Quotations Of The Old Testament In The Talmud
Quotations Of The Old Testament In The Talmud
In order to understand many quotations which are cited in the Talmud from the Scriptures, we must remember that the ancient rabbins, in their colloquies and disputations, did not use a MS., but cited from memory a mode of citation often found in the New Test. Dr. M. Steinschneider, in his essay Jewish Literature, in Ersch and Gruber’s Allgem. Encycl. 2, vol. 27:p. 375, makes the following statement: The influence of the Bible on gnomonics in particular is shown in the following steps
(1.) Biblical precepts were used unchanged in meaning and expression, as sentiments or favorite sayings of particular persons. *
(2.) Biblical sentences, unchanged in form, were made by extending or contracting their contents into new expressions of various truths, uhich had elsewhere been clothed in known proverbs, so that these last were in some sense deduced from the Bible. A wide field was thus opened for the Midrash; and, finally, the words of the Bible were made into proverbs with an entirely different sense.
(3.) Lastly, Biblical phrases and ideas were used more or less intentionally in newly formed sententiae, and passed into proverbial forms, as they are to be found in the old Halachah (e.g. Peah, ii, 2).
* To illustrate Steinschneider’s statement, we give the following example. In the Talmud (Nidda, fol. 51, Colossians 2) it was said in the school of R. Ishmnael, He will magnify the law and make it honorable (Isaiah 42:41).
In the Talmud (Sabbath, fol. 10, Colossians 1) the question was raised, how long the judges were oblinged to sit at court. R. Sheshel answerled, Until mid-day. To which R. Chama said, Where do you find this in the Scriptire? The answer was, It is said, Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child, and thy princes eat in the morning’ (Ecc 10:16). R. Jeremiah once engaged himself with R. Sera in the law. When the time for the evening prayer had already advanced, R. Jeremiah betook himself quickly to read it. To this R. Sera applied the passage (Pro 28:9), He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination (Sabbath, fol. 19, Colossians 1). Of R. Tarphon it is said that when some one told him something intellectual, he used to say , A knop and a flower in one branch (Exo 25:33); but when the tale was not according to his taste, he (Bereshith Rabba, ch. 91).
E.g. , i.e. He already drank for thee the cup of consolation (Bereshith Rabba, fol. 20, etc.); i.e. to be comforted over something. The phrase cup of consolation is found in Jer 16:7.
1. As the ancient rabbins made the Bible their study for years, we must not wonder when, in their colloquies, they were able to quote a correct Biblical text. And yet we must bear three things in mind, in order not to have a misconception of the matter. To make this intelligible, we will quote the following examples:
(a.) The Talmudists sometimes erroneously attribute a Biblical verse to another context. Thus we read in the Talmud (Pesachim, fol. 109, Colossians 1), It is every man’s duty to rejoice with his household on the feast, for itis written, And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast,’ (Deu 16:14, where reference is made to the Feast of Tabernacles). The Tosaphoth on this passage, however, reads, And thou shalt rejoice, thou and thine household ( ). Now the original reading was that as in the Tosaphoth, which is found in Deu 14:26, where the second tithe is spoken of. The rabbins, however, thought that the reading alluded to in the Tosaphoth is found in the section which treats of the Feast of Tabernacles; hence, when the editors of the Talmud found out the mistake, they substituted for the reading that of
(b.) Sometimes sentences are quoted in the Talmud as Biblical which are not found in the Bible. In Berakoth, fol. 61, Colossians 1, in fine, we read: Rab Nachman said Manioah was an ignorant manl ( ), for it is written, He went after his wife (Jdg 13:11). B. Nachman, the son of Isaac, asked, should this not also apply to Elkanah, for it is written, And Elkanah went after his wife; and to Elisha, of whom the Scripture says, And he arose and followed her (2Ki 4:30)? He followed her, indeed! Yes, but he followed her words and advice, and so here likewise he (Manoah) went after her words and counsel. The Tosaphoth correctly remarks on what the Talmud says concerning Elkanah: ; i.e. It is an error, for this verse is not found in the whole Scripture. once I had a dream, and I vwent to all [interpreters of dreams the passage having reference to the twenty-four interpreters of dreams said to have been at Jerusalem], and the interpretation of the one was different from that of the other, but all were fulfilled, to fulfil what is said: All dreams go after the interpretation. But is this a verse of the Scripture? Yes, and according to R. Eliezer, who said, Whence do we know that all dreams go after the interpretation? For it is said, And it came to pass as he interpreted’ (Gen 41:13).
