Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

The Unique Place of Codex Munich 95 in the Version Tradition of Tractate Sukka / מיקומו הייחודי של כ"י מינכן 95 במסורות הנוסח של בבלי סוכה

רבין שושטרי and Rabin Shushtri
Alei Sefer: Studies in Bibliography and in the History of the Printed and the Digital Hebrew Book / עלי ספר: מחקרים בביבליוגרפיה ובתולדות הספר העברי המודפס והדיגיטלי
No. כג‎ (תשע"ג / 2013), pp. 5-35
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24159706
Page Count: 31
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
The Unique Place of Codex Munich 95 in the Version Tradition of Tractate Sukka / מיקומו הייחודי של כ"י מינכן 95 במסורות הנוסח של בבלי סוכה
Preview not available

Abstract

No manuscript of the Babylonian Talmud is better known than the Munich Codex (Cod. Heb. 95). This manuscript is the only one containing the complete Talmud and Mishna. In addition, this manuscript had most of its tractates copied by R. Rabinowitz in his book Dikdukei Sofrim. This article deals with the tradition of version of the Munich Codex for Tractate Sukka in the Babylonian Talmud. A methodical analysis of the manuscript's version for the tractate and its comparison to the other text witnesses of the tractate — both direct and indirect — reveals a complex yet interesting pattern regarding this manuscript. Although the chief version of this manuscript follows the Ashkenazi tradition, there were many versions found within that can be traced back to the early Eastern tradition. In many of the cases one can conclude with sufficient certainty that the specific version is the original and was revised already in the East. Another finding is of the many fused versions that exist in the manuscript. These data teach us that the author of the Munich Codex (or one of his predecessors) had before him various codices of different origins and traditions. These conclusions are critical for the evaluation of the versions presented in the Munich Codex for Tractate Sukka. Much weight should be given to the versions of this manuscript and to the option that that they may reflect an early, original Eastern tradition.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
5
    5
  • Thumbnail: Page 
6
    6
  • Thumbnail: Page 
7
    7
  • Thumbnail: Page 
8
    8
  • Thumbnail: Page 
9
    9
  • Thumbnail: Page 
10
    10
  • Thumbnail: Page 
11
    11
  • Thumbnail: Page 
12
    12
  • Thumbnail: Page 
13
    13
  • Thumbnail: Page 
14
    14
  • Thumbnail: Page 
15
    15
  • Thumbnail: Page 
16
    16
  • Thumbnail: Page 
17
    17
  • Thumbnail: Page 
18
    18
  • Thumbnail: Page 
19
    19
  • Thumbnail: Page 
20
    20
  • Thumbnail: Page 
21
    21
  • Thumbnail: Page 
22
    22
  • Thumbnail: Page 
23
    23
  • Thumbnail: Page 
24
    24
  • Thumbnail: Page 
25
    25
  • Thumbnail: Page 
26
    26
  • Thumbnail: Page 
27
    27
  • Thumbnail: Page 
28
    28
  • Thumbnail: Page 
29
    29
  • Thumbnail: Page 
30
    30
  • Thumbnail: Page 
31
    31
  • Thumbnail: Page 
32
    32
  • Thumbnail: Page 
33
    33
  • Thumbnail: Page 
34
    34
  • Thumbnail: Page 
35
    35