä 1ø [àäì àìå éëãøîì 25 íìå 1ø [àìå 25 àäðåòãé 1ø ;êìîìà óñåðå (à10§ åàìá äàø) àäàòãé (!)àäðò ô ¬ì [íäðò 26 äãàøî 1ø [àîäãàøî 26 éëãøîì àìå àäì

10

15

20

25

31*

text

˙ ááñ ïà íå÷ ìà÷ ®äéô äéìà áäã˙ ð àî ìå÷ð íú˙ ®àîìòìà õ˙ òá äåìà÷ àî êìã ˙ é íì áàúëìà ïà ú˙ éç ïî ãñàô ìå÷ åäå øöðãëåáð íðöì íäãåâ˙ñ ãåäéìà ïò øëã ˙ éìà íäàðòáàú åìå ®äì åãâ˙ñ íäðà ìë á÷àòé ïà äììà ìãò éô æåâ˙é íì êìã ˙ á ãåäéìà ïà äììà êøúéå íäìå÷á ïéìéà÷ íä ñéìå íðöìì åãâ˙ñ ìáá éô íå÷ áðã ˙ à ìà÷å ®íäøéâ á÷àòéå êéàìà á÷àòé 5 éô ùåøåùçà íàòè ïî åìëà àîì íäðà øë

˙ î åä ìå÷ìà àã˙ ä éìò ã øìàå ®ä¨ åòãìà æåâ˙é àì äðàì ìåàìà ìå÷ìà éìò ã øìà ìú

[á44] ïùåù ìäà áðã˙ á ãåäéìà ìë åá÷àòé ïà ¨ ãùìà úðàë åì êìã˙ ìà÷é ïà æåâ˙é ïàë àîðàå ìà÷å ®íäøéâ ïåã ïùåù ìäà éìò ä ˙ ú åä êìã˙ éô ááñìà ïà íå÷ ò÷å àî ãðò ñã÷îìà úéá éìà ãåòöìà ïò íäôìë ˙ î ãàñôìà ïî ä÷çìé àì ìå÷ìà àã˙ äå ®êìã˙ á êìîìà ùøåë ïî éãðìà 10 ïî äøéâ ìú ˙ à äâ˙å ïî ãñ ôé ïëì ®úîã÷ú éúìà ìéåà÷àìà àì ïàë ìé÷ àîë ïàë åì äðà åäå øë ˙ ìà ìåæé ïàá àìà ãâ˙åìà êìã˙ ìåæé éìò ïåîãðéå ñã÷îìà úéá éìà ïåãòöé ïà åäå áðã ˙ ìà ä¨ éìàâ˙ìà ìäà áåðã˙ êìã˙ ááñ ïåëé ïà àö˙ éà æåâ˙é àìå ®êìã˙ ®àîéàã àäéìò íä éã [à45] øáë˙ ìà ãåøå ãðò äåìòô àî àðéàø àîì äðà åä äéô éãðò áø÷é éã˙ ìà ïëéì ˙ ë˙ à íå÷ìà ïà åäå ®ä¨ ãö˙ êìã˙ éô ááñìà ïàë ïà àðîìò ãìáå ãìá ìë éô íäéìà 15 åã ˙ é íìå áãðìàå ãàîøìàå çñîìàå àëáìàå ïæçìà éô äììà íäîçøô äøéâ øëã ˙ ð àîì íå÷ìà ïà ìå÷ðô ®êìã˙ ãðò ã÷å ïéáàø÷ìàá øîò ã÷ äììà úéá ïà åøè ˙ å íäúåìâ˙ éìò ïæçìà ïî äéìò åðàë àî åëøú äàðá éô òøù ïàìèáå íäøàéã áàøë ˙ ïàëå ®áøùìàå ìëàìà éô åã˙ ë˙ àå íäðéáàø÷ íäéìò äììà êø çô ãñàô ìéåàú êìã ˙ ˙ ˙ éô ááñìà ïò åú˙ çá àîìô ®ä¨ ãùìà äã˙ ä 20 íäúáåú åäå äãö åìîòúñàå äåôøò êìã ˙ ä éô çøùìà àðòñåà ã÷å ®íäðò èë˙ ñìà ìàæ êìã˙ ãðòô äðî äììà éìà ìå÷ìà àã ˙ òá àî ãðò [á45] äéøëæ øéñôú éô íàîúå éùéîçä ùãçá äëáàä ïåìå÷é íå÷ìà ú ˙ à àðòö˙ åî éìà ãåòð ®àðää äúãàòà ìåèé àîî ìå÷ìà ó÷å àî ãðò ïà ïååãîìà øáë ˙ ìöúé íì íäìòìå íäá íäøáë

åàìá äàø) åìà÷ ú [ìà÷ 1 .1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(182§ åàìá äàø) äìà÷ íå÷îá [äåìà÷ 1 ˙ ˙ ;(aâ8§ åàìá äàø) æâé íå÷îá [æåâé 3 àì ú ¬ô ¬ì [íì 3 éìò ú [éìà 3 .àúéì 1ø [äì 3 (à182§ [íä ñéìå 4 ááñá ú [áðã˙ á 4 ú§§à ú ;§òú óñåð 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 3 (úåòè éìåà) áâ˙é 1ø 4 .(21 §òä ¬íùå ¬à206§ åàìá äàø) åñéì åà (úéñàì÷ úéáøòá ÷ø àöîð àåäù) íä (à)åñéìå íå÷îá 7 ïéøë˙ à íå÷ ú ;íå÷ 1ø [øë˙ à 5 ú§§à ú ;§òú óñåð 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 4 êøúéô ú [êøúéå 10 (!)ò÷é ô [ò÷å 9 ú§§à ú [ñã÷îìà 9 äìòìå 1ø [íäìòìå 7 òéîâ˙ á÷àòé ú [ìë åá÷àòé 10 êìîä ú [êìîìà 10 .ú­å 1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(γbà11§ åàìá äàø) àãðìà íå÷îá [éãðìà ˙ ìà ú [éúìà 11 àã˙ ä 1ø [àã˙ äå 10 ãåòöìàá ú [êìã˙ á ¬ô ¬ì [ïëì 11 (aà361§ åàìá äàø) éã åàìá äàø) åãòöé íå÷îá [ïåãòöé 12 ã÷ì óñåð 1ø [ìé÷ 11 äðàì ú [äðà 11 ïë àì ú, 3ø, 2ø ˙ ìà 13 (175§ åàìá äàø) åîãðéå íå÷îá [ïåîãðéå 12 ú§§à ú [ñã÷îìà 12 (175§ éúìà íå÷îá [éã ;1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(5§ åàìá äàø ;§§ä¨ ìàî১ úîçî) ïëì íå÷îá [ïëéì 14 (aà361§ åàìá äàø) ... äðà 14 .àúéì 1ø [åä 14 àðãðò 1ø [éãðò 14 éã˙ ìàå ú [éã˙ ìà ïëéì 14 ïë àì 3ø ¬ô ¬ì ¨ øö˙ 1ø [ä¨ ãö˙ 15 .§ä ïî §îä äð÷åú à [àî 14 àðòîñ àîá ïà ú [àðéàø ì [íäîçøô 16 (!)ä 17 åòîñ ú [åøè˙ ð 17 äãðò 1ø [êìã˙ ãðò 17 ú§§à ú ;§òú óñåð 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 16 íäîçøéô 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 19 ãàñô ô ¬ì [ãñàô 19 ú§§à ú ;§òú óñåð 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 17 éô 1ø [ïà 22 (bà51§ åàìá äàø) äã˙ ä ú [àã˙ ä 21 ú§§à ú ;§òú óñåð 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 21 ú§§à ú ;§òú óñåð ˙ òá ú [íå÷ìà ú˙ òá 22 䧧ò óñåð ô ¬ì [äéøëæ ¬ì [äúãàòà 23 ïéìéàñìà (à182§ åàìá äàø) åú ïåãîìà 1ø ¬ì [ïååãîìà 23 àðäàä 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [àðää 23 äúãàòàå äçøù ô

text

30*

¨ àøîàå ìâ˙ø éà ïà äìå÷à àîá ïéôøàò êìîìà ïãî íå÷å êìîìà ãéáò ìë :íåé ä äá

[á42]

¨ éðàìë˙ àãìà øàãìà éìà àòãúñé íìå ä

íìô àðàå à÷áúñéô

˙ ìà áäã

˙÷ áéö

/êìîìà

˙ ãé éã˙ ìà éìà/ ìë

¨ ãçàå äúð ñô êìîìà êø çé ïà àìà ìú ÷é ïà ä

˙ ìú˙ ã˙ ðî êìîìà éìà ìåë˙ ãìàì àòãúñà ºàîåé ïéú ˙ àô :øúñà éøáã úà éëãøîì åãéâéå ºøúñà úìà÷ àîá éëãøî åøáë ìëî êìîä úéá èìîäì êùôðá éîãú ìà øúñà ìà áéùäì éëãøî øîàéå

(12) 5 (13)

˙ úé ïà êñôð éô éðè˙ ú àì øúñà éìà áàåâ˙ìà ãøé ïà éëãøî ìà÷ô :íéãåäéä õì ë

˙ ìà ãåäéìà òéîâ˙ ºêìîìà øàã éô ïéã

úàå øçà íå÷îî íéãåäéì ãîòé äìöäå çåø úàæä úòá éùéøçú ùøçä íà éë

(14)

éúëñîà ïà êðàô :úåëìîì úòâä úàæë [à43] úòì íà òãåé éîå åãáàú êéáà úéáå 10

˙ å ä¨˙âøô ïî ãá ñéìô íäáàá éô ä¨ ìñîìà ïò ú÷åìà àã˙ ä ìú˙ î éô ïî íäéâ˙é õàìë ˙ ä ìú˙ îì ïà íìòé ïîå êéáà ìäàå úðà êìäúå øë˙ à òö˙ åî éìà úìöåà ú÷åìà àã ºêìî ìà

ºéëãøî éìà ãøúì øúñà úìà÷ô :éëãøî ìà áéùäì øúñà øîàúå

åúùú ìàå åìëàú ìàå éìò åîåöå ïùåùá íéàöîðä íéãåäéä ìë úà ñåðë êì

(15) (16) 15

úãë àì øùà êìîä ìà àåáà ïëáå ïë íåöà éúøòðå éðà íâ íåéå äìéì íéîé úùìù

[á43] ïà íäì ìå÷å ïñåñ éô ïéãåâ˙åîìà ãåäéìà ìë òîâ˙à øî :éúãáà éúãáà øùàëå ˙ éà éøàåâ˙å àðàå àøàäðå àìéì íàéà ú˙ ìú˙ ïåáøùé àìå ïåìëàé àìå éááñá åîåöé àö ¨ ð ñ äá øâ˙ú íì éúìà êìîìà éìà ìë˙ ãà êìã˙ ìú˙ îáå êìã˙ ìú˙ î íåöà àîë êìäàå ä

ºúëìä 20

àî òéîâ˙ ìîòå éëãøî æàâ˙ô :øúñà åéìò äúåö øùà ìëë ùòéå éëãøî øáòéå

(17)

ºøúñà äúøîà

˙ à ïàîæìà àã˙ ä éô ìàøùé éìò äTæâìà äã˙ ä êø ç éã˙ ìà àî øëã˙ ð ïà áâ˙é íì ã

¨ îã÷î éô ìå÷ðô ®òö˙ åîìà àã˙ ä éô êìã˙ çö˙ åé ïçúîé àì äììà ïà àðîàìë ä

˙ á àðäúøî éäå äúéìàâ˙ éô ä¨ öàë˙ ®êìã˙ éìò àäö˙ åòéì ìéàøñà éðá ä¨ îà 25 ®àäáåðã ˙ ðô ®ä¨ îéè˙ òìà ä¨ ãùìà äã˙ ä íäéìò êø ç [à44] éðòî íú˙ ïåëé ïà áâ˙éô àìåà øëã

¬äàøðë ¬èîùð 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì ¬à ;1ø êë [êìîìà éìà 2 .àúéì 1ø [éã˙ ìà 2 éãáò ô [ãéáò 1 ¨ ãçàå 3 àìå 1ø [íìå 2 ä¨ éðàåâ˙ìà 1ø [ä¨ éðàìë˙ àãìà 2 .ïåè÷øàåéåîåäá äìîä äìôëð ô ¬ì [ä 274-å ,203 ,171 §îò ¬úååäúä äàø ;ñåáéèéðâ) íåé íå÷îá [àîåé 4 ìë˙ ãàì 1ø [ìåë˙ ãìàì 4 .úåòèá ˙ àô 5 .3ø­å ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,([171 §îò ìò] ô ¬ì [éëãøî 5 .§ø ïî §áä äð÷åú à [åøáë ,à ¬èééø äàø) ä¨ ìàñîìà íå÷îá [ä¨ ìñîìà 11 (cà361§ åàìá äàø) éã˙ ìà 3ø [ïéã˙ ìà 8 éëãøîì 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [êéáà 12 úéá óñåð ô ¬ì [ìäàå 12 .3ø­å ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(à9§ åàìáå ,140§ 17 éúåøòðå 3ø ¬ì [éúøòðå 16 áàåâ˙ìà óñåð 1ø [ãøúì 14 úìà÷å 1ø [úìà÷ô 14 (!)êåáà ¨ øàîòìà óñåð ô [ïñåñ 駧ëá áúëð êëù ¬(ë8§ åàìáå ,140§ ,à ¬èééø äàø) ì÷å íå÷îá [ìå÷å 17 ä áúëð êëù ,(175§ åàìá äàø) åìëàé íå÷îá [ïåìëàé 18 (175§ åàìá äàø) ïåîåöé 1ø [åîåöé 18 .1ø 18 .1ø­å ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(175§ åàìá äàø) åáøùé íå÷îá [ïåáøùé 18 .1ø­å ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá ˙ éà 18 éøàåâ˙å àö˙ éà 1ø [àö˙ éà éøàåâ˙å 18 ú˙ àìú˙ 3ø ;§â 1ø ;ä¨ ú˙ ìú˙ ô ¬ì [ú˙ ìú˙ éìåà) àúéì 3ø ¬ì [àö ˙ ìà 1ø [éúìà 19 .(äàáä äìîì ïåéîã ìùá úåòèá èîùð íå÷îá [äá 19 (aà361§ åàìá äàø) éã 1ø [ã ˙ à 23 (bà51§ åàìá äàø) äã˙ ä 3ø [àã˙ ä 23 ä¨ ðñìà 1ø [ä¨ ð ñ 19 (193§ åàìá äàø) àäá ˙ ä 3ø [àã˙ ä 24 (!)íà óñåð 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 24 ìå÷ðå 1ø [ìå÷ðô 24 (bà51§ åàìá äàø) äã 25 .3ø­å, 2ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(193§ åàìá äàø) àäúéìàâ˙ íå÷îá [äúéìàâ˙ 25 §òú ˙ ä ô [äã˙ ä 26 .1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(câ27§ åàìá äàø) ä¨ ðäúøî íå÷îá [àðäúøî åàìá äàø) àã (aà51§

29*

text

íéãâá çìùúå ãàî äëìîä ìçìçúúå äì åãéâéå äéñéøñå øúñà úåøòð äðàåáúå

(4)

˙ å øúñà øàåâ˙ ïúâ˙ô :ìá÷ àìå åéìòî å÷ù øéñäìå éëãøî úà ùéáìäì àäðàéöë

˙ úú˙ òáå àãâ˙ ä¨ ëìîìà ä¨ ö˙ ë˙ îúô àäåøáë˙ àå [à41] äçñî éç ðéå éëãøî ñáìéì àáàéú ºìá÷é íìå äéìò ïî

5 úòãì éëãøî ìò åäåöúå äéðôì ãéîòä øùà êìîä éñéøñî êúäì øúñà àø÷úå

(5)

˙ ìà êìîìà ïàéöë˙ ä¨ ìîâ˙ ïî êúäá øúñà úòãúñàô :äæ äî ìòå äæ äî äô÷åà éã ˙ àî éìòå àã˙ ä ùéà óøòéì éëãøî éìà øîé ïà äúøîàå àäîàã÷ ïåëéì ºàã ˙ ô :êìîä øòù éðôì øùà øéòä áåçø ìà éëãøî ìà êúä àöéå éìà êúä ˙âøë

(6)

˙ ìà ä¨ ðéãîìà ä¨ áçø éìà éëãøî ºêìîìà áàá íàã÷ éã

10 ïîä øîà [á41] øùà óñëä úùøô úàå åäø÷ øùà ìë úà éëãøî åì ãâéå

(7)

˙ ô :íãáàì íéãåäéá êìîä éæðâ ìò ìå÷ùì äì ïééáå ä÷çì àî òéîâ˙á éëãøî äøáë ˙ éìà äá ìë˙ ãéå äðæé ïà ïîä ìà÷ éã˙ ìà ìàîìà øàã÷î ãåäéìà ááñá êìîìà ïéàæë ºíäãéáéì øúñà úà úåàøäì åì ïúð íãéîùäì ïùåùá ïúð øùà úãä áúë ïâùúô úàå

(8)

15 :äîò ìò åéðôìî ù÷áìå åì ïðçúäì êìîä ìà àåáì äéìò úååöìå äì ãéâäìå

¨ ðñìà áàúë ä¨ ë˙ ñðå øúñà éøåéì äàèòà ãåäéìà ìàöéúñàì ïñåñ éô úìòâ˙ éúìà ä ˙ úúì êìîìà éìà ìåë˙ ãìàá àäéöåéå àäøá ë˙ éå éìò à÷áàìà éô äìñúå äéìà òøö ºàäîå÷

˙ àå êúä àâ˙ô :éëãøî éøáã [à42] úà øúñàì ãâéå êúä àáéå àîá øúñà øáë 20

(9)

ºéëãøî äìà÷ ìå÷é ïà äúøîàå êúäì øúñà úìà÷ô :éëãøî ìò åäåöúå êúäì øúñà øîàúå àåáé øùà äùàå ùéà ìë øùà íéòãé êìîä úåðéãî íòå êìîä

(10) :éëãøîì éãáò ìë (11)

èéùåé øùàî ãáì úéîäì åúã úçà àø÷é àì øùà úéîéðôä øöçä ìà êìîä ìà

25 íéùåìù äæ êìîä ìà àåáì éúàø÷ð àì éðàå äéçå áäæä èéáøù úà êìîä åì

äàø) ïéâ˙ô íå÷îá [ïúâ˙ô 2 äðàáúå 1ø ;äðéàåáúå :íù §§áéú맧äå ¬î§§äðá §§éø÷§§ä êë [äðàåáúå 1 ˙ ë˙ îúô íå÷îá [ä¨ ö˙ ë˙ îúô 3 (!)íäðàéöë˙ å ì [àäðàéöë˙ å 2 (!)øàöë 1ø [øàåâ˙ 2 (58§ åàìá äàø) úö ˙ ë˙ îàô ô ¬ì ;3ø­å 1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(cà27§ åàìá §îò ¬ïééìå ,74§ åàìá äàø êà ¬úåòè éìåà) úö ô ¬ì [äçñî éç ðéå 3 .úøçà úåà ïî §çä äð÷åú à [éç ðéå 3 åñáìéì 1ø [ñáìéì 3 (á–à2694 7 åäå óñåð 1ø [êúäá 6 íìô 1ø [íìå 4 .úåòèá ¬äàøðë ¬èîùð 1ø [äéìò ïî 4 .çñîìà ìéæéå à ;(á52§ åàìá äàø) éù éà íå÷îá êë [ùéà 7 äúøîàô 1ø [äúøîàå 7 (!)íäîàã÷ ô [àäîàã÷ ˙ ä ô [àã˙ ä 7 .ä÷éçî ïîéñá ä÷çéîå äøåùä óåñá §ù áåúëì ÷éúòîä ìéçúä åæ äìî øçàì äàø) àã .1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(aà361§ åàìá äàø) éúìà íå÷îá [éã˙ ìà 9 àã˙ ä ô ¬ì [àã˙ 7 (bà51§ åàìá [äøáë˙ ô 11 íééãåäéá :íù §§áéú맧äå ¬î§§äðá §§éø÷§§ä êë [íéãåäéá 11 (!)åäàø÷ ô [åäø÷ 10 ¨ ðàæë˙ ô ¬ì [êìîìà ïéàæë˙ 12 (99§ åàìá äàø) äðæåé ô ¬ì [äðæé 12 äøáë˙ àô 1ø ¬ô ¬ì ïàèìñìà ä ˙ ñðå 3ø [ä¨ ë˙ ñðå 16 øôåñä êë áúë íâå ,(!)áàúëìà 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [áàúë 16 (aà27§ åàìá äàø) úë óñåð ô [ïñåñ 16 (aà361§ åàìá äàø) éã˙ ìà 1ø [éúìà 16 .å÷á úéåúä úà ÷çéî êà ¬à 駧ëá ¨ øàîòìà ¬íùå ¬ë6§ åàìá äàø) éøéì íå÷îá [éøåéì 16 íäìöàúñéì 1ø [ãåäéìà ìàöéúñàì 16 ä ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ¬(à9§ åàìáå ,140§ ,à ¬èééø äàø) äìàñúå íå÷îá [äìñúå 17 (16 §òä ,84 §îò äàø) øéä÷ úæéðâî äìéâîä ìù ãé­áúëá—§ä ÷åñôì íàúäá—êë áúëð íâ [ìò 21 .3ø­å, 2ø ¬ô óñåð 1ø [ìå÷é 21 .ìà áúëð— 3ø­å, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá åîë—ìáå÷îä çñåðá êà ¬(øúà ìò BHS ˙ íéùìù 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [íéùåìù 25 èùåé ô [èéùåé 24 êìã

text

28*

˙ øëã˙ ð àîë øúñà éìà àäá äâ˙ å éúìà ä¨ ë˙ ñðìà áàúë éìà ãòáå ®ãòá àî éô êìã ˙ ôð àî ®äëåáð ïùåù øéòäå äìå÷å ®ïàøàñ àîäå àáøùé ïîäå êìîìà ñìâ˙ áúëìà úã ˙ ôðå äúâá êìã˙ ïàë äðàì è÷ô ãåäéìàá õåöë˙ î ìå÷ìà àã˙ ä ïåëé ïà àîà úã ˙ ôðú ïà ìá÷ íìò êìã˙ ïî íäãðò ïëé íìå øîàìà úàôå áúëìà åðàëô áúëìà ã ˙ ðé åà íäîçøéì êìîìà éìà ä¨ ö÷ ïåòôøé 5 ïà àîàå ®ïåìòôé äá íäøîàé àî ïåøè ˙ ë˙ àå íäðéëàëã ãåäéìà ÷ìâ ú÷åìà éô ïàì ä¨ ðéãîìà ìäà éìà äá ãö÷ ïåëé éô åã ˙ ä [à40] àððàîæ éô ãäàùé àîë íäìàîòà ïî ñàðìà ìèáô ®â˙éâ˙òìàå íàéöìà àã

˙ ëà ìèáé äðà íäì ïàë ã÷å ®éøùìàå òéáìà ì ÷éå úáñìà íåé ñàðìà ìàîòà øú .áúëìà ä¨ ë˙ ñð íäéìò /éø÷å/ åòîñ àî ãðò åøéçúô íîàìà ïî à÷ãöà (17–1 ,ã) àöéå øôàå ÷ù ùáìéå åéãâá úà éëãøî òø÷éå äùòð øùà ìë úà òãé éëãøîå

(1 ,ã) 10

÷ù ìîò àî òéîâ˙á éëãøî óøò àî ãðòå :äøîå äìåãâ ä÷òæ ÷òæéå øéòä êåúá

˙ å ääâ˙åå äáàéú˙ éìò ãàîøìà çøèå çñî ñáì íú˙ ú÷åìà éô äáàéú˙ èñå éìà ˙âøë

¨ ø îå ä¨ îéè˙ ò ä¨ ë˙ øö ê˙ øöå ä¨ ðéãîìà ºä

˙ :÷ù ùåáìá êìîä øòù ìà àåáì ïéà éë êìîä øòù éðôì ãò àåáéå àâ˙ äðà íú

(2)

˙ à êìîìà øàã áàá íàã÷ éìà [á40] 15 ñàáìá êìîìà áàá éìà éâ˙é ïà æåâ˙é ñéì ã ºçñî íåöå íéãåäéì ìåãâ ìáà òéâî åúãå êìîä øáã øùà íå÷î äðéãîå äðéãî ìëáå

(3)

˙ ìà òö˙ àåîìà øéàñå ä¨ ðéãîå ä¨ ðéãî ìë éôå :íéáøì òöé øôàå ÷ù ãôñîå éëáå éã ˙ ò àðæç ïàë äúð ñ áàúëå êìîìà ìå÷ íäéìà âìáé ïàë àîàéöå ãåäéìì àîéè