In the Talmud (Pesachim, fol. 56, Colossians 1) it is said that Jacob, before his death, cited the words ; i.e. blessed be the glorious name of his kingdom for ever and ever. But such a quotation is nowhere found in the Scriptures.
In Yoma, fol. 85, Colossians 2, and Berakoth, fol. 62, Colossians 2, we read that the Scripture says, If any one wants to kill you, kill him first ( ), but such a passage is nowhere found. Oftentimes quotations are made from Ecclesiasticus, and are introduced by the phrases generally applied to scriptural passages, as in Niddah, fol. 16, Colossians 2 (); Berakoth, fol. 48, Colossians 1 (); Erubin, fol. 65, Colossians 1 (); Baba Kama, fol. 92, Colossians 2 ( , Jdg 11:3; , Gen 28:9; , Sir 13:20). As these passages are al. ready enumerated in this Cycloopedia, we can only refer to the art. ECCLESIASTICUS SEE ECCLESIASTICUS.
(c.) Biblical phrases are here and there changed for the sake of brevity. In Erubin, fol. 31, Colossians 2 (Berakoth, fol. 27, Colossians 2; Kiddushin, fol. 54, Colossians 1), those things are mentioned which may be used for the Erub (i.e. the ceremony of extending the Sabbath boundary). But to prove those things which may not be used, the phrase is . But these four words are nowhere found in this connection together.
Sometimes some verses are contracted into one, as Deu 11:5-6, in Rosh ha-Shana, fol. 4, Colossians 2; Pro 19:17 and Pro 14:31, in Berackoth, fol. 18, Colossians 1; Eze 15:4, and Jer 36:22, in Sabbath, fol. 20, Colossians 1; Lev 14:39; Lev 14:44, in Maccoth, fol. 13, Colossians 2; Lev 19:13; ibid. fol. 16, Colossians 1. The same is often the case in the New Test., e.g. Mat 21:5, where Isa 42:2 and Zec 9:9 are connected; Isa 6:9-10 in Mar 1:11; Isa 40:6-7; Isa 52:10, in Luk 3:4-6; Exo 16:14-15; Num 11:7; Psa 78:24 in Joh 6:31; Joh 6:49, etc.
2. Having thus shown the mode of quotations, we will now give a list of passages which are read otherwise in the Talmud than in our Bible:
A. Passages quoted in the Mishna.
1. Lev 25:36, ; Baba Metsia, ch. v, 11, .
2. Num 28:2, ; Taanith, ch. 4: 2,
3. Num 32:22, ; Shekalim, ch. iii, 2, [thus likewise in two MSS.].
4. Deu 24:19, ; Peah, ch.vi, 4, [three times].
5. Jos 8:33, the words to are quoted Sotah, ch. 7: 5, but instead of the reading is [probably on account of the antecedent and following ; the reading in the Mishna is also marked by Michaelis, Bibl. Hebr. 1720, ad loc., and so likewise in the Syriac, Chaldee, and Arabic versions].
6. Isa 10:13, ; Yadaim, ch. 4: 4, [in the Bible (with the exception of our passage) is always read with the Samnech].
7. Eze 46:21, ; Middoth, ch. ii, 5, [probably on account of the following in v, 22; is the reading also of one MSS.].
8. Amo 9:14, ; Yadain, ch. 4: 4, reads after .
9. Mal 3:16, ; Aboth, ch. iii, 3, [which is supported by seven MSS. and the Syr.].
10. Malachi 3:23, ; Eduyoth, ch. 8:7, .
11. Psa 68:27, ; Berakoth, ch. 7: 3, is the reading of eleven MSS.].
12. Job 1:1, ; Sotah, ch. v, 5, .
13. Pro 22:28, ; Peah, ch. v, 6, [but ch. 7: 3, the reading is, as in the Bible, ].
14. 2Ch 28:15, ; Sotah, ch. 8: 1,
B. Passages quoted in the Gemara.
15. Gen 7:8, ; Pesachim, fol. 3, Colossians 1,
16. Gen 7:23, ; Berakoth, fol. 61, Colossians 1,
17. Gen 15:2, in Berakoth, fol. 7, Colossians 2, we read: R. Jochanan said, in the name of R. Sineon beni-Yochai, from the day wlien God created the world, no one called him Lord () until Abraham came and called him Lord, f)r it is written (Gen 15:8), And he said, Lord God ( ), whereby shall I know that 1 shall inherit it?’ [But in 15:2, we already read .]
