+ it contains Rashi's commentary
_________________________
= Rashi probably wrote it:
This is from Kennicott's annual Collation of the Hebrew [Manuscripts] of the Old Testament (1769). Kennicott collated Bible manuscripts for his master work Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum (1776), a critical edition of Tanakh comparing the masoretic and samaritan text, with all the variants he and his researches found in the many manuscripts they looked at.
What if the reafon all thefe f'f are replaced by f'f?
ReplyDeleteThere used to be two kinds of s (esses); this one is known as a long s. It looked a lot like a lower case f, as you can see. It was used in the middle of words, and in earlier times, at the beginning of words. What we consider a normal lower case s was used at the end of words. It fell out of fashion in the late 18th century, and by about 1800 it was almost completely gone.
ReplyDeleteheh. does this MS have Rashi's variant girsaot (I'm thinking of the extraneous vav that isn't.)
ReplyDeleteNot sure what the big deal is, he means written by Rashi as appose to Rashi's commentary written by his students or someone else.
ReplyDeleteNo, he means that the Bible manuscript was probably written by Rashi, Rashi, with a pen in his hand.
ReplyDeleteSo how does he know Rashi didn't purchase a Bible and add his commentary to the bottom?
ReplyDeleteHence my title "How's that for a logical inference?"
DeleteI assumed the answer - "poor" - was self evident.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat is Kennicott's logic like throughout the rest of his work?
ReplyDeletei think most of the work does not require logic. it is just a compilation (and side-by side comparison) of these different texts...
ReplyDeleteIt seems that nobody has yet done the arithmetic, so I'll note that 1769-550=1219. Rashi passed away in 1105. (On 29 Tammuz, in fact; we commemorated his yortzait last week by doing laundry and drinking wine.)
ReplyDeleteForgive me for what, given my lack of knowledge, may be an impudent question, but who says that the "Rabbi Solomon" mentioned in that snippet is a reference to RaShY (especially as, whatever the capital letter of the word after "Solomon" is, that word is not "Yitzchaki" or anything like it!)? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThere is never any impudence in asking a question!!
DeleteRashi was known by Christians as Rabbi Solomon Jarchi (Yarchi) because of a mistake, the mistake being that it was thought that 1) he was from Lunel and 2) that the yud stood for ירחי, which was Hebrew for "from Lunel" (Lunel as in luna as in moon).
This mistake was so entrenched that the Chida seriously considers it in his Shem Hagedolim in his entry on Rashi. As I have noted elsewhere, by the 18th century Christian scholars were already noting that it is a mistake, and by the mid 1800s it almost became common knowledge.