Judah Rosenthal - Iwi Al-Balkhi A Comparative Study PDF
Judah Rosenthal - Iwi Al-Balkhi A Comparative Study PDF
Judah Rosenthal - Iwi Al-Balkhi A Comparative Study PDF
A Comparative Study
By
JUDAH ROSENTHAL
ninth century only one is known to us by name, H.iwi alBalkhi.' Both the derivation and the spelling of this name
are uncertain. The name H.iwi is transmitted by old
sources in the following ways: vr1in,2t'1r,3 l'tn, ""lr4and
4'ri.5
317
318
THE JEWISH
QUARTERLY
REVIEW
Cf. Derenbourg,1.c.
HIWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL
319
320
wolnw
1'.m Wxwr.
Epstein writes: Aram&ische Dialekte waren uber ganz Babylonien bis tief
herab in die erste Hdlfte des elften Jahrhunderts ziemlich verbreitet und
gesprochen sowohl von Nichtjuden . . . als auch von Juden.
ly 44.
20
i LA
5i
4
t
Qirqisani, loc. cit.: 46y
Cf. HUCA VII, 389.
Davidson, op. cit., 94 f.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid. 95 ff.
2X
24
HIWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL
321
26
322
According to Abraham ibn Daud, who wrote his chronicle about three hundred years after IIiwi, the influence
of the latter on Eastern Jewry was very great, and a
Bible expurgated by him was used as a textbook in
schoolS.32
rlwn1y)
'D
-nn
'DD
s\nb
llnnnD'U
'n -in
i~nbix,
V, 96-97;
323
IIWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL
a6PvXXov
('/AiIvXa,
&Vrt% U
be'
70OEV7-KOTrWV Eppw/Aeva
irpwna,
Kal
1rpeoa,Bvepa
rtmrepa
Julian
Kat
the
Apostate discusses the same question in his book against the Christians.
See Kara raXtXatcozv
(LoebClassicalLibrary,III, 418) Saadia'sanswer:
ann 'n
mo-ph
..
nilovn
In.
36 Stanza 25. Cf. Pseudo Philo (Fragments, Philo, ed. Yonge, IV,
277): "Why is it that God when He threatens to extirpate mankind
does also destroy the irrational animals?" The rabbis tried to justify
rnin
1R ...
svn
Vm
mb
rin n 1
pi.
n
DI
1- ', ' nnin
J1Vrl OD y: N nlnnni
D-I0nS JD'96 O"p) -nr -12b '= -.I
D-T
m
n-I btronowe rvzy o-e
v b6
mi
D?Vxmirnr6 im
o-Wint
1z noim
t6bt -Iy- nl:nnni
nz Hn
OnI:
JlVrl -nbt Imnn rzy
I9pip
...
ixl
'=-I'
D3
irxli Cy
O
own
I-'ty
'=-I . . . ,DU:
r
Inmn -I-I
on;vlyn. Cf. L. Ginzberg,
Legendsof the Jews, V, 180, n. 32.
37 Stanza 24. The question is based on rabbinic conceptions and
interpretations.
)nn arwn oy
i9D
324
4. Why did God save Noah, who was no better than his
contemporaries?38
\"9
p:n
1D 1
1'Nn
t _,,nzwrYnnwD nzw.
nm6nn
wyv-i nzb6nn b6 nm? nb6 1n1v uly
puni; Pes. r. ch. 23, 41 (ed. Friedman,
3Z)ywnW
1mzy' n
1':
J,br)
-p)Wz"in
*
rl"np
'mz
pp. 120b, 174a). Cf. Monatsschrift 44, 564.
1 flnfl
38 Stanzas 26-27: rn Wb
r
D Py- D ?KtWJ
rith ruir'D'9osD
3w yiTD
on b6 bimi. According to Marcion Noah will not be redeemed at the
Last Judgment. See Irenaeus, Contra Haereses, I, 27.3: Marcion dicit,
Cain et eos qui similes sunt ei . . . salvatos esse a domino ... Abel autem
et Enoch et Noe ... non participasse salutem. . . Cf. Adolf von Harnack,
Marcion; das Evangelium vom Fremden Gott. Eine Monograaphie zur
Geschichte der Grundlegung der katholischen Kirche, 1921, p. 117. The
...
W'pih
o-nn
IV, 59 f. Cf. further Harnack, op. cit. 95, 117, 141. The Rabbis emphasized the sins of the Sodomites. See Sanh. 10.3: ie'tW
nyn
obtrni. Cf. Gen. r. 40.7; Tanhuma
On'Dn,nswm *m trym',I nrny '1i%m
'ni
? je 1i ltI3im nlirn
in'. See however, Tosefta Sabbat 8 (end): mD=
rl1
b6i nlhI3ip3J
irnrztn'1imnDp1: o",1JDi3 1fli lintl D
flflnfD
iy
40 Stanzas 70-73. The rabbis tried to give an answer to the question
of the sufferingsof Jacob. See Gen. r. 84.3: o-p,r?nv nyva ene en nnb
1ODU
Drli Ipinn btivW1-1 b -inb
rD1rAopmlH
OvWpan
lotU- ranp 61iWa -anw'
by apy, lrnbt ]DV Ji y-i-n rlrl o61ya rlliwn nw9 Iwpaw b6bt btln9 linyi
Cf. nmrwinnrnbed. Buber,
mn
nmvwm mv-'p'aw.
Dl', iW 1)LD191111rO1i3pm
121: o-p-wn iD exln ne pi ... nfl 19lDWth
MpDnv 'nD 'n
'-113np, '
nf 1i1io1 . .. 1iyox mD:)apy, pil . .. mlniliomi onlnym 1riytm.
325
I*IWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL
Celsum, VIII, 40: Julian the Apostate, op. cit. 106 E (Loeb Classical Li-
brary,III, 345). The rabbis emphasized that God punishes the children
only when they follow the course of their parents. See the addition of
Onkelos to Ex. 20.5: Irnami nnn non bv= I'n9Wn -D. See also Sanh.
27b: I,tmbtvz onn ,=
nlzKt-Iplmwmrn . . . DIMby n1amInwrstl 1)2- =zn7
ozy
oD-rJn orninm1 'wyn. Cf. L. Ginzberg, die Haggada bei den Kirchenvatern. Exodus. Poznanski Jubilee Volume 208-209; Idem, Legends
of the Jews, VI, 40 n. 217. The answer of Saadia that God repaid the
children of Abraham for their sufferingscorrespondsto the opinion of
' inwhmD
the rabbis. See Seder Eliyahu Zuta, XI ~imnWv
IKr I -noD' 1'.