18. Gen 25:6, ; in the Bereshith Rabba, sect. 61, fol. 67, Colossians 4 (where the question is whether Abraham had one or more concubines), it is stated that the reading is [one concubine. This reading of the Midrash is followed by Rashi, who, in his commentary on Gen 25:6, remarks, The textual reading is , defective, because Abraham had only one concubine, namely, Hagar, who was identical with Keturah. But this reading is contrary to the Masorah, which distinctly remarks that the word occurs twice entirely plene, that is, with the two Yods after the two Chireks. The one instance is in Gen 26:6, and the other in Est 2:14].
19. Gen 35:18, plene; in Sotah, fol. 36, Colossians 2, where the passage in Gen 49:27, , is treated, we read that, with the exception of 49:27, the word is written , defective. [From this statement, it seems that at that time Gen 35:18; Gen 42:4; Gen 43:14; Gen 43:16; Gen 43:29; Gen 45:12 was written .]
20. Exo 12:3, ; in Pesachim, fol. 6, Colossians 2, [so Samuel, Sept., Syr., Vulg., Targumn; comp. our Horce Samaritance on Exodus, in Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1876, loc. cit.; in the Talmud editions of Prague, Vienna, and Warsaw, the word is omitted].
21. Exo 12:6, ; Erakin, fol. 13, Col 2:22 . Exo 13:16, ; Deu 6:8, ; Deu 11:18, ; iln Menachothl fol. 34, Colossians 2, we read, The sages propound, Rabbi Ishmael said in , the four compartments [in the phylactery] are indicated. [To understand this, we will remark that the word occurs only three times, as indicated above; in two instances it has no (Deu 6:8; Deu 11:18), and in the third (Exo 13:16) there is a after the first , i.e. ; hence R. Ishmael regards it as a dual, and makes of the three words four, to obtain the four compartments in the phylacteries. But Chayim, in his Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible, tells us that in the correct codices, as well as in the Book of Crowns,* the reading is (Deu 6:8; Deu 11:18) and (Exo 13:16), but there is no between the and the ; yet I myself have seen that in the ancient Book of the Crowns, even in Deu 11:18 is written with a, after the first The latter statement proves that our present reading is correct.]
*The Book of Crowns ( ) is an ancient treatise, containing Masoretical rules on the ornamental letters. It has lately been published, for the first time, by Burges (Paris, 1866).
23. Exo 31:1, ; in Berakoth, fol. 55, Colossians 1,
24. Lev 4:25; Lev 4:30; Lev 4:34, , defective; in Sanhedrin, fol. 4, Colossians 1, we read that the school of Shammai read , while that of Hillel, [i.e. once plene written; the same is also said in Zebachim, fol. 37, Colossians 2; comp. also the note in Michaelis, Biblia Hebr. ad loc.].
25. Lev 10:12, ; Berakoth, fol. 61, Colossians 1,
26. Lev 15:10, ; Nidda, fol. 33, Colossians 1,
27. Lev 18:18, ; Kiddushin, fol. 50, Colossians 2, .
28. Num 5:19, ; Gittin, fol. 60, Yoma, fol. 37, Colossians 2, .
29. Num 18:16, ; in the Talmud seems once to have stood after , at least this is intimated in the Tosaphoth, or additional commentary to the Talmud; Erakin, fol. 18, Colossians 2, where it is stated , i.e. We sought for this reading, but could not find it.
30. Deu 6:7, ; Berakoth, fol. 2, col.!, [thus likewise the Samar. and Vulg.].
31. Deu 6:9, ; Menachoth, fol. 34, Colossians 1, R. Meir seems to have read .
32. Deu 6:20, to ; Jerusalem Talmud, Pesachim, ch. 10: 4, .
33. Deu 23:1, ; Berakoth, fol. 21, Colossians 2,
34. Deu 25:7, ; Yebamoth, fol. 106, Colossians 2, R. Ashai found R. Kahana, who, being perplexed about it, read (with conjunctive). In correct codices, as is also evident from the Masorah, it is read [some Hebr. MSS., 1 Samuel, the Syr., Ar., and Vulg. have ].
35. Jos 3:17 is quoted in Berakoth, fol. 54, Colossians 1, but instead of it reads , and the reading is
36. Jos 10:11, ; Berakoth, fol. 54, Colossians 2, :’
37. Jos 14:7; Jos 14:10. These two verses for the sake of brevity are thus contracted (see No. 1, c, above), Erakin, fol. 13, Colossians 1, (?) , i.e. It is said of Caleb, forty years old was I when Moses the servant of the Lord sent me from Kadesh-barnea to espy ont the land, and now I am this day fourscore and five years old.
38. Jos 16:6, ; Zebachim, fol. 118, Colossians 2, Rabbi Abdini bar-Chasa said, the Scripture says, , to which the commentary remarks, , i.e. I have sought but not found it in the Scripture, but I found in Joshua 16 :, ,
39. Jdg 15:20; Jdg 16:31, where Samson is said to have judged Israel twenty years (Jdg 16:31). The Talm. Hieros. Sotah, fol. 17, One passage reads, and he judged Israel forty years, and another that he judged Israel twenty years. R. Acha answered, From this we see that the Philistines feared him twenty years after his death, just as they did twenty years before it. [On this passage R. Chayim, in his preface to the Rabbinic Bible, makes the following interpretation: To me it appears, however, that there is no difficulty in it; for what the Talmud speaks about Samson refers to the Midrashic interpretation, viz. Why is the verse, that he judged Israel twenty years, repeated twice? R. Acha answered, From this we see that the Philistines feared him (viz. Samson) twenty years after his death, just as they did twenty years before it, and this makes forty years.’ Hence the Talmnd does not say, Why is it written in the text, The judged Israel forty years?’ but simply, The judged forty years,’ that is, according to the Midrash. And now everything comes out right when thou lookest into it. We may well subscribe what Claudius Capellanus, in his Mare Rabbinicum Infidum, 1p. 350, note, says, Tam insigne mendacinum quod decepit doctissimum Buxtorfium facile corruet vel sola adductiole loci Talmudici. This much is certain, that in the time of the Talmud, one codex at least had the reading, Judges 15 : ]
40. 1Sa 2:24, ; in Sabbath, fol. 55, Colossians 2, is not the reading ? Whereupon R. Hunnah ben R. Joshua said the reading is [Rashi remarks that the reading of the most trustworthy codices is : plene, i.e. with a Yod after the Resh.]
41. 2Sa 3:35, ; Sanhedrin, fol. 20, Colossians 1, it is written , but is read [a number of MSS. read ; comp. also the Diets. of Kimchi, Lib. Rad. s.v. , and Menachen ben-Sarug, Lex. Rad. and (ed. Filipowski, Lond. 1854, p. 48, 109)].
42. 2Sa 24:15, ; Yoena, fol. 2, Colossians 2 ,
43. 2Ki 17:31, ; Sanhedrin, fol. 63, Colossians 2, [D. Kimchi also asserts to have seen the Nun () final, instead of the majuscular, as written now].
44. 2Ki 23:17; in Erakin, fol. 33, Colossians 1, the whole verse is quoted with the exception of .
45. Isa 38:16, ; eerakoth, fol. 55, Colossians 1,
46. Isa 42:5, ; Bereshith Rabba, sect. 12, fol. 15, 3, [i.e. leaders].
47. Isa 58:7, ; Jerusalem Talmud, Kethuboth, ch. 11: 3, .
48. Eze 40:48; Eze 47:1; Erubin, fol. 2, Colossians 1, ; but such a passage is not to be found in the Scriptures. [Tosaphoth remarks on this passage, Such a passage is nowhere to be found, but we find written (Eze 40:48) and (Eze 47:1).]
49. Eze 44:9, is quoted Moed Katon, fol. 5, Colossians 1, but with the addition after .
50. Hos 4:11, pleine; Yoma, fol. 76, Colossians 2, it is written and read .
51. Amo 4:6, ; lidda, fol. 65, Colossians 1,
52. Amo 8:11, ; Sabbath, fol. 138, Colossians 2, is found in the ed. princeps, but later editions, Kimchi, Aben-Ezra, Sept., Syriac,Vulg., Targum, read ].
53. Amo 9:11, . ; Berakoth, fol. 28, Colossians 1 (ed. princeps), [Later ed. reads as in our text of the Bible.]
54. Mic 4:2, ; Berakoth, fol. 55, col. 2, . 55. Zec 12:10, ; Sukka, fol. 52, Colossians 1, [forty codices have , and so many Jewish commentators].