ºíäðî éì ˙âàìì èñ áé ãàîøìàå çñîìàå àáãðå ààëáå 20

... ä¨ ë˙ ñðìà 1 (347§ ,à ¬èééø äàø êà ¬úåòè éìåà) ã˙ ìà ô ;(aà361§ åàìá äàø) éã˙ ìà ì [éúìà 1 .(äàáä äìîì ïåéîã ìùá) úåòèá åæ äìî äèîùð ì [ãòá 1 øëã˙ ðñ 1ø [øëã˙ ð 1 äá äâ˙åé 1ø [àäá 5 (!)ïåøîàé 1ø [ïåøè˙ ðé 5 .àúéì 1ø [ïà 4 §å÷å 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 2 ïà 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [àî 2 äìôëð 3ø [éô 6 (183§ åàìá äàø) ú÷ìâ ô ¬ì [÷ìâ 6 (175§ åàìá äàø) åìòôé íå÷îá [ïåìòôé ˙ ëà åìèáé íäðà ì [ñàðìà ... äðà 8 (183§ åàìá äååùä) úìèáô ô ¬ì [ìèáô 7 .úåòèá äìîä øú íå÷îá) éø÷ 1ø [/éø÷å/ åòîñ 9 (á30§ åàìá äàø) åøééçúô 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [åøéçúô 9 íäìàîòà ñàðìà 1ø [áúëìà 9 (!)åéø÷å 3ø ¬ô ¬ì ¬à ;1ø 駧ëì íàúäá êë [/éø÷å/ | .([βa142§ ,á ¬èééø äàø] úéø÷ 15 (úåòèá äàøðë) èîùð 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [áàá 15 àáéå 1ø [àåáéå 14 òéîâ˙ 1ø [òéîâ˙á 11 áàúëìà àì ˙âàìì íå÷îá [éì ˙âàìì 20 çñîìà ñáìá 3ø [çñî ñàáìá 16–15 ñáìá ô ¬ì [ñàáìá (192§ åàìá äàø) àäðî ïî ï÷åú à [íäðî 20 .3ø­å ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(γbà11§ åàìá äàø)

27*

text

ìë úà ãáàìå âøäì ãéîùäì êìîä úåðéãî ìë ìà íéöøä ãéá íéøôñ çìùðå

(13)

ùãç àåä øùò íéðù ùãçì øùò äùìùá ãçà íåéá íéùðå óè ï÷æ ãòå øòðî íéãåäéä åìöàúñéì êìîìà ïãî ìë éìà ˙âåéôìà ãéá áúëìà ìàñøàå ºæåáì íììùå øãà

˙ ìàú˙ éô ãçàå íåé éô àñðå ìôèå ê˙ éùå ú˙ ãç ïî ãåäéìà ìë åãéáéå åìú÷éå ïî øùò ú 5

10

15

20

25

ºíäáìñ áä ðé å øãà øäù åä

/–/ øùò éðú˙ àìà øäùìà (14) ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ˙ ˙ ˙ òéîâ ãðò óåùëî äðéãîå äðéãî ìë éô äð ñ ìò âú áàúëìà äëñð :äæä íåéì íéãéúò ˙ ä éìà ïéãòúñî åðåëéì íîàìà ºíåéìà àã åáùé ïîäå êìîäå äøéáä ïùåùá äðúð úãäå êìîä øáãá íéôåçã åàöé íéöøä (15) ¨ ð ñìàå êìîìà ìå÷á ïéòåôãî ˙âåéôìà ˙âøë˙ å :äëåáð ïùåù øéòäå úåúùì éô úì òâ˙ ä ¨ ðéãîìàå àáøùé ïîäå êìîìà ñìâ˙å ä¨ øàîòìà ïñåñ ºúøéçú ïñåñ ä ˙ ïàãìáìà àøîà óøòé éãìà êìîìà áàúëá àòãúñàå øãàá ïîä ïà óø ò ˙ á ä¨ ðéãîå ä¨ ðéãî ìë [á38] àøîà éìà áúëå íäèåèë˙ ñéì äðàì àäúâìå àäè ë ˙ ïåôøòé áàúë êìîìà ãðò ïåëé ïà /ïî/ ãá íùá äìå÷å ®íäúâìå íå÷ ìë èë ˙ á úîúë˙ å êìîìà ïî úðåðò àäðà äá ãéøé ®êìîä ìë áàúë çú ôé àìå äîúàë ¨ ôàë ñàðìà òîúâ˙é ïà ä¨ ðéãî ìë øéîà éãàðéô ®àäøáðî éìò àìà ä¨ ðéãî éìà ä ˙ á íåúë˙ îìà áàúëìà çú ôé å ®ñàðìà òñé ïàëî íäéìò àø ÷é å êìîìà íúàë ïà áàúëìà éô áúëå ®íäúàø÷ ãã ˙âé ú÷å ìë äìòìå íäãðò áúëìà ïåëúå ˙ ãìà íéãåäéä ìë äìå÷ éôå ®ãòàöå íåé ïáà ïî éãåäé àîñî ìë ìú ÷é éô ïéìéë áäð íäì çàáàå [à39] ïàãìáìà øéàñ éô äðéòá íåé éô ïåìú÷é ïàå ®ïéãìà ˙ é íìå ®áäðìà éô ä¨ é òøìà áâøúì êìã˙ ìë ®êìîìì àäìòâ˙é íìå íäìàåîà øëã ˙ éô ááñìà åä àî áàúëìà éô éô ïà äá ãéø éáúëä ïâùúô äìå÷å ®êìã ¨ ë˙ ñð ä¨ ðéãîå ä¨ ðéãî ìë éìò ñàðìà ó÷éå ú÷å ìë éô àø ÷é éúç êìîìà áàúë ä ¨ éìà ïåáøäé àìàì íå÷ äðéãî ìë éìò ìë åé ïàå íäìú÷ éìà ïåã òúñéå äéô àî ¨ òøñá áúëìà ìöúì øéñîìàá ïåòøñé ïà ˙âåéôìà øîàå ïåöìë˙ úéå éøàøáìà ®ä ˙ ôð éã˙ ìà áàúëìà ä¨ ë˙ ñðå äá ãéøé ®äðúð úãäå äìå÷ úðàë êìîìà ïàãìá éìà úã ˙ àìåìå ä¨ øéú˙ ë êñð úë˙ ñð àäìòì ®àö˙ éà ïùåù éô éëãøî [á39] ìöé íì êìã úåéäì íéîòä ìëì éåìâ äðéãîå äðéãî ìëá úã ïúðäì áúëä ïâùúô [à38]

˙ àìú˙ 1ø [ú˙ ìàú˙ 4 ìñøàå 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [ìàñøàå 3 çåìùðå 1ø [çìùðå 1 äìîä úøåöì íàúäá) ú 1ø ¬à ;3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì êë [/–/ 5 (äðì íàúäá) éðú˙ à øäù ô ¬ì [éðú˙ àìà øäùìà 5 (úéøáòä 1ø [ïñåñ 11 (!)ä ¨ øàîòìàå ì [ä¨ øàîòìà 11 (à182§ åàìá äàø) åâ˙øë˙ å ô ¬ì [˙âøë˙ å 10 (!)øäù ˙ ìà íå÷îá [éã˙ ìà 12 (á30§ åàìá äàø) úøééçú 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [úøéçú 11 ïùåù åàìá äàø) ïéã ˙ á ô ¬ì [àäúâìå àäè ë˙ á 13 (cà361§ ¬äàøðë ¬èîùð 2ø ¬ô ¬ì ¬à ;3ø, 1ø êë [ïî 14 íäúâìå íäè ë 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 14 .úåòèá èîùð 3ø [ïåëé 14 .úåòèá ¬äàøðë ¬èîùð 1ø [ïà 14 .úåòèá åàìá äàø) àäúàø÷ íå÷îá ì [íäúàø÷ 18 çàøá 1ø [ïàëî 17 åòîúâ˙é ì [òîúâ˙é 16 §å÷å àîñé ïî ô ¬ì [àîñî 19 áúëìà 1ø [áàúëìà 18 (!)äúàø÷ 1ø ;ô­å ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(191§ 22 ïéìë˙ àãìà ô ¬ì ;(à127§ åàìá äàø) ïåìéë˙ ãìà íå÷îá [ïéìéë˙ ãìà 19 §å÷ 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ 19 23 §å÷å 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 22 áâ˙åà éã˙ ìà 1ø [éô 22 .àúéì 1ø [åä 22 áúëìà 1ø [áàúëìà äàø) åã òúñéå íå÷îá [ïåã òúñéå 24 éä óñåð 3ø ¬ì [àî 24 (99§ åàìá äàø) ó÷åéå ì [ó÷éå 1ø [ä ¨ òøñá 25 øéñìàá 1ø [øéñîìàá 25 ïàá 1ø [ïàå 24 .1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(175§ åàìá ˙ ìà 26 (aà27§ åàìá äàø) úë˙ ñðå 3ø [ä¨ ë˙ ñðå 26 §å÷å 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ 26 àòéøñ íå÷îá [éã .1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(aâ361§ åàìá äàø) éúìà

text

26*

˙ ë˙ à éô äøùé êìîìà ïà íìò äðà àîà ®ïéäâ˙å ãçà íéè˙ òìà ìàîìà ®ìàîìà ã ˙ íäéìò ïàëå íçéðäì äåù ïéà êìîìå ìà÷ ã÷ äðàì àîàå êìîìì äðåãøåé ˙âàøë ˙ä àã

ïæå

˙ àô ®ïàãìáìà éô ïé÷øôúîìàå ìàøùé õøà éô éã˙ ìà àã

ãåäéìà

˙ òî øëã˙ å íå÷ìà éìåàäì äôöå êìîìà òîñ àîìô ®äéìò ÷áé íì ìàîìà êìã ˙ ä äñôð éô ìà÷ô ®êìã˙ éðòî éô øë ôúô øéú˙ ëìà ìàîìà àã˙ ä ïæå 5 íéëç ìâ˙ø àã ¨ øåöìà äã˙ äá íå÷ìà ïàë ïàô øåîàìà éìò ãééâ˙ ó÷éå ïæå éìà [á36] äâ˙åçé éù éàô ä

˙ ë˙ à àìå äá íúë˙ éì éîúàë˙ äéèòà ïà ãåâ˙àìàô äñéë ïî ìàîìà àã˙ ä ìàîìà äðî ã ˙ éà äì ìå÷à àìå ®äðæå éã˙ ìà äìàîá äì íäúòá ã÷ ïåëàô íäúãàáàá áúëà àö ˙ ïàë àáàåö ìòô äðà äðî ïàá ïàô ®àáàåö äàøú àî ìîòà äì ìå÷à ìá ãééâ˙ êìã ˙ ïàë ïàå ®øøö˙ äì ìàîìà ä¨ áä éô ñéìå 10 ïà àðìå äéìò íåììà ïàë áàåö øéâ êìã ˙ òîñ àîìô ®äìòô ïñçé àîá ìå÷ìà àð÷ì ò ã÷ àðàì àðìå÷ ïò òâ˙øð íì ïîä êìã ˙ ìà ÷ðçìì íäúãàáàá ä¨ áúàëîìàá øãàá ìá øåîàìà á÷àåò éô øëôé éô ïàë éã

ìåà ïî ìàøùé éã˙ åé ìæé íì éã˙ ìà ÷ìîò ãàìåà ïî ä¨ ÷é÷çìà éô åäå ®íäéìò äñôð [à37] äøîà ˙ ä äðî ˙âøë˙ ô ìåàù äà÷áúñà éã˙ ìà ââà ä¨ éø ã˙ ïî ïàë 15 ìöôìà ìåà éôå ®éãøìà àã ˙ ãðòô ä¨ éàòñìàå æîâìàá øäàè˙ éúç íéãåäéä øøåö äéô ìå÷é íì øøåö ìà÷ êìã .íéãåäéä

˙ ìå äðà ïëîéå ®àîñìà úçú ïî äúãàáàá äúîà äììà øîà êìã

(15–12 ,â) äåö øùà ìëë áúëéå åá íåé øùò äùìùá ïåùàøä ùãçá êìîä éøôñ åàø÷éå

/íòå

(12)

íò éøù ìàå äðéãîå äðéãî/ ìò øùà úåçôä ìàå êìîä éðôøãùçà ìà ïîä

úòáèá íúçðå áúëð ùåøåùçà êìîä íùá åðåùìë íòå íòå äáúëë äðéãîå äðéãî 20

˙ ìàú˙ íåé éô ìåàìà øäùìà éô êìîìà áàúë åéòãô :êìîä òéîâ˙ áúë å äéô øùò ú ¨ ðéãîå ä¨ ðéãî ìë éìò ïéã˙ ìà [á37] ìàîòìà éìàå êìîìà àøîà éìà ïîä øîà àî ä

˙ î íå÷å íå÷å àäè ë˙ ìú˙ î ä¨ ðéãîå ä¨ ðéãî íå÷å íå÷ àñåø éìàå êìîìà íñàá äúâì ìú ˙ á íúë˙ å áúë ùåøåùçà ºêìîìà íúàë

˙ ë˙ à éô 1 äðàì 1ø [äðà 1 ¬êà—å÷á ÷çîðå êìîìà áúëð 3ø [ìàîìà 1 äéìà 1ø [ìàîìà ã ìôëð ì [íäéìò ïàëå 2 .àúéì ô ¬ì [ã÷ 2 .åîå÷îá ïå÷éú íåù áúëð åððéà ¬åðîåìéöá äàøðù åîë ˙ ìà 3 .àúéì 1ø [ãåäéìà êìîìì 3–2 (úåòè éìåà) äðåãåé 1ø [äðåãøåé 2 .óãä ùàøá íå÷îá [éã ˙ ìà ìùá ¬äàøðë ¬èîùð ô ¬ì [êìîìà ... íì 4 íäéìò óéãò [äéìò 4 (cà361§ åàìá äàø) ïéã 5 .àúéì 1ø [àã˙ ä 5 (43 §òä ,63 §îò ¬åàìá äàø) éàìåàäì 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [éìåàäì 4 .ïåèéåìèåéåîåä ˙ ë˙ à 1ø [äðæå 8 .àúéì 1ø [àã˙ ä 7 (218§ åàìá äàø) àãééâ˙ íå÷îá [ãééâ˙ 6 øëã˙ ô 1ø [øë ôúô äã [ãééâ˙ 9 (!)ïàô 3ø [ïàë 9 .ïåèéåìèåéåîåä ìùá èîùð 1ø [ìòô ... àáàåö 9 .àúéì 1ø [àö˙ éà äì 8 .úåòèá èîùð ô [ìæé 13 ä¨ áúàëîìà éô 1ø [ä¨ áúàëîìàá 12 øãàáå 1ø [øãàá ìá 12 àãéâ˙ 1ø åàìá äàø êà ¬úåòè éìåà) ì÷é íå÷îá [ìå÷é 16 .àúéì 1ø [ïàë 15 §òú óñåð 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 14 ... äðéãî 19 éøôåñ ì [éøôñ 18 øøö 3ø [øøåö 16 øøö 1ø [øøåö 16 .1ø 駧äëá åîë ,(aâ8§ [áúë å 21 (!)áúë ô [áàúë 21 .(ä¨ îâ˙øúä äàø) ïåèéåìèåéåîåä ìùá èîùð à ;3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì êë [íòå ìàîò 1ø [ìàîòìà 22 áúëô 1ø

25*

text

éùò éãé ìò ìå÷ùà óñë øëë íéôìà úøùòå íãáàì áúëé áåè êìîä ìò íà

(9)

ééìòå íäúãàáà éô áú ëé êìîìà ãðò ïñç ïàô :êìîä éæðâ ìà àéáäì äëàìîä

˙ ãéì ä¨ òðöìà ìàîò ãé éìò àäðæà ä¨ ö˙ ô ä¨ øãá óàìà ä¨ øùò éìà àäá [á34] åìë ˙ ºêìîìà ïéàæë

5 :íéãåäéä øøö éââàä àúãîä ïá ïîäì äðúéå åãé ìòî åúòáè úà êìîä øñéå

(10)

˙ êìîìà àç ðô ºãåäéìà åãò éââàìà àúàãîìà ïá ïîäì äàèòàå äãé ïò äîúàë

êìîìà ìà÷å :êéðéòá áåèë åá úåùòì íòäå êì ïåúð óñëä ïîäì êìîä øîàéå

10

15

20

25

(11) :êãðò ïñçé àî áòùìàá ìîòàå êì áåäåî ìàîìà ïîäì ¨ òø÷ìà úò÷å àîì íì äðàì êìîìà òìàèé ïà ïî äì ãá ïëé íì ãéøé àîë ä ïà áàåöìà ïî úéàø ã÷ ìå÷é ïà äì æåâ˙é íìå äøîà øéâ ïò éù ìòôé ïà øé ˙ éô áàåöìà äâ˙å éøåé ïà øéâ ïî êëìî éô éã˙ ìà ãåäéìà ìë ìú÷ú éìà ®êìã ˙ ˙ ˙ éúç éúùåá ìò ôé ïà áâ˙å àî øëã˙ é íì ïëåîî ïà [à35] éøú éãìà äâåìà øëã ˙ é ïîä ã˙ ë˙ àô ®êìã˙ àäá ìòôé ïà äãðò ïñçé ïñçé àäãðò éúìà øåîàìà øëã ¨ ãçàå ä¨ î à àäðà éøåé ãçà íò åðùé ìà÷ô ®íäúãàáà êìîìà ãðò íäøîàô ä äðéãî éô ïéòîúâ˙î øéâ ïàãìáìà éô ïé÷øôî íäðà éðòé ®ãøôîå øæôî ìà÷å ®áéø÷ ˙ î íä ìá äðéãî éô ïéòîúâ˙î íä ñéìô êìã˙ òîå ®íäìú÷ áò öé ïàëô ïéá ïéèìúë ˙ éà äâ˙úéå ®ìäñ íäìú÷ô ïãîìà ìäà ìë éô ñàðìà íäðà ãøåôîå §å÷ éô àö ˙ ®íäøéâ íäòî ñéìå ïéãøôúî íä ìá ñàðìà òî ïåèìúë˙ é íì íäéúãå ìà÷ íú ˙ éà àã˙ äå ®íäððñ éô íîàìà å÷ôàåé àì íäðà éøåé [á35] úåðåù øôðé àîî àö ˙ ˙ äå ®íéùò íðéà êìîä éúã úàå ìà÷ íú˙ ®íäðò ñàðìà ®òéîâìà éô áòöà àã ¨ ˙ ìà øîà éô ®íò ìëî úåðåù íäéúãå äìå÷ éô äãö÷å éúã úàå äìå÷å ®äðàúë ˙ å ®êìã˙ ïååãé àìå ïîäì ãåâ˙ñìà ïî äá øîà àî åä ®íéùò íðéà êìîä ïà êìã ¨ øåöìà ïñç ïàñðà åàø àã˙ àô ®ìàòôà äì øåðìà ïà ïåøé ñøôìà õ˙ òá íéëç ä ˙ î äâ˙å éìò äúãàáò ïåøéô øåðìà ïî éù äéô ìç ã÷ ïà ïåøéô ïà àìåìô ®õåöë ˙ ãòá ìà÷ íú˙ ®ä¨ éàðâ˙ éëãøî éìò ïëé íì äá øîà êìîìà êìîìà éàø ïà êìã ˙ ä íå÷ ä¨ ãàáà éô ïæà àðàå íäúãàáàá äðàãìá éìà áúëéô äúàôö [à36] äã ˙ ä òôã äøëã˙ éôå ®êìîìà ïéàæë˙ éô ìöçú ä¨ ö˙ ô ä¨ øãá óàìà ä¨ øùò êìã˙ àã

6 éìò ì ;á30§ åàìá äàø [ééìòå 2 ä¨ øùòå ô [ä¨ øùò ééìòå 3–2 (!)äëìîä 3ø [äëàìîä 2 [ä¨ òø÷ìà 9 íå÷ìàá 1ø [áòùìàá 8 àúãîìà 3ø, 1ø ¬ô [àúàãîìà 6 àäàèòàå 1ø [äàèòàå 10 àéù 1ø [éù 10 (â205§ åàìá äàø) éøé 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [øé 10 (!)àîá ì ¬ô [àîë 9 òø÷ìà ì ¬ô 11 ìú÷é 1ø [ìú÷ú 11 .1ø 駧äëá åîë ,(aâ8§ åàìá äàø) æâ˙é íå÷îá [æåâ˙é 10 (!)àìå ô [íìå áø÷é 1ø [áéø÷ 15 (!)áâ˙é 1ø ¬ì [áâ˙å 12 .1ø 駧äëá åîë ,(aá10§ åàìá äàø) àìà íå÷îá [éìà [äðéãî éô 15 íäô 1ø [íäðà éðòé 15 (!)ãøôðîå øæåôî ì ;ãøåôîå øæåôî 3ø ¬ô [ãøôîå øæôî 15 1ø [ìäñ 17 íäìú÷ (!)ïàô ô ¬ì [íäìú÷ô 17 íäðéá 1ø [ïãîìà ... ïéá 17–16 .àúéì 1ø 3ø, 2ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [ïéãøôúî 18 àì 1ø [íì 18 ãøôîå 1ø [ãøåôîå 17 äìå÷ 3ø [§å÷ 17 ìäñé ìòî ä÷éçî éðîéñá ÷çîðå éúã úàå áúëð åæ äìî éðôì à [íäéúãå 18 ñéìô 1ø [ñéìå 18 ïéãøúôî [òéîâ˙ìà éô 20 íéùåò 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [íéùò 20 íì ô [àì 19 íò ìëî óñåð 1ø [úåðåù 19 .äøåùì ¬ì [íéùò 22 §å÷å 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 21 éðòî 1ø [øîà 21 §å÷ 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ 21 ìëìà 1ø ¨ éàðâ˙ 25 ã÷ô 1ø [ã÷ ïà ïåøéô 24 (!)ïåøé 1ø [ïååãé 22 éä 1ø [åä 22 íéùåò 2ø, 1ø ¬ô çàðâ˙ 1ø [ä ˙ ä ô ¬ì [äã˙ ä 26 íäúãáàá ì [íäúãàáàá 26 íäúøåö 1ø [äúàôö 26 (aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã òôø 1ø [òôã 27 (99§ åàìá äàø) ïæåà ô ¬ì [ïæà 26 ([â9§ åàìá äàø] úåòè ¬íúñä­ïî)

text

24*

˙ á òôàãé äðà åðè˙ [à33] éëãøî ïî êìã˙ åòîñ àîìô ãåâ˙ñìà ïî óðàé äðàå êìã ˙ åòôø íäìå÷á ïåàäúéå êìã˙ ìòôé éøë˙ àìà ãòá ä¨ øî äåàø àîìô ®äì éìà êìã ˙ éã˙ ìà åä àîäãçà ®ïééùì ïîä äìå÷ ïåðçúîé ïà åãàøà íäðà åäå áàúëìà äøëã ˙ á ïèôé ïà åòæô éðàú˙ ìàå ®àì íà êìã˙ á ïîä óøòé ïà ãòá ïî êìã˙ ìòôé ìä êìã ˙ òôøéå íäéìò ãøçéô ïîä åôø òé àìå êìã˙ ïåøëðé íì àã˙ à íäðàå ïîä 5 éìà êìã

˙ á äåøáë˙ à àîìô ®êìîìà ïà éàøô äðî äãö÷ ìòâ˙ éúç íäìå÷ ìá÷é íì êìã ˙ à äðà éô øëôô ®êìîìà óìàë˙ äðàì ìú÷ìà äîëç ïà óøò ã÷å ®÷ç íäìå÷ àã

˙ éç ïî ãåäéìà ìë ìú÷ áìèô ò÷åî äì ïëé íì éãåäé ìú÷ ãåäéìà ìë ïà [á33] ú ˙ îá ìå÷é ïà àðîìò ®åãáì éëãøîá ãé çìùì åéðéòá æáéå äìå÷ ïîå ®éëãøî ìå÷ ìú ˙ ®ìëìà ìú÷ ãàøàô äðàîæ éô íäì øã÷ àì ïéøé÷ç ïéìéìã˙ åðàë ãåäéìà 10 äðà íú

¨ òø÷ìà äéìò ìãú àî øè˙ ð éúç íäéìò ìâ òé íì çøèô ïñéð øäù ú÷åìà ïàëå ®ä ˙ éô ä¨ òø÷ìà àäìòâ˙ô øäùìà íàéà íñ÷ äðà äáùé íåéì íåéî äìå÷å ®øäùìà êìã

˙ à àäìòâ˙ô ä¨ ðñìà øåäù ã˙ ë˙ à íú˙ ®íäñ ïéú˙ ìú˙ íåéìà íäñ äì ò÷åô àîäñ øùò éðú ˙ ïàëå êìã

./–/ øùò éðàú˙ ìà /íäñ äì ò÷åô øåäùìà çøè íú˙ øùò ú˙ ìàú˙ ìà/ .ìàøùé ïî íìàò ìú÷ì áéø÷ ú÷å ïàë åìå ú÷åìà ãòá ì §òúå §áú äììà ïî 15 (11–8 ,â)