Cf. Saadia, Emunot, VI (Ed. Slutski, p. 100): O'n mi . . . wnivn Om]
'n-inKa 1:'mni IniD] IyDi -inK -iWK: ro
on-iinn rninm mKbt;1iy.
42 Stanzas 59-60. Lot and his daughters found defendersamong the
rabbis and also in the church. See Gen. r. 51.8 and 10. K99 In nrn 'i
D'Dt?W
OW6m' nmrovr mn',n Klit
nnn niK. Cf. Yalkut Shimeoni I,
nii
riimy
808. Clemens of Alexandria blames the daughters of Lot for the sin
of incest. See, idem, Pedagogus, II, 9 (Ante Nicene Christian Library,
N. Y. 1890, II, 258). Lot is considered one of the just men in the
apocryphic literature. See Wisdomof Solomon, 10.6. See also PseudoPhilo in the edition of the works of Philo by C. C. Yonge, vol. IV, 278.
Cf. Ginzberg, op. cit. V, 243 n. 288.
43 Stanzas 10-11. One of the charges of Marcion was that God of
the 0. T. is the "conditor malorum"and enjoys the sufferingsof men.
See Harnack, op. cit. 85 ff. 95, 141. The rabbis justified the creation
of sufferingsas a medium of chastisement from sins. See Sifre Deut. 32:
'bt
r b i ODnwroTm1n3TtW
i11m
fiDo-= Dn
WKn'
I 'K
Di"Inni,
O'niD' owwn -iviK Inmw"n'-i,' 'or .- . . i9 inmz u-o-aD" i9 inm nami r-r=w
'D 'y in olpD by rn=)v opnDn
1).6.
The answer given by
173y Irbtn 11'fl rii y-i is based on the Sifre. Cf. howSaadia: oD1" D'n1V nw
1Wy1
ever Gen. r. 9.10 where we find another reason for the creation of sufferings, namely: brimt -n rinu
44
Stanzas 12-15:
-'11" n-n
it
Cf. Emunot, IV
326
11. Why did not God make man holy and pure?45
12. Why did He implant evil in man?46
13. Why did not God destroy the evil spirit in man?47
m'
rnz wmnnKi
v'n ''
mn3ni.
1rwzY
Cf.
the human body "stercoribusinfersa." See Tertullian, AdversusMarcionemI, 29, III, II, IV, 21. Cf. Harnack,op. cit. 97. The Manichaeans
also held that the humanbody was not the creationof God but of Satan.
Saadia, EmunotIV (76), VI (100). Cf. also notes 43-44.
46
humD nily.
will and justice is touched. Evidently I.iwi did not believe in free will.
He deals with the same problem from the angle of foreknowledgeof
God. See below note 101. Philo wrote a special treatise on this subject
"Quodomnis probusliber sit" (Loeb ClassicalLibrary, IX, 10 ff.). The
question was dealt with by the Rabbis. See Seder Elijaku Zuta, 12
(ed. Friedman, 193): ynn t,v nN3'pnbru ;'D n -umn ot. The Midrash
permits Cain to defend his crime with the excuse that the evil spirit
who was created by God prompted his deed. See Tanhumanvwu 9:
. n..
-r'
'.
F
'nn
nwi3 hn?iml
'
lo 1'? l.
sized at the same time the free will of men. See Aboth 3.15: 'nm Won
47
t'
Satan angelus creatorisand God actor diabolis. See Tertullian, op. cit.
V, 16; II 10, cf. Davidson considers stanzas 19 and 30 one question.
See Davidson, Saadia'sPolemicagainstHiwi Al-Balkhi,p. 24.8 where 20
in parenthesis is apparently a misprint for 30. In reality stanzas 19
nnbt rnlyi
and 30 contain two different questions. Stanza 19: lir mnmvnn
-iw i3 refers to Gen. 6.5 and stanza 30 refers to Gen. 8.21. The question: ivm3ynb' nnv nwi- y-mnmr by which is based on Gen. 8.21 refers
to the time after the deluge. Ijiwi asked why God did not destroy
Satan (evil spirit) in the deluge when He destroyed all who sinned.
Cf. Poznanski, ZHB XIX (1916), 4.
48 See Ibn Ezras commentaryon Gen. 3.9. (In his longercommentary
'ninn
on Gen. ed. Friedlander, p. 39): niyv '9i5 nwrw
-i
bx min b6
Hi
. 1e6nn9
o-int M: lW izninnnxi p.-..
nmnny ipnnv,
. The same
327
HIWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL
4.9.)49
owsyn nxynv. This charge is connected with the one that God changes
his mind, a charge which Philo tried to repudiate in a special treatise,
Quoddeus sit immutabilis,21. Celsus and Marcion based on Gen. 6.6
their charge that God is not omniscient, since He repents. See Origen,
Contra Celsum,VI, 58; Tertullian, op. cit. II, 28: Mutavit sententiam
creator... paenituit in aliquo creatorem... nesciit qualis adlegeret.Cf.
Harnack, op. cit., 93. The rabbis felt the difficulty of this passage. See
r* m n y 'z 'i Dfnr
Tanhuma B. I. 30: 'n .1p-in rnn- 'rmin,
n nim
i
K vy
Dfnri 1ilz nw4 rinT1 'ni . .. . fln ntWp
lpIj n.n
n13
K rrnri'
onmim1p6 Cf. Gen.r. 27.4: orim1'K i :Dnwrn-p 1myvin, - nm m-i nn mz
11595K nxynrinD w nomI
nK ntAl- rriprI
I9 -IDm -I9Ir
cr'mm.
Stanzas 63-64. H.iwi derives from onnrr nKt rm 0'%Rml Gen. 22.12
that God is not omniscient. The charge that God is not omniscient
because of his testing Abraham was made also by Marcion and Simon
Magus of the ClementineHomilies. See Harnack, op. cit. 94: Marcion:
Deus nunc se cognovisse dicit quia Abraham timeat deum qui antea
ignoraverit. ClementineHomilies, III, 39. Saadia's answer rnyi nr,iy
vnBn 'nyinincorrespondsto the version in the Book of Jubilees, XVIII.