56. Mal 1:2, ; many editions of the Talnud have for , but this is of no importance, since the ed. princeps, Sanhedron, fol. 82, Colossians 1, only quotes the first part of the verse till .
57. Psa 5:5, ; Chagiga, fol. 12, Colossians 2, But this does not stand in the Bible as Tosaphoth already remarked, .
58. Psa 16:10, ; Erubin, fol. 19, Colossians 1; Yomna, fol. 87, Colossians 1 (in five eds. of the Talmud) read! [so likewise Sept., Syriac, Vulg. Jerome].
59. Psa 56:11, ; Berakoth, fol. 60, Colossians 1,
60. Psa 68:21, ; Berakoth, fol. S, Colossians 1,
61. Psa 95:5, ; Kethuboth, fol. 5, Colossians 1, .
62. Psa 97:7, ; Jerusalem Talmud, Edulyoth, fol. 44, Colossians 1, [comp. Epistle to the Heb 1:6, , . . .].
63. Psa 127:5, ; Kiddushin, fol. 30, Colossians 2, without .
64. Psa 139:5, ; Chagiga, fol. 12, Colossians 1,!.
65. Pro 8:13, ; Pesachim, fol. 113, Colossians 2,
66. Pro 11:17, ; Taanlith, fol. 11, Colossians 2,
67. Pro 15:1, ; Berakoth, fol. 17, Colossians 2, .
68. Job 2:8, ; Midrash Bereshith Iabba, sect. 64 (towards the end), .
69. Job 13:4, ; Chullin., fol. 121, Colossians 1, .
70. Job 14:6, ; Jerusalem Talmud, Berakoth, ch. v, 1, .
71. Job 36:5, ; Bel rakoth, fol. 8, Colossians 2, , without the Vav before [It may be that the Talmud confoun ds this passage with Job 8:20, .]
72. Job 36:11, ; Sanhedrin, fol. 108, Colossians 1, .
73. Rth 3:15, ; Midrash Ruth, ad loc. .
74. Ecc 9:14, ; Nedarim, fol. 32, Colossians 2, .
75. Ecc 9:15, ; Vedarimn, fol. 32, Colossians 2, .
76. Ecc 10:5, ; Kethtuboth, f(l. 62, Colossians 2; Moed Katon, fol. 18, Colossians 1; Baba Mezia, fol. 68, Colossians 1, .
77. Dan 2:29, Berakoth, fol. 55, Colossians 2, where for is written! .
78. Dan 4:14, ; Pesachim, fol. 33, Colossians 1; Sanhedrin, fol. 38, Colossians 2, [some codices have also ].
79. Dan 6:18, ; Nidda, fol. 69, Colossians 2,
80. Dan 10:13, Berakoth, fol. 4, Colossians 2, .
81. Ezr 4:3, ; Erakin, fol. 5, Colossians 2, .
82. Neh 4:16, ; Mregil but in Berakoth, fol. 2, Colossians 2, and are extant.
83. Neh 8:8, ; Nedarim, fo]. 37, Colossians 2, , so likewise the Sept., Vulg., Syr.].
84. Neh 8:8, , ibid. ; but in Megillah, fol. 3, Colossians 1, .
85. Neh 8:15, ; Sukka, fol. 37, Colossians 1, )’.
86. Neh 8:17, ; Erakin, fol. 32, Colossians 2, ; for read , ibid.
87. 1Ch 3:17, ,; Sanhedrin, fol. 37, Colossians 2,
88. 1Ch 4:10, : Temutrah, fol. 16, Colossians 1, .
89. 1Ch 5:24, ; Baba Bathra, fol. 123, Colossians 2, .
90. 1Ch 16:5, . ; Erakin, fol. 13, Colossians 2, .
91. 1Ch 17:9, ; Berakoth, fol. 7, Colossians 2,
92. 1Ch 26:8, ; ibid. fol. 64, Colossians 1, .
93. 1Ch 26:24, .; Babd Bathra, fol. 110, Colossians 1, .
94. 1Ch 27:34, ; Berakoth, fol. 3, Colossians 2,
95. 2Ch 31:13, ; Sanhedrin, fol. 103, col. l, .