ìëá íéîòä ïéá ãøåôîå øæôî ãçà íò [à34] åðùé ùåøåùçà êìîì ïîä øîàéå

(8)

ïéà êìîìå íéùò íðéà êìîä éúã úàå íò ìëî úåðåù íäéúãå êúåëìî úåðéãî

˙ :íçéðäì äåù ïéá/ ãøôðîå ããáî ãçàå áòù ñéà ùåøåùçà êìîìì ïîä ìà÷ íú ¨ øé âúî íäððñå êëìî ïãî ìë éô íäñéì êìîìà ïðñå áòù ìë ïðñ ïî ä

/áåòùìà

ºíäà÷áà éðòé íäëøú éåàñé øîà êìîìì ñéìå ïéìòàô 20

(rem. c ,136§ ,á ¬èééø äååùä) àäãçà ô ;§ãçà ì [àîäãçà 3 (câ27§ åàìá äàø) àøî ì [ä¨ ø î 2 5 ïîä êìã˙ á 1ø [êìã˙ á ïîä 4 §å÷ 1ø ¬ì [äìå÷ 3 (175§ åàìá äàø) åðçúîé íå÷îá [ïåðçúîé 3 1ø [ïîä åôøòé àìå 5 íìå 3ø [àìå 5 (175§ åàìá äàø) åøëðé íå÷îá [ïåøëðé 5 .àúéì 1ø [àã ˙à  9 éãåäé 1ø [ãåäéìà 8 .äøåùì ìòî äìîä äáúëð à [éô 7 àã˙ àô 1ø [ïà éàøô 6 äåôøòé íìå [ìâ òé 11 çåìùì ì [çìùì 9 §å÷ 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ 9 ïåìå÷é 1ø ;(175§ åàìá äàø) åìå÷é ô ¬ì [ìå÷é ˙ àìú˙ 3ø ;§ì 1ø [ïéú˙ ìú˙ 13 §å÷å 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 12 (ï÷åúå 1ø 駧ëá áúëð êë) (!)ìòâ˙é ô ¬ì ïéú ˙ ìàú˙ ìà 14 íäñ ᧧é 1ø [àîäñ øùò éðú˙ à 13 ìùá ¬äàøðë ¬èîùð 3ø ¬ô ¬ì ¬à ;1ø êë [íäñ ... ú ˙ ìà 14 .ïåè÷øàåéåîåä åìà íéìîù, øãà øäù ïî 3ø ¬ô ¬ì ¬à ;1ø êë [/–/ 14 ᧧éìà 1ø [øùò éðàú ˙ ìà íåéìà íäñ äì ò÷åô—èôùîä ïáåî úà íéìùäì éãë ¬äàøðë ¬åôñåð äèîùää á÷ò—(!)øùò éðàú ˙ ìàú˙ ìà) úðéåöîä éìàòúå êøàáú 1ø ;§òú 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [§òúå §áú 15 .([842 §òä ìéòì äàø] íäñ ... ú [ãøåôîå 16 øæåôî 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [øæôî 16 (úåòè ¬íúñä­ïî) ò÷å 1ø [ú÷å 15 ãòáéì 1ø [ãòá ì 15 ìò [ñéà 18 (!)êìîì ô [êìîìì 18 úåðù 1ø [úåðåù 17 (!)êéúåëìî ô [êúåëìî 17 ãøôîå 1ø ïéá 19 .§ò ïî ¬äàøðë ¬§ùä äð÷åú à [áòù 18 (!)ñééà ô ¬ì ;272 ,160 §îò ¬úååäúä äàø åæ äìî 19 .283 §òä ,284 §îò ¬åðîåâøú äàø êà ¬úåòèá ¬íúñä­ïî ¬èîùð 3ø ¬ô ¬ì ¬à ;1ø êë [áåòùìà ¨ øééâúî 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [ä¨ øé âúî äàø) àøîà íå÷îá [øîà 20 áòùìà 1ø [áòù 19 (á30§ åàìá äàø) ä (218§ åàìáå ,287 §òä ,285 §îò ¬åðîåâøú

23*

text

éøáã åãîòéä úåàøì ïîäì åãéâéå íäéìà òîù àìå íåéå íåé åéìà íøîàá éäéå

(4)

ìá÷é íìå íåé ãòá íåé äì íäìå÷ ãðò ïàëô :éãåäé àåä øùà íäì ãéâä éë éëãøî

˙ à äðàì éëãøî áèë˙ åúáú˙ é ìä åøè˙ ðéì ïîäì êìã˙ á åøáë˙ à íäðî äðàì íäøáë ºéãåäé

˙ ð àîìô :äîç ïîä àìîéå åì äåçúùîå òøë éëãøî [á31] ïéà éë ïîä àøéå 5 øè

(5)

˙ àâ˙ éëãøî ñéì ïà ïîä ºãøç ïîä àìúîà äì ãâ˙àñå éú ïîä ù÷áéå éëãøî íò úà åì åãéâä éë åãáì éëãøîá ãé çìùì åéðéòá æáéå

(6)

øé÷ç äãðò ïàëô :éëãøî íò ùåøåùçà úåëìî ìëá øùà íéãåäéä ìë úà ãéîùäì

˙ à ã˙ à äãçå éëãøî ìú÷ ãåäéìà ìë ìàöéúñàì ïîä áìèô éëãøî íå÷á äåøáë ˙ ìà ºéëãøî íå÷ ùåøåùçà êìî ìë éô ïéã

10

øåô ìéôä ùåøåùçà êìîì äøùò íéúù úðùá ïñéð ùãç àåä ïåùàøä ùãçá

:øãà

(7)

ùãç àåä [à32] øùò íéðù ùãçì ùãçîå íåéì íåéî ïîä éðôì ìøåâä àåä

¨ øùò ä¨ éðàú˙ ìà ä¨ ðñìà éô ïñéð øäù åä ìåàìà øäùìà éô çøè ùåøåùçà êìî ìì ä

˙ àìà øäù éìà øäù ïîå íåé éìà íåé ïî ïîä íàã÷ ä¨ òø÷ìà åä øåôìà åä øùò éðú 15

ºøãà øäù

˙ ®ä¨ ãî äìçî íú ¨ áúøî ñìâ˙î éô ä

øá ë àìåà äðà éìò ìãé ®åäàùðéå ìà÷

˙ íú

®êìîä ìãâ äìå÷

˙ ìà àñåøìà éñàøë ïî éìòà äéñøë ìòâ˙ êìã˙ ãòá íäì ïàë ïéã

¨ òáñìà ïåã ïàë äðà àìà êìîìà äòôø àî ãðòå êìîä éðô éàø íäéô ìå÷îìà ä ¨ ãàáòìà ìéáñ éìò äì ïåãâ˙ñéå ïåú˙ ˙âé ïà áàâ˙çìà øîà íàøëàìà ÷éøè éìò àì ä

20 ïî òðúîé éëãøî ïàë [á32] íì è÷ô íàøëàìà ÷éøè éìò ïàë åì äðàì è÷ô

¨ áúøî ÷åô úðàë ïîä ä¨ áúøî ïàì êìã˙ ìë åðàëô ®êìîìà øàã éô éëãøî ä ˙ ðé ïà ïîä íäé íìå ®êìã˙ ìòôé íì íäðéá ïî éëãøîå êìã˙ ïåìòôé áàâ˙çìà øè ˙ ë˙ àô ®äðàëî ïî êøçúé àì éëãøî ïåøè˙ ðé áàâ˙çìà åðàëå äøåáò ú÷å éô ñàðìà åã ˙ ð ìâ˙øìà àã˙ ä àé äì ïåìå÷éå äåáúàòé àìåà ã÷ äðàì êìîìà ïî êéìò óàë ˙ á øîà 25 ìéáñ éìò äììà øéâì ãåâ˙ñìà ïò éðòðîé éðéã ïà íäì ìå÷é ïàëô êìã ˙ êìã˙ ìòô àã˙ à äðà éëãøî íìòå ®ä¨ ãàáòìà íìô ïàñðà ãáòé äðà íäì øäè ˙é ®íðöìà ïåãáòé íäðà ïåøäè

/ïà/ äéøæòå ìàùéî äéððçì æåâ˙é íì àîë êìã˙ äì æåâ˙é

3 .3ø­å ¬ì ¬á ¬à 駧ë ìù óãä éìåùá áúëð êëù ,(äð ìù §§éø÷§§ä =) íøîàë 1ø ¬ô [íøîàá 1 [äðàì 3 .1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ¬(à182§ åàìá äàø) úáú˙ é íå÷îá [åúáú˙ é 3 åøáë˙ àô ô ¬ì [åøáë˙ à [ìàöéúñàì 9 .äøåùì ìòî ä÷éçî éðîéñá ÷çîðå åéðéòá æáéå áúëð åæ äìî éðôì à [àøéå 5 äðà 1ø éðîéñá (úéùàøä ¬ì 駧ëá) úéðùä ä÷çîðå (?úåòèá) äìîä äìôëð ì ¬à [ùãçì 12 ìàöéúñà 1ø ;øùò àðú˙ àìà 1ø ;(235§ åàìá äàø) øùò éðàú˙ ìà ô ¬ì [ä¨ øùò ä¨ éðàú˙ ìà 13 .äøåùì ìòî ä÷éçî ¨ éðàú˙ ìà 3ø, 2ø äàø) øäùìà íå÷îá ¬äàøðë à [øäù 14 éä ô ¬ì [åä 14 (íù ¬åàìá äàø) øùò ä ;§å÷ ì [äìå÷ 16 éðàú˙ ìà ô [éðú˙ àìà 14 862( §òä ¬íù äàø êà—276 §îò ¬åðîåâøúå 229§ åàìá ˙ óñåð 1ø [ìãé 16 äãòá óñåð 1ø [íú˙ 16 §å÷å 1ø åàìá äàø) àìòà 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [éìòà 17 êìã ä÷çîðå úåòèá äìîä äìôëð à [øîà 19 .àúéì 1ø [ïàë 18 äàñåø 1ø [àñåøìà 17 (à10§ 19 (175§ åàìá äàø) åãâ˙ñéå åú˙ ˙âé íå÷îá [ïåãâ˙ñéå ïåú˙ ˙âé 19 .äøåùì ìòî ä÷éçî éðîéñá äðåùàøä ¨ ãàáòìà äæ éðôì áúëð à [ä¨ ãàáòìà äð÷åú à [÷éøè 19 .äøåùì ìòî ä÷éçî éðîéñá ÷çîðå ä 1ø [ïîä ä ¨ áúøî 21 éëãøî òðúîé 1ø [òðúîé éëãøî ïàë 20 .úøçà (úåéúåà åà) úåà ïî §èä 25 .àúéì 1ø [ìâ˙øìà 24 íì ô ¬ì [àì 23 (175§ åàìá äàø) åìòôé ô [ïåìòôé 22 äúáúøî ˙ é íå÷îá [ïåøäè˙ é 27 (!)ïàé à ;3ø, 2ø,1ø ¬ô ¬ì êë [ïà 27 §òú óñåð 3ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà åøäè (175§ åàìá äàø)

text

22*

˙ òá éã˙ ìà ïåøåëã˙ îìà ä¨ òáñìà ïî ì ˙âà àðàë ïàéöë˙ ìà éìåàäå .äëîì äàåôø ú ¨ ôëñà ïò àçøáé àì àîäðà úéáìà ä

åä

˙ ìà éã

éùìà

˙é øëã

[à30]

˙ å ®éúùå åáéâ˙éì êìîìà íäá êìã

˙ ìà íìå êìîìà éìò àãøç íäðà óøòô ®êìîìà äéô ïåëé éã

˙ ñà äðà ïëîéô ®êìîìà éìò àîäãøç ááñ óùëðàô äìú÷ éìò àìîòô àîäá óë

˙ ïà àîìòé íìå äàìå÷é àîäòîñ äìòì ®éëãøîì êìã˙ 5 ïà ìé÷ ã÷å ®àãçà íú ˙ àäì óùëå øúñà éìà àâ˙ô ®íàðîìà éô êìã˙ äì óùë äììà êìîìà óø òúì êìã

˙ á àäìñàø äðà éëãøî ïò êìã˙ úìà÷å àîäðî æøúçéì äì úìà÷ àäðà ïëîéå ®êìã

˙ åîìà éô äìú÷ð àìå÷é àîäòîñ äðà áø÷éå ®äéìà àäìåë˙ ã ãðò êìã˙ éðàìôìà òö [á30]



˙ ãðò çöô àîäìú÷á øîàô ú÷åìà éô êìîìì êìã

/éðàìôìà

ú÷åìà éô/

˙ à äéô òô øé éã˙ ìà áàúëìà éô êìã˙ áú ëé ïà øîàå ®àîäáìöå 10 áúë å êìîìà øàáë .àåää äìéìá ìöô éô äáúë àî ïééáðñå ®êìîä éðôì äìå÷ë /äúøö˙ çá/ êìã˙ (7–1 ,â) åäàùðéå éââàä àúãîä ïá ïîä úà ùåøåùçà êìîä ìãâ äìàä íéøáãä øçà

(1 ,â)

˙ ò øàáë˙ àìà äã˙ ä ãòá :åúà øùà íéøùä ìë ìòî åàñë úà íùéå êìîìà íè àñåøìà éñàøë ìë ÷åô äé ñøë ìòâ˙å äòôøå éââàìà àúàãîìà ïá ïîäì ùåøåùçà

˙ ìà 15 ºäòî éã

êìîä åì äåö ïë éë ïîäì íéåçúùîå íéòøë êìîä øòùá øùà êìîä éãáò ìëå

(2)

˙ àâ˙ êìîìà áàá éô ïéã˙ ìà êìîìà ãéáò ìëå :äåçúùé àìå òøëé àì éëãøîå ïééú ˙ ˙âé éëãøî ïëé íìå êìã˙ á íäøîà êìîìà ïàì ïîäì [à31] ïéãâ˙àñå ºäì ãâ˙ñé àìå åú

úåöî úà øáåò äúà òåãî éëãøîì êìîä øòùá øùà êìîä éãáò åøîàéå øáàò úðà ìàá àî éëãøîì êìîìà áàá éô

˙ ìà ïéã

(3)

êìîìà ãéáò åìà÷ô :êìîä 20 ºêìîìà øîà éìò

1

(à10§-å íù ¬åàìá äàø) àìåäå 1ø ;(43 §òä ¬íùå â51§ åàìá äàø) éàìåàäå ô ¬ì [éìåàäå 1 ˙ ìà 1 .3ø­å, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ¬(â127§ åàìá äàø) ïéøåëã˙ îìà íå÷îá [ïåøåëã˙ îìà ô [éã ˙ å 2 (175§ åàìá äàø) ïåáéâ˙éì 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [åáéâ˙éì 2 (c/aà361§ åàìá äàø èñ÷èä ìò) éúìà êìã (óéãò) àîäðà 1ø [íäðà 3 (aâ361§ åàìá äàø) éúìà ô ;(!)ïéã˙ ìà ì [éã˙ ìà 3 àîäðàì 1ø [àîäðà ˙ ìà 3 ô ¬ì [àìîòô 4 .àúéì 1ø [êìîìà éìò 4 .àúéì 1ø [åä 3 (aâ361§ åàìá äàø) éúìà ì [éã ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 6 ãäà 1ø [àãçà 5 àìå÷é ô ¬ì [äàìå÷é 5 êìîìà ìú÷ ô ¬ì [äìú÷ 4 (!)åìîòô ¬äàøðë ¬èîùð 3ø­å ¬ô ¬ì ¬à ;1ø êë [éðàìôìà ú÷åìà éô 9 (!)àäòîñ ì [àîäòîñ 8 §òú óñåð 3ø ˙ çá 11 .ïåèéåìèåéåîåä ìùá ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ë 11 .úåòèá ¬äàøðë ¬èîùð 3ø­å ¬ô ¬ì ¬à ;1ø êë [äúøö (aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã˙ ä 3ø ¬ô [äã˙ ä 13 äããð óñåð 1ø [àåää 11 ïéáðñå 1ø [ïééáðñå 11 §å÷ë 1ø ˙ ìà 3ø [ïéã˙ ìà 17 àúãîìà 1ø ;àúãîä ô [àúàãîìà 14 ïáà 3ø ¬ì ¬á [ïá 14 åàìá äàø) éã (!)ãñâ˙é ô [ãâ˙ñé 18 .à127§ åàìá äàø ïå- íå÷îá ïé- íåéñä ìò [ïéãâ˙àñå ïééú˙ àâ˙ 18–17 (cà361§ ˙ ìà 3ø [ïéã˙ ìà 20 .1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ¬(à182§ åàìá äàø) ìà÷ô íå÷îá ô [åìà÷ô 20 äàø) éã (cà361§ åàìá

21*

text

¨ éðàú˙ ä¨ ëìî úéðù äìå÷ ïåëéô ®éúùåì ä

[á20]

˙ ë˙ àì ïàãìáìàå éçàåðìà ïäðî ã

¨ éðàú˙ ä¨ ëìî äá ãàøà éëãøî ïàë ïà ãéôé ®êìîä øòùá áùé éëãøîå äìå÷å ®ä ˙ ú íìô äìë êìã˙ òîå ®êìîìà øàã éô áâ˙àç ú÷åìà êìã˙ éô àäîå÷á øúñà øá ë ˙ ú íì äá ãéøéå ®§âå äúãìåî úãâî øúñà ïéà äìå÷ë àäúøéùòå àîë êìîìà øá ë

˙ ìà ÷åñôìà àã˙ ä éô ãàæå êìã˙ á àäàöå éëãøî ïà óøò íú˙ ®äøéâ øá ë˙ ú íì 5 éðàú ˙ î øëã˙ é íì éù øùàë äùò øúñà éëãøî øîàî úàå äìå÷ åäå ìåàìà éô äìú

˙ à àéùàá éëãøî àäìñàøé ïàë äðà éìò êìã˙ ìãô ®åúà äðîàá äúéä àäìòôú øë



¨ ëìî úé÷á [à29] ã÷ àäðà éìòå äôìàë˙ ú àìå àäìòôú úðàëô ®àäì çî øáë å ä

ìá÷ äòî éäå äìå÷ ìá÷ú úðàë àäðà àðîìò ®åúà äðîàá äúéä øùàë äìå÷ ïîå

˙ ë ãìåìà íà÷î äì àäìòâ˙ àîë äðà éìò êìã˙ ìãô ®êìîìà øàã éìà ã˙ ë˙ åú 10 êàã .áàìà íà÷î äúìòâ˙ (23–21 ,á) éøîùî êìîä éñéøñ éðù ùøúå ïúâá óö÷ êìîä øòùá áùé éëãøîå íää íéîéá

(21)

˙ ìà íàéàìà êìú éô :ùåøåùçà êìîá ãé çìùì åù÷áéå óñä ñìàâ˙ éëãøî ïàë éã ¨ ôëñàìà éè˙ ôàç ïî êìîìà ïàéöë˙ ä 15

/ïî

˙ à/ ùøúå ïúâá ãøç êìîìà áàá éô ïéðú ºùåøåùçà êìîìà ìú÷ àáìèå

:éëãøî íùá êìîì øúñà øîàúå äëìîä øúñàì ãâéå éëãøîì øáãä òãåéå (22) ˙ øúñà úìà÷å ä¨ ëìîìà øúñàì äá øáë˙ àå éëãøîì êìã˙ óøò ô [á29] êìã ºéëãøî ïò êìîìì

:êìîä éðôì íéîéä éøáã øôñá áúëéå õò ìò íäéðù åìúéå àöîéå øáãä ù÷áéå (23) ˙ áúë å áùë˙ éìò àîäéðú˙ à àáìö ô ìà÷ àîë äðà ãâ˙å äìå÷ ïò ú˙ çá àîìô 20 éô êìã ˙ à ïàåéã ºêìîìà íàã÷ ïàîæìà øàáë ˙ é ïà ãéøé àîì ä¨ îã÷î ìöôìà àã˙ ä ïîä äìòôé ïà áìè àî åäå ®ãòá ïî äøëã ˙ ìú˙ î éôå ®äòö˙ åî éô äðé áð àî éìò éëãøîá íéã÷î êåøá ìéà÷ìà ìå÷é êìã [äá 2 §å÷ 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ 1 éúùå ãòá ä¨ éðàú˙ ïåëú 1ø [éúùåì ä¨ éðàú˙ 1 .àúéì ô ¬ì [ä¨ ëìî 1 1ø [íìô 3 ˙ ä ãéôé 1ø [ïà ... äìå÷å 2 §å÷å 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 2 .àúéì ô ¬ì äðà ìå÷ìà àã [§âå 4 (äàáä äøòää äàø) §å÷ô 1ø ;§å÷ë 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ë 4 àäøéùòå 1ø [àäúøéùòå 4 íì 3ø ;(!)íù 1ø [éù 6 ìå÷ìà 1ø [÷åñôìà 5 ãéøé øúñà ïéà §å÷ô 1ø [ãéøéå ... äìå÷ë 4 §åâå 4ø [äìå÷ .§å÷å ô ¬ì [äìå÷ åäå 6 ìå÷ìà åæ äìî éðôì óñåð 1ø [ìåàìà 6 .úåòèá ¬äàøðë ¬ èîùð ìùá èîùð éìåà) àúéì 1ø [àäìòôú úðàëô 8 àäìñàøé éëãøî 1ø [éëãøî àäìñàøé 7 §å÷ 1ø .(÷éúòîä åúåà éãé­ìò úéðùä §àä äôñåð) àäôìàë˙ ú 4ø ;êìã˙ éìò 1ø [äôìàë˙ ú 8 (ïåèéåìèåéåîåä ¨ é÷á ïî ï÷åú 4ø ;úøàö 1ø [úé÷á 8 éìò 4ø [éìòå 8 àäìàç 1ø [àäì çî 8 (cà27§ åàìá äàø) ä 9 äðàë ïî ï÷åú à [úðàë 9 ([!]§å÷ óñåð ì) §å÷å 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ ïîå 9 (!)ïàå 4ø, 3ø [ïîå 9 ˙ à 14 çåìùì ô [çìùì 13 áùåé 1ø [áùé 12 éä óñåð 1ø [äúìòâ˙ 11 §å÷ ì [äìå÷ êë [ïî ïéðú ˙ ôàç 14 .(35 §òä ,185 §îò ¬åðúîã÷ä äàø) úåòèá ¬äàøðë ¬èîùð 4ø­å, 3ø, 1ø ¬à ;ô ¬ì ¬ô ¬ì [éè [êìîìì 18 úìà÷ô 1ø [úìà÷å 17 àáìàèå ô ¬ì [àáìèå 15 (å31§ åàìá äàø) ééè˙ ôàç 4ø, 3ø ˙ à 20 (!)åáìöô 3ø [àáìö ô 20 êìã˙ 1ø ;§å÷ ì [äìå÷ 20 .úåòèá ¬äàøðë ¬èîùð 1ø ¬ì [àîäéðú 1ø [ïîä äìòôé ïà 22 (bà51§ åàìá äàø) äã ˙ ä 3ø [àã˙ ä 22 (à126§ åàìá äàø) àîäðéðú˙ à 3ø ¬ô ˙ ä 1ø [êìã˙ 23 äðééáð 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [äðé áð 23 äìòôé ïà ïîä àã

text

20*

˙ à ú÷å [á8 3ø] àäáìèé ñéìô óø òå è÷ô àäéìò àøâ˙é íøçìà øàã éô à÷áúô øë

˙ à íãàë˙ ãðò ìöçú ìá éâä éìà òâ˙øú ñéì êìîìà ãðò ïî úôøöðà àã˙ à àäðà øë ˙ øòé ïàë ïà óø òô øúñà ìàç øëã˙ øàåâ˙ìà ìàç óöå ïà ãòáå êìú øéâ øàã éô õ

˙ ìà ïî äñáìú àî éâä àäéìò àäñôð øàñëðàì éù áìèú àì éäå éìçìàå áàéú

˙ íú˙ äéìò øã÷é àî ìëá àäìî ˙âé ïàë éâä ïà øéâ äéô úìöç àî éìò àäî âå 5 øëã

¨ ëìî øéâá é÷á êìîìà ïà íìòðì êìîìà éìà úìë˙ ã éã˙ ìà ú÷åìà íìòðå ïéðñ §ã/ ä ˙ øëã˙ ðñ àîë øåäù ú˙ àìú˙ å ïéðñ òáøà êìã àäìàç óùëúñàå àäàøå êìîìà éìà