11. The Vulgate and the Peshitto too translate 'nylv ninyas a causative,
as if it were written 'nyn5i. The rabbis already felt the difficulty in
ascribing testing to God and therefore explained nm in the meaning of
5'
MM3
to elevate.
rm'D iv
D3z i9m.
in:
i:monn1D
328
avApOS
aLGOV KaL
aoe/3ovs
os
HIWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL
329
shed."(Gen.4.12.)57
24. Originally everyone was permitted to offer sacrifices.
Later, however, these were restricted to the priests.58
25. God forbade work on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, He
permitted the offering of sacrifices on the Sabbath in the
Temple.59
explained the change of the name of Abraham by other reasons. See
b. Ber. 13a: iz9 m4 nvy: 9qDm10ni
wit ,w4 ny3rrinn arrnt4 tort an:1
1rlz o7iyn. Cf. Tosefta Berakot 1.13. The Tosefta stresses that there
was no difference between the names. anit and anrnw: inrino '.9 iy
141,I1;y n:nm t49v -y ann4 mn, . . . n=6 4i
m)e
t R:i rt4 annt4 arrmt wrpi
1Dy ninmm oint . Cf. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews V, 232-3.
56 Emunot III (ed. Slutski, p. 69) vr '-mm rl'rl1'nt fl one '2 rlnnrpj
~Io.
57Emunot III (ed. Slutski, p. 70) mi y3 1Mrl i1= Pn -Y
P
1J1ri:,n
nxT- mT:rin
;'
-nnm 1rf
Cf. Stanza 7: t6 1w'flr1i? 16 ;rwi
inn
non
n-i : p,i n'iy'n-. The conception
of the rabbis was that sacrifices are among the laws which are stronger
330
on it nzm pz -inn.
nvt4
bi=4
riryn
t6
mlnnmrm'snp'Dt.
6I Ibid.: l: imnwrnmy1in 4'7p'= mnir by ayi=
?31onv 1
1I
in nrii
owmwn
myl7 1-inni. This question was already dealt with in the rab13 DT-m1nni
rari
n 1T:
m
binic literature. See Makkot lOb: ...i**lzle1'm
one4J Dip wnr Darmy 1 'n t
r
wnii
HIWI AL-BLAKHI-ROSENTHAL
331
Kim D'1DK
9 fD
T'
yrn'
-1D.
Up
... .1=D
rnriln
'iM1KTrflfl?
1r
Stanza 22 may be considered a continuation of stanza 20. Hiwi
proved that God is not omniscient, because He first blessed the first
generation and later destroyed it. This charge, like the following one,
may be considered as the continuation of the previous. They deal with
the problem, of God changing his mind.
67 Stanza 50: 1'DU; iK?Zv - lmyv 'y?'+15v
68 Stanzas 66-68:
. . I
ny'M Urns, u-y
iKnr ID n:nv
qlyi~n I nO.
.u..
r1nKD
inK1ViinK. Cf. EmunotIII (ed. Slutski, 74): K1-Tv-iy -nKfn
. p.. ;I+pfl
nTflKT -mi1m nptnmn nw1KT nKw1. Hiwi wanted to prove that
God annulled His first blessing of the patriarchs. He brings two proofs:
1. Jacob was a wanderer. The blessings of his father Isaac were not
fulfilled. 2. The Jews, the children of Jacob are slaves of the Romans,
the descendants of Esau. We find the same argument in the book of
Julian the Apostate, op. cit. 209D (Loeb Classical Library, III, 378-9).
Cf. J. Guttmann, Monatsschrift, XXVIII, 298.
n'in.
332
THE JEWISH
QUARTERLY
REVIEW
...
ODrnt t
Yfz D-1K
o'mmn
D1fL 'm
T
-IO npI "yom(y
CiW)
TDVTK
I9Tm
J'iK 1Inpn.
Mvn KD?Z) D'I
rxnrpn-mnn
&'K
6mW
I'm' ;.
pint
..on
. .m1DxK
D,"1p
O'-1'pD
1??lKnl
i
pVO D -'
pinn
o:innni
IDw'
o0n1y
333
HIWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL
6
Trl 7ravwv o Oeos ov 7rae-ra
Library I, 156): 6t7XWbo-aev
irouov, Gen. r. 10.8 (ed. Theodor-Albeck. 86): 'n nom 1? m' lnzmin
iM
1n
IM
nv1
...
lvily
nK
-T"mp,DKm
-y'1'm
M,
iVym
. . .
1 '1-'O
mZ?? r6?ol nnflfl 1W nfww
n3n nTT3 u.I- 7n:, pnnp. See also Mekilta, Bahodesh 7
Omliny1
,ywn
(ed. Lauterbach, III 255): noKwnmn tmi -Ty', 1 V6 rW1yl ywn olf nfl
nIo . . .zYVI'l
ninzl 9 I,M 161AKiK bywn Ol,31~nin
K:inW lt):c
ip
1Y"' Mi
mywmn3n oDw -niwym niy . The answer of Saadia: l3ins w'ml ni nn,
'n=
lnzw
l..
.
.Kwlru
'1.n
'D1' 'O
Umn
goes back to the Midrash. In his Emunot Saadia gives another explanation of mnl nimnv. See Emunot, ed. Slutski 54. Ki rnyimnilt nmnvn
VIIlrlvll -131,- K8:cl, nln'ty MllinK,NMmrvr.
74 Stanza 21: in3i v ninl
niyn -rin bybl. Cf. also Emunot, ed. Slutski,
53 where Saadia writes: i~ n'nrwlpnmKi1 Ov) irm 1,mml Kflmnn'O mvTn bYl
ntr nIODIil ?VDyD Ki nmw' ti om rininx. Some of the Tannaim
denied that God ever came down from heaven. See Suk. 5a: m' 61iO
nvvi
,n'zW
n-l-'.
334
Stanza
21: innn
nlV
19pi
19
nnv
rxynn
nrtw.
See notes 51, 73, 74. Cf. Emunot, ed. Slutski, 51: by
rpr'
rpv ,np'r
pm Iz nnim
n. Saadia denies
ovTa
rtpv
yrwTLv
oavra
bLat'qpas rijs OaXak7os ro 7rXiOos7repacwoaL Cf. German translation by Paul Riessler in his AltjudischesSchrifttum,p. 191. Cf. Judah
Halevi's refutation of attempts to explain the miraclesin a rationalistic
n Dnu
'1W1
nK
way: mi p9D . . . 27
'K '9
'pnwKi
1 3T
iynr'It9ini
O'Dnp'9D~ rni'py int ... Im'In NKi ri'nnnv Ki1'9Wsm
(Kusari, ed.
