Papers by Amos Geula
Netuim, 2024
סקירה על מקומה המיוחד של המשנה בדרום איטליה, בעשרה פרקים: א. מקרא ומשנה, ב. דרישת המשנה, ג. כתבי ... more סקירה על מקומה המיוחד של המשנה בדרום איטליה, בעשרה פרקים: א. מקרא ומשנה, ב. דרישת המשנה, ג. כתבי היד של המשנה, ד. נוסח המשנה, ה. פירושי משנה, ו. פסיקה על פי המשנה, ז. דרשה במשנה, ח. משנה כתובה, ט. משנה לחוד ותלמוד לחוד, י. סדר הלימוד. בצירוף נספח: "ביקש משה שתהא המשנה בכתב" – עיון מחודש בדרשת פסיקתא רבתי על כתיבת המשנה.
Studies in the Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Literature, 2021
The Lost Midrash Yelammedenu and "the Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Problem" Scholars usually refer to the ... more The Lost Midrash Yelammedenu and "the Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Problem" Scholars usually refer to the Tanhuma-Yelammedenu (TY) corpus as a single entity. This inclusive term comes from the common practice of substitution the title "Tanhuma" for "Yelammedenu" in medieval references to the work1 and because of the complicated state of affairs that was realized when the numerous extant versions of the Tanhuma midrashim were compared.2 But in my opinion, the first step to solving what has been called "the Tanhuma-Yelammedenu problem" lies in distinguishing between these two works, namely Tanhuma and Yelammedenu, rather than their inclusion in one corpus. This argument becomes more obvious when treating works that are lost: in such cases, the inclusion of separate works in one rubric either delays or even prevents the possibility of identifying and studying them. The first of such compositions that I shall discuss in this article is the lost Midrash Yelammedenu mentioned in the Arukh by Rabbi Nathan (Natan) of Rome and in the Yalkut Shimoni, where only fragments remain. This midrash differs from TB and from 1 The merging of the two names is already found in the title of the first printing of Tanhuma (Constantinople, 1520): ילמדנו" הנקרא תנחומא "מדרש ("Midrash Tanhuma, which is called Yelammedenu"). Leopold Zunz also alternates between works and quotations referenced as "Tanhuma" and those referenced as "Yelammedenu." See Yom-Tov Lipman Zunz, Ha-Derashot be-Yisrael ve-Hishtalshelutan ha-Historit, ed. Hanoch Albeck (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1947), 108-109. This inaccuracy was followed by many researchers. 2
Unveiling the Hidden—Anticipating the Future
Gli ebrei nel Salento, Galatina, Congedo editore 2013, pp. 43-74, 2013
גנזי קדם ה (תשס"ט), עמ' 65–97., 2009
‘Kedushta for the fifth Shabbat of Rabbi Elazar Kaliri’, Ginzei Kedem 5 (2009), pp. 65-97
תא שמע – מחקרים לזכרו של ישראל מ' תא-שמע, אלון שבות תשע"א, עמ' 171-194, 2011
‘Homily and Poetry in Shabbat's Mincha in Byzantine Synagogue’, in: R. Reiner et all (editors), T... more ‘Homily and Poetry in Shabbat's Mincha in Byzantine Synagogue’, in: R. Reiner et all (editors), Ta-Shma: Studies in Judaica in Memory of Israel M. Ta-Shma, Jerusalem 2011, pp. 171-194.