/ïîä úøæâ ïéáå øúñà ìåë˙ ã ïéá ïà àö˙ éà ˙ ã ãðò ïà óø ò íú˙ ãòá àî éô øúñà ìåë

˙ ìà íøçìà éìà äá øéùé íéùðä ìëî äìå÷ô àäøéâ ïåã àäéìà ìàî äãðò ïðàë éã

ïäòîâ˙ éúìà úåìåúáìà éìà äá øéùé úåìåúáä ìëî äìå÷å ïäòîâ˙ éúìà øàåâ˙ìà øéâ 10

˙ úðé íìå è÷ô øúñà éìà àì à ìéîé íìô éøë˙ à ãòá ä¨ ãçàåá ìë˙ ãé ïàëå ïäàøå øè

˙ äéìà ãòá ìòâ˙ äðà íú

[à15

˙ ãé íì éúìà øàåâ˙ìà ïî àäøéâ øè˙ ðé ïà ø] ïåìë

3

¨ ëìî àäðà êìã˙ éìò ìãéì àäñàø éìò ˙âàúìà ìãéì éúùå úçú äëéìîéå ìà÷å ä ˙ ä¨ ëìî àìá àäìë ïéðñìà äã˙ ä íà÷à äðà äðàå øúñàá êìîìà øåøñá óø ò íú

¨ òáñ àäìîò äðà äðëîéô øúñà íñøá õàåë˙ ìì ä¨ îéè˙ ò ä¨ åòã ìîò 15 ø ñéì íàéà ä

˙ ãá ñàðìà [à20 à] òôøå ®àäëìîáå àäìåë

/ïåøùàáúéå/

àäìùðéå àäáì÷ àäá

˙ ìà ä¨ åòãìà ïàì àäá ñàðìà êø áúéì ä¨ ðñìà êìú éô ñàðìà ïò ˙âàøë˙ ìà ïàë éã

êìú ìá÷ ïî àäìîò ./äúùî/ êìîä ùòéå äìå÷ì äøéáä ˙ ãòá íú˙ ®àäá íäçøô ãàæå êìã˙ á ïåú˙ ãçúé ñàðìà åðàëô ®äùò úåðéãîì 20 êìã ¨ ëøàáî ä¨ ðñ úðàëô ®êìîä ãéë úàùî ïúéå äìå÷ë ñàðìà éìò òìë˙ é ïàë éìò ä ˙ ®êìîìà éìò øúñà ìåë˙ ãá ñàðìà àî áø÷àå úéðù úåìåúá õá÷äáå ìà÷ íú ˙ ä øéñôú éô ìé÷ òéîâ˙ ïî ÷úàåòìà åòîúâ˙à àî ãðò ïà óøò äðà åä ÷åñôìà àã

˙ äå ®äòî éã˙ ìà äãàå÷ì úðàë ïùåù ìäà àäéô òîâ˙é äã

äçðäå äìå÷ì ïàãìáìà ìäà àäéô òîâ˙éå

[ïà 3 .àúéì 1ø [êìú øéâ 3 .àúéì 1ø [ãðò 2 (!)äðà 1ø [àäðà 2 óøòô 1ø [óø òå 1 ˙ ìà 6 äðà 1ø [ïà 5 éô 4ø [äéô 5 ã÷ óñåð 1ø [àî 5 àìô 1ø [àì éäå 4 äðà éúìà ì [éã 1 ˙ ã 6 ([èñ÷èä ìò] aà360§ åàìá äàø) ¬ô ¬ì ; ø êë [ïîä ... ïéðñ §ã 7–6 äéô óñåð 1ø [úìë ˙ àìú˙ å 7 ú˙ ìú˙ å 4ø ;ä¨ ú˙ ìú˙ å ô ¬ì [ú˙ àìú˙ å 7 §â 1ø [òáøà 7 .ïåè÷øàåéåîåä ìùá èîùð 4ø, 3ø ú ˙ ìà 9 .àúéì 1ø [äá 9 §å÷ô 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ô 9 øäùà §âå 1ø [øåäù ïðàë 9 éúìà 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [éã .àúéì 1ø [äá 10 (!)úìåúáä 4ø [úåìåúáä 10 §å÷å 4ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 10 äì ïðë 1ø [äãðò ˙ àìà 1ø [éøë˙ à 11 ïäéàøå 1ø [ïäàøå 11 .(äøåùä ùàøá) úåòèá äìîä äìôëð ì [éìà 10 éøë ˙ ãé 1ø ;ïìë˙ ãé óéãò [ïåìë˙ ãé 12 äáì÷ óñåð 1ø [ìéîé 11 ô [ìãéì 13 .àúéì 1ø [äðà 12 åìë 14 äéëéìîéå 4ø ¬ì [äëéìîéå 13 ä¨ ëìîìà 4ø ¬ì [ä¨ ëìî 13 êìã˙ á 1ø [êìã˙ éìò 13 (!)êìãéì 1ø [àäìùðéå 16 .àúéì 1ø [àäá 16 ïëîéô 1ø [äðëîéô 15 (aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã ˙ ä 4ø [äã˙ ä ¬ì ;4ø, 1ø ¬ô ,(31 §îò ¬úååäúäå ,175§ åàìá äàø) åøùàáúéå íå÷îá ¬êë [ïåøùàáúéå 16 (!)äìùðéå .àúéì 1ø [êìú ... éã˙ ìà 18–17 (aà361§ åàìá äàø) éúìà íå÷îá [éã˙ ìà 17 (!)ïøùàáúéå 3ø 19–18 (aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã˙ äå 4ø [äã˙ äå 18 äéô òîâ˙é (!)áàá àã˙ äå 1ø [àäéô òîâ˙é äã˙ äå 18 =) ô ¬ì êë [äúùî 19 §å÷ì ô ¬ì [äìå÷ì 19 .ïåè÷øàåéåîåä ìùá èîùð 1ø [àäéô ... ïùåù ìäà ¬ì [äìå÷ì 19 ïà ãìáìà ïî ï÷åú ì [ïàãìáìà 19 ìåãâ óñåð 3ø ;§ùî 4ø ;(!)äúùîä à ;(äð [êìã˙ á ... åðàëô 20 §ãîì 4ø [úåðéãîì 20 .àúéì 1ø [äùò ... äçðäå äìå÷ì 20–19 §å÷ì ô 23 §å÷ë 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ë 21 òî 1ø [ãòá 20 ãàãæéå 1ø [ãàæå 20 êìã˙ éô ïåú˙ ãçúéô 1ø úåà ïî §òä äð÷åú à [åòîúâ˙à 23 .àúéì 1ø [ïà 23 .(§å éìåà) úøçà úåà ïî §úä äð÷åú à [øéñôú .1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(à182§ åàìá äàø) òîúâ˙à íå÷îá ;úøçà (íééúåà åà) 1ø

19*

text

¨ òáñ àäì ìòâ˙ ïàë äðà óøòå ®ïãáìà éá øé éã˙ ìà ìà÷å ®àäîàã÷ ïåô÷é øàåâ˙ ä ˙ éìò àðìãé úàéãåäé ïðàëå øúñà éðòà éä ïäúáìè úàøàúë˙ î éðòé ®úåéåàøä êìã

®àäòî ïîúâé íì ìàøùé úàðá ïî ïäðà àìåìô ®ïë íåöà éúåøòðå éðà íâ àäìå÷

˙ åî éô àìåà úðàë àäðà åä ®äéúåøòð úàå ò÷å àîìô òö

[á27]

äðùéå äìå÷å

˙ åî éô àäðëñà ä¨ ëìî ïåëú àäðà äì 5 ®êìîìà øàã éô éúìà øéöà÷îìà ì ˙âà òö



˙ à êìã˙ á òôúðé äðà íìò ã÷å íì àäðà àäðò äìå÷å ®êìî ìà éìà úìöå àã

˙ éô ïà íìò äðà åä êìã˙ á àäàöå éëãøî ïàå êìã àäáåøùîå àäìåëàî éô ãöøìà àäéìò

ìòâ˙é

/àäúøéùòå/

˙ú àäðéãá øá ë

àìàì àäðéã éô àäøîà íé÷úñé

˙ ú àìå êñîú êìã˙ ïò úìåñ àã˙ àô àäãàéòàå àäúåáñå ïà óøòå ®éâäì äøëã ˙ à ïò ññçúéì øàåâ˙ìà àäéô úðàë éúìà øàãìà íàã÷ éâ˙éå áäã˙ é ïàë éëãøî 10 øàáë ˙ äå éìò ìãé àã

[à28]

˙ àîå øúñà äø ñé àî äá ìöúé ïàëô àäá ìîòé àã

ãòá ú÷å àäìàåçà éòàøé ïàë éäðàå àäì äú÷øàôî éìò áì÷ìà òâ˙å ïàë äðà

˙ à øàåâ˙ìàá ìîòé ïàë àî óøòå ®ú÷å ïà óø òô ®éâä ãðò øàãìà éô ïìöç àã

¨ úñìà ®àøäù øùò éðú˙ à ä¨ éøàâ˙ ìë àá øú ïàë ïàäãàìàá àäðãá ïé ìé éìåàìà ä

˙ àôìà áéèìàå øåèòìàá àäéáøé ä¨ éðàú˙ ìà øäùà ä¨ úñìà éôå ®àäøîâáå 15 òîå øë

˙ ÷ðé ïà ãòá éðòé ®äì úåéä õ÷î äìå÷å ®ïãáìà éáøú éúìà ä¨ îòèàìà êìã˙ éö ˙ ãú àäúéàäð ãðò äá ãàøà äðà ìé÷å ®úàøåëã˙ îìà àäì ìîòéå ä¨ ðñ àäì ìë ˙ ®ïäâ˙àåæà éìò àñðìà ìåë˙ ãë êìîìàá êìîä ìà äàá äøòðä äæáå ìà÷ íú

[á28] ¨ ˙ 20 ïñçú àäðà íìòú àî áñçá äãçàå ìë øèòå éìçå áàéú ïî äá ãéøéå ®äì ˙ ëìà ìàîìàå ä¨ îéè˙ òìà úà÷ôðìà äã˙ ä ïà óøò íú˙ ®äá àìà ïåëé àîðà øéú ˙ ðéì äãðò ïåëú ä¨ ìéì òéîâ˙ ïî äôùëúñé ïà ãéøé àî øéàñå àäì÷òå àäðñç øè ¨ ëìî ïåëú ïà çìöú ìä øè˙ ðéì àäìàåçà àäðéã ïò àäìñéå ®àì íà éúùå ìãá ä ˙ é àî éìà äá øéùé ïúðé øîàú øùà ìë úà äìå÷ åäå ÷åñôìà éô äøëã

äìå÷ë àäá éòãúñé àîåé àäãàøà ïàô ®äãðò äáúëéå àäîñàå àäúøéùò ïòå

25 àìöà äáâ˙òú íì ïàå ®íùá §÷ðå §îä äá õôç íà éë êìîä ìà ãåò àåáú àì ¨ òáñ 1 ¬ï÷åú) ïòîúâ˙é 4ø [ïîúâé 3 ïðëå 1ø [ïðàëå 2 .àúéì 1ø [éðòé ... øàåâ˙ 2–1 òáñ 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [ä 4ø, 3ø ¬ô ¬ì ¬á [òö ˙ åî 4 äéðùéå ô ¬ì [äðùéå 4 §å÷å 4ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 4 (ïîúâé ïî ¬úåòèá [àäúøéùòå 7 (!)àäãðò 1ø [àäðò 6 §å÷å 4ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 6 .àúéì 1ø [òö˙ åî éô 5 òö˙ àåî äøåö ìò [úìåñ 9 .30 §òä ,226 §îò åàìá äàø [àìàì 8 àäøéùòå 1ø ;(!)äúøéùòå à ;ì ¬ô ¬á êë (â205§ åàìá äàø) íìå ô ¬ì [àìå 9 úìéñ 1ø ;àäåìàñ 4ø, 3ø ¬ô ¬ì ¬á ;à1283 §îò ¬ïééì äàø åæ .àúéì 1ø [àã˙ 11 àäîñâ˙ éô àäøàáë˙ à 1ø [øúñà øàáë˙ à 11–10 (!)íñçúéì 1ø [ññçúéì 10 .(äøåùì ìòî úéååúä äáúëð) ï÷åúå êìîìà øàã áúëð à [øàãìà 13 ïàå 4ø, 3ø ¬ô ¬ì ¬á [äðàå 12 ¨ úñìà 14 ᧧é 1ø [øùò éðú˙ à 14 àäðà 1ø [ïà 13 áúëð äæ éðôì à [éìåàìà 14 øäùà óñåð 1ø [ä ;øåäù 4ø, 3ø ¬ì ¬á [øäùà 15 ïééìé 4ø, 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì ¬á [ïé ìé 14 .äøåùì ìòî å÷á ÷çîðå ìåìà [øåèòìàá 15 (á–à488 §îò ¬éæåã äàø êà ¬úåòè íúñä­ïî) àäéëãé 1ø [àäéáøé 15 øåäùìà ô 17 §å÷å 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 16 (câ27§ åàìá äàø) àîòèàìà 4ø [ä¨ îòèàìà 16 øèòìàá 1ø ˙ ä ïî ï÷åú) äã˙ ä àäá ìîò ã÷å 1ø [àäì ìîòéå äìå÷å áåúëì ÷éúòîä ìéçúä à [äðà ìé÷å 17 (àã [ãéøéå 20 §å÷ 4ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì ;úøçà úåà ïî §÷ä äð÷åú à [äìå÷ 19 .àúéì 1ø [äá 17 .åð÷éúå 1ø [øéú ˙ ëìà 21 ä¨ øéú˙ ëìà 1ø [ä¨ îéè˙ òìà 21 (aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã˙ ä 4ø [äã˙ ä 21 ãàøàå 1ø [ãéøé 22 ïà óñåð åæ äìî éðôì 4ø [ïåëú 22 ä¨ ìéì äãðò ïåëú 1ø [äãðò ... ïåëé 22–21 íéè˙ òìà 1ø [àäúøéùò 24 àäìàñéå 4ø, 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [àäìñéå 23 .àúéì 1ø [òéîâ˙ 22 .úåòèá èîùð 4ø 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [§÷ðå §îä 25 §å÷ë 4ø, 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ë 24 äúáú ˙ éå 1ø [äáúëéå 24 àäøéùò äàø÷ðå êìîä 4ø,

text

18*

éëãøî øîàî úàå éëãøî äéìò äåö øùàë äîò úàå äúãìåî úãâî øúñà ïéà

(20)

¨ øáë˙ î øúñà ïëú íì :åúà äðîàá äúéä øùàë äùò øúñà àäîå÷å àäúøéùòá ä ú÷å éô ìòôú úðàë àîë éëãøî ìå÷ ìòôú øúñà úðàëå éëãøî àäàöå àîë ºàäàéà äúéáøú

˙ øâìà àîä ïéã˙ ìà øúñàå éëãøî øëã˙ 5 ìå÷ìà äá íã÷ú àî éìò ìàøùé éðòî éô õ ˙ ïò øöúë˙ à êìã˙ ìå ïëñé ú÷åìà éô ïàë äðà óø òå ®ìàøùé úàðá ïî àäøéâ øëã

¨ éìàâ˙ìà ìäà ïî äøéâ ãìå àîë àäéô ãìåé íì äðà àìà äøéáä ïùåù éô óøòå ®ä

¨ ìîâ˙ éô éìâ˙à úàåìâ˙ìà ì ˙âà éäå ïéëéåäé úåìâ˙ ä

[à26]

äðàå íìùåøé ïî äìöà ïà

˙ î ú÷å éô éìâ˙à äðàì ê˙ éù ú÷åìà àã˙ ä éô ïàëå ®úåáåè íéðàú ïééàîñîìà íäå éö

¨ ðñ ïéúñå ä¨ ú˙ ìú˙ ìáá êìî ïî é÷áô ïéðñ òáñ ìáá êìî ïî 10 ñåâ˙îìà êìî ïîå ®ä ¨ òáøà êìã˙ ä¨ ìîâ˙ ®ïéðñ òáñ ùåøåùçà êìî ïîå ®ùøåëì ïéðñ ú˙ ìú˙ å ùåéøãì ä¨ ðñ ä ¨ ðñ ïéòáñå ùé÷ ãàìåà ïî ïàë äðà óøòå ®äúåìâ˙ ú÷å éô äì ïàë íë éøãð ñéìå ®ä



ìîò ùåøåùçà ïà àðîìò ã÷å ®éðéîé ùéà ùé÷ ïá ìà÷ àîë ïéîéðá èáñ ïî ìåàù åáà

˙ ìãô ®äëìî ïî ä¨ òáàñìà éô øúñàá ìë˙ ãå äëìî ïî ä¨ ú˙ ìú˙ ä¨ ðñ éô ä¨ åòãìà êìã

˙ ë˙ åú íìå ïéðñ ú˙ ìú˙ øàåâ˙ìà òîâ˙é ùåøåùçà [á26] íà÷à äðà éìò 15 éô àìà øúñà ã ˙ àå ìàç ìåà ïî àäàáë˙ éëãøî ïà éìò ìãé àã˙ äå ®ä¨ øë˙ àìà àäá æîâ øîàìà øë ¨ îéúé íò ä¨ ðáà åäì úðàë àäðà óøòå ®äúîà éðòî éô äììà äãéøé øîàì úã˙ ë˙ àô ä ¨ áàø÷ìà ä¨ äâ˙ ïî àäøîà äîæìé ã˙ à äéìà àäôðúëàô àäîàå àäéáà ïî ïàëå ®ä ¨ ñà àäøéñôúå äñãä àðúâìá àäîñà åäå øúñà úéîñ êìîìà ãðò úøàö àîìô ä

˙ éç ïî àäðñç øëã˙ å ®àäéìò íñàìà àã˙ ä é÷áå áëåë ä¨ éñøàôìà ä¨ âìá 20 êìîìà ïà ú

¨ ìîâ˙ ïî úìöç àäðà óøòå ®àäðñç ãéøé êìîìà øàã éô ïìöç ïéúìà øàåâ˙ìà ä

˙ ìà åäå êìîìà éñð è˙ ôàç ïàë [à27] éã˙ ìà éâä éìà ïà éìà ïäøîâ çìöéå ïäðäãé éã

˙ ãé äãðò ãñç äììà àä÷æø éâä ãðò øúñà úìöç àîë äðà óøòå ®êìîìà éìà åìë ¨ ëìîìà ïåëú àäðà äì ò÷åå äìå÷ô ®àäîñâ˙ ìàç çìöé àîá øãàáô éúùå ãòá ä ˙ éà ïåììà éôöúå óìëìà éìò ê˙ åèì éä äé÷åøîú 25 ìåëàîìà áàá éô åä äéúåðîå ®àö àäîå÷á 1ø [àäîå÷å àäúøéùòá 2 (ë8§ åàìá äàø) ïåëú 4ø [ïëú 2 ñéì ô ¬ì [ïëú íì 2 6 äøéáãú 1ø [äúéáøú 4 äìòôú 1ø [ìòôú 3 (!)äîå÷å ô [àäîå÷å 2 (§é ÷åñôá åîë) àäøéùòå [ïééàîñîìà 9 .àúéì 1ø ;äøåùì ìòî å÷á ÷çîðå ìà áúëð åæ äìî éðôì à [íäå 9 óøòô 1ø [óø òå [ú÷åìà 9 .àúéì 1ø ;(bà51§ åàìá äàø) äã˙ ä ô [àã˙ ä 9 ïàëô 1ø [ïàëå 9 ïéàîñîìà 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [ä¨ ú˙ ìú˙ 10 (úåòè éìåà) ã÷å 1ø [ú÷å éô 9 (óãä éìåùá áúëðå úåòèá èîùð ì 駧ëá) ïéçìà ô ¬ì ˙ å íå÷îá ïå÷éú à [ïéúñå 10 ñ§§â 1ø [ïéúñå ä¨ ú˙ ìú˙ 10 §â 4ø ;ä¨ ú˙ àìú˙ 2ø ä÷çîð åæ äìîù, ïéñîë 12–11 §æ 1ø [ïéðñ òáñ 11 ú˙ àìú˙ å 2ø ;§âå 4ø, 1ø ;ä¨ ú˙ ìú˙ å ô ¬ì [ú˙ ìú˙ å 11 .äøåùì ìòî å÷á ¨ òáàñìà 14 §â 1ø [ä¨ ú˙ ìú˙ 14 (!)ïîéðá 4ø, 2ø [ïéîéðá 13 ò§§ã 1ø [ïéòáñå ä¨ òáøà éðôì ô ¬ì [ä 4ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 17 §â 1ø [ú ˙ ìú˙ 15 (!)ïéðñ §å 1ø [äëìî ... ìë˙ ãå 14 ä¨ ðñìà óñåð åæ äìî ¨ ðáà 17 (ë8§ åàìá äàø èñ÷èá äøåöä ìò) äì 4ø, 2ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [åäì 17 §òú óñåð úðáà 1ø [ä 4ø [ä ¨ ñà 19 .úåòèá èîùð 4ø [àäîñà 19 (!)àäôðúñàô ô [àäôðúëàô 18 (aà27§ åàìá äàø) [ïéúìà 21 (bà51§ åàìá äàø) äã˙ ä ì [àã˙ ä 20 éäå ô ¬ì [åäå 19 (ä¨ ñà ïî ¬úåòèá ¬ï÷åú) øúñà ˙ ìà ô äàø) åìöç ô ¬ì [ïìöç 21 (361§ åàìá äååùä ;åð÷éúå ì 駧ëá ÷éúòîä áúë êëù äàøðå) ïéã ˙ ãé íå÷îá [åìë˙ ãé 23 (αbà11§ åàìá äååùä) àñð 4ø, 2ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [éñð 22 (à121§ åàìá äàø) ïìë 24 ä¨ ëìî 4ø [ä¨ ëìîìà 24 ò÷åô 1ø [ò÷åå 24 §òú óñåð 4ø, 2ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 23 (à121§ åàìá 25 .àúéì 1ø [àö˙ éà 25 åä ô ¬ì [éä 25 §å÷ô 4ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ô 24 éô àäìàç ô ¬ì [ìàç áåøùîìàå óñåð ô ¬ì [ìåëàîìà

17*

text

˙ ë ïà àøäù øùò éðú˙ à àñðìà ä¨ ð ñ éìò àäì ïåëé ïà àö˙ ÷ðà ïî ùåøåùçà êìîìà éã

¨ úñå êñîìà ïäãá øäùà ä¨ úñ ïäøîâ íàéà ìîëéå íúé ïàë øîâáå áéèìàá øäùà ä ºàñðìà

úéáî äîò àåáì äì ïúðé øîàú øùà ìë úà êìîä ìà äàá äøòðä äæáå

(13)

˙ ãú ä¨ éøàâ˙ìà úðàë ä¨ øåöìà äã˙ ä éìòå :êìîä úéá ãò íéùðä 5 òéîâ˙ êìîìà éìà ìë ˙ ãìì àäì àè òé ìå÷ú úðàë àî ºêìîìà øàã éìà éñðìà øàã ïî àäòî ìåë

ñéøñ æâùòù ãé ìà éðù íéùðä úéá ìà äáù àéä ø÷ááå äàá àéä [à24] áøòá (14) :íùá äàø÷ðå êìîä äá õôç íà éë êìîä ìà ãåò àåáú àì íéùâìéôä øîù êìîä ¨ éðàú˙ ìà /àñðìà/ øàã éìà ä¨ òâ˙àø éä çáöìà éôå ä¨ ìë˙ àã éä àñîìà ú÷å éô éìò ä ˙ ãòá ìë˙ ãú àì úàéøñìà è˙ ôàç êìîìà éöë˙ æâùòù ãé 10 ïà ïåã êìîìà éìà êìã ºàäîñàá àòãúô êìîìà àäãéøé êìîä ìà àåáì úáì åì ç÷ì øùà éëãøî ãåã ìéçéáà úá øúñà øú òéâäáå

(15)

úàùð øúñà éäúå íéùðä øîù êìîä ñéøñ éâä øîàé øùà úà íà éë øáã äù÷á àì

˙ ìà éëãøî íò ìéçéáà úðáà øúñà ä¨ áåð âåìá ãðòå [á24] :äéàø ìë éðéòá ïç éã ˙ ãìì úðáìà íà÷î äì àäã˙ ë˙ à 15 éâä ìå÷é àî àìà àéù áìèú íì êìîìà éìà ìåë ˙ àð ìë ãðò è˙ çìà ä¨ ìîàç øúñà úðàëå àñðìà è˙ ôàç êìîìà éöë˙ ºàäéøè ùãç àåä éøéùòä ùãçá åúåëìî úéá ìà ùåøåùçà êìîä ìà øúñà ç÷ìúå

(16)

˙ ë˙ àô :åúåëìîì òáù úðùá úáè äëìî øàã éìà ùåøåùçà êìîìà éìà øúñà úã ¨ òáàñìà ä¨ ðñìà éô úáè øäù åä øùàòìà øäùìà éô ºäëìî ïî ä 20 íùéå úåìåúáä ìëî åéðôì ãñçå ïç àùúå íéùðä ìëî øúñà úà êìîä áäàéå òéîâ˙ ïî øúñàì êìîìà áçå :éúùå úçú äëéìîéå äùàøá úåëìî