Is. Metz, 14).
79 Ibn Ezra on Ex. 16.13. Cf. the edition of Ibn Ezra's commentary
on Ex. by J. Fleischer (Vienna, 1926) p. 108: ~i ymn1D'r'n rvYy ipnnrz
bti'
K1UinInD '97;4
l:2?Kl Or:m01,
y mrli lnn nt ru:n z9-inKWr'nnK nml,
,IKmlrnnrU KIA1p':n-n mK:prinitID19 "'rv D=r:^ Ion llDn.- M-iy Y-1Kmitor ay
OWz'
npv Kmi.-I
'9 min9 nrw'9. Cf. Fleischer, niv nwm
Inn ' p'D
. . .
.. _i(Baidawi
n3
Dictionary,I, 306. Cf. Emunot, introduction, ed. Slutski, 12: mrir
z 6= nml
m
m -ni'-mn mm
pD9z
nxi
-isni lon nim 1,3y '. An
p..-I
HIWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL
335
Ibn Ezra on Ex. 34.29: 5zm K5W-lZwy z nto yW9 in ninsy ipnim,
niv', ,nv 3Din. It is missing
= ibv"i Dyi I,pm
inz ri
ni-,ylDD189mi',n
I'm.
O'DKIDU
NW 1lK2'l
5K mw5%5n1vn' 589r5
npw) UnYK rinrK.
t
) '915DK
nxt
K51 ) torm-inKton OwvK owZ
p n3
n. See Justin Martyr, Dialogus
imnrzn73m 1
cum Trypho,chp. 56. In his discussion with the Jew Trypho, Justin
wants to prove the Trinity from Gen 18. The rabbinic point of view
is defended by Trypho and it is that the three men of Gen. 18.2 do not
include God. See Shebu. 35b yin wrT-pon-imK2 mninmw'ni?Kv mlov i
91imi K8m'-i w: . .. 1,3'yn In snKi KmOKi 3mK -intin nmw ~in minv -.Ir
iKb'n -t nnbtan,3'n Gen. r. 48.10.
82 Stanzas 36-40: '-i pin W't D'zTnwn
w',nbt 'pn n9D 19 no
O'Dwr11'UI '-6 I nrnm D'Knp-p -inn p'mn'K wm' rnnt4p ... wn6
nmwm
336
D'9DDM f:lW
i1i2n1
the anonymous Arabic commentary on Deut. 32.9 quoted by Davidson (96-97). Julian the Apostate based his charge of polytheism in
the 0. T. on the same argument. See idem, op. cit. 99E (Loeb Classical
Library, III, 340): Twv be' 'aXXwvO6vOv,657rcos7lv' OLif1LOL 6LoLKO-VVTat
7tVTLVO9V AVwetav 7re7ro1rcwacAccording to rabbinic sources
Oeois, o'v'
God appointed angels as rulers of all the nations after the building of
the Tower of Babel but He preserved for Himself only the rule of the
people of Israel. See PRE, Chp. 24: 99 iKrW'1 nniUmi nK 99 by 116D runi
See also Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 11.8 and Deut. 32.8-9.
ipnn.
The official rabbinic writings contest the conception that Deut. 4.19
admits the justification of worship of the heavenly bodies and the
angels. It is maintained that the sages who translated the Bible into
Greek permitted themselves a very free rendering of Deut. 4.19
in order to obviate any misunderstanding. Cf. Mekilta KnD9 (ed.
Lauterbach I, 112); Y. Meg. I, 9; B. Meg. 9a; Masseket Soferim 5.
Cf. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, V, 205.
83 Emunot (ed. Slutski, 73): or8n itntyb
88p
I8,m-Ivb 121pr sywvn-,
0'19DD. It was also one of the charges of Julian the Apostate. See
idem, op. cit. 299B (Loeb Classical Library, III, 402): T7rep be a7roTpoiratwv
-7raKov7av
raXv
6ova Xeyer
of C. I.
337
HIWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL
(mnixn '3yu). 89
rz"
See Saadia's commentary on the Barayta of
wswmw.
R. Ishmael, ed. Muller (Oevres completes IX, 83). See also Pesikta
Rabbati 44a; Jalkut Shimeoni, II, 165. Cf. L. Ginzberg, Legends of the
Jews, VI, 270 n. 120.
87Ascribed to Hiwi by an anonymous Arabic commentary on I Kings
(Davidson, 98). This contradiction was also dealt with by the rabbis
and by the Church fathers. See Ginzberg, op. cit. 295, n. 61.
i
88Emunot III (ed. Slutski 72): i n wr
i
wnz
in'w'
;rt
a,1
o''ti
wmv pn3 Irn pim 'nW
Ahazia could not be aged 42
m
ipW'IWrvi.
years at the death of his father, because the latter was only 40 years
old when he died. This difficulty was already noticed by the rabbis.
See Tosefta Sota 12.3; Seder Olam Rabba XVIII (ed. Ratner, 73). Cf.
the "Oldest Collection of the Bible Difficulties by a Jew," JQR XIII
(O.S.), 361.
890-imanD nlYon 'wr1 na-11KW
mlnn mtm:9Dn jrtnrni 0-1spo ONKtMn nY) 'It
in. It is evident from the answer of Saadia that Hiwi made two criticisms of the Bible: one concerning the lack of nison 'Wvr and the other
concerning the lack of niso; ny. Concerning the first charge it is
known that the rabbis based on the lack of nison vWrvm
their contention
that the oral law (rm ynv mni) is on an equal status with the written
law (an:w ;rrin). See Sifra on Lev. 26.46: )n: nflyin 'nww nn3n ;lin;
;lmin;l -3nzn)v11)3n ;lwvn-I' 3'D vmn. . . -,I ipz 'LAIann 'LAiKvW'9 mrl
,',D
mwo
Cf. Tanhuma, Noah annza inn
l
"i'priprl
1y'W1
nwm 9 iynv nni ni9:.
Concerning the second charge, the lack of
nison;yu the rabbis were divided in the opinion if it is admissible to
search after a rational motivation of the commandments. See Sanh.
21b: iWz) lnYu 1i1n) n1tvipo nnvl
;mnin;m Oyu 12n) ti~ rn 9Dn pns, -i-K
;lr ....
61ym 9ri) I.n- See also Pes. 119a: nDzw on imll
p'ny nD=6
nrin Oyu Inr, nin vor -1pbny. Yoma 67b: vnilDn bnipin nK ... p-1
n
n-iliui ;lon nsYini tuyv nrn~i -i,tn niOKi I;n iRw jm,by n'WO lDw;iw
0-n-1
. . . insnD
'
j9
Inl
bn-p-p
-i
mK -i
mKin
on riln
wSyn -irzn
KDW1vninvn;m
-rYWI y-iiY
onn
nmnD1
nrwi. Cf. Hag. 13a; Cant. r. 1.17. See also Bet ha-Midrasch by A. Jellinek, V, 45: -n )Dn itvw9 nirn nyu n"n1p1; wIn? K1f n'nyf
v
ON'rin
)D
--i'tn ?vwn no )Dn nrnti
nnto
See Die Dikduke
Ha-Teamim des Ahron ben Moscheh ben Ascher . . . von S. Baer und H. L.
Strack, 53: . . . 0o81)ntKil ODniDc 1-m-1 r;mbv ;mi Oyu l Wno n iwrll iKWb OK1
338
60. How could the breaking of the head of the heifer atone
for the people when they committed no crime?s6
in
wyt
l
nil
14
W '
t6
rhiD
ir
lnnit'n. Cf. further
nom nyto.
The covenant of
r
nsmiayn
wnw
r'own.
It is an old
HIWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL
339
61. Why did God make His light dwell among men, and
leave His angels without light?97
62. Circumcision is without reason. It is simply mutilation.98
63. There is no mention of reward and punishment in the
future world in the Bible.99
340
THE JEWISHQUARTERLYREVIEW
only forty-four.I05
ness for blood, sacrifices, on the part of God, and anthropomorphism, polytheism, inconsistency and illogicality in
the Bible were charges levelled previously by Marcion,
the creation of the world. It seems that Hiwi did not believe in creatio
ex nihilo. Neither did Marcion believe in it. See Tertullian, Adversus
Harnack op. cit. 97-98: Si scivit non est in culpa is qui prescientiamdei
vitarenon potuit . . . sed ille qui talemcondidit. Accordingto Moses ibn
Ezra, H.iwi was under the influence of the Islamic sect of Gabariya
which denied free will.
102 Gratz (I. c.) and J. Guttmann
(I. c.) do not ascribe the last two
of the twelve questions in the 3rd chapter of Emunot III (ed. Slutski
73-74) to Hiwi. See above note 99. Poznanski ascribes to Uiwi only
the questions 4, 7 and 11. See idem z:nn 'iin by i'on niirvn 13 n. 2.
Until recently no one has ascribed the ten questions dealing with the
abrogation of the law to Hiwi rintim 'nis iun Emunot, III (ed. Slutski
69-70). See however above note 57 where we have evidence that one
of the questions dealt with by Saadia goes back to Hiwi. We are entitled to ascribe the others also to him.
103 The questions 9 and 11; 12, 13 and 64; 14, 15 and 53; 36 and 57; 38
and 40.
I04
Davidson, 26.
IO5
HIWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL
341
342
(To be continued)
112 See
note 1.
HIlWI AL-BALKHI
A Comparative Study
(Continued from JQR, N. S. XXXVIII
By
[1948] 317-342)
JUDAH ROSENTHAL
420
421
HIWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL
m'
3V
D'
iq
n, pl%n'1l?..
125 In Zoroastrianisman anthropomorphicconception of the ruling
gods prevailed. See J. Scheftelowitz, Die altpersischeReligionund das
Judentum, 7. The anthropomorphicliterature of the gaonic period,
the Mysticism of the YordeMerkabah,developed under the influence
of such questions. Cf. P. Bloch, "Die jiidische Mystik und Kabbala,"
in WVinter
und Wunsche,III, 223 ff.; G. Sholem, Major Trendsin Jewish Mysticism, 62 ff. The passages 50-63 and 68-91 form a long discussion against the biblical conception of God, particularly as it is
expressed in the narrative of the creation of light. The author tries to
show that the story of the creation of light as told in the Bible implies
a dualistic conception of God, and that the God of the Bible is inferior
and weaker than Ormuzd (Zoroastriansheld that their religion was
monotheistic. See Grundriss,II, 629-630). The story of the creation
played a great role in the development of Jewish mysticism. Rabbinic
Judaism solved the difficulties dealt with by our author through the
conception that light was not created by God, but that it emanatedfrom
God's splendor. God's splendor was the beginning of all creation. See
Gen. r. 3.4 (ed. Theodor-Albeck,p. 20): gpoym ino inimm-m p1no
190D,ly 61ln
xpDoD
rn
.m.
ivl
-IV ;rny
,13Y'hl'
:''1m.,
nrzrv
0'rh
nhn61y"
-.1ri
Dp
pressed in the Kabbalah is that darkness was not created, but that it
arose through mixox. See ni'xt nrio ed. Jellinek 2: ,vy ninv 'Isymi
-,i
Cf. D. Neumark, Geschichtederjuid. mittelD== ' n6 z) ".
alterlichenPhilosophie, I, 195. For the rabbinic sources in this subject,
see Kasher's ;1v n.iin s. 1. In general the rabbis limited the discussion
of cosmogonic problems.
Cf. Gen. r. 1.10. Cf. further Hag. 13a and Gen. r. 8.2.
422
1x'n
vDnv.-i nit
1x
onil-)Ip nibt
HIWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL
423
8) For what purpose did God create the tree of knowledge if he forbade Adam and Eve to eat of its fruit? It is
evident from God's injunction and command not to eat of
the tree of knowledge that he wanted men to remain
ignorant and that ignorance was desired by Him more then
knowledge and wisdom.131
9) It is evident that God is not omniscient because when
he came to the Garden of Eden he raised his voice and
asked Adam: "Where are you?" God apparently did not
know where Adam was.'32
10) Similarly, from the fact that despite His threat,
Adam and Eve ate of the tree and not only did not die but
became more intelligent than before and were better able
free will. (Antiquitiesof the Jews, 18, 1.3). The contradiction between
foreknowledgeand free will was already pointed out by Marcion. See
Tertullian, C. Marcionem,II 5 ff.; Harnack, op. cit. 97-98. Cf. Further, P. Alfaric, op. cit. II, 143, where it is related that the Manichaean
Addas, a pupil of Mani, made the same charges against God. Peter in
the ClementineHomilies defends the free will of man against Simon
Magus. (ClementineHomilies, XX, 3).
