Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Rashi, and permission to predict the ketz

Summary: I offer up a different way of interpreting that famous gemara in Sanhedrin, that there is in fact NO prohibition of predicting the ketz.

Post: In Sanhedrin 97b, we read:
What is meant by 'but at the end it shall speak [we-yafeah] and not lie?' {Chabakuk 2} — R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: Blasted be18  the bones of those who calculate the end.19  For they would say, since the predetermined time has arrived, and yet he has not come, he will never come. But [even so], wait for him, as it is written, Though he tarry, wait for him. 
One could say that this is a rather unambiguous prohibition on predicting the end-time, because Rabbi Yonatan even interprets the pasuk as cursing someone who does this. And it speaks of negative repercussions that are likely to occur when someone mispredicts the predetermined time.

Yet, among several other Rishonim, Rashi in Daniel calculates a ketz. And indeed, in that gemara itself, we see discussions of the end time by Tannaim and Amoraim! How can this be? Would R' Shmuel bar Nachmani, and R' Yonasan, be cursing them?!

I think the answer is straightforward, in how Rashi interprets this gemara. But I am not so sure that it is obvious how Rashi interprets this gemara. And so, I will present my understanding of Rashi here.

The gemara reads:
מאי ויפח לקץ ולא יכזב א"ר שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר' יונתן תיפח עצמן. של מחשבי קיצין שהיו אומרים כיון שהגיע את הקץ ולא בא שוב אינו בא אלא חכה לו שנאמר אם יתמהמה חכה לו
I would suggest that Rashi understands the gemara as follows. The pasuk in Chabakuk reads:

ג  כִּי עוֹד חָזוֹן לַמּוֹעֵד, וְיָפֵחַ לַקֵּץ וְלֹא יְכַזֵּב; אִם-יִתְמַהְמָהּ, חַכֵּה-לוֹ--כִּי-בֹא יָבֹא, לֹא יְאַחֵר.3 For the vision is yet for the appointed time, and it declareth of the end, and doth not lie; though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not delay.'

and it obviously has its peshat meaning. But let us parse the gemara, according to Rashi.
ויפח לקץ - תיפח נפשו של מחשב הקץ שלא היה לו לכזב ולומר כיון שהגיע וכו':
He has nafsho rather than atzman. The point, perhaps, is that the mechashev haketz should rather allow his nefesh to be blasted, to admit that he was wrong in his calculations and that he accidentally misled everyone. For he should not lie, וְלֹא יְכַזֵּב, and say that he was right all along, and that he predicted the ketz correctly, but that its lack of arrival means that it is never coming. Rather, as the pasuk continues, אִם-יִתְמַהְמָהּ, חַכֵּה-לוֹ. Wait for it, though it tarries. It will eventually come.

As Rashi says:
יחכה ה' - הוא עצמו מחכה ומתאוה שיבא משיח:
He himself, this mistaken predictor, should eagerly await the arrival of mashiach.

Thus, it is not a curse, chas veShalom, on those who predict the ketz. Nor is it a prohibition. Rather, it is an instruction on how they are to conduct themselves.

And such is necessary. You put yourself out there. You gain followers. And then the day arrives and mashiach does not. What a blow to the ego! Do you protect yourself and your reputation, at the expense of the messianic hopes of your followers? Or do you admit that you miscalculated?

Consider the response of Harold Camping, when the end-times did not arrive as he had calculated:

Clearly, this is a reaction of someone who believes. He does not strike me as someone who was stringing people along, for financial gain. He was shocked that this didn't occur, and he needed to mull it over to figure out what was happening.

A bit later, he determined that he had indeed miscalculated, just as he had done in predicting a rapture for 1994. Thus:

In a rambling discourse to reporters outside his Family Radio International office, Camping, an 89-year-old retired civil engineer, indicated he had misread the signs in predicting that the faithful would be lifted up to Heaven Saturday, leaving sinners to suffer through five months of disasters until the Earth was consumed in a fireball on the End of Days.
God did “bring judgment on the world,” on Saturday, he said, but there will not be any terrible buildup to the end. When it comes, it will happen quickly, he said.
“We have to be looking at all of this a little bit more spiritual, but it won’t be spiritual on Oct. 21,” he said. “Because the Bible clearly teaches that then the world is going to be destroyed altogether.”
I've also heard that he claimed that he did not miscalculate. There was something significant that occurred on May 21st, namely a 'spiritual' ending. But the physical ending would be October 21st. From what I read immediately above, this is a claim that spiritual judgement was indeed pronounced On High on May 21, though we did not sense it. So it is the beginning of the end.

So he is not admitting error. Although it seems possible that this October 21 date he had in mind from before, as the time of ultimate destruction -- just that the rapture component would be earlier.

We will see what happens when the world does not end on October 21, 2011. I would imagine that reporters are going to be following up on this story.

Anyway, back to Rashi. As I write in another post, on whether Rashi predicted mashiach in 2011 -- he did not -- Rashi wrote:
עד עידן ועידנין ופלג עידן - קץ סתום הוא זה כאשר נאמר לדנייאל סתום הדברים וחתום ודרשוהו הראשונים איש לפי דעתו וכלו הקצים ויש לנו לפותרו עוד כאשר ראיתי כתוב בשם רב סעדיה...
until a time, two times, and half a time: This is an obscure end, as was said to Daniel (12:4): “And you, Daniel, close up the words and seal,” and the early commentators expounded on it, each one according to his view, and the ends have passed. We can still interpret it as I saw written in the name of Rav Saadia Gaon...
That is, Rashi understands that this is each commenter expounding according to his view, but these ends have passed, so obviously, they were wrong. And we can acknowledge that and move on, with another prediction / calculation.

This in contrast to how some others claim, that when a Tanna, or Amora, or Gaon, or Rishon, or Acharon calculates a ketz and it does not come to be, it really was right. Just on some spiritual plane. Or this was a potential, more than any other time, that did not come to pass. Or that it was one step in the process. All sorts of excuses / interpretations can be proffered. Yet I don't think that this was deemed a plausible answer in the gemara, as Rashi interprets it. It either was the end time but the end time has been cancelled, or else it was not and it was a miscalculation.

Yet more on נסיב vs. ודבר

Summary: Perhaps evidence from the Samaritan Targum and the Peshitta can put this matter to rest. Or perhaps not. This, BTW, on parashat Bamidbar.

Post: Continuing my consideration of Lechem Abirim vs. Maamar in competing theories of how Onkelos renders ויקח. Read the previous posts first. (See here, then here, and then here.)

One possible way of resolving this is to look at competing Targumic traditions. I would guess that Targum Pseudo-Yonatan would really be of no help, for any change to Onkelos could readily bleed over into Targum Yonasan. Targum Yonasan indeed has ודבר, like our modern Onkelos.

But we can look at Targum Shomroni and at the Peshitta. Both are written in Aramaic, and reflect non-Jewish traditions of how to translate this term in Aramaic, one from the Samaritans and one from the Syriac Christians. Because it is not necessarily rooted in Torah, how one should translate the term לקח in different contexts; it seems more like it is rooted in the semantic span of these two roots in the Aramaic language.

In the Peshitta, they have:

That is, different Peshitta texts have ודבר and ונסיב. And they select ודבר as the primary, as we can see from the nikkud placed on ודבר and the lack of it on ונסיב. Presumably, a similar situation arose here as it did in Targum Onkelos.

Elsewhere in Peshitta in Bamidbar, we see similar divergence. In Naso, 7:6:

(Meanwhile, in Onkelos, we also have ונסיב.) And later, in Bamidbar 27:22:

{Update:  Not the Peshitta. See comment here. Argh! Thus, ignore most of this post, and its conclusions.}

Of course, in many others, there is an unambiguous ונסיב or an unambiguous ודבר. And the pattern for these ambiguities indeed seems to match the present case, such that I am beginning to side with Maamar, or a position like Maamar, as I elaborated above. That is, taking and object and doing something will be נסב. Taking a person somewhere will be דבר. But selecting a person, as the target for a future verb is not conveying him somewhere. As a result, we should have the more general term נסב. But since in most cases people are involved we would have דבר, some overzealous scribes 'corrected' the text, and introduced דבר.  (I don't imagine them correcting in the opposite direction.) And so, in parashat Bamidbar, selecting these people and having them assist in the count is just encompassing them in the action.

If we look to the Samaritan Targum, we find:

Thus, they select ונסב as the appropriate term. So too in 7:6. But in 27:22, they select ודבר. I suppose they could consider setting Yehoshua before Eleazar and the congregation could be taken as a directional activity.

I still am not entirely convinced that Maamar is correct here. But I think that this certainly bolsters his case, against Ohev Ger and Lechem Abirim.

Monday, May 30, 2011

Was this the Gra's ketz, according to Rav Moshe Aharon Stern?

As I discussed about a week ago, the day before Lag BaOmer was a predicted date for moshiach's arrival. Thus:
According to the Gra, the Vilna Gaon, one of the ways he taught (or rather wrote down, it wasn’t really to be shared) to calculate the ketz on it being “before it’s time in it’s time” gives an “early” date of the 17th of Iyar, 5771 and a “late” date of Rosh Chodesh Av, 5771.
So, we still have another date for the mashiach's arrival, Rosh Chodesh Av, 5771, which is August 1, 2011. So they have a little wiggle room until then; at which point, they will simply point to some random event which will occur on that day (as it surely will, since events occur every day) and declare it a stepping stone towards mashiach's eventual arrival.

Talk of a Gra / mashiach date that was not to be shared sounds rather similar to the following Gra ketz. To cite Thoughts on the Daf, on the gemara in Sanhedrin about predicting the ketz:
Rav Moshe Aharon Stern, zatzal
(It is interesting to note that the VILNA GA'ON, in his commentary to Safra d'Tzeni'usa, presents veiled hints to the year of the coming of Mashi'ach. RAV MOSHE AHARON STERN zt'l related that this tradition was passed down to the Vilna Ga'on's student, Rav Chaim of Volozhen, who passed it to Rav Zundel Salant, who passed it to his student Rav Yisrael Salanter, who passed it to Rav Naftali Amsterdam, who moved to Yerushalayim towards the end of his life. At one point, Rav Naftali accidentally revealed the date and immediately made those around him to promise never to reveal the date to anyone else. Rav Moshe Aharon Stern knew one person who heard the date from Rav Naftali, and once he and his friends pleaded with him to reveal the date. After much pleading, the man finally said, "I will not tell you the date. But I will tell you that these children that you see over there -- they will merit to be soldiers in the army of Mashi'ach!" Those children were forty years old at the time that Rav Moshe Aharon related this incident, which was approximately fifteen years ago.)
To clarify the above a bit, Rav Naftali Amsterdam accidentally revealed the date. Someone who heard said this bit about children in soldiers in the army of mashiach, referring to children who were actually children at the time. When Rav Moshe Aharon Stern repeated this, it was much, much later, when the children were 40 years old. Thoughts on the Daf says that this happened approximately 15 years ago, which would make the children 55 years old. When did Thoughts on the Daf write this? At the top of the page, it states:

SANHEDRIN 96-100 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the third Yahrzeit of her father, Reb Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Weiner), who passed away 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Talmud study serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah

A third yartzheit means that this was in 5763. Now it is 5771. Thus, eight years ago. 55 + 8 = 63. Will mashiach's army be populated by the elderly? Perhaps. The average retirement age in the Israeli military is 46. Or perhaps (and indeed, I would guess so), that particular revealed ketz of the Gra was for much earlier, when the children were at age 20.

What does all this mean? I would say that it means that we should not put too much stock in messianic predictions coming from the talmidim of the Gra. We have this dubious one; we have the one about the rebuilding of the Hurvah synagogue which did not come to fruition. Indeed, way back in 1840, the talmidim of the Gra thought mashiach was going to come. When he did not arrive, a good many converted to Christianity, because of Christian missionaries who figured it would not come about and set themselves up to pick off souls. Indeed, the head of the Jewish community, a pious rav, became a Christian missionary himself.

Mashiach did not arrive on the day before Lag BaOmer. And my guess is that he will not arrive specifically on Rosh Chodesh Av of this year. I mean, I hope for mashiach tomorrow. But just because there is a purported oral tradition from the talmidei haGra, and from the Gra, does not mean much. There are just so many miscalculations of the ketz, even direct from the Gra, already.

Further thoughts on translating ויקח as ונסיב vs. ודבר

Summary: As discussed in two previous posts, there are two competing theories of when דבר and when נסב is due. Lechem Abirim vs. (the words of the printer in) Maamar. The former is, roughly, 'taking' humans vs. taking objects; the latter is, roughly, conveying people vs. every other use. We saw each side. Now, to consider further proof to either side, from some rather old Chumashim.

Post: See summary. These are competing theories, and they are only as good as their data points. and there is a dispute whether the 'taking' in Bamidbar 1:17 should be rendered as ודבר and ונסיב. Or maybe the direction is reversed, that one will select the appropriate of two possibilities based on the theory.

In Maamar, the printer writes:
"Targum Onkelos is ודבר, and in precise texts is written ונסיב. And the Meturgeman {=R' Eliyahu Bachur} misled the copyists to correct to ודבר, with what he said in the root דבר and in the root נסב: 'all language of taking which applies to man is translated with the word דבר, such as ..."
What are these 'precise texts'? I don't know. I have not examined the handwritten manuscript copies of Onkelos. However, I did run through some early printings of Chumashim and Tanach's at JNUL, and can report on the few that have ונסיב and the many that don't.

We find ונסיב in #6, #7, and

#1, in the following Chumash with Onkelos and Rashi, we find ודבר. This is pretty early.

תנ"ך. תורה. רמ"ב. בולוניה
[בולונייא : דפוס יוסף בן אברהם קרוויטה ; אברהם בן חיים מן הצבועים, רמ"ב].

#2, another Chumash and Onkelos, again ודבר:

תנ"ך. תורה. ר"ן. אישר
[אישאר : דפוס אליעזר בן אברהם אלאנתנסי, לפני ר"ן].

#3, another Chumash with Onkelos and Rashi, again with ודבר:

תנ"ך. תורה. רנ"א. ליסבון
(אשבונה : דפוס אליעזר [טולידאנו], אב רנ"א).

#4, Bomberg's first Mikraos Gedolos also has ודבר:

And #5, this Chumash with Onkelos, Rashi and Ramban also has ודבר.
תנ"ך. תורה. רפ"א. שלוניקי
(שאלוניקי : [דפוס יהודה גדליה], רפ"א).

#6, in Bomberg's second Mikraos Gedolos, we finally encounter ונסיב.

תנ"ך. רפ"ה. ונציה
שער יהוה החדש : ... החומש עם תרגום ופי' רש"י ון' עזרא והנביאים ראשונים עם פי' רש"י וקמחי ורלב"ג והנביאים אחרונים ישעיה עם פי' רש"י ואבן עזרא. ירמיה ויחזקאל עם פי' רש"י וקמחי, תרי עשר עם פי' רש"י ואבן עזרא, והכתובים תולים עם פי' רש"י ואבן עזרא, משלי עם פי' אבן עזרא [ר' משה קמחי], ורלב"ג, איוב עם פי' אבן עזרא ורלב"ג, דניאל עם פירוש אבן עזרא ורבינו סעדיה גאון, עזרא עם פי' אבן עזרא [ר' משה קמחי], ורש"י, דברי הימים עם פי' מיוחס לרש"י, חמש מגילות עם פירוש רש"י ואבן עזרא ... / נערך בידי יעקב בן חיים מטוניס עם הקדמה ממנו.
ויניצייא : דפוס ד. בומבירגי, (רפ"ה-רפ"ו).

#7, we also find it in the Bomberg Chumash:

תנ"ך. תורה. רפ"ד. ונציה
ויניציאה : דפוס ד' בומבירגי, רפ"ד.

Next, #8, in a Torah with three Targumim, back to ודבר:
תנ"ך. תורה. ש"ו. קושטא
[קושטאנדינא : א' שונצינו], (ש"ו).

#9, next, a Chumash with several Targumim, we once again encounter ונסיב.

תנ"ך. תורה. ש"ז. קושטא
קושטנדינה : א. שונצין, ש"ז.

Finally, #10, back to ודבר.
תנ"ך. תורה. ת"ם. אמשטרדם
אמשטרדאם : דפוס אורי בן אהרן הלוי, ת'ה'ל'ה' [ת"מ].

This does not really prove anything. It does establish, though, that some Chumashim and Tanachs did have ונסיב.

The 1524-25 Bomberg Mikraos Gedolos was worked on by a masoretic scholar, Yaakov Ben Chayim:
First published in 1524–25 by Daniel Bomberg in Venice, the Mikraot Gedolot was edited by the masoretic scholar Yaakov ben Hayyim. All of its elements - text, mesorahTargum, and commentaries were based upon the manuscripts that Ben Hayyim had at hand (although he did not always have access to the best ones according to some, Ginsburg and some others argued that it was a good representation of the Ben Asher text).
Of course, this is the text that Minchas Shai corrects again and again. But maybe this is good evidence in favor of ונסיב and in turn in favor of Maamar's theory of how to translate 'taking'.

I have content for another post or two in me on this subject, but this is lengthy enough as it stands. Perhaps later, more evidence, and some analysis.

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Naso sources -- 2011 edition

מראי מקומות ללימוד פרשת נשא, תשע"א
by aliyah
rishon (Bamidbar 4:21)
sheni (4:38)
shelishi (5:1)
revii (5:11)
chamishi (7:1)
shishi (7:42)
shevii (7:72)
maftir (7:87)
haftara (Shofetim 13), with Kli Yakar, Ralbag, Malbim

by perek

meforshim - מפרשים
Judaica Press Rashi in English
Shadal (here and here)
Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Gilyonot
Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (Hebrew)
Tiferes Yehonasan from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz
Chasdei Yehonasan -- not until Behaalosecha
Toldos Yitzchak Acharon, repeated from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz -- not until Shlach
Even Shleimah -- from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich
R' Saadia Gaon's Tafsir, Arabic translation of Torah (here and here)
Zohar, with English translation
Baal Haturim (HaAruch)
Imrei Shafer, Rav Shlomo Kluger
Ibn Gabirol -- not until Behaaloscha
Rabbenu Yonah -- not until Behaaloscha
Sefer Zikaron of Ritva -- not until Chukas
Tanach with He'emek Davar -- Netziv
Nachalas Yaakov -- R' Yaakov ben Yaakov Moshe of Lissa -- not until Behaalotecha
Divrei Emes -- Chozeh mi-Lublin
Or Hameir, R' Zev Wolf of Zhitomir
Rabbi Yehoshua Ibn Shoiv, a student of the Rashba
Maharsham -- Techeilet Mordechai
Kli Chemdah -- R' Meshulam Yissachar Halevi Ish Horowitz
Kli Chemdah -- R' Meir Dan Plotsky
Maggid Mishnah -- R' Menashe Klein
Likutei Torah -- Baal HaTanya
Torah Or -- Baal HaTanya -- not until Behaalotecha
Taamei HaMitzvos -- Radvaz (see index to advance)
Pirkei Torah (Rav Gifter)
Kesef Nivchar, R' Margolias
Kesef Nivchar, R' Pinto

The following meforshim at JNUL. I've discovered that if you click on the icon to rotate sideways, change to only black and white, select only the portion which is text, it is eminently readable on paper.
Ralbag (pg 292)
Chizkuni (112)
Abarbanel (280)
Shach (205)
Yalkut Reuveni (pg 132)
Sefer Hachinuch (pg 108)
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (192)

rashi - מפרשי רש"י
Daat, Rashi In Hebrew (perek 4)
MizrachiMizrachi (on Rashi, 235)
Gur Aryeh (Maharal of Prague) -- and here
Berliner's Beur on Rashi
Commentary on Rashi by Yosef of Krasnitz
R' Yisrael Isserlin (on Rashi, 13)
Two supercommentaries on Rashi, by Chasdai Almosnino and Yaakov Kneizel
Rav Natan ben Shishon Shapira Ashkenazi (16th century), (JNUL, pg 122)
Yeriot Shlomo (Maharshal)
Moda L'Bina (Wolf Heidenheim) -- not until Behaaloscha
Mekorei Rashi (in Mechokekei Yehuda)
Sefer Zikaron - R' Avraham Bakrat -- not until Behaalosecha
Ktav Yad of Rashi (Rome, 1470)
Another Ktav Yad (Munich, 1233)
And yet another Ktav Yad
Rashi -- 1487
Rashi, Savyonita, 1557
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Rashi with Sifsei Chachamim

ramban - מפרשי רמב"ן
Daat, Ramban in Hebrew (perek 4)
R' Yitzchak Abohav's on Ramban (standalone and in a Tanach opposite Ramban)
Rabbi Meir Abusaula (student of Rashba)

ibn ezra - מפרשי אבן עזרא
Daat, Ibn Ezra in Hebrew (perek 4)
Mechokekei Yehudah (HebrewBooks)
Mavaser Ezra -- not until Behaalosecha
R' Shmuel Motot (on Ibn Ezra, pg 41)
Ibn Kaspi's supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, different from his commentary (here and here)
Mekor Chaim, Ohel Yosef, Motot
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Ibn Ezra with Avi Ezer

targum -- תרגום
Targum Onkelos opposite Torah text , from mechon-mamre

  1. Shadal's Ohev Ger
  2. Berliner
Chumash with Onkelos, dfus Savyonita, 1557. This is one Targum Ohev Ger regularly refers to.
Or Hatargum on Onkelos
Commentary on Targum Yonatan and Targum Yerushalmi
R' Bentzion Berkowitz:
  1. Lechem veSimlah, containing Lechem Abirim, which is based on R' Eliyahu Bachur dictionary of Targum called Meturgeman and Shadal's Ohev Ger, discussing different nuschaot of Onkelos; and Simlas Ger, discussing the meanings of Onkelos's choice of translation, as he received from his Tannaitic teachers.
  2. Chalifot Semalot, as a followup, I think mostly to his Simlas Ger
  3. Avnei Tzion -- two commentaries on Onkelos, adding to R' Natan Adler's Netina LaGer (unavailable at present).
  4. Also, Oteh Or Kesalma, on Onkelos, but not organized by parsha
Targumna, discussing many Targumim
Maamar -- discussing Rashi and Onkelos. Responds to Ohev Ger.

