the following: "Three codices [of the Pentateuch] were found in the court of the Temple, one of which had the reading "pSO, the other 1EMBST, and the third dif- fered in the number of passages wherein X"!~l is read with a Yod; thus in the one codex it was written "p50, dwelling [Dent xxxiii, 27], while the other two codices had (13*15/0 : the reading of the two was therefore de- clared valid, whereas that of the one was invalid. In the second codex, again, ^BIOSJI was found [in Exod. xxiv, 11], while the other two codices had ^^"rX; the read- in:' in which the two codices agreed was declared valid, and that of the one invalid. In the third codex, again, there were only nine passages which had JOn written with a Yod [as it is generally written X1!~l, with a Vav], whereas the other two had eleven passages ; the readings of the two were declared valid, and those of the oue in- valid."
3. The different passages which we have presented here, and which might be yet increased to a great ex- tent, do not justify us id presuming that the readings found in the Talmud were those of the Old-Testament codices of that time, and much less in the presumption that the readings of the Talmud are to be preferred to those of our text, for the following reasons: l.We have not as yet a critical edition of the Talmud; 2. The formulas -p xbx -p xnpr bat, i. e. " read not so. hut
so," and mioab ex iaii snpab nx an, i.e. "there
is a solid root for the reading of the text, and there is a solid rool for the traditional pronunciation." already in- dicate that these variations arose partly for the sake of allegory, partly for exegetieal purposes. Thus Richard Simon, Disquisit. i 'rit, </< I 'ariis Bibl. Edit. cap. iii. p. 17, remarks on the formula ~- xbx ~; X~pr bx.-Cavcu- dumest, neistaloquendi formulaquam frequenterin Tal- mudeusurpantm legos sic sed sic &d lectionumvarietatem trahatur. Lusus enim est. allegoricus illis doctoribus admodum familiaris qui servata dictionum ut italoquar substantia diversos unius ejusdemque voeis iegendae modos pucriliter comminiscuntur." To illustrate this, the following may suffice. Isa. liv. 13, we read, "thy sons," ~^3, but in Berakoth, fol. 64, we read. •■ Do not read -—.z 'thysons,'hul -|-:2 'thy builders, thy wise,' whereby it should be proved thai 'the wise build the peace in the world.'" Sanhedrin, foL37,col. 1. the won! TV'W3> " his raiment." in < leu. xxvii, 27, is read I^ISSlj "in- perfidious," to prove thereby the perfidy of .lose ben-Joe'ser's nephew, (for more such examples the reader i- referred to <;. Surenhusius B«'j8\oc pcaraX-
\ayi)c, p. 59 sip [Amst. 1713].) As to the second formula. '"= =X BJ1, Buxtorf (./'• Punct Antiq. p. 96, 103-110) makes the following correct remark: ■■ I'.-us vero hujus axiomatis Talmudici hie est. Cum de re sen qua-stione aliqua disputant ae iu diversas sententias abeunt, Baepe accidit ut uterque dissentientium funda- mentum suum in uno eodemque Script une loco, imo et in eadem voce ponat : unus sc. in communi et recepta lectione, alter in lectione mystica et allegorica, eadem ilia voce Bed aliis vocalibus animata vel aliter explicata. Trior dieit : est mater lectionis, q.d.: mea Bententia in- nititur communi et receptee lectioni, cum punctis et vocalibus propriis, sensui literati. Alter dieit : est mater lectionis, b. e. ego meam sententiam elicio et clue,, ex sensu mystico et lectione vel expositione aliqua per tra- ditionem accepta, qua didici, bane rocem pro infinita fecunditate legia sic quoque posse legi el explicari." To illustrate this, the following may suffice: In Exod \ii. !•', we read concerning the Passover, " In one house shall it be eaten." t;X". Hut in the Talmud. Pesachim, fol. 86, col. 2. two inferences are deduced from this pas- sage. R. Jehudah maintains that the man who par- takes of the Passover, /A must eat it (bs&O) in one place ("inx r.^S^), but that the Passover itself may be divided, ami a part of it maj he eaten by another com- pany in another place; basing bis argument upon the rVHIOO, viz. bzX"\ he must < at it at on plac< . Where- as K. Simeon maintains that the Passover itself must be eaten ('"X* I in one place (IfiX r"2'. and cannot be divided between two different companies in different places, though the man himself, after having eaten bis Passover at home, may go to another place and partake of another company's Passover; basing bis argument upon the X~~ -. viz. bzx". it must >>, , at( n vn i To the same category belongs the rule that C""2'w (Lev. xii, 5) is to be read C-;"-"!1. two weeks, and not D^Saiij, seventy days; and that nbrO (Lev. xxiii. 19) is to be pronounced Sbna, in th mill:, and ii"t ~~". in //,, fat,
1. Literature. — Compare Pesaro, Aaron di, r"i-T "pHX; 'pnsrV-S (Frankf. ad Yiadr. fol.). which also gives all the passages found in the Midrashim and So- har; Surenhusius Bi/3\oc KaraXXayrjc (Amsterd. 1713); Weisse,in Bechinath ha-Olam (ed. Stern, Vienna, 1847), praef. p. xix adn.; Fromman, Opuscula Philologica, i,l- 46; Schorr, in Ue-chalut (Lemberg), i, 97 116; ii,56; Geiger, in Judische Zeitschrift, iv (1866), p. 13, 99 sq., L65 171: s. Rosenfeld, hlinn "n -fz (Vilnai, 1866); Buxtorf filius, Anticritica, pr, ii. cap. xxi. p. sos; Strack, Prolegomena Critica (Lips. 1873), p. 59