130 Perhaps that is one of the reasons why Philo did not take the
paradise story literally, but explained it allegorically. See Legum
allegoria,I, 28-30; de PlantationeNoe 8; for the allegoricalexplanation
of the paradise story in later literature, see Ginzberg, Legends of the
Jews, V, 91, n. 50.
'3' The Gnostics attacked the prohibition of eating of the tree of
knowledge,proving from it the jealousy of God. See Origen, C. Celsum,
IV, 40. Irenaeus, C. Haereses, III, 23.6; ClementineHomilies, III, 39.
Hiwi al-Balkhi repeated the charges of the Gnostics. See note 52. The
Haggadahmaintainedthat before the fall, divine wisdom was bestowed
upon Adam of which God deprived him afterwards. The forbidden
fruit gave him human knowledge, but he was deprived of true knowledge and Godlike wisdom because of it. Ginzberg, op. cit. V, 118.
Cf. Yalkut Shimeoni, I, 34: mnnu I-Innorr TKu 1n. Death is, according
to this Midrash, not a result of the fall.
132 The same charge was made by Marcion, see Terutllian, C. Marcionem, IV, 20; Cf. Harnack, op. cit. 93 f. The Manichaeans also
charged the biblical God with ignorance,Alfaric, op. cit. II, 142. Cf.
notes 48-51.
424
bivp =,nmn;iri
btn"rn
1IWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL
425
426
D nlbn
0D:%o19
215, 296.
148 V. Aptowitzer,
die syrischen Rechtsbacher und das mosaischtalmudische Recht, 2 ff.
'49 D. Chwolson,die Ssabier und der Ssabismus (St. Petersburg,1856),
HIWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL
427
6ilyn
nilm
0o-1m1 nl'-Ui:
rv
-oy,I+
OD2p
Doxy
0'
428
nm-ipl yiiW
,I~Yz) iw -nii
ri~n
Ki Tissa: wnnrnDn
o-n.
-1,X:
i
w-y1
w'mnNZ
nnm vvi nAi-inv1Crm
I.-:DmD
nmr
nvir
lnrin
i nnX or: om
::DD
nm -ln n
'lAn
"n i01
VN3 qll'l
lCy
IVY
liJ~ym
NHi
1i 'n
a-im
:'mw
m)8D.
ir'
,'
Tanhuma,
nm np,1 -IVY m
nwrinlcz
wC,nl
Cf. Ginzberg,Legendsof the Jews, op. cit. III, 130; VI, 54.
'0 Lev. 26.16-44; Deut. 27.11-26; Deut. 28.15-68.
Maimonides deals with the shaving of the beard by
I6I Ex. 5.1.
Ezekiel in his More Nebukim. His opinion is that it was only a vision.
See More Nebukim,II, 46.
z62 lIbs. 1.2. We find the same charge in the collection of "Bible
no
Nir D
iz
. ..
D'i30 yvlnwix
Difficulties" (JQR, XIII, 368): nmtr
-rn
.
.7YI
nrrn.
''
rr,-yr.
429
HIWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL
19 I'KCv
owny aim1D'KrriK Un'ly')'
. .. 1nln.1n1 1'K'13.1 Kma wN'9ri .'D
...
-z13KbiK '-wo1 rn1D1i'Bn
CD
-N3DE.
n,
135.
430
zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters, vol. 1. "Geschichte der gnostischmanichaeischen Sekten im fruheren Mittelalter" (Miunchen 1890), pp. 16,
18, 45, 55, 83, 139, 157 and passim. Idem, vol. II: "Documentezur
Geschichte der Waldenser und Katharer," passim. Sharenkoff, Victor N.
A ,Study of Manichaeism in Bulgaria with special reference to the Bogumils
IJIWI AL-BALKHI
A Comparative Study
JUDAH ROSENTHAL
81.
Davidson, op. cit. 31.
'7' HUCA, VI, 157. See, however, p. 161 where he lets the question
open.
170
172
80
note 131.
177 Ka tl lrep' rW5zv
hVT6.wv rv?S KaKCfTEWS roiV 'IopaiX r's 'v Atyh7rryT
EKao-TOv yap Teo-o-apaIKOVTaXpovovs eTaXat7rw'pfloTav TOvr eoT- /erTa
T'V O'varov 'Iwo--40. According to the rabbis the Jews were in
Egyptian bondage 210 years. See rwn 3nv NryiK 'an' -i 1n,
n
'an1 :?
81
HIWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL
(4) And, similarly, the term which God fixed for the life
of man was not maintained in the case of Noah, for he said
that man of that time, until the flood, should live one
hundred and twenty years.I78
(5) Again, though He had given orders for the complicated Levitical meat offering, God stated later through
Isaiah and Jeremiah that He had given no commandment
unto Israel concerning sacrifices or concerning burntofferings.I79
(6) Again, having promised that the law should be a
statute forever, why did He not make His ordinances
everlasting laws?180
Hagadolon Gen. ed. Schechter, 237; SederOlamRabba,3, ed. B. Ratner,
p. 15; Pirke de R. Eliezer, 48; "Bible Difficulties by a Jew," JQR
(0. S.), XIII, 360, 1.9.
O OpoS, 6v eIrev O'
6 OeS repl T?s (s Tw-v a'vOpAnrwv
178 '0Al1S
OVTTE
KaTaKXVO7IOv1
7yeyoAev erl roiV Nc'5e. Erev yap PK' Xp'OVs /.LXpl TOVL
trv
D' O"
1iKiNp
]W O')W?l UK
Ta
rpourTyica
K l:.1m rwm
;.rnn 1hi wam1Dl mnl-imm
Mishne Torah, Yesode Torah, 9.1. Christianity and Islam held that
the Law given to Israel was only temporaryand not eternal. The Jews
disputed this. The question of the abrogation of the Law as held by
Christians and Muslims was widely discussed in the polemics between
82
the Gnostics that God does not keep His promises. This charge was
repeated by Uiwi. Cf. "Bible Difficulties,"JQR (0. S.), XIII, 360, 1.7.