96. In fine, we will quote the following interesting passage. In the Jerusalem Talmud, Taanith, fol. 68, Colossians 1, we read the following: Three codices [of the Pentatemuch] Were found in the court of the Temple, one of which had the reading ., the other , and the third differed in the number of passages whereiin is read with a Yod; thus in the one codex it was written , dwelliing [Deu 33:27], while the other two codices had ; the reading of the two was therefore declared valid, whereas that of the one was invalid. In the second codex, again, . was found [in Exo 24:11], while the other two codices had ; the reading 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 written with a Yod [as it is generally written , with a Vav], whereas the other two had eleven passagces; the readilgs of the two were declared valid, and those of the one invalid.
3. The different passages which we have presented here, and which might be yet increased to a great extent, do not justify us in 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: 1. We have not as yet a critical edition of the Talmud; 2. The formulas ! , i.e. read not so, but so, and , i.e. there is a solid root for the reading of the text, and there is a solid root for the traditional pronunciation, already indicate that these variations arose partly for the sake of allegory, partly for exegetical purposes. Thus Richard Simon, Disquisit. Crit. de Variis Bibl. Edit. cap. 3, p. 17, remarks on the formula! , Cavendum est, ne ista loquendi formula quam frequenter in Talmude usurpant ne legas sic sedsic ad lectionum varietatem trahatur. Lusus enim est allegoricus illis doctoribus admodum familiaris qui servata dictionum ut ita loquar substantia diversos unius ejusdemque vocis legendae modos pueriliter comminiscuntur. To illustrate this, the following may suffice. Isa 54:13, we read, thy son, , but in Berakoth, fol. 64, we read, Do not read thy sons, but thy builders, thy wise, whereby it should be proved that the wise build the peace in the world.’ Sanhedrin, fol. 37, Colossians 1, the word , his raiment, in Gen 27:27, is read , his perfidious, to prove thereby the perfidy of Jose ben-Joeser’s nephew. (For more such examples the reader is referred to G. Surenhusius , p; 59 sq. [Amst. 1713].)
As to the second formula, Buxtorf (De Punct. Antiq. p. 96, 103-110) makes the following correct remark: Usus vero hujus axiomatis Talmudici hic est. Cum de re seu quaestione aliqua disputant ac in diversas sententias abeunt, saepe accidit ut uterque dissentientium fundamentum suum in uno eodemque Scripturse loco, imo et in eadem voce ponat: unus sc. in communi et recepta lectione, alter in lectione mystica et allegorica, eadem illa voce sed allis vocalibus animata vel aliter explicata. Prior dicit: est mater lectionis, q. d.: mea sententia innititur communi et receptae lectioni, cum punctis et vocalibus propriis, sensui literali. Alter dicit: est zmater lectionis, h. e. ego meam sententiam elicio et educo ex sensu mystico et lectione vel expositione aliqua per traditionem accepta, qua didici, hanc vocem pro infinita fecunditate legis sic quoque posse legi et explicari. To illustrate this, the following may suffice: In Exo 12:46 we read concerning the Passover, In one house shall it be eaten, . But in the Talmud, Pesachim, fol. 86, Colossians 2, two inferences are deduced from this passage. R. Jehudah maintains that the man who partakes of the Passover, he must eat it () in one place ( ), but that the Passover itself may be divided, and a part of it may be eaten by another company in another place; basing his argument upon the , viz.: he must eat it at one place. Whereas R. Simeon maintains that the Passover itself must be eaten () in one place ( ), and cannot be divided between two different companies in different places, though the man himself, after having eaten his Passover at home, may go to another place and partake of another company’s Passover; basing his argument upon the viz. , it must be eaten in one place. To the same category belongs the rule that (Lev 12:5) is to be read two weeks, and not seventy days; and that (Lev 23:19) is to be pronounced in the milk, and not , in the fat.
4. Literature. Compare Pesaro, Aaron di, (Frankf. ad Viadr. fol.), which also gives all the passages found in the Midrashim and Sohar; Surenhusius (Amsterd. 1713); Weisse, in Bechinath ha-Olsam (ed. Stern, Vienna, 1847), praef. p. xix adn.; Fromman, Oputscula Philologica, i, 146; Schorr, in He-chaluz (Lemberg), i, 97-116; ii, 56; Geiger, in Judische Zeitschrift, iv (1866), p. 43, 99 sq., 165-171; S. Rosenfeld, (Vilnae, 1866); Buxtorf filius, Anti-critica, pt. ii, cap. 21:p. 808; Strack, Prolegomena Critica (Lips. 1873), p. 59 sq. (B. P.)