masorah - מסורה
Tanach with masoretic notes on the side
Rama (but based on alphabet, not parsha) -- and here
Taamei Hamesorah -- not until Shlach
Via JNUL, the following Chumashim. Perhaps use them when considering the discussions of the Minchas Shai:
  1. Here -- statistics: 
    תנ"ך. תורה. רמ"ב. בולוניה

    [בולונייא : דפוס יוסף בן אברהם קרוויטה ; אברהם בן חיים מן הצבועים, רמ"ב].
  2. Here -- statistics:
    תנ"ך. תורה. ר"ן. אישר
    [אישאר : דפוס אליעזר בן אברהם אלאנתנסי, לפני ר"ן].
  3. Here -- statistics:
    תנ"ך. תורה. רנ"א. ליסבון
    (אשבונה : דפוס אליעזר [טולידאנו], אב רנ"א).
  4. Here -- Bomberg's First Mikraos Gedolos. Statistics: 
    תנ"ך. רע"ח. ונציה
    ויניציאה : דניאל בומבירגי, רע"ח.
  5. Here -- Bomberg second Mikraos Gedolos. Statistics:
    תנ"ך. רפ"ה. ונציה
    שער יהוה החדש : ... החומש עם תרגום ופי' רש"י ון' עזרא והנביאים ראשונים עם פי' רש"י וקמחי ורלב"ג והנביאים אחרונים ישעיה עם פי' רש"י ואבן עזרא. ירמיה ויחזקאל עם פי' רש"י וקמחי, תרי עשר עם פי' רש"י ואבן עזרא, והכתובים תולים עם פי' רש"י ואבן עזרא, משלי עם פי' אבן עזרא [ר' משה קמחי], ורלב"ג, איוב עם פי' אבן עזרא ורלב"ג, דניאל עם פירוש אבן עזרא ורבינו סעדיה גאון, עזרא עם פי' אבן עזרא [ר' משה קמחי], ורש"י, דברי הימים עם פי' מיוחס לרש"י, חמש מגילות עם פירוש רש"י ואבן עזרא ... / נערך בידי יעקב בן חיים מטוניס עם הקדמה ממנו.
    ויניצייא : דפוס ד. בומבירגי, (רפ"ה-רפ"ו).
  6. Here -- Bomberg Chumash. Statistics:
    תנ"ך. תורה. רפ"ד. ונציה
    ויניציאה : דפוס ד' בומבירגי, רפ"ד.

  7. Here -- statistics:
    תנ"ך. תורה. רפ"א. שלוניקי
    (שאלוניקי : [דפוס יהודה גדליה], רפ"א).
  8. Here -- statistics: 
    תנ"ך. תורה. ש"ו. קושטא
    [קושטאנדינא : א' שונצינו], (ש"ו).
  9. Here -- statistics: 
    תנ"ך. תורה. ש"ז. קושטא
    קושטנדינה : א. שונצין, ש"ז.
  10. Here -- statistics: 
    תנ"ך. תורה. ת"ם. אמשטרדם
    אמשטרדאם : דפוס אורי בן אהרן הלוי, ת'ה'ל'ה' [ת"מ].

midrash -- מדרש
Midrash Rabba at Daat (4)
Midrash Tanchuma at Daat (4)
Bamidbar Rabba, with commentaries
Midrash Tanchuma with commentary of Etz Yosef and Anaf Yosef
Commentary on Midrash Rabba by R' Naftali Hirtz b'R' Menachem
Matat-Kah on Midrash Rabba
Nefesh Yehonasan by Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz
Kli Chemdah on Bamidbar Rabba
Tirosh on Bamidbar Rabba
Sifrei, with commentary of R' David Heshel Horowitz
Sifrei, with commentary of the Gra
Sifrei, with commentary of R' David Pardo

haftarah (Shofetim 13-2:25) -- הפטרה
Haftarah in Gutnick Edition
Daat, which includes Yalkut Shimoni
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite


Blog Widget by LinkWithin