[à25]

(17) øúë

˙ ëà äãðò àìö˙ ôå àè˙ ç úìîçå àñðìà éìò êìîìà ˙âàú ìòâ˙å ÷úàåòìà ìë ïî øú ˙ åî éô àäëì îå àäñàø ºéúùå òö

úåðéãîì äçðäå øúñà äúùî úà åéãáòå åéøù ìëì ìåãâ äúùî êìîä ùòéå

(18)

25 íñøá äãéáòå äãàå÷ ìëì ä¨ øéáë ä¨ åòã êìîìà òðöå :êìîä ãéë úàùî ïúéå äùò

¨ øã÷îë ä¨ éàãäå æéàåâ˙ àèòàå ìîò ïãîìì øàø÷å øúñà ºêìîìà ä ÷úàåò òàîúâ˙à ú÷å éôå :êìîä øòùá áùé éëãøîå úéðù úåìåúá õá÷äáå

(19) ¨ ˙ ˙ ºêìîìà [á25] øàã éô ñìàâ éëãøî ïàëå äéðàú

5 (!)øåäù óñåð ì ;øåäù 4ø, 1ø [øäùà 2 øåäù 4ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [øäùà 2 àäøîâ ô ¬ì [ïäøîâ 2 (αbà11§ åàìá äàø) àñðìà 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [éñðìà 6 (!)àî ì [ïî 6 (aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã˙ ä 4ø [äã˙ ä 9 (!)êìîìà 4ø, 1ø ¬à ;(ä÷éçî éðîéñá ÷çîðå êìîìà äðåùàøá áúëð ì 駧ëá) ô ¬ì êë [àñðìà 9 ì [øúñà 12 (!)éâùòù ì [æâùòù 10 (éøáòä èñ÷èä éôì øúé ïå÷éú éìåà) ä¨ éðàú˙ ô [ä¨ éðàú˙ ìà ¨ áðà 4ø, 1ø [úðáà 14 äéàåø 4ø ¬ô ¬ì [äéàø 14 ãã 4ø ¬ì [ãåã 12 (!)äøòð ô ¬ì [íì 15 ä ¬ô ¬ì [íñøá 25 ìòâ˙ô 1ø [ìòâ˙å 22 øúñà ô ¬ì [øúñàì 21 áçàå 4ø ;áçô 1ø [áçå 21 (!)àì ìù éåáéøä åà ¬úåòè éìåà) æàåâ˙ 1ø [æéàåâ˙ 26 .úåòèá ¬äàøðë ¬èîùð ô ¬ì [ìîò 26 òéðö óñåð 4ø ¨ éàãäå 26 ([â422 §îò ïééì äàø ;§§ìåî⧧ =] §§àæâ˙§§ áúëð êëù ,(aâ27§ åàìá äàø) àéàãäå íå÷îá [ä 27 ([aà27§ åàìá äàø] ä¨ øã÷îë ïî ¬äàøðë ¬§§ï÷åú§§) úøã÷îë ô [ä¨ øã÷îë 26 .1ø­å ô 駧ëá ÷úàåòìà ô [÷úàåò

text

16*

(20–5 ,á) :éðéîé

ùéà ùé÷ ïá éòîù ïá øéàé ïá éëãøî åîùå äøéáä ïùåùá äéä éãåäé ùéà

(5)

¨ øàîòìà ïñåñ éô ïàë éãåäé ìâ˙ø ìâ˙ø ùé÷ ïá éòîù ïá øéàé ïá éëãøî äîñàå ä ºéðéîàéðá äìâä øùà äãåäé êìî äéðëé íò äúìâä øùà äìâä íò íìùåøéî äìâä øùà

(6) ˙ ˙ òî éúìà éô íìùåøé ïî éìâðà éãìà :ìáá êìî øöðãëåáð 5 ºìáàá êìî øöàðúëá àìâ˙à éúìà [á6 2ø] äãåäé êìî äéðëé øàú úôé äøòðäå íàå áà äì ïéà éë åãåã úá øúñà àéä äñãä úà ïîà éäéå (7) ˙ àç ïàëå :úáì åì éëãøî äç÷ì äîàå äéáà úåîáå äàøî úáåèå éä äñãä éáøé ïö ¨ éìçìà ä¨ ìéîâ˙ ä¨ éøàâ˙ìà úðàëå íà àìå áà àì àäì ïëé íì ã˙ à äîò úðá øúñà ä ˙ ë˙ à àäîàå àäåáà úàî ãðòå øè˙ ðîìà úðñçå 10 ºúðáìà íà÷î äì éëãøî àäã 3 äøéáä ïùåù ìà úåáø [á7 ø] úåøòð õá÷äáå åúãå êìîä øáã òîùäá éäéå (8) øîà òîñ àî ãðòô :íéùðä øîù éâä ãé ìà êìîä úéá ìà øúñà ç÷ìúå éâä ãé ìà ¨ øàîòìà ïñåñ éìà ä¨ øéú˙ ë øàåâ˙ òàîúâ˙à ãðòå äúð ñå êìîìà ç÷ìúå éâä ãé éìà ä ˙ ôàç éâä ãé éìà êìîìà øàã éìà øúñà ºàñðìà è úúì äéúåðî úàå äé÷åøîú úà ìäáéå åéðôì ãñç àùúå åéðéòá äøòðä áèéúå (9) 15 úéìâ˙à

¨ éìàâ˙ìà ä¨ ìîâ˙ ä

úéá áåèì äéúåøòð úàå äðùéå êìîä úéáî äì úúì úåéàøä úåøòðä òáù úàå äì

˙ ôìà úìîçå äãðò ä¨ éøàâ˙ìà úðñçô :íéùðä àäúáöðàå àäøîâá øãàáô äîàã÷ ìö ˙ ðîìà øàåâ˙ìà òáñå àäéèòéì ì÷ðå àäì÷ðå êìîìà øàã ïî àäàèòàì úàøåè ˙ åî øéë˙ éìà àäéøàåâ˙ ºàñðìà øàã éô òö

àì øùà äéìò äåö éëãøî éë äúãìåî úàå äîò úà øúñà [à23 à] äãéâä àì

(10) 20

øúñà íåìù úà úòãì íéùðä úéá øöç éðôì êìäúî éëãøî íåéå íåé ìëáå

(11)

˙ á øá ë˙ ú àìà àäàöå éëãøî ïàì àäúøéùòå àäîå÷á øúñà øá ë˙ ú íì ºãéâú ºêìã

¨ îàìñ óøòéì àñðìà øàã ïçö íàã÷ éùîé éëãøî íåéå íåé ìë éôå :äá äùòé äîå ä

ºàäéô ìîòé àîå øúñà

íéùðä úãë äì úåéä õ÷î ùåøåùçà êìîä ìà àåáì äøòðå äøòð øú òéâäáå

(12) 25

äùùå øåîä ïîùá [á23] íéùãç äùù ïäé÷åøî éîé åàìîé ïë éë ùãç øùò íéðù

˙ ãìì ä¨ éøàâ˙å ä¨ éøàâ˙ ä¨ áåð éâ˙é àî ãðòå :íéùðä é÷åøîúáå íéîùáá íéùãç éìà ìåë

(!)éðéîà éðá ô ;éðéîé ùéà 4ø [éðéîàéðá ìâ˙ø 3–2 (!)ïòîù 4ø [éòîù 2 .àúéì 5ø [éðéîé ... äéä 1 5ø ;ïî ô [éô 5 éìâ˙à 5ø [éìâ˙ðà 5 äìåâä 4ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìâä 4 .àúéì 5ø [ìáá ... íìùåøéî 5–4 ˙ ìà 5ø [éúìà 6 (aà361§ ,åàìá äàø) éã˙ ìà 5ø [éúìà 5 òî ¬ì ;øöàðúëá 3ø [øöàðúëá 6 éã 8 øàåú 3ø [øàú 7 åãã ô [åãåã 7 (!)ïá ì [úá 7 .àúéì 5ø [úáì ... úà 8–7 øöðãëåáð ô .àúéì 5ø [éáøé 8 .ñ§§úá áúëð êëù ,(79–78 §îò ¬úååäúä ,218§ åàìá äàø) àðö˙ àç íå÷îá [ïö˙ àç [ä¨ øéú˙ ë 13 øîåù 4ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [øîù 12 (!)àäéáà úàî 3ø ;(!)àäåáà úåî ô ¬ì [àäåáà úàî 10 (§ú ïî ¬äàøðë ¬§àä äð÷åú 1ø 駧ëá) úã˙ ë˙ àå 1ø ¬ô [ç÷ìúå 13 (186§ åàìá äàø) úàøéú˙ ë íå÷îá [àìà 21 (!)àì ô ¬ì [íì 21 úåéåàøä 4ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [úåéàøä 16 äúåðî äð [äéúåðî 15 (!)éëãøîå ô [éëãøî 23 (úåòè àåä íúñä­ïîå ¬ä¨ îâ˙øúá íâ) éëãøîå ô [éëãøî 22 (!)àéìà 4ø øå÷îá  íå÷îá  äàéø÷ä ìò ññåáî àåäù ïëúééå, éâ˙ú íå÷îá [éâ˙é 27 ìòôé ô ¬ì [ìîòé 24 (!)áâ˙é ô ;(193§ åàìá íâå ,183–182 §îò ¬åðúîã÷ä äååùä) éáøòä

15*

text (4–1 ,á)

äúùò øùà úàå éúùå úà øëæ ùåøåùçà êìîä úîç êùë äìàä íéøáãä øçà

(1 ,á)

˙ ùåøåùçà êìîìà ãøç ïåëñ ãðò áèë˙ ìà äã˙ ä ãòá :äéìò øæâð øùà úàå éúùå øëã [á19] :äàøî

ºàäéìò òè÷ àîå úìòô àîå úåáåè úåìåúá úåøòð êìîì åù÷áé åéúøùî êìîä éøòð åøîàéå

5 úàðñç ÷úàåò

øàåâ˙

äì åáìèé ïà êìîìà øîàé

˙ äîàãë

(2)

êìîìà ïàîìâ ìà÷

˙ ðîìà ºøè úáåè äìåúá äøòð ìë úà åöá÷éå åúåëìî úåðéãî ìëá íéãé÷ô êìîä ã÷ôéå

(3)

ïåúðå íéùðä øîåù êìîä ñéøñ àâä ãé ìà íéùðä úéá ìà äøéáä ïùåù ìà äàøî

¨ ðñç ÷úàò ä¨ éøàâ˙ ìë ïåòîâ˙é éúç äëìî ïãî ìë éô àìëå êìîìà ìë åéå :ïäé÷åøîú ä

˙ ôàç êìîìà éöë˙ àâä ãé éìò àñðìà øàã éìà ä¨ øàîòìà ïñåñ éìà øè˙ ðîìà 10 è



ºïäøîâ àèòàå àñðìà ùòéå êìîä éðéòá øáãä áèéå éúùå úçú êìîú êìîä éðéòá áèéú øùà äøòðäå

(4)

¨ éøàâ˙ìàå :ïë ãðò ìå÷ìà ïñç å éúùå ìãá êìîú êìîìà ãðò ïñçú éúìà [à21] ä ˙ ë ìòôå êìîìà ºêìã

˙ äá ãàøà ®éúùå úà øëæ äìå÷ 15 øùà úàå äìå÷å ®àäì äúáçîå àäðñçå àäì÷ò øëã ˙ â éúç êìîìì àäúôìàë˙ î äá ãéøé äúùò äéìò øæâð øùà úàå äìå÷å ®àäéìò áö ˙ ìà ú÷åìà éô äéâ˙ú íì àî àæâ˙ êìîìì øäè˙ ú ïà úòðî àäðà åä úé÷áå àäáìè éã

¨ ðåâ˙ñî ñ ç àîìô àäøéâ éìà äñôð äúëø çô ®éäðú àìå øîàú àì àäéìò àøâ˙é ä

˙ øòà êìã˙ á äðàîìâ ú÷ìòú ã÷ àîì íäéàø ìá÷ô íäãðò àîá åøàùàå äéìò åö

˙ êìã˙ éô ïàëå ®äñôð êìã˙ á 20 ïàñðàìà ïéá [á21] ÷øôé ïà åäå ãàñôìà ïî áåøö ˙ ò àìá àö˙ éà êìã˙ ïî ìàøùé éìò éøâ˙å ®íäúàðá åã˙ ë˙ àéå ñàðìà øåã ñáëå äãìåå íéè .àäøéâ éìà åìöå êàã˙ ë øúñà éìà åìöå àîë äðàì

... êìîäç 4 (aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã˙ ä 4ø ¬ô ¬ì [äã˙ ä 2 .àúéì 5ø [äéìò ... úîç 2–1 [úàðñç 5 äîãë˙ 5ø [äîàãë˙ 5 (à182§ åàìá äàø) åìà÷ 4ø, 3ø, 2ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [ìà÷ 5 .àúéì ìë åå ô [ìë åéå 9 úáè 4ø, 2ø, 1ø ¬ì [úáåè 7 .àúéì 5ø [ïäé÷åøîú ... íéãé÷ô 9–7 ïàñç 5ø áúëð à [ïäøîâ 11 (31 §îò ¬úååäúäå ,175§ åàìá äàø) åòîâ˙é íå÷îá [ïåòîâ˙é 9 (úåòè ¬íúñä­ïî) ¨ çúô§§á ïäøîâ §îò ¬á ¬éæåã äàø êà ¬(à2293 §îò ¬ïééì äàø) ïäøîâ íå÷îá úåòè íúñä­ïî àåäù ¬§§ä áèééå äðå, 3ø ¬ô [áèéå 12 .àúéì 5ø [ïë ... øùà 13–12 .§§øî â §§ ãéçéä èèåöî íùù ¬á226 àäúáçîå óñåð ô ¬ì [àäðñçå 15 .àúéì 5ø [äá 15 §å÷ 4ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ 15 ìòôô 5ø [ìòôå 14 .úåòèá ìôëð ì [äá ãéøé 16 §å÷å 4ø, 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 15 (35 §òä ,185 §îò ¬åðúîã÷ä äàø) äì 17 (aà361§ åàìá äàø) éúìà íå÷îá [éã˙ ìà 17 àæâ˙ àã˙ ä 5ø [àæâ˙ 17 §å÷å 4ø, 3ø ¬ô [äìå÷å 16 [àäéìò 18 .ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ¬(à10§ åàìá äàø) éøâ˙é íå÷îá [àøâ˙é 18 àäáìàè ì [àäáìè åàìá äàø) åñç 5ø [ñ ç 18 .úåòèá äìîä äìôëð ì [äñôð 18 àäðú 5ø [éäðú 18 (!)äéìò 1ø ˙ á 20 (βa142§ ,á ¬èééø äàø) ÷ì òú 1ø [ú÷ìòú 19 .àúéì 5ø [ã÷ 19 (à182§ ¬ô ¬ì [äñôð êìã ˙ ë˙ àéå ô [åã˙ ë˙ àéå 21 ïåñáëéå 5ø [øåã ñáëå 21 êìã˙ á äñôð 4ø åìöå 22 íäðàì 5ø [äðàì 22 ã ˙ ë 5ø [êàã˙ ë 22 .ïåè÷øàåéåîåä ìùá èîùð 4ø [êàã˙ ë ... êìã 5ø [äàøî

text

14*

˙ êìã˙ ìô ïëåîî ìå÷ éøåé ®äúåò åãáì êìîä ìò àì äìå÷å ®äøéâ ïåã ïååãîìà äøëã ˙ ìà éìò áðã˙ äðàå àäúéàðâ˙ íè˙ ò ìòå íéøùä ìë ìò éë äìå÷ë àòéîâ˙ íàåòìàå õàåë ˙ àäðà ïéîìàòìàá àäøáë˙ ìöúà àã˙ à äðà óø òå ®íéîòä ìë íìå êìîìà úôìàë ˙ úå àäâ˙åæ ä¨ àøîà ìë ø÷çú êìã˙ á àäì çîñ äðàå àéù àäá êìîìà ìòôé äôìàë

˙ åä êìîìà ïî øéë˙ úðà äì ìå÷úå äéìò ˙â úçúå [à18] äéäðå äøîà ìá÷ú àìå 5 àã ˙ ®ìòôú íìô äéìà ìë˙ ãú ïà éúùå øîà ã÷ ïî ïà éðòé ®äðøîàú äæä íåéäå ìà÷ íú ˙ àç ïäðàì ìå÷ìà àã˙ ä ìú˙ î àðì ìå÷ú àðîøç éãúáú íåéìà àã˙ ä åòîñ ã÷å úàøö ˙ à êìã˙ ïî ãìåúé àî øëã˙ ô ®óö÷å ïåéæá éãëå ìà÷ íú˙ ®àäìå÷ êìîìà êñîà àã ˙ éô ïåëéô ïäéìò ïäâ˙àåæà èë˙ ñéå ïäâ˙àåæà ïø÷çú àñðìà ïåëúô äøééâú ïò ãàñô êìã ˙ à ãàñôìà ïî øîàìà äéìà ìåàé àî øëã˙ ïà ãòá íú˙ ®óìúå 10 øàùà äðò êñîà àã ˙ ãìà ïò éúùå òðîú ïàá êìîìà øîàé ìà÷ô ®äãðò àîá àìöà êìîìà éìà ìåë

˙ áúëé ïàå êìîìà øîà óìàë˙ ú àì éúìà àäøéâì [á18] àèòé àäëìî ïàå éô êìã

¨ àøîà ìòôú àìå ìàéâ˙àìà øî éìò øåëã˙ î êìã˙ ïåëéì ñøôìà øàáë˙ à àäâ˙åæá ä

˙î åà ®ïàèìñìà øîà ãçà æåàâ˙úé àìå éðòé ®øåáòé àìå äìå÷å ®éúùå úìòô àî ìú ˙ ä æåâ˙é àì äá ãàøà ïåëé 15 àîà ®àéä äáø éë äìå÷å ®øééâú äéô ò÷é àìå áàáìà àã

˙ à øéáë áàá äðà äá ãéøé ïà àîàå ®àäúòñå ä¨ ëìîîìà øáë äá ãàøà ïåëé ïà àã ˙ òáô ®äéìò åìîòå äéàø åáåöúñà ãàå÷ìàå êìîìà ïà óøòå ®íñçðà éìà áúëìà ú

ïà ñàðìà øîàå äá àäéìò íëç àîå éúùå äúìòô àî àäéô áúëå äìàîòà øéàñ

˙ ú àìå äúâåæ éìò éäðéå øîàé ìâ˙ø [à19] ìë ïåëé ®åîò ïåùìë øáãîå äìå÷å ®äôìàë

˙ ìäà ä¨ âì óøòé ìåñø áàúë ìë òî ïà äéô ìé÷ 20 íäéìò àø÷é éúç ãìáìà êìã ˙ éà ìé÷å ®éøâ˙ óéë øáë˙ ìà íäì éëçéå áàúëìà øîàé ìâ˙ø ìë ïåëéå äá ãàøà äðà àö .äúðñå äðéã áñçá äúîøç

 /éàøé

íå÷îá [éøåé 1 .àúéì 5ø, 3ø [äúåò 1 §å÷å ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 1 ïåãîìà 5ø [ïååãîìà 1 ãå÷ð à [ïéîìàòìàá 3 §÷ë 5ø ;§å÷ë 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ë 2 éðòé ô ¬ì ;(16 §òä ,98§ åàìá äàø) [äéäðå ... äôìàë˙ úå 5–4 ø÷çúô 5ø [ø÷çú 4 .àúéì 5ø [àäì 4 éù 5ø [àéù 4 (!)ïéîìàòìàá [àã˙ ä 7 §àú 4ø [äðøîàú 6 íìå 5ø [íìô 6 .íééìåùá åôñåðå úåòèá åìà íéìî åèîùð ¬äàøðë à .(186§ åàìá äàø) ïì÷ú íå÷îá [ìå÷ú 7 .àúéì ô ¬ì [àðîøç 7 .íééìåùá óñåðå úåòèá èîùð à ˙ ä ... íåéìà 7 éìåùá—ìå÷ìà úôñåäå (466 §òä ìéòì äàø) àðîøç éìá—áúëðå úåòèá èîùð ì [àã áúëð êëù ,(62§ åàìá äàø) ïø÷çé íå÷îá [ïø÷çú 9 ãðò 5ø [ïî 8 ïòîñ óéãò [åòîñ 7 .óãä .àúéì 4ø [êìîìà 11 äéìò 5ø [äðò 10 (à182§ åàìá äàø) åèë˙ ñéå ô ¬ì [èë˙ ñéå 9 .5ø 駧ëá 12 (à10§ åàìá äàø) éèòé íå÷îá [àèòé 12 äéìà 5ø [êìîìà éìà 11 .àúéì 5ø [éúùå 11 àìô 5ø [àìå 13 ìàéâ˙à ô ¬ì [ìàéâ˙àìà 13 äðà 5ø [ïàå 12 .úåòèá ¬äàøðë ¬èîùð ô ¬ì [êìîìà [äá 15 .úåòèá èîùð 4ø [àìå 14 äìå÷ 5ø ;§å÷å 4ø, 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 14 ìòô 5ø [úìòô àî 14 .àúéì 5ø [äá 16 §å÷å 4ø, 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 15 (bà51§ åàìá äàø) äã˙ ä ô [àã˙ ä 15 .àúéì 5ø ¬íúñä­ïî) åìîòé ô [åìîòå 17 (84§ åàìá äàø) åáåúöà ô ¬ì [åáåöúñà 17 ïåëé óñåð 5ø [ïà 16 ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 19 àäéìò äá 5ø [äá àäéìò 18 (!)äìàòôà ô [äìàîòà 18 ìîò[å] 5ø ;(úåòè (!)äúäðñå 4ø [äúðñå 22 ïåëé 5ø [ïåëéå 21 (!)áúëìà ô ¬ì [áàúëìà 21 §å÷å 4ø, 3ø

13*

text

øáòé àìå éãîå ñøô éúãá áúëéå åéðôìî úåëìî øáã àöé áåè êìîä ìò íà

(19)

äáåèä äúåòøì êìîä ïúé äúåëìîå ùåøåùçà êìîä éðôì éúùå àåáú àì øùà

˙ ç ïî àøîà ˙âøë˙ é êìîìà ãðò ééàø ïñç ïàô :äðîî ñøàô ïðñ éô áúëéå äúøö ˙ ãú àì ïà æåâ˙é àìå éãàîå àäëìî êìîìà éèòéå ùåøåùçà êìîìà íàã÷ éúùå ìë ˙ ïåëú éúìà àäú÷éôøì ºàäðî øéë

5

ø÷é åðúé íéùðä ìëå àéä äáø éë åúåëìî ìëá äùòé øùà êìîä íâúô òîùðå äëìî ìë éô äìòôé

˙ ìà éã

(20)

êìîìà øîà òîñé éúç :ïè÷ ãòå ìåãâîì ïäéìòáì

¨ øéáë àäðàô ºíäééðã éìà ìàâ˙øìà óéøù ïî ïäâ˙àåæà ïåæòé àñðìà ìëå [á16] ä

10

ãðò ìå÷ìà ïñç ô ºïëåîî øáãë êìîä ùòéå íéøùäå êìîä éðéòá øáãä áèééå

(21)

íòå íò ìàå äáúëë äðéãîå äðéãî ìà êìîä úåðéãî ìë ìà íéøôñ çìùéå

(22)

˙ î êìîìà ìîòå ãàå÷ìàå êìîìà ºïëåîî ìå÷ ìú

ïãî ìë éìà áúë ìñøàå ºåîò ïåùìë øáãîå åúéáá øøù ùéà ìë úåéäì åðùìë

˙ î áòùå áòù éìàå àäè ë˙ ìú˙ î ä¨ ðéãîå ä¨ ðéãî éìà êìîìà ìâ˙ø ìë ïåëéì äúâì ìú

˙ î íì ëúîå äúéá éô ñééø ºäîå÷ ïàñì ìú

15 àì éúç [à17] øá öú ìá àäéìò ìâ˙ òé íì ãøçìà äðî ïë îú àî ãðò äðà óø ò

˙ àç àì ˙âàìà ãàå÷ìà ïàëå ®äéìò øëðé àî éô ìë˙ ãé íäìñé íäéìà òâ˙øô ïéøö íäððñå ñøôìà ïéã ïåôøòé íå÷ íä íéúòä éòãåé äìå÷ ®äìòôé ïà áâ˙é àîò

¨ ìæðîìà éô ïéáéø÷ äá ãéøé ®åéìà áåø÷äå äìå÷å ®íäîàëçàå íäðî áø÷à ñéì ä åðàë íäðà äá ãéøé ®úåëìîá äðåùàø íéáùéä äìå÷å ®äñìâ˙î éô êìîìà éìà

