Tuvia Katzman: Notes on Mss. Montefiore 65,67 (Tosafot on Avodah Zara)

ר' טוביה כצמן, מכון התלמוד הישראלי השלם Tuvia Katzman,: Notes on Mss. Montefiore 65, 67 (Tosafot on Avodah Zarah) Published in ‘Shitat HaKadmonim’ by R. M”Y Blau, New York, 1969 The editor did not inform the reader that Tos' RI miParis published here is a composite from two mss: Montefiore 67: This ms does not cover the whole masechta as written but ends on AZ 52b. This corresponds in printed edition to p. 258 line 2. Rav Blau zts"l used Montefiore 65 to continue to the end of the masechta. From the number of pages that this continuation takes, this ms must be missing approximately 13 pages to the end of the masechta (This mistake is duplicated also in Southeby's catalog) Montefiore 65: Despite what it says in Southbey's catalog, R' Elchonon HY"D was not murdered by goyim in the middle of writing his commentary on AZ. He is still quoted after AZ 35a. More likely the scribe preferred Tos' RI miBirina because he thought that RI miBirina included R' Elchonon's commentary in his own. From p. 80b-end the author is RI miParis as R' Blau wrote (introduction p. 21 and p. 214 footnote 31). Leaf 116 is out of place and belongs between 113 and 114, as R' Blau already recognized and corrected without mentioning. The commentary reaches the end on the masechta on p. 115b. From there until the end are two pieces from chapter 4. The catalog claims that they (and also leaf 116!) are from RI miBirina. This identification is probably based on looking at these pieces as starting over and commenting on chap. 4 from the beginning, but since they are not on adjacent texts, more likely they are a kountras acharon. This is the way that R' Blau understood them, and he moved them to their places. By the first piece he mentioned (p. 280 footnote 26) that he found to do so in the marginal notes. The second piece he placed at the end of chapter 4 without mention. Likewise there seems to be a kountras acharon at the end of chapter 3, but this he printed at the end of that chapter (p.241-249). The overlap between the manuscripts only covers pp. 49b-51b. The question remains whether it is better to combine the texts or to present them in parallel columns. R' Blau seems to have based his text on 65 and filled in with square brackets from 67, which is an in-between approach. This question requires serious investigation, because it could potentially change the way we look at these works. Professors Ta-Shma and Auerbach (quoted in the catalog) relied on the printed edition and did not realize that the printed Tos' RI miParis is a composite from two mss. R' Blau completed all abbreviations without mentioning. I do not know why editors complete abbreviations, because if they are obvious who needs them and if they are not obvious they are too often wrong. It goes without saying that R' Blau was generally correct, but I found (by chance) at least two places where there was definitely room to differ. gmb0004

אין תגובות: