Page:Jewish Encyclopedia Volume 2.pdf/720

670 Bemidbar Kabbah Ben-Avigdor complete with

its

customary formula, "yy Mlu?"

1 ,

Tanhuma, which formula reappears throughout this portion of Bemidbar Rabbah, while usual in

as

in the editions, in section xv., Nos. 11, 17; sec. xvi., 1, 26; xvii. No. 1; sec. xx. Nos. 21, 22; sec. No. 2; xxii. No. 7; xxiii. Nos. 1, 7, the formula In section xxi. beginning, and is changed to H3?n. Nos. 16 and 23, the exordiums of Tanhuma, Pinhas, Nos. 12 and 15 (Nos. 11, and 13, Buber) have been

Nos. xxi.

,

omitted, as also in section xxii., beginning, Nos.

and

(compare Buber, pp.

2

1

47ft, 514).

of Numbers to which there are Tanhomilies in this portion of Bemidbar Rabbah are intended for public worship according to the divisions of the cycle of the sedarim and the Pesikta. The well-known variations existing in the division into sedarim probably explain why some of the old

The portions

huma

Num.

sedarim, as

23 (xvii.

xi.

16), xviii. 25, xxiii. 10,

without these homilies, or at least fragments of

xxviii. 26, xxxi. 25, are here

—

while such are appended such to the passages, Num. viii. 5, xiv. 26, xv. In an article in the " Monats37, xx. 7-13, xxiv. 3.

—

upon " the Midrashim to the Pentateuch and the three-year cycle of Palestine " (to which reference may

schrift," 1885, p. 351 et seq.,

For

Synagogue be had for many details omitted here), Recitation, the undersigned has registered 32 or 33 sedarim in Numbers (see "Monatsschrift," 1886, p. 443), while the rabbinical Bible of Venice, 1617, contains a note stating that, according to some codices, Numbers contains 28 sedarim. It is evident that in this portion of Bemidbar Rabbah, as in its source, the Tanhuma, the collected homilies have been considerably metamorphosed and Many are quite fragmentary, and others disjointed. so discursive that they treat of the whole seder in extenso, contrary to the usual practise of this MidAlthough the marking of the parashiyot at rash. their beginnings and in marginal superscriptions is a departure in the Venice edition (in the editio prin-

the expression &OTD PvD stands only at the v.), the sections of the second part are indicated according to the usual notation of the parashiyot. With the exception of sections 16 and 17, which belong to " Shelah Leka," each section contains a parashah of the one-year cycle, which was already recognized when Bemidbar Rabbah was compiled there are even Tanhuma Midrashim extant with divisions according to the parashiyot, while the Tanhuma, in its earliest editions, is alone in using the original arrangement based on the sedarim-cycle. In Bemidbar Rabbah, even in the newest editions, the divisions according to separate homilies are no longer recognizable. The following conspectus of the contents of this second part may therefore be interesting (1) section xv. 1-10, upon Num. viii. 1 cej)s,

end of section





(2) ib. 11, 12,

Num.

x. 1



upon Num. viii. 5 (3) ib. 13-16, upon 17-25, upon Num. xi. 16 (5) section

(4) ib.



(= Tanh., " Shelah," 1-7, Tanh. ed. Buber, upon Num. xiii. 1 (6) ib. 12-23 (= Tanh. 8-13

xvi. 1-11

1-11)

Tanh. Buber, 12-25,



is

ment upon Num.

not in the Vatican MS.) com-

xiii. 17 to xiv. 23 (7) ib. 24, 25 (Tanh. Buber, addition, 1-6, Vatican MS.) homily upon Num. xiv. 11 (8) ib. 26-28 (compare Tanh. Buber, addition, 7-14, Vatican MS.) upon Num. xiv. 26 (9) section xvii. 1-4, upon Num. xv. 1 (10) ib. 5,





670

THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA



upon Num.

6,

Num.

xvi.



xv. 37; (11) section xviii. 1-20,

(12)

upon

an addition ni^1S3 niTlIN,

21,

ib.

contained in none of the Tanhuma MS. (13) ib. 23, a fragment of a homily on Num. xvii. 16; (14) ib. 22

xix. 1-8, on Num. xix. 1; (15) ib. 9-14, commentary on Num. xx. 7-13 (16) 15-33, continuous exposition of Num. xx. 14-xxi. 35; (17) sec.

and section



xx. 1-20, explanation of Num. xxii. 2-xxiii. 24; (18) 21, upon Num. xxiv. 3; (19) ib. 22-25, upon Num. xxv. 1 (20) section xxi. 1 and 3-7, upon Num. xxv. 10; (21) ib. 8-13, upon Num. xxvi. 52; (22) ib. 2 and 14, 15, upon Num. xxvii. 15; (23) ib. 16-22, upon Num. xxviii. 1 (24) ib. 23-25, on Num. xxix. 35

ib.





(25) section xxii. 1,

upon Num. xxxi. 1



1

upon Num. xxx. 2; (26) ib. 2-6, (27) ib. 7-9, upon Num. xxxii.

(28) section xxiii. 1-4,

5-12, on

xxxv.

Num.

xxxiv. 1



on Num.

xxxiii. 1

(30) ib. 13-14,

(29) ib.



upon Num.

9.

Since the second part of Bemidbar Rabbah, additions excepted, is derived from the Tanhuma Midrashim, the question arises whether it and part 1 That (sec. i.-xiv.) are to be ascribed to one author. the author of the comparatively late commentary on " supposing the parashiyot " Bemidbar " and " Naso that the Midrash upon these two is Author- the work of a single author should

—

—

ship.

huma

is

have deliberately rounded out his incomplete work with the Midrash TanAccording certainly highly improbable.

Epstein ("Beitrage zur Jildischen Alterthumskunde," p. 70) some unknown author wrote the Midrash upon the parashah " Bemidbar " in order to complete the Sifre, which commences with Num. v. another then continued it with the commentary 1 on "Naso," and in order to complete the work for the remainder of Numbers, the commentary for the remaining parashiyot was drawn from Tanhuma. It must also be mentioned that Cod. Hebr. 149 of the Paris National Library, dating from the year 1291, contains only the parashah "Bemidbar," while the Munich Cod. 97, 2 (Steinschneider), dated 1418, covers only this and " Naso. Even the first part contains much that is taken from the Tanhuma " but a copious stream of new to





Haggadah swallows

the Midrash drawn from this source and entirely obscures the arrangement of the Yelamdenu" (Zunz, "G. V." p. 260). In the parashah " Bemidbar, " the outer framework of the origThere are five inal composition is still recognizable. sections, containing five homilies or fragments of such, taken from the Tanhuma upon Num. i. 1, ii. 1, iii. 14, iii. 40, and iv. 17, which are expanded by some very discursive additions. As Tanhuma only treats of the first verses of each chapter, no doubt the author's intention was to supply haggadie commentary to the others. But in the section upon "Naso," which is more than three times the volume of that preceding, there are long passages which have no relation to the Tanhuma homilies, based as they are upon the sedarim-cycle, and commencing in " Naso " with Num. v. 11. Sections vi., vii., viii., x., which, like the other lengthy sections in which the material derived from the Tanhuma is overwhelmed in a flood of new Haggadot, show even more clearly the endeavor to supply homilies and continuous expositions for all sections of "Naso." Very truly has