˙ ìô ®äåãö˙ òå äãé éìò åã ù íäðàì øîàìà ìåà éô ïéîã÷î 20 ì ˙âà íäìòâ˙ êìã

˙ äå ïîä ìú˙ î äá ˙âúçé íìå äãàå÷ ìà÷å ®êìîä éðô éàø äìå÷ éðòî åä àã

éãúáà

[á17]

¨ ôåøòî ïðñ íäì ïàë ã˙ à ®úåùòì äî úãë ïëåîî ïà óøòô ®ä

˙ åìë˙ é ñéìô ®òáàñìà åäå ìå÷ìàá ãçàå ìëì ïåëé ïà àîà ®ïéøîà ãçà ïî êìã ¨ òôãìà äã˙ ä ïà ÷ôúàô äéàø êìîìà ã˙ ë˙ àé ïà éô ä¨ áåð ä¨ òáñìà ïî úðàë ä 25 øéâ íäãðò ïñçé íìå äãðò àî ãçàå ìë ìà÷ ïåëé ïà àîàå ®ïëåîîì ä¨ áåðìà 3

øîà 5ø [àøîà 3 .àúéì 5ø [ééàø 3 øåáòé ô ¬ì [øáòé 1 .àúéì 5ø [äðîî ... àöé 3–1 ¨ ðñ ô ¬ì [ïðñ 㧧åéä úøåö [éèòéå 4 àìà 5ø [àì ïà 4 (!)˙âåæé ô [æåâ˙é 4 (!)éàîå 5ø [éãàîå 4 ä [ïè÷î ... êìîä 7–6 (190§ åàìá äååùä) ä¨ øéë˙ íå÷îá ì [øéë˙ 5 .(!)åèòéå àåø÷ì ùé éìåàå ¬äøæåî .úåàáä íéìîä éúù ìù úåá÷ðä úåøåöì íàúäá ¬(ñ§§úá åîë) äúëìîî óéãò [äëìî 7 .àúéì 5ø ñçéä­úìîì úéåúä ïåéîã ìùá ¬äàøðë ¬èîùð ô ¬ì [ìàâ˙øìà 8 (62§ åàìá äàø) ïæòú 5ø [ïåæòé 8 12 .àúéì 5ø [åîò ... ìà 12–11 .àúéì 5ø [ïëåîî ®®® éðéòá 9 íäéðã 5ø [íäééðã 8 .äàáä ˙ î 13 (!)ïãîìà ô ¬ì [ïãî 12 åðåùìë 3ø, 2ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [åðùìë úåòèá áúë𠧧ãéãùú§§ä ïîéñ ô [ìú ˙ ô ¬ì [àäè ë˙ 13 .§úì ìòî éáùåéë àùåðä úñéôú êîñ­ìò êë áúëð éìåàå ¬úåòè ¬íúñä­ïî) íäèë ˙ î 14 ñéø 5ø [ñééø 14 (äðéãîä ìâ˙òúñé 5ø [ìâ˙ òé 15 ïà 5ø [äðà 15 éìò 3ø, 2ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [ìú [äìå÷ 17 (140§ ,à ¬èééø äàø) íäìàñé 3ø, 2ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [íäìñé 16 éìâ˙àìàå 5ø [àì ˙âàìà 16 2ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äá 18 .àúéì 5ø [åéìà 18 (!)áéø÷äå 1ø [áåø÷äå 18 §å÷å ô [äìå÷å 18 §å÷ ô ¬ì [äñìâ˙î 19 .àúéì 5ø [íäðî 18 (à127§ åàìá äàø) ïåáéø÷ íå÷îá [ïéáéø÷ 18 íäðà óñåð 3ø, 5ø [äãé 20 .àúéì 5ø [äá 19 íéáùåéä ô [íéáùéä 19 §å÷å 3ø ¬ì [äìå÷å 19 íäøéâ óñåð 5ø äìîä 5ø [ìà÷å 21 §å÷ ô ¬ì [äìå÷ 21 (!)íäá ô ¬ì [äá 21 åáâ˙çé 5ø [äá ˙âúçé 21 äéãé íìô óéãò [ñéìô 23 (γbà11§ åàìá äàø) àãúáà íå÷îá [éãúáà 22 .(óãä úìéçúá) äìôëð 25 (câ27§ åàìá äàø) àòôãìà ïî ï÷åú 1ø [ä¨ òôãìà 24 (aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã˙ ä ô [äã˙ ä 24 ã÷ óñåð 5ø [ïåëé

text

12*

(22–13 ,à) :ïéãå

úã éòãé ìë éðôì êìîä øáã ïë éë íéúòä éòãåé íéîëçì êìîä øîàéå

(13) /–/ êìîìà íñø éøâ˙ éã˙ ë ïàô úà÷åàìà éôøàò àîëçìì êìîìà ìà÷å ¨ ð ñ éôøàò ºíëçå ä ñøô éøù úòáù ïëåîî àðñøî ñøî ùéùøú àúîãà øúù àðùøë åéìà áåø÷äå (14) àúîãà øúù àðùøë äéìà áéø÷ìàå :úåëìîá äðåùàø íéáùéä êìîä éðô éàø éãîå 5 ˙ àð éãîå ñøô ãàå÷ ä¨ òáñ ïëåîî àðñøî ñøî ùéùøú ïéáúàøìà êìîìà äâ˙å éøè ìë íàã÷

ºêìîìà éô àìåà êìîä øîàî úà äúùò àì øùà ìò éúùå äëìîá úåùòì äî úãë

[à15] (15)

¨ ëìîìàá ìòôé ïà áâ˙é ùéà ä¨ ðñìàë :íéñéøñä ãéá ùåøåùçà íì àî éìò éúùå ä

˙ ìà ãé éìò ùåøåùçà êìîìà ìå÷ ìîòú 10 ºïàéöë

éë äëìîä éúùå äúåò åãáì êìîä ìò àì íéøùäå êìîä éðôì ïëåîî øîàéå

(16)

ïëåîî ìà÷ô :ùåøåùçà êìîä úåðéãî ìëá øùà íéîòä ìë ìòå íéøùä ìë ìò

¨ ëìîìà éúùå úáðã˙ à äãçå êìîìà éìò ñéì ãàå÷ìàå êìîìà íàã÷ ìë éìò ìá ä ˙ ìà áåòùìà òéîâ˙å àñåøìà ºùåøåùçà êìîìà ïãî ìë éô ïéã íøîàá ïäéðéòá ïäéìòá

[á15]

úåæáäì íéùðä ìë ìò äëìîä øáã àöé éë

(17) 15

˙ é àî ãðò :äàá àìå åéðôì äëìîä éúùå úà àéáäì øîà ùåøåùçà êìîä øîà ˙âøë ˙ ïî áá ñúéô àñðìà ìë éìà ä¨ ëìîìà ïäñôðà ãðò ïäâ˙àåæà àñðìà ø÷çú ïà êìã ¨ ëìîìà éúùå éâ˙ú ïà øîà ùåøåùçà êìîìà àã˙ åä íäì ïäìå÷á ºéâ˙ú íìå äîàã÷ ä

éøù ìëì äëìîä øáã úà åòîù øùà éãîå ñøô úåøù äðøîàú äæä íåéäå

(18)

˙ ä éôå :óö÷å ïåéæá éãëå êìîä 20 ïòîñ ïéúìà éãàîå ñøàô úàñéø ïì÷ú íåéìà àã ˙ ìú˙ î êìîìà àñåø ìëì ä¨ ëìîìà øáë˙ øééâú ïò êìîìà ìôâé àî øàã÷îå êìã ˙ ñéå ïäâ˙àåæà [à16] àñðìà ø÷çú êìã˙ ºïäéìò ïäìàâ˙ø èë

ãñé ïë éë éåèéáä ïî äòôùåäù ñåîìå÷ úèéìô íúñä­ïî àåäù, ãñé ô ¬ì [øáã 1 ˙ ë íå÷îá [éã˙ ë 2 .úåòèá ¬äàøðë ¬èîùð ô ¬ì [ïàô 2 éòãåé ô [éòãé 1 äàø) àã ˙ é ïà à ;3ø, 2ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì êë [/–/ êåúá úåòèá äñðëåäù øôåñ úøòä ¬íúñä­ïî) äéìò éøâ˙é àî øëã 6 (äð =) äðùàø 3ø [äðåùàø 5 íéáùåéä ô [íéáùéä 5 (!)áåø÷å 1ø [áåø÷äå 4 (èñ÷èä [ùéà 9 ä¨ ðñìàá 3ø, 2ø, 1ø ¬ì [ä¨ ðñìàë 9 (à127§ åàìá äàø) ïåáúàøìà íå÷îá [ïéáúàøìà [ïéã˙ ìà 14 ïëîåî :§§áéú맧äå ¬î§§äð ìù §§éø÷§§ä êë [ïëåîî 11 (á52§ åàìá äàø) éù éà íå÷îá 17 (íøîàá úòôùäá ¬íúñä­ïî) (!)íäéðéòá ô [ïäéðéòá 15 (cà361§ åàìá äàø) éã˙ ìà 1ø 3ø [úàñéø 20 (ë8§ åàìá äàø) ïìå÷ú 3ø, 2ø, 1ø ;(!)ïåìå÷ú ô [ïì÷ú 20 (!)ïäâ˙àåâ˙à ô [ïäâ˙àåæà 3ø, 2ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [ïéúìà 20 éãîå 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [éãàîå 20 éãîå ñøô 3ø [éãàîå ñøàô 20 úàñåø (à182§ åàìá äàø) åèë˙ ñéå 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [èë˙ ñéå 22 ïø÷çé 5ø [ø÷çú 22 (cà361§ åàìá äååùä) éúìà ìàâ˙øìà ô ;(!)ïäìàâ˙øìà ì [ïäìàâ˙ø 22

.§ç §ñôá êìîä 2 (170§ åàìá

11*

text

¨ éòøìà äãàøî íäðî ãçàå ìë ïî òðîé ñéì éðòé ®ñðà ïéà úãë äéúùäå äìå÷å ®ä ˙ ìë ìéì÷ áøù ãàøà ïàå øéú˙ ë áøù ãàøà ïà àìå äãàøî ãçàå ìë âìáéì êìã

˙ ìà àì ä÷ôðà àîî àéù ñàðìà íæìé àìå íäáåì÷ éì ñéì äãàøî éìò øä ÷é õàë

¨ òáñ úìîò ïåëé ïà àîà ®àñðìì êìã˙ ìú˙ î úìîò äúâ˙åæ ïà óøò íú˙ ®íàòìà àìå ä

˙ à øàã éô ä¨ ëìîìà òî [á13] àñðìàå ïçöìà éô ìàâ˙øìà ïàëô è÷ô íàéà 5 ®éøë

˙ î øäùà ä¨ úñìà éô àñåøìà àñð àäãðò ïàë ïåëé åà ®êìîìà ãðò ïàë àî ìú ¨ éòøìà àñðì àö˙ éà úìîòå éô àñåøìà àñð òî éä úñìâ˙å éãç éìò øàã éô ä ˙ ®àö˙ éà êìîìà ìîò àîë úìîòô ®íàéàìà ä¨ òáñìà äã˙ ä íåéìà éô ïà óøò íú ¨ ëìîìà åô æé ïà ä¨ öàë˙ ìà äðàîìâ øîà äøåøñ äá íúë˙ é ïà ãàøà éã˙ ìà òáàñìà ä

˙ ìà ïçöìà éìò óøùîìà êìîìà ñìâ˙î éìà àäòö˙ åî ïî 10 àäåìâ˙éå ä¨ éòøìà äéô éã ˙ ìà íä íéîòìàô ®§âå íéøùäå íéîòä úåàøäì äìå÷ë àäðñç ïåøè˙ ðéì íäéìò éô ïéã ˙ ô ®äñìâ˙î éô ïéã˙ ìà íä íéøùìàå ®ïçöìà ãàøà àîë [à14] éâ˙ú íìå äøîà úôìàë

¨ ð ñ äã˙ ä ïà íå÷ ìà÷ô ®êìã˙ ãðò êìîìà áö˙ âô êìîìà ïåáéâ˙é ïà ñøôìì úðàë ä

˙ ðé ïà úôðà éäå éèë˙ î øéâ áéöî êìîìà ïàëå ñàðìà ä¨ øö˙ çá íäîøç íàåòìà àäåøè

˙ éô úôìàë˙ å 15 ìäàâ˙ ïàë êìîìà ïà íå÷ ìà÷å ®áâ˙àåìàá àäéìò åîëçô íäúð ñ êìã ˙ à ìà÷å ®êìã˙ éìò íãðå àäãçà äã˙ äå äøåîà øéàñ éô éìò äìî ç øëñ ìà ïà øë ¨ ëìîìà ïàå êìã˙ á õ˙ øé íì éçàö ïàë åìå ®ïééá êìîä áì áåèë äìå÷ë êìã˙ ä

˙ ìô êìã˙ éìò äìî ç øëñìà ïà ìåàìà ìå÷ìà éìà ìéîð ïçðå ®éâ˙ú íì êìã 20

/úîìò/

˙ ìà àäðà íìòéå ÷àô àã˙ à ïàë êìã˙ éìò äìî ç øëñìà ïàë åì äðàì úìîò éã

.àäî ãé àìå àäãîçé ìá åîëç àîá àäéìò íëçé íì àáàåö [á14]

1 íì 4ø, 3ø, 1ø ¬ô [ñéì 1 ñðåà ô ¬ì [ñðà 1 §å÷å 4ø, 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 1 íàåòìà ô [íàòìà 4 íìå ô ¬ì [àìå 3 äøä÷é ô [øä ÷é 3 íìå ô ¬ì [àìå 2 .àúéì 3ø, ˙ î 4 (à234 §îò ¬à ¬éæåã äàø) äúæåâ˙ ô [äúâ˙åæ äàø) ïåëú íå÷îá [ïåëé 4 ìîò àî óñåð ô ¬ì [ìú ¨ úñ íå÷îá [øäùà ä¨ úñìà 6 (βa142§ ,á ¬èééø äàø) úðàë ïåëú íå÷îá [ïàë ïåëé 6 (287§ åàìá ä ˙ éà 7 ã ç íå÷îá [éãç 7 øåäù 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì ;(230§ åàìá äàø) øäùàìà èîùð ô ¬ì [úñìâ˙å ... àö ¨ òáñ íå÷îá [íàéàìà ä¨ òáñìà 8 (aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã˙ ä ì [äã˙ ä 8 .úåòèá äååùä) íàéàìà ä ,175§ åàìá äàø) åøè˙ ðéì íå÷îá [ïåøè˙ ðéì 11 íàéà ä¨ òáñìà 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì ;(óåñá ,233§ åàìá .àúéì 3ø, 1ø [§âå 11 äéôé úà óñåð ô ¬ì [íéøùäå 11 §å÷ë ô ¬ì [äìå÷ë 11 (31 §îò ¬úååäúäå (31 §îò ¬úååäúäå ,175§ åàìá äàø) åáéâ˙é íå÷îá [ïåáéâ˙é 13 (aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã˙ ä ì [äã˙ ä 13 ˙ äå 16 (74§ åàìá äàø) úôð íå÷îá [úôðà 14 (aà27§ åàìá äàø) úøö˙ çá ô ¬ì [ä¨ øö˙ çá 14 ô [äã [êìã˙ 16 (äðåøçàä—äøåèâéìä åà—úåàä äøæåî) *ãçà ì [àäãçà 16 (aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã˙ äå [äìå÷ë 17 (b292§ ,à ¬èééø äàø) éøë˙ à ì [øë˙ à 16 íå÷ óñåð ô ¬ì [ìà÷å 16 .úåòèá èîùð ô ¬ì [úìîò 19 (!)äîìò ì ¬à ;3ø, 2ø, 1ø ¬ô êë [úîìò 18 §âå óñåð ô ¬ì [ïééá 17 §å÷ë ô ¬ì ì 駧ëá êà, íì ô ¬ì [àìå 20 (!)äéìò ô ¬ì [àäéìò 20 §éä úùèùåèî à [íëçé 20 äúìîò ô .í§§îì ìòî (?§à) úùèùåèî úåà ùéù äàøð 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [íäðî

4

text

10*

˙ éà äìå÷å ®ïééá êìîä áì áåèë éòéáùä íåéá äìå÷ êìã˙ íéøùäå íéîòä úåàøäì àö

¨ éòøìà òîâ˙ éã˙ ìà òö˙ åîìà åäå äéôé úà ãøôàô ïàîæìà óàö äðà åäå [à12] .äéô ä

˙ øàå äúø ñàå äøåúñå øåç äìå÷ô ®äö ïî

¨ îéë˙ á ä

/äàîñ/ óöåàô ./éìë˙ àãìà/ äðàúñá íäì

äéáù äì ìòâ˙ äðà åäå ®äô÷ñ éðòé äàîñ éìà äá øéùé ®úìëúå ñôøë

¨ ôìúë˙ îìà ïàåìàìà äã˙ ä 5 ®øàäðå àìéì óùë úçú ïåîé÷é ïà íäðëîé íì äðàì ä

˙ ®ïàèéçìà íà÷î ïåëúì íàë˙ ø ãîò éäå óåôö ä¨ òôúøî ãîò íà÷à äðà êìã˙ å íú ˙ ®ãåîò éìà ïéá ìöôú øåúñá àäðéá ìöô íú

/ãåîò/

ïî àäìë àäô÷ñà äðà

˙ éáà äðåì àî àäðî ïàë äðà óøòå ®ùù éãåîòå óñë éìéìâ ìò äìå÷ë ñìâ˙îå ñìâ˙î õ ˙ îìà äã˙ äá ïå ìî ãçàå ìë ïåëé [á12] åà ®éðåâ˙ðàîñà äðîå éâ˙ñôðá äðîå ®úàøåëã ¨ ö˙ ôá àùâî ®ä

/àäö˙ òáå/

˙ á àùâî àäö˙ òá ïàë ïà óøòô ä¨ ø ñàìà øëã˙ íú˙ 10 áäã

¨ ö˙ ôá äñéðàøòå áäã˙ á àùâî øéøñìà ïåëé åà éìò ñàðìà ñìâ˙é àì éúç ïñä ìì ä

¨ ø ñàìà ÷åô ïåëé ïà ãá ñéìå ®õ˙ øàìà àäéìò ñàðìà ïåñìâ˙é ãòà÷îå èñá ä

¨ ø ñàìàå ãîò ìà äéìò éã˙ ìà ïçöìà ùøô øëã˙ å ®àäøëã˙ ïò øöúë˙ àå óøòô ®ä ˙ øìàá ìö ôî èì áî äðà ïî íäéðàð÷å íäçàã÷à ìòâ˙å ®ñôàñôìàå øîøîìàå íàë

¨ éðàá ãçàå ìë áøùé åà ïåì øåã ìë ïåëé éúç ïàåìàìà ä¨ ìë ùî àäìòâ˙å áäã˙ 15 ä ¨ éòøìà ñìâ˙î óöåô ®àäøàúë˙ é ìë äúàìàå äúø ñàå êìîìà ñìâ˙î óöé [à13] íìå ä

˙ ìå óàòö˙ àá êìã˙ ÷åô àñåøìì ìîò éã˙ ìà ïàô ®äøàñé íè˙ ò éìò ìãéì êìã˙ êìã

¨ åòã éô äìú˙ î ì÷é íìå ®åúåëìî ãåáë øùò úà åúåàøäá àñåøìà ä¨ åòã éô ìà÷ ä

¨ éòøìà äéô 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äéô ä¨ éòøìà 2 §å÷å 4ø, 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷å 1 §å÷ 4ø ¬ì [äìå÷ 1 ä ˙ àãìà 4ø, 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì ¬à [éìë˙ àãìà 3 äðàúñá úñéôú ìò ññåáî äòåè ïå÷éú ¬íúñä ïî) éðàìë êë [äàîñ 3 .4ø, 3ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(74§ åàìá äàø) óöåô íå÷îá [óöåàô 3 (éåáéøë ˙ øà ùøôå 1ø [äö˙ øàå 3 (!)àîñà ô ¬ì ;(!)äîñà 4ø, 3ø ¬à ;1ø §å÷ë ô ¬ì ;§å÷ô 3ø, 1ø [äìå÷ô 3 äö 4ø ¬ô ¬ì [äã ˙ ä 5 (!)éã˙ ìà ô ¬ì [éìà 4 .(úåòèá èîùð éìåà) àúéì 1ø [ä¨ ôìúë˙ îìà ... éðòé 5–4 ;(§ä ïî §íä ¬äàøðë ¬§§äð÷åú§§) (!)íðëîé ì [íäðëîé 5 íäðàì 1ø [äðàì 5 (aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã˙ ä ïî äìîä äð÷åú ¬äàøðë 1ø ;(31 §îò ¬úååäúäå ,175§ åàìá äàø) åîé÷é íå÷îá [ïåîé÷é 5 äðëîé ô 7 àäô÷ñ 1ø [àäô÷ñà 7 àøàäðå ô ¬ì [øàäðå 5 øàäðìàå ìéììàá 1ø [øàäðå àìéì 5 ïåîå÷é 8 §÷ë 4ø ;§å÷ë 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ë 8 ãîò 1ø [ãåîò 7 ãîò 1ø ;(!)øåîò à ;4ø, 3ø ¬ô ¬ì êë [ãåîò [éðåâ˙ðàîñà 9 àäðî 1ø [äðîå 9 (äðî ïî ¬äàøðë ¬äð÷åú) àäðî 1ø [äðîå 9 àö˙ éà óñåð á ¬ì [äðåì .úåòèá äìîä äìôëð 4ø [äã˙ äá 9 (à30§ åàìá äàø) ïååìî 4ø, 1ø [ïå ìî 9 (!)íåâ˙ð àîñà ô ¬ì ˙ îìà ì ;ä¨ øåëã˙ îìà ïî ï÷åú à [úàøåëã˙ îìà 9 .àúéì 1ø [úàøåëã˙ îìà äã˙ äá 9 ¬íúñä­ïî) úøåëã åàìá äàø ;éðù ïééðá) éùâî íå÷îá [àùâî 10 .àúéì 1ø [ïàë 10 (bà27§ åàìá äàø êà ¬úåòè äæ 1ø ¬ô ¬ì êë [àäö ˙ òáå 10 .ïåèéåìèåéåîåä ìùá èîùð ô ¬ì [áäã˙ á àùâî ... àäö˙ òáå 11–10 (à10§ ˙ òá à ;4ø, 3ø, éìåà åà ;á6§ åàìá äàø) äñðàøòå ô ¬ì [äñéðàøòå 11 .àúéì 1ø [àùâî 10 (!)äö 1ø [àì éúç 11 ä ¨ ö˙ ô 4ø, 3ø, 1ø [ä¨ ö˙ ôá 11 ([á122 §îò ,á ¬éæåã äàø] §§ä¨ ñàðøò§§ ìù éåáéøä åäæ èîùð åæ äìî éìåàù, ïî óñåð 1ø [ãá 12 (à159§ åàìá äàø êà ¬úåòè éìåà) ìò ì [éìò 11 àìéì íà ,(βa142§ ,á ¬èééø äàø) ïåëú íå÷îá [ïåëé 12 (51 §òä ,257 §îò ¬åàìá äàø êà) à 駧ëá úåòèá äøòäá åðòöäù äðáää äðåëð íà [ïåñìâ˙é 12 .(åðîâøúù åîë) ñàðìà àìå ãòà÷îå èñá àåä àùåðä íå÷îá äæ éåáéøä ìòå ,(31 §îò ¬úååäúäå ,175§ åàìá äàø) åñìâ˙é íå÷îá øúé ïå÷éú åæ äøåö ¬úîãå÷ä 14 (!)àäøñàìàå 1ø [ä¨ ø ñàìàå 13 .àúéì 1ø [ñàðìà 12 .à182§ åàìá äàø ,(ñìâ˙é 짧ø) ãéçé [ïåëé 15 ïàåìà 1ø [ïàåìàìà 15 (191§ åàìá äàø) íäìòâ˙å ô [àäìòâ˙å 15 (!)ìö˙ ôî 3ø [ìö ôî [ãåáë 18 øùåò 4ø ¬ô ¬ì [øùò 18 (!)úåàøäá 3ø [åúåàøäá 18 ñìàâ˙î 1ø [ñìâ˙î 16 .àúéì 1ø §áë 4ø

9*

text

ãàî êìîä óö÷éå íéñéøñä ãéá øùà êìîä øáãá àåáì éúùå äëìîä ïàîúå

(12)

˙ òá éã˙ ìà êìîìà øîàá éâ˙ú ïà éúùå ä¨ ëìîìà úáàô :åá äøòá åúîçå éìò àäéìà ú ˙ âô ïàéöë˙ ìà ãé ºäéô úìòúùà äúéîçå àãâ˙ àäìòô ïî êìîìà áö ˙ î äéáà òö˙ åî éô êìî ãçàå íäðî àî êåìîìà éìåàä ïà àðîìò ã÷ ìáá êìî ìú

