(Continued)
In his introduction, Benjamin Richler tells us about the catalogue’s description of the manuscripts.
“For practical reasons, we have chosen to describe the 1600 manuscripts of the Palatina collection in Parma in a manner that will provide essential information about all the texts included in each manuscript and the physical features of each codex in a succinct format that will not prove cumbersome or unwieldy to the reader.”
Descriptions of contents, he writes, includes titles, usually in Hebrew and in Latin character transliteration, names of authors and pertinent information about each treatise or extract included in the manuscript.
“The codicological and paleographical details include the number of folios or pages, material (paper or parchment or a combination of both), size of the volume in millimeters, place of production when it can be established, date or approximate date, type of script, watermarks, etc., names of the scribes and the patrons who commissioned the ms or acquired it from the scribe and brief details about illuminations or decorations. Colophone are recorded in Hebrew, sometimes in abbreviated form.
“Information about previous owners is provided after the physical description. Owners’ entries are transcribed and followed by censors’ signatures whenever they appear.”
The descriptions of the manuscripts are arranged according to their contents in separate sections: Bible, Midrash, Talmud, Liturgy, Kabbala, Philosphy, Ethical Literature, Homilies (Derashot), Polemics, Poetry, Philology, Science, Medicine and Varia.
Some of the sections are subdivided. Thus the section “Bible” is organized in the following divisions: Bible, Prophets, Haftarot and the Five Scrolls, Hagiographa, Psalters, Esther Scrolls, Translations and Commentaries.
Let us say here a few words about the manuscripts of Bible commentaries and supercommentaries.
The catalogue not only describes commentaries and supercommentaries, but also tells us about the relations between the manuscript described and the printed editions of the same work, or between this manuscript and other manuscripts of the same text.
For example:
In a description of a manuscript of Rashi’s commentary on the Pentateuch (number 511 in the catalogue), we read: Includes some additions not in the printed texts.”
In connection with a manuscript of Minhat Yehuda, a supercommentary on Rashi’s commentary on the Torah compiled by R. Judah ben Eliezer from the writings of the Tosafists, the catalogue (number 517) states “Fuller than the edition printed in Daat Zekenim (Leghorn, 1783).”
About a manuscript (number 520 in the catalogue) of R. Samuel Almosnino’s supercommentary on Rashi’s commentary on the Torah, it is said: “The text is sometimes fuller than the printed edition (Constantinople, 1525) and sometimes deficient. Includes additions not included in the supplements published by R[abbi] J.M. Toledano in his Appiryon (Jerusalem, 1905).”
The catalogue lists several manuscripts (numbers 538, 539, 540, 541, 542) of Samuel ben Saadiah Ibn Motot’s Megillat Setarim, a supercommentary on Ibn Ezra’s commentary on the Torah, and states: “Redaction close to the printed edition (Venice, 1554).”
The catalogue also informs us whether a certain manuscript of the Palatina collection has been used in the preparation of a printed edition. We will mention here a few such uses in recent years.
About a manuscript which is mostly a supercommentary on Rashi’s commentary on the Torah, the catalogue (number 516) states: “Selections from this commentary were published by the late R. Yaakov Gellis in his compilation of Tosafist commentaries (Sefer Tosafot HaShalem).”
In the description of a manuscript of Rabbi Israel Isserlein’s supercommentary of Rashi’s commentary on the Torah (catalogue number 519), it is said that it varies from the first edition (Riva Di Trento 1562): “The text in the manuscript is sometimes longer, sometimes shorter than the (first) edition.” According to the catalogue, a new edition incorporating the text of this manuscript was published in recent years by J. Deutsch (Lakewood, 1996).
In the description of the manuscripts of Rabbi Levi ben Gershom’s commentary on the Torah (numbers 608,609, 610 and 611 in the catalogue), we are told that they were used for the recording of variants in the Maaleh Adumim, 1993, edition of the commentary on Bereshit.
Several manuscripts (numbers 588, 589, 592 and 593; see also 140, 681 and 1547) are described as R. Moses ben Nahman’s (Nahmanides’) short commentary on the Torah. “The short commentary includes mainly the esoteric parts of the author’s longer commentary. The designation “short commentary” seems to be ill chosen. Ramban is not known to have written two commentaries on the Torah, a longer one and a shorter one. He wrote one commentary to which he later appended additions. (About the additions see the late Rabbi Kalman Kahana’s study on the subject in his Heker VeIyun, vol. 3) Rabbi David HaKochavi writes in the introduction to his Sefer HaBattim that Ramban wrote both a longer and a shorter commentary on the Torah. In a note in Alon Lehovev Hasefer (1989) edited by Yeshayahu Vinograd, I referred to Rabbi Kahan’s study and conjectured that R. David Kochavi must have known about two versions of Ramban’s commentary (with and without the additions) which led him to believe that Ramban wrote two commentaries.. A thorough study of the manuscript featuring the short commentary might shed more light on this matter.
(Continued next week)
The Jewish Press, Friday, January 4, 2002