182Migne, op. cit. 314 ff.
183 Question XXV: llMS V07oT7OV
rO, IboPTveOl vlol roV 0eoi T&S
Ovyarepa Tr'v abOponrxv; See Pirke de R. Eliezer, chp. 22 and
YalkutShimeoni I, 44, where the story of the fallen angels is told. The
story refers to Gen. 6.2, 4. The conception of the O'ri,m 3mas angels
goes back to the apocryphal literature. Cf. The Book of Enoch; VIXIX; The Book of Jubilees,VI. The rabbis combatted this conception.
Targum Onkeles,Pseudo-Jonathan,and Gen. r. render O'riK 3n with
twm 3n resp. wmmnn"= or nrvr- 'am. Gen. r. relates-that Rabbi Simon
ben Yochai pronounceda curse upon everyone who translated O'riK ':
literally. Cf. Gen.r., ed. Theodor-Albeck,247. Cf. further the rabbinic
commentaries s. 1. A rationalistic Muslim theologian of the first half
of the eleventh century, Ibn Hazm, criticised the literal interpretation
of trIK "m JQR XIII (1901), 237. See the opinion of Maimonides:
r 01m O'UKm 3 Dvir I, 196. The same question is found
0l'v9rn1 D0'1r'
in a collection of questions addressed to a gaon and published by S. A.
Wertheimer MV3nnAip (Jerusalem, 1899) 69-70. Cf. L. Ginzberg, die
Haggada bei den Kirchenvaternund in der apocryphischenLiteratur
(Genesis), Berlin, 1900, p. 75.
184 Question XXVI: El 7ra'raTa o-a 47hrohqev 6 0E s KaXa& XLav,
7rcs /eTa
The con-
83
HIWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL
(Gen. 17.10)?I86
(5) How can the following phrase be understood: "And
I will harden Pharaoh's heart" (Ex. 10.3)?187
(6) Why did Job curse the day of his birth (Job 3.3)?i88
ception of the rabbis was that the dietary laws were given in order to
purify Israel. See Gen. r. chp. 44: nm Ina qnxi MiK nlx;ni in3 Mi :?K ::
nrnnried. Theodor-Albeck,p. 424-425. Cf. note 154.
185
Question XXVII:
Ala
rl 6b rA@vat
7rpookratev
O'
6 0ebs
Tc$
Dfl'
Dtv'D
o
nK
wlT
"
'3M'.: '37 malwn
84
y mnp)
Sn1z
Hos o
eo%s,frLTprp//as rG. BaXaa&M7ropevO'vaL7rpos BaXaK, BLa rov a'yyeXov av',rovKCOVXEl;The same question was asked by Hiwi. See above, note 61.
192 Question XXXIV: loLav iuxwv
dxev 7 rov a'vrEcosa&pa,ort
I9I
Question XXXIII:
3V6KC'OXvaTEvavro'v
o Re6
apaooaL;
It refers
to Joshua
24.10,
where
we find that God says to the Israelites, "And I saved you from his
hand." The rabbis dealt with this question and they explained that
Balaam was not able to curse the Israelites against the will of God but
that he wanted to influence God thereby. See Pseudo-Jonathanon
Num. 23.1: 3)y ninno unDv min moy nx-pmI':v;l
i'.r
;11=: nn ]1;m:'mwnvni)mnpin linv oyi=
rnv-
85
HIWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL
the same question in the "Bible Difficulties,"JQR (O.S.), XIII, 363: P1:
I
iV'i
n
=-I
nyly ri
mw no. Cf. Ginzberg, Legends of
n ozni'D
the Jews, VI, 132.
'93 Question XXXV:
HIxs rO &LKaLov c7OeratL, Tw'v 7raLcCv v're'p
rwv 7rarEp&VKOXarojiEv'v; It refers to Ex. 20.5 and Ex. 34.7. The
Gnostics charged that the God of the 0. T. is unjust because He punishes children for the sins of their parents. See note 41. The rabbis
emphasized that God punishes children only when they follow in the
paths of their parents. See the addition of TargumOnkeleson Ex. 20.5:
e'm 1'D%Wn -i.
See also Sanh. 27b: inv ti xl, ln-i,
n
;inrimmm nr
... 0o32 by ninti.
2n:l..
o;ln,mm bwyn 1btnmmwz orin om: by 1n12M -Ipm9
Cf. L. Ginzberg, op. cit., VI, 40 (n. 217). Idem, "die Haggadah bei den
Kirchenvatern," Exodus, Livre d'hommage a la memoire du Dr. Samuel
o;n-i,
c
TLLKpa%V7rTX,.t,.XetLav
rop-
be rov
pwOev lbrETV
0 Mwva7s rpoo-eraxOq r'v
etazayeiv
uay
Xaov EKWXVOvf;The rabbis dealt with this question. See Tanhuma
'Zi 'MDOintD;l
M' lY'
-inp
n1oi ; O 1mA1D
B: IV, 121: int)tA&i . . .
mvp
... *oDv riVD " 1;y.
I96 Question XXXVIII: ALa 'T OVK EKW'XV0VO60e6o 6' 'vJe4oe
OviraLr'v Ovyarepa, cOs Kai roTv'Afpaa4&;We find the same question in the Midrashic literature. See Tanhuma B. III, 114: ilnConiy
tI1'i
n1 m",p+
-i'tIH
nr1i1
36
mprnv
vWpmD
1no ri-n nilVD
nnix
1f
rnIn
ni1 1t6 im n
Oinm orir
n' .
Np tvW immm nt r7t nriis'
wvipn
ni-
'IV1 i
. im. We
mn"pin
. ....
)9
rnn
THE JEWISH
86
QUARTERLY
REVIEW
?200
vorepov
irzrcvoiaro-0ar7v,
Kal
Lalrl;
The
same
question
was
asked
87
HIWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL
202
Question VI: Tt Bt 7rorq MwuXs rwCvoipavoCv ov ,Ule,umraLt
The same charge was made by Hiwi. See above
BaatYLelas,c
n. 99.
203 Question XI: ALa ri rovi 'A%aA 'AaP1qpKOKroS
KacLro roiv Oavarov
betal,UEvov frTl/lltov,
O roVrov
rats
i&?
t7/.iapTf7KWS 7rporTEevTa;
88
6Ov'S CKiaXetV
0',NiK
T
'-niM n my,-i
nivw
also Rashi s. 1. and Maimonides.
yny6
~ini W-iip Dvir. I, 205. See note 69.
/
210 Question
OUK EOTXEV b' -r
LXXIX:
AtaLT
a&y'yeXWv AWfl/7v
KOo/.L0yEVELa Mcoo-s; In rabbinic literature there is a controversy
on what day the angels were created. See Gen. r. 1.2 (ed. TheodorAlbeck, 5).
2II Question CII: T1 &qXo? rd E'ovb; The same question was put
before Anastasius. See note 198.
212
olPYfUpEV, OVK av-ro's
Question CCL: Et r 4Cs o Oeo's i
Ur aKoros
broqcr-ev
ivavrLa
See note
125.
K in ...l in
DOm
214
'nl.
183.
215
rc
HIWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL
89
90
explanation of the rabbis why Moses broke the tables of the Law: See
Shab. 87a: rrim4 nisn a"-inn -nn Kl,iWnD9 rim nm4 w-n- 'o mniilm nK nw'S
.IDD1 -I= m4Ki
nnrvw Inz nw
0-:DInIn 1wKr
' UIto
ICnU 1zw t6K Kia
i-p ,-pn
4
ion WInmv
O-ri
1z
Im
-I-1 ln
. . .
222
Question CCLXX: Hc7s ev ,tartots Xeirpa rytve-ro;Leprosy of
clothes and of houses is considered by the rabbis as one of the weak
points of Jewish apologetics. See b. Yoma 67b: ownin iinvn mnipinnit
Cf. note 158.
nmul ... * 1vilwn
ynlin
iwnri.
jml y
223 Question
CCLXXIX: AtartL rov ovpav6v Kat T7v 7yjv bta,uap-
rvpeo-Oat 7rpooeTracXLO;
See the various reasons the rabbis gave why
respect for the ark. See Num. r. 4.21: l-:.- mzz: wm o0'D vz9.
227 Question
CCXCIV: TIt erpaTTev 'Aba,u cv 7rapabEIor; Cf.
91
H.IWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL
'os btayopeveL
vo,uov /LA7rw Trevros
7ris 6 Xa,u cs 7rarpaXotas
KptveTrat; According to one of the rabbis the Naochide laws, the laws
which were incumbent upon every human being before the revelation
on Sinai included the prohibition of castration, the misdeed committed
by Ham on his father, Noah. See Sanh. 56b: niisn
yr w n-rvnIn- tw229
Question
Ttliav
T6v
CCLVI:
Tov
230 Question
rov Xa,u -rrTaK6roS,o CKELVOV
CCLVII: Tt 57'7rome
7ratsrip4Otq;See note 193. The same question was asked by the rabbis.
See Geit. r. 36.7: Y,pnn iD1l ton on; TanhumnaB. I, 49: nnto) 1y= nwi on.
'
tw1 KY'1lol
In-Inn
the crime on
r)l... 1- I=
-y
nt4nwi
UK1
-nv
Y3
Question CCXCVII:
ALKaws be o Ni-e rvyyXav&v, bLaTa &aLcr5Kr'V; See note 215. The same charge
was made by Hiwi (Davidson, 52). According to, Marcion, Noah will
not be redeemed when Jesus will appear at the last judgment (Harnack,
Marcion, 117). The conduct of Noah was criticised in ancient times.
The Church Fathers tried to prove that Noah was not drunk. They
92
(36) Why does Isaiah leave the vision and turn to earth
and heaven
?237
232 Question
CCXCVIII: H6o0'evEtXT-r rTs rpaq5-s Xace-tv V'ro rov)
&acoqXovrov 'Aba,u d7rarcT7Oivat; See note 189.
MwCOOei
233 Question CCC: Atarl ev
& d3r KaL OVK eV 'Tepco 4mre -rC?
67r-rave-rato 9eos; The rabbis gave various reasons for the revelation
of God to Moses in a thorn bush. See Mechilta de-Rabbi Simon b.
Jochai, ed. D. Hoffmann, p. 1. Cf. Ex. r. 2.
Cf. I Chron. 21.1 where it is written that
234 Question CCCXIV:
Satan seduced David to count the people. According to the rabbis,
David's sin consisted not so much in taking the census as in doing it
"without making every man give a ransom for his soul," half a shekel as
prescribed by Moses. See Ex. 30.11. See Ber. 62b. Cf. Ginzberg,
op. cit. VI, 270. We find the same charge in the collection of "Bible
n Cpw
... .n
nKwcmi
Difficulties" JQR, XIII, 369: ... nww mn4
n-i,p
. by A. S.
U-ym iNL n mn NLln Nin OK. Cf. also the collection mi
CDu.
Wertheimer,p. 70: oyn rm;r 'n1iK '" inU -Ir[
23S Question 77 on p. 43 of volume 101 of Patrologia Graeca by Migne.
The same question was asked by Martan Faruk. See Shikand Gumanik
Vijar, XIII, 62-23.
236 Question CCCII: AtarTl Oea7rEULosAaLta
rapaX&,peTrat 7rEUELv
The rabbis tried to exonerate
ei-s a,aprtaV Kat rore rt7XtKavbrt7v;
David from the sin of adultery. They held that Bath Sheba was a
-nir nw nnnn,6 mxrl i:
divorced woman. See Shab. 56a: mn-niDo mniz
inwm&.Cf. notes 215, 231.
237 CLXIX:
Atarl, aiq4ets r7v dpatLv, 'HUaaas 7rEpt ovpaVOv KaL
,y's btaXat4faivet; It refers to Isa., 1. 1-2 and implies that ch. 6 of
Isaiah (the vision) is the continuation of the first verse of chp. 1. This
was already recognized by the rabbis. See Mekilta, Shirata 7: im wnlz
rn nt 'In Irrly 19vr mn1 =2
DopIr)I'm '' Itc :nn: Ur'1 - 00m ninn
; iinn -nirmi. See also Rashi s. 1.
HIWI AL-BALKHI-ROSENTHAL
93
?23
'
CCIV: Aia r'
rpo4377,rELa ro-s
rTs a4aeLaas
TpOirOS
oVVE8TKLLaTat;
239
240
Trs
94
24! An analytical
investigation of the questions contained in this
document by the present writer is due to appear in volume XXI of
HUCA.