תרביץ, 2001
The Riddle of the Index of Verses in MS Moscow-Ginzburg 1420/7 (Preparation for the Creation of t... more The Riddle of the Index of Verses in MS Moscow-Ginzburg 1420/7 (Preparation for the Creation of the "Yalkut Shimʿoni")
This article focuses on a treatise of twenty-two folios in MS Moscow-Ginzburg 1420/7 which contains a list of approximately 5,000 verses – all from the Pentateuch – extracted from some thirty works in talmudic and midrashic literature. The list rather selectively follows the order in which the verses appear in the source books. The MS, which is not complete, is to be dated to the 15th century; the script is Italian and it was clearly the work of a copyist. The few scholars who dealt with this MS considered it to be just another list, and it has not yet been researched. This paper reveals that the order of the works appearing in the list is in complete accord with the order of the works in the Yalkut Shimʿoni on the Pentateuch and that the verses from a work in the list in fact allude to the citations from that work in the Yalkut Shimʿoni. The paper rejects the possibility that the list is an index prepared from the Yalkut Shimʿoni for several reasons, such as the fact that the list contains verses alluding to citations which are absent from the Yalkut Shimʿoni; the existence in the list of verses from a work which does not appear in the tẓiyyunim of the Yalkut Shimʿoni; and the existence in the list of verses found in several anonymous midrashim. A close examination of the list reveals a number of constant manifestations, such as – among others – the tendency to break up 'multiple-verse expositions', and the indication of 'double parashot' together with verses which are repeated in the Pentateuch in a number of places. These characteristics – as well as others discussed – lead to the conclusion that the list is not an index at all, but rather a basis for the preparation of the Yalkut Shimʿoni or for the addition of a system of remazim to it. The significance of this conclusion first and foremost affects the study of this monumental work, the Yalkut Shimʿoni. A scrutiny of the list in all its detail can aid in identifying the sources of the citations in the Yalkut Shimʿoni and throw light on the way it came into being and was organized. Furthermore, the list testifies – even if only in part – to the the structure of all the works it mentions, including a number which are no longer extant, such as Midrash Avkir, Esfa and Devarim Zuta. In consideration of this aspect of the conclusion, the paper offers for the first time exemplary tables, which are significant (such as the references to lost midrashim, anonymous midrashim, and to the Arukh, and others). The paper also touches on various questions regarding the special Ashkenazic literature which is represented in the list and the Yalkut Shimʿoni.
תרביץ, 2005
ON THE STUDY OF MIDRASH YELAMMEDENU: A RE-EXAMINATION OF ATTRIBUTION IN YALKUT SHIM'ONI AND ITS S... more ON THE STUDY OF MIDRASH YELAMMEDENU: A RE-EXAMINATION OF ATTRIBUTION IN YALKUT SHIM'ONI AND ITS SOURCE
This article focuses on a passage found in Yalkut Shim'oni on the verse 'Gather unto Me seventy men of the elders of Israel' (Num 11:16). This passage contains a list of the names of those seventy elders, at the end of which is an important historical subscription that describes the transmission of this tradition: ' וכתבנו אותם מפי רב שמואל אחי של פנחס ומרים זכור לטוב ולמד אותם בתרביץ מוצא רבנא חנינאי כהנא ראש ישיבת גאון '. Many scholars have discussed the text of this subscription and have tried to identify the sages mentioned in it. They attributed the midrashic passage itself to the lost Midrash Esfah without any substantiating evidence, and on the basis of this attribution it was assumed that Midrash Esfah originated in eighth-century Babylonia. The first part of this article presents a new version of the subscription as it appears in a Torah commentary attributed to Rabbi I. Ezzovi which, upon examination, was found to be independent of the Yalkut's version. A slight, but meaningful, variant in this version is the appearance of the word תבץ instead of תרביץ: ' והם קיבלו אותם בתבץ מפי מרנא ורבנא...' - תבץ being the Hebrew transcription of the name of the Greek city Thebes. In light of this version, it is possible that this tradition was transmitted in Greece.
The second part of the article attempts to prove that the actual source of the citation, along with the subscription, is not Midrash Esfah but rather the lost Midrash Yelammedenu known from the Arukh and the Yalkut. The author suggests an explanation for the motive behind preparing such a list of names, especially for including a late foreign name such as Symmachus, and suggests connecting it to the Greek translation of the Pentateuch and its usage in Byzantium. The connection between MidrashYelammedenu and Byzantium is also supported by other citations from this lost midrash. The conclusions drawn in this article oblige us to correct prevailing assumptions regarding of Midrash Esfah and to re-examine the background of Midash Yelammedenu and its association with Babylonian traditions. A synopsis of the various versions of the list of names and subscriptions is appended to the article.
דברי חכמים וחידותם - ספר יובל לכבוד חננאל מאק , 2018
‘Comments on the editing of the Torah in a new commentary on the Torah from MS Vatican’, in: A. S... more ‘Comments on the editing of the Torah in a new commentary on the Torah from MS Vatican’, in: A. Shinan and I.J. Yuval (eds.), The Wisdom of the Sages: Biblical Commentary in Rabbinic Literature Presented to Hananel Mack, Jerusalem 2019, pp. 89–114.
Book chapter by Amos Geula
Unveiling the Hidden – Anticipating the Future: Divinatory Practices among Jews Between Qumran and the Modern Period, 2021
Uploads
Papers by Amos Geula
This article focuses on a treatise of twenty-two folios in MS Moscow-Ginzburg 1420/7 which contains a list of approximately 5,000 verses – all from the Pentateuch – extracted from some thirty works in talmudic and midrashic literature. The list rather selectively follows the order in which the verses appear in the source books. The MS, which is not complete, is to be dated to the 15th century; the script is Italian and it was clearly the work of a copyist. The few scholars who dealt with this MS considered it to be just another list, and it has not yet been researched. This paper reveals that the order of the works appearing in the list is in complete accord with the order of the works in the Yalkut Shimʿoni on the Pentateuch and that the verses from a work in the list in fact allude to the citations from that work in the Yalkut Shimʿoni. The paper rejects the possibility that the list is an index prepared from the Yalkut Shimʿoni for several reasons, such as the fact that the list contains verses alluding to citations which are absent from the Yalkut Shimʿoni; the existence in the list of verses from a work which does not appear in the tẓiyyunim of the Yalkut Shimʿoni; and the existence in the list of verses found in several anonymous midrashim. A close examination of the list reveals a number of constant manifestations, such as – among others – the tendency to break up 'multiple-verse expositions', and the indication of 'double parashot' together with verses which are repeated in the Pentateuch in a number of places. These characteristics – as well as others discussed – lead to the conclusion that the list is not an index at all, but rather a basis for the preparation of the Yalkut Shimʿoni or for the addition of a system of remazim to it. The significance of this conclusion first and foremost affects the study of this monumental work, the Yalkut Shimʿoni. A scrutiny of the list in all its detail can aid in identifying the sources of the citations in the Yalkut Shimʿoni and throw light on the way it came into being and was organized. Furthermore, the list testifies – even if only in part – to the the structure of all the works it mentions, including a number which are no longer extant, such as Midrash Avkir, Esfa and Devarim Zuta. In consideration of this aspect of the conclusion, the paper offers for the first time exemplary tables, which are significant (such as the references to lost midrashim, anonymous midrashim, and to the Arukh, and others). The paper also touches on various questions regarding the special Ashkenazic literature which is represented in the list and the Yalkut Shimʿoni.
This article focuses on a passage found in Yalkut Shim'oni on the verse 'Gather unto Me seventy men of the elders of Israel' (Num 11:16). This passage contains a list of the names of those seventy elders, at the end of which is an important historical subscription that describes the transmission of this tradition: ' וכתבנו אותם מפי רב שמואל אחי של פנחס ומרים זכור לטוב ולמד אותם בתרביץ מוצא רבנא חנינאי כהנא ראש ישיבת גאון '. Many scholars have discussed the text of this subscription and have tried to identify the sages mentioned in it. They attributed the midrashic passage itself to the lost Midrash Esfah without any substantiating evidence, and on the basis of this attribution it was assumed that Midrash Esfah originated in eighth-century Babylonia. The first part of this article presents a new version of the subscription as it appears in a Torah commentary attributed to Rabbi I. Ezzovi which, upon examination, was found to be independent of the Yalkut's version. A slight, but meaningful, variant in this version is the appearance of the word תבץ instead of תרביץ: ' והם קיבלו אותם בתבץ מפי מרנא ורבנא...' - תבץ being the Hebrew transcription of the name of the Greek city Thebes. In light of this version, it is possible that this tradition was transmitted in Greece.
The second part of the article attempts to prove that the actual source of the citation, along with the subscription, is not Midrash Esfah but rather the lost Midrash Yelammedenu known from the Arukh and the Yalkut. The author suggests an explanation for the motive behind preparing such a list of names, especially for including a late foreign name such as Symmachus, and suggests connecting it to the Greek translation of the Pentateuch and its usage in Byzantium. The connection between MidrashYelammedenu and Byzantium is also supported by other citations from this lost midrash. The conclusions drawn in this article oblige us to correct prevailing assumptions regarding of Midrash Esfah and to re-examine the background of Midash Yelammedenu and its association with Babylonian traditions. A synopsis of the various versions of the list of names and subscriptions is appended to the article.
Book chapter by Amos Geula
This article focuses on a treatise of twenty-two folios in MS Moscow-Ginzburg 1420/7 which contains a list of approximately 5,000 verses – all from the Pentateuch – extracted from some thirty works in talmudic and midrashic literature. The list rather selectively follows the order in which the verses appear in the source books. The MS, which is not complete, is to be dated to the 15th century; the script is Italian and it was clearly the work of a copyist. The few scholars who dealt with this MS considered it to be just another list, and it has not yet been researched. This paper reveals that the order of the works appearing in the list is in complete accord with the order of the works in the Yalkut Shimʿoni on the Pentateuch and that the verses from a work in the list in fact allude to the citations from that work in the Yalkut Shimʿoni. The paper rejects the possibility that the list is an index prepared from the Yalkut Shimʿoni for several reasons, such as the fact that the list contains verses alluding to citations which are absent from the Yalkut Shimʿoni; the existence in the list of verses from a work which does not appear in the tẓiyyunim of the Yalkut Shimʿoni; and the existence in the list of verses found in several anonymous midrashim. A close examination of the list reveals a number of constant manifestations, such as – among others – the tendency to break up 'multiple-verse expositions', and the indication of 'double parashot' together with verses which are repeated in the Pentateuch in a number of places. These characteristics – as well as others discussed – lead to the conclusion that the list is not an index at all, but rather a basis for the preparation of the Yalkut Shimʿoni or for the addition of a system of remazim to it. The significance of this conclusion first and foremost affects the study of this monumental work, the Yalkut Shimʿoni. A scrutiny of the list in all its detail can aid in identifying the sources of the citations in the Yalkut Shimʿoni and throw light on the way it came into being and was organized. Furthermore, the list testifies – even if only in part – to the the structure of all the works it mentions, including a number which are no longer extant, such as Midrash Avkir, Esfa and Devarim Zuta. In consideration of this aspect of the conclusion, the paper offers for the first time exemplary tables, which are significant (such as the references to lost midrashim, anonymous midrashim, and to the Arukh, and others). The paper also touches on various questions regarding the special Ashkenazic literature which is represented in the list and the Yalkut Shimʿoni.
This article focuses on a passage found in Yalkut Shim'oni on the verse 'Gather unto Me seventy men of the elders of Israel' (Num 11:16). This passage contains a list of the names of those seventy elders, at the end of which is an important historical subscription that describes the transmission of this tradition: ' וכתבנו אותם מפי רב שמואל אחי של פנחס ומרים זכור לטוב ולמד אותם בתרביץ מוצא רבנא חנינאי כהנא ראש ישיבת גאון '. Many scholars have discussed the text of this subscription and have tried to identify the sages mentioned in it. They attributed the midrashic passage itself to the lost Midrash Esfah without any substantiating evidence, and on the basis of this attribution it was assumed that Midrash Esfah originated in eighth-century Babylonia. The first part of this article presents a new version of the subscription as it appears in a Torah commentary attributed to Rabbi I. Ezzovi which, upon examination, was found to be independent of the Yalkut's version. A slight, but meaningful, variant in this version is the appearance of the word תבץ instead of תרביץ: ' והם קיבלו אותם בתבץ מפי מרנא ורבנא...' - תבץ being the Hebrew transcription of the name of the Greek city Thebes. In light of this version, it is possible that this tradition was transmitted in Greece.
The second part of the article attempts to prove that the actual source of the citation, along with the subscription, is not Midrash Esfah but rather the lost Midrash Yelammedenu known from the Arukh and the Yalkut. The author suggests an explanation for the motive behind preparing such a list of names, especially for including a late foreign name such as Symmachus, and suggests connecting it to the Greek translation of the Pentateuch and its usage in Byzantium. The connection between MidrashYelammedenu and Byzantium is also supported by other citations from this lost midrash. The conclusions drawn in this article oblige us to correct prevailing assumptions regarding of Midrash Esfah and to re-examine the background of Midash Yelammedenu and its association with Babylonian traditions. A synopsis of the various versions of the list of names and subscriptions is appended to the article.