˙ ìà 5 ùåøåùçà [á10] áì âú ùøåë úàî àîìô ®äðáà ïáàå äðáàå øöðãëåáð êìî éã ˙ î ãòá àìà ãéøé àîë êìî ìà äì íúé íìå äìú÷å äéìò íå÷ ìú÷é ïéúðñ äì úö

˙ à éô ìà÷ àîë íå÷ ìñàøéå íà÷úñà àîìô ®åúøåáâå åô÷ú äùòî ìëå äìâîìà øë

˙ î øë ã˙ é íì éã˙ ìà íéè˙ òìà òéðöìà àã˙ ä ìîò íö˙ úðàå äëìî ®êåìîìà ãçàì äìú

˙ ìà ïàãìáìà íðâ ïåëé ïà àîàô ®äøàñé øàäè˙ à êìã˙ éô äãö÷ ïàë ïà óø òå ïéã

10 ã÷ äðàì ùøåëì ïàë àî òéîâ˙ äì ìöç ïåëé ïà àîàå ®íäîðâå íäðî ìú÷ô äúöò

˙ ë˙ àå òö˙ àåîìà çúô ïàë éúúðå äéòùé äé áð ãé éìò äì äììà ìà÷ àîë àäìàåîà ã

˙ ô .íéøúñî [à11] éðåîèîå êùç úåøöåà êì ®åúåëìî ãåáë øùåò àîäãçà ïééù øëã ˙ à àî åäå ®åúìåãâ úøàôú ø÷é åä éðàú˙ ìàå ®ä¨ òñàåìà úà÷ôðìà éìà äá ãö÷éå øäè ¨ úñ ä¨ ãî êìã˙ ïàë ïà óø òå ®êìã˙ éøâ˙î éøâ˙ àîå òìë˙ ìàå ä¨ ñéôðìà úàìàìà ïî ä

˙ ìà äãéáòå äãàå÷ì ä¨ åòã çìöé íåé ìë éô àúùìà øäùà 15 ®ïãîìà ãàå÷ òî ä¨ öàë

¨ ëìîîìà äéìò ãñôðú àìàì íå÷ ïåøîéå íå÷ ïåâ˙é ïåëé ïà ïî ãá ñéìå àîìô ®ä ˙ ìà øäùà ä¨ úñìà úâøô íàåòìì ìîòé ïà éàøìà ïî éàø ãàå÷ììå àñåøìì éã [á11] ä¨ éòøá

˙ î ìîòé äðëîé íìå ®äðåáçéå ä¨ éòøìà áåì÷ áééèéì òéðö àö˙ éà äìú

¨ éòøá êìã˙ ìòôô ®íúé àì øîà äðàì äëìî éô ïî ìë íé÷îìà êìî ìà ãìá ìäà ä

˙ äì íú àîë ä¨ ìéåè íäúåòã ä¨ ãî ïåëú ïà àö˙ éà äðëîé íìå ®äéô 20 ãàå÷ìà éô êìã

˙ ìà ä¨ åòã ìòâ˙å ®è÷ô òåáñà øåã éô äìòâ˙ô àö˙ éà ãàñô äéô ã˙ à äñìâ˙î éô õàåë ¨ éòøìà ä¨ åòã ìòâ˙å ®åéðôì úåðéãîä éøùå äìå÷ë øöàùìá ìòô àî ìú˙ î ïçöìà éô ä ˙ éà ïåáøùéå ïåìëàé äéô äàñåøå åä éã˙ ìà äñìâ˙î ïî íäéìò óøùé åäå éìò ìãé ®àö

˙ âà ô àåø÷ì ùé éìåàå ;74§ åàìá äàø) áöâàô 1ø [áö˙ âô 3 óåö÷éå ô ¬ì [óö÷éå 1 äúéîçå 3 (áö åàìá äàø) àìåàä íå÷îá [éìåàä 4 (!)äìòúùà 4ø [úìòúùà 3 äúéîç úìòúùàå 1ø [úìòúùà 4ø, 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [êìî ... àî 4 (43 §òä ,63 §îò ,åàìá äàø) éàìåàä 4ø, 3ø ;àìåä 1ø ;(â51 ,αbà11§§ 8 §åáâå 4ø [åúøåáâå 7 .úåòèá ¬äàøðë ¬èîùð 1ø [äéìò 6 (êìî óñåð 4ø) ãçàå íäðî êìî àî 9 .êëî §§äð÷åú§§ äìîä 1ø 駧ëáå ¬ô 駧ëá áúëð êëù ¬(á21§ åàìá äàø) íè˙ úðàå íå÷îá [íö˙ úðàå ˙ ìà 4ø, 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [ïéã˙ ìà íäìàåîà 1ø [àäìàåîà 11 .àúéì 1ø [ïàë 11 (cà361§ åàìá äàø) éã ¬ç ¬ïééì äàø) äééáð 4ø, 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [äé áð 11 §òú óñåð 4ø, 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 11 (191§ åàìá äàø) óñåð ô [íéøúñî 12 䧧ò óñåð ô ¬ì [äéòùé 11 ([ãééñ =] §éñ 4ø) §ééñ (á30§ åàìáå ¬á2753 §îò 12 (øëã˙ ô åéðôì àåø÷ì ùé éìåàå ;79–78 §îò ¬úååäúäå ,216§ åàìá äååùä) ïàéù 1ø [ïééù 12 §âå §àôú 4ø [úøàôú 13 äá øö÷éå 4ø [éìà äá ãö÷éå 13 øùò 3ø ¬ô [øùåò 12 §ãçà 4ø [àîäãçà ¨ úñ 14 (!)ä¨ øî 4ø [ä¨ ãî 14 äàø) éúùìà 1ø [àúùìà 15 øåäù 4ø, 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [øäùà 15 §å 1ø [ä ¨ åòã 1ø [äãàå÷ì ... çìöé 15 (γbà11§ åàìá ïåëé ïà 16 .àúéì 1ø ¬ô [ïî 16 ãàå÷ìì çìöé ä ¨ úñìà 17 .30 §òä ,226 §îò åàìá äàø [àìàì 16 .287 ,á286§§ åàìá äàø [ïåâ˙é ô [øäùà ä 17 (aà361§ åàìá äàø) éúìà íå÷îá [éã˙ ìà 17 øåäù 4ø, 3ø ¬ì [øäùà 17 àúùìà øåäù úúñ 18 ä¨ ééòøìà ô [ä¨ éòøìà 18 áéèéì 1ø [áééèéì 18 .àúéì 1ø [òéðö 18 ãàå÷ìàå 1ø [ãàå÷ììå 1ø [éô ïî 19 .1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(31 §îò ¬úååäúäå ,175§ åàìá äàø) äåáçéå íå÷îá [äðåáçéå ¬à ¬ïééì äàø) àäéô ô ¬ì [äéô 20 êìî ìà ïî ï÷åú à [êìî ìà 19 (!)ïà óñåð 1ø [øîà 19 .àúéì (câ27§ åàìá äàø) àåòã ïî ¬äàøðë ¬ï÷åú 4ø [ä¨ åòã 21 àìå ô ¬ì [íìå 20 ( úçú ¬à247 §îò §÷ë 4ø ;§å÷ë 1ø ¬ô ;§÷ë ì [äìå÷ë 22 øàöùìá 3ø [øöàùìá 22

text

8*

ìåãâîì äøéáä ïùåùá íéàöîðä íòä ìëì êìîä äùò äìàä íéîéä úàåìîáå

(5)

˙ ä ìàîë ãðòå ºêìîä ïúéá úðâ øöçá íéîé úòáù äúùî ïè÷ ãòå ìîò íàéàìà äã ¨ òáñ ä¨ åòã øéâö éìà øéáë ïî ä¨ øàîòìà ïñåñ éô ïéãåâ˙åîìà íå÷ìà ìëì êìîìà ä ˙ ìà éðàìë˙ àãìà ïàðâ˙ ïçö éô íàéà ºêìîìì éã úåèî ùù éãåîòå óñë éìéìâ ìò ïîâøàå õåá éìáçá æåçà úìëúå ñôøë øåç

(6) 5

˙ î éðåâ˙ðàîñàå [à9] éâ˙ñôðá õ˙ àéá ºúøçñå øãå ùùå èäá úôöø ìò óñëå áäæ èåáö

¨ ö˙ ôå áäã˙ ä¨ øñàå íàë˙ ø ãîòå ä¨ ö˙ ô øëá éìò ïàåâ˙øàå éìò ä

/øùòìà/ ìàáçá /øîøîå/ íàë˙ øå èàìá óéöø ñàðìà à÷ñàå :êìîä ãéë áø úåëìî ïééå íéðåù íéìëî íéìëå áäæ éìëá úå÷ùäå (7) ¨ øã÷î áñç éìò øéú˙ ë êìî ìà áàøùå éðàåà ïî ä¨ øéâúî éðàåàå áäã˙ éðàåàá 10 ãé ä ºñôàñôå

ºêìîìà

ùéà ïåöøë úåùòì åúéá áø ìë ìò êìîä ãñé ïë éë ñðà ïéà úãë äéúùäå

(8)

˙ ë ïàô òðàî ñéì ä¨ ðñìà ìú˙ î áøùìàå :ùéàå äøàã éô ìéìâ˙ ìë éìò êìîìà íñø éã ˙ ø ìòôéì ºìâ˙øå ìâ˙ø ìë àö

êìîì øùà úåëìîä úéá íéùð äúùî äúùò [á9] äëìîä éúùå íâ

(9) 15 ¨ ¨ ˙ ˙ ºùåøåùçà êìîìì éãìà êìîìà øàã éô àñðìà äåòã úìîò äëìîìà éúùå àöéà àúâáàå àúâá àðåáøç àúæá ïîåäîì øîà ïééá êìîä áì áåèë éòéáùä íåéá (10) òáàñìà íåéìà éô :ùåøåùçà êìîä éðô úà íéúøùîä íéñéøñä úòáù ñëøëå øúæ ˙ ìà éô êìîìà áì÷ ä¨ áéè ãðò øúæ àúâáàå àúâá àðåáøç àúæá ïîåäîì ìà÷ øîë ˙ ˙ ìà ïàéöë˙ ìà ä¨ òáñ ñëøëå 20 ºùåøåùçà êìîìà ïåîãëé éã íéøùäå íéîòä úåàøäì úåëìî øúëá êìîä éðôì äëìîä éúùå úà àéáäì (11) ˙âàúá êìîìà íàã÷ ä¨ ëìîìà éúùåá åáéâ˙éì :àéä äàøî úáåè éë äéôé úà [à10] ˙ ðîìà úðñç úðàë àäðàì àäìàîâ˙ àñåøìàå ä¨ é òøìà éøåéì êìî ìà ºøè :ùåøåùçà

2 .úåòèá äìîä äìôëð ì [úòáù 2 ïåè÷ ì [ïè÷ 2 úåàìîáå ô ;úàì˙ îáå 1ø ¬ì [úàåìîáå 1 ¨ øîòìà ì [ä¨ øàîòìà 3 (aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã˙ ä 4ø [äã˙ ä 2 (!)ïúéáä ì [ïúéá 2 úðéâ 1ø [úðâ ä ,229§§ åàìá äàø) ä¨ éìë˙ àãìà ïàðâ˙ìà íå÷îá [éðàìë˙ àãìà ïàðâ˙ 4 (á6§ åàìá äàø êà ¬úåòè éìåà) ˙ éá ô ¬ì [õ˙ àéá 6 úøçåñå 4ø ¬ô ;(!)äøçåñå ì [úøçñå 6 (188 ô [éâ˙ñôðá 6 (úåòè ¬äàøðë) ïàö àîñàå ô ¬ì [éðåâ˙ðàîñàå 6 (äð÷éúå ¬ì 駧ëá [âôðá] áåúëì ÷éúòîä ìéçúä ¬äàøðë ¬êëå) (!)éâ˙˙âôðá 7 (úøçà ãéá éìåà—§àä ¬äàøðë ¬äôñåð) àìáç 1ø [ìàáçá 7 (!)èéáö˙ î ì [èåáö˙ î 6 (!)éðåâ˙ð 8 (!)øîòå 1ø [ãîòå 7 øéøç éðòé óñåð 4ø ;øéøçìà 3ø ;(!)øù òìà à ;4ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì êë [øùòìà äàø) úåòèá ¬äàøðë ¬èîùð 4ø, 3ø ¬ô ¬ì ¬à ;&1ø êë [øîøîå 8 (äéøáò äìî) úôöø ô ¬ì [óéöø 3ø ¬ì ;(!)ñàô ñôå ì ;á266 §îò ¬á ¬éæåã äååùä åæ äøåö ìò [ñôàñôå 8 (62 §òä ,218 §îò ¬åðîåâøú ¨ øéâúî 10 ä¨ ö˙ ôå óñåð ô ¬ì [áäã˙ 10 (èñ÷èá åîë äð) íéìë ïî ì [íéìëî 9 (!)ñàôñôå ¬ì [ä [ìéìâ˙ 13 .ïåèéåìèåéåîåä ìùá èîùð 4ø [êìîìà ... øéú˙ ë 11–10 (á30§ åàìá äàø) ä¨ øééâúî ô åàìá äàø) éñðìà 1ø [àñðìà 16 .úåòèá èîùð 4ø ;(!)äìîò 1ø [úìîò 16 (!)ìéìéâ˙ åà (!)ìéìåâ˙ ì [éøåéì 23 ä¨ øö˙ çá óñåð 1ø [ïåîãë˙ é 20 (cà361§ åàìá äàø) ïéã˙ ìà íå÷îá [éã˙ ìà 20 (γbà11§ ¨ ðñç 1ø ;aà27§ åàìá äàø [úðñç 23 (!)éøéåì 1ø ;(16 §òä ,98§ åàìá äàø)  /éàøéì íå÷îá ä (á21§ åàìá äàø) øö˙ ðîìà 1ø [øè˙ ðîìà 23

7*

text

˙ ®ãåäéìà ä¨ ãàáà áìèå êìã˙ ìâ˙à ïî ïîä êìîìà ïà óøò éúç ìå÷ìà ìñìñ íú ¨ ãàáà éðòî éô éëãøîå øúñà úãàøà àîá áúë ïî äåð ñúñà àîå ìàøùé éãòà ä

˙ ®äìâîìà äã˙ ä éðòî ä¨ ìîâ˙ åä àã˙ äô ®ïéîåéìà ìâ˙à ïî êìåîä ùåøåùçà àåä ìà÷ íú

˙ ìà øë˙ à ùåøåùçà íú˙ ïà ùåøåùçà [á7] ïá ùåéøãì äìå÷ì éãîä ùåéøã åáà åä éã

˙ äå êìî ïëé íì êìã˙ ã˙ à êàã˙ øéâ àã˙ ä ïà óø òô ®éãî òøæî 5 ïà óø òå ®êìî ïàë àã ˙ àîðàå ïéáéø÷ ùåëå åãåä ïà ìé÷ ®ùåë ãòå åãåäî ïàë äëìî ®ïàñìéè äìîò øëã

˙ îå ®äæò ãòå çñôúî øäðä øáò ìëá äãåø àåä éë §ñìà §ò äîìù éô äìå÷ äìú ¨ ðéãî ïéøùòå ä¨ òáñå ä¨ éàî äëìî ä¨ ìîâ˙ éô ïà óø òå ®÷éøè ìéî äæòå çñôú ïéáå øéâ ä

¨ ìîøìàå ä¨ éøáèå ÷ùîã ìú˙ î éä ïãîìà äã˙ äå ®àäá ÷çàåììàå àä÷éúàñø àîå ä

.äúòñå [à8] äìîò øáë å äúëìîî ä¨ øú˙ ë êìã˙ ãðò ïàáô ®àäàøâ˙î éøâ˙

10

(12–2 ,à) éô ºäøéáä ïùåùá øùà åúåëìî àñë ìò ùåøåùçà êìîä úáùë íää íéîéá ïñåñ éô

˙ ìà éã

äúëìîî éñøë éìò ùåøåùçà êìîìà

ñåìâ˙

(2)

ãðò íàéàìà êéàìà

¨ øàîòìà ºä éøùå íéîúøôä éãîå ñøô ìéç åéãáòå åéøù ìëì äúùî äùò åëìîì ùìù úðùá

(3)

˙ ìàú˙ ìà ä¨ ðñìà éô ºåéðôì úåðéãîä 15 ùéâ˙ äãéáòå äãàå÷ ìëì ä¨ åòã ìîò äëìîì ä¨ ú ¨ ÷øàèáìà éãàîå ñøàô ºäéãé ïéá ïãîìà àñåøå ä íéðåîù íéáø íéîé åúìåãâ úøàôú ø÷é úàå åúåëìî ãåáë øùò úà åúàøäá

(4)

¨ ëìîîìà ìäà éøåé [á8] ïà ãàøà àî ãðò ºíåé úàîå øáë æòå äëìî øà÷å øàñé ä

¨ éàîå ïéðàîú˙ ä¨ øéú˙ ë íàéà äúîè˙ ò ºàîåé ä

äàø) àãòà íå÷îá [éãòà 2 àîë 1ø [àîá 2 [ìñì]ñú 5ø [ìñìñ 1 ìàøùé ô ¬ì [ãåäéìà 1 äåðñà 1ø [äåð ñúñà 2 §øùé 1ø [ìàøùé 2 .5ø­å 4ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ,(γbà11§ åàìá .àúéì 5ø [åä 3 (aà51§ åàìá äàø) äã˙ ä 5ø [àã˙ äô 3 äåññà 5ø ;(74§ åàìá äàø ;äåð ñ íå÷îá) 1ø [êìåîä 3 ¨ ìâ˙îìà ì [äìâîìà 3 (aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã˙ ä ô [äã˙ ä 3 [ï]àòî 5ø [éðòî 3 ä 5ø [øë ˙ à ùåøåùçà 4 ùø{à}åùçà áúëð 4ø [ùåøåùçà 4 ùåøåùçà éîéá éäéå äìå÷ ãòá 5ø ;àúéì ˙ 5ø, 1ø [êìã˙ 5 §÷ë 5ø ;§å÷ì 4ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ì 4 ùåøåùçà äîñà øë˙ à äàø) ïåëé 4ø [ïëé 5 êàã ô [éô 7 §å÷ 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ 7 åãä 5ø, 1ø [åãåä 6 åãäî 5ø, 1ø ¬ô [åãåäî 6 (aá102§ åàìá (!)ñðôçúî ô [çñôúî 7 äãø 1ø [äãåø 7 íàìñìà äéìò 1ø ;§äò 4ø ¬ô ¬ì [§ñìà §ò 7 .àúéì ô ¬ì [çñôú 8 (!)ïåëå 4ø [ïéáå 8 (!)ñðôúî ì ;(íéãåäé úáùåî íù äúéäù äîåã÷ íéøöîá øéò) 9 ä¨ òáñ 1ø [ä¨ òáñå 8 äúìîâ˙ éô 1ø [äëìî ä¨ ìîâ˙ éô ïà 8 (203 §òä ìéòì äàø) (!)ñðôçú ˙ äå 4ø, 1ø [äã˙ äå 9 (!)÷çàåìàå 1ø [÷çàåììàå ïàëô 4ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [ïàáô 10 (aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã 4ø [äëìîì 15 ùåìù 1ø [ùìù 14 ñåñ 1ø [ïñåñ 12 øéùãøà 1ø ;(!)ñåøåùçà ô [ùåøåùçà 12 ¨ ÷øàèáìà 16 (!)éàîå 1ø [éãàîå 16 (!)ä¨ éòã ì [ä¨ åòã 15 (!)åëìîì äàø) ú÷øà[èá]ìà 4ø [ä íå÷îá [éøåé 18 åúìãâ ì [åúìåãâ 17 åúåàøäá ô ;(!)úåàøäá ì [åúàøäá 17 (bà27§ åàìá 1ø ;øà÷åå ô ¬ì [øà÷å 18 äøàñé ô [øàñé 18 (!)éBå˙é ì ;(16 §òä ,98§ åàìá äàø)  /éàøé ˙ ô 1ø [øáë 18 (!)øà÷é íåé ô [àîåé 19 (êë áúëð åáù ¬ñ§§ú ïî òôùåä éìåà) øë

text ˙ ô ùøåë ãòá êìî àî øëã

[á5]

6*

˙ äå ®äììà úéá úàìà òî íå÷ìà ùåøåùçà àã

˙ ð ãòá êìã˙ çøùðñ àîë ìàøùé éìò äðàîæ éô éøâ˙ ïî äøéâ ïàîæ éô éøâ˙ àî øëã ¨ ãçàå ä¨ ðñ êìî äðàì øéâöìà àúñùçúøà ùåøåùçà ãòá êìîå ®ñøôìà êåìî ä ¨ øîàñìà æîâ àî ãðò úéáìà éðáé ïà òðî éã˙ ìà åäå ùåéøã äãòá íà÷å ®ãåäéìàá ä

˙ éà íàùìà ìîò àòñå éñøôä 5 àðáìà íàîúàá øîàìà ãøåô äéìà ãåäéìàá àö ˙ î äìàî ïî äììà úéá éìò ä¨ ÷ôðìà ìòâ˙å ïî àäòáúé àîå ïéáàø÷ìà ìòâ˙å ùøåë ìú

˙ íúå ®àö˙ éà äìàî áçàö åäå øéáëìà àúñùçúøà [à6] äãòá íà÷å ®äðàîæ éô êìã ¨ ñîë˙ ñøôìà êåìî ä¨ ìîâ˙ øàöô ®äéîçðå àøæò àúñùçúøàå ùåøåùçàå ùøåë íäå ®ä ˙ ìà êìîìà åä ùåøåùçà àã˙ äô ®øéáëìà àúñùçúøàå éñøôä ùåéøãå øéâöìà éðàú

¨ øîàñìà ïà àøæò øôñ éô øëã˙ å ®ñøôìà êåìî ïî 10 äìå÷ë äðàîæ éô ìàøùéá åòñ ä íìå ®íìùåøéå äãåäé éáùåé ìò äðèù åáúë åúåëìî úìçúá ùåøåùçà úåëìîáå

¨ ö÷ìà äã˙ ä ïàëå àìöà éùá íäáàâ˙à äðà áàúëìà øëã˙ é ãòáå äëìî ìåà éô ä [á6]

˙ ìô äëìî åôöé íì ùåøåùçà éîéá éäéå äìå÷ô ®íäìå÷ éìà éâöé íì êìã

˙ äéô õ˙ øâìà ïàëå ®äìâîìà äúðîö˙ ú àî òéîâ˙ éìà äá øéùé éìò éøâ˙ àî øëã ˙ å ®íäá ÷ìòúî äøëã˙ àî òéîâ˙ äðàô äðàîæ éô ìàøùé 15 ãö÷ ïàë àîì äðà êìã ˙ ìà éùìà àðôéøòú ïååãîìà íìô íéøåôìà éîåé íäñôðà ìàøùé åîæìà äìâ˙à ïî éã ¨ ö÷ øëã˙ ô ®àäøë˙ à éìà àäìåà ïî íäøåîà ïî éøâ˙ àî øëã˙ é ïà ïî ãá ïëé ä ˙ íú˙ ®äëìîìà éúùå úìæòà àðì øëã

/ïà

¨ åòãìà éô ááñìà ïàë/ ùéà íìòðì ä

˙ ë˙ à éúç øîàìà éøâ˙ óéëå øàåâ˙ìà øáë˙ ãòá àî éô íìòð éúç àäìãá øúñà úã

/ïúâá/ ìòô àðì øëã˙ íú˙ ®ïîä [à7] úøæâ ïî ìàøùé õàìë˙ ááñ úðàë àäðà 20 ˙ ®ïîä úøæâ ïî éëãøî õàìë˙ ì àìöà êìã˙ ïàë éúç éëãøî ïî ïàë àîå ùøúå íú ¨ øéáëìà äúìæðîå ïîä ä¨ ö÷ àðì øëã˙ ãøç éúç äáàá éô éëãøî ïî éøâ˙ àîå ä

éô §øùé éìò 5ø, 1ø [ìàøùé ... éô 2 ùøåùçà 4ø [ùåøåùçà 1 §òú óñåð 4ø ¬ô ¬ì [äììà 1 1ø [àúñùçúøà 3 ùøåùçà 4ø, 1ø [ùåøåùçà 3 øëã ˙ å 5ø [êìîå 3 ïà óñåð 5ø [ãòá 2 äðàîæ éñøôìà 5ø [éñøôä 5 .àúéì ô ¬ì [àî 4 (à10§ åàìá äàø) àðáé 5ø, 1ø [éðáé 4 (!)àúùçúøà 5 ä¨ øîàñìà 5ø [íàùìà 5 .5ø­å 1ø 駧ëá áúëð êëù ¬(â6§ åàìá äàø) ìîàò íå÷îá [ìîò 5 6 éðáìà 5ø [àðáìà 5 .÷çîðå (ã øô åà) ãø ô áúëð åæ äìî éðôì [ãøåô 5 .àúéì 5ø, 1ø [ãåäéìàá úñùçúøà 5ø [àúñùçúøà 7 (ãåàî ùèùåèî ïàë èñ÷èä êà, 4ø íâ éìåà) §òú óñåð ô ¬ì [äììà ˙ å ì [íäå 8 §ä 1ø [ä¨ ñîë˙ 8 éñøôìà 5ø [éñøôä 9 úñùçúøàå 5ø [àúñùçúøàå 8 .àúéì 5ø ;(!)íú (bà51§ åàìá äàø) äã˙ äô ô [àã˙ ä 9 .ïåèéåìèåéåîåä ìùá èîùð 4ø ¬ô ¬ì [àúñùçúøàå ... øéâöìà 9 ¨ øîñìà 5ø, 1ø [ä¨ øîàñìà 10 (â226§ åàìá äàø) (!)êåìîìà ô [êåìî 10 (!)êåìîìà ô [êìîì 9 ä 1ø [éáùåé 11 §÷ë 5ø ;§å÷ë 4ø, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ë 10 §øùéá 1ø [ìàøùéá 10 (â6§ åàìá äàø) ˙ ä 4ø [äã˙ ä 12 éáùé 5ø, éåúñé 5ø ;(à111§ åàìá äàø) ó öé íå÷îá [åôöé 13 (aà51§ åàìá äàø) àã éìò 1ø [ìàøùé éìò 15–14 ïàë ïàå 5ø, 1ø [ïàëå 14 .àúéì 5ø [òéîâ˙ 14 §å÷ô 1ø ¬ô [äìå÷ô 13 [íäá 15 .àúéì ô ¬ì [àî 15 ïàô 5ø [äðàô 15 .àúéì 5ø, 1ø [äðàîæ éô 15 ìàøùéì 5ø ;§øùé [éîåé 16 (à30§ åàìá äàø) ïåãîìà 5ø, 1ø [ïååãîìà 16 .àúéì 5ø ;(!)àî 1ø [àîì 15 äá 5ø, 1ø 1ø ¬ô ¬ì êë [ïà ... ïàë 18 (á52§ åàìá äàø) éù éà íå÷îá [ùéà 18 (â126§ åàìá äàø) ïéîåé ô ˙ 19 .àúéì 5ø [øáë˙ 19 éô ááñìà ïàë ïà à ;4ø, øàåâ˙ìà 5ø, 1ø [øîàìà éøâ˙ óéëå øàåâ˙ìà øáë 5ø, 1ø [ãòá 19 (ïäøîà 5ø ;äøåøá §åä äðéà êà, íäøåîà àåø÷ì ùé éìåà 1ø) íäøîà éøâ˙ óéë 1ø [éëãøî 21 (!)ïâúô à [ïúâá 20 ïéòììà óñåð 4ø ¬ô ¬ì [ïîä 20 §øùé 1ø [ìàøùé 20 äãòá äøáã àî éô 5ø ;äéìò ïîä äøáã àîî 1ø [ïîä úøæâ ïî 21 øàö 5ø, 1ø [ïàë 21 íäáàá éô 5ø, ˙ êìã˙ ëå 5ø, 1ø [àðì øëã˙ íú˙ 22–21 ïîä øëã

5*

text

˙ ìà éðòî éô ãéàãùìà êìú ïåëú ã÷ô ®áåøö˙ ìà ïî áøö˙ éäå úàøãàöîìàå ˙âàøë ¨ áìàèî éðòî éô ïåëú ã÷å ®ãåâ˙åìà éô ä¨ øéú˙ ë éìò éøâ˙ äðà ìà÷é àîë ïéDìà êøú ä ¨ éìàâ˙ìà øë˙ à éô øè˙ úðé àî éô êìã˙ ëå ®íåøìà ãìá ïàëñ êøúá áìàèé ïî íå÷é ä ˙ øéâ éìò éøâ˙é ã÷å ®äðéã éô ìåë˙ ãìàå ïéDìà ïàîæ éô àáàìà éìò éøâ˙ àî åäå êìã ˙ òá àîðàå ïéã êøú àìå ìàî íäðî áìè àî äðàô ïéòììà ïîä úøæâ ïî ùåøåùçà 5 ú ˙ ð ïà áâ˙é éã˙ ìà òö˙ åîìà éô äòö˙ åî éô êìã˙ çøùðñ àîë íäìú÷éì ïòå ®äéô äøëã

˙ ä [á4] ìú˙ î ã÷ô .§âå íäéáéà õøàá íúåéäá úàæ íâ óàå ãäòìà éô ìà÷ ú÷åìà àã íéãäéúî õøàä éîòî íéáøå äìå÷ë ïéãìà æòå

/äðàîæ/

¨ éàðò ïàá éô àðá äììà ä

ºíäéìò íéãåäéä ãçô ìôð éë

(1 ,à) 10

/øéùãøà/ åä úùãàøæ ìé÷å /øéùãøà/ íàéà éô ïàëå º§çà éîéá éäéå (1 ,à) ¨ ðéãî ä¨ éàîå ïéøùòå ä¨ òáñ êìã˙ ä¨ ìîâ˙ éô ˙âðæìà ãìá éìàå ãðäìà ïî êìàîìà ºä ˙ à ãòá ä¨ ø î úàòôã ú˙ ìú˙ ñã÷îìà úéáá øöðúë˙ á äìòô àîá àðøáë˙ à ã÷ ®éøë .íàðîìàá àîëçìà øöàðúë˙ á áìàè àî ãðò äà÷ôøå ìàéðã éìò éøâ˙ àîá øáë˙ àå ˙ éà àðøáë˙ àå/ [à5] ãåâ˙ñìàá ñàðìà øîà àî ãðò äà÷ôø éìò éøâ˙ àîá àö ˙ á ãìå ïàîæ éô éøâ˙ àîá àö˙ éà àðøáë˙ àå /.íðöìì 15 àî åäå êãåøî ìéåà øöàðúë ˙ éà àðøáë˙ àå ®äãåäé êìî ïéëéåäéá äìòô äãìå ãìå øöùìá ïàîæ éô éøâ˙ àîá àö ˙ ˙ ®íéãùë êåìî ïàîæ éô éøâ àî àãäô ®äìëéä èéàç éìò êàìîìà áúë àîî ˙ ô ®éãîå ñøô êåìî ïàîæ éô éøâ˙ àî àö˙ éà øëã˙ å ùåéøã ïàîæ éô éøâ˙ àî øëã ˙ ìà åäå ùøåë äãòá íà÷å ®òàáñìà áâ˙ éô çøè éúç ìàéðã éìò éãîìà éã 20 ãòöô äìàî ïî äéìò ä¨ ÷ôðìàå ñã÷îìà úéá éðáå ãåòöìà ä¨ îàìì ÷ìèà ˙ éìò ä¨ ôìúë˙ îìà íå÷îá ¬óãä éìåùá åìà íéìî åáúëð ì [áåøö˙ ìà ... íäéìò äììà 1 éô áøö [ãéàãùìà 1 (aã51§ åàìá äàø) êìã˙ 1ø [êìú 1 .ä÷éçî å÷ íéìîä åìà ìò áúëðù ¬ãåâ˙åìà 5 (á21§ åàìá äàø) øö˙ úðé 1ø [øè˙ úðé 3 (è8§ åàìá äàø) éøàâ˙ ô [éøâ˙ 2 (!)ãéãàùìà ô ˙ åî éô 6 .àúéì 1ø [ïéòììà 5 §ùçà 1ø [ùåøåùçà íéìîì ïåéîãä ìùá åèîùð äàøðë) àúéì 1ø [äòö 7 .ãåàî ùèùåèî ïàë ãéä­áúë êà ,(ïåèéåìèåéåîåä ìùá) èîùð ¬äàøðë 4ø [òö˙ åîìà éô 6 (úåàáä íéúñàî àì (úåòèá úéðùä §éä äøñåç éìåà) íäáéåà 1ø ;(èñ÷èá åîë ð) íäéáéåà ô ¬ì [íäéáéà §å÷á 1ø ;§å÷ë 4ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ë 8 (!)äðààîæ à [äðàîæ 8 .àúéì ì [§âå 7 íúìëì íéúìòâ àìå ¬ô ¬ì [§çà 10 .úåòèá äìôëð äìîä ì [õøàä 8 (!)àîòî 4ø [éîòî 8 .(§å÷ë àåø÷ì ùé éìåàå) ¬à ;1ø êë [øéùãøà 10 äðéãî äàîå íéøùòå òáù ùåë ãòå åãäî êìîä ùåøåùçà àåä ùåøåùçà 1ø ([144 §îò ¬åðúîã÷ä äàø] éáøò 駧ëá -å  áåáøòî íøâð §æá äæ áéúë ¬íúñä­ïî) øéùãæàìà ô ¬ì 11 (103 §òä ìéòì äàø) øéùãæàìà ô ¬ì ¬à ;1ø êë [øéùãøà 10 ìà÷å 4ø ¬ô ¬ì [ìé÷å 10 12 àî 1ø [àîá 12 (!)íéøùòå 4ø [ïéøùòå 11 .ùèùåèî ïàë èñ÷èä êà, ˙âðæ àø÷ éìåà ì [˙âðæìà 13 øöðúë˙ á 4ø ¬ô ¬ì [øöàðúë˙ á 13 䧧ò óñåð ô ¬ì [ìàéðã 13 §â 1ø ;ú˙ àìú˙ 4ø ¬ô ¬ì [ú˙ ìú˙ ˙ àå 15–14 (úåòè ¬íúñä­ïî) ä¨ îëçìà ô ¬ì [àîëçìà èîùð 4ø ¬ô ¬ì ¬à ;1ø êë [íðöìì ... àðøáë 4ø ¬ì [øöàðúë ˙ á 15 .ïåè÷øàåéåîåä ìùá èîùð ô [äãåäé ... àðøáë˙ àå 16–15 .ïåè÷øàåéåîåä ìùá [äãìå ãìå 16 äàðøáë˙ àå ô [àðøáë˙ àå 16 êãøî 4ø, 1ø ¬ì [êãåøî 15 øöàðúë˙ á 1ø ;øöðúë˙ á 1ø [êåìî ïàîæ 17 (à9§ åàìá äàø) êìîìà 5ø [êàìîìà 17 äáúë ô ¬ì [áúë 17 .àúéì 1ø ; =) àðáå íå÷îá [éðáå 20 .àúéì 5ø [ä¨ îàìì 20 àö˙ éà éøâ˙ àî 5ø [éøâ˙ ... àö˙ éà 18 êìî 5ø, 1ø [ñã÷îìà úéá 20 (38 §òä ,207 §îò ¬åðîåâøú äàø) øáòá ìòåô åðéà íà ,(γbà11§ åàìá äàø úéáìà 5ø,

text

4*

˙ î ìàîëìà éìò íäì ïàëå äðàîæ éô ìàéðãå äðàîæ éô áåéàå äðàîæ éô çð ìú ®íäéàáà çàìö ìâ˙à ïî ïéòéàè øéâìà íäãàìåà éìò äììà ÷áé íì úàðáå ïéðá

˙ ä ú˙ òá äðà êìã˙ ãòá ìà÷å ïî ìë àðôé àìå íìùåøé éìà úàôà òáøàìà äã ¨ é ÷áìà úðàëô êìã˙ òîå ®àäéô íéàöåîä äèéìô äá äøúåð äðäå äìå÷ë øàøùà ä

˙ ìãô ®íúåìéìò úàå íëøã úà íúéàøå íëéìà íéàöåé íðä úåðáå íéðá 5 éìò êìã

˙ à ãäòìà éô ãòåìà éô êìã˙ á ÷áñ ã÷å ®àðì÷ àî [à3] ä¨ çö íéîéá íâå ìà÷ ã ˙ äå ®äìë íëúà äùòà àì éåé íàð äîää éô íäå àáàìà òî äììà äìòô àã ˙ é ïî íäéô ïëé íìô ®éöàòîìà éô åôøñà àî ãðò õ˙ øàìà óåøòîìàá øîàìà øäè ùéà íäî ù÷áàå ìà÷å .§âå íìùåøé úåöåçá åèèåù äìå÷ë íäéìò äìì áâ˙é àîå

¨ éìàâ˙ìà éô íäå ìá íäòî ìîò è÷ô õ˙ øàìà éô êìã˙ ñéìå .§âå §òå øãâ øãâ 10 ®ä ˙ à äðà êìã˙ å íúãáòå äìå÷ë íäúåìâ˙ ãòá íéøçà íéäìà ïåãáòé íäðà íäðò øáë

[á3] øöî éìà ˙ øà éô ã÷ô/ øöî õ

ãòá

˙ à ã÷å ®§âå íãà éãé äùòî íéäìà íù ïééìâ˙ðîìà ïò øáë ¨ îàìà ä¨ åìâ˙å ñã÷ìà áàøë˙ àäøéâå íåâ˙ðìà åãáò íäðà ä

/ä¨ é÷á íäðî à÷á /ïî éö˙ àøàìà/ øéàñ éô êìã˙ ëå .øôñî 15 ¨ òáøàìà ïî ìåàìà êìî ìà ãòá íàðöàìà åãáòé íìå íéãùë êìî åäå êìàîî ä ˙ î àäðåìîòé øàáë áåðã˙ íäì ïëì ®êìã˙ øçñìàå ïàøéèìàå ìàôìàå íåâ˙ðìà ìú ˙ øéâå úáñìà ìàã˙ áàå úàîøçî ˙âåøô áåëøå ïàîæ ìåè àäá ïéðä úøî íäô êìã ¨ éìàâ˙ìà íäéìò äììà êø çéô éöàòîìà éô ïåèøôé ã÷å ®àäðåëøúé ïà éìà ä ¨ ˙ ˙ éìò äììà éìà òåâøìà éìà íäëø çú ãéàãù [à4] äôìúëîìà øàöòàìà éô 20 éúî äãåäé õøà íéøöî õøàî ïåáåùé áøç éèéìôå äìå÷ë

˙ íú ïëàìå íîàìà éö˙ àøà éô êìã

¬ì [éìò 2 §òú óñåð 3ø [äììà 2 (à127§ åàìá äàø) ïåðá íå÷îá [ïéðá 2 䧧ò óñåð ô ¬ì [çð 1 [òáøàìà 3 íäàáà ô ¬ì ;aá11§ åàìá äååùä §éá §§ä¨ æî䧧ä ìù äæ áéúë ìò [íäéàáà 2 .àúéì ô ïåéìâá áúëð ô 駧ëá) §å÷ë ô ¬ì [äìå÷ë 4 íìå ô ¬ì [àìå 3 íéìùåøé 1ø [íìùåøé 3 §ãìà 1ø .èñ÷èá åîë äð êà ¬(ï÷åúå íëéëøã áúëð) íäéëøã 1ø [íëøã 5 ìà÷ àîë 1ø ;(ãé ìà÷æçé éô [äìì 9 §òú óñåð ô ¬ì [äììà 7 ééé 1ø [éåé 7 .àúéì 1ø ¬ô ¬ì [éô 6 äàðì÷ ô ¬ì [àðì÷ 6 ô ¬ì [§âå 9 (§å÷ë àåø÷ì ùé éìåàå) §å÷á 1ø ;§å÷ë ô ¬ì [äìå÷ë 9 §òú óñåð ô ¬ì ;(!)äììà 1ø ãòá éðôì óñåð [ðá åîë] 1ø 駧ëá) õøôá ãîòå 1ø ¬ì [§âå §òå 10 øãåâ ô ¬ì [øãâ 10 .àúéì [íéäìà 12 §å÷á 1ø ;§å÷ë ô ¬ì [äìå÷ë 11 §âå õøôá ãîòå ô ;éúàöî àìå äúçù éúìáì (õøàä éùòî ô [äùòî 12 (ò éãé­ìò øùåàî íâå ¬î§§äð ìù 駧ë øôñîá çñåð óåìéç àåäù) íéøçà óñåð ô (191§ åàìá äàø) íäøéâå ô ¬ì [àäøéâå 13 (!)ïéìâ˙ðîìà ô ¬ì [ïééìâ˙ðîìà 12 (èñ÷èá åîë äð) [à÷á 14 .(13 §òä ,199–198 §îò ¬åðîåâøú äàø) èîùð ô ¬ì ¬à ; 1ø êë [ä¨ é÷á ... ã÷ô 14–13 14 ìà÷ àîë 1ø ;§å÷ë ô ¬ì [äìå÷ë 14 (β a142§ ,á ¬èééø ;á106§ åàìá äàø) úé÷á íå÷îá ˙ àøàìà 15 .àúéì ô [øôñî ... õøà 15–14 õøà ïî äðå ô [õøàî àúéì 1ø ¬à ;ô ¬ì êë [ïî éö ¨ òáøàìà 16 §ãìà 1ø [ä¨ òáøàìà 16 ïë àìå ô ¬ì [ïëàìå 15 (ïåè÷øàåéåîåä ìùá äàøðë) ä åìà íéìîù øòùì øùôà íâå ;ã226§ åàìá äàø ¬êîåñì àìå ¬êîñðì úéåúä úôñåú ìò [êìàîî ¨ òáø১) éàåìä äæ ìò [øàáë 17 ïë àì ô ¬ì [ïëì 17 .òåá÷å ãøôð éåèéáë åñôúð (§§êìàîî ä §îò ¬úååäúä ;59§ åàìá äàø) àäåìîòé ô ¬ì [àäðåìîòé 17 øéàáë 1ø ;188§ åàìá äååùä éåáéøá ¨ øéèìà 1ø [ïàøéèìàå 17 íéâ˙ðúìà ô ¬ì [íåâ˙ðìà 17 (64–62 øåçñìàå 4ø ¬ô ¬ì [øçñìàå 17 ä ˙ áàå 18 ä¨ îøçî 1ø [úàîøçî 18 úàîøçîìà ˙âåøôìà ô ¬ì [úàîøçî ˙âåøô 18 ùåîéù ìò [ìàã .(21 §òä ,201–200 §îò ¬åðîåâøú íâå) 74§ åàìáå ,44 §îò ¬éáäöø äàø (éòéáø ïééðáá) §ìã˙ ᧠ìù äæ 19 .à127§ åàìá äàø (§§ïå-§§ úîåòì §§ïé-§§) äæ íåéñ ìò [ïéðä úøî 18 úåáñìà 1ø [úáñìà 18 20 §òú óñåð 4ø ¬ô [äììà 19 (31 §îò ¬úååäúäå ,175§ åàìá äàø) àäåëøúé íå÷îá [àäðåëøúé §òú óñåð 4ø [äììà

ùåøåùçà úìâî çøù [à1]

˙ àôìà êéù[ì]ì §à §çø éìò åáà íìòîìà ìö òéùåîå ÷éãö ìà íùá [á1] êìîä ùåøåùçà àåä ùåøåùçà éîéá éäéå

5

ºäðéãî äàîå íéøùòå òáù ùåë ãòå åãäî

¨ é ìæàìàá ãø ôúîìà ãçàåìà íéã÷ìà àðäàìà äììà êøàáú øãà÷ìà éçìà ä

˙ ìà ãéòåìàå ãòåìà ÷ãàö ìãàòìà ÷ìàë˙ ìà àì äìå÷ë äá ãòå àîá éôà éã äå÷çúñà àî àîàô ®äðî õ÷ðå éùá íäãòé íìô .áåèä åøáã ìëî ãçà øáã ìôð éë äìå÷ë

[à2]

¨ îåîã˙ îìà íäìàòôà ä¨ äâ˙ ïî ä¨ áå÷òìà ïî àäðî õ÷ð ã÷ô ä

10 éìò éôàëé àìà ìãòìà éô ïñ çé àìô ®§âå åððåòî äèîì úëùç åðéäìà äúà

˙ îìà áà÷ò ïî õ÷ðé ïà ì÷òìà éô ïñ çé å ®ïñçìà ìòô áàúëìà éô àðãâ˙åå ®áðã ˙ ìà éô åãàæ àðàáà ïà ìå÷é éîò úá ïåò ìãâéå §å÷ë äøîòå íåãñ éìò áåðã

éìåì ìà÷å .êéëøã ìëá ïäî éúéçùúå è÷ èòîë ìà÷æçé ìà÷å .íåãñ úàèçî

éåé ˙ ˙ ì÷é íì èëñìà íèò éìåìô .íéåáöë êîéùà äîãàë §úà êéà ˙ à ãìá éà äðà .§âå éì àèçú éë õøà íãà ïá ìöô éô øëã˙ ã÷å àèë ¨ ãçàå äéìò áéâ˙é äìì àîàå éãø ùçå àîàå òåâ˙ àîà äúàôà òáøà ïî ä

§ùé êðâîà íéøôà êðúà êéà §òúå §áú ìà÷å .§âå ãéøù åðì øéúåä úåàáö

˙ 15 ®êìã [á2] óéñ

˙ ìàå áåðã

çìàö ãìáìà éô ïàë åì äðà éúç àã çà ãìáìà éô à÷áé àìô àáå àîàå

éìò ïá úôé (ìåãâä íëçä åðáøå åðøîì =) §âä §çä §áøå §øîì äìâîìà çøù ô [§à §çø ... çøù 2–1 [òéùåîå ÷éãö 3 .äììà äîçø = [§à §çø 2 .àúéì 3ø, 1ø ¬ì ;(åðçéðú 駧é çåø =) ú§§éø éøöáìà ... êìîä 5–4 øúñà úìâî úàáú˙ àá ïàìà éãúáð 3ø [äðéãî ... éäéå 5–4 ìàåâå òéùåî ô ¬ì 6 äàìàìà ô ¬ì [àðäàìà 6 .àúéì 1ø [äììà 6 §âå ô [äðéãî ... òáù 5 .àúéì 1ø [äðéãî [ä¨ é ìæàìàá 6 (à250 §îò ¬éæåã äàø êà ¬úåòè éìåà) ãøúôîìà 1ø ;ãøôðîìà ô ¬ì [ãø ôúîìà ¬ô [äìå÷ë 7 àáàìì äãòåá 1ø [äá ... àîá 7 éôåà åà éôå íå÷îá êë [éôà 7 (!)éìæàìàá ô ¬ì (!)íäãòå ô [íäãòé 8 §âå óñåð 3ø ¬ô [áåèä 8 .úåòèá äìôëð äìîä ì [ìëî 8 §÷ë 3ø ;§å÷ë 1ø 10 §åòî 1ø ;åðéðåòî 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [åððåòî 10 §å÷á 1ø ;§å÷ë 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [äìå÷ë 9 õ÷ðô 1ø [õ÷ðå 8 §îò ¬åðîåâøú äàø) ìãòìà 1ø [ì÷òìà 11 (!)éôàëìà ô ¬ì [éôàëé àìà 10 .àúéì ô ;§åâå 1ø [§âå 13 §âå óñåð 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [íåãñ 13 §÷ë 3ø [§å÷ë 12 äøåîòå 3ø ¬ô ¬ì [äøîòå 12 (7 §òä ,196 [éåé 14 §âå óñåð 3ø ¬ô [êéëøã 13 䧧ò ìà÷æçé (ãééñ =) §ééñ 3ø ;䧧ò ìà÷æçé éô ô ¬ì [ìà÷æçé ô ¬ì [§áú 14 åðéîã äøåîòì åðééä íåãñë èòîë 1ø [§âå 14 .àúéì 3ø [ãéøù åðì 14 ééé 1ø ... §ùé 15–14 êðúà êéà §øùé 1ø [§úà ... §ùé 15–14 éìàòúå êøàáú 1ø [§òúå §àáú 14 §àáú 1ø [íéåáöë 15 §âå ìàøùé 3ø ;§âå (íéåáöë êîéùà [!]äîãë óñåð ì) êðúà êéà ìàøùé ô ¬ì [íéåáöë 15 .3ø-å, 1ø ¬ô ¬ì 駧ëá áúëð êëù ¬(á10§ åàìá äååùä) àìåìô íå÷îá êë [éìåìô 15 íéàåáöë ˙ ìà 1ø [áåðã˙ ìàå èë˙ ñìà ¬ì [äðà 16 ìòî ìòîì (øåöé÷ ïîéñ =) §§àèçú 1ø [§âå éì àèçú 16 áåðã 17 §òú óñåð 3ø ;àúéì 1ø [äìì 17 §òú äìì àäìäà åèë˙ à ïà ô ¬ì [äìì àèë˙ à 17–16 éðòé ô [àã çà 18 (à10§ åàìá äàø) é÷áé íå÷îá [à÷áé 18 (26 §òä ,456 §îò äàø) íäéìò ô ¬ì [äéìò ;72–171 §îò ¬úååäúäå ,à10§ åàìá äàø ¬éîúñ àùåð ìù ïîéñë (§§ïéåðú§§ä éðîéñ íò) §àá äæ áéúë ìò (!)çàìö 1ø [çìàö 18 ãçà 1ø

part iii TEXT